| HOME | Featured Stories | May 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: AN ORCHARD AT DAWN ON THE GOLAN HEIGHTS
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, May 31, 2009. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. Yehoshua Halevi writes: "HOW I GOT THE SHOT: One of the first assignments I give students in my introductory photography course is to bring two pictures to class for discussion — one which they like and one which they dislike. In presenting their choices to the class, students begin to develop an internal language for identifying elements in their own work that succeed or fail. I came across this week's photo in my library while researching images for a book project and stumbled upon an interesting insight into how I evaluate my work. When I first shot this photo of an orchard on the Golan Heights, I rejected it. I don't recall exactly why, but I may have been striving to create something different or I may have been emotionally disconnected from it when editing the shoot. Upon rediscovering it in my library, while perusing hundreds of files late at night in my office, the image evoked a softness, orderliness and a genuinely peaceful early-spring-morning kind of quiet that fit my mood at the moment perfectly. One of the best times to photograph trees is late winter or early spring, when bright green new leaves or colorful buds give the tree a unique coloration which fades as the new growth matures. I stood on an embankment looking down into the valley where these trees had been planted, and using a telephoto lens, composed an image that removed all other growth save for a small errant patch toward the top of the frame. I try to explain to my simcha clients that the real value of their
investment in professional photography will only become apparent in 5
or 10 years. Sometimes pictures deserve a second look after a period
of time, so that when you return to them, you are in a place to see
their true value.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
MICHELLE OBAMA'S NON-TRIP TO THE MIDDLE EAST
Posted by Boris Celser, May 31, 2009. |
|
This below was written by Netty Wisbaum of Phoenix, Arizona. Contact her by email at netty@tasteofaz.com |
|
Michelle Obama's trip...Interesting Information!...It explains a lot! I was at Blockbusters on Saturday renting videos, and I was going along the wall and there was a video called "Obama". I told the men next to me that I wouldn't waste my time. We started talking about Obama. These guys were Arabs, and I asked them why they thought Michele Obama headed home following her visit in France instead of traveling on to Saudi Arabia and Turkey with her husband. They said she couldn't go to Saudi Arabia, Turkey or Iraq . I said "Laura Bush went to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Dubai." They answered, "Obama is a Muslim, and by Muslim law, he would not be allowed to bring his wife into the countries that accept Sharia Law." Just thought it was interesting that the Arabs at Blockbuster's accept the idea that we're being led by a Muslim who follows the Islamic creed... They also said that's the reason he bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. It was a signal to the Muslim world. Just thought you would like to know. Odd, I thought HE SAID he was a Christian. Now he wouldn't lie to us would he? Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
SPINELESS JEWS? AGAIN? OR NEVER AGAIN!
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, May 31, 2009. |
|
Melanie Phillips, a straight talking news commentator, laid it on the line about American Jews. She called them "spineless", a descriptive term with which I sadly agree. Find following her article which was posted on Arutz Sheva May 11th, entitled: "Netanyahu Prepares For Obama: Israel To Be Left Alone In World?" This features astute, pungent comments by Melanie Phillips and Caroline Glick both straight talkers. However, before you get to their observations, I would like to remind our readers about the WW2 war years and the same 'spineless' American Jews who refused to aggressively protest the Hitler Genocide, well known to the Roosevelt Administration. The American Jews feared that anti-Semitism would ramp up in America if they protested the Roosevelt policy of doing absolutely nothing, even to the point of refusing to issue a diplomatic warning to Hitler to cease his policy of Genocide. The Jews of that era (except for some) were shameful examples of the "pintele Yid" (Jewish spark) buried too deep within many among the Jewish people. Frightened, hand-wringing leadership of Jewish organizations kept their collective mouths shut tight to insure that the Jewish public were simply kept in the dark about the Holocaust in Europe. Most of the Jewish leadership of the '30's and '40s acted as if they were co-partners with the likes of the New York Times, owned by the German Jewish Sulzberger dynasty. They had reporters in England, France, Germany and the rest of Europe who were eye witnesses to the round-ups, the slave labor camps, the concentration camps and the death camps. Yet they invariably reported atrocities as "unsubstantiated" reports or "rumors" that some Jews were being killed — and always on the deep, inner pages of the vaunted New York Times. Not until the end, when General Eisenhower was photographed walking through the death camps, viewing the piles of bodies and walking skeletons of those barely alive, did the New York Times and the rest of the Media express shock (or what passed for shock). Most of the American Jewish leaders were spineless and speechless then and, regrettably, now! They learned nothing from the Nazi Holocaust that they would implement to prevent the next coming (probably) nuclear Holocaust. The Nations of the world gather, led by President Barack Hussein Obama, to force Israel into national suicide via a two-state solution in order to appease the Muslim and Arab Terrorist nations and their proxies. But, the Jews continue to support Obama. It was reported that as many as 80% of the American Jewish population voted for Obama. Even AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations have failed to show sufficient courage and the proper leadership. One cannot help but think of the Judenratt of Europe — those Jews who worked for the German Nazis in rounding up Jews to transport them to the death camps. They thought they might save themselves and their families if they betrayed their fellow Jews. Hopefully, they were themselves hunted down, although most of the compliant Judenratt were, in the end, also sent to the gas chambers and the Krupp ovens. As 60 and 70 years ago, the American Jewish leadership is spineless and they float "disinformation" to the Jewish public about "how friendly Obama and his Arabist advisors are to the Jewish State of Israel". The Jews in the Obama inner circle are themselves shameless and without a Jewish backbone — or are merely latter day Judenratt. It would be better if they acted like Shabtai Zvi and converted to Islam or Christianity than to pretend or act like they are courageous Jews. They may only be good for being pallbearers to the Jewish nation and building museums and memorials to the Jews who were murdered or about to be murdered while they remain silent in their "golden medina". It appears that we Jews who do care will have to rely upon our courageous settlers and our Christian friends to speak up on our behalf. Those Jews who have the courage to defend Israel — even at the real risk of being singled out by a hostile Administration — know who you are. Kol Ha Kavod. (All honor to you.) As for the Jews in Israel, there are two kinds. First are those who love the Land and are ready to fight to defend it by building their homes, schools and synagogues on it. Then, there are those called the "radical Left" who seem to "hate the ground they walk on". They bond with the Leftist leaders who, in turn, would abandon the Land G-d gave to the Jewish people and surrender our Land to pagan Muslim Terrorists and the oil-rich Islamic nations. The article below is entitled "Netanyahu Prepares for Obama: Israel
to Be Left Alone in World?" and was written by Hillel Fendel,
It appeared May 10, 2009 in Arutz Sheva |
|
(IsraelNN.com) As Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu prepares for his visit to the United States next week, warnings abound that the Obama Administration's policies will leave Israel to face Iran and Hamas alone. The warnings are summed up in recent articles by the West's two main pro-Israel female commentators: Melanie Phillips and Caroline Glick. Writing in the Spectator (United Kingdom) last week, Philips warns that "Obama is attempting to throw Israel under the Islamist bus." She cites the report that Obama's National Security Adviser told a European foreign minister that Obama will be 'forceful' with Israel, and plans to impose, with the EU and moderate Arab states, "a satisfactory endgame solution" upon Israel. PA State: Evil and Stupid "This is all not only evil," Phillips says, "but exceptionally stupid… The Arab states are beside themselves with anxiety about Iran. They want it to be attacked and its nuclear programme stopped. They are desperately fearful that the Obama administration might have decided that it can live with a nuclear Iran… A Palestine state will be Iran, in the sense that it will be run by Hamas as a proxy for the Islamic Republic. The idea that a Palestine state will not compromise Israel's security is ludicrous." American Jewry: Spineless After expressing incredulity at the American demands for further Israeli concessions in the light of the utter failure of the Disengagement, Phillips writes that U.S. Jews are reacting "with a total absence of spine… Almost eighty per cent of American Jews voted for Obama despite the clear and present danger he posed to Israel. They did so because their liberal self-image was and is more important to them than the Jewish state whose existence and security cannot be allowed to jeopardise their standing with America's elite." Netanyahu must therefore take Israel's message to "the ordinary American people," she concludes: "They do value and support Israel. They do understand that if Israel is thrown under that bus, the west is next. And it is they to whom Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu must now appeal, over the heads of the politicians and the media and certainly America's Jews and everyone else. He must tell the American people the terrible truth, that America is now run by a man who is intent on sacrificing Israel for a reckless and amoral political strategy which will put America and the rest of the free world at risk." Glick: Obama Forcing Israel into Corner Caroline Glick, writing in The Jerusalem Post, states that ahead of Netanyahu's visit to Washington, "the Obama administration is ratcheting up its anti-Israel rhetoric and working feverishly to force Israel into a corner." She notes that quartet mediator Tony Blair has announced that within six weeks the US, EU, UN and Russia will unveil a new framework for establishing a Palestinian state, and that it is "being worked on at the highest level in the American administration." Obama Humiliates Peres Yet another milestone in the U.S. path towards abandoning Israel is the "humiliating reception" President Shimon Peres received from Obama. Visiting in Washington last week, "Peres was tasked with calming the waters ahead of Netanyahu's visit. It was hoped that he could introduce a more collegial tone to US-Israel relations." However, the Obama government barred all media from covering the event, thus "transform[ing] what was supposed to be a friendly visit with a respected and friendly head of state into a back-door encounter with an unwanted guest, who was shooed in and shooed out of the White House without a sound." Abrogating 40 Years of Understanding Another point raised by Glick and Eli Lake of The Washington Times: US Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller told the UN that Israel and others must adhere to the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), thus effectively abrogating a 40-year-old US-Israeli understanding that the US would remain silent about Israel's nuclear program because it understood that it is defensive, not offensive in nature. The statement also erases "any distinction between nuclear weapons in the hands of US allies and democratic states and nuclear weapons in the hands of US enemies and terror states," Glick wrote. "The fact that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, all chance of peace between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and the Arab world will disappear," Glick continues, "is of no interest to Obama and his advisers. They do not care that the day after [Hamas said it was] suspending its attacks against Israel from Gaza, the Iranian-controlled terror regime took credit for several volleys of rockets shot against Israeli civilian targets from Gaza." "The operational significance of the administration's anti-Israel positions is that Israel will not be well served by adopting a more accommodating posture toward the Palestinians and Iran," Glick concludes. Emanuel Winston is a commentator and Middle East analyst. His articles appear often on Think-Israel and Gamla. He is a member of the Board of Directors and a research associate of the Freeman Center For Strategic Studies (http://www.freeman.org/online.htm). Contact him at gwinston@gwinstonglobal.org |
|
FROM ISRAEL: STANDING TOUGH
Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 31, 2009. |
|
So much to discuss within a rapidly shifting scenario. I begin with a clarification of my previous stated position on Netanyahu, Obama, and the outposts. There were a handful of readers who saw in my recent words a shift towards appeasement, and G-d forbid, that is not what I intended to convey. I had the impression that Netanyahu believed that agreeing to take down a few outposts would allow him to acquire greater support from Obama for being tough on Iran. What I call a quid pro quo, which is not the same as appeasement. Here in Israel we are facing down the Iranian threat directly. I was not recommending, and would never, ever recommend, appeasement of Iran. I am mightily contemptuous of Obama's terribly dangerous tendency to appease. I believe it likely that we will attack Iran and I support that. But I am mindful that acquiring certain bunker busters from the US can make us more effective, and that not having the US object to our flying over Iraq can make our mission enormously easier (and provide it with greater chance of success). And, yes, I reasoned that IF (this is the critical qualifier) taking down a few outposts is the cost of acquiring these things, it would be a trade that is worth making. I still reason so. This is what I heard in Netanyahu's comments. My position was that we must not get so caught in the ideology of protecting our right to some part of the land that we miss out on an opportunity to better protect all of the land and all of the people, vis-a-vis a more effective attack on Iran. I believe Netanyahu speaks truth when he says we are not living in normal times. ~~~~~~~~~~ However, what I wrote about was "a few outposts." Not all of them, and certainly nothing in the way of large settlements. I acknowledged as I wrote that going this route presents the danger of a slippery slope. What reassured me was the position of key members of the gov't, who are watching Netanyahu and demanding that he (or Barak) not do wholesale taking down of settlements. I trust Benny Begin, and Moshe Ya'alon, and Yisrael Katz, etc. etc., more than I trust Netanyahu. And I had what I consider fairly solid reason to believe that Netanyahu knew full well what his constraints would be with regard his own government. I also had reason to believe that a token — taking down a tent here, a few shacks there — would be what we would see, in order to give Obama the semblance of "movement" towards peace, and not a whole lot more. And yes, from a purely ideological position, those few shacks are the same as a settlement of 40 or 50 families. But this has not been my focus because of the existential threats we face. Sometimes, I believe, we have to settle for the best deal we can get, on balance, within a given set of parameters. Please note, I have been taking my cue in part from the settlers, who are rather sanguine about what's happening because they know with these small outposts they can re-build and re-build until they are victorious. That, in the long run is what matters. At any rate, I thank those who wrote to me with heartfelt anguish and prompted some serious thought and discussion. I take none of this lightly, ever. Many nights, I lose sleep over these issues. ~~~~~~~~~~ But the situation is now changing, and there is a great deal more to consider. My earlier words may become moot, my perspective superseded by new situations and new information. Obama met with Abbas on Thursday. With the holiday of Shavuot upon us, I had no chance until now to write about what followed from that meeting. There are a number of factors to consider: Obama surprised me in one respect regarding what he reportedly said to the media after the Abbas meeting. He actually mentioned PA incitement, an issue rarely addressed. What he said was that Abbas had to "continue to make progress on reducing incitement." I believe we have to grab hold of this issue as if we were pit bulls, who bite down and don't let go. So much is said about settlements as "an obstacle to peace." (See below) But this is nonsense, because were there to be some peaceful arrangement, settlements could be (not should be, but could be) negotiated out of existence. That is, their presence does not block peaceful negotiations from advancing. But incitement is another matter all together. The hatred for us that has been inculcated by the PA in the Palestinian population cannot be negotiated out of existence. We cannot have peace with these Arabs at our periphery, or in our midst, unless and until they accept our presence and our right to be where we are. Unless and until they no longer believe that Allah wants them to martyr themselves in a jihad to destroy us. Unless and until they understand that Jews are entitled to dignity. Palestinian Arabs need to be told consistently by their leadership that genuine peace with us is a good thing. That there is an ancient Jewish history in Jerusalem. That our presence in the land is acceptable and not an affront. And no where is this more urgently needed than in the schools, where the textbooks that are used are invidious and undermine any genuine possibility for peace. The work to change the textbooks must begin immediately. This, above all, must be a demand we hold fast to, with the premise, always, that no peace is possible otherwise. That the PA hasn't demonstrated peaceful intent, otherwise. That it's a farce to make demands of Israel, otherwise. We are being put on the defensive, and this is a necessary offensive stance. And it's absolutely valid. ~~~~~~~~~~ The PA will not agree to make these changes. The ideology of radical Islam is too mainstream (especially with the growing influence of Hamas). No PA leader could change the line this radically and expect to remain a leader, never mind to live. To demand this is to unmask the insincerity of Palestinian Arab statements. ~~~~~~~~~~ But I would demand this not of Abbas, but of Obama, first: "Mr. President, if you are sincere about promoting ME peace, this is essential. If you cut the PA slack on this, you are destroying chances for peace and putting the lie to your intentions." And the time to start is now.
~~~~~~~~~~ It seems that Obama intends to cut us no slack on the issue of settlements. He is demanding (and Hillary has reiterated this) a total settlement freeze, even with regard to natural growth. This means if a young man returns to his community after serving in the army and wants to marry and build a home near his family, he cannot. Of if young couples in a neighborhood have a number of small children, a new nursery school (gan) cannot be built. This is the case even if the new home or nursery school would be built entirely within the existing boundaries of the community and not extended a single meter into "contested area." In fact, a new room could not even be added to an existing home, if a family became larger. Commentators are observing that this represents an essential change from previous American policy. ~~~~~~~~~~ But Obama cannot ultimately demand anything. For we are a sovereign nation. The response I'm picking up from various gov't officials is mixed. From Daniel Herschkowitz, Science Minister and head of Habayit Hayehudi: The American demand to prevent natural growth is unreasonable, and brings to mind Pharaoh who said: 'Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river.' "If there is a family that expands from one child to four or five, what should we tell them — to ship the children off to Petah Tikva? This is an unacceptable demand, even [even?] if it comes from the Americans, and Israel should reject it decisively." From Eli Yishai, Interior Minister and head of Shas: "The American demand to freeze construction means expulsion for young people living in large locales. I hope the US administration understands that. If not, I don't want to be an apocalyptic prophet saying we're facing struggle and confrontation. The concessions they're demanding of us are a security impediment we cannot withstand." ~~~~~~~~~~ But then we have Information Minister Yuli Edelstein (Likud): "The recent days prove what luck we have that it is Netanyahu's government conducting talks on West Bank natural growth and construction in Jerusalem. Just imagine someone else, he would have led us to an entanglement lasting generations. And Welfare Minister Isaac Herzog (Labor): "The current American administration sees things differently than the last two presidents did. Construction is being undertaken around Jerusalem according to understandings with previous administrations. Israel wants very much to reach understandings, and Defense Minister Ehud Barak's upcoming trip to Washington proves it." At which point an unease moves in.... ~~~~~~~~~~ So it's time to sound the alarm with Netanyahu, who to this day has not agreed to freeze settlements. Let him know that you're behind him as he stands strong, that you are outraged by what Obama is demanding. Remind him that Israel is a sovereign state and does not have to give in to demands from abroad. Implore him to instruct Barak not to cave on settlements when he is in Washington. Fax: 02-670-5369 (From the US: 011-972-2-670-5369)
~~~~~~~~~~ There is one other point of interest I noted with regard to Obama's comments. This provides a glimmer of hope. Obama said: "...obviously Prime Minister Netanyahu has to work through these issues in his own government." This seems to indicate that Obama knows that Netanyahu can take issues regarding outposts and settlements just so far before he will be blocked. Thus it's important to make sure this is the case. And so, I would encourage, lastly, communication with key ministers of the gov't, imploring them to stand strong and to block any Barak/Netanyahu initiative that takes down major outposts or freezes settlements. Express your outrage with Obama and say you're counting on them to carry the day. Minister Moshe Ya'alon: myaalon@knesset.gov.il (no fax given) office phone: 02-640-8891
For additional ministers:
~~~~~~~~~~ Then we have an article, "Israel and the Axis of Evil," written by Caroline Glick right before Shavuot, in which she says: "No destruction of Jewish communities will convince Obama to act against Iran." She says a great deal more, and I would like to return to her in a day or two. But here I wish to say simply that if the evidence points to her being correct, if there is going to be no quid pro quo, as Netanyahu had indicated — either naively or hopefully or disingenuously — then there is no reason to countenance taking down of outposts. ~~~~~~~~~~ In point of fact, another outpost was dismantled last night. This was at Shvut Ami, near Kedumim in Samaria. What was dismantled? One hut; six young people were sent away, without violence. There was talk immediately after of putting up the hut again, but, according to Arutz Sheva, for now the youths have decided to take up residence in a cave on the property, as a cave is difficult to dismantle. And so, yes, ideologically this is the same as a more significant outpost. But, really, one hut? One has the feeling that Barak is going for what creates the least fuss. ~~~~~~~~~~ I note as well that the office of the defense minister has declared that it will not, at least not now, take down nine homes in Ofra — a significant settlement northeast of Jerusalem in Samaria — that have been declared "illegal." What we're seeing here is evidence that the defense minister indeed has latitude as to what should be dismantled and that politics play a role in the decision process. In fact, the situation in Ofra serves as a model of exactly how politicized this whole issue of "illegal" is. This, too, I would like to return to in due course. ~~~~~~~~~~ I welcome a statement reported by the Washington Post that an Abbas associate made following Abbas's visit with Obama: "It will take a couple of years" for Obama to force Netanyahu from office. It is to be welcomed because of the stupidity of the remark, and because it serves to stiffen the spines of members of our government. The question is whether this was a unilaterally stupid remark, or one based on something said by Obama off the record. My purely intuitive hunch is that it's the latter. And that's certainly the take as well of Likud Faction Chair MK Ze'ev Elkin, who commented, "With all due respect to the United States...we are an independent democratic country..." ~~~~~~~~~~ Dear friends, bear with me, as the number of issues to address seems to overwhelm my time and ability to address them all. My UNRWA report awaits my serious and reasonably undivided attention. I will post as I can. ~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" — An Israeli company called Opgal has developed the Fever Detection and Alarm System, which can spot persons with fevers in a crowd in transportation hubs such as airports and train stations. This may have potential in combating pandemics. Drawing on non-invasive heat sensor technology and cameras, the system requires no installation of equipment and is relatively inexpensive to utilize. Persons pegged as feverish would be stopped for culture swabs or further questioning. — Special Israeli security companies are greatly in demand for providing protection against pirates on the open seas who attack cruise ships and commercial liners. Israeli anti-pirate teams are deemed the best trained and are proving effective. They function on board in hidden capacities (e.g., as life guards) so that pirates collecting intelligence won't be aware of them. The Israeli teams also use hi-tech optic systems to identify pirate ships a distance away. — A kibbutz called Kishorit, in northern Israel, has become a model of how to provide full living experience for adults who are mentally challenged — whether because of autism, schizophrenia, or other problems. The roughly 150 members, who are resident for life (a facility for seniors is being developed), have established the largest organic goat farm in Israel, run a TV station and have developed a line of toys. Their efforts are supported by a strong sense of community and an aesthetic environment that is comforting. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
THE THIRD JIHAD
Posted by Susana K-M, May 31, 2009. |
|
Last week a major plot to blow up two New York synagogues and shoot down a plane was foiled. The FBI and NYPD caught a ring of four local terrorists who were in the act of planting the explosives to be used in the attack. Important plot detail: Three of the four terrorists converted to Islam while serving prison terms. Radical Islamic chaplains are converting inmates at an alarming pace. After moving to Newburgh, these criminals joined the mosque where they were met by an FBI informant posing as a master terrorist. What the terrorists didn't know was that the FBI was on to their plot for almost a year, and that the explosives sold to them were fake. What most Americans do not know is that the threat of jihad by radical Muslims is already very real within the U.S. The threat is not only violent. A sophisticated cultural jihad is steadily progressing within America's borders. Funded by Saudi money and fueled by extreme ideology, radical Islamists are attacking western freedoms and the American way of life from within. The Third Jihad, from the makers of the critically-acclaimed Obsession, documents these threats with expert interviews and never before seen media footage from the Arab World. The Third Jihad is a must-see for all Americans. To play the movie, click here.
|
|
MISSING IN ACTION
Posted by Susana K-M, May 31, 2009. |
|
In their 2007 book The Israel Lobby, Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt argued that there exists a loose coalition of groups that attempts to steer American policy in a pro-Israel direction at a high cost to American national interests. Mearsheimer and Walt's definition of pro-Israel was so broad and their sense of how injurious Israel's existence is to America so deep that, in their telling, the "Israel Lobby" is both all-powerful and all-inclusive. Nevertheless, at the center of Mearsheimer and Walt"s "Israel Lobby" are American Jews — the villainous neo-cons and the pro-Israel lobbying organization AIPAC chief among them. The sad truth, however, is that if an Israeli Lobby exists, American Jews have failed to enlist. American Jews are demonstrably innocent of putting Israel's interests first, or even high, on their list of concerns — at least if Israel's interests have anything to do with how they are defined by the overwhelming consensus of Jews living in Israel. A vast majority of Israeli Jews would be prepared to cede a good deal of the West Bank in return for peace. But the experience of the last 15 years has convinced them that peace cannot be obtained without a dramatic reformation of Palestinian society. From the standpoint of the Israeli consensus, the Obama administration's mantra about the necessity of Israel declaring its support for the "two-state solution" is misguided, for it sends the wrong messages to both Israelis and Palestinians. By focusing on what Israel must do, that mantra ignores what it has already done, and the lessons learned from its past actions. Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank, southern Lebanon, and Gaza, resulted in their becoming launching pads for suicide bombers and rockets aimed at Israeli civilians. Those withdrawals did not even improve Israel's international standing. The focus on Israel's next step ignores those never taken by the Palestinians — i.e., moving one iota from any of their positions as of the outset of Oslo. And it conveys the message that nothing is expected of the Palestinians in the future, unlike the Road Map, which made the Palestinians oft-promised end to incitement and terrorism preconditions for further negotiations. Palestinian statehood, not peace, has become the watchword of American policy. And to that end, the Obama administration has indicated a willingness to impose a solution. National Security Advisor James Jones recently conveyed to a senior European official that "an endgame solution" would be formulated by the U.S., EU, and moderate Arab states, with Israel and the Palestinians relegated to the role of bystanders. On a happy note, he allowed that Israel would "not be thrown under the bus." That same week the chief U.S. arms negotiator called for Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty — a clear break with a 40-year understanding between the U.S. and Israel on the issue, and an equally clear indication of how nasty the pressure on Israel might get. The theory of an imposed solution is that the final contours of a settlement are already well known so it might as well be now. Even if the former proposition were true, the intention of the parties and their ability to perform would still be relevant. The Palestinians cannot run a state — certainly not one that Hamas would not quickly take over — nor do they seek to. Palestinian human rights activist Bassam Eid declared after the Hamas-Fatah civil war in Gaza, "We do not deserve a state." Fatah prefers the present kleptocracy to a state. Statelessness allows Palestinians to attack Israel without being held responsible, as would a state, and to remain the world's favorite mendicants. Meanwhile the contrast between the Obama administration's urgency with respect to the Palestinian-Israel tract and its lackadaisical approach to Iran's nuclear ambitions could not be starker. The linkage of Iran to progress on the former is backwards. No more than a year likely remains to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions. Peace will not come in that period to a region in which there is still no Palestinian leader who can even recognize Israel's right to be a Jewish state. The Sunni states fear a nuclear Iran much more than Israel, and they are saying so. They will support an alliance against Iran because it is their interests to do so, as long as they believe America will act decisively and not leave them to Iran's tender mercies. What has been the response of American Jewry and the vaunted Israel Lobby to the mounting threats to Israel abetted by Washington? Silence. President Obama"s popularity among American Jews remains sky high and rising. Delegates at the recent AIPAC convention dutifully lobbied Congress for the two-state solution. Whom, one wonders, was this feared group lobbying against? The overwhelming American Jewish support for President Obama demonstrates how far the perspectives of Israeli and American Jews have diverged. For Israeli Jews survival remains the primary desideratum. For American Jews the simulacrum of peace, in the form of a treaty, any treaty, is primary. For many American Jews, an Israel without peace is misbegotten, not worth the scorn it engenders in The New York Times and on Ivy League campuses. Daniel Gordis records, in his important new book How Israel Can Win a War That May Never End, being asked by an American Jewish friend: "Why has Israel given up hope?" And with no genuine chance for peace, why forge on?" It is left to Gordis's teenage daughter Talia to set their visitor straight: The purpose of Israel is not to achieve peace with the Arabs, however devoutly such peace might be wished for. Israelis have not given up hope, just hope for peace in the near future. American Jews remained largely quiescent during the Holocaust, in part because of their adulation of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who could do no wrong in their eyes. Stephen Wise, the most influential voice in American Jewry, could not overcome his worship of FDR to challenge the latter's position that nothing could be done to save Jews other than win the War. (David Wyman's The Abandonment of the Jews details how much could have been done.) To avoid embarrassing or pressuring the President, Wise sat on a telegram from Gerhard Riegner of the World Jewish Congress in August 1942, detailing plans to exterminate three to four million Jews in German-controlled Europe, until pressured by the Orthodox and Revisionist Zionists to do something. American Jews are besotted again and the Israel Lobby of Walt and Mearsheimer's febrile imaginations never existed. Never has that been so obvious as today.
Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com |
|
THE VIEW FROM THE HEIGHTS
Posted by Yehuda and Rebecca Poch, May 31, 2009. |
|
We are a new blog. We are at
Below is an essay entitled "Who We Are Dealing With." |
|
It seems to me that in Israel, the media is suffering from the same disease as in the United States. They are simply afraid to say anything negative about US President Barack Obama or his policies. The difference is in the degree. Where in the United States, the media makes no attempt to hide its love affair with Obama — even admitting it openly in several instances — in Israel, the situation is somewhat more reserved. Here, we know that Obama is up to no good, but the media remains to afraid to say it openly. Yet if any indication was needed to prove just how unfriendly Obama is toward Israel, take the developing nuclear arms race among the "Axis of Evil" states. Iran, which for years has been quite open about its nuclear plans and its earnest wish to "wipe Israel off the map", tested a ballistic missile last week capable of hitting targets within 2000 km — which includes most of Europe and the American forces stationed there, as well as any target within Israel. This missile, operated with solid fuel rather than the more primitive liquid variety, has greater accuracy at longer ranges than previous missiles deployed by Iran. And the missile was test fired during Obama's meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, timing that was surely no accident. Yet US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could not quite put her finger on why Iran is such a concern. In comments she made late last week, she stated that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would cause a nuclear arms race in the region, which would run counter to the interests of most Arab states and constitute a danger to America. Not one word was mentioned about Israel, or Ahmadinejad's oft repeated threat to destroy this country. Clinton's complete naivete, or willful ignorance, is a very big reason why she should not be allowed to continue in her post. If the major threat to the US comes from a potential arms race in the Middle East, and not from the possibility that Iran might try to fulfill its threat to destroy another nation — and one that is strongly allied with the United States no less — then Clinton has quite a lot to learn about the world and is simply unqualified for her position. Contrast this with President Obama's very forceful response to the North Korean nuclear test this week, which was followed almost immediately by the testing of three long-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads. Obama correctly condemned the tests and stated that they run counter to United Nations resolutions and that they pose a clear threat to both South Korea and Japan, "which the world must act against". Why is it that North Korea remains part of the "Axis of Evil" and warrants such stiff condemnation and calls for concerted international action against its nuclear arms program? Has North Korea voice any kind of clear threat against anyone? Has Kim Jong-Il threatened to sink Japan or wipe South Korea off the map? Has he attended a UN sponsored conference to do nothing other than call for the annihilation of another State? North Korea simply tested some of their own emerging technology, and this was enough for the US to issue the strongest condemnation of Barack Obama's term in office. Yet Iran, which openly and belligerently threatens another country; whose president uses every stage and opportunity to proclaim his desire to annihilate a member State of the United Nations, and who thumbs his nose at American interests in a large part of the world, merits no such condemnation. Not only that, Obama is interested in opening a dialogue with Iran in an effort to make nice and to appease Iran's leaders into changing their mind. Regarding North Korea, America's leaders are very clear on where the threat emanates from and what it actually is — even though North Korea doesn't state any threat openly. But regarding Iran, Clinton simply can't bring herself to say that Iran's threat is an open military threat against Israel. To her, the real threat is not important. It is only the perceived threat of a regional arms race that concerns her. It is clear from this comparison that what is driving US policy toward Israel is nothing short of anti-Semitism. Let's face it — where Israel is not the issue, the American response is in line with its historical posture. The US has always been strongly opposed to a nuclear North Korea. And rightly so. But when Israel is the issue, no one's home. Iran could fire a missile at Tel Aviv and wipe out a million Jews, and the current US administration would continue with its negotiations in the hope of preventing an arms race. It is high time for Israel — the media, the government, and the nation as a whole — to wake up and understand the Obama Administration's policies for what they are — a kick in the stomach to Israel's existence. Prime Minister Netanyahu may already be aware of this and acting accordingly if his performance in Washington last week is to be continued. But the logical conclusion is that Israel must find new allies to stand alongside us as America leads the rest of the world in turning against us. One such possible ally is India, which faces a grave threat from the possibility that Pakistan's government will fall apart and leave its nuclear arsenal in the hands of al Qaeda and the Taliban. Finding such new alliances is not so difficult. But it will take courage to do so. |
|
POLL: NEARLY 40% OF GAZANS AND 30% OF JUDEA AND SAMARIA 'PALESTINIANS' WOULD LIKE TO EMIGRATE
Posted by Carl in Jerusalem, May 31, 2009. |
|
A poll taken in the month of April, and published by the
'Palestinian' Center for Development Studies on Wednesday, shows that
39.6% of Gazans and 28.8% of Judea and Samaria 'Palestinians' would
like to emigrate. Here are some of the poll highlights:
1. How do you describe the current economic situation of your family?
2. In the current period, do you feel that you and your family are safe?
3. Are you generally optimistic or pessimistic about the future?
4. Is the family provider currently employed?
5. If you had the opportunity to migrate and live abroad, would you
immigrate?
6. Have you been personally exposed to any of the following practices by the occupation army?
...
To get out of the current Palestinian crisis, which of the following propositions do you approve?
Will you approve a solution taking in consideration the UN resolutions and including a Palestinian independent state in West Bank and Gaza with Jerusalem as its capital and a just solution for the refugee problem?
...
Within the different practiced strategies, which of the following is more likely to achieve national liberation and establishment of the independent state?
Note especially that most 'Palestinians' do not claim to have been abused by the 'occupation army' (and I would bet that many of the claims that were made have been exaggerated), and that despite the fact that most 'Palestinians' would accept solutions that Israel has offered, a plurality of 'Palestinians' want to use both 'resistance and negotiations' and substantial numbers want to leave. I view that as despair that the 'Palestinian' leadership will ever accept a solution to the 'Palestinian' problem offered by Israel.
By the way, the picture at the top is a collapsed cesspool in Gaza a couple of years ago.
Carl in Jerusalem blogs at Israel Matzav. This essay is
archived at
http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2009/05/
|
|
'HEBREW BOOK-BURNING' MINISTER FAROUK HOSNI IS FRONT-RUNNER TO HEAD UNESCO
Posted by CPocerl, May 31, 2009. |
|
A reader of the article, Roger, Los Angeles, USA, wrote: "Hosni is a perfect example of his brethren in Egypt. This is their mindset and this is who they are. This is why UNESCO is a joke." That says it. This below was written by Charles Bremner in Paris. It appeared in Times Onlinehttp://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6391201.ece |
|
Farouk Hosni says he regrets his outburst in the Egyptian parliament An Egyptian Cabinet minister who offered to burn Hebrew books last year enters the final straight as favourite for leadership of Unesco today in the face of fierce opposition from Jewish groups and intellectuals in Europe. Farouk Hosni, 71, an artist who has served as Culture Minister for 21 years, apologised this week for his book-burning call and is still deemed front-runner among seven contenders for the post of director-general of the Paris-based UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. Applications close tonight after a ten-day battle between Mr Hosni and his accusers, conducted largely in the pages of Le Monde, the highbrow French newspaper. Israel decided this week to back Mr Hosni and it is held to be the Arab world's turn for the plum international post, but if the furore in France and Germany spreads he may lose when Unesco members vote in September. Mr Hosni, who is supported by the Arab League and African nations, had until recently been deemed an easy choice to succeed Koichiro Matsuura, of Japan, as the ninth chief since Sir Julian Huxley was Unesco's first director-general in the late 1940s. The latest in a long history of Unesco storms erupted last week with a blistering attack in Le Monde by three Jewish celebrities under the title: "The shame of a disaster foretold". Bernard-Henri Lévy, the philosopher-journalist, Claude Lanzmann, the film-maker, and Elie Wiesel, the Nobel peace laureate, urged the international community to block the appointment of a man whom they described as a racist and inciter of hate. They cited his call in the Egyptian parliament last May to burn all Hebrew language books in the Alexandria library. "If there are any there, I will myself burn them in front of you," he said. They also summarised Mr Hosni's "nauseating" anti-Israeli positions, including allegations that Jews had infiltrated the world's media and spread lies. "We invite all countries dedicated to liberty and culture to take the initiatives necessary to avert this threat and avoid the disaster that would be his nomination," they said. Mr Hosni responded on Wednesday with an apology. "I want to solemnly say that I regret the words that I used," he wrote. "Nothing is more distant to me than racism, the negation of others or the desire to hurt Jewish culture or any other culture." He said that his remark on the books was delivered in the heat of the moment and should be understood in the light of the suffering of the Palestinian people. He pleaded for understanding and noted that he was deemed to be a disgraceful liberal by Egyptian and Arab conservatives. "My failure would be a victory for the most intolerant circles in my own country," he said. The French criticism was echoed by the German Council of Culture. Olaf Zimmermann, its chief executive, said that someone who "failed to respect the diversity of the world's cultures" should not be allowed to run global cultural and education policy. The publicity has shone a light on Mr Hosni's record as a leader of Egyptian orthodoxy. He has censored the media and films. He once banned heavy metal music and its fans were arrested. Two years ago he barred from Egypt The Band's Visit, an Israeli comedy about an Egyptian police band marooned in a poor Israeli town. The controversy may be turning European governments against Mr Hosni but it is too early to predict an outcome, diplomats say.
Contact CPoerl by email at Cpocerl@aol.com
This appeared in the Times,
|
|
HOW SPAIN DEALS WITH NATIVE TERRORISM; SETTLEMENT FREEZE IMPLICATIONS; THE AMERICAN ISRAELI ACTION COALITION
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 31, 2009. |
|
Spain has rebuked Israeli anti-terrorist efforts as inhumane. It plans to prosecute Israeli officials for alleged war crimes in Gaza. Everyone knows the real motive is to persecute Israel for defending itself. How does Spain deal with its native terrorist movement, the ETA, seeking independence for the Basque provinces. Unlike Palestinian Arabs, the Basques are a distinct nationality, and had independence at various times. Basque terrorists have killed about 800 people, a fraction of the number of Israelis murdered by Arab terrorists, even smaller in proportion to population, inasmuch as Spain has several times the population of Israel. Here is how Spain deals with its own, Basque terrorists. Spanish paramilitary forces routinely torture captured terrorists or innocent people caught up in arrests. Spanish death squads exterminate Basque terrorists or innocent people caught up in raids. The government claims no knowledge of this, but several high government officials were convicted for it. Spanish anti-terrorist forces routinely injure bystanders. Sometimes this result from bombs those forces plant without knowing who will set them off. Some squads invade foreign countries, to do this. Spain demanded that other countries deport Basque terrorists. Spain hypocrisy demands that Israel not "occupy" Judea and Samaria. Hypocritically, Spain maintains a couple of enclaves on the coast of Morocco. Morocco claims them. Jews have more legitimate a right to reside in the Jewish Territories in their homeland than Spaniards have in enclaves of Morocco. Africans try to get into the Spanish enclaves, so Spain built a fence to bar them, but demands that Israel tear down its own fence. Israel's much-criticized security fence was built to keep out murderers, not the case with Spain's enclaves (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/12). SPANISH EFFORT TO RESTRICT WAR CRIMES TRIALS Spain's legislature resolved that the government should end prosecution of alleged human rights abuses of non-Spaniards for crimes committed abroad and against non-Spaniards. The practice makes diplomatic problems and could become a "judicial free-for-all." (Victoria Burnett & Marlisa Simons, NY Times, 5/21, A10.) What does free-for-all mean, here? The report devoted itself to defending the practice. It did not explain the real problems with it. Those problems are abuse of the privilege by terrorists to make phony charges against innocent opponents for propaganda and to embarrass them, and perhaps to get a biased court to convict enemies. The New York paper did not serve its readers on that issue. Is it by coincidence that it doesn't like the same U.S. and Israeli leaders who are likely to be indicted under the practice? SPECIAL REPORT ON JERUSALEM HOUSING Jerusalem Mayor Barkat said that his new, master plan seeks to keep people from moving out of the city. I asked my Israeli associate for an explanation. She informs us that real estate is pricy there, whether rental or purchase. Business people from all ethnic and religious segments can afford it. Newlyweds cannot. They live with their parents or move to suburbs, such as Male Adumim, Efrat, Neve Daniel, etc.. People are drawn from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, center of the hi-tech industry. Jerusalem needs affordable housing and high-tech industry. You may recall that the master plan projects thousands of new
apartments; see
IMPLICATIONS OF SETTLEMENT FREEZE When foreign critics of Israel claim that Israeli settlements in the Territories are illegal, they fail to cite the international law and to consider the law-based arguments that they are legal. They know that the Arabs want the Territories, but overlook their desire for all of Israel, whose conquest they consider the Territories a major stepping stone. Not a "two-state solution" but a final solution. The Arabs want the Territories; but wanting is not entitlement. Why should foreigners prefer the Arab desire to the Jewish desire? Prejudice? The specious assumption is that the Jews who returned to their ancient homeland there are foreigners, and not entitled to the area, whereas the Arabs, who invade or immigrated to the Jewish homeland are aboriginal. Don't expect the governments and journalists who have that assumption to remember or acknowledge that the post-WWI peace accords broke up the Turkish Empire into a mostly Arab Mideast with the traditional Land of Israel to be returned to the Jewish people from whom it was usurped. Or that afterwards, Britain gave most of the Jewish homeland to the Arabs, anyway. Now they want to divide Israel again, making it non-viable. It's the usual foreign policy foul-up. DIPLOMATIC GAMES If Israel makes a nationalistic or self-defense decision before a meeting with U.S. officials, critics claim Israel insults the U.S. officials. Childish carping. RUSSIAN ARMS SALES TO IRAN Russia did it again. Criticized for preparing to sell advanced jet fighters to Iran, Russia claims it is freezing the deal. It did the same with advanced anti-aircraft missiles. It did the same with nuclear power plants that promote development of nuclear weapons. But the nuclear technology transfer went on anyway. I think that Russia backs off only temporarily, until the criticism dies down. That gangster state (run by the KGB and not by rule of law) does anything for money and to embarrass the U.S. Wait till the Muslims start shaking down Russia or subverting it from within! INTRODUCING THE AMERICAN ISRAELI ACTION COALITION The American Israeli Action Coalition consists of Americans in Israel, but has an office in New York City, too. It has a quarter-million people to draw upon. The membership love and understand both countries. They are in a position to advise both on productive policy. Their principles: 1. Cultivating cooperation between the peoples and governments of the United States and Israel. The Coalition sponsored the first U.S. presidential-style debate held abroad. Both candidates sent representatives to participate. The Coalition, itself, is non-partisan, being interested in broader issues. Hundreds attended. The debate was more feisty than those between the actual candidates. Such activity helps keep expatriates focused on U.S. politics and U.S. politicians focused on Israel. Press releases, endorsements or criticism of policies, meetings with U.S. politicians, newspaper advertisements — it has done that, too. See its website: http://www.aiacoalition.org/ Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
ISLAMIC SPEAKERS BUREAU BACKED BY RADICAL PROFS
Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, May 31, 2009. |
|
A California nonprofit dedicated to "teaching about Islam & Muslims" at U.S. high schools and college campuses features a board of advisors that is stacked with some of the most controversial activist professors in the field of Middle Eastern studies today. The imprimatur of these scholars may signal a troubling shift toward the support of proselytizing efforts and the further unraveling of Middle East Studies in America. The board of Islamic Networks Group (ING) is a veritable Who's Who of Islamist apologists and activists. Leading the list is John Esposito, the founding director of the Saudi-funded Center for Muslim Christian Understanding at Georgetown University. He famously stated that the suicide-bombing Hamas organization engages in "honey, cheese-making, and home-based clothing manufacture." Joining Esposito on the ING board is Sherman Jackson of the University of Michigan, who was a trustee at the North American Islamic Trust and worked with the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both un-indicted co-conspirators in the U.S. v. Holy Land Foundation. There's also Ingrid Mattson, a convert to Islam, who is a professor at the Hartford Seminary and president of the un-indicted co-conspirator ISNA. While much of her work is controversial, she is famous for a CNN chatroom interview in 2001 in which she stated that the radical Saudi Wahhabi ideology is "a reform movement" that "really was analogous to the European Protestant reformation." Hamza Yusuf Hanson, who is not a scholar but sits on the ING board, publicly declared his own extremism at an ISNA convention. In 1991, he reportedly delivered a speech titled "Jihad is the Only Way" to the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), which is an arm of the radical organization Jamaat-i-Islami in Pakistan. While Maha El-Genaidi, the founder, president and CEO of ING, does not appear openly to embrace radicalism, she reportedly has worked with the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), also an un-indicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case. El-Genaidi also participated in an event sponsored by the Muslim Students Association with Siraj Wahhaj, an un-indicted co-conspirator in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. ING's reach is wide. Its web site lists more than a dozen affiliated organizations in North America. They reflect a broad network involved in Islamic outreach (da'wa), otherwise known as proselytizing. The list of ING affiliates includes such Muslim outreach organizations as: The Islamic Speakers Bureau of Nebraska; the Islamic Resource Group in Minnesota; the Islamic Education and Resource Network in Michigan; the Islamic Center of Cincinnati; the Organization of Islamic Speakers Midwest Illinois; the Islamic Speakers Bureau of Atlanta; the Kentucky Islamic Resource Group; the Islamic Speakers Bureau of San Diego; and the Islamic Speakers Bureau of Vancouver. Because ING charges nothing for its campus speeches, hosts aren't deterred by financial needs. Thus, with a modest 2007 budget of $356,000, the latest figure available via public tax returns, ING made an astonishing 750 classroom visits in one year, a figure that doesn't include visits to churches, senior centers, corporations, and forums for policemen and healthcare workers. According to a recent ING newsletter, the group reached 14,000 students and adults after public schools and universities responded to a large-scale ING direct mail campaign. ING also disseminates its message through the printed word. Access to the ING online store is now denied for reasons unknown, but a few of the organization's publications are available on the Internet. Among them is Arab and Muslim Stereotyping in American Popular Culture by Jack Sheehan, a former communications professor at Southern Illinois University who was also a visiting professor at Esposito's Center for Muslim Christian Understanding. Another title is Presenting Ramadan and Eid in Elementary School: Grades K-6 Kit for Parents and Teachers, designed to generate excitement about these Muslim holy days through art, music, and "lunar activities." ING also appears to have created a curriculum about Islam for grades 7 through 12. It also appears that the State of California, at least at one point, used ING curriculum. However, the ING links on the California Department of Education website are now dead. There is nothing even vaguely radical on the ING website. The organization's behavior appears to be consistent with its message of pluralism. One might only observe that the organization attempts to whitewash the radical strains of the religion (a common theme in the work of Esposito and Mattson). Without challenging ING's freedom to preach, two important observations should be made. First, it is now clear that some Middle Eastern Studies professors have ceased being observers of Islam and are now engaging in its propagation. Countless analysts have noted that Middle Eastern Studies professors substitute scholarship with apologia for radicalism. Still others openly agitate against the United States or Israel. However, it is rare to see scholars openly lend their support to proselytizing efforts of this kind. It is too early to know whether the scholars on the ING board represent an anomaly or a trend. The motivations of Mattson and Sherman — both converts to Islam — are somewhat understandable. Esposito, a non-Muslim, is more of a mystery. On a more practical level, elementary school, high school, or college administrators mulling a free visit from El-Genaidi's group should be forewarned about the academic engine that powers ING. ING's leading thinkers have a history of cavorting with apologists for radicalism-and the radicals themselves. Jonathan Schanzer, a former terrorism analyst for the U.S. Treasury Department, is deputy executive director for the Jewish Policy Center and author of Hamas vs. Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine. Contact him at jschanzer@jewishpolicycenter.org This appeared in the American Thinker and is archived at www.jewishpolicycenter.org/973/islamic-speakers-bureau-backed-by-radical-profs The original has live links to additional material. |
|
WHAT DOES THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAVE AGAINST JEWISH BABIES?
Posted by Yid with Lid, May 31, 2009. |
|
The issue of natural growth of existing settlements is an important one for Israel. Without that growth, parents who have lots of children will not be able to move into a bigger apartment, children who get married and have kids will not be able to live near their parents. Elliott Abrams, the former deputy national security adviser who was intimately involved in the issue of Israeli settlements, acknowledged that there were understandings regarding natural growth in a Washington Post article in April, in which he said, "For the past five years, Israel's government has largely adhered to guidelines that were discussed with the United States but never formally adopted: that there would be no new settlements, no financial incentives for Israelis to move to settlements and no new construction except in already built-up areas. The clear purpose of the guidelines? To allow for settlement growth in ways that minimized the impact on Palestinians." Source But President Obama, and SOS Clinton have made it absolutely clear that the old US/Israel agreement is is no longer OK with the US. The clear message being given to Jerusalem by some key supporters in the US is that this time, there is not going to be a lot of understanding in the Democratic Congress for any building in the settlements. So what is going on here? Is Obama breaking the agreement in order to be able to use the settlements to distance himself from Israel and toward the Muslim world? Or did he make an issue of the settlements because like the moderate terrorist Abbas, he thinks it the easiest way to get Bibi out of office? Or maybe the Democratic Party just has a problem with Jewish babies? THE WASHINGTON TIMES EDITORIAL: What does Hillary Rodham Clinton have against Jewish babies? Last week, the secretary of state issued a demarche to Tel Aviv stating that Washington "wants to see a stop to [West Bank] settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural-growth exceptions." The euphemism "natural growth" refers to children. About 9,600 babies were born in West Bank settlements in 2007, and the State Department views these bundles of joy as a threat to its precious peace process. This comes from the Yid with Lid website:
|
|
THE DOCUMENTS ABOUT SAMARIA AND JUDEA PRESIDENT OBAMA APPARENTLY DECIDED TO IGNORE
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, May 31, 2009. | ||
|
This comes from Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director of IMRA, Independent Media Review and Analysis, an Israel-based news organization which provides an extensive digest of media, polls and significant interviews and events relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict. Its website address is http://www.imra.org.il Write him at imra@netvision.net.il | ||
|
"In light of new realities on the ground, including already
existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to
expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full
and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous
efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same
conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement
will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that
reflect these realities."
"On behalf of the Prime Minister of the State of Israel, Mr. Ariel Sharon, I wish to reconfirm the following understanding, which had been reached between us: 1. Restrictions on settlement growth: within the agreed principles of settlement activities, an effort will be made in the next few days to have a better definition of the construction line of settlements in Judea & Samaria. An Israeli team, in conjunction with Ambassador Kurtzer, will review aerial photos of settlements and will jointly define the construction line of each of the settlements." In return for PM Sharon's unilateral retreat from the Gaza Strip, President Bush agreed to the following exchange of letters which provided for settlement construction to continue within building lines with recognition that these "realities" would be reflected in an agreement. The exchange of letters was critical in gaining approval for Sharon's proposed retreat by the various Israeli authorities. It should be noted that the construction lines were never set. By the same token, a list of unauthorized outposts was never prepared. The complete text of the letters follow:
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
ISRAEL and THE AXIS OF EVIL
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, May 31, 2009. |
|
How did Barack Obama become either an active or passive partner to the Axis of Evil? Does his passivity to the nuclear development of North Korea and/or Iran shows us a weak leader who cannot be trusted to protect the nation? That weakness become even more obvious when Obama threatens Israel, the only nation he dares to threaten and the only nation that can or has fought Terror on her own soil. Obama seems to be a Muslim who had that religion imprinted upon him by his Muslim father. Even as Islamic nations and their Terrorist proxies, like Hamas and Hezb'Allah, target America and her Allies of the Free West, President Obama ignores their aggressive attacks all over the world while apologizing for America. Last month Mahmoud Ahmadinejad test-fired an ICBM — Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile, named the Sajjil-2 with the capacity to reach 1200 miles (2000 kilometers). The Sajjil-2 could carry a 2,200 pound nuclear warhead and reach Southern Europe, Israel and American military bases housing between 200,000 and 250,000 American troops. It seems as if Obama is a de facto fellow-traveler for Islam while betraying to the "Jihadists" (Holy Warriors for Islam) America's one ally (Israel) who might be able to knock out Iran's growing nuclear threat to the world. Regrettably, America will pay a terrible price, either from the Muslim "Jihadist" sleeper cells implanted inside America by the Arabist State Department. Or, some of the manifest catastrophes (money crash, weather disasters, biological infections) may be simply the mystical retribution imposed by the G-d of Abraham on a once great nation for turning against the Jewish State and her people. The American people and a super-majority of the American Congress always supported Israel, while those who rose to political power represented the hatred that the Muslims had for Israel. This is by Caroline Glick. It appeared May 27, 2009 in the
Jerusalem Post
|
|
North Korea is half a world away from Israel. Yet the nuclear test it conducted on Monday has the Israeli defense establishment up in arms and its Iranian nemesis smiling like the Cheshire Cat. Understanding why this is the case is key to understanding the danger posed by what someone once impolitely referred to as the "Axis of Evil". Less than two years ago, on September 6, 2007, the IAF destroyed a North Korean-built plutonium production facility at Kibar, Syria. The destroyed installation was a virtual clone of North Korea's Yongbyon plutonium production facility. This past March the Swiss daily Neue Zuercher Zeitung reported that Iranian defector Ali Reza Asghari who, before his March 2007 defection to the US, served as a general in Iran's Revolutionary Guards and as deputy defense minister, divulged that Iran paid for the North Korean facility. Teheran viewed the installation in Syria as an extension of its own nuclear program. According to Israeli estimates, Teheran spent between $1 billion and $2billion for the project. It can be assumed that Iranian personnel were present in North Korea during Monday's test. Over the past several years, Iranian nuclear officials have been on hand for all of North Korea's major tests including its first nuclear test and its intercontinental ballistic missile test in 2006. Moreover, it wouldn't be far-fetched to think that North Korea conducted some level of coordination with Iran regarding the timing of its nuclear bomb and ballistic missile tests this week. It is hard to imagine that it is mere coincidence that North Korea's actions came just a week after Iran tested its solid fuel Sejil-2 missile with a range of 2,000 kilometers [1200 miles]. Aside from their chronological proximity, the main reason it makes sense to assume that Iran and North Korea coordinated their tests is because North Korea has played a central role in Iran's missile program. Although Western observers claim that Iran's Sejil-2 is based on Chinese technology transferred to Iran through Pakistan, the fact is that Iran owes much of its ballistic missile capacity to North Korea. The Shihab-3 missile, for instance, which forms the backbone of Iran's strategic arm threatening Israel and its Arab neighbors, is simply an Iranian adaptation of North Korea's Nodong missile technology. Since at least the early 1990s, North Korea has been only too happy to proliferate that technology to whomever wants it. Like Iran, Syria owes much of its own massive missile arsenal to North Korean proliferation. Responding Monday to North Korea's nuclear test, US President Barack Obama said, "North Korea's behavior increases tensions and undermines stability in Northeast Asia." While true, North Korea's intimate ties with Iran and Syria show that North Korea's nuclear program, with its warhead, missile and technological components, is not a distant threat, limited in scope to faraway East Asia. It is a multilateral program shared on various levels with Iran and Syria. Consequently, it endangers not just the likes of Japan and South Korea, but all nations whose territory and interests are within range of Iranian and Syrian missiles. Beyond its impact on Iran's technological and hardware capabilities, North Korea's nuclear program has had a singular influence on Iran's political strategy for advancing its nuclear program diplomatically. North Korea has been a trailblazer in its utilization of a mix of diplomatic aggression and seeming accommodation to alternately intimidate and persuade its enemies to take no action against its nuclear program. Iran has followed Pyongyang's model assiduously. Moreover, Iran has used the international — and particularly the American — response to various North Korean provocations over the years to determine how to position itself at any given moment in order to advance its nuclear program. For instance, when the US reacted to North Korea's 2006 nuclear and ICBM tests by reinstating the six-party talks in the hopes of appeasing Pyongyang, Iran learned that by exhibiting an interest in engaging the US on its uranium enrichment program it could gain valuable time. Just as North Korea was able to dissipate Washington's resolve to act against it while buying time to advance its program still further through the six-party talks, so Iran, by seemingly agreeing to a framework for discussing its uranium enrichment program, has been able to keep the US and Europe at bay for the past several years.
THE OBAMA administration's impotent response to Pyongyang's ICBM test last month and its similarly stuttering reaction to North Korea's nuclear test on Monday have shown Teheran that it no longer needs to even pretend to have an interest in negotiating aspects of its nuclear program with Washington or its European counterparts. Whereas appearing interested in reaching an accommodation with Washington made sense during the Bush presidency, when hawks and doves were competing for the president's ear, today, with the Obama administration populated solely by doves, Iran, like North Korea, believes it has nothing to gain by pretending to care about accommodating Washington. This point was brought home clearly by both Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's immediate verbal response to the North Korean nuclear test on Monday and by Iran's provocative launch of warships in the Gulf of Aden the same day. As Ahmadinejad said, as far the Iranian regime is concerned, "Iran's nuclear issue is over." There is no reason to talk anymore. Just as Obama made clear that he intends to do nothing in response to North Korea's nuclear test, so Iran believes that the president will do nothing to impede its nuclear program. Of course, it is not simply the administration's policy toward North Korea that is signaling to Iran that it has no reason to be concerned that the US will challenge its nuclear aspirations. The US's general Middle East policy, which conditions US action against Iran's nuclear weapons program on the prior implementation of an impossible-to-achieve Israel-Palestinian peace agreement makes it obvious to Teheran that the US will take no action whatsoever to prevent it from following in North Korea's footsteps and becoming a nuclear power. During his press briefing with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu last Monday, Obama said the US would reassess its commitment to appeasing Iran at year's end. And early this week it was reported that Obama has instructed the Defense Department to prepare plans for attacking Iran. Moreover, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, has made several recent statements warning of the danger a nuclear-armed Iran will pose to global security — and by extension, to US national security. On the surface, all of this seems to indicate that the Obama administration may be willing to actually do something to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Unfortunately, though, due to the time-line Obama has set, it is clear that before he will be ready to lift a finger against Iran, the mullocracy will have already become a nuclear power. Israel assesses that Iran will have a sufficient quantity of enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb by the end of the year. The US believes that it could take until mid-2010. At his press briefing last week Obama said that if the negotiations are deemed a failure, the next step for the US will be to expand international sanctions against Iran. It can be assumed that here, too, Obama will allow this policy to continue for at least six months before he will be willing to reconsider it. By that point, in all likelihood, Iran will already be in possession of a nuclear arsenal. Beyond Obama's timeline, over the past week, two other developments made it apparent that regardless of what Iran does, the Obama administration will not revise its policy of placing its Middle East emphasis on weakening Israel rather than on stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. First, last Friday, Yediot Aharonot reported that at a recent lecture in Washington, US Lt.-Gen. Keith Dayton, who is responsible for training Palestinian military forces in Jordan, indicated that if Israel does not surrender Judea and Samaria within two years, the Palestinian forces he and his fellow American officers are now training at a cost of more than $300 million could begin killing Israelis. Assuming the veracity of Yediot's report, even more unsettling than Dayton's certainty that within a short period of time these US-trained forces could commence murdering Israelis, is his seeming equanimity in the face of the known consequences of his actions. The prospect of US-trained Palestinian military forces slaughtering Jews does not cause Dayton to have a second thought about the wisdom of the US's commitment to building and training a Palestinian army. Dayton's statement laid bare the disturbing fact that even though the administration is fully aware of the costs of its approach to the Palestinian conflict with Israel, it is still unwilling to reconsider it. Defense Secretary Robert Gates just extended Dayton's tour of duty for an additional two years and gave him the added responsibility of serving as Obama's Middle East mediator George Mitchell's deputy.
FOUR DAYS after Dayton's remarks were published, senior American and Israeli officials met in London. The reported purpose of the high-level meeting was to discuss how Israel will abide by the administration's demand that it prohibit all construction inside Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria. What was most notable about the meeting was its timing. By holding the meeting the day after North Korea tested its bomb and after Iran's announcement that it rejects the US's offer to negotiate about its nuclear program, the administration demonstrated that regardless of what Iran does, Washington's commitment to putting the screws on Israel is not subject to change. All of this of course is music to the mullahs' ears. Between America's impotence against their North Korean allies and its unshakable commitment to keeping Israel on the hot seat, the Iranians know that they have no reason to worry about Uncle Sam. As for Israel, it is a good thing that the IDF has scheduled the largest civil defense drill in the country's history for next week. Between North Korea's nuclear test, Iran's brazen bellicosity and America's betrayal, it is clear that the government can do nothing to impact Washington's policies toward Iran. No destruction of Jewish communities will convince Obama to act against Iran. Today Israel stands alone against the mullahs and their bomb. And this, like the US's decision to stand down against the Axis of Evil, is not subject to change. 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 |
|
WELL SAID
Posted by Milton Franks-Lhermann, May 30, 2009. |
|
This came from Frank Sequeira, who writes,
"Finally — someone said everything I have been thinking and feeling, in a more eloquent manner than I ever could.
It is by Robert A. Hall, who is a Marine Vietnam veteran who served five terms in the Massachusetts state senate. |
|
I'll be 63 soon. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce, and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked, hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired — very tired. I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth around" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy or stupid to earn it. I'm tired of being told that I have to pay more taxes to "keep people in their homes." Sure, if they lost their jobs or got sick, I'm willing to help. But if they bought McMansions at three times the price of our paid-off, $250,000 condo, on one-third of my salary, then let the left wing Congress-critters who passed Fannie and Freddie and the Community Reinvestment Act that created the bubble help them with their own money. I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers. In thirty years, if they get their way, the United States will have the religious freedom and women's rights of Saudi Arabia, the economy of Zimbabwe, the freedom of the press of China, the crime and violence of Mexico, the tolerance for Gay people of Iran and the freedom of speech of Venezuela. Aren't multiculturalism and diversity beautifully divisive? I'm tired of being told that Islam is a "Religion of Peace," when every day I can read dozens of stories of Muslim men killing their sisters, wives and daughters for their family "honor"; of Muslims rioting over some slight offense; of Muslims murdering Christians and Jews because they aren't "believers"; of Muslims burning schools for girls; of Muslims stoning teenage rape victims to death for "adultery"; of Muslims mutilating the genitals of little girls; all in the name of Allah, because the Qur'an (aka Koran) and Shari'a law tells them to do so. I believe "a man should be judged by the content of his character, not by the color of his skin." I'm tired of being told that "race doesn't matter" in the post-racial world of President Obama, when it's all that matters in affirmative action jobs, lower college admission and graduation standards for minorities (harming them the most), government contract set-asides, tolerance for the ghetto culture of violence and fatherless children that hurts minorities more than anyone and in the appointment of US Senators from Illinois. I think it's very cool that we have a black president and that a black child is doing her homework at the desk where Lincoln wrote the emancipation proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less in an all-knowing government. I'm tired of a news media that thinks Bush's fund raising and inaugural expenses were obscene, but that think Obama's at triple the cost, were wonderful. That thinks Bush exercising daily was a waste of presidential time, but Obama exercising is a great example for the public to control weight and stress, that picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his, that slammed Palin with two years as governor for being too inexperienced for VP, but touted Obama with three years as senator as potentially the best president ever. Wonder why people are dropping their subscriptions or switching to Fox News? Get a clue. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but the media and scary Kerry drove me to his camp in 2004. I'm tired of being told that out of "tolerance for other cultures" we must let Saudi Arabia use our oil money to fund mosques and Madrassa Islamic schools to preach hate in America, while no American group is allowed to fund a church, synagogue or religious school in Saudi Arabia to teach love and tolerance. I'm tired of being told I must lower my living standard to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate. My wife and I live in a two-bedroom apartment and carpool together five miles to our jobs. We also own a three-bedroom condo where our daughter and granddaughter live. Our carbon footprint is about 5% of Al Gore's, and if you're greener than Gore, you're green enough. I'm tired of being told that drug addicts have a disease, and I must help support and treat them, and pay for the damage they do. Did a giant germ rush out of a dark alley, grab them, and stuff white powder up their noses while they tried to fight it off? I don't think Gay people choose to be Gay, but I damn sure think druggies chose to take drugs.. And I'm tired of harassment from "cool" people treating me like a freak when I tell them I never tried marijuana. I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who aren't working, but are living on welfare or crime. What's next? Calling drug dealers, "Undocumented Pharmacists"? And, no, I'm not against Hispanics. Most of them are Catholic and it's been a few hundred years since Catholics wanted to kill me for my religion. I'm willing to fast track for citizenship any Hispanic person who can speak English, doesn't have a criminal record and who is self-supporting without family on welfare or who serves honorably for five years in our military. Those are the citizens we need. I'm tired of latte liberals and journalists, who would never wear the uniform of the Republic themselves, or let their entitlement-handicapped kids near a recruiting station, trashing our military. They and their kids can sit at home, never having to make split-second decisions under life and death circumstances, and bad mouth better people then themselves. Do bad things happen in war? You bet. People die. Do our troops sometimes misbehave? Sure. Does this compare with the atrocities that were the policy of our enemies for the last fifty years-and still are? Not even close. So here's the deal. I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because the girls were Christian. Then we'll compare notes. British and American soldiers are the only troops in history that civilians came to for help and handouts, instead of hiding from in fear. I'm tired of people telling me that their party has a corner on virtue and the other party has a corner on corruption. Read the papers — bums are bi-partisan. And I'm tired of people telling me we need bi-partisanship. I live in Illinois, where the "Illinois Combine" of Democrats and Republicans has worked together harmoniously to loot the public for years. And I notice that the tax cheats in Obama's cabinet are bi-partisan as well. I'm tired of hearing wealthy athletes, entertainers and politicians of both parties talking about innocent mistakes, stupid mistakes or youthful mistakes, when we all know they think their only mistake was getting caught. I'm tired of people with a sense of entitlement, rich or poor. Speaking of poor, I'm tired of hearing people with air-conditioned homes, color TVs and two cars called poor. The majority of Americans didn't have that in 1970, but we didn't know we were "poor." The poverty pimps have to keep changing the definition of poor to keep the dollars flowing. I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems. Yes, I'm damn tired. But I'm also glad to be 63. Because, mostly, I'm not going to get to see the world these people are making. I'm just sorry for my granddaughters. Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav. net.il |
|
WHO IS FLEEING ISRAEL?; WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE ELECTRIC/HYDRO/GREEN CAR INDUSTRY?
Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, May 30, 2009. |
|
1) Who is fleeing Israel? May 24, 2009 A recent survey of the Israeli population claimed to show that 23 percent of Israelis are considering leaving the country if Iran obtains a nuclear bomb. This concern about mass flight from Israel has been voiced before by scholars. It is also voiced in the academy where professors speak of Israelis "returning" to Europe. But all of this talk is predicated on a leftist Ashkenazi view of who lives in Israel. It is true that the primarily Ashkenazi leftist population of Israel's wealthiest areas where anti-Israel protest is the pastime for Friday afternoon and military service is considered something "for suckers" may be considering "returning" to Europe, their cultural center. But the poor Israelis, the ones with roots in Russia and the Middle East and the right wing Ashkenazim aren't going anywhere. They can't "return" to Europe, they aren't from there. On May 24th the Center for Iranian Studies at Tel Aviv University released a study that showed that 23 percent of Israelis would consider leaving Israel if Iran obtains a nuclear weapon. The report didn't give a geographic, religious or ethnic breakdown of who these people were but several statistics reveal more about them. Those over the age of 40 were more fearful than their younger counterparts. Some 39 percent of women said they would consider leaving the country whereas only 22 percent of men said so. In addition those most fearful defined themselves as left wing voters. Thus those seeking to flee were mostly left wing, older and female. What demographic in Israel fits that description? Jewish-Ashkenazi descendants of the second and third aliyah who live in Tel Aviv and the Kibbutzim and who, as a demographic, vote left or extreme-left. This says much about this group. While living in Israel they support the Palestinians. Their secular culture is primarily directed at learning more about the "Arab other". On Israeli independence day these are the people who go to commemorate the Nakhba. These are the people responsible for the fact that most University graduation ceremonies in Israel feature Arab music, rather than Jewish, western or Israeli music. These are the people who attend the belly-dancing classes. These are the wealthy people who drive cars and don't suffer terrorism because they have poor people to work security for them at their left wing film festivals and they are not forced to ever ride a bus. These are the people with the dual citizenship who can flee the country easily because they have EU citizenship which they obtained based on claims that they were refugees from the Nazis. These are, in short, the exact same people who poured out of Europe in the 1930s fleeing he rise of Nazism, the same people who suddenly fled to Palestine, not as Zionists, but as Jewish refugees, when their beloved Europe, the culture of assimilation they so loved, turned on them. And now they are going back. Not only are they going back but their culture so dominates the Israeli discourse that authors and writers falsely imagine that the nation of Israel is entirely made up of these people. Consider Benny Morris' assertion in his One State, Two States that "The Arab community is predominantly Asiatic in character, the Jewish community predominantly European." Or consider Ian Lustick who claimed in an article entitled "'Israel's Fight or Flight Response'" published in the National Interest that fears that Iran "might obtain a bomb could lead to substantial Jewish immigration from Israel." Or Professor David Newman of Ben-Gurion University who noted in a recent Jerusalem Post editorial that "Much to their parents' and grandparents' dissatisfaction, young Israelis are returning to Europe in droves and are demonstrating their preferences for European lifestyles and culture just two short generations after the Holocaust. Many of them are taking up their rights to European passports, even through the problematic adoption of Polish and German citizenship." But Newman, Lustick and Morris are wrong. Israel is not primarily a European country, most of its citizens are not lining up to flee and most of them can't "return" to Europe because they aren't from Europe. The Ashkenazi leftist elite who helped found the state of Israel have given birth to a false Israeli-European narrative of a country full of Holocaust survivors who have dual citizenship and might one day return to Europe. But their narrative represents only that spineless 23 percent of Israel. It represents the wealthy in Tel Aviv, the people in Rishon and Hertziliya and Ceaseria. The people in Rehavia, Talbieh and Katamon. The people in the Kibbutzim. It doesn't represent any of the people in the settlements, and there are 250,000 of them, or the people in the development towns. It doesn't represent the Yemenites, the Ethiopians, the Russians or the Mizrahim and Sephardim. It doesn't represent the right wing Ashkenazim and the settlers, who are mostly Ashkenazi as well. It doesn't represent the Americans. Most importantly it doesn't represent the religious Jews, the orthodox and black haters, the Hasidim, the Mitnagdim, the Lithuanians. The Ashkenazi elite of Israel worked for a long time to destroy the soul of the country. Through self hatred and comparing the country to Nazi Germany they torn down the country from within for years. They settled the poorer immigrants on the borders in the 1950s and didn't arm them to fight the infiltrators that murdered and raped them. In the 1980s they drove up the prices of real estate inside the Green Line forcing the next generation of immigrants and vulnerable people to seek housing in the settlements. Those people who settled outside the green line they then called "Nazis" and "obstacles to peace" and bulldozed their houses and left them on the street. When the Russians came, some 1 million of them, they stuck them in new communities and settled them in areas that they were supposed to "judaize". But their communities, from Gilo to Nazareth Alit didn't become Jewish, they became areas of Arab migration where Russians, who have few children, either sold their homes to Muslims or gave their daughters in marriage to them. The entire Russian aliyah, 1 million strong, may not produce more than 200,000 children in the second generation, they are a community whose demographic decline is more severe than Russia itself. But there is an Israel that is not fearful and has decided to stay. Some of them also have dual citizenship but they are not planning on "returning" to Europe. They know that Europe is the land that spit them out, the land that is littered with their graveyards, graveyards that are often defaced by the new favored, loved and coddled immigrants to Europe; Muslims. Whereas the Jews were crushed and destroyed the new immigrants to Europe receive amenities and welfare and support from the leftists in Europe, people who did nothing for the Jews when they lived their but do everything for those who hate Jews today. Those who will stay in Israel know that Europe offers nothing but a dead end and that there can be no return because it is not from whence the Jews came. Israel will be better off without the 23 percent, those who represent a parasitical elite, people who do not work but do protest, people who do not pitch in but call their fellow citizens "Nazis", those who run from terror rather than run towards it to prevent it. When the 23 percent have left the best people will be left behind, the good hard working people, the poor without foreign citizenship and the wealthy patriots, the settlers and the religious, those who know how to fight and those who want to fight. Those who love the land and those who are part of it and wish to lay down to be interred in it. There is no going back, no returning for these people. These people are home and they will remain home to face the threat. 2) What is wrong with the electric/hydro/green car industry?: May 23, 2009
The continuing flailing about of attempts to make 'green' cars is the ever present adoration of the media. Each week sees another new "invention" and another wonderful miracle on wheels that has no petrol and whose only pollutant is a few drops of clean water. The latest in a long line of these programs on the 'car of the future' was a BBC program on a hydro car in California. The car in question seems more reasonable than some of her cousins. It has a range of around 160-200 miles, burns on Hydrogen (the same substance used to power the Hindenburg) and can reach a top speed of 85 miles per hour. This is leaps and bounds above some other electronic cars which have a range of some 40 miles and reach a top speed of 35miles per hour, basically a glorified golf cart. Come to think of it we already had golf carts, which are battery powered, so is this such an innovation? The problem with this industry, even when it is backed up by government funding and the major auto companies, is that it doesn't provide a car anyone wants to drive, because despite the technology the cars don't have the range or power of cars fueled by gasoline. Furthermore the development costs of these cars are astronomical and they are thus cost prohibitive to buy. As if that were not enough some of them require replacing the fuel cells every few years, yet another cost. And as if that were not enough, there is no place to "fuel" these cars. There are no charging points for the electric ones and no gas stations for the hydro ones. The industry is a great failure, almost as great as the old car industry in the U.S, which is a complete failure. However the seeming failure should be seen in light of the original invention of the automobile and the barriers it had cross in order to become a mass market invention available to the average consumer. Let's consider this history. The first automobiles were experimented with in the 1860s and 1870s in Europe and the U.S. There were steam powered vehicles even in the 18th century, and in fact steam was used to power locomotives and ships. However the modern gas powered car using the internal combustion engine was only first put to use in 1860 by a Frenchman. In the 1880s Gottlieb Daimler and Karl Benz were both working on perfecting motorcycles and tricycles in Germany, powered with the gas cylinders first invented in the 1860s. Petrol engines were used in trams and carriages and also for fire engines. But there were no cars. Only in 1893 was the first gasoline powered car driving on America's streets, and there was only one prototype of these. In 1896 Henry Ford built his first car and sold it the first year. But it was until 1903 that he sold another. In these days, according to one report, almost every major town in the U.S. had a "mad scientist" working on his own car. Automobile companies such as the Duryea Motor Wagon, came and went. In 1899 Olds Motor Vehicle established a successful production making the "Curved Dash MotorWagon", a sort of large bucket on four wheels that apparently turned a profit. By 1904 they were selling 5,000 a year. The years 1906 t 1925 represent the beginnings of the automobile industry. However these early cars, such as those made by the Duryeas and Rolls Royce, could only be purchased by the elite. Ford's Model K of 1907 for instance was priced at $65,000 in today's currency. By 1909 Ford's Model T was selling at around 18,000 a year. By 1920 Ford was producing a million cars a year. The ability of people to buy cars was linked to being able to re-fuel them. To that end the first gas station was built in St. Louis in 1905. The second was built by Standard Oil in 1907. Earlier attempts at selling gas to consumers was actually as a side business at pharmacies in Germany the 1890s. But consider the inefficiency of the early cars in fuel consumption. The Model T got about 13-20 miles per gallon (5 to 9 km per litre). It had a 10 gallon tank. Thus its maximum range was only 200 miles. It could drive at a top speed of 45 miles per hour. If we consider the length of time that modern car development took and the time it took before the average consumer could both afford and refuel it we see that it took some 40 years or more. If we consider that Iceland built the first commercial Hydro-fuel station in 2003 we are experiencing a similar slow-revolution in the direction of these 'renewable energies'. Those prophets of electric cars and hydro gas are correct that economies of scale should bring the prices down, just as they have done with computers. The problem is that unlike cars, which were a true revolution from the days of the horse-drawn wagon, the development of new technologies today is not a great leap from the existing gasoline powered cars. Because the new technologies do not compete, but are in fact more expensive and rudimentary, it presents a real barrier to success in the market place. The government believes that it can intervene in this fight, making fuel efficiency standards higher and taxing gasoline or giving tax credits. However the success of the first automobiles were not helped through government intervention. Thus the government mandate for electric cars may not aid their entrance into the market, but slow and hinder it. Seth J. Frantzman is a graduate student in Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies, living in Jerusalem. Contact him at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit his website: http://journalterraincognita.blogspot.com These essays are from Terra Incognita #87. |
|
WHEN IS A JEW A JEW
Posted by GWY, May 30, 2009. |
|
When Paul Newman died, they said how great he was but they failed to mention he considered himself Jewish (born half-Jewish). When the woman (Helen Suzman) who helped Nelson Mandela died last week, they said how great she was but they failed to mention she was Jewish. When Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, Martha Stewart, Randy Cunningham, Gov. Edwards, Conrad Black, Senator Keating, Gov Ryan, and Gov Blagojevich messed up, no one told me what religion or denomination they were because they were not Jewish. When Ivan Boesky or Andrew Fastow or Bernie Madoff committed fraud, almost every article mentioned they were Jewish. This reminds me of a famous Einstein quote — In 1921, Albert Einstein presented a paper on his then-infant Theory of Relativity at the Sorbonne, the prestigious French university. "If I am proved correct," he said, "the Germans will call me a German, the Swiss will call me a Swiss citizen, and the French will call me a great scientist. If relativity is proved wrong, the French will call me a Swiss, the Swiss will call me a German, and the Germans will call me a Jew." Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com |
|
NATURAL GROWTH EXPLAINED
Posted by Steve Kramer, May 30, 2009. |
|
[EDITOR'S NOTE: Obama — the guy that groveled to the Saudi King and is murmuring to the Iranians — has decreed that there is to be no natural growth in Samaria and Judea (AKA the West Bank.) There are now 128 Jewish communities in Samaria and Judea, with a population of almost 300,000 Jews. 18 Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem are included in this ukase, although Israeli Arabs, of course, continue to buy and build everywhere in Jerusalem. Obama now insists these towns and communities not build housing or schools or synagogues. Obviously, the U.S.A. administration has decided that the Palestinian state they intend to create will be free of Jews and it will be built on all the land the "Palestinians" currently claim in the Territories. (They actually claim all of Israel, but that's for the next big diplomatic step.) And they are to have a swatch of Jerusalem as their "capitol."] |
|
"Natural growth" is an important subject when it comes to relations between America and Israel. In a nutshell, Israel's greatest ally insists that Israel not enlarge any settlements in Jewish communities beyond the Green Line, nor build any new ones. Israel agrees, but considers that natural growth within existing legal communities is okay. (There are scores of tiny Jewish enclaves that Israel has already declared to be illegal and has promised to dismantle, although this is easier said than done.) Natural growth in Israel refers to space to accommodate adult children who want to settle near their families. Escalating criticism is being leveled against this concept by the Obama administration, as well as by many liberal Jews. They say, "Where is it written that a right exists to live near your family or in your home town?" I'll grant that in America, this doesn't seem to be important. It's a different story in Israel. In America, many families are separated by several thousand miles and rarely see each other. But in Israel, which is roughly the size and shape of New Jersey, most families live within a half hour's drive of each other and frequently have dinner together at least a few times each month, if not weekly. Close proximity to family members and frequent visits are much more common in Israel than in America. Family size is another factor which makes natural growth important to Israelis. In Israel, with the highest fertility rate of all Western countries, the typical family has three children. Among the twenty per cent of the population who are religious, the birthrate is even higher. Huge apartment blocs, from two-bedroom units to those with up to five bedrooms, are very common. These blocs have been built on both sides of the Green Line because developers utilize vacant space within the communities for projects geared to young married couples. In many Israeli cities, government-subsidized apartment projects for young couples are under construction or are in the planning stages. Natural growth is very important for Arab families throughout the Middle East. Householders enlarge their homes until they resemble small apartment houses, adding quarters for young married couples, their parents, and their grandchildren. Jews share the regional desire to keep their families in close proximity. Perhaps the most obvious reason Israelis build over the Green Line is that unused space is available WITHIN existing communities. Israel expects to retain these communities when and if a peace agreement is finalized with the Palestinians. (Let me remind my readers that prior to the Six Day War of 1967, all of Israel's villages, towns, and cities were within the Green Line — there were no "settlements" until after Israel won that defensive war.) Currently, about ten per cent of Israeli Jews live beyond the Green Line. The Palestinians and other Arabs must come to terms with Israel's retaining its significant communities in the disputed areas. The Arabs must also give up the idea of a Palestinian right of return to Israel. For its part, Israel must find a way to convince the Arabs and its allies that these are immovable Israeli demands. The current brouhaha about natural growth is a smokescreen for the real dispute over Israel's borders. New construction doesn't enlarge the Israeli settlements, it just increases their population. Since the end of the 19th century, long before the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 which paved the way for the modern state of Israel, the Arabs vociferously objected to Jews occupying (their word) ANY land in their midst. The only Arab countries to come to terms with Israel's existence, Egypt and Jordan, do so strictly because of the money they receive from Western countries, the EU, and the UN. In neither country is there any popular support for recognition of Israel. In fact, the rejection of Israel is rampant throughout both populations and in all of their organizations, except among the formal diplomatic establishment. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton recently said, "President Obama wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly." The new American administration is loudly saying what the Arabs want to hear. The administration wants to change Israel's policy on building inside settlements and they seem determined to use political and economic pressure to achieve this. Obama's intention to force Israel to stop ALL construction beyond the Green Line is seen as the "solution" which would bring about a Palestinian state, which his administration believes is the key to solving the problems in the Middle East. But leaning on Israel won't produce a Palestinian state for the simple reason that it's not in Israel's power to create such a state. True, it's easier to coerce Israeli politicians than Palestinian ones. That's because Israelis are not doctrinaire, while Palestinians all speak with one voice: "It's the occupation (that prevents a Palestinian state)." Nevertheless, the Palestinians haven't developed the institutions necessary to run a state. More fundamentally, they haven't stopped hating Jews enough to start building state. The biggest obstacle of all to a Palestinian state today is the enmity between Hamas, which controls Gaza, and Fatah, which has a tenuous hold on the West Bank. This is closely followed by the simmering dispute between the younger generation of Fatah and the "old guard" Palestinian Authority leader, Mahmoud Abbas. If Prime Minister Netanyahu capitulated completely to President Obama's demands and said, "Let there be a Palestinian state," I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for "Palestine" to come into being. Clearly, preventing Israelis beyond the Green Line from building inside existing communities isn't the "make or break" determinant for Palestinian statehood, despite the Obama administration's desire to quickly bring peace to the region. Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." |
|
PRAVDA MOCKS US DESCENT INTO MARXISM AT BREAKNECK SPEED
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, May 30, 2009. |
|
This comes from Gateway Pundit
The original article was written by Stanislav Mishin for the Russian-language newspaper, Pravda. (Pravda is not a government newspaper.) |
|
If only we had a fair and balanced media outlet like Pravda. The last time we heard from this former Soviet news agency they were commenting on how there was major bias by the US media in this past year's national elections. Now they are warning America about creeping Marxism. You wouldn't dare see a US journalist do this. They'd risk getting dragged from the airport tarmac if they did. The reporters at Pravda are mocking America's decent into Marxism at breakneck speed: It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people. Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
JERUSALEM WATCHMAN: WHAT WILL HISTORY RECORD?
Posted by Hands Fiasco, May 29, 2009. |
|
This comes from Stan Goodenough, editor of Jerusalem Watchman a Christian Zionist newspaper based in Jerusalem. |
|
What will history record? That in mid-May, 2009, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appealed to the United States to make a priority of stopping Iran from pursuing the nuclear bomb that threatens Israel's existence. That the Obama administration refused. And that just over one week later, America was standing on the edge of a potential nuclear conflict with North Korea, which test-fired an atomic warhead and launched a handful of surface-to-surface missiles in a defiant show of force. Let me be clear: I do not claim that what I am about to write is "a word from the Lord." Some of the thoughts I will express here have simply "dropped into my head" over the last 24 hours; they came without any leading from a third party and, while they resonate in my spirit, they have not been confirmed by two or three witnesses; or even one. Nor have I had any dreams or visions about this. See below.* On May 18, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met in the White House with the president of the United States, Barack Obama. Both the run-up to and aftermath of that much anticipated meeting have been spun every which way by the media, with a solid majority of columnists and talk show hosts focusing in on "the relationship," on "reading between the lines" and on analyzing the "body language" between the two. Some harked back to the days when frigid winds blew in the Clinton White House after a Netanyahu visit during the Israeli's first tenure in office. Would "Bibi" again forget his "place?" Watchers saw a nervous "regional power medium weight" sitting opposite a self-assured "global superpower heavyweight," and they gave the American kudos for not allowing Netanyahu to "deflect" him from the "real obstacle to peace," that is, Jewish settlements. To other observers,Netanyahu strongly withstood the not inconsiderable pressures an American administration can bring to bear. He stuck to his guns, refused to subscribe to the "two-state solution" and should have been welcomed home as a hero. (He wasn't.) There was more; much more analysis, from serious reporters and from the fringe, underscoring why the profession is often referred to as a media circus. But let's put aside the fluff of press predilections and spinmeister speculations, and get to the substance of what's really taken place. It's a matter of gravest consequence. Netanyahu didn't go to the White House seeking a photo opportunity. He went to ask for American leadership and support in dealing with the out-of-control Iranian nuclear threat that is primarily directed against the Jewish state. From the day of his inauguration on March 31, Netanyahu has been looking for Washington to take Iran seriously. "If you don't stop Iran, I'll have to," he messaged Obama, just hours before being sworn in. Instead of responding appropriately, the American dissembled. Get going with the two-state solution, Obama shot back, and we'll be better able to deal with Tehran. This was Obama's response too when the two leaders spoke to the press after their May 18 meeting. Netanyahu said "the worst danger Israel faces is that Iran would develop nuclear military capabilities." "Iran openly calls for our destruction, which is unacceptable. It threatens the moderate Arab regimes in the Middle East. It threatens US interests worldwide. But if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give a nuclear umbrella to terrorists or worse, could actually give them nuclear weapons. And that would put us all in great peril." Netanyahu's position was that it was necessary to deal with Iran first, and with the "Palestinian" question later. Obama publicly disputed him. "If there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way," the American said. "To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians — between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with the potential Iranian threat." The president went on to suggest that he might reassess his "let's talk" approach to Iran if, by year's end, there was no sign it was having an affect. Netanyahu expressed his appreciation, but administration officials "close to Obama" later quickly emphasized that no deadline had been set. What, in fact, do we have here? Israel's leader has asked the US to help stop Iran from acquiring the means to inflict a holocaust on the Jews. America's leader is not willing to go that way. On the contrary, as The Jerusalem Post's Caroline Glick wrote, the Obama "administration has made its peace with Iran's nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the US will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy." Two days after Netanyahu met with Obama, Iran successfully test fired a 'Sajil' surface-to-surface missile with a 1,200 mile range. Israel is less than 1000 miles from Iran. Two days later, on May 22, a public survey indicated that one in four Israelis is so fearful of the specter of a nuclear Iran that they plan to leave their homeland forever if the mullahs get their hands on the bomb. On May 24 Iran's former Revolutionary Guards chief Mohsen Rezai warned that his country "understands missiles and tanks as well as foreign policy and knows exactly where Israel's sensitive spots are. It could stop them forever with one strike." On May 25, a grim-faced Bibi told his cabinet: If we don't deal with Iran, no one will. On May 27, a new poll found that 51 percent of Israelis want the IDF to strike Iran's nuclear facilities now. This despite Bibi's warning to expect a large number of Israeli casualties if a strike goes down. Iranians have boasted that they have the capability to destroy Israel within just 11 days. Also on May 27, Iran deployed six warships and other vessels into international waters in what Fox News called a "saber-rattling" move. For five days this coming week the world, and specifically the United States government, will watch the Israeli nation ready for full scale war in the largest ever national military exercise since 1948. But Netanyahu's appeal for America to step up to the plate has fallen on deaf ears. Instead, the Obama administration finds the idea of "reaching out to the Muslim world" more appealing just now. And it knows that one of the most effective ways it can do that is by pushing Israel into compliance with the 'Arab Peace Initiative.' Thus did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton emphasize Wednesday the American "expectation" that Israel would immediately comply with the Arab demand that it halt any and all settlement activity. President Obama "wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions," Clinton said. "We think it is in the best interests [of the peace process] that settlement expansion cease. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly. … And we intend to press that point." Do they? How interesting then, that exactly one week after spurning Israel's appeal, the United States this week suddenly finds itself confronting a nuclear-detonating, missile launching North Korea? Is it really just happenstance that Hillary Clinton Wednesday evening, at the same news conference, in almost the same breath, was leveling stern warnings at both Jerusalem and Pyongyang? Or is Someone Else fighting for Israel? History will tell. ----------------------------------------------------- But now, thus says the LORD, who created you, O Jacob,
Therefore please hear this, you afflicted,
-------------------------------------------------------- * When, in 2004/5, the Sharon government was preparing to uproot the Jews of Gaza, destroy their homes and hand over that territory to the Palestinian Arabs, I widely — in my writing and in meetings across the United States — expressed my strong feelings that the Disengagement would not happen, that God would not let it take place. I based my position strongly on God's word through the prophet Amos when He said: "...I will plant them in their land, and no longer shall they be pulled up from the land I have given them," says the LORD your God. (Amos 9:15). It was also clear to me that God had, in the 1967 Six Day War, miraculously restored Gaza (and Judea and Samaria and "East" Jerusalem) to Jewish sovereign rule after nearly 2000 years. Despite the mounting evidence before my eyes that the plan was going to be executed, I held to the conviction it would not take place. It did, of course. And not long afterwards I was challenged by an emotional fellow believer who told me: "You had better publicly confess that you were wrong when you said God told you that there would be no Disengagement." In fact, to the very best of my recollection, I had never said that God told me anything of the sort. All along I had expressed MY thoughts; MY sense, MY conviction, even MY belief. But I never said that God had spoken. Following that uprooting I watched, mesmerized, as Hurricane Katrina prepared to unleash its devastating fury on the south-eastern United States. Deep inside I just KNEW that this was the Divine response to years of America's relentless pushing of Israel that had culminated in the Gaza disaster. Did God TELL me it was Him? Maybe He did — through what I read in the Bible and through the spiritual witness shared by so many others — among them Katrina's victims — that this was indeed God's judgment. Even so, what I did as the hurricane roared ashore in Louisiana was ask the question: Was Katrina the 'fist of God?' However certain I may be of the answer to that question, I never claimed to have heard from Heaven God saying "the storm is My response." One day we will know. Contact HandsFiasco at handsfiasco@webtv.net |
|
DOES BARACK OBAMA BELIEVE ISRAEL IS A SOVEREIGN STATE?
Posted by Milton Franks-Lhermann, May 29, 2009. |
|
Dear Colleagues, I have been reading our communications (and watching TV and listening to the radio and reading the paper) for quite some time. I've been rather struck by reports that BHusseinO and HillaryC DEMAND that we in Israel will do or won't do something or some things. My immediate thought every time is "Who the hell do these people think they are — to DEMAND"? "Our parents?" They can request, advise, even threaten but their demands are equivalent to buckets of horse manure dumped into a farm wagon. I suggest that we will refrain from discussing (see below) these noises coming out of Washington and patiently wait for the farm wagon to enter the white house gate and deliver its load to the rose garden, where it can do some good. The article below was written by Richard Baehr, chief
political correspondent of American Thinker. It appeared today in the
American Thinker Good luck to us all,
|
|
Does Barack Obama believe Israel is a sovereign state? Wednesday, his diplomatic mouthpiece Hillary Clinton said Israel must stop all settlement activity — outposts, new settlements and natural growth of existing settlements. What exactly is natural growth of existing settlements? It means adding a new room to a home within the boundaries of a settlement if a family gets larger, say though a new baby, or building a new home in this settlement, if a couple gets married. In essence, Obama is now telling Israelis not to have children and not to marry. Such a friend. Does anyone really believe that adding on that new room or that new home, is what has stopped the Arabs and Palestinians from making peace with Israel the last 40 years? Virtually all Americans, whether from the Clinton or Bush administrations, who have participated in The Israeli Palestinian negotiating track since the Oslo process began, have accepted that most of the settlements near the green line will become part of Israel if a peace deal is reached. Is Obama signaling that he believes the 1949 armistice lines should be the new boundaries of Israel, as demanded in the Arab League proposal? There really are only two conclusions to draw from this new American chokehold on Israel. One is that Obama and his people are stupid (that's right: fools, despite all the fancy degrees) in believing that peace is at hand if only all settlement growth ended. The other is that they really mean to put the screws to Israel, and are looking for an opening to create conflict between the nations (excuse me, between the US and its vassal). But hey, 78% of Jews voted for this guy. You know who you are. Why would Obama want to screw with Israel? Two possibilities here as well. One is that he was never a friend, despite all that money and support that came into his campaign from the adoring liberal Jewish masses. Some of us (think Ed Lasky) kept warning last year, that all those years with Bill Ayers, and Reverend Wright, and Samantha Power, and Rashid Khalidi, and Ali Abunimah, maybe, just maybe, shaped Obama a bit on the Israeli Palestinian issue. After all, our most empathetic President tends to see the world in terms of winners and losers, the haves and have nots. And on that power equation he has to love the Palestinians. The other explanation gets back to stupidity. Could Obama actually believe that our enemies in the Muslim world will start playing nice if only we distance ourselves from Israel? Could he be that naive? Do the Taliban care about the natural growth of settlements? Does Al Qaeda? Would Ahmadinejad embrace Israel if only natural growth of settlements ceased? What is particularly distressing is how Democrats in Congress, ostensibly such great friends of Israel when they send out campaign fundraising letters, are now lining up with Obama on the settlements issue. Why would they do this? I think it is because Israel is not really a top concern, just as it is not for many American Jews. For liberal politicians, and liberal Jews, global warming, and single payer government health care matter, not the survival of Israel. The clock is ticking on Iran's nuclear program. Any of you have faith Obama will lift a finger to stop the mullah's march to the bomb? Will the US allow Israeli jets to over fly Iraq if it decides to attack Iran? Count me as a skeptic. But hey, why worry? We may soon have cap and trade, and the planet will heal, and new national healthcare that will spend the country into oblivion. Who cares abut Israeli babies, or for that matter Israelis of any age? Contact Milton Franks-Lhermann at midenise@zahav. net.il |
|
OBAMA & COUNTER-INSURGENCY IN CHINESE COLOURS
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, May 29, 2009. |
|
This email came from Ganesh Sahathevan. The article below was posted by B. Raman, who is Additional Secretary (ret'd),
Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, currently,
Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is also
associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail:
seventyone2@gmail.com). It is archived at
|
|
Nothing illustrates more starkingly the helplessness and confusion that prevails in the corridors of the Obama Administration over its Af-Pak policy than a report carried by the Los Angeles Times on May 25, 2009, regarding a recent visit which Richard C. Holbrooke, the Administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, is reported to have made to China and Saudi Arabia in pursuance of his mandate. 2. To quote a news agency message based on the report carried by the LA Times: "The Obama Administration has appealed to China to provide training and even military equipment to help Pakistan counter a growing militant threat, US officials said. .....Richard C Holbrooke, the administration's special representative for Pakistan and Afghanistan, has visited China and Saudi Arabia, another key ally, in recent weeks as part of the effort, says Paul Richter of LAT. The American appeal to China underscores the country's importance in security issues. The United States considers China to be the most influential country for dealing with militaristic North Korea. China also plays a crucial role in the international effort to pressure Iran over its nuclear ambitions......A senior US official, while acknowledging China's hesitation to become more deeply involved, said, "You can see that they're thinking about it." He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic sensitivity of the subject. US officials believe China is skilled at counterinsurgency, a holdover of the knowledge gained during the country's lengthy civil war that ended with a Communist victory in 1949. And with China's strong military ties with Pakistan, US officials hope Beijing could help craft a more sophisticated strategy than Pakistan's current heavy-handed approach." 3. I did not know whether to laugh or cry when I read that the Obama Administration believed that "China is skilled in counter-insurgency", that it acquired its skills during its "war of liberation" against the KMT troops and that it can teach Pakistan "a more sophisticated strategy than Pakistan's current heavy-handed approach." 4. What do the Chinese regard as terrorism or insurgency? Which are the terrorist/insurgent organisations in their perception? Anyone, who has been following Chinese methods of internal security management would know that in the Chinese assessment there are two "terrorist/insurgent" organisations posing a threat to China's internal security — the Tibetan Youth Congress (TYC), which they project as no different from Al Qaeda in its modus operandi and the Islamic Movement of East Turkestan (IMET) of the Uighurs. Since the pro-Dalai Lama uprising in the Tibetan-inhabited areas of China in March, 2008, the Chinese have been repeatedly and consistently condemning the TYC as a terrorist organisation. They have arrested a large number of Tibetan monks and youth and mass trials have been going on. If Obama and his advisers want to have details of what the Chinese have been doing in Tibet since March, 2008, under the pretext of counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency, all they have to do is to read the transcripts of the broadcasts of Radio Free Asia funded by the US State Department and to read the various statements issued by His Holiness the Dalai Lama and his followers. Does the Obama Administration consider this as skilful and sophisticated counter-insurgency techniques? 5. What the Chinese have been doing against the Uighurs in the Xinjiang Province? Indiscriminate arrests, trials and executions. To get details, Obama and his advisers should read the periodic reports of the Human Rights Watch, which is a reputed non-Governmental organisation of the US, and the annual reports of the US State Department on human rights in China. The Chinese counter-insurgency strategy against the Uighurs is based on the principle "catch and kill". That was why the George Bush Administration refused to hand over to China the Uighur jihadis arrested in Afghanistan. The entire community of the human rights organisations of the West was against their being handed over to China since they apprehended that the Chinese would execute them. That was why Albania was persuaded to give sanctuary to these Uighurs. 6. There are two components to the Chinese counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism strategy in Xinjiang — "catch and kill" and impose restrictions on the practice of Islam. Under this policy of restrictions, construction of new mosques is not allowed, many old mosques have been forced to close down under the pretext that they were constructed illegally and the people are forced to observe their holy fast inside their houses and not to congregate in public places. This is China's "skilful and sophisticated" counter-insurgency. 7. IF Pakistan follows even some of these methods, the day will not be far off when Pakistan will become a State ruled by a combine of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. As it is, there is considerable anti-US and anti-Army anger in Pakistan. Instead of finding ways of containing and reducing this anger, the Obama Administration is coming out with shocking ideas such as "Counter-insurgency in Chinese colours", which could make an already difficult situation even more difficult to handle. (The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. He is alaso associated with the Chennai Centre For China Studies. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com) Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com |
|
EGYPT ARRESTS MAN RE KIDNAPPED ISRAELI; CHECKPOINTS REMOVED; TWO-STATE
SOLUTION FRAUD
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 29, 2009. |
|
EGYPT ARRESTS MAN ABOUT HAMAS' ISRAELI PRISONER Not for the first time, Egyptian police arrested someone suspected of
involvement in Hamas' kidnapping of an Israeli soldier or of knowing
the prisoner's whereabouts. Egyptian sources say that the police are
trying to help Israel recover the prisoner
What shall we make of this? Is Egypt, formerly a repeat aggressor against Israel now at peace with Israel and an ally of Israel's? Is Egypt, formerly a sponsor and supplier of terrorism, now against terrorism? No to both. Egypt does hope that Israel would destroy Iran's nuclear facilities for it, though it has a first class air force and probably could do it, itself. Egypt does not want terrorists to subvert its government or attack its tourists. But Egypt remains the chief diplomatic enemy of Israel and still allows arms to be smuggled into Gaza. I interpret Egypt's behavior about the prisoner as tactical measures, not part of strategic accommodation. First, Arab rulers like the prestige of mediating, even if nothing comes of it. Mediating in this case makes Egypt seem on the side of peace. Second, if Egypt can help get the prisoner released, the transaction likely would be part of some deal, in which the Arabs get far more in return. The State Dept. acts similarly.
UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION'S SELF-DEFENSE The UN was denounced for Durban II perpetuating antisemitism in Durban I. The Human Rights Commissioner tried to rehabilitate her reputation. She: 1. Said that Durban II did not mention Israel and did not focus only on one issue. However, it reaffirmed Durban I, which falsely accused only Israel of racism. Therefore, when referring to "victims of racism," Durban II is calumniating Israel. 2. At Durban II, Iran's President falsely called Zionism racism. Then Durban II did mention Israel or its stand-in, Zionism. 3. Her press release claimed a consensus. Not true, either. Delegates from some democratic states walked out. 4. She said the Conference opposed all forms of racism. Actually, it refused to discuss specifics except for Zionism. "The silence of its outcome on egregious
manifestations of racism — including discrimination against Tibetans, ethnic
cleansing of Berbers and Bahais, genocide in Darfur, slavery victimizing
migrants and minorities in the Arab world, and the murder and expulsion of
Jews from Arab lands — is deafening." (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/10 from Hudson Institute in New York).
Other indication of UN bias on human rights:
ISRAEL TO OPEN EMBASSY IN TURKMENISTAN Israel has been cultivating relations with Central Asian countries. In the early 1990s, Israel established diplomatic relations with Turkmenistan. It trains Turkmen in agriculture. Relations warming, Israel is opening an embassy in Ashkabat, the capital (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/20). Israel is tolerant. It tries to develop good relations with Muslim governments. When Israel exchanges diplomatic relations with one, Israel heralds the achievement as an example of the "peace process" taking effect. During times of publicized friction between Israel and some Arabs, however, some Muslim states break off or restrict relations with Israel. Sometimes the Muslim states hold relations hostage to an Israeli concession to the Arabs. Praise for the "peace process" was premature. ISRAEL REMOVED 140 CHECKPOINTS Israel removed 140 checkpoints and roadblocks last year and others this year, including two by Ramallah. The stated purpose is to ease life for the Palestinian Arabs. PM Netanyahu said Israel would east conditions consistent with security (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis,5/11). To ease Arab life, Israel removed its troops from cities in the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) right after signing the Oslo peace agreement. The result was anarchy and a wave of terrorism in Israel. In 1997, Netanyahu, PM then, too, removed Israeli troops from most of Hebron. A few years later, Arabs in the hills fired down into the Hebron Jewish community. The attacks lasted for two and-a-half years. About four years ago, for the sake of Arab freedom of movement and in the hope of peace, Israel not only withdrew its troops from Gaza and northern Samaria, it expelled almost 10,000 Jewish residents. Gaza Arabs got freedom of movement, and self-rule. They went over to Hamas, which launched more than 10,000 rockets and mortars at Israeli cities. To improve Arab living conditions, Israeli officials proposed re-opening to Arab traffic the road leading past the Jewish community of Hebron. Arabs are likely to try running over Jews there. Jews there staged demonstrations against the proposal (David Wilder, spokesman, Hebron Jewish Community, 5/13). Israel's security director deferred the re-opening because he said it would pose a security risk to Jews in Hebron. He thus confirmed their concern. He also implied confirmation of accusations that the officials who had ordered the road re-opened to Arab traffic were putting Arab convenience before Jewish lives (Hebron Jewish Community, 5/19). Checkpoint removal is not consistent with security. The US, which demands removal, complains, whatever Israel does, that it is not enough. SYRIA RENEWS TERRORIST FLOW; US RENEWS SANCTIONS While the U.S. sent envoys to try to come to terms with Syria,
Al-Qaida brought terrorists into Iraq by way of Syria. The U.S.
believes that Syrian intelligence permitted this. The U.S. renewed
sanctions against Syria
HOUSING SHORTAGE IN JUDEA-SAMARIA The media claims that Jewish construction is proceeding in Judea-Samaria as if unrestricted by promises to the US not to expand settlements. [Peace Now has claimed that Israel or Israelis build excessive numbers of houses in Judea-Samaria, houses unable to be sold.] Jewish leaders there claim that construction is greatly restricted. To add a room, a Jew now needs the Defense Minister's permission. Not often granted. Israel has reduced funds for the Territories. Most newlyweds there have to move far from their communities, even beyond the Territories. This is subtle expulsion (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/11). LEBANON ARRESTS "SPIES" FOR ISRAEL Lebanese security forces arrested several groups of alleged spies for Israel. They were able to do it because of greater internal cooperation among various security forces. They also had gotten U.S. training in security matters, part of the billion dollars the U.S. has given Lebanon in the past few years. Israel warned the U.S. that aid to Lebanon would end up benefiting
Hizbullah
U.S. aid to the PLO ended up benefiting Hamas. FRAUD OF THE "TWO-STATE SOLUTION" "With the two-state solution, in my opinion, Israel will collapse, because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will become of all the talk about the Promised Land and the Chosen People? What will become of all the sacrifices they made — just to be told to leave? They consider Jerusalem to have a spiritual status. The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. It will regress of its own accord. Then we will move forward." (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, from MEMRI from PLO Ambassador to Lebanon, 5/14). The "two-state solution" is a fraud. The Ambassador reveals Muslim Arab duplicity and a better understanding of Zionism than do many Jews. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
WORLD WAR III HAS STARTED
Posted by Modieabc, May 29, 2009. |
|
This was written by Eitan Haber, an Israeli journalist and
publicist, who writes on military matters. It appeared in YNET
Israeli leaders must understand the broad implications of North Korean nuke test |
|
One needs to be deaf, blind, and an idiot at this time in order not to understand that the nuclear bomb tested in North Korea two days ago also exploded in the Prime Minister's Office in Jerusalem. The North Koreans blatantly disregarded the Americans and publicly presented them as a meaningless power, yet officials in Jerusalem are still reciting the "Road Map" and making note of the evacuation of some minor West Bank outpost. The world is changing before our eyes, yet here we see Knesset members earnestly explaining that the Americans will agree that we stay in Judea and Samaria if we only evacuate some tin shacks. Two days ago, in North Korea, World War III officially got underway — the war that would pit "crazy" states such as North Korea and Iran, for example, against states we shall characterize as "moderate," including Egypt, Gulf states, and Saudi Arabia, which at this time leads the Arab initiative for peace with Israel. Ever since Sunday, the world has gone crazy, and this crazy world is monitoring with horror the struggle between the "moderate" and "crazy" states. The problem is that some of those crazy states — Iran, Pakistan, and North Korea — already have, or will have, a nuclear button to push, while the moderates, headed by the United States, are not eager to rush into battle. Why? Because America is already entangled in wars, and there was someone who recently won the presidential elections there, among other reasons because he pledged to remove US troops from the Iraqi and Afghani quagmire. That same president promised that we shall live in a world free of nuclear weapons. Remember that? A Gordian knot This is the same North Korea that spat in America's face three years ago, and this week it did it again. Based on the reactions in Washington (unless they are part of a deception campaign,) it doesn't appear that the great America will respond. Now all we need is for Iran to blatantly disregard America and Israel in order to prompt us to slide into real emergency turmoil (as opposed to the drill planned for the coming days.) Iran is here already. There is a direct and intimate link between the Korean bomb and the planned Iranian bomb; between Iran's and North Korea's spit in America's face, Washington's desire and ability to lead the fight against the crazy world, and the Israeli government's conduct. One does not need to be a supporter or rival of the settlement enterprise in the territories to understand this Gordian knot — and the question is whether we want the American sword to undo it for us. If the answer is positive, we need to be familiar with the Americans to realize that three tin huts removed from the Maoz Ester outpost are not good enough. Contact modieabc at modieabc@aol.com |
|
MUSLIM GROUP SHUTS DOWN CONSERVATIVE CONFERENCE
Posted by LEL, May 29, 2009. |
|
This item appeared yesterday in NewsMax
www.newsmax.com/insidecover/geert_wilders/2009/05/28/219305.html |
|
The manager of a prominent Nashville hotel cancelled a contract with a conservative foundation to hold a conference this weekend on radical Islam, apparently after learning that the group would feature a keynote address by controversial Dutch parliamentarian and filmmaker, Geert Wilders. Muslim groups succeeded in preventing Wilders from screening "Fitna," his 15-minute movie on radical Islam, in the House of Lords this February, on claims it was insulting to Muslims, and dogged him during a recent U.S. tour as well. Thomas A. Negri, managing director of Loew's Vanderbilt Hotel and Office complex in Nashville, told Newsmax on Wednesday that he had taken the extraordinary step of cancelling the conference at the last minute "for the health, safety and well-being of our guests and employees." Negri refused to say why he felt the conference would adversely affect the "health, safety and well-being" of the hotel's guests and employees, except to refer to the website of the New English Review, the group organizing the conference. The website features articles that warn about radical Islam written by activists, journalists and scholars, including former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, and former Muslim scholar, Ibn Warraq. One article, written by a retired U.S. army intelligence officer, Jerome Gordon, warns of the growing problems caused by the recent influence of several thousand Somali Muslim refugees who have come to work for a nearby Tysons Food plant to replace illegal Hispanic meat packers. Negri appeared at a 2003 pro-immigration event on the same dias with a well-known Somali warlord, Gordon told Newsmax. In a written statement to the conference organizers, Negri said that the hotel had "not received any information related to a specific security threat concerning this event," and declined to provide any justification for cancelling it at the last minute. One of the conference organizers told Newsmax on Wednesday that the group was considering a lawsuit against Negri and the Loew's hotel chain for "unlawful breach of contract." Negri also serves on the board of advisors of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, TIRRC, an activist group that states its mission "is to empower immigrants and refugees throughout Tennessee to develop a unified voice" and "defend their rights." The group boasts of having helped to defeat an "English only" amendment this January that would have required all Nashville government communications to be in English. Earlier this month, the group won an award from the Migration Policy Institute, which is funded by grants form the J.M. Kaplan Fund, a left-wing group that also funds the ACLU, the Tides Foundation, the Tides Center, the Sierra Club, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and other left-wing causes. The award singles out TIRRC for its "Welcoming Tennessee Initiative," to"foster constructive public dialogue on immigration within the state." When asked if he objected to Geert Wilders appearance at the conference, Negri refused to comment. In a recent interview with FoxNews, Wilders complained that Europe "has pampered" Muslim immigrants. "If you want to come and stay here, that's okay, but only if you adhere to our values, our principles, our laws… and our constitution," he said. "With all the tolerance we are having, we are also tolerant to the intolerant." Contact LEL at LEL817@yahoo.com |
|
WE ARE CONCERNED THAT ABU MAZEN
Posted by Molly, May 29, 2009. |
|
... will make a fool out of our president and we are more than concerned that Obama will cover up the same way Shimon Peres does when he, too, finds himself conned, cornered, and humiliated, which is to say that Obama, like Peres, will pretend that Saudi spittle is rain in his face. The Saudis have gotten away with their lies and spitting in the face of everyone who defies their oil monopoly because the World created its economy based on the consumption of oil. Abu Mazen, now pulling faces and grimacing for his photo-ops, is as slick as his Saudi-sponsored friend, Jimmy Carter. Carter and Shimon Peres pushed themselves onto the realm of the bloody Egyptian assassin, Yasser Arafat so they could all engage in the highly profitable business of pretending to be "friends for peace." Peres, with his eyes on his hoped-for prize, even went so far as to promote the Saudi myth that Israel was to blame for Arab blight. This ersatz friendship was highly profitable for Carter and his NGOs and they received millions from the Saudis. Shimon Peres haggled until they gave him the tail of the chicken, and Yasser received billions from the oily arabs for building his armed forces for to slaughter Jewish and Muslim Israelis and billions more from the US treasury for "humanitarian aid" which Arafat siphoned into his secret accounts in banks all throughout Europe, Cayman, and the US. When he died, billions of US-source funds simply disappeared. Obama either doesn't know the facts about how Israel was cheated out of its lands and its sovereign rights, or else he doesn't want to know, in which latter case he is about to transform himself into a threat to democracy and American values. We hope Mr. Obama is smart enough to avoid being bribed or manipulated or subjected to extortion by the Saudis and the UAE. The Saudis had to have known about the plans of the Saudi al Q cells that attacked the US because of its extensive spy and intelligence "agencies" — more sophisticated, we fear, than the US. One fact is clear, the Saudis have been spying on the US far longer than the US has spied on them. Abbas is a threat to democracy and crazy as a fox. We trust Israel will not budge nor succumb to his tawdry extortion or any US "pressure." This time, the so-called "palestinians" must be pushed back to Jordan, from whence they began when the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan was created in 1948. Jordan was always intended to be the "other state" for the arabs who wanted to be transformed into "palestinians." The Jewish Palestinians were attacked by the arabs and the became refugees and fled to Israel to become Israelis. The BBC and the Brits and Reuters have tried every trick known to yellow-sheet news to conceal the truthful history of the Middle East. They never mention the fate of the Jewish Palestinians. After the then "king: of Jordan exterminated 10,000 would-be "palestinians" the remainder were herded into Jordan's concentration camps. This slaughter and oppression had NOTHING to do with Israel. The British use their press to censor the truth. We want Hillary and Bill to disgorge every penny they've ever received from the UAE, Qatar, Dubai, and the Saudis. This money belongs to the American People — our fighting forces died protecting the Saudis and their families deserve all the money. Viva Israel from the Secular Christians of the West. Contact Molly at pelago2000@gmail.com |
|
WHAT'S AT STAKE: WE'VE GOT YOUR BACK PLEDGE IS ANTI-ISRAEL
Posted by Saul Goldman, May 29, 2009. |
|
The link below describes the work of an organization called Brit Zedek. The Hebrew words mean a just covenant. Actually, some of the people who signed this petition are jewish scholars and intellectuals. Yet, this organization of rabbis and Jewish leaders supports a two state solution which is actually a euphemism for "final solution". Unfortunately, our rabbis and intellectuals were the most vocal in encouraging Jews to deny reality. They were the "cheerleaders" of assimilation and the kind of fuzzy thinking that left the Jews totally unprepared for the holocaust. If one looks at the map, takes into consideration demographics including one million Palestinians with Israeli citizenship as well as the hatred that Palestinians inculcate from their Hamas kindergardens on, the two state option is tantamount to national suicide. Why do I say final solution? Because the Obama Administration has been training Palestinians under the direction of General Dayton who said in a speech, that in two years the Palestinians will be ready to kill Israelis. So, the Obama plan is almost as dangerous as Iran. Please contact your congresspeople and urge them to stand up against what will become another round in the war against the Jews. DO NOT HELP BRIT ZEDEK DESTROY ISRAEL. COUNTERACT THIS PLEDGE. Contact Saul Goldman at gold7910@bellsouth.net |
|
ISRAEL ON EDGE AS US PRESSES TO HALT SETTLEMENTS
Posted by Jake Levi, May 29, 2009. |
|
Here is an example of the kind of 'news' that Israel does not counter. On first reading it looks innocuous. But reread it. It does not point out that the land the communities are built on are the Heart of the Kingdom of Israel, and that one is the actual land from which Jews get their name — Judea. Nor does it point out that this same land was part of the original area ceded by the Balfour Declaration to be Jewish. Nor that it is also land taken by the Arabs in the 1948 war from Israel and taken by Israel by conquest in 1967. Much as the U.S. acquired huge blocks of its present territory including the state of Florida, and the entire Southwest. It refers to 'Palestinians', a name taken by Arafat from a name given to the Jews by Rome, a 'people' created by Arafat, with no history, no 'Palestinian Capital ever', and no distinctive language, culture, or traditions. No currency, no operating government other then a guerilla force financed by international contributions. Which was created for the express purpose of destroying Israel and replacing it with another dysfuntional Muslim state. And, this 'news' does not review that AP is owned by the Saudis who originated the ' 2 state solution' as a way to reduce Israel to an untenable piece of land indefensible from another war by neighboring Arab States. This 'news item' is propaganda, disguised as news, and is being fed to the world to direct sympathy to the arabs working for the destruction of Israel and away from the true original owners of the Land of Israel, the Jewish People. It was written by Associated Press writer, Ami Teibel. Yaacov Levi |
|
JERUSALEM — Israel rejected on Thursday a U.S. demand to freeze all construction in West Bank Jewish settlements to encourage peace talks, deepening a dispute with the Obama administration that has the hard-line Israeli government increasingly on edge. The tensions flared on the same day Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was in Washington for a meeting with President Barack Obama. Abbas said the Palestinian demand for a settlement construction freeze would top his agenda. Using unusually strong language, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that Obama wants a halt to all settlement construction, including "natural growth." Israel uses that term for new housing and other construction that it says will accommodate the growth of families living in existing settlements. Government spokesman Mark Regev responded Thursday by saying some construction would go on. "Normal life in those communities must be allowed to continue," he said, noting Israel has already agreed not to build new settlements and to remove some tiny, unauthorized settler outposts. Regev said the fate of the settlements would be determined in peace negotiations with the Palestinians. Former President George W. Bush gave Israel unwavering support during his eight-year term. But that appears to be changing under Obama. The new U.S. administration has been more explicit in its criticism of Israeli settlement policy than its predecessor. Obama also pressed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in their first White House meeting last week to support creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. But so far, Netanyahu has balked at that idea, too. The growing pressure, coupled with Obama's outreach to the Muslim world that will be underscored by a speech in Cairo next week, has many Israelis wondering where exactly they fit into the president's plans. They are particularly concerned by Washington's efforts to start a dialogue with Iran, Israel's arch-foe, after nearly three decades of diplomatic estrangement. Clinton said Obama told Netanyahu last week at the White House that the U.S. sees stopping settlements as key to a peace deal that would see a Palestinian state created alongside Israel. "He wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth' exceptions," Clinton said. "We think it is in the best interests (of the peace process) that settlement expansion cease. That is our position. That is what we have communicated very clearly. ... And we intend to press that point." While Israel could flout the U.S. opposition, Netanyahu is wary of a showdown with his most important ally. He has been careful to avoid direct conflict with the Americans, but members of his government have become openly critical. Israel views its close relationship with the U.S. as fundamental to its security and foreign policy. If Israel refused to halt settlement construction, the U.S. could reduce economic or military aid, curtail arms sales, or scale back the close strategic cooperation the two countries currently have, including the sharing of information and joint projects, such as anti-missile systems. During a Cabinet debate on settlement outposts this week, Interior Minister Eli Yishai declared that Israel does not have to "kowtow to every American dictate." "The American administration regrettably ... is showing the Arab and Muslim world that it is distancing itself from Israel and shifting toward them," Cabinet Minister Benny Begin lamented during a separate parliamentary debate. "The message is clear. The will is clear." The U.S. and much of the world consider the settlements an obstacle to peace because they are built on captured land the Palestinians claim for a future state. But successive U.S. administrations have done little to halt settlement activity. Now more than 120 settlements dot the West Bank, and Palestinian officials say their growth makes it increasingly impossible to realize their dream of independence. More than 280,000 Israelis live in the settlements, in addition to more than 2 million Palestinians in the West Bank. An additional 180,000 Israelis live in east Jerusalem, where the Palestinians hope to establish their capital. With the U.S. turning up the pressure to freeze settlements, Israeli officials proposed a compromise earlier this week. In exchange for removing some 22 outposts, they would ask the U.S. to permit new construction in existing settlements. Clinton's remarks followed that proposal. Along with the calls to halt settlements, Obama's active courting of Iran and pressure on Israel to make progress with the Palestinians have only compounded Israeli fears. Israelis will be anxiously watching Obama's June 4 speech in Cairo, where he will deliver a message to the Muslim world to try to repair relations that frayed badly under the Bush administration. Obama will also visit Saudi Arabia before he goes to Egypt. But he has no plans to stop in Israel, an hour's flight from Egypt, during his swing through the region. The U.S. and many other Western countries have been dealing with Abbas, who leads the Palestinian Authority from the West Bank, while mostly shunning the militant Islamic Hamas group that controls the Gaza Strip. Hamas took over Gaza nearly two years ago after routing Abbas' forces in bloody street battles. Repeated attempts to reconcile between the two bitter rivals have failed to yield any results. A senior Hamas militant was killed Thursday by Israeli forces in the West Bank city of Hebron after a 14-year manhunt. The Israeli military said they surrounded Abed Majid Daodin's house and called on him to surrender, but he instead opened fire, and they shot and killed him. The military said he had recruited and dispatched suicide bombers, including two who killed 10 Israelis and wounded more than 100 in 1995. Hamas vowed to avenge the militant's death. "Our fighters in the West Bank have full freedom to strike any target," the group said. Contact Jake Levi at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
WILL OBAMA FLOUT US LAW TO FUND ABBAS AND THE PALESTINIANS?
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, May 29, 2009. |
|
Posted by Freedom Fighter on the Joshua Pundit website. |
|
Mahmoud Abbas, the capo del tutti of Fatah is scheduled to be in DC today, meeting with President Obama on Middle East peace and — oh yes — that proposed $900 million aid package to the Palestinians pledged by the Obama Administration on our behalf that the Senate is now mulling over. This is over and above the money they're already getting from us via UNRWA, USAid and the World Bank. Aside from the dubious wisdom involved in shelling out well over a billion dollars in taxpayer funds to Abbas who is not even the legal president of the Palestinian Authority any longer, there's the slight problem that funding the Palestinian Authority openly flouts existing US law. American law expressly prohibits funding of Palestinian buildings and projects that use any portion of their budgets to aid, promote, glorify or honor terrorists or terrorism. That's been an entrenched principle since Oslo. Yet Fatah and the Palestinian Authority have done exactly that with impunity for years, even under 'moderate' Mahmoud Abbas. Samir Kuntar, the Lebanese child killer who was recently freed in a swap for the mutilated and tortured bodies of two Israelis kidnapped by Hezbollah was named an 'honorary Palestinian citizen' a mere two years ago while Abbas was in power. He was publicly celebrated by Mahmoud Abbas, Israel's supposed peace partner, who referred to Kuntar as `heroic' and to his having won 'a big struggle.' The Palestinian media ran numerous programs touting him as a hero and role model. Another Palestinian hero who's been honored as a role model and has had numerous US funded projects named after her is Dalal Mughrabi,who's remains were also part of the same swap that freed Kuntar. She was the leader of what became known in Israel as the Coastal Massacre. On March 11, 1978, Mughrabi led a band of eleven terrorists who murdered several people in cold blood, including an American photographer, Gail Rubin. They then hijacked a bus filled with families going on an outing. When the IDF unit managed to stop the bus, Mughrabi and her gang began shooting the helpless men, women and children at point-blank range and then firebombed the bus itself, turning it into a death trap. At least 35 were killed, including 13 children and a number of Americans. In 2002, Fatah began building a girls' school in Hebron named after Mughrabi, funded by US money. When this came to light, the Palestinian Authority promised to change the name, but as soon as the school was completed, the name change was rescinded and the school is still named after Mughrabi as I write this. She's also had a few streets and a number of other government institutions like summer camps named in her honor, and there have been a number of books, television and radio programs in the PA controlled media about her 'heroic martyrdom.' She's regarded by Palestinian Arabs as a role model. Back in 2004, the US spent $400,000 of your tax money through USAid to construct the Salakh Khalaf soccer field. Interesting fellow, Khalaf. He headed the Black September group that murdered 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics, and later tortured to death two American diplomats in the Sudan in 1973 on Arafat's orders, Cleo Allen Noel and George Curtis Moore. Once that got out USAID publicly acknowledged the error and claimed they would demand that the name be changed. It never was. Under existing US law and numerous precedents, the Palestinian Authority should have had its US funding yanked a long time ago. But wait, there's more. On top of all this, the US is in the middle of a $350 million commitment to train, arm and fund a Fatah army. This effort is being directed by US general Keith Dayton, who's been working on this for two years. Apparently the last attempt which did so well in Gaza and resulted in Hamas obtaining millions of dollars in gently used ('only dropped once') American military equipment that it encouraged even more of an investment. Except this time, according to General Dayton the probable target isn't Hamas, but Israel. Dayton, in a talk at the Washington Institute of Near East Policy talked about the three battalions of Fatah soldiers he's already trained and the plans for eight more. And according to Dayton, unless the Israelis decide to commit national suicide by giving in to all of the Palestinian's demands, they could rebel...or in other words, they'll simply turn their weapons on Israel, something Abbas has eluded to a number of times .That's exactly what Abbas' old boss Yasir Arafat did before. In other words, we're paying through the nose to build an army that could menace one of our allies in the hopes of creating a country...and one that, given the realities, will probably be ruled by Hamas as an Iranian proxy. It's enough to make me want to vomit in disgust, frankly.
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com
|
|
CULTURE AFFECTS WHAT ARABS SAY; OBAMA SQUEEZING ISRAEL; LEFTIST OPPOSITION TO JERUSALEM MASTER PLAN
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 28, 2009. |
|
MUSLIM DISCRIMINATION AGAINST JEWS IN NEGEV An Islamist party won an election in the Negev town of Rahat. Mayor Faiz Abu Sahiban summarily fired the two Jewish municipal employees, without cause, because of their religion, he explained. Rahat is a Bedouin community So far, no reaction from Israeli human rights organizations, which complain about veterans benefits, for primarily helping Jews. That complaint is unjustified, because Arabs can become veterans (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/9). Other discrimination against Jews in Israel:
BIAS OF ISRAELI FILM INDUSTRY In the 1970s, a new generation of filmmakers arose in Israel. Dr. Ilan Avishur of Tel Aviv University made of study of Israeli filmmaking in recent decades. He study found that the new generation produced mostly anti-Zionist propaganda, including unpopular films. They enjoyed government subsidy for it. The films mischaracterize Arab terrorists as victims and Israelis as Nazi-like bullies. In this historical revisionism, films lie about the Six-Day War. "On a Clear Day You Can See Damascus" recasts as a hero the Israeli traitor who spied on Israel and who organized a terrorist cell (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/9). So much lying indicates not a justifiable cause but a psychosis needing treatment. For another example of Israeli leftist bias against Zionism:
CULTURE AFFECTS WHAT ARABS SAY A poll found that 40% of Israeli Arabs denied the occurrence of the
Holocaust. The pollster, a sociologist specializing in Arab-Israel
relations, explains that the Arabs believe that acknowledging the
Holocaust bolster's Israel's cause, so they deny it (NY Times, 5/19,
A12). He attributed polled Arab opinions over the years, even on
factual matters, to the effect they think their statements would have
on their cause
I often contradict popular acceptance of Arab statements as
genuine, based on the same understanding of Arab culture as that
sociologist has. This is confirmation of my admonition not to take
Arab statements at face value, and not to accept their version of
events, because they say what they think makes propaganda. There is
evidence, too, that they believe their own false propaganda. That is
why I do not accept as legitimate the Palestinian Arabs' sudden
self-designation of being a separate nationality, when I know that
they fabricated that notion for propaganda several decades ago. For
more on this:
OBAMA SQUEEZING ISRAEL Add up the Administration's acts of diplomacy. First, "National Security Adviser James Jones told a European foreign minister that the US is planning to build an anti-Israel coalition with the Arabs and Europe to compel Israel to surrender Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to the..." Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Pres. Obama HAD V.P. Biden tell AIPAC, that Israel should cede the territory. Quartet envoy Tony Blair said the highest U.S. level is polishing the Saudi plan with Arab but not Israeli participation. Israel has exposed that plan as a means of destroying Israel. Its current draft doesn't promise peace but "natural relations." Sounds nice; means nothing. [That indicates subterfuge.] When Israeli Pres. Peres went to visit Obama, to thaw relations, Obama froze out the media, turning the trip into a non-event. In demanding that Israel acquiesce to the Saudi plan, with modifications that the Arabs have been rejecting, the US implies Israeli responsibility for Arab wars of aggression. The Administration also is making Israel a scapegoat for Iran's nuclear program. How? Obama's chief of staff advised AIPAC that Israel's refusal to give up territory keeps the Arabs from supporting steps to curb Iran's nuclear development. False advice! The Arabs acknowledge that Iran and territory are separate issues. Now the Administration is blaming Israel on the pretext that if Israel gave up its nuclear weapons, Iran wouldn't develop its own, anyway. This breached a U.S.-Israel understanding that the U.S. would not bring up Israel's nuclear capability. This new U.S. rationalization gives Iran an excuse for its program. Obama's policy is not realistic but stubbornly ideological. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, it would become emboldened to promote more war. Although Hamas still is firing rockets into Israel, the U.S. demands that Israel cede land to a coming joint Hamas-Fatah regime, and the U.S. continues subsidizing the P.A., which refuses to accept the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty anywhere. Against stubborn ideology, Netanyahu will present facts and logic to Obama, in vain. Now would Israel gain anything by accommodating the hostile Administration. Israel cannot count on the U.S.; it must formulate policy independently. It may as well destroy Iran's nuclear plants (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/9, from Caroline Glick) and gain security. The Arabs want that raid. The U.S. or Israel should carry it out. The Obama administration's actions are unrealistic, counter-productive, and unethical. Obama was supposed to be a reformer. For more on Obama policy on Israel:
LEFTIST OPPOSITION TO JERUSALEM MASTER PLAN You may recall that the Master Plan envisions archeological development, parks, housing, etc.. It all hangs together. [I studied city planning.] The Israeli Left opposes the Plan. It complains that implementation means demolishing some illegal Arab houses. [Why does the Left, which demands law enforcement against Jews, oppose law enforcement against Arabs?] The plan would connect Jerusalem with some Jewish-owned suburbs, strengthening Israel's claim to the area. Leftists argue that that this would change the status of the area. This riles them, because they are under the illusion that if Israel withdrew from those areas, the Arabs would make peace. If the Arabs would make peace, then why should they object to good city planning in areas they may take over, under a peace agreement? [The Left's arguments are mostly false claims and pejorative. Housing does not change the "status" of an area. They are using a laymen's usage of "status," whereas the Oslo injunction against unilaterally changing the "status" of contested areas has a different, legal meaning. The legal meaning is changing the legal status from contested to under new jurisdiction. The Palestinian Authority tries to do that by violating another Oslo provision forbidding it from setting up government agencies in Jerusalem, as if assuming jurisdiction there.] [If building Jews' houses changes the status, then so does building Arabs' houses, but the Left doesn't object to that. What it really objects to is making clear the Jewish people's historical ties to Jerusalem and making it feasible for the Jews to keep the suburbs.] The Left paints the plan as sinister, as a secret plan, whose goal is to retain the historical Jerusalem area. It isn't secret, the Mayor revealed it. He developed the whole plan, first, to avoid premature controversy over a half-baked plan. "Attorney Danny Seidemann of Ir Amim says that if the historic basin surrounding the Old City is transformed in the spirit of extreme rightist organizations, 'there is a dangerous interface between the program and settler projects whose goal is the prevention of a future political solution in the heart of the conflict.'" All that objection because of the Left's false illusion that Abbas intends peaceful coexistence — as Abbas says, the Arabs don't recognize any Jewish right to sovereignty, even over Tel Aviv (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/9). The pejorative "extreme rightist" is name-calling. The lament that the Jews are trying to keep their historical area sounds more like self-hating antisemitism. Who should keep the Jews' historical area, the Arabs? For an outline of the plan:
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
IS ISRAEL COMMITTED TO FREEZE SETTLEMENTS?
Posted by Ted Belman, May 28, 2009. |
|
What settlement freeze commitment? Everyone assumes that Israel is committed to freezing settlement activity without preconditions. Not so. Here's why. The Roadmap demanded that Israel "immediately dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001″ and provided that "Consistent with the Mitchell Report, GOI freeze all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)". The Mitchell Report was prepared in response to the terror unleashed by Arafat, after he turned down Barak's genererous offer at Camp David. It's goal was to make recommendations to end the violence. It is important to understand the context and the wording of the Mitchell Report because the settlement freeze demanded by the Roadmap had to be consistent with it.
The GOI and the PA must act swiftly and decisively to halt the violence. Their immediate objectives then should be to rebuild confidence and resume negotiations. END THE VIOLENCE * The GOI and the PA should reaffirm their commitment to existing agreements and undertakings and should immediately implement an unconditional cessation of violence. By calling for negotiations, it imposed on Israel the duty to make an even better offer. "Meaningful negotiations"? Wasn't that what just took place, to no avail? REBUILD CONFIDENCE * The PA and GOI should work together to establish a meaningful "cooling off period" and implement additional confidence building measures. If you read this carefully you will note that there are stages set out in this order 1. End the violence Furthermore there is an acceptance that ending the violence and incitement is out of the questions and so only "100% efforts", are demanded. The confidence building measures required of Israel, included * The GOI should freeze all settlement activity, including the "natural growth" of existing settlements. The kind of security cooperation desired by the GOI cannot for long co-exist with settlement activity. Clearly this Report accepted the notion that settlement growth is the cause of the violence. But as we know, the goal of the violence (Arab terrorism) is to destroy Israel rather than to only end the settlement activity. This issue was not addressed. * The GOI may wish to make it clear to the PA that a future peace would pose no threat to the territorial contiguity of a Palestinian State to be established in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Report advances the Palestinian desire to be contiguous, as legitimate. Why so? If they want to be contiguous let them offer something in return. This is a matter for negotiations, not fiat. RESUME NEGOTIATIONS * We reiterate our belief that a 100 percent effort to stop the violence, an immediate resumption of security cooperation and an exchange of confidence building measures are all important for the resumption of negotiations. Yet none of these steps will long be sustained absent a return to serious negotiations. Needless to say, the Arabs have never shown "a spirit of compromise, reconciliation and partnership". In the absence of same, the Mitchell Report is groundless. Thus the Mitchell Reports simply puts forward recommendations, predicated on "a spirit of compromise", to be followed in stages. A freeze of settlement activity is only a recommendated measure and not an order and it is accompanied by other recommendations which have yet to be fulfiulled. Since the Arabs did not end the violence and incitement, there is no imperative for Israel to freeze settlement activity. Yet the US would like to consider it an imperative unconnected to performance by the Palestinians. It certainly rewards Arafat for his violence and intransigence by giving him what he could not get in negotiations. In essence, the report demands that Israel give more. So what must the settlement freeze include to be consistent with the Mitchel Report? Until now, Israel has refrained from dismantling the unlawful outposts in any serious way as required by the Roadmap. But this week Barak, with the support of Netanyahu, demolished three such outposts. One wonders if this is being done to show a willingness to honour commitments or whether Israel received a quid pro quo for finally doing what they have been promising to do. Time will tell whether Israel will follow through on this. I believe that she will, in exchange for permission, tacit or otherwise, to continue building elsewhere. Israel will never stop building in the settlement blocks nor should she. After Obama met with Netanyahu in the White House recently he said Now, Israel is going to have to take some difficult steps as well, and I shared with the Prime Minister the fact that under the roadmap and under Annapolis that there's a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements. Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward. Long before the Mitchell Report, the US has been against settlements calling them "illegal" or just "obstacles to peace". The Mitchell Report recommended a freeze of settlement activity as part of a process and not as an absolute. President Obama has made it an absolute. But, as the Report sets out, the freeze on settlement activity is only a recommended "confidence building measure" to be preformed as the Arabs preform what is recommended of them Beyond that, the the Bush letter in "04 in advance of disengagement provided, inter alia, In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities. Israel interprets this as a license to continue building in such population centers and these include Ariel and Maaleh Adumin. Pres Obama, by demanding a stop to settlement construction, is contravening both of these documents in the name of honouring them. Totally aside from the legalities, the peace process, of which the recommended freeze is a part, is intended to lead to a peace agreement. But what if such an agreement is not obtainable because the Arabs won't compromise or if the freeze, if acted upon, will ensure that an agreement won't be achieved because the Palestinians would have no need to compromise. In both cases, demanding a freeze is counterproductive. The only way to put pressure on the Palestinians to compromise is to continue building in the settlements. The sooner the Palestinians make a deal the sooner the construction will stop. In fact a deal could be done this year if they compromised so why waste time and energy on fighting over the freeze? The answer is obvious. The Arabs con't intend to compromise but want Israel to stop building, period. According to the roadmap, the settlement freeze was not an end in itself as the Arabs demand but a step to an agreement based on compromise and good will. Even if the Palestinians totally ended incitement and violence, the settlement construction should continue and not just in the major settlement blocks. This alone will ensure that the Palestinians compromise to acheive their state or that the two-state solution will be abandonned for something more attainable but excluding a bi-national state. Furthermore, if these arguments aren't enough, the Palestinians, including the Gazans, are divided but must be viewed in totality to judge whether they are living up to the confidence building measures demanded of them. Under the title, Obama-Netanyahu meeting went better than you think, Haaretz reported on what Lieberman said. "On the Palestinian issue, there is agreement as to the final destination," Lieberman said. "Everyone wants to see security, economic prosperity, and stability. Perhaps there is a tactical disagreement as to what is the best way to attain these goals. So there is much more in common and much more positive points. The meeting was much more positive than what one is led to believe." Zalman Shoval believes US-Israel ties will stay strong. Afterall, Israel and the US have always disagreed on the settlement issue and they will continue to disagree. Ted Belman
Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of
the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. Contact
him at tedbel@rogers.com
|
|
CLINTON SPARS WITH BIBI: NO BUILDING IN YESHA — 'NO EXCEPTIONS'
Posted by Tzvu Ben Gedalyahu, May 28, 2009. |
|
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came out swinging at Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu Wednesday night and specifically rejected his policy for allowing building for "natural growth" in Judea and Samaria. Her statement came on the eve of Thursday's visit of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas to the White House, which two weeks ago told Israel to stop all building for Jews in Judea and Samaria. "The president was very clear when Prime Minister Netanyahu was here. He wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions," Secretary Clinton said at a news conference with visiting Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit. She also dined with Abbas Wednesday night. Mark Regev, spokesman for the Netanyahu government, immediately responded and said that life will continue as usual for residents in towns and cities in Judea and Samaria. He said that the future of the areas will be settled in negotiations. The PA, with support from the Obama government, has implicitly said that negotiation are only possible once its demands are met. After returning from Washington, Netanyahu took steps to please the American government and announced that his administration will remove 26 hilltop communities and outposts. They are termed illegal because they were established after the Sharon government agreed to a U.S. demand not to establish more communities in Judea and Samaria. However, Prime Minister Netanyahu made it clear he would not capitulate to all of the PA demands that are backed by the Obama government. Both he and Defense Minister Ehud Barak have said they cannot "tell families not to have babies" in Judea and Samaria, where growth outstrips the population increase in the rest of the country. The Obama administration has not declared whether its demand includes Jerusalem neighborhoods over which the PA also wants sovereignty for its proposed new Arab country, which would give it control of all of the land restored to Israel in the Six-Day War in 1967. Former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last year reversed American policy and defined as a "settlement" the neighborhood of Har Homa, which has the same legal status as French Hill, Talpiot, Ramot and Gilo. All of the neighborhoods were annexed to Jerusalem nearly 30 years ago but are not recognized by the international community as part of the capital. The annexation prompted the removal of all embassies that were located in Jerusalem, leaving consulates in the city. The article below was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared in Arutz-7 (IsraelNN.com) |
|
IS OBAMA LOOKING FOR A FIGHT OVER 'NATURAL GROWTH'?
Posted by Herb Keinon, May 28, 2009. |
|
"A 'settlement freeze' would not help Palestinians face today's problems or prepare for tomorrow's challenges," Elliott Abrams, the deputy national security adviser under former US president George Bush, wrote in April in The Washington Post. "The demand for a freeze would have only one quick effect: to create immediate tension between the United States and Israel's new government," he wrote. "That may be precisely why some propose it, but it is also why the Obama administration should reject it." Abrams proved prophetic: the issue has indeed created immediate tension with the US, not over illegal outposts — Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has made it clear he will remove them — but over "natural growth" in the settlements. The question is why the US is looking for this fight, and why Obama has not heeded Abrams's advice and rejected those pushing him in a confrontation over the matter. Truth be told, comments by Obama himself on the subject have not pointed to a looming battle. After his meeting with Netanyahu in the White House last week, Obama spoke — much as Bush spoke before him — in rather general terms about a need for Israel to stop settlement construction. "There is a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements, that settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward," he said, using language heard often in the past. The indication that a fight was brewing came when US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an Al-Jazeera interview — an interview whose transcript was circulated last Wednesday by the State Department — that a freeze is just that: a complete and total freeze, even for "natural growth." That position, as was made abundantly clear at Sunday's cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, is not acceptable to the current Netanyahu government. Even Defense Minister Ehud Barak, representing the left flank of the government, said it was illogical to accept a principle whereby a family could not add on to their 45-meter house to accommodate more children, or whereby veterans of IDF units couldn't return — with their wives — to the settlements of their birth to live near their parents. So a clash is in the making, though coming to some kind of agreement on this issue was one of the main objectives that Intelligence Services Minister Dan Meridor, National Security Advisor Uzi Arad and Yitzhak Molcho, Netanyahu's envoy on the Palestinian issue, took with them to London this week for their meeting with US Middle East envoy George Mitchell. Israel's position, or its hope, is that this issue can be finessed, just as it was finessed under the previous government. Or, as Netanyahu told a visiting Congressional delegation on Wednesday, there is a need to find a way with the US administration to enable "normal life" in the settlements to continue. If Obama says no settlements, but doesn't mention natural growth, leaving Clinton to do that, does that mean there is wiggle room? Nobody knows yet. Not too long ago, Clinton's predecessor Condoleezza Rice caused consternation in Jerusalem when she began referring to Israeli neighborhoods in east Jerusalem as settlements. But then Jerusalem was able to say, "Hey, that's only Rice. Bush doesn't feel that way." The problem is that no one quite knows the dynamics yet on these issues inside the Obama administration. Israeli officials are confident — perhaps overly confident — that if they "line up" with the US administration on the "right side of the fence" on most settlement issues, they could find a formula to work regarding natural growth. This means that if, as the Olmert government declared, the Netanyahu government says it will uproot illegal outposts, not set up new settlements, not give incentives to move to the settlements, and not expropriate any additional Palestinian lands, then the conventional wisdom in the current government is that the US would permit — as it has in the past — natural growth construction as long as it does not go beyond the existing construction lines. But what if Obama, as some maintain, is actually looking for a public fight with Israel on this issue in order to win credit with the Arab world, and legitimacy among the Europeans as a leader who is willing to take Israel on when necessary? That could be a tricky tactic, because if the US president picks a fight with Israel over the natural growth issue at a time when Israel has declared it won't build new settlements, expropriate land or give incentives to move there, then it could be perceived among some Obama supporters in Congress as being unfairly tough on Israel, especially since various verbal understandings were made over the years that Israel interpreted as a green light for natural growth. Indeed, what is lacking is clarity, not about where Israel stands on the issue at this point, but where Obama stands, and how far he will push. Clinton's position is clear — but is she also speaking for the president? As Abrams wrote in April, "for the past five years, Israel's government has largely adhered to guidelines that were discussed with the United States but never formally adopted: that there would be no new settlements, no financial incentives for Israelis to move to settlements and no new construction except in already built-up areas. The clear purpose of the guidelines? To allow for settlement growth in ways that minimized the impact on Palestinians." The new Netanyahu government has made clear it will abide by those guidelines, and even go further, by taking down illegal outposts. What remains to be seen, what has to be clarified, is whether the Obama administration feels bound by these same guidelines. If it doesn't, then a clash over the issue is all but inevitable. EDITOR'S NOTE: One reader reminded us that the Arabs are building all over the place, mostly illegally. How does USA expect to be perceived as the honest broker? Ignoring Arab building and suppressing Jewish building obviously says that USA has sided with the Arabs. The comment was 94. Media is silent on new Arab settlements in West Bank The Daily Alert is sponsored by Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and prepared by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA). To subscribe to their free daily alerts, send an email to daily@www.dailyalert.jcpa.org |
|
YESHA RABBIS ADVISE SOLDIERS NOT TO HELP DESTROY OUTPOSTS
Posted by Jake Levi, May 28, 2009. |
|
Where are the calls of support when the Rabbis show long-needed leadership? Especially from the Knesset? Barak is running amuck, he must be stopped, and stopped now. This is a time for all of the National Camp to support Israel. This is a time when the Nationalist Camp must stand up, firm and strong and say: Never Again ! The article below was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared in Arutz-7 (IsraelNN.com) |
|
Leading national religious rabbis called on soldiers Wednesday night to refuse orders that involve them in the destruction of Jewish hilltop communities and the expulsion of those living there. Their call sparked a protest in the mass media and among several political leaders, similar to the storm that raged over the same issue during the period of the expulsions from Gaza and northern Samaria in 2005 and in Amona two years ago. Kiryat Arab-Hevron Chief Rabbi Dov Lior and Beit El Chief Rabbi Zalman Melamed were among those who wrote a statement that said "the holy Torah prohibits taking part in any act of uprooting Jews from any part of "our sacred land." In radio interviews Thursday morning, Ichud Leumi (National Union) Knesset Member Michael Ben-Ari and officials of the Council of Rabbis for communities in Judea and Samaria (Yesha) explained that Israel was established because of the Torah and therefore one cannot carry out policies that are against it. The rabbis conferred at the small community of Givat Asaf, one of the 26 sites that Defense Minister Ehud Barak has vowed to destroy, by force if necessary. An official for the Council of Yesha Rabbis added, "The government is ruled by non-Jews like [President Barack] Obama and that is our weakness. It is not Jewish sovereignty. They are throwing sand in our eyes with their declarations." Most of the outposts are hilltop sites, some of which are full-fledged communities comprised of dozens of families. The government already has prepared orders telling residents to leave voluntarily or face police and soldiers, similar to the force used last week at the Maoz Esther outpost in Samaria. The same calls for refusing to carry out what the rabbis define as illegal orders resulted in a fierce debate in 2005 as the government prepared tens of thousands of security forces to expel nearly 10,000 Jews from two dozen communities in the Gaza region and part of northern Samaria. The issue has become increasingly significant because a growing number of combat officers come from national religious institutions. Several national religious leaders, such as Moshe Hagar, who heads the group of two dozen pre-army Torah academies (Mechina), previously opposed disobeying orders. However, he said in an interview Thursday morning that "the soldiers no longer need to ask rabbis concerning expulsions because they know what to do." Others have stated that soldiers must not refuse orders but should simply tell their commanding officers they do not feel well and cannot function properly. As in the past, the Yesha rabbis' advice was met with demands that they be arrested for incitement. MK Ofer Pines-Paz said, "The rabbis' call to refuse military orders undermines Israeli democracy. This is dangerous incitement that is liable to break up the IDF." Contact Jake Levi at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
NO FUTURE IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PALESTINIANS
Posted by Yoav Sorek, May 28, 2009. |
|
This is Newsletter No. 15 — May 28, 2009. |
|
Dear friends, Prime Minister Netanyahu's visit to Washington has caused resurgence of public debate regarding alternatives to the two-state solution, an idea that America has been pushing for the past few years. Opposition to the two-state solution comes not only from the right wing in Israel, but is gradually becoming the quiet acquiescence of the general public. As time goes on, calls against the two-state solution are becoming more and more dominant. Yuval Diskin, head of the GSS, stated that there is no future in negotiations with the Palestinians. Giora Eiland, former national security advisor, continues to reiterate that Hamas' dominance of the Palestinian street makes negotiations with the Palestinians irrelevant and unproductive. Moreover, Eiland said that the maximum amount of territory that Israel can relinquish to the Palestinians will not be nearly sufficient to procure support for such a plan amongst the Palestinian people. Last week the Jerusalem Post featured an article by Uri Bar Zohar, a historian and former Labor MK, which asserted that the Jordanian option should be resurrected as the Palestinian option cannot bring peace. Even prior to the Prime Minister's visit to Washington, opposition to the two-state solution was already being voiced. MK Danny Danon (Likud) convened those close to the Prime Minister to reaffirm the party's rejection of the two-state solution. These feelings were expressed by Limor Livnat, who said that the negotiations with the Palestinians so far "have not brought any positive results". After Netanyahu's return from the meeting wuth Obama, MK Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) has organized a very successful conference in the Knesset, to discuss alternative policies to the two-state solution. The Israeli Initiative was one of the alternatives, and we look forward for the next steps of this public debate. In retrospect, there is no doubt that these statements had a strong influence in helping the Prime Minister withstand the American pressure of agreeing to a two-state solution. ONLY A FEW DAYS AGO WE CELEBRATED THE FORTY-SECOND ANNIVERSARY OF JERUSALEM'S UNIFICATION, an achievement of the six day war. That war made clear that Israel's existence is no longer in question, left Israel defendable borders, and gave Israel the ability to deter her enemies. Jerusalem, the capital of Israel, is beautiful as always, and a place where it is possible to walk securely in all parts of the city. However, the joy is not complete. While forty years have passed since the six day war and more than sixty years since Israel's establishment, Israel's legitimacy to exist is still being challenged. There are various explanations for this, some deeply entrenched in psychological stereotypes of the west, which see the Jews as a persecuted and exiled nation, but have difficulty seeing them as a sovereign nation. However, these thought patterns in the west need to be legitimized by some basis in reality. This basis is provided by the Palestinian refugees. With the establishment of Israel's statehood came the refugee problem. These refugees continue to hinder Israel's legitimacy in the eyes of the world. The time has come for our Government to cease being afraid to deal with the refugee problem and initiate a change in the international community on this issue. The current path in the Middle East peace process is heading in a direction which will not provide practical solutions. There is one change that can be effected which can potentially redirect the peace process and open new windows of opportunity. This change is the dismantling of the refugee camps and the rehabilitation of the refugees. Rehabilitating, or resettling those who choose such, is the key to shifting the course of events. It is urgent that this process begin, even if only a small number of refugees are aided. Breaking the stagnant situation will shift the nature of 'the Palestinian problem' in the eyes of the public from a political issue to a humanitarian one. May we all enjoy a Happy Shavuot, Yoav Sorek
|
|
TALE OF TWO QUESTIONS (FOR THE VATICAN)
Posted by Lowell Gallin, May 27, 2009. |
|
On Monday, May 4, 2009, Mishkenot Sha'ananim and the Interreligious Coordinating Council in Israel hosted a briefing at Mishkenot Sha'anaim in Yemin Moshe, Jerusalem, for journalists with His Excellency, Monsignor Antonio Franco, Apostolic Nuncio to Israel, one week before the visit to Israel of Pope Benedikt XVI. Lowell Gallin asked Monsignor Franco the following question: "Your Excellency, My question concerns two dates in church history: Chag Sameach and Shabbat Shalom from Yerushalayim, Mr. Lowell Gallin
The Root & Branch Association, Ltd. (www.rb.org.il), "an all-volunteer, non-member organization founded by Torah-observant Jews, promotes cooperation between the State of Israel and other nations, and between B'nai Israel (Children of Israel) and B'nai Noach (Children of Noah) in Israel and abroad, to build a better world based on the universal Noahide Covenant and Laws as commanded by the G-d of Israel in the Bible and Jewish tradition." |
|
FROM ISRAEL: FIRST THINGS FIRST
Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 27, 2009. |
|
And the first order of business is Shavuot, which begins tomorrow night. This holiday, the culmination of our counting of the Omer for seven weeks, marks Matan Torah — our receiving of the Torah. The counting from Pesach until now — which has significance in many ways — tells us that there is a spiritual progression from the Exodus to Sinai. We traditionally celebrate this Festival by studying through the night. It is unlikely that there will be another posting after this one until after Shabbat. Chag Shavuot Sameach! ~~~~~~~~~~ Well, the delegation headed by Minister of Intelligence Dan Meridor has gone to London to discuss matters with US officials there, prior to Barak's visit in Washington, and it's being reported that both Iran and settlements are on the agenda. As to Iran, it truly is wait and see how Obama will respond to what Barak brings him. But we cannot escape the link with the enormously threatening and worrisome way in which North Korea is currently behaving. US response will be watched carefully by the world, and one must hope (and pray!) that the American president will be jarred into waking up before it is too late. Guess what? Being nice guys with a renegade regime simply does not work. Not in North Korea and not in Iran. What is more, it's a lot easier (safer for the world) to deal with stopping such a regime from going nuclear than to confront one that already is nuclear. Barack Hussein Obama — do you get the picture yet? ~~~~~~~~~~ Here in Israel there is concern about nuclear proliferation and nuclear material getting into the hands of ME terrorists. But there is also the hope that alarm over Korea internationally may spur a stronger stance with regard to Iran. There is, for example, Russia, which has cut Iran a great deal of slack, but is now alarmed about North Korea. ~~~~~~~~~~ As to settlements: Two other illegal — or more properly, unauthorized — outposts outside of Kiryat Arba were taken down last night. One is at the Federman farm, which was demolished last year. There had been some activity reported regarding re-establishment of the property, but when police went there last night all they actually found was a tent filled with equipment. The other is at Hill 18, otherwise called Givat Avichai, which had been founded by yeshiva students from Kiryat Arba. There authorities found two shacks and some electrical equipment. The handful of yeshiva students present put up no resistance. On the one hand, it seems altogether ludicrous, that authorities are taking the time to dismantle tents and shacks. But there is another way of looking at this. While they may end up doing bigger things, we must remember that as of now it's been mostly a show. Wow! Two unauthorized outposts taken down. They're tough. You think Barak will report to Obama on what he's done so far? ~~~~~~~~~~ A reader (thanks, Don S.) has asked me to elaborate on the different statuses that outposts or settlements can have. And I'd like to devote space to that here, as this is an important issue. The whole business of legal vs. illegal settlements is both complicated and political. Most settlements have had some interaction with some government departments or agencies. They've hooked up water lines, or electric lines, or paved a road, or whatever. There is sanction somewhere along the way. And sometimes that sanction is considerable. But if final papers are not in place, then the settlement can be called "illegal" or "unauthorized." The region comprised of Judea and Samaria is not governed by Israeli civil law — civil law was never extended to this area as it was to the Golan and to eastern Jerusalem. (Note: this is not a case of annexing it, but extending the law of Israel to apply.) The region is administered separately under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defense, and it is the office of the Defense Minister that must sign off on a settlement. Thus Barak's involvement here. There are instances in which "illegal" settlements have been later declared legal, and there is hope that this might happen now in a handful of instances at least. That can particularly be the case when so-called outposts are really outlying neighborhoods of recognized settlements. But it can happen in other instances as well. And actually it was explained to me by a lawyer some time ago that many settlements considered authorized today moved through a process this way. ~~~~~~~~~~ There are some charges being made — by far left groups such as Peace Now and Yesh G'vul — that some of the settlements are on private Palestinian land. While these charges are not necessarily accurate, where this might be a problem, shifting of the settlement to other land, rather than demolishing it, is a possible resolution. ~~~~~~~~~~ Several political issues complicate this whole matter. The Obama administration is saying that we have certain obligations with regard to settlements stemming from the Road Map for Peace. Introduced by the US, with Quartet sponsorship, in the spring of 2003, it presented a phased plan, with a timeline, for achieving a two-state solution. You can see the full text here;
In the proposed first phase, it says the Government of Israel must "immediately dismantle settlement outposts erected since March 2001" and "freeze all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements)." We may not like it. We may hate it. But it says it. ~~~~~~~~~~ But — wait! — it's not nearly as simple as Obama would have it. First there is the question of whether it still applies, as it was envisioned as resulting in a Palestinian state by 2005. Has a post-2005 situation superseded this document? Unfortunately, our new foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has made it more difficult to make this case, as he declared early on that we should scrap Annapolis and go back to the Road Map. It was clear why he did this: Annapolis was trying to jump past the phased program and get to the end result of a Palestinian state at the beginning. Lieberman was undoubtedly reasoning that under the Road Map the PA had obligations it would not honor and thus we'd not get to that end result. ~~~~~~~~~~ Then there is the very important issue of reciprocity (which Netanyahu has made much of) and the need for the Palestinian Authority to simultaneously fulfill its obligations. We cannot be the only party that "walks the walk." According to this same Road Map, the Palestinians must "declare an unequivocal end to violence and terrorism and undertake visible efforts on the ground to arrest, disrupt, and restrain individuals and groups conducting and planning violent attacks on Israelis anywhere." Never mind that Fatah is not exactly clean itself, what about Hamas terrorism, with rockets and mortars still launched (170 since the end of our war in Gaza)? What action will the PA take with regard to this? This is a joke. The PA, which has this obligation, cannot do it. And there's more: "All official Palestinian institutions [must] end incitement against Israel." This is an even bigger joke than the terrorism issue. Anyone who has seen an analysis of the textbooks produced and utilized by the PA understands what a huge joke it really is. See my article, "Texts of Hate," for some mind-blowing examples of what PA school kids are taught.
To comply with this requirement, the PA would have to publish a whole set of adjusted texts. And there's no thought of doing so. Not a glimmer of a suggestion that they must do so. But WE have to stop building in the settlements? The Road Map calls for "reciprocal steps by the two parties." It seems to me a very public campaign has to be launched focusing on the inequities of what is demanded of us and of the PA. Most of the world knows about the settlements as an "impediment to peace." Time they knew that there can't be peace when the Palestinian kids are taught to hate us, but that the PA, which is bound to do so under the Road Map, is taking no action in this regard. The PA is always yapping about how we don't want peace because we keep building. Where is the voice of our government saying that clearly the PA doesn't want peace if its youngsters are taught Jihad and Palestine from the river to the sea? ~~~~~~~~~~ And this is not the end to the problems surrounding the demands made of us. The Sharon government of 2003 did not simply accept the Road Map as is. A set of "14 reservations" was attached and given to the Bush government. It was only after the US government committed to "fully and seriously address[ing]" the issues raised by Israel that the Israeli Cabinet voted to accept the Road Map. Unfortunately, this was naive, for a commitment to address the issues is not a promise that they will ultimately be incorporated into arrangements. But the government of Israel is on record as having reservations. Some of those reservations: "...during the process, and as a condition to its continuance. calm will be maintained. The Palestinians will dismantle the existing security organizations and implement security reforms during the course of which new organizations will be formed and act to combat terror, violence and incitement (incitement must cease immediately and the Palestinian Authority must educate for peace). (emphasis added) Additionally, PM Sharon is on record as having objected to the call for a freeze on settlements. It was "impossible," he said to Secretary of State Colin Powell. "Our finest youth live there. They are already the third generation, contributing to the state and serving in elite army units. They return home and get married, so then they can't build a house and have children? "What do you want, for a pregnant woman to have an abortion just because she is a settler?" (You can find this quote here:
Unfortunately, bewilderingly, this objection, this perception that a freeze is impossible, was not written into the reservations. ~~~~~~~~~~ And one last factor in helping you understand the complexities of this situation: In April of 2004, PM Sharon met with President Bush and they exchanged letters in the context of the Road Map and the forthcoming "Disengagement." President Bush's letter contained the phrase: "In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949..." This was broadly understood as an acknowledgement by the US that in any final agreement with the Palestinians we would retain major settlement blocs. Dore Gold, head of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, called it a "significant shift in US policy." Netanyahu is currently using this to make the case that it had become informal US policy to acknowledge that we will be retaining settlement blocs in any event, and that there is thus no reason for the US to demand that we be restricted in building within those settlements. (Gold, by the way, is a Netanyahu advisor.) From what I've read, this letter of Bush's is a stumbling block to Obama's demands, a frustration to him as he seeks to move on pressuring us. ~~~~~~~~~~ The good news for today: I've received some off-the-record information coming ultimately from an impeccable source, regarding Netanyahu's sincere resistance to a "two-state solution." We'll keep watching... Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
2009 SHAVOU'OT (PENTECOST) GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, May 27, 2009. |
|
(based on ancient Jewish Sages) |
|
1. Shavou'ot commemorates the receipt of the Torah, which took place over 3,300 years ago, setting the Jewish People on the Road Map to the Land of Israel. Shavou'ot reflects the human path from the murder of Abel, by Cain, to the receipt of the Torah. Thus, the first and the last Hebrew letters of Shavou'ot (constitute the name of the third son of Adam & Eve, Seth, the righteous ancestor of Noah, hence of all mankind. The Hebrew meaning of Seth is the Hebrew word for the granting of the Torah at Mt. Sinai. 2. The receipt of the Torah shaped the nature of the world in general and Western democracies in particular. Shavou'ot is celebrated on the 6th day of the Jewish month of Sivan, 50 days following the Exodus. It took place 26 generations since Adam. The Hebrew word for Jehovah equals 26 in Gimatriya. There are 26 Hebrew letters in the names of the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs: Abraham, Yitzhak, Yaakov, Sarah, Rivka, Rachel and Leah. 3. Shavou'ot is a derivative of the Hebrew word Shvoua' — vow in English, referring to the exchange of vows between G-D and the Jewish People. The root of Shvoua' — and Shavou'ot — is the Hebrew word Seven — Sheva. Shavou'ot (the Festival of Weeks in Hebrew) is celebrated 7 weeks following Passover, reflecting the 7X7 basic human behavioral characteristics, which individuals are supposed to resurrect/enhance in preparation for Shavou'ot (an all night study session on the eve of Shavou'ot has taken place since the 13th century). 7 key Jewish/universal leaders — Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aharon, Joseph and David — represent the qualities of the Torah. Number 7 represents wholesomeness in Judaism — 7 days of Creation and a 7 day week. The Sabbath is the 7th day, the first Hebrew verse in Genesis consists of 7 words, there are 7 directions (north, south, west, east, up, down, one's own position), 7 gates to The Temple, 7 Noah Commandments, Moses' birth/death was on the 7th day of Adar, Jethro had 7 names and 7 daughters, Passover and Sukkot last for 7 days each, each Plague lasted for 7 days, The Menorah has 7 branches, Jubilee follows seven 7-year cycles, 7 Continents, 7 notes in a musical scale, 7 days of mourning, 7 blessings in a Jewish wedding, 7 Jewish Prophetesses (Sarah, Miriam, Devorah, Chana, Abigail, Choulda and Esther), etc. Pentecost is celebrated — by Christians — on the 7th Sunday after Easter. 4. Shavou'ot is the second of the 3 Jewish Pilgrimages (Sukkot-Tabernacles, Passover and Shavou'ot), celebrated in the 3rd Jewish month, Sivan. It highlights Jewish Unity, compared by King Solomon to a triangular cord, which cannot be broken. The Torah — the first of the 3 parts of the Old Testament — was granted to the Jewish People (which consists of 3 components: Priests, Levites and Israel), by Moses (the youngest of 3 children, brother of Aharon and Miriam), a successor to the 3 Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and to Seth, the 3rd son of Adam & Eve. Shavou'ot highlights Ruth, who lived 3 generations before King David, son of Jesse, grandson of Ovad, the son of Ruth. The Torah was forged in 3 ways: Fire (commitment to principles), Water (lucidity and purity) and Desert (humility and principle-driven tenacity). The Torah is one of the 3 global pillars, along with labor and gratitude/charity. The Torah is one of the 3 pillars of Judaism, along with the Jewish People and the Land of Israel. 5. Scroll of Ruth — King David — Honor thy mother-in-law. Shavou'ot is highlighted by the studying of the Scroll of Ruth the first of Old Testament's five scrolls: Ruth (read on Shavou'ot), Song of Songs (Passover), Ecclesiastes (Sukkot), Book of Lamentations (Ninth of Av), Esther (Purim). Ruth was the great grandmother of King David. She stuck by her mother-in-law, NAOMI, for more than 10 years during Naomi's most difficult times, financially and socially. Ruth, the daughter of Eglon and the granddaughter of Balak, kings of the Moabites, had the option to be reunited with her own People, and be assured of affluence. Ruth's leadership legacy: principles (loyalty, concern, modesty and love) over convenience. Boaz — the chief of the Sanhedrin (Jewish Legislature) attributed his initial affection for Ruth, whom he married, to "I am informed of your support of your Mother-In-Law." The total sum of the Hebrew letters of Ruth — in Gimatriya — yield the number of laws granted at Mt. Sinai (606), which together with the 7 laws of Noah total The 613 Laws of Moses. The Scroll of Ruth highlights the Judean Desert as the Cradle of Jewish history — is it "occupied territory?" 6. Shared Israel-US (Judeo-Christian) values. Shavou'ot sheds light on the unique covenant between the Jewish State and the USA — the high regard for the Torah. The Five Books of Moses in particular, and the Old Testament in general, shaped the Western morality. They impacted the world view of the Pilgrims, the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Separation of Powers, Checks & Balances, etc. John Locke wanted the "613 Laws of Moses" to become the legal foundation of the new society established in America. Lincoln's famous 1863 quote paraphrased the 14th century John Wycliffe's dedication to his English translation of the Bible: "a book of the people, by the people, for the people." 7. Shavou'ot is the day of birth/death of King David (as well as the day that Moses was saved by Pharaoh's daughter), who united the Jewish People, elevating them to a most powerful position. David — along with Moses and Abraham — was a role model of humility and repentance, hence the Hebrew acronym for Adam (human being in Hebrew): Abraham, David and Moses. In contrast with King Saul, King David assumed responsibility and accountability for his sins. He didn't just talk the talk; he walked the walk! 150 candles are lit at King David's tomb on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem, consistent with the 150 chapters of Psalms mostly attributed to David. Number 150 is the numerical value of Nest, the warm environment of the Torah. David's personal history (from shepherd to king) provides a lesson for individuals and nations: Every problem is an opportunity in disguise; the road to success is paved with difficulties and ups & downs; human beings are fallible but they must recognize their own fallibility, as a springboard toward improvement. 8. The Torah was granted on the small, modest Mt. Sinai — to a small People — in the desert. The Torah was delivered by Moses, "the humblest of all human beings". The content of the Torah doesn't require an impressive stage. Humility — a prerequisite for absorbing the lessons of the Torah — is essential for learning and for constructive relationships and leadership. 9. Liberation-Harvest-Optimism. The Torah was granted in the desert, a platform of Liberty, away from physical and spiritual constraints. Celebrated fifty day following the Exodus (physical deliverance) from Egypt, Shavou'ot signifies spiritual liberation. Shavou'ot — Holiday of Reaping, Holiday of First Fruit, Day of Solemn — celebrates the culmination of the agricultural, physical and spiritual harvest season of optimism, which starts on the second day of Passover. Shavou'ot highlights the critical connection between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel. 10. Dairy dishes consumed during Shavou'ot, commemorate the most common food — of shepherds like King David — during the 40 years in the desert, on the way to the Land of Milk and Honey, the Land of Israel. Unlike wine, milk is poured into simple glasses. The total sum of milk is 40 in Gimatriya, which is equal to the 40 days and nights spent by Moses on Mt. Sinai and the 40 years spent by the Jewish People in the Desert. 40 is also the value of the first Hebrew letter M of key Exodus-Terms: Moses, Miriam, Manna, Egypt, Desert, Menorah, Tabernacle, Mitzvah-Commandment, etc. 40 generations passed from Moses — who delivered the "Written Torah" — to Rabbi Ashi and Rabbi Rabina, who concluded the editing of the Talmud, the "Oral Torah." The first and the last letters in the Talmud is the Hebrew M, which equals 40 in Gimatriya. Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il |
|
AN OPEN LETTER TO GERMANY'S CHANCELLOR ANGELA MERKEL
Posted by H. David Kirk, May 27, 2009. |
|
Friends, this letter was sent to the Chancellery a week ago and is now being sent to German media |
|
Dear Chancellor Merkel, I am writing to you as a German Jew, born in 1918, and abroad since 1934. You have reawakened images of my childhood in Germany, and memories of my forward-looking and brave mother. Much like you, who are able to see the current renewal of antisemitism as a threat to Jews, my mother had recognized the ever-darkening future in the Germany of 1933. Like my mother, who early on began to prepare my brothers and me for a life abroad, you know how to adapt to difficult circumstances. When you received Ahmadinejad's letter with its hateful threats against Israel, you refused to respond. Today, Israel's very existence is threatened by Iran's nearly perfected weapons of mass destruction, and by its president's virulent rhetoric to wipe Israel off the map. With these threats growing ever stronger and closer one is bound to ask: what is to be done? Surprisingly, my work in the sociology of adoptive kinship, in spite of its very different theme, gives a clue: catastrophic events can sometimes be transformed into opportunities. In that context I propose a new kind of non-financial "Wiedergutmachung", the essence of which is found in the title of my book SHARED FATE. If Germany were to acknowledge the threat that it, like other Western nations, faces from militant Islam, it could recognize a 'shared fate' situation with embattled Israel. Thus, if Germans understood that their country, like other Western nations, would be endangered if Iran had nuclear weapons, they would more readily declare themselves in support of Israel, by diplomacy if possible, by force if necessary. In the era of persecution and genocide none of the democracies dared to step forward to protect Jews. Even today such a step would require great courage and conviction, calling for the kind of leadership that you, Chancellor Merkel, have already exhibited. As pioneer in this mutual aid outreach to Israel, Germany would usher in a worldshaking epoch in its relationship with the Jewish people. Contact the poster at hdkirk@shaw.ca |
|
THEM AND US
Posted by Shaul Ceder, May 27, 2009. |
| This was written by Rabbi Avi Shafran and it appeared today on the Jewish World Review. |
|
Odd as it might seem, the recent report that a library at Yemen Children's Hospital was named after Palestinian suicide bomber Wafa Idris, that terrorist Samir Al-Kuntar spoke at the naming-ceremony and that little girls read poems in honor of the occasion brought back a Shavuos memory. According to the report, which originated in a Yemeni news service and was translated by MEMRI, the local Province Governor expressed pride "that the Arab nation has stalwart resistance [fighters] like Samir Al-Kuntar." In 1974, Mr. Kuntar murdered an Israeli father in front of his four-year-old daughter and then smashed the little girl's skull against a rock with a rifle butt. Every Jewish holiday is special in its own way, but Shavuos, which falls on May 29 and 30 this year, is unusual: it has no specific "active" observances, nothing like Passover's seder and matzoh, or Sukkos' booths or "four species," or Rosh Hashana's shofar-blowing. The 18th century Chassidic master known as Rabbi Levi Yitzchok of Berditchev perceived something subtle in that fact. Shavuos, he noted, is identified by Jewish tradition as the anniversary of the Jewish people's acceptance of the Torah at Mt. Sinai. Since the act of accepting is an inherently passive one, he explained, the holiday is pointedly devoid of physically active observances. It is a time of receiving the Torah anew, and most appropriately expressed through Torah-study. Hence, likely, the ancient Jewish custom to stay awake the entire night of Shavuos immersed in the texts of our tradition. Every year I experience a personal Shavuos miracle; it is one that I suspect is shared by many others. By the end of our family's festive meal on Shavuos night, the prospect of staying awake an hour, much less six or seven, seems an impossible one. Yet, somehow, entering the study-hall, some holy energy seems to seize me, and, even as my mind and body increasingly rebel against the deprivation of slumber, my soul jumps for joy. Seven years ago, my nearly 12-year-old son Dovie — today a strapping 19-year-old studying in yeshiva in Israel — insisted on joining me in study in the large main sanctuary of a local synagogue, which was crowded with scores of Jewish men and boys doing the same. The two of us, salt-and-pepper-bearded, could-stand-to-lose-a-few-pounds father and reddish-haired, dimpled and determined son, spent most of the night engrossed in Talmud. We began with a page of the tractate he was studying in school — a long passage dealing with the imperative of alleviating an animal's pain — and then turned to several pages of another tractate he and I regularly learn together — which concerned the status of land ownership in Jerusalem. Dovie seemed entirely awake throughout it all, and asked the perceptive questions I had come to expect from him. We paused over the course of the night only for him to participate in classes for boys his age in an adjoining room, taught by an older yeshiva boy. The experience was enthralling, as it always is, and while it was a challenge to concentrate (and at times even to keep my eyes from closing) during the prayer service that followed at 5:00 AM, Dovie and I both "made it" and then, hand in hand, walked home, where we promptly crashed. But before my head touched my pillow (a millisecond or two before I entered REM sleep), I summoned the energy to thank G-d for sharing His Torah with us. That silent prayer came back to me like a thunderclap a few days later, when I caught up on some reading I had missed (though only in the word's most simple sense) over the holiday. Apparently, during the precise hours Dovie and I were studying holy texts, the presses at The Washington Times were printing a story datelined Gaza City. It began with a description of a 12-year-old Palestinian boy, Abu Ali, being "lovingly dress[ed] by his mother in a costume of a suicide bomber, complete with small kaffiyeh, a belt of electrical tape and fake explosives made of plywood." "I encourage him, and he should do this," said his mother; and Abu Ali himself apparently agreed. "I hope to be a martyr," he said. "I hope when I get to 14 or 15 to explode myself." My thoughts flashed back to Shavuos and to my own son, and I thanked G-d again, from the bottom of my heart. Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
HOW THE U.S. SHOULD DEFINE IRAN; ARAB-JEWISH DEMOGRAPHICS; US NOT SELLING ISRAEL THE F-35
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 27, 2009. |
|
HOW THE U.S. SHOULD DEFINE IRAN Iranians are a cultured people yearning for modernism and democracy. They detest their regime. So do most of the clergy, which thinks that the mullahs should not run government and have perverted Shiism. The regime keeps the people down, robs them, and strives for global conquest for its religion The regime has subverted all institutions or set up parallel, Islamic ones. It has commissars to monitor them and a separate military to control the people. It's like the USSR. The rulers' allegiance is solely to their personal wealth and to their radical version of Islam. They have said they don't care about Iran or its boundaries. Proud of their Persian heritage, the majority resent the mullah's denigration of it. Barring Iran's religious expansion is the U.S. and Israel. Hence the Iranian regime but not its masses hate those states. Iranian emphasizes anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism to curry vafor among the Arabs, thereby magnifying Iranian power to expand. Amir Taheri, in The Persian Night: Iran From Khomeini to Ahmadinejad, suggests trying to utilize the divisions within Iran to help the people overthrow their regime. Unfortunately, the US foreign policy establishment seems oblivious to what Iran is like. It is under the already failed illusion that diplomacy can tame fanatical imperialism. When does it ever? The Islamic Republic [like the Arabs] considers US willingness to negotiate not as friendship but as weakness enabling it to harden its position. Not soften but harden! The mullahs don't recognize other sides' opinions. They consider foreign negotiators not as partners but as adversaries. They can pledge benign intent, but that is part of their war effort. What happens when the US tries to negotiate with fanatical totalitarians, while remaining mindful of their evil? Academics, NGOs, journalists, and others claim that that position thwarts negotiations, though it worked for Pres. Reagan, because he held fast to it. The State Dept. censors the rhetoric and compromises away our position in order to be able to get an agreement on something, anything. Thus the State Dept. marginalized our diplomat on human rights while making a string of concessions to N. Korea [which now has the bomb]. Iran was a menace even before nuclear development. If we let Iran remain a regional power, we betray its people and the rest of the region (Elliott Abrams, Commentary, 5/2009, p.68). Our State Dept. and its liberal supporters remain unaware of such realities. The State Dept. does not know its business. It and Pres. Obama are preparing to sacrifice Israel to Iran. Iran would become a greater menace to us. For an unrealistic U.S. assessment of Iran's menace:
WHAT TO EXPECT OF A NEW PALESTINIAN ARAB STATE Dr. Aaron Lerner of IMRA calls it a "house of cards" and the next terrorist state. The U.S. thinks that granting statehood would earn Arab support and be good for the U.S. (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/7). Dr. Lerner means that whether Abbas succeeds in running the new state or Hamas does, it would be first of all a terrorist base and as a distant second, a state for its people. It would exist for war and Islamist expansion. That would be good neither for the U.S. nor for Israel nor for Arabs nor for civilization. For a likelier scenario: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7095-NY-Israel-Conflict-Examiner~ y2009m5d14-Terrorist-forces-of-Hamas-and-Palestinian-Authority-to-combine ARAB-JEWISH DEMOGRAPHICS Politicians attempt to justify their policies about diplomacy and boundaries on demographic grounds. Leftists try to frighten Jews with the Arab "demographic bomb" [just as did rightist Rabbi Meir Kahane]. The politicians, however, have obsolete notions and have been using erroneous statistics. Arab birth rates are converging with Jewish ones. They are moving to stabilize at a 1:4 rate in Israel. The Zionists and British reduced the death rate in Palestine. Since the Arabs had a high birth rate, their population exploded. Intellectuals got used to that situation, and have not realized that eventually, birth rates usually then fall. Israeli Jewish birth rates surpass most Western rates. [The author did not mention the Ultra-Orthodox and Orthodox Jews, who multiply as a religious imperative rather than keep families small for money and convenience. If that explains the anomaly of high Jewish birth rates, the Jewish rate is secure.] Arab women used to have 9 children each. Now, "Israeli women" at a rate of 2.77 have more children than women in Iran, Bahrain, Algeria, Morocco, Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon. It is close in Syria. [The source didn't specify whether his figure for Israeli women includes a higher average for Arabs in Israel and whether he is discounting Christians who immigrated under forged papers identifying them as Jews.] The question is not whether the Arabs would swamp the Jews in
Israel but what kind of minority and citizenry will they constitute
What kind of minority? Long-term political trends are almost as unpredictable as demographic ones. The current trend is toward domination by Radical Islam. Radical Islam wears out its welcome, but fastens its rule by force. I think that bi-national states don't work well, and cannot work when one nationality is Muslim Arab, seeking to dominate the other. ARABS REJECT OBAMA DIPLOMACY? Pres. Obama tried to coax the Arabs into making the Saudi plan more
palatable to Israel. He asked the King of Jordan to persuade them to
delete the demand that Israel let in millions of Arabs. The Arab
League and Syria promptly rejected it, as if it would be an
unreasonable concession (http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media
Research & Analysis, 5/8). Abbas rejected it too (Caroline Glick in
The Saudi plan would enable the Muslims to overwhelm the Jews from within Israel. That is its purpose. By adhering to that purpose, the Arabs are telling the US that conquest remains their goal, not peace. They are faithful to their religious imperative. Will Pres. Obama understand? Obama tried to negotiate a solution. The Arabs prefer to negotiate victory. Obama's overture to Syria, to split it from Iran, interests Syria in what it can get, but Syria seems stubbornly faithful to Iran. Obama's type of diplomacy seems doomed in its attempts, as it did in its articulation. About an Obama snub of Israel see:
OBAMA POLICY FOR PALESTINIAN ARAB STATE Pres. Obama is in a hurry to set up a Palestinian Arab state in the Territories. PM Netanyahu suggests first building a civilized society there that can make peace. Who is right? Israel rushed out of Gaza. Gaza was taken over by Hamas, which then fired 10,000 rockets at Israel. Wouldn't it be foolish to invite the same scenario in Judea-Samaria [where Hamas is more popular than Abbas, and anyway Abbas also favors jihad against Jewish sovereignty anywhere]? Hamas sees the West accommodating Hizbullah, so it awaits the same
accommodation, also retaining zeal and terrorism. It offers a 10-year
truce, meaning that for 10 years, it arms, then it resumes war [if it
keeps the truce, which it usually does not].
U.S. STILL NOT SELLING F-35 TO ISRAEL Israel wants to be allowed to repair the warplane's computer itself and promptly, in wartime. The Pentagon refuses, out of concern that Israel would gain access to U.S. technology. It counter-offers a few spare computers, to replace damaged ones. This leaves open the prospect that, just as in the Yom Kippur War, a U.S. Administration might delay re-supply to extort dangerous concessions for the Arabs http://www.imra.org.il/ — Independent Media Research & Analysis, 5/8). The U.S. is [or was] an ally but also, incompatibly, an arms-selling competitor. For an earlier piece on this subject:
Now what was that, in the NY Times and among the outright antisemites about "unstinting U.S. support for Israel?" Why Israel needs best planes:
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
YAALON: ISRAEL MUST FREE ITSELF FROM FAILED '2-STATE' PARADIGM
Posted by Maayana Miskin, May 27, 2009. |
|
Minister of Strategic Affairs Moshe (Boogie) Yaalon believes that the time has come for Israel to "free itself from the failed paradigm" of the "two-state solution." Yaalon spoke Tuesday at a meeting of MKs dedicated to finding an alternative to the creation of a Palestinian Authority-led Arab state. While the creation of a PA-led state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is perceived as a necessity both in Israel and worldwide, such a state would not solve the Israel-PA conflict, said Yaalon. In fact, he said, it is doubtful that the possibility of creating such a state exists, due to Arab and Muslim reluctance to take any step that would imply recognition of Israel or compromise on Arab claims to the entire Land of Israel. Israel's Mistakes Israel's mistake lies in accepting a-symmetrical talks with the PA, Yaalon said. From the beginning of talks, he explained, Israel has accepted the idea of a Palestinian national movement with the PA as its representative, while the PA has resolutely refused to accept the Jewish national movement of Zionism or the idea of a Jewish homeland in the land of Israel. Furthermore, while the PA demands that Arabs and Muslims be allowed to live in Israel, Israel accepts that a PA state would not have Jewish citizens, he said. And while Israel gives in on crucial issues such as the status of Jerusalem or the borders of a PA state, the PA refuses to bend in the slightest. Israel has also been mistaken in assuming that the Israeli presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is the cause of Israel-Arab tension, he said. Arab attacks on Israel began well before the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel gained control of those areas, he said, and the Arab world's real goal is not a state in those areas, but rather, on the ruins of the State of Israel. For this reason, he said, the PA is actually uninterested in a "two-state solution." Former PA Chairman Yasser Arafat waged war on Israel in order to avoid the creation of a PA state, he argued. "There are those who will argue that the PA wanted to establish a state in the 1967 borders but was unable to do so," he said. "I say the problem was not one of ability, but of desire." If the PA does not desire an independent state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and will not accept such a state as the fulfillment of its national goals, the "two-state solution" has no chance to bring peace, he concluded. The Solution Israel must give up on seeking to fully solve its conflict with the PA and the Arab world as a whole, Yaalon said. "I believe we should not approach the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the phrase 'solution' in the foreseeable future," he told his audience. "Instead, we should seek 'crisis management' or long-term coping strategies." Israel should still seek a solution in the long term, he added. However, the process of seeking a solution should be "bottom-up," and not "top-down." Instead of hoping that a diplomatic agreement with the PA will lead to peace and security, the PA should prove that it is capable of self-rule prior to the signing of a diplomatic agreement, he argued. Yaalon presented five crucial elements of the "bottom-up" process: Educational Reform: The PA currently teaches Arab children that the entirety of Israel is an illegal colonialist entity, Yaalon said, and denies any historic Jewish connection to the Land of Israel. In addition, the PA teaches Jihad (holy war) against Israel and honors suicide bombers. Changing the PA school system to teach the value of life, not of death, and to accurately portray Jewish history is crucial, he said. Economic Reform: In order to create a viable economy, the PA must strengthen small businesses and create a stable middle class, Yaalon said. Attempts to create a PA economy through international aid have failed due to a corrupt PA leadership that misappropriates funds, and terrorist groups that attempt to keep PA Arabs living in poverty, he said. To avoid the problems posed by corrupt leadership, the world should focus on PA businessmen and support their initiatives. Political Reform: Beyond creating a political entity, the PA must allow for freedom of expression, freedom of the press and protect human rights. Yaalon referred to "the American mistake" of supporting strong dictators over true democratic activists. Activists who seek true democracy and freedom should win encouragement from the West, he said. Legal Reform: The goal should be "One authority, one law, one weapon," Yaalon said, referring to the disarming of rogue terrorist groups and the enforcement of law throughout the PA territories. Security Reform: The PA must begin to truly fight terrorism, Yaalon said. Among other things, the PA must rid itself of the "revolving door" by which terrorists serve only light sentences, and the sentencing of terrorists who murdered Israelis for "harming the public interest" instead of "murder." These things encourage terrorism, he said. The PA must be able to fight terrorism properly on multiple levels, he said, from gathering intelligence information to putting terrorists on trial. No Guarantees There is no guarantee that the "bottom-up" proposal can be put into effect, Yaalon said, because it relies on the Palestinian Authority to take the necessary action. In order to increase the chances that the PA will do what is necessary, Israel must make it clear that the PA has no chance of defeating Israel, he said, or of forcing further Israeli concessions and withdrawals without making concessions of its own. "The Palestinians' extreme violence does not stem from despair over their situation, as the West tends to assume, but rather from hope — hope that the State of Israel will disappear," he said. "Destroying the hope of defeating Israel will encourage new ideas." Maayana Miskin writes for Arutz-7 (www.IsraelNationalNews.com). |
|
PALESTINIAN PACT WON'T DETER IRAN
Posted by Shaul Ceder, May 26, 2009. |
|
This comes from the May 15, 2009 Investor's Business Daily. |
|
Middle East: The fashionable notion that a new Palestinian state would help end Islamofascist Iran's nuclear program isn't just a false premise. Such an Israeli concession would only embolden Iran. The paltry economic sanctions that Western nations have agonized over imposing on Iran have not persuaded the mullahs in Tehran to abandon their nuclear weapons ambitions. A new president of the United States praising Iran's ancient culture in a special video message to the Iranian people is not producing results either. Even the Israeli air force's practice run over the Mediterranean last June of a bombing raid of Iran's widely dispersed and heavily defended nuclear facilities had zero effect in getting the regime to cease its uranium enrichment activities. Instead, Tehran responded to the exercises by placing its Shahab-3B ballistic missiles into launch readiness, and proceeded to include among its targets within Israel the Jewish state's nuclear power plant at Dimona, the facility through which Israel developed the bomb in the 1960s. The Iranian missiles can travel nearly 1,300 miles, and Revolutionary Guard commander Gen. Mohammad Jafari, at the time stated that Israel "is completely within the range of the Islamic Republic's missiles. Our missile power and capability are such that the Zionist regime — despite all its abilities — cannot confront it." Clearly, even a credible threat of massive force is ineffectual in stopping or slowing Iran, never mind the various and sundry forms of "tough" and not-so-tough diplomacy the free world has practiced in the years since Tehran's nuclear aspirations were exposed. The only language Iran seems to understand is direct force itself. That this is the case should surprise no one who has had his eyes open to the true nature and behavior of the Islamic Revolutionary regime that took power in Iran 30 years ago, during the foreign policy impotence of the Carter administration. Iran's rulers see themselves not as politicians, whose primary interest is the welfare of their nation and its people. They are revolutionary crusaders who act in the name of worldwide Islam. The interests of waging Jihad against those viewed as Islam's enemies — like Israel, the United States and Western Europe — outweigh even the existence of Iran as a consideration, never mind its well-being. "We do not worship Iran; we worship Allah," the Ayatollah Khomeini said in 1979. "I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world." Pair that sentiment with the statement in March from Khomeini's successor, Iran's current supreme leader the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who called Israel a "cancerous tumor." Or place it alongside Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's infamous remark that the Jewish state should be "wiped off the map." It all points to an inescapable conclusion: The fanatics who run Iran want Israel destroyed, and they would gladly let their own land "go up in smoke" as a price. Yet, even the Sunni Muslim nations who fear the prospect of a nuclear Shiite Iran are suggesting that a Palestinian state would appease the ayatollahs. Last Thursday, Jordan's Sunni King Abdullah turned the screws while meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, warning him there could be no peace in the Middle East without a Palestinian state. Meanwhile, the Obama administration, unlike its predecessor, is focusing on Israel relenting and establishing a fully independent Palestinian homeland, not keeping the spotlight on Iran's nuclear program as the pre-eminent threat to the region and the world. Consider that Khamenei's reaction to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza was to gloat. He said while it was "short of Palestinian rights and demands, it is however a big victory that shows the inability of the occupier regime" in Jerusalem. Iran will not react to the establishment of an independent Palestine alongside Israel by recognizing Israel — any more than will the Hamas Palestinian terrorists it funds, which Palestinians elected into power. On the contrary, Tehran will view it as a step toward the Islamic conquest of Israel — a fresh sign of Zionist weakness that its nuclear stance helped bring about. As always, appeasement only fans the flames of evil.
Contact Shaul and Aviva Ceder at ceder@netvision.net.il |
|
OBAMA CALLS FOR DEMILITARIZED ARAB STATE' — A NAIVE AND STUPID IDEA
Posted by Shoshanna Walker, May 26, 2009. |
|
And how could he stop them? Boy is he in la la land! This was written by The Jerusalem Post Staff and it appeared May 20, 2009. |
|
Amid much speculation over US President Barack Obama's upcoming address to the Muslim world, reports published on Wednesday outlined the details of his Middle East peace plan, which are said to include a demilitarized Palestinian state. The US president's initiative, which was formulated in consultation with Jordan's King Abdullah II during the two leaders' recent meetings at the White House, reportedly does not significantly stray from the pan-Arab peace initiative proposed in 2002. Rather, it bolsters certain details within the Saudi-proposed plan. The Obama-Abdullah plan was put together in response to concerns from both Israel and the US that the Arab plan was too general and intransigent, and according to a report in Wednesday's Yediot Ahronot, will call on Arab countries to take trust-building measures in order to clear the air with Israel. Obama is expected to present the initiative in an address to the Arab and Muslim world from Cairo in three weeks, and set out conditions for a demilitarized Palestinian state, with east Jerusalem as its capital, within the next four years. Yediot reported that Obama's vision for an independent, democratic and contiguous Palestinian state would not have its own army and would be forbidden from making military agreements with other states, in order to provide for Israel's security. The matter of borders would be solved with territorial exchanges between Israel and the Palestinians, and the Old City of Jerusalem would be established as an international zone. The initiative would require the Palestinians to give up their claim of a "right of return," according to Yediot, and Europe and the US would arrange compensation for refugees, including foreign passports for those residing abroad. Obama's plan would also promote holding simultaneous talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and Syria and Lebanon. Yediot said that when such talks come to an agreement on Palestinian statehood, diplomatic and economic relations would be established between Israel and Arab states. The report added that in his Cairo address, Obama would reiterate calls for Israel to cease all settlement construction. Reports of the US president's new initiative came days after his meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Washington. During the premier's visit, Obama emphasized his commitment to a two-state solution. Netanyahu reiterated his goal to live side-by-side with the Palestinians, though he did not specifically mention a two-state solution. Contact Shoshanna Walker at rosewalk@concentric.net |
|
A WARY ENCOUNTER
Posted by Barbara Sommer, May 26, 2009. |
|
This was written by Melanie Phillips and it appeared in the Spectator
|
|
In remarks made after his meeting with Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu, President Obama said: I suggested to the Prime Minister that he has an historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure. That means that all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations that they have previously agreed to. Those obligations were outlined in the road map... But the first obligation in the Road Map was laid upon the Palestinians — to dismantle their infrastructure of terror. It was their failure to meet that first obligation, without which the rest of the Road Map could not be implemented, which led to its collapse as a strategy. Yet Obama appears to think that the only obligations which must be met are those which apply to Israel, with the Palestinians apparently getting a free pass. This is of course all of a piece with his belief that Israel is the cause of the Middle East impasse which would be solved by the creation of a state of Palestine. The fact that even now Fatah states explicitly that it won't accept the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, let alone Hamas repeatedly restating its intention to destroy Israel and kill every Jew, is not, in Obama's mind, the real obstacle to a solution. Not only does Obama not see the creation of 'Hamastan' in the West Bank as an obstacle — he sees instead the refusal to treat Hamas as part of the solution as an obstacle. Accordingly, he presents as the obstacle not the people continuing to wage war but the country that is the victim of that war — which he blames for not agreeing to destroy its own security. The irrationality and injustice of this is manifest on every level. But what cannot be stressed enough is the way both Obama and the 'progressive' legions behind him have made as their rallying cry support for a proposed racist and religiously exclusionary state that denies civil rights for all. Those screaming 'apartheid' at Israel are demanding the establishment of a putative Palestine state which would allow no Jews to live there, let alone enjoy the equal civil and human rights afforded to Arab citizens of Israel. As the former CIA Director James Woolsey is reported to have observed earlier this month: ...the world has a tendency to 'define deviancy down for non-Jews.' As a result, governments around the world, including the Obama administration, never even mention the possibility that Jews should be able to enjoy the same rights and privileges in any future Palestinian polity that Israeli Arabs exercise today in the Jewish state. On all these essential preconditions for a solution that pass the basic test of civilised values, Obama is silent. Quite apart from the injustice of his approach to the Middle East impasse and the irrationality of linking it with the Iran crisis, his policy of 'engagement' with Iran is hardly making him popular in the Arab world. He agreed with Netanyahu that there was a new and more promising mood in the Arab world. But he seems unable to grasp that what's behind that new mood is terror of Iran getting the bomb — and despair at the way the US is resorting to the policy of appeasement. Accordingly, Obama is actually squandering the opportunity to enlist those Arab states in the fight against a common enemy of Iran. As John Hannah writes in the Washington Post: Notably, the administration's approach is increasingly at odds with that of U.S. allies in the Middle East that seek to maximize pressure on Tehran. For the past month, Egypt has mounted a courageous public effort to rally America's Arab friends in opposition to an Iranian campaign of subversion that stretches from Iraq to Morocco. Instead of rushing to the defense of distressed allies, Obama has largely remained silent, instead opting to reiterate his interest in reaching some sort of accommodation with Tehran, the source of the region's problems. This was amplified by this telling exchange at the press conference after his talks with Netanyahu: Q : Thank you, Mr. President. Aren't you concerned that your outstretched hand has been interpreted by extremists, especially Ahmadinejad, Nasrallah, Meshal, as weakness? And since my colleague already asked about the deadline, if engagement fails, what then, Mr. President? On the face of it, the evidence that has emerged from this meeting between Obama and Netanyahu could not be more stark — as David Horowitz observes — that the Obama administration is set upon a strategy that would effectively throw Israel to the Islamist wolves. The worst fears of Israel's government and friends appear to have been amply confirmed. And yet and yet; notwithstanding all this, sanity might eventually still prevail. A small hope indeed — but it may just happen. Consider. The fact that Obama is making this lethally false linkage between creating a state of Palestine and tackling the problem of Iran should not blind us to the fact that the overriding issue is indeed not Palestine but Iran. That is the issue which will define Obama's presidency. The great question is whether Obama has concluded that, when push comes to shove, America will have no option but to 'live with' a nuclear Iran. My understanding is that, while there are those in his administration for whom the answer is 'yes', there are others for whom the answer is 'no'. In his post-meeting remarks, Obama himself acknowledged the danger a nuclear Iran poses not just to Israel but to America and the whole of the Middle East. Certainly, he thinks 'engagement' can defuse that danger. But what will he do when it becomes apparent that it will not? Obama has already demonstrated that, when brought up sharply against the suicidal consequences of his naivety, he can shift his position. We saw this in recent days by his twin retreats from publishing more pictures of 'enhanced interrogation' in Iraq and from his previous opposition to military tribunals for al Qaeda suspects. He has stated that if Iran hasn't unclenched its fist by — variously — the autumn/end of the year he will introduce 'tough sanctions'. This is not altogether reassuring, both in the vagueness of the timetable, the weakness of any sanctions regime and the fact that he is still giving Iran the greatest gift of all — time — to progress towards its nuclear goal. But it may just be that he really does think in his liberal hubris that making nice with Iran will draw the poison — and when he realises it has not done so, he may not be too keen on becoming the President that allowed Iran to go nuclear on his watch. A further point about Obama is this. He is a man of the left. The left is not merely Manichean, but insulates itself from any possibility of heresy by surrounding itself only by those with whom it agrees. It is therefore rarely forced to follow through its reasoning and thus see its patent falsehoods and idiocies exposed. From his history and past associations, it's a fair bet that Obama has thus never had his assumptions properly challenged by exposure to rationality and evidence. In recent years, Israel has been led by politicians who were either incapable, for various reasons, of properly articulating that rationality or themselves subscribed to many of the false premises of post-modern, post-moral, ahistorical thinking that characterises 'progressive' opinion in the west. Netanyahu breaks that mould. By simply talking to him, Obama may have heard for the first time an argument that is intellectually capable of puncturing at least one or two of his illusions. We have no way of knowing whether any of that took place; or, if it did, whether it had any significant effect at all. No-one should take too much notice of the public show of relaxation and relative harmony with which this meeting was subsequently spun. Nor should we believe the counter-spin that Netanyahu returned to Israel a grimmer and wiser man. He knew the score about Obama well before he set out on this trip; and he would indeed be a fool if he were not therefore playing a carefully thought-through diplomatic and strategic game. Let's hope he is; because if ideologue Obama does indeed turn out to stifle pragmatic Obama over the issue of Iran, Israel really will be on its own. Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
A DISCUSSION OF SHAVOUT-TORAH BEFORE MOUNT SINAI
Posted by Janet Lehr, May 26, 2009. |
|
This study was written by Hillel ben David (Greg Killian)
|
|
In this paper I would like to examine the existence of the Torah before it was presented to Israel, by Moses, on Mount Sinai. There are many who believe that the Torah is to be obeyed only by the Jews. If there is clear evidence that the Torah was observed and taught before Mount Sinai and before there were Jews, then this should end the matter. The Midrash asserts that although they lived long before the Torah was given to us at Mount Sinai, our forefathers kept all the mitzvot (Divine commandments) that the Torah would command their descendants in the future. This idea is reiterated by Chazal in many other places. The patriarchs taught these mitzvot to their children, the twelve tribes. They, in turn, also kept all of the mitzvot of the Torah. And not only were our forefathers mindful of future biblical commands, they even heeded future rabbinic ordinances. HaShem revealed to our forefathers the mitzvot that he was going to give to the Jews at a later time. The forefathers, out of their profound love to do the will of HaShem, voluntarily accepted upon themselves to perform these mitzvot "ahead of schedule." It is an accepted principle that even if one is not subject to a given commandment, it is nevertheless considered meritorious for him to observe that mitzvah. He is even rewarded for doing so. The Hebrew word for commands is mitzvot (plural). The word mitzvot means more than commands, it also carries the meaning of good deeds. In other words, when we obey the mitzvot we are performing the work of HaShem, which, by definition, is always a good deed. So lets begin our study of the mitzvot that our forefathers kept. I would like to work backwards from Mount Sinai. Lets start by establishing when the Torah was given on Mount Sinai: Shemot (Exodus) 19:1-17 In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt — on the very day — they came to the Desert of Sinai. After they set out from Rephidim, they entered the Desert of Sinai, and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain. Then Moses went up to God, and HaShem called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, You will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites." So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words HaShem had commanded him to speak. The people all responded together, "We will do everything HaShem has said." So Moses brought their answer back to HaShem. HaShem said to Moses, "I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you." Then Moses told HaShem what the people had said. And HaShem said to Moses, "Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes And be ready by the third day, because on that day HaShem will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, 'Be careful that you do not go up the mountain or touch the foot of it. Whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death. He shall surely be stoned or shot with arrows; not a hand is to be laid on him. Whether man or animal, he shall not be permitted to live.' Only when the ram's horn sounds a long blast may they go up to the mountain." After Moses had gone down the mountain to the people, he consecrated them, and they washed their clothes. Then he said to the people, "Prepare yourselves for the third day. Abstain from sexual relations." On the morning of the third day there was thunder and lightning, with a thick cloud over the mountain, and a very loud trumpet blast. Everyone in the camp trembled. Then Moses led the people out of the camp to meet with God, and they stood at the foot of the mountain. The Torah was given on the sixth day of the third month, the month of Sivan. We can discern this by counting the days, in the above passage, from the first day of the third month, Sivan one. Sivan six is exactly fifty days after Passover. Passover occurs on the fifteenth day of the first month, the month of Nisan. Because the Torah was given fifty days after Passover, Sivan six is one of the Lord's feasts, and is known in Hebrew as Hag Shavuot, and in Greek as Pentecost. Nisan is the first month, Iyar is the second month, and Sivan is the third month. Moses taught HaShem's laws and decrees days before the Torah was give on Mount Sinai: Shemot (Exodus) 18:13-16 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, "What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?" Moses answered him, "Because the people come to me to seek God's will. Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God's decrees and laws." Moses is telling the people about HaShem's laws and decrees before the written Torah is given. The written Torah will be given in Exodus chapter 20, in a few days from this passage. One of the mitzvot that our forefathers kept before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai was the mitzva of Shabbat: Shemot (Exodus) 16:1-30 The whole Israelite community set out from Elim and came to the Desert of Sin, which is between Elim and Sinai, on the fifteenth day of the second month after they had come out of Egypt. In the desert the whole community grumbled against Moses and Aaron. The Israelites said to them, "If only we had died by HaShem's hand in Egypt! There we sat around pots of meat and ate all the food we wanted, but you have brought us out into this desert to starve this entire assembly to death." Then HaShem said to Moses, "I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions. On the sixth day they are to prepare what they bring in, and that is to be twice as much as they gather on the other days." So Moses and Aaron said to all the Israelites, "In the evening you will know that it was HaShem who brought you out of Egypt, And in the morning you will see the glory of HaShem, because he has heard your grumbling against him. Who are we, that you should grumble against us?" Moses also said, "You will know that it was HaShem when he gives you meat to eat in the evening and all the bread you want in the morning, because he has heard your grumbling against him. Who are we? You are not grumbling against us, but against HaShem." Then Moses told Aaron, "Say to the entire Israelite community, 'Come before HaShem, for he has heard your grumbling.'" While Aaron was speaking to the whole Israelite community, they looked toward the desert, and there was the glory of HaShem appearing in the cloud. HaShem said to Moses, "I have heard the grumbling of the Israelites. Tell them, 'At twilight you will eat meat, and in the morning you will be filled with bread. Then you will know that I am HaShem your God.'" That evening quail came and covered the camp, and in the morning there was a layer of dew around the camp. When the dew was gone, thin flakes like frost on the ground appeared on the desert floor. When the Israelites saw it, they said to each other, "What is it?" For they did not know what it was. Moses said to them, "It is the bread HaShem has given you to eat. This is what HaShem has commanded: 'Each one is to gather as much as he needs. Take an omer for each person you have in your tent.'" The Israelites did as they were told; some gathered much, some little. And when they measured it by the omer, he who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little. Each one gathered as much as he needed. Then Moses said to them, "No one is to keep any of it until morning." However, some of them paid no attention to Moses; they kept part of it until morning, but it was full of maggots and began to smell. So Moses was angry with them. Each morning everyone gathered as much as he needed, and when the sun grew hot, it melted away. On the sixth day, they gathered twice as much — two omers for each person — and the leaders of the community came and reported this to Moses. He said to them, "This is what HaShem commanded: 'Tomorrow is to be a day of rest, a holy Sabbath to HaShem. So bake what you want to bake and boil what you want to boil. Save whatever is left and keep it until morning.'" So they saved it until morning, as Moses commanded, and it did not stink or get maggots in it. "Eat it today," Moses said, "because today is a Sabbath to HaShem. You will not find any of it on the ground today. Six days you are to gather it, but on the seventh day, the Sabbath, there will not be any." Nevertheless, some of the people went out on the seventh day to gather it, but they found none. Then HaShem said to Moses, "How long will you refuse to keep my commands and my instructions? Bear in mind that HaShem has given you the Sabbath; that is why on the sixth day he gives you bread for two days. Everyone is to stay where he is on the seventh day; no one is to go out." So the people rested on the seventh day. On the sixteenth day of Iyar, the second month, HaShem began sending His people the bread from heaven. As part of His provision, HaShem commands His people to rest on the Sabbath, and not to collect the manna. This Sabbath mitzva was given more than two weeks before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai. Three weeks before the manna was given with the mitzva of Sabbath, another interesting incident occurred: Shemot (Exodus) 15:22-26 Then Moses led Israel from the Red Sea and they went into the Desert of Shur. For three days they traveled in the desert without finding water. When they came to Marah, they could not drink its water because it was bitter. (That is why the place is called Marah.) So the people grumbled against Moses, saying, "What are we to drink?" Then Moses cried out to HaShem, and HaShem showed him a piece of wood. He threw it into the water, and the water became sweet. There HaShem made a decree and a law for them, and there he tested them. He said, "If you listen carefully to the voice of HaShem your God and do what is right in his eyes, if you pay attention to His commands and keep all his decrees, I will not bring on you any of the diseases I brought on the Egyptians, for I am HaShem, who heals you." The crossing of the Red Sea took place on Nisan twenty-one, seven days after Passover. Again we see HaShem giving His people laws and decrees before the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai. This event took place forty-two days before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai. Before the events at Marah, HaShem gave a very special mitzva to His firstborn, His people. HaShem gave His people the mitzva of Passover: Shemot (Exodus) 12:1-12 HaShem said to Moses and Aaron in Egypt, "This month is to be for you the first month, the first month of your year. Tell the whole community of Israel that on the tenth day of this month each man is to take a lamb for his family, one for each household. If any household is too small for a whole lamb, they must share one with their nearest neighbor, having taken into account the number of people there are. You are to determine the amount of lamb needed in accordance with what each person will eat. The animals you choose must be year-old males without defect, and you may take them from the sheep or the goats. Take care of them until the fourteenth day of the month, when all the people of the community of Israel must slaughter them at twilight. Then they are to take some of the blood and put it on the sides and tops of the doorframes of the houses where they eat the lambs. That same night they are to eat the meat roasted over the fire, along with bitter herbs, and bread made without yeast. Do not eat the meat raw or cooked in water, but roast it over the fire — head, legs and inner parts. Do not leave any of it till morning; if some is left till morning, you must burn it. This is how you are to eat it: with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand. Eat it in haste; it is HaShem's Passover. "On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn — both men and animals — and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am HaShem. We don't know the exact day that this mitzva was given, but we know that it took place in Nisan some time before the tenth day of the month. This is more than fifty-five days before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai. Joseph demonstrated that he knew and obeyed the Torah more than two hundred years before it was given to Moses: Bereshit (Genesis) 39:7-9 And after a while his master's wife took notice of Joseph and said, "Come to bed with me!" But he refused. "With me in charge," he told her, "my master does not concern himself with anything in the house; everything he owns he has entrusted to my care. No one is greater in this house than I am. My master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God?" Since sin is defined as disobedience to the Torah, we know that Joseph and Potiphar's wife were both aware that adultery was forbidden; and this was known more that two hundred years before the Torah was given to Moses. More than two hundred years before the giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai, Judah was obeying a part of that Torah, notice: Bereshit (Genesis) 38:6-10 Judah got a wife for Er, his firstborn, and her name was Tamar. But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in HaShem's sight; so HaShem put him to death. Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in HaShem's sight; so he put him to death also. How did Judah know it was Onan's duty to lie with his brother's wife to produce offspring? Who taught him this portion of the Torah? Notice the words that the Torah uses to describe this command: Devarim (Deuteronomy) 25:5-6 If brothers are living together and one of them dies without a son, his widow must not marry outside the family. Her husband's brother shall take her and marry her and fulfill the duty of a brother-in-law to her. The first son she bears shall carry on the name of the dead brother so that his name will not be blotted out from Israel. So, in a couple of hundred years, from Judah's time, the Torah will use Judah's word duty to describe what Judah asked Onan to do. Notice also, in Bereshit (Genesis) 38:6-10, that what Onan did was wicked in the HaShem's sight, so He killed Onan. This would not be very fair if Onan did not already know that it was wicked for him to do such a thing. Thus we see that HaShem had revealed His Torah to Judah and to Onan more than two hundred years before the Torah was revealed to Moses. Isaac knew the Torah that was given to Moses more than two hundred years before Moses. We see this in his command to his son Jacob: Bereshit (Genesis) 28:1 So Isaac called for Jacob and blessed him and commanded him: "Do not marry a Canaanite woman. Moses quoted HaShem when he gave a similar command, some two hundred years later: Shemot (Exodus) 34:14-16 Do not worship any other god, for HaShem, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. "Be careful not to make a treaty with those who live in the land; for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to them, they will invite you and you will eat their sacrifices. And when you choose some of their daughters as wives for your sons and those daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will lead your sons to do the same. Thus we see that Isaac had Torah insight more than two hundred years before the Torah was given. More than two hundred years before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai, the following event was recorded in scripture: Bereshit (Genesis) 26:2-6 HaShem appeared to Isaac and said, "Do not go down to Egypt; live in the land where I tell you to live. Stay in this land for a while, and I will be with you and will bless you. For to you and your descendants I will give all these lands and will confirm the oath I swore to your father Abraham. I will make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and will give them all these lands, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, Because Abraham obeyed me and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws." So Isaac stayed in Gerar. More than two hundred years before Sinai, Abraham is obeying all of HaShem's requirements, commands, decrees and laws. This is the first time we see mitzvot being obeyed when it is not apparent when HaShem revealed His mitzvot. We do not know whether He made a special revelation to Abraham, or whether Abraham was taught by someone else. The Talmud also noticed that Abraham kept the whole Torah: Yoma 28b Rab said: Our father Abraham kept the whole Torah, as it is said: Because that Abraham hearkened to My voice [kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws]. R. Shimi b. Hiyya said to Rab: Say, perhaps, that this refers to the seven laws? — Surely there was also that of circumcision! Then say that it refers to the seven laws and circumcision [and not to the whole Torah]? — If that were so, why does Scripture say: 'My commandments and My laws'? The Talmud teaches that Avraham kept the entire Torah before it was given to the Jewish People at Sinai. The Midrash says that Isaac kept the laws of shchitah (kosher slaughtering), and Yaakov the laws of Shabbat, before the giving of Torah at Sinai. Truthfully, Isaac and Yaakov kept all of Torah, just as Avraham did. Why, then, is only Avraham mentioned as having kept all 613 mitzvot? Torah's goal is to create a world of chesed, a world of giving and of kindness. Avraham's defining character trait was the same: loving-kindness (chesed). Things being so, Avraham had an innate connection to Torah. Avraham, by his nature, was closer, more similar, to the laws of Torah than were the other Patriarchs. Avraham, specifically, was bound to Torah, in a way that left him alike one commanded to keep all of Torah. HaShem appreciates more a mitzva accomplished by a person commanded to fulfill that mitzva, than when accomplished by someone not so instructed. [The reason HaShem instructs the person that He does, is because He more desires that person's doing it!] Thus, Avraham's observance of Torah was of more significance than its being kept by Isaac or Yaakov. And thus: Avraham, specifically, is mentioned as having kept all of Torah! Nearly four hundred years before the Torah was given on Mount Sinai, Lot was judging the inhabitants of Sodom for not obeying it: Bereshit (Genesis) 13:13 Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the HaShem. In addition, Avraham and Lot both kept Passover! Notice the unleavened bread in the following passage: Bereshit (Genesis) 19:2-7 "My lords," he said, "please turn aside to your servant's house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning." "No," they answered, "we will spend the night in the square." But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom — both young and old — surrounded the house. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them." Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him And said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing. How could Lot say that sodomy was wicked unless he knew that HaShem had commanded the people not to commit sodomy? How could HaShem say that the men of Sodom were sinning unless the standard for sin had already been laid down? It is therefore apparent that the Torah was known before it was given to Moses on Mount Sinai. Abimelech also knew the Torah before it was given: Bereshit (Genesis) 20:3-7 But God came to Abimelech in a dream one night and said to him, "You are as good as dead because of the woman you have taken; she is a married woman." Now Abimelech had not gone near her, so he said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent nation? Did he not say to me, 'She is my sister,' and didn't she also say, 'He is my brother'? I have done this with a clear conscience and clean hands." Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know you did this with a clear conscience, and so I have kept you from sinning against me. That is why I did not let you touch her. Now return the man's wife, for he is a prophet, and he will pray for you and you will live. But if you do not return her, you may be sure that you and all yours will die." HaShem could not accuse Abimelech of sinning unless he knew the Torah which defines sin. He also obviously realized that the sin, in this case, was the sin of sleeping with another man's wife, that is adultery. Abimelech lived more than three hundred years before the Torah was given to Moses. This same logic also applies to the Amorites: Bereshit (Genesis) 15:12-16 As the sun was setting, Abram fell into a deep sleep, and a thick and dreadful darkness came over him. Then HaShem said to him, "Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own, and they will be enslaved and mistreated four hundred years. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your fathers in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure." It would not be fair for HaShem to judge and punish the Amorites for sin unless they had already been told the requirements of the Torah. We see, again, that the Torah was known more than four hundred years before it was given to Moses on Mount Sinai. After the flood, Noah demonstrated knowledge of Torah, and obedience to it: Bereshit (Genesis) 8:18-21 So Noah came out, together with his sons and his wife and his sons' wives. All the animals and all the creatures that move along the ground and all the birds — everything that moves on the earth — came out of the ark, one kind after another. Then Noah built an altar to HaShem and, taking some of all the clean animals and clean birds, he sacrificed burnt offerings on it. HaShem smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done. HaShem will command His people to bring burnt offerings, when He gives His Torah to Moses in about a thousand years, from the days of Noah. Yet, a thousand years before the Torah was given, Noah is obeying it! Notice that Noah even knows about the requirement to offer clean animals. This is another requirement which the Torah will spell out in a thousand years. A hundred years before the flood and more than a thousand years before the Torah was given, HaShem was grieved because men were greatly disobeying the Torah: Bereshit (Genesis) 6:5-8 HaShem saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time. HaShem was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain. So HaShem said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth — men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air — for I am grieved that I have made them." But Noah found favor in the eyes of HaShem. Evil and wickedness have no meaning unless HaShem had already revealed His Torah to the people. Thus, we know that the Torah was known more than fifteen hundred years before it was revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai. At the dawn of time, Cain and Abel demonstrated that HaShem had clearly communicated the Torah's sacrificial requirements: Bereshit (Genesis) 4:1-7 Adam lay with his wife Eve, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Cain. She said, "With the help of HaShem I have brought forth a man." Later she gave birth to his brother Abel. Now Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil. In the course of time Cain brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to HaShem. But Abel brought fat portions from some of the firstborn of his flock. HaShem looked with favor on Abel and his offering, But on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor. So Cain was very angry, and his face was downcast. Then HaShem said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." Here we see several parts of the Torah revealed. We see that both Cain and Abel knew that they were to bring offerings to HaShem. We also see that Cain knew that his offering was not correct because HaShem clearly indicated this. We also see that sin is an understood concept in the days of Cain and Abel. Remember the definition of sin: Yochanan (John) 3:4 Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness. The sacrifice that Abel brought, corresponds with what the Torah will command as the proper sacrifice for Passover! This also gives us a clue as to what was wrong with Cain's sacrifice: It was brought one day too early. Firstfruits are to be brought, beginning the day AFTER Passover. Here, at the dawn of time, we see that the Torah was being obeyed. The Torah will not be given to Moses for more than two thousand years. Since there were no Jews before Jacob, then we can see that we have several examples of the Torah being understood and obeyed, before there were any Jews. To put it another way: Cain, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Lot, and Isaac were Gentiles who obeyed the Torah before it was given to God's people on Mount Sinai. If Gentiles obeyed the Torah before it was given on Mount Sinai, how much more should they obey this same Torah, since it has been written?
Janet Lehr is editor/publisher of a daily e-mail called "Israel Lives." She can be contacted at janetlehr@israellives.com |
|
KENYAN MAU MAU FOR "DISPROPORTIONATE"
Posted by Frank Adam, May 26, 2009. |
|
In 1952 — 64 [Kenyan independence] the British fought a particularly nasty war with MAU MAU in which they hanged a 1000 — more than in any other colonial disengagement from empire campaign after 1945 if not before. This is in contrast to the 100+ hanged in the 36-39 Arab revolt in Palestine and none hanged by Israel. In operations in the field the MAU MAU killed 32 white settlers and another 42 or thereabouts white soldiers and officials, and about 600+ local black police and soldiers. This in contrast to the usual figure for 11 000 blacks MAU MAU killed by British forces; and that British forces Palestine recovered from the battlefield a 1000+ Arab corpses during the Arab rebellion of 36-39. I think these figures will be very useful to throw in question form at at any pompous British journalist or diplomat "carrying on" about "disproportionate" use of violence by Israel in Gaza or anywhere else. Yours,
Contact Frank Adam at frrankadam@aol.com |
|
NORTH KOREA AND IRAN TELL OBAMA TO GET BENT
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, May 26, 2009. |
| This was posted by Freedom Fighters on the Joshua Pundit website. |
|
Ahh, hope n'change...it's just not working so well. North Korea carried out a major nuclear test this morning at its Mount Mohyang test site, the site of North Korea's 2006 nuclear test. Today's test showed a major progression in North Korea's nuclear capabilities. According to the seismic reports, the explosion created a 4.7 magnitude earthquake on the Richter scale, which means that energy yield is 10 to 20 kilotons, essentially equivalent to the Hiroshima and Nagasaki blasts. North Korea also test-fired three short-range, ground-to-air missiles later Monday from the same site where it launched a rocket last month that flew over Japan. President Obama was quick to assume full responsibility for the launch and acknowledged that US non-reaction to North Korea's prior missile launch was a factor in today's nuclear test. Okay, I may have made that last sentence up. Here's what the president actually said: President Barack Obama, in a statement, called the action a "matter of grave concern to all nations" and said North Korea was undermining stability in northeast Asia. "It will not find international acceptance unless it abandons its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery," he said. Actually, I think the North Korean regime sees nukes as a definite path to international acceptance, at least in terms of getting what they want. It's gotten them pretty far up to now, and seeing who's in the White House, there's no reason for them to fear any significant consequences in continuing along the same path. They've blatantly lied and played the West and especially the US for fools for quite some time now, and it's worked pretty well. And as their expertise and skill in creating nuclear weapons increases, they'll find even more ready customers to buy what they have to sell then they have already, and most of them are not going to be people we're comfortable with having nukes in their hands. The chief irony in all this is that the current occupant of the White House has made so many pious noises about the dangers of nuclear proliferation,yet he ignores the very real danger posed by the emerging nuclear capabilities of Iran and North Korea. As a matter of fact, his chief efforts along this line have been in cutting funds for US missile defense to the bone against the advice of his own secretary of defense. 
Almost on cue, Iran's Ahmadinejad decided to take a slap at Obama's uncleched fist and let him and the West know that he rejected the latest Western proposal to "freeze" its nuclear weapons development in exchange for no further sanctions. He also ruled out any talks on Iran's nuclear program with the US or the other major powers, saying that as far as he was concerned it was a dead issue: Ahmadinejad proposed a debate with Obama at the United Nations in New York "regarding the roots of world problems" but he made clear Tehran would not bow to pressure on the nuclear issue. "Our talks (with major powers) will only be in the framework of cooperation for managing global issues and nothing else. We have clearly announced this," Ahmadinejad said. "The nuclear issue is a finished issue for us," he told a news conference. "From now on we will continue our path in the framework of the (U.N. nuclear watchdog) agency." Ahmadinejad, of course is speaking for the Ayatollah Khamanei, who will continue to call the shots in Iran no matter who wins Iran's June 'election'. I can't help but wonder if Kim Jong-Il and Ahmadinejad deliberately set this up between them,just for giggles. In reality, aside from horsetrading nuclear and missile technology, Iran and North Korea have learned from each other's experience. The US, especially with Obama in the White House is unlikely to do anything meaningful to stop them from obtaining nuclear weapons, and will simply keep meaniongless diplo-speak initiatives churning until it's simply too late to do anything. Obama's meaningless statements about revisiting Iran's nuclear weapons program in six months or so after talking with Israel's Benyamin Netanyahu and hearing his concerns about an existential threat to an ally are a prime example. When serious consequences arise from this, I have no doubt that the president will make suitable remarks in his signature baritone, while swinging his head back and forth like a metronome to scan his stereo teleprompters.
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com
|
|
HOW OUR STATE DEPARTMENT PROMOTES RADICAL ISLAM IN AMERICA
Posted by Gabrielle Goldwater, May 26, 2009. |
|
This was posted by Freedom Fighters on the Joshua Pundit website. |
|
Not only does our government refuse to admit that we're in a war with Islamism, they actually promote it as official policy. The Investigative Project on Terrorism has the facts on how the US State Department is working to promote Islamism in America, under the guise of 'Muslim outreach'. With the United States battling Islamist extremists, making America's case to Muslims around the world has never been more of a priority for policymakers. Unfortunately, the State Department continues to take a counterproductive approach: serving as a veritable infomercial promoting Islamist organizations like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) while giving the back of the hand to the very anti-jihadist Muslims that Washington should be cultivating. The latest example is a State Department booklet issued in March titled "Being Muslim in America." Do a search on JoshuaPundit for any one of these organizations, and you will find that they are mainly wahabi and Muslim Brotherhood Islamist fronts, mostly Saudi funded. They are organs of the so-called 'stealth jihad' that seeks to radicalize American Muslims while pushing for sharia law and the ultimate Islamization of the country. The booklet in question, entitled "Muslim In America" is designed for US Diplomatic personnel to hand out to Muslims overseas ostensibly to show that the US is a Muslim friendly country, sensitive to Muslim values. Instead, it touts the values of Islamists like the ones mentioned above: Unfortunately, the substance of the booklet is so flawed that it could undermine the struggle against this form of radicalism. It perpetuates the mythology that American Muslims are united in the belief that law enforcement and the public are willing to flout innocent Muslims' civil rights post-September 11, describing American Muslim reactions to the attacks as follows: Then: "Sadly, suspicions of this kind are not uncommon — in the United States or in other nations — during wartime or when outside attack is feared. But 2008 is not 2002, when fears and suspicions were at their height. Context is also important: Every significant immigrant group has in the United States faced, and overcame, a degree of discrimination and resentment." The message being sent overseas, of course is that America is a willing host to the parasitical growth of Islamism — not the message that Muslims are welcome in America if they adhere to our norms. In a triumphalist honor-shame culture like Islam, that message is extremely dangerous and roughly equivalent to hanging a prominent sign in front of your house detailing the valuables inside and the hours the house is empty. The book makes absolutely no mention of how moderate Muslims practice their faith while still abiding by our laws and traditions, and cites no organizations that embrace that viewpoint. Every example is one of the Muslim Brotherhood wahabi spinoffs cited above. What this does, of course is to reinforce the message of weakness and appeasement coming out of the White House. I don't doubt that this message is being received by both our enemies and our friends quite clearly.
Gabrielle Goldwater lives in Switzerland. Contact her at III44@aol.com
|
|
THE GALL OF THE PALM BEACH POST EDITOR
Posted by Jerome S. Kauman, May 26, 2009. |
|
The editor of the Palm Beach Post, May 17, 2009, had the gall to give several orders, via Barack Obama, to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu: ... "Barack Obama, who enjoys high approval ratings, must tell Mr. Netanyahu that Netanyahu's political weakness (the editor's estimation) is just one of the "excuses" Obama will reject for Netanyahu not attempting to negotiate a political deal with the Palestinians."My unpublished (naturally) Letter to the Editor is below. |
|
"As to Barack Obama Demanding "Excuses" from the Sovereign Nation of Israel"
The Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, does not have to give Barack Obama any "excuses" for not immediately making a so-called "peace" deal with the Palestinian Arabs nor for doing anything else that he and the people of Israel think is not in their best interests, especially when their very survival is at stake. Mr. Netanyahu does not "owe" Mr. Obama another chance to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. Achmadinejad constantly threatens a nuclear attack to eliminate the Jews and the State of Israel. The Jews and the entire world, that ignored Hitler's Mein Kampf, better take him at his word. Mr. Obama's naive approach and sweet talk to the Arab nations, the United Nations, the powerless European Union and the vague promises of the Russians and the Chinese with diametrically opposed objectives to ours, will result in exactly nothing. The farce of unsuccessful nuclear negotiations in North Korea is simply repeating itself. Our "strengthening" Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas at the expense of Hamas is another farce. Hamas overwhelmingly defeated Abbas in the elections in Gaza and turned it into a launching pad for thousands of rockets into the heart of Israel. Furthermore, if open elections were held today, Hamas would take over the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) and do exactly the same thing, five minutes from the heart of Israel. As to the editor's criticism of the Israeli settlements which, by the way, are built only on land that was supposed to have been the Jewish homeland in the first place — since the League of Nations Mandate of 1917: There were no settlements when Israel was founded on a miniscule small strip of land along the Mediterranean coast in 1948. Nevertheless, the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon immediately waged all-out war to eliminate that tiny strip. Attempted elimination of the settlements with near 300,000 Israelis living productive lives, is just another Arab Trojan horse. Perhaps the editor should be telling Obama he should be obtaining "excuses" from Ahmadinejad of Iran and Kim Jong-ll of North Korea or the Russians and the Chinese instead of attempting to weaken the only democracy and true ally we have in the entire Middle East. Jerome S. Kaufman is National Secretary of the Zionist Organization of America and hosts the Israel Commentary website (http://www.israel-commentary.org). |
|
THE RETURN OF PRESIDENT OBAMA TO THE ISLAMIC FAITH OF HIS FATHER
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, May 26, 2009. |
|
Some will say President Obama never left, despite his seemingly temporary adopting the Christian faith useful in Chicago politics. It appears that President Obama, in his public re-connection to Islam or, as he calls it, "outreach" can be construed to fulfill the pledge of Islamic "Jihadists" (warriors for Islam) to turn all America over to the Islamic faith. When astronauts or astrophysicists study the cosmos, looking for invisible black holes which cannot be seen, even with the most powerful telescopes, they look for other clues. Those clues are more solid objects, like stars, planets — even light being drawn into this black hole by its irresistible gravitational forces. The behavior of these solid objects can be studied, especially when they behave erratically. If one looks, even casually, at the people (objects) who Obama has selected to be drawn into his force field, those are the clues which can tell you there is a seemingly "black hole" in the Washington cosmos. (I'm not speaking of personal coloring.) For example: Look at the solid crowd of Arabists swirling around Obama, leaving little doubt Obama is the center of a pro-Islamic — anti-Israel/Jewish vortex. Granted, the charismatic Obama, with his charming smile and his come-hither speeches that flow like warm chocolate, makes it hard to see his invisible gravitational force. His magnetic force is so strong that, even when the light of truth manages to escape, most of the people observing still ignore the reality of the danger he poses. We delude ourselves that his forceful, smooth speeches are solutions — rather than the emptiness they offer. If you have any doubt that Obama has returned to the Muslim Islamic faith of his father, look at what he doing as he re-connects with some of the most evil terrorist Islamic, anti-America/anti-Israel nations on the Planet Earth. But first, he needed to select a cabal of Arabists to do his bidding. Some are called appointees, while others are called advisors but all are Arabists and virulently anti-Israel — even (perhaps especially) the Jews among them. We observe such people as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, James Baker III, Baker's former Jew-boys: Dennis Ross, Aaron David Miller, Daniel Kurtzer with Martin Indyk circling the group. We watch Susan Rice, appointed to the post of America's ambassador to the United Nations, well-known for her earlier recommendations to use force against Israel. Obama made General James Jones his National Security Advisor (who led Melanie Phillips to use the old phrase: "Obama prepares to throw Israel under the bus". (What does that mean as a practical matter? Is Obama to be Israel's High Executioner?) Rahm Emanuel is Obama's Chief of Staff (an Israeli whose father fought in Israel's 1948 War of Independence) but Rahm is now very anti-Israel — or at the very least pro-Arab adopting Obama's doctrine. In his run for President, Obama had Syrian-born Tony Rezko assisting his campaign funding but, he is temporarily out-of-the-loop and sitting in prison for financial misdemeanors. We have yet to hear about the financial assistance to Obama in full through the Justice Department. All had a well-defined history of being pro-Muslim Arabs and virulently against the Jewish State. Needless, to say, the U.S. State Department has acquired the confirmed reputations of being the most dedicated anti-Israel "Shadow Government" since Israel was partitioned over the State Department's objections. One might say the U.S. State Department is like another satellite nation of the Muslim block of 57 Muslim countries (only 22 of which are also Arab). Note! I recommend that you obtain the May issue of THE OUTPOST by AFSI (Americans For a Safe Israel) to get a more complete description of President Obama's inner circle. One might ask the questions: Is Obama a selected plant to alter America's democracy and its support for an ally who actually fights Islamic Terror? Under Obama and his scurrilous cabal, Americans are losing their precious freedoms daily. *** Something else has just come up. In the Chicago Tribune of May 24th, there's a column by Josh Meyer, entitled "FBI Role In Fighting Terrorism To Expand". If the FBI is actually allowed to fight Terrorism, so much the better. However, in the past the FBI was under excessive influence from the Arabist State Department. Woe unto the FBI agent who began to seriously track radical "sleeper" Muslim Terrorists in the U.S. If they didn't back off, they were soon assigned a post to nowhere Nebraska. Clearly, the CIA is to be reduced in purpose and efficiency, particularly when it comes to harshly dealing with the Arab-Muslim Terrorists who plan to target American interests and America herself. Why is President Obama erecting a shield for Global Islamic Terrorism while claiming he is going to do a better job than the CIA? Will the sleeper Islamic cells in the U.S. and suspicious Muslim "Jihadists" be mostly un-investigated under Obama's ideology of reaching out to Muslim "Jihadists" nations well known as Terrorists and enemies of the U.S. (because they so proclaim themselves to be). Obama appointed Leon Panetta as Director of the CIA. Is he supposed to now roll over and play dumb to the Obama FBI ploy? Does Obama and his crowd of Arabist consider the CIA an impediment and, therefore, expendable? Is the "New" FBI to be a covert policeman — not so much against Muslim Terrorists but, as a friendly organization to protect Muslims in America? That would mean suppressing investigations with the State Department and Obama's Arabist cabal overseeing the program. That would also mean threatening any TV or radio news channel, any newspaper, any commentator who speaks out against Muslim extremism to include Obama's frequent apologies for America so Muslim Arab "Jihadists" will 'like' and forgive us white Judeo-Christian folks. IF the 'sleeper' Muslims allowed into the U.S. by the Arabist State Department happens to blow up an American city or release bio-agents, who will Obama then blame? Will he fall back on the age old excuse for government failure and to re-direct the anger of the American people against his passive appeasement doctrine and blame the Jews of Israel — and America? He has put Israel into the position of either attacking Iran (which Obama refuses to do) or waiting for a nuclear explosion over Tel Aviv. Then he could absolve himself of blame as the Muslim Islamists continue their attack against non-Muslim governments all over the world, including and especially America. So, President Obama, who are you really? Is it merely bad judgement, naiveté, a fellow traveler of Islamic ideology or are you a 'sleeper' yourself, now come awake as the infamous Manchurian Candidate in a movie by the same name? Let us hope this speculation is nothing more than that! Perhaps the reality that Muslim "Jihadists" cannot be appeased, actually grow stronger if imprisoned where they convert other inmates to Islam and Terrorism. Will Obama abandon his father's Islamic faith and start protecting America and her Judeo-Christian heritage? This below is entitled "Obama Prepares To Throw Israel Under The Bus" and was written by Melanie Phillips. It appeared May 6, 2009 in The Spectator www.Spectator.Co.Uk. |
|
As predicted here repeatedly — Obama is attempting to throw Israel under the Islamist bus, and he's getting American Jews to do his dirty work for him. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly told the Israel lobbying group AIPAC on Sunday that efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians. General James Jones, National Security Adviser to Obama, reportedly told a European foreign minister a week ago that unlike the Bush administration, Obama will be 'forceful' with Israel. Ha'aretz reports: Jones is quoted in the telegram as saying that the United States, European Union and moderate Arab states must redefine 'a satisfactory endgame solution.' The U.S. national security adviser did not mention Israel as party to these consultations. Of course not. If you are going to throw a country under the bus, you don't invite it to discuss the manner of its destruction with the assassins who are co-ordinating the crime. As I said here months ago, the appointment of Jones and the elevation of his post of National Security Adviser at the expense of the Secretary of State was all part of the strategy to centralise power in the hands of those who want to do Israel harm. Yesterday Vice-President Joe Biden and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry turned the thumbscrews tighter, telling Israel to stop building more settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement. This is all not only evil but exceptionally stupid. The idea that a Palestine state will help build a coalition against Iran is demonstrably absurd. The Arab states are beside themselves with anxiety about Iran. They want it to be attacked and its nuclear programme stopped. They are desperately fearful that the Obama administration might have decided that it can live with a nuclear Iran. The idea that if a Palestine state comes into being it will be easier to handle Iran is the opposite of the case: a Palestine state will be Iran, in the sense that it will be run by Hamas as a proxy for the Islamic Republic. The idea that a Palestine state will not compromise Israel's security is ludicrous. It is of course, by any sane standard, quite fantastic that America is behaving as if it is Israel which is holding up a peace settlement when Israel has made concession after concession — giving up Sinai, giving up Gaza, offering all the territories to the Arabs in return for peace in 1967, offering more than 90 per cent of them ditto in 2000, ditto again to Mahmoud Abbas in the past year — only to be attacked in return by a Palestinian terrorist entity, backed in its continued aggression, let us not forget, by the countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has made no concessions at all and is not being pressured to do so. It is not the aggressor here but the victim of aggression that America is now choosing to beat up. In any sane world, one might think the Americans would be piling the pressure on the Palestinians to renounce their genocidal ambitions against Israel, to stop teaching and training their children to hate and kill Jews, to adhere to the primary requirement in the Road Map that they must dismantle their infrastructure of violence as the first step in the peace process; one might think, indeed, that they would view Mahmoud Abbas's repeated statements that the Palestinians will never accept Israel as a Jewish state to be the main impediment to peace. But no. The repeated professions that America will never jeopardise Israel's security are stomach churning when Obama is actually blaming Israel for measures it has taken to safeguard its security — the settlements were always first and foremost a security measure, and the travel restrictions are there solely to prevent more Israelis being murdered — and trying to force it to abandon them. Today comes further news that Obama will also try to force Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would force it to dismantle its nuclear arsenal — which it only has as a last ditch insurance against the attempt to annihilate it to which more than a billion Arabs and Muslims remain pledged. Of course Obama doesn't care that Hamas would run any Palestinian state. Of course he doesn't care that Israel would be unable to defend itself against such a terrorist state. Because he regards Israel as at best totally expendable, and at worst as a running sore on the world's body politic that has to be purged altogether (see this bleak assessment by Sultan Knish). His administration is proceeding on the entirely false analysis that a state of Palestine is the solution to the Middle East impasse and the route to peace in the region. What that state will look like or do is something to which at best the administration's collective mind is shut and at worst makes it a potential cynical accomplice to the unconscionable. So Israel is to be forced out of the West Bank. Far from building a coalition against Iran, Obama is thus doing Iran's work for it. None of this, however, should come as the slightest surprise to anyone who paid any attention to Obama's background, associations and friendships before he became President and to the cabal of Israel-bashers, appeasers and Jew-haters he appointed to his administration, with a few useful idiots thrown in for plausible deniability. Almost eighty per cent of American Jews voted for Obama despite the clear and present danger he posed to Israel. They did so because their liberal self-image was and is more important to them than the Jewish state whose existence and security cannot be allowed to jeopardise their standing with America's elite. But the ordinary American people are a different matter. They do value and support Israel. They do understand that if Israel is thrown under that bus, the west is next. And it is they to whom Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu must now appeal, over the heads of the politicians and the media and America's Jews and everyone else. He must tell the American people the terrible truth, that America is now run by a man who is intent on sacrificing Israel for a reckless and amoral political strategy which will put America and the rest of the free world at risk. This is shaping up to be the biggest crisis in relations between Israel and America since the foundation of Israel six decades ago. Those who hate Israel and the Jews will be gloating. This after all is precisely what they hoped Obama would do. To any decent person looking on aghast, this is where the moral sickness of the west reaches the critical care ward. * An earlier version of this post linked to a story in the Jerusalem Post which said an AIPAC delegation to Congress was asking it to lobby for a two-state solution. This story appears to have been wrong. ** Further update: It now appears from this story and this that the AIPAC position may be more ambiguous still.
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 |
|
DO YOU BELIEVE UN HEAD, BAN?; WHAT IS THE U.S. NATIONAL INTEREST?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 26, 2009. |
|
DOES TONY BLAIR RUN ISRAEL? PM Netanyahu withheld money from the P.A., lest it finance terrorism against Israel. He had criticized his predecessor for releasing funds to the P.A.. Tony Blair, Quartet envoy, appealed to Netanyahu. Next we know,
Netanyahu released about $13 million to Gaza banks, to save the Gaza
banking system. His excuse is that it isn't much and it is sales tax
funds that Israel collects for the P.A.
Netanyahu's hopes to build up the P.A. economy, to under-gird peace efforts. His alternative is to let the Gaza banking system collapse, so as to weaken an unrelenting enemy with whom peace cannot be made. He would be criticized by appeasement-minded Westerners, but they always criticize Israel. Meanwhile, Hamas would have less means for making war. Arabs might move away faster. If enough do, peace becomes likelier. For the danger of financing the P.A.:
ISRAELI PROFESSOR SMEARS ISRAEL ON AL-JAZEERA TV Bar-Ilan sociology Prof. Ornha Sasson-Levy claimed on al-Jazeera TV that Israeli troops who fought in Gaza boast on their tee-shirts of killing pregnant women. They troops were not seen in Gaza, or before combat, or anywhere, wearing them. Prof. Sasson-Levy did not interview Gaza veterans to find out whether they wore them and what it means to them. What is known is that Arabs made them. Perhaps they set the IDF up for the smear. Probably those tee-shirts are teenaged-soldiers' idea of humor. The professor used the existence of such shirts as an excuse to take it seriously. She is in the habit of smearing the IDF (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/7). ISRAELI LEFT ACCUSES CRITICS OF MCCARTHYISM Israeli leftists criticize their ideological foes, but when their critics debunk then, the leftists cry "McCarthyism." Actually, the accusation is McCarthyism. It is an attempt to squelch discussion, by moral intimidation (Prof. Steven Plaut, 5/7). DO YOU BELIEVE UN SECRETARY-GENERAL BAN? Israel's Pres. Peres chastised Ban for inviting Iran's Pres. Ahmadinejad to speak on human rights, for his speech promoted genocide. Ban said he did not realize Ahmadinejad would speak like that (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ — Arutz-7, 5/7). Ahmadinejad often speaks like that. How could Ban be surprised? WHAT IS THE U.S. NATIONAL INTEREST? An Israeli Likud politician, Moshe Feiglin, sentimentally urged PM Netanyahu to demand the release of Jonathan Pollard, even if he can't get other agreements with Pres. Obama, due to conflicting national interests. I agree with his appeal to Netanyahu, but not with his notion of "national interest." He confuses national interest with national policy. Obama's policy is to appease Islam. That would destroy our ally, Israel, facilitate jihad, and get U.S. decimated by nuclear weapons. That is not in the American national interest. U.S. policy often is not. Our leaders are not particularly knowledgeable or thoughtful, if they even are experienced. The U.S. and Israel have the same national interest — survival from jihad. Mr. Feiglin unwittingly plays into the hands of those who accuse U.S. Jews of dual loyalty. There cannot be dual loyalty when both countries have the same national interest. I SHOCK BUT PROVE My dinner guest is a fine person. Like most educated people, he specializes in his vocation and relies upon the usual media for other information. Not on books and not on alternative media. He accepts established concepts of government. Among those general concepts are that governments advance the national interests of their country and people. But they often don't. Rulers tend to impoverish their people for egotism or popularity from over-spending. They misunderstand issues or warp them via ideology or political advantage. The fall of empires and regimes tells that story over and over. Nevertheless, people retain the misconception that national interest drives policy makers. The media usually promotes publishers' bias. For a few decades, we Americans enjoyed a relatively objective press. That was decades ago. The European press is more tendentious and some of it and of Israel's is not independent. My guest's newspaper, the NY Times, presents an unfairly anti-Zionist slant, all the while professing to care about Israel. It accepts false Arab propaganda, disguises U.S. policy's deceitful motives and methods, and depicts Israeli policy as too nationalist, when it isn't, and smears the Jewish nationalist view as extremist without defining it. Readers are misled without being aware of it. When I referred to Israel's governments as anti-Zionist and in some ways antisemitic, my guest's face went through contortions of doubt and wondering about my mental balance. He was shocked. He was shocked, because he lacks background. I gave him some proof. Then I advised him to study my couple of hundred posted articles for background and for insight into facts and conclusions he never dreamed of. I am thankful that the Examiner is tolerant of different approaches. If it is difficult to be a dissident, it is even more difficult for a non-dissident to realize when a dissident is rational and the Establishment is not. People need to access diverse sources and maintain an open but skeptical mind. Truth is more elusive than they thought. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE MAKING OF MODERN ISRAEL: 1948-1967
Posted by Bryna Berch, May 25, 2009. |
|
The Making of Modern Israel: 1948-1967 (Hardcover)
ON MAY 14, 1948 the State of Israel was declared, announced by David Ben-Gurion at a small gathering that assembled in the main hall of the Tel Aviv Art Museum. Within a time frame of only nineteen years, culminating in the Six-Day War, Israel fought three separate wars. But within its first four years, thanks to mass immigration, its population doubled. Furthermore, Israel had been confronted with acute economic difficulties, intra Jewish ethnic tensions, a problematic Arab minority and a secular-religious divide. Apart from defence issues, Israel faced a generally hostile or, at best, indifferent international community rendering it hard pressed in securing great power patronage or even official sympathy and understanding. Based on a wide range of sources, both in Hebrew and English, this book contains a judicious synthesis of the received literature to yield the general reader and student alike a reliable, balanced, and novel account of Israels fateful and turbulent infancy. The book covers all the salient aspects of Israel's early history as
frankly and as honestly as possible. In the process, it provides a
strong antidote to the advocacy of the dismantling of Israel. Elan
Pappe's thesis of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine is adequately
debunked and there generally is a wealth of material to assist those
combating anti-Zionism.
Table of Contents Preface.
Editorial Reviews "The deeper into the twenty-first century we get the less we know about the twentieth. This ignorance has so distorted even educated people's grasp of the conflict between Israel and its Palestinian and other Arab neighbours that public discussion of it routinely descends into half-bias, half drivel. Leslie Stein's elegant and learned book is, first of all, truthful, a rare enough quality in this research area. Beyond that, it is well written and argumentative in the sense that his topic requires. The years 1948-1967 constitute the crucible of discord. Without a clear understand of these two decades, which this volume so amply provides, the citizen is in the desert with only mirages to (mis)lead him or her."
"With great verve and a robust appreciation for the Zionist achievement, Leslie Stein accurately captures the drama, excitement and danger of the fledgling Jewish state's first two decades, thus putting its current tribulations in perspective.
"The Making of Modern Israel is an invaluable contribution to our understanding of one of history's most extraordinary and inspiring stories. Leslie Stein is to be commended for authoring what is certain to become an indispensible resource for scholars, decision-makers, and students."
"Continuing his masterful previous history of Israel before statehood, Leslie Stein tells the complicated story of the state's first nineteen years in this highly readable, admirably concise and eminently fair-minded account. Threading his way deftly through controversial minefields with sure footing, Stein manages to convey the best up-to-date scholarship with unusual clarity. This book is strongly recommended for the general reader and as an excellent introductory text for the classroom."
"Anyone who wants to find the way through the internal politics and external wars that accompanied Israel in its early and formative years can rely on Professor Stein. He gives it straight. This ought to become a standard work on the emergence of Israel to the place it holds on the international scene."
|
|
PRESS CONFERENCE ON U.S. PRESSURING ISRAEL
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 25, 2009. |
|
PRESS CONFERENCE ON U.S. PRESSURING ISRAEL At JFK Airport terminal 4, 4th floor, at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 27, to protest against dangerous U.S. demands of Israel. Examples: Israel should stop Jews from building in Judea-Samaria and turn the area over to the Arabs. The conference arguments in sum: The Land of must not be negotiated
away. With the Jewish people, it has an unbreakable bond. It never
was the basis for another state. No other nation until 1948 claimed
it as their land. It is mistaken to consider it "Palestinian."
Why don't they ask the U.S. government to justify its demands? Why does the State Dept. expect a PLO state to make peace, when the PLO says it wants to take over Israel? Why don't they question the logic of clearing half a million Jews from Judea-Samaria and part of Jerusalem, to make room for an exclusively Arab state, but not clear out the million Arabs from the rest of Israel, which is a Jewish state? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
JIMMAH THE IDIOT CARTER — ARCHITECT OF OUR TERRORIST PROBLEMS
Posted by Alan Peters, May 25, 2009. | |
|
Thanks to Jimmy Carter, we went from a friendly Iran to what it is today — a threat to the West. 
From Iran: Carter's Habitat For Inhumanity, Investor's Business Daily (with AntiMullah editorial comments) In the name of human rights, Jimmy Carter gave rise to one of the worst rights violators in history — the Ayatollah Khomeini. And now Khomeini's successor is preparing for nuclear war with Israel and the West. A Profile In Incompetence When President Carter took office in 1977, the Iran of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a staunch American ally, a bulwark in our standoff with the Soviet Union, thwarting the dream held since the time of the czars of pushing south toward the warm waters of the appropriately named Persian Gulf. Being an ally of the U.S. in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet subversion and espionage. Like the U.S. in today's war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who threatened its sovereignty and existence, mainly Soviet agents and their collaborators. This did not sit well with the former peanut farmer, who, on taking office, declared that advancing "human rights" was among his highest priorities. The Shah was one of his first targets. As he's done with our terror-war detainees in Guantanamo, Carter accused the Shah of torturing some 3,000 "political" prisoners. [Alan Note: Actual figure from Amnesty International was closer to 2,400 — mostly Tudeh Communists and Soviet supporting Marxist-Islamists.] He chastised the Shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support. The irony here is that when Khomeini, a former Muslim exile in Paris, overthrew the Shah in February 1979, many of these 3,000 were executed by the ayatollah's firing squads along with 20,000 pro-Western Iranians. According to The Real Jimmy Carter, a book by Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute: "Khomeini's regime executed more people in its first year in power than the Shah's Savak had allegedly killed in the previous 25 years." The mullahs hated the Shah not because he was an oppressive dictator. They hated him because he was a secular, pro-Western leader who, in addition to other initiatives, was expanding the rights and roles of women in Iran society. [Alan Note: recently one of the pro-Mossadegh and Tudeh (Communist) party Iranian leaders openly stated: "we were not attacking the Shah for freedoms for the people but for freedom for us to import and install our foreign (Soviet) philosophies without fear and impediment.] Under Khomeini, women returned to their second-class role, and citizens were arrested for merely owning satellite dishes that could pick up Western television. Khomeini established the first modern Islamic regime, a role model for the Taliban and jihadists to follow. And when the U.S. Embassy was stormed that November and 52 Americans taken hostage for 444 days, America's lack of resolve was confirmed in the jihadist mind. On Nov. 4, 1979, some 400 Khomeini followers broke down the door of the embassy in Tehran, seizing the compound and the Americans inside. The hostage takers posed for the cameras next to a poster with a caricature of Carter and the slogan: "America cannot do a damn thing." [Alan Note: unpublicized intelligence at the time indicated that the hostage taking was arranged by Jimmuh the idiot Carter with Khomeini aides, like Yazdi, Bani-Sadr and Ghotbzadeh, who were U.S. aligned and attached to Khomeini by Carter, to ensure his re-election, when he (Carter) conveniently arrangd their release just before voting took place. Ronald Reagan found out about it, blocked the plot and arranged the release AFTER the election.] Indeed, America under Carter wouldn't do much. At least not until the 154th day of the crisis, when Carter, finally awakening to the seizure of U.S. diplomats and citizens on what was legally American soil, broke off diplomatic relations and began planning economic sanctions. When Carter got around to hinting about the use of military force, Khomeini offered this mocking response: "He is beating on an empty drum. Neither does Carter have the guts for military action nor would anyone listen to him." Carter did actually try a military response of sorts. But like every other major policy action of his, he bungled it. The incompetence of his administration would be seen in the wreckage in the Iranian desert, where a plan to rescue the hostages resulted in the loss of eight aircraft, five airmen and three Marines. [Alan note: information obtained from post-Shah Iranian military and inteligence sources and more evidence from Americans, who were involved or on scene, all point to the so-called hostage rescue in fact being a failed arms delivery to Afghanistan, ("Green Belt" to contain Soviets project) where the Soviets shot and disabled one of the C130's bringing in weapons. Leaving Carter to either declare war on the Soviets for this act of war or pretend it was something else. Yes, a failed hostage rescue, which was still not operational after something was cobbled together by a cabal of U.S. intelligence and military groups, which all wanted a part in the operation. But whose witches brew was still not fully cooked]. Among the core group of hostage takers and planners of the attack on our embassy was 23-year-old Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who learned firsthand the weakness and incompetence of Carter's foreign policy, one that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Reid are now attempting to resurrect. According to then-Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, Ahmadinejad was among the hostage takers and the liaison between them and then prominent Tehran preacher Ali Khameini, later to become supreme leader of the Islamic Republic. The Shah was forced into exile and on the run from Morocco to Egypt, the Bahamas, Mexico and finally Panama. In July 1979, Vice President Walter Mondale and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski told Carter they had changed their minds about offering the Shah permanent asylum. Carter's spiteful response was: "F*** the Shah. I'm not going to welcome him here when he has other places to go where he'll be safe." In October 1979, the Shah, gravely ill with cancer, was granted a limited visa for treatment at the Cornell Medical Center in New York. He would die in Cairo in July 1980, an abandoned American friend. Our enemies took notes. If the Shah had remained in power, it isn't likely the Iraq-Iran War, with upward of a million casualties on both sides, a war that saw Saddam Hussein first use mass-murder weapons, would have taken place. [Alan Note: Iraq had tried once before, in the time of the Shah, to invade Iran over the dispute of the Shatt-Al Arab river between the two countries. This lasted all of four days before Saddam Hussein's forces were driven out with their tails between their legs. Nothing like the eight years under Carter's Khomeini.] Nor is it likely there would have been a Desert Storm, fought after Hussein invaded Kuwait to strengthen his strategic position. That led to bases in Saudi Arabia that fueled Islamofascist resentment, one of the reasons given by Osama bin Laden for striking at America, the Great Satan. Carter's Khomeini introduced the idea of suicide bombers to the Palestine Liberation Organization and paid $35,000 to PLO families who would offer up their children as human bombs to kill as many Israelis as possible. It was Carter's Khomeini who would give the world Hezbollah to make war on Israel and destroy the multicultural democracy that was Lebanon. And perhaps Jimmy has forgotten that Hezbollah, which he helped make possible, killed 241 U.S. troops in their Beirut barracks in 1983. The Soviet Union, seeing us so willingly abandon a staunch ally, invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, just six months after Carter and Russian leader Leonid Brezhnev embraced after signing a new arms-control treaty. [Alan Note: the British Foreign & Commonwealth Office sent some 200 observers to monitor the Carter-Reagan election to note whether the Soviets would try to spend enough money to "buy" the election for their "mole" Jimmuh Carter.] And it was the resistance to the Soviet invasion that helped give birth to the Taliban. As Hayward observes, the fall of Iran, hastened by Jimmy Carter, "set in motion the advance of radical Islam and the rise of terrorism that culminated in Sept. 11." Writer Christopher Hitchens recalls a discussion he had with Eugene McCarthy, a Democrat and former candidate for that party's presidential nomination, where McCarthy voted for Ronald Reagan instead of Carter in 1980. The reason? Carter had "quite simply abdicated the whole responsibility of the presidency while in office. He left the nation at the mercy of its enemies at home and abroad (including the Soviets). He was quite simply the worst president we ever had." Quite simply, we concur. Though he is the best SOVIET president America ever elected! [Alan Note: And Carter's liberal, to the point of Communist/Socialist leanings, can be seen in his staunch ties and support of Cuba's Castro, Venezuela's Chavez, other South American leftist governments and his anti-America diatribe attacks on anything that confronts the terrorism he stupidly created. He has a share in all the blood, still on his hands, of all innocents killed by those he actively helped put in place.]
This is from the March 16, 2008 http://Anti-Mullah.com site and
can be found at
|
|
FREE TRIPS & TIPS IF YOU'RE AN ARAB! SEE L.A. AND FIND OUT HOW TO INFILTRATE PUBLIC ACCESS TO RECRUIT TERRORISTS!
Posted by Arlene Peck, May 25, 2009. |
|
As Jay Leno says on his late night show, "Folks we're living in tough times" However, that doesn't seem to be the case if you're a member of the press, and a Muslim, wanting to travel to our shores from any one of a dozen countries to learn how to do ''creative broadcasting programming." As many of you know, I have, for the past twenty years hosted a television show, "Wow it's Arlene Peck," which is mostly a celebrity interview show. Recently, the city fathers of Los Angeles, in their infinite wisdom, decided to cancel Public Access. And I, along with others, have been meeting with the L.A. City Council to try to get them to see what a mistake this would be and to have them reconsider their decision. As a result, I happened to be in the office of the woman who has been working with me on this campaign, and who produces a successful Public Access program, "Disclosure", where she tackles issues and brings them to the attention of the public. While there, I glanced down on her desk and saw a letter from the International Visitors Council of Los Angeles. Its contents caused me to do a double-take. It was from Kim Ngoc Le who is the Senior Program Officer of the International Visitors Council of Los Angeles, thanking this producer for "taking time out of (her) schedule to host our delegation of broadcasting experts from North Africa and the Near East." Apparently the nine lucky 'honored guests' were from such countries and television stations as Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel, GAZA, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. And, according to Ms Ngoc Le, "These distinguished visitors have been nominated by our Department of State to travel to the U.S. to learn from their American counterparts about creative broadcast programming. The IVCLA is pleased to entertain them during their short time in L.A." Later in this letter, which I came upon by happenstance, my friend was asked if she could book a room for them to meet with her. "It is difficult for us to find a place. Even though the United States State Department FUNDS their airfare and lodging, there is no provision in the budget for meeting rooms. Hence the IVCLA has been asked to seek out community centers, libraries, and other public institutions willing to donate their meeting space." So, being a citizen of good standing, I got in the car and we booked these representatives of the State Dept We also found a meeting room at a neighborhood park. After all, how could you refuse a request saying, "We just need a private room for thirteen people (the delegation consists of nine visitors and three interpreters). It would be a shame for them not to be able to meet with you because we cannot find a meeting space." Well, for sure! Rumor has it that our country is in a depression. But if we have the money to bring over a group of distinguished representatives, from such marvelous countries as Gaza and Saudi Arabia, we can't be doing so badly. I just hope, in this little junket that Obama and company have arranged, they're taking them to Disneyland and all of our other fun spots. For a brief period, I was looking forward to sitting like a fly on the wall at this meeting to see what transpired. However, in my over zealous effort to bring this information to the public, I contacted terrorism expert, Dr. Carole Lieberman and journalist Ari Bussel, so they might join me, utilizing their expertise on terrorism to contribute to the discussion and to assess their motives for learning how to use the Public Access airwaves. It seemed more than likely that any Public Access TV show put on by journalists from terrorist countries would be used to spread propaganda and recruit terrorists! What's worse is that our government is paving — and paying — the way for them to learn these skills! I was then un-invited and never was allowed to attend. I remember several years ago, going to the local mosque in Mar Vista. They had some visitor's day or something, again sponsored by our Justice Dept. I remember the panel on the dais was teaching their audience how to know when they had a complaint or they felt they were being 'profiled'. I thought it obscene that the members of the mosque were being given information on how to use our laws and customs to harm us. However, the topper was when a well-dressed woman stood up and said, "Our children are now grown and going into the universities. Our next job has to be to propel them into three fields: education, politics and finally media." Well, folks, it is my opinion, that they accomplished it all. Our universities are hotbeds of Muslim teachings and conflict. How many of you have noticed the names on the articles in your local newspapers praising the Muslim lifestyle? The L.A. Times seems to have a three-page spread every week or two deploring the plight of the poor Palestinians. And, as far as politics, I feel it pretty safe to say they have arrived! From the White House on down. And, finally, as Jay Leno says, "We're going through tough times." But don't you feel encouraged? Personally, I think that we are ignorant and ill-informed to consider it positive and hospitable to teach terrorist nations how to use our system of Public Access as a cheap and easy way to recruit more terrorists. And amazingly, even though our programs are being cut and there are no funds for schools and police, we can always find spare money to play host to these visitors from 'poor' countries like Saudi Arabia, United Arabs Emirates and the rest. Arlene Peck is an internationally syndicated columnist and television talk show hostess. She can be reached at: bestredhead@earthlink.net and www.arlenepeck.com. She is author of "Some Of My Best Friends: Only The Names Have Been Changed To Protect The Guilty." Her upcoming book is entitled "Prison Cheerleader: How A Nice Jewish Girl Went Wrong Doing Right." |
|
RABBI KAHANE: "A MEZUZA"
Posted by Miki and Herb Sunshine, May 25, 2009. |
|
This was written: 11 Kislev 5733 — November 17. 1972 by Rabbi Meir Kahane. His essays are distributed by Barbara Ginsberg, who writes: "Anyone reading this Rav Kahane article and is not on my personal list to receive the weekly articles written by Rav Kahane and would like to be, please contact me at: barhow@netvision.net.il " Previously e-mailed Rav
Kahane writings are available at |
|
There is no mezuza on the Old City of Jerusalem's Damascus Gate (Shaar Sh'chem). And it is important that every Jew understand why other major entrances to the Old City, such as Jaffa Gate, DO have a mezuzot while this one does not; why there once WAS a mezuza at Shaar Sh'chem (it was taken down by Arabs and never replaced by Mayor Teddy Kollek), and why the Jewish Defense League demanded that it be allowed to put up the mezuza, was refused permission and had a number of its people arrested. The Old City of Jerusalem is surrounded by the famous wall that is such an attraction for all tourists. Entrance to the Old City is through a number of gates, of which Jaffa and Damascus are the two most famous and heavily traveled. After the 1967 War, mezuzot were placed on all the gates, including Damascus or Sh'chem and ARAB EXTREMEISTS RIPPED OFF THE LATTER ONE. The Israeli government preferred not to notice and allowed the desecration to remain unanswered. Why? The answer to this is also the answer to the JDL's making such an issue out of a gate which may very well — due to the majority of Arabs living within the Old City — be free from the religious obligation of a mezuza, in the first place. The Israeli government has followed a careful policy for more than five years of not "aggravating" the Arabs. This has involved Israeli refusal and failure to assert Jewish rights as well as a willingness to, de facto, accept Arab demands that run counter to those Jewish rights. Part of that policy includes the refusal to allow Jews unlimited settlement anywhere in that part of Eretz Yisrael liberated after 1967; refusal to allow Jews to live anywhere except in certain parts of the Old City of Jerusalem; and of course, refusal to declare that the liberated areas of 1967 are formally part of the Jewish State. It has also manifested itself in such things as a kid-gloves policy and collaboration with notorious Jew-haters such as Hebron's Mayor Ja'abari (whose part in the Gush Etzion and Hebron massacres ranges from ugly to murky) as well as government financing and support for an Arab university on the West Bank that will produce the Arab terrorist and nationalist leaders in the next decade. The policy has been hailed as a success, with Dayan declaring that the peace in the liberated areas over the last five years and relative lack of terrorism have proven the wisdom of this policy. In short-range terms he is correct; in the long run this policy is disastrous. Not only does it take away basic Jewish rights, but it tells the world and, worse — the Israeli Jewish youngsters — that these rights in truth do not exist. Should we, in the future, decide to demand them, we will find our won credibility attacked and opposition intense from our own people who will, justly, ask: "But if we really are entitled to these things, why did we not demand them earlier and why did you stop those who did demand them?" For five years we allowed Arabs majority rights in the Hebron Cave — what does this tell the Israeli student? That it really is Moslem and that only the "fanatics" want "more" than the proper Jewish share. For five years we refused Jewish settlement in the West Bank cities of Hebron, Sh'chem, Bethlehem, Ramallah, Jenin, etc. What does this tell the Israeli youth? That these cities are Arab cities, not Jewish ones. For five years we have had different rules and laws for pre-war Israel and for the liberated lands. What does this tell any logical person? That they are not really Jewish but that Israel is using the lands as cards for bargaining. What will happen when Israel decides to demand certain of these rights or comes up with a "compromise" scheme by which it agrees to return a large part of the lands but keep some of the others for "security" reasons? The answer is simple. All the sensitive and liberal Jewish youth of Israel, its intellectuals, its writers, its professors, will rise up and say: "But we have no right to keep that land because it is not ours and the greatest proof is your own refusal to declare them ours from the very first day. This shows that you, yourself, Dayan, do not believe it is Jewish and your desire to hold on to even some of that land is still robbery and annexation. No matter what the clever propagandists say, the Arab is NOT equal in Israel so long as Israel remains true to the Zionist dream that created it as a JEWISH state. So long as the original rationale for the return to Israel holds true (and if it does not, then we have no right at all to Israel); so long as Israel is ours because it is the home of the Jewish people where they can live free from physical holocaust and spiritual-cultural assimilation; so long as Israel has a Law of Return which applies only to Jews and not to Arabs, then Israel is a JEWISH state (and not one that disregards nationality and religion) and the Arab is NOT equal. The Arab knows this and his placid acceptance of Jewish rule is not an indication that he is happy and has made his peace with the situation. It simply means that five years is a very, very short time in the Middle East; that the Arabs are making a little money now; that a generation of young Arab intellectuals who place nationalism and ideals over that money has not yet fully ripened; and that we face a terrible Northern Ireland-type confrontation in the years to come. And on the Arab side will be ranged thousands of Jews who will back the Arabs because Moshe Dayan — in his short-sighted cleverness — chose not to assert Jewish rights immediately. What a difference it would have made had Israel — immediately after the June, 1967 War — when the while world stood solidly behind her, knowing that she had almost gone under and miraculously survive, declared: All this land is ours, historically; it is Jewish from the times of the Bible; it is officially ours and it will never be returned. How much greater the moral and legal hold than the present sly, diplomatic game! But we did not do it. We did not and we did not say to the world: Israel is a Jewish State, the home of the Jewish people where Jewish sovereignty reigns and where Arabs can live as individuals but as a permanent demographic and cultural minority. And this is why the JDL wants a mezuza on Shaar Sh'chem. Not because there are not other things that are as important or more so. But, because the reason for the lack of a mezuza is the underlying mistake of Israeli policy: We do not want to alienate the Arabs, we do not want to declare blatant Jewish sovereignty over a gate that is in a totally Arab part of the city. We do not want to affix a mezuza and Jewish sovereignty — both! And that is the heart of the JDL intention. Not only the affixing and the stamping of a mezuza, but a fixing and stamping of the word "Jewish" on the city of Jerusalem. Jerusalem is not an Arab-Jewish city. It is a city where Jews and Arabs live, but the city is Jewish, the sovereignty is Jewish and the Arabs live there by individual rights as opposed to the Jewish right of peoplehood there. For this, and in order to save Israel from the short-sightedness of its leaders it is worthwhile fighting for the mezuzah on Shaar Sh'chem and even going to jail. At least when the Israeli youth, in years to come, will march for Arab rights and say to Dayan: But you yourself never asserted Jewish rights and thereby recognized the Arab ones — we can say: True, but we fought this from the beginning, we wanted to tell you the, that this city and this country are JEWISH and not shared and we even were willing to go to jail for the mezuza on Shaar Sh'chem and the settlement in the city of Sh'chem. 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 |
|
FROM ISRAEL: OUTPOSTS AND SETTLEMENTS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, May 25, 2009. |
|
The picture is unsettling — indeed, infuriating, but it's also complex and, I believe, not grim. There are some indications of government intentions to get tough with regard to some 20-plus "illegal outposts," with Defense Minister Barak declaring that he will take them down, one way or another. For the record, an "illegal outpost" is usually a small collection of modest buildings or caravans — often on a hilltop — that has been constructed without permission. The line is not all together clear, however, as to what "without permission" means, as sometimes there has been some legitimacy conferred by some department or other — as, for example, if some electric lines have been put in. Sometimes an "outpost" is no more than a neighborhood of an existing community, and sometimes what was illegal is declared legal — for the political aspects of this are considerable. Many of the "illegal outposts" have had that status for some years. This is not a new development. Yet it is now that action is being taken, or threatened, more vociferously. ~~~~~~~~~~ The news today was that nine outposts have been served with "zoning notices," informing them that they are "illegal." While there was no announcement that they will be taken down, such zoning notices often precede demolition orders. And this follows the very recent demolition of Maoz Esther. One example serves to demonstrate how ridiculous the whole thing can become: Of the nine outposts listed, one is "Hazon David, Kiryat Arba-Hebron." This, it turns out, is not a cluster of buildings and is not an "outpost" in the general sense of that word. It is one structure — a very temporary, tent-like structure — outside of Kiryat Arba, on the road to Hevron. A structure used as a synagogue. That's it. "Hazon David" means David's vision and is named in memory of David Cohen and Hezi Mualem who were murdered by terrorists seven years ago outside of Kiryat Arba. Taking down this modest place of prayer and study, where no one actually lives, really advances peace, right? This is what Barak and company need to be concerned with? They should hang their heads in shame. This makes Obama happy? What? ~~~~~~~~~~ When we ask why this is happening now, there are general answers in terms of Netanyahu having somehow caved to Obama. But I'd like to look a bit closer at the issues (including more below). Nahum Barnea, writing on YNet, makes the observation that the mere fact that Netanyahu refuses to even say "two state solution," never mind to agree now to negotiate such a "solution," puts the heat on the outposts and settlements. Were negotiations advancing, then Obama would be able to boast of "progress," and the issue of outposts would be minimal. But as it is, Obama has nothing to point to, unless there is "progress" on this score. Barnea doesn't say this explicitly, but what his analysis implies is that the very strength of our prime minister for the big issues makes our government more vulnerable on the small issues. And there is the possibility — which hardliners don't accept — that there will be some quid pro quo here. ~~~~~~~~~~ And then there's the upside of what's happening: PM Netanyahu told the Cabinet yesterday that, when he was in Washington, he informed Obama that we would not stop building in Jerusalem or accommodating natural growth in settlements. "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, under Israeli sovereignty, and we do not accept limits on construction or on our activity inside of Israel." This in the face of a State Department statement that "Jerusalem is a final-status issue. Israel and the Palestinians have agreed to resolve its status during negotiations..." Well, Jerusalem may have been a final-status issue for Olmert, but it is not now. ~~~~~~~~~~ In addition to this, we have a new strength within the Cabinet — so much so that it's questionable whether support could be garnered among the ministers for dismantling all of the "illegal outposts." As Gil Hoffman has written in the Post:
Leaders of Shas, Yisrael Beitenu and Habyit Hayehudi "each tried to take upon themselves the mantle of the settlers' top advocate, as did Likud ministers Yuli Edelstein, Yisrael Katz, and Benny Begin..." Most vociferous in his defense of outposts was Katz, who said, "the government agenda cannot become a witch hunt against the residents of Judea and Samaria." Edelstein and Lieberman criticized Barak for unilateral action without sanction of the Cabinet. Edelstein indicated that "an entire team of ministers would insist on keeping Barak in check and ensuring that the Cabinet would have the final say on the outposts..." Barak, he said, "has not internalized that a nationalist government had taken over." ~~~~~~~~~~ Additionally we see a new strength on the part of the nationalists of Israel. A meeting of several groups has been held and plans have been put in place that call for reinforcing the numbers at existing outposts, setting up new ones, and immediately rebuilding any outpost that is demolished. I spoke today with David Wilder, spokesman for the Hevron community. His tone was cool, as he explained that Hazon David had been destroyed about 30 times already, and would be built again if the Defense Ministry took it down. There is the feeling, with solid reason, that determined settlers can outlast government demolition efforts. ~~~~~~~~~~ With justification, the nationalists point to the illegal outposts put up by the Bedouin in the Negev and Arabs in the Galil that the government ignores. It is their intention to make this issue more public. ~~~~~~~~~~ It's not entirely clear to me how extensively the US media covered the plan by home-grown Muslim terrorists to target synagogues in New York City and down planes at a military air base. The plot was foiled in a sting operation, and the concern is that the lessons to be drawn from this will not be attended to with sufficient seriousness because the disaster was averted. The attitude, unfortunately, is likely to be one of "Thank goodness nothing happened!" and done. In point of fact, however, a major alarm should go up with regard to the circumstances surrounding this planned attack: Three of the four alleged would-be terrorists were converts to Islam who were converted in prison. ~~~~~~~~~~ Steve Emerson, founder and executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism, addresses the serious dimensions of this problem in a recent piece, "Radicals in Our Prisons." Every American needs to take heed. Writes Emerson: "Radicalism in prisons is a problem that has been festering for years... ~~~~~~~~~~ Charles Krauthammer has also written an interesting article, "Obama in Bush Clothing," which I call your attention to. Says Krauthammer: "...the flip-flops on previously denounced anti-terror measures are the homage that Barack Obama pays to George Bush. Within 125 days, Obama has adopted with only minor modifications huge swaths of the entire, allegedly lawless Bush program. The pattern is an "Obama three-step: (a) excoriate the Bush policy, (b) ostentatiously unveil cosmetic changes, (c) adopt the Bush policy... "OBSERVERS OF ALL political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government." This agenda includes wire taps, e-mail intercepts, turning over terrorists seized abroad to foreign countries, and denial of habeas corpus to certain detainees. What has happened? "The urgencies and necessities of the actual post-9/11 world, as opposed to the fanciful world of the opposition politician, present a rather narrow range of acceptable alternatives."
~~~~~~~~~~ Now, if only the urgencies and necessities of the actual post-9/11 world would move Obama to shift his policy with regard to Iran. Certainly he's getting only one slap in the face after another from the Iranians in response to his reaching out with offers of dialogue. According to a local news agency, Iranian naval commander Admiral Habibollah Sayyari has announced the dispatch of several warships: "Iran has dispatched six ... warships to international waters and the Gulf of Aden region in an historically unprecedented move by the Iranian Navy." This, he says is, "indicative of the country's high military capability in confronting any foreign threat on the country's shores." This war-like action comes as Ahmadinejad has rejected an offer by the US, Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain to hold off on all new sanctions in exchange for a freeze on Iranian nuclear activity. "Our talks [with major powers] will only be in the framework of cooperation for managing global issues and nothing else. We have clearly announced this," he said. "The nuclear issue is a finished issue for us." And Obama will still try to dialogue on the nuclear issue in the face of this? ~~~~~~~~~~ Coming full circle: PM Netanyahu injected a perspective relevant to this in his meeting with the Likud faction today. Giving in to US demands on the outposts is important to do, he says, so that there can be focus on Iran. But there are multiple way to read this. Presumably he expects more from Obama in terms of cooperation on Iran if we give in on this. This may be the quid pro quo. "We're not [living] in ordinary times," he declared. "The danger is gaining on us. The most dangerous threat to a living organism is not to identify danger. My role, first and foremost, is to secure the future of the State of Israel. This comes before anything else." But he also seems to be deflating internal political dissension on the issue because he believes it weakens us: "There must be broad national unity as much as possible, so as to stave off the danger." A ruse simply to weaken dissent? Possible, but I do not believe so. Binyamin Netanyahu has been warning us about the dangers of Iran for years. I take him seriously here. To attempt to severely weaken him politically over outposts — as is being threatened by those on the far right — just as he must make decisions involving attacking Iran would be, I concur, a mistake in judgment. Dissent should not stop but must be moderated in light of the priorities and the times within which we live. Purists see a slippery slope whereby if we surrender claim to a square meter of land we are surrendering our claim to Israel. But it will avail us naught if vociferous protection of that square meter renders us — G-d forbid — more likely to be blown away completely later. ~~~~~~~~~~ Nothing is ever simple, and most certainly not where Russia is concerned. It was very recently announced that we will be expediting the sale to Russia of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) following the cancellation by Russia of plans to sell Syria advanced MIG-31 fighter jets. This was good news. However...Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov met with Hamas's Mashaal on Saturday and has declared that continued contact with Hamas is considered "necessary." In fact, Lavrov hopes to see a delegation from a Palestinian unity government attend the peace conference in Moscow later this year. Oh joy. Such a unity government would have as a major component a Hamas that embraces terrorism. ~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" — Wheat, which is a staple grain in many societies, is subject to a virulent fungus disease called rust (because its spores have a rust color) that can destroy crops, causing food shortages and economic loss. The answer to combating this lies here in Israel. For it is in Israel that a wild wheat grows, believed to be the original wheat plant before domestication. In the course of 10,000 years of domestication, the wheat was bred for certain properties considered desirable, such as higher yield, but in the course of changes lost resistance to disease. Professor Tzion Fahima of Haifa University's Department of Evolutionary and Environmental Biology is working with a team that has discovered a gene in the wild wheat that provides resistance to eight strains of rust disease. The next step is to reintroduce this gene to domestic wheat, either by traditional breeding practices or genetic engineering. Additional projects are anticipated that would involve work with the genes in wild wheat that make it more drought resistant and provide it with a higher percentage of protein and minerals. — According to the World Health Organization, Israel is one of the healthiest nations in the world. WHO lists Israel with Europe, and it is with European nations that comparisons are made. (Israel is way way ahead of the nations of the MidEast.) The Israeli infant and maternal mortality rates are much lower than European averages. E.g., in Israel there are three newborn deaths per 1,000 as compared with five in Europe. Israel has 37 doctors per 10,000 people as compared to 32 in Europe. Israel has low rates of infectious diseases and high rates of immunization. And the entire Israeli population has access to improved drinking water, compared to 97% in Europe. — Now for the really important item: Work to be wrinkle free while you sleep (I am not making this up). An Israeli company named Cupron, in Beit Shemesh, makes pillow cases that contain copper. Perspiration from your skin as you sleep releases copper ions, which stimulate the production of collagen, which reduces fine lines and wrinkles. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
OLIVE SCHREINER'S PERCEPTION OF JEWS
Posted by GWY, May 25, 2009. |
|
Olive Schreiner is a South African novelist and social activist. |
|
"Indeed it is difficult for all other nations of the world to live in the presence of the Jews. It is irritating and most uncomfortable. The Jews embarrass the world as they have done things which are beyond the imaginable. They have become moral strangers since the day their forefather, Abraham, introduced the world to high ethical standards and to the fear of Heaven. They brought the world the Ten Commandments, which many nations prefer to defy. They violated the rules of history by staying alive, totally at odds with common sense and historical evidence. They outlived all their former enemies, including vast empires such as the Romans and the Greeks. They angered the world with their return to their homeland after 2000 years of exile and after the murder of six million of their brothers and sisters. They aggravated mankind by building, in the wink of an eye, a democratic State which others were not able to create in even hundreds of years. They built living monuments such as the duty to be holy and the privilege to serve one's fellow men. They had their hands in every human progressive endeavor, whether in science, medicine, psychology or any other discipline, while totally out of proportion to their actual numbers. They gave the world the Bible and even their "Savior." Jews taught the world not to accept the world as it is, but to transform it, yet only a few nations wanted to listen. Moreover, the Jews introduced the world to one God, yet only a minority wanted to draw the moral consequences. So the nations of the world realize that they would have been lost without the Jews. And while their subconscious tries to remind them of how much of Western civilization is framed in terms of concepts first articulated by the Jews, they do anything to suppress it. They deny that Jews remind them of a higher purpose of life and the need to be honorable, and do anything to escape its consequences. It is simply too much to handle for them, too embarrassing to admit, and above all, too difficult to live by. So the Nations of the world decided once again to go out of 'their' way in order to find a stick to hit the Jews. The goal: to prove that Jews are as immoral and guilty of massacre and genocide as some of they themselves are. All this in order to hide and justify their own failure to even protest when six million Jews were brought to the slaughterhouses of Auschwitz and Dachau; so as to wipe out the moral conscience of which the Jews remind them, and they found a stick. Nothing could be more gratifying for them than to find the Jews in a struggle with another people (who are completely terrorized by their own leaders) against whom the Jews, against their best wishes, have to defend themselves in order to survive. With great satisfaction, the world allows and initiates the rewriting of history so as to fuel the rage of yet another people against the Jews. This in spite of the fact that the nations understand very well that peace between the parties could have come a long time ago, if only the Jews would have had a fair chance. Instead,they happily jumped on the wagon of hate so as to justify their jealousy of the Jews and their incompetence to deal with their own moral issues. When Jews look at the bizarre play taking place in The Hague, they can only smile as this artificial game once more proves how the world paradoxically admits the Jew's uniqueness. It is in their need to undermine the Jews that they actually raise them. The study of history of Europe during the past centuries teaches us one uniform lesson: That the Nations which received and in any way dealt fairly and mercifully with the Jew have prospered; and that the nations that have tortured and oppressed them have written out their own curse. Contact GWY at gwy123@aol.com |
|
SACRIFICING ISRAEL
Posted by Moshe Dann, May 25, 2009. |
|
For Obama, it is win-win. Linking US action against Iran with freezing settlement building, destroying Jewish communities and establishing a second Arab Palestinian state is a set-up for Israel's demonization and destruction. For President Barack Obama, it's a win-win. No matter what happens, Israel will be blamed. President Obama knows that, short of military intervention, nothing will prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Making Israeli concessions the key to stopping Iran, therefore, allows Obama a perfect excuse: Israel didn't do enough; it's Israel's fault. "Israeli intransigence" will be given as the reason for America's failure in Iran. 'If only Israel had evacuated more settlements, stopped building in Judea and Samaria, dismantled more checkpoints, given more aid to Hamas, stopped demolishing illegal Arab buildings, etc., then we could have done something,' Obama will say. But Obama's agenda doesn't stop there. The big prize is Israel's nuclear capacity. Egypt especially has been urging the US to force Israel to open its facility at Dimona. Russian spy planes flew over Dimona prior to the Six Day War in 1967 and, according to Isabella Ginor and Gideon Remez (Foxbats Over Dimona), wanted to bomb it. No doubt, Arab terrorist groups like al-Qaeda, Hamas and Hizbullah have Dimona in their sights as well. Pushing Israel against the wall is also a convenient way of deflecting Muslim terrorism away from American and European investments and interests. As long as Islamists think that Obama is on their side, they'll refrain from attacking, keep oil prices low and keep oil flowing. Iran will make cosmetic adjustments so that Obama can claim victory; the crisis defused. And Israel will pay the price. American troops will leave Iraq soon. It's yet unclear if the Taliban will make agreements with governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan to share power, as Hamas and Hizbullah have done. Jihadists, like the Moslem Brotherhood, will continue to grow in power and influence; they need to consolidate anyway before they move ahead, but their influence throughout the Muslim world and in Europe is substantial. Israel is the perfect scapegoat: isolated, abandoned, it has few real options. It can try to implement Obama's agenda, but nothing it does will be enough to satisfy Arab demands. Nor would Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's coalition allow it. He could ditch the Right and turn to the Left, but it is unlikely that he would have enough votes to remain in power for long. Whether Palestinian terrorists can restrain themselves while Israel carries out some form of withdrawal is uncertain. A freeze on construction in settlements would cripple, but not destroy, the movement; a clear majority of Israelis support settlements and don't want a Palestinian state. Destroying small hilltop "outposts" and even more isolated settlements can be done as a first step and without the trauma of full evacuation. 'Amputation to save the rest,' they will say, trying to justify surrender and buy time. Act II (Munich 1938) Arab heads of state will parade through Washington, as King Abdullah of Jordan this month with the same message: 'We are for peace; Israel must accept the two-state solution as offered in the Arab Initiative of Saudi Arabia — withdrawal to 1949 boundaries, including Jerusalem, Palestinian Right of Return, etc.' Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (both of whom are about to retire) will appear full of smiles: 'We want peace; Israel must accept a Palestinian state.' There will be no mention of terrorism and incitement, or acceptance of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. Even Syria may join, in return for American support for getting the Golan Heights. Obama will look like the ultimate "peacemaker"; Israel will look like the bad guy. There will be no hard questions. Meanwhile, three new PA battalions, US-trained and US-equipped, are being deployed in the "West Bank". This augments hundreds of thousands of soldiers and terrorists already in the PA military — the highest ratio per capita in the world. General Keith Dayton, who is responsible for these new troops, admitted that if there is no Palestinian state within two years, these troops would probably rebel and return to terrorism. Act III Members of the Arab League and other Muslim countries will be invited to Washington, along with Israel, to sign "peace agreements" following Arab demands. It will be a gala event, with the Clintons in high gear, the State Department Jews (Dennis Ross, Aaron Miller, Dan Kurtzer and Martin Indyk, who helped force Israeli concessions during the 1990s), and, of course, Shimon Peres and friends. And what would a party to celebrate Israel's demise be without Jimmy Carter and Condoleezza Rice? The Obamas will dance elegantly. Act IV A moment of silence. Moshe Dann is a writer and journalist living in Jerusalem.
This article appeared in Arutz-7
|
|
DRY BONES ON STRATEGIC DEFENSE
Posted by Dave Alpern, May 25, 2009. |
|
Dry Bones writes I saw the successful launch of the Israeli "Arrow Missile" on TV this evening. It's supposed to knock down Iranian Missiles that are on their way to wipe us off the map. The second news item was about the pressure, demands, and restraints that the Obama White House is putting on Israel. I joined the two items together in today's cartoon.— Dry Bones, Israel's Political Comic Strip Since 1973 Contact Dave Alpern at daveyboy@bezeqint.net |
|
HIGH-LEVEL TOUR OF ISRAEL OPEN; PRESSURING ISRAEL; DO YOU BELIEVE UN HEAD, BAN?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, May 24, 2009. |
|
HIGH-LEVEL TOUR OF ISRAEL OPEN Registration still is open for Shurat HaDin-Israel Law Center's Monday, June 8 — June 15 tour of Israel, its 17th. The Center invites professionals from all over the world to intensive "briefings and field tours with Israeli security, military and intelligence officials." The tour investigates the challenges of terrorism to Israeli survival, now that Hizbullah and Hamas are gaining strength. Program highlights: * Briefings by present and past officers in the IDF Intelligence and Operations branches, including the senior commanders of the Shin Bet...and Mossad. "For More Information: info@israellawcenter.org Tel.: (US) 212-591-0073 (ISRAEL) 972-3-751-4175 Full Itinerary & Registration:
If it weren't for the economic crisis, I'd go. PRESS CONFERENCE ON U.S. PRESSURING ISRAEL At JFK Airport terminal 4, 4th floor, at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, May 27, to protest against dangerous U.S. demands of Israel. Examples: Israel should stop Jews from building in Judea-Samaria and turn the area over to the Arabs. The conference arguments in sum: The Land of must not be negotiated
away. With the Jewish people, it has an unbreakable bond. It never
was the basis for another state. No other nation until 1948 claimed
it as their land. It is mistaken to consider it "Palestinian."
Why don't they ask the U.S. government to justify its demands? Why does the State Dept. expect a PLO state to make peace, when the PLO says it wants to take over Israel? Why don't they question the logic of clearing half a million Jews from Judea-Samaria and part of Jerusalem, to make room for an exclusively Arab state, but not clear out the million Arabs from the rest of Israel, which is a Jewish state? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several
web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on
Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target
overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him
at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
THE DEATH OF ISRAEL
Posted by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann, May 24, 2009. |
|
From Caroline Glick, deputy editor and op-ed writer for the Jerusalem Post, comes alarming news. An expert on Arab-Israeli relations with excellent sources deep inside Netanyahu's government, she reports that CIA chief Leon Panetta, who recently took time out from his day job (feuding with Nancy Pelosi) to travel to Israel "read the riot act" to the government warning against an attack on Iran. More ominously, Glick reports (likely from sources high up in the Israeli government) that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons. She writes, "...we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran's nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the US will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy." She goes on to write that the Obama administration is desperate to stop Israel from attacking Iran writing that "as far as the [Obama] administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran's nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself." She notes that American officials would regard any harm to American interests that flowed from an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as Israel's doing, not Iran's. In classic Stockholm Syndrome fashion, the Obama administration is empathizing more with the Iranian leaders who are holding Israel hostage than with the nation that may be wiped off the map if Iran acquires the bomb. Obama's end-of-the-year deadline for Iranian talks aimed at stopping its progress toward nuclear weapons is just window dressing without the threat of military action. As Metternich wrote "diplomacy without force is like music without instruments." By warning only of possible strengthening of economic sanctions if the talks do not progress, Obama is making an empty threat. The sanctions will likely have no effect because Russia and China will not let the United Nations act as it must if it is to deter Iranian nuclear weapons. All this means is that Israel's life is in danger. If Iran gets the bomb, it will use it to kill six million Jews. No threat of retaliation will make the slightest difference. One cannot deter a suicide bomber with the threat of death. Nor can one deter a theocracy bent on meriting admission to heaven and its virgins by one glorious act of violence. Iran would probably not launch the bomb itself, anyway, but would give it to its puppet terrorists to send to Israel so it could deny responsibility. Obama, bent on appeasement, would likely not retaliate with nuclear weapons. And Israel will be dead and gone. Those sunshine Jewish patriots who voted for Obama must realize that we, as Jews, are witnessing the possible end of Israel. We are in the same moral position as our ancestors were as they watched Hitler rise but did nothing to pressure their favorite liberal Democratic president, FDR, to take any real action to save them or even to let Jewish refugees into the country. If we remain complacent, we will have the same anguish at watching the destruction of Israel that our forebears had in witnessing the Holocaust. Because one thing is increasingly clear: Barack Obama is not about to lift a finger to stop Iran from developing the bomb. And neither is Hillary Clinton. Obama may have held the first White House Sedar, but he's not planning to spend next year in Jerusalem. This was published on www.DickMorris.com on May 24, 2009 |
|
HILLARY CLINTON DEMANDS NO ADDITIONAL JEWS IN JUDEA/SAMARIA/EAST JERUSALEM; MADE NO DEMANDS OF PA/ABBAS
Posted by Emananuel A. Winston, May 24, 2009. |
|
It is known that as poisonous snakes grow larger and shed their skin, their poison glands also grow larger, making their bite even more deadly in their mature stages. Granted there are a variety of deadly snakes in Washington (no Garden of Eden other than the un-holy snakes). Some have rattles and give warning while others lie camouflaged, pretending they are harmless, even friendly — until they strike. Israel would do well to keep vigilant since the Jews have, over time, encountered them all. In summation, the snake seduced Eve who seduced Adam, resulting in their ejection from the ease of life in the Garden of Eden. Similarly, the snakes of Washington have brought a curse on the nation of America and the American people who are now suffering — with more to come. Moreover, these same snakes have seduced weak leadership in Israel who will similarly make the nation of Israel suffer at the hands of both their mortal enemies and G-d. This below comes from the Zionist of America (ZOA), which was founded in 1897, and is the oldest pro-Israel organization in the United States. The ZOA works to strengthen U.S.-Israel relations, educates the American public and Congress about the dangers that Israel faces, and combats anti-Israel bias in the media and on college campuses. Its past presidents have included Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and Rabbi Dr. Abba Hillel Silver. |
|
ZOA troubled by Clinton demands The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has expressed strong criticism and concern over Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent remarks to not allow Jews to build additional homes or any other Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem; reiterating support for creating a Palestinian state when the Palestinian-controlled territories are in effect a two-headed monster comprising the terror-promoting, glorifying and sponsoring Palestinian Authority (PA) of Mahmoud Abbas in Judea and Samaria and the Iranian armed and funded, genocidal Hamas, which controls Gaza. At the same time, she is asking nothing of the Palestinians in return for these historic and monumental Israeli concessions, which would endanger its security, while giving away part of its ancient, holy Jewish land. Israel has not constructed a single new settlement or community in Judea and Samaria since the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. They have only added new homes within the boundaries of communities that already existed at the time of Oslo. The land on which Jews live in Judea and Samaria comprises less than 10 percent of the total area in question, while PA-controlled territory comprises 42 percent of Judea and Samaria. Together with Hamas-controlled Gaza, 99 percent of Palestinians live in these areas. Secretary Clinton made the following statement in an interview on the al-Jazeera cable television network on May 19: Demands total freeze on all Jewish growth and construction in Judea and Samaria: "First, we want to see a stop to settlement construction, additions, natural growth — any kind of settlement activity. That is what the President has called for. We also are going to be pushing for a two-state solution which, by its very name, implies borders that have to be agreed to. And we expect to see two states living side by side, a state for the Palestinians that will be sovereign and within which the Palestinians will have the authorities that come with being in charge of a state with respect to such activities as settlements. So it's really a two-step effort here. We want to see a stop now, and then, as part of this intensive engagement that Senator Mitchell is leading for us, we want to move toward a two-state solution with borders for the Palestinians." Reiterates intention to create a Palestinian state: "...the President underscored our commitment to a two-state solution and also called for a stop to the settlements. We have made that very clear. I reinforced that last night at a dinner that I hosted for Prime Minister Netanyahu." Reiterates weak conditions for recognizing Hamas terrorist group and including it in negotiations: "I believe that Hamas has to comply with not only the Quartet principles but the underlying principles of the Arab Peace Initiative. You cannot expect either Fatah or the Israelis or Arabs who wish to see this matter resolved, with a two-state solution, to work with a group that does not believe in the outcome of these efforts. And in any peace negotiation that I'm aware of anywhere in the world, groups that are resistance groups, insurgent groups, guerilla groups, when they come to the peace table have to commit to peace. And we would expect Hamas to recognize Israel's right to exist, to renounce violence as the way to the achievement of a homeland for the Palestinian people, and to recognize the prior agreements that have been entered into by the Palestinians either through the PLO or the PA." Asserts Palestinians seek reasonable, peaceful goals:
The ZOA notes that Secretary Clinton's words diverge sharply from her previous positions as Democratic U.S. Senator from New York, when she spoke of the absolute need for Palestinians to end incitement to hatred and murder as being a prerequisite for any progress on peace-making and also affirmed the indivisibility of Jerusalem under Israeli rule and thus the right of Jews to live and build homes in any part of it. Hillary Clinton's troubling transformation on Israel, as evidenced by previous statements: October 2003: '"How can you think about building a better future, no matter what your political views, if you indoctrinate your children to a culture of death?" Clinton said she supports conditioning aid to the PA on a "cessation of propaganda and hateful rhetoric" in textbooks and the media, and that she has written to US President George W. Bush urging him to demand an end to official Palestinian anti-Semitism and the promotion of terrorism as a pre-condition to resuming Middle East peace talks. It is clear that the Palestinian Authority, as we see on PATV, is complicit" in terrorist attacks, she said. "This is not Hamas [running the television station]. This is the Palestinian Authority."' (Melissa Radler, 'Sen. Clinton blasts PA for teaching children hate,' Jerusalem Post, October 31, 2003). February 2007: "...we must stop the propaganda to which Palestinian children are being exposed. That must be a priority for all people who care about children, who care about the kind of peace, stability, safety and security that Israel deserves to be guaranteed. I have been speaking out against the incitement of hate and violence in Palestinian textbooks for years. In 2000 I joined Nobel peace prize winner Elie Wiesel in New York to denounce the lessons of hatred and violence that are part of the curricula in Palestinian schools. I wrote, with my colleague Senator Schumer, a letter to President Bush, urging his Administration to do everything in its power to persuade the Palestinians to reverse their hateful rhetoric and embrace the opportunity to move toward a strong and lasting peace in the region. these children deserves [sic] an education that instills respect for life and peace instead of glorifying death and violence. "This propaganda is dangerous. You know, words really matter... Because in idealizing for children a world without Israel, children are taught never to accept the reality of the State of Israel, never to strive for a better future that would hold out the promise of peace and security to them ... This has dire consequences for prospects of peace for generations to come. I believe education is one of the keys to lasting peace and security in the Middle East and the greater region. We cannot build a peaceful, stable, safe future on such a hate-filled violent and radical foundation. In the years since, I and others — who have been doing it long before I did in 2000 — raised this issue, there has still not been an adequate repudiation of this by the Palestinian Authority. And I worry about the chance for peace when the next generation is learning that fighting Israel is a glorious, religious battle for Islam." ('Hillary Clinton's full statement introducing PMW's report on Palestinian schoolbook,' US Senate Building, February 8, 2007, Palestinian Media Watch, February 8, 2007). September 2007: "I personally consider Jerusalem the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel." [Citing then-Senator Clinton's paper, 'Hillary Clinton: A Long History of Strong and Steadfast Leadership for the U.S.-Israel Relationship], "Hillary Clinton believes that Israel's right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned" ( New York Sun, September 17, 2007). "The ZOA opposes Secretary Clinton's emphatic call for the ending of Jewish growth and construction in Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem. We repudiate the proposition that Jews, because they are Jews, may not move to or live in Judea and Samaria, the religious, historical and political heartland of the Jewish people, as it has been from the Bible to the Jewish nation-state 2000 years ago, to the Balfour Declaration to the League of Nations, which reiterated the fact that this is the Jewish homeland. On what basis is it said that 300,000 Jews cannot live among 2 million Arabs in Judea and Samaria, when 1.2 million Arabs can live among 6 million Jews in Israel proper? 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 |