| HOME | Featured Stories | November 2011 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: SEA OF FLAGS
Posted by Yehoshua Halevi, November 30, 2011. |
Contact Yehoshua Halevi by email at smile@goldenlightimages.com
and visit his website: |
|
WINSTON CHURCHILL AMERICA'S FAVORITE SON
Posted by NeverAgainIsNow, November 30, 2011. |
|
This was written by Susan North, Staff Member of Never Again Is NOW (neveragainisnow.net). |
|
Today we celebrate the birth, November 30, 1874, of Winston Churchill (d.1965), America's favorite son. His English father and connections, along with his own personal abilities and ambition, made it possible for him to become the Prime Minister of Great Britain in her darkest hour. According to the law of the day, he could not inherit his American mother's citizenship. Instead, thanks to his own achievements, he was the first person to ever become an honorary citizen of the United States. President Kennedy, upon confirming American citizenship on Churchill, said: We meet to honor a man whose honor requires no meeting — for he is the most honored and honorable man to walk the stage of human history in the time in which we live. Whenever and wherever tyranny threatened, he has always championed liberty. Facing firmly toward the future, he has never forgotten the past. Churchill well understood the value of history and tradition, as he told the House of Commons in 1944, "A love of tradition has never weakened a nation; indeed it has strengthened nations in their hour of peril, but the new view must come, the world must roll forward ... Let us have no fear of the future." He also, at one point, advised his listeners to "Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft." Churchill understood two things, that "The farther backward you can look, the farther forward you can see," and that "Our past is the key to our future, which I firmly trust and believe will be no less fertile and glorious." He knew history, he made history, and he was a historian; hence he, more than most, was able to see into the future, and in the 1930s he recognized the dangers emanating from Germany and the potential of war, while his political opponents chose to ignore this possibility. Or, as he so eloquently put it when addressing Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in the House of Commons after the 1938 Munich Accords, "Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war." It was only many years after the war that his definition of an appeaser as "one who feeds a crocodile — hoping it will eat him last" was coined. No doubt he had Chamberlain in mind when he said it. Many of his best known sayings were similar to this one, short and focused on principles that are as invaluable in private life as they are in the political arena. Below is a brief selection:
In a shocking display of ingratitude, the British voters rejected Churchill after he had so successfully led them fearlessly through war. In part, this was a result of sheer fatigue, after so many years of war (for the British it began in 1939 and only ended in 1945). Churchill's electoral defeat was in part a result of the siren song of the Labour Party's promises — promises that handcuffed the British economy from the end of the war until today, with only a measure of relief coming in the 1980s; promises that Churchill understood and clearly recognized as detrimental. His insights into the forms of government, the economy, and law were accurate and to the point:
Churchill frequently spoke on the subjects of liberty, freedom, and tyranny (he was, after all, a wartime president). In fact he seems to have had an opinion on almost everything, including some of his allies (France and America), and in particular America and the Americans of whom he said that:
He would have understood many of the issues we face today, including the clash between the West and the Islamic world, and he did not hesitate to voice his observations about Islam. Churchill had observed it first hand, and wrote about it in his 1899 book, The River War: An Historic Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan: How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. . . . The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. . . No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome. Winston Churchill was a man ahead of his times, a man much needed in our time, a man who wrote and spoke much about tyranny. He understood, "Tyranny is our foe whatever trappings or disguise it wears, whatever language it speaks, be it external or internal, we must forever be on our guard, ever mobilized, ever vigilant, always ready to spring at its throat." These words were as relevant then as they are today. Happy Birthday Winston Churchill. Stanley Zir is founder of Never Again is NOW (http://www.neveragainisnow.net/). Contact them by email at neveragainisnow@live.com |
|
WELFARE FOR THE WEALTHY
Posted by Michael Freund, November 30, 2011. |
|
The numbers are in, and they don't look good. In a wide-ranging study released on Tuesday, the National Insurance Institute pulled the cover off of one of Israeli society's darkest secrets: the existence of widespread hunger and deprivation. The survey, which was released at the Sderot Conference for Society, found that a whopping 20 percent of Israelis cannot afford to buy enough food for themselves and their families. Thirteen percent of respondents said they often go without sufficient food, while one out of five of those questioned had to turn to friends or family for help purchasing sustenance. If accurate, the figures signify nothing less than a pervasive and intolerable crisis. As the director-general of the Welfare Ministry, Nahum Itzkovitz, noted, "There is a serious problem with nutritional insecurity whereby people are forced to go without enough food or without food completely; in other cases families find food but it is not appropriate or healthy." Indeed, it is simply inconceivable that so many of our fellow citizens should be going hungry. As heirs to an ancient tradition of charity and extending a helping hand to others, we must take dramatic steps to address this issue, which goes to the very heart of what a Jewish society ought to be. When looking at the figures, I could not help but think that the priorities of our government and society are often so wildly misplaced, with precious resources and taxpayer money going to waste while thousands of Israelis are compelled to grapple with an empty stomach. Take, for example, the newly refurbished Habima national theater in Tel Aviv. With its vast new glass windows and soaring ceilings, the hall reopened last week after being fixed up to the tune of NIS 105 million, with NIS 57.5m. paid for by the Tel Aviv municipality and the remainder coming from the government. In other words, it was the taxpayer who had to foot the bill. On top of that, Habima also received an additional gift when the government agreed to forgive NIS 18.5m. of the theater's debt to the state, which dates back to a 1995 loan that saved it from insolvency. Now don't get me wrong. Culture and the arts are certainly important. But if there aren't enough people out there who want what Habima has to offer, then what justification is there for public funding to keep it going? Why must we collectively continue to pour millions into Habima's coffers, and give them a brand new makeover to boot, if their appeal is so limited that they are incapable of standing on their own two feet?
BELIEVE IT or not, much of what passes for government funding of cultural activity amounts to little more than welfare for the wealthy. Even with the subsidies, Habima concerts and performances cost hundreds of shekels per ticket, meaning tax monies are being used to support the culture habits of those people who can afford those prices. Does this make any sense? If the government decided to subsidize vacations to Europe or luxury automobiles for the wealthy, there would be howls of outrage, and rightly so. So why should the bankrolling of musicals be viewed any differently? Government funding of the arts not only makes little economic or even common sense, but there is also a danger attached to it. It heightens the risk that public culture will become politicized by creating dependency and a sense of obligation toward those who sign the checks. Furthermore, when government is the one paying the bill, it inevitably erodes the sense of personal responsibility that every citizen should feel towards the public good. After all, when people read that Habima is the recipient of extensive government largesse, they are far less likely to feel the need to contribute of their own accord. Now I know what some of you might be thinking: most people do not place enough value on things such as opera, ballet or even a show. They would much rather stare at their iPods or watch television. But heck, isn't that what living in a free society is all about? The majority of people have voted with their feet, or in this case with their behinds, and chosen to sit on the couch at home rather than go to Habima. So why must we compel them, through their taxes, to pay for those who do want a night out at the theater? Here's a radical idea: let's stop pumping money down black holes like Habima and instead distribute those funds to various private organizations that feed the poor. Let the artists and playwrights and opera singers compete for public attention and income just like everyone else. If the state is going to be laying out tens of millions of shekels for welfare, then at least let it go to those who truly need it. Michael Freund is the founder and chairman of Shavei Israel
(www.shavei.org), which assists Anousim in Spain, Portugal and South
America to return to the Jewish people. He served as an adviser to
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in his first term in office. Contact
him at lit@pundicity.com
This article was published in the Jerusalem Post and is archived at
|
|
THE LEGO STATE
Posted by Sergio HaDaR Tezza, November 30, 2011. |
|
This was written by Giulio Meotti, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah", that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror victims, published by Encounter. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage and Commentary. |
|
Why are we treating residential communities like Lego structures that can be taken apart at will? Unfortunately, Israel has created the mistaken impression that it is a Lego state. It's the only nation prepared to act as a guinea pig for an experiment whose results are known in advance. Truncated and compressed into the pre-1967 borders, the Jewish state, the dream of millions of people for 2,000 years, the state for which pioneers toiled and soldiers died over 10 decades, is a miniature and indefensible outpost, like a big Givat Assaf or Migron, whose homes are now under threat of demolition. The outposts control strategic points for the IDF. The Jewish residents thought that the great wave of terrorism had finally convinced everyone to follow their path, the Jewish presence in the territories at all costs. Beyond these communities you have Jordan, Iraq and Iran. Can Israel imagine having rockets deployed five hundred meters from the Ben Gurion Airport? Haifa has already been bombed by Hizbullah, as have Ashdod and Ashkelon by Hamas. The citizens of the Judea and Samaria communities are the edge of a people besieged and tormented by terror. Can Israel imagine having rockets deployed five hundred meters from the Ben Gurion Airport? "If there are no outposts, the army isn't allowed to stay in the region", tells me Lt. Col. Yitzhak Shadmi, one of the leader of the regional council of Judea and Samarai: "And if the IDF leaves the hills, what will happen in case of a regional war between Israel, Iran and Syria?". From the beginning of the renewal of Jewish settlement, the general idea was that the army would operate and defend from the same locations in which there were Jewish residents. If there was no Jewish settlement to defend, the army and the government would find any excuse to retreat. Consequently, 60 years ago the IDF patrolled and set up ambushes in the regions of the kibbutzim in the south, Nahal Oz, Nirim, and others, solely because Jewish pioneers were living there. There are now two methods of destruction. The state can bulldoze Migron, as it did in Gaza. Or it can ensure that a community becomes isolated. Once you turn it into a ghetto, it will decay or fall prey to "external" forces. This is a Machiavellian policy which hates and despises the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria and those Jewish families who made their homes there, saying: let them fall and waste away by themselves. The more their lack of security increases, the faster they will themselves abandon their homes. In a recent New York Times' report titled "Mapping Mideast Peace", there are three possible scenarios, in which 59.782, 79.805 and 94.226 Jewish settlers are abandoned to their fate, along with 77, 82 or 88 communities. "Netanyahu wants to build only in the big settlements, but if you remove the smallest towns it will be a domino effect for the entire state of Israel", tells us Hillel Weiss, Professor of Literature at Bar Ilan University and one of the mentors of the 'hilltop youth'. "If the army can't protect us, the state should allow the residents to defend themselves. Today in Judea and Samaria there are about 600.000 Jews, the same number there were when the state of Israel was proclaimed in 1948. It's a shame that the Jewish people survived to Hitler and today tsome are talking about dismantling the outposts". It's like in Arthur Koestler's 1946 classic "Thieves in the Night", in which he showed how Jewish youth outwitted both the British authorities and the Arab marauders and terrorists of the day to set up settlements in the furthermost corners of the land of the Jews. They worked the fields by day, and at night, stood guard to fight off intruders. Peace Now's claims about the outposts resemble the Arabs of Jaffa at the beginning of the century, who accused the Jews of "illegal settlement" even when they were well recompensed for the land which they sold in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, the Jezreel Valley, and Galilee. The British Mandate adopted these definitions when they imposed the "White Paper" on Jewish immigration into Eretz Israel, on the purchase of land and settlements. Based on this charge sheet, the entire Jewish state itself is therefore "illegal". From Bruchin's outpost you can see the Azrieli towers in Tel Aviv. On the right, the chimneys of Hadera. On the left, the port of Ashdod. The outpost holds in its palm of hand half of the Israeli coast. Down below you have Ramat Aviv, a prosperous neighborhood suburb, where there are many supporters of the Left. This is the location of the Tel Aviv University campus, where there are numerous professors and lecturers who, in their lectures, support the establishment of a terrorist Arab state and the uprooting of the Yesha communities. But Ramat Aviv stands on the land of an Arab village, Sheikh Munis, whose inhabitants abandoned it in 1948. No one evicted them. They fled, together with the inhabitants of Jaffa, after believing the Arab leaders who promised them that the invasion of Israel by the Arab armies on May 15 of that year would be followed by an Arab victory. They would then be able to return also to conquered Tel Aviv itself. Do the Israelis really think that if they uproot the outposts in Judea and Samaria the Arabs will forget their claims to Sheikh Munis, Sheikh Bader and Kafr Sumeil and will allow the Jews to live there "in peace"? For the Islamic world, everything Jewish here is "illegal". Everything is "stolen land". Dismantle the Samaria's communities and the next in line will be the Ramat Aviv's yuppies. Sergio Tessa can be reached at nutella59@ucla.edu. |
|
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION BANS KNOWLEDGE OF ISLAM
Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, November 30, 2011. |
|
The Obama administration's censoring of photographs of the late Osama bin Laden, lest they "offend" Muslims, is one thing; but what about censoring words, especially those pivotal to U.S. security? Weeks earlier, the Daily Caller revealed that "the Obama administration was pulling back all training materials used for the law enforcement and national security communities, in order to eliminate all references to Islam that some Muslim groups have claimed are offensive." The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial. In a Wednesday Los Angeles Times op-ed, Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) president Salam al-Marayati threatened the FBI with a total cutoff of cooperation between American Muslims and law enforcement if the agency failed to revise its law enforcement training materials. Maintaining the training materials in their current state "will undermine the relationship between law enforcement and the Muslim American community," al-Marayati wrote. Multiple online sources detail MPAC's close alignment with CAIR. In his op-ed, Al-Marayati demanded that the Justice Department and the FBI "issue a clear and unequivocal apology to the Muslim American community" and "establish a thorough and transparent vetting process in selecting its trainers and materials." Accordingly, after discussing the matter with Attorney General Eric Holder, Dwight C. Holton said "I want to be perfectly clear about this: training materials that portray Islam as a religion of violence or with a tendency towards violence are wrong, they are offensive, and they are contrary to everything that this president, this attorney general and Department of Justice stands for. They will not be tolerated." Even before these Muslim complaints and threats, President Obama alluded to censoring words when he said soon after taking office: "Words matter ... because one of the ways we're going to win this struggle ["war on terror"] is through the battle of [Muslims'] hearts and minds" (followed by oddities like commissioning NASA to make Muslims "feel good" about themselves). As if there were not already a lamentable lack of study concerning Muslim war doctrine in the curriculum of American military studies — including in the Pentagon and U.S. Army War College — the administration's more aggressive censorship program will only exacerbate matters. Last year's QDR, a strategic document, does not mention anything remotely related to Islam — even as it stresses climate change, which it sees as an "accelerant of instability and conflict" around the world. This attempt to whitewash Islam certainly has precedents, such as a 2008 government memo that not only warned against "offending," "insulting," or being "confrontational" to Muslims, but tried to justify such censorship as follows: Never use the terms "jihadist" or "mujahideen" in conversation to describe the terrorists. A mujahed, a holy warrior, is a positive characterization in the context of a just war. In Arabic, jihad means "striving in the path of God" and is used in many contexts beyond warfare. Calling our enemies jihadis and their movement a global jihad unintentionally legitimizes their actions. [emphasis added] Contact Raymond Ibrahim at list@pundicity.com.
This article appeared in Hudson New York and it is archived at
|
|
ARAB PROTESTS ABOUT JERUSALEM RENOVATION REVEAL THE REAL OBSTACLE TO PEACE
Posted by Daily Alert, November 30, 2011. |
|
This was written by Jonathan S. Tobin and it appeared November 28, 2011 in Commentary Magazine. |
|
Those Middle East observers who prefer to focus on Israel's actions or inactions as the only source of tension in the region generally ignore the greatest obstacle to peace or even coexistence: the deep and abiding hatred for Jews that has become entrenched in Arab political culture. No better example of the utter irrationality of that culture and its obsessive nature exists than how the news of the renovation of a ramp leading to Jerusalem's Temple Mount has become the subject of intense controversy. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced on Friday that plans to demolish a temporary structure that allowed access to the Temple Mount would be indefinitely postponed due to the threats of violence not only from Palestinians but also from Egypt and Jordan. As with the case of previous efforts to either modernize or create better access for this historic and sacred area, any actions by Israel have been regarded by denizens of the so-called "Arab street" as a conspiratorial plot to destroy the mosques on the Temple Mount or otherwise offend Muslim sensibilities. The fact that even an anti-Israel institution like UNESCO — which has routinely denounced archeological digs in the city by Israelis — regards the ramp demolition as in no way compromising Muslim rights or shrines is meaningless to Israel's Arab foes. While frustrating for Israel, these threats ought to clearly illustrate to the world the irrational aspect of Arab and Islamic critique of Israel. The resentment the Temple Mount project has generated is rooted in a belief that Jews have no right to be in Jerusalem. It has nothing to do with anything Netanyahu or his government might do. Renovation of the ramp, which is a temporary structure put up in 2003 after an earthquake and a severe winter storm caused the old access ramp to collapse, in no way harms the mosques on the Temple Mount or interferes with Muslim rights to worship there. Indeed, the carrying on about anything Israel does with the adjoining Western Wall or the tunnels leading to it have never been about any harm to Arabs or Muslims. After all, in an act of magnanimity that has never been equaled in the annals of war, Israel handed over control of the Temple Mount — which is the most sacred spot in Judaism — to the Muslim Wakf almost immediately after the city was unified in 1967. For the first time in history, one of the contestants for control of the city did not destroy the shrines of other faiths or convert them to other uses as Christian and Muslim conquerors had done. But Israel got no credit for Moshe Dayan's attempt to appease Islamic sensibilities. In the decades since this gesture, the Wakf has redoubled its efforts to foment violence. Even more to the point, it has conducted excavations on the historic site that resulted in the trashing of antiquities. The only period when all religions were allowed free access to their holy sites in the city's history has been the last 44 years of Jewish sovereignty. Yet Muslims still react to any Jewish presence in the Old City much as they did in 1929 when extremists fomented rumors of a Jewish plot to destroy the Temple Mount mosques that resulted in riots that took the lives of many Jews, including the massacre of the ancient Jewish community of Hebron. It speaks volumes about the way Israel remains the boogeyman of Islamic culture that even in the midst of the convulsions that have racked Egypt in recent weeks, demonstrators in Tahir Square found time to obsess about a harmless ramp renovation project in Jerusalem. Though seemingly a minor affair when compared to the great conflicts over territory and the struggle for democracy, the threats over the ramp allow us to see the deep-seated nature of anti-Israel bias. If there is to be any hope for peace between Israel and its neighbors it will have to wait until there is a sea change in the political culture of a Muslim world still stuck in their irrational hatred for the Jews. 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 |
|
CONFRONTING HANNAH ARENDT
Posted by Seth J. Frantzman, November 30, 2011. |
|
If the German-born theorist was a racist, collaborator with a leading Nazi intellectual and probably an anti-Semite, why were her work and ideas ever respected? Hannah Arendt, the German-born Jewish political theorist, is still widely admired in the West and in Israel. Her 1963 book Eichmann in Jerusalem: A report on the Banality of Evil has recently been translated into Hebrew. In universities, those who are exposed to Arendt's theories are told, time and again, that they are exploring something new, something that is supposedly challenging the old and stale ideas with brilliant theories of human evil and totalitarianism. In general, those who have questioned Arendt's findings have tried to challenge them intellectually, but it is worthwhile to go beyond that and ask why her work and ideas were ever respected in the first place, especially in light of the fact that she was a raving racist, collaborator with a leading Nazi intellectual, and probable anti-Semite. To get an idea of the vast exposure and influence of Arendt one must only read her admirer's comments. Cynthia Haven at Stanford University writes: "The 20th-century world of philosophy did not, as a rule, create superstars. Hannah Arendt was an exception... thirty-five years after her death, the German-Jewish political theorist... is an international industry." There is a Hannah Arendt Center for Politics and Humanities at Bard College, where much of her personal library is located, and now a Hannah Arendt movie is being filmed. Reviewing a recent book by Deborah Lipstadt in which the author criticized Arendt, the Center's blog noted: "Thanks to Hannah Arendt, most people have come to understand [Adolph] Eichmann as a herald for the terrifying possibility of ordinary people displayingand promoting true evil. In other words, the popular belief is that this particular Nazi was just a normal person driven by his desire to succeed, rather than any true hatred or criminal intent, to facilitate the murder of millions."
ARENDT WAS born in 1906 in Germany but spent her young life in the East Prussian city of Konigsberg (now the Russian military district of Kaliningrad). She studied at the University of Marburg where she met Martin Heidegger, a German philosopher who became her lover and a leading Nazi intellectual. Because of the rise of Nazism, she fled Germany and lived in France until the German occupation forced her to flee again, this time to the United States. She was employed by the Joint Distribution Committee, a Jewish NGO, as part of a project called "Jewish Cultural Reconstruction" after the war, before becoming a roving academic and intellectual, securing posts at many of America's most prestigious universities. She is famous for her works The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951) and Eichmann in Jerusalem (1963). In her two books her main contribution has been to show that Nazism was not unique; in its totalitarian aspects it was like the Soviet Union and its individuals were primarily "clowns" (the word used to describe Eichmann) or mere bureaucrats. She absolved the Germans of any special guilt regarding the Holocaust and support for Nazism by arguing that all people were capable of producing such evil. WHAT HAS often been missed is that Arendt was a German nationalist and a raving anti-Semite who only escaped being called such by being Jewish. In Origins she blamed wealthy Jews for the rise of nationalism because of their support for the monarchy. "The Jews had been purveyors in wars and the servants of kings," she wrote. In Eichmann she argued that had it not been for the Jews who worked with the Nazi administration, in the ghettos and camps, the death toll in the Holocaust would have been lower. This anti-Semetic tripe and Holocaust marginalization has passed for pseudo-intellectualism at the finest universities. Arendt also hated Israel and Zionism. In 1948 she wrote that Menachem Begin's Herut Party was one of the "most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of a political party closely akin in its organization, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties." She also compared the Eichmann trial was a show trial.
BUT IT is her racism for which she must be finally taken to account. Those who love Arendt often ignore this fact or bury it in a footnote, as Steven Aschheim did in his book, Arendt in Jerusalem. When she was in Jerusalem, she wrote to her German philosopher friend Karl Jaspers: "On top, the judges, the best of German Jewry. Below them, the prosecuting attorneys, Galicians, but still Europeans. Everything is organized by a police force that gives me the creeps, speaks only Hebrew, and looks Arabic... they would obey any order. And outside the doors, the oriental mob, as if one were in Istanbul or some other half-Asiatic country. In addition, and very visible in Jerusalem, the peies and caftan Jews, who make life impossible for all the reasonable people here." In her judgment that the Germans, "the best," are properly placed on top we find an Aryan supremacy that would not have been un-welcomed in Himmler's ministries. In her view that the police would "obey any order" we find a comparison of Jews to Nazis. In her comments about the "Oriental mob" and the creepy feeling of seeing people that "look Arabic" we find the racism, the hatred of Arabs and the hatred of Jews from Middle Eastern countries. In her contempt for the religious Jews we find the typical hatred that German Jews had for the ostjuden, their supposed brethren from the east. Hannah Arendt's letter should be required reading in any university course that mentions her name. Her racism against Arabs and her Eurocentric views all should be made known before anyone opens her books. Just as Henry Ford's racism has harmed his long-term reputation and the fascism of Ezra Pound destroyed respect for him, it is time to overcome Hannah Arendt, and to leave her in the dustbin of history where she belongs. Seth J. Frantzman received his PhD from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and is a fellow at the Jerusalem Institute of Market Studies.
Contact him at sfrantzman@hotmail.com and visit
his website: |
|
ARAB SPRING
Posted by Stephen Kramer, August 3, 2010. |
|
I recently attended this season's first lecture sponsored by the English Speaking Friends of Tel Aviv University. The subject was the Arab Spring and its impact on the Middle East. The lecturer was Professor Asher Susser of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern Studies at Tel Aviv University (TAU). He was the Director of the Center for twelve years and has taught for some thirty years in TAU's Department of Middle Eastern History. Susser has been a visiting professor at Cornell University, the University of Chicago, Brandeis University, and the University of Arizona. His most recent book is Israel, Jordan and Palestine — The Two-State Imperative. Susser believes that the term "Arab Spring" is exaggerated. Virtual reality and influence in cyber-space, Twitter and Facebook especially, have been confused with real political power. Technology has been overrated because social networking ignores age-old traditions in the Middle East. Susser said the media coverage in America was misleading, citing the example of The New York Time's Maureen Dowd, who wrote that Twitter would create democracy in Egypt, a country where 30% of the population is illiterate and only 20% use computers. Secularism is in retreat in the region. Susser asked, What were the Libyans fighting for? Surely not liberal democracy. Reports published by the United Nations show deficits in creativity, education, women's rights and more. The disempowered and dispossessed masses, especially in the non-oil producing Arab countries, have risen up against the alliance of tyranny and corruption. Population growth adds to the pressure. There are currently 360 million Arabs. That will rise to more than 400 million by 2020! Those numbers mean that 50 million jobs will have to be created in the next decade, just to maintain the (woefully inadequate) status quo. The Arab countries can't reach that goal, according to Susser, ensuring repeated bouts of instability ahead. All societies have differences. The so-called "Other" of the Middle East are really different from us and those differences — religion and culture — can't be ignored for politically correct reasons. Giving "respect" to Middle Eastern countries because Arabs are the "Other" is a trap. Islamist politics, religious sectarianism and tribalism are the Arabs' main attributes, while secularism has lost it's former momentum. Though columnist Roger Cohen lauded the recent Tunisian revolution, comparing Tunisia to Cuba, Susser said Cohen was totally mistaken. Castro is still in control in Cuba, while the Islamist al-Nahda Party has just won the first elections in the post-revolutionary era, displacing the young Twitter crowd. Despite the Arab Spring, Egypt still puts bloggers in jail. The revolution there has been hijacked by the military. Susser noted that this result is best for Israel, because the army is the most pragmatic leadership in Egypt. This is especially so since the recent sacking of the Israeli embassy, when Egypt's military rulers were caught napping and felt embarrassed. Susser reminded us that early in Egypt's Arab Spring demonstrations, a liberal, Westernized Internet executive was lauded as a potential leader by President Obama and the Western media. Wael Ghonim, a marketing manager for Google, claimed that he was behind the Facebook page that helped spark "the revolution of the youth of the Internet." That activity earned Ghonim twelve days of imprisonment. His cohort, the mostly young revolutionaries, later voluntarily left the center of the revolt, Tahrir Square. Much was made of that by media. Running things in uneasy coexistence with the army is the Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization which has been active in Egypt since the 1920s. While Islamists joined the Egyptian revolt late, they were careful not to be usurped by the military. A much later "million man protest" at the square started, significantly, on Friday after prayers, with a radical Muslim imam as principal speaker. Susser also pointed out that Mohamed ElBaradei, former IAEA director and leader of the National Coalition for Change, was a significant leader during the Egyptian revolt, but he wasn't even allowed to vote in the referendum because of a technicality. So much for his chance to be president. The winner in the referendum was the Muslim Brotherhood, which means elections will come soon, an advantage to the well-organized Brotherhood. It's much the same throughout those Arab countries which participated in the Arab Spring: the most organized groups, the Islamist ones, win or retain power. Nevertheless, said Susser, in theory democracy can coexist with Islam. But not with Sharia law, which according to the Koran is God-given. Sharia would have to be secondary. This won't happen, Susser predicted. Minorities won't have equality. Freedom of speech and freedom for women aren't likely to happen. So, what's left is skepticism about the legacy of the Arab Spring. One hundred years ago, the Middle Eastern peoples looked to the West and wanted to be equals. No more; the West is in trouble economically and politically and doesn't provide a desirable model. The Arabs also admired the Soviet model, but that system is obviously obsolete. Arab nationalism (Arabism), which Susser pointed out is language-oriented more than racial or religious, also failed. The Arab world has lost its momentum, except for its oil production. Not one Arab state compares to Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser, who ruled Egypt (1956-1970) and brought Arabism to its peak. Islamists on the one hand, and the military on the other, have been most adept in seizing the reins of actual power in the wake of the regional turmoil, reacting to the fact that the current leaders of the Middle East are the non-Arab states of Iran and Turkey, which are largely religion-oriented. (Israel is a big factor too.) The modernization, Westernization and secularization that the Middle East has undergone in the last two centuries has waned. Sectarianism (primarily Sunni and Shia Islam) has replaced secularism, both domestically and internationally. Susser noted that this fact counts much more than Twitter. The world has changed in the last few generations. America has failed in Iraq because Iraqis don't want to be Americans, unlike in Germany and Japan after WWII. Cyberspace is not reality and youthful rage isn't a solution. The emigration of young Arabs is the only solution, but one which brings its own problems. Susser told us that expatriate Tunisians living in France voted for Islamists in the Tunisian elections more than domestic Tunisians did. Arab emigrants to Europe are alienated outsiders and many would vote for Islamists in their adopted countries. In conclusion, Professor Susser said that the next twenty years are crucial. Israel must take a solitary path, disengaging from the volcanic situation in the Middle East. He reminded us that only a few years ago, Israel was ready to alleviate its need for fresh water with purchases from Turkey, instead of building more desalination plants. That should teach us something, he noted. As for the Americans, they try to be "on the right side of history." But Susser teased, who knows what that means?
Steve Kramer lives in Alfe Menashe. He has written a weekly opinion column for the Jewish Times of southern New Jersey (www.jewishtimes-sj.com) for the last ten years. He writes, "They're about history, politics, touring, or whatever excites me." He is author of "Encountering Israel — Geography, History, Culture." Contact him at mskramer@bezeqint.net and visit www.encounteringisrael.com |
|
IRAN'S MILITARY — NOT PUBLICLY ASSESSED; TURKEY VERSUS SYRIA
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 30, 2011. |
|
IRAN'S MILITARY — NOT PUBLICLY ASSESSED The government of Iran denies that the huge explosion on 11/28/11 struck the Iranian nuclear enrichment facilities at Isfahan. On the other hand, The Times reports having seen satellite images disproving the denial. The photos display destruction and smoke. How did Iran react? First, the city's governor claimed that a military exercise caused the explosion. Then government agencies denied there had been any explosion that the governor attributed to a military exercise. Iran condemned the International Atomic Energy Agency's recent report on Iran's work constructing a nuclear weapon. Iran denies it has such a program. Israeli intelligence officials assert that the explosion was "no accident." Indeed, this is the second explosion at an Iranian nuclear facility that month. The first time it was at a military base outside of Tehran. The blast killed the head of Iran's missile defense and about 30 Revolutionary Guards. Satellite images show the damage there. Iran admits to the earlier explosion, but claimed it, too, was an accident, occurring while testing a new weapons system. Israeli officials said it was not accidental but part of a systematic defense by means of offense. They believe that important storage areas were damaged. They do not comment on who was responsible, except to say that many parties would like to stop Iranian nuclear weapons development. Some parties rely on sanctions and others resort to force. Besides those explosions, a former Israeli intelligence officials said, there were at least two others that destroyed Iranian bases for the Shahab-3 medium-range missile, to which nuclear warheads could be attached. That destruction, too, is what the whole West wanted, he said. (Sheera Frenkel, The Times, 11/30/11,
Do you remember all the accidental explosions in Gaza, where terrorists were preparing or storing explosives in civilian areas? Hamas tried shifting the blame to Israel, claiming that Israel raided the buildings. Storing explosives in civilian areas appears to be a war crime; instead Hamas claims that Israel committed the war crime by bombing civilian areas. Now Iran denies the mounting evidence of its nuclear weapons development. Some foreigners still believe Iran, but they have to ignore facts and logic in order to do so. Iran also claims every week of having developed or deployed advanced weaponry home-made. If their claims are to be believed, they are a match for American forces. Military experts have noted a tendency for the clerical regime to seek to intimidate by boasting. But I do not find public news reports of assessments of the Iranian military. Shouldn't there be? While some of our leaders suggest that the U.S. raid Iran's nuclear facilities before it is too late, they do not discuss what forces Iran has to oppose the raiders and to wreak other havoc, and what forces the U.S. has to squelch the counter-attack. Such a fact-based analysis should be a prerequisite to raids. Meanwhile, we have seen first an assault on Iran's nuclear facilities by computer viruses and now by explosions. The explosions are not preceded by declarations of war, which older Americans remember as the original practice. Our government sometimes seeks to save us from risk by putting us under risk without consulting us or eliciting our support or advising us of what sacrifices we may have to endure. IRANIANS STORM BRITISH EMBASSY AND CIVILIZATION Just a day after the supreme ruler of Iran condemned Britain, and Iran's parliament passed a resolution to expel the British Ambassador, hundreds of young Iranians yelled, "Death to England," as they stormed into and smashed things in Britain's embassy. Unlike the much earlier attack on the U.S. embassy there, no hostages were taken. Iran has let similar protests go on for a time, before halting them. That is how Iran communicates with foreign countries it opposes. Iran's state media admits that the youths belong to the Basij militia [the plainclothes thugs that the regime sets on Iranian protestors]. President Obama noted that the Iranian government forfeited its international responsibility in letting a mob run riot. Usually, security forces keep protests under tight control. The government expressed regret; some of its officials seemed surprised by the outbreak. On the other hand, the regime may have been showing defiance as Britain imposed more sanctions on Iran. The message is that the more Iran is antagonized, the worse it behaves, so the West cannot win. In a similar sentiment to Pres. Obama's, Britain declares the Iranian regime responsible for the attack. Indeed, security forces initially merely watched the attack without intervening (Robert F. Worth & Rick Gladstone, NY Times, 11/30/11, A6). Want another example? Arafat had terrorists seize the U.S. Embassy in Khartoum and murder its top two officials. Britain holds Iran accountable, does it? To what effect? Pres. Obama's remark misses the point. Iran did not forfeit its international responsibility. Iran does not recognize international responsibility. The clerical regime considers its only responsibility to be to jihad and greed. When Iranian Islamists first captured the U.S. embassy all those years ago, Americans were shocked at their barbarity. It took centuries to establish the sanctity of diplomatic immunity. The West still does not realize that Islamist fanatics consider nothing sacred but their interpretation of their religion. Not civilians, not the temples of other faiths or even their own, not diplomats, not the laws limiting war, and not the truth. The Supreme Ayatollah or Attila, what is the difference? TURKEY VERSUS SYRIA Turkey keeps threatening Syria (as well as Cyprus and Israel). Syria threatens to carve out a safety zone in Syria for people fleeing Syrian government forces. As Turkey puts it, the zone would be imposed if Syria doesn't stop killing citizens who demand democratic change. Turkey also is diverting trade away from Syria. As Turkey puts it, it opposes Syrian "oppression." Turkey still expresses disapproval of any possible military action against Syria (except for invading it and setting up a Turkish-controlled zone in it). The Arab League authorized Arab states to impose sanctions on Syria. The UN Human Rights Council denounced "patterns of summary execution, arbitrary arrest, enforced disappearance, torture, sexual violence, and violations of children's rights. Syria blames foreign-financed gangs (Sebnem Arsu & Neil MacFarquhar, NY Times, 11/30/11, A12). Look a little deeper into self-righteous denunciation of Syrian oppression against democracy-demanders. Peer deeper, especially as one supposedly democratic movement among the Arabs turns into an Islamist movement. There are Syrians who demand real democracy. But their protest may enable the Moslem Brotherhood there to oust the Shiite-like Alawite rulers. The Brotherhood would replace the Alawites with Sunni Islamists. Who else are Sunni Islamists? The Arab League states that voted sanctions against Iraq but not against genocidal but Sunni-ruled Sudan. The regime in Turkey. The Turkish regime is in the process of consolidating power in the name of democracy, so it has not yet committed similar atrocities. It crushes independent journalism, military centers that might fight to retain the secular republic, the judiciary, and academia. It did encourage terrorists running the partial blockade of Gaza. The real surprise is the action by the UN Human Rights Council. Mostly that Council busies itself fostering antisemitism and denouncing Israel on false grounds. It usually is controlled by dictatorships, which see to it that it does not intervene against them. But Assad seems vulnerable, so perhaps they intervene against what appears to be a lost cause anyway. FOREIGN GOVT. NGO FUNDING & DEMOCRACY In most political controversies, interested parties frame the issues not objectively but advantageously for their sides. Selective with the facts, they misrepresent motives, objectives, and likely results. One such issue is that of Israeli legislative reaction to foreign governmental funding of Israeli political NGOs. The Knesset reaction been presented as anti-democratic, and being so by bills that would prevent the NGOs from participating in public policy debates. Here Dr. Lerner of IMRA re-frames the controversy with perspective. The bills and public opinion do not bar people from joining and supporting leftist NGOs, nor do they bar those NGOs from participating in public debate. Nor do the proposed bills bar foreign individuals from donating funds to Israeli NGOs. The bills address public concern over foreign government funding of those NGOs. Take Peace Now. Half of its budget is provided by foreign governments. Those governments finance Peace Now and other Israeli NGOs in order to promote foreign governmental policies in Israel. Restricting such foreign funding of political organizations in Israel has nothing to do with freedom of speech or other democratic values. What the proposed restrictions would do is keep foreign governments from blatantly interfering in Israeli democratic debate about public policy. They try to put their policy views over on Israel and perhaps try to do so by bribing Israeli NGOs. That is the undemocratic aspect of the controversy, not Israeli attempts to keep foreign governments from interfering in Israeli domestic affairs (Dr. Aaron Lerner, www.imra.org.il, 12/1/11). One point of proposed legislation is to make donations transparent, so Israelis know who is financing which groups to what extent. Israelis have a right to know to what extent Israeli NGOs are Israeli NGOs and have what Israeli support, and are not proxies for European governments. The people of Israel elect representatives purportedly in behalf of certain policies. The EU supports NGOs that seek to overturn those policies. That is not democratic. As reported before, many of those NGOs pretend to be civil libertarian, but really are political advocacy groups. It happens that their advocacy is against public policy and usually anti-Israel. In previous articles, I summed up their activities as subversive and in behalf of jihadists seeking to destroy Israel. These European subsidies are hostile acts. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com. |
|
EXPOSING DURBAN III AS AN ANTI-SEMITIC CHARADE
Posted by FLAME, November 30, 2011. |
|
The United Nations' Durban III Conference Reasserts Its Racist, Anti-Israel Agenda Dear Friend of FLAME: While those of us who support Israel know that the United Nations consistently, hopelessly stands against Israel, surely the epitome of this bias is reflected in the U.N.'s Social, Humanitarian Cultural Affairs Committee. Way back in 2001, this group organized the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, which was held in Durban, South Africa and hence dubbed Durban I. That conference adopted the notorious Durban Declaration, which singled out Israel for condemnation among all 192 U.N. member states and reasserted the U.N.'s 1975 resolution stating that Zionism is racism. It's been downhill from there. At the Durban II conference in 2009, Iran's president Ahmahdinajad famously gave a speech that attacked Israel and denied the Holocaust. Now, most recently, Durban III is being held in New York City, and this week it put forward a restatement of the Durban Resolution, which casts the Jewish state of Israel as racist oppressors of the Palestinian victims. Unsurprisingly, last Wednesday, the U.N. General Assembly approved a draft resolution of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA) — with a vote of 126 in favor, five opposed and 43 abstentions. The countries that heroically voted against this nefarious resolution — which in itself is far more racist than anything it accuses Israel of — may be considered Israel's strongest friends: Australia, Canada, Israel, the Marshall Islands and the United States. Let's be clear on two issues related to the United Nations. First: Its votes are dominated by several blocs — primarily the Arab-Muslim states and the so-called developing nations, which includes most African and many Latin American countries. These countries comprise a majority and can be counted on in most cases to oppose Western (and Israeli) initiatives and to support those condemning the West and/or Israel. The second issue is that these countries support the notion that Israel is a colonial invader of the Middle East and oppose the notion that the Jewish people have a right to self-determination and that the Jewish state has a right to exist in its ancient and continuous homeland of Palestine. This week's FLAME Hotline, by Anne Bayefsky, exposes the travesty of Durban III and issues the dire warning that more Durbans and more attempts to delegitimize Israel will follow. Her article, below, was written two days before the U.N. General Assembly vote. Bayefsky is Director of the Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust, senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a former Canadian delegate to the United Nations. Her analysis should inspire those of us who support Israel to continue our unstinting work, fighting back against those who are oh-so-patiently determined to destroy the Jewish state. [FLAME calls] for the world to shift its focus away from the Middle
East's only democracy and for once to condemn the blatant racism and
sexism of the Arab world. Please review it here: "Apartheid in the
Arab Middle East: How can the U.N. turn a blind eye to hateful,
state-sponsored discrimination against people because of their race,
ethnicity, religion and gender?" With the help of Israel supporters
like you, FLAME ran this position paper in national media reaching
more than 10 million readers, including college newspapers. It was
also sent to every U.S. senator and representative. If you agree that
this kind of outspoken public relations effort on Israel's behalf is
necessary, I urge you to support us now. Go to |
|
In yet another effort to demonize Israel on the political battlefield, the U.N. General Assembly — which can bear a striking resemblance to the game of Whac-A-Mole — will adopt a new resolution this week to promote the Durban "anti-racism" declaration. Back in September the U.N. sponsored "Durban III," an event intended by Islamic states and U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay to breathe new life into the ten-year-old anti-Israel vendetta which began in South Africa in 2001. Despite the unprecedented boycott by all Western veto-holding members of the Security Council — the U.S., Britain and France — Durban and its insidious message have popped up a mere two months later. The regenerative nature of U.N. armaments, in the form of cyclical resolutions and "follow-up" mechanisms, makes them not merely annoying but dangerous. Due to this circuitous nature, battles that are won must be fought again and again. This is particularly true of the libelous 1975 U.N. resolution equating Zionism with racism, which was revitalized in the 2001 Durban Declaration and Program of Action (DDPA), accusing only one state among all U.N. members of racism — Israel — and casting Palestinians as the victims of Israeli bigotry. By all accounts — except the one emanating from the U.N. press office — Durban III failed to deliver the credibility boost that its fans were craving. In a strong rejection of the Durban III political program, 14 nations, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, the United Kingdom, the United States and, of course, Israel all boycotted. A simultaneous counter-conference held directly across the street from the U.N., involving Nobel Prize laureate Elie Wiesel and a bipartisan group of Jewish and non-Jewish luminaries, mounted a resounding historic challenge to the U.N. campaign. The U.N. response, however, has been to rewrite history. On September 22, 2011, at the opening ceremonies of Durban III, South African President Jacob Zuma fictionalized the original conference, saying "in Durban the world spoke with one voice" — notwithstanding the very public departure of the United States and Israel. A few hours later, the General Assembly adopted a "political declaration," "reaffirming" the DDPA and calling the declaration "united against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance." Today, the U.N. website says of Durban III that "world leaders adopted by consensus a political declaration," paying no notice to the fact that the world's leading democracies had already voted with their feet. The U.N. has even issued a document titled "frequently asked questions" which purports to answer charges of U.N. discrimination against Israel. Ironically, it confirms the worst. Question: "Why is Israel the only member state mentioned in the DDPA?" Answer: it is "a reflection of the international concern about the unresolved Israeli-Palestinian situation." In other words, spotlighting Israel, and what the DDPA labels Palestinian "victims," is properly part of an "anti-racism" manifesto. With the transcripts of Durban III now available and the U.N. spin-masters hard at work for the vote this week in a "follow-up" to the event, the details of what actually took place on September 22 warrant exposure. The day was comprised of three parts: an opener in the General Assembly Hall, two roundtables and a closing session summarizing the day's output. Only six state representatives were selected to speak during the opening session. The 55 states in the African group chose Sudan — a country whose president has been indicted by the U.N.'s own International Criminal Court for genocide. Here is a sampling of what Durban's enthusiastic supporters contributed over the course of the day:
Durban III was also a golden opportunity for countries to attack the West, undermine democratic freedoms and play dress-up as a human rights advocate.
The Saudi Arabian "undersecretary for multi-relations affairs" never showed up, but, in an extraordinary breach of protocol, the U.N. uploaded his "speech" to the Durban III site anyway. Here are the words of the world's leading practitioner of gender apartheid and the country which criminalizes public displays of religion other than those of Islam: "Islam calls upon us to refrain from offending other religions and faiths;" "the Kingdom established...agencies that call for the spread of human-rights culture;" "freedom of speech should never be used as a tool for injustice;" and "the highest degree of racism and discrimination...the clearest illustration of such comprehensive racial discrimination lies...against the Palestinian people." Durban III also had its carefully-orchestrated non-governmental message. NGO participants had to be vetted and only those NGOs not vetoed by a U.N. member were permitted to attend. Organizations dedicated to eradicating discrimination against Dalits,sometimes called untouchables, were barred from this anti-intolerance charade. The one individual chosen to represent all of civil society in the main opening session could be counted upon to condemn the United States. Sarah White of the Mississippi Workers' Center for Human Rights denounced racism in America where, she said "black workers are still...forced to work under conditions that look a lot like slavery." The U.N. meticulously chose ten of the 88 registered organizations to speak at the roundtables. Here's why:
In fact, the only specific state directly criticized by the U.N.'s hand-picked NGOs in a global anti-racism conference was the United States. At day's end, with grand aplomb back in the General Assembly Hall, Prime Minister of Swaziland Barnabas Sibusiso Dlamini summarized the contributions of Durban III. In two contiguous sentences, he managed to lay bare the twisted dishonest U.N. game. "Several speakers referred to...the situation in the occupied Palestinian territories. The importance of not singling out a specific region or country was also emphasized." In short, Durban is not a "united" front against racism, but a divisive anti-Semitic and anti-Western bonanza. Nevertheless, the Durban license for intolerance continues. Only a month later, the U.N.'s "Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective Implementation of the DDPA" met in Geneva to produce recommendations "on the role of education in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance." They began with a draft set of recommendations which mentioned the Holocaust. They ended on October 28, 2011 with the Holocaust having been excised. Their initial draft said the U.N. should: "encourage Governments to ensure that textbooks and educational materials reflect accurately historical facts, in particular with regard to..." among other things, the trans-Atlantic slave trade and the Holocaust. What happened? As soon as negotiations began, the EU demanded that all specifics be deleted — anything after the words "historical facts" — because the list "looked like a Christmas tree" and "will introduce a hierarchy of victims." The EU was unhappy about being the target of the trans-Atlantic slave trade reference and was unperturbed about ditching the Holocaust along with it. The rest of the negotiations consisted of various parties demanding additions and subtractions to the list that would be unpalatable to others so that, in the end, the no-list argument prevailed. In the final minutes, Belgium and Turkey made a deal to incorporate a reference back "in particular" to the "list in paragraph 99 of the DDPA," which names only "slavery, the slave trade, the transatlantic slave trade, apartheid, colonialism and genocide." There was plenty of indication that reference to the Holocaust was an uncomfortable subject at a Durban "effective implementation" meeting. Russia said that they wanted to add "other crimes committed by the Nazis" because "the Holocaust was just one of these crimes that had its own name," while Senegal, on behalf of the African Group, complained "why do we have the word Holocaust when it doesn't exist in paragraph 99 of the DDPA?" Evidently, Durban "follow-up" is the fruit of a very poisonous tree. All of this brings us to the present and the latest resolution now before the General Assembly, which promotes the DDPA along with Durban III. Last year, when the Assembly decided to hold Durban III, not a single Western member of the U.N. voted in favor. With Durban III over, however, the push is on to win back the fickle Europeans and move them at least into the abstention column. France and Britain boycotted when the prospect of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Iran and Syria at an "anti-intolerance" affair would have been publicly embarrassing, but pushing forward the already-existing handiwork of Iran and company might be easier for anemic diplomats and could possibly be overlooked. After all, the vote will take place in the recesses of the organization and will not be webcast. The U.N. formula for propagating moral confusion and delegitimizing the Jewish State? Just wear down the opposition. |
|
UN MOURNS ITS OWN 11/29/47 PARTITION PLAN
Posted by AFSI, November 29, 2011. |
|
One has to wonder why the United Nations must continue to exist? It has long ago outlived its purpose as a unifying successor to the League of Nations. It is now a den of vipers, controlled by the Muslim world, which sees as its main function the delegitimization of Israel. How can this be tolerated? Why should U.S. taxpayer money, and New York City's valuable real estate, be fed into this insatiable, destructive organization? The article below on the UN's Nov. 29 travesty was written by Joseph Klein and it appeared in Front Page Magazine. It was entitled, "The UN's International Day of Solidarity Against the Jews." |
|
There is no single issue on which the United Nations expends more time and energy than its advocacy of the Palestinian cause. It dominates the agendas of various UN bodies, supported by American taxpayer dollars, including the UN Human Rights Council, the Division for Palestinian Rights, the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Human Rights Practices Affecting the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, the Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. The UN's obsession over Palestine has led to the world body's repudiation of its own original two-state solution, spurned by all of the Arab countries and the Palestinians themselves back in 1947. Beginning in 1977, the United Nations has sponsored the "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People" on November 29th, the date in 1947 when the UN General Assembly approved its Palestine partition resolution. Former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called November 29th a "day of mourning and a day of grief." The event takes place every year at UN headquarters in New York and at the UN Offices at Geneva and Vienna and elsewhere. In other words, every November 29th, the United Nations publicly mourns the passage of its own peaceful solution to the Arab-Jewish dispute, which had called for the establishment of an independent Arab state and independent Jewish state. Every year the UN commiserates over the adoption by the General Assembly of the 1947 partition resolution under which the Palestinians could have been living in their own independent state for the last sixty-four years if the Arabs had only accepted it. Even Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has conceded that the Arabs' rejection of the partition resolution was a big mistake, but the day of mourning and grief over the Palestinians' self-inflicted wounds go on anyway at the United Nations. This year is no exception. In addition to a series of pro-Palestinian speeches denouncing Israel, the meeting is featuring an encore showing of the film titled La Terre Parle Arabe (The Land Speaks Arabic). The film purports to equate Zionism with Nazism. It depict the alleged "expulsion of the indigenous Arab population" and the alleged "ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionist movement." The following is an excerpt from the film's script: Christians and Muslims alike...unite in their hatred of Zionism...I preferred to die as a martyr rather than be governed by the Jews ...The children cried ...The Hagana had no mercy, no pity. Zionists! They were Zionists!... Americans For a Safe Israel/AFSI is a pro-active pro-Israel advocacy group. AFSI may be contacted by mail at 1623 Third Ave., Suite 205, New York, N.Y. 10128 (Tel: 212-828-2424; Fax: 212-828-1717); by email at afsi@rcn.com; or by accessing its website: www.afsi.org. Helen Freedman is Executive Director. |
|
NGO MONITOR: ACTIVITIES OF BREAKING THE SILENCE OUTSIDE OF ISRAEL
Posted by Barbara Sommer, November 29, 2011. |
|
NGO Monitor's research on Breaking the Silence (BtS) — an NGO that claims to speak to Israeli audiences — has revealed that extensive European funding allows the group to hold numerous events for international audiences. These foreign activities stand in sharp contrast to the NGO's mission of "expos[ing] the Israeli public to the routine situations of everyday life in the Occupied Territories....pushing Israeli society to face the reality whose creation it has enabled" As explained in the YNet op-ed below, "In the past year, BtS has addressed the Irish Parliament, a crowd in Washington that included the United Arab Emirates UN Ambassador and the First Secretary of Pakistan to the UN, and numerous college campuses in the US, among other similar engagements. At one event in Sweden, BtS activist Yonatan Shapiro even stated, 'We are the oppressors, we are the ones that are violating human rights on a daily basis. We are creating the terror against us, basically.'" More than 75% of the organization's 2010 budget came from government funding sources. The New Israel Fund (NIF) also contributed $152,540 to BtS in 2010. Additional information on BtS funding and activities is available in NGO Monitor's report, Breaking the Silence Outside of Israel. NGO Monitor also published an op-ed on this research in the Hebrew daily, Maariv. This was written by Anne Herzberg and Naftali Balanson. Anne Herzberg is legal advisor of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution dedicated to promoting universal human rights and to encouraging civil discussion on the reports and activities of nongovernmental organizations, particularly in the Middle East. Naftali Balanson is managing editor of NGO Monitor. |
|
From November 13-16, Hebrew University sponsored a conference on "The Potential Role of Transitional Justice in Ongoing Conflict." Several of the panels addressed the Arab-Israeli conflict and what local groups are doing to promote its resolution. In particular, the panelists highlighted the work of Breaking the Silence (BtS). They concluded that BtS may offer an interesting perspective on the conflict, but ultimately, the impact of its work is questionable. Although the panelists touched on some of the reasons for BtS' limited effectiveness, the primary causes were not discussed. Namely, in contrast to the perception that BtS is rooted in Israeli civil society and addresses the Israeli public, the organization, in fact, focuses on lobbying and advocacy before foreign audiences. BtS exemplifies a serious problem, which has triggered a robust debate in the Israeli public and Knesset about the role of NGOs and NGO funders. Breaking the Silence describes its mission as "expos(ing) the Israeli public to the routine situations of everyday life in the Occupied Territories....pushing Israeli society to face the reality whose creation it has enabled." Yet, as NGO Monitor has documented in its report on the frequent international campaigning of Israeli NGOs, BtS conducts a significant amount of its activities outside of Israel. In the past year, BtS has addressed the Irish Parliament, a crowd in Washington that included the United Arab Emirates UN Ambassador and the First Secretary of Pakistan to the UN, and numerous college campuses in the US, among other similar engagements. At one event in Sweden, BtS activist Yonatan Shapiro even stated, "We are the oppressors, we are the ones that are violating human rights on a daily basis. We are creating the terror against us, basically." In May 2011, controversy erupted when another BtS official was scheduled to speak at an event in Ramallah, hosted by a German NGO. The event was subsequently cancelled. Most recently, on November 20, BtS representative Oded Na'aman spoke at the University of Pennsylvania, at an event sponsored by Penn for Palestine (formerly Students for Justice in Palestine), a pro-boycott, anti-Israel organization. One must question why a group that claims to want to impact Israeli society spends so much time speaking to anti-Israel audiences abroad and reinforcing the image of the Israeli soldier as evil doer and "war criminal." Alienating the mainstream Another significant problem is that BtS is a patron of several European governments. More than 75% of the organization's 2010 budget — the last available public documents — came from government funding sources, under the pretense of support for human rights and democracy. However, as repeatedly emphasized by officials from BtS, "the political significance is the only reason for doing it." Within Israel, BtS' political agenda is not illegitimate, albeit marginal. But foreign government support for that agenda is absurd. It is inconceivable that any European country would accept a situation where another democratic government provided funds to an organization whose primary aim was to trash that country's armed forces before hostile audiences. It is therefore hard not to wonder if BtS is a genuine expression of Israeli sentiment, or whether its representatives simply serve as the mouthpieces for Europeans. If the goal is "political," then is this not a subversion and manipulation of Israeli democracy? It is equally disturbing and offensive that European officials appear to be blind and deaf to these issues. Along with Europe, the New Israel Fund (NIF) also funds BtS. But given the myriad of BtS activities outside Israel, the question must be asked — why did the NIF provide $152,540 to BtS in 2010? If BtS were an Israel-focused group, it might make sense, as NIF "strongly believes that (its) job is to work within Israel to ensure democratic accountability." But, the reality, as discussed above, is fundamentally different. Worst of all, the European and NIF donors do not get value for their funding. As NGO Monitor has documented, BtS publications consist of anecdotal, anonymous, and unverifiable accounts of low-level soldiers, often based on hearsay. And a close reading of their "testimonies" shows that misconduct is punished by the Israeli army, undermining one of BtS' central politicized claims. Although the scholars at the Hebrew University conference posited that groups such as BtS may foster reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians, BtS' activities are counterproductive. They simply reinforce a narrative where Israelis are solely responsible for the conflict, and Palestinians are blameless victims with no agency or responsibility for the current situation. More importantly, BtS has managed to alienate mainstream Israeli society, while simultaneously drifting toward foreign audiences. BtS is, therefore, but one example of how Europe's and NIF's funding practices make peace even more elusive. Contact Barbara Sommer at lsommer_1_98@yahoo.com |
|
STARS UNDER THE SOUTHERN CROSS: AUSTRALIANS UNITED FOR ISRAEL
Posted by Barbara Taverna, November 29, 2011. |
|
This was written by Daphne Anson
and it appeared on her website:
|
|
Just under a year ago, Melboune-based Luke William Martin, a part-time teacher completing a law degree, who has stood for state parliament in the Liberal interest, inaugurated a grassroots group, Australian Friends of Israel, intended as an expression of the views of what he considers the "silent majority". It consisted mainly of non-Jews, drawn to Israel like himself. By October, the group had 300 members, about 60 per cent of them non-Jews. As J-Wire noted at that time, the Facebook group has expressed concern over "the increasing rise of anti-Semitic violence and hatred in various sections of the world and even to some degree in the Lucky Country," and unequivocally supports the Jewish State: "The Jews have as much right as any other people to live in freedom and without fear of harassment or persecution. Israel, the only truly free democracy of the Middle East is a beacon of light to the entire world. Since 1948, it has been transformed into a productive modern industrialized nation. Often provoked with suicide bombings and even invasions from hostile regimes, Israel shows incredible patience and grace towards its neighbours. For such reasons and many more; we stand side-by-side with our ally Israel. Like everybody else, Israelis have a right to live in a secure homeland." Explained Luke Martin: "We desperately need to reinvigorate a national consciousness and conversation in support of Israel. Whilst I do not want to over play the Max Brenner protests, they are an illustration of the fragility of the fabric that holds our society together. Without direct police intervention and opposition from the Coalition, Labor and the Jewish community, the prospect of how those ugly BDS protests might have developed is deeply concerning." Now, what began as a group of like-minded Melbourne supporters of Israel has gone from strength to strength and has changed its name to Australians United For Israel. It's fully incorporated at both Victorian state level and federally, across Australia. Mazal Tov, Luke! Kol HaKavod! (Incidentally, as Shirlee and an anonymous reader have kindly reminded me, a clear, cogent account of the controversy Down Under provoked by David Landau's visit has been carried by a section of the Israeli press. Read it here.) Contact Barbara Taverna at bltaverna@yahoo.com |
|
GOVERNMENT'S BACK DOOR CENSORSHIP
Posted by Donald Hank, November 29, 2011. |
|
If you are censored and told what you may or may not say, it probably will not be the result of government action. The government still has First Amendment considerations to contend with, making censorship politically difficult. If the government decides to censor you, it will leave the dirty work of doing so to an NGE. What is an NGE, you ask? NGE stands for Non-Governmental Enforcer. NGEs are generally large corporations, which operate in league with corrupt government and receive generous public funding in return, including bailouts when such are needed. I introduced this term recently when my brother in Christ Julio Severo had his PayPal account closed on the grounds that his was a "hate group." Brother Julio believes that homosexuality is a sin because the Bible says as much in several key verses. Thus, it is the Bible that ultimately is being censored, and no matter how you feel about this issue, the fact is, this nation, founded in large part by people seeking religious freedom, is inexorably accepting the premise that sexual freedom must take precedence over freedom of creed — freedom of religion. That is not the only issue into which have stepped NGEs to muzzle dissenters. The BNP (British National Party) has had its bank account closed by Barclays because they supposedly are anti-Muslim and some low-ranking members have allegedly uttered violent words. (Note that when the Left — for example, the Occupy Wall Street movement — utter violent words, they are ignored or encouraged). Thus far, the West has succeeded in circumventing the quaint notion of free speech in the areas of homosexuality and Islam. But if you think it will stop there, you are hopelessly naïve. Christianity is based on bedrock principles enunciated by Jesus Christ, who said, for example: I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh unto the Father but through me. Clearly the doctrine represented by this verse excludes all other religions and is offensive to some. That is not at odds with the teachings of Christ, who came "to bring a sword" (that is, not to kill but to divide believers from non-believers). The idea that all speech must be inoffensive will ultimately lead to the banning of this verse and the censoring of those who dare to utter it in public. Parents may also be banned from teaching it to their children. It matters not that this is perhaps the key to the Christian faith. The elites see Christianity as an obstacle to their plans. The West has crossed a line as a result of negligence, and now, unless the people who ignored the issue start to wake up to what is happening, we can only await the end of faith — and hence an end to any protest against government abuse and corruption. The government can now starve you with impunity and without resistance. The line we crossed could be called the Niemöller line of non-protest. People did not protest the outrage that was perpetrated against Julio Severo because they weren't Christians and they think — erroneously — that he has somehow victimized homosexuals. They did not protest the outrage against the BNP because they were not members of the BNP and they believed the lie that Muslims are inherently victims of Christians. Westerners are like a herd of wild animals attacked by a lion. A herd of kudo antelopes could hold off a lion attack. But they are content just to escape individually, while their fellows are killed. Let's stop being herded by the elites. It's undignified and potentially deadly to behave this way. We can stop them if we stick together and all say no in unison, before protesting is forever banned. We can and must say no, insisting on our God-given right to free expression. Our very survival depends not on the flight instinct but on the fight instinct.
Contact Donald Hank at zoilandon@msn.com.
This article is archived at
|
|
A DIVINE BLESSING
Posted by Ari Bussel, November 29, 2011. |
|
"The Lord will give strength to His people; the Lord will bless His people with peace." Psalms 29:11 |
|
Israelis, is seems, need a lot of strength. Fatah and Hamas, two names for the same ill, have reconciled their "differences." I would be hard-pressed to find any such differences, as in essence they both strive to eliminate the Jews from the Jewish homeland and to erase any historical connection thereof. Fatah, though, is the favorite child of the world, while the other is still referred to as a "terrorist organization." At the very least it could be acknowledged as a "regime." [Note to mention it to the UN; immediate corrective action needed.] However, the world is getting used to having Hamas as a discussion partner, now that Israel set the stage when it exchanged 1,027 prisoners for one IDF soldier. Then there is Jordan, Israel's only remaining Arab ally now that Egypt is in a transition period from Mubarak via military to Muslim Brotherhood. The Jordanian monarchy is supposedly stable, but King Abdullah II knows better. So do the Israelis whose President visited the Royal Palace in Amman to "exchange views regarding recent developments in the region," under the heading "the importance of strengthening the good strategic ties between Israel and Jordan." Last night some Katyusha rockets were fired from Lebanon into northern Israel, a gentle reminder that the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah axis is still very much alive. While Turkey is ready to invade Syria, Syria warns Israel of the consequences. American naval ships gather on the horizon, as President Obama may need to face the real enemy of the USA (he tried repeatedly to avoid the difficult task, sacrificing instead a close friend and ally, President Mubarak of Egypt). Then Russia declared its refusal to sit idle in the face of American terrorism. Possibly Putin did not use this exact word, but he is an expert at utilizing brute force, whatever label one wishes to assign radioactive poisoning and murdering journalists. It sounds very much like a ball, the Devil's Masquerade Ball. One by one the invitees arrive, dressed up and ready to party beyond the senses. Arab Spring, Tahrir Square, Libya, Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Turkey, Russia. And Israel, dressed in white, a tiny girl in awe, the innocence of youth and virginity. There she stands, in her white dress, as the Devil's minions swirl around, spasm about to catch them, moving faster and faster, intoxicated by the thought of what is soon to happen. Despite its look, and seemingly ignoring the atmosphere and heightened focus of attention on her, Israel is neither naïve nor stupid. Thus, when its former head of the Mossad (the Israeli Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations) came out in public against the Prime Minister, Defense Minister and Finance Minister (the three ranking members of the government), there were attempts to silence him as everyone listened attentively. Attacking Iran, Dagan explains, "will bring Israel into a regional war. Such a war will claim a very hefty price, both in terms of infrastructure, the fabric of life and loss of life." He absolutely objects, he says, to an Israeli strike against Iran. 
Recent events in Iran speak volumes. The local population has been anticipating an Israeli strike, much as I am ready for the next earthquake to hit Los Angeles and California. What actually took place is a sequence of events, explosions in the most secret and heavily guarded facilities. Iran tries to distance itself from winding up in an inferior position or admitting someone else (especially those damn Zionists) managed to hurt them inside, where it counts most. But the facts remain. Maybe it is not the Mossad. Perhaps it is just a coincidence. Or maybe not. Maybe it is the very long arm of the Israeli determination to survive. Would a former head of the Mossad come out publicly against his former boss? He, more than most Israelis, is bound by secrecy to his grave. Instead, this inner bickering between those at the helm, past and present, sounds more like a distraction or even a massive deception to conceal the truth: Israelis are busy arguing, so clearly they are not focused enough on the task at hand. Iranians are not stupid either, so it is unlikely they would fall into this trap. The attacks are already underway, and they are more spectacular than one's wildest imagination. We envisioned Israeli airplanes going via landing sites in Southern or Eastern Europe to most daring missions. Others conjured up long-range missiles launched from submarines hitting simultaneously numerous locations throughout Iran. Thus, as the dance intensifies and those around no longer differentiate fiction from reality — all they see is a white, clean spot, an innocent girl standing in the middle — Israel uses smarts rather than brut force. Targeted killings of scientists associated with the development of Nuclear Iran. A Stuxnet computer worm that keeps spreading even after it was removed. Penetration to their deepest most guarded sites. Explosions. Israel at its finest. Israelis need a lot of strength, and from the havoc of daily life in that tiny country, surrounded by enemies and full of internal foes, one wonders how she survives. "For with wise advice thou shalt make thy war, and in the multitude of counselors there is safety," says Proverbs 24:6. Israel stands in the middle, the Devil's attention never wavering from her for an instant. Why does she seem unafraid? What protection does she have in this finest hour of the Devil's ultimate Masquerade Ball? There is one source of strength and protection, an ancient blessing whose strength has not withered: It is God's promise and His energy that gives strength to His people and that will ultimately bring peace unto them. A Divine Blessing that serves as Israel's Iron Dome and will provide all the protection the Jewish Homeland ever needs. The series "Postcards from America — Postcards from Israel" by Ari Bussel and Norma Zager is a compilation of articles capturing the essence of life in America and Israel during the first two decades of the 21st Century. The writers invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, Israel visitors rarely discover and Israelis often ignore. This point — and often — counter-point presentation is sprinkled with humor and sadness and attempts to tackle serious and relevant issues of the day. The series began in 2008, appears both in print in the USA and on numerous websites and is followed regularly by readership from around the world. Contact Ari Bussel and Norma Zager at busselari@gmail.com |
|
JERUSALEM AND BERLIN
Posted by John Cohn, November 29, 2011. |
|
David Newman wrongly equates the Berlin Wall and Israel's defensive barrier. Berlin's reunification 29 years after post-war division into Soviet and Western sectors was celebrated. For 19 years, following another war, Jerusalem was also divided, into Israeli and Jordanian sectors. Israel's 1967 capture of Jordanian occupied neighborhoods restored that city's 3000-year-old unified status. The Mandelbaum Gate, the most noteworthy former checkpoint, is but a street sign, and roads run along the now imperceptible former armistice line. But unlike in Berlin, Israel has been criticized instead of praised, as foreign leaders call for restoration of artificial partition. The problem is not Israel's defensive wall on the city's periphery. That is far less obtrusive than the concrete and barbed wire barrier, dotted with military checkpoints, which ran through the heart of Jerusalem for 19 years — with little objection. It is where and why Israel's barrier was built — not to keep Jews out, as Jordanian fortifications did, but to stop mass murderers and provide safe access for all. Contact John Cohn at john.r.cohn@gmail.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: THAT SOUND YOU MAY HEAR...
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 29, 2011. |
|
Is yours truly, banging her head against the wall. Prime Minister Netanyahu has just announced that Israel may release to the PA tax funds that have been held since the PA applied for acceptance by UNICEF as a full member. "Israel will examine this possibility, in light of the current calm situation," he said, indicating that the PA has slowed its unilateral steps at the UN. It was at this point that head banging suddenly seemed appropriate to me. The reality is that the PA decided not to call for a Security Council vote on membership in the UN because it had become clear that the vote would not pass — not because of a Palestinian Arab change of heart. But what does Netanyahu say? "We see things quieting down on the Palestinian side — they decided to stop these steps. We didn't need a veto in the Security Council. It's in the Palestinian interest to stop." Wait. Wait. Israel and the US had both lobbied members of the Security Council with sufficient effectiveness so that there would not have been a quorum voting and the PA request would not have gone through, even without that veto. That's why a veto wasn't needed. It was in the Palestinian interest to refrain from calling a vote because it would have made them look like failed fools at the end of the day. As to applying to other UN agencies for membership following its success with UNICEF — the PA leadership fully intended to do this, but was specifically asked by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon not to because the agencies would suffer financial repercussions. Thus the "calm." It came about by virtue of diplomatic victories over the PA, not because its leaders had mellowed. As to the declared PA intention to seek enhanced observer status at the General Assembly, Netanyahu says the PA has tabled this. This is the first I have heard this and I'm trying to learn more about what went on behind the scenes, if this is the case. But for this we need to reward Abbas? ~~~~~~~~~~ It was easy to see this sort of thing coming. And here's the clincher: Netanyahu says that the PA's "union with Hamas is ceremonial, and does not have concrete results." But it's in process. It may have concrete results and it may not. We should cut Abbas — who has declared intention to form a unity government, "a resistance government" with Hamas — slack because it hasn't happened yet? He just announced that joint elections will be held May 4. This sort of "well, the PA interaction with Hamas doesn't really mean anything" approach was also thoroughly predictable. But I had expected this from the US and the EU, and down the road a bit, if there is a coalition rather than true unity. To hear it already, from my prime minister... ~~~~~~~~~~ The next question, then, is what the motivating factor was for Netanyahu to make these statements. We can guess at the US/EU pressure that was put upon him — predicated on some notion, still, that this would entice Abbas to the table. For he also said, "The real goal, as far as we're concerned, is negotiations without preconditions." Followed by an explanation of why Abbas tried to avoid them (so as to avoid paying a price), and how unreasonable PA demands have kept those negotiations from happening. So, do we need to be grateful that there were not more significant Israeli concessions — such as freezing all construction beyond the Green Line — being proposed by the prime minister? ~~~~~~~~~~ What I am glad about is that Netanyahu rejects out of hand suggestions from the Israeli left that, as a gesture, Marwan Barghouti be released from Israeli prison (where he deserves to remain for all of his days). The argument offered is that Barghouti would serve as a leader for the PA. Netanyahu's very "right on!" comment: "Barghouti could take the PA to other directions, as part of his desire to compete with Hamas. Just because he has leadership abilities doesn't mean he should be let out." ~~~~~~~~~~ One other factor that may be playing into the prime minister's announcement was hinted at in a statement by an unnamed source in the prime minister's office: "We're not interested in leading the PA to collapse." Have statements been made to the prime minister regarding Israel's responsibilities were the PA to collapse (assuming the EU, the US, and the UN would let it collapse)? At any rate, the unnamed source said there would be an assessment made monthly regarding release of funds. ~~~~~~~~~~ Tough, straight-talking Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman is exceedingly unhappy about the projected release of the funds to the PA. At a faction [Yisrael Beitenu] meeting, he said: "I've heard the infantile claims about the money belonging to the Palestinians, as if they can use the money to murder or incite to murder. [Mahmoud Abbas] meets the 1,000 terrorists that have been released...and calls them 'freedom fighters.' He gives them $5,000 and more money for an apartment. He says the money is for their security force but it's not true." Abbas, charges Lieberman, is "subsidizing terrorists," especially as there continues to be incitement in PA-produced text books. Lieberman claims that reporters got it wrong last week when they wrote that he said he would leave the coalition if the money is released: "We [Yisrael Beitenu] will oppose giving the money to the PA. We won't leave, but we'll do everything possible to make sure the money isn't transferred to the PA." ~~~~~~~~~~ Well, Egypt has had two days of elections — which have proceeded
without violence but with indications of multiple irregularities. I
have no intention of trying to explain its exceedingly complex
electoral system. If you would like to understand it better, you
might see Reuters, here:
And Arutz Sheva had this to say about the elections: "The election in Egypt features a six-foot long ballot list of 3,009 candidates, and symbols for political parties. One-third of the Egyptian public is illiterate, so authorities use symbols instead of names of political parties. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yesterday, Israeli President Shimon Peres — with the full knowledge and sanction of the prime minister — had a cordial face-to-face one-hour meeting in Amman with Jordan's King Abdullah II; it was kept secret until Peres had returned home by helicopter. More important than the content of the meeting, which covered such issues as settlements and negotiations, was the mere fact of the meeting at a time when the region is in chaos and headed towards anti-Israel Islamist leadership — note particularly Morocco and Tunisia, with Egypt on the edge. This was a bold statement by Abdullah regarding his readiness to remain a moderate and to retain ties with Israel — and should not be taken lightly. Abdullah has made some remarks of late that have been both startling and unfortunate from the Israeli perspective — making it obvious that he was walking a tightrope and feared for the stability of his Hashemite kingdom. This meeting then is welcome. Perhaps even more welcome is the report in the JPost that officials in the prime minister's office said there was good contact between that office and Abdullah's office. ~~~~~~~~~~ We might mention here, as well, a veiled allusion Netanyahu made recently with regard to contacts with some Arab countries. What is being assumed is that there are enhanced, covert, contacts between Jerusalem and places such as Saudi Arabia because of shared concerns about Iran. The difference, of course, is that while Jordan's king is ready to go public regarding a relationship with Israel, the others will not. ~~~~~~~~~~ Isfahan, a major city in Iran where key nuclear facilities are housed, suffered a major explosion yesterday — or possibly two consecutive explosions. That's all I know about this particular occurrence, as solid information is scarce, the Iranians are heavily into denial and cover up, and speculations abound. Can't even say if the nuclear facility was directly hit — it may be the case that it was not. What makes it suspect is that an Iranian news agency reported an explosion and then withdrew the report. But what I do know is that there was extensive damage to an Iranian army base after an explosion on November 12, which killed a chief architect of the Iranian missile program. And I further know of at least one former head of the Mossad who is opposed to a military strike on Iran because he thinks other means of disabling Iran's efforts are possible. Every "problem" — be it a supervirus or an explosion — that Iran encounters does slow down in its path towards nuclear capability even if it doesn't disable it. Sabotage here? Cannot say. All we can do is sit tight. ~~~~~~~~~~ Iranian students, furious about increased British sanctions against Iran, stormed Britain's embassy in Iran today. Before the police re-gained control, the British flag and documents in the building had been burned. Six hostages were taken, but then released. Just two days earlier, Iran had officially downgraded its diplomatic relations with Britain because of those sanctions. Dare we hope that this will be a bit of a wake-up call for Britain? ~~~~~~~~~~ Some four or more (I'm picking up varying reports) Katyusha rockets were fired from Lebanon into northern Israel last night, near the communities of Ma'alot and Kfar V'radim. There were no injuries. The IDF returned fire (I assume simply in the direction from which the rockets came)., An obscure Al Qaeda-linked group called the Brigades of Abdullah Azzam took credit for the attack — this is the same group that was associated with hitting Eilat from the Sinai at one point. One report indicates that at least some of the rockets were fired from the Rumaysh region, which is a Hezbollah stronghold; Hezbollah has had no comment. And there are charges that those launching the attack were proxies for Syria. Israel is holding the Lebanese government responsible. ~~~~~~~~~~ Today, November 29th, kaf tet b'november is a significant date in Jewish history although many are unaware of it. From Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs: "In February 1947, Great Britain, which had controlled the mandatory territory since 1917, decided to turn the issue of the Palestinian Mandate over to the United Nations. The UN established a Special Commission on Palestine (UNSCOP), which recommended the establishment of two states — Arab and Jewish — in the area and Jerusalem as an international enclave. ~~~~~~~~~~ A couple of additional facts: Jerusalem was to be internationalized separately only for 10 years, after which a referendum of its residents was to be held regarding the state to which it would belong. Jews were a majority in Jerusalem at that time. Had this been carried out, there is reason to believe that Jerusalem might well have gone to Israel. In any event, even though two states were proposed, at no time was it suggested by the UN that Jerusalem should be divided between those two states — it was envisioned always as one municipal entity, a unity. It was Britain that had held the Mandate for Palestine and Britain that had turned over to the General Assembly the matter of what to do with Palestine once the Mandate ended. And yet, when the partition plan was voted upon in the UN, Britain abstained. ~~~~~~~~~~ You can hear an actual audio recording of the UN vote here:
~~~~~~~~~~ For a Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs quiz on these events, see
here:
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website at www.arlenefromisrael.info |
|
TIME TO LIMIT MUSLIM IMMIGRATION
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, November 29, 2011. |
|
This was written by Joseph Farah and it appeared today in World Net Daily. Now that the world is changing, one must think of how best to change with it. Joe sounds un American, but seeing a new world developing, one must think along, or ahead, of the times. |
|
In the most recent GOP presidential debate, former Sen. Rick Santorum raised controversy by suggesting it is perfectly appropriate and sensible to consider what kind of people hijack airliners and commit acts of terrorism. Not only do I — an Arab-American male — agree on the importance of considering the ideological and religious worldview of those being screened for sensitive security jobs and for passenger flights for the safety of all, but I would go much further. I say it's time to strictly limit Muslim immigration into the United States to avoid the kinds of disasters we're seeing in Europe. Having said this, I can anticipate the hysterical reactions from the phony civil libertarians who consistently act against America's best interests and vital national security concerns. "Isn't that religious bigotry and intolerance?" they will say. "Isn't America supposed to be religiously blind and welcome one and all to our shores?" No, plain and simple. That's their blueprint for America's destruction, not mine. America doesn't owe anyone — no foreigner anywhere — an engraved invitation to be part of our national covenant and community. We've been far too lax in allowing anyone and everyone who flouts the rules entry to this country. That has to stop immediately. The very next step we need to take is to determine what kind of people will help our nation stay true to its Constitution and other founding principles — and what kind of people will not. It seems obvious to me that anyone who subscribes to Saudi-style Shariah law, as described in the Islamic Quran and Hadith, would not be inclined to swear allegiance to the Constitution — at least not without crossing his fingers taqiyya-style. America's No. 1 national objective should be to ensure that we as a nation remain committed to the Constitution. I think most Americans would agree with me that only those would-be immigrants who are truly committed to preserving the rule of law should be welcomed here. We should not consider bringing in foreigners who seek to transform America into France or England or Iran. America remains a unique, though faltering, experiment in self-government because of its Judeo-Christian heritage. And, if we ever forget that and treat all other belief systems as equal to the worldview of Judaism and Christianity, the America we have known for 235 years will cease to exist. But we need to do more than just require immigrants seeking entry to the U.S. as visitors or citizens to swear allegiance to our Constitution. We need to put the burden of proof on Muslims to demonstrate their desire to leave the world of Shariah behind them, to renounce its principles as well as to take a formal oath to uphold and affirm America's national covenant. Furthermore, we need strict national quotas on immigration by Muslims — even those willing to renounce Shariah and swear an oath to the U.S. Constitution. Why? Because there are 1 billion Muslims in the world, most of whom simply do not share our Judeo-Christian worldview — the one that separated us from the rest of the nations and made America special and great. Already, with only a few million Muslims living in America, they are having a disproportionate impact on our culture. Let me give you one example: There are still more Jews in America than Muslims, though the gap is narrowing quickly. Yet, Jews do not use their influence to ensure that Jews and non-Jews alike are forced to eat according to rabbinical kosher rules. However, it is increasingly difficult for non-Muslims in America today to buy a Thanksgiving turkey that has not been ritually sacrificed to Allah. Most of the meat sold in Costco is also halal. I don't know about you, but I don't want to eat meat sacrificed to Allah. With Islam a tiny minority religion in the U.S., it seems perverse that people like me have to be careful not to eat food ritually sacrificed to this god of the few. But this is the nature of Islam. I say this as the grandson of refugees from the Muslim world. It is a religion of coercion, a religion of force, a religion of might makes right. Look around the world and find a Muslim country that is free. Take your time. You will need it. There simply is no such country — and for good reason. The Islamic faith does not countenance liberty for all. It's not an ideal of the religion — as it is in Judaism and Christianity. There are no doubt conscientious Muslims who deplore the institution of Shariah and would prefer to live in a constitutional republic like America instead of Saudi Arabia. But, again, as Americans we have no obligation to welcome anyone to these shores unless they meet our needs and specifications. So let's have the national debate about who is welcome and who is not. Everyone we allow into the U.S. should be expected to make this country better, not weaken it, not undermine it, not challenge its precepts. Let's be honest about that. There's nothing wrong with that. In fact, as we can see from precedents in Europe, it is quite simply going to be a matter of national security and national survival to set the parameters for immigration into this country. Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il
|
|
CHRISTIAN TOURISTS ANGRY AT DISCRIMINATION AT OUTPOST
Posted by Robin Ticker, November 29, 2011. |
|
This was written by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
and is archived at
Christian tourists, threatened by arrest during a visit in Yesha, ask Netanyahu why leftists at the site were not arrested. Very important articles where we see a pattern of selective enforcement of the Law in Israel in favor of the Arabs: Let us all scream together "We're Mad As H-ll and We are Not Going to Take This Anymore!" |
|
Christian tourists, threatened with arrest during a solidarity visit at an outpost in Judea and Samaria, ask Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu why leftists at the site were not arrested. The 34 Canadians and eight Americans stopped for a visit at the Oz Tzion outpost during their recent two-week visit. "Your troops showed up and threatened to arrest the men of our group if we did not leave within 10 minutes," Alberta, Canada resident Al Dublanko wrote the Prime Minister. He revealed, "The colonel who came to arrest us confessed that he has seen many busloads of foreigners come to his region, all in support of the Arabs against the settlers." Dublanko asked Prime Minister Netanyahu, "Why would you so easily let these confessed enemies of Israel wander around with immunity, and arrest us who support you? On a previous visit we went to Bat Ayin [in Gush Etzion], and the residents were visibly upset thinking us to be yet another busload of Peace Now activists coming to taunt them over the terrible slayings of their [the Bat Ayin] children." He was referring to the terrorist who infiltrated the town and murdered 13 year old Shlomo Nativ with an ax. The Christian group had visited Oz Tzion shortly after Israeli police raided the community and destroyed most of it. Dublanko wrote, "The pathetic little outpost had already suffered the indignity of having 15 shacks torn down in a violent manner by your troops during the night, and they had succeeded in rebuilding only one.... "Mr. Netanyahu, you are confused. We are not your enemy. You do not seem to know who your heroes or your friends are. You move against your own people with the excuse of keeping rules and agreements, meanwhile ignoring the rules and even facilitating the rule breaking of your enemies. "You protect the most anti-Semitic leftist groups as they move around your country trying to foment anti-Israeli sentiments, and expel our little group because we agree with the settlers in their belief that G-d gave the Jewish people the land. "Mr. Prime Minister, your attempt at appeasement of world opinion is not working nor can it ever work. Jews are a chosen people and Israel is a special country, established not by a UN declaration, or Balfour Declaration, or any negotiations, not even by the might of the IDF, but by an ancient promise by G-d.... "We Christians know this, the Arabs know this, and you and every Jew in the world knows this. This is not to be debated.... "The European nations who support the Anti-Israel peace movements so generously, have the same hatred toward the Jewish people that they showed in WW2, and these groups are just their grandchildren trying to finish the task... Dublanko said he is planning to send his teenage children to Israel in the spring because "we want them to see the courage and faith of the settlers and the total commitment of the youth like those of Oz Tzion and Bat Ayin. We ask that you not arrest them."
Editor's Note: This is what a reader, Margy Pezdirtz, wrote: Christians Angry Over Discrimination at Outpost What an amazingly ridiculous stand the Israeli government is taking against it's own Jewish citizens and those Christians who would stand WITH Israel, and not against her. It seems Netanyahu is as confused as Obama — neither leader can decide who his friends are. We stand WITH Israel and not against her. We understand that Judea and Samaria are integral parts of Biblical Israel and cannot, should not, will not be sacrificed for an absurd peace ploy that is never going to happen. Contact Robin Ticker by email at faigerayzel@gmail.com |
|
ISRAELI SOVEREIGNTY IN JUDEA, SAMARIA; ARAB NATIONS PRESSING FOR IRAN
STRIKE
Posted by Steven Shamrak, November 29, 2011. |
|
Israeli Sovereignty in Judea, Samaria
The Palestinian Authority (PA) is a symbol of the new anti-Semitism disguised as anti-Zionism, according to Dr. Gerardo Stuczynski, the president of the Latin American Zionist Confederation... He asserted that the PA is popular because of the new anti-Semitism that "states that all the peoples of the world have the right to self-determination, except the Jewish people. That is why Zionism is illegitimate and Israel is the only country that has no right to exist." He explained that since the Holocaust, it is no longer politically correct to identify oneself as a simple anti-Semitic. Thus anti-Semitism "modernises and becomes anti-Zionism." Dr. Stuczynski noted that the PA is the "most subsidised people in the world". There is an agency in the UN for Palestinian refugees and another one for the rest of the refugees in the world. "The countries of the world hurry to recognise a Palestinian State that does not satisfy the necessary requirements to be a State and that is governed mainly by a terrorist organisation. And when UNESCO recognises Palestine as a member, it is implicitly accepting the anti-Jewish hatred transmitted in their schools and through the mass media." This completely disproportionate solidarity is not due so much to the concern for the Palestinians but to the fact that it is fundamentally anti-Israeli. ...He charged that anti-Zionists have turned the United Nations "into an instrument to promote anti-Semitism and offers Palestinians a podium so that their words have more repercussion" while allowing Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to state that Israel must be wiped off the map. Food for Thought by Steven Shamrak One million Hindus were forcefully converted to Islam and over three million innocent Hindu refugees escaped, in fear for their lives, to India during the war, when Bangladesh gained independence from Pakistan. None of the 'heart-bleeding' human right activists have been demanding their return, and return of their children and grandchildren, to Bangladesh ! So-called Palestinian refugees were not innocent bystanders. They left land allocated by the League of Nation for Eretz-Israel, following the orders of their leaders, to facilitate swift genocide of Jews, by advancing "victorious" Arab armies! Arab Nations Pressing for Iran Strike Intelligence reports indicate several Arab countries in the Middle East are lobbying the US to strike Iran this year. According to the report, Saudi Arabia wants the Obama administration to attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the final withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Arab allies have been locked in a strategic battle with Iran for hegemony over the Persian Gulf — and have accused Tehran of seeking to destabilise the region through its 'Shiite Diaspora.' 'Extinct' Frog Back into Northern Israel A frog species believed to be extinct has hopped back into sight in northern Israel . The Hula Painted Frog was seen for the first time in 50 years this week. The frog is native to the Hula Valley, a swamp drained in the 1950s to stop malaria. The frog was rare even before, and little is known about it. Celebrating Multicultural Australia — Jews are not Welcome! A Jewish dancing club was scheduled to appear at the Multicultural Folk Dance Festival in the Victorian country town of Mansfield earlier this month. When the participants' names were released the name of the Machol Israeli Dancing Club had been truncated to Machol Group and all references to Israel had been removed with the club being described as a Jewish dance group. No change had been made to other groups including Chinese, Hungarian, Armenaian and Ukrainian Traditional Folk Dances and the Irish Reel and Jigs. Mosque under Construction on Mount of Olives Arabs are building an illegal mosque on the Mount of Olives adjacent to the graves of late Prime Minister Menachem Begin and modern Hebrew rejuvenator Eliezer Ben Yehuda. The area the mosque is being built in is clearly designated as a part of the cemetery itself on land some 200 meters into undisputed Israeli territory. The area the mosque is being built in is clearly designated as a part of the cemetery itself on land some 200 meters into undisputed Israeli territory. our sovereignty" said chairman of Land of Israel Foundation, Aryeh King. (Government of Israel is actively fighting Jewish patriots — Zionists, destroying Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria, but does nothing to prevent desecration of Jewish holy sites by Arabs!) Indonesians Study Israeli Catastrophe System Five medical experts from Indonesia, which has no diplomatic relations with Israel, are graduated from a course at Haifa's Rambam Medical Center on coping with natural and man-made catastrophes. They are among a group of 27 physicians and nurses from 17 countries taking part in a simulated mass casualty event (MCE). 'Humanitarian' Aid Pays for Anti-Israel Propaganda Swedish 'humanitarian' funding paid for the publication of an anti-Israel booklet produced in Sweden, for local consumption. Funded at a cost of NIS 390,000 (approximately $104,600) under the category of "humanitarian aid," the slick booklet was created by a Swedish pro-Palestinian Authority solidarity group. In its pages the brochure calls for the boycott of the State of Israel. "The fact that this kind of hate propaganda is being financed by Swedish government foreign aid funds is simply outrageous," said Israel Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor. There is No Freedom of Speech in Israel "There is no freedom of speech, but a stifling of expression," Rabbi Lior said after hearing of Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein's decision to launch the probe into statements made by Rabbi Eliyahu to Israel's press during the controversy over a rabbinic ruling, in which he took part, against renting apartments to Arabs."It is difficult for me to agree this is incitement," Rabbi Lior said, dismissing the assertion the ruling had nothing to do with Rabbi Eliyahu's Torah views. "Rabbis focus on cultivating a love of humanity, and Judaism appreciates all righteous people, Jewish or Gentile, but Jewish law prohibits one from renting in Israel to non-Jews." (PA does not have an opinion but forbids Arabs to sell, under a threat of death, to Jews. How many Jews live in Ramallah or Gaza City? It is time for Israel to regain her self-respect and shake off the stupidity of political correctness!) Iran is "A Threat to the Entire Middle East" Emir Sa'ud al-Feisal, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister, was quoted as saying that "Iran's involvement in the internal affairs of the nations of the region, as well as its nuclear crisis and attempts to develop its nuclear program — that will allow it to have nuclear weapons — are a clear threat to the entire region." A series of violent incidents in eastern Saudi Arabia over the past week that have left at least four dead has raised concern in Riyadh that Iran is seeking to start an "Arab Spring" type revolution in the heavily populated Shi'ite areas. (If the US will attacks nuclear facilities in Iran, it would be not for Israel's sake, but in order to protect oil rich Arab 'friends'!) Anti-Israel International Bigots Support Syria The United Nations Education, Science and Culture Organisation (UNESCO) has unanimously approved Syria's membership on two UN human rights committees. UNESCO's 58-member executive board, which includes the United States, France, the UK and other Western democracies, approved Syria's memberships by consensus on November 11. This comes as the United Nations plenum estimates that nearly 4,000 people have been killed in government crackdowns against civilian protesters in the nine-month "Arab Spring" uprising in Syria. (From anti-Jewish idiots' point of view, any murderous and genocidal dictator is better than the democratic Jewish state, Israel!) Hypocrisy of the Headlines: " Canada's pro-Israel stance undermining clout in Middle East talks: Expert" — www.vancouversun.com — Have unreasonable demands made by the PA and the overwhelming anti-Israel climate in the UN, created by Arab, Muslim countries and their oil dependent stooges, helped establish peace? Why are only anti-Jewish so-called experts and self-hating Jews given voice by the international media? The End of the Peace Process
The "peace process" which created two terrorist states inside Israel may have begun in Oslo, but it ended in Cairo... The days when Thomas Friedman and his Saudi buddies could talk about normalisation have passed. The Arab Spring saw to that and with Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and an unknown number of others sliding into the Islamist camp, and out of reach of negotiations, there's a New Middle East that has even less in common with the old gentlemanly diplomacy model than the old one did. Some of the dimmer Israeli leaders may still believe that peace is possible with the Islamists of Turkey's AKP, but not even they think that peace is possible with the Brotherhood... The Brotherhood's attitude toward Israel is indistinguishable from that of Iran, and with the Islamist way in ascendance, that attitude will be the dominant one throughout the region, turning back the clock on decades of diplomatic efforts. The Islamists will negotiate temporary truces and ceasefires, but not the peace and brotherhood accords so beloved by the US and the EU... And the usual Arab League chorus that the region's problems would be solved if only there were a Palestinian state sounds silly even to veteran diplomats who usually funnel this sort of nonsense right back to the White House. Obama's hostility toward Israel has paradoxically lessened the pressure by removing the leverage. Condoleezza Rice could get on the phone and warn that another house in XYZ would wreck the positive relationship with the White House. But there is as much of a prospect of a positive relationship with the White House, as there is with Iran, Hamas and the Brotherhood. Israel still has a strategic relationship with the United States, but relations with the administration are cold, which also means there is less to be afraid of... The situation is even uglier on the European side, which has not been friendly in a long time, but hasn't been this hateful either. But all that ugliness also translates into a loss of influence over Israel. You can only slap your allies so many times, denounce them and threaten them before they begin paying a lot less attention to you... How can Israel make peace when the Palestinian Authority has been split into Hamas and Fatah run fiefdoms and neither side is even bothering to pretend to negotiate? ... But the more America and Europe have pandered to the Muslim world, the more obvious it has become to Israel that it has no role to play in this exchange, except its time honoured position as the scapegoat... The isolation is a problem, but it's also liberating. The weight of expectations has nearly broken Israel and the Obama Administration may be one of the best things that happened to it by forcing it to recognise that it was alone. Israeli dependence on the United States is not financial as most people think, it is mainly psychological. Alone in a region full of Muslim tyrannies, the need to believe in a close relationship with an admirable global power was powerful.
/font>
Steven Shamrak was born in the former Soviet Union (USSR) and
participated in the Moscow Zionist "refusenik" movement and currently
lives in Melbourne, Australia. He publishes internet editorial letters
on the Arab-Israeli conflict. He can be reached by email at
StevenShamrak.e@gmail.com
|
|
BAHRAIN TODAY. IT IS NOT FANTASY ISLAND
Posted by Darlene Casella, November 28, 2011. |
|
The Island Kingdom of Bahrain has been a port of call for millennium. In ancient times Sumerians believed that Bahrain was Paradise, where the wise and brave enjoyed eternal life. She sits in the heart of the Persian Gulf, along trade routes between Asia and the West. The 15 mile King Faud Causeway links her to Saudi Arabia. Why has this kingdom, smaller than New York City, come to be in grave peril? Archeologists have found ancient Indian, Chinese, and Arabian coins. Islam arrived in the 7th Century, and was met by Bahraini Christians. After centuries of conflict, the Sunni Al-Khalifa family captured Bahrain from the Persians in 1783. Oil was discovered in 1932. Treaties made it a British protectorate. Independence came in 1971 under the rule of Sheikh Isa ibn Sulman Al Khalifh. His eldest son, Hamad, became King in 1999. A delicate balance of power existed until 2010 when the Wifaq, a Shia political society, won a large bloc of seats in Parliament. This year Arab protests brought hard-line activists and unrest. Shia protestors reject the Sunni King. Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council members blame Iran for inciting upheaval. Military police were accused of mistreating and torture of detainees. The King established The Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) in June 2011 to assess complaints. November 23rd, BICI reported its findings. Minister Sheikh Khalid Bin Ahmad Al Khalifa told Gulf News said that abuses had been committed. He promised that the government will implement the BICI recommendations immediately. He stressed that Iran is trying to destabilize the whole Arab world. The Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, addressed worshipers during prayers "We are very worried about the situation in Bahrain". Experts believe that Iran is working for destabilization in Bahrain, Gaza, Iraq, Lebanon, and Kuwait. Iran works with Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Iran's efforts are to prepare for a confrontation with Israel and the United States. Weakened Gulf States will be in no position to stand against Iran. According to Foreign Minister Ahmad Al Halifa, "Iran wants Bahrain to be Iran's "Jewel in the Crown" of Gulf States. The threat is grave, and Arab countries must not stand alone facing Iran; but pay attention to Iran's dangers, which come under a thousand guises." Senator John McCain from Arizona affirmed in an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer that Iran is trying to orchestrate events in Bahrain. He elaborated that Iran seeks to spread its influence into the Arabian Peninsula and he pointed to Bahrain as evidence. McCain further stated that it is important to combine activities against Iran before she succeeds in building nuclear weapons. Bahrain has been a key player for offshore banking and financial services due to their legal system and strong business ethic. To overcome the impact of social unrest, closed banks and shops, and capital flight; Bahrain is reaffirming its commitment to economic growth. On November 26th, in Munich, Tamkeen signed an agreement with German Chemicals BASF. It will be the largest plant in the Middle East. The United States Chamber of Commerce has a large presence. There is a U.S. Bahrain Business Council to help Bahrain take advantage of the Chambers network of business relationships. More than 25,000 Sailors and Marines are assigned to the U.S. Naval Forces Commander, 5th Fleet; off the coast of Bahrain. Their mission is to ensure peace and stability, and protect America's interests in the Red Sea, the Arabian Gulf, the Arabia Sea, and parts of the Indian Ocean. They conduct peacetime military exercises with allies in the region. Fitch, and Standard and Poor's rating agencies have given Batelco (Bahrain Telecommunications) a credit rating of BBB-; and A-3 for short term foreign and local currency ratings. These ratings pave the way for the issuance of investment grade bonds. President Barak Obama received a blunt message from Bahrain's Foreign Minister Sheikh Khalid Al Khalifa. "You've denounced Iran's plot to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador in Washington. But what is the US actually doing to let Iran show that it is serious? We are asking the US to stand up and to draw lines in the sand. We haven't seen any proper response that is serious coming from your shores." A Middle Eastern vacuum of US leadership make Turkey and Iran the current power players. China and Russia accept Iran's word that nuclear power plants are for energy generation and not weapons, in spite of the International Atomic Energy Agency's latest report. Putin and Khamenei are both against NATO's Missile Defense System. After Putin is elected president, he might draw lines in the sand. On which side of the line would Putin stand? It is a complex riddle. The Jewish State of Israel sits amid Arab Nations, Bahrain and other Persian Gulf Kingdoms. All have nervous anticipation with regard to Iran. Khamenei repeatedly promises death to Israel. The Ayatollah threatened Turkey with a bomb to take out the newly installed NATO Defense Shield; and forecast starting a war that could spread across the Middle East. If Khamenei does not intend to launch nuclear missiles, one might ponder why he is so enraged about the Defense Shield. Darlene Casella was, before retirement, an English teacher, a stockbroker, and owner/president of a small corporation. She lives with her husband in La Quinta, California and can be reached at darlenecasella@msn.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: A MENACE TO THE WEST
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 28, 2011. |
|
Today this news, which was released on Friday, takes precedence. From the NY Times: "The White House on Friday threw its weight behind Egypt's resurgent protest movement, urging for the first time the handover of power by the interim military rulers in the Obama administration's most public effort yet to steer the course of the Egyptian democracy. ~~~~~~~~~~ Undoubtedly, encouraging the "transition to democracy" would be what the Obama administration would cite as its goal in pressuring the military this way. But for anyone with eyes in his head to see, it is clear that we are headed towards that radicalism. There is not going to be a Western style liberal democracy emerging from the chaos that is Egypt today. That much is a given, as clear anything might be. The Islamist Muslim Brotherhood is waiting in the wings, ready to take control. (More on this below.) Put simply and boldly: President Obama is giving the Muslim Brotherhood a boost. In doing so, he is enhancing dangers for Israel, and for the US. Should I be surprised? Not really. After all, he invited members of the Brotherhood to his speech in Cairo over two years ago. But I'm more than a bit angry. ~~~~~~~~~~ Obama pulled the rug out from under Mubarak last February, thereby helping to generate the current situation in Egypt. Now, the Times piece explained that, "the United States is among the Egyptian military's closest allies." But no, better to have said, had been among the military's closest allies. For he has attempted to pull the rug out from under them, as well. The world is watching and the lesson is that the US cannot be trusted as an ally. There will be a price to pay for the president's behavior. What makes his policy here even more reprehensible is that he wouldn't back the Iranian street against the current Iranian regime. How selective is his support for "democracy," and how perverse. And so...the president is a menace to the West. And I advise everyone who thinks that Obama is doing a good job in the White House to seriously consider his behavior in this regard. ~~~~~~~~~~ Israel has been very critical of this move by Obama: "The U.S. is repeating the same mistake it made during the first revolution in Egypt, when it called on Mubarak to turn over the government," said one diplomat. The Israeli Foreign Ministry is now sending messages via its ambassadors in Britain, Germany and France to do nothing that would shake up the structure of the government in Egypt. ~~~~~~~~~~ Middle East analyst Barry Rubin has been following events in Egypt closely and put out a new piece today. "During the Mubarak era, Egyptian foreign policy was based on a pragmatic consideration of Egyptian national interests. That included supporting regional stability rather than wasting resources on losing battles to destroy Israel or seeking Egyptian leadership of the Arab world... ~~~~~~~~~~ At the Cabinet meeting yesterday, Netanyahu suggested that it may be time to recalibrate its security needs and increase defense spending. This is in light of what's happening across this entire region; as one person present at the meeting explained, "People here are very concerned about Egypt. It looks now as if the revolution is going in a certain direction. Wherever the Arabs vote, the Islamists are winning." Netanyahu has been referring to the situation as "unprecedented regional instability" — the biggest shakeup since the Ottoman Empire collapsed and the allies carved new nations out of what had been that empire. The prime minister obviously sees the need for a heavy investment in defense. ~~~~~~~~~~ Let me turn now to some other events within Israel — involving the prime minister — that require a closer look. We have seen in recent months a welcome move by activist MKs to promote legislation that would strengthen not only Israeli democracy, but the nationalist position within Israel. I am able to link the two because it is the left-wing anti-nationalist elements of the nation that have leveraged control for a long time. One of those bills — proposed by Likud MKs Danny Danon and Yariv Levin — was designed to regulate which public petitioners — associations, most notably NGOs — would be permitted to file petitions with the High Court of Justice. Requirements for petitioning the court were that the case be significant to the country's general public, that its foreign funding sources be disclosed to the court, and that its petition be done jointly with someone directly affected by the case. All of this is exceedingly pertinent, because there are very left-leaning NGOs that will petition the court solely in order to further their political agenda. What is more, frequently they are NGOs that are receiving funding from abroad, so that the political agenda they adopt may not even be that of the Israeli general public. As MK Levin it, "The bill will put an end to the absurd situation in which foreign elements intervene in the affairs of the State of Israel and flood the legal system with petitions whose main goal is to weaken Israel from within." And yet, a cry went up (from the left) that this was undemocratic, as everyone should be able to petition the court. But this is nonsense. In the US, the Supreme Court may be petitioned only by someone who has standing in the case — that is, who would be affected. But here we have a situation in which Peace Now, supported by funds from European nations with a strong pro-PA agenda, is able to go to the High Court and say it objects to a particular outpost in Samaria, when no Arab is objecting to it and claiming he is affected. Such a petition, it should be added, would has a reasonable chance of being entertained by the High Court because that court is inclined to the left itself. This is well understood here in Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~ There was at least a chance that this legislation might have made it through the system. That is, until yesterday, when Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that he was opposed to any legislation that would limit the High Court. That was the kiss of death and the Ministerial Committee on Legislation has now rejected it. ~~~~~~~~~~ The question then, is why Netanyahu took the position he did. He understands full well what the situation is. I am able to come to no conclusion other than that he dropped the ball on this one: He caved to left wing pressures. ~~~~~~~~~~ Today I spoke with Moshe Eyal, Associate Director of the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel. He was rather optimistic, in spite of the fact that this particular legislation was effectively blocked. For he says progress is being made in educating the public to what is going on and now there are Knesset members prepared to act: "We are beginning to see a weakening in the post Zionist hegemony in the court system and a decline in the influence of other countries on the political views of the State of Israel...we rejoice in the essence of the process...since until now legal terms were used as a cover for post Zionist political opinions which we are now able to change... Please note: Moshe Eyal, speaking for the Legal Forum for the Land of Israel, will be in the US from December 5-14. He will be primarily in the NY area but is prepared to travel. His goal is to raise funds and awareness for the Forum. If you have a serious interest in having him meet with your group, let me know. ~~~~~~~~~~ Another decision was made by the prime minister on Friday that I want to mention here: I have written extensively in the past weeks about the Mughrabi Bridge, which leads from the Western Wall Plaza to the Temple Mount, and is the only access to the Mount for non-Muslims. The current wooden bridge was considered temporary when it was put up after the existing bridge was destroyed by weather conditions. For some time now there have been plans extant for its replacement by a permanent bridge but the work has not taken place because of various objections from the Arab world, and most notably the Wakf — the Islamic Trust that administers matters on the Mount. Totally fallacious charges were made that Israel was digging under the Temple Mount in order to bring down Al Aksa Mosque on the Mount. This was clearly a turf dispute, with the issue being one of who has the right to make decisions regarding the bridge. And it was quite obvious that it was time for Israel to move on this — in particular as the current bridge is deemed unsafe — and assert Israeli authority . ~~~~~~~~~~ At long last, the work was due to start this past Sunday (or late Saturday night) — beginning with a 72 hour period in which destruction of the present bridge would be done followed by construction of the new bridge. But on Friday, Netanyahu called for yet another delay. This was because of warnings he had received from both Jordan and Egypt regarding the fact that this construction would cause unrest. In the case of Jordan, it was said this work might spur riots that could spread to Judea and Samaria. This seems not an insurmountable crisis. Generally speaking, it is unwise idea to be intimidated by threats of violence — these threats are fairly ubiquitous and are used as a political tool by the Arabs. As it was, the IDF was supposed to deploy in anticipation of unrest in Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria. ~~~~~~~~~~ However, the matter of Egypt is something else. For working on the bridge now — when that work is being widely represented as a move by Israel to usurp what belongs to the Muslim world and to do damage to a site of Islamic sanctity — seems unwise in the face of the situation in Egypt. There is no question but that this would be parlayed by the Muslim Brotherhood into a reason for further unrest in Tahrir Square and nearby mosques. In fact, there is a very good chance that the Brotherhood would utilize this as a campaign point — a reason why the people of Egypt need them at the helm of their government so that they might take strong action on behalf of the Islamic world. Anti-Israel sentiment broadly plays into the hands of the Brotherhood. And so here I think Netanyahu's judgment was proper and he made the right decision. The election in Egypt is hardly a trivial matter. At the moment, he has delayed the work for a week, but he will be consulting with officials (unidentified) in order to resolve the matter. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website at www.arlenefromisrael.info |
|
HOW TO TELL WHO IS A "MODERATE ISLAMIST:" AN EXAM
Posted by Barry Rubin, November 28, 2011. |
|
The Muslim Brotherhood held a rally at Cairo's most important mosque, al-Azhar. This is sort of a central headquarters for official Islam in Egypt. Demonstrators chanted, "One day we shall kill all Jews." Question 1: How can you tell they are "moderate Islamists?" Answer: They said "one day," in other words, they aren't going to do it this week. Question 2: At the rally someone said: "In order to build Egypt, we must be one. Politics is insufficient. Faith in Allah is the basis for everything. The al-Aqsa Mosque is currently under an offensive by the Jews." Who was it? Answer: Ahmed al-Tayeb, the "moderate" president of al-Azhar University and arguably the most important Muslim cleric in Egypt. Note: al-Aqsa Mosque is not under attack by Jews. Question 3: Why did al-Tayeb talk this way in the context of calling for a Jihad against Israel? Answer: Maybe he isn't so moderate. But more importantly it is part of the general radicalization of Islam that is going to happen in Egypt now that the Brotherhood will be running the place and thus also his desire to survive rather than be branded a lackey of the Zionist-imperialist crusade to destroy Islam and have his head cut off. (See Question 1.) Question 4: Can someone be a "moderate Muslim" or "moderate Islamist" and call for a Jihad to wipe Israel off the map? Answer: Apparently yes. Muslim Brotherhood spokesmen made such calls at the rally yet the Obama Administration holds that the Brotherhood is moderate and the U.S. government supports its taking power in Egypt. Question 5: How did the Muslim Brotherhood get the Jewish calendar wrong? Answer: "Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, judgment day has come." In fact, Yom Kippur was last October 8 Question 6: An elementary school teacher Ala al-Din said, "All Egyptian Muslims are willing to embark on Jihad for the sake of Palestine." What does he teach little children in school? Answer: that all Egyptian Muslims should embark on Jihad to destroy Israel. Question 7: Why don't American officials, journalists, and "experts" understand Islamists? Answer: Ala al-Din explained it: "Why is the US losing in Afghanistan? Because the other side is willing and wants to die. We have a different mentality than that of the Americans and Jews." In other words because they don't understand that people in the Arabic-speaking world have "a different mentality." Question 8: Is this mentality somehow biological or innate in Islam? Answer: No, it is the result of historical processes, political culture, indoctrination in school and mosque and media, dominant ideology, and from the demagoguery of leaders. Question 9: Why don't Western reporters see what's going on and report it fully? Answer: They weren't' wearing their glasses so they didn't see the signs; they weren't' wearing their hearing aids so they didn't hear the chants. Question 10: But these journalists, along with the officials and "experts" are idols of the Western elite, so is there any precedent for this? Answer: Yes indeed! See here on line 16. Question 11: Who said that the Muslim Brotherhood is "a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence" and what is he doing now? Answer: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and he's still director of national intelligence. Question 12: Who said "Parties committed to democracy must reject violence....And in a region with deep divisions within and between religions, they cannot be the spark that starts a conflagration" and does that person react to what the Muslim Brotherhood actually says? Answer: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and no. Question 13: What possible rationale could she have for not dealing with the Muslim Brotherhood's bloodthirsty totalitarian orientation and intolerance? Answer: See Question 1. Extra credit question: Why will many Americans — including Jews — vote to reelect President Barack Obama despite the fact that his administration is whitewashing, supporting, and may soon be funding the world's most powerful and genocidal-oriented antisemitic, anti-Christian, and anti-American group? Answer: I don't know. I only write about the Middle East.
This was written by Barry Rubin, who is director of the Global
Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of
"Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History"
(Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria
(Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at
|
|
UN RESOLUTION 181 — THE PARTITION PLAN
Posted by Eli E. Hertz, November 28, 2011. |
|
A "Green Light" for Jewish Statehood — A 'Dead' Blueprint for Peace, November 29, 1947 |
|
In 1947 the British put the future of western Palestine into the hands of the United Nations, the successor organization to the League of Nations which had established the Mandate for Palestine. A UN Commission recommended partitioning what was left of the original Mandate — western Palestine — into two new states, one Jewish and one Arab [Not a Palestinian state]. Jerusalem and its surrounding villages were to be temporarily classified as an international zone belonging to neither polity. What resulted was Resolution 181 [known as the 1947 Partition Plan], a non-binding recommendation to partition Palestine, whose implementation hinged on acceptance by both parties — Arabs and Jews. The resolution was adopted on November 29, 1947 in the General Assembly by a vote of 33-12, with 10 abstentions. Among the supporters were the United States and the Soviet Union, as well as other nations including France and Australia. The Arab nations, including Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia denounced the plan on the General Assembly floor and voted as a bloc against Resolution 181 promising to defy its implementation by force. The resolution recognized the need for immediate Jewish statehood (and a parallel Arab state), but the 'blueprint' for peace became a moot issue when the Arabs refused to accept it. Subsequently, de facto [In Latin: realities] on the ground in the wake of Arab aggression (and Israel's survival) became the basis for UN efforts to bring peace. Resolution 181 then lost its validity and relevance. Aware of Arabs' past aggression, Resolution 181, in paragraph C, calls on the Security Council to: "Determine as a threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression, in accordance with Article 39 of the Charter, any attempt to alter by force the settlement envisaged by this resolution." [italics by author] The ones who sought to alter by force the settlement envisioned in Resolution 181 were the Arabs who threatened bloodshed if the United Nations was to adopt the Resolution: "The [British] Government of Palestine fear that strife in Palestine will be greatly intensified when the Mandate is terminated, and that the international status of the United Nations Commission will mean little or nothing to the Arabs in Palestine, to whom the killing of Jews now transcends all other considerations. Thus, the Commission will be faced with the problem of how to avert certain bloodshed on a very much wider scale than prevails at present. ... The Arabs have made it quite clear and have told the Palestine government that they do not propose to co-operate or to assist the Commission, and that, far from it, they propose to attack and impede its work in every possible way. We have no reason to suppose that they do not mean what they say." [italics by author] Arabs' intentions and deeds did not fare better after Resolution 181 was adopted: "Taking into consideration that the Provisional Government of Israel has indicated its acceptance in principle of a prolongation of the truce in Palestine; that the States members of the Arab League have rejected successive appeals of the United Nations Mediator, and of the Security Council in its resolution 53 (1948) of 7 July 1948, for the prolongation of the truce in Palestine; and that there has consequently developed a renewal of hostilities in Palestine." The conclusion: "Having constituted a Special Committee and instructed it to investigate all questions and issues relevant to the problem of Palestine, and to prepare proposals for the solution of the problem, and In the late 1990s, more than 50 years after Resolution 181 was rejected by the Arab world, Arab leaders suddenly recommended to the General Assembly that UN Resolution 181 be resurrected as the basis for a peace agreement. There is no foundation for such a notion. Resolution 181 was the last of a series of recommendations that had been drawn up over the years by the Mandator and by international commissions, plans designed to reach an historic compromise between Arabs and Jews in western Palestine. The first was in 1922 when Great Britain unilaterally partitioned Palestine. This did not satisfy the Arabs who wanted the entire country to be Arab. Resolution 181 followed such proposals as the Peel Commission (1937); the Woodhead Commission (1938); two 1946 proposals that championed a bi-national state; one proposed by the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in April 1946 based on a single state with equal powers for Jews and Arabs; the Morrison-Grady Plan raised in July 1946 which recommended a federal state with two provinces — one Jewish, one Arab. Every scheme since 1922 was rejected by the Arab side, including decidedly pro-Arab ones because these plans recognized Jews as a nation and gave Jewish citizens of Mandate Palestine political representation. Arabs Rejected the "Unbalanced" Partition Plan The UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) uses the term "unbalanced" in describing the reason for Arab rejectionism of Resolution 181. This description hardly fits reality. Seventy-seven percent of the landmass of the original Mandate for the Jews was excised in 1922 to create a fourth Arab state — Trans-Jordan (today Jordan). In a statement by Dr. Abba Hillel Silver, the representative of the Jewish Agency for Palestine to the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), he had that to say about fairness, balance, and justice: "According to David Lloyd George, then British Prime Minister, the Balfour Declaration implied that the whole of Palestine, including Transjordan, should ultimately become a Jewish state. Transjordan had, nevertheless, been severed from Palestine in 1922 and had subsequently been set up as an Arab kingdom. Now a second Arab state was to be carved out of the remainder of Palestine, with the result that the Jewish National Home would represent less than one eighth of the territory originally set aside for it. Such a sacrifice should not be asked of the Jewish people." Referring to the Arab States established as independent countries since the First World War, he said: "17,000,000 Arabs now occupied an area of 1,290,000 square miles, including all the principal Arab and Moslem centres, while Palestine, after the loss of Transjordan, was only 10,000 square miles; yet the majority plan proposed to reduce it by one half. UNSCOP proposed to eliminate Western Galilee from the Jewish State; that was an injustice and a grievous handicap to the development of the Jewish State." [italics by author]. Arab's Aggression Before and After the Adoption of Resolution 181 Following passage of Resolution 181 by the General Assembly, Arab countries took the dais to reiterate their absolute rejection of the recommendation and intention to render implementation of Resolution 181 a moot question by the use of force. These examples from the transcript of the General Assembly plenary meeting on November 29, 1947 speak for themselves: "Mr. JAMALI (Iraq): ... We believe that the decision which we have now taken ... undermines peace, justice and democracy. In the name of my Government, I wish to state that it feels that this decision is antidemocratic, illegal, impractical and contrary to the Charter ... Therefore, in the name of my Government, I wish to put on record that Iraq does not recognize the validity of this decision, will reserve freedom of action towards its implementation, and holds those who were influential in passing it against the free conscience of mankind responsible for the consequences." The Partition Plan was met not only by verbal rejection on the Arab side but also by concrete, bellicose steps to block its implementation and destroy the Jewish polity by force of arms, a goal the Arabs publicly declared even before Resolution 181 was brought to a vote. Arabs not only rejected the compromise and took action to prevent establishment of a Jewish state but also blocked establishment of an Arab state under the partition plan not just before the Israel War of Independence, but also after the war when they themselves controlled the West Bank (1948-1967), rendering the recommendation 'a still birth.' The UN itself recognized that Resolution 181 had not been accepted by the Arab side, rendering it a dead issue: On January 29, 1948, the First Monthly Progress Report of the UN-appointed Palestine Commission charged with helping put Resolution 181 into effect was submitted to the Security Council (A/AC.21/7). Implementation of Resolution 181 hinged not only on the five member states appointed to represent the UN (Bolivia, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Panama, Philippines) and Great Britain, but first and foremost on the participation of the two sides who were invited to appoint representatives. The Commission then reported: "The invitation extended by the [181] resolution was promptly accepted by the Government of the United Kingdom and by the Jewish Agency for Palestine, both of which designated representatives to assist the commission. ... As regards the Arab Higher Committee, the following telegraphic response was received by the Secretary-General on 19 January: The UN Palestine Commission's February 16, 1948 report (A/AC.21/9) to the Security Council noted that Arab-led hostilities were an effort "To prevent the implementation of the [General] Assembly's plan of partition, and to thwart its objectives by threats and acts of violence, including armed incursions into Palestinian territory." On May 17, 1948 — after the invasion began, the Palestine Commission designed to implement 181 adjourned sine die [Latin: without determining a date] after the General Assembly appointed a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities. Some thought the Partition Plan could be revived, but by the end of the war, Resolution 181 had become a moot issue as realities on the ground made the establishment of an armistice-line (the "Green Line") — a temporary ceasefire line expected to be followed by peace treaties — the most constructive path to solving the conflict. A July 30, 1949 working paper of the UN Secretariat entitled The Future of Arab Palestine and the Question of Partition noted further that: "The Arabs rejected the United Nations Partition Plan so that any comment of theirs did not specifically concern the status of the Arab section of Palestine under partition but rather rejected the scheme in its entirety." By the time armistice agreements were reached in 1949 between Israel and its immediate Arab neighbors (Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Trans-Jordan) with the assistance of UN Mediator Dr. Ralph Bunche, Resolution 181 had become irrelevant, and the armistice agreements addressed new realities created by the war. Over subsequent years, the UN simply abandoned the recommendations of Resolution 181, as its ideas were drained of all relevance by events. Moreover, the Arabs continued to reject 181 after the war when they themselves controlled the West Bank (1948-1967) which Jordan invaded in the course of the war and annexed illegally. Attempts by Palestinians to 'roll back the clock' and resuscitate Resolution 181 more than six decades after they rejected it 'as if nothing had happened' are a baseless ploy designed to use Resolution 181 as leverage to bring about a greater Israeli withdrawal from parts of western Palestine and to gain a broader base from which to continue to attack an Israel with even less defendable borders. Both Palestinians and their Arab brethren in neighboring countries rendered the plan null and void by their own subsequent aggressive actions. Professor Stone wrote about this 'novelty of resurrection' in 1981 when he analyzed a similar attempt by pro-Palestinian 'experts' at the UN to rewrite the history of the conflict (their writings were termed "Studies"). Stone called it "revival of the dead" "To attempt to show ... that Resolution 181(II) 'remains' in force in 1981 is thus an undertaking even more miraculous than would be the revival of the dead. It is an attempt to give life to an entity that the Arab states had themselves aborted before it came to maturity and birth. To propose that Resolution 181(II) can be treated as if it has binding force in 1981, [E.H., the year the book was written] for the benefit of the same Arab states, who by their aggression destroyed it ab initio, [In Latin: From the beginning] also violates 'general principles of law,' such as those requiring claimants to equity to come 'with clean hands,' and forbidding a party who has unlawfully repudiated a transaction from holding the other party to terms that suit the later expediencies of the repudiating party. [italics by author]. Resolution 181 had been tossed into the waste bin of history, along with the Partition Plans that preceded it. Israel's Independence is not a Result of a Partial Implementation of the Partition Plan Resolution 181 has no legal ramifications — that is, Resolution 181 recognized the Jewish right to statehood, but its validity as a potentially legal and binding document was never consummated. Like the proposals that preceded it, Resolution 181's validity hinged on acceptance by both parties of the General Assembly's recommendation. Cambridge Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice, a renowned expert on international law, clarified that from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem, Judge, Sir Lauterpacht wrote that any binding force the Partition Plan would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda, [In Latin: treaties must be honored — the first principle of international law] that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan. In the case of Israel, Judge, Sir Lauterpacht explains: "The coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence-especially when that existence is proÂlonged shows every sign of continuance and is recognised by the generality of nations." Reviewing Lauterpacht's arguments, Professor Stone, a distinguished authority on the Law of Nations, added that Israel's "legitimacy" or the "legal foundation" for its birth does not reside with the United Nations' Partition Plan, which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Stone concluded: "The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control." For the article including notes and map, please go to:
Eli E. Hertz is president of Myths and Facts, Inc. The organization's objective is to provide policymakers, national leadership, the media and the public-at-large with information and viewpoints that are founded on factual and reliable content. Contact him at today@mythsandfacts.org. |
|
J STREET: J IS FOR JEKYLL AND HYDE
Posted by Never Again is Now, November 27, 2011. |
|
This was written by Tabitha Korol
and it appeared on
|
|
The Cleveland Jewish Jews recently reported that Jeremy Ben-Ami, founder of J Street, was disappointed with the unenthusiastic welcome from the rabbis of the Cleveland Board of Rabbis, and that local congregations had not extended him invitations to speak at their congregations. Although he paints his J Street as being pro-Israel, it seems that more people are beginning to judge him by his deeds, not rhetoric. While his words insist that J Street is the home for American Jewry who want peace for Israel, his actions are disturbing. Ben-Ami ignores 14 centuries of Islam's violent history of conquest over Jews, Christians, and other civilizations in the Middle East. Beginning with Muhammad's expectation that Jews and Christians would accept him as a prophet, and his rejection by both in Mecca and Medinah, Muhammad's position changed to uncompromising hostility and justification for brutality, and his adherents follow his examples to the letter. There is nothing to suggest that there has been a revision of the Koran to dictate otherwise. If anything, a careful study of events worldwide substantiates that the Giant has awakened, and the goal is complete Islamization. So why would Ben-Ami assume that Israel could suddenly be looked upon with favor by the Muslims if Israel were to relinquish one more Israeli neighborhood to the Arabs? Why would Ben-Ami imagine that Mahmoud Abbas's declaration to never accept the sovereign Jewish Nation in the region was reversible? And why would Ben-Ami expect that Abbas's vow to use a new Palestinian state to wage war against the diminished Israeli state could be overturned if Israel would only give up more land? The answer is simple. He doesn't assume; he doesn't imagine, and he doesn't expect. He knows his stance is antithetical to peace between the Arabs and the Jews, but he is a Jewish stealth jihadist. Whatever his motive, he knows his words and actions could cost the Jews their homeland. It takes only one glance at the map to understand that a two-state solution isn't viable, with Israel having to cede more land from her one/one-thousandth fraction of the Middle East to the Muslims who occupy the remaining 999. With each passing day, more threats and plans for Israel's destruction emanate from the Palestinian-Arab territories. Now we hear that thousands of jihadists (perhaps a million) will march into Jerusalem and claim it for their own, and will Ben-Ami agree that Israel should give up her capital of 4,000 years "for peace" to a people who only invented themselves in 1967? Would he, in fact, delight in leading the peaceful onslaught? History proves that Arabs have always wrought violence against the Jewish and Christian people, since their beginning. Jihad is a permanent state of war, always in existence among the Arabs, first as tribal wars — rivalry that created a permanent state of instability and unrest. Jihad shifted the focus of attention from the tribes to the outside world as religious zeal and so that they could sustain themselves economically from the booty. Elements from Judaism (although Judaism was not a missionary religion) and Christianity (that was not a redemptive or state religion at its outset) provided Islam with a dual nature, a defensive-offensive character that permanently declared war against the world. It became a politico-religious mission that conditioned the Islamic attitude as a conquering nation, with a demand for perseverance, endurance, and steadfastness, until "the vanquished become brethren of their conquerors." The day after Israel became a Jewish State, seven Arab armies declared war and fought the fledgling state as their permanent obligation to impose its rule upon the non-believers. When there was no housing construction, there was Arab violence; when there was housing construction, there was a Arab violence. Surrounding circumstances do not affect Islamic violence. Ben-Ami and his likeminded followers do not appear to recognize that the same imposition is occurring in America and, indeed, throughout the world. Ben-Ami appears to be either disingenuous or oblivious to the Koran's directives of having anything but an Islamic state. When I last challenged his statements, he was astounded that I called him a turncoat, but it happened to be the most appropriate term I could find. Never critical of Palestinian actions, Ben-Ami, under the guise of being pro-Israel, believes it acceptable to be openly critical of Israel's policies, yet his criticism goes beyond the acceptable when Ben-Ami criticizes Israel at every turn for not acquiescing to every Palestinian demand, thereby putting Israel in the path of destruction. When dealing with an enemy that admits and even boasts that there will never be peace with Israel, Ben-Ami insists that ceding a good portion of the land to the enemy is going to bring peace. What now, that Mahmoud Abbas has taken to demanding all of Israel? Ben-Ami blindly supports our President's actions toward Israel, although Obama has come to be known as America's most anti-Semitic President. Ben-Ami refers to diversity of opinion within Washington, and is proud that he has brought about more choices for dealing with Israel, but the diversity is driven by our administration's associates, an incredible array of anti-democratic radicals, from Ayers to Wright. In fact, J Street receives financial support from one of these radical friends, George Soros. In the words of Joseph Conrad, "You shall judge a man by his friends." I salute Cleveland's Jewish organizations for eschewing the visitor from J Street. |
|
AUSTERITY FOR EUROPE — INCREASED EU AID FOR THE PALESTINIANS
Posted by Emanuele Ottolenghi and Jonathan Schanzer, November 27, 2011. |
|
Amidst Europe's worst economic crisis in recent memory, the European Parliament (EP) has just decided to raise Europe's aid to the Palestinians by €100 million — 30 percent more than previous years. At the end of tough negotiations among the European Union's institutions over the 2012 budget, the EP somehow made room for an additional €18 billion over the €129 billion cap imposed by expenditures-wary EU member states. Among the additional line items is that extra €100 million for the Palestinians. An extra €100 million may not seem like that much compared to an overall budget of €147 billion for 2012, but it cannot be ignored that this is money the EU does not have. Moreover, the EU is pledging taxpayer money at a time when the only guarantee it will be spent responsibly has just disappeared. The EU budget decision was sealed just days before a highly anticipated summit between Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas and Khaled Meshal of Hamas — a designated terrorist group in the EU. The two factions have been in a state of a low-level civil war since 2007, but agreed on Thursday to set a date for elections that would begin to end their feud. According to reports in the Palestinian press, the two Palestinian rivals have not yet decided on their choice for the new premier. But their four likely choices look poor, ranging from Hamas loyalist Jamal al-Khodary to Mohammed Mustafa, the economic advisor to Mahmoud Abbas who has played a leading role in the creation of the ossified Palestinian political system. No matter who is named, it will mean the end of Salam Fayyad — the moderate Palestinian Prime minister and former World Bank official who, thanks to his views, credentials and sound management, temporarily restored credibility, transparency and due diligence to Palestinian governance. In other words, the EU investment is likely to backfire, and not for the first time. The EU has been a financial backer of the Palestinian cause since 1971, when its institutional predecessor, the European Community, started funding The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), the UN agency in charge of underwriting Palestinian refugees and their descendants. UNRWA is a bottomless pit of international aid — designed to keep Palestinian refugees in limbo, rather than resettling them, as the UN has done for every other displaced population in history. UNRWA is a waste of money by definition, even under the most stringent accountancy standards, since its raison d'être is to perpetuate the Palestinian refugee problem instead of solving it. EU support dramatically increased in 1994, when the signing of the Oslo Accords seemed to offer a promise of Palestinian-Israeli peace, with huge sums ploughed into Palestinian state-building. From its outset, the Palestinian Authority was rife with corruption and wastefulness, but the wastefulness never drove off donors. From 1994 to 2009, the EU donated €4.26 billion to the Palestinian Authority through various channels — and this figure does not take into account individual EU member states' donations to the PA. A 2005 investigation launched by OLAF, the EU anti-fraud office, into allegations of misuse of funding by the PA to support terrorist activities found "no conclusive evidence of support of armed attacks or unlawful activities financed by the European Commission's contributions to the budget. However, the possibility of misuse of the Palestinian Authority's budget and other resources cannot be excluded, due to the fact that the internal and external audit capacity in the Palestinian Authority is still underdeveloped." Rather than suspending its financial support, the EU responded by continuing to contribute substantial sums to the PA budget, even after Hamas — the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood known best for its suicide attacks and other violent acts against civilians — won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections and briefly took over the PA government before the 2007 Palestinian civil war left Hamas in control of Gaza while PA President Mahmoud Abbas clung to power in the West Bank. This time, at least, the EU made an effort to improve Palestinian governance, and began to exact more stringent conditions and guarantees for the use of EU funds. It also established an institution now based in Ramallah (EUPOLCOPPS) that, among other things, helps training law enforcement agencies' personnel in anti-corruption practices. In recent years, despite the fractured Palestinian political landscape, the first and last line of defence for Palestinian financial transparency has been Prime Minister Fayyad. If Fayyad stays on as finance minister, he will no doubt attempt to enforce the practices of good governance and transparency that has earned him accolades in the West. However, there is no avoiding the fact that a unity government will represent an unpalatable marriage between Hamas and its jihadi ideology, and Fatah, replete with corrupt autocrats who have squandered international donor funds for years. In a year of austerity, when European citizens must make additional sacrifices to avoid bankruptcy caused by reckless spending, opaque accounting practices and corrupt wastefulness, it is not too much to ask that public monies be pledged only against guarantees of nonviolence and good governance. The coming Palestinian unity government promises to fall short on both counts. Why should Europe's tax payers increase their pledge?
Emanuele Ottolenghi is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD); Jonathan Schanzer is the Vice President for Research at FDD
This article appeared today in The Commentator and it is archived in
|
|
KILLINGS JEWS IS MORE POPULAR THAN SOCCER
Posted by Ari Bussel, November 27, 2011. |
|
What's One More Dead Jew? |
|
"Yet, nearly six decades after the Holocaust concluded, Anti-Semitism still exists as the scourge of the world." Eliot Engel Jewish life comes cheap. Killing Jews is a blood sport practiced throughout the world. Sometimes it seems as though killers seek a prize for the most effective methods, the most kills. Giant trophies passed out among haters like chocolates at a PMS seminar. There have been other genocides, other people singled out for death, but one difference remains in place. No other sport is attended with such gusto, such outright enthusiasm as the taking of Jewish life. It is applauded, cheered and done with a strange and surgical precision that makes one ponder. They do not die for money; nor for any cause. They die because they are. They have no right to exist; they are Jews. Jewish families must live with the reality their hearts have been torn from their bodies and buried with their loved ones for no reason. For no more than the sickness that is pure unadulterated hatred. Few take exception to these murderous results, even — strangely enough — other Jews. Jewish people are so desperate to distance themselves from the killing fields they are actually aligned with the fans in the grandstand. They can be heard espousing the hateful rhetoric of the anti Semites who have so effectively perfected the "blame the victim" mentality. "They had it coming, they brought it on themselves, they are to blame for their own troubles." And this from the mouths of other Jews as Jewish babies bleed to death, life oozing from their tiny bodies before even experiencing what it means to mature and be despised simply because you exist. Even today as the haters continue to cheer on the murderers, small, calculated remarks place Jewish children's lives in jeopardy. French President Sarkozy makes a hateful remark to his compadre President Obama calling Netanyahu a "liar." The world sees, but agrees then ignores. What's one more hateful anti-Semitic remark? What's one more dead Jew? The world would not even for a moment mourn the death of another. In fact they would welcome it as a family anticipates that moment when a hateful old relative dies, and they are bothered with him no longer. Kill the Jews. The words are posted on the signposts of every nation, on the lips of the world. Spoken aloud or silent, they are always there. Funny, the way Obama's comments were so offhandedly dismissed. After all, what did he say that was so bad? He was merely agreeing with Sarkozy that dealing with Netanyahu — i.e. Israel — is unpleasant. Complaining about his existence in his life as an annoyance he must endure. Damn those Americans and their pro-Israel crap. And that's just the point. The President's remarks were not benign at all. In fact they were as dangerous and deadly as a KKK mob with a rope chasing after a victim in the woods of Alabama. The world heard. The world agreed. Damn those Jews, What a pain they are. Why can't they all go away? Yes, the remark was duly noted and embraced by the haters of the planet. There is nothing innocent or offhanded about racism or hatred. How much more egregious that the remark came from a Black man. A man who was to be a symbol of the end of hatred and racism in America. "I have to deal with him all the time." No, nothing benign about that remark. And so incredibly ironic were the words of Sarkozy. It has long been very obvious the French hate Jews. Anti Semitism is so pervasive in France today, Jewish people are in danger for their lives every minute. Violent incidents are occurring there each day. I have no doubt that if things continue, all Jews will be forced out of France. And that is the irony. For as Sarkozy espouses his hatred for the Jews, he battles a Muslim presence, soon to overtake his country. His precious France. Yet, hating Jews is politically correct. Murdering Jewish children acceptable in this world. Speaking against Muslims is a dangerous sport. Sarkozy is a coward. No one is afraid of a Jew, as they are easy to kill. Like a mosquito you can swat away at a summer picnic. Please do not insult my intelligence by denying this claim. It makes one sound so damn foolish. And I for one am sick to death of fools. Jewish life comes cheap at wholesale prices. Oh it is not the only life nowadays that does, I will admit. Somalian children are starved. Who cares? Who acts on this offense? Twenty one thousand children a day die on this planet. Who cares? Who speaks out? We are a world of idiots watching some celebrity tramp's trumped-up wedding and paying attention to the minutia that our tiny minds can absorb. Pathetic. There is a saying, fifty million Frenchmen can't be wrong. Ah, but they are. And their leader is the most wrong of all. Life is filled with irony. I never believed I would live to see the day when Germany spoke up for Israel. I doubt I'll see the day when France or England ever does. Hatred is rampant but Jewish hatred is acceptable, understandable and righteous in the world's eyes. The United Nations, the vortex of evil on Planet Earth, openly espouses anti Semitism every minute of every day. And the United States of America, land of the free, funds these hateful efforts to the tune of two billion dollars a year. I am sick to death of the depths to which mankind has sunk. We have reentered that slimy mud bath from whence we came. Perhaps it is time for evolution to begin once more. It certainly did not work the first time around. Contact Ari Bussel and Norma Zager at busselari@gmail.com |
|
FROM ISRAEL: FIRST THE GOOD
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 27, 2011. |
|
There's a marvelous new documentary film about Israel that will be
premiered this week on PBS: "Israel Inside — How a small nation makes a big difference." "An emotional, inspiring look at what makes Israel tick." Shows "how the Israeli people have transformed this country against all odds in a very short time."
It was made by Rafi Shore of JerusalemOnlineU —
If you live in south Florida, you'll be able to see it on Tuesday November 29, 8 pm, on PBS in South Florida — WPBT Channel 2. It is hoped that it will be broadcast nationally on PBS in 2012. See and share the trailer for the film:
~~~~~~~~~~ Tomorrow begins a US-wide "BUY ISRAEL WEEK," designed to counter Boycott Israel efforts. It runs from November 28 to December 4. See http://buyisraelweek.com for featured deals and coupons. Retailers will be offering specials on Israeli goods. Please, support this effort and pass the word. ~~~~~~~~~~ Hats off to Aaron Lerner, director of IMRA, who has put up a clip, with translation, from an interview with an Israeli Arab of Abu Goush — a village outside of Jerusalem. In it, the Arab says that while most Israeli Arabs came from a variety of places such as Yemen and Egypt, the people of Abu Goush came from one man who emigrated from the Caucasus:
Note this well, folks, and remember it when the Arabs talk about their millennia-long roots in this land. ~~~~~~~~~~ The latest wrinkle with regard to the projected Fatah-Hamas unity government: According to an AP story that I picked up on YNet, a "senior Hamas official" says the two sides have agreed to maintain their current governments until the elections in May. This would permit the parties to by-pass the current dispute regarding appointment of an interim government as a step towards reconciliation. At the moment, Fatah is denying that this arrangement has been made. This is so even though it would work in favor of Fatah for the present — as it would allow Abbas to tell funding nations that the PA is working independently and has not merged with Hamas. Of course, Abu Toameh reported yesterday that there are not likely to be elections in May if the issue of detainees on each side is not resolved. If there is any agreement down the road, I suspect it may look something like this: not a genuine merger with both sides participating in a unity government — rather, more likely a coalition that offers some superficial semblance of unity but also continues to provide independence to both parties and a degree of deniability for Fatah. Deniability for those nations eager to continue to support Abbas, too. There is precedent for this sort of very muddled situation. Just as there is a precedent for it to fall apart. ~~~~~~~~~~ In Egypt the turmoil persists, threatening the stability of the first round of elections, scheduled for Monday and Tuesday. Transition to civilian rule is due to take place in July after all rounds of elections, for the lower and upper houses of parliament and the president, have ended. The ruling military council has selected 78-year-old Kamal Ganzouri — who was Mubarak's prime minister from 1996-99 — as prime minister; he will form the next government and has asked the protesters to give him two months. The mobs in Tahrir Square, however, have been seeking to push out the ruling military council — the Supreme Council of the Military Forces — immediately, and replace it with an interim government. Mohammed el-Baradei, currently a presidential candidate, is frequently mentioned as the one to head an interim government now. El-Baradei, who was a snake in the grass when he headed the IAEA, is no friend to the West. But that military council is not leaving, although the generals have agreed to form "a civilian consultative council" to assist in governing the nation at present. Former Israeli ambassador to Egypt, Zvi Mazel, writing in the JPost, is of the opinion that the military council cannot relinquish power because there is no one to take over. One gets the sense that the council leaders understand that they represent Egypt's best hope for stability. ~~~~~~~~~~ Field Marshal Mohamed Hussein Tantawi, head of the council, said the army would ensure security at the polling booths. The Interior Ministry is responsible for supervising the elections, but the armed forces "are participating fully in this process." Speaking to the nation, Tantawi declared: "We are at a crossroads. There are only two routes, the success of elections leading Egypt towards safety or facing dangerous hurdles that we in the armed forces, as part of the Egyptian people, will not allow. "I would like to address the great Egyptian people those who can vote and beg them to go and vote tomorrow, because we want the parliament to be balanced and we want it to include all groups." An immediate transition would work against that goal. Consider the words of Islamist presidential candidate Abdel Moneim Aboul Futuh, who said, "A government with revolutionary leadership must be formed to meet the demands of Tahrir Square." ~~~~~~~~~~ According to Al-Ahram, Egypt's state-owned paper, Tantawi also said the military would not back down from the role it sees for itself in the country's proposed new constitution, which would exempt the military from parliamentary oversight. ~~~~~~~~~~ While demonstrators were out in full force in Tahrir Square, the Islamists held their own anti-Israel demonstration at the al-Azhar Mosque. I mention this not only because it is an indication of what we face should there be a Brotherhood-dominated government, but also because of my comments the other day regarding pressure on Netanyahu to quickly negotiate with Abbas to alleviate certain tensions in Egypt. My position hasn't changed: The Islamists are virulently anti-Israel, not to mention anti-Semitic. Negotiating a "two state solution" would in no way mollify them. It would simply weaken Israel. And lest there be any doubt about it: The Islamists are just as anti-American. ~~~~~~~~~~ All in all an exceedingly complex situation in Egypt and a very dangerous time with considerable repercussions not just for Israel but the entire West. At best, the elections and ensuing transition will allow the Brotherhood a role, but will prevent them from gaining control. For further insight into the situation, see Mazel's piece, "Egypt: a house divided":
Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website at www.arlenefromisrael.info |
|
ARAB-ISRAEL CONFLICT WITHIN THE STATE OF ISRAEL
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 27, 2011. |
|
The New York Times must have an assembly line for hatchet jobs against Zionism. The hatchet job in the Sunday Review section (Gershom Gorenbert, 11/27/11) starts with a false premise of "occupation," ends with the false premise that the conflict only now is spreading from the disputed Territories into the State of Israel, and fills the middle with misleading statements and significant omissions. The first false premise reflects the article's title, "Israel's Other Occupation." Implication: Israel is occupying the Territories. There can't be any occupation there, for reasons I've stated so often I'll spare you reiteration. The newspaper keeps calling it "occupation" until most people believe it. Challenge it to justify the usage! "Occupation" sounds bad. No wonder the Arabs try to boost their claim by calling Israel occupiers! Why does Gershom Gorenberg follow suit? He calls the State of Israel an "Other Occupation," deliberately treating the State of Israel negatively. He again is acting in tandem with the Arabs, who call all of Israel "occupied." By calling all of Israel "occupied," the Arabs imply their jihadist goal of conquering all of Israel. In explaining the situation in Judea-Samaria, Mr. Gorenberg writes, "For several years, extremist W. Bank settlers have conducted a campaign of low-level violence against their Palestinian neighbors — destroying property, vandalizing mosques and occasionally injuring people. Such 'price tag' attacks, intended to intimidate Palestinians and make Israel leaders pay a price for enforcing the law against settlers, have become part of the routine of conflict in occupied territory." Again a gratuitous use of negative sounding "occupied." Note the use of "neighbors," a positive connotation, for Arabs who more or less have been murdering, vandalizing, slandering, and attempting for years to drive out all the Jews. Assisted by leftist Jews, Arabs destroyed thousands of grapevines and trees of Jews in Judea-Samaria, without denunciation by the New York Times. So indignant is Mr. Gorenberg against the alleged minor action by Jews that he has no indignation left for the actual major actions by Arabs. It would be understandable if a few Jews reacted against the Arabs, upon finding that their government does not protect them from the Arabs and takes the usually fraudulent Arab side in most housing disputes. But there is no proof that Jews have done as alleged; there is proof that the Israeli government sometimes has attacked Arabs in the name of "settlers," in order to give those Jews a bad name. I do not recall any reports in the Times giving a factual basis for the accusation against Jewish residents of Judea-Samaria. Then there is the misleading statement about enforcing the law. Israel hardly ever enforces the law against Israeli Arab parties practicing sedition, Arab parades calling for mass-murder of Jews. Arab theft of land in Israel and in the Territories, building without permits, attacks on Jews in the Territories, Arab vandalism, and Arab non-payment of taxes. Bedouin simply squat on thousands of acres and the government is acting make that seem legitimate. No rule of law toward the Arabs; there is coddling. What about enforcement of the law against Jews. The government encouraged Jews to erect houses in the Territories. Israeli bureaucracy being inefficient, some of the houses fulfilled all their requirements but the Defense Minister failed to sign off, prompted by his anti-Zionist political party. Seizing upon that technicality of lack of final sign-off, the Jewish Establishment in Israel and anti-Zionists abroad denounce as "illegal" Jewish construction and demand that it be destroyed. They should demand that the Defense Minister regularize it. No rule of law toward the Jews; instead, anti-Zionism. Now that incidents of vandalism affect Israeli Arabs, Mr. Gorenberg not only freely accuses Territorial Jews of these crimes, but claims they are bringing the war into Israel. Where was he when from the Territories, Arabs or their rockets attacked Jews in Israel for years? Where was he when Israeli Arabs paraded with slogans about "death to the Jews?" For many years, the Arabs have resumed their struggle to drive the Jews out of Israel. Whenever some Israelis seem ready to defend themselves from the Arab attempt to drive them out, anti-Zionist apostles of "democracy" start to lament Jewish violence. Who can respect their inconsistency? Now Mr. Gorenberg complains about "settlers" (a term unfairly misapplied to Jews and never applied to Arabs) establishing a presence in the State of Israel. He ignores the many thousands of illegal Arab aliens in Israel. He acts unaware of the years of blockbusting by Arabs in Israeli cities. Yes, many Jews do leave mixed cities. Mr. Gorenberg insinuates their departure is due to prejudice. He fails to report the Arab harassment of Jewish women, the other crimes, the taunting, and the noise-making. This is a war for control of the country, but Mr. Gorenberg and like-minded people ignore Arab aggression and deem Jewish defense aggression. Thus Mr. Gorenberg castigates yeshivas that seek to stabilize those cities, not the Arabs who seek to destabilize them. How misleading to suggest about such an effort in Acre, "Yet it broadcasts a message that Israel's Arab citizens are strangers and opponents rather than members of a shared polity." The Arab parties in Israel, all of whose elected representatives are radical, do not believe in sharing the country. Israel tried sharing and tolerance, but the Arabs rebuffed them. After all the Arab wars of aggression and the thousands of terrorist attack in between, one would think Mr. Gorenberg and the newspaper would catch on to the existence of jihad. In vague language, Mr. Gorenberg refers to some communities from which Jews exclude Arabs as segregationist. He does not refer to Arabs as segregationist although the Palestinian Authority makes it a capital offense to sell land to Jews. The Arabs have set up funds for buying land only for Arabs. Some Jews may ban Arab purchases out of sad experience with Arab block-busting. But many bans involve parcels of land bought by Jews all over the world collectively for the Jewish people. It was their only recourse. Now that the Arabs have renewed their struggle to take over the country and foreign states such as Iran threaten to exterminate the Jews, it would be foolish to make one-sided concessions. Various laws are proposed in Israel to halt abuses by Israel's enemies. Some of the laws may not be practical or may not serve their intended purpose, but Mr. Gorenberg criticizes them as undemocratic. He does not seem to mind undemocratic practices by Arabs in ignoring the laws or by European governments in financing subversive organizations in Israel. Those subversive organizations often call themselves human rights organizations, for cover. Mr. Gorenberg and the New York Times take those self-appointed radical groups at face value. But they seek to expand Arab privileges and deny Jews' rights. One example is their seeking to deny Jewish property owners the right to their property when Arabs file false claims for them or squat on them. So the Europeans finance radical groups that have little following, in order to impose alien policies upon the country. How democratic is that? The "settlers" need to be brought "home," states Mr. Gorenberg. They are home. Judea and Samaria are the cradle of Jewish civilization. But if hundreds of thousands of Jews were forced into the official State of Israel, the country would go bankrupt and collapse, based on the dire consequences for the 10,000 who were forced out of Gaza and northern Samaria, before. And for that evacuation, Jews suffered more terrorist attacks. If the 300,000 Jews of eastern Jerusalem also were forced out, as President Obama suggests they be, the heart would be taken out of Zionism and the Jewish state would lose its purpose. So, if Israel is to remain a Jewish state and a democratic one, as Mr. Gorenberg professes to want, then instead of destroying it by those means, which also would deprive it of much of its water and of its defensive borders, why not urge Israel to annex the Jewish communities in Judea-Samaria and for the U.S. to recognize the legal annexation of eastern Jerusalem? Don't instead distort international law to call that annexation illegal! Mr. Gorenberg's final false premise is that all he suggests is necessary for peace. Peace is not what jihadists want. Ababs has called for war, has built an army, honors terrorists, and his media and schools preach conquest of Israel. Attempting to appease fanatical imperialists like him always makes war more likely. Mr. Gorenberg's policy fosters war and could lead to genocide. If the Devil presented himself in human guise, would he admit coming to corrupt us and induce us into self-destructive war? No, he would be too smart to do that. Instead, he would claim to defend our rights and to have developed a creed of peace. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com. |
|
SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
Posted by Doris Wise Montrose, November 27, 2011. |
|
This was written by Raymond Ibrahim and is entitled "Muslim
Persecution of Christians — October, 2011."
It appeared November 17, 2011 in Hudson NY
|
|
Egypt's Maspero massacre — where the military killed dozens of Christians protesting the destruction of their churches — dominates October's persecution headlines. Facts and details concerning the military's "crimes against humanity" are documented in this report, and include videos of armored-vehicles running over civilians, a catalog of lies and deceitful tactics employed by Egypt's rulers and state media, and other matters overlooked by the West. More damning evidence continues to emerge: not only did Egypt's military plan to massacre Christians to teach them a "lesson" never to protest again, but "death squads" were deployed up buildings the night before to snipe at protesters. Instead of trying the soldiers who intentionally ran-over demonstrators, the military has been randomly arresting Copts simply "for being Christian." Finally, the fact-finding commission of Egypt's National Council for Human Rights just submitted its report which, as expected, "white washes" the military's role, "asserting that no live ammunition was fired on the protesters by the military, as the army only fired blanks in the air to disperse the protesters," a claim eyewitnesses reject out of hand. Meanwhile, not only are Western governments apathetic, but it was revealed that "Obama's top Muslim advisor blocks Middle Eastern Christians' access to White House." Newt Gingrich asserted that Obama's "strategy in the Middle East is such a total grotesque failure" and likened the "Arab spring" to an "anti-Christian spring." Ann Widdecombe accused the British government of "double standards in its threats to cut aid to countries which persecute gay people while turning a blind eye to persecution against Christians." Even Christian pastors in the West, apparently more concerned about promoting interfaith dialogue with Muslims, are reluctant to mention persecution to their flock Categorized by theme, the rest of October's batch of Muslim persecution of Christians around the world includes (but is hardly limited to) the following accounts, listed according to theme and in alphabetical order by country, not necessarily severity. Churches Afghanistan: Ten years after the U.S. invaded and overthrew the Taliban — at a cost of more than 1,700 U.S. military lives and $440 billion in taxpayer dollars — the State Department just revealed that Afghanistan's last Christian church was destroyed. The report further makes clear that the Afghan government — installed by the U.S. — is partially responsible for such anti-Christian sentiments, for instance, by upholding apostasy laws, which make it a criminal offense, punishable by death, for Muslims to convert to other religions. Indonesia: Muslims and authorities expelled Christians from their church and shut it down "for allegedly engaging in 'proselytizing' in a predominantly Muslim area." As in previous instances when churches were seized, "the fundamentalists were aided and abetted by the local administration." Also, the Muslim behind a September church attack that left three dead confessed that he was operating under his jihad leader's orders, "based on the Koran and Sunna." Kazakhstan: The Muslim majority nation enacted new laws further restricting freedom of religion: "All registered churches must now re-register with the government, and only churches meeting new criteria will be registered." Accordingly, "police and secret police agents reportedly raided a worship meeting of the officially registered Protestant church New Life, saying that under the new Religion Law the congregation 'cannot meet outside its legal address.' During the raid, a 17-year old woman was hit by a policeman, leaving her unconscious." Sudan: Soon after President Bashir "confirmed plans to adopt an entirely Islamic constitution and strengthen sharia law," "emboldened" Muslims, "claiming that Christianity was no longer an accepted religion in the country," attacked Christians trying to construct a church. Likewise, authorities threatened to demolish three church buildings "as part of a long-standing bid to rid Sudan of Christianity." Christian Symbols Egypt: A Christian student was strangled and beaten to death by his Muslim teacher and fellow students for refusing to cover his cross. When the headmaster was informed of the attack in progress, he ignored it and "continued to sip his tea." In the words of one prominent Egyptian commentator: "a teacher forced a student to take off the crucifix he wore, and when the Christian student stood firm for his rights, the teacher quarreled with him, joined by some of the students; he was beastly assaulted until his last breath left him." Saudi Arabia: A Colombian soccer-player "was arrested by the Saudi moral police after customers in a Riyadh shopping mall expressed outrage over the sports player's religious tattoos, which included the face of Jesus of Nazareth on his arm.... A similar event occurred in Saudi Arabia last year when a Romanian player kissed the tattoo of a cross he had on his arm after scoring a goal, which also caused public outrage." Maldives: Police arrested a 30 year-old teacher from India for having a Bible and rosary, and finally deported him after a two-week interrogation. According to the principal, he "was a very good teacher, we've not had any complaints of him in the past." Such cases are not aberrant: "Last year, Maldivian authorities rescued another Christian teacher from India when Muslim parents of her students threatened to throw her into the sea for 'preaching Christianity' after she drew a compass in class, which they alleged was a cross." Apostasy, Blasphemy, Proselytism India: A mufti summoned a Christian priest to appear before his court: according to the mufti, the priest "is involved in converting young Muslim boys and girls to Christianity. This warrants action as per Islamic law.... I will take all necessary measures in exercise of the powers vested in me by Islamic Sharia." Iran: Militants with suspected ties to Iranian security threatened to kill nearly a dozen evangelical Christians who fled Iran; unless they "repent and ask forgiveness" and return to Islam, they must die. Likewise, a "group of four officers engaged in a commando-style raid on the house" of a Muslim convert to Christianity, arresting him, confiscating his Bible, and "transferring him to an unknown location.... His family was also threatened to remain silent and not to talk about this incident to anyone." Also, a Christian named "Muhammad" was arrested, interrogated "for the charge of Christianity." And Iran's Supreme Court has ordered the retrial of the pastor sentenced to death for refusing to renounce his Christian beliefs, partially because "Iran is feeling the pressure" of the growing international community supporting the pastor. Pakistan: A female prison-officer assigned to provide security for Asia Bibi, a Christian mother of five sentenced to death on "blasphemy" charges, beat her, "allegedly because of the Muslim officer's anti-Christian bias, while other staff members deployed for her security looked on in silence." A new report reveals how the nation's legalization of blasphemy laws has given great rise to Christian persecution. "Dhimmitude" (General Abuse, Debasement, and Suppression of "Second Class" Citizens) Egypt: The military threatened a Coptic monastery with a "new massacre" in an attempt to demolish the monastery's fence "which guards it from unauthorized visits and criminals." The military has "stormed several monasteries since the January 25 Revolution, demolished fences, and fired on monks and visitors." Also, a Christian man sentenced to three years' imprisonment for "insulting the military" has been ordered to a mental health hospital, from which, according to some analysts, patients often emerge as "devastated human beings." Iraq: A new report entitled, "The double lives of Iraq's Christian children" tells of their suffering — "If the children say they believe in Jesus, they face beatings and scorn from their teachers" — as well as the struggle of their parents. "The first years of my faith," says a father, "I brought so many people to church, because I was motivated, so excited. Now I don't encourage anyone to be a Christian, because in my experience it is very hard." France: Stone-throwing Muslims attacked Christians during a Catholic celebration, although the media largely ignored it: "it would seem that the media silence on these facts, which are occurring more and more frequently, serves to exonerate, even protect, the Muslims in their racist and anti-religious acts." Pakistan: Along with one dead man, "two dozen Christians including children, men and women were seriously injured" when "Muslim gangs" hired by an influential Muslim attacked them "to grab a piece of land" which the church had purchased to build an orphanage. Also, Muslim landowners raided a Christian home, beat a sick father and abducted two brothers, whom they claim are in debt; the kidnapper added an extra 70,000 rupees in ransom. "The men's mother tried to file a report with police, who refused because one of the suspects is a fellow police officer," not to mention also a Muslim. Turkey: The Education Ministry in Ankara published a 10th grade textbook which distorts the role of Christian Assyrians, "denouncing them as traitors who rebelled against Turkey." Still denying the historic slaughter of Christians, "today's Turkish Government is not hesitant to distort historical events by inverting victim and perpetrator... About half of the Assyrian population, were killed or died from starvation or disease in a series of killings orchestrated by the Ottoman Turkish government during World War I." USA: A Muslim convert to Christianity was violently attacked by Muslims because of a poem "which expresses pain over the loss of six million Jews at the hands of the Nazis." The attackers carved the Star of David on his back with a knife "while laughing as they recited his poem." In a separate incident, a Muslim physiotherapist "tore into" a Christian patient, saying her faith was "wrong" and had "killed more people than any other religion." She later wrote: "I found Mr. Ali to be extremely racist against my Christian faith. I have had doctors, nurses and staff of all different religions look after me but this is the first time I've been treated by such a bigoted man as Mr. Ali." Pakistani Rape As usual, Pakistan — which, along with Egypt, oddly missed being categorized as a "country of particular concern" in the State Department's recent religious freedom report — dominates the headlines regarding the sexual abuse of Christian women: Kidnapped last Christmas Eve, "a 12 year-old Christian [was] gang raped for eight months, forcibly converted and then 'married' to her Muslim attacker." Now that she has escaped, instead of seeing justice done, "the Christian family is in hiding from the rapists and the police." A new report asserts: "The forced conversion to Islam of women from religious minority groups through rape and abduction has reached an alarming stage... It appears today that no one, from the judiciary to the police and even the government has the courage to stand up to the threats from Muslim fundamentalist groups. The situation is worse with the police who always side with the Islamic groups and treat minority groups as lowly life forms." Killings Iraq: "Two Christians were murdered in northern Iraq this week; their deaths come as three kidnapped Christians were released following the payment of a hefty ransom." A source in Iraq laments: "The attacks on Christians continue and the world remains totally silent. It's as if we've been swallowed up by the night." Nigeria: Months after Muslims from Boko Haram murdered a pastor, another pastor was targeted and murdered. The jihadists have "claimed responsibility for several church bombings and other attacks;" many Christians have fled the region, and some churches have shut down as many of their flock have been killed. Likewise, three Muslim soldiers, in the context of subduing civil unrest, "shot and killed a Christian mother of five" and a Christian boy, without "any justifiable reason." Somalia: Weeks after a convert to Christianity was beheaded, al-Shabaab, "who have vowed to rid Somalia of Christianity," decapitated another 17-year-old Christian in his home: "It is usual for the al-Shabaab to decapitate those they suspect to have embraced the Christian faith, or sympathizers of western ideals." About this Series Because the persecution of Christians in the Islamic world is on its way to reaching epidemic proportions, "Muslim Persecution of Christians" was developed to collate some — by no means all — of the instances of Muslim persecution of Christians that surface each month. It serves two purposes: To document that which the mainstream media does not: habitual, if not chronic, Muslim persecution of Christians. Accordingly, whatever the anecdote of persecution, it typically fits under a specific theme, including hatred for churches and other Christian symbols; sexual abuse of Christian women; forced conversions to Islam; apostasy and blasphemy laws that criminalize and punish with death those who "offend" Islam; theft and plunder in lieu of jizya, tribute expected from second-class citizens, or dhimmis; overall expectations for Christians to behave like cowed dhimmis (second-class citizens); and simple violence and murder. Sometimes it is a combination. Because these accounts of persecution span different ethnicities, languages, and locales — from Morocco in the west, to India in the east, and throughout the West wherever there are Muslims — it should be clear that one thing alone binds them: Islam — whether the strict application of Sharia, or the supremacist culture born of it. Where are the calls for arrest? Where are the charges of war crimes? Where are the requests for these criminals to be brought to trial before the International Criminal Court or International Court at the Hague? Doris Wise Montrose is with Children of Jewish Holocaust Survivors. Contact her at doris@cjhsla.org. |
|
FROM ISRAEL: IS ANYONE SURPRISED?
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 26, 2011. |
|
On Thursday, I wrote: "After two hours of talks in Cairo today, PA President Mahmoud Abbas and head of the Hamas politburo Khaled Mashaal emerged with glowing statements regarding a new partnership... "...Abbas declared: "'There are no more differences between us now. We have agreed to work as partners with joint responsibility.' ~~~~~~~~~~ Well, now, two days later, we have confirmation of the true state of affairs from Khaled Abu Toameh, writing in the JPost: "Efforts to achieve reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas have stumbled over the formation of a Palestinian unity government and the reconstruction of the Palestinian Authority security forces, representatives of the two rival parties said over the weekend... ~~~~~~~~~~ One Fatah official in Ramallah cited by Abu Toameh said that, while not much was accomplished in the Abbas-Mashaal meeting, "The most important thing was that the two leaders met and agreed to continue talking about reconciliation and unity. It will take a long time before we ever see real changes on the ground." There will be another round of talks next month. It sounds as if Abbas is getting cold feet about this "bold" move that would have alienated the West. Recent news reports had suggested that Abbas had finally agreed to relinquish the idea of retaining Fayyad as prime minister. But either those reports were wrong, or, as seems to be the case, pressure from the US and the EU has now made him reluctant to make that concession to Hamas. According to the Fatah official cited by Abu Toameh, Abbas explained to Mashaal that the US and the EU would punish the Palestinians if Fayyad were dropped. (This is not news.) "But this did not change Mashaal's position. Hamas believes that in wake of the Arab Spring, Arab governments would compensate the Palestinians for any loss of Western financial aid." So Hamas is also operating from nether-nether land, if its officials — such as Hamas prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, cited by the PLO news agency Maan — believe this. Several Arab countries have failed to honor their pledges to the PA. ~~~~~~~~~~ As to any cooperation with regard to the security forces, the Fatah official quoted Abbas as having said that merging Hamas with the PA security forces would — are you ready? — "give Israel an excuse to launch attacks on these forces under the pretext of fighting terrorism." Cute, no? The "pretext" of fighting terrorism. The fact that we would be dealing with an entity that is still committed to the "armed struggle" is beside the point, right? The US probably read Abbas the riot act here, advising him that funds for his security forces would be cut entirely and without delay. ~~~~~~~~~~ Abu Toameh tells us that the one matter that was agreed upon between Abbas and Fayyad was to hold presidential and parliamentary elections next May. But this is being jeopardized by the issue of detainees: each side, while having pledged to no longer do so, is continuing to arrest supporters from the other side. And there is no way Hamas will participate in elections if these conditions prevail. What we have here is the quintessential "stay tuned" situation. But, while, no, I am not surprised, neither am I pleased that this deal between Fatah and Hamas may fall apart. For I can see it now: instead of cessation of pressure on us coupled with a recognition here in Israel that Oslo is fully moribund, there would be renewed pressure by the US and the EU, who would rush to point out that Abbas could have joined forces with Hamas but didn't and thus is entitled to concessions from Israel to bring him to the table. What the world would not grasp — would choose not to perceive — is that the mere fact of the willingness of Abbas to meet with the head of Hamas with regard to a potential merger tells us all we need to know about his attitude towards genuine peace with Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~ From the PA news agency Maan today, there is this — play both ends against the middle — statement: "PLO official Saeb Erekat said Saturday that there can not be a two state solution without Palestinian reconciliation. Uh huh. ~~~~~~~~~~ A great deal more to follow shortly. But here a story as we begin a new week: In an archeological dig at Masada in the 1960s, date palm seeds that were 2,000 years old were discovered. A few years ago, scientists from the Arava Institute for Environmental Studies attempted to germinate these seeds. Their efforts — undoubtedly extraordinary — were successful. Carbon-14 radioactive isotope testing of the first sapling to sprout, done when it was 15 months old, showed that indeed its seed was from the period of the Roman siege of Masada. Now the young tree, which is about 2.5 meters high, has been planted at Kibbutz Ketura in the Arava. Until now it had been kept in a secret located at the kibbutz. The tree is genetically different from modern date palms, and is identified with the Kingdom of Judea. It was said to have not only a delicious taste but therapeutic qualities. Hadassah Medical Center — which has a keen interest because it does medical technological research — is involved in this project. An extraordinary story with exciting implications. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website at www.arlenefromisrael.info |
|
THE END OF THE PEACE PROCESS
Posted by Dave Alpern, November 26, 2011. |
|
One cannot repeat an exceedingly basic principle too much: One is entitled to one's opinions, but one is NOT entitled to one's own FACTS. People ignore the tragic facts of the Middle East at their own great peril. The "architects" of Oslo will never admit that they were dreadfully and horrendously mistaken. They continue to defend the "process" as a tremendous achievement. However, not everything is totally bleak and hopeless. For example, military and strategic cooperation between America and Israel continues quite nicely. American military leaders know how valuable and beneficial this cooperation is for them, even if the bumbling and fumbling cretins also known as politicians believe and say otherwise. Dave This below was written by Daniel Greenfield and it appeared November 21, 2011 on his Sultan Knish website (sultanknish.blogspot.com/2011/11/ end-of-peace-process.html) |
|
The "peace process" which created two terrorist states inside Israel may have begun in Oslo, but it ended in Cairo. Normalizing relations with the rest of the Middle East was one of the carrots that got the Jewish state hopping down the appeasement trail — and that carrot is now officially off the table. 
The days when Thomas Friedman and his Saudi buddies could talk about normalization have passed. The Arab Spring saw to that and with Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and an unknown number of others sliding into the Islamist camp, and out of reach of negotiations, there's a New Middle East that has even less in common with the old gentlemanly diplomacy model than the old one did. Some of the dimmer Israeli leaders may still believe that peace is possible with the Islamists of Turkey's AKP, but not even they think that peace is possible with the Brotherhood. If Western diplomats could offer regional acceptance twenty years ago, today that has all the credibility of a Rolex sold out of a briefcase just off Central Park. The end of the Camp David Accords has killed the grandaddy of the appeasement through territorial surrender template and with Assad looking shaky, the refusal to give up the Golan Heights to Syria seems downright prescient even to peaceniks. The Brotherhood's attitude toward Israel is indistinguishable from that of Iran, and with the Islamist way in ascendance, that attitude will be the dominant one throughout the region, turning back the clock on decades of diplomatic efforts. The Islamists will negotiate temporary truces and ceasefires, but not the peace and brotherhood accords so beloved by the US and the EU. And even the remaining regimes that haven't fallen look like poor prospects for paying out peace dividends after even the most stable country in the region, Egypt, melted down into mob violence and religious fanaticism. If Egypt can turn into battling mobs who don't agree on anything except their hatred for religious and ethnic minorities, including a country full of them living next door, then no Muslim nation in the region is safe. Without normalization on the table, all that's left is outside pressure. But for the first time in a long time the Arab Spring has given Western diplomats something to do in the region besides denounce Jews living in Jerusalem. And the usual Arab League chorus that the region's problems would be solved if only there were a Palestinian state sounds silly even to veteran diplomats who usually funnel this sort of nonsense right back to the White House. Obama's hostility toward Israel has paradoxically lessened the pressure by removing the leverage. Condoleezza Rice could get on the phone and warn that another house in XYZ would wreck the positive relationship with the White House. But there is as much of a prospect of a positive relationship with the White House, as there is with Iran, Hamas and the Brotherhood. Israel still has a strategic relationship with the United States, but relations with the administration are cold, which also means there is less to be afraid of. Netanyahu's exchange with Obama was startling for a careful diplomat from a country that usually avoids offending its big brother. The only way it could have happened is if Netanyahu had felt that there was nothing to lose. And he was right. For the first time since Begin, an Israeli leader pushed back against White House pressure and it led to a slight improvement, not because Obama listened, but because the relationship was so toxic that using the confrontational tactics practiced by the Palestinian Authority actually worked. Only when the relationship hit rock bottom, was any attempt made by the White House to salvage it. The situation is even uglier on the European side, which has not been friendly in a long time, but hasn't been this hateful either. But all that ugliness also translates into a loss of influence over Israel. You can only slap your allies so many times, denounce them and threaten them before they begin paying a lot less attention to you. Irrational demands that can't be fulfilled have brought the situation to that point. It was one thing when the Clinton or Bush administrations were demanding that Israel go to the negotiating table and offer concessions. It was ugly and unfair, but at least it was specific. These days Abbas doesn't want to go to the negotiating table, and the same demands keep coming out of Washington D.C. and Brussels. Israel is being ordered to make peace when the other side won't even bother showing up to negotiate. How can Israel make peace when the Palestinian Authority has been split into Hamas and Fatah run fiefdoms and neither side is even bothering to pretend to negotiate? It can't and even diplomats know that, which makes every volley of demands look like messages for the Muslim world. When Helen Clark wanted to sell more New Zealand sheep to the Saudis, her marketing gimmick was a hate campaign against Israel. Clark has gone off to a sinecure at the UN, but most of the West is acting the same way now. Europe isn't trying to sell sheep, its leaders are acting like sheep in the face of the Islamic demographic destiny spilling across their lands. The Obama Administration lit the fuse of the Arab Spring and is getting nervous as the flames keep rising higher. Western condemnations of Israel are increasingly no longer directed to Israel, but to the Muslim world, which makes it easier for Israel to ignore them. While the White House claimed that the Biden incident was about the timing of a construction approval announcement in Jerusalem, it was really about showing the Muslim world that this administration really had the knives out for Israel. If it hadn't been a house in Jerusalem, it would have been a border shooting, a strike in Gaza or a clash at a checkpoint. Something would have been found. But the more America and Europe have pandered to the Muslim world, the more obvious it has become to Israel that it has no role to play in this exchange, except its time honored position as the scapegoat. The new normalization is no longer the offer to normalize ties with the Muslim world, but warnings that Israel's ties to Europe will require the same kind of normalization if Israel's Prime Minister doesn't snap his fingers and make peace happen. It would be a more effective threat if the current crop of European leaders didn't' make de Gaulle seem pro-Israel. Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama, three of the slimiest first world leaders, haven't made their dislike of Israel such a secret that it took a microphone error for it to be discovered. Merkel has dispensed with the usual show of Gemutlichkeit toward the Jewish state and the situation in Brussels is as ugly as it could be. It all blends into one long angry tantrum about peace dispensed by insecure politicians with a wholly different agenda. All that leaves Israel with fewer reasons to participate. The strategic and economic ties still matter, but they're more mutual than anyone cares to admit. American and European leaders may kick Israel, but it's also the only reliable ally in the region. And the Arab Springer is a reminder that there is one country that won't implode and can be counted on as a point of stability. Obama is capable of cutting off his nose to spite his face, but the Clinton era foreign policy hands still have enough control that it isn't likely to happen before the next election — though all bets are off if he gets a second term. European leaders dislike Israel, but they also know that there are times when they need it. It's a high tech incubator that's a lot closer than Asia, it's an arm of the West in the East and if the relationship is sliding under the table, that's the kind of relationship Israel has with much of the world, from China to Saudi Arabia. The isolation is a problem, but it's also liberating. The weight of expectations has nearly broken Israel and the Obama Administration may be one of the best things that happened to it by forcing it to recognize that it was alone. Israeli dependence on the United States is not financial as most people think, it is mainly psychological. Alone in a region full of Muslim tyrannies, the need to believe in a close relationship with an admirable global power was powerful. Friendship with America wasn't like friendship with Russia or China. The United States is admired by people around the world for its accomplishments and its standing. For all the anti-war rallies, it is a nation that aspires to a higher standard. A virtuous Rome, an Athens without slaves, a shining standard bearer for the new age of mankind. 
Only the United States could make a call for concessions to terrorists sound noble, when it would have sounded hopelessly venal from any European power. But in the age of Obama the nobility has run out and so has the peace. The illusions are dead and Israel is in survival mode, struggling to avoid any attention from Washington D.C. while keeping the country on track. The Peace Process, that horrible masochistic program of terrorist empowerment, is a fading mirage that no one believes in any more. The pretense that the handshake in the Rose Garden overseen by a beaming Clinton was something other than cynicism and bad policymaking mythologized into a transcendent expression of a new age of peace is over and done with. The cost has been horribly high, and all of it has been in vain. As the West follows the Islam appeasement track domestically and internationally, its relationship with Israel will continue to degrade. The Peace Process was an expression of a dying belief in the orderly world of negotiated international peace envisioned by European policymakers for over a hundred years. Now that same world has brought Europe and Israel to the brink of ruin. It's no wonder that Israel has left the peace process by the side door.
Contact Dave Alpern at daveyboy@bezeqint.net
|
|
SPAIN: ANTI-IMMIGRATION PARTY WINS IN A LANDSLIDE
Posted by Ted Belman, November 26, 2011. |
|
The media is calling it an anti-socialist election, and rightly so. What they won't tell you is that it is also an anti-Islamization election. EN NEWS Spain's right stormed to a landslide election victory Sunday, an exit poll said, sparking dancing in the street by voters desperate for a cure to soaring unemployment. Winning the biggest majority in its history according to partial results voters handed a crushing defeat to the ruling Socialists after seven years in power. 
Spain's was the fifth eurozone government felled this year by the eurozone debt crisis. Voters gave Mariano Rajoy's right-wing Popular Party 43.5 percent of the vote and an absolute majority of 181-185 seats in the 350-member Congress of Deputies, according to the poll by public broadcaster RTVE. Hundreds of cheering Popular Party supporters erupted in celebration outside the party's Madrid headquarters, waving blue party flags and grooving to dance music.Voters punished the government for a 21.5 percent jobless rate, a stalled economy and a mounting debt crisis. The Socialists, saddled by a stagnant economy and a 21.5 per cent jobless rate, plummeted from 169 seats to between 115 and 119 seats, according to the poll, which gave no margin of error. The numbers suggest Spanish voters have shifted clearly to the right as they confront their worst economic crisis in decades and choose new leaders to pull them out of it.
Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He
made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel.
Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com
This was published in BareNakedIslam
|
|
EGYPT: IS THE U.S. SUPPORTING OR SUBVERTING IT?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 26, 2011. |
|
EGYPT: IS THE U.S. SUPPORTING OR SUBVERTING IT? In its typical judgmental style, the New York Times declares, "Egyptians are rightly fed up, and they are back in Tahrir Square demanding real democracy." The military seeks to retain its grip on industries whose cash it taps. That is the explanation given for the military's proposals to go slowly toward elections and constitutional conventions and civilian control. The military offers stability, but its "clumsy" efforts produce instability. Its plans "would leave the army in overall control through the middle of next year. That is too long." The U.S. needs a stable democratic Egypt, at peace with Israel and its Arab neighbors." "The Muslim Brotherhood is now Egypt's best organized political movement, and with the voting ground rules greatly tilted in its favor, an almost certain big winner in any first round of parliamentary elections." The Brotherhood tried to guarantee its advantage by making a side-deal with the military, but that aroused popular anger by the populace, which wants real democracy, not insiders' deals (11/24/11, editorial). The U.S. urged Egypt's rulers to hasten the transition to civilian rule and democracy (NY Times, 11/26, A1), by which it means elections. Let the Islamists take advantage of their organizational and financial superiority in a country that lacks civil society, a bill of rights, tolerance, and experience with self-governing? That does not foster democracy. It fosters Islamic dictatorship. This dictatorship will be worse for its people than the military's, worse for keeping out of war, and worse for U.S. defense against international jihad. The huge military that the U.S. paid Egypt to develop would be turned against non-Islamist countries, including U.S. allies. The U.S. and the newspaper are pursuing a policy bad for our country. How stable is our own democracy, when the federal government and a leading newspaper do not know what democracy is, as they confuse it with one, unrestricted election? How superficial and simplistic is the federal and New York Times supposition that getting an election going is the solution! Egypt has serious problems. Unfortunately, the military and Mubarak failed to address those problems. Democratic civilian rule might, if given a chance to develop. Islamist civilian rule would create other and worse problems. Most countries would be wise to ban totalitarian movements dedicated not to expressing a viewpoint but to repressing all other viewpoints. Note the pattern of U.S. interference in the Arab world, with the result that Radical Muslim enemies of the U.S. tend to dominate. This started before the current Administration, by aiding the PLO. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com. |
|
THE MEDICAL WAR ON ISRAEL
Posted by Giulio Meotti, November 26, 2011. |
|
World's medical NGOs anything but neutral when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian conflict |
|
Israel was excluded from the International Red Cross for half a century because of the Star of David. Questioned for having denied entry to the Jewish state, Cornelio Sommaruga, then-head of the International Committee of the Red Cross, declared: "If we're going to have the Star of David, why would we not have to accept the Swastika?" The historical injustice has been rectified only in 2006. Since then, the world medical organizations have been anything but neutral when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Over the past several months, three top officials from the Hamas terror group have set up shop at the International Red Cross office in east Jerusalem, in violation of the organization's alleged mandate of "political neutrality." Secret documents leaked by WikiLeaks also said that Iran used Red Cross ambulances to smuggle weapons into Lebanon during Hezbollah's 2006 war with Israel. Recently, a new report by the Physicians for Human Rights, a group largely funded by the European Union, accused Israeli medics of abusing prisoners, calling the Jewish doctors "torturers." Médecins Sans Frontières, which won a Nobel Prize in 1999, just released a report charging Israeli authorities are "depriving Gazans of critical medicare." The UN's World Health Organization in its latest report accused Israel of "lack of respect and protection for Palestinian ambulances" and asked to "put an end to the closure of the occupied Palestinian territory" and to the Gaza blockade. The UN agency also urged Israel "to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention" and called on "all international human rights organizations to intervene on an urgent and immediate basis vis-Ã -vis the occupying power: Israel." A case in point is how the Red Cross allocates personnel and budgets worldwide. For North Africa, the Red Cross has one office in Tunis. For "Israel/Occupied Territories/Autonomous Territories," the Red Cross has offices in Jenin, Tulkarm, Nablus, Kalkilya, Ramallah, Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron, Gaza, Khan Yunis, Majdel Shams, Jerusalem, and Tel Aviv. Western newspapers, imbued with the ideological reports of medical NGOs, establish a comparison between the Palestinians and South Africa's blacks, who were critically injured and left to bleed to death if there was no "black" ambulance to rush them to a "black" hospital. Jewish altruism never finds its legitimate space in the global media because it doesn't fit in with the stereotype propagated by the medical NGOs. This month, no Western journal reported on the story of Adi Weissbuch, a senior physician in the high-risk pregnancy unit of Kaplan Medical Center in Rehovot, who assisted an Iranian doctor with a pregnant woman suffering a rare defect. Similarly, nobody knows that Israel saved the life of the three-year-old daughter of Hamas Interior Minister, Elham Fathi Hammad, after she was the victim of a unsuccessful heart operation in Amman. Hospital firebombed It would be enough to stroll through the corridors of Israeli hospitals to understand how false the "apartheid" charge by medical NGOs is. Large Arab families stand with Israelis in the corridors of the maternity wards where one is born and in the oncology clinics where one dies. Through the private program "Save the heart of a child," the Wolfson Medical Center in Holon cures congenital cardiologic defects in Arab children from all over the world. About half the children it treats are from the nearby Palestinian areas and there have also been some from Iraq and Iran, both technically at war with Israel. The organization's lead surgeon, Lior Sasson, said Palestinian parents sometimes seem "terrified" when they first arrive at the hospital. "Sometimes they (the parents) were brought up (to think) that the Jews are monstrous and they want to kill kids", said Sasson. Israeli medical statistics are constantly neglected by medical organizations. Last June, Israel's Magen David Adom ambulance service reported that it delivered at least one Palestinian baby every single month. In February, brain surgeons saved the life of a Gaza toddler. Meanwhile, the IDF announced that 180,000 Arabs from Palestinian areas have been treated in one year. Medical organizations never blamed the Palestinians for attacks on Israeli hospitals. Hadassah University Medical Center on Jerusalem's Mount Scopus recently released a report, noting that it suffered 43 attacks by east Jerusalem Arabs in 2011. During the last "Nakba Day" events alone, 11 firebombs were thrown into the Mount Scopus campus. The medical groups also didn't report that 10 Gaza hospitals were used by Hamas during Operation Cast Lead to shelter weapons and terrorists. Today Magen David Adom vehicles do not enter the Arab neighborhoods of east Jerusalem without police authorization and military escort. It's not because of the "apartheid," but rather, because terrorists tried to hit the doctors. During the Intifada, MDA had to replace the windows of its ambulances in the Jerusalem region with glass that does not shatter if hit by rocks. Global silence when Israel hit The Red Cross, the World Health Organization and medical NGOs never raised their voice when Palestinian bombs hit Israeli hospitals where Jewish doctors were saving the lives of Palestinians, such as the Barzilai Medical Center in Ashkelon, where the wounded were taken during the war in Gaza. Israeli doctors didn't ask for identification cards; they operated on everyone. If a Qassam were to hit the hospital, the "triumph" would be celebrated in Gaza without consideration for the Arabs being treated there. Barzilai coordinated the transfer of patients with Gaza's health services; this dialogue has never been interrupted, even when 100 rockets a day were falling on Sderot and Ashkelon. One of the Palestinian terrorists just exchanged for Gilad Shalit, Wafa al-Biss, was arrested before she used a permit for medical treatment in Israel to gain entry and blow up the hospital. The political activism of such medical organizations severely damaged Israel's reputation in the world. During the 2006 war in Lebanon, Red Cross employees in Tyre and Qana had fabricated an attack on an ambulance. A simple analysis of the photographs proved that the images used were those of an old ambulance damaged by rust and not by Israeli missiles and that a hole in the roof, actually in the middle of the cross (delicious symbolism,) was made by an artisan and not by an Israeli F16. And yet the Associated Press, Time, BBC, New York Times, Guardian and others had used this, together with Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, to accuse the Israeli army. Today medical organizations such as the International Red Cross (which was shamelessly "neutral" and silent when it came to Nazi extermination camps during World War II) are anything but neutral when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Indeed, it's much more fashionable to wear a white coat and accuse the Jewish state of "crimes against humanity." Giulio Meotti is an Italian journalist and author. His columns have
appeared in the Wall Street Journal and Commentary. He
graduated with a degree in philosophy at the University of Florence.
He lives in Italy with his family. He
is the author of the book "A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism"
Contact him at giuliomeotti@hotmail.com.
This article was published in YNET News
|
|
SPECIAL DESIGN; ESCAPE
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, November 26, 2011. |
TOP: Special Design
Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il
|
|
PALESTINIAN REFUGEES VERSUS THE ARABS
Posted by David Meir-Levi, November 25, 2011. |
|
In 2008, during a presentation at a panel discussion on the Middle East conflict at Santa Clara University (Santa Clara, CA), a young Arab-American lady claiming to be a "Palestinian refugee" posed to the present writer the following question: "Why can any 'Moishe Pipik' from Brooklyn go to live in Israel, but I, a child of Palestinian parents living in the USA, cannot go back to my ancestral homeland, Palestine, where our families lived since time immemorial?" The response to that question may be useful to readers who find themselves confronted with similar questions by friends, relatives, colleagues, or others. The first thing to note is that "Palestinians" have not been living in Palestine (now Israel) from time immemorial. Turkish and British records are clear that Palestine was flooded with Arab immigrants from the late 1850's onward due to the salutary effects of British colonial and Zionist developments from the mid-19th century onward. Groundbreaking work on the Arab historical demography of Palestine during the second half of the 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries has been done by Professor Justin McCarthy in his book The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate (Institute for Palestine Studies Series), summarized here. McCarthy, not a Jew nor an Israeli nor a Zionist, writing for a Palestinian institute, demonstrates that the Arab population of Palestine almost quadrupled from c. 1855 to 1947. Only a tiny minority of Arabs can claim ancestral attachment to this territory, and even those claims are based solely on anecdotal accounts for which there is no empirical evidence. Then one must recall that the Arab side started the war, and lost the war. Israel accepted the UN partition plan in 1947. The Arab states launched a war. When an aggressor loses a war because the victim country successfully repulses the aggression, and in doing so captures some of the aggressor's land, the disposition of that captured territory, and its inhabitants, must await a peace treaty between the belligerents. Refugees from the aggressor country have recourse to repatriation only in the context of a peace treaty. Most Arab countries have refused to make peace. It was Arab aggression that started the war. Had there been no war there would have been no refugees, and there would have been a state for the Palestinians since 1947. Moreover, a careful analysis of the evidence from Arab sources indicates that the Arab side encouraged, and in some cases even forced c. 90% of the refugees to flee. Therefore the Arab leadership bears the onus of culpability for creating the problem, and thus the Arab side, and not Israel, bears responsibility for solving the problem. Because Israel was not threatening that 90% who fled, there is no legal claim for refugee status. Refugee status accrues to those who flee due to persecution or danger. Just as that 170,000 stayed and encountered no danger, so too could many hundreds of thousands more have stayed. It was not Israel, but Arab countries' refusal to respond to Israel's call for peaceful negotiations that made it impossible for refugees to be repatriated. At the Rhodes Armistice talks in 1949, Israel offered reparations, resettlement assistance, and repatriation, but only in the context of peace treaties. The Arab leaders refused all talk of peace. Had there been peace, there could have been repatriation, and perhaps even the creation of a Palestinian state after the war. It was the Arab side that slammed the door on that option. To the onus of culpability for creating and maintaining the refugee problem at the onset one must add the calumny of Arab states' exacerbating it for decades thereafter. Except for Jordan, Arab host countries denied citizenship to the refugees, locked them in barbed-wire camps, kept armed guards to prevent their leaving, and legislated laws against integration of refugees in to their host country. Lebanese law, for example, lists more than 70 professions in which the Arab refugees were prohibited from engaging. It is illegal for a Palestinian refugee to buy land in Lebanon. There is ample evidence from Arab sources that the Syrian government transported fleeing refugees, at gunpoint, in cattle cars to far-flung borders in 1949, in order to keep them away from Palestine, to thus prevent their repatriation, and to eternalize the "refugee problem." But Arab guilt in stymieing any solution does not stop there. At the Lausanne conference of 1949, Israel offered unconditionally and unilaterally to repatriate 100,000 Arab refugees even without any peace accords. The Arab leaders refused. Israeli offers of repatriation and reparation continued until June, 1967. The Arab side refused all offers. Not Israel, but the Arab refusal to countenance any possibility of peace treaties offered by Israel condemned the refugees to penury and homelessness. Despite this criminal treatment of their brethren by Arab states, Israel succeeded in repatriating many. Between 1949 and June, 2005, Israel repatriated more than 127,000 Arabs who claimed refugee status, in the context of programs for family re-unification and spousal accommodation, or in programs where refugees sought asylum in Israel due to persecution in their host countries (usually Christian Arabs or homosexuals). Israel ended this policy in 2005 when it was discovered that Palestinian terrorists were using this policy to enter the country and gain Israeli citizenship, and with that the ID cards and automobile license plates which allowed them to travel freely around the country and perpetrate acts of terror. While Israel was seeking resolution to the problem, Arab host countries exploited their refugees, keeping them as prisoners in refugee camps. Yasir Arafat describes, in his authorized biography, the brutal treatment of refugees in the Gaza Strip by the Egyptians. The Arab host countries did this in order to perpetuate the problem and use it as a moral bludgeon against Israel and Europe and the USA. Were it not for this unconscionable Machiavellian use of their own people's suffering for political gain, there might have been resolution to the problem decades ago. International law weighs in on Israel's behalf. There is no refugee status for the second and following generations. There is no international law which accommodates demands of second or third generation children born of refugees who have relocated and resettled. Per international law, the status of refugee does not extend to the children and later generations of refugees once they are resettled elsewhere. Children and grandchildren of refugees have no legal or moral claims to property which they may claim to be ancestral. A relocated and resettled family is no longer a refugee family, and that family's children are not refugees. See "Right of Return of Palestinian Refugees," for a detailed discussion of this issue, with citations to international conventions and legal sources relating to refugees. A further complexity is that the war has not ended! There is no sovereign nation in the world, and across all of world history, which could ever be expected to accommodate the influx of civilians from the population of a belligerent and hostile enemy WHILE THAT ENEMY IS STILL, DE IURE AND DE FACTO, AT WAR with that nation. So Israel, as all sovereign states, accrues to itself the right to make whatever immigration laws it feels will most benefit the state and its citizens. It decided to decree a "right of return" to all Jews world-wide. Those laws offer special privileges for Jews. That is bias, indeed. But it is the same kind of bias that American minorities have enjoyed thanks to an accommodating, forward-looking and sensitive American society and government which declared that Affirmative Action was a moral enterprise worth pursuing to assist in righting the wrongs of slavery and Jim Crow and anti-Asian sentiments and misogyny. Israel offers the same immigration options to non-Jews that Denmark offers to non-Danes; and it offers more generous and accommodating immigration options to Jews who wish to live there in order to right the wrongs of European and Islamic societies' millennia of oppression and repression and mass murder and pogroms and exiles and genocide of Jews. These laws inconvenience native-born Israelis of all religions — and that is unfortunate; but it is the price that they have agreed to pay in order to help the oppressed and disadvantaged and threatened Jews world-wide. The Israeli "right of return" does indeed allow any "Moishe Pipik" from Brooklyn to enjoy the benefits that these laws offer to Jews even though this Moishe Pipik and most of his friends and family are not oppressed. The reason for this is because Israel has decided, for good reason, that in order for Israel to continue to exist and to serve as the Affirmative Action state for all Jews everywhere and anywhere any time and forever, it needs all the help it can get from Jews everywhere. So not-oppressed Jews are encouraged to come and live in Israel so that they can strengthen the state and contribute to its society, so that that state and society are there to help other Jews....for as long as Jews are oppressed elsewhere. And for those who chaff at the idea of a "Jewish" state, it seems appropriate to ask: do you have the same problem with a Christian state such as Ireland, or an Islamic state such as the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Muslim states of Pakistan and Afghanistan and Azerbaijan and Tajikistan, not to mention the most Muslim of all: Saudi Arabia. Since there is no problem with states self-defining as Islamic, why is there a problem with a state which self-defines as Jewish? David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli, currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org). Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com This article appeared yesterday in FrontPage Magazine |
|
THEY STOLE OUR LAND' VS. THE GRAND MUFTI OF JERUSALEM
Posted by David Meir-Levi, November 25, 2011. |
|
The cornerstone argument in the Arab narrative against Israel is that the Zionists in the 19th and early 20th centuries came to the Land of Israel and stole Arab land. This is a very simple assertion, easy to visualize, seemingly logical and amenable to a brief presentation: after all, Zionists did come from Europe to what was then Palestine, and the Arabs were already living there. So obviously when the Jews came they took Arab land. Although there exists voluminous evidence to the contrary in Arab and Turkish and British sources indicating the exact opposite, it is difficult to present this contrary evidence and explain its importance in as brief and simple a manner as is done with the Arab assertion. There are too many variables: Arab demographics, Jewish demographics, Zionist agrarian reclamation technology, land purchases, crown land vs. privately owned land, absentee landlords, etc. This imbalance puts the advocate on behalf of Zionism and Israel at a disadvantage, even though the evidence supporting the Israeli narrative and contradicting the Arab narrative is vast and thoroughly vetted. For an excellent compilation and analysis of this evidence, see Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939 (University of North Carolina Press, 1984, reviewed here and here). However, there is one testimony from an unimpeachable source stating that the Jews stole no land, but rather bought land in vast quantities from willing sellers who were the legal owners of the land that was sold. This unimpeachable source is so unarguably innocent of any pro-Israel or pro-Jewish or pro-Zionist sentiment that there can be no rational question regarding the veracity of his testimony. That source is the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini (1895 to 1974). El-Husseini was a key figure in the creation of the concept of Palestinian nationalism and the most high-profile leader of violent and incendiary opposition to Zionism from the 1920's onward, until the creation of the State of Israel rendered his leadership irrelevant. He used his powerful political and religious position as the Grand Mufti (supreme religious leader) of Jerusalem to promote Arab nationalism, incite violence against the British, and preach Jew-hatred and the annihilation of the Jews of British Mandatory Palestine. He was an ally of Hitler before and during World War I​I, recruited Muslim legions in Bosnia to serve on the eastern front in Hitler's Weirmacht, and developed full-blown plans for concentration camps in Palestine in imitation of the German "final solution." During the 1948 Israel-Arab war, he represented the Arab Higher Committee and rejected the UN partition plan of November 29, 1947 (for a brief biography of el-Husseini and a list of book-length biographies see here). As the highest official representative of the Arabs of British Mandatory Palestine, el-Husseini was interviewed by the Palestine Royal Commission led by Earl William Robert Wellesley Peel, hence known as the Peel Commission. The Peel Commission was a Royal Commission of inquiry sent to British Mandatory Palestine in November of 1936 for the purpose of examining and reporting on the causes of the Arab-Jewish violence in Palestine and suggesting possible resolutions. After months of research and interviews of major Zionist and Arab leaders, the Commission published its report in July of 1937. The report recommended a partition plan for separate Arab and Jewish states; but this plan was never implemented, although the Zionists accepted it, due to vociferous Arab opposition. The Peel Commission report had some very salutary things to say about the Zionists and their impact on the land and on Arab society and economy. One of the most important for debunking Arab anti-Israel accusations is: "The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen (Arab peasants) are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the (Jewish) National Home​. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews...Much of the land (being farmed by the Jews) now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased...There was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land." The land shortage decried by the Arabs "...was due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population." (Chapter V in the report). El-Husseini's interview on January 12, 1937 was preserved in the Commission's notes and referenced, although not published, in the full report. It has been summarized by a number of scholars, including Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine 1917-1939 (Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2009) and Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to our Time (Alfred A. Knopf, 1976); and a detailed analysis with quotations from the interview can be found in Aaron Kleiman's The Palestine Royal Commission, 1937 (Garland Publications, 1987, pp. 298ff.). The selections from the interview presented below can be found on line here and here. Sir Laurie Hammond, a member of the Peel Commission, interviewed the Mufti about his insistence to the Commission that Zionists were stealing Arab land and driving peasants into homelessness. He spoke through an interpreter. SIR L. HAMMOND: Would you give me the figures again for the land. I want to know how much land was held by the Jews before the Occupation. MUFTI: At the time of the Occupation the Jews held about 100,000 dunams. SIR L. HAMMOND: What year? MUFTI: At the date of the British Occupation. SIR L. HAMMOND: And now they hold how much? MUFTI: About 1,500,000 dunams: 1,200,000 dunams already registered in the name of the Jewish holders, but there are 300,000 dunams which are the subject of written agreements, and which have not yet been registered in the Land Registry. That does not, of course, include the land which was assigned, about 100,000 dunams. SIR L. HAMMOND: What 100,000 dunams was assigned? Is that not included in, the 1,200,000 dunams? The point is this. He says that in 1920 at the time of the Occupation, the Jews only held 100,000 dunams, is that so? I asked the figures from the Land Registry, how much land the Jews owned at the time of the Occupation. Would he be surprised to hear that the figure is not 100,000 but 650,000 dunams? MUFTI: It may be that the difference was due to the fact that many lands were bought by contract which were not registered. SIR L. HAMMOND: There is a lot of difference between 100,000 and 650,000. MUFTI: In one case they sold about 400,000 dunams in one lot. SIR L. HAMMOND: Who? An Arab? MUFTI: Sarsuk. An Arab of Beyrouth. SIR L. HAMMOND: His Eminence gave us a picture of the Arabs being evicted from their land and villages being wiped out. What I want to know is, did the Government of Palestine, the Administration, acquire the land and then hand it over to the Jews? MUFTI: In most cases the lands were acquired. SIR L. HAMMOND: I mean forcibly acquired-compulsory acquisition as land would be acquired for public purposes? MUFTI: No, it wasn't. SIR L. HAMMOND: Not taken by compulsory acquisition? MUFTI: No. SIR L. HAMMOND: But these lands amounting to some 700,000 dunams were actually sold? MUFTI: Yes, they were sold, but the country was placed in such conditions as would facilitate such purchases. SIR I HAMMOND: I don't quite understand what you mean by that. They were sold. Who sold them? MUFTI: Land owners. SIR I HAMMOND: Arabs? MUFTI: In most cases they were Arabs. SIR L. HAMMOND: Was any compulsion put on them to sell? If so, by whom? MUFTI: As in other countries, there are people who by force of circumstances, economic forces, sell their land. SIR L. HAMMOND: Is that all he said? MUFTI: A large part of these lands belong to absentee landlords who sold the land over the heads of their tenants, who were forcibly evicted. The majority of these landlords were absentees who sold their land over the heads of their tenants. Not Palestinians but Lebanese. SIR L. HAMMOND: Is His Eminence in a position to give the Commission a list of the people, the Arabs who have sold lands, apart from those absentee landlords? MUFTI: It is possible for me to supply such a list. SIR L. HAMMOND: I ask him now this: does he think that as compared with the standard of life under the Turkish rule the position of the fellahin in the villages has improved or deteriorated? MUFTI: Generally speaking I think their situation has got worse. SIR L. HAMMOND: Is taxation heavier or lighter? MUFTI: Taxation was much heavier then, but now there are additional burdens. SIR L. HAMMOND: I am asking him if it is now, the present day, as we are sitting together here, is it a fact that the fellahin has a much lighter tax than he had under the Turkish rule? Or is he taxed more heavily? MUFTI: The present taxation is lighter, but the Arabs nevertheless have now other taxation, for instance, customs. LORD PEEL: And the condition of the fellahin as regards, for example, education. Are there more schools or fewer schools now? MUFTI: They may have more schools, comparatively, but at the same time there has been an increase in their numbers. The Hajj Amin el-Husseini, the intractable opponent of Zionism, a Jew-hater on par with Hitler, admitted under questioning that no Arab land was stolen; no Arabs were wiped out, no villages destroyed. Rather, the Jews bought hundreds of thousands of dunam (about ¼ of an acre) of land from willing sellers, often from absentee Arab landowners. Moreover, thanks in part to the Zionists and the British, the quality of life for Palestine's Arab peasantry was vastly improved, with less taxation, more schools, and an increase in Arab population. The next time someone spouts the Arab line about how Zionists came and stole Arab land and drove Arabs out, just quote the Mufti.
David Meir-Levi is an American-born Israeli,
currently living in Palo Alto. His expertise is in Near Eastern
studies and the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict. He is Director
of Peace and Education at Israel Peace Initiative (www.ipi-usa.org).
Contact him at david_meirlevi@hotmail.com
|
|
FAYYAD WARNS: NO TAX MONEY — NO MORE PA
Posted by Paul Lademain, November 25, 2011. |
|
Fayyad forgets his entity declared war on Israel. Declared that Israel has no right to exist. Therefore, Israel has no right or power to transfer any money to its declared enemy. Doesn't make any difference what name these arab intransigents use to identify themselves, they are the same arab intransigents who declared themselves the murders of Jews and the destroyers of Israel. Israel has no duty nor any obligation to aid its enemy in its quest to steal Israel's lands, kill Israel's people and lie like sacks of sh*t to the fatuous elderly Jew who currently fills the office of president of Israel. Viva to the withholders of monies arab intransigents demand. Elad Benari in Arutz Sheva wrote the article below: |
|
The Palestinian Authority may soon fail financially and cease to exist, its prime minister warned on Thursday. Salam Fayyad warned that if Israel does not resume the transfer of tax revenues it collects for the PA, the entity will collapse economically and thus cease to exist. Already now, Fayyad claimed, the PA cannot pay salaries to its employees. Channel 10 News reported that Fayyad made the comments following a meeting with Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. According to the report, Fayyad said that the collapse of PA institutions "is advancing rapidly toward the point at which they will stop operating." "We have no money," Fayyad was quoted as having said. "It's not about donations or international assistance we receive," he added, blaming the Israeli decision to freeze the taxes it collects for the PA as being the reason for the impending collapse. A recent World Bank report, while admitting that the PA is undergoing a financial crisis, said the crisis was primarily due to the lack of donor countries fulfilling their pledges to fork over billions of dollars to Ramallah. Israeli officials decided to halt the transfer of taxes to the PA as part of a round of sanctions against the entity, following its ascension as a 'full-member state' to UNESCO. Last week, Israel's cabinet voted to maintain the freeze. Israel transfers some $100 million in tax payments to the PA every month. Foreign Minister Støre reportedly said Fayyad is correct in saying that the PA will soon cease to exist, and compared the Israeli decision to waterboarding, the method of torture used by the United States on security prisoners, when interrogators simulate drowning by pouring water on the head of the prisoner. "This is waterboarding-style torture, only that it has to do with the economy," Støre was quoted as having said. On Tuesday, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon asked Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to resume the transfer of taxes to the PA, saying that transferring tax money to the PA would be in line with Israel's legal obligations.
Paul Lademain is a Secular Christian for Zion (SC4Z). Contact him by email at lademain@verizon.net |
|
IS CIVILIZATION OR BARBARISM GAINING?; DOES ISRAEL OWE THE P.A. MONEY?
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 25, 2011. |
|
CIVILIZATION OR BARBARISM, WHICH IS GAINING? Which is gaining, civilization or barbarism? New York Times columnist Nicholas D. Kristof believes that mankind is growing kinder and tolerant. He cites fewer wars, a smaller proportion of civilians killed in them, and less intolerance by race and gender. Education, he believes, has made a great difference (11/24/11). The evidence adduced is genuine. Its meaning and scope is debatable. Education is a necessary component of modern warfare and terrorism. The leading Islamist theoreticians and terrorist technicians often are educated and even are professionals. Yes, armies of the U.S. and Israel inflict fewer casualties upon enemy civilians. But Enemy forces seek to inflict more civilian casualties. They are not kinder. Certain societies have improved their gentility, but others have not. Europe doesn't want war any more, although the negative side of that is an inability to defend itself from barbarians. Females have equality in the U.S. but get raped extensively. Anarchy has been rising in the West, but a counter-reaction probably will keep it in check. In the wider world, the release of colonialist control, the counter-productive "war on drugs," and the rise of Islam and Radical Islam have boosted barbarism. In Africa, militias recruit children and murder whomever they come across, like army ants. Drug lords threaten to take over whole countries. Genocide lessened? Islam, especially in some countries, has a culture of violence, including genocide and revenge. Islam is fighting among itself over which faction controls, but launches infiltration and war in one country after another. Muslims allied to leftists are restricting freedom of speech in the West, as does phony political correctness. What is the trend in Islam? Political weather forecasters mistake an Arab winter for an Arab spring. In Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, Radical Muslims are rising to the top. Mr. Kristof's newspaper and the Wall St. Journal can't wait for the Egyptian military to give way to elections in which the Islamists elect delegates to impose Islamic law on the whole country. The media calls that free elections; I do not. How free is it when the moderates have little organization and financing needed for competing, and once in, the Islamists are not likely to let themselves be voted out? As the U.S. withdraws from Afghanistan and Iraq, Radicals will retake those countries and tighten their grip on Pakistan. The rise of the Radicals will counteract Western pressure that was eroding conservative Islamic oppression of women. Expect a rise of honor killings. More minorities will be driven out if not raped, robbed and murdered. Europe, itself, will be more imperiled. Its self-defense is hobbled by the absurd multiculturalism and political correctness practiced in the U.S., too, including by Mr. Kristof's newspaper. Brutal foreign governments develop weapons of mass-destruction, dimming our prospect for the future. Mr. Kristof did not take that into his account. We can be as optimistic as he, if we will work hard to resist apostles of aggression. DOES ISRAEL OWE THE P.A. MONEY? Ethan Bronner reports, "Israel Halts Payments to Palestinians, Adding to Fiscal Woes." Facts in the News Report: The Palestinian Authority (P.A.) is red-inking it, again. Local P.A. banks have extended themselves their utmost. Foreign donors renege on pledges, especially in these hard financial times. Israel again is withholding tax and customs payments that ordinarily comprise two-thirds of the P.A. budget. Israel's non-transfer retaliates against the P.A. for pursuing UN membership and sharing power with Hamas. Israel has withheld three weeks of transfer payments amounting to about $100 million. Foreign and P.A. officials consider such withholding capable of devastating the P.A. government and economy. A million residents depend on the P.A. payroll. Indeed, steady pay, an improved standard of living, and tighter security may be what have kept the P.A. from experiencing the regime-challenging riots that other Arab governments have. On the other hand, if P.A. workers go unpaid and they are not satisfied about gaining independence, they would consider the P.A. incompetent. Private entrepreneurs would be discouraged from investing there. Accordingly, U.S. officials, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, and Quartet envoy Blair all have asked PM Netanyahu to release the funds. Blair put it, "Only those who oppose peace and Israel-Palestinian cooperation benefit from the withholding of P.A. funds." An Israeli official said that if the P.A.-Hamas unification is perfunctory talk and the P.A. pulls back from its drive in the UN, the money would be released. Another Israeli official cited disturbing actions by P.A. head Abbas as indicating Israel should withhold the funds. Abbas praised the kidnappers of the recently released Israeli soldier and refuses to ever recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He also said nothing about the murder of an Israeli by a rocket fired from Gaza. And the P.A. joined UNESCO, a step toward full UN recognition. What is Israel's responsibility for the sequestered funds? The Oslo Accords of 1994 mandate the transfer. Israel collects for the P.A. customs duties for goods reaching Israeli ports for trans-shipment to the P.A., value-added taxes for Israeli goods sold to the P.A., and excise taxes on fuel that P.A. Arabs buy from Israel. Israeli officials point out that the P.A. actions that prompted the withholding all violate the Oslo Accords. Why should they be held to compliance with Oslo if the P.A. is not? The U.S. has suspended tens of millions of dollars in foreign aid to the P.A. for similar reasons. The IDF is said to believe that Israel needs the P.A. to function, or else Israel would have to provide services to its residents, including police protection. An aide to PM Netanyahu agreed (New York Times,11/24/11, A20. What the Report Omitted: The P.A. budget is accepted as legitimate. It is not. The P.A. has a higher proportion of "police" than any other government. In addition, the P.A. hires people for make-work jobs, for political reasons. Foreign donors and Israel should not be expected to support aggressor forces and excessive welfare benefits in the P.A. Although the U.S. and Israel pretend that only Hamas is bad and that they will not subsidize it, both subsidize it indirectly but definitely. From its own subsidy, Abbas turns a large portion over to the Hamas regime in Gaza. Therefore, U.S. and Israeli subsidy of the P.A. help finance the bloated bureaucracy in Gaza and Hamas control over Gaza. The P.A. has thoroughly violated the Oslo Accords and in worse ways than the Report stated. The P.A. has made war on Israel. It has failed to dissolve its terrorist organizations and its indoctrination in bigotry against Jews and jihad against Israel. Indeed, Abbas constantly honors terrorists and seeks to undermine Israel even while Israel strives to boost his economy. Contrary to what Tony Blair claims, I oppose subsidy for the P.A. but do not oppose peace. Accusing opponents of the P.A. of being enemies of peace is the usual anti-Israel propaganda club. Since the P.A. wants to conquer Israel and Abbas urges Arabs to make war on Israel, it would be fairer to say that some of those who favor subsidizing the P.A. oppose peace and that most of them are anti-Zionist. Among the anti-Zionists are Israeli military and civilian officials, who oppose Jewish residency in the Territories. Whom do they represent? To clarify, it is Congress that is withholding U.S. subsidy of the P.A.. The State Dept. does not agree with Congress. The State Dept., however, has a history of anti-Zionism. Why should the U.S. and Israel continue boosting the economy of such an obvious, mortal enemy? Could Israel be more foolish than continuing that policy? Oslo is used only to harm Israel. Why doesn't Israel declare it void, and advance its own rights and interests? In a mistaken response we are told that Israel is responsible for taking care of the P.A. Arabs. Israel is not responsible for them. An occupier would be responsible; Israel is not an occupier, not in its own homeland and where the Arabs did not have a state to be occupied. The legal status there is unallocated territory of the Palestine Mandate. Israel could dissolve the P.A., annex Jewish communities in the Territories, and declare Arab communities autonomous. Sure that would mean hardship for the P.A.. That should be Israel's goal — defeat of the jihadists. Hundreds of thousands would move out, reducing pressure on the land and water and strategic borders. It also would diminish P.A. forces that the U.S. builds up and that, like the powerful military of Egypt, Islamists will turn on Israel. What is wrong with U.S. and Israeli officials that they fail to see they are preparing jihadists for the next war on Israel? Isn't Israel really entitled to value-added taxes for Israeli goods sold to the P.A., and excise taxes on fuel that P.A. Arabs buy from Israel? As for the customs duties, they should be confiscated to reimburse Israelis and the government of Israel for losses and defense expenses due to P.A. terrorism? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com. |
|
HEY, GUYS, TURN ON THE LIGHTS
Posted by David Haivri, November 25, 2011. |
|
Thanksgiving is a good time to realize what really ticks off the haters of the Jews. And what it signifies for them. There's no arguing that the Jewish people represent a very small percentage of the total world population, and that the State of Israel is a tiny spot on the map. If you take a standard classroom globe and try to find Israel, it will be a real effort. The country is so small that it can hardly be seen. With all the talk internationally about the conflict betweenIsrael and the Arab states, you might expect to see some room for comparison, but in fact, the size of the Jewish state is 1/800 the size of the land controlled by the Muslim and Arab states around it. But turn to any media outlet around the world, and chances are that you will hear them talk about Israel. This has been the case for at least the past 70 years. Why is that? What is so special about the Jews and Israel? What happened about 70 years ago and that landed Israel on center stage for the world — a place it has occupied continually, all that time? It might be wise for us to try to figure this out, because this could be very significant for people everywhere. Why do the Arabs dislike the Jews and the State of Israel in particular? Is it really just because Israel is "occupying" Arab land? With the odds stated above, that would be a little hard to accept. Not only is Israel (including Judea and Samaria — a.k.a. the "West Bank") a very tiny portion of the Middle East, but also, this tiny strip of land called Israel has found virtually no natural resources in its ground. Israel is struggling to provide water for its inhabitants. The land has no oil or precious stones. Only recently has gas been found far offshore in the Mediterranean Sea — a project that still calls for much development. Could it be that that lack of natural resources just magnifies the astonishment of the world and the envy of our Arab neighbors? From even before its establishment, Arab states and terrorist groups have tried tirelessly to bring an end to Israel, physically. The regional rallying cry to "Throw the Jews in to the Sea!" has drifted into hopeless dreamland for the anti-Israel Arabs. What really ticks off the haters of the Jews is that it seems clearer and clearer that something almost magical sustains the Jews in the most difficult of times and pushes them to success and innovation where others would have given up. They scratch their heads and ask themselves, "Maybe G-d does exist, and He does have a special covenant with the Jews . . ." How else can this thriving survival be explained? They settled a desert and made it blossom; they dried out the swamps and built cities; they turned a start-up country into an international leader in hi-tech and innovation — all of this with the threat of annihilation and need to develop a regional super power defense system". It is just incredible. But it is also a simple fact that the world needs to deal with. Rightfully, they watch with awe and ask, "How could this be?" But we Jews must also look at this amazing reality and ask ourselves, "Why is this happening? And what does it demand of us as a nation and as individuals? Is there a reason that the G-d of history has put us on center stage? Is there something for which we are to use this platform? Perhaps a message to relay to the world whose eyes are on us from morning to night?" The answer is "Yes." G-d did not place the Jewish people in this situation by chance. There is a higher plan. The Creator chose the Jewish people and elevated them from the depths of the exile to the amazing accomplishment of the establishment of the State of Israel against all odds in order to prove to the world that He exists. He glorifies His name though the deeds of His people. The Jewish people have been placed on the center stage of history at this time in order to carry out the holy task of being a light unto the nations. We need to acknowledge that all of this greatness has come about by way of an agreement put in place many years ago between our fathers Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and G-d Himself. This land with all its hardships was given to our people in order to provide a platform for the Jews to declare, "G-d exists and the Torah is true!" The nations naturally and subconsciously look to Israel and its people for that message and for direction. The mission of the Jewish people is to be leaders for the people of the world and a light unto the nations. Jews, the time has come — turn the lights on, please. David Ha'ivri heads The Shomron International Liaison Office. He deals with foreign press, tours, partnerships and philanthropy for the development of the Jewish communities in the Shomron. He is a strategic advisor to Mayor Gershon Mesika. He and his wife Mollie live in Kfar Tapuach with their eight children. |
|
PRINCE WILLIAM, THE FALKLANDS, AND THOSE EXPANSIONIST JEWS...
Posted by Gerald A. Honigman, November 24, 2011. |
|
The AP article on November 14th spoke of Great Britain's Prince William, second in line to the throne, being deployed to Las Malvinas. The latter largely became known as the Falkland Islands the same way that Judea and Samaria became renamed the "West Bank"...as a result of British imperial shenanigans. To distinguish the western part of the original 1920 Mandate of Palestine from the Emirate of Transjordan the Brits created in 1922 for their Arab allies on the east bank of the Jordan River (some 80% of the total area), the name "West Bank" came into use. This was further reinforced after Transjordan grabbed that non-apportioned area of the Mandate for itself after it invaded a re-born Israel in 1948. Holding both banks of the river, the Emirate renamed itself Jordan soon afterward. If there is a difference, it's that long before there was either an Argentina or Great Britain, Jews were living, making history, and changing the world forever in the moral and spiritual legacy they left behind in Judea and Samaria. David was born in Bethlehem and was crowned King of Israel in Hebron and had children there. He would later make Jerusalem his capital — over three millennium ago. Jerusalem is mentioned over six hundred times in the Hebrew Bible — not even once in Arab Islam's Qur'an. Earlier, Abraham made Hebron known to the world in the first place by purchasing a burial plot there for many of the patriarchs and matriarchs of the Jewish people. Hannah dedicated her son, Samuel, to the service of G_d in the care of the High Priest, Eli, in Shiloh, and G_d renewed the promise of the Promised Land to Abraham's grandson, Jacob, at Bethel. Jacob made peace with his brother, Esau, at Penuel and by doing so was thus transformed by G_d into his higher self — Israel — in the process. The oldest known version of Biblical scripture ever found was located in the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran in the Judean Wilderness, and the Jews held off the mighty Roman Empire for years at the fortress of Masada. The list goes on... All of those places above are in Judea. While most of the world was still worshiping stone idols and practicing human sacrifice and fertility rights, the Jews — despite their own imperfections — were spreading the knowledge of an ethical G_d who demands justice, loves mercy, and commands that man should love his neighbor as himself to the rest of mankind. Have you ever wondered why Jews are so disproportionately represented in movements for human rights and social betterment throughout history? Look no further than what you just read above. They have indeed been — as G_d instructed them to be millennium ago in Zion — "a light unto the nations." So, Royal Air Force pilot, Prince William, has now set off to defend Her Majesty's claim to islands almost 8,000 miles away from home — land first acquired almost two centuries ago. At the same time, the Brits were expanding their empire far and wide elsewhere as well. Think about that a bit when you consider London's finger wagging at Jews simply wanting to live beyond the 9 to 15-mile wide ghetto of a state Israel was left as via the 1949 armistice lines which the Brits — and others — now expect Israel to return to. When Jews dig in the soil of Judea, Samaria, and Israel — despite their forced exile, Diaspora, and forced Arabization of the land and its people after the Jihad invasions of Muhammad's successors in the 7th century C.E. — Jews continuously find their own roots and history. They are indeed home... What do the Brits find when they dig on the Falklands? Or the Russians in Chechnya? Or the United States in Samoa? Yet all of those (and many more) nations' leaders act as if Jews are being unreasonable when they claim that they should once again be allowed to live in East Jerusalem and elsewhere — where Jews indeed owned land and lived up until the Arab massacres of the 1920s and 1930s. Regardless of the conflicting Argentinean and British claims to the territory Prince William is now assigned to, the plain fact is that the archipelago sits a few hundred miles off the coast of Argentina — and thousands of miles away from Great Britain. Yet the latter fought a war and acquired them in the first place in the name of its own sovereignty. Judea and Samaria are in Israel's backyard. Keep all of this in mind in light of the hypocrisy and double standards which Israel will undoubtedly continue to be subjected to in the days which lie ahead. Gerald A. Honigman, a Florida educator, has created and conducted counter-Arab propaganda programs for college youth, has lectured on numerous campuses and other platforms, and has publicly debated Arab spokesmen. His articles and op-eds have been published in both the print media and on websites. Contact him at honigman6@msn.com or go to his website: http://geraldahonigman.com/blog.php |
|
ROMNEY APPOINTS SCHOLAR AS MIDEAST ADVISER
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 24, 2011. |
|
Mitt Romney appointed Walid Phares, "a Lebanese-American Christian, adjunct professor of jihadist global strategies at the National Defense University, and former Middle East studies professor at Florida Atlantic University" as his special adviser on the Middle East and North Africa. Prof. Phares "advocates pluralism as the most effective means of triumphing over extremism, tribalism, and Islamic supremacism in the Middle East." He does not blame America, Israel, Christians, and Jews for these problems. He finds that despite jihadist wars, U.S. academia has been infiltrated by people who refuse to teach the real history and politics of the jihadists. The appointment brought out howls of protest by Islamists. For example, "Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) — an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Hamas funding case and the chief Islamist organ in the U.S." stated CAIR's objections, the usual calumny. "California State University, Stanislaus political science professor and 'Angry Arab' blogger As'ad AbuKhalil, writing for Salon.com," attributed the appointment to the Israel lobby. To get an idea of AbuKhalil's fanaticism, he even accused Pres. Obama [an Israel-basher, himself] "of giving 'free reign to the Zionist lobby.'" AbuKhalil told al Jazeera we never would recognize the "Zionist Sate of Israel. He would celebrate its demise. Although AbuKhalil falsely describes Phares' time in Lebanon as a right-wing, Christian militant, AbuKhalil "is known in the Lebanese and Middle Eastern American communities as the mouthpiece of Hassan Nasralla in the world of petrodollar-funded Middle East Studies." Then there is Ebrahiom Mossa, associate professor of Islamic studies at Duke University. He accused Phares of hostility to Muslims. [That is the standard Islamist counter-attack against criticism of Islamist imperialism and intolerance.] To gauge his lack of objectivity on hostility to Muslims, consider that Prof. Moosa had told the "Charlotte Observer in February 2010 that 'Wahhabism is like the Baptists; it's kind of a denomination of sorts that started out in Saudi Arabia." [Wahhabism is one of the three main fonts of terrorism, the others being the Moslem Brotherhood and Iran, perhaps also the Taliban.] Similarly, Moosa, speaking at a University of California, Berkeley workshop in May 2011, and as described by journalist Stephen Schwartz, "defended Deobandism, the madrassa-based radical ideology that inspires the Taliban.'" Unlike those anti-Western professors, Prof. Phares is not biased.
He neither hates Muslims nor fawns on Israel. He and the Association
for the Study of the Middle East and Africa (ASMEA), where he often
lectures, are a necessary alternative to the Middle Eastern Studies
Association, which is a vehicle for anti-Western professors and bias
against Israel and does not welcome him (Cinnamon Stillwell,
American Thinker,
Note: Congress subsidizes the Middle Eastern Studies centers of many universities. The subsidy started in the hope of gaining valuable advice for national policy. Instead, those centers for subversion give poor or hostile advice and have helped subvert U.S. higher education. But the subsidy rolls on. In the meantime, Americans would be wise to dismiss the diatribes of U.S. Islamists and professors in Middle Eastern Studies centers and perhaps to dismiss its agents of anti-Western jihad. That would be a war measure for national defense. We should welcome Gov. Romney's hiring of an informed and objective adviser. He contrasts strongly with President Obama, all of whose advisers on the Mideast are anti-Israel. Pres. Obama's policies, by design or by default, often are anti-American. He refuses to mount an ideological defense against Radical Islam or even to name it as the enemy. He shrinks U.S. military and economic power. He withdraws U.S. forces, leaving Iran more influential and enabling Radical Muslims to return. He helps topple despots who kept Islamists at bay. He consults with Radical Muslims and ignores Muslim reformists. In general, he insults and harms allies and praises or appeases America's enemies. P.S.: In calling Prof. Phares a "scholar," I differentiate him from the radical professors mentioned, because they are not scholars but propagandists and enemy ones at that, posing as scholars. My praise of Romney is just on the issue discussed, but my criticism of Obama is comprehensive in scope. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com. |
|
EGYPT: MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD VERSUS ARMY: DISASTROUS ELECTIONS OR BLOODY CIVIL WAR?
Posted by Barry Rubin, November 24, 2011. |
|
Only days before parliamentary elections, Egypt is in a huge crisis whose outcome will determine the future of almost 80 million people and perhaps the Arabic-speaking world's fate for decades to come. Will the army go ahead with elections that will be won by the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Salafist groups, thus producing an Islamist regime? Or will it cancel elections, declare martial law in some form, and set off a passionate civil conflict? Or will it find some compromise that quiets the disorder but doesn't solve the problems (see below for the proposed new deal)? That's quite a difficult choice and not one the army prefers. Understandably, the military has a third alternative: set up some compromise rules for the new Egyptian state that leave it feeling secure even if this plan sacrifices a lot of other factors. The nominal cause of this upheaval are the demonstrations in Tahrir square that have produced a bloodier tool than any single event in the entire Egyptian revolutionary process, with more than 30 people dead. But the real background is this: Despite the persistent mocking of Western officials, media, and "experts" about the Muslim Brotherhood's weakness and moderation, it has become increasingly apparent that a very radical Muslim Brotherhood will take power and fundamentally transform Egypt into something far worse than that which existed during the six-decades-long Nasser-Sadat-Mubarak regime. The army's compromise went along the following lines: A parliament would be elected on November 28. In April 2012 it would choose a 100-member assembly to write a new constitution, a process that would take one year. After the constitution was written by April 2013 it would be ratified. Only then, in the second half of 2013, would a president be elected and the military junta stand aside and yield executive authority. So much for the delaying aspects of the plan; there were also provisions for protecting the military's interests. It would retain control of its own budget, which would remain secret; moreover the junta could veto the constitution entirely or in part. And finally, though vaguely, it wanted some provisions to protect rights including those of the Christian minority. The last item presumably was out of concern with the country's international reputation. The junta's position is a combination of greed and its self-image as guardian of Egypt's national interest. Officers enrich themselves by large-scale business enterprises. At the same time, they are no doubt aware of the likelihood that an Islamist regime would eventually purge the army and arrest officers — as is happening in Turkey, the explicit model for the Muslim Brotherhood's strategy — and replace them with its ideological followers. They also might take into account that the Brotherhood is likely to get Egypt into a losing war with Israel and take steps that would cost the military hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. aid. Now this clash in itself has added still another dimension. It is said that if you wound an elephant you have to kill it as otherwise the enraged leviathan will trample you. The Brotherhood now sees the military as an enemy and if it comes to power would have all the more incentive to crush that rival. There are no good options. As the two sides maneuver here are the precedents that must affect their thinking: Algeria: In 1991, the Islamists won the first round of elections and were headed for a landslide victory. The army declared a state of emergency and canceled the elections. A long and bloody civil war ensued in which to say that only 30,000 people were killed is an understatement. In the end, the military won. Turkey: For almost a decade the army stood aside and let the Islamists win repeated elections and govern as they wished. The generals considered a coup attempt but never tried one as they knew there would be no external support and it might set off a civil war. In the end, the Islamists accused them of planning a coup anyway, broke the power of the military, and arrested dozens of current and former high-ranking officers. Tunisia: The army stood aside and let the Islamists win an election. They will now govern in a coalition with the left. It is unclear what will happen and what the military thinks about the situation. As you can see, the alternatives are unattractive and we don't know what will happen. The West is siding with the civilians: democratic rule, elections, a military regime is bad. See for example the somewhat bizarre Washington Post editorial that attacks the Obama Administration for being too soft on the generals! It demands that Obama threaten to cut off military aid unless the junta gives in. This is a misreading of the White House stance that is critical of the junta but doesn't want to get directly involved. That makes sense in normal conditions but might be disastrous on a strategic level. We've been through this kind of thing before in which the supposed good becomes the worse of two evils. The Bush Administration supported Hamas participating in the Palestinian election out of some sense of misguided fairness plus depending on fantasy-laden Fatah polls predicting that Hamas would lose. The Bush and Obama administrations stood by and cheered the "moderate Islamists" in Turkey as they moved step by step to install and strengthen an anti-American regime there. In contrast, regarding Algeria the presidents at the time took a realpolitik view, arguably maintaining their distance and neutrality while in practice supporting the military's victory. France did the dirty work, something that doesn't apply to these contemporary situations. The attitude of the moderate Egyptian parties is interesting. On one hand, they are totally against the military retaining power or even a lot of power; on the other hand, they are starting to get real scared about what it would be like to live in an Egypt governed by the Muslim Brotherhood and even more violent Islamists. They are pulling back a bit from taking sides in this struggle. After meeting with the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist groups (but not the liberals who were left out, an indication of how insignificant they are becoming politically!), the junta has a new proposal: The new constitution is set to be finished by June 2012 (not April 2013) and the presidential election will be held no later than June 2012 (instead of June 2013). The parliamentary elections will happen as scheduled. If this is so and it is implemented, it means that the Islamists have forced the military to back down completely, a victory that will add to their confidence that they will get everything they want. Arguably, Egypt is even worse off now than it was a week ago. Perhaps, though, there are other aspects to the deal we haven't heard about yet. Having cut its own deal, the Brotherhood stopped participating in anti-government demonstrations. "The Brotherhood refused to join the protests, saying that the parliamentary election due to start Nov. 28 is the way to transfer power." Right, transfer it to them.
This was written by Barry Rubin, who is director of the Global
Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of
"Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History"
(Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria
(Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at
|
|
SAVING JERUSALEM...
Posted by Isi Leibler, November 24, 2011. |
|
It is inconceivable that neighborhoods like Ramot, Gilo, French Hill, Ramat Eshkol and Givat Ze'ev will ever be seceded from Israel. The ongoing pressures exerted against construction in Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem like Gilo reflect intensified global efforts to redivide the city. Like many aspects of the Israeli-Arab conflict, the issue of Jerusalem is being reviewed in a vacuum without relationship to the reality on the ground. It also overlooks the abominable restrictions on freedom of worship in the eastern part of the city between 1948 and 1967 when the city was occupied by Jordan. Jewish holy sites, including the 2000 year-old Jewish cemetery t the Mount of Olives were desecrated, with tombstones used to build latrines. In the Old City, all 58 synagogues were razed to the ground, including the ancient Hurva synagogue. Abdulla el-Tal, Jordan's military governor of the Old City and an uninhibited anti-Semite, proudly proclaimed that "for the first time in 1,000 years, not a single Jew remains in the Jewish quarter... and as not a single building remains intact, this makes the return of the Jews here impossible." Christians were also maltreated, with over 60 percent of them emigrating from Jerusalem during that period. Yet, since the reunification of the city in 1967 following Israel's victory over the combined Arab assault, complete freedom of religion was immediately extended to all citizens of Jerusalem. In addition, universities, hospitals and social service facilities provided absolutely equal services
to Jew and Arab alike. One need only visit any of the major hospitals in Jerusalem to verify the extraordinary high standard of health benefits that unification provided for Arab residents.
IRONICALLY, JEWS today are the ones being discriminated against by their own government in their own capital. In 1967, immediately after the liberation of Jerusalem, Moshe Dayan effectively handed over the keys of the Temple Mount to the Muslim Waqf (religious authority), who retained total control and jurisdiction over this extensive area which includes the holiest Jewish site in the world. It proved to be a disastrous blunder. That situation was further aggravated by the rabbinate, which on halachic grounds prohibited Jews from visiting the holy site. However, today many national religious rabbis maintain that Jews are entitled to visit most of the area and even consider it a mitzva to pray there. But on a recent visit to the Temple Mount, I was astonished to observe the bizarre spectacle of Jews being bundled off by Israeli police in co-operation with the Wakf for quietly engaging in private prayer. I was informed that some Jews who were seen praying are permanently prohibited from visiting the area. This is scandalous. For Israeli police to deny Jews the right to pray at their holiest site in their own capital because it offends Muslim sensitivities is surely outrageous. It amounts to practicing inverse discrimination, denying the same freedom of worship to our own people which we take pride in guaranteeing to others. This chaotic arrangement also provided fuel to Palestinians to initiate a massive exercise in historical revisionism in order to bolster their false narrative. They are now frenziedly attempting to deny the Jewish links to Jerusalem and make the preposterous allegation that the Jewish relationship to Jerusalem was effectively a Zionist fabrication designed to justify the "invasion" of Palestine. It is a form of revisionism no less obscene than Holocaust denial and has emerged as a central tenet of hostile Palestinian nationalism. As late as the 1930s, Muslim Council guidebooks identified Solomon's Temple on the site. But those references were expunged in 1954 in favor of a new historical "narrative." In 2000, Arafat stunned then-US president Bill Clinton at Camp David by declaring that "Solomon's Temple was not in Jerusalem. It was in Nablus." On another occasion he said it was in Yemen. Others, like Palestinian Authority spokesman Saeb Erekat, alleged that "the issue of the Temple... is a Jewish invention lacking any basis." PA President Mahmoud Abbas now repeatedly dismisses any Jewish link to the Holy Land and the PA Ministry of Information website describes the Jewish connection to Jerusalem as a "biblical myth." Even the "moderate" Sari Nusseibeh claimed that "the historical ties and attachments of the Palestinians precede any Israeli claim to Jerusalem." These expressions were recently extended to even include denial of a Jewish link to the Western Wall. Only last week, Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayib, head of Cairo's al-Azhar University and the principal global religious authority for Sunni Muslims, warned that the continued "Judaization" of Jerusalem, which he claimed had originally been constructed by Arabs, would result in the annihilation of "the Zionist entity in Palestine." In addition, we are witnessing a systematic, ongoing course of wanton destruction in which bulldozers have been employed on the Temple Mount by the Palestinian Wakf in order to eliminate ancient Jewish archaeological evidence. But despite protests and expressions of outrage from most Israeli archeologists, the government has refused to intervene. The links of the Jewish people to Jerusalem are at the very core of our national and spiritual history and identity. For over 2,000 years of exile we yearned and prayed for a return to Jerusalem, and since 1800 Jews have constituted the majority of the population of Jerusalem.
IT IS noteworthy that Yitzhak Rabin, in what proved to be his last Knesset speech before being assassinated, pledged that Jerusalem would never again be divided. Yet the sad truth is that in addition to condemning any construction in Jewish Jerusalem as "undermining the peace process," neither the United States nor the Europeans have even recognized Israeli sovereignty over west Jerusalem. There is no doubt that were any areas of Jerusalem ever to fall under Palestinian jurisdiction, the despicable discriminatory practices applied by the Jordanians until 1967 would be reintroduced. Abu Mazen [Abbas] has already publicly proclaimed that not a single Jew would be permitted to live in any future Palestinian state. It is also inconceivable that neighborhoods like Ramot, Gilo, French Hill, Ramat Eshkol and Givat Ze'ev will ever be seceded from Israel. No power could evacuate over 100,000 Jews from these areas. Interestingly, a recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Center for Public Opinion demonstrated that 59 percent of Arab residents in Jerusalem were satisfied with their standard of living and that the majority strongly objected to dividing the city and living under PA jurisdiction. In fact, as many as 40% stated that if the city was divided, they would prefer to move to an Israeli neighborhood rather than fall under the authority of the corrupt Palestinian Authority and possibly eventually find themselves under Hamas control. Our take: It's not that the Arabs wish to be part of Israel. The main reason for wishing to remain under Israeli-Jewish sovereignty is the benefits they receive; Blue ID cards that allow these people to travel anywhere in Israel,medical & health benefits, welfare payments ...and no one stops them from declaring they are loyal to the " Palestine cause" or participate in the Naqba very Israeli Independence day. Isi Leibler was involved in the struggle for Soviet Jewry. From Australia, he made aliya in 1999. He has held senior roles in the World Jewish Congress, including chairman of the governing board and senior vice president. He is a regular columnist for The Jerusalem Post and Yisrael Hayom. Contact him by email at editor@WordfromJerusalem.com and visit his website athttp://wordfromjerusalem.com/ |
|
FRENCH JOURNALIST BRUTALLY MOLESTED IN TAHRIR SQUARE
Posted by Nidra Poller, November 24, 2011. |
|
State-owned France 3 TV channel's evening newscast had a longish item about revolt in Egypt (beginning at the 7:09 mark), focused this time on juvenile demonstrators. With the typical gushing enthusiasm displayed by the media since they started marketing the Arab Springtime, the blond female journalist sang the praises of these minors who were palming rocks and shooting somber shabab glances at the camera. A man identified as a 33 year-old tour guide who had quit his job [sic] and was now living and protesting full time in Tahrir Square was their spokesman... perhaps their handler. "They are so courageous," he boasted, "if they get cut on the forehead they'll go and get it bandaged and come right back and fight." The report went on aimlessly. There isn't really much to be said about all this hair trigger rage multiplied by the hundreds of thousands. And reporters just keep saying whatever comes to mind, or whatever everyone is saying. An aerial camera pans over the multitude from a safe distance. And you wonder how anyone can claim to know who these people are and what they want. Isn't that the difference between democracy and a mob? Occasionally a journalist, most often female, delves into the mob, finds her angle, and works it to the bone. Her cameraman swiftly averts his lens when it comes upon a gaggle of veiled women or bearded men. The journalist scoops up three or four or a dozen of some kind of people and lets them speak for the multitude. This evening it was the kids. As the French reporter, Caroline Sinz, was winding down, I noticed a contingent of boys and men closing in on her from behind. It seemed that one young man in a black tee shirt was holding them back. Was he a body guard? A good Samaritan? Or a sleazy dude ready to close in? Back in the studio the newscaster mentioned almost casually that Caroline Sinz and her cameraman were attacked by the kids they had just filmed. A bit later the newscaster on the sister channel France 2 laconically mentioned that two France 3 journalists were attacked in Cairo. Here's what actually happened, as reported in le Figaro newspaper: Caroline Sinz declares that she and her cameraman Salah Agrabi were filming on Mohamed Mahmoud Street — that goes from Tahrir Square to the Interior Ministry — when they were assaulted by teenage boys. They molested her, and dragged both of them to Tahrir Square where they were separated. "We were attacked by a crowd of men. I was beaten by a mob of boys and men who tore off my clothes and molested me... it can be defined as rape." A few people tried in vain to help her. "I was lynched. It lasted about forty-five minutes. I thought I was going to die." The cameraman was also beaten. Finally some Egyptians in the Square were able to rescue them. Sinz returned to her hotel where she was given assistance by the French embassy before seeing a doctor. [an update will follow as more information emerges] Nidra Poller is a journalist based in Paris.
Contact her at nidrapol@gmail.com.
This article appeared in
New English Review
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: HE'S NOT BUYING IT
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 24, 2011. |
|
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is not remotely convinced, nor should he be: In certain quarters of the international community the idea is being promoted that a peace treaty hastily negotiated between Israel and the PA would have a mollifying effect on the unrest in the Arab world. EU Ambassador to Israel Andrew Standley, for example, said at a Jerusalem press conference yesterday that Israel should move quickly to settle with the Palestinians to remove this conflict as an issue on the Egyptian street. Failure to move ahead on negotiations, he declared, should not be allowed to become an additional "disturbing factor" in the Arab world. ~~~~~~~~~~ Now, really. This is a spin off of the arguments the Obama administration was making some while ago. The notion that a peace treaty between Israel and the PA, or lack thereof, is an issue of major importance within the Arab world is a myth that has no legs to stand on. While I would never go as far as to state unequivocally that this issue is never mentioned on the Egyptian street — although when it is, it is more as a function of anti-Israel sentiment than because of genuine concern for the Palestinian Arabs — it clearly is not center stage. The Egyptians are engaged in conflict about the future of their own nation. As Boaz Bismuth, reporting for Israel Hayom writes, while there had been a sense of enthusiasm and unity expressed by the mobs in Tahrir Square when Mubarak was overthrown, "This time around, Egypt is divided, disappointed, not expecting anything, scared, violent, opportunistic and in terrible pain." It's the military regime against the street, which has not been satisfied with promises of elections and reforms. The Muslim Brotherhood is joining forces with Salafists, says Bismuth, to gain control. In the course of this struggle, Israel is occasionally being vilified on the street because we are perceived as being allied with the military regime: "Israel is no friend of the Egyptian people. They support the army that is shooting at us." Well, it's true. The military regime has maintained the peace treaty — something the Muslim Brotherhood might well not do — and has sustained a relationship with Israel in spite of rocky moments. That radical jihadists should replace the regime that is currently welcoming back our ambassador is our worst nightmare with regard to Egypt. Were Netanyahu to sit down at a table across from Abbas, it would change none of this. It's the old story of the onus being placed unreasonably on Israel. ~~~~~~~~~~ Not only does Netanyahu understand this, he grasps the fact that our rushing to negotiations with the PA at this juncture (which at a minimum would mean stopping all construction outside the Green Line and agreeing to that line as the basis for negotiations) would play against Israel's best interests. In two statements within the last couple of days, he made it clear that making concessions at a time of uncertainty would not be a wise move. "Last February I stood on this stage," he told the Knesset, "as millions of Egyptians took to the streets of Cairo, and my friends in the opposition explained that this is a new time of liberalism and modernity. When I said that, despite our hopes, it's more likely that an Islamist, anti-America, anti-Israel wave will come, I was told that I'm trying to scare people and that I don't understand where things are going. "Well, things are going somewhere. They're going backwards, not forwards. I'm looking at reality, not hopes and wishes." Netanyahu warned that, "We can't know who will end up with any piece of territory we give up. Reality is changing all the time, and if you don't see it, your head is buried in the sand." It was clear, he said, that his "careful attitude was correct, smart and responsible." Israel is facing regional instability. ~~~~~~~~~~ Before turning to other, albeit related, issues, I want to make one other point with regard to Egypt. This is from Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council. Egypt's economy, he warns, is in dire shape: "Since this spring, in a development largely unnoticed by the outside world, the Egyptian economy has virtually imploded... ~~~~~~~~~~ One is hard put to understand why this has been largely ignored by a host of media analysts, especially as this unquestionably has to be a source of the unrest on the street. Berman does not see the situation as hopeless: "New infusions of foreign capital from Western stakeholders, if judiciously disbursed and pegged to real economic and political reforms, could begin to reverse the country's current, ruinous course — or, at least, provide Egypt's government with much-needed breathing room to begin putting its economic house in order." ~~~~~~~~~~ And yet one other thought occurs to me. A nation that close to bankruptcy literally cannot afford to wage war. ~~~~~~~~~~ After two hours of talks in Cairo today, PA President Mahmoud Abbas and head of the Hamas politburo Khaled Mashaal emerged with glowing statements regarding a new partnership. Enthused Mashaal: "We want to assure our people and the Arab and Islamic world that we have turned a major new and real page in partnership on everything do to with the Palestinian nation." While Abbas declared: "There are no more differences between us now. We have agreed to work as partners with joint responsibility." No more differences indeed. That's pure PR hype. What matters now is not these glib words, but what follows in terms of true understandings. There is no announcement at this point regarding composition of the joint government, or — most critically — of the identity of the projected new prime minister. Seems that individual has not yet been selected — his identity will be determined in meetings in December. Also still to be discussed are the restructuring of the security forces of each group, and changes to the PLO — to which Hamas does not now belong but which it seeks in time to control. What this means, then, is that the "new partnership" could yet founder as the hard issues are confronted. But if this cooperation does proceed, there will a considerable shift in what has been the situation to date. ~~~~~~~~~~ A key issue will be that of funding for this new Palestinian Arab entity-in-the-making. Abbas, with his UN/UNESCO gambits of the last few months, had already generated a reluctance to provide the PA with funds. Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) — enormously irked by his counterproductive actions — had put a hold on US funds to the PA. Under truly incredible pressure, she removed the hold. However, it is impossible for me to conceive of a situation in which the PA-Hamas jointly would receive US funding; what is more, EU funding would likely be cut as well. ~~~~~~~~~~ With regard to US funding of the PA, I draw particular attention to the on-going funding and training of the so-called PA security forces. When moves have been made to stop funding to the PA, the protest was often heard that the one program that should not be cut was the training of the forces. But this has been an error of colossal proportions. Two years ago I wrote a major report analyzing the dangers of this program. The forces were being trained to take on terrorists — notably Hamas. But, I asked in 2009, how could this training be done when its US sponsors could not be sure at the end of the day who would control these forces. And now we have a situation in which there may be a "restructuring" of PA-Hamas forces, such that Hamas may end up commanding the very forces that were supposed to act against it. Abbas has said he would join Hamas in a "resistance" government; Hamas has said there would be no recognition of Israel or agreements with Israel. If a joint PA-Hamas security force should be formed and decide to take on Israel, it will be better trained and better equipped than it otherwise would have been thanks to the stupidity of the Americans promoting this program. If I could see this possibility coming, why could they not? Because they were invested in the program, and were wearing blinders — the blinders many don when dealing with the Palestinian Arabs. ~~~~~~~~~~ Israel, for her part, decided to withhold tax revenues collected for the PA, in response to the recent UNESCO acceptance of "Palestine," which had been requested by Abbas. Pressure within the international community was then promoted by Abbas to get Israel to release the funds — most notably a demand in this regard from UN Secretary-General Ban. This past Sunday, the Cabinet voted not to release the funds pending the outcome of today's meeting between Abbas and Mashaal. I do not believe that money will be seen by the PA any time soon. ~~~~~~~~~~ Another change we would witness would be — I must assume — a cessation of demands that Israel rush to the negotiating table with the Palestinian Arabs. Israel, for her part, has made it very clear that this possibility should not even be entertained if there is a unity government. The recent demands by persons such as the EU's Standley that we rush to the negotiating table were made before today's meeting in Cairo. But it was known that the meeting was pending. Makes the demands on Israel rather incredible. Unless there was some unspoken hope that by making requisite concessions with all possible speed we might lure Abbas from meeting with Mashaal. Sorry guys. ~~~~~~~~~~ The last change I would fervently hope to see would be definitive action on the part of Israel with regard to finally recognizing that Oslo is truly, truly dead. Maybe application of civil law to all communities in Judea and Samaria, for starters. ~~~~~~~~~~ With regard to the application of Israeli civil law in Judea and Samaria: The Canadians for Israel's Legal Rights has just announced that "The Jewish People's Rights to the Land of Israel" by Salomon Benzimra has been published in Kindle format via Amazon. Please see their website for full information on how to access this material, which "is the result of extensive research on the historical events and legal documents that enshrined Israel's Legal Rights in international law."
~~~~~~~~~~ Former head of the Mossad, Danny Yatom, speaking yesterday at a security conference at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies came out firmly in favor of Israel hitting Iran: "As difficult a price it may be [if Iran is hit], and even if those predicting apocalyptic results are correct — and I don't think they are — this is still not as bad as the threat of an Iranian nuclear bomb." Israel can't allow herself to be put in the position of having "to wake up every morning and ask, 'Will they go crazy and throw a bomb on us or not?'...the damage that an Iranian nuclear bomb can cause is so great." As to the rocket response from Hamas and Hezbollah, he predicted that Israel's response would be 'so painful and crushing that rockets will come to an end. "Civilian facilities and infrastructures in Lebanon and Gaza will be hit...But the barrage of rockets will no longer be falling over our heads." ~~~~~~~~~~ See this article about attempts by the PA — acting as a full member of UNESCO — to get this UN agency to declare the Cave of the Patriarchs (the Machpelah), Judaism's most ancient site, to be a World Heritage site belonging only to the Palestinians.
~~~~~~~~~~ While it's business as usual for me here today, I do recognize that in the US it is Thanksgiving. And so I wish a happy holiday to all. Enjoy your turkey, and your sweet potatoes, and your pumpkin pie. Enjoy each other, as you gather around the table. This American holiday, in particular, has always seemed to me quintessentially Jewish in its practice and sensibility: Both because of the need to express gratitude for blessings, and because of the model of the harvest festival of Sukkot. Actually, I believe that the Pilgrims, who were immersed in their Old Testament, were mindful of Sukkot. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website at www.arlenefromisrael.info |
|
ISRAEL21. THE MEN WHO MAKE NEW LIMBS
Posted by Roger Bodle, November 23, 2011. |
|
This was written by Abigail Klein Leichman and appeared in Israel21c November 20, 2011. Yehuda Pilosof and his son Yisrael have a global reputation for outfitting amputees (and even an occasional donkey) with quality artificial limbs. |
As a professional Israeli soccer player, Yisrael Pilosof used his powerful legs to build a name for himself. His father, Yehuda, built a name for himself with powerful legs made from titanium and carbon fiber. Four years ago, Yisrael left the playing field and joined his father's Rishon LeZion prosthetics workshop, Y.D. Gapim. Together they manufacture precision artificial limbs for Israeli amputees and for clients from Peru, Haiti, Albania, Germany, Kazakhstan, Sri Lanka, Ukraine, Egypt, Jordan — and even the United States. "I know it's strange," Yehuda tells ISRAEL21c. "The US and Germany have the best technology in this field. But the talent of the hands is more important." Yehuda also started out as a star soccer player, advancing to the national team as a teen. But in 1967, his high school principal persuaded him to find a solid career path, and he became an orthopedic technician. "To me, it's an art," he says. He began by fashioning hands, although of the thousands of artificial limbs he's been commissioned to make over the years, the majority are legs. People hear about Yehuda Pilosof from friends and family in Israel, and also from media publicity. In 1999, he was in the headlines for fitting a Jerusalem Arab's donkey with a new leg. The crippled animal would otherwise have been euthanized. 'You have to be strong from the inside' When Yisrael and his two sisters were children, they were a little wary of the limbless clients they encountered in their dad's shop. 
"It was scary to see all these amputees," says Yisrael, now a 30-year-old newlywed. "I am very sensitive, and you have to be strong from the inside to deal with all the things you see, but I knew one day I would do this, like my father does. I got to a phase in my life where suddenly I was ready." Israel doesn't offer formal courses for prosthetics technicians, so the former soccer player took physiology courses in Tel Aviv University and traveled to Germany for training. Back home, he continued learning at his father's side. "I have great teacher; one of the best," he tells ISRAEL21c with a smile. Yisrael learned how to put his feelings aside and focus on the positive outcome of his work. Still, the youngest patients tug at his heartstrings. He shows a video clip of a little Arab girl from Hebron trying out her new prosthetic feet in the Pilosofs' workshop. She's grinning, but it wasn't like that beforehand. "When she first came to us, she was so sad. Then after she started walking with the prostheses, she started to dance. It made us so happy." Their youngest patient was a boy referred from Jerusalem's ALYN Pediatric and Adolescent Rehabilitation Center, born with no hands. "We started working with him when he was 2 and a half, and now we are 'growing up' with him. Every few months we make him new hands because he grows very fast," Yisrael says. Helping amputees in Haiti and Peru Right after Haiti's catastrophic earthquake in January 2010, the phone rang in the workshop and a man told Yisrael he was calling from the office of President Shimon Peres for Yehuda Pilosof. Yisrael thought it was a practical joke and hung up. But the man called back and persuaded him to get his father on the phone. "They told us they wanted to get an Israeli group together to build a rehab center in Haiti, and the president had heard about my father's work," recalls Yisrael. Yehuda traveled to Haiti twice. He made limbs for 15 people, including a professional dancer from Port-au-Prince who was flown to Israel after losing his right leg during the earthquake. 
He still gets emotional when he describes the scenes Israeli relief workers encountered in Haiti. He recalls a man lying on the ground just outside the hospital clutching a baby. The man was dead and the living child had to be pried out of his arms. Yehuda prayed every morning alongside Muslim Turkish relief workers. He brought along his own kosher food, but ended up handing it out, along with his clothing, underwear and socks, to earthquake victims. "All the conditions were very difficult. It's impossible to understand if you didn't see it." When Yisrael received a call a few months later from MASHAV, Israel's Center for International Cooperation, asking the Pilosofs to lead a seminar on prosthetics in Peru, he realized right away it wasn't a joke. The seminar was the result of a conversation between the Israeli ambassador to Peru and the wheelchair-bound Peruvian minister of health. The Pilosofs spent 10 days at a rehab center, training technicians and physicians. "We were in shock because the machines and materials there were like what we used 35 years ago," says Yehuda, who also traveled to Sri Lanka in 1992 to make artificial limbs for soldiers as part of a hush-hush Israeli humanitarian mission. "They were still using wood and stainless steel, which are very heavy and difficult to work with." The Peruvians were extremely grateful, Yisrael says. Just before they left, one of the trainees approached Yisrael. Wearing a crucifix, he asked the Israeli through the translator if he had a star of David (Magen David) to give him. The Israeli realized he had such a necklace tucked away in his wallet. "I gave it to him and he put it right around his neck." Dreaming of opening an Israeli center for prosthetics Yehuda has made thousands of limbs for victims of accidents, illness, terrorism and war. "The process takes about three days depending on how big the prosthesis is and how long we have to spend with the patient to perfect the alignment," he says. The oldest patient was a 95-year-old man who had lost a leg many years before. The Pilosofs don't make myoelectric prosthetic limbs, which can be moved with the help of electric signals from the patient's arm muscles, because few patients qualify for such a specialized prosthesis. To increase the number of young people going into the field in Israel, Yehuda wants to open a training center that would also offer seminars for orthopedic technicians and doctors from all over the world. The dream may become reality with the help of a former patient, a wealthy European woman who came to the Pilosofs last year out of desperation. "She was a double amputee and a difficult case ... nobody wanted to touch it," recalls Yisrael. "We were the first people in the world to believe she could walk again after 12 or 13 years in a wheelchair. She wanted to show all those who said 'no' that it could be done. We made the two legs for her and she walked. Now she's promised to build us a [training] center here. We're hopeful."
Contact Roger Bodle at rjbodle@xtra.co.nz
|
|
EGYPT: FEMALE POLITICAL CANDIDATE SAYS 'WOMEN DEFICIENT IN INTELLIGENCE'
Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, November 23, 2011. |
|
According to the Arabic newsite Donia Alwatan, a female, Salafi candidate running for Egypt's parliament, Mona Salah (pictured), asserts that "women are deficient in intelligence and religion," and that, in agreement with Sharia, it is impermissible for them to take over the presidency. Female political candidate says females are unintelligent: Not the best way to win the confidence of voters. She is, of course, only quoting the words of her prophet Muhammad, as recorded in a canonical hadith. After being asked why he said most of the inhabitants of hell are women, he replied: You [women] curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you. Despite this unflattering depiction of her gender, Mona Salah defended her candidacy by pointing out that a position in the people's council invests her only with "partial" authority, not "absolute" authority, as in the case of the presidency, which requires a male. Yet, even a position with "partial" authority would not seem to get around Muhammad's point that even "a cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you [women]." Perhaps that is why Salah was quick to assure potential voters that "she would strive to apply the Islamic Sharia, cutting the hands of thieves, preventing the intermingling of sexes, and having women dress in black garments, men in white."
Contact Raymond Ibrahim at list@pundicity.com.
This appeared in Jihad Watch,
|
|
THE EVIL OF DEMOCRACY
Posted by Maxi Justice, November 22, 2011. |
|
From Hillel Neuer, UN Watch November 21, 2011: ... Incomprehensibly, the International Committee for the Red Cross as well as a leading human rights authority, the London-based William Schabas, have given their credibility to the initiative by the Tehran-based Center for Human Rights and Cultural Diversity, despite its intimate ties with the fundamentalist regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. ... This below was written by Sheila Mediena. |
|
The way I read this is that the International Committee for the Red Cross is following its historical method of ignoring the needs of the downtrodden and oppressed by sanctioning the anti-democratic, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel dogma of the Iranians. The latter are on a trek to destroy Israel, to build nuclear weapons and terrorize its neighbors and democratic countries everywhere. Simply put, there is a move afoot to define democratic countries as the evil doers and the Muslim aggressors as the victims, not unlike the Israel/Palestine paradigm. This movement wants the world to accept tyranny, polygamy, oppression of females and the negation of truth, freedom and creativity. Their deceit is achieved by adopting innocent language such as "cultural diversity" in place of "ancient customs" or "male domination", thus accusing democratic, socially advanced countries of being opposed to "global human rights" if they contest or repudiate "archaic practices". In their terms, "cultural diversity" accepts a choice of leadership by coups or terror instead of free and verifiable elections. Anathema to their value structure are freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the separation of church and state, freedom of religion, gender equality and secular education for all children. In their terms, such values are to be eschewed and deemed to be contrary to "global human rights". And the International Committee for the Red Cross is playing along with this movement, hand in hand toward world domination. |
|
BOLD PROPOSAL: ISRAEL SHOULD DECISIVELY DEFEAT PALESTINIAN TERRORIST
Posted by Gerardo Joffe, November 22, 2011. |
|
This is from FLAME "The Solution to Palestinian Terrorism: Israel Should Take off the Gloves and Defeat It Once and For All" Dear Friend of FLAME: It was Gen. Douglas MacArthur who famously said that there is no substitute for victory. For the longest time that was indeed the military policy of the United States. Both WWI and WWII ended with what the Americans and the Allies asked for: total unconditional surrender. That was accepted by the enemy and fulfilled. In the most successful war that its enemies have imposed on Israel — the Six Day War of 1967 — Israel attained complete victory and was able to fulfill its purposes. Regrettably, with soft-minded Israeli governments and also under the pressure of the US and "world opinion," Israel squandered many of the fruits of its complete victory. After the Yom Kippur War of 1972, the United States — mostly at the urging of the Machiavellian Henry Kissinger — pressured Israel to let total victory elude it after it was within its grasp. Israel still bears the consequences of this grave error. Ever since the ill-advised and self-imposed evacuation of Gaza, Israel has been rewarded with almost daily bombardments by ever-increasingly sophisticated missiles and rockets. Miraculously, until today no major damage or casualties have been caused. But it is only a matter of time until a school or a hospital will be hit, and enormous, unacceptable damage will indeed ensue. A few years ago, Israel engaged in a half-hearted military action against Gaza, operation Cast Lead, which caused some damage (and much condemnation by "world opinion" claiming that Israel had used "disproportionate force"). That action was quite ineffective because there was no effort made to attain complete victory. The terror and the bombardment from Gaza continue undiminished, with more sophisticated rockets and missiles and perhaps even greater force and essentially with impunity. Steven Plaut, professor of the Graduate Business School at the University of Haifa, is a keen analyst of the Middle East and of Israel. His incisive essays on these subjects have appeared for years in the Israeli press and in American publications, including FLAME's. In this week's Hotline, Professor Steven Plaut argues persuasively that the terror would cease if Israel would launch an action to destroy the murderous Hamas once and for all and with total victory as its goal. And that the concept of 'total victory" should be the unbreakable goal of Israeli arms in whatever conflict they may be involved. I trust that Dr. Plaut's powerful article will persuade you of the argument that the only solution to evil is to destroy it. Best Regards, Gerardo Joffe, President
|
|
By now, Israel, at the urging and bullying of the world, has tried pretty much every conceivable idea and option for achieving tranquility and reconciliation with the Hamas, except for one. Israel removed its army and civilian population from the Gaza Strip. In what amounted to the first ethnic self-cleansing in history, Israel evicted the entire Jewish presence in Gaza. The entire area was turned over to the Palestinians, lock, stock, barrel, and Jew-free. The result is of course known. The Hamas immediately converted all of Gaza into a large rocket launch pad and a base for initiating terrorist attacks against Israel. It kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and held him incommunicado, refusing medical treatment to him, even though his arm was filled with shrapnel. Israel in response provided free electricity and water to the Gazans and sent civilian supplies into Gaza. Israel never made any serious efforts to stop the massive tunnel smuggling into Gaza from Egypt, even when it was clear that the main item being smuggled was weapons. These smuggled weapons include bomb materials and sophisticated rockets that can now reach Tel Aviv. Israel responded to the endless rocket attacks against its own civilians by turning the other cheek. Only after 8000 rocket strikes did it launch the half-hearted symbolic retaliation in the "Cast Lead" campaign, withdrawing quickly after it was launched. There is only one strategy for dealing with the Hamas that Israel has never attempted. That untried strategy is victory. Israel has never seriously attempted to achieve peace and tranquility with the Gaza Palestinians by means of victory. This is somewhat strange, since it is hard to think of any other war that did not end in peace only after victory. Instead, the world keeps demanding that Israel respond to Hamas provocation with an endless series of one-sided "goodwill measures." Never mind that the only invariable effect of such Israeli "goodwill measures" has been to trigger more Hamas terrorism. The only "peace settlement" the Hamas is interested in is one in which Israelis volunteer to allow themselves to be placed in Hamas-run extermination camps for Jews. Victory in the case of the war with the Gaza terrorists would mean annihilating the Hamas. Interestingly, here is an increasing chorus of voices inside Israel now calling for peace through victory. One of these is General Dan Halutz, the controversial erstwhile chief of staff of the Israeli army. A few days ago a Hamas rocket was fired into Israel and struck a school building. In response, Halutz called for a "mortal blow" to be dealt to the Hamas' civilian and "military" leadership. Then, in a radio interview, Halutz said, "We must bring back our deterrence vis-Ã -vis Gaza. It has not existed for even one moment since Operation Cast Lead and to this day." He has been joined by other Israeli leaders. The finance minister, Yuval Steinitz (who is a philosophy professor at my own university when he is not busy in public life), recently called on Israel to topple the Hamas "regime" in Gaza if the terror continues. The terrorist aggression by the Hamas has been carried on nonstop ever since it seized power in Gaza. Most acts of Hamas barbarism do not even get reported in the world media, for which dogs biting and shooting rockets at postmen are passé. Hamas rockets land in Israeli civilian areas almost every day. Hamas leaders continue to call openly for Israel's obliteration and for the annihilation of Jews. All this is surprising only for those who have no understanding of what the Hamas really is. Anyone who has read the brochure on the Hamas being distributed by the David Horowitz Freedom Center will know otherwise. It has become vogue in many circles to represent Middle East savagery as part of some sort of "War of Civilizations." It is not. In fact, the Middle East is simply a war by barbarism against all civilization. It is also considered chic to represent the Middle East conflict as a "cycle of violence," and as something fundamentally symmetrical between Arab terrorists and Israeli soldiers. It is not. The entire world has convinced itself that violence and terrorism in the Middle East are the results of Israeli "occupation" over Arabs. They are wrong. If there is one thing that has become glaringly obvious in the past two decades it is that the main cause of terrorist violence in the Middle East is the removal of Israeli occupation over Arabs. The Gaza violence was not caused by Israeli occupation but by its removal. The Hezbollah violence and threats from Lebanon were not caused by Israeli "occupation" of Southern Lebanon but rather by its removal. Part of the world's problem in understanding such things about the Middle East is that most people have no idea how small Israel really is. Without the West Bank, Israel is at its waist about as wide as the length of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge. All of the West Bank is smaller than the Everglades. The Arab world insists territory controlled from the Atlantic Ocean to the Persian Gulf is insufficient for its appetites, but promises that if only Israel agrees to place its neck in a strategic hangman's noose by turning over the West Bank to the PLO/Hamas, then peace will prevail. And if Israel refuses to place its neck in such an Arab noose voluntarily, then this shows that Israeli aggression is what is behind the violence. The caterwauling against Israel's decision to shoot back occasionally at the terrorists is coming from those claiming that Israel was erected on "Palestinian lands." This is like claiming that Alaska sits on Russian lands. The Arabs briefly controlled Palestine militarily, as the Russians briefly owned Alaska. The Jews and not the Arabs are analogous to the native Eskimos. Israeli settlements are about as "illegal" as are Eskimo villages in Alaska. There has never ever in history been a Palestinian state, and there is no such thing as a Palestinian people, any more than there is a separate Rhode Islander people. The fact of the matter is that the West Bank and Gaza are hardly "Palestinian lands." Even if anyone thinks the Palestinians might have had some legitimate claim to statehood or sovereignty, the Palestinians forfeited any such right they might have had due to the past century of Palestinian atrocities and terror. Just like the Sudeten Germans lost their claim to any sort of self-determination. True, Israeli governments have nevertheless naively and foolishly offered to allow the Palestinians to exercise control over these territories in exchange for peace. But Israel got war and mass murder of its civilians in exchange, not peace, so the foolhardy Oslo "peace process" deals are now off and should never have been implemented. Proposals to "liberate" the West Bank and end Israeli "occupation" there are nothing more than demands that Israel allow Gazan barbarism and terrorism to be replicated and cloned in the West Bank, with Israeli citizens subsequently bathed in countless thousands of rockets. The only real way to suppress the carnage is for Israel to re-occupy Gaza and the West Bank in full, implement open-ended military control there and a long-term program of Denazification (based in part on the Allied programs at the end of World War II). Israel needs to expel the terrorists and destroy their infrastructure. It needs to get serious about shooting terrorists. Everything else is wishful thinking and delusion. Palestinian "suffering"? If the Palestinians are unhappy with Israeli anti-terror policies, retaliations, checkpoints and military incursions, let them stop the terror and desist from murdering Israelis, or let them move to any of the 22 Arab states. As long as they persist in the violence, any "suffering" by Palestinians is, much like the suffering of Germans and Japanese during World War II, their own fault. The solution is certainly not for Israel to stop resisting the terror, to stop fighting back, nor for Israel to desist from trying to protect its citizens. The endless post-Oslo Middle East violence and terror was triggered because Israel indicated that it was on the run, exhausted, unwilling to fight, afraid to resist, and ready to capitulate. It will end only when Israel returns to its determination to end the terror through military victory and force of arms. The same United States that has understood that there is only a military option for dealing with terror in Iraq and Afghanistan must back up such a return by Israel to pre-Oslo sanity. There are no non-military solutions to the problems of terrorism. Gerardo Joffee writes:For years now, FLAME (http://www.factsandlogic.org/) has had the courage to call evil by its name and to call for an appropriate response. One of our most recent hasbarah (clarifying) messages exposes the persistent, centuries-old, and frankly, murderous anti-Semitism of Islam. FLAME's analysis is hard-hitting and fact-based. Some publications have said they believe it hits too hard and have refused to publish it. I challenge you to take a look at this recent position paper now, and let me know what you think: "Muslim Arab Anti-Semitism: Why it makes peace very difficult — almost impossible." Despite its rejection by a few publications, support from pro-Israel activists like you have enabled this ad to appear in national media reaching more than 10 million readers, including college newspapers. In addition, it was sent to every member of the U.S. Congress. If you agree that this kind of bold public relations effort on Israel's behalf is valuable, I urge you to support us. Remember: FLAME's powerful ability to influence public opinion comes from individuals like you, one by one. I hope you'll consider giving a donation now, as you're able — with $500, $250, $100, or even $18. (Remember, your donation to FLAME is tax deductible.) To donate online, just go to http://www.factsandlogic.org/make_a_donation.html. Now more than ever we need your support to ensure that Israel gets the support it needs — from the U.S. Congress, from President Obama, and from the American people. |
|
CLIMATEGATE II — IT'S BREAKING NOW, REVEALED BY FOIA
Posted by John Trudel, November 22, 2011. |
|
Friends and Colleagues: Global Warming Alarmism is about politics, money, and power — not climate. Another boatload of proof, just revealed and still unfolding, again thanks to secret emails made public. Let's hope there are some prosecutions this time, and not another whitewash. This is a trillion-dollar scam, one that has been going on for years, and is now being exacerbated with Obama "stimulus" dollars — e.g., Solyndra and the Chew "green jobs" multi-billion dollar rip-off of US taxpayers. Action: Get this to your local press and elected officials, especially those in Congress pursuing the Solyndra debacle and related issues. The more who independently shine light on this, the better the hope of ending what is probably the greatest science fraud in history. The Solyndra investigations should be expanded and turned over to an independent investigator. Best,
|
|
This is by Marc Morano, publisher of Climate Depot (http://climatedepot.com). It appears that Climategate 2.0 has arrived to drain what little life there was left in the man-made global warming movement This is from Myron Ebell, President of Freedom Action and Director, Center for Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute
John D. Trudel is consultant emeritus, inventor, engineer, author, retired adjunct professor (U. of Oregon), and novelist. Contact John Trudel by email at jtrudel@trudelgroup.com and visit his website: http://www.trudelgroup.com. |
|
OBAMA'S PROBLEM WITH JEWISH JANITORS/BILLIONAIRES
|
|
"Obama gaffe: President says billionaires should pay 'Jew' tax rate"
Speaking at the Congressional Black Caucus annual awards dinner in Washington Saturday night, President Obama made a verbal boo-boo. While defending his call for the rich to pay more in taxes, the president said he didn't mind people calling him a class warrior for merely asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew. Whoops! The president meant to say "janitor" instead of "Jew," and he immediately corrected himself. After all, he doesn't need any more problems keeping Jewish voters enthusiastic about his re-election bid. In fairness, though, you could interpret the president's gaffe as a positive: Wasn't he just suggesting that for some reason Jews were being unfairly targeted with higher taxes, and he wanted to make billionaires pay the same rate? Maybe, maybe not. Video Transcript:
When you start saying, at a time when the top one-tenth of one percent have seen their incomes go up four or five times over the last twenty years, and folks at the bottom have seen their incomes decline, and your response is that you want poor folks to pay more? Give me a break! |
|
John Lillpop: This is my take on the above news item: On the heels of a historic gaffe in which he stuck his right hand over the face of Mongolian President Tsakhia Elbegdorj at a photo-op last September, President Obama plunged head first into new and untested avenue of controversial campaign speech. As reported at the reference, in part: "While defending his call for the rich to pay more in taxes, the president said he didn't mind people calling him a class warrior for merely asking a billionaire to pay the same tax rate as a Jew. Whoops! The president meant to say "janitor" instead of "Jew," and he immediately corrected himself." Although Obama claims to have been victimized by a slip of his own silver-coated tongue, the truth is that when it comes to compiling 'enemies lists,' wise politicians try to identify as many "two-fers" as possible to keep campaign costs in check. Which helps explain why Barack Obama is on the attack against Jewish janitors who are also billionaires. With just one ugly message from his Bully Pulpit, the president can sock two of his least favorite demographics: Jews and billionaires. It is also rumored that Obama is generally none too fond of janitors, but that rumor cannot be confirmed. In light of recent scandals involving the White House, we know that Obama's enemies list now includes Caucasian executives who make solar panels, particularly CEOs who demand government loans as payback for campaign contributions and who then have the audacity to go bankrupt within 14 months of a presidential election. The One's ire is also reportedly agitated by Mexican drug cartel executives, who kill a U.S. border patrol agent with a gun provided by, and traceable back, to Eric Holder and the White House, again within 14 months of a presidential election. Is there any occupation-racial mix that Obama is generally at peace with? According to sources deep within the White House, Obama finds nothing at all objectionable about black basketball players with incomes in the 1% category! Contact John Lillpop by email at johnlillpop@yahoo.com |
|
PALIN ON THE PERMANENT POLITICAL CLASS AND ON CAPITALISM
Posted by Fred Reifenberg, November 22, 2011. |
|
This is from the NYTimes, yet.
|
|
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS — Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it. That is not how we're primed to see Ms. Palin. A pugnacious Tea Partyer? Sure. A woman of the people? Yup. A Mama Grizzly? You betcha. But something curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa. Along with her familiar and predictable swipes at President Barack Obama and the "far left," she delivered a devastating indictment of the entire U.S. political establishment — left, right and center — and pointed toward a way of transcending the presently unbridgeable political divide. The next day, the "lamestream" media, as she calls it, played into her fantasy of it by ignoring the ideas she unfurled and dwelling almost entirely on the will-she-won't-she question of her presidential ambitions. So here is something I never thought I would write: a column about Sarah Palin's ideas. There was plenty of the usual Palin schtick — words that make clear that she is not speaking to everyone but to a particular strain of American: "The working men and women of this country, you got up off your couch, you came down from the deer stand, you came out of the duck blind, you got off the John Deere, and we took to the streets, and we took to the town halls, and we ended up at the ballot box." But when her throat was cleared at last, Ms. Palin had something considerably more substantive to say. She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a "permanent political class," drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called "corporate crony capitalism." Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private). In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties' tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation's capital. Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money. "Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?" she said, referring to politicians. "It's because there's nothing in it for them. They've got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along." Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words. Ms. Palin's third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs. Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin's having said them. "This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk," she said of the crony variety. She added: "It's the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It's a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America." Is there a hint of a political breakthrough hiding in there? The political conversation in the United States is paralyzed by a simplistic division of labor. Democrats protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big money and enhanced by government action. Republicans protect that portion of human flourishing that is threatened by big government and enhanced by the free market. What is seldom said is that human flourishing is a complex and delicate thing, and that we needn't choose whether government or the market jeopardizes it more, because both can threaten it at the same time. Ms. Palin may be hinting at a new political alignment that would pit a vigorous localism against a kind of national-global institutionalism. On one side would be those Americans who believe in the power of vast, well-developed institutions like Goldman Sachs, the Teamsters Union, General Electric, Google and the U.S. Department of Education to make the world better. On the other side would be people who believe that power, whether public or private, becomes corrupt and unresponsive the more remote and more anonymous it becomes; they would press to live in self-contained, self-governing enclaves that bear the burden of their own prosperity. No one knows yet whether Ms. Palin will actually run for president. But she did just get more interesting. Contact Fred Reifenberg by email at freify@netvision.net.il
|
|
YOU ARE NOT 'BETTER JEWS'
Posted by Giulio Meotti, November 22, 2011. |
|
Figures like Kissinger set themselves apart from Israel, posture as superior Jews |
|
Since the founding of Israel there has been a consensus between the Diaspora and the Jewish state. The role of the Diaspora has been to support Israel through Aliyah, donations and political backing against Israel's detractors. Yet Henry Kissinger's recently published chilling remarks proved that "self-hating Jews" was a wrong expression. The right term is Jewish anti-Semitism. According to new documents released by the State Department, back in 1972 Henry Kissinger, who served as Secretary of State under Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, called American Jewish groups lobbying the White House self-serving "bastards."One of Nixon's advisors, Leonard Garment, received lots of requests from Jews about the "Prisoners of Zion," Jewish refuseniks and dissidents, men and women who spent years languishing in Soviet prisons and labor camps. Garment asked for Kissinger's advice on the matter and according to the transcripts, Kissinger replied: "Is there a more self-serving group of people than the Jewish community?".In response, Garment, who is also Jewish, said: "None in the world." Kissinger responded: "What the hell do they think they are accomplishing? You can't even tell bastards anything in confidence because they'll leak it." "If they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern," Kissinger declared in another tape released last year by the Nixon Library. Kissinger's tirades against Israel and the Jews are particularly shocking, as his family lost 13 members in Nazi concentration camps and as a youth, Heinz Kissinger, as Henry was then called, faced anti-Semitism himself. The former secretary of state pronounced his tirade on the gas chambers six months before the apocalyptic dread of 1973, when the Jewish State risked another Holocaust, the Arab oil boycott turned Israel into a pariah, fewer countries had relations with Israel than with the PLO and the UN General Assembly gave a standing ovation to Yasser Arafat. Diaspora mentality According to historian Robert Dallek, reports that Israel had been attacked during Yom Kippur reached Washington at 6 am that same day, but Kissinger waited three-and-a-half hours before informing Nixon in order to keep the president from "interfering." Kissinger once remarked that even those who are paranoid sometimes have real enemies. His paranoia resembles that of the "Court Jews" who strove to ingratiate themselves with authorities. In recent years, some of the most unremitting criticism of Israel in the Anglosphere has come from Jewish intellectuals such as George Steiner, Eric Hobsbawm, Harold Pinter, Stephane Hessel and Noam Chomsky. According to H.R. Haldeman' diaries, which were published posthumously, when a Nixon furious over NY demonstrations against France selling more than 100 Mirage jets to Libya informed his aides "not to let any Jews see him about the Middle East," and even decided to postpone what Nixon referred to as the "Jewish arms supply," Kissinger remained silent.In 1969, the Nixon Administration was concerned about Israel's alleged possession of nuclear weapons. "This is one program on which the Israelis have persistently deceived us," Kissinger said, "and may even have stolen from us. Israel will not take us seriously on the nuclear issue unless they believe we are prepared to withhold something they very much need." The former secretary of state worked hard to compensate his Jewish complex by prostrating himself before various Arab dictators. The old ghetto walls have fallen and emancipation and equality have arrived. But even if you can take the Jew out of the Diaspora, you apparently cannot take the Diaspora out of some Jews. They are the self-professed "better Jews" who like to depict Israel as "the new ghetto," setting themselves apart from the Israeli masses and posturing as the possessors of greater cosmopolitan wisdom. The more they attack other Jews, the more they prove that they are not defined by being Jewish. Giulio Meotti is an Italian journalist and author. His columns have
appeared in the Wall Street Journal and Commentary. He
graduated with a degree in philosophy at the University of Florence.
He lives in Italy with his family. He
is the author of the book "A New Shoah: The Untold Story of Israel's Victims of Terrorism"
Contact him at giuliomeotti@hotmail.com.
This article appeared in YNET News
|
|
AN IRANIAN 'HUMAN RIGHTS' WRONG: ALSO ON BOARD ARE NORTH KOREA AND CUBA
Posted by Hillel Neuer, November 21, 2011. |
|
A ploy by Tehran that has nothing to do with freedom |
|
Global conferences inaugurating a "human rights" center in Iran this week will boost a growing campaign by anti-Western states at the UN to erode universal human rights in favor of a doctrine of "cultural diversity." If left unchallenged, this could well justify repression of basic freedoms around the world. Incomprehensibly, the International Committee for the Red Cross as well as a leading human rights authority, the London-based William Schabas, have given their credibility to the initiative by the Tehran-based Center for Human Rights and Cultural Diversity, despite its intimate ties with the fundamentalist regime of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Schabas — author of numerous textbooks on international humanitarian law, chairman of a UN human rights fund and president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars — is billed as keynote speaker at the first of the conferences on Nov. 22. The center says the ICRC is working "in cooperation" with it to stage the conferences, as is an institution Schabas directed for the past decade and still chairs, the Irish Center for Human Rights at Ireland's National University in Galway. Yet everything about the Tehran center, spearheaded by Iran and Cuba, shows it is the opposite of what it claims to be. First, its ideological mission is to undermine the obligation of all governments to respect basic liberties, such as the freedoms of speech, assembly and religion. The institute was created in 2007 by a ministerial meeting in Tehran of the 120-member Non-Aligned Movement, whose membership of mainly nondemocratic countries dominates the UN General Assembly. The meeting produced the "Tehran Declaration and Programme of Action," a thinly veiled attack on the idea that human rights are universal. Human rights, proclaims the manifesto, should defer to "the significance of national and regional particularities" and "various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds." Implicit in the text is the concept that the world should give a free pass to the oppressive rulers of Iran, Syria, Cuba, China, Zimbabwe and others, due to their alleged "cultural" differences. Western democracies are accused of seeking "to impose their values, opinions and lifestyles on developing countries, to the detriment, and even the loss, of cultural identities." In particular, Israel is vilified throughout the text, including for the alleged "cultural uprooting" of Arabs based on doctrines of "cultural superiority" and "apartheid." The declaration expresses no concern for victims in a slew of NAM member states where human rights abuses are systematic — including Iran itself and also Cuba, one of the center's key backers. Second, the Tehran effort is part of a broader NAM campaign, now escalating throughout the UN, to enshrine cultural diversity as a global human rights principle. In 2009, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on cultural diversity that incorporated a special reference to the NAM's Tehran meeting and called on high UN officials to promote the concept. Shortly thereafter, the office of UN rights chief Navi Pillay convened a global seminar to explore the subject, and the 47-nation UN Human Rights Council established an "independent expert in the field of cultural rights." This past June, the council adopted a resolution giving added weight to the notion that national and religious "specificities" constitute "cultural rights" equal to other human rights. Cuba led the initiative, together with Iran, North Korea, Belarus, Pakistan and Egypt. Third, the center is a tool of Iranian propaganda. Speaking at its May opening, Iran's deputy foreign minister articulated one of the center's core messages: the Iranian government is a "victim of the politicization of human rights" despite having, he claimed, "always played a leading role in promoting human values." The center's current director is Kamran Hashemi, a former political officer with Iran's foreign ministry. He argues on the center's website that Sharia law offers ideal protections for Jews and other minorities. His predecessor and many of the center's lecturers also emanate from the Iranian foreign ministry. Given all this, how can the ICRC and Schabas endorse the center? While the ICRC's mission to help war victims may require dealing with unsavory regimes, nothing justifies lending its name to an Iranian-NAM subversion of the organization's own universal ideals. As for Schabas, he has a personal connection. Hashemi wrote his Ph.D under the academic at the Irish Center for Human Rights, and later taught there. At a time when the Iranian regime continues to arrest, beat and rape its own citizens, and when the universality of human rights remains tenuous in too many countries, the ICRC and Schabas should pull out of this insidious project. Hillel Neuer is executive director of UN Watch, a nongovernmental organization in Geneva. |
|
HIZBULLAH WAR PLANS; OBAMA FIRES CRITIC OF AFGHAN PRESIDENT
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 21, 2011. |
|
HIZBULLAH WAR PLAN Hizbullah head Hasan Nasrallah discussed personally with his military commanders and field commanders his directive for the next war with Israel. Nasrallah's operational directive, as guided by Iranian experts, was that in the next military conflict with Israel, "Hizbullah will hit Tel Aviv with missiles at the outset of the war, while also dispatching forces to conquer the Galilee. Hizbullah forces are being trained to fire at least ten thousand missiles, right at the war's outset, at military and strategic targets such as airfields, military camps, and vital facilities including maritime ones, followed by the firing of rockets from launch sites whose location will come as a surprise to Israel." Iran has trained 5,000 troops in Iran, to seize towns in northern Israel. Iranian engineers have minded possible IDF landing sites in the eastern Bekaa Valley. Hizbullah has Iranian anti-tank missiles thought capable of overcoming the defenses of Israel's tanks. Iran anticipates an Israeli attack on its patron, Iran, and with less restraint than before. Therefore, Hizbullah will join the fray in that way. Brigade 1 aims to conquer Nahariya, finding little to protect the city, small distances to cross on even ground. Speedboats will ferry Hizbullah men to take hostages, to prevent the IDF from bombing Hizbullah forces nearby. Brigade 2 aims to seize Shlomi, population 6,500, near the border. This would block IDF supply lines. Brigade 3 would conquer areas south of Carmiel and block military traffic approaching from Acre. Brigade 4 aims to seize Malkiya, Ramot Naftali, and Yiftach, so the IDF can't fire from there into southern Lebanon. Brigade 5 is in reserve. What Syria will do remains unclear (Dr. Shimon Shapira,
Jerusalem Issue Briefs, Vol. 11, No. 18, 2 November 2011
Taking civilian hostages is a war crime. Former Foreign Minister Livni has been boasting of success in ending the prior Hizbullah war as gaining security for Israel. She brought insecurity. OBAMA FIRES CRITIC OF AFGHAN PRESIDENT General Peter Fuller, deputy commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan was fired by President Obama. Gen. Fuller had heard Afghan president Karzai vow that in a war between the U.S. and Pakistan, Afghanistan would join Pakistan. Gen. Fuller replied, "Why don't you just poke me in the eye with a needle! You've got to be kidding me ... I'm sorry, we just gave you $11.6 billion and now you're telling me, 'I don't really care'? When they have a presidential election, you hope they get a guy that's more articulate in public." The London Telegraph commented that Gen. Fuller had pointed out the truth: we keep Karzai in office, but he is unbalanced. Karzai is known for anti-American statements. He has made false accusations against the U.S. for bombing Afghan civilians. Last year he threatened to "join the Taliban." He falsely accused the U.S. of hampering the Afghan elections. How did the Obama administration react to Karzai's threat to make war on the U.S.?" It asserted that it "respects" Karzai but that this statement was "troubling" and "frustrating." By contrast, when Israel authorized construction in eastern Jerusalem, the Administration called that "destructive," and "affront," and an "insult" to the U.S.. The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) points out, "The Israeli construction decision in Jerusalem violated no U.S.-Israel agreement, endangered no U.S. forces and was in accord with Israel's unilateral concession in 2009, to initiate a 10-month freeze on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, which explicitly did not include construction in Jerusalem. " ZOA worries when the President fires a senior military commander
for condemning a vicious anti-American statement by a foreign leader
kept in power by American sacrifice. Why didn't Pres. Obama condemn
Karzai? Obama's double standard is troubling (Zionist Organization
of American, 11/8/11,
GOLDSTONE SPREAD OTHER MISUNDERSTANDINGS ABOUT ISRAEL When Judge Goldstone had accused Israel of deliberately attacking civilians in Gaza, he erred in counting as civilians ordinary police and internal security forces (but not national security forces). Thus he counted the 248 police cadets killed by Israeli forces as civilians, though they all or mostly also were members of a terrorist militia. Subsequently, Mr. Goldstone retracted the accusation [after having tarnished Israel's reputation with it). Members of police and internal security forces have another role. They also facilitate terrorist attacks. For example, the police coastguard has been "fighting the IDF during operations carried out in the Gaza Strip, placing IEDs, anti-aircraft fire at Israeli Air Force planes, collecting intelligence, providing logistic support for the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, ambushing IDF forces, etc. In addition, it formerly also had a suicide bomber unit and was equipped with advanced IEDs, RPGs and mortars." In response to rocket fire from Gaza, the IDF attacked a Gaza coast guard installation on November 14, killing and wounding some personnel. Perhaps now those deaths will not be counted as civilians deliberately targeted. Before, during, and after the war in Gaza, Hamas released names and pictures of people killed by IDF retaliation, identifying them as both members of internal security forces and the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades terrorist organization.
Since the information about members of internal security forces also being members of terrorist militias was known before the UN report, what excuse has Mr. Goldstone for accusing Israel of war crimes in killing some of them? Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com. |
|
ISRAELIS TURN HOLY LAND INTO ECONOMIC MIRACLE
Posted by Roger Bodle, November 21, 2011. |
|
This was written by Greg Mills and it appeared November 13,
2011 in Times Live
|
|
JUST 20% of Israel is arable. Yet, since its independence in May 1948, the country's agricultural output has increased 16-fold, many times the rate of population growth. This is down to a lot of perspiration and, more importantly, a large dollop of innovation and cooperation. This is nothing new. Close to the Desert Plant Research Station in Be'er Sheva is a farm cultivated by the Nabateans, the earliest desert farmers. Using sophisticated terracing, every drop of runoff water was collected and diverted to the fields and orchards. Fast-forward 2000 years, and today Israel produces over two-thirds of its food requirements. Agriculture exports are worth more than $2-billion, more than half of which is fresh produce. No one needs reminding that Israel's external image is dominated by pictures of conflict and perceptions of injustice. Lost in this portrayal is how smart Israel has been in developing its economy. In agriculture, for example, it has used technology to reduce water usage and increase output, and higher-yield crops to increase both volumes and financial sales values. Drip and direct-feed computerised irrigation systems are the norm. It's a far cry from 1948, when no one gave the newly independent Jewish state much of a chance. Despite rapid population growth (now over 7.5 million), Israelis enjoy a per-capita income today of $29600, putting them in the top 30 world-wide, between Spain and Italy. Although it depends on imports for nearly all of its raw materials, from oil to diamonds, Israel has become a global industrial hub. It is a world leader in diamond polishing and cutting, processed foods, electronic and medical equipment, and, more recently, software, semi-conductors and telecommunications. After the US, it has more companies listed on the Nasdaq than any other country. There is no single explanation for Israel's success, although high on the list is surely its commitment to research and development. Its detractors, however, routinely cite US assistance as the main reason for its success. Much of the $3-billion it receives annually from Washington is spent on military kit, rather than development. That said, there can be no doubt that the military dimension has proved vital in Israel's overall development picture, especially in so far as the mindset it engendered of robust accountability across society, long-term thinking and a problem-solving ethos. To translate ideas into business ventures, Israel has fostered a system that encourages and caters for entrepreneurship. It has established a "cluster" of universities in close proximity to large and small companies, creating a virtuous space for suppliers, talent and capital. The government provides $450-million in annual grants to 1200 worthy projects from 2000 applications. Like everything else in the Holy Land, assessing why Israel has done Contact Roger Bodle at rjbodle@xtra.co.nz |
|
GRAND MUFTI DISTORTS WORD 'INFIDEL' TO DUPE INFIDELS
Posted by Raymond Ibrahim, November 20, 2011. |
|
Soon after reporting that Egypt's Grand Mufti, Sheikh Ali Gomaa, had pronounced all Christians "infidels," I received several emails forwarding what looked like a response from Gomaa. Some websites — such as the ever-hysterical "American Muslim" — published it, providing the following additional information: 
Prof. Faroque Ahmad Khan took it on himself to investigate [the claims of my article]. Dr. Khan requested Dr Ibrahim Negm — a senior advisor to the Grand Mufti [and an Al Azhar professor] to provide a clarification of the remarks attributed to Sheikh Ali Gomaa. Here is the response that was received [followed by the same text others had emailed me]. Though he makes several points, including the need for "dialogue" and "mutual respect," Gomaa's grand point, the crux of the issue — what kafir which I routinely translate as "infidel" means — unfortunately exposes dishonesty on his part (the other option, ignorance, being inapplicable). He writes: Mr. Ibrahim's choice of wording is regrettable. The English word "infidel" carries with it strong connotations of exclusion and violence, inherited from the European experience of Christianity during the wars of religion which devastated that continent for decades. In fact, from its inception, Islam has been the quintessential religion — historically and doctrinally — to enforce and institutionalize "exclusion and violence" for the "other," to the point of influencing medieval Christianity. Gomaa therefore takes the standard way out — blame Christianity and its "wars of religion" (code for "Crusades") — without alluding to what prompted these wars in the first place: five centuries of unprovoked Islamic aggression, land-grabbing, subjugation and persecution of Christians, which continues to this very day. Gomaa's sophistry continues: The Arabic "kafir" is a legal term which denotes very precisely and simply those outside the Muslim community, those who do not believe in the particular message and worldview of Islam. The much less charged translation "non-believer" is appropriate here. Yes, the word kafir is a "legal term" denoting non-Muslims; and yes, most modern English Qurans translate it as "non-believer." However, and as Gomaa knows full well, the word kafir (plural, kafirin) is heavy laden with negative associations, or, as I originally wrote, it "connotes 'enemies,' 'evil-doers,' and every bad thing to Muslim ears." Accordingly, Sharia mandates hostility for kafirin — war and subjugation when they are weak, deception and smooth-talk when they are strong. Quran 2: 98 simply declares that "Allah is the enemy of kafirin" — regardless of whether we translate that word as "infidels" or "non-believers." In fact, doctrine aside, consider how the Quran alone portrays "non-believers": they are "guilty" and "unjust" (10:17, 45:31, 68:35); terror is to be cast in their hearts for their injustice (3:151); they are "disliked" and "accursed" by Allah (2:89, 3:32, 33:64); they are the "vilest of beasts" (8:55, 98:6), like "cattle" and "devoid of understanding" (47:12, 8:65); and "enemies" to Muslims (4:101). And why are "non-believers" described thus? Simply because they are non-believers — because they are infidels. So much for the Grand Mufti's assertion that the "much less charged translation 'non-believer' is appropriate" for the word kafir. Perhaps he is operating under Quran 3:28: "Let believers not take kafirin [infidels, non-believers, whatever] for friends and allies ... unless you but guard yourselves against them, taking precautions." Not only is this yet another verse depicting non-Muslims as enemies, but, according to Muslim jurisprudence, it justifies deceiving them. There is also much peripheral evidence that "non-believers" are seen negatively: when Gomaa's colleagues, the Muslim Brotherhood, recently declared that only "drunks, druggies, and adulterers" reject Sharia — and considering that non-Muslims by nature reject Sharia — were they not in essence asserting that all non-believers are junkies and faithless perverts? Aside from distorting the word kafir, Gomaa made the following points which require remark: Raymond Ibrahim absurdly tries to link my commentary on Muslim theological doctrine, delivered within the context of a mosque study circle, to the regrettable Maspero events in Cairo last month. My comments at the mosque that day were intended exclusively as a pedagogical explanation of the Qur'anic view on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity... As for his words being "delivered within the context of a mosque study circle," that is no excuse: as Grand Mufti of a nation of some 70 million Muslims, Gomaa is responsible for every doctrine-related utterance he makes — whether he knows he is being videotaped or not. Likewise, even if his comments "were intended exclusively as a pedagogical explanation of the Qur'anic view on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity," they still culminated in categorizing all Christians as infidels, which is the point here. Accordingly, his comments are, in fact, related to the Maspero massacre. Consider: when the Grand Mufti of Egypt himself categorizes Christians as "infidels" — a word that, as we have seen, conveys to the Muslim mind images of guilty, oppressive, accursed, bestial-like enemies — is it surprising when Muslims, including the Egyptian military, attack and kill Christians — all while calling them "infidels"? A personal note to Sheikh Gomaa: the time for sophistry, apologetics, euphemisms, and projections is past. We live in an age where the historic, doctrinal, and contemporary facts of Islam are increasingly exposed for the world to see, in part thanks to the Internet and satellite, which defy censorship. Operating according to this fact — that is, respecting people's intelligence — is the first step to meaningful dialogue.
Contact Raymond Ibrahim at list@pundicity.com
This appeared November 17, 2011 in PJMedia
|
|
A MINUTE AND A HALF CRASH COURSE ON THE ARAB-ISRAELI CONFLICT
Posted by Albert Wendroff, November 20, 2011. |
|
Here are overlooked facts in the current & past Middle East situation. These were compiled by a Christian university professor. BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISRAELI CONFLICT TODAY... (It takes just 1.5 minutes to read!) It makes sense and it's not slanted. Jew and non-Jew — it doesn't matter. 1. Nationhood and Jerusalem: Israel became a nation in 1312 BC, two thousand (2000) years before the rise of Islam. 2. Arab refugees in Israel began identifying themselves as part of a Palestinian people in 1967, two decades after the establishment of the modern State of Israel. 3. Since the Jewish conquest in 1272 BC, the Jews have had dominion over the land for one thousand (1000) years with a continuous presence in the land for the past 3,300 years. 4. The only Arab dominion since the conquest in 635 lasted no more than 22 years. 5. For over 3,300 years, Jerusalem has been the Jewish capital. Jerusalem has never been the capital of any Arab or Muslim entity. Even when the Jordanians occupied Jerusalem, they never sought to make it their capital, and Arab leaders did not come to visit. 6. Jerusalem is mentioned over 700 times in Tanach, the Jewish Holy Scriptures. Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran.. 7. King David founded the city of Jerusalem. Mohammed never came to Jerusalem. 8. Jews pray facing Jerusalem. Muslims pray with their backs toward Jerusalem. 9. Arab and Jewish Refugees: in 1948 the Arab refugees were encouraged to leave Israel by Arab leaders promising to purge the land of Jews. Sixty-eight percent left (many in fear of retaliation by their own brethren, the Arabs), without ever seeing an Israeli soldier. The ones who stayed were afforded the same peace, civility, and citizenship rights as everyone else. 10. The Jewish refugees were forced to flee from Arab lands due to Arab brutality, persecution and pogroms. 11. The number of Arab refugees who left Israel in 1948 is estimated to be around 630,000. The number of Jewish refugees from Arab lands is estimated to be the same. 12. Arab refugees were INTENTIONALLY not absorbed or integrated into the Arab lands to which they fled, despite the vast Arab territory. Out of the 100,000,000 refugees since World War II, theirs is the only refugee group in the world that has never been absorbed or integrated into their own people's lands. Jewish refugees were completely absorbed into Israel, a country no larger than the state of New Jersey. 13. The Arab-Israeli Conflict: the Arabs are represented by eight separate nations, not including the Palestinians. There is only one Jewish nation. The Arab nations initiated all five wars and lost. Israel defended itself each time and won. 14. The PLO's Charter still calls for the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel has given the Palestinians most of the West Bank land, autonomy under the Palestinian Authority, and has supplied them. 15. Under Jordanian rule, Jewish holy sites were desecrated and the Jews were denied access to places of worship. Under Israeli rule, all Muslim and Christian sites have been preserved and made accessible to people of all faiths. 16. The UN Record on Israel and the Arabs: of the 175 Security Council resolutions passed before 1990, 97 were directed against Israel. 17. Of the 690 General Assembly resolutions voted on before 1990, 429 were directed against Israel. 18. The UN was silent while 58 Jerusalem synagogues were destroyed by the Jordanians. 19. The UN was silent while the Jordanians systematically desecrated the ancient Jewish cemetery on the Mount of Olives. 20. The UN was silent while the Jordanians enforced an apartheid-like a policy of preventing Jews from visiting the Temple Mount and the Western Wall. These are incredible times. We have to ask what our role should be. What will we tell our grandchildren about what we did when there was a turning point in Jewish destiny, an opportunity to make a difference? START NOW — Send this to 18 other people you know and ask them to send it to eighteen others, Jew and non-Jew — it doesn't really matter. Contact Albert Wendroff by email at wendroff39@yahoo.com |
|
AMERICA AND ISRAEL ENTER THE DEATH ZONE
Posted by Stanley Zir, November 20, 2011. |
|
Only one option for Iran: Military |
|
Dear Readers: I have re-edited America and Israel Enter the Death Zone, written in 2010, to bring it up-to-date, because I can now clarify what we should have done then — but didn't — and why. Now we must confront Iran head-on. Our nation and the future of all humanity are under the greatest threat we have had to face in the history of civilization. We are confronting a watershed event — a madman who is armed with a nuclear bomb and intends to use it. Incredulously, while Iran could be moments away from securing a nuclear-armed state, calls for the destruction of its nuclear infrastructure, at this point, should be a no-brainer. Yet our leaders are still discussing other options. It is obvious that our politicians are still not aware that the time for action is now. Believing that sanctions will work against Iran is delusional. Thinking that we can get consenses from China (which still calls out for dialogue with the Iranian meglomaniac) and Russia (which is building its nuclear facilities) is equally preposterous. It is obvious that we are long past the point when we can wait for regime change in Iran. That is why we call out for an immediate strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Tomorrow might be a day too late. If we are to stop Iran, we must now be in control of our enemy's fate. The quote below is from American and Israel Enter the Death Zone, which explains what will happen if we do not act now. It will be reissued and re-edited in a few days: "While we may live another day to fight against the establishment of a mosque of conquest and State-satellite shrine at Ground Zero and Islam's Muzzlification of America, the world would become Ground Zero if Iran were to gain nuclear capabilities — because the greatest enemy of freedom will have tested and broken America's spirit. Who will then be left to prevent the globalization of a tyrannical One World Order if America's identity as the advocate for freedom were to be vanquished? When there is an aggressive plan to destroy our freedoms, our plan must be that much more aggressive." Stanley Zir is founder of Never Again is NOW (http://www.neveragainisnow.net/). Contact them by email at neveragainisnow@live.com |
|
ISLAMISTS FINANCE CANADIAN COLLEGE CHAIR; SUDAN STILL SMOLDERING
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 20, 2011. |
|
ISLAMISTS FINANCE CANADIAN COLLEGE CHAIR It was as feared by Huron University College faculty. Radical Muslims financed a new Chair in Islamic Studies at its Faculty of Theology. The College then appointed Ingrid Mattson, an Islamist, to that Chair. Prof. Mattson is a former president of the Islamic Society of North American (ISNA). She helped make ISNA "a key component of the Wahhabi lobby," wrote Daniel Pipes. She still tries to make Radical Islam appear harmless, by claiming that Wahhabi Islam "really was analogous to the European Protestant reformation." The ISNA has close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. ISNA was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the terrorism case involving the Holy Land Foundation that helped finance Hamas. Which organizations financed her new Chair? One is the Muslim Association of Canada, also having ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. Another was the International Institute of Islamic Thought (IIIT). In 2008, IIIT tried to endow a chair in Islamic studies at Temple University. The University declined the $1.5 million gift because of federal investigation of IIIT for involvement in financing Palestinian Muslim terrorists. A third funder was the Islamic Centre for Southwestern Ontario, linked to a Libyan charity of Qaddafi. The head of the Centre is Assem Fadel. Mr. Fadel headed another Libyan organization, World Islamic Call Society. This year, Canada revoked the charitable status of that Society, upon finding that a Libyan charity send Fadel funds that he transferred to the Society, which sent it to foreign terrorist organizations. As we can see, Qaddafi did sponsor terrorism. Alumni, friends, and faculty of the University alerted the president of the university to the radicalism of the Chair's supporters. One supporter already identified, Muslim Association of Canada (MAC), has a website that identifies it with Imam Hassan Al-Banna, founder and inspirer of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Brotherhood motto is, "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qu'ran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." The interim president of the University, told the alumni that she considers the beliefs of MAC and IIIT compatible with the Universities, but "We don't probe deeply into values held by donors on cultural issues," so long as they don't act on those beliefs. Going further, the current president of the University declared, "Mattson brings an incredible wealth of knowledge and expertise to this area of study and Huron is privileged to have a scholar of her caliber (Winfield Myers, American Thinker, 10/16/11
The source should say what resulted from the investigation of IIIT. Did it finance Palestinian Muslim terrorists? How reliable are government statements declaring an organization unindicted co-conspirator? That is like a finding of guilt without a trial. On the other hand, there may be much evidence supporting the finding, but reasons not to bring them to court. Are university heads being reasonable in accepting funds from organizations that promote terrorism, and in appointing officials from such organizations to the faculty, because those people did not themselves commit terrorism? Accepting funds from Islamists is like accepting funds from the Nazi and Communist movements. Movements exist to build momentum and gain a critical mass for taking over countries or using those countries to commit violence or espionage there or elsewhere. Unfortunately, Radical Muslims have been corrupting some North American institutions, whose heads apparently lack intellectual rigor and moral fiber. Imagine, being "honored" to attract a scholar of Mattson's "cailbre!" Does the Huron University College president think that Mattson's scholarship will be objective or not only biased but subversive? Perhaps the president deems himself tolerant and respectful of privacy for not inquiring into faculty's private beliefs. Up to a point it would be. But the president helps undermine free societies when the private beliefs (actually public beliefs) would impose a barbaric and totalitarian code of intolerance upon the country and the world. Mattson compared the unreformed and virulent Islamists to the Protestant Reformation, which certainly has mellowed by now. Her analogy is false and misleading. I have noticed a pattern of such misleading analogies. Obviously the attempt is to mislead. Radical Muslims engage in the Islamic principle of deception of non-Muslims in order to advance the religion's grip on others. Stalin held phony elections to pretend to be democratic. Radical Muslims pretend to be moderate. What is westerners' excuse for believing them? SUDAN STILL SMOLDERING How has the secession of South Sudan affected Sudan? A few years ago, Sudan's economy boomed, as oil prices soared. The secession of South Sudan removed three-fourths of Sudan's oil. Now Sudan has much less revenue and suffers inflation of 21%. Will the people protest? Along with the oil went most of the Christians and animists. Dictator al-Bashir says this clears the way to make Islamic law supreme, and "...there will be no time to speak of diversity of culture and ethnicity." Clouding the picture, however, is that about a million non-Muslims still reside in the north and in Darfur. Christians live in Sudan's border states of Blue Nile and S. Kordofan, made autonomous because of the cultural diversity and unrest there. . South Kordofan has much of Sudan's remaining oil reserves. In those regions, however, the Sudanese government continues ethnic cleansing, and rebels keep fighting. Some Muslims join the rebels, By August, the government had displaced 400,000 civilians. Reliable reports are scarce, because Sudan bars aid agencies. Will South Sudan will be dragged into war with Sudan to protect Christians and animists in Sudan? Darfur residents defending against jihad there may acquire arms from Libyan sources. "Sudanese officials and Janjaweed militias have consistently defined their actions of ethnic cleansing against the native population of the region as 'jihad' against peoples perceived as insufficiently Islamic and Arabized." Apparently the "international community" does not "acknowledge the
role of jihad theology and Arab supremacist attitudes behind
Khartoum's behavior." Why isn't there a no-fly zone over the
embattled regions, not to mention a NATO bombing of Sudan's air force?
Perhaps this is because the Arab League and the Gulf Cooperation
Council favor al-Bashir. In another example of hypocrisy, Arab
governments denounced Gaddafi, but not brutal mistreatment by
anti-Gadaffi militias of black migrant workers in Libya (Aymenn Jawad
Al-Tamimi. The American Spectator, 11/1/11,
Darfur militias have alliances with South Sudan. In response Sudan, bombed Darfur militias' havens in South Sudan and offered economic development to Darfur. Darfur politicians and militias are uniting to demand a modern, secular, democratic state. Some Arab factions have joined them. Claiming a goal of more local representation for Darfur, the central government of Darfur proposes dividing the three states in Darfur into five. The Darfur opposition wants a unified state and claims the government is trying to divide them tribally. Civilians get caught in the attempted government bombing of opposition militias. Civilians who flee to refugee camps find basic commodities blockaded by the government. The rich Abyei aera of south Kordofan is supposed to have a referendum which Sudan to belong to. The native people are the Christian Dinka Ngok, who prefer South Sudan and who are supported by South Sudan. To stack the referendum, Sudan settled thousands of nomadic Arab Muslims, the Misseriya, who graze in the region in the dry season. Sudan has been fanning a civil war in South Sudan. Attempts to demarcate borders prompt further disputes. Sudan's stability is not secure (Damla Aras, Middle East
Quarterly, Fall 2011, pp. 79-84 (view PDF)
Still another example of hypocrisy is Arab and UN condemnation of Israel for having an arms blockade of Gaza, ruled by terrorists, but no condemnation of Sudan for having an aid blockade of genuine refugees from Islamist persecution. The question why a no-fly zone has not been imposed on Sudan may be answered not only by citing hypocrisy but by lack of publicity over the ethnic cleansing there, reluctance to take the side of Christians against Muslims (and risk being called Islamophobic), and that there is no systematic analysis of foreign crises to determine whether and when to intervene. The Security Council should make such analyses, but it is too busy protecting Iran from effective sanctions and too busy condemning Israel for defending itself from aggressive Islamists. The Crucifix and Muslim Majorities & Minorities How can one discern the true sentiments of Muslims? By observing their practices where they are rule, free to do as they wish. Egypt is one such country. A Muslim teacher recently ordered a Christian student to cover his crucifix. The student refused. In reaction, the teacher and some Muslim students strangled and beat the Christian to death. During the attack, the headmaster was informed about it. He continued sipping his tea. The Egyptian media called this persecution of a Christian a "non-sectarian" "conflict." Muslims also insisted that Copts remove the cross and dome from a church. A Muslim complained that "the cross provokes us and our children. The Christians refused. Muslims destroyed the church. [As I have reported, that is a pattern in Egypt.] Christians protested publicly. The military slew dozens of the protestors and ran many over with armored vehicles, shouting, "Allahu Akbar," the jihadist war cry. [But the military denied the assaults and claimed they were protecting law and order. With the Islamic war cry?] In the U.S., Muslims are a small minority. Some of them attend Catholic University of America (CUIA). A George Washington University professor, John F. Banzhaf III, claims that Muslims students are offended at having to pray in CUA's chapel, where they see a crucifix. The Muslim students demand prayer rooms without Christian symbols. Prof. Banzhaf admits that the Catholic University of America is not obliged to compromise its Catholic practices with Muslim students who chose of their own free will to attend there instead of elsewhere. Nevertheless, he claims that CUA is "acting improperly and probably with malice." Prof. Banzhaf contrasts CUA with his Georgetown University, nominally Christian, and which provides Muslims students with a separate prayer room and a Muslim chaplain. As he did not mention but many people know, Georgetown's Arab and Islam departments get donations from Saudi Wahhabis, who refuse to permit churches in their country. [Large donations can make academics compliant.] Which side is acting with malice, the private institution operating frankly under Christian principles, or Muslim students who could attend non-Christian institutions but attend this Christian one and purport to be offended by its Christian practices? Newt Gingrich commented, "Are you [Muslims] prepared to sponsor a Christian missionary in Mecca? Because if you're not prepared to sponsor religious liberty in Saudi Arabia, don't come and nag us with some hypocritical baloney." Why are Muslim students seeking to create Muslim enclaves in universities? One reason is Islam's own doctrine of wala' wa bara', which commands Muslims to be loyal to one another, while completely disassociating themselves from non-Muslims." The Washington D.C. Office of Human Rights is investigating accusations that CUA violated Muslim students' human rights by not providing rooms without Christian symbols for daily prayers. Islam keeps complaining that it is "misunderstood." But Islamic
practice is clear: (1) Where Islam is weak, Islamist organizations
such as CAIR complain that Muslims' human rights are violated for not
getting special privileges; and (2) Where Islam is strong, Islamists
violate the human rights of others. In both cases, Islam is
practicing jihad (Raymond Ibrahim, Hudson New York, 11/2/11, from
Middle East Forum,
A debatable question over symbol-free prayer rooms is far less serious than the constant murders and other crimes against many Christians and general religious, ethnic, and gender oppression in Arab states. I have not noticed big Muslim organizations protesting against such oppression. Their notion of rights is one-way. Without citing evidence of malice by the Christian university, Mr. Banzhaf should not have accused the university of malice. To do seems malicious. There is too much denunciation of other people's motives, these days, without knowing the motives. That is irresponsible. Citing Islamic teachings, Radical Muslims keep demanding separation from non-Muslims, while denouncing Israel as apartheid. Adolph Hitler may have gotten the idea of Jews wearing a Star of David, so as to be identified as Jews, from a similar dress code among the Muslim Arabs centuries earlier. The notion of not marking churches and synagogues was the Islamic rule for centuries. In Egypt, Muslims take the law into their own hands about this, even if the rule no longer is on the books. Sometimes churches invite Jews whose synagogue burned down to separate sessions of prayer. There is considerable tolerance and accommodation made in such cases. If you extend the Muslim student's reasoning further, imagine them entering a church and demanding a separate prayer room for Muslims not having crucifixes. But they don't have to attend a church. The article was headed, "Why does the crucifix 'provoke' Muslims?" I think that the author did not answer that question. My answer is that Muslims consider it an affront, an abuse of their claimed divine right to rule, when people of other religions are not subservient to Islam. That is how Muslims perceive violations of their "rights." Also, they make favorable propaganda claiming to be victims. Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com. |
|
ISRAEL IS A SAFE HAVEN NOT ONLY FOR JEWS
Posted by Ted Belman, November 20, 2011. |
|
A letter from a reserve Israeli soldier |
|
My name is Aron Adler. 
am 25 years old, was born in Brooklyn NY, and raised in Efrat Israel. Though very busy, I don't view my life as unusual. Most of the time, I am just another Israeli citizen. During the day I work as a paramedic in Magen David Adom, Israel's national EMS service. At night, I'm in my first year of law school. I got married this October and am starting a new chapter of life together with my wonderful wife Shulamit. 15-20 days out of every year, I'm called up to the Israeli army to do my reserve duty. I serve as a paramedic in an IDF paratrooper unit. My squad is made up of others like me; people living normal lives who step up to serve whenever responsibility calls. The oldest in my squad is 58, a father of four girls and grandfather of two; there are two bankers, one engineer, a holistic healer, and my 24 year old commander who is still trying to figure out what to do with his life. Most of the year we are just normal people living our lives, but for 15-20 days each year we are soldiers on the front lines preparing for a war that we hope we never have to fight. This year, our reserve unit was stationed on the border between Israel, Egypt and the Gaza Strip in an area called "Kerem Shalom." Above and beyond the "typical" things for which we train — war, terrorism, border infiltration, etc., — this year we were confronted by a new challenge. Several years ago, a trend started of African refugees crossing the Egyptian border from Sinai into Israel to seek asylum from the atrocities in Darfur. What started out as a small number of men, women and children fleeing from the machetes of the Janjaweed and violent fundamentalists to seek a better life elsewhere, turned into an organized industry of human trafficking. In return for huge sums of money, sometimes entire life savings paid to Bedouin "guides," these refugees are promised to be transported from Sudan, Eritrea, and other African countries through Egypt and the Sinai desert, into the safe haven of Israel. We increasingly hear horror stories of the atrocities these refugees suffer on their way to freedom. They are subject to, and victims of extortion, rape, murder, and even organ theft, their bodies left to rot in the desert. Then, if lucky, after surviving this gruesome experience whose prize is freedom, when only a barbed wire fence separates them from Israel and their goal, they must go through the final death run and try to evade the bullets of the Egyptian soldiers stationed along the border. Egypt's soldiers are ordered to shoot to kill anyone trying to cross the border OUT of Egypt and into Israel. It's an almost nightly event. For those who finally get across the border, the first people they encounter are Israeli soldiers, people like me and those in my unit, who are tasked with a primary mission of defending the lives of the Israeli people. On one side of the border soldiers shoot to kill. On the other side, they know they will be treated with more respect than in any of the countries they crossed to get to this point. The region where it all happens is highly sensitive and risky from a security point of view, an area stricken with terror at every turn. It's just a few miles south of the place where Gilad Shalit was kidnapped. And yet the Israeli soldiers who are confronted with these refugees do it not with rifles aimed at them, but with a helping hand and an open heart. The refugees are taken to a nearby IDF base, given clean clothes, a hot drink, food and medical attention. They are finally safe. Even though I live Israel and am aware through media reports of the events that take place on the Egyptian border, I never understood the intensity and complexity of the scenario until I experienced it myself. In the course of the past few nights, I have witnessed much. At 9:00 PM last night, the first reports came in of gunfire heard from the Egyptian border. Minutes later, IDF scouts spotted small groups of people trying to get across the fence. In the period of about one hour, we picked up 13 men — cold, barefoot, dehydrated — some wearing nothing except underpants. Their bodies were covered with lacerations and other wounds. We gathered them in a room, gave them blankets, tea and treated their wounds. I don't speak a word of their language, but the look on their faces said it all and reminded me once again why I am so proud to be a Jew and an Israeli. Sadly, it was later determined that the gunshots we heard were deadly, killing three others fleeing for their lives. During the 350 days a year when I am not on active duty, when I am just another man trying to get by, the people tasked with doing this amazing job, this amazing deed, the people witnessing these events, are mostly young Israeli soldiers just out of high school, serving their compulsory time in the IDF, some only 18 years old. The refugees flooding into Israel are a heavy burden on our small country. More than 100,000 refugees have fled this way, and hundreds more cross the border every month. The social, economic, and humanitarian issues created by this influx of refugees are immense. There are serious security consequences for Israel as well. This influx of African refugees poses a crisis for Israel. Israel has yet to come up with the solutions required to deal with this crisis effectively, balancing its' sensitive social, economic, and security issues, at the same time striving to care for the refugees. I don't have the answers to these complex problems which desperately need to be resolved. I'm not writing these words with the intention of taking a political position or a tactical stand on the issue. I am writing to tell you and the entire world what's really happening down here on the Egyptian/Israeli border. And to tell you that despite all the serious problems created by this national crisis, these refugees have no reason to fear us. Because they know, as the entire world needs to know, that Israel has not shut its eyes to their suffering and pain. Israel has not looked the other way. The State of Israel has put politics aside to take the ethical and humane path as it has so often done before, in every instance of human suffering and natural disasters around the globe. We Jews know only too well about suffering and pain. The Jewish people have been there. We have been the refugees and the persecuted so many times, over thousands of years, all over the world. Today, when African refugees flood our borders in search of freedom and better lives, and some for fear of their lives, it is particularly noteworthy how Israel deals with them, despite the enormous strain it puts on our country on so many levels. Our young and thriving Jewish people and country, built from the ashes of the Holocaust, do not turn their backs on humanity. Though I already knew that, this week I once again experienced it firsthand. I am overwhelmed with emotion and immensely proud to be a member of this nation. With love of Israel, Aron Adler writing from the Israel/Gaza/Egyptian border.
Ted Belman is a retired lawyer and the Editor of Israpundit. He
made aliya from Canada last year and now lives in Jerusalem, Israel.
Contact him at tedbel@rogers.com
|
|
FROM ISRAEL: THAT UNITY GOVERNMENT
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 20, 2011. |
|
Various sources — which differ in some particulars — seem to concur that there has been a breakthrough with regard to a Fatah-Hamas unity government. After leaders of the two parties meet on Thursday, it is said the agreement will be announced. Reportedly the new government and prime minister will be located in Gaza — with the prime minister likely coming from Gaza, while the president and parliament will operate out of Ramallah. Elections are slated for May, and Islamic Jihad may participate. Both PA prime minister Salam Fayyad and Ismail Haniyeh, who is prime minister for Hamas, may bow out. According to Arutz Sheva, which puts it that, Abbas is "going for broke" (gambling all on this move), the unity government will be based on "resistance," a Palestinian Authority state based on the temporary 1949 Armistice Lines and non-recognition of Israel. Let's see how the world handles this. ~~~~~~~~~~ Yet another issue of major importance to Israel is that of Egypt, which is now again undergoing major street clashes as crowds demonstrate against the ruling military regime. The protests began in Cairo's Tahrir Square but have spread to other places, such as Alexandria. Essentially, what we are looking at is a battle between the military and Islamic forces for control of the country — starting with the drafting of a new constitution. Needless to say, which element controls the country will affect Israel's relationship with Egypt at the most basic levels. Hillel Frisch of the BESA Center says that with regard to this constitution, "In essence, Egypt's soul and identity is at stake." See his cogent explanation of the situation here:
~~~~~~~~~~ When push comes to shove, the military does not treat demonstrators with kid gloves: In the latest clashes two demonstrators were killed and 766 reported injured. Nor will the military voluntarily relinquish control: At present emergency laws are still in place. Staggered elections are due to begin on November 28, but may be delayed because of the violence. I've read some reports suggesting the possibility of civil war, or "major civil strife," as Frisch puts it. Another related issue is the question of what is going on in the Sinai. See a JINSA analysis on this:
~~~~~~~~~~ Interestingly, in spite of the unrest, the Israel ambassador to Egypt has returned to Cairo, following the September attack on the Israeli Embassy when all staff left the country. But this is Yitzhak Levanon, who, according to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, is on the cusp of retirement and has gone to Egypt (reportedly via a Turkish airlines flight) to conduct some farewell meetings before he departs. The new ambassador, Yaakov Amitai, is scheduled to present his credentials in Cairo in December. The Embassy will not be fully staffed until all security arrangements are in place, and this may take somewhat longer. ~~~~~~~~~~ You may encounter reports that Israel is about to enact laws that are "anti-democratic." Do not believe it, even for a second. The laws in question, which have passed a Ministerial Committee on Legislation, concern limiting foreign donations to Israeli NGOs (non-governmental organizations). The legislation, which is supported by the prime minister, still must jump through a number of hoops, such as Knesset readings, before becoming law. I believe Israel is the only democracy to permit the sort of intervention by foreign governments that currently goes on — infusions of cash by those governments to support the agendas they wish to advance (but which do not represent the will of the Israeli electorate). The more significant of the two bills has been proposed by two Likud MKs, Ophir Akunis and Tzipi Hotovely and Yisrael Beitenu faction Chair Robert Ilatov. It would ban foreign governments from contributing over 20,000 NIS (shekels) — at current rates, about $5,400 — to political NGOs, defined as "organizations seeking to influence the diplomatic or defense agenda of the State of Israel." ~~~~~~~~~~ NGO-Monitor has prepared background information on the situation, to answer questions and allay misunderstandings:
~~~~~~~~~~ NGO-Monitor has also provided a list of those Israeli NGOs that receive foreign government donations, either directly or indirectly:
You will note that every single one of these organizations is left wing. There is, by way of example, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, which receives 53% of its funds from foreign governments. As NGO-Monitor notes: "NGOs are meant to represent civil society, not the interests of foreign governments..." Something is very amiss. ~~~~~~~~~~ Giving a CNN interview today, Defense Minister Ehud Barak declared that Iran will be "unstoppable" in a year. Time, he said, is running out. Should Iran become a nuclear nation, it would result in nations such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey seeking nuclear arms, thus starting a "countdown" to terrorists getting nuclear materials. ~~~~~~~~~~ Then see this by Tzachi Hanegbi, former head of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, who says, "Accepting a nuclear Iran would cause much more danger to Israel than the anticipated damage from any action designed to harm nuclear program." Hanegbi presents a series of indisputable facts: "Today no one disputes the fact that Iran has acquired the necessary know-how to enrich uranium for an atomic bomb. ~~~~~~~~~~ He then looks at the Israeli dilemma regarding what to do. Conceding that there are issues meant only for discussion behind closed doors and far too sensitive to be analyzed in an article, he goes on to say, "All I would allow myself to say is that I totally reject the apocalyptic scenarios published in recent days. To the best of my knowledge, based on constant dealings with the Iranian issue in the most intimate possible way over seven consecutive years, I think that coming to terms with a nuclear Iran would cause much more danger and harm to Israel than the anticipated damage from any action designed to harm Iran's nuclear program. http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContributors/ Article.aspx?id=245160 Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website at www.arlenefromisrael.info |
|
WHY DON'T WESTERN ELITES GET THE MIDDLE EAST? BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S JUST LIKE THEM (SORT OF)
Posted by Barry Rubin, November 20, 2011. |
|
I've come to realize a hitherto hidden dimension of why it is so hard for Western establishment figures (policymakers, journalists, and academics) to understand the Middle East. It is the conflict between the thirst for good news and the reality of bad news. Being optimists (based on the relatively good course of their own societies?) and believing that positive change is really easy if people only put their minds to making it happen (ditto and also liberal thinking), they exaggerate any sign that things are getting better. Moreover, contemporary thinking trembles in horror about saying anything critical about Third World peoples (racism, Islamophobia) while it is considered noble to criticize "ourselves." On top of that is the assumption that no one can really be radical. They are just responding to past mistreatment and will revert to being moderate the minute the oppression is corrected. So constantly we are led to an artificial optimism that ignores threats or even converts them into benefits. How many examples I see every day! A group of young Palestinians in Fatah, who explicitly say they want to wipe out Israel, form a new group and — hocus-pocus — we are informed that this is the long-awaited Palestinian equivalent of the dovish Israeli Peace Now movement! We are told that the Libyan masses are fighting for democracy against dictator Muammar Qadhafi and suddenly we have prisoners being tortured and murdered, arms being sold to terrorists elsewhere, gun battles among factions, and a radical Islamist state emerging. In Turkey the regime arrests hundreds of people, represses the media, pushes women out of government jobs, promotes antisemitism and, voila!, it is first called moderate Muslim (they deny it is Islamist) and then promoted (?) to moderate Islamist! Radicals (except in the West?) are apparently representatives of backward, irrational, primitive societies and so if all Third World societies are equal to those of the West they just can't have such people. Everyone must be a moderate, concerned about global warming and ecology; dedicated to democracy; and passionate about getting more material goods as the highest goal in life. It never ceases to amaze me that those who most loudly proclaim Multiculturalism, diversity, and the equality of all societies simply can't seem to comprehend that cultures and societies are different. They are in fact diverse! Living 40 years under Muammar Qadhafi in a semi-literate, tribal-based society does not create people like those on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. And not even the Upper West Side for that matter. Equally ironic, is that while Western elites are quick to look down on their own unwashed masses (bitterly clinging to their guns, religion, and hating outsiders, right?), they fail to comprehend that this is precisely the central theme throughout the Middle East and many other parts of the world. Perhaps I should suggest an amazing new formula that would make it easy for Western elites to understand what's going on in the Middle East: Just think of the Islamists in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Turkey; the regimes in Iran and Syria; Hamas, Hizballah, and even the Palestinian Authority as being like the...Tea Party! Scary, huh? This was written by Barry Rubin, who is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and co-author of "Yasir Arafat: A Political Biography" and "Hating America: A History" (Oxford University Press). His latest book is The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). Prof. Rubin's columns can now be read online at http://gloria.idc.ac.il/columns/column.html. Contact him at profbarryrubin@yahoo.com The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. |
|
CANADIAN MUSLIMS' DIVERSITY
Posted by Richard H. Shulman, November 19, 2011. |
|
Daniel Pipes analyzed the research of two other scholars and himself on the opinions about Canada by Muslims there. He concludes that Canadian Muslims are neither all hostile to Western ways nor totally accepting of them. They have a variety of views. Their attitudes are important during these times when Muslims are attempting to impose Islamic law on Western countries and wage jihad against them. Why are they different? Muslim I migrants included "Qadiri and similar Sufi traditionalists, heterodox Muslims from sub-Saharan Africa, and secularists from Tunisia and Algeria." Muslims in Canada do not consider Canada racist and highly approve of the government there, as does the population as a whole. Reviewing the studies, Daniel Pipes remarks, "I found it especially encouraging that Canadian Muslims understand democracy as not just a system for choosing leaders but as a mentality and a way of life permitting an individual the autonomy to think and act in freedom, to develop his own opinions, and to opt out of." Job-seeking can be problematic for Muslims. Muslims have made problems for societies that employers are reluctant to let themselves in for; however, some employers may be prejudiced. On the other hand, about 15% of Canadian Muslims want Islamic law applied to Muslims there. Radical views are found more among secular Muslims in Canada than among religious ones. Apparently Radical views there are more political than religious in motivation. About 3% of Canadian Muslims favor al-Qaida. That percentage is small, but 3% of the 700,000 Muslims in the country amounts to 20,000 hard-core Islamists. That should alert immigration and other security officials. Will Canadian Muslims, the most moderate and diverse, try to interest other Muslim immigrant populations in their attitudes? (Daniel Pipes, Macdonald-Laurier Institute, 11/2011
Richard Shulman is a veteran defender of Israel on several web-based forums. His comments and analyses appear often on Think-Israel. He provides cool information and right-on-target overviews. He distributes his essays by email. To subscribe, write him at richardshulman5@aol.com. |
|
FROM ISRAEL: THE MORE THINGS CHANGE...
Posted by Arlene Kushner, November 19, 2011. |
|
Motzei Shabbat (After Shabbat) It was, admittedly, only during the course of the past 1-1/2 weeks that I was focused on family matters intensively enough so that I was prevented from posting. But now that I have returned to normal posting (and am so happy be back to doing so), I ask how things have changed in the course of those ten days. And the answer is that not much has changed. The same irritating and worrisome themes persist. The same world stupidity endures. Hadn't expected anything else. ~~~~~~~~~~ In my book, no issue trumps that of the threat of Iran — even if much of the world still chooses, obtusely and at its own peril, to remain oblivious to this. Back on November 8, the Israeli government was still expressing hope that once the IAEA report on Iran was released — that very day — the world would sit up and take notice. The report — who contents had already been leaked — for the first time made it clear that Iran is secretly working towards the development of atomic weaponry: "Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device." A 14-page annex to the report provides a detailed description of the ways in which Iranian scientists have sought to develop the relevant skills and secure highly specific information and materials used in nuclear warhead design. Iran would require about six months to enrich the quantity of uranium necessary for building a weapon. You can see the report here:
~~~~~~~~~~ Within a day, Russia announced that it would block any more stringent move against Iran in the UN: Deputy Foreign Minister Gennady Gatilov declared that, "Any additional sanctions against Iran will be seen in the international community as an instrument for regime change in Tehran....That approach is unacceptable to us, and the Russian side does not intend to consider such proposals." Two days later, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei, defending Chinese economic dealings with Iran, said that cooperation rather than coercion is the most effective approach to Iran. ~~~~~~~~~~ And the US? It has been hedging with regard to sanctions against the Iranian Central Bank (considered one of the most effective ways of hurting Iran) because this would have drive up oil prices and hurt the US economy. Seems to me I've covered this ground before: the breathtaking idiocy of imagining that a world in which Iran has nuclear weaponry would be stable and not adversely affect the US economy. A recent editorial in the Washington Post makes this point quite clearly: "The Obama administration has been saying since last month, when it revealed an Iranian plot to murder the Saudi ambassador to the United States, that it intended to press for tougher sanctions. But in briefing reporters this week, officials appeared to back away from measures that would have real impact...the administration is wary that, by effectively shutting down Iran's oil exports, it would provoke a spike in energy prices that would damage the fragile global economy. ~~~~~~~~~~ Meanwhile Netanyahu made it clear that: "The significance of the [IAEA] report is that the international community must bring about the cessation of Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons which endanger the peace of the world and of the Middle East." "Must." But will it? There is a veiled warning here. ~~~~~~~~~~ A US official cited by the Wall Street Journal clearly recognized that warning: "We need to show to the Israelis that there's a sense of seriousness." This is a fascinating statement. Not that "we [international leaders] need" to stop Iran because Iran must be stopped. But because Israel might otherwise do something "rash." So precisely who is viewed as the bigger threat here? ~~~~~~~~~~ Last Sunday, during his statement at the beginning of the Cabinet meeting, Netanyahu made the warning even more dire: "Iran is closer to getting a bomb than is thought. Only things that could be proven were written [in the report], but in reality there are many other things that we see." While Foreign Minister Lieberman has observed that: "So far the international community has imposed sanctions on Iran only on 30% of areas where it could be possible....Even if the Western world would impose sanctions without China and Russia, it would be enough to strangle Iran." ~~~~~~~~~~ It's my understanding that two US officials — David Cohen, Undersecretary of the Treasury for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, who is charge of America's economic sanctions on Iran, and Deputy Secretary of State Thomas Nides — were here in Israel last week to discuss issues of how to proceed with sanctions against Iran. But there is no information I have uncovered regarding the discussions. ~~~~~~~~~~ Just two days ago, Security Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon made the statement that Israel's readiness to hit Iran must be something that is credible to the Iranians — that is, that they take seriously and cannot dismiss as saber-rattling. But, while Israel must be ready to take on Iran on its own, this option "is the last one and only comes after all other options have been used." ~~~~~~~~~~ The welcome news about Iran is two fold. First, it seems that Iran's computers are again affected by a supervirus similar to what hit it last year. This one is being called "Duqu." It is thought to be related to the original "Stuxnet" and is likely to have been created by the same parties. "Duqu" is apparently designed to secure information from computers to be utilized in a further virus attack. And then, there was a major blast at a missile base just a week ago that killed 17 members of the Revolutionary Guard — including Brigadier General Hassan Moghaddam, who was in charge of missile development — and did extensive damage to the site. This is being linked to an explosion last October at a base that housed long-range Shahab-3 missiles. Fingers are pointed at the Mossad. But, as should be the case, no one is talking. ~~~~~~~~~~ The second issue of high interest, of course, is that of PA shenanigans. Which are never-ending and ever so wearisome. Sensing that its bid in the Security Council was not going well, the PA, some days ago, resorted to its default position of making threats regarding impending violence. (Its other default is making threats about Abbas's resignation and the dismantlement of the PA). In this instance, a PA official predicted that the region might be headed towards "violence and anarchy" if its bid for statehood failed. But, as that threat — quite obviously — made no discernable difference in the situation, the PA has decided not to call for a vote in the Security Council with regard to its request for membership. It had become clear that there were not enough votes to pass it: According to a Security Council subcommittee report, only eight states were prepared to vote for Palestinian membership, while nine of 15 were required. With the exception of the US, which was prepared to cast a veto, the other states that wouldn't vote in favor would have abstained — Britain, France, Colombia, Germany, Portugal and Bosnia. But abstentions would have been enough to prevent the PA from achieving its goal. All of this was undoubtedly an enormous relief to Obama, who would have cast the veto he had committed to only reluctantly. As the result of effective lobbying by the US and Israel, it had become unnecessary. ~~~~~~~~~~ But do not imagine that this is the end of the PA's UN gambit. Now, leaders have announced, they will be focused on the General Assembly, where there is no chance for a majority vote favoring the Palestinian Arabs to be blocked, and where they will be seeking observer status. This does not, I emphasize, represent the creation of a Palestinian state by the General Assembly, which is not empowered to do anything of the sort. But observer status would grant the PA certain perks that it would try to parlay to its advantage in the international community. I will be tracking this carefully. ~~~~~~~~~~ Then beyond the UN gambit, the PA has returned again, more actively, to its "form-a-unity-government-with-Hamas" gambit. According to Khaled Abu Toameh, writing in the JPost, Azzam al-Ahmed, a senior West Bank Fatah official has revealed that he has had held secret meetings in Cairo with Musa Abu Marzouk, deputy head of the Hamas politburo located in Damascus. Ahmed said that they had held several meetings "in order to create a positive atmosphere" ahead of an anticipated summit in Cairo between Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal. Some six months ago a unity agreement had been announced, but stumbled on the issue of the formation of a joint government: Hamas was adamant that PA prime minister Salam Fayyad, whom they detest, would have no part in it, and Fatah was just as adamant that he must have a role. Now reports are that Fayyad has agreed to resign, and to withdraw with regard to any further involvement in government. While many members of Fatah were themselves less than fond of Fayyad, who is an independent, they tolerated his continuing role as prime minister because he is the darling of the West — the one who has had the confidence of the EU and the ability to bring in financial support for the PA. A Palestinian government without him at its helm will usher in a different, more problematic, dynamic. ~~~~~~~~~~ In addition to having to put together a government, the parties involved have to set a time for presidential and parliamentary elections, presumably in the spring. Almost all Palestinian Arab issues are "wait and see" because of the inherent volatility of the situation. But I believe it is even more the case with regard to the formation of a unity government. In spite of a history of some cooperation and certainly at present some convergence of interests that suggest the possibility of such an arrangement, there is also an underlying dynamic of tensions and rivalries between Hamas and Fatah. ~~~~~~~~~~ From my cynical perspective I see one particular advantage: Full readiness on the part of Abbas to enter into arrangements with an overtly terrorist entity goes a long way to removing his mask of moderation. I qualify by saying "a long way," because there are always parties ready to put on their blinders and dance around him, finding ways to exonerate his behavior. But he is making it tougher for the West to embrace him, which I rather like — as Fatah's goals and those of Hamas are one and the same. In particular, I am hoping that once and for all Netanyahu would be freed of his compulsion to show the world how eager he is to sit at the negotiating table with Abbas — even as Abbas goes on about requiring a halt in all construction beyond the Green Line and the necessity of accepting the '67 line as the basis for negotiations. Never a straight-forward statement: "We're sick of this guy, who has no interest in peace, and sick of pretending that he might come around." ~~~~~~~~~~ This is the sort of statement that seriously irks me. No — in simple street jargon — that makes me bananas: An Israeli official on Thursday was quoted as saying that "if he [Abbas]... [moves] forward towards Hamas, it can seriously harm the peace process." Say what? Peace process? What peace process? What nonsensical pretense. Another official said more: "If Abbas consummates this marriage in a meeting next week with Mashaal, it is a serious problem for us. We have said before that Abbas can choose peace with us or Hamas, but they don't go together." Then it becomes time to watch closely how the Israeli government will respond. ~~~~~~~~~~ Joke of the day, except its not funny: From Maariv: "On Wednesday, the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad was chosen to be the Arab representative on the UNESCO committee that deals with issues relating to the implementation of human rights. "UNESCO's decision comes after Assad's regime managed to kill 3,500 demonstrators and arrest tens of thousands, without any due process whatsoever." Proof positive of the corruption of the world. ~~~~~~~~~~ Speaking of UNESCO, please see "Who's destroying antiquities in Jerusalem?": "Now that it has been admitted to UNESCO as a 'member state,' the Palestinian Authority plans to sue Israel for 'stealing Palestinian antiquities.' "'We will take Israel to court for systematically destroying and forging Arab and Islamic culture in Jerusalem,' said Hatem Abdel Qader, former PA minister for Jerusalem affairs, after the UNESCO vote. "PA Minister of Tourism Khuloud Daibes alleges that Israel's renovations of Jerusalem's Old City walls and its intention to replace the crumbling Mughrabi Bridge at the southern entrance to the Temple Mount are hostile attempts to 'change the Islamic and Arabic character of the city.' "The Palestinians are also planning to ask UNESCO to declare several sites in Jerusalem and the West Bank such as the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron, international heritage sites belonging to Palestine, not Israel. "If this weren't so funny, it would be outrageous..."
Author David Weinberg, director of public affairs at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, then traces the sterling record of Israel on this issue, and the abysmal Arab/Muslim record. This is information every supporter of Israel should have. ~~~~~~~~~~ I want to end on a "good news" note that seems a bit frivolous in light of all that is above, but which I find both charming and hopeful in its broader implications: In the 1940s and 1950s, the marshes of Hula Valley in northern Israel were drained because of malaria and in order to make the area arable. With the disappearance of its natural habitat, the Hula painted frog disappeared — one hadn't been seen in some 50 years and in 1996 it was declared extinct. About three years ago, with recognition of the ecological damage done to the region when the swamps were drained, water was diverted back to areas of the Hula. And now? Surprise! The Hula frog — described as having "a dark belly with small white spots and other colors including ochre and rust grading into dark olive-gray and gray-black" — has been spotted again. Don't know how it managed these past fifty years, but it wasn't extinct after all, Israel's Nature and Parks Authority now informs us. Hang in there! is the watchword. Contact Arlene Kushner at akushner18@gmail.com and visit her website at www.arlenefromisrael.info |