| HOME | Featured Stories | September 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: THE SEASON OF OUR JOY
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, September 30, 2009. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: Sukkot is a holiday that has to be smelled. Or held. The visuals,
though, are not bad either. I took this shot last year at the Western
Wall in Jerusalem during Sukkot. Everything was already in place as
seen in the photo, including the soft, diffuse light found in the open
shade of the Kotel. The camera angle provides a less familiar study of
the four species while lying on a prayer stand, as opposed to the much
more common view of the lulav pointed upward while being waved. All of
the four species are visible, including a second etrog, but what
completes the composition is the prayer book. Above all, Sukkot is a
holiday of faith - that G-d will protect us and sustain us throughout
our fragile existence. The color and artistry with which Israelis
fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah can be seen in a gallery on my new
website. Click here to have a look. Chag Sameach.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
SPARKS
Posted by Marc Prowisor, September 30, 2009. |
|
Shalom to all, So where are the Goldstones now? Lately the Negev is enjoying the pleasure of Kassams and Mortars a few times a day, yet Goldstone and his ilk say nothing. The UN ignores these little "hindrances", and the rest of the Human Rights Activists just keep their mouths shut. Do you know why??? Because not only do they not care, they do not like Israel, and guess what, most of them don't like Jews being in Israel. Violence is on the rise in Judea and Samaria also, but the lives of Jews in these regions do not deserve the same rights and protection as others. Indeed, actions against the Jewish populous are applauded in the halls of the UN. Organizations such as Brit Tzedek, Gush Shalom and J Street to name a few support violence against our people in the Jewish heartland, and there are claims that not just verbal support. Over here in Israel, we read also the claims of how lifting the roadblocks are one of the major causes of this rise in violence, not true. The recent lifting of the roadblocks is causing a 500% rise in theft, weapons transfers, strengthening of the terror infrastructure. It has eased the lives of many Arab residents of Judea and Samaria, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. It is not the cause of the increase in terror, it is helping, but it is not the cause or reason. The reason is very simple, the Terrorists of Judea and Samaria want to kill Jews. They will continue to want to kill Jews, why not, this is what they are taught, and the world is not against it, as long as it is done in Israel. They are being incited in their Mosques, in their coffee shops, and most heinous, in their schools. One of the motives we are seeing is the feeble attempt of Fatah trying to gain strength outside of Ramallah, by renewing the "struggle". You see, a "Palestinian" Campaign strategy includes how many Jews you will kill, simply put, kill more Jews, get more votes, and get more money. Let's not forget how they are enjoying a new status and their new friends. This support they are enjoying in their fight against Israel from many nations, and "Leaders" is a strong catalyst in the increase of terror. As more and more Western nations are adopting a stronger Islamic presence and identity among their ranks, we will see this spread and grow, all over. So again, the reason for this increase in terror is not the removal of roadblocks. I admit to even being a little comforted by the waking up of many Jews in America, as to the realizing of the goals of the Arabs, that in the destruction of Israel, as a Jewish State, and as a Country. Achminajad is also helping, his persistent ranting against Israel, his threats, his insanity is also scaring some more people into our corner. He has people waking up to the fact that many of Israel's friends are only "fair weather friends", and not really at our side. Strange isn't it when there are reports of Arab Nations that claim they will permit Israel to fly over their territory to attack Iran, while the US, or Zbinew, claim they will stop Israeli jets from doing so. Most do not realize the reason the Arab nations want to stop Iran is that they are afraid that if he launches a nuclear attack on Israel, the winds will carry the "cloud" over to their countries, what would they say if Israel was located in Africa? There is still a long way to go, but more and more of our people are waking up. If we could only get more of them out to see and understand the real picture, and the real face of our adversaries, we would have a flood on our hands, the good kind of flood. But that too will come. Bibi's speech touched many, whether his intentions are honorable or not is a separate issue, but we see how when Jewish strength and identity is spoken of, it reaches our core. When a "Jewish State" is mentioned, it reaches our soul and sparks are rekindled. It is these sparks that terrify our enemies, it is these sparks that can help stoke the fires of the continued Jewish presence in Israel, all of Israel. We must continue as a people to rekindle these sparks, the sparks in all of us, as a people, as one people, wherever we are, until the fire returns to burn brightly in our midst. We are all we have and we must work together and continue to be strong in our land, in our Jewish Land, in all of our Jewish Land, it is, our right. AM YISRAEL CHAI V' KAYAM! Chag Sameach! Contact Marc Prowisor by email at marc@friendsofyesha.com. And visit http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com and www.friendsofyesha.com |
|
UN REPORT ON GAZA: FLAWED UN MISSION MANDATE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 30, 2009. |
|
Part 1. The UNBefore discussing the UN Report on the Gaza war, let us examine the UN from which the report emanated. The United Nations Organization was founded primarily to ensure international security, after both World Wars had demonstrated the failure of previous attempts. It was based on the failed assumptions that: (1) Governments would act responsibly, firmly, fairly, and sensibly; and (2) It always is better to talk than to fight. Talks still can work with decent parties but give fanatics time to prepare for war. The UN has become a bureaucratic, corrupt, self-aggrandizing organization. Initially, it was controlled mainly by the U.S.. Then the Soviet bloc dominated it. Now the Islamic bloc does. Rogue states veto constructive resolutions. The way the UN takes up security questions bears on the current report. As soon as complaints about Israel become public, the Secretary-General is as likely as not to condemn Israel without having ascertained the facts. He should know that many rumors and reports about Israel are staged, like the alleged IDF shooting and killing of the al-Dura boy, reported previously. As for non-security issues, the Islamic bloc has turned many venues set up to deal with real and serious problems into a forum for Israel-bashing, to the neglect of those problems. A significant number of UN Human Rights Commission delegates are from countries that use the Commission to hide their human rights violations. They don't act because they don't talk. Instead, they fabricate violations by Israel. The two UN-sponsored Durban conferences neglected all sorts of serious persecution, in order to engage in Israel-bashing. Some delegates also engaged in Jew-bashing. Former commissioner Mary Robinson appointed as head of some investigation of Israel the anti-Israel Bishop Tutu, who had expressed his condemnation of Israel in advance of the investigation. Sometimes UN study groups write their reports before heading out for Israel, to check. A report that came back without condemning Israel was rewritten to attain the pre-determined result. The UN, whose offices may be in war or truce zones, are involved in some of the controversies. UNIFIL was notorious for barring Israeli forces but letting Arab forces infiltrate. Terrorists used to operate alongside UNIFIL or UNRWA buildings, so as to draw fire, and then let the UN complain against Israel. UNRWA was formed for Arabs, alone, and is separate from the regular UN agency for refugees. The regular agency sought to assist refugees to become resettled and self-supporting. UNRWA seeks to keep Arab refugees unsettled and dependent. So much for UN concern for Arab refugees! UNRWA redefined "refugee" for itself, so it could bring non-refugees under its wing. (They claim a "right of return," too.) Part 2. The ReportThe report just issued is 575 pages, written by four fact-finding members. I'll have to summarize and comment on what others find in it. Long as the report is, it was not comprehensive. It took up 36 cases it called representative. Israel refused to cooperate with the mission, fearing the usual UN bias. "Asked about accusations that he was anti-Israel, Judge Goldstone acknowledged he was Jewish and said, "It is grossly wrong to label a mission or to label a report critical of Israel as being anti-Israel." It is difficult to accept a newspaper report that presents him as a fool. His being Jewish has nothing to do with objectivity. Ask J Street Jews. Not every report critical of Israel need be anti-Israel, but Part 1 proved that some UN reports were. Antisemites used to excuse themselves by claiming that their best friends are Jews. Now they excuse themselves by anticipating criticism and complaining that any criticism of Israel is called anti-Jewish or antisemitic. How can one tell whether it is? Simple. When the purpose of the report, like many in that anti-Zionist organization, is to criticize Israel, it is anti-Israel. When it is overly critical to the point of undermining Israel's existence, when it is one-sided, when it falsifies or fails to verify allegations against Israel, it is anti-Israel. Does the current report match that criteria? Consider first, that although it "condemned rocket attacks by Palestinian armed groups against Israeli civilians, it reserved its harshest language or Israel' treatment of the civilian Palestinian population in the Gaza strip, both during the war and through the longer-term blockade of the territory." "But from 2001, Arabs launched 8,000 rockets at Israel." As Israel commented, the report fails to make an allowance for the fact that Hamas started the war. Hamas makes an excuse that it tried to defend itself with poorly controlled rockets. Nonsense! It kept up its aggression, even during some truces, until Israel realized it had to try to repress that enemy fire and then even to send forces in. Israel was defending itself. The report does condemn Hamas for purging Fatah opponents, under cover of the war. This report finally defines the concept of "disproportionate force" correctly. It is force that wreaks extensive civilian casualties for insignificant military gains. We'll see whether it applies that concept correctly or is just second-guessing the IDF. The total number of casualties is a tiny proportion of the population, and, again, it was magnified by Hamas' putting its civilians in harm's way. As for the civilian casualties that the mission deplored, the report misses the point. Hamas committed war crimes in using civilian areas for arms depots and to station its forces. It also called for human shields. Therefore, international law holds it responsible for civilian casualties in military operations by the other side. At least the report should have condemned those war crimes. The commission called on Israel and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) to conduct serious independent investigations or be referred to International Criminal Court. Israel has conducted serious, independent investigations. What frankness do they expect of the terrorist P.A.? How serious was the UN investigation, which was limited in scope and rehashed incidents reported earlier? An example is the one involving white flags, which was debunked before, as I had reported. That's the one in which Hamas used civilians as human shields, but the UN depicts it as a direct attack on civilians. If you are familiar with IDF military doctrine, you now that they would not deliberately attack civilians. Would that the UN came up with some ways to get the aggressors to stand down. Since the conflict is religious, that cannot be achieved by negotiation, only by religious reform. In mostly siding with the aggressors, however, the UN does more harm than good Part 3. NY Times ReportIsrael has rejected the Goldstone UN Report call for Israel to appoint an independent investigatory commission. The Prime Minister's spokesman, Mark Regev, pointed out that internal Israeli military investigations already are under way. He characterized them as "a thousand times more serious" than the UN's. Israeli Pres. Peres criticized the UN report as a "mockery of history" for equating a state's self-defense with the aggression against it. Hence the UN report "legitimizes terrorist activity, the pursuit of murder and death." Israel's Foreign Ministry said that the report makes unsubstantiated claims about Israel's intent and challenges Israel's democratic values and rule of law. The report also "All but ignores the deliberate strategy of Hamas of operating within and behind the civilian population and turning densely populated areas into areas of battle." The report failed to appreciate the difficulties of asymmetrical warfare. The UN is poorly interpreting some of the rules of war, which were not designed to cope with small terrorist forces operating within urban areas. The UN report also fails to take into consideration Israel's need to deter Iran. Israelis generally find the report an attack on Israel's legitimacy. Their view was substantiated by the report going out of its way to take up old UN complaints about aspects of Arab-Israel relations and internal Israeli policies outside the scope of the report on Gaza combat. "During the years when Hamas sent in thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians, the UN human rights bodies did not put together an investigation or issue a condemnation, Professors Steinberg and Ezrahi and other experts said, doing so only after Israel retaliated (Isabel Kershner, 9/17, A14). Part 4. Analysis Of NY Times ReportIsraelis are defending their actions more vigorously than before. This NY Times report allotted more space for effective Israeli explanations than I have seen before. One shortcoming was that quoting certain Israeli conclusions without their bases actually leads to uncertainty about those conclusions instead of understanding of them. On example is Israel's wish to deter Iran. Did Israel fight too hard in Gaza, because it had another objective elsewhere, or, as I believe, did it realize that continuing to absorb rocket fire would encourage Iran to pile on? Another example is Israel's complaint that the rules of war hamper counter-terrorism. Did Israel violate the law in order to defend itself effectively and fairly, or did it comply but find it more difficult and resent that difficulty not being appreciated? Israel ought to propose revisions to the Geneva Conventions, to illustrate. I think that the world is too unfair to Israel to accept its proposals, however worthy. The pattern is, instead of trying to eradicate terrorism, to await Arab terrorist attacks on Israel, sometimes hundreds of terrorist attacks, Israel exhibited restraint, probably because of a neurotic inhibition in anticipation of unfair criticism as by this UN report. Israel has the right and the duty to root out terrorist bases, when it can. In any case, when Israel finally must defend itself and try to stop the assaults, the UN, the U.S., the Pope, et al, piously exhort "restraint by both sides." After the Arabs have demonstrated lack of restraint, these leaders strive to prevent Israeli retaliation and self-defense by making it seem a lack of restraint. Alternatively, after Israel retaliates, the rest of the world condemns primarily Israel. That is not an ethical stand by the rest of the world. That is anti-Zionism. That is the case with this UN report. It doesn't matter how much the NY Times calls Judge Goldstone "highly respected," he has forfeited respect and shown a moral lapse in equating the two sides and coming down harder on the victim of Arab aggression rather than the perpetrator. Nor can one say that the UN is sincere in professed concern for Gaza civilians. If they were, they would come down hard on Hamas, not only for starting the war and for fighting in violation of its truce agreements, but also for storing explosives in houses and fighting from civilian areas (and in other ways putting their own civilians at risk). All the foreign sympathizers with the Palestinian Arabs give them no support or sympathy against their oppression, including murder and being made human shields, by their leaders. How objective is a UN report that failed to condemn those war crimes? The UN, objective, when it indulges hate-fests against Israel at Durban and in the UN corridors? Remember the cases of UN investigators and reports condemning Israel before having made investigations. Many times, Israel took the initial complaints at face value, and apologized. The apologies turned out to be premature. There is neurosis in Israel's haste to accept criticism that usually is false. By contrast with the UN, IDF investigations are objective. Israel starts out with rules of combat that intend to prevent abuse but which I think restrain legitimate military needs and fail adequately to protect Israeli soldiers and civilians. Some civilians do lose their lives over this, but the UN doesn't seem to mind. The IDF constantly second-guesses its troops. It often jails, fines, demotes, discharges, and reprimands officers for not being sufficiently careful to protect the Arabs. It pays Arabs for war damages. The IDF seems to investigate every complaint, though many are propaganda contrivances. It investigates so thoroughly that by the time it produces results, the major media no longer consider them newsworthy. That leaves slander against the IDF unchallenged in most people's minds. And then readers, having heard one side, tell me that Israel perpetrated some crime. As for challenging Israel's dedication to rule of law, I challenge it. The UN's challenge to it is on the wrong plane. Israel does not violate the rule of law in order to harm Arabs in Israel or in the Territories. It often does violate the rule of law in order to coddle Arab riots, usurping property, illegal building, and tax evasion, and to coddle leftwing Jewish vandals. It often violates the rule of law in order to beat up and frame rightwing Jewish protestors, including non-violent and law-abiding ones. Since these violations protect Arab and leftist criminals, and abuse rightwing people, the self-proclaimed civil libertarians hypocritically ignore them.. I have reported many cases over the years. Same for Israeli democracy. On that, there is just space to note that the Attorney-General and Supreme Court have usurped legislative power in order to impose their personal ideology contrary to the law. Israel is not a country with the rule of law, but this is not in the way its enemies imagine. Part 5. Goldstone Op-edRichard Goldstone starts his essay justifying his UN mission to Gaza, for investigating violations "during Israel's three-week war in Gaza." In assessing casualties, he said, "In Gaza, hundreds of civilians died. They died from disproportionate attacks on legitimate military targets and from attacks on hospitals and other civilian structures." He claims "the IDF failed to adequately distinguish between combatants and civilians, as the laws of war strictly require." "Israel is correct that identifying combatants in a heavily populated area is difficult, and that Hamas fighters at times mixed and mingled with civilians." But that reality did not lift Israel's obligations to take all feasible measures to minimize harm to civilians." "Israel could have done more. "Israel must investigate and Hamas is obliged to do the same." "Unfortunately, both Israel and Hamas have dismal records of investigating their own forces. I am unaware of any case where a Hamas fighter was punished for deliberately shooting a rocket into a civilian area in Israel — on the contrary, Hamas leaders repeatedly praise such acts. While Israel has begun investigations into alleged violations by its forces in the Gaza conflict, they are unlikely to be serious and objective." Therefore, he threatens criminal prosecution (NY Times Op.-Ed., 9/17). Part 6. Reviewing GoldstoneThe initial summary reports and reviews omit specifics that would enable us to judge for ourselves. However, the UN report does not come in a vacuum. Extensive and specific reports and reviews took these topics up, before. When the same issues arose earlier, Israel and others did investigate. They found the reports incorrect, one-sided, unreasonable, and based on unverified testimony and mistaken assumptions especially about international law. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International retracted a number of its accusations about Israel on Gaza and other areas. Having read the earlier reports pro and con, I can see errors and omissi It would have been the decent thing to do for Goldstone to have mentioned those retractions and false Arab propaganda as indications that Israel sometimes is maligned. One does not find that integrity and humility in the reports by the UN human rights organizations. In limiting his investigation to what he calls "Israel's three-week war in Gaza," and not the "Hamas-Israel war," Goldstone ignores the years of indiscriminate Hamas terrorism against Israel and Hamas truce violations. Mr. Goldstone thus rend ers dubious the objectivity of his own findings and the UN mission. Yes, a few hundred Arab civilians were killed in that Gaza combat. He blames this entirely on Israeli indiscretion. All of the casualties? That means that Hamas bears no responsibility for storing explosives in homes, for urging civilians into combat areas, and for booby-trapping buildings to explode. It means that Israel fought entirely without concern for civilians. None of that is true. It is grossly exaggerated. Why doesn't he acknowledge the many steps and restraints Israel took to minimize civilian casualties, and the many steps Hamas took to maximize them? Instead of admitting there are differences of opinion in how to handle admittedly complex combat situations, he writes in prosecutorial style. Apparently he started his investigation with a negative view of Israeli investigations, forecasting their doing a poor job. I think that is gratuitous and false. He should have indicated that at least he reviewed Israel's and other investigations, and why he doesn't accept them, if indeed he did study them. And he calls Israel not objective? One can understand why he calls for a Hamas investigation, although he knows that it won't be honest. The reason he calls for it anyway is that he has called for an Israeli one. He approaches the issue in a parallel way, instead of treating terrorism as it is, under international law, as the "common enemy of mankind" (as Prof. Louis Rene Beres has explained). I believe that his real object is the typical dual one of: (1) Impugning Israel, knowing that any mud on Hamas will get washed off by the rest of the world, which wants to "get" Israel; and (2) Where he can't exclusively blame Israel, equate what Israel does with what the terrorists do, thereby letting the terrorists off the hook. Venting all his emotional steam against Israel, Goldstone has no emotion left for the far greater sins of the Arab side. He does not expound against Hamas aggression. No penalty for aggression? No moral obloquy for aggression? He too mildly mentions its goal of murder and its means being almost entirely by war crimes. No penalty for intent to destroy a member state of the United Nations by foul means? Again, he expresses no sympathy for the Arabs whom Hamas puts at risk both by starting a war and by conducting it in their midst. This puts the lie to the pretense by Goldstone and many other critics of Israel that they care about Arab civilians. Phony! When I see such one-sided, moral blindness, I discount the whole report. Finally, Goldstone is a living refutation of the antisemitic notion, and the notion of the Arabs, whose society largely is collectivist and confessional, that all Jews are pro-Israel. He is not. Since he is not objective about it, examine his emotion. Part 7. NGO Monitor ReviewNGO Monitor reviewed the UN report on Gaza combat. What did its review reveal? Nothing new. The UN report is a cut-and-paste of the various NGO reports on the subject that NGO Monitor had debunked previously. The earlier reports had "numerous false and unsubstantiated allegations. Nevertheless, the Goldstone committee simply copied the NGO biases, flawed methodology, and false claims, rendering the entire report invalid." In denying that Hamas used human shields in Gaza, "following HRW and Amnesty, paragraph 495 ignores evidence: 'Although the situations investigated by the Mission did not establish the use of mosques for military purposes or to shield military activities, the Mission cannot exclude that this might have occurred in other cases." [Goldstone admittedly included just a few cases, but he denied that Hamas used human shields.] "The report copies NGO distortions of international law, including: a.. Promotion of the false legal claim invented by the PLO Negotiation Affairs Department (and promoted by NGOs such as B'tselem, HRW, Amnesty) that Gaza remains "occupied" after the 2005 disengagement (p. 9). The political objective of this distortion is to manufacture humanitarian obligations that do not exist under international law. (The ICRC, in contrast, had acknowledged that Gaza is an 'autonomous territory.' However, after the release of the Goldstone report, the ICRC changed its website to promote the biased conclusion of the Mission.) 5.. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, Goldstone's report asserts that the 'data provided by non-governmental sources with regard to the percentage of civilians among those killed are generally consistent.' (para. 30). There is no such 'consistency' -- the numbers claimed by these organizations differ by the hundreds. Goldstone also fails to note the major lack of credibility in PCHR's data, such as characterizing two leading Hamas military figures, Nizar Rayan and Siad Siam, as civilians. And as researchers have shown, the B'Tselem data, while different from PCHR's, is also unreliable. 6.. Committee member Prof. Christine Chinkin 'should have recused herself because of prejudicial comments made during the war.'" Goldstone denies that the report is a judicial one, but "...the report draws legal conclusions, asserting (without basis) that "the normative framework for the Mission has been general international law, the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, international human rights law and international criminal law" (para 15). But these [his] legal judgments are issued without any evidentiary procedures in place, including the right to cross-examination or guarantees of due process." The UN report, like the 2001 NGO Forum, uses the language of human rights and international law to defame Israel, "and restrict legitimate responses to terror." (NGO Monitor in www.imra.org.il, 9/16). He copies the reports of other organizations, but demands that Israel conduct independent investigation. His investigation was not independent. He took the word of biased groups. Part 8. Flawed UN MandateThe Zionist Organization of America finds the Goldstone report "outrageous," because, among other reasons, it ignored Hamas aggression, relied upon "unsubstantiated Arab testimony," "copied major, politicized distortions of international legal norms habitually made by anti-Israel NGOs; falsely reclassified Hamas personnel as civilian police in order to indict Israel for legitimate assaults upon these forces; and invented non-existent legal obligations of which it then proceeded to find Israel in breach." ZOA points out that, "The Goldstone Commission was created by the UN Human Rights Council,...which is dominated by dictatorial regimes, including Arab regimes. In just three years, the HRC's controlling membership eliminated probes into the most serious human-rights abuses in Belarus, Congo, Cuba , Liberia and Sudan. In that time, some 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million displaced in Darfur alone. During the same period, however, the HRC passed 33 resolutions, of which 26 related to Israel, which has been the only country specifically condemned by the Council." The Council dispatched Goldstone "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission." What does that mean? In other words, the UN resolution itself was fatally flawed, as it decided in advance that 1. Israel was an aggressor, not a defender after sustaining thousands of rocket attacks without replying; 2. Gaza is occupied by Israel ; and 3. The conduct of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups were not important or relevant to the investigation." Israel does not perform any governmental functions in Gaza, and therefore (among other reasons) does not occupy it. Since the mission was sent to be one-sided, the report's claim to investigate both sides really is a cover-up. Former Israeli Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann said, "What this report really means is that Israel is the only country in the world which is not allowed to defend itself against acts of terror. Israel is the most threatened nation in the world and yet it makes the most effort to avoid harming innocent lives. "Any comparison of Israel's fight on terror with recent conflicts in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc. immediately shows that Israel holds itself to the highest ethical standard" As for claims of extensive, indiscriminate killing, "Even the UN eventually acknowledged that some 75% of the dead in Gaza were Hamas terrorists." Goldstone falsely raises the number of civilians killed, by unjustifiably reclassifying a couple of hundred terrorists as civilian police. This enables him to claim that Israeli attacks on police stations were wanton. This tactic was discredited (by Jonathan Halevi fort the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs). 343 members of Gaza security forces were killed. Of those, Israel identified 286 as members of terrorist organizations and 27 as undergoing infantry training. That accounts for 91% of those police. Goldstone even admits that "'there may be individual members of the Gaza police that were at the same time members of Palestinian armed groups and thus combatants,' but he continues to treat them as civilians and thus protected persons. Then there was the false UN allegation that the IDF shelled an UNRWA school, killing 40 civilians inside. Actually, Hamas was firing at the IDF from the street. The IDF fired back, hitting gunmen and a handful of civilians standing around a Hamas mortar position. [Why were they standing in a combat zone? Whose responsibility is it for killing civilians who stay in a combat zone?] Goldstone questioned the accuracy of the IDF replies to questions about that. He should have allowed for initial confusion, as data came in. The UNRWA libel aroused people to violence. Shouldn't he have chastised UNRWA for falsely accusing Israel (ZOA press release, 9/17, see http://www.zoa.org/) if he were as objective as he claims? Part 9. Israeli Far LeftWhat does Israel's Far Left think of Goldstone's UN report on the Gaza war? We are more or less told by David Landau, editor-in-chief of Israel's Far Left daily, Haaretz. I have seen that newspaper almost always condemning Israel and even encouraging terrorism. In the name of morality, it worries about the soul of Israel and not of the jihadists. Mr. Landau laments that by going too far, the report drew attention to its excesses and away from self-examination of the issues. The UN report accused Israel of deliberately targeting civilians and lying about it. Landau wants Israel to consider whether it should have withheld fire more. Landau's first paragraph in an Op.-Ed. piece in the NY Times is, "Israel intentionally went after civilians in Gaza — and wrapped its intent in lies." Only in the second paragraph does he attribute that conclusion to the UN report and call it "misleading." The first paragraph implies that the accusation is Landau's. The second paragraph fails to make clear what is wrong with it. He leaves a nasty insinuation hanging. Indeed, further discussion puts it, "Israelis believe that their army did not deliberately kill the hundreds of Palestinian civilians, including children..." It is a weak statement, equating all sides' opinion, as if Israelis merely believe in their Army, but may not be correct about it. Actually, the evidence is that the Army tried to spare civilians while still conducting war according to the rules of war. Landau insinuates that may not be the case. Again he temporizes, hinting at evil, when he describes the Israelis' conclusion that Israel is not culpable for the civilian deaths, as, "It is, some would argue, a form of self-deception." He does not indicate who are the "some" who would argue that. Is he among them? His article reeks with a barely repressed desire to blame Israel (and not the Arabs) for war crimes. He asks, "When does negligence become recklessness, and when does recklessness slip into wanton callousness and then into deliberate disregard for innocent human life?" He wanted Goldstone to have investigated that, "to bring Israel to confront this fundamental question..." He, like the UN, would let terrorists largely off the hook for their undoubted war crimes. What kind of a moral code has Landau and the UN? His question implies much Israeli negligence and worse. There is no basis for such insinuation. When one considers the many steps Israel took to avoid civilian casualties, and how many times in that combat and in others, Israel relinquished military advantage far beyond the requirements of the rules of war, and risked its soldiers' and civilians' lives in order to spare those of the genocidal enemy civilians', there is even less basis. Another question is his, "Are widespread civilian casualties inevitable when a modern army pounds terrorist targets in a heavily populated area with purportedly smart ordinance?" "Does the enemy's deployment in the heart of the civilian area shift the line between right and wrong, in morality and in war?" His questions make further false insinuations. Civilian casualties in Gaza were not numerous, not widespread, and not all directly or indirectly due to Israeli action. One wonders whether he is counting the military casualties that Hamas and the UN mislabeled civilian. "Pounds" gives the misleading impression of a general artillery barrage, which did not occur, because the IDF tried to spare civilians. Maybe that word is accidental, but I believe that the editor-in-chief is trained to select wording carefully. His other false insinuations therefore are not ethical. Again, "It is possible and certainly arguable that the Israeli policymakers, or individual Israeli field commanders in isolated instances, pushed the line out too far." That is rubbing it in. It is more arguable that Israel, as usual, bent over backwards. Why it does so does not make sense. More of its innocent people then get killed by the guilty aggressors, and yet no matter how moral the Israeli forces are, and no matter how immoral the Arab forces are, the world criticizes Israel and hardly the Arabs. Resenting that Goldstone's excesses thwarted honest debate (one wonders how honest the Far Left would be about it) on those mattes. "This is regrettable, for the report could have stirred the conscience of the nation. Many Israelis were dismayed at the war's casualty figures, at the disparity between the dozen deaths on the Israeli side and the thousand-plus deaths, many of them of noncombatants in Gaza." The disparity in the deaths on two sides is a false and misleading, phony leftist pretext for disparaging Israel. In a war between totally criminal religious aggressors and their innocent victims, one should want the victims' army to win. One wins a war by defeating the enemy, one way being to kill its troops. The greater the disparity, the greater the justice. This is especially true when the enemy troops are terrorists, who, if they escape individually, would continue murdering Israeli civilians. A better outcome would have been the killing of all the Hamas members. How perverted to wish that the deaths had been more even. That means more innocent Israelis killed and fewer enemy war criminals killed. In asserting that a different report "could have stirred the conscience of the nation," Landau insinuates that there is something unconscionable about what the IDF did. He does not seem to mind the unconscionable hatchet job by the UN and the unconscionable war crimes by Hamas. Then his is not a conscience but a prejudice. Many Jews are prejudiced against their own people. Part 10. Helps Terrorists"The Report published by the Goldstone Fact-Finding Commission presents a major challenge to democracies forced to act against terrorist groups." It: "1. Ignores the reality and true nature of terrorism and urban warfare; The Report's simplistic approach ignores "the mode of operation of terrorist organizations which deliberately endanger civilians and make urban areas their battlefield of choice. It makes no reference to the recruitment and exploitation of children and the smuggling of weapons through tunnels, and ignores clear evidence of the abuse of mosques, ambulances, hospitals and residences." Thus the Report criticized Israel's use of mortars to head off rocket launching. This naively assumes that helicopters and planes are available on demand. The Report ignored the importance to Hamas of smuggling arms in by tunnels. It treated the bombardment of Ashkelon as just a brief economic disruption, without mentioning deaths and injuries. By improperly minimizing the danger of terrorism, defending states methods are made to seem less proper. Defending states are urged to compensate for damages during their self-defense. Terrorists are not urged to compensate for damages during their aggression. The Report admits that in a single area, Israel spent hundreds of millions of dollars reinforcing against terrorism — that's heavy damages. Further one-sidedness against defending states is reflected in the Report demand that Israel suspend use of certain weapons pending investigation, without demanding that Hamas suspend use of rockets and civilian infrastructure. The Report undermines national investigations, by claiming that Israel's investigations are not ""impartial, independent, prompt and effective." Actually, Israel takes them further than do the U.K. and U.S. Israel allows "every individual, Israeli or Palestinian, to petition the Court for judicial review of the decision whether or not to open criminal proceedings in any given case. Since the Gaza Operation, over one-hundred investigations have already been conducted, including criminal investigations in 23 cases." In encouraging international tribunals just for Israel, the Report implies that terrorist organizations should not be tried. [International law requires that terrorism be put down.] By suggesting "that soldiers from these countries may be subject to foreign or international legal proceedings," the report hampers defense all over." The Report finds no evidence that Hamas used human shields and stored weapons in mosques and hospitals, despite the extensive evidence. It acknowledged that the people it interviewed in Gaza seemed to be afraid to inform on terrorists. Thus the Mission knew that the witnesses were intimidated. By accepting their testimony, the Mission rewarded intimidation. "By contrast, ...the Report attributes intimidation to the Israeli side. It bases this assertion in large part on the widespread support for the military operation in the Israeli public, and that Israel has 'created a political climate in which dissent is not tolerated'. The notion that the majority of Israelis genuinely supported action to bring years of continuous rocket and missile attacks against Israeli civilians to an end does not appear to have occurred to the members of the Mission." (www.imra.org.il, 9/16.) Accusations against Israel usually are thoughtless like that or misinformed. In Israel, the Left often intimidates the Right, but not the reverse. The UN's recommendation that international tribunals replace domestic ones, though it did call for Israel to investigate (which Israel did and does), is undermined by its own biased and inferior investigation! The UN Mission set a poor example of international investigation. Part 11. Why Israel did not cooperateIsrael did not cooperate with the UN mission of Goldstone. Why not, inasmuch as Israel has cooperated with a couple of dozen other investigations? "Justice Goldstone himself admitted, in an interview to Al Jazeera, 'I can understand Israel's suspicion with regard to the Human Rights Council - it has been partial with regard to Israel for many years.'" The UN Human Rights Council has neglected gross abuses of human rights in order to single out Israel for imaginary, minor abuses. The UN acts on an anti-Zionist political agenda, not out of concern for human rights. This was true of the Goldstone mission. The Mission's mandate authorized investigation into violations of international law by "the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people. It does not mandate any investigation of violations by Palestinian terrorist organizations. Objecting to that one-sidedness, many people asked to head the Mission refused. Among them was "Mary Robinson, former High Commissioner for Human Rights, who described the mandate as: 'not balanced because it focuses on what Israel did, without calling for an investigation on the launch of the rockets by Hamas.'" One of the Mission's members, Prof. Chinkin, had previously accused Israel of aggression. Perhaps she would not want to be confused by the facts. Goldstone denied the Mission's pre-conceived bias. He asserted that the Mission statement was changed by the Council President. Problems are: (1) The Council President lacks the authority to do that; and (2) The Mission still is charged with investigating for the period in which Israel fought in Gaza, and not for the prior years, during which Hamas fired thousands of rockets at Israel. Wasn't the Commission fair by inviting both sides to participate? In Gaza, its investigators were accompanied by Hamas representatives. What witnesses would reveal Hamas use of human shields and other violations of international law, in front of Hamas men? [The Mission found "no evidence" of human shields.] Public hearings receive emotional claims, not confidential intelligence. Violators won't go unpunished. Israel is carrying out its own investigations. Such investigations take action, and don't cover up. Israel already has indicted some soldiers over the Gaza combat (www.imra.org.il, 9/15). A couple of months ago, I reported on five completed, major theme, IDF investigations. Finding a few soldiers guilty of poor judgment is different from the UN Mission accusing Israel of deliberately targeting civilians. Part 12. Flawed UN mandateThe Zionist Organization of America finds the Goldstone report "outrageous," because, among other reasons, it ignored Hamas aggression, relied upon "unsubstantiated Arab testimony," "copied major, politicized distortions of international legal norms habitually made by anti-Israel NGOs; falsely reclassified Hamas personnel as civilian police in order to indict Israel for legitimate assaults upon these forces; and invented non-existent legal obligations of which it then proceeded to find Israel in breach." ZOA points out that, "The Goldstone Commission was created by the UN Human Rights Council,...which is dominated by dictatorial regimes, including Arab regimes. In just three years, the HRC's controlling membership eliminated probes into the most serious human-rights abuses in Belarus, Congo, Cuba, Liberia and Sudan. In that time, some 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million displaced in Darfur alone. During the same period, however, the HRC passed 33 resolutions, of which 26 related to Israel, which has been the only country specifically condemned by the Council." The Council dispatched Goldstone "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission." What does that mean? In other words, the UN resolution itself was fatally flawed, as it decided in advance that 1. Israel was an aggressor, not a defender after sustaining thousands of rocket attacks without replying; 2. Gaza is occupied by Israel; and 3. The conduct of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups were not important or relevant to the investigation." Israel does not perform any governmental functions in Gaza, and therefore (among other reasons) does not occupy it. Since the mission was sent to be one-sided, the report's claim to investigate both sides really is a cover-up. Former Israeli Justice Minister Daniel Friedmann said, "What this report really means is that Israel is the only country in the world which is not allowed to defend itself against acts of terror. Israel is the most threatened nation in the world and yet it makes the most effort to avoid harming innocent lives. "Any comparison of Israel's fight on terror with recent conflicts in Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan etc. immediately shows that Israel holds itself to the highest ethical standard" As for claims of extensive, indiscriminate killing, "Even the UN eventually acknowledged that some 75% of the dead in Gaza were Hamas terrorists." Goldstone falsely raises the number of civilians killed, by unjustifiably reclassifying a couple of hundred terrorists as civilian police. This enables him to claim that Israeli attacks on police stations were wanton. This tactic was discredited (by Jonathan Halevi fort the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs). 343 members of Gaza security forces were killed. Of those, Israel identified 286 as members of terrorist organizations and 27 as undergoing infantry training. That accounts for 91% of those police. Goldstone even admits that "'there may be individual members of the Gaza police that were at the same time members of Palestinian armed groups and thus combatants,' but he continues to treat them as civilians and thus protected persons. Then there was the false UN allegation that the IDF shelled an UNRWA school, killing 40 civilians inside. Actually, Hamas was firing at the IDF from the street. The IDF fired back, hitting gunmen and a handful of civilians standing around a Hamas mortar position. [Why were they standing in a combat zone? Whose responsibility is it for killing civilians who stay in a combat zone?] Goldstone questioned the accuracy of the IDF replies to questions about that. He should have allowed for initial confusion, as data came in. The UNRWA libel aroused people to violence. Shouldn't he have chastised UNRWA for falsely accusing Israel (ZOA press release, 9/17, see http://www.zoa.org/) if he were as objective as he claims? For series on the UN report, click here:
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE REAL STORY ABOUT THE PALESTINIANS
Posted by M. Steve Kramer, September 30, 2009. |
|
What's the real story about the Palestinians? Are they in an "intolerable situation", as President Obama said in his groundbreaking speech in Cairo? David P. Goldman says, "The simplest explanation is that they [Palestinians] like it there [West Bank and Gaza], because they are much better off than people of similar capacities in other Arab countries." How's that? Palestinians are better off than many other Arabs? Goldman, in his article "Palestine problem hopeless, but not serious," give the facts. "The standard tables of gross domestic product (GDP) per capita show the West Bank and Gaza at US$1,700, just below Egypt's $1,900 and significantly below Syria's $2,250 and Jordan's $3,000. GDP does not include foreign aid, however, which adds roughly 30% to spendable funds in the Palestinian territories." Goldman doesn't accept population figures from UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees. He says, "Adjusting for the Begin-Sadat Center population count [www.biu.ac.il] and adding in foreign aid, GDP per capita in the West Bank and Gaza comes to $3,380, much higher than in Egypt and significantly higher than in Syria or Jordan. Why should any Palestinian refugee resettle in a neighboring Arab country?" From the UN website: "Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict." In contrast to the counting of any other refugee population, the UN gives refugee status to subsequent generations of Palestinians. The result is that the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Arabs who may have lived in Palestine for only two years are counted as "Palestinian refugees". [Emphasis added.] UNRWA receives compensation per capita, so the more refugees, the more money pours into the agency, which itself employs tens of thousands of Palestinians. Obviously this situation encourages the over-counting of the population and under-recording of deaths. The population figures from the Begin-Sedat Center show an UNRWA disparity of more than one million people! Goldman writes, "Without disputing Obama's claim that life for the Palestinians is intolerable, it is fair to ask: where is life not intolerable in the Arab world? When the first UN Arab Development Report appeared in 2002, it elicited comments such as this one from the London Economist: 'With barely an exception, its [the Arab world's] autocratic rulers, whether presidents or kings, give up their authority only when they die; its elections are a sick joke; half its people are treated as lesser legal and economic beings, and more than half its young, burdened by joblessness and stifled by conservative religious tradition, are said to want to get out of the place as soon as they can.'" "Palestinian Arabs are highly literate, richer and healthier than people in most other Arab countries, thanks to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and the blackmail payments of Western as well as Arab governments. As refugees, they live longer and better than their counterparts in adjacent Arab countries. It is not surprising that they do not want to be absorbed into other Arab countries and cease to be refugees." Goldman avers that the Palestinians are blackmailing the West, which is reluctant to defend itself against Palestinian terrorism. He says they have no other obvious source of income other than handouts, due to a lack of industry, natural resources and infrastructure. "The Palestinians cannot form a normal state. They cannot emigrate to Arab countries without accepting a catastrophic decline in living standards, and very few can emigrate to Western countries. The optimal solution for the Palestinians is to demand a state and blackmail Western and Arab donors with the threat of violence, but never actually get one [a state]. That is why the Palestinian issue is hopeless, but not serious." I find Goldman's argument compelling, given the fact that the Palestinians concentrate more on destroying the Jewish state than building a state of their own. The West condones this behavior, preferring that Israel bears the brunt of Palestinian terror. What's the real story about Palestinians being made homeless in Jerusalem? President Obama has declared that Israelis (that is, Jews) have no right to evict two families from their homes in Sheikh Jarrah, a predominantly Arab neighborhood in Jerusalem. Actually, Obama has said that Israelis shouldn't build anywhere near the Palestinians, neither in Jerusalem nor in the West Bank. What's up with that? Sheikh Jarrah is as good an example as any of the misperception about Palestinian "rights" to the land. Seth Frantzman, in his recent article, "Terra Incognita: East Jerusalem's lost years," outlines the history of the neighborhood, putting the situation into its proper context. "What is today called Sheikh Jarrah, in the 19th century included two Jewish neighborhoods known as Nahalat Shimon and Shimon HaTzadiq. The latter commemorated Simon the Just, a Jewish high priest from the 4th century AD and was purchased by Jews in 1876. Nahalat Shimon was built by Sephardic and Yemenite Jews in 1891. Sheikh Jarrah was primarily a Jewish neighborhood in the late 19th century and remained so up until 1948." Muslims began building in the neighborhood around the same time as the Jews. By the end of the 19th century, Sheikh Jarrah was a "cosmopolitan neighborhood that included the American Colony compound, St. George's Anglican Cathedral, an ancient Muslim mosque commemorating a soldier of Saladin and the 'Graves of the Kings', a site with graves of various Jewish figures, which had been acquired by a Jewish family and given to the French government in the 19th century." Frantzman continues: "In December of 1947 fighting broke out between Jews and Arabs in Jerusalem. Initially the leading Muslim families asked Arab fighters from outside the city to leave their neighborhood, and the Jews [residing] there, in peace. By March 1948, however, Arabs from a unit called "al Shabab" (The Youth) invaded the neighborhood [Sheikh Jarrah] and set the Jewish synagogues and houses on fire, causing the residents to flee. In April, the Hadassah Convoy massacre, where 79 Jews were murdered, took place in the neighborhood." Other Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem were destroyed in Israel's War of Independence, including parts of Silwan (David's City), where Yemenite Jews had settled in 1882, and the Old City's Jewish Quarter, which was razed in 1948 by the Jordanians. After 1948 East Jerusalem was occupied by Jordan, dividing Jerusalem into Jordanian controlled East Jerusalem and the modern, Jewish West Jerusalem. The Western Wall, Judaism's holiest site, was closed to Jews. The Christian population of East Jerusalem during Jordanian occupation dropped from about 30,000 to 11,000. The UN settled Palestinian refugees in East Jerusalem, including in the disputed houses in Sheikh Jarrah. Beginning in 1956, Jewish graves on the Mount of Olives, Judaism's most storied gravesites, were destroyed. 38,000 grave stones were removed and used in construction by the Jordanians. Frantzman's conclusion: "In fact, none of the rampant destruction of Jewish sites in Jerusalem was condemned by the UN during the period of Jordanian rule. Had the international community cared then as much as it does now, perhaps the disputes would not have come about. If people understood more about the period of Jordanian rule and the dynamic Arab changes of Jerusalem, one might better understand the actual history of the city, rather than focusing merely on Israeli actions and Palestinian victimization." Both Goldman and Frantzman point out the emphasis by the media on Palestinian victimization, with little mention of Jewish victimization and Jewish rights. Jews have an ancient history in Israel. Even in the modern period, Jewish claims often precede those of the Palestinians. The Palestinians will never have their own state unless they are willing to recognize that Israel is the Jewish state. That's the real story about the Palestinians. (To read either article in full, search on the web for the article title and author.) 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." |
|
ISRAEL'S PECULIAR POSITION
Posted by David Ellman, September 30, 2009. |
|
Tragically but inevitably apt. Send this to Bibi although he probably knows it well and did make similar reference to the rest of the world suffering if Israel is a victim !! Rgds You probably won't remember the name Eric Hoffer. He was a longshoreman who turned into a philosopher, wrote columns for newspapers and some books. He was a non-Jewish American social philosopher. He was born in 1902 and died in 1983, after writing nine books and winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom. His first book, The True Believer, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic. Here is one of his columns from 1968 (LA Times, 5/26/68. -- 40 years ago!!!) Astonishing! Some things never change. |
|
The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews. Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it. Turkey threw out a million Greeks, and Algeria a million Frenchman. Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese and no one says a word about refugees. But in the case of Israel, the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees. Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single one. Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis. Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms. But when Israel is victorious, it must sue for peace. Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world. Other nations, when they are defeated, survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed. Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967], he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews. No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on. There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia. But, when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one remonstrated with him. The Swedes, who are ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we do in Vietnam, did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews. They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troop trains to Norway. The Jews are alone in the world. If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources. Yet at this moment, Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally. We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us. And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs their Russian backers won the war, to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general. I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us. Should Israel perish, the Holocaust will be upon us all. Contact David Ellman by email by dellman@gerbercal.com |
|
MIDRESHET LINDENBAUM'S LEADERSHIP PROGRAM AND STANDWITHUS NOW PARTNERING FOR ISRAEL-ARAB STUDIES
Posted by Jen Kutner, September 30, 2009. |
|
FOR IMMEDIATE CONTACT
THE PROGRAM OPENS FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR IN JERUSALEM ON SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 AND IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA IN OCTOBER, 2009 The Midreshet Lindenbaum leadership program in Israel-Arab studies and StandWithUs are now working together to enhance Lindenbaum students knowledge and skills for presenting Israel's case on campuses and beyond. The Lindenbaum School, founded in 1976 and based in Talpiot, Israel is a leader in Jewish women's education, and provides female high school graduates with a year-long intensive experience of living and learning Torah in Israel. StandWithUs, an international, non-profit Israel education organization was founded in 2001 in response to the misinformation that often surrounds the Middle East conflict, and the inappropriate often anti-Semitic language used about Israel and/or the Jewish people worldwide. http://www.midreshet-lindenbaum.org.il/ and www.standwithus.com The program for academic year 2009-10 opened in Jerusalem on September 8, 2009. Programs on campuses in the United States and Canada will begin in October 2009. Lindenbaum's StandWithUs program in Israel-Arab studies provides a unique, intensive immersion into the history and background of the conflict along with a critical review of the social and cultural influences that play into the dialogue between both sides. Through seminars, discussions and field trips in Israel and the Palestinian Authority, students meet people across the political spectrum who represent and have influenced the region's political realities, explained Lindenbaum's program director, Irwin J. Mansdorf, Ph.D. The program has distinguished itself by producing student leaders who have gone on to head Jewish and Zionist organizations on world-class US campuses such as Columbia, Barnard, Yale, Harvard, PENN, Brandeis and NYU and Canadian ones including York University, McGill University and University of Western Ontario. StandWithUs will partner with Lindenbaum students in the United States and Canada and provide invaluable leadership, support and sponsorship of activities that will accurately and intelligently make Israel's case throughout the academic community. "We believe StandWithUs' extensive experience with anti-Israel activities on campuses, and its expertise in supporting students who want to stand up for Israel, will greatly enhance our program. When our students go on to college in North America, they will also be well qualified to apply for StandWithUs Emerson Fellowships, a year-long scholarship for selected students who want to take the lead in educating their campus communities about Israel," said Lindenbaum leadership program director, Irwin J. Mansdorf, PhD. StandWithUs currently has Emerson Fellows on forty campuses in North America. "We are extremely pleased with our association with Lindenbaum" said Roz Rothstein, International Director of StandWithUs. "Midreshet Lindenbaum has long been known as the premier institution for young college-bound women studying in Israel and I am sure that SWU will undoubtedly serve as a resource that these outstanding students will value and welcome on campuses they will be attending. SWU's structure will lend support to Lindenbaum students in activities in their home communities outside of the campus as well. The StandWithUs Lindenbaum program in Israel will be committed to academic excellence and integrity as well as pro-Israel activism, something students will surely appreciate. Like our Israeli Fellows program, which annually graduates 150 Israeli college students on five campuses who are trained to be "ambassadors" for Israel, the young women in this joint course will be well prepared to present Israel's story on their campuses." Lindenbaum program staff includes top-level academics including Dr. Mordechai Kedar of Bar-Ilan University, Dr. Joshua Teitelbaum of Tel-Aviv University and Prof. Richard Landes of Boston University. Other Israeli academic and political figures who have participated in the program include Prof. Gerald Steinberg of NGO Monitor and Bar-Ilan University and Daniel Diker and Amb. Dore Gold of the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs. StandWithUs, an international, non-profit Israel education organization, hosts speakers and conferences, offers website resources and creates brochures and materials about Israel that are distributed globally. Based in Los Angeles, the organization has offices across the U.S. and in Israel and the UK. SWU was founded in 2001 in response to the public's need and desire for more information about the Arab-Israeli conflict. StandWithUsCampus helps college students challenge anti-Israel bias. www.standwithus.com and www.standwithuscampus.com Contact Jen Kutner by email at jenkutner@aol.com |
|
WHEN GOLDSTONE INDICTED A FICTIONAL CHARACTER (AND A DEAD MAN)
Posted by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz, September 30, 2009. |
|
Judge Richard Goldstone, whose recent United Nations Human Rights Council investigation purported to find evidence of Israeli war crimes in Gaza, once indicted a fictional Serbian character and a dead man for war crimes as well. As in Gaza, those indictments were also allegedly based on "eyewitness testimony." Goldstone headed the Office of the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), established by the United Nations in 1993. In 1995, one year into his term as chief ICTY prosecutor, Goldstone presented an indictment of several Serbs for war crimes and crimes against humanity. As brought to light in the weekend edition of the Hebrew-language Makor Rishon newspaper, among those indicted was a man identified as "Gruban". Gruban, later identified more fully as Gruban from Bijelo Polje, was charged with viciously raping Muslim prisoners in what was identified by the prosecution as essentially a Serbian concentration camp. His crimes were given weight by an anonymous individual identified only as "Witness F", who claimed to have suffered at the hands of the notorious war criminal. As described by Makor Rishon, "Within just a few months, the black silhouette of 'Gruban' was plastered on a poster of the most wanted war criminals in Bosnia." At the time, Makor Rishon noted, the American newspaper The Boston Globe published an article wondering why the poster of "Gruban" stated that his description, father's name, location and age were all listed as "unknown". The problem for NATO forces in tracking down the serial rapist was that Gruban from Bijelo Polje, also known as Gruban Malic, is a fictional character from Hero on a Donkey, a famous Serbian novel about World War II by Miodrag Bulatovic. The Gruban hoax was the result of a conversation in a Bosnian cafe between Yugoslavian war correspondent Nebojsa Jevric and an American journalist desperate to see a "real war criminal", according to Makor Rishon. Jevric identified "Gruban Malic" by name as the Serbian people's "worst war criminal", having committed the most rapes. After the indictment of "Gruban" became known, Jevric capitalized on his countrymen's bemused fascination with Goldstone's "investigation" and wrote a book called Hero on a Donkey Goes to The Hague. In the book he detailed how his comment to an American reporter took on a life of its own. In 1998, even after the true identity of the "war criminal" was known, the charges against "Gruban Malic" were officially dropped for lack of evidence by Goldstone's successor. Thirteen other flesh-and-blood Serbs were also taken off the same ICTY indictment docket alongside "Gruban" - including a man that Goldstone indicted several years after he had already died. Nissan Ratzlav-Katz writes for Arutz-Sheva. |
|
ISRAEL TO GET PROOF SHALIT ALIVE
Posted by Arutz Sheva, September 30, 2009. |
|
This was written by Jana Levi Julian and it appeared today in Arutz Sheva. |
|
Israel is set to receive proof that kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Shalit is still alive, more than three years after he was abducted by Hamas terrorists in a cross-border raid near the Kerem Shalom Crossing. An announcement was made by the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) in Jerusalem. In a joint statement issued simultaneously in Jerusalem, Cairo and Gaza, negotiators revealed that Israel will release 20 Palestinian Authority female terrorist prisoners, in exchange for a videotape proving that Gilad Shalit is alive. "The Security Cabinet has decided to release 20 Palestinian female security prisoners and detainees, in accordance with the proposal by the team responsible for negotiating the release of Gilad Shalit," read the PMO statement. "According to the mediators' proposal, Israel will receive updated and unequivocal proof regarding the well-being and status of Gilad Shalit. Proof that he is alive will be delivered to Israel by the mediators in the form of a recently recorded video tape." Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu commended chief negotiator Haggai Hadas and the negotiating team for their professional work far from the public eye, and said, "It is important that the entire world know that Gilad Shalit is alive and well and that Hamas is responsible for his well-being and fate." According to the PMO, the Security Cabinet decided to respond to the Egyptian initiative as a confidence-building measure in the framework of the indirect negotiations. "All of this is ahead of the decisive stages in the negotiations for Gilad Shalit's release and on the basis of the Government of Israel's determination to bring him back home quickly while upholding the State of Israel's vital interests," the statement said. The list of women prisoners and detainees designated for release, as well as information about them and the release process, will be made available at the Justice Ministry Pardons Department and will be posted in the coming hours on the Israel Prison Service website, the PMO said. A senior source in the Prime Minister's Office reports that negotiating team head Haggai Hadas is in continuous contact with the Shalit family and is updating them on all developments. "The negotiations are still expected to be long and arduous," the source said, "We will continue to make determined efforts to bring Gilad back home, safe and sound, as quickly as possible." Saul Goldman writes: Please consider calling or writing Hiliary Clinton, President Obama and your senators and representatives. Help save Gilad Shalit! Contact Arutz Sheva by email at news@israelnationalnews.com |
|
JANE FONDA BOYCOTTED TORONTO FILM FESTIVAL; NEW ISRAEL-HIZBULLAH BORDER DISPUTE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 30, 2009. |
|
JANE FONDA BOYCOTTS TORONTO FILM FESTIVAL Jane Fonda, Danny Glover, and others in the movie industry boycotted the Toronto Film Festival, because it honored the 100th anniversary of Tel Aviv. The boycotters' complaint asserted "that Tel Aviv was built on violence, ignoring the 'suffering of thousands of former residents and descendants' and that 'Intentionally or not ...the festival has become complicit in the Israeli propaganda machine'" ('Israel bashers in Toronto,' New York Post, September 4, 2009). Canadian film director John Greyson likened honoring Tel Aviv to honoring Jim Crow segregation. [Implying intent to deceive, without knowing, is vicious]. ZOA National President Morton A. Klein condemned the boycotters. He observed, "Clearly, people like Fonda, who could go to North Vietnam to support its regime during the Vietnam War and Glover, who has visited Hugo Chavez's Venezuela on a 2006 'solidarity' mission, but who then boycott a film festival which honors Tel Aviv, are devoid of a moral compass and basic decency." Chavez subverts democracy and adopted antisemitism. Mr. Klein explained that the boycotters claim to oppose violence and hatred. However, they support the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), a font of violence and hatred. The P.A. rejects Israel's right to exist and foments religious hatred and deliberate attacks on civilians that since 2000 maimed thousands and murdered 1,500 Israelis. Instead, the boycotters condemn Israeli self-defense. Nor is the boycotters' chief complaint factual. Tel Aviv was not built out of Jewish violence. Built on sand dunes, it had no residents to suffer from its erection. Suppose Israel lost the war in 1948. Tel Aviv residents would have been slaughtered, as threatened. The boycotters are ignorant of the area's history. As celebrities able to get a public hearing, the boycotters have a responsibility to get their facts straight. It is they who merit boycott (9/9 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York City, and — full disclosure — of which I am a member). Tel Aviv was founded because the Arabs in Jaffa persecuted the Jews in Jaffa. A boycotter referred to a "Zionist propaganda machine," but attributed nothing false to it. Such people make vague as well as false condemnation. We are back in an era of perverse ethics, as in the Nazi and Communist eras. Unfortunately, contemporary Westerners seem less educated to deal with it. One would expect Jane Fonda to be reticent, after she betrayed her country. Her supporting the government in Vietnam while it was killing American troops was by no means the same as suggesting in the U.S. that we withdraw from the war. NEW ISRAEL-HIZBULLAH BORDER DISPUTE Hizbullah has raised a new border dispute with Israel, the "7-village" dispute. However, Hizbullah acknowledges that its conflict with Israel is not territorial. Regardless of these border disputes, it would fight Israel anyway. It its words, it would continue "resistance." Hizbullah contends that Israel committed "aggression" against Lebanon, so it continues "resistance" in order to defend itself from future aggression. The seven villages, there was a lapse of time between the WWI peace treaties and the establishment of the Mandates for Lebanon and Palestine. The people in the seven villages had Lebanese citizenship before the boundaries of the Mandates were established. Hizbullah contends that therefore, those villages, now located in Israel, belong to Lebanon. It is a poor contention. Citizenship does not determine sovereignty. Borders do. Lebanon's border was clear. Besides, "Previous Lebanese governments have recognized the legitimacy of the southern border with Israel on many occasions, including in 1949, when it formed the basis of the Armistice Demarcation Line, and in 1978 when UN Resolution 425 called on Israel to withdraw from all Lebanese territory ]within [Lebanon's] internationally recognized boundaries]." (www.imra.org.il, 8/25). PART 2. COMMENTARY Nor did Israel commit aggression against Lebanon. Terrorists in Lebanon bombarded, raided, and prepared for war on Israel. For some years, Israel occupied southern Lebanon, to keep terrorists from Israel. Israel did not ethnically cleanse that area and annex it, as apologists for jihad claim it would. One should understand that just as Hitler invaded Poland under pretense of defending from a Polish attack, the Muslim Arabs consider non-believing Israel illegitimate, so they call Arab attacks on Israel self-defense. That is their warped definition of aggression and self-defense. The jihadists are trying to redefine terms to their advantage. They are trying to redefine "terrorism," too. "Terrorism" is deliberate targeting and attacking of civilians for political purposes. It is warfare by criminal means. The redefinition would switch from the means used to the purpose, so they can rationalize their use of criminal means. They make the dubious claim that Israel occupies their territory and they are resisting occupation by any means. Note, those means are not lawful. Hizbullah probably has two reasons for claiming it merely is defending against Israeli self-defense that it calls aggression. One is the usual fascistic one of finding a pretext for war. This is heightened by the Arabs' phobia against admitting wrongdoing, which is shameful to them. The other reason probably is to keep deceiving the willing Western dupes about their intent. Their intent is jihad -- religious war. If they admitted it were religious, the West would not sympathize with them. So long as they claim it is territorial, they seem to have a real grievance and the West sympathizes. The West then insists that Israel cede to the Arabs the Arabs' immediate military objective without risk to the Arabs. That miscarriage of justice is called the "peace process." The term was devised by Westerners, who are no slouches themselves, at coining euphemisms. IRAQ SECURITY DETERIORATING U.S. troops mostly sit on the sidelines, as security in Iraq deteriorates rapidly. Sectarian disputes flare; Iranian agents fight. The government has arrested valuable intelligence agents trained by the U.S.. It won't be long before Iraq comes under Iranian control (www.imra.org.il, 8/11). The Democrats got their way with early troop withdrawal, but are losing Iraq. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
A NEW WAY FOR ISLAMISTS TO EXPLODE THEMSELVES & THOSE AROUND THEM
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, September 30, 2009. |
|
At the risk of seemingly to predict what Terrorists will do, I observed the following several years ago, I chose not to write about the technique because I did not want to give them new ideas, G-d forbid. As you no doubt know, drug traffickers used to use "mules" (people) to carry narcotics past security checkpoints. One technique was to fill waterproof condoms with cocaine, heroin, etc. Then the designated "mule" would swallow the filled condoms and carry them in his or her stomach. (I cannot tell you how it was later disgorged.) Some had it inserted anally or vaginally. The thought crossed my mind that explosives such as Semtex, C-4, and other liquid or powdered explosives could be carried the same way. The electronic fuse would be very small and virtually undetectable. Any device, such as a cell phone or even a remote control that turns on a toy could trigger the fuse. Lo and Behold! The whole scheme appeared, with animated pictures, on FOX NEWS today September 30th, so I can publish it without worry about introducing a "new" idea to violent people. SOLUTIONS: The present screening Xray which has been objectionable up to now as a matter of insulting the people's privacy may have to be made more stringent and mandatory. Ethnic profiling of all Middle Easterners would also be made mandatory - despite objections from the ACLU-types. Every passenger would go through a chamber that looked like an ordinary small room. A frequency signal covering all known frequencies would rotate - which would be completed in 30 seconds. Any explosive trigger that would respond to an electric or electronic signal would explode. Since the quantity of explosives carried inside a person would, by necessity, be small, the ensuing explosion could be contained with this room or passage. The walls would, of course, be ballistic materials adequate to contain an explosion. The clean-up of the mess would be the airport's problem. BUT, advertising the use of such a system should be sufficient warning to stop such a brutal suicide bomber in his or her tracks. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org |
|
FROM ISRAEL: GOLDSTEIN REPORT
Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 30, 2009. |
|
The Goldstone Report -- which charges Israel with war crimes: the deliberate targeting of civilians -- has now been presented to the UN Human Rights Council, which commissioned it, and which will surely accept its findings after discussion. There will then be a move to send the report on to the UN Security Council, which, if it accepts it, may send it forward to the Hague and the International Court of Justice. ~~~~~~~~~~ Problems with the report include the following: [] The mandate by the Human Rights Council -- itself overtly and blatantly anti-Israel -- to the Goldstone Commission, which did the investigation, was biased from the beginning: Only Israel that was to be investigated. ~~~~~~~~~~ Dr. Elihu Richter, of the Hadassah School of Public Health, charged, in the Post: "I personally submitted a nine-page, annotated and referenced brief to the Goldstone Commission last July showing that the high male-female ratio of fatalities among Palestinians in Gaza argues for the combatant status of many whom human rights organizations classified as non-combatants. However, the Commission was not driven by the evidence, but by its preset agenda." ~~~~~~~~~~ For further background on the issues and the bias of the charges, see here (especially "Article and Reports"):
~~~~~~~~~~ Outraged? Aghast at the overt bias, without even a pretense at evenhandedness, which might lead to punitive measures against Israel? Good that you should be. Let every decent person everywhere demand a stop to this. Dr. Jan Sokolovsky, Executive Director of the International Commission for Jewish Legal Affairs, has put out a call for people to act to block acceptance of this by the Security Council. The Council has 15 members -- five permanent and 10 temporary. It requires a permanent member to veto the motion -- and the US is the only one that would do this. Otherwise, it would require some combination of seven abstentions and 'no' votes by temporary members to block acceptance of the report, as nine votes are needed to pass it. As this is an exceedingly unlikely prospect, the US veto is the only chance to stop this. There has been indication that Secretary of State Clinton prefers to see the Report kept in the Human Rights Council, and US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice -- who called the report "unbalanced, one-sided, and unacceptable" -- has said the same. But we can take no chances here. ~~~~~~~~~~ Messages are best very brief. For example (using your words): The Goldstone Report commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council is highly biased and constitutes a blood libel against Israel. Please expend every possible effort to contain it in the Human Rights Council, and, if this fails, please veto its acceptance in the Security Council. Contact: President Barack Obama
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
State Dept. Public Communication Division
~~~~~~~~~~ Anne Bayefsky, who heads Eye on the UN, has put out a joint statement on Goldstone on behalf of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, and the Hudson Institute. In part, it reads: "The Goldstone mission will go down in history as the 21st century's equivalent to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion — a notorious work of fiction which spun a conspiratorial web of deceit and distortion that has fueled hatred of Jews ever since. ~~~~~~~~~~ And so, the world continues in its insane ways, with Palestinians using every avenue possible to try to weaken us. In yet another version of universal jurisdiction, British law permits private individuals to lodge complaints of "war crimes" against military personnel, even if they are not British and the alleged crimes were committed elsewhere. Drawing on this, 16 Palestinians from Gaza called on two British law firms to act on their behalf; the law firms -- knowing that Defense Minister Ehud Barak was due in the country shortly -- applied to the courts for an international arrest warrant, claiming that Barak had committed war crimes and breaches of the Geneva Convention during military operations in Gaza. ~~~~~~~~~~ Barak -- who was on his way to Britain, and received advice from many quarters to turn back -- behaved with admirable determination and courage, refusing to change his plans. At the end of the day, the court threw out the petition for arrest. This was in response to arguments submitted by the British Foreign Office, which had been in constant consultation with Israel's Foreign Ministry, that Barak was a state guest and therefore not subject to such a law suit. Barak has come to Britain for meetings with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth and Foreign Secretary David Miliband. Said Barak: "We do not intend to let terror win. We will not apologize in any way for our just struggle against terrorism. We will do everything possible so that the representatives of Israel, security officials and soldiers of the IDF will continue to freely travel the world. The theater of the absurd whereby those who defend their citizens need to be on the defensive has to end. Otherwise, the world is likely not only to give a prize to terrorism, but to encourage it." I salute him for this. ~~~~~~~~~~ Our Security Cabinet has agreed to the release of 20 women Palestinian prisoners in exchange for an up-to-the-minute video tape of Gilad Shalit that serves as evidence that he is still alive. This was worked out by the Germans, who are now mediating negotiations for Shalit's release, and was approved by our negotiating team, headed by Hagai Hadas. This is supposed to take place on Friday, amid cautions that this does not mean a deal is almost finalized. The women scheduled for release have all served at least two-thirds of their sentences, and none was involved directly in the murder of Israelis. (Indirectly, in a couple of instances, yes.) It is being said that this 20 would be deducted from the final number of prisoners that Hamas is demanding in exchange for Shalit. Almost all of the women are from Judea and Samaria, and not from Gaza. What occurs to me then is that if this release takes place, it may have the effect of strengthening Hamas politically in Judea and Samaria. Wait and see is the best policy here. ~~~~~~~~~~ A hasbara, or public relations, tour of the US coast to coast, I understand, is being planned for this fall with several ministers participating. The topic: Israeli rights. This is exceedingly good news, for this subject has been vastly neglected since the beginning of Oslo. There has been talk unending about our obligations, and what concessions we ought to make. And there is talk about our security requirements. Thus, there has been a campaign for us to establish "defensible borders." I never liked that. Yes, of course, we need defensible borders. But if an area of Judea and Samaria -- in the heartland of our ancient heritage -- is not needed for our defense, does this mean it's all right to surrender it? Not in my book it doesn't. If the current government, weary with the emphasis on concessions, is now prepared to push our rights and to educate others to the matter, I celebrate. This is a theme I will return to. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
"JEWISH VIGILANTES TARGET YOUNG ARAB-JEWISH COUPLES"
Posted by Bruce Tuchman, September 29, 2009. |
|
Clearly a very biased article in the The Times of London,
but well worth reading
A truly alarming problem! Arabs are targeting more and more Jewish girls everyday. So - what are you going to do? There is just one shelter in Israel that provides a safe haven for Jewish girls who have been abused by Arab boyfriends. And make no mistake, they all get abused eventually: physical abuse, forced conversion, mental abuse, rape, discovering she's not the only wife. Visit http://thejerusalemhouse.com/. There is a movie on the website. The shelter has the support of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef and Rabbi Mordechai Eliahu and many others. Should you feel so inclined to make a donation and encourage your friends and family to do the same, please visit The Jerusalem House! Contact Bruce Tuchman by email at nycat06@gmail.com |
|
FINAL SOLUTION FOR ISRAEL
Posted by Truth Provider, September 29, 2009. |
|
Dear friends, This, most poignant article comes from a writer, Ellis Washington, I have not known until now. His article is an amazing assessment of Israel's situation. Ellis Washington is authorized biographer for the conservative intellectual Dr. Michael Savage (see www.MichaelSavage.com). He is former editor of the Michigan Law Review and law clerk at The Rutherford Institute. He is a graduate of John Marshall Law School and a lecturer and freelance writer on constitutional law, legal history, political philosophy and critical race theory. He has written over a dozen law review articles and several books, including "The Inseparability of Law and Morality: The Constitution, Natural Law and the Rule of Law" (2002). See his law review article "Reply to Judge Richard Posner." Washington's latest book is "The Nuremberg Trials: Last Tragedy of the Holocaust." Ellis Washington projects true love for Israel and deep concern for her fate. I only wish all Israelis and the Israeli media were as fervent supporters of their country as is Mr. Washington. Unlike Mr. Washington, I am confident Netanyahu is not an appeaser, but otherwise, the article is correct on every score. Your Truth Provider,
|
|
President Obama gave the worst anti-Israel speech of any American president I can remember.
The speech was good and positive for Israel and for moving the peace process forward.
How can Bolton and Netanyahu, two seemingly rational, educated and intellectual men hear President Obama's U.N. speech Wednesday and come to such diametrical opposite conclusions? Both men proudly claim that they are conservatives; both men claim that they believe in a strong, independent, defensible Israel with an indivisible capital at Jerusalem. Answer: One man is a statesman like Sir Winston Churchill; the other is a politician, an appeaser like Neville Chamberlain. Obama's speech was delivered with the dispassionate indifference of a man who was handed a speech others wrote for him and loaded into his teleprompter for him to read like a robot, yet the devil is always in the details. Here are some of the highlights of Obama's U.N. speech: The time has come to relaunch negotiations — without preconditions — that address the permanent-status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem. ... This paragraph could just as easily been written by Col. Moammar Gadhafi who ranted and raved for 100 minutes before the U.N. assembly and affectionately called President Obama "my brother." Obama's U.N. speech could have been written by a whole host of enemies of Israel — Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinians; Khaled Mashal, the Gaza leader of the terrorist organization Hamas; Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah terrorist group occupying Lebanon. What does Obama mean by "the time has come to relaunch negotiations"? This guy is such a narcissist that he thinks whenever he does something, like trying to broker a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians, that he is the first leader to attempt it. Every U.S. president since Harry Truman in the late 1940s have in one way or another tried and failed to "relaunch" peace in the Middle East. Obama wants there to be "negotiations without preconditions." That statement is oxymoronic. All legitimate negotiations between parties done in good faith must set reasonable preconditions. For example, the Palestinians (and all Arab and Muslim nations) must accept the irrevocable fact that Israel is a legitimate nation-state with the right to exist in peace. The Palestinians and the 44 Muslim nations have been fighting against that simple precondition for 65 years. President Obama further stated: The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security — a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis. Can anyone name any place on the planet where a nation has a divided capital and is living in peace and security? Washington, D.C., London, Paris, Moscow, Beijing, Berlin, Riyadh, Tehran, Baghdad? To demand that any of these countries divide their capital in half and give one half to their largest ethnic minority group would be tantamount to that country committing genocide against itself, yet for over 40 years this is the untenable position the world has placed on the backs of the Israelis. Obama further emphasized his anti-sovereignty point when he arrogantly declared in his U.N. speech that "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." When Obama says, "... and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people," he is using perhaps the most evil, anti-Semitic language I've ever heard from any American president against Israel. ("Contiguous" = unbroken "territory"; "occupation" = unlawful seizure of land). Obama seems to be demanding that Israel give back the land the Jews won in the 1967 war, a war fought and paid for by the blood of thousands of courageous Israeli soldiers and Jewish civilians. Following Obama's perverse view of history, what nation on earth could lay legitimate claim to the land they presently have? There is not a place on earth where lands were not taken from another people but by force or war. Obama wasn't finished with his screed when he said: As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations. What "goal" does Obama wish to pursue for God's chosen people? Is Obama's "goal" tantamount to Hitler's "Final Solution" regarding the nation of Israel? Not to be histrionic here, but what other result would happen to America's most faithful ally if Obama throws her into the clutches of Lebanon (controlled by Hezbollah and Iran), or Gaza (controlled by Hamas and Iran) and Syria, who two years ago was on the fast track to develop nuclear weapons to "wipe Israel off the map" until Israel tactically executed a pre-emptive strike against Syria's secret nuclear facilities Sept. 6, 2007 — nuclear technology and weapons of mass destruction Syria bought from Iran. President Obama's perverse worldview (not just regarding Israel) stems from the fact that virtually all of the people who mentored him during his early formative years were communists, terrorists, fanatical anti-Semites or haters of America. The most conspicuous example being Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose church propagated "liberation theology" — a racist, Marxist brand of religious hatred Barack and Michelle Obama dutifully enjoyed for 20 years. That bad seed of anti-Semitism planted in the heart of Barack Obama by Rev. Wright was in full bloom during Obama's speech at the U.N. Ambassador Bolton wisely stated that President Obama's U.N. address just put "Israel on the chopping block." Let me be clear: A divided Israel is an Israel that will be quickly and utterly destroyed by the Islamic countries surrounding her who are sworn by their Muslim religion to "kill the Jew where you find him." The Muslim world has dreamed of this day when a weak, Quisling leader in America like Obama would seek to curry favor of the Muslim nations to bolster his own universal reputation. The price? — a revival of Hitler's "Final Solution" and the genocide of the independent nation-state of Israel. May God forbid. Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
FROM ISRAEL: POST YOM KIPPUR
Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 29, 2009. |
|
I hope that everyone who observed Yom Kippur yesterday found peace and a spiritual high. Now we head for the most joyous of holidays: Sukkot, which begins Friday night and lasts until Saturday night a week later here in Israel, and a day longer in Galut -- outside of Israel. Please know that, while I will post a couple of times this week, it is unlikely that I will during the holiday. ~~~~~~~~~~ For anyone who makes phone calls from N. America to Israel, be aware that we have ended summer time and are only 6 hours ahead of you now. ~~~~~~~~~~ I thank all of those who wrote to me to inform me that the e-mail form which I had shared for Congressman Tom Price -- who had sent a letter of support to PM Netanyahu -- is available only to his constituents. There are several alternative ways of reaching him: There is another e-mail address: tom@mail.house.gov (thanks, Helen F).
E-mail Paul Teller, executive director of the House Republican Study Group that Price chairs: Paul.Teller@mail.house.gov. Explain that you had trouble reaching the Congressman directly but wish to thank him. (Because I have contact with him, that is what I did.) Congressman Price will be pleased to know that you understand that there are friends of Israel in Congress who do not think as Obama does. Such friends need to know they are appreciated. ~~~~~~~~~~ I want to share a fascinating brief video clip of PM Netanyahu giving an interview right after his UN talk last week (thanks, Minka).
~~~~~~~~~~ Barry Rubin had a piece in today's Post, in which he maintains that Obama has now swung away from a anti-Israel approach to something a bit more "evenhanded." While I do not agree with everything Rubin says, I found some of the points he makes in this particular piece quite interesting: Rubin acknowledges forthrightly that there have been many negative influences on Obama with regard to his attitude toward Israel, most significantly: "Indoctrinated by the far left into the Third World, 'anti-imperialist' narrative, Obama disliked Israel and saw it as evil, taught by such people as Rashid Khalidi, an Edward Said acolyte and Palestinian propagandist, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an outright anti-Semite." Had matters gone otherwise, he says, the disaster many people foresaw might indeed have taken place. But, he maintains, there have been some intervening variables that have shifted the situation: [] Obama learned that being anti-Israel was a political liability. As a political animal, he knew this required a shift. So here we see that Obama's pie-in-the-sky plans have come smack up against reality. He will not admit it publicly, but it has to be dawning on him that it is not Israel that is the problem. If there were no other evidence, this alone would stand to demonstrate that the Palestinians in particular and the Arabs more generally do not want a Palestinian state (certainly not one "living side by side in peace with Israel"). For they were working with the most pro-Arab US president of all times, and had they cooperated with him, he would have moved in many ways on their behalf. What they want is Israel's destruction. [] And then this: "[Obama's] attempts to pressure Israel failed, thanks to the Israeli government. A key factor here was the tough, superb maneuvering of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu... This is where "playing the game" while drawing red lines paid off. I know that ideological purists would have preferred that Netanyahu would said that we won't sit with the Palestinians, but this worked better. Yes, he said, he'll talk to Abbas without pre-conditions. Yes, we all want to work for peace. But it's reasonable to demand that the PA state be demilitarized, and that the Palestinians accept Israel as the Jewish state, and that we retain control of Jerusalem. All non-starters from the PA side, which has demonstrated its total intransigence. ~~~~~~~~~~ And so, once again, I provide here contact information for Netanyahu, so that you are able to thank him and encourage him: Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
~~~~~~~~~~ Returning to Rubin. Among the evidence he offers that Obama is not tilting so very anti-Israel any longer: [] Mention of Israel as a Jewish state in his UN address. So we start the New Year with hope, and a sense of gratitude, and resolve to stay strong. ~~~~~~~~~~ A word here about the demand for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. It is Arab policy to attempt to undermine the very Jewishness of our state, including from within. (There are Israeli-Arab organizations that claim it's "prejudicial" for us to have Jewish symbols in the state.) One possible tactic of the Palestinians is to recognize "Israel," but then attempt to push through "return of refugees" so that ultimately what is called "Israel" would become -- G-d forbid -- an Arab majority nation. The prime minister's demand stands against this. Even more importantly, at an ideological/religious level, the Arabs don't accept our existence here. This is at the core of the conflict. Allowing the Jews to have a state in the midst of "Muslim" land is anathema to the Arabs. This demand, that we be recognized as officially Jewish, exposes this attitude. It should be a simple thing, yes? A Palestinian state for Palestinian Arabs, Israel for Jews. But the Palestinians will never agree to this. Perhaps in time people will begin to wonder exactly why -- and begin to get it. But in the meantime, as long as this is a basic demand for negotiating a Palestinian state, it, de facto, assures that there won't be one for the simple reason that the Arabs are not sincere. ~~~~~~~~~~ In the hours before Yom Kippur, riots took place, first on the Temple Mount, and then spreading to the Old City. This was precipitated by the visit of a group of 15 Jews, accompanied by a police escort, to the Temple Mount. Muslim worshippers on the Mount threw stones at the visitors and police alike. As tensions on the Mount -- which was closed off to worshippers -- subsided, riots began in the Old City. Apparently rumors were spread of an "invasion" on the Mount by "settlers." Such claims are common, especially by radical Islamic Arabs in Israel -- seeking a way to foment trouble. By Sunday night (the beginning of Yom Kippur!), rioting had spread to the eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Isawiya, where police reported some 20 firebombs. This is an issue of enormous importance. The Arabs maintain that the Mount is "theirs" and that any Jewish presence represents a provocation. Unfortunately, Israel (specifically Moshe Dayan) "fed" this illusion when we took the Mount in 1967 (from Jordan, not "Palestinians") and then -- being the "good guys" and generous -- promptly allowed the Muslim Wakf (trust) to assume supervision of day-to-day Mount activities (under our jurisdiction), as the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aksa Mosque are on the Mount. That was an act of enormous innocence (or enormous foolishness), as it was presumed that this sharing would be appreciated and good will reciprocated. It must never be forgotten that the Mount is the most revered of Jewish sites: the locality of a wealth of Jewish tradition going back to Torah, and the place where the Temples stood. We did not GIVE them the Mount. Not only, in real terms, is it sacred, it is also a symbol of our ancient Jewish nationhood. There have been governments that allowed Arab desecration of archeological ruins to take place on the Mount without intervening for fear of Arab rioting. So shockingly ludicrous is the situation that Jews are forbidden to pray on the Mount. ~~~~~~~~~~ Said PA negotiator Saeb Erekat with regard to this incident: "At a time when President Obama is trying to bridge the divide between Palestinians and Israelis, and to get negotiations back on track, Israel is deliberately escalating tensions in Jerusalem. Undoubtedly, Erekat was referring to the perfectly legal and reasonably managed visit (with a nod from PA security) of Ariel Sharon to the Mount in 2000, which was used as a pretext for choreographed violence that began the Second Intifada. ~~~~~~~~~~ IMRA today carries a press release by the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights with regard to this incident.
Dr. Aaron Lerner, director of IMRA, comments: "If anyone thought that it was possible to work out some kind of arrangement that relied on the Arabs to act in a pluralistic manner in anything relating to the Temple Mount then take a look at what the leading secular Palestinian human rights NGO has to say about an incident in which some non-Moslems being escorted on a visit to the Temple Mount were pelted with rocks by Moslems." Said the press release: "The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) strongly condemns the Israeli government's decision to allow Jewish settler groups to enter the yards of the al-Aksa Mosque in occupied East Jerusalem... "...East Jerusalem is an integral part of the Palestinian Territories that were occupied by Israel following the June 1967 war. "...Measures taken by Israeli occupation authorities following the occupation of the city, in the foremost, the Israeli Knesset's decision on 28 June 1967 to annex the city, its decision on 30 July 1980 considering 'complete and united Jerusalem as the capital of Israel' and the decision to expand the municipal boundaries, are flagrant violations of international law and United Nations resolutions. "...PCHR calls upon the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, jointly or individually, to fulfill their legal and moral obligations to ensure Israel's respect for the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) according to Article 1 of the Convention, and believes that the international silence and inaction encourage Israel to act as a State above law and perpetrate more violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law, including efforts intended to establish a Jewish majority in occupied East Jerusalem." Sigh... Our stand against such nonsense must be strong. ~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" I was charmed by this and hope you will be, as well. Before Yom Kippur, YNet put out a piece regarding Israel's most beautiful synagogues. Because it was before the holiday, it includes times of services and such, which are now irrelevant. But if you scroll past this, you will see some absolutely stunning, and very varied, synagogue interiors. Part of what makes it special is precisely that variation, which is the result of the ingathering of the people: the various cultures that developed for Jews in different places, Jews now come home. So you see a Chasidic shul, and a synagogue with Indian (Cochin) flavor, Caucasian, and Tunisian, etc. Skim all the way down, and enjoy:
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
ISRAEL-PALESTINIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; WHO'S THE PARASITE?; IS OBAMA SCAMMING US ABOUT IRAN?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 29, 2009. |
|
BLOOD LIBEL AGAINST ISRAEL SPREADING Holland's largest circulation daily, De Telegraaf, alleges that Israel spread the current and prior outbreaks of swine flu. Stated motive: reduce foreign populations. Omitted were the 10 deaths of Israelis from the current outbreak. In Greece, leading government, labor, and media figures still are campaigning against Israel for destroying Christian Hospital in Gaza. There is no such hospital, as we reported before. Other older and also reported defamation has not been rescinded: (1) Rabbi Arthur Waskow's accusation that Israel bars food and medicine from Gaza. No, Israel lets those goods through. It bars material that can be used in war; and (2) Sweden's biggest newspaper accepted Palestinian Arab accusations that Israel murders Arabs and harvests their organs (Israel Resource Review, 8/25). I sense a grave mental illness spreading into formerly respectable institutions. It is the illness of antisemitism. However, Barry Chamish reminds of one Israeli who did act suspiciously about bodily organs. That person is Yehuda Hiss, former chief pathologist. His autopsies removed organs and tried to conceal that fact. Most of the bodies were of Jews. It is not known what Dr. Hiss did with the organs. He was reprimanded but apparently got away with his crimes. Barry Chamish believes that Hiss is protected because he issued the dubious autopsy of Rabin that helped cover up the Rabin murder conspiracy. To see the acceptance of blood libel:
ISRAEL-PALESTINIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE MEETS Israeli delegates said the objective is to build the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) economy, so it can take people out of poverty. This would require some international safeguards against the funds being embezzled. Much attention was given to P.A. women delegates, mostly Christians, entering business. Their political views mostly were hard line. They said that Israel should remove the remaining checkpoints and the security fence, then negotiate peace. [Weaken Israeli security before peace is attained?] They want Israelis to depart from Judea-Samaria or let the Arabs control it, and that Israel should lose independence. They said that the Arab refugee families should be let into Israel. Israeli officials speculated that the women expressed such views for self-protection from fellow Arabs (Israel Resource Review, 8/25). If they meant those views, then should Israel still boost their economies? To see what Fatah views are:
PARASITES: ISRAEL OR PALESTINIAN ARABS? On some websites, one finds the epithet, "bloodsucking parasites" flung at Israel, but does it apply to them, to the Palestinian Arabs, or to nobody? New York City has an infestation of bedbugs. Bedbugs are bloodsucking parasites, like certain mosquitoes, vampire bats, tics, etc.. Considering the blood libel against Jews, as murdering Christian boys to bake their blood into matzos, let us consider the literal accusation of bloodsucking before the symbolic one. Judaism abhors the spilling of human blood except in self-defense and only as a last resort. The law of koshering requires that meat be drained of its blood before being cooked, so people don't drink it. Muslim Arabs are not as squeamish. When they "honor-kill" even their own kin, they stab repeatedly, the way our TV depicts insane murderers. When they lynched two non-offensive, lost Israeli reservists in Ramallah, a few years ago, they beat them into an unrecognizable pulp and exultingly showed the crowd their bloodied hands. I've heard of Arab death threat to drink enemies' blood and a case of a Syrian demonstrating bravado by biting off the head of a snake. Symbolically, "bloodsucking parasite" refers to piracy and robbery. Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun robbed and destroyed cities or extorted tribute. The Roman Empire dispatched governors who tax-farmed conquered provinces so harshly as to impoverish them. The Soviets shipped whole factories eastward, when they conquered eastern Europe and Germany. The greatest "bloodsucking parasites" were the Nazis, because they murdered many millions of people, worked millions as slaves, and sucked their assets into Germany. More than one movie is about the art the Nazis confiscated. In a sense, the Holocaust was a giant robbery scheme. There is a Bedouin tradition of robbing caravans and raiding towns. In the Land of Israel, modern Zionists had to form units of guards, to protect themselves. Arabs have been engaging in genocide in Sudan and Iraq, and less successfully against Israel. They tried to loot Israel, but lost and fled. The Arab states looted their Jews and then forced most of them out. Arabs in Israel and in the Territories prey on Jewish arms, stealing livestock including beehives, crops, and farm equipment. The government of Israel does not do much about it. There is a flow of stolen cars into the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), but most of the cars are stolen by Jewish rings. Israel has its share of corruption, as the news about indicted former PM Olmert and former PM Sharon indicate. Arafat and his PLO used to extort from the people of Lebanon. He formed the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), whose rulers extort from their own people, especially Christian businesses, and then complain that their economy is not doing well. Their economy was doing well when Israel shepherded it and boosted their standard of living. When Arafat gained autonomy, that standard fell. He appointed cronies as monopolists, failed to enact laws permitting secure business, and whatever his clique did not steal, the poured into war instead of into the economy. Having little income, the P.A. sought foreign aid. Ever more foreign aid, surpassing a billion dollars a year from the U.S.. (Egypt gets about $2 billion, Jordan other sums, and Israel gets about $3 billion, approximating the high interest it owes the U.S. for the kinds of loans the U.S. made to Egypt and then canceled the debt. Egypt and Syria have a cycle of borrowing for military hardware, defaulting, getting forgiven, and borrowing again.) The P.A. gets additional aid from other foreign countries. Consequently, the biggest money-sucking by the P.A. is of foreign aid. Europe fails to audit the aid. The P.A. uses foreign aid to bloat its bureaucracy. About 43% goes for security, but the people are not secure in their businesses nor in their lives. The security forces are used to make the ruling class secure, make Israel insecure, and pay off the unemployed and the otherwise restless brigands. Hamas steals humanitarian aid for its own treasury and military use. These facts are not difficult to ascertain. I have reported much of it, over the years. But angry anti-Zionists falsely accuse Israel of, really, financial parasitism. However, they don't blame the Arabs for actual parasitism. These anti-Zionists have a double standard. They say, don't call us antisemitic just because we criticize Israel. Because they criticize only Israel, and falsely so, and not the Arabs, they do quality as antisemites. That and the fact that their criticism is designed to destroy only the Jewish state and not those who commit aggression against it. IS OBAMA SCAMMING US ABOUT IRAN? Candidate and President Obama had set a deadline of September for Iran to relinquish its nuclear weapon ambitions. September is almost over. Iran temporizes. Sometimes suggests irrelevant negotiations, and sometimes it acts defiant. It strings us along while it hastens to complete its nuclear plants. It called Obama's bluff. I've pointed out that without having made appointments to meet with Iran's leaders, Obama is in no position to talk them out of their bellicosity, even if he could. It does not matter how eloquent he is. I've also pointed out that his eloquence is with Western audiences and values. Those values do not interest Iranian fanatics. But Obama is worse that that. President Obama revealed at the UN that Iran has secretly, in violation of its pact with the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), built a facility for making nuclear warheads, not a civilian usage. He thought this news would persuade other countries that Iran is a worse menace than depicted. Other countries would realize that they had better impose severe sanctions on Iran. His revelation seems to have persuaded a couple of countries that Iran is incorrigible. They should have known that before. Others don't care. Obama was apprised of this warhead factory months ago. He kept that knowledge from us. While he still was offering us hope that he would resolve the problem, he knew that the problem was so dire, that it probably could not be resolved short of a raid. Was he trying to keep Americans from demanding stronger action from him and to let Israel take stronger action? I think so. After all, Obama's procrastination enabled Iran to make more technical progress, so now some experts think it is too late to stop Iran. Why did Obama deceive his country? AFGHANISTAN OUR NEWEST VIETNAM? Afghanistan is heating up. Our losses mount. The NY Times 9/27 Week In Review likened the situation to that of Vietnam. The parallels are striking. One went unmentioned. U.S. forces usually win in Afghanistan, and they had won almost all the time in Vietnam. Our side had destroyed the Vietcong and staved off the N. Vietnamese. When we withdrew, the S. Vietnamese wanted to defend themselves, but Congress cut off their supplies. Millions were killed, imprisoned, or exiled. Will we do the same, now? The U.S. has learned part of its lesson. That part is that military means, alone, do not suffice in failed states. We must not only defeat the enemy and train native forces to provide security, but we also have to build an economy. The more the state in question has failed, and the more corrupt it is, the harder is this task. The President is considering whether we can accomplish our goal. Another part of the lesson not learned is that President Bush's predecessor let the U.S. military shrink but Bush did not re-expand it. He tried to make do with it. He did not realize that the enemy would turn from standing armies we easily can defeat to guerilla and terrorist forces that require more troops and funds than America still has. We must take care we don't over-extend our resources. That might lead to a tactic of destroying enemy military facilities, especially weapons of mass destruction, every couple of years, without engaging in lengthy and costly wars. Another unlearned lesson is that we must defeat the ideology behind jihad. We have not figured out how. I have suggested that first of all, the West stop Muslim infiltration, which in democracies, hinders national defense and in Europe threatens jihad there. What shall we do about the madrassas and radical imams that S. Arabia finances abroad? President Obama wants to let the western Palestinian gain sovereignty at the expense of secure borders for Israel. Sovereignty would enable the new state to work with the jihadists to overthrow neighboring countries and range them against the U.S.. Is that the program of a patriot? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
BARACK OBAMA AND ISRAEL
Posted by Louis Rene Beres, September 29, 2009. |
|
Attentive to new developments in Iran, all of them ominous and incendiary, President Barack Obama finally acknowledges that certain threats to annihilate Israel are deeply serious and credible. Yet, he still fails to understand that applying so-called economic sanctions to Iran has always been meaningless. Soon, therefore, unless still-appropriate and operationally-feasible military sanctions are applied, Iran will join the Nuclear Club. For President Obama and his Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates, even this regrettable membership would somehow be tolerable. After all, they both assume, Tehran could still be dealt with satisfactorily through nuclear deterrence. The problem with such threat-based optimism, however, is the American leaders' problematic presumption of enemy rationality. No system of nuclear deterrence can operate in world politics unless all the involved countries value their own physical survival more highly than anything else. Significantly, Tehran's new nuclear status could coincide with an unshakeable Iranian leadership belief in the Shi'ite apocalypse. Israel could then face not only more Palestinian suicide-bombers (President Obama's recycled Road Map toward a "Two-State Solution" will only enlarge Palestinian terrorism), but also a distinctly "suicide state." Plainly, Barack Obama still fails to recognize something very critical to "peace" in the Middle East. The goal of all Israel's Islamist enemies remains Jewish extermination. This genocidal goal is generally unhidden. In the bitterest of ironies, an ancient nation that was ingathered and reborn to prevent another Holocaust has now become the determined focus of a second Final Solution. The goal of all Israel's enemies, especially Iran and the impending Palestinian state, is to be left standing while Israel is made to disappear. For these utterly refractory enemies, there can be no coexistence with Israel. Never. This is because their own indispensable survival is presumed to require Israel's extinction. Pressured by Washington to exchange land for nothing (the essential cartography of the Road Map), Israel is being pushed once again to collaborate in its own disappearance. It would be a fatal mistake for Prime Minister Netanyahu to embrace Mr. Obama's belief that Reason and Rationality govern the world. It would be an unforgivable error for Israel and the United States to project their own Western, rational and humane sentiments upon our most relentless Jihadist foes. Barack Obama will not save Israel. Once Iran had decided to launch nuclear missiles at Israel - an entirely plausible prospect in just a few years - Washington's best assistance could be to help bury the Jewish dead. For this, President Obama should also be reminded, whole Israeli cities would have to be made into cemeteries. Whether in Gaza, West Bank (Judea/Samaria) or Tehran, Israel's Jihadist enemies wish to kill Jews because every such homicide is felt to be a sacred obligation. For these foes, killing Jews remains a praiseworthy expression of religious sacrifice. Such killing is also expected to confer immunity from personal death. Could there possibly be a more precious or compelling expectation? In the Islamic Middle East, power over death always trumps power over wealth. There is no greater power in that troubled region of world politics than the promise of immortality. The core idea of death as a zero-sum commodity - "I kill you; I therefore remain alive forever" - has been explained in literature and psychology. It is captured perfectly, for example, in Ernest Becker's paraphrase of Nobel Laureate Elias Canetti: "Each organism raises its head over a field of corpses, smiles into the sun, and declares life good." To merely stay alive, Israel must clearly understand what psychologist Otto Rank had earlier revealed as a general principle: "The death fear of the ego is lessened by the killing, the Sacrifice, of the other; through the death of the other one buys oneself free from the penalty of dying, of being killed." Israel's enemies, in order to remain standing, and to prevent Israel from standing up, seek to sacrifice the Jewish State on an endlessly bloodstained altar of war and terrorism. Religious sacrifice is what this is all about. The planned genocidal destruction of Israel is integrally part of a system of religious worship that is directed toward an enhancement of personal life, and to the conquest of personal death. True peace in the Middle East will never be brought about by clichés and empty witticisms. Real wisdom is necessary, and this will need to be based upon an unvarnished awareness of Jihadist goals and capabilities. For President Barack Obama, who assuredly means well, this calls for a far deeper understanding of the interpenetrating and existential threats to Israel now posed by Iran and "Palestine." Louis René Beres is Professor in the Department of Political Science at Purdue University. He is author of several of the earliest major books on nuclear strategy and nuclear war, including "Apocalypse: Nuclear Catastrophe In World Politics" (The University of Chicago Press, 1980), and "Security Or Armageddon: Israel's Nuclear Strategy" (D.C. Heath, Lexington Books, 1986). Dr. Beres was also Chair of Project Daniel, a small private group that delivered its own special report on ISRAEL'S STRATEGIC FUTURE to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in January 2003. Members of Project Daniel included a former member of the IDF General Staff, and a former IAF Chief of Planning. Contact him at lberes@purdue.edu |
|
THE RACHEL TEAR
Posted by Evelyn Hayes, September 27, 2009. |
|
In Memory Of Our Lost
Mother Rachel is crying for her children
Ima Rachel is crying on ramah;
Rachel Imeinu is pleading
Mother Rachel cries tears of love for her brave children,
Mother Israel, wife of Yaakov
May the weeping of Mother Israel
As we read the Haftorah of Yirmiahu this Rosh Hashanah,
Amen.
by Evelyn Haies,
RACHELS CHILDREN RECLAMATION FOUNDATION
|
|
HOW SHOULD OBAMA DEAL WITH JIHAD?; TOM FRIEDMAN TELLS OBAMA THE REALITY OF IRAN
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 27, 2009. |
|
HOW SHOULD OBAMA DEAL WITH JIHAD? We've discussed President Obama's mistakes in dealing with jihad, but what should he do? Have our problems become too severe to reverse? A friend had told me that Obama would make friends with the Muslims and end the clash of civilizations. Alas, he has not proved to be the Messiah. What is the challenge? A President must understand the major issues, set priorities, organize resources, and be firm yet reasonable. Oops. I think the 5 major issues for the U.S. are: 1. Economy Why that order? Without a strong economy, we can't resolve the other issues well. Without national security, health doesn't matter. Since many health problems come from environmental pollution, the environment ranks high. Obama has made some salutary and salubrious changes there, but in modest increments where his reputed radicalism would have served better. Why are we still making internal combustion engines for pleasure, in motor boats, bikes, and snowmobiles? Why are we still allowing urban sprawl and private houses to keep us in need of automobiles and roads and their costs and energy waste? Why do we still allow poison-spraying agribusiness and meat plantations that pollute our drinking water and sicken millions, and then we complain about medical costs? Democrats talked about big and bold thinking, but don't overturn obsolete thinking nor upset strong lobbies. I think that Obama has set the wrong priorities, and drops one before picking up another. Our economy is returning to the ways that felled it. The country is declining but under the illusion that stimulus funds rather than rethinking, restructuring, and reforming will suffice. We need to change our economy from one that consumes beyond our means and natural resources to one that doesn't but enables people to support themselves. Obama is organized, but hardly a leader. Nor has he a program for dealing with Radical Islam, other than a suspicious sacrifice of Israel and American reputation to it. He gives an occasional speech, inspirational but intangible and questionable. He spent his legislative career voting "present," avoiding a stance. Too much was expected of him and in the wrong way. Ordinary foreign problems might be resolved by discussion. It wasn't fair of him or his supporters to expect that he had a magical way of dealing with the Islam, if indeed that were his intent. The Muslim adversaries of civilization don't get dissuaded from their fanatical ideology with by a foreigner's couple of generalized speeches. One of their cultural traits is to consider conciliatory statements from the enemy weakness, and to press that enemy. Thus Obama exacerbates the problem. He also makes it worse by trying to sacrifice Israel to the Muslims, as if their aggression were valid all along. That injustice would strengthen them and weaken us. It would make the Muslims less amenable and more triumphant. This President, like his two predecessors and their FBI directors, treat some terrorist factions and leaders as if moderate. They invite Radical Muslims to White House receptions or address their conventions, strengthening their factions and neglecting Muslims who are moderate. These Presidents and their State Departments turn our revenues over to terrorist Fatah and dictatorships such as Egypt. Nobody talks about reforming the counter-productive foreign aid. A President who doesn't know right from wrong, fact from fiction, and what works from what doesn't — remember his false and even lying notions of Mideast history — will dig us in deeper. Realistically, most negotiation is conducted by diplomats. Presidents enter the final stage. Obama has not been meeting extensively with Muslim leaders. If he did, and if he tried to end their jihad, how could he persuade the fanatics to stand down, when they hate the notion of peace, freedom, and prosperity that America offers? How would he persuade ordinary Muslim states to change their propaganda against other religions and their imperative to conquer them, when they oppose what his country stands for? What would motivate Arab dictators to stop making Israel their scapegoat? In view of all the mistaken or deceptive statements in his Cairo speech, his appeasement of the enemy, his continued lack of counter-measures of problems from immigration, radical mosques, prison chaplains, and American ignorance of the menace, he makes us seem weak and himself unaware of the menace. Civilization is at stake, but he is calming the people rather than rousing them to awareness of the problem and the need to confront it. He is not leading. All Congress does is redistribute our wealth in this corrupt environment in which everybody's hand is out. The Republicans are malfunctioning and the Democrats are misfiring. Obama has neither the program, the time, nor the arguments that can solve the problem by persuasion. America also is running out of resources for the grand endeavor of saving civilization. TOM FRIEDMAN TELLS OBAMA THE REALITY OF IRAN I would hope by now that the murderous crackdown on Iran's mass democracy movement by the regime's oil-funded ruling cartel would have removed the last scales from those Iran watchers who think that this is a poor misunderstood regime that really wants to repair its relations with the West, and we just have to learn how to speak to it properly. This is a brutal, cynical, corrupt, anti-Semitic regime that exploits the Palestinian cause and deliberately maintains a hostile posture to the West to justify its grip on power (NY Times Op-Ed, 9/23). President Obama is one of those with the blinders on. Will his followers keep theirs on, even as the world's rogues rebuff Obama? Mr. Friedman omitted Iran's religious imperialism drive. He mentions "the Palestinian cause," but that also is brutal, cynical, corrupt, anti-Semitic, hostile to the West. It is no more justified than N. Korea's "cause." Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
"KILL THEM ALL AND LET G-D SORT THEM OUT"
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, September 27, 2009. |
|
Why do we call ourselves civilized when we allow rapists, pedophiles, sociopaths live to do it all again? Why do we give trials to hideous monsters who plan the death of nations and genocidal acts that astound the mind? Why spend the time discussing the minutiae of their crimes when we know what they have done — what they continue to do? Col. Oliver North, in an adventure novel, The Assassins, left us with a real and intended message. Gen. Oliver North is a warrior who sees things clearly and does not look for the political benefits for making his people expendable. Why not simply assemble judicious men, create a list of known monsters and summarily execute them at the earliest time possible? Why ponder while thousands are dying at their hands? Does anyone doubt that Mugabe of Zimbabwe deserves a bullet or a hangman's noose? Why did the so-called civilized world wait for Pinochet to murder thousands when that "UN-civilized world" gave him the benefit of the doubt? We Jews have a long and available list of past persecutors and those still planning our demise who deserve summary execution before they can carry out their well-known plans. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian Ayatollahs have not only pledged the demise of the Jewish State of Israel but, they vow to kill all Jews. (Wasn't that the same vow by Adolph Hitler in his Mein Kampf?) Why not execute them now before they can carry out their promised Genocide? Are we so squeamish that we accept the idea of our families being slaughtered by a barbarous, pagan people whose atrocities are no less than cannibalistic? At least cannibals have this belief that they can absorb the heroic qualities of their victims by eating them. Then there are the politicians willing to sacrifice their own nation and their own people to satisfy some pathological need to be admired by hostile nations who have exhibited barbaric hatred — even to the point of Genocide. Why are these politicians and generals any different than rapists or pedophiles who have irresistible urges that lead them to sacrifice their own people? I cannot help but think of some Jews in Israel who, over the years, have conspired with our most vicious and dedicated enemies to put our people in mortal jeopardy and then preen and parade their duplicity to the nations, hoping for applause for their acts of perfidious treachery. Politicians and Leftist Generals are allowed, even expected, to make grievous mistakes. But, when they repeat these mistakes, it's not a "mistake" but it is a premeditated sin against their own people. Granted, the average citizen cannot "connect the dots" but, those who can ought to act to protect all others. I will also grant you that the average person cannot pick up the tell-tale clues when they meet a rapist, a pedophile, even a genocidal maniac. These warped creatures smile; some even have families whom they treat well. However, the more aberrant give off subtle signals, reduced cues, "vibes" as to their true character. Have you really listened to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad read the Koranic-based Charters of the PLO's Fatah and Hamas? Or have you heard the Arab League as they brag about what they will do to the Jews? Ahmadinejad is easier to spot because, besides his socio-pathetic character, he takes perverse pleasure in telling us all what he is going to do — not unlike a serial killer who visualizes what he will do to his next victim. In order to commit acts against humanity, be they pedophiles, rapists, politicians or generals, the "perps" must justify what they know is an act of maniacal vengeance against their selected victims. They claim it is the victims' fault, especially if their victims resist and fight back. Let's progress from generalities to the personal. Would you who, no doubt, consider yourself a decent, caring person, accept putting your family in jeopardy because some law allowed a pedophile or a rapist to live safely in your neighborhood? Would you remain passive if a politician/dictator ordered you to accept Terrorists who were in striking distance of your children or your grandchildren, your home, wife, family? Who would be at fault? The Terrorists who have made their intentions well-known through prior threats and actions? Or the Politicians who arranged to put them or allow them to be there? Why not consider both as one, given that the results will be either a day-to-day danger or, from past experience, a threat that had already killed neighbors, friends, family? Even if you are dedicated to observing the Law and have a moral conscience, is it your obligation to commit your family and yourself to the high probability of suicide and your nation to national suicide simply because "others" thought it was "in the best political interest" of the nation to do so? Clearly the Biblical injunction to "kill those first — who come to kill you" is certainly applicable. Whether it's a pedophile, a rapist or an evil ideological leader who is ready to put his nation and his people on a chopping block, there is no reason NOT to adhere to the Biblical injunction of saving yourself, your family and even your nation. 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 |
|
TUNNEL
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, September 27, 2009. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il. Go to http://ainhod.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art. |
|
TWO JEWS
Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, September 27, 2009. |
|
This was written by Anne Lieberman, publisher of Boker tov, Boulder!
This appeared September 27, 2009 in American Thinker
|
|
Two Jews stand like bookends, with nearly a hundred years and six million murdered relatives in between. At one end, it's 1911 and Zev Jabotinsky is writing an essay he calls, "Instead of Excessive Apology." The neighbors live and are not ashamed.... We immediately understand from his question that they did not... blush. "Not in the least, — they walk with head raised high and look everybody in the face; they are absolutely right, and this is how it must be, as the persona of a people is royal, and not responsible and is not obliged to apologize..." In the face of this extraordinary depravity for which no shame is evident, Jabotinsky concludes that we, the Jewish people, "do not have to account to anybody" — especially, I would guess, not to those who hammer nails into babies' eyes. Our babies. "We are not to sit for anybody's examination and nobody is old enough to call on us to answer. We came before them and will leave after them. We are what we are, we are good for ourselves..." Furthermore, he demands that we apologize "only in rare, unique and extremely important moments, when we are completely confident that the Areopagus in front of us really has just intentions and proper competence." 
Fast forward now, to yesterday, when Bibi Netanyahu stood before the Nations — with sheaves of documentation in hand — and asked, "Have you no shame? Have you no decency?" It was indeed "a rare, unique and extremely important moment" — but who in their right mind and of good conscience could have been "completely confident" in the "just intentions and proper competence" of the delegates of the Nations arrayed before him in the General Assembly? Before we ever again dignify such a shameful gathering with a Jewish presence, we need to ask ourselves some Jabotinsky questions. Who are we, to make excuses to them? Who are they to interrogate us? We are always on trial; just pick up any newspaper. Yet I do not mean to say that Netanyahu made excuses, nor did he apologize. He did nothing of the sort. But he explained. Perhaps it is time for an essay on Excessive Explanation... to whatever Jew-haters, cossacks or Hitlers are gaining power at any given moment in our unfolding history. Caroline Glick, in one of her most brilliant moments, wrote that .... the Holocaust, in and of itself, tells us nothing about Jewish identity. She went on to say that "It is neither our right nor our responsibility to wash hands of our brothers' blood." I would take this a step further today, and assert that we Jews have no right to the shame of others. Just because the Nations "walk with head raised high and look everybody in the face they are absolutely right, and this is how it must be," does not mean that we should take their responsibilities onto our own shoulders. I can see — anyone can see — that the Nations have no shame; Bibi's asking of the question is sufficient answer thereof. It is now just as it was a hundred years ago — and perhaps a thousand, two thousand, three thousand years ago — as Jabotinsky said... "The neighbors live and are not ashamed." That's their problem. And they can answer to their G-d for that. But what of the Jewish people? Are we not ashamed? Have we not become confused over millennia of death and persecution, into believing that somehow we are responsible for the depravities to which we have been subjected? I think I touched on this unknowingly, briefly (and gingerly) in 2005, when I introduced with great sarcasm a post I called Move the Jews ... Those Jews, they're always getting themselves murdered. And then evacuated because of it. Arab violence, the "worst atrocities," mass forced expulsions throughout time and space, Nazi Nations attempting our genocide, wiping our people off their map in speeches, proposing with sick fascination a world without Zionists, incinerating busloads of Jews in the city of our ancient kings... This is a sickening history. And we have allowed these very Nations to persuade us that it is the history of the Jewish people. In point of fact, however, it their history — their violence, their depravities and atrocities, their nails, their ovens, their human bombs. It is a history that "tells us nothing about Jewish identity." As far as I can see, the Jewish people have only one thing to be ashamed of, and that is that we have allowed others to obscure our identity, to bury it beneath their atrocities and replace it with their brutality. We Jews need not be ashamed that they have hung us and beheaded us and butchered us and burned us alive and murdered us in every conceivable and inconceivable manner, from one end of the globe to the other. We need not be ashamed of the pogroms, the doors they closed to us, the Holocaust itself nor the fact that some would now deny it. We need not be ashamed that they leave Israel to stand alone. We have no right to their shame, it is not our responsibility. And so if, when, they continue to lust for our blood — hammering nails into our babies' eyes or blowing themselves up in our midst or sending missiles into our cities — we must no longer simply notice with amazement their confounding ability to walk away "with head raised high and look everybody in the face." If our neighbors are to live and not be ashamed, not assume their moral responsibilities nor their ethical obligations, then let it not be because we have assumed these for them. Let us begin to write our own history, one that does not enable the depraved to outsource their shame onto us, but rather establishes our own simple and true Jewish identity. Instead of standing before the Nations, explaining our dead grandparents, sisters and brothers, aunts, uncles and cousins to them, let the murderers explain to us. Instead of us wringing our hands or explaining to them — perhaps excessively — their own hideous history, let us demand that at long last, they must wash their own hands... of our blood. "We are what we are, we are good for ourselves..." Jerusalem is not Kishinyov. And we are not ashamed.
Children Of Jewish Holocaust Survivors (CJHSLA)is a non-profit
501(c)(3) organization committed to the promotion of Western values
against the dual threats of complacency at home and political Islam
abroad.
We believe that a safe and secure Israel, prospering as a Jewish State, is a prerequisite to long-term global peace.
CJHS insists that the last Holocaust imposes upon all people of good will a moral and political imperative to prevent the next one.
Visit us at www.cjhsla.org
|
|
YOM KIPPUR 2009 GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, September 27, 2009. |
|
Note: Hebrew words are phonetically presented in English. |
|
Assembled from various Jewish Sages 1. Yom (Day of) Kippur is a breakthrough Jewish contribution to humanity. It highlights the most essential human attributes, which constitute prerequisites to positive leadership: humility (as featured in the Netaneh Tokef prayer), soul-searching, recognizing fallibility, confessing wrong-doing, asking and granting forgiveness, accepting responsibility, collective responsibility, magnanimity. Yom Kippur is not driven by punishment, but by behavioral-enhancement. 2. The Hebrew spelling of "fast" (tzom abstinence from food — highlights the substance of Yom Kippur. Zom is the root of zomzom (reduction, shrinking), which alludes to one's "spiritual diet," aimed at clearing the body and the mind. Zom is the root of tzomith and tsomimoth, the Hebrew words for "slave" and "eternity" (enslavement to G-D only). At the same time, Tzom is the root of etmi (being oneself), etzmoth, etzmo, etzom (awesome, power, independence), which are gained through the process of fasting, soul-searching and submission to G-D. 3. The Hebrew word Kippur (atonement/repentance) is a derivative of the Biblical words Kaporet which covered the Holy Ark at the Sanctuary — and Kopher which covered Noah's Ark and the Holy Altar at the Temple. The reference is to a spiritual cover (dome), which does not cover-up, but separates between the holy and the secular, between spiritualism and materialism, thus intensifying preoccupation with inner deliberations and soul-searching. The Kippa (skullcap, Yarmulke), which covers one's head during prayers (or — in the case of observant Jews — at all times), reflects a spiritual cover (Dome). Thus, Yom Kippur constitutes the cover (Dome) of the Ten Days of Atonement (between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur), separating them from the rest of the year. 4. Teshuvah- is the Hebrew word for repentance, sharing the same root of the Hebrew word for Return shuvah returning to root/positive values, morality, and behavior). Yom Kippur is also called — in Hebrew Shabbat Shabbaton (the highest level Sabbath), which has the same root. The last Sabbath before Yom Kippur is called Shabbat Teshuvah (based on the prophesy of Hosea, chapter 4). While the Sabbath is the soul of the week, Yom Kippur is the soul of the year. 5. Yom Kippur is observed on the tenth day of the Jewish month of Tishrei, which is an ancient word for forgiveness and Genesis. Ten has special significance in Judaism: G-D's abbreviation is the tenth Hebrew letter, Ten Commandments, Ten reasons for blowing the Shofar, Ten Percent Gift to G-D (tithe), etc. 6. The prayer of Veedooi (confession/confirmation/reaffirmation in Hebrew) is recited Ten times during Yom Kippur, re-entrenching the genuine plea for forgiveness. The prerequisites for forgiveness, according to Jewish Sages, are the expression & exercise (talking & walking) of confession (assuming full-responsibility), repentance and significantly altering one's behavior through the heart as well as through the head (no "buts," no "ifs" and no plea for mitigating circumstances). King Saul sinned only once — ignoring the commandment to annihilate the Amalekites — but was banished from the crown and killed. King Saul raised mitigating circumstances, while responding to Samuel's accusation. King David sinned twice (The "Bat-Sheba Gate" and "Census Gate"), but was forgiven. King David accepted full-responsibility and unconditional blame and the death sentence (as expressed by Nathan the Prophet), which was promptly rescinded. 7. Tefila Zaka, the initial prayer on the eve of Yom Kippur, enables each worshipper to announce universal forgiveness. While transgressions between human-beings and G-D are forgiven summarily via prayers, transgressions among human-beings require explicit forgiveness. Ill-speaking of other persons may not be forgiven. 8. The Memorial Candle, commemorating one's parent(s), is lit during Yom Kippur. It reaffirms "Honor Thy Father and Mother," providing another opportunity to ask forgiveness of one's parent(s), as well as asking forgiveness on their behalf. 9. G-D's forgiveness and G-D's Covenant with the Jewish People are commemorated on Yom Kippur. It reflects the end of G-D's rage over the sin of the Golden Calf, and it was the day of Abraham's own circumcision, signifying G-D's covenant with the Jewish People. 10. Yom Kippur underlines unison, as synagogues become a platform for the righteous and the sinner. 11. The Scroll of Jonas is read on Yom Kippur. Its lessons demonstrate that repentance and forgiveness is universal to all Peoples, commanding one to assume responsibility, to get involved socially-politically, to sound the alarm when wrong-doing is committed anywhere in the world, to display compassion to all peoples and to adhere to Faith and Optimism, in defiance of all odds. It behooves good folks to roll up their sleeves, lest evil triumphs! 12. A long sound of the Shofar concludes Yom Kippur. It commemorates the covenant with G-D (the almost-sacrifice of Isaac), the receipt of the Torah on Mt. Sinai, Liberty and anti-slavery (Jubilee) and the opening of G-D's gates of forgiveness. The Hebrew root of Shofar means to enhance/improve oneself. A Hebrew synonym for Shofar is Keseh, which also means cover-Kaporet-Kippur. 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 archived at
|
|
LEADER OF THE FREE WORLD
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, September 26, 2009. |
|
Guess who, according to The Washington Times, is now the leader of the free world... I wish my Jewish readers Gmar Hatimah Tova.cd Your Truth Provider,
This is a Washington Times Editorial entitled "Leader of the Free World."
|
|
Israel is looking like the new leader of the Free World. The previous leader, the United States, resigned this role last week at the United Nations to take the position of global community organizer. This was made plain by President Obama in his speech, titled "Responsibility for Our Common Future," in which he heralded "a new chapter of international cooperation." By contrast, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a blunt and forceful call to action in the central challenge facing free people today. This is the struggle of "civilization against barbarism" being fought by "those who sanctify life against those who glorify death." Mr. Obama's address was the predictable mix of criticism of the past policies of the United States, self-praise for correcting said policies and vague calls to united action on matters of collective interest. It sought to ingratiate rather than offend. But Mr. Netanyahu chastised the United Nations for its "systematic assault on the truth." He spoke truths that Mr. Obama would never whisper regarding the regime in Iran, which is "fueled by an extreme fundamentalism" and an "unforgiving creed." Mr. Netanyahu rebuked those members who countenanced Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's diatribe before the same world body, rightly calling it a "disgrace." Mr. Netanyahu repeatedly paid tribute to the blessings of liberty and "the allure of freedom." He marveled at the technological advances freedom made possible. He asked if the international community would support the Iranian people "as they bravely stand up for freedom." He envisioned a future of Israel and Palestine, "two free peoples living in peace, living in prosperity, living in dignity." Mr. Obama, meanwhile, touted the imperative of responding to global climate change and mentioned as an afterthought that democracy should not be an afterthought. Israel stands out because it understands the central challenge faced by the civilized world and by its willingness to take action. Israel is readying to stem the tide of barbarism and stand up to the threat of a nuclear Iran. In return, it asks only for moral support. "If Israel is again asked to take more risk for peace," Mr. Netanyahu said, "we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow." He challenged the countries of the world with a clear-cut test: "Will you stand with Israel? Or will you stand with the terrorists?" Mr. Obama said in closing that "we call on all nations to join us in building the future that our people deserve." But people only deserve what they have earned. Mr. Netanyahu called on the civilized world to "confront this peril, secure our future, and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come." Sometimes the future doesn't come without a fight. Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
ARABS DENOUNCE JEWISH PRAYER AT MOUNT;
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 26, 2009. |
|
THE FATAH CONFERENCE EMPHASIS The Fatah conference emphasized accusations that Israel assassinated Arafat. This accusation "...continues the systematic campaign of conspiracy libels about Israel, Israelis and Jews that is an integral part of the PA's continuing hate promotion." PA libels such as that that Israel conspires to "corrupt youth with aphrodisiac chewing gum" and the other examples below seek "to inculcate hatred to the degree that fighting and murdering Jews and Israelis will be glorified as heroic self-defense." 1. Libel: Israel spreads AIDS and drugs,
2. Libel: Israel to destroy Al-Aqsa Mosque,
3. Libel: Israel to rid Jerusalem of non-Jews,
4. Libel: Israel murdered Arafat,
5. Libel: Israel seeks to rule from Euphrates to Nile,
Considering the wars and terrorism that Arafat relentlessly inflicted on Israel, assassination of him would have been honorable. I would have preferred that Israel put him on successive trials for his many crimes. He never would live free of court. His crimes would be publicized. His cause would be demoralized. And those who called him moderate and a peacemaker would be shown to have erred grievously. Perhaps something would be learned about the folly of appeasement of terrorist enemies. UN HIDING EVIDENCE ON IRAN'S NUCLEAR ARMS Western and Israeli officials said "that the International Atomic Energy Agency under Director General Mohamed El Baradei was refraining from publishing evidence obtained by its inspectors over the past few months that indicate Iran was pursuing information about weaponization efforts and a military nuclear program." "ElBaradei, who will soon vacate his post, has said that the agency does not have any evidence that suggests Iran is developing a nuclear weapon." "But the sources told Haaretz that the new evidence was submitted to the IAEA in a classified annex written by its inspectors in the Islamic Republic. The report was said to have been signed by the head of the IAEA team in Iran." "The classified report, according to the sources, was not incorporated into the agency's published reports. The details, they said, were censored by senior officials of the IAEA in the organization's Vienna headquarters." "Israel has been striving to pressure the IAEA through friendly nations and have it release the censored annex. It hopes to prove that the Iranian effort to develop nuclear weapons is continuing, contrary to claims that Tehran stopped its nuclear program in 2003. A confirmation of these suspicions would oblige the international community to enact 'paralyzing sanctions' on Iran." (www.imra.org.il, 8/19.) Prof. Steven Plaut asks, shouldn't the U.S. President be more concerned with Iran building nuclear weapons than with a few "settlers" building houses? Shouldn't Americans be concerned with UN sabotage of its national security? ARAB LEAGUE DENOUNCES JEWISH PRAYER AT MOUNT "The Arab League reacted with fury this week to reports that a small group of Jews had prayed on the Temple Mount on Sunday. Secretary-General Amr Moussa termed the spontaneous prayer gathering a violation of international law." [Usually, Israeli police bar them, out of fear of Muslim riots.] "'The prayer session was 'a serious blow to the holiness of the site," Moussa claimed, adding that Jews should not be allowed to pray at the site 'whether it is Ramadan or any other time of year....'" (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 8/25.) What a blatant example of Muslims religious/political intolerance! It proves again that the Muslim Arabs cannot be entrusted with custody over Jewish holy sites. That should be a factor in deciding whether to re-divide Jerusalem. The prior article on the Fatah conference reinforces this articles demonstration that the Arab-Israel conflict is part of religious jihad, in which the Arab side seeks to conquer the other and repress its religion. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE BATTLE OF THE BOYCOTTS; GOLDSTONE IS THE CRIMINAL
Posted by Steven Plaut, September 26, 2009. |
|
The first article below is entitled "The Battle of the Boycotts"
and was written by Yocheved Miriam Russo and it appeared Sep.
26, 2009 in the Jerusalem Post The second article is entitled "Goldstone Is The Criminal" and was written by Ben-Dror Yemini and it appeared in Ma'ariv yesterday. |
|
On August 20, an opinion column published on page A-31 of the Los Angeles Times unleashed a firestorm that continues to blaze in California, and in the normally placid city of Beersheba, home of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (BGU). The op-ed, entitled "Boycott Israel," was written by Neve Gordon, head of BGU's Department of Politics and Government. Gordon's published plea was for "all foreign governments, regional authorities, international social movements, faith-based organizations, unions and citizens to suspend cooperation with Israel." "Nothing else has worked," Gordon lamented. "The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state." Such allegations, when made by Israel's foreign enemies, are hardly unique. But when the denouncement comes from a Jewish Israeli who, just last January, was promoted to head BGU's Politics and Government Department, battle lines form quickly. It's hardly the first time "post-Zionist" academics have clashed with the traditional Zionist crowd, but Gordon's op-ed pushed the debate into new territory. Gordon's words even closer to home in that his proposed boycott would do irrevocable harm to a popular university, specifically one which pays his salary. When the horrified "traditional Zionists" turned out to be wealthy Jewish Americans who donate tens of millions of dollars to keep BGU alive and growing, the dispute was raised to a new level. Many of the donors find themselves saying, "If BGU professors feel free to invite the world to boycott Israel, then perhaps the time has come to boycott BGU. Next time around, maybe we should sit on our checkbooks." Ari Bussel, for years a pro-Israel, pro-BGU activist and a leader in the local chapter of American Friends of BGU, was among the first to spot Gordon's LA Times op-ed. "It was Thursday morning," the Beverly Hills-born Bussel recalls. "The LA Times was delivered to our doorstep as usual. I saw Gordon's piece, read it, and at first I wasn't all that surprised. It's not unusual for the LA Times to print this sort of anti-Israeli rhetoric. I've come to expect it. But a few minutes later, I began to see that there was something qualitatively different about this article. "The local reaction was unbelievable," he continued. "An absolute avalanche of opposition erupted, and our phones were ringing off the hook. People who, on August 19, wouldn't have given each other the time of day, were calling each other and everybody else they knew. They all asked the same question: 'Who's giving money to BGU?' There are some big donors in this area. Very big. I've never seen anything like it. "Before this hit, I'd never heard of Neve Gordon," says Bussel, who lived in Israel for years and served in the IDF during the First Gulf War. "For an American, even for someone involved in Israeli affairs, Gordon hadn't seeped into the American national consciousness. But this anti-Israel commentary hit home. "For some of us, it may be the first blossoming of the idea that President Obama has become our downfall," he speculates. "Clearly, things are changing. Something is happening to alter people's perception and approach to this kind of Israel bashing. And it's not over — people are still calling, talking and writing. Three weeks afterwards, the LA Times was still printing readers' reactions. Something important happened when this piece was published." Unless one is a news junkie, an academic, or closely involved with BGU, the name Neve Gordon may not ring many bells among mainstream Israelis, either. Even so, within 48 hours, 4,000 emails protesting Gordon's remarks had landed in the inbox of BGU President Rivka Carmi. Several days later, Carmi responded to her department head's call for a boycott through her own LA Times op-ed, admitting that she was "shocked" at what Gordon had written, suggesting that even she hadn't been fully aware of what she called Gordon's "destructive views." "We are shocked by Dr. Neve Gordon's irresponsible
statements, which are morally deserving of full condemnation," she wrote.
"We vehemently shake ourselves free of the destructive views [advocated by
Gordon], who makes cynical use of freedom of expression in Israel and
Ben-Gurion University."
NOT EVERYONE was shocked. For years, watchdog organizations like Campus Watch and IsraCampus had monitored Neve Gordon's words and activities, even before Gordon made international news during the "Siege of Ramallah," when, in 2003, he joined Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, holed up in his Ramallah compound. Defying IDF orders which forbade his entry to Ramallah, he moved in to protect Arafat, taking up a position as a "human shield." During the height of the intifada, when suicide bombers belonging to the military wing of Arafat's movement were blowing up Israeli cafes and buses, a photo of Gordon and Arafat, hands joined and held high in solidarity, splashed across the front pages of Israeli newspapers. According to documents compiled by watchdog IsraCampus (www.IsraCampus.org,il), Gordon's dissident career was politically consistent. Calling Israel an "apartheid" state had long been part of his anti-Israel rant. Last December, at the height of Operation Cast Lead, as Hamas rockets and missiles slammed into Israel — including striking the BGU campus — Gordon again spoke out, denouncing not Hamas but Israel. Over the years, Gordon's commentary attracted an unusually diverse crowd of supporters. Despite being Israeli and Jewish, he regularly published his highly controversial views on websites and magazines accused of Holocaust-denial, and ultimately became a regular columnist for Al Jazeera, a Qatar-based Arabic media outlet. From there, he preached that Israel was opposed to peace and was plotting to steal Arab lands. Some of Gordon's antics went beyond theory. In one incident, Gordon defended Azmi Bishara, the disgraced former Israeli-Arab MK, a man still wanted by the Israeli authorities for alleged spying and assistance to the terrorist group, Hizbullah. In his impassioned defense of Bishara, Gordon falsely accused his former Army commander, Aviv Kochavi, a decorated officer, of being a war criminal. As a result, Kochavi's career was sidelined when he was barred from entering Great Britain where he'd previously been accepted for study. In left-wing circles and academia, all of this was well known, but none of it seemed to matter to BGU. Shortly after the public hand-holding with Arafat, Gordon was promoted at BGU and granted tenure. Just last January Gordon was again promoted, this time to department head, immediately after completing a highly controversial sabbatical year at the University of Michigan. In Michigan, according to local students, Gordon exacerbated anti-Israel tensions by always referring to Israel as an "apartheid regime," suggesting Israel may be even worse than South Africa. During "Palestinian Awareness Week" Gordon gave a talk "From Colonization
to Occupation," in which he expressed support for a "one state solution."
THROUGH ALL this, Gordon remained popular at BGU, both with the administration and among his fellow professors. When he occasionally attracted unfavorable publicity, Carmi defended him as a "serious and distinguished researcher into human rights," lashing out at his detractors by calling them "Kahanists." Nor was Gordon alone in his views at BGU. Shortly after the BGU president pleaded in her op-ed response for the continued support of the university despite the "egregious remarks of one person," evidence emerged to the effect that Gordon wasn't just "one person." Prof. Fred Lazin, who teaches political science within that department, acknowledged that before Gordon submitted his op-ed to the LA Times, Gordon submitted his remarks to the department as a whole, offering to step down as chair if they thought his words would prove too embarrassing. "There was a unanimous decision not to let him do that," Lazin said. David Newman, Gordon's BGU colleague, championed Gordon's remarks. "This is something which Israel's universities can be proud of," Newman wrote in a Jerusalem Post op-ed. "It is this level of democracy, pluralism and freedom of speech which few in the world, not least many of those proposing boycotts from abroad, can share." Indeed, other BGU departments — geography, history and sociology — also harbor professors who share Gordon's anti-Zionist, anti-Israel views. Amnon Raz-Krakotzkin, who teaches in BGU's Department of Jewish History, had also denounced Israel as an "apartheid regime" in Tikkun magazine. Students were supportive, too. A contingent sent their own letter to Carmi, expressing support for Gordon's "welcome efforts to bring important issues to the public regarding the future of Israeli society — issues that are absent from the legitimate public dialogue." "We are taught history but it seems we are not allowed to learn from it," the student letter read. "We're allowed to learn, but not to think, not to reach practical conclusions..." Nor is Gordon's support limited to just BGU. Petitions supporting
Gordon began circulating not only at Beersheba University, but at
other academic institutions as well. At one point, over 185 Israeli
professors, from several institutions, signed petitions defending
Gordon.
ON THE other side of the ideological divide, among both Israelis and Americans, the reaction to Gordon's comments ranged from pure fury to thoughtful consideration of what could be done. Haifa-born Nurit Greenger, now living in Beverly Hills, for many years a BGU supporter, was among those who were furious. In a letter to fellow Israel supporters, Greenger wrote, "For years this Israeli citizen, Gordon, walked a marginally seditious line, but with his call to boycott Israel he crossed that line monumentally." "His call," the letter went on, "to boycott Israel raises the question: How many more 'Gordons' live in Israel and are teaching the next generation to undermine their own homeland's existence?" In a phone interview, Greenger spoke bluntly. "I'm very angry about Gordon's call to the whole world to boycott Israel. It's a very serious problem." Greenger is among those calling for a boycott of BGU. "It's an oxymoron," she says. "BGU comes to us all the time, asking for money — 'Support the University! Support BGU! We make the Negev bloom! We have all these wonderful projects to help our beautiful Israel' — but then they allow professors to publish articles in the LA Times, begging the world to boycott Israel? That's crazy! Then they get upset when we question them? They want our money, but at the same time they're telling us we shouldn't look at what their professors are doing and saying? The time for that is long over." Encouraging "key donors" to support other Israeli institutions instead of BGU is one of Greenger's missions. "It's time for us to exercise some 'academic freedom' of our own," she says. "We need to decide which of Israel's academic institutions we wish to support. The way to cure anti-Israelism is to redirect benefactors' funds from the kind of places that hire people like Neve Gordon, and channeling it instead to educational institutions that hold strong Zionist sentiments, Ariel University, the Jerusalem College of Technology, the Sami Shamoon College of Engineering." There were students among the traditional Zionists, too. "Im Tirtzu" ("If You Will It"), a pro-Israel student organization at BGU, began circulating a petition against Gordon. Within two days, 54 instructors at BGU had signed. The petition criticized Gordon for exploiting academic freedom and
freedom of speech, noting the BGU's funding comes from the very country
he's is asking the world to boycott. They characterized Gordon's view as
that of a "fringe group of daydreamers among Israeli academia in general,
and BGU in particular," adding that Gordon's leftist activities made them
ashamed to have him on the staff.
THE IMMEDIATE impact of the Gordon piece resulted in community meetings where BGU supporters — and former BGU supporters — gathered to discuss strategy. They also contacted Israel's Consul-General in Los Angeles, Yaakov (Yaki) Dayan, who ultimately sent a letter Carmi, advising her that Gordon's statements were proving "detrimental" to the university. "Since the article was published I've
been contacted by people who care for Israel," Dayan wrote. "Some of them
are benefactors of BGU. They were unanimous in threatening to withhold
their donations to your institution. My attempt to explain that one bad
apple would affect hundreds of researchers turned out to be futile."
PART OF what irks traditional Zionists about Gordon's tactics is his demand for complete freedom of speech for himself, but not for anyone who disagrees with him. Gordon went so far as to file a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), designed to discourage critics, against University of Haifa professor Steven Plaut. For anyone lucky enough to be watching from the sidelines, the Gordon vs. Plaut litigation ranks as one of the more entertaining chapters in the annals of Israeli legal history. Not so for Plaut, presumably, since he was paying his own legal bills. It began when Plaut, himself a tenured professor and a long-time critic of Gordon's politics, took Gordon to task by publishing an op-ed on the website of a now-defunct California organization. Plaut criticized Gordon's long history of publishing in Holocaust-denial websites and magazines. "It was right after the Ramallah incident," Plaut says. "I called him a 'Judenrat wannabie.' I didn't attack him personally — I attacked his politics. Look, Gordon writes his own columns, he's a public figure. Criticizing his politics is what freedom of speech is for. I also called him 'a groupie of the world's leading Jewish Holocaust denier, Norman Finkelstein.'" Gordon could hardly dispute that, Plaut notes. "Gordon had compared Finkelstein to the prophets of the Bible. But somehow Gordon came across my internet column, hired an Arab lawyer to represent him, and filed suit for libel. He didn't like being in the same sentence with the words 'Holocaust denier,' even though I'd said that about Finkelstein, not about him." Plaut, like Gordon, believed himself to be exercising his basic right to freedom of speech. "In Israel, there's supposed to be absolute freedom of speech in terms of criticizing another person's politics. No one has ever been punished for that. I was just making fun of his politics." Although lawsuits are normally filed in the hometown of either the plaintiff or defendant, Gordon filed his suit in Nazareth. "Gordon lived in Jerusalem, teaches in Beersheba, and I live in Haifa," Plaut says. "I can only suppose that by filing in Nazareth, Gordon hoped to get a favorable Arab judge — which he did. When the decision came down, I think everyone was astonished to see how Judge Reem Naddaf used her decision to attack Israel. "She wrote into her opinion that all of Israel — all, not part — was built on land stolen from other people," he continues. "Then she went on to justify Holocaust revisionism. In her decision, the judge wrote things not even Neve Gordon had said." She also imposed a whopping fine. "Gordon hadn't alleged any financial losses," Plaut says. "But in a libel suit, Israeli law permits the award of NIS 50,000. She fined me NIS 100,000." That's when Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, a major player in the US legal community, jumped in with his incisive commentary. In a column published in the Jerusalem Post on November 8, 2006, Dershowitz addressed the issues and then wrote, "It is my opinion that Neve Gordon has gotten into bed with neo-Nazis, Holocaust justice deniers, and anti-Semites.... he is a despicable example of a self-hating Jew and a self-hating Israeli, whose writing consists of anti-Israeli propaganda designed to 'prove' that the Jewish State is fascist." Then Dershowitz issued his own make-my-day challenge to Gordon: "Sue me, too." Gordon didn't sue Dershowitz, brushing off his challenge as "a cheap dare," while Plaut appealed the Nazareth decision. In a stunning reversal, a three-judge panel rejected every demand made by Gordon and agreed to almost all of Plaut's. Legal decisions are rarely characterized by speculation, but one of the appellate judges, Judge Abraham Abraham, offered unique commentary in his written opinion. "Even if Plaut had described Gordon as a "Jew for Hitler," (which Plaut had not) he would have been within his rights," the judge wrote. While the most
recent court decision was a victory for Plaut, the litigation continues,
with the case set to be heard by the Supreme Court on October 13.
SOME COMMENTATORS claim that the real danger of this internal Israeli call for a boycott against Israel is that it encourages and provides cover for anti-Israel sentiments in the international community. Gerald Steinberg, a political science professor at Bar-Ilan University who heads the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor, sees Gordon's call for a boycott as part of a series of events designed to "demonize" Israel. "Neve Gordon and his pro-boycott article ... is another example of the Durban [an anti-Racism conference which was largely seen as anti-Israel] demonization strategy based on total international isolation of Israel through boycotts and sanctions in order to follow the South African anti-apartheid model," Steinberg said, referring to Israel's recent clashes with Sweden over their "stolen organ" blood libel and Great Britain, whose funding of "Breaking the Silence" encouraged Israeli soldiers to admit to IDF war crimes. There were those who, while angered by Gordon's call for boycott, took a more philosophical approach, seeking a way to balance "academic freedom" with the best interests of the community. In any communal organization, no one enjoys unrestricted rights, they note. Just as the right to swing your arms stops where the other fellow's nose begins, why can't there be some limit on the things anyone — professor or not — is entitled to say, if his words will prove detrimental to the community as a whole? The Zionist Organization of America has not yet issued a policy statement regarding the Neve Gordon/BGU affair, but Jeff Daube, Director of the Israel ZOA office and a life-long Zionist activist, articulated a common sentiment. "My desire is not to constrain anyone's freedom of speech," Daube said. "But I think there's nothing at all wrong with a university saying, 'This is a Zionist institution. Statements (like Neve Gordon's) do actual harm to the collective, to the Jewish people living in Israel. Just as most societies limit free speech when the speech will prove harmful — libel or slander — then if some speech brings harm to the society as a whole, why can't that be limited as well?'" Other suggestions were put forward, such as encouraging BGU to hold a public meeting on the topic, to allow everyone to have a right to exercise their freedom of speech, or establishing campus "Zionist Centers" to teach Zionist principles. Daniel Gordis of the Shalem Institute advocated a wholesale revision of the education system. "A century ago, who could have imagined that the
Jewish state would one day have a world-class army but a failing,
collapsing education system?" he wrote. "(Israel) needs a liberal arts
college, and the young people prepared to speak constructively about Jewish
sovereignty, its challenges, its failures and its future that only that
kind of college can produce."
THE CALL to "boycott BGU" threw university officials into a panic, resulting in a flurry of commentary, as well as a quickly-scheduled trip to the US by Carmi and other faculty members hoping to stem the tide of opposition. Their position: Boycotting BGU — or any other Israeli educational institution — isn't the answer. Ronni Strongin, another member of the American Associates of BGU, stressed that since Gordon "has tenure and cannot be fired," the university finds itself in an impossible position. The University, she noted, includes some 25,000 students, faculty and staff with many different missions. To inflict collective punishment by withholding funds from the university as a whole "allows the fulfillment of Gordon's wishes." Within a week, BGU issued statements to the effect that Gordon will not be fired, although BGU officials are still considering their options regarding removing him as department head. Carmi insists there's little the university can do to a tenured professor. "Like it or not, Gordon cannot be readily dismissed. The law in Israel is very clear, and the university is a law-abiding institution," she wrote in her LA Times response, and in a later statement to YNet, she said that "the demand for (Gordon's) resignation (as department head) is legitimate and I hope that after this tough week he will reach the right decision." University Rector Jimmy Weinblatt, following a meeting with the professors who had signed petitions supporting Gordon stressed that Gordon's status as faculty member will not be compromised, and that the university administration will not violate his civic and academic freedom of expression. Weinblatt, who said he believes "it is not appropriate that Gordon continue in his position" and hopes "he (will) reach the proper conclusions," said of university policy, "we are a democratic country with freedom of expression for everyone, even if his opinions are unacceptable to the rest. "We support freedom of expression and academic freedom which are at the heart of any university," he added. Jonathan Rosenblum was among those who upheld the legitimacy of a donor boycott. In a Jerusalem Post op-ed, he wrote that "while an academic has the right to his opinions, private donors who find his views or research repugnant are equally entitled not to support that research. Given the fungibility, of money that might mean withholding support from the university that employs him." Professors, Rosenblum suggests, cannot be held immune from criticism. "Professors, like everyone else, should expect to have their work evaluated. Just as parents and students have an interest in knowing which professors have a tendency to get too friendly with female students, so do they have a right to form judgments about which professors are using their classrooms for political indoctrination." "In general,"
Rosenbaum continues, "it would be foolish to refrain from contributing to a
university based on the views of one faculty member one finds repugnant.
Doing so would eliminate virtually every potential recipient. But Neve
Gordon is not a solitary rogue professor on the BGU campus. The BGU
Department of Politics and Government, which he chairs, fits the
description of former Minister of Education Amnon Rubinstein of academic
departments in Israel, in which no traditional Zionist could be appointed."
NEITHER SIDE is happy. BGU officials rue the fact that they're under pressure from two sides. "We have heard the calls by those who demand that the university ignore Israeli law and fire Gordon, a tenured faculty member," Carmi said, "And we are also under attack by others who champion Gordon on the basis of freedom of speech." Given the fact that BGU officials insist Gordon will remain as a member of the faculty, those who oppose Gordon's continued presence on the teaching staff at BGU were also unhappy. Jeff Daube suggests the tension is far from over. "It's obvious that President Carmi would very much like to sweep this whole affair under the carpet, move on to something else, make believe it never happened — up until the next insult. From here on, it's only going to get worse. If those who hate Israel see they can get away with this kind of speech, I hate to think what else they'll do next. "Once you've called for an international boycott, what's left?" Daube asks. "Maybe a call for the unilateral dismantling of the State? Followed by that line, 'Would the last one to leave please turn off the lights'?" Nor does Ari Bussel believe any significant donor boycott of BGU will take place. "The major donors will be persuaded to go on giving money," he says. "It will be life as usual. The difference this case made is that it set off a fundamental change in the attitude of American Jewry. Now the red line has been crossed. So the next time this happens — which it will — it's going to be much more difficult to persuade donors to keep supporting BGU. "There's only so much one person can do," Bussel laments. "I know that at the end of the day, people pay the price for what they do — we all will. But one thing I know for sure. The next time I go to someone and ask for money for Israel, I know it's going to be that much harder. How are we — how are any of us — going to fight the next call for divestment, or for a boycott, if Israel itself is calling for it?" [The article came out in the weekend edition of the Jerusalem Post for Shabbat Shuva, the sabbath between Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur, when numerous major donors to Israeli universities are in Israel] This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1253820679728 (you might find the "talkbacks" interesting — on the Jerusalem Post page on which the articles appears, at above web address) Links: [1] http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1253820679728 [2] http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid= 1253820679728&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull "Goldstone Is The Criminal"
Let's start at the end. Richard Goldstone perpetrated a moral crime. Not against the State of Israel but against human rights. He turned them into a weapon for dark regimes. Goldstone was not negligent. He did this with malice. The criticism that was made in the first days following the report was on the basis of preliminary study. But time passes. And the more that the details of this report are revealed, the more it becomes clear that it is a libel. A libel with legal cover. A libel that was prepared in advance to incriminate the State of Israel, in the service of Libya and Iran. Goldstone willingly took up the loathsome role. He supplied these countries with the goods. The claim that "the discourse of rights" has become the dark forces' most effective tool is a familiar one. The Goldstone report is the supreme expression of this. Its legal terminology is exemplary. It gushes about international human rights treaties. But it cannot hide the result: It is a libelous indictment of the State of Israel, in the service of the axis of terrorism and evil. Yes, there is marginal. very marginal, lip service regarding criticism of Hamas. Goldstone's ilk is a sophisticated lot. They now reiterate from every stage, and Goldstone does it well, that they were actually objective. Here, they also leveled criticism at Hamas. How enlightened of them! Goldstone sold his soul for an endless series of lies. Even Mary Robinson, who is not known as an admirer of Israel, understood that, "This is unfortunately a practice by the [UN Human Rights] Council: adopting resolutions guided not by human rights but by politics. This is very regrettable." She refused to take the post. Goldstone took it and carried it out with excessive enthusiasm. If international law worked as it should, if the representatives of dark regimes did not have an automatic majority in it, Goldstone would have to stand trial. But this is impossible. And therefore, not only Israel but every moral person, every person for whom human rights are important, must declare Goldstone a criminal. Here is the proof. *** Let's start with what is not in the report. In its almost 600 pages there is not one word — there simply isn't! — about Hamas's ideology. Hamas has a covenant. This covenant is the basis for the conflict between Israel and the demonic entity that has arisen in Gaza. This covenant is pure anti-Semitism. This covenant makes it clear that Hamas is no different from the Taliban. On the contrary, it is worse. The leaders of Hamas also declare — in their own voices — their solidarity with the Taliban, their desire to take over the entire free world, their hatred of Jews and their abrogation of the ceasefire with Israel. But there is not one word in the Goldstone report about this. Contrary to the general impression, Israel is not Hamas's main victim. As in other cases where radical Islam grows, most of Hamas's victims since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza have been Muslims. Hamas's Kassam rockets, suicide terrorists, abductions and military operations do not stem from the occupation or the blockade, as the Goldstone Mission either claims or hints. All of these actions stem from an Islamo-fascist ideology that massacres mainly Muslims. Even during Operation Cast Lead, Hamas killed more Palestinians than Israelis. Goldstone and his cohorts did not hear about this. It was one thing if Goldstone had just ignored the link between ideology and actual practice. But in addition, when he jumps to Israel, he takes the trouble to disparage the Zionist enterprise. Thus, for example, in Article 207 of the report, in a footnote, he tells about confiscated Palestinian property. Not that it has any relevance. But the sophisticated Goldstone had to provide Hamas with justifications. Historic accuracy? Certainly not. This is another product of the industry of lies. Because the property robbed and confiscated from Jewish refugees who were forced out of Arab countries was greater than Arab property left behind in Israel. But let us not confuse Goldstone by investigating the truth. *** There is no need to go far in order to expose the lies. It is possible to start with the first paragraph. There, Goldstone says that he was granted the authority, "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza." Really? At this stage, let us go to the UN Human Rights Council decision to appoint the mission. Article 14, regarding the mission's authority, says: "To investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission." The difference is Heaven and Earth. Goldstone, I repeat, is not stupid. He is a sophisticated jurist. He understands that the Human Rights Council decision puts him in a bind. There is no demand for an investigation. There are instructions to investigate only Israel, while fixing blame in advance. Thus Article 14 and thus others in the same document. How does Goldstone square the circle? First, he does not mention Article 14. which is the source of his authority. throughout the entire report. And second, in cooperation with the Council President, who was authorized to appoint the mission (but not to change its responsibilities), the authorization is improved in order to present a false objectivity. You see, Goldstone will claim in fawning interviews, we were authorized to investigate both sides. He is lying and he knows that he is lying. It is not only the lie in the first paragraph. It goes on. In order to supply the goods, Professor Christine Chinkin, an expert on international law, was recruited to the mission, for example. There is only one problem. Before being appointed to the mission, Chinkin signed a petition that determined in advance that Israel had perpetrated war crimes. Can someone who took a position in advance sit on the mission? And indeed, the mission was presented with a legal suit for her dismissal. The suit was denied. There is absolutely no difference between the "judge's" pre-determination and the Council's. And when dozens of jurists petitioned the mission to dismiss Chinkin, Goldstone rejected them. It is clear why. The identity between the judge and the Council was absolute. We must tarry another moment on the Council's decision. Any enlightened person should give deference to human rights and the international bodies dealing with them. This Council is the UN's most important body. And indeed, it seems that 33 countries participated in the vote on establishing the mission. And the results: Not one western democracy supported the decision; most abstained. One country voted against — Canada. The third-world countries voted in favor, as did all of the Islamic countries. Can such an automatic majority — of non-democratic countries — be taken seriously? Certainly not. The Council will not send a Libyan representative to discuss human rights The representative from Pakistan, a country which caused millions of refugees only two months ago, in the framework of a just struggle against several hundred Taliban fighters, will find it hard to talk about "collective punishment" on CNN. For the charade of accusing Israel, one needs an internationally renowned jurist. He'll do the work. The automatic dark majority does not need to convince itself. It needs someone to publish articles in The New York Times and Ha'aretz, and appear on the BBC. This is how to turn Israel into a pariah. This is propaganda that even Goebbels the genius didn't dream of. He is also a Jew; he even has a "Zionist" past. There could be no casting more perfect. *** A precise study of the report reveals how the libel was perpetrated. This is no cheap, old-fashioned libel. This is a much more sophisticated libel. Now it is called a "narrative." The Goldstone mission builds the narrative one stage after another. Does libel start with the Kassams that began to fall in 2001? No way. Does the Executive Summary say anything about the thousands of Kassams that have been fired since and have turned the lives of the residents of southern Israel into hell? Not with Goldstone. After the clauses regarding the appointment of the mission members, relevant international law, methodology and Israel's non-cooperation, the mission gets down to business. The findings. The factual determinations and the verdict. *** And indeed, the narrative begins with Article 27 (of the Executive Summary), entitled "The Blockade." According to the article, Israel imposed a blockade. Why? What happened? How did it start? Were there thousands of rockets? Did Hamas take military control of the Strip, while massacring dozens — maybe hundreds — of Palestinians? There is not a word in the opening account. Neither is there any mention of Hamas's internal terrorism against innocent Palestinians. And this isn't all. If there is a blockade, it is not only Israel's responsibility. The Hamas regime has a long border with Egypt. It seems that this border is completely open. Hundreds of tunnels operate there on a regular basis and deliver everything the Hamas regime wants. The mission's Executive Summary makes no mention of the tunnels, the open border with Egypt or the smuggling. And what does the report say about the blockade? "Gaza's economy is further severely effected by the reduction of the fishing zone open to Palestinian fishermen." This is an amazing example of the mission's being recruited for the industry of lies. And the Palestinians established industries before the "blockade"? See, there is free movement of materials, through the tunnels. The problem is that Hamas has chosen only one raw material. Explosives. And there is also a flourishing industry. The production of rockets. "For the Palestinian people," claimed Fathi Hamad, a Hamas member of Parliament, "death became an industry." This even appears in Article 475. But Goldstone, the Devil's advocate, insists on blaming Israel. The same Fathi, in the same speech, admits with his own voice that Hamas, "created a human shield of women, children, [and] the elderly." This is also cited in the report. But Goldstone, "does not consider it to constitute evidence." (Article 476) Certainly. When the result has been pre-determined, even the explicit, filmed and recorded admission of a senior Hamas official, like the video footage of the use of children, will not change the conviction. Is it possible to call such work by Goldstone "negligence", or is it a crime, in the service of a terrorist regime? Article 28 simplistically determines that Israel is the occupying power. Why? Because. Only in Article 88 does the mission see fit to mention the disengagement. As if it had no bearing on the story. As if Israel had not proven that it had no interest in the Strip. As if Israel had not fulfilled all of its obligations. As if Israel had not left the Palestinians to their fate, so that they could govern themselves, without a single soldier or settler. Article 29 says that Israel embarked on Operation Cast Lead. Were there barrages of rockets beforehand? They appear later on but not in the Executive Summary. Apparently, they are not relevant. This is how one constructs a lie. Start with a blockade. Then a criminal assault. That's the Executive Summary. The mission's lie repeats itself when it presents a false picture of permanent Israeli aggression. In exactly the same way, the mission says, in Article 193, that Israel began Operation Defensive Shield and caused the killing of hundreds of Palestinians. There is not even one word about the series of terrorist attacks on cafes, restaurants and buses. There is not one word about the Passover massacre at the Park Hotel in Netanya, in which 30 Israelis were murdered — a massacre which broke Israel's long restraint. Article 30 deals with the number of casualties but ignores — of course — any study which proves that most of the Palestinian casualties were Hamas personnel. In order to strengthen the impression, the report presents the number of Palestinian dead as opposed to the number of Israelis. The proportionality creates the result. So many Palestinians were killed. So few Israelis. According to this logic, NATO perpetrated war crimes in bombing Yugoslavia in 1999, because the results were similar to those in Gaza: Over 1,000 Yugoslav dead (mostly civilians) and zero casualties among the NATO forces. Thus in Afghanistan as well. Far more Afghans, civilians and fighters, have been killed than NATO soldiers. Does this turn the NATO countries and soldiers into war criminals? And there will yet be proportionality issues. Pakistan sought to get rid of the vexing problem caused by several hundred Taliban fighters. It caused thousands of dead and millions of refugees. Thus also in Lebanon, when it was obliged to fight a few hundred Fatah al-Islam fighters. Their refugee camp, Nahr al-Bared, was destroyed. Hundreds were killed and tens of thousands became refugees. The world understands that these are the proportions of dealing with terrorists, who hide among civilians. But when Goldstone comes to Israel, he refuses to understand even though Hamas's threat to Israel is greater than the Taliban's threat to Europe or Fatah al-Islam's to Lebanon. Goldstone knows the new battlefields. But he ignores because the goal was to demonize Israel. And therefore, he must lie and mislead. Article 32 deals with Israel's bombing of Palestinian Authority buildings, rejects the Israeli claim that these were part of the, "Hamas terrorist infrastructure," and determines that these were, "deliberate attacks on civilian objects in violation of the rule of customary international humanitarian law." Certainly. If they ignore the fact that Hamas is a terrorist entity that uses terrorism mainly against innocent Palestinians as well, the result is that this is a legitimate political body. Maybe even a charitable organization. Now it is possible to understand why the mission ignores the Hamas Covenant. It is no coincidence. It is easier to square the circle that way. *** How is Hamas absolved of responsibility for serious crimes? The Goldstone report cites hundreds of inquiries that were carried out by various groups. One of the groups cited is, of course, Amnesty International, which has provided countless hostile reports against Israel. These are cited extensively. But there was another Amnesty report, issued on 21.2.09. This surprising report reviews a series of incidents in which Hamas eliminated dozens of Fatah members, during the time of Operation Cast Lead, in Gaza. And here's the surprise: Of all the reports, it is this one which is not mentioned in the Goldstone report. There is mention of attacks on Fatah personnel (in Article 80, for example), but with exaggerated effort to minimize the significance of the matter. The general impression is that Goldstone is much more critical towards Fatah than towards Hamas. For example, Goldstone blames Fatah for the "refusal to cede control of the security institutions" in favor of the Hamas (Article 190), causing the confrontation between the factions. Hamas, according to the whole report, is a completely legitimate body that should control the security institutions. Goldstone stubbornly refuses to see the very anti-Semitic and terrorist nature of Hamas, an entity whose very existence is a crime against humanity. *** It is possible to continue, article after article, in order to expose the construction of the deceptions and the lies. The mission details 36 factual events that prove, as it were, that Israel perpetrated war crimes. In their reduced framework below, let us examine the attack on the Abd Rabbo family. This event became one of the most prominent symbols of Operation Cast Lead, received widespread coverage and was mentioned in many reports. The Goldstone report devotes ten articles (768-777) to this incident. The mission repeated the claim that family members waived a white flag and that its daughters were murdered in cold blood by Israel. This claim is not only negligent, it is also a malicious lie. Thorough checks have shown that family members gave different and contradictory versions. One of the claims was that this was cold-blooded murder because there were no Hamas personnel in the area. It seems that this claim has also been refuted, by contradictory testimony, even by Time magazine, to the effect that there were indeed Hamas personnel in the area. Moreover, it seems that Al-Hayat Al-Jadida reports that, ""The Abd Rabbo family kept quiet while Hamas fighters turned their farm in the Gaza strip into a fortress." The testimony is contradictory and the Time and Al-Hayat Al-Jadida reports were supposed to be before the mission. But there is not even a hint of them in the Goldstone report, which publishes a libel, even though it has already been contradicted. The objective has been marked. The facts will not confuse the mission. *** The foregoing is only the tip of the iceberg. Space is too short to detail the parade of lies known as "the Goldstone Report." We have presented here only isolated examples about the method. Goldstone, who chose to collaborate with the dark majority, supplied the goods. The report deserves a much closer study. The State of Israel must establish a commission of inquiry, led by top-notch jurists, in cooperation with their colleagues from around the world, in order to examine article after article, claim after claim, and refute the libel. Israel should also inquire its own misdeeds. The argument here is not that Israel is exempted from criticism. Every loss of human life is regrettable, and should be examined, in order to see how much Israel is responsible (as I recommended in previous article). But not in the way of the Goldstone Fact Finding Mission. The deeper one digs into the report, the more it becomes clear that Goldstone is a criminal hiding under the umbrella of human rights. On behalf of human rights, he and his lies must be exposed. The truth must come to light. * * * To the readers: Any comment or additional information about the deception and the lies of the report or the members of the commision will be welcomed at my email: Ben-Dror Yemini (bdeyemini@gmail.com). Links to translated articles: :
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
|
|
OBAMA'S U.N. DOUBLE TALK: THE IRAN FRAUD
Posted by Eye on the UN, September 26, 2009. |
|
This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in National Review Online. It is archived athttp://eyeontheun.us1.list-manage.com/track/open.php?u= 779a7657507fa1127185b036a&id=9ca27f93e1&e=227b4cfebb |
|
On Wednesday, President Obama told the United Nations General Assembly that "if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards ... then they must be held accountable. The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced." [Emphasis added]. A day later, the president chaired a session of the U.N. Security Council. He turned it into a summit of heads of state and chose the agenda. He insisted — in the words of the advance American "concept paper" — that "The Security Council Summit will focus on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly and not focus on any specific countries" [Emphasis added]. Obama pushed hard for the adoption of a new Security Council resolution, which was passed unanimously, and which never mentions Iran or North Korea. Upon pounding the gavel, the president proclaimed: The resolution we passed today will also strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT]. We have made it clear that the Security Council has both the authority and the responsibility to respond to violations to this treaty. We've made it clear that the Security Council has both the authority and responsibility to determine and respond as necessary when violations of this treaty threaten international peace and security. That includes full compliance with Security Council resolutions on Iran and North Korea. Let me be clear: This is not about singling out individual nations. ... [W]e must demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced. However, speaking today in Pittsburgh, Obama admitted that yesterday in Vienna, the United States, the United Kingdom, and France presented detailed evidence to the IAEA demonstrating that the Islamic Republic of Iran has been building a covert uranium enrichment facility near Qom for several years. ... The existence of this facility underscores Iran's continuing unwillingness to meet its obligations under U.N. Security Council resolutions. ... Iran's decision to build yet another nuclear facility without notifying the IAEA represents a direct challenge to the basic compact at the center of the non-proliferation regime. ... [T]he size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program. Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow ... [and is] threatening the stability and security of the region and the world. In other words, when President Obama addressed the General Assembly and Security Council he already knew that Iran was ignoring international standards, and its latest violations endangered international peace and security more than ever before. And yet he deliberately refused to put Iran on the agenda of the Council summit — the same Council that he claimed bore responsibility for responding to such threats. President Obama knew that if the magnitude of the Iranian threat were revealed yesterday, the emptiness of his resolution would have been embarrassingly obvious and his cover blown. In public, at the highest levels of the U.N, he heralded generalities as significant. In private, he was petitioning lower levels of the U.N. to act on startling specifics of the Iranian threat. Why did the president not present this same evidence to the Security Council, the body with "the authority and the responsibility to respond'? Why did he not challenge world leaders to deal with the same Iranian threat that he privately was pressing upon U.N. bureaucrats? There is only one possible answer: President Obama does not have the political will to do what it takes to prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb. For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org. The organization monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. It brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time. EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies. Anne Bayefsky is its editor. Contact the organization at info@EYEonthe UN.org |
|
MENE MENE TEKEL U-PHARSIN
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, September 25, 2009. |
|
We will soon know whether pragmatist Obama will win over ideologue Obama. Meanwhile, however, America's 44th President is fast turning into a lethal joke. Iran, North Korea and Russia are laughing. Those who fear for the future of the free world are shuddering, aghast. As far as Israel and the Palestinians are concerned, Obama marched his troops to the top of the hill only to have to march them down again with their tail between their legs. In response to his bullying over the settlements, Israel faced him down by agreeing to a Palestine state; but stipulating that for this to happen the Palestinians must accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. With the Palestinians loudly refusing to do so, thus demonstrating that it is they who refuse to accept a two-state solution. While he grovels to America's enemies, Obama continues to treat its ally, Israel, as an enemy. As former UN ambassador John Bolton observed on TV .....I think it's the most anti-Israel speech I can remember by an American president, and the important thing is, when you have the Palestinians in as a weak of a position as they are now, and to have Barack Obama be their lawyer in effect, puts them in a very strong bargaining place. Dear friends, The above excerpts are from The Spectator in UK. It was published before this morning's revelation that Iran has been building yet another nuclear plant clearly for the purpose of producing a bomb. Iranians long and medium range rockets are already operational, pointing at Israel and can reach Europe and beyond. All this while President Obama is pushing Israel to commit suicide. This article by Melanie Phillips may prove the ultimate writings on the wall. Wake-up America, wake-up world! Your Truth Provider, Yuval. |
|
"Who does he think he's kidding?"
On Wednesday, Barack Obama addressed the UN. If this was supposed to be a triumphant projection of the wonders of his foreign policy, his timing was singularly unfortunate. It was as if he had unveiled his shiny new bus after the wheels had come off and the engine had fallen out. His speech set out the approach that we all know by now: soft power, apologising for America, hand of friendship extended to enemies of America, upholding human rights for enemy combatants, desire to channel foreign policy through the club of terror UN, 'engaging with the world' and 'leading by example' — particularly by apologising for America. This approach was to be the antidote to the supposed gung-ho militarism of George W Bush. Swords would be beaten into ploughshares, genocidal lunatics would swap recipes and holiday snaps with their erstwhile victims and there would be peace on earth and the brotherhood of man. But we can see that everywhere Obama has applied this policy approach it has failed, humiliating America by revealing it to be weak, incompetent and naive to the point of imbecility and thus strenghtening the enemies of America and the free world. In the Middle East, his policy has collapsed. Obama's giant grovel to the Muslim world in Cairo failed to shift any belligerents or impress the rest. His extended hand of friendship to Iran's murderous regime had the effect of abandoning those Iranians who are fighting and dying for freedom from tyranny, while failing to stop, delay or in any way deter Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. He made America less safe by abandoning the central European missile defence shield against Iran, showing contempt for Poland and the Czech Republic along the way. He has rewarded North Korea for its continued belligerency by agreeing to its demand for bilateral talks. His engagement with Syria has failed to end its support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. As far as Israel and the Palestinians are concerned, Obama marched his troops to the top of the hill only to have to march them down again with their tail between their legs. In response to his bullying over the settlements, Israel faced him down by agreeing to a Palestine state; but stipulating that for this to happen the Palestinians must accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. With the Palestinians loudly refusing to do so, thus demonstrating that it is they who refuse to accept a two-state solution, Obama has nevertheless forced 'peace process' negotiations to restart between Israel and a Palestinian leadership which refuses to accept the existence of Israel and says there is nothing to discuss. While he grovels to America's enemies, Obama continues to treat its ally, Israel, as an enemy. As former UN ambassador John Bolton observed: The most significant point of the speech was how the president put Israel on the chopping block in a variety of references, from calling Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegitimate to talking about ending 'the occupation that began in 1967.' On TV Bolton also said: As I say, I think it's the most anti-Israel speech I can remember by an American president, and the important thing is, when you have the Palestinians in as a weak of a position as they are now, and to have Barack Obama be their lawyer in effect, puts them in a very strong bargaining place. Meanwhile, Obama is now dithering disastrously over his own policy in Afghanistan which he is trying to ditch. Having previously announced a 'surge' there of more troops he is now refusing to provide them, thus causing a major rift with the American commander in Afghanistan. As the Times reports: He has now ordered a major review of that very strategy and refused to heed the demand by General Stanley McChrystal, the US ground commander in Afghanistan, for an urgent increase in the number of troops. General McChrystal said that without more forces immediately the war could be lost within 12 months. The Washington Times cuttingly explains why Obama has produced the 'worst foreign policy ever': Actions in Mr. Obama's world are consequence-free. The only country the Obama team has tried to strong-arm is Honduras, which is desperately trying to stave off a socialist takeover by an anti-American autocrat whom the State Department has concluded is worthy of full U.S. support. This has delighted Cuban dictators Raul and Fidel Castro and Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez, who are very willing to let the United States carry their water. Venezuela, meanwhile, has signed a major arms deal with Russia, continues to build the anti-Gringo 'Bolivarian' bloc, bullies U.S. ally Colombia and plans to launch its own nuclear program. It would be hilarious if it weren't so frightening that the leader of the western world, in the face of a war to destroy that world, should be so utterly incompetent and out of his depth. The biggest and most immediate danger, of course, concerns Iran. The US hand of friendship has been spurned. Iran is poised to get the bomb. The question, though, is whether underneath all the boilerplate leftism, the gross naivety and astounding incompetence Obama is — when push comes to shove — a pragmatist. His adviser, the appalling bigot Zbigniew Brzezinski, has said the US should shoot down Israeli warplanes should they attack Iran. But as I have remarked before, despite his own manifest distaste for Israel Obama might yet be sweating on Israel doing precisely that. His people say they are acutely aware of the danger that he may be judged by history as the US President who allowed Iran to go nuclear on his watch, with the unconscionable consequences that would follow. As his foreign policy goes belly-up, Obama will have to choose whether to continue with his suicidally idiotic approach or dramatically switch course. We will soon know whether pragmatist Obama will win over ideologue Obama. Meanwhile, however, America's 44th President is fast turning into a lethal joke. Iran, North Korea and Russia are laughing. Those who fear for the future of the free world are shuddering, aghast. Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
WHEN DID ANTI-ZIONISM BECOME AN INTERNATIONAL ISSUE?
Posted by Alex Grobman, September 25, 2009. |
|
For more than 20 years after the establishment of the State of Israel, anti-Zionism was a regional phenomenon — a conflict between Arab and Jewish national movements. In the Soviet Union and in Eastern Europe, the Soviets exploited antisemitism for political purposes, but it was seldom part of international debate until after the Six-Day War in 1967. By the end of the 1960s, and since 1975, anti-Zionism became international in scope. It first appeared in the universities in the West where the New Left, in cooperation with Arab student associations, attacked Israeli policy. [1] When the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 3379 on November 10, 1975, and declared "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination," it significantly expanded anti-Zionism into the sphere of international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and therefore into Third World countries. This was accomplished in collaboration between the Arabs and the Soviet Union that endowed anti-Zionism with legitimacy and official recognition.[2] After the First World War, the Arabs expected Greater Syria — which included Palestine and Lebanon — to become a sovereign Arab empire. Instead, the French and the British divided the area into what the Arabs considered "irrationally carved out" entities that became the present-day states of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Trans-Jordan (later Jordan), Iraq, and Israel. The Arabs were outraged that a "non-Arab embryo state in Palestine" had been inserted into an area where it would never be accepted. They claimed that this shattered their dreams of unification and impeded their search for a common identity. [3] The fight against a Jewish homeland became an integral part of their struggle "for dignity and independence." Israel's existence, they claimed, "implied that not only a part of the Arab patrimony, but also parts of Islam, had been stolen. For a Moslem, there was no greater shame than for that to happen." The only way to eliminate this deeply felt affront — this "symbol of everything that had dominated them in the past" — was to rid the area of "imperialist domination." [4] Zionism was branded the enemy of the Arab national movement, but Arab governments use the Arab-Israeli conflict to divert attention from their own domestic, social and economic problems. If this were not a real concern, they claim, it would not resonate so strongly among the Arab masses. [5] Historian Bernard Lewis says Arab fixation with Israel "is the licensed grievance. In countries where people are becoming increasingly angry and frustrated at all the difficulties under which they live — the poverty, unemployment, oppression — having a grievance which they can express freely is an enormous psychological advantage." [6] The Israeli-Arab conflict is the only local political grievance that can be openly discussed. If they were permitted freedom of speech, Lewis believes that the obsession with Israel would become far less important. Like most people, Arabs are concerned about their own priorities. For the Palestinian Arabs, who view themselves as permanent victims, the main issue is their struggle with Israel. If Arabs in other countries were permitted to focus on their own problems, they would do so. [7] For Arabs, the attempt to blame Western imperialism is nothing more than an excuse to attack Israel, historian Jacob Talmon asserted: "For decades the Arabs have been obsessed by memories of past glories and prophecies of future greatness, mocked by the injury and shame of having an alien and despised race injected into the nerve center of their promised pan-Arab empire, between its Asian and African halves, just at a time when the colonial powers had started their great retreat from their colonial possessions in Asia and Africa." [8] To lessen their feelings of shame for losing every war against Israel, the Arabs attributed the success of the Jewish settlement and the Israeli military triumphs of 1948 and 1956 to Western imperialism. As the representative of the Great Powers, Israel became the Arabs' scapegoat whenever they became frustrated in their attempt to transcend "centuries of social, economic, and cultural development, and catch up" with the West. [9] The crushing defeat of the Arabs in the 1967 Six-Day War shattered this fantasy and accentuated Arab humiliation, since the Israelis won without the backing of any imperialist nations. [10] At the same time, the Arabs persecuted their own Jewish residents. Jews were attacked in Yemen, Lebanon, Tunisia, and Morocco. Synagogues were burned and Jews were arrested and detained. In Damascus and Baghdad, Jewish leaders were fined and imprisoned, and 7,000 Jews were expelled after their property and most of their belongings were confiscated.[11] Despite this treatment of Jews in Arab lands, the 1.2 million Arabs under Israeli governance did not experience any systematic mistreatment. Perhaps the greatest trauma for the Arabs was that Israel had conquered 42,000 square miles — and was now three-and-a-half times larger in size than before the war. [12] Anti-Zionism entered the international scene when Israel and Egypt reached political rapprochement after the Yom Kippur War by signing an interim agreement on September 1, 1975. That agreement emphasized, "The conflict between them and in the Middle East shall not be resolved by military force but by peaceful means."[13] Concerned that this might lead to peace, the Soviets, Syria, and the PLO tried to exclude Israel from international nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), like UNESCO, "for having transgressed the United Nations Charter, and having failed to adopt its resolutions." When this strategy failed, they began to question Israel's legitimacy and discredit and condemn Zionism in the UN, and to internationalize their propaganda against her.[14] Footnotes 1. Yohanan Manor, "Anti-Zionism," (Jerusalem: World Zionist Organization, 1984): 8. 2. Ibid. 3. Saul Friedlander and Mahmoud Hussein, Arabs and Israelis: A Dialogue (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1975), 6, 18, 21. 4. Ibid., 9, 34. 5. Ibid. 6. "Islam's Interpreter," The Atlantic Online (April 4, 2004), Online. 7. Ibid; Friedlander and Hussein, Arabs and Israelis: A Dialogue, 32-33, 36. 8. Jacob L. Talmon, Israel Among the Nations (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1970), 169-170. 9. Ibid.170. 10. Michael B. Oren, Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 305-306. 11. Ibid., 306-307. 12. Ibid. 13. Manor, "Anti-Zionism," 9-10. 14. Ibid.10. Dr. Alex Grobman is a Hebrew University trained historian. He is a former director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the 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. This appeared in American Thinker
|
|
BREAKING NEWS — IRAN HAS 2ND, SECRET NUKE FUEL PLANT
Posted by Joel Block, September 25, 2009. |
|
VIENNA (AP) — Iran has revealed the existence of a secret uranium-enrichment plant, the International Atomic Agency said Friday, a development that could heighten fears about Tehran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon and escalate its diplomatic confrontation with the West. President Barack Obama and the leaders of France and Britain plan to accuse Iran of hiding the facility in an address at the opening of the G-20 economic summit Friday, a senior White House official told the AP. The official said Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy will demand Tehran open the covert facility to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iran is under three sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions for refusing to freeze enrichment at what had been its single known enrichment plant, which is being monitored by the IAEA. Two officials told the AP that Iran revealed the existence of the second plant in a letter sent Monday to International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei. IAEA spokesman Marc Vidricaire confirmed receipt of the letter, saying the agency was informed "that a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction." The letter said that the plant would not enrich uranium beyond the 5 percent level suitable for civilian energy production. That would be substantially below the threshold of 90 percent or more needed for a weapon. Iran told the agency "that no nuclear material has been introduced into the facility," he said. "In response, the IAEA has requested Iran to provide specific information and access to the facility as soon as possible." The officials said that Iran's letter contained no details about the location of the second facility, when — or if — it had started operations or the type and number of centrifuges it was running. But one of the officials, who had access to a review of Western intelligence on the issue, said it was about 100 miles (160 kilometers) southwest of Tehran and was the site of 3,000 centrifuges that could be operational by next year. The officials who spoke to the AP — one from a European government with access to IAEA information and the other a diplomat in Vienna from a country accredited to the IAEA — demanded anonymity Friday because their information was confidential. One said he had seen the Iranian letter. The other told the AP that he had been informed about it by a U.N. official. Iranian officials had previously acknowledged having only one plant — which is under IAEA monitoring — and had denied allegations of undeclared nuclear activities. An August IAEA report said Iran had set up more than 8,000 centrifuges to churn out enriched uranium at its cavernous underground facility outside the southern city of Natanz. The report said that only about 4,600 centrifuges were fully active. Iran says it has the right to enrich uranium for a nationwide chain of nuclear reactors. But because enrichment can also produce weapons-grade uranium, the international community fears Tehran will make fissile material for nuclear warheads. The IAEA says Iran has amassed more than a ton of uranium from its older Natanz centrifuges that is less than 5-percent enriched and unsuitable for weapons use. But through further enrichment, that amount would give Tehran more than enough material to produce enough weapons-grade uranium — enriched to 90 percent and beyond — for one nuclear weapon. U.N. officials familiar with IAEA monitoring of Iran's nuclear activities have previously told the AP they suspected Iran may have undeclared enrichment plants with the state-of-the-art centrifuges that enrich more quickly and efficiently than Iran's mainstay P-1, a decades-old model based on Chinese technology. The revelation of a secret plant further hinders the chances of progress in scheduled Oct. 1 talks between Iran and six world powers. At that meeting — the first in more than a year — the five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany plan to press Iran to scale back on its enrichment activities. But Tehran has declared that it will not bargain on enrichment Iran's nuclear negotiator dismissed the threat of new sanctions in an interview released Friday. Saeed Jalili said that Iran has "the right to uranium enrichment, and we will never give up this right," the German weekly Der Spiegel reported. "We have lived with sanctions for 30 years, and they cannot force a great nation like the Iranian one to its knees," Jalili told Der Spiegel. "They do not scare us. On the contrary: we welcome new sanctions." Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for nonproliferation at the International Institute for Strategic Studies, suggested that Iran had little choice about disclosing the secret site ahead of the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh. "Iran undoubtedly announced it to the to the IAEA because they were afraid it would become known to the U.S. and others," he said. Fitzpatrick said the disclosure "will add to the momentum behind a push for stronger sanctions on Iran" should the Oct. 1 talks in Geneva fail. Jalili is to meet with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana, U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns and representatives from Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany. On Thursday, Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini said the Group of Eight is giving Iran until the end of the year to commit to ending uranium enrichment — a process that can produce fissile material for the core of a nuclear weapon — and avoid new sanctions. The existence of a secret Iranian enrichment program built on black-market technology was revealed seven years ago. Since then, the country has continued to expand the program with only a few interruptions as it works toward its aspirations of a 50,000-centrifuge enrichment facility at Natanz. --------------- "U.S. to Accuse Iran of Having Secret Nuclear Fuel Facility"
PITTSBURGH — President Obama and the leaders of Britain and France will accuse Iran Friday of building a secret underground plant to manufacture nuclear fuel, saying it has hidden the covert operation from international weapons inspectors for years, according to senior administration officials. The revelation, which the three leaders will make before the opening of the Group of 20 economic summit here, appears bound to add urgency to the diplomatic confrontation with Iran over its suspected ambitions to build a nuclear weapons capability. Mr. Obama, along with Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, will demand that the country allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct an immediate inspection of the facility, which is said to be 100 miles southwest of Tehran. American officials say that they have been tracking the covert project for years, but that Mr. Obama decided to make public the American findings after Iran discovered, in recent weeks, that Western intelligence agencies had breached the secrecy surrounding the project. On Monday, Iran wrote a brief, cryptic letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency, saying that it now had a "pilot plant" under construction, whose existence it had never before revealed. But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said nothing about the plant during his visit this week to the United Nations, where he repeated his contention that Iran had cooperated fully with inspectors, and that allegations of a nuclear weapons program are fabrications. The newly discovered enrichment plant is not yet in operation, American officials said, but could be next year. Mr. Obama's planned announcement with Mr. Brown and Mr. Sarkozy will likely overshadow the meeting of the Group of 20 industrial nations, whose leaders have gathered to plan the next steps in combating the global financial crisis. Instead, here and during the opening of the United Nations in New York, senior officials from several of the countries were pulled aside for briefings on the new intelligence and strategy sessions about the first direct talks with Iran in 30 years that will include the United States. American officials said they expected the announcement would put the Iranians on the defensive, and that it will make it easier to build a case for international sanctions against Tehran if the country blocks inspectors or refuses to halt its nuclear program. "They have cheated three times," one senior administration official with access to the intelligence said of the Iranians late on Thursday evening. "And they have now been caught three times." The official was referring to the revelations by an Iranian dissident group that led to the discovery of the underground plant at Natanz in 2002, and the evidence developed two years ago — after Iran's computer networks were pierced by American intelligence agencies — that the country had secretly sought to design a nuclear warhead. That effort is believed by American officials to have been ordered halted in late 2003. For years, American intelligence officials have searched for a hidden site where Iran could enrich uranium in secret, far from the inspectors who now regularly monitor activity at a far larger plant at Natanz. A highly classified chapter of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's suspected nuclear weapons work that was provided to the Bush administration identifies more than a dozen suspected nuclear sites around the country — some for building centrifuges and other equipment, others for designing weapons or testing explosives. Administration officials could not immediately say if this site, built inside a mountain near the ancient city of Qum, one of the holiest Shiite cities in the Middle East, is included in that list. The facility is not complete, though American officials said late on Thursday night that they believe it was designed to hold about 3,000 centrifuges, the machines that enrich uranium for nuclear power plants — or, with additional enrichment, for bombs. That would be just enough centrifuges to manufacture about one bomb's worth of material a year, though it is unclear whether any of the centrifuges have been installed or turned on. American officials, citing the sensitivity of their intelligence gathering on Iran, declined to say what kind of intelligence break — human spies, computer or telephone intercepts or overhead photography — led to their discovery. But parts of the computer networks belonging to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard were pierced in 2007, leading to the intelligence finding that that Iranian engineers working under Mohsen Fakrizadeh had attempted to design a nuclear weapon before the effort ended in 2003. Israel and some European intelligence agencies argue that the work resumed later. The enrichment program appears to run on a separate track from the weapons design program, in part because the Iranians claim the enrichment is solely for the purpose of producing fuel for nuclear power plants. To construct centrifuges, Iran has had to buy specialty parts abroad, and at times in the past, American, German and Israeli intelligence agencies have intercepted shipments, in one case diverting key parts to American weapons labs before sending them on to Iran. It is very possible that infiltration of the supply network contributed to the discovery in Qum. Still, accusing a country of building a secret facility can be risky. The Clinton administration accused North Korea of having an underground nuclear facility in 1998; by the time American inspectors were let in, the facility had been cleaned out and its exact role in North Korea's nuclear weapons program remains a mystery today. President George W. Bush famously accused Saddam Hussein in 2002 of seeking to restart Iraq's nuclear program, but was never able to produce any persuasive evidence that he had done so. Iran is a different kind of case: Inspectors have been in and out of the country for several years, always assured by Iran that it had come clean about its facilities after hiding them for nearly 18 years. Thus, the newly discovered facility could be difficult for Iran to explain: It is too small to be used efficiently to produce fuel for power plants, and appears to have been designed in such a way that its operations could be hidden. Mr. Obama was first briefed on Iran's project before he became president, as part of the detailed intelligence reports provided by the then-director of national intelligence, Mike McConnell. Mr. Obama has received updated intelligence on it "several times," one senior aide said Thursday evening. In advance of Friday morning's announcement, Mr. Obama dispatched top intelligence officials to brief the I.A.E.A.'s chief inspector, Olli Heinonen. Other American diplomats and intelligence officials shared their findings with China, Russia and Germany, all key players in the negotiations with Iran. Contact Joel Block by email at jblock@aipac.org |
|
THE AVRAHAM AVINU SYNAGOGUE: MIRACLE PAST AND PRESENT
Posted by David Wilder, September 25, 2009. |
|
Succot in Hebron: The annual Succot music festival will take place on Monday of Chol HaMoed Succot,
beginning at 12:00 — goto
See video and photos from Selichot in Hebron from the Hebron Web homepage: www.hebron.com. Gmar Chatima tova from the Jewish Community of Hebron. This article is posted in memory of, and for an ilui neshama for Aryeh Leib ben David and Golda, my great great grandfather, who died today, 7 Tishrei, 110 years ago. |
|
On one of the pillars inside the Avraham Avinu synagogue is a plaque, with the cover page and introduction of a holy book, titled Emek HaMelech, meaning the Valley of the King. This book was authored by Rabbi Naftali Hertz Bachrach and published in 1648. Its subject matter is Kabbalah, known popularly as "Jewish mysticism." Towards the end of chapter nine of the author's introduction is a short paragraph, short in quantity, but quantitatively, immeasurable. The story is well known. Exactly 490 years ago, the year 1619, in Hebron. The paragraph, as it is written, in Emek HaMelach: 
A wondrous event on Yom Kippur, know that in Hebron there aren't always ten for public prayer, only on Shabbat and holy days, when villagers gather there and pray with ten and more. But all the residents of Hebron are pious. From then on, the synagogue was known by the name 'Avraham Avinu.' When Jews returned to Hebron following the 1967 Six day war, the ancient shul was gone. A sheep sty and public bathroom occupied the place where the shul had stood for over 400 years. 
Due to the dedication and determination of one man, Professor BenTzion Tavger, zt"l, the area was eventually cleaned out and the shul rebuilt. This year, as every year, Yom Kippur prayers will be heard from this beautiful holy place. Prof. Tavger, prior to his death, wrote a book called "My Hebron" which was published a few years ago in Hebrew. It was recently translated into English and is now available. The following paragraphs, dealing with the rededication of the Shul and its ancient Torah scrolls, are from the book. While I was in the Synagogue, waiting for the Torah Scroll to be brought in, I looked around once again at the walls of the building. The Synagogue was now splendidly built, more or less approximating its original form, before the Arabs had destroyed it in the 1950s. There might have been a few minimal changes here or there, and perhaps not everything had been completed and it was still necessary to fix something or other, but on the whole, the Synagogue now looked beautiful, it appeared splendid. One could even say that it was impressive, though not very modern. 
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. More about Prof. Tavger and the book My Hebron can be viewed at: http://www.hebron.com/english/article.php?id=581#syn For more information about purchasing My Hebron, send an email to myhebron@gmail.com |
|
BIBI'S UN SPEECH, TEASE AND FIZZLE
Posted by Batya Medad, September 25, 2009. |
|
Our Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, addressed the United Nations yesterday. Bibi is a very gifted speaker, and he's more knowledgeable about history and political science than most professors. I've heard him answer difficult questions without any opportunity or need to prepare, and of course he's not dependent on staff-written speeches displayed on a teleprompter. There were some good things in his UN speech, but there were also things I find very troubling. In an address to the General Assembly earlier in the day, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel heatedly denounced President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran for frequently rejecting the Holocaust as a historical fact. Mr. Netanyahu also spent considerable time denying that Israel had committed war crimes during its three-week military attack on Gaza last winter, as it was recently accused of doing in a report by a fact-finding mission from the Human Rights Council. The problem is that Netanyahu gave facts but came to the wrong conclusions. Bibi should have tied all of these things up with a different conclusion. Netanyahu blasted the international community for encouraging Israel to leave Gaza, and then condemning Israel in the Goldstone Report when it responded to the rocket attacks that resulted: "This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists? We must know the answer to that question now, and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace." Prime Minister Netanyahu should have stated that Israel is no longer going to "take risks for peace." We have been doing it for decades and it has only brought us war, terrorism and condemnation. The world hasn't changed since Hitler's Nazi Germany began their systematic discrimination against Jews, which gradually built up to mass murder, the Holocaust. During that time, no foreign country condemned the Nazis nor defended the Jews of Germany and later of Europe. United States President Franklyn D. Roosevelt even sent back German Jews fleeing the Nazis. Bibi's speech was a big tease. It fizzled, rather than concluding with a strong message. What a wasted opportunity and what a waste of potential leadership. Bibi is proving no better than his predecessors.
Batya Medad lives in Shiloh.
She can be reached by email at
Shilohmuse@yahoo.com or visit her website
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/ or go to http://www.shilo.org.il
This essay is archived at
|
|
GENERAL PRAISE FOR NETANYAHU'S HISTORIC UN SPEECH
Posted by Arutz-7, September 25, 2009. |
| This was written by Hillel Fendel, senior news editor at Arutz-7, and it appeared today in Arutz-7 |
|
Netanyahu's UN Speech Praised Rare wall-to-wall praise was heard in Israel and abroad for Netanyahu's historic speech in the UN on Thursday — though Hamas didn't like it. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who was present in the hall, was restrained in his praise: "It was a very persuasive speech, the hall was filled, there was great interest, and he did it well." Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who was also there, was more effusive: "The prime minister's speech was a speech that will be imprinted in the world's consciousness. He knows how to do it. The photograph of him with the plans for Auschwitz will be carved into international memory." President Shimon Peres and many government ministers called Netanyahu immediately afterwards to warmly congratulate him, and it took him some 40 minutes to exit the building because of all the well-wishers. He even received an embrace from a long-time guard at the UN who said he remembered Netanyahu from his days as Israel's Ambassador from over 20 years ago. Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Michael Oren, called the speech, "Successful and even historic." Oren told Army Radio that the speech received across-the-board support in the UN, adding, "In general this was a good week for Israeli diplomacy. Netanyahu had a very full and successful week — a historic week in terms of American-Israeli relations." Netanyahu was applauded twice during his speech: When he said that though the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish People, and despite the historic links between them, Israel is willing to allow a demilitarized PA state to be formed there; and when he concluded with quotes from Churchill and the Prophets. Some criticism was leveled, both in Israel and in New York, at the fact that Netanyahu saw fit to go to such lengths to rebut Iranian President Ahmadinajad and prove the veracity of the Holocaust. On the other end of the spectrum, a Hamas spokesman lambasted Netanyahu's "crooked logic" and said he was merely trying to recruit the UN in his "Zionist-terrorist agenda." The Palestinian Authority delegate walked out of the hall when Netanyahu spoke about Gaza, the thousands of rockets fired by Hamas, and Israel's restrained response. Netanyahu: We Have to Know if We Should Take Risks Netanyahu blasted the international community for encouraging Israel to leave Gaza, and then condemning Israel in the Goldstone Report when it responded to the rocket attacks that resulted: "This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists? We must know the answer to that question now, and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace." The Mattot Arim grassroots organization did not like that implication: "A thousand risks have already been taken, a thousand Israelis have already lost their lives, and the Netanyahu government must not repeat this pointless approach." |
|
OBAMA IS FAILING, BUT DOES NOT SEEM TO KNOW IT
Posted by David Meir-Levi, September 25, 2009. |
|
Sh'lom Y'all, If you voted for Obama, please read the following carefully. If you did not, then you probably already know this (or you saw it coming), so just pass this on to someone who did. It looks like Obama's "make nice to bad guys and extend the 'open hand" (as opposed to Bush's closed fist) of friendship and ammity" foreign policy is back-firing in a very big way....all over the world. Iran rejected his overtures, Arabia rejected his overtures, Russia said NO to his requests, France said NO re Iran, and Abbas has now twice rejected his demands and requests and friendly admonitions. Netanyahu did too but with greater subtlety and finess. To the articles below one can add the brief note in today's San Mateo Daily Journal (9.25.09, p. 8: "Around the World" item 2; no attribution, so it probably came from Reuters or AP or AFP and has not yet appeared in MSM): "ABBAS: No Return to Peace Talks at this Time" But Obama does not seem to be learning anything from his failures....at least not as far as I can tell from his UN speech. So, what is to be done: Call or write your congress persons, send this to them, and ask them to start critiquing Obama and speaking out against his failures NOW. David ML |
|
"Obama and the Politics of Concession: Iran and Russia put Obama to the test last week, and he blinked twice."
During last year's campaign, Sen. Joe Biden famously remarked that, if his ticket won, it wouldn't be long before "the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy" on foreign affairs. Last week, President Obama, brilliantly wielding the powers of his office, managed to fail that test not just once but twice, buckling in the face of Russian pressure and taking a giant wooden nickel from Iran. With both a collapsing economy and natural gas reserves sufficient to produce 270 years of electricity, the surplus of which it exports, Iran does not need nuclear electrical generation at a cost many times that of its gas-fired plants. It does, however, have every reason, according to its own lights, to seek nuclear weapons — to deter American intervention; to insure against a resurgent Iraq; to provide some offset to nearby nuclear powers Pakistan, Russia and Israel; to move toward hegemony in the Persian Gulf and address the embarrassment of a more militarily capable Saudi Arabia; to rid the Islamic world of Western domination; to neutralize Israel's nuclear capacity while simultaneously creating the opportunity to destroy it with one shot; and, pertinent to last week's events, by nuclear intimidation to turn Europe entirely against American interests in the Middle east. Some security analysts may comfort themselves with the illusion that soon-to-be nuclear Iran is a rational actor, but no country gripped so intensely by a cult of martyrdom and death that to clear minefields it marched its own children across them can be deemed rational. Even the United States, twice employing nuclear weapons in World War II, seriously contemplated doing so again in Korea and then in Vietnam. The West may be too pusillanimous to extirpate Iran's nuclear potential directly, but are we so far gone as to foreswear a passive defense? The president would have you think not, but how is that? We will cease developing the ability to intercept, within five years, the ICBMs that in five years Iran is likely to possess, in favor of a sea-based approach suitable only to Iranian missiles that cannot from Iranian soil threaten Rome, Paris, London or Berlin. Although it may be possible for the U.S. to modify Block II Standard Missiles with Advanced Technology Kill Vehicles that could disable Iranian missiles in their boost phase, this would require the Aegis destroyers carrying them to loiter in the confined and shallow waters of the Gulf, where antimissile operations would be subject to Iranian interference and attack. Interceptors that would effectively cover Western Europe are too big for the vertical launch cells of the Aegis ships, or even their hulls. Thus, in light of the basing difficulties that frustrate a boost-phase kill, to protect Europe and the U.S. Mr. Obama proposes to deploy land-based missiles in Europe at some future date. If he is willing to do this, why not go ahead with the current plans? The answer is that, even if he says so, he will not deploy land-based missiles in Europe in place of the land-based missiles in Europe that he has cancelled because they are land-based in Europe. What we have here is an inadvertent homage to Lewis Carroll: We are going to cancel a defense that takes five years to mount, because the threat will not materialize for five years. And we will not deploy land-based interceptors in Europe, because our new plan is to deploy land-based interceptors in Europe. Added to what would be the instability and potentially grave injury following upon the appearance of Iranian nuclear ICBMs are two insults that may be more consequential than the issue from which they arise. Nothing short of force will turn Iran from the acquisition of nuclear weapons, its paramount aim during 25 years of secrecy and stalling. Last fall, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad set three conditions for the U.S.: withdrawal from Iraq, a show of respect for Iran (read "apology"), and taking the nuclear question off the table. We are now faithfully complying, and last week, after Iran foreclosed discussion of its nuclear program and Mojtaba Samareh Hashemi, Mr. Ahmadinejad's chief political adviser, predicted "the defeat and collapse" of Western democracy, the U.S. agreed to enter talks the premise of which, incredibly, is to eliminate American nuclear weapons. Even the zombified press awoke for long enough to harry State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley, who replied that, as Iran was willing to talk, "We are going to test that proposition, OK?" Not OK. When Neville Chamberlain returned from Munich at least he thought he had obtained something in return for his appeasement. The new American diplomacy is nothing more than a sentimental flood of unilateral concessions — not least, after some minor Putinesque sabre rattling, to Russia. Canceling the missile deployment within NATO, which Dmitry Rogozin, the Russian ambassador to that body, characterizes as "the Americans ... simply correcting their own mistake, and we are not duty bound to pay someone for putting their own mistakes right," is to grant Russia a veto over sovereign defensive measures — exactly the opposite of American resolve during the Euro Missile Crisis of 1983, the last and definitive battle of the Cold War. Stalin tested Truman with the Berlin Blockade, and Truman held fast. Khrushchev tested Kennedy, and in the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy refused to blink. In 1983, Andropov took the measure of Reagan, and, defying millions in the street (who are now the Obama base), Reagan did not blink. Last week, the Iranian president and the Russian prime minister put Mr. Obama to the test, and he blinked not once but twice. The price of such infirmity has always proven immensely high, even if, as is the custom these days, the bill has yet to come. Mr. Helprin, a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, is the author of, among other works, "Winter's Tale" (Harcourt), "A Soldier of the Great War" (Harcourt) and, most recently, "Digital Barbarism" (HarperCollins). Brief Videos critiquing Obama for his various foreign policy speeches and decisions:
Ambassador John Bolton responds to Obama's UN speech —
Also:
"Examiner Editorial: Gadhafi endorses Obama and other U.N. lunacies"
Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi may have rambled in near-incoherent fashion for more than 1 and a half hours when he spoke to the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday, but on one point he was crystal clear and also enthusiastically applauded: President Barack Obama is "our Obama." That endorsement came in a spleen-splitting speech that also included such gems as Gadhafi's belief that evil drug companies created the swine flu to make more money, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated by Israelis who feared he would stop their nuclear program and today's piracy off the African coast is caused by Western imperialism. If Gadhafi's recommendations sound a bit daft, just think of whom he was addressing. For several decades, the U.N. has happily hosted and thereby lent a farcical air of legitimacy to an endless parade of tinhorn dictators, genocidal killers, corrupt self-dealers and even an armed terrorist, all masquerading as respected heads of state. And for just as many decades, a succession of American presidents and congresses have played along with the illusion of civility while paying the freight to keep this diplomatic freak show on the East River afloat. It's easy to dismiss praise from Gadhafi as mere babbling, but in fact others playing leading roles on the same loony stage have also claimed to be Obama admirers, most recently Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez and aging Cuban tyrant Fidel Castro. One need only read the speech Obama delivered immediately before Gadhafi to understand their enthusiasm. In a continuation of his world apology tour, he obliquely endorsed some of their more direct and crudely expressed condemnations of the U.S. as the chief villain on the international stage. For example, Obama told the delegates — many of whom have endlessly condemned "American imperialism" — that "democracy cannot be imposed on any nation from the outside. Each society must search for its own path, and no path is perfect. Each country will pursue a path rooted in the culture of its people, and — in the past — America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy." In fact, America has imposed its core political values on at least two countries, Germany and Japan, that had only recently allied themselves in a worldwide war of extermination against democracy. And let it never be forgotten that at the end of that same war, America alone had the atom bomb and the means to deliver it wherever we chose. The world was literally ours for the taking. Instead, we mercifully bound our former enemies' wounds, liberally shared our wealth with them and patiently showed them the path back to civilization. Why did Obama not mention this fact? "Fundamentally Freund: Obama's teachable Mideast moment"
For a president who has been in office for just over seven months, Barack Obama can at last point to some meaningful change that he has brought about in the Middle East. Thanks to his administration's arm-twisting and bullying of Jerusalem over settlements, Obama has unwittingly succeeded in galvanizing the Israeli public like never before. The result is a broad coalition that extends all the way from the moderate left, through the center and over to the reasonable right, giving Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu plenty of political breathing space. Consider the following: On Monday, left-wing Defense Minister Ehud Barak signed permits approving the construction of 455 housing units in various Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. This is the same Barak who, as prime minister, sat down with Yasser Arafat at Camp David nine years ago and offered the Palestinians virtually the entire West Bank and Gaza on a silver platter. Yet here he is, lending a hand to building the Land of Israel, in defiance of the dictates from Washington. This is no small achievement. Thousands of additional Jews will now be able to make their homes over the so-called Green Line, strengthening the Jewish presence in the very areas that Washington so desperately wants to tear away from us. Ironically, in this respect, Obama has managed to attain what various right-wing MKs and settler lobby groups could only dream of. Through his obstinacy, the American president has inadvertently brought about a resumption of construction in the territories by unfairly pressing Israel to agree to a "freeze."
NO MATTER how one looks at it, Obama misplayed his hand, thinking he could push Israel around. But this approach has clearly backfired. Instead of dividing and conquering the Israeli public, Obama has instead riled them up and united them. In this regard, Obama can also point to another significant achievement on his watch. Previous American presidents, regardless of their stature at home, have consistently enjoyed high approval ratings among Israelis. Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were all adored by the general Israeli public, which viewed them as true friends. The result was that Israelis trusted them and their judgment, even when they took stands inimical to our interests, thereby making it more difficult for our leaders to openly defy Washington. Yet here too Obama has managed to alter reality. As a recent Smith Research poll conducted on behalf of The Jerusalem Post revealed (August 28), just 4 percent of Israelis now think Obama's policies are pro-Israel, while 51% consider his administration to be pro-Palestinian. In effect, Obama has changed the way Israelis view America. It was once considered unthinkable for a prime minister to say no to the United States, yet that is exactly what is happening now, and the bulk of Israelis support it.
INDEED, WHEN Netanyahu's coalition was sworn in on April 1, could anyone have imagined that within just a few months it would successfully stand up to Washington over the issue of settlements? Sure, Obama can and will point to the six-month moratorium on further West Bank construction as a concession that he squeezed out of Jerusalem. But the fact is that the cranes and bulldozers will continue apace in Judea and Samaria for a long time to come, both on the 2,500 units already under construction and the new ones approved this week. And that is what makes the Netanyahu government's achievement here so noteworthy. For instead of simply acquiescing to Obama's demands on settlements, he has outmaneuvered him, ostensibly giving him what he wants while in effect rendering it moot. And so, the building will carry on, but without the brouhaha that would otherwise have accompanied it. More importantly, Netanyahu has succeeded in changing the narrative of the Middle East peace process. For the first time in recent memory, Israel has actually said no to America on an issue of major importance. Supporters of Israel should breathe a sigh of relief at this development. It signifies a much healthier attitude on the part of the country's decision-makers and marks a new maturity in the relationship between Jerusalem and Washington. If and when a final-status deal is ever negotiated, it is crucial that the Americans and Palestinians go into the talks aware that Israel is self-confident enough to stand firm on issues it views as vital to its existence. This is what Obama himself would likely refer to as a "teachable moment" on the Middle East — one from which he still has a lot to learn. In a short period, he has hardened the Palestinian position, strengthened the hand of Israel's settlement enterprise and led the Israeli public to reassess its blind faith in Washington. That's quite a record of achievement. 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: WHAT IF...
Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 25, 2009. |
|
"What if Israel," writes analyst Herb Keinon in today's Jerusalem Post, "tempered by the harsh reality of the 16 years since Oslo, is not exactly in a giving mood any more." How sweet are those words. "For Obama," declares Keinon, "the trilateral talks in New York on Tuesday fell far short of his expectations, but for Netanyahu, victory was achieved on multiple fronts." Netanyahu has seen Obama seeming to back down on the settlement issue in frustration, and Abbas meeting with him at the UN even though he said he wouldn't because there was no freeze on settlements, and support coming from all wings of his coalition. (I am sorry, and frustrated, that I cannot locate a URL for this. Sometimes there is a lag time.) Even the Arab media outlet Al Jazeera declared that Netanyahu had bested Obama. And that's before Netanyahu's stunning speech yesterday, which brought him accolades. Let us pray that strength follows upon strength now, and that our prime minister continues to stand tall on our behalf. ~~~~~~~~~~ I now have a URL for the full text of Netanyahu's speech yesterday:
~~~~~~~~~~ You might also like to see a video analysis of Obama's UN speech by John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN and a straight-talking man, who offers somber commentary. (Thank you, Barbara O.) I have just one correction: Bolton refers to the pre-67 "borders" of Israel, but, as I pointed out recently, this was an armistice line, not a border. Even our friends don't always get this right.
~~~~~~~~~~ According to Khaled Abu Toameh, not only was Abbas disappointed in the three-way discussion at the UN, he had to endure the annoyance of members of his Fatah party who were not happy that he had met with Netanyahu when settlement activity had not been frozen. In fact, some accused Obama of "humiliating" Abbas by forcing him to attend the meeting when he had said he would not come. But Obama's control over Abbas was of very brief duration, and in the end — if the Palestinians have anything to say about it — it will be Obama who will be humiliated because his peace plans aren't working. As I mentioned very briefly yesterday, Abbas is now balking at going into negotiations with us: This is because of "fundamental disagreements" with Israel regarding what should be on the agenda; he finds that "there is no common ground for discussion" with Netanyahu. Translation: He wants it all, as the Palestinians have always wanted it all, and Netanyahu's government is not willing to talk to them openly about this, about moving back to the Green Line and dividing Jerusalem and taking in "refugees." Additionally, Saeb Erekat, PA negotiator, has reiterated that Netanyahu's demand that we be recognized as a Jewish state is "unacceptable." (I will, I hope, return in due course to an examination of why this demand is important.) Abbas says that he really hates to cause friction with the US government, but... ~~~~~~~~~~ Obama has set a deadline of two years for establishment of a Palestinian state. But, he's going no where on this. This fast-track is not only foolish, it's dangerous, because it lifts Palestinians expectations, setting them up for a fall. Watch: The Palestinians will blame us for being obstinate, and blocking their legitimate rights, and there will be another Intifada, better known as a war. And it will be a more difficult war, because US General Dayton is training PA troops. An idiotic move that will backfire. As I am now doing research on this, I will have a great deal more to say about it. But better a war than having an Olmert in office who would rush to give Abbas what he wanted. Olmert now brags that no one will offer the PA a better deal than he did. What he forgets is that they wouldn't even take that "best deal." (The Palestinians don't want a 'two-state" solution, they want us gone — which is actually the short answer to why the demand we be recognized as a Jewish state is important.) ~~~~~~~~~~ The IAEA has been informed by Iran that it has a second uranium enrichment plant. Obama plans to accuse Iran of hiding this facility at the start of G-20 talks. But how will this affect US talks with Iran is not known, for apparently Obama is still holding on to his plans in this regard. ~~~~~~~~~~ The time before Shabbat is short (and grows shorter as sundown comes earlier). I would like to use this remaining time to touch just a couple of bases, briefly. I have been asked by a Canadian member of my list to give proper credit to the Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, and I find this a most appropriate request. Harper has demonstrated moral clarity repeatedly and shown himself to be a marvelous friend of Israel. He took the lead in deciding that Canada would boycott Ahmadinejad's speech, and I salute him for this. ~~~~~~~~~~ Some days ago, I received a message from Paul Teller, Executive Director of the U.S. House Republican Study Committee (a wonderful House caucus it's good to know about), letting me know that Committee Chair, Congressman Tom Price (R-GA), had sent a letter of support to PM Netanyahu prior to his meetings at the UN this week. The concluding paragraph was this: "The United States must address the Middle East peace process with the strongest of support for Israel. We believe that members of the Jewish faith should be able to freely and securely live and work anywhere, including in all of historic Israel. Allow my to assure you that we will not turn our back on promises the United States has made to assist and defend Israel during such turbulent times. You are a successful democracy, ally, and unconditional friend, and you have our full support." It's reassuring to know that we have friends such as this in Congress. If you are inclined to thank Congressman Price (it's important for him to know that his efforts are valued), you can reach him here: http://tom.house.gov/html/contact_form_email.cfm. Paul Teller can be reached at: Paul.Teller@mail.house.gov. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
THE MASTER PLAN
Posted by Ted Belman, September 25, 2009. |
|
Conventional wisdom tells us that western Europe and America are pressing Israel for concessions in order to placate the Arabs. In my recent article Israel can and must act in her own best interests. I wrote Shortly thereafter (1938) Ben Gurion made his case to Malcolm MacDonald, the Colonial Secretary, who suggested, that the Arab and Muslim world could rise up and threaten the British Empire and therefore to prevent this, Britain had to make sure that the Jews in Palestine remained a minority. But Menachem Begin had a different take which he set out in his 1948 book, The Revolt. This book is Begin's reflection on the Jewish revolt against the British, which he lead. He likened this revolt to the revolt by the Maccabees against the Greeks in Second Century BCE and by the Jews against the Romans in the First Century CE and by Bar Kochba against the Romans in the Second Century. But he also foresaw a Maccabee-like victory rather than Bar Kochba-like defeat. Begin advises that Britain had long wanted Palestine for itself well before the Balfour Declaration. When Herzl was still alive, Lord Cromer of Britain, said "When the Ottoman Empire crumbles, as sooner or later it will, we (Britain) must have Palestine." Britain generally had a policy of cloaking their goals with a lofty ideals, such, as in this case, giving the Jews a national home. So in furtherance of her "Master Plan" in the late Eighteenth Century she kept complaining of Turkey's treatment of the Jews.. The best way for Britain to gain control of Palestine was to act ostensibly on behalf of the Jews. This was born out in the Balfour Declaration in 1917 in which the British Government backed the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, mind you, not Palestine as the Jewish homeland. Britain would have Palestine and the Jews would have a homeland in it. Britain had no fears that too many Jews would want to come. Afterall they were not pioneers and certainly not fighters. The blueprint evolved: the Arabs when required would "revolt" against the "foreign invasion"; the Jews would be forever a threatened minority. Thus Britain would be called upon to maintain the peace. Unfortunately for them, as Robbie Burns wrote, "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley," Throughout the twenties and thirties the British encouraged the Arabs to "revolt". But because of the Holocaust, the Jews kept coming. Britain in order not to lose control had to limit their entry. Thus the Peel Commission in the late thirties recommended in a White Paper that only 75,000 Jews more, be allowed into Palestine by 1944. The Jews had to be kept to a minority at all costs. In fact Hitler's Final Solution played into their hands as there would be less Jews left to emigrate to Eretz Yisroel. The British spin machine went into overdrive and overtime. "After all, couldn't let German spies into Palestine, could we." During this period, the Jewish leadership followed a policy of self-restraint known as "havlagah". But Vladiimir Jabatinsky, the founder of Betar, would have none of it. He preached resistance and revolt until his death in 1940. Out of his teachings was born the Jewish underground army The Irgun and another underground group, Fighters for Freedom of Israel which later became known as the The Stern Gang after their slain leader.. In early 1944 The Irgun declared war on Britain demanding an "immediate transfer of power to a Provisional Hebrew Government" and announced a call to arms for all Jews. The British reaction amounted to, "What chutzpah!". Shortly thereafter, the revolt brought about the neutralization of the Arab factor. They ceased to do the British bidding. Only after the British announced that they were leaving Palestine and the Arab countries declared war on the future Jewish state did the local Arabs return to their attacks. Britain expected that the Stern Gang and The Irgun would fight them and maybe even the Haganah would join in. They were confident they would crush them just as the Romans crushed the Jews 2000 years earlier. They would force the Jewish leaders to collaborate and hunt them down just like the Nazis did. They planned to get the support of the US for their plan arguing it was necessary to prevent Russian expansion into the Middle East. All this was set out in a document marked "Secret" prepared by the British "Cairo Bureau" which came into the hands of The Irgun. The revolt depended on the willingness of the Jews to fight to the death. And they were not found wanting. According to Begin, but for the revolt, the state of Israel would not have come into existence. According to Ben Gurion, who usually opposed Begin, but for him the state would not have survived the war waged by the Arab counties after the state was declared. They were both right. Begin had forced Britain out and Ben Gurion had prepared Israel to defend itself by building an army and keeping the country unified. A month before the State of Israel was declared, The Irgun and others, attacked Deir Yassin, an Arab village. There is much dispute on the numbers killed. Wikipedia reports The massacre became a pivotal event in the Arab-Israeli conflict for its demographic and military consequences. The narrative was embellished and used by various parties to attack each other — by the Palestinians to besmirch Palestine's Jewish community, and later Israel; by the Haganah to play down their own role in the affair; and later by the Israeli Left to accuse the Irgun and Lehi of violating the Jewish principle of "tohar hanashek" (purity of arms), thus blackening Israel's name around the world.2009-09-18 08:53:55 News of the killings sparked terror within the Palestinian community, encouraging them to flee from their towns and villages in the face of Jewish troop advances, and it strengthened the resolve of Arab governments to intervene, which they did five weeks later by invading Palestine, following Israel's declaration of independence on May 14.1 Begin advises that it was a very important military target and that the fighting was fierce. He adds: Yet the hostile propaganda disseminated throughout the world, deliberately ignored the fact that the civilian population of Deir Yassin was actually given a warning by us before the battle began. One of our tenders carrying a loud speaker was stationed at the entrance of the village and it exhorted, in Arabic, all woman and children and aged to leave their houses and to take shelter on the slope of the hill. By giving this humane warning our fighters threw away the element of complete surprise, and thus increased their own risk in the ensuing battle. Many, though not all, heeded the advice. Our men were compelled to fight for every house; to overcome the enemy they used large numbers of hand grenades. The civilians who had disregarded our warnings, suffered inevitable casualties. Because the Arabs called Deir Yassin, a Jewish atrocity, where have we heard that recently, Begin stressed: The education which we give our soldiers throughout the years of the revolt was based on the observance of the international laws of war. We never broke them unless the enemy first did so and thus, forced us, in accordance with the accepted custom of war, to apply reprisals. The exaggerations by the Arabs of the event for propaganda purposes contributed greatly to the flight of perhaps 500,000 to 700,000 Arabs from Palestine. This flight and the expulsion of 800,000 Jews from Arab countries, contributed greatly to establishing a Jewish majority. The US is now the big power in the ME and she is following Britain's Master Plan. The US wants Israel to be shrunk but not exterminated.[See The conspiracy to Shrink Israel] Thus the US will be needed to protect them. To this end she trains Fatah and keeps Hamas alive. The Saudis also depend on them for protection. It was a standard technique of the Brits to set up a Commission of Inquiry in response to violence, riots etc. As Begin reports, "These Commissions had the added psychological advantage of appearing as impartial adjudicators emphasizing and re-emphasizing that there were two conflicting "rights" in Palestine, and thus underlying the need for a permanent presence in Palestine of the Mandatory Power as a third and deciding party." The most significant Commission was the Peel Commission set up in response to British instigated violence which recommended a limitation of Jewish immigration. The US uses the same technique. In response to the Second Intifada after the failure of Camp David, the US sent Sen. Mitchell to Israel to investigate the violence, and wouldn't you know it, he recommended a settlement freeze just as the Peel Commission recommended an immigration freeze. In both cases, Jewish rights were restricted as a result of Arab violence. The United Nations does the same thing. As a result of Hamas rocket violence and Israeli self-defense, the UN appointed Goldstone to head a commission of enquiry. The Goldstone Report did what it was expected to do, namely, recommended Israel be tried for war crimes and perhaps crimes against humanity. A word to the wise, beware of Inquiries. The US is there, like Britain was there, not so much because she is needed but because she wants to be there. Had the international community not insisted in managing the outcome of the '67 war, there would now be peace in the Middle East. Ted Belman
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 |
|
BIBLICAL JOSEPH-ERA COINS FOUND IN EGYPT
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, September 25, 2009. |
| Does anyone know of a source other than Al Ahram for this story? If true, it is pretty amazing but even more so that Al Ahram reported it. This was written by Hillel Fendel and appeared in Arutz-7 http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/Flash.aspx/171577 |
|
An Egyptian paper claims that archaeologists have discovered ancient Egyptian coins bearing the name and image of the Biblical Joseph. The report in Al-Ahram boasts that the find backs up the Koran's claim that coins were used in Egypt during Joseph's period. Joseph, son of the Patriarch Jacob, died around 1450 B.C.E., according to Jewish sources. Excerpts from the Al-Ahram report, as translated by Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI): "In an unprecedented find, a group of Egyptian researchers and archeologists has discovered a cache of coins from the time of the Pharaohs. Its importance lies in the fact that it provides decisive scientific evidence disproving the claim by some historians that the ancient Egyptians were unfamiliar with coins and conducted their trade through barter. 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. MEMRI "explores the Middle East through the region's media. MEMRI bridges the language gap which exists between the West and the Middle East, providing timely translations of Arabic, Persian,Turkish, Urdu-Pashtu media, as well as original analysis of political, ideological, intellectual, social, cultural, and religious trends in the Middle East." Headquartered in Washington, D.C., MEMRI has branch offices in Jerusalem, London, Tokyo, Rome, Baghdad, and Shanghai. |
|
PM NETANYAHU: THE UN'S PRIMARY MISSION IS TO PREVENT TEHRAN FROM ACQUIRING NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, September 25, 2009. |
|
To: Prime Minister Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu. Dear Bibi, Now that the U.N.'s Security Council has passed a resolution to de-Nuclearize the nations, guess who will be first to be asked/ordered to surrender her Nuclear Deterrent? A. Israel would then be left to the Genocidal mercies of Iran, Syria, and the Arab League with only conventional weapons. President Obama is now the active Head of the notoriously anti-Israel Security Council which is comprised of the most anti-Israel nations. Too bad that Obama and his U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, plotted to insure that Israel is made to stand down her Nuclear Deterrence. Clearly, don't you think the U.S., Russia, North Korea and China should set the example and stand down all of their Nuclear Bombs, including ICBMs, Tactical Nukes, Missile, Suitcase Nukes, Nuclear Land Mines — and moth-ball all Nuclear Breeding plants that produce fissile materials before Israel even thinks about foolishly disarming in the face of implacable Muslim enemies. IF they (the Nations) did disarm, then Israel MIGHT consider trusting and considering such a national suicidal move. Time enough when the Moshiach comes. This below is DEBKAfile Special Report, September 24, 2009 |
|
In an impassioned speech to the UN General Assembly Thursday, Sept 24, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said the United Nations' most important mission today is to prevent "the tyrants of Tehran" from acquiring nuclear weapons, because the marriage of religious fanaticism and weapons of mass destruction would endanger the world. Holding up the minutes of the Nazi leaders' 1942, decision to annihilate the Jewish people, Netanyahu said the man who called the Holocaust a lie also pledges to wipe out the state of the Jewish people, making a mockery of the UN Charter. His statement, "We ask the Palestinians to recognize the nation-state of the Jewish people just as we recognize the Palestinian wish for a home of their own," won applause in the chamber. Netanyahu went on to say he believes the two peoples can live side by side in peace, prosperity and dignity, if there is security. Therefore the Palestinian state must be "effectively demilitarized." The prime minister slammed the UN report which held Israel guilty of war crimes in its Gaza operation last January, accusing its authors of "equating terrorists and their victims." The world body never once condemned Hamas' eight-year rocket offensive against the Israeli population. Israel must be sure the world body rejects this biased report before embarking on peace talks with the Palestinians, he said. "We must be sure the West Bank will never be another Gaza." Israel wants peace and believes it is possible with good will and hard work, so long as "the world body fights terrorist forces and their backers and does not accommodate them." 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). |
|
RADICALS PUSH KAUFMAN CASE TO TEXAS SUPREME COURT
Posted by David Horowitz, September 24, 2009. |
|
Dear DHFC Supporter, Radical Muslims are using our court system to try to silence those who expose their terrorist connections. They've done it in Europe and Canada — and now they're trying it here in America. In the case of investigative reporter Joe Kaufman, they're not giving up — even though their case is completely bogus. After two years of defending Joe, we are now facing yet another challenge. I'm writing to you as a member of the Freedom Center to ask you to help pay for Jo e's defense. Seven Muslim groups claim that Joe is a threat. They convinced a court that Joe "intends to threaten to take unlawful action...cause bodily injury...or threaten Plaintiffs or their members with immediate bodily injury." On those grounds the court imposed a restraining order on him. And they sued Joe for defamation to stop him from writing about Muslims in the future and to close down his websites. Joe reports and writes for my website FrontPage Magazine and for his own websites. He has never threatened a Muslim in his life. But he has exposed facts they want to hide. The reason Joe Kaufman is being targeted by these Muslim groups is that he monitors web sites run by Muslim charitable organizations, and he has identified money trails leading from some of these groups to terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah. We have been defending Joe from this lawsuit since 2007 — thanks to the financial support we've received fro m our members. And we thought we'd won when in June the Texas Court of Appeals finally threw out the lawsuit, ruling that the case had no merit to continue. But our victory celebration didn't last long. The Islamic groups involved have petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to review the case! Why do they keep this absurd case going? For one reason: If they can defeat Joe Kaufman in court, radical Muslims will know they can stop anyone from investigating and writing about any Muslim groups and individuals. This is a case of national importance. Radical Muslims are watching it carefully. They have seemingly unlimited funds to keep fighting as long as they have a hope. We need to keep fighting back. We cannot let these groups succeed. This is why I am urgently asking you to help the Freedom Center pay for the legal bills incurred in Joe's defense and to cover this latest development. Joe Kaufman has no money to spend on his defense. He has made a career of investigative journalism focusing on terrorism — something the mainstream media doesn't want to touch with a ten-foot pole, and therefore not a high-paying profession. He needs our help. A victory by the Muslim groups would be the first step in silencing all of us. This is a free speech issue and nothing more: Joe has not lied about, threatened, or touched any of the Muslims who are suing him, or any other Muslims for that matter. He simply reported the truth, and for that these groups are doing their best to silence him — and to intimidate the rest of us. The lawsuit against Joe Kaufman is part of a strategy by these Muslim groups to bully us into silence. That's why we cannot let them win. I am asking you to make a contribution of $25, $50, $100 or even more if you can, to help us raise the $25,000 we need right away to pay for Joe Kaufman's defense. Any amount you can send will help. It's urgent! Thanks in advance for your help. Sincerely,
P.S. Our lawyers believe we have a strong case, but the outcome of this case is by no means predictable. Too many judges have shown themselves to care more about not offending Muslims than about free speech. We must raise the money to fight this case to the end! Please help us fight back.
The David Horowitz Freedom Center
|
|
PRESIDENT OBAMA SPEAKS TO THE UNITED NATIONS: SACRIFICING ISRAEL AND AMERICA TO MAKE FRIENDS IN THE UN NETHERWORLD
Posted by Eye on the UN, September 24, 2009. |
|
This article, by Robert Costa, originally appeared in
National Review Online
|
|
Frequent NRO contributor Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow with the Hudson Institute and executive director of Human Rights Voices, gave us a call from the United Nations to relay her take on President Obama's speech. "The president played to his audience, which was largely an undemocratic one," says Bayefsky. "In that way, he succeeded." Bayefsky notes that the president received a big round of applause for suggesting that Israel should return to 1967 borders, "without the slightest concern that Israel cannot return to indefensible borders — at least if there is to be any hope of real peace." Obama, she says, also made "a unilateral policy statement about what is supposed to be subject to bilateral negotiations, as if Israel were his vassal state. That made a terrific impression with the folks at the U.N., but it has nothing to do with a global agenda that advances international peace and security." "President Obama also engaged in another round of moral equivalency," says Bayefsky, "which he made infamous in his Cairo speech. He compared those who live in terror in Israel with those who are still waiting for clean water and a state of their own in 'Palestine," a statement which ignores history and the facts on the ground. The Palestinian people in Gaza, who elected a government sworn to Israel's destruction, do not have a country of their own because their elected representatives in Gaza have declared their permanent opposition to living side-by-side with any Jewish state. The President's continuing failure to recognize the difference between the victims of terror and the perpetrators bodes ill for any prospect for peace in the Middle East." Bayefsky adds that one interesting feature of Obama's speech was the number of times that he apologized for America. "He essentially said to the world that 'I'm embarrassed at America's record' and that their hostility toward America prior to his ascendance to the country's highest office was correct." "He also got a big round of applause when he pledged to stop torturing people," says Bayefsky. "The president set up a straw man — a false statement disputing this country's constant denunciation of torture — to make himself attractive to the outside world. Such words should diminish his credibility as commander-in-chief, a job which demands him to defend our highest principles unapologetically." "President Obama had the audacity to speak at length about his commitment to standing with the oppressed. While he spoke inside the U.N., hundreds of protesters from Iran were outside refuting his words," says Bayefsky. "President Obama has offered an outstretched hand to the man who is responsible for the terrible fate of Iranian dissidents. Every Iranian demonstrator in New York today said loud and clear that they believe President Obama's policy on Iran to be an outrageous abandonment of democratic values." President Obama, Bayefsky says, also said that he will no longer tolerate those on the wrong side of history. "It is becoming very plain that the president himself is on the wrong side of history. He stood before a crowd of largely undemocratic leaders and said he was on their side. Instead of leading, the president sounded confused and relativistic, claiming that there is no one form of democracy and that everybody quite reasonably has their own take on what democracy means. Everyone there knew that those words are exactly how the Cubans and Chinese speak in U.N. circles. The president's deliberate ambiguity on the nature of democracy was well-received at the U.N., but it did nothing to enhance America's moral stature and leadership capacity in the world today." On a final note, Bayefsky says that on Iran, the president said that 'if' the country chooses to ignore nuclear standards, then it would have a problem. "If? We already know exactly what Iran has been doing," she says. "Using the word if suggests that President Obama is simply refusing to come to terms with the reality of Iran's nuclear program and that he has an extraordinary blind spot that isn't going away any time soon." "This speech ought to send shockwaves through the United States and our European allies," concludes Bayefsky. "We have the weakest president in modern times ensconced in Washington, a man who will run away from saying what has to be said, if it doesn't appeal to an audience rife with demagogues." For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org. EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time. EYEontheUN provides a unique information base for the re-evaluation of priorities and directions for modern-day democratic societies. |
|
FROM ISRAEL: OOM SHMOOM
Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 24, 2009. |
|
Now as to "Oom shmoom"... Ben Gurion used this derisive expression — "oom" is shorthand in Hebrew for United Nations — to express his contempt for it. It stands today, although we must pay attention at some level to what goes on in this morally corrupt institution. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yesterday Ahmadinejad spoke again to the General Assembly. Morally corrupt barely describes an institution that would grant him this courtesy. I will not in any way focus on what Ahmadinejad said. Of interest to me, first, are the countries that walked out on him: France took the lead when Ahmadinejad began castigating Israel, and then Argentina, Australia, Britain, Costa Rica, Denmark, France Germany, Hungary, Italy, New Zealand and the United States followed. Israel was not in the hall, having called for a boycott of the talk. Canada — which deserves kudos for its support — had joined that boycott. ~~~~~~~~~~ And then, most importantly of all, there is this: Tonight Israel time, afternoon US time, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu spoke to the General Assembly, and oh he did us proud. Israel, first, but then Jews everywhere. A moral challenge to Oom Shmoom. Excerpts from his talk (emphasis is mine): "The UN was founded after the carnage of World War II, [and was] charged with preventing the reoccurrence of such horrendous events. ~~~~~~~~~~ The prime minister then addressed the Goldstone Commission report about our alleged war crimes in Gaza. "Not one UN resolution was passed condemning Hamas rocket attacks on Israel. We heard nothing, absolutely nothing from the UN Human Rights Council. And then the ending, from Joshua: "Let us be strong and of good courage... let us confront the peril... let us forge an enduring peace for generations to come." A URL for the full text of this talk will be shared when it becomes available. Here is a URL for a brief clip of his talk on YouTube:
(Thanks, Cheryl) ~~~~~~~~~~ This is how it is when he speaks from his gut, from his place of deep moral understanding, without political game-playing. And how sweet it is. He needs to know now how proud we are and how totally with him. Prime Minister Netanyahu
~~~~~~~~~~ Tomorrow Abbas speaks. Abbas, who let it be known today that negotiations would not happen soon. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
PALESTINIANS HAVE NO "LEGITIMATE RIGHTS"
Posted by Ted Belman, September 24, 2009. |
|
Yesterday Pres Obama addressed the UNGA on the subject of the conflict between Arabs and Jews conflict and had this to say; ...I will also continue to seek a just and lasting peace between Israel, Palestine, and the Arab world. What is noteworthy here, is that he referred to "Palestine" like it was a state already. Is that not pre-judging the outcome? He also wants there to be peace with the "Arab world" which means more pressure on Israel to cave to the demands of Syria. Palestinians have strengthened their efforts on security. Israelis have facilitated greater freedom of movement for the Palestinians. As a result of these efforts on both sides, the economy in the West Bank has begun to grow. But more progress is needed. We continue to call on Palestinians to end incitement against Israel, and we continue to emphasize that America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. He appears to be signing on to Netanyahu's ideas regarding building the economy as a means to peace. But to my mind by rejecting the "legitimacy of the settlements", he is declaring war on Israel. The settlements are legitimate and legal. By taking such a position on no or spurious legal reasoning he is no better than Goldstone who took the position that Israel was guilty of war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. Nether of the positions of Obama or Goldstone have any legitimacy. They are imposing on Israel an interpretation of law which favours the outcome they desire. Once again Obama has prejudged the outcome of negotiations. If the settlements are illegal as he says, then Israel Israel must agree to withdraw from all lands east of the green line. He made no distinction with respect to Jerusalem. But the US has long maintained the position that no one should do anything to prejudge the outcome. Most presidents have shied away from saying that the settlements were illegal and contented themselves with declaring them "obstacles to peace". This, also, is a debatable issue. The time has come — the time has come to re-launch negotiations without preconditions that address the permanent status issues: security for Israelis and Palestinians, borders, refugees, and Jerusalem. And the goal is clear: Two states living side by side in peace and security — a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people. (Applause.) Obama is misleading the world to say that negotiations should start "without preconditions" when he doesn't mean it. The negotiations will be fraught with preconditions. He names a few such as that Palestine must be "independent", "viable" and "contiguous". But there are others such as the need to "end the occupation that began in 1967". This implies full withdrawal rather than partial withdrawal as provided for in Res 242. Then there is the matter of whether the negotiations are starting fresh, which would be without preconditions, or whether the negotiations must pick up where they left off. Obama has been pressing for the latter. As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations. On the contrary, when is he going to say privately what he says publically. Once again he wants to be "honest" with us. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. (Applause.) And — and nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks against Israel over constructive willingness to recognize Israel's legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security. (Applause.) Now here is the bottom line, what are "the legitimate rights of the Palestinians'? Refugees. There is no legitimate right of return, There is only a right to receive compensation for the property owned by them and left behind when they evacuated. The Jewish refugees have a similar right for property they left behind in Arab countries when they were expelled. Land. The land lying east of the armistice line, which the Arabs refer to as the West Bank and the Jews refer to as Judea and Samaria, can in no way be Palestinian land as claimed. The Palestinians never had sovereignty over it. Having lived there or even owned small parcels of land there, never confers sovereignty. There is absolutely no way they can establish a "legitimate right" to these lands. According to international law,The Jews were given these lands, as their national homeland over which they had political rights. These rights have never been forfeited. Jerusalem. Jerusalem is a Jewish concept, not an Islamic one. Jerusalem, as a city means nothing to Islam. Jerusalem means everything to Judaism. It is at the core of it. I have no idea why anyone would consider that the Arabs have legitimate rights over Jerusalem but am sure that Obama includes a share of Jerusalem as a legitimate Palestinian right. "Legitimate rights" are important in a court of law. They have no place in negotiations. Negotiations are essentially a power play whether between Management and Labour in labour disputes or between countries in negotiating treaties. Obama is supporting the Palestinians to strengthen their negotiating position. He is attempting to influence the outcome while at the same time he says that no one should do anything to prejudge the outcome. It amounts to an imposed solution. Obama leaves little to be negotiated. He has predetermined all. In fact, has he not publically embraced the Saudi Plan. Ted Belman
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 |
|
MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ISRAELI TREATMENT OF ARABS; FATAH DIDN'T AMEND
CHARTER; ARABS: NO NORMALIZATION WITH ISRAEL BEFORE TREATY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 24, 2009. |
|
MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ISRAELI TREATMENT OF ARABS In the NY Times, some years ago, Anthony Lewis reported a lawless Israeli military response to Arab bomb and rock throwing. The IDF deported six Arabs. Mr. Lewis put it, "As always, in these cases, there were no charges, no trial, just a quick dumping of the men into Lebanon." Others also made his mistake. Actually, the six had good lawyers, some from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. Their attorneys advised they were about to win their case. Nevertheless, all withdrew their appeals. They did not want to undercut their political appeal [by letting the Israeli justice system acknowledge Arab rights to due process. Only after they gave up, were they deported. Another example of mis-reporting was in the deportation case of Mubarak Awad, an American Arab from the Territories. The U.S. media called him an advocate of nonviolence." They omitted his statements, such as, "There are those who use guns, and we are not against them;" "tomorrow we might think that stones are not enough, and we'll have to jump on an Israeli soldier and take his gun", etc. (Alan M. Dershowitz, Contrary to Popular Opinion, 1992, p.391). REPORTERS HAVE ILLUSIONS ABOUT CHINA The NY Times reported a tariff/subsidy dispute between China and the U.S.. Reporter Keith Bradsher stated, "But the trade battle increases political tensions between the two nations even as they try to work together to revive the global economy and combat mutual security threats, like the nuclear ambitions of Iran and N. Korea." (9/14, A1.) By now reporters should have shed illusions about China (and Russia) working together with the U.S. to improve international security. China stonewalls or vetoes strong sanctions proposed in the Security Council against rogue states. The newspaper's naivete decreases one's confidence in its editorials. ARABS WROTE UN REPORT ON IDF IN GAZA? The UN Human Rights Commission issued a 34-page report on the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), making the usual accusations of Israeli war crimes, collective punishment, and illegal settlements. According to Israel's Ambassador to the UN, Aharon Leshno Yaar, "'written by Palestinians in Ramallah' and 'screened by Palestinian lawyers in Geneva in order to satisfy Palestinian diplomats on the Human Rights Council.'" The report urged that construction permits in Judea-Samaria and eastern Jerusalem be issued equally for Arabs as for Jews (www.imra.org.il, 8/16). That last recommendation is the report's only good news for Israel, considering that Israel has frozen most permits for Jews. FATAH DIDN'T AMEND CHARTER The Fatah Conference did not amend nor discuss its Charter. Excerpts below: * Section 17: "Popular armed revolution is the imperative and only way to liberate Palestine." The Conference endorsed: "The goals, principles, and methods, as they are written in Chapter One of the charter, are the basic point of departure for our movement, and are part of the ideological and political identity of our people. They are also the identity of the movement and its fundamental charter..." (MEMRI in www.imra.org.il, 8/16.) Note that Fatah has confirmed that its goal is to destroy Israel by violence, not make peace. There is no excuse for deeming Fatah moderate. The notion of a peace process with Fatah is invalid. For those who are aware of this, their motive must not be peace but wrecking Israel. Why are most people not aware of this? Media ignorance and bias? ARABS: NO NORMALIZATION WITH ISRAEL BEFORE TREATY Egyptian President Mubarak said they would not normalize relations with Israel before signing a final treaty (www.imra.org.il, 8/17). What does he really mean? Usually, warring countries cease belligerence before signing voluntary peace treaties. They don't want hostility any more. They prefer peace. It was the same in my career as a systems analyst — I negotiated the systems requirements with each department first, then drew up a document to ratify our agreement. The document did not create good will; it reflected it. The same holds true with the Arabs. Why? Here are some likely and possible reasons. Suppose, as I believe, that the so-called "peace process" is a fraud. I suppose it, because a cardinal tenet of Islam is war to bring non-believers' land under its control. Islam can't lay down the sword for good. How can Arab governments make peace, when their propaganda incites the masses to demand war? Can they stop such incitement the moment treaties are signed? They'd be called traitors. The major states, at least, have indoctrinated their masses in an extreme version. They fed them on illusions of entitlement and nationality. Now how could the Arab governments tell their people to relinquish what they have come to believe are their rights? In other words, the Arabs lack the good will upon which peace must rest. They preach that "the Jews" are evil sub-humans (shades of Adolph Hitler). Good will? The Fatah Conference just confirmed that its goal is to destroy Israel by violence. Nevertheless, the State Dept. touts Fatah as moderate and willing to make peace. Discount State Dept. positions in view of its opposition to Jewish statehood in the first place. Agreements with Israel are vehicles for getting territorial and other concessions from Israel, not for making peace. Israel made normalization agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and the PLO. All three Arabs parties accepted territory from Israel but did not permit normalization. Anwar Sadat, who signed the non-aggression pact with Israel, froze relations with Israel as soon as Israel finished withdrawing from the Sinai. He acted in bad faith. Very few pundits recognized this, caught up as they were in euphoria. An anticipated Arab tactic is to sign agreements, get the concessions, and then claim bad Israeli faith or raise new or unsettled issues, in order to provide a pretext for renewing the state of war. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
SHAS MK: EASE CONVERSION FOR IDF SOLDIERS OF JEWISH DESCENT
Posted by Gil Ronen, September 24, 2009. |
|
MK Rabbi Chaim Amsalem (Shas) is vigorously pursuing a plan that would ease the conversion to Judaism (giyur) of descendants of Jews who immigrated to Israel and served in the armed forces. The plan is seen as a revolutionary one, coming as it does from a rabbi and politician who belongs to the hareidi-religious stream, which is not known to favor military service at all. The plan would help ease the plight of many immigrants to Israel and their children who made Aliyah from the former Soviet Union and who are not considered Jewish according to Jewish law because they were not born to Jewish mothers. These immigrants are required to serve in the IDF and often risk life and limb for the nation, yet they are not recognized as Jews and encounter problems when they wish to marry a Jew. Many of them do not wish to live as observant Jews but are required to do so in order to be converted. MK Rabbi Amsalem has now completed an essay explaining his idea and sent it to 1,000 rabbis from all orthodox streams in Israel, in the hope of receiving their support and comments for the plan. Zera Yisrael "Everything that I have written about the need for easing the conversion process," MK Rabbi Amsalem said, "was not said about regular gentiles to convert, but only towards those who are descended from Jews and are known by the rabbinical authorities as 'the seed of Israel' (zera yisrael)." MK Rabbi Amsalem issued a clarification Wednesday in which he explained that he never said that enlistment to the IDF is a substitute for obeying the Jewish mitzvot (commandments), but that it should be seen as "only a part of the mitzvot that the convert accepts upon himself." MK Rabbi Amsalem's initiative was lambasted by hareidi newspaper Yated Neeman a week ago. The newspaper said his idea was "less than what one would expect from a Conservative 'rabbi'" and claimed that it was contrary to the opinions of all the great rabbinical authorities. It called Amsalem a "low-grade political hack" and used an Aramaic phrase afra lefumey — literally "dirt upon his mouth" — which means "he should shut up." Amsalem punched back at the paper, calling it a "tabloid" and saying it was beneath his dignity to respond to its misrepresentation of his initiative. Tradition is enough Amsalem has argued that by making conversion difficult for zera yisrael who serve in the IDF, the Jewish establishment is committing a chilul Hashem, or a desecration of G-d's name. He quotes Rabbi Ovadiah Yosef, who in another, similar context, asked: "What will the 'free' [Jew who do not observe Torah and mitzvot say when they see that we push away from us those who risk their lives for Israel." Rabbi MK Amsalem noted that the obligation to observe mitzvot as a condition for conversion was in force when most of the Jews were observant, but this is not the case today. In our times, he says, "it is proper to see the service in the IDF and the connection to the nation of Israel as proof of their true wish to convert." He adds that he does not mean that the converts should not be required to make any changes in their lifestyle, but that it should be enough that they become "traditional" by blessing on the wine on Sabbath, fasting on Yom Kippur, avoiding non-kosher food, eating kosher-for-Pesach foodstuffs on Pesach, and respecting the holidays that symbolize Judaism. "Even the beloved mitzva (commandment) of tefillin," he adds, "we see that many who do not observe the Sabbath properly lay them and pray with them. Would we consider these gentiles?" Gil Ronen is a writer for Arutz-7, where this article appeared. |
|
REBICK SHOULD CHECK HER SOURCES
Posted by Michael Devolin, September 24, 2009. |
|
I have to wonder how Judy Rebick arrived at the perception that the opposition against Naomi Klein's very own "vicious criticism" of Israel and Jews consists of a "pile-on of angry Jewish males." Were I to articulate that much of the opposition to Israel and Jews within Western academia and the Middle East consisted of a "pile-on of angry Muslim males," I know that I would be told that such a letter could not be published in the Post. Ms. Rebick cites numbers provided by B'tselem without mentioning that this same organization collects its data from the websites and blogs of militant wings of terrorist organizations and the Palestinian police. An article in the Jerusalem Post points out that a separate IDF investigation of Cast Lead operations reported that there were "1,166 Palestinian casualties in the Gaza Strip, the majority of which (709) were terror operatives affiliated with Hamas and other groups." The IDF investigation also pointed out that "B'tselem's sources [have] a vested interest." These "vested interests" referred to by the IDF complete the real picture of so-called Jewish anti-Israel activists like Naomi Klein and Judy Rebick. When Ms. Rebick writes that "[my Orthodox Jewish grandparents] never forced their religiosity on their children," she is implying that Judaism is to blame for crimes she attributes to the state of Israel, real or imagined. Both she and Ms. Klein forget the most important lesson of the Holocaust: that being kind to a stranger is one thing, but inciting him/her to anti-Jewish hatred is quite another. This incitement is, I'm sure, what Bernie Farber has a problem with, along with all those other "Jewish males." Michael Devolin,
This appeared in the National Post. |
|
POLLARD PETITION: INSTRUCTIONS FOR ENGLISH SPEAKERS
Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, September 24, 2009. |
|
1. Go to the petition http://www.atzuma.co.il/petition/freepollard/ 2. Scroll down past all the Hebrew text to the signature box. You will recognize it as a large square box surrounded by broken lines. 3. In the large signature box you will see 3 small rectangles, one underneath the other. Underneath all three of these rectangles, you will see one more large rectangle. Type your name (in English) into th first rectangle (it is the one that has a red asterisk to the right).All the other boxes are optional. You can ignore them and go straight to number 5 below! 4. OR for those who insist in filling in all the rectangles: In the first one, type your name. 5. Click on the red and white stamp (it appears on a diagonal underneath the largest rectangle in the signature box) and your information will be added to the petition. ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE POLLARD YOM KIPPUR PETITION To our dear brother, Jonathan Pollard! As we approach Yom Kippur every one of us attempts to do a personal accounting — a Cheshbon HaNefesh — to recall if there is someone we may have hurt, to ask for forgiveness, to take upon ourselves to rectify our transgressions and to aspire to become a better person. We are the citizens of Israel (and English-speaking friends). Even though you may not know us personally, you know and we all know that so many among us owe their lives to you. We are ashamed that even after your 24 years of anguished affliction in an American prison, our government (the Government of Israel) has yet to take the most minimal steps for you, a bona fide Israeli agent, who served the State and worked for its security. We hereby ask your forgiveness, in our own names, and in the name of our government — for not having moved Heaven and Earth for you with our outcry, and for not bringing appropriate pressure to bear upon the government to force them to work for your release — and not leave a wounded soldier in the field. We ask for your forgiveness for not understanding until now that every day that you continue to languish in prison, in effect, all of the People of Israel are in captivity as well. We promise, from now on, that we will not rest and we shall not be silent until we merit to greet you and your wife Esther at Ben Gurion Airport. * * * * * * * * Click here to sign the petition: * * * * * * * * In addition, it is recommended that personal letters be written to Jonathan. Although he is prevented from responding, he does receive all his in-coming mail and he deeply appreciates it! These letters are his "oxygen"! Here is his address: Jonathan Pollard #09185-016
Feel free to share a copy of your letter with justice4jp@gmail.com
Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to
justice4jp@gmail.com and visit their website:
|
|
JEWS IN JAIL
Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, September 24, 2009. |
|
This was written by Kenneth Lasson and it appeared in The Baltimore Jewish Times. Kenneth Lasson is a law professor at the University of Baltimore. |
|
As the Day of Atonement approaches, it is hard to say who among us will be charged, tried, and convicted of criminal activity, and who won't, in the year to come. Of the high-profile American Jews currently in jail, two deserve to be there and one doesn't. In January of 2006, Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to three federal felony counts related to the defrauding of American Indian tribes and corruption of public officials. In September of 2008 he was also convicted of trading expensive gifts in exchange for political favors. Mr. Abramoff, who has said he became a baal teshuva (one who has repented) at the age of twelve after seeing "Fiddler on the Roof," is currently incarcerated at a prison camp adjacent to the federal penitentiary in Cumberland, Maryland. In June of this year Bernard Madoff, admitted mastermind of the largest investor fraud ever committed by a single person — bilking thousands of investors of billions of dollars from the early 1990's onward — was sentenced to 150 years in prison (the maximum allowed) and $170 billion in restitution. Mr. Madoff was also a prominent philanthropist, whose Madoff Family Foundation made sizable donations to hospitals, schools, theaters, and charities (including those later forced to close because of his fraud. He is currently at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North Carolina. One of Mr. Madoff's fellow prisoners at Butner is Jonathan Pollard, the former civilian intelligence analyst who in 1987 pleaded guilty of spying for Israel and was sentenced to life in prison with a recommendation against parole. It is not necessary to rehearse here the sad facts of the Pollard case — the botched spy operation, the failed plea bargain, the grossly disproportionate sentence — except to point out that Mr. Pollard has been locked up in a federal penitentiary for the past twenty-four years (he was arrested in 1985) and has little prospect of getting out. All three of these men committed punishable offenses, but that's where the similarities end. Those perpetrated by Mr. Abramoff and Mr. Madoff were for personal gain. Not so that of Mr. Pollard, who transferred documents containing information about Syrian and Iraqi chemical weapons production and other significant security matters. It is undisputed that these documents were knowingly being withheld from the Jewish State. None of them jeopardized American interests. Who's to say whether the other two have truly repented for their sins, but we know that Mr. Pollard has long conceded his wrongdoing. Nevertheless he has exhausted all of his legal remedies. His appeals were denied for technical/ procedural reasons that fly in the face of traditional American values of fairness and compassion. (A dissenting judge on one of his appeals called the government's conduct in the case, and the legal reasoning applied by the courts, a gross miscarriage of justice.) To anyone who dispassionately views the facts of the case, it is hard to avoid the conclusions that our justice system failed to deliver basic due process and that the ensuing punishment has clearly been excessive (the average sentence for this offense is four years). Now Mr. Pollard's only chance for relief is a Presidential commutation — or a deal done at the behest of Israel, which in 1996 granted citizenship to its acknowledged agent but has done exceedingly little over the years to seek his freedom. Several weeks ago a supposedly independent report by Micha Lindenstrauss, Israel's comptroller, largely exonerated successive prime ministers from responsibility for Mr. Pollard's plight. The Lindensrass Report has been roundly criticized as a whitewash. It was. The Israeli government has always been reluctant to assume responsibility — waiting more than ten years to acknowledge that Mr. Pollard indeed had been working on its behalf. Nor is there anything on the record to support claims that "Israel has made many efforts over the years to secure [his] release," and continues to do so. In the eleven years that have passed since Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu abandoned Mr. Pollard at the Wye Plantation to former President Bill Clinton's promises "to review" the case, he has done precious little to bring the matter to public attention. Whatever he may have done behind closed doors in the years since remains a matter of empty speculation. In 2007, Mr. Netanyahu said that if he were elected prime minister he would bring about Pollard's release. Now is the time for him to try keeping that promise, forcefully and publicly. To demonstrate the depth of grass-root sympathy, Mr. Pollard's supporters in Israel have organized an online statement of kinship which will be relayed to him in prison in the next few days. [The website can be found at http://www.atzuma.co.il/petition/freepollard/1. Instructions for English Speakers wishing to sign the Hebrew Petition follow the text below.] On this Yom Kippur, may Jonathan Pollard be written and inscribed for a good year, one that sees him released to Israel, where he belongs. Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to
justice4jp@gmail.com and visit their website:
|
|
OBAMA CALLS TO 'END THE OCCUPATION'
Posted by Dr. Aaron Lerner, September 24, 2009. |
|
"The settlement will resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and end the
occupation that began in 1967" — The Road Map
President Obama did not say anything new when he included a reference to "ending the occupation that began in 1967" in his UNGA address. It is right there in the Road Map. How could Israel have agreed to such a phrase in the Road Map without a specific exception in its cabinet decision? Because "ending the occupation" is what would happen regardless of where the final lines are drawn since, if the lines are accepted then there is, by definition, no "occupation". That's not to say that there aren't other problems with what Obama said. Just that we should not overstate the Arab gains. Below the article was written by Maayana Miskin and is called "Obama calls to 'End the Occupation.'" |
|
(IsraelNN.com) United States President Barack Obama issued a stinging condemnation of the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria on Wednesday in a speech to the United Nations General Assembly. The U.S. "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," Obama announced. Using unusually harsh terminology, Obama called to "end the occupation that began in 1967" — referring to Israel's control of Judea and Samaria. Obama also stated that the U.S. must put more pressure on Israel to accept Arab demands. "The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians," he said. The U.S. president had demands for Israel's opponents as well, and called on UN member states to avoid "vitriolic" attacks on Israel and recognize Israel's legitimacy. In addition, he called on the Palestinian Authority to "end incitement against Israel." In his speech, Obama reported that progress had been made in a meeting the day before with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Obama has pressured Israel to completely freeze building for Jews in Judea and Samaria, a plan Netanyahu has rejected. Israeli leaders have stated that many Judea and Samaria communities are within the "national consensus" regarding towns that are expected to remain in Israeli hands permanently, and that building should continue in those areas. The Obama administration's most recent statements on the subject made clear, however, that a freeze on settlements could not be a precondition for peace talks between Israel and the PA. Regarding Iran, Obama expressed support for both diplomacy and consequences. Iran and North Korea should be offered "greater prosperity and a more secure peace" if they agree to abide by international guidelines, but "must be held accountable" if they insist on pursuing nuclear weapons, he said. Bolton: Israel on the Chopping Block Former United States ambassador to the UN John Bolton said the president's message had strong significance, particularly given the venue. Obama has put Israel "on the chopping block," Bolton warned. 'World Must Work Together' Obama called for the nations of the world to work together, saying, "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility." "Those who used to chastise America for acting alone in the world cannot now stand by and wait for America to solve the world's problems alone," he added pointedly. Obama said UN member states had fallen short in addressing the world's problems. Among the issues he called to address were genocide, "protracted conflicts," nuclear proliferation, and global warming. Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA, Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il Write him at imra@netvision.net.il |
|
TURKEY OPPOSES SANCTIONS ON IRAN; HOW DOES THE INTERNET AFFECT THE ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 23, 2009. |
|
TURKEY OPPOSES SANCTIONS ON IRAN Turkish Foreign Minister Davutoglu said that Turkey opposes new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear arms development, and proposes removing existing ones. He said that Iran has a right to enrich its nuclear supplies [meaning to weapons grade] and that the issue should be settled by dialogue (www.imra.org.il, 9/12). Countries such as Iran that sign the atomic energy convention cede the right to develop nuclear weapons and must submit to inspections and other rules. Iran has violated those commitments. Dialogue, diplomacy, negotiations, and talks are urged as excuses, like the UN itself, for not resolving issues. Davutoglu must know that if stiff sanctions are not imposed immediately, Iran will be able to field nuclear weapons. Does he really think that, weapons at the ready, Iran would be more amenable to dialogue, while it heads a movement for regional and world conquest, has threatened the U.S., Europe, and Israel, and actively destabilizes other Mideastern states? HOW INTERNET AFFECTS ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT How does the Internet affect the Arab-Israel conflict? Like many inventions, the Internet has tradeoffs. There is no going back, but there isn't full satisfaction, either. The Internet reduced press and broadcaster ability to finance foreign correspondents. It replaces some of the responsible mass media with some irresponsible bloggers. They may be nasty and illiterate, but they opine. On the other hand, it allows for greater participation and more minority views. The great misconception about it is that it simply makes people more informed. I find it also makes them misinformed and lets them sound off. It feeds off and accelerates their diminishing ability to concentrate. Hence they read bits and pieces, failing to learn deeper issues. If they find a different view from their own misconceptions, they assume it must be incorrect. Many of them lack both information and standards for judging. They think that a view's popularity determines its validity. Some of them complain that I see things from only one side. Actually, I see all sides; they see only one. What they mean is that I come out on one side. Even that is not strictly true, because I think for myself and criticize both sides. But I do side against jihad and I do debunk the false accusations against Zionism. What is wrong with that? I took the side of civilization against the Nazis. I took the side of freedom against the Communists. And now I take the side of civilization against jihad. Sometimes one side is totally wrong or evil. Because I uphold Jewish rights to sovereignty against jihad, reader Fred accuses me of not caring about Arabs' human rights. If he checked more of my articles, he would see that I often expose Arab repression of Arab human rights. Those defenses of Arabs' human rights somehow do not get endorsed by the anti-Zionist critics. One may infer from that the anti-Zionist accusation against Israel of curbing Arabs' human rights is just a pose, a cover for their anti-Zionism. They are the ones who don't care about human rights, neither of Jews nor of Arabs. Anti-Zionists have many other misconceptions, because they lack knowledge of Israel and Judaism. Thus Fred claims that "the Jews" want a theocratic state. They don't. Some may want some laws, as about marriage and Sabbath observance, but not much else. Israel allows freedom of religion to non-Jews. It is the Islamists who seek a theocratic government. They call it a caliphate. If my anti-Zionist criticss oppose theocracy, why don't they inveigh against Hamas, Hezbollah, S. Arabia, Iran, Sudan, and yes, Fatah? Do they have a double standard on everything? Fred also asserts that the Arabs have a right to live in peace, and wants the descendants of the refugees to enter Israel. I believe in live and let live. But the Arabs don't. They keep making war on the Jews. Letting them into Israel would be a death trap and mean war. Don't the Jews have the right to live in peace, as they offered the Arabs when forming the State of Israel? In support of Arab entry, they say, not all the Arabs made war on Israel. That argument is specious. It also is impractical. The Arabs in Israel had a collectivist society. They mostly supported their attempted genocide. Who counts, Arabs who organize and make war, or Arabs who disagree quietly? The refugee descendants in Arab states have been segregated and injected with hatred against Jews. Who would cull out the few who might be pure? Why should they go to Israel? They may be making a big myth of their generally short stay there, but the country meant little to them at the time. (Islamic dominance is what really motivates them.) Why not "return" to the Arab states from which most of their families originated? Jordan won't have more, because they tried to take over Jordan. Lebanon won't have more, because they tried to take over Lebanon. Kuwait and S. Arabia won't have them, because they helped Sadam conquer Kuwait. But Israel should take them in and not feel they would try again to take over Israel? Not reasonable. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
DON'T BLAME ISRAEL FOR ISLAMIC UGLINESS!
Posted by Steven Shamrak, September 23, 2009. |
|
At the time as President Barack Obama's special Mideast envoy Mitchell urged the Arab world to take steps toward normalising relations with Israel and pressed Israel to halt construction of settlements in the West Bank. 1) "No one has the right to recognise this entity (Israel) or approve its legitimacy" — The leader of Lebanon's Hezbollah, Nasrallah, vowed on Friday that his Shi'ite terrorist group will never recognise Israel and that no Arab state has the right to do so either. 2) Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called the Holocaust a lie again: "It (Holocaust) is a lie based on an unprovable(!) and mythical claim," and said that Israel has no future: "This regime (Israel) will not last long. Do not tie your fate to it... This regime has no future. Its life has come to an end." US has "no grand expectations" in trilateral meeting... Must stupid games go on and on? New Policy? The first Western leader to expressly admit knowledge of an Iranian nuclear weapons program — French president Nicolas Sarkozy said: "It is a certainty to all of our secret services. Iran is working today on a nuclear (weapons) program." He added: "We cannot let Iran acquire nuclear weapons because it would also be a threat to Israel." ...and More Games! Defense Minister Ehud Barak told his U.S. counterpart Robert Gates on Monday that Israel would not take any option regarding Iran off the table, and urged Washington to set a time limit on its diplomatic efforts. This came after it was reported that President Shimon Peres, according to Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, gave a guarantee there would be no Israeli strike on Iran. "It is certainly not a guarantee," Ayalon, Israel's deputy foreign minister, replied. "I don't think that, with all due respect, the Russian president is authorized to speak for Israel and certainly we have not taken any option off the table." Making Life Easier for 'Palestinians' is Dangerous for Jews. A day after the army began removing roadblocks in the West Bank in an effort to make life easier for Palestinians, the IDF thwarted a stabbing attack on Thursday morning in the Metzad settlement of Gush Etzion — Three armed Palestinians were arrested after they cut through the security fence surrounding the settlement. Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak I would like to ask the critics of Israel just one question: "Do you really care about so-called Palestinians or just love to hate Jews?" Please, at least be honest to yourself! International Law Sacred for IDF. The IDF's Chief Counsel, Brig.-Gen. Avichai Mandelblit, said that the IDF is utterly committed to international law in all of its actions, defending the decision not to bomb the Shifa hospital in Gaza, where Hamas's top leadership was hiding during Operation Cast Lead, which would have killed about 500 civilians. (The Enemies of Israel do not care about international law. They use civilians as a human shield and fire rockets indiscriminately!) IAEA Plays Games with Israel's Existence. An Associated Press report claims that senior officials at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) prepared a secret document on Iranian nuclear capabilities. Iran already has "sufficient information" to prepare an atom bomb, the report reveals, but the Islamic Republic is missing a sufficient delivery system. The latest United Nations report on Iran's nuclear program was too soft on Iran for its failure to cooperate with the IAEA. This report can be viewed as a deliberate attempt by IAEA Director Mohamed ElBaradei, an Egyptian, to sabotage efforts by Israel and the United States to pressure the United Nations Security Council into placing crippling sanctions against Iran. 'Moderate' Muslim Friend of the US. Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf told an all-news TV station that military aid given by the United States had been used to strengthen defences against India. He said he had acted "in Pakistan's best interests" and didn't give a damn if the United States was furious about the consequences. (Since the 9/11 Taliban and Al Quaida have grown and flourished in Pakistan with the government approval and pretence rebuke.) Free to Pursuit Terrorists. US commando raid in Somalia kills top al Quaida terrorist wanted for US embassy bombing. A US official confirmed that special forces were flown in by helicopter from a US Navy ship offshore in the Indian Ocean on September 14 and fired on a vehicle (or two) reported to be carrying Nabhan in the southern Somali Barawe district. Some witnesses of the raid said the helicopters and commandos were French. (Soldiers of a super power attacked a target on a distant foreign land. This did not result in international condemnation or UN investigation, as it would have, in the case of similar actions by Israel!) Quote of the Week: "They handed Czechoslovakia over. Why shouldnt they do the same with us?" — Ben Gurion commented on Chamberlain's "Peace in our time" in 1938. — Sad, but it was prophetic! They betrayed Jews of Europe to Nazi and anti-Semitic scum of Europe and sold out Jewish dream of Eretz-Israel to Arabs for oil! Jewish Tradition of High Moral Standing. Yeshiva boys studied in the yeshiva high school in Maaleh Hever, a small community in southern Judea near the crash-site of Assaf Ramon, son of fallen astronaut Ilan Ramon. When they heard the explosion of the plane, only about 1.2 kilometres away, they ran out and photographed his plane burning and the arrival of rescue teams — but then refused to sell the exclusive photos so as not to desecrate the dead or offend the family. Self-Hate is Exclusively Jewish Syndrome. The far-left J Street activist group, which bills itself as being 'pro-Israel', includes pro-Arab and even pro-Iranian activists: The organizations finance committee includes members such as Richard Abode, a former board member of the Arab American Institute (AAI) and Genevieve Lynch, who is also a board member of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). J Street was founded with an initial investment by radical American businessman George Sores. Facilitating the Point of NO Return. The US will join other major powers in seeking an early meeting with Iran although Tehran refused to discuss its nuclear program. (When 'major powers' want to do nothing about an issue, they have 'meetings' until it is too late to do anything. Handling Global warming is one example. If Israel had not destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor, the world be a dangerous place by now. Must Israel always come to the aid of self-destructive, decadent Western society without any appreciation?) Hezbollah Deploys Chemical and Biological Weapons. The Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa reported on Thursday, Sept. 3, that chemical weapons were stored in the hidden Hezbollah arms warehouse which blew up at Hirbet Salim near the Israeli border in mid-July. A European source quoted an Arab official as predicting that Hezbollah is gearing up "for something big." (Once again international media has shown no interest in running this material.) The Big Lie. by Daniel Greenfield (Sultan Knish) There are two interconnected lies that reside at the heart of any American discussion about Israel. The first lie is that the road to peace in the Middle East lies through Israel. The second lie is that Israel controls American policy toward itself. Those lies are not the product of ignorance or misunderstanding. They are the product of an effective propaganda campaign by the unofficial suit and tie spokesmen of the Saudi lobby who dominate American policy in the Middle East. The goal of that campaign has been to make Israel seem like the axis on which the Middle East and America turn, in order to put Israel on the firing line. And it is a campaign that has been wickedly successful up until now. Within the Middle East, Israel is physically insignificant. At 8500 square miles, Israel could not just fit comfortably into Pennsylvania, it is 1/5th the size of Jordan, 1/8th the size of Syria and 1/12th the size of Egypt. Simply put, Israel is smaller in land and population than every country that borders it. If you looked at the Middle East from space, you could easily put a fingernail across all of Israel. - Israel has beaten all of these countries in wars and has the best military in the region, but that is because if it didn't, it wouldn't exist. Israel's military is not the product of a will to conquer, but of an attempt to maintain its own territorial integrity and protect its citizens from attack. - There is only one nation whose capital is not recognized by the United States. ...The narrative of the powerful Israel lobby before which everyone in D.C. trembles cannot be reconciled with this simple fact, or with many others. ...If you look at what some of the most powerful people in the last few administrations had in common, the simple answer is oil. ...The Pro-Israel Lobby is a charade, a showpiece for people with too much time on their hands and too little subtlety. If half the claims about the Israel Lobby were true, Israel would be four times the size it is today, with secure borders and no terrorist problem. Instead Israel has been pressured like no other country has, to appease and accommodate terrorists at the expense of the lives of its citizens, its national security and even its survival... by a foreign policy crafted to fulfil Saudi interests. ...The real truth is that Israel is a tiny country that commands emotional affinity from a limited percentage of Jews and Christians, whose diplomacy abroad is clumsy, and whose regional influence is small, whose military is handicapped by liberal handwriting and whose leaders would rather negotiate than fight... until there is no other choice. ...the easiest way to clear up the lie is to simply look at the reality of the Middle East... Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: AND NOW?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 23, 2009. |
|
Netanyahu came out of the meeting saying that the Palestinians had dropped pre-conditions, and now discussions centered on establishing a framework for negotiations. But that's not exactly what Abbas was saying after the meeting, when he declared, "We demanded that the Israeli side fulfill its commitment on settlements, including natural growth." Sort of a hedge, perhaps, for he didn't exactly say he won't sit down with Israel until that "commitment" is fulfilled. Although he did speak about the need to base negotiations on recognition of "the need to withdraw to the 1967 borders and end the occupation." It's anyone's guess how he'll proceed. What is clear is that the Palestinians have not been the winners on this issue: Netanyahu has not budged. Commentators have noted that in his comments Obama referred to the need for Israel to "restrain" activity in the settlements, rather than calling for a "halt" to activity as he has done before. ~~~~~~~~~~ There are, undoubtedly, several reasons why Netanyahu is holding tight — reasons beyond the obvious, such as the stance of his own right flank. We are being pressured unreasonably — including via the excoriation of the Goldstone report. This doesn't make us more compliant, rather, it puts our collective backs up and makes us more prepared to defend our rights. And there is the recognition that holding fast is working — as we've seen above. This enhances motivation to be strong, as well. Additionally, it is clear to Netanyahu that further concessions would be futile, as there will be no compromise from the PA. So, here once again we will be saved by our eternally intransigent enemy. Who knows what Netanyahu might have agreed to if he anticipated a reasonable and peace-seeking party about to face us across the table. But eternally intransigent is precisely what the PA is. Please see Barry Rubin's piece, "Meet the next Palestinian leader." "The contemporary narrative is that the Palestinian leaders yearn for a state, an end to the conflict, and peace, while the failure to achieve these can be blamed on Israel. Yet even the slightest real examination shows the exact opposite is true. "This point is only underlined by looking at the current candidate for next leader, Muhammad Ghaneim, often known as Abu Mahir. Of all those who might credibly have been considered for the leadership of Fatah — and hence of the PLO and Palestinian Authority (PA) — he is probably the most hardline." Ghaneim is for "struggle until victory," where victory would be best defined as Israel's destruction, not a "two state solution."
~~~~~~~~~~ It was revealed in a Wolf Blitzer interview with Netanyahu on CNN that Obama has apparently assured the Palestinians that negotiations would pick up from where Olmert and Abbas left them. (Thanks, Winkie) This is the danger of reaching too far in discussions, even if no agreement is reached: The world expects this of us every time, even though there is no legal grounding for it. I don't see where Obama has the right to make such a commitment for us. Netanyahu's answer was just fine in my book: The last government talked for three years, but there were no agreements (i.e., nothing that was discussed is legally binding). So, OK, we'll talk. The Palestinians can say what they think. But I know what the mandate from my people is. Netanyahu also said in that interview that Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist as the Jewish state is the biggest stumbling block to peace. And he focused, as he almost always does, on the dangers of the Iran and the responsibility of the world to confront this, and soon. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yesterday Obama rather lost his temper, telling both Israel and the PA that is was enough already, and we had to get with it and start making peace. He has now given us and the Palestinians three weeks to come up with answers that will permit negotiations to resume. Excuse me? One might have hoped that he was at last getting it — perceiving the impossibility of the goals he had set, the irrationality of the expectations. But one would have been mistaken to hope this. For today he's right out there, pushing that Palestinian narrative. Today Obama addressed the UN General Assembly. And in the course of his talk, he declared: "[the U.S.] does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements... Could we have expected anything else? ~~~~~~~~~~ I cannot let this pass without a very brief review of the historical and legal situation, which indicates precisely how weak is the ground upon which Obama stands with this statement. [] "Occupation" occurs when one sovereign state moves into the territory of another sovereign state. This is simply not the case here. Judea and Samaria are simply an unclaimed part of the 1922 Mandate for Palestine, which promised a Jewish homeland (and was to encourage Jewish settlement!) from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean. This was written into international law and has never been superseded. But the American president makes this assumption because the Palestinians and their supporters have promoted this narrative so frequently that it's believed now, and because this is the direction in which Obama chooses to tilt. Please, acquaint yourself with this information — seek more from me if you need it. Setting the record straight is of paramount importance. ~~~~~~~~~~ I am considerably disappointed in Netanyahu's response to Obama's speech. I know he's playing the game, but did he have to be so enthusiastic? He commended the speech for referring to Israel as a Jewish state, and for calling for negotiations without pre-conditions. But he ignored this very major point about our right to be in the land. ~~~~~~~~~~ Here's what the Washington Post had to say about the three-way meeting yesterday: "[It] fell well short of the administration's hopes... The gap between what Obama hoped for and what actually happened, says the Post, expresses "the miscalculations the president and his team have made." For Obama and his aides made the assumption (an audacious and very typical assumption, I will note) that Israel and Arab states would welcome an aggressive effort by the new US president to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace. "As a practical matter, that hasn't proved true." How about that! And the Post also said this: "...the administration also concluded, wrongly, that obtaining an unconditional Israeli settlement freeze was an essential first step. In fact settlements are no longer a strategic obstacle to peace; as a practical matter, most of the construction is in areas that will not be part of a Palestinian state." So how come the Post, a left-wing and pro-Palestinian paper, knows that everything beyond the Green Line doesn't belong to the Palestinians, while Obama is assuming it does? Although I must note that the phrase "no longer" is incorrect. The settlements were NEVER a strategic obstacle to peace. ~~~~~~~~~~ One other comment here, of only passing interest, on the three-way meeting yesterday: It ended with a reluctant handshake between Netanyahu and Abbas. This, of course, echoes the 1993 handshake on the White House lawn during which Prime Minister Rabin's distaste clearly showed as he shook Arafat's hand. I have been given to understand that Rahm Emanuel, who was connected to Peace Now, was the "inspiration," such as it was, for this handshake. It is a coincidence that Emanuel is behind the scenes again? Maybe. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
US OR THEM — IN JERUSALEM
Posted by M. Steven Kramer, September 23, 2009. |
|
Shamekh Alawneh, a lecturer in modern history at Al-Quds Open University (Al-Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem — see below), says the Jews invented the connection to the Western Wall in Jerusalem for political purposes, to convince European Jews and Zionists to come to Palestine. "The [Jews'] goal in giving the name 'Wailing Wall' to this [Western] Wall is political ... The Jewish Zionists had no choice but to invent an excuse [about Jerusalem] to spread among the Zionists or the Jews in Europe, to connect to something concrete from the past about Jerusalem. The Zionists made false claims and called the 'Al-Burak Wall' the 'Wailing Wall.'" (The 'Al-Burak Wall' is the site where, according to Islamic tradition, Ibrahim was ordered to sacrifice Ishamel and Muhammad rode his steed Burak to Heaven. Islam appropriated the Biblical tradition of Abraham and Isaac and adapted it for its own purposes.) Tayseer Tamimi, PA Chief Religious Justice opines: "I know of Muslim and Christian holy sites in [Jerusalem]. I don't know of any Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem. The above quotes are from the Palestinian Media Watch website: www.palwatch.org Rabbi Joseph Katz has written: "The Arabic name for Jerusalem is 'Al-Quds' (The Holy), which is abbreviation for another Arabic name used for Jerusalem from the 10th century until the last century, 'Bayt al-Maqdes' (The Holy House). The name 'Bayt al-Maqdes' is a translation of the Hebrew Beyt ha-Mikdash, which means 'House of Holiness' or 'Temple'. But Islam has no Temple, only the Jews did. Thus the Arabic name for Jerusalem makes no reference to Muhammad's alleged trip to Heaven, but rather refers to the Jewish Temple!" (www.eretzyisroel.org) In fact, significant Islamic interest in the Temple Mount dates only from the 20th century: Jerusalem doesn't even rate a mention in the Koran. It was only in 1917 that Faisal el Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem who later became Hitler's ally, proclaimed Jerusalem to be the third holiest site in Islam. In the 1960s Palestinian terrorist leader Yasser Arafat, with the full support of the Arab nations, echoed the mufti's declaration. After the Six-Day War of 1967, when Israel liberated the Old City, Muslim propaganda about the Jews, the Temple Mount and Jerusalem burgeoned. Dateline August 9, 2009, the Sixth Fatah Conference: "President Mahmoud Abbas' ruling Fatah faction adopted a position paper which states that the Palestinian national enterprise will not reach fruition until all of Jerusalem, including the outlying villages, come under Palestinian sovereignty. 'Fatah will continue to sacrifice victims until Jerusalem will be returned [to the Palestinians], clean of settlements and settlers,' the paper states. ... [it] makes no distinction between 'the eastern and western halves of the capital, nor does it distinguish between the territories within the Israeli side of the Green Line and the areas captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War.' ... The paper clearly states that no Palestinian leader is allowed to give up parts of Jerusalem." (www.poligazette.com) "I think everyone knows what the basic outlines of an [Israeli-Palestinian final status] agreement would look like," President Obama opined while campaigning for the presidency, repeating what many others have said. But Arabs don't agree with this consensus view, which assumes that Palestinians will moderate their demands for Jerusalem and for the "right of return" of Palestinian "refugees" to Israel, and Israel will trade land for peace, including parts of Jerusalem. Fatah has proclaimed its red lines to the Palestinians and to more than a billion Muslims. It won't be easy for them to back down from their demands, even if they want to. It's not just the Palestinians who want to limit the Jewish presence in Jerusalem. Israel has plenty of Jewish citizens who may not agree with all the Palestinian statements, but their actions implement our adversary's agenda and undercut Israel's legitimacy. For one example, take Ir Amim, which is an Israeli non-profit, (so-called) non-partisan organization which concerns itself with Israeli-Palestinian relations in Jerusalem and the political future of the city. Its main activity is to protest against Jews moving to mostly-Arab neighborhoods in the Israeli capital. "Bearing in mind the symbolic and actual status of Jerusalem as a city of two peoples and three religions, as well as the city's pivotal role in reaching a political agreement, Ir Amim aspires to a stable Jerusalem, equitably shared by the two peoples; a city that ensures the dignity and welfare of all its residents and that safeguards their holy places, as well as their historical and cultural heritages." [emphasis added] (www.ir-amim.co.il) Ir Amim's position illustrates the problem with well-intentioned but naïve, supposedly non-partisan NGOs (non-governmental organizations). Ir Amim wants to share Jerusalem with the Palestinians who won't even acknowledge that Jews have an historic connection with Judaism's most holy city. In fact, the Palestinians won't settle for less than all of Jerusalem. Ir Amim director-general Yehudit Oppenheimer said on August 28, "The addition of 150 housing units for settlers in areas [of Jerusalem] that constitute the center of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is likely to thwart all future opportunities for a political solution. In a number of cases, these settlements have dissected Palestinian neighborhoods, hurt the existing populations and are likely to incite this already sensitive area." Many other supposedly non-partisan NGOs have views similar to Ir Amim. For the record, Jerusalem is not divided into "Arab east" and "Jewish west" sections: many Arab and Jewish neighborhoods abut and sometimes 'dissect' each other. Israelis and Palestinians are engaged in a zero sum game. For example, if Israel builds in the E1 corridor — just east of Jerusalem — the Ma'ale Adumim suburb will be connected to Jerusalem. But if the Palestinians build there, connecting two Arab towns, Ma'ale Adumim will be cut off. Which group will lose out? Us or them? The real problem is that even if all Jews are removed from all of Jerusalem, the Palestinians wouldn't reach a political solution with Israel. Plain and simple, the Palestinians insist on controlling all of Israel. Those Jews who might remain after a Palestinian takeover wouldn't be living in Israel, but would be "dhimmis" (infidels subservient to Muslim rule) in a Palestinian state from "the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea." Is that what Ir Amim and its cohort (Peace Now, The Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions, Rabbis for Human Rights, etc.) really want? Are they for us or for them? If they're for us, it's time to wake up! 
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." |
|
GOLDSTONE MISSION GUILTY OF HATE CRIME
Posted by Eli E. Hertz, September 22, 2009. |
|
ignoring nine years of terror |
|
Arab leaders will see the Goldstone Report as justification to continue to incite, inflame and encourage Palestinian Arabs to pin every problem they face as individuals and as a society on Israel. This strategy of channeling frustrations into hatred and revenge against Israel is adopted both by Israel's immediate Palestinian Arab neighbors and Arab leaders throughout the Muslim-Arab world. The UN Goldstone Mission ignores Hamas - a terror organization listed as such by the United States, European Union, and Canada among others. Internationally binding instruments go on to impose uniform mandatory counter-terrorist obligations to bring to justice the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of terrorist attacks and stresses that those responsible for aiding, supporting or harboring the perpetrators, organizers and sponsors of these acts will be held accountable. The Goldstone Mission in effect became a violator of international law. There is no escape clause - United Nations Security Council repeats its unequivocal condemnation of all acts, methods and practices of terrorism as criminal and unjustifiable, regardless of their motivation, in all their forms and manifestations, wherever and by whomever committed. Terrorist organizations such as Hamas that indiscriminately launch around-the-clock Qassam rockets targeting civilian populations in Israel, are clearly committing Crimes Against Humanity - acts of terrorism for which the United Nations Security Council Resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter directs everyone to fight terrorism by all means. International law leaves no room to question Israel's right to defend its citizens against systematic and sustained terrorist attacks launched by Hamas from Gaza. Israel's reaction to nine years of Hamas aggression is nothing more than a measured, fair and proportional response, designed to effectively terminate the attacks upon it, in order to prevent its recurrence. Israel was far from using all means in fighting Hamas in Gaza, as required by the United Nations. Eli E. Hertz is president of Myths and Facts, Inc. The organization's objective is to provide policymakers, national leadership, the media and the public-at-large with information and viewpoints that are founded on factual and reliable content. Contact him at today@mythsandfacts.org |
|
PALESTINE MANDATE — KEY PROVISIONS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 22, 2009. |
|
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them; and Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country; and Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and [etc.] ART. 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. ART. 3. The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy. ART. 4. An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country. The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. ART. 5. The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing 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. ART. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. ART. 7. The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine. ART. 8. The privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection as formerly enjoyed by Capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, shall not be applicable in Palestine. ART. 9. Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders. ART. 11. The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land. The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. ART. 15. The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief. ART. 22. English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic. ART. 25. In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
ACADEMICS AGAINST ISRAEL AND THE JEWS
Posted by Institute for Global Jewish Affairs, September 22, 2009. |
|
THE BOOK IS NOW AVAILABLE FOR FREE The publication two years ago of Academics Against Israel and
the Jews, edited by Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, has drawn a lot of
attention. The book is now available for free on the Internet:
|
|
The new century has seen many attempts to discriminate against Israel, its academic institutions, and its scholars in several Western countries. This includes boycotting Israeli universities and academics as well as calling for divestment from Israeli securities. The campaigns frequently use anti-Semitic motifs and sometimes also involve violent anti-Semitic acts. These actions should be seen in the context of the much broader, multiple, ongoing attacks against Israel and the Jewish people. These initiatives are part of a postmodern global war and often are directly related to anti-Semitism. This global war is multisourced, fragmented, and often diffuse and discontinuous. The modern anti-Semitism of the 1930s could be compared to many large, centrally managed factories of a toxin-producing corporation. Its chief executive was Hitler and from its tall chimneys anti-Semitic poison spread in large quantities over a wide area. Postmodern anti-Semitism can be compared to the pollution produced by the millions of cars everywhere. These run on fuel that causes poisonous elements to escape in limited quantities through a large number of exhausts all over the world. Today such poison is spread on many campuses. The discriminatory actions against Israel prove that in many universities, academic freedom is abused as a subtle device to promote extremist ideologies and protect misbehavior. This is one among many reasons why what happens on campus should be subject to much greater external scrutiny. That would likely lead to a long-lasting general reassessment of issues concerning academia such as free speech, academic freedom, uncontrolled campus extremism including incitement to violence, university autonomy, the politicization of science, and the discrepancy in norm between academia and society at large. Eighteen essays from four continents discuss a variety of cases of discrimination and how Israel and Jews can defend themselves against such initiatives. Praise for the book This volume is essential reading for all who care about the future, because it documents a worldwide campaign of disinformation and bigotry about Israel that is directed at university students. Its goal is as clear as it is cynical and dangerous: to mis-educate a generation of future leaders and turn them against the only democracy in the mid-east and the only Jewish state in the world. To combat this evil requires understanding of its sources and scope. Read this book, learn, and go forth and speak truth to bigotry.
Anti-Semites succeeded in murdering six million Jews only after significant parts of the supposedly enlightened world accepted as a matter of fact that Jews were dangerous and inferior beings. Genocide became legitimate when this attitude permeated universities, the intelligentsia, and other elites. Against this historical background, the inroads of the anti-Israeli campaign into the Western academic world are extremely worrying. The infrastructure for future crimes or even genocide is being laid by ideologists at universities of the free world. We need many people to stand up against the demonizers, the propagators of double standards, and those who delegitimize Israel. Manfred Gerstenfeld and The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs were among the first to address the issue of the new academic discrimination globally. They published the first overview articles on the subject and made available case studies about a number of campuses. This book is a further milestone in the exposure and analysis of the anti-Semitic forces in their various permutations on Western campuses. I congratulate the JCPA for this initiative.
Acknowledgments 9 Introduction 11 Natan Sharansky: Foreword 13 Manfred Gerstenfeld: Academics against Israel and the Jews 17 ESSAYS Rebecca Leibowitz: Defeating Anti-Israeli and Anti-Semitic Activity on Campus: A Case Study: Rutgers University 83 Noah Liben: The Columbia University Report on Its Middle Eastern Department's Problems: A Paradigm for Obscuring Structural Flaws 95 Martin Kramer: Columbia University: The Future of Middle Eastern Studies at Stake 103 Jonathan Jaffit: Fighting Sheikh Zayed's Funding of Islamic Studies at Harvard Divinity School 108 Leila Beckwith: Anti-Zionism/Anti-Semitism at the University of California-Irvine 115 Leila Beckwith, Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, and Ilan Benjamin: Faculty Efforts to Combat Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israeli Bias at the University of California-Santa Cruz 122 Edward S. Beck: Scholars for Peace in the Middle East (SPME): Fighting Anti-Israelism and Anti-Semitism on the University Campuses Worldwide 134 Roz Rothstein: StandWithUs: A Grassroots Advocacy Organization Also on Campus 147 Alain Goldschl&aul;ger: The Canadian Campus Scene 154 Corinne Berzon: Anti-Israeli Activity at Concordia University 2000-2003 163 Aryeh Green: European Universities and the New Anti-Semitism: Issues, Examples, Prescriptions 174 Ruth Contreras: On the Situation in Austrian Universities 184 Ronnie Fraser: The Academic Boycott of Israel: Why Britain? 198 Manfred Gerstenfeld: The UCU May 2007 Boycott Resolution and Its Aftermath 214 Gavin Gross: Anti-Israeli Activity at the School of Oriental and African Studies: How Jewish Students Started to Fight Back 224 Manfred Gerstenfeld: Utrecht University: The Myth of Jewish Cannibalism, Censorship, and Fear of Muslim Intimidation 236 Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook: Anti-Semitism among Palestinian Authority Academics 242 Ted Lapkin: Academic Anti-Zionism in Australia 250 List of Contributors 259 Index 263
Contact Institute for Global Jewish Affairs by email at
phasmail@list-jcpa-org.
|
|
DISTORT
Posted by Fred Riefenberg, September 21, 2009. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to http://ainhod.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art. |
|
COMPASSION: THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC STYLE
Posted by Amil Imani, September 21, 2009. |
|
It is not true that the Islamic Republic of Iran lacks compassion. It is not true that the Islamic Republic hangs people without a hint of mercy. Here is the proof. Recently, I met Mrs. M at a gathering of Iranian ex-pats in a park. I would also like you to meet this elderly widow who is suffering from a variety of brain, neurological, and vision disorders. She is a lone woman without a country, moving from one shelter to the next on her way to the final resting place to which we all are destined. One dreadful day, Mrs. M and her husband were arrested by the IRI agents in the city of Qazvin for being active members of the Baha'i Faith. The litany of charges included being members of the ferghe zalleh (misguided sect), mohareb (fighters against God), propagandists for their sect, and agents of the Great Satan and Israel. The couple's three young children were spared imprisonment and ended up as wards of other Baha'i families in the town. Neither is it true that the Islamists don't give people an opportunity to mend their ways and see things the Islamic way. First, the clerics reason with the candidate and offer a tempting package of incentives such as immediate release from the prison, the possibility of a secure job, becoming a local celebrity to be paraded around for the benefit of other infidels to also see both sides of the deal, a menu of horrific punishment for refusing to bend and a set of attractive offerings for complying with a simple thing of accepting Islam as the one true and final religion of Allah. In the case of Mr. and Mrs. M, all attempts by the Islamic authorities to reason with the couple to deny their religion and convert to Islam failed. The pair insisted that their faith was the most precious treasure to them and no inducement or threat could rob them of it. The Islamists authorities were terribly angered by the couple's "obstinacy" and initiated their fall-back plan, a plan of cruel psychological torment as well as severe physical tortures; the kind of IRI treatment that brings to mind the worst of the Inquisition era of centuries ago. The authorities felt that they had exercised great patience, to no avail, to persuade the couple to abandon their blasphemous belief and adopt the one and true faith of Allah — Islam. Exercising patience is highly recommended in Islam: Allahoma yejezi al saberoon be ajron min ghyre hesab (God compensates those who are patient with infinite rewards). Yet, they eventually ran out of patience and it was time to deal with them as the repentant kafirs (unbeliever in Allah) that they were judged. After many months of incarceration, interrogation, and persuasion came the trial time. All along, the couple was denied access to legal representation of any kind. A barely literate mullah in a perfunctory meeting condemned the couple to death by hanging. Yet, the sentence was not carried out for many months. The couple languished in separate jails with no visitation rights of any sort, either with each other, or their children. The couple was condemned to death by hanging on the charge of apostasy. The same decree ordered that all their properties and possessions, including household furniture, be confiscated since taking away the possessions of an apostate is halal (religiously approved). Once a person is judged as an unrepentant kafir by the religious authorities, he or she becomes a target of an unending variety of severe torment, since a kafir is viewed as an enemy of Allah and it is the duty of good Muslims to punish the kafir in any way that their sadistic cruel heart leads them. It is beyond the scope of this essay and too heart-wrenching to detail the kind of prolonged torture the couple suffered. There is no reliable information regarding what transpired with regard to Mr. M. during the long months of incarceration before he was hanged. But Mrs. M was, from time to time, denied her prison ration of food. She endured long periods of thirst in the deadly heat of the summer. She was even periodically denied access to the washroom for days. All along, she was severely beaten by female jailers. The jailers' favorite way of beating Mrs. M was hitting her with frying pans on the head, although they also used soda bottles, clubs, and even their bare fists. The beatings were so severe that, on several occasions, blood popped out of her eyes. Head bumps and injury became routine, as she languished to be hanged. The women jailers were intent on matching and even surpassing the brutality of their male counterparts. These fanatic Islamists are brainwashed into believing that tormenting the non-believers will earn them great merit points from Allah. They truly believe that the greater suffering they inflict, the greater is their reward. Months later, she was informed that the sentence would be implemented at dawn the next day. This presented the last chance for the jailers to beat her as severely as they could before she died. They were intent at making the most savab (performing religiously meritorious acts) they could while they had the chance. The beating she received on that day was so severe that she lost consciousness. When the executioners arrived to hang her, they could not revive her. They faced a serious problem. How can an unconscious woman who cannot stand on her feet be hanged? A temporary stay of execution was ordered. In due time, Mrs. M regained consciousness only to suffer many more months of the dreadful ordeal. On several occasions, the order to hang her was re-issued. But the severe repeated beatings had shattered her body as well as her mind. She could no longer stand on her feet. She got around only by crawling. The jailers were relentless in their viciousness. On several occasions, they staged mock hangings. They would come to her cell and say the fatehe (prayer for the dead), place the noose around her neck, and hold her up and let her collapse on the ground. Eventually, no one knows why, she was released from prison, a barely able to walk. She did not get to die in one day, as did her innocent beloved husband. The demonic agents of the Islamic Republic saw to it that she got to live a life of dying every day for the rest of her life. The Islamist's credo is fairly straight forward in dealing with religious minorities or infidels living in their midst: if you can't reason with them to change their belief then literally beat some sense into their heads. And if that doesn't work, then a bullet to the head or a noose around the neck ought to put an end to the "problem." And what happened to the children? All three are in different parts of the world. One son is in England, a daughter is in Spain, and another son is in Texas. Each is trying valiantly to survive and make a new beginning, thanks in large part to all the "infidel" nations and organizations that come to the rescue of the world's persecuted people. The more fortunate ones end up in refugee camps. Some of the even more fortunate individuals eventually find sponsoring host organizations or countries. Yes, the Islamic Republic of Iran does exercise compassion. They didn't hang the severely-beaten incapacitated woman who was unable to walk to the gallows to be hanged. They simply dumped her in the streets to suffer a painful slow death for every day of her remaining life.
Amil Imani is an Iranian-born American citizen and pro-democracy
activist residing in the United States of America. Imani is a
columnist, literary translator, novelist and an essayist who has been
writing and speaking out for the struggling people of his native land,
Iran. He and his family escaped Iran after the radical Islamic
revolution.
|
|
OBAMA GUNNING FOR ISRAEL AT U.N.
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, September 21, 2009. |
|
This just in! Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the most dedicated adversaries of the Jewish State — other than Jimmy Carter, recommended that the U.S. shoot down Israeli planes IF they attacked Iran's nuclear facilities. By the way, if you want to see what and where Iran's nuclear facilities are, check National Geographic August 2008, where their excellent map labels most (if not all) of Ahmadinejad's Nuclear Development and production facilities. [See article at end] Joseph Farah is painfully accurate in his assessment that President Barack Obama wishes to strip Israel of her reported Nuclear Deterrence against the Muslim Arab states. Regrettably, this effort has happened before. The Madrid Conference is one of those times. Recall the 1991 Madrid Conference (October 30-November 3, 1991) which was attended by then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, against the fervent advice and warning that it was to be a "Kangaroo Court" and a trap. This was an International Conference where Israel stood alone against all the other countries of the world. We were right and Shamir was savaged. I opined at the time that some representative to the Conference would put forth the recommendation that the Middle East was to be a "nuclear free zone". Sure enough, toward the end of the Conference, the Egyptian representative did put forth that recommendation. This policy can all be traced back to James Baker III and his "Jew-Boys", Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller and Daniel Kurtzer, who seemed to be the driving force to force Israel into abandoning her Nuclear Deterrence which so concerned the Arab Muslims and the Arabist State Department. Israel had done quite well in defeating the various attacking Arab armies in 7 wars (as of October 1991 — 1948: War of Independence; 1956: Sinai; 1967: Six Days War; 1970-71: War of Attrition; 1973: Yom Kippur War; 1982: Peace for Galilee against Arafat's PLO in Lebanon; and the 1991 Gulf War when Saddam Hussein launched 39 SCUDs against Israel's civilians). But, as Arab Muslim armies grew both in numbers and weaponry, only a Nuclear Deterrence would possibly hold them in check. Today it is President Barack Hussein Obama who is carrying water for the Arab Islamists who want Israel to surrender her alleged Nuclear Deterrent and, of course, rely upon Obama's promises (haven't heard them lately) to protect Israel should Iran attack Israel with nuclear weapons. Obama's alleged promised assistance would, of course, come after Israel was attacked, if at all. The first article below was written by Joseph Farah of World Net Daily. This appeared September 15, 2009 http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=109889 Joseph Farah Believes Prez Hoping To Disarm Jewish StateThe second article was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and appeared in Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com) today. |
|
1.) Obama Gunning For Israel At U.N.
Remember when the United Nations equated the commitment to a Jewish State with racism? That unforgettable vote that determined "Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination" came Nov. 10, 1975, [the 37th anniversary of Kristalnacht] in a 72-35 vote with 32 abstentions. It was one of the most shameful actions of the U.N. in a long history of shameful actions. Ultimately, it was revoked 16 years later in a vote far more lopsided than the original. Yet, it represented a total betrayal of Israel, the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, with the kind of political values the U.N. was, at least in theory, created to uphold. I believe history is about to repeat itself at the UN this month — this time with the help of Barack Obama. And this time, the action could be far more injurious to the national security of Israel than the largely symbolic propaganda effort of 1975. By now everyone has heard about Obama's unprecedented decision to serve as chairman of the U.N. Security Council Sept. 24. Much could be said about this decision: It is a transparent effort by Obama to shore up his plummeting popularity at home in a forum where symbolism reigns over substance. But crass politics is Obama's stock in trade. It is a clearly unconstitutional move for a president as Article 1, Section 9, states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State." But the restrictions of the Constitution have never proved a barrier to Obama so far. Obama will be lowering the presidency of the United States by participating in a hopelessly illegitimate international forum, rubbing shoulders with the likes of Libya's Moammar Gadhafi and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. But, again, this is Barack Obama, who seems to believe difference with the likes of Gadhafi and Ahmadinejad are more reconcilable than those with Americans who want to choose their own doctor and medical treatments. There is something much more significant and insidious in Obama's U.N. gambit. It is revealed in Obama's choice of an agenda for the meeting. Obama will target not only on the frequent topic of nuclear proliferation. He has chosen to broaden the focus to "nuclear disarmament. " Why? Because this is a way he can change the subject from the imminent threat posed to the state of Israel by Iran's development of nuclear weapons to what he believes represents a genuine solution to that crisis — the disarming of the Jewish state. And make no mistake about it, Obama is changing the subject. The U.N. Security Council already has on its agenda resolving potential nuclear threats posed by both Iran and North Korea. The rogue actions of those states are specifically mentioned. Nuclear non-proliferation is specifically mentioned. Nuclear disarmament is not. By broadening the issues on the table, Obama plays right into the hands of Ahmadinejad and Gadhafi who will, predictably, insist that the topic of Israeli nuclear disarmament be given at least as much attention as Iran's desire only to acquire nuclear power for peaceful domestic energy purposes. So what are we to make of this? We can, of course, assume Obama has merely miscalculated. We can assume this is simply a tragic diplomatic blunder on his part. But, I believe, such conclusions seriously underestimate Obama. He has made clear his intentions to use his presidency to work toward nuclear disarmament — not just in the Middle East, but globally. On April 5, he delivered a major address in Prague, saying: "The United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same." Vice President Joe Biden has already rejected pleas by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to replace aging U.S. nukes with a modern, reliable weapons. Now, it looks like Obama is about to turn his attention to what he considers to be the real nuclear threat in the Middle East — Israel.
2.)Zbig Brzezinski: "Shoot Down Israeli Planes If They Attack Iran"
Zbigniew Brzezinski, who enthusiastically campaigned for U.S. President Barack Obama, has called on the president to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran. "They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. [Is this 'our' airspace?:EW] Are we just going to sit there and watch?" said the former national security advisor to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast. Brzezinski, who served in the Carter administration from 1977 to 1981, is currently a professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Maryland. "We have to be serious about denying them that right," he said. "If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a 'Liberty' in reverse." Israel mistakenly attacked the American Liberty ship during the Six-Day War in 1967. Brzezinski was a top candidate to become an official advisor to President Obama, but he was downgraded after Republican and pro-Israel Democratic charges during the campaign that Brzezinski's anti-Israel attitude would damage Obama at the polls. President Obama's advisors have emphasized that the former national security advisor is not playing any unofficial role as advisor to the White House. His enthusiasm for President Obama has waned in the past several months. He recently told a London-based newspaper that the United States may be "sliding into a deeper conflict with various segments of the world of Islam" because of the president's failure to carry out his promises to the Muslim world. Brzezinski said the Obama administration is "diddling around" in trying to reach an "evasive compromise" between Israel and the Arab world. 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 |
|
SAY 'NO' TO OBAMA
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, September 21, 2009. |
|
Fending off American pressure requires us to alter our tactics but not our goal This was written by Yair Shamir, son of former Prime Minister,
Yitzchak Shamir
|
|
Ever since Barack Obama was sworn in as president of the United States he has been recognized in Israel as a superstar. To the Israeli media and policy makers every word of his shakes heaven and earth. He is perceived as an omnipotent force and therefore it deters the government from making decisions on building, populating and improving the infrastructure in Jerusalem. It also fears to implement decisions that were already approved by previous left-wing governments. At the same time the authorities are afraid to impose the law against illegal Arab construction that threatens the future of Jerusalem. The Arabs smell this weakness and this emboldens and encourages them to harden their positions towards Israel. However, there is no basis for this fear and overreaction. With all due respect to President Obama he is not that powerful. The polls in recent weeks point to a drastic decline in his popularity in the United States. Support for the Democrats in the Senate and Congress is now at an all time low and the Republican legislators are now perceived more worthy of being elected to Congress. Two thirds of the population feels that America is not heading in the right direction. As the Congressional campaign goes into motion this month and the rate of unemployment continues to rise, the president becomes more and more contingent on Congress. During an election campaign Democratic legislators are attuned to their constituency more than they are to the president. The relative weight of Congress rises during economic crises and the assertiveness and independence of legislators grow as congressional campaign season approaches. Polls in the US show that there is still strong and unwavering support among the American public for Israel. Democratic legislators are aware of this and therefore will not allow the president to break Israel's back by imposing withdrawals from land vital to its security. True leadership understands that saying no and standing up against pressure is vital to attain strategic goals while surrender and acquiescence only leads to abandonment of these goals. At the same time it increases international pressure on Israel. Fending off pressure requires you to alter your tactics but not your goal. My father, former PM Yitzchak Shamir, may he live and be well, knew that defying American pressure would harm his personal popularity and Israel's image in the short run but in the long run would turn Israel into the US strongest ally and strategic partner. World has changed in Israel's favor Nothing illustrates this better than Defense Minister Ehud Barak's words in his dedication to the book Yitzchak Shamir: Firm as A Rock published last year: "During President George Bush's (the father) term in office while I was serving as the IDF's chief of staff I was once summoned to the Prime Minister's Office to meet with then US Secretary of State James Baker who had been demanding that Israel make far-reaching concessions. Upon the request of Shamir, I briefed our prominent guest with the range of military threats that is facing Israel. Baker did not retract from his demands. Instead, carrying the weight of the only superpower leading the free world today, he insisted that Israel concede. "At one point I noticed Shamir's face became very tense and alert, it looked like a volcano about to explode. He banged on the table and told the secretary of state in a very blunt and undiplomatic manner, in a very sharp but self-controlled tone: 'Mr. Secretary, you can demand what you choose to demand but this is our country and we will not agree to do anything that will harm its interests and future even if our best friend demands it from us." My father's refusal to budge from his principles did not lead to a round of applause and praise in the media but it elicited respect for the man and improved Israel's national security. His heritage now forewarns Israeli prime ministers to stand up to pressure and not to define American pressure as a reason to withdraw from your vision and strategic goal. This will only erode Israel's power of deterrence and that of the US in the Middle East. I'm sure there will be those who will claim that one cannot compare the situation prevailing then to the situation today. They will claim that times have changed, the world has changed and all kinds of baseless reasons aimed at frightening the Israeli public so they would succumb to a strategic withdrawal. True, the world has changed, but in Israel's favor. Israel has been upgraded dramatically in the military, economic, demographic, technological and medical fields etc. The US post September 11th and Europe following a wave of Muslim terror and being faced with a demographic Muslim time bomb constitutes a plausible arena for Israel to stand firm and unapologetic. The US Congress is equal in power and independence to the president. The president initiates and executes policy but Congress controls the American Purse. It has the authority to change, suspend and initiate policy. Congress has always displayed a more hawkish approach than Israeli governments when it came to the security of the state and especially on the issue of Jerusalem. Very prominent and influential congressional figures have made it clear that we now have a historic opportunity to upgrade the Israeli-US strategic partnership regardless of the present disagreements with the Obama government regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict. The present Israeli government has a solid majority and backing of the Israeli public who is hoping for change — it wants to see a strong Israel that stands by its rights and principles and does not succumb to the pressure of international elements that have only their self-interests in mind. 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 |
|
INTELLECTUALLY BORING JEWS
Posted by Yuval Zaliouk, September 21, 2009. |
|
Dear Friends Here is the excellent article I promised you yesterday. It was written by Dr. Emmanuel Navon and is entitled "Trial and Power." Visit his website at www.navon.com Your Truth Provider,
|
|
I shall spare you the ordeal of playing the broken record on what was wrong with the Oslo accords. Still: we're in between September 13 (the date on which the Israeli Government and the PLO signed a Declaration of Principles 16 years ago) and Rosh Hashanah, and there is something to be learned about the Oslo legacy. Oslo has been debated ad nauseam, and this debate is as tiresome as it is irrelevant. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a Catch-22 situation. It is both unsustainable and unsolvable. Most people, by now, realize that. This conflict, however, is manageable — provided Israel completes its physical separation from the Palestinians, outsmarts them on the diplomatic chessboard, and neutralizes their regional troublemaking backers. Peace, of course, would be preferable. But saying this is like saying that it is preferable to be handsome, wealthy and bright than ugly, poor, and dumb. Saying it does not make it happen. Moreover, it is a fact that Israel has managed to thrive and be a success story despite the lack of true peace. Shimon Peres made the bizarre claim in this book The New Middle East (published in the wake of the 1993 Oslo agreement) that "true power — even military power — is no longer anchored in the boot camp, but on the university campuses." Though clumsily stated (I happen to doubt the ability of our academic nerds to protect us from an Iranian nuclear bomb), Peres' idea contains an element of truth. What is anchored on Israeli university campuses, however, is not true power, but true weakness. I have had the privilege of teaching in Israeli universities for the past eight years, and have always been struck by the fact that my students are confused when I ask them to think. This confusion confirms what I experienced as a graduate student in Israel. We were asked to learn, but not to think. To repeat, not to be critical. All the professors were on the same political wavelength (guess which one), and they did manage to produce formatted and dogmatic students that knew their field but had no culture and critical mind. Israeli campuses introduced me to something new: intellectually boring Jews. Faced with uncritical and ignorant 20-somethings who just finished the army and only care about getting a degree and a job, Israel's most radical professors have it easy. And what they have to say hardly makes our universities a source of national strength: Young Israeli residents of Judea and Samaria are like the Hitlerjungen (Moshe Zimmerman, Hebrew University); Israel's policy toward the Palestinians is one of politicide (Baruch Kimmerling, Hebrew University) and ethnic cleansing (Ilan Pappé, formerly from Haifa University); the very existence of a Jewish people is a "myth" invented by Zionism (Shlomo Sand, Tel-Aviv University); there never was a unified Israelite monarchy in biblical times (Israel Finkelstein, Tel-Aviv University); Israel is an apartheid state that should be boycotted by the world community (Neve Gordon, Ben-Gurion University), etc. In a way, Peres was right: Israel's future depends not only on the vitality of our economy and on the strength of our army but also, indeed mostly, on what young Israelis know about their past and think of their country — in other words on the ideas they encounter on campuses. This is where Israelis and Diaspora Jews must concentrate their efforts in the coming years. The Shalem Center's initiative to set-up an alternative, College-type institution in Israel is a good start in order for our country to survive its academic nuts. Ideas, values and faith transcend physical death. The fate of the Ramon family is here to prove it. Ilan Ramon's mother was a survivor of the Auschwitz concentration camp. Although he was a secular Jew, Ilan sought to follow Jewish observances while in orbit (he requested kosher food and observed Shabbat in space). Ilan also took parts of Jewish history and faith with him in space: A pencil sketch, "Moon Landscape", drawn by 14-year-old Petr Ginz, who died in Auschwitz; a microfiche copy of a Torah Scroll saved from the Holocaust; a barbed wire Mezuzah designed by Aimee Golant; and a landmark dollar of the Lubavitcher Rebbe. "I feel I am representing all Jews and all Israelis" he said. Both Ilan and his son Assaf tragically died while heroically serving their country, but they are survived by the values and ideas they believed in and fought for. May we be up to the task of preserving and perpetuating those values and ideas. And may the Year 5770 give us the opportunity to do so without the trials of the Year 5769. Shana Tova. Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
AL-QARADAWI CENTER FOR 'MODERATION' HAS AN IRONIC NAMESAKE
Posted by Family Security Matters (FSM), September 21, 2009. |
|
Steve Emerson is an internationally recognized expert on
terrorism and national security and heads the Investigative Project
on Terrorism. This article originally appeared on the Hudson
Institute website. It appeared September 19 in FSM. |
|
In an amazing bit of irony, a Qatari government fund is creating the Al-Qaradawi Centre for Islamic Moderation and Renewal, named after leading Sunni scholar and self-proclaimed "Mufti of martyrdom operations" Yousef Al-Qaradawi. Its director claims that the center will direct its "moderation" towards "politicians and economists," train imams, and show the "huge difference between terrorism and jihad." Yet all of these stated goals directly contradict Al-Qaradawi's statements in support of terrorism, his desire to overthrow capitalism, and his position as a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood. Director Hasan Khalifa is a professor of Comparative Religion at Cairo University and a great admirer of Al-Qaradawi. He stated that the organization "would direct its works at politicians and economists to help them promote moderation in their respective areas." In the realm of politics, there are numerous examples of Al-Qaradawi's "moderation." He has openly permitted the killing of American troops in Iraq and praised the "heroic deeds" from "Hamas, Jihad, Al-Aqsa Brigades, and others." Reports by prominent London newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, repeated Israeli claims that Al-Qaradawi was funding "the heart of Hamas," the Al-Islam Charity, through his Welfare Coalition. He has also pledged to fight the United States if it attacked Iran, stating: "When America threatened it [Iran], I said I am against America. Iran has the right to possess peaceful nuclear power, and if America fights it, we would stand up against it [America]." To top it all off, Al-Qaradawi has proclaimed himself the "Mufti of martyrdom operations" and stated: "I have been affiliated with a group considered by Zionists as their first enemy; it is the Muslim Brotherhood that has provided and still provides martyrs for the cause of Palestine." Al-Qaradawi is known for advocating the overthrow of Western capitalism. While sitting together with Hamas leader Khalid Mishal in a public meeting of the Al-Quds International Institution, an organization in which the two of them are both board members, Al-Qaradawi stressed: "We have our own economic philosophy and system which others do not have. The collapse of the capitalist system, which is based on usury and securities rather than commodities in markets, shows us that it is undergoing a crisis and that our integrated Islamic philosophy, if properly understood and applied, can replace Western capitalism." The center claims that it will "also publish and translate books about moderation so as to reach out to Western readers." Perhaps they will also disseminate Al-Qaradawi's Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase, which advocates violent jihad and supports nearly all of the Mujahideen movements affiliated with al Qaeda. In this book, Al-Qaradawi has stated: "The Islamic Movement should consider itself at the 'beck and call' of every Islamic Cause and respond to every cry for help wherever that cry may come from. It should stand with Eritrea in its jihad against the unjust Marxist Christian regime... It should stand by Sudan against the treacherous Christian racist rebellion... It should support the Muslims of Philippines against the biased Christian regime... It should also help the Muslims of Kashmir in their struggle... [against] Indian imperialism which ... is trying to turn it into a base of conspiracy against Pakistan and the whole Muslim world as a whole... Hamas is an embodiment of the Palestinian people's belief in its Muslim and Arab origins, and a testimony that the people are still alive and will never die and that jihad will be carried on by pure hands and clean hearts until victory is achieved with the Will of Allah." Another goal of the center is to train preachers and imams "because they have more close contact with the masses and can spread moderation to them." Al-Qaradawi's "moderation" includes his views on how to achieve victory over the Jews, in which he stated: "When I was asked why we did not achieve victory over the Jews and why the Jews' state was established, I said because they entered the battle as Jews and we did not enter it as Muslims... In fact, we have stripped the battle of any religious meaning. Therefore, we will never achieve victory except by religion and faith. This is a religious nation. It has religious roots. If you advocate to it socialism, nationalism, democracy, or any such thing, it will not affect it. However, if you say there is no God but Allah and Allahu Akbar, raise the Koran in front of this nation, and say O winds of paradise blow and O Allah's Brigades set out, you will find the entire nation behind you... they [the Arabs] will never get anything except by resistance. Resistance is our support in front of our enemy. Our enemy will not give us anything free or do us a favor. Independence and freedom are not given or granted to people. They tree of freedom is watered by blood." Al-Qaradawi "has always been calling for acceptance of others, 'whether they are Muslims or not,'" said Center director Hasan Khalifa. Al-Qaradawi expressed such views in the following quote, from Priorities of the Islamic Movement in the Coming Phase: "It is not right, in my view, that Christianity should monopolize all these [Western] countries unrivalled, or rivaled by Zionist Judaism that only joins forces with it against us. This is what I told our brothers in America, Canada, Australia, and other countries many years ago." Perhaps, the statement to which he was referring was his 1995 speech at the MAYA conference in Toledo, Ohio, where he stated: "Conquest through Da'wa [proselytizing], that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da'wa." With all of his radical statements and hate speech, it is unbelievable that the Qatari Emir and Queen would sponsor a foundation in the name of Al-Qaradawi. This is especially worrisome, as the center is a part of its Western-oriented Education City, an effort to reach out to non-Muslim students. If these are the voices of a moderate Islam, which "are trying to fight extremism," what is left for the extremists? For more information about Al-Qaradawi, please see the IPT's profile of him here. Contact Family Security Matters (FSM) at info@ familysecuritymatters.org |
|
MAN SUSPECTED OF SHOOTING 2 ARABS IN OLD CITY RELEASED TO HOUSE ARREST
Posted by One Jerusalem Org, September 21, 2009. |
|
Camera Catches Footage of Jewish Man Getting Assaulted in Jerusalem The suspect was assaulted by a group of Arabs while walking with friend in Old City; Arabs were lightly injured in the incident; Silwan residents threw stones at police in response A Security camera in Jerusalem captured footage of a group of Arabs assaulting and harassing a Jewish man near the Old City of Jerusalem. The footage shows a group of Arabs kicking, yelling and spitting at the Jewish man. The video can be viewed from http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3777454,00.html The Jewish man eventually fired back at the Arabs and is currently under house arrest for slightly injuring two of them. Do you agree with this story? Why have the Arabs who initiated the assault not been brought to justice? This below was written by Efrat Weiss
and published September 13, 2009 in Ynet Israel News
|
|
The Jerusalem Magistrates' Court Saturday evening released a man suspected of opening fire at two Arabs at a parking lot in Jerusalem's Old City on Friday to house arrest. The suspect was released on his own bail under restricting conditions until September 21. Investigators estimate that the man, in his 20s, opened fire at the Arabs after feeling threatened. An initial investigation confirmed that he was assaulted by a group of Arabs while strolling in the Old City with a friend. The suspect, police say, fired a warning shot into the air, but when he saw that the assailants were not deterred he shot two of them, a 40-year-old man and a 13-year-old boy, beneath the waist. The two Arabs, who are residents of east Jerusalem's Silwan neighborhood, were evacuated with mild injuries to Hadassah Mount Scopus Hospital. Relatives of one of the Arabs attacked a male nurse and a security guard at the hospital in response to the decision to transfer him to another hospital. Following the incident, Silwan residents threw stones towards Jewish homes and police officers who were dispatched to the neighborhood. An Arab who was lightly injured in the incident was also taken to Hadassah Mount Scopus. The shooter said during his interrogation that he was attacked by six people. He admitted to opening fire at them as they approached him, using a rifle in his possession. Contact One Jerusalem by email at info@onejerusalem.org and visit the website at www.onejerusalem.org |
|
CONFIDENCE BUILDING GESTURES?
Posted by Paul Lademain, September 21, 2009. |
|
Nobody, absolutely nobody is better at muddying the waters to Israel's disadvantage than that old Polish agitator, Shimon Peres. He'll say or do anything, especially something perverse, just to keep his puss grinning stupidly into the cameras. This old dodger, who grins weirdly into the flashbulbs with frightened brow and whose wet mouth fastens itself to the closest cheek, would be doing the free world a favor if he would say nothing. And touch nobody. Peres has spent decades demoralizing Israelis and exploiting Jewish fears. He has ushered in decades of stumbles and alibis and glib vagaries that change with the wind. Better he would be silent and stop filling the space that ought to have been filled long ago by a real and true leader who knows when to speak, what to say, and when to say nothing. But noooooo, not Peres. Whip out a camera and old Shimon will blurt something to embarrass or shame his nation whilst enjoying the fantasy that he has thereby earned "acceptance" even if he has himself ensured that his country is not. A leader would be repeatedly and loudly demanding "confidence building gestures" not from Israel but from the Islamic invaders; invaders who slip into Israel almost daily and call themselves "palestinians." A leader would repeatedly and loudly declare that there already IS a "palestinian state" and its name is JORDAN! But noooooooo, Peres would rather rip the shirt off his brother's back; he'd rather offer "painful concessions" than stand up like a real man and admit the truth: that the new state of Jordan IS "the palestinian state" ... and that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. We say: Restore Jewish Palestine from the ocean to the sea. We say down with Peres and all the rest of his keepers. Happy New Year to the Patriots of Israel from the SC4Z. Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
IMMIGRATION, ISLAM, & THE WEST; LIVNI SLANDERS THE STATE; HOW GOLDSTONE'S UN INVESTIGATION OPERATED
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 21, 2009. |
|
IMMIGRATION, ISLAM, & THE WEST Daniel Johnson reviewed Christopher Caldwell's Reflections on Europe's Immigrations, Islam, and the West. A few months ago, Choudary, head of the Muslim organization al-Muhajiroun, in London, was expelled from a public debate after having tried to segregate the audience by gender. Then he declared defiantly that Muslims by means of reproduction will take over Britain. Europeans do not commonly challenge such Islamist demagoguery. Europe's elite hardly notice. The old continent cannot "accommodate both the increasingly extravagant demands of the Islamist minority and the resentment of a no-longer silent majority. The multicultural model, based on pure relativism, is widely regarded as bankrupt. But it is too late to prevent or reverse the demographic transformation of virtually every major city on the continent." [Maybe not.] England has 85 Sharia courts. "Words like 'majority' and 'minority' mean little [in Europe] when an insecure, malleable, relativistic culture meets a culture that is anchored, confident, and strengthened by common doctrines." Relativism harms Europe. The welfare state's cultural relativism made it impossible to integrate immigrants. [Multiculturalism emphasizes group differences, hindering national unity.] The reviewer wrote, "Instead, the language of human rights was turned against Israel in the name of anti-racism, while the Muslim practitioners of wife-beating, forced marriage, polygamy, female mutilation, and terrorism were able to claim the protection offered by the Left's political correctness and anti-colonialism. Any form of moral or cultural absolutism was taboo (though in practice an exception was made for Islam's absolutism)." "Any European reluctance to embrace Islamic immigration gets called Islamophobia, as does any suggestion that immigrants or their children adapt to European ways." "...the traditional parts of Left and Right are failing to rise to the challenge of this silent revolution; they are ceding the response to factions that range from the untraditional to the nightmarish extreme." The Left has legitimized the "explosion of jihadist Judeophobia."... just as in the 1930s, it is the universities that the new antisemitism is most ubiquitous. British universities make it "intolerable for scholars who try to discuss Israel with any degree of objectivity." Public debate suffers. It suffers because Europeans have lost their core values and Islam fills the vacuum (Commentary, 9/2009, p.80). ISRAELI OPPOSITION SLANDERS THE STATE Tzipi Livni, head of the main Israeli opposition party, Kadima, gave a speech deploring how desperate the government has made Israelis feel. She asserted that "hundreds of thousands" of Israelis are preparing to flee, by applying for passports. TV anchor, Ayala Chason, had all the foreign embassies asked how many passports they were issuing. The embassies reported the usual number, amounting to just a few hundred (www.imra.org.il, 13). So it's hundreds, not hundreds of thousands. What a demagogue she is, to slander her own country for political gain! On the other hand, Israel has cramped its economic opportunity by government controls and bureaucracy. Many did leave. Government ownership has diminished and the economy has improved. But the government does not provide enough security for its people. Will they stay? In the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), hundreds of thousands were leaving. Now their economy is improving, at least in Judea-Samaria. Will they stay? Is PM Netanyahu wise in trying to build the P.A. economy? CONGRESSMEN INDOCTRINATED BY PALESTINIAN ARABS A junket of Members of Congress visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Returning with praise for the heads of both governments, they felt more committed to "pushing" peace talks. "The Congressmen faced an awkward moment when, shortly after the delegation's spokesman praised Fayyad for fighting incitement, reporter David Bedein presented them with proof of continuing PA incitement under Fayyad's auspices. The spokesman said America would look into the matter." The delegation blamed the P.A. for refusing to negotiate with Israel unless it met preconditions (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 8/14), which means not to negotiate them. Mr. Bedein has a practice of raising facts that puncture illusions. Many reporters practice illusions that puncture the facts. People have forgotten how to study issues. They think that by going abroad and interviewing people, without having a factual background, they learn something. They are just as likely to be deceived, when they take certain parties' assertions at face value. The Palestinian Arabs have been presenting two faces on the Arab-Israel conflict for years, a bellicose one to the Arabs, a benign one to the West. HOW GOLDSTONE'S UN INVESTIGATION OPERATED The Goldstone mission posted online questions and answers about its survey in Gaza. One can see how the mission conducted inquiry. "Commission members did not ask the interviewed Palestinians questions about the activities of Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip which could be classified as war crimes or that were potentially dangerous to innocent Palestinians. Furthermore, there was no serious consideration of Palestinian 'friendly fire' incidents, and we can only guess how many Palestinian civilians were killed or wounded by Palestinian fire." 'Reports issued by the Palestinian terrorist organizations themselves detailed the fighting in a way that often contradicted the Palestinian witnesses. In addition, the witnesses hid vital information from the commission regarding the presence of armed terrorists or exchanges of fire in their vicinity.' "The UN never asked about: 1.. Launching rockets at Israeli towns and villages from within residential dwellings; "None of the statements taken by the commission (as posted on the UN website) reported even one single instance of the presence of armed Palestinians, or of armed Palestinians firing rockets at Israel or shooting at IDF forces operating in the Gaza Strip." "The commission did not press the witnesses in order to elicit more information and did not confront them with the reports issued by the Palestinian terrorist organizations themselves, which detailed the fighting in a way that often contradicted the Palestinian witnesses. It did not adequately examine Palestinian rules of engagement — or the lack of any such rules." UN investigators failed to compare witness claims of children being shot by Israelis though they were carrying a white flag, and Hamas military reports of an exchange of fire at that site. Perhaps the civilians were killed in a crossfire and perhaps by Arab guns. The UN chalked all those deaths up to the IDF. I read the questions and answers cited. They back up the summary, above. Some of the questions were irrelevant. The lack of pertinent questions is damning. For example, the UN failed to ask whether those killed near some school were Hamas gunmen. Some of the answers falsely presented gunmen as civilians. Some of the answers were by terrorists — as is known from publicly available Palestinian Arab sources! The UN commission accepted those answers (www.imra.org.il, 9/18 from Jerusalem Issue Briefs Vol. 9, No. 10, Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi) apparently without checking Arab sources. It is clear that this was not a genuine investigation. If word doesn't get out, and perhaps even if it does, people nevertheless will cite is as showing that Israel misbehaves. They will not notice that the Arabs misbehave. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
TRYING TO OUTSMART OBAMA
Posted by Unity Coalition for Israel, September 21, 2009. |
|
This was written by Moshe Arens and it appeared Sep 15, 2009 in Haaretz |
|
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his advisors are exerting their best efforts in the search for ways to avoid a confrontation with the president of the United States, who has publicly called for a cessation of construction in West Bank settlements and East Jerusalem. But there should be no doubt about it: The government of Israel and the U.S. president are on a collision course. That became clear when Barack Obama declared in his speech in Cairo that "this must stop," referring to Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank. There are surely ways of postponing the collision, but in the final analysis, it is unavoidable, unless either the Israeli government accepts this diktat from the U.S. president, or Obama and his advisors recognize that Jews have a right to live and settle in Judea and Samaria. No amount of "creative ambiguity" is going to resolve this problem. So how is Netanyahu going to handle this conundrum? He had experience dealing with president Bill Clinton on the Palestinian issue during his previous term as prime minister, and it is unlikely that he looks back on that experience with nostalgia. In January 1997, giving in to pressure from the Clinton administration, he signed the Hebron agreement — which called for removing the Israel Defense Forces from most of Hebron and introducing a small international force into the area — with Yasser Arafat. Since then, Hamas has been predominant in Hebron, and the city has remained a powder keg of tension between Jews and Arabs. And it was only years later, after the IDF was reintroduced into the area during the second intifada, that an end came to continuous acts of Palestinian terror. The year after the Hebron agreement, he agreed to meet Arafat at Wye Plantation under Clinton's auspices. Nothing came of that conference except that the American president was drawn toward Arafat and subsequently visited Gaza, where he declared that the American people supported the Palestinian people's aspirations. So much for impartial arbitration. So how is it going to be handled this time? From news reports, it seems that Netanyahu intends to keep Obama at bay for a limited period of time while he placates his own supporters with a permit to "complete buildings in Judea and Samaria that have already begun," and then declare a moratorium on further construction there for a period of nine months. On receiving this news in Washington, Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, probably told the president the old joke about the Jew who asked for a year's stay of execution from the Polish count by promising him that during that time, he would teach the count's dog to talk. Is this going to work? Obama has decided to take his position on Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria public, and though many things will surely happen during the next nine months, he is not likely to retract his position during that period. In other words, even if Washington were to accept Netanyahu's compromise position, the confrontation will not have been avoided. That being the case, Netanyahu must consider whether it is not wiser to face Washington on a matter of principle — the right of Jews to live and settle in the Land of Israel — rather than engage in a war of attrition over a compromise formula. Anybody with experience representing Israel in the United States will tell him that there, you are better off fighting for a principle than trying to justify a compromise deal. Over the years, Israeli governments have had differences of opinions with various administrations in Washington — though it is true that not since President Eisenhower demanded that the IDF retreat from Sinai and Gaza after the Suez Campaign, 50 years ago, have these differences been taken so public by the U.S. president. We obviously prefer to be in total agreement with our ally across the sea, but we know that is not always possible. We also prefer to handle the differences of opinion between us with discretion. But in either case, we know that we can ride out the disagreements. Israel's alliance with the United States is based not only on common ideals and values, but also on mutual interests, and even a recognition of mutual benefits, despite the vast asymmetry in size between the two countries. When it comes to our most basic rights — the right of Jews to live in the Land of Israel — the United States will defer to Israel. That is, if we stand up for our rights. 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."
|
|
PROF. URIEL REICHMAN (IDC) SPEAKS OUT AGAINST ISRAEL'S ACADEMIC FIFTH COLUMN
Posted by Steven Plaut, September 21, 2009. |
|
This is Professor Reichman's speech from ICT's 9th International Conference's Closing Evening, 10 September 2009. Prof. Uriel Reichman is President of IDC University in Herzilea. |
|
The plan to terminate the Jewish state is no longer based on winning one major allout war. The planned strategy is based on two long-term operations. One is a continuous, low intensity, violent campaign. Such terror acts directed at civilians are aimed to break the citizens' will-power and to cause internal debates and chaos. The other part of the strategy is taking place abroad. Activities aimed at spreading hatred against Israel and arguing that the Jewish state has no right to exist are taking place daily. Such as, for example, the claims that Israel is an apartheid state, a colonial state, a racist entity, a society that faked its history to claim rights to a land that does not belong to it, and so on. By doing so, public opinion is built to demand boycotts against Israel, to start criminal proceedings against I.D.F. commanders, to move governments and several nations to impose sanctions on Israel and finally, perhaps, to call international military activity against us. It is a sophisticated process that can be especially effective against a small nation. Substantial Arab resources are poured into accomplishing these results, buying all kinds of media and funding anti-Israel organizations. There is no doubt that innocent people are caught by the emotional, as well as ideological, propaganda against Israel. The most extreme allegations against Israel are often made by a small anti-Zionist group of Israeli university professors. Their ideas are widely circulated and are especially effective because they are made by Israelis. Recently, in an article published in the Los Angeles Times, an Israeli professor called his audience to boycott Israel on all levels, to "save that apartheid state from itself." How should a university respond to such writing? Is it a case of constitutionally protected free speech or academic freedom? There is a difference between internal democratic debate, what course should a nation adopt, when being called in for sanctions by other countries. The professor who wrote the L.A.article would probably support the use of international military forces, in case the sanctions fail its "save Israel from itself" campaign. Calling other nations to take action against your own country — be it by economic sanctions or military force — means turning your back on the internal democratic system. Such an attitude is morally right only if you believe that the situation has reached a point in which the system has entirely lost its legitimacy and thus merits revolt. If that is the case, it is very odd that such a professor is requiring a salary from a state university funded by the tax payers' money. Freedom of speech is guaranteed to enable free debate in a society; it does not extend to calls for force, which will actually terminate debates. Such calls have also nothing to do with academic freedom. It is a joke to regard a call for academic boycott as being part of academic freedom. The paradox of modern communication is that fundamentalist calls for the annihilation of one people are supported by arguments of self-proclaimed Human Rights moralists. What we all need is the power to face evil, and the human decency to distinguish between right and wrong, oppose the call to eliminate the other and support the right of self-defense and freedom. In eight days, the Jewish New Year starts. Let me wish all of you Shana Tova — a Happy New Year, a year free of violence, a year of joy and creativity. Thank you for attending the conference. 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
|
|
PALESTINIAN PRIME MINISTER BELIES MODERATE IMAGE WITH WORKING POLICY PAPER ABOUT FUTURE PALESTINIAN STATE
Posted by David Bedein, September 20, 2009. |
|
Throughout the month of August, 2009, Palestinian National Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayad met with more than fifty members of the US Senate and US House of Representatives. In press conferences held by almost all American elected officials after meeting the American educated Fayad, the consistent impression that they conveyed was that Mr. Fayad represented a "moderate voice of leadership" for a future Palestinian state that could live alongside the state of Israel. However, a group of Israeli peace groups received and distributed an English version of a position paper for a future Palestinian state that Mr. Fayad submitted at the end of August to the Middle Quartet Negotiations Task Force, which includes The UN, The EU, The American government and the Russian government Fayad's paper "Ending the Occupation, Establishing the State:Program of the Thirteenth Government - August 2009" Available on the net at: http://www.geneva-accord.org/images/Offical%20 Paper%20-%20Program%20of%20the%20Thirteenth%20 Government,%20August%202009.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/ would seem to belie Fayad's image as a "moderate voice of leadership" The preface to Fayad's paper introduces a Palestinian state that will strive for "peace, security and stability in our region on the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital". However, Fayad's 38 page position paper reads like a declaration of war, not of peace. Fayad asserts that "Jerusalem" will be the Palestinian capital of the Palestinian state - not East Jerusalem. In case anyone was wondering if Fayad had made a typographical error by not mentioning "east" Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, Fayad repeats - ten times - that he means Jerusalem, all of Jerusalem. Fayad leaves nothing to the imagination, and writes that the Palestininian stat will "Protect Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Palestinian state", because Fayad asserts that "Jerusalem is our people's religious, cultural, economic and political center. It is the Flower of Cities and Capital of Capitals. It cannot be anything but the eternal capital of the future Palestinian state. Jerusalem" Fayad goes on to claim that Jerusalem "is under threat" and that "the occupying authority is implementing a systematic plan to alter the city's landmarks and its geographical and demographic character in order to forcibly create facts on the ground, ultimately separating it from its Palestinian surroundings and eradicating its Arab Palestinian heritage". Fayad further claims that "Palestinian life in Jerusalem is under daily attack through systematic violations perpetrated by the occupation regime" and that "It is the right and the duty of all Palestinians to protect their land, reject the occupation and defy its measures", adding that the Palestinian state "bears special responsibility for nurturing our people's ability to persevere and protect their homeland". Fayad ads that the Palestinian government will maintain its "unreserved commitment to defending the Arab character and status of Jerusalem.... The Government will continue to do all that is possible to achieve this goal. The Government will work with all organizations to preserve the landmarks of Jerusalem and its Arab Palestinian heritage, develop the city, and secure its contiguity with its Palestinian surroundings". Fayad frames Jerusalem as an illegal settlement, postulating that "the occupying authority is pursuing its intensive settlement policy in and around Jerusalem...The occupation regime has shut down our national institutions, neglected the development of Palestinian life, continued to demolish and evacuate Palestinian homes, and restricted access to sacred Christian and Islamic sites" Fayad goes so far as to present a practical plan to Arabize Jerusalem: Maintaining Jerusalem as a top priority on the Government's agenda and·" highlighting its predicament in the media. Launching a programs to promote the steadfastness of Jerusalemites, including: Strengthen Palestinian institutions in Jerusalem, providing financial support to help them deliver services to citizens". Fayad reassures his readers that a future Palestinian state would not be satisfied with Jerusalem, the west bank and Gaza as the national home for Palestinians, and says that the Palestinian government will continue to advocate for "Palestinian refugees in accordance with relevant international resolutions, and UN General Assembly Resolution 194 in particular", which mandates that Palestinian refugees and their descendents have a right to return to the homes and villages that Palestinians left during the 1948 war and its aftermath. Fayad reminds Palestinians that "the refugee issue will remain under the jurisdiction of the PLO, through its Department of Refugees' Affairs...in a manner that does not exempt the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) from its responsibilities" In the view of Fayad, UNRWA will therefore continue to confine Palestinian refugees a their descendents to the indignity of refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the "right of return". Meanwhile, Fayad expresses full support for Palestinians who have been convicted of murder and attempted murder, saying that "the state also has an enduring obligation to care and provide for the martyrs, prisoners, orphans and all those harmed in the Palestinian struggle for independence". Fayad simply cannot understand why Palestinians convicted of capital crimes should be jailed. Fayad proclaims that "the continued detention of thousands of Palestinian detainees and prisoners in Israeli prisons and detention camps in violation of international law and basic human rights, is of great concern to all Palestinians" and declares that "Securing the freedom of all these heroic prisoners is an utmost Palestinian priority and it is a fundamental duty all Palestinians feel to honor their great sacrifices and end their suffering" and demands the "freedom of all Palestinian detainees and prisoners and will continue to strive to secure their liberty". Fayad also asserts that the PLO and have signed "all provisions of agreements signed with Israel", yet forgets to mention that the PLO never ratified the signed agreements with Israel. On October 6, 1993, PLO chairman Arafat could not get a quorum for the PLO executive to ratify the Oslo accords that Arafat had signed with Rabin on the White House lawn. On April 24, 1996, the Palestinian National Council would not cancel the PLO covenant and has never ratified the PLO covenant, despite the PLO commitment to do so as an integral part of the Oslo accord. The PLO Covenant has yet to be cancelled. Fayad's view of justice is well articulated in this piece when he states that "All Palestinians are equal before the law". Anyone who is not a Palestinian is therefore not equal. Fayad declares that the Palestinian State will be an Islamic state and "Promote awareness and understanding of the Islamic religion and culture and disseminate the concept of tolerance in the religion through developing and implementing programs of Shari'a education as derived from the science of the Holy Qur'an and Prophet's heritage". In sum, Fayad concludes with a demand for a Palestinian state in the next two years, along the parameters that he has outlined, with an Palestinian state that will have all of Jerusalem as its capital, in an Islamic Sharia state that will campaign for all convicts to be freed, for all refugees to return to the homes and villages that they left in 1948. A voice of moderation? It would be interesting to know if the peace groups that distributed Fayad's working paper ever bothered to read it. 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 |
|
ISRAEL ADMITS THERE WAS A FREEZE; GUESS WHERE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PM LIVES!
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 20, 2009. |
|
ISRAEL ALLOWS SOME CONSTRUCTION BEFORE FREEZE The government of Israel announced plans for a small amount of construction in Judea-Samaria, before instituting a purportedly temporary freeze. The plan was supposed to be a compromise that would mollify people. It didn't. Many Israelis said the 450 new housing units are too few. The White House and the Palestinian Authority said that any are too many. Peace Now called the approval, just when peace may have been "moving forward," a provocation. Only those 450 got final approval since PM Netanyahu took office last March. All are in the settlement blocks near the present State of Israel, which the Bush letter to Sharon indicated Israel would annex under a final status agreement. (The Obama administration can't find the letter previously made public, and says anyway it isn't binding. In other words, don't rely upon U.S. assurances.) The freeze does not apply to Jerusalem, whose eastern the Arabs claim (Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 9/8, A10). It is no provocation for Jews to build in the Territories, which the Palestine Mandate, endorsed by the League of Nations, and ratified into the UN Charter, declares it the right and duty of Jews to build, and which the Oslo Accords put no restrictions on doing. The U.S. outcry over 450 units demonstrates State Dept. solidarity with the Arab side. Contrary to the NY Times citation of former propaganda of the Palestinian Authority wanting eastern Jerusalem, the Arab side wants all of Israel, to which its Covenants, indoctrination, and actions attest. The Times should know that Fatah leaders demand all of Jerusalem. Therefore, the conflict is not going to be resolved by Israeli concessions. It can be resolved only by reform of the jihad imperialism, that considers infidel statehood impermissible religiously, especially in an area its imperialism once had overcome. When does Peace Now find Arabs demands and attempts to spill Jewish blood, "provocation?" It is clear that they are not for peace but for appeasement. ISRAEL ADMITS THERE WAS A FREEZE Foreign Minister Lieberman admitted Israel started a settlement freeze four months ago. He said it is not permanent (www.imra.org.il, 8/20 from Jer. Post). So much for his and PM Netanyahu's reputation of being right-wing, when they secretly adopted a left-wing policy and advised the people to the contrary. PM Netanyahu reassures his people he is not giving up any sovereignty and not cramping Jerusalem and environs. He reassures Pres. Obama that he is relinquishing the exercise of sovereignty and cramping Jerusalem and environs. How to determine which? Judge by the refusal to approve new building permits and the refusal to give the final, perfunctory approval for otherwise legally ap-proved towns. GUESS WHERE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PM LIVES! Guess where Palestinian Authority (P.A.) Prime Minister Salam Fayyad lives. He lives in eastern Jerusalem! His wife has residency status. He says that his bodyguards are unarmed and paid from his personal funds. [Oslo forbids the P.A. from performing official duties in Jerusalem, in recognition of Israel's legal jurisdiction there and because Oslo prohibits attempts to change the legal status of the areas beyond the Green Line.] Israel also provides security for him. The Israeli Prime Minister's Office referred further inquiry to the interior and defense ministries. However, "The Interior Ministry said that 'since this is a policy issue, the Interior Ministry has no authority to answer the question; it should be directed to the Prime Minister's Office.'" And the Defense Ministry had not responded (www.imra.org.il, 8/11). While anti-Zionists accuse Israel of oppressing the Palestinian Arabs and ethnically cleansing them, Israel actually lets the head of P.A. government live in Israel's own capital. The runaround that the government gave journalists occurs often. I don't want to put IMRA on the spot by asking whether this is government policy or confusion. LEFTIST LEADERSHIP ON LIBERATING HAMAS CAPTIVE What is the Israeli leftist notion of leadership in liberating Hamas' Israeli captive? "Kadima MK Shaul Mofaz called on Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to 'show leadership' and free all the terrorists that Hamas demands in order to gain the release of Shalit." A rightist MK admonished MK Mofaz to telephone the Prime Minister privately, if he has an idea, rather than publicly embarrassing Israel (www.imra.org.il, 8/13). Discretion is wise for all. Politicians both blurt and stifle at the wrong times. If PM Netanyahu followed the leftist advice, Hamas would demand that Israel release all 11,000 terrorist prisoners. Hamas would find kidnapping its most successful weapon against Israel, and do more of it. Bad deal for Israel! Worse, 11,000 is almost a whole army division. Imagine how many more Israelis the 11,000 would kill and capture, or is it capture and kill, than Israel spares in the person of the one Israeli captive released! Such a deal would not exemplify leadership. Its blunder could pass for insanity. What has the Left come to? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
ARSON ATTACK AT JEWISH COMMUNITY HAVAT GILAD IN SHOMRON
Posted by David HaIvri, September 20, 2009. |
|
Sunday, Sept. 20, 2009. The second and final day of the Jewish new year of Rosh Hashana, Arab infiltrators burned two homes to the ground in the village of Havat Gilad. The town's infrastructure was also badly damaged, with many homes without electricity and sewage systems destroyed. At one pm, when the men of the community were gathered together in synagogue, a fire was spotted in a field bordering the community and moving quickly in the direction of their homes. Despite efforts by local residents to quell the blaze, two homes were destroyed. Noam and Batya Bryoer and their three small children, watched helplessly as their wooden house went up in flames, containing all of their worldly possessions, as did Itay and Hila Cohen, the owners of the second house. After hours of work in the smoke and flames six members of the community were taken for medical treatment for smoke inhalation sustained while attempting to extinguish the inferno. The Israeli Defense Forces arrested four suspects, all Arab residents of a nearby village, who were then handed over to the police for questioning. The fire department investigation has determined that the blaze was intentional and constitutes arson. The main water and sewage lines in the community were destroyed. Significant damage was also done to the electrical grid, with half the community without electricty. The damage is estimated to be over a half a million shekels [$150,000]. Immediately after the end of the Rosh Hashana holiday, Shomron Regional Council head Gershom Mesika arrived on the scene and condemned the attack as an "act of terrorism". Mesika called on the IDF to "protect the community of Havat Gilad and punish the terrorists." Around the world supporters have pledged to donate money to an emergency fund that has been establishing to supply the money needed to rebuild the destroyed homes and to supply the two families with clothing and furniture to replace their possessions destroyed in the fire. Today the Havat Gilad is home to twenty five families. Located near Kedumim. It was established by Moshe Zar on his own land in memory of his son Gilad, who was murdered by Arabs in May of 2001. Gilad was the civilian security chief of the Samaria regional council, tasked with coordinating security with the IDF and protecting local residents. Havat Gilad has been targeted in the past. Previously, two members of Rabbis for Human Rights were caught setting fire to nearby fields. Members of the community have vowed not to give in to Arab terrorism, they will rebuild the homes that were destroyed and continue to develop their community. Photos courtesy of Shomron Liaison Office are available at http://picasaweb.google.com/ShomronLiaison/HavatGiladFire?feat =directlink#5383693191081627714
For more information contact:
|
|
PURPORTED NON MUSLIM PRESIDENT OBAMA MAKES HIGH LEVEL MUSLIM APPOINTMENT TO DHS
Posted by Chuck Brooks, September 20, 2009. |
|
This was written by Vincent Gioia
and it appeared today in Right Side News
Vincent Gioia is a retired patent attorney living in Palm Desert, California. His articles may be read at www.vincentgioia.com and he may be contacted at gioia@gte.net. |
|
Purported non Muslim Barack Hussein Obama made a presidential appointment of Muslim Los Angeles Deputy Mayor Arif Alikhan for a top job at the federal Department of Homeland Security. In his new job Arif Alikhan will be Assistant Secretary for the Office of Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security. Alikhan has been Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles — in charge of public safety for the city. Why Muslim Alikhan at the Department of Homeland Security you might
ask? DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano said Alikhan's "broad and
impressive array of experience in national security, emergency
preparedness and counterterrorism will make him an asset" — yes,
but on behalf of the US or Muslims? I am not sure what she is talking
about and she probably doesn't know either.
Alikhan says a big part of his job will be fostering communication between agencies. Alikhan, like Obama, also wants to help improve America's image with Muslims around the world. He will now set policy on security at the highest levels of the federal government. But what policies has the new Assistant Secretary embraced? During his years in Los Angeles, Alikhan was responsible for derailing the Police Department's plan to monitor activities within the Los Angeles Muslim community, where numerous radical mosques and madrassas existed, and where some of the 9/11 hijackers had received support from local residents. Alikhan is strongly anti-Israel; he has referred to the terrorist organization Hezbollah as a "liberation movement." Hezbollah is on the US official terrorist list while being an affiliate of the Muslim Public Affairs Council. Alikhan also opposed President George W. Bush's prosecution of the war on Islamic terror. In 2007 Alikhan was instrumental in removing the Muslim terror tracking plan in LA. The Muslim 'Mapping' Plan of the Los Angeles Police Department is now "dead on arrival" according to Chief William Bratton. "It is over and not just put on the side," said Chief Bratton in a meeting with the Muslim leadership of Southern California at that time. The meeting was moderated by Arif Alikhan. Chief Bratton acknowledged the hurt and offense caused to Muslims and agreed to send a letter to the Muslim community announcing the official termination of the 'mapping' plan. A major reason for the termination of the 'mapping' plan was the
Muslim community's vociferous opposition and active civic engagement
in making themselves heard beyond Los Angeles. Muslim organizations
demonstrated a strong unity of purpose and message on the issue of
'mapping' that led to a position of strength for Muslims in the
meeting. Those involved in the initial phases of this controversy were
the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California www.shuracouncil.org
and the Council on American-Islamic Relations
Muslim Democrats welcomed Alikhan's appointment at a
banquet/fundraiser for the Islamic Shura Council of Southern
California recently where the first speaker was Arif Alikhan, a devout
Sunni and the son of Pakistani immigrants,
Other speakers included Professor Agha Saeed of the American Muslim Task Force (AMT) who spoke about "the struggle of the Muslim Community against the pervasive atmosphere of Islamophobia and hatred in the aftermath of 9/11.. It was a struggle against the tide — a very strong tide — to prevent Muslims in America from being marginalized and silenced." Professor Saeed issued five demands from Muslims to the Department
of Justice. These demands included a cessation to the infiltration by
spies of mosques and an end to the introduction of agents provocateur.
In addition there was to be a cessation of attempts to undermine
Muslim groups such as the Council on American Islamic Relations
(CAIR). Un-indicted co-conspirator CAIR was thrilled at the
appointment:
Last week, Napolitano swore in Damascus-born Kareem Shora, the
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)'s national executive
director, to a position on the Homeland Security Advisory Council, an
outside-the-department group of national security experts that advises
the Secretary. Shora is the first Arab rights advocate on the panel.
Shora has with ties to terror backers
One may wonder how does an obscure (but Democrat) bureaucrat and devout Muslim come to the position of Deputy Mayor of Los Angeles — in charge of public safety for the city and now becomes Assistant Secretary to DHS under purported non Muslim Democrat President Barack Hussein Obama?
Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com |
|
LEBANON'S "MADOFF": A DIVINE BANKRUPTCY
Posted by Elias Bejjani, September 20, 2009. |
|
Al Manar Hezbollah website (08/09/09): "On the businessman, Salah Ezzeddine's, bankruptcy case, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah pointed out that Hezbollah Party, its leadership and the organization had no association whatsoever with this issue from the beginning to the end, stressing that the leadership does not have any of the money claimed. He added that the aim of several media facilities which have shed light on this issue that is in the hands of the judiciary is to tarnish the image of many of the party's cadres. Sayyed Nasrallah stated that his party is in the process of issuing a detailed release on this sensitive issue that affects the people's money". No matter how hard Sayyed Nasrallah or other Hezbollah mullahs try to camouflage, hide, justify, deny or twist facts, the bitter reality shows that an actual devastating financial earthquake has severely hit the Lebanese Shiite community in Lebanon and abroad. This shocking disaster took place earlier this month after the famed Lebanese Shiite financier, Salah Ezzeddine, filed for bankruptcy and was placed under arrest. From wealthy Lebanese Shiite expatriates in the Arabian Gulf oil countries, Africa, USA, Canada, Australia, Europe and other countries, to local villagers all over Lebanon, to top notch Hezbollah clergy, officials and MPs, Ezzeddine spared no one as he allegedly concocted a Ponzi scheme that saw almost USD 2 billion go up in smoke. Tagged as "Lebanon's Bernard Madoff", Ezzeddine made headlines earlier this month in the local and international press. His dubious bankruptcy has left many serious unanswered questions, all related to his very cozy and privileged relationship with the terrorist organization, Hezbollah. A shroud of mystery still surrounds the whole matter. Any sane Lebanese citizen who has a free conscience and is familiar with the unfolding events in his country would take Nasrallah's statement above as a personal insult to his intelligence and a flagrant infringement on the plain truth. There is no doubt that Nasrallah has turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to the simple fact that the majority of his Shiite community members are fully aware of the kind of intimate and very close relationship that Ezzeddine enjoyed with Hezbollah and its high ranking leadership, including Nasrallah himself, as well as his close associates. The Kuwaiti Al-seyassah daily reported on September 05/09 that Nasrallah himself and some of his family members were investing USD 2 million in Ezzeddine's businesses. According to the Lebanese media three other senior Hezbollah operatives were also among those who invested and lost funds with Ezzeddine. One of the three is Wafik Safa, chief of internal security. The other two as reported by Al-Arabiya were the leader of Hezbollah's parliament bloc, Mohammad Raad, and a member of the bloc, Amin Sherri. The report did not say whether they had lost their own private funds or those of the organization. Sources affiliated with Hezbollah have estimated Ezzeddine's losses at around USD 1 billion, and a Kuwaiti daily reported that the organization had lost USD 683 million. A report published on September 12/09 also by the Kuwaiti Al-seyassah daily said that many senior political and military Syrian officials had lost huge amounts of money with Ezzeddine's bankruptcy, and that they are now trying to recover a portion of it from the Hezbollah. The report stated that Hezbollah had collected about EUR 17 million from Ezzeddine before he was handed over to the Lebanese judiciary. According to the same report, the Syrian president's brother, Maher Assad, his uncle's sons, Rami Hafez Makhlouf, Vice President Faruq al-Shara, Major General Mohammed Nassif, Maj. Gen. Rustom Ghazali, the family of the late Maj. Gen. Ghazi Kanaan, in addition to a number of senior army and intelligence officers had all invested with Ezzeddine and had lost their money. It is interesting to know that USD 200 thousand was the minimum amount of money that Ezzeddine would accept for investment. According to anonymous Lebanese neutral financial and sociology experts' assessments that were based on actual facts and firsthand experience, Hezbollah was the sole predisposing and precipitating evil vehicle that stood behind Ezzeddine's scheme from day one until its deadly end. They all concluded that Hezbollah is to be solely blamed for the tragedy due to the simple fact that this armed Iranian militia fully controls the Shiite canton and runs its affairs with an iron fist. Nothing at all happens inside this canton without Hezbollah's approval and full awareness. The worst part of the scandal for the Hezbollah party might not come in only dollars and cents but in the damage done to its faked and disguised reputation for honesty, competence and integrity especially among its own Shiite community. Journalist Ali Halawi in a report published by the Elaph website on September 16/09 said: "It seems that Hezbollah from the top of its hierarchy represented by its Secretary General, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, has made a serious decision to contain Ezzeddine's bankruptcy, which is described as very closely linked to the party. The bankruptcy is causing a great deal of embarrassment to the Hezbollah party due to the fact that a significant number of its political and security officials are among the thousands of Shiite depositors who invested their money in Ezzeddine's projects for annual profits that reached around 40 percent. In parallel with the decision of containment, some clerics in the party have issued a special religious decree (very close to a Fatwa) forbidding anyone to mention or relate the party to the bankruptcy under any circumstances in a bid that Israeli and American propaganda would not tarnish the party's reputation". Based on Hezbollah's suffocating grip on the canton's, residents, security, banks, media, schools, hospitals, communications, life style, businesses, and worship facilities, there is no way at all that Ezzeddine would have been able to run his very sensitive money business for so many years without not only the approval of Hezbollah, but also without being a member in this very rich organization. Numerous reports even claimed that Ezzeddine was investing for Hezbollah and not for himself. It worth mentioning that Hezbollah does not approve or believe in the banking system of earning interest and considers it religiously unlawful. Instead its leadership and clergy advocate what they call a "business partnership". Ezzeddine was using this religious doctrine and smartly manipulating it to his advantage. All those who put their money in his coffer presumably considered themselves partners in his investments. Ezzeddine was promising his so called "partners" annual returns of 40 to 50 percent. More than 11 thousand Lebanese Shiites were hit by Ezzeddine's bankruptcy. Many of them can't sue him or even file publicly for their losses because they live in countries like Canada, Australia and the USA where tax departments would expose them to very tough financial monitoring if their loses were officially declared. A Lebanese daily has stated that a Shiite family residing in Canada that had invested with Ezzeddine alone lost more than USD 1 million. According to the report, this family doesn't even have a receipt from Ezzeddine for their money. Meanwhile, many prominent Hezbollah members are also afraid to fully admit their losses to avoid questions about the origins of their questionable wealth. Members in the Lebanese Shiite community placed their life savings with Ezzeddine because of his close connections with Hezbollah, which thus bears at least a moral responsibility for the bankruptcy scheme. The prominent outspoken Lebanese Shiite politician, Ahmad Alassad, blamed Hezbollah for the bankruptcy scheme. The Lebanese National News agency published his statement on September 11/09: "Ahmad Al Assad stressed Hezbollah's responsibility with regard to Ezzeddine's bankruptcy because he had a close relationship with them. Accordingly he said, "it is a crime if the party knew that his activities were wrong and kept silent. At the same time the party is accountable too if it did not know and did not carry out any kind of investigation to trace the sources of the high interest that he was paying to the investors. It is obvious that this man has invested in his relationship with Hezbollah to cover up his activities and to give the impression that he was supported by Hezbollah. Therefore Hezbollah's obligation was to carry out a probe into his activities at least for the benefit of the people for whose interests it claims to work". On September 14/09, Ezzeddine who has been under arrest since August 31/09, was formally charged by the Lebanese judiciary with fraudulent embezzlement, a crime, if found guilty, punishable for up to 15 years in prison. Five others have also been charged with involvement in the case, but all of them are on the run. It is so sad, disappointing and frustrating for all of Ezzeddine's victims that because of Hezbollah's questionable and suspiciously friendly relationship with him, his bankruptcy case most probably will not proceed anywhere in the Lebanese judicial system, and he might even be found to be innocent, and subsequently not charged and released. Hezbollah's role, intimidation and influence in the bankruptcy scandal are very obvious. This intimidation role is extremely noticeable in the fact that not even one investor from the 11 thousand Shiites that were hit did file a judiciary complaint against Ezzeddine yet. Why? Because Hezbollah's mini state actually controls and runs the central Lebanese state and all its institutions by terrorism, crime, embezzlement, and corruption. In conclusion, Lebanon will never be able to reclaim its independence, freedom, and sovereignty until Hezbollah is finally dismantled and disarmed, and whoever has ears to hear ought to hear. Elias Bejjani Canadian-Lebanese Human Rights activist, journalist and political commentator Email phoenicia@hotmail.com Web sites http://www.10452lccc.com & http://www.clhrf.com Mailing phoenicia group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Phoenicia/ LCCC Face Book http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=17974722934 The original has live links to additional material. |
|
HOLIDAYS IN CAPTIVITY AND LETTERS TO JONATHAN POLLARD
Posted by Justice for Jonathan Pollard, September 20, 2009. | |
|
Our sages teach that captivity is the worst of all possible afflictions because it includes all the other afflictions: "The sword is worse than death, famine is worse than the sword, captivity is worst of all" (Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra 8a) The worst days in captivity for a Jewish captive are Shabbat and Jewish holidays. Even without a Jewish calendar, the neshama of the captive senses the extra Kedusha (holiness) of these days, and its suffering is increased exponentially, not only because of the afflictions it is enduring, but especially because of its inability to act upon the Kedusha. There is little consolation for a soul that is fettered and deprived of the most basic Jewish expression at holiday times — how much more so during the Yamim HaNoraim — The High Holidays. The letters that Jonathan is receiving at this time are his lifeline, his reassurance that people on the outside care very deeply. Jonathan often remarks to his wife, Esther, how very much he enjoys the letters and how varied they are. They run the gamut, he said, from one end of the spectrum to the other in terms of stories, anecdotes, prayers, and personal life experiences. Some people write of how they much are praying for Jonathan, others recount personal problems so severe that Jonathan is now praying for them (along with all of his prayers for Am Yisrael). Most people express the hope that Jonathan will write back, but he simply is not able to. Why not? Because all of his out-going mail is routed via the National Security Agency in Washington where it is supposedly "vetted" to ensure that it does not contain classified information. In the process of being "vetted" somehow all of his out-going mail gets lost or destroyed. It does not reach its destination. This is an age-old vengeful technique that is intended to demoralize a prisoner. Fortunately, Jonathan does receive all of his incoming mail. Incoming mail goes directly to the prison mailroom where it is checked to ensure that the letter is in English and does not contain any contraband. (No bubble gum, stamps, glitter, stickers, money etc permitted). Only letters and photos are permitted (Photos in modest quantity: up to 5). Letters in Hebrew are shown to Jonathan very briefly (not sufficient time for him to read) and then discarded; it is clearly preferable to write in English. As soon as the mailroom staff checks the mail, it is distributed and Jonathan receives all of his letters, without exception. Especially now at holiday time, please keep writing! Please know that all of your letters reach Jonathan as long as they are correctly addressed and contain no forbidden enclosures. Please know as well, how very much these letters mean to him. Here is Jonathan's address: Jonathan Pollard #09185-016
Feel free to send a copy of your letters to justice4jp@gmail.com. With your permission we will share copies of some of the letters with our readers. See Also: The Pollard Affair —
Living Al Kiddush HaShem:
See Below:
Rabbi Shmuel Yaniv, a well-known Torah scholar, author, poet and expert on Torah Codes is the chief Rabbi of Givat Shmuel (a city not far from Tel Aviv). His talent as a writer and poet are readily evident in the original Hebrew version of the letter that he recently wrote to Jonathan Pollard (see copy following the English text below). For those who cannot read the original Hebrew, here is a less poetic, but reasonably good translation: | |
|
JUSTICE FOR JONATHAN POLLARD
|
|
IS J STREET PRO-ISRAEL OR PRO-IRAN; J STREET REVIEW
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 19, 2009. |
|
IS J STREET PRO-ISRAEL OR PRO-IRAN? J Street purports to be pro-Israel, but it disputes the traditional pro-Israel organizations, and is pro-Iran. It is associated with the National Iranian Council, Human Rights Watch, a Palestinian Arab billionaire, State Dept. officials who became Arab agents, and the like. J Street worked to block legislation that would undermine the Iranian regime. J Street was evenhanded on the war on Hamas. A J Street director spoke at a conference of the pro-terrorist Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee. On the basis of what ideology did it solicit contributions? It should open its books so people can see who controls its purse strings. How did J Street acquire a White House invitation within a year of its founding? (Lenny Ben David, Jerusalem Post, 8/23 in www.imra.org.il). I surmise it was set up to subvert Jewish unity on Israel, and was invited to the White House because it is anti-Israel but represents itself as a Jewish group. J STREET ANTI-ISRAEL J Street claims to be pro-Israel, but Morton Klein, President of the Zionist Organization of American, doubts it. Mr. Klein asks, "Yet what pro-Israel group would invite a man to speak at its forthcoming conference who has called for Israel's destruction, stating that 'the establishment by force, violence and terrorism of a Jewish state in Palestine in 1948' was 'unjust' and 'a crime,' and vowed to 'work to overturn the injustice?'" "The man who signed this Sept. 17, 1993 statement by the Muslim Public Affairs Council was its executive director, Salam Al-Marayati, who will be speaking next month at J Street's Oct. 25-28 conference." Marayati and MPAC have made numerous other hateful anti-Israel and anti-American statements: Almost immediately after the 9/11 attacks, Marayati suggested Israel may have done it. After a suicide bombing in Jerusalem, MPAC blamed Israel policy for it, implying [falsely] that Israel recklessly assassinates children. "Marayati's group condemned the U.S. strikes against al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Sudan following the bombings in 1998 of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania as 'illegal, immoral and illogical.'" [Apparently it did not condemn the attacks on our embassies.] 'He has likened Israel's supporters to Hitler.' 'J Street's invitation to Marayati makes one wonder whose side the organization is on.' 'J Street pressures Israel to make concessions, yet says virtually nothing specifically about the 16-year failure of the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority to dismantle terrorist groups. The lobby group also said nothing about Fatah's recent conference, which proclaimed the legitimacy of terrorism against Israel and honored, by name, killers of Jews as heroes.' 'Additionally, J Street showed its animus toward Israel by citing polls inaccurately to bolster its claim that Israelis and American Jews want greater Israeli concessions and agree with President Obama's pressure on Israel to stop Jews building in eastern Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria — the land known as the West Bank.' "In June, J Street's campaign director, Isaac Luria, misleadingly claimed, 'Israelis want the president to stand up to the settlers.'" "A poll recently showed that 52 percent of Israelis want a freeze on settlement construction and 56 percent want Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to agree to President Obama's call for an end to settlement construction." 'In fact, the Dahaf Institute poll to which Luria referred actually showed that Israelis favor continued natural growth of Jewish communities by 54 percent to 42 percent, and that they believe that Obama's policies are not good for Israel by a margin of 53 percent to 26 percent.' 'J Street simply buried the evidence of actual support for natural growth and cited only a contradictory general finding of support for a construction freeze. More damning still, the only other [even] partial truth in J Street's claim — that 56 percent of respondents said they wanted Netanyahu to agree to Obama's demands — left out the major point that they favored this only if the alternative meant U.S. sanctions.' 'J Street misrepresents polling data and ignores other polls that show majority Israeli and American Jewish opposition to Obama's demands. For instance, a recent Smith Research Institute poll shows that Israelis, by a decisive 69 percent to 27 percent margin, oppose freezing construction within large Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and that only 4 percent of Israelis favor Obama's policies.' 4%! 'Most disturbing, despite strong support by most Israeli and American Jews for Israel's campaign last January to stop Hamas rocket attacks, J Street opposed the operation. It has even challenged the adoption of more robust sanctions against Iran.' 'All these issues have enhanced relevance in view of the fact that J Street receives tens of thousands of dollars in donations from dozens of Arab and Muslim Americans, according to the Federal Election Commission filings cited by the Jerusalem Post, as well as money from individuals connected to Palestinian and pro-Iranian advocacy groups.' (Via Prof. Steven Plaut, 917.) PART 1 The theme of the NY Times magazine section review of J Street was its challenge to existing lobbies on Israel, its methods, and generational differences. J Street's rising donations were discussed. The Iranian and other Muslim contributors were not mentioned, nor J Street's sympathy for Iran. That taints the whole review. It raises grave doubts that J Street is a pro-Israel lobby, as alleged. The Times and J Street should give full disclosure about that (and about the Times' traditional anti-Zionism while it pretends to care about Israel). J Street head Ben-Ami and associates are in the younger generation. They all are inter-married and conduct Buddhist 'seders.' "They are, he adds, baffled by the notion of 'Israel as the place you can always count on when they come to get you.'" They do not know that the Holocaust survivors repaired to Israel, as did most of the hundreds of thousands of Jews whom Arab states expelled. They do not know that Soviet Jews found their liberation in Israel. But haven't they heard of French Jews beginning to emigrate to Israel, as the Muslims come for them? Jews in some other European countries are nervous, too. There is a problem with the younger generation being less educated, less loyal to their heritage and more radical. The review states that negotiator 'Mitchell has tried to wring painful concessions from Israel, the Palestinians and the Arab states.' What painful concessions from the Arabs? Normal relations, meaning above all, not indoctrinating in hatred of Israel and Jews? If that is painful, then the Arabs are not ready for peace. But Mitchel does not insist upon it. To get Israeli concessions, the government pretends they are parallel. The article then takes up sympathetically Mearsheimer and Walt's pathetic, old, antisemitic notion that the Jews control Congress and the executive branch, who did what Israel wanted. I find that sympathy disturbing. It also is ridiculous. U.S. Presidents armed the Arabs, curbed Israeli military victories against Arab aggressors, demanded that Israel withdraw from territory but only occasionally and perfunctorily said Arab terrorism should stop, kept criticizing Israel and hardly criticized the Arabs who make the wars, and refused to let Israel destroy Iran's nuclear reactor. The U.S. now gives more money to the Arabs, who use it primarily to prepare for war on Israel. Even U.S. military aid for Israel comes with restrictions that keep Israel from having a qualitative edge. That hardly is a 'blank check' for Israel. PART 2 As for the depiction of AIPAC being a firm supporter of Israel, that is partly myth. AIPAC seldom objects to U.S. arms deals or gifts to the Arabs. It goes along with Israeli regimes that may be anti-Zionist or appeasement-minded, which is to say, are against the Israeli national interest. It hardly objects to President Obama's pressure on Israel as part of his own appeasing America's enemies. I think that the article misrepresents the controversy about whether to criticize Israel publicly. The anti-Zionist paper puts it as a matter of fear and censorship. I have found the Left long openly critical of Israel, while feigning fear to do so, in order falsely to appear brave. The difference is that whereas the Right criticizes Israel for not being firmer toward its enemies, the Left criticizes Israel for not being weaker toward those enemies on Israeli national security. The section on the J Street founder's ancestors makes a false assumption common to many right-wingers and left-wingers alike. They describe the politics of relatives of politicians as if that means the politicians must have similar values and standing. Some children rebel against their parents by taking opposite stands as, apparently, J Street's Ben-Ami, Obama's aid Rahm Emanuel, Netanyahu, Moshe Dayan's daughter, and others have. Don't judge a book by the covers of the publisher's other books. J Street favors 'creation of a viable Palestinian state as part of a negotiated two-state solution, based on the 1967 borders with agreed reciprocal land swaps.' Ben-Ami also favors sharing Jerusalem. He would seek Hamas people willing to live in peace with Israel. Hamas? That fanatical organization would not allow peace. Same for Fatah. See their Conference and Covenant. The 1967 borders would make Israel a non-viable state, depriving it of secure borders and water. It would implement an early phase in Arafat's phased plan for the conquest of Israel. Jerusalem was shared. The Muslims used the proximity to shoot at Israelis and to bar Jews from their holiest sites. That is not a prescription for peace, which J Street claims to favor. It can pat itself on the head, but its position has led to war, as Israel's withdrawals from Gaza and Lebanon proved. The real world is worse than J Street's idealized version of people talking things over rationally. In mentioning J Street's successful efforts to bar Sarah Palin from speaking at a pro-Israel rally, the paper doesn't realize that J Street was acting in a partisan way when it should have tried to unite the parties behind Israel. I read Sarah Palin's proposed speech, and found it non-partisan and powerful. I think her presence would greatly have helped show that Americans support Israel. J Street sabotaged Israel. PART 3 Criticizing Israel's air attacks on Gaza, J Street contends that 'there is no military solution to what is fundamentally a political conflict.' Israel was defending itself. If its government were not defeatist and leftist like J Street, that war could have solved the conflict with Hamas. Military action solves many conflicts. In this conflict, I would say that there is no political solution to what is a religious conflict, a one-sided one by jihadists. J Street suggests that talking peace is better than pre-emptive military action. Nonsense. If Israel hadn't taken pre-emptive action in 1967, there would be no Israelis to talk now. In Gaza, it wasn't pre-emptive, because Hamas had launched thousands of rockets at Israel, and the Arabs refused to talk. Influenced by J Street, a Member of Congress justified Israel's action, but was 'deeply troubled by the suffering, destruction and loss of innocent life that it inevitably entails.' So Israel should let itself be shot at by confirmed Jew-killers, without attempting to make them stop? Let innocent Israelis lose lives, see their property destroyed, and suffer trauma, to spare the much less innocent supporters of Hamas, which cynically makes its own civilians suffer? Another Member says now Israel is seen as a bully. That perception is not warranted — Israel chafed under 5,000 rockets before invading! Hamas is the bully. Rep. Gary Ackerman considers settlement expansion "the irritant of the day." "...the Arab world needs to see a sign that we understand their concerns." The jihadists launched a war of extermination; they threaten civilization. They are the aggressors. Their concerns are not legitimate nor are their leaders sincere. They raise "concerns" for propaganda and in using diplomacy as war by other means. It is not the duty of civilization, the victim, to "understand their concerns." Remember, I have shown that the underlying problem is Arab Muslim rejection of Israel as a Jewish state, not settlements, which were built after that rejection and Arab invasion, and which in any case I have shown are legal, arguments to the contrary having been refuted. Prime Ministers "Olmert and Ariel Sharon, both painfully came to the conclusion that Israel could not survive as a democratic and Jewish nation unless it was willing to allow a viable Palestinian state to be established — which in turn would require abandoning settlements." It wasn't painful, for anti-Zionism became their ideology, possibly fostered by blackmail and bribery over their corruption. The article was referring to the alleged demographic threat. This threat was based on Arafat's highly exaggerated population statistics and erroneous birth rates and ignored the large emigration of Arabs from the Palestinian Authority. If Israel let the Palestinian Authority collapse, the Arab exodus would continue. Meanwhile, if Israel annexed contiguous Jewish towns and surrounding vacant areas, the prospects for a second Arab Palestinian state in the Jewish homeland, alongside Jordan, would end. PART 4 Yes, Abbas was strengthened by the Fatah Conference. This Conference vied with Hamas in its extremism. Thus it strengthened Abbas' recalcitrance, as does Obama's pressure on Israel, a pressure to which J Street now contributes. The Arabs are worried about Iran more than about Israel, and want a hard U.S. line against Iran. (Why should the Arabs worry about Israel, which does not attack them except in self-defense?) The Times echoes Obama's line that the Arab-Israel conflict hinders their uniting against Iran. There is no evidence for this theory. I think it is stated just as a pretext for an anti-Zionist policy. It is not logical. One could more readily contend that if the U.S. let Israel destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, it would be easier to resolve the Arabs' conflict with Israel. Privately, Arab states admit they would like Israel to act for them. Obama fails to recognize the source of the Arab-Israel conflict. That source is the existence of an infidel state in the Mideast, which Islam deems an affront to it. There are only two ways to resolve that conflict: (1) Destroy Israel, which would enable jihadists to turn elsewhere, as to the U.S.; or (2) Reform Islam. That is why the Obama line and "peace process" are futile and misconceived. Jewish construction in areas that the Arabs claim in the first phase of their plan for the phased conquest of Israel is seen by the Arabs, the article suggests, as creating "facts on the ground' to prevent a final peace settlement. Again, what the Arabs say for propaganda that they "see" is taken seriously. They should be told they see wrong, and if they object, let them come to terms before more is built. The P.A. signed the Oslo Accords not restricting Jewish construction. The Accords just pledge not to alter the legal status of the area. Construction does not alter the legal status. If Jewish construction, which is legal, is to be frozen, what about "facts on the ground" created by Arab construction? Some of that construction aims to cut off Jewish areas from each other and to get more Arab neighborhoods adjacent to Jerusalem so as to menace Jewish neighborhoods. Thus the anti-settlement policy is discriminatory. It tells Jews they may not build in their own capital, because that is not what foreigners want in their preconceived notion of a solution that would bolster jihad against Israel and ultimately against the U.S. (Jeffrey Traub, 9/13, A36).
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
ROSH HASHANAH
Posted by TERESINKA PEREIRA, September 19, 2009. |
|
ROSH HASHANAH In the memory of my grandfather
The day went by
But no one mentioned
I am sorry, Grandfather:
TERESINKA PEREIRA
|
|
OBAMA PROMISED JEWISH HOMES TO PALESTINIANS?
Posted by Chuck Brooks, September 19, 2009. |
|
This was written by Aaron Klein
of the World Net Daily (WND) Jerusalem Bureau
|
|
Official says American president 'fed up' with Israel JERUSALEM — President Obama is "fed up" with Israel while his administration has given the Palestinians guarantees they will eventually take over Jewish homes and buildings throughout most of the West Bank, a top Palestinian Authority official claimed to WND. "We heard from the U.S. that no matter what Israel is building in the West Bank, it will not affect a final status agreement to create a Palestinian state," said the PA official, who spoke on condition his name be withheld. "The Americans told us (Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu might construct in the West Bank for now but we (Palestinians) can enjoy these houses later. The evacuated homes will not be destroyed like some were when Israel pulled out of Gaza," the official said. The official said Obama has adopted the position of PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who presented a plan to create a Palestinian state within two years based largely on the 1967 borders, meaning Israel would retreat from the West Bank and eastern sections of Jerusalem. The official said the U.S. would back Israel retaining what are known as main settlement blocs, a reference to certain large Jewish West Bank communities such as Gush Etzion. The official, however, said the U.S. does not support Israel retaining the E1 area in Jerusalem, referring to Maale Adumim, a Jewish community in eastern Jerusalem. The issue of Jewish construction is contentious. Obama has demanded Israel halt all settlement activity, or Jewish building projects in the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem. Obama's Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, is in the region attempting to negotiate a settlement freeze. Talks between Netanyahu and Mitchell, which continued today, failed to reach an agreement. A deal could allow for a tripartite meeting between Obama, Netanyahu, and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly next week. Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com |
|
CONSPIRACY THEORY OF JEWISH ORGAN HARVESTING SPREADS
Posted by Sheridan Neimark, September 18, 2009. |
|
JERUSALEM (JTA) — A conspiracy theory alleging a Jewish plot to harvest organs from Algerian children reportedly is spreading online. An article in the Algerian daily Al-Khabar said that Algerian children were being kidnapped into Morocco and sold to Israelis and American Jews to harvest their organs for sale. It comes in the wake of a mid-August feature article in a Swedish newspaper alleging that Israeli soldiers were harvesting organs from Palestinians. The conspiracy theory has spread online, including to American-based Arabic publications, according to the Jerusalem Post, as well as to Press TV, the official Iranian news agency. Press TV said the Jewish group of organ sellers is connected to Rabbi Levi Rosenbaum, who was arrested recently in New Jersey for organ trafficking. "This is a new variation of the ancient blood libel," said Abraham Foxman, ADL's national director. "The only difference is that today we have the Internet, which enables a hateful canard to spread, not just door to door or village to village but globally in a matter of nanoseconds." ADL reported that a series of editorial cartoons has appeared in newspapers in Jordan, Oman, Qatar and other Arab countries depicting Israeli soldiers as vicious butchers gleefully cutting off the body parts of Arabs, and accusing Israel of harvesting Palestinian organs. ------------------------------------------------------- The scandalous Aftonbladet story appeared on August 17. In the pre-Internet era it might have made few ripples beyond Scandinavia. But instead, the story, bereft of even a grain of truth, spread like wildfire across the Internet and took on a life of its own. The Arab and Muslim press, which routinely dabble in anti-Semitism both in print news articles and in editorial cartoons, eagerly picked up the theme in late August and early September. Newspapers in Jordan, Qatar and Oman ran a series of cartoons over several days portraying Israeli soldiers as vicious butchers, gleefully cutting off the body parts of Arabs. One cartoon cast the state of Israel, Gaza and the West Bank as a side of beef being carved up by a stereotypical black-hatted Jew. In the latest iteration of this blood libel, it is now Algerians who are the alleged victims of an international Jewish conspiracy to harvest organs. By mid-September, the blogosphere and many Arab and Muslim media outlets had picked up on a story, apparently first reported on September 6 by Algeria's daily newspaper Al-Khabar, that bands of Moroccans and Algerians were roaming the streets of Algeria's cities and kidnapping young children, who were taken into Morocco, where they were purportedly sold to Israelis and American Jews to have their organs removed. The fabricated story has since been reported by some mainstream media outlets in the Middle East, such as the pan-Arab satellite network Al Jazeera, and was subsequently picked up by dozens of other news sites and blogs around the world, including anti-Semitic sites that appreciate its propaganda value. The story, which also seems to be increasingly disseminated via e-mail, is nothing less than a modern variation of the ancient blood libel. It claims that Interpol, the international police organization, has revealed the existence of "a Jewish gang" that was "involved in the abduction of children from Algeria and trafficking of their organs." This below is called
"ADL Disappointed that "WhyIslam" Campaign Continues to Link to Anti-Semitic Web Sites"
and appeared August 16, 2009
in the Jerusalem Post
|
|
New York, NY, September 16, 2009 ... A campaign in New York City to educate the public about Islam is undermined by its Web site which provides resource links to anti-Semitic Internet sites, according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). Advertisements for the "WhyIslam" campaign are currently running on New York City metropolitan buses, timed to coincide with Ramadan — the month-long holiday of fasting for Muslims. Each ad features the "WhyIslam" Web address, which in turn provides links to external sites that promote anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel. "While the goal of the 'WhyIslam' campaign to educate about Islam is commendable, the effort is undermined by the campaign's connection with blatantly anti-Semitic Web sites," said Ron Meier, ADL New York Regional Director. "We are disappointed that at the conclusion of a month-long campaign in New York City, ICNA has yet to remove these links from their Web site."
Contact Sheridan Neimark by email at sneimark@browdyneimark.com |
|
CIVIL FIGHTS: HOW TO PERPETUATE THE CONFLICT IN ONE EASY MOVE
Posted by Unity Coalition for Israel, September 18, 2009. |
|
This was written by Evelyn Gordon and it appeared yesterday in The Jerusalem Post |
|
As of this writing, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas is still refusing to meet Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. And given recent media reports about the Obama administration's planned peace initiative, one can understand why: If they are true, he has no reason to bother negotiating with Netanyahu. All he has to do is sit and wait, and in two years, the international community will give him everything he wants on a silver platter. The plan in question was first broached publicly by the European Union's foreign policy czar, Javier Solana, at a speech in London in July. The international community should set a deadline for negotiations, Solana said, and if no agreement is reached by this deadline, the world should immediately recognize a Palestinian state, admit it to the UN and announce its own solution to all outstanding issues (borders, refugees, Jerusalem, security arrangements), along with a binding timetable for implementation. Washington never publicly endorsed this idea. But this week, it was reported that Solana floated his trial balloon with backing from "the highest levels of the US administration," and that the US indeed plans to adopt it — with some twists that make it even worse. Specifically, Washington will announce a two-year deadline for talks that will focus mainly on borders. If no agreement is reached by then, the US and EU — and presumably the rest of the world, too — will recognize a Palestinian state with borders "based on" the June 4, 1967 lines.
IN OTHER words, Abbas will receive international recognition of the borders he has consistently demanded, the 1967 lines — and by implication, also east Jerusalem, which was not Israeli pre-1967. The announcement will say the parties "may" alter the border via territorial exchanges, but that is up to them: The world will not insist. And in exchange, he will have to concede absolutely nothing — not the settlement blocs, not Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem, not the Western Wall, not security arrangements, not the "right of return," not recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Some of these will be awarded him outright; others, like the refugees and recognition, will be left to future negotiations. But he would obviously have no incentive to compromise in these future negotiations, since the only thing Israel has to trade is land, and the international community will already have awarded him every inch of that. In contrast, even an EU diktat would have mandated Palestinian concessions on some issues, like the "right of return." Moreover, Solana's original plan stipulated that implementation of the international diktat would constitute a definitive, internationally recognized end to all Palestinian claims. This version does nothing of the sort, since it leaves major issues like the refugees up in the air. Thus from Abbas's perspective, this is a dream come true: He receives international recognition of a state in his preferred borders without having to make any concessions in exchange. Even Hamas could this embrace this deal. They could simply pocket their gains and move on to their next demands. But if merely doing nothing for two years would produce such a bonanza, why would any sane Palestinian leader bother negotiating? Granted, the fact that this plan was reported in the media does not mean it is true. First, journalists' sources always have their own agendas, and the European sources behind this report could easily have presented an idea that is merely being considered as settled policy — either with Washington's consent, as a trial balloon, or without such consent, in an effort to pressure the US to adopt it. Second, even if Obama does favor this plan, wiser heads within his administration might yet prevail.
NEVERTHELESS, THERE are reasons to fear it might be true. First, Washington has not denied it. Second, it accords with Obama's known desire to create a Palestinian state within two years, thus assuring him of one foreign policy success in what otherwise looks likely to be an unbroken string of failures. Third, it would appease his left-wing base, which is currently furious at him over issues ranging from the "surge" in Afghanistan to his apparent willingness to make concessions to moderates on health care reform. Fourth, it would please the EU and the Muslim world, and Obama has made better relations with both a major goal of his foreign policy. Finally, he has even found a way to avoid alienating his big-ticket Jewish donors: The media reports market the plan as being based, inter alia, on ideas presented by Israel's very own president, Shimon Peres. What Jewish donor could possibly object to that? That Peres's proposal actually called for a Palestinian state in temporary borders — which, until a deal was finalized, would comprise only part of the West Bank and would exclude east Jerusalem — is a mere bagatelle. Indeed, the plan has only one drawback: Far from bringing peace, it would perpetuate the conflict for all eternity. If 16 years of deadly terror combined with refusing to budge an inch on any of their demands could produce such stellar results, why would any Palestinian want to abandon these successful tactics? Thus they will continue the terror, and Israel will continue its counterterrorism operations. They will continue refusing to make concessions on the settlement blocs, Jerusalem and the refugees, and Israel will continue refusing to evacuate tens of thousands of settlers with no quid pro quo. They will continue teaching their children that the Jewish state has no right to exist, and Israeli attitudes toward the Palestinians and the "peace process" will continue to harden. 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!" Contact them by email at voices@israelunitycoalition.org. This appeared on Ynet September 13, 2009 and is archived at http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3775557,00.html |
|
MUSLIMS CHILL US FREEDOM OF PRESS; JOURNALISTIC STANDARDS;
JERUSALEM ARABS RIOT OVER JEWISH PRESENCE; FRANCE HONORS BLOOD-LIBEL HOAXER
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 18, 2009. |
|
LEBANESE LEADER DOUBTS ISRAELI ATTACK Lebanon's 'Speaker Nabih Berri ruled out any possible attack by the Jewish State on Lebanon this year, saying Israeli threats are part of media and psychological warfare against the country.' (www.imra.org.il, 8/10). He put it as if Israel attacks Arab states wantonly. He does not understand or will not admit that It is the other way around. Israel went to war only when invaded, bombarded, blockaded, systematically struck by state-sponsored terrorism, or surrounded by forces mobilizing with stated intent to exterminate the Israelis. Israelis would like relief from the constant burden of having to stave off enemy forces. I think that the Arabs pretend fear of attack by Israel for propaganda and then come to believe their propaganda. Their contemporary aggression is backward, unnecessary, and untenable for this planet. PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY DEFAMES ISRAEL The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) called a Jewish state racist and a threat to mankind. Its press agency claimed that Israel seeks to expel all the Arabs (www.imra.org.il, 8/10). Evidence for the claim? None. Ethnic cleansing is not Israeli policy. Indeed, Israel expelled 8,000 Jews from Gaza and northern Samaria. Ethnic cleansing is Arab policy. They expelled hundreds of thousands of Jews, threatened to exterminate the Israelis, and bar Jews from the P.A.. And they talk of racism? MUSLIMS CHILL U.S. FREEDOM OF THE PRESS U.S. freedom of the Press was chilled when Yale University Press barred publication of a book about the 12 Danish cartoons spoofing Muhammed. The Press thought publication could provoke violence (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 8/20). Is the great United States of American going to submit to Muslim threats? Are we going to allow a hostile culture to threaten our own? They constantly defame other faiths. Now, I find the Danish cartoons in poor taste. They should have left Islam's founder alone. But what they symbolized is true, the extensive terrorism emanating from branches of Islam. Threats against whistle blowers vindicate them. Other faiths can accept criticism, why not Islam? If Islam is insulted, why do the mosques in the Palestinian Authority and Jordan and in many places insult other faiths routinely? Those imams want tolerance for themselves but not for others. HOW RELIABLE ARE DOCUMENTARIES? At the Toronto Film Festival, "A report suggests elastic ethics [are used] to get to a higher truth." Producers of documentaries mean to be honorable, but may operate under "ad hoc ethical codes." They don't feel constrained to be accurate, so long as they serve social justice and help equalize those having power with those who do not (Michael Cieply, NY Times, 9/14, B5). In other words, documentary films nowadays cannot be relied upon. They may reflect the same advocacy journalism that the NY Times does. They don't seek a "higher truth." That is a euphemism for dissembling propaganda in behalf of their ideology. When the news is falsified, journalism puts itself in an adversarial position with consumers. This is what I have been contending for years. JERUSALEM ARABS RIOT OVER JEWISH PRESENCE Shimon HaTzaddik historically is a Jewish neighborhood. In 1948, Jordan seized it, expelled the Jews, and let Arab Muslim families occupy the Jews' houses. Now local Arabs stoned two Jewish men walking to prayers, forcing one to seek hospital treatment. Police arrested one suspect. Later, "two MKs, Katz and Ariel, were in the neighborhood to visit some of the many Israeli Jewish families engaged in reestablishing a Jewish community in the area. Two local Muslim families were recently expelled from buildings in the neighborhood after the Supreme Court ruled that the buildings rightfully belonged to a group of Jews. Arab residents, backed by the Palestinian Authority and the UN, accused Israel of taking the properties illegally. "Arab residents shouted anti-Jewish slogans at the MKs and threw rocks at them, hitting a reporter. Police quelled the riot and arrested two suspects." Jewish residents observed that the "spontaneous riots' against
Jews in the area were actually all organized and led by the same three
activists."
My Israeli correspondent remarked that police did not use tear gas, clubs, or fists against the Arabs. They made few arrests. Usually they release Arabs promptly. "If Jews dared to attack Knesset members, they would be kept in jail until a trial on the presumption of guilty until proved innocent. Incarceration would deprive their families of income while imposing legal expenses." [Often, right-wing Jews are beaten, even if acting non-violently, legally, and without resisting arrest.] For example, Nadia Matar, head of Women in Green, is paying a lawyer for her many court cases. Lately she was charged for insulting an official, by complaining in a factually correct letter to him that in expelling the Jews from Gush Katif in Gaza, he was making the land Judenrein. She said only what he is doing, and did not call him a name. He did not want to make a big deal about it, but the government forced the case into the justice system. STATE DEPT. VERSUS ISRAEL ON SECURITY RISK TOURISTS Israel restricts travel to it by Americans it deems security risks. Most are Arabs. The State Dept. complains that it expects Israel to treat all Americans alike. Not all are alike. Some have criminal records or contacted terrorists. The U.S. accepted such Israeli prudence, before, and itself bars known security risks and profiles people at airports (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 8/20). FRANCE HONORS BLOOD-LIBEL HOAXER France has awarded the Legion of Honor to France-2 TV journalist, Charles Enderlin. ZOA protested the award, because Enderlin fabricated the al-Dura story. That hoax made a 55-second section of a 27-minute tape seem to indicated that the IDF deliberately shot the al-Dura boy to death, in a year 2000 shootout with Palestinian Arabs. The few seconds on the film did not show it, Enderlin took the word of the Arab cameraman [and refused to let anyone see the full tape]. After a long time, various respectable news services did their own studies, as did the IDF, and found the IDF innocent and not in a position to have shot the boy. [There is no evidence that the boy was shot.] The incident either was staged or the film was tampered with. [The Palestinian Arabs have a practice of staging incidents to make Israel look bad. The journalists go along with this.] A journalist who first exposed the inconsistencies in Enderlin's story was sued for libel by Enderlin. The defendant won [after the courts tried to cover up for Enderlin, who was up to then greatly respected]. Unfortunately, before the verdict came in, the story went out. Muslims cited it as arousing their anti-Jewish violence. It greatly damaged Israel's reputation. "ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, 'We are appalled but not surprised at the award of the Legion d'honneur to Charles Enderlin, a man who deserved to be condemned and barred from the journalistic profession for his false report on Al-Durah. Instead, France has shamelessly bestowed a high honor upon him.'" "It is important to recall that Enderlin has never apologized and never explained his part in creating a modern blood libel, nor has France ever launched an official investigation into the matter even when it became overwhelmingly clear that his Al-Durah report had been a fabrication. Rather than repair these omissions, the original offense is now compounded and a libeler honored. The award of the Legion d'honneur to Enderlin disgraces France." (9/1 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York City. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of ZOA.) Awards may have a political motive, rather than be deserved. Awards should be examined skeptically. The media should not have taken the cameraman's word that the released part of the film did not support. The perversion of award-granting is sad. My great-Uncle, Israel Schechter, was awarded the Legion of Honor for heroic medical services to France in WWI (as documented in a recent issue of Midstream magazine. That was before awards became political, ideological, or mercenary. ISRAELI LEFT WANTS TO RELEASE MARWAN BARGHOUTI Marwan Barghouti is serving five life sentences for terrorist murder, but the Israeli Left wants to release him. He is, they say, a charismatic leader who could strengthen the Fatah regime and make a deal with Israel. National Union MK Arye Eldad finds pleas to release him motivated by an obsolete opinion that "the murderous terrorist organization Fatah should be strengthened in order to fight Hamas." Barghouti got all terrorist factions in Israeli prisons to endorse Arab statehood east of the Green Line and millions of Arabs pouring into Israel west of the Green Line (www.imra.org.il, 8/11.) That platform is the Muslim prescription for suffocating Israel. Yes, Barghouti is charismatic. He is strong. And he could make a deal. What kind of a deal? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE IMMATERIAL GIRL: TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY'S LINGUISTICS PROFESSOR RACHEL GIORA ATTACKS MADONNA FOR PERFORMING IN ISRAEL
Posted by Lee Kaplan, September 18, 2009. |
|
"All the little loonies
The newswires have been ablaze with the tabloid-quality news story that the "Material Girl,' Madonna, was being attacked by anti-Israel leftist extremists for performing in Tel Aviv. After being made aware of the protests, Madonna, at her concert, draped herself in the Israeli flag, which inspired an even louder brouhaha. Leading the charge against the singer was Tel Aviv University's Israel-hating Professor Rachel Giora. With her purple hair contrasting with Madonna's blond, Giora leads an Israeli anti-Israel group, Call From Within, evidently dedicated to promoting the next Holocaust of the Jews by encouraging the boycott of everything and anything in Israel. At first, it was the Arabs who launched into a tirade against the pop singer because of her support for Israel and the flag. They were joined by the anti-Semitic Left. Using the same boycott formula as that of the Nazis started in 1933, BDS = boycott, divestment, and sanctions is their way to achieve the extermination of Israel and its population. Even Madonna isn't exempted if she lets Israelis hear her music. Giora told the media that Madonna should have refused to perform in Israel because it is an "apartheid' state. Never mind that Israel is the only state in the Middle East that does not practice apartheid and never mind that the Arabs routinely practice apartheid against all non-Arabs. In the "mind' of this "academic,' Israelis must not enjoy Madonna's music because this somehow contributes to the "oppression' of the Palestinian Arabs. I've written here before at IsraCampus about TAU's Linguisitics department in which Giora works or at least holds a post. Heavily influenced by the anti-Semitic Stalinist linguist Noam Chomsky, almost the entire Israeli taxpayer-supported department is rigidly Old Left. Chomsky himself, their guru, visited with the Hezb'allah in Lebanon and called for Israel's destruction on Arab TV there. With the exception of Professor Gary Cohen, who bravely serves as a reserve officer in the IDF, the majority of linguistics faculty at TAU works assiduously as accomplices in the Arab efforts to dismantle the Jewish state in a new genocide of Jews. As a linguist paid by the Israeli taxpayer, Giora, of all people, should know the harm of irresponsible language. Her writings in favor of boycotting, divesting from and sanctioning Israel go well beyond any rational protest of the policies of the country. Below is a quote from Rachel Giora in a letter in praise of the British academic boycott movement: "...Israeli academic academia is no different from any other Israeli institution and in many cases it plays an active if not vital role in supporting Israeli apartheid practices against the Palestinians. For example, the R&D (Research and Development) Directorate of the Israel Ministry of Defense is currently funding 55 projects at TAU (Tel Aviv University): Military R&D would not exist without the universities. They carry out all the basic scientific investigation, which is then developed by defense industries or the Army; People are just not aware of how important university research is in general and how much TAU contributes to Israel's security in particular." Giora goes on to call for the boycotting of her own university. But, of course, she does not resign her position or forego her salary as a professor there as part of her denunciation. And the heads of Tel Aviv University are too pusillanimous to give her the bum's rush. Instead she draws her TAU salary and voices support for Hezb'allah and Hamas: "These are only shreds of evidence testifying to the complicity of Israeli academic institutions in the state's apartheid polices against the Palestinians. In light of Israel's widely documented disregard for international laws exercised in our area for so many years, culminating in two recent wars against civilians in Lebanon and Gaza, it is left for us citizens of the world to attempt to hold up a mirror to Israel's real face in the hope that it will give it a chance to choose justice and peace over occupation. The growing numbers of Israelis who are now supporting cultural and academic boycotts will rejoice in our achievements." Giora signs her anti-Israel fatwas with the hardy communist-inspired closing salutation "In solidarity' instead of the normal "sincerely yours." Read this letter if you can stomach it. It's a real eye opener. Rachel Giora also works with the pro-terror International Solidarity Movement (ISM, which some say stands for "I Support Murderers') and that may also explain why she uses their rhetoric about international law, civilians killed, etc. ad nauseum to promote the boycott of her own university. Last January, Call from Within initiated a petition that actually was good enough to appear on the ISM's website, supporting its flotilla of boats that tried to run the IDF Navy's control of the sea lanes into Gaza. The ISM leadership, especially Huwaida Arraf, publicly bragged that the ISM works with and supports Hamas. Apparently, the Gaza flotilla's organizers feel Call from Within's goals match their own. There is more than meets the eye to Madonna's appearance in Tel Aviv than her draping herself in the Israeli flag during her performance than just entertainment. Madonna and her husband, film director Guy Ritchie, both study Kabbalah and — while not Jewish — have a well-recognized love for Israel. Madonna came to Israel to attend a Kabbalah symposium. Isn't it ironic that Madonna, a non-Jew, should feel love and concern for the people and land of Eretz Yisrael, while Tel Aviv University's Rachel Giora seeks their destruction? And she does so from a bully pulpit paid for by the Israeli taxpayer. Madonna seeks to immerse herself in Jewish learning, whereas Rachel Giora wants to destroy the very Jewish state that employs her. Lee Kaplan published this September 18, /2009 in Isra Campus (http://www.IsraCampus.org.il), |
|
ROSH HASHANAH (5770 IN THE JEWISH CALENDAR) GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, September 18, 2009. |
|
Note: the Hebrew in the original article has not been reproduced. |
|
Assembled from various Jewish Sages 1. The transient/tenuous nature of human beings is highlighted by the celebration of Rosh Hashanah (the birth of the New Year) and the departure of the previous year. Recognizing human mortality/limitations, Rosh Hashanah highlights humility, soul-searching, responsibility, renewal/rebirth and systematic education. 2. Rosh Hashanah is celebrated on the sixth day of The Creation, which produced the first human being. Rosh (Hashanah) means in Hebrew "beginning," "first," "head," "chief." The Hebrew letters of Rosh constitute the root of the Hebrew word for Genesis, "Bereshit" which is the first word in Old Testament. Just like The Creation, so should the New Year and our own actions, be a thoughtful (brain-driven) — and not a hasty — process. Rosh Hashanah is celebrated at the beginning of the Hebrew month of Tishrei, which means Genesis in ancient Akkadian. The Hebrew spelling of Tishrei includes the words of Genesis (Bereshit). Rosh Hashanah is referred to as "Ha'rat Olam" (the pregnancy of the world), and its prayers highlight Motherhood, Optimism and the pregnancies of Sarah the Matriarch and Hanna, who gave birth to Isaac the Patriarch and Samuel the Prophet respectively. Sarah (the root of the Hebrew word, Israel) and Hanna (root of the Hebrew word for Pardon, Amnesty, Merciful) were two of the seven Jewish Prophetesses: Sarah, Miriam, Hanna, Deborah, Huldah, Abigail, Esther. Noah — who led the rebirth of humanity/world — also features in Rosh Hashanah prayers. 3. The Shofar (ritual horn) is blown on Rosh Hashanah as a wake-up call to mend one's behavior. Rosh Hashanah is also called "Yom Te'roo'ah" (the day of blowing the Shofar). Shofar is a derivative of the Hebrew word for Enhancement/Improvement (Shipur), which is constantly expected of human beings. It requires humility, symbolized by the Shofar, which is bent and is not supposed to be decorated. The Shofar is the epitome of Peace-Through-Strength: It is made from the horn of a ram, which is a peaceful animal equipped with strong horns, in order to fend off wild animals. The numerical value of the Hebrew word,"ram" (Eyel), is 41, equal to the value of "Mother" (Aleph Mem). While the blowing of the Shofar is a major virtue, listening to the Shofar is at least as pertinent a virtue. The Hebrew root of "listening" is Ozen, ear, which contains the balancing mechanism in our body. Ozen is also the root for "Scale" (moznim) and "Balance" (ozon), which is the zodiac sign of the month of Tishrei. Both Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur (when people balance their good deeds vs. bad deeds) are observed during the month of Tishrei. 4. The three ways of blowing the Shofar express the inner constant values (Te'kiyah, the tenuous nature of human actions (She'va'rim) and the determined pursuit of faith-driven long-term vision (Troo'ah). The last, and very long, blow of the Shofar (Te'kiyah Gedolah) represents the hope for steadiness in face of challenges and threats. The three series of blowing the Shofar highlight liberty of human-beings under G-D's Kingdom (Malkhooyot), the centrality of history/memory/roots (Zichronot) and enhancement (Shofarot). The blows of the Shofar represent the three Patriarchs, the three parts of the Bible and the three types of human beings on judgment day (pious, evil and mediocre). Rosh Hashanah services include 101 blows of the Shofar, which is the numerical value of the Hebrew spelling of Michael, a Guardian Angel, which was one of the names of Moses. 5. The pomegranate — one of the seven species blessing the Land of Israel — features during Rosh Hashanah meals and in a key blessing on Rosh Hashanah: "May you be credited with as many rewards as the seeds of the pomegranate." The pomegranate becomes ripe in time for Rosh Hashanah and contains — genetically — 613 seeds, which is the number of Jewish laws (of Moses). It was employed as an ornament of the Holy Arc, the Menorah (candelabrum) and the coat of the High Priest. It is employed as an ornament for the Torah Scrolls. The first two letters of the Hebrew word for pomegranate, Rimon — which is known for its crown — mean sublime (Ra'm). The pomegranate (skin and seeds) is the healthiest fruit: high in iron, anti-oxidants, anti-cancer, decreases blood pressure, enhances the quality of blood and the cardiac and digestion systems. Rimon is a metaphor for a wise person: Wholesome like a pomegranate. 6. Commemoration Day ("Yom Hazikaron" in Hebrew) is one of the names of Rosh Hashanah. One can avoid — rather than repeat — past mistakes by learning from history. The more one remembers, the deeper are the roots and the greater is one's stability and one's capability to withstand storms of pressure and temptation. The more stable/calculated/moral is the beginning of the year (Rosh Hashanah), the more constructive will the rest of the year. Rosh Hashanah commemorates: Faith in — and Awe of — G-D;
The first of the Ten Days of Personal, Annual Self-Examination (similar to a full service of one's car: brakes, airbag, gears, oil, filter, alternator, bearings, engine head, head-gasket, valve, belts, wheel alignment, piston, combustion, cooling system, distributor, electronic control unit and electricity). 7. Rosh Hashanah is universal — not just Jewish — stock taking (repentance) day (Yom Te'shuvah, Yom Ha'deen in Hebrew) — the first of the Ten Days of Atonement, culminating on Yom Kippur. A Hebrew word for atonement/repentance is Te'shuvah, which also means spiritual and physical Return to core values and to the Land of Israel. On Rosh Hashanah one is expected to plan a "spiritual/behavioral budget" for the entire year. The prerequisite for a wholesome "budget" is humility, a pre-condition for an effective "stock taking." The three Hebrew words, Teshuvah (Repentance/Atonement), Shivah (Spiritual and Physical Return) and Shabbat (Creation concluded) emerge from the same Hebrew root. They constitute a triangular (personal, national and spiritual) foundation, whose strength depends on the depth of Education and Commemoration. According to King Solomon, "The triangular cord cannot be broken." May the curses of last year be over, and may we be worthy of next year's blessing, Yoram 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 |
|
WHAT EXACTLY HAVE THE JEWS DONE TO DESERVE THE TREATMENT NOW HANDED OUT TO THEM?
Posted by Sheridan Neimark, September 17, 2009. |
|
Dr. Denis MacEoin sent this yesterday to the Guardian. He is with Scottish Friends of Israel (www.scottishfriendsofisrael.org). |
|
I've just sent this little missive to The Guardian. Dear Sir, What exactly have the Jews done to deserve the treatment now handed out to them? I'm not a Jew, but I wonder about this all the time. It nags at me. Two thousand years of repeated persecution in the Muslim and Christian worlds, but apparently they only have themselves to blame. Finally, they are given permission to build a nation in which to protect themselves, but before they can do so, six million are wiped out in the most hideous crime in history; but that didn't happen, it was just a trick to get reparations from Germany, a land of innocents, wasn't it? Then the United Nations voted for a state of Israel, and five Arab armies, calling their war jihad and their motives pure, tried to wipe them out again; that, of course, was the fault of the Jews and is called the Nakba, a self-made disaster for the Arabs of the region. In 2005, Israel leaves the Gaza strip; in return there are cries of a phantom 'occupation' and thousands of rockets land, mainly in Sderot. After years of this, the Israelis decide on some pro-active self-defence and launch an attack on Gaza that leaves many dead. Mostly, they kill Hamas fighters. Now, according to this week's UN report, the Israelis (read, the Jews) are to blame for that as well. They are the aggressors, their vigorous efforts to warn citizens, Hamas's equally vigorous efforts to use their civilians as human shields are all ignored. The real truth, that the Palestinians prefer to see their children die than to make peace and that the world still thinks the Jews are to blame for everything and that we're wallowing in our own self-righteous support for terrorists while we rebuild the structures of anti-Semitism some of us thought we'd left behind, all that is left unsaid. The world moves on to whatever destiny it thinks it may still have, and a small country of no little genius and humanity goes to the wall. A truly independent report is called for, but don't hold your breath. Dr. Denis MacEoin Contact Sheridan Neimark by email at sneimark@browdyneimark.com |
|
CARACAS-TEHRAN LINKS THREATEN U.S
Posted by Sheridan Neimark, September 17, 2009. |
|
This was a comment by David Harris of the American Jewish Committee. It appeared September 15, 2009 in the Wall Street Journal. |
|
Kudos to New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau for his timely analysis of the growing Iranian-Venezuelan link and its ominous implications ("The Emerging Axis of Iran and Venezuela," Sept. 9). In addition to Mr. Morgenthau's key points, let me add a few more. Hezbollah is present in South America and has been using its protected status in Venezuela, not only to traffic in narcotics, but also to strengthen its terrorist capabilities in the Western Hemisphere. The Iran-Hezbollah connection in the 1992 attack against the Israeli embassy and the 1994 assault on the Jewish community center in Buenos Aires is a stark reminder of their deadly aims, as is the addition, in June 2008, of two Venezuelans to the U.S. Treasury Department's list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists for their support of Hezbollah. For several years now, there have been weekly flights from Tehran to Caracas, with a stop in Damascus. No visas are required, and no surveillance is possible. This creates an easy route for Iranian and Hezbollah operatives to enter the Western Hemisphere. Once in Venezuela, obtaining a new passport has proved easy, allowing individuals to move freely beyond the country's borders. This poses a substantial threat to the region. As we wonder what the U.S. can do about this growing danger, let us not forget our own dependence on Venezuelan oil, which feeds the coffers of the state and encourages President Hugo Chávez to believe that he has us "over a barrel." Given Citgo's status as a subsidiary of the Venezuelan state-owned oil firm, and its thousands of service stations across the U.S., the problem becomes even more acute. Contact Sheridan Neimark by email at sneimark@browdyneimark.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: ROSH HASHANA
Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 17, 2009. |
|
Rosh Hashana begins tomorrow evening. And so I want to begin today by wishing all those who are observing the holiday a year of peace, health, fulfillment and spiritual growth. May the Almighty watch over each of us and lead us to where we are meant to go. May He protect Israel and keep us strong and truly committed. ~~~~~~~~~~ It was a bombshell of sorts, but not really unexpected: The Goldstone Commission released its findings — which accuse Israel of war crimes in Gaza — yesterday. This investigation was commissioned by the UN Human Rights Council, a vociferously anti-Israel group, and the bias was so much anticipated that Israel refused to cooperate in the investigative process. Its mandate was to "investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying power, Israel, against the Palestinian people." Prime Minister Netanyahu could not be more correct in calling this a "kangaroo court." A "prize for terrorists," he said that makes it more difficult for democratic countries to combat terrorism. What makes it all the more disgraceful is that the head of this commission, South African Constitutional Court Judge Richard Goldstone, is a Jew. The diplomatic approach of our government is to, in essence, head this off at the pass. This report will now go to the Human Rights Council and from there to the Security Council. The goal is to delegitimize it by contacting Western democracies and seeking their cooperation in refusing to pass on this. Without the support of these countries, the report would lack moral authority. Significant to blocking the process is having a veto in the Security Council that will prevent this from going to the International Court at the Hague. All eyes will be on the US in this regard. ~~~~~~~~~~ Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, is the US, and has called upon American Jewish leaders to act with force against the report. It is, he said, "a dangerous attempt to harm the principle of self-defense by democratic states and provides legitimacy to terrorism." As such, it "should be treated like the [eventually rescinded] UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 equating Zionism with racism. We must mobilize and act with all force against the report in order to remove it." ~~~~~~~~~~ For more on this, please see the Jerusalem Post editorial. "The learned judge's concoction, based heavily on unverifiable claims from avowedly non-objective sources, some of them long-since discredited, is a feat of cynical superficiality, without appropriate distinction between terror and defense. The distorted picture justifies the Foreign Ministry's reaction of 'nausea and fury.'" ~~~~~~~~~~ The British Trades Unions have called for a boycott on some Israeli goods coming out of Judea and Samaria — as a response to our action in Gaza. This thinking is exacerbated by the Goldstone report. There is concern that another repercussion of the report will be its use in countries that have universal jurisdiction — allowing claims against Israeli leaders even if their alleged "crimes" were committed elsewhere. But Foreign Ministry lawyer Allan Baker thinks this is unlikely because the report does not contain sufficient evidence to support criminal charges. ~~~~~~~~~~ Still no agreement reached on a settlement freeze. Mitchell has been bouncing between Jerusalem and Ramallah. What seems fairly obvious is that Netanyahu has made his offer, pretty much along the lines that have been described ad infinitum, but Abbas is saying nothing doing: A total freeze or no negotiations. I am opposed to a freeze in any terms, but I'll give credit here to the prime minister for holding out and not caving to the demand that the freeze be total, in order to appease the PA. ~~~~~~~~~~ I had said I wanted to return with a story about Ilan Ramon, Israel's first astronaut, and am pleased to do so here: Sixty years ago, in the Nazi concentration camp of Bergen-Belson, a young Dutch boy named Yoachim (Yoya) Yosef received a tiny Torah scroll from the rabbi of Amsterdam. It was used to secretly teach him his Torah portion for his bar mitzvah, and he kept it with him ever after; when he survived the war, he came to Israel and brought the scroll with him. In fact, he became one of Israel's top physicists and ultimately a mentor to Ramon, who was himself the son of a Holocaust survivor. He was involved with experiments Ramon carried out in space. Ramon brought this tiny scroll into space with him, along with an Israeli flag, mezuzot, and a kiddush cup. "I want to bring on the mission as much as possible of the Jewish people, of the identity of the Jewish people," he said at the time. As to the Torah scroll, it represents "the ability of the Jewish people to survive everything, including horrible periods, and go from the darkest of days with hope and faith in the future." From space he broadcast the story of the scroll. While Ramon was a secular Jew, he requested kosher food on his mission, and asked to be excused from work on Shabbat. (No, I don't know how he calculated Shabbat in space, but there is a way). He believed he represented all of the Jewish people on this mission. How exquisitely moving is this story, and how utterly painful that he, and then his son, have been lost to us. But there is a way in which he is not lost, because he serves as a magnificent model of proud Jew that should be broadly emulated. We must remember him with hope for our future as a people, as surely he would want us to. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
THE FRUIT OF ISLAM
Posted by Bill Warner, September 17, 2009. |
|
The fruit never falls far from the tree. What are the practical results of Islam's political and cultural ideology? What is the fruit on the tree? Islam is a complete civilization that rejects every aspect of kafir civilization as being inferior. Islam's Golden Age claim is an assertion that Islam is the superior civilization. The Koran says that Muslims are the best of nations. [1] How does the best of nations compare at the level of politics, economics, and culture? Islam claims that the Koran is the perfect book with the perfect political and social doctrine that will make Muslims intellectually superior to kafirs. Remember that the Koran is the perfect recording of the mind of infinitely intelligent god, Allah, so Muslims should be the absolute leader in knowledge and ideas. Islam is the finest, most perfect idea that can exist. Knowledge First, a personal question: what Muslim author have you read lately? That is a personal approach and since this book is about objective reasoning, we need objective data. The United Nations has put together a series of four books that measure Arab society. Now Arabs are a minority of Muslims, but there is little data about Islam as an entire civilization and so the Arabs have to represent all of Islam. The Arabs are the oldest Muslims and Saudi Arabia can make a claim to being the most perfect Islamic nation. Mohammed was from there, and the Koran makes special claims about the Quraysh tribe and Arabs in general. So the Arabs are not a perfect measure but they are the best measure. The most popular way to move information today is the Internet. England has about 48% of its population connected to the Internet; while Saudi Arabia has 2% of its population connected to the Internet [2]. High-income nations have 380 computers per thousand people. Arab nations have 20 computers per thousand people. The world as a whole has 80 per thousand. But there is not as much need for a Muslim to explore the information on the Internet. "Starting in early childhood, the [Arab] child becomes accustomed to suppressing her or his inquisitive and exploratory tendencies." [3] The education curricula "seem to encourage submission, obedience, subordination and compliance, rather than free critical thinking." [4] This lack of critical thinking can be seen in patents. Over a 20-year period, Saudi Arabia got 171 patents, while South Korea to 16,328 patents. [5] This is a natural result from the research and development funding. Sweden spends 3.1% of its GNP on research, while the Arab states spend 0.2%. [6] Switzerland has 79.9 frequently cited scientific papers per million of citizens. Saudi Arabia has 0.07 frequently cited papers per million of citizens. [7] What that means is that Saudi Arabia published 1 paper that was frequently cited by others. The thirst for knowledge can be seen in that in the five-year period from 1970-75 only 330 books were translated per year. There have been only 10,00 books translated into Arabic in the last 1200 years. [8] That is less than one book per year over the centuries. As a comparison, Spain translates 10,000 books per year into Spanish. In scientific publications the industrialized nations generate about 6 publications per ten million citizens, while the Arab countries create about 0.1 per ten million citizens. [9] There is no known indicator that shows even an area of superiority to kafir culture, except one—books published on religion. The world as a whole devotes about 5% of its books to religion, but Arab countries devote 17% of its book publishing to religion. Islamic Arab countries publish 340% more books on religion than kafirs, while, in general, obtaining about 10% of the intellectual results in all other areas. It is not that the kafir countries are that much better than Muslim countries, but that Islamic nations are so much worse. Islamic intellectual philosophy is to follow Mohammed in a rote, mechanical way and that practice makes for a substandard intellectual competitiveness. Even in religious matters, a Muslim is not supposed to ask difficult questions or challenge the imam. Arab government effectiveness The UN report includes a measurement called an "indicator of government effectiveness and corruption". The indicator uses a few hundred variables that measure perception of governance derived from 25 sources provided by 18 different organizations. One survey showed that 61% of respondents knew of favoritism and 50% knew of bribery that was used in government during the last year. In addition the leading way to avoid a penalty is favoritism and bribery. [10] Voice and Accountability is a cluster of indicators measuring civil and political rights. For North America, the indicator is 1.3. The indicator for Arab governments is negative 1.2. [11] This is worse than Africa, usually the bottom of any list. The Political Stability indicator measures the likelihood of the government being overthrown. The indicator for Europe is 0.7; the Arab states is minus 0.8. [12] Government Effectiveness measures the quality of services. The index of Government Effectiveness is 1.7 for North America and negative 0.6 for Arab states. [13] Rule of Law measure the extent to which legal provision enjoy confidence and are adhered to. The indicator for Rule of Law is 1.7 in North American and minus 0.4 for Arab governments. [14] The Control of Corruption indicator measure the extent of corruption. For North American this indicator is 1.8; for Arab states it is negative 0.4. [15] Only Africa is worse. None of this corruption and incompetence should be a surprise. Mohammed laid down the ethics and philosophy of government. He was a tribal chief who was an absolute tyrant. He advised others to kill, lie and deceive as a basis for establishment of government. Violence was used to bring others under control. Favors were dispensed for whatever his current needs were. There were complaints as to how he gave money to favorites, including his family. Anyone who opposed him was assassinated. Mohammed used to give money to those he thought would make them lean towards Islam. He used money to buy influence. Why is it surprising that Muslims would use bribery and favoritism as a method of government? Mohammed did it; bribery is Sunna. The fruit does not fall far from the tree. Human Development The UN defines human development as making the best use of capabilities and the economic, political and social opportunities that are available. It would make sense that the best of nations would have the greatest human development. Sociologists use an index, Human Development Index, HDI that measures life expectancy, education, freedom and wealth. The best score is a zero and the lowest score is 100. North America has an HDI of 8 and the Arab states have an HDI of 75 [16]. The UN also uses a Freedom Score to measure political freedom. A value of 1 is best and zero is the worst. North America has a Freedom Score of 0.9 and the Arabs states score is 0.15 [17]. Women The Arab states have one of the world's lowest rates of female education. In Arab states "half of the women are illiterate as compared to a third of the men." [18] "The rate of illiteracy in the Arab world is higher than the world average and higher even than for developing nations." [19] The Arab nations have the world's lowest rate of women earning money, 33%, even lower than Sub-Saharan Africa. [20] In share of women in parliament, the Arab states are the world's lower percentage. [21] All of these results are from the theory of Islam. None are surprising. According to Islam, a woman only has worth in having children and pleasing her husband. Conclusion There is no known area of civilization that is measurable that Arabs do not finish either last or next to last. There is a good reason—Islam. Islam's civilizational doctrine shapes everything. The educational system that creates ignorance, lack of creativity, narrowness, and prejudiced views is based upon Islam. Islamic religious doctrine teaches total submission to the doctrine. Total submission means rote learning. The Hadith forbids questioning. Doctrine teaches that not only is Islam right in all matters, but Islam is all that matters and the kafirs are always wrong and hated by Allah. Learning from kafirs is resisted and done primarily in technology. Islamic political doctrine is based upon a mass of people who are slaves to the doctrine of political Islam. The slave is the ideal citizen. The Sunna is that Mohammed rose to power with the sword and was an absolute ruler. Out of thousands of pages of source doctrine that teach absolute obedience to the leader, Mohammed, less than a page shows an example of democracy by him consulting with others about decisions. Mohammed spoke and all obeyed. Footnotes [1] Koran 2:143 We have made you [Muslims] the best of nations so that you can be witnesses over the world and so that the messenger may be a witness for you. [2] Arab Human Development Report 2003: Building a Knowledge Society, UN Publications, 2003, pg. 46. [3] Arab Human Development Report 2003: Building a Knowledge Society, UN Publications, 2003, pg. 51. [4] Arab Human Development Report 2003: Building a Knowledge Society, UN Publications, 2003, pg. 53. [5] Arab Human Development Report 2003: Building a Knowledge Society, UN Publications, 2003, pg. 71. [6] Arab Human Development Report 2003: Building a Knowledge Society, UN Publications, 2003, pg. 73. [7] Arab Human Development Report 2002, Towards Arab Human Development, UN Publications, 2002, pg. 67. [8] Arab Human Development Report 2003: Building a Knowledge Society, UN Publications, 2003, pg. 67 [9] Arab Human Development Report 2003: Building a Knowledge Society, UN Publications, 2003, pg. 78. [10] Arab Human Development Report 2004, Towards Freedom in the Arab World, UN Publications, 2005, pg. 139. [11] Arab Human Development Report 2004, Towards Freedom in the Arab World, UN Publications, 2005, pg. 140 [12] Arab Human Development Report 2004, Towards Freedom in the Arab World, UN Publications, 2005, pg. 140. [13] Arab Human Development Report 2004, Towards Freedom in the Arab World, UN Publications, 2005, pg. 140. [14] Arab Human Development Report 2004, Towards Freedom in the Arab World, UN Publications, 2005, pg. 141. [15] Arab Human Development Report 2004, Towards Freedom in the Arab World, UN Publications, 2005, pg. 141. [16] Arab Human Development Report 2002, Towards Arab Human Development, UN Publications, 2002, pg. 22. [17] Arab Human Development Report 2002, Towards Arab Human Development, UN Publications, 2002, pg. 27. [18] Arab Human Development Report 2005, Towards the Rise of Women in the Arab World, UN Publications, NY, 2006, pg. 74. [19] Arab Human Development Report 2005, Towards the Rise of Women in the Arab World, UN Publications, NY, 2006, pg. 80. [20] Arab Human Development Report 2005, Towards the Rise of Women in the Arab World, UN Publications, NY, 2006, pg. 85. [21] Arab Human Development Report 2005, Towards the Rise of Women in the Arab World, UN Publications, NY, 2006, pg. 95.
Visit Bill Warner's website Political Islam |
|
HELP SATISFY CHILDRENS' HUNGER AND BE INSCRIBED FOR A HAPPY NEW YEAR
Posted by Bryna Berch, September 17, 2009. | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||
|
CRACKING THE QUR'AN CODE
Posted by Lowell Galin, September 17, 2009. |
|
Qur'an, Sura A'raf ("The Heights") 7:137 — "And We made a people considered weak (and of no account) inheritors of lands in both East and West..." Excerpted from:
|
|
Dear Friends, On Sunday, March 29, 2009, Temple Beth Abraham, the Reform Jewish synagogue in Tarrytown, New York, of which my family has been a member since the late 1950s, had a guest speaker for the Sunday morning lox and bagels guest speaker series: Ambassador (Ret.) Philip C. Wilcox, Jr., President of the Washington, D.C. based Foundation for Middle East Peace [www.fmep.org]. I had originally intended to hear the Ambassador's speech as an observer, and to restrain myself from taking the opportunity to make a statement ("ask a question") before a captive audience. However, just in case I changed my mind, I attended armed with my Qur'an: Text, Translation and Commentary by Professor Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1872-1953) [http://www.koranusa.org/yusufalihardcover.htm] (Elmhurst: Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc., U.S. Edition, 2005, exact reprint of 1938 Third Edition). As the Ambassador began to outline his Piece ("peace") Foundation's Final Solution for the Jewish State in the Land of Israel, my rage level (I now consider myself a Reformed Anger-holic-in-Training, but this was Pre-Reformation me) began to rise. The Ambassador, ghoulishly grinning like an anorexic (as in "Anorexia nervosa") jack-o-lantern throughout his talk, concluded speaking. He invited questions. My hand went up. I got recognized first, stood up, opened my Qur'an and began to recite. What, I asked the Ambassador, who saw Jewish settlement in historic Eretz Yisrael (Judea and Samaria/"West Bank") as the root of all global, inter-galactic and cosmic evil, was the basis for Arab (or his) objections to unrestricted Jewish settlement anywhere throughout entire the Land of Israel when the Qur'an itself, and as interpreted by the traditional Muslim commentators themselves, unequivocally stated that God gave the Land of Israel exclusively to the Children of Israel? I then began to recite Sura A'raf ("The Heights"), chapter seven, verse 137, along with Professor Ali's verbatim commentary, telling the Ambassador, and the audience, that Professor Ali was perhaps the most respected Muslim English translator of the Qur'an in the Twentieth Century, and held in high regard today by Muslims worldwide (a simple Internet search with Professor Ali's name will confirm this, try it!). Then I closed my Qu'ran and sat down. It was very quiet. All eyes were on the Ambassador. To his credit, the Ambassador made no attempt to interrupt me while I asked my question (made my speech). He seemed to listen respectfully, and then responded courteously when I was done. The Ambassador's response went something like this: "I am not a scholar of the Qur'an, so I cannot comment on the verses and commentary which you just cited. However, I would say that Muslims and Jews should look to the core values of their religious traditions, those of peace and justice, in resolving their disputes" (And therefore support a Two State 'Solution' to the 'Problem' — go ahead, you can easily fill in the rest). Smooth, very smooth, I thought. Exactly as I would have expected from a Silk Stocking WASP, which the Ambassador is. Only at the very end, after his talk had concluded and people were leaving, did the Ambassador betray his real feelings, and then only briefly. We met and shook hands. He gave me his card (which I requested). Then he said, "Hope I was not too abrupt". ABRUPT? The Ambassador was anything but abrupt! He was the soul of graciousness and courtesy. Translation from State Department WASP-ese into Standard English Usage: "Hope I was not too ANGRY". Angry? Why might our Ambassador have been angry? Because he had never heard anything like that before, and HE HAD NO ANSWER. As there IS no answer. And every Muslim, who knows his Qur'an, knows that what I am saying is true. They only do not understand — and Muslims have told me this themselves repeatedly — why Jews and Israelis never utilize Muslim sacred texts and commentaries in discussions and debates. Especially as the conflict/dispute is fundamentally a religious conflict and dispute. WHY this is the case (and it IS the case, and I DO have an opinion on that subject), I will not comment on now.
MEANWHILE, I HOPE THAT YOU, Dear Readers, WILL utilize the texts and commentaries that I will now start sending you periodically, as the date for the release of Cracking the Qur'an Code: God's Land, Torah and People Covenants with Israel in the Qur'an and Islamic Tradition draws near (let's keep the exact date of release a surprise, for the moment. Don't you like surprises?). My book (my first!) is based on, and in honor of, the teachings of Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi and Dr. Asher Eder, Co-Founders (1997) and Co-Chairmen of the Islam-Israel Fellowship of the Root and Branch Association, Ltd. In writing this book, I have merely played the Boswell to these two modern Dr. Johnsons. That's not false modesty (it's against my personal religion: Lowell Galllin-ism). That's the way it is! Happy hunting the next time you go out to battle for Israel on the Internet, in person, in meetings, at conferences, on campus. More spiritual weaponry on the way. Please get used to starting with this. After you have successfully gotten started, we can say, as Obi Wan Kenobi says to Luke Skywalker when he starts learning to use his light saber, "You have taken your first step into a larger world".
May your first steps be steady steps (as the Zen Masters say, "If you run, run. If you walk, walk. Whatever you do, don't wobble"). And may the Force be with you! Shabbat Shalom and Shana Tova from Yerushalayim, Note: Should you want to consult with and/or buy a copy of the Abdullah Yusuf Ali Qur'an translation and commentary, it is VERY IMPORTANT that your edition, wherever you buy it, be published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc. [http://www.koranusa.org/yusufalihardcover.htm]. This is the ONLY edition we have found so far that is an EXACT reproduction of the original 1938 third edition. This fact is VITALLY important as the "Saudi" Arabians have, through various "Saudi" Wahhabi funded front publishing houses, published their own "editions" of the Ali translation and commentary, modified (as the old Jewish joke used to go about Yiddish translations of Shakespeare, "Verteutscht und Verbessert" — translated into Yiddish, and IMPROVED). You want to see a REAL Ali translation and commentary, uncontaminated by Wahhabi spiritual filth and pollution. By the way, Wahhabis, as they are called by Sunnis and Shi'ites, call themselves "Salafis". Wahhabism, not Islam, is the state religion of "Saudi" Arabia, a criminal "state" established by the al Saud tribe of Najd after their conquest of Mecca and Medina in 1926, followed by their conquest of the Arabian Peninsula and proclamation of their "kingdom" in 1933. Another time we will discuss why Wahhabis are NOT Sunnis. This is one of many facts you probably do not know, and which will be embarrassing to Western and Israeli "experts" on Islam who are so ignorant that they do not know the difference. Text: (7:137) "And We [God] made a people [Children of Israel] considered weak (and of no account) inheritors of lands in both East and West [east and west banks of the Jordan], lands whereon We sent down Our blessings. The fair promise of thy [Muhammad's and Muslims'] Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, because they had patience and constancy, and We leveled to the ground the great Works and fine buildings which Pharaoh and his people [Egyptians] erected (with such pride)". Qur'an, Sura A'raf ("The Heights"), 7:137 (Ali translation, pages 379-380) Published by Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an, Inc. http://www.koranusa.org/yusufalihardcover.htm Commentary: Professor Abdullah Yusuf Ali Commentary (Note 1096, Ali commentary page 380) — "Israel, which was despised, became a great and glorious nation under Solomon. He had goodly territory, and was doubly blest. His land and people were prosperous, and he was blest from God. His sway and his fame spread east and west. And thus God's promise to Israel was fulfilled. Note that Syria and Palestine had once been under the sway of Egypt. At the same time the proud and rebellious Pharaoh and his people were brought low. The splendid monuments which they had erected with so much skill and pride were mingled with the dust. Their great cities — Thebes (or No Ammon), Memphis (or Noph, sacred to the Bull of Osiris), and the other splendid cities, became as if they had not existed, and archaeologists have had to dig up their ruins from the sands. The splendid monuments — temples, palaces, tombs, statues, columns, and stately structures of all kinds — were buried in the sands. Even monuments like the Great Sphinx, which seem to defy the ages, were partly buried in the sands, and owe their rescue to the comparatively recent researches of archaeologists. As late as 1743 Richard Pococke in his Travels in Egypt (page 41), remarked: 'Most of those pyramids are very much ruined'". Endorsements for Cracking the Qur'an Code: "My congratulations to all involved in this important breaktrhough
effort. The disturbed nature of the world today, exacerbated by those
who would pervert and misuse the message of every religion, makes such
endeavors critical to the moral as well as the physical well-being of
decent men and women everywhere. We must give the Root and Branch
Association a warm round of applause for reaching out in so innovative
and helpful a manner. This is a small victory for all humankind — let us hope it will lead to great victories for peace, faith and civilization."
"Every once in a while, a seminal text appears in Islamic-Judeo relations. Cracking the Qur'an Code is such a book. Based on the teachings of the prominent Sufi Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi, perhaps the leading Sunni Muslim cleric in Italy, if not all Europe; and an Israeli educator, Dr. Asher Eder, it breaks new ground. More accurately, it reminds us all that we once stood upon the old common ground, where Christians, Jews and Muslims respected each other as Peoples of the Book. This is a book worth reading".
Mr. Lowell Gallin is Founder and President, Root and Branch Association, Ltd. www.rb.org.il |
|
FALSE REPORTS OF HEBRON JEWS' VIOLENCE; COST OF 200 GAZA
EVACUATION; ISRAEL ENABLED ARABS TO HARM IT
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 17, 2009. |
|
FATAH CLAIMS ISRAEL Fatah sponsored high school graduations in the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) that named Israeli cities — Haifa, Acre, Jaffa, and Jerusalem — as part of "Palestine." Fatah says it needs "rifles." (www.imra.org.il, 8/4 from Palestinian Media Watch.) In other words, Fatah wants to fight to take over Israel. Then how could Israel be expected to make peace with the P.A., run by Fatah? Where is the sense to pressuring Israel to further share the cake with an enemy that wants the whole cake? More concretely, why should Israel give guns, territory, and money to the P.A., whose ideology is to use whatever territory it gets from Israel to make war on Israel (as, for example, per the PLO Covenant). Fatah has forfeited its claim, because it is genocidal. Its original claim was weak, anyway. FALSE REPORTS OF HEBRON JEWS' VIOLENCE Reports of violence by Hebron Jews against Arabs came out on Monday, August 10. Israeli police investigated. The Arabs there denied having been attacked (www.imra.org.il, 8/10). Eleven days later, police closed an investigation of Hebron Jews beating up Arabs. These Arabs provide photos. But the assailants had masks. One could not tell their religion (or individual identity). Hebron Jews complained that alleged Jewish attacks get full police attention, but Jews who report Arab and anarchist attacks are ignored or themselves accused of violence if they attempt to expel the arsonists. One of the activists who accused the Jews of assault is a Hamas supporter (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 8/21), meaning he favors violence. The police report is credible, because police arrest Hebron Jews over minor infractions, what in the U.S. would not be considered an infraction. Rumors or half-truths against those Jews get wide publicity, erroneous as they are. Some of my less amenable commentators cite what has been disproved or dismissed. Most claims against Israel are false, and becoming admittedly so. BOMBING & WEAPONS AT ARAB CROSSINGS INTO ISRAEL When Israel was transferring a cardiac patient from Gaza to an Israeli hospital, Arab fired two mortar shells at the crossing. At a crossing from Judea-Samaria, police found an explosive in possession of an Arab boy (www.imra.org.il, 8/10). Meanwhile, the rest of the world complains that Israel doesn't treat the Arabs humanely, should open up more crossings into Israel, and should stop humiliating Arabs by checkpoint searches for explosives. The news refutes them. Nevertheless, some readers comment that the rest of the world disagrees with Israel or my observations about the conflict, as if public opinion were reliable. JEWISH CLAIM TO JERUSALEM & ARAB DISMISSAL OF IT "Palestinian Authority leaders simplistically distort the ancient history of Jerusalem, ignoring the vast historical documentation and thousands of archeological finds related to Jewish history that have been found in Jerusalem." For example, an Arab lecturer on modern history at al-Quds Open University said that Jews invented the connection to the Wall [the western retaining wall of the Second Temple] to get Jews to immigrate (www.imra.org.il, 8/19 from Palestinian Media Watch). Observant Jews have prayed for almost 2,000 years, facing Jerusalem, holy to them for the preceding millennium. The Arab lecturer's assertion ignores this. As for immigration to Israel, just about the biggest impetus to that immigration was stimulated by Arab persecution of Jews, of whom about 650,000 took refuge in Israel. ISRAEL TRAINS ARAB BUSINESSMEN The Israeli Foreign Ministry, in cooperation with the Israel-Palestinian Chamber of commerce, started a seminar to train Israeli and "Palestinian' businessmen (www.imra.org.il, 8/19). COST OF GAZA PULLOUT The government of Israel estimates that the cost-to-date of evacuation from Gaza is $2.5 billion. Costs still are mounting, because the funds spent on restitution did not solve the problems of evacuees. The estimate is just of physical costs and not the emotional costs (www.imra.org.il, 8/19). When I was a systems analyst, I made many cost analyses. I see serious omissions from the government's analysis. The emotional costs reduce productivity, substituting unemployment for successful businesses. The withdrawal led to the predicted war, extensive property damage, and some injuries. BOYCOTT OF ISRAEL? Prof. Neve Gordon, Chair of Political Science at Ben-Gurion University urged in the Los Angeles Times a worldwide boycott of Israel, to save it. Prof. Steven Plaut of the Economics Dept. of Haifa University suggests a boycott of Ben-Gurion University, in order to save it (Plaut, 8/23). He means that the social science professors and Administration constantly take anti-Israel stands. ISRAEL ENABLED ARABS TO HARM IT Much of Israel's woes occurred because it enabled the Arabs to harm it. Israel legitimized outlaw Arafat, when it agreed to the Oslo Accords. Oslo gave him the opportunity to harm them. Israelis overlook their own blunders, some of which lead to the pressure on Israel, to which they object. Israel did not insist on Palestinian Authority (P.A.) compliance with the Accords, although before the Accords were ratified, Israeli leaders stated they would strike hard against violations. (That bluster helped put Oslo over.) To the contrary, whoever complained that the P.A. was abusing the Accords in order to promote jihad and to build terrorist militias was officially upbraided as an opponent of peace. Must not point out that the emperor had no clothes. Israel was expected to make new concessions before the Arabs complied with past commitments. Another argument for endorsing Oslo was that it would improve Israel's standing. It had the opposite effect. When the P.A. made war on Israel, people contended that it was Israel's fault for not offering the Arabs more. Those people ignored the Arab goal, which was not peace but conquest. Israel gets criticized for Arab violations, and the Arabs get subsidies. "Oslo was not inevitable." Israel did not have to agree to it or fail to hold the P.A. to it. (David Mandel, Jerusalem Post, 8/10, disseminated by the Zionist Organization of America. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of the ZOA.) ISRAELI RETALIATION AGAINST HAMAS "IAF warplanes bombed a smuggling tunnel underneath the border of the Gaza Strip and Egypt." 'The army said the bombing was a response to a Kassam rocket attack earlier in the day.' (www.imra.org.il, 8/10.) In other words, when Hamas doesn't fire its rockets or runs out of rockets, Israel will leave its smuggling tunnels operating. Then when Hamas fires the rockets at Israel, the IAF will bomb a tunnel in retaliation. Why not destroy the ones it has located, before they can bring military supplies to Hamas? For retaliation, Israel should find a concentration of Hamas troops or some other Hamas military facility. Of course, rooting out Hamas was what the war should have attempted. For further discussion of Israel not pursuing its national security vigorously, see the prior article. WORLD ARCHEOLOGICAL CONGRESS VERSUS ISRAEL The World Archeological Congress (WAC held an international conference in Ramallah, Palestinian Authority (P.A.). WAC did not invite Israeli speakers nor even delegates, although Israel is "one of the world's most prominent countries containing major archeological sites of world significance," and the agenda included discussion of Jerusalem. The day before it expected to tour a Jerusalem archeological site of the Israel Antiquities Authority,) WAC notified Israel of its schedule. Then it complained that Israel did not expedite its schedule. The Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) stated that its exclusion brought the Arab-Israel conflict into professional international archeology. "Furthermore it is blatantly unethical to visit active archaeological sites without informing the archaeologists charged with the excavation." The IAA also said that the conference program is "full of abstracts condemning Israeli archaeology," but contains "huge numbers of inaccuracies." IAA noted that WAC professes to promote dialogue, but barred it. Where is its professional and civic integrity? The Zionist Organization of America condemned WAC for discrimination against Israel. "ZOA Executive Director Gary Ratner said, 'We see in this latest politicized decision by the World Archaeological Congress to exclude Israel, a continuing pattern by international organizations of all kinds to become anti-Israel partisans, actively assisting a Palestinian campaign to delegitimize Israel by holding it up to unfounded international criticism. The World Archaeological Congress needs to apologize unreservedly to Israel for its politically biased, unprofessional and unethical conduct in this affair.'" (Press release by Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York, 8/13. The facts of the case were attributed to IMRA and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of ZOA.) In other words, WAC is interfering with Israel. Israel being weak about this, so does almost everyone else. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL ON HAMAS HUMAN SHIELDS Amnesty International's Mideast expert, Donatella Robera found that Hamas did not use human shields in the Gaza war. How did she determine that? She got no complaints from Gaza Arabs (Gerald M. Steinberg in www.imra.org.il, 8/23). What a substandard research method! Would you depend on partisans in the conflict and subjects of a brutal dictatorship to complain about the dictators? PROTEST OBAMA HONORING OF MARY ROBINSON The Zionist Organization of America, AIPAC, and ADL criticized Pres. Obama's decision to award the medal of freedom to Mary Robinson. They cited her biased work heading the UN Human Rights Commission and her unfounded but vicious criticism of Israel. Her Commission ran Durban I. It passed a resolution endorsing Arab violence against Israel, violence it called "resistance to occupation," but did condemn suicide bombing to establish Arab statehood. Robinson did not object to the cartoons of Jews as Nazis spearing Arab children and suggestions that it would have been better if Israel lost the wars (to exterminate its people). Neither did she protest Durban's Judeophobic agenda, resolutions, and speeches. At Durban, she accepted S. Africa's denial of visas to European anti-slavery activist critical of human rights abuses in Sudan and other Muslim states. She defended herself by asserting she always is fair but wasn't always present, and anyway had no influence on the Human Rights Commission. She blamed Israel for the Durban problem, claiming it wouldn't let her have an impartial panel resolve the problem. [I think she is referring to Israel, like the U.S., walking out of that Jew-hate-fest.] She appointed Bishop Tutu, another Obama honoree, to investigate whether Israel violated human rights in Gaza, after he had condemned Israel for it. When Jews at prayer were assaulted by Arabs on 5/2008, she called on Israel to "respect the right of peaceful assembly to avoid the excessive use of force." She condoned the rioters as victims of Israeli police. She called on Israel to respect and protect religious sites [which it does], but ignored Arab stoning of Jewish worshippers in Jerusalem and the destruction of Joseph's Tomb and a Jewish synagogue. The White House defended itself as honoring the first female President of Ireland and a champion of women's rights, though Pres. Obama does not agree with some statements by award recipients. (ZOA, 8/3, 8/24. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of ZOA). Poor excuses. The U.S. could get nowhere with the Commission. When Israel was singled out for vile bigotry, it was clear that it had no recourse but to walk out. Robinson's Commission neglected almost all the other world problems of ethnic bigotry favor of picking on Israel and in a bigoted way. She failed to protest. She should have walked out. What kind of a leader of people's rights is she? Israel respects Arabs' rights to peaceful assembly, but they weren't peaceful. She should have called on Israel to respect right-wing Jews' peaceful assembly instead of clubbing right-wing demonstrators As for being the first female President of Ireland, so what! If she accomplished much as President, honor her for that, not for time-serving. Whatever good she may once have done, she condoned her Commission's lack of consideration of human rights and its attacks on Israel's right of self-defense. President Obama's award is disgraceful. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
UN MUST HOLD U.S. TO SAME STANDARD AS ISRAEL
Posted by Sheridan Neimark, September 17, 2009. |
|
In the wake of Judge Goldstone's findings that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza, below is an comment by Eric Fingerhut about Observations by Ari Shavit published in Haaretz. |
|
Haaretz's Ari Sharvit wonders if the international community is going to charge the United States and its NATO partners with war crimes for the German-ordered U.S. air strike two weeks ago in Afghanistan that killed 30 civilians, and then points out that such a notion is "absurd": No sane person in the world believes that the United States, Russia or China could be subjected to purist international law. The United States has killed thousands of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the last few months encouraged Pakistan to make an extremely brutal military move in its Swat Valley. The United States was not required to account for it because everyone understands that this is the price of the terrible War on Terror. Russia committed blood-curdling war crimes in Chechnya, while China deprives its citizens of basic rights and is conducting a wicked occupation in Tibet. They are not asked to pay for this because everyone understands that you don't mess with superpowers. But not only superpowers are immune. Saudi Arabia practices an open, declared policy of discrimination against women and the international community does not see. Sri Lanka is crushing the Tamil national movement, causing a ghastly humanitarian disaster, and the international community does not hear. Turkey is brutally oppressing the Kurdish minority, and the international community does not speak. But why then, Sharvit asks, is Israel being treated differently?: Only in matters involving Israel, do international law and justice suddenly discover that they have teeth. Only when Israel is involved is the judgment administered out of context. Only Israel is required to uphold a moral standard no superpower or Middle Eastern state is required to uphold. Over the course of the military offensive in Gaza, Israel used excessive firepower and this must not recur. Severe incidents took place during the operation which must be investigated. But the inquiry must be carried out by us, and among ourselves. As long as Judge Richard Goldstone doesn't probe the United States, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka or Turkey, just as he probed Israel, he is not a moral figure. A law is a law only when it applies to everyone and does not discriminate, as Goldstone did. Contact Sheridan Neimark by email at sneimark@browdyneimark.com |
|
JEWISH JUSTICE OR NO JUSTICE
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, September 17, 2009. |
|
27 Elul, 5769 (Sept. 16, 2009) 
i "Today the world is being born, today all the creations of all the worlds stand in judgment." "And it will be determined for the countries, which for the sword and which for peace." (Rosh Hashanah liturgy) As we enter the gates of our synagogues this Rosh Hashanah, it looks like we will also be entering the gates of the International Court in The Hague. This is the inevitable destination of a nation that insists on detaching its Judaism from its national life. If we are not interested in Jewish justice in Jerusalem, we will be treated to Western, Christian justice in Spain, England or The Hague. When a Swedish newspaper reported that Israel's soldiers slaughtered "Palestinians" so that they could sell their organs, we didn't believe that anybody would take the bizarre story seriously. But it is actually making quite a few waves. Soon an international investigative committee will be established to reveal "the truth." After all, such serious charges must be investigated thoroughly. And who, if not the judges of enlightened Europe, are more worthy to reveal the truth with clarity and complete objectivity? Blood libels are nothing new. There is nothing more logical about selling "Palestinian" organs than about slaughtering Christian children to use their blood to bake matzahs. So how do these absurd claims become legitimate? It is not really a matter of legal fact. It is a matter of the location of the judicial body. When a Jew is in exile and the Christians are the judicial authority, the blood libel becomes a possibility. The question is not if the Jews slaughtered Christian children to use their blood to bake matzahs. The question is if the issue is justiciable. In the Christian courts of the Middle Ages the answer was affirmative. Likewise, in the current organ harvest story, there is no question of revealing the truth. The only question is if the judicial tribunal that we have accepted upon ourselves will decide to judge these ludicrous accusations. Then — in the days of the blood libels, the Jews did not have the option to choose which judicial authority they would accept. They lived under the dominion of the judicial authority that considered these libels fact. But today, the Jews willingly surrendered their own judicial authority. They chose, of their own free will, to forgo their ethical sovereignty and to deposit it in the hands of the Western world and the International Court in The Hague. "What is the problem in Azoun?" my frustrated neighbor asked me the other day, after a steady stream of rocks and firebombs has continued to emanate from this 'peaceful' Arab village. "They bring in an entire IDF division and they still can't stop the violence? Wouldn't it just be easier to cut off their electricity?" Technically, my neighbor is right. We could easily leave the reserve soldiers at home and enjoy quiet nonetheless. But the State of Israel and the IDF are fettered to the Christian judicial dominion that we have brought upon ourselves. As the Beijing Olympics approached, I wrote that the State of Israel, as the representative of the Jewish Nation, should boycott the games. The Chinese have established concentration camps for opponents of the radically leftist regime there. Next to the concentration camps there are "medical centers" that specialize in supplying human organs by order. No lines, no problems finding the proper match, any organ can be supplied; kidneys, corneas, hearts — the organs are always fresh and plentiful. They belong to "criminals" who have been executed but who, at the last minute repented and donated their organs as an act of atonement. How noble. In reality, the organs are harvested while the victims are still alive. That is probably the best way to keep them fresh. I claimed that Israel — the representative of the Jewish Nation, the People of the Book who herald the ethics of the prophets — must see itself as a lighthouse of morality for the world and should not lend legitimacy to the regime of horrors in China by attending the Olympic Games. The reactions that I received were more or less: "America, England and France are not boycotting the Olympics, and you expect Israel to boycott them?" In other words, it cannot be that we bear a more fundamentally ethical insight than the Western world. Furthermore, we are so small, so who are we to boycott the Chinese giant if the US and Europe are not doing so? In other words, morality is measured in square kilometers and the size of a country's population and army. When charges of organ harvesting by Israel's soldiers began to emerge, I thought that it was quite "measure for measure." We rejected our universal role and refused to take a stand on the Chinese organ harvesting issue, and got it right back in our own collective face. We are the children of the King. We do not have the privilege to stand passively at the sidelines and to be "just another country." We have only two options: One is to judge the world according to Jewish justice — the ethical justice of the prophets that must be restored to Jerusalem. The second option is, right after Rosh Hashanah, to re-lock our universal responsibility safely in our synagogues and to leave Judaism strictly in the domain of religion. If that is the option we choose, we will not be judging the world according to the ethics of the prophets. The world will judge us — in the International Court in The Hague.
Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside
the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character.
Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a
theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The
Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org.
To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read
their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org.
Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922
(cell)
|
CBH end of sep 17 start sep 24
|
U.N. SMEARS ISRAELI SELF-DEFENSE AS 'WAR CRIMES'
Posted by Gerald Steinberg, September 17, 2009. |
|
U.N. Smears Israeli Self-Defense As 'War Crimes' A one-sided report on the Gaza war lets Hamas off the hook |
|
Judge Richard Goldstone and the three other members of the U.N.-authorized "fact finding mission" on Gaza spent five months collecting testimony, interviewing witnesses and writing a 575-page report, with 1,223 references. But they ended up where they and the U.N. Human Rights Council began an assumption of Israeli war crimes "proved" by a collection of NGO claims and Palestinian "testimony," both of which lack credibility. The report ostensibly presents the results of an intensive investigation into the Gaza conflict between Israel and Hamas from June 2008 to the end of July 2009. Yet on every significant issue, Judge Goldstone's group simply repeated what it chose to hear from carefully selected witnesses. (When Israeli victims of Hamas rocket attacks were given a few hours to tell their tales of horror, photos show Mr. Goldstone taking a nap.) The result vindicated the Israel government's view that the books were cooked from the beginning, including the one-sided terms of reference and the selection of Mr. Goldstone and of Prof. Christine Chinkin, whose anti-Israel prejudices were clear. There is no evidence to indicate that a fair hearing was possible, or that Israeli government cooperation would have made any difference. Unusually, the tendentious and extremely biased report succeeded in angering Israelis from across the political spectrum. President and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shimon Peres, who does not see eye-to-eye with Prime Minister Netanyahu on many issues, said the report made a mockery of history and gave legitimacy to terror. The committee condemned every Israeli response to the 8,000 rockets fired by Hamas, but its recommendations did not include any steps to end this aggression. And while Israel is accused of committing acts of terror, the report never acknowledges that Hamas committed acts of terror, even though it is legally banned as a terrorist organization by the U.S and the European Union, among others. This distortion undermined the facade of even-handedness, as if balance between a terrorist group and aggressor, and a democracy meeting the obligation to defend its citizens, had any moral foundation. Iran, which is the main patron of Hamas and its primary source of funding, political support, training and weapons, is only mentioned once, obliquely, in the report, in connection with "the 220 mm Fadjr-3 rocket ... thought to be smuggled into Gaza." The committee, like the NGOs on which it relied, did not bother to investigate this central issue, since it would not have contributed to the indictment of Israel. Mr. Goldstone's professional qualifications are anchored in international law, but if anything, this report highlights the absurdity of a vocabulary and framework that are anachronistic. Applying classical concepts and terms to terror and asymmetric urban warfare, in which the entire population is a massive human shield and hospitals are used as command headquarters, as in the case of Gaza, is ridiculous. The report fails to deal with the difficulty of defining a civilian in this context, and following the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, the report classifies the members of the Hamas "police" as civilians, erasing their membership in Hamas' armed forces and their participation in the rocket barrages targeting Israeli civilians. On most issues, Mr. Goldstone followed the lead and biases of NGO "superpowers" particularly Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Human Rights Watch's publications on Gaza have been discredited following the exposure of the obsession with Nazi memorabilia and false claims of its "senior military expert," Marc Garlasco. But his allegations are adopted in this report, again without any independent investigation and despite the testimony of military experts who exposed Mr. Garlasco's fictions. Indeed, Mr. Goldstone's long relationship with Human Rights Watch, including his membership on its board, added to the credibility problems of this inquiry. Similarly, the attempt to shove the role of Iran under the carpet follows the lead of these NGOs, as does the decision to ignore video evidence showing the use of civilians as cover for Hamas fighters attacking Israel (human shields), including the launch of rockets from schools. Instead, copying the unreliable NGO claims almost word for word, the issue is dismissed on the grounds that the committee "received no reports of such incidents from other sources." No independent research was conducted. The issue of military necessity is central in grappling with the moral issues of an asymmetric-warfare environment in which terrorists use schools, hospitals, houses and other civilian facilities. Neither the NGOs nor Mr. Goldstone show any understanding of the dilemmas involved they can only repeat the claims of Palestinians who, in almost every case, say that Hamas members and assets were never near the target of any Israeli attack. One of Israel's primary and most important objectives in the war was to search for clues to the whereabouts of Gilad Shalit, a soldier kidnapped from Israel and taken to Gaza in a 2006 cross-border raid. Mr. Goldstone does not consider this to be related to military necessity, and even labels the interrogation of Palestinians on this issue as criminal. And in rejecting Israeli statements regarding the storage of weapons in a mosque (ignoring video evidence), the report admits: "the Mission cannot exclude that this might have occurred in other cases." In other words, they did not have a clue. As is often the case, the implications of this report, including the threats of a Security Council monitoring mechanism and possible action by the International Criminal Court, go far beyond Israel. If Israel is condemned for attacking "civilians" like Nizar Rayan, the head of Hamas' military wing, American officials could find themselves in the dock for the raid in Somalia that killed al Qaeda leader Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan. Using the warped interpretations of international law on display in this report, the same terms could be applied to NATO officials responsible for the deaths of civilians in strikes against Taliban assets, such as oil trucks in Afghanistan. American troops who used white phosphorous to protect against detection in the battle of Fallujah in Iraq could be accused, like the Israelis targeted by Mr. Goldstone, of war crimes. And when they do become targets of such pseudo-legal actions, the Goldstone precedent will include the absence of transparency (much of the "testimony" remains secret, allowing the committee to pick and choose) or due process, including the cross-examination of witnesses. Instead of promoting legal accountability and reconciliation, Mr. Goldstone's report will increase Israeli cynicism regarding the viability of international institutions and guarantees of Israeli security and fair treatment. The damage wreaked by Mr. Goldstone's offensive will not help the efforts of President Obama's peace envoy, George Mitchell, in efforts to gain Israeli flexibility and willingness to take risks. Hopes for peace, already very tenuous, may be another casualty of the Goldstone report.
Mr. Steinberg is president of NGO Monitor and a professor in the political science department of Bar Ilan University.
|
|
JONATHAN POLLARD : FORGOTTEN HERO
Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, September 16, 2009. |
|
This was written by Baruch Cohen and it appeared September
16, 2009 in The Jewish Tribune (Canada)
|
|
Jonathan Pollard has now served 24 years in an American prison for serving American and Israeli interests. A limit must finally be put to this outrageous travesty and to the total indifference and silence: Free Jonathan Pollard. In 1985, the year of Pollard's arrest, the US defense intelligence establishment was suffering a wave of humiliations, as spies were uncovered in the intelligence community. FBI agents arrested Pollard, who was a US Navy intelligence analyst, on charges of selling classified material to Israel. Pollard initially agreed to a plea-bargain with the US Navy, in exchange for pleading guilty to passing classified information to an ally, Israel. In return, the government would supposedly not seek the maximum sentence, life imprisonment. In a highly irregular move, then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger submitted a secret, personal, 46-page classified national security document describing the so-called damage Pollard supposedly caused to US national security and demanding he be sentenced to life. The document put an end to any chance, any hope for Pollard's ultimate liberation. Disregarding the plea-bargain, the judge sentenced Pollard to life in prison for espionage. Pollard's genuine one and only concern was for the security of Israel, the strongest, most valuable and closest ally of the US. The documents transferred by Pollard contained information about Syrian and Iraqi chemical weapons production and other matters of direct security concern, which had been withheld from Israel. None of this information endangered or jeopardized US interests. There are numerous examples of American spies who have acted against their country and for hostile foreign powers. Yet despite the strong evidence against a number of these individuals, who knowingly betrayed their country, their terms were relatively short and were later either reduced or terminated for good conduct. Today, there is a renewed hope for Pollard's release. US President Barack Obama could indeed prove, by releasing Pollard, that he is a genuine friend of Israel. Pollard has been punished enough. Jonathan Pollard should be released and allowed to go home to Israel. After 24 years, he has been punished enough. We must not forget Pollard, nor must we rest or keep silent: Jonathan Pollard should come home, now! The author, Baruch Cohen is Research Chairman of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research. |
|
TIT FOR TAT
Posted by David Wilder, September 16, 2009. |
|
At first glance, it seems ironic that the author of the scathing report dealing with Israeli 'war crimes' during the Gaza war, is a Jew. And not just any Jew. According to Goldstone's daughter, in an interview published by the Jerusalem Post, Richard Goldstone "is a Zionist and loves Israel." As the proverbial saying goes, 'with friends like that, who needs enemies?!' Goldstone reportedly slept during accounts of rocket attacks on Sderot, in south Israel. So related Sderot resident and media expert Noam Bedein on Israel radio this morning. However such accounts are totally irrelevant. When it comes to Jews, only one truth is viable. Jews may be attacked in any manner as the attacker deems fit; however, Jews may not dare to defend themselves, be it preemptive, during or post attack. Why? Because that's why Jews exist; for the world to blame for all problems, and later to take their frustrations out on them. This simple truth has existed for at least two thousand years, if we prefer to ignore Biblical accounts of the Egyptian slavery over 3,300 years ago. Certainly since the advent of Christianity Jews have been a worthy scapegoat and have paid a price continuing thru the present: expulsions, forced conversions, mass murder, and more. Who today remembers the slaughters perpetrated by the crusaders, or the inquisition, pogroms in Eastern Europe? Of course, today, talking about the holocaust is almost considered to be trite or redundant. After all, how much can you keep saying about it, bringing it up at every opportunity, enough! The state of Israel serves as a wonderful target for continued Jew-bashing. Perhaps one of the best examples, today so relevant, was Israel's attack against Saddam Hussein's mass killing machine, destroying his nuclear missile facilities in June, 1981. The United States blasted Israel for this attack. The United Nations Security council unanimously passed UN Resolution 487 which "strongly condemns the military attack by Israel in clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osirak] This rule is playing out in front of our eyes, as international policy concerning the Iranian nuclear threat demands 'negotiations' and 'sanctions' prior to any attempts to physically destroy Ahmadinejad's weapons of mass destruction before they are activated and live. By that time, of course, it may be too late, but again, who cares? After all, it's only Israel's existence that seems to be at stake! The Goldstone Report is only a continuation of an international principle which allows Israel to be attacked, and refuses to accept Israel's right to self defense. But.... And here is a BIG BUT. I believe that the drama unfolding before our eyes, such as the Goldstone report, is not the fault of the international community. It is, quite clearly and simply, our fault, the direct responsibility of the state of Israel and a direct result of Israeli policies. How so? Exactly nine years ago, tomorrow night, what is known as the '2nd Intifada' aka the Oslo War began, here in Hebron. Just after midnight Arab terrorists started shooting at the Jewish neighborhoods in the city. The source of the gunfire were the hills surrounding these neighborhoods, hills 'transferred'/abandoned to the Palestinian authority in January, 1997 with implementation of the 'Hebron Accords.' The shooting also started in other areas of Judea and Samaria. Jerusalem's southern neighborhood, Gilo, came under attack from Bethlehem and Beit Jala. The shooting continued for over two years, with the Barak/Sharon administrations refusing to properly defend its citizens against sustained, incessant attacks. Had the government ordered the army back into the areas and cities handed over to the PA the attacks would have ended immediately. Instead, the state's leaders watched as almost 1,500 Jews were murdered in cold blood by Arab terrorists. And the shooting continued. But it should be remembered that, prior to this war, Gush Katif communities came under mortar fire day and night, for years. Thousands of mortars were shot at civilian and military populations. With virtually no effective answer from those who were elected to keep Israelis safe, wherever they were. It also should not be forgotten the missile attacks against Kiryat Shmona and cities in the Israeli north, attacks which remained unanswered for years at a time. And finally, how many rockets were shot into Sderot before the abandonment of Gush Katif, and how many following catastrophic expulsion and destruction of those communities. Thousands and thousands and thousands. And let it not be said that the government didn't know, that they
weren't warned. Only last week, at the lecture in Netanya: "A secret
IDF Intelligence (AMAN) assessment warned as early as 1993 that the
Oslo Accords would likely end with rocket attacks on Ashkelon,
according to former AMAN Maj.-Gen. Yaakov Amidror. The politicians,
however, were not interested. According to Amidror, who headed the
IDF's Research and Assessment Division responsible for preparing the
National Intelligence Assessment, the decision to go ahead with the
Oslo agreements between Israel and the PLO terrorist organization was
made without taking into account the military implications. The Rabin
government "completely ignored" IDF assessments, Amidror claimed"
Writers, myself included, warned, year after year, of the deadly implications of Oslo, Hebron, Wye, Gush Katif. To no avail. But they knew, and did nothing. In other words, Israel allowed itself to be attacked, without offering any real defense, any true attempt to stop the terror. That being the case, when, at long last, much too late, Israel finally decided to take action, our enemies, enemies from without and enemies from within, raised a red flag imprinted with a huge question mark: What happened — why now? What happened to you Jews? You know you're not allowed to defend yourselves. You know better. Don't you dare start now! The state of Israel had withheld for so long, had restrained itself, had decided strategically not to protect itself, its citizens, and its cities, that any such action was viewed as bizarre and uncharacteristic. And with this, a great international outcry, coming on the heels of thousands of years of defenselessness. How dare you!!! Approaching the holy days of Rosh HaShana and Yom Kippur we try to take stock of the events of the past year, to determine how to correct our errors in the future. At times we are forced to pay for our misdeeds; G-d takes account of our sins and, sometimes, treats us accordingly. We are taught that one of the ways G-d deals with us human beings is, in Hebrew, 'mida c'neged mida.' Translated this means something like tit for tat. You get back the same as you gave. Ehud Barak, presently Defense Minister, nine years ago Prime Minister, fled from Lebanon and offered Arafat almost all of Judea and Samaria, including Jerusalem. He claims that the Goldstone report encourages terror. Tit for tat Mr. Barak. You did nothing to stop terror. To the contrary, you encouraged it by doing nothing about it, you let Jews die and tried to appease the terrorists by offering to abandon more of Eretz Yisrael. Now you're getting it back in the face in the form of another Jew, blaming you for trying (and, by the way, not succeeding) to stop the terror, much too little, much too late. Mida c'neged mida. 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. |
|
ERRORS OF OMISSION AND COMMISSION OF THE GOLDSTONE UN GAZA MISSION
Posted by David Bedein, September 16, 2009. |
|
This is from Israel Behind the News
http://israelbehindthenews.com/bin/content.cgi?ID=3720&q=1 |
|
In early July, Professor Elihu D Richter, head of the Genocide Prevention Program at Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health and Community Medicine in Jerusalem, submitted a brief to Judge Richard Goldstone, chairman of the UN Human Rights Council Fact Finding Mission, which was then holding its hearings in Geneva. The Mission was investigating "all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after." For those who have forgotten, 27 December is when Israel attacked Gaza by air and land to put a stop to some 8,000 rocket attacks against civilians in Shderot and Ashkelon over a period of many years. The term "whether before, during or after" represented a grudging concession to those demanding context to the images of death and destruction in Gaza — many authentic, others staged — during the three weeks of the war. At the time, Dr. Richter wrote a parallel op-ed for a newspaper in Geneva, Tachlis, in which I said "The smart money is on the bet that the Mission will be a kangaroo court, given the dismal record of the UN Human Rights Council, which until now has been something of haven for perpetrators of Human Wrongs. The Council is notorious as a platform for engaging in obsessive demonizing and delegitimizating of Israel" Dr. Richter's brief to Judge Goldstone and his colleagues on the Mission contained several simple messages. *Hold Hamas accountable for incarcerating soldier Gilad Schalit incommunicado for 3 years, a violation of his human rights. International Human rights groups have been castigated by Elena Bonner, the widow of Andrei Sakharov, for their relative silence concerning Schalit, who has been held incommunicado for 3 years. Where are those who have fought to close down Guantanamo? There, alleged terrorists are given the rights of prisoners, with access to lawyers, visits by the International Red Cross, and basically decent living conditions? It is only recently that the International Red Cross has publicly declared that Schalit's basic human rights are being violated Here were the punch lines of Dr. Richter's brief: So far UN's executive organs, the Security Council and the Human Rights Council remained silent in the face of.... [Hamas' and Iran's] incitement,[to genocide], ignoring their responsibilities under the UN Genocide Convention. This silence persisted despite the precedents from previous genocides, notably Rwanda, that such hate language is a warning sign, predictor, and catalyst of genocide.... JUDGE GOLDSTONE AND HIS COLLEAGUES ON THE GAZA COMMISSION have been bystanders to such incitement by Hamas' leaders and their backers in Tehran? Dr. Richter's money was on the right bet. Others have documented the numerous errors of omission and commission of the Mission. It appears the Mission opted to ignore these points or air brush them away. Judge Goldstone, on Israeli TV last night, lectured Israelis on establishing judicial procedures in keeping with international standards of fairness, openness, equity and transparency. But the evidence of preformed opinions of one of the members of the Mission-Christine Chinkin, and Goldstone's being on the Board of Human Rights Watch-he abruptly resigned-one of the major accusers, and the rigged mandate of the Mission are themselves flagrant — indeed obscene — violation of these standards. These violations of elementary professional norms, I submit, underlie the double standards-(e.g. incitement to genocide is a crime against humanity in Rwanda, but ignored in Gaza), and the flawed inferences concerning Israeli state intent to commit crimes humanity are examples of the pernicious influence of these prior biases. If Israel was dropping leaflets to advance warning to Gazans to flee areas it bombed, then how can those whom Israel was warning be considered to be victims of intent to harm? Dr. Richter asks: Should professional societies for international law and parliamentary committees for human rights in free countries with democratically elected governments investigate whether there has been professional misconduct, or just plain ineptitude, negligence and incompetence — willful or otherwise — by the Goldstone Mission? The consequences of not investigating the errors of omission and commission are staggeringly ominous for free democratic societies who strive to protect the right to life and security, the most elementary human right, from those, who, in the name of human rights, promote cults of death. This article is archived at
|
|
CUFI IS INDEPENDENT, NGOS AREN'T;
CHRISTIAN PASTORS' PROCLAMATION; ADL PETITION; ARABS ANTI-JEWISH?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 16, 2009. |
|
IS CHRISTIANS UNITED FOR ISRAEL INDEPENDENT? An earlier article of mine () introduced Christians United For Israel (www.cufi.org). Two readers, labeling themselves Christians, asserted that CUFI accepts millions of dollars in subsidies from the government of Israel. They felt that such subsidy restricted the organization's independence. I checked with CUFI. Its spokesman, Ari Morgenstern, checked and replied to my inquiry categorically that CUFI does not accept money from the government of Israel. I also checked with the government of Israel. The deputy spokesman of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Andy David, confirmed that the government does not subsidize or fund CUFI in any way. One accusation against Israel after another has proved to be mere hearsay or dire libel. Prejudiced people accept such accusations favoring their cause. Prejudice does not make right, though sometimes it makes might. Evidence and proof are needed. Now it is up to the accusers to produce evidence for their contention. Accusers against Israel often are hypocritical. They either do what they criticize Israel for or they fail to criticize others for actually doing what they erroneously accuse Israel of doing. In this instance, I cite my several articles demonstrating that most of the Palestinian Arab and Israeli NGOs that, regardless of their human rights manifestos, specialize in condemning Israel for alleged human rights violations are subsidized by foreign governments. Will those who accused CUFI of forfeiting independence in exchange for Israeli subsidy accuse those NGOs, such as Peace Now, of dependence upon anti-Zionist foreign subsidy? Those NGOs are hypocritical, too, in that they criticize Israel but not the Arabs, whose war crimes and aggression are constant. MICHAEL RUBIN REVIEWS DEMOCRACY IN THE MIDEAST Michael Rubin reviewed Joshua Muravchik's The Next Founders: Voices of Democracy in the Middle East. Pres. Bush sent Brent Scowcroft to China after the Tiananmen massacre. Criticized for not supporting the victims, Bush assisted other countries to freedom. Some of his aides found that idealism imprudent, and played down Arab oppression. Deputy Sec. of State Armitage even called Iran a democracy, thereby undermining revolution in Iran and U.S. policy of regime-change. Others said the Arabs are not ready for democracy. When Pres. Obama addressed the Muslim world, he mentioned democracy favorably, but contradicted himself by saying that each country may interpret democracy in its own way and traditions. That's Muslim code for having the trappings of democracy within dictatorship. Obama said that no system can be imposed. But there's a difference between imposing and facilitating. Some proponents of democracy think that Islamists would abide by it. They think they can work with the Muslim Brotherhood. Are the Arabs ready for democracy? The author detects a trend in the younger generation of adults towards wanting liberty. He advises, don't hinder them (Commentary, 9/2009). This is a difficult question. I think Arabs have a right to it and should be given the opportunity. They may fail, especially if, as at present, the authoritarian regimes repress the democrats, leaving the Islamists capable of winning elections. The Arabs are not building much of the civil society on which democracy can rest. CHRISTIAN PASTORS' PROCLAMATION This Proclamation has been mailed out to thousands of Christian pastors and ministers for their signatures. It is hoped that a show of strong, unwavering Pro-Israel Christian support for Israel will persuade President Obama to re-think his policies on Israel. A Proclamation Regarding Israel From Pro-Israel Christian Leaders SUBJECT OF PROCLAMATION: Toward a new US/Israel policy SUBMITTED TO: President Barak Obama WHEREAS, pro-Israel Christian's support of the modern State of Israel as a partial fulfillment of God's covenant promise to provide a national homeland for the Jewish people in anticipation of their ultimate redemption when Messiah comes; and WHEREAS, These God-decreed covenants have an everlasting validity and relevance for the modern State of Israel. Recognizing this requires opposition to the U.S. insistence that Israel abandon places like Hebron, the burial site of the patriarchs and matriarchs, and the capital city of the first Jewish commonwealth under King David, and Bethlehem, a city of specific importance to our Christian community; and WHEREAS, The legal validity of the modern State of Israel has been established by international law in The Balfour Declaration of November 1917, determined at the San Remo Conference of April 1920, confirmed and implemented by The British Mandate at the League of Nations in July 1922, formalized by the United Nations partition resolution of 1947, authenticated by the official recognition of the State of Israel by United States in May of 1948 and Israel's admission to the United Nations in 1949; and WHEREAS, Since its birth as a nation Israel has been under relentless attack by Arabs and Palestinians whose goal is not, and never has been, peace with Israel but its total annihilation. With 40 percent of its water resources gone, its Samarian invasion routes in the hands of Fatah, its coastal waistline reduced to nine miles, its only airport within shoulder-guided missile range and its repartitioned capital a stomping ground for the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, Israel's "viability" will end the day it permits the creation of a Jihadist "Palestine" of any size, anywhere between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. All other consideration aside, there is simply no room within the sliver of land separating those two bodies of water for a "viable" Israel and any other sovereign entity — be it friend or foe; and WHEREAS, The various peace proposals advanced by the United States, including the Obama administration's "Land for Peace" to be implemented by a "Two-State Solution," have been historically and factually verifiable failures; and, if implemented places the very existence of Israel in great peril. WHEREAS, These failures have been a result of a dysfunctional denial of the stated goals of Palestinian Jihadists and other Iran sponsored terrorist groups such as Hizbollah to destroy Israel, including the continuing efforts to appease Israel's enemies by requiring Israel to give up land for peace; and WHEREAS, There can be no realistic expectation of regional peace until Palestinian Jihadists, including Hisbollah are defeated, disarmed and their terrorist infrastructure dismantled; therefore be it RESOLVED, That the Obama administration's "Road Map to Peace" with its "Land for Peace" and "Two-State Solution" and "divided Jerusalem" be deemed failures and discontinued; and be it further RESOLVED, That a serious and engaged consideration be given to a new US/Israel policy that would be comprehensive and practical in dealing with the realities on the ground as well as honoring of God's covenant promises to Israel. (e.g. Please see "The Israeli Initiative" www.israeliinitiative.com). SUBMITTED BY: (Signed petitioners) Facilitated by: Rev. James M. Hutchens Ph. D., Chaplain (Brigadier General) U.S. Army (Ret.), President of The Jerusalem Connection, Int'l Please respond to Rev. Hutchens at: jmh@tjci.org indicating your willingness to sign on to this petition, along with the name of your organization, its size, and its location. Thank you. (Verbatim as received by personal e-mail, 9/14.) ISRAELI LAND REFORM BACKFIRES PM Netanyahu said that land reform is needed. Most of the land in the country is public land, which led to bureaucratic management of it. So, the government sold off land that Israeli farmers no longer could afford to rent. The arrangement had loopholes. Rich Arabs from countries that do not have diplomatic relations with Israel [i.e., enemy states] bought hundreds of acres in the Galilee. "Meretz party head and former agriculture minister Haim Oron said that the incident proves that the supporters of the Israel Lands Administration reform plan were misguided." Various government departments disclaim responsibility. Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA said the plan could have provided for government approval or disapproval of each purchaser (www.imra.org.il, 8/15). Over the years, Arabs in the Galilee, encouraged by Arabs outside Israel, have chanted, "Galilee is Arab," and "Death to the Jews!" Therefore, the reform needs to be reformed. Is this an instance of government incompetence or of leadership betrayal? Netanyahu was warned about this. UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA FOR BOYCOTT OF ISRAEL The United Church of Canada invited B'nai B'rith Canada to its 40th convention. The convention passed a resolution approving on a voluntary basis a boycott of Israel and what amounts to ethnic cleansing of the Jews from Judea-Samaria. B'nai B'rith "had hoped that they would have had the good judgment to see through those anti-Israel and anti-Jewish motions, including the amendments that were offered and accepted, for what they really were: part and parcel of the campaign to delegitimize the one and only Jewish state in the world." B'nai B'rith also was dismayed at this attempt to predetermine the outcome of negotiations. "It is inconceivable that a Christian organization, that should understand G-d's covenant with the Children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and rejoice in the fulfillment of the prophesy of the return of the Jewish people to the ancestral homeland from which they were ethnically cleansed, has chosen instead to join those forces who are determined to undermine the Jewish State." (www.imra.org.il, 8/15). That is the way many Christian denominations are heading. They have less to say about Muslim persecution of Christians and Jews. It seems to me to be more about politics and prejudice, than about religion. ADL PETITION TO OBAMA ON ISRAEL ADL is circulating the petition shown below, to President Obama. Although it asserts that settlements are not the issue, it does not make the claim of Jews to their homeland, let alone an undivided Jerusalem. In fact the ADL petition calls only for the recognition of Israel, but not at all the recognition of the Jewish State of Israel. This petition is confusing for supporters of Israel, because it enables enemies of Israel to sign it, since it does not specify that the state to be recognized is a Jewish one. Dear Mr. President, We all support peace in the Middle East. But pressuring Israel is not the right approach. The obstacle to peace is not Israel. The settlements are not the impediment. The issue is simple: the Arab and Palestinian rejection of Israel's right to exist, including through violence and terrorism, for over 60 years. Israel's right to exist is undeniable and is based on its right to self-determination in its historic homeland. The path to peace is clear. With recognition, Israel has said again and again that everything is on the table without preconditions. Mr. President, it's time to stop pressuring our vital friend and ally. It's now time to direct your attention to the rejectionists who refuse to recognize Israel and negotiate an end to the conflict. With your leadership, yes, we can have peace. But the path begins with the recognition of Israel. Sincerely,
UNIFIL IN LEBANON STILL BIASED Michael Williams, UN Special Coordinator for Lebanon, reported on UNIFIL's progress in Lebanon. He praised the organization, criticized Israeli over-flights, and urged the government of Lebanon to control the border better. He merely mentioned the explosion of a Hezbollah arms cache near the border. Over-flights enable Israel to monitor Hezbollah war preparation that violates the UN Resolution. He did not censure Hezbollah violations (www.imra.org.il, 8/15). To help assess UNIFIL, click here
ARABS ANTI-JEWISH, NOT JUST ANTI-ISRAEL? "Egyptians generally do not make any distinction between Jewish people and Israelis. Israelis are seen as the enemy, so Jews are, too." "'We hate them for everything they have done to us,' Mr. Badr said, as casually as if he had been asked the time." "'Mr. Sayyid said he remembered having Jewish neighbors but never thought of them as Jewish. They were just Egyptians, like everyone else," he said. "Because of what happened in the war, you would walk in the street and if you saw a Jew you would want to kill him." Wary of such sentiments but wanting to retain a full sense of Egyptian history, Egypt's minister of culture, who aspires to become director of UNESCO, is restoring an abandoned synagogue (Michael Slackman, NY Times, 9/7, A5.) Egypt is estimated to embody half the Arabs. Even if Egyptians had a legitimate grievance against Israel, it would be a discriminatory stereotype to hold a grudge against all Jews. To blame and want to kill one's neighbors because of their ethnicity is indefensible. That attitude, which was more present in the U.S. half a century or more ago, has been castigated here. Where is that same U.S. indignation against the violent prejudice of the Arabs? Considering such prejudice and violence, shouldn't there be sympathy for the Jewish people? But the Egyptians do not have a legitimate grievance against Israel. Egypt repeatedly committed aggression against Israel. The main occurrences: (1) Against Israel's founding; (2) Instigating terrorism against Israel; (3) Blockading and mobilizing an alliance against Israel with the stated goal of "driving the Jews into the sea;" and (4) Attacking Israel in 1973. All instead of making peace. Egypt's role, and that of other Arab states and many other Muslim states indicates that the conflict is wider than between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. I think that the Arab motive is religious and imperialist. The Arabs quoted may be incited by governmental and religious leaders. The quotations are just excuses. This is the unrealistic, blame-placing way that the Arabs deal with others, as Arab intellectuals have recently been complaining. ISRAELI LEFT SPLITS WITH U.S. LEFT The U.S. Left is solidly against sanctions against Iran for its nuclear arms development. The Israeli Left is solidly in favor of stiff sanctions or a raid, after one last attempt at negotiation (www.imra.org.il, 9/8 from Ron Kampeas). Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE U.S. DEADLINE ON IRAN?
Posted by JCPA, September 16, 2009. |
|
This is the summary of an article that was written by Dore Gold Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs/ICA-Jerusalem Issue Brief Vol 9 #No. 9 |
|
This is Vol. 9, No. 9 of
the Institute for Contemporary Affairs of
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs,
|
|
HOW TO MAKE A BLACK UNDER CLASS
Posted by Seth Frantzman, September 16, 2009. |
|
How to Make a black under class: The recent controversy over several Ethiopian children and a school in Israel gained a lot of press locally. However one response to the controversy goes to the heart of the matter, the heart of how good intentions can begin the process of the creation of a system that helps to destroy nations and peoples and create permanent under-classes that burden society and create the endless cycle of "racism" and "I can't get ahead" mentalities. Every once in a while in life a person with given the chance to watch the creation of a problem from its inception. Every once in a while one is given the chance to witness an ideology that will lead to terrible outcomes. In Israel it seems one gets a chance to witness these things more often than one would like. The situation brooding in Tel Aviv with foreign workers and immigrants. We know where that will end up; ethnic riots, crime, prostitution, drug use, human rights whining and the creation of a vast foreign worker slum. The Bedouin villages in the Negev, we all know where that is going; the conquest of the land by lawless nomads because the state is unwilling to enforce its own laws and guard its own lands. The teaching of the "Nakhba" and the allowance of Arabs not to sing the national anthem in Arab schools in Israel; will lead to the creation of an Israel-hating minority population completely unconnected to the country and its history. But what concerns us here is not these, probably more dire, problems. What if one could go back in time to witness the creation of the American black underclass and its inability to succeed and its increasing cultural problems that make its success less and less likely rather than more and more. What if one could go back in time to find the fountainhead, the find the well meaning leftist mentality that led to the separating of the blacks from the American way of life to the extent that all other minority groups, no matter how poor or how different, have succeeded to a greater extent economically and culturally. What if one could go back and find the problem and set right what once went wrong? In Israel we get to witness the well meaning racist leftist views that will eventually lead to the creation of a black Ethiopian underclass and destroy a once proud people, the Ethiopians. What is interesting is that the creation of a black underclass does not happen because people are poor and savage. Most people are convinced that the creation of such an underclass is directly because of the poor and tragic circumstances from which the blacks were derived; i.e slavery in the U.S and immigration from a pre-modern rural nation in Israel. But in fact this is not the case. Left to their own devices and untouched by the leftist and the well meaning liberal these people would not necessarily succeed greatly but they would also not become trapped in a cycle of failure. It is the creation of the cycle, the mechanism, the organism, of failure, an entire system designed to perpetuate poverty, cultural problems, whining, complaining, chip-on-the-shoulder, "I can't succeed", which comes about because of the intervention of the well meaning leftist. TO see how it is created, to see the fountainhead of it, we must go no further than Shlomo Goren's article in the Jerusalem Post on September 6th, 2009. Goren is writing about the enrollment of Ethiopian children in first grade in a prestigious semi-private school in the Israeli town of Petah Tikva. He speaks about Ethiopian children "fresh from the absorption center wish little to know basic education." It would be interesting to know, since these are first graders, what "basic education" their non-Ethiopian peers supposedly have that makes them better? Did they learn to breast feed faster when they were babies? But Goren informs us that these savage Ethiopians can't possibly be expected to "successfully integrate" in a "high achieving, high pressure" school environment. Mr. Goren's evidence is that he himself once knew a black student and that student was a "troublemaker." But Goren adds a caveat, he has known a few of those black faced individuals who have achieved, they were, amazingly given their black skin, "integrate well enough to succeed in high level academic institutions." Their success should be something for the history book surely, after all they are not expected to do so well, and what on earth are they doing infiltrating the elite preserve of a "high level academic institution?" Goren explains that "Ethiopian integration is a slower process than that of other immigrations." Therefore they need "system prepared to accept anyone who is ready in an unbiased manner." What they need is "separate tutoring." But this separate tutoring is aimed at "helping those students rise up to the level of their peers." But for Goren it is all with good intentions. He notes that this separate system will help "the students acclimate at their own pace." Goren himself has volunteered in these segregated settings to teach the bushmen, to wit Ethiopians, to learn to chop wood, or whatever rudimentary lesson they are learning to prepare them for the "proper integration at their own pace. "Integration" is the center piece of the Goren narrative. In order to "integrate" them we must educate them separately and given them all sorts of separate special help. Surely, this makes them feel integrated. Goren provides yet one more nugget of insight into "integration" at the end of his diatribe; he argues that they need to "integrate at a healthy and productive pace, albeit a slower one than today's 'instant' culture." The Goren thesis is the liberal-leftist thesis. The idea is that in order to help people we must give them all sorts of special help, this supposedly helps them feel a part of society, even while they are entirely educated with people like them, and supposedly prepares them to "succeed at their own pace." But this coddling leads to failure. Much like bi-lingual education created generations of Hispanic Americans who couldn't speak English or Spanish, the coddling creates a generation of failure, a generation used to being educated together, never exposed to the "other" and one that then fails completely. Liberalism strangles minorities through its good intentions, through its interest in "helping" people. If you want people to fail give them affirmative action. If you want them to fail then educated them at "their own pace" and in their own language. Make exceptions for them, give them all sorts of special programs, just for them and then ask them to be like everyone else. Educating failure is what happens when, rather than expecting the best out of people in a high pressure learning environment, you set them aside and provide them a special learning environment and then after years of this slovenly behavior throw them into society and say "oh, whoops they failed and sunk to the bottom." Goren speaks of saddling the Ethiopians with a "system". The last thing they need is a system and the last thing they need is the Gorens of the world "helping" them and tutoring them. Helping people is a ticket to failure. If you want to destroy a community just provide it with help and assistance, make it dependent, tell it that it learns at "its own pace". Racists could not have dreamed up any better system to destroy minority groups, perhaps in fact that is what it is all about, racist leftists want to create a system that is self-perpetuating so that the well meaning liberal and his children will always have a job "helping" the savage minority rather than being displaced by him. In Israel the first generation of Ethiopian immigrants succeeded beyond most people's dreams, and yet now society sees them receiving a few PhDs and says "oh my God, these people might take my job one day, give them a system to keep them down there in the gutter where they belong so I can keep teaching about 'racism.'" After all, is not racism and the need for it in society primarily grist for the mill of the left, an entire industry that keeps wealthy leftists and their children in riding britches?
Seth J. Frantzman is a graduate student in Islamic and Middle Eastern
Studies, living in Jerusalem. Contact him at sfrantzman@hotmail.com
and visit his website:
|
|
L'SHANA TOVA TO YOU AND YOURS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 16, 2009. |
|
THE DAYS OF AWE APPROACH... With them comes an opportunity to find our way to peace with ourselves, each other and the Almighty. May your holiday be meaningful and joyous, And may the coming year bring you blessings of peace and health,
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
ISRAEL IS NOT GUILTY AS CHARGED
Posted by Ted Belman, September 15, 2009. |
|
Israel is not guilty as charged.
We all know how biased the UN is. I recently posted The Goldstone show-trial by Melanie Phillips. She makes a very strong case that not only the Commission Members were biased but that the mandate was also. The degree of objectivity on this Commission can be gauged from the mandate it was given by the UNHRC, which announced it was dispatching an urgent, independent international fact-finding mission, to be appointed by the President of the Council, to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression, and calls upon Israel not to obstruct the process of investigation and to fully cooperate with the mission. Nevertheless this matter is a huge problem for Israel and isn't going to go away. Do not be tempted to think perhaps there is something to it or to think that at least they also charged the "Palestinians" with similar things. The latter is immaterial and the former is without foundation. Findings are made up of two things. First the Commission Members must ascertain the facts. That's not easy to do when the judges are biased and the witnessed are more than biased. They are usually liars. We have seen far too many Arab "witnesses" who weren't even witnesses, lying through their teeth. I would name Jenin, al Qana, and al Dura as prime examples. A proper court of law has all kinds of rules of evidence to help the court get to the truth. I dare say that this investigation didn't come close to to doing so, nor could it given its makeup. Secondly there is a matter of law and with any law, lawyers can differ, even dramatically, particularly when few cases have been decided from which guidance may be attained. Prior to the war, I wrote "Bomb Gaza before invading". The legal opinions set out therein are entirely at variance with the interpretation of the law used by the Commission Members. The Assault on Israel's Right to Self-Defense was described by Abraham Bell in his article on International Law and Gaza. Dr. Avi Bell is a member of the Faculty of Law at Bar-Ilan University, Visiting Professor at Fordham University Law School, and Director of the International Law Forum at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He clearly advised that Israel has the right of self defense and described the law as it pertains. But I was left with some nagging questions. What do the principles and rules he set out mean in practice. I wanted to know if Israel had no choice but to invade or whether it could just use artillery and bombs, even unintelligent inexpensive bombs. I fully understood that the restriction on certain supplies entering Gaza was legal and so were targeted killings though our "international friends" disagree. Bell and Smith are both very clear on the law. Rest assured that the Commission Members were not applying their understanding of the law but rather a self serving interpretation chosen to ensure Israel's guilt. Israel is not guilty as charged. 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 |
|
OBAMA IS PUSHING ISRAEL TOWARD WAR
Posted by Saul Goldman, September 15, 2009. |
|
Below is an interesting article along with a comment by a colleague of mine. My friend, RLR, writes: After the Shoah no responsible Israeli leader can ignore the promise to exterminate Israel by leaders of any nation that proceeds to acquire the weapons of mass destruction (WMD) with which to fulfill that promise. The Shoah should also have taught that no nation will put the lives of its soldiers or civilians at risk if it believes that no national interest is thereby accomplished. The author of the article below, Brett Stephens, writes the
Journal's "Global View" column on foreign affairs, which runs every
Tuesday in the U.S. and is also published in the European and Asian
editions of the paper. He is a deputy editorial page editor,
responsible for the editorial pages of the Asian and European editions
of the paper, the columnists on foreign affairs, and the Far
Eastern Economic Review. He previously worked for the paper as an
op-ed editor in New York and as an editorial writer in Brussels for
The Wall Street Journal Europe.
Write to him at bstephens@wsj.com. This article is archived at:
|
|
President Obama can't outsource matters of war and peace to another state. Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, probably by next spring. That strike could well fail. Or it could succeed at the price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between. So why is the Obama administration doing everything it can to speed the war process along? At July's G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs. Last week, Iran gave its answer: No. Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the "ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations" and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, "respect for the rights of nations," and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from the document is any mention of Iran's nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point, which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for discussion. What's an American president to do in the face of this nonstarter of a document? What else, but pretend it isn't a nonstarter. Talks begin Oct. 1. All this only helps persuade Israel's skittish leadership that when President Obama calls a nuclear-armed Iran "unacceptable," he means it approximately in the same way a parent does when fecklessly reprimanding his misbehaving teenager. That impression is strengthened by Mr. Obama's decision to drop Iran from the agenda when he chairs a meeting of the U.N. Security Council on Sept. 24; by Defense Secretary Robert Gates publicly opposing military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities; and by Russia's announcement that it will not support any further sanctions on Iran. In sum, the conclusion among Israelis is that the Obama administration won't lift a finger to stop Iran, much less will the "international community." So Israel has pursued a different strategy, in effect seeking to goad the U.S. into stopping, or at least delaying, an Israeli attack by imposing stiff sanctions and perhaps even launching military strikes of its own. 
Thus, unlike Israel's air strike against Iraq's reactor in 1981 or Syria's in 2007, both of which were planned in the utmost secrecy, the Israelis have gone out of their way to advertise their fears, purposes and capabilities. They have sent warships through the Suez Canal in broad daylight and conducted widely publicized air-combat exercises at long range. They have also been unusually forthcoming in their briefings with reporters, expressing confidence at every turn that Israel can get the job done. The problem, however, is that the administration isn't taking the bait, and one has to wonder why. Perhaps it thinks its diplomacy will work, or that it has the luxury of time, or that it can talk the Israelis out of attacking. Alternatively, it might actually want Israel to attack without inviting the perception that it has colluded with it. Or maybe it isn't really paying attention. But Israel is paying attention. And the longer the U.S. delays playing hardball with Iran, the sooner Israel is likely to strike. A report published today by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and signed by Democrat Chuck Robb, Republican Dan Coats, and retired Gen. Charles Ward, notes that by next year Iran will "be able to produce a weapon's worth of highly enriched uranium ... in less than two months." No less critical in determining Israel's timetable is the anticipated delivery to Iran of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft batteries: Israel will almost certainly strike before those deliveries are made, no matter whether an Iranian bomb is two months or two years away. Such a strike may well be in Israel's best interests, though that depends entirely on whether the strike succeeds. It is certainly in America's supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety. That goes also for the Middle East generally, which doesn't need the nuclear arms race an Iranian capability would inevitably provoke. Then again, it is not in the U.S. interest that Israel be the instrument of Iran's disarmament. For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. For another thing, Iran could respond to such a strike not only against Israel itself, but also U.S targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf. But most importantly, it is an abdication of a superpower's responsibility to outsource matters of war and peace to another state, however closely allied. President Obama has now ceded the driver's seat on Iran policy to Prime Minister Netanyahu. He would do better to take the wheel again, keeping in mind that Iran is beyond the reach of his eloquence, and keeping in mind, too, that very useful Roman adage, Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Contact Saul Goldman at gold7910@bellsouth.net
|
|
WHY THE RETURN TO ZION? THE JEWISH CONNECTION TO THE LAND OF ISRAEL
Posted by Alex Grobman, September 15, 2009. |
|
Not long after the establishment of the State of Israel, Abba Eban, Israel's representative to the United Nations, remarked, "The peace on Israel's borders may be no more than the peace of a quiescent volcano; and the crisis of state in its immediate external relationships remain unsolved." [1] Given the intractable nature of this conflict, many ask why the Jews have been so tenacious in their desire to reconstitute the Jewish state in the land of Israel. What is it about this land that has inspired their love of Zion through centuries of exile? Culturally, during the 18 centuries of Jewish life in the Diaspora, the connection to the land of Israel played a vital role in the value system of Jewish communities and was a basic determinant in their self-recognition as a group. Without the connection to the land of Israel, the people who practice Judaism would simply be a religious community, without national and ethnic components. Jews were distinct from the Muslim and Christian communities in which they lived because of their religious beliefs and practices and the eternal link to the land of their forefathers. That is why Jews considered themselves — and are seen by others — as a minority living in exile. [2] As Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel explained: "For the Jews and for them alone [the land of Israel] was the one and only Homeland, the only conceivable place where they could find liberation and independence, the land toward which their minds and hearts had been uplifted for a score of centuries and where their roots had clung in spite of all adversity... It was the homeland with which an indestructible bond of national, physical, religious and spiritual character had been preserved, and where the Jews had in essence remained — and were now once more in fact — a major element of the population." [3] The Jews did not publicly challenge the occupation of their land by the empires of the East and West. They did so in their homes, sanctuaries, books, and prayers. Religious rituals were instituted to remember the destruction of the temple and the subsequent exile. During times of joy and sorrow, Zion is always part of a Jew's thoughts and liturgy. At least three times a day, observant Jews pray for the redemption of Zion and Jerusalem and for her well-being. [4] When the Muslims invaded Palestine in 634, ending four centuries of conflict between Persia and Rome, they found direct descendants of Jews who had lived in the country since biblical times. Rabbinical leaders there continued to argue about "whether most of Palestine is in the hands of the Gentiles," or "whether the greater part of Palestine is in the hands of Israel." Such a determination was essential, since according to halacha [Jewish law] if Jews ruled the country, then they were obligated to observe religious agricultural practices in one way, and in another if they were not in control. [5] As Muslim hegemony prevailed, major Arab contributions to history originated in Damascus, Mecca, Cairo, and Baghdad. Little came from Jerusalem, indicating the low regard the area held for its captors and its minimal occupation by 16 nations. Similarly, while the land of Palestine was two percent of the Arab-controlled land-mass, to the Jewish people it was forever the fount of their religion, their homeland. [6] In testimony before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine in 1947, David Ben-Gurion, later Israel's first prime minister, pointed out that more than 3,000 years before the Mayflower left England for the New World, Jews fled from Egypt. Jews even slightly cognizant of their faith know that every spring Jews commemorate and remember the liberation from slavery and the Exodus from Egypt to the land of Israel. Those who observe the seder (the Passover meal and retelling of the exodus from Egypt), end it: "Next year we shall be in [Jerusalem] the land of Israel. This year we are slaves; next year we shall be free."[7] Though bound to its religious foundation, a Jewish State also means "Jewish security. Even in countries where he seems secure, the Jew lacks a feeling of security. Why? Because even if he is safe, he has not provided his safety for himself. Somebody else provides for his security. The State of Israel provides such security."[8] There Jews will be "free from fear, dependence, not the objects of pity and sympathy, of philanthropy and justice, at the mercy of others. We believe we are entitled to that as human beings and as a people."[9] To the Arabs who opposed the Jewish return, Ben Gurion, said that the "the closer and more quickly we draw together, the better it will be both for us and for you. The Jewish people and the Arab people need each other in the fashioning of their future as free people in this part of the world."[10 ] Footnotes 1. Aubrey S. Eban, "The Future Of Arab-Jewish Relations," Commentary (September 1948), 199. 2. Avineri,The Making of Modern Zionism: The Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State, New York: Basic Books, Inc. Publishers, 1981), 3. 3. Abraham Joshua Heschel, Israel: An Echo Eternity (New York: Farrar, Straus, 1967), 57. 4. Ibid.55, 61-67. 5. Yaacov Herzog, A People That Dwells Alone (New York: Sanhedrin Press, 1975). 33; Ibid. 57. While Jewish settlement in recent times began in 1881, in the 3rd and 4th centuries, Palestine was probably the largest and most significant Jewish community in the world. Benjamin of Tudela, Saadia Gaon, Maimonides and Judah Halevi were there from the 12th century and Nachmanides from the early 13th century. Rabbi Estori Ha-Parhi, author of Kaftor va-Ferah, demonstrates how, since biblical times, Jews have lived on the land continuously. 6. Heschel, Israel: An Echo Eternity, 59. 7. The Jewish Case Before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine (Jerusalem: The Jewish Agency For Palestine, 1947), 63. 8. Ibid. 68. 9. Ibid. 65. 10. 10. Ibid. 75. Dr. Alex Grobman is a Hebrew University trained historian. He is a former director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, and the 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. |
|
ISRAELI DEMOCRACY & DECLINING VOTE; YEMEN CIVIL WAR RENDERS 35,000 HOMELESS; MIDEAST HISTORY VERSUS MYTH
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 15, 2009. |
|
HOW SOON COULD IRAN GET A-BOMB? Western intelligence agencies estimate that Iran would need less than six months to produce the material for a bomb, depending on the number of centrifuges, and another six months to assemble it (http://www.imra.org.il/, 8/3). That gives less than a year for stiff sanctions or Obama's charm to work. Iran might produce the material sooner. The charm is getting rebuffed; meetings aren't being scheduled. The intelligence agencies think that if stiff sanctions were imposed immediately, they might work. Unfortunately, to assemble enough foot-dragging participants in stiff sanctions probably would take too long. A recent article suggested that the solution is regime-overthrow, not military. For more on Iranian arms and scruples, goto
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HAMAS & OTHER ISLAMISTS Hamas recently surrounded and killed and captured a few dozen members of an Islamist sect. Does that mean Hamas is anti-Islamist? No. To summarize a detailed explanation, Hamas Sheikh Ahmed Yassin gave a Palestinian Arab $5,000 to set up a branch of the global terrorist organization, al-Qaida. Hamas cooperates with Islamist groups that do not challenge its authority. lt uses such groups to fire rockets into Israel when Hamas pretends to have a truce with Israel. That way, Israel may withhold return-fire, while Hamas disclaims responsibility (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 8/3). Hamas will attempt to "re-educate" the captured sectarians (Op. Cit., 8/22). ISRAELI DEMOCRACY & DECLINING VOTE "Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar has called for a change in the electoral system to ensure that legislators are accountable to the voters rather than to a rabbi or a party leader." The 2009 Israel Democracy Index found a decline in voting due to the electorate feeling that elections don't work. People don't elect their representatives. Party bosses do. The candidates feel more beholden to the bosses than to the voters. The number of selected legislators depends on the Party's proportion of the vote (http://www.imra.org.il/, 8/3). The bosses put themselves first in line for Knesset seats, so they don't care all that much to please voters rather than their ideology or their personal interests. This is part of the reason that, although the people vote for national security, they get governments that do not reliably protect national security. ISRAEL'S DEMOLITION OF UNLICENSED HOUSES What is Israel's policy on unlicensed houses? Does the government treat Jews and Arabs the same. Does it give preference to citizens? "Leading attorney Yoram Sheftel accused Israel's High Court of selective law enforcement in decisions to order police to demolish unlicensed Jewish homes but to refuse to order the demolition of unlicensed Arab homes." "Antisemitic." "The High Court also recently accepted a petition by Peace Now to destroy all 20 [Jewish-owned] homes in the Netiv Avot neighborhood. The court ordered the defense minister to present a demolition schedule within 90 days." "Sheftel said that more than a decade ago the High Court rejected a petition by mayors of...Ramle and Lod in central Israel to destroy over a thousand homes built illegally by Arabs. Apart from a few houses, Sheftel said, they remain standing today." "Sheftel said that the High Court ruled that although all the homes were built illegally, without proper licensing, the court could not order the police to carry out the demolition task. ...the High Court's decision not to interfere with police enforcement is based on political [and ideological] considerations." Sheftel said. "The police fear Arab pogroms and therefore desist
from destroying Arab neighborhoods."
Shfetel is correct. A High Court that can order demolition of houses owned by Jews, can order demolition of houses owned by Arabs. It is known that tax collectors are afraid to enter certain Arab towns in Israel. Police have refused to enforce an order to evict squatters from a house owned by a Jew in Jerusalem. The owner has won each round in court for 16 years, but either the police don't enforce his victories or the courts reopen the case when the squatters devise a new excuse. I reported on that. Police refuse to let Jews pray aloud on the Temple Mount, because the Muslims threaten violence if they did. YEMEN CIVIL WAR RENDERS 35,000 HOMELESS The UN refugee agency estimated that "35,000 people have been driven from their homes in northern Yemen by the latest fighting between government forces and rebels. The people fled fighting around Saada city." "The roads to Saada province are blocked and aid agencies are unable to reach the area by airplane." (http://www.imra.org.il/, 8/22). Why more public concern about the couple of dozen questionable Arabs in Jerusalem in recent controversy than the 35,000 innocent Arabs in Yemen? FATAH CONVENTION A DECLARATION OF WAR "Information and Diaspora Minister Yuli Edelstein (Likud)...referred to the Fatah congress being held in Bethlehem as 'a declaration of war.'" The agenda and speeches conformed largely with the Hamas view. The initial goal is to detach areas from Israeli control and population, including Jewish holy sites, and to pour Arab refugee descendants into Israel. The ultimate goal is to conquer Israel; the means would be both diplomacy and terrorism or other combat. Arafat signed away any right to fight, under Oslo, but Abbas said that terrorism, which he calls "resistance," is his right. Fatah has again proved itself extremist. The West should not insist that Israel come to terms with Fatah. Another Israeli commentator observed that after 16 years of mass-murder by Arabs empowered by the Oslo accords and the so-called 'peace process,' it behooves Pres. Obama and others who propose Arab statehood for the Territories to explain the process' failure and to tackle the grave security problems his proposed solution would foster (http://www.imra.org.il/, 8/4). In insisting on terrorism, Fatah shows itself in violation of international law. The peace process has turned from a fairy tale into a nightmare. ARAB PRISONERS' CONDITIONS IN ISRAEL Arab prisoners in southern Israel have a television set, newspapers, academic degree, study programs, and family visits but not conjugal visits with their wives. Prisoners have been smuggling sperm out to their wives. Some right-wing Jewish prisoners have fewer privileges. Earlier articles commented on that. HAMAS' FIRST MOVIE Its most striking line is, "To kill Israeli soldiers is to worship God" (http://www.imra.org.il/, 8/4). Still think that the struggle is not religious? For another example of Hamas' unscrupulousness, go to
IDF TO TRY OUT NEW WAY TO SPARE CIVILIANS They will use Taser guns, which shock people into immobility for a couple of seconds. This allows the IDF to control attackers or mobs without using lethal weapons (http://www.imra.org.il/, 8/4). INTERNATIONAL LAW, MY CITIZENSHIP, & HATE An internet reader, "The Truth," wrote: "- most us jews dont support israeli illegal occupation & oppression on palestinians too. thoses settlements are ILLEGAL under international law. what gives israel the right to massacre innocent civilians and cry terrorism. youre not an american, youre a israeli pretending to be an american. this article is a joke. Stop hatin on obama" This alleged fellow Jew claims to know I'm an Israeli. I am? I myself did not know that. He protests that I am "hatin" Obama. What hate? My source reported facts and I suggested avoiding further U.S. policy failure. The wild and personal accusations do qualify as hatred. Hatred isn't necessarily bad, if informed and justified, which "The Truth's" is not. Yes, Israel has no right to illegal occupation, illegal settlement, murdering civilians, and falsely decrying terrorism. And it doesn't. See my many articles on Israel's rights to administer and settle the Territories, on illegal Arab building, IDF minimizing civilian casualties, and the Arabs rocketing Israeli cities. Rockets at purely civilian neighborhoods is real terrorism, real murder of innocent civilians. How few critics of Israel decry the real war crimes! Since Israel did not commit war crimes, the anti-Zionists' one-sided criticism is not even selective morality, it is perversity. What we have is international jihad abetted by widespread prejudice. ARAB-JEWISH RELATIONSHIP Some readers' comments reflect confusion over terms, especially when translated from other cultures into English. The Palestinian Arabs had little concept of nationality until recently, and still have difficulty with it. They don't understand the concept of Jewishness, which admittedly is difficult and unique. Americans use the term, "state," to mean part of a country or a whole country. They use that term interchangeably with "nation." But a country may have more than one nationality and a nationality may be dispersed among more than one country. Reader Malcolm referred to "ethnic Israelis" as if different from Israelis from Europe. The distinction is minor, essentially false. Their commonality, Jewishness, is more important. Israel integrates Jews from various parts. I pointed out that about half the Israelis are from the Mideast, refugees from Arab oppression. Malcolm still insists that Israeli Jews are predominantly from Europe. That false notion does make them seem the interlopers, rather than the Arab imperialists. He further maintains that the aboriginal Jews have more in common with Arabs, having lived together with them for hundreds of years. There is some truth to that, but it is inconsequential. It hints at the mythical notion of Muslim Arab tolerance. The Jews were third class citizens, the Arabs being second class citizens under authoritarian rule. As a result of Arab oppression, Israeli Jewish families that immigrated from Arab states are more wary of Arab blandishments than families that immigrated from Europe. So much for their commonality! Malcolm puts it that Jews and Arabs shared life together. Mostly apart, but whatever closeness they had, terrorists destroyed. The Jews of Hebron found that out in 1929, when their own Arab friends and neighbors murdered whatever Jews they could. Share? The Arabs tried to take away the Jews' share. Israel started out offering to share. The Arabs made war. It is amazing that the Jews still offer to share with those who try not to share. For example, Fatah insists that no Jews be allowed where the Arabs control, but that Arabs be allowed where the Jews control. That double standard, actual apartheid in the Palestinian Authority, is overlooked by people busy calling Israel apartheid. Hmm. The source of religious tension, Malcolm asserts, is Jewish immigration. Why should that be? Zionism multiplied the Arabs' life span and standard of living, without interfering with their religion and language. Nevertheless, he blames the Jewish return for Arab terrorism. That is like blaming a bank vault's having money for bank robbery. I blame the robber for his crimes. Malcolm's excuse for the Arabs is typical of how Arabs enjoy a double standard not applied to other ethnic groups. These days, however, many Arab intellectuals have begun decrying their perpetuating their own problems by blaming others for what they do to themselves. Example: the Arabs created their own refugee problem by their aggression. Tension between Muslims and other religions started with Islam calling the others erroneous or evil, to be extirpated or humiliated. The hundreds of years of Muslim oppression in the Arab areas preceded Jewish immigration to Israel. There were a few exceptions. My ancestors had a safe interlude in Turkey, Muslim but not Arab. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
JEWISH 'NAKBA' MARKS 16 YEARS SINCE OSLO ACCORDS
Posted by Arutz Sheva, September 5, 2009. |
|
This was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared today in Arutz-Sheva |
|
Oslo Accords a Jewish Nakba? The Oslo Accords, signed by former Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin in Washington 16 years ago this week, are the Jewish "Nakba," the Arabic term for "catastrophe," according to Prof. Ron Breiman, former chairman of Professors for a Strong Israel. Arabs used the term "Nakba" to refer to the United Nations decision in November 1947 that a Jewish State should be created and to the formal declaration of statehood six months later. Writing in the Hebrew-language daily Haaretz, Prof. Breiman asserted, "There were the good days of hope that began in Oslo, and the bad days when those hopes were dashed and the gloomy forecasts came true." The Oslo agreements and subsequent talks exploded with suicide bombings and hundreds of other terrorist attacks on Israelis. The violence escalated with massive rocket and mortar attacks after the launching of the Second Intifada, also known as the Oslo War, when Gaza was in the firm control of the Fatah faction. "The people who were seduced into believing in the Oslo dream are unable or unwilling to acknowledge the feelings of the others," Breiman wrote. "The day that the peace-dreamers danced around the golden calf of Peace Now was the day of awakening for the others, who realized the Oslo war's danger must be blocked. They see the extreme left's identification with Arab nationalism and contempt for Jewish symbols as a threat as dangerous as those of the enemy." Despite Prof. Breiman's charges that the Israeli media agenda helped foster what he called "the fallacious title 'the peace process,'" Yediot Aharonot editorial writer Eitan Haber wrote this week that even nationalists should pine for the days of Oslo. Haber, who was a senior advisor to Rabin, argued that the Oslo Accords did not mention the term "Palestinian state", and he did not cite the agreements as serving as a stepping stone towards a new Arab state within Israel's current borders. However, Prof. Breiman told Israel National News Tuesday that academics who advised Rabin knew that the objective was to create a new Arab state, even if the objective was not explicitly stated. "Rabin fell into a trap," Prof. Breiman explained, "and that eventually cost him his life." Haber also attacked the "lie" that Israel provided the Palestinian Authority with the same "IDF rifles" that were eventually used to kill and maim hundreds of Israelis. However, the Oslo agreements state, and the Israeli government later approved — if not "provided" — thousands of rifles for the PA, which was then under the aegis of Yasser Arafat. Breiman said, "If I am hit by a rifle bullet, it does not matter to me if it is from a blue and white [Israeli] weapon or from somewhere else. Israel provided the rifles, no matter where they came from." Haber also credited the Oslo Accords for Israel's unprecedented economic growth and the establishment of diplomatic missions in Israel by several Arab countries. "The harsh and dirty war against the agreement was accompanied by a campaign of lies and disinformation that to this day is entrenched in the minds of many Israelis, including leftists," he argued. Prof. Breiman noted in his article, published earlier this week, "A normal state does not abandon its citizens' security to a group it defines as a terrorist organization. Neither does it put the 'state-controlled' electronic media at the disposal of terrorists so they can speak to its citizens over the heads of its government. It does not allow senior terrorists ('VIPs') to drive around its territory escorted by junior terrorist bodyguards. And it does not impose freezes or evictions on its citizens to please the enemy." |
|
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (HRW) ASSAILED FOR ANALYST'S NAZI COLLECTION
Posted by Bryna Berch, September 15, 2009. |
|
A major analyst for HRW with a passion for Nazi memorabilia! Several points. HRW first backed Marc Garlasco to the hilt. When that didn't fly, HRW suspended the Nazi medals collector. Shades of ACORN! Acorn backed its sleezoid employees who had offered to tutor on how to break the law. They had to change their tune and fired those who showed up on videos. But the important point is what it showed about the Acorn organization. It is unlikely the young sting operators just happened to find all the rotten apples and all the rest of acorn is upright. Ditto with the HRW. It is unlikely that his hobby was the extent of Garlasco's fascination with the Nazis. Tie that in with how HRW always criticizes Israel and softpedals criticism of the Arab terrorists who precipitate Israel eventual reaction. It's likely that what made Garlasco "different" was that he was outed. His beliefs and attitudes towards Israel and their Arab attackers are likely very similar to those of the other HRW staff members. This below was written by John Schwartz and was published September 14, 2009 in the New York Times. |
|
A leading human rights group has suspended its senior military analyst following revelations that he is an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia. The group, Human Rights Watch, had initially thrown its full support behind the analyst, Marc Garlasco, when the news of his hobby came out last week. On Monday night, the group shifted course and suspended him with pay, "pending an investigation," said Carroll Bogert, the group's associate director. "We have questions about whether we have learned everything we need to know," she said. The suspension comes at a time of heightened tension between, on one side, the new Israeli government and its allies on the right, and the other side, human rights organizations that have been critical of Israel. In recent months, the government has pledged an aggressive approach toward the groups to discredit what they argue is bias and error. Injected suddenly into that heated conflict, word of Mr. Garlasco's interest seemed startling to many. The disclosure ricocheted across the Internet: Mr. Garlasco, an American, was not only a collector, he has written a book, more than 400 pages long, about Nazi-era medals. His hobby, inspired he said by a German grandfather conscripted into Hitler's army, was revealed on a pro-Israel blog, Mere Rhetoric, which quoted his enthusiastic postings on collector sites under the pseudonym "Flak88" — including, "That is so cool! The leather SS jacket makes my blood go cold it is so COOL!" It was a Rorschach moment in the conflict between Israel and its critics. The revelations were, depending on who is talking, either incontrovertible proof of bias or an irrelevant smear. The Mere Rhetoric posting said Mr. Garlasco's interests explained "anti-Israel biases." The administration of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also weighed in, but its views on groups like Human Rights Watch were already clear. Mr. Netanyahu's policy director, Ron Dermer, told The Jerusalem Post in July, "We are going to dedicate time and manpower to combating these groups; we are not going to be sitting ducks in a pond for the human rights groups to shoot at us with impunity." After the report about Mr. Garlasco came out, Mr. Dermer called it "perhaps a new low." At first, Human Rights Watch, a global organization with headquarters in New York, issued an unequivocal statement of support for Mr. Garlasco, saying he "has never held or expressed Nazi or anti-Semitic views." Ms. Bogert at the time said his work has been "extensively reviewed, lawyered, scrutinized, pulverized by our program and legal staff, and we have not in six years ever had cause to question his professional judgment." Mr. Garlasco, who worked at the Pentagon helping to target bombs in the second Persian Gulf war, has since traveled the world for Human Rights Watch, investigating and writing reports of the alleged use of white phosphorus munitions in Gaza, cluster munitions in Russia and Georgia, and other military practices in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. Ms. Bogert called the attacks on Mr. Garlasco and her group "a distraction from the real issue, which is the Israeli government's behavior." But some who firmly support Human Rights Watch were left unsettled by the researcher's extracurricular activities. Helena Cobban, a blogger and activist who is on the group's Middle East advisory committee, asked on her blog, Just World News, if Mr. Garlasco's activities were "something an employer like Human Rights Watch ought to be worried about? After consideration, I say Yes." Other groups say they have felt more heat from the Israeli government and its allies. "Recently we have seen a new attitude, a stepping up," said Sari Michaeli, press officer for the group B'Tselem, which recently came under harsh criticism from the Israeli military for a report that concluded that civilians made up more than half of the Palestinian casualties in the Gaza offensive. Mr. Garlasco declined to be interviewed. But on Friday he posted an essay with the Huffington Post in which he called the Nazis "the worst war criminals of all time,' explaining that he was simply a "military geek" whose interest grew out of his own family's history. "I've never hidden my hobby, because there's nothing shameful in it, however weird it might seem to those who aren't fascinated by military history," he wrote. "Precisely because it's so obvious that the Nazis were evil, I never realized that other people, including friends and colleagues, might wonder why I care about these things." Yaron Ezrahi, a professor of political science at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, said he did not believe that Mr. Garlasco's interest in memorabilia could support allegations of "premeditated bias." He said, however, that Human Rights Watch's credibility might have been wounded because Mr. Garlasco's hobby "has armed the right-wing fanatics" who "work day and night to demonize any individual or organization that raises questions about the military practices of Israel when they end up even with unintended civilian casualties." And that is one thing that seems to especially trouble Ms. Cobban, who said in an interview that the controversy played into the hands of the government and its helpers in the fight. "They have been given this deus ex machina gift," she said, "about the discovery of Garlasco and his out-of-hours hobby." A version of this article appeared in print on September 15, 2009, on page A4 of the New York edition of the Times. |
|
THE WAR ON '9-11'
Posted by Susana K-M, September 15, 2009. |
|
This was written by Walid Phares, who is a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and the author of The Confrontation: Winning the War against Future Jihad. |
|
The Jihadi attacks against New York and Washington created an unforgettable date in the collective psyche of Americans: this nation was bled by men indoctrinated by an ideology that, both in its texts and in its actions, knows no mercy for free societies. The terrifying three numbers and a hyphen 9-11 took their place in the country's national identity, alongside Pearl Harbor in the high drama of American history. But 9-11 became also a benchmark to other nations and regions of the world. In Europe, Russia, and India, civil societies began identifying the date 9/11 with their own subsequent traumas. Madrid had its own 9-11 on March 11, 2004. Russia had a sister horror on September 6 of the same year in Beslan. London encountered its 9-11 on July 7, 2005. The rest of Europe prepared for the forthcoming "ones." India's two Mumbai attacks are perhaps the equivalent of their own 9-11. So what is the first meaning of this symbolic date, deeply embedded in the minds of millions of people around the world? Despite the denial by intellectual elites in all of these countries (at least since the end of the Cold War), there is a Jihadi global movement espousing terror as a means, seeking violence against what it perceives as kuffar countries, and making no room for international law. Contradicting what academia stubbornly has asserted since the end of the Cold War in 1990, Bin Laden's Ghazwa (Jihadi raids) on America shattered not just buildings, but also houses of denial; it killed thousands of civilians, but also wrong teachings. It planted the seeds of a cultural revolution where the American People was forced by blood to wake up to new world realities resulting from the Soviets demise. Unlike the Fukuyama vision of an "end of history" as asserted in the early 1990s, it was rather some of Huntington's writings and the warning by Middle East dissidents that materialized instead. Lesson number one: There was a threat rising against America, other democracies, and even against non-democratic systems, such as China. The threat was first wrecking havoc in Middle Eastern lands: massacring women, children and the elderly in Algeria and Sudan, filling mass graves in Iran and Afghanistan, and torturing and assassinating individuals in Lebanon. Jihadism butchered women's rights across the Muslim world and hunted liberals in the Arab world, while the West slept deeply throughout the 1990s. Al Qaeda awoke the free world with images of planes hitting the center of the world's economy, and shook conscious nesses with the sight of men and women jumping from the twin towers. But 9-11 wasn't just one horrible day to remember as a passing nightmare. Salafi Jihadism's insatiable ideology went on to strike other capitals' trains, subways, buses, schools and hotels before producing mutant forms of horrors: videotaped beheadings, maimed bodies, assassinated teachers, girls, legislators, and more. Lesson number two: The Jihadists wanted to seize the East, and to do so, they had to strike the West as hard as they could, beginning with America on September 11th. However 9/11 begot a US-led campaign to crumble the Taliban in Afghanistan. The international community accepted the equation: America was hit; it had to hit back on the aggressors. The deal was to be closed on the insistence of Oil producing regimes, themselves the irresponsible producers and exporters of Jihadi ideology. But the United States didn't stop as 9-11 opened a new era. At the time, many in Washington argued that only a significant change in the region could prevent future strikes against the mainland. The question was how to go about this change. It was decided that another regime had to be changed before democracy was to be promoted. But was democracy really fought for strategically? Apparently not, or at least not by the US bureaucracy. The democratic dividends were taking time to appear in Afghanistan and Iraq, while the Islamist movements seizing the microphone were louder than the reformers. It was clear that avenging 9-11 alone couldn't buy international endorsement of free campaigning in the region, certainly not for democracy, and just a little to find Bin Laden and his acolytes. By 2007, the Bush Administration has used all the goodwill generated from 9-11, without fulfilling the promises of creating palpable change in the region yet. It failed because of its own bureaucracy, a relic from pre-9/11 era, fully in tune with oil interests and the regimes irritated by democracy. Since then, the counter offensive began. Petro-regimes such as Salafists, Khomeinists, and authoritarian Baathists, and their apologists on Western shores, moved together against the historical clock generated by 9-11's awakening. Pressure against the Syrian and Iranian regimes ceased. The Iraq campaign was put on a time schedule. The campaign to end the Darfur genocide was slowed down. In Lebanon, the Cedars revolution was abandoned and Hezbollah was allowed to take back the country as reformers across the region were told to wait. With the change of American administration in 2009, the clock was turned back completely: Damascus and Tehran are to be engaged, Iran's democracy uprising is not to be "meddled in," the Muslim Brotherhood is to be partnered with, the good Taliban is to be invited to sit downs. And at home there is a cascade of retreats: the term War on Terror was dropped, Jihad becomes Yoga, and dismantled Jihadi cells are ignored. That brought the push back close to the big bang where the whole national awareness began, the commemoration of 9-11. Gradually, 9-11 symbolism may be on its way to a museum, or perhaps to cold storage. On Tuesday September 8, three days before the eighth anniversary, the US President addressed the school population of America. These little folks will carry the collective memory of this aggression into the next decade. Not one word mentioned the September Jihad. Is this is where America's classroom needs to go now: to erase those eight years from its memory? We'll see. On Wednesday September 9, the Presidential address in Congress was obviously dedicating its full force to the highly debated healthcare crisis. But at two days from the commemoration, a sentence rang into my ear: "The plan I'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over ten years — less than we have spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars." No comments on 9-11. And to close, note that Hollywood didn't produce the expected gigantic movies on the single most important event in America's national security since 1941. "Flight 93" or "The World Trade Center" are good as parts of a series, but should not be the only movies on this cataclysm. There has been no movie that shows and analyzes Bin Laden and his lieutenants' discussions of the attacks, that goes back in historical background about the Jihadi war against democracies, and that explains what were the motives, to help Americans understand their future. As Hollywood excels in, when it wants to teach. So, in a sum, this is going to be a very different celebration, not because of the actual ceremonies and speeches, but because of where we are in history. Contact Susana K-M at suanema@gmail.com |
|
WRONG USE OF THE 'P WORD'
Posted by Victor Sharpe, September 15, 2009. |
|
Friends,
A new published article you may wish to read. I normally use BCE instead of BC and CE instead of AD but to gain support from the wider readership I used the Christian usage for dating purposes. Best wishes
|
|
Throughout the Arab, and most of the Muslim world, the territory between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean Sea is called Palestine while the name, Israel, is blotted out. The so-called moderate wing of the Palestinian Authority displays a wall map behind the desk of its Chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, showing the State of Israel in its entirety but named Palestine. Indeed, the PA too often refuses to use the name, Israel, preferring to call it "the Zionist entity." In doing so, it should remove from the minds of objective observers any faith in the Arabs' interest in making a true peace. If the Arabs cannot even bring themselves to name their partner, then the entire peace process is a farce: a disaster waiting to happen. But the general use of the term, Palestine, in a geographical and historical biblical context is often used just as insidiously as that employed routinely by the Palestinian Authority. Christian and even Jewish writers, many eminent and admirable, often use the word Palestine along with or even instead of Israel, Judea and Judah when referring to the biblical period. This, consciously or unwittingly, helps to belittle the inextricable links of the Jewish people to their biblical and ancestral homeland. It is time to restore historical correctness and dispose, once and for all, of the literary and present day propagandistic use of the term Palestine when referring to the biblical period. Nowhere in the Jewish Bible is the word Palestine used. Nor is it ever used in the Christian Bible. Read the New Testament texts and look for the word, Palestine. It does not exist. But Israel is used. For instance in Matt. 2:20-21: And he arose and took the young child and his mother, and came into the Land of Israel. The Bible, both Jewish and Christian, never employs the name Palestine in reference to biblical times. Any Bible commentary that refers to the biblical period as 'in Palestine' is either committing an historical error or is making a determined and sinister effort to deny the Jewish biblical names of Judah, Israel, Judea, Samaria and Galilee — especially that of Israel. It is, therefore, necessary to review some brief history to understand the monumental error being committed. During the First Jewish uprising against the Romans, the Roman general, Titus, destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. Subsequently Rome issued coins with the phrase, Judea Capta, meaning that the Jewish province of Judea had been captured. However, they did not use the term, Palestine, for it was as yet unknown and certainly never employed in Roman coinage of that time. The second Jewish Revolt against Roman occupation of Judea broke out under the banner of Bar-Kochba in 132 AD. It was eventually crushed in 136 AD after years of heroic resistance against the legions of Rome's emperor, Hadrian Publius Aelius. Incidentally, a discovery of 120 coins minted by followers of Bar Kochba, who was known as the Son of a Star, have just been found by Israeli archaeologists near the Dead Sea where the Jewish defenders made their final stand against Rome. The coins all had the words, 'Freedom for Jerusalem' imprinted on them. It is intriguing to consider that if the British tribes, at the other end of the empire, had risen in revolt at the same time, both peoples may have prevailed and history would be very different from what it became. Hadrian destroyed Jewish Jerusalem, plowing the city under and filling the furrows with salt. He renamed it Aelia Capitolina, in part after his own name, and built a shrine to the Roman god Jupiter on the site where the Holy Jewish Temple had once stood. But he also chose to rename Judea with that of the hated ancient enemy of Israel; the now long extinct Philistines. This was done as a lasting insult to the Jewish people. Hadrian thus renamed the land Philistia, later Latinized into Palestina and, in time, becoming Palestine. We should note that the Philistines were known as the "Sea Peoples" whom, it is believed, originated from Crete. They settled along much of the southeastern Mediterranean coastline and certainly had nothing to do with the ancestry of any Arabs — despite the deluded imaginings of the late arch terrorist, Yasser Arafat. The usage of the Hadrianic term, Palestine, was subsequently absorbed into the lexicon of the Church, which has continued to use the historically incorrect term, Palestine, when referring to biblical history in maps and literature: often replacing the word, Israel. Interestingly, when the Crusader King Frederick II obtained a lease of much of the Holy Land from the Egyptian Sultan, Al-Kamil, including Bethlehem, Nazareth and Jerusalem, he called it the Kingdom of Jerusalem. When Great Britain was awarded the Mandate for the territory in 1920 by the League of Nations, it immediately employed the term, Palestine, on both sides of the River Jordan. The British term became the geo-political usage for several decades and the Jewish community was obliged to use terms such as the Palestine Post for today's Jerusalem Post and the Palestine Symphony Orchestra for today's Israel Symphony Orchestra. The historically correct name, Israel, was finally revived after the reconstituted State of Israel proclaimed its independence in 1948. No such place as Palestine existed in Christ's time or at the time of the biblical Jewish Judges or Kings. The Jewish patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, never lived in a place called Palestine, nor did any of the biblical prophets. Canaan would be accurate for patriarchal times but the Canaanites, the Philistines, and a host of other pagan tribes had already long disappeared by later biblical times. Indeed, as we know, no independent state called Palestine has ever existed in recorded history, certainly not an Arab one. Palestine — like, for instance, Patagonia or Siberia — has always been merely a geographical area. Those still believing in historical correctness, not the dubious and transitory concept known as political correctness, might wish to urge publishers and writers to restore historical correctness to the nomenclature in their works. It is sad to witness glaring historical errors in such titles as: Palestine in Biblical Times; Palestine under the Time of the Judges; Palestine in the Times of the Kings or Jesus' Palestine, when a geographical territory called Palestine did not even exist during those times. After all, we do not write of Alexander the Great's journey through Bactria as Alexander in Afghanistan. Nor do we describe the invasion into Carthage of Scipio Africanus as Scipio in Tunisia. So why use the term, Palestine, to describe a historical period and location when that word had not yet been invented? Surely the use by authors and bible commentators of a name that never existed until at least 135 AD can finally begin to be corrected. After all, historical correctness must always trump political correctness.
Victor Sharpe is the author of Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish state.
|
|
ISRAEL POINTS FINGER AT U.S. ON POLLARD
Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, September 15, 2009. |
|
Comptroller report slammed as 'whitewash' of Israel's handling of case This was written by
Seth Mandel and it appeared in The Jewish State (N.J.) on September 11, 2009.
|
|
An official Israeli report partially declassified last week has reignited the debate over Israel's treatment of Jonathan Pollard, the convicted spy still serving in an American federal prison. Retired Israeli judge Micha Lindenstrauss, now serving as Israel's comptroller, released part of his latest report, which found that the state did not abandon Pollard — as Pollard's supporters believe — but that Pollard's due process rights were "likely" violated by the U.S. Justice Department during his trial. In response, Pollard's wife, Esther Pollard, called the report "a sham". "The American government has successfully blocked Jonathan from ever bringing his case back to court in the U.S., so announcing that he has been deprived of due process is a nonstarter," Pollard said. "Moreover, this issue has no place in a report that purports to be investigating efforts by the government of Israel to bring about Jonathan's release." The report's timing — its release during the administration of Binyamin Netanyahu while Netanyahu is negotiating with an American administration with which he is often at odds — is a reminder of the closest an Israeli administration has come to gaining Pollard's release: the last Netanyahu administration, in 1998. But Esther Pollard told The Jewish State that this gives Netanyahu too much credibility on the issue. "Mr. Netanyahu has profited greatly over the years from the public perception that he has done more for Jonathan than any other prime minister, but this too is a sham," Pollard said. "This is the prime minister that abandoned Jonathan at Wye 11 years ago, and in the 11 years that have passed, he has never once voluntarily mentioned Jonathan's name publicly, or done anything at all to help Jonathan." But Israeli officials dispute Pollard's claim. "Israel has made many efforts, and continues in its efforts, to ensure the release of Jonathan Pollard," Consul Joel Lion, spokesman for the Consulate General of Israel in New York, told The Jewish State. "The matter has been, and continues to be, discussed in Israel's official meetings with the United States." Pollard was referring to the negotiations at Wye River in 1998 between Netanyahu's administration, the Clinton administration, and that of Yasser Arafat over the implementation of interim agreements that were to jumpstart the peace process. Netanyahu believes Clinton promised Pollard's release as part of the agreement, while Clinton claims he promised only to review Pollard's case. "The deal to secure Jonathan's freedom, as it were, was intended as a rubber stamp for the release of 750 Arab terrorists and murderers," Pollard told The Jewish State. "The murderers went free, but Jonathan remains in prison." The issue last received this much attention in 2007, when former CIA Director George Tenet released his autobiographical account of his time at the CIA. In it, Tenet gave more credence to the rumors that he scuttled the Pollard deal by stridently taking credit for preventing Pollard's release. According to Tenet's account, Netanyahu demanded Pollard as part of the deal, and Tenet threatened to resign if Clinton released Pollard. Clinton's top negotiator, Dennis Ross, told Clinton that if he promised Pollard to Netanyahu he had no choice but to release him. Clinton said he didn't, but Ross, according to Tenet, didn't seem convinced the president was telling him the truth. Tenet's threat gave Clinton a new option. As word spread that Pollard would be released, Clinton's chief of staff, John Podesta, called Tenet to ask him not to endanger the deal. Tenet responded that he refused to budge, and that the Israelis would sign the agreement even without Pollard included. It was a game of "chicken," Tenet said. [J4JP CLARIFICATION: Tenet's book rewrites history so that it almost resembles what occurred, but not quite... Jonathan's release (which Israel has yet to collect) was negotiated as an integral part of the Wye as the quid pro quo for the release of 750 murderers and terrorists with Jewish blood on their hands. In 1998 Netanyahu's government was the first government ever to agree to release terrorists who murdered Jews. Tenet was the excuse, not the reason that Jonathan did not go free. Dennis Ross describes the real reason that Clinton reneged on the deal — Pollard was simply too valuable as a bargaining chip! See Excerpts from "The Missing Peace" by Dennis Ross: Farrar Straus Giroux, N.Y., 2004 http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2005/022005.htm] Tenet's threatened resignation was never an issue for Clinton. Indeed, Tenet also threatened to quit if Clinton freed the FALN terrorists. In that instance, Clinton told Tenet to stand down and Clinton freed the terrorists. See details on the Wye Double — Cross Page www.jonathanpollard.org/wye.htm Moreover, years later it was revealed that, Tenet never threatened
to quit if Pollard were released! The claim that he did threaten to
resign is creative fiction after the fact, because it makes Tenet
sound good and it backs Clinton's excuse for reneging on the deal.
How do we know that he never made the threat? In a June 3, 2004
interview with Matthew E. Berger "CIA Chief George Tenet Quits", JTA,
06/04/04, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive VP of the Conference of
Presidents describes a phone call he received from CIA Director,
George Tenet, immediately after the Wye Summit in 1998. According to
Hoenlein, Tenet called him because was genuinely upset about what had
happened at Wye; and he denied that he had ever threatened to resign
if Jonathan Pollard were freed. Hoenlien says that Tenet was
practically in tears! For the full story, see: "Malcolm Hoenlein's
Dirty Little Secret Revealed: Tenet No Obstacle to Pollard Release"
— Source: JTA — June 4, 2004
The next time Tenet saw Clinton, he said it was clear the president had made up his mind not to release Pollard, since Clinton made a joke about swapping CIA officer Stan Moskowitz for Pollard. "We had hoped that when Bibi took office again, he would keep the personal promises he made to us when he visited Jonathan in prison some years ago," Pollard said. "Instead, from the moment that Bibi built his new coalition, he allied himself with those people who have made a career of keeping Jonathan in prison — people like Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, and Rafi Eitan. He has adopted their callous indifference to Jonathan and ensured that Jonathan is totally cut off from all government contact and support." Pollard has served almost 24 years of a life sentence — the only life sentence ever handed down for spying for an American ally. In addition, as noted by Alan Dershowitz, Pollard was convinced to take a plea deal because his then-wife, Anne, was being threatened with prosecution if Pollard didn't talk. Anne's health problems made it unlikely she could survive a long prison term, which meant Pollard's decision was life-or-death for his wife. [J4JP CLARIFICATION: While it is true that Jonathan was all but coerced into signing a plea agreement (which he honored and the US violated) both Jonathan and his former wife were prosecuted, the latter was convicted and served 36 months of a 5 year sentence. Please note as well: for purposes of clarification: Alan Dershowitz is not, nor was he ever, Jonathan's attorney. In the early years he was "of counsel" to the Pollard attorneys in the early years and he has often commented on the case.] In the plea deal, the U.S. government agreed to recommend a reduced sentence. However, then-Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger encouraged the judge to renege on the plea deal, and the judge did so, imposing the life sentence [J4JP CLARIFICATION: For a more accurate description of what
occurred see "The VIS: Why Jonathan Pollard Got Life" by David Zwiebel
Esq. Esther Pollard said that since Jonathan is an Israeli agent, the Israeli government has clear responsibilities to him — responsibilities they have repeatedly abrogated. The Lindenstrauss report, she said, gives the Israeli government's behavior toward Pollard an official stamp of approval. "Lindenstrauss and his ilk are simply one more branch of the Israeli government doing a whitewash of the government's failure to take the most minimal steps to bring Jonathan home," she said. "The report — what little of it has been made public — shifts responsibility for Jonathan — an Israeli agent — away from the government of Israel and on to Jonathan himself, as a private American citizen. It is an ugly piece of propaganda." See Also: "Netanyahu prefers to meet Madonna, but not us" Arutz-7 Exclusive, first interview with Esther Pollard http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2009/090709b.htm Editorial: Taking Responsibility for Pollard: Hamodia
Arutz-7 Interview: Pollards' Reaction to Lindenstrauss Report: Justice4JPnews
Excerpts from "The Missing Peace" by Dennis Ross: Farrar Straus Giroux, N.Y., 2004
Terror in the US and The Jonathan Pollard Case:
What Really happened at Wye — By Larry Dub Esq.
The Victim Impact Statement: Why Jonathan Pollard Got Life
Malcolm Hoenlein's Dirty Little Secret Revealed: Tenet No Obstacle
to Pollard Release —
http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2004/060404.htm
1) Go to http://www.atzuma.co.il/petition/freepollard/1 2) Scroll down past all the Hebrew text to the signature box. You will recognize it as a large square box surrounded by broken lines. 3) In the large signature box you will see 3 small rectangles, one underneath the other. Underneath all three of these rectangles, you will see one more large rectangle. Type your name (in English) into the first rectangle (it is the one that has a red asterisk to the right).All the other boxes are optional. You can ignore them and go straight to number 5 below! 4) OR for those who insist in filling in all the rectangles:
5) Click on the red and white stamp (it appears on a diagonal underneath the largest rectangle in the signature box) and your information will be added to the petition. Please share this message with as many people as possible! For the original J4JP release with background and instructions, see the J4JP website article at http://www.jonathanpollard.org/2009/091309.htm Share this message with as many people as possible! Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to
justice4jp@gmail.com and visit their website:
|
|
FATAH ADMITS OSLO DIDN'T BAN SETTLEMENTS; US COLLEGES HIRE
TERRORIST SUPPORTERS; LAND OF ISRAEL FACTS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 14, 2009. |
|
SAUDI ARABIA AGAINST TERRORISM Saudi Arabia arrested another few dozen supposed al-Qaida terrorists. Saudi Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Mansour Al-Turki said that the terrorist ideology must be eradicated, or new cells would form. Would the same prescription apply to the Palestinian Authority
(P.A.)? (Dr. Lerner,
Yes. But the P.A. builds up terrorist forces within the P.A.. whereas Saudi Arabia sponsors terrorists and their ideology abroad. However, many Saudi preachers foster an ideology that nurtures terrorism domestically. Can Al-Turki stop that? ASSESSMENT OF LEFT IN U.S. AND ISRAEL President Obama dnounces Holocaust denial, because doing so resonates among U.S. Jews. It is not an issue for Israeli Jews, beset by practical concerns. Politically, the Israeli Left has shrunk, so President Obama has lost popularity in Israel. Obama is allying with the American Jewish Far Left. It wants to weaken U.S. ties with Israel. It supports his policies of appeasing the Arabs and Iran at Israel's expense. He relishes clashes with the government of Israel. What should the government of Israel do? 1) Maintain national unity around issues of retaining Jerusalem, no mass-expulsion of Jews from the Territories, no unilateral territorial concessions, no swift sovereignty for the Arabs. (2) Write off American Jewish Far Leftists. (3) Leak stories about U.S. government hostility and intransigence (Caroline Glick in http://www.imra.org.il/ Independent Media Review Analysis,8/1). The Left retains much power in Israel, controlling as it does an unrestrained Supreme Court, Attorney-General, and President, many votes in Knesset, most of the broadcast and print media, most university social studies professors, and NGOs subsidized by Europe. Netanyahu buckles under U.S. pressure. FATAH ADMITS OSLO DID NOT BAN SETTLEMENTS "However, the Oslo agreement was not clear in the need to stop the
settlement machine," the Fatah conference admitted
That is an understatement. Oslo clearly did not ban settlement activity by Jews. Fatah gradually has been knocking out the underpinning from the Arab case. ARE ALL CRITICS OF ISRAEL CALLED ANTISEMITES? In their criticism of Israel, some people assert that supporters of Israel will brush off all criticism as antisemitic. Is it antisemitic? Will all supporters brush it off? Although Israel has been progressing in environmental protection, I criticize its record as having poor trash disposal, pollution regulation, and protection of green space. Is that criticism antisemitic and will it be called such? No. Then does the assertion about the brush-off apply at least to criticism of Israeli policy towards the Arabs? I criticize Israel's record of premature armistice, premature withdrawal, favoring Arab property claims, police state tactics against religious and nationalist Jews, affirmative action for Arabs, lack of national service requirements for Arabs, etc.. Is that criticism antisemitic and will it be called such. No. Then does the assertion about the brush-off at least apply to criticism that Israel mistreats the Arabs? Here there is something to discuss. First, bigotry, such as antisemitism, is a grave sin. Therefore, it behooves people not to label others as antisemites flippantly. A few Jews have done so carelessly. Most don't. When critics of Israel bring up substantive matters, such as the lower Arab standard of living in Israel, whether the Arabs are entitled to another Palestinian Arab state, or who started the Six-Day War, supporters of Israel and scholars discuss the issue substantively. I do. The accusation is an exaggeration. I find that usually it is an attempt to brush off counter-argument, taking advantage of the grain of truth in its infrequent application. Certain critics of Israel like to make this accusation, especially when their criticism is based on antisemitism. They are like a pig pretending he has not wallowed in the muck. Clean arguments, correct or mistaken, don't need to pre-empt people who would debate them. Can we define "antisemitic criticism of Israel?" Not completely. Language is too variable. Cannot foresee it all. We can, however, identify some major instances. Here are some: (1)Israel doesn't deserve to exist; (2) Muslim assertion that Jews do not constitute a nation; (3) Of all the nations, only the Jewish one is not entitled to self-determination; (4) Jews are genetically or culturally evil; (5) False accusations that Israel wantonly bombs Arabs, ignoring wanton Arab bombing of Jews, plus rejecting Israel's right to defend itself; (6) Blood libel and general loathing; (7) Responses to specific arguments by general condemnation of Israel as apartheid, land thieves, oppressors of the Arabs; (8) Ignoring facts and evidence that Israel isn't and that the other side is. Usually that is discriminatory and antisemitic. Some of it is just ignorance, ineptitude, and a slanted arguing. For a list of traits of Judeophobic anti-Zionists, visit here http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m8d20-11-next-qualifications-for-Judeophobic-antiZionists U.S. COLLEGES HIRE TERRORIST SUPPORTERS Bernardine Dohrn and her husband, William Ayres [a friend of Pres. Obama], were terrorist fugitives for ten years, she on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List. When they co-commanded the Weather Underground, it committed sixteen bombings in the U.S.. She said they wanted to disrupt the U.S. In "1980, terror charges against them were dropped due to a technicality." The pair had not "the slightest remorse for their actions." In 1998, she told ABC News, that, "We'd do it again. I wish we had done more. I wish we had been more militant." [Her husband recently said he still approved of what he did.] What are they doing now? He is an education professor. "Now she's a law professor at Northwestern University Law School, where she teaches a course on law and the Palestinian conflict with Israel." "Throughout the U.S., supporters of Palestinian terrorists are teaching American students the history, sociology, politics, law and culture of the Arab and Islamic world's war against Israel." "The...narrative they teach has little to no connection to historic truth or to objective, measurable reality..." The universities accept it. Neither do they care enough whether their faculty has scholarly achievements. If a junior professor rails sufficiently against Israel, he can get promoted without publishing high-level work. An example is Columbia professor Joseph Massad. In 2005, the David Project [headquartered in New York] released its "documentary, 'Columbia Unbecoming, in which Jewish students at Columbia related the intellectual intimidation they suffered in the classroom at the hands of Massad and his colleagues. A university panel formed to investigate the students' allegations found that Massad exceeded 'commonly accepted bounds' of behavior in his treatment of one of his students." "Massad's academic achievements to date consist of diatribes against Israel, Jews, gays and feminists. [He says that] Jews and Israel are guilty of stealing Palestinian land and murdering Palestinians and of being' 'Nazi-like to the Arabs. Masssad accuses homosexuals of plotting to force otherwise happy gays in the Arab world out of the closet. He claims that feminists'" conspire "to destroy the Arab way of life by objecting to so-called 'honor-killings,' which in Massad's view are nothing more than 'crimes of passion.' Murder is 'Arab way of life?'" Rejected for promotion, he was given "an unheard of" second review, this time held in secret. They approved tenure for him. Students pay $50,000 a year for sub-standard higher education and Israel-bashing (Caroline Glick in http://www.imra.org.il/ Independent Media Review Analysis, 8/1). Time for parents, donors, and trustees to reject this perversion of scholarship. 5 SETS OF FACTS ABOUT THE LAND OF ISRAEL 1. In Cairo, President Obama's asserted that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in" the Holocaust." Actually, "...many world-renowned travelers, historians and archeologists of earlier centuries refer to "Judea and Samaria," while the term "West Bank" was coined only 60 years ago. Jordan used the new term when. by imprialism, it seized those Territories in 1948. "Among the travelers, historians and archeologists who referred to Judea and Samaria are H. B. Tristram (The Land of Israel, 1865); Mark Twain (Innocents Abroad, 1867); R.A. MacAlister and Masterman ('Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly'); A.P. Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, 1887); E. Robinson and E. Smith (Biblical Researches in Palestine, 1841); C.W. Van de Velde (Peise durch Syrien und Paletsinea, 1861); and Felix Bovet (Voyage en Taire Sainte, 1864). Even the Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as official British and Ottoman records until 1950, used the term, 'Judea and Samaria,' and not 'West Bank.'" 2. "...the name, 'Palestine,' was given to the Holy Land for the sole purpose of erasing the previous name of the country — Judea — from human memory. The Romans, whose plan this was, similarly sought to extinguish Jewish presence in Jerusalem by renaming it Aelia Capitolina." 3. "When speaking of 'Palestinian national rights,' it must be similarly kept in mind,... most Arabs residing today in Israel — anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean — have their origin in a massive 19th-20th century migration from Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and other Moslem countries." 4. "...almost all Arab localities in Judea and Samaria have retained Biblical Jewish names, thus reaffirming their Jewish roots. Examples include the following: Anata is Biblical (and contemporary) Anatot, the dwelling of the Prophet Jeremiah. Batir is Biblical (and contemporary) Beitar, the headquarters of Bar Kochba, the leader of the Great Rebellion against the Roman Empire...in 135CE. Beit-Hur is the biblical (and contemporary) Beit Horon, site of Judah the Maccabee's victory over the Assyrians. Beitin is biblical (and contemporary) Beit El, a site of the Holy Ark and Prophet Samuel's court. Bethlehem is mentioned 44 times in the Bible and is the birth place of King David. Beit Jalla is biblical (and contemporary) Gilo, in southern Jerusalem, where Sennacherib set his camp, while besieging Jerusalem. El-Jib is biblical (and contemporary) Gibeon, Joshua's battleground...(Joshua 10:12). Jaba' is the biblical (and contemporary) Geva, site of King Saul's son Jonathan's victory over the Philistines. Jenin is the biblical (and contemporary) Ein Ganim, a Levite town within the tribe of Issachar. Mukhmas is biblical (and contemporary) Mikhmash, residence of Jonathan the Maccabee and site of King Saul's fortress. Seilun is biblical (and contemporary) Shilo, a site of Joshua's tabernacle and the Holy Ark and Samuel's youth. Tequa is biblical (and contemporary) Tekoa, hometown of the Prophet Amos." 5. The U.S. contends that the solution to the Arab-Israel conflict is Palestinian Arab sovereignty in the Territories. However, 'Arab antipathy to Israel not only predates Palestinian concerns, but often sidesteps such interests. Israel's war for its independence in 1948-9, for instance, was conducted by the Arab countries at the expense of Palestinian aspirations. Though Egypt conquered Gaza, and Jordan took Judea and Samaria, and Syria claimed the Golan, in none of these areas was a Palestinian government allowed.' "When Egypt conquered the Gaza Strip, it proceeded to prohibit Palestinian national activities and expel Palestinian leadership." Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria. "When Syria occupied and annexed the Hama area in the Golan Heights, the Arab League outlawed a provisional Palestinian government there." "In short, it can be concluded that Arab 'rights' to a state in Judea and Samaria are historically weak and were long ignored by other Arab countries." (Yoram Ettinger, a former liaison for Congressional affairs in Israel's Washington embassy, in http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 7/31.) Arab states' professed concern for the Palestinian Arabs often has sordid motives. For physical evidence of Jewish history there, click here
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
"JEWISH TERROR"
Posted by David Meir-Levi, September 14, 2009. |
|
To the Editor I was surprised to see your use of the term "Jewish terror" in the Bronner and Kershner article "Resolve of West Bank settlers may have limits" (NY Times, 9.14.09, paragraph 8). Over the past decade your newspaper has consistently avoided the use of the terms "terrorism" or "terrorist" to refer to Arabs who blow up Israeli busses and immolate scores of innocent people, using instead the terms "militants" or "activists" or "agitators." Why does this term suddenly appear now, in the context of past Jewish violence? Why is Jewish violence against civilians "terrorism" while Arab violence against civilians is "militancy"? The article below is "Resolve of West Bank Settlers May Have Limits"
|
|
HAVAT GILAD, West Bank — Of the hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers in the West Bank, those who live in unauthorized hilltop outposts like this one, a hardscrabble unpaved collection of 20 trailers, are considered the most dangerous. They are fervent believers that there is a divine plan requiring them to hold this land. With many of them armed and all of them furious over the 2005 withdrawal of Jews from Gaza and four West Bank settlements, they live by the slogan: "Never forget! Never forgive!" The building of a Palestinian state would require them to move, and Israelis fear that any attempt to force them out could cause a bloody internal clash. But scores of interviews over several months, including with settler firebrands, produced a different conclusion. Divided, leaderless and increasingly mystical, such settlers will certainly resist evacuation but are unlikely to engage in organized armed conflict with the Israeli military. Their belief that history can be best understood as a series of confrontations between the Jews and those who seek their destruction, and their faith in their ultimate triumph, make them hesitant to turn against their own, even in dire circumstances. "We are idealists, but we are not crazy," said Ayelet Sandak, who was removed from her Gaza settlement home and is helping to build an unauthorized outpost, Maoz Esther, with the goal of both expanding the Jewish presence and diverting the military. "By building outposts we are keeping the army away from the main settlements. We are sure that if we are strong, we will not be forced to move." As part of its commitment to a two-state solution, Israel has promised to dismantle two dozen outposts like this one in the coming months. The Obama administration's Middle East envoy, George J. Mitchell, is back in the region trying to set up a summit meeting for new peace talks. Yet officials have been slow to act on these outposts, worried that the move could break this society in two. Certainly, some settler leaders speak in ominous tones. "They'll have to kill us to get us out of here," said Itay Zar, founder of Havat Gilad, sitting in the outpost's unpaved central square, a pink sun setting over the majestic Samarian hills before dropping into the Mediterranean. And Boaz Haetzni, who lives in Kiryat Arba near Hebron and is part of a movement to repopulate destroyed settlements, said, "People no longer view the army and state as holy." Jewish terror is not new. A religious student assassinated Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, and a settler, Baruch Goldstein, killed 29 Muslims at prayer in Hebron in 1994. Yitzhak Fhantich, who used to lead the Jewish section inside the Shin Bet security agency, said that based on recent history and the goals of extremists, "I cannot exclude that there will be violence, that the prime minister could be targeted or that mosques could be attacked. They are looking to stop any peace process." But interviews with settlers suggest that the threat of violence is largely a political strategy. The great majority say they realize that if the bulldozers arrive, their fight is over. "We cannot allow ourselves to wait until the soldiers are at our doors," noted David Ha'ivri, a spokesman for the northern West Bank settlers. "We must prepare strategic maneuvers in advance." By that, he mostly means politics. If the soldiers do come, the settlers are unlikely to fight. "People won't leave their homes peacefully but they will not shoot soldiers," predicted Shaul Goldstein, who is the leader of the regional council of the Gush Etzion settler bloc and is considered a moderate. A senior Israeli general in the West Bank agreed. He said the army was awaiting orders to evacuate the two dozen outposts and was preparing for everything, including soldier refusal and settler bloodshed directed both at Palestinians and at security forces. But, he added, speaking under army rules of anonymity: "I don't think there will be a lot of resistance. Deep inside, most settlers love Israel and love the Israeli Army." A Nation's Moral Core That assertion may seem surprising, especially after the army's removal of 8,000 settlers from Gaza four years ago, an operation that burns in the hearts of the settler community. But there are several reasons to take it seriously. First, the Gaza operation splintered the settlers, discrediting the traditional leaders in the eyes of the new generation. Second, many settlers believe that they and their supporters are inheriting the mantle of Zionism, so promoting an internal war would be counterproductive. Finally, the direction that many of the most radical settlers have taken has been toward the esoteric, not combat. Settlers tend to believe they inhabit the Jewish nation's moral core, that they are the rightful heirs to the kibbutz farmer-soldiers who founded the country and whose descendants, they say, have grown soft with materialism and individualism. Effie Eitam, a former minister, rightist politician and himself a settler in the Golan Heights, promotes this view. He says Israel's religious conservatives, with their blend of modern savvy and traditional values, will inherit the country's leadership. The settlers will therefore do everything they can, he argues, not to contaminate themselves with the blood of their brothers. Indeed, viewed outside their conflict with the Palestinians, many settlers can seem a model of selfless devotion, choosing to live in great modesty with little comfort, dedicated to children and community. Many are professionals — doctors, lawyers and teachers. That said, the approach of some of them toward neighboring Palestinians, especially around Nablus in the north and Hebron in the south, has often been one of contempt and violence. Sometimes placing their communities between Palestinian villages and the villages' farmlands, the settlers block the villagers' routes and then take over the "abandoned" areas. Settlers have also set fields on fire and used their arms and power to frighten and push back Palestinian farmers. The Shin Bet has worked in the past year to reduce such attacks, and violence from both settlers and Palestinians has declined markedly, but law enforcement remains lenient with settlers. Blood has been spilled on both sides. Many of the West Bank outposts were set up in what the settlers called a "Zionist response" to Palestinian attacks. Havat Gilad was established after Mr. Zar's brother, Gilad, was killed by Palestinian gunmen in 2001. Mr. Zar says the outpost sits on land bought by his father, Moshe Zar, a well-known West Bank land dealer who was himself convicted of belonging to a Jewish underground that killed and maimed Palestinians in the early 1980s. At the same time, the younger ideological settlers are increasingly mystical and have little concern about whether they are causing conflict. They view their goals as at the center of global history. Beards and sidelocks are longer than in the past and the fringed shawl and phylacteries normally reserved for morning prayer are now worn by some all day long. Their main sources of guidance are ancient Jewish texts and rabbinical pronouncements. After the 2005 withdrawal, Mr. Zar said, his generation of settlers started living increasingly by the motto "God is king." Such settlers have also increasingly focused their energies on the veneration of holy places like Joseph's Tomb, a tiny stone compound in the heart of the Palestinian city of Nablus — or ancient Shechem — that many Jews believe is the final burial place of the son of Jacob, the biblical patriarch. Once a month, busloads of settlers go at midnight under heavy guard. It is a moment of unparalleled joy for them. And they view Torah study as among their main weapons. Nearly every day, for example, Rabbi Elishama Cohen and a group of students sneak into Homesh, one of the destroyed settlements in the northern West Bank, to pray and study. Since Israel forced its residents out of there four years ago in a gesture to the Palestinians, getting back in requires driving through farm fields to evade Israeli military checkpoints. Stripped of all it once had — houses, a pool, streetlights — Homesh, with its overgrown weeds and stray bits of concrete, feels today like the remnant of a nuclear winter. But that has not dimmed the devotion of those who keep coming or their conviction that doing so will change the strategic equation. "We never leave Homesh empty," said a man who gave his name as Zvi Yehuda as he prepared surreptitiously to spend the night there, revolver on hip. "The creator of the universe gave us this land. It is a commandment to live in it and settle it. Anyone who stands in our way — whether pharaoh or Obama — will be punished by God." There are 300,000 settlers in the West Bank (another 200,000 Israeli Jews live in East Jerusalem) and they are not monolithic. A third are politically and socially indistinguishable from most of Israel and moved there for suburban-style housing and close-knit communities. Another third are ultra-Orthodox and do not consider themselves settlers or Zionists, wanting only to live together in an appropriate environment somewhere in Israel. The remaining 100,000 are ideologically (and, most of them, religiously) committed to staying. They have a fairly uniform view of the situation: most believe that there is no such thing as a Palestinian nation; that if the world wants a state for Palestinians, it should set it up next door in Jordan; that all of the West Bank, which they call by the biblical name Judea and Samaria, is a central part of the Jewish homeland; and that Arabs will do everything they can to destroy Israel in any borders, so staying in the West Bank is a matter not only of history but of security. Salvation Through Land While the ultra-Orthodox say life comes above all else, ideological settlers say that holding onto what they consider the entire land of Israel is the essence of life; through redemption of this land comes Jewish salvation. But half of them live in settlement blocs close to the boundary with Israel that are likely to remain in a deal involving land swaps with the Palestinians. Ideological settlers who live deep in the West Bank number about 50,000. Taking what they say at face value suggests no room for compromise. One of the five principles of a radical organization called Mishmeret Yesha says: "Every grain of sand and every stone in the Land of Israel are holy to the nation of Israel. No authority is allowed to relinquish any portion of the land." A second principle states that independence for Israel will be achieved only by bringing Jews to the land "and the removal of all hostile elements from the land." Mishmeret Yesha, which stands for "Guardians of the Jews of Judea, Samaria and Gaza," trains armed response teams in settlements to fight off Palestinian invaders, plants vines and olive trees around the West Bank to claim it for Jews and keep it away from Palestinians, and pushes the creation of jobs and development for Jews. It rejects working with or acknowledging any legitimacy to Palestinians. "The Arabs have to understand that they can't stay here," asserted Israel Danziger, who runs the hard-line organization and rejects the word "Palestinian." "There is no in-between possible." Mr. Danziger spoke as a dozen men in their 20s were training with M-16 automatic rifles in the settlement of Yitzhar. Most had served in the army, all were religiously observant and all rejected any legitimacy to the idea of being moved to make room for a Palestinian state. They also firmly believed that the Palestinian security force being trained with American money and spread through the West Bank would one day turn its firepower onto the settlers who would have to defend themselves. Some settlers have engaged in, and vow more of, what they call "Price Tag," meaning that any time Israeli security forces move against settlement outposts, the settlers exact a price from Palestinians, mostly by burning Palestinian fields and orchards or by blocking roads. Still, they said they would not redirect their training away from the Palestinian threat toward the Israeli Army or police. Mr. Danziger said it would never happen. But he added that he rarely felt so betrayed as on the day in 2005 that the state sent thousands of troops into Gush Katif, the main Jewish settlement grouping in Gaza, to remove Jews. It is his goal, as it is of others, to make sure that never happens in the West Bank. A Museum of 'Expulsion' The military evacuation order delivered to the 8,000 settlers in Gaza four years ago hangs today in the Gush Katif Museum in Jerusalem. The deadline it bears for leaving is Aug. 14, or in the Hebrew calendar of that year, the Ninth of Av, a fast day associated with a string of calamities in Jewish history. The settlers call the withdrawal the "expulsion." The new museum, visited by scores daily, contains keys from destroyed houses, poetry of mourning and bottles of sand from the abandoned shores of Gaza. The museum's theme is a conscious echo of the post-Holocaust theme of the entire country: Never Again. In fact, most Israelis now see the evacuation as having been a disaster. It led to the Hamas takeover in Gaza and increased rocket fire at Israel. And the former settlers, many of whom vowed to stay together as communities, have fared poorly. Their advocates say that only about one in 10 is in permanent housing. Some 3,000 are still living in cramped mobile homes in a desolate, temporary neighborhood north of Gaza. This makes talk of another, larger removal of settlers from the West Bank seem a cruel fantasy to some — it could bring rockets to within range of its major population centers and lead to tens of thousands being in homeless limbo. A few of the younger evacuees from Gaza and their sympathizers have even refused to enlist for compulsory army service or to perform annual reserve duty. "The state does not exist for me," said Ofir Ben Hamo, 32, from the razed Gaza settlement of Bedolah. Mr. Ben Hamo, a former tank commander, last did reserve duty four months before the Gaza withdrawal — "like a sucker," he said. All this has compounded the settlers' conviction that no Israeli government would risk a similar undertaking in the West Bank. But as international pressure for a Palestinian state here grows, there is deep worry. "We can talk as aggressively as we like on the right," said Anita Toker, a spokeswoman for the Gaza evacuees, "but how many people are we?" Ms. Toker, a founder of the first civilian settlement in Gush Katif, believes that only the mobilization of the Israeli masses can prevent a further withdrawal. But she is not optimistic. "So far everything is polarized," she said. Other settlers are banking on a refusal by Israeli soldiers to obey orders. But in a sign of the divisions racking the settler movement and given the grave external threats to the country, many reject that approach. "Above all we are dealing with the existence of Israel," said Israel Harel, a leading intellectual of the settlement enterprise, who established the settlers' council in the 1970s and whose son, Itai, helped found a nearby outpost. "Once soldiers do not obey orders," Mr. Harel said, "it is the beginning of the end of the Jewish state."
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
|
|
PRINCE TURKI CONVENIENTLY FORGETS HISTORY
Posted by David Meir-Levi, September 14, 2009. |
|
To the Editor, His majesty, Prince Turki ("Land first, then Peace" NY Times 9.13.09) has a short memory. He seems to have forgotten that Israel acquired land in 1948 and 1967 only after defensive wars, and offered to return those territories in exchange for peace. The Arab leadership refused the offer and declared eternal Jihad. Therefore, in accordance with western logic, international law, and simple morality, Israel is under no obligation to return any territory until the disposition of such territory is determined via peaceful negotiations resulting in lasting peace and secure borders. Turki says, in essence, that Israel should make difficult, dangerous, and expensive concessions that are almost impossible to reverse; and in exchange, Arab leadership will afterwards consider whether or not to make symbolic concessions that are easy to reverse. No nation would take Turki's demands seriously. The essay below is called "Land First, then Peace"
|
|
THE United States and other Western powers have for some time been pushing Saudi Arabia to make more gestures toward Israel. More recently, the crown prince of Bahrain urged greater communication with Israel and joint steps from Arab states to revive the peace process. Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam, the custodian of its two holy mosques, the world's energy superpower and the de facto leader of the Arab and Muslim worlds — that is why our recognition is greatly prized by Israel. However, for all those same reasons, the kingdom holds itself to higher standards of justice and law. It must therefore refuse to engage Israel until it ends its illegal occupation of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and the Golan Heights as well as Shabaa Farms in Lebanon. For Saudis to take steps toward diplomatic normalization before this land is returned to its rightful owners would undermine international law and turn a blind eye to immorality. Shortly after the Six-Day War in 1967, during which Israel occupied those territories as well as East Jerusalem and the Sinai Peninsula, the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution stating that, in order to form "a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" Israel must withdraw from these newly occupied lands. The Fourth Geneva Convention similarly notes "the occupying power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Now, Israeli leaders hint that they are willing to return portions of these occupied territories to Arab control, but only if they are granted military and economic concessions first. For the Arabs to accept such a proposal would only encourage similar outrages in the future by rewarding military conquest. After the Oslo accords of 1993, Arab states took steps to improve their relationships with Israel, allowing for recognition in the form of trade and consular agreements. Israel, however, continued to construct settlements, making its neighbors understandably unwilling to give up more without a demonstration that they would be granted something in return. Today, supporters of Israel cite the outdated 1988 Hamas charter, which called for the destruction of Israel, as evidence of Palestine's attitude toward a two-state solution, without considering the illegalities of Israel's own occupation. Israel has never presented any comprehensive formulation of a peace plan. Saudi Arabia, to the contrary, has done so twice: the Fahd peace plan of 1982 and the Abdullah peace initiative of 2002. Both were endorsed by the Arab world, and both were ignored by Israel. In order to achieve peace and a lasting two-state solution, Israel must be willing to give as well as take. A first step should be the immediate removal of all Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Only this would show the world that Israel is serious about peace and not just stalling as it adds more illegal settlers to those already occupying Palestinian land. At the same time, the international community must pressure Israel to relinquish its grip on all Arab territory, not as a means to gain undeserved concessions but instead as an act of good faith and a demonstration that it is willing to play by the Security Council's rules and to abide by global standards of military occupation. The Arab world, in the form of the Arab peace initiative that was endorsed by 22 countries in 2002, has offered Israel peace and normalization in return for Israeli withdrawal from all Arab territories including East Jerusalem — with the refugee issue to be solved later through mutual consent. There have been increasing well-intentioned calls for Saudi Arabia to "do a Sadat": King Abdullah travels to Israel and the Israelis reciprocate by making peace with Saudi Arabia. However, those urging such a move must remember that President Anwar el-Sadat of Egypt went to Israel in 1977 to meet with Prime Minister Menachem Begin only after Sadat's envoy, Hassan el-Tohamy, Sadat's envoy, was assured by the Israeli foreign minister, Moshe Dayan, that Israel would withdraw from every last inch of Egyptian territory in return for peace. Absent a similar offer today from Israel to the leaders of Palestine, Lebanon and Syria, there is no reason to look at 1977 as a model. President Obama's speech in Cairo this summer gave the Arab and Muslim worlds heightened expectations. His insistence on a freeze on settlement activity was a welcome development. However, all Israeli governments have expanded settlements, even those that committed not to do so. No country in the region wants more bloodshed. But while Israel's neighbors want peace, they cannot be expected to tolerate what amounts to theft, and certainly should not be pressured into rewarding Israel for the return of land that does not belong to it. Until Israel heeds President Obama's call for the removal of all settlements, the world must be under no illusion that Saudi Arabia will offer what the Israelis most desire — regional recognition. We are willing to embrace the hands of any partner in peace, but only after they have released their grip on Arab lands. Prince Turki al-Faisal, the chairman of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies, is a former director of Saudi Arabia's intelligence services and ambassador to the United States. 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 |
|
THE FATAH CONFERENCE IN RAMALLA
Posted by Elyakim Haetzni, September 14, 2009. |
|
In a Ma'agar Mohot survey ordered by IMRA — Independent media and analysis — the question posed was "Regarding Minister Ya'alon's warning against 'sliding down the slippery slope' of those who give in to pressure, do you believe that Netanyahu is or is not on a slippery slope vis-à-vis President Obama" 55% agreed with the question, and only 26% did not. Netanyahu's descent down the slippery slope started when he accepted the idea of a Palestinian state in the heart of our homeland, slid past a quiet agreement with Barak to a de facto freeze on construction in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem and the handing out of home demolition orders throughout Judea and Samaria, and skidded on by giving free reign to the State Attorney's office to support Peace Now petitions before the Supreme Court regarding the demolition of yet more Jewish homes. The semantics emerging from the Prime Minister's office have also changed from the already anemic allusion to "natural growth' in Judea and Samaria to an even weaker humanitarian reference to a preservation of the "quality of life" there. Now even this policy has been abandoned as Netanyahu caves in to Mitchell's demands for a construction freeze in the area, comparable to cutting off blood and oxygen to a limb about to be amputated. Netanyahu's miserable capitulation must be assessed set against the background of another event which took place at the same time, yet virtually ignored by Netanyahu's supporters and the usually hostile media as well, namely, the PLO convention in Bethlehem. Those interested in knowing what is in store for us, even according to the so-called moderates among the Arab population of Judea and Samaria, must study the events of the PLO convention, and the true face of Mahmud Abbas — aka Abu Mazen. This man is the temporary head of the PA, while at the same time serving as the head of the PLO and Fatah organizations, three which are actually one and the same. Looking closely at the Fatah convention resolutions and the roll call of its elected leadership is shocking. And when we connect the dots for the envisioned Fatah terror state as set out at the Bethlehem convention on the one hand, and the slippery slope where Netanyahu is sliding down toward a similar outcome on the other, no doubt remains concerning what we may expect from Mahmud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu, orchestrated by Barack Hussein Obama. Two people warned us, but who heard them? Minister Edelstein said, "We must not act as though we did not hear anything. We must extract ourselves from the cycle of illusions, pretending that those moderates want peace. They openly state that they support the continuation of the armed struggle." Edelstein quoted Abu Mazen as saying that "resistance" remains an option. Vice-minister Meier Porush said, "The outcome of the Fatah convention may be a renewed outbreak of terror in Judea and Samaria." Indeed, Abu Mazen proclaimed, "We will sacrifice lives until Jerusalem will return to us, cleansed of settlers", and lives are sacrificed as the result of terrorism or war. The convention also proclaimed the right to "resist occupation", and to them resistance is tantamount to terror. Jibril Rajoub, a well-known crony of the Israeli security establishment openly said, "The Fatah will never renounce its option of armed struggle. Resistance" was, and has always been the tactical and strategic option, and part of Fatah policy. Rajoub was elected to the 'central committee' which is the Fatah's supreme council. Another resolution of the convention says it all: "there must be absolute and total opposition to any recognition of Israel as 'the Jewish State' in order to protect the rights of the refugees, and those of our people on the other side of the green line." I recommend reading and rereading this line over and over as it explains why they refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish State: the state belongs to the Arab refugees and Arabs already living here! This brings us back to Arafat's original Fatah platform. From the sea to the river! It was Arafat who dreamt up the "staged plan" which proposed that for the moment the lands east of the Green Line would do, while preparing the next phase. Who, then, are the Fatah leadership? Let's begin with Abu Mazen. We have already grown used to the fact that he is a Shoah-denier whose book, The secret relationship between Nazism and Zionism, spoke in terms of the "Zionist fantasy, the fantastic lie of the killing of six million Jews". Perhaps less well-known is his claim that the Zionists and Nazis conspired in a cynical and macabre manner to massacre Jews in Europe, in order to cause them to flee to Palestine. We have never heard this contemptible character retract his satanic thesis, nor did anyone demand this of him before accepting him as a "peace partner". Moreover, Abu Mazen was the man in charge of financing the massacre of the Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. For financing the Karin-A arms vessel, Israel sentenced Shubaki to twenty years imprisonment, yet what is that, compared to the Munich massacre? In his autobiography From Jerusalem to Munich, Abu Dahoud, the terrorist who planned Munich, wrote "after Oslo, in 1993, Abu Mazen went to the Rose Garden at the White House to have his picture taken with Arafat, President Clinton, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres. Do you think this would have been possible had the Israelis known that Abu Mazen was the money behind our operation?' In the year 2000, during the talks between Barak and Arafat at Camp David, Abu Mazen was the most extreme by far: he did not allow Arafat to move even one inch, as reported by the expert on Middle Eastern affairs, Dan Shiftan. Among documents confiscated by Israel in the Muqata'a in Ramallah, the late journalist Uri Dan found a letter from Abu Mazen to Arafat which said, "You continue in your world travels on the red carpet, and let me continue the deception of the Jews." In an interview with the Al-Shark-al-Ousat newspaper Abu Mazen proclaimed, "We did not promise to renounce the armed struggle; we have the right to resist. The Intifada must continue...Moreover, I say that if Israelis come to your country and establish settlements there, it will be your right to protect what is yours...the only exception is suicide missions in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem." Shortly after this, in March 2003, Rabbi Eli Horowitz and his wife Dina were murdered in Kiryat Arba as they were eating their Sabbath meal. Abu Mazen's attitude sanctioned the spilling of their blood, and the same writing is all over the walls of the Bethlehem Fatah convention as follows: we shall be happy to get our demands met through negotiations, but if these fail we will return to our (terror) resistance. And who will remind them that the only reason they are here and not in their Tunisian exile is thanks to the Oslo Accords where they pledged that under no circumstance would they ever go back to fighting and terrorism? Yusuf Tarife made a statement to the police to the effect that in 1996 Abu Mazen transferred a suitcase filled with half a million dollars in cash to his father, Jamil Tarife. He had heard that the money was intended for use in the Israeli elections... At a Fatah meeting in Ramallah, as far back as January 11, 2007, Abu Mazen addressed the assembled there by saying that "We have the right to turn our guns on the Israeli occupier. The Children of Israel are mentioned in the Koran as the corruptors of humanity." In 2008, at an Islamic convention in Senegal, in the presence of Ahmadinajad, he accused Israel of ethnic cleansing and of a campaign of genocide against the Palestinians. When the mass murderer George Habbash had breathed his last, Abu Mazen proclaimed three days of mourning, and praised him as a "historic leader". Abu Mazen sent greetings to the family of the murderer Samir Kuntar, and in September 2008 met with the latter in Beirut. Olmert called him to order on this by saying, "You are not a man of terror and I did not expect you to meet with a revolting killer such as him." In a radio talk, Shimon Peres referred to Abu Mazen as a moderate. When asked about Mazen's attitude toward the murder of settlers, Peres responded, "It does not matter what they say." Perhaps Peres had forgotten that in 1933 people also said that it did not matter what Hitler said. The media has reported, that at the Fatah convention 'new blood' joined its leadership, and the learned Israeli talking heads expressed their great satisfaction with this development. One of those elected to the central committee of the Fatah was Nabil Shaat, who in 2003 at a symposium in Beirut said, "The right of return is not an illusion; it is an inseparable aspect of the Saudi initiative and the American roadmap. There is no solution but a return to the homeland. The right of return is assured within the lands of the Palestinian State as well as Palestinian cities within the borders of Israel. Whether a refugee chooses to return to Haifa or Shehem, his right to do so is secure". And what will happen if such a refugee is not allowed to move to Haifa? Shaat answered this question at the Bethlehem convention, "The armed struggle is an important historical point which has brought us this far, and we still reserve this option based on international law". It emerges, then, that in the same way that terrorism returned Bethlehem to them, it will return them to Haifa! Another personality elected to the central committee is Jamil Tirawi, a member of the 'parliament' and former brigadier commander of 'general intelligence'. In March, 2002, this man was accused of sending a suicide bomber to blow himself up inside the Coffee Shop restaurant in Tel Aviv. And with an overwhelming majority, Marwan Barghouti was elected to the central committee. This man headed the "Tanzim" murder organization, and is currently serving five life sentences in Israel. Well-known Gaza personality, Mahmud Dahlan is another new elect. In an article in the Wall Street journal dated June 2nd, 2002, none other than Ehud Olmert himself wrote that "Dahlan let Gaza be used as a safe haven for hundreds of terrorists fleeing from the Israeli forces. Among these was Dahlan's childhood friend, Mahmud Deef, arch-terrorist and member of the Hamas whose hands are stained with the blood of scores of Israelis. Mr. Dahlan and his henchman, Rashid Abu-Shbak, are the prime suspects in the Kfar Darom terrorist attack involving a school bus filled with Israeli children, in November, 2000. The explosion on the bus left half a dozen children permanently crippled. Criminals of Mr. Dahlan's ilk cannot be rehabilitated, and they must be eliminated by force." In addition, two adults on the bus were killed, and several of the Cohen family's children lost their legs. Dahlan is a favorite of the Americans. They notified Weissglass that the USA would support the disengagement only if the keys to the Gaza Strip were handed over to Dahlan and his 2500 man strong militia, trained and armed by the Americans to fight Hamas. The outcome is known. Carrying their guns, the entire force moved over to Hamas and Dahlan fled to Ramallah. The CIA had a recording of Dahlan and Abu-Shbak giving the orders to carry out the attack on the school bus, and handed the tape over to Israeli Intelligence which... filed it (BeSheva, Hagai Huberman, August 5th, 2004). This same Dahlan made the following declaration on Palestine television, "For the thousandth time I want to say, in my name and that of the Fatah members, we do not demand that Hamas recognize Israel. Rather, the opposite is true: we demand that the Hamas NOT recognize Israel, because till this day, the Fatah has not recognized Israel." Abu Mazen himself expressed similar sentiments in 2006. I will end this sad tale by letting President Peres speak. Quoted in Professor Efraim Karsh's book The Oslo War: A Tale of Self-delusion, his seemingly light words border on the foolish when he said, "I think that what matters truly in this peace process is the creation of a partner; this is more important than having a plan. Because plans do not create partners, but if one has a partner, then one can negotiate a plan." And what, Karsh asked, if the partner does not play the role you assigned to him? To this, Peres responded, "We will close our eyes. We will not pass criticism. Because for the sake of peace we must create a partner." Elyakim HaEtzni lives in Kiryat Arba and was a member of the Knesset. He is one of the eight pioneers who initiated the re-establishment of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. Currently he is a member of the board of the Yesha Council, the organization responsible for Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. He has a regular weekly column in Israel's largest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot (Latest News). |
|
MY PRESENTATION AT VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN
Posted by David Meir-Levi, September 14, 2009. |
|
Sh'lom Y'all, I figure that some of you might want to know about my presentation at Valley Presbyterian Church this past Sunday. The short answer — Mixed feelings. The long answer: I. The positive: A.) It was very appropriate that they invited me to speak there relatively soon after Khalil Barkhoum had me kicked out of his presentation a few weeks ago (per my earlier emails on this topic). Everyone was friendly and welcoming, the room was properly arranged, my host was of great assistance in making sure that I had a white-board and markers, he as well did a fine job of time-keeping and of facilitating the Q&A, and the church's power-point projector worked perfectly (a newer and better model than my own). There were about 20-25 church members in the audience, and 10 people from my email list who came at my invitation. The audience was polite, and almost all questions were constructive and to the point. B.) Several people, at the end of the presentation, congratulated me warmly, told me how glad they were that I had been able to present at their church, bought my book, took a copy of the DVD about Christians in Peril in "Palestine," and clearly seemed to have benefited from my input. I certainly felt welcomed. C.) Three people engaged me in prolonged conversation after the presentation. That meant that I missed my opportunity to sit in on the church service to which I had been graciously invited; but, more important to me, it also meant that these people were interested enough in my input on topics about the conflict that were of importance to them that they too missed the service. D.) One of these three asked the very appropriate and positive question: "under what circumstances will Israel de-construct its security barrier?" That allowed me to explain the origins of the barrier as a defense against terrorism, and to give the obvious answer: "there was no barrier before Arafat began his terror war, a war which his successors have continued; so when the leaders of the Palestinian Authority have the will and the power to stop the terror war, the barrier can come down and things can revert to how they were before the 2nd intifada." He went away, and based on his smile and body language, I would say that he went away happy. E.) The other two questioners remained friendly and polite during the next 1.5 hours of our colloquy despite areas of disagreement (and see below II.A), and they seemed sincere in their concern about how to find peace. They listened to my input, raised objections in an appropriate manner (with one exception, see below II.D), nodded in agreement with much of what I told them, and they both shook hands with me when we parted. They both bought my book and one took a copy of the DVD. I have every reason to believe that these are sincere, honest, well-meaning, intelligent, good-hearted people. II. The disheartening: A.) The two colloquists mentioned above in I.E asked the kinds of questions, and raised the kinds of objections, that demonstrated their pretty much complete and uncritical acceptance of the Arab propaganda narrative. The younger of the two blithely dismissed Hamas threats of genocide and annihilation as "what a coach says to his team when he says that we are going to destroy the other team:" i.e., threats obviously exaggerated and not to be taken seriously. It took some provocative questioning from me to get him to acknowledge that in light of history and the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah and other terror groups, these threats must be taken seriously. B.) This questioner's concerns were first and foremost for the wellbeing of the Palestinians, and he seems quite sure that if only Israel would be nice, then things would work out. In other words, Israel is to blame. My input regarding the way things were from 1967 to 1994, contrasted with what happened once Arafat took over and started his terror war, did seem to make an impact on him, based upon his body language; and he did acknowledge that Arafat had been a catastrophe for the Palestinians. On the other hand he gave no indication that he could see that centuries of hate speech and hate preach and hate teach, and decades of unwarranted terrorism, and tens of thousands of terror attacks placed at least some onus of culpability on the Palestinian side. C.) The older gentleman engaged me in conversation for the majority of our time together. He had been deeply moved by several of the feature-length films that Palestinian propagandists have produced (most recently, "Occupation 101" which Khalil Barkhoum showed at the church when he spoke there a few weeks ago). I reminded him several times of the slides I had shown in my presentation, which demonstrate how "Pallywood" works, how the Arab propagandists lie and decontextualize and edit and photo-shop their material to create deeply misleading images which are intended to elicit the visceral responses which he himself experienced. He never indicated any discomfort about the now-made-obvious fact that Arab representatives have been lying to him. D.) On several occasions during our conversation, he responded dismissively to my input: rolling his eyes and saying: "oh sure" or "yeah, right" in a tone which made it clear that he deemed my input nothing short of pure nonsense. I took him to task on this behavior, pointing out that such responses are not appropriate in respectful dialogue, and reminding him of the evidence I had adumbrated in my presentation (and in my handout) which demonstrated the validity of my assertions. He apologized and did not do it again. E.) As we addressed each question, and each accusation against Israel, he did occasionally acknowledge with a word or a nod that what I said made sense; but rather than advance with me toward an inquiry into the real dynamics of the conflict as evidenced by the words and deeds of Arab terrorist leaders, he retreated instead into question after question about what various Israelis had done wrong (impatient soldiers at check points, extremist Israelis seeking the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, right wing religious leaders, etc.) and the harm they did to innocent Palestinians. He never seemed to integrate in to his thinking the (what seem to me to be obvious) facts of the mendacious nature of "Pallywood" ["the fact that you saw it in that movie does not mean that it really happened'] or the possibility that even if such accusations were true, they did not justify an endless state of genocidal terror war. The best I could do was to get him to acknowledge that there were two sides to the conflict and he was internalizing only one side. F.) Perhaps as problematic for me as the younger colloquist's comment about threats of genocide being like a coach's exaggerations (supra II.A) was this older colloquist's assertion that he too, if he experienced what the Palestinians were suffering, might do what they have done (suicide bombings, terrorism, hate speech, threats of genocide). When I pointed out that there are many oppressed people in the world who suffer far more than the Palestinians, and they don't resort to terrorism and the institutionalization of hatred, he acknowledged the accuracy of my input but did not retreat from his extreme self-assessment of amenability toward terrorism. II A-F disheartening to me because: a. Both of these gentlemen are fine, upstanding, educated, knowledgeable, participating Christians, yet....
Arab propaganda is making inroads into the hearts and minds of sincere, honest, well-meaning, intelligent, good-hearted, upstanding, educated, knowledgeable people in mainstream USA. If we are not successful in reversing this, we will find Israel's current lead in various polls gradually eroded, and eventually we will be faced with a Congress that does not demonstrate the support that Israel enjoys today. Today's sophomore is tomorrow's senator. We really have our work cut out for us. But, then again, we all knew this already. The essay below was written by Nick Cohen and is entitled
"Anti-Semitism" and it appeared October 7th, 2005 in the New
Statesman.
|
|
If you challenge liberal orthodoxy, your argument cannot be debated on its merits. You have to be in the pay of global media moguls. You have to be a Jew. On the Saturday of the great anti-war demonstration of 2003, I watched one million people march through London, then sat down to write for the Observer. I pointed out that the march organisers represented a merger of far left and far right: Islamic fundamentalists shoulder to shoulder with George Galloway, the Socialist Workers Party and every other creepy admirer of totalitarianism this side of North Korea. Be careful, I said. Saddam Hussein's Iraq has spewed out predatory armies and corpses for decades. If you're going to advocate a policy that would keep a fascist dictator in power, you should at least talk to his victims, whose number included socialists, communists and liberals — good people, rather like you. Next day I looked at my e-mails. There were rather a lot of them. The first was a fan letter from Ann Leslie, the Daily Mail's chief foreign correspondent, who had seen the barbarism of Ba'athism close up. Her cheery note ended with a warning: "You're not going to believe the anti-Semitism that is about to hit you." "Don't be silly, Ann," I replied. "There's no racism on the left." I worked my way through the rest of the e-mails. I couldn't believe the anti-Semitism that hit me. I learned it was one thing being called "Cohen" if you went along with liberal orthodoxy, quite another when you pointed out liberal betrayals. Your argument could not be debated on its merits. There had to be a malign motive. You had to support Ariel Sharon. You had to be in the pay of "international" media moguls or neoconservatives. You had to have bad blood. You had to be a Jew. My first reaction was so ignoble I blush when I think of it. I typed out a reply that read, "but there hasn't been a Jewish member of my family for 100 years". I sounded like a German begging a Gestapo officer to see the mistake in the paperwork. Mercifully, I hit the "delete" button before sending. Rather than pander to racism, I directed my correspondents to the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, a member of the Socialist International which had decided after being on the receiving end of one too many extermination drives that foreign invasion was the only way. No good. I tried sending them to the Iraqi Communist Party, which opposed the invasion but understood the possibilities for liberation beyond the fine minds of the western intelligentsia. No good, either. As the months passed, and Iraqis were caught between a criminally incompetent occupation and an "insurgency" so far to the right it was off the graph, I had it all. A leading figure on the left asked me to put him in touch with members of the new government. "I knew it! I knew it!" he cried when we next met. "They want to recognise Israel." I experienced what many blacks and Asians had told me: you can never tell. Where people stand on the political spectrum says nothing about their visceral beliefs. I found the far left wasn't confined to the chilling Socialist Workers Party but contained many scrupulous people it was a pleasure to meet and an education to debate. Meanwhile, the centre was nowhere near as moderate as it liked to think. One minute I would be talking to a BBC reporter or liberal academic and think him a civilised man; the next, he would be screaming about the Jews. Politicians I'd admired astonished me: Tam Dalyell explained British foreign policy as a Jewish conspiracy; Ken Livingstone embraced a Muslim cleric who favoured the blowing up of Israeli women and children, along with wife-beating and the murder of homosexuals and apostates. I could go on. The moment when bewilderment settled into a steady scorn, however, was when the Guardian ran a web debate entitled: "David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen are enough to make a good man anti-Semitic". Gorgeously, one vigilant reader complained that the title was prejudiced — the debate should be headlined: "David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen are enough to make a good man, or woman, anti-Semitic." Mustn't forget our manners now, must we? I resolved then to complete two tasks: to apologise to Ms Leslie, which was a matter of minutes; and to work out if there was now a left-wing anti-Semitism, which took a little longer. As I'd had little contact with Jewish religion or culture, I'd rarely given anti-Semitism a thought. I suppose I'd assumed it had burned out in the furnaces of Auschwitz. When the subject came up, I dutifully repeated the liberal mantra that "not all anti-Zionists are anti-Semites" and forgot the corollary "but all anti-Semites are anti-Zionists". You have to clear away a heap of rubbish before you can distinguish between the two. At first glance, there's a good case for saying that the liberal left is Jew-obsessed. Israel receives more criticism than far worse societies, most notably Sudan, Syria and pre-war Iraq. You can call the double standard anti-Semitism if you want, but I'm not sure it gets you anywhere. It is simply the ineluctable workings of what is known in the human rights trade as "selection bias". Israel is a democracy with an independent judiciary and free press. Inevitably, it is easier in an open country to report abuses of power than cover, say, the deaths of millions and enslavement of whole black tribes in Islamist Sudan. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a former US ambassador to the United Nations, came up with "Moynihan's Law" to encapsulate the process. It holds that the number of complaints about a nation's violation of human rights is in inverse proportion to its actual violation of human rights. He wasn't absolutely right, and the law certainly doesn't work in Israel's case, but you get the point. As long as people know biases exist, no harm is done. In any case, it's not a competition, and it's no defence of Israel to say it's better to be Palestinian than Sudanese. Human rights are universal. The issue is whether the liberal left is as keen on universal principles as it pretends. An impeccably left-wing group of Jewish academics, who are against the war in Iraq and occupation of the West Bank, gathered recently at [http://www.engageonline.org.uk as they could see parts of the left retreating into special pleading. Their union, the Association of University Teachers, had proposed that academics abandon the freedom to exchange ideas, on which intellectual life depends, by boycotting Israeli universities. Asked why the boycott applied only to Israel and not nations with far greater crimes to their names, the AUT had no reply.] Racism is often subtle in England. David Hirsh, an Engage supporter, caught it well when he wrote that "the act of singling out Israel as the only illegitimate state — in the absence of any coherent reason for doing so — is in itself anti-Semitic, irrespective of the motivation or opinions of those who make that claim". I'd agree, if it weren't for a brutal counter-argument that few have the guts to make. Get real, it runs. Universal values are for the birds. The left had a respectable record of exposing the dark corners of the right in South Africa, the Deep South, Pinochet's Chile, Franco's Spain and the Colonels' Greece. Only the bravest had much to say about the Soviet Union, China or Cuba. On the whole, those monstrosities were opposed by the right. Looking back, you can see that good came out of the activism of both sets of critics. Equally, good will come from our obsession with Israel. The Palestinians need help and you shouldn't ask too many questions about the helpers. All of which sounds reasonable, until you ask a question that I've delayed asking for too long: what is anti-Semitism? In its 19th- and 20th-century form, it was a conspiratorial explanation of power from the radical right. In this it differed from standard racism, which is generally resentment of powerless outsiders who look odd, lower wages and take jobs. The template was set by the reaction against the American and French revolutions. How could Americans proclaim such insane ideas as the rights of man, the counter-revolutionaries asked. How could the French overthrow the king who loved them and Holy Mother Church which succoured them? They couldn't admit that the Americans and the French wanted to do what they had done. Their consent had to have been manufactured by the new rulers of the world. Originally these were the Freemasons, who were damned for peddling enlightened ideas. Only after Jewish emancipation opened the ghettos were the Jews press-ganged into the plot. They represented everything that was hateful about modernity: equal rights, religious toleration and the destruction of tradition. I don't like the term "Islamo-fascism" — fascist movements are national movements, not religions. Still, no one can fail to have noticed that in one indisputable respect the west is the "root cause" of Islamist terror: militant Muslims have bought the ideology of the European counter-revolution wholesale. The appeal is understandable. There is a chosen people: the Germans, the Italians or the Spanish in classic fascism; Sunni Muslims in totalitarian variants of Islam. Domination is theirs by right, but they are denied their inheritance by a conspiracy of infidels, be they westernisers, Jews, sell-out leaders or the corrupters of women and youth. You can read for yourselves the histories of the links between Nazism and the Arab world in the 1940s, but to bring you up to date, here is what Article 22 of Hamas's covenant says of the Jews: "They were behind the French revolution, the communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests." That's right, Rotary Clubs. Please don't tell me that it helps the Palestinians to give the far right the time of day, or pretend that Palestinian liberals, socialists, women, gays, freethinkers and Christians (let alone Israeli Jews) would prosper in a Palestine ruled by Hamas. It's not radical, it's barely political, to turn a blind eye and say you are for the Palestinian cause. Political seriousness lies in stating which Palestine you are for and which Palestinians you support. The Palestinian fight is at once an anti-colonial struggle and a clash between modernity and reaction. The confusion of our times comes from the failure to grasp that it is possible to have an anti-colonialism of the far right. While we're at it, don't excuse Hamas and Islamic Jihad and all the rest by saying the foundation of Israel and the defeat of all the Arab attempts to destroy it made them that way. Anti-Semitism isn't a local side effect of a dirty war over a patch of land smaller than Wales. It's everywhere from Malaysia to Morocco, and it has arrived here. When the BBC showed a Panorama documentary about the ideological roots of the Muslim Council of Britain in the Pakistani religious right, the first reaction of the Council was to accuse it of following an "Israeli agenda". The other day the Telegraph reported that Ahmad Thomson, a Muslim lawyer who advises the Prime Minister on community relations of all things, had declared that a "sinister" group of Jews and Freemasons was behind the invasion of Iraq. To explain away a global phenomenon as a rational reaction to Israeli oppression, you have once again to turn the Jew into a supernatural figure whose existence is the cause of discontents throughout the earth. You have to revive anti-Semitism. The alternative is to do what the left used to do. If you look at the list of late-20th-century leftist causes I have mentioned, you will see that the left, for all its faults and crimes, was against fascism. It used to know that the powerful used racism to distract the powerless, as they do to this day in Egypt, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, where the deployment of Jew hatred is positively tsarist. Although I know it's hard to credit, the left also used to know that the opponents of fascism, including the opponents of Saddam, had to be supported. But the liberal left has been corrupted by defeat and doesn't know much about anything these days. Marxist-Leninism is so deep in the dustbin of history, it is composting, while social democracy is everywhere on the defensive. Hindu, Jewish, Muslim and Christian fundamentalism are beating it in the struggle for working-class and peasant minds. An invigorated capitalism is threatening its European strongholds. There's an awful realisation that Tony Blair and Bill Clinton may be as good as it gets. The temptation in times of defeat is to believe in everything rather than nothing; to go along with whichever cause sounds radical, even if the radicalism on offer is the radicalism of the far right. In 1878, George Eliot wrote that it was "difficult to find a form of bad reasoning about [Jews] which had not been heard in conversation or been admitted to the dignity of print". So it is again today. Outside the movies of Mel Gibson, Jews aren't Christ killers any longer, but they can't relax, because now they are Nazis, blood-soaked imperialists, the secret movers of neoconservatism, the root cause of every atrocity from 9/11 to 7/7. It's not that the left as a whole is anti-Semitic, although there are racists who need confronting. Rather, it has been maddened by the direction history has taken. Deracinated and demoralised, its partisans aren't thinking hard enough about where they came from or — and more pertinently — where they are going. 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 |
|
FORGET NORMALIZATION — SAUDI ARABIA STEPS UP BOYCOTT OF ISRAEL
Posted by Michael Freund, September 14, 2009. |
|
Despite efforts by Washington in recent years to bring about a normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab world, Saudi Arabia has been steadily intensifying its enforcement of the Arab League boycott of Israel, The Jerusalem Post has learned. A review of US Commerce Department data conducted by the Post found that the number of boycott-related and restrictive trade-practice requests received by American companies from Saudi Arabia has increased in each of the past two years, rising from 42 in 2006 to 65 in 2007 to 74 in 2008, signifying a jump of more than 76 percent. The bulk of these requests were related to the companies' or products' relationship to Israel. Typically, Saudi officials ask foreign suppliers to affirm that any goods exported to the desert kingdom are not manufactured in Israel and do not contain any Israeli-made components. US law bars American companies from complying with such demands, and requires them to report any boycott-related requests to the federal government. The Commerce Department figures reflect only those requests that have been officially reported to the US government. Figures for 2009 were not yet available. Contacted by the Post, a US Treasury Department official confirmed that there was ample evidence that the Saudis continued to enforce the boycott. According to the official, statistics compiled by a number of US government departments and federal agencies all "indicate that American companies continue to receive boycott requests from Saudi Arabia." Citing figures collected by the Internal Revenue Service, the official said that of the cases that were reported to the IRS, "55% of the boycott requests from Saudi Arabia led to boycott agreements." Two months ago, the Treasury Department published a list of eight Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia, that it says continue to boycott Israel. The list appeared in the Federal Register, the official journal of the US government. Washington has been attempting to get Riyadh to improve relations with the Jewish state, without success. On July 31, after talks with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal rejected Washington's efforts, telling reporters, "Incrementalism and a step-by-step approach has not and, we believe, will not lead to peace." Saudi Arabia's ongoing enforcement of the boycott also appears to violate repeated promises that it gave to Washington in recent years to drop the trade embargo. In November 2005, the desert kingdom pledged to abandon the boycott after Washington conditioned Saudi Arabia's entry into the World Trade Organization on such a move. A month later, on December 11, Saudi Arabia was granted WTO membership. The WTO, which aims to promote free trade, prohibits members from engaging in discriminatory practices such as boycotts or embargoes. The Saudi boycott of Israeli-made goods is part of the decades-old Arab League effort to isolate and weaken the Jewish state. The league established an Office for the Boycott of Israel in Damascus in 1951, aimed at overseeing implementation of the economic and trade embargo. In recent years, enforcement of the boycott has waxed and waned. Some Arab League members, such as Egypt and Jordan, ceased applying it after signing peace treaties with Israel, while others, such as Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia do not enforce it. Other Arab states, such as Lebanon, Syria and Iraq, continue to bar entry of goods made in Israel and those containing Israeli-made components. Michael Freund served as an adviser to former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Send comments and feedback letters@jpost.com or to msfreund@netvision.net.il This appeared in the Jerusalem Post. |
|
PRECARIOUS MOMENT IN CATHOLIC-JEWISH RELATIONS
Posted by Sheridan Neimark, September 14, 2009. |
|
This is an Op-Ed piece "A precarious moment in Catholic-Jewish relations" By Abraham H. Foxman, who is the national director of the Anti-Defamation League. |
|
NEW YORK (JTA) — America's Catholic bishops recently approved two new documents that strike at the very heart of a trusting relationship between Catholics and Jews. The first paper reintroduces the idea that Catholics can use interfaith dialogue as a means to invite Jews to Christian baptism. The second removes a catechism teaching that God's Covenant with Moses and the Jewish people is eternally valid. This profound change, affirmed by the Vatican, raises for many Jews the specter of a possible return to such odious concepts as supersessionism and the teaching of contempt, which have caused Jews irreparable harm over the centuries. These new developments are the latest in a series of troubling reversals in the relationship since the summer of 2007, and have some in the Jewish community seriously reassessing the conditions for continuing the dialogue. How did we get to this point? The transformation of the Catholic-Jewish relationship began with Nostra Aetate (Latin for "In Our Time') adopted in 1965 at the Second Vatican Council. This historic text laid the foundation for a new positive relationship and declared that the Jewish relationship with God endured. The Vatican followed up with guidelines, issued in 1974, stating that Christians "must strive to learn by what essential traits Jews define themselves in the light of their own religious experience," and urging dialogue with a view toward "mutual understanding and respect." In November 1980, Pope John Paul II, speaking in Mainz, Germany, affirmed that Jews are the people "of the Old Covenant, never revoked by God." He called Jews "the present-day people of the covenant concluded with Moses." In 2000, the pontiff stood on Mount Sinai and took note of the moment, stating, "But now on the heights of Sinai, this same God seals His love by making the covenant that He will never renounce." The Pope's powerful statements helped the nascent Jewish-Catholic dialogue develop a sense of trust and honesty. Additional church documents and statements deepened the relationship. In 2001, the Pontifical Biblical Commission issued the report "The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible," which talks of the permanent election of the Jewish people and suggests that its "Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain." Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, played an important role in producing this work. Also in 2001, Cardinal Walter Kasper, president of the Vatican Commission on Religious Relations with the Jews, affirmed the validity of the Sinai Covenant, calling God's covenant with the Jewish people "a living heritage, a living reality." But something has changed over the past three years. The Vatican ship has shifted course, and the dialogue is backsliding in a slow, subtle process that threatens the trust and honesty we have worked so hard to achieve. In 2007, Pope Benedict XVI revived the Latin Good Friday "Prayer for the Conversion of the Jews," a clear break from the previous 1970 version that avoided any mention of conversion. And this year, Pope Benedict opened the door to the potential return to the Church of a traditionalist schismatic group, the Society of St. Pius X, which rejects Vatican II reforms and whose leadership includes a Holocaust-denying bishop. In June, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, without consultation or warning to their Jewish partners, issued "A Note on Ambiguities Contained in Reflections on Covenant and Mission," which rejected a clear statement that there can be no attempts to convert Jews as part of the interfaith dialogue. Instead the U.S. bishops approved language that Catholic-Jewish dialogues could explicitly be used to invite Jews to baptism. They told us the change was directed by the Vatican. On Aug. 27, the bishops announced that the Vatican had officially affirmed its decision to jettison a teaching in the American adult catechism that the "covenant that God made with the Jewish people through Moses remains eternally valid for them." The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had several options to update its adult catechism, but chose instead to no longer affirm the validity of the Sinai covenant. There is no getting around that these two documents are a one-two punch against a continuing trust in the permanence of the Catholic Church's reform in its teachings about Jews. Thus we find ourselves at a crossroad, one that raises more profound questions about the reasons for these changes. Why must the Bishops Conference, which has been a model to the rest of the world in forging a new relationship with the Jewish people, now issue documents that threaten to undo the dialogue's basic foundations? And why devalue the Mosaic covenant, which is central to Jewish self-understanding, by removing a clear affirmation of its eternal validity, therefore insinuating that the Mosaic covenant has been superseded? The Bishops Conference speaks for a church that claims to want honest dialogue with Jews. To issue statements about Jews that demonstrate little concern for Jewish self-understanding would seem fundamentally at odds with that goal. These are challenging times indeed for the Catholic-Jewish relationship. Still, the process is not finished, and much work remains to be done. We will voice our concerns honestly and forthrightly, with every hope that the relationship will continue on a solid footing. We only ask that our interlocutors and friends in the Catholic Church listen to our concerns, take them seriously and try to understand why we are so pained. Contact Sheridan Neimark by email at sneimark@browdyneimark.com |
|
CALL OBAMA'S BLUFF
Posted by UCI, September 14, 2009. |
|
The author, Moshe Dann, a former assistant professor of History, is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem |
|
Confronting Obama menace critical for Israel's future, Bibi's real test President Barack Hussein Obama has threatened dire consequences if Israel refuses his demands to prevent Jews from building in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem. His plan is yet another disastrous form of Israeli unilateral withdrawal. This unprecedented challenge to Israel's sovereignty and strategic needs must be met firmly. At stake are not only simple human needs, but the integrity of the State of Israel and a 60-year old alliance. Israel is an American ally, not an enemy; a partner in the struggle against terrorism, not a perpetrator. Did Obama forget? Is he confused, or didn't he ever know? Whose side is he on? Confronting the Obama menace is difficult, but essential; it's critical for Israel's future. If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu capitulates, he will undermine Israel's independence and set a dangerous precedent: not if Israel's national and strategic interests will be sacrificed, but when. That will simply invite even more pressure for Israel to surrender to sworn enemies. Paradoxically, it's not weakness and appeasement that have deterred Israel's opponents, but a strong defense based on security needs and realistic assessments of consequences. An imposed dictated "solution" that does not resolve core issues and is unacceptable to those dedicated to violence has never succeeded — ever — without their total and complete destruction. Policy of defeatism PM Netanyahu did not accept his job reluctantly; he campaigned for it. He asked Israelis to vote for him and his party because he promised to represent their interests. He formed a coalition that reflects a consensus. He formulated a policy based on the expectations of his supporters. If he now feels that he cannot fulfill his promises and those expectations, if he cannot stand up to Obama's onslaught, he should retire gracefully and turn over the leadership of the country to someone who can. Cast in the unenviable role of challenging Obama's policies, Netanyahu must decide between expediency, to satisfy Obama and hope that things will improve, and resolute determination to protect Israel's national interests. No stranger to this dilemma, Netanyahu understands the limitations and excesses of power. These aren't the choices he'd like, but it's the job he wanted, and for which he was elected. Now he's on the line, not only for himself, but for all of us. It's what every politician lives for, and dreads. It's the mark of greatness, or mediocrity. Before making any decisions, Netanyahu must ascertain what will happen when Obama's plan doesn't work out, especially when Hamas and more radical elements take over. Agreeing to stop Jews from building without any concessions from Palestinians gives away Israel's most valuable asset without gaining a single benefit. And each surrender makes the next stage of negotiations more difficult. This is a policy of defeatism and despair, not of hope. Only by standing up to Obama will Netanyahu prove himself equal to the position to which he was elected. It's show time! Come on, Bibi. Make us proud. 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!" Contact them by email at voices@israelunitycoalition.org. This appeared in Ynet September 13, 2009 and is archived at http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3775557,00.html |
|
THE RIGHT ROAD TO PEACE
Posted by Israel Initiative, September 14, 2009. |
|
As the past year comes to a close, introspection and reflection begin to enter our thoughts. In our generation, these thoughts are not only on a personal or family level, rather they also reach a national level. The government, media, Yesha Council and the general public are busy contemplating whether construction will be frozen in Judea and Samaria; will some structures be permitted before the freeze, and where will they be placed. All of this discourse points to one troubling axiom which, unfortunately, is not being second guessed: that there are certain parts of our country which are up for negotiations and are not part of the State of Israel. Until now, Israel has not annexed Judea and Samaria completely because of the existing demographic problem — yet there is a variety of options that stand between total annexation and willing to relinquish parts of the country. Judea and Samria has been in Israeli hands for forty two years, yet even the major settlement blocs, which are de facto part of Israel, are not fully under Israeli control. The addition of any structure, whether it be a caravan or a house, need permission from either the defense minister or the prime minister. Jewish citizens in Judea and Samaria are subject to administrative detention — something that cannot happen within the pre-67 borders. Implementing Israeli law within the boundaries of Jewish settlements would settle this problem on a technical level, and would create equality among Israeli citizens without having to absorb additional Arabs. It has already been proven that only Israeli control leads to stability, which is helpful to all populations living in this area. A law in this spirit was suggested in the last Knesset by former Minister Benny Elon, founder of the Israel Initiative, and we are hoping that this law will pickup traction in the current Knesset. Chile as an example What about us? In the course of the past year we returned to action. The internet site is being updated weekly in Hebrew and English, meetings have taken place between Ministers, Knesset members as well as foreign diplomats. We are continuing in the current ascent and hope that the new year will bring us additional success. Refugee Resettlement continues: The Khaleej Times, an Arab newspaper, reported that last April 117 Palestinian refugees have been resettled in Chile. The President of Chile, at a ceremonial event, stated that Chile's borders are open to all Palestinian refugees that are in need of a home. "In difficult circumstances, we are first saying that refugees can come here," said the President of Chile, "This country was built upon the immigration of exiled people. You can only be president once and I am glad to have helped." This story contains two points that we continue to emphasize in all our press releases: first, when Palestinian are not under the authority of UNRWA they have been successfully resettled. Second, the myth that Palestinians have no where to go except Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon or other Arab countries is false. Chile's president made it crystal clear that her country is and continues to be part of the countries who are willing to resettle Palestinian refugees. The full story can be read at Arutz 7's website or can be accessed through the news bulletin at our website: www.israelnationalnews.com/News Starting to wake up It seems that the Obama administration is finally realizing that there is no peace partner. Fatah has announced that the armed struggle against Israel has not concluded and that the option remains open. Obama's attitude of appeasement toward the Arab world has not proved itself, and just the opposite, the chance for peace is gradually distancing itself. Does this mean that any hope for peace is non-existent? At the Israel Initiative we believe that the answer is no. If one only thinks about the events spanning the last twenty years, they will realize that nothing has distanced peace more than the current peace process. The reason is simple: the political process, thought to be the solution to the Palestinian problem, is actually the problem. The peace process has fostered the Palestinian national narrative which in truth is the major roadblock to achieving peace in the Middle East. This narrative uses the Palestinian crisis for their political purposes; they connect Palestinian salvation to the destruction of Israel. The Israel Initiative has tried to create a constructive peace for all, one whose cornerstone is built on a realistic vision that may be implemented. Our view of peace doesn't clash with the Zionistic vision, rather it rests on it and seeks to integrate with it. We are looking forward to a new year filled with salvation and constructive thinking, a year in which Israelis will seek out peace — after our leaders have the strength to present a new direction. With blessings for a sweet new year, Yoav Sorek
This is #No 20, Israeli Initiative — the right road to peace. |
|
TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: SUPPORT ISRAEL AT THE UN
Posted by UCI, September 14, 2009. |
|
To: President Barack Obama
President Obama,
The dangers to Israel are accelerating with the imminent Iranian acquisition of nuclear weapons, and yet our government, by its silence, appears to side with the Islamists whose avowed goal is to eradicate the state of Israel. President Obama, at the same time you and your administration are putting unprecedented pressure on Israel to freeze construction in what are incorrectly referred to as "the settlements", the much greater threat of Israel's complete annihilation by Iran is ignored. The housing of civilians on Israeli land has long been a smoke-screen hiding the fundamental Palestinian desire to engulf the entire land of Israel, rather than "peace alongside Israel." Under the Palestinian Charter, nothing but total take-over of Israel is acceptable. This has never been revoked. If Israel shows weakness by accepting a US demand to cease any building, it will only encourage her enemies. Your failure to acknowledge the simple need of a sovereign nation to expand residences for its citizens causes us dismay. Every country has the obligation to allow for housing its citizens. It is a basic responsibility of any government of a free nation. I further ask that when you address the UN the week of September 21st that you speak out on behalf of the survival of our only reliable democratic ally in the Middle East -- Israel. Israel has endured thousands of years of Islamic hatred, violence, and genocide, long-preceding the current on-going Iranian threats. I feel that 3,000 years of history permits you to make the case for Israel's inalienable right to continue to survive as a Jewish state, despite the many threats of Arab genocide. And certainly with our long-established history of friendship and shared values, it behooves the US to speak out in Israel's defense. Unless the Palestinians first agree to recognize the very existence of Israel as a Jewish state, there can be no hope that Israel or the free world can expect a peaceful outcome. Following in the footsteps of Gaza, a sovereign Palestinian state led by Hamas/Fatah terrorists would only lead this troubled region into more chaos. Millions of your constituents need to hear from you that US policy supports Israel and that we will cease making demands that put their population at existential risk. Our democratic ally Israel has fought this ideological battle for 61 years while sustaining our Judeo-Christian values. Please bear in mind that should Israel fall due to lack of US support, we "infidel Americans" will have to take our place on the front line, waging a battle against the encroaching world-wide Jihad that is rapidly advancing within our own borders. This is the zero hour. A majority of Americans want to stand up for Israel. Please accept the lessons of history as we commemorate the devastation that struck our nation on 9/11/01. In dealing with irrational, possibly nuclear enemies, the US must display strength, or its weakness will be exploited by its enemies. Respectfully, 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!" Contact them by email at voices@israelunitycoalition.org.. |
|
EDITOR'S NOTE: DUE TO A TECHNICAL GLITCH BY THE HOST SERVER, NO
EMAILS WERE RECEIVED FROM
SEPTEMBER 8 TO SEPTEMBER 14, 2009.
|
|
A DREAM. AN ANALOGY. CONCRETE CONSTRUCTIONS
Posted by Elyakim Haetzni, September 8, 2009. |
|
I had a dream where after a long absence I returned home, and a hostile neighbor made my life a misery: he threatened and cursed me and broke windows. The other neighbors claimed that I was to blame for the lack of peace in the neighborhood, and sent a delegation to reason with me. The point, they explained, was that the neighbor in question wanted my wife, and for the sake of peaceful co-existence, they suggested we come to some kind of territorial and operational compromise. In the meantime, while deliberations on the topic were taking place, there should be a freeze on my relationship with my wife. "Have you gone insane?" I burst out, and proceeded to throw them out of my home. Journalists waiting outside for a "breakthrough" were told that I "hated peace." I was thunderstruck. A peace hater? For loving my wife? When Netanyahu met with Obama, he flatly turned down demands to hand over the Jewish homeland to our neighbor, even in theory. He also rejected the proposal of a temporary freeze on construction, akin to a temporary separation while divorce papers are being drawn up. However, since then, Netanyahu has started a precipitous descent down a slippery slope with the speed of a roller coaster: he has proclaimed his support for the two-state solution and has frozen Jewish construction, including in Jerusalem. Moreover, Netanyahu is demolishing Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria through his minister of defense, and State Attorneys who consistently endorse Peace Now petitions to destroy Jewish communities, submitted to the Supreme Court. In addition, Netanyahu has retreated from the formula which called for "natural growth" in Judea and Samaria settlements in favor of an humanitarian formula which calls for a preservation of the "quality of life" there. Finally, he already gave his consent in principle to a so-called temporary freeze, comparable to cutting off blood and oxygen to a limb slated for amputation. A massive majority of the people is opposed to Netanyahu's chosen path and identify with that of his second-in-command, Ya'alon. From a survey of "Ma'agar Mohot" (ordered by IMRA — Independent media and analysis) it emerged that: a.52% opposed a freeze on construction in exchange for Arab gestures of goodwill. 33% were in favor. (In Netanyahu's party 70% were against a construction freeze). Netanyahu is addicted to surveys, and it may be assumed that he is aware of public opinion regarding his concessions. The American slippery slope already cost him the government once before, when he gave in to American pressure to surrender more territory to the Palestinians and was toppled by the Israeli right. What, then, causes him to stumble again? The Americans, who are experts in preparing psychological profiles for foreign leaders, discovered the man's weakness which neutralizes all his good qualities. Netanyahu cannot stand up to pressure, and the Americans keep it up with a brutal and humiliating bulldozer. On the other hand, Netanyahu does not fear pressure from within, because he knows that the political right will not again topple a right-wing government in favor of an appeasement party like "Kadima". Netanyahu is wrong. First of all, there is a limit to the abuse his voters and party are willing to take. In the past they voted for Sharon as the leader of the political right and received a left-winger, and now this is happening again. Secondly, there is no need to replace the ruling party: when the British were sick and tired of Chamberlain, they did not elect a Labor government; they replaced him with another leader from the same party, Churchill. However, the main point is that some issues are not governed by cold calculation, for example, values which some may consider outdated such as patrimony and homeland. To these a party and a nation respond emotionally, from the heart or from the guts, even when this goes against logic and considerations of profit. Therefore, the outburst, "Have you gone insane? Haters of peace we are certainly not; we simply love our homeland!" may yet be heard. And then the American rod will break and Netanyahu may well pay with his job. Elyakim HaEtzni lives in Kiryat Arba and was a member of the Knesset. He is one of the eight pioneers who initiated the re-establishment of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. Currently he is a member of the board of the Yesha Council, the organization responsible for Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. He has a regular weekly column in Israel's largest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot (Latest News). This appeared in Yedioth Aharonot August 28, 2009. |
|
HEBRON: THE 1929 POGROM AND THE DHIMMI SYNDROME IN OUR TIMES[1]
Posted by Elyakim Haetzni, September 8, 2009. |
|
On the 8th of August this year, it will be 80 years since the Arabs started the pogroms against the Jews in Israel, in Hebron, Jerusalem, Safed, Ber Tuvia and Hulda. The year was 1929 and the day was a Jewish holy day, the Sabbath. Despite a wave of 12 massacres in the country, the massacre in Hebron remains in the nations collective historical memory, and that not just because of the 67 victims. In Jerusalem there were 34 killed, in Safed 17 and seven in Motza. The pogrom in Hebron left an indelible impression, because it was a pogrom with a similar connotation as in Chisinau, which the Jews remember as "Slaughter City," Kishinev.[2] Hebron was a pogrom in carried out in Eastern European style, a horror which shocked all Jews who never expected such an atrocity could happen in Israel. Arab violence against Jews in Israel took the the form of attacks, arson and assassinations.[3] To confront this Arab terror, various defense units were established, such as HaShomer.[4] However people refused to realize, even in Israel, just as in the diaspora, that Jews were murdered for no reason other than that they are Jews. Accordingly they redefined reality and rather then refer to Arab terror; they labeled the violence as "Arab riots". This terror was excused as a reaction to the fulfillment of Zionism and was therefore accepted as a 'political collision' between two peoples: the Arabs and the Jews. The defense units were regarded as a part of the Zionist-Israeli "new Jewish syndrome." Jews move to Israel, settle the land, plow and build, while simultaneously fighting to protect the Zionist project "....who built the wall. When the pioneers took up their burden, they worked with one hand, while holding a weapon in the other." (Nehemiah 4:11)[5] This is the entire Zionist ethos in a nutshell: the new Israeli continues his ancestor's heritage in the Land of Israel. The Diaspora comes to an end: for thousands of years Jews did not and could not carry weapons to defend themselves; they were therefore treated as "sheep to slaughter" by their enemies. This new self-image of the Jew who defends himself did not fit in the pogroms of 1929. Therefore it was not easy to accept the fact that the pogroms in Hebron were identical to the diaspora pogroms. The result was denial of reality. The non-Zionists and the anti-Zionists from the established Jewish society also allowed themselves be surprised. They saw the Arab reaction as an uprising against Zionism, and something which was primarily aimed against the "new" Jews who came to Israel for political reasons. Therefore the Jews from the established Jewish society did everything within their power to separate themselves from"the other Jews" and thus distanced themselves from the essential self-defense (Ha Shomer and Haganah), which were established by the Zionists. They failed to let themselves be protected by the Haganah and instead depended on the British police and on the good relations with their Arab neighbors. They were very sure that the Arabs differentiated between the anti-Zionists and the Zionist Jews. The massacres on the established Jewish society as in Hebron, Jerusalem and Safed, and the murder of Arab-speaking Jews and Jewesses, who had Arabs as neighbors and business partners, shocked the established Jewish community so deeply that none of them dared to come back home to Hebron after the liberation in 1967, despite the fact that their families had lived their from time immemorial. A short time after moving to Kiryat Arba, I talked to an 80 year old Arab in the Kasba sector of Hebron. We talked of the massacres of 1929. The man talked honestly. One proof of this was that he did not use the "official" claim that the British had arranged the pogroms by the mobs brought in from outside areas. He stated clearly that the Arabs lived peacefully with the small Jewish religious community, but at the same time ensured that the Jews "did not hold their heads too high". He said further that when the new Yeshiva (Bible school) was established ('Slobodka — Knesset Israel', 1924[6]) and when even students from the USA came there, the Arabs felt that the "Zionist threat" had reached Hebron and therefore they decided to put a stop to it. "I personally," said the Arab in a serious and matter-of-factly way, like a mafia godfather, "had nothing against the Jews in Hebron. One of the survivors, who fled to Jerusalem, owed me a lot of money. The Jew arranged to send me the money to last penny". I did not ask him why they felt the need to massacre a non-zionist religious community. I could see that for him all Jews were the same. It looks like this apparent fact is still not understood by the Jews in Israel, even today, 80 years after the massacre. I point this at both the Jews who remain Zionists and the ultra-orthodox proto-Zionists, those who belong to the established population and the secular post-Zionists who today adopt the philosophy of the establishment. The Pogroms The Hebron massacre was unique, primarily because the Jewish religious community was completely wiped out as a result of the pogrom (even though some Jews came back after the pogrom and were there for a short period until the riots in 1936). The British mandate's behaviour resembled very much the Czar's pogroms in 1881-1882 (called by the Jews "Sufot BaNegev", Desert Storm). In both cases it was known beforehand that the pogroms were coming, but nobody helped the Jews. In both cases the murderers were not punished, but the Jews who tried to protect themselves were punished. Everything that was stolen remained with the mob and the Jewish possessions were regarded as ownerless. The compensation from the British mandate authorities was an insult: The family of Rabbi Hasson, whose house was plundered and destroyed, received 11.1 pounds as compensation. The religious Jewish community received 54 pounds for all their buildings and possessions, whereas Asher Kalinsky, whose house was razed to the ground, received 14 shillings, and Rabbi Dvortz received 2 pounds for his house which was burnt down and for one of his arms which was hacked off. Very few received reasonable compensation. On the other hand, 348 pounds was paid to advocate Hasan Albodeiri, an Arab from Jerusalem, as compensation for his claim to a few private possessions.[7] After this pogrom the Jewish graveyard was desecrated and destroyed, the gravestones used as building materials. Most of the houses and the land owned by the Jews were stolen by the Arabs. A similar phenomenon happened after the Holocaust: East European countries still refuse to return plundered Jewish properties. Museums in the "enlightened" western world keep the stolen art works belonging to the Jews. Insurance companies and business enterprises have enriched themselves on the plundered goods. Everybody treats Jewish property as ownerless objects.[8] Just as in the diaspora, a few just and honest people are found. These are in both Ishmael and Esau. According to a list of the massacre in Hebron, 19 Arabs were found to have saved 270 Jewish lives. On a different list, confusingly similar to the first list, 28 Arabs are mentioned to have saved 435 lives. Malka Slonim and her family were saved by a 75 year old neighbor, Abu Shachar: "He used his body as a living shield against the murderers. The mob arrived at our house and we heard Abu Shachar's voice: "Go away, you cannot come here! You must kill me first." He was 75 years old but a strong man. One of the mob took his sword and said: "I shall murder you, traitor." Abu Shachar replied: "Go ahead and kill! Here is a Rabbi's family and that is my family." The sword pierced Abu Shachar's foot, but he did not move, even when the mob left the place. When we tried to bring him inside for treatment, he refused for fear that they would come back." On the other side were the many so-called partners, "friends" and neighbors who both plundered and murdered the Jews. Just as in the diaspora, the thirst for Jewish blood in Hebron was beyond all imagination. The poem by Hayyim Nahman Bialik, "City of Slaughter" from 1904, could just as well have been written in 1929[9]: [...] When you have come into the courtyard,
In Ze'evi's book about the Hebron massacre, quotes from 1929 newspaper clippings are found: In a memo that the Jewish religious community sent to the British Chief Commissioner, it states:[10] "... Rabbi Meir Castel, 69 years age and rabbi Zvi Dribkin 67 years age, and five young men were attacked, castrated and murdered under inhuman torture. The baker Noach Immerman was grilled alive over an open fire.... The rabbi of Zichron Ya'akov, Avraham Ya'akov Orlansky Hacohen, who came to pray in Hebron, was taken away in the middle of prayer still wearing his prayer shawl. His brain was cut out and his wife murdered by hacking her bowels to small pieces... [the doctor and] pharmacist Gershon Ben Zion, who was dependent on the wheel-chair, who had worked in Hebron for more than 40 years and who had extensively helped the Arab population, got his nose and fingers cut off before he was murdered. His daughters were raped and murdered under cruel torture. Both of his wife's hands were hacked off and she died in the hospital in Jerusalem. The 2 year old Menahem Segal was beheaded. The teachers Haim-Eliezer Dobnikov and Yitzhak Abushadid were murdered by hanging. In this book on Hebron there is a description about the baby boy Menahem Segal. The father, Rabbi Nachman, held the boy in his arms. The father's hand was hacked off, and then the father and the son murdered with a sword. The mother lost three fingers. A yeshiva student, Simcha-Yitzhak Broida, was hung by his legs from a window and afterwards murdered. In Haichal's house, where 10 Jews were hiding, the two Haichal brothers came out and requested help from a British policeman. They received no help, but a mob surrounded them and one of them, Israel Haichal, was murdered on the spot, despite the fact that he was surrounded by 5 policemen. His brother, Eliyahu Dov, ran towards a police officer and held onto the neck of the horse. He was attacked and killed with a sword and knives with the Arabs shrieking: "Does it hurt, yes Jew?" Alter Palatzi was murdered right before his daughter's eyes. His mother tells about an Arab policeman who was standing nearby and said: "Let them slaughter some Jews..." Human stomachs were opened. The intestines cut into pieces. The heads were smashed and the brains removed. Men were castrated before they were murdered. A woman from Tel Aviv was hung upside down and her hair ripped from her head. Rabbi Grodzensky's eyes were cut out before his head was smashed. A girl was raped by 13 Arabs, right in front of her father, before he too was murdered. Her mother and sister were seriously mutilated. In the house of Abushadid's family, a baby was held by the legs and struck against the wall smashing his head. Many people had their eyes cut out before they were murdered. The description of these misdeeds are found in above mentioned poem 'City of Slaughter': In this violence two were beheaded: A Jew and his dog
Bialik's sorrow could be written as if it was about Hebron's pogrom. The biggest curse of the diaspora were the pogroms and they still take place today, in the Land of Israel. This is the reason why many Jews, from all groups have not been willing to face the reality. This is because the brutality, the thirst for Jewish blood and the uncontrolled lust to see humiliated, tortured and dying Jews, is impossible to understand. The pogromists in Hebron enjoyed the bloodshed of the Jews, rather than the Zionist's blood, the old, the new, Ashkenazi and Sephardim, religious as well as secular, Zionists and non-Zionists. In Hebron the myth about "Iben el-balad" [Arabic: The country's son, one who belongs to the country] was completely exploded. The illusion that the local, Jewish population, which is connected to the Arabs and their culture, and is secure under the Arabs protection, was completely destroyed. The massacre undermined the illusion that Zionism and its fulfillment in the Land of Israel had banished Jew-hatred during the diaspora. The self-delusion that new, normal conditions were created where the Jews were a part of the world community, has proven to be utopic. There is no difference between"the slaughter cities" Chisinau and Hebron. 80 years later a new wind blows about the "integrating the countryside", in spite of the fact that thousands of Jewish civilians and soldiers have been, and are being killed in this country, in this century and the previous one — by the Arabs. But every effort to learn by these experiences is defined as "paranoia" or "Auschwitz-complex". We must take into consideration this phenomenon and its bright side, more than its dark side. Once again it is necessary to formulate our thoughts about this country and whether it is correct that Zionism has created a gentile bastard of a Jew, a "Jewish goy". In spite of all the brutality which again and again has been used against the Jews, and only against the Jews, it has not caused most of the Jews to realise its true cause. I have therefore dared to describe parts of the pogrom in detail; despite the fact that psychologically it has been very difficult for me. However, this was not understood. On the contrary, the extreme Jewish left, both in Israel and the diaspora, deny the reality and ignore the thirst for Jewish blood which is found all over in the Arab world and in the Islamic East. To speak of this fact is politically incorrect, regardless of how many Arabs are found with knives in their hands and with their mouths have said the simple message: "We wish to murder a Jew"; not a soldier, not a settler, not an enemy but — "a Jew "! In one place is found a list of all humanities material and spiritual needs. Love and hate, food and sex, compassion and revenge, building and destroying etc. Up high on the list is found the lust for Jewish blood. A new-born baby has something which many would like to have: Jewish blood! In many cases this is an uncontrollable lust. Therefore it is necessary that all who have Jewish blood in their veins, and who want to survive, to be on guard, suspicious, careful and all the time awake and to take care of their own blood. This must be protected like a treasure in a bank vault, without any illusions. Their country must be armed to the teeth, and there should be no cutbacks on security. No price is worth it. Not even the "Peace Prize". "... and you took care of your souls." (Deuteronomy 4:15; Joshua 23:11) The Jewish mutation Two Israeli film producers, No'it and Dan Geva, have made a film: "Things I saw in Hebron". They were interviewed by journalist Neri Livne in connection with this film.[12] No'it Geva's grandmother was the granddaughter of Rabbi Eliyahu Manni, Hebron's past Sephardi chief rabbi. No'it tells that at her parent's home (her father is professor in biology and her mother is a lecturer in literature) "...it was forbidden to speak of Hebron just as it was forbidden to speak of the Holocaust, because my mother survived the Holocaust...." Where else in the world can one find a better example which fits a social anthropological observation like No'it's? She is an "Israeli" according to the word's leftist-oriented meaning and a synthesis of the two exterminations — one in Hebron and the other in Europe. One day No'it found a letter her grandmother Zmira, as a 16 year old and just after the August massacres in 1929, had written to the newspaper Ha'aretz. Because of the letter No'it and her husband decided to make a film about the Arab who saved Zmira's life, with the aim to strengthen the left wing's views about the Arab-Jewish conflict. But as No'it states: "The result was something else..." In the letter, the grandmother Zmira writes what she saw from the kitchen window on the day of the massacre. A large crowd of Arabs gathered together, armed with stones, sticks and swords. She witnessed Arabs returning from Jewish homes, carrying packages which they gave to the women who ran to hide them. The Jews who hid in cellars and under ruins survived. Zmira's family lived on the fourth floor. She heard screams and desparate shouts for help from the first floor. Stones were thrown into her apartment, and at the same time an Arab entered with his brother and son, who with a sword in hand came to help them. On the way out she stumbled over a body. It was her neighbor, the teacher Abraham. "His head was thrown down the stairway while the body was still lying there in convulsions. Blood was squirting out from the stomach where a dagger had struck." No'it states that she knew nothing of the Hebron massacre before she decided to make the film, but now she knows that there were Arabs who saved Jews. "But I also know that except for the Holocaust, the Hebron massacre was the worst which was done to the Jews... when we made the film we included the most brutal attacks... and I only said "an odd death" when I referred to a 13 year old Jewish girl who was raped by 13 Arabs and then hung with her head above the fire to be burnt alive... We did the same when it came to describe the castration of the old and the children, cutting off of limbs and the tearing out of the eyes of living humans." So continues No'it and asks the same question I asked: "The pogrom is one thing, let us assume that the mob was provoked... that many Arabs were murdered in Jerusalem and that many Ashkenazi Jews came there, who wanted to steal from them, but why the castrations? Rapes? Tearing out of eyes? And the hacking off of hands and feet?" No'it's method of rationalising these cruelties is an explanatory testimony of the behaviour of many in the Jewish society of today's Israel: "Also on our side are good and evil people to be found." She quotes someone who said that "Goldstein's murder of the Arabs finished the massacre in Hebron." She is not contemplating revenge with this remark, but criminals are found on both sides! The film shows one of the survivors of the pogrom, who falsely alleged that Moshe Dayan had sent a directive forbidding Jews from returning to their homes in Hebron. No'it's film also shows Id Zeiton, the son of the Arab who helped No'it's grandmother Zimra. He alleges in the film that the IDF (Israel's military) confiscated his house for a Jewish kindergarten! "Thus was a family thanked for saving Jewish lives." With magnanimity he invites No'it to "come and live in Hebron. If the Jews who earlier lived here continued to live here, and not the settlers, it would be very nice to live here." But No'it does not ask questions and the good-hearted Id does not explain why the Arabs murdered in 1929 "the Jews who lived there at that time," for they certainly were not settlers. No'it's father, in a polite way, declines the invitation and identifies himself entirely with the Arab side: "In the present political situation...it is not possible to live in Hebron. He (the father) knows that his prospective return to Hebron will be considered as a support to the settlers, whom he completely opposes," says No'it. Thus we are reverted back 80 years in time. At that time some of the Jews thought that they and the Arabs were on the same side. At that time there were no "settlers" on the other side, only the Zionists. No'it represents the same attitudes as these Jews had, who readily queued up as lambs to the slaughter. At that time there were 1,000 Jews in Hebron, today there are more than 5 million Jews in Israel. Nevertheless we are facing the same threat. It is neither the Arabs' sword nor the rockets, but it is the self-destructive Jewish mentality which is bringing catastrophe after catastrophe. Those who are destroying from the inside have fortunately not managed to destroy everything. The majority is still not infected with the Jewish self-hate and love of the enemy. Eighty years later the "1929 syndrome" still continues. Jewish blood is still in demand amongst our enemies. The whole world's nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles cannot help us, if we do not exert ourselves and fight agasinst this syndrome End Notes [1] Ed.: Islam defines non-Muslims as a second-class citizens, termed Dhimmi. The term Dhimmi also describes a state of mind of non-Muslims, who mentally accept their oppression by Muslims. The term 'Dhimmi Syndrome' that Elyakim Haetzni is using in this paper refers to a slave mentality and the submission that the left wing in Israel, and in the Western World generally have towards the Muslims, accepting their dominance, even though Islam (still) doesn't rule the world.Left wing Westerners fighting against their own people for the so-called "human rights of the Arabs", are not motivated by justice and moral, but rather by their own Dhimmi mentality. The driving force is a slave state of mind which is a result of fear from the superior Muslim masters, and submission to him. Dhimmi mentality is a clinical condition that has been embedded in the soul of the non-Muslims dhimmi over hundred of years. Bat Ye'or defined dhimmitude as the condition and experience of those who are subject to dhimma, and thus not synonymous to, but rather a subset of the dhimma phenomenon: "dhimmitude [...] represents a behavior dictated by fear (terrorism), pacifism when aggressed, rather than resistance, servility because of cowardice and vulnerability. [...] By their peaceful surrender to the Islamic army, they obtained the security for their life, belongings and religion, but they had to accept a condition of inferiority, spoliation and humiliation." (www.rutherford.org/Oldspeak/Articles/Interviews/Bat-Yeor.html; www.dhimmi.org) A Dhimmi is a non-Muslim subject of a state governed in accordance with Shari'a law. Muslim scholars have formulated the Dhimmi status for all non Muslims living under Muslim law. This law, also known as Omar's covenant I (634–644) or Omar's covenant II (717–720), defines the special taxes (Jizya) non-Muslims are obligated to pay and refers to their second degree status in the Muslim society, which they could easily avoid by converting to Islam. Dhimmi status was in use in North Africa until European colonialists took over the area. In Persia and in Yemen the Dhimmi status was applied until the late 19th century. It was not until 1856, and after pressure from the West, that the Ottoman Empire finally was forced to abolish the Dhimmi status from its law. In practice, all non-Muslims, who are classified as infidels, are still defined as Dhimmis of the Arab and the Muslim world. [2] Ed.: This is a Jewish term dealing with the pogroms in East Europe and describes the conditiond of the cities after the massacres. The Jewish author Hayyim Nahman Bialik wrote an important poem: The City of Slaughter, in 1904, — about the pogroms in Chisinau (Kishinev; earlier in Russia, now in Moldovia) where 50 Jews were massacred. [3] Haetzni refers here to the situation in Israel around 1900, when the Zionists started returning to the fatherland, Israel, after the pogroms in East Europe. There they met the established Jewish community which in Hebrew is called "Hayeshuv hayashan". That which arose around 1880 is called "hayeshuv hachadash", the new Jewish community. The anti-Zionists (who today call themselves post-Zionists) were found in both camps. The Arabs did not differentiate, and many of the massacred in the pogroms 1929-1936 were Jews who had lived in Israel from ancient times, as well as the newly-arrived Jews.] [4] Ed: Shomer was a self-defense organisation which was established by the Jews in Israel under the Ottoman Empire. Their objective was to protect the Jewish settlements against the daily plundering and assassinations, which the Arabs did to the Jews. Amongst the most important persons who established the group were Yitzhak Ben-Zvi (later president of Israel), Alexander Zeid, Yisrael Schochat and Yisrael Galili. HaShomer's motto was: "In blood and fire Judea fell; in blood and fire Judea will rise". In the First World War the Turks executed some of the members and forcibly deported many from Israel. After the British took over in Israel, the HaShomer was expanded and renamed Haganah. The settlements Tel Adashim, Tel Hai and Kfar Giladi were established by HaShomer. As late as 1976 a large weapons arsenal was found hidden under the carpentry workshop. Today it is open for tourists and school children. [5] Ed.: In the Hebrew origianal it is found in Nehemiah 4:11, but in the Norwegian edition it is in 4:17. [6] Ed.: In 1924 a part of the world famous yeshiva, 'Knesset Israel' moved from the city Slobodka in Litauen to Hebron. The Bible school, along with its rabbis and students who came from all parts of the world, meant a lot to the Jewish community's life in Hebron. The admission requirements were very high and the students prepared themselves for many years before they got admission. The fact that the yeshiva chose to establish in Hebron shows how important Hebron is for the Jews and for the Jewish identity. [7] William B. Ziff, The Rape of Palestine, New York, 1940. [8] Ed.: Prominent Norwegians also made good money from the plundering of the Jews. Even as early as the Krystallnatten the Jews were plundered by the Nazis. The Jewish properties and artworks were sold, among other reasons, for financing the armament and the imminent occupation (including Norway). The paintings, which the Nazis sold a few weeks later, ended up, among others with shipowners Thomas Olsen and Niels Werring, cf. Dagens Næringsliv 31.12.2002; www.dn.no/arkiv/article40050.ece [9] Ed.: Israels national poet. [10] Rehavam Zeevi, Hebron-massacre 1929, Havatzelet, 1994, Hebrew. [11] Ed.: It was found later that at least 80 Torah rolls were desecrated and destroyed in this pogrom. More Torah rolls than Jews were destroyed in this pogrom, which indicates the murderers clear intentions. [12] The newspaper Ha'aretz, 9.7.1999. Elyakim HaEtzni lives in Kiryat Arba and was a member of the Knesset. He is one of the eight pioneers who initiated the re-establishment of the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. Currently, he is a member of the board of the Yesha Council, the organization responsible for Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. He has a regular weekly column in Israel's largest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot (Latest News). |
|
A WELL LAID OUT & OBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE
Posted by Susana K-M, September 8, 2009. |
|
This comes from David White who lives in Auckland, New Zealand It is Advice to Palestinians from a man in New Zealand. and is entitled "An Open Letter To Speaking The Truth To The People Commonly Called 'Palestinians'." I say let there be peace ... but this is an outstanding piece of writing from a man in New Zealand who claims to be an agnostic. Sorry if its offensive to the lefties. |
|
Greetings to any Palestinian who may be reading this. My name is David White. I am a citizen of New Zealand, a small, Western, nominally Christian country in the South Pacific Ocean. I am not Jewish, or Christian, I guess I'm vaguely agnostic. Writing this letter is a good way for me to discuss the horrible mess in the Middle East, spell out as many relevant points as possible concerning the state of the Palestinian people, and to see what can be made of them. I don't speak Arabic, so I can only communicate with English-speaking Palestinians. There aren't many here in NZ, though, and I haven't yet met any. I don't know how many will ever see these words, but, here's hoping someone does. I have a post-graduate university education, and I suppose I could be called an intellectual. Unfortunately, many such people have supported abhorrent ideologies such as Nazism, and continue to support Communism, so I refuse to describe myself in this way. I don't want to be considered as another "trendy leftie" academic, as we would say in NZ. So, unlike many university-educated types, I am anti-totalitarian, pro-peace up to a point, pro-democracy, pro-capitalism, (except the capitalists running Enron), and skeptical about the "cult of victim-hood." I'm quite safe here in New Zealand, and no-one I know has been killed by a Palestinian. My perspective of Palestinians is something like this — you're Arabs (of course), mostly Muslim, but with a Christian minority. Many of you live outside Gaza/West Bank, mostly in Jordan and other Muslim countries, with some groups living in Western countries as well. You feel that you have been wronged by Israel and are fighting to destroy them. As for my perspective on Israel, I see them like this: They are a mainly Jewish, small, free-market democracy with a large Arab minority surrounded by hostile Arab dictatorships. They have an ancestral claim to Israel, their state was created as a refuge from persecution, they have a right to exist, and, having survived a holocaust in Europe, they should not have to sit still and wait for another one in the Middle East. A DOWN UNDER OVERVIEW Over the last few months, the conflict in the disputed territories of Gaza and the West Bank has turned into a war between the Palestinian people and Israel. I will not apologize for using the term "disputed", as I believe it reflects a rather complicated situation more accurately than "occupied". Your interpretation, as far as I can tell, seems to be something like this: You have no state of your own, and you are fighting a war against those you call "Zionist oppressors" and "colonial imperialists", in order to create a Palestinian state. Accusations of massacre and human rights violations by the Israeli Army are being tossed around like confetti. Your late leader, Yasser Arafat used to brag that he would "martyr" himself rather than "surrender", and that bungling and incompetent organization, the United Nations (again, no apologies for venting personal opinions), is trying to do what it is constitutionally incapable of doing, I.e. "saving future generations from the scourge of war". The Israelis see things differently, of course. For them, it's a simple battle for survival. They offered you a state, and you attacked them instead. They have occupied Palestinian towns, have fought it out with various armed groups, and desperate attempts are being made by the US, other Arab countries and the UN to break the so-called "cycle of violence". As a result, the Palestinian situation at the moment generally, can be explained by putting it into New Zealand idiom, put bluntly, the Palestinian people are buggered. Mounted. Stuffed. Rooted (American equivalent=screwed. British equivalent: done over). It's like this: Yasser Arafat had turned down the Israeli offer of a Palestinian homeland in Gaza and the West Bank ... You want, or Arafat claims that you wanted, a Palestine "from the river to the sea;" in other words, "all or nothing". There is one insuperable obstacle to this — Israel. No matter how eloquent your arguments or numerous your martyrs, no matter how many European diplomats are angered by, or UN resolutions are passed against, Israel, the Israelis are not going to pack up and leave. The only way you will get the Palestinian state you want is by destroying Israel. This is what you have been trying to do since 1948, and the current "intifada" launched in 2000 is your latest effort. However, the Israelis are not standing there and letting you kill them. They are fighting back, and if they have to choose between their own survival and yours, guess which choice they'll make. A vast wringing of hands, a great fluttering of Diplomats -- that has been the overall response to the disaster you have created for yourselves. You, the Palestinian Arabs, are obviously hoping for some kind of international intervention to save you. As we in New Zealand would say, "Get Real!". The European Union and the UN have demonstrated on numerous occasions in the past their incompetence and total incapacity to take any sort of firm action without American leadership. Ask your Muslim brothers of Bosnia-Herzegovina, about how effective the EU and the UN were in protecting them without American intervention. In spite of the impression that American diplomatic efforts have created, the US will not take sides against Israel, and will eventually abandon its futile attempts at evenhandedness. If they do join forces militarily with Israel in their war against terrorism, your fighters will be snuffed out like candle flames. As for your "beloved Arab brothers" in the Middle East, they make a great deal of noise about your "liberation struggle", and have sent money and arms, but have not sent a single tank to save you. Their diplomatic proposals are ones that could have been offered at any time, and are aimed at benefiting them, not Palestinians. The Egyptians themselves will not declare war on Israel unless they receive $100 billion to cover their costs. Do you really believe that the rest of your Arab Muslim brothers think you are worth that much? Do you really believe they will put your interests ahead of their own? Although your friends and Arabs in Europe are passing sanctions and burning synagogues in your support, not a single EU warship has sailed to your aid, and not a single NATO aircraft has dropped a single bomb on your "Zionist oppressors". I have noted that large numbers of people, including university educated intellectuals support the Palestinian cause. Don't be misled by this. No matter how many western intellectuals, news media and international organisations may support the Palestinian struggle, none of this matters because America stands by Israel. THE UNBEARABLE BURDEN OF LIFE How did you get into such a mess? As you yourselves would say and have indeed said on many occasions, it isn't your fault. It's always the "Great Satan" America, and its "Lesser Satan", Israel, that you blame for all your woes. Everything that you do, such as your "martyrdom operations", are described as the products of your "rage" at being "dispossessed of your land", and of your "helplessness" in the face of "Zionist" might. There are only 300 million Arabs against over 5 million Jews! How unfair! How unjust, that so many can do so little against so few! A number of Western commentators have put Arab failures down to numerous cultural factors, not the least being Islam. Your religious beliefs in martyrdom and jihad, coupled with a total inability to accept any blame for your own predicament, have combined to do you great and lasting damage. Look closely at why Western countries such as Israel have succeeded, and Muslim countries have not. Western countries are free-market democracies. Muslim countries (other than Turkey ) aren't. Surely that should tell you something. WHY I STAND? As I said, I do not, and I will not, support the Palestinian cause. Why not? I have a number of reasons, and here they are: 1. You have made it clear beyond any shadow of doubt that you intend to destroy Israel and kill or drive out its Jewish population. This is genocide, pure and simple. You justify this by saying that Israel has committed many crimes against your people, and that you seek justice". I say this in response — NOTHING WHATSOEVER is an acceptable justification for genocide. Loss of land, humiliation at being militarily defeated — others have suffered these and moved on to create new nations and opportunities for themselves. Examples abound — the Germans thrown out of East Prussia in Europe,1945, the Nationalist Chinese who fled to Taiwan in 1949, to name but two. Germans and Taiwanese have coped with military defeat and the loss of land. They haven't warred with their neighbours, nor have they launched terrorist attacks upon them. Both countries have more wealth than any Arab nation. Why can't Palestinians cope? Are Germans and Chinese better able to deal with adversity than Arabs? 2. You have accused the Israelis of "genocide" against you. Here's a question for you: Israel has atomic bombs and powerful military forces. If they really, truly wanted you all dead, they could easily do it. Why haven't they? If the Israelis went all-out, you would be, as we say in New Zealand, "dog tucker". Why did they spend so much time negotiating with your leaders? Because Israel wants peace and secure borders. You refuse to give them even those. You plan genocide and accuse Israel of the same crime. Prove it! 3. The use of terrorism. Killing people for being Jewish is despicable. Terrorist attacks on innocent civilians are also despicable. (At this point, I'd like to pause and get a question of nomenclature cleared up, regarding those Palestinians who kill themselves and others with explosives strapped to their bodies. You call them "martyrs". Western media sources and academics debate the precise term to use in describing them. Others, including the Israelis, call them terrorists. I have a better, more appropriate term. I prefer to use the word "kamikazes". The original kamikazes appeared in 1944, in the war in the Pacific. They were Japanese Navy and Army pilots, organized into "Special Attack Units" with orders to crash their planes into American warships, in the hope of destroying them "one plane, one ship". Their initial impact was similar to that of the Al-Qaeda attacks on New York Twin Towers and the Pentagon-shock and horror. (I noted that many Palestinians appeared on Western TV celebrating the September attacks). Note: The American response, in both cases was not the one hoped for. Once the shock had worn off, the US set out to destroy the kamikazes, and terrible destruction was rained down on Japan, ending only with atomic bombs. You know what is happening right now in Afghanistan to the Al-Qaeda group. 4. Using children as suicide bombers. Anyone who teaches children to kill themselves in suicide attacks is not worth supporting under any circumstances. For you to do this to your children is an abomination. A commentator on a Web magazine said that if the Palestinians laid down their arms, they would get peace and land. If the Israelis laid down their arms they would be killed. You know that is true, even if most of Europe doesn't. Your cause is evil, because it seeks destruction at any price. Genocide is not justice. Sacrificing your own children for the sake of your leader's personal ambitions is wicked. THAT'S WHY I CANNOT SUPPORT YOU.THAT'S WHY I STAND WITH ISRAEL. PALESTINIAN PAST AND FUTURE? The Second World War in Europe ended with Hitler's suicide. He was replaced by Admiral Doenitz who quickly made peace with the Allies. Japan's leader, Emperor Hirohito, decided on surrender rather than see his nation destroyed. If Arafat had chosen surrender, though, will the rest of the Palestinians go along with it? He died. Did the war end? If the answer to both of these questions is No, then the Palestinian people are doomed. Do you really prefer death as a people? Do you fully comprehend what you are doing? If you are indeed aware that the path you have embarked upon leads to destruction, and if you have freely chosen to walk in that direction, then as a people you are truly beyond hope. Are Palestinians really going to be a "Kamikaze Nation"? Are you really going to give Israel no other option except your destruction? If they must choose, then as Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld said, "better a terrible end than terror without end". Do not think that kamikaze tactics can get you what you want. The Israelis can tell you all about Masada, if you ask them. Remember what happened to the Japanese at places like Okinawa and Iwo Jima. Palestinians deserve better than the current mess you are in now — but before you can be given anything, you must offer a sincere peace, you must stop teaching your children to hate, you must stop believing That "victim-hood" justifies everything and — above all other things — GIVE UP ISRAEL ! Accept that you will never go there again except perhaps as workers or tourists. Accept that Jews are human beings too. Accept the verdict of 1948 and learn to live with it. Invest in banks, not bombs. Build computer chips, not Kalashnikovs. Teach science and mathematics, not hate. Look to the future, not the past. Stop blaming Americans and Jews for all your problems, and take responsibility for your own actions. Read those parts in the Quran about living with the "peoples of the Book". Golda Meir, the former Israeli Prime minister, is quoted as saying there will be peace in the Middle East only when the Arabs love their children more than they hate Israel ". Every time I see pictures of Palestinian children waving guns and wearing dummy explosives, then I can only say she is right. The alternative to peace is not victory But death. Think about it — before it's too late.. From an Infidel to those who submit, and are living in the Holy Land. May God grant you steadfastness in the face of things that cannot be changed, the capacity to cope with those that can be changed, and the wisdom and the ability to tell the difference. David White,
Contact Susana K-M at suanema@gmail.com |
|
PALESTINIAN POLICEMEN SERVE IN THE IZZ AL-DIN AL-QASSAM BRIGADES, HAMAS' MILITARY-TERRORIST WING
Posted by Reuven Erlich, September 8, 2009. |
|
1. Hamas' internal security apparatus, which includes the police force and the elite rapid intervention unit, serves as Hamas' main instrument for suppressing its opponents in the Gaza Strip. Many of its operatives serve as policemen but routinely and in emergency situations also in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, Hamas' military-terrorist wing. They are integrated into the Brigades' defensive and offensive missions at the expense of internal security. That was clearly shown during Operation Cast Lead.[1] 2. As part of its anti-Israeli campaign following Operation Cast Lead, Hamas and the human rights organization often included the names of operatives of the police force and internal security apparatus on the lists of those killed during the operation as civilians and not fighters, representing Israel as unjustifiedly attacking "innocent" policemen. The claim, which had no basis in fact, was that the internal security system was completely civilian and provided services to civilians, and was not part of the military-operational system, as was the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. 3. Additional proof of the dual duties of the Hamas police was recently made available by Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades announcements of the deaths of operatives who were killed during policing missions: i) Ayman Khaled Ibrahim Abu Sibleh, a policeman killed of August 14, 2009, was also as an operative in the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades. He was killed in battle against jihadist operatives (among them Jund Ansar Allah) during the incident at the Ibn Taymiyyah mosque in Rafah. During the battle, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades brutally suppressed their jihadi opponents.[2] Dr. Reuven Erlich is Head of the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center in Israel. Its website address is http://www.intelligence.org.il This article appeared September 1, 2009 on the Intelligence and Terrorism
Information Center |
|
KILLING RIFQA
Posted by LEL, September 8, 2009. |
|
This was written by Andrew G. Bostom, author of The Legacy of Jihad (Prometheus, 2005) and The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism. This article appeared August 24, 2009 in the American Thinker
|
|
Rifqa Bary faces death for her apostasy from Islam, while the media ignores the solid religious and institutional grounding for the practice. Today. In America. Magdi Allam, is an intrepid Egyptian-born writer and vociferous critic of jihadism who was publicly converted to Christianity from Islam by Pope Benedict XVI during an Easter eve service in St Peter's Basilica broadcast worldwide, Saturday March 22, 2008. Writing at the time of his public apostasy, Allam highlighted the West's weakness and flaccidity, foremost, its stifling multiculturalism. Allam decried the multicultural ethos for blandly asserting the "equality" of cultural and religious mores, even abjuring rational criticism of Islamic religious bigotry — such as authoritative Islam's living, consensus jurisprudence that those who apostasize from Islam must be killed — lest the tender sensibilities of Muslims be offended. He noted how in his adopted homeland of Italy, every Muslim can go to a mosque, but in the Muslim world there is ongoing and long-standing discrimination against religious minorities — notably Christians — entirely ignored by Western multiculturalists, of all ilks. Allam observed, moreover, the perverse phenomenon that in Western countries, "When a Westerner decides to convert to Islam, that's fine, but when a Muslim converts to Christianity, it is suddenly the end of the world. Everyone condemns him, as though he has done something of which he should be ashamed." And Allam concluded with this appropriately stern warning: "I say that it is time to put an end to the abuse and the violence of Muslims who do not respect the freedom of religious choice. In Italy there are thousands of converts to Islam who live their new faith in peace. But there are also thousands of Muslim converts to Christianity who are forced to hide their faith out of fear of being assassinated by Islamic extremists who lurk among us. If in Italy, in our home, the cradle of Catholicism, we are not prepared to guarantee complete religious freedom to everyone, how can we ever be credible when we denounce the violation of this freedom elsewhere in the world." The unassuming and previously unknown Rifqa Bary, has now become, arguably, America's most conspicuous apostate from Islam to Christianity. Truncated, grossly warped media depictions of her plight demonstrate that the American chattering classes remain stubbornly unwilling to even acknowledge, let alone confront Islam's malevolent doctrinal intolerance, ignoring Magdi Allam's plaintive appeal. Rifqa Bary is a 17 year-old Sri Lankan native who was living in New Albany, Ohio (a suburb of Columbus) until recent dramatic events precipitated her flight to Orlando, Florida. An excellent student and High School cheerleader, Rifqa apostasized from Islam, clandestinely practicing Christianity for some 4-years by her account. Hard evidence, i.e., a FaceBook webpage captured by Pamela Geller — consistently ignored by the media, including Fox News — clearly documents that she was a professing Christian over two years ago, at any rate. Geller's singularly tenacious and thorough reporting has provided the chronology and context which elucidates Rifqa Bary's plight. Rifqa was "exposed" as a Christian apostate from Islam by her father's Columbus area mosque — the Noor Islamic Center, a hotbed of jihadism and Jew — and other infidel hatred. As Bary's August 18th legal petition records, "The child's parents are devout followers of Islam and members of the extreme Noor Islamic Cultural Center in Columbus, Ohio. This is where the internationally known Hamas cleric, Salah Sultan, was the resident scholar before being banned from the United States. Salah Sultan is known as a global terrorist who publicly advocates the killing of Americans and Jews. The largest cell of Al Qaeda operatives was operating from the largest mosque in the Columbus area. Columbus is one of the cities under current investigation concerning the U.S. operations of Al-Qaeda. The child is a target for the radical Muslim community of Columbus, Ohio." Subjected to paternal abuse (bruises on Rifqa's limbs classmates allegedly brought to the attention of her High School counselor), Rifqa ultimately felt compelled to flee Ohio in July when her father threatened to murder his "apostate" daughter. She found temporary refuge in Orlando, Florida with Reverend Blake Lorenz, pastor of the Orlando-based Global Revolution Church, whom she had met through an online Facebook group. With Lorenz at her side, Rifqa Bary provided this desperate appeal (captured in full on YouTube) during an ~ 6-minute interview with WFTV: "If I had stayed in Ohio, I wouldn't be alive. In 150 generations in family, no one has known Jesus. I am the first — imagine the honor in killing me? There is great honor in that, because if they love Allah more than me, they have to do it. It's in the Koran. I'm fighting for my life. You guys don't understand. ... I want to worship Jesus freely, that's what I want. I don't want to die." This past Friday August 21, Orlando Circuit Judge Daniel Dawson's decision granted her the right to remain protected within Florida's foster care system until another hearing is held September 3rd. The mainstream media narrative, in stark contrast to Pamela Geller's hardboiled (while patent) shoe leather reporting, was apparently developed via inept, lazy and uninformed pseudo-investigation, and imbued with an impenetrable "see no Islam" mentality. Hence the repeated media portrayals of Rifqa Bary as a delusional teenage rebel, "brainwashed" to leave her loving middle-American Muslim home by a Florida-based fringe Christian cult. Although Fox News television has at least reported the story, it has also been a (the?) major purveyor of this warped narrative, and its coverage has been devoid of the critical Islamic context — in legal theory and practice — regarding apostasy. Fox News legal analysts — with the exception of one who hosted a pellucid ~ 4-minute discussion by security expert Frank Gaffney — have endlessly spoken about "jurisdiction," Florida versus Ohio, yet they appear incurious about the corpus of germane Islamic jurisprudence — which remains applicable in our era — sanctioning the killing of apostates. Fox News has ignored moving and informed written public appeals in support of Rifqa Bary by two prominent, remarkably courageous Muslim apostate intellectuals who have sought refuge in America, Nonie Darwish, and Wafa Sultan. Fox News has also failed to provide its vast audience with the insights of the most authoritative contemporary scholar on apostasy in Islam — Ibn Warraq, author of the definitive modern work on the subject, "Leaving Islam." Mr. Warraq is also a refugee from lethal Islamic intolerance now living in America. All three of these individuals — Nonie Darwish, Wafa Sultan, and Ibn Warraq — are readily accessible to Fox News, but the media giant has thus far chosen not to interview them and share their views. Punishment by death for apostasy from Islam is firmly rooted in the most holy Muslim texts — both the Koran (verses such as 2:217 and 4:89) and the hadith (i.e., collections of the putative words and deeds of the Muslim prophet Muhammad, as compiled by pious Muslim transmitters), as well as the sacred Islamic Law (the Shari'a). For example, Muhammad is reported to have said "Kill him who changes his religion," in hadith collections of both Bukhari and Abu Dawud. There is also a consensus by all four schools of Sunni Islamic jurisprudence (i.e., Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi, and Shafi'i), as well as Shi'ite jurists, that apostates from Islam must be put to death. Averroes (d. 1198), the renowned philosopher and scholar of the natural sciences, who was also an important Maliki jurist, provided this typical Muslim legal opinion on the punishment for apostasy: "An apostate...is to be executed by agreement in the case of a man, because of the words of the Prophet, 'Slay those who change their din [religion]'...Asking the apostate to repent was stipulated as a condition...prior to his execution." The contemporary (i.e., 1991) Al-Azhar (Cairo) Islamic Research Academy-endorsed Shafi'i manual of Islamic Law, 'Umdat al-Salik (pp. 595-96) states: "Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief (kufr) and the worst.... When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed. In such a case, it is obligatory...to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed." The media's ignorance (or denial) of relevant Islamic jurisprudence on apostasy is compounded by its obliviousness to public pronouncements by North American Muslim legal scholars and clerics urging draconian punishments for Muslims who renounce Islam in Canada, or the US. Syed Mumtaz Ali, the late architect of Canada's Sharia (Islamic Law) tribunal, and law professor Ali Khan, for example both advocated extending Islamic apostasy laws to the West. Mumtaz Ali, in a disturbing essay, affirmed the traditional Islamic legal viewpoint that apostates must "choose between Islam and the sword," arguing further that if Canada were to act in accord with its own Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian government must grant the country's Islamic community authority to punish those Muslims who apostasize, or malign their faith. Washburn (Topeka, Kansas) University Law Professor, Ali Khan, another practicing Muslim, provided a more original, but no less chilling rationale for Muslims in the West to violate — fatally — the basic freedom of conscience of their co-religionists. Khan argued in The Cumberland Law Review that apostasy from Islam is an "attack" upon "protected knowledge," which if deemed (i.e., by some Islamic tribunal one must assume!) to be "open, hostile, and voiced contemptuously," justified punishment by death. Ali Khan is convinced that traditional Islamic law precepts antithetical to freedom of conscience nevertheless trump this foundational Western freedom, because, "Islam is the truth beyond doubt. [And] [t] hese rules preserve the dignity of protected knowledge, discouraging an 'easy in, easy out' attitude toward Islam." Just this April, Harvard Muslim chaplain Taha Abdul-Basser explained approvingly to a Muslim student that the traditional Islamic practice of executing apostates from Islam, remained both venerable, and applicable: "There is great wisdom (hikma) associated with the established and preserved position (capital punishment), and so, even if it makes some uncomfortable in the face of the hegemonic modern human-rights discourse, one should not dismiss it out of hand." With the exception of my colleague Diana West, the mainstream media completely ignored this important and revealing story, emanating from Harvard, no less. Rifqa Bary's public apostasy from Islam is a watershed event which will gauge just how far into the depths of stultifying Islamic correctness we have descended. Diana West recently provided this unflinching assessment of what is at stake if we fail to muster the requisite moral and intellectual fortitude: "...the war against alienating Islam is not a war I want to fight — and no adherent of Western liberty could believe it is the war we want to win. Indeed, this war effort turns out to be the same thing as fighting for Islam. It calls us to self-censorship, self-abnegation, self-extinguishment. It depends on and encourages our submission." [Note: I would like acknowledge my indebtedness to the work of two exceptionally courageous, and intellectually honest journalists, Pamela Geller, and Diana West. Pamela has done the only serious investigative reporting on Rifqa Bary's case. Diana West coined the apt phrase, "see no Islam" as part of her unique, ongoing analysis of the dhimmitude of the American intellectual class.] UPDATE September 3, 2009 Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, the Florica Security Council and Nonie Darwish hosted a blogger conference call. They emphasize that the family mosque in Ohio — the Noor Islamic Cultural Center — has known terrorist connections. For example, Hani Sakir, who runs the mosque, is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood. The mosque has ties to the Somalis sending kids to train for jihad. Rifqa's case highlights that sharia law has come to the West and threatens apostates from Islam. As Brigette Gabrielle has pointed out, the 57 Muslim states "of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) [the largest single voting bloc in the UN] maintain that 'human rights' are defined solely within the context of shariah law." Update October 2, 2009 This email is from Governor Charlie Crist's office regarding Rifqa's current status: "Ms. Bary is safe and comfortable, currently living in a foster home. Her case is proceeding through the juvenile court system. Ms. Bary's court-appointed representative, known as a Guardian Ad Litem, has filed a Petition for Dependency, seeking to have Ms. Bary declared a ward of the State of Florida. Legal counsel from the Florida Department of Children and Families is present at every proceeding to protect the best interests of the child, and Governor Crist's General Counsel is closely monitoring the case. " Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
THE LEMMING
Posted by Miki and Herb Sunshine, September 8, 2009. |
|
This was written by Rabbi Meir Kahane and published in the Spring edition of the Authentic Jewish Idea — Spring 5744-1984. His essays are distributed by Barbara Ginsberg, who 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 "They are also available at
|
|
The lemming looks like a sensible enough animal, but its habit of drowning itself in the sea has long puzzled scientists. The lemming is a small animal, about the size of a rat. The lemming is a strange animal with a very strange custom. The lemming, every few years, gathers together with a great many other lemmings, and they all march together — to the sea. The lemming and all the other lemmings march shoulder to shoulder and when they reach the sea they do a very strange thing: They jump in and drown. The lemming is a very strange animal and no one can understand it. There are various categories of lemmings and last Saturday night, the Hebrew lemmings gathered in Jerusalem, some several thousand of them, small creatures, the stature of rodents. And they marched. Shoulder to shoulder down the road of madness, inexorably moving to the sea of destruction. The march of the lemmings, "Suicide Now". The Hebrew lemming is a strange animal undoubtedly the most irrational of all. Psychologists and sociologists and anthropologists and biologists and students of irrational behavior from far and wide gathered to study the march of the Hebrew lemmings. "Peace Now", was what they carried as their slogan as they marched to the sea of suicide to partake of the most permanent of peace. "Leave Lebanon" was etched on their banners as they marched in preparation of leaving the world. "Stop Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories" they proclaimed as they began their uprooting of their settlement on this earth. The Hebrew lemming is a strange animal and it is said that no one can understand it. That is not really true. I understand the small Hebrew lemming, the stature of the rodent, who seeks to leap into the sea to die. And if the sociologists and psychologists and anthropologists and biologists and students of irrational behavior will gather together, I will describe for you what makes the Hebrew lemmings — run — to commit suicide. The issue is not and never was "Lebanon". The issue was never the "occupied territories of 1967". What strikes terror into the hearts of the Hebrew lemmings of the stature of the rodent, is an immense cancer called guilt, that grows inside of them until it gives them no rest. The lemming of guilt is the Hebrew-speaking rodent who is haunted by the thought that he is not only an oppressor and aggressor in the "occupied lands of 1967" but he is also a thief and robber of a people he calls "Palestinians", and really has no right to any of the land that was once "Palestine". The Hebrew lemming of Suicide Now is haunted by the thought that his family had no right to come from Russia or Poland or Galicia or England or Canada or Argentina or the United States to create a "Jewish State" on lands that were owned by others. But since the lemming is the size of a rat, who lacks the courage to honestly follow up his convictions, stand up before the "Palestinian" and say: "I am a thief and I hereby return my kibbutz to you" — he must, instead, fight all the harder for the poor "Palestinian" in Judea, Samaria, Gaza, Lebanon. His weakness and inability to give up his houses in Kibbutz Mishmar Ha'Emek or the artist's colony of Ein Hod or the tennis courts of Ramat Ha'Sharon or villa in Savyon, drives the Hebrew lemming into even greater depression of guilt and self-hate. His need to prostrate himself before the poor Arab of any other area except his own house becomes an all-consuming, obsessive one. And, of course, the guilt goes much further. The Hebrew lemming, who is a small animal about the size of a rat, deeply despises with a psychopathic passion everything that smacks of Judaism and the curse of fate that made him Jewish. In his little heart the lemming knows that Judaism's values are at odds with everything that he wishes his life to consist of. The separateness and exclusivity of Judaism vis-à-vis other peoples is anathema to his universalistic desire to intermarry, assimilate, amalgamate with all the goyim and thus find love and escape in their midst. The concept of Chosenness repels him for he seeks anything that will enable him to eliminate the barriers between Jews and others. The holiness that decrees discipline and sanctity and abstinence and personal limitations are all diametrically opposed to his materialistic need for total freedom, anarchy, and limitless right to license. He sees in Judaism racism, primitiveness, parochialism, concepts that he abhors because he seeks to be a universal rodent. And faced with this Judaism, he is faced, too, with the fact that he is a Jew. This is the horror that he cannot abide. From guilt emerges self-hate, black and ugly self-hate. The lemming must escape. His escape is through the sea. The Sea of Suicide, Suicide Now. Let the state that he feels to be a robber state, go under. Let the people and faith that he sees as reactionary and fascist and abominable, cease to exist. "Let my soul perish with the Philistines! The cry of the Hebrew lemmings of Suicide Now. The tragic story of the Hebrew lemmings. But, if it must be, it would be sufficient if they leaped into the sea themselves. The real tragedy is that while ordinary lemmings take the plunge themselves, the Hebrew ones seeks to take all of us with them. And that cannot be. That is why the lemmings of Israel must be fought. Because they have become more than an interesting zoological phenomenon. They threaten the existence of normal, healthy, true Jews who are not small animals the size of a rodent. THE GREAT DANGER (excerpt) The great danger and most powerful weapon of the Hebrew-speaking gentiles and lemmings of Israel, is their ability to so instill guilt and doubt in us, that we close our mouths and minds and fear to say what we know is to be true. The small circle of leftists and guilt-ridden liberals, intellectuals and frustrated artistic type, possesses a weapon of overwhelming power, and it is this that enables them to march toward victory. Their control of the news media affords them the opportunity, daily, to influence, indoctrinate, pervert, corrupt, an entire generation that is their captive audience. They decree the gentilized foreign culture that becomes the passion of the masses. They decree the ideas and perverted gentilized values that are heard and propagated over the waves. An entire generation of youth is in their hands. And they are aided by the frustrated spiritually sick, lost artists who join them in parody of championing of "peace and love". They din their message of perversion into our ears every day, every hour, every minute. 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 |
|
IN ANTICIPATION OF COLUMBUS DAY: SHOULD IT BE A "JEWISH" HOLIDAY?
Posted by Sonia Nusenbaum, September 8, 2009. |
|
Thanks to Vice President Ralph Rubinek of the Frank Sinatra Lodge of the Order of the Sons of Italy for bring these articles to our attention. From Allan. Chapter Director of ACT! For America, New York & Long Island Chapter. (Enroll at: ACT.NYCandLI@GMail.Com) Many countries in the New World and elsewhere celebrate the anniversary of Christopher Columbus's arrival in the Americas, which occurred on October 12, 1492 in the Julian calendar and October 21, 1492 in the modern Gregorian calendar, as an official holiday. The day is celebrated as Columbus Day in the United States, as Día de la Raza (Day of the Race) in many countries in Latin America, as Día de las Culturas (Day of the Cultures) in Costa Rica, as Discovery Day in The Bahamas, as Día de la Hispanidad (Spanish Day) and National Day in Spain, as Día de las Américas (Day of the Americas) in Uruguay and as Día de la Resistencia Indígena (Day of Indigenous Resistance) in Venezuela. These holidays have been celebrated unofficially since the late 18th century, and officially an historian, is the author of 'The Herzl Paradox' and articles that have appeared in the Herzl Yearbook. in various countries since the early 20th century. The first article below was written by Joseph Adler, a historian, who is the author of 'The Herzl Paradox' and articles that have appeared in the Herzl Yearbook. The second article appeared on |
|
1.) "Christopher Columbus' Voyage Of Discovery: Jewish And New Christian Elements"
The most dramatic and best known of the voyages of exploration was, of course, the one made by Columbus in 1492. The journey was spectacular not only for its length and daring, but because it led to one of the biggest surprises in history — the discovery of America. All of the biographers of Columbus recognize this great feat, but many are rather reticent concerning the discoverer's early years and ancestry. Indeed, many scholars shrink from the possibility that the great explorer may have had Jewish ancestors. There is however, little controversy that the epoch-making expedition was largely made possible by Jews, New Christians (i.e., Conversos) and Marranos (nominally Conversos who secretly retained their allegiance to Judaism). There were many of them. In Lisbon, Columbus knew and consulted with Joseph Diego Mendes Vezinho (1450 — 1520), a Jewish scientist and cosmographer at the Portuguese court. Vezinho, who was later to convert to Christianity, headed a committee of savants and experts on nautical matters chosen to consider Columbus's proposed expedition of discovery. In his work for the Portuguese monarch, Vezinho had helped develop a new and improved astronomical calendar, star tables, and more efficient nautical instruments. Although Vezinho did not favor Columbus's plan, his work for establishing direction and location at sea would prove of inestimable value to the future discoverer of the New World. Columbus also derived valuable information from Avraham Zacuto (c. 1450 — 1515), a product of the "juderia" of Saragossa, who would be forced by the expulsion of Jews from Spain to flee to Portugal. While still a professor at the University of Salamanca, Zacuto had achieved fame as a scientist, mathematician, and inventor. He is credited with constructing the first metal astrolabe as well as the development of astronomical tables that gave the exact hours for the rising of the planets and fixed stars. His table of ephemeredes was translated into Latin by Vezinho and published under the title 'Almanach Perpetuum.' This invaluable guide to navigation was used by Columbus on his voyage across the Atlantic. Zacuto met Columbus prior to his first voyage and endorsed the venture, but considered the expedition to be an extremely hazardous undertaking. Columbus's navigational skills also owed much to the inventiveness of a handful of Jewish scholars of the Middle Ages (actually Greeks and not Jews — CSR). Outstanding among the latter was Levi ben Gershon (1288 — 1344), Biblical commentator, mathematician, and astronomer. Levi was the inventor of the cross — staff, better known as "baculus Jacob"(Jacob's staff.) (Egyptians, Irish and Greeks had this long before the Jews — they likely "borrowed" it from goyim in writings from centuries earlier — likely in Greek.) This simple instrument enabled mariners to measure angular separation between two celestial bodies. Still another nautical instrument available to Columbus was the "quadrant Judaicus," the brainchild of Jacob ben Machir ibn Tibbon (1236 — 1307.) Indeed, virtually all the nautical aids used by Columbus were the products of Jewish minds. Many of the discoverer's maps, for example, were the creation of Jehudah Cresques (c. 1360 -?), at one time head of the National Academy of Palma on Majorca (a center of Jewish cartography during the 14th century). In the persecutions of 1391, Cresques was forced to convert to Christianity and was given a new name — Jayme Ribes. He entered the service of the king of Portugal and became the director of the School of Navigation at Sagres — the institution founded by Henry the Navigator that marked the beginning of the Age of Discovery. In 1485, Columbus suddenly left Portugal for Spain. Almost immediately, he began a search for a sponsor for his proposed voyage of discovery. After several frustrating false starts, he appealed to a nobleman of Andalusia, Luis de Cerda, the count of Medici -Celi. De Credo's hospitality was legendary, and he took Columbus under his wing, sheltering the mariner for almost two years. The count also offered to outfit three ships for Columbus's contacts, Luis de Cerda recommended him to his cousin, Cardinal Pedro Ganzales de Mendoza, bishop of Toledo. The cardinal and the count were related through the same Jewish grandmother, and both men had been subjected to attacks because of their descent. De Mendoza, in his capacity as chairman of a special commission that met to consider the merits of Columbus's plans, heartily endorsed the mariner's proposals. His cousin, Luis de Cerda, also continued to lobby on behalf of Columbus; he sent a strong letter to the Spanish monarchs urging them to reconsider their opposition to Columbus's proposals and, at the very least, to grant the mariner an audience. De Cerda's appeal yielded results, and in 1486, Columbus was granted a royal audience at Cordoba. Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand were not entirely convinced by Columbus's presentation but agreed to submit his project to a commission of scholars. To head the commission Isabella chose her confessor, Hernando de Talavera (1428 — 1507), prior of the Prado and later archbishop of Granada. Hernando de Talavera was the grandson of a Jewish woman and in his declining years, would be accused of being a Marrano and was brought before the Inquisition. Humiliated, and unable to counter the vicious proceedings of the court headed by Rodriquez Lucerno, the inquisitor of Cordoba, the proud Hernando would die of mortification. Columbus himself suffered patiently for several years, as the so-called experts of the de Talavera commission debated endlessly the feasibility of his proposals (they eventually rejected his plan.) It was during these early years of tribulation in Spain that Columbus gained the support of two highly placed and influential Jews — Abraham Senior and Isaac Abravanel. Senior (1412-1493), during the reign of Isabella's predecessor, King Henry 1V of Castile, had served as chief tax collector of the kingdom and was appointed by the monarch to head the Jewish community of Segovia. Along with a number of other influential Jews, Senior had played a key role in arranging the marriage of Isabella to Ferdinand of Aragon. Some years later, in the power struggle between Isabella and her brother, King Henry 1V, Senior, together with a few other notables, succeeded in convincing the commander of the fortress of Segovia to hand over the city to Isabella and her consort. This act opened the way for the unification of Castile and Aragon and, eventually all of Spain. Once in power, the grateful Catholic monarchs rewarded Senior by appointing him "rab de la corte," i.e., court rabbi and supreme judge of the Jews of Castile. He also received a large pension and was exempted from the restrictions in dress that had been imposed on Spanish Jewry. In 1468, Senior was made treasurer general of the Hermanded, a semi-military organization formed for the maintenance of law and order. In addition, as factor general to the Spanish army, Senior played a major role in facilitating the conquest of Grenada, the last remaining stronghold of the Moors in Spain. Tradition has it that Senior met Columbus at Malaga, at which time the future admiral outlined his plan to the Jewish courtier. Columbus was well aware that his proposed expedition would require large financial commitments and welcomed the promise of the support of Senior. Don Isaac ben Judah Abravanel (1437 — 1508) a close associate of Senior, was another supporter of Columbus at the Spanish court. Born in Lisbon, Isaac was a child prodigy. His many talents eventually attracted the attention of King Alfonso of Portugal, and he became the latter's advisor, as well as the kingdom's financial minister. However, Abravanel's life took an unexpected turn with the death of his royal patron. The new king suspected Abravanel of being involved in an insurrection against his regime led by the duke of Braganca. Abravanel, fearing for his life, fled to Spain (Toledo). When Ferdinand and Isabella learned of his presence in their realm, they invited him to join their court. Some time later, Senior enlisted his aid in tax farming the kingdom's revenues. Abravanel gradually amassed a great personal fortune and loaned enormous sums to the Catholic monarchs in their war against the Moors of Granada. Indeed, it was shortly after the fall of Malaga that Abravanel, in the company of his friend, Senior, met Columbus and was first exposed to the latter's plan for a voyage of discovery across the Atlantic. Although Abravanel favored the mariner's plan, his support would come to an abrupt halt following the issuance of the edict of expulsion of Spanish Jewry in 1492. Abravanel, in spite of pressure from Ferdinand and Isabella to convert to Christianity, remained steadfast in his beliefs and immigrated to Naples. When the Kingdom of Naples, in 1494, fell to King Charles V111 of France, Abravanel accompanied the deposed Neapolitan monarch, whom he had served as treasurer, into exile in Sicily. After the death of the former Neapolitan ruler, Abravanel moved to Corfu and, in 1496, returned to Naples. Some years later, at the urging of his son, Joseph, he settled in Venice, where he served as a diplomat for the republic until his death in 1508. Abraham Senior, who had served the Catholic majesties so faithfully for many years, was at first given permission to leave Spain with whatever personal possessions he wished to take along with him. However, steady pressure was exerted by Isabella and Ferdinand for Senior to convert. The queen, in particular, threatened to impose further reprisals against the departing Jews, and Senior, too old and tired to fight any longer, accepted baptism and was allowed to remain in Spain. Taking the name Fernando Munez Coronel, he was further rewarded for his apostasy by being appointed "regidor of Segovia" (governor) and made a member of the royal council, as well as chief financial administrator to the crown prince. He died shortly afterwards in 1493. Among Columbus's highly placed patrons was Luis de Santangel, a member of one of the wealthiest and influential families of Aragon. An ancestor, Azarias Chinillo, had converted to Christianity in the early years of the 15th century in the wake of the persecutions against the Jews led by the fanatical Dominican friar, Vincent Ferrer. Azarias would become bishop of Majorca. Luis de Santangel began his career as a tax farmer and courtier. A favorite of King Ferdinand, he was appointed in 1481 'escribano de racion,' a kind of comptroller general, to the royal house of Aragon. He would also later hold the post of 'contador mayor' (paymaster general) for Castile. Although nominally New Christians, the Santangel family's attachment to Catholicism was at best lukewarm, and its members were among the early targets of the Inquisition. Indeed, a kinsman of Luis was accused of complicity in the murder of Pedro de Arbues, canon of the Cathedral of Saragossa and the heart and soul of the Inquisition in Aragon. The kinsman was also charged and condemned for being a secret Jew (i.e., a Marrano.) In July of 1491, Luis de Santangel was also accused of being a Marrano. King Ferdinand intervened on his behalf and managed to stop the Inquisition's proceedings. Luis de Santangel first met Columbus in 1486 and was greatly impressed by the latter's personality and plans for a voyage of discovery. When, some years later, word reached him that Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand had once again rejected Columbus's project and had sent him on his way, Santangel immediately requested and received an audience with Her Majesty. With great eloquence, he pleaded for Columbus's voyage of discovery and prevailed upon the queen to have the mariner brought back to the court for further discussions. The queen agreed, and a bewildered Columbus was brought back to the court to once again present arguments for his proposed expedition of discovery. Anticipating the royal couple's anxiety on how to finance a voyage across the Atlantic, Santangel reminded the monarchs that the Santa Hermandad, of which he was one of treasurers, had a large endowment that could be borrowed against. He also indicated to the Spanish rulers that he was willing to back the Columbus expedition with a considerable sum from his personal fortune. (He would later also call upon his Converso friends to contribute toward the financing of the expedition.) The tax farmer also reminded Ferdinand and Isabella of an overlooked debt to the Crown. It seems that the community of Palos on the southern coast of Castile had been found guilty of smuggling, and a fine had been levied against it that had gone uncollected. The town owed the Crown three months of service and two caravels. Santangel's arguments proved to be the decisive factor in swaying the Spanish sovereigns to back Columbus's project. A grateful Columbus would not forget his benefactor. It was to Luis de Santangel that he addressed the famous letter announcing his discoveries. Indeed, Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand would first hear of the successful undertaking from the lips of Santangel. An identical letter was sent by Columbus to Gabriel Sanchez, one of the three influential New Christians that Luis de Santangel had gotten to help finance the explorer's initial voyage. Gabriel Sanchez (d. 1505) was the high treasurer of the Kingdom of Aragon, and a member of a distinguished family of Conversos who traced their origins back to a Jew named Alazar Goluff of Saragossa. After the murder of the inquisitor Pedro de Arbues, three of the brothers of Gabriel Sanchez — Juan, Alfonso, and Guillen — were accused of having participated in the conspiracy to eliminate the Inquisitor. Juan managed to escape but was condemned to death in effigy. Alfonso, who was also accused of being a Marrano, managed to flee Aragon before the Inquisition could lay hands on him. The third brother, Guillen, was allowed by the Inquisition to repent. The father-in-law of Gabriel Sanchez, also implicated in the murder plot, was less fortunate than Guillen. He was charged with Judaizing and sentenced to death. Grave charges were also brought against Gabriel Sanchez. He was accused of having participated in the conspiracy that led to the murder of Pedro de Arbues. Since the allegations could not be proved, and Sanchez continued to have the support of King Ferdinand, he was able to survive the efforts of the Inquisition to tar him as a heretic and backslider. As in the case of Luis de Santangel, Columbus regarded Gabriel Sanchez as one of his staunchest supporters. The letter the discoverer sent to Sanchez describing the findings of the first voyage to the New World was reproduced by the high treasurer, and a copy was forwarded to his brother, Juan, in Florence. The latter passed it on to his cousin Lenardo de Cosco, a Marrano, who translated it into Latin and had it published. Within a year, the Latin translation ran through nine editions, thus spreading the news of the New World throughout Europe. Still another of Columbus's highly placed patrons was Alfonso de la Caballeria. He was the descendant of a Jewish family that had achieved prominence in Spain as early as the 13th century. During the course of the 15th century, a family schism occurred, and eight of the nine sons of the head of the household converted to Christianity. In the succeeding generations, many members of the family achieved fame and fortune in the service of the state and the Church. At the same time, by marriage, the de la Caballeria clan became closely allied with almost all the major Converso families in Spain. Alfonso, like his father before him, started his career as a counselor at the court of Aragon and rose rapidly through the ranks of the bureaucracy. In the 1480's, he was appointed vice-chancellor of Aragon. Nevertheless, in spite of his high office, he was not immune from investigation by the Inquisition. He was accused of having been involved in the Pedro de Arbues conspiracy. Allegations concerning other members of Alfonso's family, many of whom were suspected of being Marranos, were also introduced by the tribunal. Thus, Alfonso's father, Pedro, although long deceased, was described by one Inquisition witness as having posed as a Christian who frequently reverted in thoughts and deeds to his ancestral traditions. Still other members of the de la Caballeria clan were accused of still maintaining close ties with the synagogue and the Jewish community. The judicial proceedings initiated by the Inquisition would drag on for 20 years. Finally, in 1501, the papacy confirmed Alfonso de la Caballeria's Catholic orthodoxy, and he was completely exonerated. However, the toll of the prolonged trail had been high. He was unable, for example, to prevent the Inquisition's exhumation of the bones of his grandmother, or his wife's appearance as a penitent in an auto-da-fe, or the burning of his brother Jaime in effigy. Completing the list of powerful Conversos who rendered financial support to Columbus when it was most desperately needed, is that of Juan Cabrero, royal chamberlain of King Ferdinand. He was regarded as one of the king's most faithful and trusted retainers. Cabrero had fought at Fernando's side in the war against the Moors and was an intimate friend as well as advisor to the monarch. However, even this high-placed New Christian official's family could not escape the tentacles of the Inquisition. Juan's grandfather, Sancho de Patenoy, the grand treasurer of Aragon, was accused in the Arbues conspiracy and sentenced to death. Juan Cabrero, using all his influence at court, managed with great difficulty to have the verdict changed to life imprisonment. In addition to Luis de Santangel, Alfonso de la Caballeria, and Juan Sanchez, two other individuals merit attention as supporters of Columbus at the Spanish court. They are Marchioness de Moya, and Juan de Coloma. De Moya, a close friend and confidant of Queen Isabella, it is widely believed, was a member of a Marrano family. Although hard evidence is lacking, it is known that the marchioness associated with Marranos and Conversos and on several occasions, intervened to save such individuals, from the Inquisition. Juan de Coloma, a royal secretary, had a hand in drawing up the contract between Columbus and the Catholic monarchs. Although one of the few high officials of "Old Christian" stock involved with the initial expedition of Columbus, his wife was a New Christian — a member of the Caballeria family. Columbus's connections with the Jews, New Christians, and Marranos, was not limited to court officials. There is the controversial matter that some of his shipmates were of Jewish stock. Five crew members are generally singled out for this distinction; Alonso de la Calle, a bursar, who eventually settled in Hispaniola and whose very name indicates that he was born in the Jewish quarter; Rodrigo de Sanchez of Segovia, who was related to Gabriel Sanchez, the high treasurer of Aragon; Marco, the surgeon; Maestre Bernal of Tortosa, a physician who had been reconciled by the Inquisition in 1490, but was forced to witness his wife's death at the stake of an auto-da-fe, and Luis de Torres, the official interpreter of the expedition, who had been baptized a few days before the fleet sailed. Torres had been specifically appointed by Columbus as interpreter because he knew Hebrew, Chaldean and Arabic. This knowledge was expected to prove useful if the voyagers came across "Asiatic" descendants of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel. Prior to his conversion, Luis de Torres had been employed as an interpreter by Juan Chacon, the governor of Murcia (a province with a large Jewish population). Since Columbus's first voyage coincided with the expulsion of the Jews from Spain, Luis's job with the governor was obviously over. There were no longer any Jews for whom he might have interpreted in their audience with the governor. When Columbus discovered Cuba, he was convinced that he had found Marco Polo's Cinpangu (Japan). The "admiral," however, was puzzled that there were no silk clad sages, or palaces tiled with gold to be seen anywhere. Accordingly, he decided to dispatch an embassy into the interior of the island, where he believed the cities were located. Tolead the mission, he chose Luis de Torres. The interpreter was given a Latin passport, which he was to present to the chief of the natives ("the Great Khan"), as well as gifts. He also carried letters of credence from Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand. An able-bodied seaman named Rodrigo de Jerez was chosen to accompany Torres. Two native Arawak Indian guides rounded out the embassy. The mission into the island's interior proved disappointing to Columbus, for the group found nothing resembling an imperial city, or gold. However, Torres did bring back a fairly comprehensive report of the native people he and Rodrigo had encountered, their customs and manners, as well as a description of some of the island's fauna and flora. Among the wonders that Torres had noted was a strange practice of the natives to put thin rolls of dried leaves (tobacco) into their nostrils or mouths, lighting them, and blowing out smoke. Although Luis de Torres's linguistic skills proved useless in carrying out his mission, the resourceful interpreter, not understanding the Amerindian dialect, fell back upon sign language to carry out his instructions. Torres would later seek permission to settle in Cuba as a royal agent. His request was granted with an annual pension from the Crown. By cultivating his friendship with the native ruler of the island, Torres would, in time, acquire large tracts of land and carve out for himself a small empire. He was the first European to visit the inhabitants of the New World in their native setting, and the first to describe their life before it was corrupted by contact with the white man. Scholars have long squabbled over the question as to why high-placed New Christians and Jews were willing to take on the enormous risk of financing Columbus's initial expedition. One possible explanation that has been suggested is that the discoverer and his patrons had a deep and ineradicable impulse to help their fellow Jews, or in the case of the Conversos such as Luis de Santangel, Alfonso de la Caballeria, and Juan Sanchez, their former co-religionists to whom they still felt linked. A biographer of Columbus, John Boyd Thatcher, putting it more succinctly, has written; "that the triumph of Columbus — was the triumph of the Converso Luis de Santangel, visionary and champion of the perennial lost cause of history — the cause of the Jews." Other writers (notably Salvador de Madariaga and Simon Wiesenthal) have speculated that the longings of the Conversos who supported Columbus may have run parallel to the dreams of the discoverer himself, namely, an obsessive dream to find a refuge for the Jews in the lands that he hoped to find across the Atlantic. Whatever the truth, it is a fact that many Marranos and Conversos listened to the tales emanating from the New World following Columbus's epic voyages and flocked to the lands that he had claimed for Iberia. They had board ships secretly, for officially they were strictly forbidden to set foot in the new territories. However, disregarding all the bans and harbor controls, they made their way across the ocean, where they hoped to make a new life. Sources: 1 Amber, Jane Francis, Christopher Columbus's Jewish Roots. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc., 1991 2 Baer, Yitzhak. A History of the Jews in Christian Spain.2 vols., Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America.1961 3 Birmingham, Stephen, The Grandees, New York: Harper & Row.1971 4 Burgos, Francisco Cantera, Abraham Zacuto, Madrid: M Aguilar.1935 5 Costa, Abel Fontoura da, L'Almanach Perpetuum de Abraham Zacuto: Congress International d'Histoire des Sciences.1936 pp 137-146 6 Cohen, Martin A, Joseph Vezinho, Encyclopaedia Judaica vol.16.Jerusalem Keter Publishing House.1971 pp 81-82 7 Heinrich Graetz, History of the Jews, 5 vols. Philadelphia; The Jewish Publication Society of America.1956 8 Keller, Werner, Diaspora. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1969 9 Lebeson, Anita L. Jewish Cartographers, A forgotten Chapter of Jewish history. History Judaica X1, 1949. pp 155/174 10 Lebeson, Anita l. Pilgrim People. New York: Minerva Press 1975 11 Minkin, Jacob S. Abrabanel and the Expulsion of the Jews feom Spain: New York Berman's Jewish Book House. 1938 12 Morison, Samuel E. Portuguese Voyages to America in the Fifteenth Century. Cambridge: Harvard Univ.Press.1940 13 Morison, Samuel E. Admiral of the Ocean Sea, 2 vols. Boston: Little, Brown Company.1942 14 Roth, Cecil. A History of the Marranos. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America. 1932 15 On the statement referring to the triumph of Luis de Santangel, see J Boyd Thatcher, Christopher Columbus, His Life, His Work, His Remains. vol.1 New York: GP Putnam's Sons.1903-04 p 459 16 Simon Wiesenthal, Sails of Hope: The secret Mission of Columbus. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.1973 2) Jewish Descendant Of Columbus' 1492 Crypto-Jewish Crew
The history of the Jewish people in the Americas dates back to Christopher Columbus and his first cross-Atlantic voyage on August 3, 1492, when he left Spain and eventually "discovered" the New World. His date of departure was also the day on which the Catholic Monarchs Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon decreed that the Jews of Spain either had to convert to Catholicism, depart from the country, or face death for defiance of the Monarch. There were at least seven Jews (either crypto-Jews, Marranos, or sincere Jewish converts to Catholicism) who sailed with Columbus in his first voyage including Rodrigo De Triana, who was the first to sight land (Columbus later assumed credit for this), Maestre Bernal, who served as the expedition's physician, and Luis De Torres, the interpreter, who spoke Hebrew and Arabic, which it was believed would be useful in the Orient — their intended destination. In the coming years, Jews settled in the new Spanish and Portuguese colonies in the Caribbean, where they believed that they would be safe from the Inquisition. Some took part in the conquest of the "New World," and Bernal Díaz del Castillo describes a number of executions of soldiers in Hernán Cortés's forces during the conquest of Mexico because they were Jews. Nevertheless, several Jewish communities in the Caribbean, Central, and South America flourished, particularly in those areas under Dutch and English control. By the sixteenth century, fully functioning Jewish communities had organized in Brazil, Suriname, Curaçao, Jamaica, and Barbados. In addition, there were unorganized communities of Jews in the Spanish and Portuguese territories, where the Inquisition was active, including Cuba and Mexico, however, these Jews generally concealed their identity from the authorities. By the mid-seventeenth century, the largest Jewish communities in the Western Hemisphere were located in Suriname and Brazil. Today, Latin American Jewry is composed of more than 350,000 people and the community is headed for institutional professionalization. Among the central organizations that operate the region, the Jewish Culture Fund for Latin Americais the most visible and the central organ for Jewish outreach. Argentina Jews fleeing the Inquisition settled in Argentina, but assimilated into the Argentine society. Portuguese traders and smugglers in the Virreinato de la Plata were widely considered Jews but no organized community emerged after independence. After 1810, Jews, especially Jews from France, began to settle in Argentina in the mid-19th century. In the late 1800s, just as they did in the United States, many Jews arrived from Eastern Europe, fleeing persecution; they were called "Rusos" (Russians). Between 1906 and 1912, Jewish immigration increased at a rate of 13,000 immigrants per year, with most from Eastern Europe but others from Morroco or the Ottoman Empire. By 1920, more than 150,000 Jews were living in Argentina. Jews in Argentina quickly came to play a role in Argentine society, but were subject to waves of antisemitism. In January 1919 in Buenos Aires, pogroms fomented by the police as a response to a general strike targeted the Jews and destroyed significant property. In 1946, former Nazi officials begun immigrating to Argentina, allegedly with the authorization of President Juan Peron; in fact, Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann was later captured in Argentina by Israeli agents. Jewish immigration begun to wane, while at the same time the country established ties with the state of Israel. During the military junta of 1976 to 1983, 1,000 of the people killed by the state were Jewish (estimates of the total number of victims range from less than 9,000 up to 30,000). In the 1990s, the Jewish community was the subject of two terrorist attacks. The Israeli Embassy was bombed in March 1992, killing 32 people (see Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Aires) and in July 1994 the Jewish community center (AMIA) in Buenos Aires was bombed, killing 85 people and wounding over 200 (see AMIA Bombing). Today, around 300,000 Jews live in Argentina, mostly in Buenos Aires, comprising the third largest Jewish community in the Americas. (After that of the United States and Canada) Brazil Jews settled early in Brazil, especially when it was under Dutch rule, setting up a synagogue in Recife as early as 1636. Most of these Jews had fled Spain and Portugal to the religious freedom of the Netherlands during the re-establishment of the Inquisition in first Portugal, Spain, and again Portugal. Amsterdam and a few other Dutch towns soon had small Jewish communities. However, Jews were barred from almost all guild trades and faced limited opportunities. The community soon had more members than it could support. To open up trade opportunities and provide a home for Jews unable to support themselves in Amsterdam, the Dutch merchants pushed for an expedition to take Brazil and its rich sugar plantations from Portugal (which was then weakened and under Spanish rule). Despite several years of advance warning from spies, the Dutch expedition easily took control of Brazil and Recife in the Second Battle of Guararapes. For twenty years, the colony prospered and the Jews with it. Despite resentment from Dutch and Portuguese Christians, the Jews were vital to trade as they were the only ones who spoke both Dutch and Portuguese from the beginning. Unlike Amsterdam or Portugal, the Jews of Recife experienced extraordinary religious toleration, including being allowed public processions, a synagogue, religious schools, and a mikvah. A civil war, supported by the Spanish crown, soon racked the colony as Portuguese Brazilians, who were Roman Catholic, fought to remove the Protestant Dutch. As the guerrilla fighting ruined the sugar trade, many Jews returned to Amsterdam, leaving a fraction of the community behind. The war between the Portuguese and Dutch over Brazil culminated in the surrender of Recife on January 26, 1654. The capitulation agreement provided for a period of safe-conduct for 3 months for Dutch subjects who wished to leave Brazil. While the Jews' safety was guaranteed, they must have been uncomfortable with living under the eye of the Inquisition and having soldiers billeted in their synagogue. Since shipping space was extremely scarce, the victorious Portuguese general extended the safety for Christians and Jews who never had been baptized past the alloted three months. By the April 26th deadline, it appears all Jews residing in Brazil had left for Holland, Dutch colonies in the Caribbean, or North America. Jews resettled in Brazil in the 1800s after independence, and immigration rose throughout the 19th and early 20th century. In the late 1880s, members of the Zionism movement considered settling many Jews in Brazil to escape Russian pogroms, but strict immigration laws and political strife led to this plan being abandoned. The immigrants who did come to Brazil arrived from many different Jewish communities around the world, making the community in Brazil very diverse, in many ways a microcosm of Brazilian society in general. Generally, the community has escaped major persecution, despite the government banning all organizations of immigrant communities including Jewish communal organizations for a time during World War II. There are about 150,000 Jews in Brazil today, and they play an active role in politics, sports, academia, trade and industry, and are overall well integrated in all spheres of Brazilian life. The majority of Brazilian Jews live in the state of Sao Paulo but there are also sizeable communities in Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul and Paraná. Dominican Republic / Santo Domingo Sephardic Jewish Merchants arrived to southern Hispanola fleeling the inquisition. Over time, this Jews assimilated into the general population. Despite this, Jews still remain from this early infusion of Sephardim Today there remains a functioning Synagogue in Santo Domingo, "Centro Israelita de la Republica Dominicana" Sosua is a village in the north of the Island which was founded by Ashkenazic Jews fleeing the Nazis. Trujillo invited Jews to the island less for humanitarian reasons, and more for their skills. Sosua has a Synagogue and a Museum devoted to this amazing phenomena. Mexico Due to the strong Catholic presence in Mexico, few Jews migrated there until the late 1800s. Then, a number of German Jews settled in Mexico as a result of invitations from Maximilian of Mexico settled in the country, followed by a wave of Eastern European Jews fleeing Russia. A second large wave of immigration occurred as the Ottoman Empire collapsed, leading many Sephardic Jews to flee. Finally, a wave of immigrants fled the increasing Nazi persecutions in Europe. Today, there are between 40,000 and 50,000 Mexican Jews. There are several sectors in the Jewish community in Mexico. The biggest of which are the Ashkenazi Community (descended from Central and Eastern Europe), the Maguén David and Monte Sinai Communities (descended from Syrian immigrants) and the Sepharadic Community (primarily descended from Turkish immigrants). While most Jews in Mexico are concentrated in Mexico City, there are subtantial Jewish communities in Guadalajara, Monterrey and more recently in Tijuana and Cancún. The "Centro Deportivo Israelita" is a social, cultural and sporting institution which includes members from all Jewish communities. The Jewish community in Guadalajara is continually shrinking and has approximately 150 families. The community is made up of almost an equal number of Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews. Originally the two groups had separate synagogues and didn't intermarry; eventually the two groups united and almost all of the younger families are made up of mixed Sephardic-Ashkenazi marriages. There is a community center, similar to that of a J.C.C., which is the center of Jewish life in the city. The center has a sports facility, a Jewish day-school, and also houses the synagogue. In recent years the community, called La Comunidad Israelita, became Modern Orthodox, which caused a sizeable part of the community to break-off and form a new Conservative community; dividing this already small community. Because the Jews of Guadalajara rarely marry outside of the Jewish community, most of the young adults who are interested in getting married are inclined to move to Mexico City, which has a larger Jewish population. This is the main cause of the diminishing population of the community, a similar problem facing the Jewish community of Monterrey which is almost of identical size. There are also some Mexicans who consider themselves descendants of Conversos, Jews who converted to Catholicism to escape the Inquisition, but retained some Jewish heritage (like lighting candles on Friday nights). For example, the famous painter and Converso descendent Diego Rivera wrote in 1935, "Jewishness is the dominant element in my life. From this has come my sympathy with the downtrodden masses which motivates all my work." Puerto Rico Puerto Rico is currently home to the largest Jewish community in the Caribbean, around 3,000 Jews, supporting three synagogues in the capital city of San Juan: one each Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox. Jews were prohibited from settling in Puerto Rico through much of its history; a few arrived during World War II, but the majority of the current population are descendants of Jews(Juban) who fled from Cuba (once home to 15,000 Jews) after Fidel Castro's Cuban revolution in 1959. Like many former Spanish colonies founded soon after the Spanish Inquisition, there is some population of Puerto Ricans who are crypto-Jews (some prefer to be called anusim, or coerced), descendants of forcibly converted Jews. Some of these maintain elements of Jewish tradition, although they themselves are Christian; this includes some members of families with last names like Rodriguez, Gomez, Méndez and Cardoso. [1] Philippines The Philippines, which was ruled by the Spanish for about 400 years, also has a small population of people that can trace their roots back to 'moranos'. Some Spanish Jews fleeing from Spain during the Inquisition traveled with colonizers to the Philippines. Unfortunately, many of the Filipinos who have Jewish roots are unaware. Current populations
5/Argentina/395,379/1%
|
|
WHAT REALLY BINDS AMERICA TO ISRAEL?
Posted by Edward Bernard Glick, September 8, 2009. |
|
Most Americans believe in the special relationship with Israel. Not only did they rejoice when President Harry S. Truman made the United States the first country in the world to recognize Israeli independence, in May 1948, but they have allowed both Republican and Democratic administrations to put their tax dollars where their pro-Israel feelings are. As recently as March 3, 2009, the Gallup Poll ranked Israel as the fourth preferred ally of the United States, behind Britain, Canada, and Japan. And in a poll conducted on August 10, 2009, seventy percent of Americans said that Israel is a US ally, nearly twice the finding for Egypt, the most highly regarded Islamic country. Only 8 percent say Israel is an enemy, and 16 percent put it somewhere in between. No matter what the state of the US economy, there has never been a demand by the American people, in contrast to some American politicians, to halt or diminish US aid to Israel. There is no such demand now. Since 1949, the United States has sent Israel over $100 billion in aid. This amount does not include funds from the Defense Department budget for joint military projects like the Arrow missile, for which Israel has received more than $1 billion since 1986. As far back as 1974, General George Keegan, a former chief of US Air Force intelligence, said that Israel's contribution to the United States was "worth $1,000 for every dollar's worth of aid we have granted her." Perhaps he was thinking of the fully functioning Soviet SAM (surface to air) missile system that the Israelis captured in Egypt and shipped to the United States enabling America to counter a weapon that was shooting down US airplanes during the Vietnam war. In 1979 more than 170 retired generals and admirals sent a letter to President Jimmy Carter urging him to recognize Israel as a valuable and dependable military ally. What are the historical, religious, cultural, political, and strategic reasons for all this? First of all, America's Christians are the only ones in the world who not only employ the term "Judeo-Christian heritage," but who glory in its usage. Secondly, while the first British settlers in North America never called their settlements New Jerusalem, New Israel, or New Zion, as some of them had wished, as their descendants moved to the north, south, and west, they placed hundreds of Biblically derived names on the map of the future United States. Thus there is a Jericho in New York and Alabama, an Eden in Arizona, a Samaria in Idaho, a Hebron in North Dakota, a Lake Sinai in South Dakota, a Jordan in Illinois, a Zoar in Massachusetts, an Elisha in Rhode Island, a Sodom in Ohio, a Bethlehem in Pennsylvania, a New Canaan in Connecticut, a Goshen County in Wyoming, and an Adam in Florida. Four places in four states are called Jerusalem. And no fewer than twenty-seven towns, cities, and counties are called Salem, which comes from the Hebrew word shalom, which means peace. No other country has so linked its geographic nomenclature with that of the Land of Israel. There are reasons for this. The Pilgrims read the Old Testament. Some did so in Hebrew. Their interest in the Hebrew and the Old Testament was shared by other Americans in later centuries. A student who couldn't translate the Bible from Hebrew into Latin could not in the early days get into Harvard. A teacher who knew no Hebrew couldn't become a faculty member at King's College, the original name of Columbia University. Hebrew was once a compulsory subject at Yale, which has the Hebrew motto Urim V'turim (Light and Truth) on its crest. Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon faith, studied Hebrew. In 1902 Secretary of State John Hay wrote a handwritten letter to an Indiana Jew in Hebrew. In the twentieth century Edmund Wilson, the American social and literary critic, was a student of Hebrew. The United States has not supported restored Jewish sovereignty in the Middle East merely because many of its more educated Christian citizens knew Hebrew several centuries ago, or because a tiny fraction of them know it now. However, the Hebrew/Old Testament connection in America's intellectual history certainly has nourished the soil in which America's support for modern Israel sprouted. During the American Revolution, clergymen compared the colonists' fight with King George III to the plight of the ancient Israelites in the Egypt of the Pharaohs. After the Revolution, Christians in all walks of life suggested forms of governance that were similar to their perceptions of those of ancient Israel, and there were those who called for Jewish political restoration in Palestine. In 1818 Thomas Kennedy, a Catholic legislator, asked during a presentation in favor of equality for Maryland's Jews: "May we not hope that the banners of the children of Israel shall again be unfurled on the walls of Jerusalem on the Holy Hill of Zion?" In 1819 John Adams wrote to a Jewish citizen: "I really wish the Jews again in Judea an independent nation." In 1845 Brigham Young proclaimed: "The Jews among all nations are hereby commanded, in the name of the Messiah, to repair to return to Jerusalem in Palestine . . . and also to organize and establish their own political government." In 1891, five years before Dr. Theodor Herzl published his Der Judenstaat and six years before he convened the first World Zionist Congress, an American Gentile, William E. Blackstone, publicly transformed what had been mainly religious and emotional yearnings of Jews for Palestine into a political manifestation of Jewish nationalism and Jewish self-determination. Blackstone sent President Benjamin Harrison a petition entitled "Palestine for the Jews." It was signed by 400 hundred of the most prominent Americans. If the Great Powers, it asked, could, in the Berlin Treaty of 1878, give Bulgaria to the Bulgarians and Serbia to the Serbs, "does not Palestine as rightfully belong to the Jews?" Today we associate Christian Zionism with the Christian Evangelicals. They are the most pro-Jewish and pro-Israel segment of American Christendom today. But the first American Christian to call himself a Zionist was the Reverend Dr. Francis J. Clay Moran, in a letter to the New York Times, published over a hundred years ago. After Moran came Adolph A. Berle, a former professor of applied Christianity at Tufts University, who, in 1918, published a book called The World Significance of a Jewish State. Harry Emerson Fosdick, of Union Theological Seminary, in 1927, wrote a book on Zionism called A Pilgrimage to Palestine. In 1929, John Haynes Holmes, minister of New York's Community Church, published Palestine Today and Tomorrow: A Gentile's Survey of Zionism. Dr. Walter Clay Loudermilk, the most renowned soil scientist, ecologist, and environmentalist of his day, also became a Christian Zionist. In the 1930s he traveled the world to study how people used their land and in what condition they passed it on to the next generation. When he came to British Palestine, he was so impressed by how the Jews treated their land that he wrote that if Moses had foreseen what was to become of the Earth, he "doubtless would have been inspired to deliver an Eleventh Commandment: 'Thou shalt inherit the Holy Earth as a faithful steward, conserving its resources and productivity from generation to generation. . . . If any shall fail in this stewardship of the land, thy fruitful fields shall become sterile stony ground and wasting gullies, and thy descendants shall decrease and live in poverty or perish from off the face of the Earth." Since the Jews of Palestine were obeying Loudermilk Eleventh Commandment, he became an ardent Christian Zionist, publishing, in 1944, his bestseller, Palestine: Land of Promise. The Jews comprise no more than two percent of America's population. So it is America's Christians, not its Jews, who have made it politically necessary for every US President since Woodrow Wilson and every US Congress since the early 1920s to support both the dream and the reality of a renascent Jewish state in the Middle East. President Barack Obama has been trying to tilt toward Iran. In a speech before the Turkish Parliament in April 2009, he said: "I have made it clear to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran that the United States seeks engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect." This is the same Iran whose president denies the Holocaust and who wants Israel wiped off the face of the earth. Though the Israelis consider Iran's nuclear weapons an existential threat, Mr. Obama is pressuring them not to attack preemptively. However, also in April 2009, Shimon Peres, the President of Israel, and the father of Israel's nuclear weapons program, said that if Mr. Obama will not soften the Iranian President's approach "we'll strike him." While refusing to go into detail about the military option to foil Iran's nuclear program, Mr. Peres did say that Israel could not carry out any strike against the Islamic republic without America. "We certainly cannot go it alone and we definitely can't go against the US." The President is also tilting toward the Palestinians, even though the Norwegian Fafo Institute, the sponsor of the 1993 Oslo Middle East accords, recently found that a majority of Palestinians oppose a two-state solution. Thirty-three percent opt for Israel's annihilation and 20 percent favor a Palestinian state that would entirely engulf Israel. So these questions arise: Has President Obama abandoned the special America-Israel relationship? Does he feel that Israel's failure to defeat Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza indicate that Israel is no longer a strong military power and is now a strategic liability rather than a strategic asset to the United States? Does he believe that to be pro-Arab one must be anti-Israel? Is he, as the British writer Melanie Phillips suggests, America's first "pro-Islamist President?" Are America and Israel heading for the greatest disagreement in the history of their relationship? On July 4, 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "We have a brave relationship with the United States, a bond that President Obama himself defined as unbreakable. Indeed, our bond with the US is unbreakable." But that is not the belief of other prominent Israelis. They are not so sure that Israel has a friend in the White House. And they wonder if the connection with the United States is still a good one. For instance, Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post argues that "both in terms of pure economics and of the restrictions the Obama administration is now placing on Israeli use of US technologies and munitions, maintaining US military assistance makes less and less sense with each passing day. Israel may indeed be best served by simply ending its military assistance package. By making clear that it is not dependent on Obama's kindness, it would be expanding its maneuvering room on other issues as well." She is alluding to Iran. Whatever the case, one thing is clear: Mr. Obama does not view Israel as Democratic Presidents Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson did. When Mr. Johnson was President, he met with Soviet Premier Alexei Kosygin in Glassboro, New Jersey, after the 1967 Arab-Israel Six Day War. Mr. Kosygin asked him why the United States supported Israel against the Arab world with all its population and its oil resources. LBJ replied: "Because we think it's right." Nor does President Obama view the America-Israel relationship as Republican Presidents Richard M. Nixon and George W. Bush did. Until the end of his life, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who was the chief of staff of the Israel Army during the 1967 Six Day war, believed that Mr. Nixon saved the Jewish state. By warning the Soviets to stay out of the 1973 Yom Kippur War and by replacing the equipment that Israel lost during the first week of that war, Mr. Nixon made it possible for the Israelis to counterattack and beat their Egyptian foes. Anne Bayevskyof the Hudson Institute is convinced that Mr. Obama is "the most hostile sitting American president in the history of the state of Israel." John Bolton, a former US ambassador to the United Nations, has written that "Relations between the US and Israel are more strained than at any time since the 1956 Suez Canal crisis." And Richard Baehr of American Thinker feels that Mr. Obama treats "Israel more contemptuously than any President since the founding of the [Jewish] state." On the other hand, on August 20, 2009 the Israeli news source Debka reported that President Obama has secretly assured Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that confrontation between America and Israel is undesirable, and that relations between the White House and Mr. Netanyahu's office will revert to their normal friendly level. It remains to be seen whether and the extent to which Ms. Bayevsky, Mr. Bolton, Mr. Baehr, and Debka are right or wrong. It is also to be seen whether the bond between Israel and America will be broken if Israel concludes that it faces an existential threat and must strike Iran without the President's prior approval. Edward Bernard Glick is a professor emeritus of political science at Temple University and the author of The Triangular Connection: America, Israel, and American Jews. Contact him at ebglick@comcast.net |
|
BRITAIN WANTS TO WORK WITH HAMAS; ARABS OF JEWISH ORIGIN?; HAMAS ADMITS ISRAEL IS HUMANITARIAN
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 8, 2009. |
|
BRITAIN WANTS TO WORK WITH HAMAS The British House of Commons' Foreign Affairs Committee urged the government to negotiate with Hamas. Shunning Hamas doesn't work. Can't make peace without its cooperation. Advice: seek out "moderate" elements in Hamas, just as Britain did with Hezbollah. Britain hadn't worked with Hamas, because the Quartet demands that first Hamas lay down its arms and recognize Israel. It "also condemned Israel for the continuing growth of settlements and the anti-terror smuggling and security blockades around Gaza." The Committee commented on Israel's incursion into Gaza, to stop the rocket barrage emanating from there. The Committee criticized the rocket attacks, "but concluded that the Israeli military response was 'disproportionate.' 'It is regrettable that UK-supplied military items were almost certainly used by Israel.'" (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 7/26). The Committee still misuses the term, "disproportionate." Israeli use of force was so minimal, that it hardly rooted out the Hamas bunkers, tunnels, and missile stockpile, not to mention terrorist rule. Britain should be proud that Israel used some British weaponry in self-defense from genocidal fanatics. The Israeli security measures that the Committee condemns are necessary because of the Arab terrorism that the Committee condemns. The Committee is illogical in condemning defense against war crimes. Eliminate the terrorism, and the need for security measures would end. Eliminate first the condemned security measures, and murders would soar. Is that the Committee's goal? Hamas, like Hezbollah, is religiously fanatical and imperialist, unscrupulous, and a war criminal. The notion that it would sincerely recognize Israel as a Jewish state (which Fatah won't do, either), that it would renounce armed struggle though it be its core principle, and make genuine peace either is a foolish notion or a cynical excuse for working to appease the Arabs or for Israel's downfall. Britain claims to be motivated by ethics. That is a pose. Obviously it is influenced by power politics, commerce, and misconceived notions. I think that Britain's historical baggage gives its policy animus towards the Jewish state. Britain, which ruled Palestine before that state arose against its wishes, made the current mess. In addition, Britain wasn't indicted for the Holocaust, but by barring Jewish immigration from the Mandate for a Jewish national home, it made Holocaust the insane Hitler's last option to getting the Jews out. Right-wing Jewish militias threw Britain out of Palestine. Britain armed three Arab armies that invaded the new Jewish state, but lost. I think Britain, which was antisemitic at the time, still smarts from being defeated by the Jews. Remember, the British long had a smug sense of superiority, which the upstart Jews stung. ARABS OF JEWISH ORIGIN? The San Francisco's Mideast writer from Los Angeles, Paul
Kujawsky, came across evidence that many Arabs, including Palestinian
Arabs, are of Jewish origin:
The Palestinian Arabs ethnically are an amalgam of people from all over the Turkish Empire, many not originally Arabs. There were people from the Caucasus and Bosnia, etc.. During the modern Zionist redevelopment of Palestine, Arabs immigrated en masse from neighboring countries, especially Syria. During WWII, the British brought in foreign Arabs for wartime manufacturing (while, feeling under Arab pressure, they barred Jews, leaving them to be murdered by the Nazis). I've seen population estimates that about three-fourths of the Palestinian Arabs are of relatively recent immigrant families, as were the Jews. Mr. Kujawsky cites the conversion pressures against Jews. That would apply to Jews who lived throughout the Mideast, became Muslim, melded in with the Arabs, and moved to Palestine. When Arabs talk about the Jews being cousins, it may be more than sentimental. An organization headquartered in Israel, and run by Michael Freund, searches for "lost" Jews. It brings some back to Judaism and into Israel. They come from India, Africa, and Latin America. Isn't it amazing that many of them remember their origin after hundreds or thousands of years! Some remember it fondly. The Pathan tribe of Afghanistan manifests some Jewish cultural traits. They could be another candidate for return to the older faith. HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH & WHITE FLAG IN GAZA Human Rights Watch (HRW) accused the IDF of killing 11 civilians, waving white flags, in Gaza. The IDF retorted that HRW bases this accusation upon alleged witnesses of unconfirmed reliability. It goes on to explain the complexities of war with Hamas. Hamas fully but criminally exploits civilians. The IDF filmed Hamas men planting bombs behind civilians waving white flags. Waving a white flag, alone, does not guarantee immunity (http://www.imra.org.il/ Independent Media Review Analysis, 8/13). During the battle at Deir Yassin, Iraqi troops and local terrorists came out with white flags and hands up. When they got close, they pulled out weapons. That was a war crime, called "treachery." The Jewish militiamen fired in self-defense. I keep reading of constant sacking, demoting, or otherwise punishing Israeli soldiers for not adhering to the highest standards. This can go too far, especially when the commanders are afraid to let the troops protect themselves lest the commanders be second-guessed. I think that the agenda-driven HRW is ridiculous in making so many and such broad accusations about Israeli troops, and doing so on the basis of statements by people who are notably supportive of jihad. Occasionally Israeli troops misjudge war. The Israeli soldier who took a credit card from someone's house in Gaza was caught and punished, rightfully so. If you watch current movies about the war in Iraq, you can see how little time ground troops have to react. HAMAS TRUSTS THE HUMANITARIAN POLICY OF THE IDF Hamas trusts the humanitarian policy of the IDF? Judge by this. Hamas is digging tunnels under UNRWA buildings. Hamas had observed that during combat in Gaza, the IDF was careful to avoid hitting UN facilities. Hezbollah does likewise. An accidental explosion of its munitions in a civilian house revealed that it puts military facilities in what were civilian houses, and digs tunnels under them. The IDF is training its combat forces in a mock Lebanese village (http://www.imra.org.il/ Independent Media Review Analysis, 7/27). This new digging is another war crime in preparation, putting military targets alongside civilian structures. Since Hamas is confident the IDF won't strike at UN facilities, why do anti-Zionists keep accusing the IDF of targeting UN facilities? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE UN'S WORLDWIDE WEB OF ANTI-ISRAEL BIAS
Posted by Eye on the UN, September 7, 2009. |
|
This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in The New York Daily News. |
|
The UN has just rolled out a new overhauled website. Presumably, the idea was to make it clearer what the UN does and to make it easier to access the goings-on. Insofar as UN demonization of Israel and UN-driven antisemitism are central pillars of its activities, the new site does an admirable job. In only five easy steps, the user is presented with ten categories for all meeting summaries and press releases of the entire General Assembly since they went online in 1995. One such category is "Palestinian Rights." All the other choices list nothing but generalities. The UN site is accessed by educational institutions, advocates, parliamentarians, non-governmental organizations and individuals around the world in six languages. Sooner or later, almost every schoolchild in America is bound to log on to www.un.org. The American taxpayer pays 22% of the cost of building and maintaining the UN website (along with all other regular budget costs). And in only five steps your child too can listen to Iranian President Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust and talk about those Zionists' "ugly faces." (These were his words at the UN Durban II "anti-racism" conference in April, which the UN has chosen to archive and place permanently on its website.) Here are the directions to the world of UN-driven hatred for the Jewish people: STEP 1: Go to http://www.un.org Of course, one thing that can be said in favor of the latest UN outrage is that it makes the double-standards applied to Israel even more obvious. The UN undoubtedly needed to expand the index because the mammoth number of resolutions, documents, press releases, meetings and conferences devoted to condemning Israel had become so large that the hatemongers needed assistance organizing all their Israel-bashing campaign material. The amount of UN webspace dedicated only to Palestinian claims — including pre-Israel maps — is huge. There is the "United Nations Information System on the Question of Palestine" or UNISPAL, and the anti-Israel non-governmental organization networking scheme called the "NGO network on the Question of Palestine." Added to that is the constant material churned out by the only UN Division focused on a single people — the UN Division on Palestinian Rights. And then there is the UN Human Rights Council, which President Obama has now embraced. It has adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than all other 191 UN states combined. Along with fellow human rights enthusiasts China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia, American representatives will be taking their place as new Council members in just one week time. Way back in the pre-internet days of 1945, the UN Charter proclaimed the "equality of nations large and small." Modernity for the UN has brought an end to such lofty commitments. For more United Nations coverage see http://www.EYEontheUN.org. Contact them by email at list@eyeontheun.org |
|
BUZZWORDS
Posted by David Frankfurter, September 7, 2009. |
|
Dear friends, I have received a number of letters lately asking about progress in negotiations with the Palestinians - for peace, for settlements, to stop the rockets out of Gaza, for blockades, for recognition, for compensation for Jewish refugees from Arab lands, for resettling Palestinian refugees, for the release of Gilad Shalit. I think that my approach to that last one (Gilad Shalit) sums up them all. In my letter Calling the bluff
On August 25, a few days before Gilad Shalit's birthday, Israel stopped
Palestinian prisoners' visiting rights. Palestinian
The very same day, a Hamas delegation left for Egypt to meet with a German
negotiator to try to make progress on the negotiations for Shalit's release
and Hamas Frankly, I am sick of hearing that Israel, after making so much effort and
taking so much risk to behave in both an ethical and legal manner, has
committed "war crimes", has acted "disproportionately" or is in breach of
some fancifully contorted "international law", especially redefined to strip
Israel of the right and obligation to protect its citizens.
I believe that in every field of our dealings with the Palestinians, the
time has come to apply only one buzzword: "reciprocity". The definition
from
In international relations and treaties, the principle of reciprocity states
that favours, benefits, or penalties that are granted by one state to the
citizens or legal entities of another, should be returned in kind.
David
David Frankfurter is a business consultant, corporate executive and writer who frequently comments on the Middle East. Reply to AmericanZionists@yahoogroups.com. Or go to http://www.livejournal.com/users/dfrankfurter/ |
|
THANKS FOR NORWAY'S DIVESTMENT OF ISRAEL
Posted by Barbara Taverna, September 7, 2009. |
|
This was written by Andre Mozes, Founder and chairman of Take-A-Pen for Truth on Israel. Visit their website at www.takeapen.org,, which is in 19 languages, including Norsk. |
|
To Norway's Minister of Finance
Honorable Ministerin, Ms. Kristin Halvorsen-quislingsen:
I thought it would be the honor you well deserved if I express somehow how your deeds remind me of the most widely known Norwegian politician of all times. Limitless ambition, talent and eagerness to embrace Israel's deadly enemies are your common denominators. You are now also widely known of that.
May I express my deep gratitude to you for the divestment of Norwegian government-controlled funds from the Israeli company Elbit, which, you thought, is manufacturing parts of the Israeli security "wall". This is a technical mistake, and I'll explain that to you later. But more important now is my thanks; sincere thanks without "quotation marks" or 'reverse commas'.
I am thanking You, because I, as an Israeli and a Holocaust survivor, have always been troubled somewhat by the lack of clarity; why has investments in an Israeli firm been allowed to a government the predecessor of which was the first and longest to serve Nazism in Europe and the only government on earth whose head came forward and volunteered to serve Nazism before being forced. While the present government has not demonstrated a strong record of crystal clear, consistent, sincere and long-lasting words and deeds intended to repair those tragedies Norway was once part of. Unlike successive German governments, which have said and did it whole-heartedly and consistently. Now, after Your divestment I feel much better; the distinction is clear: one can see where Norway did invest and where it does not.
More recently in 2006, the Norwegian government was the first in Europe (and to the best of my knowledge the only one until today) to recognize the Hamas terror organization's new government in Gaza, whose declared purpose was then — and remained until now — the annihilation of Israel. A government that killed brutally, in masses, its such so-called Palestinian 'brothers', who only dared to start thinking of peace with Israel. Also every anti-Israeli NGO and semi-terror organization on earth has Norwegian government as #1 on its funding list. Three rather similar Norwegian global "firsts", in 70 years...
To make it even more clear, may I request you and the whole Norwegian administration, to dump also all your computers to the beautiful Norwegian sea — because, you should know, in each and every one of your computers the "Intel inside" expression means those bl..dy Israeli Jews contributed to it. Similarly, throw away all your mobile phones, take out and throw away please the stents from the veins of your heart-diseased and elderly, discard a dozen other life-saving Israeli medical developments, and a great many other things. And, if it turns out that modern life is simply impossible without using Israeli developments, don't stop your campaign; for your kin to die Jew-free — sorry, Israeli-free — may be worth the calamity.
I promised you a technical explanation about the "wall" — which is not a wall. It is normal that You as a faithful anti-Israel political activist, must say what you are told to; and you don't have to know the miniscule technical details that Elbit is a high-tech company, which manufactures leading high-tech products for the whole world and also the electronic parts of the Israeli security alarm fence. While a "wall" (which by-the-way makes only 4% of the total length of Israel's anti-terror barrier) is made of reinforced concrete and Elbit doesn't manufacture any such thing. But please, because of the trifle thing that your premises were totally untrue; don't by any chance step back from your divestment, which makes me feel better.
Even if it is not a wall, Israel's security fence discloses the
real nature of those stubborn Jews, again! Norway was the second state
in Europe (after Estonia) to achieve the state of judenrein in
early 1943, after its Nazi collaborators first interned and then
deported to Auschwitz — in spite of brave civilian and Christian
resistance — Norway's 763 Jews of which 739 were killed and only 24
survived The stubborn Israeli Jews today do not want to peacefully accept any such treatment! Neither being killed by Palestinian terrorists — so they built the Anti-Terror Barrier — nor being prohibited from living in Judea and Samaria where their forefathers have continuously lived for more than 3000 years.
True, parts of these territories may become parts of a miraculously peaceful future Palestine. 'Miraculously' I said, because no peaceful recognition of Israel whatsoever has been heard from any Palestinian leadership yet. But, in case, these questions arise: Why can 1.4 million Arabs live in Israel peacefully, with definitely more human rights than their brothers have in any Arab country — but five times less Jews can not live in future Palestine? Why do You, and official Norway dream of a Jew-clean — judenrein — Palestine?
I know more nice Norwegian people through the net. This summer I personally met a Norwegian group adventuring across less known non-urban Israel where we could talk less formally. They told me that most of the Norwegian people don't hate but respect or love Israel; it is only — sorry, I quote: "a rather rotten minority in government and media, appeasing the ugliest forces again, by anti-Israeli support, funding and incitement". Sounds reasonable; history shows that sometimes a few can play a whole country to the hands of an enemy — but it's primarily an inner Norwegian matter.
What clear is that 'something is rotten in the state of Norway' — in leftist-elitist official Norway. To make the air better the new quislings should step down themselves or be made to do so.
Then I'll heartily welcome any co-operation with Norwegians, to the benefits of both people. In the meantime I gladly co-operate with Grieg, Ibsen, Munch and Heyerdahl, and with that great peaceful hero, Kaare Kristiansen, who resigned from the Nobel Prize Committee, to protest the Peace Prize given to arch-terrorist Arafat. And, gladly, with any present-day honest Norwegian.
Sincerely,
Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: WHO IS FOOLED?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 7, 2009. |
|
No one, it seems. The housings starts being announced now, presumably to be followed by a freeze on building in the settlements, satisfies neither the left, which is upset about the building, nor the right, which is upset about the freeze that is coming. And it's worse, even more duplicitous, than simply announcing new building to sweeten the news about the pending freeze: for it's not actually new building at all. Ehud Barak, in his role as defense minister, last night approved the building of 455 housing units in five settlement blocs: In Gush Etzion the settlement of Har Gilo, will receive 149 units and Alon Shvut, 12; Ma'aleh Adumim, will see 89 new units, and the small settlement Kedar, which is near Ma'aleh Adumim, 25 new units; Modi'in Illit will be provided with 84 units, the Agan Ha'ayalot neighborhood of Givat Ze'ev is to grow by 76 units. And, finally, 20 units were approved in Maskiot in the Jordan Valley — which has special significance because it is intended for Gush Katif residents of Shirat Hayam who were expelled from their homes. Barak additionally approved the construction of a sports park in Ariel and a school in Har Adar. ~~~~~~~~~~~ The catch is that most of what he approved today was already in the planning and had just been on hold until the defense ministry issued permits. As Yesha Council Director General Pinchas Wallerstein explained, "In actuality, the defense minister isn't authorizing even one house or one new contract, and isn't issuing one new tender. "...These aren't new tenders or building permits [being issued], but the completion of permits and documents granted in the past." There is, I suspect, a way in which this type of behavior, which is blatantly and transparently intended to mollify pro-settlement people, actually makes them more angry. No one likes to be "had." ~~~~~~~~~~ I very very rarely agree with opposition head Tzipi Livni, but I do when she says, "[The] attempt at combining construction with freeze is slight of hand trick." Netanyahu's biggest battle politically within the country is defeating his image as someone who is slippery and duplicitous — someone who cannot be trusted. I'm afraid he's shot himself in the foot here and will have to pay for it later, at some point when trusting him becomes important. Yesha Council Chairman Danny Dayan said yesterday that settlers would "somehow break through" the freeze. "You can't freeze a living body. What will happen now is an increase in activity on the ground. The settlements will not sustain a freeze." While National Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu) declared, "The decision to freeze opposes natural justice and harms human rights. There is no political wisdom in it. Today Knesset speaker Ruby Rivlin was in Hevron to attend a memorial ceremony marking the 80th anniversary of the Arab slaughter of Jews there. From that place, he told those gathered that, "The Land is ours by right, and we will not guarantee our existence with apologies and weakness. The lesson we have learned from Hevron is this. The Land of Israel is acquired by rights, and not by drying it up or freezing it." ~~~~~~~~~~ I rather like the comments, as well, of Gush Etzion Regional Council head Shaul Goldstein, who called the prospective settlement "a major mistake." His concern is that any agreement to freeze settlement activity would be interpreted as an acknowledgement by Israel that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, and this simply is not so. "My fear is that the world will understand from this that even Netanyahu and the right wing believe that the settlements are temporary. It's easy to press Israel to freeze settlement activity, but it contributes nothing to the peace process." ~~~~~~~~~~ With all of these comments, I would recommend that you read the in-depth analysis by Sarah Honig, "It's not the settlements, stupid."
~~~~~~~~~~ For additional perspective, there is also "This is our place, so mind your manners," by Cherna Moskowitz, wife of Dr. Irving Moskowitz (owner of the Shepherd hotel in eastern Jerusalem) and president of the Irving I. Moskowitz Foundation.
~~~~~~~~~~ I have assiduously avoided repeating the rumors regarding an "imminent breakthrough" in an agreement with Hamas regarding the release of Gilad Shalit. Turns out that most of the rumors came from the Hamas side and that nothing is imminent. The only real news here is that Germany has replaced Egypt as the mediating agent. I ponder, without answers, what it is that the Netanyahu gov't might give to Hamas in return for Shalit that the Olmert gov't was not willing to give. Precisely what is being negotiated? There has been talk of a lesser number of prisoners being released, or prisoners with blood on their hands being sent out of the area on release (which is a joke as they'd find their way back). And I only pray that this government holds tough, whatever the deeply felt pain of the Shalit family. ~~~~~~~~~~~ Danny Glover too? Gee, I always liked his acting. Seems that he and other no-nothing Hollywood types such as Jane Fonda (from whom I expect less than nothing) are boycotting a Toronto film festival because it celebrates the Centennial of Tel Aviv, which was "built on violence" by an Apartheid regime and sits on "contested ground." Shows just how far afield people can go when they are sanctimoniously self-righteous but actually have their information all wrong. They make a mockery of themselves by having picked Tel Aviv to protest about. For Tel Aviv is THE quintessential Jewish city, built on sand that was properly purchased. No Arabs lived there, and there is no contest in terms of who owns the land the city sits on. But far be it from these people to miss an opportunity to protest against Israel. I'd like to imagine that they might be influenced by the facts, if they knew them. But the vast odds are that their minds are simply made up. An unhappy sign of the times.
~~~~~~~~~~ As many of you may know, we are now in the middle of the month long Islamic celebration of Ramadan — which requires fasting and contemplation during the day, with food to be taken after sunset. As his predecessors have done, President Obama held a Ramadan break-fast meal — called iftar — last week. What I strongly suspect is that his words to those gathered (and for the press) transcended those of his predecessors on this occasion: He paid tribute to "a great religion and its commitment to justice and progress." And then he explained that "The contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country." Well... Obama is president of the United States, and the US is where I lived most of my life. But somehow I got the feeling that what he was describing was not the country I knew. For that matter, I've not encountered a great deal of Islamic commitment to justice and progress of late. Go know... Vintage Obama. ~~~~~~~~~~ Also on Obama, see this unsettling piece by Anne Bayefsky of Eye on the UN: "Obama's UN Gambit: King of the Universe and the Polls." "Looking for a quick and easy boost in the polls, President Obama has decided to go to the one place where merit bears no relationship to adulation: the United Nations. On September 24, the president will take the unprecedented step of presiding over a meeting of the UN Security Council. ~~~~~~~~~~ It has been announced that Hezbollah may get 10 seats in a proposed 30 seat unity government in Lebanon. More will follow on this, but know that it has great import: Once Hezbollah is part of the government, the entire government can be held responsible for aggression by Hezbollah. This has been proposed by prime minister-designate Saad Hariri and is not yet a done deal — we're no longer looking at a renegade terrorist group. There is as yet no comment officially from our government. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
WHAT'S ISRAEL GOT TO DO WITH IT? EVERYTHING
Posted by LEL, September 7, 2009. | |
|
This was written by Clifford D. May, a former New York
Times foreign correspondent, and the president of the Foundation
for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.
This article appeared today in
| |
|
Bill Gates famously called George Gilder "very stimulating even when I disagree with him, and most of the time I agree with him." The issues on which Gilder has staked out stimulating positions over more than 30 years as a writer and public intellectual are wide-ranging. They include the causes of poverty and the creators of wealth; the consequences of modern feminism; and the possibilities opened by the high-tech revolution. His arguments are often surprising, always provocative, and generally controversial. His latest book is titled The Israel Test. Much of what he says is dramatically different from what just about anyone else is saying. In particular: "Either the world, principally the United States, supports Israel, or Israel, one way or another, will be destroyed. There are no other realistic choices. And if Israel is destroyed, capitalist Europe will likely die as well, and America, as the epitome of productive and creative capitalism spurred by Jews, will be in jeopardy." At this juncture, it is probably not just useful but necessary to note that George Gilder is not Jewish. In other words, the case he makes for Israel has no basis in religious or ethnic affiliation. At the same time, not being tethered to Israel or to Jews allows him to be blunt in a way few of Israel's Jewish defenders dare. For example, he says that people "who obsessively denounce Jews have a name; they are Nazis." He does not hesitate to apply the term to Arab and Iranian leaders who exhibit such behavior. He contends, as well, that the "most dangerous form of Holocaust denial is not rejection of the voluminous evidence of long-ago Nazi crimes but incredulity toward the voluminous evidence of the new Holocaust being planned by Israel's current enemies. Two Iranian presidents have resolved to acquire nuclear weapons for the specific purpose of 'wiping Israel off the map.'" What can be done to prevent a second Holocaust and to beat back the jihadis at America's gates? Gilder believes, first, we need to recognize the nature and gravity of the threat; second, we need more resolve; and third, we need more technology of the sort America and Israel have been most adept at producing. It will require comprehensive missile defense and other high-tech means to prevent our sworn enemies from "infiltrating nuclear weapons into American cities, exploding them offshore near American ports, or detonating bombs above America's critical electronic infrastructure" — destroying that infrastructure with an EMP (electromagnetic-pulse) attack, an offensive capability that Iran, for one, is known to be developing. "No nation in history has succeeded in preserving its integrity and sovereignty without meeting the challenge of ever-advancing armaments," Gilder points out. "But many American intellectuals still imagine that the United States is different, that it is possible or desirable for us to negotiate an 'end to the arms race.' Our enemies will always want to end the arms race because they know only free nations can win it. ... An end to the arms race would deprive the capitalist countries of their greatest asset in combating barbarism." Gilder is convinced that the forces targeting Israel and America also are "targeting capitalism and freedom everywhere." Capitalism, he says, requires freedom — for entrepreneurs, workers, and consumers alike. All benefit because "under capitalism the achievements of one group provide markets and opportunities for others." He goes on to make this unfashionable observation: Any democracy not resting on a solid capitalist foundation is doomed. "Without an expanding capitalist economy," he writes, "democracy becomes dominated by its zero-sum elements — by mobs and demagogues." Over the centuries, such mobs and demagogues have, many times, turned against Jews. Today, Gilder adds, "they have turned against Israel." Sometimes, the root cause is simply greed and envy. But often it is the belief that "social justice" necessitates the dispossession of the "haves" and redistribution to the "have-nots" in the interest of "equality of outcome." Over time, this can only lead to expanding poverty because it is based on a misunderstanding of what wealth is. Fundamentally, wealth inheres not in material resources but in "human minds and creations that thrive only in peace and freedom. In particular, the immiseration of the Middle East stems chiefly from the covetous and crippling idea among Arabs that Israel's wealth is not only the source of their humiliation but also the cause of their poverty." Gilder has much more to say — more challenging arguments and perplexing questions than I can summarize in a brief column. But his underlying thesis is straightforward: The future of freedom, democracy, capitalism, America, the West, and the tiny state of Israel are all tied together in a single knot. Israel is "not only a major source of Western technological supremacy and economic leadership — it is also the most vulnerable source of Western power and intelligence." Israel is, Gilder contends, "not only the canary in the coal mine — it is also a crucial part of the mine." If Americans will not defend Israel, they will "prove unable to defend anything else. The Israel test is finally our own test of survival as a free nation."
Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
OBAMA'S UN GAMBIT: KING OF THE UNIVERSE AND THE POLLS
Posted by LEL, September 7, 2009. |
|
This is by Anne Bayefsky and it appeared in the National
Review Online
|
|
Looking for a quick and easy boost in the polls, President Obama has decided to go to the one place where merit bears no relationship to adulation: the United Nations. On September 24, the president will take the unprecedented step of presiding over a meeting of the UN Security Council. No American president has ever attempted to acquire the image of King of the Universe by officiating at a meeting of the UN's highest body. But Obama apparently believes that being flanked by council-member heads of state like Col. Moammar Qaddafi — who is expected to be seated five seats to Obama's right — will cast a sufficiently blinding spell on the American taxpayer that the perilous state of the nation's economy, the health-care fiasco, and a summer of "post-racial" scapegoating will pale by comparison. After all, who among us is not for world peace? Unfortunately, however, the move represents one of the most dangerous diplomatic ploys this country has ever seen. The president didn't just decide to chair a rare council summit; he also set the September 24 agenda — as is the prerogative of the state holding the gavel for the month. His choice, in the words of American UN Ambassador Susan Rice, speaking on September 2 at her first press briefing since the United States assumed the council presidency, is this: "The session will be focused on nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament broadly, and not on any specific countries." This seemingly innocuous language has two profoundly disturbing features. First, UN documents indicate that the Security Council is currently dealing with over 100 issues. While "non-proliferation" is mentioned, "disarmament" is not. Similarly, a UN Secretariat compilation "forecasting the Council's program of work" for the month of September — based on prior activities and requests — lists non-proliferation specifically in relation to Iran and North Korea and does not list disarmament. But in light of Obama's wishes, a tailor-made subheading will likely be adopted under the existing entry "maintenance of international peace and security." The new item will insist on simultaneous consideration of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament and make no mention of particular states. This is no trivial technicality. The linguistic formula, which Obama's confrere Qaddafi will undoubtedly exploit, shamelessly panders to Arab and Muslim states. It is a familiar recipe for stonewalling efforts to prevent Iran or other Muslim and Arab states from acquiring nuclear weapons until Israel is disarmed or Israel's (unofficial) nuclear capacity is exposed and neutralized. It is also a frequent tool of those whose real goal is to stymie America's defenses. Second, Obama's agenda preference indicates that he is dead-set against chairing a session on the non-proliferation issues already on the council's plate — those that name Iran and North Korea. This stretches his "beer summit" technique to the global scale. Naming names, or identifying the actual threats to world peace, would evidently interfere with the spectacle of proclaiming affection for world peace in the abstract. The problem is that this feel-good experience will feel best of all to Iran, which has interpreted Obama's penchant for form over substance to be a critical weakness. As a Tehran newspaper close to the regime snickered in July: "Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them." At Ambassador Rice's news briefing, she gave "an overview of the principal important meetings" to be held in September on her watch. After finishing the list of subjects without mentioning Iran or North Korea, she added: "So those are the highlights. We also have ... three sanctions regimes that are up for regular review, chaired by the heads of the sanctions committees. We have Sudan, Iran and North Korea, and these are, I expect, likely to be uneventful and routine considerations of these various regimes." Even hard-boiled UN correspondents were surprised. Rice was asked to explain how the recent capture by the United Arab Emirates of containers of ammunition en route to Iran from North Korea could be construed as "uneventful and routine." Her answer highlights the administration's delinquency: "We are simply receiving ... a regularly scheduled update ... This is not an opportunity to review or revisit the nature of either of those regimes." A brutalized Iranian population, yearning for democracy, has repeatedly been met by nothing but sad faces from this administration. An Iranian president installed by treachery has been legitimized by American recognition of his government, a decision that has sidelined other eminently justifiable alternatives. The leaders of this state sponsor of terrorism aim to annihilate the Jewish state and are on the verge of acquiring the means to do so. But instead of making the isolation and delegitimation of Iran the top priority for America's turn at the council presidency, the Obama administration has taken Iran off the table at precisely the time when top decision-makers will be present. The administration's zeal for the front-page photo-op on September 25's New York Times has now become a scramble to manufacture an "outcome" for the session. The president's idea for a glorious finish was described by Ambassador Rice as some kind of joint statement declaring in part "that we are united in support for effective steps to ensure nuclear nonproliferation ..." Such a result would be breathtaking — for the audacity of claiming exactly the opposite of what it really represents. Even allied council members France and the United Kingdom are reported to be very unhappy with Obama's no-names strategy for his September rollout. Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
ARE AMERICAN JEWS THE MOST FOOLISH VOTERS IN THE US
Posted by Ron Lipsman, September 7, 2009. |
|
This was written by Ron Lipsman. An earlier version is archived at
|
|
Part I: Are American Jews the Most Foolish Voters in the United States?Despite its ludicrous tone, the question posed in the title is a legitimate one. With the exception of American blacks, Jews continue to comprise the most reliable voting block for liberal Democrats in the United States. They vote overwhelmingly in that direction in virtually all gubernatorial, congressional and presidential elections. Obama obtained more than 80% of the Jewish vote, not uncharacteristic of the percentage of Jews who have cast their ballots for Democratic presidential candidates since Franklin Roosevelt. Reagan was an exception, but he only obtained roughly 40% of the Jewish vote. No other Republican since has come close to that number I maintain that the massive, ongoing, enthusiastic and predictable Jewish vote for liberal Democrats is an example of one of the most foolish voting records by any ethnic group in the history of the American republic. The black vote along the same lines is self-destructive and foolish, but there are some bona fide explanations — especially in the last election. On the other hand, as I will show in this article, the sustained allegiance by American Jews to the Left is not only self-destructive and foolish, it is also short-sighted, naïve, ineffective, harmful and ultimately inexcusable. Individuals vote for candidates for all sorts of reasons. But often, a large number of members of an ethnic community might cast ballots of a similar nature. This is not surprising. People have touchstone issues that can easily affect which lever they pull (or which tab they press on their computer screen) and it is not unusual for common feelings on such issues to be shared among the members of an ethnic community. In the case of the Jewish community what might those touchstone issues be? For example, any individual Jewish voter might care deeply about abortion or taxes or judicial activism. But so might any other voter. What are the issues that touch him deeply as a Jew, perhaps enough to sway his vote for President? I will discuss three here:
There are other issues, like separation of church and state, school vouchers or affirmative action, about which some Jews feel strongly, and those feelings might be connected to their Jewish identity. But I maintain that none of those are as fundamental as the above three, which are at the heart of how most Jews see themselves as Jews, and as American citizens. So I will restrict my attention to the three in the bulleted list. Support for Israel. Although most American Jews have chosen not to relocate to Israel, and they see their family's destiny continuing to unfold in the United States, nevertheless, they care deeply about Israel. Many have relatives or close acquaintances who live there. Others have visited, many times in some instances. They feel a kinship with the Jews of Israel, a pride in their accomplishments and a concern for their precarious situation. Unless they are totally cynical, they recognize the miracle of the creation of the Jewish State on the ashes of the Holocaust, and the equally wondrous miracle of its survival in the face of unremitting and murderous hostility on the part of its Arab neighbors and the Muslim world. They are grateful for the support their country, the US, has shown for Israel and they are determined that said support shall not waiver. But here are some undeniable facts. In the Western World today, the main hostility to Israel comes from the Left. In Western Europe, Canada, even the United States, Israel is routinely slandered as an Apartheid State and a Nazi-like occupier by politicians, academics and media-types on the Left — almost exclusively on the Left. While there remain a few lunatic, fringe figures on the Right who engage in such calumny, their numbers pale in comparison to those on the extreme Left. Worse, many in the mainstream Left are equally virulent in their denunciations of Israel. People like Jesse Jackson, Ramsay Clark, Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich, so-called mainstream liberals, are fervent in their condemnations of Israel and in advocating policies that would sunder the Israel-US alliance and align America more with Israel's enemies. The bias even extends to the White House. While Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush were great friends and admirers of Israel, Lyndon Johnson virtually abandoned the Israelis prior to the Six-Day War, Bill Clinton's favorite White House guest was the terrorist Arafat who had Jewish blood on his hands, and you cannot convince me that Jimmy Carter is not an anti-Semite. Yet American Jews keep voting for these people. What are they thinking? It is totally clear that there are many on the Left, usually in the Democratic Party, who do not wish Israel well, who if they get the chance will reorient US policy away from the support and defense of Israel, and who turn a blind eye to the genocidal rage of the Holocaust-denier and Jew-hater, Ahmadinejad, and his proxies in Hezbollah and Hamas. Why are American Jews voting for those people? Are they blind? How could they be so foolish? Support for the American Jewish Community. Well, maybe the American Jewish voter is not all that fixated on Israel anymore. Perhaps his concerns lie closer to home — with the protection and support of the Jewish community in America. Sorry, fellow members of the tribe, but hostility to Jews in America is just as much concentrated on the Left as is hostility to Israel. The list of well-known leftist anti-Semites is too long to contemplate, and any that I name here would be quick to deny it and condemn me. So let me just explain how some of the favorite policies of liberal Democrats are poisonous to the American Jewish community. Where to begin? Liberals love to tax the rich. But which is one of the richest ethnic communities in the United States? Duh! Liberal philosophy leads to economic policies that penalize the business community, especially small businessmen. Well, which ethnic community is entrepreneurial in spirit and heavily represented in the small business community? Duh again! Liberal philosophy is definitely anti-military, demanding that international conflicts always be resolved by negotiation and that war is to be avoided at all costs. At the moment the liberals who are running the country are throwing money at every federal agency except the Defense Department. They are decimating our military and our intelligence agencies. And exactly how is that going to enable the US to help protect Israel from its genocidal neighbors in the Middle East? For that matter, how will we protect ourselves from the same genocidal maniacs? Unilateral disarmament (no missile defense, cut the defense budget, don't modernize our nuclear arsenal, delay or postpone development of new weapons systems) can do nothing but harm to the Jewish communities in both the US and Israel. But Jews love the loony liberals who are intent on doing it. The list goes on. Liberal Democrats are thrilled by the human invasion of our shores that is underway from Latin America and other third world venues. They claim that the invaders will enrich our culture and improve our prosperity, and that welcoming them is an appropriate way to deal with the oppression in the countries from which the hordes are fleeing. Of course, it is just coincidental that liberals expect these "new Americans" to be overwhelmingly left-leaning voters. Now in the last half-century, the Jewish component of the US population has shrunk from 4% to less than 2%. As our numbers dwindle, so will our clout. Exactly how is mass immigration — legal or otherwise — by groups of people who are immediately classified as underrepresented minorities and thereby entitled to special privileges that Jews are denied, exactly how is that going to improve our well-being in the US? The Left wants to build a very high, impenetrable wall between church and state. That is only one part of their plan to convert America from a country in which religion has played a fundamental role to one in which religion is marginalized, hidden and eventually banished. Jews favor this approach because of memories of poor treatment at the hands of Christians over the centuries. Well, in which secular or pagan societies have we fared better? Nazi Germany? Soviet Russia? France? (In the latter, anti-Semitism is rampant again today.) The strongly Christian society that America was, and which Jewish voters are helping to destroy, laid out the greatest welcome mat ever seen in world history for the Jewish people. Today, evangelical Christians constitute arguably the community most supportive of Israel in the US or the Western World. But we spurn them and vote for "friends of Israel" like Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama. I cannot imagine anything more foolish. The issue of group rights versus individual rights is another particularly thorny one for American Jews. In the pall-mall rush to identify groups in America that are to be accorded special rights, "civil rights" advocates have settled on blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, occasionally Asians, but more frequently homosexuals and the disabled, and let us not forget females. The Jews rarely if ever make the cut. You would think that, constituting a shrinking percentage of the population, and not favored for any special status in the group rights game, Jews would be falling all over themselves to support individual rights. Not the case. Jews are amongst the biggest promoters of group rights. And from which political corner does the mantra of group rights originate? The Left! This may be a case of political philosophy trumping ethnicity and self-interest. It is a well-known fact that in fields like education, business, science, literature and the arts, the millennia-old traditions of Jewish scholarship and study have produced a people who can compete extraordinarily well. Given a level playing field, we do indeed compete exceedingly well. The long roster of achievements by Jews in these areas: Nobel and Pulitzer prizes, selections for membership in the National Academy of Sciences, even Oscars, attests to that success. Why in heaven's name would we want to support rules that tilt the playing field to our disadvantage, impede our brethren from competing on even terms, and thereby diminish the chances of our continuing these stellar achievements? Why indeed! Because the lure of Leftist ideology blinds too many Jews to the folly and self-destructiveness of their devotion to group rights. Indeed, Jews and Jewish organizations are routinely found among the strongest advocates of group rights. For example, they fervently support diversity programs that have had the direct and documented effect of denying qualified Jewish applicants seats in medical and law schools. This is done in the name of atoning for sins committed by white Americans against black Americans — real though those sins were — at a time when the Jewish applicant's ancestors were peasants in Europe. Furthermore, the beneficiaries of those affirmative action programs often have no ethnic connection to those who suffered the outrage of slavery. So A is paying B to atone for sins committed by C against D. Is this wise? Is it just? Or even compassionate? I think not. But it is certainly foolish. Moving on, it is also not surprising that many Jews support multiculturalism. They harbor a deep-seated suspicion of the classic WASP culture and its Christian origins and emphasis. The Jewish people have a very problematic relationship with Christianity and although things are pretty good now, one can never be too secure. Multiculturalism has the potential to loosen the grip that a Christian-oriented culture has had on America and this is a good thing for the Jews — or so the thinking goes. Thus you will find Jews lined up squarely in the multicultural ranks. That is, squarely on the Left. But as with other aspects of the Jewish political agenda, the commitment to multiculturalism is short-sighted. The overwhelming majority of the Jews of America, those alive today and those who have lived in the republic since its birth, would categorize the US as the warmest haven the Jewish people have encountered outside Israel in the last three thousand years. Well, things were pretty comfy in Persia 2500 years ago, and in Babylon about 1500 years ago, and in Spain some 600 years ago, but it is understandably hard to compare the levels of comfort in those societies to life in America during its existence. In any event, I note that the environment in America that offered the Jews such great comfort was dominated, for most of that existence, by the WASP culture that we are so anxious to denigrate. Is there some kind of disconnect here? Yes, I had to sing a few Christmas carols when I was in public school. That does not change the fact that from the arrival of my grandparents in this country about a century ago through the arrival of my grandchildren about a decade ago, my family has lived a good life, free to pursue our Jewish religion, culture and traditions as much or as little as we wished. The non-WASP cultures that the multiculturalists are so keen to graft onto the American scene emanate from countries and regions where my fellow Jews have not had such a cozy existence. Again, I question whether a commitment to multiculturalism by Jews is not self-defeating. It is certifiably foolish. Finally, to conclude this section, I note that the good gentile people of America began in the last generation to refer to the religious component of Western Civilization as the Judeo-Christian heritage. And we are going to turn our backs on that! Purpose of the Jewish People in America. The third core "issue" on which Jews cast their votes is more nebulous than the previous two and somewhat trickier to discuss. Whereas the first two issues were easily and unambiguously stated, this one is less so. The goal of improving the lot of the Jews in Israel, or in America, is explicit and understood by those who profess it — as well as those who oppose it. Whether policies adopted by politicians supported by the Jews act in furtherance of those goals — or thwart them — is a matter of opinion. And it has been my thesis above that large segments of the Jewish community foolishly support policies which, in fact, have negative consequences toward the attainment of the two goals. Now for the third. Jewish people are unlike say Swedes or the Swiss in that they constantly ruminate about their role in world history. Conscious of their survival over thousands of years against enormous odds, they think about their contributions to mankind during that period and just as importantly, they ponder how they should contribute to the betterment of humanity in the future. This is a complicated issue, but at the risk of oversimplification, let me say that the thinking generally runs down one of two tracks — which might be summarized by the well-known Hebrew phrases: Or l'Goyim and Tikkun Ha Olam, a Light Unto the Nations and Fix (or Perfect) the World. Along the former track, the Jewish American, who is usually, but not necessarily, religiously observant, takes on his role in a biblical sense. Specifically, the intent is to live his life according to the ancient precepts of his religion and in doing so he leads a moral, ethical and holy life that sets a shining example for the peoples of the world. His ultimate goal is to encourage all of mankind to live a righteous life for the betterment of the world. Although he does this in the context of a supportive Jewish community, he comes to the decision to live this way, to highlight his Jewish way of behavior as a beacon to mankind, as an intensely personal decision, made of his own free will. On the second track, the Jewish American takes his lead more from the prophets than from rabbinical tradition. He sees his role as one of the vanguard who, having identified the flaws of man and his stewardship of society and the environment, sets about to "fix" it, that is, to improve, even perfect, mankind and the world. He will do this not so much by leading an exemplary life that sets a good example but more by joining with those gentiles who desire the same objective, in order to enlighten everyone else about the true path and then to enact rules that all will follow for the betterment, indeed perfection of mankind and the world. Now to put the above two tracks in an American context, I will choose in each case a classic American phrase that encapsulates the fundamental animating idea to which the individual is devoted in his quest for his "Jewish purpose." For the former, I offer up individual liberty and for the latter, social justice. That said, what I observe is that when your average American Jewish voter thinks about his role as a Jew in the unfolding American drama, it appears to me that the pursuit of social justice comes to mind a lot more frequently than does individual liberty. And as with the two previous issues, I maintain that the choice the majority of American Jews are making on this issue is foolish. Part of my belief stems from my overall assessment of the relative values of the agendas of the Left and Right in America today. Without going too far astray, let me just say that I believe that the statist, collectivist, big government, anti-free market, counter cultural policies that the Left is pursuing — and increasingly successfully I might add — will lead to the ruination of America. The quest for social justice, which is no more than a euphemism for socialism, will at best turn the US into a clone of the socialist states in Western Europe that are decaying before our eyes, or at worst into a despotic tyranny that our forefathers foretold would emerge if we could not maintain the limited government, republican form of government that they set up for us. It is a sad fact that the majority of American Jews have lined up foolishly on the wrong side of this monumental battle. To conclude my discussion of this issue, let me make an ironic observation about our foolish preference for social justice over individual liberty. Life for Jews has been precarious in exile, where we spent the better part of the last two millennia. Centuries of dealing with oppressors have caused us to develop defensive mechanisms. Clearly a society committed to social justice — which to many Jews suggests a fair and equitable society — would provide a safer environment, and it makes sense to work for that rather than grandstanding about the rights of the individual, rights that most societies have not accorded him. Well, despite the freedom the US grants to exercise these rights, the Galut mentality dies hard. The ironies connected with this last issue are as poignant as the previous. The Jewish people of America have a remarkable record of individual success. Through hard work, dedication and perseverance, Jews have climbed to the top in many professions, in business, science and the arts. Moreover they did it without affirmative action or other artificial governmental mechanisms to prop up their efforts. They constitute a true testament to individual liberty, or as some conservatives are wont to express it, to rugged individualism — even if more of the cerebral than physical kind. Yet they remain committed to social justice in the form of government set asides, group preferences in college admissions, special loans for minority businesses and the whole plethora of welfare-like programs which scream out that this or that individual from certain groups cannot succeed on his own without special assistance. The Jewish experience in America is proof of the fallacy of that thesis. But why should Jews deal in reality when their dreams of social justice are so much more enticing. The question remains: Why? Why do we behave so foolishly? Why do we make political choices and pursue policies that run counter to our own self-interests? I have demonstrated here that this is exactly what the Jewish community in the US is doing. Why do we do so? Well, Jews might be foolish, but they are hardly stupid. Therefore, what is the explanation? That will be a topic for a future column. Part II: Are American Jews the Most Foolish Voters in the United States?Recently, I wrote an article for the Maccabean Online
I demonstrated that, corresponding to every one of the three themes, liberal politicians were pursuing policies that were completely inimical to the interests of the American Jewish community. Just to cite a representative example from the article: Jews fervently support diversity programs promoted by liberals — programs that have had the direct and documented effect of denying seats in medical and law schools to qualified Jewish applicants. Numerous such absurdities were highlighted in the article, which closed by posing the question "why?" Why, indeed, do Jewish Americans continue to be the second most reliable voting bloc for liberal Democrats, despite the fact that the liberal Democrats the Jews help to install in power routinely promote measures that are completely contrary to the interests of their Jewish supporters? I will attempt an answer in this article. In fact, I will offer up seven reasons. Some of the reasons are
deeply rooted in the character and history of the Jewish people. Those
particular reasons have also been discussed in Chapter 10 of my book,
Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains
(http://home.comcast.net/~ronlipsman/archives/oldindex.html). The remaining
reasons are related to more modern developments — specifically,
to the loss of self-esteem that is so prevalent in the nations of the
Western world today. [I have also addressed the latter reasons in
another venue
So we seek rationales for the overwhelmingly liberal orientation of American Jewry. To do so, I must begin with an immediate qualification. As readers well know, the Jewish community is fractured into subsets according to the religious branches of Judaism: orthodox, conservative and reform. At least these have been the commonly acknowledged categories for many years. But I think this categorization no longer applies very well, and it absolutely does not apply toward a political classification. First of all, the number of branches has been growing to include Reconstructionist, gay, some would add messianic, but also — what may be the largest group — the unaffiliated. Next, for my purposes, that is, political grouping, the classification is actually much simpler — namely, orthodox on the one hand and everyone else on the other. What I will say next applies primarily to non-orthodox Jews. The orthodox Jewish community is much more politically conservative than the rest of the Jewish community. But since the orthodox are estimated to constitute no more than 10% of the Jewish population (actually, I find it hard to believe it is not substantially larger), my comments apply to the great majority of the Jewish people living in the USA. That said, I will now offer seven (interrelated) explanations for the overwhelmingly liberal bias of (non-orthodox) American Jews. Prophetic tradition. The history of the Jewish people is characterized by a constant tension between the universal and the particular. In the former, the outlook is outward rather than inward. The Jewish people must pay close attention to its assigned role in the world, to the nature of its interactions and dealings with Gentiles, and to the effect that those interactions have on both Jews and Gentiles. As a guide for this outlook the Jews look to the books of the prophets in the Bible for their heroes and teachers. In the latter framework, the mindset is more inward than outward. The Jews are the chosen people of God, destined to live apart, a holy people whose mission is to observe and obey the word of God in as strict a fashion as it can. In addition to the Torah (the five books of Moses in the Bible, which constitute the Law), the guide is the Talmud, the book of commentaries on the Law written by Rabbis and sages nearly two millennia ago, and which dictates the details of the life of an observant Jew down to the minutest detail. You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to guess that orthodox Jews have adopted the inward (Talmudic) approach, whereas non-orthodox Jews (i.e., just about everyone else) tend to favor the outward approach. And you don't have to be Hercule Poirot to assay that the Talmudic approach goes more comfortably with a conservative political outlook while the prophetic tradition aligns much more easily with a liberal political view. Well, maybe I've oversimplified a bit, but I believe there is a great deal of validity to this explanation. The vast majority of American Jews see their role in America, if not the world — that is, if they see themselves at all as Jews who have a role to play in the world — as, to use a well-known phrase, "a light unto the Gentiles." It is the job of the Jews to be a moral beacon, to light the way toward a more perfect world. Idealistic! Utopian! And definitely leaning toward a liberal outlook. So, small wonder that we vote 80% for liberal/Democratic candidates. Given that the orthodox only account for 10% of us, one wonders why it is not 90%. Maybe I am right about 10% not being the correct percentage of the orthodox among American Jewry. Tikkun ha'olam. That's Hebrew for "fix the world." This explanation is closely related to the first, but is not exactly the same. Being a "light unto the Gentiles" is mainly a matter of setting a good example — for instance, leading a moral life, obeying the ten commandments (well at least numbers 5-10 since 1-4 are a bit more problematic), exhibiting holy qualities (like goodness, mercy, compassion, tolerance) that would impress any good Gentile. Fixing the world is more activist. It is more than just setting a good example. It means putting on your overalls and getting your hands dirty in doing God's work to improve the world. It means righting wrongs, correcting injustices and helping your fellow man. This meddling, universalistic attitude clearly conflicts with the particularistic, inward view of the Talmudic tradition, but it dovetails with the prophetic vision excellently. At its most effective it can be seen in the enormous contributions individual Jews have made to mankind. I am thinking of: Einstein, Freud, Salk and Sabin, Jesus of Nazareth and, dare I say, Karl Marx. Boy did he fix the world! In any event, the connection between this mantra and the propensity of Jews toward liberalism is easy to see. Protectors. In our wanderings over the last two millennia, we Jews have become very adept at enlisting protectors. These would be people (or institutions) at the highest rungs of society — kings, nobles, dukes and princes, even bishops of the Church — who had great power and would spread their cloak of protection over a local Jewish community in exchange for some special service that that community could provide. Generally, it was business oriented items like capital, loans, scientific expertise or trade contacts that the noble lacked and to which he was having difficulty gaining access. So he made a deal. The Jews supplied the desired commodity in exchange for protection from the hoipoloi. The hoipoloi was usually a Christian or Muslim rabble who saw the Jews as infidels and/or economic or social threats that they would just as soon deal with by killing, expelling or converting them. But they were enjoined from acting on their bad intentions by the power of the noble. Jews became very skilled at finding protectors. Today, American Jews see the US Government as their protector, and they expect it to keep all those right-wing, fundamentalist evangelicals from imposing their will on the poor, powerless Jews. The services the Jews provide are exactly Salk, Sabin, etc. Historically, when the protector didn't need the services of the Jews any longer, he threw them to the wolves. I don't think that will happen in the USA. But as our numbers dwindle and our influence ebbs... Nah, this is America ! Fear of the rabble. This and the previous explanation go hand in hand. But whereas the previous item focused on whom the Jews were protected by, this one concentrates on whom the Jews are protected from. Certainly the history of danger from the mob is tragically full of relevant examples. Jewish communities have been sacked and looted, their members raped and killed by mobs too many times — during the Crusades, during the Chmielnicki Rebellion in Poland, on Kristallnacht, etc. It was to forestall such events that the Jews sought the powerful protector. But in modern times, the greatest threat has come from the potential protector, namely from the government itself. The vast death and destruction inflicted on the Jewish people during the last century was by the German government, and to a lesser extent, by the governments of the Soviet Union and tin pot dictators in the Arab world. This suggests that the old strategy of government protectors is no longer viable. Now let us reinterpret in terms of American Jewry. In light of the ghastly world history of Jew hatred, the Holocaust, the vilification of modern Israel, world-wide anti-Semitism, it's always in the back of our minds that we may not be completely safe — even in America. Moreover, in a laissez faire environment, who will restrain the rabble? We need the protection of the federal government. A key strategy we have employed to secure that protection is to be ardent supporters of the strongest possible separation of church and state. This will keep the government totally secular and therefore both receptive to and capable of ensuring the protection of our community. So, it is readily apparent how our need for "protectors" and "fear of the rabble" push us towards a left-leaning philosophy. Identifying with the persecuted. This one is a no-brainer. With our people's history of persecution, we have natural sympathies for the underdogs of the world. We resonate to the dreadful history of slavery in the United States. We feel for the poor and huddled masses yearning to come here — like we did — even if they employ illegal means to do so. Knowing what it is like to be a minority community, we identify with minority populations in the US. Any blow for the persecuted is a blow for us. Yet again, it is not hard to see how this mindset skews our attitude toward liberalism. The previous five explanations that I've offered are clearly tied to the history and character of the Jewish people. Next, I will supply two more that are much more closely related to modern developments in the Jewish community and more generally within Western Civilization. Loss of faith and identity. Throughout the Western world (Europe and North America, primarily), people's attachment to their religious heritage has been shrinking markedly. It is not at all far-fetched to describe the majority of the societies of Western Europe as post-Christian. The churches are empty, symbols of Christianity and mention of Christmas holidays are discouraged, even the "Constitution" of the European Union neglects to mention the Christian foundation that underlies the centuries old history and traditions of the continent. Similar trends are evident in the United States, although not nearly as deeply or extensively — except perhaps in the Jewish community. The fastest growing religious affiliation among the American Jewish populace is "unaffiliated." The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is proving to be far less attractive than the lure of a big house, a fancy car, a Caribbean cruise or even an iPod. But human beings cannot escape their "spiritual" nature. The world is too complicated, unpredictable and dangerous for man not to seek some metaphysical understanding of it in order to cope with the mysteries, miseries and misadventures that inevitably envelope his life. What we observe is that in the Western world, what replaces Judaism or Christianity is usually secular humanism. Secular humanism, the religion of the irreligious, preaches that the rules by which human behavior should be governed are not to be determined by an unseen deity, but rather by human beings here on Earth. The laws of a transcendent God are superseded by rational human thought. Consequently, secular humanism, with its placement of man rather than God at the center of existence, with its belief system that elevates rationality, scientific progress, equality and tolerance above liberty and tradition, is absolutely tailor made for a liberal political outlook. I believe the replacement of religious faith by a powerful form of secular humanism is particularly striking among the Jewish unaffiliated. For, unlike among the Gentile population, the shedding of one's religious affiliation by a Jew, i.e., renunciation of Judaism — whether active or passive, usually involves far more than just a loss of faith. It is the loss of an entire identity. This is because, as is well known, being Jewish means much more than just being a member of a certain religious community. Jewishness, in addition to implying membership in a religious community, also encompasses a nationality, a history, a language, a culture, an ethnic identity, and even more. I shan't go into an elaborate explanation of the various components of Jewishness, especially as I imagine readers of this magazine scarcely need such a lesson. And I won't dwell on the fact that many secular Jews attempt to jettison the religious component without casting aside all the other components. (The last to go is usually the culinary part of the ethnic component — thus the Bagel Jew). Suffice it to say that the void in the lapsed Jew's soul is often much bigger than in his Gentile counterpart, and thus devotion to secular humanism, once adopted, can be very deep. This leads to an inordinately loyal attachment by the Jew to the liberal causes that are the hallmark of those who follow the secular humanist "faith." Which brings me to the seventh reason: Loss of self-esteem and susceptibility to brainwashing. The Jews of America are not immune from the phenomenon of declining self esteem that is rampant in the Western world. The people of Western Europe have lost their faith in the cultural, political and economic principles that have sustained them for centuries. Yes, they are now post-Christian; but they are also post individual liberty, post free market capitalism, post robust national defense, post European culture and post Western Civilization. History reveals that great civilizations more often die by suicide than by conquest and the nations of Western Europe are playing the death scene before our eyes. The suicidal impulse is far less pronounced in the US, but it is manifesting itself with increasing force. And one such place in which it appears is within the Jewish population. The most obvious symptom — intermarriage. With estimates now running as high as 60%, what greater testament could there be to the loss of self-esteem among the Jews of America. (Incidentally the toll has already been taken — whereas the Jewish percentage of the American population equaled 4% a half century ago, it has now dropped to less than 2%.) But the manifestations are manifold. They are detailed in the symptoms I described in the previous article — all the self-defeating, absurd left wing causes supported by liberal Jews. The sixth and seventh explanations above — loss of faith, identity and self-esteem — leave too many Jews with a huge void to fill. Thus they are powerfully susceptible to the brainwashing that they — and all of America — have been subjected to for many decades at the hands of the media, government schools, the higher education establishment and all the other liberal-dominated, opinion-forming organs of American society. The result: Jews become the most foolish voters in America — consistently voting for and supporting liberal policies and causes that rain down harm on the Jewish community. Ron Lipsman is Professor of Mathematics, and Former Senior Associate Dean of the College of Computer, Math & Physical Sciences at University of Maryland. He is author of "Liberal Hearts and Conservative Brains". Contact him at ronlipsman@comcast.net, and visit his website: http://home.comcast.net/~ronlipsman |
|
ISRAEL, TAIWAN AND NIXON IN THE OBAMA ERA
Posted by Moshe Phillips, September 7, 2009. |
|
The mainstream media paid little attention in August when Israel sent much needed aid to Taiwan in response to the deadliest typhoon to hit the Chinese island nation in its history. In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Raphael Gamzou, director of the Israel Economic and Cultural Office in Taipei, explained that Taiwan's people "are incredibly friendly to Israel... [and] this expression of solidarity of the government and people of Israel will strengthen friendly sentiments." Israel and Taiwan have both experienced excessive abuse at the hands of the United Nations. Both countries have seen U.S. support undergo radical revision. Taiwan's support from the United States reached a peak with the Eisenhower administration and fell during the Nixon/Kissinger years. Israelis saw President George W. Bush as a great friend and now view President Obama as more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli. In April 2008, news reports about declassified 50-year-old U. S. government documents shed light on just how far some in the Eisenhower administration were ready to go to defend an ally — Taiwan (officially: the Republic of China). Friends of Israel should take careful note of this period in the history of U.S. foreign policy and especially of how radically and how quickly the American position shifted. The declassified documents showed that President Eisenhower was committed to defending Taiwan against Mainland China. Ike decided not to authorize nuclear strikes to force Communist China to retreat from a possible blockade of the anti-communist Chinese on Taiwan (the Republic of China). This was no small skirmish in 1958; the Communists fired approximately 450,000 shells at Taiwan during the 1958 conflict. By 1972 President Nixon completely changed American policy on China. It took just 14 years for the U.S. orientation to be completely reversed. More amazing is how this about face transpired and under whose watch. Nixon had been Eisenhower's vice-president. Ten years after Ike's military brass sought a nuclear option to confront Red China, Nixon was elected president and the United States was fighting against communists in Vietnam. In July 1971, Nixon dispatched Henry Kissinger to Beijing where he met with Chairman Mao. The die was cast. It should not be forgotten that Kissinger also sought to encourage Nixon to abandon Israel during the Yom Kippur War. In October 1971 the UN General Assembly voted to give the Chinese seat to the People's Republic of China ("Red China"). The Chinese permanent seat (one of just five permanent members) on the UN Security Council went to Red China as well. By 1972 Nixon had normalized U.S. relations with Red China. Before this reversal Nixon had been known throughout his political career as a staunch anti-communist. Nixon visited Beijing in February 1972. Nixon's Republican administration abandoned the Republic of China on Taiwan and the world followed. Every year since 1992, the Chinese on Taiwan have petitioned for UN membership and their request has been denied. Similarly, the UN has singled out Israel for more criticism than any other nation. Communist China has of course been no friend of Israel in the UN and has supported Israel's enemies through its powerful position on the Security Council. Communist China was the first non-Islamic country to officially recognize the PLO. In the aftermath of Beijing's win at the UN, Arafat was infamously invited to address the UN in 1974. It must be noted that Arafat was invited to address the UN when Kurt Waldheim was its Secretary-General. Arafat was first invited to Communist China in March 1964. He went to Beijing 14 times; his last visit was in August 2001. Arafat and Fatah reciprocated Red China's support. Alliances were stuck between Fatah and Red China's other terrorist clients. Most notoriously Arafat praised Beijing's bloody response to the Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. The crucial thing for friends of Israel to understand from this 50-year-old story and its aftermath is that the strategic and political approach that the United States takes towards support for her allies can change. Affinity, promises, good sense and fair play can all be forgotten — and quickly. Israel's strategic value as an ally in a very dangerous part of the world will not be enough to prevent a U.S. president as committed to changing the course of American policy as Nixon was when he went to China in February 1972. Israel must therefore formulate its policy with this in mind. No Israeli government should surrender any Israeli held territory. Ever. Israel needs every inch of the strategic depth that it has. America is no guarantor of Israeli security, nor should it be. America remains Israel's strongest ally. All friends of Israel hope that America remains aligned with Israel. But alliances can and do change. The Taiwanese learned this; let's pray that Israel does not. Taiwan is still affected by Nixon's decisions. Taiwan lost membership in all UN organizations. Taiwan's population of over 23 million has no representation at the UN. The Palestinian National Authority's population was estimated in 2008 to be 4.1 million. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) was established in 1948 and is devoted exclusively to Palestinian Arabs. UNRWA is the only UN agency dedicated to working for refugees in a specific conflict. UNRWA's cash budget for 2008 was over $540 million. It must be made clear that UNRWA has never assisted Jewish refugees who were victimized in Islamic nations and fled for their safety to Israel. Israel and her supporters should — at every opportunity — expose the UN for the fraud that it is. This includes the unjust exclusion of Taiwan. In the Obama era especially, Israel should seek to strengthen ties with those nations like Taiwan that are "incredibly friendly to Israel." History may record Nixon's abandonment of Taiwan as minor compared to Obama's desertion of Israel.
Moshe Phillips is a member of the Executive Committee of the
Philadelphia Chapter of Americans for a Safe Israel — AFSI. The
chapter's website is at: www.phillyafsi.com and Moshe's blog can be
found at http://phillyafsi.blogtownhall.com. This column originally
appeared in American Thinker with the title "Israel, Taiwan, and the
UN" on September 4, 2009:
|
|
THE JEWS WHO SAVED JEWS DURING THE HOLOCAUST
Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, September 7, 2009. |
|
This was written by Creer Fay Cashman and int appeared August 31,
2009 in the Jerusalem Post
|
|
Child Holocaust survivor Tova Teitelbaum is angry at the paucity of material about Jews who saved Jews. While there is no dearth of information about Jews who resisted the Nazis and died in doing so, most notably in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in 1943, very little has been documented about those who survived unless they went on to carve great careers for themselves after the war or became controversial figures such as anti-Zionist Dr. Marek Edelman, now 86 and believed to be the last survivor of the uprising. Teitelbaum has good reason to be angry. Her late father, Jonas Eckstein, was among those courageous people who risked life and limb on a daily basis to save fellow Jews. Although occasional mention of this period in his life had been made among relatives and close friends over the years, it wasn't something that his family dwelt on. While some families never overcome the scars of the Holocaust, for the Ecksteins it did not linger as part of their everyday lives, though at the Pessah seder when reciting the story of the Exodus from Egypt and the suffering that the Children of Israel had experienced at the hands of the Egyptians, Eckstein would add the line, "Even in this day and age..." Although he didn't talk much about the war, he had hoped to one day convey his experiences to his daughter, an English teacher, who as a student had been editor of her school magazine. Unfortunately, that never happened, and he had realized that it probably never would, especially after she moved to Israel from Australia, where the family had settled after the war. Eckstein started to write his autobiography, but the sentences are disjointed and there are no dates. "I wish I had listened to him more," says Teitelbaum in retrospect. Two years ago, she finally decided to write a book about her father's exploits. She had been spurred to do so while on a visit to Jerusalem from her home in Haifa. A conference at the Jerusalem Michlala on Jews hiding Jews had sparked her interest. Among the other attendees were a number of people who had lived in Bratislava during the war, and they spoke mainly about Rabbi Michael-Dov Weissmandel, who had been a leading figure in Jewish rescue operations, and though he managed to save many people including strangers, had lost his own wife and children. Teitelbaum commented that her father, who was likewise from Bratislava, had also been engaged in rescuing Jews. When she mentioned his name, there were several people who remembered him. Snatches of the stories she had heard in her youth began chasing each other in Teitelbaum's brain, and subsequently wherever she encountered people from wartime Czechoslovakia, almost all of them had heard about Jonas Eckstein, and some could even tell her about testimonial books in which his name appeared. The urge to find out everything she could about her father became ever stronger. Over the years, following her father's death in 1971, she occasionally asked her Austrian-born mother, Valerie, known to one and all as Wally, to tell her about those dark days — but the conversations were episodic and lacking depth — as if her mother did not really want to remember. Now, she is no position to remember. Teitelbaum has met with some of the people who were saved by her father, but they are of an advanced aged, and can't really recollect much. "When there's nobody left to ask, you discover that you want to know," she says ruefully. Never afraid of research, she went to Yad Vashem expecting to find some information in testimonies given by people saved by her father. If such material does exist, it wasn't cross-referenced, and Teitelbaum came away frustrated and none the wiser. Because her son Benny is a reporter and editor at Israel Radio's Reshet Bet, Teitelbaum is probably more aware than most people of the power of radio. It occurred to her that if she called Yaron Enosh, who has a daily program on Reshet Bet about people searching for information about relatives and friends, she might get a lead. And indeed she did. After telling what she knew of her father's story to Enosh, she received a few responses, the most valuable of which was that there is a geniza in Bnei Brak that stores Holocaust-related documentation about Orthodox Jews that cannot necessarily be found in Yad Vashem. Teitelbaum wasted little time in traveling to Bnei Brak. She found a file with her father's name, and inside were testimonies, photographs and newspaper clippings. She remembered that in January 1966, her father had come to Israel on a visit and had spent more time in Tel Aviv meeting people whose lives he had saved, than with his daughter in Haifa. There was a clipping about the visit in the Hungarian-language newspaper Ukelet. It was because of this article about Jonas Eckstein's arrival in Israel that so many people sought him out. Teitelbaum went through the files, photocopied almost everything and then made a list of all the names, and began tracking as many people as she could. Some had died in the interim. Others had memory lapses and could not really provide a coherent version of the facts, and some simply refused to talk to her. But there were a few people who were willing to share whatever they could remember, and with the help of her son, Teitelbaum started putting together a small collection of videotaped interviews. The article in Ukelet noted that Jonas Eckstein had hidden as many as 40 people at a time at a bunker in his home in Pressburg, the German name for Bratislava. It was not uncommon for Orthodox Jews to engage in sport there. Jonas Eckstein had been a member of the Hakoah Sports Club which was active in Austria, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. His favorite sport was wrestling, and he was good at it. According to the article in Ukelet, his background as a sportsman had given him a number of invaluable connections, including in the police, and for some considerable period, he was free to come and go as he pleased. Somehow he was able to set up a communications network with the outside world, keeping Jews beyond Europe aware of what was going on. In the early 1940s, groups of Jewish children from Poland crossed the border into Czechoslovakia and found their way to Pressburg, where Eckstein took it upon himself to hide them. When the coast was clear, he sent them to Hungary, where there was still relative calm. He kept track of these children and wrote to them regularly, because they had no one else to write to them. They had lost touch with their parents, who had either been murdered by the Nazis, or were in concentration camps or in hiding, with no knowledge of the fate of their children. Eckstein thought it was imperative that these children should know that someone cared about them. He continued to maintain contact with them after the war, and when he came to Israel, his briefcase contained many photos of his "children" and "grandchildren" that they had sent him over the years. The Hitachdut Olei Czechoslovakia organized a reception in his honor and sent out invitations to all its members, and of course to Eckstein's "children." More than 300 people from all over Israel showed up. One of them, a man by the name of Natan Friedman, sent a letter saying how overjoyed he was to be able to greet him in Israel. Friedman recalled that in 1945, following his liberation from a concentration camp, he had come to Pressburg and bumped into Eckstein in the street. Sick and broken in spirit, Friedman was totally depressed. Eckstein had taken him home for a meal. There were other people from concentration camps around the table. Comforted by decent food and the sight of other survivors, Friedman regained his will to live. He described the Eckstein house as "a great restaurant where the best meals were always served." It was always open to the sick and the downtrodden, and often provided more than food. Eckstein had given Friedman a considerable sum of money, which Friedman initially refused to take because he had no way of repaying it. But Eckstein was insistent, and after a few months, Friedman was in the happy position of being able to give it back. Eckstein was also able to arrange false documents during the war, and due to his connections, he was permitted to take food to Jews who had been imprisoned in jails or in labor camps, and was thus able to smuggle letters in and out. A document from another source relates how Eckstein managed to get hold of a big, fat duck for Succot. The duck was duly koshered and prepared. That night, German soldiers came to the door. Eckstein managed to get most of the people in the house into a bunker in the cellar before the Germans entered. The same document goes on to reveal other aspects of traditional Jewish life that continued despite the Nazi presence in the city. On Shabbat, they would light a memorial candle, so as to have light. Eckstein thought it was dangerous to have a light that would be visible from outside, and demanded that the candle be extinguished. The other members of the household refused, saying "It's Shabbos... We can't." But Eckstein knew that the saving of life took precedence over the observance of the Sabbath — and he snuffed out the candle himself. What pained Eckstein was the need to send his small daughter away. Tova Teitelbaum, born Gerta Eckstein in 1942, was a baby who cried a lot. Her crying endangered the lives of the people whom her father was trying to protect. The only solution was to find somewhere else for her to stay. Eckstein chose the distant village of Lamec, on the outskirts of Bratislava, where some good hearted Christians cared for her. Teitelbaum went to Lamec a few years ago to look for the people to whom she owed her life. She found the daughter of the family (who has since died), who told her that because the Germans went from village to village searching for Jews, her mother was afraid that the baby would be discovered. The woman's father was an engine driver, which entitled his whole family to a free pass for travel on the railways. So the woman, who was then a young girl, bundled up the baby and travelled all over Czechoslovakia with her until she could no longer do so because the frequency of her presence on the trains aroused the suspicions of railway personnel. So she returned to Lamec, rented a room, and pretended that the infant was her illegitimate child. Meanwhile, both of Teitelbaum's parents had been caught by the Nazis and sent to Theresienstadt. After the war, her father came to look for her and found her. There are many gaps in the story that Teitelbaum hopes to fill. She remains optimistic because almost everyone she speaks to gives her a lead to someone else, and every scrap of information is valuable. The Jews in Czechoslovakia were well organized, she says, which is why people like her father were able to carry out their operations for a relatively long time. The combined network of contacts enabled them to foil the Nazis again and again, albeit not indefinitely. Teitelbaum intends to keep going with her project, not only to honor her father, but to honor all Jews, especially Orthodox ones who engaged in saving Jews. History has not given them their due, she says, and erroneously portrays them as having gone like lambs to the slaughter. She wants to tell the other side of the story. Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
EARTHQUAKE IN IRAN?
Posted by Ted Roberts, September 7, 2009. |
|
Our G-d is a jealous god, as He repeats many times in his book. I intend not to denigrate his mercy. Don't argue with me — argue with Moses, who wrote Exodus 20:5. And he is a god of punishment. You wanta debate me? Don't waste your time. Read Isaiah 13:11. "I will punish the world for its evil and the wicked for their iniquity." It is clear our G-d, contrary to Christianity, is a g-d who is passionate about justice, but dispenses mercy in carefully measured doses. And when I consider the many quotes announcing his celestial disciple — how else can mankind be civilized — I think of the real world from Sodom and Gomorrah to the 40's of our generation when we fought the evil threat of Naziism. Like Solomon says in Ecclesiastes, "there's nothing new under the sun". Consider Sodom and Gomorrah. Merciful Abraham pleas for a reprieve if even five good people exist in that stew of iniquity. Evidently, they can't be found. G-d nukes the two cities of the plain. He either couldn't find five moral people or he ignored his debate with Abraham and eliminated a few innocents with the sinners. Oddly, World War II — two millennia later — the debate reopened. The highest levels of allied leadership debated the bombing of German cities. (By now, man had almost the destructive power of G-d.) Dresden, Hamburg, and Berlin not only possessed railroad junctions and armament plants, but innocent men, women, and children. The discussion didn't last long. We pulverized those cities like radiation therapy destroys healthy flesh along with the cancer. If we believe in the epiphany at Sinai, we must believe that our creator destroyed thousands in the cities on the plain. Qualifications on both sides, though not stated, could be postulated. You might say: He couldn't find those five righteous people, the basis of his agreement with Abraham. Evil must be eliminated. Opposing view: isn't it possible that some of the evil would change; eventually mend their ways? Were the children evil? Consider also some 2-3 millennia before. The flood obliterated mankind. Remember HE wiped out humanity except righteous Noah and his brood and a few animals so we'd have a zoo to amuse us. These are difficult ethical conundrums for biblical scholars to reconcile with the goodness and mercy Judaism now believes G-d to possess. Do we dare ask: Did HE change or did WE change? Or must we painfully accept that our G-d, who provides goodness, not only hates, but stands ready to enthusiastically eliminate evil as we eradicate the malaria germ. This is a question not for me or three millennia of rabbis to answer. It is beyond our ken. But the question still hangs in the air like a cloud over Guantanamo, where innocent thousands were saved by merciless punishment to a few. But those harsh methods must have punished some small measure of innocence. What's the rationalizing arithmetic? 10,000 saved — 4 "innocents" put to pain? Let's face it, the Chumash would never hesitate on that tradeoff. Israeli missiles often destroy the terrorist home or car, even if his pals or family go with him to that libidinous Islam heaven. There's nothing new under the sun, said Solomon — even convoluted moral questions. is there a calculus? Or even a simple arithmetic? One potential killer and three innocents require death to save the lives of fifty other innocents. Is that the deal? Or is it twenty — or a thousand? Who knows? I would say the faithful believers of G-d's lecture on Sinai would destroy 10,000 sinners — some innocent — to save five of his people. Do you think the Maloch Hamoves, cruising the skies of 1350 BC Egypt checked the ethical character of his victims? No, says the book. He only looked for the lamb's blood on the door. He has mercy, but also a plentiful supply of wrath. After consideration of the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the plagues, even Guantanamo; that saved thousands of our fellow citizens, we mourn the innocents, but do not let their peril paralyze our defense of goodness. Again consider World War II. Military leaders of US and Britain, along with their Air Force chieftains, sat in a highly secured meeting room in London. Their topic was Genesis, especially the Creator's decision of Sodom and Gomorrah. An awesome decision — made more for G-d than man — faced them. Whether to punish the innocent with the guilty or prolong indefinitely the struggle with the current evil, Nazi Germany. Whether to pinpoint by aerial bombardment tactical military targets or the cities of Berlin, Hamburg, Stuttgart, Dresden, Cologne, which contained military targets as well as women and children who did not build aircraft, tanks, or artillery. But the decision makers followed the theme of Genesis and pulverized the German cities. Man has always been less merciful than his creator. The same could be said of the Strategic Air Command — when G-dlike — they chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki for destruction. We know nothing of G-d. I choose my woods carefully because we do know his desires of us. A thousand rabbis (and clergymen, too) tell you of his book and prattle of his desires. But he, himself, tells us his ways are hidden to us. "Who", "what", "why", even "when", are as obscured in the same smoke with which he crowns his mountaintops. Metaphorically, he tells us as much in the Chumash. Our Book abounds in mystery of good and evil, justice and mercy. According to his book, he will shelter us in the palm of his hand and obliterate us with a clench of that palm if he chooses. He hates evil. That's clear even to Sunday School children. And he punishes those that harm his people, as he repetitively states in his book. Therefore, I await the earthquake that will devastate the nuclear labs of Iran. Believe Torah? Then believe that. You say innocents will die. Remember the flood. Remember Sodom and Gomorrah. The calculus is unknown. Ted Roberts' work appears frequently in the Jewish press as well as websites and magazines. Visit his websites: http://www.wonderwordworks.com and http://www.scribblerontheroof.typepad.com |
|
LESSONS FROM THE IDF PARATROOP COMMANDER
Posted by Daily Alert, September 7, 2009. |
|
This was written by Amir Buhbut and Ofer Shelah and this is a summary of the original paper which appeared in Hebrew in Ma'ariv. |
|
Col. Hertzi Halevy, commander of the IDF Paratrooper Brigade, discussed the challenges of the Dec.-Jan. Gaza operation: "Your biggest nightmare is sending a platoon of 25 people into a three-story building, and half an hour later the entire building collapses. This was a totally realistic scenario. A platoon leader threw a grenade into a building, opposite our command post, and the entire building exploded and collapsed in a single moment. It had been completely booby-trapped....In the Sultine neighborhood we found 50 explosive charges spread over an area of 70 meters. If an armored personnel carrier had gone in, we would have lost ten men. These are facts, not impressions. And why didn't they set off all of these explosives? Because we entered using the proper degree of force." "I've met many military men from around the world and I've learned from them. Most of the dilemmas that we deal with simply do not exist for military officers in other Western armies. For them, in a case like the Sultine neighborhood, it would first receive massive air bombardment, followed by softening up with artillery and mortar fire, and only afterwards would the first soldier be sent into the area, if at all. But the IDF set aside the principle of surprise in order to warn the civilians that we were about to enter the area." "During the first year that I served as commander in northern Samaria, which included Jenin, suicide bombers from my area of authority were responsible for the deaths of more than 40 Israeli civilians. The entire infrastructure of the Islamic Jihad, who presented us with such difficult challenges during this period, was comprised of terrorists who had been released in the 2004 prisoner exchange." (Maariv-Hebrew, 4Sep09) |
|
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 7, 2009. |
|
ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU EXPLAINS POLICY Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu explained his policy. He finds that except for its proxies, Iran received no foreign support for its election results. Israel will try to keep Iran isolated. Unlike his predecessors, he wants the IDF to respond to every rocket attack. He anticipates that eventually this would deter such attacks. Some people suggest dismantling the security fence, because there have been few terrorist attacks. Netanyahu says that is because of the fence. He said that for a resolution with the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), it must recognize that Israel is the national home for the Jewish people. Once they did, the Arabs could not try to solve their refugee problem within the State of Israel. When they sign an agreement, they should not be allowed to raise other demands. After having found Gaza turned into a terrorist base, he insists that the P.A. be demilitarized (http://www.imra.org.il/ Independent Media Review Analysis, 7/22). Although most of the world realizes that Iran's election was fraudulent, Israel seems more isolated than Iran. The head of the UN congratulated Iran's president on re-election. Deterrence would take more than tit-for-tat responses. It would take rooting out. That means a major military operation. The fence no doubt helps, but so do roadblocks, IDF raids, and the P.A. waiting for its U.S. trainers to finish and for Obama to pressure Israel more. The reason for wanting a final status agreement to end all P.A. demands is that more demands would re-open the conflict. Therefore, the P.A. does not sign. If Netanyahu is too coy about demilitarizing the P.A. without giving it sovereignty, the U.S. is liable to succeed in getting it sovereignty. Then it would militarize. PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY TO NAME STREETS AFTER THUGS The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) will name streets after the worst terrorist convicts in Israeli prisons. The P.A. people have not objected — their moral standards are not like the West's. The State Dept. has not objected — it doesn't care that the P.A. shows it is not making peace. J Street has not objected — it does not care that the P.A. is not moderate and has no peace movement (Dr. Aaron Lerner, http://www.imra.org.il/ Independent Media Review Analysis, 7/23). Actually, they have named sites after terrorists, before. BOYCOTT OF ISRAEL CALLED DISCRIMINATION "Never mind Iran's crackdown on peaceful protestors, China's killings of ethnic Uighurs or the epidemic murders of Kremlin critics. When it comes to Europe's bien pensants, the only country that really seems to engage their moral indignation is Israel." "Calling for Israel to be sanctioned may be the one cause that unites British university lecturers and Scandinavian union activists with radical Islamists and neo-Nazis. Now, however, the European Court of Human Rights has called this fixation with the Jewish state what it is: discrimination." The highest French Court also called Mayor Willem of Seclin guilty of promoting an act of discrimination (Prof. Steven Plaut, 7/23 from Wall St. J). The news brief did not answer whether those courts oppose all boycotts. If just this one, why? CHURCH OFFICIAL BEATEN IN GAZA A church official and his wife were robbed and beaten in Gaza by masked bandits (http://www.imra.org.il/ Independent Media Review Analysis, 7/24). That does not mean that Hamas did it. However, consider that Hamas runs Gaza tightly. Under Muslim rule, Muslims feel they can get away with attacks on Christians. Ask the Copts about that. I have. (www.freecopts.net) BRITISH DIPLOMAT ON ISRAEL & SAUDI PLAN Britain's Foreign Minister revived his country's relations with Syria. He said Syria has an interest in regional stability and Iran should rejoin the world community. Noting that Israel does not feel accepted in the region, he urged that country to accept the Saudi plan. He thinks that peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) would be triggered by Israel freezing its construction in areas the P.A. wants (http://www.imra.org.il/ Independent Media Review Analysis, 7/25). Syria has been stirring regional instability for decades. Just urging Iran to rejoin the world community is senseless. What about its jihad? The Saudi plan is a prescription for Israeli surrender and conquest. All it lacks is a provision that Israelis should kindly bare their throats for Islamic slitting. Why wouldn't the P.A. negotiate without a freeze? Don't they want peace? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
RE ISRAELI PROFESSOR: "WEST BANK SETTLEMENTS ARE GOOD FOR PEACE"
Posted by Molly, September 7, 2009. |
|
Professor Raphael Israeli wrote a piece about Jewish settlements "being good for peace." We are the Secular Christians for Zion (SC4Z) and we criticize the good professor because he legitimizes the Islamic fantasy that Islamics have a right to stake claims to the Jewish Homeland for themselves with his mistaken assumption that Jewish "settlements" can or ought to have limits, ergo, expanding those limits is good for peace. With apologies to the prof, we believe that his reasoning is peculiar and dangerously flawed. What's wrong with Prof. Israeli's piece? Well, for one thing, it's grounded upon the mistaken notion that Jewish communities lack an inherent right to be established without any limitations, anywhere and in any place in the region between the ocean and the sea. Yes, its good for Jewish communities to be established and enlarged, but Prof. Israeli's piece reads as if it were writ by a laywer who lacks a sense of the history of the region. Or writ by a man who refuses to accept the history of the Jews who lived independently or in Jewish communities throughout the Middle East and thus for as yet unexplained reasons he is willing to abide by the revisionist fantasies elaborated by the Arab invaders who just recently and wrongfully staked claims to the lands once recognized as Jewish Palestine. Jewish Palestine was officially declared the homeland for the Jews and recognized as such by Europeans and Americans for decades, and this is according to both the Britz and the Arabs who preceded Abdullah (the latter became the first monarch of the new state of Saudi Arabia, created in 1932.) The fact is that Jews — secular, Semitic, and religion-bound — settled the region known as Palestine — which included the region that became Transjordan — and their presence there has been constant for the past three millennia. In short, the fact that Jews had communities in the TransJordan region that became Jordan must not be obscured, and certainly not by Jews who might be tempted to do so out of a irrational need to appease. If people are going to claim any "right of return" then this right belongs to close to a million Jews and millions of their heirs who were driven out of their historical communities throughout the Middle East. In other words, the Hashemites should be reminded daily that they are living on borrowed land because it was wrongfully severed from Jewish Palestine. Repeat after us: The lands between the ocean and the sea were promised to the Jews and Jews must reclaim ALL their lands, including the lands of the Sinai. As for the so-called "Jewish settlements" — they are and should be established at will, anywhere between the ocean and the sea ... and without having to ask any foreigner's permission and certainly not Mr. Obama. That Obama has the temerity to issue orders to the people of a sovereign state is utterly unacceptable. That he would dare to suggest that Jews segregate themselves so that Islamics can have "Jew-free land" is nauseating nonsense. Obama should try on that shoe! How would he, a half-white, half-African male like it if the color of his skin dictated that as a matter of law, he and his family and relatives and heirs reside only in certain sections of Chicago so that other sections of Chicago would be free of people having so much as a drop of African blood? That Jews laid down their lives so that peoples of African ancestry could live free of slavery here, there, and everywhere, and yet have Obama of the 21st Century dare to bow down before the monarch of the most bigoted, backward, racist state on the planet is an act that is worse than embarrassing. |
|
"West Bank settlements are good for peace"
One of the axioms of the "peace process" is that the settlements are "an obstacle to peace," as if removing them would instantly bring peace on earth. It's well known, however, that before 1967 there were no settlements, and no peace — unless, of course, you consider the communities within Israel "settlements," since the Arabs considered them occupied territory. The greatest contribution of the settlements, then, is that they took the place of Israeli towns as occupied territory, except perhaps for Hamas and considerable parts of the Arab world. Therefore, the formula that removing settlements equals peace is laughable and baseless. The Arabs' total-denial approach to Israel never depended on settlement on a particular parcel of land. They are bothered by Jewish settlement in Israel in general. It's enough to browse through the books of the "moderate" Palestinian Authority to see that Haifa, Jaffa and even Tel Aviv are considered Palestinian cities, while Hamas believes the Wakf land of all Palestine should be expropriated from the Jewish state, which doesn't have the right to land on either side of the Green Line. In 2000, Yasser Arafat was offered an Israeli withdrawal from 95% of the territories in exchange for agreeing to end the conflict. He refused, because he didn't consider this a full withdrawal from Palestinian land. Although Israel made yet another step in leaving the Gaza Strip, not only freezing construction there but evicting the settlers, all it got in return was more war and destruction, a far cry from the peace that removing this "obstacle" was supposed to create. In other words, not only did the Arabs not consider Israel's older settlements different from the new ones that "endanger peace," but the eviction of the latter drove them to begin attacking the former. We know now that one thing that motivated Anwar Sadat to come to Jerusalem was his fear that unless settlements in the Rafah area and Sinai were uprooted, they would grow into large cities that no peace agreement could remove. The Syrians and Palestinians, on the other hand, believed they had nothing to lose if they maintained their refusal to negotiate, since their land would wait for them, frozen in time, until they could graciously take it back from Israel and then attack again from these positions. They can't comprehend that they have lost their lands because of their aggression, and that it is immoral to return to an aggressor the positions from which he might renew his aggression, since letting him escape without harm only encourages him to attack again. There can be deterrence only once the aggressor has paid a price that dissuades him from attacking at whim. This is what happened to Germany. So until there is a permanent status agreement, only Jewish settlement activity can be enough of an incentive to make the Arabs, like Sadat, hurry up and seek peace, because their losses will multiply the longer they wait. We know from the Gaza example that the Arabs' goal was not to remove Israel from precious land, but to uproot Jews and fight them from the land they left. It is better, then, to keep with the peace-building construction in communities beyond our borders, and only when we see genuine signs of a culture of peace and good neighborliness next door to talk about evacuation — with due consideration to the new reality on the ground, which will change all the more if the Arabs don't rush toward an agreement. The author is a professor of Islamic, Middle Eastern and Chinese history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Contact Molly at pelago2000@gmail.com |
|
I WANT TO SHOW RESPECT AND HONOR TO THE HOLOCAUST VICTIMS
Posted by Darryl Rusk, September 7, 2009. |
| I am a Christian American who is a lifelong devotee of Israel and Jewish causes and survival! I want to show my respect by starting a small 21rst century crusade of respect and honor for those who suffered through the holocaust. First, I intend to have a number tattoo on my left fore arm. That must be the number that is approved by a committee of rabbis who accept the innocence of this cause. The number must honor someone who is not famous in any way.... simply someone who, to me, is a tremendous hero by standing for their faith in G_d. Can you help me. I believe their are thousands, if not millions of Americans who are searching for ways to tell our own government that Israel MUST survive. There is no intention to make a big deal out of this, just Americans standing up for our belief in Abraham, Isaac and Israel. Again, can you help? Please write me at darrylrusk@hotmail.com |
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: PREPARING FOR THE NEW YEAR
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, September 7, 2009. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: As we make our way through the new Hebrew month of Elul, the Jewish New Year and High Holy Days can't be far behind. For some residents of Jerusalem, it's time to get out the holy holiday garb, hang it on the line, and let the rarefied mountain air heighten its purity. Or at least dry it out after a thorough washing. Every place has sights that can be seen nowhere else, and this clothesline strung with a kittel and the white beanies worn by followers of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, is the perfect example of an image found only in Israel. As an outsider to the Haredi religious communities in Jerusalem, I tread lightly through the streets when searching for pictures that reveal the unique character of these neighborhoods. More often than not, however, and as is frequently the case just about everywhere when I reveal my interest in someone else's life, I am welcomed and invited to photograph. The owner of these garments was sweeping his courtyard as I passed by and looked curiously at his peculiar load of laundry. Observing my interest, he called to me to come have a closer look. That proved crucial to getting this shot, because from the street, I could not see the shadow patterns formed by the row of hats hanging out to dry. By accepting the invitation to come a little closer, I gained a better perspective from which to shoot and, through our brief encounter, an enhanced understanding of a fellow Jew.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
THIS IS OUR PLACE, SO MIND YOUR MANNERS
Posted by Mr La, September 6, 2009. |
|
This was written by Cherna Moskowitz and it appeared yesterday in the Jerusalem Post. She is the president of the Irving I. Moskowitz Foundation and serves on the board of numerous prominent organizations both in Israel and abroad. |
|
When my husband Irving was a young man he would go door-to-door around Milwaukee with a Jewish National Fund blue box collecting money to redeem property in the Land of Israel. Although it was during the Depression, everyone put in what they could afford: pennies, nickels and dimes. In the 19th century, wealthy Jews like Rothschild were purchasing large tracts of land for Jews to settle in the Holy Land. The synagogue Ohel Yitzhak in the Muslim Quarter of the Old City, abandoned in 1938 after waves of Arab violence — which we recently rebuilt — was originally built and paid for by European Jews in the 1880s. For thousands of years Jews dreamed of Israel and in the last centuries all Jews took part in the effort to reclaim the land and support Jews who lived there.
THIS IS a part of the Jewish tradition: charity for the poor and reclaiming the land of our country. It was perfectly normal for Irving and me to continue to fulfill these mitzvot. It was the driving force behind Irving's quest to work hard to continue the tradition. How did this become world news, fodder for riots and outraged pronouncements from foreign leaders? We were both born in the United States and experienced anti-Semitism while growing up. However, we were secure in the knowledge that our government would ensure our equal rights to live in any neighborhood in any part of the country we wished. We believed that if it was legal, the full force of the government would protect us regardless of the fact that we were Jews. How is it then, that President Barack Obama demands that the Israeli government disallow the Shepherd Hotel a building permit because Jews would live there? Christians and Muslims yes, Jews no. This is clearly racist. Furthermore, this would deprive us as American citizens of our constitutional rights to equal protection of the law. It seems to be a continuation of a 2,000-year-old habit of Jews being told where they can and cannot live. This spanned from the ghettos of medieval Europe, to severe zoning restrictions in czarist Russia and finally to the edicts of Nazism, where we were eventually told that we could not live at all. Can it be possible that we will accept any part of that today in our own nation? Jews should be able to live anywhere in the world. The question should be: "Is the purchase legal and are the permits in order?" Not "what faith do the families living there follow?" The British Consulate, located near the Shepherd Hotel, also objected to Jews building on our property there. This while construction on several nearby Arab-owned buildings is currently in progress. Someone should remind the British Consulate that there is no longer a British Mandate. I don't mind if they don't come over with a pot of tea, but at least they should remember that they are guests of the Jewish state and behave in a civilized and neighborly way. Contact the poster at mrla26@aol.com |
|
NEVER ABANDON JERUSALEM
Posted by Victor Sharpe, September 6, 2009. |
|
It would be a cataclysmic act of betrayal. |
|
The Arabs who call themselves Palestinians demand that the eastern half of Jerusalem be given to them, in order to declare it the capital of a new Arab state called Palestine. Such an independent Arab state called Palestine has never existed in all of recorded history. Palestine has always been a geographical area, just as Siberia or Patagonia are: never an independent state. Jerusalem has been the eternal capital of only one people in all of that same recorded history: the Jewish people. A Kingdom of Jerusalem existed under the regime of the Christian Crusaders, but this was created by a motley group of European knights who had no historical roots in the land. The Jewish Bible, along with the Talmud and the Midrash, tell us that the Torah, its light and its message, is to be broadcast to the entire world from one specific place — Jerusalem. Not just its western half. We know that each time the Torah scroll is taken from the Ark to be read during synagogue services, the following prayer is always sung: "For out of Zion shall go forth the Torah (Law), and the word of G-d from Jerusalem." (Isaiah 2:1 and Micah 4:2) In the holy Jewish Bible (the Tanach), the words "Jerusalem" and "Zion" appear 821 times, with "Jerusalem" appearing 667 times and "Zion", 154 times. Both Zion and Jerusalem are considered synonymous. In the holy Christian Bible, which itself is an account primarily of Jewish personalities whose lives were formed within the Jewish province of Rome known as Judea, as well as in the Galilee, the name "Jerusalem" appears 154 times and "Zion", seven. In the Koran, Islam's holy book, Jerusalem and Zion do not appear at all. Indeed, it was only after the Arabs, under their new banner of Islam, conquered Jerusalem in the year 638 that they invented Islamic history in and around Jerusalem. After the Holy Temple was destroyed in the year 70 CE by Titus, Jerusalem lay stricken. But Jews still maintained a presence there and continued to suffer under the Roman yoke. The heroic Bar-Kochba Revolt, which broke out in 135 CE, was crushed by the legions of the Roman emperor, Hadrian. Jerusalem was plowed under and the city renamed Aelia Capitolina, in part after the emperor's own name, Hadrian Publius Aelius. He built a shrine to the Roman god Jupiter on the site where the Holy Jewish Temple had once stood. From the 10th century, the Muslim Arabs still called the city various names that echoed the original Jewish origins. For instance, they called it Beit al-Makdis, the Arabic version of the Hebrew name Beit HaMikdash — House of the Sanctuary. The present Arabic name, beloved of Palestinian Arab terrorists, is Al-Kuds, which is derived from the Hebrew, Ir Hakodesh — City of Holiness. The Crusader Christian king, Frederick II, obtained Jerusalem, along with Bethlehem and Nazareth, in a treaty with the Egyptian Sultan Al-Kamil. This was a lease agreement given by the Muslim ruler and meant to last some ten years. Frederick subsequently crowned himself King of Jerusalem. But in 1244, the Muslims retook Jerusalem and the city no longer was considered important to them. It lapsed into a long slumber and the Muslim shrines on the Temple Mount, which today are a focal point of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel activity, fell into disrepair and abandonment. Only when Israeli forces, in June 1967, liberated the Temple Mount and east Jerusalem, during their defensive Six Day War against Arab aggression, did the Arab and Muslim world suddenly wake up and demand control of the city, or at least the Temple Mount and Jerusalem's eastern half. It is instructive to note that when the Jordanian Arab Legion occupied east Jerusalem and the Old City in 1948, after driving out its Jewish population, the Arab world again lost interest in the city. Indeed, King Hussein, Jordan's ruler, had little interest in Jerusalem compared with his desire to build up his capital, Amman, which he considered far more important. Between 1948 and 1967, during the illegal Jordanian Arab occupation of east Jerusalem and the West Bank, no Arab leader ever thought it important enough to visit Jerusalem except King Hussein, who visited it rarely. Today, Mahmoud Abbas — the successor to arch-terrorist Yasser Arafat and now head of the Palestinian Authority — demands that Jerusalem be divided again as it was from 1948 to 1967, and that a new Arab capital — for the first time in history — be established in Jerusalem. Not only the Muslim world, with its more than fifty seven member states, but the Europeans and President Barack Obama are relentlessly pressuring Israel into conceding parts of its holy capital to further placate the voracious Arab appetite and "further the peace process." Obama goes even further and arrogates to himself the chutzpah to tell Jews where they can and where they can not live in their own Biblical and ancestral homeland. Giving away even one inch of Jerusalem would be to spit in the face of the endless generations of Jews who have held Jerusalem as the central spiritual and physical place of Jewish history. It would be a cataclysmic act of betrayal of Jewish history and faith if any part of Jerusalem is lost to the Jewish people by this generation. For Jews, Jerusalem is the spiritual and temporal heart. The prayer uttered at Passover and Yom Kippur — "Next year in Jerusalem" — must not become an empty phrase. It must not be made even more bitter in its utterance by Israeli politicians and leaders abandoning much of eternal Jerusalem to placate a fraudulent Arab people called Palestinians, and to appease a hostile world by succumbing to an equally fraudulent peace. Imagine the time immemorial Passover prayer corrupted into, "Next year in West Jerusalem." Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu recently reminded Britain's George Brown that Jerusalem is Israel's eternal capital. But it was Netanyahu who, in his first premiership, gave away one of Judaism's four holy cities, Hebron, to the Arabs. As Jerold S. Auerbach mentioned in his August 28, 2009 article in the Wall Street Journal titled, "Remembering the Hebron Massacre": "The Jewish community of Hebron — some 700 people — recently celebrated the 40th anniversary of their return.... All the other ancient peoples mentioned in the Bible have vanished. But Jews, a community of memory, still live in Hebron." Mr. Auerbach added that this month they commemorate the 80th anniversary of Tarpat, which is the acronym for the date in the Hebrew calendar when the ghastly massacre of Jews by their Arab neighbors took place in 1929. It was fomented by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Al-Husseini, whose hatred of the Jews later led him to spend time plotting with Adolf Hitler in the notorious Berlin bunker. We must pray that Prime Minister Netanyahu remains steadfast in the face of the enormous pressure that is building upon him, thanks in large part to the new American president, and that he never, never abandons any part of Jerusalem. Victor Sharpe is a freelance writer with articles and essays published in FrontPageMag. com, Townhall. com, Outpost, the Wall Street Journal, the London Daily Telegraph, Israel Alert, Jewish Review, American Thinker, Jerusalem International and other publications. He is also the author of "Politicide: The attempted murder of the Jewish State" and "The Blue Hour and Other Strange Tales." This was published September 2, 2009 as an Opinion piece in Arutz-Sheva
|
|
EVENTUALLY TRUTH WILL OUT
Posted by Marc Prowisor, September 6, 2009. |
|
Eventually truth does win out, whether we hear of it or not. More and more Israeli's wake up every day to the farce of diplomacy being thrust upon the Jews of Israel by the champions of democracy throughout the western world. Polls show the same among other nations in the world. The continued lies of the "Palestinian Authority" are humiliating more and more of those in the US government, and those that voted for them. As the falsehoods of the Arab quest for peace continue to surface, politicians scramble for cover so as not to ruin what is left of their names and reputations. On the ground in Judea and Samaria, the Arab residents are also coming to grip the reality that Israel and the Jews are here to stay. Of course this remains well hidden in the dark corridors of their villages, less they crave the punishment of "treason". Even Jimmy Carter has begun to speak about the notion of "One State"; of course he hopes it to be an Arab majority in the near future. Still, the world is slowly realizing that we are here to stay, and the feeble attempt of ethnically cleansing the Heartland of Israel of its Jewish populous will not happen, not this time, not this place. We will still in the mean time bear the brunt of a double, triple standard regarding the legality of the Jewish presence here, and will continue to see the ugly face of hatred at every turn we take, even as we fight to defend our own right to a safe existence in our land. I'm sorry that I have nothing new to add, as most has been said already, and is continuing to be said, thank Gd every day. I can still say that the road is long, and now we must concentrate on bringing our own back to the truth, and this appears to be the greatest challenge before us. For some reason that I have yet to understand, many of our own under the guise of "seekers of justice", see more fault in us then the rest of the world. In their warped sense of perception we in Israel are far more evil then the tyrants and murderers of Darfur, the War Lords of Afghanistan, the Wahabbi Lawgivers of Saudi Arabia, or the even handed courts of the Palestinian Authority. Being led by the unbiased reporting of the New York Times and Al Gezeera, these ignorant few and the haters of the Israeli nation are attempting to boost their efforts promoting lies and violence against any Jew who believes in his own heritage. Of course they are not alone, there are still leaders of various western nations that continue to kowtow to the mullahs of deceit, in hopes of a better deal, a reduced price on crude, or maybe a billion dollar loan guarantee. We are approaching a time where action will dictate who we are, and rhetoric will take the back seat. It may not be the smooth road we hope and pray for, but never less, it is one of the roads that we must take. I watched this week as a young Jewish boy entered manhood by reconnecting with his ancestors, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the Holy city of Hebron in the Cave of the Patriarchs, or Ma'arat Machpela. It wasn't enough for him and his family to include his past in his future, they went further, and Jewish soldiers on duty also were invited to share in their joy. Eyes welled up as a young Paratrooper Captain stood and said a "Dvar Torah" or commentary, in honor of the Bar Mitzvah and then many present understood the greatness of the moment, we stood there, today and saw the new, strong and growing Jewish presence in the Holy land. There was no physical distance, no spiritual divides, only One People in their land to stay, and this is our future. Contact Marc Prowisor at marc@friendsofyesha.com and visit http://yeshaviews.blogspot.com and www.friendsofyesha.com |
|
TODAY'S WHITE PAPER
Posted by Moshe Kerr, September 6, 2009. |
|
This was written by Yehudit Tayar, a veteran spokesperson for the Jewish pioneers who live in Yesha. She lives with her family in Bet Horon, in the Benjamen Region of the Shomron. [Editor's Note: When the Ottoman Empire was dissolved, Great Britain received the Mandate to help the Jews develop the area the British called Palestine for a future Jewish state. This was an irrevocable Trust by the League of Nations and later transferred to the United Nations. Britain, however, played politics and disregarded her charter on many occasions. Issuing the White Paper was one of them.] |
|
"It has been urged that the expression 'a National Home for the Jewish people' offered a prospect that Palestine might in due course become a Jewish State or Commonwealth. His Majesty's Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State". Within the Land Transfer Acts of February 1940, in order to prevent any economic expansion of the minority Hebrew community, the High Commissioner of Palestine was further empowered to prohibit the purchase of land by Jews. Making use of these powers, the Land Transfer Acts of February 1940 restricted the zone in which Jews were free to buy land to five percent of the total area of the country......According to the terms of the international Mandate, the White Paper could only gain legal validity if endorsed by the League of Nations. The last word now rested with the League's Council. It was to meet in September 1939. It never met, and the White Paper never acquired legal validity." (Thieves in the Night, by Arthur Koestler, written 1946) Today we witness a blatant attempt to reinstate the infamous White Paper of those days of the past when our Nation was struggling to survive here in our Homeland, trying to flee the murderous plans of the Nazi Regime, and at the same time fighting to settle the Land. Today we are supposed to be a sovereign State and not be limited to the dictates of foreign powers. Today we are supposed to be mature enough as a Nation to stand up and demand our rights to live, to build and to settle our Land anywhere we wish. But alas, today as then, the demands of the world, including the United States, attempt to force us back into being a subservient colony dictated to by both our enemies and our so-called friends. The attempt to force Israel into freezing building in the Jewish communities of Yesha is bitterly reminiscent of the bloody days of the British Mandate, when even refugees fleeing the monstrous, murderous Nazis were prevented from finding the only safe haven they had, the Land of Israel. Today the plan also extends to include the eternal capital of Israel, Jerusalem, in a plan to remove Jewish sovereignty from Jerusalem by freezing any building there. Back in the days of the Mandate there were those who, as the "spearhead", resisted this and found themselves not only struggling against Great Britain, the Nazis, Arabs and the rest of the world, but also found themselves struggling against their brothers here in Israel who felt that the British must be supported in their struggle against the Nazis. If it would not have been for the "so-called illegal immigration of the Mossad L'Aliya Beth", as it was called, it is certain that not only the thousands of refugees who came through the heroic efforts of this organization of immigration would have been murdered in Europe, but it is also clear that these same immigrants made an enormous contribution during the War of Independence. Today, as the pressures on Prime MInister Netanayahu grow from outside and from within, we must continue to act as the "spearhead", the Mossad L'Aliya Beth of today. We must continue to give Mr. Netanyahu the example of our forefathers who were unafraid of the British, unafraid of the internal criticism and even hatred, and who realized that the safety and future of the Jewish people in our Land depended on their — and today — our efforts and determination to continue to build in Yesha, Jerusalem, and all over our Land. It is imperative that each hilltop that is in danger of being handed over to the enemy who wishes to destroy us be protected and that we, as then, determinedly continue to demand that our Land and the Jewish people be granted the unalienable right that we have always had no matter what any foreign or local power ruled. Each and every hilltop, be it Gilad Farm in the Shomron or Shdema located only ten minutes from Jerusalem, demands the same determined fight to protect it and keep it for the Jewish people. Today, before the next attempt of the United Nations to freeze Jewish purchase of Land, and to prevent building and endanger our lives and the future of the Jewish people in our Land, it depends on our tenacity and endurance to help the government of Israel do what needs to be done : protect the Jewish people and ensure that never again will we be forced by a "White Paper" to endanger our very existence as a people. Contact Moshe Kerr at moshekerr@gmail.com 773 572 6919 |
|
OBSERVATIONS DURING A VISIT TO THE TEMPLE MOUNT
Posted by Sanford Aranoff, September 6, 2009. |
|
Just returned from a visit to my children in Israel. In Jerusalem, near sites holy to Judaism, such as the Temple Mount, there were large numbers of tourist buses. Traffic is very difficult. Jerusalem needs light rail and bus lanes, so that traffic is not held up while buses load. Israel must recognize the Jewish nature of the state, and refer to site by the Jewish name in signs in Hebrew and English. For example, I am offended when I see a sign to the Al Aksa mosque in English, instead stating "Temple Mount". Write Al Aksa in Arabic for the Arabs. Near the Old City and the line of tourist buses, there is a dumpster full of smelly garbage. In America, all garbage must be wrapped in closed plastic bags so that disease should not spread. Israel needs to encourage residents to buy and use garbage bags. Furthermore, dumpsters should have heavy lids to keep them closed. Walking towards the Old City, I asked, in Hebrew an Arab taxi driver where the Temple Mount was. He yelled at me, in Hebrew, that there is a mosque there, and nothing else! Such anger! Israel must make it clear that Arabs can have religious freedom to practice their religion, be it Islam or Christianity, but do not have the freedom to tell Jews what to do with our Jewish state! Contact Dr. Aranoff by email at aranoff@analysis-knowledge.com |
|
OUR CULTURAL HISTORY
Posted by Sanford Aranoff, September 6, 2009. |
|
If we in America are to succeed as a nation, we need to study our past great culture, Western Civilization, know our history, and understand various economic philosophies. We can teach this in our schools and have adult education programs. Political leaders should be required to take a few courses in Western Civilization before they can run for high office, just as doctors need to take courses in anatomy. Let us not forget the noble and successful values of our founding fathers, encoded in the U.S. Constitution. These ideas of individual freedom, choice, minimum government, justice, and property rights proved so successful as to make America the great country we are. The American founding fathers were not the first to develop the ideal of a sound economy based upon individual freedom and limited government. The ancient Israelites, ancestors to today's Jews, were the first. America began by the revolution against Great Britain. Judaism began by the revolution against ancient Egypt. Egypt, the world's superpower, was a society that believed in strong central government that controlled most aspects of people's lives. America celebrates the Revolution on July 4. Judaism celebrates the revolution by the holiday of Passover, "the time of our freedom." Passover stresses choice and asking questions, not mindless acceptance of authority. The goal of the Egyptian was a good place in Heaven. The goal of accepting Judaism and acting in accordance with the religion is a good society in Israel. Christianity and Islam also keep the focus on Heaven, not building society. For example, a Jew would never permanently lose his means of production, his property, for it will always be returned in the Jubilee year. Safety nets are intrinsic to Judaism. These Jewish ideals practiced in the Middle Ages, permitted Jews to successfully engage in commerce in spite of the severe centuries-long economic depression in Europe. Sadly, people do not understand the Jewish idea of freedom and choice. People who like to control others find Jewish ideas an obstacle. This is why despots hate Jews. Unfortunately, we Americans have forgotten the noble ideals of our founding fathers and the Jewish people. For example, FDR nearly destroyed our economy by his strong government policies. Here are some books proving this: "New Deal or Raw Deal?" by Burton W. Folsom; "The Forgotten Man", by Amity Shales; and "FDR's Folly" by Jim Powell. Obama is also acting to destroy America by making the government strong. FDR did not let Jews escape the Holocaust, but let them die rather than live and come to America. He knew that Jews are a free-spirited questioning people who would interfere with his big government plans. When Obama said that Israelis should not expand "settlements" even for natural growth, one wonders what should Israelis do, abort the children, like Pharaoh, the ruler of ancient Egypt said? Obama is like FDR, a big government person. If we study history, we will understand that our prosperity and happiness comes with small government. We need to focus on historical successes, such as the founding of our great country, the United States of America. Contact Dr. Aranoff by email at aranoff@analysis-knowledge.com |
|
HATE SPEECH ON CAMPUS
Posted by Fern Sidman, September 6, 2009. |
|
This below is a review of a hate speech on campus. It is a film by 'Stand With Us'. |
|
It is that time of the year once again. The new school term will begin in a matter of weeks. As the excitement and anticipation escalates for some, entering college or university for the first time can be a daunting and intimidating experience for the Jewish student. Always a minority, the secular Jewish student faces the foreboding prospect of living on a campus that has morphed into a raging hotbed of anti-Israel fanaticism. Stand With Us, the pro-Israel advocacy organization that focuses its energies on countering disinformation and slander against Israel and Jews on college campuses, has produced a powerful and must-see documentary on the proliferation of rabid Jew hatred that has permeated today's college campuses. The introduction to "Hate Speech on Campus" unequivocally states that the objective of this film is not to thwart the rights of free speech on campuses or to initiate a campaign against academic freedom but rather to spotlight the rampant plague of Islamic demonization of Israel that has become a ubiquitous phenomenon. Focusing on such campuses as the University of California at Irvine, Long Beach and Santa Cruz as well as San Diego State University and Concordia University in Canada, this film utilizes realtime footage of Muslim agitators whose political and religious ideology is clearly tethered to such radical movements as the Muslim Brotherhood and Al-Qeada. Brought to these campuses by the Muslim Students Association as well organizations such as the International Solidarity Movement, Students for Justice in Palestine, Jewish Voice for Peace and Women in Black, these treacherous propagandists use arguments predicated upon half truths, distortions and overt canards as they attempt to re-write history, as it pertains to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is clear that what is presented in this film is nothing short of classical anti-Semitism in its most banal form. Armed with the notion that the Jews are responsible for all of the world's ills, Amir Abdel Malik Ali blatantly referring to Israel as an apartheid state, as he takes the podium at UC Irvine and advocates bloody terrorism by telling his audience that Palestinians who blow up civilian buses in Israel are indeed "freedom fighters" who are simply responding to Israeli aggression. Moreover, Malik Ali labels Zionism as "the American disease" that needs to be stamped out, adding that it is the "Zionist Jews" who control the media and have set an agenda for global domination. Calling on all Muslims to unite against what he perceives as a nefarious plot, he insists that Muslims must rule the world and utilize all means at their disposal to do so. He is joined in this cacophony of hate by such Islamic luminaries as Amir Abdel who has defined Zionism as a mixture of "white supremacy and the concept of the chosen people" and Imam Mohammed Al Asi who asserts that Israel is a "war like regime that has assumed a racist and expansionist posture". Not to be outdone, these Muslim speakers are joined by their American counterparts in excoriating Israel. Alison Weir, a former San Francisco journalist who now heads up an organization called, "If Americans Knew" speaks of Jews stealing Palestinian land and claims that prior to the creation of the State of Israel, "Zionists used an array of misleading strategies, including secret collaboration with the Nazis, to push immigration." Former political science professor Norman Finkelstein who was denied tenure at DePaul University because of fraudulent scholarship is also seen in this film alleging that Israel engaged in "ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in 1948". Finkelstein, a self hating Jew, is known for his role in denying the veracity of the Holocaust and portraying Holocaust survivors as crafty business people who are attempting to use their Holocaust experiences to build a money making industry. According to Tammi Rossman-Benjamin, a lecturer in Hebrew at UC Santa Cruz, many of these speakers are sponsored by the Women's Studies and Middle Eastern Studies departments which are rife with academics who possess a clear bias towards Israel and America. Because of the monopoly of power that they wield on today's campuses, it is these very departments that refuse to allow speakers who wish to present a more objective position on the Israeli-Palestinian issue to address the student body. Apparently, the influence of Saudi Arabian dollars is visible as it has been revealed that their far reaching tentacles have a firm grasp on North American universities. Evidence has surfaced that is they who are the architects of the curriculum of numerous Middle Eastern Studies departments as well as their chief benefactors. What is most frightening about the hate speech presented in this film, is the fact that these words facilitate an incitement to violence as was evidenced in the footage taken at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada when anti-Israel protestors publicly harassed and physically attacked Jewish students when then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was scheduled to speak on there. As the Muslim students literally blocked the escalator leading to the room where the speech was to be held, we witness clashes between police and demonstrators which ultimately led to the cancellation of the address. Angered by the ever increasing bellicosity on campus, Jewish students as well as Hillel directors, rabbis and community leaders are now beginning to galvanize against such Jew hatred and are organizing their own activist agendas. Judea Pearl, the father of Wall Street Journal reporter, Daniel Pearl who was kidnapped and beheaded by Taliban and Al Qeada operatives Pakistan in 2002 said that, "for too long Jews have allowed this kind of racism on campuses to flourish; all under the cloak of political debate". This film illustrates quite cogently that the use of such chilling epidemiological metaphors by the plethora of Jew haters on America's college campuses is indeed reminiscent of Nazi incitement and thus represents a prologue to, and justification for a Mid-East genocide. If we choose to ignore this kind of hate as mere blather, we do so at our own peril. History has proven that the Holocaust did not begin in the gas chambers; but rather it began with words.
Contact Fern Sidman at AriellaH@aol.com.
|
|
REVIEW OF IMPORTANT UPCOMING FILM, MEIN FUHRER
Posted by Marion DS Dreyfus, September 6, 2009. |
|
Written/Directed by Danny Levy
MEIN FUHRER, in German with English subtitles, is tough for Jewish viewers, many others, too, as a scan of the dramatis personae would give one pause. Beginning in black and white, it unspools shivery footage of hitlerian days, crowds, enthralled volken-masses worshipping at the foot of the unloved, abused child of an abandoning father. Leni Riefenstahl clips from her 1935 Triumph des Willens punctuate the color film throughout, as the protagonist, a renowned Jewish acting director and onstage great, Adolf Grunbaum, is hauled directly from the Sachshausen rock pile concentration camp to fortify the dictator for his last Berlin public rant. The cast list is a nightmare for Jungian viewers with a Jewish background, as all the spit/polish killing-machine Huns are listed matter-of-factly, as if they were just anonymous persons in a drama. Simply a name, across from its cinematic embodiment. The film is tantalizing because, were it true, more Jews might have survived; as it is made up, it both mines the satiric vein first explored by Charlie Chaplin, in his controversial 1940 version of the artist-manqué in THE GREAT DICTATOR, his embodiment of the mass Austrian killer, and brings up the problem so blatantly evident in the abominable (yes, we know it won an award for best foreign picture; so what? Guilt takes many forms, including electing appallingly wrong men to office) LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL, whose central thread was that an Italian/French internee at a concentration camp could smuggle in his infant son, and raise him secretly by making a game of all the horror and deprivation. Though word had come down that FUHRER was laugh out loud 'hysterical,' it is stonily amusing once or twice, as the actor becomes a favored visitor/trainer of the Fuhrer, and visits contemporary acting tropes on the clearly broken man, as his once gleaming country lies in ruins and his Reichstag is bombed by American aircraft. He does pushups. He runs to Grunbaum for solace in the middle of the night. He barks like a dog, with his own German shepherd, Blondi, looking on in astonishment. He cries at the memory of his father, who mercilessly beat him for nothing and everything. The film humanizes and sillifies the murderous incarnator, and to that extent does a disservice to global audiences. The denouement offers a scintilla of revenge, but it is much too long in coming, and in any case, not related to the true history of the time. As Alicia Silverstone said in CLUELESS (1995): As if! At the end, as the credits roll, an interesting outtake photo-frame insert asks young children who Hitler was. No idea. Shrugs. As the interviewees age, they go from utter ignorance to lies and spin to disinformation to barely suppressed anger at being asked. As the oldest of the interviewees, all German, are confronted with the neutral question, they expostulate and leave the frame. Then the clock reverses, and elderly people are asked if they know who Adolf Grunbaum was. The elderly are mystified and unknowing, but as the ages recede back to extreme youth, people guess he was a Jewish performer, a hero, a scientist... or no one. We are left with very young children lifting their shoulders in ignorance again. The technique encapsulates the trickiness of history. "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair," as Ozymandias was wont to script in the trackless sands of mortal obliviousness. History shifts, disappears, reappears, passes. One guesses Holocaust historians such as Thane Rosenbaum and others would deem this episodically amusing — extremely well-acted, designed and scripted — film nothing more than outright obscenity. Whitewashing the man who murdered over 6 million innocents — including untold unborn young who were never given the right to birth as their mothers were murdered and thus never made part of the obsessive German census data capture, as well as the handicapped, White Russians, Gypsies and assorted minorities — may be 'funny' to some, but laughing did not seem an option, no matter how satirical and droll the apocryphal tale of Hitler's prepping for his big speech moment. The dark night of nazism is part of history, and like a device or book that has fallen out of patent or copyright, the public at large is free to utilize it as it sees fit. The question however always remains: Why? Do we enlarge the world's understanding or knowledge by mocking or re-purposing deadly serious events and persons? Do we better empathize with the devastation wrought, the persons hacked to death, the cities ravaged
Marion DS Dreyfus, an Adjunct Professor at several colleges in the NYC region, is a journalist, media consultant, writer and editor with special interest in the Middle East, politics, education, social trends, medicine/healthcare and the stock market.
Contact her at mdsdm@rcn.com
Read other reviews at
|
|
GLOBAL RECESSION AND LOW CARBON : A COMPLEX MIXTURE
Posted by Andrew McKillop, September 6, 2009. |
|
Keynesian Boom and Bust Like we know, the recent and continuing massive spending spree by nearly all G20 governments and their central banks, described as "fighting recession", is also called Keynesian. One important point is that Keynesian-type deficit spending as a way to fight recession was never applied as Keynes himself recommended and advised, simply because he explained it in such strange ways, and because the idea of deficit spending did not become official policy and mainstream economic thinking in his lifetime. To be sure, arguments can be made that 'the Bretton Woods world', creation of the IMF and IBRD, state economic interventionism and macro management, and sometimes micro management of local economies and sectors inside them, were all 'Keynesian inspired'. The recent and current big government spending spree is something different. Present ways of using borrowed and printed money is more like the camel, designed by a group of engineers and artists who think they made a horse, which can only surprise by its unsuspected traits and character. So different in fact, the Apprentice Sorcerors now believe their camel called 'Keynesian deficit spending' is outrunning the recession. Over the past 4 months or so the war of words has raged on whether the end of the recession can be declared. Green shoot anticipation has itself perhaps changed the nature and type of recession we are experiencing, as equity and commodity traders have enthusiastically recycled chunks of the Keynesian largesse they have received, directly or indirectly. In any case and until very recently they have rejected the warnings of doomsters like Marc Faber and Nouriel Roubini, but like warnings of the wolf inside the sheep pen, one day it might really be there, if we wait long enough. As Faber, Roubini and other pessimists always remark, the basic question remains unresolved. Can the global economy recover from unprecedented public, corporate and private debt, a global credit system that gives a much more solid impression of death than the recession, and the continuing extreme under performance, to put it politely, of the housebuilding, airplane, shipbuilding and car industries? However, few if any observers ask this question: has the recession already mutated, in part due to anticipation of its end, the ways it has been fought, and also in part due to wrong interpretations of what it is and how it operates? Is the Recession Global? The debt and credit crunch, the imploded car industry, declining or agonizingly slow growing house sales and commercial realty are only choicer parts of the list wheeled out by doomsters. They usually go straight on to claim these nails in the coffin of recovery are more or less similar in any country, both inside the OECD and the Emerging Economies. Supporting this argument to a certain extent China's Shanghai exchange, now an Asian benchmark, has firmly switched to caution and consolidation, after a few month's enthusiasm that the recession is over. Indian markets, as ever, are much more opaque and ambiguous on how India's economic outlook is evolving, supposedly in a context of a strongly growing real economy, but Latin American markets are closer to the new OECD and Asian market paradigm. In other words and worldwide the winds of caution, or fear that markets overdid their enthusiasm in the past few months, are now on the rise. This outlook however makes exactly the same quick mental leap used by analysts in the OECD countries. The stated or unstated assumption is that stock and primary product markets run together and reflect the same basic 'upstream' changes in the real economy, rather than crests and slumps in exuberant day trading. The new conclusion is the real economy is hard to read, it might still be contracting, so finance markets need to backtrack. From a purely theoretical standpoint, the quantity of public money thrown at the bank and finance sector should have generated an extreme or massive rebound in that sector, with at least some significant trickle down to the real economy. This trickle down is now the pressure point, but the evidence and data is so incoherent and contrary that the only honest reading is that emerging markets are probably even further disconnected from their real economies, than OECD markets. The signals were already fuzzy, but since late 2008 financial noise, vibration and friction has taken over. It is now harder than ever to sound out the real economy, as Roubini and Faber, and many others sometimes make a point of noting. How Fast is Rebound? One argument used by today's big deficit spenders, who call themselves 'Keynesian inspired', is the recession slope was almost vertical in late 2008 and early 2009, so why shouldnt the rebound be symmetrical and equally fast? Going a little further with this rationale and adding a few frills of Keynesian type magic, that he called 'multipliers', the gargantuan and unprecedented amounts of public cash used in a variety of ways to fight recession could generate a fantastic peak of growth. Some observers running this idea through their PCs claim we could soon see a remake of the Volcker boom of 1983-84, when this Fed chairman finally cut US interest rates to single digit rates after extreme double digit highs, and 'unleashed growth'. This growth attained a surely unrepeatable 7% annual rate for 5 quarters, in the US economy. Conversely, high interest rates are today almost impossible to imagine in any future scenario. How could any OECD central banker cut rates like Volcker did, by 5% or 7% or more over a year, today? Despite this reality barrier, warnings came from Bernanke at Jackson Hole that the rebound could or might be very inflationary, and fiscal tightening could soon be needed. There is only one, but very important missing detail: the rebound has to come, first. Just as important as the question of timing the rebound, the type of rebound expected by governments and central banks is far from clear or defined. In other words, an inflation free finance, bank and insurance sector rebound could take place with possibly, or probably a lot less spending than the claimed amounts reported by the IMF as already spent or engaged by G20 governments (perhaps $ 4 000 billion to midyear 2009). Conversely a real economy rebound might be very inflationary if it came fast, but above all could be so slow that cynical observers will call it a camel, not a horse. This basic questioning, which we can call "Did we go too far?", does not openly surface, but was already the main concern underlying J-C Trichet's comments at the August 21 Jackson Hole meeting. That is Trichet seeks a "credible exit strategy" from hyper debt, which was not the main official concern of Ben Bernanke at the same meeting. Trichet, we can surmise, already fears the sequels of hyper debt more than the perhaps weak bounce in inflation brought by a short rebound. Low Carbon Certitude One thing on which all analysts and commentators have to agree, either in public or private, is that calling the end of the recession is almost impossible. Nobody knows because the real economy has become a black box. On the other hand, G20 leadership determination in moving the global economy to low carbon is only rising, in fact taking on the trappings of crusader zeal. The coming Copenhagen climate summit in December will see ever tighter carbon emission limits being set across the economy and across the world, a possible international carbon tax or trade tariff, and further, large financial and economic aid to Cleantech in both OECD and emerging economies. As with IMF estimates and forecasts of anti-recession spending and engagements, which range from imaginative to flexible but are always large, future low carbon spending by the G20 will be large but numbers are unsure. Underlying all this is certitude. Even if they dont know what is happening to their real economies, G20 leaders and their science advisers are sure and certain that world climate is changing for the worse, remedial action is urgent, and spending must be large. The closely linked stalking horse of Peak Oil does not openly figure in the rationale and reasoning offered for ever-rising, increasingly massive spending, and muscular legislation to force energy transition away from the fossil fuels, but surely adds yet more impetus to what will be huge long-term intervention in the economy. Ironically or not, G20 led climate change mitigation effort is already the focus of rising wails from 'Austrian school' boys, who have thrown in the towel on railing about the Keynesian largesse of 'recession mitigation' deficit spending, perhaps because of its almost unbelievable size. Focusing on smaller sums, perhaps soon rising to $ 500 billion a year (according to the 2009 Davos Forum) and used by G20 governments to speed energy transition through 2010-2020, the Austrian crowd rightly underlines the distortions this will create. As a rough guide, if this spending attained $ 500 bn a year, this would be about 25% to 33% above total annual spending by the world's oil and gas industry in recent years. More important: would it be possible to ramp up to this level of spending on alternate energy and fighting climate change, so soon? How this spending will be financed makes appeal to Keynesian miracles. Some G20 leaders, borrowing from Lord Stern's creative accounting, already have one-liners prepared for press conference grillings, of the type that spending now will create beneficial climate and environment multiplier impacts by about 2030-2050. Also, to be sure, they promise shorter-term low carbon multipliers for the car industry, in the shape of electric cars, and large net gains, over a certain time horizon, in the employmet market through shifting away from oil, and to a lesser extent coal or gas. The Cycle Amplifies Forecasting when or if the recession will end is almost impossible: we can only be sure of incertitude, as honest analysts say before making any comment. Probably one major cause of this is the massive size of 'Keynesian type' spending that has been engaged, but other factors are surely in play. We now have an onrush of low carbon spending, legislation and industrial change, joining the overhang of Keynesian recession mitigation largesse, or excess. The simplest read-out from this is increased uncertainty, faster global economic change, and rising volatility for any market, anywhere. Adding the ongoing anti-recession spending to the climate change mitigation spending that is now starting, in pure theory we should have double digit inflation within weeks or months! This in fact will not happen, proving again if needed that the economy is a black box. Market volatility, however, is easy to forecast because it would be close to miraculous to not have a constant onrush of conflicting and contrarian signals, in this new context, forcing market operators to more than usual excesses of fear and hope. As we know, any period of high volatility generates or gives way to another cycle. The only problem is judging what shape and form the new cycle will have, and which way it is tilted. Cycle theory could or might suggest the next stable cycle should be resolutely expansionary, but creating such heavy upward correction as it drives out the previous, that no smooth and clear cycle can emerge for several quarters ahead. This whipsaw profile would be set, well into 2010, easily and alternately absorbing and reinforcing switchbacks of sentiment driven by climate change spending, Keynesian spending, oil and gold price peaks and crashes, the US dollar's feats of volatility, the Euro's feats of volatility, and so on. No doubt converging with the worst flights of pessimism from Faber or Roubini, we can be sure that little prevents a reset of world finance markets, given the massive surgery they have self-inflicted, and had forced on them, in the past 18 months. The reset could only be down, and could be by 33% or more, perhaps a lot more. From this new base, however, the long-term cycle can grow high and with decreasing volatility. How the correction is made will be of course be traditional. An October crisis driven by external change, generated in the political, policy, social, geopolitical, climate or environmental domains. If the process started soon, this October 2009 but slowly at first, it could extend 3 quarters or more, before any winning cycle emerges and forces out the volatility — making for interesting trades! Andrew McKillop is a writer and consultant on oil and energy economics. Since 1975 he has worked in energy, economic and scientific organizations in Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and North America. These include the Canada Science Council, the ILO, European Commission, Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries, the UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and South Pacific, and the World Bank. He is a founding member of the Asian chapter of the International Association of Energy Economics. He has published widely in journals including the Ecologist, the New Scientist and Le Monde Diplomatique. He is Project Director, GSO Consulting Associates. Contact him by email at andrew.mckillop@gsoca.com |
|
HAMAS TRAINING CAMPS IN THE JUDEAN DESERT
Posted by Hana Levi Julian, September 6, 2009. |
|
A complex network of caves embedded in the hills of the Judean Desert have become the latest venue for individualized Hamas terrorist training programs. Evidence that Hamas terrorists have been training operatives right under the noses of the Palestinian Authority was found by IDF soldiers in a complex network of tunnels and caves during a raid earlier this summer. Etzion Brigade Col. Eran Makov led the raid, which was carried out after military officials received a tip from the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet). Empty bullet casings and cartridges were found in some of the caves, as well as other bits of evidence of military activity, according to a senior military official quoted in a report published Sunday by The Jerusalem Post. This is not the first time that terrorist tunnels have been found in Judea and Samaria. 
Eleven months ago, IDF soldiers uncovered a 150-meter-long tunnel packed with explosives under the southern Judean city of Hevron. The tunnel had not been completed, and was angled towards Route 35, near Tarkumiya, according to the report. An entire network of tunnels used by terrorists to launch attacks against IDF soldiers was also discovered in 2007 in the Casbah, the inner part of the open air market in the Samarian city of Shechem. Both the IDF and the PA have been working to crack down on the Hamas terrorist infrastructure in Judea and Samaria. As a result, it is believed that only a few terrorists were trained together in the Judean Desert at any given time. Cave embedded into the hillside in the photo above left is not seen from the road only a few yards away, appearing as a simple rock formation. Escape route inside a similar cave is seen in the photo below right. (Israel news photos: Hana Levi Julian) Much of Judea is honeycombed with caves, many of which provided shelter for Arabs who lived in the region even as recently as a generation ago. Just below the southern Hevron Hills, in fact, allegedly lie the ruins of most of the village of Iscariot, known in Hebrew as the "Kraiyot" — an area marked by an entire complex of caves. Many of the entrances have even been decorated by local Bedouin whose families lived in the caves, with stones taken from the remains of Byzantine churches, the descendant of one Bedouin tribe told Israel National News. 
The same caves served in earlier centuries as living quarters for the ancient Jews during the Roman occupation and the Byzantine era. "It is like the Tora Bora of the West Bank," said a senior Central Command officer. The appellation is a reference to the network of caves allegedly used by Al Qaeda terrorists and Taliban fighters in eastern Afghanistan. Tour guide Younis Abu Hamad explains how the ancient residents of Judea "decorated" the homes they built from caves hidden in the desert hills.
Hana Levi Julian writes for Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews)
|
|
HOLY CITY TWIST: ARABS MOVING INTO JEWISH AREAS
Posted by Shaul and Aviva Ceder, September 6, 2009. |
|
This was written by Ben Hubbard, an Associated Press writer. It appeared
yesterday in LJ World
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/sep/06/ holy-city-twist-arabs-move-jewish-areas/ |
|
JERUSALEM — Yousef Majlaton moved into the Jerusalem neighborhood of Pisgat Zeev for such comforts as proper running water and regular garbage pickup. But he represents a potentially volatile twist in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute over the holy city. The hillside sprawl of townhouses and apartment blocks was built for Jews, and Majlaton is a Palestinian. 
A veiled Arab woman walks past a poster for a clothing company July 30 outside a shopping center in the Jewish neighborhood of Pisgat Zeev in east Jerusalem. A small but growing number of Arabs are moving into Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem. Pisgat Zeev is part of Israel's effort to fortify its presence in Jerusalem's eastern half, which it captured in the 1967 war. But Majlaton, his wife and three kids are among thousands who have crossed the housing lines to Pisgat Zeev and neighborhoods like it in a migration that is raising tempers among some Jewish residents. It wasn't so much the politics of this contested city that drew Majlaton to Pisgat Zeev, however; it was the prospect of escaping the potholed roads and scant municipal services he endured for 19 years while renting in an Arab neighborhood. "You see that air conditioner?" he said, pointing to the large wall unit cooling his living room. "In the Arab areas, the electricity is too weak to run one that big." Majlaton, 50, says some Jewish neighbors are warming up to him, but the influx bothers others, who say they're thinking of moving out or refuse to sell or rent to Arabs. This is much more than a simple matter of real estate. Demographics could figure heavily in how Jerusalem is partitioned in a future peace deal. If that happens, it is expected the city will be split along ethnic lines — Jewish neighborhoods to Israel, Arab neighborhoods to Palestine. Palestinians see east Jerusalem as their future capital. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vows the whole city will remain united as Israel's capital. Palestinians have long accused those among them who sell land to Jews of betraying their homeland, and last week similar language was heard from a group of rabbis. Meeting in Pisgat Zeev, they issued an edict denouncing Jews who sell land to Arabs as "traitors" and barring them from participating in communal prayers. "This is a war, and if the Arabs conquer one neighborhood, they will conquer others and they will strangle the Jews," said Hillel Weiss, a spokesman for the "New Sanhedrin," which takes its name from the supreme court of ancient Israel. In 2007, the latest year with available statistics, about 1,300 of Pisgat Zeev's 42,000 residents were Arabs. In nearby French Hill, population 7,000, nearly one-sixth are Arabs, among them students at the neighboring Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Neve Yaakov, with 20,000 people, had 600 Arabs, according to the Israel Center for Jerusalem Studies, a respected think tank. Weeks after the 1967 war, Israel annexed east Jerusalem with its major Jewish, Muslim and Christian holy sites in a move recognized by no other country. It continues to build housing in sensitive areas in defiance of U.S. protests. Netanyahu says Arabs have the right to live anywhere in the city, and so should Jews, though the Old City's Jewish Quarter is closed to Arabs. Jerusalem's mayor and city councilors are all Jewish. Almost all the city's Arabs refuse to vote or run in municipal elections, saying that would be recognition of Israeli rule. But it deprives them of clout in competition for city spending. Today, while west Jerusalem is overwhelmingly Jewish, the eastern half
is an ethnic checkerboard. More than 180,000 Jews live there, most in
places like Pisgat Zeev but also in enclaves in Arab areas. Nearly all
the city's 220,000 Palestinians live in eastern neighborhoods.
Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il
|
|
REMEMBER KOSOVO?
Posted by Hadar, September 6, 2009. |
|
Remember me saying for ten years, almost obsessively, that what was done to Yugoslavia was just Clinton's and then Bush's rehearsal for the "real thing" in Israel? "Peace" in Kossovo was achieved by forcibly expelling the Serbs, the ONLY People who FOUGHT side by side with the Jews in W.W. II, from THEIR ancestral land, mentioned even in the National Anthem of Yugoslavia and center of their Independence Day, to make room for muslim Albanian ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, as a prize for the latter's 20 years of ant-Serb TERRORISM, to which the Serbs had started reacting TOO LATE. The same kind of "peace" can be achieved by forcibly expelling us JEWS, over half a million of us, from OUR ancestral land, the Land of Israel, and give it to muslim Arab illegal immigrants and their descendants, as a prize for 120 years of anti-Jewish TERRORISM in the Land of Israel; terrorism which Israel has fought, since the late fifties, always with her hands tied behind her back, and NEVER as a WAR to be won by defeating the enemy and putting them on their knees, JUST AS THE ALLIED HAD DONE WITH THE NAZIS: putting them in the impossibility to hurt, by sheer fire-power, without the mercy of fools toward the cruel.
NOW SOME HOME-GROWN SCHMUCKS propose the "Kosovo solution" for Israel from the columns of the Jerusalem Post... And by so doing, both the oil needs of America will be served, just as with Yugoslavia, and America's oil producing friends won't be upset. And this is a FULLY bi-partisan constant policy, from the Dulles brothers on. All this, as usual, looking for America's approval, not caring about the Only One whose approval the leaders of Israel should be looking for. More to come, apparently... This article is called "Security and Defense: Taking a cue from
Kosovo." It was written by Yaakov Katz and appeared September 3,
2009 in the Jerusalem Post Sergio HaDaR Tezza |
|
Xhavit Gashi personifies what the new Kosovo is all about. Just a decade ago, Gashi was commander of a Kosovo Liberation Army platoon called the "Illyrian Wolves," named after a legendary pack of wolves in ancient Illyria that refused to let other wolves live in their territory.
Gashi and his "wolves" were responsible for KLA operations in western Kosovo, where they fought against Serbian forces in the run up to the war. Military intervention by Serbian forces prompted UN and NATO action in March 1999, amid reports of massive Albanian displacement and ethnic cleansing.
Today, 10 years after the war ended, Gashi symbolizes the transformation that Kosovo has undergone.
Gashi was not always a soldier. Before the war he was an English student in Pristina, and later owned a pub. But in 1998, when the Serbian attacks intensified against Kosovo — which was seeking its independence — he enlisted in the KLA, and quickly climbed the ranks.
Today, he is a colonel and the head of security cooperation in the newly-formed Kosovo Security Force (KSF), a demilitarized force which will eventually consist of 2,500 soldiers, in addition to 800 reservists.
The KSF is currently trained and managed by NATO's 15,000-strong force in Kosovo, called KFOR. It is allowed to have light weapons — pistols and machine guns — but no tanks, artillery or grenade launchers.
Sound familiar?
The reason is that it is. The KSF is in many ways similar to the Palestinian security forces currently being trained by US Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton in Jordan, 2,100 of whom have already deployed throughout the West Bank. They, too, are something of a demilitarized military force, and are not allowed to have grenade launchers, explosives training, tanks, artillery or air capabilities.
This is not the only similarity between the self-declared republic of Kosovo, which Serbia still refuses to recognize, and the Palestinians. Another organization that operates in Kosovo is called EULEX, a European Union force consisting of police officers and civilian contractors who are helping the new government establish a Western-style police force, a judiciary system and prisons service.
Sound familiar? The reason is that in the West Bank the EU is doing the same thing for the Palestinian Authority, although with a different name — EUCOPPS.
It therefore comes as no surprise that some PA officials have viewed Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence in February 2008 as a potential precedent for their own unilateral establishment of an independent state in the West Bank.
"If things are not going in the direction of actually halting settlement activities, if things are not going in the direction of continuous and serious negotiations, then we should take the step and announce our independence unilaterally," President Mahmoud Abbas's senior aide Yasser Abed Rabbo told Reuters in 2008. "Kosovo is not better than us. We deserve independence even before Kosovo, and we ask for the backing of the United States and the European Union for our independence."
And last week, PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad announced a plan to unilaterally establish a de facto state by 2011.
While Abbas immediately distanced himself from Abed Rabbo's threat, it was enough to get Israel scared, and since then Jerusalem has refused to recognize Kosovo's independence, something that is made clear when landing at Pristina International Airport, where the flags of all 62 countries that have recognized Kosovo stand proudly.
The issue of recognition is important for Kosovars, many of whom asked that The Jerusalem Post use its influence to get Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to recognize their year-old country.
DESPITE THE VAGUE SIMILARITIES, Kosovo is a lifetime away from the Arab-Israeli conflict, and is currently considered a major success for NATO, particularly in light of the difficulties the Western military alliance is facing in Afghanistan. That is why on a visit to Kosovo last month, NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen announced that KFOR will be downsized to just over 1,000 soldiers within five years.
This is not to say that things are completely calm in Kosovo. Last week, seven people were wounded when minority Serbs clashed with Kosovar Albanians in the ethnically-divided town of Mitrovica. Gunshots were reported and a grenade was detonated near the clashes, which made their way to the capital city where dozens of protesters damaged 24 EULEX vehicles.
This is not the first time since the war that the usually below-the-surface tension has erupted. In March 2004, KFOR forces came under attack as violence broke out between Albanians and Serbs, prompting NATO to rapidly deploy an additional 2,500 troops.
The tension between Serbs and Albanians can still be felt on the streets in Kosovo. Villages remain mostly segregated. On the main drag in Pristina, pictures of missing Albanians from the war are glued to walls and fences as a memorial.
The persecution of Kosovar Albanians by Serbia peaked in March 1999 when ethnic cleansing was initiated. According to Kosovo, hundreds of thousands of Albanians — mostly secular Muslims — fled to nearby Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro, and some 10,000 people were killed. In return, the Albanians evicted Serbian Kosovars from their homes. According to NATO estimates, there are still some 70,000 so-called refugees, mostly in Serbia.
One Serbian village near the town of Kamencia, located along the border with Serbia, is still completely desolate after all the inhabitants fled following the war, fearing retaliation. KFOR forces patrol these areas daily with the aim of preventing inter-ethnic violence from flaring up.
"Our job is to sense what people feel and how they are doing," explains Sgt. Emmanuel Botello of the US Army. A 22-year-old Californian, Botello is halfway through his one-year tour in Kosovo.
Every day, with four other soldiers and two interpreters Botello drives a civilian jeep from Camp Bondsteel — a massive US Army base in eastern Kosovo — through the villages and towns in his sector, sits in coffee shops, talks to regular Kosovars and tries to solve problems and prevent a renewal of violence.
An example of the tension can be seen in the makeup of the KSF. Of the 1,400 soldiers that have currently enlisted, only seven are minority Serbs. The Kosovo government has said that it wants more Serbs in the ranks, and has even established a high-ranking position that needs to be filled by a Serbian Kosovar. It is still empty.
The force's main training base is located north of Pristina, in a military compound that used to belong to the Yugoslav military but was completely destroyed during NATO's air campaign in 1999. Most of the buildings have been rebuilt, and are filled with cadets and soldiers from around the world who are serving as instructors. One still lays in ruins, with unexploded ordinance buried below.
Most of the KSF soldiers are like Gashi and come from the KLA, which, after the war, was transformed into the Kosovo Protection Corps. The KSF was established last year to replace the KPC, in conjunction with the declaration of independence, and as part of an effort to start a clean slate by dissolving the previous military forces.
At the moment, Kosovo is not allowed to have a military, and is considered a demilitarized state. Serbia, its adversary, has a large military with more than 40,000 troops.
While the KLA was at one point in the 1990s defined as a terrorist group by the United States, its former members like Gashi were allowed to join the KSF.
Tension between Serbians and Albanians is not the only problem NATO is facing. Until recently, Botello used to drive only one jeep on his patrols. Since earlier this summer, another jeep — carrying armed soldiers — accompanies him for protection.
The catalyst for the security upgrades is concern in NATO of a radicalization process that is sweeping Albanian Muslims in Kosovo. The extremism, US Army intelligence officials say, originated in Saudi Arabia, which is funding various NGOs in Kosovo aimed at influencing local Albanians to be more observant.
"The traditionally Albanian, moderate, Turkish-oriented version of Kosovo Islam is rapidly changing, as it is significantly influenced by fundamental and extreme versions of Arab-based Islam that poses both a long and near-term threat," one official says.
According to the official, a growing number of Kosovars are training in terrorist camps in the Middle East. A recent example was the arrest in July of a Kosovar Albanian in North Carolina for allegedly planning to attack targets in several countries, including Israel.
Despite the Islamic trend, the operation's success is comforting for NATO officials looking for a way out of other conflicts, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"Kosovo is a success," explains one senior NATO official in Brussels. "The key operation in stabilizing Kosovo is over and now is the time to start to transfer responsibility to the government and the European Union."
|
|
SINCE ISRAEL BETRAYED POLLARD, NOT ONE ISRAELI CAPTIVE HAS COME HOME ALIVE
Posted by Manhigut Yehudit, September 6, 2009. |
|
Statement of Moshe Feiglin in response to Lindenstrauss' Pollard Report
Since Israel betrayed Pollard 24 years ago, not one Israeli soldier has returned home alive from captivity. [See chart below, courtesy of IMRA/ imra.org.il] Israel's lack of values in the Pollard affair has brought it to a low point from which it can no longer protect its soldiers, who daily risk their lives for their country.
Trades since founding of Israel
Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside
the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character.
Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a
theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The
Manhigut Yehudit website address is http://www.manhigut.org.
To learn more about Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) and to read
their plan for Israel's future, visit www.jewishisrael.org.
Or contact Shmuel Sackett, International Director (516) 330-4922
(cell)
|
|
PALESTINIAN ARAB & ZIONIST MUTUAL TREATMENT
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 6, 2009. |
|
PART 1: HOW TO REACH CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THIS Fred, a Jewish reader of mine, is above loyalty to his fellow Jews. He judges issues on the basis of ethics. He mocks scholars of history. He has adopted the Palestinian Arab narrative that the Zionists persecuted them. "The Jews," Fred puts it, brought misery down upon the Palestinian Arabs. He refers to "the Jews," just as antisemites hold all Jews responsible for what they think some do. The Palestinian Arabs are much more uniform in opinion and action. Their society derived from the village collectivity and a fairly monolithic religious doctrine there. Some readers urge distinguishing the few non-conformist but powerless Arabs from the preponderant majority. It is a distinction without significant difference. Without knowing and being able to analyze independently the history, genetics, pertinent law, tactics used, and cultural context of the time, one assumes false notions. Some Jews take a perverse pride in making their own people scapegoats. Makes them feel part of the majority. If they asked what the majority, especially Muslims, thinks of them, they would find their acceptance expedient and temporary. Loathing for them awaits an opportunity to be expressed. One of the anti-Zionist tactics that bring some people to the same conclusion as Fred is the Arab one based on their shame-honor syndrome. Generally, they can't stand being shamed, so they exaggerate the human tendency not to admit faults. They blame others. Blaming "the Jews," however dishonest, avoids unpleasant admissions. The admissions gradually come out, as they did over Deir Yassin, creation of the refugee problem, and questions of war crimes in Gaza, as some earlier articles exposed. PART 2. WHAT REALLY HAPPENED? Now let's take up Fred's contention that "the Jews" brought misery to the Palestinian Arabs. What was the state of Palestine and its sparse population at the time of the great, modern immigration? The following is based on extensive reading, including exposes of the invalid methods of the "new historians," who make up a narrative that fits their preconceptions, and misquote or quote out of context, to support their views. Travelers noted that all that was left of the land of milk and honey were a couple of fertile valleys and a few, tiny urban centers. Jerusalem had a majority of Jews, most of whom were religious scholars dependent upon charity. For centuries, the population could not sustain itself in that inhospitable, malaria-ridden land. It declined. Most of the area was swamp, sand, and a jungle of hard vines, vermin, and vipers. Absentee Arab landlords and usurers had reduced the peasantry to hard-pressed tenants and day laborers. PART 3. MODERN ZIONISM ARRIVES Then came modern Zionism, starting when the area was part of the Turkish Empire and continuing to when Britain was charged with leading the Jews to restoration of an independent homeland. Zionists didn't attack or expel anybody. They didn't interfere with Islam. They bought at extortionate prices the swamp, desert, jungle, and less fertile areas. They paid not only the landlords but also the tenants. Many Arab tenants were thereby enabled to go into urban or agricultural business for themselves. With British help, Zionists cleared the wasteland. The Arabs' longevity and livelihood soared. Zionist redevelopment and WWII created job opportunities for Arabs, hence, about three times as many Arabs immigrated as had been subsisting in the area. (In violation of its Mandate, Britain didn't let Jews immigrate for those WWII jobs, leaving them to be exterminated in Europe.) So far, so good. Then Haj Husseini organized terrorism, first to consolidate Arab public opinion and his hold over them. Then to drive the Jews out, for which he sought help from the Nazis, to whom he gave help in Europe and Iraq. Idealistic Zionist leaders recommended many peace and co-existence plans, but, the Arab leaders rejected all. Although Palestine already had been partitioned, giving the Arabs Jordan and the Golan, the UN General Assembly recommended a second partition. The Arabs rejected the plan, thereby nullifying it. Terrorism increased. By the time the Zionists were preparing for independence, Palestinian Arabs all over the Mandate were attacking Jews. A couple of Arab militias invaded. The Zionists were losing. However, to avoid their own people's terrorism and the coming war, the Arab leadership class, about 20,000 strong, fled. They set the example for the masses. Each time the Jewish militias defeated Palestinian Arab attempts to conquer various towns, the defeated Arabs departed en masse. When Israel declared its independence, Arab states invaded Israel. Their generals demanded that the Arabs evacuate from Israel for the duration of the war, or be considered traitors. The Arab heads of state threatened genocide. Israeli leaders, still having the illusion that co-existence was possible, pleaded with the Arabs to stay. Most fled, anyway. A few in strategic areas were expelled. Some remained. After having preserved themselves from extermination, Israelis kept most of the departed Arabs from coming back in. In this they were following U.S. precedent --- the victors of the American Revolution (with the approval of Great Britain) deported the defeated American loyalists. Israel did let significant numbers of Arabs return, hence Israel's internal problem today. Starting about that time, Arab states confiscated Jews' property and then expelled them. PART 4. THEN ISRAEL GAINS THE TERRITORIES During the war, Egypt and Jordan had seized parts of the Mandate territory. In 1967, foreign Arabs again attacked Israel. Israel ended up in control of the areas Egypt and Jordan had seized. Israel unified Jerusalem, whose previous division saw Arab soldiers shooting into Jewish neighborhoods, but not the reverse. Let's be clear who the terrorists are. Israel administered those Territories by building schools and hospitals, restoring the degraded water aquifer, and in general raising the expectancy and economic standard of Arab life. Israel gave the Arabs increasing autonomy. After years of Arab refusal to negotiate peace, Jews starting moving into the Territories. Their policy was to buy private land or be allotted State land, though some land titles were unclear. The Arabs were saddled with dictatorship but when given the opportunity to vote, elected terrorists. Choosing war instead of Israeli offers to boost their economy further, the Palestinian Authority eroded the common man's standard of living but not the grafters'. Clearly, Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement, was good for the Arabs and would have been even better if the Arabs allowed it. By contrast, the Arabs were bad for the Arabs, and would be even worse if Israel weren't generous. Fred nevertheless blames the Palestinian Arabs' problems on Zionism. His accusation is refuted by the facts. Now Fred's disdain for scholars of history can be seen not as leading him to an ethical stand but to an unjust stand. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
SCIENTIFIC PROVOCATION AS ACADEMIC DISCIPLINE
Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, September 6, 2009. |
|
The original article was written by Yariv Ben Eliezer and translated from Hebrew by Israel Academia Monitor. It can be found at http://www.nrg.co.il/online/1/ART1/934/135.html?hp=1&loc=29&tmp=2330 |
|
Among the lecturers' population there are more than an insignificant number of big fools. The "researcher" describing historical events that are the products of his fertile imagination, or his colleague who calls for a boycott of Israel, are not presenting learned research but are only seeking more publicity for themselves. The cliché says: "You were seen in the papers, therefore you exist". Perhaps, that is why some people will do anything to be mentioned in the paper, or to be seen on TV. Their assumption is that "good provocation" will cause a media uproar and they will enjoy the fruits of the publicity as long as their names are spelled correctly. An anonymous political science lecturer calls upon governments and social bodies overseas to sever their ties with Israel. He calls upon the international community to boycott Israel and to pressure it to accept the solution of two nations in two countries. ("Ma'ariv" 23.8.09). His anonymous twin, also a political science lecturer, claims that Ben Gurion declared Israel's independence on May 14th 1948, because he was afraid that Menachem Begin would do it. According to this 'brilliant' thesis, Ben Gurion was concerned about declaring Israel's independence but did so because Begin wanted to do it — and all the rest is "history" (Ha'aretz 21.8.09). In my many years in academia I discovered, to my disappointment, that the population of lecturers is as divided within itself as the general population in its character, and that also pertains to the presence of not an insignificant number of complete fools. A doctorate granted a person for his intellectual efforts does not preclude him from foolishness. The general population believes that the academics are the "elite of the elite", but it's an open secret that that is not axiomatic — and for sure there so no empirical truth to demonstrate otherwise. The "scientist" who describes historical events that are the result of his prolific imagination, and his colleague who calls for a boycott of Israel for political reasons, do not represent learned and reliable thesis. The scientific value of such is as valid as the claim that "political scientists prefer to eat yellow cheese sandwiches". It is difficult to accept that the desire for a yellow cheese sandwich can be the basis for an anonymous political science lecturer's advancement. It definitely increases his chances of his earning the title of "academic fool". Contact Israel Academia Monitor at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com |
|
Q&A ON WHY MOST AMERICAN JEWS CELEBRATE GUN CONTROL AND VICTIMHOOD
Posted by Ralph Rubinek, September 6, 2009. |
|
Q: Why do the majority American Jews celebrate gun control and victimhood? My mother a Jewish Holocaust survivor taught me about the need to bear arms along with responsibility to preserve this right. As most Americans take all their rights for granted. I have been the torch bearer of Ze"ev Jabotinsky in regards to Jewish survival and the right to bear arms based upon lessons taught to me by both parents. I have written scores of missives, most published in respect of this most important responsibility... The right to defend oneself from predatory attack, defense of freedom and the inherent need for the Jewish people to defend themselves from those who seek a weak link to expound their inherent need to control. Suprisingly I have been met with disdain from my own... Why do the majority of the Jewish people celebrate being a victim? Clearly Jewish leadership in pre World War II in Europe betrayed their followers, from Rabbis to communal leaders. In the end those who took up arms were the ones who maintained their identities after the Holocaust, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising WAS AN EXCLLENT EXAMPLE OF TOO LITTLE TO LATE. Modern day Jews claim "the Jews of Europe had no choice". Today we know this was a horrible lie. Israel is a living tribute based upon Jewish resistance. Israel is a culmination of Holocaust survivors who took arms in Europe surviving the worst conditions imaginable.. . Their efforts let the way toward the creation of the Jewish state. Today weak Jewish leaders egotistically embrace the same mind set of pre-Nazi Germany coming to failed conclusions to solve economic and social decadence. They are setting the stage in steps not only toward the destruction of Israel, the end of the Jewish people and end of Judeo-Christian principles, which h embrace inherent rights of individuals. George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Elie Wiesel, Charles Schumer, David Yannsky, Diane Finestein and a host of others within our communities are clearly attempting to pave the way. They seemingly wish to uphold public safety over individual rights and responsibilities as defined in this nation's Bill of Rights. This very right after the Holocaust by principle armed Jewish resistance fighters prior to the creation of the Jewish state. Contained in a letter written in 1995 to a constituent Elie Wiesel wrote, "I am sorry to disappoint you. I understand your arguments and your feelings but I am against giving freedom to people to acquire and possess weapons. Look at Oklahoma. Look at the armed militia groups. When hate is armed with guns, danger is near. Who can fight the haters and the criminals? Not private individuals. {Yes look at Jewish Partisans saving thousands of lives during world war II, look at Palestine of 1947-48 paving to the creation of Israel and of course the American revolution (Armed individuals.).} I have received ugly and threatening letters from Jews who oppose gun control. They reinforce me in my conviction that their goals are not mine". Signed, Elie Wiesel The ugly letters he was referring to was from Jews, nothing contained was ugly except the fact of what he and others who claim to be Holocaust survivors yet support the foundations of totalitarian control and the evolution of genocide/democide. Has the United Nations done anything of late supporting the Jewish state? In writing I told him his endeavors will lead to the end of Israel and the end of the United States... Was my mother wrong when she wrote to him in the 1960's. Yes my mother and I were not supportive of the extreme measures taken by the JDL, yet we knew the Jewish people must defend themselves from predatory attack. Mr. Weisel... We as Jews must not take the initial steps of Self-defense... Only when we are left as vermin are we to stand up and fight like the Bielski's. Our worst enemy is our inner fears and weaknesses. To adhere to our leaders is a failed endeavor when they call on sacrifice so other's who seek to murder us can live. My parents left Israel after hearing David Ben Gurion's speech calling on not only a two state cause in 1949 but a non sectarian state. They know then there would never be peace in the Middle East... Look whats happening today... This mentality will destroy Israel, Obama and Ron Emanuel is cause celebrate in lock step toward the aforementioned agenda of a sick leftist mind. We can only pray at this point that sanity will prevail before millions are murdered. Q: Why guns? How about victimhood? Your mother was correct in her insights, and much ahead of her times. But American Jews have several different negative perspectives. They are Liberals. Liberals are "good" people who oppose killing, and guns kill. They reject the argument that guns are merely one tool of evil people. Liberal Jews oppose religion. Our religion teaches that thou shalt not murder. They don't understand the difference between murder and the right to kill in defense of others. (Even some Liberal-minded rabbis don't see that important difference. But I'm sure that God does; that's why the 6th commandment isn't: thou shalt not kill.) Liberal Jews are usually anti-military because the military can thwart Leftist revolutions. The military have guns. Ergo, guns are bad. Jews have a "collective memory" of earlier persecutions. Pogromchiks had guns. The Czar's murderous officers had guns. Jew-hating peasants had guns. And since hunting was forbidden, the rabbis rejected all ownership of guns, even for defense. They rejected the lessons of Purim, Hanukkah, and other Jewish military celebrations. American Jews (some, anyway) may feel pride in the accomplishments of the Israel Defense Forces, but they can't see any relationship between that and their own lives. It is only those who survive the next Holocaust who will understand the need for Jewish gun ownership. Let's hope that there are more of those. VICTIMHOOD is a good strategy. And it's much easier than fighting back. But it won't work for Jews. Look how well it's working for the Arab-muslim occupiers of the ancient historical Jewish homeland. But victimhood requires the accompanying world morality in order to be a powerful weapon — and the Jews have never had it on their side; not during the Shoah, and not even today. Are you familiar with the lessons of Lidice? During WWII this town was totally destroyed by the Germans as "punishment" for an act of resistance. The whole world condemned the Germans for that barbarism. They never did it again. World moral outrage had an effect even in the midst of the War. But the Germans saw signs of approval from England, the USA, the islamic world, and others when it came to killing Jews, so the Shoah accelerated. Since the world will never cooperate with the strategy of Victimhood by the Jews, armed self-defense — and maybe even pre-emptive self-defense (Iraqi&nb sp;nuclear reactors first, then Syrian, Iranian later) — is our only recourse for Jewish survival. That's a lesson most Jews are not willing to accept. Not in Israel. Not in the USA. And it will be our undoing. PS: When I used to speak at rallies, I deliberately avoided the mention of guns. Eventually, some Liberal Jewish mother would launch her attack during the Q&A on our gun ownership philosophy. That was my ambush. I demolished them. But they haven't learned much. Sad to say, the ones on the right will bond with the non Jewish right and the ones on the left will attempt to bond with the non Jewish left who will murder them. So there you have it and it is so sad... Contact Ralph Rubinek by email at rrubinek@aol.com |
|
NASTY SIDE OF RADICAL ISLAM
Posted by Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, September 6, 2009. |
|
Many nations having Shariah Law or Mullah rule in the world are continuing to commit various forms of notoriety in the name of Islam. I know, what Islamists and people like Ahmadinejad or Wahhabis or notorious groups like Hamas, Hezbollah or Al Qaeda are doing, is not Islam at all. To get more specific answer as to why I have drawn such conclusion, we need to carefully read this entire article to understand, what is happening in those nations, which are having Shariah law or laws of Mullahs. Here we have reports on sexual assualt inside Iranian prison by the prison guards by taking the refuge of sermons issued by Mullahs. It is evidently proved that such practices are continuing in Iran since the Islamic Revolution led by Ayatollah Khomeini. A highly influential Shi'a religious leader, with whom Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regularly consults, apparently told followers last month that coercion by means of rape, torture and drugs is acceptable against all opponents of the Islamic regime. In the wake of a series of publications worldwide regarding the rape and torture of dissident prisoners in Iran's jails, supporters of Ahmadinejad gathered with him in Jamkaran, a popular pilgrimage site for Shi'ite Muslims on the outskirts of Qom, on August 11, 2009. According to Iranian pro-democracy sources, the gathered crowd heard from Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi and Ahmadinejad himself regarding the issue. According to the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center [ITIC], an independent intelligence analysis organization, Mesbah-Yazdi is considered Ahmadinejad's personal spiritual guide. A radical totalitarian even in Iranian terms, he holds messianic views, supports increasing Islamization, calls for violent suppression of domestic political opponents, and, according to the ITIC, "declared that obeying a president supported by the Supreme Leader was tantamount to obeying God." At the Jamkaran gathering, Mesbah-Yazdi and Ahmadinejad answered questions about the rape and torture charges. The following text is from a transcript by Iranian dissidents to be a series of questions and answers exchanged between the Ayatollah and some of his supporters. Asked if a confession obtained by applying psychological, emotional and physical pressure was valid and considered credible according to Islam, Mesbah-Yazdi replied: "Getting a confession from any person who is against the Velayat-e Faqih [Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists], or the regime of Iran's mullahs] is permissible under any condition." The Ayatollah gave the identical answer when asked about confessions obtained through drugging the prisoner with opiates or addictive substances. He was asked, "Can an interrogator rape the prisoner in order to obtain a confession?", which was the follow-up question posed to the Islamic cleric. Mesbah-Yazdi answered: "The necessary precaution is for the interrogator to perform a ritual washing first and say prayers while raping the prisoner. If the prisoner is female, it is permissible to rape through the vagina or anus. It is better not to have a witness present. If it is a male prisoner, then it's acceptable for someone else to watch while the rape is committed." This reply, and reports of the rape of teen male prisoners in Iranian jails, may have prompted the following question: Is the rape of men and young boys considered sodomy? Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi: "No, because it is not consensual. Of course, if the prisoner is aroused and enjoys the rape, then caution must be taken not to repeat the rape." A related issue, in the eyes of the questioners, was the rape of virgin female prisoners. In this instance, Mesbah-Yazdi went beyond the permissibility issue and described the Allah-sanctioned rewards accorded the rapist-in-the-name-of-Islam: "If the judgment for the [female] prisoner is execution, then rape before execution brings the interrogator a spiritual reward equivalent to making the mandated Haj pilgrimage [to Mecca], but if there is no execution decreed, then the reward would be equivalent to making a pilgrimage to [the Shi'ite holy city of] Karbala." One aspect of these permitted rapes troubled certain questioners: What if the female prisoner gets pregnant? Is the child considered illegitimate? Mesbah-Yazdi answered: "The child borne to any weakling [a denigrating term for women] who is against the Supreme Leader is considered illegitimate, be it a result of rape by her interrogator or through intercourse with her husband, according to the written word in the Koran. However, if the child is raised by the jailer, then the child is considered a legitimate Shi'a Muslim." Meanwhile, the same devil Ahmadinejad in another live interview with state run radio station said that that any rape or torture of political prisoners in Iranian detention centers in recent months had been carried out by "enemy" agents, not the government." Recently two prominent members of Iran's human rights community, the feminist lawyer and journalist Shadi Sadr and the blogger and activist Mojtaba Samienejad, published essays online from inside Iran arguing that far from being a new phenomenon, prison rape has a long history in the Islamic Republic. In her essay Ms... Sadr wrote: "Published reports are available about these types of torture committed against women political prisoners after the 1979 Revolution. The most systematic type of reported rape has been the rape of virgin girls who were sentenced to death by execution because of political reasons. They were raped on the night before execution.. These reports have been substantiated by frequent statements from the relatives of women political prisoners. On the day after the execution, authorities returned their daughter's dead body to them along with a sum considered to be the alimony. Reports state that in order to lose their virginity, girls were forced to enter into a temporary marriage with men who were in charge of their prison. Otherwise it was feared that the executed prisoner would go to heaven because she was a virgin! Recently Mr. Samienejad, who was imprisoned in the past for blogging but has managed to avoid detention this year, published a post, in English, headlined, Memories of Prison and Raped Prisoners. Mr. Samienejad's post began: "The practice of rape on prisoners, brought up by [reformist Mehdi] Karoubi in his letter to [former President Ali Akbar Hashemi] Rafsanjani, has existed for the last three decades in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Many prisoners have written about it in their memoirs, and rumors have always existed about the issue... Prisoner rape is one of the most horrific forms of human rights violations in Iran, but not much has been said about it until now, despite its widespread practice. Social stigmas have made people reluctant to discuss the issue, and an admission of the practice would have had grave implications for the Islamic Republic. However the taboo is broken now; Rafsanjani, the second most powerful figure of the regime, has now publicly been informed about rape in prisons. A door has been opened and the issue must now be discussed. I saw and heard about many rape cases during my prison term. With the issue now open for discussion, I want to retrieve from my memories some of the stories and retell them, so we can better know who these rapists are. In the first of five harrowing memories, Mr. Samienejad writes that during his detention four years ago: "The terms 'coke bottle' and 'baton' were constantly used by my interrogators, who were threatening to use these objects on me." Mr. Samienejad also describes his unsuccessful attempt to get prison authorities to accept a letter of complaint he wrote on behalf of another prisoner who appeared to have been raped. He concludes: "Prison authorities never investigate these cases and do not take them seriously. If I were to write all my memories of such cases I would have to write about many cases. What you just read in this article are only a few examples of what I saw. In my two years of imprisonment, I witnessed and heard about hundreds of cases of rape. I will write about them gradually in the future." Despite what he says is this first-hand knowledge of brutal abuses by Iranian authorities, Mr. Samienejad contacted The Lede to say that it is important to him that outsiders understand that the blame lies within specific individuals. According to Mr. Samienejad he and other Iranian activists were upset that an editorial about prison rape in New York Times was headlined "Shame On Iran." Iranian pro-democracy activist and eminet journalist Shirin Sadeghi wrote in an article: "On Friday June 19, a large group of mourners gathered at the Ghoba mosque in Tehran to await a speech about the martyrs of the post-election protests by presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi. According to one Iranian blog, 28-year-old Taraneh Mousavi was one of a group of people that was arrested by plainclothesed security forces for attending the gathering. "Taraneh, whose first name is Persian for "song", disappeared into arrest. "Weeks later, according to the blog, her mother received an anonymous call from a government agent saying that her daughter has been hospitalized in Imam Khomeini Hospital in the city of Karaj, just north of Tehran — hospitalized for "rupturing of her womb and anus in... an unfortunate accident". "When Taraneh's family went to the hospital to find her, they were told she was not there. "According to another Iranian blog which claims to have original information about Taraneh from her family, Iranian security forces contacted Taraneh's family after the hospital visit warning them not to publicize Taraneh's story and not to associate her disappearance with arrests made at post-election protests, claiming instead that she had tried to harm herself because of feeling guilty for having pre-marital sex. Despite its agitations for reform, Iranian society remains traditional, according to Iranian-British blogger Potkin Azarmehr, and it's the stigma of rape that is being used as a weapon against the protesters. "By killing protesters, the government makes martyrs of them, but by raping them and allowing them to live, it makes them shunned in society," Azarmehr said. Not that the stigma of rape is exclusive to Iran and other more traditional societies. A friend of Azarmehr's who is presently in Iran told him that he's sick of hearing that people like Taraneh are better off dead" from friends abroad, just because they can't handle the fact that she's been raped. The psychology of threatening protesters and political activists is not a new science. The strategies and ultimate goals are the same for any kind of torture: to humiliate, disembody [through denying the victim authority over his/her own physical self], extract confessions [whether true or false] and ultimately permanently terrorize the victims to prevent further 'disturbances'... The last part often fails spectacularly, as victims tend to feel even more antagonism toward the perpetrators, and even more of a 'do or die' mentality about agitating for change at any cost. Prison abuse and torture is also about marking these victims as defiled human beings — it's like a scarlet letter of social isolation against them, to deny them the community support and strength which they need to move past those memories and not be defined by them. This is where others can step in and change the very attitudes toward abuse which so many institutions count on when they commit these crimes. The story of Taraneh's condition is still unfolding and there are no certain confirmations of its details beyond the reports of bloggers who are obliged to remain anonymous for safety reasons — but the idea that political prisoners are being mistreated in this way is not new to Iran and is a significant element of a program of terror which has sustained the current system in Iran. With allegations of sexual assault in prisons brought to the fore in Iran, authorities meet with Mehdi Karroubi, the figure who broached the taboo subject, to look into the claims. Rapporteur of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Kazem Jalali, who heads a Parliament committee tasked with probing into the death and detention of those arrested in the post-election frenzy, said the board met with the leading opposition figure on August 24, 2009 for examination of evidence provided on alleged jail rape. The three-hour meeting took place after Karroubi wrote a letter to the influential Head of the Assembly of Experts, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, on July 29, claiming that jailers brutally raped post-vote protesters in Iran's detention centers. The publication of the letter caused an uproar inside and outside Iran, with many clerics saying that if true, the issue would be a catastrophe for the Islamic Republic. Jalali told Mehr News Agency that six lawmakers — including himself, Omidvar Rezaei, Ali Motahhari, Mehdi Sanaie, Parviz Sorouri and Farhad Tajari — met Karroubi in his office on Monday where he talked about four alleged victims of jailhouse rape at the hands of security personnel. According to Jalali, the two-time former Majlis speaker will introduce the alleged victims to the probe committee for further investigation. Karroubi, however, said that while these four victims are ready to testify before Parliament, they do not feel safe to do so. The head of the Majlis probe committee said it would be scheduled that the four alleged victims speak up about their torment in front of the board. He added that the committee is also set to hold a meeting on the issue with Majlis Speaker Ali Larijani and the country's newly-appointed Judiciary Chief Ayatollah Sadeq Larijani. Alongside the meeting with the probe committee, Karroubi's party Etemad-e-Melli [National Trust] published a report on its website which made public remarks by an inmate who had allegedly been subject to sexual abuse. The victim says defeated candidate Karroubi helped him get through difficult times after his dreadful experience and get rid of suicidal thoughts. The victim adds that he had met with a representative of the former general prosecutor who after listening to his account expressed his sympathy to him, saying "alas" in reaction to the situation. A 15-year-old boy, Reza, has alleged that he was locked up in Iran's Basij militia base for 20 days, where he was beaten up, raped repeatedly and subjected to sexual humiliation and abuse. Reza is so horrified with the incident that he refuses to go outside and is terrified of being left alone. "My life is over.. I don't think I can ever recover," The Times quoted Reza, as saying. A doctor who is treating him, has confirmed that he is suicidal, and bears the appalling injuries consistent with his story. Reza's family is also enduring the pain with him and is exploring ways to flee Iran. Reza's ordeal began in mid-July, when he was arrested along with 40 other teenagers during an opposition demonstration. He claimed that the arrested teenagers were taken to the Basij militia base, where they were blindfolded, stripped to their underwear, whipped with cables and then locked in a steel shipping container. Reza claims that three men on the first night singled him out and pushed him to the ground... He further said that one held his head down, another sat on his back and the third urinated on him before raping him. [Source: Asian News International]. And here is another disturbing information from Bangladesh, on persecution of religious minorities and forceful conversion of Hindus by influential Muslim thugs. Bangladesh Minority Watch [BDMW] — Dhaka received an appeal from Ajoy Kumar Dey and his wife Mrs. Dolly Rani Dey of 84/1 Nagar Khanpur under Police Station and District — Narayanganj on the allegation that their only minor son –Suvashish Dey [17] was abducted on 30.07.2009 at about 12-30 p.m. from their house and forcefully converted to Islam. Suvbashis is a meritorious student and he passed Secondary School Certificate and Higher School Certificate examinations with credit. But the police neither assisted to recover their children nor arrested any perpetrators despite specific allegations made to police. [General Diary Entry No. 1713 dated 31.7.2009 filed by Ajoy Kumar Dey]. Ajoy Kumar and Dolly Rani believe that their only son was abducted for forceful conversion by the thugs belonging to Islamic fundamentalists groups. Both the news on rape inside prison in Iran or forceful conversion in Bangladesh are matters of great concern. The global population favoring peace should raise voice against such atorocious attitude of the Islamist regimes or nations with majority Muslim population before one more male or female prisoner is sexually abused in Iran or another religious minority member is abducted for forceful conversion in Bangladesh. Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury id Journalist, Columnist, Author & Peace Activist. He is editor & publisher of Weekly Blitz (www.weeklyblitz.net). He is Director of Forcefield NFP. He received the Pen USA Freedom to Write Award 2005; AJC Moral Courage Award 2006; Key to the Englewood City, NJ, USA [Highest Honor] 2007; and Monaco Media Award, 2007. |
|
A PROPER RESPONSE TO THE WHITE HOUSE REBUKE
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, September 6, 2009. |
|
Hey, let's face it. Much of the world still prefers its Jews ghetto style, groveling Uncle Abes instead of Uncle Toms (note: the very word "ghetto" was originally coined for the Jewish experience). Ironically, of all world leaders, the current American president should be tuned in to this problem the most; instead, he's among the worst offenders when it comes to this. Recently the Obama White House rebuked Israel because it refuses to prostrate itself and say, "whatever you say, boss!" On September 4th, Associated Press writer Matthew Lee reported that, "the White House said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's settlement plans were 'inconsistent' with commitments the Jewish state has made previously and harmful to U.S. attempts to lay the groundwork for a resumption in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians." Horse manure! Do you really want to know what's "inconsistent?" Try this one for starters...America's deliberate attempt to ignore — and to force Israel itself to ignore — what it is legitimately entitled to regarding the final draft of United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, adopted in the wake of the Arabs' combined attempt on its life in 1967. That war started after Egyptian Arabs blockaded Israel at the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba (a casus belli), ordered the U.N.'s peace-keeping force out of Sinai and amassed over 100,000 troops, tanks, planes, and so forth in Gaza, right up to Israel's border in preparation for attack, and other well-documented hostile acts. As has been often written but which needs to be constantly repeated to answer those such as the current American leader now rebuking Israel for refusing to forget this, Resolution 242 is as famous for what it did not say as for what it did. As anyone who has studied this subject knows, among other things, there was no mention of a total withdrawal by Israel to the 1949, UN-imposed armistice lines — lines which made Israel a sub-rump state, a mere nine to fifteen miles wide at its strategic waist where most of its population and industry are located. Those Auschwitz lines were never meant to be final political borders. This was reinforced by a call for the creation of "secure and recognized borders" to replace those lines, which forever placed Israel at its neighbors' mercy as an easy, irresistible target for terror and invasion. Furthermore, any withdrawal by Israel at all was to be in the context of true treaties of peace, not ceasefires. The so-called moderate "peace" partners Israel now has won't it even grant it recognition and demand that it take steps towards its own suicide. There is a proper response for such "partners," but since I can't write it here, please use your imagination... A reading of Great Britain's Lord Caradon, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, Professor Eugene Rostow, America's U.N. Ambassador Arthur Goldberg, and other architects of 242 clearly shows that Israel was not expected to return to the deadly and absurd status quo ante. A fair, meaningful territorial compromise was thus called for. The Obama White House plays deaf, dumb, and blind to all of this, however. So guess (three and the first two don't count) what the settlement issue, that Israel is now being rebuked for, is really all about? As my students would say...well, duh, a no-brainer!!!!!!!!!!!!! In the aftermath of the Six Day War, President Lyndon Johnson summarized the issue this way on June 19, 1967... A return to the situation on June 4 [the day before outbreak of war] was not a prescription for peace but for renewed hostilities. He then called for new recognized boundaries that would provide security against terror, destruction, and war. Johnson was supported by General Earle Wheeler of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and many others, as well. Here's a brief excerpt from Wheeler's Pentagon document prepared for Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara on June 29, 1967... Israel would require retention of some captured Arab territory to provide militarily defensible borders. Keep in mind that in Judea and Samaria, aka the "West Bank," Israel took these lands in a defensive war from an illegal occupier — Transjordan — which subsequently renamed itself Jordan as a result of its 1949 illegal acquisition of non-apportioned lands of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine west of the Jordan River. Transjordan — a purely Arab state in which no Jew was thenceforth allowed to live — was created itself in 1922 from some 80% of the total original 1920 territory. Regarding the non-apportioned areas of the Mandate, Jews as well as Arabs were legally entitled to live on those lands. Indeed, Jews have thousands of years of history linking them to those lands, owned property, and lived there up until their massacres by Arabs in the 1920s and 1930s. Additionally, many, if not most, of the Arabs themselves were newcomers, pouring in — as the Records of the Permanent Mandates Commission, quotes from Colonial Secretary and later Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and other solid evidence and documentation show — from Syria, Egypt, and elsewhere in the region...Arabs creating Arab settlements in the Mandate of Palestine. General Wheeler's document also envisioned Israel acquiring an adequate buffer zone atop the West Bank mountain ridge, in command of the high ground, giving it at least some semblance of an in-depth defense. Guess where most of the settlements of the Jews have subsequently been constructed? A three-thousand mile wide, over 300 million-strong America — with two huge oceans buffering it — fights wars and has acquired territories (to which it had no historical ties) thousands of miles away from home in the name of its own national interests, but demands that the Jews once again become a 9-mile wide sub-rump state, baring the necks of their kids to those who deliberately target them for terror and disembowelment. That's what the White House "rebuke" is currently all about. The alleged Fatah "moderates" of the latter day Arafatians, with the West's darling Mahmoud Abbas at the lead, have as much or more Jewish blood on their hands as the Hamas and Islamic Jihad crew. The latter are simply more honest to the West about their murderous intent. Both reveal their true rejectionist intentions to their own people in Arabic. Moving ahead, here's what President Ronald Reagan had to say about all of this on September 1, 1982... In the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely 10-miles wide... the bulk of Israel's population within artillery range of hostile armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again. In 1988, Secretary of State George Schultz declared... Israel will never negotiate from or return to the 1967 borders. In the 1990s, during the Clinton years (and despite the later pressure brought to bear on Prime Minister Ehud Barak to sweeten the pot at Camp David and Taba in 2000, by offering Yasser Arafat far more than 242 called for), official policy, as expressed by Secretary of State Warren Christopher in 1997, was that, "Israel is entitled to secure and defensible borders," a la 242. Alright...enough of important background information. President Obama and his long list of hostile, anti-Israel advisors and appointees are a marriage made in Heaven for the perpetually Arabist-dominated, anti-Israel crew of the State Department — folks who opposed the rebirth of Israel from the get-go. Israel is entitled to a fair, territorial compromise in territories that it has been repeatedly attacked from and has thousands of years of historical connections to. That Arabs — who claim the entire region as solely their own and who have continuously subjugated scores of millions of native, non-Arabs who have dared to disagree — refuse such a compromise is no shock. They refuse to recognize a sole, miniscule, 9-mile wide state for Jews let alone anything larger, while demanding a 22nd state of their own — second, not first, Arab one created in the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine. Demanding that Israel expose itself to those who want it destroyed — despite the word games of Abbas's "moderates" — needs to be rebuked...not Israel's refusal to cave in to America's first black president by saying, "yes, Massah." Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php. His forthcoming book is called The Quest for Justice in the Middle East: The Arab-Israeli Conflict in Greater Perspective. |
|
LIGHTHOUSE IN SPACE
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, September 5, 2009. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to http://ainhod.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art. |
|
A GENTILE'S PERCEPTION OF JEWS
Posted by Marc Samberg, September 5, 2009. |
|
In Genesis 12:3, G-d said to Abraham: I will bless them that bless you, and curse him that curses you, and in you shall all the families of the earth be blessed. Take a good long hard look at the nations which have blessed Israel. How do they live? Are they safe? Secure? Prosperous? Peaceful? Now, cast that same critical eye to those nations which have for millenia cursed and tried to destroy Israel. Do they even exist? Are they safe, secure, prosperous and peaceful? I didn't write this piece, and I don't know to whom credit belongs, but it is pretty perceptive. This perception of who we are is most aptly summed up below by Olive Schreiner, a gentile writer from Africa. |
|
Indeed it is difficult for all other nations of the world to live in the presence of the Jews. It is irritating and most uncomfortable. The Jews embarrass the world as they have done things which are beyond the imaginable. They have become moral strangers since the day their forefather, Abraham, introduced the world to high ethical standards and to the fear of Heaven. They brought the world the Ten Commandments, which many nations prefer to defy. They violated the rules of history by staying alive, totally at odds with common sense and historical evidence. They outlived all their former enemies, including vast empires such as the Romans and the Greeks. They angered the world with their return to their homeland after 2000 years of exile and after the murder of six million of their brothers and sisters. They aggravated mankind by building, in the wink of an eye, a democratic State which others were not able to create in even hundreds of years. They built living monuments such as the duty to be holy and the privilege to serve one's fellow men. They had their hands in every human progressive endeavor, whether in science, medicine, psychology or any other discipline, while totally out of proportion to their actual numbers. They gave the world the Bible and even their "savior." Jews taught the world not to accept the world as it is, but to transform it, yet only a few nations wanted to listen. Moreover, the Jews introduced the world to one G-d, yet only a minority wanted to draw the moral consequences. So the nations of the world realize that they would have been lost without the Jews.. And while their subconscious tries to remind them of how much of Western civilization is framed in terms of concepts first articulated by the Jews, they do anything to suppress it. They deny that Jews remind them of a higher purpose of life and the need to be honorable, and do anything to escape its consequences. It is simply too much to handle for them, too embarrassing to admit, and above all, too difficult to live by. So the nations of the world decided once again to go out of 'their' way in order to find a stick to hit the Jews. The goal: to prove that Jews are as immoral and guilty of massacre and genocide as some of they themselves are. All this in order to hide and justify their own failure to even protest when six million Jews were brought to the slaughterhouses of Auschwitz and Dachau; so as to wipe out the moral conscience of which the Jews remind them, and they found a stick. Nothing could be more gratifying for them than to find the Jews in a struggle with another people (who are completely terrorized by their own leaders) against whom the Jews, against their best wishes, have to defend themselves in order to survive. With great satisfaction, the world allows and initiates the rewriting of history so as to fuel the rage of yet another people against the Jews. This in spite of the fact that the nations understand very well that peace between the parties could have come a long time ago, if only the Jews would have had a fair chance. Instead, they happily jumped on the wagon of hate so as to justify their jealousy of the Jews and their incompetence to deal with their own moral issues. When Jews look at the bizarre play taking place in The Hague, they can only smile as this artificial game once more proves how the world paradoxically admits the Jews uniqueness. It is in their need to undermine the Jews that they actually raise them. The study of history of Europe during the past centuries teaches us one uniform lesson: That the nations which received and in any way dealt fairly and mercifully
with
the Jew have prospered;
and that the nations that have tortured and oppressed them have written out
their own curse."
Contact Marc Samberg at marcsamberg@yahoo.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: INCHING SLOW TOWARDS...?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 5, 2009. |
|
Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat) The Post ran a story yesterday — based on information from a "senior source" in the prime minister's office — that Netanyahu is going to approve hundreds of new housing units in Judea and Samaria this week. This presumably means issuing new building tenders, as it was said to go beyond building currently being done on some 2,500 units as the result of tenders issued more than four months ago. Then, according to this source, the prime minister would "consider a building freeze" for "a few months," if "conditions were right." ~~~~~~~~~~ Other sources I'm reading seem to indicate that indeed Netanyahu does intend to agree to a freeze — that is, it's more than something he's merely "considering." (Are we surprised?) It is the scope of the freeze that is most likely not fully determined yet: Would he going to agree to freeze construction in Jerusalem — when he has indicated repeatedly that Jerusalem is fully under our sovereignty and that freezes should not apply there? One source indicates eastern Jerusalem would be included. Would the freeze be total or would there be latitude to provide for normal living (e.g., school construction) — as he has demanded? And for how long would he agree to a freeze? "A few months" is a very vague formulation. There are sources indicating a US expectation of nine months, with perhaps an extension. The reality is that the US would like the freeze to continue for the duration of negotiations, which will last years (until it breaks down), but Israel says nothing doing to this. ~~~~~~~~~~ It has been suggested that how much Netanyahu would agree to depends on what the Arabs would be willing to give, as this is, theoretically, supposed to be a reciprocal confidence building action. But it remains pathetic. The major hold-out is Saudi Arabia, which says it already made its contribution to peace with its 2002 plan and will offer nothing else until a peace treaty is signed. Re-opening of an economic interest section in Morocco? Low level ties with Qatar and Oman? Cultural exchanges with Persian Gulf countries? Wow! The only issue with potential weight is the suggestion of certain fly-over rights, but I believe these would be for commercial airlines only. Another issue of significance is whether these Arab gestures would be synchronized with Netanyahu's freeze announcement, so that it appears to be truly reciprocal. Don't hold your breath on this. It becomes a matter of who appears to have blinked first, and I would bet that, whatever is agreed privately, public Arab announcements would follow Israel's concessions. ~~~~~~~~~~ Obama is making all of the expected noises about how we shouldn't be doing this and the fact that the US "regrets" this decision. However, it is fairly clear that the US — specifically Mitchell — knew about this. And so here's my take, based on nothing but my own instincts in the matter. Call it informed speculation, and don't hold me to this: I think the Obama protests are formula, and that Netanyahu told Mitchell that he'll have less flack from his right wing here when he announces the freeze if he has provided an image of toughness first. And so the US said, go with it, since we've agreed a freeze will follow. Ask yourself, why would Netanyahu suddenly announce this building, just as he's supposed to be working on the parameters of a freeze, if not to mollify those who don't like the idea of a freeze and to assure them that he's tough? ~~~~~~~~~~ What I know for certain is that Netanyahu is watching his right flank right within Likud right now. He knows they can bring him down, and that he can move just so far in making concessions. A Likud rally will be held in party headquarters in Tel Aviv on Wednesday. The rally organizers have made clear that this is a pro-settlement and not an anti-Netanyahu rally. So far, 16 Likud MKs — more than half of the Likud faction in the government — have said they will attend. ~~~~~~~~~~ Perhaps of note, Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar (Likud), a Netanyahu ally, has come out in defense of the prime minister: "In today's complex situation, our prime minister whom we chose, Binyamin Netanyahu, must maintain all our national interests — the settlements that are the apple of our eye, Jerusalem, and also our relations with the United States and avoiding international isolation, because we will not be able to do the things that are close to our hearts if we are isolated." While another Netanyahu loyalist said: "Bibi doesn't care any less about Judea and Samaria than anyone else in the Likud, but the is the only one who has the full picture on all the interests of the country, and he has to make decisions on existential matters even if he has to make decisions he doesn't want to make that he wouldn't make in a normal period." ~~~~~~~~~~ What are we talking about here? The existential threat of Iran and the concessions that Netanyahu allegedly has to make to buy greater US support for our attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. We've heard this before, several times. But does it hold water at all? It's a way to reduce criticism, for sure. Yet, if this were valid, it does seem Netanyahu would have shared with his fellow-Likudniks sufficient information so that they wouldn't be holding that rally on Wednesday. And at the end of the day, is this really how Obama would play it? As the threat of Iran grows ever more ominous, it must be asked if Obama would attempt to block our military action even if it seemed prudent for world security, just because we didn't freeze settlements. Or, if he still didn't want us to attack, if he would allow us to do so because we froze settlements — as if he were doing us a favor. The settlement freeze seems a mighty slim thread on which to hang such decisions — but who knows. Lastly, then it must be asked if we really need Obama's permission anyway. Caroline Glick (below) argues we don't. ~~~~~~~~~~ Please see Caroline Glick's very somber piece, "Time's up on Iran."
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
PA POLICE GOING INTO AREAS UNDER ISRAELI CONTROL WITHOUT PERMISSION
Posted by Hands Fiasco, September 4, 2009. |
|
This was written by Yaakov Katz and it appeared yesterday in the
Jerusalem Post
I guess we can call these "new and improved terrorists"? Give me a break! |
|
With the growing number of US-trained Palestinian security officers deployed in the West Bank, the IDF is facing the problem of policemen venturing into areas under Israeli security control without permission. Two weeks ago, for example, a Palestinian Authority security officer was spotted near a junction north of the Efrat settlement just off Road 60, the main highway connecting Jerusalem and the Gush Etzion bloc. The policeman, who is based in Bethlehem, told IDF officers that he ventured out to the road, which was recently opened to Palestinian traffic, to inspect a car accident. He was detained by soldiers from the IDF's Etzion Brigade, his weapon was confiscated and he was released only several hours later. Since 2008, more than 2,100 PA security officers have deployed in the West Bank to patrol seven different cities. These officers have undergone training in Jordan as part of an innovative program led by US Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton to deploy Western-trained security forces in the West Bank in an effort to curb Hamas's power. Overall, the forces have been successful in cracking down on Hamas as well as other terrorist groups in the West Bank, a senior officer in the IDF Central Command said on Thursday. "The problem is that now that they are doing a good job they have a lot of self-confidence and think they can venture into areas they are not allowed into," the officer explained. Under the agreement with the Palestinians, the security personnel are allowed in the West Bank's Area A, which is controlled completely by the PA. Earlier this year, the IDF allowed the Palestinians to establish a number of small police stations in towns in Area B, which is under Israeli security control but is administered by the PA. Area C, where the security officer was caught two weeks ago, is under complete Israeli control. The IDF's concern is primarily due to the potential misunderstandings that can be caused by having armed Palestinians walking around in areas that are off-limits. Earlier this year, two Israeli soldiers and one Palestinian security officer were wounded during a shootout in Kalkilya. The soldiers were operating undercover and neither side properly identified the another. Another tactic that the PA has begun using to weaken Hamas in the West Bank is to prevent the holding of municipal elections in cities and towns that are run by Hamas. By deciding not to hold elections, PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad is able to appoint an official of his choosing to the post. "This is an internal PA process that is having an effect on Hamas," the senior officer said. Contact Hands Fiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net |
|
TIME'S UP ON IRAN
Posted by LEL, September 4, 2009. |
|
This was written by Caroline B. Glick and it appeared in Jewish
World Review.
|
|
Over the past few weeks evidence has piled up that Iran is not years away from being capable of building nuclear bombs at will. It is months away. As the latest report by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran's nuclear program makes clear, at its present rate of uranium enrichment, Iran will have sufficient quantities of enriched uranium to build two atomic bombs by February. What is most notable about this IAEA finding is that it comes in a report that does everything possible to cover up Iran's progress and intentions. Israel responded angrily to the report alleging that the agency's outgoing director Muhammed el Baradei suppressed information that confirms the military nature of Iran's program. In a statement released last Saturday, the Foreign Ministry alleged that the report "does not reflect the entirety of the information the IAEA holds on Iran's efforts to advance their military program, nor their continued efforts to conceal and deceive and their refusal to cooperate with the IAEA and the international community." Two weeks before the IAEA released its report, the US State Department published its assessment that Iran won't have the wherewithal to develop a bomb until 2013. According the Washington Post, this conclusion is based on the State Department's analysis of Iran's "technical capability." For all its failures, the latest IAEA report puts the lie to this State Department assessment. Moreover, as a recent study by Israeli missile expert Uzi Rubin shows, Iran already has several delivery options for its burgeoning nuclear arsenal. In a report published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Rubin, who has been awarded the Israel Defense Prize and oversaw the development of Israel's Arrow missile defense system, concludes that Iran today has the capacity to develop solid-fuel based intermediate range ballistic missiles with a range of 3,600 kilometers. That is, today, Iran has the capacity to attack not only Israel and other states in the Middle East. Since its successful test of its solid-fuel based Sejil missile in May, it has the demonstrated capacity to attack Europe as well. Furthermore, Iran's successful upgrade of its ballistic missiles to satellite launchers has given it the capacity to launch nuclear weapons into the atmosphere. This renders Iran capable of launching an electromagnetic pulse attack from sea against just about any country. An EMP attack can destroy a state's electromagnetic grid and thus take a 21st century economy back to pre-industrial era. Such an attack on the US for instance would cripple the US economy, and render the US government at all levels incapable of restoring order or preventing mass starvation. These latest disclosures should focus the attention of Israel's leaders on a singular question: What can Israel do to prevent Iran from further expanding its nuclear capacity and block it from emerging as a nuclear power? The answer to this question is the same as it has been for the past six years since the scale of Iran's nuclear program was first revealed. Israel can order the Israel Air Force to bomb Iran's nuclear and missile facilities with the aim of denying Iran the ability to attack the Jewish state. The necessity for Israel to exercise its one option grows daily in light of what the rest of the world is doing in regards to Iran. Following the release of the IAEA report and ahead of the UN General Assembly's opening meeting later this month, this week US, German, British, French, Russian and Chinese diplomats met in Germany to discuss the possibility of ratcheting up UN Security Council sanctions against Iran. Ahead of the meeting French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel both announced that they support stronger sanctions. But right on schedule, as the representatives of these countries sat down with one another, the Iranians told the media they are interested in negotiating. Suddenly, after stonewalling for over a year, Iran is willing to think about telling us the terms under which it will discuss the West's offer to provide the mullahs with all manner of rewards in exchange for an Iranian agreement to suspend the expansion of its of uranium enrichment, (which, as the IAEA report notes, is already great enough to produce two nuclear bombs by February). Taking their cue from the mullahs, the Russians and the Chinese are now saying that there is no reason to be hasty. Far wiser, in their view would be a decision to sit down and see what the Iranians would like to do. No doubt, the Russians and Chinese are arguing that it will take some time — perhaps until February — to arrange such a meeting. And then, there is the prospect that such a meeting could end inconclusively but keep the door open for further talks sometime in late-2010 or early 2011. In the meantime, as far as the Russians and the Chinese are concerned, further UN sanctions would be unfair in light of Iran's willingness to engage diplomatically. But then even if the Russians and the Chinese supported stronger sanctions, the measure now being debated will have no impact on either Iran's ability or willingness to become a nuclear power. Today these leading nations are discussing the prospect of banning refined petroleum imports into Iran. Given that Iran with its currently limited capacity to refine petroleum, is a net oil importer, for the past several years, the notion of banning the Iranian imports of refined petroleum products has been raised every time the IAEA submitted a report on Iran's nuclear program and every time more information came out describing Iran's spectacular progress in missile development and uranium enrichment. Inevitably, this talk was dismissed the moment a mullah approached a microphone and hinted that Iran might be interested in cutting a deal. But while the West has consistently postponed imposing such sanctions, Iran has taken the prospect seriously. Over the past four years, Iran moved to reduce its vulnerability to such a ban. It has required citizens to adapt their cars to run on natural gas which Iran has in abundance. Furthermore, in a joint venture with China, Iran has launched a crash program to expand its domestic oil refining capabilities. With Chinese assistance, Iran is expected to have the refining capacity to meet its domestic needs by 2012. Beyond that, as former US ambassador to the UN John Bolton noted this week in the Wall Street Journal, even if the West were to impose such sanctions on Iran today, they would not impact the Iranian military's ability to operate. The only people who would be impacted by such sanctions are Iranian civilians. Here too, it should be noted that the entire rationale of the ban on refined oil imports to Iran is that oil shortages will turn the public against the regime and the regime in turn will be forced to stand down against the international community in order to placate its gasoline-starved constituents. But if the regime's brutal repression of its opponents in the wake of the stolen June 12 presidential elections tells us anything, it tells us that the regime doesn't care about what the Iranian public thinks of it. Indeed, in the face of rising domestic opposition to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the regime's best bet may be to launch a war against the hated Jews in order to unify the clerical leadership — which is now split between those supporting the regime and those supporting the opposition — behind the regime. Finally, the discussion of sanctions is irrelevant because every move that Iran is making shows that the regime is determined to go to war. Its massive diversion of resources to its nuclear and ballistic missile program shows that the regime is absolutely committed to becoming a nuclear power. Its move to build an open military alliance with the Lebanese government together with its expansion of its military ties to Syria through the financing of the sale of advanced Russian aircraft to Damascus and the proliferation of nuclear technology shows that it is building up the capabilities of its underlings. Then too, this week's report that the Hizbullah weapons cache in southern Lebanon which exploded in July contained chemical weapons indicates that Iran is already providing its terror proxies with unconventional arsenals to expand its war making capabilities against Israel and the West. All in all, the totality of Iran's moves make clear that Iran is not interested in using its nuclear program as a bargaining chip to gain all manner of goodies from the West. It is planning to use its nuclear program as a means of becoming a nuclear power. And it wishes to become a nuclear power because it wishes to wage war against its enemies. And all in all, the totality of the UN-led international community's responses to Iran's moves make clear that the world will take no effective action to prevent Iran from gaining the capacity to wage nuclear war. The world today will again to nothing to prevent the genocide of Jewry. And that's the thing of it. So long as the mullahs continue to signal that the Jews are their first target, the world will be content to allow to them to build their nuclear weapons and use them. As US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's contention that the US will retaliate against Iran if it launches a nuclear attack against Israel makes clear, Washington will only consider acting against Teheran after the US moves to the top of Teheran's target list. The question then is whether Israel has the ability to effectively attack Iran even if the US opposes such a strike. Based on open source material, the answer to this central question is yes, Israel can launch an effective strike against Iran. Over the past several years, the IAF has demonstrated that it has the power projection capability to reach Iran's nuclear installations, strike and return home. The key Iranian nuclear installations have been visited by IAEA inspectors. They are not hundreds of meters underground. They are not invulnerable to ordnance Israel already possesses. They can be destroyed or at least severely impaired. The route to Iran is also open. Various leaked reports indicate that Saudi Arabia has given Israel a green light to overfly its airspace en route to Iran. Finally, consistent polling data shows that the Israeli public understands the need for a strike and would be willing to accept whatever consequences flow in its wake. The public will support a government decision to strike even if the strike is not a one-off like the 1981 IAF strike that destroyed Iraq's Osirak reactor. The public will support the government even if the strike precipitates a condemnation by the US and aresumption of hostilities with Lebanon and even with Syria. With each passing day, Iran moves closer to the bomb and closer to initiating war on its terms. The international community will do nothing to preempt this danger. Israel must act. Fighting a war on our terms is eminently preferable to fighting one on Iran's terms. Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
A POLITICIZED COURT SENDS A HEROIC COP TO PRISON IN ISRAEL
Posted by Steven Plaut, September 4, 2009. |
|
Officer Shahar Mizrachi is the latest victim of the leftist assault on Israel via the court system. Officer Mizrachi is a hero. He should have been awarded a medal for stopping a violent car thief. Instead, a politicized court and a politicized judge are sending him to prison for 15 months. There he will sit among the common criminals, including perhaps some he himself apprehended. They will make his life a living hell. Mizrachi's crime? He did his job! In July 2006, Officer Mizrachi saw a car thief stealing a car in Pardes Hana. It turns out though that the thief was an Arab from nearby Baqa al-Garbiya, one Mahmoud Ganaim. Officer Mizrachi shot the thief, who died from the wound. The thief, Ganaim, tried to stab Mizrachi with a screwdriver before the cop shot him. But in post-survivalist Israel the court system seems to believe
that Arabs should not be expected to obey the law and Jews should
never be permitted to stop them from committing crimes. You may recall
the farmer from the Negev, Shai Dromi, who shot at three Bedouin
thieves trying to steal his sheep and killed one. He was harassed and
indicted by the Attorney General and convicted of manslaughter,
although recently cleared on appeal. The judge in the Mizrachi case was Petach Tikvah District Court Judge Menachem Finkelstein. He convicted Mizrachi of manslaughter for doing his job and stopping the thief. In his verdict, the judge second guesses Mizrachi and insists the cop could have stopped the thief without killing him, like by shooting at the car tires. Never mind that shooting the tires of a car belonging to a citizen is also a crime. The judge also insists Mizrachi could have shot the thief in a leg. There is no evidence that the judge has any experience as a sharpshooter. The family of the Arab thief denounced the court for giving the heroic cop a sentence they thought was too light. They screamed that if the thief had been a Jew, the cop would have been convicted with a tougher sentence. Actually, in that case the cop would not have been indicted at all. For the record, if the thief had been a Jew shot in the act, I would still insist that Mizrachi is a hero and deserves a medal. Israel is today under the hegemony of a leftist ideology that holds that Arabs should not be expected to obey the law since they are so "oppressed." Israel has a system of clemency for the convicted, but the President issues clemency writs, and the current President, Shimon Peres, is the last person to pardon a heroic Jewish cop who did his duty, although Peres would have been the first to pardon the thief if he had been convicted and sent to prison. And also will pardon Ehud Olmert. But not Moshe Katsav though. Katsav had the nerve to beat Peres in an earlier Knesset vote to become president. There is also not much one can do about the judge, Menachem Finkelstein. It is all but impossible to dismiss a judge in Israel. Nevertheless, if you would like to try, write the Minister of Justice, Yaakov Ne'eman, at the Israel's Ministry of Justice, and tell him what you think: Fax: 972-2-6466357. Address: Salah-a-Din 29, P.O.Box 49029, Jerusalem 91490 (Maariv today in Hebrew carries more detailed report on story) 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
|
|
COURT: WHY WON'T STATE COMBAT ILLEGAL PALESTINIAN CONSTRUCTION?
Posted by Barbara Sommer, September 3, 2009. |
|
This was written by Tomer Zarchin and Chaim Levinson,
Haaretz correspondents.
|
|
The High Court asked state prosecutors why the state discriminates between illegal Jewish and Palestinian building in the West Bank, citing the lack of enforcement of demolition warrants against illegally-built Palestinian buildings in the area. The High Court hearing on Thursday came after the right-wing "Regavim movement for the protection of national land", called for the court to force Defense Minister Ehud Barak to explain why he hasn't carried out the demolition of illegal buildings in the Palestinian villages of Asaviya and Yitma in the West Bank, which are located next to the settlement of Rahalim. The state said in response to the petition that since 1996, demolition orders were given against 50 buildings in Asaviya, but only 3 have been carried out. In the discussion, a justice asked if the enforcement of demolition orders for illegal building by Palestinians is treated equally to demolition orders for illegal building by Jewish settlers in the West Bank. A state prosecutor said that there is a difference in understanding in the Israeli and Palestinian sector. The same prosecutor said that civilian authorities had ruled that enforcement is different for illegal construction carried out on private property owned by someone other than the builder. When a justice asked why only 3 demolition warrants had been issued since 1996, she was told that there is only so much manpower to carry out the demolitions and there are more pressing national concerns. Regavim issued a statement on Thursday saying "finally the High Court understands that it is impossible to enact selective enforcement against Jews only in the West Bank."
Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
UNICEF ROUTING DONATIONS THROUGH BANK MELLI
Posted by Avodah, September 3, 2009. |
|
This appeared on the IsraelMatsav website.
|
|
UNICEF is back in the news today. It seems that the organization is raising money for operations in Iran and Gaza through Bank Melli. Bank Melli is an Iranian bank that is supposed to be subject to UN sanctions due to its nuclear proliferation activities. Posted on the English-language Web site of UNICEF's Iran office is an invitation to make donations via Bank Melli. UNICEF includes the account number, 5005, and the location, at Bank Melli's Eskan branch in Tehran. Nearby, on the same UNICEF site, is a link to an appeal by UNICEF's Iran office for donations for relief to Gaza, through the same Bank Melli Account ("key word: Gaza"). Gaza is controlled by a U.S.-designated terrorist group, Hamas. Dedicated to the destruction of Israel and hostile to the U.S., Hamas in recent years has been receiving training, funding and weapons from Iran. In sum, UNICEF has been offering itself as a conduit for funds between terrorist-sponsoring, U.N.-sanctions-violating Iran and terrorist-controlled Gaza, via a bank that the U.N. itself has specifically flagged as prone to illicit nuclear proliferation activities. Contact Avodah by email at avodah15@aol.com |
|
OBAMA'S TURNS BLIND EYE TO PA "EDUCATION" THAT ALL OF ISRAEL BELONGS TO ARABS
Posted by AFSI, September 3, 2009. |
|
President Obama will be "educating" American schoolchildren, Tuesday, September 8. We trust the lessons will have to do with democracy, tolerance, and world-wide human rights. How can he ignore what the Palestinian Authority is teaching Arab children in regard to the non-existence of Israel and PA rights to the entire land? And in the face of this, he will sit with PM Netanyahu and PA leader Mahmoud Abbas when the UN convenes in New York at the end of September and insist on a building freeze on Jewish homes while he forbids the demolition of illegal Arab homes. For those who had any doubts about where Obama's sympathies lie in regard to Israel, there should now be no doubt. He is flagrantly siding with the Arabs. White House telephone lines should be flooded with protests about this anti-Israel bias. The President's number is: 202-456-1414; 1111. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's #:202-456-6798. Please take the time to make these calls. This was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared today on Arutz Sheva. |
|
The Palestinian Authority continues to ignore American demands that it halt anti-Israel propaganda and incitement, and instead it continues to teach children that all of Israel belongs to Arabs. Palestinian Media Watch translated a PA television children's program aired this past Saturday and Sunday, in which children "passed quizzes by answering questions, such as "what is the PA's largest port?" The Obama administration has repeatedly stated that the PA must halt incitement against Israel as it seeks to create a new Arab state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, including eastern Jerusalem. The U.S.,as well as the European Union stresses the principle of "two states for two peoples," but the PA educational system teaches a new generation of Arabs that all of Israel belongs to the PA. In the latest of dozens of documented violations of the American and Israeli demands, which are part of the U.S. Roadmap plan for a PA state, the television host asked the children, "Where is Palestine's most important port, in Haifa, Jaffa or Acre?" The child answers "Jaffa" and receives a round of applause for the "correct" answer. In another quiz, the host asks, "There's a Palestinian city whose walls are very high and strong, where Napoleon, whom we all know, stopped his battle, because he was unable [to breac the solid walls. "Which city is it, Jaffa, Acre or Tiberias?" More applause breaks out when the child answers "Acre." In the PA school system, textbooks still teach that "Palestine has a long coast facing the Mediterranean Sea and a short coast on the Gulf of Aqaba. The Tiberias Lake [Sea of Galilee is in Palestine." Previously reported children's television program included quizzes for children who answered that Tiberias is the "Palestinian city" named after the Roman ruler and that Nazareth is the "Palestinian city [that is called the flower of the Galilee." Dozens of U.S. Congressmen learned about the incitement, which has been documented for years, during a visit to Israel last month, and said they would press the Obama administration to insist that the PA stops the practice.
Americans For a Safe Israel/AFSI is a pro-active pro-Israel advocacy group. AFSI may be contacted by mail at 1623 Third Ave., Suite 205, New York, N.Y. 10128 (Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717); by email at afsi@rcn.com; or by accessing its website: www.afsi.org. Helen Freedman is Executive Director. |
|
A ROOM FULL OF HEROES
Posted by Michael Freund, September 3, 2009. |
|
Do the Jewish people still produce heroes? It often seems, thanks largely to the cynicism of our media, that the answer is no. Skepticism and disparagement of others has unfortunately become the norm in Israel and throughout the Jewish world, where many seem to thrive on the sport of tearing down our leaders and picking them apart. It has seeped into our consciousness, colored our view of the world and contaminated our way of thinking, leading many to believe that we Jews just don't make heroes the way we used to. But, as I argue in the column below from the Jerusalem Post, that is far from being the case. At a special ceremony I attended earlier this week in the city of Gdansk, Poland, I found a room full of Jewish heroes. Many more are definitely out there — one only needs to know where to look. Comments and feedback may be sent to: letters@jpost.com or to me directly. thanks,
|
|
Anyone who doubts the ability of the Jewish people to produce towering men should have been in the Polish city of Gdansk this past week. For it was there, in a far-away corner of northern Europe, that a remarkable gathering brought together two extraordinary figures in the annals of modern Jewish bravery. The occasion was a commemoration held at Gdansk's lone synagogue to mark the 70th anniversary of the start of World War II. The event was cosponsored by Poland's Jewish community and Shavei Israel, the organization that I chair, and was part of the Polish government's official program of ceremonies recalling the initial German assault that spiraled into a global conflagration of epic proportions. There was of course the usual array of diplomats and journalists who attend such events, as well as an impressive showing of local Jews from Gdansk along with other cities throughout Poland.
BUT IT was a diminutive 86-year old with plenty of spunk still left in him who caught my attention and that of all those present. Many Israelis know Samuel Willenberg as a successful sculptor and artist, but his true accomplishments came at a much earlier age. In 1939, as a 16-year-old, he volunteered for the Polish army and battled against invading German troops before later being wounded in clashes with Soviet forces in the eastern part of the country. Subsequently, Willenberg was arrested and sent to Treblinka, where he took part in a prisoner revolt in August 1943 and managed to escape from the German death camp. Making his way to the capital, he took up arms once again, this time in the Polish underground's August 1944 Warsaw Uprising. After the war, and the establishment of the State of Israel, Willenberg made aliya and built a new life for himself and his family in the Jewish state. When he gripped my hand and looked me directly in the eyes, I caught a glimpse of the steely strength that lay within, and was stirred by this man's seemingly inexhaustible ability to ride out even the most trying of circumstances. Moments later, Willenberg was introduced to visiting Minister for Information and Diaspora Affairs Yuli Edelstein, himself a veteran of Soviet labor camps who stood up to tyranny and paid a heavy price for doing so. Edelstein, who has an amazing facility for languages, taught Hebrew to his fellow Jews in Moscow and pressed for the right to emigrate to Israel. Russian authorities persecuted him and shipped the young activist off to a jail cell near the Mongolian border, where he tenaciously clung to his faith. In the summer of 1987, Edelstein was finally allowed to make aliya, and I still remember the emotional greeting he received when he was brought straight from the airport to the Western Wall. Along with thousands of others, I sang and danced together with him as he celebrated his newfound freedom and return to the land of his forefathers. Then this incredible man, who just hours previously had been lying in a Soviet prison, led us all in the evening ma'ariv prayer in the heart of ancient Jerusalem. And within a decade, he would go from being a Prisoner of Zion in communist Russia to a highly-respected member of Israel's government. So here they were in Gdansk, these two men who had survived just about everything that the 20th century could throw at the Jewish people. And as I looked at Edelstein and Willenberg chatting amiably with one another, I could not help but think about all the cynicism and pessimism we have become accustomed to back home.
SKEPTICISM AND disparagement of others has unfortunately become the norm in Israel and throughout the Jewish world, where many seem to thrive on the sport of tearing down our leaders and picking them apart. It has seeped into our consciousness, colored our view of the world and contaminated our way of thinking, leading many to believe that we Jews just don't make heroes the way we used to. Sure, you might be thinking, Edelstein and Willenberg are great men, but their deeds belong to another time and place. What about now, what about the future? Are there still heroic figures in Jewish life today? As I pondered this question, I turned toward the back of the room, where I think I may have found the answer. There, seated quietly, was a row of 12 young Polish Jews, nearly all of whom had only recently discovered their Jewish roots. Many were raised as Catholics, only to learn that a parent or grandparent had in fact been Jewish, but had chosen to hide their identity because of Nazi persecution or communist oppression. Now, along with a growing number of others throughout Poland, these young people are defying social norms and a great deal of latent anti-Semitism and choosing to embrace their Jewish heritage. Thanks to the tireless efforts of Polish Chief Rabbi Michael Schudrich, they form the core of a nascent revival of Jewish life that is under way in the land where more than 90 percent of Polish Jewry was murdered in the Holocaust. It is hard to believe, or even imagine, the challenges they face in doing so. The easiest thing in the world for these young people to do would be to suppress the new-found knowledge of their Jewish ancestry, bury it away in some mental attic and get on with their lives in a newly free and democratic Poland. But they choose instead the path of resistance, the path of challenge and defiance — the path of heroes. It was then that I realized that Willenberg and Edelstein were far from alone in that room. Their example of Jewish valor and nerve was being taken up by a new generation, one with its own struggles to wage and battles to be fought — whether in Gdansk, in Jerusalem or elsewhere. There is no shortage of such people, who wake up each morning and make the conscious choice to continue to be Jewish in a world that seems more and more hostile to our very existence. So the question remains: Do the Jewish people still produce heroes? Sure — all you need to do is to know where to look.
|
|
MY HOUSE IS YOUR HOUSE: JEWISH RIGHTS DENIED
Posted by Lyn Julius, September 3, 2009. |
|
This appeared August 24, 2009 on the Point of No Return website
|
|
A daughter of the wealthy Jewish Castro family from Egypt once attended a lecture by Anwar Sadat's widow Jehan in New York City. Congratulating her afterwards on her excellent speech, the Egyptian Jewess exchanged pleasantries with Mrs Sadat. "But you must come back to visit (Egypt) and to show it to your children", Mrs Sadat said, adding the traditional Egyptian courtesy, beti betak — "My house is your house". Little did she appreciate the irony, but the presidential villa Jehan Sadat lived in had literally belonged to the Castro family expelled by Nasser in 1956. Observers of the Middle East conflict frequently talk of trampled Palestinian rights, but suffer a blindspot when it comes to the mass dispossession of a greater number of Jews across 10 Arab countries. Few Jews lived as opulently as the Castros, but all over the Middle East and North Africa, Jewish homes, shops and businesses were seized or sold for well under market value as fearful Jews left in haste. Schools, synagogues and hospitals were abandoned as some 850,000 Jews were scapegoated as Zionists after 1948. A ghostly Jewish presence, a reminder of a more pluralistic, tolerant age, still haunts the Arab world today like a severed limb. So reports last week that President Mubarak, paying his first visit to Washington since 2004, might have discussed with President Obama a plan for Palestinian refugees to be compensated, in exchange for a waiver of their 'right of return', has left Jews exiled from the Arab world gasping: "what about us?" The US-based Historical Society of Jews from Egypt fired off an open letter to President Mubarak seething with indignation: "If Nasser had not persecuted us, stolen all our property, and expelled us ignominiously with only the shirts on our backs, we would still be living in Egypt and contributing to its greatness as we always have. Indeed, we care about our heritage and cherish it openly. It will be a good day when Egypt finally recognizes our many positive contributions to its history. Sadly, it does not appear this day is near. We wish to bring to your attention, again, as we have many times in the past, a number of grievances. So far, not only have they not been satisfied, but they have not even been addressed.The Egyptian establishment believes that if they just ignore us, we will simply go away." Clauses in the 1979 Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty allowing for the settlement of Jewish claims have never been implemented, perhaps because the Israeli government did not want to be blamed for sinking an already-floundering Egyptian economy. But Egypt is haunted that some day the Jews — once a community of 80,000 — will demand their property back. In May 2008 a group of elderly Jews from Israel had their planned 'roots' visit to Cairo and Alexandria cancelled after just such scaremongering. The fate of Egypt's priceless Jewish heritage is effectively being determined by some few dozen elderly Jewish ladies, mostly widowed or married to non-Jews. Decisions are postponed as the tiny and timorous local community and the authorities engage in endless buck-passing. Most recently, Jews outside Egypt were alarmed by reports in the Egyptian press that developers were fighting over the extremely valuable site of a derelict synagogue-cum-religious school in the old Jewish quarter of Cairo. Although some 10 synagogues and a mausoleum in Cairo and Alexandria are under preservation order and the Egyptian government is paying for the restoration of major Jewish tourist sites such as the Rambam synagogue, images in the press of a mural of the great 12th century rabbi Maimonides and prayer books strewn amid the rubble have suggested that the Egyptian Jewish community's decaying heritage may not be in such safe hands. The Egyptians, however, have been quick to deny such charges of neglect. On the other hand, documents, treasures and Torah scrolls are classified as antiquities as 'Egyptian' as the Sphinx or the Pyramids. They are being left to deteriorate in storage, and may not be restored to their rightful Jewish owners. A major grievance is that Egyptian Jews in exile are denied access to their communal archives. Jews of Egyptian descent in Israel, Europe, the Americas and Australia requiring their ancestors' certificates of birth, marriage or death cannot even obtain photocopies. Appeals by associations of Egyptian Jews abroad for UNESCO to take over these precious records have so far gone unheeded. To add insult to injury, the next UNESCO director-general, to be elected in September, is likely to be the Egyptian culture minister Farouk Hosni. Although he has since apologised and retracted his statement as 'hyperbole', Mr Hosni is on record as saying that 'Israeli' books in Egyptian libraries should be burned: In 1997, at the height of the Oslo accords, he told the newspaper Ruz Al Yusef: "the Jews steal our history and our civilisation ; they haven't any civilisation of their own; they haven't a country of their own and don't deserve to have one. So they tried to create one by force." No compensation in sight for seized property, no access to their history, and the prospect of a known antisemite in charge of their heritage: for the Jews from Egypt, these grievances compound the original injustice of their uprooting. The rights of Jews forced out from Arab countries continue to be denied. Even if talk of compensation for Palestinian refugees at the highest level turns out to be rumour, the framing of such discussions to exclude Jewish refugees is iniquitous. Without justice for all parties, there can be no lasting peace. Lyn Julius is a journalist and co-founder of Harif (www.harif.org), a UK association of Jews from the Middle East and N. Africa. |
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: RIPENING DATES
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, September 3, 2009. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: Across Israel, in the latter days of summer, fruit hangs heavy on the vine, or, in this case, on the frond. Dates thrive in the Israeli desert, from the Negev to the Jordan Valley region where this photo was taken, just outside Beit Shean. For centuries, date palms have been a source of food, shelter and precious shade in an arduous climate. This nearly ripe bunch of dates drew my attention because of the variegated colors in the fruit. As I often do when photographing fruit that grows in bunches, I cropped tightly to create the impression that there is an unseen, endless abundance just beyond the photo's edge. After harvest, these dates have an uncertain date with destiny. They may be eaten fresh or dried, crunchy or soft, or perhaps fermented into a form of Arak popular in Iraq. In the Torah, when Israel is described as a land flowing with milk and honey, the honey referred to is generally that of the date fruit. And that, of course, is the sweetest destiny of all.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
THE DEGENERATES OF THE ISRAELI LEFT
Posted by Truth Provider, September 3, 2009. |
|
Dear friends, A week ago, General Moshe Yaalon (Israel's Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs), characterized the small but vocal organization "Peace Now" a virus. He was basically stating a truth: A small organism that causes a lot of damage is indeed a virus. For saying it, the largely liberal leftist Israeli media went down on the general like a ton of bricks. One commentator, Sima Kadmon, titled her article in Israel's largest paper "Yediot Ahronot" "DEGENERAL." Yes, when you are a leftist liberal in the media, you can take the liberty to name a hero general and former Israeli Chief of Staff a degenerate and continue to be engaged by her paper. Now read the following superb article by Evelyn Gordon in the Jerusalem Post and understand why Moshe Yaalon was absolutely right (no pun intended).
It is called
"Civil Fights: Don't make me laugh" and it is
archived at
Your Truth Provider, Yuval. |
|
There must have been something in the air last month: Two prominent Israeli leftists publicly acknowledged fundamental problems in the "peace process" that will make a deal unachievable if not resolved. Aluf Benn, Haaretz's diplomatic correspondent, articulated one problem in an August 7 column describing a conversation with a "senior European diplomat." Benn posed one simple question: How would a deal benefit ordinary Israelis? The diplomat was stunned. Wasn't it obvious? It would create a Palestinian state! After Benn pointed out that most Israelis care very little about the Palestinians; they want to know how peace would benefit them, the diplomat tried again: "There would be an end to terror." "Don't make me laugh," Benn replied. When the IDF withdrew from parts of the West Bank and Gaza under the Oslo Accords, Israelis got suicide bombings in their cities. When it quit Gaza entirely, they got rockets on the Negev. But the bombings stopped after the IDF reoccupied the West Bank, and the rockets stopped after January's Gaza operation. In short, the IDF has done a far better job of securing "peace" as Israelis understand it — i.e., not being killed — than the "peace process" ever has.
NORMALIZATION WITH the Arab world is also scant attraction, Benn noted; most Israelis "have no inherent desire to fly El Al through Saudi Arabian airspace or visit Morocco's 'interests section.'" And the downsides of a deal — financing the evacuation of tens of thousands of settlers and "the frightening prospect of violent internal schisms" — are substantial. Benn's conclusion from the conversation was shocking: Thus far, the international community has never thought about how a deal might benefit Israelis; that was considered unimportant. But to persuade Israelis to back an agreement, he noted, the world is going to have to start thinking. For Israelis already have what they want most, "peace and quiet," and they will not willingly risk it for "another diplomatic adventure whose prospects are slim and whose dangers are formidable." A week later, Prof. Carlo Strenger — a veteran leftist who, as he wrote, thinks "the occupation must end as quickly as possible" — addressed a second problem in his semi-regular Haaretz column. Seeking to explain why Israel's Left has virtually disappeared, he concluded that this happened because leftists "failed to provide a realistic picture of the conflict with the Palestinians." For years, he noted, leftists claimed a deal with the Palestinians would produce "peace now." Instead, the Palestinian Authority "educated its children with violently anti-Israel and often straightforwardly anti-Semitic textbooks," failed to prevent (or perhaps even abetted) repeated suicide bombings in 1996, torpedoed the final-status negotiations of 2000-2001 and finally produced the second intifada. But instead of admitting it had erred in expecting territorial withdrawals to bring peace, Strenger wrote, the Left blamed Israel: The 1996 bombings happened "because the Oslo process was too slow"; the talks failed because Israel's offers were insufficient; the second intifada began because Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount. In short, the Left adopted two faulty premises: First, "anything aggressive or destructive a non-Western group says or does must be explained by Western dominance or oppression," hence "they are not responsible for their deeds." Second, "if you are nice to people, all conflicts will disappear"; other basic human motivations, like the desire for "dominance, power and... self-respect," are irrelevant. Strenger concluded that if the Left "wants to regain some credibility and convince voters that it has a role to play, it needs to give the public a reasonable picture of reality." But the same could be said of the international community, which has also blamed every failure of the peace process on Israeli actions: settlement construction, "excessive force" against Palestinian terror, insufficient concessions, etc.
THOUGH BENN and Strenger were ostensibly addressing different issues, they are closely related. Leftists reinforced the West's habit of blaming Israel for every failure, because they are the only Israelis that Western politicians and journalists take seriously. And this habit contributed greatly to mainstream Israelis' view of the peace process as all pain, no gain. First, because the world placed the onus on Israel, Palestinians never felt any pressure to amend their behavior, whether by stopping terror or by making concessions on final-status issues vital to Israelis. Israel has repeatedly upped its offers over the past 16 years, but the Palestinians have yet to budge an inch: Not only will they not concede the right of return, they refuse to even acknowledge the Jews' historic connection to this land. Second, while Israelis care very little about relations with the Arab world, they care greatly about relations with the West. Thus a major attraction of the peace process was the prospect of enhancing this relationship. Instead, Israel's standing, especially in Europe, has plummeted since 1993. Europeans now deem Israel the greatest threat to world peace. Anti-Semitic violence in Europe has surged. European and American leftists routinely deny Israel's very right to exist, and calls for sanctions and divestment are gaining momentum. All this would have been unthinkable 16 years ago. And this nosedive in status is directly connected to the fact that every time something goes wrong with the peace process, most of the West blames Israel. Indeed, the fact that Washington (pre-Barack Obama) was the one exception to this rule goes far toward explaining why Israel's standing remains strong in America. Because this knee-jerk response has remained unchanged for 16 years, Israelis are now convinced it will continue even after a final-status agreement is signed: The moment Palestinians voice a new demand post-agreement or engage in anti-Israel terror, the West will insist that Israel accede to the demand or refrain from responding to the terror, and vituperate it for not doing so. In short, Israel is liable to make all the concessions entailed by an agreement and still see its relationship with the West deteriorate. The bottom line that emerges from both Benn and Strenger is that no peace deal is likely unless both the West and Israel's Left radically alter their behavior. The million-dollar question is whether anyone in either camp is listening. Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send
an email to ynz@netvision.net.il
Yuval
|
|
SETTLEMENT HOUSING STARTS DROP BY A THIRD IN FIRST HALF OF YEAR
Posted by Barbara Sommer, September 3, 2009. |
|
This was written by Tovah Lazaroff and it appeared in the
Jerusalem Post
|
|
Housing starts in Judea and Samaria fell by 33.7 percent in the first six months of 2009, compared to the same period in 2008, according to Central Bureau of Statistics data released on Monday. 
The report comes as Israel and the United States are discussing a possible freeze in settlement activity. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has not approved any new West Bank construction projects since taking office on March 31. Peace Now says that no new settlement projects have been approved since November. But using previously issued permits, settlers were able to start work on 672 apartments in the first half of 2009, down from the 1,015 that were begun in the same months last year. For the country as a whole, housing starts declined 3% in that same time period. The only area to fare worse than the settlements was Tel Aviv, where work on new apartments dropped by 40%. In all of 2008, work began on 2,118 apartments in the settlements, a 42% increase from the 1,490 housing starts in 2007. But it was already obvious in the first quarter of 2009 that the numbers were falling. There was a 39% dip in that quarter, with construction beginning on 342 apartments from January through March, compared to 560 in the same period in 2008. The trend continued, with a 27% drop year-over-year in the second quarter, with 330 apartment starts from April through June, compared to 455 a year earlier. The decline also reflects a continued shift from public to private construction in West Bank settlements, where in 2009, 66% of the new construction was private and 34% was public. In 2008, 49.7% of the new construction was private and 50.3% was public. There was a significantly smaller decline in the number of completed apartments in the first half of 2009, with only a 5% drop from 2008. Nationwide, the number of finished apartments rose by 3.1%. But in the settlements, 878 apartments (55% in public projects) were finished in the first half of 2009, compared with 932 (24% public) in the first half of 2008.
Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com
|
|
ABBAS STILL DEMANDING SETTLEMENT FREEZE BEFORE TALKS WITH NETANYAHU
Posted by Hands Fiasco, September 3, 2009. |
|
Obama has given new teeth to the lying terrorist, Abu Mazen. He now has the confidence to make red-line demands, believing that his new American "sugar daddy" will make Netanyahu kneel in submission. As for "negotiations", he'll finally agree to about anything. After all, the world's governments (especially ours) will never hold him to any agreements, though Israel is expected to overlook any and all conditions of Arab reciprocity and plod their assigned course toward national suicide. It's all just a huge, evil joke! |
|
Abbas still demanding settlement freeze before talks with Netanyahu
A senior aid to Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas has emphatically stated that he will not meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for peace negotiations unless the US first compels Israel to impose a total settlement freeze in Judea/Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. Nabil Sha'ath told reporters in Ramallah on Monday that the PA president would only resume negotiations if a building halt is declared in all the West Bank as well as east Jerusalem, without "loopholes," or "artificial time frames." He added that the PA is also demanding that Israel make a prior commitment to the establishment of a Palestinian state. His comments came after Israeli President Shimon Peres told Fox News yesterday that he expects US President Barack Obama would be able to finally host an initial meeting between Netanyahu and Abbas on the sidelines of the upcoming UN General Assembly in New York. Obama has been trying for months to get the two sides talking again, but without success. Ynetnews is now also citing White House sources as saying that the US president has been forced to cancel a planned visit to Israel to push his peace agenda, due to the mounting domestic opposition to his healthcare reform initiative. Meanwhile, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak held discussions on Monday with Jewish settlement leaders about plans to evacuate 23 unauthorized outposts in Judea and Samaria. Israel has promised Washington that it will remove the outposts and Barak has been trying to come up with a voluntary solution to the standoff between the government and settlers for months. "This is a law-abiding government and people cannot just do what they want," he told the settler leaders. He explained that a settlement freeze was being discussed with the US but cautioned that those negotiations were a separate issue from the removal of unauthorized outposts. Some settler leaders boycotted the meeting, while others attended but stressed that they have no intention to voluntarily evacuate the outposts. Dani Dayan, the head of the YESHA council, declared that he would not give any concessions to the government until the de facto freeze on new housing permits is lifted. He also cautioned Barak that the settlers were not going to make it easy for the government to force them out of their homes. "Any attempt to make one-sided, unilateral, forceful evacuations will have catastrophic consequences," warned Dayan. The discussions come as the Central Bureau of Statistics released statistics on Monday which show that housing starts in Judea and Samaria fell by 33.7 percent in the first six months of 2009, compared to the same period in 2008, as no new building permits have been issued since elections in March. Contact Hands Fiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net |
|
THE RULING ELITE Posted by M. Steven Kramer, September 3, 2009. |
|
The ruling elite is the most influential and wealthy stratum in a society. Its members have nearly exclusive political, economic, and military control of their society. The ruling elite thinks they know what's best for the country, which also happens to be the best for them. They disdain people less intelligent, less attractive, less wealthy, less educated, less cultured, and less powerful than they are. They disdain people who are more religious, more humble, more working-class, and earthier than they are. The ruling elite is in charge and they intend to stay that way. Is the ruling elite the best informed group in the country? It certainly thinks it is. In Israel, the ruling elite reads Haaretz newspaper. They especially like the columnists who look down upon groups other than themselves. Pundit Steven Plaut wrote in 2007, "Most of the columnists in Haaretz dream of the day when Israel is destroyed and replaced by an Arab Palestinian state having a nice Jewish minority as dhimmis." (Dhimmis are subservient peoples living in a Muslim state.) I have a similar observation about Haaretz readers: "Many (not all) Haaretz readers wish that they would wake up and find themselves living in a plush Manhattan apartment." In other words, most of the columnists who write for the ruling elite are unhappy with where they live, unhappy that things don't always go the way they think they should, and unhappy if everyone doesn't believe what they write. Many of their readers are unhappy where they live, unhappy that things don't always go the way they know they should, and unhappy if everyone doesn't believe what they know is right. Consider the scorn that Israeli "settlers" receive from the ruling elites in Israel, Europe and America, based on the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (GC — the four treaties that set the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of war victims). In 2001, GC Annex 1:12 reaffirmed the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem: "The participating High Contracting Parties call upon the Occupying Power [Israel] to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to refrain from perpetrating any violation of the Convention. They reaffirm the illegality of the settlements in the said territories and of the extension thereof. They recall the need to safeguard and guarantee the rights and access of all inhabitants to the Holy Places." Nearly all the columnists of Haaretz absolutely believe that the above quotation indicts Israeli citizens who live beyond the 1949 Armistice Line (the Green Line). But who controls the land beyond the Green Line? Let's leave God and ancient history out of it, because the ruling elite isn't interested in that. Instead we'll start with the Mandate for Palestine, given in 1922 to Britain by the League of Nations. The Mandate recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine," called upon the mandatory power Britain to "secure establishment of the Jewish National Home," with "an appropriate Jewish agency" to be set up for advice and cooperation to that end, while "safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion." So, from 1922, Britain was charged with establishing a Jewish national home in Palestine, the ancient Roman name Britain chose for the area that is today Israel and Jordan. But let's forget the Jordan part, because within weeks the British gave 78% of Palestine, the portion east of the Jordan River, to the Hashemite Arab king and named it Transjordan. The Mandate territory for Jewish settlement was shrunk to the land west of the Jordan River. In 1947 the successor to the League of Nations, the United Nations, proposed a partition plan for a Jewish state and an Arab state in tiny Palestine, which is about the same size as New Jersey. The Jews accepted the plan; the Arabs rejected it. Britain, eager to rid itself of the responsibilities and liabilities of the Mandate, left Palestine in May 1948, and the Jews immediately proclaimed their independence as the Jewish State of Israel. This declaration of statehood was accepted by the United Nations and many other countries, the first of which was the United States. Five Arab countries surrounding Israel immediately attacked it and when the smoke cleared, in 1949, an armistice line (temporary by definition) divided the combatants. Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and considered it an occupied military zone. In contrast, Transjordan occupied portions of the West Bank and eastern Jerusalem and later annexed them. Within months Transjordan (meaning "across the Jordan River") changed its name to Jordan, but only Britain and Pakistan recognized the annexation as legal. The Israeli state was then in an uneasy stalemate with two illegal occupiers, Egypt and Jordan. The Arabs remaining in the two areas were living in disputed territory, not legitimate states. The Six Day War of 1967 erupted when Israel preemptively struck Egypt and Syria, whose armies were massed and about to attack the Jewish state. Again Israel defeated numerous Arab armies, this time gaining control over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. When the neighboring Arab countries refused to negotiate with Israel, the areas that Egypt and Jordan fled were eventually opened for settlement by Jews, who, for the most part, built on land not inhabited by the stateless Palestinians. Hundreds, then thousands, of Israelis happily took advantage of the opportunity presented to build communities in the disputed territories. The Palestinians were left out in the cold by their Arab brothers, who said: NO peace with Israel. NO recognition of Israel. NO negotiations with Israel (Khartoum Resolution of 1967). Despite the narrative sketched above, the Geneva Conventions are consistently used as a club to beat the Israelis for settling in the land that was designated as their national home. The ruling elites in America, Europe and Israel blame the lack of a Palestinian state on Israelis living in disputed territory. Let's examine the logic of this charge. Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV says: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." Columnist and historian Moshe Dann and many others insist a legal fraud is being perpetrated against Israel: "[This interpretation] forbids Jews from living in Judea, Samaria, Golan and eastern Jerusalem — areas conquered by Israel in 1967 — even though they moved there voluntarily, and prohibits any form of government assistance to them, including roads, utilities, schools and clinics. [This interpretation] contradicts all written agreements which confirm the right of Jews to live in their ancestral homeland — such as the League of Nations and British Mandate, and the Oslo Accords. Article 49 obviously refers to the territory of another country, or sovereign power; Judea, Samaria, [the West Bank] and Gaza don't fit this definition. These areas were illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt between 1948 and 1967." (www.pajamasmedia.com) Can Israel be right and nearly all other countries wrong? Yes, in my opinion. Even though the ruling elites "know" that Israeli settlements are preventing the establishment of a Palestinian state, their certainty is incorrect. The real reason no State of Palestine exists is the Arabs' refusal to accept a Jewish state. In the book "Propaganda" by Jacques Ellul, which I read decades ago in college, Ellul said: "It is the emergence of mass media which makes possible the use of propaganda techniques on a societal scale. The orchestration of press, radio and television to create a continuous, lasting and total environment renders the influence of propaganda virtually unnoticed precisely because it creates a constant environment." (my emphasis) The ruling elite, because it knows everything, doesn't realize that it's been misled by mass media propaganda. The majority of Israelis aren't intellectuals. But they know when they're being maligned. It's a pity the ruling elites around the world can't or won't open their eyes to the real predicament: Arab/Muslim rigidity. For myself, I don't have a problem with arguing against the majority, since I'm looking at the situation in its historical context and not relying on the media to do my thinking for me. 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." |
|
FROM ISRAEL: IS MAKE-BELIEVE ENOUGH?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 3, 2009. |
|
September 1, 2009 When it comes to the "peace process," analyst Barry Rubin seems to think so. An interesting take, from yesterday's Post. "For the moment, going through the motions is enough," he says. This "pretend" can have benefits: it reduces pressure on Israel; allows energy for other issues; defuses the situation, etc. Actually, Rubin says Obama administration's willingness to "pretend" represents progress, as the president came into office pursuing a policy "based on the idea that it could achieve peace in a matter of months." Do we know that Obama is no longer serious about this? "When the US president portrays the possibility of two tiny states, Oman and Qatar, letting one-man Israeli trade offices reopen as a major triumph in confidence-building, despite being his sole achievement after months of top level diplomacy, what can one do but snicker?" ~~~~~~~~~~ "Pretending," of course, is what Netanyahu was doing when he declared it a mark of optimism, a sign of progress, that Abbas was willing to meet with him unofficially at the UN. That statement had made me crazy, for, I had asked, what is the source of optimism here. I had read the statement as a sort of pandering to Obama, and I was hungry for a modicum of truth: Who cares about meeting Abbas when Fatah has declared itself prepared to embrace armed resistance? And, in fact, Rubin admits that this pretense has its down side: If Western leaders believe their own propaganda — that peace is within reach — and then blame Israel when it doesn't happen. That is why, from my perspective, keeping the reality on the radar screen at all times is important. Pretense may be the way of the world, as Rubin claims, but we've been playing this game, with only detrimental results, since Oslo. Ultimately, we pay the price, as the Arabs play the role of victim. You can see this article at:
~~~~~~~~~~ By the end of last week, there seems to have been a subtle backing down by the US government with regard to the demand for a total settlement freeze. Very subtle. The statement by State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley went something like this: The position of the US government with regard to settlements hasn't changed, but this is not a precondition to negotiations. After all, the parties have to work things out for themselves. While we must remain ever mindful of the fact that something may be going on behind the scenes, this does seem to indicate that Netanyahu, whatever his willingness to compromise at some level, did not cave all the way regarding a freeze. And in the days since, the issue seems to be more on the back burner. Could it be that it finally dawned on Obama that his obstinate insistence on the freeze was counterproductive to his goals? ~~~~~~~~~~ Netanyahu is trying to re-frame the issue of "peace," and for this he is to be congratulated. Here's a case of telling the truth, when a modicum of truth is badly needed. No time for pretense. Settlements are not the problem, he is telling everyone he speaks with: The barrier to peace is the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. If the world would "get" this at long last, it would shift the parameters of what is going on and put the onus solidly on the Palestinians, which is where it belongs. ~~~~~~~~~~~ As is my habit, I will appeal to you, especially in the US, to raise this very point wherever and whenever you have an opportunity — including in letters to the editor. This truly is a way to help Israel. A couple of questions to pose with regard to this that might get people thinking: Why is it that the Palestinian Liberation Organization was founded in 1964, before there were settlements? Before Israel controlled Judea and Samaria, and Gaza? Why did the PLO charter specifically state that it had no claim to these areas, which were then controlled by Jordan and Egypt (this was changed when Israel was in control)? Why wasn't there peace then? Why, instead, was there the aggression that led to the war in 1967? The answer, of course, it that the presence of Jews with their own state in the area was, and still is, inherently unacceptable to the Arabs/Palestinians. ~~~~~~~~~~ Here's another piece of reality that must be dealt with: Sheikh Tayseer Rajab Tamimi, the PA's chief Islamic judge, last week declared that there is no evidence that Jews ever lived in Jerusalem or that the Temple ever existed. Another statement from our moderate peace partner. ~~~~~~~~~~ Salam Fayyad, PA PM, has announced plans to unilaterally establish a PA state within two years. This state would have Jerusalem as its capital and encompass all lands taken by Israel in 1967. From now until 2011, Fayyad would work hard to establish civic infrastructure (something the Palestinians haven't accomplished in 16 years) and achieve a unity government with Hamas. It may be that this is one more instance of "pretend," of pie-in-the-sky aspirations voiced for political purposes only. But if Fayyad is even half-way serious, this could amount to a declaration of war against Israel. Certainly there are many problems inherent in terms of what he is proposing, and this merits a close watch. ~~~~~~~~~~ Well, it finally happened (I had begun to think it never would): former PM Ehud Olmert has had an indictment filed against him by Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz. Put simply, there are three issues involved: the Talansky affair, the double billing for trips (Rishon Tours), and the conflict of interest inherent in actions he took as trade minister that favored clients of his close associate Uri Messer. This is the first time criminal charges have ever been brought against a former prime minister. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
OBAMA'S POLITICAL BLACKMAIL
Posted by LEL, September 3, 2009. |
|
Michael Fenenbock slams Obama's decision to link two-state
solution, help with Iran. This was published September 1, 2009 in
Ynet Israel Opinion.
Michael Fenenbock is President of MAX Films and a long-time American political consultant. With his wife Daphne Weisbart, he founded www.DeNukeIran.com. Michael and Daphne live in New York, but spend much of their time in Jerusalem |
|
As reported last week, President Obama has now linked forcing Israeli concessions on a two-state solution to American help with Iran and its nuclear ambitions. The Obama administration is prepared to offer Israel tougher action against Iran's nuclear program if the Netanyahu government agrees to stop building in east Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria. In essence, political blackmail. This "linkage" underscores Israel's relative powerlessness in its dialogue with the US. Simply put, Netanyahu has no cards to play. Bibi has nothing of value to trade. He has zero leverage. He has nothing to threaten as retaliation. Presient Obama's Chicago-style political hardball has serious implications for Israel. Forcing Israel to "go it alone" with Iran by withholding targeting information, satellite images, over-flight permissions, technical help jamming air defenses — and a whole host of other behind-the-scenes assistance — reduces the chance of Israeli military success. But President Obama's mafia-style offer "that Israel cannot refuse" also has serious implications for America. And if American voters knew, it is a policy they would reject. Let me repeat that. American voters would reject a policy of forcing Israel to "go it alone." In a May 2009 Rasmussen poll, 49% of Americans agreed that, if Israel launches an attack against Iran, the United States should help Israel. Thirty-seven percent (37%) believed the United States should do nothing while just 2% believe the US should help Iran. Sixty-six percent (66%) of all voters said that preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons is more important than preventing war between Iran and Israel. That was up 14 percentage points from 52% in July 2008. Americans understand better than the Obama administration, it seems, that it is in the US' vital interest that should Israel decide it has no option except a military strike on Iran, that the Israeli mission must succeed. Launch national campaign Netanyahu surely understands that as well. But...Bibi has no cards to play. In the face of political blackmail on a vital issue such as Iran, he can only retreat inch by inch and hope for better ground to defend. Without leverage, Netanyahu is forced to bargain away the Jewish claim to Judea and Samaria while hoping to keep a tenuous hold on an undivided Jerusalem. Caroline Glick is right when she says of the Israeli negotiating position, "The game is rigged against us." But here in America we can apply the ultimate political leverage — the American voter — to put some cards in Bibi's hand. We can use those poll numbers of American support and common sense as a platform to launch a national campaign designed to break the linkage between the two-state solution and American help on Iran. We can remind American voters why, absent of the world preventing a nuclear Iran, Israel might be forced to make the difficult choice of a military strike as a means of self-defense. And we can send a message through the American voter to President Obama — it is in the US' vital national interest that any Israeli military strike succeed. Don't deny Israel the help it needs as part of your diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East. Should it come down to a military strike, help Israel succeed. The world — and the US — will be better for it. Without a concerted, national campaign in America, without a campaign that makes President Obama pay a political price for his linkage policy, a campaign that causes the Obama administration pain, I fear Judea and Samaria, and probably a united Jerusalem, may be lost. I close with another quote from Caroline Glick, "As we have been all too often in our history, today Israel stands alone against our enemies. We can either defeat them, or we can be defeated. The choice is ours." Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
A MOVING TREE; SHINING THROUGH
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, September 3, 2009. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to http://ainhod.blogspot.com/ to see more of his graphic art. |
|
ARAB OFFICIAL TELLS CBN NEWS: HEZBOLLAH EXPANDING GLOBAL OPERATIONS
Posted by Barbara Taverna, September 3, 2009. |
|
This was written by Erick Stakelbeck and is archived at
|
|
I had a fascinating, one-on-one meeting last week with an Arab government official who has a keen sense of the threat environment in the Middle East and North Africa. Here is some of what he shared with me: 1) Hezbollah is expanding its reach worldwide and is gearing up "for something big." This Arab official believes the group is actively seeking a biological/chemical weapons capability, and there is little doubt who would be helping them in that regard: Iran and Syria. He believes Hezbollah is a well-organized, well-funded machine capable of doing great damage both conventionally (missile barrages into Israeli cities) and unconventionally (terror attacks against Israeli, U.S. and moderate Arab interests worldwide). Or as he described the group, "Bad guys with good strategic vision." "You're going to be reporting a lot on Hezbollah in the future," he told me. "They already have people on the ground in Europe and elsewhere. They will be making front page news soon. They are just waiting for the orders to act — they are not in a hurry." Does anyone out there still seriously believe that Hezbollah is exclusively an "Israeli problem?" Here is your wakeup call. 2) One region where Hezbollah has increased its presence markedly is West Africa. According to the official I spoke with, Hezbollah is working with Colombian and Mexican drug cartels there. These Latin American cartels use Africa as a transit point to move their drugs into Europe. This shows a few troubling things: A) The Latin American cartels, so destructive in the Western hemisphere, continue to expand their reach globally as well. B) Latin American cartels have no allegiance to anything except the almighty dollar. They'll work with anyone, including Islamic terrorists, so long as it lines their pockets. Not a comforting thought for American officials. Help transport Hezbollah operatives across the Mexican border into the United States? Hey, if the price is right, why not? C) Hezbollah has a long history of working with secular cartels from Latin America. The terror group is willing to work with infidels in the narcotics trade so long as their drug money helps advance Hez's ultimate goal of Shiite domination in the Middle East and elsewhere. 3) The official said that Muslim nations are still struggling to contain the Wahhabi venom that crept into their mosques via the Saudis during the 1980's. During that period, some Muslim governments, struggling economically, looked to the Saudis for assistance. An unfortunate caveat was that the Saudis, in addition to cash, also supplied extremist imams and Wahhabi materials for mosques. As a result, Muslim nations that have historically practiced a more moderate form of Islam are struggling to contain homegrown jihadi movements featuring young people radicalized in Saudi-financed mosques. 4) Al Qaeda is devoting more resources and attention to its operations in Africa: specifically North Africa. According to the Arab official I spoke with, the Al Qaeda branch in North Africa — known as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb — is, like Hezbollah, discovering the benefits of working with drug cartels. "The group used to get the bulk of its money from kidnapping and trafficking," he said. "But I believe the drug trade will eventually become their main source of income." This drug money will finance deadly new terror operations. Lastly, the official had high praise for U.S. intelligence services but questioned Washingon's politcal will in fighting and winning the long war against global jihadism. My take: as evidenced by the ongoing drama surrounding CIA interrogation techniques, the gulf betwen our political class and the intelligence community will continue to grow under the Obama administration. This is extremely detrimental to the national security interests of America and its allies in Europe and the Muslim world, who are battling a common jihadist enemy and rely heavily on American cooperation and intel sharing. A weakened, demoralized U.S. intelligence community will have global repercussions. Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY TV EXPLAINS THE JEWISH PEOPLE; ISRAEL TRIES NEW PUBLIC RELATIONS PLOY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 3, 2009. |
|
Palestinian Authority (P.A.) TV attempted to explain the Jewish people to its audience. For example, it attributed Israel's security fence to a feeling of ethnic superiority and disdain for mingling with other people. In the Middle Ages, Jews immured themselves in ghettoes voluntarily, for that reason. Jews also exaggerate. There wasn't much of a Holocaust. Why, there
weren't six million Jews in all of Europe
I say exaggeration occurred during the Six-Day War. Arab governments claimed to have destroyed Israel's air force. Turned out, Israel destroyed the Arab air forces. Jews must have time-traveled back after the Holocaust to change the records to indicate there were more than six millions Jews in Europe. Arab propaganda ignores facts. When will enough people see it? Ghettoes were in unhealthful places and with unhealthful crowding. Jews were locked in at night. Why no ghettoes, now, if the Jews don't want to be near gentiles? Why no security fence in Israel, where there are a million Arabs? Maybe it has something to do with terrorism, same reason for which S. Arabia is building a security fence. As for sense of superiority, I'm not judging here, but Islam denies heaven to non-believers, Judaism does not. The Arabs treat other Muslim nationalities, such as Berbers, Kurds, and black Sudanese as secondary. I think that all peoples have potential decency and greatness. Live and let live! FATAH OFFICIAL ADMITS REFUGEE-RETURN BLOCKS PEACE Sultan Abu Al-Einein, the leader of Fatah in Lebanon, was asked about what Fatah calls the right of return. He replied, "Do you think that the seven million Palestinians can return to Upper Galilee and Western Galilee?" "We must be realistic — if we continue to say 'No,' we will wait 500 years." "Do you believe that there can be a final political solution?..." "We must be courageous and honest. Can Israel possibly agree to have seven million Palestinians return to the lands from which they were driven out in 1948, and to have the Knesset [fall] into the hands of the Palestinian people?" "For once, we should be courageous and face our people bravely and honestly." (http://www.imra.org.il/ Independent Media Review Analysis, 7/22 from MEMRI.) They mostly weren't driven out, but the Fatah leader is realistic that there is no room for them now and the Jewish state could not survive their coming in. Too bad that the Arab states didn't integrate them, and UNRWA encouraged their remaining in a state of dependency and hope for returning. The problem could have been resolved the way all other refugee problems were. Public discussion fails to consider what should be done, now, without causing new problems. PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY ON THE INTIFADA Ashraf Al-Ajrami, former Palestinian Authority (P.A.) minister of prisoner affairs denounced Hamas for trying to take credit for the Intifada. The Intifada was started by Arafat, head of the P.A, PLO, and Fatah. Al-Ajrami said that the Intifada was fought almost entirely by official P.A. security forces. He praised Gen. Dayton for training new P.A. security forces
without interfering in P.A. affairs
This proves that those who used to blame Arial Sharon and Israel for the Intifada were mistaken. What would keep the new forces from starting another Intifada, as Abbas threatens they would if negotiations don't go as he wants? ISRAEL TRIES NEW PUBLIC RELATIONS PLOY The 20 housing units that Jews are building on a plot they own in eastern Jerusalem aroused Western criticism. In violation of Oslo, the P.A. appointed Adnan al-Husseini, whose family formerly held the property, governor of Jerusalem. In response, Israeli Foreign Min. Lieberman circulated a photograph showing Haj Amin al-Husseini, a relative and former Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, sitting with his ally, Adolph Hitler of Nazi Germany (http://www.imra.org.il/ Independent Media Review Analysis, 7/22). The idea is to embarrass the West for pressing Jews out of an area, just as the Arabs and Nazis did before. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
DISTORTING THE HOLOCAUST: WHY NUMBERS MATTER
Posted by Alex Grobman, September 2, 2009. |
|
Holocaust denial is ongoing challenge for the Jewish community. Equally problematic are those who acknowledge the Holocaust, but insist on being included in a way that distorts the history of the experience. One of the most common errors in describing the magnitude of the Shoah is the number of people who died. Figures range from 50 million to 11 million, a reflection of a fundamental misunderstanding of the uniqueness of this catastrophe. The use of 11 million is a particularly egregious historical distortion as it equates the destruction of the Jews of Europe with that of the others who were murdered. We study the Shoah to understand what transpired, why it happened and what it tells us about the attitude of Western civilization toward Jews and other minorities living in the West. It is not a contest to see which group suffered the most or sustained the greatest numerical losses. If we are to learn from history, we must be concerned about objective truth, with transmitting what actually ensued and not allowing those with their own particular agenda or ignorance to obscure our understanding of what occurred. Distinguishing between different historical events does not, and should not, lessen or demean the suffering of others. When we refer to the Holocaust, we mean the systematic bureaucratically administered destruction by the Nazis and their collaborators of six million Jews during the Second World War. The Jews were found "guilty" only because they were viewed inaccurately as a race. The Nazi state orchestrated the attempted mass murder of every person with at least three Jewish grandparents. Millions of civilians and soldiers were killed as a consequence of war. Communists, political and religious leaders were eliminated because they were viewed as a potential threat to the Nazis. When the Nazis murdered approximately 10,000 Polish intelligentsia, in 1939-1940, and Polish Catholic priesthood in western Poland, for example, they were trying to prevent these groups from becoming a political and spiritual force that could unite the country against them. Similarly, when the Nazis murdered more than two and one-half million Soviet prisoners of war, they were killing a military force that had fought them on the field of battle. European Jews, on the other hand, were the only people marked for complete destruction. To the Nazi leadership, the Jews were a satanic force that controlled both the East and the West and, posed a physical threat to the German nation. There was no way to stop this alleged international Jewish conspiracy from gaining total control of the world, the Nazis reasoned, except to physically destroy every Jewish man, woman, and child. Failure to do so, Hitler believed, "would not lead to a Versailles treaty but the final destruction, indeed, to the annihilation of the German people." When the executioners questioned their superiors about the need to kill every Jewish woman and child, Heinrich Himmler, head of the SS, claimed that he would not have been "justified in getting rid of the men-in having them put to death, in other words — only to allow their children to grow up to avenge themselves on our sons and grandsons. We have to make up our minds, hard though it may be, that this race must be wiped off the face of the earth." For a number of reasons, we do not know the exact number of Jews who were killed. German historian Wolfgang Benz posits that there were 6,269,027, which is more than earlier studies by Jewish scholars. Six Million is the most accurate term and acceptable. The Nazis also annihilated a minimum of 300,000 Sinti and Roma from Germany, the Baltic region, Ukraine, Croatia and Serbia, although the precise number cannot be determined. Many thousands of others were also killed: the physically and mentally disabled, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, socialists, communists, trade unionists, and political and religious dissidents. None of these groups, however, were the primary target of the Nazis — not the mentally disabled, who were killed in the euthanasia centers in Germany (here it is to be noted that the Nazis did not export this program to the civilian populations outside the Reich); not the homosexuals, who were regarded as social deviants but for whom the Nazis did not have a consistent policy (homosexuals were persecuted only in the Reich and in areas annexed to it but not in countries the Germans occupied); not the Gypsies, who were partly seen as "asocial" aliens and Aryans within society and therefore did not have to be annihilated completely; and not the Jehovah's Witnesses, who had refused to swear allegiance to Hitler and who declined to serve in the German army, but who were not marked for extinction; in fact, only a small number were incarcerated in the camps, and most of them were German nationals. The Nazis also did not single out every socialist, communist, trade unionist, or dissident — just those they perceived as a threat to the Reich. The Jews alone were the primary target of the Nazis. When we use 11 million or any other number than the Six Million to describe the Shoah, we are distorting the historical record. We trivialize the importance of this unprecedented event in modern history, minimize the experiences of all those who suffered and prevent a legitimate understanding of its causes and its universal implications for Western society. The stakes are too high to misrepresent history for as Richard Rubenstein accurately noted, "Auschwitz has enlarged our conception of the state's capacity to do violence. A barrier has been overcome in what for millennia had been regarded as the permissible limits of political action." Our continued interest and fascination with the Nazi period should keep us vigilant Jacob Talmon observed for "it is entirely possible that this is the end that awaits many races and nations — maybe all of them. And the Jews will then prove to have been the first victim of this new experiment." Dr. Alex Grobman is a Hebrew University trained historian. His
most recent book is "Battling for Souls: The Vaad Hatzala Rescue
Committee in Post War Europe" [KTAV]. He is also co-author of "Denying
History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened?" (University of
California Press, 2000) His next book "Zionism=Racism: The New War
Against The Jews" will be published in 2005.
This article appeared in
|
|
THE REAL ROOT CAUSE OF TERRORISM
Posted by Sultan Knish, September 2, 2009. |
|
In the conventional political narrative the root causes of Islamic terrorism usually run the class warfare gamut from the generic oppression to outrage at Western foreign policy or more esoteric issues of globalism. And naturally like most people who look into a mirror to find the cause of someone else's anger, their reflection only repeats back to their own agenda. Surprisingly enough the root cause of Islamic terrorism has very little to do with any of these things, though they are moderately handy talking points when it comes to recruiting future terrorists or touching base with idiot leftist reporters. To understand the root cause, requires understanding the function which terrorism serves in the Arab-Muslim world. While Western liberals insist on viewing terrorism as a form of political or social activism, within the Muslim world terrorism is a two-sided tool, a way to create friction with an enemy without going to war while promoting the political standing of its leaders and backers. This two-sided concept of terrorism goes back to the nomadic days of bandit raiders that would carry out hit and run attacks that would bring in loot while raising the status of the tribal sheikh and the head of the raiding parties. Given enough time probing the enemy's weakness and raising the stature of the sheikh, such attacks might escalate into all out wars. And while such tactics may seem primitive, Mohammed was able to leverage them to turn his newly created Islamic cult into a major player in the region. In modern times, the driving ideological force behind Arab-Muslim terrorism has been to recreate a single great state to replace the splintered colonial entities left behind by the destruction of the Ottoman Empire. It was an ancient tribal goal, and one that Mohammed's followers had come closest to achieving in the Arab version of the Thousand Year Reich. Modern versions of this might vary from the Islamic Caliphate to the secular Arab Nationalist version that would be a Socialist dictatorship run by someone like Nasser or Saddam. So while the ideology might vary, the underlying idea was always the same. One great state under one great ruler, who would demonstrate his fitness to rule by subjugating the enemy and thereby bring all of the region under his rule. Under the ancient raiding codes, showing the most boldness and inflicting the most damage by striking at the enemy demonstrates that fitness to rule. This form of Arab-Muslim internal rivalry routinely spills over into external wars and terrorism, as both sides seek to prove their superiority by killing as many infidels as possible. So Osama bin Laden's tribal religious conflict with the Saudi rulers was fought with the Soviets and then with America and Europe, more than with the House of Saud itself. Using the pretext of the US troops that the House of Saud had brought in to protect themselves from Saddam, Bin Laden was able to gain religious imprimatur for a war on America to build status for his claim to rule over the holiest place in Islam. The Saudis in turn had been funding a covert war on America for the same reason, as well as to divert wannabe Bin Ladens from trying to seize power. In the same way Hamas and Fatah addressed their rivalry for nearly two decades by competing to see who could kill more Israelis. Hamas' greater viciousness and murderousness won it the support of Palestinian Arabs, allowing them to triumph in elections and seize Gaza. While Western liberal observers have struggled to frame the conflict in terms of Hamas' social services or Fatah's corruption, these were only side issues. The main event was to demonstrate who could inflict more harm on the enemy. An indirect conflict the Arab Nationalist Fatah and the Islamist Hamas for power over the Palestinian Authority cost the lives of numerous Israelis and foreign tourists, and it had next to nothing to do with any of the usual propaganda complaints about checkpoints or the wall of separation or even the desire for a Palestinian State, which the terrorism repeatedly sidelined. It had to do with an internal conflict expressed indirectly, a problem that is the root cause of much of Islamic terrorism. That problem is also why there are fairly few actual moderate Muslims. When showing strength or inflicting harm against the enemy is key to leadership, moderation is an express train to nowhere. As terrorists have repeatedly demonstrated, every single Islamic religious law and practice can be set aside in the interest of killing infidels. That is because in practice no Islamic virtue is greater than that of defeating infidels and heretics. That singleminded approach allowed Islam to expand from an obscure cult to an empire. If Judaism embraces study and Christianity embraces evangelism as their key attributes, Islam embraces conquest. There would be no Islam without conquest. There can be no Islamic expansion today without it. Within this framework, terrorism allows different groups to jockey for power by demonstrating that their way is best, when it comes to that fundamental virtue of killing infidels and forcing them to submit to their authority. All the while avoiding an open and outright war, which they are certain to lose. Terrorism allows Arab and Muslim nations to carry on covert wars, and allows for the rise of local chiefs who conduct those wars, from the late and unlamented Yasir Arafat to Osama bin Laden, Nasrallah or Muqata al Sadr. Virtually every part of the world today has such chiefs or wannabe chiefs whose followers carry out bombings and murders in their name. While the local pretexts may vary, Western observers err by confusing the propaganda with reality. Hitler did not invade Poland for any of the reasons he claimed he did, no more than Japan invaded China to protect the region from Europe. Like the mythical raped Belgian nuns of WW1, propaganda is not motive, and it is startling to note the great eagerness with which supposed regional analysts treat propaganda as motive, rather than pretext at best. It really does not matter what Israel does, or what America does, or what England and France or Denmark do. Being provocative or not, only affects short term reactions, not the long term reality of the ideological causes of the conflict itself. And that ideological cause remains the dream of a great Islamic state with limitless boundaries, bringing all of the world into the Dar Al Islam. That is the great dream for which Mohammed's warriors rode out with blood red swords, and in succeeding centuries rampaged across the Middle East, Asia and even Europe. It is the post-Ottoman dream as well, and it is behind the diverse Islamic terrorist and guerrilla uprisings across the world today. But that dream requires leadership, and that struggle for leadership has also indirectly led to much of the terrorism in the 20th century and the 21st, as Arab leaders and Islamic militias have all struggled to define the cause around individuals. Osama bin Laden's videos, like Arafat's infamous speech at the UN, are part of that larger narrative, a story of "personal greatness" weighed by the value of the only coin acceptable in the Middle East and demonstrated through the corpses of innocent men and women who belong to the "tribes of the enemy". Visit the Sultan Knish website at
|
|
SHE DIDN'T WEAR A VEIL — VICTIM OF MUSLIM "HONOR" GANG RAPE
Posted by Cpocerl, September 2, 2009. |
|
Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com
|
|
A HUGE CRACK IN OBAMA'S JEWISH BASE
Posted by Hands Fiasco, September 2, 2009. |
|
Baruch HaShem! Some of the most dogged supporters of this evil are waking up! |
|
A huge crack has surfaced in Obama's Jewish base in the person of Alan Solow, one of the president's closest Chicago friends and long-time supporters. Solow, who was named chairman of the Conference of President of Major Jewish Organizations last December, just released a highly critical statement on behalf of the 52-member group, in which he thoroughly disagrees with Obama's demand that Israel halt all construction of Jewish housing in East Jerusalem, including the Old City — the holiest place in Judaism. In a statement co-signed by Conference Executive Vice Chairman Malcolm Hoenlein, Solow took special aim at Obama's insistence that Israel not proceed with 20-apartment development on a Jewish-owned parcel in the eastern section of Israel's capital. Solow said he found "disturbing the objections raised to the proposed construction of residential units on property that was legally purchased and approved by the appropriate authorities. The area in question houses major Israeli governmental agencies, including the national police headquarters. In addition to the Jewish housing, the project called for apartment units for Arabs as well." Solow complained that, while the Obama administration wants to freeze legal Jewish housing in the eastern part of Jerusalem, it has been quick to "raise objections to the removal of illegal structures built by Arabs in eastern Jerusalem, even though they were built in violation of zoning and other requirements often on usurped land." "Hundreds of Arab families have moved into Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the same right should be accorded to Jewish residents to live wherever they choose in Jerusalem. No government of Israel has or can pursue a discriminatory policy that would prevent the legitimate presence of Jews in any area of the capital," Solow added. To appreciate the significance of Solow's fallout with Obama on Jerusalem, one needs to keep in mind their long-time close relationship in Chicago. Solow, who once lived in Obama's neighborhood, backed his political ascent going back to Obama's campaign for the Illinois Senate a dozen years ago. One also needs to keep in mind that Solow was chosen to head the Conference of Presidents as a clear post-election signal that the American Jewish community, which voted for Obama by a lopsided 78 percent margin, wanted the new president to know that one of his closest friends and supporters would be speaking for U.S. Jewry as Obama prepared to take office. For his part, Solow was clearly smitten with Obama and firmly believed that he could be counted on to nurture positive ties with Israel during his term in office. "I said with a smile that he will be the first Jewish president," Solow boasted after Obama won the Democratic nomination. "He has a deep understanding of issues that confront Israel and the Jewish community." Solow had similar feelings and expectations for another one of his close Chicago acquaintances — White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Speaking of Emanuel, Solow remarked last year that "his support of Israel fits with the president-elect's thinking." Now, Solow's statement makes it clear that his rosy expectations of Obama and Emanuel as reliable friends of Israel have been dashed. Furthermore to appreciate Solow's public disagreement with the president, it's significant that he issued his statement not as a private citizen, but on the letterhead of, the Conference of Presidents. The conference embraces 52 Jewish organizations spanning the gamut from Reform to Orthodox, from American for Peace Now to the Zionist Organization of America. So this time, it's not only a few reliable Israel supporters like Morton Klein of ZOA or Conference Vice Chairman Hoenlein who have been voicing deep concerns about Obama's policies toward Israel. Now, it's long-time friend Solow, speaking for the entire Conference. The same Solow, who also initiated Obama's recent White House meeting with a group of Jewish leaders. For Solow to break so visibly with Obama belies assertions by far-left Jewish groups like J Street that their full confidence and support for Obama represent the consensus of views of American Jewry and that only a few Jews on the margins are being critical of the president. Solow's statement has ushered in a new chapter in relations between this White House and the American Jewish community. This Contact Hands Fiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net |
|
ALL SETTLERS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL
Posted by Michael Freund, September 2, 2009. |
|
It says a lot about the media and the international community these days that any mention of the words "settler" or "occupation" immediately evoke images of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. But the fact is that there are plenty of other conflicts out there — such as Morocco and Western Sahara — in which one side is truly occupying the other and busy flooding the territory with illegal settlements, yet nary a peep is heard about them. As I argue in the column below from the Jerusalem Post, Kews may very well be news, as the old saying goes, but that does not mean that all the news must be only about Jews. By focusing so compulsively on Israel, the international community is betraying its mandate and objectivity. And by holding Israel to an unjust and incongruous double standard, it is allowing other countries, such as Morocco, to literally get away with theft and murder. |
|
It is a disputed tract of land the size of Britain, it has been under occupation for nearly four decades, and hundreds of thousands of its Arab residents have been turned into refugees as a result of an aggressive and expansionist settlement policy. Periodic peace talks between the protagonists have failed, UN resolutions on the subject remain unimplemented and the basic human rights of those living under occupation are continually and summarily ignored. Yet despite the ongoing conflict surrounding this considerable piece of territory, even the most knowledgeable public policy observers would have difficulty identifying it as Western Sahara or recognizing that the occupier in question is Morocco. Indeed, it says a lot about the media and the international community these days that most people reading the opening few sentences of this column would mistakenly think that it was a reference to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, even though the above-mentioned allegations are in fact not applicable to us. But if you are wondering why you have never heard of Western Sahara, or perhaps thought it was a reference to an old John Wayne flick, that is probably because it is one of many such conflicts worldwide that receive little or no attention despite the wrongs being perpetrated. The Obama administration, the European Union and much of the mainstream Western press are apparently too busy scolding Israel for building a few apartments in its capital city to pay much attention to Morocco's misdeeds, particularly since the latter is an Arab state that is doing the "occupying."
THE SAD story of Western Sahara stretches back to 1975, when Spain withdrew its colonial administration. In the wake of the Spanish retreat, Morocco invaded and claimed the territory as its own, denying the area's residents, referred to as Sahrawis, the fundamental right to freedom and self-determination. In response, the Sahrawi independence movement, known as the Polisario, launched a guerrilla war against the Moroccan occupation. Later that year, the International Court of Justice ruled that Morocco's claim to Western Sahara was illegitimate, and the Organization of African Unity, along with dozens of other countries worldwide, recognized the Polisario's self-declared Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. The fighting continued until 1991, when the UN brokered a cease-fire that included the promise of a referendum to determine the territory's future. But for nearly two decades, Morocco's unelected monarchy has refused to allow the vote to take place. Instead, it has been steadily trying to "Moroccanize" the area by pouring in thousands of Moroccan settlers in a transparent attempt to alter the demography and tilt the balance in its favor. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of Sahrawi refugees are huddled in camps in neighboring Algeria, enduring squalid conditions and facing an uncertain future. But rather than standing up to Morocco for its abuses, the world has largely chosen to ignore them. For example, on April 8, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton welcomed Moroccan Foreign Minister Dr. Taieb Fassi Fihri to Washington. In her remarks to the press before the meeting, Clinton heaped praise on Rabat, but made no mention of the Western Sahara issue. And when I checked the US State Department Web site and searched for Western Sahara in the daily press briefings held since the start of the year, the results returned a big and unmistakable zero. Likewise, when was the last time you heard calls for Morocco to freeze construction of settler homes in Western Sahara, or threats to boycott Moroccan products because of its settlement policy in the area? And when was the last time that the editorial pages of major Western newspapers denounced Rabat's brazen attempts to forge a "Greater Morocco"?
NOT SURPRISINGLY, the lack of international pressure has enabled Morocco to dither with impunity. Despite two rounds of UN-sponsored peace talks in 2007, and some meetings between negotiators earlier this year, no progress has been made in finding a solution for the beleaguered Sahrawi people. The Western Sahara issue, and others like it, demonstrates just how unjust the international community can be. They howl and holler about Israel and Jewish "settlers," all the while ignoring Morocco and its own brand of Arab settlers. Apparently, not all settlers are created equal, at least not in the minds of many of the world's leaders and peace activists. Of course I don't mean to suggest that Israel's policies are comparable to those of Morocco, for the simple reason that I view our presence in the territories as historically just and eminently moral, while Rabat is simply engaging in a lusty land grab. But those who do view Israel's liberation of Judea and Samaria as an immoral "occupation" need to realize that their obsession with the Jewish state comes at a price. Jews may very well be news, as the old saying goes, but that does not mean that all the news must be only about Jews. By focusing so compulsively on Israel, the international community is betraying its mandate and objectivity. And by holding Israel to an unjust and incongruous double standard, it is allowing other countries, such as Morocco, to literally get away with theft and murder. So next time someone asks what you think of "the settlement issue," have some fun with the question and tell them that you oppose what Morocco is doing. It's not hard to predict what their response will be, but it is high time we started shifting the debate to where it truly belongs. Michael Freund served as an adviser to former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Send comments and feedback letters@jpost.com or to msfreund@netvision.net.il |
|
SHOMRON (SAMARIA) UPDATE
Posted by Yakov Dov, September 2, 2009. |
|
1. Shomron leads in national responsibility in Education and Klita
(absorption of immigrants) as well as in settling the land of Israel. In
response to disturbing news in nearby Petach Tikva regrading not
accepting children of Ethiopian Olim (immigrants) in to local public
schools, Shomron leadership has announced that our schools would be glad
to take on the important national effort of educating and absorbing
these children. Read more in on this at Israel national News
2. Peace Now are at it again. Last year an Israeli court ruled that the
organization publicly apologize and pay monetary damages to the
residents of the Jewish community of Revava in Shomron for lying and
publishing false statements that the town had been on Palestinian-owned
land. See ZOA statement from Dec. 2008.
This week again Peace Now petitioned the court with false information
claiming that homes in the Shomron town of Kriat Natafim are being built
on privately Arab owned land. Read Jerusalem Post report and Israel
National News Gershon Mesika calls on the government to outlaw Peace
Now.
5. Marc Prowisor Director, Security Projects at the One Israel Fund will
be speaking in the USA in October. Click here for more information on
this tour.
To support the efforts of the Shomron Liaison Office.
Contact Yakov Dov at yakovdov1@yahoo.com |
|
A FURTHER MEMO TO THE UN FACT-FINDING MISSION ON GAZA
Posted by Maurice Ostroff, September 2, 2009. |
|
Below are excerpts from a further memorandum I sent to the Goldstone mission
|
|
August 28, 2009 I feel compelled to write to you again, firstly because of the August 14 Hamas attack on the Ansar Allah group in a Gaza mosque, secondly because of a disturbing Palestinian TV show on June 19, glorifying the brutal lynching of two Israelis in October 2000 and thirdly because of Gilad Shalit's continuing incarceration. My main concern is that your Mission may arrive at its conclusions based only on the available evidence despite some evidence having been withheld by witnesses who have withdrawn due to fear of retribution. Conclusions based on incomplete information have led in some cases to disastrous consequences. For example, one reads of tragic circumstances in which accused persons sentenced to prison on the basis of evidence available at the time of the trial, have been pardoned and released later, on production of evidence unavailable earlier. These unfortunate episodes are perhaps excusable where there were no indications of withheld evidence at the time sentence was passed. But your mission knows that some witnesses have withdrawn because of fears of retribution and the very reason for their withdrawal raises a red flag, indicating that their evidence could be critical. In these circumstances I believe that your fact-finding mission is obliged to exert every effort to obtain their evidence by all possible means including offering anonymity and protection. By definition, fact-finding implies a pro-active search for all factual information including evidence that may not be readily accessible, so that the totality of the circumstances can be examined in context. Contact Maurice Ostroff by email at maurice@trendline.co.il |
|
TARIQ RAMADAN REPUDIATED
Posted by Stephen Schwartz, September 2, 2009. |
|
In an important development for the fight against extremist Islam in the West, the Dutch city of Rotterdam and Erasmus University Rotterdam have dismissed Tariq Ramadan, the Swiss-born Islamist academic, from his two local jobs. Born in Switzerland, Ramadan is the grandson of Hassan al-Banna, founder of the radical Muslim Brotherhood. He is a close associate of the fundamentalist Muslim theologian Yusuf al-Qaradawi, with whom he collaborates in the so-called European Council for Fatwas and Research [ECFR], a Brotherhood-oriented body. Al-Qaradawi is the leading theorist of a "European Islam" that would abuse Western standards of religious freedom by erecting a parallel system of Shariah law alongside established civil law, coupled with aggressive da'wa or Islamic proselytizing. Ramadan has endorsed this strategy. The ECFR scheme, and Tariq Ramadan's involvement in it, are documented in the recent Center for Islamic Pluralism report, A Guide to Shariah Law and Islamist Ideology in Western Europe, 2007-2009. Ramadan has been barred from entry into the U.S. since 2004, when he was invited by the University of Notre Dame to become the Henry R. Luce Professor at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. That ruling was based on Ramadan's financial contributions to two Palestinian groups designated by the U.S. Treasury as fundraising agencies for the terrorists of Hamas. Early in July of this year, however, given the new atmosphere of outreach to Muslim radicals under President Barack Obama, the Second Circuit U.S. Appeals Court reversed the lower-court ruling, effectively nullifying the prohibition on an American visa for Ramadan. Meanwhile, Britain in 2005 allowed Ramadan to take up a position at Oxford University, where he is the His Highness Hamad Bin Khalifa Al-Thani Chair in Contemporary Islamic Studies. Ramadan is an indefatigable self-promoter. Few who have observed him paid attention to his work in The Netherlands as an integration adviser for the city of Rotterdam and a professor of "Citizenship and Identity" at Erasmus University. Yet while the U.S. authorities now seem inclined to allow him on our shores, and Britain appears untroubled by his presence — although the UK bars his associate al-Qaradawi — the Dutch have taken action to curb Ramadan's ambitions. His simultaneous dismissal from the Rotterdam city post and the Erasmus appointment was announced on August 19. The specific reason: his weekly television program on PressTV, an Iranian government media network which operates studios in Britain and the U.S. in addition, of course, to the Middle East. PressTV also employs British politician George Galloway of the leftist-Islamist electoral alliance known as the Respect Party, and Yvonne Ridley, a former captive of the Taliban who became Muslim after her kidnapping. Ramadan's PressTV show was titled "Islam and Life" — not very different, one might note, from the notorious "Shariah and Life" feature run by al-Qaradawi on Al-Jazeera. Al-Qaradawi has used that platform for outrageous sermons against Jews and Judaism, among other objectionable opinions that support the British decision to keep him out. In an official statement, Erasmus University stated: The Municipality of Rotterdam and the Erasmus University Rotterdam (EUR) have decided to terminate the appointment of Dr. Tariq Ramadan... The reason for this is his involvement in the Iranian television channel PressTV, which is considered to be irreconcilable with his positions in Rotterdam... .... Press TV is a channel financed by the Iranian government. The excessive force used by this government in June against demonstrators, many of whom were students, prompted a number of journalists to cut their ties with the channel. However, Tariq Ramadan chose not to do so, and has since justified his decision in a statement...[T]here is no longer the essential public support for the contribution to the city and the university and...the credibility of Dr. Ramadan's continued work for the city and the university has suffered lasting damage. Tariq Ramadan has always been extremely capable in his manipulation of Western public opinion, but the problematical items on his CV are not limited to his link with PressTV. As if his association with Al-Qaradawi were insufficient, Ramadan was also criticized in France in 2003 when he published a Jew-baiting attack on several leading French intellectuals, including Bernard-Henri Lévy and André Glucksmann. Ramadan claimed it was "curious" that that these two individuals were the most important Western European defenders of the Bosnian Muslims during the Balkan Wars of the 1990s, as well as of the human rights of the Chechens, but also supported the U.S. intervention in Iraq. According to Ramadan, the removal of Saddam Hussein was intended to guarantee "a greater security for Israel with assured economic advantages." In the same article, Ramadan falsely alleged that Israeli military advisers participated in the Iraq war, and labeled Paul Wolfowitz the "notorious Zionist" allegedly responsible for the invasion of Iraq in the interest of Israel. He accused Lévy and Glucksmann of abandoning universal principles and acting "as Jews, or nationalists, as defenders of Israel." Publication of this screed was refused by the Parisian dailies Le Monde and Libération, but it was eventually posted on an Islamist website, http://www.oumma.com/. Tariq Ramadan hides his extremist views in plain sight. Why do the British and now, unfortunately, the American authorities fail to comprehend the evidence in front of them? The U.S. ban on him should be reviewed again... and upheld. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/08/tariq_ramadan_repudiated.html
|
|
GERMANY, CONFRONT YOUR ANTISEMITISM
Posted by Sacha Stawski, September 2, 2009. |
|
This was written by Benjamin Weinthal August 27, 2009 and appeared at www.thejc.com/comment/comment/germany-confront-your-antisemitism |
|
The Federal Republic of Germany has named 10 members to its first-ever government commission to combat antisemitism. The pressing question is whether the commission members will remain stuck in the past and devote their energies to fighting a largely obsolete form of Jew hatred: Nazi-style biological and racial antisemitism? Or will they address the gravest threats to Jews in Germany, which are Muslim antisemitism and that version dressed up as anti-Israel activity? Dr Juliane Wetzel, a commission member who works for the controversial Berlin Centre for the study of antisemitism, seemed to confirm the concerns. She said in the liberal-left daily, Die Taz, that the greatest danger of antisemitism comes from the extreme right and that she does not want to make hostility to Jews among German Muslims into an issue. However, this is not the reality on the ground. At the beginning of this year, during Israel's Operation Cast Lead, Germany experienced a tidal wave of anti-Jewish demonstrations. Over 100,000 German-Muslims participated in protests across Germany where chants of "kill, kill Jews" and "kill, kill Israelis" were commonplace. Germany has been largely in a state of denial about another ubiquitous modern form of antisemitism, namely hatred of Israel dressed up as Israel criticism. The new German antisemitic ideology manifests itself as a toxic combination of anti-Israel sentiment and anger about the Shoah. The backlash against the crimes of the Holocaust can be summed up in one sentence: "The Germans will never forgive the Jews for Auschwitz." According to BBC polls in 2007 and 2008, Germans harbour the most negative views of Israel in the EU (tied with Spain in 2008). An exhaustive 2004 German university study showed that 51 per cent of Germans equate Israel with Nazi Germany, a key manifestation of modern antisemitism as defined by the European Union's working definition of antisemitism. While there are a number of important voices on the commission such as Dr Wahied Wahdat-Hagh, an expert on Iranian and Islamic antisemitism, there are significant gaps. The members are mostly academics and NGO representatives. What about politicians, Israeli experts, and people 'on the ground'? Some obvious key figures missing include Israeli Professor Robert Wistrich, arguably the world's leading expert on modern antisemitism; the East German Jew Anetta Kahane, who heads a foundation fighting racism and antisemitism mainly in the former German Democratic Republic; and Gert Weisskirchen, a top Social Democratic Party MP who served as the personal representative of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe for combating antisemitism. Some pressing work for the commission would entail ending the German government's credit guarantees which ensure flourishing trade between German companies and the number one exporter of global antisemitism, the Islamic Republic of Iran. Also, the commission could tackle antisemitism within its own parliamentary backyard. MP Norman Paech, the foreign policy spokesman of the German Left Party, frequently compares Israel with Nazi Germany, and he and over 10 MPs from the Left Party rejected the resolution to form the commission because it mentioned bias against Israel. The commission has a unique opportunity to breathe some life into a genuine fight against the two most potent forms of modern Jew-hatred. The ball is now in the commission's court. Sacha Stawski is with the Honestly Concerned organization. Contact him at sstawski@honestly-concerned.org |
|
A PARABLE
Posted by Susana K-M, September 2, 2009. |
|
The writer of this brilliant piece remains unknown. It was posted to a blog on the internet ... 18 June 2009. |
|
The Jews settled the moon in 2053, just about five years after the end of the Islamic Wars of the 40's, where the Middle East, and Israel, of course, had been obliterated by nuclear weapons. The two million Jews remaining throughout the rest of the world — less than 100,000 total in all the Islamic countries — banded together and purchased the dark side of the moon, which no other companies or people wished to colonize. Great transports were arranged via the 62,000 mile space elevator and the Space Shuttle and every Jew on Earth — including anyone who claimed any Jewish heritage whatsoever — left to go to a place where no one could blame them for anything. The Earth rejoiced, happily rid of all Jews There were huge parties throughout all of Europe, Africa, Asia, South and North America (Now known as the Northern Alliance of Islamic States after the United States was taken over peacefully in the elections of 2040 by a predominantly Muslim Congress and President, who immediately passed amendments making Islam the main religion of the United States and the world After the last Jew entered the elevator (a David Goldstein, 62, formerly of New York), the Earth was officially declared Judenrein by Hans Ibn Hitler, a great, great-grandson of Hitler who had been raised in Brazil and hidden by Nazis until this precious moment. It was not an easy move for the Jews but, in some ways, it was no different from all their moves of previous eras. Some former Israelis (still alive because they were out of Israel when the bombs dropped) claimed that the moon was easier to deal with because there were no Extremist Muslims. Of course, this precipitated a huge argument with some Jews, who felt not having the Radical Muslims nearby was not enough challenge. Other Jews argued that taming a wilderness with no atmosphere, plant or animal life and freezing temperatures was enough challenge. And yet other Jews argued that arguing was counterproductive. It came as no surprise to anyone that for the two million Jews, there were eventually one million synagogues (with the other million Jews not joining). It was also no surprise that within just three years, the Jews had created a controlled environment that allowed for fantastic plant and animal growth and production. The transports, which had been called the Arks, had also carried two of each animal and plant (remember, Noah), and through the ingenuity of the Jews and cloning, there were now many new species which sped up production of food (cows with six udders, chickens with four legs and so forth). The population had rapidly increased and, due to the amazing collection of scientific and medical minds, most diseases and even aging had been reduced to nil. There was even a ministry of communication with Earth, consisting of the remains of Hollywood producers and moviemakers, who sent back to Earth portraits of life on the moon. Of course, it had been decided when the Jews first got to the moon — based on six-thousand-year history of people being jealous of Jewish accomplishment — that all news coverage of the moon's population would be 'movie-ized' to show only horrible things. The film industry, led by Jordan Spielberg, went to great lengths to fabricate news clips to show Jews barely surviving in the harsh lunar habitat. Artists and engineers laboured to cover over vast environmental successes with illusionary domes showing massive areas of wasteland — just in case anyone from Earth ever sent a spaceship with cameras to see what was going on. But no-one ever did, and the years passed rapidly; one decade, then another. bar mitzvahs, weddings, brises, all celebrated under the artificial world that the Jews had created — not only had it not been that bad, but by the end of the century, some Jewish authors were calling the moon colony — Eden 2. Of course other Jews disagreed. In fact, much time was spent on disagreeing and there were even contests for arguing but, in general, there was peace. Anyone who threatened the peace was forced to officiate at a contest with people arguing about why that person was wrong. The contests would go on for days (sometimes weeks), until the troublemaker begged for forgiveness. Many penalties on the moon were similar to this, and were extremely effective Back on Earth, life disintegrated without the Jews. There was a return to Middle Ages thought — only the current religion du jour was valid — all others were kept legislated into poverty until a war erupted and positions hanged for a few years. Another amazing anomaly appeared when there were no longer any Jews on Earth — anti-Semitism actually increased to monumental proportions! Famous orators explained this simply by saying: 'I don't have to have a gun to be afraid of having my brains blown out.' Additionally, without the presence of the Jew, the world developed incredible evil that had no release. (Previous evil had always focused on the Jews.) One Rabbi on the moon actually said G-d spoke to him, and said that He, G-d, was about to destroy the Earth because everyone on the Earth was evil. The Rabbi begged Him to reconsider, and bargained that if there were 1,000 good people left on Earth, G-d should spare the planet. G-d then told the Rabbi 'Hey I went through this before with Abraham and Noah, and I already know the answer because I'm G-d.' People laughed at the Rabbi, but then one day, while all the lunar citizens were going about their business, an enormous series of explosions was seen on the Earth. Everyone on the moon stared at the distant fireballs that engulfed the blue planet that was once their home. Although there had been great anger at being forced to leave the Earth, the true spirit of Judaism was always present on the moon and no-one had wished ill on to their former home. As in the tradition of the Seder and we do not rejoice fully when even an enemy has died, when the Jews saw what was happening, they began to weep and pray, and watch what was to be the final news broadcast from Earth. The horror of the apocalypse was videotaped by cameras until all electricity was ionised by the new electron bombs Entire countries were wiped away in the blink of an ion exploding. Then came the final transmission from the nation that had started the entire mess — it was a desperate headline screamed by a hundred dying newscasters. Their rant continued until it was just blackness. What were they saying? As the Jews watched, some gasped, others cried, and a few even laughed, for the last words of the disappearing civilization was a condemnation. 'The Jews have caused all our problems — they left us here to face the mess they made. If the Jews hadn't taken all the best scientists and engineers, we could have defeated our enemies. Our enemies are the Jews! Kill all the Jews.' It took a little while, but the electronics experts pieced together what had happened on Earth during its last days. Anti-Semitism, which had grown stronger and stronger since the Jews had left had reached its pinnacle and all the countries of the world had decided to launch a massive attack on the moon. The attack had been coordinated by the United Nations and, although all the missiles had been launched properly, there was some sort of glitch in the targeting system, resulting in all the weapons colliding in the upper atmosphere and showering the Earth with a deadly rain of nuclear fire, electronic destruction, and a generally bad day. The mistake triggered the military response of all the nations (who all had nuclear weapons by then — plus a few other horrid toys), and the result was truly an Armageddon. The Jews on the moon went into a period of deep mourning. The Orthodox rent their clothing and there were mass counseling sessions. Then, about one week after the BIG DAY, as it was now called, a presence was detected heading towards the moon. Had one of the missiles escaped? Were the Jews doomed after all? The leaders checked with the defense experts — no this was not a missile, it was an old-style spacecraft, like the ones used in the early seventies. As it approached, the laser defense was trained on the craft. Debates raged as to whether the craft should be destroyed or allowed to get close enough to communicate with. A message from the ship came just in time. It said 'We are the last representatives from Earth — two from each country and we come in peace.' Some Jews rejoiced that there were survivors, others demanded isolation or death of the approaching group. The Rabbi who had had the vision of earth's destruction told the leaders that G-d wanted them to have a chance, so they were allowed to circle the moon. When told they could have a section of land to themselves to farm and repopulate, the Earthlings were upset. They told the Jews that they should be allowed to live with the Jews and have all the same privileges — because, after all, in Judaism, the stranger is given the same rights and privileges as the citizen. Upon hearing this, the leaders went to the Rabbi with the visions, and he offered to guide the visitors to their new home. The leaders allowed him to give the instructions for landing. Of course, not trusting the Rabbi, the commander of the ship didn't listen to his advice, and instead crashed into a lunar crater. And so we have the final days of the history of the planet Earth, which have been generously shared with us by the Jewish colony of the 453rd Solar System of the M Galaxy. Although the Earth is currently uninhabitable, the head engineer of the Jewish colony on Mars tells us that Venus will be fully colonized by the year 2120, and with continuous replanting, Earth will once again be ready for Jews returning from other planets in the year 2136. An interesting side note.............. inside the wreckage of the rocket with the survivors from Earth was a specially marked package that had survived which included the following words: "Once there was a great planet named Earth and there were many peoples on this planet, and they all existed peacefully with each other, except for the Jews. Wherever there were Jews, there was trouble. Jews brought dirt and death and hatred and strife. They were finally banished from our planet, only to take with them many great inventors and scientists and doctors, leaving Earth with nothing. We have decided to destroy the remnants of the Jews, and since the first attempt failed, we are the last chance for Earth. Whoever shall find this will know the truth — It was all the Jews' fault." This panel has been saved and is on display at the Earth Memorial Museum at Rivka Crater, NW, for all travelers who wish to see the remains of a civilization that did not understand the words: 'He who blesses the Jews, is himself blessed. He who curses the Jews, is himself cursed.' SHALOM Contact Susana K-M at suanema@gmail.com |
|
DELUSIONAL ILLUSIONS AND MYOPIA
Posted by Nurit Greenger, September 2, 2009. |
|
Isaiah's prophecy: A nation shall not lift up sword against another nation and they shall not learn war. (Isaiah 2:4) When Isaiah? Soon? Ever? Unfortunately not right now, not in a world that is morally bankrupt, not in a world that loves to lie, to incite and quarrel, to hate and riot, to kill and go to war. Not in a world where conservatism equals Nazism, where the level of naiveté, regarding evil, is almost exclusive to the dominating Left, not in a world where patriotism hardly exists and when you dissent with the government's questionable actions you are questioned for your patriotism or accused for disobeying the law. The trouble is everywhere. Islamonazi rogue Iran is going nuclear; tyrannical rough North Korea is nuclear already. What dangerous regime will be next to take on the nuclear race without being halted? Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq are terrorism and war bastion. In China, the Muslims are rising and rioting. Belligerent Russia is attempting to gain its previous USSR satellite countries, using intimidation and force. Since the United States is no longer the 'Super power' and the leader of the free world there is no one to stand up and protect these fledgling democracies from the Russian alligator. The African continent is in an on going turmoil, famine and is diseases infested. The Europeans are sleeping while their European Union is slowly slipping away and becoming the Eurabia Union. Australians, Canadians and Americans are turning a blind, or not so blind eye, yielding to multiculturalism, thus allowing the Muslims in their midst to gain political and social strength and gaining control over many aspects of the freedom for all system. Islamic Sharia law is now popping and is practiced in many Western institutes biting into the democratic system we worked so hard to have but now hardly protect and defend. More so, the Western Academia is flooded with Islamic oil money and this money buys even freedom of thinking and speech Western society and its education system was so proud of practicing. But now, no more. Corruption is deeply embedded in the entire world political system and institutes and trust is no longer a word one commonly uses. And last but not least, Jews and Israel. The conflict between the Arabs and Israel, which has garnered disproportionate share of the world's focus since 1947, continues with no end in sight. The bloodthirsty Jihadi annihilationists are exponentially growing and anti-Semitism and newly surfacing libels are becoming the norm among many folks. The United States and Israel are just about the last stronghold of freedom and democracy in its true form. Israel and the Untied States have more than organizational relations but an organic one. Our countries share a common heritage of being established to escape tyranny and establish religious liberty and personal freedom. The conflict in the Middle East and the struggle of the Jewish people have been the reason that Americans were sent to war, which was to stop Germany's maniacal attempt to take control over the world and annihilate all Jews and the attempt to establish an Islamic domination in the Middle East and eventually in the world. Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing the fields for those who did not." After two World Wars that took place on the European continent in which millions of Europeans died, the Europeans have already beaten their swords into plowshares. Islamofascism is rampant in Europe and the delusional illusion and myopia that all will be good at the end is the Europeans prevailing way of thinking. The question is will the Queen of England eventually wear a burka and become a dhimmi of Islam? Will the French who are serving Escargot dipped in garlic sauce eventually be serving it in tehini sauce instead? Or, will the traditional Italian prosciutto [an aged, dry-cured, spiced Italian ham] be forbidden? The United States' Founding Fathers gave the American people the Constitution to protect the nation's liberties but with the Obama Government its merit is fast slipping away. The American people must stand united and muster the strength to preserve the most valuable document ever given to the people by the governing power. It is important for the world to know that Israel is not renting land in the Holy Land; it is the owner of this land, it is the proprietor of the Land of Israel. Israel is the insurance policy for the entire Jewish nation, all the Jewish people wherever they live. Without strong Israel there is no Jerusalem, without Jerusalem there is no Israel and without Jerusalem there is no Jewish people. Unless Jews want to see the repetition of exile, Inquisition, Pogroms and Holocaust, the message to Jews here could not be clearer. Stand up and defend Israel with all your being! Want to run away from it all? Tell us where to, and many of us will join. But there is no where to run away to when the world elected to be in deep delusional illusion and myopia. Optimism does not stand for dismissal of reality and will get us no where. The solution is to face it, admit it and try stand for what is right; stand courageous to do what seems to be the impossible, which is to oppose the wrong and work hard to bring about the necessary changes we are all so desperately seeking. Throughout history wise people left us their legacy of 'what to do list' wisdom. Winston Churchill believed that victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival! This leaves us with one choice, which is to fight for victory. We must not arrive at the point of ancient Greece. Edward Gibbon believed that in the end more than they wanted freedom, they wanted security. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free. The likelihood that Europe will cease to be a free society and it will become Dhimmis to Islam is rather clear and anticipated. The American people must not allow themselves to follow the Europeans' footsteps. It seems as if the people have somewhat given up. They rather live in denial and accept the fact that they may no longer have the ability to legislate or intervene and take hatred and evil out of existence. Unless this mindset evaporates fast, the consequences will be detrimental to the entire world. No distinction. The mission to save the world from its delusional illusions and myopia is too great for one person, for thousands of persons or even millions, but gaining the power begins with one person at the time. While we still have the chance, united we must stand and fight all that is wrong, however, if divided we shall remain, the chances of us falling into a deeper abbeys is irrefutably imminent. Shalom,
Contact Nurit Greenger by email at 4nuritg@ca.rr.com. Visit her blog:
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: SUPPORT YAALON!
Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 2, 2009. |
|
August 20, 2009 Moshe "Bogie" Yaalon has been demonstrating courage and clarity of purpose of late. He has spoken out on a number of issues and is to be applauded for doing so. So often it happens: those who at one time seemed to support certain issues begin to view things differently once they become ministers. Or else they become strangely mute. After all, there is party allegiance to consider — all-important for one's political future. And there is status, and the need to protect the perks of office. We all know what I'm talking about. We've all felt the disappointment of hoping that a particular member of the government would take principled stands, only to find that he or she ultimately does not. ~~~~~~~~~~ But now it is becoming clear that we may have in Strategic Affairs Minister and Vice Premier Moshe Yaalon someone who actually cares more about his nation and his principles than he does about his political future. This is not something that should go unnoticed or unsupported. In fact, Yaalon needs our support big time. ~~~~~~~~~~ For Zionist reasons, Yaalon was upset by the recent change in the law — pushed through by Netanyahu — regarding the Israel Land Authority, so that now private purchases are permitted of what has to date been Israel-owned land. He threatened to resign, and, in a deal with Netanyahu, was appointed head of a committee to decide on limits to that law. ~~~~~~~~~~ On Sunday, he spoke at a rally for Moshe Feiglin — Netanyahu's ideological/political opponent and head of the Manhigut Yehudit faction within the Likud. In his speech, was which reported by Channel 2, Yaalon said: "There are certain things we need to say — up to here. When you do things you don't believe in, you enter a slippery slope because they put pressure on you, and you keep rolling downwards." He also criticized the far left. And it seems he singled out Peace Now, which he referred to as a "virus." ~~~~~~~~~~ Then on Monday, in the company of other ministers, Yaalon visited some "unauthorized" outposts in Samaria. Following the visit, he gave an interview explaining that so called "illegal" outposts are not actually "illegal," as they have approval from many sources already (as I've explained here), but just need a final approval that can still be provided — making them fully legal. ~~~~~~~~~~ Well! Our prime minister is not responding positively to his minister of security. In fact, he summoned Yaalon to his office yesterday to register his discontents, which are numerous. The prime minister's office then issued a statement: "...the remarks made by Minister Ya'alon are unacceptable, neither in their essence nor in their style, and do not represent the government's stance. And tonight Netanyahu is meeting with him again — cutting his vacation short to do so. Reportedly he didn't like the implicit criticism of Obama and the support for the unauthorized outposts — a position that flies in the face of Obama's demands that we take them down. (It should be mentioned — it is surely not unrelated — that Netanyahu is scheduled to meet with Mitchell soon.) There was also, as has been made clear, distress over Yaalon's politically incorrect position with regard to the far left. ~~~~~~~~~~ I say bravo to Yaalon for being forthright in his positions. Wonderful indeed to know that someone high up in government is not being obsequious in his approach to the US (which is how I yesterday described Netanyahu's decision to refrain from issuing building tenders in Judea and Samaria). A relief to hear someone say out loud that we have a right to live anywhere in the land we wish. Yaalon should be cloned several times over. Particularly is this important as it turns out we have a prime minister who is not as attentive to the right flank of his coalition as he should be — considering that he argued that it was because of the mandates achieved by the right that he should be given the first opportunity to try to form the coalition. Netanyahu's been slip-sliding leftward. ~~~~~~~~~~ Feiglin called the prime minister's summons of Yaalon an "overreaction," and I would agree. "Ninety percent of the public agrees with what Ya'alon said, and the fact that Netanyahu is trying to scare him after saying it proves that he is acting not on behalf of the public but on behalf of the elites that control him," Feiglin said. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yaalon's spokesman said he knew the radio show was being taped, but that his views are clear and well known. Yaalon stands by what he said. (What? No backtracking? No hedging or double-talk? Also a pleasant state of affairs.) ~~~~~~~~~~ Peace Now called Yaalon "paranoid" and a "danger to Israeli democracy." This is an attempt to stifle him and read him out of the fold. In fact, this organization that legally does not exist has demanded that Netanyahu fire him. Our self-serving, ever-political and ever-politically correct defense minister praised Peace Now (save us from this!) as "an integral part of the discourse in Israeli society." ~~~~~~~~~~ There is an essential "rightness" (double entendre intended) about Yaalon's positions. He must be praised for defending our prerogative in settling our land. As well, his readiness to stand independent of Obama is much welcome. How wearisome and ultimately destructive it becomes to try to please and second guess a US president who is essentially anti-Israel. And, I would add, there is an issue of free speech in a democracy implicit in what's going on here. It is attempts to muzzle Yaalon that are properly labeled a "danger to Israeli democracy," not his speaking out. Those attempts need to be fought. Those of us who are on the right must not tolerate being relegated to the category of "kook" or "danger." It's a convenient corner into which too many of our adversaries have sought to push us. As to the organizations on the far left, I can only concur most wholeheartedly with what Yaalon has said. I have done sufficient research to understand the ways in which these groups seek to undermine all that we stand for as a sovereign Jewish state. I will return to this issue, which is far too extensive too take on here. But you might like to take a look at my report on Adalah, for insight into what's going on:
Now I simply share my frequent distress at seeing far left organizations being given extraordinary latitude within our society to damage our society, all allegedly in the name of democracy. Thus, is Yaalon's forthrightness — his readiness to take on the threat from within — to be praised. He may have made it permissible at last to ask publicly, "What the hell is going on here?". ~~~~~~~~~~ And so, PLEASE! Let Bogie Yaalon know that you are grateful that he has said publicly what so many of us think, that he stands behind his principles and is willing to incur political costs to do so: Minister for Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon
< Additionally, let Binyamin Netanyahu know that you are grateful for the principled and forthright statements of Yaalon and that you stand behind his right to espouse the positions he does without penalty: Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu
And then, write to newspapers HERE IN ISRAEL (this is an Israeli issue!), in English and Hebrew, defending Yaalon and insisting on his right to speak out on his principles. Point out that the left would vilify him in order to silence him when his criticisms are legitimate. Do the same with blogs wherever and however it is possible. ~~~~~~~~~~ This is a beginning. It's clear, it's simple. It is important in fighting a fight that must be fought. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
MIKE HUCKABEE COMES TO TOWN
Posted by Truth Provider, September 2, 2009. |
|
Dear friends, The inimitable Mike Huckabee, a man of straight logic and clear understanding, has visited Israel this week and concentrated his attention on the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria. He does not share President Obama's absurd premise that there is a place on earth where Jews cannot settle or buy property, let alone in their historical homeland, just because they are Jews, while Arabs are allowed to do just that. My friends, 60 years of history teach us that anybody who espouses such ridiculously biased policies as our current President, is doomed to lose his/hers leadership. Why? Because good leadership is based on truth and logic, two attributes Mike Huckabee has plenty of. See you in 2012, Mr. Huckabee!!!
This below is entitled "Standing with the Settlements" was written by Herb Keinon, and it appeared August 20, 2009 in The Jerusalem Post |
|
With a reception at east Jerusalem's contentious Shepherd Hotel compound, a lunch in Har Bracha overlooking Nablus, and a tour amid the goats and ancient wine presses at the unauthorized outpost of Givot Olam near Itamar, Mike Huckabee's recent four-day visit diverged mightily from the usual "fact-finding" itinerary for countless visiting politicians. Throw in that the visit was sponsored by Ateret Cohanim, which is spearheading efforts to purchase property for Jews in east Jerusalem, and the former Baptist preacher, Arkansas governor and once-and-future presidential candidate's trip becomes nothing if not out of the ordinary. The tour's itinerary, and Huckabee's public pronouncements that he did not support a two-state solution and that Jews in Israel should be allowed to live wherever they desired, were so "out of the box" that one writer for a leading Hebrew paper wondered how much coverage his paper should give Huckabee, and whether he was "no more" than an American version of Moshe Feiglin: a marginalized, out-of-office politician on the far right with little national significance. But Huckabee does have national significance, even if he is out of office. For starters, over the last few months he has consistently polled among the three top Republican contenders for the party's nomination in 2012, neck-and-neck with Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney. Additionally, as host of the top rated cable news show in its Saturday evening time slot for Fox, and a man with a daily commentary show on the ABC Radio Network, Huckabee's voice carries weight with not insignificant swaths of the American public. Granted, that public is overwhelmingly conservative and Evangelical Christian, but that, too, is a key part of the American quilt. On Tuesday morning, driving up the spine of Samaria on a road dubbed the Way of the Patriarchs, Huckabee, referring to Evangelical support for Israel, said, "We are very much of the understanding that if there had not been Judaism, there would not be Christianity. I don't think the Jewish people fully appreciate this. We have no organic connection, for example, to Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism and atheism. But we have absolute, total genetic DNA ties to Judaism." The upshot of that, he said, "was that it is very easy for the Christian community to be supportive of the right of the Jews to have a homeland, and believe there should be security in that homeland."
WHILE HUCKABEE was aware of his influence and standing in the Republican Party, he had no illusions about whom else he could impact. The self-deprecating, 55-year-old from Hope, Arkansas (Bill Clinton's hometown), readily admitted that the Obama administration was not exactly sitting in emergency session this week trying to figure out how to counter his trip, even if AP termed the visit "provocative." "The State Department is not having a meeting today in DC, saying, 'Oh my gosh, Huckabee is in the Middle East; that is really shaking us up.' I'm not so naïve," he said, adding that the State Department and the Obama administration couldn't care less what he thought. "They don't call and ask my views. But I would like to be able to help the American people understand why Israel is important to them. What I would like to do is to influence the opinion of ordinary American citizens." The way to do this, Huckabee said, riding in a cramped bullet-proof bus, was to have Americans look at the situation here through "their American eyes"; to urge them to apply the same standards they use in America to judge what is going on over here. "If we apply our own US standards to this situation, we would never allow our government, or some other government, restrict us in where we live based on ethnicity, religion or ancestry. Here is the point. The question is not, 'Can I go take someone's property away from them,' but rather, 'If I buy a piece of property, don't I have the right to live in it?' Americans will say, 'If I can make the payments on it, and pay the taxes on it, and keep the yard mowed, you mean to tell me I can't live there?'" Referring to the left-wing protesters who demonstrated at his visit to the Shepherd Hotel compound Monday night, Huckabee said while they were screaming epithets like "racist" at him, "I'm thinking the Moscowitz family bought the property, they pay taxes on it, they have all the permits. They didn't go thumb their noses at the government and say they are going to do whatever they want. They went through a very tedious, thorough, painful and expensive legal process to get all the permits to renovate and redevelop the building. "People ought to applaud them for taking an old, beat up building, developing it and making it very nice. In the US, Americans would say that is a wonderful thing, and call it 'land improvement.'" As to the Palestinian counterargument that Israel had no right to issue permits there, since the land was not its to zone, Huckabee again framed things in what he would characterize as an American way. "You can't have two people claiming the same real estate. There was a war. I'm sorry it happened, but it did. Israel didn't provoke a war, and when it was over, they had some territory. Historically what that means is, you know, 'You don't want to lose your land, don't start a war with us.'" Huckabee said his intention was not to be insensitive. "Look at Africa, so many lands have change hands there. In Europe, the lands have changed hands. In America, we could say that the land was once Native American. So, should we now argue we need to get the $24 dollars back and give up Manhattan?" He said he was not opposed to a Palestinian state, but was not convinced it would be wise to put it in Israel's backyard. There were, he said, "a lot of places all over the planet" that could serve that purpose, although he did not re-endorse an idea he threw out in 2007 that a Palestinian state could be created in parts of Saudi Arabia or Egypt. "This may not be practical," he said. "But I'd rather have that talked about and rejected, than continuing to talk about a plan that obviously won't be accepted by either side with any sense of embrace. That just simply hasn't panned out." Huckabee bristled at criticism he was "slamming" America on foreign soil by taking issue with US President Barack Obama's Middle East polices, saying that wherever he went he always extolled the virtues, values and freedoms of America. His affinity to Israel, he said, was largely because it shared those traits. "I realize the position I take on a united Jerusalem, particularly on two states, is not conventional," Huckabee said dryly and with obvious understatement. "But I also remember that [former US president] Ronald Reagan came into office calling the Soviet Union the 'evil empire,' and saying we ought to tear down the Berlin wall. People said that was the dumbest thing they ever heard, naive, and asked what kind of idiot would come and suggest something as radical as that." But, he said, "10 years later there was no Soviet Union, the Berlin wall was down, and the eastern bloc of nations were shouting freedom. Sometimes we end up with what we have because we look for things too small, rather than dream things too big. If we continue to focus on the sand in front of us, instead of the sky above us, sometimes we end up with nothing more than sand in our shoes — and then we wonder why we are walking uncomfortably." Yuval Zaliouk writes the Truth Provider columns. To subscribe, send an email to ynz@netvision.net.il |
|
20 ARGUMENTS AGAINST CREATING A SECOND PALESTINIAN STATE
Posted by LEL, September 2, 2009. |
|
The following is by Daled Amos (http://soccerdad. baltiblogs. com/archives/ 2009/08/21/ 20_arguments_ against_creating _a_second_ palestinian_ state.html). It is from Mideast Outpost, which provides "online editions of OUTPOST the monthly publication of Americans for a Safe Israel, and links to related sites as well as recent columns, articles and commentary on the Middle East from the national and international media." The following is from the July/August 2009 edition of Outpost: Herbert Zweibon is the Chairman of AFSI, Americans For A Safe Israel. |
|
The overlying problem is that only the reasons for a second Palestinian state are ever mentioned, and even then the argument for a second Palestinian state is presented as if it were self-evident, ignoring the fact that there has never even existed an Arab Palestinian state in the past. Overlooked are the substantial arguments to be made against such a state. Here are 20 of them. Twenty Questions Twenty Questions was a popular television panel show from 1949 to 1955. A person chose a subject, not known to the panel, which then had twenty questions, answered yes or no, to reach the correct answer. We offer our own adapted 20 Questions, directed to Prime Minister Netanyahu, asking how he plans to deal with the ramifications of the (Demilitarized) Two State Solution. 1. In the year prior to signing the Oslo agreements, Israeli intelligence experts did a study for the Labor government of 200 agreements that Arafat's PLO had signed over the years and found that he had honored none of them. What makes you believe "this time" will be any different? 2. How are you going to prevent an influx of sophisticated weapons into the "demilitarized" state? And please don't insult our intelligence by saying foreign "monitors" are going to stop it. 3. How are you going to prevent the firing of missiles at airplanes going in and out of Ben Gurion airport? One downed plane will mean the end of international carriers flying to Israel. 4. How do you prevent the training and equipping of a Palestinian army in another Arab state? 5. How do you propose to deal with demands by Israeli Arabs in the Galilee, where they are a majority, to join the Palestinian state? 6. How will you respond to Hamas or Hezbollah taking over "demilitarized" Palestine? 7. How do you deal with the loss of political support from Bible-believing Christians in the United States, your last important source of support in a world filled with irrational hatred of Israel? 8. How will you cope with the depletion and destruction of the mountain aquifer on which Israel depends for water? 9. How do you restore the morale of Israelis after the shock of forfeiting Jerusalem and all claims to the heartland of the Jewish people? 10. How do you envisage expelling 500,000 Jews from their homes on the "wrong" side of the Green Line (including East Jerusalem)? 11. How do you pay for their resettlement, given that Israel has still not managed to recompense and resettle the 10,000 Jews it expelled from their homes in Gaza? 12. How do you stem the flood of Israelis leaving the country in the wake of this demoralization? 13. How do you defend a country whose width is the distance between New York's JFK and LaGuardia airports?? 14. How do you defend the coastal plain when a Palestinian state controls the mountain ranges that dominate it? 15. Are you now preparing to give the Golan Heights to Syria and destroy its Jewish communities? 16. How do you deal with the loss of ability to engage in "hot pursuit" in a sovereign Palestine? 17. How do you prevent foreign armies entering Palestine when you don't control the entry points? 18. How do you propose to recoup the loss in business investment and tourism? 19. Do you plan to recognize two Palestinian states, Gazastan and Palestine? 20. The PA, like Hamas, has made clear it insists on the Right to Return. How will you deal with these demands for a "one state solution" after you have forfeited your claims to the historic Land of Israel and given up so many of your strategic advantages? We will be astounded if you can come up with a rational answer to any of these questions. And under those circumstances, it is, to quote Edgar Allen Poe, "much of Madness, and more of Sin" to embark — or pretend to embark — on a "two state solution." Like those who preceded him, Obama talks about taking Israel's security concerns into account. We cannot afford the same lack of attention to detail in regard to Israel's security that we have already seen in Obama's stimulus package and health care reform. Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
JERUSALEM US CONSULATE IS DE FACTO EMBASSY TO PA
Posted by Barbara Sommer, September 2, 2009. |
|
This was written by Hana Levi Julian and it appeared August 18m 2009 in Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com) |
|
Dr. Adam Splaver, a Florida cardiologist, wrote to the American Consul-General in Jerusalem on August 14 expressing outrage that the Consulate's website "did not mention Israel, projects in Israel, the people of Israel or the modern state of Israel. What it does mention is the numerous projects you have with the Palestinians and in their cities and towns." The consulate building is located in the eastern section of Jerusalem, in an area restored to Israel's capital during the1967 Six Day War. The Palestinian Authority has repeatedly demanded that Jerusalem be recognized as the capital of any future Arab state established alongside Israel. For now, the PA has refused to come to the negotiating table unless Israel first agrees to freeze all construction, including building to accommodate natural growth, in all post-1967 areas of Jerusalem, as well as in all of Judea and Samaria. Splaver, a former president of the Young Israel synagogue in Hollywood, Florida, wrote that he was "appalled," adding that he believed the omission was not the result of an error, but rather a deliberate statement. "As an American and as a Jew, I must voice my objections to your political message and clearly, proudly, and defiantly state that a united Jerusalem was, is and will be the capital of the Jewish homeland called Israel," he added. The reply, received Monday, August 17, speaks for itself: "Thank you for your feedback on the U.S. Consulate General Jerusalem's Website. Just to clarify, the Consulate General in Jerusalem is the principal representation to the Palestinian Authority. We also provide services to American citizens in Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza. While the current seat of the PA government is in Ramallah, the United States government appears to already recognize the Palestinian Authority's claim to Jerusalem. At the same time, successive American governments have failed to officially recognize Israel's declaration of the city as its capital since 1948. "I am surprised that more aren't aware of the de facto embassy [to the PA in Jerusalem] that the U.S. government has set up," Plaver said in an exclusive telephone interview Tuesday afternoon with Israel National News. "I am in shock!" Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
AS FAR AS THE EAST IS FROM THE WEST
Posted by Yaacov Levi, September 2, 2009. |
|
This was written by Michael Devolin, a Canadian Noachide, and it appeared Aug 21, 2009 in the Magic City Morning Star Brilliantly stated! |
|
Last night I had the discomposing experience of hearing a fellow Gentile (albeit a United Church Christian) inform me of what should be the Zionism of the Jewish people. This was not just any Christian; this was a curate of the United Church of Canada. And it's not that I've never heard such perverse ideals articulated into nonsensical and unctuous clatter — it's just that I've never debated such fools face to face. History is witness to the fact that everyone outside of Orthodox Judaism-Christians, Muslims, and the United Church (whatever they are) — have arrogated themselves as being the sole authority for defining what should be, or not be, true Zionism. Such an ex nihil, (by reason of the fact that this arrogation is the fruit of non-Jewish imagination) has become acceptable to the non-Jewish world, and especially acceptable to that Muslim androcracy most commonly referred to in the media as the United Nations. Who was it said that if you say it loud enough and often enough, people will accept your noetic insanities as truth. Sadly, the non-Jewish world, and especially the UN and the United Church, have been successful in imposing as "international law" their noetic insanities upon those brave Jews who choose to return to, and build homes upon, the land of Israel. The Torah obligation for all Jews to inhabit and settle upon the land of Israel has been transmogrified by these political and religious bullies into "Zionism is racism". Robert Fulford of the National Post writes, "So far as we can learn from how they act in public, these organizations appear to have a foreign policy with only one item on its agenda, the same one they would have if they were in fact motivated fundamentally by anti-Semitism." I know who the racists are, and they are not the observant Jews of Israel. It comes down to this: Islam (which would include the UN) and Christianity (which may or may not include the United Church, I don't know), both perversions of Judaism, have no land to call their own. Whatever property in Israel Christians and Muslims possess at present was wrested from Jewish ownership by religiously motivated military expansionism. Only Israel is defined in the Torah as the parcel of land wherein Jews were given a writ of mandamus by their G-D (not the god of the Christian and not the god of the Muslim) to inhabit and from within the borders of this land exist as "a light unto the nations." Only problem, however, is that these "nations" (including those wherein Christianity and Islam have become preponderant), instead of accepting the counsel of the Jewish people, have taken it upon themselves to instruct the Jewish people on how to practice their Judaism. This, in my opinion, boils down to darkness instructing light. As far as the east is from the west, both the Christian and the Muslim are removed from the reality of Jewish Zionism. Neither have any business with the Jewish business of Judaism; neither is qualified or justified to be telling the Jew what should be, or how he should achieve, his Zionism. Michael Devolin is a Noachide and lives in Canada. Contact him at devolin@reach.net |
|
FROM ISRAEL: SO, WHAT'S THE DIF?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 2, 2009. |
|
From August 19, 2009 Rumors have been flying fast and furious regarding an informal agreement allegedly reached by Construction and Housing Minister Ariel Atias (Shas), Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak to unilaterally freeze construction in settlements in Judea and Samaria until the end of this year in order to promote negotiations or give things a chance (or however it was euphemistically stated). Both the prime minister and Atias have denied this. From the prime minister's office came this statement: "There is not now, nor was there any agreement between the Prime Minister, the Defense Minister, and the Housing Minister to freeze construction in Judea and Samaria." Atias, however, has been more forthcoming, saying that there was no "freeze," but rather simply a decision to "shelve construction" for the time being, with no new tenders for building having been issued since Netanyahu took office. (Building is being done, but in accordance with prior tenders.) That failure to issue tenders has extended to even the major settlement blocs and to eastern Jerusalem (where our government has declared the right of Jews to live and establish homes). Atias said that a compromise on a freeze was still being worked on by the Netanyahu and Obama governments, and that the Netanyahu government wanted to sustain the principle of allowing the settlers to live normal lives. ~~~~~~~~~~ Well, I must be very dense, because I'm not sure I see the difference between a freeze made in an agreement with the US and unilaterally shelving construction. The most that can be said is that we are in control of timing, and can begin instituting construction again whenever we wish. But, on the negative side, the unilateral action has a terribly obsequious feel. Netanyahu claims to be big on "reciprocity." And so, why? Why should we give anything to a US president who has unreasonably put the onus for "peace" on us, or to a PA that has just held a conference that promoted violence against us? Are we looking at a prime minister who is all too eager to show that we are the good guys and to keep the international community happy? ~~~~~~~~~~ Several things have transpired that make all of this particularly infuriating. Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak has just met with Obama. At their subsequent press conference, Obama, in response to a question regarding Israeli settlement construction, declared that both he and Mubarak are "encouraged" by the "positive movement" in the "peace process." How lovely. Just what we need: to make these guys happy at a price that curtails our rights. ~~~~~~~~~~ Now it has made the news that a "senior diplomat" of Israel says that it has been known to "those who need to know" that we have not issued any tenders for building in Judea and Samaria for four months: it was specifically mentioned that George Mitchell, US envoy here, knows, which means Obama also does — and I would assume also Abbas. So, my question is why a big deal has been made about the need for a "freeze" these past four months, if it's been known. Why does Obama announce his pleasure with the "movement" now if nothing has changed since April? Precisely what is the dynamic we're looking at and what's going on behind the scenes? ~~~~~~~~~~ If Netanyahu imagined that this voluntary curtailment of building would enable us to secure increased good will from the Palestinians or gestures from the Arabs, he's been dreaming. Mubarak made this clear in the press conference, at which he reiterated the Arab position that their gestures would come at the end of the process, and — except for the outside possibility of some very minimal movement — not now. What is more, the PA positions, which have moved further towards Hamas and make ever more stringent demands, are not exactly conciliatory either. In addition to which, Abbas is again making noises about negotiating a unity government with Hamas. ~~~~~~~~~~ A couple of additional notes on this issue: Peace Now is claiming that even if there is a freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria, it would apply only to government approved building, while in fact some 60% of building is private. But it has been my understanding that all housing must receive approval from the Construction and Housing Ministry, so that I don't believe this statement stands. ~~~~~~~~~~ And this, from the Post, which is politically of great significance: "[Atias] revealed that in the past, the Construction and Housing Ministry had approved mortgages for settlers who lived in outposts which were established without government approval or recognition." Well, I've already explained that almost always there is SOME government approval — for electricity, water, roads, whatever. "...established without government approval or recognition..." is not quite the case, but refers to that final signature only. But here we have the mind-blowing acknowledgement that people have received government mortgages for houses that were then declared "unapproved." Go make sense out of this schizoid and unfair situation. ~~~~~~~~~~ Lastly, I am fascinated by the inherent conflict between Netanyahu's very public statement regarding our right to live as Jews in eastern Jerusalem, and the failure to issue tenders for building there. In particular, I wait to see how the Shepherd Hotel matter will be resolved: Will there be renovations of that hotel and/or construction on the property surrounding the hotel for Jewish apartments? ~~~~~~~~~~ Right wing members of the government are furious about this entire business of the unilateral "shelving of construction" and insist that a Cabinet decision on building is required. So, once again, folks, I provide contact information so you might communicate with the appropriate people regarding this issue: No freeze on building in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. Not even a unilateral, informal cessation of the issuing of tenders, as this contravenes Jewish rights. All phone and fax numbers from the US: 011-972, then drop the "0" and proceed with the rest of the number. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (Likud)
Minister for Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon (Likud)
Defense Minister Ehud Barak (Labor)
Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas)
Construction and Housing Minister Ariel Atias (Shas)
Minister Benny Begin (Likud)
National Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu)
Science and Technology Minister Daniel Hershkovitz (Habayit Hayehudi)
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman (Yisrael Beitenu)
Minister of Information Yuli Edelstein (Likud)
Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud)
Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz (Likud)
Internal Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch (Yisrael Beitenu)
Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov (Yisrael Beitenu)
Immigrant Absorption Minister Sofa Landver (Yisrael Beitenu)
Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar (Likud)
Communication Minister Moshe Kahlon (Likud)
~~~~~~~~~~ What has been reassuringly clear in past weeks is that we have some good friends — officials and former officials — in America. I allude, for example, to Steny Hoyer, House Majority Leader. We have here in Israel now an extraordinary friend, Mike Huckabee — former governor of Arkansas, talk show host (The Huckabee Report, ABC), and Republican presidential candidate hopeful — who is visiting under the auspices of Ateret Cohanim, which is promoting the purchase of property for Jewish homes in eastern Jerusalem. ~~~~~~~~~~ Huckabee, for whom a private reception was held at the Shepherd hotel earlier this week, has said the establishment of a Palestinian state here simply won't work: "The point is that if you try to layer two governments on top of each other, there is going to be nothing but conflict. I don't know how that would work. That comes back to the question of how you designate two owners of the same car. "Historically, the international community has already said Israel has a right to be here, that this is going to be their homeland. "The question is, should the Palestinians have a place to call their own? Yes, I have no problem with that. Should it be in the middle of the Jewish homeland? That's what I think has to be honestly assessed as virtually unrealistic." Huckabee says he has speculated on the idea that the Palestinian state might be in Egypt or Saudi Arabia. (Interesting, that he avoided mention of Jordan.) His point is that the Palestinian state should be somewhere else, decided upon by the international community. It was unreasonable, he said, to ask the Jews to surrender their land for another state: "They [the Jews] have been given a tiny minuscule strip of land ...to call home. To ask them to...give increasing amounts of acreage away for what is hoped [would] be a peaceful arrangement — it has not resulted in creating any level of peace." ~~~~~~~~~~ To see a video of a Huckabee interview, with statements about his response to Israel and his sense that "the dry bones have come alive," see the link below. Huckabee alludes to the fact that he wasn't allowed into Nablus (Shechem) because he had Jews in his party. "Arab people can go to the Jewish parts of Jerusalem, and the Jewish parts of Israel, but the Jewish people could not go there." About time someone noticed this.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
COUNTERTERRORISM IN OBAMA'S WASHINGTON
Posted by Cpocerl, September 2, 2009. |
|
Thiis was written by Daniel Pipes and it
appeared in Front Page Magazine.
It is archived at
www.danielpipes.org/7525/counterterrorism-in-obamas-washington |
|
Barack Obama's assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, John O. Brennan, conveniently outlined the administration's present and future policy mistakes in a speech on August 6, "A New Approach for Safeguarding Americans." To start with, his address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, has an unusual tenor. "Sycophantic" is the word that springs to mind, as Brennan ninety times in five thousand words invokes either "President Obama," "he," "his," or "the president." Disturbingly, Brennan ascribes virtually every thought or policy in his speech to the wisdom of the One. This cringe-inducing lecture reminds one of a North Korean functionary paying homage to the Dear Leader. Specifics are no better. Most fundamentally, Brennan calls for appeasing terrorists: "Even as we condemn and oppose the illegitimate tactics used by terrorists, we need to acknowledge and address the legitimate needs and grievances of ordinary people those terrorists claim to represent." Which legitimate needs and grievances, one wonders, does he think Al-Qaeda represents? Brennan carefully delineates a two-fold threat, one being "Al-Qaida and its allies" and the other "violent extremism." But the former, self-evidently, is a subset of the latter. This elementary mistake undermines his entire analysis. He also rejects any connection between "violent extremism" and Islam: "Using the legitimate term jihad, which means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve. Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself." This passage regurgitates a theory of radical Islam that, according to Lt. Colonel Joseph C. Myers of the U.S. Air Command and Staff College, "is part of a strategic disinformation and denial and deception campaign" developed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Discredited in 2007 by Robert Spencer, the theory distinguishes between good jihad and bad jihadand denies any connection between Islam and terrorism. It's a deeply deceptive interpretation intended to confuse non-Muslims and win time for Islamists. The George W. Bush administration, for all its mistakes, did not succumb to this ruse. But Brennan informs us that his boss now bases U.S. policy on it. The speech contains disquieting signs of ineptitude. We learn that Obama considers nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists to be "the most immediate and extreme threat to global security." Fine. But how does he respond? With three feeble and nearly irrelevant steps: "leading the effort for a stronger global nonproliferation regime, launching an international effort to secure the world's vulnerable nuclear material ..., and hosting a global nuclear summit." Nor can Brennan think straight. One example, requiring a lengthy quote. "Poverty does not cause violence and terrorism. Lack of education does not cause terrorism. But just as there is no excuse for the wanton slaughter of innocents, there is no denying that when children have no hope for an education, when young people have no hope for a job and feel disconnected from the modern world, when governments fail to provide for the basic needs of their people, then people become more susceptible to ideologies of violence and death." Summary: Poverty and a lack of education do not cause terrorism, but a lack of education and a job make people more susceptible to the ideas leading to terrorism. What is the distinction? Woe on us when the White House accepts illogic as analysis. Further, let's focus on the statement, "when governments fail to provide for the basic needs of their people, then people become more susceptible to ideologies of violence and death," for it contains two stunning errors. First, it assumes the socialist fiction that governments provide basic needs. No. Other than in a few commodity-rich states, governments protect and offer legal structures, while the market provides. Second, every study on the subject finds no connection between personal stress (poverty, lack of education, unemployment) and attraction to radical Islam. If anything, massive transfers of wealth to the Middle East since 1970 contributed to the rise of radical Islam. The administration is basing its policy on a falsehood. Where, as they say, is the adult supervision? Implementation of the inept policies outlined by Brennan spells danger for Americans, American interests, and American allies. The bitter consequences of these mistakes soon enough will become apparent. Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
EXCLUSIVE REPORT: BEDOUIN, PROTEST, & POLICE; YESHA COUNCIL REPRESSED GAZA EXPULSION RESISTANCE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, September 1, 2009. |
|
EXCLUSIVE REPORT: BEDOUIN, PROTEST, & POLICE Some Jewish nationalists set out on a protest march to Rahat, in the Negev, so they could report on illegal Bedouin building there. One march leader was Baruch Marzel, of Judea-Samaria, against whom Israeli prosecutors lost dozens of cases harassing him for protesting. He lost once or twice on minor issues. A Bedouin counter-demonstrator warned that "If Baruch Marzel comes in, then he will get what he deserves — a bullet in the head." This is similar to threats against his assignment as an election observer in an Arab town of Israel, whose votes exceeded its population of eligible voters. Arabs then did try to close in on Marzel. Arab threats of violence should be taken seriously. If Baruch Marzel issued such a threat, he would be indicted for incitement to murder. Why is the Bedouin who did issue such a threat not indicted? Indeed, Bedouin counter-demonstrators did throw rocks and shoes, this time, too. They hit a police officer. Taken to the hospital, he recovered. What was the police response? Arrests? No. Gentle treatment. Leftist Jews who oppose the security fence by throwing rocks at the Army, may be wrestled to the ground but aren't always arrested. Their violence is not discouraged. Suppose Marzel or any other right-winger threw stones at police. Police would rush in smashing heads and faces with their batons. Police do so against right-wing Jews without violent provocation. Nadia Matar, a co-leader of Women In Green, held a quiet demo in Jerusalem, but police came at her with clubs. She was exercising her democratic right to criticize the government. She shouldn't be clubbed or arrested, nor would it take clubbing to arrest her. The police engage in wanton violence, as in any antisemitic police state. This occurs at many demonstrations, such as the one in Reuit, next to Modiin. A Jewish woman reporter was jumped on by 8 police officers and beaten. So were some demonstrators. Luckily, my source was in a van ready to go home, escaping a head bashing. The demonstrators were opposing an order barring two men from their town, Yitzhar, Samaria, where their wives and children need protection from marauding Arabs, who repeatedly attempted to murder Jews there, children and whole families included, as Arabs who get into "settlements" have tried to do a number of times. The order was issued because Arabs were planting and the government claims it thought the two men may disrupt them. This appears to be preventive internal exile, which is bad enough, but it also is punishment to repress. Note, the pair did not disrupt, but "may." My source objects to the government's double standard, which favors anti-Israeli Arabs over pro-Israeli Jews. I think that police should permit and protect democratic protest. I don't suggest that the police beat any group discriminately nor all ethnic groups equally. I object to police repression of non-violent demonstrations, and to police violence not needed to arrest people breaking the law. It is not the job of the police to punish people or to ban legal protest. YESHA COUNCIL BETRAYED GAZA EXPULSION RESISTANCE Did the Yesha Council, representing Jewish residents of Judea, Samaria, Golan, and Gaza, oppose Israeli government expulsion efforts in Gaza or cooperate with it? The Council didn't act as I would have expected. I previously had heard disturbing reports about the Council getting tens of thousands of protestors to mill around for days, until they were picked off by police, instead of breaking into Gaza and effectively blocking the expulsion police. Protest activists made a video in four parts of 10 minutes each, explaining what happened. It shows settler leaders as tools of the government, betraying their people. Here is a link to the video. My interpretation of the video's points follow.
The video shows the Yesha Council and its agents constantly thwarting the mass-action planned. Council and agents appealed to good nature and law and order, though government brutality was not according to law and order. The media gave slanted coverage, so as to minimize public sympathy for protest and to make the Council seem part of the protest instead of undermining protest. The media did not show the good life Jews had in Gush Katif, Gaza. It presented those Jews as if alien. The leftist media of Israel acts as an agent of the government. That is not the free press fulfilling a watchdog and informative role. The Council told the press that it won't block police from the roads. If tens of thousands barred police, there would be no expulsion. The Council told its activists that its statement was just to appease the press. But the Council is run in secret. Only afterwards did activists learn that a government agent sat in on all Council strategy meetings. This explains government anticipation of the protestors' moves. The protest was well-organized. But the Council insisted that it be in charge, rather than the activist leaders. Council employees demanded obedience from the protestors. The film shows Council members and agents taking direction from the police and on jocular terms with them. The media, however, showed staged film of Council members yelling at the same police with whom they were on friendly terms. The Council kept watering the plan down. It changed tactics at the last minute. One change was not to cut the fence to Gaza. The excuse was that wouldn't look good. Another change was to halt. Pretending to be afraid of the media, the excuse was to wait for the right moment. (That happened to be the regime's excuse for deferring the post-expulsion raid into Gaza until thousands more rockets were fired into Israel.) As Barry Chamish has pointed out, the Council had people splitting up into smaller groups that couldn't coordinate but could be managed by the police. The masses wandered for a few days, until they ran out of steam. Activists felt something was going wrong. But they were cajoled until it was too late. They found it hard to believe that the Council, which included founding leaders of the settlement movement, and rabbis, would betray them. A leading rabbi was firm, until a Council agent told him that lives could be lost, so he stopped giving orders to proceed. Police claimed to have arrested Yesha Council leaders, but didn't. It was part of police disinformation to protect the Council collaborators. Some activists started acting on their own. Where protestors blocked the troops, the Council got rabbis to tell the protestors to desist. Not yet realizing whose side the Council really was on, the crowd yielded. All that kept the masses out of Gaza, unable to block demolition. The Council corralled them and let police into where they were holed up, and could remove them individually. In fact, police had keys to a locked building, but pretended they had to break in, to conceal Council collusion with them. The police didn't trust even the tame media over this, so it barred the press from the arrests of the protestors. The film showed Council agents helping the IDF violently drag people away. The narration claims that the troops beat people, but the film does not confirm that. (In other situations, police do beat Jewish protestors.) For me, the most heart-breaking scene was of five police pulling away one protestor at-a-time, while hundreds of young protesters just sat there. Why didn't three dozen protestors jump on the five troops and tie them up? I don't know what the right response would have been. Right after the expulsion, settlement activists formed an organization, The Loyalist for the Land of Israel. Will the settlers turn from the Yesha Council to it? Why did settlement leaders turn against their own people? Did police blackmail them? Did the government threaten to withhold funds for their municipalities? Were they just afraid? Their collaboration was too total. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: SUMMER AFTERNOON
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, September 1, 2009. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: I try to keep the images in this blog in step with the current season. The summer months are the most difficult in which to find pictures that combine both beauty and impact. Sometimes, though, it's enough to find a place that just feels like summer: hot, quiet, lazy, dry. And a country road to wander along, idle, innocent and full of dreams.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
TERRORISTS TERRORIZING TERRORISTS
Posted by Cpocerl, September 1, 2009. |
|
From the Strategy Page website:
|
|
August 16, 2009: A growing problem in Gaza, for the Palestinians there (especially Hamas, the radical group that runs the place) and neighboring nations, is the growing number of Islamic terrorists moving in. Hamas has made Gaza a sanctuary for Islamic radicals. So has Somalia and the tribal territories of Pakistan. But Somalia is in chaos, and Pakistan's tribal territories are under heavy attack. Thus while Gaza is small, and under constant threat of Israeli attack, it is relatively safe. And the tunnels into Egypt give these terrorists access to the rest of the world, via an underground network of criminals and Egyptian Islamic radicals who will, for a price, help you get out of the country, or get weapons, equipment and false ID. The Egyptians are not cooperating with this arrangement, as many of the Islamic radicals in Gaza consider the Egyptian government an implacable enemy. That's certainly true, as Egypt destroyed the radical wing of the Moslem Brotherhood in the 1990s (some of the survivors joined al Qaeda in Afghanistan). Four months ago, the government uncovered a network of 49 Hezbollah terrorists planning attacks inside Egypt. About half the suspects got away, some into Gaza. Hamas does not want to run a sanctuary for terrorists, but as an Islamic radical organization, it does not want to get into wars with other Islamic terror groups. This is all too easy a trap to fall into. In most areas where Islamic terrorists are active, factions among the terrorists are fighting each other. This does not get a lot of media play, but it gets a lot of Islamic terrorists killed. Think of it as a dirty little secret in the terrorist world. Hamas would rather not join this club, at least not in a big way. Hamas has not been able to avoid terrorist-on-terrorist bloodshed. The most recent incident had Hamas gunmen fighting with members of Jund Ansar Allah, a group that accuses Hamas of not being radical enough. That's partly because Hamas has decided to obtain a ceasefire with Israel, so that the Hamas arsenal can be built up (especially with long range Iranian rockets), along with defenses in Gaza. Hamas has a vague plan to make a large scale attack on Israel, and feels its chances would be much enhanced if they could only stockpile enough weapons. Thus Hamas feels compelled to pressure, even kill, other terrorists who will not cease attacking, or trying to attack, Israel. So far, Hamas has been able to avoid large scale bloodshed with fellow terrorists. But this is not expected to last. The battle with Jund Ansar Allah left 21 dead (including six Hamas police) and 40 Jund Ansar Allah members arrested. Hamas blamed its rival Fatah for arming and encouraging Jund Ansar Allah. But groups like that have no problems finding arms, or encouragement to fight. Hamas will have a hard time clearing the Islamic radical competition out of Gaza, and many Hamas members do not like fighting other radicals. Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
WHY IRAQIS STILL FIGHT LIKE ARABS
Posted by CPocerl, September 1, 2009. |
|
This comes from the Strategy Page website
|
|
Iraqi troops are somewhat mystified that they are not as successful at dealing with roadside bombs, as they Americans. The Iraqis now have the same equipment, and training, yet the Americans were much more successful at finding bombs and keeping roads clear of them. The Iraqis asked their American mentors for help, and were given some bad news (along with the requested help.) The bad news was that the Iraqis were the victims of their own bad habits. The first thing the Americans noted was that the Iraqis were not sharing information on what the terrorists were up to. Bomb removal teams from the army or police operated as if the other did not exist, even if they patrolled the same roads. Different intel organizations in the police and military would not share information, or work together. This, and a lot of other bad habits are fairly common throughout the Arab world, even though U.S. advisors have been pointing out the downside of these traits for decades. For example; # Most Arab countries are a patchwork of different tribes and groups, and Arab leaders survive by playing one group off against another. Loyalty is to one's group, not the nation. Most countries are dominated by a single group that is usually a minority (Bedouins in Jordan, Alawites in Syria, Sunnis in Iraq, Nejdis in Saudi Arabia). All of which means that officers are assigned not by merit but by loyalty and tribal affiliation. This continues in democratic Iraq, where political parties or powerful politicians strive to control individual police or army units. While these Russian techniques can work to hunt down terrorists in a police state, it doesn't work in a democracy. The Iraqi government is passing laws to make the country more like a police state. Old habits die hard.
Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com
|
|
CHEER A RARE INSTANCE OF PRESIDENTIAL TRANSPARENCY: MARY ROBINSON — THE
RIGHT WOMAN FOR THE RIGHT AWARD
Posted by Sam Schulman, September 1, 2009. |
|
I'm puzzled by the energy that so many have expended trying to explain the mistake of giving the Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson of Ireland and the world. The search for the error — a mistake in vetting, a moment of inattention — the pleadings with the President to correct the mistake and pay the price of embarassment — it's all a waste of time. Jennifer Rubin
"How could Robinson be a vetting error?" The truth is that the president owes an apology to no one. On the contrary, we should be grateful to him for choosing so forthrightly to honor an incompetent blowhard who has done so much to earn Obama's esteem: |
|
KICK THE WAC FROM JERUSALEM
Posted by Paul Lademain, September 1, 2009. |
|
The so-called "palestinians" are up to no good and the WAC should be barred from touring Jerusalem (or anywhere else in or about Israel's environs) with the declaration that the directors of the archeology tour under the auspices of WAC deliberately failed to clear their tour with the Israeli government. This failure bars them from lingering. Kick them out now. Moreover, the WAC is functioning unethically for the purpose of insulting the people of Israel and its allies. Call them on this. Bar the WAC from touring Jerusalem, if only to exercise Israeli sovereignty. If only to teach these fools to respect the people of Israel. Tell them they must learn respect before setting foot in your lands. People her say that if Israel does not behave as if it has power, your people will never gain, have, or keep power. Kick the WAC from Jerusalem and while you are at it, kick the Waqf from the Temple Mount! Don't waver. Don't cloak your powers with apologies. Stand strong. Talk back to Israel's antagonists. Tell the WAC their boorish behavior is a deliberate incitement to violence and bloodshed. Do not apologize to the WAC. Do not brag about being "non-violent" — this sort of braggadacio ties your hands and invites your enemies to ridicule Jews. Unfortunately, in the past, Jews allowed others to get away with bullying Jews because they did not have their own nation. They were forced to flee because they were weak in spirit and divested of power. Well, if you "run" or "flee" inside your own country, then you will surely lose your country, and then your very lives. If you allow morally infirm, aged, and therefore weak Jews, such as Shimon Peres, to conceal their helplessness by engaging in the false pretense that it is OK for foreigners to enter Israel and help themselves to whatever they want, then you are allowing yourselves to again be shoved over the cliff and into the jaws of a sure but slow death. And yes, Israel has allies: the American people — who are getting a snout-full of our peripatetic president who appears to be vigorously working both sides of the street for personal aggrandizement. Viva Israel from the SC4Z (Secular Christians for Zion)
Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
YISHAI AND YA'ALON: OUTPOSTS ARE LEGAL, WERE APPROVED BY GOVERNMENT
Posted by Dr. Aaron Lerner, September 1, 2009. |
| This is from a a live interview broadcast on Israel Radio's noon news magazine. |
|
Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon explained that the "unapproved" outposts are not "illegal" outposts but instead mostly communities that received many approvals from the Israeli authorities (and were even hooked up to utilities, mortgages provided, etc.) and Israel should explain to the Americans that they are "legal" and that any missing paperwork be completed. It should be noted that a reading of the exchange of letters between Israel and the United States finds that Israel did not commit to physically remove the "unapproved" outposts but instead end the existence of "unapproved" outposts and this can be achieved by changing their status to "approved". This is not a new concept — negotiations between DM Barak and communities always were on the basis that the status of some outposts would be changed to "approved" and thus removed from the list. Ya'alon also told Israel Radio that he would support considering the repopulation of Chomesh — one of the communities evacuated in Samaria at the time Israel retreated from the Gaza Strip. Yishai: Outposts are legal, were approved by government
As Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was in the United States Monday ahead of a meeting with President Barack Obama which would likely focus on Israel's policy in the settlements, several senior government ministers toured outposts in Samaria in an expression of solidarity with residents there. Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas), Science Minister Daniel Herschkowitz (Habayit Hayehudi), Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon and Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein (both Likud) toured the outposts. "These settlements were established by Israeli governments and approved by them," Yishai said. He added that "the people of Israel should know this settlement is legal. If someone thinks otherwise and plans to evacuate them, it will have to be approved by the government. You cannot just evacuate people from their homes without due process." The United States has long insisted that Israel halt all growth in the settlements and evacuate illegal outposts, and Mubarak is expected to insist on that issue during his meeting with Obama. Accompanying the ministers were Ze'ev Hever, chairman of the Amana movement, Pinchas Wallerstein, director-general of the Council of Jewish Communities of Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip and Gershon Messika, head of the Samaria Local Council. Hever gave the ministers a historic outline of the areas they toured. The visit follows Defense Minister Ehud Braak's decision to recruit 20 additional inspectors for the Civil Administration's inspection unit, which already employs 40 people. The decision comes as a preparation for demolishing illegal buildings and evacuating outposts and it is expected to make it more difficult for settlers to build additional housing units without obtaining a permit. While the unit monitors both Jewish and Palestinian illegal buildings, very few demolition orders are issued to illegal Palestinian buildings. Dr. Aaron Lerner is Director of IMRA, Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il Write him at imra@netvision.net.il |
|
FROM ISRAEL: BACKLASH
Posted by Arlene Kushner, September 1, 2009. |
|
This past week, Obama, shamefully, award the US Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, who, as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, had overseen the horrendously anti-Semitic and anti-Israel Durban I. With this crass and insensitive act, Obama has made a clear statement. I would like to share two commentaries on this event. The first, by John Bolton, former US Ambassador to the UN and a really good guy. Bolton analyzes the reasons why Robinson should not have received the award. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020425 1404574342152496390582.html?mod=googlenews_wsj ~~~~~~~~~~ The second by Jennifer Rubin (and I thank Yisrael M. for calling this to my attention) addresses the effect of Obama's decision on the American Jewish community and Jewish politicians. "I have a slightly different take on the Mary Robinson fiasco. Whether it becomes a 'tipping point' for the American Jewish community in political allegiance is not yet clear. But it marked a sharp departure in the behavior and, I think, perception of mainstream Jewish organizations. A combination of support for Obama's liberal domestic agenda, a desire to maintain access to the White House, and a heavy dose of wishful thinking had contributed to an almost total absence of sharp public criticism of the White House's increasingly hostile stance toward Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~ There are rumors afloat about the specifics on US-Israel negotiations with regard to a "temporary" freeze on settlement building. Shimon Schiffer, in Yediot Ahronot today, says the US wants a two year freeze because Obama figures that's how long forging a peace deal will take (in his dreams). Netanyahu, says Schiffer, is offering three months, with Israel retaining the right to start building again after that if the Arab states haven't made their appropriate gestures of normalization. Understand that this is not officially confirmed. But I don't like it in any event. If there are "gestures of normalization" does this mean we're permanently frozen? Both Netanyahu and Barak (who reportedly would accept a six-month freeze) want the deal in writing, since Obama claimed there was no deal with Bush that had to be honored because there was nothing that was an explicit written commitment. Obama is said to be balking at this as he doesn't want to go on record as formally authorizing building in the settlements under any conditions. Schiffer points out that there is also the issue of precisely what constitutes appropriate gestures of normalization — "for example the reopening of a single interest office by one of the Gulf states" — suggesting that Netanyahu might settle for a minor gesture. But, again, we don't know this. (See the next item.) ~~~~~~~~~~ According a message relayed by the US, Oman and Qatar may be willing to renew relations with Israel if we freeze settlement construction. (Oman broke ties at the time of the Second Intifada in 2000, and Qatar expelled Israeli in a delegation office during "Cast Lead" earlier this year.) The Netanyahu government is not responding to this with any particular enthusiasm, as there is no agreement yet on freezing settlements in any event. ~~~~~~~~~~ Please see this information on J Street, the far left political action committee that claims to be pro-Israel but works decidedly against Israel's true interests. Every concerned American Jew ought know this: Donors to J Street include Arabs, Muslim Americans, and those doing political advocacy for the Palestinians:
~~~~~~~~~~ Now Shabbat preparations call. Issues of significance to be considered soon, as time allows (there is NEVER enough time and there are always hot issues): A tense situation on our northern border, pressure from the US regarding negotiations with Syria, and a report, highly biased, from the UN Human Rights Council regarding our actions in "Cast Lead." Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
SAUDI ARABIA'S SENIOR CLERIC SANCTIONS PEDOPHILIA
Posted by Michael Travis, September 1, 2009. |
|
This was posted at the Last Crusade website:
|
|
It's Official!!! The Grand Mufti Has Spoken!!!!
Saudi Arabia's most senior cleric has told followers it is permissible for pre pubescent girls to marry and anyone who think they are too young are doing the youngsters "an injustice." Abdul-Azeez ibn Abdullaah Aal ash-Shaikh, the country's grand mufti, said: 'It is wrong to say it's not permitted to marry off girls who are 15 and younger. "A female who is ten or 12 is marriageable and those who think she's too young are wrong and are being unfair to her," he said during a Monday lecture. Al Sheikh's comments come at a time when Saudi human rights groups have been pushing the government to put an end to marriages involving the very young and to define a minimum age for marriage. In the past few months, Saudi newspapers have highlighted several cases in which young girls were married off to much older men or very young boys. The International Center for Research on Women now estimates that there are 51 million child brides now living on planet earth and almost all in Muslim countries. Twenty-nine percent of these child brides are regularly beaten and molested by their husbands in Egypt; twenty six percent receive similar abuse in Jordan. Every year, three million Muslim girls are subjected to genital mutilation, according to UNICEF. This practice has not been outlawed in many parts of America. The Islamic practice of pedophilia dates back to the prophet Muhammad, who amassed eleven wives and many concubines after the death of his furst wife Khadijah in 619 A.D. After Muhammad's elderly wife, Khadijah, died in 619 A.D., he amassed eleven wives. He arranged the visits to the tents of his women around their menstrual cycles. His capacity for sexual congress seemed to be boundless. Sahih Bukhari, one of the most revered Islamic texts, recounts: "The Prophet used to visit his wives in a round, during the day and night, and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet had the [sexual] stamina of thirty [men]."[1] For in-between treats, the Prophet kept a stable of concubines, including Reihana, his Jewish captive. His wives and mistresses were compelled by Islamic law to satisfy his sexual needs at any time of the day or night, and the Prophet reserved the right to enjoy them "from the top of their heads to the bottom of their feet."[2] This might not appear shocking to students of the Kinsley Report, except for the case of Aisha, Muhammad's favorite wife. Aisha was the daughter of Abu Bakr, the Prophet's closest friend and most faithful follower. As soon as Muhammad laid eyes on Aisha, he became to fantasize of having sex with her. There was a problem with this fantasy. Aisha, at that time, was a small child of four or five, while Muhammad was a middle-aged man of fifty.[3] Still and all, the Prophet wasted no time in making his fantasy a reality. When Aisha turned six, Muhammad asked Abu Bakr for his daughter's hand in marriage. Abu Bakr thought that such a union would be improper — — not because Aisha was a mere child but rather because he considered himself Muhammad's brother. The Prophet quickly brushed aside this objection by saying that the union was perfectly right in the eyes of Allah. Abu Bakr consented. And Muhammad took the little girl as his new bride. When they were married, Muhammad, in his mercy, permitted Aisha to take her toys, including her dolls, to their new tent.[4] The marriage was consummated when Aisha was nine, and the Prophet fifty-three.[5] The three year waiting period was not caused by Muhammad's concern of sexually molesting a child but rather by the fact that Aisha contracted some disease which caused her to lose her hair.[6] Pedophilia was not only practiced by Muhammad but also sanctioned by the Quran. In its discussion of the waiting period required to determine if a wife is pregnant before divorce, the sacred text says, "If you are in doubt concerning those of your wives who have ceased menstruating, know that their waiting period shall be three months. The same shall apply to those who have not yet menstruated"(65:4). Those who think that modern Muslims have abandoned this teaching should study the pictures and videos that accompany this article and recall the words of Ayatollah Khomeini, the most famous Islamic cleric of the 20th Century: A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate; sodomizing the child is OK. If a man penetrates and damages the child, then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however, does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister... It is better for a girl to marry in such a time when she would begin menstruation at her husband's house rather than her father's house. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.[7] Ahmad al-Mu'bi, a leading Saudi imam, upheld the recent pronouncement of the grand mufti by saying: "Marriage is actually two things: First we are talking about the marriage contract itself. This is one thing, while consummating the marriage — having sex with the wife for the first time — is another thing. There is no minimal age for entering marriage. You can have a marriage contract even with a 1-year-old girl, not to mention a girl of 9, 7, or 8. This is merely a contract [indicating] consent. The guardian in such a case must be the father, because the father's opinion is obligatory. Thus, the girl becomes a wife." Asked when it is proper to consummate such a marriage, al Mu'bi said: "The Prophet Muhammad is the model we follow. He took 'Aisha to be his wife when she was 6, but he had sex with her only when she was 9."
Contact Michael Travis at michaelmgr@gmail.com
|
|
THE PALESTINIANS HAVE A STATE
Posted by Yisrael Medad, September 1, 2009. |
|
These are two columns written by Sidney Zion who died in early August.
Sidney Zion, a Daily News columnist (and more), covered the Middle East since the Six Day War for numerous publications. He won the Overseas Press Club award, with Uri Dan, in 1979 for a series in The New York Times Magazine titled "Untold Story of the Mideast Talks." |
|
It's called Jordan from 2003 ...The Oslo peace process lies in ruin, and the road map plan is off to a shaky start, due to the inability of the parties involved to agree on a formulation of principles concerning the right, or lack thereof, of the Palestinians to determine their own future on the West Bank of the river Jordan — the area universally regarded as the historic, political, geographic, and demographic landmass of Palestine. But...a lot of well-intentioned people will tell you that there is not now and never has been a Palestinian nation. The problem with this notion is that it is not true. There is and has been a Palestinian nation since May 14, 1946 — only two years to the day before there was an Israeli nation. Originally called the Kingdom of Transjordan, that nation is now the Kingdom of Jordan. It lives on the East Bank of the Jordan River and comprises 80 percent of the historic, political, geographic, and demographic landmass of Palestine. It has a population of three million people, virtually all of whom were either born there or arrived there from the other 20 percent of Palestine — Israel plus the ''occupied territories'' known as the ''West Bank.'' ...These boundaries were universally acknowledged from the end of World War I until 1946, when Great Britain created by fiat the independent Kingdom of Transjordan — thus lopping off four-fifths of Palestine and handing it to the Arabs, in direct violation of the mandate over the territory granted to Great Britain by the League of Nations... ...Israel — it is said — now controls the whole of Palestine. Its refusal to cede completely the territory occupied after that war — from East Jerusalem to the Jordan River, plus the Gaza Strip — is therefore considered the bar to national rights or 'self-determination' of the Palestinian Arabs. So goes the conventional wisdom of much of the world, and, because it is so widely believed, it is naturally thought to be fair and objective. No matter that it is based on an incredible distortion of history, politics, geography, and demography. Yet, unless this distortion is corrected, there is little hope for anything close to enduring Middle East peace. A brief look at relatively recent events puts the problem in perspective. Before World War I, the word 'Palestine' had no clear-cut geographical denotation and represented no political identity. In 1920, however, the Allied powers conferred on Great Britain a 'mandate' over the territory formerly occupied by Turkey. It was called the Palestine Mandate and included the land on both sides of the Jordan River. This mandate was confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922 and remained unchanged during the League's lifetime. The mandate incorporated the Balfour Declaration, the famous 1917 proclamation by which Great Britain committed itself to provide a homeland in Palestine for the Jewish people; it did not provide a homeland for the Arabs living there, but it did protect their 'civil and religious,' although not their political, rights. However, two months after the League of Nations approved the mandate, Winston Churchill, then Britain's colonial secretary, changed the rules of the game. "One afternoon in Cairo," as Churchill later boasted, he simply took all the land east of the Jordan River and inserted the Hashemite Abdullah — the great-grandfather of the present King Abdullah — as its emir. But he did not free it from the mandate, and the people living on the East Bank were in all respects Palestinians. The people living there traveled under Palestinian passports, as did the Jews and Arabs living on the West Bank. But the whole country was effectively ruled by Britain...Britain's East Bank representative, Sir Alec Kirkbride, [said] this land, constituting 80 percent of the mandate, was "intended to serve as a reserve of land for use in the resettlement of Arabs once the National Home for the Jews in Palestine, which they were pledged to support, became an accomplished fact. There was no intention at that stage of forming the territory east of the river Jordan into an independent Arab state." Indeed, Churchill persuaded the Zionists to go along with the suspension of Jewish immigration to the East Bank on the grounds that this would mollify the indigenous Arab population on the West Bank — then 200,000 strong — and thus make possible a Jewish homeland west of the Jordan. Of course, it did no such thing; instead, it whetted Arab appetites for the whole of Palestine, an objective which was nearly achieved several time: the Palestinian Arab uprising against the Jews in 1936; the British White Paper of 1939, which cut off the Jewish immigration to the Holy Land, locking European Jews in with Hitler; and the united Arab war against the newly proclaimed State of Israel in 1948...what began in 1920 as a mandate to turn Palestine into a Jewish homeland turned into a reverse Balfour Declaration, creating an Arab nation in four-fifths of Palestine and leaving the Jews to fight for statehood against the Arabs on the West Bank. The upshot: Jordan is now considered an immutable entity, as distinct from Palestine as are Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq. But a country whose population is virtually all Palestinian can hardly be considered as something less than a Palestinian nation. ...When the Zionists agreed in 1922 to suspend immigration to the East Bank, in accordance with Churchill's request, Vladimir Jabotinsky signed on. But Jabotinsky — the elegant, fiery Zionist leader who later became the father of the underground Irgun Zvai Leumi and the "eagle" of its commander, Menachem Begin — changed his mind about the deal a year later after it became clear that the Jews had traded away most of the mandate for nothing. ...The Jabotinsky vision held that both sides of the Jordan belonged to Israel; he wrote a song about it: ''The West Bank is ours, and the East Bank is ours.'' Menachem Begin marched to this tune most of his life. For domestic political reasons he dropped it in his later years, but it was surprising, to say the least, that he did not even allude to it after he became prime minister. Had he insisted on educating the world about the true history of Palestine, Begin could have cleared up the confusion and made a contribution toward peace. Thus, if the world were to understand that Israel occupies only 20 percent of Palestine rather than 100 percent, would it not make a difference? If it became clear that the Arab refugees and their children who crossed over to Jordan in 1948 did not enter a "host country" but rather the Arab part of their own country, would it not make a difference? Of course it would make a difference. Israel is being robbed of its political, historic, and geographic legitimacy while seeming to rob the Palestinians of a nation it already has. ...said the late Peter Bergson, who led the Hebrew Liberation Movement in the 1940's — "But if we paint Jordan as if it's just another Arab nation, as if it's Saudi Arabia, then the fight is on for the extinction of Israel in stages. "Because," Bergson added, "if we insist that the whole of Palestine is the West Bank, anything we return is simply the fruit of a crime. But if we tell the truth, if we point out that 80 percent of the land is already in the hands of the Palestinian Arabs, everyone — here and around the world — will see this dispute for what it is." ...Indeed, no neighboring Arab nation really wants a separate state on the West Bank — not Egypt, not Saudi Arabia, not Syria, not Lebanon. Some of them say they want it, but whosoever accepts rhetoric in the Middle East belongs in the U.S. State Department.
And this column: Don't Tell Me Brits Were Benign, from July 10th 1997 "The British love freedom almost as much as they love depriving people of it," wrote Ben Hecht. I know of no better history of the British Empire, whose sun just fell into the China Sea and barely flickers over Northern Ireland. Misery followed the Union Jack across the seas and across the centuries. The world was its outhouse, however civilized it appeared at home. Check India, Palestine, Egypt, Hong Kong, Ireland check America on the Fourth of July. So imagine my surprise and maybe yours when I read on this very page the other day the headline over a column by Charles Krauthammer: "Sun sets on Brit empire, but not on its fine legacy." Krauthammer sees the handover of Hong Kong as a "melancholy" end to British colonial rule over the Pacific, and he waxes nostalgic over the "benevolent" empire, under which he was raised as a child in Montreal. Montreal was maybe the exception that proved the rule, but oh, Charlie, don't sing "Melancholy Baby" to us about the Brits. Not a good Jew like you, who backs Israel to the hilt, and ought to know what the English did to your people. Fifty years ago, the Hebrew Revolution was in full swing against the British occupation of Palestine. The Brits, who had closed off Jewish immigration to Palestine in 1939, on the eve of World War II, thus locking the Jews of Europe into Hitler's death camps, now had 100,000 troops in the Holy Land with the sole purpose of killing off a Jewish State. Against this, the Irgun, led by Menachem Begin, and the tiny but lethal Stern group, fought a street revolution unparalleled in history. Never more than 5,000 strong, they blew up British installations, copped British arms and flogged and hanged in retaliation British soldiers. Condemned in the world press as "terrorists," informed against, kidnaped, tortured by the Jewish Agency, led by David Ben-Gurion and Golda Meir, they somehow managed to drive the British out of the Holy Land. The Brits were brutal; as always the broken neck was their answer. In the spring and summer of 1947, they hanged Jewish patriots in Acre prison as a matter of course. Dov Gruner, an Irgun soldier captured by the British, became the symbol of the Jewish revolt. His poignant letters from prison caught a little of the world's sympathy. The Brits hanged him anyway, and in secret, even as they invited his sister to visit him. Few remember Dov Gruner in Israel, and far fewer remember him in America. Who, after all, knows that there was a Hebrew Revolution? Say the word and people shake their heads like a batter fighting off a fastball from Randy Johnson. The reason is that Israel has denied its revolution, because the "wrong people" fought it. The official Jewish Army, the Haganah, laid down its arms in the midst of the fray. In the summer of 1946, the British arrested the leaders of the Jewish Agency, and that was that for their fight against the British. "The Hebrews learn it backward, which is absolutely frightening," said Henry Higgins. In that vein, Israel had as its first leaders Ben-Gurion, Chaim Weizmann and Golda Meir those who collaborated with the English by opposing those who fought them, the Irgun and the Stern group. When Menachem Begin finally took over in 1977, he was no longer a revolutionary. And so the history of the Hebrew Revolution has been buried like the Dead Sea Scrolls. Next year the Israelis celebrate the 50th year of the War of Independence, which they say began after the British left the country, when the Arab world attacked the new Jewish State. It's as if our War of Independence was the War of 1812. Israel's real War of Independence was against the British Empire. A guy as wise as Charles Krauthammer would know this, if history hadn't been blotted out like a foggy day over London town.
Yisrael Medad blogs at the My Right Word website:
|
|
BANKING ON FATAH
Posted by M. S. Kramer, September 1, 2009. |
|
The Obama Administration is banking on the ruling faction in the West Bank, Fatah, to come to a compromise with Israel, a compromise that should result in a peace settlement. What is Fatah and is it probable that Obama's dream will come true? In the 1950s (exact year is uncertain), not long after the State of Israel won its War of Independence against five Arab armies, Yasser Arafat and other Palestinian nationalists formed Fatah, an acronym standing for Harakat Al-Tahrir Al-Watani Al-Filastini — the Movement for the National Liberation of Palestine. It is the main component of the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization), which was founded in 1964. From www.palestinefacts.org: "Backed by Syria, Fatah began carrying out terrorist raids against Israeli targets in 1965, launched from Jordan, Lebanon and Egyptian-occupied Gaza (so as not to draw reprisals against Syria). Dozens of raids were carried out each year, exclusively against civilian targets." "Fatah's original Covenant called for the destruction of pre-1967 Israel and disavowed interest in the West Bank and Gaza Strip — then held by Jordan and Egypt respectively. Only in 1968, in the aftermath of the Six Day War, the PLO altered the Covenant to demand the establishment of a Palestinian State on the entire territory of the Land of Israel." (emphasis added) The concerns of the 1948-49 Arab refugees were the basis for the establishment of both Fatah and the PLO. Two generations later, these veterans still constitute the core of the organizations' leadership and support cadres. Predictably, the young guard of the movement wants to move into positions of power while the old guard fights to remain in control. In the Oslo Accord (2003), the Fatah/PLO negotiated the formation of the Palestinian National Authority (PA or PNA) to govern in the West Bank and Gaza. Hamas, a terrorist organization backed by Iran, subsequently won an American-sponsored election in Gaza (2007) and replaced the PA there. Fatah is currently battling Hamas to retain control in the West Bank and to regain it in Gaza. While perceived by the West as more moderate towards peace with Israel than Hamas, Fatah shares with Hamas the goal of replacing the Jewish "entity". Mordecai Kedar, a lecturer in the departments of Arabic and Middle East Studies at Bar-Ilan University and an associate of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) think tank, says that the Islamic world is ideologically incapable of according legitimacy to the State of Israel, for deep-seated religious, nationalistic and historical reasons. The Arab world will not accept Israel as a Jewish nation-state, or as the rightful homeland of the Jewish People. The simple reason for this is that Allah does not recognize any other religion besides Islam. "Israel's demand that Islam recognize it as a state for the Jewish People contradicts the most basic tenets of Islam, which view Judaism as null and void. Israel's demand actually requires Islam to recognize Judaism as a legitimate religion even though God himself stated in the Koran that 'whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, will never be accepted.'" (Chapter 3, Verse 85) A second obstacle is Jewish nationality. Kedar says, "This is the 'great lie' of the Zionist movement, according to Islamists: creating a Jewish people out of nothing, and trying to convince the world at large that a Jewish People does indeed exist. Even worse, these Jewish communities have decided to migrate to Palestine, to 'displace' the original inhabitants [so-called Palestinians] and to establish a state, whose name has no connection to the Jewish people but to the mythological Sons of Israel. So, from the Islamic perspective, how can one recognize this state as the 'State of the Jewish People' — an ethnic group that does not really exist?" The third obstacle to an agreement is land. Kedar gives the Islamic rationale: "How can the Jews — whose religion is illegitimate and who are not an ethnic people — demand that the Muslims recognize the conquest of the land of Palestine which is holy to Muslims alone?" Palestine belongs to the Arabs forever, a "fact" based on the seventh century CE Arab conquest, which included Palestine within the group of countries which were under Islamic rule like Spain, Sicily and part of the Balkans, which must be returned to the bosom of Islam. In addition, Islamic tradition claims that Caliph Omar declared Palestine, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan, as Waqf (holy endowment) land, consecrated for all Muslim generations forever. Kedar concludes: "There is no escape from the conclusion that Israel's struggle for survival is religiously based, even if externally it assumes the form of a territorial struggle. It does not matter what its size, Israel will never gain recognition by the Arab and Muslim world as a legitimate state. Similarly, international documents which legitimize the 'Jewish State', such as United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 of 29 November 1947, are viewed by Muslims as illegitimate." BESA Center Perspectives Papers No. 87, July 28, 2009 (www.biu.ac.il) Kedar's misgivings about the possibility of Arab-Israel peace are being fulfilled at the Fatah conference, which has been extended beyond its original three-day agenda due to internal wrangling about the leadership of the movement. Nevertheless, agreement has been reached on the most important points for reaching — or rather not reaching — a peace agreement with Israel. These came in two documents, one for international consumption (Political Program) and the other for internal use (Internal Order), according to Middle East expert Pinhas Inberi. The Political Program shows progress in terms of accepting a political solution and rejecting violence — but it fails to waive the principle of armed struggle. The Internal Order shows the unvarnished agenda, including the term "armed popular struggle" at its top. It rejects all political solutions other than the extermination of the occupying Zionist entity in Palestine. It rejects any projects that seek to internationalize the struggle against Israel or bring in an outside custodian over the Palestinians or Jerusalem. It states clearly that the liberation of the Holy Land and the defense of its holy sites (forbidden to infidels) are Arab, Muslim, and humanitarian duties. It mentions the "one-state solution" as the only solution and that the armed popular revolution is the inevitable way to the liberation of Palestine and the demise of Israel. (www.mesi.org.uk) Inbari's conclusion is that, "While Fatah's Political Program tries to accommodate international expectations and seems designed to mobilize international legitimacy for the re-launching of a 'peaceful intifada', Fatah's Internal Order reminds us how deeply ingrained in Fatah is its ideology from the 1960s and 1970s." (www.jcpa.org) Judging from the proclamations of its latest conference, Fatah hasn't deviated from its insistence for a Palestinian State on the entire territory of the Land of Israel. This is a major complication for the Obama Administration, America, and of course, Israel. On the other hand, it's always better to know with whom you are dealing. If Israelis, Europeans, and especially Americans learn what Fatah writes in Arabic (not in English!) in its internal documents, we'll be a lot better prepared to deal with reality 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." |
|
THE "VISA DOLOROSA" AT THE UNITED STATES EMBASSY IN TEL AVIV:
AN OPEN LETTER TO THE AMBASSADOR OF USA IN ISRAEL
Posted by Oz Almog, September 1, 2009. |
|
Dear Mr. Ambassador, My name is Oz Almog, and I am a professor of sociology and history in the Department of Land of Israel Studies at the University of Haifa. I have been invited to NYU as a Visiting Professor for the upcoming fall semester. My 22 year-old son applied to the United States Embassy in Tel Aviv for a tourist visa, so that he could visit me during my stay at NYU. The embassy initially turned down his application, claiming they were not convinced he would return to Israel. Only after a number of well-meaning and well-placed American and Israeli friends and colleagues intervened and wrote letters in support of my son, was his application finally approved. He was granted a single-entry visa valid for the next six months only, evidently to make sure he keeps his word and returns to Israel. After having spent three and a half extraordinarily unpleasant hours at the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to arrange a work visa for myself, I feel I can no longer remain silent. I spent that time in the company of my 21 year-old daughter, who was applying for a tourist visa to visit me, and a few hundred other exasperated Israelis. If I had been asked to close my eyes and guess where I was, the last place I would have guessed would have been the Embassy of the United States of America — a country people around the world see as the quintessential symbol of efficiency and courtesy. Along with thousands of my fellow Israelis who come to the embassy each year, I wish to understand the following: 1.Why are we treated like prisoners and not allowed to bring bags of any sort into the embassy's reception area, not even a case to hold documents or a place to put a wallet? Is the danger greater here than on an airplane? Haven't you heard of security inspection equipment? All those who have ever applied for a visa at the United States Embassy in Tel Aviv are sure to understand why my son's application for a visa to visit his father was initially turned down. They understand that at this embassy — and perhaps even beyond the embassy — bureaucracy has been allowed to take over. By the way, unlike her brother, my daughter, who came to the embassy with me, was granted a 10 years tourist visa immediately with practically no questions asked (we don't have a clue for her brother's "discrimination"). Obviously, this entire visa process is idiotic and even unethical. That's right — unethical! After the grueling morning I spent at the embassy, I phoned my wife and told her how humiliated I felt. At that moment, I felt like canceling my entire trip to the United States. To hell with the hours of work I put in to adapt my lectures to American students. I don't need any favors!! One of the most puzzling aspects of this whole nightmarish experience is that a few creative solutions could eliminate the need for it completely. I had thought the United States was known for solving matters creatively, but perhaps I was mistaken. One possible solution is that tourists could be asked to deposit a significant sum of money at the embassy as a guarantee. Those who do not leave the USA within the appointed time will have their money confiscated. This would certainly act as a deterrent and eliminate the need for these KGB-like interviews to uncover covert — and for the most part non-existent — intentions to become illegal immigrants. As a social scientist, I have studied and acquired in-depth knowledge of the world's cultures. I can confidently say that the experience of those applying for visas to visit the United States has no parallel anywhere else in the world. In my view, this is not merely a problem of a lack of efficiency and good judgment. Rather, it is a symptom of a much deeper problem. Visa applicants come away with a very strong sense of American arrogance and disdain. Here in Israel you are fortunate as most people see in the United States a friend and simply put up with this exceedingly patronizing behavior as one of the hoops they must jump through before visiting the U.S. But millions of people around the globe detest the United States precisely because of this patronizing arrogance. Respectfully,
Oz Almog is Professor, Land of Israel Studies, Department of Sociology, University of Haifa, Israel. Contact him by email at oalmog@univ.haifa.ac.il |
|
READER-SELECTED VIDEOS
Posted by Various Readers, September, 2009. |
|
GILAD SHALIT IS ALIVE! HALLELUYAH From DK Duboraw (October 3, 2009) watch the video (Hebrew only): KEEP PRAYING! DON'T GIVE UP! OUR ABBA HAS ANSWERED US SO FAR...
MAY OUR ADONAI TZEVAOT CONTINUE TO WATCH OVER GILAD AND BRING HIM HOME SOON. Kristen Durboraw
have fun-videos From Fred Reifenberg (September 30, 2009) Incredible, how the past comes to the presence. The older folks will enjoy and the later generations may as well....take a peek, and listen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8pUW2RXOCI&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwjGBDEEd3I&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKgBLJO_5nA Three Terrorists Shooting Rockets and... From Yael from Road 90 (September 29, 2009) We wish to find all of you in the Book of life and happiness! You’ll find here a few great videos that I’m happy to share with you. Time is passing, Iran is testing missiles, and the world looks to wait that Israel, once again, will make the job alone. The fact is that I’m sure we’ll do it, the next months are critical, and please, be prepared to pray, it will be or only way to help our soldiers on the battle field. Miracle or science? It's just beautiful [click here] The Rabbi's Shofar and the Dog [click here] Three Terrorists Shooting Rockets and... [click here] Stand for Freedom in Iran rally New York [click here] Thousands Of Children Saying Tehillim At Yom Tefilla [click here] Singing Together in Honor of Yom Kippur [click here] Netanyahu at 92nd St on night of his UN speech From Zalmi (September 28, 2009) Well worth waiting out other intros to hear this speech, and what the Lubavitcher Rebbe told Bibi when he arrived as ambassador to the UN. Excellent, including Eli Wiesel's intro and right down to Helfgott's hatikva. http://www.92y.org/content/webcast_092409.asp The Movie;- Escape from Sobibor From Fred Reifenberg (September 27, 2009) My grandparents, from both sides, died in 2 of these camps This is a full length movie: Escape from Sobibor:: Non-fiction, hard to watch at time but necessary. Moshe The Movie: Escape from Sobibor
Remembering our History From Naomi Ragen (September 27, 209) Friends, We so tend to forget our history in all the overblown rhetoric and propaganda lies. The follow site which has collected rare photos from Life Magazine about Israel in 1948, is a wonderful reminder, and a wake-up call to all those who are falling for the revisionist Jew-hating historians re-write. These pictures don't lie. This is the first part. There are two more parts available, the URLs are at the site. http://benatlas.com/2009/07/life-in-israel-in-1948-part-1/ Shana Tova,
Maoz Israel From Sheridan Neimark (September 25, 2009) Just a reminder that we must never forget!
Netanyahu, the great speaker From Truth Provider (September 24, 2009) Here is Benjamin Netanyahu's great speech to the UN today, 24 September, 2009 I included additional clips you may not have seen yet which demonstrate his great mind, talents and yes, sense of humor. Your Truth Provider,
BONUS NETANYAHU CLIPS Glen Beck's interviews Netanyahu Bill Maher's famous interview two years ago And another BONUS:
Throwing Israel (along with Honduras, Poland and the Czech Republic) under the bus From Truth Provided (September 24, 2009) Israel (along with Honduras, Poland and the Czech Republic) under the bus, President Obama has now placed the State of Israel on the chopping block! Please watch this 9 minute interview with former UN Ambassador John Bolton - and pass this along to ANYONE - ANYONE who cares about the Jewish State of Israel. CRUNCH TIME IS COMING!!! Glenn Beck Clips 09-23-09
What we told you about Obama last year is now materializing. Your Truth Provider,
Live Kol Nidre Webcast online From Jewish TV Network (September 24, 2009)
Emet Seminar From Sarah Stern (September 23, 2009) http://emetonline.org/seminar2.html The videoes from the 2009 Rays of Light in the Darkness Dinner are now available! Speeches by Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Sen. Jon Kyl, R. James Woolsey, Dr. Tawfik Hamid and Dr.Walid Phares: http://emetonline.org/raysoflight09.html Obama, Rosh Hashana, Gifts, Lost Jews... From Yael from Road 90 (September 22, 2009) Sharing Israel with the world is a great job, and we thank all of you who appreciate what we are trying to do with Road 90. I would like to ask you something; ask you to share on Road 90 more videos of what is really Israel. A majority of our friends who are sharing videos on Road 90 goes a bit "political", it's great, but I don't believe that it's the only thing Israel has to show. And I depend on your videos folks for this weekly selection...
Help me to show our Land, our Culture, our People and Religion... This was my small wish for 5770 :)
High Holidays: Who Shall Live [click here] Tel Aviv: a special gift from Brussels [click here] Shana Tova; a great one! [click here] U.S. Taxpayers Pay for anti-Israeli and anti-US guests [click here] President Obama: Warm Wishes for Rosh Hashanah [click here] Ayalim Foundation in the Negev [click here] Sadia Shepard and the Lost Jews of India [click here] debate with Darrell Issa and Bertha Lewis From LS (September 21, 2009) Another Must-See video:
ACORN Boss Bertha Lewis Debates Rep. Darrell Issa on Fox News Sunday
ACORN chief organizer (CEO) Bertha Lewis and debated (well, sort of debated, more like answered a few questions and stonewalled the important questions) Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) in front of Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. Issa's investigators on the House Oversight and Government Reform
prepared an
Meanwhile, even President Obama says an investigation of ACORN, with whom he has strong ties, is called for. However, the president's statement that he "didn’t even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money" cannot possibly be true. Here's the Lewis vs. Issa video from Fox:
RICO Acorn From Fred Reifenberg (September 21, 2009) If you haven't seen Jon Stewart on the subject, you must. He's
much funnier than Fox News, which was for a long time the only TV
media to report it.
Here's Jay Leno
And if you think poor defenseless little ACORN is without resources or friends and supporters, note that it can now get up to $8 billion (yes, that's a "B") more after the House passed Rep. Barney Frank's amendment allowing organizations indicted for voter fraud or related crimes to receive taxpayer dollars today. We used to make jokes about corruption in DC, and they were funny because it was infrequent or unimportant or both, and when they were caught they had the decency to be embarrassed. It's not funny any more. Now they're electing presidents. The good news is that Sam Adams is looking pretty good. Jim "RICO ACORN, right now. Seize all their assets. Seize the assets of their many hundreds of subsidiaries. Seize the assets of Wade Rathke, his thief brother, and all the top executives. Let them squeal and squirm for a little bit trying to figure out how they will support their lavish, parasite lifestyles without income, and then start asking the real questions."
Simply put, prohibiting ACORN from funding what some have called a "criminal enterprise" with your tax dollars is not going to stop ACORN. They have to be indicted. Simpson again: "Earlier this summer Congressman Issa (R CA), minority ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, commissioned a report on ACORN. Completely ignored by Democrats and the mass media -- no surprise there -- this report chronicled ACORN's legacy of criminal activity." And the evidence against ACORN is not flimsy. Simpson yet again: "An in-depth investigation of ACORN assisted by the power of the RICO statutes... would likely produce evidence of rampant corruption both within the Obama administration as well as the Democratic Party at large. There has been a symbiotic relationship between ACORN and the left wing of the Democrat Party for decades at this point and a particularly close relationship between Obama and ACORN." If we really want to stop ACORN... if we really want to stop craft and corruption that possibly goes all the way to the highest levels of our government... RICO ACORN. Case closed. Let's get rolling
Mixed Bag From Truth Provider (September 20, 2009) MY LETTER TO NPR: How long will NPR continue to perpetuate two myths and insist they are truths? Friends, please do me a favor, when you see or hear a stupid comment on the media, go to your computer and write a complaint. BE VOCAL! "GLOBAL WARMING"
Also below a complete turn around act by one of the top IPCC scientists who supported until now the charade of man-made "Global Warming," but after further scientific work, he is now confirming what some of us have known all along - the globe is cooling!!!
We are going to see Al Gore-illa, his Hollywood followers, the President, NPR and the liberal media with egg on their faces.
ON CAPITALISM AND GREED by Milton Friedman:
Who is responsible for the financial situation? Bush Administration warned and pushed Congress to regulate to no avail:
You hear a lot these days about Jewish "control" of Congress, the country, the world and everything else. I wish this was true.... What you do not know is how much Muslims influence there is. Here is the proof: http://www.islamoncapitolhill.com. And I thought one we are not supposed to mix Federal Institutions and religion.... From CNN news: From LS (September 18, 2009) http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/17260182/1610997888/name/ftc-vi26.wmv This 2-minute video should be mandatory viewing for every US citizen. Interesting observation by a Smart Arab! From Bruce Tuchman (September 17, 2009) please watch the whole thing, very interesting observation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4C2TSUsoD4 Bill Clinton singing In Israel] From Sheridan Neimark (September 17, 2009) Also take note of the young Israeli singer. She could probably win "America Has Talent" show. Subject: Bill Clinton singing In Israel Just beautiful!!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYoVDCBSxFk&NR=1 Long-legged Mack Daddy Obama From Cpocerll (September 5, 2009) Don't miss this video! A rant by James David Manning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vETPO9237B0 I Pledge From Milton Franks-Lhermann (September 3, 2009) Be patient. This is loaded with platitudes but the MESSAGE frequently jumps out near the end. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqcPA1ysSbw Starts out innocently enough. Keep listening til the end...this gave me chills....supposedly they are showing this in schools before the speech next week. This is downright scary.... Yael from Road 90 From Yael from Road 90 (September 1, 2009) It is the 1st of September today, and as every year for the past few years, in a few days, Iran's "democratically elected" (or should we say rejected) president will appear at the UN's General Assembly in New York to insult Israel and the Jewish people. As Shimon Peres said it, today more than ever, the clock is ticking when one thinks of the Iranian nuclear program. Let's all pray during our upcoming repentance period, for a brighter future for the people of Israel. Shimon Peres: Iran, the clock is ticking [click here] Cute: very First Time in Masada [click here] Rosh Hashana: Listen to the New Year [click here] IRAN: Why Israel Can't Wait [click here] Tunnel at the Western Wall [click here] Fight Anti-Semitism [click here] Christians United for Israel [click here] WE, THE PEOPLE WILL FIGHT YOU, THE ONE-WORLDLERS. From Adrian Salbuchi (August 29, 2009) Please watch the video on YouTube:
An Argentine opinion on World Events by political analyst ADRIAN SALBUCHI, Researcher, Author, Speaker, Founder of the Argentine Second Republic Movement - MSRA: Movimiento por la Segunda República Argentina Some practical ideas for a Globally coordinated Action Plan, based on the experience of Argentina's monetary, financial and social collapse of December 2001, that buried 50% of our population in Poverty. The One-World Elite managed to get back on their feet by lavishly financing corrupt politicians, industrialists and media, that acting together have all but destroyed once proud Argentina. The worst example of this is the usurping duo of former president NESTOR KIRCHNER who, thanks to Money Power, IMPOSED on us his wife CRISTINA KIRCHNER as his presidential successor. Is the Palestinian issue a core cause of Middle East turbulence From Yoram Ettinger (August 29, 2009) Is the Palestinian issue a core cause of Middle East turbulence and anti-US Islamic terrorism, as suggested by top US policy-makers? The following 4 minute video presents facts, which are relevant to such an assessment: http://www.jerusalemonline.com/4israel28.asp. The video was produced by JerusalemOnLine, a service of daily video news from/about Israel. The Obama Administration Sacrifices Israel From Yael from Road 90 (August 25, 2009) Must See: Unity of the Jewish people: SFASHKENAZ [click here] The Obama Administration Sacrifices Israel [click here] UN and Media says Gaza is starving? [click here] My Yiddishe Mama by Yosef Rosenblatt [click here] Moments from Zion — Jerusalem [click here] People from Tel Aviv, never stop to move! [click here] 30 YouTube Videos of Adon Olam From Jacob Richman (August 24, 2009) I collected links to 30 different YouTube videos featuring the song Adon Olam. The address is: http://www.jr.co.il/videos/jewish-videos.htm#adonolam WE, THE PEOPLE WON'T BOW TO YOU, THE ONE-WORLD ELITE... From Adrian Salbuchi (August 22, 2009)
Part One: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=280sYGrDHE4
Obama on Israel... In his own words From Yael from Road 90 (August 18, 2009) Here is another video mix about Israel, diplomacy, legacy, culture, religion... Obama and his Words... [click here] Danny Ayalon on Israel's relationship with the U.S [click here] Street Food in Jerusalem (by AlJazeera)
Remember 6 years ago: Cafe Hillel Suicide Bombing [click here] Israeli Sand Artist Ilana Yahav : Happy [click here] Gaza: The Cult of the Suicide Bomber [click here] Lag B'omer in Meron at the gravesite of Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai [click here] Tel Aviv by Night [click here] WHAT WAS ELIMINATED FROM HANNITY PROGRAM From Cpocerl (Aug 17 2009) Yes, the program was not aired Sunday so it was googled and found the segments
had been taken off of the internet as well. Wonder "target=_blank [Editor's note:Part 3 on were viewable last time I looked.] Part 1-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rthv8QmJLUw Part 2-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJNhKZh8mGY Part 3-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95XFUi8PrTs& Part 4-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gl4twMf1xyM& Part 5-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKzFtKEysjw& Part 6-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmEmRbRJFLU& S. Fred Singer, PhD, President
Are you an Islamophobe? From (Sheik yer'mami — Winds of Jihad blogsite) Islamophobe (Is-slahm-o-fohb) — A non-Muslim who knows too much about Islam Islamophobia is a fear of losing life or liberty to Islamic rule merely because the laws, sacred texts, and modern practices of Islam demand the submission of culture, politics, religion and all social expression. It tends to afflict those most familiar with the religion, while sparing the more gullible. In Muhammad's day, Islamophobia was treated with a practice known as beheading. Since this is now impractical outside of the Muslim world, the condition is best addressed by means of prevention. Such preventive measures include willful ignorance with a strong dose of taqiyya. Do you suffer from this malady that is the worst form of terrorism? Pat Condell has his own, very good definition of it, here... http://sheikyermami.com/2009/07/24/pat-condell/ Obama: The Next Neville Chamberlain. Israel's Worst Enemy? Liberal Jews!. From LEL These are two videos by Jackie Mason. Mason compares Obama's ignorance of danger of terrorism is like
Chamberlain believing Hitler would keep his word,
He discusses how Hamas uses human shields and Liberal Jews defend them.
|
| Home | Featured Stories | Background Information | News On The Web |