Why So Much of the Western Elite Hates (or Doesn’t Like) Israel (And Their Own Societies, Too)

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
29 June '10

Aside from all the traditional reasons—antisemitism, oil money, strategic weight of the Arab world, guilt over colonialist pasts, fear of Islamist violence, etc)—there are some very important new ideological reasons for the dislike (or hate) of Israel by large elements of the Western elite, especially what is called the intellectual elite, there are some new ones of the greatest importance.

If you understand these factors, it also explains a lot more generally about the (temporarily?) hegemonic ideology that has taken over much of Western academia, media, and politics.

1. Religion
As a Jewish state, and a country where religion plays an important role, Israel is anathema to Western leftists and intellectuals who are against religion, or at least against Judeo-Christian religions. Incidentally, though, Israel is not a theologically based or defined states. In fact, Jews are a people who happen to have a distinctive religion, something rather common in history. The idea that Jews are only a religious group is a very recent idea in world history.

But the allergy to religion in public life is a powerful force in Western elites today. Why doesn’t this apply to Islam? There are a number of reasons but one rarely mentioned is that Islam isn’t “their” religion, meaning that they have never personally or collectively rebelled against it, nor has it shaped elements in their own society that these people hate. Islam may be a repressive religion in Saudi Arabia, but it isn't responsible for Jerry Falwell or the "Christian right." Hence, to a member of the Western elite, it isn't "their" problem.

While this is a simplification, to get across the idea I will use the following phrase: Islam for them is in the class of a “quaint, alien custom” rather than something they viscerally hate or believe their societies have dispensed with for the better. This is especially true, of course, for the anti-religious Jews among them.

For those from that general approach, of course, the alternative is to accept secular Zionism and support for non-religious forces in Israel, which are in the large majority of course.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

RE: What Is Israel to Do?

Emanuele Ottolenghi
Contentions/Commentary
30 June '10

As Jennifer points out, Admiral Mullen’s remarks about Iran are disconcerting.

I am no military expert and, like most of us in the blogosphere and the policy community, lack the actionable intelligence to make the kind of judgment that Admiral Mullen makes on whether a military strike against Iran would yield the kind of benefits desired without the kind of consequences one may reasonably fear.

Maybe Admiral Mullen is in a position to know better and his public assessment is correct. But why announce it? To make the Mullahs sleep better?

What is remarkable, and remarkably shocking, about this procession of military and intelligence personnel coming to say what politicians have now said for a while, is that they do not seem to appreciate how these comments have damaging consequences.

Perhaps a military strike is not in the cards anymore — who knows? Perhaps the risks involved are considerable. Maybe the hour is late. Understandably, there is little appetite for war. And, frankly, one should underestimate neither the operational difficulties nor the political fallout.

But there is a world of difference between entertaining skepticism about the military option in private and ruling it out in public. Whether it is politicians or uniformed personnel, their public dismissal of the military option — perhaps the only thing Iran’s regime truly fears — undermines the effectiveness of all non-military alternatives.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The two truths that we see from the new Pal/Lebanese rights movement

Elder of Ziyon
29 June '10

Thousands attended a rally in Beirut on Sunday demanding the government giving Lebanese Palestinians their civil rights.

The arguments that Lebanese politicians are using to justify their endemic discrimination against Palestinian Arabs are hilariously specious. They will all claim to love the Palestinian Arabs, but then they add that big "but:"

For example:

Free Patriotic Movement leader MP Michel Aoun stressed on Tuesday granting Palestinian refugees in Lebanon their rights, but noted that this requires funds that are unavailable.

He added after the FPM's weekly meeting that they cannot be granted right of ownership in Lebanon, and said that houses for Palestinians should be built in refugee camps, similar to those that were constructed at the Nahr al-Bared camp.

The MP stressed: "We cannot scatter the refugees throughout the Lebanese territories because if they lose their communication then they will lose their cause."

In other words, they must remain confined in squalid "refugee camps" and not be allowed to purchase land in the rest of Lebanon because if they are treated the same as other Lebanese, they would lose their Palestinian identities!

If Palestinian Arab nationalism is so weak that it cannot survive a nation treating its members like human beings, how strong was that nationalism to begin with?

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

PA Continues to Promote the Denial of Israel's Existence: All of Israel is "Palestine"

Itamar Marcus/Nan Jacques Zilberdik
Palestinian Media Watch
Hudson New York
30 June '10

The Palestinian Authority TV's weekly game show between competing Palestinian universities continues to deny Israel's existence through the questions posed to the quiz contestants.

Last week, three different questions and matching answers on The Stars all reflected a world view in which Israel does not exist.

One PA TV quiz answer taught that the length of "Palestine's" coast was 235 km. Gaza's coastline is only 45 km. long and Israel's Mediterranean coastline is approximately 190 km. long. Presenting "Palestine's" coast as 235 km. presents a world in which all of Israel is "Palestine."

Another quiz answer described the Israeli city of Nazareth as a "Palestinian city." A third answer taught that the size of "Palestine" was 27,000 sq. km. - an area that includes all of the State of Israel, as well as the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The West Bank and Gaza Strip comprise less than 7,000 sq. km.

PA TV is under the direct control of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's office.

It should also be noted that PA TV displayed the EU logo as background throughout the quiz.



(See full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Legal Scholars Weigh in on Gaza Blockade, Flotilla Deaths

Erik Schecter
Carneige Council
28 June '10

Nearly a month after its deadly naval raid on an aid flotilla, Israel refuses to lift its blockade of the Gaza Strip.

Still, the government of Benjamin Netanyahu has loosened restrictions on the types of goods that may enter the Hamas-ruled coastal enclave. Likewise, it has set up a commission to examine the events of May 30-31. None of this, however, has squelched criticism of the Gaza blockade and the flotilla incident.

To recap, in late May, the Free Gaza Movement, a pro-Palestinian solidarity group, arranged for six ships loaded with humanitarian aid to breach the Israeli naval blockade. Anticipating arrival of this flotilla, the Israeli navy sailed out to the boats and warned them away from Gaza coastline, offering instead to have the cargo delivered to the territory via Israeli land terminals. However, the flotilla activists rejected the offer.

When the Free Gaza crew made it clear that they intended to run the blockade, Israeli navy commandos boarded the boats at night, in international waters, and subdued the passengers. This occurred, for the most part, without incident. However, on one ship, the MV Mavi Marmara, a large contingent of baton-wielding Turkish Islamist activists clashed with commandos, resulting in the deaths of nine passengers.

This bloody episode provoked a wave of outrage—and not just in the Muslim world. In the United States, conservative pundit Pat Buchanan denounced the Israeli naval action as "piracy," while progressive columnist Glenn Greenwald decried it as a "massacre." Meanwhile, a number of human rights groups reiterated their position that the blockade was a form of "collective punishment" and illegal.

Putting aside overheated rhetoric and pseudo-legal analyses, I asked a group of international law experts about the blockade of the Gaza Strip and the methods employed by Israel to enforce it. These are their answers:

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Why aid the enemy?

Israel has every right to close its border to a belligerent neighbor intent on eradicating it.


Efraim Inbar
Op-Ed/JPost
29 June '10

(Something interesting to checkout. The title has significantly changed from it's original publication in Bitter Lemons, as a subtitle has been added, plus the final sentence has been dropped. I suppose this reflects addressing a different audience, but is it the author or editor?)

Bowing to misguided international pressure, particularly from the West, the government lifted nearly three years of restrictions on civilian goods allowed into the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. The restrictions had been imposed in reaction to the repeated launching of missiles into the Negev. This decision hardly makes any strategic sense because it helps Hamas, an ally of revolutionary Islamist Iran. Both are anti-Western forces focused on destroying the Jewish state.

The easing of the blockade reflects the success of a Hamas propaganda campaign to depict the situation in Gaza as a humanitarian disaster.

While Gaza is not prospering, the standard of living there is generally higher than in Egypt – a little-noticed fact. The ability of this Goebbels-type propaganda to entrench a tremendous lie in the consciousness of the international community testifies to the continued vulnerability of naive Westerners to sophisticated psychological warfare, and to the complicity of much of the Western press in this enterprise.

The step taken by the government also significantly helps Hamas strengthen its grip on Gazans, as it controls the distribution of any goods entering its territory. Moreover, even if Hamas allows for a general improvement in the daily lives of all Gazans, this reduces the incentive for regime change, which should be part of the Western goal. Strengthening this radical theological regime in the eastern Mediterranean defies Western rational thinking.

The entrenchment of Hamas rule in Gaza amplifies the schism in Palestinian society and strengthens Hamas’s influence in the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority. It is also a slap in the face of PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who demanded the blockade’s continuation. Hamas’s achievement here further undermines whatever ability – albeit a very limited one – the Palestinian national movement had to move toward compromise with the Jewish state.

THE INTERNATIONAL pressure that led to the decision also indicates a gross misunderstanding of Israel’s predicament and its legitimate right of self-defense. Israel totally disengaged from Gaza in 2005, hoping that the Gazans would focus their energy on state-building and achieving prosperity.

Gazans could have decided to try to become a Hong Kong or a Singapore.

Yet Hamas turned Gaza into a political entity engaged in waging war on the Jewish state by launching thousands of missiles with the specific intention of harming civilians.

Ironically, Hamas demands that Israel allow a supply of goods into the Strip.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The Tree of Zionism

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
29 June '10

Helen Thomas suggested that Jews should go back to Poland and Germany. The Turkish flotilla headed to Gaza was more specific, radioing, "Go back to Auschwitz." But both are only bubbles on the surface of the larger narrative in the Muslim world that is widely redistributed by the left and the far right, that Jews are foreign strangers to the land. On the surface this would seem to be plainly absurd. Israel is not some sort of obscure footnote in history or some forgotten fragment of the past that has to be looked up in an encyclopedia.


Both of the world's two dominant religions derive their background from Israel. David and Solomon, the kings of Israel, are considered prophets in both Islam and Christianity. Jewish history is indivisible from the history of Christianity and Islam. No believer in either religion can deny the history of the Jewish people, without also denying their own scriptures and faith. Which means that the current state of affairs in which Muslims and some Christians pretend that Israel came out of nowhere in the 1940's after the world felt guilty about the Holocaust, is an obscene bit of chutzpah.

Israel was not created after the Holocaust. It was recreated after the fall of the Ottoman Empire opened the door for peoples who had been formerly living under the Ottoman boot to rebuild and govern their own countries. The irony is that Israel is only one short entry on the list of countries that were to be created after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, and that list includes most of the Arab world. It also includes countries that could not successfully able to gain independence at the time, such as Armenia. Zionism was simply another national liberation movement, one of many that gained new momentum after the breakup of the Ottoman and Austria-Hungarian empires.

The anti-Zionist narrative insists that Jews are foreigners because they came from the diaspora. However the very word "diaspora" highlights the fact that the Jewish returnees were members of a religious and ethnic group that had been forced to leave the region, and were now coming back. Nor were Jews unique in this regard in the post-Ottoman period. There also was and is a large Armenian diaspora around the world. Even today there are more Armenians living outside Armenia than inside it. This does not negate the rights of Armenians to their homeland or make them foreigners. There are other similar diasporas of peoples from the territory of the Ottoman Empire.

The majority of Jews living in Israel today are refugees or the children of refugees from Muslim countries, from the USSR and from Nazi occupied Europe. That diaspora is continually ignored in favor of sneers about "Settlers from Brooklyn". Yet the same media that forcefully pushed this mischaracterization, did not apply the same standards to American Arabs who moved to the Palestinian Authority in the mid 90's (before moving back once they experienced the shakedowns and corruption of Arafat's cronies). That diaspora was somehow more legitimate than the Jewish one. This is the prejudice at the heart of the case against Israel.

It is natural for Arab Muslims to feel that they have more right to Israel, than the Jews do. Conqueror peoples tend to feel that way. It is certainly commonplace in the Muslim world. That is Turkey's attitude when it denies rights to its Kurdish minority. Iran's attitude when it denies rights to the Azeri minority. Regarding Israel, this repressive attitude finds support in the Koran, from Mohammed's persecution of the Jews, and his insistence that Islam had replaced Judaism and Christianity, and that non-Muslims had no right to govern Muslims.

But the idea that a conqueror people have more rights to a land than the indigenous inhabitants whom they usurped and oppressed, is a bizarre perversion of liberalism's own doctrines.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Hamas Attacks UN Summer Camp For Not Being a Terrorist Training Camp

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
29 June '10

Hamas has twice violently attacked UN summer camps in the Gaza Strip in order to destroy them and intimidate kids from attending them. The goal is to force young people to go to Hamas summer camps where they will be given military and ideological training to teach them to be future terrorists.

The UN actually condemned the attacks and the Hamas regime for fomenting them.

I’m not complaining about this article—a small drop in the ocean of needed media coverage of Hamas’s repression and extremism—but one sentence caught my eye. The UN, “camps provide a rare distraction from the hardships endured by more than 250,000 Palestinian refugees that live in the Gaza Strip.”

Unlike many others, this article doesn’t blame Israel for all of these problems but it is also worth recalling why refugees still live in camps. Prior to turning over the Gaza Strip to rule by the Palestinian Authority in 1994, Israel at times tried to resettle the refugees in new housing. This step was not only opposed by the PLO—which wanted to keep the refugees in temporary housing until their triumphant return to a Palestine built on the smoldering remains of a destroyed Israel—but by a UN resolution. And so Israel abandoned the effort.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) ruled the Gaza Strip for more than a dozen years and received lavish aid funding, some of it specifically earmarked for new housing. But it was PA policy never to move refugees into new housing, for the same reason as before. Their suffering was good propaganda abroad and also was intended to keep the refugees in a dissatisfied state of mind so they would support continuing the battle until total victory and be willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause.

So why do refugees in the Gaza Strip and West Bank live in refugee camps today? For the same reason that there is no Palestinian state: Because of decisions made by the Palestinian leadership, both nationalist and Islamist.

There is no way anyone can refute these points, they can only ignore them.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

What Is Israel to Do?

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
29 June '10

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is at it again. In the past he’s spoken about his aversion to military action against Iran. At a swank Aspen gathering, he made clear just how averse he is — and the dearth of other options for preventing a nuclear-armed Iran:

A military strike against Iran would be “incredibly destabilizing” to the region said the US chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen. He believes Iran will continue to pursue nuclear weapons, even if sanctions against the country are increased.

Speaking Monday at the Aspen Security Forum, Mullen said it would be “incredibly dangerous” for Iran to achieve nuclear weapons, and that there’s “no reason to trust” Iran’s assurances that it is only pursuing a peaceful nuclear program, especially after the discovery of a secret nuclear facility near the holy city of Qom. …

Mullen said there was no reason to expect Iran to conform to international norms, given its past behavior, but he declined to describe what measures the US was considering. He has often said that all options remain on the table.

He explained that the hardest part about trying to decide what to do about Iran is how much the US does not know about the country’s nuclear progress.

When asked whether he thought Israel would give the United States time to see whether tougher sanctions or talks would produce more cooperation from Iran, he would only say that he believes the US and Israel are “in sync” with their current policies.

Following on Leon Panetta’s troubling interview, this should certainly unnerve you — on multiple counts. First, we again see that the Obami consider the prospect of a strike on Iran to be ”destabilizing” — apparently more so than a nuclear-armed Iran. Second, Mullen confesses he really doesn’t know how far Iran’s nuclear program has progressed. Is this strategic ambiguity to keep Israel at bay? Or is it evidence that our intelligence is deficient and Israel will need to gauge for itself when time has run out on the feckless attempts to engage and sanction Iran? Third, like Panetta, he thinks economic sanctions will be ineffective. Finally, and worst of all, even if Mullen believes these things, why in the world would he say them? Giving comfort and encouragement to our adversaries isn’t part of his job description.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Precision-guided or Indiscriminate? NGO Reporting on Compliance with the Laws of Armed Conflict

Asher Fredman
NGO Monitor Monograph Series
28 June '10

International human rights NGOs are playing an increasingly influential role in shaping the policies of states and international institutions. Decision-makers, media and the public frequently turn to NGOs such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for perspective on international events. Yet despite the growing importance of these NGOs, few scholars have subjected the content of their reports to critical scrutiny.

This monograph analyzes the output of two of the most powerful NGOs, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, regarding the 2008-2009 conflict in Gaza and southern Israel. Their factual and legal claims, particularly relating to Israel's use of White Phosphorus and UAVs, are considered in light of military sources, state doctrine, and the academic literature.

The analysis demonstrates that many of the factual claims made by the NGOs are contradicted by military sources, weapons experts, and media reports. From the legal perspective it is shown that their presentation of key aspects of international law is inaccurate or incomplete. This suggests that these NGOs should carefully evaluate their areas of competency, and take steps to ensure that ideological biases do not affect their work. Policy- and opinion-makers should carefully examine NGO reports before allowing them to influence their positions.

PDF of the full report

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

A Syria in minor key

Tony Badran
NOW Lebanon
29 June '10

The strategic vacuum the United States is leaving in the Middle East is creating a dangerously unstable situation, arguably similar to the one immediately preceding the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. This is characterized by a void in regional leadership and a disengaged Washington incapable of dictating regional dynamics.

While Iran has been seen to be challenging the US order for a while now, it is currently common knowledge that Turkey is also pushing to fill the vacuum and carve out for itself a dominant position in the Ottomans’ former Middle Eastern domains. But where does the rise of these middle powers leave second-tier Arab countries like Syria, which has long claimed to be a vital regional player?

Some have suggested that a Turkish-Iranian balance of power would stabilize the region by containing Iranian influence. The test case they offer is Syria. A popular argument is that an ascendant Turkey that pulls Syria toward it would lead to better Syrian-Turkish economic integration and greater political moderation in Damascus.

This is a faulty reading. In reality, as Turkey and Iran assert themselves, Syria is again falling back into its historical role as the land between greater powers to its east, north and south. With that, its claim of a key regional role loses its credibility, both in political and economic terms. Yet for the regime of President Bashar al-Assad, projecting an over-inflated image of itself is essential. That is why Assad has been painting a grandiose picture of his regime’s central place in the so-called new regional order, built around the supposed alignment of Turkey, Iran, Syria and perhaps Iraq.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Hamas torches children's summer camps

Melanie Phillips
The Spectator
29 June '10

All those who believe Gaza is in need of more international aid should be aware of what has now happened twice to summer camps for children in Gaza that are run by the UN. Foreign Policy magazine reports:

Last night, 25 armed, masked men set fire to a U.N. summer camp at a beach in Nuseirat, Gaza, destroying inflatable pools and tents and roughing up a group of guards protecting the facility. It was the second attack on a U.N. recreation facility in just over a month. On May 23, a group of 30 masked, armed men set fire to another U.N. summer camp facility under construction in Gaza City. They also threatened to kill the U.N.'s top relief official in Gaza.

U.N. officials told Turtle Bay they don't know who attacked the recreation facilities but they suspect the vandals are Islamic extremists who object to programs that allow boys and girls to jointly swim, play volleyball, and learn about the arts, theater and other cultural activities.

This is yet another example of what I wrote about in the Daily Mail the other week – that the principle behind international aid programmes, that humanitarian assistance must be delivered regardless of the political situation because human need transcends politics or war, is totally flawed. All too often that aid is hijacked, trashed or used to prolong and deepen war or repression. In respect of Gaza, Barry Rubin makes a further related and salutary observation:

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

President Obama Rewards The Hamas Lobby

Why is the terrorist group more interested in attacking Israel than improving the lives of its people?


Steve Emerson
Forbes.com
22 June '10

A ship packed with violent, radical activists tries to run a blockade aimed at preventing terrorists from receiving illicit material. Video shows them beating commandos with clubs as they land on the ship, pelting them with slingshots and carrying knives.

What is America's response? To demand that the nation whose soldiers were attacked conduct an investigation to "find out the facts."

It is clear Israel sought to peacefully secure the Mavi Marmara on May 31 as it approached Gaza. But the hardened activists, who openly discussed their desire for martyrdom, weren't going to let that happen. Fighting for their lives, the Israeli soldiers opened fire with their sidearms, killing nine people on the ship.

But that does not make the Obama administration's demand for an investigation from an ally any more sensible. It was the first such demand made by the U.S. of another country, let alone an ally, in recent memory. There was no call for a probe on Russia's treatment of Chechnyans, for Egypt's persecution of the Christian Copts or for the murderous rampages against the Ahmadiyan Muslim sect in Pakistan.

Just Israel made the history books. Israel, however, has proof of what really happened. It released at least five videos on YouTube showing Israeli soldiers being attacked as they landed.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Jihad for kids

Petra Marquardt-Bigman
The Warped Mirror/JPost
29 June '10

When it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the media always seem willing to report and comment extensively - so much so that one could be tempted to describe the coverage as disproportionate. However, some ten years ago, at the beginning of the so-called Al Aqsa Intifada, it became clear that there are quite a few subjects that are on the "don't do" list of the international mainstream media.

It is in part due to this rather systematic exclusion of some subjects, that there is a considerable gap between what most Israelis know about the Middle East and what global audiences are being told about the region. Particularly in the Western media, more or less well-meaning commentators regularly admonish Israelis not to be so "paranoid" and to realize that with a bit of goodwill from their side, the Middle East would be transformed into a model of peaceful coexistence.

One reason why this advice does not seem convincing to Israeli audiences is because they tend to be much more aware of the open Jew-hatred and incitement that permeates the public discourse in the Arab and Muslim world. An utterly dispiriting example of this incitement has recently attracted some attention when a lot of blogs linked to a chillingly sleek YouTube clip that shows a group of cute kids putting on a polished musical performance about the desirability of being martyred for Palestine. With a catchy tune, they tell other kids that without Palestine, childhood isn't worth much.

Most of the posts that featured the clip described the song as a "new hit", but the original report about this video was already published a year ago on the web site of The Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). Under the title "'Birds of Paradise' - Martyrdom Recruitment as Children's Entertainment", the report notes that there are "dozens of editions and edits of the video, ranging from Arab parents having their children parrot the lyrics to Jihadists using it as background music in terrorist videos."




A Saudi journalist is quoted as expressing concern about the enormous popularity of the song, and the IPT report also points out that the media company, "Birds of Paradise", that produced the clip has published similar material. IPT argues that the song should therefore be seen as part of "a new wave in Jihadist youth indoctrination. It is far more professional, better edited, and presented in a much more kid-friendly style than previous Jihadist children's programming. The themes are easily digestible even for toddlers. Child actors portray Israeli soldiers, all wearing yarmulkes, who ruthlessly gun down other children shown playing and dancing. Minutes later, the kids exact revenge and kill the soldiers. Violence is not only the answer for children, but it is framed in a cute, kid-friendly way."

Precisely because it is so appalling to see this kind of "kid-friendly" indoctrination, reports like this are usually dismissed in "politically correct" circles as unrepresentative or exaggerated, and therefore not really newsworthy. However, the fact of the matter is that by now there is ample documentation of Islamist efforts to indoctrinate children with jihadist ideology.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The Ottoman Empire Strikes Back

Judeosphere
24 June '10

Turkey’s role in the Gaza flotilla incident was a dramatic wake-up call that Ankara is serious about pursuing its “regional engagement” strategy and becoming more involved in the affairs of the Middle East.

Yet, despite the schadenfreude of seeing the Israelis subjected to world condemnation, some Arab countries remain suspicious about Turkey’s long-term intentions.

Memri has compiled an intriguing overview of editorials in the Arab press. Newspapers in the Persian Gulf countries were especially critical of Turkey, often referring to it as the “new Ottoman Empire.” Saudi writer Abdallah Nasser Al-Otaibi, for instance, warns that “Erdogan wants to revive the Ottoman belief that in order to be strong and stand proud, they must conquer the Arab minds… The age-old Turkish dream to rule all the Arab lands has now been resurrected, and the Turks have no qualms about exploiting the Arabs’ fateful causes, on which they have been silent in the past 60 years”

Among the Palestinians, Wassef Mansour, a member of Fatah, used language against Turkey and Iran that is usually reserved for Israel:

“Adolf Hitler invented the theory of lebensraum… according to which some countries feel that their status does not match their military or economic power and therefore interfere politically or militarily in [the affairs of] neighboring countries, especially when those countries are militarily weak…Following the demise of the charismatic Arab leaders, the disintegration of Iraqi military power, and the Arab summits’ abandonment of the military option, Iran and Turkey began to see the Arab region as part of their lebensraum…

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Only in Israel: Bedouin Teacher Enters National Bible Contest

Jameel
The Muqata
29 June '10

Israel: What a country.

After a 29 year hiatus, Israel is rebooting the National Bible Contest, for adults. The Education Ministry has radio ads running on the major stations;

"Lots were drawn, and he was chosen...if you think you know the answer, why not participate in the National Bible Contest for Adults"

The response is overwhelming: Over 1,650 people have registered so far!

Contestants will be divided into seven districts around Israel, including one designated for IDF soldiers. A written test will be held in mid-July to determine 14 winners from each district who will move on to the regional competition. At the second stage, each district will hold a local race for two spots. A total of 14 contestants will participate in the national contest to be held during the holiday of Hanukkah. The winner and his two runner-ups will move on to the international contest which will be held in 2011. (YNET)

And now, Shadi Abu Arar, a Bedouin Hebrew literature teacher has registered to participate in the National Bible Contest for adults as well.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Middle East Proximity Talks: Questions for Washington

Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
29 June '10

Even if Israel and the Palestinian Authority were to reach a peace agreement sometime in the near future, it is certain that the Palestinian Authority would not be able to implement it or sell it to a majority of Palestinians.

Therefore the first and most important question that decision-makers in Washington and European capitals need to ask themselves these days is: Is there a majority of Palestinians who are prepared to make far-reaching concessions in the context of a peace treaty with Israel? Is there a Palestinian leader who is willing to make compromises on explosive issues such as Jerusalem, settlements and the "right of return?"

Frankly, there is no way that Palestinian Premier Mahmoud Abbas could accept anything less than what his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, rejected at the botched Camp David summit in the summer of 2000. Back then, Arafat refused to sign a document pledging to "end the conflict" with Israel unless he got 100% of his demands.

In addition, there are serious doubts as to whether Abbas would be able to persuade a majority of Palestinians living in refugee camps in the Arab world to accept any peace agreement with Israel that did not include the "right of return" to their original villages in pre-1948 Israel.

Abbas, however, is not in a position to accept even a "partial" agreement on the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. No Palestinian leader has thus far dared to publicly make the slightest concession on this issue.

Further, Abbas could not sign any deal that excluded the Gaza Strip; he would then be accused of "solidifying" the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Moreover, although the Palestinian Authority has said it would consider land swap, apparently many Palestinians are opposed to it.

The second question that Washington needs to ask is: Do Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have enough credibility and support among Palestinians to be able to sell to a majority of them a peace deal with Israel?

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Bald-faced lies by IHH

Elder of Ziyon
29 June '10

The IHH, the terrorist-supporting group that was primarily behind the violence on the Mavi Marmara, has released a glossy PDF file filled with lies about what happened on the flotilla. It doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny but the Free Gaza movement is publishing and disseminating it happily, because truth is apparently not a virtue to these virtuous "humanitarians."

I can't do a word-for-word fisking because the IHH did not save the file in such a way that the text can be copied, and optical character recognition is pretty much useless. But here are some lowlights:

"The sole aim of these ships was to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza and break the siege"

Well, that's two aims! And as we know from Free Gaza, humanitarian aid is used a cover for the political goal of delegitimizing Israel. In fact, the Mavi Marmara contained no humanitarian aid whatsoever.

The IHH claims that Israel blocked their communication to the Turksat satellite at 22:30 at the same time that the Israeli boats began to follow them. However, live broadcasts continued up until IDF soldiers boarded the ship, as the initial video of beating and stabbing Israeli soldiers was broadcast in real time.

IHH claims that two Israeli submarines were involved in the operation. This is the first I have heard that claim, and so far no evidence has been found to that effect. I am not sure what a submarine would accomplish, unless IHH is implying that Israel was ready to torpedo the boats.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

US PR firm paid to demonize Israel

"We’re choosy. Fenton has always been selective about who we work with. We only represent causes we believe in ourselves. This policy not only serves our mission, but our clients’ best interests."


Fresnozionism.org
28 June '10

Think about this: there is at least one American business that is paid to demonize Israel.

The employees, well-paid professionals, go to work every day and think up ways to make Israel look like a moral monster, a rogue state dangerous to world peace for which the only remedy — as in the case of Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or apartheid South Africa — is more than just regime change, rather, a fundamental change in the nature of the polity which can only be effected by force.

They are creative people and they know their jobs. Their trade is building or wrecking the public images of politicians, products, organizations, companies and even nations.

Today their goal is to prevent the Jewish state from defending itself by creating a mass of public opinion that sees its self-defense as war crimes. To prevent the Jewish state from defending itself, so that its enemies can finally succeed in doing what they have been trying to do since Israel was born, destroy it.

They are Fenton Communications, and they are working on their current project as diligently as they did for MoveOn.org, The Body Shop, Greenpeace, Ben and Jerry’s and numerous other clients:

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

'Arab commandos' in Jerusalem?

EU hires British firm to train special Palestinian unit to be deployed in east Jerusalem


Ronen Bergman
Israel News/Ynet
28 June '10

A security firm that employs the veterans of elite British units will provide instruction to 80 Palestinian security guards to be deployed in east Jerusalem.

The new Palestinian unit will be tasked with securing European Union facilities in the eastern part of the capital and maintaining order in the area. The 80 Palestinians to be selected for the highly coveted job will be trained and guided by British company Saladin Security.

The project has been arranged by the EU, which intends to train the Palestinians to serve as a highly skilled police force to maintain the order in Arab areas in Jerusalem, and later on across the Palestinian Authority.

Saladin Security, which was established in 1978, provides training and security services in dozens of countries and was set up by veterans of the elite SAS unit.

Saladin, or in its previous name, KMS, has already been entrusted with some controversial operations in the past. Among other things, its members trained the Islamic rebels fighting the Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. The Muslim fighters trained by the company eventually managed to take over the country.

Elsewhere, in 1984 Saladin was hired for the purpose of carrying out sabotage acts in Nicaragua, as part of secret US support for the anti-Communist Contras. Later on, the US Congress banned direct aid to the Contras.

Applying for gun permits

At this time, Saladin prepares to embark on its latest mission, in Israel. The EU already submitted a request to Israel for gun permits to be issued to the former British troops who will be training future Palestinian combatants.

A senior European intelligence official expressed his surprise at Israel's willingness to allow Saladin to operate in Israeli territory. Meanwhile, the IDF, Justice Ministry, Prime Minister's Office, and Israel Police said they were unfamiliar with the issue, or alternately suggested to refer questions to other officials.

(Read full story)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Go Figure: Allowing More Aid Into Gaza Devastates Gazan Economy

Daled Amos
28 June '10

I suppose that may be one of the reasons that the Hamas terrorist 'government' refused to let Flotilla 'aid' into Gaza.

More to the point, the free flow of aid disrupts the very backbone of the Gazan economy--the tunnels. In The Myth of the Siege of Gaza, Jonathan D. Halevi writes:

"Smuggling" is not the correct word to describe the network of tunnels along Gaza's border with Egypt. Whereas smuggling connotes illegal activity carried out clandestinely, the Palestinian tunnel network is out in the open and extends the whole length of the border.

The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) published an abstract in May 2009 of an investigative article that appeared on the Al Arabiya network which presents the method of operation of the tunnels on the Gaza-Egypt border. The following are the main points as described on the ITIC website:

The reporter for the Al Arabiya network, Waal Issam, toured Egyptian Rafah, in the market where goods sent to Gaza through the tunnels are sold. The report said that the market is the major source of the fuel supply to Gaza. Some 10,000 people work in the "tunnel industry" on a daily basis. The value of the trade via the tunnels is estimated at approximately $200 million annually. Along the border, which is some 13 kilometers long, nearly 800 tunnels have been excavated. According to the report, most of the tunnels that were attacked during Operation Cast Lead have been reconstructed. The smugglers who were interviewed claimed that a tunnel can be built nowadays in 10-15 days. One of the smugglers reported that the tunnels end in buildings, groves, chicken coops, etc.20

But now, even the rumor itself of the easing of restrictions had an immediate impact.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

J Street Goes Even Further Left

Kadima goes right. (Relative to J Street. Y.)


Michael Goldfarb
The Weekly Standard
25 June '10

“The party and the viewpoint that we’re closest to in Israeli politics is actually Kadima.” -- J Street founder and president Jeremy Ben-Ami, October 28, 2009.

Over the last 18 months, there’s been a lot of debate about the Obama administration’s strategy in Israel – not whether it’s working (you can’t find anyone in town to make that case), but what it seeks to achieve. There was some speculation that the Obama team wanted to bring down the Netanyahu government, or at the very least so badly damage Netanyahu that he would be forced to form a new coalition without some of the more right-wing parties (Yisrael Beiteinu and Shas).

In this scenario, the goal would be getting Kadima leader Tzipi Livni into the government, on the assumption that she is a more moderate figure with whom the Obama administration can do business. Livni was more than happy to return the favor by positioning herself accordingly – until now. Sensing an opportunity earlier this week, Livni blasted Netanyahu for easing the blockade on Gaza.

"In the neighborhood where we live Israel has to take decisions on the basis of its own interests and not under pressure," Livni said. "Acting under pressure signals weakness and we cannot allow ourselves to do that."

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Alternatives to surrender

For too long, by allowing themselves to be led by our deranged media, Israeli citizens and governments alike have ignored the fact that the answer to every question is not more concessions.


Caroline B. Glick
carolineglick.com
29 June '10

To the roaring cheers of the local media, on Sunday the Schalit family embarked on a cross-country march to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s residence. They set out two days after the fourth anniversary of IDF Sgt. Gilad Schalit’s captivity.

Outside their home on Sunday, Gilad’s father Noam Schalit pledged not to return home without his son. The Schalit family intends to camp out outside of Netanyahu’s home until the government reunites them with Gilad.

The only drawback to this dramatic, newspaper- selling story is that it is wrong. Gilad Schalit is not a hostage in Jerusalem. He is a hostage in Gaza. His captor is not Netanyahu. His captor is Hamas.

And because the story is wrong, the media organized cavalcade of ten thousand well-intentioned Israelis is moving in the wrong direction. And not only is it going in the wrong direction, it is doing so at Gilad Schalit’s expense.

The truth that Yediot and Ma’ariv’s marketing departments ignore is that Schalit’s continued captivity is a function of Hamas’s growing strength. To bring him home, Israel shouldn’t release a thousand terrorists from prison.

To bring Gilad Schalit home a free man, Israel must weaken Hamas. And this is an eminently achievable goal. Noam Schalit knows it is an achievable goal. That is why last week he was the most outspoken critic of Netanyahu’s decision to abandon Israel’s economic sanctions against Hamas-controlled Gaza. That is why over the past four years, the Schalit family has staged countless protests against Israel’s massive and continuous assistance to Hamas-controlled Gaza. If anything positive is to come from this march, then when the Schalit family arrives in Jerusalem they should abandon the newspapers’ demand that Israel surrender to all of Hamas’s demands. They should acknowledge that doing so will only guarantee that more Israelis will be kidnapped and murdered by Hamas and its allies.

If the Schalits wish to criticize the government, they should criticize Netanyahu and his coalition for the steps they have taken to strengthen Hamas. The Schalits should demand that the government reinstate and tighten Israel’s economic sanctions against Gaza. They should demand that Israel end its supply of electricity and gasoline to Gaza and take more effective action to block smuggling through the tunnels along the Gaza-Egypt border.

All of these actions will weaken Hamas, and so contribute to the prospect of it being forced by the Gazans themselves to release Schalit to his family.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Israeli Policy in the Age of Islamism

David Ben-Gurion's policy of reaching out to Islamic states on the periphery of the Middle East — Iran and Turkey, among them — is now inoperative as Israel must adapt to new realities in the region.


Larry Hall
pajamasmedia.com
28 June '10

It is a short walk from here to nowhere, if you are a Jewish state (or even a state of mostly Jews) in the midst of the Mideast. When your back is to the sea and history, and your face is to the inhospitable desert, both the feeling and the view can be cramped and inhibiting.

Once upon a time, Israel had a prime minister named David Ben-Gurion, one of the founders of the state and a politician with strategic grasp. While he often flew solo, sometimes to the detriment of his nation, Ben-Gurion grasped Israel’s dilemmas well enough. The young state was surrounded by implacable Arab enemies; virtually all political factions in each Arab state opposed Zionism absolutely. No matter whether a nationalist, a pan-Arabist, or a Marxist ruled a particular Arab state, a policy of politicide towards Israel always worked at home. Anything else was an invitation to accusations of treason and heresy to the nation and to Islam.

Ben-Gurion saw a way out of this, or at least around it. He would form alliances with important states on the periphery of the Arab world — non-Arab states with historic bones to pick with their Arab adversaries. Chief candidates were Iran, Turkey, and Ethiopia. Iran and Turkey (especially) were both under secularizing regimes that emphasized national identity, which worked against Muslim sentiments and highlighted differences with Arab rivals.

This in fact became Israeli regional policy in the 1950s and 1960s. As Gamal Nasser emerged as Egypt’s strong man and developed his pan-Arab nationalism, it became a matter of survival. In the absence of any demonstration of genuine friendship from the United States, Israel also developed a warm relationship with France. While this was shattered in the wake of the 1967 war — when Charles de Gaulle, freed of Algeria and conscious of the size and potential markets of Araby, suddenly remembered “Jewish arrogance” — this relationship served Israel well for years.

Israeli policy was thus two-pronged and sensible, featuring 1) cultivation of ties with powerful Mideast periphery states, and 2) maintaining suitable European alliances. The success of the periphery alliances can be seen by the fact that Turkey and Iran remained on good terms with Israel after de Gaulle and the French turned on the Jewish state.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

CIA Chief Says Al-Qaida is Weaker. True But So Is U.S., and Revolutionary Islamist Groups Are Stronger

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
27 June '10

CIA chief Leon Panetta says al-Qaida is at its weakest point since before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. He’s probably right, though the amount of decline in the last three years or so has probably not been large.

Most of the damage to al-Qaida was done during the preceding administration and that’s a statement of fact not of political viewpoint. After all, depriving al-Qaida of its base in Afghanistan and Taliban ally—the most important actions damaging the group—took place a decade ago. And with a few lucky breaks, for example if passengers on that Detroit-bound plane had been less alert, al-Qaida might well have new massacres to brag about.

But the most important question is not who should get credit for weakening al-Qaida—a terrorist group, by the way, that could make Panetta’s optimistic statement look foolishly premature by a single major successful attack on any day of the week—but how one should regard that organization.


In terms of launching terrorist attacks on the territory of the United States or on U.S. installations abroad, al-Qaida certainly has been the number-one threat. The group’s decline is certainly a good thing and both administrations deserve credit for fighting that battle.

But focusing on al-Qaida, now listed as the sole enemy of the United States in what used to be called the war on terrorism but is now called something or other--leaves out two things of great importance which often seem to be missing in the Obama Administration’s policy.

First, the longer-term historical importance of al-Qaida has not been to be the revolutionary impetus in its own name but the inspiration for a great increase in revolutionary Islamist activity in many places. An increase in anti-American terrorism was a key element in this process but is only one part of the picture. Al-Qaida’s role has been particularly important in Iraq, Yemen, and to a lesser extent in North Africa.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Israel stands firm: We won't free 'mega-terrorists’ in swap

Hamas fails to respond to new prisoner exchange offer; captured soldier's family sets off on march to Jerusalem.


Herb Keinon-Tovah Lazaroff
Israel/JPost
27 June '10

(An important article that gets to the heart of the matter. Do the math and ask what is the government's responsibility? No one has marched for the hundreds murdered by those previously released, and yet we'll do this once again? Y.)

Hamas has not replied to an Israeli offer to release hundreds of terrorists – including more than 100 responsible for murdering more than 600 Israelis – in exchange for kidnapped soldier Gilad Schalit, on condition they do not return to the West Bank, but go either to the Gaza Strip or to another country.

Israel, according to government sources, sent the offer through a German mediator six months ago, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

The offer includes a willingness to release 450 Palestinian prisoners in negotiations with Hamas, and another 550 prisoners unilaterally as a gesture to the Palestinian Authority – meaning the Schalit deal would be one for 1,000.

Of the 450 Israel agreed to release in negotiations with Hamas are more than 100 terrorists with “blood on their hands.”

However, Israel has made clear it would not release what it has called “mega-terrorists” – those responsible for some of the worst atrocities.

Among those are the terrorists responsible for the attacks at Jerusalem’s Sbarro restaurant where 15 people were killed in 2001; the Moment Café where 11 were killed in Jerusalem in 2002; Café Hillel where seven were killed in the capital in 2003 ; the Rishon Lezion attack where 16 were killed in 2002; the Dolphinarium in Tel Aviv were 21 were killed in 2001; and the Park Hotel in Netanya where 30 people were killed on Seder night in 2002.

Israel has made clear that these, and other mega-terrorists would not be released because they would establish a “terrorist industry” wherever they were sent.

Hamas, however, is demanding the release of these megaterrorists.

They are also demanding they be allowed to return to the West Bank in order, according to Israeli assessments, to rehabilitate Hamas’s military capabilities there, after they have been dealt a huge blow over the last few years.

Israel’s demand that more than 100 of these 450 prisoners not return to the West Bank stems from the country’s bitter experience with previous prisoner releases, when many of those released returned to terrorism and were responsible for killing additional Israelis.

According to government numbers, some 45% of released terrorists return to terrorism.

The number is even higher among Hamas members, of whom 63% return to terrorism, and the Islamic Jihad, for which the number rises to 67%.

The most recent example of this recidivism can be seen in the case of the 400 terrorists released to gain the return of Elhanan Tannenbaum and the bodies of three IDF soldiers in 2004. Fifty-two percent of those released have returned to terrorism and are responsible for killing 27 Israelis is a number of different attacks.

According to government figures, 42% of the 1,150 prisoners released for three IDF soldiers in the Jibril prisoner exchange in 1985 returned to terrorism and, according to Israeli assessments, many were leaders of the second intifada.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

The Coming Crisis In The Middle East

Herbert I. London
Hudson New York
28 June '10

The coming storm in the Middle East is gaining momentum; like conditions prior to World War I, all it takes for explosive action to commence is a trigger.

Turkey's provocative flotilla, often described in Orwellian terms as a humanitarian mission, has set in motion a gust of diplomatic activity: if the Iranians send escort vessels for the next round of Turkish ships, which they have apparently decided not to do in favor of land operations, it could have presented a casus belli. [cause for war]

Syria, too, has been playing a dangerous game, with both missile deployment and rearming Hezbollah. According to most public accounts, Hezbollah is sitting on 40,000 long-, medium- and short-range missiles, and Syrian territory has been serving as a conduit for military materiel from Iran since the end of the 2006 Lebanon War.

Should Syria move its own scuds to Lebanon or deploy its troops as reinforcement for Hezbollah, a wider regional war with Israel could not be contained.

In the backdrop is an Iran, with sufficient fissionable material to produce a couple of nuclear weapons. It will take some time to weaponize the missiles, but the road to that goal is synchronized in green lights since neither diplomacy nor diluted sanctions can convince Iran to change course.

From Qatar to Afghanistan all political eyes are on Iran, poised to be "the hegemon" in the Middle East; it is increasingly considered the "strong horse" as American forces incrementally retreat from the region. Even Iraq, ironically, may depend on Iranian ties in order to maintain internal stability.

For Sunni nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, regional strategic vision is a combination of deal-making to offset the Iranian Shia advantage, and attempting to buy or develop nuclear weapons as a counterweight to Iranian ambition. However, both of these governments are in a precarious state; should either fall, all bets are off in the Middle East neighborhood. It has long been said that the Sunni "tent" must stand on two legs: if one, falls, the tent collapses.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Several Thousand Palestinians Protest For Equal Rights--In Lebanon

"Lebanon has marginalized Palestinian refugees for too long. Parliament should seize this opportunity to turn the page and end discrimination against Palestinians."
Human Rights Watch


Daled Amos
28 June '10

While Hezbollah is preparing to put on a show on the world stage with its proposed Flotilla on behalf of the Palestinians of Gaza, the Palestinians of Lebanon continue to suffer--apparently out of fear that they will become naturalized citizens and stay in Lebanon:

Several thousand Palestinians and Lebanese civil activists converged on central Beirut on Sunday, demanding more rights for Palestinians, many of whom live in squalid and over-crowded refugee camps.

Dozens of buses transported demonstrators waving Palestinian flags from refugee camps across the country -- from the southern city of Tyre as well as from the northern city of Tripoli.

"As Palestinians in Lebanon we have no rights. We just want to live with dignity," said Palestinian Imtithal Abu Samra, 29, who lives in the Beddawi refugee camp in northern Lebanon.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Is a military strike on Iran imminent? The G8 thinks Israel will do it

Robin Shepherd
robinshepherdonline.com
28 June '10

Silvio Berlusconi, prime minister of Italy, is an unconventional politician and he is difficult to predict. But even Berlusconi is surely too well versed in the customs of international diplomacy to make predictions about Israel attacking Iran without very good grounds for doing so. On the sidelines of the G8* summit in Canada on Saturday he said the following:

“Iran is not guaranteeing a peaceful production of nuclear power [so] the members of the G-8 are worried and believe absolutely that Israel will probably react pre-emptively.” (My italics)

Unless Berlusconi is being completely irresponsible, this sounds like a warning that something may be imminent. It is also worth noting that Berlusconi’s remarks came the day before CIA director Leon Panetta said Iran probably has enough uranium to build two nuclear weapons within the next two years.

(Read full post)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

G-8 Leaders Send Love Note To Bibi -- But Where Are The Media?

Leo Rennert
American Thinker
27 June '10

The Group of Eight summit in Canada issued a communiqué on June 26 that is remarkably favorable and supportive of Israel's stance on Gaza and the peace process.

The communique, which expresses the views of the United States, Canada, Japan, Britain, Germany France, Italy and Russia, deals with major global issues and challenges, among them the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Here's what it has to say on that topic:

1. It calls for moving from current proximity talks ,with U.S. envoy George Mitchell having to shuttle between the parties, to direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians -- something that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has steadfastly resisted, but a course Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has advocated for many months.

2. It expresses deep regret at the loss of life during the May 31 flotilla incident, but pointedly does not hold Israel responsible for the lethal outcome -- a slap at Turkish, UN and Arab leaders who immediately blamed Israel in disregard of clear evidence that violence-bent radical passengers brutally beat Israeli commandos before a single shot was fired.

3. It "welcomes" Israel's creation of an independent public commission to investigate the flotilla events, with international participation, and expects it will bring to light all the facts. There is no mention in the communiqué of any need for a separate international/UN inquiry a la Goldstone kangaroo court, as favored by Abbas but rejected by Netanyahu.

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.