Marquadt-Bigman - Guess who won’t be at Harvard this weekend?

Petra Marquadt-Bigman..
The Warped Mirror..
03 March '12..



This weekend, Harvard Kennedy School is hosting a controversial “Student Conference” that has been organized to promote the so-called “one-state solution” as the best option to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. According to the conference program, the event will start out asserting that “’two-states for two peoples’” is no longer a viable option for Israel/Palestine,” and towards the end of the conference, participants will devote themselves to pondering how best to build a “global movement” to serve their agenda and how “academics and activists” could contribute to this endeavor.

Proponents of the “one-state solution” like to present their views in a language designed to create the impression that their primary concern lies with human and civil rights. However, it obviously takes willful blindness to overlook the fact that implementing an Israeli-Palestinian “one-state solution” would require the abolition of the world’s only Jewish state in order to subsume it in yet another Arab-Muslim majority state where Jews would have to live as a minority – and, based on the empirical record, it is only reasonable to expect that they would face the same precarious situation as minorities everywhere in the Arab and Muslim world.

Quotes of the day (two, from one excellent analytical article)

Arnold/Frimet Roth
This Ongoing War
27 February '11

http://thisongoingwar.blogspot.com/2011/02/27-feb-11-quotes-of-day-two-from-one.html

The "liberal" son of the embattled Libyan tyrant Muammar al-Gaddafi

"...appeared on Libyan television to say that his father's gunmen would fight to the last bullet to keep the Gaddafi crime family in business, a promise he is keeping. The thinking behind so many who flattered him was that the only issue in the Middle East worth taking a stand on was the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that the oppression of Arabs by Arabs was a minor concern."

This comes from a thoughtful op-ed by Nick Cohen in the Guardian: "Our absurd obsession with Israel is laid bare: The Middle East meant only Israel to many. Now the lives of millions of Arabs have been brought to Europe's attention"

Same article, second quote:

"The European Union, which did so much to export democracy and the rule of law to former communist dictatorships of eastern Europe, has played a miserable role in the Middle East. It pours in aid but never demands democratisation or restrictions on police powers in return. That will have to change if the promise of the past month is to be realised. If it is to help with democracy-building, Europe will need to remind itself as much as the recipients of its money that you can never build free societies on the racist conspiracy theories of the Nazis and the tsars. They are and always have been the tunes that tyrants sing.

The full Guardian article is here.

We're not so naive as to think the immoral pouring of vast resources into the maw of the Palestinian Arab kleptocracy is going to change just because it turns out that this is no way to build a democratic society that respects basic human values and human rights.

Nor is there any reason to think that those who watched over a period of decades what the Arab tyrants and other forces of repression in the Islamic world have wrought will do some soul searching and reach operative conclusions. The world and international relations have never worked that way.

At best, we're hoping that people who express strongly-held opinions about the events that shape our day to day life in this special region will possess the intellectual honesty and good sense to pause; to at least acknowledge that somewhere in among the torrent of images and reports and data pouring out of Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, Libya, Iran, Oman, Syria, Lebanon and the others in these past tumultuous weeks there are some kernels of insight and even truth that deserve some examination.

Then again, this is the Middle East.


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.
.

Who Got Ha'aretz's Tongue on Libya?

TS
CAMERA/Snapshots
27 February '11

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/02/post_70.html

Have you noticed how Ha'aretz has published very few editorials or Op-Eds concerning events in Libya? In contrast to the revolution in Egypt, about which Ha'aretz published dozens of opinion pieces and analyses, including editorials, the vast majority in support of Egyptian citizens, Ha'aretz has been largely mum on Libya.

Why the reticence to speak out in this case?

Perhaps editors are embarrassed by last year's editorial in defense of the delegation of Israeli Arab Knesset members who traveled to Libya and paid homage to Muammar Gadhafi.In the wake of the torrent of criticism of the trip, Ha'aretz wrote (April 30, 2010):

Hysteria gripped the right wing in the Knesset after an Arab delegation of MKs and dignitaries visited Libya. . . .The tongues of Habayit Hayehudi and National Union, two parties that could unite under the name "the Racist Union," were abruptly unleashed as though they were dealing with an unparalleled act of treason. . .

Libya is not on the list of enemy states. . . Libya signed the Arab League's peace initiative, holds the League's rotating presidency, and its ruler Muammar Gadhafi maintains excellent relations with the U.S. administration.

At the time, Snapshots noted that Ha'aretz's apologist editorial stood in stark contrast to criticism by Israeli Arabs including Salman Masalha and Ahmed Feead Mahameed, who wrote, among other things:

This week's visit to Libya by an Israeli Arab delegation signifies a loss of both political and moral orientation. . .

The visit did nothing to gain respect for either the delegation members or their constituency. . . .

Not only are such trips by Arab representatives to kowtow before Arab despots an insult to the intelligence, they also harm the just struggle of this country's Arab minority. . . .

[W]hat is the logic behind the Arab MK's trip to Libya?

Indeed, Ha'aretz's embarrassing flattery of Libya's insane leader who is now massacring his own people is surpassed only by the paper's support for the grovelling delegation of Arab MKs. Ha'aretz is now in no position to excoriate Gadhafi after having vilified "the Racist Union" for saying things a year ago which today the whole world understands.

So Ha'aretz faces a tricky dilemma, which it chose finally today to address with a single Op-Ed by Salman Masalha ("Arab MKs must beg for forgiveness for Libya visit"), in which he writes:

All the Arab public figures who went to Libya were as political mercenaries in the service of Gadhafi the tyrant. They should now publicly express remorse and beg forgiveness, first from the Libyan people and next from the Arab citizens they purport to represent.

A public accounting is not only necessary but would also show that they have learned their lesson and intend to mend their ways. If not, Israel's Arab citizens should turn their backs on them and toss them in the garbage, just as Arab nations are rising up against their corrupt leaders. And the sooner, the better.

-- By Yishai Goldflam. For the Hebrew version of this blog entry, visit CAMERA's Israeli site.

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.
.

Where Is The Outrage Now?

Khaled Abu Toameh
Hudson New York
25 February '11

http://www.hudson-ny.org/1914/libya-outrage

Obama and many others in the international community have been quicker in condemning settlement construction in Israel than atrocities by Arab dictators against innocent civilians.

Has retired South African judge Richard Goldstone considered the possibility of heading a special commission of inquiry to look into the war crimes that are being perpetrated against Libyans and other Arabs?

Settlements may be a problem, but they are not more dangerous than the massacres that are being perpetrated against Arabs.

It took President Barack Obama nine days to condemn Col. Muammar Gaddafi's massacres in Libya as "outrageous" and "unacceptable."

It took the UN Security Council more than a week to hold a closed-door meeting and issue a tempered statement condemning the violence in Libya and calling for its immediate end and for those responsible to be held accountable. This is the same Security Council that one week earlier held a special and open session to condemn construction in Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Fourteen out of fifteen members of the council voted in support of the anti-settlement resolution, which was vetoed by the US.

The same members, however, saw no need to hold a vote on the slaughtering of thousands of Libyans by Gaddafi.

But both Obama and the Security Council stopped short of calling for Gaddafi's removal from power for perpetrating atrocities against his own people.

The Europeans have also been cautious in their response to the carnage in Libya. They too have refrained from calling for regime change in Libya.

One can understand why Americans and Europeans are worried about their economic interests in Libya, especially with regard to oil. It is also likely that the West is embarrassed about its relationship with the Libyan dictator who, despite his crimes, was welcomed back into the international community in 2003.

Then, Gaddafi was apparently forgiven for his role in the Lockerbie plane explosion and support for countless terror groups in the Arab and Islamic world. Gaddafi was forgiven because he had agreed to abandon his nuclear ambitions and promised to be good..

Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, on the other hand, who for over 30 years served Western interests in the Middle East and did his utmost to preserve the peace treaty with Israel and support moderate Arabs and Muslims, was thrown to the dogs by the Obama Administration as soon as his people started demanding regime change.

Obama and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seem to be more troubled by the death of 300 Egyptians than the brutal massacring of thousands of Libyans. Obama and Clinton seem to be more worried about construction in Jewish settlements than war crimes and serious human rights violations in the Arab world.

The US Administration and the rest of the international community have once again sent a message to the Arabs that they do not really care about human rights and democracy and that they are ready to sacrifice thousands of Arabs to keep the oil prices as low as ever. Mubarak was unfortunate because his country does not have oil.

Now at least the Arab people know that they can no longer rely on Obama and Clinton to support any of their pro-democracy movements.

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.
.

Confronting The Guardian ideology

Adam Levick
CiF Watch
21 February '11

“It’s the economy, stupid” is a phrase in American politics made famous during the 1992 U.S. Presidential Election campaign. Bill Clinton’s campaign manager had a sign with this phrase at their headquarters to stress to the candidate that, regardless of the issue being discussed, success in the election depended on making the conversation about the economy – which was in bad shape at the time, and represented former President Bush’s greatest political liability.

I sometimes wonder if Guardian editorial offices has something akin to Clinton’s campaign mantra – a note, not based on political calculations but, rather, maintaining an ideological edifice, reminding them where any conversation about the Middle East must preferably lead: “It’s about Israel, stupid.”

While such a scenario is, of course, meant in jest, I am at a loss to account for how, in the course of a new Guardian editorial (“The Middle East: People, Power, Politics“) on Muammar Gaddafi’s brutal and deadly crackdown against Libyan protesters, and the broader political upheavals in the region, they somehow managed to throw in this line:

“the Libyan leader may still be considered too valuable to lose, as US influence in the region decreases. Nowhere is that truer than in the cockpit of the crisis, Palestine.

“Israel Derangement Syndrome” may adequately, albeit cheekily, describe the dynamic whereby otherwise reasonable people can attribute the cause of nearly any political crisis in the world to the behavior of the Jewish state, but doesn’t seem nearly strong enough of a term to characterize the Guardian’s obsession with Israel.

(Read full "Confronting The Guardian ideology")

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.
.

Quote of the week: P J Crowley

Fresnozionism.org
22 February '11

http://fresnozionism.org/2011/02/quote-of-the-week-p-j-crowley/

Again, you know, this ultimately and fundamentally an issue between, you know, the Libyan government, its leader, and the Libyan people…

– State Department spokesman P. J. Crowley, after Qaddafi ranted about dying as a martyr, and while goons and mercenaries are killing protesters in the streets of Tripoli

Probably they are afraid that Qaddafi, who is more or less correctly described as a homicidal maniac, will kill every American he can get his hands on if they are rude to him. But still, what a remarkably weak response. Not like Israel got when it ‘insulted’ the US by announcing the construction of some apartments in eastern Jerusalem last year!

There is a lesson in this: evil is power. The worse you are, the better you are treated. Bashar Assad, the Syrian dictator who supports Iraqi insurgents who are trying to kill US troops, now has an American ambassador, previously withdrawn after the Syrian-sponsored murder of Saad Hariri in Lebanon. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who stole an election last year and viciously put down anti-regime demonstrations is doing it again, while at the same time thumbing his nose at the US by introducing warships into the Mediterranean. So far the US has done nothing.

Hizballah and Syria are threatening to kill thousands of Israelis with a massive rocket barrage. Not that Israel can’t defend itself, not that the rocket barrage won’t be met with a massive counterattack that will likely end the Syrian regime and the Hizballah threat as well, but Israel is supposed to be our ally. Our administration’s policy seems to be to single-mindedly focused on getting Israel out of Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem and weakening it strategically, rather than on the serious dangers it faces from the north.

That’s OK — we don’t help our less-savory allies either, like Saudi Arabia, presently shaking in its boots in fear of a possible Shiite takeover in Bahrain (there is a large Shiite presence in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province) or an Islamist regime arising in Egypt. Meanwhile the US encourages ‘democracy’ in the region.

It’s funny, but I’ve recently watched videos of protests from several Arab countries, and the rioting democrats all seem to be shouting “Allah hu akbar.” I presume that means “Liberté, égalité, fraternité” in Arabic.

The turmoil in the Arab world creates both dangers and opportunities for all sides. It seems to me that the Iranian bloc, as well as the Muslim Brotherhood, are taking advantage of the opportunities, while the US is standing by, paralyzed, uttering platitudes about democracy and counseling nonviolence.

By the way, we won’t be able to use the ‘peace process’ excuse for pressuring Israel anymore, because the Palestinian Authority (PA) has resigned from it. Here is what it said in a press release (thanks to Elder of Ziyon for this):

The United States of America’s use of the veto to prevent the passage of a UN resolution condemning Israel’s settlement policy confirms that it is not an honest broker, and it is no longer able to carry out its responsibilities as a sponsor of any future Palestinian – Israeli negotiations.

Mr. Ziyon (who also refers to himself as ‘Eldad Tzioni’), argues that this is outrageous, especially considering that the US financially supports the PA:

The PA is officially calling the United States an “obstacle to peace.” It is saying that the US – a nation that has worked harder than any other to bring about peace, a nation that brokered Camp David – cannot be an honest broker in negotiations. Whether you agree or disagree with the present administration, this press release is an unacceptable slap in the face of the world’s superpower by an entity that cannot conceive of the idea of compromise for peace.

This hateful screed has, so far, been ignored both by the media and by the current administration. There have been no public calls for apologies, no calling out of president Mahmoud Abbas who is responsible for this statement.

But hey, who’s counting insults anymore.

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.
.

In Libya, Gaddafi Sounds Scared

Claudia Rosett
pajamasmedia.com
13 February '11

http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/in-libya-gaddafi-sounds-scared/

“We need to create a problem for the world,” Libyan tyrant Muammar Gaddafi declared on Libyan state TV Sunday, in what Reuters describes as his first major speech since a popular uprising toppled Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak last Friday. The problem Gaddafi would like to create, as he explicitly urged in his speech, is a siege of Israel. Saying “this is a time of popular revolutions,” Gaddafi called for Palestinians to mass along Israel’s borders, by land and sea.

These are the words of a dictator who has a big problem of his own. Gaddafi’s real problem has nothing to do with Israel, or with the Palestinians. Gaddafi’s problem is Libya, where Libyans have even more reasons to hate him than the Egyptians had to hate Hosni Mubarak. Since Gaddafi came to power in a coup in 1969, he has ruled for more than 41 years — that’s 12 years longer than Mubarak ruled Egypt. Like Mubarak, Gaddafi has been arranging to turn his dictatorial rule into a dynasty, with one of his sons, Saif al-Islam, being the heir apparent. For decades Gaddafi has lived large, funneling his country’s oil wealth into schemes to maintain his own power, while crushing his countrymen. Whatever terrorism he might have abjured abroad in order to get out from under international sanctions, he still rules on the basis of terror at home. His regime — with its ruthless secret police, ghastly prisons, and jailing or outright murder of those who dissent from his crackpot controls over virtually every aspect of life — is exactly the kind of rotting relic that an angry, captive populace might wish to sweep aside.

Now come the popular revolts and the ouster of ossified dictators in Tunisia and Egypt. In Libya, opponents of the regime have called for a Day of Rage this Thursday, Feb, 17th. That day is the fifth anniversary of protests that began as a staged demonstration in 2006 against the Danish Mohamed cartoons — and then spun out of control. Libyan security forces fired on the crowd, killing at least 10. Over the next three days, as American-Libyan human rights activist Mohamed Eljahmi reported shortly afterward, protesters expressed their fury with the regime by burning government buildings, police cars, and branches of Gaddafi’s revolutionary committees. The Libyan government had to bring in special forces to regain control.

Faced with the possibility of a replay inspired by uprisings that have actually succeeded in kicking out the despots, up pops Gaddafi, with a page right out of the aging dictator’s playbook: When you’ve got trouble at home, try to deflect it toward somebody else. Libyans who wish for freedom in their country have higher hurdles than did the Egyptians. Gaddafi rules Libya as a much more closed society; access and communication are more difficult, and it is unlikely that an endless parade of international camera crews would be able to materialize on the streets of Tripoli or Benghazi. But neither are Libyans entirely cut off from the world, or from each other. Libyans have one of the world’s worst tyrants to contend with. The risks of opposing him are enormous — for a sample of where even the most peaceful dissent can lead in Libya, recall the case of a brave outspoken dissident, Fathi Eljahmi (brother of Mohamed Eljahmi, cited above). But Libyans who wish to throw off 41 years of Gaddafi’s tyranny have two things in their favor right now. They have just seen that elsewhere in their despot-infested region, it can be done. And Gaddafi, for all his wealth and power and brutality, does not sound confident. He sounds scared.

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.
.

Libyan ship heading for Gaza sponsored (in part) by... Barack Obama?

Israel Matzav
11 July '10

There's some dispute over its ultimate destination, but a Libyan ship left for this area from a Greek port on Saturday. (Israel Radio reported this morning that Israel's foreign ministry says it's headed for the Egyptian port of El Arish, but the ship's captain says it's heading for Gaza). The ship's crew, which claims to be carrying 'humanitarian aid,' says it's willing to have the ship boarded and inspected at sea, but they're not willing to unload at the Israeli port of Ashdod, as Israel has demanded.

But here's the key. The ship has been sent by the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation. And if you've been following the Illinois Senate race, you may already know that the Obama administration has contributed $400,000 to the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation and to Wa Attassimou, another 'charity' run by a Gadhaffi family member (Hat Tip: Murphywong). And just to top it all off, the Foundation is run by the same Gadhaffi son who brought the Pan Am bomber back to Tripoli.

(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.
.

Muslim-Jews lost in the no-man's-land of identity

Bataween
Point of No Return
21 January '10

Posted before Shabbat

A new comedy film called The Infidel is creating a sensation in the British press: it is about a British Muslim who, in a matter of minutes, discovers he was adopted and that he was born Jewish. Why is the film considered so controversial, even outrageous? In the West, Jews and Muslims are seen as polar opposites, eternal adversaries. To put them both together in the same script seems guaranteed to offend members of both religions.

In fact a Muslim who discovers he's a Jew is not as outlandish as it sounds. There is the case of the Jew from Kuwait. The Jewish girl brought up by her Muslim neighbours after her family abandoned her in their chaotic exodus from Egypt. The Libyan leader Colonel Gaddafi's Jewish grandmother makes him a Halachic Jew. Mixed families are known to live in Kurdistan, Egypt and Lebanon. Thousands of Muslim Yemenis are dimly aware of their Jewish roots. One Jewish convert was even President of North Yemen.

Traditionally, the two communities kept apart in the Middle East, and intermarriage has always been rare. But the mass flight Jews from Arab countries has left behind a number of Muslim-Jews in the no-man's land of identity.

(Read full article)
.