| HOME | Featured Stories | June 2010 Blog-Eds List | Background Information | News On the Web |
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers
NOTE: Links to Videos are at the bottom
of this page.
|
BLOSSOMS
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, June 30, 2010. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il Go to http://ainhod.blogspot.com/ and http://freddebby.blogspot.com/ to see his graphic art. |
|
UN CONDEMNS ISRAEL FIRST, INVESTIGATES LATER
Posted by Bryna Berch, June 30, 2010. |
|
This was written by Rex Murphy and it appeared June 5, 2010 in
|
|
I don't suppose the world needs to remember Rwanda to note how sluggish in the face of imminent horror the United Nations is and can be. If that is not a sufficient cue, we could bring in other examples of areas of great threat or immiseration or both: Darfur, Tibet, Chechnya, North Korea, Zimbabwe, the Congo or Iran. On these the UN has the patience of a stone but only some of its energy. But torpid as is its nature, and comatose as are its eternal deliberations, on one subject, and toward one state, the United Nations acquires a strange and uniquely transformative power. Bring Israel under its gaze and the diplomatic sloths at UN headquarters morph into the swiftest of gazelles. From lotus-eaters to adrenalin junkies in the twinkling of an eye. Quite amazing, really. So naturally when the debacle over the so-called "freedom flotilla" — news media should be wary of letting activists choose the names of things — roared into the headlines, the UN reacted at the diplomatic equivalent of the speed of light. The Security Council issued its "condemnation," and in a wonderful reversal of cause and effect also called for an investigation into what it had "condemned." And the cruellest joke on the planet, what the UN with unbounded irony refers to as its Human Rights Council, issued, as unfailingly in every previous international incident involving Israel it has, a condemnation as well. If the flotilla's real purpose was to bring aid, then merely by complying with Israel's request to dock at Ashdod — as five of the ships did, with no blood shed and no international headlines — the supplies on the sixth ship would now be in Gaza. In reality, it was exercise in early 21st century propaganda on the battlefield of world opinion. Its only purpose was to challenge and delegitimize Israel's blockade of ships travelling to Gaza — a blockade, as too many news reports fail to emphasize, which up until this "incident" was also being maintained by Egypt. That the Egyptian government, until a few days ago, mirrored in its actions Israel's concerns about what might get shipped into Hamas is the only real obstruction in the otherwise perfectly concentrated anti-Israel narrative. As to the "peace activists" on that sixth ship, the ones who received the Israeli soldiers boarding the ship with bats, pipes, knives and chains — well, the video footage of the moments preceding the boarding and the boarding itself will make most rational people review their understanding of peace and activism and some of the organizations that fly the flags of these conveniently fungible designations. Any real investigation of the flotilla will not confine itself to the boarding, but include an equally scrupulous inquiry into the origins of some of its actors, its unstated as well as it stated aims, and the facility and speed with which it revved up the engine of international protest against Israel. It seemed like half the world took to the streets in less than half a day. This was but one installment in the long and continuous campaign to isolate Israel, and to turn that state in the eyes of international opinion into a pariah, to erode its legitimacy and to break its will. You've seen the branding. Apartheid Israel. Israel is the worst thing to happens to Jews since the Holocaust. Racist Israel. Imperialist Israel. The campaign has been remarkably successful, which is much to Israel's woe and may be to the world's woe as well. There are far larger, more egregious causes for the world's attention than the episode off Gaza last Sunday, greater threats and deeper anxieties. But it is truly worth remarking that when Israel is in the dock, protest rage goes epidemic. To use that vile term so often recently turned upon Israel when it acts in its self-defence, the response is extravagantly "disproportionate." I truly do not know why this is so. Israel is a sanctuary state established after one almost successful attempt just two generations ago to rid all the world of Jews. And Israel is now in the shadow of a fundamentalist, ferociously anti-Israel theocracy which is about to equip itself with nuclear weapons. Perhaps, alas, under the threat of a second attempt. Yet somehow Israel is the rogue, the barbarian nation, the only state on earth that can energize the professionally lethargic diplomats in the great tower of hypocrisy on the East River. Strange and dangerous times. |
|
TURKEY'S ISLAMIC REVOLUTION PAID FOR BY WEALTHY ISLAMISTS
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 30, 2010. |
|
This was written by Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School. |
|
Summary by Daily Alert:
Traveling abroad on his first trip as president, Barack Obama tacked a visit to Turkey onto the tail end of a trip to Europe. "Some people have asked me if I chose to continue my travels to Ankara and Istanbul to send a message," he told the Turkish Parliament. "My answer is simple: Evet [yes]. Turkey is a critical ally." On the same visit, however, the president showed that he considered Turkey more firmly part of the Islamic world than of Europe. "I want to make sure that we end before the call to prayer, so we have about half an hour," Obama told a town hall in Istanbul. Obama was not simply demonstrating cultural sensitivity. The fact is that Turkey has changed. Gone, and gone permanently, is secular Turkey, a unique Muslim country that straddled East and West and that even maintained a cooperative relationship with Israel. Today Turkey is an Islamic republic whose government saw fit to facilitate the May 31 flotilla raid on Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey is now more aligned to Iran than to the democracies of Europe. Whereas Iran's Islamic revolution shocked the world with its suddenness in 1979, Turkey's Islamic revolution has been so slow and deliberate as to pass almost unnoticed. Nevertheless, the Islamic Republic of Turkey is a reality — and a danger. The story of Turkey's Islamic revolution is illuminating. It is the story of a charismatic leader with a methodical plan to unravel a system, a politician cynically using democracy to pursue autocracy, Arab donors understanding the power of the purse, Western political correctness blinding officials to the Islamist agenda, and American diplomats seemingly more concerned with their post-retirement pocketbooks than with U.S. national security. For Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, it is a dream come true. For the next generation of American presidents, diplomats, and generals, it is a disaster. _____________ The Middle East is littered with states formed from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire's defeat in World War I. Most have been failures, but in Anatolia, one has flourished: in 1923, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk founded the Republic of Turkey and, soon after, abolished the Ottoman Empire and its standing as a caliphate, a state run according to the dictates of Islamic law. In subsequent years, he imposed a number of reforms to transform Turkey into a Western country. His separation of mosque and state allowed Turkey to thrive, and he charged the army with defending the state from those who would use Islam to subvert democracy. While Middle Eastern states embraced demagogues and ideologies that led to war and incited their peoples to hate the West, Turkey became a frontline Cold War and NATO ally. Turks faced down terrorists, embraced democracy, and dreamed of full inclusion as a nation of Europe. No longer. Turkey's Islamic revolution began on November 3, 2002, when Erdogan's Justice and Reconciliation Party (AKP) swept to power in Turkey's elections. Through a lucky quirk of the Turkish election system, the AKP's 34 percent total in the popular vote translated into 66 percent of the Parliament's seats, giving the party absolute control. Initially, Erdogan kept his ambition in check. He understood the lessons to be learned from the undoing of his mentor, Necmettin Erbakan, the first Islamist to become prime minister. After taking the reins of power in 1996 with far less power in Parliament, Erdogan's predecessor sought to shake up the system — to support religious schools at home and to reorient Turkey's foreign policy away from Europe and toward Libya and Iran. This became too much for the military, which exercised its power as guardians of the constitution and demanded Erbakan's resignation. Afterward, Turkey's Constitutional Court banned the party to which Erdogan belonged because of its threats to secular rule. Erdogan himself had been banned from politics because of a 1998 conviction for religious incitement. And so he initially managed the newly created AKP from the sidelines only, working through Abdullah Gul, the lieutenant who served as caretaker prime minister after the party's 2002 victory. Gul pushed through a law to overturn the ban against Erdogan, and the latter became prime minister in March 2003. Learning the lessons of Islamist failures of the past, Erdogan sought to calm Turks who feared the AKP would dilute Turkey's separation of mosque and state. As mayor of Istanbul, Erdogan described himself as a "servant of Sharia," or Islamic canon law. But after his party's 2002 victory, he declared that "secularism is the protector of all beliefs and religions. We are the guarantors of this secularism, and our management will clearly prove that." He took pains to eschew the Islamist label and instead described his party as little more than the Muslim equivalent of the Christian Democrats in Europe — that is, all democracy and religious in name only. Both Turks and Westerners can be forgiven for taking Erdogan at his word. He had cultivated an image of probity as a local official that stood in sharp contrast with the corruption of many incumbent Turkish politicians. Rather than upend the system or pursue a divisive social platform, as prime minister Erdogan first sought to repair the Turkish economy. This was an attractive prospect for Turks across the political spectrum, since in the five years prior, the Turkish lira had declined in value eight-fold, from 200,000 to 1.7 million to the dollar, leading to a ruinous banking crisis in 2001. A Coca-Cola cost millions. Erdogan stabilized the currency and implemented other popular reforms. He cut income taxes, slashed the value-added tax, and used state coffers to subsidize gasoline prices. The Turkish electorate rewarded his party for its efforts. The AKP won 42 percent of the vote in the March 2004 municipal elections and placed mayors in four of Turkey's five largest cities. In July 2007, it increased its share of the popular vote to 47 percent. But there was far less here than met the eye. Rather than base economic reform on sound, long-term policies, Erdogan instead relied on sleight of hand. He incurred crippling debt and, in effect, mortgaged long-term financial security of the republic for his own short-term political gain. Deniz Baykal, the former leader of the main opposition party, has said that the state debt accrued during Erdogan's first three years in power surpassed Turkey's total accumulated debt in the three decades prior. And that was only official debt. Outside of public view, Erdogan and Gul, now his foreign minister, presided over an influx of so-called Green Money — capital from Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Persian Gulf emirates, much of which ended up in party coffers rather than in the public treasury. And here begins the tale of the interweaving of Turkey's destiny with the nations to its east and south, and to the Muslim world rather than with the West.
Between 2002 and 2003, the Turkish Central Bank's summary balance of "payments for net error and omission" — which is to say, money that appeared in the nation's financial system for which government reporting cannot account — increased from approximately $200 million to more than $4 billion. By 2006, Turkish economists estimated the Green Money infusion into the Turkish economy to be between $6 billion and $12 billion, and given the ability of the government to hide some of these revenues by assigning them to tourism, that is probably a wild underestimation. Some Turkish intelligence officials privately suggest that the nation of Qatar is today the source of most subsidies for the AKP and its projects. Thus, if Iran's Islamic revolution was spontaneous, Turkey's was anything but: it was bought and paid for by wealthy Islamists. AKP officials are well-placed to manage the Green Money influx. Throughout much of the 1980s, Erdogan's sidekick, Gul, worked as a specialist at Saudi Arabia's Islamic Development Bank. Before the 2002 victory, he criticized existing state scrutiny of Islamist enterprises. Senior AKP advisers made their fortunes in Islamic banking and investment. Korkut Ozal, for example, is the leading Turkish shareholder in al-Baraka Turk, Turkey's leading Islamic bank, as well as in Faisal Finans, which also has its roots in Saudi Arabia. Erdogan has systematically placed Islamist bankers in key economic positions. He appointed Kemal Unakitan, a former board member at both al-Baraka and Eski Finans, as finance minister and moved at least seven other al-Baraka officials — one of whom had served as an imam in an illegal commando camp — to key positions within Turkey's banking regulatory agency. Erdogan also reoriented Turkey's official foreign trade. In 2002, bilateral trade between Turkey and the United Arab Emirates hovered at just over half a billion dollars. By 2005, it had grown to almost $2 billion. That same year, Kursad Tuzmen, the state minister for foreign trade, announced that United Arab Emirates ruler Sheik Khalifa bin Zayid al-Nuhayyan would invest $100 billion in Turkish companies. Not to be outdone, Saudi Arabia's finance minister announced earlier this year that Saudi Arabia would invest $400 billion in Turkey over the next four years. In contrast, in 2001, Turkish-Saudi trade amounted to just over $1 billion. When Turkish-Iranian trade surpassed $10 billion in 2009, Erdogan announced a goal to increase it to $30 billion. Whether or not Turkey and its Persian Gulf allies are exaggerating their figures, the trajectory of trade is clear. _____________ For wealthy donors, the conversion of Turkey has been a good investment. For decades, Turkey stood out like a sore thumb for Islamists. Here was a majority Muslim country which, even lacking oil, was far more successful than any Arab state or Iran. No sooner had Erdogan stabilized the economy and solidified his political monopoly than he turned to changing Turkey's social order and reversing its diplomatic orientation. Erdogan's strategy was multi-tiered. He endorsed the dream of Turkey's secular elite to enter the European Union but only to rally European diplomats to dilute the role of the Turkish military as guardians of the constitution. While Turkish liberals, businessmen, and Western diplomats took solace in Erdogan's outreach to Europe, his motivation was cynical. His ideological constituents had no interest in Europe, and Erdogan himself is intolerant of European liberalism and secularism. He criticized the European Court of Human Rights for failing to consult Islamic scholars when it upheld a ban on headscarves in public schools — a ban that dates back to Ataturk's original reforms. Erdogan's ambitions to remake Turkey, however, reached far beyond superficial issues such as the veil. He sought to revolutionize education, dominate the judiciary, take over the police, and control the media. Erdogan worked to achieve not short-term gains on hot-button issues like the headscarf but rather a long-term cultural revolution that, when complete, would render past battles moot. Erdogan attacked the secular education system at all levels. First, he loosened age restrictions on children who attend supplemental Koran schools — restrictions intended to prevent their indoctrination. He also undid content regulation meant to counter the ability of Saudi-funded extremists to teach in Turkish academies. Those schools that break the remaining regulations need not worry: Erdogan's party eviscerated penalties to the point where unaccredited religious academies now advertise openly in newspapers. Simultaneously, he equated degrees issued by Turkish madrassas — Islamic religious schools — with ordinary high school degrees. This bureaucratic sleight of hand in theory enabled madrassa students to enter the university and qualify for government jobs without ever mastering or, in some cases, even being exposed to Western fundamentals. When such students still fumbled university entrance exams, the AKP provided them with a comparative bonus on their scores, justifying the move as affirmative action. Erdogan made little secret of his goals: in May 2006, he ordered his negotiator at European Union accession talks to remove any reference to secularism in a Turkish position paper discussing Turkey's educational system. Over the past year, the Ministry of Education has gutted the traditional high school philosophy curriculum and Islamized it. Moreover, the judiciary is no longer independent. Erdogan's initial attempts to lower the mandatory retirement age of judges (a move that would have seen him replace 4,000 out of 9,000 judges) foundered on constitutional challenges. More than a year later, the Supreme Court of Appeals chided the AKP for attempts to interfere in the judiciary. When Gul, Erdogan's closest ally, assumed Turkey's presidency in 2007, there was no longer any check on his party's authority. The president selects the Higher Education Board, appoints a quarter of the justices on the Constitutional Court, nominates the chief public prosecutor, and officially confirms the commanding general of the Supreme Military Council. Now, on the rare occasion when the high court levies decisions not to the prime minister's liking, the prime minister simply refuses to implement them. In any case, after almost eight years in power, the AKP has been able to remake the courts. The government can now assign sympathetic judges to hear highly politicized cases. And in March 2010, the AKP unveiled proposed constitutional reforms that would make it easier for political leaders to appoint judges. In any other democracy, discussion and debate about government abuse of power and societal change would saturate the news. Not so in Turkey. No prime minister in Turkish history has been so hostile to the press as Erdogan. What had been a vibrant press when Erdogan took over is now flaccid. The prime minister has sued dozens of journalists and editors, sometimes for nothing more than a political cartoon poking fun at him. When a Turkish media group pursued a story about a Turkish-German charity transferring money illegally to Islamists in Turkey, tax authorities punished it with a spurious $600 million lien. When it continued to report critically, the group received an additional $2.5 billion tax penalty. And, in a strategy borrowed from Iran, Erdogan has confiscated newspapers — the high-circulation national daily Sabah most famously — that he deemed too critical or independent, and transferred their control to political allies. With the independent press muzzled and almost all print and airtime dedicated to his agenda, Erdogan upped his campaign against both the political opposition and the military. Whereas the Interior Ministry would once root out Islamists and followers of the anti-Semitic Turkish cult leader Fethullah Gulen, the AKP filled police ranks with them. Even AKP supporters acknowledge that the Interior Ministry regularly eavesdrops without warrants and leaks embarrassing transcripts to the Islamist press without consequence. "For 40 years, they have kept files on us. Now, it is our turn to keep files on them," AKP deputy Avni Dogan recently said. The real coup against democracy, however, came on July 14, 2008, when a Turkish prosecutor indicted 86 Turkish figures — retired military officers, prominent journalists, professors, unionists, civil-society activists, and the man who dared run against Erdogan for mayor years earlier — on charges of plotting a coup to restore secular government. The only thing the defendants had in common was political opposition to the AKP. The alleged conspiracy grabbed international headlines. At its root, the 2,455-page indictment alleged that retired military officers, intellectuals, journalists, and civil-society leaders conspired to cause chaos in Turkey and to use the resulting crisis as justification for a military putsch against the AKP. In February 2010, the prosecutors revealed a 5,000-page memorandum detailing coup plans. The documents are ridiculous. The indictment was paper-thin. Security forces rounded up most suspects before it was even written. And as for the smoking-gun memorandum, the charge is risible: coup plotters do not write plans down, let alone in such detail. The indictments had a chilling effect across society. Turks may not like where Erdogan is taking Turkey, but they now understand that even peaceful dissent will have a price. Turkish politics had always been rough and tumble, but except at the height of the Cold War, it had seldom been lethal. Nor can liberal Turks rely on the Turkish military to save them. Bashed from the religious right and the progressive left, the Turkish military is a shadow of its former self. The current generation of generals is out of touch with Turkish society and, perhaps, their own junior officers. Like frogs who fail to jump from a pot slowly brought to a boil, the Turkish general staff lost its opportunity to exercise its constitutional duties. Simply put, the Turkish military failed in its job. Obsession with public relations and media imagery trumped responsibility. _____________ A decade ago, Turks saw themselves in a camp with the United States, Western Europe, and Israel; today Turkish self-identity places the country firmly in a camp led by Iran, Syria, Sudan, and Hamas. Turkey may be a NATO member, but polls nevertheless show it to be the world's most anti-American country (although, to be fair, the Pew Global Attitudes Project did not conduct surveys in Libya or North Korea). Nor do Turks differentiate between the U.S. government and the American people: they hate Americans almost as much as they hate Washington. This is no accident. From almost day one, Erdogan has encouraged, and his allies have financed, a steady stream of anti-American and anti-Semitic incitement. Certainly, many Turks opposed the liberation of Iraq in 2003, but this was largely because Erdogan bombarded them with anti-American incitement before Parliament's vote, which withdrew the support promised to the operation. Much of Erdogan's incitement, however, cannot be dismissed as a dispute over the Iraq war. In 2004, Yeni Safak, a newspaper Erdogan endorsed, published an enemies list of prominent Jews. In 2006, not only did Turkish theaters headline Valley of the Wolves, a fiercely anti-American and anti-Semitic movie that featured a Jewish doctor harvesting the organs of dead Iraqis, but the prime minister's wife also publicly endorsed the film and urged all Turks to see it. Turkish newspapers reported that prominent AKP supporters and Erdogan aides financed its production. While much of the Western world boycotted Hamas in the wake of the 2006 Palestinian elections in order to force it to renounce violence, Erdogan not only extended a hand to the group but also welcomed Khaled Mashaal, leader of its most extreme and recalcitrant faction, as his personal guest. The question for policymakers, however, should not be whether Turkey is lost but rather how Erdogan could lead a slow-motion Islamic revolution below the West's radar. This is both a testament to Erdogan's skill and a reflection of Western delusion. Before taking power, Erdogan and his advisers cultivated Western opinion makers. He concentrated not on American pundits who found U.S. policy insufficiently leftist and sympathetic to the Islamic world but rather on natural critics, hawkish American supporters of Turkey and Israel who helped introduce Erdogan confidantes to Washington policymakers. After consolidating power, however, the AKP did not cultivate Jewish and pro-Israel groups, but they did little to sever the relationships. Turks traditionally looked kindly on Israel and Jews; of all the peoples of the Ottoman Empire, the Jews in Palestine were one of the few who had not revolted against the Ottoman Sultan. In the 1980s and 1990s, Turkey and Israel had much in common: both were democracies amid a sea of autocracy. They enjoyed close diplomatic, economic, and military relations. So many Israeli tourists visited Turkey that Hebrew signs became ubiquitous in Turkish cities. It was not uncommon to hear Hebrew in Istanbul's Grand Bazaar or in restaurants along the Bosporus. Against such a backdrop, many Jewish groups turned a blind eye to warning signs of Erdogan's antipathy and rationalized Turkey's outreach to Hamas and Hezbollah, Syria, Sudan, and Iran. It was not until Erdogan exploded at the 2009 Davos World Forum, telling Israeli President Shimon Peres "you know well how to kill," storming off the stage, and subsequently accusing Israel of genocide, that Jewish groups awakened to the change that had come over Turkey. Much of the blame for failing to recognize Erdogan's agenda also lies in the West's intellectual approach to radical Islam. For too many, the headscarf was the only metric by which to judge Islamist encroachment. For Erdogan, however, the scarf was a symbol; the state was the goal. Even after Erdogan began to eviscerate the checks and balances of Turkish society, European officials and American diplomats remained in denial. Certainly moral equivalency played a role: as Erdogan asked last October, why should Turkey accept the Western definition of secularism? For too many Western officials, however, to acknowledge Turkey's turn would be to admit the failure of moderate Islamism. To criticize Erdogan's motivations would be racist. Many diplomats and journalists inserted into this situation their own disdain for any military, let alone Turkey's, and embraced a facile dichotomy in which Islamism and democracy represented one pole, while the military, secularism, and fascism represented the other. Hence, they saw the AKP as democratic reformers, while the military became defenders of an anti-democratic order. Certainly, the healthiest democracies have no room for the military in domestic politics, but by cheering the AKP as it unraveled the military's role in upholding the constitution without simultaneously constructing another check on unconstitutional behavior, the European Union and Western diplomats paved the way for Erdogan's soft dictatorship. Alas, when intellectual smoke and mirrors were not enough to deceive the West, Erdogan and the AKP used more-devious tactics. Just as many American diplomats retired from Saudi Arabia to serve commercially their former charges, since the AKP's accession every retired U.S. ambassador to Turkey — Eric Edelman being the exception — has entered into lucrative business relationships with AKP companies. Mark Parris, who led the U.S. Embassy from 1997 to 2000, just prior to the AKP's rise, and has served in various positions at several think tanks, cultivated a business relationship with the AKP and helped with stories in Turkey's anti-Semitic press about neoconservatives and coup plots. Throughout the first four years of AKP rule, Yeni Safak columnist Fehmi Koru, an outspoken Erdogan supporter, published more than a dozen columns accusing American Jewish policymakers, led by Richard Perle — who was not then a government official — of both manipulating the press and plotting a coup in Turkey. Both charges were not only false but also consistent with anti-Semitic refrains about Jewish control of the press and Protocols of the Elders of Zion — like plots. And, indeed, they served their purpose: the AKP used the columns to rally both nationalist and anti-Semitic feelings. Koru would often refer to a well-placed Washington diplomatic source. In a November 2006 column, he revealed Parris to be his source, a charge Parris has neither explained nor denied. Turkish Islamists also cultivated academics. After Georgetown University's John Esposito received donations from the Gulen movement, he sponsored a conference in the Islamist cult leader's honor, whitewashing both Fethullah Gulen's Islamism and his anti-Semitism. The University of North Texas similarly received Gulen's largesse, as does Washington, D.C.'s Brookings Institution, which has long peddled a soft line toward Erdogan and his agenda. Turkey today is an Islamic republic in all but name. Washington, its European allies, and Jerusalem must now come to terms with Turkey as a potential enemy. Alas, even if the AKP were to exit the Turkish stage tomorrow, the changes Erdogan's party have made appear irreversible. While Turkey was for more than half a century a buffer between Middle Eastern extremism and European liberalism, today it has become an enabler of extremism and an enemy of liberalism. Rather than fight terrorists, Turkey embraces them. Today's rhetorical support may become tomorrow's material support. On the world stage, too, Turkey is a problem. Rather than help diffuse Iran's nuclear program, Erdogan encourages it. Turkey's anti-Americanism, its dictatorship, and the inability of Western officials to acknowledge reality endanger security. Hard choices lay ahead: as a NATO member, Turkey is privy to U.S. weaponry, tactics, and intelligence. Any provision of assistance to Turkey today, however, could be akin to transferring it to Hamas, Sudan, or Iran. Does President Obama really want to deliver the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to a hostile Turkey, Iran's chief regional defender, as promised in 2014? Should Turkey even remain in NATO? After all, half a century ago, NATO learned to live without France. Losing Turkey is tragic, but failing to recognize its loss can only compound the tragedy. The worst outcome, however, would be to let strategic denial block assessment of lessons learned. As mayor of Istanbul, Erdogan quipped, "'Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off." Perhaps, in hindsight, the West's mistake was to ignore the danger of Erdogan's ascendance into the driver's seat. Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com |
|
CIA CHIEF SAYS AL-QAIDA IS WEAKER. TRUE. BUT SO IS U.S., WHILE REVOLUTIONARY ISLAMIST GROUPS ARE STRONGER
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 30, 2010. |
|
CIA chief Leon Panetta says al-Qaida is at its weakest point since before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. He's probably right, though the amount of decline in the last three years or so has probably not been large. Most of the damage to al-Qaida was done during the preceding administration and that's a statement of fact not of political viewpoint. After all, depriving al-Qaida of its base in Afghanistan and Taliban ally-the most important actions damaging the group-took place a decade ago. And with a few lucky breaks, for example if passengers on that Detroit-bound plane had been less alert, al-Qaida might well have new massacres to brag about. But the most important question is not who should get credit for weakening al-Qaida-a terrorist group, by the way, that could make Panetta's optimistic statement look foolishly premature by a single major successful attack on any day of the week-but how one should regard that organization. In terms of launching terrorist attacks on the territory of the United States or on U.S. installations abroad, al-Qaida certainly has been the number-one threat. The group's decline is certainly a good thing and both administrations deserve credit for fighting that battle. But focusing on al-Qaida, now listed as the sole enemy of the United States in what used to be called the war on terrorism but is now called something or other — leaves out two things of great importance which often seem to be missing in the Obama Administration's policy. First, the longer-term historical importance of al-Qaida has not been to be the revolutionary impetus in its own name but the inspiration for a great increase in revolutionary Islamist activity in many places. An increase in anti-American terrorism was a key element in this process but is only one part of the picture. Al-Qaida's role has been particularly important in Iraq, Yemen, and to a lesser extent in North Africa. Left out of the celebration regarding victories over the organization has also been the fact that a lot of the terrorist activity has passed to individuals or small groups in the West and Middle East that act on the basis of ideology, or sometimes of some training and encouragement, rather than as the direct arm of al-Qaida. Consider, for example, the Fort Hood attack or failed attacks in a number of places, including one planned for Fort Dix. Individual Muslims or small affinity groups are active. One cannot, of course, achieve a victory over spontaneous decisions of Muslims to become Jihadists, perhaps after reading al-Qaida or other propaganda. U.S. policy has not so much fought this phenomenon but rather largely pretends that it doesn't exist. An attack like that at the El Al ticket counter in Los Angeles Airport, or killing a U.S. army recruiter in Arkansas, or attacking a Jewish community center in the Pacific Northwest is merely reinterpreted as the act of an individual deranged mind. The second, and more important, problem with Panetta's triumphalism is that al-Qaida never posed much of a strategic threat to the United States. Of course, it could stage bloody terror attacks but it could not take over countries. The real threat, then, is the Iran-Syria-Hizballah-Hamas-Iraqi insurgent alliance plus movements like the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and others. Here, too, the administration has played a strategy of ignoring the problem. It seems to believe that by diplomatic engagement, or expressions of sympathy, or benign neglect, or moving away from Israel, or insisting that these movements have nothing to do with Islam, the problem can be defused. But while revolutionary Islamism was set back-at least temporarily-in Iraq it continues to advance elsewhere. Moreover, the movement is further strengthened by the prospect of Iran as a nuclear power and by a U.S. policy that constrains Israel, accepts a Hamas regime in Gaza, does nothing to obstruct Hizballah's power in Lebanon, is reluctant to pressure Iran, engages rather than weakens Syria, and many more steps like these. Al-Qaida can blow up a building. But the revolutionary Islamists can blow up a country. And soon Iran will be able to blow up the entire Middle East.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs
(GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and
"Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press).
His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan).
Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at
http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html.
Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com. This article is archived as
|
|
OPEN LETTER TO EMBATTLED JEWISH COLLEGE STUDENTS
Posted by Yosef Rabin, June 30, 2010. |
|
My name is Yosef Rabin. I made Aliyah almost a year ago after having graduated from North Eastern Illinois University this past summer. After high school I was privileged to study in Israel for a couple of years and then went on to serve as a combat soldier in the IDF Netzach Yehuda 97th Battalion. I think it is safe to say that I have learned a thing or two in regard to defending the Jewish People and our inherent right to the Land of Israel. When I was in university I watched as the pro-Israel group on campus was helpless against the onslaught of vile incitement and hate aimed at the Jewish State. I have seen a similar trend in universities across the US and I would like to suggest as to why this is. Pro-Israel groups talk about a lot of great things: Israel's democratic values, the IDF's unparalleled morality in battle, her right to self defense, Israel's hi-tech and so many other wonderful aspects of the State of Israel. However, this is exactly the problem. The Arab sympathizers talk about one thing and one thing only, justice! They want the world to believe that they stand in the field of justice, while the Jewish People stand in the wrong. In a sense they are completely right; if we Jews came in and usurped their land, we would have no right to continue to be here. We would have no right to defend what is not ours to defend! However, if we Jews returned to our ancestral homeland and our bond to her stems from the deepest historical and religious grounds, then it is we who stand in the field of justice and they who stand in the wrong. You cannot mix apples and oranges and expect to win the debate; it does not work that way. Let me tell you: the audience will not buy it. They talk about justice, so you must talk about justice! During my last spring semester in NEIU, a Jewish professor wrote a terrible anti-Israel/Jewish piece, which was published prominently in the university newspaper online and in print. He even went as far to write that Israel was "the greatest mistake of the past century" and that "in Judaism, land has never been holy." Needless to say, the Jew haters rejoiced, and Jewish students were too stunned to speak. It was obvious that hitting back with the same old "Israel is such a wonderful democracy" was not going to work. That was not the issue at hand; the issue at hand was our intrinsic right to the land. I wrote back a very strong letter to the editor, which was published in both the print and online additions of the university newspapers. In my letter I focused on one issue and one issue only, our right to the land through mainly history and through the word of our Torah. Considering that the two intertwine, I put strong emphasis on what the Torah has to say about our connection with the land, because you cannot argue against it. No one dares to tell the Christians how to run their affairs in Vatican City nor would anyone dare tell the Muslims what to do in Mecca, because it is sacred to them. There is no point in arguing about it, neither the Muslims nor Christians will give in regarding their sacred lands. After my letter was published, one of the leaders of the anti-Israel movement came to me with a confession. He said, "We gathered to talk about your letter and no one knew what to say...we were speechless. You were so adamant and passionate about your religious and historical connection to the land, what could we have said." My friends, this is the key! You must be unrelenting and declare without fear that the Land of Israel belongs solely to the Jewish Nation and that we are committed to the greatest act of justice by returning to our land! My friends, YOU MUST SPEAK WORDS OF JUSTICE! They may not agree with you, but they will respect you for it. It will change the nature of the debate and swing things in our favor. Jews must walk with their heads held high and not be apologetic in any way in calling for our return to our homeland. We have nothing to apologize about for building in Jerusalem, Chevron or Beit Lechem. Do NOT talk about the peace process; leave this to the politicians. Focus on one thing and one thing only, making sure everyone understands where you stand. IT IS OUR LAND AND WE HAVE RETURNED BY HISTORICAL AND RELIGIOUS VIRTUE. Please do not get me wrong — I am not telling you to demonize them, to stoop to their level — but I am asking you to stand up for what is yours. For example, if the Arabs and their supporters have a demonstration about how Israel wants to harm the Dome of the Rock, which stands on our holy Temple Mount, you must respond! Respond not by calling for the destruction of the Dome of the Rock, but, rather, rally for Jewish Rights on the Temple Mount! Speak about our connection to the place. Sadly, as a nation, we have completely forfeited our right to the Temple Mount. Think of this logically: if a Jew has no right to walk and pray at the site of his 3,000 year old holy Temple, what right can he possibly have in Tel Aviv, which just turned 100? In my humble opinion, this issue needs to be addressed quickly and unrelentingly — it must be front and center. We must restore Jewish Pride in the Land of Israel and we must begin with its foundation stone, which is the Temple Mount! I would like to start a worldwide campaign on this issue. I am certain that once Jewish students understand the religious, cultural and historical importance of the Temple Mount, they will passionately push it. The Land of Israel, for the People of Israel, according to the Torah of Israel! Thank you, Yosef Rabin is Liaison to North American Communities HaTenua LeChinun HaMikdash (Organization for Renewal of the Temple). |
|
WHY ISLAM WILL NEVER ACCEPT THE STATE OF ISRAEL
Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 30, 2010. |
|
This was written by Steven Simpson and it appeared in
American Thinker |
|
It is a common belief that the "Arab-Israeli conflict" is a conflict of two peoples fighting over the same piece of land and is therefore one of nationalism. Rarely, if ever, do we hear or read of the religious component to this conflict. However, if anything, the conflict is more of a "Muslim-Jewish" one than an "Arab-Israeli" one. In other words, the conflict is based on religion — Islam vs. Judaism — cloaked in Arab nationalism vs. Zionism. The fact of the matter is that in every Arab-Israeli war, from 1948 to the present, cries of "jihad," "Allahu Akbar," and the bloodcurdling scream of "Idbah al-Yahud" (slaughter the Jews) have resonated amongst even the most secular of Arab leaders, be it Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s or the supposedly "secular" PLO of the 1960s to the present. Indeed, the question must be asked: If this is really a conflict of different nationalisms and not Islamic supremacism, then why is it that virtually no non-Arab Muslim states have full (if any) relations with Israel? There is a common Arabic slogan that is chanted in the Middle East: "Khaybar, Khaybar! Oh Jews, remember. The armies of Muhammad are returning!" It would be most interesting to know how many people have ever heard what — or more precisely, where — Khaybar is, and what the Arabs mean by such a slogan. A short history of the Jews of Arabia is needed in order to explain this, and why Islam remains so inflexible in its hostile attitude towards Jews and Israel. Until the founder of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdallah, proclaimed himself "Messenger of Allah" in the 7th century, Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully in the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, the Jews — and Judaism — were respected to such an extent that an Arab king converted to Judaism in the 5th century. His name was Dhu Nuwas, and he ruled over the Himyar (present day Yemen) area of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, it is most likely that the city of Medina (the second-holiest city in Islam) — then called Yathrib — was originally founded by Jews. In any event, at the time of Muhammad's "calling," three important Jewish tribes existed in Arabia: Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa. Muhammad was very keen on having the Jews accept him as a prophet to the extent that he charged his followers not to eat pig and to pray in the direction of Jerusalem. However, the Jews apparently were not very keen on Muhammad, his proclamation of himself as a prophet, or his poor knowledge of the Torah (Hebrew Bible). Numerous verbal altercations are recorded in the Qur'an and various Hadiths about these conflicts between the Jewish tribes and Muhammad. Eventually, the verbal conflicts turned into physical conflicts, and when the Jews outwardly rejected Muhammad as the "final seal of the prophets," he turned on them with a vengeance. The atrocities that were committed against these tribes are too numerous to cite in a single article, but two tribes, the Qaynuqa and Nadir, were expelled from their villages by Muhammad. It appears that the Qaynuqa left Arabia around 624 A.D. The refugees of the Nadir settled in the village of Khaybar. In 628 A.D., Muhammad turned on the last Jewish tribe, the Qurayza, claiming that they were in league with Muhammad's Arab pagan enemies and had "betrayed" him. Muhammad and his army besieged the Qurayza, and after a siege of over three weeks, the Qurayza surrendered. While many Arabs pleaded with Muhammad to let the Qurayza leave unmolested, Muhammad had other plans. Unlike expelling the Qaynuqa and Nadir, Muhammad exterminated the Qurayza, with an estimated 600 to 900 Jewish men being beheaded in one day. The women and children were sold into slavery, and Muhammad took one of the widows, Rayhana, as a "concubine." In 629 A.D., Muhammad led a campaign against the surviving Jews of Nadir, now living in Khaybar. The battle was again bloody and barbaric, and the survivors of the massacre were either expelled or allowed to remain as "second-class citizens." Eventually, upon the ascension of Omar as caliph, most Jews were expelled from Arabia around the year 640 A.D. This brings us, then, to the question of why modern-day Muslims still boast of the slaughter of the Jewish tribes and the Battle of Khaybar. The answer lies in what the Qur'an — and later on, the various Hadiths — says about the Jews. The Qur'an is replete with verses that can be described only as virulently anti-Semitic. The amount of Surahs is too numerous to cite, but a few will suffice: Surah 2:75 (Jews distorted the Torah); 2:91 (Jews are prophet-killers), 4:47 (Jews have distorted the Bible and have incurred condemnation from Allah for breaking the Sabbath), 5:60 (Jews are cursed, and turned into monkeys and pigs), and 5:82 (Jews and pagans are the strongest in enmity to the Muslims and Allah). And of course, there is the genocidal Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:177, which would make Adolph Hitler proud. "The Day of Judgment will not have come until you fight with the Jews, and the stones and the trees behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!"' Thus, the Arab Muslims had their own "final solution" in store for the Jews already in the 7th century. The fact that Muslims still point to these (and many other) hateful verses in the Qur'an and Hadith should give Jews — not just Israelis — pause to consider if there can ever be true peace between Muslims and Jews, let alone between Muslims and Israel. When the armies of Islam occupied the area of Byzantine "Palestine" in the 7th century, the land became part of "Dar al-Islam" (House of Islam). Until that area is returned to Islam, (i.e., Israel's extermination), she remains part of "Dar al harb" (House of War). It now becomes clear that this is a conflict of religious ideology and not a conflict over a piece of "real estate." Finally, one must ask the question: Aside from non-Arab Turkey, whose relations with Israel are presently teetering on the verge of collapse, why is it that no other non-Arab Muslim country in the Middle East has ever had full relations (if any at all) with Israel, such as faraway countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Indeed, why would Persian Iran — conquered by the Arabs — have such a deep hatred for Jews and Israel, whereas a non-Muslim country such as India does not feel such enmity? The answer is painfully clear: The contempt in which the Qur'an and other Islamic writings hold Jews does not exist in the scriptures of the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other Eastern religions. Therefore, people that come from non-Muslim states do not have this inherent hatred towards Jews, and by extension, towards Israel. But when a people — or peoples — is raised with a scripture that regards another people and religion as immoral and less than human, then it is axiomatic why such hatred and disdain exists on the part of Muslims for Jews and Israel. Islam — as currently interpreted and practiced — cannot accept a Jewish state of any size in its midst. Unless Muslims come to terms with their holy writings vis-à-vis Jews, Judaism, and Israel and go through some sort of "reformation," it will be unlikely that true peace will ever come to the Middle East. In the meantime, unless Islam reforms, Israel should accept the fact that the Muslims will never accept Israel as a permanent fact in the Middle East. |
|
|
|
THE ME CONFLICT NEEDS A DOG TRAINER!; ORGANISER OF MARTYRDOM FLOTILLA
Posted by Steven Shamrak, June 30, 2010. |
|
The ME Conflict Needs a Dog Trainer!
I think the escalation of the Middle East conflict and boldness of so-called Palestinians particular should be very easy for everyone to understand, if they consider the most basic rules of behaviour: 1) Reward behaviour and it will be repeated. Reward it again, and it will be reinforced, with every repetition of this. Even negative attention is attention, and attention is a. These are three basic behavioural facts common to every living thing on this planet! (Even a bacteria knows how and where they received rewards of nutrition. If they didn't — they would not survive!) I gave you these simple DOG TRAINING instructions to my clients in dogs training service! And, when they were willing to follow those instructions, they succeeded! No UN Condemnation — No Demand for Compensation! A group of 25 armed and masked men attacked and set fire to an UN-sponsored summer camp in Gaza on Monday morning. This is the second case of a summer camp set in fire in Gaza this year. In May masked militants burned another UN-sponsored summer camp hours before it was due to open. Both camps were attacked by (HAMAS supervised) Muslim extremists who apparently object to boys and girls going to camp together. Four Years since Shalit Abduction. Hundreds of people set sail in New York City on Thursday in what they dubbed the True Freedom Flotilla. Ten boats sailed past the Statue of Liberty, around Manhattan, and past the United Nations, waving signs calling to free kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak Several decades ago, before and during WW2, some people in Europe tried to use 'scientific' arguments and racial profiling to prove the inferiority of Jewish people due to their Semitic origin. Since the creation of Israel, Jews were screamed at — in Europe, Russia and even the US — "go back to your Palestine !" Now, the same kind of people, should I say scum, are trying to delegitimize Israel by questioning the origins of Jewish people. Netanyahu's Epiphany: PA Doesn't Want Peace. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu (Likud) accused the American-backed PA of being unwilling to enter into peace talks with Israel. "Why are there only proximity talks? There is no willingness on the part of the Palestinian Authority to enter direct talks. I say to Abu Mazen: 'There is no way to solve the conflict without direct discussion.'" (They have never wanted peace with Israel ) Speaking in front of the Knesset, the premier added, "The world says we have a right for self defense, but every time we are about to fulfil our right, we are accused of war crimes." Fatah (Arab) Style Democracy. PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Fatah party, has again cancelled elections that were supposed to be held next month, because of fears that Hamas supporters or independent parties will fill the growing leadership vacuum in the PA. The Obama administration has pressured Israel to agree to a long line of concessions to the PA illegitimate government in order to bolster the popularity of Abbas. There Would be no Need for a Blockade. Israel's President Shimon Peres warned that delegitimizing Israel only strengthens terror organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaida and there would be no need for a blockade on Gaza or flotillas, if Gaza would agree to peace, release Gilad Shalit and stop shooting missiles at Israel. Quote of the Week: "...as demonstrated by the UN's unusually speedy condemnation of the flotilla incident and the British government's expressions of outrage, anti-Israel sentiment is extremely useful for Western governments and international bodies, too. It allows them to take the moral high ground on the international stage at a time when, post-Iraq, it is increasingly difficult for them to do so. It allows them to brush over their own acts of aggression by going along with the idea that Israel is a uniquely colonialist, belligerent nation whom they, being whiter than white, have the right to lecture and hector. When Israel is continually said to have crossed a "boundary of civilisation", governments can conveniently pose as civilised by posturing against it." — Brendan O'Neill — Honest person, although not a friend of Israel. Political Blindness. Opposition Chairwoman Tzipi Livni slammed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for his decision to ease the siege on Gaza. "Your remarks point to political blindness and giving up. Hamas is getting legitimacy, while Israel is losing it. No one believes you." (Why couldn't her party, Labor, have this political clarity when it was in power?) Saudi Arabia: No Mingling Allowed. A Saudi court has convicted four women and 11 men for mingling at a party and sentenced them to flogging and up to two year prison terms each. (Where are international outcries and boycott of Saudi products — like oil?) Is Obama Muslim? That was the claim of Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, as reported in the May 2010 issue of Israel Today. According to article, Gheit appeared on Nile TV's "Round Table Show" in January, on which he said that "he had had a one-on-one meeting with Obama who swore to him that he was a Moslem, the son of a Moslem father and step-son of Moslem step-father, that his half-brothers in Kenya were Moslems, and that he was loyal to the Moslem agenda." (The issue is not whether Obama is Muslim or not. The problem that he most likely is and is hiding it — and is covertly implementing an Islamic agenda as the policy of the United States?) Another Excuse to Dump 'Peace Process'. Chairman Saeb Erekat of the PA's diplomatic negotiating team said that the Jerusalem local planning commission's decision to destroy 22 illegally-built Arab homes as part of the King's Garden reclamation project "proves that Israel has decided to destroy the indirect talks with the Palestinians." (Why must only 'illegally' built Jewish homes be destroyed?) Turkey: Organiser of Martyrdom Flotilla! Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that "Israel was losing its greatest friend losing its greatest friend in the region" with its actions (Quite a cynical statement from a delusional 'friend'. Wasn't Turkey the major organizer of the flotilla?) Erdogan made the statement after an announcement that all nine of the people, who achieved their life goal and became Islamic martyrs by willingly dying creating an anti-Israel publicity stunt, killed in the Gaza flotilla raid were Turks. (Turkey has always played a game of fake friendship with Israel in order to receive financial help from the US. And it has also never been a good member of NATO. Remember that Turkey did not allow US troops to move through to Northern Iraq several years ago! Why aren't American anti-Semites demanding to end US aid to Turkey?) Mission Accomplished! — Turkey emerges as Middle East leader. Martyrs Welcome. Thousands of mourners hailed activists killed in an Israeli commando mission as martyrs on Thursday, hoisting their coffins to cheers of "God is great," while Turkish President Abdullah Gul said "Turkey will never forget this attack." Flotilla was an Islamic Terror Operation. Evidence released by the IDF on Monday night, June 1, described how the Turkish Marmara, the flotilla's lead vessel, had been commandeered by terrorists indirectly supported by the Ankara government's subsidy to the Turkish Insani Yardim Vakfi — IHH, which is listed by the American CIA as an al Qaeda-linked Islamist terrorist organization with bases in Turkey, Bosnia and Bulgaria. Those passengers attested to more than a hundred members of terrorist organizations aboard acting like a quasi-military group with a command hierarchy... Although they appeared to hail from different terrorist organizations from various countries, they were all ordered to say they belonged to the IHH. Activist: I Tried Three Times to be a 'Shaheed'. The IDF released footage showing one of the passengers on the Marmora ferry telling an interviewer that "he looked forward to becoming a shaheed, a martyr," during the course of the voyage. "The first time I sailed to Gaza I wanted to become a shaheed, but I didn't have any luck," he said, speaking in English, apparently to a fellow passenger taking the footage with a video camera. "The second time I tried, but it didn't work. This time, the third, I hope to have more luck," he said. (This Islamic terror flotilla was organised by Turkey and supported by brainless Jew-haters or political opportunists who are building their political careers on anti-Semitism!) World Complacent to Genocide Again? Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan demanded that his European allies cut off funding for Kurdish rebels and extradite suspected rebels to Turkey. (In order to destroy the Kurdish people's wish to live free, Turkey is quite happy with world indifference, just like Nazi Germany before committing the Holocaust!) The United States ambassador to Turkey said earlier this week that the US supports Turkey 's efforts to clamp down on Kurdish resistance: "We stand ready to review urgently any new requests from the Turkish military or government regarding the PKK," (The leading democracy has already signed up with the genocide perpetrator!) Why not Independent Kurdistan? Turkey admitted to slaughtering as many as 120 Kurdish rebels in raids on their hideouts in northern Iraq last month. (Still there is no UN condemnation of Turkey or at least any call for an international investigation of the conflict.) Speaking at the funeral of Turkish soldiers killed in a battle against Kurdish rebels fighting the Turkish occupation — Prime Minister Erdogan said that Turkey would "wipe out" all the Kurdish fighters. Erdogan's words come only two weeks after he reminded Israel that it is said in the Torah "Don't Murder". (Hypocrisy is the main trait of Israel's enemies! Kurds are true freedom fighters against occupation of Kurdistan by Turkey! But so-called Palestinians are opportunistic, blood-thirsty Arab terrorists.) Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak@gmail.com |
|
NEW BUILDING FREEZE CONTROVERSY IN JUDEA-SAMARIA;
ISLAMIC MOVEMENT IN ISRAELI SCHOOLS
Posted by Richard Shulman, June 30, 2010. |
|
ISRAEL DENOUNCES DEADLINE FOR ARAB STATEHOOD 
Israel's Foreign Minister Lieberman denounced the Quartet's two-year timetable for new Arab statehood. He explained that the two sides were far from agreement on much. If Israeli Arabs had to exchange Israeli citizenship for citizenship in the new Arab state, they would lose a great deal, economically (Arutz-7, 6/30/10). Israeli Arabs would lose more than that. Their women would become more cloistered, their homosexuals more murdered, their journalists more restricted, their Christians more bombed, and their children more subject to indoctrination in hatred and violence. That is why, in anticipation of Arab statehood, thousands of Arabs whose houses are in the areas contemplated for such a state have been moving into the areas Israel is likely to retain. When Min. Lieberman says the two sides are far apart, he is under-stating it. Israel wants peace. Abbas wants conquest, his people do, and his Fatah charter enshrines it as official doctrine. That makes the two sides irreconcilable, regardless of what Israel does. If Israel were to give up territory in the hope of gaining peace, Abbas would accept it in the hope of gaining an advantage in conquering Israel. Such a conquest is not mere fantasy. Israel is a tiny country, not having sufficient land to fully maneuver its forces and with insufficient strategic depth to withstand an invasion that gets past its borders. It faces an enemy that once it gets inside, is likely to slaughter whatever civilians it can find. The Land of Israel is less than 1% of the Mideast outside of Iran, meaning the Arabs already control 99%. The State of Israel encompasses about 17% of the Land of Israel, the Territories another 4%, and Jordan 79%. That 4%, along with the Golan Heights, is key to Israeli survival. Those areas contain mountain anti-tank barriers and observation points that protect against invaders. They would provide Israel with secure borders. Without them, Israel's insecure borders would invite war from the Arabs, whose ideology is religiously and politically chauvinist. As for the timetable proposed by the Quartet, the East moves on its own timetable. In setting deadlines, as the U.S. and others do for the Arab-Israel conflict and Afghanistan, they set up for failure, under the circumstances. What circumstances? The Arab side wants whatever it can get in the short run, so as to conquer Israel in the long run. Refusing to recognize that situation, the Quartet takes the Arab side. As a result, Abbas is in no hurry to negotiate. Rather than make any compromise, he balks, he insists, he insults, and he waits. He waits, as it seems the Taliban will, for the deadline to pass. The Taliban would anticipate a U.S. withdrawal. The Palestinian Arabs would anticipate U.S. pressure on Israel to hurry and yield to Arab demands. Israeli leaders are appeasement-minded, their national loyalty in doubt, or they are weak willed. They fail to make their own case and put forward or act on Jewish national interests. They make the big mistake of letting hostile outside parties mediate. As for the leaders of the U.S., ignorant or biased about the issues, they fail to act in the American national interest involving allies and jihadists enemies. In blaming the U.S. for so much not this country's fault, in favoring U.S. enemies, and in disfavoring U.S. allies, as well as in their riding roughshod over the U.S. Constitution and intimidating corporations and over-extending an economy-dragging big government, as Obama and his entourage and radical followers do, there is an element of ultra-liberal anti-Americanism. The big question is its extent.
ABBAS DEMANDS NEW CONDITIONS FOR DIRECT NEGOTIATIONS Backed indirectly by U.S. envoy Mitchell, Abbas raised a new demand for switching from indirect negotiations to direct negotiations: a permanent Israeli building freeze in the Territories and in parts of Jerusalem on his list of immediate territorial demands. ["Immediate," in that his ideology seeks exclusive control of the whole country of Israel, as his regime teaches the children.] Newsweek, in support of the State Dept. negotiating position, said that most Israelis disapprove of Netanyahu for sometimes holding firm. Actually, most polls show approval of Netanyahu for that, skepticism of any chance of agreement with the Palestinian Authority, and an electorate favorable to Netanyahu and right-wing parties. Mitchell started the day inspecting goods being transferred from Israel to Gaza. Earlier in that day, terrorists fired a rocket into Israel, destroying a packing house. Israeli neighbors decried Mitchell's lack of interest in their humanitarian needs, as he concentrated on the needs of people imbued with the terrorist ideology. How could Israelis not be skeptical, when Abbas admits that if the Quartet's two-year schedule for statehood passes, he would ask the UN to confer statehood within "Israel's existing boundaries?" (Arutz-7, 6/30/10.) That last phrase is inaccurate, perhaps an excess of Jewish nationalism by my source. The Territories are not within the boundaries of the State of Israel, only within the Land of Israel. Israel has boundaries with Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan, but not adjoining the Territories. There, it has just an armistice line, the Green Line. Israeli law extends up to that line, but Israel has land claims to the disputed Territories. The building freeze being demanded of Israel is one-sided, akin to apartheid. If they asked for a building freeze by both sides, they would be neutral about it. However, the freeze is harming the natural increase in Jewish population. As for the Israeli politics of this, the Israeli Left has been shrinking, as its policies have led to more Arab war and terrorism, and conservative economic polices have led to prosperity. Israelis understand reality better, and fantasize less. Why doesn't Mr. Mitchell recognize the significance of the rocket? Israel keeps falling for Arab and State Dept. negotiating ruses. The ruses are designed to keep Israel making concessions for the same thing. Israel should have learned when Pres. Clinton got Hebron concessions from Netanyahu in exchange for release of Pollard, reneged, as State Dept. advisors said to hold Pollard as a bargaining chip for more concessions. In this case, Israel entered unsatisfactory indirect negotiations as a warmup for direct negotiations, but now Abbas demands another concession for entering direct negotiations. Many times, Arab negotiators agree to something that produces favorable headlines, but then they deny agreement, say they meant something else, pocket the Israeli reciprocal conession but withhold theirs, and deny the negotiator's authority, or try to change the definition and meaning of the agreement. That's jihad.
GAZA-ISRAEL FRONT FALSELY REPORTED QUIET A foreign news outlet reported that the Gaza-Israel front has been "quiet" since operation Cast Lead combat in Gaza. The continued shrieking of air raid alarms and explosion of rockets, however, is noisy. Since Cast Lead, terrorists have fired 300 rockets into Israel. Just Wednesday morning, a rocket destroyed a packing house in Israel, shortly before the workers arrived. The workers went to synagogue to offer the traditional Jewish prayer for having been delivered from evil. Mostly, Israelis have escaped casualties and much potential damage It seems miraculous. The media takes shooting seriously only if there are casualties (Arutz-7, 6/30/10). The media's false indication of non-combat makes peace seem within grasp. Then the media acts surprised and outraged when, eventually, Israel can't keep letting terrorists attack with impunity and build up their ability to attack, and fights back. Some readers have as peculiar a standard of the significance and nature of combat as do the media. I deleted one comment for descending into nasty name-calling, but here will refute the point it made. The comment compared the greater number of Arab civilian casualties in Cast Lead with the smaller number of Israeli civilian casualties, and concluded that Israel must be terrorist. False conclusion, wrong basis of comparison, misunderstanding of terrorism. "Terrorism" is the deliberate attack on civilians for political gain. Terrorism is the jihadist ideology and practice. By contrast, Israeli ideology and practice shun terrorism. The IDF has risked its soldiers' and civilians' lives many times to avoid harming Arab civilians. I think Israel goes too far for a people too far gone in bigotry. The civilians killed in Cast Lead were killed because of Hamas war crimes of using human shields both for its fighting forces and its arms depots, and because they sometimes come out to watch. No Arab civilians would be killed, if Hamas kept its arms and army away from populated areas, as per international law. International law holds Hamas responsible for those deaths. Fair enough. But not knowing international law, the reader's comment was not fair. The reader's comment picks a narrow time frame. However, the Intifadas and all the terrorism before, between, and besides, killed thousands of Israeli civilians and maimed many more. The reader selected too small a sampling. He played into the hands of the terrorists, who deliberately use human shields by the very placement of their weapons depots in apartment houses and by firing alongside houses, schools, and UN buildings. Then, as cynically planned by Hamas, foreigners become indignant not at Hamas for setting up civilians to die, but at Israel, for defending itself. They want Israel to let its own civilians be killed rather defend themselves in a way Hamas prepared to reap headlines from Arab civilians killed in a battle zone. That erroneous and biased desire infected the UN Goldstone report, so some readers cite that invalid report against Israel. Recall the battles of Jenin and the first Lebanon war. The media were full of stories about Israeli destruction there. But in the cities mentioned, the destruction was in a small proportion of the city, only where the terrorists were holed up. One would not have realized the extent of Israeli civility and self-restraint from those misleading reports. About alleged Israeli over-destruction, the misleading goes on, and the myths live on.
NEW BUILDING FREEZE CONTROVERSY IN JUDEA-SAMARIA A new controversy has arisen over the building freeze in Judea-Samaria. PM Netanyahu announced a 10-month temporary freeze of residential and commercial building in Judea-Samaria, not to include public and religious buildings. It is up to Defense Minister Barak to approve construction. Jerusalem is exempt from the freeze. Barak has taken it upon himself to bar construction of schoolrooms in Judea-Samaria, although those would be public construction, for which the need is pressing. Israeli law requires school construction to match population growth. Many in the reigning coalition regime resent Barak's unilateral decision. They say they will obey the law requiring construction rather than the fiat banning it (Arutz-7,6/30/10). Netanyahu often deceives his own people. He is considered weak. Barak is appeasement-minded. It is difficult to tell whether Barak is merely incompetent or disloyal. Both acquiesce to U.S. demands. In addition, the Labor Party has a record of undermining coalitions in which it shares power. Therefore, it is difficult to tell whether Netanyahu wants Barak to violate Netanyahu's word on the limits of the freeze or is too weak minded to oppose him. Netanyahu would have more justification to fire Barak than Obama had to fire Gen. McChrystal. In making up your own mind, you should take into account that Netanyahu talked like a right-wing nationalist during his campaign, but on taking office, secretly imposed a construction freeze on Judea-Samaria. When he announed the freeze, months later, he exempted Jerusalem, but secretly allowed no building, or almost none, in eastern Jerusalem.
ISLAMIC MOVEMENT IN ISRAELI SCHOOLS Knesset Education Committee chair Zebulon Orlev finds that the Islamic Movement has infiltrated Israeli Arab schools. It has participated in selecting staff and educational materials. The news brief is vague in reiterating charges of illegality. The government may be planning a law requiring its approval for NGOs seeking to participate in schools. MK Masoud Ghanayem (Raam-Taal) said that it should be up to the school principal which MKs to permit (Arutz-7, 6/30/10). Rather than leaving the matter up to bureaucratic discretion, subject to abuse, Israel would be wiser to ban the Islamic Movement, which is subversive and pro-terrorist, at that. Whatever I report, some readers distort it into an anti-Israel message. In a report about Territorial building permits controlled by Israel's Defense Minister, a reader took that as proof of Israel being a militaristic society. Israel has civilian control over the military to the point of hobbling defense. The report may reflect Israeli bureaucracy or that the Territories require military participation because the Arabs there have a militaristic society. When last reported, a couple of years ago, the Palestinian Authority had the highest percentage in the world of troops and police. That reader interprets just about everything about Israel as negative and nothing about the Arabs as negative, not their bigotry, not their aggression, not their genocide.
ISRAEL EXPANDS FLOTILLA INVESTIGATION COMMISSION'S POWERS Israel has expanded the powers of the commission investigating the legality both of the embargo and of its enforcement and also the behavior of those organizing the flotilla. The newly appointed commission balked at its lack of power. The government accommodated them by conferring the powers to issue subpoenas, and have them testify under oath, and by appointing two more members. Out of the commission's jurisdiction is how well the IDF enforced the embargo (IMRA, 6/30/10).
U.S. WARSHIPS GATHER IN PERSIAN GULF: UPDATE 
A.P. photo/ David Karp — Ahmadinejad boasts too much to back down? The third aircraft carrier group has just arrived in the Persian Gulf. A German warship is among them. The USS Truman is posted opposite Iran's commando units. President Obama told Israel that this would be a show of force, intended to intimidate Iran's President Ahmadinejad into ceasing to develop nuclear weapons. This is Obama's substitute for a pre-emptive attack. Ahmadinejad is not likely to be cowed. He does not act by rational Western standards, but could be willing to take great chances on his countrymen's live, to deliver a great blow of his own. He counts on the hidden Mahdi to bring his forces to victory over all the non-Muslims. [He has hinted that he is the hidden Mahdi.] Another substitute for pre-emptive attack may be Leon Panetta's new estimate that Iran is two years away from fielding nuclear weapons. That may have been stated to give Obama more time to take us down to the wire (Winston Mid East Report and Analysis, 6/29/10). Since Obama is appeasement minded, and was foolish enough to announce a withdrawal from Afghanistan at the same time as announcing a troop surge there, his bluff is likely to be called.
ISRAEL ARRESTS DRUG RING RUN FROM LEBANON Israel arrested a warrant officer and several civilians for passing security information to a Lebanese drug gang connected to Hizbullah (IMRA, 6/30/10). Evil attracts evil. There are reports of terrorists and drug gangs aligning in other countries, too. Some terrorists tax or conduct some drug smuggling, themselves. Speaking of evil, a reader who calls me evil, also calls modern Zionism an invasion. Modern Zionism is the Jewish national liberation movement that returned a Jewish population to its homeland by purchase of property. They paid both the absentee Arab landlords and the Arab tenants. With that money, Arab tenants were able to buy land of their own. It was the oppressive Arab landlords and money lenders who turned many Arab peasants into tenants and sharecroppers. Zionism helped liberate the tenants. In developing their land, Zionists build an economy. The economy provided jobs not only for Arab former tenants, but also attracted masses of Arab immigrants. If the Zionists were invaders, so were those Arabs, who constituted three-fourths of the Arab families in western Palestine. Some people just don't get the story straight. Nor do they want to, if the true story does not make for alarmist propaganda.
SAUDI ARABIA INDOCTRINATES IN JIHAD The King of Saudi is visiting the U.S. Saudi Arabia alternately falsely claims that it has revised its textbooks to eliminate proposed, bigoted violence and promises to revise them. After claiming that the books were reformed, Saudi Arabia admitted in 2006 that they had not been, but gave the U.S. a solemn promise they would be by 2008. But they broke that promise. Will President Obama raise the issue with the visitor? This issue is paramount. The Saudi government can denounce terrorism and even reduce direct financing of it. But since Saudi education encourages the bigotry and violence behind terrorism, the government engenders the attacks that brought the U.S. to war. Saudi Arabian education instructs the children from first grade through high school that Jews and Christians are their enemies. It teaches them to kill Jews, polytheists (which in their view includes Shiites), and apostates from the Saudi version of Islam. Jihad is presented as a sacred duty. Since the children learn by rote, they are indoctrinated. Saudi Arabia finances schools elsewhere in the world, too. Indeed, although Saudi Arabia comprises only 1% of Muslims, it pays for 90% of the religion's expenses, overriding more tolerant versions of Islam. Saudi Arabia distributes religious literature to millions of the faithful on pilgrimage to Mecca. For the U.S., this is a matter of national security (Hudson Institute, 6/30/10 from Nina Shea, National Review Online).
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
FROM ISRAEL:OH JOY!
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 30, 2010. |
|
Special Envoy George Mitchell is here, and resuming "proximity talks." There are reports that even now — why wait until he comes to Washington? — pressure is going to be put on Netanyahu to extend the construction freeze, allegedly in return for a PA agreement to enter direct talks. All of this simply exacerbates a sense of frustration and extreme exasperation. Netanyahu has been pushing for direct talks with the PA, saying that this is the only way to make progress. But the question that hangs in the air is, progress on what? The two sides are so far apart that talk of "progress" is nonsensical game-playing, no more than a charade. Will Netanyahu, who pumped for those "direct talks," now have the courage to refuse to extend the freeze if this is the quid pro quo offered to him? Will he fear being accused of being a stumbling block to peace if he refuses to "facilitate" those "direct talks" when presumably given the opportunity to do so? ~~~~~~~~~~ Netanyahu met with the Septet, the inner Security Cabinet, last night to discuss both Mitchell's visit and the trip to Washington. Members of the Septet are not all of one mind on this issue of extending the freeze. Mitchell was scheduled to meet with Netanyahu and Barak, as well as PA prime minister Salam Fayyad today, and with PA president Abbas tomorrow. ~~~~~~~~~~ At the same time that this is going on, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has been visiting. Following a meeting with his Russian counterpart, two days ago, our foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, put out a statement that: "[in spite of the fact that I am] an optimistic person, I don't think there is any chance that a Palestinian state will be established by 2012. It is possible to imagine, it is impossible to dream, but the reality on the is that we are still very far from reaching an agreement." I may not agree with Lieberman about everything, but I consistently admire him for his readiness to tell it like it is. ~~~~~~~~~~ Lavrov, for his part, is of a different mind. After meeting with Abbas in Ramallah he declared that reaching a peace agreement by 2012 was a "realistic objective." "If everyone shows goodwill and mutual trust, if all international negotiators actively push the sides towards reconciliation, this is quite realistic." A whole lot of "if"s, with the idea of international negotiators actively pushing being the most unsettling. The only observation I can make in Lavrov's defense is that it is exceedingly likely that Abbas was on his best behavior, wearing his "moderation" suit and spouting all sorts of peaceful intentions. But then one must ask if Lavrov gives a damn if Abbas happens to not be on the level. I would imagine that the "goodwill" Lavrov would seek from Israel would be a willingness to move back to the pre-'67 line, turn eastern Jerusalem over to the PA, accept at least some "refugees," and proceed without a recognition by the PA that we are the Jewish state. Oh! And we should look the other way with regard to continued PA incitement and the existence of Hamas in Gaza. In other words, if we are willing to commit suicide, we would have the opportunity to sign on the dotted line. ~~~~~~~~~~ In a piece in today's JPost, Khaled Abu Toameh reports that a recent attempt to bridge the gap between Fatah and Hamas has been abandoned. Members of a committee put together by businessman Munib al-Masri right after the flotilla incident have thrown up their hands after Hamas refused to receive the delegation and Fatah was not forthcoming in making certain adjustments.
~~~~~~~~~~ This news is of major significance with regard to the so-called peace process. I hasten to assure my readers that I do not imagine for a nanosecond that if Fatah and Hamas were to come to an understanding and form a coalition of whatever kind, that this would pave the way for good things to happen. Fatah leaders have made it quite clear — in a ludicrous two-step that dances around the heart of the matter — that they do not demand of Hamas acceptance of major Quartet stipulations such as recognizing Israel or complying with former agreements. All that would matter, they say, is that the representatives for negotiations jointly agreed upon would accept these stipulations. Makes no real sense, but never mind. The point is that if there were a Fatah-Hamas merger or, more accurately, coalition, there would be a semblance of unity within the Palestinian Arab world and ostensibly one representative body that would speak for all Palestinian Arabs. It would increase the heat on Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~ But as matters stand, we are left with what I refer to as the elephant in the room: Hamas ruling in Gaza while the world conveniently pretends this is not happening. Abbas most certainly does not represent all Palestinian Arabs, and the PA cannot negotiate for all Palestinian Arabs. So what is being aimed for? It isn't a "two-state" solution, really, at all, is it? It would be nice if those involved with negotiations were candid enough to acknowledge this major stumbling block. Properly, aside from all other considerations, there should be no talks until the Palestinian Arabs themselves get their act together and until Hamas is out of the picture. ~~~~~~~~~~ It must be mentioned here that according to Abu Toameh, a Hamas official is claiming that both Egypt and the US are working behind the scenes against a Fatah-Hamas merger. The desire, according to this report, is to avoid strengthening Hamas. ~~~~~~~~~~ In light of this situation, the unconfirmed report below is of particular interest: Last Thursday, the London-based newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi reported that a senior Hamas official — said to be close to Ismail Haniyeh — claims that senior American officials have requested contact with Hamas, but have asked that this remain secret "so as not to rouse Jewish lobby." Maintained this official: "This is a sensitive subject. The Americans don't want anyone to comment on it because this would catch the attention of [US] pressure groups and cause problems." This report was carried by multiple media sources. Following this, an Arabic newspaper located in Washington DC quoted a "senior official" who said that an American envoy, carrying a letter for Hamas, is scheduled to meet with a Hamas representative in an Arab country. The rationale presented for these alleged plans is that Hamas is a factor that must be contended with. Given Obama's predilection for "dialoguing" even with the most problematic of groups, this would not come as a major surprise. However...Assistant White House Press Secretary Tommy Vietor, has denied this report, calling it "inaccurate." He said he regretted that Al Quds had neglected to request a comment by the US administration. All of this leaves us...nowhere. ~~~~~~~~~~ That UNRWA has Hamas connections (e.g., the UNRWA teachers union in Gaza is controlled by Hamas-affiliated people) is hardly news. But this is a different wrinkle, which also involves the US: According to a report by Israel National News that was released just a week ago, UNRWA is giving a financial boost to Hamas: The currency utilized in Gaza is Israeli shekels. But when UNRWA receives donations to cover its salaries in Gaza — the great bulk of which is from the US — it requests dollars. Those dollars are then deposited in the Gaza Postal Bank, which is controlled by Hamas, so that a currency exchange can be made and UNRWA employees can be paid. The bank (i.e., Hamas) charges a significant fee for making the exchange. Then, according to this report, Hamas sells the dollars on the Egyptian black market for an inflated price. This is the same UNRWA, please understand, whose spokespersons become highly indignant at the suggestion that there must be controls on certain materials going into Gaza that might be used by Hamas in constructions of rockets and bunkers. "What's the problem?" is the standard response. "If it's in UNRWA hands it's controlled." ~~~~~~~~~~ Please see this important piece by Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) for Strategic Studies, on the issue of Israel's right to close its border with Gaza, and the need to do so. So great is the misrepresentation with regard to the situation in Gaza, says Inbar, that it is not understood that the standard of living in Gaza is generally higher than that of Egypt.
~~~~~~~~~~ From Sarah Stern of EMET in Washington has come good news: The US government has officially dismissed its deportation case against Mosab Hassan Yousef — about whom I wrote recently — after a hearing at a federal detention center in San Diego. Mosab, who credits the efforts of EMET with making this victory possible, will be given political asylum. Stern in particular thanks Representative Doug Lamborn (R-CO), who authored a letter to DHS secretary Janet Napolitano, co-sponsored with 21 other Representatives, and former Ambassador R. James Woolsey, who also wrote a letter on Mosab's behalf. ~~~~~~~~~~ Apologies. When I recommended — and provided the URL for — the very fine interview of Itamar Marcus by Richard Landes it was up on the PJTV website free for the viewing. I had no idea that it was about to be placed in the PJTV archives, and that there would be an announcement that it could be seen only by paying for a subscription — I was not recommending that anyone pay to see this. I have been in touch with the Palestinian Media Watch office and they are attempting to secure a way for this interview to be viewed without cost. If I receive information on this, I will, of course, share it. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
AN INTERVIEW WITH AARON KLEIN, AUTHOR OF "THE MANCHURIAN PRESIDENT
Posted by Fern Sidman, June 30, 2010. |
|
Released in May of this year by WND Books, this seminal piece of investigative journalism entitled, The Manchurian President has been both embraced by political conservatives and repudiated by Obama apologists in progressive enclaves. Listed as number 23 on The New York Times non-fiction bestseller list as of June 27th, this eye-opening account of President Obama's ties to radical left-wing extremists represents the latest work of intrepid investigative journalist and WABC radio talk show host, Aaron Klein. I sat down with Mr. Klein to discuss his new book. FS: Concerning your latest book, The Manchurian President: Barack Obama's Ties to Communists, Socialists and other Anti-American Extremists, what served as the inspiration for you and Brenda J Elliott to collaborate on such a monumental investigative task? AK: I was inspired to undertake this task because so few reporters were conducting any real investigation into Barack Obama's background. I reported in February of 2008 that Obama was tied to Weather Underground criminal/terrorist Bill Ayers. When I did a Google search to see if any other reporters or media outlets had uncovered this information, I was stunned to find that they had not. After all, it is the responsibility of the media to engage in a vetting process of sorts when it pertains to presidential candidates. Based on my research, it was clear to me that Obama had a long relationship with Ayers and Ayers even gave Obama his first job at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. They also served together, in the 1990s on the board of the Woods Fund; a non-profit organization that funneled money to leftist causes including the Midwest Academy that practiced Alinsky-like tactics of working within the capitalist system in order to overthrow it. What really served as the impetus for me to write this book was the lack of any real independent investigative journalism on the part of the mainstream media, as it pertained to Obama's past. FS: As you previously mentioned to Sean Hannity on FOX News, President Obama was not forthright in his book concerning his first boss who he claimed was Marty Kaufman. Since no such person exists, and the person to whom he referred was Gerald "Jerry" Kellman, what connections does Kellman currently have with this administration? AK: While Jerry Kellman may not have ties to the administration, it is clear that Obama apparently deliberately disguised the fact in his autobiography that he was given a job at the Alliance for Better Chicago Schools or ABC's by someone he claimed was Marty Kaufman, who in fact does not exist. Rather, he was referring to Jerry Kellman, who is an avowed Marxist and a stalwart acolyte of Saul Alinksy, the radical community organizer. Obama also disguises other names in his so-called autobiography, "Dreams From My Father", and neglects to mention that his childhood mentor was another Communist agitator named Frank Marshall Davis. Very little information was known about Obama other than what he had penned in his book. All of this information should be considered a major political scandal and the fact that he changed the names in his book should be challenged. FS: Why do you think the mainstream media did not scrutinize Obama's background and ties to extremists and why do you think he was not carefully vetted by the Democratic party? AK: I think the mainstream media promotes the same kinds of policies that Obama is espousing. He is the kind of candidate that they've been wishing for and hoping for. He is their dream come true. The Democratic Party did not carefully vet him because even those in his own presidential campaign such as David Plauth, who made a lot of Obama's videos, admitted that he didn't check out his background and was unaware of his affiliation for over 22 years with Rev Jeremiah Wright's church and black liberation theology. The party betrays it's past and it's roots by remaining indifferent to the polemical aspects of Obama's career. Obama has been pushing for the very same policies that the mainstream media itself that has been advocating for years and now they have this candidate named Obama so of course they're not going to investigate him in any serious way. To them these issues are not scandals. The media has been promoting Bill Ayers and other radical leftists and the causes that Obama has been representing for years, so this comes as no surprise. FS: Your book sheds light on the sketchy details surrounding Obama's college days. What were his political leanings during his years at Occidental College and Columbia University and was he under the tutelage of Marxist mentors and professors? AK: As to Obama's college days, no official or unofficial records were ever made available to the media. No college transcripts, published records, or even contemporary newspaper announcements about his education have been released. Obama remarkably relates in his autobiography "Dreams from My Father" that, beginning at Occidental, he surrounded himself with an assortment of radicals, socialists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists and communists. Obama, however, provides neither names nor clues. It was at Occidental that Obama first engaged in community activism, delivering what has been described as the first political speech of his career. On Feb. 18, 1981, Obama addressed students gathered outside Coons Hall administration building, exhorting Occidental's trustees to divest from South Africa. Obama writes in "Dreams" about the rally in which he took part, reportedly led by the Black Student Alliance and Students for Economic Democracy. Students for Economic Democracy, or SED, was a national student advocacy group established by soon-to-be California State Representative Tom Hayden, now a professor at Occidental, and his former wife, actress Jane Fonda. FS: As to Israel, the Middle East and relations with the Muslim world, many people feel Obama has coddled our Islamic terrorist enemies such as Iran, and their proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. In a recent article (June 15) by Jerusalem Post reporter, Caroline Glick, she writes: "It is not surprising that Obama is siding with Hamas. His close associates are leading members of the pro-Hamas Free Gaza outfit. Obama's friends, former Weatherman Underground terrorists Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayres participated in a Free Gaza trip to Egypt in January. Their aim was to force the Egyptians to allow them into Gaza with 1,300 fellow Hamas supporters. Their mission was led by Code Pink leader and Obama fundraiser Jodie Evans. Another leading member of Free Gaza is former US senator from South Dakota James Abourezk." What are your comments on this? AK: As I reported back in January of this year, Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers along with Code Pink's Jodie Evans were in the forefront of fomenting chaos on the streets of Egypt in an attempt to enter Gaza with the Free Gaza Movement to join in solidarity with the territory's population and leadership. The three helped to stir riots after the Egyptian government refused to allow a large number of protesters to enter neighboring Gaza. Eventually, the protesters accepted an Egyptian offer of allowing about 100 marchers into Gaza. Once in the territory, those marchers were reportedly met on the Gaza side by Hamas' former Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. Clearly, President Obama's associates have helped shape his adversarial stance towards Israel, but he has a history of political leanings towards Hamas. In the 1990s, Obama spoke at pro-Palestinian events alongside Ali Abunimah, who was with Evans' group in Egypt, and who runs the web site called "Electronic Intifada" which spreads anti-Israel propaganda. In one such event, a 1999 fundraiser for Palestinian "refugees," Abunimah recalled introducing Obama on stage. Obama, like most leftists, believe that all conflicts can be resolved through dialogue and negotiations, which is why I believe he is coddling Iran in part. He is advancing and agitating for policies that help Hamas and we might see in the future even the White House eventually opening channels with Hamas because they believe that Hamas can be talked out of their extremism that is patently ridiculous. I know many Hamas leaders and have interviewed them and they are looking to spread their brand of Islam around the world and it's not like we can talk them out of it or talk them into peace negotiations. Obama has an "Israel problem". He has a real issue with the Jewish state. This is evidenced by his radical affiliations with such people as Rashid Khalidi, the pro-PLO Columbia University professor and others like him. FS: Can you shed some light on whom, in the Obama administration, were significant figures in pushing a socialist domestic agenda including the national health care reform bill? AK: As I reveal in my book, a convicted felon named Robert Creamer who is the husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who was one of Capitol Hill's most visible cheerleaders for Obama's health-care bill is the one who helped provide a blueprint for the president's health-care legislation. Creamer said his declared strategies on health-care reform are not about "policies" but "are about the distribution of wealth and power." Creamer also recommended the president "create" a national consensus that the country's health-care system is in a state of crisis in order to push a radical new health-care plan. Creamer was sentenced to federal prison in 2006 after pleading guilty to bank fraud and withholding taxes while heading Citizen Action of Illinois. While in prison, he wrote a book titled "How Progressives Can Win." Obama's chief adviser, David Axelrod, touted Creamer's book as providing "a blueprint for future victories," including on health care. His book was endorsed by other leading Democrats and by Andy Stern, a close ally of the president who as head of the Service Employees International Union had visited the White House more than any other individual. FS: You write quite extensively on the role of the SEIU, AFSCME, the AFL-CIO, and of course ACORN in their support for President Obama. Can you tell us if the leadership and rank and file of these unions call for a Socialist and/or Communist agenda and what role, if any, they play in helping to craft legislation? AK: For example, one of Obama's close advisors is Eliseo Medina, the international executive vice-president of Service Employees International Union, or SEIU. Medina is in the forefront of spearheading legislation that would grant citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants, with the stated objective being the expansion of the "progressive" electorate that would help to ensure a "progressive" governing coalition for the long term. The SEIU is closely linked to the controversial Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN and they are top supporters of Illinois Rep. Luis Gutierrez's Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America's Security and Prosperity Bill, which seeks to document up to 12 million illegal immigrants inside the U.S. During the most recent presidential campaign, Medina and Gutierrez served on Obama's National Latino Advisory Council. Also on the council was Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., the co-sponsor of Gutierrez's immigration reform bill. Medina was a chief lobbyist credited with a change in the longstanding policy of the AFL-CIO, the largest union federation in the U.S. The union reversed its stance against illegal immigration in February 2000, instead calling for new amnesty for millions of illegals. The New Zeal blog documents how Medina was honored in 2004 by Chicago's Democratic Socialists of America for his "vital role in the AFL-CIO's reassessment of its immigration policy." That same year, Medina became a DSA honorary chairman. The DSA also supported Gutierrez's 1998 bid for Congress. In the mid-1990s, Gutierrez served on the board of Illinois Public Action alongside a number of DSA members, including Obama health-care advisor Quentin Young. FS: Can you elaborate on David Axelrod's Communist background that you extensively explore in your book? AK: David Axelrod was mentored by Don Rose, a founder of the pro-Communist publication called "Hyde Park Voices" and who, in the 1960s, was a member of a purported Communist Party front called the Alliance to End Repression. Axelrod began his professional career as a journalist with this paper. Rose also worked with the late David S. Canter, who was the co-founder of the Voices newspaper and was named as a communist in the late 1960s by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. In my book, I document the fact that Rose had written to Marc Canter, the son of the late David Canter and said, "Your dad and I 'mentored' and helped educate Axelrod politically, which is perhaps why you may recall seeing him hanging around the house." In 1987, Axelrod was hired to help in the re-election campaign of Harold Washington, Chicago's first black mayor, where he once again worked with Rose and Canter. It should be noted that Washington's campaign was supported by a coalition of communist and socialist groups. FS: Will you be speaking about this book on college campuses throughout North America? AK: I will not be focusing on a speaking tour right now but will be putting my efforts into a media tour to help promote the book. Contact Fern Sidman at AriellaH@aol.com |
|
RABBI MORDECHAI ELIYAHU: FREE JONATHAN
Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, June 30, 2010. | |
|
English Translation of Rav Eliyahu's remarks: "This week, we read in the weekly Torah portion about the actions taken by Avraham Avinu to save a captive, to save Lot who had gone to Sodom. He went to Sodom and he was undeserving (of rescue); yet Avraham Avinu spared no effort to save him. "There is a Jew — a very dear Jew — who did so much for the Nation of Israel all over the world and who did so much for the Land of Israel, to save us from some very harsh things — the worst that could happen! "This Jew is named Jonathan Pollard. His wife, Esther, has worked endlessly to try to get him out from where he is held in prison. I myself have appealed to several Presidents of the United States: to Regan, to Bush, to Bush's father, to Cardinal Law and to a host of others. To whomever I could turn, I have appealed to them, asking that they act to take him out of there and bring him here to The Land. "And I told them — also told them here in The Land — if they what they are afraid of is that he will talk, then I will be his guarantor that he will not say a word. He won't say anything. On the contrary! He will praise everyone; he will praise the presidents. In any case, what we want is this: He is our brother! He must come home to the Land of Israel — and at once!"
Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com |
|
ISRAEL DOESN'T HAVE TO GO UNDER THE BUS
Posted by Lawrence Uniglicht, June 30, 2010. |
|
The Obama and perhaps future United States administrations, for strategic military and economic reasons, will attempt to salvage a wavering alliance with Turkey, as well as create or enhance alliances with many other Middle East Muslim countries. Thus, Israel becomes a potential pawn, a sacrifice to be thrown to the turbaned wolves and chic Sheikhs, some adorned in Armani suits, if for one the oil pushers come to shove. The writing on the wall, both in English and Arabic, must be carefully analyzed by Israeli strategists, ever aware that survival depends on adaption. When a presumed 'friend' announces to the world that the Israeli Palestinian stalemate ever imperils its troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, not to mention future ventures into raw material rich dysfunctional Muslim autocracies, it is time to react aggressively. Many emerging economic juggernauts to the expansive East, especially China, India, and Russia; afflicted by Islamic fundamentalists willing to blow themselves and crowds of innocents asunder; can relate to Israel's chronic dilemma. Furthermore, the Jewish States kick-butt economy, state of the art technology, world class research centers populated by some of the brightest scientists and engineers on Earth, make her an enticing partner to pal around with on the world stage. The sun may be setting in the West, but could be rising ever brightly in the East for Israel. Furthermore, reaching out with gusto to other suitors, especially some competing with a less than sanguine Uncle Sam, could very well spark a change in attitude within an administration that apparently takes its perceived protectorate morphed to sacrificial lamb for granted; not to mention a bloc of Jewish voters that could make all the difference in 2012. Politicians are practical fellows; know where their bread, pita, or matzo is buttered. A prescient Israel, sticking to her guns and principles, led by a strong Bibi Netanyahu and wise Likudniks, should continue buildings apartments in the eastern sector of Jerusalem, refuse to be intimidated by an overstepping White House; that by the way has no intention of returning to Mexico America's Greater Southwest won in battle in the 1800s, blithely attributed to 'Manifest Destiny'. Indeed Bibi might suggest to Barack that all of Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights and each and every inch of core Israel is part of her own 'Manifest Destiny', to be kept under her authority for all time. Period! Additionally, if the U. S. President wishes to get back into the good graces of a nation, expanding her own alliances to the East with folks she can relate to, he had better turn in his chess board for a deck of cards without any hidden jokers. Lawrence Uniglicht is a career civil servant. He advocates for the State of Israel with an American perspective. He writes, "Advocating for the disrespected underdog has been my passion, no doubt Israel falls into that category." Contact him by email at larose@snip.net |
|
URDU-PASHTU MEDIA PROJECT
Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 29, 2010. |
|
This is from MEMRI. The following is research published from the Urdu-Pashtu Media Project
today. Visit the Urdu-Pashtu Media Project blog daily at
|
|
Criticisms in Afghanistan of President Hamid Karzai's Policy of Releasing Taliban Prisoners On June 6, 2010, Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed a decree, authorizing review of all Taliban prisoners who are detained in various jails managed by the Afghan government. Under the decree, all those prisoners who are being held on the basis of false information or insufficient evidence are to be released. It is not clear if the decree applies to the detention centers managed by the U.S. and NATO troops. As per the presidential order, a committee, headed by the Afghanistan's justice minister, ''shall conduct a comprehensive review of the cases and release those without legally binding evidence of conviction.'' The order to release the Taliban prisoners came after the National Consultative Peace Jirga, held in Kabul June 2-4. The jirga, or meeting of community elders, was organized by the Karzai government to find a way of ending the nine-year Taliban-led militancy in Afghanistan. At the end of three-day deliberations, a resolution adopted by the jirga approved President Karzai's proposals for reconciliation with the armed opposition groups and authorized him to open peace talks with the Taliban militants who could be willing to quit violence and accept the Afghan constitution. As per the jirga's declaration, the Afghan government and the international troops were urged "to take immediate and solid action in freeing from various prisons those detained based on inaccurate information or unsubstantiated allegations." The move to free Taliban prisoners was welcomed by Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, who argued that such a step will build trust between the Afghan government and the opposition groups. However, the Karzai government's move to free Taliban prisoners has been severely criticized. The first criticism of such a move came from Azeeta Rafat, a member of the Wolesi Jirga (lower house of the Afghan parliament) who argued that such a step will signal to the Taliban that the government is weak and will not lead to positive consequences for restoring peace in Afghanistan. Qazi Nazeer Ahmad Hanafi, a political analyst, also accused President Karzai of "victimizing justice" with a decision to release the militants. Amrullah Saleh, who recently resigned, also accused Karzai of adopting a soft policy on the Taliban. Recently, Dr. Sima Samar, the chief of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, criticized the proposal to release the prisoners, arguing that many militants who are guilty of human rights could be freed under such a move. According to a report in the Dari-language newspaper Roznama Arman-e-Milli, she said that those militants who helped plan suicide attacks, killed innocent people and burned down schools should not be released. In an editorial, below, the Dari-language newspaper Arman-e-Milli expresses concerns that such a move in the past to release militants has not yielded positive results and that it might lead to the release of Taliban militants who are backed by the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence. In another editorial, the Afghanistan Times daily argues that the effective way to restore peace in Afghanistan is by expediting the training and equipping of the Afghan security forces. To read the full report, visit
Pakistan TV Debate on Concubines and Slavery in Islam Speaking on "Point Blank with Luqman," a television program hosted by Pakistani television presenter Mubasher Luqman, prominent Pakistani clerics said that Islam permits Muslims to keep concubines. Video footage of the program was posted on the Pakistani website pakistanherald.com. The show, which airs at 11:00pm from Monday through Friday, is a talk show on which a variety of social and political issues in Pakistan are discussed. The particular edition of the program on which the clerics spoke was aired on Pakistani television channel Express News on May 31, 2010. The participants included Allama Ibtisam Elahi Zaheer, the Secretary General of the puritanical religious organization Jamiat Ahl-e-Hadith; Barelvi cleric Maulana Raghib Naeemi, the Nazim-e-Aala of the Jamia Naeemia madrassa; and Dr. Mohammed Aslam Siddiqui, a Jamaat-e-Islami politician and former head of the Department of Mosques at the Punjab University, who joined by telephone. To read the full report, visit
Editorials in Afghan and Pakistani Dailies Examine Secret Talks between Karzai Government and the Haqqani Network On June 16, 2010, a leading Pakistani daily revealed that the Pakistani military's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) is mediating between the Afghan government and the Haqqani Network, a key militant group that is part of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Dawn newspaper quoted an unidentified "senior security official" in Pakistan as saying that "preliminary contacts" have been established with Sirajuddin Haqqani and other leaders of his group through intermediaries in a bid to engineer a rapprochement with the Karzai administration. According to the report, "[a]lthough the future of the initiative is unclear at the moment, the initial signs are encouraging because the leadership of the militant group appears to be willing (to talk)." The Haqqani Network is led by Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Sirajuddin Haqqani, who have their bases in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal district and have been supported by the ISI. The Taliban have not commented on the report that the Haqqani Network's leaders could consider talks. In fact, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, the Taliban's own shadow government, has rejected any possibility of peace talks with the Karzai government under the framework of the Afghan constitution. However, the latest report about secret talks between the Afghan government and the Haqqani Network could be the Pakistani military's attempt to gain a foothold in Kabul by allowing the Haqqanis to have a say in Afghanistan. The following two editorials, the first in the Pakistani newspaper Dawn and the second in the Dari-language newspaper Roznama Arman-e-Milli, examine the issue of the secret talks with the Haqqani group. The Dawn editorial, published June 17, 2010 and titled "Haqqani Talks?" stresses that the Pakistani government should first try to secure the Pakistani tribal areas before attempting to gain a say in the internal affairs of Afghanistan; the editorial in Afghan daily Roznama Arman-e-Milli, published June 20 and titled "Why Secret Negotiations with the Haqqani Terrorist Group?" asks why the Karzai government is entering into secret talks with a murderous group like the Haqqanis. To read the full report, visit
Columns in Jihadist Weekly on Dajjal Caution Against Overestimating the 'Power of Infidels': 'Nowhere Will You Find Islam Praising the Power of Infidels [And] Their Conspiracies'; 'U.S., Europe, Kabbala... All These Satans Will be Destroyed by Jihad Alone'; 'The Mischief of Dajjal Can Be Dealt With By Jihad' The Urdu-language Pakistani weekly magazine Haftroza Al-Qalam which belongs to Al-Qaeda-linked jihadist organization Jaish-e-Muhammad, recently published two articles on Dajjal, the antichrist. The articles argue that a focus on conspiracy theories such as those about Dajjal lead to a waste of Muslims' energy and prevent them from waging jihad, and to overestimating the power of the U.S. Jaish-e-Muhammad is headed by Maulana Masood Azhar, a Pakistani militant commander who was released by India in exchange for the passengers of the hijacked Indian plane to Kandahar in 1999. In the Islamic world, there are two versions of the concep of Dajjal. According to Islamic literature, Dajjal is the antichrist who will be born at the time Jesus is reborn and will try to mislead people. Those who follow him will enter the path of heaven as shown by him, but in reality it will be hell. Those who disagree with Dajjal and go into hell as shown by him will actually be entering heaven. This concept concerns "Dajjal the antichrist." However, in the popular perception, the concept of Dajjal has come to be of someone out to mislead and corrupt Muslims, a one-eyed, bloodthirsty, and powerful mischief-maker bent upon dividing the Muslim Ummah. With the antisemitic environment influencing international Muslim opinion, the Jews are seen as the contemporary Dajjal, with numerous conspiracy theories built around them. In the first article, titled "Dajjal, Judaism: A Viewpoint," Talha As-Saif, a regular columnist for Haftroza Al-Qalam, warns Islamic scholars against giving too much weight to the power of the Western countries in their assessment, saying that such a trend in the Islamic world encourages a defeatist mentality among Muslim communities. The article argues that the trend of Islamic leaders' emphasis on explaining everything in terms of Dajjal and the Jews, and their overemphasis on the power of the U.S., is creating a defeatist Muslim mindset. As-Saif notes: "In our view, the effort [about explaining Dajjal] is positive and good so far as it is helping in setting Dajjal's fitna [mischief], character, and attributes before the people — but now... this is so exaggerated that every work is now said to be the handiwork of Judaism and Dajjal, and their power is being exaggerated so much that [Muslims]... are thinking about hiding from or bowing to these conspiracies about Dajjal." In the second article, titled "Japanese Dajjal," columnist Saadi urges Muslims not to waste time discussing and researching Dajjal and similar conspiracies that have a negative impact on the Muslims' morale. Urging readers not to waste time on on conspiracies, he writes: "When Dajjal comes, the world will know, and the only people who will be safe from the mischief of Dajjal will be those with perfect belief in Allah who do not worship wealth or fear death. Such people will join the forces of Jesus and fight against Dajjal." To read the full report, visit
Taliban Leaders: The People Want To Be Ruled by Islamic Law Following are excerpts from an Al-Jazeera TV report on the Taliban in Kandahar, Afghanistan. The report aired May 23, 2010. To view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit
Reporter: "The route to the Panjwai region is rough, just like the fate of its inhabitants has been for many years. There is no trace here of the Kabul regime or its allies — at least not in the streets we passed through. The Taliban rules here. They cover their faces and brandish their weapons. Kandahar remains their stronghold — even if it has not been impenetrable for nine years. Nobody can say for sure how many regions are under the control of the Taliban militants, and whether the regions' loyalty to them is out of choice or is bred from fear. To read the full report, visit
Views of Pakistani Religious Leader Dr. Israr Ahmed (1932-2010) Regarding the Structure of an Islamic Caliphate 
Dr. Israr Ahmed (1932-2010), the founder of Pakistan's leading religious organization Tanzeem-e-Islami, was a prominent Islamic scholar who campaigned for establishing an Islamic caliphate. Trained to be a medical practitioner, he began activism during his student days while associated with the Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, but later developed differences because of its "involvement in electoral politics." In April 1957, he left the Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan and established his own religious organization, Tanzeem-e-Islami, in 1975. Over the past few decades, he wrote more than 60 books, delivered television sermons, and founded several organizations such as Anjuman-e-Khuddamul Quran and Tehreek-e-Khilafat, acquiring devout followers in Pakistan, India, and in Saudi Arabia and the broader Middle East. During the past few years, he had been unwell, handing over the leadership of his organization in 2002 to Hafiz Akif Saeed as the acting Emir. While the Jamaat-e-Islami's influence is more in the area of day-to-day activism, Dr. Israr Ahmed's Tanzeem-e-Islami's influence is more in the spiritual, religious, and scholarly domains. At a meeting in June 2010 held in Lahore to examine the teachings of Dr. Israr Ahmed, Akif Saeed, the new Emir of Tanzeem-e-Islami, stressing the message of his predecessor, diagnosed all problems of Pakistan as originating from the absence of caliphate in the country, and asserted: "The real cause of our woes is the delay in the enforcement of Shari'a [in Pakistan]. Peaceful protest and other tactics can help us in this regard... When the infidels can unite, why can't we? We have the Koran, on the basis of which we can come close to each other. Our belief in the oneness of Allah can make the Muslims one nation." According to a report in the Pakistani daily Dawn, "A critic of modern democracy and the electoral system, Dr. Israr [Ahmed] believed that the head of an Islamic state can reject majority decisions of an elected assembly. A familiar refrain in his writings is that the spiritual and intellectual center of the Muslim world has shifted from the Arab world to the subcontinent and that conditions are much more congenial for the establishment of [an] Islamic Caliphate in Pakistan than in other Muslim countries." In 1982, he created a furor in Pakistan, claiming that women should be barred from all professions except medicine and teaching. The following article, which is translated and excerpted from Dr. Israr Ahmed's booklet in Urdu language, "Pakistan Mein Nizam-e-Khilafat: Kia, Kyon, Kaise?" (The System of Caliphate in Pakistan — What, Why, and How?), highlights his conception of how the constitutional structure of caliphate, or a modern Islamic state in Pakistan or elsewhere, has to be organized. The booklet has been published by the Anjuman Khuddam-ul-Quran, an organization of Tanzeem-e-Islami based in Lahore. To read the full report, visit
Indian Author Stresses Essence of Sufism in Islam, Criticizes Saudis for Exporting Wahhabism, Notes: 'Saudi Embassies Also Act as Centers to... Outsource Wahhabism'; 'I Regard Wahhabism As Heresy'; 'The Arabized Version of Islam that Wahhabism Represents is Wholly Hostile to Pluralism' 
Image from Sadia Dehlvi's Facebook page In a recent interview, Sadia Dehlvi, a renowned Indian journalist 4and author of the recently published book Sufism — the Heart of Islam, criticized the Saudi regime for exporting the Wahhabi version of Islam in order to bolster its legitimacy. Calling Wahhabism "heresy" and stating that it contradicts the pluralistic message of Islam, Ms. Dehlvi notes that the peaceful message of Sufism (Islamic mysticism) is central to understanding the 1,400 years of Islamic history. She explains: "In contrast to how the Wahhabis perceive it, Islam is all about cultural diversity... One of the reasons for the vibrancy of Islam historically has been its capacity to express itself in multiple local cultural forms and milieus and to find God therein, for the light of God, as the Sufis say, is present in every particle of His creation." She also accuses the "Jewish lobby" of being behind the negative image of Islam and Muslims, noting: "The image of Islam as synonymous with Wahhabi hate and radicalism was aggressively promoted by George Bush, when he was the American president, and by the largely Jewish-controlled American media." To read the full report, visit
|
|
REMOVING ISRAEL'S BOMB FROM THE BASEMENT
Posted by Louis Rene Beres, June 29, 2010. |
|
Louis René Beres is Professor of International Law in the Department of Political Science at Purdue University. He is author of many major books and articles on nuclear strategy and nuclear war. Contact him by email at lberes@purdue.edu |
|
OBAMA'S ISLAMIC ENVOY: OBAMA IS AMERICA'S "EDUCATOR-IN-CHIEF ON ISLAM"
Posted by Bryna Berch, June 29, 2010. |
|
There's only one war going on right now. And it's global. We are all in it. Only, some of us don't know it, including apparently, our commander-in-chief, our educator-in-chief. Or maybe he does. If so, he should switch to America's side. Or resign. Our fearless leader has distanced himself from or insulted our Western allies, and is attempting to destroy Israel by inhibiting its natural growth. He gifts "Palestinians" with millions of dollars, some of which will buy Gazan children thousands of laptops while millions of children starve in Africa and black Sudanese are sold into slavery. He insists that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the root cause of unrest in the Middle East and has declared there is to be yet another Palestinian state scooped out of Israel. He fired a general without a replacement in situ when the Afghanistan war is starting to look as interminable and unwinnable under current policy as was Vietnam. He has ignored or facilitated Iran's building nuclear bombs, joined the infamous and misnamed Human Rights Council at the UN and enboldened Latin American dictators who look to Iran for inspiration. Domestically, he has put the fight against Islamic terrorism on an unlit burner and has continued Bush's policy of enfeebling agencies such as DHI and FBI by directing them to carry out Muslim Out-Reach programs that Bring-In Sharia law. In sum, his policy this past year has been: let's show the Muslims we care about them. The results? Pew Global Attitudes Survey says: 17% Egyptians viewed him favorably, down from 27% last year. Similar declines in Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, Nigeria and Turkey range from 4% to 10%. And domestic terrorism is on the rise. Apparently the Muslims don't like his rendition of the Wimp and Poo song. They might not like America any better if we stopped the Iranian bomb and the Islamic takeovers, but we Americans would be a lot more secure. This below was written by Stephen Schwartz
and it appeared in the Weekly Standard
|
|
Envoy Rashad Hussain says U.S. will work with Organization for the Islamic Conference in the UN to stop "defamation of religion." Rashad Hussain, America's special envoy to the Organization for the Islamic Conference (OIC), the Saudi-based body formed in 1969 to "protect" Jerusalem from the Israelis, announced a new title this week for President Barack Obama. According to Hussain, Obama is America's "Educator-in-Chief on Islam." Hussain so designated Obama in a keynote speech Wednesday, June 23, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. The occasion was another "post-Cairo" conference, following on the event that welcomed Islamist ideologue Tariq Ramadan to Washington in April. Hussain also declared that Obama is "Educator-in-Chief" on the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, which has produced diplomatic and political events around the capital for some years. Hussain affirmed with satisfaction that presidential iftar dinners, where the fast is broken after sundown, and which had formerly been limited to diplomats from Muslim countries, now welcomed American Muslims from throughout society. In his remarks, Hussain also congratulated Obama for sending Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser, to last year's annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America, a notorious front for Saudi-financed Muslim radicalism. Worse, Hussain has now divulged that the U.S. will support the OIC in the latter's United Nations effort to criminalize "defamation of religion" — widely perceived as a measure to suppress criticism of Muslim practices that violate human rights. "The OIC and the Obama administration will work together in the UN on the issue of defamation of religion, especially in Europe," said Hussain. He had previously said, at the above-mentioned April "post-Cairo" conference, that the U.S. would work with the OIC to defend the Muslim head-scarf against prohibitions on its display in schools and governmental offices — a measure common to secular France and now Islamist-ruled, but still legally-secular Turkey, as well as Muslim-majority Tunisia and Kosovo. Obama, Hussain declaimed, has created an "overarching framework" for relations between Muslims and non-Muslims that is lacking in Europe. The problem, according to the president's man at the OIC, is that a once-favorable relationship between the West and the Muslim countries has turned negative in the past decade — presumably, since 9/11. Put plainly, Obama's desire to educate Americans about Islam is founded on nostalgia for a warm and reliable friendship that rarely existed. As noted by Hussain, Obama has called for references to "Islamic terrorism" and "jihadism" to be expunged from the official vocabulary employed by his administration, and has pronounced last year's Fort Hood massacre to be unrelated to Islam. As the president has assured the world, terrorism is anti-Islamic and the term "jihad" has been misused. Thus Obama presumes not only to act as "educator" on Islam to non-Muslim Americans, but to define the religion for its own adherents. Hussain addressed his comments to an event assessing the impact of Obama's Cairo speech. But Hussain employed a phrase that must have been chilling to those who heard in it an echo, saying "Islam is a solution" to the current global challenges emerging from Muslim ranks. A "post-Cairo" phrase indeed: "Islam is the solution" is the slogan of the radical Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. Are we learning yet? Contact Yaacov Levi by email at Yaacov Levi. |
|
LOOKING BACK ON 1,000 JINSA REPORTS
Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 29, 2010. |
|
To mark the occasion of 1,000 JINSA Reports beginning in 1995, we have finished reformatting and posting them on our website — www.jinsa.org. Please take a look and let us know which JINSA Reports resonated most with you, which were your favorite, which you disagreed with, and which piqued your interest to learn more or to sound off. We looked back as well. #49 in 1997 reminded us how long the West has been trying to limit Iran's ability to sow terror and destruction in the Middle East. We pointed to a $2 billion French natural gas deal with the Iranian government, for which France expected — and received — no Western sanction. #85 in 1998 reminded us that at one time the Palestinians had an airport in Gaza and passage between the Gaza and the West Bank. It is worth pondering how Israel — with Egypt — came to enforce a blockade against the Palestinians in Gaza, and it is worth understanding how both Hamas and Fatah used the world's money and political support not to create a functional Palestinian state, but to create terrorist operations that have killed thousands of Israelis and thousands of their own people by their own hand (see #203 and #204 on "targeted killings"). We chronicled the so-called "peace process," its demise in the "second intifada," (#753) and Operation Defensive Shield that proved that terrorism can be controlled by controlling territory — a lesson that American troops learned years later in Iraq. We called out the Europeans for paying PLO salaries while Palestinians were blowing up cafes and pizza parlors (#164) and the CIA for building the Palestinian "security forces" (#165). We worry a lot about a Palestinian army being built by Americans (#504, #561, #616, #664, #687, #756, #900, #948 and #993, among others), and about the U.S. training and equipping other militaries that may not share our strategic outlook (most recently #984 and #987). September 11, 2001 was a turning point of sorts, applying the understanding that there are two kinds of people in the world — us and them — and understanding that Israel's war against terrorists and the states that harbor and support them was our war as well (#347 is representative). We took a stand against the phrase "Israel's right to exist" (#574 in 2006) as if a democratic country that is fully integrated into the global economy, a participant in dozens of multilateral initiatives, and a provider of aid and assistance to victims of natural disasters across the globe had to justify continuing to breathe. We published the text of the declassified State Department memo acknowledging in 1973 that Yasser Arafat had ordered the killings of American Ambassador Cleo Noel, Curtis Moore, and Belgian diplomat Guy Eid (#630) — how long the State Department knew and how little they cared as they continued to treat Arafat like a fellow-diplomat was sickening. We followed the run up to the Iraq war, the war, the surge, the elections and the tentative emergence of political reconstruction. We believed — and still believe — the ouster of Saddam was a blow to terrorism in the region and have been impressed by the number of Iraqis who braved the maelstrom to form political parties, publish free newspapers and vote. Last month (#979) we encouraged the Obama Administration to work closely with the Iraqis to help them form a government that will respect the results of the most recent election. JINSA Reports have been a vehicle for our appreciation for our country and our troops, including raising money for the Fran O'Brien's dinners (#448, #512, #564, #569, #619, #720, #757 and #991). You, our readers, have been responsible for tens of thousands of dollars going into the dinners for wounded troops recovering at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and Bethesda Naval Hospital, and you were responsible for the National Medal of Honor Society selecting Hal Koster of Fran O'Brien's as an honoree in their "Above and Beyond" effort to recognize outstanding Americans. (You can still write a check to JINSA for Fran O'Brien's and every nickel will go to the fund.) We'll stop now, but hope you will revisit the anthology of JINSA Reports online as a reminder of where JINSA has been, where our country has been, where Israel has been, and where you — our readers — have been over 1,000 Reports. To contact Jinsa: email: feedback@jinsa.org
Contact Yaacov Levi by email at Yaacov Levi. |
|
PROBLEM WITH NEW U.S. SANCTIONS ON IRAN; ISRAELI DEFENSE MINISTER CLAIMS HIS WITHDRAWAL A SUCCESS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 29, 2010. |
|
ISRAELI DEFENSE MIN. URGES WITHDRAWAL FROM JUDEA-SAMARIA Israel's Defense Minister Barak is advising Israelis to make a "strategic" withdrawal from Judea-Samaria as soon as possible. He has a reputation as an expert strategist, but has a record of strategic folly. Here is his most important blunder, one that by itself would have gotten Israel destroyed within a year or two. Nuclear arms and security go through phases. Israel should have learned from the experience of the U.S.: Phase 1: Monopoly of nuclear weaponry. Excellent deterrent against the USSR. Although Israel is ambiguous about its nuclear inventory, it did have nuclear know-how before its enemies did, Phase 1. Then Phase 2 arose, with the prospect that both Iraq and Iran would possess nuclear weapons. That required Phase 3, which in Israel's case meant submarines. A project for acquiring them was begun. Then the IDF General Staff abandoned the project. The General Staff was persuaded by then Deputy Chief of Staff Ehud Barak, thought to be a brilliant strategist. German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, however, felt remorse over Germany's major role in Iraqi nuclear development. He offered to finance (at least the first two) submarines for Israel. Thanks to Chancellor Kohl, Israel has a deterrent ready (IMRA, 6/28/10). Barak has other fiascoes to his discredit. In the first Lebanon war, he ordered his troops into a Syrian ambush. Much worse, as Prime Minister, he ordered the IDF to rush out of Lebanon, though it was keeping Hizbullah at bay. In the rush, they had to leave heavy weapons behind and abandon the Free Lebanese Army. This enabled Hizbullah to gain power over Lebanon and pose a strategic threat to Israel. Today, Hizbullah has about 40,000 missiles pointed at Israel. Hizbullah naturally gained in morale, too, as the Israeli soldiers literally ran away. Barak also offered almost all of Judea-Samaria to Arafat. Fortunately, Arafat rejected the offer, or Israel would have lost secure borders and Judea-Samaria would have turned into the terrorist base that the later withdrawal from Gaza turned Gaza into.
ISRAELI DEFENSE MINISTER CLAIMS HIS WITHDRAWAL A SUCCESS Israel's Defense Minister Barak claims that his withdrawal from Lebanon was successful and had been overdue. He claims that Hizbullah became strong because of the IDF's earlier presence, and it built up a big rocket force in reaction to blows it received from its second war with Israel (Arutz-7, 6/28/10). The issues are more complicated than that, but the explanation is simple. The first Lebanon War had an immediate objective, to destroy the PLO military buildup there. This objective was soon achieved. The strategic objective was to free Lebanon from Syria. At first, Lebanese welcomed the Israelis as liberators from the PLO. Then the IDF troops stayed on, without attaining their strategic objective. At the time, I thought the IDF should have withdrawn. They had become occupiers. Two Shiite militias arose to oppose them, one being Hizbullah. Hizbullah had Islamist ambitions both in Lebanon and to attack Israel. Therefore, at that time, it made no sense for the Israeli troops to withdraw and be attacked on Israeli soil. The IDF helped the Free Lebanese Army to fend off Hizbullah. With greater help and imagination, the Free Lebanese Army, run by Christians but which had many Shiite troops, might have liberated Lebanon. We'll never know. Barak has no moral right to call his precipitate withdrawal a success. It left heavy arms for Hizbullah. It abandoned Israel's Lebanese allies. It made the IDF look like cowards. It did not stop the Hizbullah military buildup, but facilitated it, there being no Israeli interference with it from the other side of the border. Sure Hizbullah has gotten more missiles, after losing militarily in the next Lebanon war. Barak depicts that as if the problem were in retaliating against Hizbullah. But the problem was that the Olmert-Livni regime was defeatist and incompetent, so it sent in insufficient forces to destroy Hizbullah. On another matter, a critic accuses Israel of seeking a "final solution" against Palestinian Arabs. Ridiculous. Considering the strength of Israel's Army, Israel could have inflicted much heavier casualties on the Arabs. Israel did not bomb any populated areas not having enemy forces. Can't say the same for the Arabs, including Egypt, which initiated wars by bombing Israeli cities. Hamas fired thousands of rockets into Israel, without much retaliation. Finally, Israeli forces entered Gaza, and inflicted only 1,400 casualties among a population of 1,500,000. Where is the ethnic cleansing in that? On the other hand, the Arab mosques urge people to murder Jews. Muslim activists have murdered millions of people, as I have documented. Not a word of protest from those humanitarians who worry about the 1,400, mostly terrorists. Neither do they show the slightest appreciation for the IDF code that refrained from many targeted assassinations when civilians entered the target area. These anti-Israel critics must be psychologically incapable of crediting Israel for anything. Too biased.
PROBLEM WITH NEW U.S. SANCTIONS ON IRAN The new U.S. sanctions on Iran passed by Congress is beset with problems. The bill does not actually impose sanctions. It authorizes the President to waive and adjust seven key provisions, which are almost all of them. This President had delayed the sanctions bill for half a year, rendering questionable his seriousness about halting Iranian nuclear weapons development. The Executive branch often ignores the substantive points of legislation to stop Iran. President Obama's Secretary of State declares the waivers would be implemented in accordance with his dual policy of "engagement" and "pressure" regarding Iran. To date, his policy has yielded nil. [It has been mostly unrequited engagement and minor sanctions, including UN resolutions.] "As respected Middle East authority Barry Rubin observes 'the problem is that the administration has been too quick to seek engagement with Tehran, too eager to make unilateral concessions, too naïve in interpreting the Iranian regime as moderate, and too timid about getting tough. In other words, it is possible that the administration will take credit for congressional sanctions that it delayed for six months and then not even carry them out in (unrealistic) hope of making some deal with Tehran.'" "The fact that Presidents Clinton, Bush and Obama have all ignored Congressional Iran sanctions in the past, and that the penalties mandated by previous Congressional legislation have never been imposed on a single individual or company since their inception in 1996, suggest that further instituting Executive flexibility in this latest legislative effort was a mistake." (6/28/10 press release by Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member) I have reported on other waivers that our Presidents use freely, particularly about Jerusalem, so that the law does not bind them. This is an abuse not only by Presidents but also by Congress. Congress gets credit by its constituencies for advocating policies they want but that they let the Presidents waive. Then there is abuse of the truth. For example, in another context, a reader insinuates that the estimated 1,400 Arab casualties in the Gaza combat stain Israel's honor. Nonsense! War brings casualties. More than half of those in Gaza were military. The rest occurred because Hamas committed the war crimes of using human shields for their arms depots and for their fighting men. Those civilian casualties are the responsibility of the military forces that fight amid civilians. I have documented that and the falsity of the Goldstone UN report that claimed otherwise. If the Arabs had made peace instead of refusing, and if they did not have a doctrine of total war and exclusive control over the whole area, they would not have any casualties. First they commit aggression, and then they lament casualties?
ARAB JOURNALISTS CHALLENGE ANTI-ISRAEL LINE A couple of Arab journalists challenged the anti-Israel line. From Kuwait's Al-Watan, columnist Abdallah Al-Hadlaq described the flotilla as terrorists posing as humanitarians. Therefore, Israel was justified in defending itself from them. Mr. Al-Hadlaq contrasted the global interest in Gaza, which is run by terrorists, with the global neglect for much more serious human rights issues. He observed that the hundreds of tunnels prevented the shortages of goods that the flotilla pretends it was needed to restock. He mentioned what he considers graver and legitimate issues, including Darfur, a possible Kyrgyzstan descent into civil war, southern Sudan, Judea-Samaria, three islands claimed by the UAE but seized by Iran, and an estimated eight million Arabs in Iran, whom he attests are repressed. Egyptian-American writer Magdi Khalil stated on al-Jazeera TV that "Arab discourse has done nothing but fuel illusions and hatred." He said that Israel takes matters seriously, unlike Iranian Pres. Ahmadinejad, who said the UN sanctions resolution belongs in the garbage bin. In his interview, Mr. Khalil said that Turkey's government is Islamist, so Israel was foolish to believe its assurances that the flotilla activists were peaceable. He thinks Turkey is becoming like Iran. He claims that more Arabs are killed in Arab police stations than were killed in all the Arab-Israel wars. As for leftist anarchists in the West, they are anti-Western. The host and another guest accused Khalil of giving Israeli advice to the Arabs. The host seemed to have hurried Khalil off the air (MEMRI, 6/29/10). There is health in this Arab intellectual ferment that does not automatically endorse the official line. People need to break away from several mental conceits and straitjackets, and recognize that different cultures produce different ways of thinking: 1. Chauvinism to the point of jingoism and paranoia; 2. Seeing the world through rose-tinted glasses or conspiracy theory, not that there aren't some conspiracies; 3. The American notion that the U.S. is exempt from significant corruption — perhaps half of its governmental spending is for subsidizing what lobbyists demand; 4. A Jewish notion of having special intelligence, citing a disproportionate number of Nobel prizes. As a whole, my fellow Jews have been particularly intellectual, but not particularly wise; 5. The notion that the U.S. government works for the national interest. Many officials do not know what that is or have their own biases and self-interests.
U.S. FRUSTRATED WITH ISRAEL OVER NEGOTIATIONS U.S. envoy Mitchell is frustrated in the Palestinian Authority-Israel preliminary shuttle negotiations, because PM Netanyahu does not produce a map showing what boundaries Israel wants. Mitchell says that the negotiations are not serious. Dr. Aaron Lerner believes that if Netanyahu provided such a map, the U.S. would draw another, less favorable line, as its preference. Then the negotiations likely would resume with the U.S. line as the starting point for the Arabs to demand an even less favorable line, and the Arabs would have a U.S. plan in writing. In other words, providing a map would be a trap for Israel (IMRA, 6/28/10). Preliminary negotiations appear to be trap in which the U.S. tries to baby Israel along to give away the ballgame before the final negotiations. Indirect negotiations are another trap, whereby the Arabs concede nothing and let the U.S. take its side. Meanwhile, anti-Zionists pretend that the U.S. gives Israel unstinting support. The whole notion of negotiations are a trap, because there is no reason to negotiate now, while the Arab side remains desirous of conquering Israel, rather than making peace. When the Arabs want peace, negotiations would make sense. The State Dept. ignores the jihad ideology of the Arab side, and focuses on getting another useless Olso-like pact signed, so it can pretend to have accomplished something, or so it can get Israel sliding down the slope. So it claims the negotiations, really Israel, are not serious. How serous are negotiations when Abbas says that he would not recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state, meaning he is not giving up his hostility to it? How serious is Abbas about making peace with Israel, when he honors terrorists and his regime indoctrinates in hating Israel and the Jewish people? Such hatred does not exist on the Israeli side. Mitchell's frustration seems rather impatient after only four sessions. These issues have been negotiated for years. It is difficult to reach accommodation between a rock and a hard place. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
LEARNING FROM THE PAST, ACTING IN THE FUTURE
Posted by Marc Prowiser, June 29, 2010. |
|
Today is the 17th of the Hebrew month of Tammuz, the start of the three week mourning period of the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This period ends on the 9th of Av, which of course is the date of the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash (the Temple) in Jerusalem. The 17th of Tammuz commemorates five calamities that befell the Jewish people on this date, the most known is that it is the date the walls of Jerusalem were breached, which of course led to our defeat in Israel, the destruction of our Temple and our expulsion from our holy land. The period around the 9th of Av also commemorates another mournful date for many of us, the "modern day" expulsion of Jews from the Gaza Strip, or more commonly known to many as Gush Katif. Is there a difference today regarding what our enemies desire? Both forces behind our expulsions in the past were world leaders at the time, isn't it strange how the current world leader, the USA, is the driving force behind this modern day effort of expelling Jews from their homeland? Isn't it sadder and stranger that current Israeli leadership bows to these whims today without learning from our past? We must change this. This period, more than others should teach us to reflect on our past, to learn from it, to act upon it, and to move forward, not backward. This façade of a "Peace Process" is falling apart day by day. Indeed it is not based on peace at all, yet racism, bigotry and deceit against the Jews of Israel. As it crumbles, the world, and yes, I mean the world regroups in its efforts to rise against us, to force upon us "solutions" that will only bring about more Jewish victims, and not just in Israel. We saw how this week, Israel's Defense (?) Minister, Ehud Barak chummed up to President Barak Obama that brought up many questions to staunch supporters of Israel. How could someone that is supposed to be responsible for Israel's defense be a buddy with someone who has been getting closer with Israel's enemies and putting Israel further in harms way. Here is a clue, neither has Israel's best interest in mind. We listened in on the leak of Israel's Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren as he spoke behind closed doors of the "tectonic rift" that "rocks" the relations of the US and Israel...this all in the shadow of the continued isolation of Israel on the International scene. Lets not forget of course Flotillas, Shmotillas.... I, like my people throughout the world will mourn during this period, I will make an effort to try to better understand the events and actions that led us to the historic and horrible events in our past. I will also pray for a better future, but I will not stop there! We will not, must not let this period bring us down! This is the time to act, this is the time to double, triple and quadruple our efforts to strengthen our people against our enemies. To make sure the mistakes of the past do not visit us in the present or near future. Despite what you may read in the media regarding Israel, or hear what many misguided politicians state, know this, we are strong, and the more the world stands against us the stronger we will become, but this is up to us and is in our hands. We have many, many, many challenges ahead, our land, our home, our heritage is being threatened. It is time to stand up, taller and stronger than ever, all of us, together. Our leaders both here in Israel and in the US, must know that we are here in Israel and we are here to stay. There is no other alternative and surrender is not an option. Israel's' Prime Minister Netanyahu will be showing up in Washington DC next week, he must understand that we have no choice but to be strong, President Obama must understand that we have no choice but to be strong, and only we can show the world that we have no choice but to be strong. May this period of mourning turn into a period of joy and celebration. Lets learn from our past and act NOW for our future! Marc Prowiser served as the Chief Army Security Coordinator for the Shilo Region in Israel from 1996 through 2006. He works in the Security field continuing to defend and protect others from acts of terrorism. |
|
TRUST CAN KILL A SMALL NATION
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, June 29, 2010. |
|
PART 1: It has been reported on TV and in U.S. DEFENSE NEWS that several U.S. Aircraft Carrier Task Forces have been sent to position themselves off the coast of Iran in the Gulf of Hormuz. It has been reported on TV and in U.S. DEFENSE NEWS that several U.S. Aircraft Carrier Task Forces have been sent to position themselves off the coast of Iran in the Gulf of Hormuz. I wondered: What was their mission? I also wondered about the practice take-off and landing sessions of U.S. and French aircraft on each other's aircraft carriers. It sounds like a good idea if their likely targets are nuclear sites in Iran. BUT, what if it wasn't? What if their alternate mission was to protect Iran from a pre-emptive or retaliatory strike by Israel on those Iranian nuclear sites? What if their plan is as Zbigniew Brzezinski counseled President Barack Hussein Obama — to shoot down Israeli aircraft in order to insure that Iran reaches full maturity in its nuclear capability? Do Obama and his advisors wish to see Iran and Syria achieve hegemony and dominate the entire Middle East because Obama finds it easier to deal with dictators? Now we come to the issue "TRUST", honoring one's word comes into play. How can we forget the deliberate betrayal of Israel when, during Desert Storm, the First Gulf War January 16, 1991 to March, Saddam Hussein launched 39 SCUD missiles at Israel, hitting mostly Tel Aviv. Then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was prepared to order Israeli pilots sitting warmed up on the tarmac (runways) ready to find and kill the SCUD missile launchers. "The Patriot anti-missile missiles of that day hit the motors of the incoming SCUDS.Their shrapnel and explosives hit residential areas [in Israel]. Israeli pilots, trained to fly at deck level could have found and hit those SCUDs and maybe could have saved the 28 American soldiers who were killed when their barracks in Saudi Arabia was hit by a Saddam SCUD." (1) BUT, President George Herbert Walker Bush, his Secretary of State James Baker, Secretary of Defense Colin Powell and Chief of Staff Norman Schwarzkopf assured Shamir that America would send out U.S. aircraft to eliminate the launchers. The reason given to Israel is that by Israel entering the war, it could break up the Arab Muslim coalition against Saddam. However, Bush and group lied. They never issued those orders for U.S. strikes on Saddam's launchers — a fact which was later confirmed by the U.S. GAO (General Accounting Office). Bush and his advisors were artfully protecting Iraq, based upon the philosophy that Saddam would be helpful in fighting Iran. Perhaps so, but, they were willing to sacrifice Israel to Saddam's SCUDs which could have been loaded with Chemical and Biological agents. [Proof from the scene: At 3:59 am in Israel on January 16, 1991 after Saddam's first SCUD attack, former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger said in a BBC radio interview: "It's a particular tragedy that Nerve Gas was used." He would know that Saddam had Nerve Gas. Israelis spent Desert Storm in sealed rooms with gas masks and protective baby tents because the American Administration knew Saddam had Nerve Gas.] (1) Allowing Israel to take the SCUD hits was acceptable in the Americans' plans — then and perhaps by Obama now. When Bush and group succeeded in getting Syria to join a fake coalition, Syria was paid off in several ways. First, Syria arrived to the U.S.-led coalition mobilization Headquarters without arms and with no intentions of actually joining the U.S. in fighting Saddam. Syrians were stationed well away from the actual fighting. For this great sacrifice on Syria's part, the U.S. arranged a safe air corridor for Iraq's aircraft (a mix of approximately 75 Russian fighters and cargo aircraft) to be shipped to Iran — who didn't have the necessary Russian maintenance facilities and, therefore, had no use for the beneficent gift. However, the planes were disassembled, crated and then shipped to Syria. Payment to Saddam for this strange transfer came in several Billion dollars from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait — paid to Iraq so Iraq could buy armaments from the U.S. and other international arms' dealers. Saddam had used up his credit line in the arms market and desperately needed a cash infusion — which was why he attacked Kuwait in the first place where he stole $80 Billion in liquid assets. One should ask James Baker, III and the others about this 'little' Kuwaiti hustle. After all, it was he who would ostensibly have ordered America's Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie to give Saddam the "green light" by having her tell Saddam: "We're not interested in your border disputes." Getting back to the matter of today's mission for several (possibly four) U.S. aircraft carriers sitting off the coast of Iran, let us speculate on a few scenarios. Israel has several missile capable submarines tasked as a backup threat to Iran if Ahmadinejad should use a Nuclear Weapon on Israel. Are they to be tracked and targeted by U.S. destroyers lest they launch their missiles at Iran? The question remains: Why would Obama and his advisor wish to protect Iran and Syria? (Note! The American people and most of Congress consider Israel to be a valuable and loyal ally. But, certain Arabists in Washington act in concert with hostile Muslim Arab nations, both for oil and because of their deep-seated animus against the Jewish State.) Unconfirmed reports indicate that the Saudis are so fearful of a nuclear-armed Iran that they will allow Israeli aircraft to use Saudi airspace to bomb Iran. Sounds good going in but, how good is the Saudis' word to allow returning Israeli aircraft to refuel in the air or on the ground on their return and not to launch the very large Saudi (American-supplied) Air Force against the returning Israeli aircraft? After all, the Israeli's would have done their good deed by (hopefully) eliminating all of Iran's Nuclear R&D facilities. So would they still be needed? Let's remember the Good Deed Israel did by destroying the Osirik Nuclear Reactor in Iraq, an act which was condemned by the U.S., E.U., U.N. and Arab/Muslim bloc nations but, was celebrated in the Congressional cloak room and the very happy Saudis (all in secret). Would Israel have to guarantee the safety of both its air re-fueling cargo planes and returning Israeli aircraft by having a sizable squadron of F-16s and F-15s flying near the Riyadh and Tobruk Air Bases in case the Saudis broke their agreement, no doubt, at the urging of the Arabist State Department? The matter of trust and confidence building is based upon prior experience and words kept (or NOT kept). Israel has been lied to by both friends and dedicated enemies who rarely keep agreements when their interests have become mired in their vested self-interest and not in their integrity. I have offered the reader my speculations in part, of what may be a Future War. Israel remains a small, even minuscule nation which could (G-d forbid) be snuffed out by enemies and supposed friends, anxious to pacify Israel's enemies. "Trust" can be a very expensive commodity when you can possibly disappear in a puff of smoke! President Obama has demonstrated a decidedly pro-Muslim attitude and a hostility toward Israel never before seen by Israel or the American Congress. Both Houses of Congress have signed letters recognizing Obama's hostility toward Israel and stating plainly that they view Israel as America's staunch and valuable ally. Obama seems not to share the opinion of his Congress as he reaches out to Iran, Syria and other Islamic nations. As is said: " 'Trust' but verify." ### 1. "Feelings From A Sealed Room in a Gas Mask" by Gail Winston JEWISH PRESS Jan. 25, 1991 2. "Ordered To Die Quietly" by Emanuel A. Winston MACCABEAN
ONLINE from Freeman Center for Strategic Studies April 2003
PART 2: THIRD US CARRIER, 4,000 MARINES & NAVY AUGMENT US ARMADA OPPOSITE IRAN DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 28, 2010 THIRD US CARRIER, 4,000 MARINES & NAVY AUGMENT US ARMADA OPPOSITE IRAN DEBKAfile Exclusive Report June 28, 2010 General Colin Powell was NOT U.S. Secretary of Defense during the First Gulf War, Desert Storm 1991 but rather, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Dick Cheney was Defense Secretary. And General Norman Schwarzkopf was NOT Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Gen. Schwarzkopf was the Commander of the Allied Forces in the Gulf War. We apologize for the unchecked glitch. The lesson to working in "Journalism on the fly 101" is: Check your facts! NOT your memory! As good as you think it might be. DEBKA reports today that America has posted a Third Carrier Group opposite Iran's shores in the Persian Gulf. The USS Harry S. Truman with 12 warships are cruising the Arabian Sea opposite Chai Bahar, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards biggest naval base not far from the Iranian-Pakistan border. That's where most of Iran's special commando units are housed. The USS Harry S. Truman Carrier Strike Force and its accompanying US warships plus an Israeli and German battle vessel each, transited the Suez Canal June 18. First, from June 6 through June 10, the Truman Strike Force deployed 50 miles off Israel's southwestern shore, secretly drilling the interception of incoming Iranian, Syrian and Hezb'Allah missiles and rockets against US and Israeli targets in the Middle East. (DEBKAfile June 21, 2010) Also posted in the Arabian Sea, further to the west, is the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower Strike Group. (DEBKAfile June 28, 2010) Please log on to DEBKA.com to get the complete list of forces but, here is their listing of those ships, planes and soldiers in this Third Carrier group. 1. The USS Nassau Amphibious Assault ship is not just an enormous landing craft for the 3,000 Marines aboard; its decks carry 6 vertical take-off AV-HB Harrier attack plans; four AH-1W Super Cobra, twelve CH-46 Sea Knight and CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters, as well choppers convertible to fast V-22 Osprey airplanes capable of landing in any conditions. This vast warship has 1,400 cabinets for sleeping the entire Marine-24th Marine Expeditionary Unit aboard. 2. The amphibious transport dock ship USS Mesa Verde which carries 800 Marines equipped for instantaneous landing. 3. The amphibious dock landing ship USS Ashland which carries 400 Marines and 102 commandos trained for special operations behind enemy lines.
THESE MASSIVE FORCES ARE VERY IMPRESSIVE. What does it really mean to those of us who doubt President Barack Hussein Obama's resolve to prevent Iran's use of nuclear weapons against Israel, Europe and American military bases in the Middle East and Europe (with from 300,000 to 500,000 American soldiers in harm's way)? It appears to me that, having failed to assemble a strong U.N. coalition mandating severe punitive sanctions to halt Iran's head-long enterprise to achieve a Nuclear Weapons' capability, Obama has resorted to a show of force. It seems he's following in the old tradition of Teddy Roosevelt's gun-boat diplomacy. The difference between Teddy R. and Obama is that Teddy meant business and Obama is making a threatened show of force, assuming that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be cowed and too frightened to continue developing his highly prized Nuclear Weapon, let alone use it. I don't think he knows that Ahmadinejad will NOT be cowed or what he is capable of doing — even risking his own population to retaliatory or pre-emptive strikes. After all, he believes that the Muslim "Mahdi" (Messiah) is to arrive in a great war to lead Islam to victory over the infidels (all non-Muslims). It was interesting to hear Leon Panetta, current Head of the CIA, state that Iran will not have an operating atomic weapon for "at least 2 years". We've been seeing that same "two years" since at least 1998! Since the CIA has rarely been right in their forecasts of the nuclear developments of North Korea, Pakistan, India — nor the fall of the Soviet Union under Perestroika, it looks like Panetta has been assigned to give Obama a "two-year" false breathing space to actually deal with Iran through appeasement. I would add that Israel — under Prime Minister Binyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu, has been promised this show of force in gun-boat diplomacy, assuring Israel that it's not necessary to pre-emptively strike Iran's nuclear facilities because Iran will be too frightened to do anything provocative. I do not trust Obama's military abilities to forecast or "organize" anything — let alone plan an actual war against an implacable enemy under the flag of Islam. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His
articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the
Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For
Strategic Studies
|
|
THOUSANDS PROTEST FOR PALESTINIAN RIGHTS IN LEBANON
Posted by Daily Alert, June 29, 2010. |
|
This is from Reuters. |
|
BEIRUT (Reuters) — Several thousand Palestinians and Lebanese civil activists converged on central Beirut on Sunday, demanding more rights for Palestinians, many of whom live in in squalid and over-crowded refugee camps. Dozens of buses transported demonstrators waving Palestinian flags from refugee camps across the country — from the southern city of Tyre as well as from the northern city of Tripoli. "As Palestinians in Lebanon we have no rights. We just want to live with dignity," said Palestinian Imtithal Abu Samra, 29, who lives in the Beddawi refugee camp in northern Lebanon. Some 425,000 Palestinians are registered as refugees in Lebanon by UNRWA, the U.N. agency responsible for Palestinian refugees. Many live in 12 camps across Lebanon in conditions the U.N. has described as deplorable and appalling. Palestinians in Lebanon are barred from working in dozens of professions and are generally paid lower wages than their Lebanese counterparts when they do find jobs. They are not allowed to benefit from public social or medical services. Proposals for a draft law due to be debated in parliament in a few weeks would give Palestinians the right to own a residential apartment and would legalise work rights. The protesters had planned to demonstrate in front of parliament but Lebanese soldiers prevented them from congregating there. Instead they gathered in front of U.N. headquarters, a few hundred metres away. "Palestinians have been here for 62 years. Their (condition) is unacceptable," said Dalia, a Lebanese assistant researcher. "Civil rights should be given to anyone regardless of their religion, sect or nationality," she said. Some 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from their homes in the war that led to the founding of Israel in 1948. About 4.5 million refugees and their descendents now live in squalid camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, the Gaza Strip and the occupied West Bank. Most of Gaza's 1.5 million residents are either refugees or their descendants. Israel has recently said it would ease a blockade on the Hamas-ruled coastal enclave, which critics say is collective punishment for Palestinians living there. The issue of granting Palestinian more rights has raised worries it would promote 'naturalisation', which some politicians fear will upset Lebanon's delicate sectarian and demographic balance. Most Palestinians are Sunni Muslims. The proposals have faced hurdles in parliament because of Christian lawmakers' fears that granting these rights would eventually lead to their permanent resettlement, an allegation refugees and civil rights activists say is not true. "Lebanon has marginalized Palestinian refugees for too long," Human Rights Watch's Beirut director Nadim Houry said in a statement last week. "Parliament should seize this opportunity to turn the page and end discrimination against Palestinians." (Reporting by Yara Bayoumy: Editing by Matthew Jones) The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org |
|
BARAK CLAIMS LEAVING LEBANON IN 2000 WAS A SUCCESS
Posted by Paul Lademain, June 29, 2010. |
|
This was writen by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu. "Defense Minister Ehud Barak declared Monday night he is "proud" of ordering the hasty withdrawal of the IDF from southern Lebanon in 2000. He also blamed previous governments and the IDF's use of strong force in the Second Lebanon War for Hizbullah's strength today." |
|
Barak babbles rubbish. Proof enough that he's incapable of understanding how he's perceived by Israel's antagonists: They see him as an extension of that attention-seeking toady, Shimon Peres. They see him as a weak horse. A weak horse who seeks accolades in all the wrong places. Barak would serve Israel better if he just kept his trap shut. We think Peres is a perpetually babbling, manipulative old man who thought nobody would ever discover that he tried to secretly do business in Gaza with his "dearest friend in peace" Yasser Arafat, by conducting their operations through their respective NGOs they established in the Cayman Islands. A tax haven that at that time had strict secrecy rules. Yes, his "dearest friend," the bloody Egyptian terrorist, Yasser Arafat — the frog-faced runt Yasser who made it absolutely clear that he intended to steal as much of the Jewish Homeland he and his goon gangs could grab and he made it clear that he wanted to "make the streets of Israel run red with the blood of the Jews." (CNN — Christianne Amanpour) In short, Peres is greatly appreciated by the arab invaders who see as as Israel's "great demoralizer". And the arab invaders know that the grabbing remains good so long as Peres and Barak are allowed to strut the world stage. The damage Peres and his cohorts have already done to Israel is incalculable and just like their dearest friend Yasser, you'll never see either Barak or Peres risking their own skins or their fortunes by straight-forwardly advancing the sovereign rights of Israel ... but you will see them bending their knees and falling over every time Abdullah or the US State Dept. gives them a nudge. Such clever old men would serve Israel best if they kept their traps shut. Peres should be forced to account for and disgorge all the funds, gifts, and emoluments he's ever received or squirreled away in his NGOs. Viva Israel and Saludos to the Patriots of Israel and Professor Howard Grief from the SC4Z. We say to Israel: Stop begging for "peace" and start demanding justice — and don't let the Peres-Barak crowd define what this ought to be for you. They either cannot or will not support the law that established the larger boundaries of Israel under the San Remo Resolution and the treaties that followed and still bind the UK, the US, and the rest of europe. Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
FROM ISRAEL: STILL DETERMINED
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 28, 2010. |
|
Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat, that is, with regard to carrying out the municipality's development plan, which will include the demolition of 22 illegally-built houses in Gan Hamelech, in Silwan. This in spite of major Arab rioting last night. Good going for the mayor, at least so far. ~~~~~~~~~~ Sorry that I cannot say the same for Prime Minister Netanyahu. The Border Police, it was reported today, will be holding a massive drill in Judea and Samaria this week aimed at dealing with an escalation in Israeli and Palestinian Arab violence. One of the scenarios being rehearsed is the situation that will ensue if the building moratorium is extended. I would not say with certainty that Netanyahu has already decided that the freeze will be extended — that he already knows he will give the nod to Obama when he visits Washington next week. That decision, one would guess, is going to be played out within a larger dynamic — with various factors to be considered, such as how supportive the president shows himself to be on other issues and how hard Netanyahu's arm is twisted. But it is clear that a scenario in which the freeze is extended is being given weight as a distinct possibility. How nice it would have been to read, simply, that the police were preparing for the eventuality of increased Palestinian Arab violence in response to the resumption of building in Judea and Samaria in late September. That, of course, is what should have been the case, given the prime minister's repeated insistence that the freeze will not be extended. ~~~~~~~~~~ If Netanyahu does cave, my guess is that we will not know it right away: Our prime minister is not likely to return and say, "My fellow Israelis, I know I gave my word, but the threats were so ominous, or the deal offered so attractive, that I reversed myself while sitting in the Oval Office." Nah... The pertinent information will come to us slowly, piecemeal. Perhaps there will be leaks and innuendoes. Or maybe the freeze will be continued de facto, with approvals for building held up, and awareness dawning after some measure of time. While Netanyahu is in Washington, he will have a photo op with Obama and will smilingly tell reporters how wonderful his visit with the president was. ~~~~~~~~~~ Indeed, the prediction is that Netanyahu will find a very warm welcome at the White House, for Obama is trying to undo the political damage that ensued as a result of his hostile attitude to Israel. There is a multitude of signs indicating a shift in how the administration is conducting itself with regard to Israel. Yet it's imperative that form and substance not be confused. Commentator Isi Leibler, in his recent piece, "Netanyahu, Place not your trust in princes," addresses this very issue: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is likely to receive a red carpet reception from President Barack Obama at the White House combined with a reaffirmation about the 'unshakeable US-Israel alliance.' However we should not delude ourselves. It is clear that Obama's recent charm campaign was primarily in response to pressure from the American people and in particular from Jewish Democratic supporters shocked into action by the administration's increasingly negative approach toward Israel and the crass reception accorded to Netanyahu during his last visit. ~~~~~~~~~~ One more dumb move: Mosab Hassan Yousef is the son of Hamas leader Sheikh Hassan Yousef. But he is also a convert to Christianity who worked with the Israeli Shin Bet (Security) for nine years, providing information on terrorists that averted attacks and saved numerous lives. In the US for three years, he has had his request for asylum rejected because he alluded in his memoirs to the fact that he worked with Hamas. His book, "Son of Hamas," was published earlier this year; when he wrote it, he had no idea that it would sabotage his appeal for asylum. In spite of his explanation that his association with Hamas was undercover and that he was working to subvert Hamas, authorities came to the conclusion that he was a Hamas-supporting terrorist. Thus he is threatened with deportation. Mosab was honored Wednesday night at a Washington DC dinner, at which the pro-Israel organization run by Sarah Stern, Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), granted him a "Rays of Light in the Darkness" Award. Mosab faces a death threat because of his renunciation of Islam. This past week, his former Israeli handler, G. Ben-Itzhak, a Shin Bet agent, revealed his identity for the first time in order to speak on behalf of Mosab Yousef. "Mosab is not a terrorist! He risked his life every day in order to prevent [violence]," he told those present at the EMET dinner. Ben-Itzhak is in the US in order to testify at Mosab's deportation hearing on June 30. "I need to come to the courthouse," he said, "and tell the judge the truth." ~~~~~~~~~~ According to one documentary about Mosab Yousef, when he was asked if the Palestinians and Israel can live together, he replied: "There is no chance. Is there any chance for fire to co-exist with the water?" It has been suggested that Obama would benefit from reading this book. ~~~~~~~~~~ While I believe that the Lebanese ships may still be on their way, Iran has cancelled plans to send a flotilla to attempt to break the blockade of Gaza. According to Hossein Sheikholeslam, secretary general of the International Conference for the Support of the Palestinian Intifada: "The Zionist regime has made the blockade a political issue and we do not wish to politicise this kind of humanitarian aid because the most important thing for us is to break the blockade of Gaza." Cute, no? He said the voyage was cancelled as Israel "had sent a letter to the United Nations saying that the presence of Iranian and Lebanese ships in the Gaza area will be considered a declaration of war on that regime and it will confront it. "In order to deprive the Zionist regime of any excuse, the aid collected for the oppressed people of Gaza will be delivered to them by other means without mentioning the name of Iran." There is a great deal going on behind the scenes, and I do not wish to speculate on exactly what did discourage the Iranians. Not yet, at any rate. What I will say is that things may not be as bad as we often feel they are. The fact of the matter is that Iran pulled back, unprepared to confront us — our deterrence power must be OK. ~~~~~~~~~~ With the emphasis on Gaza in recent weeks, there has been a resurgence of publicity here to bring home Gilad Shalit. Right now, a march for Shalit, from the north to Jerusalem, is underway, led by Noam Shalit, who is accompanied by thousands. I will not belabor this here. I've made my position clear over time. I, too, would dearly love to see this man brought home. But not — not ever — at the cost of releasing a thousand terrorists who would put many other Israeli civilians at risk and increase the likelihood of further kidnapping of soldiers to boot. We must not be blackmailed this way, and it cannot be Gilad Shalit at any cost. So far, thankfully, no movement from our government on this. It has been made clear that a deal was offered six months ago, which would permit the release of 600 prisoners, but would not include those responsible for major terrorist operations. Certain Hamas people who would be released would be required to go somewhere other than Judea and Samaria — it is felt their release to this area is sought in order to strengthen Hamas operations there. This deal is not to Hamas's liking. Unfortunately, the pressure on the government to bring Shalit's release at any cost may serve to strengthen Hamas resolve that if they hold out they can get what they want. ~~~~~~~~~~ Obama is opposed to the release of prisoners in this deal. Not because he cares one iota about endangering Israelis, but because this would give Hamas a victory that would weaken Abbas. It would be very ironic indeed if Obama's opposition helped to maintain the starch in Netanyahu's spine on this issue. ~~~~~~~~~~ I strongly recommend the video provided here:
This is an interview of Itamar Marcus, who heads Palestinian Media Watch, here in Israel, by Richard Landes, academic and author who is an associate professor at Boston U and spends part of his time in Israel. Landes coined the term "Pallywood, which means "productions staged by the Palestinians, in front of camera crews, for the purpose of promoting anti-Israel propaganda." Ignore the pitch to become a subscriber to PJTV and wait for the interview. The 16 minutes is well worth it. In the course of discussing the need to pay attention to what PA leaders say to their own people in Arabic (something that the Obama administration apparently does not at all!), Marcus touches upon a great many important facts. The video ends with a clip of PA president Mahmoud Abbas, speaking in Arabic recently, and putting the lie to all the sweet and lovely "moderate" things he said while in the US to see Obama. Save this, and share it. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
A POEM FOR OUR TIMES
Posted by Wallace Edward Brand, June 28, 2010. |
|
Contact Wallace Brand at webrand@verizon.net
|
|
CHRISTIAN ZIONISM VERSUS LIKUD ZIONISM
Posted by Prof. Paul Eidelberg, June 28, 2010. |
|
In the June 28 Eidelberg Report on Israel National Radio, I said: "The Likud separated Zionism from the Torah, just as it has separated the Land of Israel from the Torah." Hence, ponder the following. In The World Upside Down (2010), Melanie Phillips writes: "It was Christian Zionism which led Lord Balfour to issue his famous declaration committing Britain to re-establish the Jewish national home in Palestine." Moreover, and contrary to political Zionism, Lord Balfour said this in 1919: "'The position of the Jews is unique. For them race [or. nationality], religion and country [land] are inter-related, as they are inter-related in the case of no other race, no other religion, and no other county on earth." This statement is more consistent with the Torah than the Zionism of the Likud Party and of its chairman, Binyamin Netanyahu! Of course, and to be fair, a Christian Zionist does not bear the burdens and responsibility of a prime minister of Israel. But consider Melanie Phillips. For this woman, a Jewess (who also wrote Londonistan) to take a strong, outspoken pro-Israel position on the one hand, and expose the barbarity of Islam on the other — this in anti-Semitic England — requires a degree of courage lacking among Israel's well-protected political leaders. Melanie Phillips has a broad view of Christian Zionism. She writes: Christian Zionism is an umbrella term for those Christians whose support for Israel is based on theology. They believe that the restoration of modern Israel is the fulfillment of God's prophetic purpose that it would be restored to the Jews, its enemies destroyed and peace brought to the entire world. Within this broad definition, there are different varieties of Christian Zionism, including the most controversial doctrine that the restoration of Israel will bring about the return of Christ on earth and a holocaust or mass conversion of the Jews, resulting in the end of days. But ... this doctrine is not universal and does not form part of the Christian Zionism preached by the International Christian Embassy Jerusalem, which has more than eighty branches around the world and which was established in 1980 to represent all Christians who wanted to see their governments affirm the Jews' Biblical right to rule in Jerusalem. In contrast, and as Phillips documents, the Church of England, having succumbed to moral relativism and even paganism, is viciously anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. This decay of the Church of England is part and parcel of the utter decline of Christianity in Britain, whose moral and intellectual decadence is more widespread and more horrifying than the decay taking place in continental Europe. Indeed, from the abundance of evident assembled in The World Upside Down, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that England is dying. All the more reason for a prime minister of Israel to stand up as proud Jew so that Israel may once again be a light unto the nations. Professor Paul Eidelberg is an internationally known political scientist, author and lecturer. He is President of the Foundation For Constitutional Democracy, a Jerusalem-based think tank for improving Israel's system of governance. Contact him at list-owner@foundation1.org |
|
PALESTINIAN ARAB RIVALRY SHUTS OFF GAZA ELECTRICITY;
GAZA GUNMEN DESTROY UNRWA CHLDREN'S CAMP
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 28, 2010. |
|
LIKUD MK THINKS RELEASING HAMAS TERRORISTS IS SAFE Likud MK Miri Regev thinks that releasing any Hamas terrorists is safe. She asserts that if any return to terrorism, just return them to prison, as simple as that. She declares that she will march in solidarity with the family of Hamas' Israeli prisoner, seeking his release for however lopsided an exchange Hamas demands. She will get favorable publicity. She claims expertise in this, presenting herself, a former spokesman for the IDF, as a strategist and media advisor. But her plan is simplistic and dangerous. What does prisoner relapse men? It means they commit more terrorism, killing Israelis. Only after they will have killed more Israelis, would her plan take effect. IMRA explains that Israel does not have a parole system, whereby released prisoners who relapse must serve the balance of their term. Release means canceling the rest of their sentence. That is the first monkey-wrench in her plan. To re-arrest the former prisoners, evidence is required. Recidivists would be careful to avoid providing it. They likely would be able to commit more than one crime. But are they likely to commit any? According to Israel Radio, 63% of former Hamas prisoners resume terrorism. So for the thousand or so terrorist prisoners that she would have Israel release, a whole regiment worth, 600 would be attacking Israelis, in exchange for the one prisoner of Hamas. The deal would save one Israeli and doom what, a hundred Israelis? 500 Israelis? Probably the higher number, because the very triumph of such a deal would prompt more Arabs to volunteer as jihadist assassins. Also more likely the higher figure, because the influx would restore the terrorist infrastructure that the Israeli security services worked hard to decimate and put on the defensive. Dr. Aaron Lerner asks whether MK Regev understands the risk to her country but puts her political career first, or doesn't understand these basics? (IMRA, 6/27/10). Note that that political apostle of concessions to the enemy at war is in a party thought right-wing. A major problem with Israel politicians, as with American ones, is failure to foresee consequences. That would require thinking, as contrasted with rationalizing.
IRAN THREATENS TO RETALIATE BY INSPECTING SHIPS OF OTHER STATES A shipping executive of Iran says that if Israel inspects ships from Iran, then Iran will inspect foreign ships in its territorial waters (IMRA, 6/27/10). An embargo in wartime or on reasonable grounds for suspicion is one thing. Israel has reasonable grounds, having caught earlier Iranian attempts to smuggle arms against Israel. But inspection for the purpose of harassment is another thing. That is what the Iranian threatens. When taking on a scofflaw, such as Iran, the Security Council is sabotaged from within. It wastes futile years on mild sanctions. Meanwhile, the enemy learns how to evade the consequences and now devises threats or sanctions of its own. We know that Russia and China undermine the Security Council. What about President Obama? He asks the Council to impose mild sanctions and accepts weaker ones. Is he like Israeli MK Regev, who in favoring a lopsided prisoner exchange with Hamas, fails to see the consequences, or is he like her in perhaps putting politics first? Each one jeopardizes national security.
PALESTINIAN ARAB RIVALRY SHUTS OFF GAZA ELECTRICITY Palestinian Arab rivalry has stopped electrical supply for Gaza. Just when hot weather apparently increased the need for electricity in Gaza, the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), controlled by Fatah, stopped paying the fuel suppliers, at least the one from Israel. The people of Gaza are annoyed with their rival factions for making them suffer. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights urges the P.A. to pay up. It also recognizes that consumers do not always pay their bills. There was a most complicated discussion over whether the organizations supposed to pay for the fuel have the funds with which to pay. The report is newsworthy for not automatically making Israel the scapegoat (IMRA, 6/27/10). Thus the P.A. has its own siege of Gaza. Except for a concluding comment, this is an objective report. Like many, it comes primarily from Arab sources. Nevertheless, some readers call such reports "Zionist propaganda." When that is all they comment, what good do they do other than to demonstrate not knowing enough to show anything wrong with it? Some readers refer us to Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein. We have relayed reports by Prof. Stephen Plaut that Chomsky favors neo-Nazis, Communists, just about any dictator. Finkelstein is a sort of Holocaust denier stripped of faculty positions for lack of academic credentials and peer reviewed scholarship and for using his classroom to indoctrinate. One critic, who demonizes Zionists while ignoring the Muslim Arab inspired genocide in Sudan and Saddam's poison gassing of Kurds, refers my readers to pro-terrorist Arab sources, such as al-Jazeera. Critics who call some Jews "Zionazis" and who call my comments "lies" repeat disproved and refuted assertions. What does that show of them? It makes them practitioners of the "big lie" technique. That places them in the company of the Nazis, the Communists, and the holy war fanatics, who believe that the ends justify the means. Islam has a doctrine that permits lying in behalf of the faith, just as did the Nazis and the Communists.
GAZA GUNMEN DESTROY UNRWA CHLDREN'S CAMP 
Masked, armed gunmen attacked a second UNRWA summer camp in Gaza, tied up its guards, and burned the camp down. The identity of the assailants is not known. Non-Hamas terrorist groups in Gaza have bombed restaurants, internet cafes, music stores, and pharmacies dozens of times and have criticized the UNRWA camps. The Palestinian Authority blames Hamas for the arson against the rival camps. The head of UNRWA camps thanked Hamas for its prompt response to the emergency [in time to photograph the embers]. About 250,000 children in Gaza attend the UN camps and 100,000 attend the Hamas camps. Hamas camps offer indoctrination in religion and terrorism, including hatred of Israel, and paramilitary training. UNRWA has normal children's activities and perhaps some human rights lessons (Arutz-7, 6/28/10). Hard to earn a living in Gaza, when terrorists bomb businesses.
ISRAELI ARAB PATH TO TERRORISM AND ARREST Seven Arab citizens of Nazareth, Israel were arrested for terrorism. They belong to the Salafi branch of Islam, favored by al-Qaida. They started on their path of violence via Internet. Websites advocating global Islamic rule taught them how to build bombs and commit terrorist assaults. Being equal opportunity Muslim jihadists, they attacked Christians [usually Arab] and Jews, sometimes by stabbing. They threw stun grenades and Molotov cocktails at houses of Christians and Jews. Their first crime was to murder a cab driver because he was Jewish. [They did not say they asked whether he were a Zionist, just being a Jew sufficed for them. Some of my critics pretend a big distinction, but if the Jewish people were discriminated against to the point of having to give up sovereignty, as the anti-Zionist critics want, the Jews would be exterminated by jihadists. That is a likely prospect that my critics do not bring up.] The gang tripped up when caught trying to enter Somalia, to attend an al-Qaida training camp, in preparation for fighting U.S. troops (Arutz-7, 6/28/10). The goal of one Muslim emirate, is sought by one global jihad, active on numerous fronts and on several levels. The same, general, intolerant ideology confronts the U.S. and Israel, Christians and Jews, in fact, almost everybody, including Fatah against Israel, Hamas against Fatah, and Salafis against Hamas. Anti-Zionists are way off base when they accuse Americans who support Israel of somehow being against the U.S.. The jihadists consider the U.S. the Great Satan. Let Israel keep them busy! Let these supposed anti-Zionist patriots defend American allies and have something to say against jihadists who kill Americans here and abroad!
AL-QAIDA SWITCHES TARGETS IN YEMEN Al-Qaida in Yemen has switched targets. Formerly, it attacked Western facilities. Now it is attacking government facilities. It has detected their weaknesses and lack of coordination (IMRA, 6/27/10). Certain critics think that their name-calling discourages journalists. However, their obvious lack of facts or inability to reason from them, leaving the reports denounced but not refuted, encourages journalists. Readers should see that they have nothing to say for their own case except, perhaps, fairy tales about Jews resuming status as a minority even in Israel, where hundreds of thousands fled for their lives from being a minority in Arab states before. Some might have a point, but they do not know how to present it without invective, so I ignore them.
HIZBULLAH WORKING ITS WAY INTO U.S. VIA MEXICO Rep. Sue Myrick (GOP-NC) warned the Dept. of Homeland Security that Hizbullah may be working its way up into the U.S. through Mexico. U.S. prisoners' tattoos increasingly are in Farsi, indicating Persian influence. Terrorists may be teaching Mexican cartels how to make bombs (IMRA, 6/27/10). Drug gangs and terrorists work together elsewhere, so why not in Mexico? The enemy is resourceful. So is the U.S. Army. But the civilian federal bureaucracy and power brokers stumble through the calendar without instituting effective reform over border control. To be sure, widespread American drug and oil addiction are the roots of the problem, and prohibition of narcotics exacerbates it. Those who oppose legalization of narcotics do so for ethical reasons. But the violent and expensive results of prohibition are not an ethical outcome.
SAUDI ARABIA IMPATIENT WITH OBAMA Saudi Arabia is impatient with President Obama. Faced with the more immediate problem of Iranian dominance if Iran develops nuclear weapons, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said that sanctions take too long (IMRA, 6/27/10). That is a tactful way of putting it. The sanctions take forever, but Iranian nuclear development will not take forever. Today's newspapers report a U.S. estimate of 2 years to develop nuclear weapons. If I recall, a year ago, the U.S. estimate was quite a few years more. Before the election, the NIE estimate was that Iran had stopped development. That was the headline, though the body of the report confirmed the opposite. The headline was a lie by politically or ideologically oriented people in the State Dept. and security agencies. Saudi impatience confirms skepticism of Obama's contention that Arab opposition to Iranian nuclear development requires Israel first to settle with the Arabs on their terms. the reql question is how far would the Arabs go out on a limb with the Obama administration, which turns against allies.
ARABS VERSUS ISRAEL, OVER SILWAN, JERUSALEM Arab protesters and Israeli police "clashed," yesterday in a neighborhood of Jerusalem where the City plans to raze 22 Arab houses "which the government says were built illegally on public land." The land would be used for an archaeological park over the ancient City of David. The 200 or more Arabs threw stones at the police. "Israel, which captured East Jerusalem from Jordan in the 1967 war, considers the entire city its capital. Arabs object to any development in that area, "which they view as the capital of a future state." (Dina Kraft, NY Times, 6/28/10, A8.) The article is misleading in several ways. It is not that the two sides clashed, but that the Arabs clashed with police. The significance of this is that the Arabs and their supporters depict the clashes as peaceful demonstrations interrupted by unwarranted police crowd control and arrests. My critics put it that way, but many protests in Jerusalem and most at the security fence are violent. The wonder is that there are not more arrests. The government of Israel should be held accountable to its people for dereliction of duty. Should the newspaper, which has a Jerusalem bureau, leave the matter as "the government says" the Arabs' houses are built on public land? Why not ascertain the facts and report whether those Arabs are land thieves impeding municipal planning? Should municipal order collapse in an area because Arabs want to take it away from Israel? What kind of a city would they get, that way? Ms. Kraft omitted the fact that 66 illegal Arab houses and one house owned by Jews would be spared. Anti-Zionists cannot give show any mercy by Israel. But Is sparing the 66 plus one reasonable? Is Israel a government of law or a government that please a State Dept. working against it? The NY Times is back to misleading historical background. The statement about Jordan makes it seem as if Israel took something belonging to the Arabs. Eastern Jerusalem did not belong to the Arabs. It belonged to the Palestine Mandate, to which the Jewish people were primary heir, until Israel annexed it. Jordan acquired the area by aggression, not that the Times informs readers of that fact. The UN General Assembly had recommended that Jerusalem be an
international city, one of those Utopian follies that failed
everywhere. That recommendation had no legal status, and anyway was
voided by Arab rejection. The Arabs went to war to get the whole
cake. After losing it, they want the Old City, that the UN didn't
even recommend, before. Their ideology is to use what territory they
can get to make another war to get the whole cake. The newspaper does
not alert readers to the real story. Instead, its misleading
statements act to support the Arab plan for further war.
FREE GAZA MOVEMENT'S FLOTILLA DOCUMENTS Israel's Intelligence and Information Center has translated and examined documents and computers of the Free Gaza Movement seized from the flotilla. The Movement was a flotilla sponsor. In its legal briefing to members, the Movement advised them not to say anything in support of Hamas. Otherwise they could be prosecuted for assisting terrorism. One implication is that they know that the support they intended for Gaza would bolster the regime that runs Gaza. The group claims its mission is humanitarian, but it seems more clearly political. That could make its fund-raising in the U.S. criminal. A document that describes the group's goal's does not mention delivering humanitarian aid but generating publicity about the blockade and pressing foreign governments to punish Israel for it (IMRA, 6/27/10).
U.S. AIRCRAFT CARRIERS STILL IN PERSIAN GULF. WHY Reports continue to come in that 3-4 U.S. aircraft carries still are in the Persian Gulf. American and French pilots have practiced taking off from each other's carriers. Their mission remains obscure. Is their mission to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities? [Is it to protect U.S. bases from Iranian reaction to an Israeli raid?] Or is it to protect Iran from an Israeli raid, as some of Obama's advisers prefer? Consider first the role of Saudi Arabia. Unconfirmed reports suggest that Saudi Arabia would let Israeli raiders through. But could Israel trust Saudi Arabia to let the Israeli planes refuel and get back home? Does Israel need to post another part of its air force near Saudi Arabia to ensure no Saudi treachery? Can Israel trust Saudi Arabia to keep its word, after Israel would have saved it from Iran, and Saudi Arabia no longer needs Israeli help? More important, can Israel trust the U.S.? For ideological reasons and notions about access to oil, much of the State Dept. is anti-Israel. Congress has sent letters of protest to President Obama that hint at his strong antipathy to Israel. The U.S. has broken its word to Israel before. [Obama breaks his word to almost everybody, as the AMA and Roundtable lobbies have found out recently.] Remember the first Gulf War? Israel was within minutes of sending its planes to destroy Saddam's missile launchers. Four U.S. officials in charge of the war — Pres. Bush, Sr., Sec. of State Baker, Sec. of Defense Powell, and Chief of Staff Schwarzkopf — asked Israel not to. Instead, they promised that U.S. planes would do the job, whereas if Israel did it, the Arab coalition against Saddam might dissolve. That coalition was illusory. Syria sent lightly armed forces at a distance from the combat. The U.S. rewarded Syria by letting 75 Iraqi planes escape to Iran, from which they went to Syria, for which Saudi Arabia and Kuwait paid Saddam a few billion dollars. Apparently, the U.S. hoped for future help from Saddam against Iran. [This is like the CIA's predecessor saving Nazis in the hope of their future help against the USSR. P.S.: The Nazis were useless.] The U.S. officials deceived Israel. They did not order U.S. planes to destroy Saddam's missile launchers. Instead, they let Saddam launch. The Patriot missiles intercepted most of the Scuds, but the debris and explosives nevertheless did much damage to Israel. Former Sec. of Defense Weinberger knew that Saddam had nerve gas. Anticipating the use of poison gas, Weinberger, in the middle of the first night of Scud-launching, issued a statement sympathizing with Israel for being struck by nerve gas. How callous to betray Israel like that! Israel, however, had a decent civil defense. Israelis waited in sealed rooms, and the knowledge that they were prepared probably kept Saddam from inserting nerve gas in the Scuds. Israel got the intelligence about Saddam's having nerve gas from Jonathan Pollard, who thereby saved untold numbers of Israeli lives without harm to the U.S.. Incidentally, if the U.S. had let Israel destroy Saddam's missile launchers, Iraq might not have been able to fire one into a U.S. barracks in Saudi Arabia, killing 28 U.S. soldiers. Israel cannot trust the U.S. now, either. Those aircraft carriers may be present to destroy Israeli submarines sent to the area as a nuclear deterrent to Iran. Although Israel is an ally of the U.S., and Iran and Syria are enemies, Obama prefers appeasing America's enemies (Winston Mid East Analysis and Commentary, 6/27/10). Readers who criticize my articles, in the name of patriotism, seem oblivious to U.S. duplicity in favoring enemies over allies and harming the American national interest.
U.S. OPPOSES LOPSIDED ISRAEL-HAMAS PRISONER EXCHANGE The U.S. opposes a lopsided prisoner exchange. Why? The U.S. does not object that such a prisoner exchange would be giving in to terrorism. Neither does the U.S. object that it would encourage Hamas to kidnap more Israelis for more exchanges. Instead, the U.S. reason is that a large-scale prisoner release negotiated by Hamas would strengthen Hamas against Abbas. The U.S. remains under the illusion that a satisfactory peace could be made by [the ever-weak but ever recalcitrant jihadist] Abbas (IMRA, 6/28/10). Such a U.S. policy demonstrates to those who can think that the U.S. does not base its policy on what Israel needs or on reality and what is good for the U.S.. What would be good for the U.S. is to defeat jihadists of all types, including Fatah. One may think of Hamas and Abbas as good cop, bad cop, both working for the same goal. A critic recently stated that the Arabs rise up against Israel because Israel "occupies" them. Illogical. The critic acts as if he never heard of jihad, which in modern times started against Palestinian Jews about 90 years ago, having nothing to do with occupation. Jihad is not rational but bigoted. Like other forms of antisemitism, it pretends to have grievances against Jews, but their bigotry exists regardless of what Jews do. Hard to imagine Gaza, in which no Israelis are present, as being occupied by Israel. Nevertheless, these critics have that kind of imagination.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
A TERRORIST'S GUIDE TO IMPROVING ISRAEL'S MEDIA COVERAGE
Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 28, 2010. |
|
This was written by Daniel Greenfield who blogs as Sultan Knish. |
|
When you're in a competition and you're losing, one of the first thing to do is to study what your opponent is doing and copy him. In this case Israel is competing for good media coverage with the terrorists. And the terrorists are winning. And if the media likes them so much, maybe it's time to start doing what they do. 1. Get Good Media Coverage By Excluding Bad Media Coverage Say that two movies will be coming out next week. One of those movies has studio which bans all critics who have spoken unfavorably about it from seeing it. The other movie welcomes all reviewers. When the final numbers are tallied, which movie do you think will have the best reviews? The one that didn't screen the movie for any critics who were not favorably disposed toward it. Sure the other movie might claim that its favorable reviews were honest. And that and a dime will buy you a cup of coffee. Now say that these two studios keep doing this for 10 years, and that they're the only game in town. Eventually just to be able to do their jobs, critics will almost always positively review movies from the studio that bars critics, and almost always negatively review the movies from the other studio to stay on the good side of the first studio. That is because selecting for optimal results will produce them. Free societies "screen" for all critics. Totalitarian ones only play to supportive audiences. That is why they get the better publicity than free societies. Journalistic integrity is supposed to make up the difference by telling the truth to the public. When it doesn't, then the journalists are functioning willingly as tools of totalitarian regimes. And maybe it's time to give them the boot. If Israel wants the same supportive coverage that Fatah and Hamas get, it needs to play by their rules. Press credentials would then go to those who provide positive coverage. Those reporters who want to take pictures of wall graffiti and stage photos of Muslim children throwing stones at Israeli tanks need not apply. If the New York Times or NBC News can't find anyone willing to play by those rules, the way they do in Gaza and Ramallah, then they can stay home and they won't be able to do their jobs. The mainstream media will be outraged, you say. There will be even more negative coverage. As if there isn't heaps of it now. And what will the negative media coverage be of? Reporters forced to stay home. Foreign correspondents who have to cover an election in Hungary, instead of eating caviar in a Jerusalem hotel and writing vicious articles about Jewish Middle Eastern refugees living in East Jerusalem. Haaretz reporters will have to move to London to write biting columns in the Guardian about how racist the country they used to live in, is. Before they move on to the inevitable theater reviews and finally begin writing ad copy for insurance agencies. Oh the pathos, the pity. No one will care. Should Israel do this? It's not the way of a free society, but there's only so much propaganda for a totalitarian society that even the freest society can endure before it is destroyed. Freedom comes with responsibility. The main responsibility is not to use that freedom to destroy the free society whose freedom you enjoy. Drill enough holes in a boat, and either the boat will sink or you'll be escorted off and Carnival Cruises will never let you brook a cruise with them again. 2. Get Good Coverage by Killing People All the Time Terrorist groups are always killing people, which the media is fine with. Israel on the other hand mostly doesn't kill anyone. Occasionally it goes after terrorists and kills some of them. An international outcry immediately results. This paradox is explained by a well known defect commonly present in children and moral idiots. This moral defect judges consistently evil behavior more favorably, than inconsistently good behavior. 
In other words, someone who steals all the time is viewed more favorably than a seemingly solid citizen who gets caught shoplifting. Don't believe me? Count how many ballads have been written about highwaymen, bank robbers and terrorists. The answer is a whole lot. This defect does not judge the morality of behavior, but its consistency. Someone who is consistently bad is seen as good, because he sticks to his principles. Which are bad. Clearly proving that he's good. Because if he weren't good, why would he be bad all the time? It must be because he believes that his behavior is really good. So all we have to do is understand his point of view to see why he acts this way. On the other hand someone who is inconsistent is clearly a hypocrite. Otherwise why is his behavior inconsistent? Clearly he knows he's doing wrong and occasionally tries to restrain himself, but still keeps engaging in wrongdoing. Which means he has no principles, and his behavior is therefore unjustifiable. Applied to the Israeli-Muslim Terrorist conflict, this means that Israel is bad because it only inconsistently kills terrorists. On the other hand the terrorists consistently kill Israelis, which must mean that they're good. By only killing terrorists sometimes, Israel shows that it doesn't believe that killing them is ever right. By constantly trying to kill Israelis, the terrorists demonstrate a consistent value system that shows they always believe the are doing the right thing. This seems like madness only because you aren't a cultural relativist. Which is to say that you believe some things are right and other things are wrong irregardless of who believes them or does them. But if you were a moral idiot, or a cultural relativist (but I repeat myself), you would understand that subjective labels such as right or wrong don't matter. What matters is that people behave in a way consistent with their cultural imperatives and global context. Which generally means killing people or feeling bad because their ancestors killed all those people, depending on their level of industrial development, infrastructure and average family income. Back when Israel was much more consistent about killing enemy insurgents and terrorists, there was also a general consensus in its favor. In the 50's, Ariel Sharon snuck into Egypt and blew up an entire village being used as an insurgent base. Today a single targeted assassination of a terrorist results in shrieks of global outrage. The problem here is the "single" and the "targeted" part. The answer is to kill terrorists like you mean it. Not only does consistently doing something result in a better global image, but it also deadens any scandal by turning it into static. Assassinate one terrorist in Dubai and the world is upset. Assassinate ten terrorists a day and the world quickly gets bored a month later after the 300th terrorist. There are only so many headlines reading, "Israel Still Killing Terrorists" that anyone will bother to read. And as a major bonus, killing enough terrorists tends to put an end to that whole terrorism thing. 3. Victims of Our Own Competence The real problem with Israel is not that it has jets and tanks and nuclear weapons. Most of the Middle East has at least two out of three of those. North Korea has all three. The problem is that Israel works a little too well. What do I mean by that? Israel has working traffic lights, electricity, airlines, police forces and stores filled with things made in the country. Back around 1950 when countries were expected to be able to do things for themselves, this was considered a good thing. But today the anti-capitalism paradigm is dominant, which means that any level of competence defines you as a villain. When a reporter goes to Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, he notices that despite all the flaws, things somewhat work. No one generally tries to murder him on the street. The Jewish residents at least, aren't using donkeys as transportation, no one throws rocks at his head, and sewage isn't flowing through the street. But when he goes to Ramallah or Gaza, he sees gorgeous villas and classic Mercedes cars, but he also sees dust, dirt and yes raw sewage. Things don't work, or work only unpredictably. Abused animals are everywhere. Militia gangs prowl the streets. Kids throw rocks. The electricity goes on and off. The doctors occasionally work at the hospital, when they aren't heading up the local wing of Hamas\Fatah or selling drugs. Naturally he thinks these people must be the victims. The solution is to make Israel appear just as dysfunctional. While the country has its problems, by comparison things do generally work. Now is the time to stop making them work. During a crisis, major cities in Israel should repeatedly lose power. The Knesset will have raucous debates by candlelight. Traffic jams will be orchestrated and donkeys will replace taxis. Raw sewage will spill out in the street and doctors will leave their jobs and do nothing but conduct press conferences denouncing Sweden for making us live this way. Photographers will be invited to take pictures of senior citizens struggling to manually translate Henning Mankell and Iain Banks novels by hand, due to their boycott of Israel. And of children who are receiving inadequate medical care because of being boycotted by British medical journals. And of course there will be people posing buried in rubble due to the boycotts of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Presbyterian Church and Swedish dock workers. Of course none of this makes any sense. But it doesn't have to make any sense. The facts don't matter. The Muslim terrorists proved that already. The point is to create a lot of sympathetic dramatically staged photos and blame someone for them. It might as well be Sweden since they're spoiling for a fight anyway. This is not about the facts. It's about making the competent feel guilty for their competence. If Israel is demonized because Fatah and Hamas can't provide basic services even with billions of dollars in foreign aid, then it's time for Israel to stop providing basic services. In the anti-capitalist dogma, competence is criminality. A more advanced society is always more wrong than a less advanced one. Clearly the only way to win their sympathy is a race to the bottom. If the lights go out in Gaza, let there be no lights and sewage in Haifa. In Ramallah has open sewage, then Tel Aviv should go back to using donkeys. If Jenin has armed militias riding on donkeys that are swimming in pools of sewage, it's time to close all the hospitals in the Israel and gather gangs of schoolchildren and start stoning foreign planes. At some point where Israeli schoolchildren achieve a lower literacy rate than their counterparts in the West Bank. When there is no electricity anywhere in the country, and cold running water only twice a week. When the only forms of transportation in the country are rusting 1960's classic American cars and mistreated donkeys. When there is no working fire department, but cell phones are everywhere. When you can't go a hundred feet without hearing the sounds of machine gun fire. And when there is an entire branch of the UN dedicated to feeding and clothing Israelis. Then finally the public relations battle will be won. Because Israel will truly be a failed state — and therefore wholly moral. Only successful states take the blame, because only they are judged as being responsible. Failed states on the other hand are always someone else's victim. If paradoxically the only way to be a successful state, is to be a failed state — it's time to start failing upward. Anyone who supports the Muslim terrorist side, and disapproves of the article should ask him or herself, why? 
If censorship, homicidal mania and deliberate dysfunction are effective media relations tools for the poor "Palestinian Arabs" who can hardly walk four steps without claiming citizenship in the great state of victimhood, maybe it's time their victims got a piece of the action. If the left doesn't like working countries that don't throw critics off buildings or constantly try to kill people — then they're writing a scenario in which those countries will transform themselves into the image of the sort of countries that the left does like. This is only a satirical piece, but all satire has more than a
grain of truth to it. If the media left calls democracy, tyranny and
tyranny, democracy. Then perhaps the only way for them to recognize a
country as a democracy is for it to become a tyranny. If they praise
countries that violate civil rights, for their freedom, and damn
countries with freedom for violating civil rights — clearly then
the only way to the leftist heart is by violating civil rights. By
calling good, evil, and evil, good — the left has written this
narrative itself with the inkstains of its own moral hypocrisy. It
cannot complain about its consequences.
Contact Yaacov Levi by email at Yaacov Levi.
This article is archived at
|
|
ISRAEL'S PR IS NOT THE PROBLEM
Posted by Ted Belman, June 27, 2010. |
|
When Israel loses yet another PR battle, many of her friends complain that Israel is partly to blame because she is woefully inept when it comes to PR. I am not one of them.. Glenn Jasper, Ruder Finn Israel, recently suggested that Israel should have all its spokesmen deliver the same message. After all, that's what the Palestinians do. That might be a good idea except that Israel is a nation of presidents and each president will deliver his or her own message. They can't be disciplined. Alex Fishman suggested that Israel should consider the PR battle as more important than the military battle and organize accordingly. "Hence, the manager of this war on our side should not be the army via the IDF spokesman, but rather, someone on the highest national level, with the best professionals, who would have the knowledge and ability to write the "scripts" for the war and enforce them on all our executive arms, including the army." Good as these suggestions are, they don't go to the heart of the matter. To start with there is a coalition of forces including antisemites, leftists and Islamists, that are dedicated to Israel's destruction. They couldn't care less about truth and justice so a better PR campaign would be irrelevant. Then there is the main stream media that presents news to support their agenda rather than the truth. The fact that they suppressed the flotilla videos, which made Israel's case better than a thousand words could have, is testimony to this fact. They have constructed a narrative in support of their agenda and any facts that are not in keeping with it, are ignored. But there is something more going on that is little noticed and much determinative. Governments lead by the US also construct a narrative depending on their agenda and they don't let truth and justice get in the way. Long before the Oslo accords, the US began to suppress negative information on Arafat and the PLO as she wished to build a peace process around them. After the signing of the Oslo Accords, the US made no issue of the violation of the accords by Arafat. She was not about to let such violations scuttle the peace process. In effect Arafat could do whatever he wanted, and this included killing American diplomats, so long as he gave lip service to the peace process. Caroline Glick called the "peace process" an "appeasement process" the goal of which was, not peace, but appeasement. Iran and Syria also learned this lesson. They could keep killing Americans in Iraq as long as they denied their complicity. The US rarely called them on this because if she did, she would have to do something about it. President Bush waged a campaign against Syria to hold them accountable for the assassination of Harari and to get them out of Lebanon. Syria put up a strong enough fight to get Bush to abandon his original agenda. Bush then started a process of accommodating Syria rather than attacking her. Pres Obama continued this process. Now Syria is openly arming Hezbollah in violation of Res 1701 and aligning with Iran. The US response is to embrace her, to engage her, to send envoys and generally make nice. Obviously pointing the finger at Syria is inconsistent with the present US goals. Similarly the US has been attempting to engage Iran and to co-opt her into helping in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thus the US refrained from supporting the green movement when it challenged the government. For the same reason she is unwilling to verbally attack Iran or to apply effective sanctions. She is even prepared to live with a nuclear Iran if only Iran will cooperate and even, if not. In the last year or so Turkey has entered centre stage in the Middle East and is throwing her rhetorical weight around especially since backing the flotilla. Not one critical word did Obama utter. To the contrary he believes "Turkey can have a positive voice in this whole process." Examples are legion but what has this to do with Israel's efforts at public relations? Lots. The flip side of this coin is that when the US wants to force someone to do something, either friend or foe, she must first demonize them. But the US can't demonize a friend without a pretext so she first creates a crisis as her springboard. In March of this year the US feigned outrage over Israel's announcement of a housing project in Ramat Shlomo. This outrage legitimated the subsequent US attack on Israel. Similarly, Israel's legitimate self defense in the flotilla attack in which she killed nine violent "activists" was enough of a pretext for demonizing her and putting pressure on her. On May 31 after news of the deaths surfaced, Obama was a bit more restrained in his condemnation of Israel than his European allies and called for all the "facts and circumstances". Had he been genuine in this, he would have, after the videos of the attack on the IDF went viral the next day, totally sided with Israel and nipped the demonization in the bud, but he didn't. He had an agenda and he wanted to use this crisis to announce the blockade was "unsustainable". He allowed the pressure to mount so he could achieve his ends. Shelby Steele argues most convincingly that "the end game of this isolation effort is the nullification of Israel's legitimacy as a nation". He attributes this scape-goating of Israel to a "deficit of moral authority" in the West. While that is sadly true, it ignores the fact that realpolitik, which has taken hold of the Obama administration, dictates a similar result. Yet I would argue that the pursuit of self interest by the US is assured greater success with Israel as a strong ally rather than without her. This is not to say that Israel should cease its PR efforts. She shouldn't. She should continue to provide her friends with the truth so that they maintain their friendship lest they be infected as well. Notwithstanding all the demonization she is subjected to and the realpolitik, she has managed to keep the goodwill of the American people and others who value truth and justice. Ultimately, this is her trump card. Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
ISRAEL CHANGES CURRICULUM; JEWISH-ARAB ISRAELI VILLAGE SPLIT OVER GAZA FLOTILLA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 27, 2010. |
|
ISRAEL AND EGYPT STOP SINAI SMUGGLERS Israel and Egypt stopped some Sinai smugglers. Bedouin in the Sinai have been smuggling more weapons, food, and drugs for terrorist organizations in Gaza. Israel warned its citizens that terrorists are planning to kidnap and murder Israelis. Egypt has convicted a group of Hizbullah, Lebanese, Egyptian, Sudanese and Palestinian Authority terrorists for planning the kidnapping and for smuggling Iranian arms into Gaza. Five Sinai drug smugglers had infiltrated the border with Israel, but Israeli forces detected them, shot two. One is recovering in an Israeli hospital. The others were arrested. Egypt shot two Bedouin near a crossing to Israel. The Egyptian government alleged they were among the bandits that attacked a government security convoy. Local residents alleged that Egyptian security forces had fired rocket-propelled grenades into their village (Arutz-7, 6/27/10).
MORE BEDOUIN VOLUNTEER FOR IDF 
Volunteer Bedouin enlistment in IDF combat units, such as for desert reconnaissance, has increased 50% and still is rising. The IDF attributes this to visits by commanders to Bedouin homes. On the other hand, those who do serve are threatened and their families subjected to mockery (Arutz-7, 6/27/10).
ISRAEL CHANGES CURRICULUM Israel has a new curriculum for its non-religious public schools. The new curriculum includes Jewish culture and tradition. One of the motives for the change is that people not linked to their culture can more easily switch to a foreign one, such as Silicon Valley's. Another is that people should know what they are defending the country for. This is a sensitive subject. At what point does knowledge of one's cultural background become indoctrination in particular religious belief? (IMRA, 6/26/10). Israelis who call themselves non-religious do so in comparison with the very religious. Most Israeli Jews are traditional. The question is why it took so long for the government to insert its people's culture and tradition into the curriculum. Perhaps another motive for the change is that parents have been transferring their children from national (secular) schools to religious ones, where there is discipline and learning.
HAMAS DISCUSSES ITS ISRAELI PRISONER 
In describing its capture of an Israeli soldier, Hamas boasted that this exploit demolished the myth of Israeli invincibility. It also threatened to capture more Israelis, for ransom. It described its men as "freedom fighters." Hamas had signed a German proposal for a prisoner exchange, but "Zionist arrogance" obstructed the deal. Hamas implied in its demands for prisoner release that Israeli imprisonment of them were not legal. "This humanitarian effort by Hamas, and its military wing reflect the honest intentions for achieving an acceptable prisoner exchange..." Hamas demands 1,500 Arab prisoners of Israel in exchange for the one Israeli prisoner of Hamas. Hamas accuses the government of Israel dishonest about the deal, wishing instead of kill Shalit if they can find out where he is incarcerated (IMRA, 6/26/10). What a weird discussion! The IDF had a reputation for improvisation and hard fighting, not invincibility; being able to win a war does not mean winning every battle. The IDF reputation was sullied by Barak's unnecessary flight from Lebanon and by failing to put enough effort in against Hizbullah the next time, to win. "Zionist arrogance" scotched the prisoner exchange? No, Hamas demanded the release of murderers. Israel may yet be crazy enough to comply, but it would be crazy to comply. As for exchanging so many hundreds for one, and one who is not invincible, that would be counter-productive, enabling the released terrorists to murder more Israelis than the number saved by the deal, which is one. Jewish law would reject such a lopsided deal, but Israel is not governed by religious law. Of course the imprisonment of the Hamas terrorists is legal. They attempted or committed murder of civilians or fought in illegal ways against soldiers. Jihadists claim it is not legal because of their own, actual, religious arrogance. They believe that Muslims have superior rights to non-believers, so that self-defense by non-believers is an affront to the Muslim Arabs. There is no evidence that the Israeli government wishes to kill Shalit. The whole country wants him back. Any regime that succeeds would be popular. The last time IDF forces stormed the holding pen for an Israeli prisoner, the Arabs executed him. So much for their being humanitarian! The radical Muslims who run Gaza call themselves freedom fighters, but they are free of Israeli rule and would be free of the partial embargo if they did not commit aggression against Israel. A critic, who claims he knows all about the Arab-Israel conflict, says they just want equality. Since they rule themselves now, and they do not mingle with Israelis, because where the Palestinian Arabs rule, they hold the area exclusively for themselves, what need for equality? What Hamas wants, as its spokesmen attest and I have reported, is to destroy Israel. That critic, however, ignores disproof of his contentions. Neither is Hamas, a terrorist organization that tries to bomb civilians, humanitarian. Nor is it humanitarian when it stores weapons in houses, making the houses a legitimate military target. It is not humanitarian when it practices a sort of apartheid with women, as well as by barring Jews, when it throws Fatah men out of the window, when it lets people blow up churches, when it steals or blocks humanitarian aid, when it tortures people, etc.. Israel's rule of combat is to abort targeted assassination if two unidentified persons are too close by. That is humanitarian, going beyond international law. The U.S. rule is ten times as many.
IRAN FORESEES SELF-SUFFICIENCY IN GASOLINE Iran foresees self-sufficiency in gasoline in two years. The government is boosting production at its refineries so as to become independent of gasoline imports (IMRA, 6/26/10). Taking Iran at its word, this demonstrates the folly of starting with light sanctions and escalating slowly. As in war, gradual escalation enables the enemy to accommodate. By the time more serious sanctions are proposed, they are too late to exert strong effect. Incidentally, the U.S. has not built more refinery capacity in years. Neither has New York City or State built more electric power plants in years. Government regulations seem to be a major factor.
SENATOR KERRY VISITS ISRAEL Senator Kerry, Chair of the Foreign Relations Committee, visited Israel. He: 1. Congratulated Israel for relaxing the embargo on Gaza; 2. Approves of Israeli self-defense; 3. Saw the damage from Hamas rockets in Siderot, and says the U.S. is working on ending that; 4. Does not under-estimate the danger from Iran, hence the "tough" sanctions on Iran (Arutz-7, 6/27/10). If the U.S. acknowledges Israel's right to self-defense, why does it demand removal of the roadblocks and checkpoints that thwart or apprehend terrorists? In what way is the U.S. working on ending Hamas bombardment of Israel? What progress was made? Or is what Sen. Kerry said about working on it pious lip service? The sanctions Sen. Kerry calls "tough" may discomfort Iranian leaders, who, however, express scorn for it and continue nuclear development.
GAZA EMBARGO RELAXATION CUTS INTO SMUGGLING Now that Israel has slashed its list of banned materials for Gaza, the need to smuggle them in has crashed. Instead of 2,000 tunnels and 25,000 workers, only about a hundred tunnels and 3,000 workers continue in operation. They now specialize in cement and iron, which Israel lets in for projects under international supervision. [That means the smuggling is more for Hamas than for housing.] Some people in Gaza are deferring purchase of cement, because cement from Israel is better in price and quality than what is smuggled from Egypt (IMRA, 6/26/10).
JEWISH-ARAB ISRAELI VILLAGE SPLIT OVER GAZA FLOTILLA The Jewish-Arab village of Neve Shalom was established to demonstrate peaceful co-existence. After the flotilla combat, however, the village council, dominated by the Arabs, posted a sign at the village entrance, "The residents of Wahat el-Salaam/Neveh Shalom protest the murder of the activists on the 'Freedom Flotilla' and demand an end to the siege of Gaza." Jewish residents asked the Council head to remove or amend the sign. He changed "murder" to killing. The Jews still objected. In reaction, the Council restored the word, "murder." In counter-reaction, the Jews erected their own sign, "We, residents of Neveh Shalom, protest against the hanging of signs in Israel that express a one-sided viewpoint. We protest the attack by radicals from the 'peace' flotilla on IDF soldiers and demand the immediate release of Gilad Shalit." The Council had the new sign vandalized and threatened to expel the Jews (IMRA, 6/26/10). I have reported that the Arab members celebrated special anti-Zionist days, but demanded that the Jewish members not celebrate Israeli holidays. What they called peaceful coexistence was Jewish subordination to the Muslims. As in Moorish Spain. Self-defense is not murder. Truth is not part of jihad.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
OUR SECRET SOLUTION
Posted by David Wilder, June 27, 2010. |
|
We are approaching 'the three weeks' as they are known, three weeks beginning on the Hebrew date, the 17th of Tammuz, thru the 9th of Av (the 29th of June — 20 July). These three weeks are a time of intense mourning, marking the destruction of the first and second Temples, the Beit HaMikdash, so many thousands of years ago. This period of time also represents the beginning of the end, as we approach the final days and weeks of the year, by the Hebrew calendar. This is also a time of introspection, usually accompanied by the word 'Tshuva,' which, loosely translated, is repentance. This, as we take up an accounting of the past year, both individually and collectively. How could we have acted better, both with our fellowman, and in our relationship with our Creator? Despite that fact that 'officially' this self-searching does not begin for over a month, actually it begins now. For our sages have taught us the reasons for the destruction of the two Temples: The first, due to idol worship, murder and adultery. And the second, caused by unadulterated, totally unnecessary, hate. In order to rectify these errors of the past, we must delve deep into ourselves, examining our own actions, trying to identify similarities to that behavior which brought about such destruction, spiritual and physical, and, if and when found, corrected. As mentioned, this must be undertaken both individually and collectively. How so, collectively? To this, there are, I am sure, many answers from many diverse vantage points. I'd like to discuss one, which I believe is of the utmost importance. Very frequently, when speaking with groups and with journalists here in Hebron, I find myself addressing the same issue: "What is the solution?" 'The solution,' of course, dealing with the continued war between Arab and Jew, be it in Hebron or throughout Israel. I'd like to present my answer, as repeated numerous, numerous times. My response comprises several parts: Of course, our enemies, our neighbors, must accept our legitimacy, our legitimacy as a people, and our legitimacy to live in our land, freely, as Jews. As of yet, this legitimacy is still denied us; they refuse to accept that Jews have any right to live in Israel; not only in Judea and Samaria, but in all of Israel, be it Tel Aviv, Haifa, or Beer Sheva. This is nothing new. The Arab-Islamic rejection of Israel has existed from time immemorial. However, in order to reach any kind of 'peace,' this denial of Judaism and Israel must be changed, with the denial itself being rejected. However, this is the least important element of the answer. Of course, one can rightly ask, how can this first objective be achieved?
NOW WE BEGIN TO TOUCH ON THE ESSENTIAL ISSUES, the first of which is that we, as a people, must accept our own legitimacy, our right to live as a people in our land. As surprising as it may sound, this self-legitimacy is not a given. In many circles this self-acceptance is rejected. I once debated a professor who declared that 'if the cost of establishing the State of Israel was expulsion of any Arab people from their homes, then the State should not have been declared.' This is, of course, very extreme. But it's not too far from those people who question the Jewish right to Jerusalem, not to mention Hebron. There are many who really don't know — perhaps it really 'isn't ours.' Or perhaps 'their right is no less than ours.' This is reflected, here in Hebron, on an almost daily basis, when groups coming to visit, both Israeli and others, divide their days in half. Part of the day they spend with 'Breaking the Silence,' whose directors are infamous for having been responsible for involving Israel in Goldstone, having accused Israeli soldiers of war crimes during the last war in Gaza. Even Netanyahu brutally attacked them for their slander of Israeli soldiers. These people are not foreigners — they are Jews, Israelis, who have been accused by many of being traitors to their land and people, aiding and abetting the enemy. Only last week they 'hosted' in Hebron several Arab MKs, including Muhammad Baraka, one the most virulent Jew-Israel hating Arabs in the Knesset. Funded by the EU, Britain and other, this group has become a de facto 'equal' to the Jewish Community of Hebron. All groups, including Israeli pre-military academies wanting to hear 'both sides of the story' spend hours with them, as well as meeting with us. I've had to fight with numerous Jewish organizations who insist on 'touring' with Yehuda Shaul and Michael Menken, the two leaders of this group, this despite the lies and hatred spewed forth from their mouths. For example, how can one explain the photograph shown below, of Menken, smiling, shaking hands with Baraka, head of the Hadash, an Arab, anti Israel political party. Baraka was indicted four times, including for attacking police, but has not stood trial due to his Knesset immunity. 
How is it that Jewish and Israeli organizations are willing to allow their youth to hear virtual enemies of Israel? What would happen to any American youth organization which insisted that, in the name of fairness and equality, their participants be allowed a few hours with people representing bin-Laden, in order to allow them to 'hear both sides!?" It is this very doubt, this craving for what seems to be, albeit only superficially, fairness, that is eating away at the very core of our being. Would parents allow their children to try 'just a little poison' in order to experience it? This national doubt, which is expressed in such experiences, is a result of our inability to realize who we are, and where we are, summed up, perhaps, in realizing the source of our roots. As a result, our enemies refuse to take us seriously, because we
refuse to take ourselves seriously. For example, Anwar Sadat,
speaking in 1972 said," war is now inevitable. Whatever the price,
whatever the sacrifice, we will not back down. We will not give up one
centimeter of Arab land"
Closer to the present, I recall having read statements by Arab leaders to the tune that 'if Israel is willing to give up any of its land, than they really don't believe it belongs to them. For if they did believe it belonged to them, they wouldn't think of abandoning any of it.' In other words, the Arabs don't think we're serious. For good reason. We're not serious. But not only because we are willing to divide our land and abandon major segments of it to our sworn enemies. There is an even better reason. If Jews really believe that this land, Eretz Yisrael belongs to them, then why don't they live there? Why do they remain in other countries and not move to their land? This too is a good question which expresses the lack of Jewish seriousness concerning Israel. It stands to reason that if we really did believe that this is our land, we would all be here. Hence, a simple conclusion — we don't believe it's our land; but some other 'people' does believe it's theirs. And guess who wins.... In other words, if we don't take ourselves seriously, why should anyone else take us seriously? We don't know if it's ours, and they do. The solution — start to grow up and take life seriously. Today there are five and a half million Jews in Israel. The Arabs laugh. When there are 10 million, 12 million, they won't laugh as much; neither will the rest of the world. It was easy to expel 9,000 Jews from Gush Katif. Had there been a population of 20,000, it would have been a different story. Ditto Judea and Samaria. Today's numbers are not enough. The numbers today stand at over 300,000 with the highest percent of annual population growth in Israel. No surprise that Jews are expelled from buildings in Hebron, or building freezes stunt our growth. Because when 300,000 blossoms to 500,000 and growing, well, what are they going to do with us? The government still hasn't figured out what to do with the thousands they uprooted from Gush Katif. What will they do with a half a million or more in Yehuda and Shomron?! That's the solution, and it's up to us. When we do our thing, take on the responsibility, assuring that our neighbors understand that we really are serious, things will change. They won't laugh any more. And they'll understand that we're not going anywhere fast. We're here to stay. Many years ago a journalist interviewed an Arab family adjacent to a Hebron Jewish neighborhood. The Arab said that he knew the Jews were here to stay. How did he know? He said that he saw the children, he saw their eyes, and he knew, we will never leave. This is our secret weapon, our secret solution — this is our future — this is our answer to the three weeks commemorating the great destruction. This is the Tikkun, the rectification, repentance, tshuva, the return. This is Am Yisrael.
David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron.
You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of
Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il
or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760
Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone:
718 677 6886.
|
|
WHITE HOUSE ANNOUNCEMENT ON GAZA SHOWS THE MISSING ELEMENT: STRATEGIC RATIONALITY
Posted by Barry Rubin, June 27, 2010. |
|
"As a general rule, you should assume that the more unlikely the action I lay upon this stage for you, the more likely it is that I have evidence of its having happened." — Clive Barker, Galilee. Everyone will probably view the just-released official document, "White House on Israel's Announcement on Gaza," as purely routine government rhetoric that means nothing. But that just shows how much people have become used to taking for granted the lack of any strategic sense in this U.S. government. The June 20 White House statement opens thusly: "The President has described the situation in Gaza as unsustainable and has made clear that it demands fundamental change." One would expect that a rational policy would use the words "unsustainable" and "demands fundamental change" to mean that the president demands the overthrow of Hamas. In fact, it signifies the exact opposite: he demands the stabilization of that regime. The statement continues: "On June 9, [Obama] announced that the United States was moving forward with $400 million in initiatives and commitments for the West Bank and Gaza. The President described these projects as a down payment on the U.S. commitment to the people of Gaza, who deserve a chance to take part in building a viable, independent state of Palestine, together with those who live in the West Bank." Just think of the calm insanity of that paragraph. The United States is going to pump money into Gaza. That money is a "down payment on the U.S. commitment," that is, it is not an act of generosity for which the United States deserves to get something in return. No, the phrasing makes it seem that the United States owes them the money. Moreover, giving this money does not really advance the cause of building a Palestinian state but retards it by shoring up a Hamas government which is against the Palestinian Authority, against peace with Israel, and against a two-state solution. Note, too, that Hamas is put on an equal plane with the Palestinian Authority. The people of Gaza and the people of the West Bank will build a state, says the statement. Couldn't the administration even have said that the state would be built in the context of the Oslo accords or under the leadership of the Palestinian Authority? This is truly amazing. There is no mention of even the Quartet conditions: nothing said about Hamas abandoning terrorism or accepting Israel's existence or returning to recognition of the Palestinian Authority's rule as the legitimate government. The statement is unconditional, absolutely unconditional. Only the "humanitarian" consideration counts, as if the U.S. government is a community organizer organizing a food stamp program. In seeking an analogy to this abdication of strategy and politics, it would be like the United States making a commitment to help the people of North Vietnam during the Vietnam war or North Korea during the Korean war by pouring in money and goods unconditionally, saying this would help lead to a moderate unified state. Doesn't who governs the Gaza Strip as a dictatorship (an antisemitic, anti-American, terrorist, revolutionary Islamist, would-be genocidal, Christian-expelling, women-repressing, terrorist, and allied to Iran dictatorship at that) matter a bit? The announcement continued by welcoming Israel's new policy as something that "should significantly improve conditions for Palestinians in Gaza, while preventing the entry of weapons." In other words, the United States has no problem with Hamas ruling Gaza as long as weapons are kept out. There is absolutely no strategic concept in the U.S. approach. Meanwhile, the White House makes clear that Israel's concessions aren't sufficient. "There is more to be done, and the President looks forward to discussing this new policy, and additional steps, with Prime Minister Netanyahu during his visit to Washington on July 6." So the U.S. government wants the Hamas-ruled statelet to get even more. Blandly but incredibly, the statement continues: "We will work...to explore additional ways to improve the situation in Gaza, including greater freedom of movement and commerce between Gaza and the West Bank." Now while it is true that this could mean supporters of the Palestinian Authority will be able to go to Gaza and have more influence, what it will mean in practice is that Hamas militants (including bomb-makers and agitators) will be more able to get into the West Bank. Though Israel will no doubt closely vet those who pass between the two areas, will it then be accused of inhibiting Palestinian "freedom of movement"? Of course, there is the requisite paragraph voicing support for Israel, but note that it gives nothing more to Israel whatsoever: "We strongly re-affirm Israel's right to self-defense, and our commitment to work with Israel and our international partners to prevent the illicit trafficking of arms and ammunition into Gaza. As we approach the fourth anniversary of the capture of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, we call again for his immediate release, and condemn the inhumane conditions of his detention." Did anyone in the administration think of conditioning the easing of the embargo and the U.S. aid on Shalit's release? Of course not. The statement adds: "We believe that the implementation of the policy announced by the Government of Israel today should improve life for the people of Gaza, and we will continue to support that effort going forward." But wait a minute. If this further entrenches a terrorist, repressive regime will that "improve life" for the people of Gaza? And the statement ends: "We urge all those wishing to deliver goods to do so through established channels so that their cargo can be inspected and transferred via land crossings into Gaza. There is no need for unnecessary confrontations, and we call on all parties to act responsibly in meeting the needs of the people of Gaza." Of course, all of this won't discourage the flotilla ships which will continue to sail and at times will seek confrontation. After all, if confrontation results in gaining such victories why should anyone dismiss them as "unnecessary?" And finally note the veiled hint about all parties acting responsibly. The administration won't even come out openly to demand that Hamas lets in goods and doesn't steal them! So in this statement there is not one word — not one word — of direct criticism of Hamas. And there is no hint that any thought has been given about the strategic implications of accepting a Hamas regime and allowing it to normalize the economic situation even while it is creating a nightmare political and social situation for Gazans. Let's assume the administration had the same goals but went about it with a different rhetoric. It would condemn Hamas extensively but then say that, of course, it should not be able to hold the people in Gaza as hostages and that they should not suffer just because they are ruled by a terrible dictatorship. The statement could look forward to the day when they are liberated from these extremist, repressive rulers. I'm not saying this is my preferred policy but it is a far better way the Obama Administration could implement its own wishes. In other words, the administration could have played it this way: Hamas is our enemy; the people of Gaza are our friends. We don't want you to suffer. We want you to get rid of Hamas, join with the PA, and make a lasting peace with Israel. If you are moderate and abandon terrorism, you will be better off and get your own state through negotiations with Israel. But that is not the strategic line taken. Yes, it is incredible. The Obama Administration refuses to criticize Hamas in its own statement. Why? Is it afraid that the need to send money and goods into the Gaza Strip is so great that no offense can be given to Hamas lest the regime would refuse these concessions? In this bland little White House statement we see the policy insanity of the current U.S. government. Again, as problematic as the president's goal is — reducing the sanctions against the Gaza Strip — the real craziness is in the way it is being conceived, explained, and implemented. Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com |
|
WHITE HOUSE WELCOMES SHARIAH FINANCE SPECIALIST
Posted by Yaacov Levi, June 26, 2010. |
|
This was written by Chelsea Schilling and it appeared in World Net Daily |
|
The Obama administration has announced its appointment of 13 White House fellows — and the first person featured on its short list is a Muslim attorney who specializes in Shariah-compliant transactions. "This year's White House fellows are comprised of some of the best and brightest leaders in our country," Michelle Obama said in the June 22 announcement. "I applaud their unyielding commitment to public service and dedication to serving their community." White House fellows spend a year as full-time, paid assistants to senior White House staff, the vice president, Cabinet secretaries and senior administration officials. Samar Ali of Waverly, Tenn., is the first name appearing on the White House list. She is an associate with the law firm Hogan Lovells — a firm that claims to have advised on more than 200 Islamic finance transactions with an aggregate deal value in excess of $40 billion. According to Ali's biography posted on the White House website, "She is responsible for counseling clients on mergers & acquisitions, cross-border transactions, Shari'a compliant transactions, project finance, and international business matters. During her time with Hogan Lovells, she has been a founding member of the firm's Abu Dhabi office." Hogan Lovells lists Ali's experience "advising a Middle Eastern university in the potential establishment of a Foreign Aid Conventional and Shari'ah Compliant Student Loan Program and advising a Middle Eastern client in relation to a U.S. government subcontract matter." "Our team members are at the forefront of developments in the Islamic finance industry," Hogan Lovells boasts. "We help set standards for the sector. We have also advised on numerous first-of-their-kind transactions, such as the first convertible Sukuk, the first equity-linked Sukuk, the first Sharia-compliant securitization, the first international Sukuk al-mudaraba and Sukuk al-musharaka, the first Sukuk buy-back, and the first Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) guaranteed Islamic project financing." Ali also clerked for Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and Judge Edwin Cameron, now of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Promoting Islam and Shariah The White House notes that Ali also led the YMCA Israeli-Palestinian Modern Voices for Progress Program and is a founding member of the first U.S. Delegation to the World Islamic Economic Forum. Ali was listed as a member of the British delegation to the World Islamic Economic Forum in 2009 and as a U.S. delegate in 2010. Shariah Finance Watch blog noted, "[I]t was at the World Islamic Economic Forum where key leaders declared Shariah finance to be "dawa" (missionary) activity to promote Islam and Shariah." In fact, the president of Indonesia, H. Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, delivered a March 2, 2009, keynote address to Islamic leaders at the World Islamic Economic Forum in Jakarta during which he called for Islamic banks to do "missionary work in the Western world." "Islamic banking should now be able to take a leadership position in the banking world," he said. "Islamic banks have been much less affected by the financial meltdown than the conventional banks — for the obvious reason that Shariah banks do not indulge in investing in toxic assets and in leveraged funds. They are geared to supporting the real economy." (And you also can't track their transactions.) He added, "Islamic bankers should therefore do some missionary work in the Western world to promote the concept of Shariah banking, for which many in the West are more than ready now." 'We didn't consider terrorists to be Muslims' Ali received her law degree from Vanderbilt Law School and served as the first Arab-Muslim student body president at Vanderbilt. She has interned for the Islamic International Arab Bank in Amman, Jordan. According to Vanderbilt Law School, Ali's mother immigrated to the U.S. from Syria, and her father is Palestinian. He left the West Bank town of Ramallah at age 17. America.gov reported that Ali said her parents taught her to "never forget where we came from and to never forget where we are now." "I will always be Arab and I will always be American and I will always be Muslim," she said. Ali spoke out at a campus memorial service days after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "In my opinion," she told the Washington File, "Al-Qaida is trying to ruin Islam's reputation and we are simply not going to let them win this fight. If someone has a political agenda, they need to call it what it is, and not disguise it in the name of a religion or use the religion to achieve their political goals. This is simply unacceptable." While she said she grieved the loss of thousands of American lives, Ali told the File she grew concerned about whether Americans would assume that she, as a Muslim and Arab-American, approved of those attacks. "Thus, I was worried that many of my fellow citizens, would not realize that just because my friends and I are Muslims and Arabs, did not mean that we were part of or even agreed with the terrorists who caused September 11," she said. "We didn't even consider the terrorists to be Muslims. I was worried that people would confuse Islam with Osama Bin Ladin and his agenda, that they would confuse his agenda as the agenda of all believers in Islam." Creeping Shariah Shariah already is moving into some elements of American society, with a lawsuit pending over U.S. government involvement in a financial institution that accommodates Shariah requirements in its business operations. WND also reported in November 2008 that the Treasury Department sponsored and promoted a conference titled "Islamic Finance 101." Islamic finance is a system of banking consistent with the principles of Shariah, or Islamic law. It is becoming increasingly popular, having reached $800 billion by mid-2007 and growing at more than 15 percent each year. Wall Street now features an Islamic mutual fund and an Islamic index. However, critics claim anti-American terrorists are often financially supported through U.S. investments — creating a system by which the nation funds its own enemy. In his July 2008 essay, "Financial Jihad: What Americans Need to Know," Vice President Christopher Holton of the Center for Security Policy wrote, "America is losing the financial war on terror because Wall Street is embracing a subversive enemy ideology on one hand and providing corporate life support to state sponsors of terrorism on the other hand." Holton referred to Islamic finance, or "Shariah-Compliant Finance" as a "modern-day Trojan horse" infiltrating the U.S. He said it poses a threat to the U.S. because it seeks to legitimize Shariah — a man-made medieval doctrine that regulates every aspect of life for Muslims — and could ultimately change American life and laws. Some advocates claim Islamic finance is socially responsible because it bans investors from funding companies that sell or promote products such as alcohol, tobacco, pornography, gambling and even pork. However, many Islamic financial institutions also require industry participants to adhere to tenets of Shariah law. According to Nasser Suleiman's "Corporate Governance in Islamic Banking, "First and foremost, an Islamic organization must serve God. It must develop a distinctive corporate culture, the main purpose of which is to create a collective morality and spirituality which, when combined with the production of goods and services, sustains growth and the advancement of the Islamic way of life." Three nations that rule 100 percent by Shariah law — Iran, Saudi Arabia and Sudan — hold some of the most horrific human rights records in the world, Holton said. "This strongly suggests that Americans should strenuously resist anything associated with Shariah." Tenets of Shariah In his essay, "Islamic Finance or Financing Islamism," Alex Alexiev outlined the following tenets of Shariah taken from "The Reliance of the Traveler: The Classic Manual of Sacred Law":
'Useful idiots' Alexiev wrote that many Islamic financial institutions claim Shariah-Compliant Finance "derives its Islamic character from the strict observance of the ostensible Quranic prohibition of lending at interest, the imperative of almsgiving (zakat), avoidance of excessive uncertainty (gharar) and certain practices and products considered unlawful (haram) to Muslims ..." However, he said, "[E]ven a casual examination of the reality of Islamic finance today reveals it to be a bogus concept practiced by deceptive ploys and disingenuous means by practitioners that are or should be aware of that, but remain predictably silent." Shariah finance institutions have funded militant Islamism for more than 30 years. Alexiev cited Islamic Development Bank's hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions to Hamas in support of suicide bombing. Bank Al-Taqwa and other banks and charities run by Saudi billionaires have funded al-Qaida activities. Additionally, Shariah law mandates that Muslims donate 2.5 percent of their annual incomes to charities — including jihadists. When 400 banks regularly contribute to such charities, potential financial sums can be virtually limitless. If Western banks endorse Shariah, they will "end up becoming what Lenin called useful idiots or worse to the Islamists," Alexiev wrote. "And it is a very thin line between that and outright complicity in the Islamist agenda." Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: WHERE TO START?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 26, 2010. |
|
Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat) There are times, and this is one of them, when I feel pulled in multiple directions as I consider what to address in a particular posting. The vast number of messages I am receiving from my readers — on, indeed, a multiplicity of issues — is acknowledged here. I am certain everyone understands that it is not always possible for me to answer directly. ~~~~~~~~~~ First, an announcement with regard to the destruction of the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva at Yitzhar, which was the single focus of my last posting: American Friends for a Safe Israel (AFSI) is leading a protest on Monday, June 28, from noon to 2 PM at the Israeli Consulate at Second Avenue and 42nd Street, New York City. To dramatize this decision, a flat-truck and bulldozer will be driven south on Second Avenue to 42nd Street, in front of the Israeli Consulate. The bulldozer will be moving slowly around the block and passing in front of the Consulate as often as possible, depending on traffic. Signs and banners will emphasize that NEVER AGAIN must Israel take destructive action against its own Jews as it did five years ago in Gush Katif. Those who wish may walk along the sidewalk carrying their signs, following the bulldozer on its path and spreading the message. ~~~~~~~~~~ It is, indeed, essential that this wrong-headed decision be reversed. This is understood by all those who care about a strong and Jewish Israel. Thus I salute AFSI for its decisive action in publicizing this. And I confess to great heaviness of heart that this announcement and AFSI's action should be necessary. ~~~~~~~~~~ The Likud Central Committee met on Thursday and voted to resume construction in all parts of Israel once the 10-month freeze in Judea and Samaria expires in late September. Absent from this meeting — conspicuously so — was chairman of Likud, Binyamin Netanyahu. His public rationale is that he has already stated that building would commence at the end of the freeze, and so there was no point to be made at the meeting. Others, however, saw in this stance a deliberate attempt by the prime minister to distance himself from his party's decision. MK Danny Danon, who initiated this meeting, which had been delayed from March at Netanyahu's urging, was among those expressing great unease at his no-show position. "It's a bad sign," Danon said. "It means he is more worried about pressure from Obama than from the Likud." Netanyahu, it should be noted, is scheduled to meet with Obama on July 6. One does not have to be the diplomatic equivalent of a rocket scientist to recognize that Obama will be applying enormous pressure on Netanyahu. He'll accuse him of being a stumbling block to peace negotiations if he doesn't agree to continue the freeze before there has been progress, or just when progress is starting, or whatever. We know as well how many times Netanyahu has caved in the face of such pressure, and thus unease is justified. ~~~~~~~~~~ In an interview after the vote, Danon said that the message to the prime minister was that his party was behind him and he should be strong. The vote, he added, was also intended to deliver a message to the White House, which must respect our democracy. Minister-without portfolio Benny Begin, who did attend the meeting, noted that the freeze would end during the holiday of Sukkot, which is known as our time of joy. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to Gil Hoffman, JPost political analyst, Netanyahu let it be known among his ministers that "he would not look fondly upon their attendance." This, it seems to me, of itself puts the lie to Netanyahu's contention that he didn't need to attend because he was already committed to not extending the freeze. If this were the case, why would he care if his ministers did attend? Thus, it's worth noting the few ministers who did show up in addition to Begin: Communications Minister Moshe Kahon, who chairs the Central Committee; Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein; and Minister-without-portfolio Yossi Peled. Minister-without-portfolio Michael Eitan arrived at the end of the meeting. Where, I wonder, was Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe Ya'alon. Begin, the only minister to address the Committee, read the original Security Cabinet decision regarding the freeze, emphasizing that it said that construction would continue at the end of the 10-month freeze. Flyers distributed at the meeting by the Judea and Samaria branch of Likud featured words Netanyahu had spoken during his campaign. It included this: "The supreme test of any elected official is whether he keeps his promises to the public." Sigh... ~~~~~~~~~~ From the time of the announcement about it the other day, there were ways in which I considered what happens in Gan Hamelech, in Silwan in eastern Jerusalem — with regard to the demolition of illegal Arab housing as part of a major Jerusalem redevelopment plan — a litmus test for Netanyahu's strength and our ability to stand strong as a sovereign state. Netanyahu postponed action on this in March, because the international fuss was too great and the moment considered by him to be too sensitive. Did the mayor run this by him first now? I would suspect so, but am not certain. Will the decision hold? Don't hold your breath. ~~~~~~~~~~ When originally writing about this, I alluded to the furor that was mounting, but it has since grown greater. On Thursday, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat's office clarified a matter with regard to providing new housing for the 22 families whose illegal homes are slated to be taken down to make way for public space. Originally, it had been said that there were plans to provide such housing. Now the clarification is that private — international and specifically NGO — money will be sought for these homes, and that public money will not be used. Quite frankly, this is a relief. For there was reason to question why Jerusalem should build housing for those whose homes had been constructed illegally. Explained a spokesman for the mayor: "...I would remind you that these are 22 illegal buildings, and while the municipality is putting significant capital into the planning and zoning process, it will not be using public funds to construct residential units. Well...OK. ~~~~~~~~~~ But not OK with the secretary-general of the UN, Ban Ki-Moon. In a statement of unmitigated gall he called the plan illegal and "unhelpful to the peace process." Well, sure, because PA president Mahmoud Abbas has said that "Israeli practices in east Jerusalem hinder peace talks." In fact, they "put the peace efforts in danger." If we weren't talking about taking down illegal housing he'd be signing on the dotted line any minute now. How fortunate for Abbas that he has this excuse to fall back on. You know how ridiculous this has become? Morocco — Morocco! — issued a condemnation of the plan and urged "the major powers and the UN to immediately intervene to dissuade Israel from going ahead with this illegitimate decision and put an end to the Judaization plans in east Jerusalem." The world truly is insane, and this is nothing short of incredible. Especially since the plan does not call for the illegal Arab housing to be replaced with Jewish housing, but with public spaces — parks, etc. — that would benefit all the residents of the area, most of whom are Arab. While the evicted Arabs would have new housing with superior services, if the funds can be raised. (And believe me, there are pro-Arab Israeli NGOs that could help raise that money in a flash if they wished to help provide Arabs with housing.) Facts have nothing to do with this hysterical situation. And when I think of all the crises in the world that genuinely require international intervention, I am left breathless by this. ~~~~~~~~~~ More than ever does it seem to me that it's important to stand strong here. Watch the fireworks when Arab squatters are evicted (let us hope!) from an old Yemenite synagogue in this same area, so that it can be returned to its rightful Jewish owners — either by the police, as ordered by the court, or, if the police fail to act, by local Jewish residents, assisted by at least 10 MKs. ~~~~~~~~~~ While on the subject of Ban Ki-Moon, I would like to recommend an article, "Ban Mischief at the U.N.," by John Bolton, a true friend, clear thinker, and former US ambassador to the UN: "United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is close to making an enormously significant misjudgment about his role and authority. Mr. Ban has repeatedly called for an "international" inquiry into the May 31 clash with Israeli commandos, provoked by supporters of Hamas on a Turkish-flagged ship off the Gaza Strip, resulting in nine killed and dozens wounded. According to the media, he is seriously considering launching such an inquiry by his own personal decision. (With thanks to Marta W. on this.) I had thought Kofi Annan was deplorable and that Ban would be an improvement. Goes to show how wrong I can be. Undoubtedly a certain anti-Israel edge comes with the job. Just as significant as the error in Ban's thinking — perhaps considerably more significant — is the position of Obama on this. Americans, take note! ~~~~~~~~~~ YNet has reported that Malaysia is pushing for a discussion in the General Assembly on the flotilla incident. Another Muslim country getting into the act. General Assembly resolutions have no impact within international law, but this would bring Israel aggravation from a PR perspective, which is undoubtedly what is being sought. ~~~~~~~~~~ Let me note in passing, while on the theme of the UN, that in September Gabriela Shalev will be completing her two-year term as Israel's ambassador to the UN — a thankless job if ever there was one. She is returning to academia and there is much speculation as to who her replacement will be. ~~~~~~~~~~ I focused on the theme of the disconnect between American Jewry and Israel in a recent post. Now I am pleased to report on a new and broader mission for the Jewish Agency that has been approved unanimously by its Board of Governors, and has been announced by Chairman Natan Sharansky. While the Agency will still be devoted to its traditional task of aliyah, it will take on as part of its agenda heavy investment in providing identity-forming experiences for Israeli and Diaspora youth. Said Sharansky: "There is a time to nurture the tree and time to collect the fruits. Aliyah, support for Israel, these are the fruits. But they only come as a result of solidarity, commitment or connection of Jews to Israel. That's the tree." The Agency's new mission statement reads: "Inspire Jews throughout the world to connect with their people, heritage and land, and empower them to build a thriving Jewish future and a strong Israel." Blessings upon this venture, and may it progress well. Much is at stake. ~~~~~~~~~~ Good to end this posting on an upbeat theme. Much more to follow shortly Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
BRITISH METHODISTS SCAPEGOAT ISRAEL FOR PALESTINIAN ARABS; MUSLIMS BRING JIHAD INTO GERMANY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 26, 2010. |
|
FLOTILLA, PAKISTAN, N. KOREA IN PERPSECTIVE Both sides contributed to the flotilla imbroglio. The IDF should have known better than to land commandos in the dark on a ship sponsored by a terrorist organization, IHH. IHH had set a trap for the IDF. But the Islamists initiated the violence that led to the death of nine and the wounding both of Israelis and Islamists. That same day, Muslim gunmen stormed a hospital in Lahore, where they shot dead a dozen survivors of the terrorist attacks against two dissident mosques that had slain 93 Muslims. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights ignored the Muslim terrorist slaying of 105 Muslims in mosques and hospital, but condemned what he called "disproportionate force" by the IDF that killed and wounded people "attempting to bring much needed aid to the people of Gaza." A week earlier, North Korea sank a South Korean ship and its crew of 46. The Security Council had planned to take up a resolution against N. Korea, but deferred it to take up a condemnation of Israel. Although Egypt also maintains an embargo on Gaza, only Israel is blamed for the embargo. Suppose foreign activists and Gaza residents had stormed the Egyptian side of the border with Gaza, and attacked Egyptian troops, who, in self-defense killed nine. Would the UN have dropped major business in order to condemn Egypt? Not likely. Nor are the naïve idealists aware of Hamas' goals. Hamas has the goal of conquering Israel. That goal is more important to it than own people. For example, to make a political statement, Hamas barred the humanitarian goods once it was to be delivered via Israel (Joel Brinkley, former NY Times foreign correspondent, in Israel Behind the News, 6/24/10). The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights miscasts the flotilla as attempting to bring much needed aid. No, it was attempting to break a legal blockade, to enable Hamas to import what it wishes. Obviously Hamas would bring in heavy arms. It would produce more war and casualties. How would that serve a humanitarian purpose, as contrasted with sending humanitarian goods to Israel from trans-shipment to Gaza? Besides those reported double standards of ethics and disproportionate attention to Israel, the UN misuses the term, "disproportionate force" in support of its bias. The UN seems to use the term to mean sufficient force for Israel to prevail. Under international law, a military operation does not used "disproportionate force" if its commanders believe the operation has a significant goal that outweighs risks to civilian lives. When the enemy, in this case, Hamas, fights amid civilians, it is responsible for their casualties. Considering that the Islamists cleared the deck for combat, no civilian lives were lost on the flotilla. Considering that the Islamists had formed themselves into a mob of squads and were beating and capturing the first commandos, the IDF had to land more troops. These troops used only hand guns. The IDF did not attack anybody on other decks, and did not sink the ship, which might have been disproportionate. The reasonable military objective was to rescue the captured troops. Think of how mistreated — four years in darkness and isolation — Hamas treats the soldier it captured before! In close quarters, keeping the deaths toll to nine was an accomplishment, from the humane point of view. Ordinary crowd control methods did not work there. (For a broader perspective of Muslim terrorism against Muslims, use the same link for the 6/24 article by Ben-Dror Yemini, "Held to a Different Standard) P.S.: Some readers ask why I favor Israeli murder of civilians.
They do not cite any evidence that I favor that or that Israel does
it. Accusations against Israel I have disproved, as in my series on
the Goldstone report.
BRITISH METHODISTS SCAPEGOAT ISRAEL FOR PALESTINIAN ARABS At its annual conference, The Methodist Church of Great Britain is taking a vote on its report about the Arab-Israel conflict. An affirmative vote would commit the Church to one-sided positions on "settlements," security barrier, blockade, and to boycott goods produced by Israelis in Judea-Samaria. Uncritically accepting the false Arab narrative, the report examines Israeli actions by distorting them and ignores Arab actions. Thus the report ignores Arab attempts to destroy Israel. It assumes that further Israeli withdrawals would solve the problem, although prior Israeli withdrawals facilitated more Arab attacks. The report's obsession with Israeli violence, and its indifference to Muslim religious animosity to Israel, is not objective and not peace-making. In depicting Israel as the sole cause of wars in the Mideast, the report feeds the rising antisemitism. What else is its presumption that Jewish sovereignty is the cause of the problems? How can the Arab-Israel conflict bear on Iraq's troubles with Kuwait and insurgents? Nevertheless, the report urges an arms embargo on Israel and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), to make peace for the whole Mideast. We have gone through a similar period of seeing a victim through the enemy's eyes. Before WWII, French Socialists falsely assumed that the rest of the world is rational. They did not believe that Germany had fallen under the spell of raging fanaticism. They tried to find reasonable points in the German demands, to which they could accede and appease Germany. And so they supposed that the Nazi hatred of Jews must be deserved and not all medieval nonsense. Likewise, Western intellectuals ignored Palestinian Muslim ideology and supposed that their suicide bombing of Israelis must be a rational response. The Methodist report ignores Arab Muslim motives and misdeeds. It is as if the Arabs made no decisions and bear no responsibility for their actions and for results. [Patronizing, in a way.] The report examines Christian and Western theology on claims to territory, but not Muslim ideology. Utopian demands are made upon Israeli behavior, without regard to Arab bigotry and violence; no demands are made upon Arab behavior. Although the report mentions Israeli security concerns with terrorist attacks, the report exaggerates Jewish theological influence upon Israel and statements by an early Zionist leader as the key influence upon Israeli behavior. That is, it under-states the strain of the constant Arab attacks. It also omits popular Israeli support for negotiation and Arab rejection of negotiations, as when Arafat walked out after a new Israeli offer. Drawing upon personal contacts with Palestinian Arabs [why no contacts with Israeli Jews?], contributors to the reports extrapolate the hospitality they received into goodwill by the entire Palestinian Arab people. There is no justification for doing so. They expect their hosts to brief them objectively. What can they really expect from a people whose society indoctrinates them into the opinion that Zionism took away their country, and they must take away the Zionists'. To the writers of the report, history in 1947 involves Jewish paramilitary attacks on Arabs, as if there were no preceding Arab attacks on Jews. The report puts it, "several Arab countries attempted to intervene in support of the Palestinians." That is a whitewash. The Arab states vowed to destroy Israel. The report fails to consider what would those countries have done to the Jews, if their intervention had succeeded. [Nor did Egypt and Jordan do anything for the Palestinian Arabs they did succeed in gaining control over.] Israel is accused of having expelled 750,000 Arabs. [My sources indicate a much lower total.] To the contrary, Palestinian Arab leaders ordered their people to evacuate from all areas of fighting, especially Haifa and Jerusalem, or be considered obstacles to holy war. Jordan's army ordered Arab women and children out of Beisan. In Jaffa, even after the British forced a Jewish militia out, and in Tiberias, local Arabs organized their own evacuation. And so it went, but for a few exceptions of Israeli expulsions of Arabs for military reasons. No mention is made of Jews who lost their homes in Mandatory Palestine. Also not mentioned are the Jewish refugees from Arab states who, unlike the Arab refugees from Israel, were forced out. The Jews lost more property. Also omitted from the report is Hamas' mistreatment of Arabs, theft of their humanitarian aid, and refusal to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. The Methodist report would embolden Muslim extremists to persist in jihad (CAMERA, 6/25). Intellectuals seem peculiarly bereft of facts and logic. My non-intellectual critics denounce general presentations, without identifying errors in the presentation. They are reduced to ad hominem attacks and name-calling and asserting that Israel is just as bad.
BBC'S BIASED REPORT ON ISRAELI INDEPENDENCE DAY To supplement the prior article, here is a recent analysis of last month's BBC report on Israeli Independence Day, a report typified by the same kinds of one-sided omissions as the Methodist report. First of all, the BBC did not discuss Israeli independence. It discussed only the Arab day of mourning in reaction to it. The BBC featured Claudette Habesch as a witness to dispossession. It failed to advise viewers that she is a "media-savvy, forceful advocate for Palestinian" Arab causes, an executive who engages in strident "anti-Israel polemics." Thus she recently accused Israel of a "massacre of the Palestinian people." She omits Muslim persecution of her fellow Christian Arabs, who are fleeing Muslim rule but growing in number in Israel, where they are not persecuted. Mrs. Habesch asks, how could she have lost her (rented) home? BBC fails to explain that if the Arabs had accepted the UN partition resolution, and had not made an illegal war on Israel, there would have been no Arab refugees. The resulting misery for both sides is the Arabs' fault. Like the Methodist report, the BBC film falsely claims that Israel expelled the Arabs, and fails to explain that the Arab states did expel Jews and in greater numbers. Half of the Arabs fled between November, 1947, when the Arabs responded to the UN partition plan with violence against Jews, and May, 1948, when Arab armies invaded. Most of the Arabs fled because they followed the example set by their elite, 20,000 of whom had evacuated before any fighting, or because they wanted to escape the battlefield or the coming battlefield, or because their leaders and foreign Arab leaders demanded it or else. Both Israeli leaders and British commanders urged the Arabs to stay. [My source fails to grasp the significance of the fact that half the Arabs fled so early. That early flight came when Israel was losing the war. Apparently that preceded unification of Israeli militias and absorption of Czech arms. Israel started the war with few effective troops and poorly armed ones. My host in Haifa told me that he got off the ship as an immigrant, was sent to the front, and was told to run alongside Israeli soldiers so if one fell, the immigrant would acquire a rifle. The significance of the early flight is that Israeli forces did not then have the power for compel a mass-flight.] BBC has revisionist historian Tom Segev claim that half the Arab refugees had been expelled. He has no evidence for it and for his claim that Zionist leaders thought there was no room for both peoples. Historian Ephraim Karsh cites a letter from Ben-Gurion to his son mentioning there is room for both. [Many Zionist leaders said the same thing and urged the Arabs to live in peace with them.] Omitted by BBC was the Arab perpetuation of the refugee condition that other groups of refugees from the same period resolved long ago. Also omitted was Arab inculcation of hatred of Jews (CAMERA, 6/24)
MUSLIMS BRING JIHAD INTO GERMANY
A Jewish dance group, Chaverim, started to perform at a street festival in Hanover Germany, to perform. Youths threw stones at them, injuring one, and called out, "Juden Raus," meaning Jews out.
Police arrested half a dozen suspects, five of whom were Muslim immigrants. The suspects ranged in age from 9 to 19. How young they get radicalized! (Maayana Miskin, Arutz-7, 6/25/10).
LEBANON CLAIMS ISRAEL'S NEW GAS FIELD Recently, natural gas was discovered in the Mediterranean Sea 50 miles west of Haifa. According to Israel, that is within its economic zone. Lebanon, however, claims the gas field as off its coast [but not if due West of Haifa]. Hizbullah said it would insist on Lebanon's rights. Israel's Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau said that Israel would defend its resources, according to the rule of law and maritime law. He pointed out that wherever the gas was, Lebanon would claim it. The problem is that Lebanon does not recognize the legality of Israel, he explained (Arutz-7, 6/25/10). Min. Landau bases his observation of other claims by Lebanon. I find Lebanon's claims to be pretexts for continuing war and for Hizbullah to retain its militia. When I reported the find, a reader claimed that Israel was stealing the gas from the Palestinian Arabs. Haifa is not near Gaza. There is gas off the coast of Gaza; Israel's government did not claim it for itself. Since the Palestinian Authority does not have the sovereignty with which to claim it, was the government right to relinquish a claim to it?
ISLAMIC DRESS DANGEROUS OR TOLERABLE IN WEST? n a Port Stephens, Australia Go-Karts, the rules for safe dress did not exclude Islamic dress. A Muslim women was killed there when her head covering snagged in her moving axle. The place was closed [at least for a time]. In a Perth, Australia amusement park, the rules for safe dress did exclude Islamic dress from the pool. The concern there was that such clothing could snag in the joints of the slide; clothing would require more sterilization. Refused entry into the pool for violating that safe dress code, a Muslim woman sued and won a settlement sum. Whatever a theme park does, it gets into trouble. It is time that Western countries figure out a reasonable solution. A standard suggested by Daniel Pipes is "rights for all and special privileges for none." Let Muslim dress be used except for matters of safety, security, legal proceedings, and education (David J. Rusin, 6/25/10).
ISRAEL: NO EXCUSE FOR IRANIAN FLOTILLA Israel's PM Netanyahu said that Iran has no excuse for sending a flotilla to Gaza. [He must have been referring to Israel's agreement to let all non-militarily usable goods through, inspecting to make sure they are not militarily usable.] Therefore, the reason they still send a flotilla must be to break down the military inspection part of the blockade, so they can ship missiles to Gaza. That is not humanitarian but for war, Netanyahu pointed out. These flotillas are organized not by supporters of peace but by opponents of peace, Netanyahu said. They cynically put women aboard, but their own regime does not allow women to dress, work, or express themselves freely. They are exploiting women for propaganda. Challenging the supposed humanitarians, Netanyahu said, "I call on all the human rights and peace activists in the enlightened world — go to the places where they oppress women, go to the places where they hang homosexuals and deny rights to minorities, go to places where there is no freedom of speech, no press freedom, no independent courts of law, no human rights organizations. Go to Tehran." (IMRA, 6/25/10).
ASSAD DEMANDS THAT LEBANESE LEADERS MEET WITH HIM Syria's President Assad demands that Lebanese Party leaders confer with him. A French mission studying France-Syria relations criticized such meetings as weakening Lebanon. President Suleiman of Lebanon said that only official representatives of the two countries should consult with each other. Observing that Syria is stronger than Lebanon and historically influences a major segment of Syria, Suleiman cautioned that Syria should not use that influence against Lebanon (IMRA, 6/25/10). But that's how Assad can give Lebanese leaders their marching orders. The U.S. requires of its own citizens that they let the country's official representatives conduct foreign policy for the government.
GAZA-BOUND SHIPS BARRED FROM CYPRUS PORTS Lebanon wants to send a ship to Gaza by way of Cyprus. Cyprus Foreign Minister Marcos Kyprianou, however, reminds Lebanon that Cyprus does not allow such ships to stop at Cyprus. As for the marines that Iran had said it would station on the new flotilla, Iran withdrew the notion (IMRA, 6/25/10).
UAE ENFORCING UN SANCTIONS ON IRAN 
As expected, the U.S. Congress authorized more sanctions on Iran. Now the UAE has begun enforcing UN sanctions on Iran. The government closed 40 international and local firms violating the sanctions. Those companies shipped to Iran contraband and banned dual use goods. They also deal with Iran's Revolutionary Guards. About 400,000 Iranians "are based" in Iran
(IMRA, 6/25/10).
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
A LETTER TO HANIN ZUABI, ISRAELI MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT, WHO WAS ON THE FLOTILLA
Posted by Susana K-M, June 26, 2010. |
|
This comes from the Take A Pen Organization; their website is at
Background: Hanin Zuabi describes herself as a 'liberal Palestinian woman and a Knesset member.' She participated in the Gaza Flotilla. The Knesset voted to strip her of three parlimentarian privileges. Zuabi saw this rebuke as racist. The Knesset saw her action as identifying with the enemy while serving in the Israeli parliament. |
|
Miss Zuabi, First and foremost "chapeau" for a very effective P.R. I must admit: I didn't know of your existence until the flotilla provocation. In fact I still don't know anything about you but almost everyone in the country knows of you and that is quite an achievement! Please allow me then to ask you: Besides of fame, what were you trying to achieve? You know, as well as we all do, that there is no shortage of food in Gaza, or any other commodities for that matter. Yes, alas, there is a constant shortage of ammunition or materials that could be used in the production of weapons, and so it should remain! Gaza needs no protection! Gaza is not under attack! On the contrary, Gaza is a nasty aggressor who for years has been rocketing civilians on a daily basis! (never heard you comment on that!). Let's be honest: You did not truly believe that the flotilla was going anywhere! So, what were you thinking when you saw all those hooligans armed with knives and clubs and hatchets, that kept your company aboard the ship? That it was a masquerade ball? Did it occur to you that, as Israel's Parliament Member you should have warned our army of what awaits our soldiers aboard? Did you try to stop that outburst of violence? What did you expect would happen? That maybe like the "Sarajevo Assassination" that ignited 1st World War, your flotilla will ignite the Middle East? And then what? Let's try to understand your logic: You feel frustrated, bitter, discriminated, you believe that the regime in Israel is oppressing and ruthless and should be overthrown. Do you have any idea at all what awaits you personally should your aspirations God forbid, be realized? Do you think that in a regime controlled by Hamas or Hezbollah or Al-Qaeda or Taliban, women have any rights? Particularly independent ambitious women? What about nine year old girls? You may not have children of your own, how about little nieces? Can you imagine life in a regime where any dirty old man can purchase himself a nine year old girl and penetrate her vagina? And appalling as it may sound it would be legal and lawful and even encouraged!!! Did you think of that Miss Zuabi? Do you have any idea what oppressing tyranny is really like? Did you know that the Islamic revolution in Iran was enthusiastically supported by the intellectuals? Who, like you, considered the Shah's regime an oppressing tyranny that should be overthrown? Try to find out what they think today (Those who survived...as most of them didn't!!). Ask them about life in the Islamic Republic, about freedom, about human rights, about women's rights. I suggest you read "Reading Lolita in Teheran" by Azar Nafisi, or "A thousand Shining Suns" by Haled Husseini, or "Not without My Daughter" by Betty Mahmudi. Did you ever wonder why all the so called Arab countries in which over a billion Muslims live are all defined as "3rd world countries"? Did you ever wonder why although the Shiite leaders condemn western culture as blasphemous and decadent, for their billion subjects the "west" is a desired immigration target? Did you ever wonder why all those who apply for Family Reunion wish for it to be in Israel and not in Gaza, or "Palestine" or Syria? Is it because of our standard of living? Or our human rights and freedom? Or our social and health security? So maybe, after all, we are not that evil ! Mentioning Palestine and Palestinians: Have you ever wondered whatever happened to the hundreds of millions (yes! Hundreds of millions!!!) refugees scattered all over Europe during and following 2nd World War? Entire cities were bombarded and destroyed! Dozens of millions of homes ruined! About fifty million lives lost, twice as many wounded and crippled! Hundreds of millions found themselves away from home, out of their countries! So, where are they? They couldn't have vanished! No! They did vanish! They were rehabilitated!!! That is the answer of the "blasphemous" "decadent" west to refugee issues! Any refugees! And indeed the "west" poured incredible amounts of money in order to rehabilitate the Palestinian refugees, not knowing or refusing to acknowledge that the Palestinian leaders had no interest in solving the refugee issue! On the contrary, they did everything within their power in order to p r e s e r v e it! At the same time, they did like the idea of the money, so they preserved that too! Very carefully, in their (not so little) own private bank accounts! In other words, Miss Zuabi, The solution does not lie in destroying Israel and replacing its free democratic regime with an extreme Islamic one. Should that, God forbid, happen, you may enjoy, for a split second, the sweet taste of profound satisfaction, and the next split second you will watch not only your privileges being taken away from you, but all your basic human rights! The Shariah Law does not acknowledge human rights, let alone women's rights: Women are men's property to be treated as they please! But you must know that .... No, Miss Zuabi, destruction is never a solution! Your solution lies in Education, and more education!!! Not brain wash!!! Not that childish nonsense about Paradise with it's seventy virgins (In any event not meant for you ...) Real free plural western — yes, Western — education that will raise free, moral decent human beings, capable of standing up for their rights without the use of knives and clubs, aware of their duties and place in society. Miss Zuabi, I so much hope that the day will not come, when from the depth of an open grave into which our bodies would be thrown, I will whisper to you: " I t o l d y o u u u u u ....." Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
PALESTINIAN ARABS ARE NOT OCCUPIED
Posted by Israel Zwick, June 25, 2010. |
|
As the US is struggling to advance the "peace process," there are three words that are wholly responsible for impeding the development of peaceful relations between Israel and its Arab population. These words are: "Occupied Palestinian Territory." These pernicious words have led many in the world to believe that Jews came to Palestine after World War II, drove out the indigenous Arab population, and have continued to occupy their lands. Until this malicious fabrication is dismissed and the international community acknowledges that Jews are indigenous to the region and have every legitimate right to reclaim and settle land anywhere within the borders of the former British Palestine Mandate, there will never be peace between Israel and the Arab population. |
|
Occupied Palestinian Territory" originated. Excerpts from Wikipedia explain how the erroneous term "Occupied Palestinian Territory" originated.
Occupied territory is territory under military occupation. Occupation is a term of art in international law; in accordance with Article 42 of the Laws and Customs of War on Land (Fourth Hague Convention); October 18, 1907,[1] territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised. At the end of a war, usually the victorious side is in possession of territory previously possessed by another state. This territory is known as occupied territory. Acquisition of occupied territory is incidental to a war, where the military forces of the occupying power come into the possession of territory previously held by another state. Occupation is usually temporary; and under the subsequent articles of the Hague convention (articles 43, 44, and etc.), and the Fourth Geneva Convention the status quo must be maintained pending the signing of a peace treaty, the resolution of specific conditions outlined in a peace treaty, or the formation of a new civilian government.[2] Examples of occupied territory include Germany and Japan by the Allies in the aftermath of World War II; Cambodia by Vietnam from 1979 until 1989; Iraq by the United States and its allies after the 2003 invasion, and the territories occupied by Israel after the Six-Day War of 1967. The Israeli-occupied territories are the territories which have been designated as occupied territory by many international organisations, governments and others to refer to the territory captured by Israel from Egypt, Jordan, and Syria during the Six-Day War of 1967. They consist of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip and much of the Golan Heights and, until 1982, the Sinai Peninsula. The West Bank and Gaza Strip are also referred to as Palestinian territories or Occupied Palestinian Territory. Palestinian Authority and numerous international bodies consider East Jerusalem to be part of the West Bank, a position disputed by Israel. Israeli position The use of the terms "occupied" for these territories has been disputed. Paul S. Riebenfeld, an international lawyer, who represented Jewish interests at the League of Nations, argued that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip do not belong to any other sovereign state, are part of former Mandate Palestine, and therefore fall legitimately within Israel's jurisdiction. Whether or not Israel still occupies the Gaza Strip, following its unilateral disengagement from there, assuming it can even be considered that it "occupied" it in the first place, is disputed The above excerpts are from Wikipedia. Though the following articles are old, they are still relevant, perhaps more today more than when they were written, as history becomes more distorted with time. Commentary; New York; Jul/Aug 2002; Efraim Karsh; Abstract:
What Occupation? NO TERM has dominated the discourse of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict more than "occupation." For decades now, hardly a day has passed without some mention in the international media of Israel's supposedly illegitimate presence on Palestinian lands. This presence is invoked to explain the origins and persistence of the conflict between the parties, to show Israel's allegedly brutal and repressive nature, and to justify the worst anti-Israel terrorist atrocities. The occupation, in short, has become a catchphrase, and like many catchphrases it means different things to different people. For most Western observers, the term "occupation" describes Israel's control of the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, areas that it conquered during the Six-Day war of June 1967. But for many Palestinians and Arabs, the Israeli presence in these territories represents only the latest chapter in an uninterrupted story of "occupations" dating back to the very creation of Israel on "stolen" land. If you go looking for a book about Israel in the foremost Arab bookstore on London's Charing Cross Road, you will find it in the section labeled "Occupied Palestine." That this is the prevailing view not only among Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza but among Palestinians living within Israel itself as well as elsewhere around the world is shown by the routine insistence on a Palestinian "right of return" that is meant to reverse the effects of the "1948 occupation" — i.e., the establishment of the state of Israel itself. Palestinian intellectuals routinely blur any distinction between Israel's actions before and after 1967. Writing recently in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, the prominent Palestinian cultural figure Jacques Persiqian told his Jewish readers that today's terrorist attacks were "what you have brought upon yourselves after 54 years of systematic oppression of another people"-a historical accounting that, going back to 1948, calls into question not Israel's presence in the West Bank and Gaza but its very legitimacy as a state. Hanan Ashrawi, the most articulate exponent of the Palestinian cause, has been even more forthright in erasing the line between post-1967 and pre-1967 "occupations." "I come to you today with a heavy heart," she told the now-infamous World Conference Against Racism in Durban last summer, "leaving behind a nation in captivity held hostage to an ongoing naqba [catastrophe]": In 1948, we became subject to a grave historical injustice manifested in a dual victimization: on the one hand, the injustice of dispossession, dispersion, and exile forcibly enacted on the population .... On the other hand, those who remained were subjected to the systematic oppression and brutality of an inhuman occupation that robbed them of all their rights and liberties. Taken together, the charges against Israel's various "occupations" represent-and are plainly intended to be-a damning indictment of the entire Zionist enterprise. In almost every particular, they are also grossly false.
IN 1948, no Palestinian state was invaded or destroyed to make way for the establishment of Israel. From biblical times, when this territory was the state of the Jews, to its occupation by the British army at the end of World War I, Palestine had never existed as a distinct political entity but was rather part of one empire after another, from the Romans, to the Arabs, to the Ottomans. When the British arrived in 1917, the immediate loyalties of the area's inhabitants were parochial-to clan, tribe, village, town, or religious sect — and coexisted with their fealty to the Ottoman sultan — caliph as the religious and temporal head of the world Muslim community. Under a League of Nations mandate explicitly meant to pave the way for the creation of a Jewish national home, the British established the notion of an independent Palestine for the first time and delineated its boundaries. In 1947, confronted with a determined Jewish struggle for independence, Britain returned the mandate to the League's successor, the United Nations, which in turn decided on November 29, 1947, to partition mandatory Palestine into two states: one Jewish, the other Arab. The state of Israel was thus created by an internationally recognized act of national self-determination-an act, moreover, undertaken by an ancient people in its own homeland. In accordance with common democratic practice, the Arab population in the new state's midst was immediately recognized as a legitimate ethnic and religious minority. As for the prospective Arab state, its designated territory was slated to include, among other areas, the two regions under contest today-namely, Gaza and the West Bank (with the exception of Jerusalem, which was to be placed under international control). As is well known, the implementation of the UN's partition plan was aborted by the effort of the Palestinians and of the surrounding Arab states to destroy the Jewish state at birth. What is less well known is that even if the Jews had lost the war, their territory would not have been handed over to the Palestinians. Rather, it would have been divided among the invading Arab forces, for the simple reason that none of the region's Arab regimes viewed the Palestinians as a distinct nation. As the eminent Arab-American historian Philip Hitti described the common Arab view to an Anglo-American commission of inquiry in 1946, "There is no such thing as Palestine in history, absolutely not." This fact was keenly recognized by the British authorities on the eve of their departure. As one official observed in mid-December 1947, "it does not appear that Arab Palestine will be an entity, but rather that the Arab countries will each claim a portion in return for their assistance [in the war against Israel], unless [Transjordan's] King Abdallah takes rapid and firm action as soon as the British withdrawal is completed." A couple of months later, the British high commissioner for Palestine, General Sir Alan Cunningham, informed the colonial secretary, Arthur Creech Jones, that "the most likely arrangement seems to be Eastern Galilee to Syria, Samaria and Hebron to Abdallah, and the south to Egypt."
THE BRITISH proved to be prescient. Neither Egypt nor Jordan ever allowed Palestinian self-determination in Gaza and the West Bank — which were, respectively, the parts of Palestine conquered by them during the 1948-49 war. Indeed, even UN Security Council Resolution 242, which after the Six-Day war of 1967 established the principle of "land for peace" as the cornerstone of future Arab-Israeli peace negotiations, did not envisage the creation of a Palestinian state. To the contrary: since the Palestinians were still not viewed as a distinct nation, it was assumed that any territories evacuated by Israel, would be returned to their pre-1967 Arab occupiers-Gaza to Egypt, and the West Bank to Jordan. The resolution did not even mention the Palestinians by name, affirming instead the necessity "for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem"-a clause that applied not just to the Palestinians but to the hundreds of thousands of Jews expelled from the Arab states following the 1948 war. At this time — we are speaking of the late 1960's — Palestinian nationhood was rejected by the entire international community, including the Western democracies, the Soviet Union (the foremost supporter of radical Arabism), and the Arab world itself. "Moderate" Arab rulers like the Hashemites in Jordan viewed an independent Palestinian state as a mortal threat to their own kingdom, while the Saudis saw it as a potential source of extremism and instability. Pan-Arab nationalists were no less adamantly opposed, having their own purposes in mind for the region. As late as 1974, Syrian President Hafez alAssad openly referred to Palestine as "not only a part of the Arab homeland but a basic part of southern Syria"; there is no reason to think he had changed his mind by the time of his death in 2000. Nor, for that matter, did the populace of the West Bank and Gaza regard itself as a distinct nation. The collapse and dispersion of Palestinian society following the 1948 defeat had shattered an always fragile communal fabric, and the subsequent physical separation of the various parts of the Palestinian diaspora prevented the crystallization of a national identity. Host Arab regimes actively colluded in discouraging any such sense from arising. Upon occupying the West Bank during the 1948 war, King Abdallah had moved quickly to erase all traces of corporate Palestinian identity. On April 4, 1950, the territory was formally annexed to Jordan, its residents became Jordanian citizens, and they were increasingly integrated into the kingdom's economic, political, and social structures. For its part, the Egyptian government showed no desire to annex the Gaza Strip but had instead ruled the newly acquired area as an occupied military zone. This did not imply support of Palestinian nationalism, however, or of any sort of collective political awareness among the Palestinians. The local population was kept under tight control, was denied Egyptian citizenship, and was subjected to severe restrictions on travel.
WHAT, THEN, of the period after 1967, when these territories passed into the hands of Israel? Is it the case that Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have been the victims of the most "varied, diverse, and comprehensive means of wholesale brutalization and persecution" ever devised by the human mind? At the very least, such a characterization would require a rather drastic downgrading of certain other well-documented 20th-century phenomena, from the slaughter of Armenians during World War I and onward through a grisly chronicle of tens upon tens of millions murdered, driven out, crushed under the heels of despots. By stark contrast, during the three decades of Israel's control, far fewer Palestinians were killed at Jewish hands than by King Hussein of Jordan in the single month of September 1970 when, fighting off an attempt by Yasir Arafat's PLO to destroy his monarchy, he dispatched (according to the Palestinian scholar Yezid Sayigh) between 3,000 and 5,000 Palestinians, among them anywhere from 1,500 to 3,500 civilians. Similarly, the number of innocent Palestinians killed by their Kuwaiti hosts in the winter of 1991, in revenge for the PLO's support for Saddam Hussein's brutal occupation of Kuwait, far exceeds the number of Palestinian rioters and terrorists who lost their lives in the first intifada against Israel during the late 1980's. Such crude comparisons aside, to present the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as "systematic oppression" is itself the inverse of the truth. It should be recalled, first of all, that this occupation did not come about as a consequence of some grand expansionist design, but rather was incidental to Israel's success against a pan-Arab attempt to destroy it. Upon the outbreak of IsraeliEgyptian hostilities on June 5, 1967, the Israeli government secretly pleaded with King Hussein of Jordan, the de-facto ruler of the West Bank, to forgo any military action; the plea was rebuffed by the Jordanian monarch, who was loathe to lose the anticipated spoils of what was to be the Arabs' "final round" with Israel. Thus it happened that, at the end of the conflict, Israel unexpectedly found itself in control of some one million Palestinians, with no definite idea about their future status and lacking any concrete policy for their administration. In the wake of the war, the only objective adopted by then-Minister of Defense Moshe Dayan was to preserve normalcy in the territories through a mixture of economic inducements and a minimum of Israeli intervention. The idea was that the local populace would be given the freedom to administer itself as it wished, and would be able to maintain regular contact with the Arab world via the Jordan River bridges. In sharp contrast with, for example, the U.S. occupation of postwar Japan, which saw a general censorship of all Japanese media and a comprehensive revision of school curricula, Israel made no attempt to reshape Palestinian culture. It limited its oversight of the Arabic press in the territories to military and security matters, and allowed the continued use in local schools of Jordanian textbooks filled with vile anti-Semitic and anti-Israel propaganda. Israel's restraint in this sphere — which turned out to be desperately misguided — is only part of the story. The larger part, still untold in all its detail, is of the astounding social and economic progress made by the Palestinian Arabs under Israeli "oppression." At the inception of the occupation, conditions in the territories were quite dire. Life expectancy was low; malnutrition, infectious diseases, and child mortality were rife; and the level of education was very poor. Prior to the 1967 war, fewer than 60 percent of all male adults had been employed, with unemployment among refugees running as high as 83 percent. Within a brief period after the war, Israeli occupation had led to dramatic improvements in general well-being, placing the population of the territories ahead of most of their Arab neighbors. In the economic sphere, most of this progress was the result of access to the far larger and more advanced Israeli economy: the number of Palestinians working in Israel rose from zero in 1967 to 66,000 in 1975 and 109,000 by 1986, accounting for 35 percent of the employed population of the West Bank and 45 percent in Gaza. Close to 2,000 industrial plants, employing almost half of the work force, were established in the territories under Israeli rule. During the 1970's, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world-ahead of such "wonders" as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Although GNP per capita grew somewhat more slowly, the rate was still high by international standards, with per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan's $1,050, Egypt's $600, Turkey's $1,630, and Tunisia's $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria's, more than four times Yemen's, and 10 percent higher than Jordan's (one of the betteroff Arab states). Only the oil-rich Gulf states and Lebanon were more affluent. Under Israeli rule, the Palestinians also made vast progress in social welfare. Perhaps most significantly, mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000 (compared with an average of 68 years for all the countries of the Middle East and North Africa). Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (in Iraq the rate is 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22). And under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated. No less remarkable were advances in the Palestinians' standard of living. By 1986, 92.8 percent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza had electricity around the clock, as compared to 20.5 percent in 1967; 85 percent had running water in dwellings, as compared to 16 percent in 1967; 83.5 percent had electric or gas ranges for cooking, as compared to 4 percent in 1967; and so on for refrigerators, televisions, and cars. Finally, and perhaps most strikingly, during the two decades preceding the intifada of the late 1980's, the number of schoolchildren in the territories grew by 102 percent, and the number of classes by 99 percent, though the population itself had grown by only 28 percent. Even more dramatic was the progress in higher education. At the time of the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, not a single university existed in these territories. By the early 1990's, there were seven such institutions, boasting some 16,500 students. Illiteracy rates dropped to 14 percent of adults over age 15, compared with 69 percent in Morocco, 61 percent in Egypt, 45 percent in Tunisia, and 44 percent in Syria.
ALL THIS, as I have noted, took place against the backdrop of Israel's hands-off policy in the political and administrative spheres. Indeed, even as the PLO (until 1982 headquartered in Lebanon and thereafter in Tunisia) proclaimed its ongoing commitment to the destruction of the Jewish state, the Israelis did surprisingly little to limit its political influence in the territories. The publication of proPLO editorials was permitted in the local press, and anti-Israel activities by PLO supporters were tolerated so long as they did not involve overt incitements to violence. Israel also allowed the free flow of PLO-controlled funds, a policy justified by Minister of Defense Ezer Weizmann in 1978 in these (deluded) words: "It does not matter that they get money from the PLO, as long as they don't build arms factories with it." Nor, with very few exceptions, did Israel encourage the formation of Palestinian political institutions that might serve as a counterweight to the PLO. As a result, the PLO gradually established itself as the predominant force in the territories, relegating the pragmatic traditional leadership to the fringes of the political system.* Given the extreme and even self-destructive leniency of Israel's administrative policies, what seems remarkable is that it took as long as it did for the PLO to entice the residents of the West Bank and Gaza into a popular struggle against the Jewish state. Here Israel's counterinsurgency measures must be given their due, as well as the low level of national consciousness among the Palestinians and the sheer rapidity and scope of the improvements in their standard of living. The fact remains, however, that during the two-and-a-half decades from the occupation of the territories to the onset of the Oslo peace process in 1993, there was very little "armed resistance," and most terrorist attacks emanated from outside-from Jordan in the late 1960's, then from Lebanon. In an effort to cover up this embarrassing circumstance, Fatah, the PLO's largest constituent organization, adopted the slogan that "there is no difference between inside and outside." But there was a difference, and a rather fundamental one. By and large, the residents of the territories wished to get on with their lives and take advantage of the opportunities afforded by Israeli rule. Had the West Bank eventually been returned to Jordan, its residents, all of whom had been Jordanian citizens before 1967, might well have reverted to that status. Alternatively, had Israel prevented the spread of the PLO's influence in the territories, a local leadership, better attuned to the real interests and desires of the people and more amenable to peaceful coexistence with Israel, might have emerged. But these things were not to be. By the mid1970's, the PLO had made itself into the "sole representative of the Palestinian people," and in short order Jordan and Egypt washed their hands of the West Bank and Gaza. Whatever the desires of the people living in the territories, the PLO had vowed from the moment of its founding in the mid1960's-well before the Six-Day war-to pursue its "revolution until victory," that is, until the destruction of the Jewish state. Once its position was secure, it proceeded to do precisely that.
BY THE mid-1990's, thanks to Oslo, the PLO had achieved a firm foothold in the West Bank and Gaza. Its announced purpose was to lay the groundwork for Palestinian statehood but its real purpose was to do what it knew best-namely, create an extensive terrorist infrastructure and use it against its Israeli "peace partner." At first it did this tacitly, giving a green light to other terrorist organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad; then it operated openly and directly. But what did all this have to do with Israel's "occupation"? The declaration signed on the White House lawn in 1993 by the PLO and the Israeli government provided for Palestinian self-rule in the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip for a transitional period not to exceed five years, during which Israel and the Palestinians would negotiate a permanent peace settlement. During this interim period the territories would be administered by a Palestinian Council, to be freely and democratically elected after the withdrawal of Israeli military forces both from the Gaza Strip and from the populated areas of the West Bank. By May 1994, Israel had completed its withdrawal from the Gaza Strip (apart from a small stretch of territory containing Israeli settlements) and the Jericho area of the West Bank. On July 1, Yasir Arafat made his triumphant entry into Gaza. On September 28, 1995, despite Arafat's abysmal failure to clamp down on terrorist activities in the territories now under his control, the two parties signed an interim agreement, and by the end of the year Israeli forces had been withdrawn from the West Bank's populated areas with the exception of Hebron (where redeployment was completed in early 1997). On January 20, 1996, elections to the Palestinian Council were held, and shortly afterward both the Israeli civil administration and military government were dissolved. The geographical scope of these Israeli withdrawals was relatively limited; the surrendered land amounted to some 30 percent of the West Bank's overall territory. But its impact on the Palestinian population was nothing short of revolutionary. At one fell swoop, Israel relinquished control over virtually all of the West Bank's 1.4 million residents. Since that time, nearly 60 percent of them-in the Jericho area and in the seven main cities of Jenin, Nablus, Tulkarm, Qalqilya, Ramallah, Bethlehem, and Hebron-have lived entirely under Palestinian jurisdiction. Another 40 percent live in towns, villages, refugee camps, and hamlets where the Palestinian Authority exercises civil authority but, in line with the Oslo accords, Israel has maintained "overriding responsibility for security." Some two percent of the West Bank's population-tens of thousands of Palestinians-continue to live in areas where Israel has complete control, but even there the Palestinian Authority maintains "functional jurisdiction." In short, since the beginning of 1996, and certainly following the completion of the redeployment from Hebron in January 1997, 99 percent of the Palestinian population of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have not lived under Israeli occupation. By no conceivable stretching of words can the anti-Israel violence emanating from the territories during these years be made to qualify as resistance to foreign occupation. In these years there has been no such occupation.
IF THE stubborn persistence of Palestinian terrorism is not attributable to the continuing occupation, many of the worst outrages against Israeli civilians likewise occurred-contrary to the mantra of Palestinian spokesmen and their apologists-not at moments of breakdown in the Oslo "peace process" but at its high points, when the prospect of Israeli withdrawal appeared brightest and most imminent. Suicide bombings, for example, were introduced in the atmosphere of euphoria only a few months after the historic Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House lawn: eight people were murdered in April 1994 while riding a bus in the town of Afula. Six months later, 21 Israelis were murdered on a bus in Tel Aviv. In the following year, five bombings took the lives of a further 38 Israelis. During the short-lived government of the dovish Shimon Peres (November 1995-May 1996), after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, 58 Israelis were murdered within the span of one week in three suicide bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Further disproving the standard view is the fact that terrorism was largely curtailed following Benjamin Netanyahu's election in May 1996 and the consequent slowdown in the Oslo process. During Netanyahu's three years in power, some 50 Israelis were murdered in terrorist attacks-a third of the casualty rate during the Rabin government and a sixth of the casualty rate during Peres's term. There was a material side to this downturn in terrorism as well. Between 1994 and 1996, the Rabin and Peres governments had imposed repeated closures on the territories in order to stem the tidal wave of terrorism in the wake of the Oslo accords. This had led to a steep drop in the Palestinian economy. With workers unable to get into Israel, unemployment rose sharply, reaching as high as 50 percent in Gaza. The movement of goods between Israel and the territories, as well as between the West Bank and Gaza, was seriously disrupted, slowing exports and discouraging potential private investment. The economic situation in the territories began to improve during the term of the Netanyahu government, as the steep fall in terrorist attacks led to a corresponding decrease in closures. Real GNP per capita grew by 3.5 percent in 1997, 7.7 percent in 1998, and 3.5 percent in 1999, while unemployment was more than halved. By the beginning of 1999, according to the World Bank, the West Bank and Gaza had fully recovered from the economic decline of the previous years. Then, in still another turnabout, came Ehud Barak, who in the course of a dizzying six months in late 2000 and early 2001 offered Yasir Arafat a complete end to the Israeli presence, ceding virtually the entire West Bank and the Gaza Strip to the nascent Palestinian state together with some Israeli territory, and making breathtaking concessions over Israel's capital city of Jerusalem. To this, however, Arafat's response was war. Since its launch, the Palestinian campaign has inflicted thousands of brutal attacks on Israeli civilians-suicide bombings, drive-by shootings, stabbings, lynching, stonings-murdering more than 500 and wounding some 4,000. In the entire two decades of Israeli occupation preceding the Oslo accords, some 400 Israelis were murdered; since the conclusion of that "peace" agreement, twice as many have lost their lives in terrorist attacks. If the occupation was the cause of terrorism, why was terrorism sparse during the years of actual occupation, why did it increase dramatically with the prospect of the end of the occupation, and why did it escalate into open war upon Israel's most far-reaching concessions ever? To the contrary, one might argue with far greater plausibility that the absence of occupation-that is, the withdrawal of close Israeli surveillance-is precisely what facilitated the launching of the terrorist war in the first place. There are limits to Israel's ability to transform a virulent enemy into a peace partner, and those limits have long since been reached. To borrow from Baruch Spinoza, peace is not the absence of war but rather a state of mind: a disposition to benevolence, confidence, and justice. From the birth of the Zionist movement until today, that disposition has remained conspicuously absent from the mind of the Palestinian leadership. It is not the 1967 occupation that led to the Palestinians' rejection of peaceful coexistence and their pursuit of violence. Palestinian terrorism started well before 1967, and continued-and intensified-after the occupation ended in all but name. Rather, what is at fault is the perduring Arab view that the creation of the Jewish state was itself an original act of "inhuman occupation" with which compromise of any final kind is beyond the realm of the possible. Until that disposition changes, which is to say until a different leadership arises, the idea of peace in the context of the Arab Middle East will continue to mean little more than the continuation of war by other means. [Author note] EFRAIM KARSH is head of Mediterranean studies at Kings College, University of London. His articles in Commentary include "Israel's War" (April 2002) and "The Palestinians and the `Right of Return"' (May 2001). The following is reprinted from Palestine Facts http://palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_ territories_occupied_or_not.php ISRAEL 1967-1991, OCCUPIED TERRITORIES?
Are the West Bank and Gaza "occupied territories" as Palestinain Arabs assert?
As a result of the Six Day War, Israel gained all of Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Sinai, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank (historically known as Judea and Samaria). Palestinian Arabs often insist on using the term "occupied territories" to describe these areas, usually connected to the assertion that they fall under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. Yet, Palestinian spokesmen also speak about Israeli military action in Area A as an invasion, an infringement on Palestinian sovereignty. The use of both forms of terminology is a contradiction. If Israel "invaded Palestinian territories" in the present, then they cannot be regarded as "occupied"; however, if the territories are defined as "occupied," Israel cannot be "invading" them.
Israeli legal experts traditionally resisted efforts to define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied" or falling under the main international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention:
In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain and Pakistan and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.
International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of "aggressive conquest" and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former US State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case:
Israel only entered the West Bank in 1967 after repeated Jordanian artillery fire and ground movements across the previous armistice lines; additionally, Iraqi forces crossed Jordanian territory and were poised to enter the West Bank. Under such circumstances, even the United Nations rejected Soviet efforts to have Israel branded as the aggressor in the Six-Day War.
Regardless of how many times the Palestinian Arabs claim otherwise, Israel cannot be characterized as a "foreign occupier" with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Fundamental sources of international legality decide the question in Israel's favor. The last international legal allocation of territory that includes what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory, including the sector east of the Jordan River, almost 80% of the original Mandated territory, that was given to Palestinian Arabs and Emir Abdullah to create the country of Trans-Jordan (later renamed Jordan). Moreover, the rights under the Mandate were preserved under the United Nations as well, according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, after the termination of the League of Nations in 1946.
It is important to observe that, from the time these territories were conquered by Jordan, Syria and Egypt in 1948 to the time they were gained by Israel in 1967, the territories were not refered to as "occupied" by the international community. Furthermore, the people living in those territories before 1967 were not called "Palestinians" as they are today; they were called Jordanians and Egyptians. (In fact, before Israel was founded Jews and Arabs alike who lived in the region were called Palestinians. The newspaper was the Palestine Bulletin and later the Palestine Post before becoming today's Jerusalem Post, the Jewish-founded electric company was Palestine Electric and so on.) There was no call for "liberation" or "national rights" for the Arabs living there and no Palestinian nation was discussed.
No UN resolution requires Israel to withdraw unilaterally from the territories, nor do they forbid Israelis from going there to live. In particular, the often-misquoted UN Security Council Resolution 242 (and related Resolution 338) make no such demand or requirement. The demand that Israel stop creating "illegal settlements" is similarly baseless.
Under the Oslo Accords, the "peace process" started in 1991 at the Madrid Conference, Israel agreed to withdraw from the disputed territories and Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority (PA) was given control over land chosen so that more than ninety-nine percent of the Palestinian population lived under the jurisdiction of the PA. But the committment to Israel's security that was the backbone of the Oslo agreements was never honored by the PA and Israel was forced to periodically re-enter the ceded territory to quell terrorism. In 2000, Yasser Arafat rejected sweeping concessions by Israel at Camp David — promoted by US Pres. Clinton in an attempt to reach a final peace agreement — and the Palestinian Arabs turned again to violence with the Al Aqsa Intifada. That is, after the PA was governing nearly all Palestinian Arabs and a generous peace offer with international backing was on the table, the only response Israel got was increased violence. This is the sole reason Isreal continues to have a military presence in the disputed territories.
Sources and additional reading on this topic:
This entry was posted on June 25, 2010 — at 3:13 pm and
is filed under Judaism, Middle East Report, News Articles, Opinion,
Recent Posts, Zwick's Picks.
Contact Israel Zwick by email at israel.zwick@earthlink.net
and visit his website: www.cnpublications.net
This article was published in
|
|
IDF FLOTILLA VIDEO; ARABS LYNCH JEWS AS KLAN DID NEGROES; ISRAELI JUSTICE: PUNCTILIOUS OR AMOK?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 25, 2010. |
|
IDF FLOTILLA VIDEO The IDF finally prepared a composite video of the flotilla and especially the battle ship, assembled from many cameras, including helicopters' (ZOA, 6/23/10). 
The video rapidly flashed a great number of scenes. I found it difficult to match the photos with the narrative, for sometimes they were not related or switched too fast. The photos should have had simple captions. Omitted were photos of gas masks and ceramic vests, which I had seen in other photos. But the film made clear these major points: 1. The flotilla was organized by an pro-terrorist, Islamist charity. [It is not relevant whether most passengers had humanitarian intent, if they did.]; 2. The IDF informed governments, flotilla organizers, and approaching ships that they could deliver the goods via an Israeli port and subject to inspection, without having to risk confrontation. The flotilla answered with obscenity; 3. The Islamist cohort sought "martyrdom," which means confrontation; 4. The radicals prepared weapons in advance, as we saw being fashioned and later gathered; 5. They attacked the first Israelis to land; 6. Not content with capturing and disarming those commandos, they beat them inhumanely; 7. The next set of commandos to land realized they were in a fight and drew weapons for self-defense and rescue. The video bolsters the Israeli explanation about the mission intended for violence that would embarrass Israel into abandoning the embargo so Iran could ship arms to Gaza. The humanitarian aspect was a cloak for the military aspect. Peace is another cloak. The Nazis had professed a desire for peace after "one last concession." Stalin gave out peace prizes while arming insurgents. So, too, the Palestinian Authority and Saudi Arabia profess a desire for peace while supporting terrorism. Americans need to become more skeptical of scoundrels who take refuge in professions of peace and humanitarianism. Same for false patriotism. In the name of patriotism, someone reacted to my article on Pollard's disproportionately heavy sentence and ill treatment with obscenity and impugning my own patriotism. It is unfortunate that mental institutions allow access to Internet without teaching anger management and manners. The reaction was a typical one of ignoring all the explanation and focusing narrowly on the conclusion, which, for the critics, is, you disagree with me, you bad. Patriotic? Pollard became a spy after U.S. policy was subverted, against Israel. None of the super-patriots who hate Pollard suggest investigating that subversion. Patriotic? None of the super-patriots object to other spies, including Arab ones, being let off or given disproportionately light sentences. Not insisting upon life imprisonment for other spies, they fail to explain why Pollard should get it. They ignore the fact that he spied on the U.S. but not against it — the documents he copied for Israel were not about the U.S.. Some of these critics probably object to harsh U.S. treatment of terrorist prisoners in Abu Graib. They do not object to harsh U.S. treatment of Pollard. Their inconsistency appears to use patriotism to cover baser motives. ARABS LYNCH JEWS AS KLAN DID NEGROES Last year I reported on my brief guided tour of the Territories. The son of the woman who showed me where Arabs from Beit Jala used to shoot into her town of Gilo, was on guard duty at Beit Yonatan. Beit Yonatan is a house owned by Jews in the Silwan neighborhood of Jerusalem. Now occupied mostly by Arabs, it is the site of King David's town [before he built the Temple Mount], and is opposite the Western Wall. Why should the son have to guard a house owned by Jews in their capital city? Because the Arabs are exclusivist, practice apartheid, and are violent. When Jews moved in, an Arab threw his dishwasher down at one, striking a car, instead. It was not good for the car. Realizing, unlike the Obama administration, that the Arabs do not want to live side-by-side in peace, the owners of Beit Yonatan hired security guards. The Army escorts the guards to and from the house. On guard duty, the son saw Arabs starting to lynch a friend of his, down the road. That is, a gang of Arabs from Silwan were trying to beat the fellow to death. The guard ran to the rescue. At the same time, a security patrol drove up, so the gang fled. Badly hurt, the friend was taken to hospital. Not end of story. While the guard was fighting off the gang, other Arabs vandalized the electrical wires of Beit Yonatan. Resuming his post in the dark, the guard touched a live wire. The electric shock sent him flying. His internal organs were at risk, and had to be scanned. Fortunately, he escaped injury. Now the questions arise. The guard was armed. Why didn't he fire at the attempted murderers? Because they are Arabs and he is a Jew. Jews are not allowed to fire at Arabs except the second before the knife would pierce their jugular. Neither are Jews allowed to talk nasty to Arabs, even under such circumstances. The security cameras would reveal to police lip-readers forbidden words. Why didn't the media carry this story? How many other such stories has the media not covered? Is it any wonder that violent Arabs attack Jews, under those circumstances? (Israeli associate, whom I thank for this exclusive and inside report, 6/23.) OBAMA GETS ISRAEL TO RISK CITIZENS' LIVES IN JUDEA-SAMARIA Checkpoints and roadblocks regularly apprehend terrorists and confiscate weapons. A checkpoint is used to safeguard the Israeli citizens in Maale Adumim and Kadar. Purportedly concerned more about the checkpoint's resulting inconvenience to Arabs than its life-saving function for Jews, President Obama has demanded that Israel remove such checkpoints and roadblocks. Israel's PM Netanyahu, defiant in words but ever pliant in deeds, the pliable Prime Minister is removing that checkpoint. The checkpoint is just a few feet from the entrance to Maale Adumim. Arab highway traffic from two dangerous Arab towns passes by, but could pass in. The Arabs also would gain access to other Jewish areas, such as Kadar, Mishor Adumim (industrial section) Kfar Adumim and Mitzpe Yericho without inspection. The road to Kadar is long, winding, and up a cliff. School buses can be attacked and cars forced off the road. From that area, three roads go to Jerusalem. The old one has a wall at the end, to restrict cars to checkpoint inspection. Jews taking it are subject to lynching and having rocks thrown at them. Many, including infants, were hospitalized. A newer road was resorted to, but Arab threw rocks down from their town, Os Issaya, in the mountains leading to the French Hill neighborhood of Jerusalem. Now they take a still newer road. That is the kind of siege under which Israelis live (Israeli associate, 6/23.) The restriction on Arab traffic on certain roads, one of which recently was lifted, is because of security needs for Jews and a terrorist and apartheid mentality by Arabs.
ISRAELI JUSTICE: PUNCTILIOUS OR AMOK? An Israeli court has just awarded Jareis Jareis, an Arab from the Galilee province of Israel, $8,000 tax free. What is his story? He was convicted in 2006 for PLO terrorist activity, including passing security information to Iran. Based on a plea agreement, his sentence was for 34 months of hard time, after which the prosecutor was supposed to recommend parole. When the 34 months expired, the prosecutor did not recommend parole. The secret service discovered new information making Jareis still a security threat to Israel. He was kept 81 days longer than the 34 months, although for a total of less than his full sentence. Upon release, he sued the government, and won. Prof. Plaut prefaced this report with a remark that he and IMRA have to resort to often, that the story is not a spoof (Prof. Steven Plaut, 6/23). Is Israeli justice punctilious or amok? The mostly leftist judges tend to rule in the Arabs' favor to the point of absurdity and against national self-defense. Nevertheless, anti-Zionists lack the grace to accept this if not applaud it. They denounce Israel judicial system as anti-Arab. These anti-Zionists go too far when they condemn everything about Israeli policy toward the Muslim Arabs, and condemn nothing about Muslim Arab policy toward Jews. They accuse Israel of bias, but fail to see their own. With fact and logic, they have run amok.
ISRAELI DEPUTY PM: GIVE ARABS PART OF ISRAEL Osraeli Deputy PM and Foreign Min. Avigdor Lieberman starts his thesis in a right-wing manner, but then, contradicting his premises, veers leftward: 1. Arab recalcitrance thwarted trading land for peace. 2. The world thinks the dispute is over the Territories. However, the conflict arose before the 1967 war that brought the Territories under Israeli control. The PLO began in 1964. Its charter disavowed claims to Judea-Samaria! 3. The world also misunderstands international law and precedent. It increasingly demands that Israelis withdraw behind the 1967 armistice lines, which the armistice pact stated are not borders. The UN resolution does not call for total. Its drafters said such withdrawal would render Israel insecure. 4. Israel's leaders suggest no alternatives. 5. If the armistice lines were made into borders, the conflict would spill into Israel, whose big Arab minority now mostly thinks of itself as "Palestinians." Although they have civil rights, more and more of them identify with the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) [which does not enjoy civil rights]. They question Israel's legitimacy and Jewish self-determination. In growing numbers, they assist terrorists against Israel. Some Arab leaders, including public officials, spy on Israel or otherwise assist enemy governments. Arabs regularly hold large demonstrations against Israel, crying "death to the Jews!," and displaying posters of terrorists. 6. Therefore, the conflict is between two peoples. [Actually, it is a conflict by one against the other.] Therefore, the answer is not, as the world expects, a 100% Arab state and a bi-national state still to be called Israel. Bi-nationalism fails. 7. The real answer, Min. Lieberman asserts, is separate self-determination. He would exchange territories, leaving minorities in both states, with civil rights. No Arab influx into Israel. Arabs already in Israel would have citizenship in the new Arab state. The Arab state must be demilitarized. Israeli forces would be present in it to prevent arms smuggling into it. Dr. Aaron Lerner warns that the resulting boundaries would have the Arab state bulge into Israel in a way that threatens national security; "presence" of Israeli forces is vague. Dr. Lerner often explains that a sovereign state cannot be held to any promises to demilitarize. Lerner also questions how Lieberman can be considered right-wing (IMRA, 6/24/10). Lieberman is considered right-wing, because the media likes to make dramatic contrasts and it is a handy excuse to criticize the Israeli government. Lieberman shouts like a tiger but acts like a pussycat. The P.A. is supposed to be demilitarized now, but the U.S. and Israel cooperate in militarizing it. The notion of demilitarization and IDF "presence" are the type of balancing concessions that are stated in principle but are dropped in practice. In this anti-Israel atmosphere, they cannot be counted on. Israeli leaders pose no alternatives, because they lack enough nationalism and courage to propose a Jewish claim to the Territories. They are waiting for the Arabs to civilize. Maybe when the messiah comes? Lieberman mistakenly thinks the conflict is national. He overlooks the primary cause of the conflict, Islam's claim to exclusive control. Now that jihad is almost everywhere, he should be aware of it. Islamist jihad would continue regardless of borders. Lieberman would solve nothing, and he would give up Jewish claims to most of the Territories. After describing seditious sentiment among Israeli Arabs, he proposes a plan that would permit many of them to stay in Israel. That is in effect the bi-nationalism he derides. Yes, he offers them citizenship in another state, but why would they want it? It would not help them in the state of their residence. The P.A. forbids Jews from living in its area, and its people often try to lynch Jews who venture inside. Lieberman can propose minority rights, but what Muslim Arab state grants them? Although Lieberman ridicules an exchange of land, that is what he proposes. Actually, he proposes a gift of land. Israel would give up some of its sovereign territory and would give up most of the disputed territories to which it has the best legal and historical claim and which are not owned by the P.A...
NEW YORK "TRUE FEEDOM FLOTILLA" A "true freedom flotilla" sailed yesterday around landmark areas of New York Harbor. The hundreds of passengers on 10 ships sought the release of Hamas' Israeli prisoner, Gilad Shalit. The flotilla sponsor, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, gave a care package of food, books, and glasses for the prisoner to Rosmary Mackey, representing the Red Cross. However, Hamas has barred Red Cross access to Mr. Shalit for all four years of his activity. The true freedom flotilla brings attention to this humanitarian problem, as contrasted with the Gaza flotilla, sponsored by a pro-terrorist organization (Arutz-7, 6/25/10). Islamic historical practice has been, when war is not going well, to call for a truce, during which time to prepare for renewing combat better prepared. Hamas called many truces, but continued some firing. This was like its practice of using human shields, but in this case using the official truce as a shield by condemning Israel if it struck back at Hamas truce violators. During one truce, Hamas built a tunnel under Gaza to Israel. It sneaked into Israel and struck an IDF post by surprise, capturing Shalit in the process. Hamas mistreats him. Islamic terrorists do not treat prisoners according to the rule of war, but expect their enemies to treat them according to the rules of war.
PAKISTAN CONVICTS 5 AMERICANS OF TERRORISM Pakistan had arrested five Americans for plotting terrorist activity in Pakistan. FBI agents who worked with Pakistani security officials on the case had expected Pakistan to extradite the youths to the U.S., where they would face an FBI probe. [If they did what they were convicted for, they would be in violation of U.S. law, too.] A Pakistani court, however, barred extradition. Prosecutors claimed that the men had a computer and maps indicating they had sought training from terrorists to blow up a dam on the Indus River. Their lawyer claimed they had gone to Pakistan to administer humanitarian services. But apparently they had not informed their parents of their alleged good intentions — the parents reported them missing. The court sentenced them to 10 years in prison. Defense attorneys claimed the men were beaten in prison, but State Dept. officials who spent time with them deny it. The young men had met in a mosque in Virginia. The Obama administration added to its list of security concerns what it calls "home-grown terrorism" (Zahid Hussain, Tom Wright, Keith Johnson, Wall St. J., 6/25/10, A3). Not to second-guess the attorneys, but major terrorist organizations train agents to claim mistreatment under captivity, to gain Western sympathy and smear their captors with antipathy.
ANTI-ZIONIST BIGOTRY CANCELS CONFERENCE FOR GAYS' CIVIL LIBERTY StandWithUs (SWU) had proposed months earlier a gay rights program at the Detroit international US Social Forum. SWU sent the Forum its proposed program and background information about itself. SWU has advocated on campuses for gay rights and held an earlier gay rights program in which it networked for gay rights. In recent weeks, participants in the Forum sent the SWU program leader, whom it had approved, threatening e-mails. They noted that they would not provide security and that the building would be open to all, hinting that he would not be safe. Two days before the conference was to open, the Forum canceled it. The Forum explained that they felt the "true" purpose of the program was to defend Israel. SWU denies that. Its program has nothing about the Arab-Israel conflict and everything about how gays are treated in the Mideast. In Muslim areas of the Mideast, gays are punished or discriminated against. Iran orders gay men to have a sex-change operation or be executed. Mideast families honor-kill gays, not only women who hold hands inappropriately. Only in Israel can they come out of the closet. The program was intended to educate about those problems, direct gays to assistance, and build coalitions for them. SWU believes that the Forum did not want people to hear non-political, favorable reports about Israel and unfavorable reports about the rest of the Mideast. It sacrificed the gay minority and their rights in deference to anti-Zionist prejudice (StandWithUs, 6/24 )
REPERCUSSIONS OF FIRING GEN. MCCHRYSTAL The New York Times and the Wall St. Journal both reported on Thursday and Friday about the repercussions and considerations of firing Gen. McChrystal. We lost our most capable general over his lack of discretion. On the other hand, his replacement is likelier to review sooner some of the weaker aspects of his military policy. The criticisms he and staff made of civilian officials elected and non-elected did not interfere with duty, were not insubordinate, and probably are valid though nobody is checking them. McChrystal certainly is not insubordinate to policy — he originated the policy, and the President accepted it. President Obama's civilian aides carped at it. Obama said he was firing McChrystal in order to have unity, but the aides were voices for disunity. Why weren't they asked to resign? If McChrystal were fired for not reining in his staff, who will fire Obama for not reining in his staff? Obama's firing of the military leader, coupled with Obama's setting an early date for troop withdrawal that makes victory impossible — imagine how that must have frustrated the military — encouraged Pakistan to try to fill the vacuum. It is trying to pull Afghanistan into its orbit. It offered to control the terrorist organization behind the Taliban war effort, in exchange for influence in Afghanistan. That terrorist organization, however, largely is a creature of Pakistan's intelligence agency in the first place. Pakistan has been posing as a U.S. ally, but is behind much of the terrorism and the fighting against the U.S. and its allies. What is Pakistan's goal? To what and whom is it loyal?
DEARBORN COPS ARREST CHRISTIANS TO BAR THEIR VIEWS FROM MUSLIMS ActForAmerica displays a video of a few Christians in Dearborn Michigan. When the Christians attempted to distribute a portion of their Bible, printed in English and in Arabic, outside of a Muslim festival, a squad of police came right over to them. The police took them briefly into custody. A policeman told the camera wielder to turn off the video. [Since we saw the video, one assumes the police returned the camera.] Police said the group could not distribute literature within 5 blocks of the festival. The Christians were denied their Constitutional rights. The Christians believe that this is the only town in America having such a restriction (6/22/10). Dearborn is known to have a large Arab population. Should this means that the U.S. Constitution does not apply there? According to Islamic law, non-Muslims are not allowed to display their views to Muslims. Were the police enforcing Islamic law? Did the police act in deference to political forces? To prevent a clash? The Christians did not intend to clash with anyone, but, as I have reported often, Muslims clash with non-Muslims in the Mideast, in Europe, and on North American campuses. Should the threat of a Muslim riot govern law enforcement (as it does on the Temple Mount), or should the law govern Muslim behavior?
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
MY SON'S TEXTBOOK DENIES RONALD REAGAN AND POPE JOHN PAUL II THEIR RIGHTFUL PLACE IN HISTORY
Posted by Jeff Dunetz, June 25, 2010. |
|
I spent much time during the past few weeks helping my son study for the state-wide World History test he took a few days ago. Working with him through his studies, I learned his class presented a brand new version of history, a version that never occurred. Some can argue different versions/interpretations of events that happened centuries ago, but his text book and curriculum distorted events I saw with my own eyes. 
The text-book in question is called World History Patterns of
Interaction
Both sides believed that they needed to stop the other side from extending its power." What it should have said was that the Cold War was a battle between the Soviet side wanting to expand its communist philosophy across the world, and the west trying to prevent the takeover. The book also whitewashes the tyranny of Castro's communist Cuba. Page 985 says "Soviet aid to Cuba ended abruptly with the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. This dealt a crippling blow to the Cuban economy." There was no mention of the brutality of the Cuban regime; the fact that all opposition newspapers had been closed down, all radio and television stations were in state control, or that moderates, teachers and professors were purged. Nor was there any mention of the torture and inhumane treatment in Cuban prisons that is still happening today. Perhaps the biggest rewriting of history was the discussion regarding the end of the Cold War. It talks about Nixon and detente, then boom on page 991: ... fiercely anti-Communist U.S. president, Ronald Reagan took office in 1991. He continued to move away from detente. He increased defense spending, putting both economic and military pressure on the Soviets. And how does the book explain the result of Reagan's policies? "Tensions increased." That's it! According to the text book, an increase in tensions was the only result of that "evil" Reagan's policies. But never fear because, there arose a leader in the USSR who knew not the cold war. Later on page 991, the book explains ".a change in soviet leadership in 1985 brought a new policy toward the United States and the beginnings of a final thaw in the cold war." Wow, look at that... out of the blue the USSR woke up one day and decided to play nice. 
That explanation doesn't mesh with history (or my eyes). The peace-through-strength strategy executed by the Reagan Administration drove the Soviet economy into the sewer. I saw Reagan announce, what may very well be the greatest bluff in the history of man, the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars). This initiative posed a technological challenge to the Soviet Union and the communist regime spent tons of cash trying to catch up technologically. The part we never told the Soviet Union (until President Obama blurted it out a few months ago) is the technology posed a challenge to us also. The communists thought we were holding a royal flush, but all we really had was a pair of threes; being chess players, instead of poker players, they resigned. The prospect of Star Wars Technology scared the pants off the USSR, and so did the fact that they thought that Reagan was crazy enough to use it. Crazy like a fox he was. Reagan's willingness to apply significant rhetorical and other pressures against the Soviet Union, or as he called it, the "evil empire," made the Soviets pour even more money that it didn't have into weapons technology (why does that sound familiar?) At a session of the Russian Politburo in October 1986 Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev tried to sell a groundbreaking disarmament plan including a 50 percent reduction in nuclear arsenals. If he didn't propose these cuts, Gorbachev told his colleagues, the USSR's weak economy could not keep up with Reagan's military expansion. We will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limit of our capabilities. ... If the new round [of an arms race] begins, the pressures on our economy will be unbelievable. This military and economic pressure from Reagan was on top of the political pressure applied by a Pope born in a Soviet satellite country, Poland. John Paul II provided a moral focus with his constant anti-communist sermons. The Pope's visit to the very Catholic country of his birth Poland in 1979 stimulated a religious and nationalist resurgence centered on the Solidarity Union movement that galvanized opposition. Reagan imposed economic sanctions on Poland to protest the suppression of Solidarity. In response, Mikhail Suslov, the Kremlin's top ideologist, advised Soviet leaders not to intervene if Poland fell under the control of Solidarity for fear it might lead to heavy economic sanctions by the west. These potential sanctions could result in further catastrophe for the Soviet economy. That "non-intervention" of the USSR, because Reagan's threats had bled them dry, was the beginning of the slippery slope leading to the easing of the communist oppression, and the fall the Soviet Union. It is said that history is written by the victors, and in the past this may have been true. But in the case of Cold War history, it has been rewritten by the progressives who want to indoctrinate our children to their inaccurate version of facts many of us saw with our own eyes.
Contact Jeff Dunetz by email at jeff@jeffdunetz.com
|
|
EX-PREZ AZNAR OF SPAIN ON ISRAEL
Posted by Laureen Moe, June 25, 2010. |
|
In a powerful article in the Times of London, Jose Maria Aznar, the President of Spain from 1996-2004, provides a rousing and eloquent defense of the State of Israel. Aznar also uses this opportunity to announce the launch of his new organization "Friends of Israel" composed primarily on non-Jewish Europeans and Americans. President Aznar is to be applauded for standing up for Israel, standing up for what is right. The article is below: If Israel goes down, we all go down Anger over Gaza is a distraction. We cannot forget that Israel is the West's best ally in a turbulent region /font> |
|
For far too long now it has been unfashionable in Europe to speak up for Israel. In the wake of the recent incident on board a ship full of anti-Israeli activists in the Mediterranean, it is hard to think of a more unpopular cause to champion. In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship. In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organized a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world. In our dealings with Israel, we must blow away the red mists of anger that too often cloud our judgment. A reasonable and balanced approach should encapsulate the following realities: first, the state of Israel was created by a decision of the UN. Its legitimacy, therefore, should not be in question. Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology. Second, owing to its roots, history, and values, Israel is a fully fledged Western nation. Indeed, it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances. Uniquely in the West, it is the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception. In the first instance, it was attacked by its neighbors using the conventional weapons of war. Then it faced terrorism culminating in wave after wave of suicide attacks. Now, at the behest of radical Islamists and their sympathizers, it faces a campaign of delegitimisation through international law and diplomacy. Sixty-two years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival. Punished with missiles raining from north and south, threatened with destruction by an Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons and pressed upon by friend and foe, Israel, it seems, is never to have a moment's peace. For years, the focus of Western attention has understandably been on the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. But if Israel is in danger today and the whole region is slipping towards a worryingly problematic future, it is not due to the lack of understanding between the parties on how to solve this conflict. The parameters of any prospective peace agreement are clear, however difficult it may seem for the two sides to make the final push for a settlement. The real threats to regional stability, however, are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel's destruction as the fulfillment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large. The core of the problem lies in the ambiguous and often erroneous manner in which too many Western countries are now reacting to this situation. It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East. Some even act and talk as if a new understanding with the Muslim world could be achieved if only we were prepared to sacrifice the Jewish state on the altar. This would be folly. Israel is our first line of defense in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down. To defend Israel's right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction. The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world's future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies, blinds us even when we are confronted by jihadis promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears. This cannot be allowed to happen. Motivated by the need to rebuild our own Western values, expressing deep concern about the wave of aggression against Israel, and mindful that Israel's strength is our strength and Israel's weakness is our weakness, I have decided to promote a new Friends of Israel initiative with the help of some prominent people, including David Trimble, Andrew Roberts, John Bolton, Alejandro Toledo (the former President of Peru), Marcello Pera (philosopher and former President of the Italian Senate), Fiamma Nirenstein (the Italian author and politician), the financier Robert Agostinelli and the Catholic intellectual George Weigel. It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity. What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel's right to exist and to defend itself. For Western countries to side with those who question Israel's legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel's vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than robustly to stand up in defense of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude. Israel is a fundamental part of the West. The West is what it is thanks to its Judeo-Christian roots. If the Jewish element of those roots is upturned and Israel is lost, then we are lost too. Whether we like it or not, our fate is inextricably intertwined. Laureen Moe is a Christian Zionist and lives in Canada. She can be
reached at her website,
|
|
NO ENTRANCE FOR DOGS AND JEWS"
Posted by James Caplan, June 25, 2010. |
|
It is not just a delegitimization of the State of Israel. It is the delegitimization of the Jew, a Jew anywhere in the world. The Turks slaughter two million Armenians and through the Greeks out of Turkey with no compensation from 1915 through 1923. They are a fine group to get on the "human rights" bandwagon. Never forget, when the Christian General, Jan Sobieski. marched his Polish Catholic army into Austria to save the Vienna from Turkish rule, the Turks retreated and gave up. However, the Turks murdered all their Christian hostages, some 23 THOUSAND.......among whom, 8 THOUSAND Christian children were murdered. Let's put these fiends in perspective. This came from Manny. Keep it circulating.. This below was written by Lior Zagury. |
|
Yes, it is important for me to present myself in this way, especially today when there is a feeling that there is a festival for anti-Semites. I just came back yesterday from Poland after 8 days of having the privilege of guiding the Inter Disciplinary university students in the death camps. These students, studying in Israel were Jews, Christians and Muslims. 5 huge armed commando Polish soldiers with rifles and pistols needed to secure our check in to EL-AL flight to Israel from the Warsaw airport. I know that you got at least 100 e-mails about the flotilla to Gaza and I will not repeat what was said there. I want to speak about something much bigger that is happening now. The header of my letter wasn't taken from the streets of Berlin in 1933 when the Nazi's came to power, not from the neighborhoods of Warsaw in 1941 when the Jews lived in the Ghetto, and not even from the shops of Kielce after the second world war in 1946, just before the pogrom that made Jews understand that there isn't a safe place for them and they need to leave Europe. The header was taken from signs that were hanged at the entrance to big markets and offices in Turkey in the past few days, in June of 2010 and similar signs that were hung in Jordan. The signs say: "not receive the dogs & Israelis" as you can see in the photo that is attached. What we see around us is not about the flotilla and Gaza. It is a very sophisticated plan to demolish the legitimacy of the existence of the Jewish state of Israel. In his first speech at the German Reichstag at 1/30/ 1933 Hitler said the cause of all the world problems is world Jewry. Most of the people didn't take him seriously and felt very safe in their countries, trusting their governments. 12 years later we lost 6 million Jews in the Holocaust in the worst way that human kind has ever known. These days, 65 years after, Achmadinijad from Iran and many others say exactly the same. The history repeats itself. Most of the people do not take him seriously and feel very safe in their countries, trusting their governments..... This is a wake up call. If you will ignore that and convince yourselves that this is not the main stream, this is just a passing storm and that it will never happen to us — sooner or later, you might find those restrictions in your backyard, in your favorite restaurant, in your great Bar and in your amazing university as it was 75 years ago. A few months ago, an Arab restaurant in Haifa didn't allow Israeli soldiers to come in and eat. We need your support now more then ever. We need to raise our heads, speak in a very clear and loud voice and especially be one, united. I have a complete and strong confidence in our nation. Israel has the most moral army in the world, it is the only democracy in the world that in each and every given moment there are hundreds of thousands of missiles and rockets ready to be launched to the central of its cities from enemies that want to erase us, and the only place in the world that a Jew can just be a Jew and feel completely safe about it. We promised NEVER AGAIN. Don't wait to say we didn't know. Yours, Lior Contact James Caplan by email at jamescaplan@hotmail.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: FIRST THINGS FIRST
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 24, 2010. |
|
What you see above is a picture of the Od Yosef Chai Synagogue and Yeshiva (place of Jewish study) in Yitzhar in Samaria. I wrote about this on May 20 and repeat the information here: On May 9, the IDF's Civilian Administration (the administrative body for Judea and Samaria, overseen at the top by Defense Minister Barak) issued a demolition order against this building. So volatile is this situation that Arutz Sheva cited a warning from MK Aryeh Eldad (National Union) that bloodshed would ensue. He called it a "declaration of war against the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria." "Local residents believe that authorities are purposely punishing the yeshiva because of a confrontation with the IDF that took place on Independence Day, and also because security forces hold the yeshiva's students responsible for various attacks against Arabs in recent months and years." ~~~~~~~~~~ Note of clarification: Yeshiva head Rabbi Yitzhak Shapira was held by authorities this winter with regard to an arson attack on the Kafr Yassuf mosque. Reports the JPost: "A Jerusalem District Court judge forced the police to release Shapira for lack of evidence." As to Independence Day, Yitzhar residents say that IDF troops began harassing visitors who wanted to tour the area and prevented them from entering the springs near the settlement. When the soldiers tried to hold back one of the residents, other settlers became agitated. The residents say that one of the soldiers stationed in the area fired a warning shot into the air. When he refused to give his name, the residents demanded that he remain in the area until he agreed to do so. The IDF says that residents attacked soldiers with stones, lightly hurting three. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to the Arutz Sheva report: "'...the authorities are making special efforts to hurt the yeshiva in an unfair and vindictive way,' a yeshiva spokesman said... 'It should be noted that the building is an ornate permanent structure, with an area of 1,300 square meters, which was built with the aid of the Ministry of Housing and was approved by the various authorities to serve as an educational institution.' ~~~~~~~~~~ Further clarifications from the Jerusalem Post : The IDF administration in Judea and Samaria claimed that the construction was done outside the zoning area for this type of building. The Yitzhar treasurer, Itamar Posner, however, maintains "that the building was within an appropriately zoned area of the settlement... I will add here that this must also be considered in light of the reluctance of the government to demolish illegal Arab homes, and the furor that ensures over an attempt to do so (which I addressed yesterday). ~~~~~~~~~~ Yesterday, I also wrote about how problematic Barak's positions are: how he fails to protect Jewish interests, instead showing an eagerness to make concessions. He's fond of muscle-flexing, but in the wrong way. He likes to show one and all that he's really tough with the people on the right, courting approval from the left and, need I add, the international community. Obama and Abbas would be so pleased with him if he demolished this Yeshiva. But what a shameful and obscene act it would be. The date for demolition is just days away. This cannot be permitted to proceed. ~~~~~~~~~~ I am asking you to write to Prime Minister Netanyahu (not Barak himself). The demand is that Netanyahu stop Barak. We need a huge outpouring of protest. As always, numbers count. Make your message short and to the point, please. If you are writing from outside of Israel, note that the world is watching and if Barak succeeds he will do Israel considerable harm among the very people who are Israel's biggest supporters. If you are inside of Israel, let the prime minister know that he is being watched and will be held responsible. What happens will affect his support now and in the next election. The heart of the message: Jews do not destroy synagogues. This is a shameful thing to do and gives great comfort to our enemies. Share this and encourage others to act. ~~~~~~~~~~ Fax: 02-670-5369 Write: "Attention Tzvi Hauser, Cabinet Secretary." Please, also fax to 02-670-5369 and 02-649-6659
E-mail: Please, send to both addresses. Memshala@pmo.gov.il and also pm_eng2@it.pmo.gov.il (underscore after pm). For the first address, above, put in subject line: "Attention: Cabinet Secretary, Zvi Hauser." For the second address, above, put "No Demolition at Yitzhar," "Don't destroy the Yeshiva," "Stop Barak now," or something similar. Please! Take the time to do this.
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il
and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
|
|
FEMALE CRIMINALITY IN IRAN; ISRAEL PROTECTING U.S. TANKS;
FIRING GEN. MCCHRYSTAL AND FREEING POLLARD
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 24, 2010. |
|
FEMALE CRIMINALITY IN IRAN A young woman in Tehran was fined $50 per finger for wearing nail polish, $250 each for wear a jacket that was short, and that had bright colors, and for wearing make-up, about $1,000 for lightening her hair color, and another $180 for perching her glasses on her hair. The Iranian morality court is on the job! Iran's President denies that the guidance patrol arrests women for such matters (Arutz-7, 6/23/10).
IRANIAN RUMORS OF SAUDI-IDF COOPERATION Iran has been disseminating unconfirmed reports about IDF-Saudi military cooperation. First was bruited a rumor that Saudi Arabia agreed to turn a blind eye to an over-flight by Israeli squadrons going to raid Iran's nuclear facilities. A safe lane in Saudi air space would shorten the flight path significantly to ease the raid's difficulties. Now Iran claims that Saudi Arabia has turned part of its Tobuk air force base, which practically adjoins Israel, over to the Israeli air force. Iran uses the term, "entity" or "Zionist" to refer to Israel (IMRA, 6/23/10). Ironically, the U.S. sold Saudi Arabia warplanes on condition that it not station them at Tobuk and not add fuel storage tanks to them. Saudi Arabia broke those conditions, without repercussion. The famed Israel lobby, much overrated, was silent or helpless on that as on much else. When Saudi Arabia made a military alliance with Egypt, and broached plans for a bridge between the two countries, Saudi Arabia became more of a threat to Israel. The threat might be discounted, because most strategists, including Israel's see individual jigsaw pieces instead of the whole puzzle. Thus, they may not count Egypt and Jordan, because of peace treaties. But fanatical or otherwise unscrupulous regimes disregard treaties when advantageous to their plans. Egypt and Jordan engage in diplomatic and economic warfare against Israel and Egypt had supported Palestinian Arab terrorists. Hamas broke its truces with Israel. Strategists also tend to discount individual forces as small, by themselves. Thus, Palestinian Arab militias are mostly omitted from the strategic equation, but especially with their new American training, they could hinder Israeli mobilization long enough for the Arab states to bring up superior forces first. Blind to overall strategic considerations, and vainly attempting to appease inexorable critics, Israel has let itself be surrounded by terrorist militias armed with rockets they have fired at Israeli civilians, for a start.
MEMPHIS ANSWER TO ANTI-ISRAEL APARTHEID WEEK Organizations have started anti-Israel "Apartheid Week" events annually on U.S. campuses and in cities. The Memphis Friends of Israel has been sponsoring an annual pro-Israel festival and, during the year, educational events. The Friends are spreading the project into other locales. Their idea is not to let the other side monopolize the media on this subject. Give the facts a public hearing (Arutz-7, 6/23/10). In some countries, the Israeli view is silenced. Thomas Jefferson had faith that in a fair contest between truth and falsity, truth would win. These days, if Israel even gets its message out, the contest is not fair. Falsity is too pervasive and unscrupulous. The Media and educational systems give people a basic misunderstanding. Political correctness hobbles forthrightness. (That's Memphis, Tennessee, not Memphis, Egypt)
CONGRESS TO OBAMA: STAND BEHIND ISRAEL Congress endorsed letters to President Obama urging him to stand behind Israel. The letters were signed by 87 Senators and 320 Representatives. The letters noted an international effort to deny Israel legitimacy. It described the flotilla attempt to break Israel's legal blockade by militarily ambushing Israel, as part of this improper effort. So, to, are the UN Human Rights Commission efforts to single out Israel [on false accusations and to the neglect of real and serious problems]. The conference on nuclear proliferation tried to isolate Israel, by sandbagging it. Congress urged the President to have the U.S. veto those untoward efforts in the Security Council. They justified U.S. support for Israel as in our national interest. The letter concludes with hope for peace negotiations that lead to a "two-state solution." (Arutz-7, 6/24/10).
ISRAEL EXPOSES IRANIAN HYPOCRISY ON WOMEN In a meeting with Austria's Chancellor Werner Faymann, Israel's PM Netanyahu exposed Iranian hypocrisy on women. Iran intends to load women onto a ship of its flotilla against what it calls Israeli oppression of Gaza. As Netanyahu put it, "My friends, I want to show you the extent of the absurdity. The darkest forces in the world — Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas, who want to return the world to the Middle Ages, who prevent their women from dressing, working and expressing themselves freely, where their women live in slavery and oppression, frequently without their basic rights, often subject to violence; they dare to organize a boat of women as propaganda against Israel?! "The time has come to put a stop to this hypocrisy and work toward genuine women's rights and human rights in our region. I call upon all peace and human rights activists in the enlightened world: Go to the places where they oppress women; Go to the places where they hang homosexuals in town squares and deny the rights of minorities; Go to the places where there is no freedom of expression, no freedom of the press, no independent courts, no human rights organizations and no human rights. Go to Teheran. Go to Gaza.
ISRAEL PROTECTING U.S. TANKS Israel is protecting U.S. tanks. Having successfully tried out its new "Trophy" anti-missile system on its own tanks, Israel now is installing the same defense against anti-tank missiles on the U.S. vehicles (Arutz-7, 6/24/10). Israel has made many innovations in military matters, as well as in medicine, computer technology, and agriculture, from which the U.S. benefits.
MIDEAST BRIEFING FOR CONGRESSMEN The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) sponsored a Middle East briefing to Members of Congress by Prof. Barry Rubin, Director of the Global Research in International Affairs. Dr. Rubin is shocked by the disparity between the realty of the Mideast and the illusions by which the West perceives the Mideast. For example, the West keeps pressing Israel for "confidence-building" concessions to the Arabs. But the Arabs and informed Israelis know there will not be a comprehensive peace. Why not? The Palestinian Arabs are "intransigent." They do not compromise nor make concessions. Fatah's radical leaders believe they can attain total victory i.e., destroy Israel, without having to compromise. Palestinian Arab moderates are too weak to exert influence. Abbas has named a hardliner radical, Muhammad Ghaneim, as his successor. Therefore, gimmicks will not produce a solution. The Obama administration believed that if it cooled down the U.S. relationship with Israel, it would gain a strategic advantage with the rest of the Mideast. Did not happen. The U.S. did not gain popularity. The Arabs are not strongly assisting the U.S. against Iran. Actually, the U.S. lost position strategically. The Turkish Islamist group, IHH, planned violence on the flotilla and secured condemnation of Israel, sympathy for Hamas, and calls for lifting the embargo. The radicals gained status and are encouraged to be ore provocative. Another setback for the U.S. is Western policies that fail to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Again, in dealing with radicals, who run Iran, Western appeasement or charm cannot distract them from their goals. Once Iran acquires nuclear weapons, the Arabs will knuckle under to them. Europe would appease Iran more, too. Fired up by the success of Iranian radicalism, Muslims all over would fall in with it. Iran will have gotten nuclear weapons regardless of U.S. opposition. Radicalism would dominate the Muslim world. Hundreds of thousands would join radical organizations. Could they be contained, as U.S. policymakers may suppose? Not those hardened radicals. U.S. appeasement of jihadists is worse than was the European appeasement of the Nazis. The Europeans also thought they could buy off the radicals of their day, but at least they knew the danger facing them. By contrast, the West does not realize how dangerous its enemy is. As ZOA puts it, "Only when Palestinians reject the idea that it is a religious and national duty to murder Jews and to celebrate those among them who act on this instruction will there be any prospect of peace." Meanwhile, the U.S. should condemn the Palestinian Authority as an evil regime that promotes terrorism (6/23/10 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member.) Prof. Rubin's analysis may be hard to hear but it is harder to refute. Some of my readers might denounce it, but he makes perfect sense. There is another possibility besides Arab appeasement of Iran.
Arabs may develop their own nuclear weapons. That is not a happy
prospect, either, for it adds to the risk of nuclear war.
FIRING GEN. MCCHRYSTAL AND FREEING POLLARD President Obama just fired the country's greatest fighting general, to demonstrate that the top civilian authority outranks high military authority. Yet when people suggest that a U.S. President free Jonathan Pollard, they are told that the security establishment would not let him. Let them think of Gen. McChrystal, and then revise their assessment (Dr. Aaron Lerner, IMRA, 6/23/10). Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
NETANYAHU: PLACE NOT YOUR TRUST IN PRINCES
Posted by Isi Leibler, June 24, 2010. |
|
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is likely to receive a red carpet reception from President Barack Obama at the White House combined with a reaffirmation about the "unshakeable US-Israel alliance." However we should not delude ourselves. It is clear that Obama's recent charm campaign was primarily in response to pressure from the American people and in particular from Jewish Democratic supporters shocked into action by the administration's increasingly negative approach toward Israel and the crass reception accorded to Netanyahu during his last visit. The bonhomie was intended to assuage domestic anger to avert loss of votes and funding for the forthcoming congressional elections. Even though administration officials, including Rahm Emanuel, conceded that they "had screwed up the messaging" and are unlikely to repeat their previous boorish humiliation of Israel, there are no signs that the US administration is about to modify its policy.
TWO RECENT events reaffirm this. The greatest disappointment was the US betrayal at the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference. Obama reneged on his promise to maintain the policy of former US administrations and continue to veto repeated Arab efforts to isolate Israel at these conferences. He endorsed a resolution which omitted any mention of Iran but specifically targeted Israel, demanding that it sign the NPT and submit to inspections of its facilities. While Obama subsequently disingenuously shed crocodile tears expressing disappointment that Israel had been singled out, his willingness to sacrifice the Jewish state on such a crucial security issue heightened concerns that the US is no longer a reliable ally. In the aftermath of the vehement international condemnation following the Gaza flotilla interception, Obama made little effort to curb the anti-Israel hysteria. Instead, he pressured Israel to co-opt international observers to its inquiry and failed to condemn the proposed United Nations Human Rights Council demand for an international inquiry which would unquestionably be a replay of the outrageous Goldstone Report. In this context, Vice President Joseph Biden's positive declaration endorsing Israel's right to blockade ships to prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza sounded somewhat like a good cop, bad cop routine. The perception of the US failing to support long-standing allies was highlighted by its tepid response to the unprovoked sinking of the South Korean naval corvette by a North Korean submarine. To Israelis, this conveyed a chilling interpretation of Obama's concept of an alliance. His inability to retain the support of traditional US allies was also exemplified when Turkey and Brazil displayed their contempt by undermining the minimal Iran sanctions the US was finally able to impose with grudging approval from Russia and China. US appeasement and renewal of diplomatic relations with Syria, Iran's surrogate state, only encouraged Damascus to strengthen its relations with Teheran, supply Hizbullah with Scuds and intensify its aggressive posturing.
ON A broader level, Obama has reiterated that the US could neither afford nor desired to remain the policeman of the world, preferring to delegate and conduct global affairs in conjunction with other countries and international organizations. To abdicate leadership of the free world during these perilous times is a bad omen, especially if it implies delegating more influence to Europe, Russia or worse to the dysfunctional UN, dominated by Islamic countries. The most bizarre policy proclamation came from White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan. Following a National Security Council pronouncement stipulating that the term "extremist and militant Islam" should no longer be employed, he made the extraordinary assertion that Hizbullah was not "purely a terrorist body" and that he intended to cultivate the "moderate elements." Subsequently in an address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Brennan limited Islamic fundamentalism to al-Qaida and opined that the term "war on terror" should be excluded from the American political lexicon. "Our enemy" he said "is not terrorism because terrorism is a tactic or a state of mind, and as Americans we refuse to live in fear." He added, "Nor do we define our enemy as jihadists or Islamists because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam to purify oneself or one's community." Such remarks from a high-ranking US official are mind boggling.
IN RELATION to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, the US had warned that it would confront any party indulging in provocative statements or acts. Yet while expressing concern regarding Israeli celebrations on Jerusalem Day, the administration remained silent as the PA lobbied the OECD to block Israel's affiliation. Nor did it respond when PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the most "moderate" Palestinian leader, personally participated in a burning ceremony to promote a campaign to boycott products manufactured over the Green Line, a direct violation of the Oslo Accords. They even failed to react when Fatah leaders reiterated their right to launch armed resistance unless their demands were fulfilled. American friends of Israel should thus be aware that despite Obama's charm offensive, US policy is no less ominous now than it was during Netanyahu's previous visit to Washington. However public opinion is a factor that a Democratic administration does take into account and Israel can take comfort in the fact that support from the American people and both houses of Congress have strengthened considerably since the Gaza flotilla imbroglio. In this context, Netanyahu must now clearly spell out his game plan and ensure that Israel is not again confronted by accusations of having misled the administration. When he meets with Obama, he should assure him that short of endangering its security, the country will do all in its power to avoid embarrassing the US. But he must be definitive and inform the administration which areas are negotiable while simultaneously drawing red lines which his government cannot contemplate crossing. He must emphatically reject returning to the 1949 armistice lines on the grounds that it would pose a longterm existential threat to the Jewish state. He must reiterate that Israel will only extend concessions based on reciprocity and that the Palestinians must cease their provocations and incitement. He must clearly elucidate building policies in Jerusalem and make it known that irrespective of what happens, the building freeze will not be renewed in the major settlement blocs that the Bush administration had agreed would remain within Israel. If Netanyahu fails to reach a full understanding over Iran, he must request greater transparency in the relationship and be assured that Israel will be kept fully informed and able to provide input. He should also request unequivocal American support against global boycotts and pressures at the UN and other international organizations, including an assurance that in future the US will divert pressures against Israel's ambiguous nuclear deterrent. Instead of whispering and making light of differences, Netanyahu must speak plainly and unequivocally to ensure that Israelis and our friends abroad understand our position. Should he continue fudging the issues by basking in the superficial warmth of pleasantries, he will be setting us up for a second and possibly much more unpleasant confrontation with our only global ally. Contact Isi Leibler by email at
ileibler@netvision.net.il
This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post |
|
FROM ISRAEL: A TIGHT PLACE
Posted by Arlene Kushner, June 23, 2010. |
|
I asked the question in my last post as to whether there will be gain with regard to the Security Cabinet's decision to allow all goods but those weapon-related into Gaza via the land crossings from Israel. This remains a dubious proposition. Whatever the rationale for what was decided, there is the clear danger that Israel will be seen as weak, and having caved to Hamas and terrorist forces. On the one hand, Blair has made positive statements about our rights, without question, to keep weapons out of Gaza — a nod to the sea blockade. On the other hand, already we're hearing — not just from the UN but also from Obama — about how this isn't enough for the people of Gaza. It's the old story, with which we are well familiar: Give them a finger, and they want our hand. It's never enough. When statements are made about the need for the situation to improve for the people of Gaza, always implicit is that it's on Israel to do something about this. Never is there a clear and forthright statement that Hamas, which controls Gaza, is responsible for this situation. In fact, neither is there any direct statement about responsibility on the part of Egypt — which is to Gaza's south and controls the Rafah crossing — to do more for the Gazans. ~~~~~~~~~~ We clearly see how ludicrous — and maliced — this whole situation is when we read the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs briefing, "The Myth of the Siege of Gaza," by Lt. Col. (ret.) Yonatan Halevi, a senior researcher on radical Islam: "[In addition to all of the goods brought in from Israel via the crossings] there is also an established economic system of Palestinian imports from Egypt via hundreds of tunnels operating under the control of a Hamas government that grants approval for operating them and collects taxes from their owners. The tunnel network has increased imports from Egypt to Gaza from $30 million annually during the years 1994-2006 to more than $650 million annually. Given the abundance of supply, the price of diesel fuel and gasoline, delivered to Gaza through pipes from Egypt, is half that of the price in Israel. Mind-boggling, is it not? UNRWA would maintain that it will not deal with the cement black market of Hamas tunnels and thus needs cement brought in via the Israeli crossings to build schools. But to say there can be no reconstruction of Gaza without unfettered access to building material via the crossings is nonsense. Halevi further says: "Gaza is not cut off from the outside world. In the last year, the markets of Gaza have been flooded with produce and merchandise. In fact, in 2009, a total of 30,576 truckloads of humanitarian commodities passed from Israel into Gaza. From June 2007 (the date of the Hamas military takeover of Gaza), overall monetary transfers to Gaza have totaled over $5 billion from governmental and extragovernmental sources. The governor of the Central Bank of the Palestinian Authority, Jihad al-Wazir, confirmed that 56 percent of the PA budget is designated for Gaza. Gaza receives additional aid funds directly from Iran, and the Arab countries." http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ ShowPage.asp?DRIT=2&DBID=1&LNGID= 1&TMID=111&FID=443&PID=0&IID=4123& TTL=The_Myth_of_the_Siege_of_Gaza ~~~~~~~~~~ The reality of what is happening in Gaza simply bears no resemblance to "the myth" — as Halevi refers to it. That myth is designed to damage Israel, as well as to court international sympathy and support. Unfortunately (once more) our government has not been forceful enough in promoting the truth and countering that myth. ~~~~~~~~~~ I call your attention, as well, to the fact that over 50% of the PA budget is allocated for Gaza. This explodes another myth of major proportions: that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas are completely separate. If you are in the US, you might want to contact your representatives in Congress and ask them why your government is supporting Hamas. Money is fungible: If money allocated by the US to the PA is not designated by budget line item to go to Hamas, it still frees up other money that can be sent. Besides which, there is legitimate reason to ask why the US should support the PA at all, if it is so closely allied with Hamas. Include the URL above for the article by Lt. Col. Halevi. The Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, headed by Dore Gold, is a highly credible institute, and Halevi is a superbly reliable source. For your Congresspersons:
For your Senators:
~~~~~~~~~~ Among those strongly of the opinion that loosening the restrictions on materials permitted into Gaza was a bad idea is Caroline Glick. One point that she makes is worthy of particular note: "The economic sanctions the government is now cancelling were not simply legal, they were required by international law. Binding UN Security Council resolution 1373 requires states and non-state actors to deny support of any kind to terrorist organizations. And here, in a bid to win international "legitimacy" for its lawful blockade of Gaza, Israel has bowed to US pressure to unlawfully facilitate the economic prosperity of an area controlled by an illegal terrorist organization." http://www.carolineglick.com/ e/2010/06/the-high-price- of-coalition-st.php Glick also fingers Defense Minister Ehud Barak in regard to this: "According to sources close to the cabinet, the main advocate for the latest capitulation was Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Barak is the serial bungler." She's right on mark here, and its worth reading her full comments on this subject (which I will return to it in due course). What I ponder now is exactly who is running the show. Does Netanyahu cave to Barak as well as to Obama? Or is Barak convincing him to cave to Obama? Perhaps most damning at present is her charge that Barak allegedly convinced Netanyahu to send the naval commandos onto the Marmara equipped only with paintball guns, as this would garner greater support from Obama. ~~~~~~~~~~ Commentator Moshe Dann, writing in YNet, addresses the same concerns. Dann writes of, "Barak's failure to anticipate the danger to IDF soldiers sent to stop the Gaza flotilla, his stubborn refusal to consult military and intelligence experts..."
The fault for what happened, then, would lie not with poor intelligence, but with the arrogance of a minister who thought he didn't need to rely on that intelligence. ~~~~~~~~~~ So, it seems to me that it's time to write to Prime Minister Netanyahu as well. Be forceful but courteous. Using your own words, tell him that he wears the mantle as prime minister of the nation of Israel and he must be relied upon to make decisions with courage and backbone. Say that relying upon the advice of Ehud Barak serves the nation ill. It's time for him to make decisions more consonant with the will of the people, who voted for the right wing.
~~~~~~~~~~ The next round of confrontation with foreign ships seeking to break the blockade of Gaza indeed does seem to be around the corner. The ship I wrote about last, the Julia, has not left port, but a second ship was given permission to go by the Lebanese government and is on its way, first to Cyprus and then — if it receives clearance in Cyprus — towards Gaza. Last week Defense Minister Barak warned the Lebanese government that it is responsible for these ships. But in a turn-about maneuver, the Lebanese have sent a letter to the UN holding Israel responsible for anything that happens to the ships. Israel is preparing vigorously for this next confrontation, both from a military and a PR perspective. ~~~~~~~~~~ Is this true? It's huge if it is. According to the Islam Times website — which is being cited in various quarters — Israeli jets landed in Saudi Arabia last week and unloaded military equipment at an airport in the northwest. This is said to be in advance of a strike on Iran. IMRA is carrying a report from the Arabic FARS news agency, in poor translation, that says the same thing. This report further says that, "the Zionist entity has created for himself a military base in Tabuk North West Saudi Arabia." ~~~~~~~~~~ About three months ago, Jerusalem mayor Nir Barkat announced a development project for the city that involved the demolition of illegally constructed Arab homes in Silwan, in eastern Jerusalem. At that time, Netanyahu put a stop to it. But now the municipality's Local Planning and Construction Committee has given the go-ahead. In all, there were 88 structures that were built illegally on land that was "green": zoned for a park and extensive recreational area. But the owners of 66 of these homes will be given the opportunity to apply for retroactive legalization. Twenty-two structures within the area known as Gan Hamelech (King's Garden), all built without permits in an area for which housing was not zoned, will come down. In a gesture of enormous magnanimity, the municipality will provide those whose homes will be demolished with new, legal homes elsewhere in the area. ~~~~~~~~~~ Needless to say, there are objections in many quarters: from the left wing here, from the PA, from the US government. This is being represented as an "anti-Arab" move that is destructive to the "sense of trust" that needs to be developed between Israel and the PA. The old, familiar line. This project is even being called "ethnic cleansing," although it is not remotely that. PA chief negotiator Saeb Erekat announced yesterday that, "I sent a notice this morning from the Palestinian president to the US, in which he asked the American administration to intervene directly so that the Israeli project is cancelled. "We vehemently denounce the decision, which will result in the demolition of 22 houses in Silwan." Give me a break! ~~~~~~~~~~ Residents claim to be against the demolition of their homes (never mind that they'll get new ones). But most enlightening was what one person involved with this municipal planning told the JPost: "What the residents say to the press and what they say to us are two different things." The betting is that these residents are coached from the outside, by persons eager for an opportunity to stir things up and make Israel look bad for the international media. In point of fact, the Jerusalem administration has negotiated with individual residents, to reach a place of understanding with as many of them as possible. They addressed issues of concern such as roads, parking, and fire fighting equipment. ~~~~~~~~~~ Among those who registered distress over this plan was Ehud Barak, leveling his criticism from the US, and ever eager to please the US. Showing his true colors once again, he said the plan "lacked common sense" and a "sense of timing." He indicated that he would take this up with the prime minister on his return. And there we are. It will be shameful indeed if Netanyahu caves on this. While at first there was no word from the prime minister's office, there was then a statement that the prime minister "hopes to solve" the dispute. ~~~~~~~~~~ Mayor Barkat, however, has had his say in response to Barak: "Rather than support the municipality's effort to strengthen the city and tackle the serious neglect the eastern part of the city has inherited over the years, the defense minister acts without checking the facts. Jerusalem City Councilman Hilik Bar, a member of Barak's own Labor party, then released a statement as well: "The King's Garden plan is an important project that could have an impact on both the value of the land and the houses in Silwan, and improve the quality of life for its residents. ~~~~~~~~~~ This bears close watching. Either we are a sovereign state that follow the rule of law, or we are not. If you are contacting Netanyahu, as I suggested above, it would be prudent to mention this as well: Do not cave to Barak's demands that the Gan Hamelech project be put on hold again! ~~~~~~~~~~ In a related issue, Arab squatters — some 40 people comprising three families — are living in an old synagogue building in Silwan. This is not "merely" a Jewish building, it is a hundred-year old building that has historical, religious and cultural significance. Known as the Hechel Shlomo Synagogue, at one time it served the Yemenite community of the area, which was forced to leave after violence in 1938. It is 500 feet from the contested Beit Yehonatan. The non-profit organization Ateret Cohanim claims ownership of the synagogue building as well as Beit Yehonatan. According to a court ruling, additions made to the building by the Arab family holding it must be destroyed, and the building must be returned to its original owners. But the police have not acted on this. Jewish residents of the area, who maintain that Arab residents are favored, say they will evacuate the building themselves on July 4, if the police fail to act. Ten members of the Knesset, from National Union, Habayit Hayehudi, Shas, Likud, and UTJ, have said they will assist the Jewish residents with the evacuation if the police fail to act. They have sent a letter to this effect to the prime minister. In an entirely different context, Netanyahu has just made the statement, "No one is above the law." Let's see if he means it. Will he see to it that the court ruling is carried out, or will be he — fearful of manipulated world opinion and accusations of being "anti-Arab" — back off? Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
ISRAEL, HUMAN DECENCY, COMMON HUMANITY
Posted by Sheridan Neimark, June 23, 2010. |
|
This letter was sent
Dear Rev Alison I was deeply but deeply disturbed to read the extremely biased and one sided report to be presented to the Methodist Conference. I am a speaker on the Middle East and an historian and it beggars belief that that account could be accepted as historical truth. It is about as biased as an account of a history of the Tory Party that George Galloway might write. It is to the everlasting shame of the Methodist Church if it were to accept such a shoddy piece of writing. As a Christian it is even more reprehensible that a Church should be a party to disseminating something quite so unsavoury. I recently read a blog by Dr Sue Garrard of Keele University and I attach it below for your consideration. Yours sincerely Jean A Evans |
|
Fintan O'Toole thinks that Israel regards itself as 'exempt from the demands of common humanity' (via Z Word Blog). Iain Banks thinks that 'simple human decency' means nothing to Israel (see this normblog post). Two well-known writers, very anxious to tell the world that Israel lacks humanity. Israel's not like the rest of us, the rest of the human family. Compared to other nations, it's inhuman. It doesn't recognize what everyone else knows about, the simple requirements of being decently human. It ought to recognize these things, it isn't hard to do so, since they're so simple; and most other people do, since they're part of common humanity. Leave aside the sinister provenance of that claim, and let's just consider it on its own. Turkey has killed between 30,000 and 40,000 Kurds in the last 30 years; it occupies North Cyprus; it blockades Armenia and denies its own historical genocide. But Israel lacks simple human decency. Sri Lanka, at the same time that Israel was fighting in Gaza (around 1300 dead) killed about 25,000 of its own civilians in the course of repressing an insurgency. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity. Sudan has killed something in the order of 200,000 people in Darfur, with countless rapes and tortures alongside. But Israel lacks simple human decency. Iran rapes and tortures and murders its own dissidents who ask for democracy; it hangs young gays, it oppresses women. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity. Yemen is blockading South Yemen, it lets no food, medicine or water through; unlike Israel, which lets around 15,000 tons of supplies into Gaza every week. But Israel lacks simple human decency. Egypt is considering a law to strip their citizenship from any Egyptian who marries an Israeli; it persecutes Copts; it blockades Gaza. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity. Russia kills 25,000 to 50,000 Chechens, and almost completely razes the capital city of Grozny; its soldiers inflict hideous tortures on their prisoners before killing them; investigative journalists are murdered. But Israel lacks simple human decency. China kills somewhere between half a million and one and a quarter million Tibetans in the course of quashing Tibet's independence. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity. In Pakistan, Christian churches are burned, hundreds of Ahmadiyyas are killed, violence towards women is endemic. But Israel lacks simple human decency. In Saudi Arabia, no churches are allowed, no Israeli Jews may enter, women are subject to gender apartheid. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity. Congo: what can one say about Congo? More than that 5 million — 5 million — people have been killed in its wars, alongside innumerable rapes and hideous tortures? But Israel lacks simple human decency. Now, here's one especially for Iain Banks: the USA and the UK initiate a war in Iraq in which more than 100,000 Iraqi civilians are killed. But Israel thinks it's exempt from the demands of common humanity. France trained and armed the Hutu genocidaires who killed around 800,000 civilians in the Rwanda genocide, and continued to protect them even as they lost power to the incoming Tutsis. But Israel lacks simple human decency. Three things to note. First, most of the other cases I've mentioned have involved far worse horrors than anything Israel has done. But Israel is the one which Banks and O'Toole charge, not with acting wrongly, or having bad judgement, but with being deliberately impervious to morality, with not even rising to the most basic level of decency. Banks and O'Toole (and indeed many others) level this charge at Israel alone. We won't be hearing them say that the Chinese are deliberately impervious to morality, or that the Turks lack simple human decency. Only Israel. Why is this? Second, we can't in fact leave aside the sinister provenance of these charges. O'Toole at least claims to know about the Holocaust, and what led to that horror; it's possible that Banks knows something about it too. It's a commonplace of historical explanation that one of the enabling factors was the dehumanization of the Jews, the constant Nazi propaganda about how they weren't fully human, how they didn't have the normal moral sentiments and beliefs, about how they saw themselves as the chosen people, above ordinary morality. Here we see these dehumanizing lies being reproduced, 60 years later, about Israel, and only about Israel. Why is this? Third, and most importantly, every point I've made in this post has been made before, by many others, many many times: forcefully, cogently, analytically; both passionately and dispassionately; with humour and with despair. It hasn't made the slightest difference to the likes of Banks and O'Toole. Nor to the many others shouting or whispering at us, in the teeth of the evidence, that Gaza is the new Warsaw Ghetto, and that Israel is really Nazi Germany come again — and so it's fine to hate Israel, it's to your credit to hate it, it shows the world that you have simple human decency. Why is this? And where will it lead? Eve Garrard |
|
PALESTINIANS ARE "MAJOR ACTORS IN THE DELEGITIMIZATION OF ISRAEL,"
Posted by Sanne DeWitt, June 23, 2010. |
| This was written by Janine Zacharia |
|
Israeli national security adviser Uzi Arad on Tuesday described the Palestinians as "major actors in the delegitimization of Israel." "In trying to make peace" via the indirect U.S.-led talks, "we are embracing an adversary who is conducting a very effective battle against us internationally." Arad said that Israel still aspires to peace with the Palestinians, but he was skeptical of the value of Israel putting forth any bold new peace initiative. "If we do make an initiative, which incorporates further concessions, it would only validate their current rejectionist position, leading them to say, 'If we wait long enough there will be some more,'" Arad said, referring to the Palestinians. On Iran, Arad did not directly address the likelihood that Israel would strike militarily to set back the country's nuclear program. "I don't see anyone who questions the legality of this or the legitimacy," Arad said of a possible Israeli strike. "They only discuss the efficacy, which is interesting. It suggests that people understand the problem. And they are not questioning the right." He also noted what Israeli officials have perceived as a shift in U.S. policy toward Iran, citing a subtle change in rhetoric. Officials say they think Obama is now more willing to employ military force, in the event it becomes necessary, to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. "All of us did take notice that the United States changed the definition of its policy on Iran, from one that said a nuclear Iran would be 'unacceptable,' to one in which it said that the United States 'is determined to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear.' There is determination there. There is activism," Arad said. (Washington Post) Sanne DeWitt distributes the IACEB newletter. Contact her at skdewitt@comcast.net |
|
U.S. BILL AGAINST LIBEL TOURISM; ALUMNUS CRITICIZES SUSPENSION OF MSU
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, June 23, 2010. |
|
U.S. BILL AGAINST LIBEL TOURISM U.S. Senators Leahy and Sessions have introduced a bill against libel tourism. Libel tourism is the use of foreign courts, that poorly protect freedom of the press, to bring wrongful defamation suits against authors that criticize Islamism. Between the burden of proving it is not libel and the burden of high legal costs, authors are intimidated. The result is repression in favor of Islamist ideology and terrorism. [The same abuse could be used by wealthy people for other cause.] London is one jurisdiction that favors lawsuits for libel. Entrenched there, the late Saudi billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz brought dozens of lawfare suits. He forced 40 authors to retract and apologize, until he encountered Rachel Ehrenfeld, director of the American Center for Democracy and author of Funding Evil, which documents Mr. Mahfouz's financing of terrorism. Although Ms. Ehrenfeld did not publish nor market her book there, an English court took up Mahfouz's libel suit against her. [Two copies of her book had been purchased in England by Internet, so the court claimed jurisdiction.] The court ruled that Ehrenfeld should pay a big fine, Mahfouz's sizable legal fees, retract her statements about him, and apologize. Ehrenfeld refused to acknowledge English jurisdiction. She counter sued on free press grounds in New York. New York lacked jurisdiction, however. So that state, followed by six others, enacted "Rachel's Law," authorizing jurisdiction. Now Congress has its own bill. It protects American authors from foreign attempts to undermine their first amendment rights by means of frivolous suits (ACD update, 6/22/10).
ALUMNUS CRITICIZES U.C. IRVINE SUSPENSION OF MUSLIM STUDENTS UNION In a letter to the L.A. Times, Omar Kurdi, an alumnus of U.C. Irvine, criticized the suspension of the Muslim Student Union (MSU) there. He attributed the suspension to an "alleged" disruption of a speech by the Israeli Ambassador. In the incident, 11 students were arrested; they also face university discipline. Mr. Kurdi calls this a chilling blow to university activism. He also says that the organization's suspension suffocates Muslim student life there. According to Kurdi, it was pressure from the Zionist Organization of America and Jewish donors that prompted the University decision. He calls their effort an extreme attempt to "stifle criticism" of Israel. Half his letter digresses to the flotilla incident and the Goldstone report about the combat in Gaza that called Israeli action a war crime. He concludes protest against Israel is reasonable. He calls the Gaza blockade illegal and the nine people killed, "humanitarian workers." He says that the Foreign Press Association in Israel criticized Israel for "stealing" passengers' photos and then presenting them in a way that distorted reality (6/22/10 letter reprinted by Zionist Organization of America, headquartered in New York). I saw a video of the Ambassador's good-natured attempt to speak and stated willingness to answer all questions, but he was shouted down by the Muslim students and supporters. That rowdy behavior is not criticism of Israel but an attempt to chill defense of Israel. Hence the justified arrests not by Zionists but by police. Kurdi omitted mentioning the years of MSU intimidation of opposition and its illegal fund-raising for a terrorist organization. This illegality is serious. That the Zionist Organization of America (of which I am a member) brought the violations of law, of freedom of speech, and of University rules to University and public attention is to its credit. The absence of Muslim activities formerly planned by MSU should have been thought of by MSU, before trying to squelch opponents' speech and raising funds for terrorists. Kurdi wants us to feel sorry for the MSU and its members. Their viciousness and apparently un-American illegality does not warrant sympathy. The Goldstone report had no more veracity and logic than Kurdi's letter. Whether Israel acted criminally or not is irrelevant to whether people may protest against it. Of course they may. The question is how. MSU does not protest in a decent manner. As we have reported elsewhere, the blockade was legal and the nine people killed on the flotilla were assailants, brought in to attack Israeli boarders. "Humanitarian workers," indeed! Certainly, since the ship ran a blockade and its Islamists on board attacked by prearrangement, wounding several, Israel was right to confiscate passengers' film, in preparation for investigation. The ship was a war zone and a crime scene. Whether Israel doctored the film, I have seen no evidence. We reported that Reuters doctored a couple of photos in favor of the Islamists. Kurdi failed to mention that. In any case, it is irrelevant to U.C. Irvine, where the question of the day is whether people will be allowed to present their views without being shouted down or, as on some campuses, mobbed.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEEN ISRAEL AND ARABS AFFECTING U.S. The main difference between Israel and the Arab states is that Israel is a modern state and the Arab ones are not. Israel has technologies of life but Iran has industries of death. For examples, Rambam Hospital in Haifa, has pioneered in multiple sclerosis, treatment of burns, and embryonic stem cells. Most computer microprocessors were invented in Israel for Intel. Apple's "flash memory" also was invented in Israel. Israel is important to the U.S. economy. Between 1967 and 1987 [when Israel administered all the Territories], per capita income for Palestinian Arabs tripled. After Arafat formed and controlled the Palestinian Authority (P.A.), GDP declined 40%. [The P.A. started after 1993, so those figures are not complete, but I have seen others that amount to the same effect.] The P.A. remains stuck in the mode of jihad and conquest. The U.S. needs to base its Mideast policy on the fact that Israel is its greatest asset in the region (George Gilder, 5/25/10, Middle East Forum). Israel is pro-American and a reliable ally, whereas the rest of the Mideast is not and much of it sympathizes with jihad against the U.S.
ISRAEL DISCRIMINATES IN BUILDING EVACUATION National Union MK Uriel Ariel has observed Israeli government discrimination in which buildings to have evacuated. How so? There are about 50 illegal Jewish building and thousands of illegal Arab ones [he may mean just in Jerusalem], but the government now demolishes them in pairs, one Jewish one for each Arab one; it expedites the schedule for demolishing Jews ones and delays the schedule for demolishing Arab ones. Public Security Minister Yitzcvhak Aharonowitz admitted that diplomatic and political considerations govern current policy. In Jerusalem's Silwan neighborhood, three buildings are owned by Jews: two residences and the Yemenite Synagogue built in 1890. In the late1930s, the Yemenites were forced by Arab pogroms to abandon the building. Four Arab families have occupied it since 1938. In 2008, an Israeli court ordered police to cooperate in evacuating the squatters, the rooms added illegally razed, and the building restored. The police, however, have taken no action [as usual, when Arabs are concerned]. MK Ariel says that on July 4, he and other Jewish nationalists will evacuate the squatters themselves. Min. Aharonowitz commented that MK Ariel has parliamentary immunity to arrest, but the others do not. The court order states that the police should cooperate in the evacuation, but does not require people wishing to conduct the eviction to get police permission. On July 4, PM Netanyahu is scheduled to meet with President Obama (Arutz-7, 6/23/10). One can foresee clashes leading to violence and media headlines blaming Jews for trying to enforce their rights, but not blaming the government for failing to enforce Jews' rights, and not blaming the Arabs for depriving Jews of their rights. Remember that this strife started because Britain did not run the Mandate under a regime of law and order. Why does Netanyahu bother meeting with Obama? Obama makes more and more demands to make Israel weaker and weaker and its and America's Arab enemies stronger and stronger and to solve less and less. Netanyahu thinks that if he makes a concession, he will relieve pressure on Israel and win foreign, at least Western goodwill. But there is no foreign goodwill to be won, and acting accommodating, meaning appearing weak, does not win approval. The West is, itself, appeasing the Arabs. And the Arabs cannot be appeased, for they are in a degree of jihad, whose goal is not to compromise but to conquer. Nor can Obama be appeased. His goal is to serve the Palestinian Arabs, among others. He is relentless, though he does engage in damage control for his obvious excesses. He covers up his own mistakes by blaming big companies or his predecessor. He shakes down big companies, and pursues them with a vengeance. Some companies think he will exempt some of their important business necessities from harsh legislation and regulation, if they agree to support his medical insurance bill or other bills. They support it, and he reneges. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
PROTEST THE DESTRUCTION OF JEWISH HOMES IN BAT AYIN
Posted by AFSI, June 23, 2010. |
|
Dear AFSI friends, The destruction of homes and yeshivas and places holy to Jews is immoral, inhumane, and inexcusable. Israel expends its energies on destroying Jewish lives in a vain effort to appease its enemies. This is intolerable. Please write to PM Netanyahu protesting this wanton destruction. His email addresses are: memshala@pmo.gov.il; bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il; pm_en2@it.pmo.gov.il. While you are protesting this destruction, be sure to mention your opposition to plans to destroy the Od Yosef Chai Yeshiva in Yitzhar on July 4. The destruction of a Jewish home or three story brick building is equally reprehensible. The tragedy of a Jewish government destroying Jewish homes and communities is especially apparent today, as we approach the 5th anniversary, this Tisha B'Av, July 20, of the expulsion of 10,000 Jews from Gush Katif/Gaza and the Shomrom, and the total destruction of their communities. The results of this abomination are the on-going suffering of the Jewish refugees from Gush Katif, and the bombing of Sderot, the 2nd Lebanon war, Operation Cast Lead, the Goldstone report, and the continuing flotilla fiascos. The Israeli government must understand that each "sacrifice for peace" is another victory for Israel's enemies. This below was written by Nadia Matar of the Women in Green. Contact her at nmatar@netvision.net.il |
|
Reaction by Women for Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green) and the Judea Action Committee to this morning's destruction of two houses in Bat Ayin by tens of Yassam and police forces The murderers of policeman Yehoshua Sofer HY"D who was murdered by Arabs last week in the southern Hevron Hills were not caught yet, but that did not bother the police to allocate tens of troops to attack Jews. 
This Wednesday morning at 5:30am, tens of police and yassam forces arrived in "Mitzpe Erez", in the Jewish community of Bat Ayin, not with paintball guns as in the terror flotilla, but rather with batons and machine guns, and destroyed two houses that were built in the Bat Ayin forest after and in reaction to the murder of Erez Levanon HY"D. In a letter that the families wrote a few days ago when they heard that their houses were slated for destruction they say: 
"Our settling in the forest is not an irresponsible picnic by young couples who are looking to relax but rather a clear statement of growth and expansion at a place where the life of Erez Levanon HY"D was taken away cruelly and heinously, with the clear purpose of scaring us and paralyzing us so we should not dare to go out and expand. Our settling Mitzpe Erez is the one and real answer to all those who try to paralyze and silence us — whether it is the external enemy or the government, especially at a time of the "freeze" whose meaning is-the destruction of the settlement enterprise and is very dangerous for the future of the Jewish People". We, members of Women for Israel's Tomorrow (Women in Green) and the Judea Action Committee strengthen the hands of our brothers in Bat Ayin and call upon the People of Israel to help rebuild the houses that were destroyed. That is exactly why we founded, a few months ago, the YIBANEH fund for building and expansion in the hills of Judea. The Yibaneh fund will donate, already this morning 5000NIS ($1250) for the rebuilding of Mitzpe Erez and we hope many more will join. With love for Israel,
Americans For a Safe Israel/AFSI is a pro-active pro-Israel
advocacy group. AFSI may be contacted by mail at 1623 Third Ave.,
Suite 205, New York, N.Y. 10128 (Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax:
212-828-1717); by email at afsi@rcn.com; or by accessing its website:
www.afsi.org. Helen Freedman is Executive Director.
|
|
WHO ARE THE TERRORISTS? THE PJAK OR THE MEK
Posted by Kenneth Timmerman, June 23, 2010. |
|
Dear friends, Please read this article carefully. The future of U.S. Policy toward Iran, and toward the Iranian opposition, depends on understanding clearly who are our friends, and who are our enemies. The State Department was right to put the MEK on the terrorism list. Treasury was wrong to put PJAK (an Iranian Kurdish opposition group that is the biggest threat to the regime) on its list of "specially-designated nationals" for alleged terrorist ties.
|
|
PJAK is a danger only to the Islamic regime A bipartisan group of House members last week unveiled a resolution in support of the Iranian "resistance," a code word for an opposition group known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq (MEK) that has been on the State Department's list of international terrorist organizations since its inception in the late 1980s. The MEK has a long record of carrying out violent attacks inside Iran. During the period leading up to the 1979 revolution, the group proudly murdered U.S. military officers and civilians working in Iran. And while the group's current leadership and its apologists claim that those attacks were carried out by a splinter group no longer associated with the MEK, eyewitnesses tell me that the MEK continued to celebrate the anniversary of those murders in ceremonies and song in their training camps inside Iraq all through the 1980s. In the power struggle that followed the 1979 revolution, the MEK actively promoted the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and planted a bomb that wiped out the leadership of the Islamic Republican Party led by Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, arguably the last of the "moderate" leaders of the revolution. More recently, MEK operatives inside Iran have carried out hit-and-run terrorist attacks on regime officials and have planted bombs in urban areas that have randomly killed civilians. The MEK and its supporters call these attacks acts of "resistance" against the regime. Senior State Department officials have stated that their condemnation of the MEK's use of random violence against civilians stems from a desire not to use a "double standard" when it comes to terrorism. The MEK and its supporters claim that keeping the MEK on the State Department's list of international terrorist organizations benefits the Iranian regime. Some even argue, incorrectly, that the group was placed on the list in 1994 by the Clinton administration as a sop to the regime. (While the Clinton folks kept the MEK on the list in hopes it would encourage a rapprochement with Tehran, the MEK was placed on the list years earlier). Contrast the MEK's record of random violence against civilians with the use of violence by the Free Life Party of Iranian Kurdistan, PJAK, a group that was designated by the Treasury Department as a terrorist organization in February 2009. PJAK guerrillas operate inside Iran in trained groups. Their primary mission is political: That is, they seek to spread a message that Iranian Kurds must abandon tribalism and traditional politics if they want to aspire to democratic self-governance. Indeed, at PJAK camps I visited in northern Iraq in October 2007, the emphasis was on the political indoctrination of new members, not military training. PJAK prides itself on its inclusiveness: More than 30 percent of its guerrilla fighters and leadership are women. PJAK makes no bones about its use of violence. Indeed, a Google search of the terms "PJAK attack" results in dozens of incidents in which PJAK guerrillas have attacked Iranian military targets and bases inside Iran. Almost all of these attacks have targeted the Revolutionary Guard Corps. But PJAK uses violence in defense of the Kurdish population, not as an instrument of terror against civilians. In contrast to the MEK, PJAK has never planted bombs in public areas or targeted regime officials for assassination. In an interview in Europe, PJAK Secretary General Abdulrahman Haj Ahmadi dismissed a recent claim by the Iranian regime to have captured a PJAK guerrilla fighter and dragged him through the streets of a Kurdish town. "This could not have happened because our fighters always operate in groups. They never go out alone," he said. In other words, when PJAK does engage in violence, it operates as an organized militia, not as a terrorist organization. PJAK suspended its military operations after last year's disputed presidential election in Iran, "to give the United States and Israel time to convince Turkey to end its growing strategic alliance with the Islamic Republic of Iran," Mr. Ahmadi told me. But after the execution of five Kurdish political prisoners by the regime on May 9, the group reluctantly resumed military operations, and in a single week, it claimed to have killed more than 100 Revolutionary Guards, many of them senior officers, in a series of coordinated military attacks against IRGC bases and outposts. Scores of PJAK political operatives are awaiting death sentences in Iranian jails for their role in organizing nonviolent protests over the past year. PJAK's effectiveness as a political organization and its selective use of violence in defense of the Kurdish population have prompted the Iranian regime to deem the group its main enemy. Through its Turkish ally, Tehran continues to insist that PJAK be banned in the United States and Europe and has received assistance from Interpol in arresting PJAK leaders in Europe. U.S. lawmakers would be wiser to demand that the Treasury Department drop its restrictions on PJAK, which is dedicated to a secular, democratic Iran, than to waste time on the MEK, a Marxist Islamist organization that not only uses terrorism as a political tactic but is widely discredited among ordinary Iranians because of its support for Saddam Hussein during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. Removing PJAK from Treasury's list of "specially designated nationals" would not demonstrate a double standard toward terror, as some Obama administration officials claim. It would strike a blow at the very heart of the Iranian regime, which has never hesitated to use terror to achieve its ends at home and abroad. Kenneth R. Timmerman is President, Middle East Data Project, Inc. He
authored "Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran"
and is a contributing editor to Newsmax.com His latest non-fiction
books is a thriller called Honor Killing, available at
www.kentimmerman.com. Contact him by email at
timmerman.road@verizon.net
This article appeared yesterday in the Washington Times
|
|
THE HIGH PRICE OF COALITION STABILITY
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, June 22, 2010. |
|
This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post. |
|
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his colleagues are doing their best to put a pretty face on an ugly situation. After nearly three weeks of deliberations, Netanyahu and his government caved in to massive US pressure to ease, if not end, Israel's blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza. On Sunday the government announced that all economic sanctions on Gaza will be immediately lifted. Henceforth, Hamas-controlled Gaza will have an effectively open economic border with Israel. Israel will only prohibit the transfer of military material. Even dual-use items, like cement, will be allowed in if international officials claim that they are to be used in their humanitarian projects. Netanyahu and his colleagues argue that these new concessions have now given Israel the international legitimacy it needs to maintain its naval blockade of the Gaza coast. But this is untrue. Even as he welcomed Netanyahu's latest capitulation, US President Barack Obama made clear that he expects Israel to continue making unreciprocated concessions to Hamas. Following the government's announcement, the White House declared, "We will work with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the Quartet and other international partners to ensure these arrangements are implemented as quickly and effectively as possible and to explore additional ways to improve the situation in Gaza, including greater freedom of movement and commerce between Gaza and the West Bank." In plain English that means that the administration doesn't trust Israel. It will escalate its pressure on Israel by among other things, pressuring it to provide members of the illegal Hamas regime in Gaza greater access to Judea and Samaria.
AS IF anticipating its next capitulation, government spokesmen told the media that in addition to ending economic sanctions on Gaza, Israel is now considering permitting the EU to station inspectors at its land crossings into Gaza. That is, Israel is considering a move that will constitute a first step towards surrendering its sovereign control over its borders. The economic sanctions the government is now cancelling were not simply legal, they were required by international law. Binding UN Security Council resolution 1373 requires states and non-state actors to deny support of any kind to terrorist organizations. And here, in a bid to win international "legitimacy" for its lawful blockade of Gaza, Israel has bowed to US pressure to unlawfully facilitate the economic prosperity of an area controlled by an illegal terrorist organization. There is something pathetic about the Prime Minister's office's protestations that by bowing to White House pressure the nations of the world will now accept our right to defend ourselves from an Iranian-controlled terrorist organization committed to the genocide of the Jewish people. After all, we have heard these hollow words many times before. This notion that unilateral Israeli capitulation to terrorists would bring Israel international "legitimacy" is of course how former prime minister Ariel Sharon justified his strategically indefensible decision to cede Gaza — and the international border between Gaza and Egypt — to Palestinian terrorists. If they attack us after we leave, he claimed, we'll have all the international support in the world to really destroy them. Today, the government argues, all we have to do is sell them spaghetti and cilantro and the international community will suddenly rally to our side. According to sources close to the cabinet, the main advocate for the latest capitulation was Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Barak is the serial bungler. Ten years ago, he argued that his decision to relinquish Israel's security zone in south Lebanon to Hizbullah guaranteed that Israel would have international legitimacy to really take it to the Iranian proxy army if it dared to attack us after we left. Barak is also the deep strategic thinker who brought us the Palestinian terror war. Barak promised that if Yasser Arafat rejected his offer at Camp David and so demonstrated that his commitment to destroy the Jewish state trumped his interest in establishing a Palestinian state, that the international community would rally around Israel and we'd have all the international legitimacy we needed to defeat the PA. And in the lead-up to the Mavi Marmara fiasco, it was reportedly Barak who decided it would be a terrific idea to outfit the naval commandos with paintball guns. Doing so, he promised would convince the Obama administration to support Israel against Hamas. A key question that needs to be considered is what makes policymakers like Barak advance such colossally stupid and dangerous policies time after time. Israel's history since 1993, when then prime minister Yitzhak Rabin and then foreign minister Shimon Peres opted to embrace Arafat and the PLO, bring thousands of PLO terrorists to the outskirts of Israel's major cities and give them weapons and international legitimacy indicates that three factors come into play. First there is the fact that many of Israel's leading politicians are simply not that smart. They are happy to be led by an ideologically radical media that have insisted since the 1980s that Israel must withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines. Not only are they happy to be led by the media, they are loath to dispute its misrepresentation of reality. And so the second cause of serial bungling on the part of politicians like Barak is that they are, in the end, sheep, not leaders.
THE FINAL major cause of Israel's strategic idiocy is corruption. On Monday morning, the police announced that they recommend indicting Sharon's sons Omri and Gilad Sharon for soliciting bribes on behalf of their father. After an eight-year investigation, the police said they believe that Sharon received $3 million in bribes from former Stasi-aligned Austrian banker Martin Schlaff. Schlaff, whose former attorney Dov Weisglass served as Sharon's chief of staff, was the majority share owner in the Jericho casino. He also reportedly intended to build another casino on the ruins of the destroyed Israeli community Elei Sinai in the northern Gaza Strip if and when Israel expelled its residents. There can be no doubt that Sharon's alleged corruption and his fear of the far-left legal fraternity that investigated his alleged corruption played a significant role in his decision to abandon his campaign pledge to voters, toss strategic sanity to the seven winds, expel ten thousand Israelis from their homes and transfer the Gaza Strip lock, stock and barrel to Hamas and Fatah terrorists. Like Sharon, Barak has been the subject of several corruption probes. Barak is also known to have had strong indirect connections to Schlaff. For instance, during his tenure as prime minister, Barak sent shock waves through the country when, with no prior warning, he announced that he was ceding Israel's rights to the natural gas deposits discovered off the Gaza shore. Barak's move precipitated a deal between the PA and British Gas to develop the gas deposits. Media reports exposed that Schlaff and Arafat's economic bag man Muhammed Rashid were major shareholders in British Gas. During his stint as a private citizen, in 2006 Barak sought to lobby Shin Bet Director Yuval Diskin to permit Orascom, the Egyptian telecom provider, to expand its ten percent ownership share in Partner, Israel's second-largest cellular telephone company. Israeli law prohibits foreign entities from owning more than a ten percent share in Israeli telecommunications firms. Diskin refused to meet with him and banned the deal. Rashid and other Schlaff associates are reportedly major shareholders in Orascom. Barak and Sharon are only the tip of the iceberg. Schlaff's connections to Israeli politicians run far and wide. Most of the leading founders of Kadima, including Ehud Olmert and Haim Ramon have personal ties to Schlaff. So too does former Shas leader Aryeh Deri. The ongoing criminal probes against Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman include, among other things, investigations into his allegedly prolific business ties to Schlaff.
REGARDLESS OF whether these ties to agents of corruption are criminal or not, it is obvious that they have influenced the policy preferences of more than one major politician in Israel. And regardless of what stands behind his poor judgment, the fact is that it is this judgment that is driving Israel's strategic direction. It is also apparent, that Barak is being handsomely rewarded by the Obama administration for his actions. Barak is currently on yet another junket to Washington where he is being given the red carpet treatment. While the premier is forced to conduct international diplomacy with Quartet chairman Tony Blair, Barak is feted by the White House, State Department and Pentagon on a regular basis. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Obama administration agreed to end its public campaign to overthrow the Netanyahu government in exchange for Netanyahu's effective concession of control over national policy to Barak. Barak has used this control to force the government to accede to every American demand. So far, he has convinced Netanyahu to take a back seat to Obama on Iran; to end Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria at least until September; to effectively ban Jewish construction in northern, southern and eastern Jerusalem; to embrace the cause of Palestinian statehood; to accept US mediated indirect negotiations with Fatah; and to pretend that the Obama administration is a credible ally to Israel. Before heading to Washington, Barak reportedly gave Netanyahu an ultimatum: Either make massive concessions to Fatah that will allow Obama to claim victory in the peace process, or Labor will bolt the coalition. So too, Barak is reportedly behind Netanyahu's latest bid to bring Kadima, led by Tzipi Livni into his government. Netanyahu and his spokesmen defend both Barak's primacy in the government, and their interest in bringing Kadima into the coalition by noting that the Left's partnership ensures political stability. If Labor were to bolt from the coalition, the government would be less likely to survive until the next scheduled election in 2013. There is certainly truth to this assertion. With Labor inside the coalition, Kadima has no relevance. So too, rightist parties are unable to bring down the coalition. This would be a decisive argument if coalition stability enabled Netanyahu to govern more effectively. But the opposite is true. Netanyahu knows the folly of his decisions. He recognizes Obama's hostility to Israel. He also knows that the US president is not going to do a thing to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Stability should be a means to an end, not an end unto itself. Netanyahu did not seek the premiership to achieve the goal of overseeing a stable government. He sought to lead the country to secure and strengthen it. As his latest concession to Barak makes clear, the price of governing stability is the abandonment of his leadership goals.
Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com
|