Saturday, February 26, 2011

The West is planting the seeds of its own destruction

Ted Belman

Long after the creation of Kosovo was a done deal made necessary by the “war crimes” of the Serbs, Felix Quigley, aided by Nathan Pearlstein and Robert Peter North, educated me and our readers for over a year and a half on the propaganda campaign throughout the world, that labelled the Serbs the bad guys and which lead to the bombing of Serbia by NATO..
As a result I came to believe that not only was there no Srebrenica Massacre but that the Serbs were simply defending against jihad and Clinton was at fault for siding with the Jihadists.
My fear was that this was a harbringer of things to come in Israel.
Furthermore, we learned of the probability that the nice Muslims of Kosovo were really drug dealers and slave traffickers. American Thinker had an article yesterday in which they describe the aftermath.
[..] In addition, Europe’s problems have been worsened by American policies in the Balkans of the past 15 years. This is true in three important respects:
* Our mismanagement of Bosnia
* Our intervention in Kosovo
* Our policy of defaming our traditional Serb allies while ignoring the incredible mafia criminality and anti-Christian destructiveness of Albanian and Bosnian Islamic extremism
The extent of infiltration of Islamic organized crime from Albania and Bosnia into Europe is staggering. This is ignored or excused by the powerful Albanian lobby in America’s Northeast and in Congress. To be fair, some in Congress, such as Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana, are alert to the situation, and a fresh look is being taken at our Balkan policy within the State Department.
The Bosnia Imbroglio
President Clinton imported Al Qaeda from Afghanistan into Bosnia to counter Slobodan Milosevic, a decision facilitated in part by Madeleine Albright’s vitriolic, personal hatred of Serbs, which significantly skewed our foreign policy. We did not betray the Poles, Hungarians, Romanians, and Bulgarians, all of whom had more reactionary communist regimes than the former Yugoslavia. The irony is that Serbs rid themselves of Milosevic without Washington’s help and turned him over to the Hague.
The attempt to combine the three major ethnic groups in Bosnia into one state has failed. Serbs have defensively created Republica Srpska. The Croats, who have tried accommodation with the radical Islamist leadership, have decided they have had enough. They recently asked Russia to intervene in the Security Council to stabilize their situation in the face of radical Islamist undermining of their status in the Bosnian federation.
I have carefully read the 700 pages of The Clinton Tapes by Taylor Branch. The book is based on 79 two-hour interviews, often late at night, as President Clinton sought over the years during his administration to freshly recount events of the day or of previous days.
It is remarkable how little understanding is reflected in these tapes about the history of the Balkans, especially of the strong Christian heritage in Bosnia and Kosovo and the attempts by the Ottoman Empire to restrict Christianity by forced conversions to Islam through the kidnapping of Serbian boys (who became the famed Janissaries), by brutality, and by discriminatory economic policies.

Nor was there even a hint of anxiety or regret at what his importing of Al Qaeda into Bosnia was causing as they settled down, married Bosnian women, and began the process of imposing Islamic radicalism on Bosnia, which had become significantly secular since the expulsion of the Ottomans from Europe after World War I.
From Bosnia and Kosovo we now have one of the largest and most virulent drug cartels in the world, the worst of white slavery and prostitution trafficking into Europe, and terrorist training compounds. (Several of the 9/11 hijackers spent time in Bosnia among their Al Qaeda compatriots.) It is fascinating that some, including Boutros Boutros-Ghali, former Secretary-General of the UN, wanted to re-establish Christianity as the dominant culture in the Balkans against the rising radical Islamic tide, a proposal that never got off the ground.
It is scarcely credible, but nevertheless true, that the Clinton Administration ignored the Islamic Declaration by Alija Izetbegovi?, former president of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in which he clearly urged Islamists in Bosnia and worldwide to take up jihad against the West. Instead they regarded him as “their boy,” ignoring the proliferating terrorist cells in Bosnia.
The Devastation of Kosovo
The silence of the West about the expulsion of Serbs, Romanies and other non-Albanians from Kosovo, the terrorizing of the remaining Serbs, and the destruction and desecration of literally hundreds of churches, monasteries, cemeteries and other Christian landmarks, some of which are medieval treasures, is a tribute to the West’s allowing some of the worst vandalism and repression of the Christian faith in modern times.
There are more churches, monasteries and other Christian landmarks per square kilometer in Kosovo than anywhere else on earth. Kosovo is to Serbian Orthodox Christians what Canterbury is to Anglicans and the Vatican to Roman Catholics. But Christian Orthodox populations are expendable in the political maneuvering of Western politicians.
The latest bombshell is the Council of Europe’s recently adopted report from Dick Marty that Kosovo leaders, including Prime Minister Hashim Thaci, are complicit in crime, including organ trafficking. There is now a strenuous effort to sweep the body parts issue under the rug lest it torpedo efforts to legitimize the illegally mandated separation of Kosovo from Serbia. The data are horrific: Serbian captive youths were selected on the basis of genetic compatibility for killing in order to harvest saleable body parts.
The Marty report confirms allegations by prosecutor Carla del Ponte, of the Hague International War Crimes Tribunal, first published in 2008 (some say even earlier, in 2003). Human Rights Watch has called on the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo to appoint a special prosecutor based outside Kosovo to investigate Marty’s findings. But there is an insuperable obstacle to effective judicial proceedings: Kosovo is tiny, and it is almost impossible to shelter witnesses, should they come forward. Testifying would mean signing a death warrant against oneself and one’s entire family.
Few in America recognize that in the Balkans we are reaping the whirlwind of recent policy errors. In Samuel Huntington’s words, we are indeed witnessing the clash of civilizations. But our adversary is not an identifiable state enemy. The strategy is to insinuate a minority Islamist population into a culture and allege discrimination while practicing it. Once they gain status or power they turn on their hosts.

In America today one cannot even begin to discuss the issues. On April 25, 2008, at the Association for the Study of the Middle East and Africa, Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton University, warned that there is:
a degree of thought control and limitations of freedom of expression without parallel in the Western world since the 18th century … Islam and Islamic values now have a level of immunity from comment and criticism in the Western world that Christianity has lost and Judaism has never had.
The West is attempting to now create a Palestinian state and advancing the notion of their “legitimate rights”. It wants to carve Israel up just as it carved Serbia.

If you want to read the posts us that convined us of the alternate reality, then do a search on Israpundit of Srebrenica or Kosovo.

Change in the Middle East? Much More Never Changes At All

Barry Rubin

In 1938 the Saudi diplomat Hafiz Wahbah secretly met with Zionist leader (and future Israeli prime minister) David Ben-Gurion.

Wahbah explained to Ben-Gurion why it was impossible to negotiate a lasting peace. A few years before, Wahbah recounted, when he had called calling for peace in Jerusalem, Wahbah had mentioned that Jerusalem was a holy city for Jews and Christians as well as for Muslims.

In response, he continued, he received a stack of cables and insults asking how much the Jews had paid him to say that. Compromise could not take place, Wahbah concluded, in an atmosphere where everyone was afraid he might be accused of treason.

Recently, in the "Palestine Papers" controversy, the idea that Palestinian Authority negotiators might have made in passing on one occasion--though they then abandoned the idea--a couple of real proposed concessions--led to the officials involved going into hiding, denying, and resigning.

Now with political upheavals and even revolutions in the Arab world--which many Arabs attribute to the rejection of governments too friendly with the West and too willing to make peace with Israel--the idea that compromise would be equated with treason is as likely today as it was in 1938.

Oh, and by the way, in 1938, Egypt had a parliamentary system with free elections. Four years later, though, the British surrounded the king's palace with tanks and forced him to appoint another government. The existing one, you see, favored a Nazi victory and with General Erwin Rommel and the Afrika Corps crossing into Egypt the British could no longer afford that luxury.

Of course, in principle the Middle East can change for the better. It just doesn't seem to do so too much in practice. And that's a problem for people who live in Western societies where change for the better is assumed as universal and inevitable.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The GLORIA Center's site is and of his blog, Rubin Reports,

Friday, February 25, 2011

Israeli MKs to Attend Anti-Israel Conference in the U.S.

Elad Benari
A7 News

An upcoming conference in Washington by the leftist controversial American group J Street will not only feature anti-Israel speakers who for boycotts of the state, but will also feature Israeli MKs.

J Street defines itself as “pro-America, pro-Israel, pro-peace,” and was formed as a left-wing lobbyist group to counter traditionally pro-Israel groups. It has repeatedly made claims against the state of Israel, and it has also been revealed that anti-Israel billionaire George Soros provides much of the organization’s funding. Detailed information regarding the scheduled speakers at the conference was provided to Arutz Sheva’s Hebrew website by Journalist David Bedein, director of the Israel Resource News Agency and The Center for Near East Policy Research, who is currently in Washington for the conference.

“We know that the Ambassador from Switzerland will appear at the conference,” said Bedein. “Switzerland is funding the event through the Geneva Initiative. There will be discussions within the conference on BDS.”

Additional guests at the conference, noted Bedein, include U.S. top envoy Dennis Ross. “Ross is coming to the conference with the official blessing of the Obama Administration,” he said. “There’s also Ron Pundak who is representing the Peres Center for Peace, which is a star of the conference with several representatives on its behalf.”

According to a Bedein, last month J Street conducted a conference in Jerusalem, during which it encouraged young adults who are soon to begin their service in the IDF to refuse orders if they are asked to serve in areas considered beyond the Green Line. “They [J Street] invited students who are about to be drafted and told them to disobey orders and even to defect from the IDF if and when they are called to serve beyond the Green Line,” said Bedein.

He noted the name of another participant in the conference: Mustafa Barghouti, cousin of Palestinian Authority official Marwan Barghouti, who is currently in prison in Israel due to his involvement in many terrorist attacks in which innocent Israelis were killed.

“Mustafa Barghouti is in charge of spreading disinformation on behalf of the Arabs,” said Bedein. “For years he has spread rumors that Israel deliberately kills children using tear gas and all sorts of other ways. He is the Palestinian Authority’s representative at the conference. They are not bringing someone that is supposed to be a moderate, but rather this extreme person.”

Bedein said that his organization will send a reporter to the conference who will ensure that the coverage is appropriate and will “ask all the right questions.”

In regards to the fact that members of Israel’s Knesset will take part in a conference which is so blatantly anti-Israel, Bedein said that he had approached the MKs who are planning to take part in the conference, including MK Daniel Ben Simon (Labor), Nachman Shai (Kadima), and Shlomo Mulla (Kadima), and asked them how their Zionist stance goes along with taking part in such a conferenece. He noted that Ben Simon responded by denying that J Street is anti-Israel, while Shai and Mulla did not respond at all.

He added that he believes that MKs taking part in such a conference should be considered crossing a red line.

“When you see that during this conference there will be a broad discussion on the boycott of Israel, when you see participants who clearly and blatantly support the Arab right of return and have expressed their regret that the state of Israel exists, when you see that UN officials who have criticized the very existence of Israel have been invited, this is crossing a red line,” said Bedein.

Nations United Against Israel

Clifford May

Egypt, Bahrain, and Yemen are in turmoil. In Libya, Col. Moammar Gaddafi is using mercenaries to slaughter peaceful protestors. Hezbollah is staging a slow-motion coup in Lebanon. Iran’s rulers are executing dissidents daily, developing nuclear weapons, and sending warships through Suez. The response of the United Nations to these many threats to global peace and security? Condemn Israel! Is there anything else the U.N. does as often or as well? Here’s how it went down this time: At the urging of Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, temporary Security Council member Lebanon — a nation, as noted, increasingly ruled by Hezbollah, the Iranian-funded terrorist group that in 1983 murdered 241 American servicemen in Beirut — sponsored a resolution condemning Israel for constructing “illegal settlements.”

In other words, the issue that the U.N. considers most critical in the world at this hinge moment in history is that Israelis have been building homes on land the Palestinians want — and might be able to have if they were prepared to negotiate a peace treaty with Israelis.

On Thursday, 110 members of Congress sent a letter to the Obama administration asking that it veto this latest attempt to delegitimize Israel, a democratic ally that has taken serious steps “to bring peace to the region.” Those steps included a ten-month moratorium on new housing in the West Bank, which Israelis hoped would bring Palestinians back to the negotiating table. But why should Palestinians negotiate if they can get the U.N. to force Israel to make concessions in exchange for nothing?

In the end and to its credit, the Obama administration did veto the resolution. But Ambassador Susan Rice did not even attempt to suggest how hypocritical, counterproductive, and just plain deranged it is for the U.N. to ignore the crimes being committed by Islamist terrorists and Arab despots while demanding that Israelis surrender territory — taken in a defensive war — to those who remain committed to their extermination.

Instead, Rice meekly conceded that the U.S. agrees “about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” adding that the resolution was nevertheless “unwise.”

A more honest and courageous U.S. ambassador to the U.N. — John Bolton, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan spring to mind — would have stated clearly that this resolution is a shameful attempt to deflect attention from real crises while enhancing Abbas’s position within the Arab and Muslim worlds. He can take America’s money and spit in America’s eye? What a guy!

Perhaps Ambassador Rice would benefit from spending more time on these issues and less, as my FDD colleague Claudia Rosett has reported, lecturing Americans on “Why America Needs the United Nations.” Since when did the job description of an American ambassador to the U.N. including marketing the U.N. to the taxpayers who subsidize the U.N.?

But I digress. The more important point is this: The U.N.’s leadership and most of its members are not remotely interested in securing peace anywhere. And there is no Palestinian leader who will or even can make peace with Israel so long as the Muslim Brotherhood, the Arab League, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, and similar groups are calling the shots — in many instances literally.

Hamas, Hezbollah, and the theocratic rulers of Iran have been candid: Creation of a Palestinian state is, at best, a secondary goal. Their primary objective is the defeat and destruction of the world’s only Jewish state. No serious person can still believe the core issue is housing in the West Bank, also known as Judea and Samaria, territories that have never been part of a Palestinian state — because there has never been a Palestinian state — territories occupied by Jordan from 1949 until 1967, when Jordan, Egypt, and other Arab nations launched a conventional war intended to wipe Israel off the map.

Islamists cannot accept the existence of a nation led by infidels in a part of the world targeted for religious cleansing, the imposition of sharia, and the establishment of a modern caliphate — one that is to be oil-rich, nuclear-armed, and dedicated to diminishing American power globally and permanently.

Were Arab and Muslim nations willing to tolerate Israel’s existence — not love Israelis, just tolerate them — negotiating borders would be a piece of cake. In the absence of such tolerance, it would be a mistake for Israel to surrender another square inch of soil — as its earlier withdrawals from southern Lebanon (where Hezbollah has installed thousand of missiles under the noses of U.N. “peacekeepers”) and Gaza (from which thousands of missiles have been launched at Israeli villages) have demonstrated to all but the delusional (a substantial percentage of the international foreign-policy community).

Israel also turned over the Sinai to Egypt in return for a peace treaty signed by Egyptian president Anwar Sadat. His assassination at the hands of a Muslim Brotherhood splinter group soon followed. Three decades later, that peace treaty may be scrapped by whichever government comes to power in Egypt in the days ahead. That does not imply that another war with Egypt is imminent or even inevitable. It does imply that Israel cannot depend for its survival on pieces of paper signed by dictators. How often do free peoples need to be taught that lesson?

— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism and Islamism.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Media and Middle East: Wow, These People Are Repressive Dictators! Who Knew?

Barry Rubin

For those of us who have been trying to talk about Middle East dictators for a long time--I wrote my book on the subject, Modern Dictators, more than a quarter-century ago--it is amusing to see how people are lining up to be "horrified" by those evil repressive regimes.

Some of these people have built their whole careers on saying that the only problem in the Middle East is the Arab-Israeli conflict, then adding this was Israel's fault. Indeed, many of them extolled these dictators, especially the anti-American ones.
Reminds me also of how Yasir Arafat was regularly whitewashed in the media--with little about his extremism, lies, corruption, and direct involvement in terrorism--until he was dead and thus bashing him had no political implications about the Palestinian movement's nature, behavior, and goals. Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein also enjoyed a pretty good press until overthrown by the United States.

If there was time, I could dig up dozens of examples of mass media howlers (send me any you find) but since a friend of mine has done a case study on Libya in this regard, I'll publish it here with some small additions.

The New York Times has an article entitled "Libya’s Butcher" that tells us:

"Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya vowed on Tuesday that he would “fight on to the last drop of my blood” and die a “martyr.” We have no doubt that what he really meant is that he will butcher and martyr his own people in his desperation to hold on to power. He must be condemned and punished by the international community."

"Colonel Qaddafi, who took power in a 1969 coup, has a long, ruthless and erratic history. Among his many crimes: He was responsible for the 1988 bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. In 2003, after years of international sanctions, he announced that he had given up terrorism and his pursuit of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."

But how has the Times dealt with this horrible monster in the past? Well, Qadhafi was given space for his views.

Or here where Saif Qaddafi, son of the dictator, was allowed to justify the release of a murderer.

Or here with a puff piece celebrating the eco-friendliness of Saif

The Times had no problem promoting this guy in different ways over the years. It's current portrayal of him as a butcher should have been confirmed by its shunning of him in the past.

Or in other words, it is now saying: I'm shocked! Shocked! To see that dictatorship is going on!

But now the Times is busy working to make the next generation of would-be dictators and extremists look good, notably regarding the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and its charismatic spiritual guide, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Not one word about the Brotherhood's collaboration with the Nazis, support for terrorism, and hysterical antisemitism has appeared in most of the American mass media.

Wednesday, February 23, 2011

Ayalon: Diplomats will tour Hebron

Deputy foreign minister unveils new plan to take new ambassadors, Foreign Ministry cadets on tours to 'Jewish heritage sites' in West Bank in order to 'prevent apologetic PR, clarify that we are in Hebron by right, not force'
Roni Sofer

Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon announced Wednesday that all new Israeli ambassadors and Foreign Ministry cadets will be forced to visit "Jewish heritage sites" in the West Bank, including the Cave of Patriarchs.

Ayalon's message came just a few days after Education Minister Gideon Sa'ar announced a new plan for school trips to Hebron, also including a visit to the sacred Jewish site.

Ambassadors and cadets will receive guided tours from settlers residing in Kiryat Arba, according to Ayalon, who says the plan is a joint initiative constructed by himself and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman.

"I see it as part of the education of Israel's diplomatic representatives around the world, in order to prevent apologetic public relations, among other things, and to clarify that we are in Hebron and Judea and Samaria due to rights, not force," Ayalon explained to Ynet.

But the plan is not yet in effect, according to the Foreign Ministry. "I have personally visited the Cave of Patriarchs and the tombs of the forefathers, and I think it is necessary for the explanation of the Israeli stance against the de-legitimization of Israel in the world," the deputy foreign minister added.

"The guys from the Foreign Ministry – new ambassadors and cadets taking the course – receive lectures and guided tours." Ayalon listed the sites to be included, such as Hebron's ancient synagogue, which was used during the 1929 Palestinian riots.

"At the Vortex of a Whirlwind"

Arlene Kushner

We've had the blessing of heavy rain and now there is bright sunshine. I walk outside and the world seems lovely indeed. But a little voice inside of me asks, "What will be?" and I have no answer. This is part of my report from Israel today: There is anxiety, and there is anger. Oh, and add incredulity -- because things are happening that we would have thought impossible. And perhaps more than a little grief.

The world seems on fire all about us, and one horrific disappointment follows another.


So let us begin with a piece of good news:

Yesterday, the Knesset passed a bill -- co-sponsored by coalition chair Ze'ev Elkin (Likud) and Knesset law committee chair David Rotem (Yisrael Beitenu) -- that requires NGOs to declare funding they get from foreign governments in quarterly reports, and to make this information known on their websites. This is an important piece of legislation because there are foreign governments funding left-wing, pro-Palestinian NGOs here that function in a manner that is destructive to Israel. When an NGO is not purely Israeli, but is taking funds from foreign governments that have agendas inimical to Israel, that is something that must be public knowledge. If, for example, Peace Now goes out to monitor "settlement" activity, and it turns out that this project was paid for by the government of Norway, this would be something we would need, and have a right, to know.

It is unfortunate that a stronger version of the bill that had been brought forward was shot down, but this is a start, and begins to shine light on an important issue. NGOs will be fined heavily if they do not adhere to the new rules.


What won't go through is a piece of legislation that is even more important: this is with regard to applying civil law to the communities in Judea and Samaria. I had said that the sponsors were not optimistic, but this is one of those matters that evokes deep disappointment, because it would have been so right.

Yesterday, the Ministerial Committee on Legislation met and most members voted against the bill. This guarantees a defeat when it is brought before the Knesset tomorrow.

What is so distressing is that Netanyahu himself, and several of the ministers who had voted against it, had been for it when the issue was raised previously. I'm convinced that they are running scared now. "The world" wouldn't like it, you see. It would cause anger. Condemnations.

But this is precisely the time when we must be strong for ourselves. For -- beyond faith in Heaven -- there is nothing else.


And I would like to explore this issue of our standing up for ourselves a bit more here.

The other day I alluded to Netanyahu's statement, following the US veto in the Security Council, that included the phrase, "the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations for statehood," and I winced. In that same posting I also alluded to the dangers of making concessions as a "gift" in return for the veto. I mean, you could see the US expectation that we would pay for that vote coming. As I wrote, I was wondering what we were going to be asked to do, to "help" with the "peace process."

Well, a good deal is being said with regard to this, and the suggestion is that Netanyahu's statement was not a "gift" of appreciation that he proffered to Obama because of the veto. Rather, it is being seen in some quarters as the quid pro quo -- what was agreed upon in advance in return for the veto. I know of one American Jewish leader who is convinced there was a deal. Herb Keinon in today's JPost, noting that this is Netanyahu strongest statement ever with regard to Palestinian Arab statehood, simply says, "Netanyahu himself said Sunday he had been in contact with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton both before and after the vote." Draw your own conclusions.


Either way, this is troubling, and, yes, frightening, because that strength of leadership is so important now.

We're at risk of sliding down that slippery slope. Although I still believe that when Netanyahu qualifies his statement with reference to Israel's security needs, he intends this as the break on that slide: Yes, I have acknowledged your legitimate aspirations, but unless Israel's security is assured, there will be no deal. (With "no deal" just about guaranteed.)


As usual with such matters, however, there is also another point of view. Because the other piece of what I'm hearing is that there is a concerted campaign -- beyond what has transpired previously -- within the international community (read the US and EU) to utilize pressure to unseat Netanyahu, who is seen as a stumbling block to peace. The hope is that Livni might come forward. If they can get rid of him, you see, a Palestinian state can follow. (This suggests that, our concerns aside, the world does see him as a hardliner.)

I am not prepared to venture a guess as to how serious a prospect this is. It would involve some fancy political footwork and some betrayals within the current coalition. But one might wonder if some of Netanyahu's conciliatory gestures represent an attempt to forestall a Livni premiership -- to show the world that he's on board too.

This is not by way of excuse. Because too much conciliation by Netanyahu might bring him no more than a pyrrhic victory. The consequences are so significant. And ultimately there is no way to "appease" Obama.


Caroline Glick delivers the same message regarding our need to be strong, in her article, "Obama's devastatingly mixed signals":

"We can only rely on ourselves and so we'd better strengthen ourselves as much as possible as quickly as possible in every possible way."

The US sent seriously mixed messages last week, says Glick. On the one hand, under duress of Congressional pressure, he did finally veto the Security Council resolution on "settlements." But Susan Rice then put out a statement that in essence criticized the veto -- saying that "settlements" indeed were "illegitimate" and a roadblock to peace.

"...the [Obama] administration...sent four deeply problematic messages to the region.

"First, it signaled that it is deeply unserious.

"Second, it signaled to the Palestinians that, while blocked by popular US support for Israel from joining them, the administration supports the PA's political war against Israel. That is, Obama told the Palestinians to continue this war against Israel.

"Third, the administration told Israel - and all its other allies - that in the era of Obama, the US is not a credible ally. Not only does this message weaken America's allies, it emboldens the likes of Iran and Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood who are increasingly convinced that the US will not stand by its allies in a pinch.

"Finally, by standing by as Abbas pushed forward with the resolution despite Obama's repeatedly stated opposition, the president showed all actors in the region that there is no price to be paid for defying the US."


One analyst after another has pointed out that if Obama had been serious about stopping the resolution in the Security Council, he could have advised the Palestinian Arabs of his intentions, clearly and unequivocally, many weeks ago. They might have backed off. As it is, he waffled until the last moment.

This, undoubtedly, was a reason for the Arab fury regarding the veto.


From this cheerful subject, let's move to another: Egypt.

Dr. Moti Kedar, a veteran of Israeli military intelligence, writing for the BESA Center, has this to say:

"In Egypt, there is almost no social contract to govern the conduct of its citizens – as there is in democratic societies. The norm, then, is to behave without inhibition, and violent confrontation is usually the standard response to conflict. With Mubarak out of the picture, and with the behavior of democratic society not yet learned, it seems likely that in the near term Egypt will be a society plagued by political intrigue and instability – providing alarming headlines almost daily. The governments of the world must be alert and vigilant for developments that could threaten the Suez Canal, the peace with Israel and regional stability."

Kedar believes, "This situation of unrest could awaken within many Egyptians the wish to bring to Egypt a strong and dependable figure, with a clear, unwavering agenda. The choice will probably be one of the leaders of the Muslim Brotherhood, such as Sheikh Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi...Already this past weekend, he was back preaching in Cairo, and could yet be called upon to rescue Egypt from chaos, leading the country in the Islamist direction."

I confess, the willingness of the Egyptian military to allow al-Qaradawi back into the country, after Mubarak had banned him for years, has increased my unease a great deal. One begins to wonder precisely where these military rulers, who, we've been told, prefer the status quo, are really headed. Let's stop pretending about democracy. The best to be hoped for would be, as Kedar writes, that:

"While the army has thus far not expressed any desire to take power into its hands permanently, it is certainly possible that after whetting its appetite the army will 'discover' a taste for ruling, and Egypt will revert to the rule of generals."


Barry Rubin, in his article, "Egypt gets its Khomeini," paints al-Qaradawi in terms that are far more dire:

"Until now, the Egyptian revolution has lacked a charismatic thinker, someone who could really mobilize the masses. Qaradawi is that man. Banned from the country under the old regime, he is returning to his homeland in triumph.

"Through Internet, radio, his 100 books and his weekly satellite television program, he has been an articulate voice for revolutionary Islamism. He is literally a living legend. It was Qaradawi who argued that Islamists should always participate in elections because they would invariably win them."

Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi



I had hoped to deal today with that anti-Israel organization J Street -- but have decided to table it until tomorrow. How much unpleasantness can my readers deal with at one time?


Let me note, however, that the Iranian ships have now passed through the Suez Canal and are in the Mediterranean. The consensus here seems to be that this is a deliberate provocation but presents no real military threat, even though one of the ships is armed with Chinese-made missiles: the ships could be sunk quickly. Said one Israeli official, "From the military and marine perspective, the moment the ships enter the Mediterranean, they're entering a trap."

Photo: Reuters


© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.

see my website

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

Avoiding euphoria over Obama

Isi Leibler
February 22, 2011

A strange euphoria seems to have blinded some Israelis and American Jews concerning the context of President Barack Obama's veto of a UN resolution.

In the past, blatantly one-sided anti- Israeli resolutions were vetoed as a matter of course. On this occasion, the issue was complicated because of the Obama administration's disastrous, long-standing obsession with the settlements, which paved the way for the unprecedented Palestinian demand for a settlement freeze as a precondition to negotiations. esperate to avoid employing the veto, Obama extended extraordinary concessions to the Palestinians if they agreed to modify the language of the resolution.

He offered a Security Council "presidential statement" expressing identical views to the resolution condemning the Jewish presence in the West Bank and Jerusalem. He was willing to endorse a Russian proposal for a Security Council fact-finding mission on settlements and a proposed expansion of the Quartet's involvement to cover areas ranging from the 1967 borders to the political status of Jerusalem.

According to The Wall Street Journal, at the last moment Obama phoned PA President Mahmoud Abbas offering to endorse or abstain on the resolution if the Palestinians agreed to replace the word "illegal" with "illegitimate" in relation to settlements.

Normal procedure after such a vote would have been a simple US statement that the resolution was one-sided and that the Security Council was not the venue to engage in this issue. It could also have noted that Israel had frozen settlements for 10 months while the Palestinians still refused to negotiate.

Instead, US Ambassador Susan Rice made a supplementary statement condemning settlements, employing some of the most vehement language against the Jewish state ever used by a senior US official.

THAT ABBAS refused to accept Obama's extraordinary offers reflects the fact that the Palestinians are now being hoisted by their own petard. Their incitement has been so effective that following the Al Jazeera disclosures of concessions discussed behind closed doors - which they had no intention of ever implementing or even revealing to their people - they cannot now contemplate the slightest compromise without being condemned as traitors.

With global anti-Israeli hostility combining with the seething cauldron of revolution in the Arab world, Abbas is confident that by avoiding negotiations, he will oblige the Obama administration to intensify pressure on Israel.

He also appreciates the effectiveness of engaging in "lawfare" rather than terrorism, with a massive program of demonization, boycott and delegitimization in the UN pipeline where the most outrageously anti-Israeli resolutions are guaranteed an automatic majority. We can anticipate a cascade of resolutions seeking to transform Israel into a pariah state, accusing it of breaching international law, branding its leaders as war criminals and seeking to drag it into the International Court of Justice.

The US relationship now assumes even greater importance to our security, both militarily and diplomatically. In this context, despite harsh criticism from the political Right, full credit should be accorded to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu for his diplomatic tightrope walk with the Obama administration.

He made concessions, but succeeded in resisting the most outrageous demands, thus averting a catastrophic breakdown in relations.

It is likely that despite the disastrous consequences of Obama's failed efforts to engage with rogue states, were he not facing reelection, he would not allow Israel's security to stand in the way of his efforts to appease the Islamic world.

But despite his groveling to the Palestinians before and after the UN Security Council resolution, he was ultimately obliged to exercise the US veto for the first time since he gained office. He did so only out of a realization that he would have faced widespread condemnation from Congress and even his own party had he failed to do so.

But our problems will intensify in the months to come. It is chilling to contemplate how the administration may seek to "balance" its veto by imposing new pressures on Israel, which could soon be facing rejectionist states on most of its borders.

We must now invest all our resources into strengthening US-Israel ties. We are fortunate that the military support under the Obama administration has been strengthened. But in light of uncertainties with the new Egypt, and Iran's growing regional influence, that support assumes an even greater importance.

The Netanyahu government must now ensure that the Obama administration does not have a pretext for abandoning us in the diplomatic arena. It must urgently craft strategies to deal with the difficult days ahead.

We need to reiterate our willingness for a two-state regime. But that can only be implemented when the Palestinian leaders are ready for peace, are willing to tell their people the truth, and when it is clear that as the IDF departs, the West Bank will not be transformed into Hamastan.

UNFORTUNATELY, this is unlikely in the foreseeable future. For now, all we can do is continue enhancing the economic status of the Palestinians and seek interim solutions. This may give them the incentive to choose leaders willing to accept peace.

There are difficult decisions to be made on issues that impinge on our national security that can no longer be held in abeyance because of short-term political interests. If we fail to move in this direction, we will face determined efforts to impose a solution which could place our future in jeopardy. We should also identify those territories we would annex if the Palestinians unilaterally abrogate the Oslo Accords and declare an independent state.

Our government - preferably a unity government - can no longer prevaricate; it must now bite the bullet and make the tough decisions about borders, security and settlements that a majority of the nation will endorse.

We must have a comprehensive plan if we are to persuade the American public and Congress to remain steadfast.

Otherwise, the Obama administration might throw us to the wolves.

This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post

Monday, February 21, 2011

World Leaders Ignore International Law

February 21, 2011 | Eli. E. Hertz

The U.S. Administration, the European Union, the United Nations, and Russia's decision to rewrite history by labeling the Territories 'Occupied Territories,' the Settlements as an 'Obstacle to Peace' and 'Not Legitimate,' thus endowing them with an aura of bogus statehood and a false history. The use of these dishonest loaded terms, empowers terrorism and incites Palestinian Arabs with the right to use all measures to expel Israel. The Jewish People's Right to the Land of Israel
The "Mandate for Palestine" & the Law of War

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and the European Union Foreign Affairs Chief Catherine Ashton became victims to the 'Occupation' mantra their own organization has repeated over and over in their propaganda campaign to legitimize the Arab position.

Continuous pressure by the "Quartet" (U.S., the European Union, the UN and Russia) to surrender parts of the Land of Israel are contrary to international law as stated in the "Mandate for Palestine" document, that in article 6 firmly call to "encourage ... close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes." It also requires, under Article 5 of the Mandate to "seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the government of any foreign power."

Any attempt by the World Leaders to negate the Jewish people's right to Palestine - Eretz-Israel, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations, is a serious infringement of international law, and as such - illegitimate.
International Law - The "Mandate for Palestine"

The "Mandate for Palestine" an historical League of Nations document, laid down the Jewish legal right under international law to settle anywhere in western Palestine, the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea, an entitlement unaltered in international law. Fifty-one member countries - the entire League of Nations - unanimously declared on July 24, 1922:

"Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country."

On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States unanimously endorsed the "Mandate for Palestine":

"Favoring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.

"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected." [italics in the original]
Law of War - Arab Unlawful Acts of Aggression in 1948

Six months before the War of Independence in 1948, Palestinian Arabs launched a series of riots, pillaging, and bloodletting. Then came the invasion of seven Arab armies from neighboring states attempting to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in accordance with the UN's 1947 recommendation to Partition Palestine, a plan the Arabs rejected.

The Jewish state not only survived, it came into possession of territories - land from which its adversaries launched their first attempt to destroy the newly created State of Israel.

Israel's citizens understood that defeat meant the end of their Jewish state before it could even get off the ground. In the first critical weeks of battle, and against all odds, Israel prevailed on several fronts.

The metaphor of Israel having her back to the sea reflected the image crafted by Arab political and religious leaders' rhetoric and incitement. Already in 1948 several car bombs had killed Jews, and massacres of Jewish civilians underscored Arab determination to wipe out the Jews and their state.

6,000 Israelis died as a result of that war, in a population of 600,000. One percent of the Jewish population was gone. In American terms, the equivalent is 3 million American civilians and soldiers killed over an 18-month period.

Israel's War of Independence in 1948 was considered lawful and in self-defence as may be reflected in UN resolutions naming Israel a "peace loving State" when it applied for membership at the United Nations. Both the Security Council (4 March, 1949, S/RES/69) and the UN General Assembly (11 May, 1949, (A/RES/273 (III)) declared:

"[Security Council] Decides in its judgment that Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter ..."
Arab Unlawful Acts of Aggression in 1967

In June 1967, the combined armies of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan attacked Israel with the clear purpose expressed by Egypt's President: "Destruction of Israel." At the end of what is now known as the Six-Day War, Israel, against all odds, was victorious and in possession of the territories of Judea and Samaria [E.H., The West Bank], Sinai and the Golan Heights.

International law makes a clear distinction between defensive wars and wars of aggression. More than half a century after the 1948 War, and more than four decades since the 1967 Six-Day War, it is hard to imagine the dire circumstances Israel faced and the price it paid to fend off its neighbors' attacks.
Who Starts Wars Does Matter

Professor, Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, past President of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) states the following facts:

"The facts of the June 1967 'Six Day War' demonstrate that Israel reacted defensively against the threat and use of force against her by her Arab neighbors. This is indicated by the fact that Israel responded to Egypt's prior closure of the Straits of Tiran, its proclamation of a blockade of the Israeli port of Eilat, and the manifest threat of the UAR's [The state formed by the union of the republics of Egypt and Syria in 1958] use of force inherent in its massing of troops in Sinai, coupled with its ejection of UNEF.

"It is indicated by the fact that, upon Israeli responsive action against the UAR, Jordan initiated hostilities against Israel. It is suggested as well by the fact that, despite the most intense efforts by the Arab States and their supporters, led by the Premier of the Soviet Union, to gain condemnation of Israel as an aggressor by the hospitable organs of the United Nations, those efforts were decisively defeated.

"The conclusion to which these facts lead is that the Israeli conquest of Arab and Arab-held territory was defensive rather than aggressive conquest."

Judge Sir Elihu Lauterpacht wrote in 1968, one year after the 1967 Six-Day War:

"On 5th June, 1967, Jordan deliberately overthrew the Armistice Agreement by attacking the Israeli-held part of Jerusalem. There was no question of this Jordanian action being a reaction to any Israeli attack. It took place notwithstanding explicit Israeli assurances, conveyed to King Hussein through the U.N. Commander, that if Jordan did not attack Israel, Israel would not attack Jordan.

"Although the charge of aggression is freely made against Israel in relation to the Six-Days War the fact remains that the two attempts made in the General Assembly in June-July 1967 to secure the condemnation of Israel as an aggressor failed. A clear and striking majority of the members of the U.N. voted against the proposition that Israel was an aggressor."
Israel Has the Better Title to the Territory of What Was Palestine, Including the Whole of Jerusalem

International law makes it clear: All of Israel's wars with its Arab neighbors were in self-defence.

Professor, Judge Schwebel, wrote in What Weight to Conquest:

"(a) a state [Israel] acting in lawful exercise of its right of self-defense may seize and occupy foreign territory as long as such seizure and occupation are necessary to its self-defense;
"(b) as a condition of its withdrawal from such territory, that State may require the institution of security measures reasonably designed to ensure that that territory shall not again be used to mount a threat or use of force against it of such a nature as to justify exercise of self-defense;
"(c) Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title.
"... as between Israel, acting defensively in 1948 and 1967, on the one hand, and her Arab neighbors, acting aggressively, in 1948 and 1967, on the other, Israel has the better title in the territory of what was Palestine, including the whole of Jerusalem, than do Jordan and Egypt."
"No legal Right Shall Spring from a Wrong"

Professor Schwebel explains that the principle of "acquisition of territory by war is inadmissible" must be read together with other principles:

"... namely, that no legal right shall spring from a wrong, and the Charter principle that the Members of the United Nations shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State."

Simply stated: Arab illegal aggression against the territorial integrity and political independence of Israel, cannot and should not be rewarded.

Professor Julius Stone, a leading authority on the Law of Nations, stated:

"Territorial Rights Under International Law.... By their [Arab countries] armed attacks against the State of Israel in 1948, 1967, and 1973, and by various acts of belligerency throughout this period, these Arab states flouted their basic obligations as United Nations members to refrain from threat or use of force against Israel's territorial integrity and political independence. These acts were in flagrant violation inter alia of Article 2(4) and paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the same article."

Thus, under international law Israel acted lawfully by exercising its right to self-defence when it redeemed and legally reoccupied Judea and Samaria, known also as the West Bank.

Legalities aside, before 1967 there were no Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and for the first ten years of so-called occupation there were almost no Jewish settlers in the West Bank. And still there was no peace with the Palestinians. The notion that Jewish communities pose an obstacle to peace is a red herring designed to blame Israel for lack of progress in the 'Peace Process' and enable Palestinian leadership to continue to reject any form of compromise and reconciliation with Israel as a Jewish state.

Obama Knows He Unleashed Chaos

Victor Sharpe

With Obama “asking” Abbas not to raise condemnation of Israel in the UN Security Council instead of announcing that he would veto any resolution, this is coming true right now. Soros is part of the story.

Not content with creating havoc in the U.S. economy, setting Americans against each other, and forcing through a health reform act which has nothing to do with health but everything to do with the redistribution of wealth and an immense increase in governmental interference, our president has now opened a Pandora’s Box in the Middle East. It may well usher in a catastrophe not seen since World War 2.

From his notorious Cairo speech to the present, President Obama speaks, and disaster follows. Some commentators believe that President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are so utterly naïve as to make themselves unable to understand what will happen in Egypt as a result of their undermining of the Mubarak regime. The question is justifiably asked: Do they truly believe that the next regime that comes to power will have the interests of the U.S. and the West at heart?

My fear is that Obama is not naïve at all, but he instead knows only too well what he is doing, for he is eagerly promoting Islamic power in the world while diminishing the West and Israel, however much innocent blood will flow as a result.

Inevitably, sooner or later, the Muslim Brotherhood will take power, usher in a barbaric Islamist power in Egypt that will control the Suez Canal, and show no mercy to its own people or its perceived foes.

So now we see what the present incumbent in the White House has wrought, and so can our few remaining allies. They must now wonder what confidence they can ever have in any future alliance with the United States.

We should be aware of what endemic Islamic violence has wrought in the past. For example, assassinations of Arab leaders are not an infrequent occurrence. After the 1948 Arab-Israel War, the King of Jordan, Abdullah, was murdered by followers of the Muslim fanatic, the Mufti of Jerusalem.

The Egyptian prime minister, Nokrashi Pasha, was also struck down. The forces behind the killings were elements of both Arab socialist movements and the Muslim Brotherhood. Today, in the streets of Cairo, we have an unholy alliance of the current radical left with the same Muslim Brotherhood.

The Suez Canal is a major lifeline for the economies of Europe and the United States. It has been the source of political disruption in the past, as it may well be in the near future. And the Muslim Brotherhood may soon control it. As always, the past is our guidepost to the future.

In 1952, Gamal Abdul Nasser seized control of the Egyptian state and forged an alliance with the Soviet Union, which provided enormous arms shipments to Egypt.

Feeling greatly empowered, Nasser broke both the 1949 Armistice Agreement with Israel and international law by blocking the Suez Canal to Israeli ships and other vessels bringing cargoes to and from the Jewish state. At the same time, Nasser blockaded the narrow Straits of Tiran at the foot of the Sinai peninsula, thus preventing Israeli maritime trade with the Far East and Africa.

Nasser eventually nationalized the Suez Canal on July 27, 1956. This illegal act threatened the oil supplies to Britain and France from the Middle East. The economic stranglehold on Israel became intolerable, and Arab terrorism against the Jewish state led to many Israeli civilian deaths. (Incidentally, Arab terrorism began long before the so-called Israeli “occupation” as a result of the 1967 war, which Arab and pro-Arab propagandists now use as the excuse for present Arab aggression against Israel.)

In October 1956, war by Britain, France, and Israel against Egypt broke out. Israeli forces, in what became known as the One Hundred Hours War, defeated the Egyptians in Sinai and Gaza and broke the naval blockade. Britain and France invaded the Canal Zone to end Nasser’s blockade of the Suez Canal.

Under U.S. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, Britain and France were eventually forced out of Egypt. This was, as future events showed, a dreadful blunder on the part of the Eisenhower administration. It was the beginning of Britain’s decline as a world power. It also led to Nasser remaining in power.

The Egyptian dictator’s political and pan-Arab ambitions again climaxed in 1967. Nasser again blockaded the Suez Canal to Israeli shipping and reinstituted the naval blockade at the mouth of the Tiran Straits.

This in turn led, in 1967, to the hasty withdrawal of the U.N. buffer force that had been in place to prevent further Egyptian aggression against Israel. U.N. Secretary General U. Thant folded under Arab pressure and arbitrarily withdrew the buffer force. Egyptian armed forces then entered the Sinai, heading for the Israeli border.

The Arab and Muslim world called then, just as now, for Israel’s extermination, and huge mobs in Arab capitals uttered lurid threats for Israel’s defeat and the slaughter of her people. The world prepared for Israel’s destruction, but everyone was astonished when in June 1967, Israel — forced to fight a defensive war of survival — destroyed the combined Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian armies and air forces within six days.

The Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran were again open for the free passage of Israeli ships. Nasser fell from power and was replaced by Anwar Sadat. However, in 1973, the Syrian and Egyptian armies attacked Israel on the holiest day in the Jewish religious calendar, Yom Kippur, which gave its name to the war.

Israel was hard put to survive initially, but she gradually beat back the Arab threat. Sadat eventually decided that war was not an option for the time being and chose to make peace with Israel.

Israel vacated the entire Sinai desert (95% of the territories Israel conquered) and gave up the oil-producing facilities it had developed at Abu Rodeis — all in return for a signed peace agreement with Egypt. Jordan eventually followed Egypt’s decision, but both Arab nations maintained a frigid peace with the Jewish state.

Anwar Sadat was subsequently assassinated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. His successor was Hosni Mubarak, who, for the last thirty years, has kept control over the seething Egyptian masses and the volatile Arab street.

Now his thirty-year rule has been fatally undermined by U.S. President, Barack Hussein Obama, in a betrayal that is as astonishing as it is deplorable.

It is clear to any child that a new Egyptian regime will, if not immediately, be hijacked by the Muslim Brotherhood, which is now calling for Egypt to prepare itself again for war with Israel and for the blockading of the Suez Canal to American, Western, and Israeli shipping. Obama is no fool; he engineered this.

So, thanks to President Obama, we are back to square one with an Islamic Egyptian regime poised to send Egypt’s massively armed army back into Sinai and towards the Israeli border with the aim of exterminating the Jewish state. So much for “land for peace.”

But what economic turmoil would a new Egyptian Islamic closure of the Canal mean to the West?

It is estimated that slightly more than two million barrels of crude oil and refined petroleum products flow both north and south through the Suez Canal every day.

In 2009, for example, almost 35,000 ships transited the Suez Canal, and 10 percent were petroleum tankers. Oil shipments from the Persian Gulf travel through the Canal primarily to European ports, but also to the United States.

Additionally, the Sumed Oil pipeline provides an alternative to the Suez Canal, transporting as much as 3 million barrels of crude oil from Saudi Arabia and several Gulf states. It amounts to up to seven percent of Europe’s oil needs. Since the violence erupted in Egypt, European oil prices have risen far more than they have in the United States.

If the Muslim Brotherhood, which was founded in 1928, takes over Egypt, it is more than likely that both the Canal and the pipeline would be shut again, causing oil tankers to travel around the Cape of Good Hope, adding six thousand miles to the journey to Europe alone. Not what an economically strapped Europe wants.

At the same time, the Brotherhood, now governing over 80 million Egyptians and possessing a huge military, would join with a radicalized Yemen in blockading the Bab al Mandeb straits at the foot of the Red Sea.

Add to the noxious mix the Islamic Republic of Iran, and we may well see the closure of the Gulf of Oman, with additional disruptions of oil shipments to the West. The economic reality for America will be catastrophic.

Under Obama’s watch, the true democratic revolution against the mullahs in Iran was snuffed out because the American president refused to support the demonstrators in the streets of Tehran. In contrast, the same Obama ordered Hosni Mubarak to leave office and let the rioters in Cairo have “free” elections.

Following Condoleezza Rice’s naïve call for “free” and democratic elections in Gaza, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood (Hamas) used the democratic process to come to power and immediately trashed all semblance of democracy by instituting oppressive sharia law and raining thousands of missiles upon Israeli towns and villages.

The grotesque policies of Obama have caused Lebanon to fall under Islamic occupation, with the Iranian puppet, Hezb’allah, now controlling the Lebanese government. Jordan’s kinglet, Abdullah, sits on a powder keg whereby his throne is under increasing pressure from violent members of the same Muslim Brotherhood.

So there you have it. Islam increasingly holds Europe, America, and what is left of the free world in its clutches…and the left cheers it on.

Let me close with the words of Michael D. Evans, New York Times bestselling author of Jimmy Carter: The Liberal Left and World Chaos:

It’s no coincidence that Al Baradei showed up in Cairo only two days after the uprising began and was immediately named a negotiator by the Muslim Brotherhood. In fact, he had been waiting in the wings for quite a while.

He’s on the board of an organization headed by George Soros and Zbigniew Brzezinski called International Crisis Group. Brzezinski is the same man who supervised the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1979.

Another board member of the ICC is one Javier Solana. Solana is one of the most powerful figures in the European Union. Because of Solana’s Marxist sympathies, and his support for the regime of Cuba’s Fidel Castro, Solana was on the USA’s subversive list.

Former U.S. National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, who once smuggled incriminating documents out of the Clinton White House [editor's note: the documents were smuggled out of the National Archives] by hiding them in his clothing, is another Board Member, as is General Wesley Clark, once fired from his NATO command.

Mohamed El Baradei also sits on the ICC’s Board and thus, seeing the hand of George Soros along with the other players who for so long have plotted against the West and Israel, the Islamists are joined together.”
Thanks to Ted Belman

Sunday, February 20, 2011

HuffPost's anti-Semitic, pro-Islamist bias: Lara Logan gang-rape edition

Huff Watch

“[T]oo many reporters have forgotten that the highest calling of journalists is to ferret out the truth, consequences be damned.”
- Arianna Huffington, July 29, 2008

“[W]e are increasingly seen ... as an Internet newspaper, not positioned ideologically in terms of how we cover the news.”
- Arianna Huffington, May 22, 2009

On Tuesday, Feb. 15, HuffPost gave top-line coverage to the shocking story of CBS correspondent Lara Logan. According to numerous reports, Logan was kidnapped in Cairo's Tahrir Square by an estimated 200 Egyptian men, savagely beaten and sexually assaulted for 30 minutes before she was rescued. (Right: Logan, moments just before she was kidnapped.)

HuffPost posted one "update" to the story indicating that Logan would soon be released from the hospital. Yet HuffPost completely ignored reports that CBS News and other sources claimed Ms. Logan's attackers shouted "JEW!!! JEW!!!" as they assaulted her.

Why did HuffPost omit this critical aspect of the story? Would it have also ignored a story been about a gang of 200 Jewish men who kidnapped and gang-raped a female Muslim journalist, while shouting "MUSLIM!!! MUSLIM!!!"?

We contend that HuffPost's decision to ignore that part of the Logan story was the latest manifestation of its long-documented anti-Semitic, pro-Islamist bias. Specifically, as we've documented over and over again, HuffPost pathologically (a) applies an egregious double-standard to news concerning Jews and Jewish affairs, and (b) protects radical Islamists from being held to public account for their barbaric acts and statements.

This article is divided into three parts:

(1) How we know that HuffPost completely ignored reports Ms. Logan's attackers shouted "JEW!!! JEW!!!" as they assaulted her.
(2) The "news" items that HuffPost decided to publish on its front page and World page, instead of anything regarding this aspect of story.
(3) How HuffPost's actions in this regard compare to its historic approach to covering (a) Inflammatory allegations against Jews, for which it knows there is no proof, and (b) Documented acts and threats of savage violence against Jews by radical Islamists

(1) How we know that HuffPost completely ignored reports Ms. Logan's attackers shouted "JEW!!! JEW!!!" as they assaulted her.

HuffPost published its version of the story about Ms. Logan's abduction and attack on Feb. 15 at 4:23pm.

Nine hours later, on Feb. 16 at 1:19am, the New York Post broke the following story:

"60 Minutes" correspondent Lara Logan was repeatedly sexually assaulted by thugs yelling, "Jew! Jew!" as she covered the chaotic fall of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo's main square Friday, CBS and sources said yesterday.

Soon thereafter, the Jerusalem Post, Fox News, the Boston Herald, and conservative, pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli blogs all began publicizing the story. Given the fact that HuffPost has a crack team of 53 "editors" who pull insane "news" stories from the most obscure corners of the Web (example 1, 2, 3), it is simply not credible to assert that it was unaware of this report. Yet HuffPost completely ignored it. How do we know? Easy.

First, here's a screencap of HuffPost's story page as of Feb. 19. Notice that the only update was that "Ms. Logan is reportedly being released from the hospital on Wednesday," meaning Feb. 16 --- and meaning that this "update" was posted on Tuesday, Feb. 15.

Second, here's a PDF that was taken of a search at HuffPost using the term "Lara Logan" --- on Feb. 17 at 12:18pm, nearly 36 hours after the New York Post story broke. Do you notice anything missing? There's not a single news story that mentioned anything regarding anyone shouting, "Jew!!!"

Even HuffPost's selection and positioning of blog articles on the Logan attack reflect its anti-Semitic bias --- and its willingness to protect radical Islamists.

HuffPost also published a number of blog articles (opinion pieces) pertaining to the Logan attack --- and its actions in this regard further reflect its anti-Semitic, pro-Islamist bias:

* At 11:30am on Feb. 16 --- ten hours after reports broke that Ms. Logan's attackers were yelling, "JEW!!! JEW!!!" --- HuffPost decided to publish near the top of its front page a blog article by Islamist-apologizing "anthropologist." It falsely claimed that there's nothing inherent in the radical Islamist mindset (which is dominant in Egypt) that leads to women and girls being subjected to savage brutality. Perhaps this scholar, and HuffPost's crack team of worldly editors, are unaware of this, this and this (caution: graphic media). Because of the prominent positioning that HuffPost gave the piece, it got 741 user comments as of Feb. 18.

* On Feb. 17, HuffPost published a blog article that described the reality of the widespread abuse of females in Egypt, without reference to any religion. But HuffPost placed this story somewhere beyond public view --- not on the front page, and not on the World page (we know, because we checked). Because of its obscure positioning, the piece only got 7 user comments as of Feb. 18.

(2) So what kinds of "news" items did HuffPost decide were more important to publish on its front page and World page?

Here's a sampling of the "news" stories that HuffPost decided to publish on its front page, on Feb. 17-18 (clockwise from top left):

(1) At the top of front page was "Arianna discusses her editorial vision"
(2) Just beneath that was "Transsexual model on Oprah"
(3) A little further down: A picture of Bill O'Reilly defaced with clown makeup
(4) Kitten dress-up - "An orgy of cuteness"

And here's a sampling of the "news" stories that HuffPost decided to publish on its World page, on Feb. 17-18 (clockwise from top left):

(1) "Nazi 3D films from 1936 discovered"
(2) "Pick-up artist teaches Chinese men the art of seduction" (posted 2/14)
(3) "Berlusconi's teen lover wants to be compensated"
(4) "Female anchor mocks co-host's manhood live on-air"

HuffPost decided that these stories are more important for its global audience to be aware of, than reports from CBS and other sources that Lara Logan's attackers yelled "JEW!!! JEWS!!!" as they beat and sexually assaulted her?

(3) How HuffPost's actions in regard to the Logan attack compare to its historic approach to covering (a) Inflammatory allegations against Jews, for which it knows there is no proof, and (b) Documented acts and threats of savage violence against Jews by radical Islamists

Our archive of documentation of HuffPost's anti-Semitic, pro-Islamist bias is overflowing with examples of the double-standard it applies to its coverage of Jewish vs. Muslim/Islamist news, issues and inflammatory content. Following are some highlights, with links to the master documentation.

As you peruse these examples, and consider the pattern of HuffPost editorial decisions that produced them, keep in the back of your mind the question we asked earlier:

Do you think if a gang of 200 Jews kidnapped a female Muslim reporter, and gang-raped her while shouting "MUSLIM!!! MUSLIM!!!," HuffPost might give it some coverage?

Anyone who's paid attention to our deep documentation of HuffPost's approach to Israeli and Jewish affairs knows with 100% certainty that it would give such a story 72pt red headline treatment (like this, or this) for a week. But rather than speculating, let's focus on HuffPost's specific historic acts and omissions that give clear indication of its bias concerning radical Islamist and Jewish affairs, that bear relation to what happened to Ms. Logan.

(a) HuffPost routinely publishes on its front page inflammatory allegations against Jews, for which it knows there is no proof.

HuffPost may claim that it had no triple-checked, hard evidence with which to support CBS's and other sources' allegations about the Egyptian men yelling "JEW!!! JEW!!!" at Ms. Logan as they beat and assaulted her. If that were its journalistic standard (which it isn't), then there is no explanation for the following:

* When Israeli Jews were accused of murdering Palestinian Muslims to "harvest their organs," HuffPost published prominently on its front page ---- even though the "journalist" admitted in the story that he had "no idea, no clue" if the allegations were true or not. Yet when numerous reports came out soon thereafter that revealed (a) the allegation is medically impossible, and (b) the Palestinian family at the center of the story denied ever making the allegation, HuffPost completely ignored them. (Link)

* When the Israeli military merely detained a female Palestinian journalist, HuffPost put the story, along with her face and her allegations of her "interrogation," on its front page, not knowing whether it was PallyWood propaganda (Link; screencap below, left).

* When a group of unruly rabbis reportedly "spit on" what HuffPost claimed is a "seasoned" journalist, again, HuffPost put that on its front page --- even though there was zero proof, and it turns out the "journalist" had just been exposed for her anti-Israel bias (Link; screencap below, center).

* When the notorious, jihadist-celebrating al-Jazeera posted a totally unverifiable smear --- alleging that Israeli guards "humiliated" a female detainee --- HuffPost ran it right on its front page, not knowing whether it was PallyWood propaganda (Link; screencap below, right).

* "Outrageous Statements": HuffPost periodically runs items on its front page alluding to "outrageous statements" by Israeli officials and religious figures. (Link) Yet it pathologically ignores, and has never run a comparable analysis of "outrageous statements" by Hamas, Hezbollah and other radical Islamist terror groups --- which tend to include genocidal threats. (Link; more, more)

(b) HuffPost routinely ignores or buries documented acts and threats of savage violence against Jews by radical Islamists.

Conversely, even when HuffPost has direct access to abundant physical proof of radical Islamists' savagery --- such as Hamas's own words, and pictures of it celebrating its murder of Jewish civilians --- it pathologically refuses to feature any of it.

* In December 2010, HuffPost gave front-page coverage of Hamas's claim that it was committed to a "cease-fire" with Israel. Yet in the prior weeks, completely ignored every one of Hamas's admitted rocket attacks and attempts to murder Jews, and its genocidal threats against them. Instead, HuffPost published "news" stories on its front page such as color pictures of Hitler at Christmas (which it'd been running on both pages for four days straight), and video of chimpanzees opening Christmas presents. (Link; more)

* Our special report, "HuffPost's pathological anti-Semitic bias: Children's edition," documented the fact that it buried, then quickly removed the story of Hamas's targeting and murder of four Jewish civilians --- including a mother of six who was nine months pregnant. It also completely ignored the names and pictures of the victims and their funeral --- as well as pictures of Hamas leading jubilant celebrations in Gaza over this "heroic act" --- all of which were readily-available. Yet when militant Islamists are killed by Israel in the course of attempting to arrest them, or sneaking into Israel, HuffPost routinely twists the stories to make them appear as "victims," features their names and pictures, and coverage of their funerals. More here, here, here.

(Inset: 9-year-old Hodoya Imes, seen at the funeral of her father and mother --- who was nine months pregnant --- at the time they were targeted and machine-gunned to death by Hamas. If only the Imes weren't Jewish, perhaps HuffPost would have given this outrage a scrap of the personal coverage it gives to militant Islamists who get killed.)

* When Israel was blamed for a cross-border dispute with Lebanon, HuffPost put the story on its front page. Yet when it was revealed that Israel was the victim, and that Lebanon/Hezbollah had murdered a beloved IDF officer, HuffPost moved the story to a secondary page, then quickly removed it. HuffPost ignored the personal story of the IDF officer, refusing even to publish his name or picture --- yet decided that "news" stories about a parasailing donkey, and a woman who paints with her nipples, were more important to post --- and keep posted for days on end. (Link)

* As noted above, HuffPost has a fetish for giving coverage to what it deems "outrageous statements" made by Israeli politicians and religious figures. Yet when when HuffPost's Middle East correspondent was given an exclusive interview with a top Hamas leader, she asked him not a single question about its "outrageous statements" (some of which she actually echoed). Further, it ran the story on its front page, and even allowed her to lash out against users who criticized her fawning approach. (Link)

"What the Hell Is Going On?"

Arlene Kushner

On Friday the US vetoed the resolution that had been advanced in the UN Security Council by Lebanon, on behalf of Palestinian Authority, that would have condemned the Israeli "settlements" as illegal; the other 14 members of the SC voted for this -- which, according to Abbas made his venture a success.

OK. Good. Better that it was vetoed. Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed appreciation to President Obama. Certain members of Congress, who had called on the president to cast that vote, did the same.

But from me Obama gets no thanks. He wasn't doing this to support us. The US government has made it clear that it is opposed in principle to the "settlements." It's just that it is still committed to getting parties to return to the negotiating table. As US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, put it, "This draft resolution risks hardening the positions of both sides. It could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations, and, if and when they did resume, to return to the Security Council whenever they reach an impasse."


Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and the very best friend we have in Congress, put it most aptly:

"The administration's display of angst and its hesitation to use its veto is a major victory for those extremists elements who relish in demonizing Israel. And for the administration to go as far as calling the choice to veto regrettable is simply shameful."

Oh, right on, Ileana!


What I want to examine is that American "angst" and the fallout that has ensued.

Obama had begun by making an alternative offer to the Palestinian Arabs. He had his reasons for not wanting to declare the "settlements" illegal in the Security Council, but his alternative proposal contained a good number of items that would have been troublesome: A statement by the Quartet, a statement by the President of the Security Council, an official visit to Judea and Samaria by the Security Council.


Definitely not a position that was friendly to us. And with regard to Obama's relation to Israel, this is what must be kept in mind:

In a time of severe unrest in the area, with Obama professing support for the people in the street who are ostensibly seeking democracy, Israel, the only genuine and stable democracy in the Middle East, is being undercut by America.


When the alternative offer was rejected by the PA, with the backing of the PLO, Obama placed a phone call to Abbas, which, I have read, lasted the better part of an hour. Reportedly, he told Abbas that he had done more for the PA than any other American president. Sounds about right.

But what we're seeing is that even this didn't carry the day with Abbas. So little is Obama's influence.


The PA news agency Sama has additionally carried a report from a senior member of Fatah saying that Secretary of State Clinton threatened to cancel aid to the PA if Abbas didn't withdraw the resolution.

Didn't make a dent with Abbas, either. He simply said he had to act for the good of his people.


What we are seeing, my friends, is a US that has lost all clout, an America that is going, going down.

It's a painful, pathetic sight, with manifold implications and repercussions -- none positive.

But it is hardly unexpected. Being "nice" does not work with the Arabs. Remember how Obama called Abbas first after becoming president?

All of it is for naught, if you're not tough. The more you give, the more they expect, and ultimately, the more disappointed they are.


Israeli MK Ibrahim Sarsour, a member of the United Arab List, wrote a letter to Abbas yesterday. It gives us an idea of what the Arabs are thinking:

"After the exposure of lies from the US, we must say frankly to Obama,'You no longer scare us and you can go to hell.' Obama cannot be trusted...The time has come to spit in the face of Americans....

"[The veto] proves for the thousandth time that Obama is worse than his predecessor Bush in his loyalty to Israel, his bias...and in ignoring the ongoing crimes against the Palestinian people, land and holy places."

Incredible! Bush never demanded that settlements be frozen, and Bush, whatever his failings, was certainly more supportive of Israel and tougher with the PA than Obama. There's the lesson.


Nor is this the end of it:

The PA has threatened to reconsider its position on negotiations. Abbas is saying he may bring a similar resolution to the General Assembly.

While yesterday Palestinian Arabs were calling for a "Day of Rage," to take place next Friday, to express anger at the US for the veto. This was proposed by Tawfik Tirawi, a member of the Fatah Central Committee.

A PA "Day of Rage" against the US. Imagine...


And then, in news just out, we have this further wrinkle: PA Prime Minister Salam Fayyad has approached Hamas with a unity deal. Don't know that it's much of a deal, actually. What he proposes is that the PA continue to rule in Judea and Samaria, with Hamas -- pledged to maintaining a cease fire with Israel -- continuing to rule in Gaza. The two parties would then work out a way to place both areas under one governing body.

But the devil really is in the details. Hamas demands for control have been such that there has been no understanding with the PA forthcoming despite multiple efforts towards unity. Until this were to be worked out, there would be no "unity," no matter what the parties might choose to call it.


So far, there has been no comment from Hamas. And it is far too soon to speculate on the obviously negative impact some unity deal would have on "the peace process."

The PA is constantly doing a dance between the two poles of the US and Hamas. On this occasion, as I see it, Fayyad is thumbing his nose at the US, by demonstrating intention to waltz towards Hamas. Likely more gesture than reality. But we'll see...


We'll never hear about it, but could it be that Obama is so furious at the conduct of the PA that he has smoke coming out of his ears? Or is he thinking about how he can offer more concessions to appease them and bring them around?

Does it dawn on him at all that a party as intransigent as the PA is not going to sit at a negotiating table and make the compromises requisite for peace? Is he planning to keep on pushing for the impossible? Or has he silently thrown up his hands in resignation?


The only thing that makes sense at all is a tough stance with the PA now -- which, in any event, is what we are least likely to see from Obama.


Closer to home, what matters most is that Israel should stand tough:

No making concessions to Obama, to show "gratitude" for his veto.
No backing off on our rights to live and build in Judea and Samaria in order to "help" jumpstart negotiations.

I understand that Netanyahu felt it necessary to thank Obama. And I even understand that he has resorted to his role-playing: his efforts to show the world how eager Israel is to make peace, while the PA remains a stumbling block.

But did he have to say this: "We seek a solution that will reconcile the Palestinians' legitimate aspirations for statehood with Israel's need for security..."

Ouch! There is nothing legitimate about Palestinian Arab aspirations.


But there is another approach that brings with it the comforting prospect that Israel will stand strong:

The Ministerial Committee for Legislation is considering a bill that would apply Israeli civil law to all communities in Judea and Samaria, where military law now applies. (This is not annexation.)

It should have been done many years ago, for as matters stand, Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria have all the obligations and responsibilities of citizenship without the full benefit of the civic system. This would make clear that all people who are Israeli citizens are to be treated the same, and would send a powerful message.

Most significantly, the authority to approve, or fail to approve, construction would no longer fall to Defense Minister Ehud Barak -- this would be within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Housing and Construction and would pretty much preclude a freeze on building.

The bill is being sponsored by National Union; the 27 MKs who support it come, as well, from Likud and Yisrael Beitenu.


I'm not terribly optimistic that this will pass. As I understand it, the sponsors of the bill are realistic about its slim chances of succeeding.

But it is an important beginning: putting issues on the table and demonstrating a position of strength.


Tomorrow is another day...


© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.

see my website

A Canadian-born Israeli warns of the dangers posed by Israel's Arab citizens


Today, after 38 years in Israel, I drive on the highway from Akko-Acco east towards the Sea of Galilee. Along the way are large advertisement billboards. I have no idea what they say or what they are selling. They are written in Arabic. Not one word in Hebrew. Central Galilee, main highway - in this year 2011.

How does one begin composing a thesis on the end of an era; the willing self-demise of a sovereign entity? How can one explain such a phenomenon? How can one induce his peers to read about such an unthinkable prospect? I do not know. My father’s teenage aunts were twins. I was told they were abused during a pogrom; one was carried off on horseback and never heard from again. My father’s parents were sent by their families to western Europe at the beginning of the last century. Those that remained behind perished either in pogroms or during the Holocaust. The members of my father’s family were abused and/or murdered until 1945.

Then things changed and in 1972, in the middle of a ‘Golden Age’ for Jews, I came to Israel from Vancouver, my father’s choice of refuge after WWII. One thing was clear to me at that time, when I was just turning 16 years old: I would spend my life building a Jewish country where my children and their children’s children would always be safe, forever. And that is what I set out to do.

I finished my last three years of high school and went into the army with the rest of my class. The first time I rolled along the Sinai Desert in a tank was at night. There was a full moon, the desert a majestic silvery color. My heart was pounding and I became aware of the tears in my eyes: I was among the first generation of my family, after 2000 years, to be in a position to protect my people’s homeland. I felt privileged, and honored.

Later, in 1977, as a tank commander in the Jordan valley, I found myself standing in the turret of my tank, looking across the valley toward Jordan. Turning my head westward to the rear I could see Jerusalem, the dawn sun giving it an awe-inspiring glow. Suddenly I felt a tingle run down my spine as I realized that I was protecting Jerusalem, which had been returned to my people only 10 years previously. I was building my children’s future.

Now, after 38 years, I am asking myself, “What is happening after so many wars, so much sacrifice, and the toil of so many people”? For the last 20 years my closest friends have been Arabs. My best friend is a Moslem Arab. But let’s take a moment to consider something. In Israel there is, what’s referred to as, ‘Mishmar Ezrachi’ - a branch of the police force. These units exist all over the country and are comprised of civilians and policemen. A civilian will undergo training and then take part in regular police assignments together with a policeman or perhaps with another civilian and two policemen.

My best friend’s son is 16.5 years old. As said, he is a Moslem Arab. He volunteers once a week, cruising in police squad cars. He has, among other things, had target practice at the shooting range a few times, both with rifles and hand guns.

Now, in the past, all Israeli senior high school students underwent a week of army cadet training. However, my children’s school does not participate in this activity anymore as it is seen as unnecessary. So, while Arab children are getting arms training, my Jewish children are not.

I am a Disabled Veteran. I have held a handgun license for over 23 years, was a detective on the Jerusalem police force, and was commander of my mountaintop community during the riots in the year 2000, responsible for the holding and distributing of rifles among community members. This last week I went to renew my handgun license at the government office. The renewal was denied. I was refused on the basis of my disability which I received in 1982 during the first war in Lebanon. Interestingly enough the details written in the paragraph above took place after 1982. Suddenly I am not fit to carry a weapon. Let’s take a closer look at this and please, bear with me.

My best friend’s village, as other Israeli Arab villages, was under Israeli military rule until 1966. Israeli Arabs were still considered the enemy, requiring a legal pass leaving and entering these villages by the inhabitants. Furthermore, in the riots of 2000, the rifles dispersed in the Jewish communities such as mine were provided so we could protect ourselves from these Arab villagers, some of whom attempted to burn Jewish communities and ‘lynch’ Jewish residents and motorists on the highways. Moreover, in 2009 during a ‘mini-riot’ in my friend’s village, I was the recipient of a large stone (which luckily left only a dent in my car). I was stuck in traffic by masses of Arabs on the road preventing me leaving the village. Suddenly, while sitting in my car waiting to get through, I heard my name called. A friend of mine from this same village asked “What the hell are you doing here? You must get out!” He pointed out the best direction to leave from.

Is it difficult to see where I am going with this? Today Moslem Arabs such as my friend’s son are given target practice with various weapons and take part in police patrols in Jewish neighborhoods (while at the same time the police are reluctant to enter the Arab villages for fear of riots) while I, a veteran, an ardent Zionist, am refused the right to continue to hold my handgun license, to protect my family. Oh, I almost forgot. This same boy will not be going into the I.D.F (though more and more Moslems are) as he doesn’t want to have to “shoot over the heads of other Arabs if Israel goes to war with Arab countries” - this is a quote. So, he is getting target practice but the question remains: "Who does he intend to shoot?"

So where am I going with this story, and how do I continue to try to explain how we are bringing about our own demise at a rapid pace? Perhaps I should write about how, during the last year I have developed an ongoing discussion within myself as to how to explain to my children that, although they have been raised with the identity of a "people among peoples" of the world, with the right to live as equals among the nations, that in their own country it is not to be. What do I tell my son, who has given three years to the army, and continues reserve duty as he studies for his Masters degree, my daughter who is now an officer in the I.D.F., or my younger daughter who is doing a year of community service before she enters the I.D.F. next, or my youngest daughter still in junior high tell them what? That our leaders are ...what?

How do I explain to them why the word ‘Zionism’ is becoming blasphemy? How do I explain an Arab professor in a Jewish college refusing a student (on leave from reserves) in army uniform, entrance into the classroom? How do I explain that the Israeli authorities know Israeli Arabs are backed by Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas, in the purchase of housing in Jewish cities? And when a few weeks ago 50 rabbis signed a paper telling people not to sell homes to Arabs, they were blasted by Knesset members and all of the news media, and referred to as racists? How do I explain that nowadays, a Jew standing in court before an Arab judge would be at a great disadvantage if he was known as a Zionist?

There are so many things I do not know how to explain to my children. Perhaps I could start by telling them of the privilege I have had of counting among my friends Jews who were in the British army during WWII until 1948. (Most are deceased now.) They spoke of how, as British soldiers and officers, they organized raids on British armory warehouses and how they passed on information to the Jewish leaders and the illegal Jewish armed forces. And how they learned to fight and to lead. It was clear that as soon as the time was right, they would shed their British uniforms and don Jewish ones. Others, from this same generation, spoke of how the Jews prepared an infrastructure ready to assume all civil administration at some point in the future when independence - still a dream at the time - would arrive. They were Zionists, and together with Jews in the Diaspora, it was clear, without the need of verbalizing it, that they were all working toward Jewish independence in then - Palestine.

Where am I going with this? Simple. Today Israeli Arabs are doing exactly the same thing! It is a clear, quiet, need-not-be-spoken understanding of what is to be. Today’s’ Arabs, both Christian and Moslem, are inducted into the I.D.F. They are in almost all units, wearing all the various tags and berets. And they tote sub-machine guns. They are also judges, hospital administrators, members of parliament, and heads of police stations. They have been taught and are being taught everything required to assume power.

They are no longer being so secretive about their ideas for the future, but no Jews are listening.