| HOME | Featured Stories | April 2008 Blog-Eds List | Background Information | News On the Web |
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, April 30, 2008. |
|
Yehoshua HaLevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: Light, form, color, texture, pattern: Take any one of these and you've got the foundation for a great photograph. In my classes, we learn to identify these design elements, single them out, and then advance to images built around two or more of these concepts. The wild irises of Mt. Gilboa are famous enough to merit a trail in their name in Beit Alpha National Park, located along the scenic route that winds from the Beka Valley up to Afula. I finally managed a visit there in the early spring of 2006. While there was plenty of seasonal color, to my dismay I only spotted this single iris which happened to be at the peak of its flowering. When I encounter a subject with potential, I'll often walk full circle around it to study the light, but here it was immediately obvious that a backlit angle would provide the greatest drama. I fiddled a bit more with my camera, mounted on a tripod with a macro lens, to create a background that would both complement the colors in the petals while isolating the flower from anything overly distracting to its form. Back in my digital darkroom, I applied a few quick finishing touches. I cropped the bottom so the stem would appear shooting upward from the lower right corner and I darkened the background just slightly to add emphasis to the backlit petals." Contact him at smile@goldenlightimages.com |
|
THE DIPLOMATIC DANCE WITH HAMAS
Posted by JCPA, April 30, 2008. |
|
This was written by Professor Efraim Karsh. |
No sooner had former U.S. President Jimmy Carter emerged from his Damascus meeting with Khaled Mashaal to declare Hamas' readiness to accept the Jewish state as a "neighbor next door" than the radical Islamist group demonstrated what its vision of peaceful coexistence meant by making the most ambitious attempt to kidnap Israeli soldiers and detonating two car bombs at a border crossing used for the introduction of vital foodstuffs and humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip. Meanwhile, Hamas' foreign minister, Mahmoud Zahar, reasserted the organization's commitment to Israel's destruction through demographic subversion (i.e., the "right of return") and vowed to continue the "armed struggle" against "the foundational crime at the core of the Jewish state." Attalah Abu Subh, Hamas' culture minister, amplified this assertion. "Everything we see in the Arab region and around the world –– the evil of the Jews, their deceit, their cunning, their warmongering, their control of the world, and their contempt and scorn for all the peoples of the world," he argued, "is based on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion –– the faith that every Jew harbors in his heart." The notion that Hamas' co-option into a political process aimed at stifling its overriding goal of destroying Israel will make it more hopeful and less despairing is a contradiction in terms. Yet the hope that Hamas could somehow be lured away from its genocidal agenda seems to be gaining wider currency. A bipartisan group of former U.S. officials, led by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, have been calling for "a genuine dialogue" with Hamas.[1] Former Secretary of State Colin Powell told National Public Radio last year that some way must be found to talk to Hamas.[2] Some Israelis have also joined the chorus calling for talks with Hamas. "Before we are dragged into Gaza, we must exhaust the other possibility," wrote journalist Ari Shavit. "We should offer Hamas a deal: an Islamic republic in Gaza in exchange for full demilitarization. A full and fulfilling life for a Muslim community of brothers, in exchange for giving up violence and arms altogether." Shavit is aware that his proposal is likely to be rejected, as Hamas "tends to prefer the deaths of Israelis over the lives of Palestinians." Yet he believes that "if there is any chance of a frank negotiation with Hamas, this is the path the talks should take. Not a Carter-style illusion, not the temporary tactic of a passing tahdiye (truce), but a tough deal with tough terms. A street deal. A deal with thugs. A deal meant to give those who live on the other side of the fence a genuine opportunity to lay down the sword, pick up the Koran and become real neighbors." But why should Hamas pay a price, any price, for something it already has? It needs no Israeli consent to establish an "Islamic republic" in Gaza. It did precisely that in early 2006, to Israel's abhorrence, and is probably in a position to replicate this success in the West Bank, the only inhibiting factors being considerations of political expediency and Israel's effective counterinsurgency measures. It can likewise obtain peace and quiet for its Gaza subjects at any given moment if it stops the rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages and sends no "holy warriors" to blow themselves up among Israeli civilians. Nor is Israel in a position to reach "a street deal," given the steady erosion of its deterrent prowess since the Oslo years, and especially after the hurried flight from south Lebanon on May 24, 2000, which was instrumental in triggering the so-called "al-Aqsa Intifada" and in inaugurating Hizbullah's military buildup, and numerous provocations, along Israel's northern border, that culminated in the 2006 Second Lebanon War. This war, and the thousands of rockets raining down on Israel's southern localities during the past eight years, despite countless Israeli threats of harsh retribution, afford a foretaste of Palestinian and Arab abidance by a "peace of the thugs." Above all, not only is the destruction of Israel not a bargaining chip, it is the heart of the matter. Hamas, which is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, sees the struggle for Palestine as neither an ordinary political dispute between two contending nations (Israelis and Palestinians), nor even as a struggle for national self-determination by an indigenous population against a foreign occupier. Rather, it sees Palestine as but one battle in a worldwide holy war to prevent the fall of a part of the House of Islam to infidels. In the words of Mahmoud Zahar: "Islamic and traditional views reject the notion of establishing an independent Palestinian state....In the past, there was no independent Palestinian state....[Hence], our main goal is to establish a great Islamic state, be it pan-Arabic or pan-Islamic." Hamas' charter not only promises that "Israel will exist until Islam will obliterate it," but presents the organization as the "spearhead and vanguard of the circle of struggle against World Zionism [and] the fight against the warmongering Jews." The document even incites anti-Semitic murder, arguing that "the Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: 'O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.'" There's more. According to its charter, Hamas was established not merely to "liberate Palestine from Zionist occupation" or to wipe out Jews, but to pursue the far loftier goals of spreading Allah's holy message and defending the "oppressed" throughout the world: "The Islamic Resistance Movement will spare no effort to implement the truth and abolish evil, in speech and in fact, both here and in any other location where it can reach out and exert influence." Hamas' extreme belief that a perpetual state of war exists between it and anyone, either Muslim or non-Muslim, who refuses to follow in the path of Allah does not permit it to respect, or compromise with, cultural, religious, and political beliefs that differ from its own. Its commitment to the use of violence as a religious duty means that it will never accept a political arrangement that doesn't fully correspond to its radical precepts. As the movement's slogan puts it: "Allah is [Hamas'] goal, the Prophet its model, the Koran its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the cause of Allah its most sublime belief." Hamas certainly sees itself as part of the larger network of jihadi movements struggling with the West. Mahmoud Zahar has expressed the hope that Hamas' victories in Gaza will inspire the mujahideen in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moreover, Khaled Mashaal declared in a Damascus mosque in early 2006: "We say this to the West, which does not act reasonably, and does not learn its lessons: by Allah, you will be defeated." He added: "Tomorrow, our nation will sit on the throne of the world." He has lashed out at Western powers for helping the persecuted Christians of East Timor and for opposing Sudan's genocidal campaign in Darfur. Thus, Hamas identifies with global Islamist causes.[3] All this raises the question of how a Western diplomatic embrace of Hamas would impact on the larger war on terrorism. Legitimizing a jihadi group of this sort would undoubtedly undermine the broader struggle against Islamism, and deepen the doubts of many people in the Middle East and South Asia about the determination of the West to neutralize the current threat they all face at present. Hamas is plainly not an organization whose ideology can be integrated into any political process without undermining democracy and poisoning the norms of civil society. Hamas is not interested in peace with Israel; indeed, Mashaal has plainly stated that any tahdiye, or state of calm, is really "a tactic in conducting the struggle."[4] Unfortunately for Israelis and Palestinians alike, that is not something the wishful thinking of well-meaning pundits and even former U.S. presidents can change. Notes 1. Glenn Kessler, "Mideast Players Differ on Approach to Hamas,"
Washington Post, March 16, 2008,
2. Ibid. 3. Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi, "Understanding the Direction
of the New Hamas Government: Between Tactical Pragmatism and Al-Qaeda
Jihadism," Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 5, No. 22, April 6, 2006,
4. "Hamas Chief Sees Truce as a 'Tactic'," Associated Press, April 27, 2008. Professor Efraim Karsh is Head of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Studies at King's College, University of London, and a member of the Board of International Experts of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. His most recent book is Islamic Imperialism: A History (Yale University Press, 2007).This article was published as a Jerusalem Issue Brief by Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (http://www.jcpa.org). |
|
THE MYTH OF PALESTINIAN MODERATION
Posted by Michael Freund, April 30, 2008. |
|
Even for a region awash in fable and legend, this one is a real whopper. It is the myth of Palestinian moderation, and US and Israeli leaders continue to buy into it. They embrace Mahmoud Abbas as a reasonable person, and base their policy on the belief that most Palestinians abhor violence and terror. But as I demonstrate in the column below from the Jerusalem Post, there is ample evidence indicating that neither of those assumptions is at all correct. This article appeared in the post and is archived at
Comments and feedback may be sent to: letters@jpost.com or to me directly. thanks,
|
|
Even for a president prone to misusing the English language, George W. Bush outdid himself last week. Sitting next to Mahmoud Abbas at the White House, Bush gushed and swooned over the visiting Palestinian leader, describing him in terms usually reserved for heroes and saints. "The president is a man of peace," Bush assured the gaggle of reporters who were present. "He's a man of vision. He rejects the idea of using violence to achieve objectives, which distinguishes him from other people in the region." While Bush's grammar may have been uncommonly accurate that day, his description of Abbas was anything but. For even a cursory glance at some of the Palestinian president's outbursts in recent months reveal a man wholly undeserving of such praise. On March 1, Abbas had the gall to insult the memory of the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis when he declared that Israel's counter-terror operations in Gaza were "worse than the Holocaust" (Jerusalem Post, March 2). And in an interview with the Jordanian newspaper Al-Dustur on February 28, Abbas boasted that he had been the first Palestinian to fire a bullet at Israel after the birth of the PLO in 1965. This ostensible "man of peace" then took pride in the fact that his Fatah movement had trained Hizbullah terrorists, and he did not rule out a return to the "armed struggle" against Israel in the future. And just two weeks ago, Abbas was planning to confer the Al-Quds Mark of Honor, the PLO's highest award, to two female Palestinian terrorists who took part in the killing of Israelis (Israel Radio, April 16). The event was cancelled only after it was publicized widely in the media. Need we also mention the Palestinian president's refusal late last year to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state"?
THIS OF course puts the lie to Bush's stubborn embrace of Abbas as a reasonable and judicious leader that can be counted on to forge a peace deal. If anything, the Palestinian president has repeatedly shown himself to be an intemperate hot-head. Nonetheless, that doesn't seem to stop Washington and much of the media from bestowing upon him the coveted title of a "moderate" leader that Israel can do business with. "Abbas's moderate and Western-backed government rules the West Bank," the Associated Press (April 25) helpfully explained in a recent report. According to Reuters (April 24), Abbas is "a pro-Western moderate," while Agence France-Presse referred to him on Monday as "moderate Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas," as though the appellation "moderate" was an integral part of his title. All of this shameful fawning on the Palestinian thug-in-chief raises a simple, yet rarely-asked, question: why is there such a widespread insistence on deluding the public into thinking that Abbas is a "moderate" leader who epitomizes the majority of Palestinians? The issue is more than academic. In fact, it goes directly to the core of current US and Israeli government policy. After all, the entire intellectual basis for the notion of granting the Palestinians a state rests on the dubious assumption that a majority of them are actually reasonable, peace-loving people. Too bad that all the available evidence appears to indicate otherwise. Last week, for example, the Palestinian-run Jerusalem Media and Communications Center published the results of a survey revealing that a majority of Palestinians (50.7%) support suicide-bombing attacks against Israeli civilians. This was in line with previous polls, which have consistently shown overwhelming Palestinian backing for anti-Israel terror. Indeed, just last month, the Ramallah-based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research found that an astonishing 84% of Palestinians supported the gruesome execution-style murder of 8 Israeli teens by a Palestinian terrorist at the Mercaz HaRav Yeshiva in Jerusalem. And by a margin of 64% to 33%, or nearly two to one, Palestinians were in favor of continued rocket attacks against Israeli towns and cities.
THESE COLD, hard facts present supporters of the peace process with a major problem, if only because they confirm that the very idea of Palestinian moderation is a myth. It is a figment of the imagination, a flight of fantasy that bears little resemblance to reality. After all, it is not as if a tiny minority of Palestinians support the murder of Jews. The bulk of them do. And wishing it were otherwise simply doesn't make it so. So let's stop fooling ourselves. Giving the Palestinians a state when a majority of them want us dead is both reckless and irresponsible. It is a recipe for disaster, and will only serve to create yet another radical, terror-sponsoring state in the region. And let's cease calling Mahmoud Abbas a "moderate." Anyone who refuses to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state," makes a mockery of the Holocaust, and threatens a return to violence, is certainly not deserving of such a characterization. Instead, let's call Abbas what he really is. For if he looks like an extremist, sounds like an extremist, and acts like an extremist, chances are that he is one. And more importantly, let's start treating him as such. Michael Freund served as an adviser to former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. |
|
JEWS ARE UNDER SIEGE: A CALL FOR ACTION
Posted by Avodah, April 30, 2008. |
|
This was written by Charles Jacobs and Seth A. Klarman and it
appeared June 18, 2006 in
|
|
A rush of shocking events is creating a "tipping point" in Jewish consciousness. Increasingly, Jews feel our situation has substantially changed, and for the worse. The events include Iran's nuclear threats and Holocaust denial, Hamas' electoral victory, the torture and murder of Ilan Halimi in Paris by a Muslim gang, the "discovery" by a Harvard dean that Jews actually do conspire to control Congress and American foreign policy in the service of Israel and to the detriment of U.S. interests, and the British academic boycott. All of these demonstrate for many that there is a new assault on the world's Jews. The hostility is based on a unique and intense hatred of Israel and deep resentment of its supporters, accompanied by a growing willingness to use violence. As though in a "perfect storm," two global ideologies, rooted in different radical critiques of the West, have suddenly aligned against us: 1. Islamic anti-Semitism. Fueled by Saudi petro-dollars and Iranian revolutionary zeal, a global campaign in mosques and madrassas (Islamic schools) teaches hundreds of millions of Muslims that Jews are the sons of monkeys and pigs, and killing them is a holy deed. The internet and television embellish the message: docudramas in Iran, Egypt and Jordan depict Jews harvesting the organs of Muslim children, killing non-Jews to make matzo, and plotting to rule the world. This poison reaches Muslims in the West. Europe's Jews are besieged and violently assaulted –– on the streets and in the no-longer varnished rhetoric of polite society. In America, Freedom House told Congress it found Saudi-produced hate literature aimed at Americans, Christians –– but mostly Jews –– in mosques across the U.S. 2. In the West, "Palestinianism" –– the notion that an innocent, indigenous people suffers a senseless, cruel oppression by the Jews of Israel (who ought to know better) threatens to become the standard view. It is the basis for an attack by Western radicals on Zionism, Jewish national self-determination, and by extension on Jews everywhere. The "oppression" of an Arab people by Westerners is, for the far Left, morally and politically more consequential than the massacres, enslavements, beheadings, bombings, and ethnic cleansings committed by Arabs and Muslims from London to Sudan, from Spain to Indonesia. These are treated by radicals as distractions from (even caused by) the deeper Zionist evil. Rooted in separate critiques of the West, Islam and the radical left are now allied –– in Europe and increasingly in segments of America's professoriate, media, human rights community, and the leadership of certain Protestant churches. In America, Jews fret as a vicious anti-Israel movement has taken root on American campuses, and Jewish organizations reeled last summer when five mainline Protestant denominations passed anti-Israel resolutions. Most Jews don't yet know the extent to which public high school texts –– and teachers –– are delegitimizing Israel. Anti-Semitism is a virus that morphs. In the West now, hostility to Jews has little to do with the familiar hatreds –– of Judaism or the Jewish "race." Today's antipathy makes Israel "the Jew" and its "crimes" the old "Jewish crimes" –– killing of the innocent, theft (this time of land), arrogance, and the control of business, finance, government and the media by international cabals. As before, "Jewish crimes" stand out as uniquely, even cosmically evil. And as such, they call for correction. We were unprepared; we remain confused. Arab and Muslim Jew-hatred was misread as mere "street talk" that would dissipate when Oslo brought peace. Instead, Jew-hate is an engine of the global jihad. We are flummoxed by the new breed of Western adversaries. After centuries of attack by brutes, illiterates, right wing lunatics, and Christian anti-Semites, antagonism to the Jewish collective is now generated by soft-spoken moralists with high ideals, by "anti-racists" –– some of the most articulate of whom are Jews. Set to defend against thugs yelling "kike," we are attacked instead by college professors –– today a far more insidious enemy –– who berate us for supporting "immorality." No one wants to think that sixty years after the Holocaust, a new storm threatens Jews everywhere. But reality cannot be avoided or minimized. Confused, with our defenses down, Jews need to consider the profound impact of losing the ideological battle that can destroy the Jewish state. This new time requires courageous and talented leaders to grasp these new realities and create strategies to defeat the latest defamations, grounded in a libelous portrayal of the Arab-Israeli conflict. A leadership correctly prioritizing the threat would convince us to lay aside our furious left-right debates, and teach us instead to make Israel's basic case –– from the left as well as from the right. It would gather the support of non-Jews and distinguish clearly friends from enemies. Most important, a new leadership would bravely and tirelessly tell us the truth about our new situation and recruit our talent and resources to the task. If current Jewish leaders –– in this country which has been so good to the Jewish people –– can't or won't do these things, then this small but enormously talented people will have to get new leaders. For in this, the Jewish community cannot and must not fail. Contact Avodah at avodah15@aol.com |
|
GOV'T DESTROYS SWIMMING POOL IN SMALL SAMARIAN TOWN
Posted by Hillel Fendel, April 30, 2008. |
|
Civil Administration and police officials swooped down on the small Jewish neighborhood of Havot Yair, located in Samaria 14 miles east of Herzliyah, and destroyed a small unauthorized swimming pool. The pool was about seven feet wide and 28 feet long. Though word of the impending law-enforcement operation was received early, dozens of youths who made their way to Havot Yair in order to stop the destruction were blocked by police vehicles, and the destruction was carried out without incident. A similar attempt was made to destroy the Hazon David synagogue in Kiryat Arba on Monday night, but was thwarted when hundreds of people arrived in the area. It is not clear why the police targeted only the swimming pool and not the other structures of Havot Yair, which is considered an "unauthorized illegal outpost." However, the pool's owner, Attorney Doron Nir-Tzvi, has an idea. "There are 22 families here," he told NRG-Maariv, "and the fact that they hit only the pool and not the other houses is because they are trying to terrorize a lawyer who has been representing [right-wing] anti-establishment causes for ten years." "An even worse reason for what they did today," Nir-Tzvi suggested, "is simple narrow-minded envy, according to which the settlers [Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria] are not allowed to live comfortably." "I am comforted by the fact that at this very hour, dozens of houses are being built in Jewish towns all over Judea and Samaria," he concluded, though he did not provide documentation for this statement. About Havot Yair Havot Yair [Yair's Farms, named for the story at the end of Numbers 32] is located between the city of Ariel and the community of Nofim. It was first established in 1999, was later destroyed by the government, was rebuilt in 2001, and now has 22 families and six permanent buildings. It is built on state-owned land. The community's website lists its hiking sites, as follows: –– The ancient winepress, near the synagogue Hillel Fendel, who is Senior New-Editor for Arutz Sheva
|
|
SUPPOSE OLMERT WERE LYING; WHO IS COMBATTING IRAN; HAMAS' MILITARY
GROWTH
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 30, 2008. |
|
BUSH SHUNS WESTERN WALL Pres. Bush wants to visit some symbolic part of Israel but rules out the Golan Heights and the Western Wall in favor of Masada. Masada is where the Jewish defenders committed suicide, not an uplifting symbol. At least Israeli paratroopers vow there “never again” to be conquered. The Western Wall is where Israel recovered its patrimony from centuries of Islamic and British oppression. It, like the Golan, legally was made part of Israel. What Israel may negotiate about it is one thing, but meanwhile, it is part of Israel. If the President of the US, whose Congress declared Jerusalem part of Israel, and whose law requires him to relocate the US Embassy to Jerusalem, boycotts the Western Wall as “controversial,” because the aggressor Arabs want it only now that they don't have it, let Israelis boycott Bush. He is no friend. He wants Israel to concede Jerusalem and whatever else it needs to survive. His ostensible closeness to Israel and to PM Olmert is phony. He is striving to leave office with another peace agreement. It would render Israel helpless. How does he think the agreement would be judged by historians? Would they be taken in by the hoopla of the agreement, followed by war and the destruction of Israel thanks to that agreement? Won't he be thought of like Neville Chamberlain, whose peace agreement led to war? SUPPOSE OLMERT WERE LYING ABOUT NEGOTIATIONS PM Olmert says he can reach an agreement with the P.A., but that agreement depends on the P.A. stopping terrorism, which he does not think it can do. Therefore, he says, he does not expect to implement the agreement. Suppose he is lying, the way his predecessor Sharon did about getting all the steps fulfilled except the last one, for which he would seek approval, and then disregarding disapproval of and taking the last step and expelling Jews. The US would say that this great agreement is being held up only because Israel is stubborn about it. It would suggest that Israel does what it always had done –– continue meeting its obligations under the agreement, and ask the Arabs to fulfill their part of the agreement, which they never do. Olmert would find an excuse. INCONSISTENT IN SUSPICION Democrats dismiss statements by Pres. Bush as those of a liar. Meanwhile, the Clintons and Obama lie continually about their past positions on the issues. Democrats take them seriously. However ridiculous the negative news about Israel, Internet antisemites take it seriously, even if from sources they otherwise don't believe. People are inconsistent in their suspicions but not in expediency. SUPPOSED CEASEFIRE Hamas is not firing rockets at Israel, at present, but its allies are. It launches other attacks. Israel does not deter Hamas. Hamas attacked a border crossing through which Israel lets in humanitarian supplies. Apparently Hamas wants Israel to shut the crossing so that a real humanitarian crisis will result, leading to condemnation of Israel and demands that Israel keep the crossing open to Hamas all the time (IMRA, 4/10). How callous Hamas is towards its own people and cynical about the world's response! It knows that the world is looking for an opportunity to condemn Israel. How can Israel deter Hamas? Israel won't bombard Gaza so as to force residents to rise up against Hamas, which they otherwise respect if not adore for making holy war. Israel won't wipe out Hamas and keep Gaza under control thereafter, largely because the Olmert regime is appeasement-minded, anti-Zionist, and cooperating with Bush in the hope of making a (farcical) peace agreement. How callous Olmert is towards his own people, whom he endangers by inaction! How cynical Bush is, in hoping to make an agreement in name only, though it obviously would lead to war and to Israel's destruction! How foolish are the Democrats, criticizing Bush for everything else but missing this victory he is handing jihad! Why are the Republicans silent about it? At least the pro-Israel Evangelicals object. WHO IS COMBATING IRAN? Iran's strategy is to destabilize and control via armed proxies, itself safe from retaliation. Sunni regimes threatened by Iran's looming shadow don't know how to counteract Iran. Having taught their people jihad, they can't oppose Iran's championship of it. They are as anti-Israel, anti-American, anti-Iraq as is Iran. The US hasn't figured out that Syria, Hamas, and Fatah now take orders from Iran. It thinks it can wean Syria from Iran. It gives money to Fatah, which shares it with Hamas. (It holds Israel back from dealing a fatal blow to Hamas and to Fatah, thinking it can arrange a peace between Fatah and Israel, instead.) The US has no comprehensive strategy. Iran does (Caroline Glick in IMRA, 4/11). HOW COLUMBIA U. OPERATES Arab professors were prominent in picking an anti-Zionist Jew to head the new Israel & Jewish studies. Prof. Yinon Cohen accepts the false story of the Palestinian Arabs about refugees, etc., and thinks that settlers should not be defended from attack (Prof. Steven Plaut, 4/11). SYRIAN SURPRISE Syria was investigating the assassination of a leading terrorist. Iran alleges that S. Arabia provided the car used by Israeli agents to perform the act (IMRA, 4/10). This pits Syria against S.Arabia. It's a standard tactic in the Middle East to blame Israel in every attack, including attacks one's own secret police instigate, and to accuse one's opponent of the day, in this case, S. Arabia, of helping Israel. S. Arabia rarely cooperates with Israel, against which it is in a state of war. HAMAS' MILITARY GROWTH We'd already heard that Hamas has formed large-scale military units, has improved their command structure, and gets them trained by Iran. Israel finds that they are importing heavier weaponry and have doubled their numbers to 20,000 in Gaza. They dug bunkers underground and planted bombs along the roads they expect the IDF to reach them on (IMRA, 4/10). Security officials and commentators warned that this would happen. Now it has, and Hamas would inflict much greater casualties on the troops and, by means of its accumulated rockets, on Israeli civilians. These high casualties are due to the Olmert regime's dithering or treason, not sure which. Israel can defeat Hamas, but it isn't clear that Israel can survive a full assault from Hamas, the P.A., Hizbullah, Syria, and Iran, likely to be joined by Egypt, S. Arabia and, if opportune, Jordan. Olmert is responsible for allowing the Hizbullah build-up and for failing to punish Syria so as to deter its intervention if not cause its overthrow. IN BAD TASTE Two men from Nablus, in Israel illegally, nevertheless worked in a restaurant in Ramat Gan. They were recruited into a terrorist plot to poison customers. They were foiled, but some members of the gang remain at large (IMRA, 4/10). In the Middle Ages, Jews were accused of poisoning the wells, when plague struck Christians but sanitary practices largely protected Jews. In our era, Palestinian Arabs accuse Israel of trying to poison them. No evidence adduced. The intercepted plot, however, is of an actual case, and it is of Islamic terrorism by poison. As I say, the Muslim Arabs usually do the terrible things they falsely accuse the Israelis of, because thinking up such charges is consistent with Arab culture and the charges are not consistent with Jewish culture. Israel doesn't poison Muslims. Witnesses against Peres, however, have died mysteriously. Thousands of Sephardic Israeli children died or suffered mysterious radiation poisoning when he was in charge of nuclear testing. OLMERT THREATENS UNFRIGHTENED HAMAS He is threatening to put Hamas out of business (Arutz-7, 4/11), How long have Israeli leaders threatened the terrorists, without acting? The threats have no effect upon the terrorists. Do the threats impress any Israelis? DISCRIMINATION Israel made two goodwill gestures, at the behest of the US. It prohibits much Jewish building in Judea-Samaria. It approved of houses for 30,000 Arabs in Judea-Samaria (Arutz-7, 4/13) in addition to the tens of thousands living there and in Israel illegally. The US did not press the P.A. to cede anything. The P.A. made no goodwill gestures to Israel. It praises terrorists and some of its men commit terrorism. ANOTHER DAMAGING “GESTURE” The US pressed Israel to let in 5,000 more P.A. laborers. Up to now, as the number of P.A. construction workers in Israel diminished, Israelis replaced them. 15,000 Jews did, last year. Industrial officials urged the government to reject the US request (IMRA, 4/11). Israel does not do what is in its own people's interest. Its interest is to employ its own people, impoverish P.A.. DON'T COUNT ON IT A week or two ago, the NY Sun laughed about how short-sighted experts were, decades ago, warning about food shortages. Now we have plenty, the Sun explained. This week, the news has been about shortages causing mass-starvation. Shortages do it directly and also by boosting prices beyond what poor people can afford. Conditions change. Don't take them for granted. The use of corn for car fuel gets the major blame for shortages. The falling dollar has inflated prices. They say that hedge funds have been buying crop futures, pulling food out of circulation. HOW UNIFIL CHECKS CARGO FOR ARMS
UNIFIL inspects the manifest, not the cargo (IMRA, 4/11). If the manifest is false? The Palestinian Arabs ship arms under false manifests. 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 |
|
SYRIA, THE NPT, AND THE IAEA
Posted by Bryna Berch, April 30, 2008. |
|
This is INSS Insight No. 53, April 29, 2008. It was written by Ephraim Asculai. http://www.inss.org.il/research.php?cat=6&incat=&read=1778 |
|
Given the official US statements, backed by extraordinary visual evidence, there is little doubt that the Israeli Air Force raid on the night of September 6, 2007 destroyed a building housing a nuclear reactor. There are many political and military ramifications both of the facts themselves and the way they were brought to light. However, one of the longer term effects is the impact of the revelations on the nuclear non-proliferation regime in general and on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in particular. What did the new information reveal? that the installation that was destroyed was a nuclear reactor, probably still under construction; that the reactor was similar to the North Korean reactor at Yongbyon that produced plutonium (subsequently used in an underground nuclear test explosion); and that Syria, despite its NPT obligations, concealed the very existence as well as the purpose of the installation and repeatedly denied the facts to the world and to the IAEA. Syria has been trying to buy a nuclear reactor from several sources for a long time. It had sought to buy a research reactor from Argentina in the mid-1990's, but this failed when Argentina's foreign minister told Syria that it would not sell it a reactor unless Syria signed a peace treaty with Israel. Syria then tried, unsuccessfully, to buy a reactor from Russia. Apparently, Syria then concluded a secret deal with North Korea for the construction of a Yongbyon-type reactor in Syria. The extent of the North Korean involvement is not yet publicly known and is not that relevant, except for the fact that North Korea acted in breach of its NPT obligations. There can be little doubt as to the purpose of the ill-fated reactor. Had it been intended for truly peaceful uses, it would have been declared to the IAEA. In addition, Syria's repeated denials give credence to the claims that the reactor was part of a clandestine weapons development program. Furthermore, Syria acted with astounding speed, razed the stricken installation, and is putting up a supposedly military installation on the old foundations, making it almost impossible for any investigators to reveal the original purpose of the site. There are five members of the NPT that have seriously reneged on their treaty obligations –– Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and Libya. Iraq's project came to an end as a result of the 1991 Gulf War. Libya agreed to a rollback, probably as a result of the American invasion and toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003. The remaining three may still be conducting illegal activities aimed at producing nuclear weapons. North Korea has long been suspected of having a clandestine uranium enrichment project. Iran has an ongoing nuclear weapons development program. And there is no guarantee that Syria is not going the same route, given the rumors about the connection with the Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan, the biggest proliferator of all. The nuclear non-proliferation regime suffered an additional blow with the uncovering of Syria's misdeeds. The extent of the damage will be only known over time, and the prospects for the future need a much more elaborate discussion. In any case, if there will be no substantive change in the manner of the oversight and the application of regime, and if the NPT PrepCom and review conferences continue to become bogged down in secondary issues, the situation can only deteriorate further. The reaction of the IAEA to the information that came out of the Congressional briefing was astounding. An Associated Press report quoted the IAEA: "The Director General [DG] views the unilateral use of force by Israel as undermining the due process of verification that is at the heart of the non-proliferation regime." In addition, "The Director General deplores the fact that this information was not provided to the Agency [by the U.S.] in a timely manner, in accordance with the Agency's responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), to enable it to verify its veracity and establish the facts." With regard to these statements, it should be noted first that verification is not a substitute for the demise of the reactor, which removed the potential for and the danger of plutonium production. Second, one should ask what would have actually happened had the facts been verified by safeguard inspections? Given the historical precedents, the IAEA DG would likely have deplored the fact that the reactor had not been declared in a timely manner, accepted Syrian assurances that hitherto the reactor would be safeguarded, and stated that Syria had the right to build and operate a nuclear reactor, as long as it was safeguarded. In any case, the IAEA could not have prevented the continuing construction and later operation of the reactor, which would have resulted in the potential for the production of plutonium, as was demonstrated by this reactor's sibling –– the Yongbyon reactor. It is easy to understand the DG's wrath –– he probably did not figure in any of the decision making process prior to the bombing. At present, Syria signaled that it would be willing to let the IAEA search for the truth. It is a "no win" situation for Syria if the inspectors uncover the remains of a nuclear reactor. It is a "lose" situation to the IAEA if it does not. One cannot escape the conclusion that the IAEA has continuously failed in its missions, notably in Iraq, Iran, and Syria. The IAEA has set up an extensive organization, including a Division of Information, which is really a Division of Intelligence, within its Department of Safeguards. The Syrian episode clearly demonstrates that the division has failed in its task. One does not need such a division if the DG states that he has to rely on external information and chastises the Member States for not providing the information in a timely manner. This may be an appropriate time for the Board of Governors (BOG) to contemplate a much more thorough oversight of the operation of this organization. Given the political realties, however, it is highly questionable whether the IAEA Board of Governors will indeed do so. |
|
FROM ISRAEL: YOM HASHOAH
Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 30, 2008. |
|
Holocaust Day, or, as it is more properly known in Israel, Day of Remembrance of Martyrs and Heroes –– the feeling being that those who were brave and did fight back should not be forgotten. This is one of those times when I feel that my 'regular' posting material can be put aside. Observance began at sundown, and, as I do every year, I watched the televised ceremonies at the Holocaust Memorial, Yad Va'Shem. And, as I do every year, I wept. The core of the ceremony is the lighting of six flames, by six survivors, to represent the six million. Each of those who lights has been filmed telling his or her story, and that film runs before the flame is lit. One story is more painful than the next. ~~~~~~~~~~ But today was, somehow, different. For each of the magnificent people who told his/her story has made a significant contribution to the State. One, for example, was recruited by the Mosad, and sent into Germany, where he broke into an office and photographed the documents that convicted Eichmann. And one helped found a yishuv, a settlement, in the north in the early years of the State. His face lit with pride as he spoke of his contribution. And –– oh! –– the lessons to be learned from this. Lessons of bravery and hope and meaning in life. And, of course, I thought once again that this all hasn't happened to come to naught, and that whatever the horrors of what we are dealing with, we must come through at the end. There is an honor guard on the stage for the ceremonies, and I watched them with their military precision and prayed for all of our army to be strong, strong. ~~~~~~~~~~ Tomorrow at 10 AM a siren sounds and everyone stands still wherever he or she is in memory of the six million. People stop their cars and get out to stand. It's a moving and uniting experience. Except, of course, that Arabs don't stand still. And that's a story for another day. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
A NEW YAHOO GROUP INVITATION –– ATID YISRAEL
Posted by Sasha F., April 29, 2008. |
|
Dear Friends, please join a newly created online forum focusing on Atid Yisrael. Atid Yisrael translates as Future of Israel. This group is dedicated
to forming a new group of representative local governments for Yehuda
and Shomron communities.
Several months before the destruction of the Jews of Azza Prof., Dr. Shlomo Lev-Ami, a person now in his 90th yr. of his life called a meeting in Tel Aviv of all the "activist " right wing groups. Its purpose was to organize and unify these groups into a potent force to challenge the forces of suicide that rule the Jewish people. This meeting and several others over the next year attended by approx. 80 people, ultimately led to nothing and the effort was a total failure. When describing this failed attempt Prof. Lev-Ami explains "Initially when I began this attempt to unify I knew the fears and egos of the human psyche. That is why I presented myself as the figurehead, to allay all fears and concerns since I was above suspicion not asking anything for myself in the way of money or power. I was shocked to discover that although given the urgency of the hour no one was willing to cooperate on a unified level. They were only interested in promoting themselves and maintaining their individual businesses". Who is Shlomo Lev-Ami? Shlomo Lev-Ami is a fifth generation Jew in Israel who is 90 yrs. old. He was the commander of the Irgun and Lechi's operations during the days leading up to Israel's Independence. He now lectures at five universities weekly, traveling on his own using public transportation. His physical and mental condition is better than most 50 yr, olds and he devotes his time and energy, totally, to preventing the next Holocaust, which he believes is well on its way. He is not the sort of person to sit around, lecture, write and generally complain how terrible things are. He also is not one to endlessly proclaim if it was up to him or had he been in charge he would, could or should handle this or that problem the 'right' way. What he has set out to do with the last energies in him is the establishment of a movement "Atid Yisrael" (The Future of Israel) whose eventual goal is a complete change of the leadership of Israel. How? By influencing and proving to the public that there are individuals able and worthy of doing the job. Rather than attempting to make a futile mad dash for the prime ministers job the idea is to gain access to as many municipalities and communities by competing with our candidates for their top offices and the very least gain entry to the various town councils. The first such election is to take place this Nov., just imagine if we were able to replace the mayor of Sderot with a real leader, even in the opposition he could effect change. The second part of the plan involves the establishment of national committees covering every aspect of life (transportation, environment, defense. education, etc.) that would draft the most capable people in every field. While they would draft various papers and prepare realistic plans for each sector, most importantly, they would enact programs and projects in every realm that would begin a cycle of change and have a positive effect on bettering the quality of life. This double pronged plan of action would be accompanied by ongoing press coverage which would be manipulated to provide maximum coverage for the "Atid Yisrael" movement as they progress on both fronts –– representation (hopefully heads) of towns and cities throughout the country actively challenging and confronting the encroaching holocaust, activating the national commitees that will work intensely to implement change on the ground. This is believed to be the only real chance of involving and activating large sectors of the population by creating momentum, believing there is a chance for change and that there are serious people who are capable, willing and able to take the reins of leadership. A great deal of time of effort is going into this movement. Your comments would be appreciated. This will of course require a great deal of funding if it is going to be successful. Contact Sasha F. by email at alex@fliegler.net |
|
EGYPT: BETWEEN THE DEVIL AND THE DEEP BLUE SEA
Posted by Barry Rubin, April 29, 2008. |
|
Egyptian President Husni Mubarak is 80. After over a quarter-century in office he is ready for more. But how much longer will his rule--or regime--continue? And under him, Egypt has not done so badly, or has it? Well that depends. He has kept Egypt stable and out of war, no mean feat, and even delivered a bit of economic development, though recently there have been bread riots. But there has been no big improvement. One is reminded of the old Egyptian joke where the president's chauffer explains the difference among his last three bosses. Gamal Abdel Nasser (1952-1970) always turned left; Anwar al-Sadat (1970-1981) always turned right. Mubarak ordered: signal left, signal right, then park. Has Egypt been parked for the last 27 years? In some respects, yes. Being parked is better than getting run down by a speeding auto, though not better than making steady progress. Rights have been limited and suppression periodic. Yet this falls well short of the police states ruling in Syria and, formerly, Iraq. Corruption is astronomical. I can't talk about the ambiguity of Mubarak's regime without thinking of that great old Harold Arlen and Ted Koehler song, first recorded by Cab Calloway's orchestra in 1931. It begins: "I don't want you, But I hate to lose you, You've got me in between the devil and the deep blue sea." For his own people, Israel, and the United States (or the West in general), Mubarak's government is most unsatisfactory in very many ways. Egyptians face mismanagement and limits on freedom. Israel has a peace but a cold one. The United States and the West gets nominal cooperation from Cairo coupled with the government's lavish use of anti-Americanism, radical Arab nationalism, and even Islamist rhetoric to keep the masses mobilized on its side. Still, what's the alternative: violent instability or a radical Islamist revolution? Or is there a realistic hope of something better, of a moderate democratic state? Here, good intentions or wishful thinking should never be given precedent over realistic appraisal. In assessing a political situation, one should always remember politics is the art of the possible. Egypt is a country with "too many" people and not enough resources. There are no easy solutions. "I ought to cross you off my list, But when you come knocking at my door, Fate seems to give my heart a twist, And I come running back for more," sang Calloway. After all, that heart-twisting fate involves things like Hamas's takeover, Iraq's internal war, Hizballah's aggression, and Iran's expansionism plus nuclear weapons' drive. We are used to thinking of Egypt as the most important of all Arab countries, and that's still true relatively speaking though far less than a decade or two or three ago. By the force of realpolitik, the foreigners conclude about Mubarak's regime (Calloway again): "I should hate you, But I guess I love you, You've got me in between the devil and the deep blue sea." Thus, the West and Israel keep hoping. Maybe Egypt will restrain Hamas in the Gaza Strip and give vigorous backing to a serious peace process. Or possibly Cairo will lead a moderate Arab coalition against the forces of the Iran-Syria led HISH (Hamas-Iran-Syria-Hizballah alliance. A Muslim government official recently told me he calls them, the Addams family). After all, these actions are in Egypt's own interests, aren't they? Egypt's interests, though, are in playing both sides simultaneously to the greatest extent possible. An Egyptian diplomat actually told me not long ago that he had advised Israeli Arabs to pretend to be good citizens and demand to join the army so they could better subvert the country. State-owned Egyptian newspapers blame all the terrorism in Iraq on American conspiracies. Meanwhile, though, the Muslim Brotherhood is going to top-quality tailors to design its sheep's' clothing so that it can better wolf down Egypt. Credulous, or ill-intentioned, Westerners are all-too-willing to accept that the country's Islamist brothers are really moderates. It's easy to do that, just ignore their program and everything they say in Arabic. Just because they don't like the competition--al-Qaida or Iran--doesn't make them moderates. There is a decent, moderate, democratic-minded opposition. But it is far too weak and poorly organized. Even the main "reformist" group has now been taken over by the Brotherhood.Who would you bet on in a showdown? No contest. So what comes next? Gamal Mubarak, the president's 45-year-old son, who is deputy secretary-general of the ruling National Democratic Party? Perhaps some ex-general turned provincial governor or another official? In social terms, the country is becoming increasingly "Islamic" according to the more restrictive standards demanded by Islamists. Does that mean a political swing as well? Not necessarily but the danger bears close watching. Egypt is famous for muddling through. That's the most likely outcome but nobody should be too complacent in assuming that's the way things have to be. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center http://www.gloriacenter.org and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal http://meria.idc.ac.il. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com |
|
NY TIMES VS. ISRAEL, AGAIN; DON'T BASE POLICY ON "IF"; HOW TO ASSESS & DEAL WITH IRAN
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, April 29, 2008. |
|
“WQXR Radio, a New York City station owned by The New York Times, has refused to air a 15-second radio spot by the American Jewish Committee (AJC) because of descriptions "outside our bounds of acceptability." AJC Executive Director David Harris said the spot was aired on hundreds of stations in the United States, including CBS. The commercial stated, "Imagine you had fifteen seconds to find shelter from an incoming missile. Fifteen seconds to locate your children, help an elderly relative, assist a disabled person to find shelter. That's all the residents of Sderot and neighboring Israeli towns have. Day or night, the sirens go on. Fifteen seconds later, the missiles, fired from Hamas-controlled Gaza, hit. They could hit a home, a school, a hospital. Their aim is to kill and wound and demoralize. " New York Times Radio president Tom Batunek explained to AJC that the spot did not make it clear that the missile attacks were taking place outside of the New York City area. He added, "The description of the missiles as arriving 'day or night' and 'daily' is also subject to challenge as being misleading, at least to the degree that reasonable people might be troubled by the absence of any acknowledgement of reciprocal Israeli military actions." Harris commented, "In other words, according to Bartunek's logic, the only way to broadcast the plight of Sderot's residents over the airwaves is to equate Israel's right of self-defense with Hamas's and Islamic Jihad's right to strike Israel at will." The cancelled radio spot continued, "Imagine yourself in that situation. The sirens blast. 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1. The time to seek shelter has ended. The missiles hit. This is what Israelis experience daily. But, amazingly, they refuse to be cowed. Help us help those Israelis." Bartunek countered, "Finally, in my judgment the 'countdown' device and the general tone of the message do not meet our guidelines for decorum." The AJC executive director, also revealed that the same radio station, after the September 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, refused another AJC commercial. The 2001 spot stated, "Recently, The New York Times reported that in Saudi Arabia, 10th graders are warned of 'the dangers of having Christian and Jewish friends,' and in Pakistan, a million children attending religious schools are taught to "distrust and even hate the United States." The radio station manger cited the paragraph, which was quoted from the parent company's newspaper, as not meeting the station's standards. Harris also said that last month, the Bloomberg radio news station rejected an AJC segment citing hate literature in children's textbooks in the Palestinian Authority (PA), Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Iran. "Everything written in this spot was verifiable," Harris said. "Yet, all this was not good enough for the station, which, without putting anything down on paper, asserted that there were some questions about what was being said." (Arutz-7, 4/7 verbatim.) Friends sometimes query me suspiciously about my sources. Their source is the NY Times, whose mendacity is obvious. The first ad clearly mentioned that the attacks are on Israel, but the WQXR, owned by the Times, whose reporting leaves much culpability unclear or falsely implied against Israel, claims the ad doesn't make it clear that the attacks are on Israel. False. The Times also objects to the ad's not mentioning Israeli retaliation. What has that got to do with it? Then there is the general ad about not meeting standards as of decorum. That sounds fishy. The real problem with the ad is that it doesn't meet the Times standard for anti-Zionism. The Times editorializes a lot about freedom of the press, but denies it to Jewish advertisers. JIMMIE CARTER EXPOSES HIMSELF Jimmie Carter presents himself as saintly but acts devilish. He praises many dictators and endorses their unfair elections. Now has exposed his evil core by a combination of vicious defamation of Israel for self-defense, studious obliviousness to Hamas terrorism against Israel, and his physical embrace of Hamas' leader. That embrace removed any doubt about Carter's moral bankruptcy. His was a repulsive performance. WHAT KIND OF PRESIDENT IS U.S. READY FOR? Some people tell me they would support high taxes if they got good services in return. “If?” But they don't and won't. One should not base policy on an “if,” the way the media and the US try to get Israel to. That is, polls ask Israelis whether they would sacrifice a lot of strategic territory for genuine peace, if the Arabs really were sincere. The Arabs are not sincere, and Israelis don't expect to have to seriously consider the sacrifices. Nevertheless, the media distorts the polls to indicate that Israelis are willing to sacrifice the land, without stating the “if.” Sec. of State Rice, for whom no Israeli sacrifice is too great and no Arab failure to meet agreement deserves rebuke, cites the misstated poll results. What she demands, Israel concedes, and Israeli policy is born. In the US, Social Security seemed to be an example of high taxes producing good service. The system was financially solvent, but the politicians looted it for various subsidies. Thus even a good service got undermined. Many other services or programs are not good. Welfare was well intended but created welfare dependency and had to be cut back. The misconceived subsidy of corn ethanol has helped raise food prices and a hundred million people abroad are starving, without the intended result of conserving much oil. Senators Obama and Clinton propose giant bureaucracies that would consume the economy and deprive people of choices. Is the US ready for an unscrupulous, big government, black radical President or an unscrupulous, big government, female radical President? ABBAS' SUCCESSOR In Israel again there is agitation to free the serial-terrorist leader Barghouti, sentenced to several life sentences for crimes committed after the peace agreements. I believe that he would be trotted out as the next great hope for peace after Abbas falls. He has made clear that he believes in jihad. Ah, they say, he is strong and can make an agreement that Abbas lacks strength for. Arafat already made an agreement. What good is a liar's agreement? “MISUSE OF WEAPONS?” The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) complained about a mortar shell's killing an Arab boy in Gaza and wounding his brother. It condemned the “misuse of weapons.” (IMRA, 4/8.) The news brief didn't describe what really happened. Probably one of the many mortar shells now being fired at Israeli civilians fell short. What would stop the misuse of such a weapon, firing them more accurately and killing Israeli children? If the PCHR were decent, it could condemn the Islamic terrorism. LATEST FAILED GOODWILL EFFORT PM Olmert agreed to an amnesty for 10,000 of the estimated 50,000 illegal Arab residents of Judea-Samaria. This is in addition to about 12,000 it gave permanent residency to, before. This is supposed to be a goodwill effort, but the P.A. does not thank Israel for anything, just complains about other demands (Arutz-7, 4/8). Then Olmert pretends he has to give Judea-Samaria to the P.A. because there are too many Arabs in it. ISRAELI POLICY ON HEBRON TANTAMOUNT TO MURDER Israel is considering allowing P.A. police to patrol most of Hebron. The Jewish community there reminds us that the P.A. police force largely is composed of terrorists, its members commit terrorism, and it cooperates with terrorists. While preparing for an imminent war, the government should not be collecting guns from settlers and letting armed terrorists near them. Settlers will be dependent upon the government for protection (IMRA, 4/8) but the troops come late. Is the object to help the Arabs drive the Jews out, so that the government can more easily relinquish historical and sacred territory to the enemy? I think the government is disarming the settlers in order to sacrifice them. A decent and prudent government would let the P.A. prove it could successfully patrol the other cities, before extending patrols to Hebron. The government seems to be racing to make enough concessions to enable a desperate Pres. Bush's seem to have resolved the Arab-Israel conflict, in his remaining tenure. U.S. MISLEADS ABOUT WAR IN IRAQ The US has pretended that Syria and Iran share an interest in ending the war in Iraq. Actually, the US government knows that Syria and Iran are financing and helping to wage that war. If Syria and Iran ceased their wartime efforts, the US and Iraqi government soon would win (IMRA, 4/8). QUOTED FROM THE KORAN The Koran quotes Allah as urging followers to terrorize and torture non-believers, mentioning the Jews specifically and infidels generally. The Koran calls warfare against non-believers “Jihad.” (Steven Shamrak, 4/8.) OIL GETTING DIFFICULT TO EXTRACT IN MIDEAST The Gulf Cooperation Council states face a shortage of fuel. Big companies offer technology for injecting carbon dioxide into existing wells, in order to drive out more petroleum (IMRA, 4/9). That means that the cost of oil production is rising. Some oil fields are declining. HOW TO ASSESS & DEAL WITH IRAN David Wormser advises the US to weigh how its policies will be perceived by Iran, not just how we intend them. Otherwise, policies may backfire. When the US means to be reasonable, Iran perceives it as weak. Contrary to most reports, Mr. Wormser finds that the President of Iran is gaining politically, the way Hitler did after he bluffed his way through his crises. The leadership is aligned with the President, and the President replaces officials with hardliners. The line is “theofascist." Iran is taking over leadership of Islam. To do this, it needs Syria. To defeat Iran, defeat its proxies, such as Syria, Hizbullah, and Hamas (MEFNews, 4/9) and Fatah. WHO SOLD IRAN EQUIPMENT FOR MONITORING ISRAEL? The German company, Siemens sold Iran the capability of listening to Israeli phone calls (IMRA, 4/9). OLMERT FIGURES OUT HOW TO SHORTEN THE CONFLICT According to a newspaper report, he has agreed to cede to the P.A. Atarot airport just north of Jerusalem. This would strengthen the Abbas regime (IMRA, 4/10). It sure would –– the P.A. would fly in armaments and make war sooner, shortening the conflict. ISRAEL BUDGETING 5 YEARS TO GIVE OUT GAS MASKS Israel found the country's gas masks obsolete. It plans to take 5 years to distribute new ones to the whole country (IMRA, 4/10). War is coming sooner. 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 |
|
SWITZERLAND SIDING WITH IRAN?
Posted by Olivier Guitta, April 29, 2008. |
|
This was published in Middle East Times
|
|
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter went to Damascus last week to meet with Hamas' Khaled Meshaal, a man accused of terrorism by the United States, Israel and the European Union. Carter's initiative was criticized by the leadership in Washington and Jerusalem as appeasing terrorism. As damaging as some people, such as U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, say Carter's freelance diplomacy is to the United States, another visit by a Western dignitary to another Mideast leader, also accused of supporting terror, may have even greater repercussions. I am talking about last month's meeting between Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey. In fact that meeting was a blessing in disguise for Tehran. Everything Calmy-Rey could do to please the mullah's regime was done. First, let's start with the symbolic; meeting with an individual bent on destroying another country, denying the Holocaust and lately also questioning the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks constitutes a major diplomatic faux-pas. Especially for a country which cherishes its legendary "neutrality." Indeed while the United Nations Security Council has passed three resolutions condemning and sanctioning Iran for its nuclear program, Swiss diplomacy seems totally unfazed by what the international community is trying to achieve. Switzerland has now publicly fissured the more or less united front against Iran and Tehran loves it. Ahmadinejad was beaming during his meeting and Calmy-Rey could not stop smiling, obviously charmed by the attention of the Iranian president. Realizing the diplomatic coup, the images of the meeting were broadcast on Iranian networks around the clock. Interestingly, the Swiss minister was wearing a white veil while nothing required her to do so. This symbolic attire is far from a detail and Iranian feminists were appalled that a Western woman would play so blatantly in the hands of the regime. Shirine, a student at the University of Tehran told the Swiss daily La Liberté: "By wearing the veil, Micheline Calmy-Rey did not help us, Iranian women are fighting everyday to free our heads from these symbols of domination." She ironically added: "[We] believed that women were free in Europe." Ismahane, a MD in Tehran, seconded this view, adding that she was ashamed that now "Western female officials are coming to play the pious in front of the 'devil of Tehran' as (Ahmadinejad) is referred to by Iranian feminists. But her behavior may be understandable. Calmy-Rey put water in her gas by showing a good face with her veil." To understand this last sentence it helps to know that the Swiss foreign minister traveled to Tehran to ink a gas contract. Indeed, a $20 billion gas deal was signed on March 17 between the Swiss EGL and the National Iranian Gas Export Company (Nigec). After the controversy regarding her visit grew louder, Calmy-Rey gave an interview on April 15 to the Swiss daily Le Temps where she tried to justify her trip by stating that the gas contract does not violate any of the U.N. sanctions against Iran (though it might violate the U.S. Iran Sanctions Act). Furthermore, the Swiss minister added that other European countries are doing business with Iran and don't get blamed for it. Unfortunately (for the Swiss), this explanation does not hold water: in fact, some major European countries have been recently curbing business with Iran (especially France and Germany) and advising executives of large companies of the risks associated with doing business with Tehran. Incidentally, the largest Swiss bank, UBS decided over two years ago to break all business ties to Iran. Calmy-Rey explained that she wanted to protect Switzerland's strategic interests by diversifying energy providers. She added that the goal of her ministry is to insure the security and the well-being of the Swiss population. Unfortunately, Calmy-Rey was caught lying when Le Temps revealed the next day that none of the gas from the Iranian contract would end up in Switzerland. This revelation sparked much controversy regarding Calmy-Rey's trip to Tehran. Interestingly, even within her own Socialist Party some people expressed concerns about her twisted explanation. Roger Nordmann, an energy expert with the Socialist Party said: "Mrs. Calmy-Rey's justification, that this agreement directly profits Switzerland, is not credible. On an energy level, it would be better to sign import contracts with Germany or France. But not to buy gas that won't reach Switzerland." Also tellingly, Swiss gas officials have joined the fray of Calmy-Rey critics. Eric Défago, the managing director of Gaznat and vice president of the Swiss Association of the Gas Industry, told Le Temps that "this contract is beyond understanding and totally contrary to usual practice." One interesting fact makes this Tehran's visit even more puzzling: for decades Switzerland has been importing oil and gas from Libya, but never ever has a Swiss official visited Libya. So why did Calmy-Rey really travel to Iran to meet with Ahmadinejad? Couldn't she meet with the energy minister or any other high-ranked officials other than Ahmadinejad? Christophe Darbellay, president of the Christian Democratic People's Party, thinks that Calmy-Rey had a hidden agenda. Interestingly, Calmy-Rey, who boasts about her high moral standards and her defense of human rights, said she also went to Tehran to address the human rights situation in Iran. This seems like a very long shot, especially in light of Calmy-Rey's pedigree. Indeed, the current Swiss foreign minister and fixture on the Swiss political scene has earned a reputation of blatant anti-Americanism and anti-Israel. She will rarely miss an opportunity to criticize Israel. This may explain why Switzerland was the only European country to recently vote for an anti-Israel resolution at the U.N. Human Rights Council, which incidentally is Geneva-based. There is more. Roger Koppel, the owner and chief editor of the Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche wrote in a recent Wall Street Journal Europe piece, entitled, "Somebody Stop Calmy-Rey": "It is a miracle that her most disastrous act so far went almost unnoticed. In December 2006, she received an Iranian delegation for talks on the nuclear program. To the horror of her closest colleagues, she came up with the idea of improving relations by holding a seminar on differing perceptions of the Holocaust. "One must understand the enormity of this: Ms. Calmy-Rey suggested a debate in Switzerland with Iranian Holocaust deniers on whether the murder of 6 million Jews actually happened. Fortunately, nothing came of this idea. It would not only have been outrageous, but also illegal, since genocide denial is a crime in Switzerland." So, maybe Calmy-Rey wanted to address the Holocaust issue with Holocaust denier Ahmadinejad. Nonetheless what seems the most likely reason of her Iranian trip and her lying about it could be the Iranian nuclear program. Indeed, one should not be surprised if Swiss diplomacy is trying to find a solution to help the Iranians one way or another. With such actions, it would appear that Switzerland has abandoned its long-cherished "neutral" label to the detriment of the West. One should not underestimate the potential nefarious effects of Switzerland's foreign policy, in particular when it comes to the Middle East. In light of this development Washington might want to reconsider having the Swiss represent U.S. interests in Iran. Now that relations with the French have improved, Washington should consider dropping Berne for Paris. Olivier Guitta, an adjunct fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a foreign affairs and counterterrorism consultant is the founder of the newsletter The Croissant (www.thecroissant.com). |
|
WITH FRIENDS LIKE THESE
Posted by Isi Leibler, April 29, 2008. |
|
This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post
|
|
It's disconcerting and sad to see American Jewish "progressives" frenziedly lobbying the American administration to pressure Israel for further unilateral concessions to the Palestinians. To make matters worse, they understate –– even obfuscate –– their real game plan. They describe themselves as "pro-Israel," "Zionist" and "moderate." They lay claim to being the true custodians of peace, portraying other Jewish leaders and AIPAC as neoconservatives and extremists. While tempting to dismiss their behavior and Orwellian doublespeak as naïve and inconsequential, recall that the sham Soviet peace fronts succeeded in duping many gullible well-meaning liberals into endorsing campaigns promoting totalitarianism. It's all the more bizarre because no one would suggest that the current Israeli government is "hawkish." On the contrary, the Olmert government has lost the confidence of its people precisely because of unilateral concessions which undermine Israel's security and embolden terrorists. His government is an amen chorus which capitulates to every demand imposed on it by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. It has provided weapons to the Palestinians which will almost certainly once again be redirected against Israel; it has released and granted amnesty to terrorists; and despite bitter opposition from the IDF, it has closed checkpoints and acceded to demands compromising security which have already resulted in Israeli casualties. Yet like a replay of the odious behavior of Haaretz editor David Landau, who told Rice that it would be his "wet dream" for the US "to rape Israel" for its own good, American "progressives" are urging their government to exert pressure on Israel for further unilateral concessions. This is not a new phenomenon. For years the Israel Policy Forum (IPF) has been lobbying the White House to get tougher with Israel. They claim that in 1993, prime minister Yitzhak Rabin appreciated their support for his efforts to reach a peace settlement with Arafat. They fail to mention that in contrast to Olmert, Rabin did stand up to US pressure. Rabin would have exploded had he encountered Jewish organizations exploiting his name as a means to justify lobbying the US administration to exert pressure on Israel. As far back as 2005, IPF president Seymour Reich boasted how his organization had successfully persuaded Rice to force Israel to make concessions on the Gaza border crossing –– concession that have since resulted in the loss of Israeli lives. More recently the IPF shamelessly lobbied the White House to press Israel to negotiate directly with Hamas. Reich wrote to Rice on March 21 that "no progress can be made if Hamas –– the governing body in Gaza –– is totally excluded from the process." M.J. Rosenberg, IPF's policy director, urged the U.S. to "be extending carrots and not just slapping them [Hamas] with sticks". The Progressive Jewish Alliance, another self-styled "pro-Israel" body, promotes exhibitions on US campuses of photo montages alleging the dehumanization of Palestinians by the Israeli army. They insist that their demonization of the IDF represent an expression of their love for Zion. Now with great fanfare and endorsement by much of the US liberal media, we have a new "progressive" initiative: an amalgam of various far-left organizations and individuals spearheaded by "Americans for Peace Now" and "Brit Tzedek V'Shalom" to establish "J.Street," a political action committee. Although proclaiming their intention to espouse "moderation" and bring "balance" into American Jewish leadership, their actual intent is to further US pressure on Israel and to undermine AIPAC, the highly effective pro-Israel lobby. Such behavior is especially unconscionable since –– aside from permits for extra housing to cope with natural growth in the densely Jewish populated settlement blocs implicitly endorsed by President Bush –– the Olmert government has conceded to all US government demands. It has even discouraged AIPAC and American Jewish leaders from trying to neutralize State Department pressures on itself for fear of antagonizing the administration. J Street also publicly opposes the use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities, which undermines Israel's campaign to pressure Iran from going nuclear. In addition, J Street supports a swift withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, calls for direct dealings with Hamas and urges Jews to boycott Christian Zionists –– Israel's strongest allies. J Street intends to raise funds to provide $50,000 for selected Congressional candidates supporting these aims. Aside from a number of respectable personalities under the illusion that they have associated themselves with a "moderate" body seeking to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians, J Street is mainly supported by prominent far-left Americans and Israelis like Ron Pundak, architect of the Oslo Accord. One of its principal theorists is Daniel Levy, a former adviser to Yossi Beilin who trivializes Palestinian incitement to murder Israelis. Former Jewish Agency chairman Avrum Burg, who has compared Israelis to Nazis and has urged the former to follow his lead and obtain European passports, is another notable J Street supporter. Burg's ranting against his country is so vile that even most of his Israeli associates distanced themselves from him. Writing this week in Haaretz, Burg pushed the envelope further and provided a gift to anti-Semites everywhere by accusing AIPAC of imposing "dual loyalties" on American Jews and of "institutionalizing near-treason and turning it into an enormous octopus of a political mechanism with enormous dimensions and numerous victims." Another key Israeli supporter is David Kimche, a leading figure in Israel Policy Forum. Kimche was director general of the Foreign Ministry under Yitzhak Shamir, where I had regular dealings with him. In those days, not only was he a hawk, but he even had the reputation of savagely roasting any Jewish leader who dared question Israeli government policies. "We live and die by our decisions, while you sit and pontificate from your armchair," he would say. Today he identifies with the extreme left. The Israel Council of Foreign Relations, which he heads, recently hosted a meeting in Jerusalem for ex-president Jimmy Carter, obliging the sponsor, the World Jewish Congress, to formally dissociate itself from the event. The "progressives" will also try to capitalize on the fact that the Barack Obama campaign has embraced former ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer and appointed him Obama's adviser on Middle East affairs. Kurtzer, a Jewish dove, previously urged the Administration to take a tougher line with Israel. In his just-released book –– Negotiating Arab Israel Peace –– Kurtzer refers to the withholding of loan guarantees from the Shamir government by the first President Bush as an example of how an American government can effectively bring Israel into line. He accused Dennis Ross –– the Clinton-designated Middle East representative –– of having been biased in favor of Israel. He even castigates the Clinton and Bush Administrations for not employing sufficient Arabists in the State Department. The US is the only country capable of withstanding pressure from Arabs and their allies to isolate and delegitimize Israel. Thankfully, US public opinion and Congress has never been more favorably disposed towards Israel than today. Yet over the past year, the Bush Administration has tilted from its former policy. Nor can we exclude the possibility of a future US administration distancing itself further from Israel. It is therefore imperative that American Jewish leaders not underestimate the damage "progressive pro-Israel" groups can inflict, especially in light of the mainstream liberal media support J Street has enjoyed at its launch. In the face of existential threats, Israel needs the support of America Jewry more than ever. While all are free to express their opinions, "peaceniks" who have the gall to call on the US to put the heat on Israel to act as they believe best, rather than what the citizens of that democracy have decided is, must be exposed as fringe groups outside the Jewish mainstream. Contact Isi Leibler at his website http://www.leibler.com/article/328 or write him at ileibler@netvision.net.il |
|
FROM ISRAEL: "THAT HUDNA"
Posted by Arlene Kushner, April 29, 2008. |
|
A correction: When I wrote about the US case against Kadish recently, I indicated that we had friends in Congress, the Pentagon and other places in the US, but that we also had enemies, in State, the Intelligence community, and the Justice department. I had secured my information from what I thought were reliable sources. Now I have heard from Sarah Stern, who heads the lobby group Emet, in Washington DC. She tells me that we have some very good friends in Justice, and that she has personally worked with some of them. I stand corrected and apologize. ~~~~~~~~~~ I wrote last about the proposed ceasefire (technically a hudna) for Gaza and indicated that since Hamas political head Mashaal had referred to it, with honesty, as a "tactic" this clearly wasn't going anywhere. A hudna buys them time to strengthen before they hit us again. Well...that was a foolish assumption on my part, altogether too rational. The news that broke yesterday was that Bush wanted to see us go for that hudna, with it in place before he arrived here in two weeks. There was some notion that this would help the "peace process." And, obviously, helping the peace process is all that really matters. Some of you already know how infuriated this made me –– this meddling by Bush into our security affairs. I still suspect that in the end this may go nowhere (and I'll explain a bit about why), but there are now several factors that it's worth examining. ~~~~~~~~~~ The "inspired" notion of Bush, or his advisors, is that Abbas feels constrained with regard to dealing with Israel when Israel is shooting at Palestinians in Gaza –– terrorist Palestinians, but for Abbas that is beside the point. It makes him look as if he's consorting with the enemy. And so stopping the shooting would presumably make it possible for Abbas to negotiate more freely. Abbas is giving good lip service to this idea of a truce. After meeting with Mubarak in Sharm el-Sheikh, he intoned, "The truce is a national interest of all Palestinians. A truce will alleviate the suffering of our people and pave the way for the reopening of the border crossings." However, reports Khaled Abu Toameh in the Post, the PA is actually quite anxious about this, because it would be a step towards legitimizing Hamas's takeover of Gaza, something Abbas is trying mightily to reverse. At a minimum, Abbas is insisting that the PA must be present at all opened border crossings, but if the crossings are opened in a deal between Israel and Hamas as part of a truce, exactly where does that leave the PA? An analysis in Haaretz carried this theme even further, saying that a truce that opened the crossings would render the PA almost irrelevant. According to this thinking, people would get the message that concessions are more likely to be drawn from Israel when there is shooting than when there are negotiations. ~~~~~~~~~~ It is truly ironic, and not at all surprising, that the US government, meddling in Middle Eastern affairs in an attempt to make things better, might, from their perspective, end up making them worse. Were they to push that truce down our throats, in an effort to strengthen Abbas, they might actually make him weaker. ~~~~~~~~~~ Egypt, still working towards that hudna, has invited four terrorist factions to Cairo for meetings in an attempt to convince them to cooperate: Islamic Jihad, the Popular Resistance Committees, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) . The serious question as to whether they will all be on board is a major factor getting in the way of what Egypt is attempting to accomplish. At a minimum, these groups are seeking commitments by Israel not to do any operations in Gaza, and to extend the truce to Judea and Samaria within six months. Problematic, to say the least. ~~~~~~~~~~ Then there is the issue of Egypt's commitment to blocking the smuggling of weapons into Gaza. Head of the IDF Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant is fiercely opposed to a ceasefire, in part because he's convinced smuggling would increase. He's also concerned about strengthening of the terrorist infrastructure inside of Gaza. ~~~~~~~~~~ Today 15 Kassams and 20 mortars were fired at Israel. A home and a clinic were hit, and five people in Sderot were lightly wounded. Said Defense Minister Ehud Barak: "This is not the right time for a ceasefire with Hamas." ~~~~~~~~~~ The comment of Hamas's Mahmoud Zahar, speaking today at Islamic University in Gaza, was that, "If Israel says no, it will pay a heavy price. We are a besieged people and we will have to use all our tools to defend ourselves against Israel...Hamas has 200,000 people who want to blow themselves up inside of Israel." ~~~~~~~~~~ And, indeed, we may be in for some tough times. Head of Military Intelligence Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin told the Cabinet today that terror groups are planning a major attack for our 60th Independence Day, next week. While Hamas may be planning to breach the border between Gaza and Israel, as they did at Rafah not long ago. They would likely aim towards Israel this time because Egypt has gotten very serious about its response to a new attempt to break through at Rafah. And when the Egyptians get serious, they shoot to kill. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to a new report from YNet, a serious blowout has erupted between Israel's chief negotiator, Tzipi Livni, and the PA chief negotiator, Ahmed Qurei. Qurei reportedly exploded when Livni presented a map that showed Israel retaining Jerusalem, major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, and the Jordan Valley (essential from a security perspective). In addition, Qurei is said to be furious because Barak has indicated that there would have to be special security arrangements at a high point in Samaria that directly overlooks the airport. If this report is accurate, and if the quarrel is even half-way serious, then Bush can forget trying to push Israel into a truce in order to get the PA to negotiate faster. I'm waiting for confirmation. ~~~~~~~~~~ It's very good news being reported by the Post regarding sanctions with teeth against Iran. Apparently the EU is set to blacklist one of Iran's top banks –– a bank through which Iran conducts considerable business. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
GUSH KATIF REFUGEES ASK COURT TO ERASE DEBTS
Posted by Buddy Macy, April 29, 2008. |
|
This was written by Avi Tuchmayer and it appeared in
Arutz-Sheva
|
|
(IsraelNN.com) Refugees from destroyed communities in Gush Katif have appealed to the Supreme Court to force the government to enforce a pre-disengagement decision to erase refugees' debts to the World Zionist Organization. The decision to erase debts incurred by Gush Katif pioneers when they established their communities was made by the Knesset Finance Committee in 2004. As with other areas around the country, Gaza communities benefited from long-term loans from the Jewish Agency in order establish farming infrastructure, but when the Sharon Administration decided to pull out of Gaza, it became clear that local residents would be unable to repay the debts. Because the Finance Committee had supposedly "taken care" of canceling Gush Katif debts to the World Zionist Organization, the Knesset Laws Committee did not enshrine the debt erasure in the 2005 Evacuation –– Compensation Law. As a result, Gaza residents were left with little legal protection and saddled with debt for farming equipment and farm land they can no longer access. According to Anita Tucker, formerly of Netzer Hazani, the debt repayment is an especially sore point for pioneers who built up Jewish Gaza soon after the area was liberated from Egypt during the Six Day War. "When we came to Gush Katif over 30 years ago, the World Zionist Organization gave a package of benefits to encourage agriculture in development areas. We received various essentials to start a farm. I was a farmer in Gush Katif for 29 years. We were in the process of paying back those initial benefits, when the government threw us out of the land, that it had originally encouraged us to develop." Three years later, still refugees Three years after the government forcibly removed Gaza's Jewish residents from their homes, expellees continue to be scattered in a variety of temporary housing arrangements, and most remain without suitable employment options. Most refugees survive on compensation payouts they received at the time of the eviction. To raise funds to build a new dairy infrastructure in order to create a post-disengagement source of economic stability, some former Gush Katif communities sold shares in Tnuva, Israel's largest dairy product manufacturer. There is now a foreclosure order for approximately 3 million shekels on that money in order to cover the debts the refugees owe to the Zionist organization. The lawsuit names as defendants the government, World Zionist Organization, the Finance Ministry, the accountant general, the agriculture minister and the Sela Disengagement Authority, and asks the court to force the above-mentioned bodies to enforce the government's decision. They say the plaintiffs' real ability to restore and rebuild their lives has suffered, and due to the huge sums involved (which is more than the sum total of the payout they have received to date), it has impaired their abilities to repair their lives in the future. Contact Buddy Macy by email at vegibud@gmail.com. Or call him at 973-785-0057. |
|
PASSOVER AND POLLARD: AN OPEN LETTER TO BUSH, OLMERT
Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, April 28, 2008. |
|
This was written by Kenneth Lasson and it appeared April 25, 2008 in The Baltimore Jewish Times. Kenneth Lasson is a law professor at the University of Baltimore specializing in civil liberties and international human rights. He is a frequent contributor to the Baltimore Jewish Times. |
|
Dear Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister, I am very proud to be an American, to be Jewish, and to be a supporter of Israel. That pride is borne of the great national character reflected by both countries –– an ingrained commitment to freedom, democracy, and humanitarian values –– which in turn nourish our charitable impulses, our natural heritage, our melting-pot psyche. But it is also a requirement of good citizens everywhere to reflect upon their nations' failures, never to cease trying to correct them –– and always to understand the consequences of silence toward them. Thus must we acknowledge that the American system of justice, so genuinely principled in concept and gently noble in purpose and generally fair in practice, has failed badly in the case of Jonathan Pollard. While the former Navy intelligence officer acted wrongly in violating the law by passing classified information, the average punishment for that kind of activity is four years' imprisonment. Mr. Pollard's life sentence is so grossly disproportionate to the offense that it should shock the conscience of all fair-minded people. He is the only person in the history of the United States to receive an unlimited life sentence for passing classified information to an ally, a misdeed for which he has amply expressed remorse. He caused no actual harm to any individual or group. Were they asked their opinion, the majority of Americans would likely agree with the sentiments expressed by a federal judge in one of Mr. Pollard's appeals (all of which turned on technical procedural issues and not on substance), that the handling of his case was "a fundamental miscarriage of justice." And the government of Israel, which in the past has offered refuge to millions of people oppressed by genocidal regimes and rescued hundreds of thousands of children starved by Third World famine and sought to save other nations' victims of natural disasters, appears to have totally abandoned one of its acknowledged agents –– and not because it is unaware of his whereabouts. Pollard has been imprisoned for the past 23 years; he resides in a jail cell in North Carolina. Despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of Israeli citizens would strongly support an honest effort by their government to bring about his release, their leaders blindly ignore his plight. Even a virtually unanimous resolution by the Knesset to act on Mr. Pollard's behalf brings nothing but disingenuous platitudes. Israel has had many opportunities to press the issue with the United States –– to request, for example, that Mr. Pollard be returned to Israel in reciprocity for the many gestures made by the Jewish State at the behest of the U.S. in pursuit of its peace initiatives –– and by all accounts has failed genuinely to do so. While some might argue that for a simple citizen to tell his President or the Prime Minister of Israel the right thing to do is an act of chutzpah, those same governments have an obligation to respond to the voices of their people. Mr. Bush and Mr. Olmert, with all due respect, your silence has been deafening. In this season of redemption, it is wholly appropriate once again to make one simple entreaty: Let Jonathan Pollard go. At this, the time to celebrate freedom, the opportunity is upon you. On this Passover, do not pass over the chance to act. With this small gesture of leadership, please act now. Sincerely,
Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com |
|
US PRESSES ISRAEL TO ALLOW HAMAS TO PREPARE TO ATTACK ISRAEL UNDISTURBED
Posted by HaDar, April 28, 2008. |
|
This comes from Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director of IMRA, who writes: "US presses Israel to allow Hamas to prepare to attack Israel undisturbed" is certainly a harsh description of the situation.This is called "US presses Israel on Gaza cease-fire." It was written by Yaakov Katz and Herb Keinon , and it appeared today in The Jerusalem Post www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208870506449&pagename= JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull |
|
Pressure is picking up on Israel to reach a cease-fire deal with Hamas in the Gaza Strip ahead of US President George W. Bush's planned visit to Jerusalem in two weeks, defense officials told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday. Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amos Gilad, head of the Defense Ministry's Diplomatic-Security Bureau, has been holding intensive talks with Egypt on a proposed cease-fire in the Gaza Strip being brokered by Egyptian Intelligence Minister Omar Suleiman, according to the defense officials. There was increasing pressure from the US and Egypt to reach a deal before Bush's visit on May 14, the officials said, and Israel was making every effort to move forward with the deal, even though Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak had yet to formulate an official position on the matter. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is scheduled to visit Israel next week. "There is a push to wrap up the deal before Bush's visit," a top defense official told the Post Sunday. "The hope is that quiet in Gaza will enable Israel and the PA to focus on reaching a peace deal by the end of the year." Suleiman has in the meantime postponed a planned visit to Israel until the beginning of next week, after he receives a final answer from the various Palestinian factions on whether they accept the terms of the proposed cease-fire together with Hamas. Suleiman is scheduled to receive a final answer from the factions on Wednesday and will then update Israel. "Assuming the factions accept the terms, Suleiman will likely visit Israel in the beginning of next week to finalize Israel's position," the top defense official said, warning that if Israel rejected the deal it could damage relations with Egypt and be interpreted as a blow to Suleiman's prestige. While the Defense Ministry is pursuing the cease-fire talks, senior IDF officers have voiced opposition to halting military operations against Hamas in Gaza. On Sunday, two Kassam rockets struck Sderot. One scored a direct hit on a home, causing extensive damages but no injuries. One of the more dominant voices comes from OC Southern Command Maj.-Gen. Yoav Galant, who, the Post has learned, recently expressed fierce opposition to a cease-fire with Hamas, warning it would be used by the terrorist organization to rebuild its damaged infrastructure and to increase its arms smuggling under the Philadelphi Corridor from Sinai. Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hossam Zaki, who held talks in Jerusalem Sunday with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and ministry director-general Aaron Abramovitch, said in Cairo a day earlier that Israel's "latest statements" on a cease-fire with Hamas should not be considered Israel's final word. In a statement, Zaki said that Israel "will make its position [on the proposed cease-fire with Hamas] clear following a series of closed-door meetings that will take place later." The government's position, repeated as a mantra by Olmert's spokesmen over the last week, is that Israel is not negotiating either directly or indirectly with Hamas, and that if Hamas wants a cease-fire it knows what it needs to do: stop all firing of Kassam rockets into Israel; stop terrorist attacks on Israelis anywhere; and stop the arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip. Zaki, according to the Egyptian statement, "played down Israel's initial rejection of the cease-fire as some sort of propaganda." Zaki, who is a close confidant of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said, "The cease-fire that Egypt has been seeking to achieve between the Palestinian and Israeli sides requires cooperation and real desire from the two sides." A senior official in the Foreign Ministry said Abramovitch told Zaki that it was essential to prevent Hamas's buildup in Gaza, and the terrorism emanating from the Strip. The official said that Zaki's visit was a reciprocal visit to one Abramovitch paid on him a few weeks ago. Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz is expected to meet with Rice in Washington on Monday, a day before he takes part in the quarterly Israeli-American strategic dialogue. That daylong dialogue is once again expected to focus on the Iranian threat, and the ramifications of Teheran's nuclearization on the region. Mofaz will head the Israeli team, and his counterpart on the US side will be State Department Counselor Eliot Cohen, who has stepped in for Nicholas Burns, the recently retired under secretary for political affairs. Sergio Tessa can be reached at Hadar-Israel@verizon.net. |
