Is British anti-Semitism in danger of getting out of control?

Robin Shepherd
RobinShepherdonline.com
28 November 09

Last week, Oliver Miles, Britain’s former ambassador to Libya and a pillar of the country’s foreign policy establishment, put his thinking cap on, put pen to paper and came up with the following thoughts in a column in the Independent newspaper about the presence of the esteemed historians Martin Gilbert and Lawrence Freedman on the board of the UK’s latest Iraq Inquiry:

“Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism,” he said. “…if and when the inquiry is accused of a whitewash, such handy ammunitionwill be available. Membership should not only be balanced; it should be seen to be balanced.” (My italics)

In other words, Jews are an embarrassment. Ban them.

Hold that thought. Now consider the words of the celebrated journalist Richard Ingrams — a man who once said he does not open emails about Israel if the writer appears to have a Jewish last name — writing in the same paper today.

Read the rest of this entry ».

Islamic Imperialism: The Ongoing Tragedy of the Middle East

Thomas O. Hecht
BESA Perspectives 97
25 November 09

Samuel Huntington predicted that only the Islamic civilization would re-emerge as the nemesis to the West. Recently, there is a rebirth of the Islamic struggle to reassert control over parts of the world, with jihad, or its modern manifestation – international terrorism – as its tool. The US is losing its dominance in the Middle East and is gradually being replaced by Iran. The Western world is in urgent need of a leader who will powerfully defend Western values against the growing influence of radical Islam.

Samuel Huntington remains relevant as ever. His book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order (1996), presented a thesis that ran counter to the zeitgeist euphoria over globalization and a borderless world after the end of the Cold War.

Huntington unequivocally stated that the end of the Cold War would bring about a clash of civilizations. He inferred that soil, ethno-cultural devotion, and religion-based energy would claim and define the world in conflict. Huntington also drew a map of the world which can be described as "The West and The Rest." He recognized other less challenging civilizations – Hindu, African, Buddhist – but to him in the post-Cold War world, only the Islamic civilization would re-emerge as the nemesis to the West. According to Huntington, "The twentieth century conflict between liberal democracy and Marxist Leninism was only a fleeting and superficial historical phenomenon compared to the continuing and deeply conflicting relations between Islam and Christianity." Unfortunately, the West displays weakness and lack of courageous leadership.

Islamic History

A review of the onslaught of Islam, from its foundation in the seventh century to its current attempts to dominate the world, elucidates the gravity of the challenge currently faced by the West. Bernard Lewis has noted that since its birth, Islam has sought to merge religion and state authority, and to expand its influence. Christian awareness of the new competing Islamic faith began almost immediately after its advent with the triumphant emergence of the new religion from its Arabian homeland and its spread eastward to the borders of India and China, and westward across North Africa and the Mediterranean Islands into Europe. Islamic penetration of Western Europe ended with the Christian re-conquest of the Iberian Peninsula in 1492. The struggle lasted eight centuries.

(Read full article)

Hillary's Bombshell: Obama Administration Subtly Launches Dramatic Policy Change on Peace Process

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
27 November 09

(Whether you agree or disagree with him, Barry Rubin usually has a good understanding of how statements are understood. Take a look and see what you think.)

In a one-paragraph statement welcoming Israel’s ten-month-long freeze on building apartments in existing West Bank settlements, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a major statement. The dramatic new U.S. stance on Israel-Palestinian Authority peace agreement is camouflaged by brevity and subtle wording. But make no mistake: this is one of the most important foreign policy steps the Obama Administration has taken.

Here is the statement in full:

"Today's announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."

Clearly, this approach builds on the 2000 Camp David meeting and the December 2000 plan of President Bill Clinton. Ironically, the latter is called the Clinton plan, so the name need not change since now it is renewed and extended by another Clinton.

These 77 words are worth analyzing in great detail. First, there is what the United States is offering the Palestinian side:

“The Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps…”

One should first ask, which Palestinians? Hamas and Islamic Jihad don’t favor this approach and Hamas still runs the Gaza Strip. To pretend that Israel can or should make a peace treaty with the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) which has no authority over the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is ludicrous. Whatever deal Israel makes with the PA, it could—indeed, probably would--be attacked by Palestinians from Gaza the next day. The conflict cannot be ended by anything the PA does by itself. Without a real commitment to overthrow Hamas the United States can never make peace.

The second issue is that what Clinton lists is not the entire Palestinian goal since the PA also demands a right for all Palestinians to go and live in Israel, thus subverting that country and destroying the state. This is no mere throw-away line but a very strongly held demand. Anyone who thinks that the PA is just going to drop it—no matter how much land or money it is given—knows nothing about Palestinian politics.

The word “based” in the phrase, “based on the 1967 lines” is carefully chosen to imply flexibility as to where the exact border would be drawn. In fact, the PA has always said that it must get the 1967 boundaries completely, never mentioning the word “swaps.” Therefore, when Clinton says that this is a Palestinian “goal” she is wrong.

It tells a great deal that the idea of “swapping land” so that the PA gets the equivalent of the same number of square miles as Jordan ruled before 1967 is an Israeli idea, another example of Israel’s willingness to compromise. Remember that the original Israeli position was that it annex about four percent of the West Bank.

Hence, by whittling down the demands she is making the typical negotiators' error of putting forward a false stance and then finding out the negotiation fail. But at the same time, however, Clinton is trying to define how the United States sees a reasonable Palestinian demand that it will accept. In other words, she is implying: this is all you're going to get.

(Read full article)

.

The wonderful wizard of Hope (Arkansas)

Sarah Honig
Another Tack/JPost
26 November 09

His real name, according to author L. Frank Baum, was Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkel Emmannuel Ambroise Diggs. Since it's a bit cumbersome, the bearer of this moniker squeezed it down to the initials only, which came out as O.Z.P.I.N.H.E.A.D. From the third letter onward the acronym spells "pinhead," not desirable for an ambitious individual, even if it does hint at the truth. Obfuscating that truth and enhancing his image, therefore, necessitated a further trim, leaving only OZ.

Mr. Diggs, originally of Omaha, Nebraska, made his none-too-impressive living as a circus magician. For promotional purposes he painted the OZ logo boldly on the hot-air balloon he used for some of his none-too-impressive tricks.

His fortunes dramatically improved after said balloon once drifted to the Emerald City. There, this otherwise ordinary con artist found himself worshiped by the naïve denizens as the all-knowing Wonderful Wizard of Oz. Incredibly they hung on to the presumed supreme sorcerer's every word, and he did his utmost to sustain the myth.

Just like former US President William Jefferson Clinton (born Blythe), originally of Hope, Arkansas. Whenever hot air ferries this political magician over to our backwater, the natives incredibly hang on to his every word, inane and hackneyed as it may be. This possibly is the last spot on Earth in which he is still worshipped as a great wizard and he laps it up. Seeming to do his darnedest to enlighten his benighted fans, he in fact does his utmost to sustain the myth.

DURING HIS latest speechifying extravaganza, Slick Willie (as fellow Arkansans called him) pontificated when memorializing Yitzhak Rabin: "Had he not lost his life on that terrible November night, within three years we would have had a comprehensive agreement for peace in the Middle East."

No kidding.

It's a stretch to believe the wizard was sincere. He must have at least dimly recalled that the Oslo pipedream had revealed itself a haunting nightmare. Packed passenger buses were blown up and what Rabin euphemistically dubbed "victims of peace" were slaughtered in our streets.

There are more than a few indications that Rabin himself was already growing increasingly edgy and unsure. The great historical irony is that he may have been assassinated on the verge of awakening from the hypnotic Osloite delusion. Rabin resolutely opined against a Palestinian state, the re-division of Jerusalem and ceding the Jordan valley. There can be no certainly that by 1998 he'd have marched dutifully down the path outlined for him by Shimon Peres and Clinton. It's all moot. It's conjecture.

(Continue reading)
.

An Empty Gesture

Ira Sharkansky
The Shark Blog
26 November 09

Reading the announcements of government officials is more of an art than a science. It is appropriate to weigh the use of certain words rather than others, and take note of what a statement does not say. No one, including those involved in its preparation, can claim certainty as to how it should be read, much less what it can lead to as one statement provokes others from allies and antagonists.

Consider Prime Minister Netanyahu's announcement that his government has agreed to a freeze of new housing construction in the West Bank (excluding Jerusalem) for a period of 10 months in an effort to persuade the Palestinians to begin negotiations toward a peace agreement.

While members of the government trumpeted the announcement as a gesture that should move the Palestinians, It did not take long for commentators to declare it a dead letter. Sure enough, within a day ranking Palestinians reiterated their new position that they would only start negotiations when there was a total freeze of construction (homes and other facilities), including the post-1967 neighborhoods of Jerusalem.

What does all this mean?

One interpretation is that it reflects the teething problems of the American president. When he and his secretary of state emphasized the need to freeze settlements, and included Jerusalem in the mandate, they brought the Palestinians to assert a demand they had not made before during 17 years of negotiations.

Another interpretation, not altogether different, is that the talk of negotiations is a game without end played by numerous governments. If officials are wise and have noticed what has happened since Oslo, they should realize that negotiations go nowhere as long as the Palestinians adhere to their mantras of refugee rights and 1967 borders. Since Gaza fell into the hands of Hamas, the chances of an agreement are even less. The Fatah party of Mahmoud Abbas is barely holding on to the West Bank, propped up by Americans, Israelis and others. Should Abbas dare to show flexibility, his hold on power would be even more tenuous.

Even though wise leaders may recognize that reality, they cannot admit it, and give up the quest for peace. Who could do that when the future of the Holy Land is at stake? Moreover, there are unwise leaders in the bunch who may really believe in fairies and other delights, like peace between Israel and Palestine. With them beating the drums, and especially if they are the powerful Americans with a popular leader (who no other leader can publicly call naive), then the chorus joins in the pursuit of peace.

(Continue reading)
.

Bad ideas and where they come from

FresnoZionism.org
26 November 09

Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared a 10-month settlement freeze in Judea and Samaria Wednesday, in order to “encourage resumption of peace talks with our Palestinian neighbors.”

Predictably, the Palestinian Authority (PA) rejected it, because it allows Israel to finish buildings under construction and does not include Jerusalem, which PM Netanyahu correctly said “is not a settlement”.

Right-wing parties then attacked Netanyahu for “spitting in the face of those who were promised only a year ago that he would lead a change from the expulsion policies of [former Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon.” (MK Yakov Katz of the National Union party).

Certainly Netanyahu could have predicted both of these outcomes. So why did he do it? And why did his cabinet approve it?

Here’s another item:

In an effort to bolster Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in the face of a potential mass prisoner swap with Hamas, the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) “pardoned” over 90 wanted Fatah militiamen on Thursday on condition they refrain from engaging in terrorist activity.

Under the deal, the 92 fugitives – all members of Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah’s military wing – will be allowed to move freely throughout Palestinian cities within Area A of the West Bank. One of the fugitives included in the deal is Ala Sankara, who was the Al-Aksa commander in the Balata refugee camp near Nablus…

Israel is concerned that a massive prisoner deal with Hamas would undermine Abbas and boost Hamas’s popularity on the Palestinian street ahead of general elections.

In other words, if Hamas gets more terrorists on the street than Fatah, then it will be more popular. And the government wants to support Fatah. It’s hard to see how this will help, considering that Hamas will probably get hundreds, possibly more than a thousand freed, including convicted murderers, in the coming exchange for kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit. And they can claim that they did by means of ‘resistance’, not collaboration, always a plus in Palestinian circles.

(Continue reading...)

.

A threat to democracy?

Latest insubordination cases must be analyzed in context of Gaza pullout


Yoel Meltzer
Ynet/Israel Opinion
27 November 09

Following recent incidents of soldiers expressing their refusal to evacuate Jews from their homes and the subsequent punishment some of the soldiers received, calls have been heard to both punish the rabbis responsible for encouraging such behavior as well as to stop the funding of specific hesder yeshivot. Moreover, one of the reasons given for such a harsh response is that behavior of this sort by Israeli soldiers threatens the very fabric of Israeli democracy.

Whether or not this claim is true and regardless of how one wants to define "Israeli democracy," it is disingenuous to analyze such behavior in a way that is disconnected from the larger social and historical context. A proper analysis of the phenomenon cannot be divorced from the traumatic influence that the 2005 Gaza disengagement had on large segments of Israeli society.

The events leading up to the disengagement started with Ariel Sharon and his Likud Party’s landslide victory against Amram Mitzna and Labor. In addition to Sharon enjoying a high popularity rating prior to the elections, the runaway victory was all but sealed by the fact that many voters were simply terrified of Mitzna and his proposal for a one-sided withdrawal from Gaza. At the time such an idea was only taken seriously by the fringe Left, a group which in many ways was the antithesis of the traditional Likud voter base.

Nonetheless, Sharon proceeded to adopt the exact policy that had just been overwhelmingly rejected. Realizing that such change of direction was clearly against the platform of his own Likud party, Sharon eventually brought the plan to a vote by party members. Not surprisingly, Likud members overwhelmingly rejected it by more than a 20 point margin and thus handed Sharon a stinging defeat. However, rather than following the wishes of his voters, Sharon went forward with his plan.

(Read full article)

What's really behind the housing freeze? A plan against Iran - or spinelessness?

Weekly Commentary by
Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
26 November 2009

There are two possible explanations for the housing construction freeze Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu just announced:

The freeze could be Israel's "pound of flesh" to facilitate the launching of a critical operation to thwart Iran's nuclear weapons program.

Or the freeze could no more than an attempt to appease the international community in general and the Obama Administration in particular.

I fervently hope that the former is the case.

Then again, I also hoped that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was retreating from the Gaza Strip as part of a secret plan worked out with America to act against Iran rather than a move to get the criminal justice system off of his back.

That apparently wasn't the case.

If the freeze is in fact an attempt to appease the world then Mr. Netanyahu should pack his bags tonight.

Granted, the freeze is considerably less than what the Obama team first demanded. But it only serves to encourage more pressure for Israeli concessions in the future.

And the world's appetite for Israeli concessions is insatiable.
.

No Jews Allowed

Obama's plan for Peace on the West Bank is not new.

The Nazis invented two words for it.
"Judenfrei" refers to "freeing" an area of all of its Jewish citizens. "Judenrein" (literally "clean of Jews") was also used. This had the stronger connotation that the area had been cleansed of Jewish blood.-more

Miles of prejudice

Melanie Phillips
The Spectator
26 November 09

A Times leader yesterday referred disparagingly to, but did not properly deal with, the disgraceful attack by Oliver Miles, Britain’s former ambassador to Libya, on two members of the Chilcot inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the war in Iraq. Writing in the Independent on Sunday, Miles drew attention to the curious appointment to the committee of the historian Sir Martin Gilbert and the professor of war studies Sir Lawrence Freedman. Miles states:

Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism. Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media, but The Jewish Chronicle and the Israeli media have no such inhibitions, and the Arabic media both in London and in the region are usually not far behind.

Sir Martin Gilbert is one of Britain’s most distinguished historians, while Sir Lawrence Freedman also enjoys a stellar reputation as a professor of war studies. That is why they were appointed to the inquiry. But to Miles, they are suspect not just because Gilbert once compared Bush and Blair to Roosevelt and Churchill while Freedman was the supposed architect of intervention in Kosovo and Afghanistan (hello?) as well as Iraq (so it was All His Fault) but because they are Jews -- and even worse Gilbert supports Zionism.

This would appear to be part of the ‘Jewish conspiracy’ theory so fashionable in the UK intelligentsia that the war in Iraq only occurred as a result of pressure from a trans-national Jewish conspiracy acting in the interests of Israel to put the world at risk. The fact that Israel in fact advised at the time that it was Iran they were worried about rather than Iraq does not trouble the propounders of this malevolent libel.

The Times called Miles’s comments

extraordinary and disgraceful

but did not spell out the reason why they were so. The paper pulled its punches. Miles’s comments were an example of anti-Jewish racial prejudice. The notion that Jews cannot be trusted to be impartial because they only act in the interests of other Jews and to the detriment of everyone else is a staple of anti-Jewish bigotry down through the ages.

It is a baleful comment on the state of British public discourse that this man felt able to say this so openly. Normally the ‘Jewish conspiracy’ theorists hide behind camouflage words such as ‘Zionist’ or ‘neo-con’ to disguise their prejudice. Miles doesn’t even bother with such fig-leaves: he is confident enough, now that anti-Israel bigotry and anti-Jewish bigotry-denial is running at epidemic levels, to be entirely brazen about it.

.

Lebanon gives Hezbollah right to attack Israel

(On the other hand, Lebanon gives Israel the right to attack Lebanon)

AlArabiya.net
26 November 09

BEIRUT (AFP)

Lebanon's new cabinet has agreed on a policy statement that acknowledges Hezbollah's right to use its weapons against Israel, despite disagreement by some members of the ruling majority.

Information Minister Tarek Mitri said late Wednesday after a cabinet committee set up to draft the statement met for the ninth time that an agreement had been reached.

He said the new statement will retain the same clause approved by the previous cabinet as concerns the arsenal of Hezbollah, which fought a devastating war with Israel in 2006 and is considered a terrorist organization by Washington. The clause states the right of "Lebanon, its government, its people, its army and its resistance" to liberate all Lebanese territory. Hezbollah is commonly referred to as the resistance in Lebanon. Mitri said that reservations concerning the clause by members of the Western-backed majority would be noted in the government program. Christian members of the majority, including the Phalange Party and Lebanese Forces, argue that Hezbollah's arsenal undermines state authority and runs counter to U.N. resolutions. However the Shiite party, which has two ministers in the 30-member unity cabinet, has made it clear that its weapons are not open to discussion. The party argues its arms are necessary to protect the country against any future aggression by Israel, which withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000 after a 22-year occupation. Lebanon's new cabinet is headed by Prime Minister Saad Hariri, whose U.S.- and Western-backed alliance defeated a Hezbollah-led opposition supported by Syria and Iran in a June vote. .

Israel is Europe's blind spot

Many have been seduced by a false Islamic narrative. In fact, the more concessions Israel makes, the more it is attacked

Isi Leibler
guardian.co.uk
26 November 2009

I recently met with a group of Australian journalists, including editors of some of the leading dailies. They impressed me as a fair and open-minded group. In the course of discussions, one elegantly phrased question, not intended to offend, was put to me, which I have been mulling over.

"Did I ever take into account that if virtually the entire world has concluded that Israel is the principal cause for the Middle East impasse, perhaps they are right?"

The question is particularly pertinent in relation to Europe, which has turned so dramatically against Israel. In these "enlightened", postmodernist secular societies, which shun all manifestations of nationalism, Israel is no longer considered a revival of Jewish nationhood, but as a colonial implant that many would be happy to see somehow disappearing as a national entity. And, of course, there is the "new antisemitism" in which demonisation of Israel has become the surrogate for traditional Jew hatred – just as Jews in the middle ages were blamed for all the ills of mankind, so today the Jewish state is increasingly held responsible for the principal woes facing humanity.

In this environment, the left and many liberals now focus their rage against Israel and have succeeded in hijacking human rights groups to serve as vehicles to undermine the Jewish state.

On the international arena, the automatic majority of Islamic and other radical states guarantees the passage of all anti-Israeli resolutions initiated at the UN, no matter how absurd. The so-called UN human rights council (UNHRC), which includes some of the worst tyrannies among its leading members, is just one example.

Simultaneously, the realpolitik imposed by oil-producing countries when securing energy has become the national priority for most nations, together with the growing empowerment of radical Islamic groups throughout Europe, has resulted in many countries siding against Israel, rather than confront the jihadists within their own borders.

(Read full article)

Mandela He Ain't

Media Backspin/Honest Reporting
26 November 09

It finally occured to me why the latest media spin -- that Marwan Barghouti is the Palestinian Nelson Mandela -- rings hollow. It's because nobody asked the Palestinians.

Jerusalem Post columnist Khaled Abu Toameh takes a critial look at the way Barghouti's regarded:

Unlike many in the Western media, Palestinian journalists and writers have rarely - if ever - referred to Barghouti as a "charismatic" leader or as the "Palestinian Nelson Mandela." Cynics and conspiracy theorists in the Palestinian territories go further by arguing that Barghouti is actually part of a US-Israeli scheme aimed at turning him into the next leader of the Palestinians. To back up their argument, they ask simple questions such as: Since when does Israel allow a security prisoner to give media interviews or hold meetings with Israeli, Palestinian, European and American officials in his prison cell?

Undoubtedly, Barghouti is respected by many Palestinians. Yet, this is not because he's the Palestinian Nelson Mandela or Salah Eddin - the Muslim warrior who drove the Crusaders out of Jerusalem - but because he's sitting in Israeli jail.

If the Palestinians themselves don't view Barghouti as a Mandela, why does the MSM keep spinning it that way? The most recent example of this comes from Irish Timescorrespondent Michael Jansen, who writes:

He is seen by many Palestinians as their Nelson Mandela.

Don't tell me how Barghouti's perceived, show me how Barghouti's perceived. Get a fresh man-on-the-street quote from one of the "many Palestinians."

There's always the possibility of judging Barghouti in his own words, since he's Israel'smost-interviewed security prisoner these days. Talking to Corriere Della Sera, he left open the option of violence.

Of course, that doesn't jive with the Western media's rosy perception of Barghouti . . .

Read Toameh's full column.

Related reading: Barghouti Is No Mandela

.

Al Quds Underground: EU funds go to arts festival in Jerusalem that bars Israelis

NGO Monitor

26 November 09

Al-Quds Underground (AQU), a program which claims “to create a secret space for artistic expression,” is funded by Cordaid (Holland, EU), the Anna Lindh Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue between Cultures, and SICA. The Anna Lindh Foundation received €7 million over three years from the EU, earmarked for projects such as Al Quds Underground. AQU’s website states that the group’s vision is “[n]ot conflict and segregation, but contact and curiosity.”

In contrast, on October 30, 2009 the group refused to allow Israelis to attend one of its events. According to a Jerusalem Post report:

“Al-Quds Underground’s artistic director Merlijn Twaalfhoven of Amsterdam then told me, along with some Israeli peace activists who had arrived, that we were not welcome...‘The local people told [Twaalfhoven] months ago that Israelis cannot go. Our team [of 12 Dutch activists and eight artists] had to promise that we would not allow peaceful Israelis to come.’”

In correspondence with NGO Monitor, Cordaid officials attributed the exclusion to disruptions by Israeli participants, claiming that

“a number of Israeli visitors disturbed a performance in one of the private houses in which the festival took place. Out of fear of further incidents and out of respects for the hosts who opened their private homes for the performances, the organizers of the festival felt forced to decide the next day to ask Israeli participants to withdraw from the tour...Both the organizers and Cordaid regret that this course of events took place.”

Cordaid also asserted that “the Jerusalem Post misquoted Merlijn Twaalfhoven unfortunately” regarding the exclusion of Israelis before the first event. However, the author of the Jerusalem Post article stood behind the accuracy of the quote.

In separate correspondence with SICA, deputy director Beate Gerlings stated that its funding was based on the “artistic merits of the proposal,” and these were “achieved.”

.

Overturn Spain's Boycott of Israeli University

StandWithUs.com

Background

Spain’s Boycott of Ariel University Center in the 2010 Solar Decathlon

The Solar Decathlon was founded in 2002 by the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The biannual competition selects 20 teams from universities around the world who design and build the most attractive, energy-efficient home powered solely by the sun. Universities from several countries, including Spain, entered the competitions held in Washington DC in 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2009.1

On Sept. 18, 2007, Spain also got the right to hold a Solar Decathlon. The U.S. Department of Energy [DoE] signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” with Spain’s Undersecretary of Housing Fernando Magro Fernández, for Spain to host a European Decathlon with the assistance of the DoE in years alternating with the U.S. Solar Decathlon.2

Spain will hold its first Solar Decathlon, co-sponsored by the U.S. DoE, in Madrid in June 2010. The first stage of the Decathlon ended on October 30, 2008, when 20 University teams from around the world were chosen as finalists in the stiff competition. Each team was awarded 100,000 Euros from the Spanish government to begin building the model house.

Israel’s Ariel University Center (AUC), located in the West Bank and known for its leadership in the field, was one of the 20 finalists. There was no indication that political animosity would taint the event or pose problems for AUC, which was the only team chosen from the Middle East. The team began building the solar house, met the design deadlines, and met with Spanish event officials in May, 2009, including Beatriz Corredo, Spanish Minister of Housing; Esperanza Aguirre, Madrid Regional President; Sergio Vega Sánchez, Head Project Manager of the European Solar Decathlon; and Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón, Mayor of Madrid.

Suddenly, on 9/11/09, Spain informed the AUC team that it had been expelled from the competition. AUC was not expelled for technical or scientific reasons, but solely out of political animosity. The letter from Spanish Minister of Housing, Javier Ramos Guallart, informed AUC that because it is located in the “occupied territories,” its inclusion violated EU positions. Sergio Vega, project manager of the Solar Decathlon, wrote in a communiqué to the college, "The decision was made by the Spanish government based on the fact that the university is located in occupied territory in the West Bank. The Spanish government is committed to uphold the international agreement under the framework of the European Union and the United Nations regarding this geographical area."3

But Ariel’s location in the West Bank does not violate any EU policy on cooperative projects. Israel has extensive economic, cultural and scientific programs with the EU. Between 2007 and 2009, there were 428 joint scientific projects, some of which were located over the Green Line, the 1949 Armistice lines.4 Furthermore, under a recent agreement, the EU and Israel "committed themselves to establishing a partnership which provides for close political and mutually beneficial trade and investment relations together with economic, social, financial, civil scientific, technological and cultural cooperation.”5 There was no stipulation about geographic boundaries in this agreement.

Spain clearly knew where AUC was located when it chose AUC as a finalist, and when it cooperated with AUC over the following year, and never mentioned a problem about EU policies precisely because such policies do not exist.

Spain’s sudden decision was caused by the Palestinian academic boycott campaign against Israel. Architects and Planners for Justice in Palestine lobbied for AUC’s exclusion as a part of the larger academic boycott against Israel that the BNC—the Boycott, Divestment & Sanctions Campaign National Committee—has tried to impose for several years.6 BNC’s extremist demands are that boycotts must be imposed until Israel “ends the occupation,” and permits millions of Palestinians refugees the “right of return to their original homes.” 7 The right of return is code for destroying Israel demographically by flooding it with the 4.6 million Palestinians currently on UNRWA’s rolls.8

No other teams were excluded from the Decathlon on any political grounds, including Tianjin University, located in China, perhaps one of the world's foremost human rights violators, was not disqualified from the Decathlon.

(Read full article)

Overturn Spain's Boycott of Israeli University Sign Petition

Related Article: Spain boycotts Ariel University Center for being on 'occupied territory'

The Shalit Deal

From the Desk of Moshe Feiglin:

An ominous sense of an impending deal is in the air. It is hard to oppose it. All of us pray for Gilad's release. All of us will cry with joy when, with G-d's help, we will see his parents hugging their beloved son.

But we already know the price that we will have to pay. 80% of Hamas terrorists return to terror after their release, as do 60% of Fatah terrorists. In other words, 16 of the 20 terrorists released in exchange for the short video of Gilad, will commit new acts of terror. It is reasonable to assume that two or three Jews will pay for this movie with their lives.

The wholesale release of professional murderers will cost much more, G-d forbid. But their victims are still nameless and faceless. They do not have addresses, they do not know that they are the next in line and they cannot lobby politicians on their own behalf. In the Israeli reality in which questions of life and death are decided by rating considerations, the future victims have no chance.

About a month ago, I published an open letter to Defense Minister Barak in which I requested that no negotiations should be conducted for my release if I were to be abducted, G-d forbid. The letter made waves and many people joined added their signatures to my letter or penned letters of their own. One of those people was Yitzchak Ovitz, a soldier in Gilad's company. His letter was widely covered in the media:

"Since Gilad was abducted, I feel torn and I do not know what to do to help him. Like every Jew on earth, I pray for him and hope that he will be released soon - safe and sound.
Yet, I am dismayed at how our entire country kneels before the terror organizations every time that they succeed in capturing one of our fighters in their clutches. This situation is intolerable and we fall into this trap time and again. I am frequently forced to refuse the requests of my fellow soldiers from our company and brigade to participate in demonstrations for Gilad. I have reached the conclusion that our intellect must take precedence over our emotions, as painful as this is for me."

Manhigut Yehudit put an internet petition on its website, affording people the opportunity to add their signatures to the request not to negotiate their release. Due to lack of funds, we were not able to run a major campaign to publicize the petition. Nevertheless, approximately 100 soldiers and citizens signed. In light of this spontaneous response, we are certain that tens of thousands of citizens would sign this petition if they could. A major public outcry against the pending dangerous deal could sway some ministers from authorizing the exchange.

Click here to sign the petition (Israeli citizens only).

.

Are We Part of the UK Israel Lobby?

Backspin/Honest Reporting
25 November 09

Simon Plosker, HonestReporting's managing editor, was interviewed on JNet Radio, where he discussed Dispatches: Inside Britain's Israel Lobby. Listen to it on Humyo or by clicking below.

Related HonestReporting links responding to Channel 4:

• Why We Didn't Talk to Channel 4
• 'Myself As Exhibit A'
• Under Attack: HR Accused by UK TV Documentary
• HonestReporting Responds to Channel 4
• Oborne's Opening Shots at the Israel Lobby
• A Warped Look at Britain's 'Israel Lobby'

.

The world is tired of hearing Jews complain

FresnoZionism.org
24 November 09

News item:

A British diplomat has criticized the appointment of two leading Jewish academics to the UK’s Iraq Inquiry panel, stating it may upset the balance of the inquiry.

Sir Oliver Miles, a former British ambassador to Libya, told The Independent newspaper this week that the appointment of Sir Martin Gilbert, the renowned Holocaust historian and Winston Churchill biographer, and Sir Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies and vice-principal of King’s College London, would be seen as “ammunition” that could be used to call the inquiry a “whitewash.”

Miles said the two academics were Jewish and that Gilbert was an active Zionist. He also said they were both strong supporters of former prime minister Tony Blair and the Iraq war…

“It is a pity that, if and when the inquiry is accused of a whitewash, such handy ammunition will be available,” he added. “Membership should not only be balanced; it should be seen to be balanced.”

There you go. In regard to any issue which even tangentially touches on Israel, Jews are suspect. I recall someone saying, “when I read a letter to the editor about the Middle East, I immediately look to see if the writer has a Jewish name.” Then I presume she discounts whatever was in the letter.

(Continue article)

.

This is our Land

And Lavan answered and he said to Jacob, the daughters are my daughters and the children are my children and the flocks are my flocks and all that you see is mine.
And now, let us make a covenant.
If you will afflict my daughters and if you will take wives in addition to my daughters, no man is with us, see G-d is witness between me and you. (From this week's Torah portion, Vayetzeh, Genesis 31: 43-44, 50)

It's strange. Time and again, Jacob catches Lavan in his lies, but Lavan persists in playing the role of the victim - and not of the perpetrator.

"The daughters are my daughters?" Jacob worked for them - above and beyond the time upon which they had originally agreed. Furthermore, he continued working for Rachel even after Lavan tricked him into marrying Leah.

"The flocks are my flocks?" Here, too, Jacob kept up his side of the bargain, while it was Lavan who dishonestly changed the rules.

Where does Lavan get the chutzpah to lie without compunction? What makes him so confident? How can it be that after Lavan makes a treaty with Jacob and bids him farewell, he makes new conditions; "If you will afflict my daughters," as if Jacob was some sort of lowlife from the Charan marketplace?

It seems that Lavan is playing on the last vestiges of Jacob's dependence on him. While it is true that Jacob honestly earned his family and possessions, the platform upon which they were earned belonged to Lavan. Jacob has not yet completely freed himself of the "womb" in which his family and wealth developed.

The evil Lavan immediately identifies Jacob's weak point.

Today, the Arabs in the Land of Israel will settle for nothing less than the entire Land. All of our groveling and attempts to "compromise" have not helped. They abduct a soldier and conduct negotiations for his release as if they were the lords of the Land.

Where does their chutzpah come from? Like Lavan, they have identified our weak point; the point at which we feel dependant upon them. Israel's leaders also believe that the Land of Israel really belongs to the Arabs, that their struggle against us is just and that they kill us because we have stolen their land. In the eyes of Israel's leaders, the daughters are the Arabs' daughters and the flocks are their flocks.

Our weakness allows them to portray themselves as victims and not as perpetrators.

Leadership that is incapable of relying on our covenant with G-d and declaring that this is our Land will come out on the short end of every negotiation.

Shabbat Shalom,

Moshe Feiglin

Refusing to remain silent in the face of evil

Jonathan and Esther Pollard
JPost Opinion
25 November 09

Why is the life of one Israeli captive deemed so precious that Israel's leaders are willing to dispense with all logic and morality in order to redeem him? Why is the life of another Israeli captive dismissed as if it were worthless?

Why is the life of one captive such an urgent national priority that the safety and security of every single Israeli citizen must be put at risk? Why is the life of the other captive so inconsequential - after decades of captivity - that negotiations for his release have never been undertaken?

Are we, the People of Israel, so incompetent, so bereft of will, talent, imagination and faith in God that we really believe the only way to secure the release of the former captive is at a price so exorbitant that it beggars the imagination? Do we really believe that the wholesale release of terrorists and murderers is a rational response? Are we, the People of Israel, so bereft of vision that we cannot grasp that burying one captive alive while we pray for the release of the other drives the blessing away and brings shame and dishonor upon us all?

Are we, the People of Israel, so politically brainwashed that we cannot see that, in both cases, mere expediency reigns supreme in a morally-bankrupt government? This is not fulfillment of the mitzva of pidyon shvuyim!

AS LONG as Israeli leaders demonstrate a unanimous will to exploit the value of rescuing one captive because it suits their political ends, while simultaneously ignoring another captive, there can be no national honor, nor national self-respect. There is only political expediency. Self-serving, opportunistic, political expediency.

Those who are willing to close their eyes to the truth and follow lockstep with Israel's "leaders" in support of this unconscionable plan to unleash the forces of evil by allowing the architects of mass murder to pour forth from Israeli jails are placing their own lives at risk as well as the lives of their loved ones.

Those who fail to speak out and protest Israel's lopsided, immoral policy of selective rescue - damning one captive while saving the other and simultaneously putting the lives of all citizens in jeopardy - must know that they are complicit in this criminal deed.

It is painfully clear that Israel's mainstream media has stymied all rational debate on this issue, just as it has, for its own self-serving reasons, lent its support to the government's cowardly abandonment of the latter captive.

Nevertheless, moral conscience does not permit us to remain silent.

If our words are not heard today, so be it. A time will come when they will be heard. We hope that by then, it will not be too late.

Jonathan Pollard is an American-born Israeli citizen currently in the 25th year of his life sentence in an American prison. Esther Pollard is his wife.
.