Sunday, November 15, 2009

What Happened at the mosque and inside Goldstone’s mind?


Richard Landes
Augean Stables
15 November 09

Jonathan Dahoah Halevi, whose work on the evidence from OCL is extensive, has published some thoughts on the Al Maqadmah mosque case and the Goldstone Report’s handling of it. I add comments to bring out some of the more astonishing aspects of his argument.

What happened at mosque?
Jonathan Dahoah Halevi questions reliability of reports on Gaza mosque attack

Jonathan Dahoah Halevi
Published: 11.12.09, 17:21 / Israel Opinion

On November 5, 2009 there was a confrontation at Brandeis University in Massachusetts between the president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Dr. Dore Gold, and Judge Richard Goldstone. It dealt, among other things, with the affair of the Maqadmah mosque in Beit Lahia in the northern Gaza Strip, about which two contradictory versions exist, that of Israel and that of the Goldstone Committee’s Report.

The Goldstone Report about Operation Cast Lead accuses Israel of an air strike on the mosque on January 3, 2009, which caused the deaths of “at least 15 Palestinians” who were in it at the time. During the confrontation with Dr. Gold, Goldstone claimed that 21 Palestinians had been killed, and he presented the attack as a salient example of Israel’s policy of deliberately targeting innocent civilians. However, Israel issued official documents stating that its Air Force did not attack the mosque and that the dead had been killed in fighting the IDF.

(more…)

Straining those unbreakable bonds


FresnoZionism.org
13 November 09

On November 1,

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said … at a press conference in Jerusalem that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement on limiting construction in the settlements was “unprecedented.”

A senior government source in Jerusalem said Clinton told the prime minister, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak that she had demanded that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas remove his preconditions and renew talks immediately. — Ha’aretz

But 9 days later,

The United States does not accept continued Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank, a senior U.S. state department official has said, adding that Jerusalem’s commitment to restrain settlement activity is not enough.

In an address to the Middle East Institute, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William J. Burns on Tuesday said that the Obama administration does not “accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.”

“We consider the Israeli offer to restrain settlement activity to be a potentially important step, but it obviously falls short of the continuing Roadmap obligation for a full settlement freeze,” he said. – Ha’aretz

What a difference a bit more than a week makes! During those 9 days,two main things happened. Mahmoud Abbas threw a tantrum and threatened to quit or even to dissolve the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the State Department fell in love with the Fayaad plan to declare a Palestinian state in two years.

Let’s face it, the State Department doesn’t give a rat’s tuchas about security for Israel. Their goal is always stated in terms of “two peaceful states, side by side”, but what they care about is the Palestinian state. Burns gave the usual meaningless nod toward America’s connection with Israel, but you can see that it’s the Arab state that he’s salivating for:

A Jewish state of Israel, with which America retains unbreakable bonds, and with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, that ends the daily humiliations of Palestinians under occupation, and that realizes the full and remarkable potential of the Palestinian people…

The good news is that he said “A Jewish state” and that he mentioned 1967 — after all, if he had just said “the occupation”, Palestinians would assume that he meant the ‘occupation’ that dates from 1948.

(Read full article)

.

More NIAC


Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
13 November 09


Ben Smith, following on Eli Lake’s blockbuster story, has a must-read post on the emerging scandal concerning the mullahs’ favorite front group, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC). The issues go far beyond whether NIAC has been illegally operating without registering as a foreign agent, and have ensnared NIAC’s close ally, none other than J Street.

First, NIAC is a Soros-backed group. Soros is of course the money behind MoveOn.org and got J Street up and running. He is also paying “the $90,000 annual salary of the NIAC staffer, Patrick Disney.” The Left’s moneyman is plainly in the mullah’s corner.

Second, Smith details NIAC’s ongoing meetings and elaborate plans to scuttle the appointment of Middle East adviser Dennis Ross. And NIAC has plenty of company:

The minutes of a series of meetings including NIAC and other coalition members offer a glimpse of the strategy and tactics involved in the push for a rapprochement with the Islamic Republic, from an attempt to undermine the appointment of Dennis Ross as Iran envoy to a planned “Send Hillary to Iran” campaign.

The minutes include almost no mention of a human rights agenda inside Iran, which has more recently been on NIAC’s agenda. Participants in the discussions include NIAC as well as the liberal Jewish group J Street, anti-war groups like Peace Action and the American Friends Service Committee, and the business lobby that opposes Iran sanctions, USA*Engage.

This is curious indeed given J Street’s ostensible support for the Obama administration. Publicly running interference and quietly conspiring with the mullahs’ legmen in the U.S. to get Ross dumped. Moreover, NIAC’s own website, under a “myths and facts” post, takes up sides with none other than — you guessed it — Dennis Ross, who is supposedly under attack:

NIAC is not the only organization that is under attack. In fact, almost every distinguished American policymaker, intellectual and administration official that supports Obama’s pro-engagement policy in the Middle East is being targeted. This includes:

  • Ambassador Dennis Ross — Currently serving in the U.S. National Security Council
  • Vali Nasr — Senior Adviser to Ambassador Richard Holbrooke, Tufts University Fletcher School Professor and Middle East Scholar
  • Ambassador Thomas Pickering — Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs under President Clinton, and former Ambassador to Israel
  • Ambassador Susan Rice — Ambassador to the United Nations
  • Barbara Slavin — Editor for World and National Security at the Washington Times
  • Ambassador Richard Haas – President of Council on Foreign Relations Committee

Well yes, Ross was under attack — by NIAC. Slavin, who is Lake’s editor, is also curiously on the list. I suspect she’ll come off.

Also on the agenda for the J Street-NIAC gang, as Smith details: fending off any military action against Iran and cutting off aid to pro-democracy groups within Iran. The rationale they offer — they want to prevent a crackdown by the regime — is the sort of propaganda we’ve heard for decades from totalitarian regimes.

Third, we see once again the presence of Morton Halperin. He is both on J Street’s advisory board and a senior adviser to Soros’s Open Society Institute. He was recently fingered as the actual author of a letter by Richard Goldstone defending his infamous report and opposing a congressional resolution condemning the report. He too is part of the cabal to get Dennis Ross. And NIAC sought a White House meeting for Halperin and NIAC officials. Again, all one big happy family.

It seems as though the issue as to whether J Street is “pro-Israel” has been superseded by another. Now we must ask: is it pro-mullah?

.

Ridicule or analysis?


Ira Sharkansky
Shark Blog
14 November 09

This is one of those times to wonder if ridicule or serious analysis is in order.

The occasion is a combination of two moves by the Palestinian leadership. It is not even clear which of the two warrants ridicule or analysis, or if they are both just part of the noise coming out of a entity with doubtful credibility. Perhaps they deserve no more attention than the bull sessions heard in the halls of a legislature, or in the dorm rooms of individuals aspiring to make a splash in student government.

One of the moves is a threat by the ostensible president of Palestine, Mahmoud Abbas, to resign or not to run for re-election if Israel is not immediately forthcoming with respect to Palestinian demands. The other is to seek international recognition for an independent Palestine with the borders of 1967 and Jerusalem as its capital.

To be precise, it is not clear whether the threat is to resign, or not to run for re-election. The picture is confused by the formal end of Abbas' term some months ago, which has led the Hamas leadership to declare that he is no longer the president. There is a further problem insofar as the Palestinian Election Commission has indicated that it may not be possible to implement the election scheduled for January, and Hamas has indicated that it will not let Gazans vote in an illegal election.

President Barack Obama, the heads of several European governments, and prominent Israelis in and out of government have urged Abbas to continue.

No doubt it would be easier for those saying he should stay if he accepted their call. Leaving aside the human factor (Doesn't an ineffective 74 year old have a right to retire?), his continuation would avoid learning how to deal with someone new.

Some of those urging him to stay on are making the claim that "there is no one who could fill his shoes." Apparently they come from places where the cemeteries are not already filled with indispensable people.

Palestinians are threatening that if Abbas goes, the only viable candidate is Marwan Barghouti. He has a following of unknown size in the West Bank, but was convicted of involvement in numerous murders and is serving several life sentences in an Israeli prison. One doubts that the Israeli government will respond with a "Sure, why not?" to Barghouti's selection.

The other threat is that without Abbas, the Palestine National Authority will collapse, Israel will be saddled with governing the West Bank, and that will advance the idea of one country from the Jordan to the Mediterranean, with majority (i.e., Palestinian) rule.

If the Palestine National Authority does collapse, it is more likely that Israelis will not notice the difference from what currently exists. Those who do notice will be overseas Palestinian investors who are remaking the faces of Ramallah and Jenin. Perhaps their threats to halt the financial inflows will move the Palestinians in a direction of realism.

Those overseas investors might also work to moderate the Palestinian maneuver to seek international recognition for an independent state with the borders of 1967 and Jerusalem as its capital.

No doubt there are many unworthies of the world who will support the Palestinians. Will they notice that Israel surrounds the Palestinian areas of the West Bank, controls who and what moves in and out, including water and electricity? Will they pay attention to existing agreements between Israel and Palestinians that make changes of the kinds indicated dependent on an agreement of both parties?.

Enough analysis? Or is this ridicule?
.

[Confused identity] COS Ashkenazi support deal with Assad - appears to trust him


Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
15 November 09

Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA

Pop quiz: Who is Gabi Ashkenazi?

(1) A Kadima back bencher in the Knesset who previously served in a high position in the IDF?

(2) An analyst in the Foreign Ministry?

(3) Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff

Let's look at the argument Gabi Ashkenazi raises for making a deal with Assad:

"We should not be disheartened by Assad," he said during private conversations. The defense establishment has been steadily in favor of resuming talks with Syria. A source present in meetings where Ashkenazi spoke said that the chief of staff explained that "Israel has a strategic interest in disassociating Syria from the extremist axis that Iran is leading."

"Syria is not lost," Ashkenazi declared. "Assad is western educated and is not a religious man. He can still join a moderate grouping."

Is this military analysis?

No.

It's at best the kind of pop-psychology that might be acceptable in the working paper of some junior analyst at the Foreign Ministry.

But it has absolutely nothing to do with his area of expertise.

And so here is the real question to lose sleep over: Will the fact that Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi apparently thinks that handing over the Golan to Assad will make him a "moderate" and not consider attacking Israel ever in the future, influence the analysis that he actually is being paid to do: analyze the efficacy of security arrangements being considered in the course of diplomatic discussions regarding the Golan?

Because if when Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi prepares the analysis he is thinking at the same time that Syria will never attack if we would hand over the Golan he might be tempted to tinker with the analysis in order to insure that Israeli security demands don't get in the way of "peace in our time."

Impossible?

Hardly.

Consider all the brass who signed off on absurd security arrangements under Oslo.]
.

Peace Process 101


Noah Pollak
Contentions/Commentary
14 November 09

In a new National Review piece, Elliott Abrams makes an important observation:

As a result [of Obama's Middle East policy], “world opinion” toward Israel has gone from cool to frigid — in Europe especially. U.N. actions such as the Goldstone Report are one manifestation of this; denunciations of Israel, not to mention efforts to prevent Israeli officials from speaking on campuses and indeed to jail them if they come to Europe, are others. The cause is clear: As the United States, Israel’s closest friend, has backed away from Israel since the Obama inauguration, Europeans have backed even farther. They have seen the American coolness as license, indeed encouragement, to excoriate the Jewish state, and have enthusiastically done so.

This could be called Peace Processing 101, and it is obviously a course nobody in the White House has taken. Israel is a small country surrounded by people who hate and continue trying to destroy her. If Israel is to make concessions or take risks for peace, Israelis must feel secure enough to do so. How is this accomplished? The main way is through the U.S.-Israeli relationship. The closeness of the two countries serves the U.S. strategic objective of compelling the Arabs to abandon their quest for eliminating the Jewish state, and it reduces Israel’s fear of taking risks for peace. This is one of the major factors that led to peace with Egypt and Jordan — not Israeli weakness and isolation, but the Arab perception of Israeli strength.

The paradigm described above is premised on the idea that the Arabs have been the major obstacle to peace in the region. But Obama has taken a new tack. His paradigm, which is to create, as he put it recently, “daylight” between the two countries, is premised on something else; not outright Israeli culpability but certainly a belief that Israel has been a major part of the problem.

Changing the paradigm has been a central objective of many liberals, and certainly of the J Street faction. Instead of achieving peace by assuring Israel of its security, the administration is trying to make peace by causing the Israelis to fear they will be abandoned by the United States if they don’t do the White House’s bidding.

But now we can compare the two paradigms: close alliance versus “daylight.” The latter is already a debacle after only a few months in practice. It is opening the global floodgates of Israel-obsessed criticism. It is making Israelis distrust the U.S. — a development that will translate into a democratic veto over concessions and the deleveraging of U.S. influence. It has forced the Palestinians to compete with the White House in hostility to Israel, humiliating Mahmoud Abbas when the administration chose to retreat. Even the existence of the peace process itself — much less actual peace — depends on Israel’s faith in the United States to help protect it from the maelstrom of condemnation that is the “international community’s” favorite hobby. The only question now is whether Professor Obama is capable of learning anything from the Middle East lesson he is being taught.

.

Bill Clinton, I Can Play Those "If" Games, Too


Batya Medad
Shilo Musings
15 November 09

If Hillary had divorced Bill, she would be United States President today!
That's a lot truer than Bill's Rabin worship:
"There would be peace if Rabin were still alive"

Hat tip: IMRA


Considering that Clinton's judgment was lower than his charisma, why should anyone take him seriously? Did Bill use his "Divorce is not an option" line to Hillary when caught in his extra-marital affairs?

As I've written numerous times, peace isn't up to us. We're not at war against our neighbors. The Arabs unabashedly declare that they want us dead and gone. They attack, terrorize etc. Israel just takes it, trying to invent various "defensive shields," and on the rare ocassions when we do fight back, we're condemned by the world.

Yitzchak Rabin's policies were not bringing Israel towards peace, just to a more weakened state when our enemies were (as always) planning our destruction.

There's nothing like death, especially a violent one, to turn a controversial figure into a "saint." Israel's Left, supported by like-minded international figures and organizations, has so efficiently and professionally exploited Rabin's murder; you'd think they had orchestrated it...
.

The Vision of Shaul


Yisrael Harel
Haaretz
12 November 09

According to Shaul Mofaz, only an Israeli peace plan will prevent terrorism (and we have given the Palestinians a permanent exemption from needing to present plans of their own). After all, everyone knows that the outbreak of the longest and cruelest period of terror ever to hit Israel (lasting about 10 years) stemmed from the absence of the Oslo initiative (and the subsequent Oslo agreement). Similarly, the terror of rockets on the western Negev stemmed from the absence of the disengagement plan (and its subsequent implementation).

Since today, due to the absence of a plan, relative quiet prevails in the south, it is necessary to again take the initiative. Only another plan will extricate the people of Israel from the unfamiliar, abnormal tranquillity they have had to contend with since the army's Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.

Mofaz's diplomatic plan is a stew of rehashed ideas, most of which are either irrelevant or will never be implemented, that various people have tossed into the political debate in recent years. The reason the diplomatic "meditations" of the chairman of the organization of truthful politicians even deserves consideration stems from the positive, sometimes even enthusiastic, response with which the initiative has been received.

Only in Israel could a former chief of staff who failed both ethically and operationally in a long war on terror, and then became a hapless defense minister (who predicted that the disengagement would bring an end to the Qassam rockets, and then contended with such impressive success with the thousands of missiles of "peace and quiet" that were fired at Negev residents), be taken seriously by the public rather than being seen as a political adventurer. Only in Israel could a politician who cheated his party and his voters (saying that Likud was his home and then defecting to Kadima) almost win the leadership of another major party and then vie for the prime minister's crown ("as prime minister, I will have the right to implement the plan").

The torchbearers of Mofaz's prophetic vision (who, in their prior incarnations, embraced the visions of eminent seers like Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak and others) tell the public that well-known experts reinforced his sense of urgency (we need the courage to change before disaster strikes) about coming out with a "peace plan." The position papers from which his plan derives were prepared by think tanks. It would be interesting to know who those think tanks are - because think tanks worthy of the name would make their case with facts and figures and show the prime ministerial aspirant that suicide bombers and Qassam rockets exploded in our midst in the wake of "peace plans," not because of their absence.

There is almost no important detail in Mofaz's innovative plan that has not been discussed in the past with the Palestinians and rejected out of hand. Genuine research would have revealed that. Such research would also have discovered that in response to every one of the "plans" conceived in Israel with the goal of avoiding "diplomatic stalemate" (plans whose guiding principle always involved concessions on Israel's part), the Palestinians only hardened their stance. Instead of seeing these plans as a demonstration of Israel's sincere desire for peace, they viewed them, and with justification, as a product of weakness.

More than once, the Palestinians have reacted to these plans with outbursts of lethal terror. And why should they respond to them in any other way, when they know that rejecting these plans, and certainly if coupled with violence, will lay the groundwork for the next concession-filled plan, including the absurd idea (which Mofaz includes in his plan) of giving the Palestinians territory within the Green Line?

Judging by the reception Mofaz's plan has won, those who didn't want him as chairman of the Kadima party could get him in the future as prime minister. Then Israel, not America, would be known as the land of unlimited opportunity, at least for politicians without backbone. But given the stringent demands the public makes of its leaders - integrity, vision, adherence to goals, leadership skills and strategic understanding - actually, why not Mofaz?
.

Saturday, November 14, 2009

A world of walls?


Shiraz Maher
Standpoint Magazine
09 November 09

Israel has one - but have you heard about the others?

Today marks the twentieth anniversary of the collapse of the Berlin Wall. During that time scores of other barriers and walls have gone up around the world as documented in a fascinating report by the BBC.

Of course, the one we've all heard about is the Israeli security fence which attracted fierce criticism after its construction in 2003. Built in response to the Palestinian intifada which claimed more than 900 lives since September 2000, the fence has dramatically halted the number of terrorist attacks inside the country.

Excuse the pun - but from the wall-to-wall coverage it received - you could be mistaken for thinking that Israel's decision to defend itself in this way was unprecedented. Yet, not only is this wrong but, ironically, a lot of the physical barriers currently in place are located in the ‘Muslim world'.

The Saudi-Yemeni border is just one place where a physical barrier is used by a Muslim regime to defend itself against ‘smuggling' and ‘terrorism'. The head of Saudi Arabia's border control, Talal Anqawi, has described it as

a sort of screen ... which aims to prevent infiltration and smuggling

Saudi Arabia's border with Yemen has always been problematic, providing a trafficking route for weapons smuggling. Indeed, the explosives used in the 2003 Riyadh bombings which targeted compounds housing western expatriates were blamed on Yemeni smugglers. It was not the first time Saudi Arabia blamed the Yemenis for not doing enough to stop terrorism. Yemeni smugglers are also believed to have helped facilitate the bombing campaign against US military bases in the mid-1990s.

Once the Saudi government lost confidence in Yemen's ability to curb domestic terrorism, they decided to build a physical barrier. Much of it runs through contested territory. According to the 2000 Jeddah border treaty between Saudi Arabia and Yemen, a demilitarised ‘buffer zone' should exist between both countries, protecting the rights of nomadic Bedouin tribes which live in the cross-border area.

Yet, parts of the Saudi barrier stand inside the demilitarised zone, violating the 2000 agreement and infuriating Yemen. The Foreign Minister, Abu Bakr Al-Qirbi, made official representations to the Saudi government in 2003 arguing

This area is supposed to be for pasturing. That was part of the agreement. The tribesmen have been allowed to cross over from one side to another for pasturing. That is a traditional way of life for tribesmen in that area.

Not anymore. A prominent leader of the Wayilah tribe which occupies the disputed area explains

(Read full article)

The Show Needn't Go On


Michael J. Totten
Commentary Magazine
13 November 09

This week the Israeli government announced it will resume negotiations with Syria without preconditions, and the Syrians responded in kind.

Peace talks, if they ever actually start, aren't going anywhere, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu knows it. He's going through the motions so Western diplomats don't throw him and his country out in the cold. Syria's Bashar Assad knows it too. He's going through the motions so that he and his country can come in from the cold.

It has been years since I spoke to a single person in the Middle East who thinks the Arab-Israeli conflict will be resolved any time soon. Last time I visited Jerusalem with a half-dozen American colleagues, Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh bluntly told us to stop asking "What's the solution?"

"I don't see a real peace emerging over here," he said. "We should stop talking about it."

Some Westerners, though, can't stop talking about it and get bent out of shape when they hear comments like Toameh's from either side. As Evelyn Gordon pointed out here a few days ago, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner can't see the difference between Israeli disillusionment about the prospects for peace and an abandonment of the desire for peace in the abstract.

“What really hurts me," Kouchner said, "and this shocks us, is that before there used to be a great peace movement in Israel. … It seems to me, and I hope that I am completely wrong, that this desire has completely vanished, as though people no longer believe in it.”

It's not that people over there no longer want it. They've learned the hard way, repeatedly, that the Arab-Israeli conflict is no more stoppable right now than are plate tectonics.

Because supposedly right-thinking Westerners are appalled, Israel and Syria will pretend to hold talks while the more seasoned Western diplomats will pretend the talks stand a chance. It's like the old Russian joke about Communism: "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."

(Read full article)

The Great “Abbas is Quitting” Farce; Media Deletes Palestinian Intransigence


Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
13 November 09

It’s really funny how the story about Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas supposedly-going-to-call-elections-and-resign story was covered. Everyone in the Middle East knew he wouldn’t resign and he wouldn’t call elections. It was a blatant bid to get something from the Americans and pretend that he was tough. But the Western media reported the story as if it were true.

This technique borrows from Egyptian President (dictator) Gamal Abdel Nasser after he lost the 1967 war. Step 1: Announce your quitting. Step 2: Organize big demonstrations begging you not to quit. Abbas added to this a Step 3: Get Westerners to give you goodies and demand more concessions from Israel so that you'll stay.

So the media played along and took it seriously. In the process we were given the mainstream view of the Israel-Palestinian conflict within the framework of the Commandment: Thou shalt not criticize the Palestinian side. Well, you can knock Hamas but not the PA. In fact, the more one-sided the reporting, the better.

But it wasn’t long before it was clear he’d stay on as the PA’s head and there won’t be any elections.

In covering the story, though, the media generally gave us this narrative: The poor Palestinian leadership is just slathering for peace but Israel won’t give them anything and President Barack Obama won’t help. (Yes, so compelling is the Commandment on not criticizing the Palestinians that people are even willing to criticize Obama instead! Which really tells you something about the intensity of this syndrome(.

For example we got “Abbas says he doesn't want to seek reelection,” by Howard Schneider in the Washington Post:

” Abbas' announcement follows months of failed attempts by the United States to restart direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. A weekend trip to the region by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton accentuated the impasse, as the United States announced it was scaling back its expectations, and Palestinians contended there was a growing pro-Israeli tilt to U.S. policy.”

Now what doesn’t that paragraph tell us? Abbas is the one rejecting negotiations with Israel right now! This is the central problem Obama is facing today.
(Continue article...)
.

Iran and Hizballah: Significance of the Francop Interception


Jeffrey White
The Washington Institute for NEP
PolicyWatch #1600
12 November 09

PolicyWatch #1600 is the first of a two-part series examining recent military developments involving Hizballah and Hamas. The second part will focus on Hamas's acquisition of long-range (60 km/37.5 mile) artillery rockets.

On November 3, 2009, Israeli naval forces intercepted an Antigua-flagged cargo ship approximately 100 miles off Israel's coast. The ship, the Francop, was brought to the port of Ashdod and searched, leading to the discovery of some 500 tons of weapons reportedly from Iran. Israeli officials believe the cargo was bound for Hizballah via Syria. While Iran has been sending arms to Hizballah through Syria for years, this case has important military and political implications.

Iranian arms supplies underwrite Hizballah's political position in Lebanon, increase the risk for a conflict with Israel, and ensure that any such conflict will be more intense and lengthier than if Hizballah lacked such support. This most recent affair also shows Iran's willingness to risk embarrassing exposure in its support for Hizballah, even as it engages in sensitive negotiations with the international community over its nuclear program. This underlines the strategic nature of the Iran-Hizballah relationship and the importance Iran attaches to Hizballah as a component of its own deterrent arm.

The Francop's Cargo

The Francop was seized after being stopped, boarded, and searched by Israeli naval commandos supported by surface naval units. The preliminary search revealed arms hidden in commercial cargo containers. According to the shipping documents, the cargo was originally loaded in Bandar Abbas, Iran, brought by another ship to the Egyptian port of Damietta, and then transloaded to the Francop, with an ultimate destination of Latakia, Syria. This destination was confirmed by Syria's foreign minister, although he denied that the shipment included arms. Neither the ship's crew nor the Egyptian authorities apparently had any knowledge of the cargo's nature.

Following the preliminary search, the Israelis escorted the Francop to the port of Ashdod, where a complete search revealed the full extent of the arms shipment. Labels on the shipping containers and shipping documents, as well as markings on ammunition crates and the ammunition itself, established a clear link to various Iranian government organizations, including the Iranian state shipping line and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

This was a large and important shipment involving up to 500 tons of weapons stored in thirty-six containers. Reports and video from the Israeli military have indicated the presence of the following weapons:

2,800 artillery rockets (122 and 107 mm)

9,000 mortar shells (60, 81, and 120 mm)

20,000 fragmentation grenades

600,000 7.62-mm rounds for infantry weapons

3,000 106-mm rounds (for recoilless rifles)
Not found, or at least not reported, were larger and longer-range types of artillery rockets, such as the Fajr-3 and Fajr-5, and advanced types of antitank missiles, such as the AT-5 and AT-14. Apparently, no munitions types that would result in a significant upgrade of Hizballah's military capability, such as surface-to-surface or surface-to-air missiles, were discovered.
(Continue reading...)
.

Obama's failure, Netanyahu's opportunity


Caroline Glick
carolineglick.com
13 November 09

Once again, US President Barack Obama has demonstrated his intention of "putting light" between America and Israel. His hostility toward Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during the latter's visit to Washington this week was breathtaking.

It isn't every day that you can see an American president leaving the prime minister of an allied government twisting in the wind for weeks before deciding to grant him an audience at the White House.

It isn't every day that a visiting leader from a strategically vital US ally is brought into the White House in an unmarked van in the middle of the night rather than greeted like a friend at the front door; is forbidden to have his picture taken with the president; is forced to leave the White House alone, through a side exit; and is ordered to keep the contents of his meeting with the president secret.

Ahead of Obama's meeting with Netanyahu, The Wall Street Journal reported that Obama was effectively attempting to blackmail the Israeli premier by conditioning the meeting on Netanyahu's willingness to make tangible concessions to the Palestinians during his speech before the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America.

Although the report was denied by the Obama administration, if it was true, such a move by the White House would be without precedent in the history of US relations with Israel. And if untrue, the very fact that the story rings true is indicative of the wretched state of US relations with Israel since Obama entered office.

Obama's hostility was evident as well during his meeting with 50 Jewish leaders at the White House this week. In an obvious bid to split American Jewry away from Israel, Obama refused to discuss Israel or Iran with the concerned American Jewish leaders. As far as Obama was concerned, all they deserved from him was a primer on the brilliance of his economic policies and the worthiness of his plan to socialize the American healthcare industry. His foreign policy is none of their business.

Obama's meeting with American Jewish leaders was supposed to be a consolation prize for American Jews after Obama canceled his first public address to American Jews since taking office. The White House claimed that he canceled the speech because his visit to the Fort Hood memorial service made it impossible for him to attend. But then the conference was a three-day affair. The organizers would probably have been happy to reschedule.

Instead, as Iran races to the nuclear finish line, America's Jewish leaders were forced to sit through White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel's kitschy Borscht Belt schmooze about his bar mitzva.

The ironic thing about Obama's nastiness toward Netanyahu and his arrogant treatment of the American Jewish community is that while it has made him the first US president to have no credibility among Israelis and has caused a 14 percent drop in his support among American Jews, it has failed utterly to earn him the trust of the Muslim world.
(Continue article...)
.

Friday, November 13, 2009

France, for sale as usual


FresnoZionism.com
12 November 09


This is a couple of days old, but it illustrates something important:

France fears that Israel no longer desires a Middle East peace deal, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said on Tuesday, adding that Paris remained deeply opposed to settlement building in the West Bank…

Speaking on France Inter radio, Kouchner made clear he was not expecting any swift break through in Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

“What really hurts me, and this shocks us, is that before there used to be a great peace movement in Israel. There was a left that made itself heard and a real desire for peace,” Kouchner said.

“It seems to me, and I hope that I am completely wrong, that this desire has completely vanished, as though people no longer believe in it,” he added. — Ha’aretz


I can only understand this in one of two ways: either Kouchner and his boss are really, truly idiots who are incapable of perceiving the simple facts of the conflict and recent events; or, they are deliberately presenting a completely false view in order to make political points with foreign and domestic anti-Zionists.

The remark is infuriating, particularly the statement that Israelis in general don’t want peace, and the implication that only the Left is capable of it. The lack of peace is war — does he think Israelis want more war, after 61 years of it? Look at the behavior of Hamas and Hezbollah and ask who wants war!

(Continue reading...)

.

Can the Palestinians Recite Them, Too?


Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
12 November 09

In a letter to the International Herald Tribune, J Street’s Jeremy Ben-Ami urges the U.S. to finally close an Israeli-Palestinian deal, “the parameters of which we can all recite in our sleep.” So if everyone agrees on the parameters, how is it that 16 years of negotiations have yet to produce a deal?

The answer, of course, is that there is no such agreement — not on the parameters, and still less on the pesky details.

For instance, “everyone knows” — even Ben-Ami — that any deal requires the Palestinians to abandon their demand to resettle millions of descendants of refugees in Israel, as that would spell the end of the Jewish state. Everyone, that is, except the Palestinians, who have yet to budge on this demand.

And “everyone knows” that any deal must give the Palestinians control over the Temple Mount. (Well, actually, most Israelis disagree, but that doesn’t seem to matter to anyone — even their own prime ministers.) Yet every time Israel offers them the Mount, the Palestinians refuse to accept it, because they insist that it be accompanied by an Israeli renunciation of any Jewish connection to Judaism’s holiest site, to which Jews have prayed three times a day for millennia. In other words, they insist that Jews deny their history, religion, and cultural and spiritual heritage as the price of a deal.

Hence they rejected even the ridiculous and totally unenforceable Clinton compromise of Palestinian sovereignty atop the Mount and Israeli sovereignty underneath. That effectively gave the Palestinians full control, since if they control the top, nobody can prevent them from doing what they please underneath — nor can Israel gain access to exercise its underground rights. But since this compromise did acknowledge an Israeli connection to the Mount, even it was too much for the Palestinians.

They also rejected Ehud Olmert’s proposal last year that the Mount be controlled by a five-member international panel composed of “Palestine,” Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the U.S., and Israel, on which Israel would obviously be permanently and automatically outvoted. But its very membership would acknowledge an Israeli connection to the Mount, and that was unacceptable to the Palestinians.

And then there’s the issue of borders. “Everyone knows” (except the Israeli majority, which doesn’t count) that the border must be based on the 1967 lines, with 1:1 territorial swaps for a few settlement blocs, since relocating 300,000 settlers is unfeasible. Yet the Palestinians rejected exactly that when Olmert offered it last year. Olmert proposed swaps equivalent to 6 percent of the West Bank, but the Palestinians say their maximum is 2-3 percent. It’s not enough for them to get the equivalent of 100 percent of the territory; they want the satisfaction of making Israel suffer by having to throw hundreds of thousands of Israelis out of their homes.

So it really doesn’t matter whether “everyone” knows the parameters or not. Because until someone manages to convince the Palestinians that Israel’s cultural, spiritual, and physical suicide isn’t part of the deal, there isn’t going to be one.

.


State Department uses Islamist Anti-American Propaganda to Criticize Turkish Army Kicking Out Islamists


Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
12 November 09

I’ve already written about how former President Bill Clinton, in line with the Obama Administration’s thinking, acted as an apologist and even booster of Turkey’s Islamist regime. Now the State Department is doing it. Indeed, this is a fascinating little example of how thoroughly Islamists bamboozle the West.

The State Department issued its annual religious freedom report. If you look at the
section on Turkey, you will see that a main—perhaps the main—source is Mazlum-Der, which is the Association of Human Rights and Solidarity for Oppressed People. What could be better than human rights and helping oppressed people?

Unfortunately, Mazlum-Der is a
front for the Islamist government in Turkey and the main oppressed people it’s concerned about are Hamas, Hizballah, and others of that ilk.

In fact, this group is headed by an Islamist member of parliament for the Adiyaman district who comes from the ruling party,
Faruk Unsal, who has been personally involved in repressing those criticizing the regime through trumped-up treason charges! [To hide Unsal's identity, his name appears only on the Turkish, not the English language site, and neither tell you about his political role.]

As for the group, to give an example, on May 1 it organized a rally in Diyarbakir with Kurdish Hizballah calling for the regime to uninvite Israel to joint militry maneuvers. Clearly, the government had already decided to do so and assigned its front groups to show "popular support" for that step.
So the State Department, by using a radical group as a source, falls into the Islamist trap in several ways:

--Religious Muslims in Turkey are portrayed as victims of the military and judiciary. These are, in fact, the only two institutions that the AK hasn’t infiltrated and largely taken over yet. So Islamists use the State Department to discredit the army and courts to make it easier to complete their seizure of the state apparatus.

--There is no mention whatsoever of the real oppression going on, which is of secularists who are being forced out of jobs, not given government contracts, sent to jail, sued by the government, or even facing violence.

--While the report does discuss the situation of non-Muslims in Turkey, it leaves out the virulent antisemitism that the regime has been promoting. In addition, it doesn’t mention the fact that the government refuses to legalize the prayer houses of the Alevis, who constitute 10 to 20 percent of the population.
.

Good Governance Post National Trauma: Rejecting a Two State Solution


Prof. Alan Friedlander
Jerusalem Defender
12 November 09

Israeli President Shimon Peres recently said, "Those who reject the two-state solution will not bring a one-state solution. They will bring one conflict, not one state. A bloody endless conflict."

Excuse me, but isn't that what the Oslo Accords accomplished? Is that not the very fruit that it brought upon Israel? Isn't that what the Roadmap to Peace (Oslo 3) ended up doing, especially before the security fence was built?

Has it been so long since the first Intifada began that people have forgotten what it was like when Arab refugees didn't try to kill Israelis?

Answer this: Why, when Arafat was a fugitive for the first three decades of his terroristic career, there was no intifada? Why when Arafat underwent a PR makeover and was a pseudo partner in a pseudo peace process, why then did Israel stop looking over its borders with fear, but then start looking within its borders for the most clear and present dangers?

Arafat created a goon squad of terrorist abusers of the national psyche. Did anyone really believe that whitewashing the high crimes of the PLO by calling them by the designation of "diplomats" would bring Israel closer to peace?

Oslo 1, Oslo 2, the Roadmap. Wrong thought processes were at play that conceived these plans, which have brought these decades of endless violence. Like a battered wife who clings to her abusive husband. She should not cower behind the locked bathroom door each night hoping for her husband to calm down. She should leave or call the police.

By continuing to advocate the pursuit of a "one-state solution" you are essentially telling your people to sit there and take it; for eternity. This is peace? This is madness!

Bad policy such as this hopes to placate the abuser long enough so that the victim can just be left alone for a scant few moments of respite from his limitless rage. But no practical plans for long term security are on her agenda. Taking dangerous risks without a clearly obtainable goal is a classic symptom of the faulty reasoning that often affects the thought processes of victims of abuse. For example following up Oslo 1 with Oslo 2, then Oslo 2 with the Roadmap would be an expression of this disorder at the political level.

The healthier choice would have been seeking national consensus on the vital issues at play rather than forcing through the Knesset a left wing agenda.

To have true freedom from bloodshed, you must first inculcate true freedom of the heart and mind. As God told Yehoshua (Joshua) repeatedly, "Be strong and courageous".

Not only has the violence continued, your reaction has you pointed in the wrong direction to fix the problems...

Why should Arabs keep their homes and not Jews? Is this justice?

Why should Israel be forced into "Auschwitz Borders" as your friend Abba Eban used to call them? Is this security?

Why should you have to give anything to get peace? Should peaceful intentions not be shared by both partners?

Currently only one side is committed to peace and freedom of the other side if they should reach a peace deal, while the other guys refuse to accept even the notion of a Jewish State. Is this a true path to peace?

You have been strong and courageous to make sacrifices for peace. Now be strong and courageous to encourage the forsaking of the failed paths of national self destruction, leaving them as history. Only this new direction is a path that can lead to healthy and true peace.

Soon may it be so, by the grace of G-d.
.

Turkey


Shana Tova : Dry Bones cartoon.

What has happened to the Turkish-Israeli Alliance?

According to the Muslim Media Network:

"TEL AVIV — Turkey was said to have suspended up to $1 billion in proposed Israeli defense projects after canceling a major air exercise with Israel.

A leading Israeli defense analyst said the government of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan has decided to end defense and military cooperation with Israel. Analyst Ron Ben-Yishai said the Turkish Defense Ministry has shelved a range of proposed Israeli projects.

“New deals worth tens and hundreds of millions of dollars offered by Israel’s defense industries to the Turkish Army, as well as cooperation with Turkish colleagues, are being put on hold or cancelled altogether,” Ben-Yishai said in a report." -more

According to Barry Rubin:

The Turkey-Israel alliance is over.
"After two decades plus of close cooperation, the Turkish government is no longer interested in maintaining close cooperation with Israel nor is it—for all practical purposes—willing to do anything much to maintain its good relations with Israel.

The U.S.-Turkish alliance, which goes back about six decades, is also over but much less visibly so, though the two relationships are interlinked.

And that’s one important point in the first development. If the Turkish government was really concerned about protecting the kind of tight links with America that have existed for so long, it would be far more cautious about jettisoning the old policy toward Israel." -more

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Iran and Syria Are Up; Egypt and Saudi Arabia Are Down. And this is Israel’s Fault?


Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
12 November 09

The Aztecs of Mexico believed that if they didn't sacrifice human victims each day the sun wouldn't come up the next morning. This seems to be the principle governing how Western elites blame Israel for everything that goes on in the Middle East and propose as a remedy even more U.S. concessions.

A remarkable example is how the
New York Times tries to explain what is in fact a very important development in the region in an article entitled, “Influence of Egypt and Saudi Arabia Fades.” Wow! I could have told you that back in 2000.

But why has it faded? Could it be because of such long-term problems as these regimes' corruption, incompetence, rejection of reform, and inability to break from radical stances? Could it be that the fact that these regimes keep feeding anti-Americanism, hatred of Israel, militant interpretations of Islam, and extremism generally rebound against them?

And might it be that radical forces—like Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah—have shown, with help from the United States and Europe, that hardline positions and violence pay?

Could it possibly be, in the shorter term, that the apologies, concessions, and refusal to confront the extremist Islamists have emboldened them and demoralized the relative moderates?

No. Guess who is blamed?

“With Israel having rebuffed American calls to freeze settlement-building, and with the prospects for substantive peace talks fading, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are increasingly viewed in the region as diminished actors whose influence is on the wane, political experts say.”

These experts have obviously not been following the news. Seems to me that Israel did agree to freeze building on settlements (the word “settlement-building” implies Israel is building more settlements and expanding existing ones which isn’t true). Remember that speech Secretary of State Hilary Clinton just made in Jerusalem praising this concession?
.

Top BBC presenter hosts eulogy to author who argues that the Jewish people do not exist, as UK anti-Zionist discourse hits another low


Robin Shepherd
RobinShepherdonline.com/
12 November 09

Shlomo Sand is a “historian” whose name you are likely to be hearing a lot more of. Following in the footsteps of Ilan Pappe, he is a far-Left, “non-Zionist”, Israeli ideologue who has just published a book –The Invention of the Jewish People — seeking to delegitimise the historical foundations of the State of Israel.

But Sand’s technique is not merely to delegitimise the Israel that was established in 1948, though he refers to that as having been accomplished by the “rape” of the Palestinian people. It is to assert that the notion of the Jewish people as a “nation-race” that was exiled from its historic homeland is pure fabrication. There is no Jewish people in the sense of having a bloodline that can be traced back to Biblical times and, therefore, there is no Jewish homeland for the current imposters to return to.


Needless to say, he has instantly acquired the status in Britain of a hero of the Israel-hating mainstream. This week on BBC Radio Four’s flagship “Start the Week” programme, star presenter Andrew Marr hosted Sand in the most one-sided, uncritical eulogy to an anti-Israeli commentator that I for one have ever heard broadcast on the BBC.

Read the rest of this entry ».

Killing Terrorists Saves Lives


Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
12 November 09

When four Knesset members proposed legislation last week to institute the death penalty for child murderers, it revived a long-dormant Israeli debate over the pros and cons of this penalty in general. The latest installment, in today’s Jerusalem Post, supports the current de facto ban on executions, arguing that they deter neither murderers nor terrorists.

Regardless of whether that’s true, it misses the point: Israel desperately needs a death penalty for hard-core terrorists — not as a deterrent but to prevent them from being released to kill again. And, equally important, to spare the country wrenching emotional blackmail over kidnapped soldiers.

While ordinary Israeli murderers usually serve their sentences in full, terrorists have an excellent chance of being released early — either in an effort to “bolster Palestinian moderates” or in exchange for Israelis (or their remains, or even a “sign of life”) kidnapped by terrorist organizations. Israel releases hundreds of terrorists for one or both of these reasons almost every year. Most recently, for instance, it freed 20 female terrorists in exchange for a mere videotape of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit.

There are no official statistics on what percentage of these freed terrorists return to kill again. While one would hope the security services track this data, no government has ever published it, possibly realizing that if the statistics were known, public support for prisoner releases would plummet. Unofficial statistics — leaked to journalists or compiled by private organizations — vary widely, ranging from 25-80 percent. But even the lower figure is hardly negligible.

And the anecdotal evidence is compelling. In 2007, for instance, the Almagor Terror Victims Association compiled a list of 30 attacks committed by freed terrorists in 2000-2005 that together killed 177 Israelis. IDF Col. Herzl Halevy said this September that terrorists freed in a 2004 swap with Hezbollah composed “the entire infrastructure of Islamic Jihad” in subsequent years — during which Islamic Jihad bombings killed at least 37 Israelis. In short, executing terrorists, and hence preventing their release, would save lives.

But beyond that, executions would also end the agonizing debate over whether to trade terrorists for kidnapped Israelis. Most Israelis, for instance, would have no objection to freeing minor offenders in exchange for Shalit; the problem is that Hamas is demanding hundreds of mass murderers — who, if freed, would almost certainly kill again. Had these terrorists been executed, however, they would not be available to trade. Hamas would either have to make do with low-level offenders or get out of the kidnapping business.

Might that not encourage terrorists to kill rather than kidnap? Well, do the math: over the past decade, terrorists have kidnapped exactly two live Israelis (plus five dead ones, for whose remains Israel also paid). During the same period, freed terrorists have killed hundreds. It may sound cold, but that’s a pretty good cost-benefit ratio.

The bottom line is that Israel needs a death penalty for terrorists now. Few things would do more to save Israeli lives.

.

What Prevents Aliyah?


Batya Medad
Shilo Musings
12 November 09

This post is inspired by a poll on Arutz 7.
Poll: What's the biggest obstacle to Aliyah?
1. Finding a good job
2. Leaving family behind

3. Security concerns

4. Not knowing Hebrew
The answer I wanted to give isn't one of the choices. I think that most people fear change. That's the key, and everything else is just an excuse. The next biggest difficulty is conquering Hebrew, the fear of making mistakes, sounding stupid.

With good Hebrew, you can get a good job, not one limited to those for "English speakers." With good Hebrew, you can become part of Israeli society and not restricted to being friends with fellow anglo (English speaking) olim, immigrants.

There is no intellectual linguistic reason to think that learning Hebrew, or any other language, is impossible. Immigrants from all different countries to all different countries manage to learn the new language and function.

And for those Jews who have graduated from a life time of Jewish schooling, it's criminal that they're not totally fluent in Hebrew. Jews were once, until the mid-twentieth century, known as multilingual experts. That's why there were Jews on the ships which sailed to the new land, America. The same students whose parents would tell me that their family is incapable of learning English would later admit that their grandparents were fluent in three or four languages.

What changed was expectations. It used to be that immigrants expected, demanded from themselves a few months to immerse themselves in the new language and culture and then be as fluent as anyone else. Today this is harder. Immigrants come with their old language DVD's, ipods filled with their old music and quickly set up cable or a dish to receive television from the old country.

As I've already written, "...most people fear change." And to make aliyah successfully, you have to change more than your address.
.

The Testing Ground of Shdema


Timna Katz
November 09

History: Past and Present

Shdema is an abandoned Israeli army base built in 1967 on the remains of a Jordanian army base. It is five minutes south of Jerusalem’s southern neighborhood of Har Homa and five minutes north of eastern Gush Etzion. Going further back, the Shdema area was densely populated by Jews during the First Temple period and resettled again during the Second Temple period. Despite the scant archeological attention the area has received, remains of Jewish settlement have been identified from the Hellenistic, Roman, Byzantine, and Mameluke periods. The Hasmoneans waged their final victorious battle there.

Shdema’s fate since Oslo is typical: designated as Area C, under full Israeli sovereignty, the IDF nonetheless began to abandon Shdema together with other army camps in Judea and Samaria despite the security disaster brought on by the Oslo Accords. Massive and politically directed illegal Arab building proliferates throughout Judea and Samaria, while Jewish growth is frozen. Recently, the double standard has become even more flagrant. The nearby municipality of Beit Sahur has illegally built a sports and entertainment center on Shdema lands with funding provided by European agencies and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

In April 2008, a group of individuals led by Women In Green halted the total destruction of the base and determined to maintain a Jewish presence there to prevent a complete Arab take-over of the strategic hill overlooking the Jerusalem-Gush Etzion highway. The Committee for a Jewish Shdema was formed, and since then, Shdema has become a vibrant cultural center with weekly events and holiday festivities. The Committee, with the support of Women In Green, has plans to build an educational and cultural campus at the site that will foster Jewish and Zionist values and goals.


The Oslo vs. Shdema Paradigm

The lesson of Oslo is tragic but profound. Oslo turned the “peace process” into the country’s supreme value and goal. To keep this process going, the Israeli leadership was prepared to sacrifice almost every Jewish and Zionist truth. It exchanged the old values and ideals for a realpolitik that served the enemy’s narrative and goals. Even when the results of Oslo proved to be the polar opposites of its intended goals -- war instead of peace, increased Arab rejectionism instead of increased Arab acceptance, international isolation instead of international normalization – Israel continued down the same disastrous path. The one and only justification against total capitulation to Arab demands that Israel mustered was the ‘security’ card: Israel can’t immediately relinquish all of Yesha because she has no choice but to defend herself against ‘terrorism’.

While the damage of the above approach has been great, its bankruptcy has become so evident that even current leaders who continue to dance to the Oslo tune have started to pay lip service to the old values and truths: that the Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish People and Jews cannot be ‘occupiers’ in the Biblical heartland and cradle of their civilization. However, it’s not enough to pay lip service to those truths: if the Jewish People won’t physically live those truths, it is now abundantly clear that we’ll lose our land – all of it.

That is where we stand today and that is the message behind the struggle for Shdema: the current government continues to follow the Oslo paradigm, even while knowing that it is untenable. The Jewish majority are becoming increasingly frustrated by leaders who talk the post-Olso talk but won’t walk the post-Oslo walk. Shdema has become a testing ground of these tensions and the opposing forces rumbling beneath Israel’s surface.

Thus the struggle to keep Shdema Jewish has not only been supported by the local populace, idealistic youth, and right-wing politicians, it has also received support from elements in the army and the political center. Meanwhile, however, the status quo maintains its hold and the Arabs continue to build illegally while a Jewish government ties Jewish hands.


A Tipping Point?

Positive change is occurring, though the evidence of it – whether in the Jewish cultural awakening within secular Israel or in the supporting visit of the Knesset speaker to Shdema – doesn’t yet indicate what its eventual force or impact will be. Unfortunately, destructive counter-forces maintain their momentum and time is running out. We of the Committee for a Jewish Shdema believe that Shdema will be a testing ground for this nascent change and hope that you will help us in making it happen. God willing, if we all act now and act forcefully, we can reverse the fatal Oslo tide and unleash the tremendous positive energies inherent in the Jewish return to Zion.

*Timna Katz, resident of Neve Daniel in Gush Etzion, is a member of the Committee for a Jewish Shdema and Women in Green
.

Hypocrisy at the U.N.

12 November 09

This is both professional and to the point.



.

HRW New Middle East Board: Reinforcing the Bias


Gerald M. Steinberg
Executive Director, NGO Monitor
Hudson New York
12 November 09

In the face of intense criticism of its Middle East activities, Human Rights Watch has expanded itsMiddle East and North Africa (MENA) advisory board with the addition of ten members, largely based in the Middle East. While some are human rights activists in their own countries, (Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, etc.), including woman’s rights, many also contribute significantly to targeting Israel through the language of human rights.

In particular, the addition of Ms. Asli Bali, and Aeyal Gross, who is known as an opponent of Israeli policies, will reinforce the political agenda of MENA heads Sara Leah Whitson and Joe Stork, as documented in NGO Monitor’s detailed analysis, “Experts or Ideologues?”. These changes reflect and strengthen what founderRobert Bernstein criticized as HRW’s role in “turning Israel into a pariah state”, as well as HRW’s role in ‘lawfare’, including the intensive promotion of the Goldstone Report. (Goldstone is closely linked to HRW, and was a member of the board until after his appointment to head the UNHRC’s “fact finding mission”.)

Another point of interest is the inclusion of Ahmad Zuaiter, who is a portfolio manager at Soros Fund Management. Soros’ Open Society Institute has become a major source of funding for HRW and for a number of other organizations that promote anti-Israel boycotts.

In terms of anti-Israel bias, the most problematic new members of HRW’s MENA board are:

1) Ms. Asli Bali -- editorial board of MERIP, a radical anti-Israel group (founded by MENA division deputy director Joe Stork in the 1970s); heads Princeton Committee on Palestine, whichparticipated in “ Israeli Apartheid Week”, co-sponsored Norman Finkelstein and ...
.

Think Tank “U.S. Aids Terror Group At War With Israel”


Samuel Sokol
5 Towns Jewish Times
12 November 09

A new report releaed by the Center for Near East Policy Research, a Jerusalem based think-tank, discusses the possible connection between American military aid and Palestinian terrorism. The report, Implications of US Military Training of Palestinian Security Forces, was authored by center chairman David Bedein and deals with the Office of the U.S. Security Coordinator (USSC), run by Lt. Gen. Keith Dayton.

This report is especially relevant following remarks by a senior Fatah official last week, stating that the Palestinian Arabs may revert to “popular warfare.”

According to World Net Daily correspondent Aaron Klein, Palestinian fighters have made use of American training to engage in violent attacks against Israeli civilians.

Established in 2005, the USSC manages a multi-national team of advisors, whose role is to restructure the PA security forces and train personnel.

American tax dollars pay for advanced military and constabulary training for the Palestinian security forces at bases in Jericho in Israel and Giftlik in Jordan. The cost of training an entire battalion of National Security Forces (NSF) troops in Jordan is $11 million.

Since 2008 approximately 2,100 troops, enough to make four battalions, have been trained by Americans in Jordan. The American government utilizes advisors from the DynCorp International Corporation for training Palestinian forces.
.

Voting Rights for Israeli Expatriates and Diaspora Jews


By Moshe Feiglin
25 Marchesvan 5770

The State of Israel is a Jewish State. It is the state of all the Jews. Every Jew in the world should see Israel as his country - even if he does not yet physically live in Israel.

In most democracies, the right to vote is not contingent on actually living in the country in question, but rather on citizenship alone. Many Israelis who are also US citizens - even if they were not born in the US - vote in US elections. Israel's law that makes a citizen's right to vote contingent on his living in Israel deviates from the norm.

On the surface, this would seem like a positive way to strengthen the connection between Israeli citizens and their country. But just the opposite is true. The original Zionist platform called for the establishment of a new nation in Israel - the Israeli nation - to replace the Jewish nation. Azmi Bashara is an Israeli, while a Jew in London who would like to be an Israeli citizen while remaining in the Diaspora in the meantime - is not.

To grant Israeli citizenship to every Jew who requests it turns Judaism into the Israeli nationality. The founding fathers of Zionism wanted to cut the connection between the two. They preferred to leave the Jewish nation to die, either physically or spiritually, in the exile - to relegate Judaism to the status of religion and nothing more - and to establish a new nation here in the Land of Israel.

In the words of pioneer author and Zionist thinker, Chaim Hazaz:

Zionism and Judaism are not one thing, but two things, different from each other, two things that contradict each other. When a person cannot be a Jew, he becomes a Zionist.
Zionism begins at the place where Judaism is destroyed, from the place that the strength of the nation is sapped. Zionism is not a continuation, not a panacea for the blow. That is ridiculous! It is uprooting and destruction, the opposite of what was, the end. I believe that the Land of Israel is no longer Judaism.
(The pioneer in Hazaz's book, "Hadrasha")

The generation of Hazaz attempted to turn the gates of the Land of Israel into the gates of the new Israeli nation. That is why today, a Jew cannot be Israeli unless he lives in Israel.

And what about the Israeli expatriates who have "descended" and live in the Diaspora?
While giving voting rights to Jews in the Diaspora is complex and would require intricate legislation and minimal criteria of connection with the Jewish nation and the State of Israel, there is no excuse for not allowing expatriates to vote. The reason why they are excommunicated from Israel is because Israeli citizens who leave Israel are proof that the New Nation Project of Zionism's "founding fathers" was a dismal failure.

Why should a Jew who doesn't live in Israel have voting rights here?
Because Israel is the Jewish State. As such, it is the state of the Jews outside of Israel just as much as it is the state of the commander of the most elite IDF unit.

True, the Jews in the Diaspora have forgotten that Israel is their real home. But when we established a state for Israelis instead of for Jews, we showed the world that we have also forgotten. It is our duty to change this situation. With G-d's help, we will propose legislation that will allow expatriates - and eventually Diaspora Jews - to vote in Israeli embassies throughout the world.

As a Jewish state that is secure in its eternal existence on the basis of G-d's promise to Abraham, we must give the Diaspora Jews the opportunity to connect to Israel, to care about what is transpiring here, to feel that they belong and to vote. It will be an excellent reminder that their homeland is Israel and encourage aliyah. Not only that, but it will be much more effective than all the excommunication methods that we have used until now to try to stop expatriates from leaving our Land.

.

Off the Wall

Honest Reporting/Backspin
11 November 09

Is there really a moral equivalence between the Berlin Wall and Israel's security fence? Steve Bell of The Guardian certainly thinks so:

Unfortunately, he's not the only one. HonestReporting Canada already addressed similar spin at the CBC. And Jordan's Queen Rania writes at the Huffington Post:

Today, we celebrate the fall of the Berlin Wall; next year, we will celebrate the end of Apartheid in South Africa. These two events taught us that when barriers are removed - whether physical barriers, legal barriers, or the walls people build in their hearts - the ground is laid for progress, peace, and development for both sides. The people of my region yearn as well for justice and reconciliation.

What better way to honour these anniversaries than to tear down another wall?

But Eldad Beck explains why Bell, the CBC and the queen's comparisons are, uh, off the wall:

Apart from certain visual similarities, there is no connection between the Berlin Wall and the security fence.

The Berlin Wall separated members of the same nation who aspired, to some extent or another, to reunite in a joint political framework.Meanwhile, the security fence marks, to some extent or another, a future border between two nations that do not wish to coexist in one state, but rather, to split their shared land into two separate states.

It is surprising that precisely those who for a long time fought for the Palestinian right for their own state now demand to dismantle the security fence. After all, this fence pushed the Palestinians closer to geographical and political division that would constitute a basis for a separate political entity.

Charges regarding the “apartheid fence” reveal the true motives of the Palestinians and their supporters, who are uninterested in dividing the country and co-existing alongside Israel; rather, they are interested in taking over the entire land.

Let's face it, as a protection from terror, the wall works, but don't take my word for it. Islamic Jihad chief Ramadan Shalah gets it.



Beck refers to another barrier, which only the Arab world can tear down:

There is another wall in the Middle East which objectors to the security fence refuse to see, not to mention fight against, even though it is this wall that perpetuates the conflict between Jews and Arabs: The wall of boycotts and isolation imposed by most of the Muslim world against Israel since its establishment . . . .

As long as this wall exists, the sides would not be able to get to know each other and it would be impossible to counter the bias that fans the flames of this conflict. The “Middle Eastern Wall” had been established much before the security fence and it bears absolute responsibility for the security fence’s existence.

I wonder if it means anything to Bell, the CBC and Queen Rania that November 9 isn'ta German national holiday -- the Times of London, to its credit, notes that this it's also the anniversary of Kristallnacht.

Amnesty Researchers

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2009


amnesty : Dry Bones cartoon.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Why is the Other Side Winning? Lebanon's New Government As a Case Study


Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
11 November 09

The moderate March 14 movement, in the words of the New York Times, won “a clear victory” in Lebanon’s June elections, while the Hizballah-led alliance suffered a “loss.”

Why, then will the forces that won a majority, again in the phrasing of the
Times, “have little chance to dictate the agenda?”

On the surface, things are bad enough. The March 14 movement will have fifteen cabinet seats, Hizballah and its friends (all of whom are allied because they are clients of Iran and Syria) get ten, and the other five will be controlled by President Michel Suleiman “who has struggled to maintain neutrality,” says the
Times.

Now to the fine print which makes things look far worse.

Suleiman is Syria’s man. That’s why he got the job. Almost all the time, and perhaps all the time, he will back the Tehran-Damascus-Hizballah line.

Then there’s Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader, who up until recently was the toughest, bravest March 14 leader. Reading the writing on the wall, he has jumped ship and tried to switch sides, at least to some extent. So that tilts the situation even more in favor of Hizballah-Iran-Syria.

But why is this happening, why do those who won the elections have to give veto power to those who lost? Why will this government be unable to disarm Hizballah, stop arms’ smuggling across its borders, prosecute those responsible for terrorist attacks within Islam, prevent Hizballah from attacking Israel and thus dragging Lebanon into war whenever it wants, and be too friendly to the West?

On the surface, of course, this passivity is necessary to maintain the peace. Lebanon has always had a weak government, and the specter of civil war hangs over the country based on past experience.

The full answer, however, is two-fold and these factors interlock.

The first point is that Iran and Syria give lavish support to their side. They provide lots of money, weapons, and political support. They virtually never betray their friends. They are strong and ready to intimidate their enemies.

And the second point regards the opposite side: The United States and Europe don’t subsidize their “clients.” U.S. aid money goes to the Lebanese army which is arguably now under Iranian-Syrian control if it came to a crisis. Their political support is unreliable, either because they don’t do anything or they actually make concessions to Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. They usually do betray their friends, are apologetic, and prone to engage in appeasement.

Quick, who would you depend on to keep you alive politically and personally if you were a Lebanese politician?

If the March 14 coalition tried to disarm Hizballah’s militia, stop it from controlling the south, block it from attacking Israel, interdict all the arms’ smuggling from Syria, or do lots of other things, Iran, Syria, and Hizballah along with their other local allies would smite them with a mighty blow.

But if Hizballah took over neighborhoods, ignored the government, made fools out of the UN forces which are supposedly policing them (or even attack them in a deniable way), the United States and Europe would do nothing.

Is it really so hard to understand, then, why things are going the way they are in Lebanon, or in the Middle East generally for that matter?
.

Israel Plans Major Excavation at Western Wall


Samuel Sokol
IsraelINN.com
11 November 09

Israel is planning a major archaeological dig under the Western Wall (Kotel) plaza, opposite the Temple Mount, officials announced Thursday. The excavations will create an archaeological park directly underneath the area where worshippers currently stand while praying at the Kotel.

The current prayer area will remain open, supported by pillars, while a new area will be added underneath, at the level at which worshippers at the ancient Temple stood in the past.The dig may be met with harsh reactions from Muslim and Arab leaders in Israel and the Palestinian Authority, many of whom have accused Israel of attempting to damage the Al-Aksa Mosque on the Temple Mount. Jerusalem-area Muslims recently rioted for several days after it was rumored that “Jewish settlers” had planned to pray on the Temple Mount.

The Government Press Office gave foreign journalists a tour of Kotel-area excavations this week. The tour, ostensibly an apolitical opportunity to view new historic findings, appeared to be aimed at countering Muslim criticism of Israeli excavations as well. See drawing of planned archeological park

Kotel Rabbi Shmuel Rabinovitch met with the journalists and criticized religious leaders who use the Kotel excavations as an excuse for violence. When asked, the rabbi said that he was referring to Sheikh Raed Salah, among others. Sheikh Salah, leader of the extremist Islamic Movement, has been involved in many of the anti-Israel riots centered around the Temple Mount.

Rabbi Rabinovitch informed the reporters that Jewish law forbids digs directly underneath the Temple Mount, where the Al-Aksa mosque is located. Digs take place around the mount, not beneath it, he said.

The journalists also met with engineers and others involved in the archaeological digs, who assured them that despite accusations to the contrary, Israel's excavations do not cause harm to structures in the area. In fact, they explained, the excavations have improved structural stability in the Temple Mount area, as they led to discovery and strengthening of areas in which there was a danger of collapse.

Maayana Miskin contributed to this report.
.

Call Abbas’s Bluff


Martin Krossel
FrumForum.com
11 November 09


At a Tel Aviv rally on Saturday night commemorating the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin, the country’s president Shimon Peres called on the head of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas to reverse his decision to resign. Peres reminded Abbas, by name, that they together had signed the 1993 Oslo Accords,and he implored, “I turn to you, don’t let go.”

Peres was hardly alone among prominent politicians and statesmen who were calling on Abbas not to resign. While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to comment on the resignation publicly, the Israeli daily Haaretz reported that he told officials behind closed doors that it was in Israel’s interest to have a strong Abbas who could move negotiations forward. French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner publicly expressed regret over Abbas’s planned resignation, calling it “a threat to peace.” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that Abbas had been a “true partner” of the United States. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accepted Abbas’s announced resignation at face value, but she expressed the hope that she would be able to work with Abbas “in any capacity.” She also told the press that when she had met with Abbas the previous weekend, “He reiterated his personal commitment to do whatever he can to achieve a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, something that he’s actually been working on since 1972.”

Middle East observers of all political stripes agree on why Abbas is threatening to resign. In light of his popularity with American presidents and other world leaders, Abbas reasons that his threat will spur the Obama Administration and other governments to pressure Israel to freeze settlement growth. Presumably, once this happens, then somewhere further down the road, Abbas will re-issue his threat in order to get the international community to force Israel to dismantle the settlements and eventually to retreat entirely from the territories captured in the 1967 war. What is much less obvious is why Abbas is so popular internationally and consequently why such gambits have even a chance of working.

In the past few weeks, I have been struck by the difference in the way that the Obama Administration, other national leaders, and much of the press look at Afghanistan’s Hamid Karzai and Abbas. The Palestinian government under Yasser Arafat and Abbas has proven to be every bit as corrupt and ineffective as Afghanistan’s. But the Karzai government is at least clearly superior to its Taliban alternative. There is little such difference between Abbas and his political rivals. The Jerusalem Post’s Evelyn Gordon noted this weekend on Commentary magazine’s Contentions blog that:

in 2005, his one year in sole control over the PA before Hamas’s electoral victory, Palestinians killed 54 Israelis and wounded 484 while 1,059 rockets were fired at Israel from Gaza. Yet not only did Abbas never order his forces to combat this terror; he explicitly and repeatedly refusedto do so. He first cracked down on Hamas only in 2007, after its violent takeover of Gaza convinced him that Hamas threatened him, not just Israel.

But the problem with America’s and the rest of the world’s approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict goes far deeper than Abbas, and their never-ending delusional attempts to identify a Palestinian “peace partner” for Israel. International efforts to resolve the conflict have always focused on getting Israel to make concessions to Arabs, which would supposedly encourage Arabs to make peace. Yet the source of the trouble has always been found on the other side of the line: the refusal of Israel’s neighbors to accept a Jewish state in their midst.

Until that happens, all efforts to settle the Arab-Israeli conflict will be futile.

.

Observer downplays aggressive profile of Hizbollah

Just Journalism
JustJournalism.com
08 November 09

Observer downplays aggressive profile of Hizbollah

On Sunday, The Observer published two articles that touched upon the relationship between Israel and Lebanon, with specific reference to the 2006 war. In a news report on the rearmament of Hizbollah, Peter Beaumont and Mitchell Prothero portrayed the organisation as an essentially defensive force, while a feature in the travel supplement by Carole Cadwalladr frequently mentioned Israeli aggression, without mentioning the provocation of rocket attacks on northern Israeli towns.

Hezbollah rearms to fight off Israel’, written following the seizure of a ship smuggling weapons that Israel claimed were intended for the group, downplayed Hizbollah’s aggression while framing their actions in terms of a possible future Israeli attack. Stating that Hizbollah was strengthening positions in south Lebanon ‘amid fears of a renewed assault’, the group was described as having been ‘busy reinforcing fixed defence positions’ and ‘preparing a new strategy to defend villages [in the south of Lebanon]’.

Hizbollah was preparing to defend itself in this way because it feared, according to the first paragraph, that ‘Netanyahu’s government will attack Lebanon again prior to any assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities’. It was only halfway through the article that any explanation was given for why Israel might choose to do so: they ‘have long assumed that any military action against Iran’s nuclear programme would draw a muscular response from its close allies’. The use of the euphemistic phrase ‘muscular response’ to describe rocket attacks against Israeli civilians was echoed later in the paragraph, when the article stated that such a response would ‘disrupt life in northern Israel’, further downplaying Israel’s fears about the neighbouring group.

This understating of the role played by rocket attacks was reflected in ‘Beirut: it’s hip, it’s hot, it’s as flashy as ever. And it’s back’. The cover story on the Lebanese capital in The Observer’s travel supplement stated that Beirut ‘would be [the Elizabeth Taylor of the Mediterranean] if you replaced the words “alcohol” with “Israel” and “ a string of unsuitable marriages” with “fifteen years of civil war”’.

This decontextualised characterisation of Israel as a wholly destructive force was strengthened by Nehme Abouzeid, publisher of Time Out Beirut, who was quoted as saying that Israel’s attacks on Lebanon in 2006 ‘just came out of nowhere’, as well as Cadwallar herself, who described Israel as ‘subject[ing] the country to a month-long bombardment’, without explaining why. The only vague reference in the article to Hizbollah’s aggression towards Israel in 2006 was a mention of an effigy of Hassan Nasrallah ‘waving his machine gun in the direction of Israel’.
.

Don’t Confuse Him with the Facts


Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
11 November 09


Bernard Kouchner is “hurt” and “shocked” by Israelis’ “vanished” desire for peace. Israelis of all political stripes would undoubtedly be equally shocked at the French foreign minister’s ignorance — and at his willingness to hurl false accusations without even a minimal effort to check his facts.

“What really hurts me, and this shocks us, is that before there used to be a great peace movement in Israel,” Kouchner told France Inter radio yesterday. “There was a left that made itself heard and a real desire for peace. It seems to me, and I hope that I am completely wrong, that this desire has completely vanished, as though people no longer believe in it.”

Kouchner is, of course, half right: even most Israeli leftists have stopped believing peace is possible in the foreseeable future, which is precisely why the peace movement and the political Left have largely collapsed. But that is a far cry from saying that Israelis have stopped wanting peace. The desire remains as strong as ever; it’s just that most Israelis currently see no way of fulfilling it.

Nor is it really hard to see why Israelis have stopped believing. First, every territorial concession since the 1993 Oslo Accord has produced only more terror. Palestinians killed more Israelis in the first two and a half years after Oslo than in the entire preceding decade, and in 2000-04 (the height of the second intifada), Israel’s terror-related casualties exceeded those of the entire preceding 53 years. The withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 led to the Second Lebanon War, and the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 produced daily rocket barrages on southern Israel. To most Israelis, bombs and rockets exploding in their cities don’t look much like peace.

This has been compounded by the complete lack of movement in Palestinian positions since 1993, even as Israeli leaders offered ever-increasing concessions. Israeli leaders routinely tell their people that peace will require “painful concessions.” Palestinian leaders are still telling their people that peace will enable 4.7 million descendants of Palestinian refugees to resettle in pre-1967 Israel, thus destroying the Jewish state demographically. And Israelis find it hard to believe in a peace whose price, according to their supposed “peace partner,” is Israel’s eradication.

None of this is news; a simple Web search would produce thousands of articles by Israelis explaining why they have despaired. Or if Kouchner doesn’t like the Web, he could have picked up a phone: most Israelis would probably have been happy to enlighten him.

But Kouchner couldn’t be bothered with the facts; he preferred to simply accuse Israelis of not wanting peace. Perhaps it’s his background as a human-rights activist showing: hurling accusations at Israel without checking the facts is practically de rigueur among human-rights organizations these days.

Nevertheless, one would expect better of a foreign minister. After all, he has actual responsibility for setting policy. And policy works better when it’s based on fact rather than fantasy.

Dr. Aaron Lerner follow up to his response to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing..."


Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
11 November 09

(
The original posting was "Dr. Aaron Lerner responds to Peace Now "Excuse me, your bias is showing...". Click here to read.)

So far from the responses it is clear that withdrawal proponents are unable to address the underlying observation that there is a defect in the democratic system if politicians can take a move that permanently changes the situation in a profound way that is in gross contradiction of a specific and explicit campaign promise and that a device is required to address this problem.

[To argue that the fact that Israel retook land in a war hardly serves as comforting evidence that withdrawals are reversible should the Israeli public object to a withdrawal that Israeli politicians agreed to in defiance of their mandate.

As for the impact of settlement activity - it didn't stop PM Olmert from negotiating and presenting a radically generous offer to Mahmoud Abbas - Abbas was the problem. And by the same token it can be argued that settlement activity puts pressure on the Palestinians to talk because time is not necessarily on their side. But, again, the underlying observation is that settlement construction is not subject to the same reversibility issue as withdrawals in diplomatic agreements.]

The question is not the merits of withdrawal or the fruits of withdrawal.

The question is if the citizens of Israel should have the right to express their view and have it honored.

This tremendous fear of a national referendum on the part of withdrawal proponents only serves to indicate that they lack confidence in their ability to convince the public to support their program.

That's their problem.

I would note, by the way, that the Palestinians say that they will present any deal for approval in a national referendum.

As for the charge that I hide my agenda behind an appeal to democratic principles. I resent the attempt to avoid my point by somehow stripping me of my right to argue for my democratic rights.

I live in Israel for many reasons (I live in Raanana which is a fantastic place so you won't find me claiming it is a sacrifice - though it certainly is the case that our family has sacrificed many years in army service) and one of them is to actively participate in the history of the country. And one the key ways that I participate in the history of the country is by voting in elections. Sometimes I "win" in the elections and sometimes I "lose". But that's the way democracy works. Adding a national referendum is a device to insure I have a say when politicians decide to defy their mandate.

And if I lose?

I won't pack my bags.

We don't rent. We own.

Back when PM Sharon, certain he would win a Likud referendum on the retreat from Gaza (he argued that there wasn't time for a national referendum), approved the vote, I was - as many others - on record that we would accept the outcome, regardless of which way it fell.

I participated in what was an exciting exercise in democracy, with people going door-to-door arguing their case.

And to PM Sharon's shock, he lost the referendum.

And he then ignored the outcome and continued on his way.

A low point for Israeli democracy.

Again. I understand and appreciate that it is hardly a foregone conclusion that my position will win the day at the ballot box.

And I accept that.

But as a voting Israeli citizen I want my fair chance to participate.

[PS: It turns out that Noam Shelef sent me a note via Twitter to alert me to his comment. While I send material out via Twitter I don't check it myself, hence the incorrect comment that he did not alert me to his comment.]
.

Fatah: Fayad is plotting to replace Abbas


Khaled Abu Toameh
JPost
11 November 09

Fatah officials in the West Bank have accused Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayad of quietly staging a "bloodless coup" against PA President Mahmoud Abbas.

Meanwhile, Azzam al-Ahmed, a prominent Fatah figure closely associated with Abbas, declared that Fatah had never recognized Israel's right to exist and would never do so. "Fatah is a liberation movement," he said. "Fatah cares only about the interests of the Palestinian people."

Ahmed's remarks came in response to charges by Hamas and other Palestinian factions that Fatah had not gained anything after its leaders signed the Oslo Accords with Israel. The remarks also came amid increased tensions between Fatah and the prime minister.

The Fatah officials claimed that Fayad was seeking to replace Abbas, with the help of the US and some EU and Arab countries. The allegations were made during a series of meetings of Fatah representatives in Ramallah over the past few days.

Fatah's Central Committee and Revolutionary Council, the faction's two most significant bodies, have been holding daily meetings since Thursday, when Abbas announced that he had "no desire" to run again for president. On Sunday night, members of the Revolutionary Council held a stormy and tense meeting in Ramallah, where some members launched a scathing attack on Fayad and accused him of paving the way for a "bloodless coup" against Abbas.

The London-based Palestinian daily Al-Quds al-Arabi reported that several Fatah representatives had also criticized Fayad's latest plan for establishing a state within two years, because he had not consulted with them about it in advance. One senior Fatah official was quoted as saying that Fayad's plan appeared to be linked to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's "economic peace" initiative.

The official said that the Revolutionary Council considered Abbas to be the only and most suitable candidate to run in the presidential election, slated for January 24.
(Continue reading...)

Related: Keeping Fayyad Out
.

Thunder and Lightning


Marc Prowiser
Yesha Views
11 November 09

Thunder and Lightning, or in Hebrew – Rahm and Barak, can either bring rains of blessing or a damaging storm.

Rahm Emanuel spoke to the General Assembly of Jewish leaders regarding Israel and US involvement in achieving peace between Israel and the Arab occupants of Judea and Samaria. He spoke of his family’s connection to Israel, President Obama’s dedication to peace in the region and how what started in 1967, must end.

What exactly started in 1967? Israel was victorious over the Jordanian Army after we were attacked, and ended the JORDANIAN occupation of the region, this is what started back in 1967. Jewish communities were reborn from the ashes, once again Jews were allowed to live in places they were once evicted from, and places where they were massacred. What started? Mr. Emanuel? Jews returned to their biblical heartland, you know this as you were brought up with a religious education. The Chief of Staff spoke of how his Father took the name “Emanuel” in honor of his Uncle who died fighting for Israel, will he show the same courage when the Arabs once again deny the existence of a “Jewish” state?

I could not help but notice the lack of heart Mr. Emanuel had while speaking, his lack of conviction, his detachment from the truth and real situation on the ground in Israel. How easy it is to speak to an assembly full of “yes men”, whose lives are not endangered by the political duels going own. Mr. Emanuel mentioned how the “Two State Solution” enjoys bi-partisan support among US Jewry. I ask myself, whose sons and daughters are serving in the armed forces of Israel and putting themselves on the front lines, defending a people and country with their lives.

Rahm, mentioned not to let “settlements” stand in the way of peace, who is he to decide what is good for Israel, who will clean up the mess he makes, definitely not his sons. Yes, he is the President’s Chief of Staff, a very powerful politician and possibly the mastermind of the current US strategy to endear itself to the Arabs and Muslims of the world. If he believes that the dismantling of the Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria will solve the Israeli-Arab problem, then he probably feels that Major Nidal Malik Hasan is a common criminal and not a terrorist.

It hurts to hear the cheers of the audience as Rahm mentions the issue of “ending” the communities of Judea and Samaria, most of those at this convention have never been out to any of these places and regard the populous as extremist lunatics, how unfortunate that they don’t even realize who these people really are and how their “Heroes” in the IDF are made up of these people, that these places are theirs also. Such is ignorance. I challenge them to come out here to visit and see what is really going on and meet the people of Judea and Samaria, but to come out with an open mind, sans the poison that they are being fed by the opponents of a strong Jewish nation.

I also extend this invitation to Mr. Emanuel to come out and meet us, not through the eyes of the government, but through your heart and mind. Maybe for your son’s Bar Mitzvah, after he reads the Torah at the Kotel (in the capital of Israel today), take him also to Hevron to see where his forefathers are buried, then to Shilo which served as the first capital of Israel, home to the Mishkan (Tabernacle and Ark of the Covenant) for 369 years (even older than the United States).

You spoke how important your history is to you, here is a chance to show your family and supporters that you mean what you say.

Mr. Emanuel, you are a source of pride to the American Jewish Community, your patriotism, your dedication and your loyalty. I would like to bless you that you also become a source of pride to all of your people, all over the world using the same characteristics.

Iranian Rockets Captured by Israel Identical to Rockets Fired At U.S. Bases in Iraq (Updated)


The Israeli Foreign Ministry contacts a Pajamas Media writer regarding his report on Iranian rockets fired at U.S. troops in Iraq two years ago. Why?

Bob Owens
PajamasMedia.com
09 November 09


UPDATE: The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs published the MFA NewsFlash Newsletter today, Nov. 11 (free registration), with the article “Documented proof of Iranian complicity in arms smuggling to terrorists” as the top story, crediting Bob Owens’ Confederate Yankee blog for helping identify the source of Iranian rockets captured by American forces in Iraq that match those captured among the 500 tons of ordnance captured from the MV Francop.

————————

This morning, I was contacted by the Israeli Foreign Ministry about a photo I had blogged about on July 15, 2007, regarding a Shiite rocket attack on U.S. forces in Iraq.

The rockets recovered by the Israeli Navy last week, bound for terrorists in Lebanon, are identical to those Iran provided to Shiite militias targeting American soldiers in Iraq. There are numerous similar reports of Iranian weapons being shipped to the Taliban in Afghanistan, including one cache uncovered just two months ago.

During the summer of 2007, the escalation of violence from Shiite militias peaked in Iraq, and the government of Iran was implicated for supplying late-model weapons directly to these groups. Some of the most damning evidence came in July 2007, when 34 Iranian rockets were recovered by elements of the U.S. Army’s 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team on July 12 after an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) discovered 46 launchers. Twelve rockets from that location had been fired at Forward Operating Base Hammer one day before.

I asked for and obtained photos of the rockets and launchers from Multi-National Forces-Iraq (MNF-I) Public Affairs, and subsequently published a post to my personal blog.

Among the photos published on Confederate Yankee was this close-up photo of an Iranian 107mm rocket on a crude launcher, its markings plainly visible:

107mmIraq2007

It was manufactured in 2006 in Iran, and was thought to have been shipped to Shiite militias for use against American forces shortly before being captured.

This morning, the Israeli Foreign Ministry was attempting to verify the source of the photo, which I provided to them.

(Continue to page 2)

.

Goldstone’s doubly revealing nightmare from which we have not awoken


Richard Landes
Augean Stables
10 November 09

In his “debate” on Thursday November 5, at Brandeis, during question and answer, Goldstone got chummy with the audience and told them an anecdote about how he felt going into Gaza:


As far as conditions in Gaza are concerned, I must say that my visit to Gaza turned out very differently from what I had anticipated. Frankly, and I make no, no, no, and I’m not ashamed to say it, I was very nervous about being a Jew going into Gaza on probe by Hamas, especially when the first reaction to my appointment by Hamas was to reject a meeting with me because I was Jew.

And my wife sitting here will remember that three nights before I went, I woke up in the middle of the night after a terrible nightmare, with sweat on my brow, because I had a vivid dream that I’d been kidnapped by, by Hamas, and people in Israel were rejoicing. [laughter] That was the nightmare, based on real fears.

Now Goldstone clearly didn’t tell this anecdote in order to reveal the utter intellectual bankruptcy of both his Report’s methods and and conclusions. But that’s what he did.

I’ve written many times about intimidation and its impact on the MSNM. And at Understanding the Goldstone Report, we’ve addressed the issue of intimidation of witnesses before the Goldstone Mission and Goldstone’s denial. Let’s start with some evidence of Goldstone’s formal state of denial on the subject: (HT Elder of Ziyon)

Already, back in June of 2009, when Goldstone was in Gaza, questions arose about the presence of Hamas in the Mission’s work. On June 9, the Palestinian Ma’an news agency, citing an AP article, mentions the problem:


(Read Full Article)
.

Turkey Denies Another Genocide


Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir with Turkish President Aldullah Gul
during their meeting in Turkey in January, 2008.

Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
11 November 09

Anyone who still thinks Turkey is a Western ally ought to pay close attention to what Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan told members of his AKP party this weekend. Defending his decision to invite Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to Istanbul for an Organization of the Islamic Conference summit, AP reported, he said he has no problem with the fact that Bashir is wanted by the International Criminal Court for mass murder in Darfur, because the accusation is clearly false.

“It is not possible for those who belong to the Muslim faith to carry out genocide,” he declared.

In other words, Erdogan is convinced that his co-religionists can do no wrong, in blatant disregard not only of the facts in Darfur but also of Muslim atrocities in many other places around the globe. And not only did he make it clear where his loyalties lie — with Islam, not the West (which supported Bashir’s indictment) — but in the process, he also rejected two of the cornerstones of the Western world, rationality and empiricism, preferring to disregard any facts that are inconvenient to his theology.

But lest anyone think this was a mere slip of the tongue, Erdogan went on to say that Israel committed far worse crimes during January’s war in Gaza than anything that happened in Darfur. Moreover, even if Bashir were responsible for state killings, he would still find it much easier to talk with Bashir than with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Hmm. Human-rights groups estimate that as many as 300,000 people were killed in Darfur in 2003-05, and the killing continues even today, albeit at a slower pace. The highest estimate of Palestinian fatalities in Gaza is 1,440. Any unbiased observer would naturally agree that 1,440 deaths are much worse than 300,000 — given that the 300,000 were killed by Muslims (who, as we know, cannot commit genocide) and the 1,440 by non-Muslims. My co-religionists, right or wrong.

Adding a further note of surrealism to all this, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu said last Friday that Turkish-Israeli relations would improve if only Netanyahu would let Turkey resume its role as mediator in Israeli-Syrian talks. Netanyahu has flatly refused, saying (correctly) that Turkey has forfeited any pretense of being an honest broker. It requires a serious disconnect from reality to even imagine that you can accuse someone of being the world’s worst war criminal one moment and expect him to treat you as an impartial mediator the next. Have we mentioned yet that Erdogan’s Turkey doesn’t seem too keen on rationality?

The Bashir contretemps is hardly the first time Erdogan has behaved in a matter incompatible with Turkey’s traditional alliance with the West. But it is past time for the West to finally admit the unpalatable truth. Turkey’s departure from the Western camp undoubtedly leaves a gaping hole. But only if Western leaders finally admit that this hole exists can they start thinking, as they must, about how to fill it.

.

Obama's Iran Diplomacy Isn't Working


The mullahs are tightening, not unclenching, their fists.

Con Coughlin
Wall Street Journal
10 November 09

Mr. Coughlin is executive foreign editor of London's Daily Telegraph and the author of "Khomeini's Ghost: Iran since 1979."

Five months after the first street protests against the sham re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rocked the regime to its core, it's time to assess the Obama Administration's "outstretched hand" policy. From the stalled nuclear talks to the Islamic Republic's deteriorating human-rights situation, it seems the mullahs have tightened, not unclenched, their fists.

No doubt, the conservative hard-liners are under pressure. Mounting international criticism of the regime's controversial nuclear program and the refusal of the pro-reform movement to submit to the repression have led to an increase in tension among the ruling elite. But rather than compromising, Tehran has resorted to the kind of repression and coercion that have helped turn Iran into an international pariah during the three decades since the Islamic revolution brought the ayatollahs to power.

This week's decision to press espionage charges against three U.S. backpackers who were arrested last July when they crossed, apparently inadvertently, into Iran from Iraq is just the latest development in the regime's campaign to silence its critics—domestic or foreign. Under Sharia law, Iran's legal system, espionage is punishable by death. The three young Americans have become Iranian bargaining chips to pressure the White House.

President Ahmadinejad adopted a similar tactic last spring when Roxana Saberi, a journalist with dual American and Iranian citizenship, was also charged with espionage when her only offense was to have overstayed her work visa. Ms. Saberi's detention took place as President Ahmadinejad was pondering how to respond to U.S President Barack Obama's appeal for direct talks . Ms. Saberi's release a few weeks later was the Iranian president's clumsy goodwill gesture to the new U.S. administration. The three Americans currently languishing in Tehran's notorious Evin prison may well experience a comparable "happy ending," but only if Mr. Obama backs off from confronting Iran over its uranium enrichment activities.

The Israeli Navy's interdiction of a vessel with hundreds of tons of Iranian weapons for Hezbollah, Tehran's key ally in Lebanon, is yet another indication of the regime's confrontational approach. Both Hezbollah and Hamas, its Palestinian client in Gaza, are regarded as vital strategic assets by Iran, to be activated against Israel in the event that the crisis over its nuclear program results in armed confrontation with the West.

Iran officially says it is still considering its response to the Oct. 1 offer by the six powers—the U.S., Russia, China, France, Germany and Britain—to ship uranium to Russia for further enrichment. But it is telling that the Revolutionary Guards thought it prudent to rearm Hezbollah in case their response fell short of international, and particularly Israeli, expectations.
(Continue reading...)
.

How to Order Military Equipment from Iran, Not a Joke


Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
11 November 09

[Please subscribe, to my blog, not the Iranian arms sales company. B.R.]

Want to start an Islamist revolution? Looking for a good weapons' supplier in Iran? Look no further as you can go to their
arms' sales site, Really, this isn't a joke. They're advertising their line of arms. "Professionalism is our Career," is the company motto.

Yes, it's Iran's Defense Industries Organization. The site explains:

"WE have more than eight decades of industrial experiences in the field of manufacturing and supply of various types of defense products and employing 20000 specialized personnel. So this organization is a leading and innovative part of country’s industry and has a comprehensive role as an industrial main pole and motive engine for a portion of industrial and software production of the Islamic Republic of Iran."

You can see their
promotional video also but I can't get the page on their chemical weapons to work.

I presume, however, you don't get the Hamas/Hiballah/Iraqi insurgent discount. But good news, they do take credit cards.

It looks as if the site hasn't completely escaped the notice of others as part of it has been
hacked, by anti-regime Iranians?

At any rate, we can only look forward to the section on Weapons of Mass Destruction coming soon.
.

Face It


Time to Face Up to the Importance of the Fort Hood Islamist Suicide Attack : Dry Bones cartoon.

It is time for America and the Obama administration to open their eyes and face up to the significance of the successful Fort Hood Islamist suicide attack. Here's an interesting analysis of the current situation by Robert Spencer:

"Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army psychiatrist, murdered twelve people and wounded twenty-one inside Fort Hood in Texas yesterday, while, according to eyewitnesses, “shouting something in Arabic while he was shooting.” Investigators are scratching their heads and expressing puzzlement about why he did it. According to NPR, “the motive behind the shootings was not immediately clear, officials said.” The Washington Post agreed: “The motive remains unclear, although some sources reported the suspect is opposed to U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and upset about an imminent deployment.” The Huffington Post spun faster, asserting that “there is no concrete reporting as to whether Nidal Malik Hasan was in fact a Muslim or an Arab.”

Yet there was, and what’s more, Major Hasan’s motive was perfectly clear — but it was one that the forces of political correctness and the Islamic advocacy groups in the United States have been working for years to obscure. So it is that now that another major jihad terror attack has taken place on American soil, authorities and the mainstream media are at a loss to explain why it happened – and the abundant evidence that it was a jihad attack is ignored."-more

Hamas' West Bank Popularity Up, So Abbas Isn't Running


JINSA
JINSA Report #: 938
November 9, 2009

Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority (West Bank division) has announced that he will not run in the Palestinian election currently scheduled for January 2010. He blames Israeli "intransigence" on the issue of houses for Jewish people east of the 1949 Armistice Line.

We offer another perspective.

"Strengthening Abu Mazen" has been U.S., European and Israeli policy since Abbas took over control of Fatah after Yasser Arafat's death. President Bush, who shunned Arafat, was the first American president to call the establishment of an independent Palestinian state an American objective. Billions of dollars, shekels and euros have been poured into the Palestinian Authority territory; the Palestinians are far and away the largest per capita recipients of international largesse. President Obama received Abu Mazen in the White House. The United States sent an American Army general to create a "police force" that has the structure and potential to become a Palestinian army, loyal to Abu Mazen.

In his limited range, Abu Mazen has had some limited success. He has cracked down on corruption, crime and, in particular, on violent criminal gangs on the West Bank. With that and Israel's removal of a large number of security checkpoints, economic growth on the West Bank has been about seven percent in 2009-better than in most of the world. [He has no function in Gaza except to continue to use Western funds to pay salaries for government employees there who now work for Hamas.]

But if Abu Mazen is the darling of those non-Palestinians who wanted him to lead the Palestinians toward the Western construct of a "two-state solution," he has largely been a failure as a Palestinian leader pursuing Palestinian national goals and appears unwilling to ask Palestinians for a renewed mandate.

Abu Mazen is the leader of Fatah, just one party within the Palestinian political constellation. Hamas, Palestinian Jihad, PFLP are other parties, and Iran is a looming presence. In August, the first Fatah convention in 20 years resulted in a restatement of the "right of armed resistance" and "right of return." Jerusalem was labeled holy only to Christians and Muslims. Committee recommendations rejected negotiations with Israel until after 14 conditions are met, including lifting the blockade of Gaza and releasing all prisoners. Younger, harder-line members were elected to the Central Committee.

Since then, Abu Mazen has tried to burnish his hard line credentials-reneging on his promise to President Obama to leave the Goldstone report alone, and insisting on a total settlement freeze even after the United States changed its view.

But it may be too little too late. Despite the economic gains under Fatah, Hamas is increasingly popular among West Bank Palestinians. Instead of running and losing in his remaining satrapy, Abu Mazen is talking about canceling the election and maintaining the political status quo, i.e., himself in charge, spending our money.

Somehow, that's not surprising.
.

Who Was Distracted by Settlements, Rahm?


Jonathan Tobin
Contentions/Commentary
10 November 09

Rahm Emanuel’s statement today that “no one should allow the issue of settlements to distract from the goal of a lasting peace between Israel, the Palestinians, and the Arab world” may be interpreted in a couple of different ways. Some may see it as a jibe at Israel to give in on the issue so as to enable peace talks to proceed. But the truth is, if anyone has been distracted by the settlements to the detriment of peace, it would be Emanuel and his master in the Oval Office.

Some feared that the White House chief of staff’s speech to the General Assembly of the United Jewish Communities today in Washington might be the latest in a series of tit-for-tat ripostes between the Obama administration and the Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu. However, it appears that Netanyahu’s determined effort to pretend — at least in public — that all is well between the two bickering allies has resulted in the administration’s deciding that increasing the tension between the two isn’t in their interest. Thus, although Emanuel’s talk sought to defend his boss’s feckless pursuit of popularity in the Arab world by distancing himself from Israel at every opportunity, it appears as though he passed on the chance to take any direct shots at Netanyahu.

As for his line about letting settlements “distract” anyone from the goal of peace, if anyone has done that, it has been Obama and his minions, whose recklessness on this issue has led to no end of Middle East mischief in recent months. Obama was determined to end what he termed the George W. Bush policy of allowing “no daylight” between the countries (which was hardly true, as Bush’s secretary of state spent her last two years in office trying to push the Israelis into more concessions to the Palestinians). His decision to pick a fight with the newly elected Netanyahu over a settlement freeze in Jerusalem and the territories was as foolish as it was pointless. The Palestinian Authority and its leader, Mahmoud Abbas, had just turned down yet another generous peace offer from Netanyahu’s predecessor Ehud Olmert. And the administration’s settlement stand merely encouraged the Palestinians to dig in their heels and refuse to talk until Netanyahu bowed to a demand that no Israeli government would ever agree to.

The result is that Obama’s settlement distraction helped further undermine the already weak Abbas and strengthened the hand of his Hamas rivals. With Abbas threatening resignation, there is now a chance that the Palestinians will opt, as they always have whenever they have been faced with a serious policy choice in the past, for an escalation of violence in the hope that more bloodshed will result in greater pressure on Israel. Obama and his hatchet man Emanuel have been chastened by the Israeli public’s strong support for Netanyahu’s refusal to bow to American pressure, and they appear to be adopting a more realistic policy on settlements these days. But their resentment of Netanyahu, who they thought they might topple a few months ago, has done nothing to advance the cause of peace, let alone regional stability. Let’s hope they take that line about distractions more seriously in the future.

It should also be noted that in the same speech Emanuel claimed that the administration has made some sort of progress on stopping Iran’s nuclear program since “thanks to the work of the president, there is strong and international consensus against a nuclear-armed Iran.” Sorry, Rahm, but that consensus existed long before Obama arrived in Washington. The problem today is whether the United States and its allies (who have taken a much tougher stand on Iran than Obama has) will draw the right conclusions from America’s failed attempt at nuclear diplomacy with Iran. On Iran, as well as on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Obama’s first initiatives have been fiascoes. What’s needed now is not rhetoric aimed at reassuring American Jews that Obama cares about Israel but rather a dramatic policy overhaul that recognizes and seeks to correct the dramatic mistakes that have been made in the last ten months.

.

What’s the Difference between Middle East and Western Politics? The Race to Moderation versus The Race to Militancy


Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
10 November 09

In a democratic country, where politicians need to gain the majority of votes, to win an election requires convincing voters that you are not too extreme. It’s ok to talk about hope and change and reform, but generally speaking the citizens will support a candidate who convinces them he will create some combination of stability and material benefits.

In Middle Eastern dictatorships, and even if there are elections it is the regime’s power which determines the outcome, things are different. Demagoguery and ideology comes from Arab nationalist (or Islamist in Iran and the Gaza Strip) rulers as well as from Islamist oppositions.

In this narrow spectrum ruled by hardline nationalism and religious passions, you are either a hero or a traitor. Militants are heroes; moderates are traitors. And material benefits just aren't important. The virtues are honor and steadfastness, defending Islam and Arabism, resistance to the forces of evil.

Sure, the regime gives material benefits to its elite cadre of supporters but these governments don't mobilize support by promising a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, and better health care. And any way the resistance to the forces of imperialism, Zionism, and the infidel come first. No voice, as the Arab saying goes, can be allowed to rise above the din of battle.

Alas, how Middle East politics works! And so if you do something that can be portrayed as moderate--even as a cynical maneuver to benefit your own side--rivals will use this to portray you as a traitor. Western observers often write as if people are afraid to speak out lest they be killed. In leading circles however, the more immediate fear is to have your reputation ruined and to be cast out of power.
(Continue reading...)
.

Keeping Fayyad Out


Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
10 November 09

In a “dramatic” speech to his people last week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas announced that he had “no desire” to run for another term in a new election slated for January 24, 2010 – a threat was directed first and foremost toward the US Administration, which he and his top aides accused of being “biased” in favor of Israel.

Abbas’s message to the Americans: You either endorse my policies entirely or I won’t run in the next election. He has convinced himself that without him the world would stop and the Palestinians would never be able to move forward.

Abbas’s departure from the scene would, in fact, benefit the peace process and bring the Palestinians closer to fulfilling their aspirations. But he does not seem to in a hurry to retire.

The Palestinian leader is upset with Washington because of its failure to force Israel to freeze all construction in Jewish settlements and neighborhoods in the West Bank and Jerusalem. He has refused to resume peace talks with Israel unless construction in these areas is halted completely.

But the US Administration, along with some Arab leaders, insists that the Palestinians must return to the negotiating table with Israel unconditionally.

Abbas is now finding it difficult to meet this demand, especially in light of the fact that he had been telling his people, almost on a daily basis, that he would never resume the peace negotiations while construction in the settlements and Jerusalem was continuing.

Abbas’s move is seen by many Palestinians as a ploy aimed not only at pressuring the Americans, but also at boosting his standing among his constituents. Some said that he was trying to imitate ex-Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, who announced his resignation after his country’s humiliating defeat in 1967, only to retract the decision the following day following massive demonstrations throughout Egyptand the rest of the Arab world.
(Continue reading ...)
.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

On threats and opportunities


FresnoZionism.org
08 November 09

Recently Israel has been warned of the ‘threat’ of a unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state if it doesn’t move to make ‘peace’ with the PA soon. Ha’aretz threatened,

Concerns are growing in Israel’s government over the possibility of a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence within the 1967 borders, a move which could potentially be recognized by the United Nations Security Council.


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently asked the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama to veto any such proposal, after reports reached Jerusalem of support for such a declaration from major European Union countries, and apparently also certain U.S. officials.


The reports indicated that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has reached a secret understanding with the Obama administration over U.S. recognition of an independent Palestinian state. Such recognition would likely transform any Israeli presence across the Green Line, even in Jerusalem, into an illegal incursion to which the Palestinians would be entitled to engage in measures of self-defense.


There is no doubt that some ‘major EU countries’ and “certain U.S. officials” would love to see the Israeli presence in Judea and Samaria declared illegal, not to mention East Jerusalem (in fact, these same countries and officials would probably say that Israel should be replaced by a Palestinian Arab state if they spoke honestly).


But a secret agreement? There’s still enough support for Israel in the US Congress and the public to make this a very dumb idea. At least today.


Here’s another threat, of a different kind, this one from Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas:


“I don’t know what the Israelis want,” he said. “They must start thinking about what needs to be done if they really want peace.”

Meanwhile, Hassan Khraisheh, deputy speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council, called on Abbas to seriously consider dissolving the PA because of the failure of the peace process. “This authority was created so that it could prepare for the establishment of a Palestinian state,” Khraisheh said. “But after more than 15 years of thorough negotiations with Israel, this state still hasn’t been established.”


On Sunday, The Jerusalem Post, quoting senior PA officials, revealed that Abbas was already considering dismantling the PA, to protest Washington’s failure to force Israel to freeze settlement construction.


Leaving aside the fact that the dissolution of the PA would end the hundreds of millions of dollars that flow to Abbas and Co. from the US, as well as the arms and training for the PA’s new army, the implied danger here is that Hamas — or Israel — would take over control of PA territory and population.

(Continue reading...)

.

Ha'aretz Errs on U.N. Resolution 242


TS
CAMERA/Snapshots
10 November 09


Ha'aretz, considered by some the New York Times of Israel, claimed in its editorial Friday:

. . . Israel must seek peace with Syria in the context of Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967: full and secure peace in return for complete withdrawal.

The New York Times corrected this falsehood three times back in 2000, making clear that in fact the resolution does not specify how much and from which territory Israel should withdraw. The Sept. 8, 2000 correction, for example, read:

An article on Wednesday about the Middle East peace talks referred incorrectly to United Nations resolutions on the Arab-Israeli conflict. While Security Council Resolution 242, passed after the 1967 Middle East War, calls for Israel's armed forces to withdraw "from territories occupied in the recent conflict," no resolution calls for Israeli withdrawal from all territory, including East Jerusalem, occupied in the war.

Other media outlets which likewise corrected the false claim that U.N. Resolution 242 requires a complete Israeli withdrawal from territories captured in 1967 include the Associated Press, the International Herald Tribune (published in Israel alongside Ha'aretz), the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal and Reuters. Will Ha'aretz join them and set the record straight?

Video: Archaeologist Says Arabs Broke Temple Mount Status Quo


Yoni Kempinski
IsraelNationalNews.com
04 November 09

(IsraelNN.com) In wake of the claims that Israel is excavating under the Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount and undermining Muslim mosques in order to cause them to collapse, archaeologist Dr. Gabriel Barkai told IsraelNN TV the opposite is true. He charged that it is the Arabs who have acted against the status quo and have "brutally" excavated land that contains many ancient artifacts from Jewish history.

Dr. Barkai spoke about the "Sifting Project," in which countless archaeological finds are being discovered in the rubble dug up by the Muslims. He also discussed his most famous discovery: small silver plaques containing the Priestly Benediction from the Book of Numbers, which he found in 1979.

These plaques contain the oldest surviving Biblically-related inscription discovered to date, dating back to 600 B.C.E.




.

New Discoveries Related to Temple Mount

Todd Bolen
BiblePlaces.com
06 November 09

Foundation Stone has a fascinating interview with Zachi Zweig, who co-leads the Temple Mount Sifting Project with Gabriel Barkay. It was Zweig who brought public attention to the Muslim dumping of the Temple Mount material many years ago, and his initiative led Barkay to secure a permit for the project. Barkay was interviewed recently about the project, and now Zweig provides more detail about some of the latest discoveries.

You can listen to the 45-minute interview (here, select part 2), but here are a few of the highlights:

  • They have been working 6 days a week for about 5 years now, but they have sifted only 20% of the material. They estimate 15 more years of work!
  • Their interest is in knowledge, in understanding the ancient world. This is sharply contrasted with the Arabs who removed this ancient material from the Temple Mount and dumped it in the Kidron Valley.
  • There are some tunnels and hollow spaces under the Temple Mount that have not been previously known, including one with an Aramaic inscription.
  • There is a mikveh on the Temple Mount, found in the 1930s but not accurately identified until recently.
  • Recently the Franciscans were digging on their property on eastern slope of Temple Mount in the Kidron Valley and they found the dump from the Temple Mount in use during the periods of the First and Second Temples. They found restorable vessels from the First Temple period, maybe as early as the 10th century (time of Solomon). They discovered lots of bones from sacrifices eaten on Temple Mount. They also found cultic figurines, which the Bible says were destroyed by King Josiah and dumped in the Kidron Valley (2 Kings 23:12).
  • Why does no one else care? Why is there so little interest in Israel for the only archaeological work possible on the Temple Mount?
  • Politics hurts archaeology and our understanding of the past.
  • The Temple Mount is a house of prayer for all nations the Muslims only.
  • A Byzantine mosaic was discovered under the Al Aqsa Mosque during the British Mandate but never publicized. Zweig published an article about it last year.
  • A massive wall uprooted by the Muslim authorities in 1970 may date to First Temple period.

In all, this is quite interesting, particularly the longest bullet point above.

Temple Mount dump, tb090705006

Debris on the Temple Mount, 2005

.


Dov Weisglass demonstrates profound misunderstanding of Roadmap in interview


Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
10 November 09

Attorney Dov Weisglass , Former Chief of Staff to PM Sharon, who played a pivotal role as his key contact with Washington, showed a profound misunderstanding of the terms of the Roadmap in a live interview broadcast this morning on Israel Radio during the 8:00-8:30 segment.

In response to a question about MK Shaul Mofaz's "peace proposal", Weisglass claimed that a sovereign Palestinian state would be created under Phase II of the Roadmap approved by the Government of Israel.

Attorney Weisglass declined to note that this was an "option" in the Roadmap rather than a requirement.

"Phase II: Transition -- June 2003-December 2003

In the second phase, efforts are focused on the option of creating an
independent Palestinian state with provisional borders and attributes of
sovereignty, based on the new constitution, as a way station to a permanent
status settlement. ..."


A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
The U.S. State Department
Office of the Spokesman
Washington, DC
April 30, 2003

www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/A+Performance-Based+Roadmap+to+a+Permanent+Two-Sta.htm

It should be noted that Dov Weisglass is an attorney - a profession in which performance hinges on paying strict attention to the both the wording of relevant texts but also the words the attorney himself employs. Attorney Wiesglass also suggested that the Netanyahu Administration should accept the massive concessions offered by his predecessor, Ehud Olmert, asa "general path" according to which Israel would resume negotiations withthe PA.
.

Is a Palestinian State even Possible?

Sultan Knish
09 November 09

Last week Obama phoned Abbas, the chairman of the PLO terrorist organization and of the US taxpayer subsidized Palestinian Authority, which is run by the PLO. Obama's first phone call to a foreign leader after taking office had been to Abbas, and his latest phone call was meant to reassure the terrorist leader that despite the complete lack of progress, he was still committed to creating a Palestinian state.



There is of course no question that the United States is deeply committed to creating a Palestinian state. The United States has provided billions to the PLO's Palestinian Authority through USAID alone, and billions more through various other channels, including the UNRWA and a collection of other agencies. The first Bush Administration forced Israel to negotiate directly with the PLO. The Clinton Administration created the Palestinian Authority inside Israel, armed and trained its terrorist militias and funded them from top to bottom. Four Presidents have made creating a Palestinian state a major priority of their administrations. More so than freeing Tibet or creating a country for any particular group, not counting the Clinton Administration's war on behalf of a Muslim Kosovar Albanian state, who rewarded us with slave trafficking, terrorism and burning down every church they could find.

The question now however is whether a Palestinian state is even possible? For one thing there is no longer a single Palestinian state, but two states, one run by Hamas in Gaza, and a second run by Abbas in the West Bank, despite the fact that his term in office legally ended around the time Obama was sworn in. The Obama Administration nevertheless continues to fund Abbas, even though under the rules that the US helped set up, he has no right to hold office without an election.


For another thing, both the West Bank and Gaza are run by dueling militias composed of PLO and Hamas terrorists. Iran and Syria fund the Hamas militias, while the US and the EU fund the PLO militias. While Iran is more open about simply calling them terrorists, the US State Department calls them "police" and provides them with weapons and training. The militias work for whichever faction or sub-faction is paying them at the moment. In between they do "odd jobs" such as drug dealing, kidnapping and the old protection racket-- a major reason why all the plans for outside investment in the PA quickly collapsed into nothing.
.

PM Netanyahu’s great speech to the GA

Ted Belman
Israpundit
10 November 09

This is one of his best speeches. He keeps calling for “peace”. This is a brilliant strategy. Everybody wants peace. Thus he builds a consensus. Then comes Israel’s need for security. Who can argue about that. Let the politicians negotiate the details.

Meanwhile the Palestinians keep digging a hole from which they cannot extricate themselves. Obama, who’s he? Obama chose to support the weak horse and fell into the hole. Time for him to support the strong horse.

bibi2My dear friends, leaders of the Jewish communities of North America,

The history of the Jewish people has been marked by a paradox. We are at once both small and great. We are few in number but luminous in achievement. In the ancient world, the Jews were a small people on the foothills of Asia touching the Mediterranean. But in Alexandria some 2200 years ago, the Bible was translated into Greek, and the world has never been the same since.

“The Jews brought to civilization at least three big ideas: the idea of monotheism, the belief that all people have innate rights that transcend the power of kings, and a prophetic vision of universal peace.
(Read more…)

Start Worrying (1994)


(1994) Dry Bones cartoon: Sukkot.
Today's Golden Oldie is a Dry Bones cartoon done 15 years ago for in November of 1994.

The Islamist attack at Fort Hood should have been a wake-up call about the growing threat from Radical Islam in America. But apparently it hasn't. Here's a Politically Correct Time Mag report on the successful and bloody Islamist suicide attack on American soldiers, in an American army base, on American soil:

"Determining whether Hasan's actions were inspired by religious fervor (he reportedly said "Allahu akbar" before opening fire), his exposure to the mental trauma of the soldiers he counseled or other unknown factors may be impossible. Currently Hasan is in intensive care at a San Antonio hospital, breathing without a respirator. But given his mental state, even he may not know what caused him to kill.

At least for now, the Army is more worried about how the world is reacting to Hasan's actions than an explanation for them. "I'm concerned that this increased speculation could cause a backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers," General George Casey, the Army's top officer, said Sunday on CNN. "And I've asked our Army leaders to be on the lookout for that." -more

* * *

Monday, November 9, 2009

The Times Indulges a Palestinian Temper Tantrum


John Podhoretz
Contentions/Commentary
09 November 09


With Bibi Netanyahu and Barack Obama slated to meet this evening, the New York Timeshas splashed a story written in a tone of deep alarm across the front of its website: “Collapse Feared for Palestinian Authority if Abbas Resigns.”

The central theme is: He really means it this time! He’s gonna quit! And it’s Israel’s fault!The true purpose of the piece is to ensure that Obama and Netanyahu do nothing but discuss the condition of Mahmoud Abbas’s tenure as president of the Palestinian Authority. Because they have so little else to talk about. Like Iran. Nothing to talk about there.

Ethan Bronner assumes a startlingly inappropriate tone in this article—an elegaic, mournful spirit:

The prospect that the Palestinian Authority, the government in the West Bank, might fall apart loomed on Monday, as those close to its president, Mahmoud Abbas, said that he intended to resign and forecast that others would follow. “I think he is realizing that he came all this way with the peace process in order to create a Palestinian state, but he sees no state coming,” Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian peace negotiator, said in an interview. “So he really doesn’t think there is a need to be president or to have an Authority. This is not about who is going to replace him. This is about our leaving our posts. You think anybody will stay after he leaves?”

Mr. Abbas warned last week that he would not participate in elections he called for January. But many viewed that as a ploy by a Hamlet-like leader upset over Israeli and American policy, and noted that the vote might not actually be held, given the Palestinian political fracture and the unwillingness of Hamas, which controls Gaza, to participate. In the days since, however, his colleagues have come to believe he is not bluffing. If that is the case, they say, the Palestinian Authority could be endangered.

Evidently the crime of the Israelis is that, as Bronner writes, Netanyahu wants “negotiations without preconditions.” Usually in a negotiation, that would be considered a good thing. But not in this negotiation, because in this negotiation, Israel is supposed to come to the table having already agreed to the creation of a Palestinian state “within the 1967 borders and Jerusalem.” Netanyahu, Bronner writes, “declined” this preposterous demand of Hillary Clinton’s—preposterous because the idea that Israel would agree to surrender parts of Jerusalem and would preemptively agree to the loss of neighborhoods like Maale Adumim even before talks commenced is to presume magic fairy dust has been sprinkled upon the land of milk and honey and caused pacific and loving feelings to swell within the breasts of both parties.

This is not an article about Abbas and the tragic possibility of his early departure along with Saeb Erakat, a mouthpiece propagandist who is a Palestinian “peace negotiator” like I am a Jewish “pentathlete.” This is an article intended by design to overshadow the meeting of the American president and the Israeli prime minister and to make the “collapse” of the ineffectual and dishonest Palestinian Authority leadership the news of the day. It has the quality of an indulgent babysitter running to a parent to report breathlessly that a 5 year-old has threatened never to eat again because it is his brother’s birthday and he doesn’t like the flavor of the cake.

.

Winner of BBC general knowledge show believes Israeli secret intelligence service is called “Al Qaeda”!


Robin Shepherd Online
09 November 09

For anyone who believes that the average Brit has even the faintest idea of what is going on in the Middle East they might like to know that the winner of today’s general knowledge quiz show “The Weakest Link”, which runs weekdays on the BBC, had an interesting take on Israeli intelligence matters.

I just happened to be watching the last few minutes of the show which precedes the 6 o clock news when the final two contestants were fighting it out in a head to head. The contestant, Rob, was asked to name Israel’s most prominent secret intelligence service. With a shrug of his shoulders, he ventured his answer: “Al Qaeda”?

Even the notoriously severe Anne Robinson, who hosts the show, could not repress a despairing smile. The hapless Rob went on to win the show. God bless Britain’s finest…
.

Covering the Disturbances on the Temple Mount: Insights into the Intimidation of Journalists


Augean Stables
Richard Landes
09 November 09

The following is an account written up by an Israeli journalist who feared for his life while covering the disturbances. S/he wants to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.


The following occurred on October 9, 2009, after a week of heightened tension in east Jerusalem and the Old City….


A group of reporters – myself included – had been covering a potential flashpoint in the Wadi Joz neighborhood of east Jerusalem, just opposite the Old City, on Friday morning, as hundreds of Muslim worshippers participated in a prayer session at the entrance to the neighborhood, meant to protest “Israeli aggressions” on the Temple Mount .


All ages of men from the neighborhood had come out into the street, and approached a police road block, which was meant to stop younger residents of the area from flocking to the Temple Mount for noon prayers, which were expected to be tense. Nonetheless, tension made its way to Wadi Joz as well, as scores of police in riot gear faced the the massive gathering of worshippers, who in turn listened to a fiery speech from their imam, as he spoke through a bullhorn.


But nothing happened. The prayers concluded, and worshippers loitered in the street momentarily before heading home. The tension in Wadi Joz eased.


Around the same time, my police beeper went off, notifying reporters that a number of young men in the Ras al-Amud neighborhood, next to the Mt. of Olives Cemetery, were throwing rocks at police officers and setting fire to piles of debris. A friend and I hopped into a cab and rushed up the hill from Wadi Joz (around the walls of the Old CIty) to Ras al-Amud, hoping to catch the story.


Upon arrival, the smell of burning trash was thick in the air, and a large Border Police presence was visible. But the main square of the neighborhood, which includes the local mosque, a few small grocery stores and vegetable stands, was quiet. A few people milled around, but, as we soon found out, the “action”, as it were, was down in the alleyways of the neighborhood.


So we made the descent, and almost immediately, saw a group of some six officers behind riot shields, being slammed with salvos of rocks. A group of young men, “shababs” as they’re called colloquially, were seen in the distance, their faces wrapped in t-shirts and keffiyehs, hurling the stones and other objects at the officers.


Now, for a reporter, this is certainly a story, and one in which every development can be used for “color” or extra detail in an article. And nothing beats being there, seeing it for yourself, and then relying on your own eyes and testimony to paint the re-paint the picture. So I ventured farther in, at first behind the police, but in the chaos that ensued, I soon found myself in the crossfire - between the officers and the rock-throwers. While I am not required to take pictures, I do bring a camera with me, and I found a “safe” place between two cars, and began to snap some shots.


The shababs soon noticed me, and while other press were in the area, I could tell that a few of them had begun looking at me strangely. Suddenly, one of them ran up to me, his face shrouded in a t-shirt, and he grabbed me by the straps of my backpack. “You’re an undercover cop!” he screamed in Arabic, a rock in his right hand as he grabbed onto me with his left.


“No, I’m a journalist!” I answered back, caught off guard at by the sudden jolt.

“No you’re not- you’re an undercover cop!” he screamed back. “Prove to me that you’re not an undercover cop!”


I reached into my pocket and pulled out my government-issued press card, thinking at the same moment that he would see the name of my publication, realize that it was an Israeli one, and my troubles would only grow. But as he was scanning the card, another journalist, an Arab photographer, approached the both of us, and told the young man in Arabic that I was in fact a journalist.

“Enough, let him go,” he told him. And the young man did as he said.

But as the shababs made their way past me - onward towards the officers - another Arab photographer, from an Arab news outlet, told me, “You should get out of here.”


I didn’t heed his advice – in truth, I found it insulting – but was more careful from that point on. At a later point during the day, another young shabab, his face also wrapped in a t-shirt, yelled at me from a balcony - “Are you a journalist or an undercover cop?”


(Continue reading...)

.

The Right Way to Investigate Gaza


NATO Belgrade bombing campaign in 1999

Evelyn Gordon
Contentions/Commentary
09 November 09

A group of South African immigrants to Israel submitted a novel proposal to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week. Netanyahu, they said, should accede to the UN’s demand that Israel investigate its own actions during January’s war in Gaza. But it should do so in the only way that makes sense: not by focusing on Israel’s actions in a vacuum but by comparing them to those of other Western military campaigns in populated areas – for instance, American operations in Iraq and Afghanistan or NATO’s bombing of Serbia.

“I particularly mention Serbia, where the number of bombs dropped on a civilian population was tremendously high,” Charles Abelsohn, one of the proposal’s authors, told Haaretz. “This is how war is conducted. But all of a sudden, when Israel is involved, there is a law of human rights that doesn’t appear to apply anywhere else.”

The South Africans are right: The Gaza war can only be understood comparatively. Only by analyzing how the level of civilian casualties and efforts to minimize them compared with casualty levels in other Western military campaigns, only by assessing how Hamas’ efforts to use civilians as cover compare with those of other terrorist groups in other conflicts — only then can a fair determination be made about whether Israel is a war criminal, as the Goldstone Report claims, or whether it “did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare,” as British Col. Richard Kemp claims.

Abelsohn is also right that such data would “assist those who are fighting the good fight on Israel’s behalf.” Without comparative facts and figures, Israel’s assertion that its Gaza operation was a model of morality will not convince anyone not predisposed to believe it – unless, like Kemp, they have the firsthand knowledge needed to make their own comparisons. But because most people have no combat experience, they have no basis for comparison.

During World War II, according to historian William Hitchcock, the British bombing of one single city, Rouen, on one single day, April 19, 1944, killed 900 allied civilians. And that figure, which was not atypical, does not even include combatants and enemy civilians.

By comparison, according to IDF figures, Israel killed 1,166 Palestinians in Gaza over the space of three weeks, of whom 709 were combatants. Hence, even if, as Palestinians claim, the total casualty figure was higher and the proportion of combatants lower, Israel would clearly not fare badly in an international comparison.

I doubt that would matter to the Goldstones of the world. But it would matter to those who would like to think well of Israel but are troubled by the endless stream of accusations, which Israel has done too little to counter. Israel needs to produce the necessary comparative data, and its friends need to make sure it gets disseminated. Indeed, this should have been done long ago. But better late than never.


Obama and Netanyahu: Not Pals


Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations
09 November 09

Aluf Benn, a serious journalist at Haaretz, has some cool words to say about Netanyahu's rising sense of confidence about facing down Obama:
Netanyahu may be an experienced diplomat and politician, and Obama may be a novice, but Obama is the president of a superpower, and Netanyahu represents a small country that depends greatly on the United States. It sometimes appears that Netanyahu forgets this, and pretends he is the head of a superpower, for example when he identifies himself with Winston Churchill, or in declaring that the Israeli mind will free the world of oil dependency in a decade.
This is of course true, and needs to be kept firmly in mind at all times. The fact that the Obama administration clearly does not yet understand the real world out here (I'm not talking about the internal American scene, where the jury's still out), doesn't change the fact that for the next three or seven years, the Obama administration will be the single most important and powerful actor on the international scene, and also extraordinarily important for Israel. Maybe they'll learn. Even if they don't, Obama will be re-elected or not because of domestic issues, not his relationship with us.

There is however also the flip side of the coin. In seven years at the latest Obama will be packing. As will his successor in 15 years at the most. And that one's successor, in 23 years. At which time, Israel will still be in this highly volatile neighborhood.

Most political leaders most of the time cannot ever make decisions which will reverberate much beyond the term of their successor. Can anyone think of anything Helmut Schmidt did that makes any difference today? Does anyone even remember who Helmut Schmidt was? John Major? Romano Prodi? Bill Clinton? (Oops. Sorry).

The prime minister of Israel has in his (or her) power to make decisions which will directly impact on the Jewish existence in the 24th century; the status of Jerusalem being merely the most obvious of them. We've been around for a very long time, and are in for the long haul. No Israeli leader should ever make historical decisions for an immediate political reason alone. It must fit in to the long term, too.


Tel Aviv students afraid to challenge leftist professors


Or Kashti
Haaretz
09 November 09

Tel Aviv University students are hesitant to express their political views in class, lest lecturers perceived to have left-wing political views penalize them with lower grades, the head of TAU's Department of Curriculum and Instruction wrote in an internal memorandum last month. Prof. Nira Hativa's comment in the faculty memo ignited controversy among professors, with some declaring that her sentiments should not be made public.

Hativa wrote: "There are no small number of students of lecturers with left-wing views who complain bitterly that they are extremely offended by the presentation of materials that oppose their views, but are fearful of expressing contrary viewpoints in class, lest it harm their grades."

In response to the uproar, Hativa, who is currently abroad, wrote Haaretz this weekend that "the things I wrote in the context of an internal disagreement are based on intuition and my personal impressions."

The chair of the university's students' union, Shahar Botzer, said his organization receives a number of complaints each year from students dissatisfied with what they view as lecturers' biased portrayal of material in favor of left-wing positions. He said that such complaints are the exception, however, rather than the rule.

"If lecturers express their views in class in a way that makes it illegitimate to express contrary views - that is inappropriate and unacceptable to us," Botzer said. "This university is founded on pluralism and on the ability to express a variety of opinions."

Hativa's statements were prompted by a story in the Haaretz English Edition on rightist activists monitoring lecturers who are considered to have leftist views, as well as an article in Maariv on what it described as the right-wing views of Daniel Schueftan, deputy director of the National Security Studies Center at the University of Haifa.

"At the end of each semester, I read comments from several hundred students on the teaching they receive," Hativa wrote on October 23. "I have come across many complaints from students about a small number of lecturers in various fields, who express radical left-wing opinions in their classes - that they are lashing out at the State of Israel, the army, the Zionist movement and worse."

TAU said in response that "informal discussions are held frequently on controversial issues, and people feel 'at home' in expressing opinions based on their understanding and intuition. The university is an institution where pluralism is a guiding principle."
.

Analysis: Coalition agreement not withstanding, Hizbullah will continue to hold sway in Lebanon


Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun, as a famous Chinese leader once said. In Lebanon, the guns are in the hands of Hizbullah.

Jonathan Spyer
JPost/Opinion
08 November 09

Following statements from both government and opposition sides in Lebanon over the weekend, it now looks likely that Prime Minister-elect Saad Hariri will announce the formation of a new governing coalition in the next few days.

The announcement that a deal has been reached on a unity government was made by the Hizbullah-led March 8 opposition movement after a meeting on Friday.

The details of the deal have not yet been made clear, but it appears that the main stumbling blocks have been overcome.

The formation of a new government will bring to an end four months of political paralysis in Lebanon, following the victory of the pro-western March 14 coalition in general elections in June.

However, the new government will have no bearing on the key political fact looming over Lebanon today: namely, the existence of a parallel state maintained by Hizbullah, which makes its decisions without consulting the nominal rulers of the country.

The deadlock regarding the formation of the government was itself related to the agenda of the Hizbullah parallel state. It is worth remembering that agreement for the formula of cabinet appointments was reached in July. But this agreement solved little.

Hariri was determined to prevent the opposition from obtaining veto power in the new government. To exercise a veto over cabinet decisions, the opposition needed to control at least 11 portfolios in the 30-member cabinet - that is, one-third plus one of the cabinet seats.

In July, both sides accepted a formula of 15 portfolios for the March 14 coalition, 10 for the opposition, and five to be appointed by President Michel Suleiman.

The key issue then became the identity of the ministers to be appointed by the president. If only one of them were to be inclined toward the opposition, this would mean that Hizbullah would effectively have kept the veto it exercised before June. Since the final names have not yet been announced, it is too soon to draw any firm conclusions in this regard.

It looks likely, however, that Hariri has compromised in another key area.

Hariri announced after the election that he was determined to keep the Telecommunications Ministry for his party. The Hizbullah-led opposition was equally determined to obtain this portfolio for themselves.

Hizbullah maintains a large-scale independent communications network which is an essential part of its military stance vis a vis Israel. Its determination to keep this network away from government scrutiny was one of the factors that triggered the fighting in Beirut in May 2008.
(Continue to read...)

Exposing the Western Wall Tunnels


The Western Wall Heritage Foundation

In the nineteenth century, the most distinguished Jerusalem scholars were already trying to determine the precise measurements of the Western Wall and describe the methods used in its construction. However, their information was incomplete, mainly because they were unable to discover the wall's entire length. Nevertheless, British researchers Charles Wilson, in 1864 and Charles Warren, in 1867-1870, uncovered the northern extension of the Western Wall Prayer Plaza. The shafts that Charles Warren dug through Wilson's Arch can still be seen today.

Immediately after the Six Day War, the Ministry of Religious Affairs began the project of exposing the entire length of the Western Wall.

It was a difficult operation, which involved digging beneath residential neighborhoods that had been constructed on ancient structures from the Second Temple period and were built up against the Western Wall. Some residents used underground spaces as water holes or for sewage collection. The excavations required close supervision by experts in the fields of structural engineering, securing subterranean tunnels, archeology, and of course, Jewish Law.

After almost twenty years, and despite enormous difficulties, the Western Wall Tunnels were excavated. This lengthy project unearthed many archeological finds which can only be described as remarkable. These finds revealed new and unknown details about the history and the geography of the Temple Mount site.



When the Western Wall Heritage Foundation was established, it was given the responsibility of continuing the excavations, which revealed ancient Jerusalem in all its glory, and bringing them to the public’s attention by opening the tunnels to visitors.

Due to the great delicacy of the Western Wall and its environs and the complexity of the excavations, they were carried out with great caution and under constant rabbinic and scientific supervision. Thus, slowly but surely, a magnificent Jerusalem from over 2,000 years ago was rediscovered. The process of these complicated excavations was decided upon after much deliberation and care, while taking into consideration aspects that are not characteristic of other archeological excavations.



The excavators were faced with complicated engineering problems, such as maintaining the stability of the structures above them while ensuring that the courses of Western Wall stones that had been uncovered would not be damaged in any way. They also had to divert the sewage from the houses above them, which on occasion flushed down unexpectedly on top of the archeologists in the tunnels, into the general sewage system.

Advancing at a snail's pace, they uncovered genuine treasures. As time went on, the tunnels became a time tunnel, transporting anyone in them to the heyday of Jerusalem, in the first century c.e., the greatest days in the history of the city.

They found enormous courses of distinctively carved stone that were remarkably well preserved. There were also remains of the Herodian road which ran alongside the Temple Mount, ancient cisterns, impressive construction efforts from the Muslim era, and a Hasmonean period aqueduct that had been blocked by Herod’s construction of the Western Wall.

All of these amazing portholes to the past can be seen at the Western Wall Tunnels, which is why visiting them is so thrilling. A visit to the Tunnels is not just an awe-inspiring journey through time, but also a fascinating lesson in Jewish history and in the archeology and topography of Jerusalem.

Opening the tunnels to the public required complicated and unique engineering and safety solutions to allow safe and enjoyable access. It was a long process, which included the development of walking paths, air conditioning, signs and lighting, and insuring that the site is wheelchair accessible and can accommodate visitors with disabilities. Audio/visual aids were developed and guides were trained to help visitors explore the mysteries of the Tunnels.

The work is far from completed. Much more still lies hidden than has been revealed at the foot of the Temple Mount.

Missing Ambassador's Media Appearance


Honest Reporting/Backspin
09 November 09

Wondering where was Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, when the General Assembly endorsed the Goldstone report? Turns out she was taping an appearane on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Credit Phyllis Bennis for connecting the dots:


There was lots of speculation why Rice was not there herself - had she been called to the White House for last-minute consultations? Would her presence somehow give the resolution and thus the Goldstone report itself too much significance? Was her deputy better at playing "bad cop"? Actually, it was none of the above. The US Ambassador to the United Nations, Her Excellency Susan Rice, was indeed in New York, but not at United Nations headquarters. The defining clue came at 11 p.m. that night, when The Daily Show With Jon Stewart came on the air. Featuring special guest Ambassador Susan Rice.

The hit show of Comedy Central, The Daily Show airs in the late-night slot.But it always tapes the show ahead of time, around 5:00 in the afternoon. The UN vote to endorse the Goldstone report took place at 4:45.


Sure enough, Rice's segment's online. Feel free to disagree, but I'm not going to criticize the the ambassador for shunning a debate whose odious outcome was anyway a foregone conclusion. Stewart and Rice discussing Goldstone would've made for great blogging, but the issue didn't come up.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Susan Rice
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis

Where's the compromise over the Temple Mount?


David Kirshenbaum
JPost Opinion
31 October 09

In seeking to present a modus vivendi for the Temple Mount that "mainstream" Israelis can support, The Jerusalem Post's editorial, "The 'Third Templars'" (October 27, 2009) falls surprisingly short in fairness and substance.

The characterization of those who seek to change the status quo on the Temple Mount as "post-Zionists," "messianic followers" of the Lubavitcher Rebbe and "Third Templars" is false. A number of synagogues in my hometown of Beit Shemesh schedule regular visits to the Temple Mount. The vast majority of the members of those synagogues are immigrants from Western countries. We yearn to pray on the Temple Mount and not be muzzled and followed every step of the way by the religious bigots of the Wakf.

Far from being post-Zionists, we made aliya by choice, and as our children have grown, we watched with pride and knots in our stomachs over the years as they joined their fighting units in and around Gaza and Lebanon.

Wild-eyed messianics? Cultists? After we come down from our visits to the Temple Mount, we can be found at our day jobs as doctors in this country's hospitals, university professors, educators at prominent religious institutions, participants in the country's thriving hi-tech industry and lawyers at the most prominent law firms and financial institutions. Our rabbi, who has led many of our visits, is a former tanker in the IDF and was one of the subjects of a Jerusalem Post article last year about an interfaith legal studies program.

SIMILARLY, EVEN the most cursory good faith check would expose the speciousness of the "post-Zionist" and "messianic" labels the Post uses to deride the many rabbinical figures who are advocating that Jews be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount. This, for example, is how Haaretz described the Temple Mount conference in its October 26 issue. "Top religious Zionist leaders came together Sunday at a rightist conference advocating Jewish ascent to the Temple Mount. It's hard to remember when was the last time Israel saw such a unity between its religious Zionist leaders. Political rivals such as MKs Uri Orbach and Michael Ben-Ari sat side by side on the center stage. Moderate rabbis 'respectful of the government' like Rabbi Yuval Cherlow and Rabbi Ya'acov Medan came together with 'rebellious haredi nationalists' such as Rabbi Elyakim Levanon and Rabbi Dov Lior. "

One of the most widely respected Zionist rabbis in the country, Chief Rabbi of Haifa She'ar Yashuv Cohen, has long championed a change in the status quo on the Temple Mount. Cohen, who has chief responsibility for the Chief Rabbinate's dialogue with the Vatican and has had tremendous success in working together with the large non-Jewish communities in Haifa, has for many years been trying to gain support among both his rabbinic colleagues and the political echelon for establishing a synagogue on the Temple Mount.
(Continue reading...)
.

Benign Neglect for the Peace Process


Noah Pollak
Contentions/Commentary
08 November 09

Thomas Friedman’s column today is utterly sensible and completely realistic.

The only thing driving the peace process today is inertia and diplomatic habit. …

Right now we want it more than the parties. They all have other priorities today. And by constantly injecting ourselves we’ve become their Novocain. We relieve all the political pain from the Arab and Israeli decision-makers by creating the impression in the minds of their publics that something serious is happening. “Look, the U.S. secretary of state is here. Look, she’s standing by my side. Look, I’m doing something important! Take our picture. Put it on the news. We’re on the verge of something really big and I am indispensable to it.” This enables the respective leaders to continue with their real priorities — which are all about holding power or pursuing ideological obsessions — while pretending to advance peace, without paying any political price.

Let’s just get out of the picture. Let all these leaders stand in front of their own people and tell them the truth: “My fellow citizens: Nothing is happening; nothing is going to happen. It’s just you and me and the problem we own.”

Let me be the first to congratulate Friedman on joining the ranks of us killjoy, spoilsport, wet-blanket neocons, who have been saying exactly this for years — and have been assailed for doing so by people like, oh, Tom Friedman. I recall writing a year ago that the peace process existed to “cater to the illusions of what has become a self-sustaining diplomatic, bureaucratic, and media industry.” It’s nice to have Friedman on our side.

.

Sudden Jihad or "Inordinate Stress" at Ft. Hood?

by Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com
November 9, 2009