| HOME | Featured Stories | November 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: MOUNT AVISHAI
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, November 30, 2009. |
|
This is one of Yehoshua Halevi's Golden Light Images. HOW I GOT THE SHOT: Another foray into the desert this week with a peek at Mt. Avishai, which, at 235 meters above sea level, soars above the Arugot Canyon in the Ein Gedi Reserve. Standing on the canyon floor, at an elevation of 400 meters below sea level, one does have the feeling of looking up at a substantial peak, whose shape, curiously, resembles that of Mt. Everest! No snow or ice here, but plenty of water flowing from the canyon's chief attraction, Hidden Falls, where I had an opportunity to lead a workshop last month. This shot was taken as we left the falls and began our return ascent to the main trail. In the waning afternoon hours, the canyon is well shaded while the highlands take a direct hit from the sun, complicating efforts to get a good photo, but also providing an excellent opportunity for instruction. A photographer facing this kind of high contrast lighting really has
no choice but to expose the shot for the mountain peak and attempt to
build additional form into the composition using the surrounding
shadows. The nearly-solid, black canyon walls provide a useful frame
while the feathery tree in the lower half of the image is delicate
enough so that the eye easily moves past it to find the main subject.
Because the sky is cloudless, I included a piece of overhanging branch
to complete the frame. I've also stood on top of Mt. Avishai, and
while the view is spectacular, you can't see a mountain while you're
standing on it.
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website:
|
|
HOW TO END TERRORIST KIDNAPPINGS
Posted by Truth Provider, November 30, 2009. | |
|
Dear friends, As you no doubt heard, PM Netanyahu's government is about to release hundreds of terrorists in Israeli prison in exchange for one Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, who was kidnapped by Hamas terrorist organization more than three years ago. This is not the first time Israel releases huge number of terrorists, some arch-murderers, for a single Israeli soul, or even for the bodies of dead Israeli soldiers. Every time Israel does this, the appetite of Arab terrorists grows and it is just a matter of time before the next kidnapping occurs. Remember, Hamas is holding Gilad Shalit somewhere in the Gaza Strip which is under their control. Where is Gaza getting electricity, water and other supplies from? You guessed correctly, from Israel. Here below is an article with good advice how to stop this charade once
and for all. It is from FresnoZionism.org
One can only wonder why successive Israeli governments did not choose to adopt this simple, logical solution. Your Truth Provider,
| |
|
Unfortunately, Israel has close to zero leverage. Hamas has held Shalit for three years and can keep him for as long as it likes. The Netanyahu government is under tremendous pressure from the media and others to get Shalit out no matter how much it costs. Although I'm sure the families of the terrorists would like them released, Hamas can afford to be far less responsive to its public than Israel! And of course the conditions under which Palestinian prisoners are held in Israel are far better than those faced by Shalit. So my guess is that if the exchange actually takes place, the price will be whatever Hamas is asking. Some of the freed terrorists will undoubtedly go on to kill Israelis. Israel's Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, recently said that there should be no negotiations with kidnappers, but that the policy couldn't be changed while Shalit was in captivity. This is nonsense, since tomorrow they will capture another Israeli soldier or civilian. Here's my program to end this:
To rescue Shalit, immediately cut off all supplies, water and electricity to Gaza until he is released. This isn't 'collective punishment' because all Hamas has to do to end it is to free Shalit, whom they are holding in contravention of (real) international law. If they hurt him, see no. 3 above. Just do it — anyone who objects will have to argue that Hamas is
justified in holding Shalit. Even the Norwegians can't say that.
To subscribe to the Truth Provider columns, send an email to
ynz@netvision.net.il
|
|
JNF DONATES 3,000 TREES TO PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY. RAMALLAH EXPANDS WITH UJC AND JNF MONEY
Posted by Evelyn Hayes, November 30, 2009. |
|
This was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu and it appeared in Arutz-Sheva
|
|
(IsraelNN.com) A member of the board of the Jewish National Fund said "the system has gone haywire" after hearing reports that the venerable Zionist organization is donating 3,000 trees to the Palestinian Authority for a new city near Ramallah. Maaleh Adumim Mayor Benny Kashriel, who also is a member of the JNF board, told Arutz 7 Monday morning he will bring up the issue with the JNF, which is considered a symbol of Zionism, particularly in the Diaspora where Jews have donated billions of dollars for planting trees and building the modern Jewish State. Kashriel said the contribution to the PA is a grave step that was taken without any request for approval and without advance notice and reflects a "system that has gone haywire." The mayor of Maaleh Adumim, which along with the rest of Judea and Samaria has been slapped with a freeze on new construction with the threat of arrest for breaking the ban, said, "The country has gone crazy when it plants trees for the PA in Judea and Samaria at the same time that it forbids Jews to build. The system does not know who it is representing — us, the Palestinian Authority or the Americans?" Concerning the government's building freeze policy, Mayor Kashriel said he is "ashamed" of the government's move, which he said are more drastic than those taken during the years of negotiations under the Oslo Accords that blew up into the Second Intifada, also known as the Oslo War, nine years ago. "As chairman of the local Likud faction, I am ashamed seven times over," he said. "Even during Oslo we did not receive letters that remove our authority and turn us into criminals." He also echoed sentiments of other leaders in Judea and Samaria to continue building despite the orders to halt new construction. Kashriel said regional leaders will appeal to the High Court to overturn the building freeze, which he said violates the rights of residents of Judea and Samaria. He also has proposed that regional leaders stage a strike opposite the offices of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Evelyn Hayes is author of "The Eleventh Plague, Twins, because their hearts were softened to accept the unacceptable" and "The Twelfth Plague, Generations, because the lion wears stripes." Contact her at rachelschildren@gmail.com |
|
FROM THE HOLOCAUST TO THE COPTS
Posted by Morris Sadek, November 30, 2009. |
|
The Holocaust was the state-sponsored discrimination, harassment and eventual liquidation of European Jews by Nazi Germany and its Allies from 1933 to1945. The Nazis termed this well-organized murderous policy as 'The Final Solution'. Persecution of Jews The persecution of the Jews began in 1933. They had to wear yellow stars to mark them out from the rest of the populace and they were prohibited from participating in public life. They couldn't own businesses, ride on public transport, attend German schools and universities, rent apartments from Germans, marry non-Jews and so on. Public signs were put up saying 'Jews Not Allowed'. Life grew increasingly difficult and a few Jews managed to get out of Europe while it was still possible; for most of those that remained, death was the only way out. Out of the nine million Jews from 21 European countries, close to 6 million were killed in the Holocaust. In the 1930s, the Nazis began to euthanize mentally and physically disabled Germans and Austrians. Over 5000 children were killed with lethal injections. Their parents had no say in the matter — they had to acquiesce or get arrested and thrown into prison.
After World War II started in 1939, the Nazis began ordering Jews to wear a yellow Star on their clothing so that Jews could be easily recognized and targeted. Ghettos After the beginning of World War II, Nazis began ordering all Jews to live within certain, very specific, areas of big cities, called ghettos.
Concentration and Extermination Camps
Holocaust to Copts Christians in Egypt, are exposed to holocaust by the Muslim Arabs who occupied our country, Egypt, for 1400 years and since that date, they have killed many Copts and continue in the kidnapping of Christian girls and have not approved the building of churches, but attack churches and burned them. We live in this persecution. The 21st century, security and equality for Christians in Egypt is still a dream What kinds of discrimination face Copts living in Egypt?
Red Priest Sawiris Copts do not feel secure in their own country Egypt! Condemn the Archbishop Salib Matta Sawiris "President of the International Peace Center for Human Rights in Egypt" and the heinous attacks carried out by a large group of Muslims to the Copts (Christians) in Forshat city of Qena, "south of the capital Cairo, Egypt," which resulted in the destruction of homes, cars and shops and pharmacies in the village owned by Christians, Christians of the two villages and the deportation of two of the city, namely "Red Mound Manor Alcdev" which Talthma sectarian violence. He added that the Christians in Egypt do not feel secure and protected by the failure of the Egyptian security apparatus to prosecute the aggressors on Christians in sectarian violence, which increased in intensity strongly in these days, and said that the Egyptian security should be based, in turn fully Egyptian Christians to feel safe in their homeland. Sawiris also criticized the failure of the Egyptian government and local authorities in solving the problems of Christians in Egypt. He said: "Christians are Egyptian citizens and the State must preserve their dignity in their homeland, and should not be punished because of all the Copts isolated incident on one end of the Muslims, demanding the enforcement of the prestige of the law to everyone." The work of sectarian violence and to the extent of aggression broke out Saturday in the city Forshat in the Qena Governorate because of the rumors about a young Christian raping a Muslim woman. Bishop Cyril, "the Bishop of Nag Hammadi" has said in statements published by Coptic sites, that the dean of Al-Azhar is the instigator of the violence that occurred against the Copts. My opinion is if the discrimination continues and the Coptic community loses all types of protection from the Egyptian government and the global community, it will cause individuals to leave the country. In addition to leaving, there will be a lot of violence against Copts; so many people will become victims. These two factors will cause the future to fade away for the Coptic community in Egypt. Morris Sadek is President of the National American Coptic Assembly.
Contact him at morrissadek@ymail.com
This appeared yesterday in Bikya Masr
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: WHEN I STOP LAUGHING
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 30, 2009. |
|
Sometimes I have a choice: either I laugh, or I weep. And, as my friends know, while it's not always possible (I cannot laugh about a nuclear Iran), I do try to choose the former. Without laughter, I'd lose it completely in this insane world. That said... I look at a piece by Barry Rubin. The settlement freeze, he tells us, has improved US-Israel relations. No surprise there, and nothing funny either. This, clearly, is what Netanyahu was about with that freeze: attempting to make the US administration happy, or at least less discontent. The freeze will have no effect, however, Rubin advises us: "On the contrary, the Palestinians and the Arab states will complain that it isn't enough and that they have more demands." Then, says Rubin, whom I respect as a frequently savvy, "tell-it-like-it-is" observer of the political scene, "In giving something in exchange for no material gain or even a gesture from the other side, Israel can only hope that the president appreciates this and remembers that he did not deliver on his promise to get some concession from the Arab side to match it." That's when I started laughing. For, rather than feeling appreciation and recalling that he let us down, Obama has already tightened the screws. Hope? We can expect nothing from him, and any expectation that it is otherwise will turn out to be, well, laughable. ~~~~~~~~~~ Consider this report from today's Haaretz, which is right in line with what I wrote about yesterday. Israel is now announcing that the number of prisoners to be released to Hamas, if there is a trade for Shalit finalized, will be 980, released in two stages (if this progresses, I'll follow with details). However, this does not account for "the hundreds of prisoners Israel is likely to release in a bid to furbish the image of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas." The release would be done at the behest of the American president, if reports are correct. Some gratitude. At the end of the day, we may see close to 2,000 prisoners released. This is cause for weeping and wailing. ~~~~~~~~~~ In passing I would like to mention one other possible motivation for Netanyahu to have decided on that freeze. I doubt that this was the major factor, but a factor it indeed may have been: Defense Minister Ehud Barak, who is head of the Labor party, has been having trouble within his party with dissidents who are threatening to split. They had been sorely discontented with the leader of their left-wing party holding a major position in a centrist/right government. Then, lo and behold! the centrist/right prime minister out-does leftist prime ministers with his offer to freeze building in Judea and Samaria. Yesterday, Barak told his party's executive committee that he was responsible for the decision to freeze building. See? he declared to the rebels, there is good and solid reason for us to be in this government. And at least some of the rebels are listening. All of this plays to the stability of Netanyahu's coalition. What is unsettling is one comment that Barak made, which has the absolute ring of truth. "Everyone should close their eyes and ask themselves who would be in the government without us. [National Union MKs Ya'akov] Katz,Uri Ariel and [Michael] Ben Ari. Would a narrow right-wing government have frozen settlements and could it have begun a diplomatic process?" Well, never mind that there is no diplomatic process because the PA doesn't want one. Barak's point is clear. And we are left to ponder precisely what Netanyahu had in mind when he chose Labor as a coalition partner over National Union. ~~~~~~~~~~ I spoke today with the Chief of Staff for MK Danny Danon, who says that Netanyahu can make declarations as he wishes about not honoring requests to hold a debate about the freeze in the Likud Central Committee, but the law is not with him. Danon has collected the necessary 500 signatures on the required petition and expects to gather some 200 additional signatures. I will be following with more on this. ~~~~~~~~~~ Iran. It is behaving as obstinately and non-cooperatively as possible, which is stiffening backs somewhat. The latest ominous announcement is that there will be another 10 uranium enrichment plants developed. The decision to do this was made, it seems, as an act of deliberate defiance. According to the Washington Post: "Vice President Ali Akbar Salehi told state radio that Iran needed to give a strong response to the International Atomic Energy Agency's resolution Friday demanding that Iran halt...construction of its newly revealed uranium enrichment facility and end all other enrichment activities." But stiffened backs is not enough. What is needed is international outrage of such proportions that actions are actually taken. And somehow, that point is never quite reached. For example, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said yesterday: "If true, this would be yet another serious violation of Iran's clear obligations under multiple UN Security Council resolutions and another example of Iran choosing to isolate itself....Time is running out for Iran to address the international community's growing concerns about its nuclear program." Time is running out??? It ran out a long time ago. But the Washington Post also cited "a senior official" as saying: "Iran will face a 'package of consequences' if it does not soon become a 'willing partner' in talks on its nuclear ambitions. " That allusion to Iran as a willing partner is worth at least a chuckle. If anything, Iran would be dragged kicking and screaming, but even that is not going to happen. ~~~~~~~~~~ And yet, and yet, we do seem to be at a turning point that will lead to actions against Iran. They better be taken mighty fast, and they had better be serious. The Wall Street Journal reports that discussions with regard to sanctions are focusing on specific areas that could be targeted: Iranian banks, shipping companies, insurance firms and energy assets. "U.S. officials said they have also focused on the assets of Iran's elite military unit, the Revolutionary Guard." Iran is vulnerable and serious sanctions could have the desired effect. The Iranians are defiant now, but may face the point at which they must cave or collapse. ~~~~~~~~~~ Please see this extremely important piece by Fouad Adjami in the Wall Street Journal, "The Arabs have stopped applauding." "'He talks too much,' a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory. ~~~~~~~~~~ Switzerland has passed a law that forbids the building of new minarets — the towers on mosques from which the call to prayer is done. Daniel Pipes sees this as a possible turning point. "The constitutional amendment does not ban mosques, it does not pull down the country's four existing minarets, nor does touch the practice of Islam in Switzerland... Commentator Robin Shepherd agrees: "It looks as though a backlash against Islam in Europe by nationalist forces energized by the failures of multiculturalist orthodoxies is now really starting to take hold. There's more of this to come. You can rely on it." Let us pray that Europe will respond now, at the 11th hour, before it is too late. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
DRUZE IN THE IDF; INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AIMS AT U.S.;
IAEA CONDEMNS IRAN; NETANYAHU WEAKENED ISRAEL FOR WHAT?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 30, 2009. |
|
DRUZE IN THE IDF 
A higher percentage of Israeli Druze serve in the IDF than of Israelis. The figures are 83% and 72%, respectively. Druze are serving in increasingly more responsible positions, as pilots and doctors. They win many commendations (www.imra.org.il, 11/27). P.A. ON NOT HALTING CONSTRUCTION IN EASTERN JERUSALEM "Israel wants to make a distinction between Jerusalem and the West Bank. There cannot be a distinction," the [Palestinian Arab] official said, adding that the PLO believes accepting such a proposal would amount to surrendering Jerusalem." (www.imra.org.il, 11/27). He did not put it as "East Jerusalem." By that logic, extending the freeze to eastern Jerusalem would amount to Israel's surrendering Jerusalem. Now we see the importance of the freeze to the Arabs. It lends some legitimacy to their demands. Obama's demand for a total freeze on Jewish building not only was discriminatory ethnically, it was prejudicial politically. Otherwise, why Obama asked for a freeze of construction by Israelis, but not by Arabs? JIHADISTS IN NY CRIMINAL COURT Thomas Wilner, counsel to Guantanamo detainees, approves of the decision to try the 9/11 jihadists in a civilian New York court. He thinks that terrorists intimidated us into abandoning our rule of law, in dealing with them. To him, the coming trials show we are stronger than that. Concluded trials had a very high rate of conviction, not of coddling. Nor were citizens attacked over them. He prefers civilian trials, because the murder of civilians is not an act of war but of a criminal. He contends that the laws of war allow us to detain combatants until war-end. Calling them combatants gives them undeserved status as prisoners of war. "They were never intended to authorize the detention of people for terrorist activities far from the battlefield." Security has not been compromised, he states, because courts use pseudonyms, paraphrasing, summaries, etc... (Wall St. J., 11/27, A19). The blind sheikh's attorney compromised security, as an earlier piece stated. Terrorists did not intimidate the U.S., the U.S. had not figured out how to deal with them. I think that Mr. Wilner has an obsolete concept about modern war. Radical Islam is a loose confederation of fanatics at war with civilization, carrying the fight directly to civilization and its cities, thereby conducting it by means that violate the rules of war. Therefore, we are not bound to treat them by the rules of war and consider them POWs. We are entitled to treat them equivalent to pirates. Therefore we could detain them indefinitely, and there is no end of the "war" with Radical Islam. Can Wilner guarantee that terrorists will not attack us during trials in New York, merely because they did not do so before? In Iraq and Afghanistan, the enemy keeps changing tactics. As for coddling, Wilner considers it a finding of not guilty. I would include how they are treated, and civilian courts treat them much better than do military courts. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AIMS AT U.S. Pres. Bush rejected subordinating the U.S. to International Criminal Court (ICC). He wanted to avoid its possibly treating the U.S. unfairly. Sec. of State Clinton regrets not joining it. Chief ICC prosecutor, Luis Moreno Ocampo already claims some jurisdiction, because U.S. troops fought in Afghanistan, which did ratify the Rome Statute that founded the ICC. He is investigating NATO and U.S. conduct there, but is coy about saying so, falling back on generalizations that could include them. At first, he confirmed what the ICC website explains, that the ICC was established to "end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serous crimes of concern to the international community." Any war crimes by NATO and the U.S. would pale by comparison with the mass-murders in Sudan and Congo. If the ICC diverts scarce resources to minor problems, it may let major crimes elude justice. Mr. Ocampo, however, believes in investigating the worse crimes in each arena. He does not want Muslim states to claim he has a double standard. In other words, he is expanding ICC effort beyond its purpose and because of invalid criticism. He boasted that NATO trainers advise troops that if they transgress, they are subject to arrest and trial by ICC (Daniel Schwammenthal, Wall St. J., 11/27, Op.-Ed.). Mr. Schwammenthal objects to U.S. troops falling under foreign jurisdiction. He does not state why. He does not attribute his objection to wanting to rely upon the U.S. constitution. He does not assert that the U.S. has high judicial standards, though it has taken time for the U.S. to adopt them to the new kind of warfare undertaken by international jihad. He does acknowledge that so far, Mr. Ocampo has done exemplary work. He does not attribute his objection to foreign public opinion turning increasingly and non-objectively against the U.S.. He does not deny objecting to U.S. being held to account. IAEA CONDEMNS IRAN 
Israel applauds the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) finding, a new approach for it, that Iran has violated IAEA and Security Council Resolutions, secretly was building an enrichment facility in Qom, also in violation of IAEA safeguards, and must halt construction immediately. Israel warns, however, that the IAEA and UN must be prepared to impose binding schedules for implementation of the finding's resolution and penalties that should have the desired effect. Otherwise, what's the point? ((www.imra.org.il, 11/28).
ARAB REFUGEES IN LEBANON 
Lebanon did not grant Arab refugees from the war against Israeli independence citizenship or even residency permits. Their descendants still need permission to pass checkpoints and go out of the original refugee camps. Lebanon partly may have been concerned over the delicate population balance between Muslim and Christian populations (www.imra.org.il, 11/28 from Maan News). Why no outcry against those checkpoints, only against the ones in Judea-Samaria? However, later, the PLO oppressed southern Lebanon. NETANYAHU WEAKENED ISRAEL TO PLEASE OBAMA, THE ARABS, AND UN 
PM Netanyahu weakened Israel, recently, but Pres. Obama may demand more. To appease Obama, Netanyahu imposed a new building freeze on Jews in Judea-Samaria. To appease the anti-Zionist UN, Netanyahu agreed to a measure that would strengthen Hizbullah. Again to appease Obama, Netanyahu appears ready to release a thousand convicted terrorist in exchange for one Israeli. Netanyahu suggests that the freeze was to balance the benefit to Hamas from the terrorist release with the building freeze of benefit to Fatah. Both measures, however, injure Israel. Fatah claims the freeze does not benefit it. (Nothing strengthens Fatah. Bigger question: why should Israel strengthen an enemy?] When Netanyahu was in the opposition, he demanded that Olmert not agree to a lopsided prisoner exchange. Now in preparing it, Netanyahu let Hamas leaders and their kidnapping appear legitimate. Strengthening Hizbullah? Ghajar, controlled by Israel, straddles the Lebanon-Israel border. The UN and U.S. have been demanding that Israel evacuate from the northern half. They know that as soon as Israel does, "it will again become a smuggling capital for drugs, terrorists, Hizbullah spies and ordnance." Appeasement is counter-productive. Reports indicate that Obama is demanding that Israel allow U.S.-trained Palestinian Authority (P.A.) troops to deploy in areas of Judea-Samaria under Israeli military control. Obama is demanding that Israel let Fatah control land in the Jordan Valley, critical for Israeli security from invasion [as part of a natural tank barrier]. Those may be U.S. preconditions for starting negotiations. Yediot Aharonot has the impression that during negotiations, Obama will demand that Israel include part of Jerusalem in an Arab state and ethnically cleanse that part and Judea-Samaria of Jews [and not Israel of Arabs]. To relieve immediate U.S. pressure, Netanyahu started down the wrong path. He should not have left the question of where Jews may live up to foreign powers. He had better rescind that concession. He made it for nothing, for immediately, the P.A. called it worth nothing. Why should the P.A. be impressed by it, when it knows the U.S. will demand more for it? [As part of its diplomacy, it criticizes the U.S. for not already insisting on more. It probably encourages further demands.] Indeed, when Israel announced the freeze, Sen. Mitchell professed to be unmoved by it (www.imra.org.il, 11/28 from Caroline Glick). Netanyahu talks differently, but acts as if his job were to bring
down Israel, at Obama's behest. Obama acts as if his job were to bring
down the U.S., too, one way by overloading its economy with debt and
taxes and stifling business.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel 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:
|
|
GLASS REFLECTIONS
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, November 30, 2009. |
To Go To Top |
|
NEVE GORDON TURNS HIS OWN HOME INTO A SPA FOR CONVICTED TERRORIST
Posted by Steven Plaut, November 30, 2009. |
|
This was written by Paul Shindman and appeared today in
Front Page Magazine
Paul Shindman is a veteran freelance journalist in Israel who has worked with several North American media outlets and the BBC. He is the former Jerusalem bureau chief for United Press International. |
|
Jerusalem — Dr. Neve Gordon of Israel's Ben Gurion University is known as one of the most radical academic Palestinian sympathizers. However, his activities appear to have peaked this year with a call for an anti-Israel boycott, and revelations that he hosted a convicted Palestinian sentenced to house arrest. Despite being the chairman of the political science department at Israel's Ben Gurion University, Gordon wrote an L.A. Times op-ed calling for a worldwide boycott of Israel, including Israeli universities, to achieve what he calls "ending our apartheid." Gordon's call was widely seen as an anti-democratic attempt to undermine Israeli democracy and sovereignty and drew scathing criticism from his peers in both the academic and activist communities. The president of BGU, Rivka Carmi, went so far as to say Gordon's call meant the university " is being threatened by the egregious remarks of one person, under the guise of academic freedom." In a rebuttal editorial, Carmi had to point out that it was only Israeli labor law that prevented the university from firing Gordon. In a harsh assessment, she said his boycott call meant "Gordon has forfeited his ability to work effectively within the academic setting, with his colleagues in Israel and around the world." Veteran Israeli left wing anti-Zionist activist Uri Avnery was with Gordon and other Israeli extremists when they barricaded themselves in Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat's Ramallah compound during a prolonged siege by the Israeli army in 2002. Despite their common background, even Avnery rejected Gordon's op-ed, saying it was an "example of a faulty diagnosis leading to faulty treatment. To be precise: the mistaken assumption that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resembles the South African experience leads to a mistaken choice of strategy." This was harsh criticism from a political colleague that raised questions about Gordon's professional abilities as an academic. Gordon is viewed in his own country as notorious for his venomous anti-Israel writings and statements. The Israeli media reported when Gordon and other activists illegally entered Ramallah in 2002 to serve as human shields inside Yasser Arafat's headquarters. They wanted to prevent the Israeli army from arresting the suspects wanted for the assassination of an Israeli cabinet minister. Gordon was shown in newspaper photos embracing Arafat. The terrorists were eventually apprehended, tried and convicted. Gordon also has a fractious track record in his teaching career with numerous run-ins with students who hold opposing views. Gordon regularly denounces Israel as a fascist apartheid entity and admitted that his boycott call was a tactic to force Israeli concessions with the Palestinians. Gordon's articles are so openly anti-Israel that they are often published on neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial web sites. Around the same time as the boycott call, Gordon turned his own home into a refuge for convicted Fatah organizer Mohammed Abu Humus, a resident of the Issawiya neighborhood of East Jerusalem. As a local Fatah organizer, Abu Hums had previous convictions for several security related offenses including arson and assault. Despite the latest conviction for directing demonstrators to throw rocks, Gordon described Abu Humus as a "political prisoner" and "a Fatah leader." A Jerusalem district judge earlier this year convicted Abu Humus and handed down a nine-month sentence, converted to house arrest. Gordon organized a group of far-left academics to testify on behalf of Abu Humus, and Gordon offered the court to host Abu Humus in Gordon's own home in Beersheva for the duration of the house arrest. It is evidently the only case on record of a Palestinian terrorist being released to house arrest in the home of a Jewish Israeli citizen. Abu Humus and Gordon have collaborated in the past in an organization called Ta'ayush, which Gordon himself is on record as describing as a seditious group, but according to its website its activities appear to have petered out in 2007. Abu Humus provided an interesting complement to Gordon's position. Interviewed at his office in the Alternative Information Center, a pro-Palestinian lobby group in Jerusalem, Abu Humus stated that archeological excavations in the Old City prove that despite Jews worshipping at the remaining wall of the ancient Jewish temple, the Jews had no claim to Jerusalem. After years of archeological digging, he insisted no evidence of the Jewish temple exists. "Have they found anything of the Jews? They didn't find anything," Abu Humus said. Talking about the holy sites appeared to get Abu Humus riled up. Despite Gordon's testimony that Abu Humus was a tolerant pacifist opposed to violence, the activist continued on a roll. "If somebody believes in (the Jewish or Christian) religion, he has to change his religion," Abu Humus said. "And after Jesus came, it says Mohammed will come. And Mohammed came. If you are religious as a Jew, you have to believe in Mohammed. You have to believe in Jesus." Gordon is the father of two small children and stated in the media that the time Abu Humus spent in his home under house arrest was "in a way, it's a wonderful experience, probably the best political education that you can give to a child." Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
US COLLEGES TEACH ANTI-ISRAEL, PRO-IRAN COURSES THANKS TO ALAVI
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 29, 2009. |
|
Several things need to be done to deal with this matter. Since Iran has stated that its policy is to wipe out the Jewish Nation/State of Israel, it should be sued in the International Court of the Hague as an official Declaration of War. Using its funds, from its copious sweet oil to subvert American Universities to follow its murderous policy and oft-proclaimed goal to commit Genocide, each University and collaborating Professor ought to be sued in a class action litigation for teaching hate crimes. Clearly, this is a matter for lawyers who practice International Law. This should be worth a great deal in contingency fees. As starting number could a as much as a Billion Dollars against each of the participating Universities, plus separate penalties for each Professor. Separate suits against Iran and Iran's assets in the U.S. and abroad would be appropriate. This article is by Malkah Felisher and appeared November 24, 2009 in Arutz-Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com), |
|
(Israelnationalnews.com) An Iranian front organization is donating huge sums to American academic institutions who employ pro-Iran, anti-Israel professors and speakers, according to back-to-back reports by the New York Post and New York Times. Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been donated to the prestigious Columbia University and Rutgers University for Middle East and Persian studies programs, according to the papers. The courses are taught by professors who openly slur Israel and express sympathy for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime, as well as terrorist groups Hizbullah and Hamas. The Alavi Foundation, which recently had up to $650 million seized by United States federal law enforcement, donated $100,000 to Columbia University in 2007 after the institution agreed to host Ahmadinejad, who is responsible for a bloody crackdown on protesters last summer following a controversial election in Iran, and who frequently denies the Holocaust, as well as Israel's right to exist as a state. Last year, Britain's director of the Brunel University Center for Intelligence and Security Studies, Anthony Glees, reported that up to 48 British universities have been infiltrated by Muslim fundamentalists heavily financed by major Muslim groups, to the tune of more than a quarter billion Sterling. 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 |
|
IF WE SACRIFICE JERUSALEM, WHY DEFEND LONDON?
Posted by Boris Celser, November 29, 2009. |
|
This was written by James Lewis and it appeared today in
American Thinker
|
|
It is an interesting exercise to question all the assumptions of American foreign policy for the last sixty years — that is, for as long as we've provided the defense umbrella for Europe, the free countries of Asia, and for our allies in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. That's after all the meaning of Pax Americana. We do the work, they do the bitching. Obama and the Left don't have the least inkling of the vital peace-keeping role of America as the cop on the world beat for the last six decades. They hardly understand the idea of peace officers on domestic beats. It just doesn't get through those hard plastic space helmets around their heads. Let's pretend there is no Pax Americana. Obama sounds like he's ready to shaft Israel, which certainly would be consistent with his whole upbringing and his locked-in Leftist worldview. Jerusalem, according to the administration, is doing the dirty on the Palestinians by adding housing in the city for Jews. Funny thing, nobody seemed to mind much when Obama sent that message to Benjamin Netanyahu. Least of all the Israelis, who just ignored it. Well, the Left has managed to conceive an inveterate hatred of Israel while not losing many Jewish liberal votes. Shafting Israel is a no-lose proposition for them. And still they keep their liberal Jewish voters. It is a miracle to behold. No wonder Obama wants to walk away from that troublesome little country that gets all the Arabs so angry. What's he got to lose? Well, Taiwan, for one thing. There's another troublesome little country right off the coast of mighty China, which owns a lot of US debt, and has had lines into the last two Democrat administrations that have looked mighty suspicious. Nothing would please China more than having the US Navy withdraw its protection from Taiwan. See, Obama's making peace already. Then there's South Korea, another troublesome partner. Why not have the Kim family take over the South? It's no skin off our noses. The conquest of South Korea could probably feed the hungry people of the North for years and years before the whole peninsula went kaput. And Kim Jong il could finally get his nukes to work. We could dump Afghanistan, too. Obama is turning up his nose at Hamid Karzai because his re-election looked dubious. Which makes Kabul sound just like Chicago. It takes awesome gall for a Chicago Machine politician to criticize an impoverished and nearly ungovernable Third World country for its electoral imperfections. Well, let's send Mayor Daley over there to fix Afghan politics. Maybe he can teach them to make the dead rise up on Election Day. That way Afghanistan will come up to high Illinois standards of democratic probity. That solves our biggest foreign policy problems, right? But that's not all. Why should the United States defend Europe against the Russians? Or protect the free nations of Asia against China and North Korea? Why not let them all go down? And why do we have to defend free trade in the world? Why are we in the Persian Gulf? Just think of all the money we can save — and we'll need that money if O-Mob-O-Care passes Congress. We've subsidized Europe's and Asia's defenses for sixty years. Maybe Uncle Vlad the Poisoner over in Moscow would be willing to protect Europe against militant Islam just the way he did with Chechnya. For a price, of course. To be sure, if we walk away from our allies they will inevitably build up their own nukes and missiles. Japan could have WMDs rather quickly, with South Korea and Taiwan not so far behind. The French would be happy to supply nukes to the emerging EU army. Israel and the Saudis both want to stop the mad Twelver Cult in Tehran before it gets nukes. All nations want to survive; they may hate each other, but that has never stopped alliances. Europeans who hated each other still made alliances for a thousand years before the United States became a world power. They can do it again. Pax Americana has been the most benevolent imperial enterprise in all of human history, bar none. Our good friends in Europe love to rant at us, especially if they can get us to knuckle under to Euro-Socialism, which puts them in charge of the United States. That's after all the reigning goal of the EU and UN corruptocracy. That's what the Global Warming Fraud has been all about. The newly appointed President of the EU just declared that 2009 is the first year of global governance. Guess who gets to do the global governance? It's not us. No, this is Year One of the Belgian Empire. Americans forget that we've defended the civilized world for almost a hundred years because the Europeans couldn't be trusted to do it. Europe has been the source of almost every single aggressive imperialism in the last two centuries, from Napoleon to Bismarck, Karl Marx, the Kaiser, Lenin, Hitler, and Stalin in the Cold War. Imperial Japan is the sole significant exception. Our liberal media constantly cover up that inconvenient fact. But it is true, and we forget it at our peril. Euro-Imperialism is rising again today under the smiling face of EU socialism. That's Obama's creed, as we know. That's why he keeps apologizing for the United States to all the socialists of the world. Obama's mental blinders come straight from Karl Marx's Prussia in the 19th century, and from V.I. Lenin in 1917. Now those were real imperialisms, not the Coca-Cola kind that has our European friends crying in their beer. If we walk away from the world, the Israelis, the Saudis, the Brits, the Czechs and Poles, the Germans, Japanese and South Koreans have to accelerate their own nuke and missile defenses, because in the nuclear age that's their only chance for survival. China may not really want to see Japan owning nuclear weapons and missiles. They still smart from the pain of Nanking. Obama's deep bow to Emperor Akihito did not buy him any friends in Beijing. Tehran already tried to stir up riots in Mecca. Without the United States to control the Gulf, what is to keep the Iranians from overrunning Saudi Arabia? They have the population and the military power to do it. If the US goes home, all the Iranians have to do is bust through the desert (good tank country) and go straight to the Holy Cities of Islam. Think they wouldn't dare, if they owned a nice set of nukes and missiles? Who would stop them? Obama? For sixty years we've lived with the fantasy that the world has become a safe place at last, and that peace is the natural condition of mankind. Let's see if Barack Obama is fool enough to tinker with that delicately balanced contraption. The last time a delicate power balance broke apart, the immediate result was World War I, Lenin's Bolshevik Revolution and Hitler. If Obama walks away from Afghanistan, Israel and Taiwan, we will see Europe and Asia switching all their alliances very fast. Pull out that American peg from the Big Circus tent, and it won't look like peace on earth, good will to men, forever and ever, amen. It might look a lot more like August, 1914. Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
THE SOURCE OF OBAMA'S ANTI-ISRAEL POLICY
Posted by Chuck Brooks, November 29, 2009. |
|
"President Obama is influenced by a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations ...." This was written by Bishop E.W. Jackson Sr., Bishop of Exodus Faith Ministries. He is an author and retired attorney, |
|
Like Obama, I am a graduate of Harvard Law School. I too have Muslims in my family. I am black, and I was once a leftist Democrat. Since our backgrounds are somewhat similar, I perceive something in Obama's policy toward Israel which people without that background may not see. All my life I have witnessed a strain of anti-Semitism in the black community. It has been fueled by the rise of the Nation of Islam and Louis Farrakhan, but it predates that organization. We heard it in Jesse Jackson's "HYMIE town" remark years ago during his presidential campaign. We heard it most recently in Jeremiah Wright's remark about "them Jews" not allowing Obama to speak with him. I hear it from my own Muslim family members who see the problem in the Middle East as a "Jew" problem. Growing up in a small, predominantly black urban community in Pennsylvania, I heard the comments about Jewish shop owners. They were "greedy cheaters" who could not be trusted, according to my family and others in the neighborhood. I was too young to understand what it means to be Jewish, or know that I was hearing anti-Semitism. These people seemed nice enough to me, but others said they were "evil". Sadly, this bigotry has yet to be eradicated from the black community. In Chicago, the anti-Jewish sentiment among black people is even more pronounced because of the direct influence of Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam. Most African Americans are not followers of "The Nation", but many have a quiet respect for its leader because, they say, "he speaks the truth" and "stands up for the black man". What they mean of course is that he viciously attacks the perceived "enemies" of the black community — white people and Jews. Even some self-described Christians buy into his demagoguery. The question is whether Obama, given his Muslim roots and experience in Farrakhan's Chicago, shares this antipathy for Israel and Jewish people. Is there any evidence that he does? First, the President was taught for twenty years by a virulent anti-Semite, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. In the black community it is called "sitting under". You don't merely attend a church, you "sit under" a Pastor to be taught and mentored by him. Obama "sat under" Wright for a very long time. He was comfortable enough with Farrakhan — Wright's friend — to attend and help organize his "Million Man March". I was on C-Span the morning of the march arguing that we must never legitimize a racist and anti-Semite, no matter what "good" he claims to be doing. Yet a future President was in the crowd giving Farrakhan his enthusiastic support. The classic left wing view is that Israel is the oppressive occupier, and the Palestinians are Israel's victims. Obama is clearly sympathetic to this view. In speaking to the "Muslim World," he did not address the widespread Islamic hatred of Jews. Instead he attacked Israel over the growth of West Bank settlements. Surely he knows that settlements are not the crux of the problem. The absolute refusal of the Palestinians to accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is the insurmountable obstacle. That's where the pressure needs to be placed, but this President sees it differently. He also made the preposterous comparison of the Holocaust to Palestinian "dislocation". Obama clearly has Muslim sensibilities. He sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. His construct of "The Muslim World" is unique in modern diplomacy. It is said that only The Muslim Brotherhood and other radical elements of the religion use that concept. It is a call to unify Muslims around the world. It is rather odd to hear an American President use it. In doing so he reveals more about his thinking than he intends. The dramatic policy reversal of joining the unrelentingly anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and pro-Islamic UN Human Rights Council is in keeping with the President's truest — albeit undeclared red — sensibilities Those who are paying attention and thinking about these issues do not find it unreasonable to consider that President Obama is influenced by a strain of anti-Semitism picked up from the black community, his leftist friends and colleagues, his Muslim associations and his long period of mentor-ship under Jeremiah Wright. If this conclusion is accurate, Israel has some dark days ahead. For the first time in her history, she may find the President of the United States siding with her enemies. Those who believe, as I do, that Israel must be protected had better be ready for the fight. We are. NEVER AGAIN! Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com |
|
PHILLY GROUP ASKS THAT PEACE NOW BE INVESTIGATED AS UNREGISTERED
AGENT OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
Posted by David Bedein, November 29, 2009. | ||
|
"Philadelphia Attorney Asks US Justice Department to Investigate "Peace Now" as an Unregistered Agent of Foreign Governments" 29.11.09 Atty. Lee Bender is the head of the Philadelphia based ISRAEL ADVOCACY COMMITTEE, which has perused documentation which shows that the government of Norway has allocated a new grant to "Peace Now" in the amount of 1.3 million Kroner, which is something over $200,000. Since Peace Now is a legal entity in the US and NOT in Israel, Atty. Bender has asked the US Department of Justice as to why Peace Now has not registered itself as a foreign agent in the USA. The consequences of Peace Now not registering itself as a foreign agent are that Peace Now runs the risk pf prosecution for functioning in DC as an unregistered foreign agent, since it has been receiving funds from foreign governments for many years. Here is the letter filed by Atty. Lee Bender with the U.S. Justice Department:
"Knesset Committee Conducts Investigation of Alleged Espionage Activities of "Peace"
Mon May 16 2004 This week, the Israeli "Peace Now" organization revealed that it has been conducting aerial surveillance of Israeli Jewish communities in Judea, Jerusalem and Samaria, to determine the extent of settlement expansion. At the same time, the Israeli Knesset Parliamentary Interior Committee held a special session to discuss foreign government funding of Israeli left wing movements Documents shared with the Knesset Interior Committee confirmed that the Peace Now organization received a budget in the amount of 50,000 Euros from the government of Finland to conduct intelligence activity in the Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, the Golan, Gaza and Jerusalem. Peace Now is a political organization in Israel with an IRS tax deductible affiliate in the United States. The Knesset Committee examined a Peace Now grant application to the government of Finland, that indicated how Peace Now intended to use the grant. This included regular bi-monthly ground surveys to be conducted with the purpose of documenting the numbers of empty houses in settlements and ongoing construction in settlements. This work engages tens of volunteers, who travel around the West Bank in cars (armored if possible) tracking developments. "Settlements" has come to be used in the press now as a euphemism for Jewish communities and towns, no matter how big or developed. Also included was a provision for aerial photography: Twice a month a light plane is rented in order to allow "settlement" watch staff to ascertain the extent of ongoing physical expansion in existing "settlements." Once a baseline survey is completed, subsequent surveys can be used to measure expansion using GIS satellite positioning overlays. The document stated that this "mechanism will yield tangible graphic and quantitative data for the public." Peace Now defined its objectives to the government of Finland in the following manner: "To monitor settlement developments on the ground, accurately and reliably; To make this information available to the Israeli and international publics; To advance the fulfillment of the Road Map." Peace Now further informed the government of Finland that it would use the $50,000 grant in the following manner: "$17,000 Coordinator, $13,000 Jeep, $20,000 Aerial Surveys." Peace Now informed the government of Finland that "funding is necessary to support the staff and rent the vehicles for aerial photography. Peace Now defineed itself for the government of Finland as an "educational foundation". Peace Now indicated in that grant request that it also received $100,000 from the Americans for Peace Now and 150,000 Euros from "European Foundations" for its "settlement watch project." A spokesperson for Peace Now indicated that the "European Foundations" mentioned in their grant request to the Finnish government were actually funds from the European Union. In other words, from other foreign European governments...Far from being an indigenous Israeli organization, Peace Now it is obvious actually acts as an agent for foreign governments. The Israel Penal Code for Espionage was distributed to Knesset Interior Committees. Clause 3 of that code defines "photography of sensitive areas of Israel for any foreign power" as an act of espionage, punishable by ten years imprisonment if convicted. Dr. Yuri Stern, Chairman of the Knesset Interior Committee, announced that he would ask his legal counsel to examine the matter and report back to the committee if there were indeed grounds for application of the Israel Penal Code's special clauses on espionage against Peace Now. While the Knesset interior committee members from across the political spectrum carefully listened and examined the documents relating to allegations of felonious activity by Peace Now, the Peace Now lobbyist in the Knesset, Behira Bardugo, screamed at Committee Chairman Dr. Stern and accused the committee of not investigating those who financed the campaign to defeat Ariel Sharon in the recent referendum campaign over the Prime Minister's unilateral disengagement plan from Gaza. When Stern explained that there is a difference between funding from a private individual and funding that is received from a government, Bardugo reacted with surprise, and simply said that there is no difference. The Peace Now settlement expansion maps do not only wind up in the
hands of European governments and they do not only include the
civilian expansion. The Peace Now settlement expansion maps also
include military installations and the maps are featured in all PLO
offices...
David Bedein is Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency.
(http://Israelbehindthenews.com). He is president of Center for Near
East Policy Research. Contact him by email at media@actcom.co.il
|
|
NETANYAHU'S FREEZE
Posted by Ted Belman, November 29, 2009. | |
|
When Netanyahu came to into office he continued the freeze that Olmert had started in August 2008 and came under withering pressure from Obama for more. Why Olmert agreed to it in the first place has never been discussed. Last summer it appeared that the quid pro quo would be normalization steps by Arab countries. Nothing came of it. Then Netanyahu and Obama counted on getting Abbas to accept the freeze when they were all in New York. Abbas didn't bite. Finally, Netanyahu decided to announce the freeze unilaterally which he did on Wednesday. Surely he doesn't want endless negotiations with no hope of progress. So one must conclude that its all about gaining time to deal with Iran. Herb Keinon in his article Gaining Grace? points out that Yossi Beilin knew about this 9 days ago, Yossi Beilin — former MK, minister and one of the architects of the Oslo accords — was downright prophetic nine days ago when he accepted a French honor from visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner. How did he know? Everything unfolded as he foresaw with one exception. Beilin, in short, went three for three in his predictions. But then he made a fourth prediction, that the Palestinian refusal to resume negotiations under these terms would create a "dangerous vacuum" that would trigger a chain of events that could very well lead to the collapse of the Palestinian Authority. Keinon maintains that The prime objective of his settlement-start moratorium was to get the burden of being blamed for stalling the diplomatic process off of Israel's back. Netanyahu keeps repeating that the ball is now in Abbas' court. BUT WHAT is even more important from Netanyahu's point of view is that the Americans — as evidenced by Mitchell's statement — don't see the step as hollow. The US realizes that it hadn't delivered on normalization or the end of incitement so it took what it could get from Netanyahu. It had no choice. The moratorium was never meant to be a unilateral step, but ended up being one because no one moved on the other side. The expectation is that this will now be appreciated in Washington. Netanyahu managed to convince right-wing ministers like Bennie Begin, Moshe Ya'alon and Avigdor Lieberman to vote for the moratorium, something done because — one government source said — they had sat in the discussions over the last few months and seen what was initially demanded, what was agreed upon, and the whole array of pressures coming to bear on Netanyahu and the country. Keinon believes that Netanyahu's moves in accepting a Palestinian State, all be it with conditions, and announcing a freeze, although limited, are cut from the same cloth. Netanyahu is now gambling that as a result of what he gave, the world will press the Palestinians to take the gestures and run with them. If the Palestinians don't do so, Netanyahu seems to be assuming, it will be clear who will get the blame. I agree with Keinon when he writes Wednesday's move may have bought Netanyahu some temporary grace in Washington and the international community, but that grace — judging by other unilateral steps Israel has taken in the past — may prove fleeting. Netanyahu will only get temporary relief from pressure. It would appear that the revelations in the Yediot Aharonot's Thursday article which Caroline Glick referred to in Bibi's Bad Week,may not have any import. Now we will have to wait to see if Beilin's fourth prediction comes true. Keinon makes no mention of any agreement on Iran. But Alex Fishman does in Saving Abbas published Thursday. He also said its about avoiding Beilin's fourth prediction. The construction freeze in the settlements is yet another oxygen tank en route to reviving the "diplomatic horizon," without which we shall see the Palestinian Authority increasingly disintegrating. And Israel must prove she is serious about enforcing the freeze. Barry Rubin has speculated that Clinton's statement on the parameters for a peace deal was negotiated as part of the moratorium. This raises a fascinating question: Was it coordinated with the Netanyahu government as part of the freeze deal? If so, the Netanyahu government has certainly proved itself to be flexible and peace-oriented. Certainly, there isn't everything Israel wants in this statement yet it does encompass some important points taken out of the cabinet's position on peace arrangements. This makes eminent sense. Remember that Netanyahu once remarked that he wants to know where he is going while negotiating short term deals. Aslo his BESA speech setting out Israel's conditions that must be present in a peace deal were part of these negotiations. Clinton's statement gave him what he demanded except she was silent on Jerusalem. Obama made it clear to the Israelis in Washington that he is willing to try this move in order to promote the revival of talks, but expects much more later on. Evidently then there are mutual commitments.
Ted Belman is a Canadian lawyer and editor of the IsraPundit.com website, an activist pro-Israel website. He now lives in Jerusalem. Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: CONFRONTING REALITIES
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 29, 2009. |
|
I begin today with an article I co-authored with David Bedein, which appears in today's Jerusalem Post: "Questions people are afraid to ask Salam Fayyad." It was written in response to a column by Post editor David Horovitz a week ago, which described PA Prime Minister Fayyad's plans to build a state; Horovitz failed to inform his readers of the very serious problems inherent in these plans. These stumbling blocks make the establishment of a "moderate" Palestinian Arab state impossible, for the PA is not "moderate" — in spite of the face of moderation that it offers to an "eager-to-believe" Western world. The issues that the article touches upon: [] The constitution of Fatah (the predominant element in the PLO and the PA) to this day calls for the destruction of Israel within the Green Line via "armed resistance." This is not an anachronism, or an idle academic issue: Fatah held a major conference in August and declined to remove references to "armed resistance" from its constitution. Please, see this, save it, and share it broadly. It touches upon the key issues that the world prefers to ignore. ~~~~~~~~~~ I had suggested last week (and a computer virus prevented me from returning to this more quickly) that there was a possibility that Netanyahu might have frozen building in Judea and Samaria communities for 10 months in a quid pro quo deal with Obama regarding Iran. There was this possibility implicit in the secrecy of the last meeting Netanyahu had with Obama, and I indicated that I had seen sources after that meeting that suggested this. Since I wrote that, Dr. Aaron Lerner, director of IMRA (www.imra.org), suggested the same possibility in his weekly commentary. But, sadly, I confess that I'm less and less of this mind, as the Netanyahu decision seems to be a case of caving that is nothing if not regrettable. Part of what is moving me in this direction are the reports that Obama is already making MORE demands of us. This would be the case if we were seen as having caved, and would much less likely be so if there had been a deal. It does seem that Obama will never be satisfied, and will always project that "you made a concession yesterday, what can you do for me today?" attitude towards Israel. In response to this, there is only one acceptable response: strength. There must be an ability to say, NO! Particularly is this so as the current occupant of the White House has no regard for Israeli rights or security. ~~~~~~~~~~ The demands? These, also reported elsewhere, were delineated by Caroline Glick in her Friday column :
First, apparently Obama wants the IDF to pull out of the Jordan Valley and allow PA security forces to take over. The Jordan Valley is essential for our security, and Netanyahu had made it clear up front that we would want to retain this in any deal. What is more, in spite of attempts to represent the case as otherwise, the PA forces are not capable of going it alone anywhere in Judea and Samaria. Note this quote from a piece by Ethan Bronner of the decidedly not pro-Israel New York Times: "...But without nightly Israeli raids into Palestinian cities, the violence would never have stopped. "'Last night we carried out between 15 and 20 actions,' a top Israeli commander said of the West Bank raids, in a recent interview under military rules of anonymity. 'That was a fairly typical night. It's like throwing a blanket on a fire. If we stop for a minute, we will go backwards very quickly. We call it cutting the grass.'" ~~~~~~~~~~ I've written that there is concern that if we trade 1,000 terrorists for Gilad Shalit it will strengthen Hamas in the street and make Abbas even weaker than he already is. Well, not to worry, Obama has a solution. That's his second demand: When we release those 1,000 prisoners to Hamas, Obama apparently wants us to release ANOTHER 1,000 terrorists to Abbas. What's another thousands killers on the loose, when it's only Israelis they'll be aiming for? This policy is so bad it's a parody of itself. But I fear Obama may be serious. ~~~~~~~~~~ G-d forbid, G-d forbid! our government should cave to such dangerous nonsense. But I must note this, which has already transpired: Last week the Shin Bet (Israeli security) "pardoned" 92 Al Aksa Martyrs Brigade members who were fugitives. This means we will no longer pursue them and they are free to move about in the areas controlled by the PA (Area A under Oslo). Above, you read the description by an IDF officer of the nightly IDF raids to maintain peace. It might have been in an operation such as this that we would have gotten these guys, who have now been removed from our "wanted" list. In return they had to promise to renounce terrorism. This is hardly the first time we've cooperated in an arrangement like this with Al Aksa Brigades, which, by the way, is part of Fatah. I am especially impressed with the idiocy of having them promise to renounce terrorism. The deal is that ultimately they will have the opportunity to join the security forces — then they can carry their guns legally. And why did we do it now? To strengthen Abbas, of course. Does anyone ever consider the implications of this: That if we refrain from pursuit of members of a terrorist group it makes Abbas look good? ~~~~~~~~~~ We are witnessing a strong response to the decision made by the Netanyahu and the Security Cabinet regarding the building freeze: Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu) has filed an appeal for a debate with the government secretariat: "This is a central issue in the state agenda, and it is essential that all members of government get a chance to express their opinions." He is pushing for a debate within the full Cabinet (the Security Cabinet constituting a smaller group). Within Likud it amounts to a power struggle, and I say forthrightly (and regretfully) that when it comes to playing power politics, Netanyahu gives no quarter. His concern is for sustaining his decisions, not for democratic voice within the party. Earlier today, MK Danny Danon addressed a rally of activists in Ra'anana, under the banner "Real Likudniks don't surrender." He told those gathered that: "The prime minister should have told the Americans that on Judea and Samaria he would not surrender. We are starting a campaign to put the breaks on what Netanyahu is trying to do. We will be attacked for this and it won't be easy, but we, the silent majority of the Likud, will struggle and succeed." He promised to promote a debate on the issue of the freeze within the Central Committee of Likud. The prime minister's office, anticipating this, last night released a statement stating that Netanyahu would avoid convening the Central Committee (even if signatures were garnered by Danon calling for a Committee debate). Said Netanyahu associates, if the Committee were to be convened, it would discuss only procedural matters. In addition, Netanyahu leaned on Likud MKs not to attend Danon's rally. Well, Danon today garnered the requisite number of signatures of Likud members on a petition demanding that the debate in the Central Committee be held. He has turned it over to Chairman of the Likud Central Committee, Minister Moshe Kahlon. And Kahlon has advised Prime Minister Netanyahu to convene the Committee for a debate on the construction freeze. Now we shall see. Danny Danon is to be praised highly. Perhaps you'd like him to know how much you appreciate his efforts:
~~~~~~~~~~ Chair of Ihud Leumi (National Union), Ya'akov Katz, is challenging the government on another issue. The Shamgar Commission had been charged with examining the implications of a prisoner exchange with Hamas, but the findings, which were completed in 2008, have not been released. Katz has now filed an appeal with the High Court of Justice, asking that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu be ordered to publish the findings before a trade for Shalit is done; he says that the Commission found that the effect of a trade would be negative. "Netanyahu must reveal the findings before we make any decision to release terrorists, and he must have a debate in the government and in the Knesset before he reaches any conclusion." Don't know that he can succeed with this, but Bravo! to him, as well. ~~~~~~~~~~ Today is Kaf Tet B'November — the 29th of November — when the UN voted Palestinian partition in 1947. I will return soon to some matters regarding the UN and the international community. ~~~~~~~~~~ It is a hopeful matter, that Iran is behaving so defiantly that nations that were hedging are beginning to be genuinely irked and ready to think about taking some action. There's more to say on this, as well... Tomorrow is another day. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
WHAT TO DO WITH TERRORIST PRISONERS
Posted by Benami, November 29, 2009. | |
|
This is actually a true story and shouldn't be missed at all for its ironic & humorous content. Please do go through it. A lady Canadian libertarian wrote a lot of letters to the government, complaining about the terrible inhuman treatment of captive insurgents (terrorists) being held in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities. She received back the reply shown below and an offer. P.S. - Gordon O'Connor never heard from her again in spite of several reminders regarding acceptance of his offer. | |
|
Contact Benami by email at farme@012.net.il |
|
US DIPLOMACY/JOURNALISM ON ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT;
PART 3: ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT IN THE ERA OF THE BIG LIE TECHNIQUE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 29, 2009. |
|
READER DENOUNCES ISRAELI FREEZE IN JUDEA-SAMARIA AS "NOTHING" President Obama postulated a linkage between Iranian nuclear development and the Arab-Israel conflict. He contended that if the Arab-Israel conflict were resolved, Iran could more readily be isolated. He then postulated a linkage between Israeli building in Judea-Samaria, which are disputed Territories, and Israel-Palestinian Authority negotiations. Israel protested that there were no such linkages in logic or in fact. They said it was necessary to deal with Iran before it is too late. Pundits pointed out that the Iran issue will come to a head long before the Arab-Israel conflict could be resolved. They saw this as Presidential pressure on Israel, not constructive, for it encourages Arab recalcitrance. They found that Arab states privately approve of an Israeli or U.S. raid on Iranian nuclear facilities. The Arab states did not want to endure further risk because of waiting for this misconceived linkage, not that they favor Israel. Neither does Israel want to defer action and find a mushroom cloud rising during their negotiations with the Arabs. What does one reader dispute on this? He said that Bibi Netanyahu conceived the linkage with Iran, not Obama. Apparently, Bibi conceived it privately, but the reader has a mole who informed him of it, Obama publicized it, and Bibi objected, but it really was Bibi's idea though it could get Israel destroyed. Wow! The same reader also disputes calling Israel's freeze a freeze. Why? It is a partial suspension. I call that a partial freeze, openly stated as such. How can one deny it? Denial is not logical. He also denies that this freeze is an Israeli concession. Why? It is not all that Abbas asked. That is no reason, ether. What was offered did not have to be offered. That makes it a concession. In this, the reader either does not understand the Arab mind or has one. I state this with no disrespect for different cultures, which I realize have different ways of thinking and different values. Disrespect, though inadvertent, is by Westerners with the ethnocentric belief that the way they think, everyone else must think. Muslim Arabs feel that the non-believers are wrong, and if Muslims accept a compromise from them, then they are sharing non-Islamic evil. Hence, they resist compromise except for their doctrine of accepting a truce during which they prepare for resumption of war. Why didn't the Arabs make a concession? Disregarding Arab culture, again, that same reader gave these reasons: (1) Israel did "nothing." It is not nothing for the many young Jewish couples, who have to move some distance away to find housing. Nor is it nothing for Israel to curb its national rights at outsiders' behest. (2) If Netanyahu offered more, he would have been deposed. A reason he may have limited a concession does not make it a non-concession. Pure logic. (3) Pres. Obama calls Jewish construction over the green (armistice) line illegal. An ideological politician is not the arbiter of international law. (4) The Arabs already conceded 78% of the original Palestine Mandate, and see their way to getting only part of the other 22%. Bingo! Congratulations, reader, this is the first time I have read a layman's reference to the original Mandate area. Too bad you got the facts on this incorrect! When the Mandate was proposed, its boundaries were drawn to coincide with the Biblical Land of Israel, and left 99% of the Mideast to the Arabs. The Mandate included the Golan and what now are Israel, Judea, Samaria, Gaza, and Jordan. Before the Mandate was ratified, Britain withdrew the Golan from it. Not long after that, Britain withheld what now is Jordan from Jewish national development, but not from the Mandate and passports from there still were stamped "Palestine." With independence, 78% of the original, ratified Mandate was emancipated from the Mandate, to become another desert kingdom. The reader calls that a loss for Palestinian Arabs. Nonsense! The original population included villagers, Bedouin, and followers of the Hashemites, who had fled from Saudi Arabia. This was before the Arabs had a sense of nationality. They identified as Muslims. Most were Arabs. In 1947-49, many fled from their defeated attempt to drive the Jews out of Israel. Most Jordanians are descended from them. In other words, Jordan is an Arab Palestinian state. That was not a loss for Palestinian Arabs. It was their gain, but a loss for the Jewish people, who had been promised, under treaties and international law, the whole of the Palestine Mandate. So now let's turn the reader's point on its head, and observe that there already was a division of Palestine into an Arab and a Jewish state, most going to the Arabs. The rest is hardly viable for one state, never mind two. It makes neither sense nor justice for a second Arab Palestinian state to be formed. (For more on the Palestine Mandate, check the original document or
ask me to quote the substantive provisions of it. For the prior
discussion of the freeze, goto:
U.S. DIPLOMACY & JOURNALISM ON ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT How realistic and fair are U.S. diplomacy and reporting on the Arab-Israel conflict? Isabel Kershner of the New York Times reports that Israel's Defense Min. Barak has approved building 28 public and educational institutions in Jewish "settlements" in the "West Bank." He ordered a temporary freeze of other Jewish construction there. The freeze does not apply to Jerusalem. "Israel claims sovereignty over the whole of the city; the "Palestinians" want the eastern part as the capital of a future state (11/28, A5). The U.S. asked Israel for a complete freeze and the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) to "crack down on anti-Israel violence" and the Arab states to somewhat normalize relations with Israel. The Arab states refused. Israel offered a partial freeze, more than any predecessor had offered, but less than Pres. Obama wished, and Abbas rejected the Israeli compromise. The opportunity to restart negotiations was lost. "At some point, extremists will try to provoke another war..." (Ed., 11/28.) The framework of those presentations is slanted to obscure Israel's high legal and ethical position, the Arabs low position, and U.S. Executive branch exceeding its jurisdiction. One method of injecting bias is the terminology devised to make the Arabs seem justified in their demands: (1) "Settlements," for Jews building in their historical homeland in an area that the Palestine Mandate reserved for them, including in their own capital, and not calling Arab construction "settlements. In another omission of what might lend truer perspective, Ms. Kershner ignored Israeli complaints that the public approval for more schools in Judea-Samaria was of an early stage in a series of approval steps, but that Min. Barak already had denied the next stage. These figures are misrepresented for domestic politics. Israel doesn't just claim sovereignty over its whole capital, it has it, via annexation through a normal process. That the international lynch mob disapproves does not make truth. To mention what Arabs want of Jerusalem as if on a par with it actually being Israel's capital, is an attempt to equate what is not of equal right or entitlement. This is a similar technique to using those loaded terms mentioned earlier. Nor is it candid to refer to the Arabs wanting eastern Jerusalem. By covenants, maps, school and TV presentation, Islamist ideology, and Arafat's phased plan for the conquest of Israel, the Arabs signify their intent to take over all of Jerusalem and of Israel. Is the New York Times assisting the Arabs' next phase? Notice that the Times referred to Israel and the Arab states not meeting Pres. Obama's requests, but did not refer to the P.A. not meeting it. The newspaper puts it as the P.A. is supposed to "crack down on anti-Israel violence." That is disingenuous, being incorrect and vague enough to allow claims that the P.A. fulfilled its obligation. The Oslo Accords, which have a legal basis, and the Road Map, which is advisory, both state that the P.A. must dismantle the terrorist infrastructure. Oslo does not require a building freeze. The Road Map suggests one after P.A. action. As many of my articles show, the P.A. has not done that. Instead, the P.A. raised a new demand, the freeze, as a pre-condition for negotiation. If U.S. diplomacy and media reporting were fair, they would admit that the onus for non-negotiation is on the Arabs. (Not that I expect negotiation to bring peace with Arabs who use diplomacy to pursue Arafat's phased plan for the conquest of Israel). And some of the onus is on Pres. Obama, whose suggestion for Israel facilitated making it an Arab pre-condition for negotiating. Both U.S. diplomats and the Times make another false equivalency between the Arabs and Israel, in suggesting that both sides need to prove good faith before negotiation. The Arabs walked out of earlier negotiations, refused to negotiate, and set pre-conditions for it. Israel long has been willing to negotiate and without pre-conditions. That shows which side demonstrates bad faith. The New York Times reportage demonstrates advocacy journalism, in which it steers, rather than informs, the public. PART 3: ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT IN THE ERA OF THE BIG LIE TECHNIQUE I quoted one source, ZOA, and cited its source, MEMRI, about a new Arab blood libel against Israel: 'Palestinian Authority (PA) security chief Tewfik Al-Tirawi claimed on Abu Dhabi TV 'that Israel recruits Palestinians to sexually harass their own mothers and sisters as part of a comprehensive strategy to harm Palestinians.'" Since the inner quotation starts with the word, that, a reader should be able to tell that it is my source's paraphrase of the broadcast, and I am not claiming it is a direct quote of the broadcast, with all its flowery verbosity, but just reporting the news. The rest of my article discussed other Arab blood libels against Israel and the Jewish people. A critic of mine replied that when I acknowledge membership in ZOA, it doesn't mean anything except beware of my prejudice. He does not understand that journalists acknowledge what, if they did not, might seem like concealing a potential conflict of interest. As some phrase it, it is "In the interest of full disclosure." I have found these sources accurate, though I sometimes reach different conclusions from theirs. The critic called my article "lies." He calls it a "deception" by my sources and me, on the grounds that the original report [not sure if he means the Arab broadcast, reporting of it, or MEMRI) did not mention the word, "sexual." I had noticed that the source did not use that word in the text, just in the title. I examined the quotation form the original Arab broadcast alleging brutal discrimination against women, in an alleged attempt to break up the family. It was clear enough to me that this was sexual harassment. Even without the sexual angle, what the Palestinian Arab statement that some of his, as he put it, "lowly" people were recruited to do, shames them and, because of its undocumented accusation, is a shameful broadcast. The critic' logic, even if it were correct, is like the tail wagging the dog. That broadcast joins broadcasts and press releases by Abbas, Arafat, Egyptian clerics, a Syrian Foreign Minister, Ahmadinejad, et al that constitute a library of blood libel of Israelis and the Jewish people. I have reported accusations that Israel sends prostitutes to impair Arab families, attempts to inflict sexual and other diseases upon Arabs, leaves poisoned candy for Arab children to find, poisons Arab water supplies, and more, giving sex a prominent role. As to that, the critic totally spares his indignation over lies, harmful ones, at that. The critic ignores the mass of evidence, in behalf of quibbling. Strange ethics! On the libel that Israel tries to poison the Palestinian Arab water supply (which uses the same aquifer), I reported years ago that Arafat's first terrorist mission was a failed attempt to poison an Israeli water source. On the accusation that Israel tries to deprive them of water, more recently, I reported that Israel restored Gaza's failed water supply twice, and continues furnishing Gaza with some water. On the libel that Israel tries to sicken them, I reported only a fraction of the incidents in which Israel's competent medical researchers who try to work with regional counterparts to eradicate diseases, but some Arab governments refuse to cooperate. As for the charge of Israel attempting to break up families, I reported that Israel has let many Arabs immigrate for family reunification, though the Arabs constitute a hostile minority largely sympathetic to their fellow, outside Arabs. You can see which side is obsessed with religious/ethnic/racial hatred. This is like a case of the pot calling the white kettle black. The critic accuses me of hating Muslims, to explain his accusation that I regularly lie. Since I use the same sources as for the libel article almost every week, sources he claims engage in deception, then perhaps he thinks that they, too, hate Muslims. In other words, disagree with him, and you must hate Muslims and lie about them. Although the critic talks about responsible journalism, he accuses people of hatred, without showing hatred. How responsible is that? I think that hating people because of their religion, nationality, or race is very immoral. I report on actions and doctrines that do and act on it. Some cultures are largely given over to such hatred. In such instances, one may generalize about its society, it being understood that there are some individual exceptions but that they do not govern or influence that society, for which the bigoted rulers speak and polls and actions confirm. The critic of this issue, like several others, keeps harping on the same points, sometimes repeating the same exact comment immediately after the prior one. That is making a nuisance of oneself. It reminds me of an element of the big lie technique, repetition. I recommend he consider the reliability and the characters of the many Arab leaders who engage in the documented stream of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish blood libel and of the Jewish leaders falsely accused of it but who do not libel the Arab people. There is the mass hatred and mass lying in this era of the big lie technique. PART 4: ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT IN THE ERA OF THE BIG LIE TECHNIQUE We've discussed the confusion besetting people over which sources to believe, in an era when there are more sources but fewer honest and informed ones. To some extent, this is generational. People would be wiser to respect the older and the younger generations for what they have and can contribute to society. Generational rivalry or contempt hampers society. Both generations think they know everything. The older one can develop wisdom from experience. The younger one can bring to bear newer technology. I've seen older people naïve about the veracity of news sources, but younger people have less behind them, with which to evaluate. Educational institutions have not and do not educate enough. Hence so much floundering and repeated historical mistakes. I've seen naivete about major threats to civilization repeated. I gained political consciousness during the Nazi era. Shortly before it, Nazism enjoyed some popularity in the West. European and American pacifism outside of Germany prompted appeasement of Germany. Did the result, WWII, teach us the lesson that's appeasement fails? No. I remember objecting to Pres. Roosevelt's appeasement of the Soviets. Did the Cold War and hot proxy wars by the Communist International teach us that appeasement is dangerous? No. Now we appease Radical Islam so much, that our political leaders are afraid to mention it as the current international enemy of civilization. Now the old Nazis and successors, and the old Communists and successors, many liberals, and Radical Muslims and allied Muslim governments are working with their customers and independent rogue states in what I see is a ganging up on the Jewish state, because it is a Jewish state. That is the "international community" that sides with the Arab aggressors against Israel. I've seen ganging up on individual Jews. I've seen ganging up on blacks, and rescued one black boy by driving him home. Internationally, it is similar. Many Muslims either deny the Holocaust or express intent to complete it. Facts are irrelevant to them. I just saw photos of a monument and thousands of shoes that the Nazi S.S. had robbed from Jews in Lithuania. Holocaust denial presumes that Jewish public relations deceived all of Europe into thinking there was a Holocaust that tons of documentary and thousands of eye-witnesses confirm, and which Europeans do not deny. Denial is not rational. It is psychotic. It is mob behavior driven by bigoted ideology and the need for a scapegoat for frightening or puzzling modern society. When my grandparents' generation fled the persecutions abroad, and found sanctuary in the United States of America, they called this country, in their native Yiddish, if I recall the spelling, the "goldene medina," the golden state. They meant the relative freedom and tolerance more than the economic opportunities, which they also valued. Considering the growing intolerance and chaos abroad, all my Jewish friends express deep gratitude for living here and now. My generation was nurtured during and shortly after WWII, a time of patriotism. For example, in elementary school, we heard of Patrick Henry, who said, "Give me liberty or give me death." Sometimes I pass by the Manhattan monument to Nathan Hale who, about to be hanged for spying on the British during the American Revolution, says, "I regret that I have but one life to live for my country." That is just what my uncle did, in the Pacific theater of WWII. Nor have I forgotten the forlorn sentiment expressed in "The Man Without a Country," during his loss of U.S. citizenship. I regret to see that esprit de corps waning, especially when young people are attracted to an alien spirit of intolerance. Seeing America's warts, they don't realize its overall and growing decency; they do not know how much they have to be thankful for. I think that our young soldiers do know, and so I am thankful for them. US REASSESSES TALIBAN 
The Taliban leaders are inspired by a harsh religious doctrine, but the U.S. is reassessing whether its troops are. Western officials believe that most Taliban troops are fighting to earn a living or for personal grievances. If they can be offered a living outside the rebellion, they can be peeled away from it. This is Gen. McChrystal's strategy. It was, with the surge, successful in Iraq. Winning enemy troops over requires treating them with respect. It may mean letting tribal elders be intermediaries. It means local application, not a heavy-handed or one-size-fits-all procedure by the national government. The chief difficulty of instituting the strategy in Afghanistan is that the national government is so corrupt and incompetent, that it lured away thousands of insurgents on false promises of jobs and protection, left them in the lurch, and finds them back in the trenches now embittered (Agand Gopal, Wall St. J., 11/28, A8). If the assumption be correct that most troops are not driven by their leaders' ideology, then I over-emphasized ideology. RADICAL ISLAMIC INTERNET RECRUITMENT Governments' intervention has reduced the number of foreign language Radical Islamic Internet sites from about 1,000 to 50, hampering Islamist recruitment. The number of English language Radical Islamic Internet sites, however, has risen in seven years from 30 past 200. Most of the English-language Internet sites are not run by al-Qaida. They are run by individuals who share its ideology. Many of these individuals are radical clergy like the one who influenced the Ft. Hood massacre. Their messages are theological, not bomb-making. Hence, they recruit people. Most of the arrested native Canadian terrorists and some American ones were inspired to jihad by English-language sites, and formed their own bomb plots. U.S. officials did not comment on the sites and there servers (www.imra.org.il, 11/27 from Naharnet, Lebanon). Can their numbers be reduced? CLERICS TAKING OVER IRANIAN SCHOOLS 
The total program is not clear, but Iran is having clerics take over or inserted into Iranian schools. This is part of a drive against Western influence (www.imra.org.il, 11/27 from Jordan Times). The Iranian people overthrew the Shah for democracy, but the clerical counter-revolution deprived them of it. They still want it. The clerical regime is resorting more to totalitarianism, in an effort to defeat the pro-democracy movement.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel 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:
|
|
IAF JETS IN RECONNAISSANCE SORTIE OVER JEWISH COMMUNITIES
Posted by Yaacov Levi, November 29, 2009. | ||||
|
This was written by Gil Ronen and appeared in Arutz Sheva (www.IsraelNationalNews.com). | ||||
|
(IsraelNN.com) The Israel Air Force carried out a photographic reconnaissance sortie over Judea and Samaria in order to obtain an accurate picture of the construction being carried out in Jewish communities and outposts there. The aerial photographs were transferred to the Civilian Administration in Judea and Samaria, where they will serve as a basis for enforcement of the construction freeze order issued Thursday by Central Command head Maj-Gen Avi Mizrachi. Photographic reconnaissance is usually carried out to gather intelligence about the enemy. However, this is not the first time that IAF jets are used to collect photographic evidence on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria. In early 2004, IAF jets carried out a photographic sortie over all of the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria. The photographs were then used to demarcate the communities' boundaries. This was done after then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon committed to then-President George W. Bush to allow construction only within previously-developed areas, and to forbid growth of the settlements' size. The United States and Israel carried out negotiations over an agreed "building line," using the reconnaissance photographs as their guides. The freeze order issued on Friday is more severe than the one agreed to by Sharon because it forbids construction within the communities' boundaries as well. The order strips the local authorities in Judea and Samaria of the right to grant permits for construction, be they for adding a second floor to an existing structure or for closing off a porch. A house owner who wishes to add a floor to his house has to request a special permit from the Civilian Administration and give his reasons for wishing to add the floor. The Civilian Administration will then inform him within 14 days whether the request has been approved or not. The authority to grant such permits, in communities with valid building plans, belonged solely to the municipal authorities until now.
EDITOR'S NOTE: EXCHANGE BASED ON THIS ARTICLE
Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
RABBI KAHANE: THREE TRANSGRESSIONS" (Conclusion)
Posted by Miki and Herb Sunshine, November 29, 2009. |
|
Barbara Ginsberg 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 Visit my blog for previously e-mailed Rav
Kahane writings: |
|
And the reality for American Jewry is that the Galut, the bitter exile of the Jewish people, did not stop at the western shores of the Atlantic and was not barred from entering the United States. The exile — that bitterest of all curses, punishments and sins — cannot and will not ever be a sweet refuge. The curse of the Tochach (admonishment) will never be changed even though Reform and Yeshiva men alike rip out its pages from their Torahs. "And the L-rd shall scatter thee among all peoples... and among these nations shall thou have no peace." How we ignore those Torah parts that disturb our tranquility! How superb we are at rationalizing them away! How angry we become at those who persist in speaking about it. How we prefer to create the myth of American Jewish bliss that nothing can disturb since "it cannot happen here!" but, the reality is that it will because it must, because the All Mighty knows full well that unless we are forced to, we will never go willingly back to the Land. And the reality of Soviet Jewry is that never since Stalin have they faced such a potential for pogroms and physical threats. The illusion was that public protests and demonstrations could only hurt and when Jewish militants disproved that, the myth arose that it was really the twice-a-year establishment picnics and the respectable protests that had been the true cause of the sudden emigration flow and that became a delusion that everything would always remain as a permanent victory. But, the reality is that Jewish refusal to mount ever-greater attacks on détente and Jewish betrayal of Henry Jackson and now the worst perfidy of them all — the Israeli and Jewish treachery and selling out of all Soviet Jews who will not go to Israel — are all things that are aiding a potential Holocaust for Soviet Jewry. Where is the sense of urgency, where is the note of emergency? They are the realities and in the delusion that is born of such apathy, we prefer not to see the danger and be forced to act and do unpleasant things. We are a people that dearly loves to fool itself and deeply resents those who refuse to allow us to. But the reality is here and it is clear. Jewish destiny and Jewish history are not things of chance, of permutations and combinations. They are directed and ordained and we cannot avoid that which shall be unless we do that which should be. A refusal to be Jewish under the pretense of being "practical" will only make us un-Jewish and the most impractical of peoples. Faith. Only this is the key to the redemption and salvation of the Jew and how tragic it is that from one end of the spectrum to the other, from the secularist and Marxist Jew to the pious, practitioner of ritual in the yeshivas, real faith and real understanding of this era and the call of Jewish destiny is so lacking. It is the era of the final redemption that can come so quickly and so magnificently if only we are prepared to believe in the G-d of history, the Jewish Creator of all and director of that which will be. There is a Jewish destiny that awaits us and this is ours for the asking and taking. The Messiah knocks and the door waits to be opened if only we turn the key. The key is faith; real faith. Faith based on courage and boldness and sacrifice. Faith that is more that lip service but is measured by three intensely practical concrete yardsticks:
Three acts of faith that can absolve us of our three transgressions. Only thus can we be practical, realistic, pragmatic. Only by being Jewish can we stop being ridiculously mystical and believe that our salvation lies in the hands of the gentile. We are a people that is different, that is chosen, that is great, that can never be destroyed. Why do we persist in refusing to recognize ourselves? Why, if we are giants, do we insist on being dwarfs? 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 This essay is taken from the magazine of the authentic Jewish Idea, January 1977. |
|
PROSECUTING AMERICAN 'WAR CRIMES'
Posted by Boris Celser, November 28, 2009. |
|
This was written by Daniel Schwammenthal and it appeared
November 26, 2009 in the Wall Street Journal Mr. Schwammenthal is an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe. |
|
The Hague Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressed "great regret" in August that the U.S. is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court (ICC). This has fueled speculation that the Obama administration may reverse another Bush policy and sign up for what could lead to the trial of Americans for war crimes in The Hague. The ICC's chief prosecutor, though, has no intention of waiting for Washington to submit to the court's authority. Luis Moreno Ocampo says he already has jurisdiction — at least with respect to Afghanistan. Because Kabul in 2003 ratified the Rome Statute — the ICC's founding treaty — all soldiers on Afghan territory, even those from nontreaty countries, fall under the ICC's oversight, Mr. Ocampo told me. And the chief prosecutor says he is already conducting a "preliminary examination" into whether NATO troops, including American soldiers, fighting the Taliban may have to be put in the dock. "We have to check if crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide have been committed in Afghanistan," Mr. Ocampo told me. "There are serious allegations against the Taliban and al Qaeda and serious allegations about warlords, even against some who are connected with members of the government." Taking up his inquiry of Allied soldiers, he added, "there are different reports about problems with bombings and there are also allegations about torture." It was clear who the targets of these particular inquiries are but the chief prosecutor shied away from spelling it out. Asked repeatedly whether the examination of bombings and torture allegations refers to NATO and U.S. soldiers, Mr. Ocampo finally stated that "we are investigating whoever commits war crimes, including the group you mentioned." The fact that he avoided a straightforward "I am looking into possible war crimes committed by American soldiers" showed that Mr. Ocampo is aware of the enormity of crossing this legal and political bridge. Appointed in 2003 for a nine-year period, the 57-year-old Argentinian has — so far — established a record of cautious jurisprudence. Mr. Ocampo is famous in his home country for prosecuting military juntas as well as starring in a reality program where he adjudicated private disputes. And in his first six years at the ICC, he pursued real evildoers. He indicted Ugandan rebel Joseph Kony, militia leaders from the Congo and Sudan's President Omar al-Bashir, responsible for the genocide in Darfur. Yet collecting information about possible war crimes by American soldiers smacks of just the sort of politicized prosecution critics of the ICC had always warned about. Mr. Ocampo remained tight-lipped about the specifics of his preliminary examination. Asked whether waterboarding — a practice that simulates drowning without causing lasting physical harm — is a form of torture produced a telling "no comment." Yet if the Obama administration considers this practice torture, one has to wonder if the ICC's chief prosecutor would give it his stamp of approval. There is also the issue of whether Predator strikes of unmanned drones targeting terrorist leaders in Afghanistan and Pakistan — as carried out in the very first week of the Obama presidency — are part of the bombings he's looking into. Mr. Ocampo chuckled and answered evasively. "We have people around the world concerned about this," he said, and when pressed, added, "Whatever the gravest war crimes are that have been committed, we have to check." "Gravest" is the operative word here. The court was established to "end impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community," as stated on the ICC's Web site. This would suggest that even if U.S. soldiers have committed war crimes by the prosecutor's definition, the ICC would have no reason to get involved as those transgressions would surely be insignificant compared to the butchery in places like Sudan or Congo. Mr. Ocampo's own words, though, suggested that he disagrees. I asked him if he was going to prosecute the worst crimes in his jurisdiction or the worst crimes in a particular case, such as Afghanistan, irrespective of how they compare to crimes around the world. He paused before answering. "Normally," he said (another pause) "we select situations which are grave, for instance when I choose. . ." Mr. Ocampo didn't finish the sentence, sighed and began afresh: "Both [scenarios] are right. Normally, we open investigations in the worst situation in the world and in some cases [countries] we investigate the worst situation." This is an expansive and controversial interpretation of the court's mandate, one that may put an end to the debate about whether former President George W. Bush, fearing just such judicial activism, was justified in unsigning the Rome Statute his predecessor, Bill Clinton, had endorsed. Although the prosecutor's preliminary examination may not result in a formal investigation of Americans, the mere potential of a legal confrontation between the court in The Hague and Washington should be disconcerting to the White House, not to mention to all Americans. In any event, the ICC's very existence is already changing the way Western nations fights wars. Mr. Ocampo recounted how a legal adviser to NATO told him that troops these days are trained to realize that, in case of transgressions, they could be arrested and brought to the ICC on war crimes charges with the help of evidence provided by NATO itself. "That is the new world," Mr. Ocampo said proudly. I asked the obvious follow-up. "If this is the 'new world,' why do you bother collecting information about NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan?" Why, in other words, when his task is to end the impunity for the worst war crimes, does he spend his limited resources on the most advanced democracies in the world — which operate under strict rules of engagement, have their own chain-of-command investigations and swift prosecution of criminals? Mr. Ocampo got slightly irritated. "You are suggesting that we are a court only for the Third World. That's what the Arab world said about Bashir, that we are using double standards," he explained. "I said no, I prosecute whoever is in my jurisdiction. I cannot allow that we are a court just for the Third World. If the First World commits crimes, they have to investigate, if they don't, I shall investigate. That's the rule and we have one rule for everyone." Mr. Ocampo — who has a photo of himself with the head of the Arab League, Amr Moussa, on his windowsill — could have pointed out to his Arab interlocutors that the real double standard was their own complaining about alleged Western aggression against Muslims while they protect Sudan's Bashir, the greatest butcher of Muslims in modern history. The fact that Mr. Ocampo mentioned the Sudanese perpetrator of genocide in the same breath with alleged crimes of NATO soldiers shed light on what the International Criminal Court may have in store for the U.S. in the future. Boris Celser is a Canadian. Contact him at celser@telusplanet.net |
|
IF THEY VOTED TO ADMIT ISRAEL TO THE UNITED NATIONS TODAY...
Posted by Perry Ashley, November 28, 2009. |
|
On the eve of the 62nd anniversary of United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 (the Partition Plan for Palestine to create a Jewish and an Arab state), Danny Ayalon, Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel said "If there was a vote to admit Israel to the United Nations today, there is no doubt in my mind that we would not get in." Ayalon also said that in 1949, when Israel was admitted, two-thirds of the nations represented at the United Nations were democratic, whereas today the opposite is true. "Many of these nations are dictatorial and human-rights abusers who form an automatic majority against us which is formed by political expediency and group-think," Ayalon said. "If the Arabs or Palestinians wanted to pass a resolution claiming that the earth is flat, this would be assured of a majority." The Deputy Foreign Minister also talked about how Israel has to make creative strategies to counter this situation. He made the comments at a forum sponsored by Hadar: Israel Council for Civic Action, at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center in Jerusalem To see more of the speech, please click on the link below
Contact Perry Ashley by email at ashley.perry@mfa.gov.il |
|
PART 2: ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT IN THE ERA OF THE BIG LIE TECHNIQUE; ARAB
TERRORISM NEAR HEBRON; BARGHOUTI IS HOW POPULAR AMONG HIS PEOPLE?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 27, 2009. |
|
PART 2. ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT IN THE BIG LIE ERA. EXAMPLES Like the press, the Internet has become an arena for ideological combat, though people still think of it as a source of information. Truth and knowledge may fall by the wayside. A small percentage of readers key in whatever insults they can imagine, against author or source. Sometimes they just pass judgment on the author. They do not promote any exchange of ideas. There is no point to their comments. For example, they accuse me of being a paid Israeli agent. Amusing, but sad that they can sink to nasty libel. Sometimes there is just nastiness. There is no good reason for personalizing their comments, especially since they do not know the author. For one thing, they accuse me of lying. It doesn't occur to them that someone can have studied the issue and honestly disagree with them. They will claim that I do not know the subject but also that I know the subject and will not admit their truth. Alternatively, they cover their own dissimulation by accusing opponents of it. Citing counter-arguments that I already have disproved, sometimes in the same article they comment about, they urge me to "admit" the case against Israel. How can they expect me to admit what I have just disproved? That is a failure of logic on their part. Another failure of logic is to denounce Israeli defensive measures, such as checkpoints, without seeming to understand that those measures were forced on Israel by Arab terrorism. They should blame Arab terrorism as the cause of checkpoints. They do not blame Arab terrorism for its many crimes. It is they who do not admit obvious truths. These illogical responses are not just by my readers. Human rights organizations and the State Dept. also make such errors, even after having been advised of the errors. Truth is no object, to them, either. In a failure of chronological logic, some critics assert that the Israeli presence in the Territories caused terrorism. They seem unaware that terrorism preceded the Israeli take-over of the Territories. And Arab aggression caused the Israeli take-over. Terrorism now is a continuation of terrorism earlier. What came later can't cause what came earlier. Elementary logic. They do not grasp it. Some of the comments are frankly antisemitic. I have explained the rules to readers, that the Examiner does not tolerate insults. The critics would not submit insulting comments to the New York Times. They know that newspaper would not publish them. I delete them. Too bad those critics do not try to contribute to adult discussion. If they disagree with decorum, their comments stay. Some complain of censorship, when their nasty posts are deleted. They imagine they have a right to force nasty remarks upon a publisher. How absurd! It reveals either lack of understanding of democracy or an attack upon civilized behavior. One tells me I cannot properly judge the Goldstone report without having read the whole report. I explained how, from numerous admissions by and about the Goldstone mission and the UN, from reading its conclusions and many excerpts, from understanding its sources and the material that it copied, from noting that one of those sources, Human Right Watch, has recanted several of its accusations, from logical analysis, and from knowledge of the situation, I could judge the UN effort. Nevertheless, he keeps repeating his claim. That means he keeps turning into that blind alley, because all he cares about is having something to accuse one of, not to discuss. I think such people suffer from a deliberate inability to learn contrary notions. This deliberate inability to learn contrary notions prompts critics to comment about the general Muslim-Israel conflict, as if in answer to my specific points. That is either a failure of logic on their part, implicit admission that they do not know about those specifics, or a ploy for changing the topic. The general points they make I have refuted. Their bringing them up, again, makes no sense. I have tried to engage them in debate, but they ignore my specifics, change the topic, repeat what I have refuted, and inject more churlishness. It doesn't pay to bother with them. If I report a specific war crime by Hamas, the anti-Israel critics retort by asserting a general war crime effort by Israel. They remind me of when I condemned some move by the Soviet Union, and Communist "fellow travelers" replied, "What about Little Rock?" (A locus of school segregation.) Arkansas had segregation, but did that excuse Soviet purges? As for Israel, I had explained that it fought more honorably than all other armies, did not commit war crimes, kept civilian casualties low, but not being omniscient, did make some battlefield errors, bound to happen in war. The critics probably did not read my refutation of their general doctrine. They dabble, picking out very few samples of my 1,400 articles. That leaves them in a poor position to judge the whole opus. Nor do they want to be in such a position. They reject in general and in specifics whatever runs contrary to their ideology. Prejudiced in their review, they do not realize how little basis there is for their views. When I discuss the specific reasons that the Israeli presence in the Territories is legal and proper, they ignore my points and just assert what my points explain are not correct. They go on to tell me that since most of the world now agrees with them, I must be wrong. But the world did not come up with new arguments. It came up with new or more widespread prejudice and vested interests. Bandwagon propaganda, does not persuade an intelligent person. It reflects badly on its disseminator. Truth cannot be determined by vote. Arabs spread blood libel against Israel, as I report, but so far my readers have not joined in. However, neither have the critics expressed disapproval of those libels. Where is their moral fiber, they who claim to represent ethics? They have the same moral lapse as Goldstone, in accusing Israel (erroneously) of war crimes, but exhibiting no indignation for the obvious war crimes by Hamas, which fired thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians and endangered their own civilians. Since their ethical bias or blindness is apparent, they forfeit credibility. Ethics, credibility, truth — they make much of it. However, they have made no comment about my demonstrating that Goldstone witnesses contradicted themselves, were proved to have lied, were sent by Hamas, and were not vetted. Likewise about my showing that the Palestinian Authority makes statements in Arabic indoctrinating its people in bigotry and war, while making more pleasing statements in English to Sec. Clinton. Like Clinton, the critics assert that Abbas recognizes Israel and wants peace, assertions that I disproved by quoting Abbas. The blood libels by Arab leaders forfeit credibility, but the critics ignore it. History, they simply pervert. During the wars I lived past, the news about Arab aggression and Arab flight was clear. As memory fades or witnesses die, the critics call it Israeli aggression and expulsion of Arabs. They revise the historical record to suit their prejudice. They coin misleading terminology that implicitly makes the Arab case: "Palestinian" nationality, "West Bank," "occupied," "settlement" within an existing and historically Jewish city. Israeli leftists and the New York Times use adjectives such as "extremist" to denigrate opponents. They constantly lament in behalf of the Palestinian Arabs, but ignore the oppression of those Arabs by their rulers. Their rulers run dictatorial or even totalitarian, regimes. That means murder, embezzlement, arrest of dissidents, lower status for women, sacrificing their own people a human shields, making war instead of peace, etc.. Critics' silence about that indicates lack of compassion for the people they claim to champion. If they do not care about the Palestinian Arabs, then they must be against Israel out of sordid motives. Enough, for now. ISRAELI MINI-CABINET APPROVES PARTIAL BUILDING FREEZE IN JUDEA-SAMARIA Israel's Cabinet approved PM Netanyahu's proposal for a 10-month freeze in new building permits in Judea-Samaria, except for buildings needed to serve the existing population. The freeze reportedly would apply even to: "...building a fence around a yard, a balcony on the second floor of a home, an extension to the back of a house, or even a porch or pergola over the front steps — if it is carried out anywhere in Judea and Samaria." Jewish community leaders in the Territories complain that to win election, Netanyahu had promised to reverse the prior regimes' withdrawal policies. They consider this freeze a betrayal. They and others worry that the 10-month period would be extended. Some have noticed that he has caved in on other matters of principle. They suggest replacing his regime. Min. Benny Begin countered that Netanyahu has not offered a withdrawal, as did Ehud Barak, when he was prime Minister. Community leaders do not consider this freeze new. The Defense Minister has withheld approval of most new housing construction since taking office. His disapproval included public buildings such as classrooms and nurseries for toddlers. In many cases, construction basically was approved, but Defense Min. Barak withheld his final signature, apparently the last step. [Is he toying with people, again? The government earlier had allowed construction to proceed, but withheld final authorization for no apparent reason, and then indignantly rebuked "illegal" construction.] PM Netanyahu said he made the proposal to show that Israel is serious about wanting peace negotiations. The State Dept. praised the Netanyahu regime for going further than any prior Israeli regime, but would prefer he have gone all the way. Abbas called the proposal insufficient. He still refuses to negotiate. Dr. Aaron Lerner, head of IMRA, said that the freeze "only serves to encourage more pressure for Israeli concessions in the future (www.imra.org.il, 11/26). In earlier reports, I had noted that the Netanyahu regime admitted having imposed an informal freeze. Including even a fence in the freeze seems excessive. The last time nationalists brought down his regime, they ended up with one more appeasement-minded. Concern about the 10-month period being extended makes sense, because if negotiations are not concluded in that time, can you imagine Netanyahu ending the freeze that he had imposed in order to induce negotiations? There is no reason Abbas could not negotiate without these demands. They amount to blackmail. THE FREEZE IN PRACTICE "Makor Rishon correspondent Ariel Kahane reports in today's edition that last week Minister of Housing and Construction Ariel Atias (Shas) presented Jerusalem construction plans to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu including 130 units in Har Homa, 30 in Pisgat Ze'ev and 20 in Ramot and that Netanyahu allowed Atias only to issue the tender for the 20 in Ramot and instructed Atias not to issue other tenders. The instruction, According to Kahane, effectively voided the decision his mini-cabinet of 7 had made before to implement the construction plans in Pisgat Ze'ev." The government replied that it already had approved hundreds of applications in eastern Jerusalem. Min. Atlas explains that that approval was an earlier stage, but PM Netanyahu disapproved most of the first 180 in the next stage (www.imra.org.il, 11/27). Leaving several stages of approval up to total government discretion allows it to block later what earlier it seems to have approved. This enables the regime to appease critics while pretending to please supporters. It hides intent, for a while. (For more on construction in Jerusalem, go to
HALF-TRUTHS ON ARAB-ISRAEL NEGOTIATIONS "...the claims of each side amount to half-truths, as the other is the first to note," writes Ethan Bronner of the New York Times. [An old polemicist trick is to claim that one is moderate if one's stance is in between those of the two sides', who then are called extreme. Here Mr. Bronner illogically implies that when both sides accuse the other of half-truths, then both sides committed half-truths.] "In recent years, the international community has demanded that Israel stop building on Jewish communities where the Palestinian Arabs want a state, and that those Arabs "dismantle terrorist networks and end violent attacks on Israelis." [That is a nice-sounding equivalency, until one realizes that the "international community" is equating murder with building houses. That the Palestinian Arabs want a state somewhere does not give them authority to insist on it. Their wish is not Israel's command.] It might seem that both sides complied, "and peace talks would move forward." Israel announced a 10-month freeze on Jewish building in the Territories, and the Arabs "essentially" ceased violent attacks. The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) has been keeping order in its cities for almost a year. But that is misleading. The freeze is not total. Its exception for public service buildings includes "the kind of 'natural growth" banned by the dormant 'road map' for peace." The IDF points out that it took the nightly IDF raids into the P.A. cities to stop the terrorism. Typically, there are 15 raids a night. Israeli officials state that since the P.A. has no authority in Gaza, it cannot be said to have dismantled terrorist networks. Based on having kept order, the P.A. asks for more withdrawals of Israeli troops. An Israeli commander answers that to keep the P.A. from becoming another rocket launching site like Gaza, Israel must have troops on the ground there (11/27, A16). The half-truth that the P.A. stopped terrorism was promoted by the New York Times. The Times still promotes that notion, as by seldom reporting Israeli raids and the continuing terrorist attacks, such as the one in Kiryat Arba that I reported the other day. Then it reports that terrorism has been repressed by the P.A.. Israel's government and major media also contributed to that half-truth. Trying to encourage Arab anti-terrorism, and trying to put a good face on matters, they praised P.A. maintenance of order. By contrast, I reported the P.A. effort as against street crime and hardly against terrorism. I have reported the continuing P.A. indoctrination in jihad, threats to commit terrorism, and attacks, as well as P.A. failure to disarm the Fatah militia. Any efforts the P.A. undertook against the Hamas militia was self-preservation, not anti-terrorism. Therefore, even excluding Hamas from the discussion, the P.A. cannot be said to have dismantled terrorist militias. It actually recruited many terrorists into the P.A. police. Arming terrorists that way is not dismantling the terrorist infrastructure, it is subsidizing it. The Times ignores that point. The NY Times refers to the "international community." What is that? Another half-truth. The Security Council cannot handle most international security measures. Its members sabotage efforts to do so. But the UN can gang up on Israel. Does that organization of vested interests and log-rolling lobbies have moral authority? Not earned. By what rationale does it take up the Arab demand that only Jews should stop building in Judea-Samaria. Why do the Times and the President make that a parallel demand to ending terrorism? The U.S. does suggest that the P.A. could negotiate without a total freeze, but where is the world indignation against the P.A. for stalling negotiations unless its demand for one be accepted? Mr. Bronner made up the notion of PM Netanyahu's announcement of a building freeze being a misleading half-truth. Netanyahu did not claim it was total. He specified what it includes, what it excludes, and his reason for it. He was open about it. If anyone committed a half-truth, it was the NY Times for pretending that Israel was pretending. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel 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:
|
|
ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT IN THE ERA OF THE BIG LIE TECHNIQUE; ARAB
TERRORISM NEAR HEBRON; BARGHOUTI IS HOW POPULAR AMONG HIS PEOPLE?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 27, 2009. |
|
ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT IN THE ERA OF THE BIG LIE TECHNIQUE We live in the period of the industrial revolution. The current emphasis on services and computers has prompted some to call this era "post-industrial" or "the computer age." I think we also can call this the era of the "big lie technique." The "big lie technique" characterized Nazi propaganda. The bigger the lie, and the more often repeated, the more believed. The Nazis used that technique effectively against the Jewish people and others. So did the Soviet Communists. For me, those were contemporary events that I well remember. Inspired by a combination of Islamic, Nazi, and Communist tactics, many Arabs also employ the "big lie technique" against Israel, the Jewish people, and the U.S.. They inspire Western leftists to adopt the lies about Israel without questioning the whole campaign based on Jew-hating prejudice. Governments that appease the Arabs, or that, like the State Dept., an heir to Christian and especially missionary prejudice, promote their own anti-Israel bias. Now that the Internet has made anonymous, networked, and swift communication available to uneducated people and bigots, big lies get disseminated widely. Counter-reaction is weak. The major media and schools systems did not do their jobs of informing people and training them to think and question assumptions. They did not inculcate wholesome values. Colleges allowed youths' impulse for challenge and reform to become nihilistic and yet imagine they were idealistic. Not only did the academic world lose its integrity. So did publishers. There always were rogue books, but now, so many embrace the big lies, that it is difficult for people to know what the truth is. Many don't care. They stick with their ideology against observable evidence, just as did hard-core Communists. There is little societal challenge to the mass of libel encircling our planet, absorbing people's energy, and diverting their attention from real problems. ARAB TERRORISM NEAR HEBRON This is not a case of "settler violence" and of Hebron Jewry attacks on Arabs. A Palestinian Arab walked into Kiryat Arba, which is in the Israeli-controlled part of Judea and practically adjoins the Jewish sector of Hebron. He pulled out a knife and stabbed two Jews, strangers. A soldier stopped him by shooting. Noting that the area had been quiet recently, the Hebron Jewish community spokesman suggests that the action was not an individual action an authorized reaction to Israel's acquiescence to U.S. pressure to freeze Jewish construction in the Territories and to renew negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. The answer, according to the spokesman [David Wilder], is to reject U.S. pressure and to expand Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria (11/26). His suspicion is not a certainty. However, there has been a pattern of terrorism following Israeli concessions. There is sense for Israel to foreclose some terrorism, by absorbing more of the Territories and the vacant areas in between Jewish towns. BARGHOUTI IS HOW POPULAR AMONG HIS PEOPLE? Marwan Barghouti is thought to be among the convicted terrorists Israel may release, so Khalid Abu Toameh of the Jerusalem Post analyzed how popular he is. The analysis includes Fatah rumors about motives and popularity. They often are falsely conspiratorial and self-serving. I omitted the more speculative ones. Barghouti wants to get out and become president of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.). Polls show he would win. He represents the [aging] "young guard" whom Abbas has been keeping down. The young guard [says it] opposes corruption. Barghouti wants to reconcile with Hamas. The favorable polls may be mistaken. Popular? He headed Fatah's legislative ticket that lost to Hamas. The esteem for him may be just general solidarity with Israeli prisoners. Other young guard eminences may fear his competition. Skeptical Palestinian Arabs ask whether he has Israeli backing. "Since when does Israel allow a security prisoner to give media interviews or hold meetings with Israeli, Palestinian, European and American officials in his prison cell?" (www.imra.org.il, 11/26). Good question. Why are only a few right-wing Israelis asking that question? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
A CROCODILE'S DESERT
Posted by David Wilder, November 27, 2009. |
|
Another hour and a half and it will be Shabbat. The Sabbath starts early this time of the year. I've been thinking back. A week ago today I was in New York, staying with friends in Queens, getting ready for our annual Hebron Fund dinner. Shabbat there was very pleasant; a quiet and holy atmosphere, nice people, and of course, great food. Saturday morning I spoke in a neighborhood synagogue. The people were very warm and the Rabbi's introduction almost left me with little to say. But, spokespeople, as it goes, always have something to say, and so I did. But the 'interesting' part of the prayer service, as far as I was concerned, wasn't my speech. Rather it was what the wise Rabbi mentioned to me after my 'aliyah,' making the blessings over a portion of the Torah reading. According to Jewish law, when a person has survived a 'dangerous event' he or she recites a special blessing of thanksgiving, called "HaGomel." Plane trips, being over a great distance, also require recitation of this blessing, upon arrival at one's destination, when receiving an 'aliyah.' So following the final blessing over the Torah portion, I dutifully repeated that particular blessing, thanking G-d for my safe arrival in New York. When I returned to my seat and shook hands with the Rabbi, smiling he said: "you, who live in Hebron, and walk the streets of Hebron every day — here in New York you have to give thanks to G-d for your safety!? That certainly is an interesting way to view our lives, and in truth, we don't even pay attention to that thought of 'walking the streets of Hebron' and the seeming 'dangers' involved. After all, that's our life. But.... Last week in New York, and yesterday, 'covering' a terrorist attack at the entrance to Kiryat Arba, at the gas station where I fill up every time my tank gets thirsty. An Arab stepped out of a taxi, holding a knife, and according to some reports, also an axe, starting screaming, not 'HaGomel,' rather Allah HuAkbar — and started slashing. Only true Divine miracle prevented anyone from being killed. That kind of event brings a person back to 'everyday reality' very quickly. But, thinking back is not only yesterday or last week. This Shabbat, exactly seven years ago, three terrorists attacked Jews outside the south gate of Kiryat Arba, leaving 12 dead, including 3 civilians from Kiryat Arba's emergency squad, and nine officers and soldiers, among them, Col. Dror Weinberg, commander of the Judea Brigade, the highest ranking officer killed during the "Oslo War," aka the 2nd intifada. Thinking about, not only those men we lost, but the bravery of those who stood and fought, and finally killed the terrorists, still sends chills down my spine. Several of those heroes are from Hebron, but the person I remember most was a Druze officer name Siach, who drove over two and a half hours from his home in the north of Israel to Hebron to take part in the mission. Arriving and hearing that the last terrorist was still hiding on the roof of a house, he climbed up by himself, all alone, and faced off with the terrorist, killing him before the Arab killed him. Courage and faith so strong; it's beyond my human comprehension. And yet, with the terror, past and present, we continue to live 'normal lives.' The dinner last week on Saturday night at Citi Field in Flushing Meadows was a tremendous success, and in some ways, even an answer to terror. How so? I don't just measure the success only in terms of dollars and cents, or number of people attending. Of course, both are important; that cannot be denied. And in these respects I think the event was also successful. However, at least this year, success had another aspect — that being, the very fact that dinner took place, where it took place. American and Israel left wing organizations, Jewish and Arab, worked very hard to have the event cancelled. They wrote letters to the NY Mets, owners of Citi Field, initiated media events and protests, demanding that the event not take place, at least not at the home of the Mets. Newspaper and internet accounts, in Israel and in New York, were publicized. To no avail. The Mets and the major league baseball commissioner refused to kowtow to these cowardly demands, and this is, in my opinion, part of the overwhelming success of the event. It would be nice to see others, especially here in Israel, learn from the Mets, and refuse to accede to these types of terror. Like maybe our own Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu?! Last night minister Limor Livnat stated in no uncertain terms that the Israeli government has fallen on 'an awful American administration' and that the Prime Minister is going through heavy hardships and is 'under a lot of pressure' from the Obama administration. So, what to do? To stand up, as did a soldier yesterday who shot the axe-wielding terrorist, and as did Siach 7 years ago and say "NO" — we will not accept this, and do something about it, or to cave in, to surrender, to declare a 'construction freeze' and again acquiesce to diplomatic terror? I know what the answer is, as did those 12 men seven years ago, who gave their lives for Am Yisrael, for the people of Israel. As did all the people who today filled up their tanks at that same gas station where yesterday an Arab wounded two, attempting to murder them. You cannot run away, you cannot hide your head in the sand, you cannot make believe that ignoring it will only make things better. As someone said to me today, it's like feeding the crocodile, hoping that if you feed him long enough he won't eat you. It doesn't work that way because in the end, you wind up being the crocodile's desert. Advice to Bibi: take note of Obama's big teeth and hearty appetite. Shabbat Shalom. David Wilder is spokesman of The Jewish Community of Hebron. You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886. |
|
THE CRIME OF BEING A ZIONIST
Posted by Bryna Berch, November 27, 2009. |
|
This essay was written by Karl Pfeifer,
a Vienna-based journalist.
It appeared today in Haaretz
|
|
I am an 81-year-old survivor of the Holocaust. Strange things happened to me last week in Germany. A journalist, I had been invited by a student organization at Bielefeld University and College to give a lecture on "Racism and Anti-Semitism in Hungary." My host was the left-wing anti-fascist group Antifa AG at the Bielefeld campus, located in the German state of North Rhine-Westphalia. My lecture was scheduled to take place on November 19 at a youth center that serves as the home of a number of left-wing organizations. The event had been announced in late October, but two days before I was to appear, at a meeting of people who frequent the center, several raised an objection about my speaking there. They said they had received information that during Israel's War of Independence, when I served in the Palmach (the pre-state elite strike force of the Haganah), I had participated in a massacre in a Palestinian village. They went so far as to allege that I myself had actively participated in the killing. Those accusing me did not name the place where this alleged massacre was committed, or provide any other details, and even acknowledged that their information was incomplete. But when pushed for corroboration, they settled the matter by explaining that "Pfeifer is a Zionist." At the same time, in an apparent — and bizarre — attempt to appear even-handed, those in attendance resolved that they also would not be willing to host someone who had been a member of the militant Palestinian organization Black September in the 1970s. Of course, no one at the youth center asked me to respond to the accusations before they decided to rescind the invitation. Nor have any of them been willing to answer the questions of German journalists who learned about the incident regarding just why they excluded me. I only learned about what happened because it was reported to someone in Antifa by two of its members who had been present at the decisive meeting. Fortunately, my hosts were able to organize an alternate space with limited notice, and I gave my lecture in the end. My subject was Hungary, where a recent resurgence of racist acts and statements can be observed. This includes the murder of eight Roma (Gypsies) in racial attacks during the past two years, and the shocking anti-Jewish verbal attacks in the right-wing media there and on YouTube. As for me, I did indeed serve in the Palmach and the Israel Defense Forces from 1946 until 1950, after arriving in Mandatory Palestine in 1943. And although I left Israel in 1950, I am proud of my service as a soldier there, when we were defending ourselves against aggression and fighting for the right to have our own state. I did not participate in any massacres, but I know that improper acts were carried out by both sides in the conflict between Israel and its neighbors, as happens during wartime. But the comparison of the Palmach with Black September, which carried out murderous acts of terrorism against civilians in the name of the Palestinian struggle, is an outrageous and ignorant one. To accuse someone of having participated in a "massacre" — in this case, with no details and no proof — is an act of projection that is unfortunately not unusual in certain European circles. The best-known and by far the most widespread example of projection of guilt is the defamation of Israelis as the "Nazis of today." This is one of the most objectionable forms of anti-Semitism in the era after Auschwitz. As far as I can tell, my real crime apparently is being a "Zionist," which I can only understand as being guilty of being a Jew who defended himself and who favors the existence of a Jewish and democratic state. In Germany, I had the feeling that I was being judged by those arrogant anti-Semites not on the basis of what I have done or am doing, but for what I am. |
|
NOT YET A DONE DEAL
Posted by Daily Alert, November 27, 2009. |
|
This comes from the Daily Alert and was written by Amos
Harel. It appeared today in Haaretz
|
|
Arabic media outlets reported yesterday that the Gilad Shalit deal will be completed after Id al-Adha, the Muslim feast of the sacrifice, which ends on Monday. The Syrian press, however, reported that the head of Hamas' Damascus-based political bureau, Khaled Meshal, took an even harder line than the organization's senior officials in Gaza, as he has done at most of the critical junctures in the protracted negotiations. According to Syrian publications, with Gaza's leadership under pressure to present an achievement for its besieged population, Meshal is loath to forgo even a single, small potential concession for the sake of a Hamas victory in the internal struggle against Fatah. In the meantime, Shalit's family continued to meet with cabinet ministers and rabbis, exactly as in the previous round of talks in March. It's an embarrassing, not to say humiliating, spectacle. A veteran European intelligence official with a great deal of experience in captive-release deals recently spoke with an Israeli colleague. He said he found it hard to understand what Israel was up to. "Why don't you end this wretched affair already? Look at the blows you inflicted on Hamas and the siege you imposed on Gaza because of one kidnapped soldier. All you have done is build up the organization. Who would even have looked at Gaza if it had not continued to hold the soldier?" he asked. Israeli decision makers have great professional respect for the German mediators in the three deals negotiated in the past decade (the release of Elhanan Tennenbaum and the return of the bodies of the soldiers snatched from Har Dov in 2004; the 2008 return of the bodies of soldiers captured at the start of the Second Lebanon War in 2008; and the current talks for the return of Shalit, possibly this year). But the mediator's interests are not identical to Israel's. Despite the Germans' deep humanitarian commitment to resolving the Shalit issue, it's worth remembering that released Hamas prisoners are liable to strike here, not in Europe. It's Israel that has something to lose. But despite everything, a deal now appears to be closer than ever. On the Israeli side, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to end the problem once and for all; on the Palestinian side, 11 months after the drubbing it took in Operation Cast Lead, Hamas in Gaza needs a success that will go some way toward offsetting its failure then. If Netanyahu goes for the deal — which the Palestinians must approve — he will have the support of Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi. Ashkenazi is playing up his commitment to bringing home Shalit, a combat soldier. In conversations with soldiers and officers in field units, they express support for a deal. But senior officers do not all agree: Two officers, from two different units, expressed anger regarding what they see as Israeli society's obsession with Shalit and concerned that the exchange will be a shot in the arm to the terror organizations. A few days ago a simple but effective clip objecting to the proposed deal began making the rounds on the Internet. It cuts between the recent video of Shalit issued by his captors with images of sites of terror attacks, and ends with smiling photos of their victims, many of them young. The photos are a painful reminder, not least because the Shin Bet security service is known to impute the murder of dozens of Israelis to terrorists who were released in the Tennenbaum deal. For a long time Israeli leaders debated between settling for a fundamentally humanitarian measure and trying to make the deal part of a strategic arrangement on the Gaza Strip border. On Saturday Hamas proclaimed a full cease-fire, vowing to use force to keep the smaller factions from firing rockets at Israel. This is unlikely to be a coincidence: Hamas undoubtedly expects a quid pro quo in the form of an end to Israel's siege of Gaza in addition to the release of the prisoners. In recent weeks the Obama administration has pressed Netanyahu to extend good-faith gestures to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, intended to compensate for the predicted blow to Fatah's popularity as a result of the deal. Netanyahu's declaration on Wednesday of a 10-month hiatus in settlement construction is not only a tardy response to Washington's requests. The U.S. administration will try to present it as an achievement for Abbas as well, despite the Palestinian Authority's disappointment with East Jerusalem's exclusion from the building freeze. Additional ideas were also raised in talks with the Americans — from transferring responsibility for security to the PA in more areas of the West Bank, to a massive release of Fatah prisoners as a gesture to Abbas. One possible scenario involves delaying by a few months the release of Marwan Barghouti, the emerging successor to Abbas, in order to separate it from the Shalit deal and thus also from a sense of obligation to Hamas. Off-the-shelf attacks The site where Shalit's abduction took place is clearly visible from the observation tower north of Kibbutz Kerem Shalom. Here, on the morning of June 25, 2006, a terrorist squad made its way via a tunnel from the Rafah area and crossed the border. They approached the Israeli forces deployed along the border fence, who were looking west, toward the Gaza Strip, from behind, surprising them. Two of the Palestinians charged the observation tower and were shot dead at its base. Others fired at an armored personnel carrier to the north and also attacked Shalit's Merkava tank. Under cover of the ensuing chaos, a few of the militants crossed back into Gaza with Shalit, who had been slightly injured in the incident. The Hamas cells operating in Rafah and in neighboring Khan Yunis are considered more fanatic, compartmentalized and dangerous than those in the center and the north of the Gaza Strip. Israeli intelligence coverage of the area is less than ideal. The working assumption of the intelligence community is that Hamas, and likewise the smaller Palestinian militant groups, are constantly digging tunnels toward the border. An analysis of previous terror attacks near the fence indicate that in some cases, there was no prior intelligence warning. The Palestinians have become more like Hezbollah in that they are moving from daily attacks to sophisticated, well-planned operations that are less frequent, but have the potential to be more lethal. These could include the incorporation of new tactics, such as firing antitank or antiaircraft missiles into Israeli territory from the tunnels. There is little doubt that the small factions — two of which were involved in Shalit's abduction, but have been been kept away from the negotiations and from enjoying a share in the political spoils by Hamas — will try to emulate the larger organization's success by trying to abduct more soldiers. These are "off-the-shelf attacks," which can be executed within a fairly short time and from close to the border. The big question is whether Hamas itself will seek to challenge Israel again after the swap, or will instead try to engineer a Palestinian "velvet revolution." That would involve exploiting the organization's expected surge in popularity in the wake of the prisoners' release to work against Fatah and toward presidential and parliamentary elections in 2010, in the hope of taking over the West Bank as well. Blood ties This week Colonel Eran Niv, 39, concluded two and a half intense years as commander of the Ephraim Brigade, whose sector includes Qalqilyah and Tul Karm, in the West Bank. "He is a rare example of an officer who can run with a knife in his teeth and think at the same time," says a company commander who served under him. The document summing up his tour of duty as brigade commander is studded with quotations from "Alice in Wonderland" and "Tom Sawyer" — not an everyday occurrence in IDF reports. Even though he came up through the chain of command, as a company and battalion commander in the Nahal paramilitary brigade, Niv, thanks to his technological training, also oversaw the integration of computerized systems in operational activity. He was considering switching from combat to technology when the Second Lebanon War began, spurring him to rush to the aid of his Nahal Brigade buddies at Saluki and Randuriya. "I realized that there was no other option: In a nation that continues to live by the sword, not everyone can do what he wants," Niv said. The most significant event in his military career was probably in November 2002, when terrorists killed 12 Israeli soldiers and security personnel from Kiryat Arba and Hebron, including Hebron Brigade commander Colonel Dror Weinberg. Three Islamic Jihad snipers shot them. Niv, then a battalion commander who was on leave in Tel Aviv, was called to the scene. He organized a team that attacked and killed the militants. In the months that followed he killed more terrorists in short-range firefights after they had killed settlers in the Hebron area. Typically, Niv relates that story in talks which he gives to soldiers in various army courses. His focus is on the importance of conceptual flexibility in this type of situation. Niv also speaks warmly about Hebron. "It's a place with which I have blood ties. I lost soldiers there and I fought shoulder-to-shoulder with settlers." How stable is PA rule in the West Bank? "I don't think anyone can really know," Niv responds. "What I can say is that in 2007 the cities here were in a state of neglect and the louts from Fatah collected protection money and harassed women on the street. Now the PA is demonstrating sovereignty here. A few days ago I visited an amusement park in Tul Karm after having been at an amusement park in Tel Aviv with my daughters on Shabbat. The same Chinese manufacturer sold the equipment to both places." Asked what he has learned from his service, he says: "That there is nothing new under the sun: Good intelligence, operational freedom of action and the separation fence are what prevent terrorism. And if the PA is helping us with this, so much the better." Niv also has a message about the importance of being earnest. "I was a company commander in Gaza after Oslo and I got burned there, like everyone. At that time we didn't know how to behave. Today we insist on every last detail in the agreements with the PA being carried out. There is no rolling of eyes and no backslapping. I am not their pal, but I work with them. Honoring agreements is a far better basis for success than eating hummus together." 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 |
|
BUILD THE LAND OF ISRAEL FUND
Posted by Yaacov Levi, November 27, 2009. |
|
This was written by Yehudit Katzover and Nadia Matar. |
|
The announcement of the building freeze in Judea and Samaria is proof that Netanyahu, to our shame, is following in the path of Ariel Sharon — betraying the will of the Jewish majority that elected a right-wing government, and betraying Eretz Israel. There is only a single goal to the freeze: to persuade the Arabs to participate in negotiations to advance the establishment of the Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria, and thereby relinquish Eretz Israel. There are those among us who say, "These are only words," "This is just tactics with the United States," "Don't worry, the Arabs won't agree to any plan." We cannot make light of words. Netanyahu already failed when he said "two states," which means surrendering Eretz Israel, just like when he said "freeze," which means "construction in Eretz Israel is illegal." Words have power, and they strongly penetrate. If our stance since the Six Day War had been consistent and we had used the suitable words: "This is our land" and had acted accordingly and immediately annexed these portions of the homeland, we would dwell securely in it. Now we must respond powerfully. If we continue with routine life, we will fall victim to the other planned decrees that apparently aim to eliminate the entire Jewish settlement enterprise in Judea and Samaria. in order to establish a Palestinian state here. As is well-known, this would constitute an existential threat to all the small State of Israel. As long as we thought that the State of Israel is a democratic country, we could make do with demonstrations in order to try and influence the government. For a long time, Israel has not been democratic. The leftist policy rules it, despite the voters' desire for nationalism and Zionism. Now we must channel all our energy and strength to the cancellation of the decree, by construction, construction, and more construction. We must build throughout Judea and Samaria, within the settlements, in private houses, and outside the settlements, on the surrounding hills. The call of the hour is therefore to establish a fund for the construction of Eretz Israel, in which millions of dollars will be invested in order to enable continued construction throughout Judea and Samaria. We are convinced that if the left found donors in Israel and abroad who are willing to contribute enormous sums for their slanderous, anti-Israel propaganda activity, that surely there are more donors, friends and lovers of Israel, who will be ready to contribute to the struggle to build the land and materialize the Zionist dream of returning the Jewish people to its land. All the information for the "Construction of Eretz Israel" project is ready. We are in contact with Jewish contractors who are capable of building a 48 square meter house within five days, at a cost of NIS 100,000, or a 70 square meter structure for NIS 200,000. Many young couples are willing to live in such simple structures, on the hills and/or in the settlements. All that is missing is a flow of budgets. If we are successful in raising large sums, resulting in the construction of dozens of new structures throughout Judea and Samaria, this will constitute a Zionist response to the Prime Minister's collapse. They might succeed in destroying one or two structures — we will have to immediately rebuild them, and realize that the building was not for nothing, since the construction of the structure that was later destroyed raised the flag of the struggle and kindled the fervor to continue to build. A week ago, two houses, each costing NIS 250,000, were destroyed in Negohot. Now, five families are waiting to build their homes on the same hill in Negohot. In Mevo Dotan a sheep pen worth NIS 200,000 was destroyed — that very night they began to build a new sheep pen, within the ruins, of much smaller dimensions. If the Build the Land of Israel Fund had already existed, we could have rebuilt the pen in its previous size, and even added housing units for young couples who are standing in line to populate the hills of Judea and Samaria. With stubbornness and devotion for each clod of earth in Eretz Israel we will merit possessing it. In this month of Kislev, let us draw strength from the Maccabees, who heroically and fearlessly violated the decrees of the empire. With G-d's help, we will raise from Israel's friends in the country and abroad the necessary budgets, and we will set forth on a construction drive all over Judea and Samaria. In place of a freeze — construction. In place of halting — breaking through. In place of fallen spirits — we will raise the people's spirit. With G-d's help, this is within our power. Contact Yaacov Levi by email at jlevi_us@yahoo.com |
|
FINALLY, ISRAEL GETS IT!
Posted by Aryeh Zelasko, November 27, 2009. |
|
Joseph Farah rips into those who condone 'blatant ethnic cleansing' of Jews. |
|
For more than five years, I have been conspicuously alone in pointing out the racist, anti-Jewish nature of policies that require the evacuation of Israelis from Gaza, Judea and Samaria and, more lately, the halts on building and repairing homes and businesses owned by Jews in Jerusalem. Finally, someone in Israel has figured this out and called the policies advocated by Barack Obama and the international elite what they are. "Israeli law does not discriminate between Jews, Muslims and Christians or between eastern and western Jerusalem," said Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat. "The demand to halt construction by religion is not legal in the United States or in any other free place in the world. I do not presume that any government would demand to freeze construction in the United States based on race, religion or gender, and the attempt to demand it from Jerusalem is a double standard and inconceivable." Barkat was responding to Obama's remarks on Fox News Channel about the approval of 900 new apartments in the southern Jerusalem community of Gilo as "settlement activity," suggesting, irrationally and irresponsibly, that it justified Palestinian violence. The Palestinian Authority quickly adopted Obama's line to rationalize future terrorist attacks. However, even the most appeasing Israelis — people like Shimon Peres — see Gilo, with its existing population of 30,000 Jews right in the heart of the Israeli capital, as undisputedly Israeli territory, land that will never be negotiated away. It's clear now Obama, like the Muslim world, doesn't believe any Israeli territory is beyond dispute. This is what I have been saying and writing since 2004: No more
ethnic cleansing — not in the Middle East or anywhere else in the
world. — see When the Palestinian Authority demanded that all Jews leave Gaza in anticipation of declaring it to be part of a future Palestinian state, the world did not notice the implications. Why would Jews not be welcome living in a Palestinian state? Because the Palestinian leadership is racist. Why would blatant ethnic cleansing of this sort be embraced by the world when ethnic cleansing in other parts of the world is roundly denounced? Why is there an exception made for Jews? Why is it OK to remove Jews from their homes and businesses in the Middle East? Why is it acceptable to forbid Jews from building and repairing homes and businesses on the basis of their religion? How can this be tolerated, let alone condoned and championed as progressive policy by people like Obama? I made the same point in 2005 — see
What would you say if I told you the United States is backing a plan to uproot forcibly people from their homes because they are Muslim? You would probably be incredulous, I said. You would probably be shocked, I said. You would probably be outraged, I said. And you would be right. Well, rest assured there was no plan backed by the United States to uproot forcibly peaceful Muslims from their homes anywhere in the world. There was, however, a plan to do just that to several thousand peaceful Jews, many of whom have lived for a generation in thriving communities — showcases of prosperity and freedom for their neighbors. This anti-Semitic ethnic cleansing plan was known as the "disengagement" plan in Gaza and parts of the West Bank. There is only one reason these people were displaced — because they are Jews in a land where Jews are not welcome. And the world condoned it. Earlier this year, I pointed it out, again at
In May, Obama announced he would be taking what he and his administration referred to as "a more balanced approach to Middle East policy." I explained what that meant. "It means the U.S. government is now using its clout with Israel to insist Jews, not Israelis, mind you, but Jews, be disallowed from living in East Jerusalem and the historically Jewish lands of Judea and Samaria, often referred to as the West Bank," I wrote. "I want you to try to imagine the outrage, the horror, the outcry, the clamoring, the gnashing of teeth that would ensue if Arabs or Muslims were told they could no longer live in certain parts of Israel — let alone their own country."
I returned to this theme in September after what I called "Obama's
Judenrein speech." See:
"The Nazis had a word for what Barack Obama declared in the United Nations General Assembly last week," I wrote. "When a city or a district or a nation was 'clean of Jews,' it was pronounced 'Judenrein.' The goal of the Nazis was, of course, for all of Europe to be cleansed of Jews — then the whole world." Was I being harsh? Not if you understand the nature of Obama's demand for an end to "Israeli settlements" in Judea, Samaria, East Jerusalem — and, now apparently, the entire city. Since Obama took office in January, the U.S. government has greatly increased pressure on Israel to halt any and all of the following:
Why would the U.S. government want to stop Jews from building homes and businesses in lands that have been under Israel's control for the last 42 years and a part of Israel's history for the last 3,000 years? Because the U.S. government has predetermined that these lands are going to be part of a future Palestinian state — one that will be conspicuously Jew-free. In other words, Barack Obama is in favor of an ethnic-cleansing operation — one that will eventually require the forcible removal of all Jews, no matter how long they have lived in these areas, no matter what they paid for their properties, no matter what. I'm gratified to see an Israeli awakening to what has been the plan from the beginning. Jews in the Middle East are starting to get the picture — if a little late. Aryeh Zelasko lives in Beitar Illit, south of Jerusalem. He is Director of Sales and Marketing of Israel Visit (www.israelvisit.co.il) which provides information and an internet buying facility for American visitors to Israel. |
|
DEAR LORD ROTHSCHILD
Posted by Zalmi Unsdorfer, November 27, 2009. |
|
Dear Lord Rothschild, I mean no personal disrespect to you but feel impelled to write and express my outrage at the sullying of the illustrious Rothschild name and lineage by your son's association with the Gadaffi family. As a Jew and a committed Zionist I have always been aware and immensely proud of the achievements of the Rothschild dynasty and its contribution to my people and its state. But to see the next generation openly socialising with such rabidly anti-Semitic and murderous despots truly sickens me. For our people, no amount of commercial profit or dividend can possibly justify such associations. By what right does young Nat presume to trample and trash a reputation built up over centuries of professional excellence and communal endowment? It truly saddens me to the core. I hope you share the same sentiment ... and perhaps enough shame to do something about it. Contact Zalmi Unsdorfer at http://zalmi.blogspot.com/ |
|
ISRAELI COMMUNISTS AND ANARCHISTS AGAINST ISRAEL
Posted by Israel Academia Monitor, November 27, 2009. |
|
This was written by Dan Barkey, a writer and a poet. |
|
Israeli and Jewish Patriotism, Israeli Anarchist and Communists, and Brest-Litovsk — a condensed anti-Israeli academia Fascist Left tirade. Yes, there is such a thing as patriotism, yes, there is such a thing as Israeli and Jewish Patriotism, and there is such a thing as patriotism without Oppressive Nationalistic Despotism. All this in Israel of today. All this as witnessed in its all-inclusive participatory democracy, which accepts parliament members from among its avowed enemies, as witnessed by its basic democratic freedoms of speech, thought and gathering, and witnessed as well in its high living standards enjoyed by all of its minorities together with its main ethnic group, the Jewish majority, for which the country had been erected. And a country to envy it is already, in spite of its short modern history and of its beleaguered state of affairs. Not for nothing you see hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in its midst, even from Muslim countries from far and near, and not for nothing you don't see hundreds of thousands of legal emigrants from among its Arab minority to their sister countries, which still live in dust and squalor. Certainly not to the Palestinian Authority, and absolutely not to the Gazan Hamastan. But for a few but noisy to an extreme, highly indoctrinated 200 plus persons in Israel that claim the unsavory appellation of Anarchists, and but for a few thousands of hardened Jewish Communists and another few thousands of Arab Extreme National-Communists, which can be compared only to the Hitlerian National-Socialists of Nazi Germany in their depth of hatred for the Jews that provide them with such envied amenities of modern life as described above, all Israelis are patriots, and all jump to attention when "tsav 8" lands in their hands, calling them to army service as reservists in times of need. Add to this their international collaborators screaming at the top of their lungs their hatred for Israel, who are Palestinians in their majority and a handful of self-hating West Coast US Jews, and you have a collection of insanely blind to truth and decency extreme camp that is dead set to wipe Israel from atlas books, for more than that they cannot do. You'll have to trust me on all that I say here about Anarchism and Communism, otherwise you'll have to read volumes of chatterbox babble, of rant and empty vent, full of irresponsible naiveté about the inherent human good nature to be trusted in a lawless, ungoverned world, full of hatred for anything that is civilized, beautiful, good and considerate, decent and honorable by basic, commonsensical, intuitive human norms, in the case of the Anarchists, and full of a determined will to hate with a passion all that is not of the proletariat class and of a proved determined will to annihilate such individuals, in the case of the Communists. Let us start, with a determined and vigorous move, to unveil the shroud of illogical contradiction encasing the Anarchist, Israeli and International, world view, regarding the unsolvable, life and death, Jewish-Muslim/Arab, Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Just the other day I perused some anarchistic literature. Now, I'm confused. Which is not my usual state of mind, I attest to myself with modesty. Why peddling for a Palestinian state, when all they are against is STATE, all and any State? Why clamoring against the alleged theft of Palestinian property by the returning Jews, when all they are against is, you guessed right, property? Didn't Prudhon, Bakunin, Nechayev and the Russian Prince Kropotkin et al, the anarchist infamous fathers, maintained that ALL property is theft? You read right, they hold it that all property is theft. If to follow the modern Israeli Anarchists, helped by their no less violent international collaborators, if Palestinian property is to be sanctified, then will not The Land of Israel, claimed by its lawful owner, the Jewish Nation, be an identical case of sanctified property? Why what is good for the goose is not good for the gander? On the other hand, if all property, including Jewish, is theft, shouldn't we include Palestinian property in it? Equality for all, I say, goose and gander included. If the anarchists Kobi Snitz, and Uri Gordon, an Israeli Jew Muslim
convert and one of the most avowed anti-Israeli anarchist activists if
there were any among them, both academicians preaching their hatred
here and abroad, are able to say with a straight face that their
anti-West Bank Separation Wall demonstrations are non-violent, whereas
policemen are seriously wounded by stones hurled at them in these
demonstrations, then you understand with whom you deal. And I mean
STONES, not gravel, ok? More like boulders. In the US, and probably
not only, stones are considered a lethal weapon. But what are for
them, the local and foreign anarchists, 1,130 Israeli lives,
slaughtered, murdered barbarously and untimely by the Palestinian
terrorists BEFORE the Wall? Nothing, if to judge from their
pooh-poohing dismissal of the Defense Wall logic. What do they care
that this appalling number in itself and its grim meaning was reduced
to 30 in 2006? Not that 30 murdered lives count to naught, but less
dead are just that, less deaths, and this is good, very good, and no
one will dare tell me how to defend myself after years of attacks on
my body and property, separation or not, proportionately or not.
You'll have to read Gordon's article "Right of Reply: Anarchy in the
Holy Land!"
In all of this, he and the other anarchists walk in the footsteps of their mentors, the above mentioned fathers of Anarchy, the wild offspring of Rousseau's and Weishaupt's philosophies of the fateful 18th century, both radical monster parents of anti-civilization, anti-State, anti-family and anti-property detailed ideology (and, yes, I stand firmly behind what I say), the bastard child of Socialism initiated by these two; they walk in the footsteps of the above mentioned fathers of Anarchy, who were followers with murderous fury in their eyes of Robespierre and Marat of the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution the First, and of the other two, no less violent, French Revolutions. Now I ask, if the STATE as such is to be forfeited, why start with the Jewish one? Why not start with the Palestinian, which is nonexistent anyway — and will forever be so, because they show themselves incapable for it to a pathetic extreme, so let us not erect one in order to eliminate it later on the wake of a fulfilled anarchic world. And no pitiful, made-up explanations from Gordon's mouth will do away with his self-contradictory illogic. Let such men of academia not poison our children's minds with their naively misconstrued, fanatically inhuman philosophies. They, Gordon and Snitz, won't tell you, but they will implement, if it were in their power, the fanatic murderous philosophies of same Rousseau's and Weishaupt's militant Socialism. What this criminal ideology brought ultimately on its subjugated population where it was implemented, will be monstrously clear immediately below. After being done with them Anarchists, let us tack to the bureaucratic, governing, Statist and militant form of Socialism, the ultra-violent one, the Communist form. On this, Prof. Anat Biletski, the B'Tselem organization's ideological life and soul and the main influence in it, attesting to herself, says: "I see myself both as a leftist — a communist, a Marxist — and as a humanist." Let me make it clear. Not for nothing does she say "I see myself both as a leftist ... and as a humanist.": If being a Marxist would imply being a humanist, and if being a humanist would imply being a Marxist, she would have no need whatsoever to say so. But, for all I know, and soon enough you will know this too, the two terms, "Marxist" and "humanist" are mutually exclusive. This is a maxim on which I stand equally firm. No achievement of Communism anywhere in its realm can be justified by the systematic, ideological, institutional murder that ensued in its places of rule worldwide, because: Between 85 million and 100 million deaths in the 20th century were caused directly, and justified, by its one-class rule, the proletariat class-based ideology. This class-genocide was rivaled only by the Nazi race-genocide, and even then, the numbers are infamously on the Communist side, this inhuman class-based conflict ideology death factory. The cobbled streets of Paris of the three French Revolutions were covered in blood, Russia in particular, and its satellite subjugated Eastern Europe colonies, and the other countries following it, were equally drenched in blood and sufferings, extreme sufferings, among which Cambodia is The ultimate fearful example of the militant Socialist extreme hatred for the human race civilization: During his four years in power, Pol Pot, the leader of the Cambodian communist movement, known as the Khmer Rouge ["Red (as in 'red' of the Communist flag) Cambodian", the name given to the followers of the Communist Party of Cambodia], imposed a social engineering version of agrarian collectivization, forcing city dwellers to relocate to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labor projects, toward a goal of "restarting civilization" in "Year Zero", in which the intelligentsia per-se was to be exterminated. The combined effects of slave labor, malnutrition, poor medical care, and executions, the systematic murder of members of various groups, the complete destruction of individual rights, forced labor, disease, and starvation in Cambodia's "killing fields", the transformation of a developing country into a xenophobic agrarian society, and other horrors that can be ascribed to the cruelty or ineptitude of the totalitarian dictator Pol Pot, resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1.7 to 2.5 million people, approximately 21% of the Cambodian population, a fifth of it!! (Wikipedia, and other sources). All these widespread crimes were done in the name of a fanatic, blind attempt to re-civilize the world on the ruins of the existing civilization, on the ruins of basic human decency, on the ruins of culture, family and peaceful government however flawed it is or can be. All this frightful "human" systematic, ideologist philosophies, both Anarchist and Communist, are based on a certain analysis of the human praxis, in the words of Marx, based in its turn on the philosophies of Rousseau and Weishaupt as their ultimate source. Those two are The Fountainhead of an extremely rationalized attempt to analyze the human situation, in the wake of which certain conclusions were drawn, which, to be turned into action, demanded an equally extreme kind of (revolutionary) action, one which justified any and all means to be taken in order to implement the said conclusions. For it is found written black on paper in countless books and pamphlets and expressed countless times by the leaders and proponents of these two camps of the Extreme Left for more than two hundred years, starting with the the First French Revolution in 1789, and continuing to this day in Cuba and North Korea, that the revolution justifies all and any means toward its full implementation. Machiavelli mentioned this dictum in his book, "The Prince". They, adopted it verbatim, lying and deceiving, killing and imprisoning, wrapped it in blood and buried in human suffering wherever and whenever it was tried. No, I don't have the slightest respect or consideration for the Israeli Anarchists and Communists. Certainly not for the Arab members of these camps, who are of the most nationalistic brand and who use the militant Socialist ideology for their ulterior ends, to deprive The Jewish Nation of its lawful property, The Land of Israel. As Lenin betrayed and sold Russia to Germany in the WWI in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk for the opportunity and money that they gave him to return to Russia and start his longed for revolution, something which he admitted in his trial at the time, before his coming to power, and which took Russia out of the war, a prize for the Germans and a blow to the Allies, so the Extreme, Fascist Left in Israel is willing to sell their motherland for their lunatic ideology, no matter what the price will be. The Fascist Left Anarchist and Communist exponents in the academia, who pose the gravest threat to the Israeli society because it is they who teach and influence our children, are to be expulsed forever from any and all academia posts that they hold in Israel and hopefully abroad too. May the higher education committee in Israel see this before it's too late, and may the donors see it too, before they open their wallets. Amen! Contact Israel Academia Monitor by email at e-mail@israel-academia-monitor.com |
|
FREEZE OF JEWISH CONSTRUCTION IN JUDEA AND SAMARIA: PEACE OR APPEASEMENT ENHANCER?
Posted by Yoram Ettinger, November 26, 2009. |
|
Freeze of Jewish construction in Judea & Samaria is based on a series of erroneous assumptions: 1. A Freeze will not soften — but will intensify — President Obama's criticism of "settlements" in particular and Israeli policy in general. For instance, Prime Minister Netanyahu's June 14, 2009 Two-State-Solution-speech triggered exacerbated pressure by Obama. Moreover, Netanyahu's willingness to exchange hundreds of Palestinian terrorists for Gilad Shalit was followed by US pressure to release more terrorists. 2. A Freeze will not moderate — but will wet the appetite of — the PLO (Abu Mazen) or Hamas (Haniye'); it will radicalize their demands and fuel their terrorism. Former Prime Minister Barak's sweeping concessions, offered to Arafat and Abu Mazen in October 2000, were greeted by the PLO-engineered Second Intifada'. Furthermore, Prime Minister Olmert's unprecedented offer of concessions (including the return of some 1948 refugees) was rebuffed by Abu Mazen. 3. A Freeze re-entrenches the misperception of Jewish presence in Judea & Samaria as a/the obstacle to peace. It diverts attention and resources from the crucial threat to peace: Abu Mazen-engineered hate education — the manufacturing line of terrorists — and Arab rejection of the existence — and not just the size — of the Jewish State. 4. A Freeze and the adherence to Presidential dictate will not transform the White House position on Iran-related matters. Besides, a Freeze and the adherence to Presidential dictate do not constitute a prerequisite to maintaining constructive strategic relations with the USA (e.g. supply of critical military systems and crucial strategic cooperation). In fact, a Freeze and a serial submission to Presidential pressure — just like any other form of retreat — erode Israel's strategic posture in Washington and in the Middle East. Such an attitude ignores the role and power of Congress — especially when it comes to the Jewish State — at the dire expense of Israel's national security. Is Jewish construction in Judea & Samaria an/the obstacle to peace? 1. In September 2005, Israel uprooted 25 Jewish communities from Gaza and Samaria. Gaza became Judenrein. It paved the road to the meteoric rise of Hamas, and induced more smuggling, manufacturing and launching of missiles at Jewish communities in Southern Israel. 2. President Obama defines Jewish presence in Judea & Samaria as a root cause of Arab hostility toward the Israel. However, Jewish communities were first established in Judea and Samaria after the Six Day War of 1967, the 1956 and 1948 wars, the 1949-1967 campaign of Arab terrorism, the 1964 establishment of the PLO, the 1929 slaughter of the Hebron Jewish community and the 1929 expulsion of the Gaza Jewish community, the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s slaughter of the Jewish community of Gush Etzion, etc. 3. President Obama considers the 300,000 Jews (17%), who reside among Judea and Samaria's 1.5 million Arabs, an obstacle to peace. Why would he, then, view the 1.4 million Arabs (20%), who reside among pre-1967 Israel's 6 million Jews, as an example of peaceful coexistence?! 4. Obama urges the uprooting of Jewish communities from Judea and Samaria, in order to supposedly advance peace and human rights. Would he, therefore, urge the uprooting of Arab communities from pre-1967 Israel?! 5. Since Obama tolerates Arab opposition to Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria would he tolerate Jewish opposition to Arab presence in pre-1967 Israel?! While any attempt by Jews to reside in Palestinian Authority-controlled areas would trigger a lynching attempt, Arabs have peacefully resided within pre-1967 Israel. Doesn't such a reality highlight the nature of Arab intentions and the real obstacle to peace?! 6. Obama pressures Israel to freeze Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, in order to avoid unilateral creation of facts on the ground. Shouldn't Obama demand a similar freeze of Arab construction in Judea and Samaria, which is 30 times larger than Jewish construction?! Doesn't the absence of a balanced approach, by Obama, prejudge of the outcome of negotiation?! 7. The 1950-67 Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria was recognized only by Britain and Pakistan. The most recent internationally-recognized sovereign over Judea and Samaria was the League of Nations-authorized 1922 British Mandate, which defined Judea and Samaria as part of the Jewish National Home, the cradle of Jewish history. Article 6 of the Mandate indicates the right of Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria. Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, former President of the International Court of Justice, determined that Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria was rooted in self-defense and therefore did not constitute "occupation." Eugene Rostow, former Dean of Yale Law School and former Undersecretary of State and co-author of UN Security Council Resolution 242, asserted that 242 entitled Jews to settle in Judea and Samaria. The Oslo Accord and its derivatives do not prohibit "settlements." Moreover, Israel has constrained construction to state-owned — and not private — land, avoiding expulsion of Arabs landowners. Freeze of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria is not a peace-enhancer; it is an appeasement-enhancer.
Ambassador Yoram Ettinger is a consultant on US-Israel relations as
well as the Chairman of Special Projects at the Ariel Center for
Policy Research. Formerly the Minister for Congressional Affairs to
Israel's Embassy in Washington, DC, Ettinger also served as Consul
General of Israel to the Southwestern US. He is a former editor of
Contemporary Mideast Backgrounder, and is the author of the Jerusalem
Cloakroom series of reports. Contact him at yoramtex@netvision.net.il
This article is #230
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: A CLOSER LOOK
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 26, 2009. |
|
I wrote last night not long after the announcement had been made by Netanyahu that there would be a 10 month freeze on building in communities in Judea and Samaria. Now it is time to take a closer look at some of the details of what is happening, and possible implications. The original announcement made it sound as if there would simply be a freeze on issuing new tenders for building, and that no new permits for starting building projects would be signed. The number that is being used is 3,000 — 3,000 housing units already in process or about to start that presumably would continue, not affected by the freeze. But, in point of fact, the situation is more complicated than this. If construction has already started on a site — if there are bulldozers digging the foundation, or masons pouring concrete, or whatever — the work will be allowed to continue. But if work has been contracted and permits signed, but no actual physical work has begun, then it seems the process will be put on hold. I am a bit vague as to where in the process of getting started the freeze would occur. That is, for example, if workmen have been hired and have gone out to the site, but the foundation hasn't been started and all they've done is unload materials — will they be allowed to continue? (I've heard nothing in this regard, but it seems to me that this creates the potential for leaving in limbo families who were depending on a new home being constructed and believed everything was in place.) ~~~~~~~~~~ What is more — and this is certainly something that was obvious to anyone considering repercussions, and a source of much concern — there have been statements regarding the fact that if "productive" negotiations were going on, the freeze would not stop at the end of 10 months, but would continue for the duration of those negotiations. So, what would constitute "productive" negotiations and who would determine this? ~~~~~~~~~~ The only member of the Security Cabinet who actually voted against the motion was Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu). Landau left Sharon's cabinet rather than support the expulsion from Gush Katif. The man has retained his integrity, and we should remember this. The two Shas ministers — Interior Minister Eli Yeshai and Housing Minister Ariel Atias — absented themselves. The other 11 ministers voted for this proposal. That means that the two nationalists, supporters of building in Judea and Samaria, whom I alluded to last night — Benny Begin and Moshe Ya'alon — voted for it. Which leaves the door open to many questions. Begin made light of what had just been approved, saying all that will stop is the issuing of new permits. "During these 10 months thousands of housing units and public buildings will be built in the West Bank to allow [people] to lead normal lives, and once the 10 months are over the government of Israel, just as it has declared, will resume construction in the West Bank in accordance with the policy of past Israeli regimes." And indeed, that is what Netanyahu did declare last night: "As soon as the suspension period concludes, my government will resume the West Bank construction policy of previous governments." But that's only what will happen if the PA doesn't come to the table. There's a good chance it won't, and the prime minister may be counting on this. But it's not quite as simple they say, and this way is fraught with dangers. Netanyahu claims he is doing this to bring the PA into negotiations. Does he imagine, by any stretch of the imagination, that if they did come to the table, they'd remain there if we started issuing new building permits after a 10-month halt? It was Uzi Landau who was realistic about this, saying that it's obvious that at the end of 10 months Obama will seek an extension. He's right, and this might be the case even if the PA hasn't come to the table. (In typical Obama mode, he might want to give them another chance.) Vice Premier Moshe Ya'alon said this action was taken to "avoid a confrontation with our allies," but "the goal is to preserve our interests." He maintained that it was the right thing to do. ~~~~~~~~~~ So now we ask: What the hell is going on? What is it that we don't know? Binyamin Netanyahu, whatever his faults, is not Ehud Olmert. Or Tzipi Livni. He does not have a genuine longing in his heart to give away our country. No one should think this of him. And I will defend him against anyone who does. What Netanyahu has, is a reputation for caving under American pressure. And he developed this reputation, it must be noted, in a situation that was less pressured than the present. Right now he is confronting an enormous amount, with regard to the demands of Obama and company, coupled with the horrendous campaign of Israeli delegitimization that is taking place, and which has led to Goldstone and more. So, is this what we're looking at? A caving to the Americans and an effort to avoid international criticism? If so, this is a serious error. Ya'alon's comment about avoiding confrontation with our allies makes it seem so. So does Lieberman's statement: "We've been more than fair with the Palestinian Authority, both in our intentions to resume negotiations and in actions on the ground, including the removal of roadblocks.... Because we received support from the US on Goldstone, and Obama's government is committed to vetoing it in the Security Council, we have an obligation to compromise an essential right of ours? Don't like the sound of this, at all. This is not the way to secure legitimization for our nation, but would achieve the opposite — as we diminish ourselves. Now, more than ever, is the time for us to present a strong and secure face to the world. Now we must be firm in our rights. ~~~~~~~~~~ And yet, there's a "but" here. I alluded to it last night and several times before. When Netanyahu walked away from his secret meeting with Obama, he said that in time we would understand why it had to be secret. I do not believe that the secrecy was simply with regard to getting a promise on Goldstone in return for a settlement freeze. They didn't need an hour alone without aides to discuss that. There's more... whatever the "more" is. At the time, there were hints and rumors regarding some discussion that took place about Iran. I still don't know if those rumors and hints were true. Ra'anan Gissin, journalist and former Sharon associate, for example, wrote a commentary in which he said that discussions about Iran should be kept away from public attention. And his was only one of several comments. The fact remains that while I do not know with any certainty what the situation is, I feel a responsibility to mention this. I suggest that, even as we protest and feel angry (and appropriately so), we must keep in mind that there may be more than meets the eye. At the end of the day, we might learn something that helps us to understand that Netanyahu had reasons for acting as he did that were genuine expressions of his concern for the nation. We might see a quid pro quo that made some sense. Might. Post editor David Horovitz suggests that Iran is involved in this
because Obama believes he cannot rally the Arabs against Iran without
progress on Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. For me, this is shtuyote
— nonsense, although indeed Obama did make such a linkage many months
ago. Surely Netanyahu is aware that Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states
are terrified of Iran in their own right and frankly eager to see
action against it. This would not be a good reason to freeze building
in our communities. Not in my book. I don't believe the Arab states
even care about their fellow Arabs here. (See Michael Freund on this
very subject:
But an American readiness to assist indirectly if we decide to attack would be a good reason. As might a serious effort to promote and levy tough, meaningful sanctions against Iran. Remember that as Netanyahu went to Washington, Obama, for all his public bravado, was feeling extraordinarily frustrated by Iran, which had just spit in his outstretched hand. ~~~~~~~~~~ And, before we leave the subject of Iran and Israel, let me share this: Very recently, for the first time in years, both Russia and China, which have been stumbling blocks to action against Iran, said they would support a toughly-worded statement critical of Iran. A statement won't make anything happen, but it was good news because it signaled a shift on the part of these two nations. Now we learn that the US promoted the shift, at least on the part of China. At the beginning of the month, before Obama visited China, two White House officials, Dennis Ross and Jeffrey Bader, went to Beijing and told leaders that, for Israel, Iran is an "existential issue and that countries that have an existential issue don't listen to other countries." That is: Israel may bomb Iran, and no one would be able to prevent it. But this could cause problems in this part of the world that would adversely affect you. So, the more you're on board with stopping Iran, the less likely this is to happen. I thought this fascinating. And if the US can do this with China, could they not with the Gulf states? Makes more sense than trying to "lure" them by promising peace negotiations for the PA, no? ~~~~~~~~~~ On another front, the negotiations on Shalit have for the moment been stopped by Hamas. They are accusing us of blocking the trade by refusing to release certain terrorists. (Terrorists, of course, is my word and not theirs.) There's a lot of talk about how this trade would strengthen Hamas in the street, and thus further weaken Abbas and Fatah. Hamas has, astutely, asked that some of those released be Fatah people, so it can make the claim that it acts on behalf of all Palestinian Arabs and that it brought Fatah people out of prison when Fatah couldn't. ~~~~~~~~~~ Please, see this piece by Daniel Pipes that discusses the threat to Western society poses by Islamists who infiltrate. It's a more serious problem than terrorists and it merits serious attention.
~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" Israel is the world's leader in developing responses to and promoting research on Alzheimer's. For example: [] Research at Ben Gurion University in Beersheva may lead to the development of a vaccine that reduces neural damage and brain inflammation. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
SHOCKER: NAVY SEALS FACE ASSAULT CHARGES — FOR CAPTURING MOST-WANTED TERRORIST
Posted by Evelyn Hayes, November 26, 2009. |
|
The following is a Fox News report from yesterday. |
|
The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called a captain's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial. Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it. Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers. Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault. Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement. Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation. Neal Puckett, an attorney representing McCabe, told Fox News the SEALs are being charged for allegedly giving the detainee a "punch in the gut." "I don't know how they're going to bring this detainee to the United States and give us our constitutional right to confrontation in the courtroom," Puckett said. "But again, we have terrorists getting their constitutional rights in New York City, but I suspect that they're going to deny these SEALs their right to confrontation in a military courtroom in Virginia." The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged. FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad. The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee. "I gave the detainee a glance over and then left," the SEAL wrote. "I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health." Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January. United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued. The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that "Objective Amber" planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and "they had been tracking this guy for some time." The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq. The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph. Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September. The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.
Evelyn Hayes is author of "The Eleventh Plague, Twins, because
their hearts were softened to accept the unacceptable" and "The
Twelfth Plague, Generations, because the lion wears stripes." Contact
her at rachelschildren@gmail.com
|
|
TERROR ATTACK AT GAS STATION IN KIRYAT ARBA
Posted by Jewish Community of Hebron, November 26, 2009. |
|
At about 3:30 this afternoon, an Arab stepped out of a taxi next to the gas station at the entrance to Kiryat Arba. Walking through the gate, he pulled out a knife and stabbed two people near the gas pumps. An Israeli soldier at the site immediately shot the terrorist, wounding him very seriously. The two Israelis injured, a man and woman, were evacuated by ambulance to Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem. Their conditions were reported to be, thank G-d, only slightly wounded. A Hebron spokesman issued the following statement: This terror attack is clearly the Arab response to Israel's continued acquiesence to American pressure, both to stop all building in Judea and Samaria, and to renew 'piece negotiations' with Abu Mazen and the PTA — the palestinian terror authority. This area has been quiet for a long time; certainly this terrorist did not act on his own, planning and perpetrating a terror attack just outside Hebron. If Israel continues to concede to Arab-American demands, this is only a small taste of things to come. See video here. You can contribute directly in Israel to The Jewish Community of Hebron, POB105, Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100, email: hebron@hebron.org.il or phone: 972-52-431-7055. In USA, write to The Hebron Fund, 1760 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn, NY 11230, email: hebronfund@aol.com or phone: 718 677 6886. |
|
ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE RUNS INTERFERENCE FOR ANTI-ISRAEL OBAMA
Posted by Don Feder, November 26, 2009. |
|
Is there any doubt that the ADL has become an adjunct of the DNC? The Anti-Defamation League pushes a leftist agenda in the guise of fighting anti-Semitism and bigotry. The ADL and the establishment left have a Vulcan mind-meld. The left thinks a wave of anti-Obama hysteria is sweeping the land, driven by ignorance and prejudice. So does the ADL. The left believes Islam is a benign force, and frets that terrorist acts like the Fort Hood murders will negatively impact American Muslims. The ADL couldn't agree more. The left abhors the Tea Parties and protests at town hall meetings, as does the ADL. The left views talk radio a vampire considers a stake smeared with garlic and immersed in holy water. Holy glatt-kosher cow...so does the ADL. The ADL's latest contribution to agitprop is its report "Rage Grows
in America: Anti-Government Conspiracies," Among other instances of conspiracy-mongering and "demonizing" Saint Barack, the ADL cites the Tea Parties. Tea Party activists "express their anger at the government," the ADL observes in the hushed tones of revelation. Imagine that: Americans who are angry at their government. Such a thing is unheard of in the annals of U.S. history. Also, the ADL informs us, many at the Tea Parties express views that "fall outside the mainstream." What, are they in favor of same-sex marriage, nationalized health care, and gun confiscation? Do they view the First Amendment's Establishment Clause as prohibiting saying "God bless you" when someone sneezes in a legislative chamber? No, silly. In the ADL's alternate reality, only conservatives harbor views that fall outside the mainstream. Thus do the 21% of Americans who call themselves liberal categorize the 40% who identify with conservatism. To confirm its judgment, the ADL discloses that "Angry protesters have frequently made claims ranging from proclaiming Obama's 'socialist' intentions to making explicit Nazi comparisons to suggesting that the president is defying or even subverting the Constitution." Socialist intentions — like taking over the U.S. auto industry and trying to federalize health care so bureaucrats will make life-and-death decisions about who gets what medical services? Subverting the Constitution — as in appointing a plethora of policy-making czars who aren't accountable to Congress? The self-styled extremist-watchers claim that "Various conservative and far-right organizations encouraged people to attend the town hall meetings," where "protesters expressed rage at elected officials." Also "anti-Obama anger was the focus of many town hall meetings." The Anti-Anti-Obama Anger League? But the real target of the ADL's ire is none other than the left's chief bête noir: talk radio. Makes sense. They've yet to figure out a way to apply the Fairness Doctrine to political rallies. In August, the ADL's grand inquisitor, National Director Abraham H. Foxman, was incensed (his default mode) when Rush Limbaugh compared Obama's health care logo to the Nazi emblem of an eagle with wings spread on a Swastika in a circle. But they do look alike. Obama's is a caduceus with wings spread perched atop a circle bearing his campaign symbol (the wavy-lined road to nowhere). I doubt the similarity was intentional. More likely, it reflects the fact that the White House is staffed with historical ignoramuses, like the president himself. Foxman fumed that Limbaugh's comparison was "outrageous, deeply offensive, and inappropriate." The "inappropriate" was thrown in for good measure, just to show that Abe is really serious. The ADL's disdain for Limbaugh is nothing next to its revulsion of FOX host Glenn Beck, whom the report dubs the "fear-monger-in-chief." Beck deals in conspiracy theories, the publication charges. If that weren't enough, he's said "that President Obama is a dangerous man." Has he no shame? We pause to note that in a recent interview, Dr. Richard Land, a prominent figure in the Southern Baptist Convention who's always nuanced in his remarks, said the president's economic policies are "very dangerous" and his foreign policy is causing "severe damage." "Beck and his guests have made a habit of demonizing President Obama and promoting conspiracy theories about his administration," the report whines. "Beck has even gone so far as to make comparisons between Hitler and Obama and to promote the idea that the president is dangerous." I too find this comparison inappropriate. At least Hitler got the Olympics for Berlin. During the Bush years, did the ADL object to the left demonizing the president (as in "The I Hate George W. Bush Reader" and "The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder" by Vincent Bugliosi)? Did it warn against conspiracy theories from the other side (example: the "9/11 truthers," who believe the destruction of the World Trade Center was an inside job engineered as an excuse for a war with Iraq)? Did it kvetch about anti-war rallies — run by the Marxists at International ANSWER — whipping up anti-government rage? That would be no, no, and no. The Anti-Defamation League is the love-slave of the establishment left. What MoveOn.org, the Huffington Post, and Bill Maher find deeply offensive, the ADL finds deeply offensive. Consider its antipathy to Christian political activism. When the late Jerry Falwell (a stalwart friend of Israel) put out bumper stickers which proclaimed "I vote Christian," Foxman was ready with a rebuttal. The slogan is "directly at odds with the American ideal (as enunciated by the ACLU) and should be rejected," Foxman explained. "Understanding the danger of combining religion and politics, our founding fathers wisely created a political system based on individual merit and religious inclusiveness," the ADL honcho insisted — which, of course, is why James Madison (father of the Bill of Rights) said that "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers." That was not what Falwell wanted. The former Moral Majority leader explained that he meant conservative Christians should vote their values "which are pro-life and pro-family" — and also happen to be the values of Judaism (hence, the Judeo-Christian tradition). In 2005, Foxman warned that evangelicals wanted to "Christianize all aspects of American life." "Their goal is to implement their Christian worldview. To Christianize America. To save us!" So, what are we talking about here — forced conversions, compulsory church attendance, mandatory caroling throughout the year? Abe believes the essence of a "Christian America" is a non-denominational prayer at the beginning of the school day, a ban on abortion, public celebration of Christmas (including crèches), and pastors offering public prayers in Jesus' name. But we had all of that in 1961 — when John F. Kennedy was president. Would returning to the status quo of the Kennedy-era Christianize America? Exquisite is the irony of the ADL's latest caper: The guys it's bashing (Limbaugh, Beck, et al.) are unabashedly pro-Israel. The dude Foxman and company are running interference for — you know, the one with the Muslim middle name — makes Jimmy Carter look like a Hadassah lady. The president wants engagement and seeks "common ground" with the Nazi jihadists who run Iran. Tehran continues to fund Hezbollah and Hamas, denies the Holocaust (but threatens to launch its own by "wiping Israel off the map"), and claims an unqualified right to nuclear weapons. Perhaps Obama can enlighten us on the common ground here. While previous administrations have grumbled about Israeli "settlements" in the historic homeland of the Jewish people, Obama is in deadly earnest. In the spring, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the president "wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not 'natural growth exceptions.'" This includes East Jerusalem (occupied by Jewish settlers for millennia). The "common ground" here is Israel dismantles the "settlements" in Judea and Samaria, and gets to keep the settlements in Tel Aviv and Haifa. Obama also intends to see the creation of a Palestinian state in two years, regardless of anything the Palestinians do or don't do. By demonizing the president's detractors, the Anti-Defamation League is a danger to the survival of the Jewish state.
This article appeared in American Thinker
Don Feder was an opinion writer for the Boston Herald and a syndicated columnist. He is currently a political/media consultant. |
|
IDF BOMBS HAMAS ARMS FACTORY; ISRAELI EDUCATION UN-JEWISH; TURKEY:
CRISIS WITH ISRAEL ENDED; UNILATERAL BUILDING FREEZE IN JUDEA-SAMARIA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 26, 2009. |
|
After rockets struck Israel, the IDF bombed a Hamas weapons factory. The IDF said it would not tolerate terrorist attacks on Israel (www.imra.org.il, 11/24). 
The IDF won't? Then why did it wait for an attack on Israel to bomb the arms factory? While it waited, how many weapons did the factory produce, for future attacks? A factory might produce the very rockets that Israel retaliated against. Why not protect Israeli civilians for the IDF to bomb all the arms factories it knows of, when it discovers them, and prevent some attacks? Sporadic IDF retaliation does not teach Hamas to find another industry besides war. ISRAELI EDUCATION CALLED UN-JEWISH Dr. Yitzhak Geiger of the Institute for Zionist Strategies studied the Israeli public school curriculum. He found that it emphasis equal civic society at the expense of the Jewish nation-state, for which the country was founded. Knesset Member Zevulun Orlev (Habayit Hayehudi) identifies the problem as a leftist approach. One book describes the Oslo Accords as "another step toward peace among the nations." Another book asserts that "a nation-state model increases tensions among the country's citizens." [Oslo did not bring peace but war.] A new curriculum is scheduled to be introduced in three months (www.imra.org.il, 11/25). Its approach was not stated. There would be little problem if the Arabs were tolerant and non-violent. Instead, they sympathize with the hostile Arabs surrounding the country and periodically waging war on it. The Arabs inside and outside the country tried to expel and/or exterminate the Jews. The Arabs still vie for the country, house-by-house. For the Jewish people to preserve their sovereignty and lives, they need education about the continuing struggle and their national rights. The Palestine Mandate distinguished between Jewish national and Arab civil rights. Anticipating Jewish sovereignty from the edge of Saudi Arabia to the Mediterranean, it allotted political rights to the Jewish people and religious and civil rights to the Arabs. Israel allots political rights to the Arabs, but faces the difficulty of maintaining the country as a Jewish state offering equal rights to Arab citizens except the right of return. Even there, Israel has poor control over immigration, and lets many Arabs in; others sneak in. Israel may be carrying democracy too far to survive, but not far enough for the Jews, considering that the parliament is based on parties and not districts, government control over the broadcast media, leftist control over the courts and prosecutors, and police who beat up religious nationalist Jews. ISRAEL STILL NEGOTIATING WITH U.S. FOR F-35 Israel still is negotiating for the U.S. jet F-35. Such a plane could give Israel a deterrent against invasion or long-range attack, because it cannot be detected by radar. The U.S. still refuses to let Israel insert its own systems into the plane. Then when the U.S. sells models to the Arabs, Israel would lack a deterrent (www.imra.org.il, 11/25). When Israel lacks a deterrent, it more likely would be attacked. A war is born. TURKEY: CRISIS WITH ISRAEL ENDED Turkey's Foreign Minister denied that the crisis with Israel was severe and asserted that it ended. An Israeli Cabinet Member said that Turkey could help mediate with Arab countries. Turkey suggests renewing its mediation between Israel and Syria (www.imra.org.il, 11/25). Is the impasse ended? They spoke in diplomatic platitudes. Being Islamist, the government of Turkey cannot be an impartial mediator. ISRAEL DECLARES UNILATERAL BUILDING FREEZE IN JUDEA-SAMARIA PM Netanyahu announced a building freeze in the Territories. How is a unilateral move justified? Why not freeze building by both sides, if any, or get some other concession by the Arabs? Doesn't such a freeze by Israel, alone, lend color to the Palestinian Arab claim that Jews have no right to live in the Territories, although there never was any legitimate "Palestinian" Arab authority over the Territories? How ethical was the Obama administration to press Israel to make the concession, when it linked this issue [without any logical, factual connection] to the Iran nuclear weapons issue (11/25 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member) on which Israel's survival is at stake? I think that Netanyahu cold-bloodedlly is getting ready to cede the Territories. ISRAEL DECLARES UNILATERAL BUILDING FREEZE IN JUDEA-SAMARIA PM Netanyahu announced a building freeze in the Territories. How is a unilateral move justified? Why not freeze building by both sides, if any, or get some other concession by the Arabs? Doesn't such a freeze by Israel, alone, lend color to the Palestinian Arab claim that Jews have no right to live in the Territories, although there never was any legitimate "Palestinian" Arab authority over the Territories? How ethical was the Obama administration to press Israel to make the concession, when it linked this issue [without any logical, factual connection] to the Iran nuclear weapons issue (11/25 press release by ZOA, headquartered in New York and of which I am a member) on which Israel's survival is at stake? I think that Netanyahu cold-bloodedlly is getting ready to cede the Territories. ARAB SEXUAL BLOOD LIBEL AGAINST ISRAEL 
Palestinian Authority (PA) security chief Tewfik Al-Tirawi claimed on Abu Dhabi TV "that Israel recruits Palestinians to sexually harass their own mothers and sisters as part of a comprehensive strategy to harm Palestinians." "ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, "This is simply the latest example of another Palestinian blood libel against Israel and the Jewish people. Tragically, because it is said to Arabs, in Arabic, and not to Westerners in English, these hateful, vile and monstrous assaults on the name of the Jewish people receive precious little attention, especially where it matters most — among leaders of Western democracies, including the United States. NAZI INFLUENCE ON ARAB WORLD From 1939-45, the Third Reich broadcast Nazi propaganda to many areas, including the Mideast, where its influence on the Arabs has been debated since 9/11. Scholars find that Nazi style antisemitism grafted onto the Islamic variety. "In a 2007 book, Jihad and Jew-Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11 (Telos Press), the German political scientist Matthias Kuentzel details how Nazi ideology influenced Islamist ideologues like Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, as well as the Palestinian leader Haj Amin al-Husseini. More recent examples abound. The founding charter of Hamas... recapitulates conspiracy theories about Jews that were popular in Europe in the 20th century. Al Qaeda's war against 'the Zionist-Crusader Alliance' and the anti-Zionist rants of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran also display a blend of anti-Semitic themes rooted in Nazi and fascist, as well as Islamist, traditions." Iraqi and Palestinian Arab leaders assisted the Nazi radio effort. The broadcasts warned the Arab nationality that if the Allies won, the Jewish people would dominate it. The programs encouraged the Arabs to murder Jews. A warning was issued that in anticipation of having to evacuate from Egypt, Britain had issued pistols to Jews and European residents so they could slay Arabs. A lie, of course, as was the claim that the Jews appropriated the Arabs' wealth, and plan to violate Arab women. "Two German historians, Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers, recently uncovered evidence that German intelligence agents were reporting back to Berlin that if Rommel succeeded in reaching Cairo and Palestine, the Axis powers could count on support from some elements in the Egyptian officer corps as well as the Muslim Brotherhood. Mallmann and Cüppers also show that an SS division was preparing to fly to Egypt to extend the Final Solution to the Middle East. The British and Australian defeat of Rommel at the Battle of El 'Alamein prevented that from happening." With the fall of Nazism, Banna said he hoped that Grand Mufti Husseini would "continue the struggle" the Nazis had started. Qutb asserted that Hitler was sent on a divine mission to punish the Jews. He justified the Holocaust that Abbas denies. Those were the mentors of Hamas. Hamas Charter blames Jews for the French and Russian Revolutions, WWI and WWII, and the UN, to further Jewish world domination (Jeffrey Herf in www.imra.org.il, 11/24). What domination? ARAB-ISRAEL PRISONER TRADE — UPDATE 
Some of the most revealing insights into officials and reporters came out in an update to the Israel-Arab prisoner trade. Germany was attempting to broker the trade. Its Foreign Minister Westerwelle said, "I can simply express the hope that the talks will lead to a good and human solution." One of the Arabs whom Israel may release is Marwan Barghouti, serving five life sentences for terrorist murder. Tens of thousands of Arabs have spent time in Israeli prisons, in the past 40 years (Isabel Kershner, NY Times, 11/25, A14). Hamas has asked for 1,000 convicted Arab terrorists to be released. At the 40% rate of recidivism, 400 would resume terrorism. They probably would murder and maim at least 50 Israelis. Thus the trade means that Israel would end the suffering of one person but facilitate suffering and death for 50. By what measure is that humane or a solution? Does Germany believe that is either? Doesn't Germany know that Hamas works only to advance its oppressive cause, which makes problems not to resolve problems? The reporter mentioned Barghouti's sentences. It did not mention his likely involvement in much more terrorism, considering his former position. He also was Arafat's man in charge of launching the second Intifada, which he did not succeed in doing until his supposedly moderate regime pretended that Ariel Sharon's quiet visit to the Temple Mount was an affront to Muslims. As the Palestinian Authority prepares a third Intifada, rather than negotiate peace, Barghouti is likely to lead it. How many will he get to murder, then? Why doesn't the reporter or the editor put 2 and 2 together, on this? If, as the reporter keeps stating, Barghouti is popular among his people, doesn't it reveal that people to be eager for terrorism against Israelis? Considering that tens of thousands served time in Israeli prisons for terrorism, what does all that indicate about them? Not moderate! In connection with this proposed release, let us review the other releases. Did they bring about the goodwill that some of them were said to be done for? No. Did they "bolster" Abbas' power to make peace? No. The requests for concessions to Abbas to "bolster" him keep coming, like a continuous gravy train. He refuses to negotiate and threatens war. Prior releases were marked by recidivism, more Arab demands, ill will toward Israel, and a boost in the Arabs' war morale. When their morale rises, they are less likely to make the reforms in their mores needed to make peace with other faiths.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel 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 EIGHT DAYS OF COWARDICE
Posted by Steven Plaut, November 26, 2009. |
|
1. The miraculous eight days of Hanukka, 5770: On the first day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's have a settlement freeze. On the second day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's agree the savages can have their own state. On the third day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's agree to judicial activism. On the fourth day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's let the Court kill prison privatization. On the fifth day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's forget reform of water policy. On the sixth day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's forget about splitting the Attorney General from Legal Advisor to the government. because such a split upsets the Left. On the seventh day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's forget about doing anything about the violent "anarchists" who attack Israeli police and soldiers. On the eighth day of cowardice my PM said to me, let's just release all the terrorists we have to buy back a kidnapped soldier. 2. Well, Richard Goldstone has emerged as an Israel-bashing anti-Semite, willing to sell his soul to the UN in order to find favor with his leftist friends. Well, not only is Goldstone a liar willing to toady up to his anti-Semitic masters. It turns out he also has an interesting track record of groveling to the apartheid authorities back when he was a judge in South Africa. Read on:
FROM WND'S JERUSALEM BUREAU
Richard Goldstone, the United Nations investigator whose controversial report recently accused Israel of war crimes, once sentenced a 13-year-old boy to prison for protesting South African apartheid. The case was one of several of Goldstone's questionable and highly criticized rulings during some of apartheid South Africa's most violent years. Goldstone served as a judge on South Africa's Transvaal Supreme Court from 1980 until he was appointed judge of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in 1989 — all during South Africa's apartheid regime. In a blog piece at the Huffington Post, researcher Ashley Rindsberg references a case in which Goldstone ruled against the 1986 appeal of a 13-year-old boy who had been sentenced to jail for disrupting school as a protest against apartheid and increasingly draconian "emergency laws" used to squelch opposition to the government. The New York Times reported Goldstone provided no immediate comment on his decision to uphold the sentence of the lower court. Rindsberg also pointed out that Goldstone ruled against two appellants who had been convicted for possession of a cassette tape that contained a recording of an interview with Oliver Tambo, who, along with Nelson Mandela, was a founding member of the African National Congress's Youth League. The ANC has been South Africa's ruling party since the establishment of nonracial democracy in 1994. Goldstone ruled that by possessing the tape, the two young men had violated South Africa's Internal Security Act No. 74 of 1982 — a piece of legislation that some human rights scholars have called a crucial weapon in the regime's "arsenal of terrorism legislation." Goldstone commented in that case that Tambo's opening words on the recording indicated "beyond a reasonable doubt that the cassette in question was published or disseminated under the direction or guidance or on behalf of the African National Congress." According to Goldstone's Supreme Court ruling on the case, the tapes also included audio of Tambo encouraging the people of South Africa to resist the apartheid regime, as well as the leader's call to "let us change our own country into the kind of society we want it to be." Rindsberg noted Goldstone's ruling against the 13-year-old boy transpired amidst a wave of national protests and school disruptions by South Africa's black youth against apartheid. Authorities at the time responded with mass detention of almost 2,000 children who participated in the protests or who were suspected of doing so. Goldstone was slammed by South African human rights organizations for his 1986 ruling against the boy. He later told the New York Times that South Africa's emergency laws left him "no way out." Goldstone recently penned a U.N. report that claimed both Hamas and Israel were guilty of war crimes during the Jewish state's defensive war in Gaza last December and January. Goldstone's report claimed Israel deliberately targeted civilians during the Gaza conflict, which started after Hamas refused to extend a cease-fire. The terrorist group instead launched a rocket offensive against Israeli population centers. The U.N. report equated Israel, which worked to minimize civilian casualties in Gaza, to Hamas, which utilized civilians as human shields and fired rockets at Jewish cities from Palestinian hospitals and apartment buildings. During the Gaza war, Israel sent hundreds of thousands of text messages and placed tens of thousands of calls warning local Palestinians of incoming attacks against Hamas' military infrastructure in Gaza. As WND previously reported, Goldstone's investigation may have relied on false witnesses and Palestinian misinformation. Steven Plaut is an American-trained economist,
a professor of business administration at Haifa University and author
of "The Scout." He frequently comments — both seriously and
satirically — on Israeli politics and the left wing academic
community. Write him at splaut@econ.haifa.ac.il His website address is
|
|
DO ARAB STATES REALLY CARE ABOUT THE PALESTINIANS?
Posted by Michael Freund, November 26, 2009. |
|
For all their talk of standing by the Palestinians, the Arab regimes sure have a strange way of showing it. Despite reaping an oil-driven windfall last year of unprecedented proportions, few Arab states seem willing to dig very deep into their own pockets to back up their concern with cash. Indeed, the hollowness of their pro-Palestinian pronouncements was unambiguously on display last week in Amman, at a meeting of the Advisory Commission of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, better known by its acronym of UNRWA. Among the central topics discussed at the gathering was the growing financial crisis confronting the organization, which relies on voluntary contributions from governments to fund its activities on behalf of Palestinian refugees. In her remarks, Karen Abu Zayd, UNRWA's commissioner-general, bemoaned the group's financial state, describing it as "my most worrying preoccupation." She told those assembled that the agency is facing a deficit of $84 million this year, and that it projects a budget shortfall of $140m. in 2010. "UNRWA's weak financial situation," Abu Zayd said, "hinders our ability to discharge our responsibilities to the standards Palestinian refugees deserve." FOR THE past several years, it seems, UNRWA has been in increasingly dire straits. Indeed, on Tuesday of last week, the group's 16,000 employees in Judea, Samaria and Gaza held a one-day strike to demand better pay. Why, you might be wondering, have the UN agency's troubles been mounting of late? After all, fuel prices surged last year, with oil peaking in July 2008 at a high of $150 a barrel, so the coffers of Arab treasuries throughout the region were hardly lacking for funds with which to aid their Palestinian brethren. I wondered too, so I did some research and discovered a few surprising facts about the colossal gap between Arab rhetoric and Palestinian reality. Consider the following: In 2008, 19 of the top 20 donors to UNRWA's general fund were from the West, with the EU contributing over $116m., and the US more than $94m. Others, such as Sweden and the UK, each gave over $35m. Just one Arab country — Kuwait — appeared among UNRWA's top 20 benefactors. The Kuwaitis came in last on the list, having coughed up just $2.5m. Given that Kuwait's oil revenues last year surged by 44 percent to nearly $78 billion, you would think that if they really, truly cared about the Palestinians, this would have been reflected in the size of their donation to UNRWA. Nonetheless, when compared to the other five Arab states that comprise the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) — Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates — the Kuwaitis come out looking generous. In 2008, the combined revenues of the GCC states from oil production amounted to a whopping $575b. Yet their joint contribution to UNRWA's regular budget was a little more than $3.6m., signifying less than one one-thousandth of a percent of their total petroleum income! Bahrain gave a miserly $50,000, Oman forked over just $25,000, while Saudi Arabia coughed up zero. I've been to Hadassah dinners where more money was raised in an hour than the Arab states seem willing to part with in an entire year. In fact, over the past two decades, Arab regimes have been providing a steadily decreasing percentage of UNRWA's funding. In the 1980s, their contributions amounted to 8% of the group's annual budget, whereas now they comprise barely 3%. As a result, Western states are currently providing more than 95% of the funds behind UNRWA's ongoing programs. Now don't get me wrong — I am not shedding any tears over UNRWA's difficulties. The organization has long been a vehicle for perpetuating the Palestinian refugee problem as a lever for pressuring Israel, and it has not shied away from working closely with Hamas in Gaza, or serving as a vehicle for anti-Israel and anti-Western indoctrination. But UNRWA's woes lay bare the breathtaking hypocrisy of the Arab states. They lambaste Israel at every opportunity over the condition of the Palestinians, even as they themselves do very little to alleviate the problem. Sure, some Arab countries have kicked in funds to various UNRWA emergency appeals, while others provide aid to Palestinians via other channels. But the numbers above lead one to wonder: do the Arab states really care about the Palestinians? If UNRWA's ledger is any guide, the answer is a clear and resounding "no."
Michael Freund served as deputy director of communications &
policy planning in the Israeli Prime Minister's Office under
Benjamin Netanyahu from 1996 to 1999. He is founder and chairman
of Shavei Israel (www.shavei.org), which reaches out and assists
"lost Jews" seeking to return to the Jewish people.
|
|
THIS IS OUR LAND
Posted by Moshe Feiglin, November 26, 2009. |
|
And Lavan answered and he said to Jacob, the daughters are my daughters and the children are my children and the flocks are my flocks and all that you see is mine. And now, let us make a covenant. If you will afflict my daughters and if you will take wives in addition to my daughters, no man is with us, see G-d is witness between me and you. (From this week's Torah portion, Vayetzeh, Genesis 31: 43-44, 50) It's strange. Time and again, Jacob catches Lavan in his lies, but Lavan persists in playing the role of the victim — and not of the perpetrator. "The daughters are my daughters?" Jacob worked for them — above and beyond the time upon which they had originally agreed. Furthermore, he continued working for Rachel even after Lavan tricked him into marrying Leah. "The flocks are my flocks?" Here, too, Jacob kept up his side of the bargain, while it was Lavan who dishonestly changed the rules. Where does Lavan get the chutzpah to lie without compunction? What makes him so confident? How can it be that after Lavan makes a treaty with Jacob and bids him farewell, he makes new conditions; "If you will afflict my daughters," as if Jacob was some sort of lowlife from the Charan marketplace? It seems that Lavan is playing on the last vestiges of Jacob's dependence on him. While it is true that Jacob honestly earned his family and possessions, the platform upon which they were earned belonged to Lavan. Jacob has not yet completely freed himself of the "womb" in which his family and wealth developed. The evil Lavan immediately identifies Jacob's weak point. Today, the Arabs in the Land of Israel will settle for nothing less than the entire Land. All of our groveling and attempts to "compromise" have not helped. They abduct a soldier and conduct negotiations for his release as if they were the lords of the Land. Where does their chutzpah come from? Like Lavan, they have identified our weak point; the point at which we feel dependant upon them. Israel's leaders also believe that the Land of Israel really belongs to the Arabs, that their struggle against us is just and that they kill us because we have stolen their land. In the eyes of Israel's leaders, the daughters are the Arabs' daughters and the flocks are their flocks. Our weakness allows them to portray themselves as victims and not as perpetrators. Leadership that is incapable of relying on our covenant with G-d and declaring that this is our Land will come out on the short end of every negotiation. Shabbat Shalom,
Manhigut Yehudit (Jewish Leadership) is a group of people inside
the Likud party who want to see Israel adopt a more Jewish character.
Moshe Feiglin, its cofounder, has emphatically said he does not want a
theocracy, but he does want a State based on Jewish values. The
Manhigut Yehudit website address is
|
|
MUSLIMS WANT CHANGE?
Posted by Paul Lademain, November 25, 2009. |
|
This was written by Hadeel Al-Shalchi and Karin Laub and is entitled "Muslims want tangible change on Mideast from Obama." First, observe how the Arabs blow smoke: The talk about their fury, as if we Americans have none toward them! We despise those who promote the bestial war machine called "Sharia" that cloaks itself in blood-soaked cloth.
Muslims want change? So do we! We are the American taxpayers whose purses have been plundered for to send billions to the Islamics who are organized into myriad warring forces. Americans have been forced to do this for decades supposedly for humanitarian purposes, but instead, our billions have been siphoned into secret bank accounts, hoarded to pay for elitist's pleasures or more often, used to fund hundreds of Islamic gangs of disaffected arabs expelled from Egypt and the surrounding oil states who are being paid a remittance to say they are "palestinians." There has been decades of dishonesty associated with Arab expenditures of America's hard-earned funds and Americans want change from the Muslims. Tangible change. Not bloody rhetoric and hate-filled yammering about killing this or that group who refuse to be made into Muslims. But real change: Such as earning your own living in your own lands on the Arabian Peninsula instead of barging into countries where you don't belong. Israel being but one of those countries. We want all the land between the ocean and the sea to be restored to Israel. This is the ONLY honest path toward peace. We want Obama to CUT OFF ALL AID to Arab countries. Stop bowing to Arabist extortion. We want our funds to rebuild America. Let the Saudis and the UAE fund Mubarak "for a change." Let Dubai stop building gaudy and useless structures and spend their trillions on relocating the Arabs trapped in Abdullah-of-Jordan's concentration camps. There's hundreds of millions of unoccupied acres waiting for them to settle on within the Arabian Peninsula. After all, we Americans made the Saudis and the UAE wealthier than God because we pay for their sludge, so these rich bigots can well afford to pick up the tab! As for the Arab states, especially new states like Saudi Arabia, they can begin purchasing our best stuff with cash — and pay the full price, instead of asking for loans through US taxpayer-funded OPIC. Obama must change this arrangement. We want American funds to be invested in America, not siphoned into secret bank accounts controlled by Islamic NGOs and Arab "royals". No more billions to Jordan. Jordan's "king" and his father created the concentration camps holding the Arabs who want to become "Palestinians." They can do this in Jordan on Jordanian soil! We Americans want to know what happened to the hundreds of thousands of Jewish Palestinians. Where did they go after the Arabs divested them of their lands and drove them out of their centuries-old homes in the arab states now surrounding Israel? What about the Jews who lived and flourished in Medina? What about THEIR "right of return"? How much of the lands occupied by the ersatz "palestinians" are to be "frozen for peace"? How many of these Arab are illegal settlers? Has Nettie forgotten about this issue? Is he afraid to confront Hillary and her boss-man about the rights of Jewish refugees? We want the Islamics to return to where they came from. They have their own states. They got them in 1948 when Israel's lands were taken from the Jews and handed over to the Arab Muslims. If the Arabs aren't satisfied with what they got, then the lands should be removed from their ungrateful grasp and restored to their rightful owners: the Jews and the Hebrew Peoples. Yes, we want change. Big time. And we want it NOW! Viva Israel!
Contact Paul Lademain by email at lademain@verizon.net
|
|
J STREET'S PRO-ISRAEL BONA FIDES IN DOUBT; TERRORISTS, INDIA, AND
PAKISTAN; IDF INCONSISTENT ON CALLS TO DISOBEY ORDERS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 25, 2009. |
|
J STREET'S CLAIM TO BE PRO-ISRAEL IS INCREASINGLY DOUBTED. The House of Representatives took up a resolution urging the Administration not to approve the Goldstein Report. J. Street strongly opposed the resolution, and had momentum from its conference and lobbying. J Street co-founder Mort Halperin, an aide to (the anti-Israel) George Soros, ghost-wrote what Judge Goldstein sent to Congress in defense of his report. J Street claims that its P.A.C. donated more to Congressional candidates than any pro-Israel P.A.C.. The resolution passed 344:36, plus 22 voting "present" and 30 abstaining. Most of the chief beneficiaries of J Street donations did not vote against the resolution. Disillusionment with J Street may have set in. Many members quit the conference host committee. Other than Jeremy Ben-Ami, its top leadership is anonymous. Who makes its decisions? J Street is obliged to reveal donors to its PAC, but the names of its other donors are withheld. Circumstances have revealed that they include Saudi-connected individuals, National Iranian American Council directors, and Arab-American leaders. They generally defame Israel, defend Hamas, and assist Saudi Arabia. To buttress its claim of being pro-Israel, J Street likened its policies to that of Israel's party, Kadima. When Kadima leaders heard that J Street opposed sanctions against Iran, they turned cold toward it. Some J Street delegates proposed combining Israel with the Palestinian Authority. That would end Jewish sovereignty [and probably their lives]. (Lenny Ben-David, www.imra.org.il, 11/23.) The donations to Congress amounted to about half a million dollars. Does not sound like much, compared to the big lobbies. "BLOOD AND RAGE," A HISTORY OF TERRORISM Keith Pablishek reviewed Michael Burleigh's Blood and Rage. I gleaned this: Terrorists seek chaos, to start their takeover. "As endless studies of terrorist grievances reveal, they are mostly insane without being clinically psychotic." Grievances are ridiculous. Most people want to be left alone. Islamists are different from other terrorists. IRA men wanted to get away. Many Islamists want to die for the cause. Thugs like to join terrorists, to inflict violence or to escape boredom. Intellectuals often support their violence. Many in the Communist movement did (Commentary, 9/2009). Islamists state baseless grievances for propaganda. The widespread antisemitism and other ignorance and media timidity enables them to get away with it. Note how useless and unintelligent intellectuals can be. TERRORISTS, INDIA, AND PAKISTAN 
Some military and security groups in Pakistan still favor the Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist organization as a proxy force against Indian Kashmir and as a bulwark against India. Pakistan is reluctant to take on Lashkar at the same time it is fighting the Taliban. Lashkar has gained some popularity by dispensing charity. Pakistanis do not believe that it staged the attack on Mumbai. Pakistan's government does, arresting some Lashkar people, and banning its charity (Matthew Rosenberg, Wall St. J., 11/24, A 16). The U.S. has banned charities that act as terrorist fronts. A terrorist organization can have a charity that does not act as its front, just dispenses charity. But that gains it popular support against anti-terrorism. Therefore, the standard should be to ban all wings of terrorist organizations. EU- AND NEW ISRAEL FUND FINANCED NGOS IN ISRAEL "Israeli courts have become a central arena for engaging contentious social and political issues, with major advantages for groups that have the resources to devote to this activity. Extensive support from European governments and private foundations gives political and opposition NGOs the advantage" over NGOs depending on popular Israeli support. These NGOs exert an alien influence against Israeli government. The NGOs discussed in the full article "...are highly active and visible participants in both the international and national debates on issues such as the status and future of Jerusalem, the disputed territories in the West Bank, and the actions of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). These NGOs issue high-profile statements and reports, generate media publicity, organize demonstrations, speak to student groups and army units, and use the courts to advance their political agendas." "In the international arena, the same NGOs submit statements to UN frameworks such as the Human Rights Council, run major media campaigns, and spearhead lawsuits in various countries." Because of their Israeli addresses, these appendages of foreign interests enjoy credibility (NGO Monitor in www.imra.org.il, 11/23). ISRAELI RELEASE OF ARAB PRISONERS 
A former head of Israeli internal security commented about the proposed prisoner exchange that although a real risk existed, "the past has shown that some of the prisoners do not return to terror and some portion are integrated in various operative positions" (Ethan Bronner, NY Times, 11/24, A3) probably meaning in Palestinian Authority military positions. A massive, Arab prisoner release could bolster Hamas' claim that abduction and other and recalcitrance about it work (Charles Levinson, Wall St. J., 11/24, A14). The former security chief put it too delicately to be clear. Released terrorists have a recidivism rate of about 40%. Suppose we accept the bruited figure of 1,000 convicted terrorists to be released. That means about 400 will try again. If only 5% of them succeed, they will kill perhaps 30 Israelis. One Israeli would be released now, and 30 get killed later — that is PM Netanyahu's real trade. The barbarians probably would conclude that terrorism is vindicated. That, too, means more Israelis killed. The Israel killed:release ration could rise to 50:1. Again, the security chief misleads people with the term, "operative positions." Released terrorists integrated into Palestinian Authority (P.A.) forces are in a position to commit terrorism, as P.A. troops have, before. Imagine the kind of morality they bring to the P.A. military! PLO ACCUSES ISRAEL OF BLOCKING AMBULANCES FOR ARABS IN JERUSALEM WAFA, the PLO news agency reports that Adalah, Physicians for Human Rights — Israel, and Al Mezan Center for Human Rights demanded of Israel's Deputy Min. of Health and the Police Chief of Jerusalem that they stop requiring police escorts for ambulances entering Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem, even in emergency. "Ms. Reut Katz of Physicians for Human Rights-Israel stressed that 'the police escort of ambulances to transport patients coupled with their presence alongside medical staff during the treatment process also constitutes a flagrant violation of the privacy rights and medical confidentiality of the patient." It may be a violation of medical ethics and international prohibition of cruel and degrading treatment. [No international law was cited.] Ambulances are instructed to wait in adjacent Jewish neighborhoods for the escort. If families try to transport patients to hospitals on their own, they risk aggravating the illness. The ambulances do proceed directly to Jewish enclaves in Arab neighborhoods, a seeming inconsistency that bespeaks discrimination. That is the only consideration in the Israeli rule (www.imra.org.il, 11/23). If we have learned anything from events and not preconceptions over the years, Israel is humane and the Palestinian Arabs are inhumane. Fatah just confirmed its policy of armed struggle, while it defers ostensible peace negotiations until Israel makes further concessions. PLO Arabs went into an Israeli nursery and shot toddlers; the Israeli security forces often abort missions when they know a child is in the building. Israel lets enemy Palestinian Arabs into its hospitals and free, but the PLO, Jordan, and Egypt have kept Israeli medics away from Israelis, who were left to bleed to death. There must be more to this ambulance story. I checked with my source, to confirm my recollection of the real background. Dr. Aaron Lerner explained that the ambulances aren't allowed into Arab areas without police escort to protect them from likely assault. That puts a different light on the story. Even though the ambulance would be entering to save the lives or health of Arab neighbors, fellow Arabs attack those medical saviors unless deterred by police. Now we see which people is callous about the lives of Arabs, who may not make it to the hospital if the ambulance attendants themselves are incapacitated. Those purported humanitarian organizations, that claim to be outraged by alleged Israeli discrimination, are frauds. And the Palestinian Authority, which complains against Israel is trying to reap public relations benefits at the expense of its own people. What a people, those Palestinian Arab "innocent civilians!" Will any anti-Zionists, who purport to care about those Arabs, condemn the Palestinian Authority and the "humanitarian" groups for harming them? (To see that Adalah is the prejudiced group, go to
BARGHOUTI USURPS PRIVILEGE IN ISRAELI PRISON 
Marwan Barghouti and his men, before capture (A.P./Nasser Nasser) Convicted lifer, Marwan Barghouti, has usurped the privilege of giving press interviews in behalf of his ideology, contrary to prison rules. Some nationalist Members of Knesset demanded that prison officials
stop Barghouti and punish him for his violation
While anti-Zionists call Israel overbearing, I find the government failing to safeguard Israeli interests. The government's ideology conflicts with those national interests. It seems as if he is being coddled in anticipation of a deal. If you are a Palestinan Arab who murders Israelis, punishment is not too severe. The article reiterates the supposition that Barghouti is popular among his people. I recall a poll that showed he is not. ISRAEL TO WITHDRAW FROM LEBANESE HALF OF BORDER VILLAGE The international boundary between Israel and Lebanon runs through the middle of the village of Ghajar. The UN cease-fire resolution calls for Israeli forces to stop operating in Lebanon. Accordingly, the government of Israel plans to withdraw from the village's northern half. UNIFIL is prepared to patrol the Lebanese half of that village, but only to prevent fighting. It would not search houses for arms caches. Yet it states that Israeli law would continue to be enforced in the northern half. Who would enforce Israeli law there? Not the departed IDF. Hizbullah? (www.imra.org.il, 11/23.) A Druze official in Israel's government finds it crazy to make the same mistake there, as Israel did in the general withdrawal from Lebanon in favor of UNIFIL, which lets Hizbullah build up for war. Apparently, Israel has to honor the UN resolution and Lebanon does not. But Israel is accused of violating the UN resolution. A friend of mine, formerly with the UN, accused Israel of violating UN resolution 242, in not withdrawing to the 1967 armistice line, that he carelessly called a border. I pointed out that 242 does not at all demand that extensive a withdrawal, and Israel is not in violation, because the withdrawal is to be in the context of a comprehensive peace, which Abbas refuses to negotiate. He admitted that is so. Then why accuse Israel? IDF INCONSISTENT ON CALLS TO DISOBEY ORDERS 
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel 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 ISRAEL MILITARY
Posted by Ari Bussel, November 25, 2009. |
|
A right of passage in Israel, when one turns 18, is being drafted into the military. Men serve three years and women normally serve half that long. Officers (men or women) are signed for an additional year, for the privilege of attending the Officers' Training School. Some (men and women) then remain in service as a vocation and are entitled to early retirement at the age of 40, at which time they typically embark on a second career. This was the way the system used to work. After completing the matriculation exams, a young person, fresh out of high school, would undergo exams and screening, go through boot camp, and start the most influential period of one's life. These soldiers and their commanders are entrusted with the safety and security of the Jewish Homeland. They carry out the policies of the Israeli government. Whatever the composition of the ruling coalition, the military is there to execute its decisions, with the goal of defending the Jewish State. Once, if a person did not serve as everyone else, he would be ostracized from society. The chances of getting a job dissipated, life was unbearable. The exceptions were the ultra-orthodox Haredi Jews who do not serve — men study at Yeshivot (religious seminaries) and women are to be married at a very early age and raise children. In the Jewish state, this exemption became an entitlement, causing a rift between the secular and religious sectors, the former enraged by the lack of equal burden under the law. Over the past 20 years, things have changed. First, there was a massive immigration from the former Soviet Union, followed by immigration from Ethiopia. With an ever-increasing number of enlistees among the new immigrants, the military could afford to become more "selective." That proved to be a mistake. It happened at the same time that another worrying trend emerged: a new fashion not to serve. Various teen idols avoided service; a phenomenon that gained more and more acceptance, until matters reached a critical level that could no longer be ignored. Last year, the military began fighting this phenomenon and named it a top priority. Second, a segment of the religious sector had the courage to stand against the tide and declare that serving in the Jewish army of the Jewish state is a privilege and a duty. First God, then Country: not mutually exclusive rather both a reflection of the same belief in the God of the Hebrews and His promise to His people. In the military, all meals are kosher, time is given for the daily prayers, the Sabbath and the Jewish holidays are all strictly observed and — most importantly — if not I for myself (and my countrymen), who is? This segment of modern orthodoxy, usually described by the type of yarmulkas worn by the men ("Knitted Yarmulka"), has become dominant. A very high percentage (some say a majority) of all elite units comes from this segment of society. The "Knitted Yarmulkas" replaced the members of the Kibbutzim of yesteryears, becoming what Israelis call "the salt of the land," its essence, prime and best examples. With the new generation of draftees this week, motivation to serve in the most elite combat units is at an all-time high. Many compete for every available spot. Morale is high. Just three years ago, the military failed in the Second War in Lebanon. The blow was so rough that to this very day, comparisons are being made to that bitter failure, to the mistakes and faults that led to Israel's loss of deterrence. One of the lessons learned was soldiers should not be carrying cell phones. The cost in human life was grave and soldiers can, actually, be on the front line without reporting home every few minutes. Another lesson was officers at all levels should not be interviewing on local and international media — silence is immensely important. The Israel Defense Forces ("IDF") follow a clear hierarchy. There is one face and voice, although multiple languages may be used. Another "discovery" was that there must be a censor whose guidance and supervision lead to saving lives instead of disseminating classified information. Seemingly, "Military 101" had to be re-learned. There were other problems: Logistics fell behind those forces at the very front, causing shortages previously unforeseen. Equipment taken out from warehouses was either not functioning properly or in less than desirable condition. Many reserve units did not train or were trained to fight a different scenario (urban vs. open warfare, for instance). Complaining aside, these were short-term obstacles that could be overcome. Israel is very good at improvising, and she learns and improves — especially when the toll is heavily felt. Since the issues that surfaced three years ago were symptomatic of an inner, much deeper problem, we must tie them into the rampant avoidance of service and ask if the IDF has lost its lure? The answer, one finds, is that the IDF continues to offer the following unique propositions: a) The IDF is a melting pot — it is an army of all the people, those from rich and poor homes, religious and secular backgrounds, different shades of skin color, smart and slow, disabled and healthy, courageous and hesitant. Service pushes all through a mixer, treating them equally, placing the same demands and entrusting the same great responsibilities regardless of creed, ethnicity, or other labels or affiliations; b) The IDF is a singular pivotal point in a young person's life. Mandatory military service in the IDF creates a thinking, responsible citizen who has paid dues to society and is ready to assume a different role as an adult. In the United States, a youngster attends four years of college following high school graduation. Compare the person with a Bachelor's degree with the person who finished military service, and you will find the latter more reliable, more responsible, with more practical abilities to face life; c) The IDF is an army of all of Israel. By necessity and design, it is ISRAEL. Each family of this tiny country surrounded by enemies has a son, a daughter, a father or grandfather, a brother or uncle, a niece or a granddaughter who serves, thus creating an extended network; d) The IDF is an army that is responsible for every one of his members. People often wonder why did Israel release hundreds of terrorists to get back body parts of two soldiers (for which she went to the Second War in Lebanon), or why is she discussing the possible release of a thousand more terrorists for one twenty some year old Gilad Shalit held in captivity in Gaza. Shalit's captors have not allowed access to the International Red Cross even once for close to four years. For Jewish people, saving the life of one amounts to saving the whole world. For an Israeli, there is an unspoken promise that every parent can sleep quietly knowing the son or daughter will always come back from the front, that Israel will ensure this happens. Indeed, every child in Israel knows the name of Gilad Shalit, the symbol of all that is wrong with Israel's enemies and the aspiration of Israel for peace, normalcy and sanity; e) The IDF is the embodiment of Jewish thought and wisdom, of honor and sense of humanity. The cleanliness of virtue, the pristine innocence of deeds, the ability to tell your soldiers "follow me" and lead, the knowledge that no soldier is left behind at the battlefield and the code of honor which is part of the IDF's DNA are the founding blocks of the Israeli military. The strength of these pillars is evident in the respect the IDF enjoys both by fellow professionals from around the world and from those who are at its mercy. They, more than anyone else, know that if the roles were reversed, murder for the pure enjoyment and exemplary effects (causing sheer fear and subjugation), killings without even a thought for human life, raping and maiming for the utter satisfaction and complete disrespect to other human beings would be rampant; f) The IDF is Israel's future, for it enables Israel to focus on innovation and creativity, to flourish and thrive, to grow and succeed in the harshest of environments (climate, lack of resources, human enemies, etc.). By providing the deterrence and safety net, the IDF allows citizens not in active service to live their daily lives in the most unlikely and currently unfriendly of places — their eternal homeland. The IDF is the cement, the building blocks, the embodiment of past, present and future of Israel. As President Obama continues his deliberations about the future of our young men and women in Afghanistan, I am reminded of the following observation: As long as the burden is not felt and shared by all Americans, as long as we neither understand nor appreciate the sacrifices of our young men and women, they should not be in Iraq and Afghanistan. Every fallen soldier, a precious life extinguished, is wasted if most Americans assign little if any price for the sacrifice made. Americans on the front lines overseas are willing to give their lives to uphold all that we take for granted so that others, their fellow Americans, can continue their daily lives. A day will come and by necessity we will return to these hostile far away lands, but then the burden will be shared more equally by all, not only by some. Israeli society provides an inspiring example how to turn a terrible necessity — one of having to protect oneself for one's continued existence — into a benefit to the society at large, educating, preparing the individual for a meaningful life and letting one know that with rights come obligations. May our young men and women come back home soon, may Israel continue to be strong, as it is the last fort standing and protecting the West. May there come a day that Micah's prophecy becomes reality: "and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." (4:3) In the series "Postcards from Israel," Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers throughout the world to join them as they present reports from Israel as seen by two sets of eyes: Bussel's on the ground, Zager's counter-point from home. Israel and the United States are inter-related — the two countries we hold dearest to our hearts — and so is this "point — counter-point" presentation that has, since 2008, become part of our lives. Contact Ari Bussel at busselari@gmail.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: BAD NEWS
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 25, 2009. |
|
It's almost Thanksgiving in the US. I attended a shiur (a religious lesson) this morning, and a forum tonight, and I was going to pass on posting for a bit. (It's almost midnight as I write.) But I cannot. I must send out this message, with more to follow. Prime Minister Netanyahu tonight formally announced what has been rumored: A 10-month freeze on building in the communities of Judea and Samaria. Those construction projects already in the works (some 3,000 units) will continue, and, at least in theory, construction for public buildings — schools, etc. — will be permitted even during the 10 months. Jerusalem is not included in the freeze. The Security Cabinet approved the move this afternoon. Not good. In fact, very bad. A concession that weakens us and should not have been made. We have a right to be in Judea and Samaria. Period. ~~~~~~~~~~ In announcing this, Netanyahu made a big deal about the fact that it will bring us closer to "peace" — that it is good for Israel and shows the world that we're sincere about "peace." Garbage. On Monday, incredibly, he made a statement saying that he believed he was "uniquely positioned" to bring the public to support an "historic agreement with the Palestinians." Does he have a messiah complex? To play the game astutely, to protect us from unnecessary international pressure and hostile actions is one thing. To imagine he can actually achieve a solid and meaningful "peace agreement" with the Palestinian Arabs is something else. (This is completely aside from whether he should attempt to do so, whether he can or not.) Anyone who knows anything of substance about the current situation within the PA knows full well that they cannot sign off on a final agreement for a "two-state solution" because they don't have a state and are not in a position to produce a state. If we pull out of Judea and Samaria (G-d forbid!) Hamas will move in sooner or later, and there will be a host of other problems even before Hamas arrives. (I will be returning to the whole issue of why even attempting to negotiate for a state makes no sense.) It cannot be that Netanyahu doesn't know this. So what is he babbling about? Why is he promoting it with the public as something that is good for Israel? Weakening us cannot be good for us. ~~~~~~~~~~ One news source indicated that Netanyahu agreed upon this in his recent — secret — meeting with Obama. Right after the meeting, Netanyahu had said that, in time, we'd see why it had to be a secret, and I've been wondering about that. But this is not the "why." There's more. There had to be. Is there something Obama held over his head? What? This represents a double concession — to the Palestinian Arabs, and to the Obama government. I cited Barry Rubin the other day, who said we could learn from what has been going on that concessions aren't appreciated, they only bring a demand for more concessions. And here were are: US Envoy Mitchell, speaking in the US, said that, well, this Netanyahu commitment doesn't really conform with the administration's full position — which is that the settlements have to go — but it's a good step, more than any prime minister has done until now. During the forum I attended tonight (which I will return to), Dore Gold, Director of the Jerusalem Center for Public affairs, stated that the Obama administration never refers to Security Council resolution 242, which says we are not required to pull back to the Green Line. Obama simply talks about "the West Bank" as "Palestinian." When you're dealing with people such as this — who want to deprive us fully of our rights — you don't give part way. This simply encourages them to demand the whole package. You stand strong and tell them, No way! Is Netanyahu proud that he's done what no other prime minister has done? ~~~~~~~~~~ Take a look at IMRA (http://imra.org). Director Aaron Lerner has posted a series of Archive pieces that trace the recent history of the issue of a settlement freeze. Note this please: In April, when the Czech prime minister visited, Netanyahu told him he didn't want to be pressured: "I have no plans to build new settlements, but if someone wants to build a new home [in an existing settlement], I don't think there's a problem." He said Judea and Samaria were "disputed" territory and their disposition would be decided by negotiations. Slowly this position has eroded. ~~~~~~~~~~ And let's look, just briefly, at the PA attitude. Just yesterday, PA president Mahmoud Abbas said Obama has done nothing for peace. He was waiting for the American president to pressure Israel. And — Heaven help us! — the day after Abbas said this, Netanyahu makes a large concession. Is this timing coincidence, or a sick joke? Or a really really miserable attempt to make Obama happy? Interviewed by an Argentinean magazine, Abbas was asked what he would concede for peace. Abbas answered that his people has "already made concessions." Like what, for instance? Said Abbas, the current Israeli gov't was not seeking peace. This too makes the timing of Netanyahu's announcement terrible. Like eager puppets, we have to show the PA how much we'll do and how sincere we are, right after they indicate they expect us to give but don't intend to concede anything themselves?? Oi, and oi. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yesha (Yesha = Yehuda, Shomron, Gaza) Council chair Danny Dayan noted tonight that Netanyahu's big theme has always been "reciprocity." We don't give unilaterally, he has insisted. We must get in return. So now he has betrayed that principle. With regard to this, even though a freeze still would not be acceptable, it would have been considerably more palatable or reasonable (or done with more national dignity) if Netanyahu has demanded a return action. The whole point of this is to "encourage" the PA to come to the table. But they won't. They've already said so, because Jerusalem is not included in the freeze and their demands continue at a maximalist level. They don't want to negotiate, in any event. How would they even manage if they got that "state"? What if Netanyahu had said, IF the PA will come to the table, then I'll do the freeze? That would have shown "flexibility" and "sincerity" on our part, but would have put the onus squarely where it belongs, and would have left us with no freeze once they refused to come to the table. Now, it appears exceedingly likely that we'll remain frozen even if they don't come to the table. The big concern here is that it should not last for more than 10 months — that it should not establish a precedent that just goes on. There are those who see this as a sure sign that it's meant by Netanyahu to be the beginning of the end, a signal that he will allow us to be pushed out of most or all of Judea and Samaria. ~~~~~~~~~~ If there's any good news tonight it's that a lot of people on the right are enraged. I do think there's more sensitivity to the dangers of such a move than there was before the expulsion from Gaza. People have been burned, and the nation is wary. Dayan of the Yesha Council also said this tonight: "The Netanyahu government was elected based on its promise to promote settlement activity in the West Bank, but immediately after it was established this government began to constrain the settlement enterprise. The cabinet ministers are obligated to prevent this." And there's a question here, as to whether, indeed, it will still be brought before the full Cabinet. Likud MK Danny Danon made excellent points when he said: "We were elected to bolster the settlement enterprise, not freeze construction. The freeze constitutes a statement that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, while up until this point Likud has backed the concept that the settlers guarantee Israel's security." Continued Danon: "We will demand that Netanyahu bring the issue to a Likud faction and Central Committee vote, to make certain that the Sharon trauma [Gaza withdrawal] does not repeat itself." Information and Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein (also Likud) said, "I will not lend my hand to this process that will ultimately endanger the security of Israel and won't bring us even a tiny bit closer to peace." Likud MK Tzipi Hotovely, straight-talking and tough, was none too pleased either. So Netanyahu will find it tough going within his own party. (I'm mindful of the fact that, within the inner circle, we have no word from and no indication of the positions of Moshe Ya'alon and Benny Begin. When the gov't was formed, their presence provided reassurance that Netanyahu would be kept straight. Do they know something we don't know? Are they screaming behind closed doors? Or are they holding on to the status quo?) ~~~~~~~~~~ There are calls for Netanyahu to resign (fat chance), and those who would now attempt to bring the gov't down. My problem with bringing the gov't down is that the alternative — Livni and Kadima — would certainly be no better and might be worse. I don't see it as a viable solution. What we must remember is that this is, broadly, a right-leaning coalition. Faction chair Zevulun Orlev of HaBayit Hayehudi — a member of the coalition — said his party would seek alternative political means of cracking the freeze. And he is calling on other parties in the coalition — Yisrael Beitenu and Shas — to unite to work against this. ~~~~~~~~~~ My friends, when there was ambiguity and it wasn't clear what Netanyahu was up to, I said forthrightly that I wouldn't criticize and that I was not in a position to judge all of the parameters of an extraordinarily difficult situation. (Facing off against Obama IS extraordinarily difficult, and, with everything, I always keep Iran, and the need for US cooperation on this, in my mind.) I felt that he might be "playing the game," taking risks, but with reason, and astutely. I promised I'd scream if I saw reason to do so. Tonight I see reason. Please, let Prime Minister Netanyahu know what YOU think of what he's just done:
~~~~~~~~~~ In the US: Happy Thanksgiving! Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
RADICALIZATION PROCESS OR THE REAL MUSLIM
Posted by Michael Devolin, November 25, 2009. |
|
I've always regarded the academically projected idea of "Islamophobia" as being an infringement upon the democratic freedom to think and weigh evidence against the perceived threat of Islamic terrorism. If the presence of Muslims in my community makes me feel anxious, that is the fault of Islam and not the fault of my existence in a Western democracy like Canada. In Canada it is still my freedom to feel anxious about certain religious, especially if such anxiety, in light of all I've read both in books and newspapers, warns against the violent manifestations of Islam as embodied in the persons of those whose lasts utterances before they murdered innocents helter skelter were addressed to the god known as Allah. Being an expert on Islam is not yet a prerequisite to being a Canadian citizen; being dedicated to my country's security and the safety of my community is not yet a crime in this country. It is the fault of Islam and the Muslim "radical" that many Canadians like me (although they are fearful of saying so publicly) view all Muslims as being suspect. In my view, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross' description of the "radicalization process" is simply more of the same tedious apologia long ago worn out by others before him also in possession of laudable education but likewise without an intellect. When a Jew chooses to become more observant, as did Rabbi Kahane (obm), he/she moves to Israel and eats Kosher; when a Christian decides to become more religious, he/she quits smoking or quits drinking or maybe attends Mass more often. When a Muslim decides to become more religious, he/she decides to kill anyone whom for x amount of days, months, or years prior the tenets of his interpretation of the Koran defined as being "blasphemous" and an affront to the god and religion they now swear to serve resolutely, namely Allah and Islam. The terms "adopting a legalistic interpretation," "manifesting a low tolerance for perceived theological deviance, and attempting to impose one's religious views on others" could be used to describe Billy Graham's life story. These terms are descriptive only, and weightless. The religious adherence Mr. Gartenstein-Ross delineates also dictates, of necessity, the observance of the most moderate religious types, whether Christian, Jew or Muslim. What differentiates the "Islamist" (who, according to the Koran, is a "faithful" Muslim) is his/her angry hatred of all non-Muslims, but especially Western non-Muslims, and even more so all Jews. What Daveed Gartenstein-Ross has failed to address (along with many others) is the frightening reality that even in the mind of the comfortably moderate and well educated Muslim, the tenets of Islam regarding his/her measure of adherence to the Koran can at any time preponderate beyond all Western-oriented judicious monitions against the "Islamist" concept of jihad. This same noesis inspired Major Nidal Hasan into a shooting spree in Ft. Hood in the same way it inspired the doctor in Aberdeen Scotland to drive his SUV into an airport lounge. Islam is the cause of terrorism. The radicalization process is merely the conduit through which the former "moderate Muslim" arrives at the Islamist level of Islam. No matter the odious acts of terror Osama bin Laden has committed against the West, the West has yet to acknowledge that bin Laden's interpretation of Islam is the more accurate. Were all Muslims required to be "experts on Islam" in order to perceive the true meaning of the words of the Prophet Mohammed, then Islam is untrue to the Prophet's promise of perspicuity for the simple-minded. But if not, then Islam has certainly succeeded as a religion intrinsically, although not as a salubrious affect for those whose beliefs lay elsewhere. Michael Devolin,
Michael Devolin is a Noachide and lives in Canada. Contact him at devolin@reach.net |
|
THE MIDEAST QUAGMIRE
Posted by Daily Alert, November 25, 2009. |
|
This was written by Asaf Romirowsky, who is an adjunct fellow at the Middle East Forum. |
|
AFTER President Obama's June 4 Cairo speech on U.S.-Muslim concerns, including the Palestinians, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his own speech at Bar Ilan University stipulating that Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He said a "basic condition for the termination of the conflict is honest and public recognition by the Palestinians of Israel as the Jewish people's nation . . . we need the Palestinian leadership to get up and say, 'We've had enough of this conflict.' " Netanyahu's statement helps explain why the most recent Obama-initiated peace process has seemed to go nowhere. It is notable for the fact that it forces Palestinians to take a good look in the mirror and decide how they'd like to proceed. Historically, Palestinian society never saw Israel's existence as a "right." The only right in the Palestinian narrative is their own connection to the land, although they do see Israel as a temporary military fact. But there will come a day, the narrative goes, when they will be able to defeat the Israelis. The notion of an independent, sovereign Palestinian state existing alongside Israel was never part of the Palestinian worldview, and they have also always rejected the notion of a single binational state. If from the late '80s into the Oslo years it was politically correct to call for a two-state solution, two sides living side by side, many Palestinians now openly call for a one-state solution, a de facto final solution for the state of Israel. Just look at what Rashid Khalidi, ex-PLO spokesman, now professor at Columbia, writes in his book "The Iron Cage": "among some observers . . . a realization has been growing for years that is increasingly unlikely. This realization has taken shape irrespective of the merits or demerits . . . of the two-state solution, in spite of the long-standing desire of majorities of Palestinians and Israelis for their own state, and notwithstanding the (often grudging and hedged) acceptance by each people of a state for the others." In fact, on the Palestinian street, where things really count, the preference is for a one-state solution — Israel is nowhere to be found. A closer look at the idea of the two-state model as proposed by Palestinian spokesmen reveals that it is actually a camouflage. It lets the Palestinians be perceived as compromising when, in reality, they don't have to. The pro-Palestinian faction loves to quote U.N. resolution 242. It's become the foundation for the land-for-peace formula drafted after the Six Day War, and a superficial reading seemingly places the Palestinian peace-brokers in a position of strength. If Israel valued peace, it would return land. If Arabs wanted land, they would give peace. But there is dishonesty within 242: On one hand, it talks about the exchange of land for peace with Israel, meaning there's room to negotiate. But although we (naively) believe it also calls for recognition of Israel as the Jewish state, that is not the case. And paying lip service to the two-state idea in reality makes it easier to blame Israel and the U.S. for preventing the creation of a Palestinian state, all while putting off facing up to the responsibilities of governing a state and being accountable for your actions. Washington, D.C., and Jerusalem should start looking at other options as the Obama administration tries to reignite "peace talks" that have no viable end result. The two-state solution in its current formula is actually just a placebo for those who'd like to believe that peace will come when there are two states living side by side. Absent real acceptance of Israel by the Arabs, this isn't likely to occur — and the probability of Hamas-run Gaza being included in any resolution is slim to none.
FOR PRAGMATIC reasons, Palestinians may not admit a return to the one-state policy, particularly since American aid and support flows from a peace process based on a two-state solution, but the signs are everywhere. We need to face the fact that peace and security are not going come from the "two-state solution," and without understanding that, there can't be a real discussion of what peace and security in the region really looks like. 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 |
|
ARAB LEOPARD UNABLE TO CHANGE SPOTS; KADIMA ADVANCING BACKWARD; THE MIDDLE EAST MATRIX!
Posted by Steven Shamrak, November 25, 2009. |
|
Arab Leopard Unable to Change his Spots. Syrian president Bashar Assad like the leopard has not changed his spots. After Washington opened the door wide to reconciliation, lavishing goodwill gestures and a procession of emissaries over several months, Assad has abruptly slammed it shut. On Wednesday, Aug. 12, he announced he was off to Tehran next week to congratulate his good friend Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his re-election as president and further cement their ties. He left behind him a trail of dashed hopes in Washington. (It seems that regardless of how rude and embarrassing any behaviour toward the US is, any slap in the face from a Muslim or Arab country is happily tolerated by the current administration and it is underplayed or even not reported at all by the international press!) Cooperation of anti-Israel Coalition. The Lebanese Air Force will receive 10 U.S. made Puma helicopters, a gift from United Arab Emirates. In addition, Lebanon will receive 10 Russian-made MiG 29 planes. Food for Thought. by Steven Shamrak Only after the Americans, including their president, end their politically correct or hypocritical blindness and stop saying: "I don't know why he did it" (re: Fort Hood rampage by major Nidal Malik Hasan) will they be able to face up to and win the war which is being waged by Islam against humanity! Kadima — Always Advancing Backward. Kadima Knesset Member Meir Sheetrit, who was Interior Minister in the Olmert government, came out swinging against the Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. He argued that the new construction in Gilo will play into the hands of Hamas and boost popularity for the terrorist organization. (Enemies of Israel never been considerate toward Jews. Must Israel care for the opinions of our enemies?) Arab Export to Israel. Israeli border police of the Galilee region have seized 15 kilograms/33 pounds of heroine smuggled into Israel by an Israeli-Arab from the village of Yarcha. Injustice System Infested by Self-hating Left. The public-professional committee charged with presenting candidates for the next attorney general finished its work on Thursday evening and informed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Justice Minister Ya'akov Ne'eman that there is no clear candidate. (Well stuffed by Labor and Kadima's ideological supporters the committee is unable and unwilling to approve the Zionist-minded candidate!) The government has exposed its discrimination against Jewish patriots during the anti-expulsion protests five years ago by pardoning motorcyclists who clogged Tel Aviv and caused a mammoth rush-hour traffic jam in a demonstration against higher insurance rates last week. Repugnant Traitors Sabotage Israel's Sovereignty. President Shimon Peres (former Labor leader) and Defense Minister Ehud Barak (current Labor leader) are formulating yet another peace plan. It begins with the formation of a demilitarized Palestinian Authority state in half of Judea and Samaria (Jewish land), and ends within two years with a PA state of double that size. (Voters of Israel must purge Israel's political system of these self-hating bastards.) Quote of the Week: "The demand not to build in Gilo seems strange and even bizarre since it has been inhabited for 30 years... It's not east Jerusalem — Arabs have never lived in Gilo and its houses weren't built on private Arab land." — former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Zalman Shoval — It is more than just strange. It is a symptomatic attack on Israel's s sovereign rights by the US and other international anti-Semitic bigots! Jordanian King to US Jews: Support PA State. Jordan's King Abdullah II turned to Jewish leaders from the United States this week in hopes of convincing them to help pressure Israel to accept the 2002 Saudi Peace Plan. (I would like to see him and his lovely looking wife, Queen Rania, supporting and propagating among Arabs the Sinai Option: The only road to Permanent Peace!) New Embassies Must be Opened in Jerusalem Only! Estonia is opening its embassy in Israel on Wednesday. Estonia has followed every other country in the world in declining to locate its embassy in Jerusalem. The international (hypocritical) community has refused to recognize Israeli sovereignty over all parts of the capital. Where is the UN's Condemnation of this Over Reaction? A substantial Saudi armored infantry force and tank column crossed the border into Yemen, on Thursday Nov. 5, to do battle with Iran-backed Houthi rebels the day after they killed a Saudi border guard. Saudi air force F-15 and Tornado jets have been bombing Yemeni rebel positions near the border. (The killing of just one border guard provoked such over reaction. After Katyusha rocket attacks Israel had more reasons for attacking Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza after 8 years of terror and over 12,000 rocket attacks. Have the United Nations General Assembly held an emergency meeting and condemned Saudi Arabia's aggression?) Hypocricy of the Headlines. Israel told to accept global consensus on establishing Palestinian state — Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdallah, Minister Responsible for Foreign Affairs, Oman — Shouldn't the Muslim countries accept the global consensus on the end of international Islamic terror first? Self-hating Bastards Must Pay. Police officer David Atiya has been ordered by the Jerusalem Magistrates Court to pay NIS 60,000 out of his own pocket for butting David Ladwin in the head with his helmet during demonstrations in February 2006 against the demolition of nine buildings in the Samarian Jewish community of Amona. PA's Child Slavery which is not condemned by UN. According to a report published by the Palestinian Organization for Democracy and Law, hundreds of children are working 12 hours a day in the tunnels used for smuggling between Gaza and Egypt. Some are being given amphetamines to maintain the work rhythm. The report states that 117 Palestinians have been killed in the tunnels in the past two years, including 32 children working in the tunnels. No Freedom of Speech for Jewish Patriots in Israel. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is alright for Israel Radio and the Second Authority for Television and Radio to reject ads that refer to the forced removal of Jews from their homes during the retreat from Gaza in 2005 as an expulsion. ( Some 8,500 Jews were forcibly expelled from their homes and over ten communities were destroyed during the 'disengagement' of 2005.) The Middle East Matrix!
What if everything you think you know to be true is a lie, and everything you see is just an illusion? Sounds like a promo for The Matrix, but this is the reality of life in the Middle East. The rules that apply to other countries strangely change when applied to Israel. Israel becomes subject to "international law" based upon a legal foundation of facts that don't exist; Israel has leaders, but the leaders would rather suffer the existence of abusive friendships than fight back and protect their children. The United States is leading the crusade against Israel. President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are not only demanding Israel freeze all "settlement construction", including natural growth, but that Jewish rights be curbed in Jerusalem. Obama is also calling Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria an "occupation." Yes, Israel does have rights under international law, and the Arab propaganda accusation of Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine is another falsehood that needs to end. Israel's government has never stood up for Jewish land rights. Can it be that they don't even know what those rights are? It's frustrating to see Israeli leaders refuse to challenge the false accusations. The fact is that international law does have a lot to say about Israel's rights in Judea, Samaria and beyond. Israel's leaders, President Obama, and the entire world body should look to international law before declaring that Israel should freeze construction, or even worse, surrender portions of the Jewish National Homeland. ...The Mandate for Palestine was for the exclusive benefit of the Jewish People. No other beneficiary is named in the Mandate. Non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine were guaranteed the civil and religious rights due to any minority living in a democracy. These rights do not include the right to autonomy. If they did, then every religious group would have the right to an autonomous state. The British never intended on leaving Palestine for the Jews. Despite their obligations under the Mandate, British actions prevented Palestine from becoming Jewish. ...Bringing the Jewish People's rights before the legal system, where propaganda will lose to factual evidence, will end the illusion of illegal occupation and firmly establish the Jewish Nation's legal rights to all of Israel. Once the propaganda is proven to be a lie, then perhaps, just like in The Matrix, the Jewish People will also be able to stop the bullets of anti-Zionism in mid-air. (In order to end lies, You may start distributing this information now — The Mandate — Legalised Robbery!) The Bottom Line: The Mandate for Palestine was for the exclusive benefit of the Jewish People. The Mandate (Article 5) stipulated that "no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign Power." This means that under international law, no one can force the Jewish State to cede any land that is legally recognized as belonging to the Jewish homeland. This renders the 1947 UN Partition Plan an illegal resolution. Steven Shamrak was involved in the Moscow Zionist movement. He worked as a construction engineer at the Moscow Olympic Games project and as a computer consultant in Australia. He has been publishing an Internet editorial letter about the Arab-Israel conflict since August 2001 and has a website www.shamrak.com. He can be reached by email at StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com |
|
HAMAS SITE ENCOURAGES EUROPE ATTACKS
Posted by Sacha Stawski, November 25, 2009. |
|
This was written by Benjamin Weinthal, Jerusalem Post
correspondent in Berlin, and it appeared today in the Jerusalem
Post
|
|
The educational content of the Hamas children's Web site Al-Fateh (The Conqueror) is not a form of pedagogy, but an "indoctrination to suicide bombing," said David Oman, the director of communications for the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT-SE) on Tuesday at a press conference at the Regent Hotel. Gert Weisskirchen, a former Social Democratic Party MP and chairman of the OSCE on combating anti-Semitism between 2004-2008, introduced the IMPACT-SE study, and said that "there is a chance to prevent the indoctrination of children and youngsters in Germany and all over Europe." The study "Al-Fateh — The Hamas Web Magazine for Children: Indoctrination to Jihad, Annihilation and Self-Destruction" took place from September 2002 to April of this year. Oman cited the "friends of Al-Fateh" entry of the young German-Palestinian child Muhammad Warad as growing evidence of the spread of radical, anti-Western Hamas ideology. The Hamas Web site, according to the IMPACT-SE study, serves to demonize Israel through the use of anti-Semitic cartoons and tries to strip the country of its right to exist. The promotion of violence is a standard theme of Al-Fateh. A telling example, said Oman, is the glorification of female suicide bomber Zeynab Abu Salam, who murdered two Jerusalem police officers in 2004. Al-Fateh claims to receive millions of visitors, according to Oman. He said the Al-Fateh server, which has been tracked to Russia and Malaysia, frequently relocates its operation to prevent closure. The United Kingdom is listed as the site's current host. The educational material on the site contravenes "all of the International Educational Standards based on UNESCO Resolutions," noted the study. Moreover, the authors of the study wrote that the site violates the International Convention on the Rights of the Child affirming that "every child has the inherent right to life," by inciting children to commit suicide bombings. The pro-violence ideology of Hamas will have "implications for the West and Israel," said Oman. "What will happen in 10 or 15 years from these children after their exposure to this type of hate?" asked Oman. The Iranian-Hamas connection appears on Al-Fateh. The study highlighted the role of the founder of the Iranian Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, in stoking hatred against the West and Israel. "The Web site often uses stories of shahids [martyrs] or their last wills and testaments to convey the message of violent jihad till victory or death — a message found in the teachings of Ayatollah Khomeini," wrote the authors. "Child abuse" was the term Oman invoked to describe the effect of Hamas's educational site on adolescents and children. Sacha Stawski is with Honestly Concerned Organization. |
|
IS ISRAEL BUILDING A BRIDGE FOR ARABS TO CROSS & ATTACK
Posted by Emanuel A. Winston, November 24, 2009. |
|
There is a lesson for Israel to be learned in the movie: The Bridge on the River Kwai starring Alec Guinness. Remember how the top ranking British officer captured by the Japanese, along with British soldiers, helped engineer and build a bridge across the River Kwai enabling their Japanese captors to ship men and war materiel via train to advance their war machine. Out of ego and hubris the British officer used British engineering and the labor of his men to build that bridge. Although he was advised by junior officers that he was aiding the enemy, he continued on, so engrossed with the project that, only at the end when special forces were going to die blowing up his bridge did he realize what he had done. We have watched in horror as various Israeli Prime Ministers became so consumed with appeasing the Americans, Europeans and various Arab and Muslim countries with a failed peace process, that they lost all sense of who the enemy was and that their goal was to destroy the nation of Israel. Regrettably, the political leaders of Israel were similarly shallow thinkers, consumed with assisting the Muslim Arab Palestinians to take the Land from Jewish settlers, further enabling Terrorists to attack and kill Jewish citizens they swore to protect. Unfortunately, either through hubris or stupidity, they could not understand the machinations of the larger countries serving their own national interests — such as America, France, England, Russia, China — the U.N. But, they are totally vacant about the safety or survival of Israel. Nor could they grasp the unalterable depth of irreversible Islamic hatred for the Jewish people. Nor could they possibly understand the psychology of a primitive people who could never admit to themselves that they were stuck in a 7th to 12th Century time warp while their greedy, short-sighted Muslim Arab leaders kept themselves rich and their people impoverished. The problem for Israel is that most of her elected leadership have acted like merely political hacks hungry for power and money. They had no vision and were not problem solvers. They didn't see that Israel has the inherent right to exist as a Jewish, sovereign state and that there should be no surrender of Land to sue for peace. Israel should only offer "Peace for Peace" — no more. That includes NOT unleashing thousands of captured, tried, convicted and jailed Terrorists who either wanted to kill Jews (or already had) so they could kill more Jews. Granted, Israel is a minuscule nation, surrounded by large hostile Muslim and Arab nations, driven by pagan, religiously-inspired haters of all "infidels" (non-believers) but, with the good fortune to sit on oil — black gold. Shimon Peres posed as an advanced thinker when, in fact, he was merely an unimaginative political hack who valued world opinion much higher then he should — and at great expense to Israel's security and sovereignty. Yitzhak Rabin was always a hopeless case, coming out of a Communist household, run by his strong-willed mother who was dubbed Rosa, the Red. Rabin was addicted to cigarettes and alcohol. Ehud Barak was 'assembled' bit-by-bit into fantasy figure as a 'thinker' by the Labor Left party. Regrettably, he rarely proved the public relations effort to make him seem like an intellectual — let alone a champion for all of Israel. Ehud Olmert was a complete loss, except he was trained as a lawyer who used those skills to eventually make money out of illegal deals — according to the 5 or 6 indictments the authorities have against him — yet to be tried. Our greatest disappointment was Arik Sharon, who was a real visionary and a fighter. His failures as a politician were staggering. He really knew the Arab/Muslim mind which made him a great general. As a politician he became no better than Rabin, Peres, Barak or Olmert by not recognizing that, regardless of agreements, the Muslim world would never give up trying to eliminate the Jewish State. All of the above — like the British officer building the bridge for the Japanese — became consumed with their place in history and abandoned whatever good sense they may have had about the Muslim Arabs. Somehow, they ignored well-recorded history of the Muslims who were indoctrinated by their own Koran to be conquerors, living like parasites on their victims' loot. Israel's leaders thought, by sheer Jewish logic (more like Chelm), they could achieve peace through pacification, appeasement and agreements that the Arab Muslims signed in the sand never intending to keep — as taught by Mohammed in his Hadith. For this the Jews surrendered all that is precious to them in the Land of Israel. Once esteemed Israeli leaders began the useless task of fashioning peace plans, all other knowledge and wisdom was pushed aside, particularly at the urging of the pro-Arab U.S. State Department and various U.S. Presidents deeply involved in the commerce of oil. So, our erstwhile leaders became like the British officer assisting his Japanese captors to build a bridge which would eventually bring more Japanese troops to kill or capture more British soldiers. In this reality, today it is Netanyahu (at Obama's urging) who is building that "very narrow bridge" of another State of Palestine within Israel's ancestral homeland in Judea, Samaria, the Golan Heights and all those parts (north, east and south) of Jerusalem that were occupied and desecrated by Jordan for 19 years from 1948 to 1967. We will see hostile Muslim Arabs flowing across that "very narrow bridge" unless it is blown up as in the film. A few Jewish leaders could not be so easily misled. David Ben Gurion had the vision but, he too became more interested in fighting religiously observant Jews than fighting the Muslim Arabs. PM Menachem Begin was a courageous leader who believed in the destiny of a Jewish State but, sadly he was misled by an American President (Jimmy Carter) and by Anwar Sadat, President of Egypt, the promises which Sadat never kept. Sadly, Begin was blinded to a reality he avoided seeing by his own desire for peace. PM Yitzhak Shamir, did understand the Arab Muslims and their one track mind set to eliminate the Jewish State. He dug in his heels and refused to negotiate away Israel's Land. Today we have PM Binyamin Netanyahu who is trying to ride several horses at the same time. Bibi wants to appease a one-term President, Barack Hussein Obama who, having been raised a Muslim, viscerally does not like the Jewish State and wishes to build another Terrorist Muslim Arab state in Judea and Samaria — connected to Gaza so their second State of Palestine can be "contiguous" with Jerusalem as their capital. Obama has over and over proclaimed himself to be a Muslim — in
words and deeds, denials notwithstanding. You can see him do it on
Bibi has a large ego and wishes to be recognized as the "Peace Maker" who should also receive a Nobel Peace Prize as did Peres, Arafat, Rabin and Obama. He walks a "narrow bridge" to keep Likud supporters of the Right sufficiently behind him so he will not again be voted out of office. The people do not trust him to not cut deals behind closed doors with the Americans and the Europeans. He will build 900 homes for Jews in Jerusalem — but, then he cut another deal to build 5,000 homes (in future planning) for the Arabs in Jerusalem — which expands an already hostile Fifth Column within Israel. Bibi will say that Jerusalem is to remain united but, then he'll be pushed to negotiate borders and a place in or near Jerusalem as the designated capital of another State of Palestine. Bibi will make promises to the settlers of Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights but, he will think he is forced to cut separate deals with Obama to establish what will inevitably be another Terrorist Palestinian State in Judea/Samaria — linked to Gaza because Sharon, Olmert and Weisglass forced the evacuation of 10,000 Jewish men, women and children from 21 communities in Gush Katif/Gaza and 4 communities in Northern Samaria, destroying their homes, farms, businesses, industries — even their cemeteries. Netanyahu believes his behind can sit on several horses at the same time and, with clever speeches, can get away with it. But, what country will have him after he builds his very "narrow bridge" for the enemies of Israel. Will he be able to walk the streets of Israel after he betrays the people and the nation. If he does this, missiles will rain down from the new "settlements" of Arab Muslim Terrorists in Judea and Samaria, decimating Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Prior Israeli leaders started this bridge to assist our enemies and PM Netanyahu may be trying his hand at completing the job — despite that he knows the Muslim Arabs will inevitably cross that "very narrow bridge" to try and destroy Israel, in keeping with the Muslim world's ultimate goal of creating a Global Caliphate under Sharia (strict) Muslim law. Perhaps Bibi and the Leftists can star in a new Jewish version of the Bridge on the River Kwai. 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 |
|
UNIQUE IN ITS UNIVERSALITY, INTENSITY, LONGEVITY AND IRRATIONALITY, WHAT IS THE ROOT OF ANTI-SEMITISM?
Posted by Susana K-M, November 24, 2009. |
|
This was written by Rabbi Shraga Simmons, who holds a degree
in journalism from the University of Texas at Austin, and rabbinic
ordination from the Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem. He is the senior editor
of Aish.com and the director of JewishPathways.com. He is also
regarded as an expert on media bias relating to the Middle East
conflict, and was the founding editor of HonestReporting.com. Rabbi
Simmons lives with his wife and children in the Modi''in region of
Israel. This article is archived at
|
|
History provides far too many examples of man's inhumanity to man: social injustice, religious oppression, cultural clashes, ideological wars, class hatred, and most every other form of racism and intolerance. One particular form, however, stands out amongst all others: Anti-Semitism. Unique in its universality, intensity, longevity and irrationality, anti-Semitism is a historical phenomenon which falls outside of normal sociological bounds. In 1987, President Chaim Herzog of Israel commissioned a colloquium on anti-Semitism. Professor Michael Curtis of Rutgers University spoke there about the irrationality of anti-Semitism: "The uniqueness of anti-Semitism lies in the fact that no other people in the world has ever been charged simultaneously with alienation from society and with cosmopolitanism, with being capitalistic exploiters and also revolutionary communist advocators. The Jews were accused of having an imperious mentality, at the same time they're a people of the book. They're accused of being militant aggressors, at the same time as being cowardly pacifists. With being a chosen people, and also having an inferior human nature. With both arrogance and timidity. With both extreme individualism and community adherence. With being guilty of the crucifixion of Jesus and at the same time held to account for the invention of Christianity." As historian Martin Gilbert observes in the Jewish History Atlas: "As my research into Jewish history progressed, I was surprised, depressed, and to some extent overwhelmed by the perpetual and irrational violence which pursued the Jews in every country and to almost every corner of the globe. If, therefore, persecution, expulsion, torture, humiliation, and mass murder haunt these pages, it is because they also haunt the Jewish story." Which leaves us with one question: What is the root of anti-Semitism? "Jews Are Rich, Powerful and Control The World" Many claim that anti-Semitism is a reaction to Jewish political and economic power. Consider the "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a book invented by the Russian secret police, purporting to be the discussions of Jewish elders plotting to take over the world. It was — next to the Bible — the best-selling book in the world during the 1920s. In the United States, Henry Ford sponsored its publication. It has since been printed in numerous languages internationally, and presently has widespread distribution in Japan. But could Jewish wealth and power really be the cause of anti-Semitism? The Jews of Poland and Russia (17th-20th centuries) were poor and powerless. Yet they were still persecuted. Cossacks didn't check bank accounts before initiating pogroms. When the Nazis liquidated the Warsaw Ghetto, the Jews lived there under incredibly impoverished conditions. The reality is that poor Jews have been just as hated as rich Jews. As Jews were being slaughtered en masse, the claim that Jews control governments becomes painfully absurd. Furthermore, if it is true that Jews control the governments, then why didn't even one country accept Jewish refugees struggling to escape Europe during the Holocaust? Surely with all their wealth and political power, at least one government would have allowed the Jews in! When government after government buried its head in the sand as Jews were being slaughtered en masse, the claim that Jews control governments becomes painfully absurd. Jewish "success" may make an anti-Semite gnash his teeth, but that's clearly not the root cause of anti-Semitism. "Jews Claim to be the Chosen People" The University of California at Berkeley conducted a survey, asking a group of non-Jewish Americans whether they believed a series of negative statements about Jews. By far the number one belief (held by 59%) was that Jews consider themselves as God's chosen people. It is true that Jews have always claimed to be different. Throughout history, Jews have kept to themselves, didn't socialize with non-Jews, and had a completely different ethical, cultural and social system — including different dress, laws, and language. To top it all off, Jewish allegiance was never primarily to the countries in which they lived. The Jew always dreamt of going back to Zion. They were the ultimate outsiders. If anti-Semites hate Jews because they claim to be chosen, then what happens when Jews dropped their claim of chosenness? When the Enlightenment came to Europe, many Jews said "Now's our chance!" They shed their foreign dress, shaved their beards, enrolled in universities — and intermarried. In Germany and Austria, Jews for the first time said: "We're no longer chosen. We're going to become like you. Our home is here. Berlin is our Jerusalem." After centuries of hatred, the Jews anticipated a warm welcome from their gentile neighbors. Where do we see the most vicious outpouring of anti-Semitism? Precisely in Germany and Austria — at the time and place that Jews dropped the claim of chosenness! If chosenness is, in fact, the real explanation for anti-Semitism, then many of peoples should be hated for similar claims of chosenness. Americans have the concept of Manifest Destiny — i.e. that it was the divine will of God to annex territory stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. The name China means "center of the universe." The name Japan means "the sun only shines for them." But nobody hates them for this! Other reasons have been suggested for anti-Semitism, but they also are lacking. Some say Jew-hatred stems from being different, or being outsiders, but as we have seen even when Jews been as German as the Germans, anti-Semitism has not lessened (usually the opposite). Others say Jews were a convenient scapegoat — but hatred must exist as a precondition to be chosen a scapegoat (i.e. no one ever chose midgets as the scapegoat for a country's problems). Others suggest that anti-Semitism exists because of Deicide: Jews killed their God. But historians show that anti-Semitism existed much before Christianity, and has appeared in countless non-Christian countries. We can see then that all the stated 'reasons' are not reasons at all, but rather are excuses for anti-Semitism. What is the real reason? The Attempt to De-Judaize Anti-Semitism In her diary, on April 11, 1944, Anne Frank wrote: "Who has made us Jews different from all other people? Who has allowed us to suffer so terribly up till now? It is God who has made us as we are, but it will be G-d, too, who will raise us up again. Who knows, it might even be our religion from which the world and all peoples learn good, and for that reason and that reason only do we now suffer. We can never become just Netherlanders, or just English or representatives of any country for that matter. We will always remain Jews." Anne Frank said, in effect, that Jews have something special to contribute to the world — and because of that they have been persecuted. But by and large, the world would rather de-Judaize anti-Semitism. When The Diary of Anne Frank was adapted into a Broadway play, we hear her explanation of anti-Semitism quite differently: "Why are Jews hated?" she asks, "Well, one day it's one group, and the next day another..." In other words, the reasons for anti-Semitism have absolutely nothing to do with being Jewish. The Jews went through a Holocaust, the most systematic attempt to murder a people in the history of all humanity — and it was not for Jewish reasons. Dumb luck. We were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Hitler's Reason for Anti-Semitism There was one individual, however, who stated clearly that hatred of Jews is because there's something unique about the Jews: Adolf Hitler. His driving ambition was to turn the world away from monotheism and bring it back to paganism. He stood for the superiority of the Aryan race: "Might makes right... survival of the fittest... eliminate the infirmed and handicapped." There was only one obstacle standing in Hitler's way: The Jews. Hitler knew it was the Jews who introduced the ideas of love your neighbor, helping the poor and the sick, and all men are created equal. Hitler hated the message of the Jews because it totally contradicted what he wanted the world to become. As Hitler said: "Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of humanity. I am freeing man from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge, from the dirty and degrading self-mortifications of a false vision called conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and personal independence which only a very few can bear." and "The Ten Commandments have lost their validity. Conscience is a Jewish invention; it is a blemish like circumcision." Hitler's anti-Semitism was not a means to an end. It was his goal. Long after the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 had effectively dismantled the Jewish community of Germany, Hitler was still not satisfied. In 1942, at the Wansee Conference, Hitler launched the "Final Solution" of genocide. Hitler's anti-Semitism was not a means to an end. It was his goal. Then, with the Nazi invasion of Hungary in 1944, top German military officers determined that railway lines must be prioritized to transport vital troops and equipment to the battlefront. The Wehrmacht urged Hitler to provide this infusion of desperately-needed supplies. Ignoring their warnings, Hitler instead gave orders to allocate the precious rail-lines to deport hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews en masse to the extermination camps. Historians acknowledge this decision as a key factor in further debilitating the German war effort. Hitler, it seems, regarded the killing of Jews even more important than winning World War Two. He said: "If only one country, for whatever reason, tolerates a Jewish family in it, that family will become the germ center for fresh sedition. If one little Jewish boy survives, without any Jewish education, with no synagogue and no Hebrew school; it's in his soul." The Torah View of Anti-Semitism The Torah itself teaches that anti-Semitism will exist and that Jews will be hated for precisely the reasons echoed in Hitler's words. The Talmud (Shabbat 69) declares: "Why was the Torah given on a mountain called Sinai? Because the great "sinah," the great hatred of the Jew, emanates from Sinai." (Sinah, the Hebrew word for hatred, is pronounced almost identically to Sinai.) Before the Torah was given, people built their lives on a subjective concept of right and wrong. At Sinai the Jewish People were told that there is one God for all humanity who makes moral demands on human beings. You can't just live as you please; there is a higher authority you are accountable to. That's why the Russians were threatened by a handful of Jews who wanted to study Hebrew. The Jews were given the responsibility to represent that morality and be a light unto the nations. So, despite the fact that they were never more than a tiny fraction of the world's population, Jewish ideas became the basis for the civilized world. And with that, they became a lightening rod for those opposed to the moral message. That's why the Russians, although they were a huge superpower in the 1970s, were threatened by a handful of Jews who wanted to study Hebrew. Why would people hate the Jewish message? Consider the words of Aldous Huxley, in his book, Confessions of an Atheist: "I had motives for not wanting the world to have meaning; consequently, I assumed that it had none and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. For myself, as no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom." For the one who rejects morality and conscience, the only way to get of rid of the message... is to destroy the messenger. Why Be Jewish? The solution to anti-Semitism is the flip-side of the cause. Jewish values are the cause of anti-Semitism, and Jewish values are the solution. Only by studying Torah — and teaching it to others — can we ever hope to bring the world to a point where evil is eradicated. When human beings embrace the moral doctrine that Judaism brought to the world from Sinai — that there is a God who demands ethical behavior from every human being — then there will be no holocausts. And that is the exquisite irony of Jewish history. The world cannot get the message unless the messengers learn it and teach it. The world desperately needs the Jewish message. Now go and study. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com. |
|
ARE THERE QUESTIONS PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO ASK FAYAD?
Posted by David Bedein and Arlene Kushner, November 24, 2009. |
|
In his column of November 20, "Salam Fayyad builds Palestine,"
Regrettably, Senator Lieberman and Representative Berman did not use the press conference to raise some troublesome questions. Since these American elected officials let that opportunity pass, perhaps it was the journalistic responsibility of Mr. Horovitz to explore these matters, to offer a more balanced picture. Instead, he alluded to "staunch supporters of Israel nodding their agreement," conveying the notion that, except for some technical problems, all is well. Questions that Senator Lieberman, Rep. Berman or Mr. Horovitz could have asked would have included: Renunciation of the PLO state of war with Israel. The charter of Fatah — the predominant element in the PLO and the PA — to this day continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Written in 1964, before Israel controlled the West Bank and Gaza, it uses the term "Palestine" to refer exclusively to Israel within the Green Line. The charter declares that "Liberating Palestine is a national obligation," and that "Armed public revolution is the inevitable method" for doing so. This cannot be dismissed as an irrelevant anachronism. Last August, Fatah held its first General Congress in 20 years. Hope was held out for a charter revision, with violence officially renounced, but it never happened. Instead, Fatah continued to unambiguously embrace "armed resistance" to liberate Palestine. Cessation of incitement via changes in PA-produced textbooks. The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Tolerance in School Education (IMPACT http://www.impact-se.org ) has issued six reports on new PA textbooks issued over the last eight years. Journalist and scholar Dr. Arnon Groiss, who translated these PA textbooks, has just completed an update. He writes that the new PA texts...
It is disingenuous for Fayyad to profess dedication to peace, while the PA curriculum infuses these ideas within its youngsters. Peace is impossible until the message changes. Why do visiting elected officials and journalists not hold Fayyad and the PA accountable for the new PA textbooks?. Cessation of PA pursuit of Hamas as a coalition partner. The PA inclination to participate in a government that includes Hamas remains an "elephant in the room" that the international community, somewhat inexplicably, has chosen to ignore: Hamas is recognized by the US and the entire Quartet as a terrorist entity. Yet in March 2007, Fatah and Hamas briefly formed a "unity government" — negotiated by Saudi Arabia via the Mecca Accord — that saw Fatah acceding to Hamas demands. It fell apart with the Hamas coup in Gaza, but in recent months the news is awash with reports of negotiations via Egypt for a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. Pursuing negotiations with Israel and Hamas at one and the same time is not acceptable. Why not ask the PA to make a choice?. Renunciation of the "right of return." The "right of return," promoted for 60 years by UNRWA and embraced by the PA as a non-negotiable right, remains a recipe for the destruction of Israel from within. If Fayyad and the PA are serious about peace, why not ask them to accept the principle of permanent resettlement of the refugees? UNHCR, the UN High Commission for Refugees — which oversees all refugees except Palestinians — operates according to this principle. Only Palestinian refugees are not resettled, but instead, for purely political reasons, are forced to linger in a (rage-inducing) state of limbo. Fayyad, in his master plan for a Palestinian state, openly states that he supports the "right of return." Isn't it time to ask Fayyad and the PA to openly embrace the UNHCR policy and pave the way for UNRWA to adjust its mandate? Lastly, Mr. Horovitz writes that "most of the international community completely supports [PA] demands for a 100% Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank," noting that "Netanyahu...is intent on driving a harder bargain." The reader is left with the impression that Netanyahu is obstinately resisting what the world expects. Left unsaid is that the Israeli electorate is most definitely not in favor of complete withdrawal, and that the prime minister simply reflects the will of the nation in this regard. What is more, Mr. Horovitz neglects to say that neither does international law support this: UN Security Resolution 242, which does not demand full Israeli withdrawal, acknowledges Israel's need for secure borders. David Bedein is Bureau Chief, Israel Resource News Agency. (http://Israelbehindthenews.com). He is president of Center for Near East Policy Research. Contact him by email at media@actcom.co.il Arlene Kushner is senior research analyst for the Center for Near East Policy Research. Contact her at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
RECENT BLOWS TO IRAN ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR SANCTIONS
Posted by Jonathan Schanzer, November 24, 2009. |
|
The Iranian Government's instruments of financial leverage and soft power have taken a hit in the month of November. On November 4, analyst Avi Jorisch revealed in the Wall Street Journal that Iran appears to be using a United Nations office headquartered in Tehran to skirt U.S. sanctions. Jorisch writes that Iran appears to be using the Asian Clearing Union "to route over $13 billion overseas in 2008 and over $5.6 billion so far in 2009 to pay for many of its goods and services." Presumably, the White House, the U.S. Treasury, and international anti-money laundering agencies have since chased down this lead. A week later, on November 12, the federal government seized assets belonging to the Alavi Foundation and the Assa Corporation, including a Manhattan skyscraper and four mosques, citing alleged links to the Iranian government. An amended civil complaint alleges that the Alavi Foundation provided services to the Iranian government and transferred money to Bank Melli, Iran's largest state-owned financial entity. The next day, on November 13, 2009, Eli Lake of the Washington Times revealed that the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) may be operating as an undeclared lobby and may be guilty of violating tax laws, the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and lobbying disclosure laws. Now, the New York Post appears to have delivered another blow to the aforementioned Alavi Foundation. Apparently, it has gifted "hundreds of thousands of dollars" to the Middle Eastern and Persian studies programs at Columbia and Rutgers universities, in an attempt to influence their programs. For example, the Alavi Foundation reportedly donated $100,000 to Columbia after the university agreed to host Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2007. Iran may have lost a few battles this month, but the mullahs are still winning the war. Tehran continues to march toward its goal of attaining a nuclear weapon. Indeed, the Iranians recently rejected a deal brokered by the United Nations whereby Tehran would have shipped about 70 percent of its low-enriched uranium stockpile to Russia and France to be processed for a research reactor. The deal might have delayed Iran's ability to build a nuclear bomb by about a year. In the end, the recent blows to Iranian infrastructure in the United States are no substitute for imposing crippling sanctions, such as the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act. Congress and some of America's allies are ready to impose these measures. The White House, however, continues to delay.
Before joining the Jewish Policy Center, Jonathan Schanzer was a counterterrorism
analyst for the Office of Intelligence and Analysis at the U.S.
Department of the Treasury. He is the
author of the new book Hamas vs Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine
(Palgrave Macmillan).
This appeared today in Frum Forum
|
|
MAJOR HASAN'S BREAKING POINT; TRYING TERRORISTS IN NY;
ISRAELI VICTIMS OF TERRORISM VERSUS NETANYAHU; MILITIAS REJECT HAMAS CEASEFIRE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 24, 2009. |
|
MASSACRE MAJOR HASAN'S BREAKING POINT New America Foundation's Robert Wright assesses the breaking point that propelled Major Hasan into the Ft. Hood massacre. Mr. Wright's thesis is not new, but he puts new arguments into it. He asserts that under modern conditions, our wars may be radicalizing Muslims into becoming terrorists, even in our own country. He questions whether terrorists need foreign countries, when they can use the Internet to radicalize our own Muslims. With Internet and its video, powerful emotional messages reach across the seas. The videos contain images of Americans killing videos. This strains less emotionally strong individual Muslims to their breaking point. Radical imams encourage such individuals to take action. Becoming the butt of suspicion at work, further alienates Muslims. The fact that very few U.S. Muslims have taken such action convinces Wright that Islam is not inherently a belligerent religion. Wright makes a distinction that conservatives just wanted to kill terrorists, whereas liberals wanted to kill terrorism. (NY Times, 11/22, Opinion). The assessment contains creative thinking, unfortunately rendered less plausible by Mr. Wright's succumbing to the temptation to rub his thesis into conservatives. One wonders whether his case on terrorism is driven by a desire to triumph over conservatives. It was President Bush who called ours a "war on terrorism." Few well-known people suggested that we devise a strategy against the ideology, although I recall some conservative commentators doing so. I think Wright's ideological partisanship is misguided, in what must be a unified and non-partisanship national effort to fashion a workable strategy. There have been American Muslim attempts at terrorism, but not many. Their limited number does not prove much about Islam. Muslim numbers here have not attained the critical mass that emboldens violent types. Suppose their numbers grew? The question Wright should ask is why does terrorism infect Muslims more than people of other faiths? Why are they liable to become radicalized? Why do they identify with radical Muslim organizations, rather than scorn their terrorism? Can something be done about radical abuse of Internet, as a criminal or war matter, without taking away our own freedom? A sound strategy requires asking and answering. How tempting Wright's thesis must be for those who would like a simple way to abandon wars against terrorists! It would be even more tempting if he advanced an alternative. Does our immigration policy protect or imperil us, in this regard? Wright declares that terrorists don't need bases in host or failed states, to harm us. It seems to me that the resources that such havens allow terrorist organizations to amass enable them to plan major operations like 9/11. Each country they take over not only fastens their type of dictatorship upon millions of people, but enables them to gather more national resources against the remaining countries. Wright does not seem to have asked, what if we don't stop state-by-state take-over. Whether the U.S. still has the resources to mount such wars is a question, too. We need a strategy that does not require the old style mass-invasion. Another question is why we have tolerated radical regimes, such as Iran and Saudi Arabia, which finance radical mosques and terrorist organizations. The mosques and madrassas that they subsidize graduate potential terrorists as fast as we kill them, and those states provide the necessary arms. Wright did not comment upon whether such mosques and madrassas are rising in the United States. TRYING TERRORISTS IN NY CIVILIAN COURT David Beamer, father of a 9/11 victim, was invited to hear Attorney-General Holder's Senate testimony on why he decided to try the 9/11 terrorists in a New York civilian court. According to Mr. Beamer, the Senate Judiciary Committee comprised partisan-oriented Democrats and issue-oriented Republicans. Attorney-General Holder said he chose civilian trials in order to, as Beamer put it, "restore the integrity of our judicial system." Another of his reasons is that the number of civilian victims exceeded the number of military victims. [So?] Holder assured the Committee that the trials would be short. New Yorkers' safety would take priority. He has sufficient evidence so that no classified evidence would be revealed. Democrats on the Committee praised Holder and the prospect of open trials enhancing our reputation abroad, even though we would be enhancing defendants' rights beyond the requirements of war. Beamer didn't realize that our government's priority to please foreigners. Sen. Schumer (D., NY) asked the trials' cost. Civilian trials cost much more. The ones in question would cost an estimated $75 million. The Senator did not object. The Democrats mostly asked questions about other issues. GOP Committee members asked pertinent questions, such as how he could be so sure of conviction and of being able to withhold all classified information. How does he know what judges will rule? If terrorists captured abroad are to be tried in criminal courts, will they have to be read Miranda rights? Would that include the right to remain silent? Would they gain immigration rights and be able to plead for political asylum to stay here? Holder stammered that he didn't know. Why didn't he have answers? Does he know what he is doing? Why didn't he discuss with the President, as he admitted he did not, his critical decision affecting constitutional rights, battle procedure, and civilian security? (Wall St. J., 11/21, A15.) Why didn't the President discuss it with him? P.S.: The five 9/11 defendants "...will plead not guilty, so that they can air their criticism of U.S. foreign policy." They would not deny what they did, but would explain why they did it. Critics of the decision to try them before a civilian court had warned that they would try to turn the trial into one on U.S. policy. The government expects the judge to prevent that (Wall St. J., 11/23, A9). ISRAELI VICTIMS OF TERRORISM VERSUS NETANYAHU If Israeli PM Netanyahu releases 1,000 terrorists in exchange for one Israeli, parents of Israeli victims of Arab terrorism threaten to depose him. In this struggle, the personal interest of many bereaved parents, who evoke a national interest, are ranged against the parents of the one Israeli captive and the Prime Minister of a country that was unable to find other means to free him. In the bereaved parents' own words, "From the minute that the Bibi government abandons us and our children to the mercy of more than 1,000 murderers who will be set free; from the moment that the Bibi government betrays the memory of our murdered children; from the moment we see that all principles and all precedents have been shattered and that Bibi who vowed to fight terror betrays his principles and breaks his promises — we will work to topple the Bibi government." (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/22). Aside from the injustice, which contravenes Jewish law, experience shows that the proposed exchange would lead to more Israeli victims than the release of one would spare. The exchange would give terrorism a triumph over Israeli security personnel who risked their lives to capture the 1,000, only to see the 1,000 freed. HUMAN SHIELD IN AFGHANISTAN 
Taliban gunmen in Afghanistan coerced or cajoled [the source's headline differs from its text on this] a 13-year-old boy to plant a roadside bomb. It exploded when he moved it, killing him (www.imra.org.il, 11/22). Why use a boy and not plant the bomb themselves? He would seem less suspicious. They used him as a human shield. One hears little indignation against terrorists' barbarous intent, but much against the accidents of war by the U.S. or Israel, which try to minimize civilian casualties, while the terrorists try to maximize civilian casualties, including their own civilians. What conscience has "the international community?" UN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION CONDEMNS IRANIAN REPRESSION The UN Human Rights Commission condemned Iran for "'serious, ongoing and recurring' human rights violations, including violence against protesters after the disputed June presidential election." The negative votes and abstentions combined, however, exceeded the positive votes (www.imra.org.il, 11/22). 
IRAN CONFIDENT IT CAN DEFEND ITSELF FROM RAIDERS An Iranian air force commander boasted that Iran can defend itself against a potential Israeli raid. He would shoot down most Israeli planes, and his ground-to-ground missiles would destroy the survivors' bases before they could land. Although Iran is complaining that Russia has failed to deliver a powerful anti-aircraft defense system as scheduled, Iran's Defense Minister said that Iran can manufacture its own (www.imra.org.il, 11/22). The U.S. and Israel waited for negotiation and sanctions to work. Now it may be too late for a military option. [Did our President plan that?" Considering Iran's military facilities, a simple raid would not do. I doubt Israel is up to making a somewhat sustained attack, first on Iranian offensive and defensive facilities. Therefore, the retaliation by Iran could be severe. Let's see a 5-page report on how Iran got so self-sufficient in arms manufacture. MILITIAS REJECT HAMAS CEASEFIRE 
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) and Fatah deny being bound by the ceasefire Hamas announced (www.imra.org.il, 11/22). This is another example of the Arabs and Iranians announcing deals that the West likes, but factions, even the originator, reject the deal. One U.S. daily noted that the IDF made a retaliatory raid in Gaza despite the Hamas-declared ceasefire. The Arabs do some of the best fighting during their ceasefires. ANARCHIST CAUGHT DEFAMING IDF Every week, anarchists and Arabs riot against Israeli troops guarding the security fence. [And the IDF thinks the danger is just from the other side?] One of the rioters suffered an injured eye. He sued the IDF, claiming that he was struck by a rubber bullet, and that the IDF had intended to murder him. [In my U.S. Army training, I was taught that a blank cartridge, if fired point blank, can be fatal, otherwise not. I remember Pvt. Ackerman wearing a head bandage from a blank, fired from very close. Rubber bullets are worse, but very rarely deadly, as they are intended not to be.] Plaintiff's' credibility sank as the number of versions of his story rose. The court found that he was out of range of the rubber bullets. The IDF could not have struck him with one. But he had the eye injury. Turns out, he was struck by a rock thrown by one of the Arabs in his crowd [committing what that nice moderate, Abbas, calls "non-violent" protest, www.imra.org.il, 11/22). The judge fined him about $12,000 in court costs. The judge swam against the current of judicial favoritism for the Left. My source would like the judge to have ruled that even if the injury had been caused by a rubber bullet, the IDF would not be liable for damages inflicted in their duty and self-defense (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/22). This case exemplifies the defamation of the IDF and of Israel in general. The defamers have the temerity to sue. No matter how often their tales are exposed as tissues of lies, anti-Zionists accept them. Some must accept them because their ideology predisposes them, they don't know how to check such things, and reason is not their forte. Others probably accept them as convenient ammunition, right or wrong in these individual cases. SETTLER CURSING OF ISRAELI TROOPS CRIMINALIZED The IDF commander for Judea-Samaria ordered the criminal arrest of "settlers" who curse Israeli troops. Few do. [I do not approve of cursing the troops. The general attitude of Jews in the Territories is gratitude for any protection that the Army gives them, though the commanders begrudge it. Civilian hospitality is so prevalent and natural to people whose own children are in the Army, that commanders have ordered their troops not to fraternize with settlers, lest the troops refuse to carry out political orders against the residents. So blatantly unethical and illegal are these orders, that more and more troops refuse to obey.] Many Jewish anarchists, the pro-terrorism International Solidarity Movement, and their Arab followers [and the Israeli women's group that protests against checkpoints] do curse the troops. Worse, they vandalize the fence and attack the troops guarding it almost every week. The government rarely arrests them. Generally, Israel has one standard of justice for the Right, and another for the Left (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/22). PUBLICIZING ISRAELIS' ADDRESSES Someone once publicized the address of an Israeli Arab judge. Police interpreted that act as an invitation to murder the Arab judge. [Yes, the publicist was not suggesting that people bring the judge flowers.] Likewise, the University of Haifa sponsors an Internet group called "Alpha List," that promulgates antisemitism. The group disseminated a list of home addresses of Israeli Army officers. That is worse than cussing officers, it is even more clearly an exhortation to murder (Prof. Steven Plaut, 11/22). Apparently, police did nothing about it. The Left, and that obviously by now includes the Netanyahu regime, has a mental illness in condemning minor irritations against its troops by the Right, but allowing dangerous attacks against its troops by the Left, by pro-terrorist foreigners, and by an enemy population. The less the government defends against leftist, foreign, and Arab attacks, the more bold the attackers can be. The TV program, "Law and Order," explored the case of an American fascist group, that claimed to want liberty, disseminating addresses of police officers or undercover cops, who then were murdered. The group was found guilt of conspiracy to murder.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel 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:
|
|
DESTROYING A FARM IN SAMARIA. TODAY WAS A VERY SAD DAY IN ISRAEL
Posted by Paul Rotenberg, November 23, 2009. |
|
If you have been to Israel and visited farms like this one you will understand what an outrageous and pointless act the military did in Israel today. It IS about the farm, the family, the youth who go to work on the farm (often youth in trouble in the city, and the effect is incredible) and the rights of Israelis to live in Israel. It is about the fact that the military ignored the legal process, it is about some politicians enacting their own political agendas at the expense of specific (expendable) citizens and so many more issues. But this time it is about something else as well. Read this article, and don't miss what is being said: the military came to destroy and they invited the local Arabs to do the destruction. Can you imagine the army standing around preventing crying children and their shocked mother from protecting their home while the father is away serving in the reserves, and protecting who? Protecting Arabs who were invited to have a great time dismantling a Jewish home. Can you imagine the precedent this sets? This is so perverse it makes my head spin. Meanwhile the media in Israel is making a fuss about some soldiers, at their swearing in, who put it clearly on the table that they would not take part in this kind of action. This is so twisted it is becoming unrecognizable. There is no conclusion that I could draw that adequately describes the horrific nature of what went on today and the future ramifications of it. This was written by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz and it appeared today in Arutz-Sheva. |
|
The Botzer family, whose farm was demolished Monday morning by the military, described for Arutz Sheva Radio the loss they have suffered, saying it is far more than financial. The Botzer farm, located adjacent to Mevo Dotan in the Shomron (Samaria) region, was destroyed Monday morning as part of the government crackdown on what have been defined as "unauthorized outposts" in lands liberated by Israel prior to the Six Day War. David and Shaina Botzer told Arutz Sheva that their farm is actually on state land within the municipal territory of Mevo Dotan, although west of the town's current residential area. "My husband is a Navy commando and while he was planning to go to do his reserve duty, they came and dismantled his life's work. This was an animal pen worth tens of thousands of shekels. There were 50 heads of sheep there as part of an educational agricultural project that involves the area youth," Shaina said. The animal pen itself was subject to a demolition order, she said, but the order was in appeal before the proper authorities. In addition to the animal pen, the security forces also destroyed a stable that was not subject to the existing demolition order, Botzer added. 'Like a stab in the back' "The Navy commando unit is in my husband's blood," Shaina told Arutz Sheva. "The unit is part of him and now it is hard for him to go to reserve duty. He feels like he was stabbed in the back." Shaina was further surprised to see that the workers brought in to carry out the physical destruction of their property were Arabs from a neighboring village. "I am stunned. It is a total shock when Arabs come and dismantle a Jewish farm when so many of their homes in the village below [our farm] are illegal," she explained. When the workers were taking down the pen, they tried to chase away the sheep, but the animals tried with all their might to remain in the enclosure. "Even after the pen was dismantled [the sheep] ran back to the area where it had stood, but they came upon a pile of rubble," Shaina Botzer said. "It is so symbolic that they tried to return home." The Shomron Liaison Office informed Israel National News on Monday that the Botzer ranch is "an educational farm which is located in a very difficult and strategic area and is an inspiration to the region's development." "We will continue and support the efforts of the Botzer family and those who help them secure a Jewish presence in the Northern Shomron," the Liaison Office said. "We are now launching an emergency campaign to raise funds to rebuild the building that was destroyed." "We are essentially protecting state land here," Shaina Botzer said, "and they took everything of ours apart. With G-d's help, we will start over again." Paul Rotenberg lives in Toronto, Canada. Contact him at pdr@rogers.com |
|
SEN.INHOF: ISRAELI TECH CREDITED WITH PROTECTING U.S. TROOPS, COMBAT AIRCRAFT
Posted by Chuck Brooks, November 23, 2009. |
|
This is a news item that appeared in Geostrategy
|
|
WASHINGTON — A senior senator said the Defense Department has contracted for Israeli technology that was protecting U.S. ground units in campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. The senator said the Israeli technology was more effective than anything else deployed by the U.S. military. "If you look at some of the things that we have, they have been credited with saving more lives from RPGs [rocket-propelled grenades] in Iraq than anything else," Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican from Oklahoma, said. "This is Israeli technology that you are sharing with us." In an address to the Jerusalem Conference on Nov. 3, Inhofe, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, cited the Litening air pod, Hunter unmanned aerial vehicle and armored tiles for U.S. combat vehicles. He said the tiles, developed by Israel's state-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, were saving the lives of American troops. Rafael also produces Litening, a combat navigation air pod that has been installed on virtually every U.S. fighter-aircraft. Northrop Grumman has been the prime contractor of the Litening program in the United States. The Hunter was produced by the state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries. Northrop has also been working with the U.S. Army in developing and maintaining the Hunter. Inhofe's identification of Litening and Hunter as Israeli systems contrasted with that of Northrop and the U.S. military. The two platforms have not been publicly linked to Israeli companies. Rafael has been supplying armored tiles for the U.S.-origin Bradley infantry fighting vehicle. The project has been led by General Dynamics for the U.S. Army in Afghanistan and Iraq. Another major Israeli project was the armoring of the M-ATV combat vehicle for the U.S. Army. Israel's Plasan Sasa has been the prime subcontractor in a multi-billion-dollar deal to armor more than 5,000 M-ATVs for the U.S. military in Afghanistan. Inhofe told the conference that many Americans were under the misconception that the Israeli-U.S. defense relationship was based on American arms sales. He said the relationship was mutual, and that U.S. arms sales to Israel were in Washington's interests. "When we send C-130s and Apaches to Israel, we are not doing it for Israel, we are doing it for us," Inhofe said.
Contact Chuck Brooks at chetz18@aol.com
|
|
EUROPEANS RUDE TO ISRAELI CHAMPIONS; RADICAL MUSLIMS IN MANHATTAN;
DEMOGRAPHIC TREND IN ISRAEL; CIA RECRUITING U.S. ARABS
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 23, 2009. |
|
EUROPEANS RUDE TO ISRAELI CHAMPIONS European sports officials have been rude to Israel's champion fencing team. The custom at sports events is to play the winners' national anthems when awarding them medals. First in Sweden and then in Austria, when the Israeli winners already were on the platform, the sports officials told them they had no recording of the Israeli national anthem. At first the Austrians claimed they had the old Israeli national anthem. When the Israelis explained that Israel has the same anthem as from the outset, the Austrians admitted not having it. Both times, the athletes sang the anthem, themselves. Now they carry its recording, to avoid that problem (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/ Arutz-7, 11/20). Europeans may disapprove of Israeli military conduct. It is inexcusable rudeness, to take out their disapproval on Israeli athletes. HOW IS U.S. DIPLOMACY IN CHINA, MUSLIM & LATIN WORLD? President Obama visited China on a diplomatic mission. The government there kept Obama mostly out of the public view, and dissidents locked up out of Obama's view. It ignored Obama's pleas on human rights. It made clear that it is powerful enough to pick its own path. Obama's message was hobbled by his domestic problems. [For every public-spirited reform, some interest group is opposed.] Obama demanded that China not keep its currency artificially low, too low for the U.S. to export much to China. Chinese officials countered with a demand that the U.S. not keep its currency artificially low and falling in value, thereby depreciating China's huge holdings in dollar-denominated Treasury issues and encouraging excessive borrowing likely to produce another bubble-and-burst (Jonathan Weisman, Andrew Browne, Jason Dean, Wall St. J., 11/19,A10). Obama's campaign suggested that he would reconcile with other countries, because he would offer friendship and is charismatic. As I predicted, his charisma would be veiled and his friendship would founder on ideological and economic differences. And so it has. Obama often has sided with, or not sided against, dictators or would-be dictators. In this regard, he goes further than did his predecessor. ISRAEL RESISTS PALESTINIAN & ISRAELI ARAB LINK TO IRAN Israel has barred certain Israeli and Palestinian Arabs from leaving the country, including on pilgrimage to Mecca, lest they forge links with Iran. One such Israeli Arab was a former mayor of Umm-el-Fahm, sentenced to jail for transferring funds to Hamas charity fronts, and who belongs of the Islamic Movement that works to bring down Israel. For similar reasons, Israel would not include certain convicted
terrorists in a prisoner exchange (
GAZA CHARITY OFFERS BOUNTY FOR ISRAELI SOLDIERS The Waad charity from Gaza is headed by Hamas' Interior Minister. Waad offers $1.4 million to any Arab citizen of Israel who kidnaps an Israeli soldier. This is the first time that money was offered for that (Wall St. J., 11/19, A16). The constant Radical Muslim abuse of charities for warfare and criminality is just one of several underhanded ways of Radical Muslims. The world's media and the Left has not caught on to that. It still makes Israel and the U.S. scapegoats for false allegations by Radical Muslims. RADICAL MUSLIMS IN MANHATTAN Outside the mosque at 96th St. and Lexington Ave. in Manhattan, one can hear support for violence against the U.S.. [Not when I walked past.] That is legally protected speech — no clear and present danger of violence. That legal concept may not be appropriate for Radical Islam. Ordinary Muslims latch on to radical Muslim web sites, which radicalize them. Some American-born Muslims then travel abroad for training in terrorism. Some of Somali extraction joined Somali terrorists. Major Hassan committed Islamist terrorism at Ft. Hood. Perhaps our judiciary should consider a different legal concept for an ideology that readily tempts U.S. Muslims to violence. The Radical Muslims are at war with us (Daniel Henninger, Wall St. J., 11/19, Op.-Ed.) WHY DID F.B.I. IGNORE RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORISTS? "Sen. Joe Lieberman (I.Conn.) chairman of the Senate homeland security panel ...wants to find out why a joint FBI and Pentagon program to locate domestic terrorists in the military focused only on what supremacists or other right-wing extremists, rather than..." broadening their range of vision (Yochi J. Dreazen, Cam Simpson, Wall St. J., 11/20, A4). Politically correct? Old-fashioned? HIZBULLAH ISSUES NEW MANIFESTO Hizbullah has issued a new manifesto. The new document proposes to establish an Islamic regime and punish the Christian Phalangists (www.imra.org.il, 11/19). DEMOGRAPHIC TREND IN ISRAEL Israel is urged by erstwhile friends to cede territory, to avoid being overwhelmed demographically. The demographic situation, however, has reversed itself. Much of the alarm occurred over Palestinian Authority (P.A.) population statistics that turned out to be erroneous. The P.A. claimed 2.5 million residents, but has only1.55 million. Emigration helped reduce its population. The percentage of Jewish births in Israel has increased from 69% in 1995 to 75%. One of the reasons is that Russian immigrants and "yuppies" switched to typical Israeli rates. The Arab birth rate in Israel and Judea-Samaria has plummeted. "The significant decline in Arab fertility rate reflects a significantly improved standard of living, resulting from successful integration into Israel's infrastructures of health, education, employment, commerce, politics, media, sports, culture and the arts. The Arab-Jewish fertility gap was reduced from six births per woman in 1969 to 0.7 in 2008." Initially, Israeli medical care reduced the Arab death rate but not the birth rate. That is typical at the start of modernization. Birth rates have fallen in all Muslim countries except Yemen and Afghanistan. They are urbanizing, an important factor (www.imra.org.il, 11/20). Secular Jewish rates had been so low, that the Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox were expected to replace that portion of Jewry. CIA RECRUITING U.S. ARABS The CIA has produced a soft sell TV commercial emphasizing that American Arabs may retain their culture and also perform a duty for their new country here by joining the CIA. Initial responses from the target audience were positive (www.imra.org.il, 11/20). When Israelis fluent in Arabic offered to help translate boxes of captured Arabic documents, the CIA rejected the offer. It was suspicious of Israelis. FATAH PREPARES THIRD INTIFADA AGAINST ISRAELIS 
Fatah's stated intent to implement its Conference's decision to launch a third Intifada against Israelis. It claims to be doing this because there are no negotiations. The uprising is to be patterned after the demonstrations at the security barrier, but to spread to Jewish communities. Fatah claims those demonstrations are non-violent. Actually, they involve throwing stones and soldiers and even fire-bombs, injuring some people. That is an odd form of non-violence! (www.imra.org.il, 11/20). They call the security barrier an apartheid wall, though it is neither all a wall nor apartheid. It is like many other walls, to keep out barbarians. China had one, the Romans had one in Britain, Saudi Arabia is building one, and so on. While planning this illegal war, Fatah also protests against Israel on spurious claims of violation of the very international law that the war shows Fatah does not believe in.
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear
often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and
right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To
subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com and visit his website:
|
|
ISRAEL IS WORLD'S TOP PATENT PRODUCER
Posted by Cpocerl, November 23, 2009. |
Little Israel is the top patent producer, as reported in Ynet
Israel's economic miracle contrasts sharply with the miserable performance of the "Muslim world," which America's first Muslim-born President (according to Islamic law) has sought to elevate to the level of a transnational superpower through his odious outreach and appeasement policies. Except for Arab and Iranian oil, Muslim countries produce nothing of value to modern civilization. |
|
Taub Center for Social Policy Studies presents study which suggests number of patents approved to Israeli inventors by US Patent Office in 2003 higher than by any other G-7 nation. Manufacturing productivity, however, rapidly plummeting The United States Patent and Trademark Office has approved more patents to Israeli inventors than to any other nation of the G-7 countries — the seven largest and most influential economies in the Western world, according to a study conducted by the Taub Center for Social Policy Studies. According to the study, in 1990 the US has approved 6% less patents to Israeli inventors than to the average number of inventors in the G-7 countries (subject to country size). In 2003, however the number of Israeli patents approved was 69% higher than that of inventors in the G-7 countries. The study stated that 20 out of 200 world countries have had one of their scientists win a Nobel Prize over the last decade — whereas in Israel five scientists have won the prestigious award over the same time period. It appears there are only four other countries that have noted a higher number of Nobel Prize laureates than Israel. The study further suggested that Israeli economists are ranked first in the world, subject to country size, in the number of quotes published by leading financial magazines between 1970 and 2000. The number of quotes by Israeli economists is seven times higher than that of British economists. Manufacturing productivity drops The study also examined the level of manufacturing productivity. Alas, while Israel has managed to increase its creation productivity, prolificacy in manufacture has plummeted. Whereas in 1990, Israel's manufacturing productivity stood at 7% below the average in G-7 nations, by 2003 it dropped to 69% below the average. "Instead of closing the gap with leading Western nations, as Israel has done until the mid 1970's, the State is increasingly withdrawing over the last three decades," Taub Center manager Prof. Dan Ben David said. "In 1973 the standard of living in the US was 39% higher than that of Israel's. Today the American standard of living is already 61% higher." Ben David noted that something has happened to Israel along the way. "While parts of the Israeli population ascended to the top of human knowledge, others have been neglected and left behind." Ben David also stated that in the past the State's human and physical resources were at the top of national priority, a reality that has changed in recent decades. The professor further noted that despite the fact that universities are still considered the State's crown jewels, while Israel's population doubled sine 1973, the Israel Institute of Technology added only one more vacancy for senior staff. "Israeli academia's two flag ships, the Hebrew and Tel Aviv Universities, have lost 14% and 21% respectively, of senior staff vacancies since 1973." Contact CPocerl at Cpocerl@aol.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: ONE STEP FURTHER
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 23, 2009. |
|
The reader comments to my posting yesterday were intense. And in more than one instance I was asked why I don't tell it like it is regarding Obama's orientation and motivation, when it's all so clear. I am not seeking to cover for him in any regard. But I choose not to attribute motivations in instances in which I cannot document them and cannot be certain: Does he act this way because he's a Muslim, because he is an ideological socialist, because he's been bought by certain interests, etc. etc. A strong case can be made for some of these positions, but what concerns me is the effect of his policy and actions — and, as I see it, he's bringing America down. This said, however, there is one distinction that certainly merits contemplation. Is he messing up with regard to genuine American interests because of naiveté, inexperience, bad advice, etc.? Or, as many of my readers suggest, does he know precisely what he's doing? Is it deliberate? ~~~~~~~~~~ I'm not going to return to Obama's interaction with Iran here, in order to consider this premise. But I do want to consider it in a different context: The "peace process." And for this I turn to Barry Rubin's latest column, which is called "Lessons not learned." Rubin traces the recent history of the settlement issue, with which you will be familiar if you've been reading my material: When Israel signed the Oslo Accords in 1993, it was made clear by the Israeli gov't that it considered construction in existing settlements to be consonant with the agreement; the Arabs didn't object and the US had little to say on the subject. That is, until Obama came into office and, as Rubin says, "made the construction issue the centerpiece of his Middle East policy: sometimes it has appeared to be the keystone of his whole foreign policy..." But this approach turned out to be an abysmal failure. First he tried to strong-arm Israel, and when Israel balked, he attempted, without success, to secure some concessions from the Arab world in exchange — wrongly assuming, says Rubin, that they are desperate for a peace agreement. ~~~~~~~~~~ What happened next is that the PA picked up on Obama's demands and said they wouldn't come to the table unless we froze everything. The US then actually secured a large concession from Netanyahu: We would stop building in Judea and Samaria — but not in Jerusalem — after we completed current building. Hillary Clinton enthusiastically praised this gesture, which infuriated the Palestinian Arabs, who then "threw a temper tantrum," and followed with all sorts of threats. This, says Rubin, is their core strategy: "Why make compromise peace with Israel when you can just claim everything you want, ensuring the door is kept open for a future struggle to wipe Israel off the map entirely?" So, what did the Obama administration do? Back down on everything except the PA plans for unilateral independence. "Having made a deal with Israel, having gotten Netanyahu to take an enormous risk, it then pulled the rug out from under him." Observes Rubin: "Those who always advocate Israeli concessions as the solution should take note. Once again, we've seen that a concession doesn't lead to a concession by the other side nor does it lead to progress. It just produces a demand for more concessions without any real credit for the last one." ~~~~~~~~~~ And, as we all know, the next Obama demand was to cease building in the Gilo neighborhood of Jerusalem. Quite a big deal was made of it. (Obama said it "embittered" the Palestinian Arabs.) This in spite of the fact that the construction fell within the understanding that had been reached with Netanyahu and praised by Hillary. "...the administration...[showed] not only that it wouldn't respect agreements... made [by Israel] with predecessors, but it wouldn't even respect the agreements it made itself." "Obama complained that the Gilo construction...makes it harder to achieve peace... http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258705164232& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull ~~~~~~~~~~ OK. Let's look at this for a minute. The steps taken by Obama have been colossally stupid. Or so we might say, if his goal — as he's been insisting — really is a negotiated peace between Israel and the PA. He saw that his demand for a settlement freeze created a hardening, an increased intransigence, on the PA side. And then what did he do? He made another demand of Israel, one he KNEW Israel would never accede to. Obama is a political animal: he understood that even if Netanyahu wanted to stop building in Jerusalem (I don't happen to believe he does), he could not without risking the breakdown of his coalition. And, at the same time, Obama knew, from immediate past experience, that the PA was exceedingly likely to pick up on this and become even more intransigent, in echo of his demand. And so we must ask: Is he simply very foolish, very innocent and almost totally devoid of diplomatic skills? Is he simply so arrogant that he assumes he can condescend to Israel and make demands of us, at the same time that he stretches himself to show the Muslim/Arab world how sensitive he is to Palestinian Arab feelings? And has he thus inadvertently — and very obtusely — gotten himself into a bind? Or, does he have ulterior motives, and has he consciously sabotaged what he claims to be seeking? Quite a statement that Rubin made: "Obama has just guaranteed a dead peace process for his entire term in office." ~~~~~~~~~~ One of the things that gives pause is the fact that Obama focused on Gilo. I asked, many here asked, why Gilo? Gilo? People were aghast at his approach. Indeed it seemed that his demand was very maximalist. He didn't pick on demolition of illegal Arab housing or purchase of housing by Jews in Arab neighborhoods (all of which is legit but controversial). He picked on a solid and well-established neighborhood that is totally and thoroughly integrated into the Jerusalem municipality, one built on Jewishly-owned land without even a hint of it being on Arab land, one that is not even to the east of the city, as, say, Har Homa is. Maybe he's really so foolish (which is worrisome in itself) that he isn't aware of all this, and just randomly picked a neighborhood that was doing some building to make a fuss over. But there is sufficient bewilderment over what he did to make one wonder. ~~~~~~~~~~ I would like to thank those readers who shared with me information on Muslims of dubious or clearly inappropriate background who have been given positions in Homeland Security in the US. There are two of particular note: Arif Alikhan was appointed by Obama several months ago to be Assistant Secretary for Policy Development at the Department of Homeland Security. Responsible for developing policy to secure the nation against terrorism, he killed an LA Police project for monitoring terrorist activities in local radical mosques. He has also referred to Hezbollah as a "liberation movement." Kareem Shora was appointed by Obama to Homeland Security's advisory council, which directly provides advice and recommendations to the Homeland Security Secretary. He was formerly executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), which refers to jihadists as "heroes." This is from http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2009/nov/ devout-muslims-key-homeland-sec-posts and checked out. A similar item sent to me with regard to Fort Hood terrorist Hasan turned out to not be quite accurate: According to Snopes, he attended one or more meetings organized by George Washington University's Homeland Security policy institute, but was never actually an advisor to Obama's Homeland Security Team. ~~~~~~~~~~ You might also want to see Charles Krauthammer's piece, "Travesty in New York," about the Obama government's plans to grant Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who plotted 9/11, a civil rather than a military trial. One more reason to worry about America. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1258705163996& pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull ~~~~~~~~~~ The rumors are flying fast. I'm always reluctant to spend much time focusing on such rumors, which often turn out to be unfounded. But it's time to at least mention them here: It is being said that a deal to secure the release of Gilad Shalit is almost completed. Reportedly, the Hamas demand for 1,000 prisoners — including some who perpetrated major attacks — has not changed, but there are conflicting reports as to whom the Netanyahu government might be willing to release, and where (that is, they might not be permitted to return to Gaza or Judea and Samaria). It chills the heart, and enrages, to imagine that terrorists responsible for the deaths of many innocent Jews might be released. Not to speak of the fact that it puts us all at increased risk and encourages more kidnappings. (I understand that Hamas is offering a considerable amount of money to any Israeli Arab who captures a soldier.) Netanyahu, referring to the release of these terrorists as a "serious dilemma," told the Likud faction today that a deal is not close. When the time comes, he said, there will be a debate in the Knesset and a vote in the Cabinet. Aside from reports from Arab sources, the rumors have been fueled by a trip by President Shimon Peres to Egypt, at the same time that some Hamas officials were known to enter Egypt, and a visit here by German officials (Germany being involved along with Egypt on negotiations.) ~~~~~~~~~~ Speaking of terrorists in our prisons, there is news about Marwan Barghouti. Serving five life sentences for his involvement in terror attacks, he is frequently touted as a potential savior, who — if he is released from prison — can unite the Palestinian Arabs and bring a peace deal. Well, you can scratch that. Barghouti has been quoted in Al Hayat Al Jadida newspaper, via a message carried by his lawyer, as saying that Palestinian factions should lead "popular resistance" (violence) to combat building in settlements and the Judaizing of Jerusalem. "I have always called for creatively combining negotiations with resistance and political, diplomatic and popular activism," he was quoted as having said. "I warned against relying exclusively on negotiations, but some were late to discover this." "Creatively combining negotiations with resistance..." (aka, if you don't give me what I demand at the table, I'll come after you and you'll be sorry). This is pretty much the Palestinian Arab credo and does NOT lead to peace. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
THE BEN-AMI OF J STREET AND ALAN DERSHOWITZ DEBATE
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 23, 2009. |
|
Part 1: Framing the issues 
A full theater mostly of emotive fellow Jews was welded to the seats as Harvard Prof. Alan Dershowitz debated Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street, on Sunday, November 21, at the 92nd St. YMHA in Manhattan. Moderator was resigned Governor Elliot Spitzer, whose family donated money to the Y. [My comments are in ellipses such as these.] In the course of discussion, Dershowitz mentioned meeting on these issues with PM Netanyahu, AIPAC, and others. Both debaters set the framework of the debate by declaring that Israel's only interest in the Territories was security. [That is an anti-Zionist and anti-Judaism stance. Zionism claims the land of Israel, and especially the Territories, where Jewish civilization emerged. Security is secondary, necessary to protect the land and people. The participants evinced no understanding that, in any case, the Territories are vital to Israeli security, by providing secure borders and strategic depth against invasion and bombing.] Likewise, both believe in a 2-state resolution, which neither justified as a viable solution [or why there would be two states, considering there already are two states in Palestine, one being Jordan]. The moderator interrupted lively discussion too often, to ask his own questions. He did keep them on topic. He tried to elicit where they agreed and disagreed. Part 2: J Street reviewed [One might have expected Dershowitz to make a devastating denunciation of J Street for being a pro-Muslim organization, but he was in an accommodating mood.] Dershowitz belatedly and tepidly raised two issues about J Street's bona fides. One was that it couldn't call itself pro-Israel after having removed "pro-Israel" from its students' affiliates' logo or banners, because it embarrasses them. Ben-Ami, as was typical of his performance, first tried to deny having done so, then tried to excuse it as the only way to get young people in to "engage them." But he did not explain how and whether he actually "engages" them, and how he is going to turn his campus membership, apparently hostile to Zionism, pro-Israel. Dershowitz ran rings around Ben-Ami's rationalizations, framing it as a matter of false labeling. The other issue was the leadership of J Street. Dershowitz barely mentioned the Arab and Iranian financing of J Street. He did cite anti-Zionist Muslim J Street board member(s). Ben-Ami claimed that the Muslim is pro-Israel. Dershowitz retorted that J Street's Muslim adviser showed his true colors by blaming the U.S. and Israel for the Palestinian Arab refusal to negotiate. [That is the Muslim Arab way of jihad, blame others for one's own deficiencies.] Dershowitz accused J Street of having too many hard Left associates. He attempted to balance that by claiming that AIPAC has too many hard Right associates. [AIPAC is a lobby for the government of Israel, not for Zionism and not for American Jewry. When the government changes, so does AIPAC's line. However, AIPAC also tries to stay in the good graces of the U.S. Administration. It does not have a coherent ideology.] When Ben-Ami more or less complained that one cannot criticize policies of Israel without being called anti-Israel or even antisemitic, Dershowitz disproved that by using himself as an example. Dershowitz constantly criticizes Israeli policies on the Arabs. Nobody calls him anti-Israel. And he didn't call Ben-Ami one. But remember, he defends Israel's right to exist and to defend that existence. That is the difference. Part 3: Cause of the conflict Ben-Ami more or less stated the usual anti-Zionist claim that the "occupation" caused the conflict. Dershowitz denied it. The conflict preceded Israeli acquisition of the Territories. When Israel removed both civilians and military from Gaza, the conflict from Gaza got worse. [I deny that it was occupation.] To that and at other times, Ben-Ami, who claimed a bit hysterically at one point that Dershowitz disrespected him, denigrated Dershowitz as living in the past, and praised himself as looking to the future. Dershowitz retained his equanimity and explained that what happened in recent years helps us understand what is likely to happen again. Neither stated the motivating factor of the conflict they think they can resolve. [That factor is Islamic doctrine.] Part 4: Propriety of friends criticizing Israel 
Dershowitz declared it Israel's right, for being on the front lines, to decide when and how to defend itself. Therefore, American Jews may debate other Israeli policies, but not its defense policy. In this regard, Dershowitz had praise for Pres. Obama. He finds the President distinguishing between Israel's right to defend itself, to which he does not object, and Israel's other policies toward the Arabs, to which he does object. [But Obama's policies would deprive Israel of secure borders and become hardly able to defend itself.] Dershowitz indicated favor for severing the Golan from Israel, for [alleged] peace agreement. Inconsistently, he would be willing for Israel to give up that annexed area but not the annexed part of Jerusalem. Also inconsistent is his citing polls showing Israelis favoring negotiations, but not polls showing they insist on retaining the Golan. The question of the evening and J Street's theme was who should speak for Israel and for U.S. Jewry. Ben-Ami contends that AIPAC stands for the status quo, which does not solve anything. He said that the Jewish community should allow questions. [J Street doesn't just ask questions, it is an advocacy group.] Ben-Ami contends that the status quo is untenable. [Poor arrangements agreed to by Israel have led to war. The status quo would have been preferable. But I can see that keeping the status quo until Islam reforms and ends jihad would take generations. I prefer a Zionist solution, whereby Israel would reclaim the Territories and the Arabs would leave Israel and the Territories. I discuss that in earlier articles.] Dershowitz said that American Jewry does not need another organization that simply divides Jewish opinion [and lets it be conquered]. Whereas J. Street wants to oppose AIPAC and the established voices, Dershowitz proposed agreeing on 80% of the issues and speaking as one voice on them. He would invite J Street into AIPAC and suggested that J Street invite Dershowitz to speak at its next convention. To bring in J Street, AIPAC would expel from its councils the Christian "right wing" [Evangelists], and expel from its membership Jewish "extremists" who want to retain the Territories. J Street should reciprocate by expelling its own extremists. The result would be an effective united front. [I dispute Dershowitz' notion of extremists. The Arabs have 79% of the original Palestine Mandate, in Jordan. Israel has 17%. The Territories comprise the remaining 4%. It would not be extremist for Israel to end up with 21% and secure borders. It is extremist for Israel to be whittled down to 17% and insecure borders. Dershowitz is extremist.] Part 5: Peace enablers and disablers What would make peace, and what blocks it? Dershowitz pointed out that Arab slander blocks peace. The Abbas and Hamas regimes alike are raising generations on hatred and war lust. As for the Arabs' current views, remember that most voted for Hamas. Implication: peace is becoming impossible. Jewish housing does not block peace. Arabs may not like it, but their protesting against i it is an excuse for their refusal to negotiate. Citing Israeli "polls" in support of his own view, Dershowitz said that Israelis favor negotiation. They would be willing to give up most of the Territories for a genuine peace. This contradicts Dershowitz' point that Palestinian Arab education is indoctrination for holy war [which ceding the Territories would facilitate]. [Any Arab leader who proposed a genuine peace would be deemed a traitor by those whom he had indoctrinated in a fanatical drive for conquest. You know what Arabs do to "traitors!" A poll does not make for wise policy, if even honest. It reflects popular misconceptions at the time. It also is used to create misconception. Dershowitz' misconception is to emphasize the willingness to cede, but Israelis emphasize their doubt about Arab genuineness for peace. They can be generous about a gift they do not expect to make.] Dershowitz thinks foreign troops a necessary buffer between the two sides after a peace agreement. When Mr. Ben-Ami recommended that the Quartet help make the agreement and furnish the troops, Dershowitz objected to the presence of UN troops. The UN is anti-Israel. [What does Dershowitz think the rest of the Quartet is — Russia, EU, and State Dept. — fair?] What did the debaters think of PM Netanyahu's policy of building up Judea-Samaria, which has begun to thrive? Ben-Ami thought it good for the Arabs but inadequate to resolve the conflict, which is not based on standard of living. Dershowitz thought it brilliant, because it showcases what cooperation with Israel can bring, contrasted with the more oppressive reign in Gaza. [Prosperity might help Fatah defeat Hamas. So what! Fatah is jihadist, too. Although Ben-Ami realizes that the conflict is not based on economics, he mistakenly attributes it to territory. It is based on the Muslim imperative to dominate.] Part 6,7: Land for peace and settlements 
Ben-Ami alleged that Israel cannot remain a Jewish state unless it divests itself of the Territories. He did not explain clearly. He mentioned it couldn't keep its democracy [which I think more a formality than a reality there] and also keep the territories. [Usually, the Left cites a demographic argument, long since disproved. I agree with the U.S. Chiefs of Staff study that found that Israel could not survive unless it retains most of the Territories. Neither would it sufficiently fulfill its Zionist purpose of statehood, if it gave up its holiest cities, the Old City of Jerusalem and Hebron, as well as Schechem. Ben-Ami's argument purports to care about Israel, but advocates policies that would get Israel conquered.] Dershowitz immediately showed where he stands, by declaring his early and continuing opposition to Jewish "settlements." [He did not explain why Israel should not expand into that part of the Land of Israel, still largely vacant. I would have preferred an orderly expansion, being contiguous and accompanied by annexations.] Dershowitz believes that Israel should annex the nearer ones and does not consider housing in Jerusalem "settlements." Every country has the right to designate its own capital within its country, including Israel [for which the U.S. makes a negative exception]. Part 8, 9: Unilateral action and recognizing Ben-Ami said that Jewish house-building in the Gilo neighborhood of Jerusalem is a unilateral act that impeded peace-making. As usual, he did not explain his assertion, as if it were axiomatic. Dershowitz replied that it does not mean the Arabs could not negotiate. Spitzer got Ben-Ami to admit that the Arabs take unilateral action, too. [However, none of them mentioned the extensive Arab construction. Why the double standard? Why emphasize and legitimize the sudden Arab demand for a Jewish freeze and only a Jewish freeze? That demand subordinates Jewish claims to Arab claims.] Ben-Ami claimed that the Saudi Initiative would recognize Israel. [That, too, is pro-Arab propaganda. The Initiative does not promise it. It merely hints at it. It does not mention recognizing a Jewish state. Therefore, they still could war on the Jewish state. Under the Initiative, Israel first would make concessions that would enable the Arabs to overthrow it. Then, say the Saudis, they would consider recognition. Too late! That is the real Saudi plan.] Abbas wants peace; he already recognizes Israel's right to exist, said Ben-Ami. [That assertion echoes pro-Arab State Dept. sophistry. Abbas threatens war if he doesn't get everything he wants from negotiation. He is preparing people and army for war.] Dershowitz pointed out that Abbas does not recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. [Significance: since he does not acknowledge the legitimacy of Jewish sovereignty, he would make war on it to change it to another state.] Nevertheless, Dershowitz thinks Abbas not too bad. [It would be wiser to see that Ababs, seeking gains both diplomatically and militarily, is more dangerous than the one-track Hamas.] Part 10: Negotiation Israel did not miss opportunities to negotiate, said Dershowitz. He supposes that it is engaging even now in back channel discussions. Dershowitz, by nature a negotiator, is willing to negotiate with anyone, including Hamas. [He did not acknowledge that such negotiations are likely to fail. That makes his point pointless, a diversion from reality.] Ben-Ami wants U.S. "engagement." [But the State Dept. is anti-Zionist, and is not an honest broker. So far, its so-called "engagement" does not work.] What went wrong in the Gaza withdrawal, Ben-Ami thinks, is Israel's failure to negotiate it. [How unfair, since the P.A. refused to negotiate!] Dershowitz replied that, inasmuch as Hamas took over Gaza, the unilateral nature of Israel's move-out did not matter. He said that Israeli withdrawal did not mean that the Arabs had to demolish [or pilfer] the hothouse industry that Israel left behind, ready to utilize. Would Ben-Ami want Israelis still to be there? Dershowitz thought that the Israeli civilians should have left — he did not explain why — but that the Army should have stayed and prevented the extensive terrorism from there. Moderator Spitzer said that nobody expected rocket attacks from Gaza. [Not true. That is, Jewish nationalists, whose views were not expressed in the debate and who were written off by the two appeasement-minded debaters as "extremist," warned that terrorism would follow withdrawal. They had warned about dire consequences of other appeasement. Their warnings were borne out. But they are called extremists rather than the reckless folks who insist on pursuing policy gambles with security that they were given reasonable warning against making.] Part 11: Gaza Ben-Ami referred to Israel's partial blockade of Gaza as if it were an occupation. Dershowitz, the lawyer, explained to him that a blockade is not an occupation. Ben-Ami asserted that the blockade of Gaza is onerous to the point of starvation [ignoring that Hamas made a military blockade necessary to save Israeli lives, and forgetting to mention that the tunnels also bring in goods]. Denying that food is barred, Dershowitz denied any starvation. [Ben-Ami was asserting the standard, anti-Israel propaganda defamation about the blockade. So much for his being pro-Israel!] Part 12: Iran Stressing U.S. security throughout, though usually not showing why, Ben-Ami treats Iran as an issue of U.S. security. In this instance, he did explain. He said that U.S. regional forces would be imperiled by an Iranian retaliation against any U.S. or Israeli raid. [True, but if Iran got nuclear weapons, it could strike U.S. forces in Europe and, with further development of its rockets, the U.S. homeland. That is a greater risk to U.S. security.] Ben-Ami said he is against Iran getting nuclear weapons, but would wait for sanctions. Contradicting himself, he also admitted that sanctions usually do not work. [He did not explain how he could be against Iran but be financed significantly by pro-Iranian sources. He has no solution that would stop Iran, ruling out as he does a military option and after Iran has been perverting negotiations and deceiving the world about its nuclear program.] Again following the State Dept. line, Ben-Ami tried to link the issue of Iran with the Muslim-Israel conflict. He showed no link, merely asserting that it would be easier to fight Iran if that other issue were out of the way. Dershowitz said that regardless of the Muslim-Israel conflict, the Arabs have an overriding interest in neutralizing any Iranian nuclear threat. [I think that Obama gave Iran more time to complete its nuclear program, by diverting his attention to the conflict with Israel.] Ben-Ami thinks that a resolution of the Arab-Israel conflict could peel Syria from its alliance with Iran. He did not explain how, nor how that would affect Iran's nuclear weapons program. Dershowitz thinks that since sanctions against Iran developing nuclear weapons probably are a futile exercise, neither the U.S. nor Israel should take military action "off the table." He expects Iran to build nuclear weapons within 2-3 years, short of the last screws, so they can claim they don't have them. But they could complete the nearly finished weapons in 2 months. Ben-Ami disputed the estimated time Iran needs, without making his own estimate. He argued that estimates have been too short. Dershowitz pointed out that the U.S. estimate was too long. He said it is safer to bank on short ones. Part 13: Refugees 
As for bringing Arabs into Israel, Dershowitz stated in an ambiguous manner, odd for such an articulate and mentally agile lawyer, no objection to millions of Arabs entering Israel. [No one who really cares about Israel would fail to object to that obvious ploy to destroy Israel, that ploy being one of the chief components of the Saudi Initiative that Ben-Ami commends. Ben-Ami and the Saudis, those other "friends" of Israel.] Ben-Ami pleaded that we should acknowledge that a wrong was done to the Arab refugees. [if so, it was done by themselves and especially by their leaders.] In reply, Dershowitz explained that very few of the Arabs were forced out of Israel, and only after they had participated in a genocidal attempt against the Jews. Let us recognize, he said, that there was a population exchange, there being more and wealthier Jews who were expelled [but first robbed] from Arab states. Therefore, Israel owes Palestinian Arabs nothing. He would not object to a symbolic compensation. But, if Israel compensates them, then the Arab states should compensate their Jewish refugees. [Israel should make no symbolic gestures. Once it does, it admits responsibility. Then that becomes a point for further demands and for negotiation. Good will to the wrong people at the wrong time is counter-productive.] Although Ben-Ami derided Dershowitz for having an over-simplified view on refugees, he did not have the complex view of it that Dershowitz does. [It came out as another nasty crack by Ben-Ami. Ben-Ami's posture is that he is pro-Israel but Israel is guilty of everything and the Arabs are guilty of very little.] Part 14: Goldstone Ben-Ami pressed for approval of the Goldstein UN report. Dershowitz distinguished between the report's recommendations, for which the UN commission had no expertise to make, and which Goldstein admitted was based on judicially inadmissible evidence, and the testimony, itself. Dershowitz thought that the testimony should be investigated. Ben-Ami settled for that. They want an independent investigation. Whom would Dershowitz recommend? He named Amos Oz and leftist government officials, who are not objective, and Israeli judges, such as Shamgar and Barak, who ruled out good evidence in favor of biased evidence. [Dershowitz failed to recognize the high standards of the investigations Israel has been conducting, and the low standards by which Goldstein accepted biased hearsay. Trouble is, people have learned to be suspicious of potentially self-serving investigations, and don't know who is fair and who is biased.] The Goldstein mission had four members. One, a Muslim, said it would be cruel to disbelieve Hamas testimony! Another, an officer, didn't believe that Hamas would put weapons into mosques, which of course it did [and for which Israel had ample evidence]. A third member obviously had made her mind up in advance. So had the UN, which set up the mission to get evidence against Israel. Ben-Ami defended Goldstein by calling him a Zionist. [Goldstone was embarrassed into resigning from Human Rights Watch, which specializes in abusing Israel and having to retract accusations.] Ben-Ami likewise defended his own character by references to where he had lived — in Israel. [That is no criterion. Citing military service or Zionist parents wouldn't prove anything about an individual has become radicalized. Viz Rahm Emanuel.] Ben-Ami tried to exonerate the UN and Goldstein by asserting that before setting out, Goldstein got a UN official to change the mission. Dershowitz, always on top of the facts that Ben-Ami was spinning, explained that it was an informal move that did not change the mission or the report, but served as a face-saving excuse for those who want to be deceived. [I had reported the details.] Ben-Ami accused Dershowitz of making cheap shots to impress the audience, by trashing Goldstein. Dershowitz explained that after Ben-Ami cited Goldstein as a reliable source, it was a duty to explain that he is not reliable. [Indeed, the Goldstein mission obviously was trash. Dozens of other major, reasonable criticisms of it were made. It simply was pro-Arab propaganda, which the UN has made into one of its main purposes. Why would anyone honest and pro-Israel put any credence into it?] Nevertheless, Ben-Ami had to agree that the UN is biased. [This contradicts his earlier suggestion that the Quartet, of which the UN is part, mediate and provide a peacekeeping buffer between Israel and a new Arab state.]
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel from widespread
libel 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 TRIAL (TRAVESTY) OF THE CENTURY
Posted by Susana K-M, November 23, 2009. |
|
This was written by Arnold Ahlert. |
|
One of the main points being made by conservatives regarding a civilian trial for the 9/11 terrorists is that it will provide Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and company a worldwide platform for denigrating America as part of their defense strategy. A hot flash for my fellow conservatives: having America internationally debased may be precisely what our president and his like-minded followers want. Many times I have made the point that there are two types of Americans: in one group are those who add up all the plusses and minuses of our country's history and conclude that we are the greatest nation on earth, warts and all. In the other, those who believe the same calculations reveal a nation which is fundamentally flawed, and in need of a massive re-ordering which only they can provide.The second group also believes we owe the entire world an apology for our historically wayward behavior. For a very long time, the second group, aka American left, has been infatuated with the idea of Americans getting their comeuppance for having the gall to believe our culture, traditions and customs have made us the best nation on earth. The essence of their argument is simple: because we are not perfect, we have no business being proud of being good, nor any reason whatsoever to conclude that our ways are superior to those of any other nation or culture. For them, Ronald Reagan's characterization of America as a "shining city on a hill" is nothing more than collective braggadocio. Such a clear cut assessment of America also rankles leftists because they are heavily invested in the idea that all things are relative, which is why our president, when asked if he believed in American exceptionalism said, "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." Perhaps it never occurred to the president that if everyone is exceptional, then no one is. Or perhaps it did. The American left has long yearned to see the Founding Fathers — and their overwhelmingly Judeo-Christian approach to governance — thoroughly discredited. Part of it stems from their decades-long infatuation with secularism, as epitomized by candidate-Obama's San Francisco characterization of disgruntled Americans "clinging" to guns and religion, a statement which reveals one of the prevailing characteristics of leftist elitism: religion per se is anti-intellectual. This attitude dovetails nicely with their general contempt for the intelligence of average Americans, who they believe must be taken care of by their betters. Another part of it stems from a similar infatuation with diversity: many leftists can't stand the idea that the wisdom of a largely homogenous group of people — "dead, slave-owning, white, European males" is responsible for one of the finest series of governmental philosophies ever devised. Thus, everything leftist Democrats in Congress and this administration are attempting to foist on the American people — Constitutional rights for stateless, non-uniformed terrorists, government-run healthcare, cap-and-trade, nationalizing banks, regulating salaries, etc. etc. — is the rejection of a status quo they consider too white, too religious, too capitalistic, too self-reliant, too free, and too...American. These are the same people who believe the disastrous historical track record of both socialism and communism is attributable solely to the fact that the "wrong people were in charge." And until America "comes to its senses" and adopts that which is a demonstrable failure only because of incompetent leadership, we must be pilloried for our "irredeemable"embrace of freedom and capitalism. And who would make a perfect pitchman for delivering that message to the entire world? Enter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Attorney General Eric Holder has promised us the prosecution of the alleged 9/11 mastermind will be the "trial of the century." No doubt. For those who can't — or won't — recognize the extermination of 3000 Americans on 9/11 as an act of war, or that Islamic jihadism is inherently evil and inferior to our way of life, this spectacle will be a global celebration of rabid, anti Americanism — one that will delight jihadists and "chickens coming home to roost" leftists in equal measure. Some conservatives are "consoling" themselves with the idea that the real motive here is putting the former administration, most specifically George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, on trial. That is naive. America itself is in the cross hairs here: the religious right, flyover country, the military, the CIA, capitalism and every other institution and concept leftists hold in contempt. New York City once again a bulls-eye? There's an old saying, "bad things come in threes." The bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 — and the subsequent civilian trials — was number one. 9/11 was number two. Number three? Let's hope old sayings aren't invariably accurate. Contact Susana K-M by email at suanema@gmail.com. |
|
FROM ISRAEL: DEPLORABLE
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 22, 2009. |
|
I began writing this post, earlier today, by talking about imponderables, and then focusing on Obama policy with regard to Iran — which policy leaves many of us confused, frustrated, and angry. Following through, I posed a series of questions, all exceedingly valid: Did he ever REALLY believe that Iran would be receptive to dialogue and compromise? Has he been blinded to ominous Iranian realities because he is so solidly wedded to a philosophy that demands resolution of all conflicts via dialogue? Or because he is so intent on courting the Muslim world? Or because he rejects long-standing notions of America as moral cop and pretends to ignore what he doesn't wish to deal with? Or because he wants to keep Russia — which is not predisposed to sanctions — happy? Or for some other as yet unspecified reason? How does he justify the virtual slap in the face he delivered to the rebels in the streets of Iran, who pleaded for American support, after the election? (These dissidents, it should be noted, have just renewed their call for assistance from the US: Mohsen Makhmalbaf, spokesman for a key Iranian opposition movement has asked Obama to publicly demonstrate support for Iranian democrats and intensify financial pressure on the Revolutionary Guard.) ~~~~~~~~~~ Acknowledging that I have no satisfactory answers, I moved beyond these questions to the present: We've passed the time limit Obama had originally set for Iran to accept a proposal — as imperfect and dubious as it was — for shifting the situation and thereby reducing the threat of Iranian development of nuclear weapons. What is more, the West is now in possession of additional evidence regarding Iranian duplicity and hidden nuclear facilities. (Additional evidence, as if we didn't already know it, that you cannot trust these guys.) In the face of this, it has been generally acknowledged that it's time to get tough with Iran. And so last Thursday Obama issued a statement in this regard: "Iran has taken weeks now and has not shown its willingness to say yes to this proposal...and so as a consequence we have begun discussions with our international partners about the importance of having consequences." What? "As a consequence we have begun discussing...the importance of having consequences"? How tepid and wishy-washy (and convoluted) could he get? Sort of like a mother, saying to her misbehaving child, "I'm going to discuss this with your father, and then you'll see, you may be in big trouble." Obama's explanation was distressing: "Our expectation is that, over the next several weeks, we will be developing a package of potential steps that we could take, that would indicate our seriousness to Iran," he said. Potential steps? Nothing definitive there. But some weeks ago Israel had urged the US to have sanction plans in place, so that once it was clear that Iran was not cooperating, they could be immediately activated. But Obama — Oi! — had not wanted to do this because it would send a negative message to the Iranians when he was reaching out a hand to them. He didn't like a carrot and stick policy: he wanted to be all carrot. So now Iran has more time, while sanctions are "discussed." Obama's position is that Iran's intransigency will increase the willingness of the international community to resort to punitive measures. Israel is urging that sanctions be applied that would deny Iran any nuclear fuel capabilities. And Israel is further urging that if the international community won't get serious the US should act alone. ~~~~~~~~~~ But here's the kicker, which has just come to my attention: In 1983, 241 US Marines were killed in the bombing of a barracks in Lebanon. It has taken many years to track, and to bring through the courts, but in 2007 a US federal judge ruled that Iran was liable for $2.65 billion in damages in the bombing, to be shared by 150 families seeking restitution. Lawyers for the families have been working to seize Iranian assets so that payments could be made. However, the Obama government is going to court to try to block
this, because (are you ready?) it would "jeopardize sensitive
negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program and establish a
potentially damaging precedent." (emphasis added)
Here's a chance to zap it to Iran, big time, and Obama would rather not do it. I confess, professional cool went out the window with this and I couldn't draw a breath. And so, now that I'm breathing again, I must ask my final set of questions: Is the president of the US daft? And, if not, precisely what is he about? Lastly, where is America, that all this could be happening? ~~~~~~~~~~ Let me add information shared by Barry Rubin in his most recent posting: A correspondent in Iraq has interviewed the commander of US troops there, and sent the dispatch via Reuters. Said this commander, al-Qaeda, which is fighting in Iraq, has joined forces with previous supporters of Saddam Hussein (former Ba'athists, who made off with considerable funds from Iraq). And the site of rendezvous is Syria. According to US General Ray Odierno, "Investigations into massive suicide bombings in Baghdad on Oct. 25, in which more than 150 people died, indicated that explosives or fighters were coming across from Syria." Explains Rubin: "Syria is letting al-Qaeda and Saddamist terrorists come in, get armed and trained, cross the border [to] Iraq, and run back for safe haven." Taking it one step further, Rubin observed: "As U.S. forces withdraw someone is trying to wreck the situation there so that the US departure looks like defeat." The general confirms this: "We believe that there will be attempts to conduct more attacks between now and the elections because they want to destabilize those." ~~~~~~~~~~ Just as I've asked questions, Rubin also does: "So, the Obama Administration's military commander says Syria is behind massive attacks and working closely with Osama bin Laden's guys. ~~~~~~~~~~ My friends, get this information to your Senators and Congresspersons without delay. For your Congresspersons:
For your Senators:
Keep the explanations short, and provide URLs. Act to redeem this situation before it is too late. ~~~~~~~~~~ "The Good News Corner" A sophisticated research ship has been launched in Eilat, at the Institute for Marine Sciences. Hebrew University, Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, and a number of other agencies and private donors have cooperatively made this possible. Profession Aaron Kaplan, who heads the Institute explains, that this will greatly advance Israeli marine research — especially with regard to unique organisms found in the Gulf of Eilat. Such research has increased value in recent years as marine biological models are used for medical research. ~~~~~~~~~~ Professor Meir Liebergall, chairman of the orthopedics department of Hadassah Medical Center, Ein Kerem campus,and Professor Eithan Galum, have announced a new technique that involves a "breakthrough in concept and overcomes major scientific and logistical problems." For the very first time ever, platelets and adult stem cells from the blood and bone marrow of patients with fractures have been separated and then injected into the patients, causing bones to heal in a quarter to a third of the time it usually takes, and permitting healing to occur that in some instances wouldn't have otherwise been possible at all. The technique has been developed over the course of years. ~~~~~~~~~~ Eye from Zion is an Israeli non-profit that sends volunteers into developing nations to do cataract surgery and restore people's sight. All money donated to the organization is used to cover expenses; none of the dozens of volunteers surgeons involved takes payment. The group brings its own equipment, sets up a clinic, and starts operating. Many hundreds of operations have been done in such places as Vietnam, China and Azerbaijan. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner@netvision.net.il and visit her website: www.ArlenefromIsrael.info |
|
NEIGHBOURS: BUILDING BLOCKS OF PEACE — OR WAR
Posted by Lyn Julius, November 22, 2009. |
|
Living side by side is not enough: Israelis and Arabs must meet, talk and learn from each other |
|
At the National Theatre in London, Our Class is telling the story of the 1941 massacre of the Jews of the Polish village Jedwabne — all the more painful for being true. What makes the play so hard to watch is that the murderers and victims knew each other. Catholics and Jews sat in class together, flirted, shared dreams and aspirations. Eventually, though, deep-seated antisemitism and prejudice caused one half of the class to turn on the other. The idea that familiarity leads to mutual respect underpins the work of some 30 Arab-Jewish coexistence projects in Israel alone. If Jews and Arabs talk to each other, live together, play music together — so the thinking goes — there could be peace. Coexistence is not new to the Middle East. Jews and Muslims lived cheek-by-jowl for 14 centuries. Arab mythology holds that the Golden Age in Muslim Spain was a model for peaceful coexistence. But the relationship was not equal. Jews were subjugated, self-abasing dhimmis, exploited for their talents. They had to buy their physical security from the ruler of the day. Maimonides fled from fanatical Muslims, not Christians. In modern times, Jewish-Arab coexistence broke down completely. Roughly half the Jewish population came to Israel not as refugees from the Holocaust, but fleeing Arab and Muslim antisemitism. A million Jews once lived in Arab lands. Today, their communities, predating Islam by 1,000 years, are almost extinct. The periodic violence that has erupted in the Middle East has tested interpersonal relations to the hilt. Just as Righteous Gentiles saved Jews from the Nazis, some Arabs saved Jews: 300 Jews sheltered in 28 Arab homes during the Hebron massacre of 1929. Honourable Muslims rescued Jews from rioting mobs in Arab countries. While the authorities failed to intervene to protect Jews — or even incited the rioting — the friendly neighbour stood as the last line of defence. But familiarity also breeds contempt, resentment and greed. Among stories of neighbourly betrayal in Hebron was the Jewish doctor murdered by his own patients. The Makleff family near Jerusalem was slaughtered by the Arabs they worked with. Jews terrorised by the 1941 Farhoud in Iraq (179 Jews dead) and the Libyan pogrom in 1945 (130 Jews dead ) recognised, among their assailants, the local policeman, butcher and milkman. Yet there must be a place for coexistence initiatives. Projects such as Daniel Barenboim's East-West Divan Orchestra play a role in humanising Arabs to Israelis, and Israelis to Arabs — whose countries habitually demonise them. The cooperative village of Neve Shalom introduces Arabs and Jews to each other's cultures. Unless the dialogue is balanced, however, coexistence can become an exercise in Jewish self-abasement. It can lead to Jews suppressing their rights, identity and suffering while empowering Arab grievances. Jews may feel the pain of a Palestinian refugee and even "understand" terrorism, while there is no corresponding shift on the Arab side — because Jewish rights, suffering and the pain of expulsion of Jews by Arabs, may be ignored. The prejudice at the root of rejectionism and terrorism can turn a neighbour into a monster. Only if we confront this unpalatable truth can people live as equals in true peace and mutual respect. Lyn Julius co-founded Harif, an association of Jews from the Middle East and North Africa This article appeared October 29, 2009 in The Jewish Community Online
|