| HOME | Featured Stories | March 2009 Blog-Eds List | Background Information | News On the Web |
Opinions And Editorials By Our Readers
NOTE: Links to Videos are at the bottom
of this page.
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: SPRING WILDFLOWERS IN THE JUDEAN MOUNTAINS
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, March 31, 2009. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: HOW I GOT THE SHOT: Fortunately, I now have spies who send me cryptic emails like, "There's some pink stuff on the hill across from your house. You better check it out." Sounds simple enough, until you understand that the hill in question is on the opposite side of a deep valley and only accessible by foot. For several weeks now the terraced hillsides adjacent to Efrat, where I live, have been colorfully segmented into patches of green, pink or yellow enclosed by stone walls that neatly delineate each farmer's plot. And if you're me, you traipse across the valley in the late afternoon, only to discover the sun is on the wrong side of the hill for the shot you want so you decide to wake up before dawn the next morning and repeat the hour-long trek. At least the second time out I knew the trip would be worthwhile. I pitched my camera under this almond tree, in a spot I had discovered the day before. I had been concentrating on photographing the flowers and vines, but felt dissatisfied because the layout of the hill demanded that a portion of the sky, which was empty of clouds, be included in the shot. In this photo, the silhouetted branches fill the void created by the still cloudless sky. I mounted my camera on a tripod and pointed it to the northeast, with the rising sun — off to the right of the frame — throwing soft, morning sunshine on the wildflowers and stones while the bowed almond tree and stumpy vines retain their dark and mysterious form.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
NO TO PALESTINE & NO TO JEWISH EXPULSION
Posted by Yosef Rabin, March 31, 2009. |
|
Obama gave a speech (March 25) where he made it very clear that he will be pushing a Pali-State on us and just today Netanyahu also declared that he will be continuing with the "peace process". WHAT SHOULD WE DO? Call and fax the Orthodox Union now and demand that the lead the fight against a Arab State in Israel and the expulsion of Jews. Or in short " No to Palestine & No to Jewish expulsion"! Ask them to stand up for Jewish and Torah values! The OU Washington Office
Send a free fax via http://faxzero.com/ Important: If you go to a Jewish days school, high school, Yeshiva, girls school, let the OU know that you will convince your entire school to also call, fax and email. TO OUR NON-JEWISH ALLIES:
Contact Yosef Rabin by email at yosefrabin@yahoo.com |
|
TWIN ESSAYS DISPEL WORST LIES ABOUT POLLARD
Posted by Justice For Jonathan Pollard, March 31, 2009. |
|
Over the last 24 years, the fight for justice for Jonathan Pollard has been severely hampered by the constant, consistent, deliberate repetition of lies about the case by anonymous officials in both the US and Israel. A willfully gullible media continues to swallow these lies without question and to regurgitate them, over and over again, making it increasingly difficult to dispel them. Recently, two pernicious articles were published in the Jerusalem Post, one after the other, trumpeting many of the worst lies and canards of this more than two-decades-old case. In each instance, a Right of Rely essay was submitted and published. Together, these two Right of Reply essays dispel the worst lies about the Pollard case. Each essay was limited to no more than 1200 words. Despite their brevity, each essay packs a payload of critical information about the case. Each one stands on its own. But together, they provide a comprehensive rapid-read primer about the case. The twin essays are recommended reading for anyone who wants to know the truth about the Pollard case, but does not have copious time for research. Here are links to the essays: 1) "Right of Reply: Not treason, not dual loyalty, but equal
justice is the issue", by Esther Pollard, The Jerusalem Post.
2) Right of Reply: Not a security risk but a bargaining chip:
by Esther Pollard, The Jerusalem Post
Reach Justice for Jonathan Pollard by sending an email to justice4jp@gmail.com |
|
OBAMA: I KNOW BETTER THAN ISRAELIS AND PALESTINIANS
Posted by Barry Rubin, March 31, 2009. |
|
President Obama got it wrong in answering a question about Israel-Palestinian issues in his press conference, March 25. But his mistakes are different from those everyone noticed. The reporter asked: "Mr. President, you came into office pledging to work for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. How realistic do you think those hopes are now, given the likelihood of a prime minister who's not fully signed up to a two-state solution and a foreign minister who has been accused of insulting Arabs?" The reporter's wording betrays typical aspects of many mainstream media messages:
What should Obama have said? If he were really professional something like this: "It isn't for me to characterize Israel's new government. We'll have to wait to see. But whatever it is we will keep trying and I'm sure we can count on Israel's cooperation....." Here's what he said: "It's not easier than it was, but I think it's just as necessary. We don't yet know what the Israeli government is going to look like and we don't yet know what the future shape of Palestinian leadership is going to be comprised of. What we do know is this: that the status quo is unsustainable; that it is critical for us to advance a two-state solution where Israelis and Palestinians can live side by side in their own states with peace and security." The first half-dozen words, could be taken as hostile to Israel's leaders. He shouldn't have said it but not that big a deal. He even balanced by saying the Palestinian leadership's future is also unclear. The problem is not in the first but the third sentence: "What we do know is this: that the status quo is unsustainable..." Whenever someone says that, short of outright anarchy, they're naïve. All status quos are unsustainable in a sense since time brings change. On the other hand, this status quo can continue for years. In fact, a serious study of underlying forces and factors indicates this is likely, probably inevitable. Obama's statement, like thousands in recent decades, basically says: things are so horrible change is vital no matter what the risk or cost. Things can't possibly get worse. He adds, "We're going to be serious from day one in trying to move the parties in a direction that acknowledges that reality." To some extent, this is just rhetoric, a promise to work real hard. In practice, the policy is closer to saying: sure we'll pretend to be serious but this looks tough and we have more urgent priorities on domestic and even foreign policy. Yet to a considerable extent Obama — though not Secretary of State Hillary Clinson — thinks he understands true reality and the parties don't. In fact they know far better than him. Back in the 1990s U.S. and European leaders would say: The status quo is unsustainable and Palestinians are desperate for a state so we have to move real fast? Today some of the same people — including Bill Clinton — say their big mistake was trying to force a resolution to the conflict when Yasir Arafat really didn't want one. Today, the PA believes the status quo is sustainable (at least if they can make a deal to reunite with Hamas) because they're unwilling to make the compromises and concessions required for peace (full recognition of Israel, end of conflict, resettling Palestinian refugees in Palestine, security guarantees, stopping incitement, and so on). Israel — no matter who leads it — believes the status quo is sustainable (at least if it can stop rocket firing from the Gaza Strip) because it won't make any more concessions to a side that can't and won't deliver anything serious toward full and lasting peace. So, no, Obama will not persuade anybody that very bad change is better than a bad status quo. And because he doesn't comprehend that all his efforts are doomed to failure. There's one other feature to his answer that went unnoticed. He mentioned a recent St. Patrick's Day meeting with "previously sworn enemies celebrating here in this very room," people who, "even a decade ago, people would have said could never achieve peace." Well, he did have the St. Patrick's day event but, leaving aside the huge differences between the two conflict, his answer shows how detached he is from the continuity of U.S. policy and Middle East history, things he had no role in and knows nothing about. One might expect an American president to recall his predecessors' brokering of Egypt-Israel, Israel-PLO, and Israel-Jordan agreements. They didn't solve everything but made progress for which America can claim credit. By citing them Obama might have also shown some understanding of the reasons they fell short. But that, too, is part of the problem. He's coming into office thinking that a solution is easy and nothing can go wrong. In dealing with the Middle East, that's the direct path to, at best, miserable failure and, at worst, outright catastrophe. 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 |
|
CARL LUTZ (1895-1975). NEW ANNIVERSARY OF HIS BIRTHDAY
Posted by The International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation, March 31, 2009. |
|
Carl Lutz was the inventor of the "Protective Letters" Swiss Vice-Consul Carl Lutz arrived in Budapest in early 1942. As chief of the Swiss Legation's Department of Foreign Interests in Budapest, he was in charge of the interests of 14 belligerent nations — among them the United States and Great Britain. Lutz established his home at the British Legation at Szabadsadter in Pest. Among his duties was the protection of 300 Americans, 300 English nationals, 2,000 Romanians, and 3,000 Yugoslavs who were stranded in Hungary. When the Germans occupied Hungary on 19 March 1944, persecution of the Jews grew more and more flagrant. Thousands seeking Lutz's protection besieged his offices every day. As an engaged Christian, Carl Lutz felt he had to protect these people. At that time he had already helped 10,000 Jewish children and young people to emigrate to Palestine. He cared for refugee Jews who had come to Hungary from many nations and for Hungarian Jews who were within British and Palestine interests. When deportations to Auschwitz began on 15 May, Lutz decided to place the staff of the Jewish council for Palestine under his diplomatic protection and to rename it the "Department of Emigration of the Swiss Legation". A special relief organization had to be created for this stupendous task. With the aid of volunteers, Lutz increased his staff from 15 to 150. Taking advantage of the fact that neither Hitler's proconsul in Hungary, Edmund Veesenmayer, nor the Sztojay government had formally challenged the right of 8,000 to emigrate to Palestine, Lutz kept "negotiating" with the German and Hungarian authorities. In the process he changed his objective. He wanted to save as many Jewish lives as possible. As a ruse, he and his staff started to issue tens of thousands of added "protective letters", even though these were no longer backed by any Palestine certificates. In Order to hide the new approach, Lutz was always careful to repeat numbers one to 8,000 and never to surpass them. Each 1,000 names were grouped together into one Swiss collective passport. This meant that the applicants stood under formal Swiss protection. As the Hungarian authorities insisted on concentrating all Budapest Jews into one large ghetto, Lutz placed part of the Jews protected by Switzerland — about 30,000 people — in 76 protected houses. The inhabitants of these houses were precariously fed and helped out by the Consul meager financial and material resources. Meanwhile, the young Jewish Chalutzim (pioneers) provided communications within the entire Jewish community and the underground. In 1941 about 742,800 Jews lived in Hungary. In Budapest, some 124,000 survived the war. Between 15 May and 9 July, 437,402 people died in Auschwitz. Carl Lutz helped 62,000 Jews to survive. Life Milestones
Contact the International Raoul Wallenberg Foundation at comunicacion@irwf.org.ar |
|
A NICE STORY, BUT SLIPS IN PROPAGANDA; HOLYLAND FOUNDATION NOT SO HOLY; THE PRO-WAR 'ANTI-WAR' PEOPLE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 31, 2009. |
|
A NICE STORY, BUT SLIPS IN PROPAGANDA Some children, musicians from Jenin, P.A., came to Holon, Israel, to play for Holocaust survivors there. All had a good time, though the language barrier hampered communication. [Did that preclude bitter argument?] Journalist Isabel Kershner described the Jenin refugee camp as: (1) "once a notorious hotbed of militancy and violence;" and (2) "The capital of suicide bombers to the Israelis and a symbol of resistance to the Palestinians (sic) (NY Times, 3/26). What does she mean, "once?" P.A. Islamist culture has not changed. Indoctrination having persisted, hatreds are more likely dug in. The journalist gives an impression of violence having abated. Actually, the IDF still has to raid terrorists in the P.A., including in Jenin. IDF control tamps terrorism down. Note the parallel characterization of Jenin. Having different views doesn't make them of equal merit. That would be specious logic. Just imagine it applied to Hitler's and Stalin's warped views, similar to the Islamists'. The Times either elevates the Arabs to Israel's level or levels Israel's down to the Arabs'. The whole P.A. is Islamist, but Jenin was somewhat more notorious for terrorism. That is fact. Terrorism never is justified. That war criminality trumps any grievances that the Arabs may allege about Israel. Or does the Times now excuse terrorism? The Arabs don't have legitimate grievances. They have holy war. They fabricate grievances in order to persuade ignorant Westerners, whose ignorance is preserved by Times omissions and warped labels, that they have a legitimate cause. They do not. Neither do the P.A. Arabs have a right to fight against Israel, even according to the laws of warfare that as terrorists they flout. They signed peace agreements with Israel, starting 15 years ago. Let them abide by them, before the Times urges more agreements that the Arabs would break with Israel. In any case, they are supposed to negotiate, not "resist." Killing innocent Israelis is not "resistance," it is just plain evil. Murder is not, what the Times calls, "militancy." The Jewish philanthropist who sponsored the concert meant well. The musicians may have meant well. But do Kershner and the Times mean well, when they distort simple matters of right and wrong? How confusing the Times is, when its ideology makes it close its eyes to evil or equate guilty and innocent on this issue! In its editorials, it fulminates against certain politicians, but since it doesn't know right from wrong, how can one take its editorials seriously? It couldn't refrain from injecting propaganda into this simple human interest story. HOLYLAND FOUNDATION NOT SO HOLY The Islamic Holyland Foundation and its leaders were convicted of material support for terrorism, money laundering, and tax evasion. It underwrote Hamas. Closing such a foundation is a better method of combating terrorism than waiting to chase terrorists after they have killed people. Donors claim they don't intend to donate to terrorists, but they have no control over the ultimate use of the money. They could patronize genuine charities (Jewish Political Chronicle, winter 2009, p.20 from Moshe Yaalon, Azure, autumn 2008). I think that many donors know very well where their money is headed. HIRSI ALI SPEAKS IN FLORIDA Hirsi Ali, former Muslim, former immigrant to Holland, and former member of their parliament, was driven out of her adopted country by Muslim death threats. She was threatened for having helped make a documentary exposing Islamic oppression of women, such as genital mutilation. Miss Ali warned that Muslim immigration to Europe still is growing, while the native population still is shrinking. Islam likely will take over Europe. She defines Islam as a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can. Low birth rate Europeans can anticipate living under Islamic law. In Islamic society, associating with infidels is a sin, women mustn't leave home without male guardians, intercourse with a child and polygamy are permitted, and homosexuals are liable to be executed. [Dictatorship is their norm.] Ali said, "Every accommodation of Muslim demands leads to a sense of euphoria and a conviction that Allah is on their side." "They see every act of appeasement as an invitation to make fresh demands." [Attention peace processors!] A higher proportion of Europe's Muslims are on welfare. Prejudice is not the cause. One cause is uneducated Muslim mothers' inability to help their school children. Muslims often use religion as an excuse not to work, she said. [The newspaper report did not buttress that claim.] John Ederer, imam of the Islamic Foundation of S. Florida, said she describes fringe ideas by ignorant Muslims. He said they take a few verses out of context. The reporter said, "Some aspects of her biography have been disputed." (Palm Beach Daily News, 3/21) Which aspects? Unsaid. Therefore, unhelpful. Are almost all the imams of Pakistan, S. Arabia, Iran, the P.A., Egypt, and Jordan ignorant of Islam? Hundreds of millions of people follow them. Hardly matters whether they follow the faith accurately. They have guns and money. ISRAELI MEDIA CAMPAIGNS TO FREE PRISONER Yaron Dekel, Israeli broadcast journalist, accuses his country's major media of not reporting but campaigning on the matter of Hamas' Israeli prisoner. It seeks his release at almost any cost. By "campaigning," Mr. Dekel refers to extensive publicity given to childhood pictures of the prisoner and his parent's protest tent, while mostly ignoring the tent of protestors against the proposed deal. The proposed deal would free hundreds of Hamas prisoners. The media fails to ask the consequences to Israel of negotiations on other matters, after Israel will have paid such an unbalanced price on this one. The media also fails to discuss what the freed prisoners are likely to do. Obviously, many of them are likely to attempt terrorism, again. Then what will have been gained? The media slanted an earlier prisoner deal. It muted mention of the fact that the two Israeli prisoners actually had been killed. Instead, it kept emotions high in anticipation of getting the soldiers back. When coffins came back, instead, most Israelis were shocked (3/13). Do the math. One successful terrorist attack easily can murder more Israeli lives than might be saved by the release of the one soldier. Again, to capture the hundreds of Hamas terrorists and get them out of circulation, IDF soldiers risked their lives. Perhaps one or more were killed. After the hundreds will have been returned to the streets, and half of them resume terrorism, Israeli soldiers again would have to pursue them at the risk of their own lives. There must be a better way to force Hamas to release the prisoner. I think weekly executions of dozens of their apprehended terrorists would do it. Unfortunately, the government wouldn't approve. It would be more afraid of the international outcry against the death penalty. In this case, executions would take evil lives to spare innocent ones. THE PRO-WAR "ANTI-WAR" PEOPLE NY Times headline: "Canada: Antiwar Briton Is Barred." The article went on to describe that Briton, MP George Galloway, as "a pugnacious opponent of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq..." who "had bragged about innovating financial support for Hamas" "and had celebrated Taliban militants fighting Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan." (A5.) He is pro-war, not anti-war. He favors the Islamist side in those wars. Hamas is just a gang of Islamist aggressors, whom he helps. The Times is as dishonest about this as the Communists and Nazis used to be when they alleged peaceful intent as they planned and instigated wars. THE HARM OF BLOOD LIBEL Blood libel is a false accusation that Jews murdered someone for being of another religion. The Palestinian Arabs and French TV fabricated a tale of Israeli troops having murdered a Palestinian Arab boy. The fishy "evidence" eventually was disproved. Meanwhile, great indignation arose against Israel. P.A. Arabs redoubled their violence against (ZOA Report, spring 2009, p.4). Some promoters of the hoax are modern Westerners! When presented with poor evidence against Israel, they accept it and disseminate it, without checking. France, like the Arabs, are most reluctant to admit mistakes. It took France years to pardon Dreyfus from his unjust prison sentence. DUBIOUS "EYEWITNESSES" Ethan Bronner accepts "eyewitness accounts" of Jewish religious nationalist prompting to kill more Gazans. The paper print them before the IDF investigated. His report made generalized accusations without particulars about lax rules of combat and unjustified killing. Absence of facts makes his report suspect. Horrors, rabbis called the war in Gaza religious. That's an accusation? It's a fact. The Muslims admit it. The Times ignores Islamic motivation so it can advocate secular remedies (that won't work), and make it seem as if religious Jews are aggressors. Did Bronner forget that the Muslims started the war? Bronner claims that the Talmudic admonition against being over-merciful, reiterated to rev up IDF troops, encouraged wanton killing. The Talmud doesn't. The admonition goes something like this: he who is merciful to the cruel will end up being cruel to the merciful. What does that mean? It means that letting go people who are too evil to reform gives them an opportunity to commit further evil against the very people who showed them mercy. Makes sense. Realistic. Bronner distorted the Talmud. Ignorant or malicious, is he? Raising an alarm against Jewish nationalists who refused orders to disband settlements, Bronner failed to discuss the unethical if not illegal nature of such orders, on an issue not proper for the military to be involved in. The dismantling, often done with brutality ignored by the NY Times, harms Israeli security and benefits the Arab enemy. Bronner mentioned without the same indignation an officer's refusal to guard religious Jews visiting Nablus, P.A.. Unmentioned: Nablus is the site of one of Judaism's holy cities. The P.A. agreed that Jews had a legal right to visit there. P.S.: On 3/28, Bronner revisited the issue, in the face of strong Israeli efforts to counter-act the impression of wanton brutality by its forces. Bronner included a statement that the "eyewitnesses" admitted all they said was rumor. However, the way Times writers put such admissions, sandwiched within false accusations, they obscure their own failure to verify accusations and their own share in defamation. Also obscured by the tone, pace, and emphasis of the wording was the perspective and balance that Israelis tried to provide. They did point out how few were the civilian casualties compared with most wars. They did refer to the Hamas gunman not shot when he crouched behind a woman bearing a white flag and towing her children. Missing from this controversy are acknowledgments of these key points: (1) Anti-Israelis' record of defamation; (2) Jihadists' record of brutality; and (3) Israel's record of restrained warfare. The Times' anti-Zionist ideology interferes with objective and factual reporting. I find it difficult to figure out how much of a wrong-headed position stems from ill will and how much from incompetence. I mentioned the obfuscating language that Bronner used. I scrutinize Times wording, to determine whether it is inadvertent. Perhaps it is to some extent, but mostly I find it deliberate. It fits into a pattern of several propaganda techniques that militate against Israel. When the same reporters want to, they can write clearly. Therefore, when they write unclearly and in a way that leads to unfair conclusions against Israel and fails to give more than faint hints against the Arabs, both failures advancing the Times' anti-Zionist ideology, it must be intentional. 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 |
|
FROM ISRAEL: FALLING FLAT
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 31, 2009. |
|
So, the new government was sworn in today, and I find myself unable to work up much enthusiasm. Yes, it's a very good thing that Olmert will no longer be PM, and that Kadima — with "two state solution" Livni at its helm — will be in the opposition. But this new government was so long in the making that its establishment seems almost anti-climactic. Not to mention the fact that is carries within it seeds of dissension — intra-party both within the Likud and Labor parties, and inter-party between Shas and Yisrael Beitenu, for example. This, even as Netanyahu boasts that the addition of Labor to the government ensures stability. We've got some good people, experienced people, in the government — such as Moshe Kachlon, Gideon Sa'ar, and Yisrael Katz — but they are not necessarily in positions where they will do the most good. I'm truly distressed that Labor is part of the government and National Union is not. ~~~~~~~~~~ In the end, Moshe Ya'alon, who was slated to be Defense Minister before Barak was brought in, has been given the post of Strategic Affairs, as well as being named a Vice Prime Minister. And so he hasn't resigned before even starting. Presumably he will have a say in formulating policy with regard to trouble areas. "Vice prime minister," as I under stand it, designates the person who would take over in times of absence or incapacitation of the prime minister, with "deputy prime minister" being more an honorary title. ~~~~~~~~~~ The most disgruntled member of Likud is Silvan Shalom, who had hoped for — expected — the post of foreign minister, which was in the end given to Avigdor Lieberman as part of the coalition deal. There has been a flap about this already: Lieberman has been under investigation for several matters (sigh... again) and there was speculation that if he had to leave the government because he was indicted, Shalom would get the post. But Lieberman has let it be known that if he had to resign — a possibility he considers unlikely — and the post were to go to Likud rather than be kept within his party, Yisrael Beitenu would move to opposition and bring down the government. When Shalom didn't get the Foreign Affairs ministry, he then sought Finance. (He has served in both positions in the past.) But that ultimately went to Yuval Steinitz, a Netanyahu loyalist. (It was said for a while that Netanyahu would retain that ministry himself, and he will surely keep involved in financial decisions and policy.) Shalom was offered Regional Affairs Minister (do not ask me what this is — it's invented) and a position as vice prime minister (with Netanyahu saying it's OK to have two people with this designation), and finally Minister for the Development of the Negev and Galil. It wasn't until just before the swearing-in that he agreed to this. Shalom is not, shall we say, one of Netanyahu's closest associates. ~~~~~~~~~~ The position of Minister of Health has not been filled as this ministry is being saved for UTJ, should it join the coalition. There is distress about the fact that UTJ representative Moshe Gafni would administer the ministry as a deputy minister only (by choice of UTJ), which people in the Ministry of Health feel would create a disadvantage when it comes to such matters as budget. ~~~~~~~~~~ This government is the biggest ever. The splitting of posts, invention of new positions and formation of deputy positions was deemed necessary to satisfy everyone — those who joined Netanyahu's coalition and those within his own party. I hope to have a full and accurate list of all ministers and deputies in short order. ~~~~~~~~~~ If this doesn't make your blood boil, likely little will. Balad is an Israeli Arab political party with members elected to the Knesset. A new member, Haneen Zuabi (first ever woman elected from an Arab party), had a few things to say in a couple of English interviews reported upon by the Post: She thinks Iran's development of nuclear weapons is a good thing. This would offset the military edge Israel has in the region, which is "dangerous to the world." Asked if she was afraid of Iran's development of nuclear weapons, she replied, "No, I am not." She said was "more afraid from the Israeli nuclear [weapons]....It would be more supporting me to have a counter-power to Israel. I need something to balance [Israel's] power." What is more, she thinks Iran's role in Palestinian affairs is more useful than the role of Egypt and Jordan. That's because these countries are afraid of a free Palestine (in truth, afraid of the terrorism within Palestine). Iran stands more firmly "against occupation than a lot of the Arab countries. This is our interest." Please note this very carefully. In "our" interest. She speaks as a Palestinian and not an Israeli, although she is not only an Israeli citizen but a member of the Israeli parliament — provided with freedoms and receiving perks she would never receive in the PA. Her loyalty is with them and not us. ~~~~~~~~~~ There has been a whole lot of indignation about Avigdor Lieberman's charges against the Arabs here and his call for a loyalty oath. But he is on to something very serious. And it's people's weariness with disloyalty among some Israeli Arabs that was a considerable factor in his gaining the mandates he did. It's time we confronted this problem realistically. ~~~~~~~~~~ An article in Time magazine this week, citing Israeli sources, provided additional information on the bombing of the convoy of trucks bearing weapons bound for Gaza — with just one operation focused on here. In addition to drones, dozens of planes were used — primarily F-16s were utilized, with F-15s as back-up in case the squadron was attacked. This was not the first time the Iranians had used a Sudan route to get weapons to Hamas, but this was the biggest shipment. The Mossad discovered that 120 tons of explosives and weapons were on the way, and had one week to plan the operation. Refueling was done over the Red Sea. An IAF F-16i. This was said to be a warning to Iran and a show of our intelligence capabilities. ~~~~~~~~~~ According to journalist Seymour Hersh, writing in the New Yorker, presidential elect Barack Obama put pressure on Olmert to stop our military action in Gaza before his inauguration. This is simply confirmation of something that's been widely bandied about, but it's irksome none-the-less. An official (or official to be) of another country has no business interfering in our defensive action. And Olmert was foolish in the extreme to accede and terminate the operation prematurely to suit him. ~~~~~~~~~~ A two-day Arab summit convened in Doha, Qatar, yesterday to address a number of issues, but President Mubarak of Egypt opted not to attend, sending Mufid Shehab, Minister of Legal Affairs, instead. Of major concern to the leaders was the March 4, arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, on charges of crimes against humanity and war crimes because of his actions in Darfur. Bashir was at the conference and received a warm welcome; the Arab League has indicated it will not honor the arrest warrant. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
OBAMA'S MUSLIM OUTREACH. ISRAEL IS BEING THROWN UNDER THE BUS
Posted by Ted Belman, March 31, 2009. |
|
No matter how strong this connection was, the main stream media and ultimately Jewish Americans ignored it. "The person who made me proudest of all," Obama wrote, "was Roy. Actually, now we call him Abongo, his Luo name, for two years ago he decided to reassert his African heritage. He converted to Islam, and has sworn off pork and tobacco and alcohol." On February 27th, Barack Hussein Obama said the Muslim call to prayer is "one of the prettiest sounds on Earth." Although Obama played he Christian card while campaigning, he is playing the Muslim card now in such a blatant fashion that even I am astounded. Here is his record to date after inaugeration,
Essentially this outreach is intended to upgrade the relationship between the US and the Muslim world which will necessitate downgrading the relationship with Israel. For decades now this is what the State Department has wanted but couldn't say so publically. As I pointed out in Give the Palestinians what they want or else , there is a coordinated attack under way to bring about the downgrading of the US/Israel relationship. In the last few weeks, I posted many articles which made this point. Here are two. The West is tiring of Israel 'I have every reason to believe, based on what I've seen at my level of clearance especially over the last several years, that Israel will soon be completely on their own... or worse.' When asked what could be worse than losing the support of the United States, he stated: 'when our administration provides more support to Arab countries financial and military aid, undercutting Israel's defense efforts all while pushing Israel to succumb to the pressure of unreasonable demands designed to end with their political annihilation as a nation.' CIA report: Israel will fall in 20 years The CIA report predicts "an inexorable movement away from a two-state to a one-state solution, as the most viable model based on democratic principles of full equality that sheds the looming specter of colonial Apartheid while allowing for the return of the 1947/1948 and 1967 refugees. The latter being the precondition for sustainable peace in the region." These are only a few of the articles published since Obama's inaugeration which provide the handwriting on the wall. The core issue that the West is now recognizing is that given the emnity of the Arabs to the state of Israel, the Sate of Israel is doomed and shouldn't be supported to the detriment of the US. Debka reported this week, Obama set to betray Israel, big time Mar 29th DEBKAfile's Washington sources report that the Obama administration is on the threshold of a major rapprochement with Tehran, a reversal of US policy dramatic enough to block out international sanctions. Iran will be allowed to keep its nuclear program, including military elements and enriched uranium stocks, up to the point of actually assembling a weapon. The US president is willing to ditch Israel as a friend. This will be brought home to Jerusalem when he makes his big speech on April 7 appealing for a grand US-Muslim global reconciliation. The US president is preparing to tie a Palestinian-Israeli settlement — on Washington's terms — to such unrelated issues as Afghanistan and Pakistan as the currency for purchasing Muslim and Arab backing for accommodations of these outstanding terrorist fronts. To lend wings to Obama's outreach to the Muslims, White House circles Monday, March 30, leaked word that his team took a hand in persuading Israel to accept a ceasefire which cut short its anti-Hamas operation in Gaza in January. The radical Islamist terrorists had to be spared from total defeat by Israel and their leaders from capture otherwise Assad, as their backer, would be restrained from resuming peace talks with Israel for some time. The ceasefire gave Assad enough political room to continue the negotiations without losing credibility in the Arab world. Its not going to get better. Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
CARYL CHURCHILL'S SEVEN JEWISH CHILDREN
Posted by Steven Plaut, March 30, 2009. |
|
This was written by Kenneth Levin and it appeared in today's
Front Page Magazine
|
|
"... [T]he Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to realize the promise of Allah, no matter how long it takes. The Prophet, Allah's prayer and peace be upon him, says: 'The hour of judgment will not come until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, so that the Jews hide behind trees and stones and each tree and stone will say: "Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him..."." So declares the charter of the Palestinian organization Hamas, now ruling Gaza. Nor is this genocidal agenda limited to a statement in Hamas's founding document. It is taught in Hamas-controlled schools, preached in its mosques, and promoted in Hamas media, including children's television. The same incitement to genocide is purveyed in the schools, mosques and media of the PLO, or Palestinian Authority. In addition, both Hamas and elements of the PA, such as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, aggressively seek to translate their murderous agenda into action, attacking Israelis with rockets, mortar barrages and suicide bombings and particularly targeting children. Successful terror operations against Israeli civilians are celebrated by both PA and Hamas operatives by the handing out of sweets to Palestinian children and adults, reinforcing the message of what actions Palestinians ought most to emulate and delight in. Yet in the United Kingdom, it has become popular in various circles to stand this reality on its head: to ignore the incitement to genocide and excuse the terror that it inspires, and even to claim falsely that it is, rather, the Israelis who seek to dehumanize the Palestinians and delight in their slaughter. Thus in Caryl Churchill's play, Seven Jewish Children, the Jews of Israel are murderous interlopers who are sensitive only to their own pain and feel justified in coldly visiting pain on their Arab neighbors. One character declares: "... [T]ell her [that is, tell the Jewish child] they're animals living in rubble now, tell her I wouldn't care if we wiped them out, the world would hate us is the only thing, tell her I don't care if the world hates us, tell her we're better haters, tell her we're chosen people, tell her I look at one of their children covered in blood and what do I feel? tell her all I feel is happy it's not her." Are there some Israelis, or non-Israeli Jews, who feel this level of hatred? No doubt. Churchill's Big Lie is the implicit claim that this is commonplace among Israelis or other Jews, when in reality every major organ of Israeli and Jewish society, including Israel's political parties, consistently condemns such hatred, while every major organ of Palestinian society explicitly promotes it. What inspires Churchill and those like-minded in the UK to this inversion of reality? Obviously, it's difficult to plumb from a distance the psychological warp of any particular individual. What can be said is that such views have a pedigree in Britain. George Eliot, writing largely of her fellow countrymen, observed in an 1878 essay, "It would be difficult to find a form of bad reasoning about [the Jews] which has not been heard in conversation or been admitted to the dignity of print." Even Churchill's silence on and apparent indifference to the genocidal agenda of the Palestinian leadership and its effort to translate that agenda into action has entrenched precedent in Britain. There have long been circles who have had such a distaste for the Jews as to be impervious to efforts to exterminate them and, indeed, have regarded such efforts as having attractive pragmatic advantages. For example, a spring, 1943, Foreign Office memo to the State Department urging rejection of any efforts to save European Jews, declared — expressing sentiments conveyed in other communications as well — "There is a possibility that the Germans or their satellites may change over from the policy of extermination to one of extrusion, and aim as they did before the war at embarrassing other countries by flooding them with alien immigrants." Anti-Jewish bias of murderous dimensions was so rife that Winston Churchill was prompted during the war, as well as at other times, to warn against what he described as "the usual anti-Zionist and anti-Semitic channel." In response to such concerns, Churchill was attacked for being, in the words of one colleague, "too fond of Jews." Given this tradition, it is perhaps not surprising that promotion and pursuit of the extermination of the Jews by Palestinian groups hardly merits comment in Britain. Rarely is it noted, for example, by the BBC or the most respected British print media or other outlets of what constitutes the UK's chattering classes. That silence, like Caryl Churchill's, to Hamas's program, and to the similar agenda of competing major Palestinian parties, extends also to their explicit declarations that their determination to kill the Jews is unrelated to borders or "settlements" but is a response rather to the Jews' temerity in claiming rights of national self-determination routinely accorded other peoples and doing so in land Palestinians regard as properly the exclusive preserve of Muslims. The absence of this reality from British commentary on Israel and the Palestinians can only be construed as reflecting widespread perception of the latter's murderous agenda as not particularly noteworthy or troubling. Moral outrage is reserved, instead, for Israeli attempts to defend themselves from the genocidal assaults of their neighbors. Reflective of this bias was the response in Britain to the terror war launched by Yasser Arafat against Israel in 2000. As Israelis were being killed by the score each month in suicide bombings, roadside shootings and other terror attacks, media coverage in Britain tended to portray the slaughter as nothing worthy of exceptional attention. In April, 2002, however, the Israelis finally launched a ground offensive in response to the terror assault — after 133 people had been killed in anti-Israel attacks the previous month. Israel invaded the terrorist safe-haven in the center of Jenin, an operation that, according to a UN investigation and reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, resulted in about 23 Israelis and 52 Palestinians killed, the latter mostly armed combatants even as the terror groups used civilians as human shields. The Israeli operation was almost universally decried in Britain as the "Jenin massacre," and Israel condemned in the most lurid of purple prose: "We are talking here of massacre, and a cover-up, of genocide," feverishly exclaimed A.N. Wilson in London's Evening Standard. (He also accused Israel of "the poisoning of water supplies," perhaps throwing this in because the other accusations didn't satisfy his appetite for traditional anti-Jewish libels.) "Rarely in more than a decade of war reporting from Bosnia, Chechnya, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, have I seen such deliberate destruction, such disrespect for human life," emoted Janine di Giovanni, the London Times correspondent in Jenin. "Every bit as repellent" as Osama Bin Laden's September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, was the measured assessment of the Guardian in a lead editorial. Similarly, Hamas's incessant rocket and mortar attacks on Israeli communities in the three years since Israel's total withdrawal from Gaza, attacks undertaken with the exclusive aim of killing civilians and forcing survivors to flee the area for safety, received minimal coverage in British media. Instead Israel was condemned for not being sufficiently forthcoming in allowing supplies to this government bent on its annihilation. It was also falsely charged with withholding essential food and medical supplies from Gaza. In fact, there has never been a shortage of either, except to the extent that Hamas has commandeered provisions and either offered international contributions for sale to Gazans or diverted them to the organization's own use. And, of course, when Israel sought to end Hamas's attacks by an air and ground offensive this past December, there was little in British reporting about the precipitating Hamas assaults or Hamas's use of civilians as human shields. And there were few truthful accounts of the number of Hamas fighters and civilians killed or factual assessments of damage to buildings not part of Hamas's infrastructure or not used as launching pads for Hamas attacks. Instead, there was the familiar shoddy, biased reporting of the "Jenin massacre" ilk, and there is Caryl Churchill's Seven Jewish Children, to satisfy what for many in Britain is an apparently insatiable thirst for anti-Jewish libels and indifference to the targeting of Jews. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
HAS THERE BEEN A 'SOLUTION' FOR EVERY RESIDENT OF GUSH KATIF, GAZA?
Posted by Helen Freedman, March 30, 2009. |
|
Dror Vanunu, International Coordinator for the Gush Katif Committee, arrived in New York on Sunday afternoon, March 22, for a four day whirlwind visit to New York City. Vanunu's visit was prompted by the need to report to the media, and all interested parties, on the situation that exists today with the former Gush Katif residents, three and one-half years since their expulsion from their thriving communities in Gush Katif/Gaza. There is no need to reiterate the disastrous results of Sharon's unilateral Gush Katif expulsion plan. All the dire warnings about the rockets that would fall on Sderot, Ashkelon, and Ashdod, have proven true. In addition, the forced departure of the 8800 Jews from Gush Katif, who served as the front-line of defense for the IDF, created a vacuum, quickly filled by Hamas. Israel is dealing with the problems of Hamasistan to this very day. But what of the government's promise, "There is a Solution for Every Resident" just one month before the August, 2005 expulsion plan went into effect? This 'solution' was advertised as being a complete government plan to absorb and assist the residents with all the needs that displaced persons might require — housing, education, employment, compensation, social services, new farm lands for the farmers, synagogues, cultural centers, and all the elements that make up a healthy living environment. Today, 3 1/2 years later, Vanunu reports that 92% of the former residents of Gush Katif have not begun building permanent homes. There are 24 potential sites for the displaced persons; building has started on only five of the sites. Barely a fifth of the displaced farmers have gone back to developing some agricultural land. At least one fifth of the people are unemployed, many of them too old or too broken to begin their business activities from scratch. A number of deaths have occurred, attributed to the emotional stress involved in the loss of home, job, and community life. Compensation payments, designed originally to pay for new homes, have been spent for daily needs. Former Gush Katif residents, 4,000 of whom live in thin-walled trailers, in locations spread throughout the western Negev, are constantly under attack by Hamas rockets. They received delivery of large sewer pipes during the Gaza war. These were to act as "shelters" should rocket shrapnel occur during a missile attack. Unfortunately, they wouldn't be sufficient if there were a direct attack. This, however, was the temporary 'solution' to the lack of actual shelters. Thanks to the ongoing efforts of the Gush Katif Committee, representing the 21 former Gush Katif communities, some positive achievements have been made. Over 85% or 1,400 families have remained with their communities. Unfortunately, they are living in 18 temporary sites which were not designed for long term use, thus impacting on every facet of daily living. However, the determination to remain together as a group has enabled the Gush Katif Committee to make up somewhat for the lack of government concern. There has been coordination of relief efforts, the building of a social welfare infrastructure, the creation of a teenage support program, and attention paid to various projects on behalf of the children, youth and adults. There is active coordination with the representatives of all the dispersed communities, and there are ongoing efforts to work with government agencies involved in finding the 'solutions'. Due to the efforts of the Gush Katif Committee, many other dedicated friends of Gush Katif, and 88% of the Israeli public who believe the government has failed in its obligations to the people of Gush Katif, this March, a state inquiry commission has begun investigating the failure of the Israeli government to live up to its promises. Hopefully, this investigation will hasten the day when Gush Katif residents will be restored to a semblance of the life they enjoyed prior to the 2005 expulsion. The State of Israel will benefit from the 'solution' also, because researchers have determined that each additional year of delay damages the gross national product, and costs approximately $35 million. Until the situation is rectified, those interested in helping to rebuild the new communities can do so by contributing to the matching funds needed for the public buildings. Even where the government provides some funding, private funds are needed for synagogues, cultural centers, youth centers, and the variety of social service programs that complete a community. Those interested in helping should contact Dror Vanunu — gkatif@netvision.net.il. Contributions can be made out to, and sent to: Friends of Gush Katif, POB 1184, Teaneck, NJ 07666. In Israel, the address is: The Gush Katif Committee, PO Box 450, Ahuzat Etrog, 79411. The website is: www.katifund.org. Helen Freedman is the former National Executive Director of Americans for a Safe Israel / AFSI . |
|
THE AMERICAN JEWISH COMMITTEE DESERVES BETTER LEADERSHIP
Posted by Sacha Stawski, March 30, 2009. |
|
This was written by Philippe Karsenty, a French media critic.
and it appeared in the Jerusalem Post.
www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1238423642866&pagename= JPArticle%2FShowFull |
|
If ever an issue begged for the intervention of a Jewish organization of international stature, it was the Mohamed al Dura affair. This notorious blood libel accused Israeli soldiers of shooting to death an Arab boy in Gaza on September 30, 2000. Though the event was actually a staged hoax, it was broadcast the same day on French public television station, France 2. Mohamed al Dura became an icon for all Muslim children. The story triggered rioting, terrorism and mayhem throughout the Muslim world; unleashed the Second Intifada; was the pretext for Daniel Pearl's beheading, and was referenced in Osama bin Laden's recruitment tapes prior to 9/11. For seven years I worked to expose that hoax, and was sued for my effort. The American Jewish Committee is one of the world's most active Jewish institutions. It would have been entirely consistent with its mission to have stepped forward to aid me in my efforts to counter a libel that dishonored every Jew. But under David Harris as executive director, only silence and obstruction were forthcoming. Harris is renowned for his diplomatic skills, his warm friendship with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, and his contacts at the highest levels of other European governments. Some have complained to him that his representative in France, Valerie Hoffenberg, never once objected to France 2's hoax or supported my efforts to expose it. In fact, Hoffenberg was waging a behind-the scenes counter-offensive to cover-up the al Dura lie by blocking my access to some French officials, lobbying Jewish leaders against me, and claiming that the phony news report was authentic. Harris' response was always polite and reassuring: "I will look into it," he promised. Yet nothing ever changed. It finally became clear that Hoffenberg was not acting on her own initiative, but faithfully adhering to AJC policy. Because of Hoffenberg's activities, AJC France was actually my most destructive foe. Nonetheless, in May of last year I was vindicated in a French court.
DAVID HARRIS' antipathy to exposing the al Dura hoax is entirely consistent with his advice to the Obama administration (as well as other foreign governments) to participate in the planning of the Jew-hating stimulus package known as Durban II — against the wishes of the State of Israel. Now he is viciously attacking three of Israel's best defenders — Caroline Glick, Melanie Phillips and Anne Bayefsky — for advocating an immediate and unequivocal boycott. Harris' claims that he deserves the credit for the current US disengagement from Durban II or improvements in its draft declaration — after undermining boycott efforts repeatedly — are more examples of the same practice I witnessed in the al Dura context: AJC's mastery of the double game. When the French Court of Appeals ruled in my favor, the AJC immediately issued a statement in praise of French justice. But that statement was only for its US audience. When asked to comment in French, the AJC representative in France refused, afraid it would appear as criticism of the French government which owns and controls the French public TV station that broadcast the al Dura hoax. On December 2006, the AJC published an excellent report called "Progressive Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism" by Alvin Rosenfeld. AJC received requests that it be translated into German. Harris wrote to his Berlin bureau chief, Deidre Berger: "I believe there would be a mini-firestorm in Germany if this [the Rosenfeld report] appeared and, therefore, do far more damage than good to our image and reputation in a key country." In other words Germany is a "key country" and Harris had important relationships to protect.
I'M NOT ALONE in my concerns about Harris' European involvement. The following is an unsolicited note from a prominent German Jew that came to me in November 2008 and confirmed my perception of Harris' "policies": "While you experienced problems with AJC Paris, AJC Berlin has been making problems in Germany. This is no coincidence. The explanation is that this AJC policy is supported by David Harris. AJC wants to sit in the first row among the Jewish organizations when it comes to contacts with European governments. For this reason they try to get along well with the establishments in the various countries... "It is thus working against, and even sabotaging, other Jewish and non-Jewish NGOs that are more serious about combating anti-Semitism and supporting Israel. In short, AJC is practicing appeasement toward the European governments and elites. That establishment, for its part, appreciates AJC giving them the kosher stamp of approval. AJC is thus working against Jewish interests in Europe." Worldwide, Jew-hatred is skyrocketing and Israel's enemies have never been as united as they are now. The UN's Durban II is a forum intended to confer official legitimacy on that hatred and unity — no less than the fiction of Mohamed al Dura, the UN's poster child for Israeli atrocities. Not surprisingly, the painful but phony image of the "dead" Al Dura boy adorned the walls of the places that hosted Durban I. AJC attracts donors by claiming to protect Jewish interests, but in reality, under Harris' leadership, its actions provide cover for our enemies. Sacha Stawski is with the Honestly Concerned organization. Contact him at sstawski@honestly-concerned.org |
|
ISRAEL MISSED OPPORTUNITIES?; CLINTON DAMNS WITH PRAISE; FATAH MODERATION; ISRAELI MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGH
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 30, 2009. |
|
NETANYAHU'S COALITION Likud, Labor, Shas, and the Russian party all are leftist, at least in their leadership and in Shas' willingness to let territory be given to the Arabs so long as money is given to its schools. This didn't surprise you — I had predicted it. A BIT OF HONESTY AT THE NY TIMES In a rare bit of honest self-examination, NY Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof suggests "It's time to hold us pundits accountable." They should engage in more self-examination, he suggests. He admits he was mistaken in predicting that the "surge" would fail in Iraq. (Ironically, the day before, another Times columnist reported signs that the surge's initial success has eroded from lack of funds and continued Shiite suspicion of Sunnis.) Mr. Kristof doesn't seem to understand the problem with the modern media. That problem is advocacy journalism. Thus, in addition to the traditional, inherent weaknesses of the media, nowadays most of the media advocates certain ideological lines, rather than reporting the facts and then relating their conclusions from those facts. Instead, they present a fraudulent tale, at least about the Mideast, economics, and nutrition, and draw conclusions from false statements. Worse, they have become adversarial. They are in the fray, instead of above it. Thus the Times screens out most facts and effective statement of opinions contrary to its ideology. Even its token conservative columnist, David Brooks, was criticizing Pres. Bush, which criticism helped the Times' goal. I notice a tendency to become more insistent, myself. We should be more humble. At least I have studied the main issues I write about and I try to be truthful and fair. Can't be perfect. There is a great difference between the occasional mistake an earnest historian will make, or that I will make, and the constant manipulation by the major media. I would welcome more comments by readers to keep me on my toes. Have I gone too far or sound too cocksure? Flaws in my logic? "ISRAELI LEADERS MISSED OPPORTUNITIES" Israeli leaders are said to have missed opportunities for peace. What opportunities? Arab leaders never wanted peace but conquest. They might have made more one-sided agreements against Israeli national security, just like the agreements they did make and break. Those agreements did not provide security; they reduced security and the chance for peace. The treaty with Jordan was not consequential, since Jordan already had wanted no terrorists to raid Israel and invoke Israeli retaliation in Jordan. IRAN SMUGGLES ARMS UNO sanctions against Iran prohibit its export of arms or materials for making weapons. The US caught an Iranian ship loaded with weapons (IMRA, 3/11). That's the country that Pres. Obama thinks he is going to make friends with. SEC. CLINTON DAMNS WITH PRAISE In her visit to the P.A., Sec. Clinton effusively praised its Prime Minister. This made him seem to be a tool of the US, just as Arabs think the P.A. President Abbas is. The rest of Fatah resented the praise as US interference. PM Fayyad subsequently resigned (Arutz-7, 3/11). Guess she is not experienced enough. How much study does the State Dept. give its diplomats in preparation for working in Muslim Arab cultures? She doesn't praise Israel much. She routinely interferes with Israel by criticizing. Isn't terrorist Pakistan a more important problem for the Sec. of State to work on? DEDUCING FROM POLLS Ehud Barak was elected on a platform of keeping Jerusalem indivisible. Then he offered to divide it. A pollster reported that the Israeli public readily accepted that shift (Thomas Friedman, NY Times, 3/25). They didn't accept it. They defeated Barak next time they got a chance to vote. They were disappointment by his betrayal of national security. They still don't accept division of Jerusalem. There is no basis for Mr. Friedman's and the pollster's belief, but it helps advance their case for Israeli territorial cession. DEDUCING FROM UNO REPORTS "...in a report presented to the Human Rights Council on Monday, the UN special rapporteur for the occupied territories (sic), Richard Falk, concluded that Israel's recourse to force in Gaza was not legally justified given the diplomatic alternatives available, and that it was 'potentially a crime against peace." (Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 3/24). Ms. Kershner omitted that Mr. Falk wasn't allowed into Israel because of his pre-conceived, extreme bias against Israel. There is no "crime against peace." Peace was broken by Hamas, which initiated religious war and ended its ceasefire. Self-defense against a terrorist organization is lawful. There is nothing to negotiate with genocidal fanatics. If the UNO were decent, it would be rallying the world against terrorists instead of against their victims. NOTION OF FATAH MODERATION The ZOA initiated in Congress resolutions calling upon Abbas, head of Fatah, "...to rescind Fatah's murderous, anti-Israel, and anti-Semitic Constitution." The resolution quoted from articles in that Constitution: "(4) The Palestinian Struggle is part and parcel of the world-wide struggle against Zionism, colonialism and international imperialism;" "(7) The Zionist Movement is racial, colonial and aggressive in ideology, goals, organization and method;" "(8) The Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a colonial expansive base, and it is a natural ally to colonialism and international imperialism;" "12) Complete liberation of Palestine and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence;" "(17) Armed, public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine;" "(19) Armed struggle is a strategy and not a tactic, and the Palestinian Arab people's armed revolution is a decisive factor in the liberation fight and in uprooting the Zionist existence, and this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated;" "(22) Opposing any political solution offered as an alternative to demolishing the Zionist occupation in Palestine, as well as any project intended to liquidate the Palestinian Cause or impose any international mandate on its people;" "(23) Maintaining relations with Arab countries...with the proviso that the armed struggle is not negatively affected." "(24) Maintaining relations with all liberal forces supporting our just struggle in order to resist Zionism and imperialism;" "25) Convincing concerned countries in the world to prevent Jewish immigration to Palestine as a method of solving the problem." (ZOA Report, spring 2009, p.6.) This isn't specifically antisemitic, except in calling "racist" Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement. Amidst the defamation and old-fashioned phraseology about "imperialism," omitting, of course, Islamic imperialism, is the key point that Abbas' Fatah wants to destroy the Jewish state. Contrast those facts with the NY Times (Robert F. Worth, 3/24) assertion of "Fatah's moderate stance toward Israel!" EGYPT-ISRAEL NON-AGGRESSION PACT This is the 30th anniversary of the non-aggression treaty between Egypt and Israel. Here is the Israeli Foreign Ministry's description of the treaty. Sadat accepted PM Begin's offer of peace, setting an example for the region. The two countries benefit from the resulting open dialogue. Their armies and leaders consult each other. They promote mutual trade; Israel trained thousands of Egyptian farmers. "Other areas of bilateral cooperation, albeit somewhat limited, are the areas of tourism, transportation, communications and health." "Despite the solid foundations of Israeli-Egyptian relations, there are still many goals to be achieved. The primary objective is building stronger bonds of mutual understanding and tolerance between the two peoples, fostering a broader cultural dialogue, and the development of a culture of peace." Dr. Aaron Lerner commented, "The Israel Foreign Ministry declines to mention one of the major 'achievements' of the treaty: the arming of Egypt to the teeth with the most advanced weapons the United States can supply to them for free (including mobile anti-aircraft systems to provide cover for an invasion of Israel — something that they regularly practice)." Another omission: "The ongoing Egyptian failure to stop the flow of weapons from Egypt to Gaza..." (IMRA, 3/24.) Israel trained Egyptians. What has Egypt done for Israel? Blocked most tourists and trade. Egypt still has a culture of intolerance and violence. The armies consult, but Egypt prepares to invade Israel and it lets terrorists get arms with which to attack Israel. Not a happy relationship. The leaders consult, but Egypt leads the diplomatic offensive against Israel. "Open dialogue?" No; when Israel complains about Egypt letting arms get to Hamas, Egypt threatens to break relations. This is a relationship between Muslims, who consider their religion the only true one, and an infidel state whose existence Muslims consider an affront to their religious imperialist designs. Israel engages in wishful thinking. That is the way to get conquered. ISRAELI MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGH Israeli surgeons welded wounds shut by beaming a surgical laser on albumen placed over the wound. This is much safer and surer than sewing the skin closed (Jewish Political Chronicle, Winter 2009, p.58, from Judy Siegel, Jer. Post, 11/25/08). Israel makes many medical breakthroughs, rarely gets credit for it. Nothing has yet come of Israel's claim to have found how to neutralize radioactive waste. Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less. 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 |
|
WHY I AM A BAD JEW
Posted by Sonia Nusenbaum, March 30, 2009. |
|
This was written by Rami Kaminski, MD, Founder and Director of the Institute for Integrative Psychiatry in New York City. Rami Kaminski, MD, is Director and Founder of the Institute for Integrative Psychiatry in New York, a not-for-profit organization aimed at evaluating current psychiatric services and how they integrate with medicine, such as the mutual effects between medical and psychiatric conditions. He was for many years Director of The Schizophrenia research Unit at Mount Sinai Hospital in NYC. Dr. Kaminiski also served as the Medical Director of the PMHP and consultant to the committee in charge of developing the Special Needs Program. |
|
For centuries, we lived in Berdichev. In the brutal Ukrainian winter of 1941, SS soldiers arrived there and rounded up eighty-seven members of my family — babies, young adults, octogenarians — stripped them naked, marched them to a nearby ditch, and executed them. Their lifeless bodies fell silently into a mass grave. Like most Jews in Europe, my family "cooperated" with the Final Solution. They did not resist or fight back. Six million Jews were slaughtered in a period of four years. They received little sympathy while they were still alive and hunted down like animals. There was no public outcry because the Holocaust fit the world's narrative for Jews during the past 2000 years: a people destined to be persecuted and slaughtered. During their two millennia in the Diaspora, Jews were not known to resist. There are few recorded instances in which Jews turned against their host nations or retaliated against their murderers. Instead, the survivors — if there were any — were expelled or left for another place. The murdered were regarded as "good" Jews. They accepted their fate helplessly, without resistance. Not true...........over the centuries Jews did resist and fought extensive battles This narrative of the Jews has played out on the historical stage with boring monotony: Jews get killed because they are Jews. Nothing novel about it. After the Holocaust, however, the world, disgusted by this particularly ghoulish period of history, accorded some sympathy for the Jews. Media commentary about the ongoing Gaza War reveals the world has now reverted to its pre-Holocaust perspective. Today, the only good Jew is a powerless Jew willing to become a dead one. The Zionist Revolution is to blame. It changed everything. Jews re-created their own country. The Arabs attacked the new Jewish state the day after independence and promised to complete Hitler's genocide. In succeeding decades, the Arabs attacked again and again. Strangely, the Jews, many of them refugees from Arab nations, adopted a surprising, new tactic: they fought back. With Zionism, the Jews stubbornly refused to follow the centuries-old script. They refuse to be killed without resistance. As a result, the world has become increasingly enraged at their impertinence. The recent events in Gaza and Mumbai make this plain. In 2005, Israel eliminated all Jewish presence in Gaza making it "Judenrein," and handed it over to the Palestinians. Left behind were synagogues and thriving green houses. The Arabs looted and destroyed them literally the day after Israel's withdrawal was complete. Where these structures once stood, the Palestinians built military bases and installed rocket launchers to shell Israeli civilians. To date, some 7,000 missiles have fallen on Israeli cities and towns, killing and maiming dozens, and sowing widespread terror. Medical studies reveal nearly all Jewish children in the communities bordering Gaza suffer from serious, trauma-induced illness. The Gazan Palestinians then elected Hamas to lead them. Hamas proceeded to kill or imprison their political rivals, and its leaders, true to the Hamas charter, were unabashed in clearly stating their aims: they will not stop until they achieve their Final Solution, kill all the Jews, take over the land of Israel, and establish a theocracy governed by Islamic law. As killing Jews for being Jews has been a national sport for centuries, Islamic militants are justified in believing they are merely fulfilling historical tradition in Argentina, India and Gaza. Surely the Jews in Mumbai did not occupy Gaza. They were tortured and killed just for being Jews. And predictably, in the eyes of the world, they immediately became good Jews, just like my murdered family in Bertishev. Good Jews would wait until Hamas has weapons enabling its members to achieve their ultimate goal of absolute mass murder. Those enraged by Israel's defensive military action insist Hamas uses only "crude" rockets, as if Qassams were BB guns, and military inferiority were somehow equivalent with moral superiority. In fact, Hamas now has Iranian-supplied Grad missiles which have landed on Be'er Sheva and the outskirts of Tel Aviv. Westerners have had only sporadic exposure to the indiscriminant killing in the name of "holy war" which Israel has lived with for years. Memories of 9-11, Madrid, and London have dimmed. This is not because the Islamic militants made a careful choice of weapons. They simply have not yet acquired nuclear bombs. Once they do, the West will develop a less detached view about the Islamists' professed intentions for the "infidels." The only enlightened people in the civilized world who actually get it are the Israelis. They've not had time for detached philosophical ponderings. They've been too busy confronting the reality of Islamic fundamentalism. Soon, Iran will have nuclear weapons. It will give them to Hezbollah and Hamas. Today, Jews must take a position: either be "good" Jews willing to be slaughtered without resistance, or be "bad" Jews who defend themselves at the cost of being pariahs of our enlightened world. Good Jews would wait for another six million to be murdered, and pick up to leave for another country to start the cycle again. The bad ones refuse to go calmly into the ditch. I confess: I'm a bad Jew. |
|
IRAN HAS ASSEMBLED NETWORK OF LOBBYISTS THAT HAS 'PENETRATED' ADMINISTRATION
Posted by Barbara Sommer, March 29, 2009. |
|
WASHINGTON — The number of significant pro-Iran lobbyists has grown and key players have gained access to the new administration of President Barak Obama, a report said. The Center for Security Policy said veteran Iranian lobbyists, several of them former government officials, have been granted access to the Obama administration. "A complex network of individuals and organizations with ties to the clerical regime in Teheran is pressing forward in seeming synchrony to influence the new U.S. administration's policy towards the Islamic republic of Iran," the report, titled "Rise of the Iran Lobby," said. "Spearheaded by a de facto partnership between the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC), the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other organizations serving as mouthpieces for the mullahs' party line, the network includes well-known American diplomats, congressional representatives, figures from academia and the think tank world." The report, authored by Clare Lopez, said the lobbyists have been funneling money to key members of Congress as well as penetrating the Obama administration. The lobbyists were said to be supported by the highest level of the Iranian leadership. "Of special concern is the growing penetration of the Obama administration by a number of individuals with such associations," the report said. "Specifically, the de facto alliance between CAIR, one of the Muslim Brotherhood affiliates named by the U.S. Department of Justice as an unindicted co-conspirator in the 2007 and 2008 Holy Land Foundation trials, and groups such as NIAC and its predecessor, the American-Iranian Council, which long have functioned openly as apologists for the Iranian regime, must arouse deep concern that U.S. national security policy is being successfully targeted by Jihadist entities hostile to American interests." The report said the establishment of the Iranian lobby took about a decade as it has sought to recruit prominent American academics to support the Teheran regime. Today, the report said, key figures in such U.S. think tanks as the Brookings Institution, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Institute for Science and International Security and the Woodrow Wilson Center have become supporters of a diplomatic approach toward a nuclear Iran. Obama began talks with the Iranian lobby during his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination. The report, based on open sources, said Obama met a leading pro-Iranian lobbyist, Hassam Qazwini, head of the Islamic Center of America, in May 2008. Since then, Obama has been appointing or preparing to name such leading pro-Iranian speakers such as Richard Haas, Vali Nasr, Dennis Ross to senior positions in the administration. Ross has been selected to be Obama's special envoy to Iran. "That so many respected Middle East and foreign policy experts seem to have bought into the Iranian regime's agenda is testament to the extraordinarily effective information operation that has been waged against U.S. national security interests by the Iran Lobby's network over the last several years," the report said. Charles Freeman, appointed chairman of the National Intelligence Council, was identified as a key member of the Iranian lobby. Others cited by the report were U.S. envoy to the United Nations, Susan Rice, a predecessor, Thomas Pickering, [Ret.] Lt. Gen. Robert Gard, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering, former National Security Council official Gary Sick, former Rep. Robert Ney and Rep. Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat. Ney, convicted of accepting bribes in 2006, was directed by his then-aide Trita Parsi, who later became a key pro-Iranian lobbyist and president of the National Iranian-American Council. The report identified Parsi, a Swedish-Iranian, as a leading organizer in winning support for a U.S. rapproachment with Iran from prominent Americans, many of whom with access to Obama. "Under the leadership of Mr. Obama's prospective National Intelligence Council chairman, Chas Freeman, the Middle East Policy Council has closely aligned with Trita Parsi's NIAC in urging the U.S. to adopt an agenda of dialogue and rapprochement with Teheran," the report which was written before Freeman withdrew from the post said. "It is inconceivable that a man as publicly and closely aligned with the views of Iran and its agents of influence in America will be able to exercise truly independent judgment about what the mullahs are up to, let alone offer objective intelligence analysis about how best to contend with them." U.S. oil majors have also backed a new American policy that supports the Teheran regime. The report cited the American-Iranian Council, founded more than a decade ago with support from Aramco, Chevron Texaco, and Conoco Phillips. "At present, a major objective of the Iran lobby is to weaken U.S. support for Israel," the report said. "The lobby advocates permitting the Iranian nuclear weapons program to push forward with no serious consequences, while urging an 'evenhanded' policy that would ban all nuclear weapons from the Middle East region. An impressive array of prominent think tanks and Middle East experts has been lining up to echo this party line." "If the Obama administration does not hear a persuasive alternative position, cogently presented, and soon, Iran's carefully-crafted clandestine intelligence operation to exercise effective control over America's Iran policy could succeed — to the profound detriment of U.S. national interests and those of our friends and allies in the Middle East region and around the world." Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: THOSE WHO WILL NOT SEE
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 29, 2009. |
|
For the second time now, the EU has delivered a message that its relationship with Israel will suffer if we do not maintain a "two state solution" stance. Not long ago, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solan said that the EU might re-evaluate its relationship with Israel if the new government isn't committed to a "two-state solution." On Friday, Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg, whose country currently holds the EU presidency, said if the new Israeli government does not commit itself to establishing a Palestinian state, "relations would become very difficult indeed." "At one of our next ministerial meetings we would have to discuss what consequences the EU would draw from that." And the Czechs were said to be our friends. Threatening friends is not nice. ~~~~~~~~~~ Said Schwarzenberg, "Both parties must stick to their commitments from the past: A two-state solution and all agreements reached over the past few years." So in theory he's holding both sides to former commitments. But in reality he chooses to overlook that fact that there is no one with whom Israel might negotiate a "two-state solution." There is still not one address for the Palestinians and should there be a unity government it would adhere to Hamas policy, which says no end to terrorism, no commitment to former agreements of the PLO, no recognition of Israel. In fact, things are so bad that Fatah strongman Mohammad Dahlan has admitted that even FATAH never recognized Israel's right to exist, only the PLO did. Fatah was just along for the ride, while maintaining its own obstructionist policy. So, given this, why — why!! — should the EU, if it is balanced in its approach, expect us to continue to support that non-starter, a "two state solution? The answer is that the EU, whatever lip service it gives to being balanced, in fact is not. The EU is on the cusp of recognizing Hamas if it just "respects" former agreements. And it is promoting that unity government, without giving due attention to what it will stand for. Its eyes are closed, willfully. ~~~~~~~~~~ Which leads us to yet one more examination of where Netanyahu stands on this. It is making news here that "sources" report that in coalition negotiations he refused a request to say there would be no "two-state solution." I knew then that this would have prevented the entry of Labor into the coalition, which is something Netanyahu sought. Furthermore, it would have labeled us, within the international community, as right wing obstructionist. The stand of the EU is an early sign of this. The question remains one not of what he would or would not put into a coalition agreement — but of what he will and will not sign off on in real time. He countenances something short of a genuine sovereign state for the Palestinians. And I find, looking back, that he's been quite consistent on this. He says we shouldn't rule them, but they should not have the power to bring us harm. To that end he envisions a Palestinian entity that is internally autonomous — electing mayors, having a police force, managing their own schools, etc. The restrictions he would put on this entity are several: no army, no control of their air or electromagnetic space, no right to make treaties, etc. In addition, we keep all of Jerusalem, united, and maintain strategic areas in Judea and Samaria. And there is that small matter of incitement of PA children to jihad via their textbooks. If he holds to this, there will be no deal at all, as this is less than the Palestinians will accept. ~~~~~~~~~~ Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat has gone on the offensive with regard to this, in a Washington Post op-ed. The PA is for peace, you see, and Israel is not. Unfortunately some Washington Post readers will buy this. The only thing that is acceptable is a fully sovereign Palestinian state based on (please note!) '67 lines. Otherwise there will be no peace deal and it will be Israel's fault. There is, of course, no mention of the PA meeting its obligations. ~~~~~~~~~~ We are being told that our new government will be sworn in on Tuesday, but, as I write, Netanyahu still hasn't decided which of the few available ministry posts which of the big names in Likud will be offered. Nothing like waiting until the last minute. Moshe Ya'alon has now said that he joined Likud and agreed to run in the elections because Netanyahu told him he needed him. But as that may not be the case, he may resign. He has been publicly very gracious but must be steaming (with reason) at almost being named Defense Minister and then seeing it go to Barak. Negotiations with UTJ have apparently broken down because the party refused the Health Ministry it was offered. No mention of the National Union, which has toughened its stance again after the dismantlement of the Meoz Esther outpost next to Kochav HaShachar last week. ~~~~~~~~~~ I reported very recently about an attack we apparently made (there is no official confirmation) on a convoy of Iranian weapons traveling across Sudan to Egypt and destined for Gaza. A great deal more information has surfaced since then: ABC, citing an unnamed US official, on Friday night released a report that Israel carried out three different aerial attacks to stop the transfer of weapons to Gaza: two hit convoys in the desert in Sudan — on January 27th and February 11th, and subsequently one hit a ship at sea. If this information is reliable, it is most reassuring both with regard to our intelligence and our readiness to act. Today's Sunday Times (London), citing Israeli security officials, reports that our air force used drones — UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) — to carry out the attacks. It says that Hermes 450 drones, accompanied by huge Eitan UAVs, were used. The advantage of a drone over a plane for a mission like this, which involves hitting a moving target, is that a drone can hover for up to 24 hours at great heights where it cannot be seen, until its target is in place; it is controlled by satellite. According to the Times, this smuggling operation had been masterminded by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, who paid local smugglers well to do the job. The convoys were carrying Fajr-3 rockets, which — with a range of 40 miles — have the capacity to reach Tel Aviv. They had been manufactured in pieces and were to be assembled by Hamas experts in Gaza who had been trained in Iran and Syria. ~~~~~~~~~~ Americans: You might want to point out to President Obama what Iran's role was here, and remind him that soft-pedaling it with Iran will give this terrorist-promoting nation more latitude to do damage. Demand that Israel be supported in her right to defend herself. Fax: 202-456-2461 White House Comment Line: 202-456-1111
~~~~~~~~~~ A number of defense issues are making news:
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
UNRWA, WHERE IS THE MONEY going?
Posted by Barbara Taverna, March 29, 2009. |
|
This article was posted by Anav Silverman and is archived at
|
|
In recent years, billions of dollars have poured into Gaza from hundreds of countries and international organizations. How much of that money has actually reached Palestinian civilians, effectively improving their quality of life and economy, has yet to be completely determined, thanks to vague audits and on-line information. Only recently, with a relatively silent international press, have there been questions from top political leaders, primarily from the US, about the way in which the donor money will be transferred into Gaza. At an Egyptian donors' conference organized by Norway and Egypt in early March, more than 75 international donors and organizations met to announce their financial support of the reconstruction in Gaza. Over $5.2 billion were pledged at the conference, surprising the Palestinian Authority, which had originally called for $2.8 billion. In light of the US pledge of $900 million, the second largest following Saudi Arabia's $1b. pledge at the conference, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated that no US funds earmarked for Gaza would end up in the "wrong hands." By the wrong hands, Clinton meant Hamas, which has complete control of the Gaza Strip. Over $300m. dollars of the US pledge money will be going to Gaza reconstruction, while the rest has been earmarked for Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. However, there is another set of "wrong hands" in this scenario through which the funds may very well pass, hands not considered to belong to a neutral player in the Arab-Israeli conflict. US State department spokesman Gordon Duguid stated that Gaza support would be provided through USAID, in coordination with UN agencies that will most likely include UNRWA. UNRWA, the United Nations Relief Works Agency, established in 1949 to aid Palestinian refugees, has shown dangerous partiality to Hamas terrorists. In 2004, former UNRWA commissioner-General Peter Hansen revealed to the Canadian Broadcasting Company that UNRWA may very well employ Hamas members. "I am sure that there are Hamas members on the UNRWA payroll and I don't see that as crime," Hansen infamously stated. He further added that "We do not do political vetting and exclude people from one persuasion as against another." UNRWA has employed several high profile terrorists. which include top Islamic Jihad rocket maker Awad al-Qiq, who was killed in an Israeli air strike last May. Al-Qiq was the headmaster and science instructor at an UNRWA school in Rafah, Gaza. Another terrorist, Hamas's interior minister and head of the Executive Force, Said Siam, was a teacher for over two decades in UNRWA schools. Fox News recently reported that UNRWA does not ask its employees whether they are members of, or affiliated with, a terrorist organization such as Hamas or Islamic Jihad. UNRWA also offers no formal screening to ensure that its employees are not affiliated with terrorist organizations. During Operation Cast Lead, UNRWA officials accused Israel of firing into an UNRWA school, killing dozens of Palestinian civilians seeking refuge. Israel maintained that Palestinian rocket launchers located next to the school had fired mortars on IDF soldiers, which prompted the army's response. Later, UN official Maxwell Gaylord reversed the UN's stance, stating that the shelling and fatalities had actually taken place outside of the school. But the media damage to Israel had already been done. Jonathan Halevi, a former IDF intelligence officer who specializes in Palestinian terrorist organizations, recently told Fox News he estimated that 60 percent of homicide bombers are educated in UNRWA schools. Past UNRWA textbooks blatantly deny the Jewish connection to Israel and are filled with anti-Semitic remarks. In any case, the United States remains UNRWA's largest sponsor, providing the organization with over 75% of its initial budget, according to UNRWA's former senior legal advisor, James Lindsay. Lindsay, who served as an attorney for the US Justice Department for two decades, asserts in an article for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy which was published January 29 that UNRWA is providing services to those who are actually not in need of them. The almost 2 million Palestinian refugees in Jordan have Jordanian citizenship and are fully eligible for government services, but are continuing to receive UNRWA assistance as the agency regards them as refugees, according to Lindsay's report. Michael Danby, a longstanding legislator in the Australian Parliament, has also accused UNRWA of being "notoriously corrupt." Since 2007, Australia has provided $30m. in funding for the Palestinians through the UNRWA agency, which Danby accused of diverting funds to "arms purchase, terrorist operations and anti-Israel incitement, as well as into the pockets of the PA leadership." "It is a betrayal of that generosity [by Australians] for this money to be wasted, stolen, or misspent on rockets, guns and terrorism," Danby told the Australian Federal Parliament on February 26. Other countries actively fundraising for Gaza include France, which hosted a Paris donors' conference for Abbas in December 2007. The conference raised over $7.4b. dollars in Palestinian aid (for a three-year period: 2008-2010) from over 90 countries and international organizations that attended. During 2008, over $3b. pledged at the conference were distributed through the PA. But that's not all. By mid-January 2009, TV stations across the Arab world collected over half a billion dollars in a telethon for Gaza, according to Johan Eriksson, a spokesperson for the UN. As the Gaza Strip will soon be teeming with money, world donors and leaders must ask the following question: Who will monitor the transfer of these funds and be accountable they are indeed effectively used for Gaza reconstruction and not for restoring Hamas's terror infrastructure? Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
EUROPE, WE HEAR YOU; NOW YOU HEAR THE WORD OF GOD
Posted by HandsFiasco, March 29, 2009. |
|
This was written by Stan Goodenough, who is Editor in Chief of Jerusalem Newswire (www.jnewswire.com) |
|
This is a message to the foreign minister of the Czech Republic and to his counterparts in the European Union, over which his government currently presides: Mr Karel Schwarzenberg, Israel this weekend heard your clear and unequivocal message; your demand that its new government embrace and facilitate the division of Jewish lands for the creation of an Arab state; your warning that Israel will pay if it fails to acquiesce. As the Jews went into their synagogues Friday evening to worship their God, you were loudly applauding the already-intensive efforts of the new Obama administration to oversee and direct the slicing and dicing of the Land He gave to them. Once their Sabbath was over, observant Jews would have read about how your friend from Luxembourg, Jean Asselborn, said: "We must tell the Israelis that it is not allowed to walk away from the peace process..." You both came hard and fast behind the arrogant and bullying diktat that erupted from Javier Solana earlier this month, when he looked directly into the cameras and spelled out his message to Israel: "Let me say very clearly that the way the European Union will relate to an [Israeli] government that is not committed to a two-state solution will be very, very different." Indeed, there was nothing at all unclear about that. But gentlemen, even clearer than your threats are God's words to Israel, and His warnings to you, concerning this land. To Abraham, God repeatedly promises ownership forever of the land upon which you plot and plan to build a Palestinian state: Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, "To your descendants I will give this land." (Genesis 12:8) And the LORD said to Abram, after lot had separated from him: "Lift your eyes now and look from the place where you are-northward, southward, eastward and westward; for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever. Arise, walk in the land through its length and its width, for I give it to you." (Genesis 13:14,15,17) Then Abram fell on his face, and God talked with him, saying: "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you. Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." (Genesis 17:3,7,8) In Isaac this promise was established, when God told Abraham that: "... in Isaac [not Ishmael] your seed shall be called." (Genesis 21:12 c). To Isaac the deed of the land was confirmed: Then the LORD appeared to him and said: "Dwell in this land, and I will be with you and bless you; for to you and your descendants I give all these lands, and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father. And I will make your descendants multiply as the stars of heaven; I will give to your descendants all these lands; and in your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; (Genesis 26:2,3,4)
God changed Jacob's name to Israel, and confirmed that the covenant of the land was passed onto him and his descendants (and not to Ishmael, Esau or any of their descendants): And God said to him, "Your name is Jacob; your name shall not be Joseph passed the promise onto his brothers: And Joseph said to his brethren, "I am dying; but God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land to the land of which He swore to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." (Genesis 50:24) God, citing His everlasting promise to the founding fathers of the nation of Israel, commissioned Moses to implement Joseph's words: Moreover God said to Moses, "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel: ˜The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you. This is My name forever, and this is My memorial to all generations.' Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, ˜The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared to me, saying, "I have surely visited you and seen what is done to you in Egypt; and I have said I will bring you up out of the affliction of Egypt to the land of the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Amorites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, to a land flowing with milk and honey."' (Exodus 3:15-17) And after the 12 Tribes of Israel had wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, God passed the charge onto Joshua, saying: "Moses My servant is dead. Now therefore, arise, go over this Jordan, you and all this people, to the land which I am giving to them, the children of Israel. Every place that the sole of your foot will tread upon I have given you, as I said to Moses. From the wilderness and this Lebanon as far as the great river, the River Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and to the Great Sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your territory." (Joshua 1:2-4) Israel conquered the Land" destroying and driving out its inhabitants in a way that doubtless would have appalled and enraged the EU, had you existed then, but in direct accordance with the instruction of the Creator of heaven and earth. The nation took root and grew on this land. Here it was established and here, 3000 years ago, it made Jerusalem its capital. Because of the people's unfaithfulness towards God, He sent them into exile, but He never ended His covenant with them; never revoked their ownership of the land, and repeatedly promised through prophet after prophet to one day bring them back and establish them again inside their borders. "Therefore behold, the days are coming," says the LORD, "that it shall no more be said, "The LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt,' but, "The LORD lives who brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north and from all the lands where He had driven them.' For I will bring them back into their land which I gave to their fathers." (Jeremiah 16:14,15) God gave them this land, exclusively and forever. He is keeping His promise to restore them to this land and, scoff though you may; it is in His purpose to make little Israel chief among all the nations of the world. The "great" and arrogant nations you represent have two choices ahead of them: They will either serve Israel, or they will perish. You might not believe in God, Messrs Solana, Schwarzenberg, and Asselhorn. You might disregard His word, sneer at it and dismiss it out of hand, it matters not. You will stand before Him one day to give account for your actions. Your nations will be brought into the valley and be judged according to their treatment of the Jewish people and your dealings with their land. "For behold, in those days and at that time, Note that God continues: "They have cast lots for My people," (v.3) But to Zion (you know, from which word and place comes the universally-vilified movement called "Zionism"), God says: "The sons of foreigners shall build up your walls, These are not my words.
Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net |
|
OLIPHANT'S TRASH
Posted by Paul Lademain, March 28, 2009. |
|
Re: Cartoonist Pat Oliphant's recent abhorrent, filthy and slanderous, cartoon against Israel and Jews. Your editors apparently think its fashionable to leap onto the Saudi-boughten dog-pile regurgitating Islamic lies and Syrian slander about Jews and Israel. We are the NON-evangelical Christians for Zion. By "Non-evangelical" we mean "secular". We are the majority, and our view is that one need NOT be a Jew (ethnic) or Jewish (religion) to support the brave people of Israel who are almost single-handedly combatting the Saudi- and UAE-funded arab infiltrators who slip into Gaza and the West Bank to use terrorism against unarmed civilians in their attempt to dismantle the State of Israel in order to steal its lands and its potentially rich off-shore gas fields. (Abdullah "the Saud" used the same terrorist techniques to seize the Arabian Peninsula in 1932.) Pat Oliphant's purple nose should be rubbed, and rubbed hard, in historical facts as to how arab tribes use terrorism to conquer and loot. Their bloody habits began long before Mohammed declared himself their prophet; Mohammed merely justified pre-existing bloody savagery in the name of the religion that accreted around his sordid adventuring. Pat Oliphant's trashy cartoon not only displays his ignorance of terrorism but also, how also how readily this man is capable of applying his narrow skills to promote the very same sort of lies that the Third Reich used for to demonize Jews in order to steal their "stuff" and systematically butcher them. The New York Times owes Americans an apology for giving Pat Oliphant a forum to vent his malicious stupidity. Naomi Ragen sent us a copy of your Tom Kuntz's tepid explanation for your tragic gaffe. His explanation is ridiculous — "oopsy" just won't do. We recommend something more along these lines: Pat Oliphant's name should be affixed to a cartoon of himself being slowly beheaded by his lovely arabs while masked Sudanese mercenaries videotape his slow death for the delectation of the same Islamic mob that orgasmed at reporter Danny Pearl's murder. Every knows that the New York Times has fallen on hard times as a consequence of allowing its reach get to exceed its grasp. We are referring to the NYT beggaring itself via its real estate adventures and then shamelessly casting about for greasy arab money to help the NYT directors climb out of the hole they dug, which in turn reduces the newspaper to the status of a "dhimmi" who must lick the hand that feeds it. Which necessarily means that the NYT, in complete submission to arab money, is obliged to trash Jews and Israel. Assuming this is so, and we believe it is, how is the NYT any different from Eliot Spitzer, who prosecuted prostitution rings whilst consorting with whores? Tom Kuntz's reply to Naomi Ragen is making the rounds of the Internet. It is insufficient. It is shamefully tepid. Were Jews possessed of the same medieval nature as today's Islamics, the NYT headquarters would by now have been reduced to a pile of smoking rubble. We demand a full apology to the People of Israel, not this "oopsy — we made a mistake" rubbish. Paul la Demain Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
OBAMA IS AS IF MESSIAH; VIDEO FOR VIDEO; MUSLIM VIOLENCE GLOSSED OVER
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 27, 2009. |
|
RADICAL ISLAM IN U.S. PUTTING IT OVER ON AMERICANS C.A.I.R., the organization that defends whatever radical Islam does and opposes whatever Israel does, and whose leaders foment terrorism, now lobbies locally. It visited New York's Mayor Bloomberg, to protest his supporting Israeli self-defense in Gaza. That self-defense was too hard on the bigots in Gaza. He's supposedly intelligent. He had designs on the presidency. Why did he receive representatives of a pro-Islamist organization? Doesn't know they are extremist. He means to be fair to both sides. In fact, he is unfair, unfair to his own peoples — the Jewish and the American peoples. He's not half as sophisticated as he pretends. LIBERAL STILL ACTS AS IF OBAMA IS MESSIAH? Some of my friends campaigned for Obama. Shows how little influence I have. One of them recently asked me how I think he is doing. I replied, "Let's put it this way. In case we don't meet in the same after-world, later this year, I want to say we had some nice times together." "What do you mean?" I explained that he is not stopping Iran from building nuclear weapons, and they should have one operational in a very few months. He's also continuing Sec. Rice's policy of turning so much Israeli land over to the Arabs, that they could conquer Israel and commit another Holocaust. She responded, don't worry, Obama is going to make friends with the Muslims or buy them off, within 18 months. "They are not our enemies." No? Then why have they been attacking us and almost everyone, before Bush's time, committing genocide and ethnic cleansing? She said it's just the crazies. I said 20% of a billion people means 200 million crazies, and they control countries. How naïve! The Islamists are no different from the Nazi totalitarians, which whom no real accommodation could be made. I urged, do the math: Obama expects to reach a non-aggression pact with Iran in 18 months, but they'll have nuclear weapons for a year before that. Poof goes New York! We'll buy them off? I pointed out that they have more money than we, at present. They have been buying us off! Think of the withdrawn intelligence report maker, a former ambassador to S. Arabia. He heads a Saudi-financed lobbying institute. Many of our diplomats become consultants to S. Arabia. S. Arabia sets up mosques and madrassas here and elsewhere, to radicalize Muslims. S. Arabia donates textbooks to our schools. Those books spread their propaganda, too. S. Arabia, like Congress, helps endow university centers of Islamic studies. They take a pro-Arab line. Obama is worse than ordinary! EVALUATING WHAT THE P.A. DID Aganst Hamas, Abbas' P.A. arrested gunmen, seized weapons, and closed a training site and two underground facilities (Jewish Political Chronicle, winter 2009, p.12 from Jeffrey White, Washington. Inst. For N. E. Policy, 12/9/08). Previously, the P.A. had done nothing against Hamas' terrorist apparatus, and had not improved Israeli security. How should we evaluate these seizures? Too soon to. Too limited a action. The Arabs taking minor action for show, as when Egypt closed a few arms smuggling tunnels out of hundreds. The act is jus enough to gather a favorable headline. Abbas, like Arafat, prefers to unity with Hamas against Israel. TERRORISM IN YEMEN Suicide bombers killed four S. Korean tourists in Yemen, on 3/16. They shot dead two Belgian tourists and driver in 1/2008. A suicide bomber killed eight Spaniards and two Yemenis in July, 2007. Bombings at the US Embassy killed 10, in September, 2008 and others on the USS Cole, in 2007! (NY Times, 3/16). VIDEO FOR VIDEO Arab videos portray Israelis negatively. The Israeli media portrays settlers negatively. In response, Arutz-7, the settler radio station, has developed a video about media-settler relations. The particular narration is fictional, but realistic. I think it is fun. The video shows a reporter expelled from a settler's house. Indeed, most Jews in Judea-Samaria refuse to confer with journalists; they have found that journalists use the discussions to get local color in their smears of settlers. In this video, the journalist is attacked by a terrorist. He pleads for the settler to rescue him. Settler joins him. Journalist urges him to shoot down "the dog." Replies the settler, I thought you liked Arabs, besides, I don't have a gun, since you urged the government to disarm settlers. Slyly, the journalist stands up to address the terrorist, explaining that as a leftist, he sympathizes with the Arabs. He ignores the settler's advice to take cover, because the terrorist doesn't care about his politics, only about his religious background. Settler knocks out journalist, to save him, then captures terrorist. Revived, the journalistr accuses settler of attacking him because of his views (Jewish political Chronicle, Winter 2009, p. 56 from Nadav Shragai, Haaretz, 12/9). WHEN LIBERALS ARE SILENT When something bothers liberals, they speak out. They believe they stand for honesty and justice. Here's a test case of their sincerity. Dishonesty is utilized in behalf of injustice, when radicals accuse Israel of committing a holocaust in Gaza. The injustice is defamation. That defamation is in behalf of a Muslim people that, ironically, are trying to commit a holocaust against the Jews of Israel and beyond. Do the liberals speak out against false accusations of genocide made against Israel? Do they demand that the US stop donating money to the accusers? Not that I heard. Since the liberals don't speak out against such defamation, then apparently it doesn't bother them. Indeed, many liberals, and especially those further left, side with the Palestinian Arabs against Israel. It would take integrity to condemn people with whom they side. If they did condemn the Palestinian and other Arabs for wrongfulness, they would be kept busy at that. It wouldn't take long for people to learn from the frequent condemnations that peace cannot be made with the Arabs and concessions should not be made to the Arabs. The liberals prefer to ignore the defamation, even though that defamation aims to: (1) Isolate Israel diplomatically, so as to precipitate its destruction; and (2) Inhibit Israeli self-defense against mass-murder of Jews. Challenge liberals to speak out against the Palestinian Arabs, who defame Israel! Note to Jewish leftists: when the Muslims become strong enough to carry their extermination program further, it won't help a Jewish leftist to protest that he was on the Arab side. The Muslim view of the Jews is racist, and one's political views do not cancel out one's alleged genes. WHAT "COMPROMISE" The media has slipped into a slanted phrasing that calls all the agreements Israel makes with the Arabs "compromises." The media does not state what the Arabs contributed to the pot. Indeed, the Arabs did not compromise. In some cases, the Arabs did not get some of what they had demanded. But Israel got nothing. Therefore, the Arabs did not compromise. Besides, what Arabs demand is that Israel make itself vulnerable to Arab conquest, hence their demands are not valid. Challenge the media to stop such slanted phrasing! SYRIA & OIL Not known as an oil extracting state, Syria once pulled up 600,000 barrels a day. Although it earns 20% of its income from oil, it now produces only 380,000 barrels a day. It probably consumes that much, itself. The US has removed a couple of sanctions on Syria, to signify willingness to improve relations (IMRA, 3/9). MUSLIM DESECRATION IN HEBRON On special occasions, the IDF gives Muslims exclusive use of the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron. The Muslims vandalize Jewish holy books or other items and even furniture and pipes. The IDF guards outside can view this on closed circuit TV. They do not act against the vandalism. The Hebron Jewish community urges the government to refuse the next Muslim request for exclusive use of the Cave. Imagine the uproar if after the Jews had exclusive use, Muslims came in to find their apparatus wrecked? (Hebrew Jewish Community, 3/9 & IMRA, 3/10.) MUSLIM VIOLENCE GLOSSED OVER Sweden reports a 50% increase in rapes there, in 2004. Malmo police find that 68 percent of the rapists were minorities (i.e., Muslims). As Islamic scholar Robert Spencer has noted, Islamic teaching views rape as a legitimate act against women and girls who behave in "non-Islamic" ways. In much of Scandinavia as well as in Muslim neighborhoods in France, women have begun wearing veils in order to protect themselves against roving gangs of... Muslims." Apologists for Islam attribute Muslim rioting and defilement of women to IDF operations in Gaza. Nonsense! It results from their pathological culture, which condone the violence, and from "...Western governments and intellectuals who make excuses for it. ALL OF THIS is hidden away from the public thanks to Western liberals' willingness to accept the legitimacy of events like Israel Apartheid Week." Discussion about Muslim crime "...is diverted to false allegations against Israel. Any attempt to point out that Hamas is genocidal; that Iran stones women to death and systematically executes homosexuals; that Saudi Arabia is the most repressive society on the planet; that Egypt permits and indeed encourages female genital mutilation; that Jordan does not prosecute fathers, sons, husbands and uncles who murder their female relatives; is attacked and delegitimized. Those who raise these issues are accused of hating Muslims and of being secret Zionist agents. So too, Islamic violence in the West is swept under the rug (Caroline Glick in IMRA, 3/9). Oh for freedom of press! 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 |
|
FROM ISRAEL: IT STINKS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 27, 2009. |
|
IDF forces, under orders from Defense Minister Ehud Barak, together with police, went into the community of Kochav HaShachar yesterday and destroyed four buildings in the start-up neighborhood of Meoz Esther. They then moved south, and destroyed another house in Ma'aleh Shlomo. Kochav HaShachar ("morning star") is part of the Mateh Binyamin Regional Council in Samaria, at the edge of a mountain range overlooking the Jordan Valley. The outposts that were destroyed are surrounded on the east and west by barren hills, and on the north by Bedouin squatter encampments; some 18 miles to the south is Jerusalem. ~~~~~~~~~~ Government authorities have stated that the outposts were "illegal." But it must be understood how political this judgment is. There is a broad impression that some communities are legal and some illegal — white and black. But it's a matter of permits. Some communities have all permits, which renders them obviously "legal," but it's almost always the case that even those that are termed "illegal" have some. A permit to build a road, or to bring in water pipes or electricity. Which means some ministries in the government signed on, somehow. The government can work to make sure the community secures its final permits, or can point its finger and say: Ah ha! You have no right to be here. That is a politically motivated decision. ~~~~~~~~~~ It must be emphasized that these fledgling communities that we're talking about — the charges of Peace Now not withstanding — are not built on privately owned Palestinian land. There have been no communities erected on private Palestinian land for over 30 years. It must also be emphasized that — again, left wing claims aside — there is nothing "illegal" about Jews building in Judea and Samaria. This land is unassigned Mandate land, and our claim to it is strong. The Mandate specifically endorsed settlement by Jews across the land. This is NOT Palestinian land, regardless of what the PR of the Palestinians maintains. Yet much of the world, and our own left wing, has bought this narrative now. Nothing in the Oslo Agreements forbade additional Jewish building in Judea and Samaria. And it is the Oslo Agreements, and only those agreements, that the government of Israel is bound to by virtue of having signed. Should we — however foolishly — decide to cede this land or part thereof to the Palestinians in a final agreement, then and only then would what was ceded become Palestinian land. Not now. And as you may have noticed, the Palestinians have shunned every opportunity for a deal they don't really want. They wish only to diminish us and harrass us, and delegitimize us. And our defense minister is serving as their tool in this act. ~~~~~~~~~~ The Binyamin Residents Committee put out a statement in response to the destruction: "This is apparently the gift that Barak wishes to give on the eve of his entry into the [new] government...This is his usual modus operandi: Every time the left attacks him, he gives them a consolation prize in the form of evicting Jews." This may be so: Barak has been roundly criticized on the left for joining a right-wing government. Is this his way of showing how "tough" he is against settlers, to mollify that left wing? ~~~~~~~~~~ To know how much this really stinks, it's important to know what was destroyed: One of the four structures leveled in Meoz Esther was a Torah study hall/synagogue dedicated in memory of Yonadav Chaim Hirschfeld, 19, of Kochav HaShachar, murdered in the Yeshivat Mercaz HaRav massacre just over a year ago. How does a Jewish army destroy a synagogue? A synagogue, yet, dedicated to the memory of a young man who was sitting and studying Jewish texts when he was gunned down. Another of the buildings destroyed in Meoz Esther was the home of the daughter of Esther (Ettie) G'alyah, and her family. Esther G'alyah had been a resident of Kochav HaShachar and was murdered by terrorists in 2002; the outpost was named in her memory. Arutz Sheva quotes an observer to the scene, who said: "There was a time when building a new Jewish locale in the Land of Israel was widely considered the proper Zionist response to terrorism, but at least in this case, the opposite appears to be true..." ~~~~~~~~~~ In the course of 16 months, Meoz Esther has been put up and taken down four times. People in Kochav HaShachar are ready to start again. Where Zionist dedication persists, it has been my observation that sometimes the people win. Strength to them. ~~~~~~~~~~ There are articles suggesting that this is a sign of things to come. Maybe. But I don't feel we know this yet. Yes, Barak — most regrettably — will still be defense minister in the new government. But Netanyahu and not Olmert will be prime minister, and the majority of the coalition will be to the right. What happens with this new government still depends, at least in part, on how that majority asserts itself. It also depends on whether Netanyahu has sold out to the left in order to secure Barak in his government. ~~~~~~~~~~ There is a great deal more to write about, but Shabbat preparations call. After Shabbat, other topics... Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
SUNSET
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, March 27, 2009. |
|
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il and
visit |
|
ANTI-ZIONISM AS ANTI-SEMITISM IN EUROPE
Posted by Raphael Israeli, March 27, 2009. |
|
This is archived at
|
|
Since the 1980s several high level European politicians have made radical anti-Semitic declarations which accorded with Arab and Muslim positions. In a public statement in 1982, Greek Socialist Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou compared Israelis to Nazis. But no mainstream European leader went as far as Christian Democrat Giulio Andreotti, many times the Prime Minister and then the President of Italy, who declared in Geneva, during an inter-parliamentary conference in 1984,his support for a Saddam Hussein's Iraqi motion, which equated Zionism with racism, supported the boycotting of Israel, and defended the right of the "armed struggle for the liberation of Palestine [that is terrorism]. Italy was then the only Western country to vote with the Soviet Bloc for this motion. Later, such occurrences became even more frequent. In April 2002, Franco Cavalli spoke at a demonstration of the Swiss-Palestinian Society in Bern. He was then the parliamentary leader of the Social Democratic Party (SP), which is part of the Swiss government coalition. He claimed that Israel, "very purposefully massacres an entire people" and undertakes the "systematic extermination of the Palestinians." Was he ignorant of the comparatively higher number of Palestinians massacred by the Syrians, Lebanese, Jordanians, and their own infighting, or did his anti-Semitism drive him to ignore the numbers? Or could he not explain why the Israelis were so inadequate and impotent at "annihilating" the Palestinians, that they are stronger and more numerous than ever before. Senior members of the Greek Socialist Party routinely used Holocaust rhetoric to describe Israeli military actions against Arabs, even when they are defensive in nature. In March, Parliamentary Speaker in Athens, Apostolos Kaklamanis, referred to the "genocide" of the Palestinians, forgetting that no one people can undergo so many genocides and still survive. Jenny Tonge, a Liberal Democrat MP in the U.K. declared at a meeting of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign in 2004 that she might consider becoming a "suicide bomber" if she lived in the Palestinian territories. But in contrast to the other cases, which remained undisputed, her party distanced itself from her statement, explaining that it did not condone terrorism. Raising the very question of Israel's legitimacy, or even "recognizing its right to exist," in itself carries a connotation of suspicion, uncertainty, hesitation, temporariness, and remonstration, as if it were under probation, like a criminal on parole, who has to prove constantly that he deserves his freedom. If Israel concedes, withdraws, shrinks back to its "natural size" (as the Egyptians would have it), obeys, effaces itself, admits "guilt" or plies to, in short behaves like a dhimmi of old, then it is considered by the nations of the world as peaceful, reasonable, moderate, and conciliatory. But when she stands up to her enemies, demands that her rights, territory, heritage, security, people, way of life, and sovereignty be safeguarded and respected, then the world is amazed at her arrogance, self-assertion, aggression, selfishness, spirit of rebellion, fanaticism, extremism, and disregard of others. When diplomats and world leaders admit Israel's right to exist (thank you), this is often taken as a special favor to her and some Jews are happy at the daily confirmation of that favor, which they never take as a matter of natural right. The dhimmi spirit that they perpetuate dictates to them a grateful mode of behavior towards anyone who condescends to affirm what otherwise would have been considered a matter of course. Perhaps that is the reason why sixty years after Independence Jews continue to express in their national anthem the "hope" of attaining freedom in their land. They cannot believe they already have it. Consider this: a major or minor world leader tells Israel that she has the right to exist, but she ought to evacuate territory, allow Palestinian refugees to go back to their previous homes, give up her defences, (fences) and depend on international guarantees. This means that her right to exist is conditional on her meeting certain expectations even if they run contrary to her interests or to her very chances of survival in a hostile environment. Thus, not only is Israel, of all nations, required to take steps towards her own demise, as a prerequisite to her conditional recognition by others, if she does not comply, her admission into the family of nations may be rescinded. Can anyone tell the British that they would be recognized provided they return the Falklands to their owners, or the Americans, the Canadians, and the Australians that they can be recognized only if they restored rights to the dispossessed natives that they had conquered, or that the Japanese, Syrians, Iraqis, and Sudanese will be accepted only when they recognize their minorities and stop persecuting them, or Iran, China, and Egypt — only if they accepted democracy or stopped threatening their neighbors? Unthinkable? Not in the case of Israel, even though it cannot be reproached for any of those violations or improprieties. Take for example the question of Jerusalem, the capital of Israel and the Jewish people for the past 3,000 years. In December, 1995, the General Assembly of the UN adopted a resolution, with an overwhelming majority, as in previous years, denying the validity of the Israeli laws, which confirmed united Jerusalem as the capital of modern Israel once again. That resolution also condemned the "Judaization" of Jerusalem as if someone could blame the Chinese for the Sinification of Beijing or the French for the Francification of Paris, or Saudi Arabia for the Islamization of Mecca. When the Arabs dominated East Jerusalem, which they never made their capital, not only did they effect a full Arabization of the city, but they did that to the detriment of Jewish sites such as Temple Mount, the Mount of Olives, the Jewish Quarter, and no one complained (except Israelis, but they are not counted). But as soon as the Jews restored their sites to their sovereignty, without so much as touching the Aqsa compound, which the Muslims had knowingly constructed upon the holiest site of the Jews, outcries about "Judaization" began, which was heralded as "threatening world peace." So, when the UN declares that the Israeli measures were "null and void," one wonders whether the restored Jewish Quarter, which had been destroyed by the Arabs, should have remained in ruins, or demolished again after it was repaired, or that the reparations of the cemetery on the Mount of Olives, which had been demolished by the Jordanians and its tombstones used to pave a road, should revert to its state of profanation in order to qualify for the terms of that resolution. In October 1996 the European community demanded that Israel should rescind all those measures of restoration and construction and return things to their "original state." Original since when? If the splendor of Jerusalem is returned to its Davidic and Solomonic origins, then al-Aqsa Mosque should be removed to allow for the original Temple to re-emerge. Or perhaps they meant that the latrines that the Jordanians had constructed on the sites of the synagogues that they destroyed in the Old Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem should be reinstituted on the ruins of those now reconstructed sites? The occasion for those European demands was the reopening of an ancient tunnel, dating back 2,400 years in history, to the times of the Jewish Hasmonean Dynasty, before there was any idea of Europe, of Christianity, Islam, Arabs, or Palestinians. And because the Muslim Palestinians who had usurped the holy Jewish Temple Mount, now claim that the tunnel endangered their holy sites, themselves built on the ruins of the ancient Jewish Temple, the Europeans moved to make Israel close it again. And all that, under the Palestinian threat of violence if Israel would not conform. Which one of those new European nations would have acquiesced in a situation where its right to relate to its ancient heritage was called into question? Jerusalem is but an example. At stake is the self-appointed right of Western countries to determine the standards of behavior to which Israel is held and their presumption to act as supreme arbiters of that conduct. Exactly like the Jews in their midst, treated with suspicion and guilty till proven innocent, so is the Jewish state. It is in this sense that the Jewish state has become the Jew among states. For decades, most nations took the right to call Israel "the Jewish State,"or the "Tel Aviv Government," lending to it the same legitimacy as the "Vichy Government" ; they made their representations and sent their representatives to that non-existing address; the international media also dispatched their reports from Tel Aviv, while the pictures they showed often originated from Jerusalem, the seat of the government of Israel. All that in order to avoid recognition of Jerusalem, the ancient capital of Israel, which had predated their own respective capitals, as the reconstituted center of modern Israel. So widespread has been that fiction that many people ended up believing that it was Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem, that was the capital of Israel. What other country in the world would have been submitted to such treatment, or accepted the systematic negation of its legitimacy, of which the choice of a capital city is part? This inordinately critical view of the Jews in history has somehow carried over and rubbed off on Israel as well, and directly aided the Arabs and Muslims in their rejection of Israel, lock, stock, and barrel. The intense scrutiny and obsessive coverage of Israel's every fault and detail sends to Tel Aviv (but more to Jerusalem) regiments of reporters and correspondents, more than to any other world capital save Washington, DC. And all those journalists have to justify their presence in Jerusalem (under the Tel Aviv disguise) and they hunger for news to feed their avid media audiences. Thus, the most absurd of gossip can become reported news, and the most insignificant events can become "history." In reports about the Intifadah, for example, articles were written about the special wood used to manufacture police truncheons to maintain order, and the workshops where they were made. Similarly, we have seen that the tedious and repetitive detail that is of no interest elsewhere finds its way into international media news. The nature of the "Jewish" truncheon, which caused suffering to the Palestinians and also tarnished the Jewish reputation, was only a symptom. No one has ever checked the truncheons used by the British police in Northern Ireland or by the French police in quelling street riots in the Parisian slums. But a Jewish truncheon deserves special scrutiny. Palestinian children and adolescents can throw Molotov cocktails at Israeli police, occasionally killing, wounding, or maiming them, but those are "only kids" standing up courageously against their oppressors; repressed by police wielding those redoubtable Jewish truncheons, for Jews have to submit to special standards of conduct, unlike all others. A Palestinian spokesman made the remark: "We are so lucky that our enemies are the Israelis. If they were Singhalese, who would care to mention us?" The late Father Marcel Dubois, Head of the Dominican Order in Jerusalem, made a similar comment: "Had the occupied territories been under Margaret Thatcher's responsibility, the Intifadah would have lasted three days only and no one would have talked about it any more" Both statements were corroborated by a former member of the foreign press corps in Jerusalem Thomas Friedman, of the New York Times, who repeated the same observation in almost the same words: "the great luck of the Palestinians is that they are in a state of conflict with Israeli Jews." Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
SAY IT OUT LOUD: THE TALIBAN ARE TERRORISTS
Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, March 27, 2009. |
|
A U.S. drone attack on Wednesday on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border killed at least seven Taliban members, including a number of foreign fighters, Reuters reported. U.S. drones have carried out more than 30 strikes over the last year, including 7 under the watch of U.S. President Barack Obama. Obama, meanwhile, has ordered the deployment of 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan in an effort to stamp out the threat of the Taliban. Curiously, however, as the war in Afghanistan stretches into its seventh year, the U.S. State Department has not designated the Taliban as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). From what is known, the problem may have initially stemmed from the fact that, by law, the State Department could not designate a government. This is no longer a hang-up; the Taliban government that sheltered al-Qaeda and Usama bin Laden from its rise to power in 1996 until its demise in 2001 is now dead and gone. The new organization that has sprouted up in its stead can perhaps be best described as an al-Qaeda "affiliate group." It remains committed to carrying out a violent jihad against both U.S. servicemen and civilians in Afghanistan, and likely maintains contact with the al-Qaeda and Taliban forces that challenged the U.S. military during Operation Enduring Freedom. However, it no longer enjoys the government infrastructure that housed the Taliban for five years until 2001. The bigger question at Foggy Bottom is now whether the Taliban should be viewed as a terrorist organization or an insurgency organization. Indeed, language from the 2007 State Department country report on Afghanistan seemed to imply that the Taliban was both. In fact, the consensus at State is that the Taliban is made up of two factions — one moderate, and another one radical. Or, to put it another way, there may be a Taliban with a capital 'T' and a taliban with a lower case 't'. President Obama underscored this notion in a March 8 interview with the New York Times, when he expressed an interest in reaching out to moderate forces among the militants, similar to those that helped bring stability to Iraq. "There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and in the Pakistani region," he said. The Taliban quickly dismissed Obama's musings as "illogical." Qari Mohammad Yousuf, a spokesman for the Taliban, insists that the Taliban are "united, have one leader, one aim, one policy." The group claims that their campaign of violence will not end until the U.S. led forces in Afghanistan are defeated. Meanwhile, the State Department continues to add less relevant terrorist groups to its FTO list. Peru's Shining Path or the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (two recent additions) have little to do with the broader war on Islamist terror, yet their listings give the sense that they might pose more of a national security threat than the unlisted Taliban. Designating the Taliban as a Foreign Terrorist Organization is long overdue. For one, it would demonstrate that the United States views the Taliban as part of a dangerous jihadi network that is undoubtedly terrorist in nature. It is a mistake to allow the world to believe that even parts of the Taliban should be viewed as a legitimate "resistance" organization. A number of American allies, including Great Britain, the European Union, and Australia have followed America's lead. They have also left the Taliban off their terrorism lists. Most recently, Russia indicated that it would hold talks with "moderate elements" of the Taliban after Obama indicated that he was considering a similar move. A designation would help reverse this dangerous trend. More importantly, a Taliban designation would also recognize the great work that our military has done in Afghanistan. It would be tantamount to officially relegating the former Taliban government to an affiliate group — the first and only instance in the U.S.-led war on terrorism. In other words, a designation would relay our belief that the Taliban cannot, under the current circumstances, mount enough strength to retake Afghanistan. If moderate elements wish to negotiate with the U.S. military or even our diplomatic corps, they should not be allowed to approach the negotiating table as members of the Taliban. If they recognize the defeat of their banned terrorist group, they should be welcomed with open arms. Jonathan Schanzer, a former US Treasury intelligence analyst, is deputy executive director for the Jewish Policy Center and author of Hamas vs Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. This article appeared today on the Jewish Policy Center website:
|
|
AMERICA 'MOVES TOWARDS ABANDONMENT OF ISRAEL'
Posted by LEL, March 26, 2009. |
|
This comes from Arutz-7
|
|
IsraelNN.com) An unnamed former highly-placed U.S.intelligence official has broken silence and says that America may soon be abandoning Israel in favor of the Arabs. "This is just the beginning", he said, "Israel could be about to lose the support of the United States." The source made these remarks in an exclusive interview with Douglas J. Hagmann, the director of the Northeast Intelligence Network (NIN), which is comprised of veteran licensed professional investigators, analysts, military affairs specialists and researchers. The group has combined their resources to provide accurate and well-sourced information via their website. When questioned about the possible abandonment of Israel by America, Hagmann told Yonah, "The Obama administration is no friend to Israel, is no friend to the Jews in America and is no friend to democracy or freedom in America. ...Just by his very appointments, we can see him filling positions of power with people who are anti-Semitic, who want to see Israel essentially dissolved as a nation, if not by diplomacy, then certainly by war." In his report, the unnamed intelligence source told Hagmann, "I have every reason to believe, based on what I've seen at my level of [security] clearance especially over the last several years, that Israel will soon be completely on their own... or worse." He explained this would happen "when our administration provides more support to Arab countries [with] financial and military aid, undercutting Israel's defense efforts all while pushing Israel to succumb to the pressure of unreasonable demands designed to end with their political annihilation as a nation." Hagmann told Yonah that this official broke silence because he had already retired from his highly placed position, and because of his knowledge of the NIN's (Northeast Intelligence Network) position as pro-Israel and the way it valued the relationship between Israel and America. Another reason, he said, was his own perception of the Biblical aspect of this scenario developing. The intelligence officer explained that the turnover of American policy towards Israel could occur through a manner that he dubbed 'malicious intelligence," which Hagmann defined as information that is taken from its raw form. It then is morphed into something else to promote different interests, "where intelligence and politics meet and often collide," he said. A method "that has been molded and massaged to advance the agendas of a select few," he elaborated. In the case of the relationship between America and Israel, he noted, malicious intelligence is being used to turn over the U.S. to a more anti-Israel policy and forge ahead with a more pro-PA or pro-Islamist one. Hagmann told Yonah in the radio interview, "A perfect example of this is when there was a shooting in Seattle a couple of years ago at a Jewish center. The police were ordered by the city officials and by the Federal Government, basically, to not protect the synagogues and other Jewish centers in Seattle, but to have protection details [instead] at the mosques in Seattle." U.S. administrations have apparently been following a policy of abandoning Israel for several years, according to Hagmann's report. His interview with the intelligence official cited "the 2005 surrender of Gush Katif to the Palestinian Authority as one critical example of the slow dismantlement of Israel as a viable nation. Despite critical intelligence outlining in every possible manner imaginable that this would be a disastrous move leading to the events we are seeing today [rocket and missile fire on Israel], it was done anyway," he stated. In the report that Hagmann posted on the NIN (Northeast Intelligence Network) he cited one of his sources explaining, "Now you can see where intelligence and politics meet and often collide,... " the Obama administration is being purposely filled with people who are truly anti-Israel, either because of their own financial interests or a larger globalist agenda that does not include Israel, or for that matter, the United States as a sovereign nation. "Whatever the reason, the anti-Israel, pro-Islamist policy makers will be appointed or have already infiltrated nearly all levels of the U.S. government. These are the people who place anti-Semitic references in school textbooks, promote revisionist history regarding Islam, 9/11, and are the same people who allow or even promote the Islamic agendas in all aspects of Western society, especially the restrictions on speech against Islam. "With regard to the latter, note that the United Nations is quite involved in forcing the restriction of "hate speech" and the implementation of global standards, some that have already been adapted by European nations," noted the source. Hagmann reports that "the Middle East will be the site of 'the coming war,' and Israel will be at its epicenter. If we survive as a nation, the U.S. will not be on the side of righteousness in this war, instead turning our back to — or our guns against — our only true friend in the Middle East — Israel," he said. Contact LEL at lel817@yahoo.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: THE MESS PERSISTS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 26, 2009. |
|
The political mess I wrote about yesterday is not resolving itself. When Netanyahu presents his government to the Knesset next week, it is possible that as many as five members of the Labor faction will abstain from voting for it. They have indicated they would prefer to vote against it, but Labor by-laws would prevent them from running with the party in the next election if they did that (bucking a party decision), and they're not prepared to leave Labor. Eitan Cabel, who is Labor's secretary-general, put it thus: "I want to respect the convention's decision, but I can't vote for this government and I certainly don't want to join it." ~~~~~~~~~~ And just as there is discontent with the coalition agreement in the ranks of Labor, so, it seems, is there in Likud. Members of the Central Committee of Likud today filed an emergency petition with the party's court, claiming that party by-laws require that the Committee review coalition agreements. They want Committee Chairman Moshe Kahalon to convene the Committee for this purpose. The petitioners maintain that if the Committee does not approve the agreements, they won't be binding and members of the party's Knesset faction can vote against them. ~~~~~~~~~~ Doesn't exactly promise good things for coalition unity down the road — if this coalition does get approved by the Knesset. What have Netanyahu and Barak wrought? ~~~~~~~~~~ HaBayit Hayehudi (The Jewish Home) has now signed a coalition agreement with Likud. This will make the head of the party, Rabbi Prof. Daniel Hershkowitz, Science Minister. This brings the coalition to 69 mandates. ~~~~~~~~~~ HaBayit Hayehudi is pushing a law (a variation of what is called the Norway Law) that would permit one member of a party who had become a minister in the government to resign from the Knesset, allowing the next person down on that party's list to become an MK. (I believe if the minister is no longer in the government, his/her position in the Knesset would be re-instated.) This would bring some new people into the Knesset if it is passed. ~~~~~~~~~~ Even though UTJ negotiations had stalled over the issue of conversions, there is indication of an attempt to reach a compromise that would bring this group into the coalition ~~~~~~~~~~ And National Union? Two sides to this story persist. I stand by what I had said yesterday, regarding the regrettable way that this party, which boasts good people and solid principles, has handled itself. In fact, I've had further confirmation of this in the last 24 hours, including from someone inside Likud who said the party is not seen as "a team player." However, the other side is the suspicion that Netanyahu would just as soon not have his government associated with a group that is internationally perceived as very right wing. ~~~~~~~~~~ Arutz 7 ran a story quoting Ya'akov Katz (Ketzeleh), head of the party, who was certainly sounding conciliatory now: "Our talks with the Likud were broken off when Netanyahu suddenly started talking with Labor. But Labor's entry into the coalition does not mean that we are out. We are still waiting for the Likud to contact us and resume the talks, but we can't force them. "The issues between us can be reconciled. An agreement between us and the Likud can certainly be signed, enabling us to do what we were elected to do — serve the People of Israel with a strong nationalist government. "...It appears that now that he [Netanyahu] has won, he has become scared; he would rather have in his government those who fight against the Land of Israel [Labor]." Ketzeleh says that Barak demanded that National Union not be part of the coalition and Netanyahu rejected this. We'll see soon enough... A very strong case can be made that Netanyahu has an obligation to bring in all of the right wing/nationalist parties, as this is what the electorate chose. ~~~~~~~~~~ In a briefing to the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee yesterday, Head of Military Intelligence Amos Yadlin spoke about Iran: They have crossed the technological threshold necessary for building a nuclear bomb, Yadlin said, and so now they are in no rush to do so. "Their strategy is to obtain the ability" to build a bomb quickly once the decision to do so has been made, he said. "They operate based on a strategy that would make it hard to incriminate them." "They are enriching fissile material in a low percentage of 4.5, but whoever knows how to enrich [uranium to] 4.5% knows also how to enrich it to 20%, 60% or 93%. With 4,000 centrifuges spinning, to change from 4.5% to 93% takes only a few months to a year." "They are enriching great quantities. They are doing it under the cover of civilian activities, as if they need the stuff for civilian enterprises." (They are currently running 4,000 centrifuges, monitored by the IAEC, with the claim that they need this for 30 reactors for power.) ~~~~~~~~~~ "The Iranian threat is a threat to the global order, not just to Israel, and to convince the world of the need for action, we need to present evidence that will incriminate Iran," Yadlin told the Committee. "The campaign to prevent Iran from becoming nuclear is not yet over." Unfortunately, the Western world is not paying serious attention to Israel's warnings with regard to what Iran is up to. ~~~~~~~~~~ CBS News broke the story today that about two months ago our air force hit a convoy of 17 trucks in Sudan carrying weapons to Egypt that were intended for Gaza. This information came not from Israel, but from sources connected to Pentagon reporter David Martin; it was released by Washington-based correspondent Dan Raviv on his CBS-associated blog. According to a Sudan Tribune website, Israel intelligence tracked down the convoy northwest of Port Sudan, as it was moving north; it was bombed near Mount al-Sha'anoon. ~~~~~~~~~~ While there has been no direct Israeli confirmation of this story, PM Olmert, speaking at a conference at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, today, referred to it obliquely: "Israel has never had stronger deterrence than it has gained in the last few years. Those who need to know are aware that there is no place that Israel can't reach." These words are also seen as a veiled threat to Iran. The greatest threat, he said, is the Iranian threat. "Israel is not the main player but it's contributing to the international effort to prevent Iran's nuclear armament." "The main player who should lead on Iran is the United States." "The choice is not between total war and total failure; there is a lot to be done between those two choices and the countries that can do these things know how to do them. Israel knows how to position itself on this issue in a way that reflects its uniqueness and capabilities." ~~~~~~~~~~ What Olmert then addressed was disconcerting in a different way. This man who is obsessed with striking a "peace agreement" with the PA declared, not for the first time, that in the future if we wanted an agreement we would have to offer the Palestinians "more than what Ehud Barak offered at Camp David." Nary a word about making sure the PA met its obligations first, or what constraints are placed upon us by security issues or what our inherent rights are here. Only what we "must" do concerns him. Concessions, concessions, concessions. Then he offered the information that he had made a concrete offer that PA President Mahmoud Abbas has not responded to. Abbas would not accept, because it is not his intention to seal a deal for a "two state solution." He values his life too much to compromise on any of the demands of the PA. But Olmert doesn't suggest that the ball is the other court now. What occurred to me here is that Shas stayed in the Olmert government with the understanding that Jerusalem was not being negotiated. Ha! ~~~~~~~~~~ For the record, under no circumstances could Olmert have signed away part of Jerusalem unilaterally. Basic law requires that any change in the boundaries of Jerusalem be brought before the Knesset and to a national referendum. This applies as well to the Golan, but not to Judea and Samaria, to which Israeli civil law has not been extended. However, the day will probably come when we will be told by the international community and the Palestinians that we must start new negotiations where Olmert left off. That is what is always demanded. But it's not written into law — not ours and not international law. (Olmert signed nothing, in any case.) This is when a right wing government and a strong PM become very important. ~~~~~~~~~~ Hamas official Ali Barakeh says that indirect negotiations with Israel on the release of Shalit, via the offices of Egypt, have begun again. There is no direct Israeli confirmation of this, or of our having sent negotiators to Cairo again — just a statement from Barak about how we must continue to pursue this issue. ~~~~~~~~~~ Three Palestinians were detained yesterday on suspicion of planning a terrorist attack. They were detained near Nablus, at Beit Dajan, by IDF Givat forces, called after Molotov cocktails had been thrown. They were found to be in possession of a pipe bomb, weapons, and maps of the area. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
ISRAELI WARPLANES CONDUCTED AIR STRIKE ON ARMS SMUGGLERS IN SUDAN
Posted by Sonia Nusenbaum, March 26, 2009. |
|
I saw many interesting articles on http://www.vosizneias.com
Succinct introductory paragraphs well done makes it a quick review.
With time constraints. I chose this.
It is archived at
|
|
Jerusalem — A government minister in Sudan is accusing the United States Air Force of killing dozens of people in that north African country this past January — but the semi-official American version of the story is very different. CBS News national security correspondent David Martin has been told that Israeli aircraft carried out the attack. Israeli intelligence is said to have discovered that weapons were being trucked through Sudan, heading north toward Egypt, whereupon they would cross the Sinai Desert and be smuggled into Hamas-held territory in Gaza. In January, the U.S. signed an agreement with Israel that calls for an international effort to stop arms smuggling into Gaza. Hamas was showering rockets on Israeli towns, and Israel had responded by invading Gaza. More than 1,000 Palestinians were reportedly killed in the December-January war, and 13 Israelis lost their lives. In the airstrike in Sudan — said to have been "in a desert area northwest of Port Sudan city, near Mount al-Sha'anoon," according to SudanTribune.com — 39 people riding in 17 trucks were reportedly killed. The first government official in Sudan to talk about it was the state minister for highways, Mabrouk Mubarak Saleem, who said: "A major power bombed small trucks carrying arms — burning all of them. It killed Sudanese, Eritreans, and Ethiopians and injured others." According to SudanTribune.com, the airstrike was an "embarrassment" to Sudan's government, and it discussed the matter with Egypt's government — allied with the U.S. on most issues — "to gather more information to formulate a response." The Web site added: "American and Israeli diplomats said the [January] agreement includes intelligence coordination to prevent arms from Iran from entering Gaza, maritime efforts to identify ships carrying weaponry, and the sharing of U.S. and European technologies to discover and prevent the use of weapons-smuggling tunnels." If Israeli airplanes carried out the attack in Sudan, it would suggest that there is a shadow war against Hamas and its weapons sources that is wider than the Israeli or U.S. government has revealed. |
|
WHITE HOUSE RECEIVES 1,800 COPIES OF MK ELDAD'S LETTER AGAINST A P.A. STATE INSIDE ISRAEL
Posted by UCI, March 26, 2009. |
|
This was written by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz and it appeared in Arutz-7 |
|
(IsraelNN.com) Last week, U.S. President Barack Obama, others in his administration and prominent Israeli officials each received emails from over 1,800 members of the Unity Coalition for Israel (UCI). Their letters questioned the wisdom of establishing a terrorist Arab state in the middle of Israel. The strongly worded message to the U.S. administration came in the wake of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent trip to the Middle East. During her visit to the region, she indicated that the establishment of a Palestinian Authority state is a priority for the new Obama Administration. In their letters responding to the Secretary of State, UCI members echoed and excerpted an open letter to Clinton written by Knesset Member Aryeh Eldad of the Ichud Leumi (National Union) party.... In addressing the Secretary of State, MK Eldad said, "You came here from the world`s greatest and strongest democracy. You come from the Democratic Party and you know how to recite the familiar mantras, claiming that the United States respects Israel`s democracy and will cooperate with any elected Israeli government. "Well, Israeli democracy has spoken: Most Israeli citizens do not wish to establish an Arab terror state in our homeland. If your democracy is real, you should of course respect the democracy of others as well." Eldad goes on to say, "At this time it appears that the U.S. is planning to appease the Iranians, Syrians and Palestinians by paying with `Israeli currency`. As you recall, dear Mrs. Clinton, we have too much history. We remember what happened when the Free World was willing to sacrifice Czechoslovakia in order to appease Hitler. We are unwilling to risk our very existence in order for the U.S. to buy itself a quiet withdrawal from Iraq." After making a number of pertinent points regarding the threat Israel faces from Iran, Eldad continues, "We are also unwilling to see the desire to appease the Sunnis in Iraq to prompt an American payment to the Syrians and Palestinians. "Don`t you understand that pressing Israel to renounce the Golan Heights in order to buy Syrian cooperation with the withdrawal from Iraq will not calm the Mideast, bring peace or reinforce Western democracy? Rather, it will encourage the Arabs to continue on the path of terrorism because you will prove to them that terrorism pays off." Concluding on a sharply sardonic note, Eldad writes, "The U.S. is not fighting jihadist terror in Afghanistan and Iraq because Israel is building houses in the West Bank...." Excerpt from "Israel's Christian Friends"
...ACCORDING TO THE Pew Center's 2008 Religious Landscape Survey, 26.3 percent of American adults identify themselves as evangelical Christians, making them the largest religious grouping in the US. And a study conducted by Pew three years ago found overwhelming support for Israel among evangelicals, concluding that "seven-in-ten white evangelicals (69%) believe God gave Israel to the Jewish people, and a solid majority (59%) believes Israel is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy." Naturally, these believers "are much more likely than others to sympathize with Israel in its dispute with the Palestinians," said the report. Indeed, the list of Christian personalities and organizations working on behalf of Israel in fieldsranging from social welfare to public affairs is almost dizzying. UCI — The Unity Coalition for Israel (http://www.israelunitycoalition.org) — is "the largest worldwide coalition of Jewish and Christian organizations, with more than 200 groups representing millions of people dedicated to Israel. Though we have many different backgrounds, we have one common goal: A Safe and Secure Israel." "Israel is not just a Jewish issue. Millions of Christians resolutely endorse the principle of peace with security for the state of Israel. Because we work closely together and speak with a united voice, our message is being heard!" |
|
NY TIMES CONCEALS YANK' TERRORIST AFFILIATION NY TIMES INSINUATES AGAINST ISRAEL LOBBY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 26, 2009. |
|
NY TIMES CONCEALS YANK' TERRORIST AFFILIATION "37-year old American was badly hurt on Friday in a clash between Israeli troops and demonstrators protesting the extension of Israel's separation barrier in the W. Bank." He was with the International Solidarity Movement (ISM), "a Palestinian-led (Arab-led) group that opposes Israel's occupation of the W. Bank. It leads demonstrations against the barrier every Friday at several W. Bank locations." The IDF said that many of the 400 demonstrators threw rocks at them. Hence the troops fired tear gas at them. One canister injured the American (Ethan Bronner, 3/14, A7). ISM is a terrorist auxiliary. Forbidden from entering Israel and the Territories, members sneak in. Their protests are usually violent and seldom reported in the newspaper. They have attempted physically to block Israeli troops from fighting against terrorists, but not terrorists from attacking Israelis. The Times report failed to mention those key facts. The omission distorts readers' understanding of the events, leading them to sympathize for the injured American and to resent Israeli troops for injuring him. The Times is one of the few papers having staff in the area. The locations of ISM riots probably are known in advance or could be reached quickly. Were the paper conscientious, it would assign a reporter to cover some such protests. Then it could report facts, such as that the crowd initiated attacks on the troops, rather than report that the IDF "said" so and ISM members said nothing about violent protest. If the Times had revealed ISM's terrorist affiliation, readers would discount ISM testimony. When the IDF alleges a fact, the paper refers to it as the Army "said." When ISM alleges an Israeli occupation, the paper treats it as a fact, not as ISM "said." That is a subtle form of discrimination. I would have put it as the man was hurt "when he and other demonstrators attacked Israeli troops involved in extending the security barrier in the W. Bank." (They should use the official name, Judea and Samaria, but they long ago switched to a name that hides its Jewish origin. Palestine" was coined for that same purpose.) PHILIPPINES: MUSLIMs STILL NOT SATISFIED The government of the Philippines and an organization of Muslim rebels in the South agreed to set up a joint committee to devise autonomy for the Muslim area. A bigger group of Muslim rebels wants a bigger area (IMRA, 3/14). NY TIMES INSINUATES AGAINST ISRAEL LOBBY Charles W. Freeman, Jr., has withdrawn his name from nomination for "a top intelligence post." He claimed to be the "victim of a concerted campaign by what he called the "Israel lobby.'" Mr. Freeman has long been critical of Israel, with a bluntness that American officials rarely voice in public about a staunch American ally. In 2000, he warned that, "left to its own devices, the Israeli establishment will make decisions that harm Israelis, threaten all associated with them, and enrage those who are not." "The critics who led the effort to derail Mr. Freeman argued that such views reflected a bias that could not be tolerated in someone who, as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, would have overseen the production of what are supposed to be policy-neutral intelligence assessments destined for the president's desk." Sen. Schumer "...said that Mr. Freeman showed an 'irrational hatred of Israel'..." Another critic suggested that Freeman's views are as if from the Saudi Foreign Ministry, to which he once was ambassador. His defenders suggest that the criticism was just political, and that one is not allowed to criticize US support for Israel. To avoid criticism over his other choices of aides, candidate Obama distanced himself from Mr. "Brzezinski, the national security adviser under Pres. Jimmy Carter, who has sometimes been critical of Israel." "As head of the Middle East Policy Council, he [Freeman] was a frequent critic of policy toward Israel. In a speech in 2005, he said that "as long as the US continues unconditionally to provide the subsidies and political protection that make the Israeli occupation and the high-handed and self-defeating policies it engenders possible, there is little, if any, reason to hope that anything resembling the former peace process can be resurrected." (Mark Mazzetti & Helene Cooper, NY Times, 3/12, A1). (See below for ZOA statement of Freeman's record.) This article omits key facts that would correct the false judgments it quotes. It pulls its punches against Freeman, leaving him almost a reasonable and sympathetic character. It leaves an misimpression of censorship against mere criticism of some Israeli policies. Here is how. To be sure, the Times' usual non-sequential reporting tends to obscure the story. But as too often to seem coincidental, the paper often leaves the best argument for Israel to the end paragraphs, which many readers never reach. Mr. Freeman has made some antagonistic statements about Israel, reflecting extreme bias and poor understanding. The first statements of his quoted in the article were mild. That makes him really seem persecuted. The last statement reveals more of his antipathy towards Israel. That antipathy refutes his contention, one shared by antisemites and the anti-Zionist NY Times (which does not give "full disclosure" about its own, traditional bias against Jewish sovereignty), that a mere criticism of some Israeli policy is censored by the Israel lobby. Something is made to seem wrong with Israel having a lobby but not Greece, whose lobby once was powerful, nor the Arab lobby, which remains powerful, more so than the Israel lobby that can't stop arms shipments going to the Arabs, etc.. Another double standard against the Jews. Freeman's nostalgia for the "former peace process" tips us off about the poor quality his intelligence reports would have been, based as they are on bias. What they called "peace process" was a one-way series of concessions to the Arabs, who never ceased their bigotry and terrorism. They exploited the concessions to make war. The concessions were leading Israel to insecure borders and other weaknesses. Since the Arabs retained their belligerency, not only were further concessions futile, they were foolish. "Peace process" is a euphemism for Arafat's Phased Plan for the Conquest of Israel. It was phony. Let me alert you to a major propaganda technique by the Times and by the biased officials it defends. Almost all the criticism is of Israel. That is suspicious. It indicates bias. Almost the only criticism of the Arabs is when their intransigence or their aggression hinders the State Department's anti-Zionist diplomacy just as that diplomacy has cowed Israel's leaders into being amenable to it. But rarely does those critics of Israel criticize the Arabs, who, after all, are anti-American, genocidal, and part of the global jihad against civilization. A genuinely pro-American policy would be to help our ally defeat the jihadists, just as the US needs to do in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.. Criticism certainly isn't censored in the Times, which, instead, minimizes coverage of Israeli defenses against such criticism. The last quotation of Freeman begins to show that what he calls specific criticism really is part of the Western drive to appease jihad and render Israel defenseless, by taking up the Arab side and disregarding Jewish claims to the Territories and need for secure borders. Let us distinguish between criticism of Israel based on facts, logic, law, and ethics, and criticism based on prejudice. Let us distinguish between criticism of some policy here or there, and criticism that would undermine Israel's survival. Freeman's and the Times' are based on prejudice against Israel and its survival. To add insult to injury, the Times pretends that its criticism of Israel is in the national interest both of Israel and of the US. No, that criticism would take from Israel and give to the Arab aggressors, leaving Israel non-viable and with indefensible borders (as I've discussed in many articles). The first result of this would be to boost jihad morale and power. The second result would be to get Israel destroyed. The result of that would be to deprive the US of a strong ally and to enable jihadists to consolidate their region against the US. Freeman's final statement hints at a warped anti-Zionist record, which is not suitable for a national security adviser to the President. Therefore, the earlier defense of him, as being the victim of politics, is misleading. A misleading statement should not be allowed to stand unchallenged. Readers would have to peruse the whole article, to find, at the end, the Freeman statement that hints that the criticism of him is what is reasonable, not his criticism of Israel. To allege that Jimmie Carter "has sometimes been critical of Israel" extreme journalistic distortion. Carter devotes books to deliberately false claims against Israel so defamatory as to support efforts to dismantle or destroy the Jewish state. Carter raves. His book reviewers don't. The Times' understatement is disgracefully deceptive. What an insight that gives into the paper's own bias! Many former US diplomats who served in Arab states retire to serve Arab states. A Saudi prince boasted that while in the US employ, those diplomats and their successors learn to accommodate to Saudi views, to they can retire to cushy jobs. In other words, S. Arabia indirectly but consciously bribes the State Dept. That's a serious subversion, which the Times, ostensibly pro-American, should be exposing. We should be questioning how pro-American is the State Dept., due to its biased agenda and its short-sightedness. On the other hand, there is a type of criticism of Israel that is censored. One almost never finds it in the Times. That criticism is Jewish nationalist or patriotic Israeli. That criticism finds that the rulers of Israel have defeatist policies and oppress their own, Jewish people. Thus the real censorship is of views from Jews loyal to the US and Israel, who see Israel's policies as appeasement of the Arabs and of the State Dept. and as leading to Israel's demise. I criticize Israeli policies the dissident way. I criticize its failure to enforce the law against Arab rioting, land seizure, illegal building, illegal immigration, destruction of ancient Jewish artifacts on the Temple Mount. I criticize its preferences for Arab college and civil service admission, its subsidies on Arab non-citizen residents of Jerusalem and its arrests of Israelis who criticize those policies. What do the Times and State Dept. say Israel should do about illegal Arab building? They say Israel should ignore it. Case closed! ZOA STATEMENT OF FREEMAN'S RECORD These are just the most clearcut examples. The Middle Eastern Policy Council is endowed by S. Arabia and lobbies for the Arabs. [Thus Freeman part of the Arab lobby, has a conflict of interest that the newspaper failed to advise readers of.] The Council published favorably the anti-Jewish Mearsheimer-Walt tract [that takes up the old antisemitic cry that the Jews are too powerful]. Freeman blamed 9/11 and assaults on US forces on US support for Israel. [He exaggerates that support, which rather than being "total," really is mostly non-stop criticism of Israeli self-defense, efforts to take land from the Jews and give it to the Arabs, and subsidy of Arab terrorists.] He blames on Israel "brutal oppression" of the Arabs in the Territories (IMRA, 3/11). I know of brutal Arab attacks on Jews, but those who criticize Israel as treating Arabs brutally do not document it. That's because it is not brutal. On the other hand, the Times rarely publicizes P.A. Arab indoctrination in brutality. 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 |
|
NETHERLANDS: GOV'T TO FIGHT FOREIGN INFLUENCES IN MOSQUES
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, March 26, 2009. |
|
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/IslamInEurope/~3/iC9VMLNUH-A/
netherlands-govt-to-fight-foreign.html
The cabinet will make it more difficult for lenders from, for example, the
Middle East, to secretly obtain influence in mosques in the Netherlands,
Guusje ter Horst (Labor), the Dutch minister of internal affairs, announced
Wednesday.
Foundations must be more open in the future about their finances. The
cabinet will make a law proposal already this year for regulating that.
This law will also concern mosques, since most are foundations, says Ter
Horst.
The parliament asked Ter Horst to study how much danger there is from
foreign people or institutions who put money into mosques in the
Netherlands. The parliament fears that they sometimes do that in order to
get influence, aiming to oppose integration or advance radicalization.
Ter Horst recognizes the risks, but also says that they 'shouldn't be
overestimated'. Foreign Islamic financiers mostly give money to
mosques out of charity and are not out to get influence.
Norway: Immigrant women active in society
Immigrant women participate in several social arenas as much or more than the rest of the population, which conflicts with the image of the oppressed immigrant women. Local politicians Aisha Ahmed (19) and Hatice Elmacioglu (40) in Drammen are among the many women of immigrant background who have took control of seats on municipal boards around the country last elections. With that they contributed to the fact that immigrant women and men in local politics are much more equal then the rest of the population. While women make up 46% of the immigrant representatives in municipal councils, women make up just 38% among all municipal council representatives. In Drammen 12 non-Western representatives were elected for the council in 2007, the most in the country. The wish to influence drives Norwegian-Pakistani Ahmed and Norwegian-Turk Elmacioglu. Elmacioglu says she's a single mother of three and saw that there was a lot missing in the schools. "I decided to go into politics and came up from 20th to 8th place on the Conservative Part's list by actively getting votes," says Elmacioglu. Ahmed was active in the Labor Party since she was 15 and was told she's a role model for young girls. "It's important to participate in the debate. I think that it can motivate and engage other minority women to do the same." The report "Immigrants and the municipal elections 2007" from Statistics Norway also shows that immigrant women usually vote more in elections than immigrant men. Adviser Vebjorn Aalandslid of Statistics Norway points out that there are great different between different immigrant groups, but thinks that the finds are interesting. "This corresponds badly with the image of the oppressed immigrant woman which is often described," he says. Minority women differentiate themselves positively not only in local politics: Women of immigrant background own their own company almost as often as Norwegian women, they complete upper secondary school more often than immigrant boys, get higher education more often compared to the rest of the population, and participate more often than immigrant men in Norwegian courses. Equality and Discrimination Ombudsman Beate Ganges this this clearly shows the great resources among immigrant women in Norway. She says that these numbers give a nuancing of the image which is often created of oppressed immigrant women who live on the sidelines of Norwegian society. The facts show that there are many resource-strong women who actively participate in society. Hatice Elmacioglu and Aisha Ahmed work for including and socializing minority women. Ahmed heads a Pakistani women's organization in Drammen and Elmacioglu is a female representative in the Turkish national association and regularly arranges women's parties in Drammen. The parties are open for everybody, but Norwegian women seldom come. "I'm concerned by Norwegian women. I think they're so occupied by their own lives that they don't engage in what happens outside," she says. The women's movement was accused this week of failing immigrant women. Ahmed agrees. "Why doesn't the women's movement cry out that immigrant women don't get jobs. It's easy to accuse culture and different values and it leads in some cases to immigrant women not being taken seriously," she thinks. Conservative Elmacioglu emphatically disagrees. "I wanted to go into politics and now I'm there. There are possibilities, but you must fight for it," she says. Last week Elmacioglu invited the deputy mayor in Drammen and Frp man Freddy Hoffmann to her home so he could learn more about non-Western culture. "We must fight prejudices. I got praise from Hoffman for being a good role model," she says. ' US: Obama backs Tariq Ramadan's visa rejection'
Although it has made a break with many of George Bush's controversial, self-declared war on terror policies and has promised to reach out to Muslims, the Obama administration has decided to back a Bush decision to deny one of Europe's leading Muslim intellectuals entry. "Consular decisions are not subject to litigation," Assistant US Attorney David Jones told the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He asked the court to uphold a decision to bar Tariq Ramadan, an Oxford University professor, from entering the country. Jones argued that if the court questioned a consular officer's decision to bar Ramadan, this would leave the administration in a "quagmire" with others seeking such reversals. When one of the judges asked how high the review of Ramadan's case has gone within the Obama administration, Jones said it was "upwards in the State Department." (..) The Obama administration's position came as a shock to many. "It's disappointing to come here and hear Obama administration lawyers argue the same sweeping executive power arguments," Jameel Jaffer, lawyer and ACLU National Security Project director, said after the hearing. He told the court that the government had failed to identify "legitimate and bona fide reasons for the exclusion." Civil rights groups had hoped for a reversal of Bush policy of excluding foreign scholars from on the basis of their political beliefs. (http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?c=3DArticle_ C&pagename=3DZone-English-News/NWELayout&cid=3D1237705564938) Source: Islam Online More from the FOX News report on Brussels and Molenbeek: Announcer: Old Europe is looking less and less European these days and that's giving rise to a clash of cultures. Correspondent Greg Burke reports from Brussels. Burke: When you think about Brussels, Belgium, you tend to think about the heart of old Europe, a city that's been standing there for centuries, a place where visitors find lots of excellent beers and very fine chocolates. Think again. Think about one of the biggest and youngest Muslim populations in Europe. Right-wing Belgians are worried for their future. Dewinter: It's terrifying for me and its' dreadful for everybody in Brussels. and it's important to know that the capital of Europe — this is the capital of Europe — will be Islamized within ten, twenty years. Burke: Belgium needed immigrant workers in the 1960s and 70s, but integration didn't come easily for the Moroccans and Turks who arrived. While there are no hard figures, as much as 25% of the city is Muslim. Molenbeek is a part of Brussels with one of the largest percentage of Muslim residents. The socialist mayor of Molenbeek thinks Belgians of different creeds can learn to live together. Moureaux: Be realistic. They're here, they're relatively numerous and they're growing. Do you want your children and grandchildren to live a kind of civil war, or do you want them to live in peace? Burke: The imam of one of the city's main mosques takes a similar line, saying eveyrone's in the same boat and has to work together so the boat doesn't sink. The mosque shows the vibrancy of the Moroccan community in Molenbeek, with thousands showing up for Friday prayers. But there are problems. The neighborhood is so dangerous, police gave us an escort while taping, and told us it would be safer to stay in the car. It's a double danger, both rampant street crime and anti-Western sentiment. Some Belgians claim Muslim enclaves are forming in Brussels, and charge that the government is bending over backwards to appease the Islamic community. Dewinter: It's not Muslims who are integrated in our society, but it's our society who adapts to the demands of radical Islam. Burke: While Molenbeek may not the breeding ground for Jihadists that some claim it is, dozens of North Africans have been arrested in Belgium over the last few years years on terror charges. In Europe they're already talking about what big city will be the first to have a Muslim majority. It could be here in Brussels. The United States, of course, is still a long way away from that, but if
America has something to learn from Europe, it's that the lack of
integration of the Muslim community, comes with a very heavy price. In
Brussels, Greg Burke, FOX News.
h/t Brussels Journal See also: Brussels: Capital of Eurabia
BH: Church moved off former mosque
Church leaders are spending 100,000 GBP moving a chapel half a mile — so it
doesn't offend Muslims.
The Orthodox church was built on the site of a derelict mosque in Divic,
Bosnia-Herzegovina, and is being taken away to improve relations with local
Muslim worshippers.
Builders will spend a week driving the church to its new location on a
massive low loader truck.
Source: Austrian Times
Sweden: Chechen recruiters arrested at border
Last March three Chechen men were stopped by customs in Sweden. Three automatic weapons, ammunition and a silencer were hidden in the spare tire of their Audi. The Chechens said they were on their way from Austria to Norway to visit friends and go fishing. Swedish police and the prosecution think they would have used the weapons to commit robbery and that in Norway they would have collected money and recruited soldiers for separatist activity in their homeland. When the three Chechens were stopped by customs in Trelleborg, Malmö, the custom officials quickly got suspicious. The suspected leader and later convicted 27-year old sat in the backseat of the Audi A3. While the leader was missing his right arm, the men in the front seat was missing both arms. A third man was therefore hired as driver. The 27 year old leader left the war in Chechnya when he lost his right arm because of the Russians, and moved to Austria. When the custom agents took out the spare tire and scanned it, they discovered there was something hidden inside the tire. When they cut it up they found weapons, ammunition and a silencer hidden behind newspaper and a black jacket. When the leader was left on his own in the interview room, he destroyed a USB stick, who he partially tried to hide behind a radiator. Later he explained that the memory stick contained pictures of his sister mother, whom he hadn't seen for several years. Lawyer Ola Sjöstrand in Malmö confirmed to Dagbladet.no that one of the main theories of the police was that the three planned a robbery. "When somebody comes with so many weapons, ammunition and black clothing, ..." Copenhagen: Crime and religion
The Copenhagen Police annual report of 2008 says the following regarding gangs: Religion can play a role among the group members. Some maintain a relatively strict interpretation of their religion, while others are divided about this, which is seen [by the fact] that towards the parent generation they keep their faith, while 'out in the city' they consume liquor and drugs. Danish blog Uriasposten brings the following from a subscriber-only Jyllands-Posten article: The Copenhagen police are very guarded about explaining what's behind the wording, but Chief Police Inspector Per Larsen says: It's not so that I can say that he and he and he are religious. But it's a question of describing the complete picture of the situation and which theories we work with. The extensive study that we have ongoing should uncover whether there are connections between religion and crime. At the same time the study will uncover whether there's a flow of money from the criminal communities to the religious communities. As Uriasposten points out, there's no mention of Islam or of terrorism
funding, either in the article or in the original police report. I think
they don't really need to. "Immigrant gangs" is a euphemism that
everybody's comfortable with and which nobody misunderstands.
Sources: Uriasposten
See also: Denmark: Internal justice in Muslim
communities
|
|
IS TIMESMAN ROGER COHEN, THE NEW "WALTER DURANTY?"
Posted by LEL, March 25, 2009. |
|
By The Iconoclast in the new British Review
|
|
Timesman Roger Cohen appears to be the latest embodiment of legendary Moscow bureau chief in the 1930's, Walter Duranty. Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for his fawning reportage on Joe Stalin's first five year plan and collectivization of agriculture that resulted in the starvation murder of more than 5 million Ukrainian Kulaks. Witness the implied comparison between Cohen and Duranty in this Wall Street Journal op ed comment by Bret Stevens today, "Will Obama Listen to Iran's Bloggers? Stephens highlighted an interview with a courageous Iranian blogger, Kianoosh Sanjari, who survived the Mullah's gulag and torture to tell the truth about the Islamic Republic's supreme rulers. Sanjari is in the US seeking asylum. A comrade and fellow blogger, Omid-Reza Mirsayafi died in the notorious Evin prison in Tehran. This was just two days prior to Obama's Nowruz (Persian New Year) video appeal to Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei and the Iranian people. Note what Stevens said: Mr. Obama's solicitous message, timed to the Persian New Year's celebration of Nowruz, met a blunt response from the Islamic Republic's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei: "He insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day," he said. "If you are right that change has come, where is that change?" To this, soi-disant Iran experts and latter-day Walter Durantys explain that it is merely Mr. Khamenei's opening gambit in what promises to be a glorious new chapter in Iranian-U.S. relations. Let's examine the Walter Duranty comparison vis a vis an op ed by Timesman's Roger Cohen, "From Tehran to Tel Aviv" that appeared in Sunday's New York Times. I was in Iran in January and February. The visit convinced me that confrontational American high-handedness has been a disaster; that facile analogies between the Iranian regime and the Nazis dishonor six million victims of the Holocaust; that the regime's provocative rhetoric masks essential pragmatism; and that the best way to help a young, stability-favoring population toward the reform they seek is through engagement. But Cohen gets down to cases in his real agenda to have Obama stick it to Israel. Note this comment regarding discussions with an unidentified senior Israeli Official on the Iranian nuclear threat: And where, I asked, is Israel's red line? "Once they get to 1,500 kilos, nonproliferation is dead," he said. And so? "It's established that when a country that does not accept Israel's existence has such a program, we will intervene." Cohen clearly doesn't understand, as this Israeli official does, that Israel has 'en brera' (no option in Hebrew) to take out the Iranian nuclear threat. Appeasement and dialogue with the implacable Supreme Leader Khamenei could bring a catastrophic nuclear Holocaust to the Jewish nation. Now, let us see what Stephens's interview with Sanjari, the courageous Iranian blogger, has to say about the dangers of dialoguing with Iran's Supreme Leader. Shortly after Mr. Obama's inauguration, Mr. Sanjari put his name to an open letter to the new president, signed by several prominent young Iranian dissidents, calling on him "to pay special attention to the repressive, unaccountable nature of the regime" that now threatens and provokes the U.S. and our allies. Its conclusion is as fitting a tribute as any to Mirsayafi's notable and too-brief life: "Mr. President, you marked your first day in the White House by ordering the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison. But in our country, many Guantanamos exist, only our Guantanamos are home to students, women's rights activists, labor organizers, political activists, and journalists. We, as former student activists who spent time in Iranian prisons under inhumane conditions, call on you and all those who defend human rights, freedom and equality to express solidarity to the people of Iran as they wage their struggle for freedom." Perhaps, Stephens is correct: Roger Cohen of the Times may be the latest embodiment of Walter Duranty. How else could we explain Cohen's abandonment of his own Jewish people at risk of nuclear annihilation by the same implacable totalitarian Mullahs who imprisoned Iranian blogger Sanjari and denied terminal medical treatment to the late fellow blogger Iranian freedom fighter Mirsayafi? Contact LEL at lel817@yahoo.com |
|
ADL CALLS OLIPHANT CARTOON 'HIDEOUSLY ANTI-SEMITIC'
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, March 26, 2009. |
|
This article appeared yesterday in The Yeshiva World
|
|
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) labeled a syndicated cartoon by Pat Oliphant appearing today in newspapers across the country and on the Internet as "hideously anti-Semitic" because of its use of Nazi-like imagery and hateful evocation of the Jewish Star of David. The cartoon portrays a headless, jack-booted figure marching in a goose step with a sword in one hand and pushing a Star of David on a wheel with the other. The Jewish Star has fangs and is chasing after a woman carrying a child, labeled "Gaza." Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement: Pat Oliphant's outlandish and offensive use of the Star of David in combination with Nazi-like imagery is hideously anti-Semitic. It employs Nazi imagery by portraying Israel as a jack-booted, goose-stepping headless apparition. The implication is of an Israeli policy without a head or a heart. Israel's defensive military operation to protect the lives of its
men, women and children who are being continuously bombarded by Hamas
srael's defensive military operation to protect the lives of its
men, women and children who are being continuously bombarded by Hamas
rocket attacks has been turned on its head to show the victims as
heartless, headless aggressors.
Aryeh Zelasko lives in Beitar Illit, south of Jerusalem. He is
Director of Sales and Marketing of Israel Visit
(www.israelvisit.co.il) which provides information and an internet
buying facility for American visitors to Israel.
|
|
CAN ANYONE DOUBT THAT G-D IS PROTECTING US?
Posted by Gary Cooperberg, March 25, 2009. |
|
It is amazing to listen to leftist Jews condemning a Jewish demonstration in Um al Fahem. This town in central Israel has become a defacto Arab autonomous zone — a mini "Palestine" if you will. It took 2,500 police to protect 100 Jews who merely waved the Israeli flag as they marched on the outskirts of the town. What really happened here is that Jews reminded the Arabs and everyone else that Um al Fahem is part and parcel of the Jewish State. The Arabs rioted because they look at the Israeli flag as representing an enemy. Yes, the "Israeli" Arabs look at the Jewish State as an enemy and seek to replace it with an Arab State. All this demonstration sought to accomplish was to show everyone the truth which they prefer not to acknowledge. When the "demonstrators" waved the Israeli flag, the Arabs waved the PLO flag and threw rocks at the Israeli police. This was an act of rebellion and should have been treated as such. Those Arabs who engaged in such activities should have been shot. Instead they were treated as if they were engaged in a peaceful demonstration! Thus the Israeli authorities only encouraged our enemies to continue to rebel! No country in the world tolerates an element within its midst that seeks to destroy it. And if this is how "loyal" "Israeli" Arabs view the Jewish State, how can any normal person presume that we can make peace with enemy states which all seek our destruction? Have we gone mad? It is bad enough that we have Netanyahu who has declared that he will continue to "negotiate" with those who seek our destruction. But now, even after the Israeli electorate roundly defeated Barak and his labor party, we see that Netanyahu is likely to include labor as a key member of his government! What happened to the will of the voters? Does anyone care? Once again, after the elections are over, the will of the people is ignored and the power brokers continue their reckless efforts at self destruction with nothing to stop them besides Jewish Destiny. The Living G-d of Israel has begun the process of Biblical Redemption. He has enabled the Jewish People to return to our ancient homeland and re-establish Jewish sovereignty here. Instead of accepting and working with this miracle, our leaders deny it and seek to turn light into darkness. Rather than work at being an example for the nations to follow, our leaders seek to follow in the footsteps of the nations and become just like all of the other nations. Our destiny is to be a nation that stands alone, not to be reckoned among the nations of the world. Indeed, despite all of the tireless efforts on the part of our leaders to become accepted among the nations, we are continuously rejected and maligned by "friends" and enemies alike. The only way we will gain the respect of the nations of the world is if we stop being ashamed and afraid of simply being the Jewish State we were destined to be. Peace will never result from our surrender or appeasement. It will only come when we are honest and unafraid to stand up to all who dare challenge our exclusive sovereignty over our only homeland. Gary M. Cooperberg will be making another whirlwind speaking tour in the states between June 21-July 2. He expects to be in Texas through June 24th. After that he is prepared to go anywhere he is called upon to go. Don't wait until his limited time is all booked up. If you have a venue which would benefit from hearing him speak send him an email today. His is not a fund raising mission, rather a labor of love. He genuinely wishes to promote Biblical Zionism and only seeks a welcome ear. He also would be grateful to be invited to spend the Sabbath in a Jewish community which would welcome him to speak about aliyah. Write to him today, at gary@projectshofar.org Project Shofar is dedicated to spreading these truths wherever it is possible to do so. It is sounding the alarm, to Jew and Gentile alike,to open our eyes to the G-dly process that is presently underway, and work to support it. We dare not stand idly on the sidelines. If you would like to support the concepts espoused by the Voice from Hebron, and the physical work of Project Shofar, click here to make a donation Or, you can send a tax deductible contribution to:
Thank you for your support of Project Shofar! |
|
BEDOUIN TRY TO DRIVE JEWS OUT; OBAMA CONTINUES BUSH'S P.A. POLICY; BRITAIN'S CONFUSED POLICY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 25, 2009. |
|
ISRAEL PROPOSES SOLUTION TO NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION Israeli scientists propose adding the element, Americium, to nuclear fuel, so as to prevent it from being enriched to weapons grade. That fuel would be made available to nuclear power plants that otherwise would use fuel that could be turned into weapons (Arutz-7, 3/3). If they are right, this is a breakthrough. BEDOUIN ATTEMPT TO DRIVE JEWS OUT A Bedouin tribe in the Galilee region of Israel has been identified as squatting on public land and trying to usurp private land. The tribe cuts open ranchers' barbed wire fence, then drive in their own cattle to graze. One farmer estimates that the latest year of vandalism ruined $25,000 of his investment — he is not flush with funds. He claims to have been shot at. He has complained to the police many times. The police ignore this (Arutz-7, 3/3). Here is an opportunity for those who accuse Jews of stealing Arabs' land to protest and show they have some concern for fairness. Here is an opportunity for those who claim that Jews have usurped Arabs' land in the Territories to show that they are people of principle and not just of anti-Zionism. Arab theft and destruction of land, crops, cattle, and equipment, is widespread. I have never seen it reported in the NY Times. Is this a conspiracy of silence? Hostility to Israel would diminish if foreigners knew what Israelis put up with from hostile Arabs. It also would reveal to people that the government of Israel is anti-Israel, too. PM Olmert fulminated against Jews residing in an outpost he called illegal, and insisted that Israelis must follow the law. He does not insist that Israeli Bedouin follow the law. Israel needs a Zorro to deal with officials like him and the Lone Ranger and Tonto to deal with thieves like those Bedouin. SECRETARIES OF STATE & CHECKPOINTS When Sec. of State Clinton arranged to visit some Arab town in Judea-Samaria, the IDF set up checkpoints to bar Arab traffic from her roads. She took a circuitous route that avoided other Arab towns. After she left, Israel dismantled the checkpoints, in accordance with US demands to reduce their number. The same was done for Sec. of State Rice (Arutz-7, 3/3). Try the reverse. Remove the checkpoints for her trip; restore them afterwards. Let her face the danger she cavalierly commends to Jews in behalf of Islamist bigots. Then she'll understand. TRACTOR TERRORISM, AGAIN For the third time within a year, an Arab drove a tractor into other vehicles in Jerusalem, in an obvious attempt at murder. He struck a police car, injuring two offices, and tried to crush them against a bus. He was shot dead. A patriotic organization demands that his house be demolished, as should be the houses of his predecessors, so as to deter emulators (Arutz-7, 3/4/09 & 3/6). If he were captured, he would have been able to look forward to release under a lopsided prisoner trade. Wonder if Israel then would have let him stay in Israel and keep his driver's license and trade. Road building is getting to be a sensitive security industry from which, national security requires, Muslim Arabs be banned. Israel tries to have tolerance and integration, but the Arabs increasingly make war on it. This is an anomaly as important, thoughless obvious, than Israel bombing Gaza while letting supplies into Gaza for the same population that works with Hamas to murder Israelis. JERUSALEM VS. CLINTON After the Sec. of State criticized Jerusalem for planning to demolish some Arab houses, the City criticized her disinformation. It corrected her erroneous statements. Arutz-7 suspects that her staff had given her the facts, but she went ahead anyway with her defamation of Israel and her exoneration of Arab illegality (Arutz-7, 3/5). OBAMA CONTINUES BUSH'S P.A. POLICY Pres. Bush had the US train Abbas' forces as preparation for statehood. Pres. Obama is continuing that policy (IMRA, 3/6). It does not prepare the P.A. for statehood. It prepares the P.A. for civil and foreign war. Due to P.A. corruption and inefficiency, it would lose the foreign war. Its arms and forces probably would fall into the hands of Hamas, which would turn them on Israel. If Abbas survived the civil war, and got sovereignty, he would turn them on Israel, too. To prepare the P.A. for statehood, the P.A. must repudiate jihad, eradicate terrorism, stop indoctrinating the people in bigotry, develop independent civil society, institute business law, and stop extorting from the people and embezzling foreign aid. Doesn't the State Dept. know that? Could be. Perhaps the State Dept. doesn't really care, and exploits the concept of statehood to taking land from the Jewish people. U.S. POLICY ON SYRIA & IRAN The US now knows that Iran has sufficient radioactive material for nuclear weapon, and is amassing more centrifuges for refining it into a weapon. The US also knows that Syria has been running a clandestine nuclear development program and lying to the International Atomic Energy Agency about it. Nevertheless, the US is pursuing a policy of appeasement of Iran and Syria. Pres. Obama seems to be following the advice of Lee Hamilton of the Baker-Hamilton report recommending concessions to them. The Administration has the theory that Iran and Syria want to preserve a stable, democratic Iraq. What an imagination the Administration has! Syria and Iran fomented instability! They continue to support terrorist proxy groups there and elsewhere. Sen. Kerry turns out to be the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He came back from Syria to urge that Israel weaken itself by concessions to Syria, in order to wean Syria from Iran. But he acknowledges that Syria wouldn't turn away soon. Something for nothing! Nor is he watching the clock tick on Iran's bomb-making. [Syria's policy won't matter when Iran gets the bomb.] Kerry also urges the US to loosen trade embargoes against Syria, asserting that that would be good for US business. [The old capitalist argument?] Syria wouldn't have to reform, first [or ever]. Although he doesn't want the US to make demands upon Syria, he does make demands upon Israel. That a double standard. He demands that Israel block all Jewish building in the Territories. He also asserts that it is "unacceptable" for the new Israeli Administration not to support statehood for the P.A.. [Who made Kerry dictator of Israel?]. Clinton backed him up by opposing demolition of illegal Arab buildings in Jerusalem but not illegal Jewish buildings. The implies that Israel has no right to treat Jews and Arabs equal in its capital, because she wants Israel to throw hundreds of thousands of Jews out of much of it, to make it an Arab capital; she wants Israel to give Arabs preference there, now. She calls Israeli law-enforcement anti-peace. The US is not trying to stop Iranian nuclear development (Caroline Glick) When Iran blows us up, Americans will have an instant left to realize that almost our whole political class is stupid or worse. Obama, Kerry, and Clinton will have brought us down. Obama may as well be a Muslim, since he is giving Islam its final victory. Think about Sec. Clinton, making a crusade out of statehood for the Palestinian Arab terrorists, without explanation and without justification! They stand for everything we don't. What then, does Clinton stand for? IDF PREPARATION Two programs prepare for military service youths who otherwise would have difficulty qualifying or adapting. One program is the Army's. Its' enrollees are wayward youths. A number of them have become paratroopers or entered other units. A current graduate left a life of crime to make a proud contribution to his country as an officer. The other program assimilates religiously observant immigrants. It is located on the Golan (IMRA, 3/6). BRITAIN'S CONFUSED POLICY Britain expects not to attend the Durban II Conference. It also withdrew from negotiations to move its embassy to Jerusalem, because, as if there were a moral issue here, the building it was to purchase is owned by a company that builds in the Territories. Meanwhile, Britain is beginning diplomacy with Hizbullah, claiming that Hizbullah participation Lebanese politics makes it ripe for outsiders to moderate. An Israeli official countered — the real question is what part does Hizbullah take in Lebanese politics (IMRA, 3/6). The part Hizbullah takes in Lebanese politics is to keep Lebanon at war with Israel. That is not constructive. It is for jihad, which also aims at Britain. What ethno-centric conceit it is to imagine having some influence over a fanatical terrorist organization! Terrorists have greatly influenced British policy. Dealing with Hizbullah contradicts, ethically, the boycott of Jewish building in the Territories. That boycott pre-judges Israel and unfairly assumes that Jews have no rights there, and that, self-contradictorily, Arabs have rights in Israel. SYMPATHETIC NY TIMES ARTICLE OR BUNKER MENTALITY? The NY Times finally had a human interest story about Israel and even about how a town there copes with rocket assaults from Gaza. A rich man donated the funds to build an armored playground for children. [Nice, but solves nothing for long. The article reinforces Israel's futile bunker mentality.] The article did not discuss the trauma Israeli children experienced, but did discuss the killing and damage that Israel did in Gaza. Mr. Bronner gave equal billing to Israel's reason for the offensive and Hamas' false excuse for firing rockets. Hamas claims it is in response to Israel's blockade (Ethan Bronner, 3/12, A9). Mr. Bronner failed to ieave readers with the correct sequence: First Hamas attacked Israel via war crimes and with stated intent to destroy it. Then, in self-defense, Israel set up a partial blockade. I see in that report further bias and manipulation of readers' opinion. This manipulation exculpates the jihadist enemy of mankind, insinuates sour emotions about Israel, gnores Israel' s real needs, and fails to identify the problems and solutions. The solutions, including thorough anti-terrorism and upholding of Jewish territorial claims, go against the Times and State Dept. policy of appeasement of terrorism at Israel's expense. Thus this news article about Israel, like almost all in that paper, dishonestly uphold editorial policy. 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 |
|
JUSTICE AND THE LOYALTY OATH: A SOCRATIC ISSUE
Posted by LEL, March 25, 2009. |
|
This is by Professor Paul Eidelberg. In "Should Israel" require a loyalty oath for citizenship, I supported Lieberman's desire for a loyalty oath. Matt Hausman, a U.S attorney, then wrote at my suggestion, "Are Loyalty Oaths Consistent with Citizenship Values in a Democracy?" I also wrote to Paul Eidelberg for his erudite thoughts. Here they are. |
|
Avigdor Lieberman has been accused of racism for proposing a loyalty oath for Arab citizens of Israel. I'm no fan of Mr. Lieberman, but this charge of his being a racist is absurd. It has been well-established that most Arab citizens of Israel, while enjoying all the rights of this country, nonetheless identity with its enemies. Justice demands that those who enjoy the rights of citizenship fulfill the duties of citizenship. Otherwise, justice would be reduced to indiscriminate egalitarianism — the tendency in Israel whose ruling elites derive their legitimacy and respectability from Israel's reputation as a "democracy." Justice is the central theme of Plato's greatest dialogue, The Republic. What has this dialogue to do with a loyalty vote for Israeli Arabs? Let us proceed step by step. The key figure of the Republic is of course Socrates. Socrates was a poor man. Poor men tend to be partisans of democracy. Why? Because democracies usually equate justice with equality. Democracies therefore give the poor the same rights as the rich. Not that Socrates was a partisan of oligarchy. But he saw that democratic equality benefits the ignorant as well as villains. Socrates was a philosopher, a seeker of truth. Hence he was skeptical about democracy, whose egalitarianism made no distinction between the wise and the unwise, the virtuous and the vicious. Even disloyal individuals may vote in a democracy. Can this be truly just? The answer to this question is so obvious that it is not discussed in the Republic. Even though Athens was a democracy, none of the various definitions of justice discussed in that most subtle and profound dialogue entails the indiscriminate egalitarianism found in contemporary democratic societies, where individuals of hostile beliefs and values enjoy equal political rights. Although members of the Athenian assembly were chosen by lot — seemingly the most democratic of all systems — still, to be eligible for the lot certain qualifications were required. First, one had to be an Athenian, meaning a person more or less identified with Athenian culture. Second, one had to have performed military service and/or be a tax-payer. In short, one had to be a patriotic or law-abiding citizen and not mere consumers of rights typical of today's democracies. Now, of the various definitions of justice discussed in the Republic, only one conforms to these rational qualifications, namely, that justice means "giving to each his due." This is a matter of proportionate equality, not of arithmetic (or indiscriminate) equality. The latter results in the democratic principle of one adult/one vote, which renders a person's intellectual and moral character irrelevant. This is why democracies are ruled not by the wise and the virtuous but by mediocrities, if not worse. Which means that democracy is not the best regime; indeed, it may not even be a truly just regime. (This was also the conclusion of Aristotle.) Socrates led Athenian youth to this subversive conclusion. He willingly paid the penalty for undermining their loyalty to Athens in the process of liberating them from their Athenian, i.e. democratic, prejudices. Democratic Athens sentenced him to death. Well, we don't give hemlock to philosophers any more; we ignore them. And no wonder: Philosophy, understood as a passionate love of truth, is dead. Still, what would the "gadfly" of Athens do were he in Israel today? He would surely inquire about justice. Sooner or later some Israeli would say justice is "giving to each his due." Socrates would probably lead him to a more refined definition, perhaps something like the following. JUSTICE IS GIVING EQUAL THINGS (SUCH AS RIGHTS AND HONORS) TO EQUALS, AND UNEQUAL THINGS TO UNEQUALS IN PROPORTION TO THEIR INEQUALITY, i.e., IN PROPORTION TO THEIR MERIT (AS IS DONE IN CLASSROOMS), OR IN PROPORTION TO THEIR CONTRIBUTION TO THE COMMON GOOD. Any sensible Israeli would then see that to give Arabs, who strive for Israel's demise, the equal political rights of Jews, who struggle for Israel's welfare, is not consistent with justice. He would then conclude that if justice is to prevail in Israel, its Arab inhabitants must either be disenfranchised or undergo a profound political and religious metamorphosis. If Socrates led Israelis to this conclusion he would probably be condemned by Israel's political and intellectual elites and indicted for "racism" or "incitement." True, he might point out, during his trial, that Israeli Arabs do not perform military service; that they engage in massive tax evasion; that they aid terrorists and commit terrorist acts; hence that it is unjust to endow such disloyal Arabs with the equal rights of Jews. All this would probably be of no avail at Socrates' trial. He would almost certainly be convicted and imprisoned, and any appeal to Israel's egalitarian Supreme Court would be futile. This is quite a commentary on Israel's political and judicial elites, from whose lips the honeyed word "Democracy" is ever dripping but hardly a word about JUSTICE. There is hardly a public figure in Israel that has the courage as well as the wit to tell the truth about the manifest injustice (and deadly consequences) of giving the vote to this country's Arab inhabitants. Indeed, IT IS AGAINST THE LAW IN ISRAEL TO TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THIS ISSUE. Now we are prepared to go to the root of things. What needs to be said, and what no one dares say in Israel, is that THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED, IN 1948, ON A MONUMENTAL INJUSTICE: GIVING TO JEWS AND ARABS — TO LOYAL AND DISLOYAL INHABITANTS OF ISRAEL — THE EQUAL RIGHT TO VOTE IN THIS SUPPOSED-TO-BE JEWISH STATE. Not Peace but JUSTICE is the true and most fundamental issue in Israel today. In Israel, however, justice has been reduced to a leveling equality, which is why the sense of justice has been murdered in this country. This is why the killers of so many Jews in this country go unpunished. This is why Arabs who have murdered Jews have been released by various Israeli governments. This is why various Israeli politicians have clasped the bloodstained hands of Yasser Arafat or his successor, Mahmoud Abbas. You will not go to the root of things by explaining their behavior in terms of their desire for "peace." You will not truly explain their surrender of land for which Jews have so long yearned for, fought for, and bled for, in terms of "American pressure." No, the suffering and humiliation of Israel today is the inevitable result of the monstrous injustice prescribed in the very Proclamation of the Establishment of the State, that all inhabitants of this State — Jews and Arabs alike — would receive equal political rights. This is not justice but the negation of justice and even of common sense. This negation has made children of Israel's rulers. It has made fools of Israel's intellectuals. It has driven this country to suicidal madness — the prey of Arabs armed by mindless Israelis posing as men. All this is described in Isaiah 3:4; 5:20; 28:7, 15-18; 29:9, 14; 44:25. It was injustice compounded by stupidity that led to the Oslo "peace process." Until this issue is faced — until Jews pursue Justice — NEITHER POLITICS NOR POLITICAL ANALYSIS WILL SAVE ISRAEL FROM RECURRING DISASTERS.
Contact LEL at lel817@yahoo.com |
|
PAIN IRAN CAN BELIEVE IN
Posted by Family Security Matters (FSM), March 25, 2009 |
|
This was written as an FSM Editorial.
in
|
|
Despite being a leading oil exporter, Iran imports roughly 40% of its gasoline because it lacks adequate domestic refining capacity. Any cut-off in supply would do immediate damage to the fragile Iranian economy. Iran is supplied with gasoline by a handful of foreign companies, all of which do substantial business in the U.S. Diplomacy will have no chance without the threat of sticks, so Congress could help by passing pending legislation affecting Iran's energy supply. The goal of the sanctions is to sharply raise the costs to Iran for pursuing its nuclear programs. The only way Iran's regime is going to stop its nuclear program is if it feels some pain it can believe in. (Wall Street Journal)
In an article entitled "The World Cannot Live with the Threat of a
Nuclear Iran" in U.S.News,
Mortimer Zuckerman wrote
Nuclear Iran will be a threat to U.S. national security, worldwide
energy security, the efficacy of multilateralism, and the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty."
[...]
" It will be emboldened to use terrorism to threaten or
subvert others in the area — especially those who might be inclined to
pursue peace with Israel. ... If Iran succeeds in going nuclear, pro-Western
Arab regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Gulf states may decide
to join Iran rather than fight it
[...]
"Death to America!" has provoked the
Iranian street for over a quarter of a century and is the venom upon
which an entire generation of Iranians has been raised. ... The inescapable
fact is that the U.S. just cannot take the risk of nuclear missiles in
the hands of a clerical regime that preaches genocide. It is pathetic
that appeasement continues to beguile.
Contact Family Security Matters (FSM) at info@ familysecuritymatters.org |
|
THE GUARDIAN GOES TO PALLYWOOD
Posted by Barbaras Taverna, March 25, 2009. |
|
This was written by Melanie Phillips and it
appeared yesterday in the Spectator
|
|
Not to be outdone by the Ha'aretz blood libel, the Guardian today devotes a front page splash, two inside pages, three separate videos, a commentary by Seumas Milne and an editorial to what it claims is evidence from a special investigation by Clancy Chassay that Israel committed war crimes' in Gaza in Operation Cast Lead by deliberately targeting civilians, using young boys as human shields and deliberately targeting ambulances and medical personnel and hospitals. It presents these allegations as facts. It does so even though they are only allegations, unsupported by any evidence whatever. It does so even though the allegations are made by people with a proven track record of systematic lying to journalists and fabrication of stories and images. It does so even though such people either support Hamas or are controlled and schooled by Hamas to tell lies under pain of torture or death. It does so without providing any verifiable information — full names, dates, specifics. It does so without making any mention of the extraordinary lengths to which the Israel Defence Force went in trying to avoid civilian casualties, by leafleting targeted houses to warn the inhabitants to get out and even calling them on their mobile phones to urge them to do so. It does so without acknowledging the fact that it was Hamas which used Gazan civilians as human shields — indeed, it dismisses this in a sentence by stating that Amnesty and Human Rights Watch found 'no evidence' that it had done so. Hardly surprising since Amnesty and Human Rights Watch have repeatedly shown themselves to be wholly partisan in the Palestinian cause and viscerally prejudiced against Israel. But aren't Guardian reporters supposed to be journalists rather than passive conduits of NGO propaganda? In his 'month-long investigation', didn't investigative reporter Clancy Chassay himself come across any of the copious evidence that Hamas used Gazan civilians as human shields — indeed, effectively used the whole civilian population as either a collective hostage or missile fodder? Did special investigative reporter Chassay manage somehow not to see this, or this, or this, or this, or this evidence that Hamas was guilty prima facie of the war crime of repeatedly using civilians as a weapon of war? Looking at this Hamas propaganda sicked up by the Guardian (and in a pale imitation, the similarly implausible tale in today's Independent) it is blindingly obvious that, as so often before, Hamas has chosen to deflect attention from its own war crimes — the deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians and the use of Palestinian civilians as hostages, human shields and missile fodder — by claiming that it is instead Israel that is guilty of that very behaviour. And the evidence that the Guardian has presented as fact to support this claim turns out to be at best paper-thin and at worst demonstrably ridiculous. Take the first video, featuring the family of six who we are told were killed by an Israeli drone — whose pinpoint accuracy must have meant, says Chassay, that Israel deliberately targeted civilians in that house. But the evidence presented shows nothing of the kind. We are left with absolutely no idea why this house was targeted — whether it was actually a terrorist stronghold, whether terrorists were firing nearby, whether it was erroneous intelligence or even whether a drone was indeed responsible. There whole thing is only allegations. In addition Carl at Israelmatzav adds this intriguing observation: By the way, the part of the video where the two girls were allegedly killed looked very familiar to me. To me, it looks remarkably like the neighborhood in which the Hilles clan lived. There are some shots of that neighborhood in the video here. Were the people in this video Fatah supporters who were set up to be killed by Hamas? Now take the second video, in which we are told as a fact that three young brothers were used by the IDF as human shields. Again, all we have to go on is the brothers' allegations. We see them posing self-consciously in positions replicating how the Israeli army had reportedly used them, including supposedly kneeling in front of Israeli tank positions to deter Hamas from firing. But a moment's thought suggests this is hardly plausible. The whole point of human shields is that they are a deterrent against attack because the other side will not want to kill civilians being used in such a way. That is undoubtedly true of the Israelis: there have been countless examples of their aborting attacks because Palestinian children were seen or suspected to be present. But that's the point: children and other civilians are present because Hamas use them as human shields. We know from Palestinians' own testimony and other evidence (see above) that they deliberately kept families in houses which the IDF warned would be targeted — even putting them on the rooftops — in order that they should be killed as martyrs to the cause of destroying Israel. And as we know, they also turn their own children into human bombs for the same reason. So is it really likely that the Israelis would assume that if they used Palestinian children as human shields, Hamas would not fire at them? Most ludicrously of all, the video shows what it solemnly states is an Israeli army magazine found in one of the destroyed houses showing a picture of one of the brothers bound and blindfolded before he said he was stripped to his underpants and used as a human shield. Rub your eyes. Operation Cast Lead lasted from December 27 to January 18. Are we supposed to believe that the Israelis managed to publish during that time a magazine with a picture of a boy they had captured during that same operation? And then left it lying around in the rubble — miraculously without so much as a tear in its pages — for him conveniently to find it? The boys shown are healthy, well fed and bright-eyed. Their mother is consumed by grief as she describes what happened to them... hang on, let's read that one again. Her children are healthy, well fed and bright-eyed. So why is she weeping as if they have all been killed? Looks suspiciously like another Hamas 'Pallywood' production to me. Now let's look at the third video which claims Israel targeted ambulances, hospitals and medical personnel. No mention that Hamas regularly hijacks ambulances, as reported here; nor that they and their NGO mouthpieces claimed medics were killed when they were in fact terrorists, as reported here: Last week, the International Solidarity Movement, a pro-Palestinian NGO, quoted statistics obtained by the Palestinian Health Ministry according to which 15 Palestinian medics were killed during the three-week operation. But, said the CLA, some of those reportedly killed were not medics, while in other cases the reports of deaths turned out to be false. One of the 'medics' reported dead was Anas Naim, the nephew of Hamas Health Minister Bassem Naim, who was killed during clashes with the IDF on January 4 in the Ash Sheikh Ajlin neighborhood of Gaza City. No mention of any of this. Instead the video presents as fact a claim by a man wearing an ambulance vest that his ambulance was struck by an Israeli tank shell containing 8000 'flechettes', or small winged darts. He describes how his colleague was hit by hundreds of these flechettes — whereupon he sank to his knees, raised his hands in the air and prayed. But my understanding is that flechette shells rip to pieces anyone they hit. So how could a man hit by a shell containing 8000 flechettes have been able to raise his hands and start praying? What's striking about these videos is how scrappy these claims are. So much so, in fact, that the second one seeks to shore up its case by footage from 2007, claiming to show the IDF using Palestinians as human shields on two previous occasions. But once again, these brief clips show no such thing. We see IDF soldiers going up a staircase into a building preceded by a Palestinian youth — we have no idea why, or what role the youth is playing. And we see a child sitting on the bonnet of an IDF jeep with his hand chained to the windshield — which is most likely to have been done to stop him from running away rather than using him as a human shield. To pad out these preposterous and absurd claims, the Guardian cites the now infamous Ha'aretz allegations — which it manages to distort even further, saying that these included the admission by an Israeli soldier that an Israeli sniper had shot dead a Palestinian mother and her two children without saying a) that even Ha'aretz had said this was an accident and b) that the soldier subsequently admitted he hadn't even been there and was merely recycling rumour and hearsay. In his commentary, the Muslim Brotherhood/Hamas mouthpiece Seumas Milne misrepresents the Ha'aretz travesty yet further still by stating: Last week, the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported that a group of Israelis soldiers had admitted intentionally shooting dead an unarmed Palestinian mother and her two children, as well as an elderly Palestinian woman, in Gaza in January. But the group of soldiers had 'admitted' doing no such thing. They had not 'admitted' doing anything themselves at all — merely reported what they had heard others say. Milne also sought to prop up the 'human shield' claims by dragging in other events: Or take the case of Majdi Abed Rabbo — a Palestinian linked to Fatah and no friend of Hamas — who described to the Independent how he was repeatedly used as a human shield by Israeli soldiers confronting armed Hamas fighters in a burned-out building in Jabalya in the Gaza strip. The fact of Israeli forces' use of human shields is hard to gainsay, not least since there are unambiguous photographs of several cases from the West Bank in 2007, as shown in Chassay's film. The 'unambiguous photographs' are of course, as discussed above, anything but unambiguous. And as far as Majdi Abed Rabbo is concerned, once again a moment's thought suggest this is most implausible. Since Hamas has been killing large numbers of Fatah operatives who it considers to be its deadly enemies, is it really likely that 'a Palestinian linked to Fatah and no friend of Hamas' would be used by the Israelis as a human shield against Hamas? Lazy, malicious use of partisan, uncorroborated, thin, ambiguous and on occasion demonstrably absurd allegations, with the purpose and effect of demonising and delegitimising the Israeli victims of terrorism by painting them as the terrorists and their Palestinian attackers as their victims. In similar vein, no mention at all in the Guardian of the enormous bomb planted in a shopping mall in Haifa last Saturday evening — 100 kg of explosives packed with ball bearings — which, had it not been defused, would most likely have killed hundreds of people. Truly, the Guardian is an evil newspaper. Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
US MUSLIM ORGANIZATIONS TO BOYCOTT COOPERATION WITH THE FBI
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, March 25, 2009. |
|
A group of major Muslim groups has announced that they will no longer cooperate with our FBI, claiming 'bias' and 'targeting': In a statement, the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT) cited in particular an incident in California, in which it says that "the FBI sent a convicted criminal to pose as an agent provocateur" in several mosques. A federal agent allegedly told one of the mosque-goers that the FBI would make his life a "living hell" if he did not agree to become an informant. I suppose the fact that those groups fully deserved the label of unindicted co-conspirators has absolutely nothing to do with it as far as these people are concerned. And the bit about 'instigating violent rhetoric in mosques' is especially rich..as though it would never happen unless the FBI fanned the flames.. "We call on the FBI to reassess its positions on profiling and the use of informants as agent provocateurs within the Muslim communities," the Muslim groups declared, adding the caveat that "this possible suspension, of course, would in no way affect our unshakable duty to report crimes or threats of violence to our nation." I guess their lawyers insisted on that last bit. Not reporting a crime would lay them open to the charge of being an accessory, although actually proving they had foreknowledge would be difficult. But not cooperating with law enforcement is a crime as well in most jurisdictions, and I find it interesting that groups like this feel emboldened enough to openly state this. What we have here is a bunch of diverse groups which might differ on tactics and focus but have a common goal of creating an Islamist political foothold under sharia law here in America, and ultimately control of our country and its institutions. After 9/11, the common narrative we were given was that Islam was a religion of peace who had been "perverted by radicals"...and in any event, we were told that we didn't want to go to war with 1.3 million people, did we? This last line was frequently used by Muslims belonging to Saudi-funded groups like the ones above themselves, and I personally heard it come out of the mouth of Muslim Public Affairs Council Executive Director Salam Al-Marayati when he was pressed on a local talk radio show. That line of reasoning was always ridiculous, because going to war against our enemy in this case the segment of Islam that wanted to conquer or destroy America meant a war against those enemies who chose to define themselves as our enemies through their actions. The majority of Muslims in America, at least by their own admission, claim to have distanced themselves from Islamist terrorism, attacks on Americans and the forced implementation of sharia over our Constitution. The same goes for the rest of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. The red lines and the enemies aligned against us in this war were always theirs to define. All of the other squabbles between the various jihadi groups — Shia versus Sunni, al-Qaeda versus main stream Wahabi or Deobandi, al-Qaeda as opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood — were and are meaningless in this context no matter how much they fight amongst themselves, because Islamist domination and the implementation of Sharia is a goal they all have in common, and there is a long history of various disparate Muslim factions putting aside their differences temporarily and uniting to wage jihad on the infidel. Jihad in America is promulgated at mosques and madrassahs across the country, as researchers like ex-intel officer Dave Gaubatz, award winning journalist and authors Steven Emerson, Zahdi Jasser, Daveed Garthenstein-Ross, Robert Spencer and others have amply documented. A number of terrorist attack attempts and jihad money laundering have come directly through these institutions or by Muslims that were radicalized through them. If groups like MPAC, the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, CAIR and others are suspending their 'cooperation' with the FBI and don't want these mosques and other institutions put under surveillance and investigated, there's obviously a connection between them and the radicalization of America's Muslims that they would rather not see come to light. And that position, I think, self-defines them as our enemies. All you have to do is connect the dots... 
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
PRO-HAMAS J-STREET LOBBY TARGETS JEWISH WOMAN WHO CALLED FOR ISRAEL TO FIGHT TERRORISM
Posted by Sultan Knish, March 25, 2009. |
|
J Street, the pro Hamas lobby funded by George Soros, which nevertheless insists on referring to itself as Pro-Israel though its only relationship with Israel is a consistently hostile one, not being satisfied with releasing a phony Jewish survey claiming that American Jews back their agenda, launched a vicious attack on a Jewish woman who called for Israel to start fighting terrorism. First the J Street poll, which far too many Jewish blogs and outlets are taking seriously. The J Street poll was set up by Gerstein Agne Strategic Communications. That may sound like a generic name, but in fact it's a hard left wing group, both of whose founders Jim Gerstein and Karl Agne are also the Executive Director and Senior Adviser for Democracy Corps, part of the George Soros machine, whose mission was and is distributing biased polling data to fit the Obama campaign's talking points and agenda. Naturally the Gerstein Agne J Street poll was filled with distortions and bias to ensure the desired political outcome. Fresh off that scam, J Street has proceeded to launch a hate campaign against Nadia Matar of Women in Green, who spoke at the Safra Synagogue and called for Israel to win the war against terrorism. "We must kill the terrorist leaders, starting with Mahmoud Abbas and all the others. Nobody had any qualms in destroying the Nazi regime, we have to abolish the Oslo agreements, there is no difference between the PA, the Hamas, the Islamic Jihad, whatever names they have. They're all terrorists and we cannot have peace with them." J Street instantly distributed a letter accusing her of violent incitement, because apparently calling for your government to fight terrorism is now violent incitement, according to this Pro-Hamas lobby. J Street quickly gained a craven apology from Rabbi Elie Abadie, previously a decent man, and his promise to never allow AFSI to use his synagogue again. Not satisfied with bullying a house of worship, the Pro-Hamas J Street thugs then went after AFSI, Americans For a Safe Israel, the event's sponsors, demanding that they in turn "renounce" her "violent incitement". Of course J Street are actually big fans of "violent incitement" by terrorists and their supporters in favor of killing Jews, whether it's by Hamas, Abbas or at Durban. What they're not in favor is Jews talking about fighting back, as Nadia Matar did. Their agenda, along with the far left, has been to crush any idea of resistance to terrorism. Nadia Matar called for a change in Israel's policy toward terrorism, from submission to resistance. J Street's campaign against her, AFSI and the Safra Synagogue is nothing more than a shameless attempt to terrorize and silence Pro-Israel views. Not satisfied with merely co-opting a Jewish agenda in favor of their Pro-Hamas agenda, J Street is working to silence any dissent from a pro-terrorist position. Let's contrast Matar's response with genuine incitement to violence from Abbas' terrorist regime. Voice of Palestine Radio, the official voice of Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority, declared Sunday night that both of today's attacks on Israelis were carried out by members of the Fatah organization headed by PLO leader Abbas. That's what actual "incitement to violence" looks like. These are the names of only two of Abbas' victims on that day. Kineret Mandel, 21 years old. Matat Adler, 22 years old. This is how they died. This is how Abbas' men murdered them. Returning to Carmel, Kineret and her newlywed cousin, Matat Rosenfeld-Adler, were waiting at the Gush Etzion junction for a ride home. A car from Carmel drove past and picked up hitchhikers, but there was no room for the two young women. A few minutes later, they were killed in the attack along with Oz Ben-Meir and three others were wounded. The names go on and on and so does the list. And month after month the list grows, as Abbas' Fatah thugs continue killing innocent people. This is what "incitement to violence" really looks like. ON the very day that five Israelis were murdered and over 60 injured outside a shopping mall in the coastal city of Netanya earlier this month, the official Palestinian newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida reported that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas had approved fresh financial assistance to the families of suicide bombers. The family of each "martyr" will now receive a monthly stipend of at least $250 — a not inconsiderable amount for most Palestinians — from the Palestinian Authority. Altogether, the families of these so-called martyrs and of those wounded in terrorist attempts or held in Israeli jails might receive $100 million, according to Al-Hayat Al-Jadida. 100 million dollars worth of incitement. Or this. A typical instance is the elevation of Al-Moayed Bihokmillah Al-Agha, who murdered five Israelis in a suicide bombing in December 2004. When the Rafah crossing, the scene of his terror attack, was re-opened at the start of this month, the Palestinian Authority renamed it "in honor of Shahid (martyr) Al-Agha." Then there is the soccer tournament named in honor of the terrorist who murdered 30 people at a Passover celebration in Netanya, or the girls' high school named by the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education after a female terrorist who murdered 36 Israeli civilians and an American nature photographer. (The school was recently renovated with money from USAID, channeled through the American Near East Refugee Aid.) This is what Abbas has been doing over and over again. Last week Abbas' terrorists plotted to murder diners at a restaurant with an odorless, tasteless, slow release poison to maximize casualties. That's not incitement to violence. Just violence. Plain and simple. The violence that left wing groups such as Peace Now, ISM and J Street support by repeatedly pressuring Israel and the US to stop fighting terrorism and to continue rewarding terrorists like Abbas with aid, with weapons and with territory to continue their crimes. This is what anyone who supports J Street and redistributes their materials supports. What Nadia Matar is guilty of is speaking the truth, and calling for an end to the violence, by calling for an end to the terrorist leaders responsible for the violence. Rabbi Elie Abadie's pathetic apology for letting a pro-Israel group hold an event in his synagogue is despicable. It is not consistent with the beliefs of Israel's Sephardic Chief Rabbis and Leaders. It is plain and simple toadying before J Street, a Pro-Hamas hate group calling itself a Pro-Israel lobby. In the 1930's, calls to fight Hitler were meant with threats and intimidation by the official liberal Jewish leadership toadying to FDR. Today calls to fight terrorists are met with threats and intimidation not only by the official liberal Jewish leadership toadying to Obama, but by the radical left's groups such as J Street which find the mainstream liberal leadership, not radically anti-Jewish enough. Feel free to make your views clear in support of fighting terrorism and free speech to Rabbi Elie Abadie at the Safra Synagogue or to AFSI to Barry Freedman. I wouldn't waste my time mailing anything to J Street, unless it's a one way ticket to Tehran. Contact Sultan Knish at sultanknish@yahoo.com. This article appeared on the Sultan Knish website http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/ and is archived at http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/03/ pro-hamas-j-street-lobby-targets-jewish.html |
|
SPEAKING TACHLIS TO MALCOLM HOENLEIN
Posted by Buddy Macy, March 25, 2009. |
|
The following is an email I sent to Malcolm Hoenlein this past December after having attended his lecture a couple of days earlier. I think it is important for all to read now that there has been a change in Administration in America, and the situation has grown significantly more perilous for Israel and the Jewish People. I have updated said email in red, to reflect the current situation. |
|
Dear Mr. Hoenlein! I wrote it this way because when I approached him after the lecture, I called him Malcolm, and he responded: "Mr. Hoenlein." I appreciated the opportunity to hear you speak, and to talk directly with you after the program. At the beginning of Tuesday's speech [December 16, 2008], you provided an account of Chanukah with President Bush. The conclusion you drew from your experience there was: "Look how far we have come — we got served a kosher meal at the White House." Malcolm, apparently you are so impressed with your own coup, that you have been blinded as to the infinitely more significant reality. The Jewish People have come far? You and a few others get to eat kosher at the White House, while the President and State Department vigorously pressure Israel to commit suicide! This pressure has increased exponentially since President Obama's election this past November. Hillary Clinton, George Mitchell and others are raining tremendous pressure on Israel to perform self-destructive and suicidal acts upon herself, such as opening the Gazan border (Former Secretary of State Rice's pressure on Israel to give up control of the Philadelphi Corridor a couple of years ago was one of the key causes of the increased rocket attacks on Israel which made it necessary for the IDF to enter Gaza to protect Israel's 1,000,000 citizens at risk.) and negotiating the abandonment of her G-d-given, legally-owned land in Judea & Samaria (the West Bank). Your egotistical analysis is analogous to Abe Foxman boasting about his accomplishments in a local case involving free speech, while Israel's Arab enemies fire rockets at Jewish men, women, children and the elderly, causing death, destruction and lifelong trauma. You received a lofty, god-like introduction on Tuesday. "Tonight's speaker meets regularly with world leaders and is considered by many to be the most influential Jew in America." Based on Israel's peril, easily the most extreme and threatening in her sixty-year modern history and now, significantly more so for Israel, and for Jews everywhere, either you do not have the influence attributed to you, you do not have Israel's and the Jewish People's best interest at heart, or, you're really bad at what you do! Israel's government desperately tries to give away more land for "peace" this must cease immediately in a Netanyahu Administration while the "Palestinian" Arabs continue to incite violence and hatred against Jews and Israel in their mosques, government, media and schools this has occurred, non-stop, for two generations; and while her peace efforts in the South have led to the constant bombardment of her civilian population and the amassing of a large trained force of terrorists and a huge cache of weaponry less than a kilometer away. Have you been screaming at Olmert, Livni, Barak and Peres to halt all negotiations until their enemies stop preaching hate against them, and until attacks against Israel have ceased completely? We practically had to force you to hold a pro-Israel rally outside the UN during Israel's necessary war of self-defense this past January. And, why are you not screaming at George Soros and J Street for their recent anti-Israel survey and their constant actions against the interests of Israel — actions that, if successful, would bring about the destruction of the Jewish State? Barak and Olmert have breached the civil rights of some of the nation's most dedicated citizens in Judea & Samaria, banning some from living in their homes and communities, and subjecting others to administrative detention. Have you protested the middle-of-the-night, terror-filled expulsion of the Federman and Tor families, and the destruction of their home and farm? Have you screamed at the government for ordering the expulsion of the Jews from legally-purchased Beit HaShalom in Hebron? Your position of Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents does not prohibit you from speaking out on behalf of the most vulnerable Jews among us — rather, it makes it your obligaton to help! Where have you been??? Jonathan Pollard has been in prison during your entire 20-year service with the Conference. Jonathan's plight has never been more stark. You were unable to convince President Bush to pardon Pollard before leaving office two months ago. In that time, Israel has made massive compromises with her enemies. She has released thousands of terrorists from her jails...many of whom have blood on their hands. Where was your voice when Olmert was desperately trying to free another 1400 or so terrorists last week before Netanyahu assumed the Prime Ministership? Yet, you could not obtain the release of one man! Your true colors came to light several months ago when you uninvited Sarah Palin from participating at the "Stop Iran Now" rally. Your excuse for sabotaging your own event was that the 501(c)(3) status of the sponsor agencies would be put at risk were Palin to speak without the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate also present. I find it more than curious that the issue of tax status did not arise while Hillary Clinton was the demonstration's only announced national political speaker. In addition, it was reported that two or three of the rally's co-sponsors had threatened to leave the coalition were Palin to have remained on the program. Come on, Malcolm, do you really think they would have removed themselves from a rally organized to bring attention to a promoter of genocide against our People? Outside of the morality and ethical issues, do you know what type of effect that would have had on their fundraising campaigns? Why didn't you call their bluff? You and I both know the real reason. In our discussion after your speech, you told me that you advocate for the Jews in secret. You said that when I publicize certain actions, it removes your ability to effect change. Did you work on the Soviet Jewry project in private? Did you ask others to remain silent so that you could help obtain freedom for our fellow Jews in Russia? Why did you encourage all of the MJE participants to call and write about Israel, if you wish to work in secret? You also told me that you would love to leave the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, but that you won't because you would fear what the group would do without you at the helm. That is not the main reason! Malcolm, you feed on your position of power, influence [perceived?], social standing and financial rewards...not to mention, your membership in the CFR. There are two prominent differences between you and Howard Rieger: You are much smarter, and Howard is honest — so honest, that he had me and my female friend, a survivor of the Holocaust, escorted out of UJC's Joel Alperson Farewell Brunch by a security guard, even though I held an invitation to the event in my hand. Some reward for my more than 25 years of volunteer service to the Jewish Federation of Greater Clifton-Passaic, at which I was considered one of the best fundraisers. But, at least I now know where Howard stands! Malcolm, we both know that you are first and foremost a politician — and a very shrewd one, at that. Politicians do not leave office gracefully; especially, when doing so would mean the relinquishing of such an attractive financial, social and psychological benefits package. It is clear to me that you desire your position of Jewish "leadership" more than anything else in life — so much so that you have long ago decided to sacrifice your principles, including your concern for Israel and the Jewish People, to remain at the 'top'. This world is full of irony: My fellow unpaid activists and I have become maligned outcasts and "bad boys" by doing the right thing and helping to save our People, while you receive all of the prestige and benefits of membership, including the perceived power to effect real change, by keeping your mouth shut. The justice is: you must ultimately answer to yourself and your Maker. Most sincerely, Buddy Macy Contact Buddy Macy by email at vegibud@gmail.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: A HUGE MESS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 25, 2009. |
|
That's the state of the world, actually. And I'll get to that. But what I have in mind right now is the political situation here. All is hardly sweetness and light. Barak, it is being said, is going to have trouble maintaining discipline in his party. Apparently there are some who don't really want to consider themselves part of the coalition (and they are being courted right now by Meretz, although I don't know if this will go any where). There are two issues involved. One is the future of the Labor party. The other, far more important for the nation, is the stability of the new gov't coalition. If all 13 Labor MKs don't vote with the gov't then it becomes shaky. This is one of those situations to be watched closely. ~~~~~~~~~~ Along with this comes great tension in the Likud party because so much has been given away by Netanyahu in the course of coalition negotiations that there's little left for Likud party regulars. Needless to say, they are less than happy with the situation and with Netanyahu. Moshe Ya'alom, who was slated to be defense minister (and in my opinion would have been an excellent one) was gracious, saying that for the good of the country, etc. etc... But everyone is not responding this way. Silvan Shalom — a Netanyahu rival — is enormously disgruntled, as are others. This doesn't promise good things for party unity, cooperation on the issues, etc. either, although I've sure Likud party discipline will be maintained. ~~~~~~~~~~ Apparently Likud will be negotiating with Habayit Hayehudi and UTJ. What they can be offered is not clear. But it makes sense as back-up. If Labor doesn't cooperate in total, or ultimately pulls out, it would be helpful if Netanyahu still had a majority (albeit a slim one) without Labor. The party least likely to be in the coalition is National Union. From everything I know about him (and I know people who know him personally, although I don't myself), Ya'akov — Ketzeleh — Katz is a very fine human being. But the word is that he's an abysmal politician. Better put, maybe, he's no politician. That's not an insult, except that he has a political position right now. According to Gil Hoffman, political analyst for the Post, Netanyahu's associates call him "delusional." Hoffman says that after the Likud-Labor deal, Katz commented that, "Netanyahu has given everyone what they wanted, so he will give us what we want, too." I would hope (but don't expect necessarily) that something can be worked out. As I've said before, the National Union has some good people, and I think in particular of MK Aryeh Eldad, and some solid positions. They should be participating in the government and wielding what influence they can. ~~~~~~~~~~ The good news I can offer politically is this: Netanyahu spoke at an economic conference in Jerusalem yesterday, and once again he emphasized negotiating with the Palestinians on economic matters. As the Palestinians are very restive about this, he explained that, "It's a compliment to them," because a strong economy is a "strong foundation for peace." Thus he will negotiate with the Palestinians for peace, he says, by which he means on economic matters. He never utters the word "Palestinian state." May Heaven keep his spine strong. ~~~~~~~~~~ Now as to the state of the world. As most of you undoubtedly know, President Obama gave a talk last night, which was primarily focused on economic matters. But in response to questions he did address issues in the Middle East. Making peace between Israel and the Palestinians was not going to be easier now, with Netanyahu at the helm, he conceded, but it was still necessary. As to Iran, he volunteered this: People criticized him with regard to his recent conciliatory message to Iran because there was no visible change in its leaders in response. But, said the president, "...we didn't expect that. We expect that we're going to make steady progress on this front." You see, he explained, "That whole philosophy of persistence...is one that I'm going to be emphasizing again and again in the months and years to come as long as I'm in this office. I'm a big believer in persistence." And me? What I'm going to be emphasizing over and over is what a dimwit philosophy this is. Yes! in some contexts persistence is appropriate and productive. But not here! There is not the time, which is what Israeli leaders have been trying to convey to him. While he's working away on progress, and being persistent, and not expecting any response yet because there are months and years to come, Iran will be developing nuclear weaponry. There are some who write to me to say Obama is not stupid, he knows exactly what he's doing. In some contexts I agree. But here I have my doubts. He wants to be everyone's friend. He wants the Muslim world to embrace him. But can he really want Iran to have nuclear weapons that threaten US troops in the area (he's doubly deluded if he thinks they wouldn't be threatened) and upsets the whole balance of the area?? ~~~~~~~~~~ The hope I have for the US now resides with the information I am receiving about massive grassroots unrest and anger — tea parties and the like. Only the people can turn things around. ~~~~~~~~~~ The entire libel that has been publicized regarding our "war crimes" in Gaza is a source of both huge anger and much pain here. No other nation has its actions dissected the way ours are, and no other nation has such charges leveled at it wholesale without foundation. The fact that we truly do have the most moral of armies makes the charges obscene. That members of our own left wing are party to this is exceedingly distressing. What we have is this: Dani Zamir, a left wing instructor with an agenda solicited observations from former students who were in Gaza. They repeated stories that were unverified and in the main were hearsay, but those stories were picked up by media (beginning with Amos Harel in Haaretz), and in one instance were broadcast on the radio. Broadcaster Ofer Shelach of Channel 10 used actors to read the soldiers' statements but many listening thought they were hearing the voices of the actual soldiers. That these "reports" — in particular Shelach's — have transcended journalistic ethics is a given. To me this approaches (though it is not quite) treason, for it undermines our position. ~~~~~~~~~~ With that said, I turn to the UN, which demonstrates an unequivocal, unmistakable anti-Israeli bias that is vicious. Now we have UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk, who charged yesterday that our military incursion into Gaza "was not legally justified given the circumstances and diplomatic alternatives available, and was potentially a crime against peace." What the hell is a "crime against peace"? He just made this up. Why doesn't this man condemn Hamas for crimes against peace committed via the launching of rockets against our civilians? Actually, those rockets, deliberately aimed at civilians, constitute a war crime. But speaking of war crimes... Falk made this comment in the course of a report to that august body, the Human Rights Council, in Geneva. There he explained that our military operation appeared to be "a war crime of the greatest magnitude." Of the greatest magnitude yet. We're not only very bad, we're the very worst. He then alluded to the rockets launched at us as "retaliatory," referring in his report to the "Palestinian right of resistance." Falk and his ilk are serious enemies of the State of Israel. For the record, what we did in Gaza indeed was legally justified. ~~~~~~~~~~ Ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Roni Leshno-Yaar responded to Falk, saying that his report was a "poorly veiled" support for terrorism against Israeli citizens. He further said that when Israel acted in self-defense, "wild accusations are made," but "when Palestinians use the terrorists' tactic — the coward tactic — of using civilians as shields while leaders make pathetic demonstrations of bravado from bunkers in Gaza and luxury hotels in Damascus, this council condemns Israel." Charged Leshno-Yaar, the council "finds fault only in Israel's most basic right — the right to defend its citizens. It is a double standard that offers a searing view of the dangers of abusing this forum for narrow, politicized objectives." Falk's response to this sounded incredibly like a litany of Hamas claims, and ignored the years during which Israel has endured Hamas attacks. He was factually off base when he claimed that Israel had the alternative of renewing the cease-fire with Hamas, as it was Hamas that refused to renew it. What is more, his data on the number of civilians who were killed, not surprisingly, differed significantly from what Israeli investigation has revealed. (His claim: Only 235 of the 1,434 of the Palestinians fatalities were combatants, another 239 were policemen. Of the 960 civilians who lost their lives, 288 were children and 121 women. More on this below.) ~~~~~~~~~~ The fight against these people and these charges must be fought; the fallacious arguments and data, the bias, must be exposed. But it's a long, hard haul. Make no mistake about it: This is as much a part of a war against us as the rockets. There is an attempt to delegitimize us internationally, and international forum are participating. ~~~~~~~~~~ Southern Command chief Major-General Yoav Gallant spoke out about charges against the operation in Gaza for the first time yesterday, declaring: "I'm proud that we have such a moral army, which respects international law. "The Palestinian gunman held his arms cache in his home, came out to fight and went back to the house believing that we will not target him there. "All in all, 800 terrorists and 300 civilians we did not want to hurt had been killed in the operation. This ratio, of almost a quarter uninvolved [victims] is an unprecedented accomplishment in the history of campaigns of this nature." (Note here: I have reported previously on the ways in which the IDF scrupulous investigated the numbers killed and the percentage that was terrorists — many of whom were not in any uniform.) "The soldiers were faced with tough moral dilemmas, and at the same time the command was required to exercise moral balance, when every mistake could lead either to the failure of the mission or to the killing of civilians." The general said he was in the process of doing an inquiry of all units that participated in Gaza, "and the results give the sense of a moral, disciplined army." ~~~~~~~~~~ A correction: I cited recently, from a source, 200,000 houses as being the number given by Ashkenazi that were called by phone in Gaza to warn people to leave before an attack, and I expressed the comment that this was incredible. Well, this must have been a typo, more likely the number of flyers released or something. General Galant indicated that about 300 houses were called, which makes more sense — houses that were going to be directly bombed because of caches of weapons or the presence of terrorists. Only once did a family refuse to leave, he said. This is the case I had referred to, the case of Nizar Rayan. But, in any event, how many nations in how many war situations, call houses first to warn civilians to get out before the houses are bombed? Does anyone know of a parallel to what Israel — that most maligned of nations — does to protect civilians? ~~~~~~~~~~ Lastly today then, I have this: According to a report in Ma'ariv, an IDF officer who fought in Gaza did a personal investigation of the charges I have referred to above. Zamir's charges focused on one brigade and the brigade commander took it upon himself to investigate. His findings will now be presented to Brigadier General Eyal Eisenberg, commander of the Gaza division, and after approval, to the head of the Southern Command, Major General Yoav Gallant. "Regarding the incident in which it was claimed that a sniper fired at a Palestinian woman and her two daughters, the brigade commander's investigation cites the sniper: 'I saw the woman and her daughters and I shot warning shots. The section commander came up to the roof and shouted at me, "Why did you shoot at them?" I explained that I did not shoot at them, but I fired warning shots.' "Officers from the brigade suspect that fighters who remained in the lower story of the Palestinian house thought that he hit the women, and from there the rumor that a sniper killed a mother and her two daughters spread." "Regarding the second incident, in which it was claimed that soldiers went up to the roof to entertain themselves with firing and killed an elderly Palestinian woman, the brigade commander investigation found that there was no such incident." An officer of an elite unit told Ma'ariv: "...non-combatant civilians were killed without doubt. But there was no deliberate harm done to innocent civilians. I am fully convinced that there was no soldier who shot for no reason out of a desire for revenge. I don't know of any such cases." Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
THE ONLY HOPE — THE NATIONAL REFERENDUM
Posted by Miki and Herb Sunshine, March 25, 2009. |
|
This article was written by Rabbi Meir Kahane and it appeared in the Magazine of the authentic Jewish Idea, Nissan-5737, April-1977. It is distributed by Barbara Ginsberg, who writes: "Anyone reading this Rav Kahane article and is not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles written by Rav Kahane and would like to be, please contact me at: barhow@netvision.net.il " Previously e-mailed Rav Kahane writings are available at |
|
The election of a national emergency government for four full years, consisting of one party (rather than the impossible coalition of today) that will be obliged and have full power to implement the following program: A) Putting an end to the Arab uprising with all means that the army deems necessary. This will include automatic and compulsory expulsions of law-violators and their families, the free use of weapons against stone-throwers and other attackers of Israelis, as well as permission for Jewish civilians traveling in the territories and under attack, to use their weapons freely in the same manner as soldiers. At the end of four years, another referendum will be held to see if the people agree that the aims of the national emergency government have been achieved or if another four years will be needed. The referendum will declare and mandate that, if approved the Knesset will be dissolved and a free election held within 30 days to elect one party with full and absolute powers and obligations to implement the program mandated by the referendum. Any party or list will be eligible to run and be elected on condition that it pledge to full accept and fully implement the above program. This will be the reply to the enemies of Israel who dream of its destruction. This will be the reply to those within the State whose policies would destroy the Jewish body and eliminate the Jewish soul. As World War II struck Great Britain with all the frightening implications of defeat, British democracy froze the democratic political system, suspended elections and major political rights. It did so because Great Britain faced a threat to all that was dear to it. How much more should Israel, faced with a threat to its very existence, not shrink from this. And one can fairly taste the reaction of the demagogues of democracy to the above. On every high hill and under every leafy tree the declaimers of democracy cry out in well-rehearsed fury: This is a threat to democracy! Ah, how shrill the squeal of the stuck, the bowl of the hypocrites of political history. They bemoan the threat to democracy. They warn against the treat to democracy. The democracy that does not exist and that never really did in the state of heartbreak. Israel. Herb Sunshine is a lawyer, qualified to practice in U.S.A. and Israel. He and his wife Miki live in Jerusalem. Contact them by email at sunshine.h@012.net.il |
|
OBAMA PRO-ISLAMIST?; FAMILY REUNIFICATION IN ISRAEL; ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT ANOMALY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 24, 2009. |
|
WHAT ISRAELI DETERRENCE? The Israeli government claims that its brief foray into Gaza (and earlier into Lebanon), has re-established Israeli deterrence. Now the IDF worries that Hamas' continued firing of rockets into Israel soon after the Gaza combat, is destroying that alleged deterrence, because Israel is retaliating mildly. Residents of cities under bombardment know there has been no deterrent (IMRA, 2/28). If the invasion of Lebanon had re-established Israeli deterrence, Hamas would not have emulated Hizbullah by attacking Israel in a similar manner. The Gaza incursion did not re-establish Israeli deterrence. The resumption of Hamas bombardment proves it has not. Israel's leaders talk nonsense. They won't fight to win. They fear foreign criticism more than they favor national security. Ironically, it is the criticism of Israel, rather than the combat by Israel, that was disproportionate. OBAMA PRO-ISLAMIST? All of Obama's advisors on the subject are anti-Zionist. He is not stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. He is moving towards recognizing and aiding Hamas and Syria, at the cost of endangering Israel mortally. He encouraged Pakistan to turn a large part of Pakistan over to Islamist control. He also started working with the Durban II agenda committee, is reducing means of dealing with captured terrorists, is withdrawing US forces from Iraq, and may reduce the military budget (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 2/28). The US sat with the agenda committee but did not try to get it to reform. Then it decided not to attend the full Conference. It's inconsistency is confusing. Where does the US stand? Why not be consistent against bigotry against all? It is not yet clear whether Obama rejects measures for dealing with terrorists because the methods are abusive and ineffective. He is turning the matter over to civilian courts, which are not equipped to deal with war. Unable to cope with secret evidence well, they may have to let many culpable terrorists go. Withdrawal of some forces from Iraq is reasonable, given the reduction of the war there and its increase where he is sending troops. He wants to eliminate weapons systems that don't work. He proposed enlarging the armed forces, so they don't get over-worked by repeated tours of combat. The Pakistan policy is worrisome. Not all his measures are not pro-Islamist. FAMILY REUNIFICATION IN ISRAEL With help from Abbas, Israel approved 3,458 applications for P.A. residents to reunite with family members in Israel. Abbas called this part of the ideology of "right of return." (IMRA, 3/1.) Israel claims there is such a right. Then why does it let the Arabs, who want to take over Israel, gradually institute it? Why didn't Israel let them reunite outside Israel? After all, the government claims it is trying to maintain the Jewish character of the state and protect the people. U.S. TRYING TO FIND TALIBAN TO WORK WITH Pres. Obama wants to try the same tacic on the Taliban in Pakistan that the US tried with Sunnis in Iraq. That tactic is to work with a moderate faction against the extremist faction, to stop the jihad (NY Times, 3/8). This is risky. It requires good intelligence. Otherwise, it backfires. The British made truces with the enemy in both Iraq and in Afghanistan. They ended up turning Basra over to the insurgency and areas of Afghanistan over to jihadists. The US situation in Iraq may have been different. The ones with whom Gen. Petraeus made an alliance originally supported the Sunni insurgency. A major reason was for protection from the initial Shiite belligerency towards them. Al-Qaida, however, treated Sunni areas so brutally, that the local tribes turned against them. Tribesman and US troops together expelled al-Qaida from some provinces. Whether the Shiite-dominated government will treat those Sunnis decently remains to be seen. On that could hinge the success of the war there. ISRAELI ARMED FORCES WOO ULTRA-ORTHODOX The IDF has been asking the small number of Ultra-Orthodox veterans to re-enlist and make the military their career. They would serve as counselors for the larger number of Ultra-Orthodox men whom the IDF wishes to enlist (Arutz-7, 3/2). Population increases in Ultra-Orthodox make this change important. The article fails to indicate whether the IDF is doing anything to make military life consistent with religious life. The military has exhibited much prejudice against religiously observant Jews. PILGRIMAGE & ESPIONAGE Israeli Arabs make pilgrimages to Mecca. There, terrorist agents sound them out and try to recruit them. One was indicted for contact with enemy agents, though he did not go through with his stated inclination to help them (IMRA, 3/1). ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT ANOMALY Hamas has restored its arms-smuggling tunnels. It transmits anti-helicopter missiles and stronger rockets. A recent armor-penetrating rocket is 2 1/2 times the size of previous ones. Launching has returned to pre-IDF invasion volume. Meanwhile, in a neighboring country, 80 states and organizations, led by Sec. of State Hillary Clinton, pledged billions of dollars to Gaza. That is the anomaly. (This ill-serving program is in the name of good intent. US policy-makers, however, do not show good intent towards Israel.) By contrast, the US has started restricting military aid to Israel. The weapons must be only defensive and needed to preserve Israel's qualitative edge. The distinction is meaningless. "Edge" doesn't take into account that enough good weapons can overwhelm a small quantity of slightly superior ones. The US sells the Arabs top quality arms. It restricts Israel from upgrading purchased US arms so as to gain a significant qualitative advantage. "Edge" is lip service. HOW KADIMA DID SO WELL IN ELECTION The foreign policies that Kadima sponsored or approved have failed badly. PM Barak's flight from southern Lebanon let Hizbullah turn it into a base against Israel and war. The Olmert-Livni show, in that next war, basically was treading water until a ceasefire was imposed. The duo claimed the ceasefire as a great achievement. Achievement for Hizbullah, they should say. Israel's withdrawal this time enabled Hizbullah to amass three times the rockets it had before the Israeli invasion [and to gain control over Lebanon]. The Sharon-Olmert-Livni expulsion of the Jews from Gaza put Hamas into position to bombard Israel. The Kadima regime had Israel go back in but superficially. If Israel re-conquered Gaza and took over running it, which is the only way it could prevent Iran's proxy there from resuming battle, Kadima would be admitting that its policy of giveaway, which it still favors, failed and is irrational. Hence the bombardment has resumed, and heavier rockets are being fired. With that record of failure, how did Kadima to elect the most Members of Knesset? Leftist Kadima ignores failure and claims success; the leftist media collaborate in that. Kadim claims to have attained deterrence against Hamas. After the election, the renewed Hamas bombardment of Israel disproved that. Instead, the world is in a financial offensive to help Hamas and in a diplomatic offensive against Israel. Since Kadima never admits failure, it won't acknowledge that the Obama regime is hostile. Neither does it fight hard against Abbas' efforts to have IDF commanders indicted. Criticizing him would admit he is no better than Hamas, and is not one to give land to. Instead, Livni criticizes Netanyahu for not promising P.A. sovereignty (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 3/2). 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 |
|
ISRAEL THE BEAUTIFUL: A FLOWERY SLOPE ON THE GOLAN
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, March 24, 2009. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: I still recall the first time I set foot in a back country forest in New England and my disappointment at the chaos and debris which littered the woods in every direction. Though the petals of a rose may appear flawless, nature often falls well short of a tidy perfection. It's important to keep this in mind when attempting to photograph the grandeur of the natural world. Even as the camera is sometimes able to remove from view what the photographer finds undesirable, it still must contend with the disorder of what remains within the frame. I spent two days in the north of Israel earlier this month, hoping to record some of the annual spring renewal. I met with some good fortune on my first morning when a heavy squall drenched the landscape, and, more importantly, cleared away dust and pollution that are a nagging impediment to good landscapes. After taking shelter in my car for about 20 minutes, I emerged to a virtual Brigadoon, a moist and magical (and very muddy) yet short-lived sunshine and crystal-clear air. With the storm still visible on the horizon, I set up my tripod in the sodden ground and composed a shot that, more than anything, was an attempt to capture the clarity and brilliance of that vanishing moment. My wide angle zoom pulled all the way back to 12mm brings together in absolute sharpness the heavy clouds, the wet sheen on the rocks, the streaking yellow mustard flowers, and the blades of grass bent by lingering raindrops. My boots stayed wet for hours but my heart danced the whole day through.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
IT'S WORSE THAN A CRIME, IT'S BLUNDERING ANALYSIS
Posted by Barry Rubin, March 24, 2009. |
|
The problem, as we see repeatedly, with much media coverage of issues involving Israel is the way the story is defined. There need not be any sense of bias by a reporter. Merely copying what other journalists do or from a specific ideological framework — not because reporters have preconceptions but because they make far less effort than in the past to balance them — leads to a conception of the story that is skewed. This appears subtly in news stories but very openly in analysis pieces. Consider Steven Gutkin, "Analysis: Mideast peace up to interlocking deals," March 16, 2009. The lead is innovative but a bit clunky: "The fate of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become a collection of moving parts that somehow need to come together in a single package: an Israel-Hamas prisoner swap, a truce for Gaza, and new governments on both sides of the firing line that could pursue peace." There is an attempt to present the issue as involving a number of aspects. Yet the article mixes two very different things: the situation between Israel and Hamas regarding Gaza, and prospects for a comprehensive peace. In a very real sense, these are not related or, to put it another way, they are inversely related. The undercover assumption here is that the more peace there is between Israel and Hamas, the more likely a comprehensive peace becomes. In fact, the first would damage the second. The reason why should be obvious: Hamas is against any compromise peace but favors long-term, bloody struggle using terrorism. If Hamas survives as ruler in Gaza, and even more damaging if the Palestinian Authority and Hamas make a coalition, the chances for a comprehensive peace — low enough already — decline to zero. All-out war is guaranteed. The article next discusses the ups-and-downs of Israel-Hamas negotiations over a prisoner exchange and continues: "Such a swap could have helped pave the way for a long-term Israel-Hamas truce deal that in turn might have opened the Gaza Strip's blockaded borders to allow for reconstruction after Israel's punishing offensive there." This can be summarized as: truce brings open borders brings reconstruction to repair damage caused by Israel. The words "rockets" or the phrase cross-border attacks do not appear in the article. There is no hint that Hamas aggression is the cause of conflict, nor that the fighting started because Hamas unilaterally rejected the existing truce (which it wasn't enforcing any way). Equally, there is no mention that the issue is not just opening the borders but what is allowed to go across them, nor that there is some problem with rebuilding things in order to benefit a radical and repressive Islamist regime to keep it in power. Thus the story is this: Israel attacked and destroyed Gaza, let's have a truce so it can be rebuilt. And who do you think that places the blame on? Then we turn to an equally important — and misexplained — subject: "Rebuilding Gaza will almost surely also depend on the success of current reconciliation talks in Egypt between Hamas militants and the Western-backed Fatah movement in efforts to reverse the results of a brief 2007 civil war that left rival Palestinian governments in Gaza and the West Bank." At least the reporter wrote "Western-backed" rather than moderate, though no hint is given that the civil war was started by Hamas. It was a rather one-sided civil war. Yet next comes a truly terrible and profoundly misleading sentence: "Getting Hamas and Fatah to reconcile is also key to the success of U.S.-backed Mideast peace talks, as it's unlikely Israel would sign on to a deal if moderates are in control of just the West Bank while militants rule Gaza. The latest news from Egypt is that the Hamas-Fatah talks are not going well." Well, where to begin? While it is true that Israel understandably wants to sign a peace deal only with a united Palestinian side which can deliver on its pledges, putting Hamas and Fatah together will ensure no such deal can ever be signed. There is no hint in this article of why the word "militants" is used to describe Hamas. A lot of people critique the media for not using the word "terrorists" I don't agree. Terrorism is a tactic and Hamas uses terrorism yet that does not encompass the organization's views or goals. I'd prefer to see such phrases as: radical Islamist or determined to wipe Israel off the map or repressive, or even genocidal. But the implication is not that Hamas would block peace — much less that the Palestinian Authority would — for we are next told: "The biggest question now is whether Israel would sign a deal under any circumstances. Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu, a political hawk, early Monday initialed a coalition agreement with the ultranationalist Yisrael Beitenu Party, increasing the likelihood that Israel's next government will spurn peace talks." "The bottom line is that the obstacles to Palestinian unity, open borders for Gaza and a peace deal that would usher in Palestinian statehood seem as formidable as ever." Note that there has not been one phrase or sentence to suggest that Hamas or Fatah or the PA are obstacles, only Israel. The Palestinians problem is just that they cannot unite, not that they oppose peace. By the way, from a purely analytical point of view it should be pointed out that the reason PA-Hamas talks don't go well is that both want to be in command, while Hamas is not going to give up control of Gaza. There isn't going to be any Palestinian unity at all. You can bet on it. And of course both Netanyahu and the Yisrael Beitenu party support a two-state solution. But that one sentence is so important let me repeat it: "The bottom line is that the obstacles to Palestinian unity, open borders for Gaza and a peace deal that would usher in Palestinian statehood seem as formidable as ever." So this is what is allegedly needed for peace:
As always, there is no mention of a peace deal that would: end the conflict forever, bring full recognition of Israel, or provide Israel with security structures and guarantees. This is the standard practice of AP and a lot of the media. What Israel wants in a peace deal is never ever mentioned. The rest of the article discusses the prisoner exchange using such phrases as "Israel's crushing economic blockade of Gaza" and "bloody Israeli military offensive in Gaza." No criticism of Hamas; no mention of rockets; no mention of repression and executions of oppositionists in Gaza. And we are told: "Hamas is desperate to reopen the area's borders to allow in reconstruction supplies." This makes Hamas seem humanitarian. But usually those who are desperate are ready to make concessions to get what they need. This is not true in Hamas's case. And finally, the ending: "If Hamas sticks by its refusal to recognize the Jewish state, as seems likely, a new right-wing Israeli government could use that as an excuse to shun a future Palestinian unity government, and perhaps even intensify the blockade of Gaza." Let us consider the full implications of this sentence: If Hamas says that it will never recognize Israel, will continue to attack Israel, does continue to attack Israel, teaches children to be terrorists, and has the goal of wiping Israel off the map, this merely gives Israelis of the "right-wing" an "excuse" to be mean to them. Can people really be writing this kind of drivel, the slightest examination of which shows its absurdity? Can the AP and other news organs sneeringly reject any criticisms and assert that this is fair and balanced and good and accurate coverage? Yes. But is this fair, balanced, accurate, and accurate coverage? No. 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 |
|
RESPONSE TO HITCHENS
Posted by Kenneth Price, March 24, 2009. |
|
Christopher Hitchens wrote in the JTA Peering over the horrible pile of Palestinian civilian casualties that has immediately resulted, it's fairly easy to see where this is going in the medium-to-longer term. The zealot settlers and their clerical accomplices are establishing an army within the army so that one day, if it is ever decided to disband or evacuate the colonial settlements, there will be enough officers and soldiers, stiffened by enough rabbis and enough extremist sermons, to refuse to obey the order. Torah verses will also be found that make it permissible to murder secular Jews as well as Arabs. The dress rehearsals for this have already taken place, with the religious excuses given for Baruch Goldstein's rampage and the Talmudic evasions concerning the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Once considered highly extreme, such biblical exegeses are moving ever closer to the mainstream. It's high time the United States cut off any financial support for Israel that can be used even indirectly for settler activity, not just because such colonization constitutes a theft of another people's land but also because our Constitution absolutely forbids us to spend public money on the establishment of any religion. Below is my response. |
|
Would Mr. Hitchens, sadly infected with British uppercrust anti-Semitism, please be kind enough to make a list for us of any country in the world so morally pure as to be unfettered by settlers who allegedly stole the natives' land? The U.S.? Obviously not. The U.K.? When will the Normans who invaded in 1066 go back to French Normandy, and thence to Scandinavia whence the Norsemen originated? An estimated 100k English or Saxon were killed by the Normans during their settlement of England. And France? Where are the Gauls and the Huns who conquered them? When will the Spanish and Portuguese abandon Mexico, Central and South America and return to Spain and Portugal, or perhaps their original homes in Italy or wherever? And the Arabs? When will they return to Arabia and give back to the North Africans the land they stole over a millennium ago? Oh, yeah, when will the English, the world's most rapacious colonialists, abandon their settlements and political control over Scotland, Ireland and Wales? For creepy Jew-haters like Hitchens, it's only the Jews who don't have a right to their own homeland. Perhaps there can be peace when the Arabs of "Palestine" go back where they came from, to Egypt and Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Transjordan — all artificial entities created in the British and French foreign offices — before they emigrated to pre-State Israel, to take advantage of the jobs and health care brought to the barren area by the Jews? Compare what Israel has done for the world in the past 60 years (think drugs for MS, camera-in-a-pill for GI studies, voice mail, cell phones, saving the world from Saddam's nuclear bomb, etc.) to what the entire Arab world, never mind the Pals, have done in the past 1300 years (think suicide vests and stabbing daughters and sisters to death, called "honor killings" in the Arab culture — have I left out any other contributions to civilization)? Which people are more deserving of an independent State — the Jews (along with the Druze, and Bahai) of Israel or the Arabs, for whom nationalism is, itself, an unknown political concept imported and imposed by European states? Contact Dr. Price at consultingdoc@sbcglobal.net |
|
THE HA'ARETZ BLOOD LIBEL
Posted by Steven Plaut, March 23, 2009. |
|
This was written by Melanie Phillips and it appeared in the Spectator
|
|
On his eponymous BBC TV show this morning, I listened open-mouthed as Andrew Marr invited Tory foreign affairs spokesman William Hague to express his views about the pretty appalling looking reports coming out of Israel where members of the Israeli Defence Force who were involved in the Gaza operation have talked about effectively being told to shoot at civilians. Hague replied: Well those are absolutely appalling stories. There is no question about that. We don't yet know the truth of them. I think it's very important to say that. This is evidence that now has to be looked at, of course, by Israel's military investigations unit; and it is a good thing that Israel does have provision for that, for investigating these things and for bringing to book any who were responsible for behaving in such a way. But we will expect. I think across the world, we will expect Israel to deal decisively with anybody who committed such crimes. It will be very important for Israel to do that if it is to keep any moral authority in these situations in the future. So we're all appalled by that and we hope that it will be dealt with. Of course Hague was careful to say the truth of this evidence was not yet known. But there is no evidence. So far, there is simply nothing to prove or disprove from these reports of the soldiers' discussion carried in Ha'aretz last week, here and here — just innuendo, rumour and hearsay, demonstrably (read the second account) wrenched out of context and refracted through the patent prejudice of the soldiers' instructor Danny Zamir, an ultra-leftist who had previously been jailed for refusing to guard settlers at a religious ceremony and who said of the soldiers who spoke at the meeting in question that they reflected an atmosphere inside the army of 'contempt for, and forcefulness against, the Palestinians.' So what are these pretty appalling looking reports and absolutely appalling stories? There are precisely two charges of gratuitous killing of Palestinian civilians under allegedly explicit orders to do so. One is what even Ha'aretz made clear was an accidental killing, when two women misunderstood the evacuation route the Israeli soldiers had given them and walked into a sniper's gunsights as a result. Moreover, the soldier who said this has subsequently admitted he didn't see this incident — he wasn't even in Gaza at the time — and had merely reported rumour and hearsay. The second charge is based on a supposedly real incident in which, when an elderly woman came close to an IDF unit, an officer ordered that they shoot her because she was approaching the line and might have been a suicide bomber. The soldier relating this story did not say whether or not the woman in this story actually was shot. Indeed, since he says 'from the description of what happened' it would appear this was merely hearsay once again. And his interpretation was disputed by another soldier who said: She wasn't supposed to be there, because there were announcements and there were bombings. Logic says she shouldn't be there. The way you describe it, as murder in cold blood, that isn't right. So two non-atrocity atrocities, then. What else? Soldiers mouthing off — in conversations of near-impenetrable incoherence — that instructions to kill everyone who remained in buildings designated as terrorist targets after the IDF had warned everyone inside to get out amounted to instructions to murder in cold blood. There cannot be an army in the world which would not issue precisely such instructions in such circumstances, where Hamas had boasted it had booby-trapped the entire area. Gloating graffiti left in the houses of presumed terrorists. Tasteless T-shirts emblazoned with motifs crowing about killing, condemned immediately by the IDF. Rabbis distributing to soldiers psalms and religious opinions about the conflict. That's it. Not one single verifiable actual incident of intentional killing of civilians. No evidence whatever of any such rogue incidents — let alone any order by the IDF to tear up its actual rules of engagement which forbade the deliberate targeting of civilians. Talk by one soldier about the IAF having killed a lot of people before the soldiers went in contradicted by another who said: They dropped leaflets over Gaza and would sometimes fire a missile from a helicopter into the corner of some house, just to shake up the house a bit so everyone inside would flee. These things worked. The families came out, and really people [i.e., soldiers] did enter houses that were pretty empty, at least of innocent civilians. [my emphasis] Funny sort of unethical military behaviour, that goes to some lengths to empty houses of civilians before storming them. Indeed, the soldiers' discussion contains more such material totally contradicting the impression of gross violations of ethics. Such as this: 'I am a platoon sergeant in an operations company of the Paratroops Brigade. We were in a house and discovered a family inside that wasn't supposed to be there. We assembled them all in the basement, posted two guards at all times and made sure they didn't make any trouble. Gradually, the emotional distance between us broke down — we had cigarettes with them, we drank coffee with them, we talked about the meaning of life and the fighting in Gaza. After very many conversations the owner of the house, a man of 70-plus, was saying it's good we are in Gaza and it's good that the IDF is doing what it is doing. This is what instructor Danny Zamir described as 'contempt for, and forcefulness against, the Palestinians.' No mention of any of that in the world's media, is there? Do you think Andrew Marr or William Hague read those bits? Do me the proverbial. All they've picked up and run with is the lazy and malicious boilerplate carefully spun by Ha'aretz: rumour and hearsay about two incidents related by two soldiers (one of whom wasn't even in Gaza) — one an accidental killing, the other maybe not a killing at all — plus some wild mouthing-off by soldiers, some unpleasant graffiti, ditto T-shirts, plus some leaflets by unidentified rabbis making statements that carry no weight with the IDF or reflect Israeli policy whatsoever. On that basis, however, it's proof positive for the likes of Andrew Marr, William Hague, the New York Times, Guardian, Independent, BBC and Uncle Tom Israelbasher and all, that yes!! Israel is now shown (unless specifically disproved — and how do you disprove something for which no evidence is offered whatever?) to have been committing atrocities after all in Gaza; and so has now forfeit what remains of its moral authority, which was already hanging by a thread as a result of all the previous blood libels, and almost certainly its right to exist at all. This is not just bigotry. It is medieval witch-hunt territory. And it's global. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
HOW TO OVERCOME U.S. DIRTY WORK; TUNNELS & ROCKETS; STATE DEPT. & ISRAELI NEVER-NEVER LAND
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 23, 2009. |
|
HOW TO OVERCOME U.S. DIRTY WORK US envoy Mitchell and associates are demanding that Israel, even under a new regime, elected to provide better security, demolish Israeli outposts in Judea-Samaria. Mitchell says that Olmert promised that demolition to Pres. Bush. He claims that this promise binds Olmert's successors. How does a treasonous "promise" really extorted and not endorsed by treaty, bind a government? Doesn't the US does consider democratic Israeli elections binding? [The US does not consider formal and informal agreements with Israel binding, having broken several key ones of those.] The State Dept. and its Israeli collaborators, the Olmert regime, are striving to get Fatah into a unity government with Hamas. Then they could pretend that the huge increase in subsidy for the Arabs, that they thinks taxpayers can afford, would not be going to Hamas. Of course, it would be. If Israel, however, refused to cooperate with that regime, the US would complain about Israel. It was the Olmert regime that left Hamas in power, then negotiated indirectly with it, thereby paving the way for others to do it directly. Israel failed to hold the Gaza people responsible for having elected and approved of the Hamas terrorist regime. Olmert falsely distinguished between Hamas and the population, which supported Hamas. Although the people there were not innocent civilians, the Olmert regime assumed responsibility for their welfare, pushing relief supplies through. Hence now the US can demand that Israel end its blockade altogether. In anticipation of a coalition regime, Abbas released the few terrorists that its US-trained forces had arrested. Abbas demands that such forces take over patrolling more P.A. cities. That would reduce Israel's counter-terrorism. Eventually, Hamas would oust Fatah and turn Judea-Samaria into another rocket-firing base, reaching the rest of Israel's cities. The Olmert regime also made a false distinction between Fatah, as if moderate, and Hamas. That overlooked Abbas' refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state, his continuing support for terrorism, and his political war against Israel. If Abbas is legitimate, then so is terrorism. Then so is Hamas. Accordingly, Europeans and other leftists propose negotiations with Hamas. "Based on all that, "...the Obama administration feels comfortable escalating its demands that Israel give land, security powers and money to Fatah, even as it unifies its forces with Hamas and so expands Hamas's power from Gaza to Judea and Samaria." Netanyahu will have his work cut out, explaining that the prevailing concepts there and in the US are mistaken. He will have to overturn the false terms, "humanitarian," "peace process," and "moderates." (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 2/28.) He will have to stand up to the US and show it acts out of misunderstanding. Is he up to that task, this time? He wasn't, before. GULF STATES WANT SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE The Gulf states, largely desert, import much of their food. They consider that dependency a security risk. Previous efforts to boost agricultural output degraded the environment, causing an agricultural decline. S. Arabia finds that it must stop subsidizing certain crops, because they consume too much water. Better technology still could boost output. Australia has developed some methods that would apply to deserts elsewhere (IMRA, 3/1). So has Israel. Now why don't the Arabs bury the hatchet and gain Israeli advice? Because those Muslims are ashamed to be helped by infidels they would rather murder. Rising Arab population puts greater pressure on the poor environment. ARAB-ISRAEL COOPERATION Two villages in Judea-Samaria, one Jewish and the other Arab, had a mutual problem. Pipe lines got blocked; sewage backed up; streams by both villages got polluted. The villages cooperated on a solution, and no longer pollute their streams that way (IMRA, 3/2). TUNNELS & ROCKETS "In response to the heavy barrage of Qassam rockets and mortar shells fired from the Gaza strip in the last week, the Israel Air Force recently attacked six smuggling tunnels in the Rafah border area." "Large secondary explosions were noticeable...proving the presence of weapons and munitions," which aren't always where the tunnels are bombed, at the time. "The IDF will continue to respond to any attempts to destabilize Israel's South." "...200 humanitarian aid trucks carrying food and medical supplies, as well as 440,000 liters of fuel, are scheduled to cross into the Gaza strip today. (IMRA, 3/3.) The IDF statement implies that if Hamas did not fire into Israel, but just accumulated smuggled materiel for a while, the Israeli Air Force would not have attacked the tunnels. That is not a responsible policy, to allow enemy build-up. How much comfort does the IDF's vow to continue bombing half a dozen tunnels out of hundreds give to the beleaguered Israelis of Ashkelon and Sderot, where the rockets blew up buildings? The 200 trucks contradict the vowed threat. STATE DEPT. & ISRAELI NEVER-NEVER LAND Sec. of State Clinton said that "the first step" is a "durable truce," which can be achieved only "if Hamas stops firing rockets." She called for a halt to arms smuggling from Sinai into Gaza. To end the strife, the P.A. must be made into a state, she reiterated. She gave no explanation, she just insists. PM Olmert changed his policy of retaliating for every attack from Gaza. Now he files complaints with the UNO and threatens dire retaliation (Arutz-7, 3/3, IMRA 3/5). Firing off paperwork is much cheaper than firing off missiles. That's the one virtue of Olmert's change. The UNO will do no more with his complaints than it did when Israel complained years ago about Hizbullah violations. Back to threats that Hamas ignores, is he? Hamas prefers empty threats to bombing. Clinton is careless with thoughts and with words. If a fanatical aggressor withholds rocket-launching, is that a "durable truce?" No. Truces with Hamas have proved brief. Hamas returns to the fray, sometimes immediately, usually in small but escalating doses. Where then is peace? In tatters. She called for a halt to arms smuggling. Various anti-Zionist sides keep paying lip service to that concept, even while some of them demand that what Gaza imports should be left entirely up to the P.A.. That means smuggling. The sovereignty that Clinton demands for the P.A. means importing freely what formerly was smuggled, the sinews of war. It is easy to call for a halt to Hamas arms smuggling. It is like a throw-away joke. One tosses it out; it is good for a laugh; and there is no follow-up. Unless she has a feasible plan to halt arms smuggling, it won't be stopped. It won't halt of its own accord. Smuggling is big business for Hamas. What would end it? Eradication of Hamas and the return to Israeli border control. Clinton is not asking for that, though it actually would solve much of the problem. She just talks as if constructive, but her policy, Obama's policy, is not constructive. It's all, take from Israel and give to the Arabs, plus lip service to principles of peace. Her principle is, appease the aggressors. That's how the region keeps reverting to combat. Nothing gets settled. How can anything get settled, when we have Secretaries of State and even Presidents and advisors who base their policy on the unjust principle of siding with the jihadist aggressors and "calling for" what they don't have a program to institute? Can't get sillier than calling for Hamas to end its bombardment of Israel. Hamas exists to bombard. It won't stop of its own accord. She ought to check the polls of Arabs — they want conquest of Israel, not peace. She should switch to proposing victory over the anti-US jihadists. 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 |
|
STOP AHMADINEJAD'S PLANNED NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, March 23, 2009. |
|
We have just heard President Barack Obama plead with the Mullahs of Iran to "just dialogue with us and we Americans will "kiss" you with so much respect that all will be forgiven". Perhaps Obama with his extraordinary lack of experience and plentiful naivete has overlooked Europe's kissing up to Iran for more than 30 years. Nevertheless, the U.S. cannot allow the Mullahs to control the Gulf Oil States and the Saudi oil fields. Arabists in the Washington loop, including the State Department, many of the 16 U.S. Intelligence Agencies, such as the advisory NIC (National Intelligence Council), 'et al' do not wish to tweak Islam's nose by having the U.S. strike Iran's nuclear infrastructure first. To view the sites where Iran has scattered its various nuclear R&D plants, see the map in the August 2008 National Geographic Magazine which shows these sites in plain view. Knowing that Israel will be one of the Mullahs first targets, according to the frequent proclamations of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, all of the above assumes that Israel will be forced into a live-or-die strike at Iran's nuclear facilities. That way the U.S. can claim they had no part of the "necessary" strike on Iran. In fact, to prove how clean American hands were in the matter, the President, his Arabist advisors and the U.S. State Department will punish Israel in every way possible — after the strike — even to the point of breaking off relations. Some will recall when Israel destroyed the French nuclear reactor (Osirak) in Iraq, how the U.S., Europeans, U.N. and Arabs went ballistic. The U.S. cut-off a shipment of F-16s Israel had paid for — among other penalties. However, all those seemingly angry nations were secretly delighted that the Jews had defanged Saddam Hussein's nuclear capability just before the nuclear plant went live — especially when American soldiers entered the first Gulf War against Saddam's attack and occupation of Kuwait. In this case, as before, the nations who fear the Islamic backlash for daring to de-fang the Mullahs of Iran, want Israel to do the job but, they probably won't say so out loud. If Israel is successful, they will castigate Israel and possibly use Israel's successful attack as an excuse to assemble a "Peace-Keeping Army" to bring foreign troops into the region so the world (read: OIL) will be safe. The wheels of the Propaganda Machines in the White House, State Department and 16 Intel Agencies and their counterparts in Europe will be well-prepared to use the willing Leftist Media to slam Israel and get world propaganda so worked up that nothing they do against the Jewish State will cause objections. I have written 7 articles in the past about "The Gathering of the Nations Against Israel". I have written about how NATO, now without a purpose or mission, is being prepped for a move against Israel under the dis-information that they are to be a "Peace Force". All of this is in motion even now. "Two Birds With One Stone" would be an appropriate operation's title. The Arabist State Department in linkage with the Multi-national Oil Companies and Oil countries and the Jew-killing Europeans have wanted Israel to be overrun ever since the U.N.'s partition of 1947. It was widely assumed that the well-armed Armies from 7 Arab Muslim countries would annihilate the minuscule new State of Israel armed only with World War 1 and 2 junk weapons they scavengered out of Europe — especially Czechoslovakia. Once those Arab armies overran the Jewish survivors of the Nazi death camps streaming into Israel, the "Solution to the World's Jewish Problem" would be complete — or so they planned. The U.S. under President Harry Truman and the Europeans in 1948 cut off all arms shipments to Israel, claiming they could not ship into a war zone. All were certain Israel would vanish in a sea of Arab soldiers. The partitioned area of Israel would be split up between the Arab armies of Egypt and Syria primarily. Naturally, the U.S. and Europe would send in supplies, body bags, medical equipment to 'supposedly' care for the Jewish survivors of the expected massacre in Israel and also show how concerned and humanitarian they were after this probable second Holocaust — which, of course, they participated in as much as they did in the first. Now the "Two Birds With One Stone" plan supposedly knocks out Iran's nuclear capability and then crushes Israel as righteous vengeance. Suppose Israel adopted the same defensive attitude that the U.S. would rightfully take against invading forces. Suppose Israel also adopted the NATO 'raison d'etre' (reason for being) which was to hold off and destroy Soviet troops invading Europe during the Cold War. Suppose Israel objected to a conglomeration of forces coming to invade and control Israel — supposedly for the 'good of all'. Should Israel adopt the same defensive position as the incoming invaders and simply do their best to blow them out of the air and water? (Think about it!) Because Israel was small and dependent upon re-supply from America, she bowed to pressure after each defensive war against the attacking Arab Muslims. She did not force a surrender and an authentic agreed peace. Each time the Muslim Arabs lost a war, the U.S., Europe and the Russians stepped in to save the vaunted pride of the defeated Arabs and then sold them the arms to re-build for the next war. It was profitable business for the military/industrial complex of the West. Nothing like on-going wars for the arms manufacturers and their political regimes. But now, Israel is faced with a radical Islamic regime which is building nuclear weapons that could obliterate Israel population centers. It's no longer possible to please the West by sacrificing the Jewish nation. Many see this in a different light. We Jews think that the Biblical prophecies are not children's tales or myths. We Jews believe that the forecast of War between Gog and Magog will occur. We believe that it could be an Armageddon. Strangely, so do the Mullahs of Iran who strongly believe their Mahdi (their Muslim Messiah) will only come in the midst of a Holocaust (read: Nuclear War). They want it to come so they get a quick trip to Allah's Warriors' paradise with the promised rewards of rivers of Honey, 72 brown-eyed virgins, and all denied them on earth. So, Ahmadinejad will use Iran's burgeoning nuclear capabilities to attack Israel. His missiles have demonstrated that his nuclear warheads can reach into Europe, Russia and, via submarines and/or ships, even hit America. Will Ahmadinejad try to attack Israel despite Obama's childish overture to dialogue? In a word, Yes! Especially if Israel is forced into surrendering more ancestral G-d given Jewish "Land for Peace", which would increase the Arab Muslim World's perception that she is vulnerable. In the Torah (Jewish Law) it is said that if a thief comes to kill you, it is permissible — even required — to kill him first. The Mullahs of Iran have pledged to kill Israel and later the Christian "infidels" (non-believers in Islam) within all nations. It is time to kill Iran as Ahmadinejad increases Iran's nuclear capabilities and missile accuracy and distance as he creeps up to kill Israel. Regrettably, rogue American Arabists side with the Mullahs, at least until they kill the Jewish State of Israel. Perhaps the chaos of the world, coupled with drought, famine, disease and destruction of the world's rapidly failing money economies is merely the first phase of Gog making war across the Planet Earth. Some know what happens to the nations for gathering against Israel. G-d Says: "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you." For those who use computers, look up the "ring of fire", a 10,000 mile crack in the earth's mantle. Should it open up a bit more, we would see a veritable linear volcanic wall of fire. Perhaps that is what is described in Biblical prophecy that "fire will sweep over the Islands" (Read: Nations). But, if you don't believe in all that mystical stuff, watch the money dissolve, the drying up of continents, the rampant incurable diseases like AIDS/HIV and MRSA (Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus) which even our best antibiotics cannot touch. Observe the rioting — especially the radical religious rioting — in some countries as overpopulation competes with dwindling food and water resources. Wait for the inner cities of America begin to writhe up in pain and burn down whatever is around them. Historians (if there any left) will speak about his as a natural phenomenon. Observant Jews, familiar with Torah forecasts will take a different view. Using Israel as a lightning rod to re-direct the pain of the nations is a huge mistake and for which we are all paying — even now! Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org |
|
SETTLING AN OLD ARMY CAMP
Posted by Hillel Fendel, March 23, 2009. |
|
Facing opposition from the government, army, and skeptics, pioneers continue their campaign to make Shdema, south of Jerusalem, a Jewish town. The struggle is being waged on several fronts at once: Visits to the site, planting trees and planning construction, lobbying Knesset Members, speaking tours abroad, Youtube videos, and more. Shdema is the strategic site of an army camp between Jerusalem and eastern Gush Etzion, which played a significant role in stabilizing the capital's southern front after the Six Day War. The IDF reinforced Shdema with a rampart and bulletproof concrete structures during the Oslo War (September 2000), when bullet fire from nearby Beit Sahour became common. In 2003, however, as part of the IDF's gradual withdrawal from areas in Judea and Samaria, the dismantling of Shdema began as well. In 2008, reports began to be circulated that Shdema was actually to be given over to the Palestinian Authority. As a result, Jews of Kiryat Arba, Gush Etzion and elsewhere began their activities to keep Shdema Jewish — and have not ceased since. The latest video, a professional production, features a visit to Shdema by a busload of Land of Israel loyalists from Raanana, as well as guest appearances by former Lechi fighter and MK Geulah Cohen, MK Aryeh Eldad, attorney Elyakim HaEtzni, columnist Caroline Glick, Shdema campaign leaders Nadia Matar and Yehudit Katzover, and others. 
The film begins with a typical Shdema scene. Matar, leader of the grassroots Women in Green organization — which has taken a leading role in the struggle for Shdema, as in other Land of Israel causes — is seen helping clear the road for the ascent to Shdema. "The army is not here yet to open it for us," she laughs, "so, as the Sages say, 'When there's no man around, be a man — or a woman!'" The Message: Grassroots Organizations Can Make a Difference! Other familiar Shdema settings featured in the film, and in many of the ascents to the site over the past year, include speakers, planting, singing, painting and refurbishing the buildings — and inculcation of the idea that, though chances for success appear slim, grassroots movements can succeed in making a difference. 
An example is the Dagan Hill neighborhood of the nearby Gush Etzion city of Efrat. "Fifteen years ago," Matar recalls, "ten women, and a few men as well, went up to a barren hill, determined not to let it fall into Arab hands. We were thrown out, we were arrested, we were ridiculed — but we kept at it, and finally, with G-d's help, it is now a full-fledged neighborhood — with dozens of young couples, a yeshiva, and more. That is how we have to work." Katzover agrees: "The People of Israel don't have the luxury today of being weak... Just like we went to Hevron in 1968 and reclaimed land that had been stolen from Jews, that's how it always is: We go out, set up facts on the ground, then the officials have to come in [etc, and then we set out for our next mission." Speakers on the video emphasize that the government's policies facilitate Arab takeover of the land: laws against illegal Arab construction are not enforced, while Jews are barely able to "close off a porch." Also accentuated is that any land Israel abandons, such as Gush Katif and Shechem, is soon used to launch terror attacks against the Jews. Eldad: Israeli Withdrawal Won't Solve Global Jihad "We suffer here from a local symptom of a global disease named Global Jihad," says MK Aryeh Eldad, on the backdrop of a Hizbullah mob chanting 'Death to America!' and scenes of the World Trade Center destruction. "The true nature of the conflict is a religious war, and that's why no division of the land or drawing of a new border in Israel will solve the problem." 
Developing Shdema The plan for Shdema is now two-fold, the activists say: 1) To make sure the government enforces its current demolition orders on the illegal Arab destruction on the bottom of the Shdemah hill, and 2) to build a Jewish "Shdema Cultural Center." The Center will teach the theoretical and practical skills necessary to maintain Jewish independence and full sovereignty over the Land of Israel, including agriculture, construction, self-defense, Bible studies, Jewish history, and Israel advocacy.
Hillel Fendel is Senior News Editor for Arutz-Sheva (www.Israel National News.com).
|
|
CULLING, BIODIVERSITY AND THE EVILS OF GOV'T CONTROL; WHY THEY HATE; SHORT HISTORY OF HONOUR KILLINGS
Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, March 23, 2009. |
|
1) Culling, biodiversity and the evils of government control March 14, 2009 It was recently revealed that Kruger National Park in South Africa is considering 'managing' its elephant population by shooting thousands of them. The reason is to maintain 'biological diversity'. The problem with 'managing' the environment is that man is bad at it and that it is exceedingly arrogant. The environment can manage itself, it doesn't need man introducing, re-introducing and then culling species in order to create some sort of delicate diverse fantasy. Perhaps however we will need to 'manage' the human population in order to insure its diversity. Such things have been tried before. Kruger National Park is roughly 19,000 sq. km, larger than many small countries. By comparison Belgium is 30,000 sq km and Puerto Rico is 13,700 sq. km. It is larger than several U.S states. It is, according to reports, bulging at the seams with some 13,000 (2005 census) African elephants. By contrast Puerto Rico only has 4 million people. So the managers of Kruger National Park have decided to 'manage' the elephant population by 'culling' (killing) between 2,500 and 6,000 of them. Until 1995 the park's authorities culled about 7% (about 500) of the population annually. At that time the population stood at 8,870. The moratorium on culling inaugurated in 1995 was a result of the fall of apartheid when the new government, wanting to please every liberal special interest decided that culling was decidedly un-politically correct. In 10 years the elephant population thus grew by 4,000, which is less than 500 a year and thus less than the 7% that had been culled before 1995. What this means is that somehow, as if by magic, once the culling stopped the growth rate of he elephants actually stopped, since culling before 1995 had never been intended to decrease the elephant population on along term basis, but to 'manage' it. Now with the park supposedly 'bursting' with 'too many' elephants, although the density is less than one per square kilometer, the park's officials are calling for hunters and others to come and get rid of them. It is perhaps an irony since the recent 'explosion' of elephant population is only a phenomenon of the last 20 years. In the 1980s the problem was poaching and elephant populations in Africa were decimated. People feared for the survival of the species, much as they now do the mountain gorillas. But the elephant has survived. There are supposed to be some 500,000 elephants in Africa with 300,000 of them in Southern Africa. But "elephant experts, scientists and wildlife managers" have warned that "they fear [so many elephants] will destroy vegetation crucial to the survival of small species." Oddly enough the original moratorium on gunning down the elephants had been passed in 1995 after efforts "to protect the park's biodiversity. The practice [of culling] was stopped when it was acknowledged there was insufficient evidence to determine how a fixed number of elephants might affect the park. The new plan seeks to answer that question." Nevertheless in the name of 'diversity' the elephant must go. At Pilansberg national park in South Africa the mantra of biodiversity is drummed into visitors who must read signs that claim "biological and cultural diversity are the foundations of stability." So diversity is the excuse behind a plan to destroy half the population of the elephants of Kruger National Park. The entire idea of 'managing' an ecosystem is typical of the leftist view of wildlife and humanity. There is a belief that humanity, like animals and plants, must be managed. Towards this end the Soviet and other Communist regimes culled some 100 million people throughout the world in the 20th century. Now the mantra is 'diversity'. The idea is that too many elephants are destroying other plants and that this harms other species. So man must 'manage' the ecosystem. How better to 'manage' it but through the muzzle of a gun. It is quite ironic that the knee-jerk reaction to 'too many' animals is the desire to shoot them. Why not give the elephants to neighbouring countries or to zoos? Kruger is not without some intelligence. One idea has been to use 'elephant contraceptives'. Other ideas have been "to kill or sterilize females about to become pregnant for the first time." This is according to an article published in Animal Conservation entitled 'Managing the elephants of Kruger National Park' in 1998. It is ironic that the publication is called 'conservation' because the animals aren't actually being conserved. According to the same report "To achieve zero population growth, about three-quarters of the adult female elephants would need to be on contraceptives." This is about what European, Japanese and Russian human females have achieved in their own sex lives without the need for government management and intervention. It is strange that so many elephants must be killed in order to achieve 'diversity' when one considers how slow elephants are to produce offspring. According to one article "an African elephant cow may first conceive from the age of 9-11 years and the gestation period is almost 2 years. The interval between subsequent births can be anywhere between 4 to 9 years depending on conditions such as drought or overcrowding. Birth rates peak during the rainy season when conditions are most favourable for the new calf. Twin births have been known but are rare." There are a whole range of issues that the story of the elephants at Kruger brings to light. One is the idiocy of it all. The elephants don't threaten anything. Their population is miniscule. By contrast the human population is more destructive. The ant population is probably more destructive. The growth of the elephant population is quite low and slaughtering so many will push the size of the herd back to its levels in the 1970s, sort of like the direction of the stock market. But what is most disturbing is the way in which, in the name of conservation and 'diversity', murder is always the answer. It has been the answer in other regimes, except it has been humans who have born the brunt of it. At the heart of the idea of culling is the idea that man knows what is best. It is an irony that it is the same environmentalists who create national parks that then want to brutally manage them. The heart of the idea of culling is that man must 'manage' wildlife, as if wildlife does not manage itself. But Kruger national park is not some miniscule place where a few too many animals running wild can indeed harm all the other species. Kruger is a massive place, a place where wildlife should be able to survive naturally, the way it would, in the wild. Before man became so numerous and so arrogant in his 'management' of animals the animals seem to have done just fine. Yet today, under the albatross of liberalism, the ecosystem and its 'diversity' must be managed. In the spirit of this mismanagement and manhandling of the environment is the liberal tendancy to 're-introduce' species all the time. >From wolves to other beasts, species have been 'reintroduced' only to find that they harm other species, like some rare mountain sheep, and then man must go in to manage them all. The problem is that it should have been left alone in the first place and absent of that it is best, once it is already screwed up, to leave it to sort itself out. Wildlife, like the planet, does a good job of sorting itself out, yet in the need of magic solutions and immediate changes man, liberal environmental man, desires immediate change. But these extreme changes, such as culling, can also harm other species. Overpopulation is not inherently a problem, it is something that happens from time to time among animal populations which periodically 'boom' and 'crash'. Sort of like stock markets. Managing animals is as bad as managing markets. Government intervention, quick fixes, radical stimulus and other extreme measures upset systems that can naturally work themselves out. But it is all part and parcel of the evil of government intervention in general, from the environment to the market. Consider two small examples. One is of a spring named Ein Handok in Israel. Recent signs placed by the government help guide hikers to this spring. Now fences and further signs have grown up around it. Soon, no doubt, the increased traffic of hikers will be said to 'harm' the archeological site and it will be closed. It is the irony, had the government not interfered in the first place no on would have come and it would'nt have to be closed due to 'pollution'. Then there is the case of Acadia National Park. Once upon a time one could walk in its mountains with freedom and enjoyment. Now large wooden fences guide the hiker. Once upon a time hikers built stone pyrimids, called cairns to mark trails. Not he government builds them and inevitably large ugly signs adorn them explaining "cairns are carefully placed piles of rocks built by trail crews to mark trails and guide hikers...adding to cairns or building other cairns or rock objects detracts from the natural landscape, causes soil erosion and plant loss and misleads hikers...do not add to or build cairns or other rock objects." Its too bad no one could have told the native Americans not to have built their rock objects or carved anything, lest they ruin the environment. Little did they know the erosion and plant loss and misleading they were causing. But the idiocy of such signs is the product of the sign itself, the creation of trails for people who should'nt be hiking in the first place, now tramping like hordes on such trails and needing fences to keep them from getting lost. From the elephants of Kruger to the cairns of Acadia the environment has been destroyed by environmentalism. Only in such an upside down world could the destruction of half the elephant population of a park be considered a positive step towards preserving 'diversity'. One day we may indeed face a government that tells us we need to 'cull' certain races in order to preserve the 'diversity' of our world. Anything is possible in the extremism that requires gunning down things in order to preserve them. 2) Why they hate March 14th, 2009 In Brigitte Gabriel's 2006 book Because They Hate, the Lebanese born Christian woman argued that terrorism and other conflicts was primarily an outgrowth of hatred within Islam. Then in a March 2008 editorial by extreme-leftist Israeli Gideon Levy titled 'Has anyone stopped to ask why the Swedes Hate us?' the writer argued that the Swedes and Europeans hate Israel because of Israel's behavior in Gaza. Levy explained that during a recent tennis match between Israel and the Swedes, anti-Israel demonstrators, protesting against the fact that an Israeli was allowed to play in their country, turned extremely violent. They also "waved banners against racism and violence." Levy asked "Was there really no violence in Gaza, and is there no racism in Israel? If we were Swedes, wouldn't we protest against the pointless killing and destruction wrought by Israel?" Levy prophesied that "Maybe the time will indeed come when the world will get fed up with this aggression and violence of ours, which endanger world peace, and will say at long last: No more occupation, no more wars perpetrated by Israel for which the world has to pay." What is most interesting about these two publications is the use of the word 'hate' in the title. Gabriel argues, persuasively that there is a deep hatred endemic to Islam. But Levy points the way to something not usually understood or examined; the deep hatred that is endemic to leftism and 'human rights activism'. Levy accepts the fact that Israel should be hated for is 'crimes' in Gaza. In accepting this he is accepting the general dialectic of leftism, the dialectic of hate. People are often misled to believe that the left is not the province of hatred because the left so often protests against 'right wing hate' and against 'racism'. But in fact, while the left claims to protest against stereotypes and generalizations and judgment and claims to want to break down barriers between us and the 'other', it in fact is a milieu full of hatred in the most vigorous form. The hatred manifests itself every time there is a protest. Whether it is burning flags or burning people in effigy or comparing people to Nazis, and thus insinuating they should be killed as the Nazis were, the entire spectrum of leftist protest, activism and thought is predicated on hatred, hatred of groups and hatred of nations and hatred of religions. Consider the case of Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska and one time vice-presidential candidate. Mary Mitchell wrote in the Chicago Sun Times on September 14th, 2008 that "Sarah Palin makes me sick. I hate that she was able to steal Barack Obama's Mojo." Consider Sarah Palin's daughter who recently announced she is breaking up with the father of her young baby. For some reason one writer posted "Reminds me again why I hate the hell out of Sarah Palin." Hate. Hate is the main message of the left. It is something so natural and instinctual to the left that when one is alone with leftists they speak freely of their hate the way people who are afraid of making racist jokes in public make them at home. Its not such a secret in fact. On Amazon.com one can buy The I Hate the Republicans reader. It is part of a series by Clint Willis including I hate Ann Coulter and I hate Dick Cheney and I hate George Bush. Part of the problem is the elasctisity of the word 'hate'. Like 'love' it has been degraded so that its true passion is not always felt. But leftists and do-gooders always seem to be quick to condemn what they perceive as hate speech and hate filled societies. Brian Freedman's recent editorial in the Jerusalem Post entitled 'A Fading Peace' he condemned teenage Israeli kids in Ofakim for saying to him that they hate Arabs. For Freedman, an American English teacher for the Jewish Agency this "bigotry and hatred — among both the Arabs and the Jews — is the fuel that fires this ongoing conflict and the main obstacle to forging peace between the two peoples." Really? But hate is such a popular word among those who speak of peace and anti-racism and protest against violence. Remember again Levy's headline "why they hate us." They hate. The leftist protestors hate. And yet the right, the youth, are condemned for their hatred and it is said to be an obstacle to peace. But if peace and hatred really did not go hand in hand then one would not see the same pasty-faced wealthy bourqouise khaffiya clad Europeans hating Israel and calling for peace. The truth is that the natural instinct of the left and its European and western adherents is hate. It has always been based on radical hatred. The bibles of the left, from Karl Marx to Clint Willis have expressed the need to hate and then exterminate ideas and people who do not march with them. In the name of ant-racism leftist conferences such as Durban II actually are racist. Should one be surprised? Anti-racism is racist against the groups said to be racist. So if Israel is a "racist society" then we must "hate" it for its "racism". If Southern whites are "racist" then we must "hate them" because of their "racism". That is always the rubric. One group is said to be racist, then they are all racists and must all be destroyed for their racism. The Nazi label rhetoric is part and parcel of the same hatred. Labeling others 'nazis' is equivalent to saying they and their nation should be destroyed the way the Nazis were. We cannot defeat hate, whether it is Islamic or European-leftist. So instead of worry about it and thinking it can be cured we should understand it. There is no difference between the leftists in Malmo Sweden who don Khaffiyas and violently protest the existence of an Israeli tennis player, and the Muslims who wear Khaffiyas and prepare their bombs in caves in Pakistan. They are part and parcel of the same thing. The support of Hamas is greater in the UK than it is among the Palestinians. In fact a recent poll found Marwan Bargouti, a jailed Fatah terrorist, beating Hamas by 65%. But among the UK's liberal elites, the ones who listen to Ahmadinjed on Christmas, who invite David Irving to Oxford, and who vote for Ken Livingston and George Galloway, the support of Hamas is more than 90%. George Galloway recently did the white-mans-leftist-thing and wore the Khaffiya and the long black Ghallabiya and travelled across North Africa with a convoy of other white Europeans on a pro-Palestinian tour. In El-Arish Egypt his convoy of liberals was stoned by Arabs who oppose Hamas. No matter, he went through Rafah to Gaza and kissed the ground and embraced Ismail Haniyah. This isn't fanciful exaggeration. He, a British citizen, really kissed the ground. Haniyeh wears a western tailored suit, but the white man wore the Ghallabiya and the Khaffiyah. No doubt any women on the convoy wore the Hijab. At the same time as he was kissing the sand the UK was announcing plans to welcome Hizbullah members to London. The same UK that denied Dutch activist Geert Wilders a visa because he dared to make a film critical of Islam and the same UK that threatens to arrest Israeli soldiers on 'war crimes' if they visit. Andy Ram, the Israeli tennis player, recently travelled to the United Arab Emirates to play. Originally the UAE had feared protests and banned Shaher Peer, a female Israeli tennis star, from travelling there to a tennis tournament. But Ram was allowed and there were no protests. But when Ram travelled to Sweden the tennis match had to be played without spectators for fear of violence. Think again. For fear of violence in the midst, the heart of Europe, but not in the UAE, the stands had to be cleared. This is the result of the hate. The hate that runs wild like a cancer among the European leftists. When the European leftists will vote for Hamas in greater numbers than the Palestinian one has to ask which is worse. When the European leftist kisses the ground of Gaza and not even the Gazans will kiss it. When the Europeans host Hizbullah and will not host their own politicians. When the European leftists will place the Jew in prison for 'war crimes' but will host the terrorist who murders the Jew, that is the product of hate. It is the product of the cancer of Leftist hate that is so deeply ingrained in our way of life that we have come to accept it, leftists even ask questions like "has anyone stopped to ask why the Swedes Hate us" as if to imply that 'us' should change so that their hate will stop. This has a parallel in the recent controversy over the candidacy of Charles Freeman for National Intelligence Council in the U.S. The New York Times acknowledged that his radical hate-filled views "are extreme only when seen through the lens of American political life." That is true. His hate and his extremism would have been welcomed in Europe or the Islamic World, which are drifting closer and closer together in their political choices and their views of the world. When confronted with the leftist Gideon Levy's admonition that amounts to 'if they hate us we should change' and Brigitte Gabriel's view that hatred is wrong and must be opposed we should adhere to the later. Hatred and its peddlers must be confronted, whether it appears as a bourgouise UK citizen in his khaffiya or the Muslim terrorist. Each fights and each can be considered a soldier in the war of liberalism and Islam against the world. Each is an enemy of mankind and the struggle against each is part of the struggle for existence of all nations. We must not hate them, hate is an irrational response and it is the realm of the extremist. But we must recognize that our enemy knows himself by his hate. When we find ourselves wondering 'why do they hate us' it must no cause us to question ourselves but to recognize that their hate is their tragedy. Whether it is wealthy people from Malmo, the same neutral Swedes whose cowardice and weakness prevented them from fighting either on the side of the Nazis or against them, or the cowardice of the Muslim terrorist who fights civilians, the hatred is natural to their political choices. One should not fear them either. There is nothing to fear in those seemingly violent European protestors, they are natural cowards only operating in large groups as is the nature of modern Europe. Think of the Europeans who 'protested' against the Chinese Olympics by 'heroically' assaulting Chinese athletes carrying the torch on the streets of Europe. This is the European. So heroic, assaulting an athlete running with a torch. They didn't travel to China to protest though, did they. Their hate is confined to the place where they can get away with it. 3) A Short History Of Honour Killings March 18, 2009 Why are honour killings always ascribed to 'culture' and 'tradition' and not to religion. Recent cases show the depth to which 'tradition' is a cover up for the truth. In addition recently discovered newspaper accounts from the 1930s and 1940s show that even then judges accepted the 'tradition' excuse and spoke of how 'progressive' societies would help end this societal ill. But instead the West has become host to honour killings, rather than the honour killing societies ending this practice. On November 4th, 2008 thirteen year old Aisha Ibrahim Buhulow was forced into a small hole dug in he ground. She was covered with dirt up to her neck and stoned to death by a crowd of grown men. A crowd of 1,000 men cheered as fifty of their peers pelted the little girls head with stones. But fifty grown men apparently had trouble killing the thirteen year old. She was removed twice from the hole, found to be still breathing, she was placed back in so the stoning could continue. Her crime? She had been raped by three men and this 'adultery' had meant she had to die to cleanse the 'honour' of the community. This was in Kismayo in Somalia. Despite the fact that locals spoke of the stoning as "what Allah instructed us" Mohammed Fatihi noted that "This is a justice system which has adopted a façade of Islamic law to apply what are, in reality, age-old tribal customs." Houssine Mohamed, a Muslim scholar in Algeria claimed "sentencing her to death cannot be related to Islam."
Three months earlier on August 30th, 2008 it was reported that five women, three of them teenagers, were beaten, shot and thrown into a ditch and buried, some while still alive. Their crime? Wanting to marry husbands of their own choosing. But according to one Pakistani lawmaker from the province of Baluchistan, where the killings took place, "these are centuries-old traditions and I will continue to defend them," said Israr Ullah Zehri.
In February of 2009 Muzzammil Hassan, founder of Bridges TV, a station devoted to countering negative stereotypes of Muslims in the U.S, was arrested for beheading his wife, Aasiya Hassan. On March 2nd Ramzan Kadyrov, the president of Chechnya noted that seven women whose bodies had been found dumped by the roadside had "loose morals" and had been killed for "running around." According to the New York Times "Honor killings are considered part of Chechen tradition." Natalya Estemirova, a prominent human rights activist in Grozny noted that "If women are killed according to tradition then it is done very secretly to prevent too many people from finding out that someone in the family behaved incorrectly." In Canada it was revealed in December of 2008 that Aqsa Parvez, a 16 year old Canadian whose family was from Pakistan, had been buried in an unmarked grave after she had been strangled to death by family members who were subsequently arrested. Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress, noted that "a victim of an honour killing is always left in an unmarked grave."
The 'tradition' of Honour Killing is not new. Reports from the Palestine Post, the ancestor of today's Jerusalem Post reported on hundreds of them during a decade and a half of publication under the British Mandate. In one sympathetic ruling in December of 1939 Justice Copland noted that "I am quite aware of the unfortunate tradition and custom which is particularly prevalent in the villages...you have committed a crime and killed a human being." The murderer, Mohammed Joumeh Abu Kalbein of Silwan was given only ten years imprisonment for "manslaughter." Joumeh noted that he was innocent and had merely "defended" his honour. Copland felt the situation in the country had improved in his time and recalled that his first years as a judge had seen two "honour killings" a month. However 6 years earlier a writer in the newspaper had noted "all enlightened Iraqis must view with misgiving the lenient attitude which is still shown by courts of justice towards certain crimes of a mot heinous nature which, in a more advanced country, would never be pardoned. The writer was referring to the case of Salman ibn Khadayer who stabbed his neice 48 times after she had run away with a man she had fallen in love with. The police had brought her back to her family home where the uncle "felt compelled" to kill her to clean the 'honour' of the family. The court was lenient "having regard to his reasons for committing the murder." The murderer received 10 years in prison. But other cases from the Mandate show that the phenomenon of honor killings were common. In may of 1941 there were two such cases on the same day. Stabbing was the preferred method of 'defending' themselves by these grown men. In an April 1937 case Ahmad Khalil Mustafa and Abdul Jalil el Abed of Dura near Hebron murdered the sister of Mustafa for wanting to divorce her husband. One contemporary voice noted that "many persons in this country will commit a murder where family honour has been sullied with as little feeling as a solider who runs his bayonet through another soldier wearing a different uniform." (June 13, 1933).
Today Israel faces the honor killing scurge once again. Eight women in Ramla have been murdered by male members of their abu Ghanem clan, some in their teens for rejecting to marry men selected by their male relatives. Things were no different seventy years ago. Two members of the Mughrabi family, Mohammed Bin Wannas in 1944 and Mohammed Ali in 1947, were convicted of killing female members of their family. In fact a member of the same Abu Ghanem clan, Abdul Hamid Ghanem was sentenced to two years for attempting to murder his wife in May f 1941. The recent revelation that Sharia courts, called Muslim Arbitration Tribunals, have been set up in the UK, with the power to rule on incidents of domestic violence reminds us that very little has changed in terms of honor killings since the 1930s, if anything the West has become more tolerant of it and have come to adhere to Justice Copland's "tradition" excuse. Contact Seth J. Frantzman at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit his website: http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: BLOOD LIBEL
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 23, 2009. |
|
I raise this issue because you might hear about it elsewhere; I want not only to present the facts for you, I would like to ask you to write letters to the editor, where appropriate, and otherwise explain to those who might be under a regrettable misimpression now with regard to the IDF. What happened? "Testimonies" have been provided from a couple of our soldiers about "war atrocities" in Gaza committed against Palestinian civilians by IDF soldiers, when they were allegedly ordered by their commanders to shoot Palestinian civilians in cold blood. Haaretz (the extreme left paper) picked it up as a front page "expose." From there it went who-knows-where. ~~~~~~~~~~ Here I share the official IDF response, as well as information that sheds considerable light on the issue. The response comes from Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, who said: "I don't believe that IDF soldiers cold-bloodedly targeted Palestinian civilians. We will wait for the results of the investigation, but my impression is that the IDF behaved in a moral and ethical manner. If there were any incidents, there were isolated. ~~~~~~~~~~ Commentator Melanie Phillips addressed this issue in her latest column, which appeared in the Spectator: "There are precisely two charges of gratuitous killing of Palestinian civilians under allegedly explicit orders to do so. One is what even Ha'aretz made clear was an accidental killing, when two women misunderstood the evacuation route the Israeli soldiers had given them (emphasis in the Phillips material is hers) and walked into a sniper's gunsights as a result. Moreover, the soldier who said this has subsequently admitted he didn't see this incident — he wasn't even in Gaza at the time — and had merely reported rumor and hearsay. "The second charge is based on a supposedly real incident in which, when an elderly woman came close to an IDF unit, an officer ordered that they shoot her because she was approaching the line and might have been a suicide bomber. The soldier relating this story did not say whether or not the woman in this story actually was shot. Indeed, since he says 'from the description of what happened' it would appear this was merely hearsay once again. And his interpretation was disputed by another soldier who said: "'She wasn't supposed to be there, because there were announcements and there were bombings. Logic says she shouldn't be there. The way you describe it, as murder in cold blood, that isn't right.' "So two non-atrocity atrocities, then. What else?" "Soldiers mouthing off — in conversations of near-impenetrable incoherence — that instructions to kill everyone who remained in buildings designated as terrorist targets after the IDF had warned everyone inside to get out amounted to instructions to murder in cold blood. There cannot be an army in the world which would not issue precisely such instructions in such circumstances, where Hamas had boasted it had booby-trapped the entire area." ~~~~~~~~~~ I note here the extraordinary lengths to which the IDF went during the war to warn civilians to get out of the way. Leaflets were dropped by the hundreds of thousands, advising civilians to leave one area or another. Phone calls were made to 200,000 households. No, this is not a typo. This is what Ashkenazi said. That in particular astounded me. The most publicized phone call took place before the house of Hamas leader Nizar Rayan was bombed. His family was in the house with him and the IDF urged them by phone to leave; they chose not to. Sometimes, as Phillips describes, a missile was dropped from a helicopter on the corner of the house to shake it up a bit and get people to leave. Who stays after all these warnings? The terrorists. So in light of this fact, and the warnings that were delivered, what does it mean that a soldier said: "When we entered a house, we were supposed to bust down the door and start shooting inside and just go up story by story... I call that murder"? ~~~~~~~~~~ These charges of "atrocities" were solicited and disseminated by one Dani Zamir, founder and instructor of a pre-military preparatory course at Oranim Academic College. Zamir is clearly a far left ideologue with an agenda: he was once jailed for refusing to guard settlers. A month after the military operation in Gaza, he called together graduates of his course to discuss with them their experiences in Gaza and printed a transcript of this discussion in his programs bulletin. Haaretz ran excerpts from this transcript. ~~~~~~~~~~ Phillips records the testimony — culled from amidst the
accusations — of a platoon sergeant, who said his soldiers were in a
house that belonged to Hamas people who were sent for questioning. At
the end of their time in that house, "my platoon commander suggested
that when we left ... we should clean up all the stuff, pick up and collect all the garbage in bags, sweep and wash the floor, fold up the blankets we used, make a pile of the mattresses and put them back on the beds."
~~~~~~~~~~ Said Ashkenazi: "It is a great privilege to stand at the head of this army. " The damage done to us by the likes of Zamir and Haaretz is shameful. It puts the lie to the true nature of Israel and provides fodder for those who would attack us. ~~~~~~~~~~ Sheikh Raed Salah, head of the northern branch of the Islamic Movement of Israel, was arrested today on charges that he tried to attack police at an illegal convention in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood of Jerusalem that was part of the "Jerusalem, Capital of Arab Culture" event the police shut down. Raed Salah — who was previously convicted of raising money for Hamas and regularly seeks to incite Israeli Arabs by spreading falsehoods about Israeli plans to destroy the Al Aksa Mosque — is really bad news. A spokesman for the Islamic Movement commented: "Salah's arrest is another step toward 'Judaizing' Jerusalem. Nobody broke the law, there was merely an intention to establish a popular committee to deal with declaring Jerusalem the capital of Palestinian culture." I love the term "Judaizing Jerusalem." Jerusalem is the ultimate Jewish city. It's eastern part is heavily Arab only because King Hussein of Jordan had rendered it Judenrein for 19 years, banishing Jews and destroying synagogues. The fact of those dozens of synagogues, not to mention Har Habayit and the cemetery on the Mount of Olives, speaks eloquently for the Jewishness of eastern Jerusalem. And, in any event, note, please, that he didn't say they were declaring "eastern" Jerusalem the capital of Palestinian culture. He said "Jerusalem." It's important to monitor their words carefully. Besides which, what they did WAS against the law, as Palestinian Authority events are forbidden in Jerusalem. ~~~~~~~~~~ Raed Salah was once mayor of Umm al-Fahm, an Arab city in the north of Israel that is the site of Islamic Movement headquarters. And it happens that this city has been in the news of late in a different context. A march in the city by "extreme" right wing Jews bearing Israeli flags is due to take place tomorrow. I put "extreme" in quotes for a reason, although they would be widely described thus. For I have come to see a wisdom in their "extremism." Umm al-Fahm is a place inside of Green Line Israel populated by Arab Israeli citizens, some of whom are not loyal to Israel. The Jews who are marching intend no violence, they simply want to establish a presence there to mark the fact that it IS Israel and Jews have a right to be there, as anywhere else in Israel. That Arabs there view what is about to take place as a provocation cannot be reason to stop the march. We have lost ground in so many places and we cannot afford to let this continue to happen if we are to keep this nation Jewish. I think in particular of the Arab day-to-day control of Har HaBayit (the Temple Mount). There has been such a passive willingness to permit Arab ascendancy, to look the other way in the name of being conciliatory. ~~~~~~~~~~ It was back in September of last year that right-wing activist Itamar Ben-Gavir sought permission for a march through the city bearing Israeli flags. He was denied the right to parade by the police because they believed it would lead to a confrontation that would endanger public order. Ben Gavir, along with Baruch Marzel, then went to the courts asking that the police order be reversed. The High Court ultimately sided with the petitioners, saying that a claim that there was a hazard to public safety was not sufficient reason to block a march in a city which is under Israeli jurisdiction, particularly when the State permits left-wing activists to rally in the city of Hevron and the gay community to hold gay-pride parades in Jerusalem. Arab residents of Umm al-Fahm were enraged with this ruling. ~~~~~~~~~~ The police delayed the march several times, saying they were concerned for the lives of the marchers. Finally tomorrow's date was set after the court rebuked them for the delays. Justice Edmond Levi said, "The State of Israel has to demonstrate sovereignty within one of its cities." He did not understand, he said, how "the State of Israel, that boasts an army and police officers, cannot secure such a meager demonstration." This is a point of great significance. Can it be that there is a place in Israel where the police will not let Jews march with Israeli flags? Where the police are controlled by the Arab populace? ~~~~~~~~~~ In all there are expected to be about 100 right-wing activists marching in the city tomorrow. Joining them will be MK Michael Ben-Ari of the National Union Party. The march will not go through the main streets of the city and its route has been coordinated with the police. Chairman of the Arab party Balad, Jamal Zahalka, who lives in the area, warned, "These people have a history of shooting at Palestinians and I warn that if they come tomorrow carrying weapons, they will start shooting and this could escalate into a major disaster." The suggestion that the Jews may be coming to shoot at Arabs is ridiculous, and a form of incitement. (How much more likely is it that Arabs will come out bearing guns because this was said?) MK Ben Ari observed that, "It's provocation to say this is provocation. If waving Israeli flags is provocation — then this is the greater provocation." The Arabs of the city have said they will block the entrance of the Jews with their bodies. ~~~~~~~~~~ Shas signed a coalition agreement with Likud last night. The party will be given the portfolios for Construction and Housing, and Religious Services. Shas will also have a minister-without-portfolio in the prime minister's office and a deputy minister in the Finance Ministry. Negotiations now move to UTJ and HaBayit HaYehudi (the Jewish Home, formerly NRP). ~~~~~~~~~~ Also negotiating with Likud right now is a Labor team appointed by Barak, but not sanctioned by all of the party. Barak in fact is furious with members of Labor who sent Netanyahu a letter saying they wouldn't abide by an agreement. Barak is hoping that he will have an agreement to bring to the Central Committee tomorrow when the vote on joining the coalition is taken, but that seems most unlikely. Agriculture Minister Shalom Simhon, a member of Labor's team, said: "As someone who was close to the informal talks that were previously conducted, nothing has been agreed upon and it certainly could be the case that there is no partnership with the Likud. "The difficulties aren't simple, they are even harder than I expected...We too have our red lines." ~~~~~~~~~~ According to Haaretz, a senior PA source is saying that Hezbollah or other groups associated with Iran may be responsible for the attempted bombing in Haifa. The PA claims to have intelligence that Hezbollah has been trying for some time to recruit members of Fatah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad to carry out a massive attack, presumably to avenge the assassination of its mastermind terrorist, Imad Mughniyeh, in Damascus in February 2008, for which it blames Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~ Haim Ramon, a member of the Ministerial Committee on Security Prisoners, told Israel Radio at the end of last week that Hamas did not negotiate on the issue of a prisoner release, they delivered an ultimatum for Israeli capitulation. He emphasized the fact that of Hamas prisoners released in the past, two-thirds had returned to terrorism. The Israeli government is currently saying that there will be no further negotiations unless Hamas comes in with a new proposal. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
SAUDI CLERICS URGE BAN ON WOMEN, MUSIC ON TELEVISION
Posted by Sonia Nusenbaum, March 23, 2009. |
|
I don't really care how Moslems treat women in their own countries. I do care that these guys are so successful at infiltrating the non-Moslem world, manifesting inhumane practices on our soil, permeated into non-Islamic States and countries. That few of their target States seem to pay these facts any mind. Nor wonder the impact on democracy, our Government at its highest reaches, and the full range of our financial institutions bribed and manipulated to accept anti-Israel, anti-Semitic agenda. For that matter anti-American protocols and usurpation of our financial supremacy that sets a standard for national interests hostile to America's SuperPower status. The fruit of American ingenuity and creativity should not be up for sale nor available to thieves. Nor foreign interests entitlement to American people's earnings and treasure used against our national interests, security and future. This is from yesterday's Fox News,
|
|
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — A group of Saudi clerics urged the kingdom's new information minister on Sunday to ban women from appearing on TV or in newspapers and magazines, making clear that the country's hardline religious establishment is skeptical of a new push toward moderation. In a statement, the 35 hardline clergymen also called on Abdel Aziz Khoja, who was appointed by King Abdullah on Feb. 14, to prohibit the playing of music and music shows on television. "We have great hope that this media reform will be accomplished by you," said the statement. "We have noticed how well-rooted perversity is in the Ministry of Information and Culture, in television, radio, press, culture clubs and the book fair." Although it raises the pressure on the new minister, the recommendation is likely to have little effect. Khoja's appointment was part of a government shake-up by Abdullah that removed a number of hardline figures and is believed to be part of an effort to weaken the influence of conservatives in this devout desert kingdom. "No Saudi women should appear on TV, no matter what the reason," the statement said. "No images of women should appear in Saudi newspapers and magazines." Saudi Arabia was founded on an alliance with the conservative Wahhabi strain of Islam that sees the mixing of sexes as anathema and believes the playing of music violates religious values. The former information minister, Iyad Madani, earned the ire of hardliners several years ago by allowing music in government-run TV and female journalists to interview men, despite the country's strict gender-segregation rules. Women also appear on Saudi television with their faces showing, though most in public totally cover themselves. Newspapers publish pictures of Saudi women, but almost always with their heads covered, while pictures of Western entertainers are shown but bare arms and cleavage are painted over. The clerics include several professors from the ultra-conservative Imam University, Islamic research scholars, a judge in a court in the resort of Taif and some government employees. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, in town for meetings with Saudi officials, told a news conference that during lunch he sat between a female Saudi surgeon and a female journalist. He said while one woman is allowed to perform surgery and another is allowed to teach, neither is permitted to drive. "I find that bizarre," he said. |
|
THE GREAT REFUGEE SCAM
Posted by Steven, Shamrak, March 22, 2009. |
|
This was written by Shmuel Katz. |
|
The Great Refugee Scam by Shmuel Katz. The story of the Arabs who left the coastal areas of Palestine in the spring of 1948 encapsulates one of the great international frauds of the 20th century. The Arabs are the only declared "refugees" who became refugees by the initiative of their own leaders. The concoction of the monstrous charge that it was the Jews who had driven out the Arabs of Palestine was a strategic decision made by the leaders of the Arab League months after the Arabs' flight. The Arab 'refugees' were not driven out by anyone. The vast majority left at the order or exhortation of their leaders — always with the same reassurance — that it would help the Arab states in the war they were about to launch to destroy the State of Israel. For example: The prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Said, thundered: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down." The total number of Arabs who evacuated, even according to the British Mandate's statistics, could not have been more than 420,000. This figure conforms roughly also to the figure published from Arab sources, and by the UN. It was in the immediate aftermath of the war that the refugee scam was developed into an international operation. As soon as the UN Disaster Relief Organization started providing food, shelter, clothing and medical attention to the Arabs who had fled Palestine, a mass of needy Arabs descended on the camps from all over the Arab states. The organization had no machinery for identification; so the arrivals simply signed the register as refugees and received the free aid. Already in December 1948, the director of the Relief Organization, Sir Rafael Cilento, reported he was feeding 750,000 "refugees." By July 1949 the UN reported a round million. The Red Cross International Committee joined the party. It pressed for the recognition of any destitute Arab in Palestine as a refugee. Thus about 100,000 were added to the list. To add a touch of mordant humour, the Red Cross authority wrote about the additional people that: "It would be senseless to force them to abandon their homes to be able to get food as refugees." So these people stayed at home, received their free services there, and were added to the rolls of the refugees. (Please, do not give your financial support to this deeply anti-Semitic and anti-Israel organization!) Thus — and by other more expectable means of humanistic falsification we have, in the third generation, a large amorphous mass of Arabs, all of them comfortably lumped together in official UN lists as Arab refugees, described as "victims of Israeli aggression" and demanding the right of "return." NOTE: We apologise for technical problems that occurred last week due to the move to a new server and mailing system. A major terrorist car bombing was averted at a Haifa mall on Saturday night when one of several explosive devices hidden in a parked vehicle malfunctioned. The sappers found a partially exploded bomb in the trunk of a car, which was parked outside the shopping center. A further search of the vehicle uncovered several more unexploded bombs. Food for Thought by Steven Shamrak I respect the determination of our Arab enemies to destroy Israel as a part of their grand plan toward creation of the world Caliphate. I despise anti-Semitic gentiles, of any religious and political persuasion, who support their own arch Muslim enemies against Israel. I pity the disturbed minds of self-hating Jews who have joined them. The Truth is Out Again, but No one Cares! Senior Fatah official Mahmoud Dahlan has called on Hamas not to recognize Israel, and says his own Fatah organization does not recognize Israel either: "This is a big deception. For the one thousandth time, I want to reaffirm that we are not asking Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. Rather, we are asking Hamas not to do so, because Fatah never recognized Israel's right to exist." The Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) recognized Israel's existence, Dahlan said, but the PLO's decision did not obligate Fatah to recognize Israel. The statements were made in an interview with the Palestinian Authority's official television station. (Every one knows about it, but the deceptive game of the Peace process must go on, mustn't it? The enemies of Israel even do not bother to pretend! Why is Israel still participating in this self-destructive game?) Nothing has Changed in 'Good Old Europe'. According to a recent study in Germany on 15 year olds, one in 20 people is affiliated with a neo-Nazi movement. One young person in ten has objects with swastikas. (This is yet more proof that Israel and Jews must start to think about their self-interest first. We will never be able to please our oppressors and haters! They do not care about 'public opinion', so why should we?) The Deal Hamas has never Intended to Make! Hamas spokesman Iman Tehe said on Tuesday that the reason the prisoner exchange deal for kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit fell through is because Israel agreed to release more than 320 ('only') of the 450 terrorists requested by Hamas. He also said that Israel has to allow all the terrorists to remain in Gaza or Judea and Samaria (so they will be able to kill more Jews) and that the group will not allow them to be deported. (Sadly, the negotiation is a smoke-screen and another form of terrorism — emotional! That is why Hamas has been continuously changing its position.) Quote of the Week: "Traditional anti-Semitism is the discrimination against, denial of or assault upon the rights of Jews to live as equal members of whatever host society they inhabit. The new anti-Semitism involves the discrimination against the right of the Jewish people to live as an equal member of the family of nations." — Irwin Cotler, MP for Mount Royal and former minister of justice and attorney-general of Canada. <Creating and Resettling Refugees, but NOT fake Palestinians! According to figures issued by the US defence department, 4260 US soldiers have been killed in Iraq since the beginning of the intervention there in March 2003 and 591 US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan since in October 2001. (Hundreds of thousand Iraqis have been killed during this war. Over 4 million refugees have fled Iraq and many more have been internally displaced during the legally questionable war in Iraq. Nobody cares! Over 4 million refugees have been created during recent years in each of Darfur, Sudan and Uganda (over 12 million in total). Only Israel is not allowed to get rid of less than 4 million members of a hostile population from the Jewish land, in order to establish internal peace in the country!) Crocodile Tears. Kadima MK Ronit Tirosh said that the 2005 Disengagement from Gaza proves that retreating from territory is a mistake and encourages terrorism: "Giving away territories does not bring peace — in fact to the contrary, it is interpreted by the Arabs as a sign of weakness." "In any case, any withdrawal from the Golan should be preceded by a national vote." (It was an obvious and predictable 'mistake', but Kadima did it anyway. But, even now they are still pushing for 'withdrawal' from the Golan. Jewish self-haters will never learn!) Italian newspaper La-Republica published on Wednesday an interview with Syrian President Bashar Assad in which he said that Olmert had agreed to retreat from the Golan in exchange for (the illusion of) peace with Syria. What Peace? The Egyptian ambassador in Israel, Yasser Rida, is threatening not to attend the ceremonies marking the 30 years after the signing of the Israeli-Egyptian peace accords in 1979 next Wednesday in Jerusalem. (Just a piece of paper that is worth nothing!) French did it and British Also did it! The Supreme Court gave a green light for the destruction of the house of tractor terrorist Husam Dwayat in Eastern Jerusalem. He killed three people and injured dozens more when he went on a rampage in Jerusalem during July, 2008. (How many times must the same issue be discussed? The destruction of terrorists' homes must be always swift and decisive! Otherwise no one learns the lesson.) Lieberman on Hypocrisy and Racism!
Lieberman: The dividing line for Yisrael Beytenu is who supports terror and who fights terror. We cannot accept that there are people in Israel that even during even the war openly supported Hamas. First of all, to outlaw these parties and these political leaders . When I suggested the exact procedure like in the United States for the pledge, everybody here said, "You're a racist, you're a fascist." What is reason for so longstanding a conflict? Many people say it's about occupation, settlements, settlers, etc. I think that's a misunderstanding. Before 1967, it was the same. And what was before 1948? It was the same. We respect every American administration, every American president. We'll respect any choice the American people. We expect you respect any choice of the people of Israel. The problem is hypocrisy. Every time people from the United States start to condemn Israel's violations of human rights, I'm still waiting for a congressional hearing on human rights in Saudi Arabia. After that, I'll be ready to hear about human rights in Israel, not before. (While investigating Saudi Arabia, focus must be made on modern slavery, women and religious rights, and support of terrorism. But, strangely and predictably, most of the international human right organizations, as well as governments, are mute about Saudi Arabia's 'behaviour'!) 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 |
|
PICKING ON THE INNOCENT?; SENSE & NONSENSE ABOUT SANCTIONS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, March 22, 2009. |
|
U.S. AID TO JORDAN US subsidy of Jordan has passed $5.6 billion. More has been authorized. It is justified as "...founded upon a strong partnership linking the Jordanian and American peoples..." (IMRA, 2/25.) Bad enough that the US still gives away billions to the undeserving. Worse that it does so under the illusion that the American people, basically decent, have a partnership with the people of Jordan, basically bigoted, especially hating the US, as a recent poll confirmed. If Jordan held free elections, anti-American Islamists probably would win. They do control the kingdom's professional organizations. PICKING ON THE INNOCENT? Iran is roiling the Gulf states. It threatens their territory but simultaneously offers friendship. It threatens to attack them, if the US attacks its nuclear plants. The Gulf states protest their innocence, pointing out that they don't approve of the US dealing with Iran by force (IMRA, 2/25). Maybe they don't approve of it, but some of them have let the US have bases on their soil. From those bases, might not the attack come? In any case, if the US attacks Iran, one could expect Iran to attack those bases, whether used against Iran or not, for they belong to the US. SAUDI-SYRIA TIES ON THE MEND That's what is reported (IMRA, 2/25). The Arabs and Iran alternate between tiffs and reconciliation. The West should not consider either status permanent. Don't count on them as allies. BLOW TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN ISRAEL The rulers of Israel let the Left and Arabs say anything inflammatory and false, but prosecute right-wing Jews who criticize the Arabs truthfully. A Jew was convicted for having a "racist" bumper sticker: "Where there are no Arabs, there is no terror." It's true. [In the US, truth is a defense against libel.] Arabs and leftists are not prosecuted for: (1) Chanting "Death to the Jews"; (2) Waving Hamas and PLO flags on campus; (3) Calling for annihilation of Israel; (4) Denying the Holocaust; and (5) Cheering terrorist murders of Jewish children (IMRA, 2/25). In the US, the test is whether the speech presents a clear and present danger. The bumper sticker and Holocaust denial do not. Calling for murder, however can and often does excite the excitable Muslim Arabs to act. ANOTHER POSSIBILITY WITH LIKUD REGIME Pundits have speculated that if Netanyahu forms a right-wing government, about a third of Kadima MKs would bolt their party and join the government. Here's another possibility. Suppose he forms a leftist government with Kadima and Labor. Then he adopts some of their most anti-nationalist policies. About a third of his MKS might bolt their party out of conscience. That is, if they are as devotedly right wing as alleged. AM I TOO POLEMICAL OR UNCLEAR? Reviewing my articles, I noticed they have become more polemical. Are they too strident for your taste? Usually I expect most of you to be regulars, who are familiar with the basics of the subject. Should I back up more and explain more? You may ask to do so for specific articles. With your request, please send me the paragraphs in doubt. SENSE & NONSENSE ABOUT SANCTIONS The US went to war in Iraq, because international sanctions against Saddam were weak and slipping off. Some Western countries tried to get UNO sanctions imposed on Sudan, but couldn't get the resolution past Sudan's customers, allies, and sympathizers. Sanctions rarely work. Nevertheless, we still hear talk about sanctions. Israel's Defense Min. Barak suggested them against Iran, with the caveat that they be very firm, widely imposed, and judged soon, while there still is time. Calling for a brief period for testing the sanctions is a piece of sanity in an otherwise unrealistic proposal. Russia, China, the Muslims states, and countries that think that they must maintain solidarity with "developing" nations, oppose sanctions. Why then do people call for sanctions? It puts off the difficult decision to raid Iran's nuclear facilities. One difficulty with raiding those facilities is the habit of waiting for UNO approval. UNO dithering hinders international security. Another difficulty is that after Iran, will we have to raid N. Korean and Pakistan? How much of that can we do? Every few years, raid again what those countries rebuild? What if the raided countries fire nuclear missiles? Will we have touched of the nuclear war we don't want? Will we have set a precedent for countries to raid us? Yet how can we avoid raiding states with insane or fatalistic leaders, such as N. Korea and Iran, Resp.? My wisdom is not adequate for this problem. Help! US envoy Mitchell and associates are demanding that Israel, even under a new regime, elected to provide better security, demolish Israeli outposts in Judea-Samaria. Mitchell says that Olmert promised that demolition to Pres. Bush. He claims that this promise binds Olmert's successors. How does a treasonous "promise" really extorted and not endorsed by treaty, bind a government? Doesn't the US does consider democratic Israeli elections binding? [The US does not consider formal and informal agreements with Israel binding, having broken several key ones of those.] The State Dept. and its Israeli collaborators, the Olmert regime, are striving to get Fatah into a unity government with Hamas. Then they could pretend that the huge increase in subsidy for the Arabs, that they thinks taxpayers can afford, would not be going to Hamas. Of course, it would be. If Israel, however, refused to cooperate with that regime, the US would complain about Israel. It was the Olmert regime that left Hamas in power, then negotiated indirectly with it, thereby paving the way for others to do it directly. Israel failed to hold the Gaza people responsible for having elected and approved of the Hamas terrorist regime. Olmert falsely distinguished between Hamas and the population, which supported Hamas. Although the people there were not innocent civilians, the Olmert regime assumed responsibility for their welfare, pushing relief supplies through. Hence now the US can demand that Israel end its blockade altogether. In anticipation of a coalition regime, Abbas released the few terrorists that its US-trained forces had arrested. Abbas demands that such forces take over patrolling more P.A. cities. That would reduce Israel's counter-terrorism. Eventually, Hamas would oust Fatah and turn Judea-Samaria into another rocket-firing base, reaching the rest of Israel's cities. The Olmert regime also made a false distinction between Fatah, as if moderate, and Hamas. That overlooked Abbas' refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state, his continuing support for terrorism, and his political war against Israel. If Abbas is legitimate, then so is terrorism. Then so is Hamas. Accordingly, Europeans and other leftists propose negotiations with Hamas. "Based on all that, "...the Obama administration feels comfortable escalating its demands that Israel give land, security powers and money to Fatah, even as it unifies its forces with Hamas and so expands Hamas's power from Gaza to Judea and Samaria." Netanyahu will have his work cut out, explaining that the prevailing concepts there and in the US are mistaken. He will have to overturn the false terms, "humanitarian," "peace process," and "moderates." (Caroline Glick, IMRA, 2/28.) He will have to stand up to the US and show it acts out of misunderstanding. Is he up to that task, this time? He wasn't, before. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com |
|
HAMAS'S FREE LUNCH
Posted by Barbara Sommer, March 22, 2009. |
|
This was written by Caroline Glick and it appeared March 19, 2009 in the Jerusalem Post |
|
Today Hamas stands on the cusp of international acceptance. It may take a week or a month or a year, but today Hamas stands where Fatah and the PLO stood in the late 1980s. The genocidal jihadist terror group is but a step away from an invitation to the Oval Office. Two events in the past week show this to be the case. First, last Saturday, The Boston Globe reported that Paul Volcker, who serves as President Barack Obama's economic recovery adviser, and several former senior US officials have written a letter to Obama calling for the US to recognize Hamas. As one of the signatories, Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser under president George H.W. Bush, explained, "I see no reason not to talk to Hamas." Scowcroft further argued, "The main gist is that you need to push hard on the Palestinian peace process. Don't move it to end of your agenda and say you have too much to do. And the US needs to have a position, not just hold their coats while they sit down." Congressional sources claim that Obama has selected Scowcroft to replace Chas Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Council. The second reason that it is becoming apparent that the Obama administration is poised to recognize Hamas is that on Thursday, Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman held talks at the State Department with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and enjoined the administration to support the reestablishment of a Hamas-Fatah unity government to control and reunify the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and Judea and Samaria. This is significant because it is becoming apparent that top administration officials only meet with people who tell them what they want to hear. Case in point is IDF Chief of General Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi's trip this week to Washington. Ashkenazi went to the US to brief top administration officials on Iran's progress toward a nuclear bomb. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Ashkenazi's counterpart, Adm. Michael Mullen, both managed to be out of town. Defense Ministry sources say that Ashkenazi only met with National Security Adviser James Jones, who reportedly wished to speak exclusively about the Palestinians, and with Clinton's Iran adviser Dennis Ross, whose role in shaping US policy toward Iran remains unclear. Hamas, for its part, prefers the unconditional recognition recommended by Scowcroft and Volcker and their colleagues, (who include unofficial Obama advisers Zbigniew Brzezinski and Lee Hamilton), over the option of forming a government with Fatah. After all, why should Hamas agree to share power with Fatah to gain international acceptance if Washington power brokers close to the administration endorse unconditional recognition of the terror group? Scowcroft's statement that recognition of Hamas is necessary because "you need to push hard on the Palestinian peace process" is indicative of how Obama's milieu views the peace process. For them, pushing hard on the peace process is more important than determining or even caring if the Palestinians involved in the said process are genocidal terror groups or not, or determining or even caring whether the said peace process has any chance whatsoever of leading to peace. AND THE Obama view is not particularly new. After Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian elections, in the interest of the peace process, the US and the EU placed certain conditions on Hamas which they claimed it would have to meet before the West would recognize it. The US and Europe said they would recognize Hamas if it announced that it forswore terror, accepted Israel's right to exist, and committed itself to carrying out previous agreements signed between the PLO and Israel. The Americans and the Europeans undoubtedly viewed these conditions as a low bar to cross. After all, the PLO crossed it. The West's conditions were given with a wink and a nod. Everyone understood that the only thing it wanted was for Hamas to say the magic words. They didn't have to be true. If Khaled Mashaal and Ismail Haniyeh would just tell the US and Europe what they wanted to hear, all would be forgiven. Hamas — like the PLO before it — would be removed from the US and European terror lists. Billions would pour into the bank accounts of Hamas leaders in Gaza and Damascus. The CIA might even agree to train its terror forces. It is obvious that all that the West wanted was for Hamas to lie to it, because that is all it ever required from the PLO. After Yasser Arafat said the magic words, the Americans and the Europeans were only too happy to ignore the fact that he was lying. When immediately after signing the initial peace accord with Israel on the White House lawn on September 13, 1993, Arafat flew to South Africa and gave a speech calling for jihad against Israel, no one cared. When Arafat destroyed the free press in Judea, Samaria and Gaza and transformed the Palestinian media into propaganda organs calling for the eradication of Israel and the Jewish people, the world yawned. When he launched his terror war against Israel and his US-trained forces began plotting and carrying out bombings of Israeli civilians, the US announced its chief goal in the Middle East was to establish a Palestinian state. And when Arafat's successor, Mahmoud Abbas, announced that Fatah didn't accept Israel's right to exist and considered terrorism against Israel legitimate, he was declared the indispensable and sole legitimate Palestinian leader. Indeed, when his US-trained forces surrendered to Hamas in Gaza without a fight, the US showered an additional $80 million on Fatah forces. ON TUESDAY, Fatah strongman and the West's favorite son of Palestine Muhammad Dahlan tried to explain the facts of life to Hamas. In an interview on PA television, Dahlan became the first senior Fatah official to openly admit that Fatah has never accepted Israel's right to exist. Dahlan denied reports that in the negotiations toward a Hamas-Fatah government, Fatah representatives are pressuring Hamas to recognize Israel. In his words, "I want to say in my own name and in the name of all my fellow members of the Fatah movement, we are not asking Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist. Rather, we are asking Hamas not to do so because Fatah never recognized Israel's right to exist." Dahlan went on to explain how the fiction worked. Arafat was the head of the PLO but also the head of Fatah. While as chairman of the PLO he recognized Israel and pledged to end terrorism and live at peace with the Jewish state, as head of Fatah he continued his war against Israel. Dahlan even bragged that to date, Fatah has killed 10 times more Palestinians suspected of cooperating with Israel's counterterror operations (the same operations the PLO committed to assisting) than Hamas has. Dahlan explained that all Hamas needs to do is to follow in Fatah's footsteps. It should say that the PA government accepts the West's terms, but in the meantime, those terms will remain inapplicable to Hamas as a "resistance group." In that way, Dahlan explained, Hamas will be able to receive all the West's billions in financial assistance. As he put it, "Do you imagine that Gaza's reconstruction is possible under the shadow of this bickering between us and the international community? [Gaza reconstruction] can only be dealt with by a government... that is acceptable to the international community so that we can... benefit from the international community." Not surprisingly, Dahlan's statement went almost completely unnoted. Only The Jerusalem Post and one or two other Jewish publications and a few anti-jihadist blogs made note of it. The US, European and pro-peace process Hebrew media all ignored it. No government spokesman anywhere in the world commented on it. Unfortunately, though, for the likes of Dahlan and his admirers in the West, Hamas isn't interested in joining Fatah's fiction. It refuses to say those magic words. So now the West looks for ways to lower its bar still further. THE WEST'S nonresponse to Dahlan's statements, like its growing eagerness to treat with Hamas despite Hamas's unabashed refusal to even lie about its intentions, tells us something important about what the West is actually doing when it says that its paramount interest is to advance the so-called peace process. It tells us the same thing that the West's courtship of Damascus and Teheran tells us about what the West means when it speaks of peace processes. Syrian President Bashar Assad this week told Italy's La Repubblica newspaper that he and outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert were just a stone's throw away from a peace deal last year. Last week Assad participated in what was supposed to be an anti-Iranian conference in Saudi Arabia. Both of Assad's gestures were meant to make the Americans feel comfortable as they renew their diplomatic relations with Syria, cast aside their backing for the UN tribunal set up to investigate Syria's assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, begin pressuring Israel to surrender the Golan Heights, and recognize Hamas. And just as Arafat understood that after he said the magic words the West would ignore his bad behavior, so Assad knew that Washington and Paris would pay no attention when upon returning from Riyadh he announced that Syria's relations with Iran will never be weakened. He knew they will never question his false account of his indirect negotiations with Israel. He and Olmert couldn't have been a stone's throw away from a peace accord, because Assad refused to have any direct contact with Israel. If Damascus is the state equivalent of the PLO, then Teheran is the state equivalent of Hamas. Today, as the mullahs sprint toward the nuclear finish line, the Obama administration is pretending that the jury is still out on whether or not the Islamic republic wants a nuclear arsenal. As with Hamas, so with Teheran, the Americans have dropped even the pretense of requiring a change in Iran's rhetorical positions as a precondition for diplomatic recognition. The US now pursues its diplomatic reconciliation with Teheran with the sure knowledge that this peace process will lead to Iran's emergence as a nuclear power. So the question is, if the American and European pursuits of peace with Fatah, Hamas, Syria and Iran have not caused them to change their behavior one iota, what are the Western powers talking about when they say that it is imperative to push the peace process or engage the Syrians and the Iranians? After all, Western leaders must know that these processes are complete farces. Sadly, the answer is clear. Western leaders are not pursuing peace in these processes. They are pursuing appeasement. They call this appeasement process a peace process for two reasons. First, they know their countrymen don't like the sound of appeasement. And second, by claiming to be championing the noble goal of peace in our time, they feel free to attack anyone who points out the folly of their actions as a warmongering member of the Israel Lobby. Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: CLOSE THE BARN DOOR
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 22, 2009. |
|
In this case it's not escaping horses we're concerned about, but positions of the US government that have to be discouraged before the damage is done. I have two matters in mind: The first is US participation in Durban 2. To review: The US, under the administration of President Obama, reversed prior Bush policy and decided to send a delegation to participate in the planning committee, operating in Geneva, to construct a document that would serve as a basis for Durban 2. When it was recognized that the planning was going in a direction decidedly and overtly hostile to Israel, the US delegation pulled out. But that pullout wasn't absolute: room was left for participating again if improvements were made in the draft document. One proviso had to do with a clean-up of the language but another proviso dealt with the document not re-affirming in toto the Durban Declaration from 2001. What happened was that additional anti-Israel language had been added to the document and was then withdrawn. This made it look as if major concessions had been made and the tone had changed. But the very anti-Semitic and anti-Israel Durban 1 Declaration is still being re-affirmed in toto. Anne Bayefsky referred to this, by its legal terminology, as "incorporation by reference." ~~~~~~~~~~ This brings us to the present. On Friday, France's Ambassador for Human Rights Francois Zimeray told The Jerusalem Post that the changes were welcomed by the EU, although a decision had not yet been made as to whether France specifically and the EU more broadly would participate in Durban 2. The US State Department, on the other hand, has indicated that the changes have been insufficient and Acting Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs James Warlick said that, "There's certainly been no decision for us to rejoin the negotiating process on the basis of this document." What we want to do is keep it this way. Secretary of State Clinton and President Obama need to hear this. Tell them that there is strong approval for the pullout from the preparatory committee, and that there is great opposition to US participation in the planning of the document for the conference or in the conference itself, as the entire process is still inherently unfair and grossly anti-Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~ Then there is the issue of whether Hamas will be held to former conditions for acceptance: renunciation of terrorism, acceptance of Israel's right to exist, and commitment to agreements previously made between the PLO and Israel. At present there is an attempt by Egypt to get the US to reduce its terms, and permit Hamas to simply say it "respects" previous agreements. This attempt to water down the terms is both outrageous and worrisome. Egypt's goal is to establish a unity government so that there will be one administrative authority for overseeing re-construction in Gaza. Following this there would be attempts to push Israel to negotiate with the new unity government, even if it was not on board with full recognition of Israel and commitment to prior agreements. Both Obama and Clinton need to know that there is fierce opposition to watering down the requirements for accepting Hamas. It would be counterproductive, as the unity government that would be formed would still promote terrorism and resist recognition of Israel, but it would be more broadly accepted internationally. ~~~~~~~~~~ And so, my friends, I ask you please to contact Obama and Clinton, with messages regarding the two issues above. Offer praise for decisions that have been made that are proper, and demand that the government stand strong now. Tell them that it's excellent that the US pulled out of Durban planning and demand that there be no US participation in Durban. And demand that the terms for accepting Hamas as part of a unity government not be weakened. Simple messages are good. Phone calls and faxes are most effective. President Barack Obama
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
~~~~~~~~~~ The terrorist attack averted in Haifa last night would have been of huge proportions. The amount of explosives — some 90 to 100 kilograms — found in a stolen car parked adjacent to the Lev HaMifratz shopping mall would have generated a disaster, as it would have set up a chain reaction causing the fuel tanks in other cars in the lot to explode. The car, which is said to have been registered to a Jewish woman living in Jerusalem who was not involved, was parked in the exterior lot of the mall. And, it turns out, there was security only for the internal parking area, not for this particular parking lot. It is felt that the planning for this attack originated in Judea-Samaria. An unknown group called "Free Men of Galilee" claimed responsibility for the attack; there is currently speculation as to whether this group actually exists or is a front for another group. While there was considerable planning put in place for the attack, and the amount of explosives secured was large, because of the way in which the explosive partially misfired, it is suspected that novices executed the set-up. For which we can thank Heaven. A major investigation is underway, with little revealed to the press; there is determination to find those behind this effort. A high alert has been put in effect for the northern part of the country. ~~~~~~~~~~ Tuesday is the day set for a Labor convention to vote on the issue of whether to join the Likud-run coalition. (Yes, it's being held in less than the three weeks that were indicated.) The majority of the Labor faction is opposed to joining, but how the Central Committee votes remains to be seen. There were tense words today between Barak and Olmert, who leveled criticism at the idea of joining a unity government with Likud. In the meantime, Barak has appointed a negotiating committee to start talking to Likud in case the decision of his party is positive. He has pledged to abide by the vote of the committee and not break away from the party or split the party. Likud, for its part, was negotiating coalition deals with Shas and UTJ today, with the Shas deal said to be on the verge of completion. ~~~~~~~~~~ It was announced today that Netanyahu was appointing attorney Zvi Hauser, formerly a PR adviser, to the office of cabinet secretary. ~~~~~~~~~~ Again we're in the realm of rumors and accusations. But, in a nutshell, it's being said in various quarters that the negotiations for Shalit are not over. Certainly, with Netanyahu seeking additional time to form his government, Olmert still has a window for acting — if acting is possible. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
NAZI MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS ON JEWISH CHILDREN
Posted by Rock Peters, March 22, 2009. |
|
The Jewish "Mona Lisa" in a Nazi Death Camp This is the Holocaust picture that horrifies and haunts me the most. 
Look at the innocence and beauty of these little Jewish children. The one girl's face (on the far left) is absolutely angelic. She has been starved, maimed and tortured by the Nazis. She is humiliated, stripped and naked but despite her captivity and Hellish surroundings she sits like royalty. In her nakedness, she remains majestically clothed with startling poise, undisturbed refinement and profound elegance. It's a though she is not in a death camp but is a little princess in a French salon waiting with agitation to be served. She refuses to give up her serenity and composure and miraculously ....she somehow manages to retain her untouchable human dignity. She is resistant. I see quiet defiance in her eyes. She knows that she is far, far above her Nazi tormentors. She looks down upon the savage Aryan barbarians with quiet but enormous indignation and unmolested supremacy over the, "Master Race." Her silence speaks volumes. "I am above you and I am better than you!" she says in superior moral outrage. She almost seems impatient with their primitive Nazi brutality and she curtly asks her ruthlessly cruel captors, "Are you through yet?" This little girl's picture is the, "Mona Lisa" of the Holocaust. It is overwhelmingly apparent that she has not, and will not surrender. She is a prisoner, but still free. This Jewish child is Victorious over Evil and she says to the Nazis triumphantly, "You can starve me, you can torture my little girl's frame with your sadistic Nazi medical experiments, you can destroy and annihilate my tiny female body — but you Nordic savages CAN NOT and WILL NOT ever touch my God given human soul. Note: I personally will never be able to comprehend or understand how the Holocaust could have happened and it haunts and plagues me that it did. In the name of the, "God of Israel" I am determined and swear, and we should we all be solemnly pledged — that it will never happen again! No Second Jewish Holocaust! Yours in Liberty,
Rock Peters is author, songwriter, poet and patriot. email him at
rockpeters@aol.com and visit his web site: WWW.GODSAVEUSA.COM
|
|
HEY KRISTOF...YOU'RE LATE!
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, March 22, 2009. |
|
While The New York Times' Nicholas Kristof is no stranger to these positions throughout the year, he frequently comes out with his gems of Middle East wisdom right around Bike Week here in Daytona Beach, Florida, when tens of thousands of Harley enthusiasts arrive to also spread their hot air exhaust around town. This year Nick was a few weeks late Like others of his ilk — Thomas Friedman (better of late), David Ignatius, Richard Cohen, just to name a few, who are also obsessed with creating a 22nd Arab state (second, not first, Arab one within the original April 25, 1920 borders of the Mandate of Palestine before the Brits gave some 80% away to Arab nationalism creating Transjordan in 1922) — Kristof loves to lecture Israel, practically invisible on a map of the world, about the need to bare the necks of its kids so that Arabs, who conquered over six million square miles of territory from mostly non-Arab peoples in the name of their nation, can have that additional state as well. Kristof's latest jewel published in the Daytona Beach News-Journal on March 20, 2009, "Like Minds Cluster When Grazing >From The Daily Me," compared academics Juan Cole and Daniel Pipes as sources of information regarding the Middle East. Kristof prefers Juan Cole...shocking (not)! I have never met Cole, but I had — unfortunately — studied under a number of his academic clones in my own graduate school days. While also — but a bit more subtly than President Obama's dear friend, Rashid Khalidi, Juan Cole, et al — promoting the themes of nasty Zionists and the need to create Arab state # 22, Carter Findley never mentioned the plight of some thirty-five million Kurds who remain stateless to date. They had been gassed and slaughtered by Arabs repeatedly and had their one best chance at statehood aborted by a collusion of British petroleum politics and Arab nationalism after World War. Indeed, the only time Findley ever mentioned Kurds in his doctoral seminar was when he mocked their plight in Turkey. In Juan Cole's Informed Comment blog of February 11, 2009, he proclaimed Israel's new incoming government as being prone to racism, apartheid, and so forth. Nothing new...his positions from the get-go. That has been how one gets ahead in Middle Eastern Studies for quite some time now. Israel is routinely placed under the high power lens of moral scrutiny, while a blind eye is turned to literally millions of victims of Arab massacres, gassings, genocide, enslavement, dhimmitude, subjugation, and so forth. And woe unto the student who dares to question such duplicity. Been there, done that...unfortunately. Turn the clock back several decades again as we return to Findley's doctoral seminars. I'll never forget one Greek Orthodox woman who I'm sure has a great position at some university today...can't think of her name, but remember her well. Unlike myself, she wasn't denied a Ph. D. dissertation advisor to finish her doctoral work. Geez...I wonder why? Her idol was Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who spent World War II in Berlin at Hitler's side and organized a division of Muslim Nazis, 'the Hanzar.' He also played a first-hand role in instigating the genocide of Europe's Jews, Serbs and Gypsies. When she presented her research on the Mufti at our seminar, all the above was either white-washed or ignored altogether. Findley, of course — her mentor and featured guest at her wedding — sat through it all approvingly. Now, contrast this with my own research about Ze'ev Vladimir Jabotinsky...the man most responsible in the early Mandate era for Jewish defense against Arab slaughter. Findley had no problem emphasizing his alleged "fascist connections" and so forth. Unlike too many of his pipe-dreaming Zionist opponents on the Left, Jabotinsky was not delusional about what the Arabs' true intentions were regarding the resurrection of the Jew of the Nations — regardless of its size. A reading of his Appetite Versus Starvation speech in the early 20th century reveals a man truly concerned about justice for Arab and Jew alike. If the so-called Arab World had produced such "fascists," the Arab-Israeli conflict would have been resolved long ago. But none of this makes a difference to the Juan Coles...Kristof's sources of enlightenment. Jabotinsky's heirs are now set to take office in Israel. I hope they do justice to his memory. So, the Rashid Khalidis, Juan Coles, Nicholas Kristofs, and so forth now bemoan the end of the so-called peace (of the grave) process because at least most Israeli Jews have finally woken up to the reality that the end game for both the West's alleged Fatah good cops of Abbas and the bad cops of Hamas is the same regarding Israel. The façade of a difference is largely about who will gain access to the billions of dollars in foreign aid that is and will be pouring in. Arafat's stashed $$$ millions or more are legendary. Hamas is simply more honest. Daniel Pipes has long approached the Middle East with a far more realistic and objective appraisal of the facts at hand. He has been virtually prophetic regarding such things as 9/11, militant Islam, and so forth. On the other hand, the Juan Coles of the Ivory Tower have blamed solely Israel and America as the culprits. The fact that the vast majority of conflicts today, for example, involves militant Islam and/or real Arab racism is of no concern to them. What does the fight in the Philippines have to do with Israel?...Thailand?... Kashmir?...the Balkans? What do the murder and subjugation of Egyptian Copts, North African Berbers, Assyrians, those Kurds mentioned above, or Arab genocide in black Africa's Sudan have to do with Israel? The truth is that Israel — one half of whose Jews who are from refugee families from the "Arab World" where they were known as killers of prophets and kilab yahud, Jew dogs — is on the front lines of the age-old war the Arabs and Arabized have continuously waged for over thirteen centuries now, the conflct of the Dar ul-Islam versus the Dar al-Harb. Here's a few examples of the real problem, the one largely Arab petro-dollar sponsored, Arab, and hypocritical Lefty professors like Cole won't touch with a ten-foot pole... The Sudan's ex-president, Gaafar Muhammad al-Nimeiry, stated during the earlier slaughter of nearly a million blacks (over a million more since): The Sudan is the basis of the Arab thrust into... black Africa, the Arab civilizing mission ("Arabism and Pan-Arabism in Sudanese Politics," Journal of Modern African Studies, Vol. 11, no. 2, 1973, pp. 177-78). While Kristof's Juan Cole mentors are passionate about such things as Rudyard Kipling's late 19th-century poem, "The White Man's Burden," supposedly typifying continued Western colonialist and imperialist attitudes towards the Third World, why are such Arab racist attitudes and mindset ignored? Is it that the Arab Man's Burden is kosher but the White Man's isn't ? Recall, again, Cole's recent blog worries about alleged Israeli "racism." Consider also this quote from the Syrian Arab Constitution...something, I'm sure, Juan Cole's students never heard a peep about... The Arab fatherland belongs to the Arabs. They alone have the right to direct its destinies.... The Arab fatherland is that part of the globe inhabited by the Arab nation that stretches from the Taurus Mountains, the Pacht-i-Kouh Mountains, the Gulf of Basra, the Arab Ocean, the Ethiopian Mountains, the Sahara, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Mediterranean Sea. Can't tell for sure — are any Eskimos included in this Arab plan of conquest? The Juan Cole-type "scholarly" reaction: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil...After all, these are Arabs we're talking about — not Jews. And besides, it's all just made up fascist Zionist propaganda anyway... As I like to remind folks and as exemplified above, Arabs have habitually referred to most of the region as purely Arab patrimony — the Arab-Israeli, Arab-Kurd, Arab-black African, Arab-Berber, and other such conflicts in a nutshell. So, summing it up, here's a rule of thumb for those truly interested in a realistic and objective analysis of what's really going on over there... When it comes to sources such as Juan Cole and Daniel Pipes, whatever Kristof tells you, choose the opposite. Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php |
|
STRATEGY NEEDED TO PRESERVE IMPORTANT DURBAN 2 SUCCESSES
Posted by Gerald Steinberg, March 22, 2009. |
|
With only one month to go before the opening of the UN's very controversial Durban Review Conference, the battle over the terms of the final declaration to be adopted by the participating governments has intensified. Faced with a growing number of countries which have declared that they would not participate in another anti-Semitic and anti-democratic conference, the organizers suddenly changed the text. The hate language, attacks on Israel, and attempts to restrict free speech and give Islam a preferred status — all using the façade of human rights — were removed. For the governments that had already declared that they would not go to this conference, scheduled for April 21 in Geneva, and for others considering a similar move, this poses a policy dilemma. Canada (the first to denounce the anti-Semitism of the Durban process), Israel, the US, and most recently, Italy confronted UN human rights officials with public embarrassment. Following Rome's lead, a number of other democratic governments — Holland, Britain, Denmark, Australia, and the Czech Republic — were also on the verge of pulling out. This would have triggered a cascade of additional dropouts, leaving the room half-empty. Now that this text has been changed, should these governments, including Israel, acknowledge this important diplomatic victory that forced a change in text — over the heads of the Libyan and Iranian officials — and agree to participate on the basis of a revissed document? Or is this a diplomatic sleight of hand — a temporary change in language used to bring an end to the revolt of the democratic delegations? This victory, while incomplete, is nevertheless substantial and almost unique — it may represent a tipping point in the wider "soft war," including anti-Israel boycotts and lawfare cases that abuse human rights as a weapon. The efforts of Iran, Libya, Syria and Egypt to extend the Durban strategy of demonization have been repudiated within the UN — the same body that has led this process since the 2001 original Durban conference. In parallel, the powerful NGOs, such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and their Palestinian allies, have also lost prestige and perhaps some influence in this battle. Not only have their campaigns failed to force Canada, the US, and Italy to change their policies, but the vitriolic NGO Forum from the 2001 Durban conference will not be repeated. If these successes can be "locked in," to insure that the text and frameworks will not be changed at the last minute, this would be a strategic success.
HOWEVER, THE CASE against re-engagement appears stronger. From this perspective, the entire Durban process and the UN human rights framework is corrupt beyond repair. In this scenario, the war led by the members of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) will resume as soon as the Obama administration and other democratic governments announce a return. When the conference begins, Libya and Iran, with the support of Egypt, Syria, Cuba, and the rest, will use their majority to restore terms like "apartheid" and Israeli "genocide." Critics, including the Israeli government, also note that the latest text, which was prepared by Russian "facilitator" Yuri Boychenko, remains problematic, particularly in adopting the final declaration from the 2001 Durban Conference. The Israeli and the American delegations withdrew from that conference over the demonizing language ("apartheid," "war crimes," etc. in the draft declaration), and the "compromise text," negotiated by Canada and the Europeans, still singled out Israel. It emphasized "the plight of the Palestinian people under foreign occupation," recognized "the inalienable right of the Palestinian people to self-determination," and promoted the claim to a "right of return." An endorsement of this discriminatory language by the 2009 Review Conference would reinforce the damage done eight years ago in Durban. While the debate on strategy will continue in the next month before the opening of the conference, the record clearly shows that the only means of defeating the OIC in this venue is through a credible threat of a mass withdrawal. A conference limited to Arab and Islamic regimes — among the worst violators of human rights in the world — would delegitimize the entire process. Without unity among the democracies on the critical issues, the OIC will succeed in creating the appearance of legitimacy, and in restoring the hate-filled sections of the declaration. Instead, leaders who are inclined to declare victory and participate in the review conference must first insure that, at the first sign of this tactic, they will all walk out together, including every member of the European Union. And if this is impossible, particularly regarding the Europeans, they should stay away. Dr. Gerald Steinberg is the Executive Director of NGO Monitor and chairs the Political Science department at Bar Ilan University. This article appeared in the Jerusalem Post
|
|
ARE THE NEW YORK TIMES AND THE WASHINGTON POST SHILLS FOR PEACE NOW?
Posted by LEL, March 22, 2009. |
|
This comes from the New English Review
|
|
The New York Times had a brace of articles by Ethan Bronner reporting from Jerusalem in Friday and Saturday's editions on the 'furor' caused by IDF soldiers' reports alleging actions against Gaza civilians during the recent Operation Cast Lead. Read here and here. The titles of the two pieces, "Soldiers' Accounts of Gaza Killings Raise Furor in Israel" and "More Allegations Surface in Israeli Accounts of Gaza War", give rise to the impression that IDF soldiers violated traditional IDF military doctrine of 'purity of arms' and savagely targeted unarmed Gazan civilians. The IDF military doctrine of purity of arms (Tohar HaNeshek in Hebrew) is clear: The soldier shall make use of his weaponry and power only for the fulfillment of the mission and solely to the extent required; he will maintain his humanity even in combat. The soldier shall not employ his weaponry and power in order to harm non-combatants or prisoners of war, and shall do all he can to avoid harming their lives, body, honor and property. This current furor was created by the alleged soldiers' accounts compiled in February by an notorious Israel reserve refusenik and Chomsky acolyte, Dani Zamir. Zamir teaches at Yitzhak Rabin pre-military preparatory course at Oranim Academic College in Kiryat Tivon. There is more afoot according to an analysis published in the Jerusalem Post by Herb Keinon, yesterday, entitled, "The crucial morality of the IDF's cause." As an Israeli friend and Zionist who lives in Europe observed: I have read all the articles and watched TV stations, both from Israel and in France. This is a Peace Now-Amnesty Leftist ideology being used to hit at Israel. What they want is to condemn Israel all around the world. Note these excerpts from the Bronner articles: Now testimony is emerging from within the ranks of soldiers and officers alleging a permissive attitude toward the killing of civilians and reckless destruction of property that is sure to inflame the domestic and international debate about the army's conduct in Gaza. On Thursday, the military's chief advocate general ordered an investigation into a soldier's account of a sniper killing a woman and her two children who walked too close to a designated no-go area by mistake, and another account of a sharpshooter who killed an elderly woman who came within 100 yards of a commandeered house. An Israeli newspaper gave a fuller account on Friday of testimonies by soldiers alleging loose rules of engagement in Israel's war in Gaza, which they said led to civilian deaths and wanton property destruction. One soldier asserted that extremist rabbis had told troops they were fighting a holy war. The soldier was quoted as saying that the rabbis had "brought in a lot of booklets and articles," adding, "their message was very clear: We are the Jewish people, we came to this land by a miracle. God brought us back to this land, and now we need to fight to expel the non-Jews who are interfering with our conquest of this holy land." The Washington Post piled on these allegations with a piece in today's edition entitled, "Israeli Soldier Says Military Rabbis Framed Gaza Mission as Religious" containing accusations from an interview with an elite Givati Brigade non com that military rabbis urged on 'ethnic cleansing'. Note the allegations drawn from a Maariv article: A soldier involved in Israel's recent military offensive in the Gaza Strip said in published reports Friday that the military's rabbinical staff distributed material characterizing the operation as a religious mission to "get rid of the gentiles who disturb us from conquering the holy land." In the second day of published accounts from soldiers critical of the conduct of the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza, the daily Maariv ran excerpts of an interview with a squad commander in Israel's Givati Brigade. He was identified only by his first name, given as Rahm. The daily quoted him as saying that the Gaza operation from the beginning had "the feeling of almost a religious mission." While military rabbis provided routine services — such as distributing books of psalms and leading prayers at the start of the operation — some religious materials veered in a political direction, he said. "The military rabbinate brought many magazines and articles with a very clear message: 'We are the Jewish people, a miracle brought us to the land of Israel, God returned us to the land, and now we have to struggle so as to get rid of the gentiles who disturb us from conquering the holy land.' All the feeling throughout all this operation of many of the soldiers was of a war of religions," he said. "As a commander, I tried to explain that the war is not a war of Kiddush Hashem [the sanctification of God's name, including through martyrdom] but over the stopping of the launching of the Qassam rockets." Now let's see what Keinon of the Jerusalem Post uncovered about the author of this heedless anti-IDF kerfuffle abetted by the New York Times and the Washington Post, the left wing Israel reservist refusenik, Dani Zamir: The second piece of context is Dani Zamir, the head of the program, who had the soldiers‚ words transcribed and published. A story in Haaretz on Thursday said that in 1990 Zamir, then a parachute company commander in the reserves, was tried and sentenced to prison for refusing to guard a ceremony where "right-wingers" brought Torah scrolls to Joseph's tomb in Nablus. Now let's return to one of the authors of this 'furor', Ethan Bronner of the New York Times. I received an email from a friend in Connecticut who penciled in some interesting background about Bronner: Ethan Bronner is from Hartford. His father is a prominent semi-retired professor at UConn Health Center and his Uncle was a well known Israeli labor party big wig with name change from Bronner to something close in Hebrew, Baram. Believe me, Ethan was brought up a Zionist and good Jewish background. What I draw from these remarks is that Timesman Bronner is a leftwing "Zionist" who doesn't stint from filing reports from Jerusalem that appear to follow the extreme Peace Now propaganda. In effect he demonizes both Israel and the brave soldiers of the IDF with questionable reports from a Chomskyite acolyte, Mr. Zamir. If that is the case then Bronner has truly lost his moral compass. Contact LEL at lel817@yahoo.com |
|
THE CLOWARD-PIVEN STRATEGY TO IMPLEMENT SOCIALIST REVOLUTION
Posted by Sonia Nusenbaum, March 21, 2009. |
|
This was on the Cloward-Piven website
|
|
Cloward-Piven is a strategy for forcing political change through orchestrated crisis. The strategy was first proposed in 1966 by Columbia University political scientists Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven as a plan to bankrupt the welfare system and produce radical change. Sometimes known as the "crisis strategy" or the the "flood-the-rolls, bankrupt-the-cities strategy," the Cloward-Piven approach called for swamping the welfare rolls with new applicants — more than the system could bear. It was hoped that the resulting economic collapse would lead to political turmoil and ultimately socialism. The National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), founded by African-American militant George Alvin Wiley, put the Cloward-Piven strategy to work in the streets. Its activities led directly to the welfare crisis that bankrupted New York City in 1975. Veterans of NWRO went on to found the Living Wage Movement and the Voting Rights Movement, both of which rely on the Cloward-Piven strategy and both of which are spear-headed by the radical cult ACORN. Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute. On August 11, 1965, the black district of Watts in Los Angeles exploded into violence, after police used batons to subdue a man suspected of drunk driving. Riots raged for six days, spilling over into other parts of the city, and leaving 34 dead. Two Columbia University sociologists, Richard Andrew Cloward and Frances Fox Piven were inspired by the riots to develop a new strategy for social change. In November 1965 — barely three months after the fires of Watts had subsided — Cloward and Piven began privately circulating copies of an article they had written called "Mobilizing the Poor: How it Could Be Done." Six months later (on May 2, 1966), it was published in The Nation, under the title, "The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty." The article electrified the Left. Following its May 2, 1966 publication, The Nation sold an unprecedented 30,000 reprints. Activists were abuzz over the so-called "crisis strategy" or "Cloward-Piven strategy," as it came to be called. Many were eager to put it into effect. Richard A. Cloward was then a professor of social work at Columbia University. He died in 2001. His co-author Frances Fox Piven was a research associate at Columbia's School of Social Work. She now holds a Distinguished Professorship of Political Science and Sociology at the City University of New York. In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor. By providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Cloward and Piven wanted to fan those flames. Poor people can advance only when "the rest of society is afraid of them," Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system. The collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation. Poor people would rise in revolt. Only then would "the rest of society" accept their demands. So wrote Cloward and Piven in 1966. The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. This Cloward and Piven proposed to do, in classic Alinsky fashion, by forcing welfare bureaucrats to live up to their own book of rules. The authors noted that the number of Americans subsisting on welfare — about 8 million, at the time — probably represented less than half the number who were technically eligible for full benefits. They proposed a "massive drive to recruit the poor onto the welfare rolls." Cloward and Piven calculated that persuading even a fraction of potential welfare recipients to demand their entitlements would bankrupt the system. The result, they predicted, would be "a profound financial and political crisis" that would unleash "powerful forces... for major economic reform at the national level." Their article called for "cadres of aggressive organizers" to use "demonstrations to create a climate of militancy." Intimidated by black violence, politicians would appeal to the federal government for help. Carefully orchestrated media campaigns, carried out by friendly, leftwing journalists, would float the idea of a "a federal program of income redistribution," in the form of a guaranteed living income for all; working and non-working people alike. Local officials would clutch at this idea like drowning men to a lifeline. They would apply pressure on Washington to implement it. With every major city erupting into chaos, Washington would have to act. The Cloward-Piven strategy never achieved its goal of system breakdown and a Marxist utopia. But it provided a blueprint for some of the Left's most destructive campaigns of the next three decades. It will likely haunt America for years to come since George Soros' Shadow Party has now adopted the strategy, honing it into a far more efficient weapon than any of its Sixties-era promoters could have foreseen. Cloward and Piven recruited a militant black organizer named George Wiley to lead their new movement. For more information on Wiley and his welfare rights movement. In the summer of 1967, Wiley founded the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), with headquarters in Washington, DC. Wiley's tactics closely followed the recommendations set out in Cloward and Piven's article. His followers invaded welfare offices across the nation — often violently — bullying social workers and loudly demanding every penny to which the law "entitled" them. By 1969, NWRO claimed a dues-paying membership of 22,500 families, with 523 chapters across the nation. Regarding Wiley's tactics, The New York Times commented on September 27, 1970, "There have been sit-ins in legislative chambers, including a United States Senate committee hearing, mass demonstrations of several thousand welfare recipients, school boycotts, picket lines, mounted police, tear gas, arrests — and, on occasion, rock-throwing, smashed glass doors, overturned desks, scattered papers and ripped-out phones." These methods proved effective. "The flooding succeeded beyond Wiley's wildest dreams," writes Sol Stern in the Manhattan Institute's City Journal. "From 1965 to 1974, the number of single-parent households on welfare soared from 4.3 million to 10.8 million, despite mostly flush economic times. By the early 1970s, one person was on the welfare rolls in New York City for every two working in the city's private economy." As a direct result of its reckless welfare spending, New York City — the financial capital of the world — was forced to declare bankruptcy in 1975. The entire state of New York nearly went down with it. Leftist agitators swooned in triumph. The Cloward-Piven strategy had proved its effectiveness. The Backlash The Cloward-Piven strategy depended on surprise. Once society recovered from the initial shock, the backlash began. New York's welfare crisis horrified the nation, giving rise to a reform movement which culminated in "the end of welfare as we know it" — the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which imposed time limits on federal welfare, along with strict eligibility and work requirements. Both Cloward and Piven attended the White House signing of the bill as guests of President Clinton. Most Americans to this day have never heard of Cloward and Piven. But Mayor Rudolph Giuliani attempted to expose them in the late 1990's. As his drive for welfare reform heated up, Giuliani accused the militant scholars by name, citing their 1966 manifesto as evidence that they had engaged in deliberate economic sabotage. "This wasn't an accident," Giuliani charged in a 1997 speech. "It wasn't an atmospheric thing, it wasn't supernatural. This is the result of policies and programs designed to have the maximum number of people get on welfare." Cloward and Piven never again revealed their intentions as candidly as they had in their 1966 article. They learned to cover their tracks. Even so, their activism in subsequent years continued to rely on the tactic of overloading the system. When the public caught on to their welfare scheme, Cloward and Piven simply moved on, applying pressure to other sectors of the bureaucracy, wherever they detected weakness. The Cloward-Piven strategy — first proposed in 1966 — seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. Application of this strategy contributed greatly to the turmoil of the late Sixties. Cloward-Piven failed to usher in socialism, but it succeeded in generating an economic crisis and in escalating the level of political violence in America — two cherished goals of hard-Left strategists. Radical organizers today continue tinkering with variations on the Cloward-Piven theme, in the perennial hope of reproducing '60s-style chaos. The thuggish behavior of leftwing unions such as SEIU and of certain elements of George Soros' Shadow Party can be traced, in a direct line of descent, from the early practitioners of Cloward-Piven. Cloward-Piven's early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. "Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules," Alinsky wrote in his 1989 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every jot and tittle of every law and statute; every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet; and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system's failure to "live up" to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist "rule book" with a socialist one. In its earliest form, the Cloward-Piven strategy applied Alinsky's principle to the specific area of welfare entitlements. It counseled activists to create what might be called Trojan Horse movements — mass movements whose outward purpose seemed to be providing material help to the downtrodden, but whose real purpose was to draft poor people into service as revolutionary foot soldiers. The specific function of these Trojan Horse movements was to mobilize poor people en masse to overwhelm government agencies with a flood of demands beyond the capacity of those agencies to meet. The flood of demands was calculated to break the budget, jam the bureaucratic gears into gridlock, and bring the system crashing down. Fear, turmoil, violence and economic collapse would accompany such a breakdown — providing perfect conditions for fostering radical change. That, at least, was the theory behind the Cloward-Piven strategy. In 1982, partisans of the Cloward-Piven strategy founded a new "voting rights movement," which purported to take up the unfinished work of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Like ACORN, the organization that spear-headed this campaign, the new "voting rights" movement was led by veterans of George Wiley's welfare rights crusade. Its flagship organizations were Project Vote and Human SERVE, both founded in 1982. Project Vote is an ACORN front group, launched by former NWRO organizer and ACORN co-founder Zach Polett. Human SERVE was founded by Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, along with a former NWRO organizer named Hulbert James. All three of these organizations — ACORN, Project Vote and Human SERVE — set to work lobbying energetically for the so-called Motor-Voter law, which Bill Clinton ultimately signed in 1993. The Motor-Voter bill is widely blamed today for swamping the voter rolls with "dead wood" — invalid registrations signed in the name of deceased, ineligible or non-existent people — thus opening the door to the unprecedented levels of voter fraud and "voter disenfranchisement" claims that followed in subsequent elections. The new "voting rights" coalition combines mass voter registration drives — typically featuring high levels of fraud — with systematic intimidation of election officials in the form of frivolous lawsuits, bogus charges of "racism" and "disenfranchisement" and "direct action" (street protests, violent or otherwise). Just as they swamped America's welfare offices in the 1960s, the Cloward-Piven team now seeks to overwhelm the nation's understaffed and poorly policed electoral system. Their antics set the stage for the Florida recount crisis of 2000, and have introduced a level of fear, tension and foreboding to U.S. elections heretofore encountered mainly in Third World countries. For more information on the Voting Rights Movement, see the entry for "Project Vote." Both the Living Wage and Voting Rights movements depend heavily on financial support from George Soros's Open Society Institute. It is largely thanks to money from Soros that the Cloward-Piven strategy continues even now to eat away at America's political and economic infrastructure. |
|
FROM ISRAEL: SMALL SIGNS OF STRENGTH
Posted by Arlene Kushner, March 21, 2009. |
|
Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat) We need a whole lot more, but I'm grateful for what I'm seeing: It begins with our new Jerusalem mayor, Nir Barkat, who is standing strong on the issue of demolition of illegal Arab housing in eastern Jerusalem. The issue at hand right now is housing put up illegally by Arabs in Silwan, which is next to Ir David (the City of David); an archeological park is planned for the land on which these houses sit. This is one of the most strategic sites in the city, on an international level, which must be an open public area," Barkat told The Jerusalem Post. "It is certainly much more important than Central Park in New York." The city is making efforts to find new housing sites for the residents who will be dislocated. But, says Barkat, "It is inconceivable that we will not follow the rule of law in the city....We are talking about a small group who built homes on a park in an open area, where it is very fair to assume that [in the end] there will not be residential housing." ~~~~~~~~~~ And it extends at the moment to Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter, as well. Seems that for the Palestinian Authority today was "Jerusalem, Capital of Arab Culture for 2009' day." Certainly Palestinian leaders used the event to make the most of the issue of the planned housing demolitions. At one gathering in Bethlehem, Abbas declared that our policy of "racism, oppression, land-grabbing and demolitions" had to stop before there could be further peace negotiations. The PA had planned a whole series of events in Jerusalem to celebrate the day. However, according to existing agreements signed with Israel, the PA is prohibited from organizing events within Israel. And so, Dichter signed injunctions ordering police to "suppress any attempts by the PA to hold events in Jerusalem and throughout the rest of the country." Arabs students were prevented from rallying on the Temple Mount with PLO flags; marches in the city were blocked; women distributing paraphernalia for the event were arrested; a conference organized by the PA was shut down; and much more. I'm sure we'll hear about how this was not a constructive move for peace. But this feels to me like a welcome and unapologetic movement towards taking back what is ours. May the trend grow. ~~~~~~~~~~ What will be happening at a national level politically in the next couple of weeks is still up in the air. In addition to anger within the Labor party because of Barak's push to join the Likud-led coalition, there is now anger within Likud because Netanyahu promised Barak too much as enticement, leaving too little for the MKs of Likud itself. ~~~~~~~~~~ The other day, I had cited information about Egyptian feelers to US and European leaders to find out if they might find it acceptable if a Palestinian unity government were formed that simply "respected" past PLO agreements instead of accepting or honoring them. My comment was that the Egyptians apparently did not receive a positive response to this, or the Palestinian factions wouldn't have walked away so fast. Seems I was premature. The Egyptians are still working on it. Omar Suleiman, Egypt's intelligence chief, went to Washington this past week to try to convince the Obama administration to abandon the conditions set by the US in 2006, after Hamas won PA elections. Suleiman's feeling is that there has to be accommodation of Hamas on this matter because it's so important to have unity, with the Palestinians speaking with one voice. ~~~~~~~~~~ The perversity — no, the stupidity — of this position is considerable, however. What Suleiman is saying is that it doesn't matter what the unity government stands for or commits to, as long as there IS a unity government, and that it should receive world recognition. (Egypt, of course, has its own motivations for promoting that unity government. Success in promoting this would enhance Egypt's standing in the Arab world, and would reduce pressure for Egypt to open the Rafah crossing or otherwise be responsible for Gaza.) What the unity government might stand for would be of little consequence, if it were not for a couple of matters that directly impinge on us here: That government would be the authority overseeing reconstruction of Gaza, which would mean millions flowing to an unrepentant Hamas that would turn the assistance to its own ends. Pressure would grow for us to open the crossings into Gaza. And the Western world, in its infinite wisdom, would then turn to us and tell us that now that there is one voice for the Palestinians, we must negotiate with them. This might well happen yet. We may see a (very unstable) unity government formed that has not committed to renouncing violence, or recognizing Israel's right to exist, or to honoring previous PLO agreements, and we'll be told to negotiate "peace" with it. Obama, friend to the Muslims and the ultimate promoter of "outreach," might well embrace this. Makes a strong Israeli right-wing government capable of saying no all the more important. ~~~~~~~~~~ What we must hope for, as well, is that Fatah and Hamas will not be able to get their act together on other issues, even if the West caves on this one. The PA is said to be happy that negotiations on Shalit failed, because the release of hundreds of Hamas terrorists would strengthen Hamas and weaken Fatah. It would increase Hamas popularity in the street. And, according to Khaled Abu Toameh, "The top 10 Hamas prisoners whom Israel has refused to release in return for Gilad Shalit are regarded by the PA as the 'commanders of Hamas's army staff' in the West Bank." Doesn't sound like Fatah-Hamas unity is around the corner. ~~~~~~~~~~ Friday was Nowruz, the Persian New Year, and Obama took the opportunity to send a video message to Iran, which carried Persian subtitles. Referring to Nowruz as both "an ancient ritual and a moment of renewal," he called upon Iran's leaders to consider engagement with the US that is "honest and grounded in mutual respect." "...The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. "...let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi, so many years ago: "The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence.'" The naiveté of such a message is breathtaking. ~~~~~~~~~~ The response of Iran's leaders today was pretty much what might have been expected. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the Iranian government does not see any change in American policy, as the US continues to say the country supports terrorism and is seeking nuclear weapons. A adviser to Ahmadinejad observed that "minor changes will not end the differences" between Teheran and Washington. "Obama has talked of change but has taken no practical measures to address America's past mistakes in Iran. If Mr. Obama takes concrete actions and makes fundamental changes in US foreign policy toward other nations including Iran, the Iranian government and people will not turn their back on him." Iranian Energy Minister Pervez Fatah said his government welcomes Obama's greetings but would continue with its nuclear program, none-the-less. ~~~~~~~~~~ A terrorist attack on a mall in Haifa was adverted this evening when a car holding several kilograms of explosives was discovered parked (as I understand it) in the lot of the mall. The discovery was made when one of the smaller of several bombs malfunctioned and exploded prematurely, causing an employee in the mall who heard the explosion to call the police. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |