Melanie Phillips
Is the Obama administration using either leaks or black propaganda to sabotage Israel’s defence against the threat of genocide? America’s former ambassador to the UN John Bolton certainly thinks so – and he is not a man given to rash speculation.
An article on the website of Foreign Policy magazine last Wednesday, written by former unofficial Yasser Arafat adviser and established Israel-basher Mark Perry, quoted four unnamed ‘senior diplomats’ and ‘intelligence officers’ saying that Israel had been granted access to air bases in Azerbaijan on Iran’s northern border. The article suggested that this meant Israel planned to use Azerbaijan either for a strike at Iran or for other support for such an attack. An Azeri official has subsequently said the claim that Azerbaijan has granted Israel access to its air bases for an attack is ‘absurd and groundless’. That denial, however, is clearly limited. And several observers have concluded that whether this is a genuine leak or disinformation, the story is an attempt to harm Israel by its principal western ally. Indeed, assuming it is not a total fabrication but is based on actual briefings, it is hard to conclude anything else.
On Fox News, Bolton said :
‘I think this leak today is part of the administration’s campaign against an Israeli attack.’ ... Bolton, a Fox News contributor, noted that a strike launched from Azerbaijan would be much easier for the Israelis than a strike launched from their own country -- jets could stay over their targets longer and worry less about refueling. But he said tipping the Israelis’ hand by revealing “very sensitive, very important information” could frustrate such a plan.
...“Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak,” Bolton told FoxNews.com. “This is not a rogue CIA guy saying I think I’ll leak this out. It’s just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies.”
As Dan Margalit asks in the Israeli paper Israel Hayom:
‘What reasonable interest does someone in the Pentagon have in hardening the Iranian pharaoh’s heart on the eve of Passover, and indicating to him that he has nothing to fear? This borders on insanity.’
Sabotaging an ally’s defences in this manner goes much further than Obama’s previous known position in trying to stop an Israeli attack on Iran. This actively assists Iran, and thus potentially places the lives of millions at risk from that regime’s deranged belligerency. Is this what Obama meant when he tried to reassure American Jews recently that
‘...when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back’?
And since Iran does not merely threaten Israel but is already at war with America and the west it has pledged to destroy, is this not in fact a knife in the back of the west itself?1
---
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/29/bolton-accuses-administration-leaking-story-on-israeli-planning-along-iran/#content
Bolton accuses administration of leaking story on Israeli planning along Iran border
Published March 29, 2012
| FoxNews.com
Former U.S. diplomat John Bolton alleged Thursday that the Obama administration leaked a story about covert Israeli activity in order to foil potential plans by the country to attack Iran's nuclear program.
Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the George W. Bush administration, was responding to an article in Foreign Policy magazine that quoted government sources claiming Israel had been granted access to airfields in Azerbaijan -- along Iran's northern border.
The article did not state exactly what the Israelis' intentions were, but it suggested it could point to a possible strike on Iran.
"I think this leak today is part of the administration's campaign against an Israeli attack," Bolton claimed on Fox News.
The White House did not respond to Bolton's claims Thursday.
Bolton, a Fox News contributor, noted that a strike launched from Azerbaijan would be much easier for the Israelis than a strike launched from their own country -- jets could stay over their targets longer and worry less about refueling. But he said tipping the Israelis' hand by revealing "very sensitive, very important information" could frustrate such a plan.
Speaking afterward to FoxNews.com, Bolton said he didn't have hard proof that this was an intentional administration leak to halt an Israeli attack.
But he noted widely reported comments from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in February that he thinks the Israelis could strike as early as April. If that's the case, Bolton said, then it would be "entirely consistent" for the administration to try to avoid that impending outcome.
The Foreign Policy article quoted what were identified as "high-level sources ... inside the U.S. government." It specifically mentioned "four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers."
One intelligence officer, who was unnamed, told the magazine that the U.S. was "watching" the activity and was "not happy about it."
The Foreign Policy article did not specify whether any of the information came from the White House, and there is no direct evidence that this was a coordinated leak.
"Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak," Bolton told FoxNews.com. "This is not a rogue CIA guy saying I think I'll leak this out."
"It's just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies," Bolton said.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Once again, Obama undermines Israel’s ability to defend itself.
Bolton accuses administration of leaking story on Israeli planning along Iran border
By John Bolton
http://israel-commentary.org/?p=3175
FoxNews.com
Former U.S. diplomat John Bolton alleged Thursday that the Obama administration leaked a story about covert Israeli activity in order to foil potential plans by the country to attack Iran’s nuclear program.
Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the George W. Bush administration, was responding to an article in Foreign Policy magazine that quoted government sources claiming Israel had been granted access to airfields in Azerbaijan — along Iran’s northern border. The article did not state exactly what the Israelis’ intentions were, but it suggested it could point to a possible strike on Iran. ”I think this leak today is part of the administration’s campaign against an Israeli attack,” Bolton claimed on Fox News.
The White House did not respond to Bolton’s claims Thursday.
Bolton, a Fox News contributor, noted that a strike launched from Azerbaijan would be much easier for the Israelis than a strike launched from their own country — jets could stay over their targets longer and worry less about refueling. But he said tipping the Israelis’ hand by revealing “very sensitive, very important information” could frustrate such a plan. Speaking afterward to FoxNews.com, Bolton said he didn’t have hard proof that this was an intentional administration leak to halt an Israeli attack.
But he noted widely reported comments from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in February that he thinks the Israelis could strike as early as April. If that’s the case, Bolton said, then it would be “entirely consistent” for the administration to try to avoid that impending outcome. The Foreign Policy article quoted what were identified as “high-level sources … inside the U.S. government.” It specifically mentioned “four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers.”
One intelligence officer, who was unnamed, told the magazine that the U.S. was “watching” the activity and was “not happy about it.”The Foreign Policy article did not specify whether any of the information came from the White House, and there is no direct evidence that this was a coordinated leak.
“Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak,” Bolton told FoxNews.com. “This is not a rogue CIA guy saying I think I’ll leak this out.” “It’s just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies,” Bolton said.
And Mark Steyn Says: Well, I think if you wanted just a single reason to vote this guy out in November, this is pretty much it. It’s part of a pattern. He regretted, a couple of years ago, that he didn’t have the freedom of maneuver that the politburo does in China. And we know that in China, it’s a dictatorship. In Russia, Vladimir Putin rigs the elections. Here, there’s 300 million people who have got all kinds of whimsical ideas about this and that, and they’re getting in his way. And for him to actually be sitting there next to the president of a hostile power, and say oh, believe me, I so envy you, you wouldn’t believe the trouble I have with this crazy democracy business back home, I can’t wait until that’s all behind me, and then I can just do what I want, that alone ought to be a disqualifier for office.
Elaine F. Miller, Esq.
By John Bolton
http://israel-commentary.org/?p=3175
FoxNews.com
Former U.S. diplomat John Bolton alleged Thursday that the Obama administration leaked a story about covert Israeli activity in order to foil potential plans by the country to attack Iran’s nuclear program.
Bolton, who served as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the George W. Bush administration, was responding to an article in Foreign Policy magazine that quoted government sources claiming Israel had been granted access to airfields in Azerbaijan — along Iran’s northern border. The article did not state exactly what the Israelis’ intentions were, but it suggested it could point to a possible strike on Iran. ”I think this leak today is part of the administration’s campaign against an Israeli attack,” Bolton claimed on Fox News.
The White House did not respond to Bolton’s claims Thursday.
Bolton, a Fox News contributor, noted that a strike launched from Azerbaijan would be much easier for the Israelis than a strike launched from their own country — jets could stay over their targets longer and worry less about refueling. But he said tipping the Israelis’ hand by revealing “very sensitive, very important information” could frustrate such a plan. Speaking afterward to FoxNews.com, Bolton said he didn’t have hard proof that this was an intentional administration leak to halt an Israeli attack.
But he noted widely reported comments from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in February that he thinks the Israelis could strike as early as April. If that’s the case, Bolton said, then it would be “entirely consistent” for the administration to try to avoid that impending outcome. The Foreign Policy article quoted what were identified as “high-level sources … inside the U.S. government.” It specifically mentioned “four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers.”
One intelligence officer, who was unnamed, told the magazine that the U.S. was “watching” the activity and was “not happy about it.”The Foreign Policy article did not specify whether any of the information came from the White House, and there is no direct evidence that this was a coordinated leak.
“Clearly, this is an administration-orchestrated leak,” Bolton told FoxNews.com. “This is not a rogue CIA guy saying I think I’ll leak this out.” “It’s just unprecedented to reveal this kind of information about one of your own allies,” Bolton said.
And Mark Steyn Says: Well, I think if you wanted just a single reason to vote this guy out in November, this is pretty much it. It’s part of a pattern. He regretted, a couple of years ago, that he didn’t have the freedom of maneuver that the politburo does in China. And we know that in China, it’s a dictatorship. In Russia, Vladimir Putin rigs the elections. Here, there’s 300 million people who have got all kinds of whimsical ideas about this and that, and they’re getting in his way. And for him to actually be sitting there next to the president of a hostile power, and say oh, believe me, I so envy you, you wouldn’t believe the trouble I have with this crazy democracy business back home, I can’t wait until that’s all behind me, and then I can just do what I want, that alone ought to be a disqualifier for office.
Elaine F. Miller, Esq.
Friday, March 30, 2012
How Deep is the Christian-Jewish Abyss?
Denying Christian anti-Judaism will never bring peace between Jews and Christians. Pope Benedict and Protestant leaders must atone for what Christianity has done to the Jewish people by recognizing the unique place of the Jews and Israel.
Giulio Meotti
The writer, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah", that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror victims, published by Encounter. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage
As Jews prepare to celebrate Pessah, Christians are ready for Easter.
Tragically, there is no time on the Christian calendar more associated with anti-Semitism than Easter. In the year 1144, in Norwich, England, 19 Jews were hanged without a trial. This marked the first time that Jews were accused of the blood libel - murdering Christians to use their blood in rituals. Then the libel crossed the channel into France: 32 Jews were burned at the stake in Blois.
Over the next centuries, Easter became a time of fear for the Jewish people. In 1497, Passover coincided with a cruel decree issued by King Manuel of Portugal, who ordered all Jewish children to be forcibly converted to Catholicism. Countless thousands of Jewish youngsters were baptized and then handed over to be raised by Catholic families.
With traumatic memories of deicide charges and pogroms, Easter is the most challenging time of the year for Christian-Jewish discourse.
A few days ago in a special interview with Die Tagespost, Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Fouad Twal, a “moderate” cleric named by Pope Benedict to represent the Catholic communities in the Jewish State, declared that “Israel’s existence as such has nothing to do with the Bible”.
Twal then compared Christians’ condition in today’s Jerusalem with Jesus’ Passion: “We Christians never forget that even our Lord himself suffered and was mocked in Jerusalem”. The Catholic Archbishop encouraged anti-Semitism by employing deicide imagery.
Denial of Israel’s religious and historical claims to the land is not new in the Catholic hierarchy. In a 2010’s Vatican synod on the Middle East, the most important event in a decade for the Holy See, bishops declared that “we Christians cannot speak about the Promised Land for the Jewish people”.
Elias Chacour, the Catholic Archbishop of Israel, said that “we do not believe anymore that the Jews are the Chosen People”.
“There is no longer a chosen people”, said Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros, chosen by the Pope to draft the synod’s conclusions. He resurrected the ancient calumny that the Jews are damned as cosmic exiles. “The concept of the promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians”.
This is the same delusional lexicon of medieval Jew-hatred of Norwich. The Archbishop’s attack on Israel was not a single incident, but was reinforced in the final message of the synod which, under the heading “Cooperation and Dialogue with the Jews”, argued that “recourse to theological and biblical positions, which use the Word of God to wrongly justify injustices, is not acceptable”.
The malignant use of the expression “chosen Jews” inspired the pogroms, the expulsion of the Spanish Jews and Martin Luther’s anti-Semitism (the founder of Protestantism argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people, but instead “the Devil’s people”).
Orthodox Eastern Christianity is also imbued with theological enmity for the Jews. “Modern-day Jews are not God’s chosen people”, the former head of Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Church, Pope Shenouda III, recently declared in a meeting with former US President Jimmy Carter. “Do not believe their claims that they are God’s chosen people, because it is not true”.
Today the Christian arena is divided among the mainline Protestant churches, which are prominently anti-Israel; the Vatican, which embraced a new aggressiveness against Israel; the US Evangelicals, which are pro-Israel, and independent Protestant groups based in Europe, like Christians for Israel.
It is true that some Evangelicals did not show a real tendency to curtail their missionary activities among Jews, but the hostility toward Israel and the Jews encouraged by institutionalized global Christians, such as the World Council of Churches and the Vatican, poses a much greater near-term threat to Jews.
Professor Paul Merkley’s wonderful book, “Those That Bless You, I Will Bless” (Mantua Books), sheds light on these anti-Israel Churches. Merkley’s book is the most significant work about the current religious ditch, told from a Christian perspective.
The Church of England reviewed its investments in companies with ties to Israel’s presence in the territories.
The Methodist Church of Britain recently launched a boycott against goods emanating from Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.
All five of the mainline denominations in the United States – Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran and United Church of Christ – have debated and adopted policies intended to divest or boycott Israel. During the upcoming General Conference of the United Methodist Church scheduled for April 25 in Tampa, Florida, and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA (June 30 in Pittsburgh), anti-Israel actions in the form of boycott, divestment or sanctions are expected to be brought to the floor for a vote.
The World Council of Churches, an umbrella organization of Protestants claiming a membership of 580 million worshippers, produced the “Amman Call”, which denies Israel’s right to continue to exist as a Jewish State.
While the United States is home to millions of Christian supporters of Israel, these are anti-Jewish Churches which are more closely attached to public opinion, the media industry, the United Nations and global legal forums.
The World Council of Churches, an umbrella organization of Protestants claiming a membership of 580 million worshippers, produced the “Amman Call”, which denies Israel’s right to continue to exist as a Jewish State.
Serge Duss, Director of the New Century Evangelicals Project, is one of the Protestant leaders who claim that modern Israelis are not descended from Biblical Jews.
Often identified as strong supporters of Israel, Pentecostal Christians are also being targeted by anti-Israel activists from the Evangelical camp. The Society for Pentecostal Studies just gathered in Virginia, where it screened “Little Town of Bethlehem”, a film with a virulent anti-Israel message.
“World Week for Peace in Palestine”, an initiative of the World Council of Churches, will be observed May 28 to June 3. “Focus this year is on the growing dispossession and displacement of Palestinians”.
It seems that the Churches are breathing new life into that kind of Easter’s demonology which criminalized the Jews for centuries. Denying Christian anti-Judaism will never bring peace between Jews and Christians. It is incumbent upon Pope Benedict and Protestant leaders to atone for what Christianity has done to the Jewish people through the centuries by recognizing the unique role and place of the Jews and Israel in this world.
There is an urgent Christian necessity to change Jewish-Christian history for the sake of the future by taking few simple steps: don’t proselytize the Jews, don’t slander them, don’t preach their conversion, avoid any theological topic, proclaim the uniqueness of the Jewish covenant, fight the apocalyptic cults, recognize Jews’ right to Judea and Samaria, defend a united Jewish Jerusalem, support Israel’s right to defend itself, and stop spiritualize the Bible, as if the promises to Abraham were not about a specific land for a specific people but about some heavenly domain.
Unless these steps are taken, any Jewish-Christian reapproachment would be not only futile, but dangerous.
Or to use old iniquities’ words, Jews will remain “odium humani generis”. Hated by humanity.
.
Giulio Meotti
The writer, an Italian journalist with Il Foglio, writes a weekly column for Arutz Sheva. He is the author of the book "A New Shoah", that researched the personal stories of Israel's terror victims, published by Encounter. His writing has appeared in publications, such as the Wall Street Journal, Frontpage
As Jews prepare to celebrate Pessah, Christians are ready for Easter.
Tragically, there is no time on the Christian calendar more associated with anti-Semitism than Easter. In the year 1144, in Norwich, England, 19 Jews were hanged without a trial. This marked the first time that Jews were accused of the blood libel - murdering Christians to use their blood in rituals. Then the libel crossed the channel into France: 32 Jews were burned at the stake in Blois.
Over the next centuries, Easter became a time of fear for the Jewish people. In 1497, Passover coincided with a cruel decree issued by King Manuel of Portugal, who ordered all Jewish children to be forcibly converted to Catholicism. Countless thousands of Jewish youngsters were baptized and then handed over to be raised by Catholic families.
With traumatic memories of deicide charges and pogroms, Easter is the most challenging time of the year for Christian-Jewish discourse.
A few days ago in a special interview with Die Tagespost, Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Fouad Twal, a “moderate” cleric named by Pope Benedict to represent the Catholic communities in the Jewish State, declared that “Israel’s existence as such has nothing to do with the Bible”.
Twal then compared Christians’ condition in today’s Jerusalem with Jesus’ Passion: “We Christians never forget that even our Lord himself suffered and was mocked in Jerusalem”. The Catholic Archbishop encouraged anti-Semitism by employing deicide imagery.
Denial of Israel’s religious and historical claims to the land is not new in the Catholic hierarchy. In a 2010’s Vatican synod on the Middle East, the most important event in a decade for the Holy See, bishops declared that “we Christians cannot speak about the Promised Land for the Jewish people”.
Elias Chacour, the Catholic Archbishop of Israel, said that “we do not believe anymore that the Jews are the Chosen People”.
“There is no longer a chosen people”, said Archbishop Cyrille Salim Bustros, chosen by the Pope to draft the synod’s conclusions. He resurrected the ancient calumny that the Jews are damned as cosmic exiles. “The concept of the promised land cannot be used as a base for the justification of the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of Palestinians”.
This is the same delusional lexicon of medieval Jew-hatred of Norwich. The Archbishop’s attack on Israel was not a single incident, but was reinforced in the final message of the synod which, under the heading “Cooperation and Dialogue with the Jews”, argued that “recourse to theological and biblical positions, which use the Word of God to wrongly justify injustices, is not acceptable”.
The malignant use of the expression “chosen Jews” inspired the pogroms, the expulsion of the Spanish Jews and Martin Luther’s anti-Semitism (the founder of Protestantism argued that the Jews were no longer the chosen people, but instead “the Devil’s people”).
Orthodox Eastern Christianity is also imbued with theological enmity for the Jews. “Modern-day Jews are not God’s chosen people”, the former head of Egypt’s Coptic Orthodox Church, Pope Shenouda III, recently declared in a meeting with former US President Jimmy Carter. “Do not believe their claims that they are God’s chosen people, because it is not true”.
Today the Christian arena is divided among the mainline Protestant churches, which are prominently anti-Israel; the Vatican, which embraced a new aggressiveness against Israel; the US Evangelicals, which are pro-Israel, and independent Protestant groups based in Europe, like Christians for Israel.
It is true that some Evangelicals did not show a real tendency to curtail their missionary activities among Jews, but the hostility toward Israel and the Jews encouraged by institutionalized global Christians, such as the World Council of Churches and the Vatican, poses a much greater near-term threat to Jews.
Professor Paul Merkley’s wonderful book, “Those That Bless You, I Will Bless” (Mantua Books), sheds light on these anti-Israel Churches. Merkley’s book is the most significant work about the current religious ditch, told from a Christian perspective.
The Church of England reviewed its investments in companies with ties to Israel’s presence in the territories.
The Methodist Church of Britain recently launched a boycott against goods emanating from Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.
All five of the mainline denominations in the United States – Methodist, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Lutheran and United Church of Christ – have debated and adopted policies intended to divest or boycott Israel. During the upcoming General Conference of the United Methodist Church scheduled for April 25 in Tampa, Florida, and the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA (June 30 in Pittsburgh), anti-Israel actions in the form of boycott, divestment or sanctions are expected to be brought to the floor for a vote.
The World Council of Churches, an umbrella organization of Protestants claiming a membership of 580 million worshippers, produced the “Amman Call”, which denies Israel’s right to continue to exist as a Jewish State.
While the United States is home to millions of Christian supporters of Israel, these are anti-Jewish Churches which are more closely attached to public opinion, the media industry, the United Nations and global legal forums.
The World Council of Churches, an umbrella organization of Protestants claiming a membership of 580 million worshippers, produced the “Amman Call”, which denies Israel’s right to continue to exist as a Jewish State.
Serge Duss, Director of the New Century Evangelicals Project, is one of the Protestant leaders who claim that modern Israelis are not descended from Biblical Jews.
Often identified as strong supporters of Israel, Pentecostal Christians are also being targeted by anti-Israel activists from the Evangelical camp. The Society for Pentecostal Studies just gathered in Virginia, where it screened “Little Town of Bethlehem”, a film with a virulent anti-Israel message.
“World Week for Peace in Palestine”, an initiative of the World Council of Churches, will be observed May 28 to June 3. “Focus this year is on the growing dispossession and displacement of Palestinians”.
It seems that the Churches are breathing new life into that kind of Easter’s demonology which criminalized the Jews for centuries. Denying Christian anti-Judaism will never bring peace between Jews and Christians. It is incumbent upon Pope Benedict and Protestant leaders to atone for what Christianity has done to the Jewish people through the centuries by recognizing the unique role and place of the Jews and Israel in this world.
There is an urgent Christian necessity to change Jewish-Christian history for the sake of the future by taking few simple steps: don’t proselytize the Jews, don’t slander them, don’t preach their conversion, avoid any theological topic, proclaim the uniqueness of the Jewish covenant, fight the apocalyptic cults, recognize Jews’ right to Judea and Samaria, defend a united Jewish Jerusalem, support Israel’s right to defend itself, and stop spiritualize the Bible, as if the promises to Abraham were not about a specific land for a specific people but about some heavenly domain.
Unless these steps are taken, any Jewish-Christian reapproachment would be not only futile, but dangerous.
Or to use old iniquities’ words, Jews will remain “odium humani generis”. Hated by humanity.
.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
'Azerbaijan allows Israel to use its air bases near Iran border'
Foreign Policy quotes U.S. diplomats as saying “We’re now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we’re not happy about it” • A series of quiet political and military understandings have won Israel access to thhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifese air bases, senior U.S. sources explain.
Israel Hayom Staff and News Agencies Senior American diplomats and military intelligence officers have told Foreign Policy magazine that the United States now believes that Israel has been granted access to air bases in Azerbaijan, which shares a border with Iran. “The Israelis have bought an airfield,” a senior official told Foreign Policy in early February, “and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.”
According to the Foreign Policy report, Israel’s embassy in Washington, the Israel Defense Forces and the Mossad spy agency were all contacted for comment but did not respond.
The Azeri Embassy in the U.S. also withheld a response, but a U.S. military intelligence officer has noted, according to Foreign Policy, that when posed with the question in the past, Azerbaijan’s Defense Minister Safar Abiyev had not explicitly said his country would bar Israeli bombers from landing there after an attack on Iran. Nor did he rule out granting Israel permission to station search-and-rescue units in the country, according to the report.
Israel’s ties with Azerbaijan, a Muslim country that became independent with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, have grown as its once-strong strategic relationship with another Iranian neighbor, Turkey, has deteriorated. For Israeli intelligence, there is also a possible added benefit from Azerbaijan: its significant cross-border contacts and trade with Iran’s large ethnic Azeri community.
Speaking to Foreign Policy, one of the U.S. sources said, “We’re watching what Iran does closely. But we’re now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we’re not happy about it.”
The Azeri military - based on a report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Military Balance 2011 and brought forth by Foreign Policy - has four abandoned, Soviet-era airfields that could be made available to the Israelis, as well as four air bases for its own planes.
The U.S. intelligence and diplomatic officials told Foreign Policy that Israel, through a series of quiet political and military understandings, has won access to these air bases. “I doubt that there’s actually anything in writing,” one senior retired American diplomat with rich experience in the region told Foreign Policy, “but I don’t think there’s any doubt -- if Israeli jets want to land in Azerbaijan after an attack, they’d probably be allowed to do so. Israel is deeply embedded in Azerbaijan, and has been for the last two decades.”
In February 2012, Israeli defense officials confirmed the completion of a $1.6 billion deal to sell drones and anti-aircraft and missile defense systems to Azerbaijan, bringing sophisticated Israeli technology to Iran’s doorstep.
Israel Hayom reported at the time that it was not clear whether the arms deal with Azerbaijan was connected to any potential Israeli plans to strike Iran, but that Israeli defense officials spoke to Israel Hayom on condition of anonymity because they were not at liberty to discuss defense deals.
Danny Yatom, a former head of the Mossad, said the timing of the deal was likely coincidental. “Such a deal ... takes a long period of time to become ripe,” he told The Associated Press.
He said Israel would continue to sell arms to its friends. “If it will help us in challenging Iran, it is for the better,” he said.
Former CENTCOM Commander Gen. Joe Hoar explained Israel’s calculations regarding a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities to Foreign Policy by saying, “They save themselves 800 miles of fuel. That doesn’t guarantee that Israel will attack Iran, but it certainly makes it more doable.”
Israel’s motivation for using Azeri air bases could be about more than simply saving fuel in a possible attack on Iran, it could be because, according to the report, one senior U.S. military intelligence officer described Israel’s mid-air refueling capabilities as “pretty minimal,” adding, “They’re just not very good at it.”
However, according to the Foreign Policy report, it is “precisely what is not known about the relationship [between Israel and Azerbaijan] that keeps U.S. military planners up at night.”
One former CIA analyst told Foreign Policy that the U.S. had its doubts that Israel would launch an attack from Azerbaijan, describing it as “just too chancy, politically.” The source didn’t rule out the option that Israel could use Azeri airfields for “follow-on or recovery operations,” but added, “Of course, if they do that, it widens the conflict, and complicates it. It’s extremely dangerous.”
Two weeks ago security services in Azerbaijan arrested 22 people they say were hired by Iran to carry out terrorist attacks against the U.S. and Israeli embassies as well as Western-linked groups and companies.
Early last month, Iran’s Foreign Ministry accused Azerbaijan of allowing the Mossad to operate on its territory and providing a corridor for “terrorists” to kill Iranian nuclear scientists. Azerbaijan dismissed the Iranian claims as “slanderous lies.”
Israel Hayom Staff and News Agencies Senior American diplomats and military intelligence officers have told Foreign Policy magazine that the United States now believes that Israel has been granted access to air bases in Azerbaijan, which shares a border with Iran. “The Israelis have bought an airfield,” a senior official told Foreign Policy in early February, “and the airfield is called Azerbaijan.”
According to the Foreign Policy report, Israel’s embassy in Washington, the Israel Defense Forces and the Mossad spy agency were all contacted for comment but did not respond.
The Azeri Embassy in the U.S. also withheld a response, but a U.S. military intelligence officer has noted, according to Foreign Policy, that when posed with the question in the past, Azerbaijan’s Defense Minister Safar Abiyev had not explicitly said his country would bar Israeli bombers from landing there after an attack on Iran. Nor did he rule out granting Israel permission to station search-and-rescue units in the country, according to the report.
Israel’s ties with Azerbaijan, a Muslim country that became independent with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, have grown as its once-strong strategic relationship with another Iranian neighbor, Turkey, has deteriorated. For Israeli intelligence, there is also a possible added benefit from Azerbaijan: its significant cross-border contacts and trade with Iran’s large ethnic Azeri community.
Speaking to Foreign Policy, one of the U.S. sources said, “We’re watching what Iran does closely. But we’re now watching what Israel is doing in Azerbaijan. And we’re not happy about it.”
The Azeri military - based on a report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies’ Military Balance 2011 and brought forth by Foreign Policy - has four abandoned, Soviet-era airfields that could be made available to the Israelis, as well as four air bases for its own planes.
The U.S. intelligence and diplomatic officials told Foreign Policy that Israel, through a series of quiet political and military understandings, has won access to these air bases. “I doubt that there’s actually anything in writing,” one senior retired American diplomat with rich experience in the region told Foreign Policy, “but I don’t think there’s any doubt -- if Israeli jets want to land in Azerbaijan after an attack, they’d probably be allowed to do so. Israel is deeply embedded in Azerbaijan, and has been for the last two decades.”
In February 2012, Israeli defense officials confirmed the completion of a $1.6 billion deal to sell drones and anti-aircraft and missile defense systems to Azerbaijan, bringing sophisticated Israeli technology to Iran’s doorstep.
Israel Hayom reported at the time that it was not clear whether the arms deal with Azerbaijan was connected to any potential Israeli plans to strike Iran, but that Israeli defense officials spoke to Israel Hayom on condition of anonymity because they were not at liberty to discuss defense deals.
Danny Yatom, a former head of the Mossad, said the timing of the deal was likely coincidental. “Such a deal ... takes a long period of time to become ripe,” he told The Associated Press.
He said Israel would continue to sell arms to its friends. “If it will help us in challenging Iran, it is for the better,” he said.
Former CENTCOM Commander Gen. Joe Hoar explained Israel’s calculations regarding a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities to Foreign Policy by saying, “They save themselves 800 miles of fuel. That doesn’t guarantee that Israel will attack Iran, but it certainly makes it more doable.”
Israel’s motivation for using Azeri air bases could be about more than simply saving fuel in a possible attack on Iran, it could be because, according to the report, one senior U.S. military intelligence officer described Israel’s mid-air refueling capabilities as “pretty minimal,” adding, “They’re just not very good at it.”
However, according to the Foreign Policy report, it is “precisely what is not known about the relationship [between Israel and Azerbaijan] that keeps U.S. military planners up at night.”
One former CIA analyst told Foreign Policy that the U.S. had its doubts that Israel would launch an attack from Azerbaijan, describing it as “just too chancy, politically.” The source didn’t rule out the option that Israel could use Azeri airfields for “follow-on or recovery operations,” but added, “Of course, if they do that, it widens the conflict, and complicates it. It’s extremely dangerous.”
Two weeks ago security services in Azerbaijan arrested 22 people they say were hired by Iran to carry out terrorist attacks against the U.S. and Israeli embassies as well as Western-linked groups and companies.
Early last month, Iran’s Foreign Ministry accused Azerbaijan of allowing the Mossad to operate on its territory and providing a corridor for “terrorists” to kill Iranian nuclear scientists. Azerbaijan dismissed the Iranian claims as “slanderous lies.”
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Does Obama have Israel’s back or just the UN’s?
Anne Bayefsky, FOX NEWS
The UN’s top human rights body ended its latest session in Geneva on Friday by dealing a body blow to one of President Obama’s signature foreign policy moves. The extreme anti-Israel extravaganza has prompted Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to cut ties with the body intimating Americans should also withdraw support, while administration officials have hit the airwaves to make the case that the demonization of Israel is troubling but tolerable. The message communicated: the President has the UN’s back, not Israel’s.
The Bush administration refused to lend the UN “Human Rights” Council the credibility offered by U.S. membership and withheld taxpayer dollars accordingly.
In 2009 President Obama, signed on, paid the dues, and is currently seeking a second three-year term for the United States on the Council.
The only trouble is, in just six short years the body created in 2006 as a reform of the discredited UN Human Rights... As of this past Friday, 42% of all the resolutions and decisions critical of the human rights records of specific states ever adopted by the Council have been directed at Israel. The scorecard was 44 resolutions against Israel and 61 resolutions directed at all of the other 192 UN members combined. And Council resolutions never even mention “Hamas.”
The Council has a permanent agenda governing every regular session composed of ten items, one reserved for criticizing Israel and one for “human rights situations that require the Council’s attention” anywhere else.
192 of 193 UN members meet in five regional groups before the Council’s public sessions to strategize and share information – Israel is the only UN state excluded.
The Council has commissioned thirty reports condemning Israel alone. That’s compared to five specific reports on Syria’s executioners, three on Iran’s genocidal regime, and none on Council members like Saudi Arabia – which tyrannizes its entire female population, or China – which denies more than a billion people elementary freedoms.
The reports damning Israel all follow the same pattern. Israel’s actions to defend itself – combating rocket attacks from Gaza, preventing a Gaza port for Iranian arms, establishing checkpoints to deny terrorists a way in to Israel, targeting the rocket launchers and terrorist masterminds – all become violations of Palestinian rights. Like the infamous Goldstone report, Israel is the villain and Palestinians are the victims from the outset.
The reports aren’t made for dusty library shelves. They are terrorist manifestos and manuals in what can best be described as Anti-Semitism 101.
UN “expert” John Dugard’s 2008 Council report read: “a distinction must be drawn between acts of mindless terror…and acts committed in the course of a war of national liberation.” Palestinian violence, he claimed, was the second kind and analogous to “the German occupation resisted by European countries in the Second World War.”
It is in this context that on March 22, the Council commissioned yet another report on Israel, this time on settlements. The “fact-finding” mission begins with the conclusion, namely, “the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.” Forget the “roadmap” approved even by the UN Security Council. It called for Palestinians “immediately to undertake an unconditional cessation of violence…” in Phase I, and placed a “final permanent status resolution” of the issue of settlements squarely in “Phase III.” Today’s UN just skips over demands made of Palestinians, jettisons promised negotiations on the very subject, and goes directly to an imposed solution of a “Judenrein” apartheid Palestine.
UN demonization is not idle bureaucratese. Last March Palestinian terrorists stabbed and killed members of the Fogel family, three children and their parents, including a 3-month old baby “settler.” But a year later, the only reference to “violence” in this perverse UN “human rights” resolution was trumped-up “violence by Israeli settlers.”
So where was the Obama administration? Its UN Geneva Ambassador Eileen Donahoe ducked out, and a political counselor and a first secretary were sent in to cast and explain America’s vote against the slew of new anti-Israel resolutions.
Team Obama decided to use this moment to criticize Israel – “we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity” – and to reinforce the Council’s bona fides by depicting Americans as a member of a like-minded club. “As members of the Human Rights Council, we all share a responsibility to promote and protect human rights.”
Everyone listening understood the code language. President Obama cares more about propping up the credibility of the Council than he does about protecting Israel from UN-driven harm.
In case anyone missed it, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked at a Friday briefing: “the council keeps doing these things that you say are unwise and biased and one-sided. Why are you a member?” Her response: “the Human Rights Council…generally provides a good moral bellwether.”
Billions of real human rights victims the world over would beg to disagree, as would the Jewish minority now learning the back of the bus is an acceptable value to an American president.
To be clear, Nuland was not speaking out of turn. US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told a Congressional sub-committee on March 20: “Let me start by underscoring the importance of the United Nations to…upholding the universal values we hold dear.” She then argued for a reversal of Congressional restrictions on funding UNESCO despite the organization circumventing a negotiated solution and embracing Palestine the state.
UN documents indicate the new settlements’ “Independent International Fact-finding Mission” will cost $290,000 among other things for “travel and accommodation of three commissioners and four support staff and other staff members to Geneva, Cairo and Lebanon.”
The Obama administration will insist Americans pay for that too. As Rice explained to Congress: “withholding U.S. funding only harms U.S. interests.”
What about when U.S. interests have degenerated beyond recognition?
Thanks Ted Belman
The UN’s top human rights body ended its latest session in Geneva on Friday by dealing a body blow to one of President Obama’s signature foreign policy moves. The extreme anti-Israel extravaganza has prompted Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to cut ties with the body intimating Americans should also withdraw support, while administration officials have hit the airwaves to make the case that the demonization of Israel is troubling but tolerable. The message communicated: the President has the UN’s back, not Israel’s.
The Bush administration refused to lend the UN “Human Rights” Council the credibility offered by U.S. membership and withheld taxpayer dollars accordingly.
In 2009 President Obama, signed on, paid the dues, and is currently seeking a second three-year term for the United States on the Council.
The only trouble is, in just six short years the body created in 2006 as a reform of the discredited UN Human Rights... As of this past Friday, 42% of all the resolutions and decisions critical of the human rights records of specific states ever adopted by the Council have been directed at Israel. The scorecard was 44 resolutions against Israel and 61 resolutions directed at all of the other 192 UN members combined. And Council resolutions never even mention “Hamas.”
The Council has a permanent agenda governing every regular session composed of ten items, one reserved for criticizing Israel and one for “human rights situations that require the Council’s attention” anywhere else.
192 of 193 UN members meet in five regional groups before the Council’s public sessions to strategize and share information – Israel is the only UN state excluded.
The Council has commissioned thirty reports condemning Israel alone. That’s compared to five specific reports on Syria’s executioners, three on Iran’s genocidal regime, and none on Council members like Saudi Arabia – which tyrannizes its entire female population, or China – which denies more than a billion people elementary freedoms.
The reports damning Israel all follow the same pattern. Israel’s actions to defend itself – combating rocket attacks from Gaza, preventing a Gaza port for Iranian arms, establishing checkpoints to deny terrorists a way in to Israel, targeting the rocket launchers and terrorist masterminds – all become violations of Palestinian rights. Like the infamous Goldstone report, Israel is the villain and Palestinians are the victims from the outset.
The reports aren’t made for dusty library shelves. They are terrorist manifestos and manuals in what can best be described as Anti-Semitism 101.
UN “expert” John Dugard’s 2008 Council report read: “a distinction must be drawn between acts of mindless terror…and acts committed in the course of a war of national liberation.” Palestinian violence, he claimed, was the second kind and analogous to “the German occupation resisted by European countries in the Second World War.”
It is in this context that on March 22, the Council commissioned yet another report on Israel, this time on settlements. The “fact-finding” mission begins with the conclusion, namely, “the illegality of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.” Forget the “roadmap” approved even by the UN Security Council. It called for Palestinians “immediately to undertake an unconditional cessation of violence…” in Phase I, and placed a “final permanent status resolution” of the issue of settlements squarely in “Phase III.” Today’s UN just skips over demands made of Palestinians, jettisons promised negotiations on the very subject, and goes directly to an imposed solution of a “Judenrein” apartheid Palestine.
UN demonization is not idle bureaucratese. Last March Palestinian terrorists stabbed and killed members of the Fogel family, three children and their parents, including a 3-month old baby “settler.” But a year later, the only reference to “violence” in this perverse UN “human rights” resolution was trumped-up “violence by Israeli settlers.”
So where was the Obama administration? Its UN Geneva Ambassador Eileen Donahoe ducked out, and a political counselor and a first secretary were sent in to cast and explain America’s vote against the slew of new anti-Israel resolutions.
Team Obama decided to use this moment to criticize Israel – “we do not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity” – and to reinforce the Council’s bona fides by depicting Americans as a member of a like-minded club. “As members of the Human Rights Council, we all share a responsibility to promote and protect human rights.”
Everyone listening understood the code language. President Obama cares more about propping up the credibility of the Council than he does about protecting Israel from UN-driven harm.
In case anyone missed it, State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland was asked at a Friday briefing: “the council keeps doing these things that you say are unwise and biased and one-sided. Why are you a member?” Her response: “the Human Rights Council…generally provides a good moral bellwether.”
Billions of real human rights victims the world over would beg to disagree, as would the Jewish minority now learning the back of the bus is an acceptable value to an American president.
To be clear, Nuland was not speaking out of turn. US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told a Congressional sub-committee on March 20: “Let me start by underscoring the importance of the United Nations to…upholding the universal values we hold dear.” She then argued for a reversal of Congressional restrictions on funding UNESCO despite the organization circumventing a negotiated solution and embracing Palestine the state.
UN documents indicate the new settlements’ “Independent International Fact-finding Mission” will cost $290,000 among other things for “travel and accommodation of three commissioners and four support staff and other staff members to Geneva, Cairo and Lebanon.”
The Obama administration will insist Americans pay for that too. As Rice explained to Congress: “withholding U.S. funding only harms U.S. interests.”
What about when U.S. interests have degenerated beyond recognition?
Thanks Ted Belman
The Jews and Palestine
D. LLOYD GEORGE, 1923
Of all the bigotries that savage the human temper there is none so stupid as the anti-Semitic.
In the sight of these fanatics, Jews of-today can do nothing right.
If they are rich they are birds of prey. If they are poor they are vermin. If they are in favour of war, that is because they want to exploit the bloody feuds of Gentiles to their own profit. If they are anxious for peace they are either instinctive cowards or traitors. If they give generously-(and there are no more liberal givers than the Jews)-they are doing it for some selfish purpose of their own. If they don’t give – then what would one expect of a Jew! If labour is oppressed by great capital, the greed of the Jew is held responsible. If labour revolts against capital-as it did in Russia-the Jew is blamed for that also. If he lives in a strange land he must be persecuted and pogrommed out of it. If he wants to go back to his own (land) he must be prevented…
It will be long ere Canaan becomes once more a land flowing with milk and honey. The Jews alone can redeem it from the wilderness and restore its ancient glory.
They belong to a race, which for at least 1,900 years has been subjected to persecution, pillage, massacre and the torments of endless derision; a race that has endured persecution, which for variety of torture – physical, material and mental – inflicted on its victims, for the virulence and malignity with which it has been sustained, for the length of time it has lasted, and, more than all, for the fortitude and patience with which it has been suffered, is without parallel in the history of any other people.
Is it too much to ask that those among them whose sufferings are the worst shall be able to find refuge in the land their fathers made holy by the splendour of their genius, by the loftiness of their thoughts, by the consecration of their lives and by the inspiration of their message to mankind!
Wallace Edward Brand posted the following on 17 December, 2011 - כא כסלו ה תשעב at 18:30.
Lloyd-George in his paper “The Jews and Palestine” was right about the Jews returning Palestine to a land of milk and honey but was wrong about how long it would take.. The story is best told by George Gilder in “The Economics of Settlement” http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/06/17/george-gilder-the-economics-of-settlement/ in a long excerpt from a paper by the head of the US Soil Conservation service, telling about the miracle the settlers worked in correcting the damage done to Palestine by 400 years of rule of the Ottomans. The details of how the ruin cam about is told in Joel Migdal, “Palestinian Society and Politics.” But he is really talking about the Arabs local to Palestine, not “Palestinians”. The Palestinians are an invented people, invented by the Soviet dezinformatsia in 1964 when the PLO Charter was written in Moscow. It was affirmed by 422 newly appointed members of the Palestinian National Council, contemporaneously formed, each hand picked by the KGB. We are indebted for this story to Major General Ion Pacepa, the highest ranking defector from the Soviet bloc who had personal knowledge of the matter. See Brand: Soviet Russia, the Creators of the PLO and the Palestinian People. http://www.think-israel.org/brand.russiatheenemy.html Newt Gingrich recently stirred up a hornets nest when in one of his remarks in the Republican primary campaign for President in 2011, he noted that the “Palestinians” were an invented people.
Of all the bigotries that savage the human temper there is none so stupid as the anti-Semitic.
In the sight of these fanatics, Jews of-today can do nothing right.
If they are rich they are birds of prey. If they are poor they are vermin. If they are in favour of war, that is because they want to exploit the bloody feuds of Gentiles to their own profit. If they are anxious for peace they are either instinctive cowards or traitors. If they give generously-(and there are no more liberal givers than the Jews)-they are doing it for some selfish purpose of their own. If they don’t give – then what would one expect of a Jew! If labour is oppressed by great capital, the greed of the Jew is held responsible. If labour revolts against capital-as it did in Russia-the Jew is blamed for that also. If he lives in a strange land he must be persecuted and pogrommed out of it. If he wants to go back to his own (land) he must be prevented…
It will be long ere Canaan becomes once more a land flowing with milk and honey. The Jews alone can redeem it from the wilderness and restore its ancient glory.
They belong to a race, which for at least 1,900 years has been subjected to persecution, pillage, massacre and the torments of endless derision; a race that has endured persecution, which for variety of torture – physical, material and mental – inflicted on its victims, for the virulence and malignity with which it has been sustained, for the length of time it has lasted, and, more than all, for the fortitude and patience with which it has been suffered, is without parallel in the history of any other people.
Is it too much to ask that those among them whose sufferings are the worst shall be able to find refuge in the land their fathers made holy by the splendour of their genius, by the loftiness of their thoughts, by the consecration of their lives and by the inspiration of their message to mankind!
Wallace Edward Brand posted the following on 17 December, 2011 - כא כסלו ה תשעב at 18:30.
Lloyd-George in his paper “The Jews and Palestine” was right about the Jews returning Palestine to a land of milk and honey but was wrong about how long it would take.. The story is best told by George Gilder in “The Economics of Settlement” http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2011/06/17/george-gilder-the-economics-of-settlement/ in a long excerpt from a paper by the head of the US Soil Conservation service, telling about the miracle the settlers worked in correcting the damage done to Palestine by 400 years of rule of the Ottomans. The details of how the ruin cam about is told in Joel Migdal, “Palestinian Society and Politics.” But he is really talking about the Arabs local to Palestine, not “Palestinians”. The Palestinians are an invented people, invented by the Soviet dezinformatsia in 1964 when the PLO Charter was written in Moscow. It was affirmed by 422 newly appointed members of the Palestinian National Council, contemporaneously formed, each hand picked by the KGB. We are indebted for this story to Major General Ion Pacepa, the highest ranking defector from the Soviet bloc who had personal knowledge of the matter. See Brand: Soviet Russia, the Creators of the PLO and the Palestinian People. http://www.think-israel.org/brand.russiatheenemy.html Newt Gingrich recently stirred up a hornets nest when in one of his remarks in the Republican primary campaign for President in 2011, he noted that the “Palestinians” were an invented people.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
European Muslim Brotherhood Calls On All European Muslims To Support Global March to Jerusalem
The Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE) has issued a statement calling on all Muslims and Islamic organizations in Europe to dedicate the last week in March to “intensive activities in support of the city of Jerusalem (al-Quds) and the blessed al-Aqsa Mosque” including supporting the upcoming Global March to Jerusalem. According to the FIOE statement: The Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe (FIOE) invites Muslims, and the management bodies of organisations, Islamic centres, and mosques across the European Continent to dedicate the last week in March 2012 to intensive activities in support of the city of Jerusalem (al-Quds) and the blessed al-Aqsa Mosque, given the escalating Israeli threats to the city, its holy sites, and the Palestinian inhabitants. This initiative comes as part of worldwide efforts to support the just cause of Jerusalem, including the ’Global March to Jerusalem’ on 30 March 2012 in opposition to Israeli occupation and prevailing for the values of truth, justice, liberties of peoples, and human dignity. The Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe (FIOE) voices its deep concern regarding the situation in the city of Jerusalem, and the violations of the sanctity of the blessed al-Aqsa Mosque, and Muslim and Christian holy sites by the Israeli Occupation and its extremist groups. Furthermore, the Federation affirms its solidarity with the Palestinian people, demanding they be allowed to regain their stolen rights, and realise their legitimate demands. The Federation emphasises the importance of universal, concerted effort and cooperation to confront the arrogance of the Israeli occupation persisting in its unrestrained and aggressive policies against the city of Jerusalem and its inhabitants, as well as engaging in effective action to bring an end to these flagrant violations. The Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe (FIOE) urges organisations, groupings, Islamic centres, and mosques across the continent to undertake a number of activities and initiatives in this regard, among them, for example:
Read the rest here.
A post from the end of February discussed a FIOE statement that referred to unidentified “disgraceful acts” by Israel at the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Other posts have discussed similar statements by Global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi and by Hamas. A detailed analysis of the Global March to Jerusalem, including its ties to the Global Muslim Brotherhood, was recently published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA).
A report on FIOE by the NEFA Foundation describes the organization as follows:
The Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE) claims to be an independent organization representing the interests of Muslims in Europe. In reality, the FIOE is an umbrella group that comprises the global Muslim Brotherhood in Europe. Strong links connect FIOE’s leadership central institutions and member organizations to the Brotherhood, as well as to Saudi Arabia. Funding for the FIOE is derived largely from Gulf sources, including some of the ruling families of the United Arab Emirates. The FIOE has strong ties to Hamas and Hamas fund-raising organizations, and some FIOE member organizations show evidence of links with Al-Qaida. The FIOE recently opened a headquarters office in Brussels and has had some success in positioning itself as a “dialog partner” for the EU and other important institutions.
A post from February discussed a trip to Gaza by FIOE President Chakib Ben Makhlouf where he visited Hamas facilities, praised Palestinian “martyrs, and visited the grave of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yasine who was killed by Israel.
Read the rest here.
A post from the end of February discussed a FIOE statement that referred to unidentified “disgraceful acts” by Israel at the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Other posts have discussed similar statements by Global Muslim Brotherhood leader Youssef Qaradawi and by Hamas. A detailed analysis of the Global March to Jerusalem, including its ties to the Global Muslim Brotherhood, was recently published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs (JCPA).
A report on FIOE by the NEFA Foundation describes the organization as follows:
The Federation of Islamic Organizations in Europe (FIOE) claims to be an independent organization representing the interests of Muslims in Europe. In reality, the FIOE is an umbrella group that comprises the global Muslim Brotherhood in Europe. Strong links connect FIOE’s leadership central institutions and member organizations to the Brotherhood, as well as to Saudi Arabia. Funding for the FIOE is derived largely from Gulf sources, including some of the ruling families of the United Arab Emirates. The FIOE has strong ties to Hamas and Hamas fund-raising organizations, and some FIOE member organizations show evidence of links with Al-Qaida. The FIOE recently opened a headquarters office in Brussels and has had some success in positioning itself as a “dialog partner” for the EU and other important institutions.
A post from February discussed a trip to Gaza by FIOE President Chakib Ben Makhlouf where he visited Hamas facilities, praised Palestinian “martyrs, and visited the grave of Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yasine who was killed by Israel.
Monday, March 26, 2012
Mordechai Kedar: Radical Islam in Africa
Dr. Mordechai Kedar
Before Islam appeared on the scene, the Arab tribes would contend with each other in endless wars that continued for hundreds of years and cost many lives. When Islam appeared in the first quarter of the seventh century CE, it was meant to be a new, religious basis for the definition of the individual and the group; a unifying focus of ideological identification that would substitute for the divisive tribal identification from which the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula suffered. The tragedy of Islam is that it failed in this important task, so the Islamic peoples and the tribes remained divided and fragmented, bickering with each other and quarreling with each other as if they had forgotten the explicit saying in the Qur’an, (Chapter 3, verse 103): “Cleave, all of you, to the religion of Allah and do not part from each other”. The worst thing is that throughout history, Islam has been used as fuel for the fires of internal conflicts, and many times in the course of the history of Islam, both sides of an internal conflict justified the conflict in terms of Islam, and each declared jihad against the other.
European colonialism left behind it in Africa heterogeneous states, each of which is an aggregation of tribes that differ from each other. Therefore, for many years, most of the African states have been afflicted with violent conflicts that leave in their wake many thousands of dead and wounded. Cases of genocide, in Biafra in the late sixties and in Rwanda in 1994, are the direct result of the conflicts between tribes within African states. In cases where one side of a conflict is Muslim and the other side is Christian or Animist (pagan), the religious element becomes part of the reason for the war, fueling the conflict and turning it into a holy jihad, thus justifying acts of mass slaughter.
When conflicts between the tribes are colored with a religious hue, situations are created in which Muslim dictators behave with total brutality: Idi Amin, the dictator of Uganda between 1971 and 1979 eliminated about a half million Ugandans in cold blood. Some of them he threw into Lake Victoria, teeming with crocodiles, to be food for the predators. These days a film is circulating on the nternet of a different case: a mass murderer in Uganda, Joseph Kony, who forcefully enlisted children, armed them, and turned them into mass murderers totally lacking in compassion or conscience.
For about fifty years, in the second half of the twentieth century, a terrible and destructive war was carried out in Sudan, between the Arab-Muslim North and the Christian-Animist South. Over the years, this war has caused about two million fatalities, and it ended in an agreement in July 2011 that brought about the division of Sudan into two states, a northern state which is Arab and Muslim, and a southern state with a Christian and Animist population.
In the Darfur region of Sudan, genocide has been taking place since 2003, in which Arab Muslim militias, aligned with the Sudanese government, have been methodically eliminating African Muslim tribes, burning their villages, slaughtering the men and making abused slaves of their wives. As of today, about half a million people have been killed as a result of the battles, arson, and starvation that have afflicted the population of Darfur, and millions of its people were forced to flee to Libya, Chad or Nigeria. At the crux of this conflict is the popular belief that prevails among Arab Muslims, that Muslims who are not Arab are not true Muslims, but rather second class Muslims only pretending to be Muslims, and therefore it is permissible to shed their blood.
It is important to note that in Arabic, a person with black skin is called “abd”, “slave”, and Arabs were the biggest slave merchants, selling Africans to work in America. This view of the people of Africa turns them into easy and legitimate prey. In the countries south of the Sahara – Chad, Niger, Mali and Mauritania – there is a Muslim majority, because most of their inhabitants converted to Islam during the course of history in order not to be considered as slaves. Therefore Arab Muslims consider them not to be true Muslims.
In the battles over Darfur there are organizations with an Islamic character such as “Jamaat Ansar al-Sunnah” or “Group of the Followers of Sunnah”; “Jamayat al-Kitab wal-Sunnah Alh’irih” – “Charity Association of Koran and the Tradition”; and the “Salafion” – “The Glorious Past”. And the texts that these organizations distribute are reminiscent of the texts of Usama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, past and present leader of Al-Qaeda respectively. It is important to note that during the 1990s, Al Qaeda had bases in Sudan. In 1988 the terrorists who struck the American embassy in Nairobi, the capital of Kenya and Dar-es-Salam, the capital of Tanzania emanated from these bases; those attacks resulted in more than two hundred fatalities.
During the years that Al Qaeda was present in Sudan, members of the organization would deal with their opposition in the acceptable way: decapitation, of journalists and politicians alike.
Regarding Sudan, we should recall that for several years in the nineties, a Muslim religious leader, Hasan Al-Tourabi, led this state, and his close relationship to the ruler Al-Bashir allowing him to impose the Muslim laws of Shari’a in Sudan. Alcohol was freely spilled out onto the ground, cinemas were closed and a radical dress code was enforced upon the women. Sudan’s acceptance of the presence of Al Qaeda on its territory should be seen in this context.
In Nigeria, a state of 160 million residents, half of the residents of the country are Muslims and the other half are Christians. A radical militia, “Boko Haram” (“Western culture is forbidden”) has been active among the Muslims in recent years. The goal of this group is to eradicate all influence of Western culture on the population, and to impose Islamic Shari’a as the law of the land. In parts of the northern region – the Muslim section of Nigeria – Islamic Shari’a has already been implemented and therefore it is forbidden to sell alcoholic drinks, while women are punished with severe corporal punishment and even death if they are even suspected of a sin against Islam. To date, thousands of citizens have been killed in Nigeria in conflicts between Muslims and Christians due to religious differences.
Somalia has been the arena of bloody tribal wars for the past twenty years. These wars caused the involvement of international terror elements, like Al Qaeda, and the main Islamic militia, known as the “Consolidation of Islamic Courts”, is supported by the terrorist militia, “Shabab al-Thura” (“the Revolutionary Youth”). These militias are not repulsed by the use of any means against their enemies, and they carry out massacres against them. The civilian and economic infrastructures of Somalia are in ruins and most of its population suffers from malnutrition, but in the eyes of the Muslim militias this fact is not important. In recent years (Christian) Ethiopia has become involved because of the influence of the (Christian) United States in (Muslim) Somalia, and this involvement has exacerbated the religious component in the considerations and arguments of the Muslim militias in Somalia.
The situation of war and the lack of a functional government in Somalia has thrown the horn of Africa back hundreds of years, to the era of terror and piracy: thousands of Somalian Muslims find their livelihoods in piracy on the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean, and they especially love oil tankers, because of their size, their price, and the precious cargo that they carry. Pirates don’t mind tourist yachts either, because those who sail on them are people of means and therefore will prefer to pay ransom on the spot instead of arguing with their captors. The determination of the European countries has caused this phenomenon to be almost totally eliminated, and it is important to note that on the high seas there are no courts of justice or human rights organizations – when a ship is attacked by pirates, security guards shoot to kill, without a trial and without a warning. The cultured world has succeeded in eliminating this medieval phenomenon, only because it did not impose upon its struggle against piracy the limitations that stem from modern ideas of ‘human rights’ and ‘judicial procedure’. The world understands that pirates have effectively excluded themselves from the domain of modern humanity, and therefore they do not deserve the rights that modern humanity awards even to criminals.
It is important to note that in this matter the Iranian Navy has cooperated with European navies. Iran, like Europe, saw in the pirates an economic danger, and therefore cooperated with the European “infidels” on this particular issue.
In neighboring Kenya, about one tenth of the population is Islamist, and international terror organizations exist among them as well. The double attack that was carried out in 2002 against the Paradise Hotel is a painful example of this, in which three vacationing Israelis and 13 local employees were killed. And there was also an attempt to shoot down an Arkia jet, which, if it had been successful, would have resulted in a large number of Israeli fatalities.
In the states of Northern Africa – Morocco , Algeria, Libya and Tunisia – “Al Qaeda in the Countries of the Maghreb” is active, which, from time to time kidnaps and murders tourists and professionals such as engineers who come to these countries as tourists or to work in their various occupations. In parallel, Islamist groups are known to attack European volunteers who function as doctors and nurses, usually in the clinics that the World Health Organization establishes, because the Muslim Africans see the volunteers as missionaries of a sort, but camouflaged and hidden and, therefore, also dangerous.
In Ghana, about one sixth of its population is Muslim, and here too, Saudi propagandists are inciting the Islamist population against the state authorities.
Every few years in the states where there is an Islamist population in Africa, an event recurs with similar characteristics: a television is placed in the road, usually in front of a restaurant, in order to attract customers, and hundreds of people crowd around in order to watch the film or the soccer game. At that same time a murderous attack is carried out, in order to warn the population not to watch the immoral thing called the television. Events of this sort have occurred in Somalia and in Nigeria.
Another African issue that draws fire from the Muslims is the matter of witchcraft. Among the African tribes, many believe in the power of magic, spirits, demons, and ghosts, while the rituals that include components of exorcism by sorcerers are attractive to them. According to Islam, a sorcerer has no right to live, so any time Muslims encounter an event that includes a component of sorcery, some lose control and act violently against the sorcerers and those who believe in them.
The Islamic radicalization that has encompassed African countries over the past twenty years is a direct result of the Islamist preaching that arrives from Saudi Arabia in three main ways: local leaders learn in Saudi madrasas and then return to their countries in order to pass Wahhabi (radical) Islam on to the population; Saudi leaders who move to African countries and convince its people to adopt the radical Wahhabi stream of Islam; and mosques, libraries, radio stations, internet sites, support organizations, and madrassas that Saudi Arabia establishes and underwrites serve as centers of dissemination for Wahhabi Islam. The economic plight that prevails in most of the African countries turns the populations of these countries into easy prey for the “dawa” that is provided by the petro-dollars of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states. Mosques established by Saudi money run loudspeakers in the public space, creating religious tension because of the feeling that the Muslims are taking over the country. Printed and recorded Islamic material that is distributed free of charge to people in the streets creates among the non-Muslims a feeling that they are victims of Muslim propaganda, which usually is foreign in spirit and character to the pluralistic culture of Africa.
An additional problematic characteristic that exists in Africa is the widespread presence of Sufi Islam, which is based on spiritual and mystical concepts, not political or jihadist. Sufi Islam is relaxed and does not concern itself usually with matters of this world. It is suitable to the spiritual atmosphere that exists in various parts of Africa. In Sudan there is the Mahdi movement, which also has spiritual, mystical characteristics. Wahhabi Islam considers the members of Sufi sects to be infidels, and tension between the Wahhabi adherents and the Sufi adherents rises from time to time rises to the level of a struggle between the violent Wahhabi that is imported from Saudi Arabia and the serene and spiritual Sufis whose origin is more local.
The events of the past year, which collectively are called the “Arab Spring”, also added fuel to the Islamist fire of Africa: The battle in Libya between Qadhaffi and his opposition took on an added African quality in the form of mercenaries who arrived from Chad, Niger, and Sudan in order to support Qadhaffi. Many of them were caught, and the color of their skin betrayed the fact that they were not Libyans, but foreigners, and not Muslims, but rather those who came to Libya in order to murder Muslims. In parallel, it became clear that in the dispute within Libya there is also an ethnic element: among Qadhaffi’s opposition there were Berber tribes, who were also citizens of Libya. This involvement of Africans in the events between Arab Muslims does not foster a relaxed climate between Arab Muslims and non-Muslim Africans.
In Morocco there is also great tension between the ruling Arabs, and the Berber Africans who are ruled by them. The Berbers are suspected of being disloyal to the state and to the Islam that was forced upon them, and therefore their status in the state is fairly problematic. A similar phenomenon exists in Algeria, and it is the source of tensions between residents of the cities and the Arab North, and the desert, Bedouin, Berber periphery.
Egypt, an important African state, also his its part in the African crises recently: millions of Africans have fled to Egypt from the wars and famine in Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia and other African states. The deterioration of the economic situation in Egypt as a result of the events of 2011 push many of them into a life of crime and many attempt to emigrate to Israel via Sinai, where the Bedouins exploit them shamefully, extort their money, and even harvest their organs.
The economic crisis in Eastern Africa encourages the governments of these states to invest in economic initiatives – in agriculture, tourism and industry – all of which need water, and therefore they take advantage of the rain water that falls in their fields. This water would have contributed to the sources of the Nile in the past, but now it is trapped within the states of the horn of Africa. Therefore, the flow of water in the Nile is decreasing, and Sudan (in both of its parts) and Egypt, which are downriver, receive a smaller quantity of water, and of a lower quality, because there is not infrastructure for treatment of waste water anywhere along the Nile. This raises the tension/pressure between Egyptians and Sudanis and they are investing much effort to prevent the retention of water in the horn of Africa. Tension in this matter between the states is increasing, and this does not contribute to a relaxed atmosphere between Arab-Muslim Egypt and Sudan on the one hand, and the states of Eastern Africa on the other. The fact that the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis won two thirds of the seats in Egypt’s parliament represents a threat to the other states of Africa, who fear the encroachment of a strengthening Islamist trend, as well as increased involvement by Islamist Egypt in what happens within their borders.
Conclusion: The population of Africa is involved in a series of disputes with a tribal background, where the Islamist and ethnic components play an important, and sometimes critical, role. Saudi Arabian money, Wahhabi propaganda, the presence of terror organizations, and wide distribution of weapons (some of which disappeared from weapons storehouses of the Libyan army as a result of the fall of Qadhaffi), do not contribute to a calming of the tensions between the various groups of the African population, and developing trends do not point in the direction of calm.
Read more, click:
http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2012/03/mordechai-kedar-radical-islam-in-africa.html
Special comment:
... but it opened my eyes to the tribal life of many Africans. The Muslim-intertribal warfare reveals much about the people.
The article brings up an important point: the Muslims provided slaves to the U.S.- a fact that blacks in the States today should be told over and over again. Whites do not deserve all the blame! It is important that people know the truth
We know today's story regarding Muslim outreach to blacks -particularly in prisons- to radicalize them. They are being wooed by those whose ancestors created their situation!
CG
The Son of UN’s Goldstone Commission
Ted Belman
Watch what happens. The committee will probably go to Europe and hold hearings and Peace Now will give evidence defaming Israel.. Israel should prevent Israelis from aiding or abetting such Commission.
Read Dan Margolit on The Un-Human Rights Council Ted Belman
Mati Tuchfeld, Yoni Hirsch and Israel Hayom Staff
Israel was considering recalling its ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council over the council’s recent decision to investigate the impact of Israeli settlements on Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said over the weekend.
The Human Rights Council passed the resolution to launch the investigation in light of Israel’s planned construction of new housing units for Jewish settlers in Judea, Samaria and neighborhoods in east Jerusalem. The council says such actions “undermine the peace process and threaten a potential two-state solution and the creation of a contiguous and independent Palestinian state.”
The 47-member forum adopted the resolution to launch a probe by a vote of 36 states in favor, including China and Russia, with one against (the United States). Ten abstained, including European Union members Italy and Spain.
The text was introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and cosponsored by states including Cuba and Venezuela.
“In violation of international humanitarian and human rights law, Israel is continuing construction of illegal settlements in the occupied territories including East Jerusalem,” Pakistan’s ambassador, Zamir Akram, told the talks.
The three investigators are to be named at a later date. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu swiftly dismissed the Geneva forum on Thursday evening as “hypocritical” and having an “automatic majority against Israel.”
Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva Roni Leshno-Yaar told Army Radio Sunday morning that “unfortunately, we already have experience with such one-sided organizations.”
“The way Israel handled similar cases in the past proved very successful, be it with the Goldstone Commission or with the U.N. commission investigating the Gaza flotilla,” Leshno-Yaar added. “We handled those in the correct manner, with all the difficulty that accompanied the process.”
“Out of eight European Union states on the [Human Rights] Council, six chose to abstain in order not to support this initiative,” he said. “As far as I am concerned, that is a good indication.”
Pointing to the fact that more than half of the resolutions passed by the Human Rights Council have condemn Israel, Leshno-Yaar said “we must keep in mind that during the six years of the council’s existence, 46 resolutions condemning Israel have been approved, while only 36 resolutions dealing with all other countries, including Syria and Iran – have been approved in that time,” he stressed. “This goes to demonstrate this body’s legitimacy and degree of professionalism.”
Meanwhile, a senior government official in Jerusalem said that “Israel will not cooperate with the investigation just as we didn’t cooperate with the Goldstone Commission,” adding that the members of the investigative committee would not be permitted to enter Israel.
Vice Prime Minister Moshe (Bogey) Ya’alon issued a response to the HRC decision, saying, “The decision to investigate the settlements perpetuates the Human Rights Council’s definitive anti-Israel line, with record-breaking hypocrisy, ugliness and shamelessness.”
“A cursory look at some of the members of this council, who voted against Israel, reveals corrupt nations with cruel dictators who do not hesitate to massacre their own people, and other nations that deprive women, homosexuals and members of minorities of basic human rights,” Ya’alon added.
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon also addressed the controversial decision, saying, “Once again, the Human Rights Council has proven to be a rubber stamp for the Palestinians. It was once again demonstrated that the Palestinians do not seek a historic compromise or peace, but that they only seek confrontation and battle.”
“This is an extension of the same diplomatic and political incitement campaign that the Palestinians have been waging against us in recent months, without pausing for a second. As far as Israel is concerned, the U.N. investigative committee has no validity – neither moral nor political – and therefore we will not allow them to operate here,” Ayalon concluded.
General director of the left-wing NGO Peace Now, Yariv Oppenheimer, also responded, saying, “We must make the distinction between the topic being investigated and the body doing the investigating,” Army Radio reported. “Obviously we think that settlements harm not only Palestinians, but also Israel – but the stance of the [Human Rights Council] is well known, and in fact, the report has already been written.”
“This is a predetermined report written by a committee that has lost its validity as an objective committee,” he added. “I expect that I will agree with some of its conclusions, but the framing of the thing and the fact that this committee will determine the conclusions will only serve to undermine the issue – it will rob the entire issue of its gravity and credibility.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress released $86.6 million in Palestinian aid on Friday – more than half the amount U.S. lawmakers froze six months ago.
Texas Rep. Kay Granger, a Republican and the chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State-Foreign Operations, said that she would approve the transfer of the entire sum – some $147 million – arguing that Palestinian stability was in order now more than ever.
Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, also a Republican, sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rescinding her objection to the transfer of the $86.6 million.
Watch what happens. The committee will probably go to Europe and hold hearings and Peace Now will give evidence defaming Israel.. Israel should prevent Israelis from aiding or abetting such Commission.
Read Dan Margolit on The Un-Human Rights Council Ted Belman
Mati Tuchfeld, Yoni Hirsch and Israel Hayom Staff
Israel was considering recalling its ambassador to the United Nations Human Rights Council over the council’s recent decision to investigate the impact of Israeli settlements on Palestinians in Judea and Samaria, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said over the weekend.
The Human Rights Council passed the resolution to launch the investigation in light of Israel’s planned construction of new housing units for Jewish settlers in Judea, Samaria and neighborhoods in east Jerusalem. The council says such actions “undermine the peace process and threaten a potential two-state solution and the creation of a contiguous and independent Palestinian state.”
The 47-member forum adopted the resolution to launch a probe by a vote of 36 states in favor, including China and Russia, with one against (the United States). Ten abstained, including European Union members Italy and Spain.
The text was introduced by Pakistan on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and cosponsored by states including Cuba and Venezuela.
“In violation of international humanitarian and human rights law, Israel is continuing construction of illegal settlements in the occupied territories including East Jerusalem,” Pakistan’s ambassador, Zamir Akram, told the talks.
The three investigators are to be named at a later date. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu swiftly dismissed the Geneva forum on Thursday evening as “hypocritical” and having an “automatic majority against Israel.”
Israeli Ambassador to the U.N. in Geneva Roni Leshno-Yaar told Army Radio Sunday morning that “unfortunately, we already have experience with such one-sided organizations.”
“The way Israel handled similar cases in the past proved very successful, be it with the Goldstone Commission or with the U.N. commission investigating the Gaza flotilla,” Leshno-Yaar added. “We handled those in the correct manner, with all the difficulty that accompanied the process.”
“Out of eight European Union states on the [Human Rights] Council, six chose to abstain in order not to support this initiative,” he said. “As far as I am concerned, that is a good indication.”
Pointing to the fact that more than half of the resolutions passed by the Human Rights Council have condemn Israel, Leshno-Yaar said “we must keep in mind that during the six years of the council’s existence, 46 resolutions condemning Israel have been approved, while only 36 resolutions dealing with all other countries, including Syria and Iran – have been approved in that time,” he stressed. “This goes to demonstrate this body’s legitimacy and degree of professionalism.”
Meanwhile, a senior government official in Jerusalem said that “Israel will not cooperate with the investigation just as we didn’t cooperate with the Goldstone Commission,” adding that the members of the investigative committee would not be permitted to enter Israel.
Vice Prime Minister Moshe (Bogey) Ya’alon issued a response to the HRC decision, saying, “The decision to investigate the settlements perpetuates the Human Rights Council’s definitive anti-Israel line, with record-breaking hypocrisy, ugliness and shamelessness.”
“A cursory look at some of the members of this council, who voted against Israel, reveals corrupt nations with cruel dictators who do not hesitate to massacre their own people, and other nations that deprive women, homosexuals and members of minorities of basic human rights,” Ya’alon added.
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon also addressed the controversial decision, saying, “Once again, the Human Rights Council has proven to be a rubber stamp for the Palestinians. It was once again demonstrated that the Palestinians do not seek a historic compromise or peace, but that they only seek confrontation and battle.”
“This is an extension of the same diplomatic and political incitement campaign that the Palestinians have been waging against us in recent months, without pausing for a second. As far as Israel is concerned, the U.N. investigative committee has no validity – neither moral nor political – and therefore we will not allow them to operate here,” Ayalon concluded.
General director of the left-wing NGO Peace Now, Yariv Oppenheimer, also responded, saying, “We must make the distinction between the topic being investigated and the body doing the investigating,” Army Radio reported. “Obviously we think that settlements harm not only Palestinians, but also Israel – but the stance of the [Human Rights Council] is well known, and in fact, the report has already been written.”
“This is a predetermined report written by a committee that has lost its validity as an objective committee,” he added. “I expect that I will agree with some of its conclusions, but the framing of the thing and the fact that this committee will determine the conclusions will only serve to undermine the issue – it will rob the entire issue of its gravity and credibility.”
Meanwhile, the U.S. Congress released $86.6 million in Palestinian aid on Friday – more than half the amount U.S. lawmakers froze six months ago.
Texas Rep. Kay Granger, a Republican and the chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on State-Foreign Operations, said that she would approve the transfer of the entire sum – some $147 million – arguing that Palestinian stability was in order now more than ever.
Florida Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, also a Republican, sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rescinding her objection to the transfer of the $86.6 million.
Outraged Israeli Leaders Pledge Boycott of UN Human Rights Council, Punitive ..
Rafi Harkham
UN Human Rights Council
The fury sparked in Israel by the UN Human Rights Council’s passage of a resolution Thursday – which ordered a fact-finding inquiry into Israeli settlements and their infringement on the rights of Palestinians – has shown no signs of abating, as the Israeli security cabinet is set to meet Sunday afternoon to discuss possible punitive measures.
The UN body resolved “to dispatch an independent international fact-finding mission” to “investigate the implications of Israeli settlements on the…right of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including east Jerusalem.” The resolution, the first ‘fact-finding mission’ authorized by the 47-member Council, was adopted by a vote of 36 to 1, with 10 abstentions. The United States was the lone dissenter. Beyond the predictable reflexive anti-Israel votes (Kuwait, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Norway), Switzerland, Austria, and Belgium were among those that voted for the resolution. Even those countries that have stood with Israel in past UN votes (Czech Republic, Poland, Guatemala, Hungary) only managed to cast abstentions, which in UN forums is often the closest Israel can get to an expression of support. n the same session, the Council also approved four other resolutions against Israel: on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (44 for, 1 against [USA], two abstentions [Cameroon, Guatemala]); on the Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination (46 for, 1 against [USA]); on the Follow-up to UN Fact-Finding Mission to Gaza (29 for, 1 against [USA], and 17 abstentions); and on Human Rights in the Occupied Syrian Golan (33 for, 1 against [USA], and 13 abstentions). All except for the last resolution were submitted by ‘Palestine’.
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said that Israel would not be cooperating with the Council: “We have no reason to continue cooperating with a hypocritical organization which specializes in double-speak and has a mission to smear us…We know in advance what their conclusions will be.” Israel Radio reported that Israel is considering simply barring entry to delegates of the Council. Ayalon also warned the Palestinian Authority that it should not expect “cooperation” from Israel “while it is fighting it in international forums.”
Israel Radio also reported on Sunday that Israel was considering punitive measures against the Palestinians like suspending tax transfers and, according to a report in Yediot Ahronot, freezing an initiative to allocate 5,000 new work permits to Palestinians.
“We have many resources but we will act with discretion and will not shoot from the hip,” Ayalon responded when asked what measures Israel might take.
PM Binyamin Netanyahu responded angrily to the vote, saying the Council “should be ashamed of itself…the Council has made 91 decisions, 39 of which dealt with Israel, three with Syria and one with Iran.”
Avigdor lieberman, speaking to Israel Radio while on a visit to Singapore said, “[t]his hypocritical organization has nothing to do with human rights. Its bias and lack of objectivity are obvious…We will not be actors in this theatre of the absurd, where 70 percent of the council’s decisions are hostile to Israel.”
Lieberman continued to blast the Council on Sunday, saying: “We are considering asking free countries like the United States to withdraw from this organization.” But the US State Department quickly quashed this possibility by issuing a statement that appeared to defend the Council’s work, saying that it had “helped spur action on a series of important human rights situations around the world,” but added that the US condemns the Council’s anti-Israel bias which “continues to unnecessarily politicize the Council’s human rights agenda.”
UN Human Rights Council
The fury sparked in Israel by the UN Human Rights Council’s passage of a resolution Thursday – which ordered a fact-finding inquiry into Israeli settlements and their infringement on the rights of Palestinians – has shown no signs of abating, as the Israeli security cabinet is set to meet Sunday afternoon to discuss possible punitive measures.
The UN body resolved “to dispatch an independent international fact-finding mission” to “investigate the implications of Israeli settlements on the…right of the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including east Jerusalem.” The resolution, the first ‘fact-finding mission’ authorized by the 47-member Council, was adopted by a vote of 36 to 1, with 10 abstentions. The United States was the lone dissenter. Beyond the predictable reflexive anti-Israel votes (Kuwait, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Norway), Switzerland, Austria, and Belgium were among those that voted for the resolution. Even those countries that have stood with Israel in past UN votes (Czech Republic, Poland, Guatemala, Hungary) only managed to cast abstentions, which in UN forums is often the closest Israel can get to an expression of support. n the same session, the Council also approved four other resolutions against Israel: on Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (44 for, 1 against [USA], two abstentions [Cameroon, Guatemala]); on the Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination (46 for, 1 against [USA]); on the Follow-up to UN Fact-Finding Mission to Gaza (29 for, 1 against [USA], and 17 abstentions); and on Human Rights in the Occupied Syrian Golan (33 for, 1 against [USA], and 13 abstentions). All except for the last resolution were submitted by ‘Palestine’.
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon said that Israel would not be cooperating with the Council: “We have no reason to continue cooperating with a hypocritical organization which specializes in double-speak and has a mission to smear us…We know in advance what their conclusions will be.” Israel Radio reported that Israel is considering simply barring entry to delegates of the Council. Ayalon also warned the Palestinian Authority that it should not expect “cooperation” from Israel “while it is fighting it in international forums.”
Israel Radio also reported on Sunday that Israel was considering punitive measures against the Palestinians like suspending tax transfers and, according to a report in Yediot Ahronot, freezing an initiative to allocate 5,000 new work permits to Palestinians.
“We have many resources but we will act with discretion and will not shoot from the hip,” Ayalon responded when asked what measures Israel might take.
PM Binyamin Netanyahu responded angrily to the vote, saying the Council “should be ashamed of itself…the Council has made 91 decisions, 39 of which dealt with Israel, three with Syria and one with Iran.”
Avigdor lieberman, speaking to Israel Radio while on a visit to Singapore said, “[t]his hypocritical organization has nothing to do with human rights. Its bias and lack of objectivity are obvious…We will not be actors in this theatre of the absurd, where 70 percent of the council’s decisions are hostile to Israel.”
Lieberman continued to blast the Council on Sunday, saying: “We are considering asking free countries like the United States to withdraw from this organization.” But the US State Department quickly quashed this possibility by issuing a statement that appeared to defend the Council’s work, saying that it had “helped spur action on a series of important human rights situations around the world,” but added that the US condemns the Council’s anti-Israel bias which “continues to unnecessarily politicize the Council’s human rights agenda.”
Sunday, March 25, 2012
The most important lesson!
Hussein Shobokshi
Asharq Alawsat
Perhaps the most pleasant result of the Arab Spring carnival that continues to take place in the Middle East is the new linguistic diversity that this has created; particularly with regards to the expressions people are using to describe the Arab Spring itself. This situation is somewhat reminiscent of the previous "heresies" that were publicized by the media of the tyrannical regimes in our Arab world. Who can forget the expression “Naksa” [setback], which was used to describe the worst defeat the Arabs experienced in modern history [1967 Six Day war]? Indeed, this expression was repeated and reiterated day and night in order to completely sedate the Arab public and allow the authorities to avoid being held accountable this catastrophic defeat. Along the lines of Nasser and his army of journalists, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who encountered a crushing defeat forcing his withdrawal from Kuwait, persisted in using his media mouthpieces to promote the expression “mother of all battles”, perversely claiming to have been victorious, not defeated! This expression was repeated by some affiliate writers and journalists. It was not long until this concept was developed and modified and all those who sought to end the rule of Saddam Hussein were described as “infidels”. At this time, of course, this expression aroused much curiosity and even mockery and ridicule, until we eventually reached a stage where there is now a striking glossary of such terms and expressions.
Every regime that has been toppled – as well as those who are still in the process of this – has either created new expressions, or new expressions have been created to describe it; in order to explain certain conditions or circumstances one way or another. We have seen how some people have described criminal and tyrannical regimes as "representatives" of the people, whilst, more accurately, they should in fact be described as regimes that "feign" representation of the people. What is even worse than this is those regimes that have lied to the people and promoted the lie that they are regimes of “resistance” whilst in reality they have voluntarily relinquished their own soil [to Israel] in distinctly dubious and vague circumstances. This, however, has allowed the world to uncover these monstrous lies and their consequences. In addition to this, the security and police apparatus have been openly transformed into armed gangs that kill and torture their own people without mercy or leniency. Such movements are called "thugs" or "Shabiha", something which, undoubtedly, functioned as a clear example of injustice, despotism and savagery.
The real problem is that we cannot assess or view Arab politics solely with a political or linguistic viewpoint; we must also assess this utilizing a psychological viewpoint. This is because the suppressive and duplicitous mind-set still exists within each of us, and this is why many of us continue to champion tyrants like Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Nasser, al-Assad and others on the pretext that they are defenders of Arabism and confronted Israel. People tend to forget that those figures were nothing more than criminals par excellence who suppressed their own people, producing nothing but more backwardness, defeat and humiliation. If such duplicity persists, we will continue to produce horrible examples and create tyrants out of them, and then view these tyrants as symbols of nationalism who are closer to gods than men, offering religious sacrifices in their honour.
What is most important in the Arab Spring is not regime change and getting rid of the tyrants in our region, but rather changing our political mentality, attitude and mind-set, and the culture of accepting and indeed championing tyrants. We must review this culture as our greatest and most dangerous enemy, otherwise the Arab Spring will ultimately be nothing more than a temporary situation without any permanent benefit.
Asharq Alawsat
Perhaps the most pleasant result of the Arab Spring carnival that continues to take place in the Middle East is the new linguistic diversity that this has created; particularly with regards to the expressions people are using to describe the Arab Spring itself. This situation is somewhat reminiscent of the previous "heresies" that were publicized by the media of the tyrannical regimes in our Arab world. Who can forget the expression “Naksa” [setback], which was used to describe the worst defeat the Arabs experienced in modern history [1967 Six Day war]? Indeed, this expression was repeated and reiterated day and night in order to completely sedate the Arab public and allow the authorities to avoid being held accountable this catastrophic defeat. Along the lines of Nasser and his army of journalists, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, who encountered a crushing defeat forcing his withdrawal from Kuwait, persisted in using his media mouthpieces to promote the expression “mother of all battles”, perversely claiming to have been victorious, not defeated! This expression was repeated by some affiliate writers and journalists. It was not long until this concept was developed and modified and all those who sought to end the rule of Saddam Hussein were described as “infidels”. At this time, of course, this expression aroused much curiosity and even mockery and ridicule, until we eventually reached a stage where there is now a striking glossary of such terms and expressions.
Every regime that has been toppled – as well as those who are still in the process of this – has either created new expressions, or new expressions have been created to describe it; in order to explain certain conditions or circumstances one way or another. We have seen how some people have described criminal and tyrannical regimes as "representatives" of the people, whilst, more accurately, they should in fact be described as regimes that "feign" representation of the people. What is even worse than this is those regimes that have lied to the people and promoted the lie that they are regimes of “resistance” whilst in reality they have voluntarily relinquished their own soil [to Israel] in distinctly dubious and vague circumstances. This, however, has allowed the world to uncover these monstrous lies and their consequences. In addition to this, the security and police apparatus have been openly transformed into armed gangs that kill and torture their own people without mercy or leniency. Such movements are called "thugs" or "Shabiha", something which, undoubtedly, functioned as a clear example of injustice, despotism and savagery.
The real problem is that we cannot assess or view Arab politics solely with a political or linguistic viewpoint; we must also assess this utilizing a psychological viewpoint. This is because the suppressive and duplicitous mind-set still exists within each of us, and this is why many of us continue to champion tyrants like Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Nasser, al-Assad and others on the pretext that they are defenders of Arabism and confronted Israel. People tend to forget that those figures were nothing more than criminals par excellence who suppressed their own people, producing nothing but more backwardness, defeat and humiliation. If such duplicity persists, we will continue to produce horrible examples and create tyrants out of them, and then view these tyrants as symbols of nationalism who are closer to gods than men, offering religious sacrifices in their honour.
What is most important in the Arab Spring is not regime change and getting rid of the tyrants in our region, but rather changing our political mentality, attitude and mind-set, and the culture of accepting and indeed championing tyrants. We must review this culture as our greatest and most dangerous enemy, otherwise the Arab Spring will ultimately be nothing more than a temporary situation without any permanent benefit.
More and More French Jews Emigrating to Israel
Gil Yaron in Tel Aviv
http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-80185.html
More and more French Jews are buying homes in Israel amid fears of rising anti-Semitism in France. Many complain of being harrassed in public and feel the country is no longer a safe place to raise their children. In the wake of the Toulouse attacks, the wave of emigration is only likely to increase.
http://www.spiegel.de/artikel/a-749184.html
Many must have been reminded of the treatment of Jews under the Third Reich. Shortly after the attack on a Jewish school in the southern French city of Toulouse on Monday, school principals in the city walked into classrooms and asked the Jewish pupils to come forward. "We ask you to leave the class and join the other Jewish children, who are in a locked and safe location."
It was intended as a precaution in response to a request from the Jewish community. But it also highlights the degree to which many Jews in France feel that they are a threatened and increasingly excluded minority. Every year, these feelings prompt thousands to take a dramatic decision, namely, to pack their belongings and move to a crisis zone: Israel. They feel safer there.
Five years ago, Linda moved from Paris to Canada and then to the Israeli port city of Ashdod. Only a week ago, she, her husband and their two sons faced a hail of rockets from the Gaza Strip. Nevertheless, Linda, who doesn't want to be identified by her last name, is delighted to be living in France no longer. "It's much safer here than in France," she says.
"Anti-Semitism has become unbearable there," she says. "Children are harassed on their way to school just because they're Jews." She adds that she was also the victim of such harassment in the middle of the Champs-Élysées in Paris. "I was wearing a necklace with a Star of David attached to it," she recalls. "Someone barged into me. I said to him: 'You ought to excuse yourself!' All he said was that he didn't apologize to Jews."
According to the Israeli Ministry of Immigrant Absorption, about 2,000 French Jews are currently resettling in Israel each year, and a total of 100,000 have already made the move. The Israeli government is very happy to receive the new arrivals, who are generally well-off and highly educated. In 2004, then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's open call to French Jews to emigrate triggered outrage in Paris and led to a cooling of relations between the two countries. But the wave of immigration continues unabated.
Fears for the Future
"It's not yet a mass flight from anti-Semitism," Avi Zana, the director of Ami, an organization that provides assistance to newly arrived French Jews, told SPIEGEL ONLINE. According to Zana, Jews are also immigrating for religious reasons or to find a Jewish bride. Nevertheless, in light of the precarious situation in France, says Zana, many have concluded that "the future of Jewish children is no longer safe there." According to a 2004 study, one in four of France's 500,000 Jews was considering emigration to Israel -- out of fear of anti-Semitism.
This fear came to a head in 2006 after a high-profile case in which a gang whose members held anti-Semitic beliefs held 24-year-old Ilan Halimi captive for three weeks, during which time he was tortured, resulting in his death. After the incident, immigration figures from France shot up by about 50 percent.
Daniel Ben-Simon, a member of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, examined the phenomenon of Jewish emigration in his book "French Bite." "Jews in France fear the day when the Muslims become a determining factor in French domestic politics," Ben-Simon told SPIEGEL ONLINE. "They fear that the country will no longer be safe for them at that point."
Even today, there are already "hundreds of anti-Semitic incidents" a year, committed mainly by Arab immigrants, says Zana. "This creates a great deal of pressure. How long can Jewish communities protect themselves from attacks with surveillance cameras?"
Threatening Atmosphere
Tel Aviv real estate agent Yitzhak Touitou confirms this trend. "About a third of my customers are Jews from France," says Touitou. It isn't just the very rich who are buying second homes in Israel. "Every French Jew who can somehow come up with the money is buying an apartment here," says Touitou.
Ben-Simon estimates that "almost one in two French Jews maintains a residence in Israel. It's a sort of insurance policy, just in case the situation in France gets even worse."
Touitou hears hair-raising stories from his clients when he's showing them property. "The atmosphere in France has become very threatening," he explains. "People no longer wear the kippah when they go out in public. They're afraid of being harassed."
There was a tragic irony to the Toulouse killings, says Touitou, whose mother-in-law is married to the founder of the Ozar Hatorah school where the murders took place. "I know the teacher who was shot dead," he explains. "He lived here in Israel until recently. It took them a long time to persuade him to go to Toulouse to teach Hebrew and religion there. And then he leaves the troubled Middle East and is murdered in France with his two children."
Responding to the attack, Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom has, like Sharon in 2004, invited France's Jews to move to Israel, but this time he couched the appeal in more cautious terms. Nevertheless, says Ben-Simon, the Israeli call could be successful. "If it emerges that the incident was indeed deliberately targeted against Jews, Israel can expect to see a wave of French Jews fleeing the country."
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
Guy Bechor
Israel Opinion
As long as we were dealing with Islamic terrorists arriving in Western Europe from the Middle East and not part of local society, it was possible to monitor them and thwart their terror intentions. They were foreigners. Yet what happens when the terrorists are French or European locals of Muslim descent who were born in Europe? To what extent can their actions be monitored and their terror activities curbed? It’s much more difficult, and this is the European nightmare, which keeps growing, as illustrated by the brutal murder in Toulouse.
These Muslim European youngsters, some of whom view jihad as a model for imitation, are deeply familiar with European society and its constitutional, security and moral vulnerabilities. Studies show that Muslim youths born in Europe are much more radical than the generation of their immigrant parents, who were preoccupied with making a living.
A fascinating and important study by British think tank Policy Exchange found that Muslim youngsters in Britain are quickly moving towards radicalization, Islamization, and a desire to change Britain’s identity to conform to Islam. These are loud warning signs, yet nobody can do anything about it in Europe for fear of being accused of primitivism.
The study was premised, among other things, on a poll among Britain’s Muslim population. Some 37% of youngsters aged 16-24 want to adopt Islamic laws in Britain (of course, nobody would renounce their British citizenship) compared to only 17% of respondents aged above 55. Meanwhile, 37% of young respondents want their children to study in Islamic schools, compared to only 19% of older respondents. Some 7% of respondents confessed to admiring terror groups like al-Qaeda, including 13% of youngsters and 3% of older respondents. (Notably, the terrorist who blew himself up at Tel Aviv’s Mike’s Place café in 2003 was a Muslim carrying a British passport.) Finally, 74% of the youngsters prefer their wives to wear a veil, compared to 28% among older respondents.
Easy prey for terrorists
Meanwhile, the European Union has become an awkward, clumsy body, up to its neck in bureaucracy, with odd technocrats assuming top posts: For example, Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton. The EU exposed European states to accelerated Muslim immigration, while forcing them to adopt liberal, lenient laws towards minorities and immigrants. The sense of sovereignty and safeguarding of borders, which is supposed to be natural for every country, was almost annulled, while officials in Brussels make decisions for all EU states; the same Brussels that already boasts a Muslim majority at city hall.
And so, the European Union has become easy prey for those interested in establishing terror cells and misusing the benefits of living in Europe. These Jihad groups view the EU as a bulbous, atrophied body that is an easy victim for their schemes. These are al-Qaeda’s grandchildren already, who are no longer operating in the name of veteran leaders and usually don’t even know them. They are an original European product. Some of them travel to the Middle East or to Afghanistan, come in contact with terror elements, and import the ideas, and arms, to Europe. At times there is no need for it, as the Internet is a superb guide and many youngsters are exposed to violent Islamic information without speaking a word of Arabic.
For long years, senior EU officials felt they were living in a remote, calm island, looking from above at the Third World and Islam, or at least this is how they hoped to view themselves. Yet this is no longer the case. And this truth, which has now pervaded the hearts of millions in France following the Toulouse massacre, is horrifying them. It is not the Jews whom the French are now thinking of; first and foremost, they fear for themselves.
Israel Opinion
As long as we were dealing with Islamic terrorists arriving in Western Europe from the Middle East and not part of local society, it was possible to monitor them and thwart their terror intentions. They were foreigners. Yet what happens when the terrorists are French or European locals of Muslim descent who were born in Europe? To what extent can their actions be monitored and their terror activities curbed? It’s much more difficult, and this is the European nightmare, which keeps growing, as illustrated by the brutal murder in Toulouse.
These Muslim European youngsters, some of whom view jihad as a model for imitation, are deeply familiar with European society and its constitutional, security and moral vulnerabilities. Studies show that Muslim youths born in Europe are much more radical than the generation of their immigrant parents, who were preoccupied with making a living.
A fascinating and important study by British think tank Policy Exchange found that Muslim youngsters in Britain are quickly moving towards radicalization, Islamization, and a desire to change Britain’s identity to conform to Islam. These are loud warning signs, yet nobody can do anything about it in Europe for fear of being accused of primitivism.
The study was premised, among other things, on a poll among Britain’s Muslim population. Some 37% of youngsters aged 16-24 want to adopt Islamic laws in Britain (of course, nobody would renounce their British citizenship) compared to only 17% of respondents aged above 55. Meanwhile, 37% of young respondents want their children to study in Islamic schools, compared to only 19% of older respondents. Some 7% of respondents confessed to admiring terror groups like al-Qaeda, including 13% of youngsters and 3% of older respondents. (Notably, the terrorist who blew himself up at Tel Aviv’s Mike’s Place café in 2003 was a Muslim carrying a British passport.) Finally, 74% of the youngsters prefer their wives to wear a veil, compared to 28% among older respondents.
Easy prey for terrorists
Meanwhile, the European Union has become an awkward, clumsy body, up to its neck in bureaucracy, with odd technocrats assuming top posts: For example, Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton. The EU exposed European states to accelerated Muslim immigration, while forcing them to adopt liberal, lenient laws towards minorities and immigrants. The sense of sovereignty and safeguarding of borders, which is supposed to be natural for every country, was almost annulled, while officials in Brussels make decisions for all EU states; the same Brussels that already boasts a Muslim majority at city hall.
And so, the European Union has become easy prey for those interested in establishing terror cells and misusing the benefits of living in Europe. These Jihad groups view the EU as a bulbous, atrophied body that is an easy victim for their schemes. These are al-Qaeda’s grandchildren already, who are no longer operating in the name of veteran leaders and usually don’t even know them. They are an original European product. Some of them travel to the Middle East or to Afghanistan, come in contact with terror elements, and import the ideas, and arms, to Europe. At times there is no need for it, as the Internet is a superb guide and many youngsters are exposed to violent Islamic information without speaking a word of Arabic.
For long years, senior EU officials felt they were living in a remote, calm island, looking from above at the Third World and Islam, or at least this is how they hoped to view themselves. Yet this is no longer the case. And this truth, which has now pervaded the hearts of millions in France following the Toulouse massacre, is horrifying them. It is not the Jews whom the French are now thinking of; first and foremost, they fear for themselves.