Caroline Glick
As the Jerusalem Post's Palestinian affairs correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh reported Monday, over the weekend he and the newspaper fell victim to a Fatah hoax. ASaturday, Abu Toameh was "summoned" to Fatah's General Intelligence headquarters in Ramallah where he was given a "scoop" - a graphic videotape of the murder of a 16-year-old girl in July perpetrated as a so-called "honor killing." The Fatah officer in Ramallah supplied Abu Toameh with the phone numbers of two "eye-witnesses" to the episode who would corroborate the story.
It later worked out that the "eye-witnesses" were Fatah militiamen in Gaza. The story was a fabrication. The video was taken in Iraq in April. The purpose of the elaborately crafted tale was clear. Fatah wished to use the Post to project itself as a credible, moderate actor battling the forces of evil and darkness in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.
Abu Toameh wrote the story and it appeared on The Jerusalem Post's Web site on Saturday night. It was removed when the Post was alerted to the hoax and did not appear in the Sunday paper.
Abu Toameh's forthright admission of his error and his report in Monday's paper of the anatomy of the Fatah ruse is a testament to his own journalistic integrity. But he is not the issue here. The issue here is Fatah and what the hoax tells us about the organization on which the Olmert government and the Bush administration are basing all their plans for a future peace between the Palestinians and the State of Israel.
As Abu Toameh noted, the false videotape was Fatah's second propaganda story last week. Wednesday, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's terrorist organization's propaganda services announced that its forces in Bethlehem had intercepted two rockets "ready for launch" against Israel in the Bethlehem suburb of Beit Jala. They further announced that they had turned the rockets over to the IDF. This story, which came as Abbas was meeting with US President George W. Bush and other world leaders at the UN in New York, of course projected the image of Fatah as a terror-fighting, Israel-protecting, peace-seeking, credible, moderate actor.
SPEAKING to The Washington Post on Thursday, Abbas used the story to explain why Israel should feel comfortable giving Fatah all of Judea and Samaria and half of Jerusalem. Responding to a question regarding his view of Israel's concern that areas transferred to Palestinian control will be used as operational bases for carrying out attacks against its cities Abbas said, "Last night, [our security forces] seized two rockets. We handed [them] over to the Israelis. We are very worried about these deeds and I think we can put an end to all this. Our security apparatus is ready to stop all kinds of violence."
The Washington Post published the interview without noting that the story was a total fabrication. The "rockets" that Fatah transferred to the IDF were just a pile of metal pipes which had apparently been used as toys by local children. The IDF had already noted that the rockets weren't real when The Washington Post conducted its interview with Abbas. Unlike Abu Toameh and The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Post and its veteran reporter Lally Weymouth saw no reason to mention that Abbas's anti-terror credentials were based on nothing but lies manufactured by his own propaganda arms.
AND THAT'S the thing. Since Fatah's creation in 1959 its primary weapon has been disinformation and its primary asset has been the Western media's willingness to be duped and stay duped. What is notable about the honor killing video story is not that it was false, but that The Jerusalem Post acknowledged that it had been lied to.
But today, even the media's complicity with Fatah's lies cannot hold a candle to Fatah's newfound, greatest asset - the Israeli government.
In reacting to the rocket hoax, which caused a minor panic among Jerusalem residents, the IDF went out if its way to cover for Fatah. Although they noted that the rockets were fake, the IDF spokespeople applauded Fatah for giving its metal pipes to Israel.
Yet, the IDF's embrace of Fatah's hoax is nothing compared to the treatment the terror organization receives from the Olmert government. Monday the government enthusiastically released 87 mainly Fatah-affiliated terrorists from prison. Speaking to a delegation of policemen and women on Sunday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised that these of prisoners - many of whom police officers like the ones who met with Olmert risked their lives arresting - were only the first batch of many still to be set free.
My government, Olmert stated happily, wants to drastically reduce the number of terrorists in our prisons. Actually, he didn't call them terrorists. He called them "security prisoners."
Among those sent home on Monday were men who conducted shooting attacks at Israeli motorists and laid bombs to murder Israelis. Some of the men had held contacts with state sponsors of terrorism. Racad Sallam, for instance oversaw terror financing ties with Saddam Hussein's regime. In short the men released on Monday are enemies of the State of Israel who have dedicated themselves to the murder of Israelis. They were convicted and imprisoned for their actions by duly authorized Israeli courts.
But none of this is mentioned by the government. Olmert and his colleagues extol Monday's move as a confidence building gesture towards Abbas. Its aim is to shore up his support among the Palestinians to give them confidence in Abbas's ability to secure their interests.
No mention is made of the fact that there is something terribly wrong with Palestinian society which views these attempted murderers as heroes and champions of their cause. The fact that Abbas says there is a direct link between his political strength and the freeing of these terrorists is not viewed as significant. The basic immorality of a society that praises the murderers of innocent people is similarly given no attention whatsoever by the government in its mad rush to "strengthen Abbas."
And of course no one says a peep about the simple fact that by releasing these men and pledging to release still more terrorists from jail, Olmert and his colleagues signal to the Palestinians that from their perspective, the Palestinian desire to kill Jews is basically legitimate.
SINCE HAMAS'S takeover of Gaza in June, the Olmert government has only had positive things to say about Abbas. Olmert and his colleagues make no mention of the fact that until the Hamas takeover, Fatah - with Abbas at its helm - was a junior partner in Hamas's "unity government."
Abbas isn't the only beneficiary of the Olmert government's embrace of the Fatah hoax. In the interests of "strengthening" Abbas and Fatah, last week Infrastructures Minister and former defense minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer recommended releasing Fatah terror chief and convicted mass murderer Marwan Barghouti from prison. Ben Eliezer and Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai defend their position by extolling Barghouti as "the new Yasser Arafat."
It was during Ben Eliezer's tenure as defense minister that the IDF arrested Barghouti in April 2002. Four months later, the State Prosecution submitted his indictment. Israel indicted Barghouti of 26 counts of premeditated murder, accessory to murder, solicitation of murder, attempted murder, criminal conspiracy, membership in a terrorist organization and terrorist activity.
The indictment explained how from 2000 until his arrest, Barghouti, among other things, set up Fatah's terror arms in Tanzim and the Aksa Martyr's Brigades; coordinated and often ordered Fatah's terrorist operations; mobilized and recruited terrorists by inciting murder and financing it; oversaw operational collaboration between Fatah and Hamas; and told the terror cells when to attack and when to hold their fire.
IN ITS 2004 verdict, the Tel Aviv District Court found Barghouti guilty of five counts of murder. Regarding the other murders, the court felt he had "moral responsibility" but that he had no "legal responsibility," for the carnage he directed, incited and financed.
While leading the Palestinian jihad against Israel, Barghouti also served as a propagandist for Fatah and Arafat toward the Israeli Left, (that is, the Israeli media) and the international media. At the same time he was ordering the murder of Israeli civilians, he was meeting with Israeli and international "peace activists," and speaking of the need for a "two-state solution."
The Israeli Left went nuts after his arrest and its leaders - first and foremost Meretz chief Yossi Beilin - have been calling for his release ever since. And now the man who signed his arrest warrant agrees. In an interview with Army Radio last week, Ben Eliezer explained that freeing Barghouti is necessary to "strengthen Fatah" against Hamas. Rather than castigating Barghouti for his close ties to Hamas, Ben Eliezer presented them as an attribute. In his words, the arch-terrorist is "well-respected by Hamas." He then said, "For us he might be a murderer, but I'd like to remind you that Arafat was no less of a murderer, and we approached him as well."
Ben-Eliezer failed to note the irony of his statement. Yes, Israel "approached" Arafat and lo and behold, Arafat remained a murderer committed to Israel's destruction. As a result of Israel's decision to "approach" Arafat, some 1,500 Israelis are dead today and Palestinian society is the most jihadist society in the world. Indeed, Barghouti's close relations with Hamas perhaps make him attractive to a terror-obsessed Palestinian public, but still that public - in Barghouti's own hometown of Ramallah - voted overwhelmingly for Hamas in the January 2006 elections where the imprisoned Barghouti headed Fatah's candidates slate.
Fatah has only benefited from its devotion to the big lie of peace loving murderers. The question is why has the Olmert government decided to embrace it?
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Peace loving murderers
As the Jerusalem Post's Palestinian affairs correspondent Khaled Abu Toameh reported Monday, over the weekend he and the newspaper fell victim to a Fatah hoax. ASaturday, Abu Toameh was "summoned" to Fatah's General Intelligence headquarters in Ramallah where he was given a "scoop" - a graphic videotape of the murder of a 16-year-old girl in July perpetrated as a so-called "honor killing." The Fatah officer in Ramallah supplied Abu Toameh with the phone numbers of two "eye-witnesses" to the episode who would corroborate the story.
It later worked out that the "eye-witnesses" were Fatah militiamen in Gaza. The story was a fabrication. The video was taken in Iraq in April. The purpose of the elaborately crafted tale was clear. Fatah wished to use the Post to project itself as a credible, moderate actor battling the forces of evil and darkness in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.
Abu Toameh wrote the story and it appeared on The Jerusalem Post's Web site on Saturday night. It was removed when the Post was alerted to the hoax and did not appear in the Sunday paper.
Abu Toameh's forthright admission of his error and his report in Monday's paper of the anatomy of the Fatah ruse is a testament to his own journalistic integrity. But he is not the issue here. The issue here is Fatah and what the hoax tells us about the organization on which the Olmert government and the Bush administration are basing all their plans for a future peace between the Palestinians and the State of Israel.
As Abu Toameh noted, the false videotape was Fatah's second propaganda story last week. Wednesday, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's terrorist organization's propaganda services announced that its forces in Bethlehem had intercepted two rockets "ready for launch" against Israel in the Bethlehem suburb of Beit Jala. They further announced that they had turned the rockets over to the IDF. This story, which came as Abbas was meeting with US President George W. Bush and other world leaders at the UN in New York, of course projected the image of Fatah as a terror-fighting, Israel-protecting, peace-seeking, credible, moderate actor.
SPEAKING to The Washington Post on Thursday, Abbas used the story to explain why Israel should feel comfortable giving Fatah all of Judea and Samaria and half of Jerusalem. Responding to a question regarding his view of Israel's concern that areas transferred to Palestinian control will be used as operational bases for carrying out attacks against its cities Abbas said, "Last night, [our security forces] seized two rockets. We handed [them] over to the Israelis. We are very worried about these deeds and I think we can put an end to all this. Our security apparatus is ready to stop all kinds of violence."
The Washington Post published the interview without noting that the story was a total fabrication. The "rockets" that Fatah transferred to the IDF were just a pile of metal pipes which had apparently been used as toys by local children. The IDF had already noted that the rockets weren't real when The Washington Post conducted its interview with Abbas. Unlike Abu Toameh and The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Post and its veteran reporter Lally Weymouth saw no reason to mention that Abbas's anti-terror credentials were based on nothing but lies manufactured by his own propaganda arms.
AND THAT'S the thing. Since Fatah's creation in 1959 its primary weapon has been disinformation and its primary asset has been the Western media's willingness to be duped and stay duped. What is notable about the honor killing video story is not that it was false, but that The Jerusalem Post acknowledged that it had been lied to.
But today, even the media's complicity with Fatah's lies cannot hold a candle to Fatah's newfound, greatest asset - the Israeli government.
In reacting to the rocket hoax, which caused a minor panic among Jerusalem residents, the IDF went out if its way to cover for Fatah. Although they noted that the rockets were fake, the IDF spokespeople applauded Fatah for giving its metal pipes to Israel.
Yet, the IDF's embrace of Fatah's hoax is nothing compared to the treatment the terror organization receives from the Olmert government. Monday the government enthusiastically released 87 mainly Fatah-affiliated terrorists from prison. Speaking to a delegation of policemen and women on Sunday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised that these of prisoners - many of whom police officers like the ones who met with Olmert risked their lives arresting - were only the first batch of many still to be set free.
My government, Olmert stated happily, wants to drastically reduce the number of terrorists in our prisons. Actually, he didn't call them terrorists. He called them "security prisoners."
Among those sent home on Monday were men who conducted shooting attacks at Israeli motorists and laid bombs to murder Israelis. Some of the men had held contacts with state sponsors of terrorism. Racad Sallam, for instance oversaw terror financing ties with Saddam Hussein's regime. In short the men released on Monday are enemies of the State of Israel who have dedicated themselves to the murder of Israelis. They were convicted and imprisoned for their actions by duly authorized Israeli courts.
But none of this is mentioned by the government. Olmert and his colleagues extol Monday's move as a confidence building gesture towards Abbas. Its aim is to shore up his support among the Palestinians to give them confidence in Abbas's ability to secure their interests.
No mention is made of the fact that there is something terribly wrong with Palestinian society which views these attempted murderers as heroes and champions of their cause. The fact that Abbas says there is a direct link between his political strength and the freeing of these terrorists is not viewed as significant. The basic immorality of a society that praises the murderers of innocent people is similarly given no attention whatsoever by the government in its mad rush to "strengthen Abbas."
And of course no one says a peep about the simple fact that by releasing these men and pledging to release still more terrorists from jail, Olmert and his colleagues signal to the Palestinians that from their perspective, the Palestinian desire to kill Jews is basically legitimate.
SINCE HAMAS'S takeover of Gaza in June, the Olmert government has only had positive things to say about Abbas. Olmert and his colleagues make no mention of the fact that until the Hamas takeover, Fatah - with Abbas at its helm - was a junior partner in Hamas's "unity government."
Abbas isn't the only beneficiary of the Olmert government's embrace of the Fatah hoax. In the interests of "strengthening" Abbas and Fatah, last week Infrastructures Minister and former defense minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer recommended releasing Fatah terror chief and convicted mass murderer Marwan Barghouti from prison. Ben Eliezer and Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai defend their position by extolling Barghouti as "the new Yasser Arafat."
It was during Ben Eliezer's tenure as defense minister that the IDF arrested Barghouti in April 2002. Four months later, the State Prosecution submitted his indictment. Israel indicted Barghouti of 26 counts of premeditated murder, accessory to murder, solicitation of murder, attempted murder, criminal conspiracy, membership in a terrorist organization and terrorist activity.
The indictment explained how from 2000 until his arrest, Barghouti, among other things, set up Fatah's terror arms in Tanzim and the Aksa Martyr's Brigades; coordinated and often ordered Fatah's terrorist operations; mobilized and recruited terrorists by inciting murder and financing it; oversaw operational collaboration between Fatah and Hamas; and told the terror cells when to attack and when to hold their fire.
IN ITS 2004 verdict, the Tel Aviv District Court found Barghouti guilty of five counts of murder. Regarding the other murders, the court felt he had "moral responsibility" but that he had no "legal responsibility," for the carnage he directed, incited and financed.
While leading the Palestinian jihad against Israel, Barghouti also served as a propagandist for Fatah and Arafat toward the Israeli Left, (that is, the Israeli media) and the international media. At the same time he was ordering the murder of Israeli civilians, he was meeting with Israeli and international "peace activists," and speaking of the need for a "two-state solution."
The Israeli Left went nuts after his arrest and its leaders - first and foremost Meretz chief Yossi Beilin - have been calling for his release ever since. And now the man who signed his arrest warrant agrees. In an interview with Army Radio last week, Ben Eliezer explained that freeing Barghouti is necessary to "strengthen Fatah" against Hamas. Rather than castigating Barghouti for his close ties to Hamas, Ben Eliezer presented them as an attribute. In his words, the arch-terrorist is "well-respected by Hamas." He then said, "For us he might be a murderer, but I'd like to remind you that Arafat was no less of a murderer, and we approached him as well."
Ben-Eliezer failed to note the irony of his statement. Yes, Israel "approached" Arafat and lo and behold, Arafat remained a murderer committed to Israel's destruction. As a result of Israel's decision to "approach" Arafat, some 1,500 Israelis are dead today and Palestinian society is the most jihadist society in the world. Indeed, Barghouti's close relations with Hamas perhaps make him attractive to a terror-obsessed Palestinian public, but still that public - in Barghouti's own hometown of Ramallah - voted overwhelmingly for Hamas in the January 2006 elections where the imprisoned Barghouti headed Fatah's candidates slate.
Fatah has only benefited from its devotion to the big lie of peace loving murderers. The question is why has the Olmert government decided to embrace it?
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com
It later worked out that the "eye-witnesses" were Fatah militiamen in Gaza. The story was a fabrication. The video was taken in Iraq in April. The purpose of the elaborately crafted tale was clear. Fatah wished to use the Post to project itself as a credible, moderate actor battling the forces of evil and darkness in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.
Abu Toameh wrote the story and it appeared on The Jerusalem Post's Web site on Saturday night. It was removed when the Post was alerted to the hoax and did not appear in the Sunday paper.
Abu Toameh's forthright admission of his error and his report in Monday's paper of the anatomy of the Fatah ruse is a testament to his own journalistic integrity. But he is not the issue here. The issue here is Fatah and what the hoax tells us about the organization on which the Olmert government and the Bush administration are basing all their plans for a future peace between the Palestinians and the State of Israel.
As Abu Toameh noted, the false videotape was Fatah's second propaganda story last week. Wednesday, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's terrorist organization's propaganda services announced that its forces in Bethlehem had intercepted two rockets "ready for launch" against Israel in the Bethlehem suburb of Beit Jala. They further announced that they had turned the rockets over to the IDF. This story, which came as Abbas was meeting with US President George W. Bush and other world leaders at the UN in New York, of course projected the image of Fatah as a terror-fighting, Israel-protecting, peace-seeking, credible, moderate actor.
SPEAKING to The Washington Post on Thursday, Abbas used the story to explain why Israel should feel comfortable giving Fatah all of Judea and Samaria and half of Jerusalem. Responding to a question regarding his view of Israel's concern that areas transferred to Palestinian control will be used as operational bases for carrying out attacks against its cities Abbas said, "Last night, [our security forces] seized two rockets. We handed [them] over to the Israelis. We are very worried about these deeds and I think we can put an end to all this. Our security apparatus is ready to stop all kinds of violence."
The Washington Post published the interview without noting that the story was a total fabrication. The "rockets" that Fatah transferred to the IDF were just a pile of metal pipes which had apparently been used as toys by local children. The IDF had already noted that the rockets weren't real when The Washington Post conducted its interview with Abbas. Unlike Abu Toameh and The Jerusalem Post, The Washington Post and its veteran reporter Lally Weymouth saw no reason to mention that Abbas's anti-terror credentials were based on nothing but lies manufactured by his own propaganda arms.
AND THAT'S the thing. Since Fatah's creation in 1959 its primary weapon has been disinformation and its primary asset has been the Western media's willingness to be duped and stay duped. What is notable about the honor killing video story is not that it was false, but that The Jerusalem Post acknowledged that it had been lied to.
But today, even the media's complicity with Fatah's lies cannot hold a candle to Fatah's newfound, greatest asset - the Israeli government.
In reacting to the rocket hoax, which caused a minor panic among Jerusalem residents, the IDF went out if its way to cover for Fatah. Although they noted that the rockets were fake, the IDF spokespeople applauded Fatah for giving its metal pipes to Israel.
Yet, the IDF's embrace of Fatah's hoax is nothing compared to the treatment the terror organization receives from the Olmert government. Monday the government enthusiastically released 87 mainly Fatah-affiliated terrorists from prison. Speaking to a delegation of policemen and women on Sunday, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised that these of prisoners - many of whom police officers like the ones who met with Olmert risked their lives arresting - were only the first batch of many still to be set free.
My government, Olmert stated happily, wants to drastically reduce the number of terrorists in our prisons. Actually, he didn't call them terrorists. He called them "security prisoners."
Among those sent home on Monday were men who conducted shooting attacks at Israeli motorists and laid bombs to murder Israelis. Some of the men had held contacts with state sponsors of terrorism. Racad Sallam, for instance oversaw terror financing ties with Saddam Hussein's regime. In short the men released on Monday are enemies of the State of Israel who have dedicated themselves to the murder of Israelis. They were convicted and imprisoned for their actions by duly authorized Israeli courts.
But none of this is mentioned by the government. Olmert and his colleagues extol Monday's move as a confidence building gesture towards Abbas. Its aim is to shore up his support among the Palestinians to give them confidence in Abbas's ability to secure their interests.
No mention is made of the fact that there is something terribly wrong with Palestinian society which views these attempted murderers as heroes and champions of their cause. The fact that Abbas says there is a direct link between his political strength and the freeing of these terrorists is not viewed as significant. The basic immorality of a society that praises the murderers of innocent people is similarly given no attention whatsoever by the government in its mad rush to "strengthen Abbas."
And of course no one says a peep about the simple fact that by releasing these men and pledging to release still more terrorists from jail, Olmert and his colleagues signal to the Palestinians that from their perspective, the Palestinian desire to kill Jews is basically legitimate.
SINCE HAMAS'S takeover of Gaza in June, the Olmert government has only had positive things to say about Abbas. Olmert and his colleagues make no mention of the fact that until the Hamas takeover, Fatah - with Abbas at its helm - was a junior partner in Hamas's "unity government."
Abbas isn't the only beneficiary of the Olmert government's embrace of the Fatah hoax. In the interests of "strengthening" Abbas and Fatah, last week Infrastructures Minister and former defense minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer recommended releasing Fatah terror chief and convicted mass murderer Marwan Barghouti from prison. Ben Eliezer and Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai defend their position by extolling Barghouti as "the new Yasser Arafat."
It was during Ben Eliezer's tenure as defense minister that the IDF arrested Barghouti in April 2002. Four months later, the State Prosecution submitted his indictment. Israel indicted Barghouti of 26 counts of premeditated murder, accessory to murder, solicitation of murder, attempted murder, criminal conspiracy, membership in a terrorist organization and terrorist activity.
The indictment explained how from 2000 until his arrest, Barghouti, among other things, set up Fatah's terror arms in Tanzim and the Aksa Martyr's Brigades; coordinated and often ordered Fatah's terrorist operations; mobilized and recruited terrorists by inciting murder and financing it; oversaw operational collaboration between Fatah and Hamas; and told the terror cells when to attack and when to hold their fire.
IN ITS 2004 verdict, the Tel Aviv District Court found Barghouti guilty of five counts of murder. Regarding the other murders, the court felt he had "moral responsibility" but that he had no "legal responsibility," for the carnage he directed, incited and financed.
While leading the Palestinian jihad against Israel, Barghouti also served as a propagandist for Fatah and Arafat toward the Israeli Left, (that is, the Israeli media) and the international media. At the same time he was ordering the murder of Israeli civilians, he was meeting with Israeli and international "peace activists," and speaking of the need for a "two-state solution."
The Israeli Left went nuts after his arrest and its leaders - first and foremost Meretz chief Yossi Beilin - have been calling for his release ever since. And now the man who signed his arrest warrant agrees. In an interview with Army Radio last week, Ben Eliezer explained that freeing Barghouti is necessary to "strengthen Fatah" against Hamas. Rather than castigating Barghouti for his close ties to Hamas, Ben Eliezer presented them as an attribute. In his words, the arch-terrorist is "well-respected by Hamas." He then said, "For us he might be a murderer, but I'd like to remind you that Arafat was no less of a murderer, and we approached him as well."
Ben-Eliezer failed to note the irony of his statement. Yes, Israel "approached" Arafat and lo and behold, Arafat remained a murderer committed to Israel's destruction. As a result of Israel's decision to "approach" Arafat, some 1,500 Israelis are dead today and Palestinian society is the most jihadist society in the world. Indeed, Barghouti's close relations with Hamas perhaps make him attractive to a terror-obsessed Palestinian public, but still that public - in Barghouti's own hometown of Ramallah - voted overwhelmingly for Hamas in the January 2006 elections where the imprisoned Barghouti headed Fatah's candidates slate.
Fatah has only benefited from its devotion to the big lie of peace loving murderers. The question is why has the Olmert government decided to embrace it?
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com
Al-Dura's father: Israel's claims ridiculous
From the Arab side comes the following:
'Israel tries time and again to deny its responsibility for the incident because it can't deal with the criticism against it,' says Jamal al-Dura in response to official Israeli assertion that incident was staged. : It is time for French to release raw footage, 'out of 26 minutes the world has only ever seen 59 seconds'
"The Israeli claims of invented myths and mythology are simultaneously ridiculous and irritating," said Jamal al-Dura in response to the official position announced by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office regarding the death of his son, Muhammad, in a clash between IDF soldiers and Palestinian gunmen in 2000.
"All the inquiries proved without a shadow of a doubt that the bullets were Israeli bullets. It has already been said that the Palestinian Authority didn't use that type of ammunition," al-Dura told Ynet.
"And the fire came from the Israeli side. I remember the origin of the gunfire – it was from the Israeli side and only from their side. If it was the Palestinians I would have been hit from the back. But the bullets in my body and that of my son's came from the front, which proves they came from the Israeli outpost."
"'Israel tries time and again to deny its responsibility for the incident because it can't deal with the criticism against it. They also sued the French television station broadcasting the footage and demanded that they stop showing it, but anyone who is interested in investigating the truth can just take the tape and watch it," al-Dura said.
Israel can form an international committee of inquiry into the incident if it wants, al-Dura said. He also slammed the PA for failing to provide him with adequate health care.
'Al-Dura myth is modern blood libel'
"The creation of the myth of Muhammad al-Dura has caused great damage to the State of Israel. This is an explicit blood libel against the state. And just as blood libels in the old days have led to pogroms, this one has also caused damage and dozens of dead," said Government Press Office director Daniel Seaman.
Israel's position and Seaman's comments are based on investigations that showed that the angles of the IDF troops' fire could not have hit the child or his father and that there are key moments missing from the footage.
Several top former Israeli spokesmen have faulted Israel's conduct in the media immediately after al-Dura's death, saying that Israel should not have apologized for the incident without having studied the allegations. The former officials said however that the truth must be investigated, even seven years after the incident.
"The Palestinians and the French network decided we had killed him without hesitation. So the French should finally present the complete footage. We took responsibility at the time because we were a responsible State body that knew its forces were constantly involved in the heated clashes, but that doesn't mean that the many questions left unanswered were resolved," said Ron Kitrey who was the chief spokesman for the IDF at the time of the incident.
Kitrey said bringing the subject back to the public's daily agenda would not reawaken the storm. "The al-Dura story is an Arab Palestinian icon and myth that damaged us greatly at the time but cannot do any more damage now than what has already been inflicted.
Dr. Ra'anan Gissin, communications advisor to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that the al-Dura story "has become a modern-day blood libel. It is a brand with which suicide bombers are recruited all over the world – and so therefore there is great importance in disproving it, even today."
Gissin said that the complete footage must be made available. "The government didn't demand it at the
time due to irrelevant reasons. No one wanted to fight with the media because once you question one network, all the others go to war over 'freedom of the press.' The bottom line must be that out of 26 minutes of footage – the world has only ever seen 59 seconds."
Roi Mandel contributed to this report
'Israel tries time and again to deny its responsibility for the incident because it can't deal with the criticism against it,' says Jamal al-Dura in response to official Israeli assertion that incident was staged. : It is time for French to release raw footage, 'out of 26 minutes the world has only ever seen 59 seconds'
"The Israeli claims of invented myths and mythology are simultaneously ridiculous and irritating," said Jamal al-Dura in response to the official position announced by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's office regarding the death of his son, Muhammad, in a clash between IDF soldiers and Palestinian gunmen in 2000.
"All the inquiries proved without a shadow of a doubt that the bullets were Israeli bullets. It has already been said that the Palestinian Authority didn't use that type of ammunition," al-Dura told Ynet.
"And the fire came from the Israeli side. I remember the origin of the gunfire – it was from the Israeli side and only from their side. If it was the Palestinians I would have been hit from the back. But the bullets in my body and that of my son's came from the front, which proves they came from the Israeli outpost."
"'Israel tries time and again to deny its responsibility for the incident because it can't deal with the criticism against it. They also sued the French television station broadcasting the footage and demanded that they stop showing it, but anyone who is interested in investigating the truth can just take the tape and watch it," al-Dura said.
Israel can form an international committee of inquiry into the incident if it wants, al-Dura said. He also slammed the PA for failing to provide him with adequate health care.
'Al-Dura myth is modern blood libel'
"The creation of the myth of Muhammad al-Dura has caused great damage to the State of Israel. This is an explicit blood libel against the state. And just as blood libels in the old days have led to pogroms, this one has also caused damage and dozens of dead," said Government Press Office director Daniel Seaman.
Israel's position and Seaman's comments are based on investigations that showed that the angles of the IDF troops' fire could not have hit the child or his father and that there are key moments missing from the footage.
Several top former Israeli spokesmen have faulted Israel's conduct in the media immediately after al-Dura's death, saying that Israel should not have apologized for the incident without having studied the allegations. The former officials said however that the truth must be investigated, even seven years after the incident.
"The Palestinians and the French network decided we had killed him without hesitation. So the French should finally present the complete footage. We took responsibility at the time because we were a responsible State body that knew its forces were constantly involved in the heated clashes, but that doesn't mean that the many questions left unanswered were resolved," said Ron Kitrey who was the chief spokesman for the IDF at the time of the incident.
Kitrey said bringing the subject back to the public's daily agenda would not reawaken the storm. "The al-Dura story is an Arab Palestinian icon and myth that damaged us greatly at the time but cannot do any more damage now than what has already been inflicted.
Dr. Ra'anan Gissin, communications advisor to former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that the al-Dura story "has become a modern-day blood libel. It is a brand with which suicide bombers are recruited all over the world – and so therefore there is great importance in disproving it, even today."
Gissin said that the complete footage must be made available. "The government didn't demand it at the
time due to irrelevant reasons. No one wanted to fight with the media because once you question one network, all the others go to war over 'freedom of the press.' The bottom line must be that out of 26 minutes of footage – the world has only ever seen 59 seconds."
Roi Mandel contributed to this report
Israeli Government Officially Confirms Al-Dura Footage was Staged Blood Libel Against IDF
In response to a warning letter sent by Shurat HaDin to the Israeli Government Press Office (GPO) more than 9 months ago, GPO Director Danny Seaman has written a formal acknowledgment that FRANCE 2 Television staged the infamous news footage depicting a Palestinian child being shot to death by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) in September 2000. This is the first time in the seven years since the footage broadcast that the Prime Minister's Office has confirmed that a journalistic fraud had been perpetrated against the IDF by government owned FRANCE 2 television.
Shurat HaDin had written Seaman contending that mounting evidence proved that cameramen and news editors from FRANCE 2 had deliberately staged and then misleadingly edited the footage aired by the French government television on in September 2000. The emotional footage, repeatedly broadcast around the world on CNN and other cable stations, ignited anti-Israeli violence in the Palestinian Authority and Israeli Arab communities and spurred international condemnation of the IDF. The Palestinian youth Muhammad al-Dura, allegedly seen being killed in the video footage, became the poster child in the Arab world for the current intifada violence and fueled hundreds of terror attacks against Israeli citizens and Jewish communities worldwide. Thousands of Jews and Arabs have been killed in the ensuing violence following the broadcast.
The Shurat HaDin letter demanded that, in light of the fraudulent broadcast and the grievous harm that it unleashed against Israel as well as the massive numbers of victims attributable to the fake footage, Seaman must strip FRANCE 2 of its press credentials.
Although Seaman stopped short of agreeing to remove FRANCE 2's accreditations his response letter to Shurat HaDin confirms that the Prime Minister's Office
firmly believes that the footage was deliberately staged to misrepresent that the IDF killed al-Dura when in fact a forensic investigation has concluded that Israel could not possibly have been responsible. As Seaman writes:
"Without any deep and serious investigation, the global media convicted the State of Israel in the murder of a little boy, and his image remained tattooed and engraved in the collective Arab memory as a symbol for the cruelty of the Zionist nation. These allegations started a long road that leaded to exposing the truth and basing the fact that Talal Abu Rahma, the network’s Palestinian cameraman, engaged in the systematic staging of action scenes . . . This libel incited the Arab world and caused many victims in and outside of Israel."
Seaman's letter then states that despite this confirmed journalistic libel the GPO will not seek to have FRANCE 2's credentials revoked.
It is the intention now of Shurat HaDin to file a petition in the High Court of Justice against the GPO and FRANCE 2 compelling the government to remove FRANCE 2 credentials and prohibit them from manufacturing further anti-Israel propaganda pieces.
According to Shurat HaDin Director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner: "This modern-day blood libel directly resulted in hundreds of Jewish and Arab deaths and ignited a still-flaming torch of international hatred, only for the sake of raising FRANCE 2's ratings. This was perhaps the greatest journalistic hoax perpetrated in the last hundred years. We demand that those who are responsible for this crime will bare the consequences of their actions. The State of Israel cannot simply allow FRANCE 2 to remain in this country."
Moreover, activist Philippe Karsenty has led a long battle inside of Frcnce against FRANCE 2 seeking to determine whether the Al-Dura footage had been staged. Last week in an historic victory for Philippe Karsenty, a French Court hearing an appeal of his case centering on the Al-Dura allegations ordered that all of the raw video footage shot by the camera crew be released to determine if a deliberate news hoax had been perpetrated.
Join with us on an Israel adventure of a lifetime: Experience a dynamic and intensive exploration of Israel's struggle for survival and security
It is day 7984 that Jonathan Pollard remains in an American prison following his arrest on November 21, 1985
Shurat HaDin – Israel Law Center is a long overdue Jewish legal rights institute based in Israel. Staffed by some of the country’s leading activist attorneys, we are dedicated to providing legal representation and resources for the numerous courtroom struggles, which are being waged in the Israeli, American and European courts on behalf of the Jewish State. We serve as a central clearinghouse and litigation base for the multifarious legal battles that have been thrust upon Israel’s citizens during these dark days.
Shurat HaDin had written Seaman contending that mounting evidence proved that cameramen and news editors from FRANCE 2 had deliberately staged and then misleadingly edited the footage aired by the French government television on in September 2000. The emotional footage, repeatedly broadcast around the world on CNN and other cable stations, ignited anti-Israeli violence in the Palestinian Authority and Israeli Arab communities and spurred international condemnation of the IDF. The Palestinian youth Muhammad al-Dura, allegedly seen being killed in the video footage, became the poster child in the Arab world for the current intifada violence and fueled hundreds of terror attacks against Israeli citizens and Jewish communities worldwide. Thousands of Jews and Arabs have been killed in the ensuing violence following the broadcast.
The Shurat HaDin letter demanded that, in light of the fraudulent broadcast and the grievous harm that it unleashed against Israel as well as the massive numbers of victims attributable to the fake footage, Seaman must strip FRANCE 2 of its press credentials.
Although Seaman stopped short of agreeing to remove FRANCE 2's accreditations his response letter to Shurat HaDin confirms that the Prime Minister's Office
firmly believes that the footage was deliberately staged to misrepresent that the IDF killed al-Dura when in fact a forensic investigation has concluded that Israel could not possibly have been responsible. As Seaman writes:
"Without any deep and serious investigation, the global media convicted the State of Israel in the murder of a little boy, and his image remained tattooed and engraved in the collective Arab memory as a symbol for the cruelty of the Zionist nation. These allegations started a long road that leaded to exposing the truth and basing the fact that Talal Abu Rahma, the network’s Palestinian cameraman, engaged in the systematic staging of action scenes . . . This libel incited the Arab world and caused many victims in and outside of Israel."
Seaman's letter then states that despite this confirmed journalistic libel the GPO will not seek to have FRANCE 2's credentials revoked.
It is the intention now of Shurat HaDin to file a petition in the High Court of Justice against the GPO and FRANCE 2 compelling the government to remove FRANCE 2 credentials and prohibit them from manufacturing further anti-Israel propaganda pieces.
According to Shurat HaDin Director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner: "This modern-day blood libel directly resulted in hundreds of Jewish and Arab deaths and ignited a still-flaming torch of international hatred, only for the sake of raising FRANCE 2's ratings. This was perhaps the greatest journalistic hoax perpetrated in the last hundred years. We demand that those who are responsible for this crime will bare the consequences of their actions. The State of Israel cannot simply allow FRANCE 2 to remain in this country."
Moreover, activist Philippe Karsenty has led a long battle inside of Frcnce against FRANCE 2 seeking to determine whether the Al-Dura footage had been staged. Last week in an historic victory for Philippe Karsenty, a French Court hearing an appeal of his case centering on the Al-Dura allegations ordered that all of the raw video footage shot by the camera crew be released to determine if a deliberate news hoax had been perpetrated.
Join with us on an Israel adventure of a lifetime: Experience a dynamic and intensive exploration of Israel's struggle for survival and security
It is day 7984 that Jonathan Pollard remains in an American prison following his arrest on November 21, 1985
Shurat HaDin – Israel Law Center is a long overdue Jewish legal rights institute based in Israel. Staffed by some of the country’s leading activist attorneys, we are dedicated to providing legal representation and resources for the numerous courtroom struggles, which are being waged in the Israeli, American and European courts on behalf of the Jewish State. We serve as a central clearinghouse and litigation base for the multifarious legal battles that have been thrust upon Israel’s citizens during these dark days.
Hamas Fatah unite in rejecting US conference
CAIRO, (PIC)-- High-ranking Palestinian and Arab official sources have affirmed Monday that Palestinian and Arab forces and parties were exerting tremendous and incessant efforts to block the US-sponsered "peace conference" scheduled for this coming autumn. The sources that spoke to the Quds press agency on condition of anonymity also affirmed that Hamas Movement was one and essential partners in that Palestinian-Arab alliance to foil the conference.
The conference was called for by the USA and blessed by the Israeli occupation government; yet, Palestinian political analysts opined that the conference was purposely planned with the aim to marginalize the Palestinian issue and to gradually liquidate it.
"We are calling for such essential gathering in order to tell the entire world that Palestinian and Arab people are united in rejecting the autumn conference that aims at hitting the Palestinian issue in the heart", the sources added.
The sources also revealed that senior Fatah and Hamas political leaders were regularly meeting over the issue with the aim to deliver a clear and sound message to the entire world that the Palestinian people won't accept any compromises as far as the Palestinian legal rights and constants are concerned.
PA chief Mahmoud Abbas and a number of Arab leaders were reportedly preparing to attend the conference in spite of the overwhelming Palestinian and Arab popular rejection to that "dubious" gathering.
The conference was called for by the USA and blessed by the Israeli occupation government; yet, Palestinian political analysts opined that the conference was purposely planned with the aim to marginalize the Palestinian issue and to gradually liquidate it.
"We are calling for such essential gathering in order to tell the entire world that Palestinian and Arab people are united in rejecting the autumn conference that aims at hitting the Palestinian issue in the heart", the sources added.
The sources also revealed that senior Fatah and Hamas political leaders were regularly meeting over the issue with the aim to deliver a clear and sound message to the entire world that the Palestinian people won't accept any compromises as far as the Palestinian legal rights and constants are concerned.
PA chief Mahmoud Abbas and a number of Arab leaders were reportedly preparing to attend the conference in spite of the overwhelming Palestinian and Arab popular rejection to that "dubious" gathering.
Monday, October 01, 2007
PROOF OF IMMINENT BETRAYAL
Emanuel A. Winston
Mid East Analyst & Commentator
Even the most naive among us knows that when politicians assure the public that they are "not up to no good", that’s the time to hide the silverware. The White House is responding to a growing ground swell of objections to its coming November International "Peace Conference". This calls together most, if not all, of Israel’s dedicated armies to discuss what Israel must give up for that illusory word: "Peace".
The White House is clearly getting nervous if it is now vomiting up assurances that "nothing conclusive will be done at this gathering". There is nothing as frightening as when diplomats and politicians give out sincere promises to the public. It is a sure sign that they are going to gang up on someone, be it a nation or a person, for an old fashioned lynching.
Israel is to be the designated victim and the hanging mob will be led by President George W. Bush, Secretary Condoleezza Rice and former Secretary James Baker III, within the pro-Arab U.S. State Department’s usual agenda. Other bar-room thugs officiating will be the rest of the so-called "quartet", including the U.N., E.U., Russia, the Arab League, Egypt and (if they agree to come to the lynching...Saudi Arabia).
The idea is to pacify all of us so we won’t swamp the pro-Israel American Congress with demands for their presence and protests. They also do not want protesters anywhere near the site of the meeting so it has to take place at a center where the public can be held far away - like Camp David, or Wye, or Crawford, Texas or somewhere that the Military, Police and/or National Guard can block any democratic challenge to a government policy intended to disassemble the Jewish State of Israel.
After all, a public lynching is not what the Bush Administration wants before national elections. Also the Europeans do not want to be seen again arranging for a Jewish Genocide as they participated in during WWII.
The propaganda machines in the bowels of Foggy Bottom (the U.S. State Department) and the White House are burning the midnight oil drafting news releases that speak about the Grand Peace Israel will receive from Syria, Hezb’Allah, Hamas, Fatah, PFLP, the Muslim Brotherhood and all those Arab nations with Charters that call for the absolute destruction of the so-called "infidel" Jewish entity - as mandated in the Koran.
In Israel, Olmert has tasked the Leftist Media to assure the people that he will consult with his Cabinet and the Knesset before he "implements" the "Declaration of Principles" which he has already committed to in writing with Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen). Abbas released the "secret" document to the Media and Olmert promptly denied its existence That "Declaration of Principles" lists the Israeli Land, given by G-d to the Jewish people, which Olmert has stated he will surrender to the Muslim Arabs: In addition to Gaza (which as predicted has become a Global Terror Kassam Rocket launching base), Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights and all those parts of Jerusalem which was occupied and desecrated by Jordan for 19 years from 1948 to 1967. Those territories of Israel’s ancestral heartland also include 2/3rds of Israel’s fresh water resources.
Olmert, to insure that there will no revolt of his Kadima Cabinet, has arranged what can only be called a "Cancellation Committee". Any negative vote taken by his own Kadima Cabinet cannot go into force until it passes a review of this new "Committee of Three" (all of whom happen to be close friends of Olmert). They have arrogated the right to themselves to investigate, consider, ponder what a ‘negative’ vote means. This consideration could go on for months and possibly never conclude their investigation - thereby insuring that the vote would be DOA (Dead On Arrival).
Something like the Winograd investigation of Olmert’s government handling of and losing the War in Lebanon against Hezb’Allah. Winograd, Olmert’s appointed friend and investigator, has essentially banned the investigation and its conclusions by refusing to release its findings. IF the scheme worked with Winograd without interference by the extremely Leftist Israeli Supreme Court, why not do it again with a three-man Commission who will kill any vote not favorable to the Bush-Rice-Baker Plan to divide and de-Judaize what was once the Jewish State?
Rice as the talking head for propaganda is saying things like: "The Implementation of these decisions will be difficult." Take that to mean that she and the lynch mob will push very hard for the agreements to divide Israel into smaller, digestible chunks - hoping everyone will believe that, if she says it’s difficult to implement, it will all take a long time or not happen at all. That’s called "Friendly Persuasion" but, otherwise it’s known as a street lie.
Then they proclaim that they will not be setting up any deadlines which you may read as definitely setting up deadlines. These deadlines which if NOT met will be followed by sanctions such as embargoes, cutting off aid, cutting off military assistance, cutting off contracts, spare parts, fuel supplies, pressuring American Jews with threats that an unhappy Bush Administration will raise the specter of anti-Semitism so they too must pressure Israel to cave in to all demands made during the November lynching.
Some will recall how George Herbert Walker Bush (Father Bush), in a telephone call to the Saudi King, promised that his son George would take care of the King. Well, the Bush lynch mob will more than prove that George will keep that promise in a November surprise.
There is growing concern in the White House that Congress may condemn the idea of dividing Jerusalem and further disassembly of Israel so that President Bush and Secretary C. Rice can leave their offices with a false positive historical legacy of having brought "Peace in our Time to the Muslim/Jewish Conflict".
There is further concern of a growing alarm among Christian Friends of Israel who will lobby Congress and show up ‘en masse’ in Washington at the lynching in November to protest.
It is always possible that the passive Jewish organizations like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the UJC (United Jewish Communities) and others will wake up and protest. Jewish leadership has always been an embarrassment when it came to challenging the Arabist State Department in order to defend Israel.
Regrettably, the Republican Party will be tarred with the same brush as Bush-Rice and Baker going into national elections.
I wonder what the candidates running for President, both Democrats and Republicans will say (or avoid saying) before the November lynching? Let’s ask them.
The more they assure us that the gathering of Israel’s enemies to discuss the future existence of the Jewish nation is nothing to be concerned about - the more concerned and active we must be.
Please send this to your Congressional representatives and then call his or her office. Also, please send this analysis to your local papers, talk show and Israel’s Christian friends. Let President Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice know how you feel about these plans to betray a friend and ally as their legacy.
Mid East Analyst & Commentator
Even the most naive among us knows that when politicians assure the public that they are "not up to no good", that’s the time to hide the silverware. The White House is responding to a growing ground swell of objections to its coming November International "Peace Conference". This calls together most, if not all, of Israel’s dedicated armies to discuss what Israel must give up for that illusory word: "Peace".
The White House is clearly getting nervous if it is now vomiting up assurances that "nothing conclusive will be done at this gathering". There is nothing as frightening as when diplomats and politicians give out sincere promises to the public. It is a sure sign that they are going to gang up on someone, be it a nation or a person, for an old fashioned lynching.
Israel is to be the designated victim and the hanging mob will be led by President George W. Bush, Secretary Condoleezza Rice and former Secretary James Baker III, within the pro-Arab U.S. State Department’s usual agenda. Other bar-room thugs officiating will be the rest of the so-called "quartet", including the U.N., E.U., Russia, the Arab League, Egypt and (if they agree to come to the lynching...Saudi Arabia).
The idea is to pacify all of us so we won’t swamp the pro-Israel American Congress with demands for their presence and protests. They also do not want protesters anywhere near the site of the meeting so it has to take place at a center where the public can be held far away - like Camp David, or Wye, or Crawford, Texas or somewhere that the Military, Police and/or National Guard can block any democratic challenge to a government policy intended to disassemble the Jewish State of Israel.
After all, a public lynching is not what the Bush Administration wants before national elections. Also the Europeans do not want to be seen again arranging for a Jewish Genocide as they participated in during WWII.
The propaganda machines in the bowels of Foggy Bottom (the U.S. State Department) and the White House are burning the midnight oil drafting news releases that speak about the Grand Peace Israel will receive from Syria, Hezb’Allah, Hamas, Fatah, PFLP, the Muslim Brotherhood and all those Arab nations with Charters that call for the absolute destruction of the so-called "infidel" Jewish entity - as mandated in the Koran.
In Israel, Olmert has tasked the Leftist Media to assure the people that he will consult with his Cabinet and the Knesset before he "implements" the "Declaration of Principles" which he has already committed to in writing with Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen). Abbas released the "secret" document to the Media and Olmert promptly denied its existence That "Declaration of Principles" lists the Israeli Land, given by G-d to the Jewish people, which Olmert has stated he will surrender to the Muslim Arabs: In addition to Gaza (which as predicted has become a Global Terror Kassam Rocket launching base), Judea, Samaria, the Jordan Valley, the Golan Heights and all those parts of Jerusalem which was occupied and desecrated by Jordan for 19 years from 1948 to 1967. Those territories of Israel’s ancestral heartland also include 2/3rds of Israel’s fresh water resources.
Olmert, to insure that there will no revolt of his Kadima Cabinet, has arranged what can only be called a "Cancellation Committee". Any negative vote taken by his own Kadima Cabinet cannot go into force until it passes a review of this new "Committee of Three" (all of whom happen to be close friends of Olmert). They have arrogated the right to themselves to investigate, consider, ponder what a ‘negative’ vote means. This consideration could go on for months and possibly never conclude their investigation - thereby insuring that the vote would be DOA (Dead On Arrival).
Something like the Winograd investigation of Olmert’s government handling of and losing the War in Lebanon against Hezb’Allah. Winograd, Olmert’s appointed friend and investigator, has essentially banned the investigation and its conclusions by refusing to release its findings. IF the scheme worked with Winograd without interference by the extremely Leftist Israeli Supreme Court, why not do it again with a three-man Commission who will kill any vote not favorable to the Bush-Rice-Baker Plan to divide and de-Judaize what was once the Jewish State?
Rice as the talking head for propaganda is saying things like: "The Implementation of these decisions will be difficult." Take that to mean that she and the lynch mob will push very hard for the agreements to divide Israel into smaller, digestible chunks - hoping everyone will believe that, if she says it’s difficult to implement, it will all take a long time or not happen at all. That’s called "Friendly Persuasion" but, otherwise it’s known as a street lie.
Then they proclaim that they will not be setting up any deadlines which you may read as definitely setting up deadlines. These deadlines which if NOT met will be followed by sanctions such as embargoes, cutting off aid, cutting off military assistance, cutting off contracts, spare parts, fuel supplies, pressuring American Jews with threats that an unhappy Bush Administration will raise the specter of anti-Semitism so they too must pressure Israel to cave in to all demands made during the November lynching.
Some will recall how George Herbert Walker Bush (Father Bush), in a telephone call to the Saudi King, promised that his son George would take care of the King. Well, the Bush lynch mob will more than prove that George will keep that promise in a November surprise.
There is growing concern in the White House that Congress may condemn the idea of dividing Jerusalem and further disassembly of Israel so that President Bush and Secretary C. Rice can leave their offices with a false positive historical legacy of having brought "Peace in our Time to the Muslim/Jewish Conflict".
There is further concern of a growing alarm among Christian Friends of Israel who will lobby Congress and show up ‘en masse’ in Washington at the lynching in November to protest.
It is always possible that the passive Jewish organizations like AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the UJC (United Jewish Communities) and others will wake up and protest. Jewish leadership has always been an embarrassment when it came to challenging the Arabist State Department in order to defend Israel.
Regrettably, the Republican Party will be tarred with the same brush as Bush-Rice and Baker going into national elections.
I wonder what the candidates running for President, both Democrats and Republicans will say (or avoid saying) before the November lynching? Let’s ask them.
The more they assure us that the gathering of Israel’s enemies to discuss the future existence of the Jewish nation is nothing to be concerned about - the more concerned and active we must be.
Please send this to your Congressional representatives and then call his or her office. Also, please send this analysis to your local papers, talk show and Israel’s Christian friends. Let President Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice know how you feel about these plans to betray a friend and ally as their legacy.
How many times must Israel hit its head against the wall before it gets it?
"........and the beast goes on".......
Israel is releasing 87 Palestinian prisoners on Monday, as a goodwill gesture to Palestinian leader Mahmoud ‘Abbas during the Muslim holy month Ramadan. The move takes place on the eve of the latest meeting between ‘Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Their session is expected to deal with substantive issues leading to the creation of a Palestinian state, with Israel reported to be offering around 92 percent of the land is took in the 1967 War. Publicly the Palestinians are rejecting the offer, demanding a 100% withdrawal.
Israel is releasing 87 Palestinian prisoners on Monday, as a goodwill gesture to Palestinian leader Mahmoud ‘Abbas during the Muslim holy month Ramadan. The move takes place on the eve of the latest meeting between ‘Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Their session is expected to deal with substantive issues leading to the creation of a Palestinian state, with Israel reported to be offering around 92 percent of the land is took in the 1967 War. Publicly the Palestinians are rejecting the offer, demanding a 100% withdrawal.
How the U.N. Supports Hamas
Palestinians in the new Islamic State of Gaza, crying out for more aid from the United Nations, are turning to United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for help. Their reliance upon UNRWA comes as no surprise. The organization has been providing food, medicine, and social services to the Palestinian people for 57 years. Unfortunately, UNWRA has never taken steps to withhold assistance to extremist groups. In some cases, it has cooperated openly with terrorists. Today, as UNRWA provides assistance in Gaza, it is directly providing financial and material support to the Hamas terrorist organization.
A Mutually Beneficial Relationship
According to the U.N. aid agency for Palestinian refugees, up to 825,000 of Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants claim refugee status. These Gazans receive food rations and other assistance through the United Nations, including medicine, education, and even jobs via UNRWA.
While the refugees benefit from UNRWA, the organization benefits more from the refugees. These refugees are the organization's raison d'etre. Accordingly, UNRWA has zero incentive to resolve the Palestinian refugee problem; ending the refugee problem would render the agency obsolete.
The interests of the refugees and UNRWA are so intertwined that UNRWA is staffed in situ mainly by local Palestinians—more than 23,000 of them—with only about 100 international United Nations professionals. While the U.N. High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) and UNICEF (United Nations International Children's Fund) avoid employing locals who are also recipients of agency services, UNRWA does not make this distinction.
Thus, in the interest of self-perpetuation, UNRWA seeks to maintain the violent status quo in the Middle East, even if it means turning a blind eye to terror.
Helping Hamas Govern Gaza
Supporting the status quo means that UNRWA can be counted on to support the new Hamas government, so long as Hamas enables UNRWA's continued existence. UNRWA is only too eager to provide the services that Hamas does not, cannot, or chooses not to. Hamas can continue to divert international monies that should be earmarked for food or electricity to the stockpiling of weapons and the creation of anti-Israel or anti-American propaganda as long as UNRWA provides the services that the negligent Hamas government should fulfill. In this way, UNRWA is undermining the Western strategy of weakening the Hamas government in Gaza to encourage the return of Palestinian Authority rule under President Mahmoud Abbas.
UNWRA does not hide this. As Commissioner General Karen AbuZayd states, UNRWA's goal "is to reconstruct houses, create jobs, and micro-financing." It has been filling this role since 1991, when UNRWA launched its micro-finance and micro-enterprise program (MMP) in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Indeed, UNRWA provides services that the Palestinian economic ministry or treasury should handle. UNRWA, originally conceived as a temporary apparatus to ease the refugees' economic plight more than a half-century ago, has been providing the Palestinians of Gaza (as well as the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan) with critical economic services for a decade so that the Palestinian government, whether Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, can continue to concentrate on "resistance."
Supporting the Hamas Platform
UNRWA does not seem to have a problem with Hamas' Islamist agenda. It has not condemned the brutal Hamas violence that enabled the terrorist group to take the Gaza Strip by force in June. UNRWA waited to see who would win the battle, then immediately indicated to Hamas that it was eager to get back to providing its services.
UNRWA only appears to be concerned with its own survival and continued funding. As AbuZayd recently said after the Hamas takeover, "we are not scared. Donor countries have not in any way said they will stop their aid to UNRWA. On the contrary, we were approached by many of these countries, even Israel, asking us to continue our services to Palestinian refugees and perhaps even extend these services to do things we haven't done before."
As long as it can continue to feed refugees, UNRWA does not appear to be scared of Hamas' terrorist agenda, either. Professor Rashid Khalidi, a noted Hamas apologist at Columbia University, explains that UNRWA employs, "members of different political groups such as… Hamas and Islamic Jihad, without reference to their belonging to a specific group."
Moreover, according to Yoni Fighel, a former Israeli military governor in the Palestinian territories, UNRWA workers are permitted to openly affiliate with terrorist groups. He notes that, "as long as UNRWA employees are members of Fatah, Hamas, or PFLP [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine], they are going to pursue the interests of their party within the framework of their job…Who's going to check up on them to see that they don't? UNRWA? They are UNRWA."
In other words, UNRWA sees Hamas and other terrorist groups as part of the Palestinian landscape, and therefore embraces these groups.
Teaching and Preaching Hamas Ideology
Since many UNRWA teachers are alumni of the UNRWA school system, they often perpetuate the vitriolic curriculum they were taught, vilifying Israel and the West. For example, Suheil al-Hindi, an UNRWA teachers' representative, openly applauded suicide bombings at a school in the Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza in 2003. Instead of a condemnation, al-Hindi received a promotion and was subsequently elected to UNRWA's clerks union.
UNRWA teachers who publicly identify with radical groups have created a teachers' bloc that ensures the election of Hamas members and other individuals committed to Islamist ideologies. After using their classrooms as a place to refine their radical messages, these teachers gravitate to politics. As such, UNRWA's education system has become a springboard for Hamas leaders. For example, Said Sayyam, the Hamas minister of interior and civil affairs, was a teacher in UNRWA schools in Gaza from 1980 to 2003. He went on to become a member of UNRWA's Arab Employees Union, and headed the teachers sector committee.
Notable graduates of the UNRWA school system include former Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, and Abd al-Aziz Rantisi, the former Hamas chief who attended UNRWA secondary school in Khan Younis and graduated top of his class.
UNRWA and Terrorism
UNRWA institutions have not just produced terrorist ideologues. They have also produced terrorist masterminds. According to Dore Gold, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, UNWRA has produced graduates like Ibrahim Maqadama, who "helped create the military structure of Hamas." Gold notes that, "at least 46 terrorist operatives were students in the UNRWA schools."
There have also been widespread reports of terrorism from UNRWA-supervised facilities, including sniper attacks from UNRWA-run schools, bomb and arms factories in UNRWA camps, the transport of terrorists to their target zones in UNRWA ambulances, and even UNRWA employees directly tied to terrorist attacks against civilians.
Nidal Abd al-Fattah Abdallah Nazzal, an ambulance driver for UNRWA from Kalqiliya in the West Bank, was arrested by Israeli security services in August 2002. Nidal admitted that he was a Hamas activist and that he had transported weapons and explosives to terrorists in his ambulance, taking advantage of the freedom of movement afforded to UNRWA vehicles by the Israelis.
Nahd Rashid Ahmad Atallah, a senior official of UNRWA in the Gaza Strip, was also arrested by Israeli security in August 2002. In his capacity as an UNRWA official, he provided support to families of wanted Fatah and PFLP terrorists. He used his UNRWA car to transport armed members of the "Popular Resistance Committees," a militant faction of the Fatah movement, to carry out attacks against Israeli troops at the Karni Crossing.
UNRWA also appears to be in the business of cultivating new terrorists. The New York Times exposed in 2000 that UNRWA allowed terrorist groups to use their schools as "summer camps" so that 25,000 Palestinian children could receive paramilitary training, including instructions on how to prepare Molotov cocktails and roadside bombs.
UNRWA does not appear eager to prevent this kind of activity. When the U.S. government's General Accounting Office (GAO) asked UNRWA whether it screens beneficiaries for ties with terrorists, UNRWA claimed that it couldn't because such a screening would endanger its staff. Similarly, when the houses of six Palestinian families on UNRWA's registry were destroyed during bomb-making activities, UNRWA concluded there was not enough evidence to deny them benefits under the terrorist exclusion law.
Target UNRWA?
As the West searches for ways to weaken Hamas in Gaza, UNRWA should be an obvious target. UNRWA provides food, medicine, economic aid, jobs, radical education, political opportunities, and even logistical assistance to Hamas and other extremist groups. UNRWA's budget, which exceeds $365 million, is funded by many nations, but the United States and other Western nations are the largest contributors. Cutting off UNRWA's budget would be detrimental to Hamas in Gaza. It would also send an important message to the United Nations, which perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem and lends legitimacy to groups like Hamas through UNRWA's continued existence.
Asaf Romirowsky is a Campus Watch Associate Fellow for the Middle East Forum and the Manager of Israel & Middle East Affairs for the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia.
A Mutually Beneficial Relationship
According to the U.N. aid agency for Palestinian refugees, up to 825,000 of Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants claim refugee status. These Gazans receive food rations and other assistance through the United Nations, including medicine, education, and even jobs via UNRWA.
While the refugees benefit from UNRWA, the organization benefits more from the refugees. These refugees are the organization's raison d'etre. Accordingly, UNRWA has zero incentive to resolve the Palestinian refugee problem; ending the refugee problem would render the agency obsolete.
The interests of the refugees and UNRWA are so intertwined that UNRWA is staffed in situ mainly by local Palestinians—more than 23,000 of them—with only about 100 international United Nations professionals. While the U.N. High Commission on Refugees (UNHCR) and UNICEF (United Nations International Children's Fund) avoid employing locals who are also recipients of agency services, UNRWA does not make this distinction.
Thus, in the interest of self-perpetuation, UNRWA seeks to maintain the violent status quo in the Middle East, even if it means turning a blind eye to terror.
Helping Hamas Govern Gaza
Supporting the status quo means that UNRWA can be counted on to support the new Hamas government, so long as Hamas enables UNRWA's continued existence. UNRWA is only too eager to provide the services that Hamas does not, cannot, or chooses not to. Hamas can continue to divert international monies that should be earmarked for food or electricity to the stockpiling of weapons and the creation of anti-Israel or anti-American propaganda as long as UNRWA provides the services that the negligent Hamas government should fulfill. In this way, UNRWA is undermining the Western strategy of weakening the Hamas government in Gaza to encourage the return of Palestinian Authority rule under President Mahmoud Abbas.
UNWRA does not hide this. As Commissioner General Karen AbuZayd states, UNRWA's goal "is to reconstruct houses, create jobs, and micro-financing." It has been filling this role since 1991, when UNRWA launched its micro-finance and micro-enterprise program (MMP) in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Indeed, UNRWA provides services that the Palestinian economic ministry or treasury should handle. UNRWA, originally conceived as a temporary apparatus to ease the refugees' economic plight more than a half-century ago, has been providing the Palestinians of Gaza (as well as the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan) with critical economic services for a decade so that the Palestinian government, whether Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, can continue to concentrate on "resistance."
Supporting the Hamas Platform
UNRWA does not seem to have a problem with Hamas' Islamist agenda. It has not condemned the brutal Hamas violence that enabled the terrorist group to take the Gaza Strip by force in June. UNRWA waited to see who would win the battle, then immediately indicated to Hamas that it was eager to get back to providing its services.
UNRWA only appears to be concerned with its own survival and continued funding. As AbuZayd recently said after the Hamas takeover, "we are not scared. Donor countries have not in any way said they will stop their aid to UNRWA. On the contrary, we were approached by many of these countries, even Israel, asking us to continue our services to Palestinian refugees and perhaps even extend these services to do things we haven't done before."
As long as it can continue to feed refugees, UNRWA does not appear to be scared of Hamas' terrorist agenda, either. Professor Rashid Khalidi, a noted Hamas apologist at Columbia University, explains that UNRWA employs, "members of different political groups such as… Hamas and Islamic Jihad, without reference to their belonging to a specific group."
Moreover, according to Yoni Fighel, a former Israeli military governor in the Palestinian territories, UNRWA workers are permitted to openly affiliate with terrorist groups. He notes that, "as long as UNRWA employees are members of Fatah, Hamas, or PFLP [Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine], they are going to pursue the interests of their party within the framework of their job…Who's going to check up on them to see that they don't? UNRWA? They are UNRWA."
In other words, UNRWA sees Hamas and other terrorist groups as part of the Palestinian landscape, and therefore embraces these groups.
Teaching and Preaching Hamas Ideology
Since many UNRWA teachers are alumni of the UNRWA school system, they often perpetuate the vitriolic curriculum they were taught, vilifying Israel and the West. For example, Suheil al-Hindi, an UNRWA teachers' representative, openly applauded suicide bombings at a school in the Jabaliya refugee camp in Gaza in 2003. Instead of a condemnation, al-Hindi received a promotion and was subsequently elected to UNRWA's clerks union.
UNRWA teachers who publicly identify with radical groups have created a teachers' bloc that ensures the election of Hamas members and other individuals committed to Islamist ideologies. After using their classrooms as a place to refine their radical messages, these teachers gravitate to politics. As such, UNRWA's education system has become a springboard for Hamas leaders. For example, Said Sayyam, the Hamas minister of interior and civil affairs, was a teacher in UNRWA schools in Gaza from 1980 to 2003. He went on to become a member of UNRWA's Arab Employees Union, and headed the teachers sector committee.
Notable graduates of the UNRWA school system include former Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, and Abd al-Aziz Rantisi, the former Hamas chief who attended UNRWA secondary school in Khan Younis and graduated top of his class.
UNRWA and Terrorism
UNRWA institutions have not just produced terrorist ideologues. They have also produced terrorist masterminds. According to Dore Gold, former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, UNWRA has produced graduates like Ibrahim Maqadama, who "helped create the military structure of Hamas." Gold notes that, "at least 46 terrorist operatives were students in the UNRWA schools."
There have also been widespread reports of terrorism from UNRWA-supervised facilities, including sniper attacks from UNRWA-run schools, bomb and arms factories in UNRWA camps, the transport of terrorists to their target zones in UNRWA ambulances, and even UNRWA employees directly tied to terrorist attacks against civilians.
Nidal Abd al-Fattah Abdallah Nazzal, an ambulance driver for UNRWA from Kalqiliya in the West Bank, was arrested by Israeli security services in August 2002. Nidal admitted that he was a Hamas activist and that he had transported weapons and explosives to terrorists in his ambulance, taking advantage of the freedom of movement afforded to UNRWA vehicles by the Israelis.
Nahd Rashid Ahmad Atallah, a senior official of UNRWA in the Gaza Strip, was also arrested by Israeli security in August 2002. In his capacity as an UNRWA official, he provided support to families of wanted Fatah and PFLP terrorists. He used his UNRWA car to transport armed members of the "Popular Resistance Committees," a militant faction of the Fatah movement, to carry out attacks against Israeli troops at the Karni Crossing.
UNRWA also appears to be in the business of cultivating new terrorists. The New York Times exposed in 2000 that UNRWA allowed terrorist groups to use their schools as "summer camps" so that 25,000 Palestinian children could receive paramilitary training, including instructions on how to prepare Molotov cocktails and roadside bombs.
UNRWA does not appear eager to prevent this kind of activity. When the U.S. government's General Accounting Office (GAO) asked UNRWA whether it screens beneficiaries for ties with terrorists, UNRWA claimed that it couldn't because such a screening would endanger its staff. Similarly, when the houses of six Palestinian families on UNRWA's registry were destroyed during bomb-making activities, UNRWA concluded there was not enough evidence to deny them benefits under the terrorist exclusion law.
Target UNRWA?
As the West searches for ways to weaken Hamas in Gaza, UNRWA should be an obvious target. UNRWA provides food, medicine, economic aid, jobs, radical education, political opportunities, and even logistical assistance to Hamas and other extremist groups. UNRWA's budget, which exceeds $365 million, is funded by many nations, but the United States and other Western nations are the largest contributors. Cutting off UNRWA's budget would be detrimental to Hamas in Gaza. It would also send an important message to the United Nations, which perpetuates the Palestinian refugee problem and lends legitimacy to groups like Hamas through UNRWA's continued existence.
Asaf Romirowsky is a Campus Watch Associate Fellow for the Middle East Forum and the Manager of Israel & Middle East Affairs for the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia.
Iran, Osama and 9/11
Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Thomas Joscelyn, an expert on the international terrorist network. He has written extensively on al Qaeda and its allies, including Iran. He is the author, most recently, of Iran’s Proxy War Against America, a booklet published by the Claremont Institute and available for download at its web site. . (Click here to download the booklet.)
FP: Thomas Joscelyn, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Joscleyn: Good to be here Jamie.
FP: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia has sparked great controversy. Yesterday, Ahmadinejad announced in front of the U.N. General Assembly that Iran will defy U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that his regime suspend its uranium enrichment.
What should the American people know about Ahmadinejad and the regime he represents?
Joscelyn: Ahmadinejad is a puppet for the Ayatollah and his attending mullahs, who have the real power in Iran. This clerical regime, which rose to power in 1979, is intrinsically opposed to America and her allies throughout the world. When they chant “Death to America,” they mean it. The Iranian regime is also dedicated to revolution. That is, they want to export the Iranian revolution throughout the Middle East and the world. And they have often done so on the backs of terrorists.
Iran has provided vital assistance to terrorist organizations in at least all of the following nations/areas: the Palestinian territories (Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad), Lebanon (Hezbollah), Egypt (the Islamic Group and Egyptian Islamic Jihad), Sudan (a variety of terrorist groups), Somalia (Sunni terrorists), Algeria (an al Qaeda affiliate), Saudi Arabia (Saudi Hezbollah), Southeast Asia (various terrorist groups, including affiliates of al Qaeda), Iraq (both Sunni and Shiite terrorist groups), Afghanistan (Iran now even arms the Taliban, its one-time enemy), the Gulf States, and elsewhere.
So, Iran is the fountainhead of terrorism.
Much of the public outrage over Ahmadinejad’s visit has focused on Iran’s ongoing support for our terrorist enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as his nation’s burgeoning nuclear program. These are, of course, legitimate and grave concerns. Unfortunately, however, there has been little focus on the relationship between Iran and al Qaeda, despite the fact that the relationship reportedly dates back to 1990.
FP: What evidence ties Iran to al Qaeda as early as 1990?
Joscelyn: According to Lawrence Wright in his book The Looming Tower, a top al Qaeda operative named Ali Mohamed told the FBI that Ayman al Zawahiri and the Iranians agreed to cooperate on a coup attempt in Egypt in 1990. The Iranians have long targeted Hosni Mubarak’s regime and so they were very willing to assist Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad (“EIJ”) in a coup attempt. According to Mohamed, the Iranians gave Zawahiri $2 million and trained his EIJ operatives for the coup attempt, which was ultimately aborted.
Coming from Ali Mohamed, this is especially damning testimony. Mohamed was one of the U.S. Government’s star witnesses during the trial of some of the al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the August 7, 1998, embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Mohamed himself admitted to his involvement in the embassy bombings – he did the surveillance that was used to plan the operation. He also looms large in al Qaeda’s early history: he compiled al Qaeda’s first training manual, trained bin Laden’s security guards, helped organize al Qaeda’s move from Afghanistan to the Sudan in the early 1990’s, and was trusted by Zawahiri to penetrate America’s intelligence and military establishments (he even feigned cooperation with the CIA as an informant and went on to become a sergeant in the U.S. Army).
So, Mohamed’s testimony is good evidence that the Iranians and al Qaeda were cooperating all the way back in 1990.
FP: And the cooperation didn’t end there, did it?
Joscelyn: No, it did not end there. There is evidence of cooperation between Iran, Hezbollah and al Qaeda from 1990 through the present. I go into more detail about this evidence in Iran’s Proxy War Against America, but let me provide some of the highlights here.
According to the 9/11 Commission, the Iranians and al Qaeda held discussions in the early 1990’s. During the embassy bombings trial we learned that one of these meetings involved a sit down between Imad Mugniyah, who is Iran’s master terrorist as well as Hezbollah’s chief of terrorist operations, and Osama bin Laden. As a result of these meetings, Iran and al Qaeda agreed to cooperate on attacks against America and Israel. Al Qaeda terrorists were then trained in Iranian and Hezbollah training camps in Lebanon, Sudan and Iran.
Mugniyah had a profound impact on al Qaeda’s transition from an Afghani-based insurgency group into an international terrorist empire. As a result of the cooperation between Mugniyah and bin Laden, al Qaeda consciously modeled itself after Hezbollah in many ways. As Lawrence Wright notes in The Looming Tower, there are good reasons to suspect that al Qaeda even adopted the use of suicide bombers because of Hezbollah’s influence. I think that prior to 1993 (there may be an isolated incident or two prior to then), suicide attacks were an anathema to Sunni Islam. They were strictly prohibited. The Shiite Hezbollah, however, had used suicide bombers since as early 1983, when Mugniyah’s suicide truck bombers destroyed the U.S. embassy and the U.S. Marine Barracks in Lebanon. Zawahiri and al Qaeda adopted suicide attacks as their modus operandi only in the early 1990’s, after Hezbollah had shown them the utility of such operations.
According to Bob Baer in See No Evil, the CIA uncovered evidence that Mugniyah helped facilitate the travel of an al Qaeda terrorist en route to an attack on the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan in 1995. In June 1996, according to Gerald Posner in Why America Slept, the CIA obtained reports from a terrorist summit in Tehran. The reports indicated that al Qaeda, Iran and Hezbollah had agreed to step up their attacks on American targets throughout the Middle East. A few days later, on June 25, 1996, Hezbollah – under direct orders from Tehran – bombed the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia.
The 9/11 Commission found that in addition to strong evidence of Iran’s involvement, there were also signs that al Qaeda played a role in the Khobar Towers bombing. Al Qaeda had reportedly been planning a similar operation in the months prior to the attack and intelligence officials found that bin Laden was congratulated by senior al Qaeda members, such as Ayman al Zawahiri, shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous reports by the CIA and the State Department noted that Iran and al Qaeda were both suspects. Therefore, although we don’t know for sure, there is, at the very least, a strong possibility that the Khobar Towers operation was a joint operation between Iran, Hezbollah and al Qaeda.
The 9/11 Commission found that the al Qaeda cell in Kenya, which was responsible for bombing the embassy there on August 7, 1998, was trained by Hezbollah for the operation. The 9/11 Commission also found that there is evidence that Iran and Hezbollah facilitated the travels of 8 to 10 of the hijackers responsible for the September 11 attacks.
There is strong evidence that Iran helped al Qaeda and Taliban members escape from Afghanistan in late 2001 and, therefore, evade American justice. Finally, Iran harbors senior al Qaeda leaders such as Saif al Adel (al Qaeda’s military chief) and Saad bin Laden (Osama’s son and heir) to this day.
This is just some of the evidence of Iran’s involvement in al Qaeda’s terror.
FP: So in your opinion, what is the strongest evidence of Iran’s support for al Qaeda?
Joscelyn: The simultaneous suicide bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998. As I explain in Iran’s Proxy War Against America, there is strong evidence that: (1) Bin Laden and al Qaeda deliberately modeled the attack after Hezbollah’s simultaneous suicide bombings of the U.S. Marine barracks and a headquarters for French paratroopers in Lebanon in 1983. (2) According to the 9/11 Commission, Iran and Hezbollah trained at least one of the cells responsible for the attack. They showed them how to execute this type of operation. (3) There is evidence that Iran supplied al Qaeda with a large amount of explosives used in the attack. (4) Iran gives safe haven to the senior al Qaeda terrorist wanted for his involvement in the bombings, Saif al Adel, to this day.
Therefore, we have Iran and Hezbollah inspiring, training, arming and giving safe haven to the al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the embassy bombings. And this was al Qaeda’s most successful operation prior to 9/11. If this isn’t support for al Qaeda, then I don’t know what is.
FP: So wait a minute then, could it be fairly said that Iran was, to one extent or another, behind 9/11?
Joscelyn: I do not think that Iran was “behind 9/11.” I think that, just as the 9/11 Commission found, there are open questions about Iran’s and Hezbollah’s involvement in the September 11 attacks. If you read pages 240 and 241 of the 9/11 Commission’s final report very carefully you realize there are a lot of dots connecting Iran and Hezbollah to the travels of 8 to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers. However, the 9/11 Commission sort of kicked the can down the road, so to speak, on this issue. The commissioners called for further investigation into this matter in 2004, but more than three years later no such investigation has been launched. That’s one of the reasons I wrote this booklet.
I would also point out that the 9/11 Commission did not cover all of the threads potentially tying Iran and Hezbollah to 9/11. As Newsweek first reported, Ramzi Binalshibh – al Qaeda’s point man for 9/11 – made a very suspicious trip to Iran during the planning stages of the operation. And shortly before the attack he left Germany on a flight that landed at Tehran International Airport. Thus, one of the main al Qaeda conspirators involved in 9/11 found it convenient (or something more?) to travel to Iran during the key stages of the 9/11 plot. Binalshibh reportedly told his CIA interrogators that there was nothing to any of this, but one has to wonder if he wasn’t simply lying. And certainly we shouldn’t take his disavowal at face value.
FP: Some on the left will no doubt accuse you of trying to bolster the case for a war with Iran. How would you respond to this allegation?
Joscelyn: I think this hits on a big problem we face right now as a nation. The discourse has become too politicized. The focus in this nation is largely on our own domestic political situation and the Bush administration. I think we would be better served by asking more of the tough questions about al Qaeda that need answering.
In the booklet, I explicitly argue that an invasion of Iran would be disastrous. I do not think that military strikes should be taken off the table entirely, but I have doubts about their efficacy. And force may be required to stop Iran’s sponsorship of terrorists who are killing American servicemen inside Iraq. But the point of the booklet is not to advocate for a particular course of action. The reason I wrote it was to stir debate about what I think are a significant body of facts and evidence tying Iran to al Qaeda. I don’t think the public interest is served by pretending that none of this evidence exists.
FP: Why is there such reticence to engage the evidence of Iran’s involvement with al Qaeda?
Joscelyn: It seems to me that al Qaeda is an enemy we have never really understood. Ignorance is widespread. We face a large network of terrorists, but many prefer not to get into the nuts and bolts of how they actually work. For example, we often hear that the Sunnis of al Qaeda and the Shiites of Iran and Hezbollah are incapable of cooperation due to their theological differences. A cursory examination of Iran’s and al Qaeda’s behavior reveals, however, that this is nonsense. When it comes to facing their common enemies the two have been more than willing to set aside their differences. In fact, Iran has long supported Sunni terrorists, including groups such as Hamas, which is the ideological cousin of al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission also explicitly found that ideological or theological differences did not prevent Iran and Hezbollah from cooperating with al Qaeda.
More than six years have passed since 9/11. I think it is about time we got rid of some of our more shallow assumptions about our terrorist enemies.
And perhaps we should start asking President Ahmadinejad why it is that his nation harbors scores of al Qaeda terrorists to this day.
FP: Thomas Joscelyn, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
Joscelyn: Thank you Jamie.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.
FP: Thomas Joscelyn, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Joscleyn: Good to be here Jamie.
FP: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia has sparked great controversy. Yesterday, Ahmadinejad announced in front of the U.N. General Assembly that Iran will defy U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that his regime suspend its uranium enrichment.
What should the American people know about Ahmadinejad and the regime he represents?
Joscelyn: Ahmadinejad is a puppet for the Ayatollah and his attending mullahs, who have the real power in Iran. This clerical regime, which rose to power in 1979, is intrinsically opposed to America and her allies throughout the world. When they chant “Death to America,” they mean it. The Iranian regime is also dedicated to revolution. That is, they want to export the Iranian revolution throughout the Middle East and the world. And they have often done so on the backs of terrorists.
Iran has provided vital assistance to terrorist organizations in at least all of the following nations/areas: the Palestinian territories (Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad), Lebanon (Hezbollah), Egypt (the Islamic Group and Egyptian Islamic Jihad), Sudan (a variety of terrorist groups), Somalia (Sunni terrorists), Algeria (an al Qaeda affiliate), Saudi Arabia (Saudi Hezbollah), Southeast Asia (various terrorist groups, including affiliates of al Qaeda), Iraq (both Sunni and Shiite terrorist groups), Afghanistan (Iran now even arms the Taliban, its one-time enemy), the Gulf States, and elsewhere.
So, Iran is the fountainhead of terrorism.
Much of the public outrage over Ahmadinejad’s visit has focused on Iran’s ongoing support for our terrorist enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as his nation’s burgeoning nuclear program. These are, of course, legitimate and grave concerns. Unfortunately, however, there has been little focus on the relationship between Iran and al Qaeda, despite the fact that the relationship reportedly dates back to 1990.
FP: What evidence ties Iran to al Qaeda as early as 1990?
Joscelyn: According to Lawrence Wright in his book The Looming Tower, a top al Qaeda operative named Ali Mohamed told the FBI that Ayman al Zawahiri and the Iranians agreed to cooperate on a coup attempt in Egypt in 1990. The Iranians have long targeted Hosni Mubarak’s regime and so they were very willing to assist Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad (“EIJ”) in a coup attempt. According to Mohamed, the Iranians gave Zawahiri $2 million and trained his EIJ operatives for the coup attempt, which was ultimately aborted.
Coming from Ali Mohamed, this is especially damning testimony. Mohamed was one of the U.S. Government’s star witnesses during the trial of some of the al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the August 7, 1998, embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Mohamed himself admitted to his involvement in the embassy bombings – he did the surveillance that was used to plan the operation. He also looms large in al Qaeda’s early history: he compiled al Qaeda’s first training manual, trained bin Laden’s security guards, helped organize al Qaeda’s move from Afghanistan to the Sudan in the early 1990’s, and was trusted by Zawahiri to penetrate America’s intelligence and military establishments (he even feigned cooperation with the CIA as an informant and went on to become a sergeant in the U.S. Army).
So, Mohamed’s testimony is good evidence that the Iranians and al Qaeda were cooperating all the way back in 1990.
FP: And the cooperation didn’t end there, did it?
Joscelyn: No, it did not end there. There is evidence of cooperation between Iran, Hezbollah and al Qaeda from 1990 through the present. I go into more detail about this evidence in Iran’s Proxy War Against America, but let me provide some of the highlights here.
According to the 9/11 Commission, the Iranians and al Qaeda held discussions in the early 1990’s. During the embassy bombings trial we learned that one of these meetings involved a sit down between Imad Mugniyah, who is Iran’s master terrorist as well as Hezbollah’s chief of terrorist operations, and Osama bin Laden. As a result of these meetings, Iran and al Qaeda agreed to cooperate on attacks against America and Israel. Al Qaeda terrorists were then trained in Iranian and Hezbollah training camps in Lebanon, Sudan and Iran.
Mugniyah had a profound impact on al Qaeda’s transition from an Afghani-based insurgency group into an international terrorist empire. As a result of the cooperation between Mugniyah and bin Laden, al Qaeda consciously modeled itself after Hezbollah in many ways. As Lawrence Wright notes in The Looming Tower, there are good reasons to suspect that al Qaeda even adopted the use of suicide bombers because of Hezbollah’s influence. I think that prior to 1993 (there may be an isolated incident or two prior to then), suicide attacks were an anathema to Sunni Islam. They were strictly prohibited. The Shiite Hezbollah, however, had used suicide bombers since as early 1983, when Mugniyah’s suicide truck bombers destroyed the U.S. embassy and the U.S. Marine Barracks in Lebanon. Zawahiri and al Qaeda adopted suicide attacks as their modus operandi only in the early 1990’s, after Hezbollah had shown them the utility of such operations.
According to Bob Baer in See No Evil, the CIA uncovered evidence that Mugniyah helped facilitate the travel of an al Qaeda terrorist en route to an attack on the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan in 1995. In June 1996, according to Gerald Posner in Why America Slept, the CIA obtained reports from a terrorist summit in Tehran. The reports indicated that al Qaeda, Iran and Hezbollah had agreed to step up their attacks on American targets throughout the Middle East. A few days later, on June 25, 1996, Hezbollah – under direct orders from Tehran – bombed the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia.
The 9/11 Commission found that in addition to strong evidence of Iran’s involvement, there were also signs that al Qaeda played a role in the Khobar Towers bombing. Al Qaeda had reportedly been planning a similar operation in the months prior to the attack and intelligence officials found that bin Laden was congratulated by senior al Qaeda members, such as Ayman al Zawahiri, shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous reports by the CIA and the State Department noted that Iran and al Qaeda were both suspects. Therefore, although we don’t know for sure, there is, at the very least, a strong possibility that the Khobar Towers operation was a joint operation between Iran, Hezbollah and al Qaeda.
The 9/11 Commission found that the al Qaeda cell in Kenya, which was responsible for bombing the embassy there on August 7, 1998, was trained by Hezbollah for the operation. The 9/11 Commission also found that there is evidence that Iran and Hezbollah facilitated the travels of 8 to 10 of the hijackers responsible for the September 11 attacks.
There is strong evidence that Iran helped al Qaeda and Taliban members escape from Afghanistan in late 2001 and, therefore, evade American justice. Finally, Iran harbors senior al Qaeda leaders such as Saif al Adel (al Qaeda’s military chief) and Saad bin Laden (Osama’s son and heir) to this day.
This is just some of the evidence of Iran’s involvement in al Qaeda’s terror.
FP: So in your opinion, what is the strongest evidence of Iran’s support for al Qaeda?
Joscelyn: The simultaneous suicide bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998. As I explain in Iran’s Proxy War Against America, there is strong evidence that: (1) Bin Laden and al Qaeda deliberately modeled the attack after Hezbollah’s simultaneous suicide bombings of the U.S. Marine barracks and a headquarters for French paratroopers in Lebanon in 1983. (2) According to the 9/11 Commission, Iran and Hezbollah trained at least one of the cells responsible for the attack. They showed them how to execute this type of operation. (3) There is evidence that Iran supplied al Qaeda with a large amount of explosives used in the attack. (4) Iran gives safe haven to the senior al Qaeda terrorist wanted for his involvement in the bombings, Saif al Adel, to this day.
Therefore, we have Iran and Hezbollah inspiring, training, arming and giving safe haven to the al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the embassy bombings. And this was al Qaeda’s most successful operation prior to 9/11. If this isn’t support for al Qaeda, then I don’t know what is.
FP: So wait a minute then, could it be fairly said that Iran was, to one extent or another, behind 9/11?
Joscelyn: I do not think that Iran was “behind 9/11.” I think that, just as the 9/11 Commission found, there are open questions about Iran’s and Hezbollah’s involvement in the September 11 attacks. If you read pages 240 and 241 of the 9/11 Commission’s final report very carefully you realize there are a lot of dots connecting Iran and Hezbollah to the travels of 8 to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers. However, the 9/11 Commission sort of kicked the can down the road, so to speak, on this issue. The commissioners called for further investigation into this matter in 2004, but more than three years later no such investigation has been launched. That’s one of the reasons I wrote this booklet.
I would also point out that the 9/11 Commission did not cover all of the threads potentially tying Iran and Hezbollah to 9/11. As Newsweek first reported, Ramzi Binalshibh – al Qaeda’s point man for 9/11 – made a very suspicious trip to Iran during the planning stages of the operation. And shortly before the attack he left Germany on a flight that landed at Tehran International Airport. Thus, one of the main al Qaeda conspirators involved in 9/11 found it convenient (or something more?) to travel to Iran during the key stages of the 9/11 plot. Binalshibh reportedly told his CIA interrogators that there was nothing to any of this, but one has to wonder if he wasn’t simply lying. And certainly we shouldn’t take his disavowal at face value.
FP: Some on the left will no doubt accuse you of trying to bolster the case for a war with Iran. How would you respond to this allegation?
Joscelyn: I think this hits on a big problem we face right now as a nation. The discourse has become too politicized. The focus in this nation is largely on our own domestic political situation and the Bush administration. I think we would be better served by asking more of the tough questions about al Qaeda that need answering.
In the booklet, I explicitly argue that an invasion of Iran would be disastrous. I do not think that military strikes should be taken off the table entirely, but I have doubts about their efficacy. And force may be required to stop Iran’s sponsorship of terrorists who are killing American servicemen inside Iraq. But the point of the booklet is not to advocate for a particular course of action. The reason I wrote it was to stir debate about what I think are a significant body of facts and evidence tying Iran to al Qaeda. I don’t think the public interest is served by pretending that none of this evidence exists.
FP: Why is there such reticence to engage the evidence of Iran’s involvement with al Qaeda?
Joscelyn: It seems to me that al Qaeda is an enemy we have never really understood. Ignorance is widespread. We face a large network of terrorists, but many prefer not to get into the nuts and bolts of how they actually work. For example, we often hear that the Sunnis of al Qaeda and the Shiites of Iran and Hezbollah are incapable of cooperation due to their theological differences. A cursory examination of Iran’s and al Qaeda’s behavior reveals, however, that this is nonsense. When it comes to facing their common enemies the two have been more than willing to set aside their differences. In fact, Iran has long supported Sunni terrorists, including groups such as Hamas, which is the ideological cousin of al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission also explicitly found that ideological or theological differences did not prevent Iran and Hezbollah from cooperating with al Qaeda.
More than six years have passed since 9/11. I think it is about time we got rid of some of our more shallow assumptions about our terrorist enemies.
And perhaps we should start asking President Ahmadinejad why it is that his nation harbors scores of al Qaeda terrorists to this day.
FP: Thomas Joscelyn, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
Joscelyn: Thank you Jamie.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.
Ahmadinejads Holocaust Myths
In his speeches, most especially the one at Columbia University, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeats two myths about the Holocaust. The first every reasonable person knows is a total lie: namely that the Holocaust did not occur. The second myth, however, is one that escapes critical attention for the most part, because many people are not aware of its falsity. The myth is that the Palestinian people and their leadership had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust. The conclusion that is supposed to follow from this “fact” is that the establishment of Israel in the wake of the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people was unfair to the Palestinians. This is the way Ahmadinejad put it in his Columbia talk.
“…[G]iven this historical event [the Holocaust], if it is a reality, we need to question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it… “The Palestinian people didn’t commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II.”
These statements about the role of the Palestinians are demonstrably false. The truth is that the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust. The Palestinian leader at the time was Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufit of Jerusalem. As Professor Edward Said has acknowledged:
“Hajj Amin al-Husseini represented the Palestinian Arab national consensus, had the backing of the Palestinian political parties that functioned in Palestine, and was recognized in some form by Arab governments as the voice of the Palestinian people.”
Husseini was “Palestine’s national leader” and it was in that capacity that he made his notorious alliance with Hitler and played an active role in promoting the Holocaust. Here is the true story that Ahmadinejad tried to mythologize.
Shortly after Hitler came to power, the Grand Mufti decided to emulate him. He informed the German consul in Jerusalem that “the Muslims inside and outside Palestine welcome the new regime of Germany and hope for the extension of the fascist anti-democratic, governmental system to other countries.” In an effort to bring it to his own country, Husseini organized the “Nazi Scouts,” based on the “Hitler Youth.” The swastika became a welcome symbol among many Palestinians.
The mid to late 1930’s were marked by Arab efforts to curtail immigration and Jewish efforts to rescue as many Jews as possible from Hitler’s Europe. These years were also marked by escalating Muslim violence orchestrated by Husseini and other Muslim leaders. In 1936, Arab terrorism took on a new dimension. In the beginning the targets were once again defenseless Jewish civilians in hospitals, movie theatres, homes and stores. This was followed by strikes and shop closures, and then by the bombing of British offices. The Nazi regime in Germany and the Italian fascists supported the violence, sending “millions” to the Mufti. The SS, under the leadership of Heinrich Himmler, provided both financial and logistical support for anti-Semitic pogroms in Palestine. Adolf Eichmann visited Husseini in Palestine and subsequently maintained regular contact with him. The support was mutual, as one Arab commentator put it:
“Feeling the whip of Jewish pressure and influence, the Arabs sympathized with the Nazis and Fascists in their agony and trials at the hands of Jewish intrigues and international financial pressures.”
The Palestinians and their Arab allies were anything but neutral about the fate of European Jewry. The official leader of the Palestinians, Haj Amin al-Husseini, spent the war years in Berlin with Hitler, serving as a consultant on the Jewish question. He was taken on a tour of Auschwitz by Himmler and expressed support for the mass murder of European Jews. He also sought to “solve the problems of the Jewish element in Palestine and other Arab countries” by employing “the same method” being used “in the Axis countries.’ He would not be satisfied with the Jewish residents of Palestine - - many of whom were descendants of Sephardic Jews who had lived there for hundreds, even thousands, of years - - remaining as a minority in a Muslim state. Like Hitler, he wanted to be rid of “every last Jew.” As Husseini wrote in his memoirs:
“Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: “The Jews are yours.”
The Mufti was apparently planning to return to Palestine in the event of a German victory and to construct a death camp, modeled after Auschwitz, near Nablus. Husseini incited his pro-Nazi followers with the words “Arise, o sons of Arabia. Fight for your sacred rights. Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Their spilled blood pleases Allah, our history and religion. That will save our honor.” In 1944, a German-Arab commando unit, under Husseini’s command, parachuted into Palestine and poisoned Tel Aviv’s wells.
Husseini also helped to inspire a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq and helped to organize thousands of Muslims in the Balkans into military units known as Handselar divisions which carried out atrocities against Yugoslav Jews, Serbs and Gypsies. After a meeting with Hitler, he recorded the following in his diary:
The Mufti: “The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends… They were therefore prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in a war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion. In this struggle, the Arabs were striving for the independence and the unity of Palestine, Syria and Iraq….
Hitler: “Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well. Hitler. Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. The moment that Germany’s tank divisions and air squadrons had made their appearance south of the Caucasus, the public appeal requested by the Grand Mufti could go out to the Arab world.”
It is fair to conclude that the official leader of the Muslims in Palestine, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was a full fledged Nazi war criminal and he was so declared at Nuremberg and sought by Yugoslavia as a war criminal after the war. He escaped to Egypt where he was given asylum and helped to organize many former Nazis and Nazi sympathizers against Israel.
It is also fair to say that Husseini’s pro-Nazi sympathies and support were widespread among his Palestinian followers, who regarded him as a hero even after the war and the disclosure of his role in Nazi atrocities. According to his biographer,
“Haj Amin’s popularity among the Palestinian Arabs and within the Arab states actually increased more than ever during his period with the Nazis… [because] large parts of the Arab world shared this sympathy with Nazi Germany during the Second World War.”
Nor was it merely a hatred of Zionism that animated this support for Nazi ideology. The grand mufti’s “hatred of Jews…was fathomless, and he gave full vent to it during his period of activity alongside the Nazis (October 1941-May 1945).” His speeches on Berlin Radio were anti-Semitic to the core: “Kill the Jews wherever you find them—this pleases God, history and religion.” In 1948, the National Palestinian Council elected Husseini as its president, even though he was still a wanted war criminal living in exile in Egypt. Indeed, Husseini is still revered today among many Palestinians as a national hero. Yasser Arafat, in an interview conducted in 2002 and reprinted in the Palestinian daily Al-Quds on August 2, 2002, calls Haj Amin al-Husseini “our hero,” referring to the Palestinian people. Arafat also boasted of being “one of his troops,” even though he knew he was “considered an ally of Nazis.” (If a German today were to call Hitler “our hero,” he would appropriately be labeled a neo-Nazi.!)
It is a myth therefore – another myth perpetrated by Iran’s myth-maker-in-chief – that the Palestinians played “no role” in the Holocaust. Considering the active support by the Palestinian leadership and masses for the losing side of a genocidal war, it was more than fair for the United Nations to offer them a state of their own on more than half of the arable land of the British mandate. The Sudeten Germans got a lot less!
“…[G]iven this historical event [the Holocaust], if it is a reality, we need to question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it… “The Palestinian people didn’t commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II.”
These statements about the role of the Palestinians are demonstrably false. The truth is that the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust. The Palestinian leader at the time was Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufit of Jerusalem. As Professor Edward Said has acknowledged:
“Hajj Amin al-Husseini represented the Palestinian Arab national consensus, had the backing of the Palestinian political parties that functioned in Palestine, and was recognized in some form by Arab governments as the voice of the Palestinian people.”
Husseini was “Palestine’s national leader” and it was in that capacity that he made his notorious alliance with Hitler and played an active role in promoting the Holocaust. Here is the true story that Ahmadinejad tried to mythologize.
Shortly after Hitler came to power, the Grand Mufti decided to emulate him. He informed the German consul in Jerusalem that “the Muslims inside and outside Palestine welcome the new regime of Germany and hope for the extension of the fascist anti-democratic, governmental system to other countries.” In an effort to bring it to his own country, Husseini organized the “Nazi Scouts,” based on the “Hitler Youth.” The swastika became a welcome symbol among many Palestinians.
The mid to late 1930’s were marked by Arab efforts to curtail immigration and Jewish efforts to rescue as many Jews as possible from Hitler’s Europe. These years were also marked by escalating Muslim violence orchestrated by Husseini and other Muslim leaders. In 1936, Arab terrorism took on a new dimension. In the beginning the targets were once again defenseless Jewish civilians in hospitals, movie theatres, homes and stores. This was followed by strikes and shop closures, and then by the bombing of British offices. The Nazi regime in Germany and the Italian fascists supported the violence, sending “millions” to the Mufti. The SS, under the leadership of Heinrich Himmler, provided both financial and logistical support for anti-Semitic pogroms in Palestine. Adolf Eichmann visited Husseini in Palestine and subsequently maintained regular contact with him. The support was mutual, as one Arab commentator put it:
“Feeling the whip of Jewish pressure and influence, the Arabs sympathized with the Nazis and Fascists in their agony and trials at the hands of Jewish intrigues and international financial pressures.”
The Palestinians and their Arab allies were anything but neutral about the fate of European Jewry. The official leader of the Palestinians, Haj Amin al-Husseini, spent the war years in Berlin with Hitler, serving as a consultant on the Jewish question. He was taken on a tour of Auschwitz by Himmler and expressed support for the mass murder of European Jews. He also sought to “solve the problems of the Jewish element in Palestine and other Arab countries” by employing “the same method” being used “in the Axis countries.’ He would not be satisfied with the Jewish residents of Palestine - - many of whom were descendants of Sephardic Jews who had lived there for hundreds, even thousands, of years - - remaining as a minority in a Muslim state. Like Hitler, he wanted to be rid of “every last Jew.” As Husseini wrote in his memoirs:
“Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: “The Jews are yours.”
The Mufti was apparently planning to return to Palestine in the event of a German victory and to construct a death camp, modeled after Auschwitz, near Nablus. Husseini incited his pro-Nazi followers with the words “Arise, o sons of Arabia. Fight for your sacred rights. Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Their spilled blood pleases Allah, our history and religion. That will save our honor.” In 1944, a German-Arab commando unit, under Husseini’s command, parachuted into Palestine and poisoned Tel Aviv’s wells.
Husseini also helped to inspire a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq and helped to organize thousands of Muslims in the Balkans into military units known as Handselar divisions which carried out atrocities against Yugoslav Jews, Serbs and Gypsies. After a meeting with Hitler, he recorded the following in his diary:
The Mufti: “The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends… They were therefore prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in a war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion. In this struggle, the Arabs were striving for the independence and the unity of Palestine, Syria and Iraq….
Hitler: “Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well. Hitler. Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. The moment that Germany’s tank divisions and air squadrons had made their appearance south of the Caucasus, the public appeal requested by the Grand Mufti could go out to the Arab world.”
It is fair to conclude that the official leader of the Muslims in Palestine, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was a full fledged Nazi war criminal and he was so declared at Nuremberg and sought by Yugoslavia as a war criminal after the war. He escaped to Egypt where he was given asylum and helped to organize many former Nazis and Nazi sympathizers against Israel.
It is also fair to say that Husseini’s pro-Nazi sympathies and support were widespread among his Palestinian followers, who regarded him as a hero even after the war and the disclosure of his role in Nazi atrocities. According to his biographer,
“Haj Amin’s popularity among the Palestinian Arabs and within the Arab states actually increased more than ever during his period with the Nazis… [because] large parts of the Arab world shared this sympathy with Nazi Germany during the Second World War.”
Nor was it merely a hatred of Zionism that animated this support for Nazi ideology. The grand mufti’s “hatred of Jews…was fathomless, and he gave full vent to it during his period of activity alongside the Nazis (October 1941-May 1945).” His speeches on Berlin Radio were anti-Semitic to the core: “Kill the Jews wherever you find them—this pleases God, history and religion.” In 1948, the National Palestinian Council elected Husseini as its president, even though he was still a wanted war criminal living in exile in Egypt. Indeed, Husseini is still revered today among many Palestinians as a national hero. Yasser Arafat, in an interview conducted in 2002 and reprinted in the Palestinian daily Al-Quds on August 2, 2002, calls Haj Amin al-Husseini “our hero,” referring to the Palestinian people. Arafat also boasted of being “one of his troops,” even though he knew he was “considered an ally of Nazis.” (If a German today were to call Hitler “our hero,” he would appropriately be labeled a neo-Nazi.!)
It is a myth therefore – another myth perpetrated by Iran’s myth-maker-in-chief – that the Palestinians played “no role” in the Holocaust. Considering the active support by the Palestinian leadership and masses for the losing side of a genocidal war, it was more than fair for the United Nations to offer them a state of their own on more than half of the arable land of the British mandate. The Sudeten Germans got a lot less!
Abbas Calls for Final Status of State on US Summit Agenda
GAZA CITY, 1 October 2007 — Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called yesterday for a clear agenda to be drawn up dealing with the final status of a future Palestinian state ahead of a US-sponsored Middle East peace conference. “We must have a clear and precise document so that we can begin detailed negotiations on final status questions,” Abbas told journalists after discussing the conference with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo.
Abbas also hit back at Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni who had warned him to be “realistic” about a timeframe for Middle East peace after he said a peace deal could be signed within six months of the conference.
“Being realistic means that we discuss final status matters — does being realistic mean we’re going to the conference with a general statement? I don’t think that would be useful,” Abbas said. The Palestinian leader and other Arab powers want the conference to cover the most contested issues of the Middle East conflict, including borders of the future Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem and refugees.
Abbas’ talks with Mubarak came ahead of his meeting tomorrow with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during which “they will discuss a joint statement” to be issued at the conference, according to one of Olmert’s spokesmen. The negotiating teams set up during the last round of Abbas-Olmert talks on Sept. 10 will hold their first meeting in the coming days to work out the wording of the statement, Olmert’s spokesman said.
Tomorrow’s meeting will be the fourth in two months between the two leaders as they attempt to come up with some kind of an agreement before the Middle East conference, expected to take place in November in Annapolis, Maryland, according to Israeli media.
The two sides have been at odds over what they hope to accomplish leading up to the conference aimed at jump starting the dormant peace process. Israeli government spokesman David Baker said the Olmert-Abbas meeting would be held in the prime minister’s residence in Jerusalem.
Olmert and Abbas have been meeting regularly since June as part of a US-led campaign to shore up the Fatah leader in the occupied West Bank and to isolate Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In another development, the Hamas movement ruling Gaza has arrested Fatah member Yahya Rabah, who served as Palestinian representative to Yemen, accusing him of corruption, witnesses and officials said yesterday.
Rabah, who is also a columnist at the Al-Hayat Al-Jadida daily, was arrested overnight at his home, witnesses said. “Yahya Rabah was summoned after numerous complaints from citizens concerning problems of money,” a spokesman for the Hamas-run Interior Ministry, Ihab Al-Ghassin, told AFP. A writer and well-known columnist, Rabah represented the Palestinians in Yemen for more than 20 years until 2004. He was one of the founders of the Voice of Palestine, the radio station of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in the 1970s. Since seizing control of Gaza in mid-June, Hamas has arrested many members of the Fatah party. Fatah says Hamas is conducting a political witch hunt, a charge the Islamists have denied, saying they are battling rampant corruption.
Meanwhile, under a deal struck with Egypt, dozens of Hamas members were allowed to return to the Gaza Strip via the Rafah crossing early yesterday after months of being stuck at the border, a Hamas spokesman said. Around 100 Palestinians crossed into Gaza from Egypt before dawn through the Rafah crossing, which has been closed since mid-June.
“Numerous people who came back belong to Hamas,” said spokesman Taher Al-Nunu. “There was an accord between the (Hamas) government of Ismail Haniyeh and the Egyptian side, which allowed these people to re-enter.” There was no immediate comment from Egypt.
Abbas also hit back at Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni who had warned him to be “realistic” about a timeframe for Middle East peace after he said a peace deal could be signed within six months of the conference.
“Being realistic means that we discuss final status matters — does being realistic mean we’re going to the conference with a general statement? I don’t think that would be useful,” Abbas said. The Palestinian leader and other Arab powers want the conference to cover the most contested issues of the Middle East conflict, including borders of the future Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem and refugees.
Abbas’ talks with Mubarak came ahead of his meeting tomorrow with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during which “they will discuss a joint statement” to be issued at the conference, according to one of Olmert’s spokesmen. The negotiating teams set up during the last round of Abbas-Olmert talks on Sept. 10 will hold their first meeting in the coming days to work out the wording of the statement, Olmert’s spokesman said.
Tomorrow’s meeting will be the fourth in two months between the two leaders as they attempt to come up with some kind of an agreement before the Middle East conference, expected to take place in November in Annapolis, Maryland, according to Israeli media.
The two sides have been at odds over what they hope to accomplish leading up to the conference aimed at jump starting the dormant peace process. Israeli government spokesman David Baker said the Olmert-Abbas meeting would be held in the prime minister’s residence in Jerusalem.
Olmert and Abbas have been meeting regularly since June as part of a US-led campaign to shore up the Fatah leader in the occupied West Bank and to isolate Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In another development, the Hamas movement ruling Gaza has arrested Fatah member Yahya Rabah, who served as Palestinian representative to Yemen, accusing him of corruption, witnesses and officials said yesterday.
Rabah, who is also a columnist at the Al-Hayat Al-Jadida daily, was arrested overnight at his home, witnesses said. “Yahya Rabah was summoned after numerous complaints from citizens concerning problems of money,” a spokesman for the Hamas-run Interior Ministry, Ihab Al-Ghassin, told AFP. A writer and well-known columnist, Rabah represented the Palestinians in Yemen for more than 20 years until 2004. He was one of the founders of the Voice of Palestine, the radio station of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in the 1970s. Since seizing control of Gaza in mid-June, Hamas has arrested many members of the Fatah party. Fatah says Hamas is conducting a political witch hunt, a charge the Islamists have denied, saying they are battling rampant corruption.
Meanwhile, under a deal struck with Egypt, dozens of Hamas members were allowed to return to the Gaza Strip via the Rafah crossing early yesterday after months of being stuck at the border, a Hamas spokesman said. Around 100 Palestinians crossed into Gaza from Egypt before dawn through the Rafah crossing, which has been closed since mid-June.
“Numerous people who came back belong to Hamas,” said spokesman Taher Al-Nunu. “There was an accord between the (Hamas) government of Ismail Haniyeh and the Egyptian side, which allowed these people to re-enter.” There was no immediate comment from Egypt.
Arafats Jihad: the Palestinians have never been interested in a state. They are part of the Islamo-fascist jihad against the West.
Arafat: Jihad to Liberate Jerusalem The Jihad [Islamic holy war] will continue, and Jerusalem is not [only] for the Palestinian people, it is for all the Muslim nation. Arafat's Johannesburg Speech Below are excerpts from a speech given by PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat on May 10, 1994, in a mosque in Johannesburg, South Africa. The text was transcribed directly from a tape recording of Arafat's address. Arafat's English is far from perfect, and his grammer is often choppy. Editorial comments and clarifications are in square brackets. ________________________________________
Arafat: Jihad to Liberate Jerusalem The Jihad [Islamic holy war] will continue, and Jerusalem is not [only] for the Palestinian people, it is for all the Muslim nation. You are responsible for Palestine and for Jerusalem before me [applause], the land which had been blessed for the whole world. Now after this agreement you have to understand our main battle. Our main battle is Jerusalem. Jerusalem. The first shrine of the Moslems. This has to be understood for everybody and for this I was insisting before signing to have a letter from them, the Israelis, that Jerusalem is one of the items which has to be under discussion and not the state, the permanent State of Israel! No! It is the permanent State of Palestine [applause]. Yes, it is the permanent State of Palestine. And in this letter it is very important for everybody to know I insist to mention and they have written it, and I have this letter, I didn't declare and publish it until now. In this letter we are responsible for all the Christian and the Moslem and Islamic holy sacred places. I have to speak frankly, I can't do it alone without the support of the Islamic nation. I can't do it alone. No, you have to come and to fight and to start the Jihad to liberate Jerusalem, your first shrine. In the agreement I insist with my colleagues, with my brothers, to mention that not exceeding the beginning of the third year, and after -- directly after -- the signing of their agreement, to start discussing the future of Jerusalem. The future of Jerusalem. What they are saying is that [Jerusalem] is their capital. No, it is not their capital. It is our capital. It is the first shrine of the Islam and the Moslems.
This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Mohammed and Koraish, and you remember the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and [considered] it a despicable truce. [Ed. note: The agreement with Koraish allowed Mohammed to pray in Mecca, which was under Koraish control, for ten years. When Mohammed grew stronger two years later, he abrogated the agreement, slaughtered the tribe of Koraish and conquered Mecca.] But Mohammed had accepted it and we are accepting now this peace offer. But to continue our way to Jerusalem, to the first shrine together and not alone. We are in need of you as Moslems, as warriors of Jihad [in Arabic, Mujaheddin]. Hat tip: http://www.iris.org.il/quotes/joburg.htm
Arafat: Jihad to Liberate Jerusalem The Jihad [Islamic holy war] will continue, and Jerusalem is not [only] for the Palestinian people, it is for all the Muslim nation. You are responsible for Palestine and for Jerusalem before me [applause], the land which had been blessed for the whole world. Now after this agreement you have to understand our main battle. Our main battle is Jerusalem. Jerusalem. The first shrine of the Moslems. This has to be understood for everybody and for this I was insisting before signing to have a letter from them, the Israelis, that Jerusalem is one of the items which has to be under discussion and not the state, the permanent State of Israel! No! It is the permanent State of Palestine [applause]. Yes, it is the permanent State of Palestine. And in this letter it is very important for everybody to know I insist to mention and they have written it, and I have this letter, I didn't declare and publish it until now. In this letter we are responsible for all the Christian and the Moslem and Islamic holy sacred places. I have to speak frankly, I can't do it alone without the support of the Islamic nation. I can't do it alone. No, you have to come and to fight and to start the Jihad to liberate Jerusalem, your first shrine. In the agreement I insist with my colleagues, with my brothers, to mention that not exceeding the beginning of the third year, and after -- directly after -- the signing of their agreement, to start discussing the future of Jerusalem. The future of Jerusalem. What they are saying is that [Jerusalem] is their capital. No, it is not their capital. It is our capital. It is the first shrine of the Islam and the Moslems.
This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Mohammed and Koraish, and you remember the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and [considered] it a despicable truce. [Ed. note: The agreement with Koraish allowed Mohammed to pray in Mecca, which was under Koraish control, for ten years. When Mohammed grew stronger two years later, he abrogated the agreement, slaughtered the tribe of Koraish and conquered Mecca.] But Mohammed had accepted it and we are accepting now this peace offer. But to continue our way to Jerusalem, to the first shrine together and not alone. We are in need of you as Moslems, as warriors of Jihad [in Arabic, Mujaheddin]. Hat tip: http://www.iris.org.il/quotes/joburg.htm
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Arafat Turned Down Jordanian Offer to be Deputy PM
King Hussein of Jordan offered Yasser Arafat the position of Deputy Prime Minister if he would agree to the annexation of Judea and Samaria to Jordan. Secret documents released only now by the National Archives of the United Kingdom show that King Hussein and other top Jordanian officials made the offer to Arafat in 1974. Nothing ever came of the offer.
Arafat, who was at the height of his leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) at the time, was actively involved in trying to declare a Palestinian state, with the support of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Jordan, however, was opposed, though it could not express it freely. Instead, its leaders wanted to include Judea and Samaria in their country, formalizing the
Just three years earlier, thousands of Jordanians and PLO supporters were killed in hostilities between the Jordanian Army and the PLO, culminating in the month known as Black September. In July 1971, the PLO was expelled from Jordan to Lebanon. Even today, the ruling Hashemite Kingdom continues to be wary of the 40% of the population claiming Palestinian origins.
The newly-released documents, which were forbidden for publication for 30 years, indicate that the Jordanian leaders attempted to convince Arafat not to declare an independent Palestinian state. The Jordanians told Arafat that this would pave the way for Israel to continue to control Judea and Samaria. The documents further indicate that the British were anxious to see whether Arafat would in fact declare a state, and what reactions there might be in Jordan and other Arab countries.
In addition, the documents show that wealthy Arab businessmen in Judea and Samaria were also not in favor of an independent state. Instead, they supported an alliance with Jordan, with which they had strong business ties.
Arafat, who was at the height of his leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) at the time, was actively involved in trying to declare a Palestinian state, with the support of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Jordan, however, was opposed, though it could not express it freely. Instead, its leaders wanted to include Judea and Samaria in their country, formalizing the
Just three years earlier, thousands of Jordanians and PLO supporters were killed in hostilities between the Jordanian Army and the PLO, culminating in the month known as Black September. In July 1971, the PLO was expelled from Jordan to Lebanon. Even today, the ruling Hashemite Kingdom continues to be wary of the 40% of the population claiming Palestinian origins.
The newly-released documents, which were forbidden for publication for 30 years, indicate that the Jordanian leaders attempted to convince Arafat not to declare an independent Palestinian state. The Jordanians told Arafat that this would pave the way for Israel to continue to control Judea and Samaria. The documents further indicate that the British were anxious to see whether Arafat would in fact declare a state, and what reactions there might be in Jordan and other Arab countries.
In addition, the documents show that wealthy Arab businessmen in Judea and Samaria were also not in favor of an independent state. Instead, they supported an alliance with Jordan, with which they had strong business ties.
Tehran denies militants' claim of hidden nuclear facility
TEHRAN: Iran denied on Friday claims by an opposition group that it is building a new bomb-proof underground site for developing nuclear weapons, linked by tunnel to an existing complex at Natanz. Ali Larijani, the chief for international relations of the Supreme National Security Council, "denies the existence of a secret nuclear site in Iran," according to a statement that Larijani's deputy, Javad Vaidi, read on national television. "These baseless and erroneous accusations are aimed at destroying the positive climate ... created by Iran's cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the president's trip to New York," the statement said, referring to Iranian head of state Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
They are also aimed at unsettling matters ahead of talks Friday among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with Germany, on possible further UN sanctions over Tehran's refusing to stop enriching uranium, he said.
On Thursday, Mehdi Abrichamtchi, of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), said "information we have from inside the regime indicates that the site is destined for military nuclear activity, mainly for the further enrichment of uranium."
Located in central Iran, it consists of a "vast underground area beneath the Karkass Mountains linked to the surface by two tunnels and connecting with a third tunnel" to the Natanz nuclear complex, 5 kilometers away, Abrichamtchi told a press conference in Paris.
"The site is protected against aerial attack. If Natanz is bombed, it won't be touched," he said. "To maintain secrecy, the area has been declared a military zone and the regime has bought up all the local land."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
According to the NCRI, plans for the new complex were drawn up two years ago and it will be operational in six months.
In July, the US-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) reported satellite evidence showing Iran was building a "tunnel facility near the Natanz uranium enrichment complex."
In 2002, the NCRI was the first to reveal the existence of secret nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak. Its new allegations come at a time of growing international tension over Iran's nuclear program.
The NCRI is the political arm of the People's Mujahideen of Iran, which has been declared a terrorist organization in the EU and the US.
The IAEA has been probing Iran's program for the past four years but has so far failed to label its purpose as military.
Tehran rejects Western charges that it is trying to build atomic weapons under the guise of its civilian nuclear program and insists it is entitled to pursue uranium enrichment as a signatory to the non-Proliferation Treaty.
The UN Security Council has already passed two rounds of sanctions to force Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, which can be used to supply the fuel for power generation or, possibly, nuclear arms. - AFP
They are also aimed at unsettling matters ahead of talks Friday among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with Germany, on possible further UN sanctions over Tehran's refusing to stop enriching uranium, he said.
On Thursday, Mehdi Abrichamtchi, of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), said "information we have from inside the regime indicates that the site is destined for military nuclear activity, mainly for the further enrichment of uranium."
Located in central Iran, it consists of a "vast underground area beneath the Karkass Mountains linked to the surface by two tunnels and connecting with a third tunnel" to the Natanz nuclear complex, 5 kilometers away, Abrichamtchi told a press conference in Paris.
"The site is protected against aerial attack. If Natanz is bombed, it won't be touched," he said. "To maintain secrecy, the area has been declared a military zone and the regime has bought up all the local land."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
According to the NCRI, plans for the new complex were drawn up two years ago and it will be operational in six months.
In July, the US-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) reported satellite evidence showing Iran was building a "tunnel facility near the Natanz uranium enrichment complex."
In 2002, the NCRI was the first to reveal the existence of secret nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak. Its new allegations come at a time of growing international tension over Iran's nuclear program.
The NCRI is the political arm of the People's Mujahideen of Iran, which has been declared a terrorist organization in the EU and the US.
The IAEA has been probing Iran's program for the past four years but has so far failed to label its purpose as military.
Tehran rejects Western charges that it is trying to build atomic weapons under the guise of its civilian nuclear program and insists it is entitled to pursue uranium enrichment as a signatory to the non-Proliferation Treaty.
The UN Security Council has already passed two rounds of sanctions to force Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, which can be used to supply the fuel for power generation or, possibly, nuclear arms. - AFP
Abbas says even 92% of West Bank, Gaza is unacceptable
An offer similar to the 92 percent of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for a Palestinian state extended at Camp David in 2000 would not be enough, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told The Washington Post in an interview due to be published on Sunday. He insisted on the pre-1967 borders, speaking ahead of Tuesday's scheduled meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in his Jerusalem succa to discuss a memorandum of understanding on principles for a peace deal.
The two leaders are meeting in advance of November's Middle East conference that is likely to take place in Annapolis, Maryland. Representatives of Israel, the US and the Palestinians are expected to be joined there by officials from moderate Arab states.
On Friday, Abbas told AFP he thought a final agreement could be hammered out within six months of the November talks.
Speaking with the Washington Post, Abbas said Saudi Arabia would be at the conference.
"Saudi Arabia had reservations in the beginning because the whole situation was very vague. Now, everything is clear. Yesterday, I met with [Saudi Foreign Minister] Prince Saud al-Faisal, and he was satisfied. So I believe they will attend the conference," Abbas said.
A working group of Israelis and Palestinians is also expected to begin hammering out a joint understanding between the two sides to be issued at the conference.
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni met with Abbas in New York on Friday to discuss the November talks. PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki, Abbas adviser Yasser Abed Rabo and former PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala) were also present.
Livni told Abbas, "We need to be courageous in our decision making and at the same time wise enough to advance the process in an intelligent and realistic manner so that it will not fail."
Neither she nor Olmert supports a return to the pre-1967 border.
Livni also held talks with former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, ex-president Bill Clinton and New York Sen. Hilary Clinton.
Addressing the UN General Assembly earlier Friday, Abbas vowed to pursue peace with Israel.
Abbas pledged that the "olive branch of peace that never withers or dies, will not fall from my hands," an apparent reference to Yasser Arafat's 1974 address to the same forum. Then, Arafat said he carried both an olive branch and "the freedom fighter's gun," and implored the world not to let that branch fall from his hands.
"Today, there is not the slightest obstacle to promoting the holding of [the US-sponsored] peace meeting, in particular because our brother Arab countries have demonstrated through the Arab Peace Initiative their true readiness to bring about a just, lasting and comprehensive peace," Abbas said.
"From this podium of the United Nations, I say to the Palestinian people in Palestine and abroad, I can tell them that there is a historic horizon emerging so that our people can restore their legitimate rights and achieve [the] peace and prosperity to which we aspire," he said.
Abbas reiterated his government's position that the key to solving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was directly addressing the "final status" issues, including Palestinian statehood, the status of Jerusalem and the right of return for refugees.
In his Washington Post interview, he expanded on the future of a Palestinian state.
"We will be flexible," said Abbas. "But before 1947, we had 95% of Palestine. In 1937, the partition plan gave the Israelis only part of Palestine. And they were very happy at that time. [David] Ben-Gurion was very happy with it. It didn't work. After that [came] the 1947 partition plan - we rejected this, so we lost... Now, we accept [the pre-'67 borders]."
He added that like Arafat, he too would have rejected the offer Bill Clinton made at Camp David in 2000.
"Ninety-two [percent] is unacceptable to us," Abbas said.
He then gave a nod in the direction of Vice Premier Haim Ramon's idea of giving the Palestinians parts of east Jerusalem.
"In principle, this is the right direction. The Palestinians should have their own part and the Israelis should have their own part... I say and have always said that east Jerusalem is an occupied territory. We have to restore it."
Asked if he would demand to return to his birthplace, Safed, Abbas said: "This is my right, but how I will use this right is up to me and to the refugees and to the agreement which will take place between us."
"We want to find a permanent solution," added Abbas. "The Israelis want security, and we are in need of independence. We want to bridge the gap during the negotiations."
"We should have a safe passage between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank because Gaza is a part of Palestine... all the Arabs support this vision," he continued.
Abbas said he was not interested in returning to a national unity government with Hamas.
Abbas said Olmert was a sincere and serious leader who wanted to make peace. "I know his internal problems. But he is determined to do something," he added.
In his talks with Olmert, Abbas said, "We tackled all the sensitive issues like borders, refugees, settlements, Jerusalem and security... We have already established the teams that are drafting an agreement about these sensitive issues.
"After the conference, we will start negotiating the details of these issues in order to have a peace treaty," said Abbas.
Nevertheless, Arab nations have been reluctant to commit to attending, fearing that a failure to address the final status issues will result in a gathering high on show, but low on substance. An agenda has yet to be set and the invitations have not been sent.
Syrian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Bushra Kanafani said Damascus wanted answers to a number of questions, including details on the agenda of the meeting, and whether the Syria-Israel dispute over the Golan Heights would be discussed.
Abbas said he would take whatever came out of the conference to the Palestinian people in a referendum.
Arab officials offered a measure of guarded support Friday in the General Assembly, with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit saying the proposed conference, if well prepared, could provide "an important opportunity to achieve long-awaited progress."
His Jordanian counterpart, Abdul-Ilah al-Khatib, said it "may be the last chance to achieve progress" and, as a result, the US and others must ensure it tackles the final status issues.
Earlier, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa told reporters his discussions over the past few days with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others were "reassuring" and that there was a strong desire to have all parties participate in the meeting.
"We, on the Arab side, have shown through our initiative that we are ready for peace with Israel," he said. "We are ready to turn the page."
But Moussa also stressed that the Arabs were not prepared to negotiate continuously if the commitment to the process was not mutual. At the very least, he said, Israel should halt the expansion of settlements.
"It is inconceivable for us to sit and talk about the new state of Palestine... while the map that would be before us, at that moment, would change if we meet in the afternoon because of building settlements," Moussa told reporters on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. "This has to stop."
"If they [the Israelis] are not ready, then we will not run after them. But they should not blame anyone if there is a sense of hopelessness" and actions that stem from that despair, he said.
AP contributed to this report.•
The two leaders are meeting in advance of November's Middle East conference that is likely to take place in Annapolis, Maryland. Representatives of Israel, the US and the Palestinians are expected to be joined there by officials from moderate Arab states.
On Friday, Abbas told AFP he thought a final agreement could be hammered out within six months of the November talks.
Speaking with the Washington Post, Abbas said Saudi Arabia would be at the conference.
"Saudi Arabia had reservations in the beginning because the whole situation was very vague. Now, everything is clear. Yesterday, I met with [Saudi Foreign Minister] Prince Saud al-Faisal, and he was satisfied. So I believe they will attend the conference," Abbas said.
A working group of Israelis and Palestinians is also expected to begin hammering out a joint understanding between the two sides to be issued at the conference.
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni met with Abbas in New York on Friday to discuss the November talks. PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki, Abbas adviser Yasser Abed Rabo and former PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala) were also present.
Livni told Abbas, "We need to be courageous in our decision making and at the same time wise enough to advance the process in an intelligent and realistic manner so that it will not fail."
Neither she nor Olmert supports a return to the pre-1967 border.
Livni also held talks with former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, ex-president Bill Clinton and New York Sen. Hilary Clinton.
Addressing the UN General Assembly earlier Friday, Abbas vowed to pursue peace with Israel.
Abbas pledged that the "olive branch of peace that never withers or dies, will not fall from my hands," an apparent reference to Yasser Arafat's 1974 address to the same forum. Then, Arafat said he carried both an olive branch and "the freedom fighter's gun," and implored the world not to let that branch fall from his hands.
"Today, there is not the slightest obstacle to promoting the holding of [the US-sponsored] peace meeting, in particular because our brother Arab countries have demonstrated through the Arab Peace Initiative their true readiness to bring about a just, lasting and comprehensive peace," Abbas said.
"From this podium of the United Nations, I say to the Palestinian people in Palestine and abroad, I can tell them that there is a historic horizon emerging so that our people can restore their legitimate rights and achieve [the] peace and prosperity to which we aspire," he said.
Abbas reiterated his government's position that the key to solving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was directly addressing the "final status" issues, including Palestinian statehood, the status of Jerusalem and the right of return for refugees.
In his Washington Post interview, he expanded on the future of a Palestinian state.
"We will be flexible," said Abbas. "But before 1947, we had 95% of Palestine. In 1937, the partition plan gave the Israelis only part of Palestine. And they were very happy at that time. [David] Ben-Gurion was very happy with it. It didn't work. After that [came] the 1947 partition plan - we rejected this, so we lost... Now, we accept [the pre-'67 borders]."
He added that like Arafat, he too would have rejected the offer Bill Clinton made at Camp David in 2000.
"Ninety-two [percent] is unacceptable to us," Abbas said.
He then gave a nod in the direction of Vice Premier Haim Ramon's idea of giving the Palestinians parts of east Jerusalem.
"In principle, this is the right direction. The Palestinians should have their own part and the Israelis should have their own part... I say and have always said that east Jerusalem is an occupied territory. We have to restore it."
Asked if he would demand to return to his birthplace, Safed, Abbas said: "This is my right, but how I will use this right is up to me and to the refugees and to the agreement which will take place between us."
"We want to find a permanent solution," added Abbas. "The Israelis want security, and we are in need of independence. We want to bridge the gap during the negotiations."
"We should have a safe passage between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank because Gaza is a part of Palestine... all the Arabs support this vision," he continued.
Abbas said he was not interested in returning to a national unity government with Hamas.
Abbas said Olmert was a sincere and serious leader who wanted to make peace. "I know his internal problems. But he is determined to do something," he added.
In his talks with Olmert, Abbas said, "We tackled all the sensitive issues like borders, refugees, settlements, Jerusalem and security... We have already established the teams that are drafting an agreement about these sensitive issues.
"After the conference, we will start negotiating the details of these issues in order to have a peace treaty," said Abbas.
Nevertheless, Arab nations have been reluctant to commit to attending, fearing that a failure to address the final status issues will result in a gathering high on show, but low on substance. An agenda has yet to be set and the invitations have not been sent.
Syrian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Bushra Kanafani said Damascus wanted answers to a number of questions, including details on the agenda of the meeting, and whether the Syria-Israel dispute over the Golan Heights would be discussed.
Abbas said he would take whatever came out of the conference to the Palestinian people in a referendum.
Arab officials offered a measure of guarded support Friday in the General Assembly, with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit saying the proposed conference, if well prepared, could provide "an important opportunity to achieve long-awaited progress."
His Jordanian counterpart, Abdul-Ilah al-Khatib, said it "may be the last chance to achieve progress" and, as a result, the US and others must ensure it tackles the final status issues.
Earlier, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa told reporters his discussions over the past few days with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others were "reassuring" and that there was a strong desire to have all parties participate in the meeting.
"We, on the Arab side, have shown through our initiative that we are ready for peace with Israel," he said. "We are ready to turn the page."
But Moussa also stressed that the Arabs were not prepared to negotiate continuously if the commitment to the process was not mutual. At the very least, he said, Israel should halt the expansion of settlements.
"It is inconceivable for us to sit and talk about the new state of Palestine... while the map that would be before us, at that moment, would change if we meet in the afternoon because of building settlements," Moussa told reporters on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. "This has to stop."
"If they [the Israelis] are not ready, then we will not run after them. But they should not blame anyone if there is a sense of hopelessness" and actions that stem from that despair, he said.
AP contributed to this report.•
US report slams religious freedom in Egypt
CAIRO: According to the US State Department’s annual report on religious freedom, conditions in Egypt as well as a number of other countries including Iran, Iraq and China, have deteriorated A significant section of the 800-page report released Friday is allocated to religious freedom in Egypt, and tackles issues such as the freedom to choose one’s religion, the legal status of minority religions like Christianity and Baha’ism, sectarianism, forced conversions, and freedom to build places of worship.
Egypt’s courts have strongly resisted attempts by Muslims to convert to Christianity in recent months. High-profile cases such as those of Mohammed Hegazy and 12 Christian-born Muslims who are currently pressing to revert to Christianity, have shone the spotlight on the country’s attitude toward religious freedom.
Egypt has also been wracked by numerous incidents of sectarian violence, and a series of clashes between Muslims and Christians in areas like Bimha, South of Cairo, and Udayssat, near Luxor, are cited in the report.
Many such incidents, the report notes, arise from disagreements over the building and repairing of churches, the approval process for which is often “hindered by lengthy delays, often measured in years”.
The report acknowledges that a 2005 Presidential decree allows local authorities to deal with requests for church building and reparations in order to speed up the process, but points out that delays by the Interior Ministry and local authorities cause many requests to reach the President “slowly or not at all”.
A statement issued yesterday by Egypt’s Foreign Ministry rejected the report, saying it "confuses official policy with events caused by societal sensitivities."
Yet the refusal to recognize the Bahai faith, which is also condemned in the report, is official government policy. Members of this group experience “personal and collective hardship,” the report says.
The Bahais are denied ID cards, birth and death certificates, and their marriages are not recognized by law. They also face difficulties availing of public services such as health and education.
According to Labib Hanna, a Bahai and professor of mathematics at Cairo University, this makes life extremely difficult for the Bahai community.
“Even the simple things like getting my driving license renewed, are hard,” he told Daily news Egypt.
An April 2006 decision by the Administrative Court, which had supported the right of Bahai citizens to receive ID cards and birth certificates with religion noted on the documents, was overturned in December 2006 following a government appeal. Members of the Bahai community are currently fighting the decision in court.
Hanna agrees with the report’s premise that religious freedom has declined in recent years, but says he is hopeful that civil society organizations and the National Council for Human Rights, who work to promote religious freedom, will bring about change.
Although there has been a “general decline” in freedom of religion in recent years says Yousef Sidhom, editor of Christian weekly Watani, there have been some encouraging signs too.
“Christians are making a comeback in public life,” he told Daily News Egypt, “in marked contrast to their withdrawal from Egyptian public life over the past 30 years.”
Sidhom points out that more Copts were elected to the National Democratic Party’s (NDP) regional commissions this month (albeit because they would have “no chance” in national elections), and adds that the public controversy over conversions indicates that people are becoming bolder about their right to choose what they believe in.
“Conversion cases have always been there but were beneath the surface. Now more individuals have the courage to reveal their intentions to convert.”
The report goes on to criticize the under-representation of Christians in politics, pointing out that although Christians comprise between 8-12 percent of the population, they hold less that two percent of the seats in the People’s Assembly and Shoura Council.
Government practices, it continues, discriminate against Christians in hiring for the public sector and making staff appointments to public universities. Christians are also banned from studying at the publicly-funded Al-Azhar schools and university, and public funds pay Muslim imams but not Christian clergy.
The Foreign Ministry maintains that the report “reflects an ignorance of the true situation in Egypt”.
"Egyptian-American relations are broad and diverse, but that does not give the United States the right to interfere in Egypt’s internal affairs under any pretext,” the Ministry said in a statement.
Egypt’s courts have strongly resisted attempts by Muslims to convert to Christianity in recent months. High-profile cases such as those of Mohammed Hegazy and 12 Christian-born Muslims who are currently pressing to revert to Christianity, have shone the spotlight on the country’s attitude toward religious freedom.
Egypt has also been wracked by numerous incidents of sectarian violence, and a series of clashes between Muslims and Christians in areas like Bimha, South of Cairo, and Udayssat, near Luxor, are cited in the report.
Many such incidents, the report notes, arise from disagreements over the building and repairing of churches, the approval process for which is often “hindered by lengthy delays, often measured in years”.
The report acknowledges that a 2005 Presidential decree allows local authorities to deal with requests for church building and reparations in order to speed up the process, but points out that delays by the Interior Ministry and local authorities cause many requests to reach the President “slowly or not at all”.
A statement issued yesterday by Egypt’s Foreign Ministry rejected the report, saying it "confuses official policy with events caused by societal sensitivities."
Yet the refusal to recognize the Bahai faith, which is also condemned in the report, is official government policy. Members of this group experience “personal and collective hardship,” the report says.
The Bahais are denied ID cards, birth and death certificates, and their marriages are not recognized by law. They also face difficulties availing of public services such as health and education.
According to Labib Hanna, a Bahai and professor of mathematics at Cairo University, this makes life extremely difficult for the Bahai community.
“Even the simple things like getting my driving license renewed, are hard,” he told Daily news Egypt.
An April 2006 decision by the Administrative Court, which had supported the right of Bahai citizens to receive ID cards and birth certificates with religion noted on the documents, was overturned in December 2006 following a government appeal. Members of the Bahai community are currently fighting the decision in court.
Hanna agrees with the report’s premise that religious freedom has declined in recent years, but says he is hopeful that civil society organizations and the National Council for Human Rights, who work to promote religious freedom, will bring about change.
Although there has been a “general decline” in freedom of religion in recent years says Yousef Sidhom, editor of Christian weekly Watani, there have been some encouraging signs too.
“Christians are making a comeback in public life,” he told Daily News Egypt, “in marked contrast to their withdrawal from Egyptian public life over the past 30 years.”
Sidhom points out that more Copts were elected to the National Democratic Party’s (NDP) regional commissions this month (albeit because they would have “no chance” in national elections), and adds that the public controversy over conversions indicates that people are becoming bolder about their right to choose what they believe in.
“Conversion cases have always been there but were beneath the surface. Now more individuals have the courage to reveal their intentions to convert.”
The report goes on to criticize the under-representation of Christians in politics, pointing out that although Christians comprise between 8-12 percent of the population, they hold less that two percent of the seats in the People’s Assembly and Shoura Council.
Government practices, it continues, discriminate against Christians in hiring for the public sector and making staff appointments to public universities. Christians are also banned from studying at the publicly-funded Al-Azhar schools and university, and public funds pay Muslim imams but not Christian clergy.
The Foreign Ministry maintains that the report “reflects an ignorance of the true situation in Egypt”.
"Egyptian-American relations are broad and diverse, but that does not give the United States the right to interfere in Egypt’s internal affairs under any pretext,” the Ministry said in a statement.
Egypts ranking drops from 70 to 105 in international corruption index
Corruption is perceived as rampant in Egypt, as the country’s ranking declined from 70 to 105 out of 180 countries listed on the Corruption Perceptions Index 2007 (CPI) recently released by Transparency International, an anti-corruption watchdog. Egypt scored 2.9 on the index — way below last year’s 3.3 score. The Index examines perceptions of the degree of corruption as seen by business people and country analysts. It scores countries on a scale from zero (highly corrupt) to ten (highly clean).
Egypt was surpassed by countries such as Israel (30), Qatar (32), United Arab Emirates (34), South Africa (43), Bahrain (46), Jordan (53), Kuwait (60), Colombia (68), Saudi Arabia (79), and Lebanon (99).
Somalia and Myanmar share the lowest score of 1.4. At the opposite end are Denmark, Finland and New Zealand with 9.4, showing fair judiciaries and transparent public finances. War-stricken countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Sudan have also deeply suffered from rampant corruption and are at the very bottom of the index.
Transparency International (TI) is a global coalition leading the fight against corruption which publishes its annual ranking of how corrupt different countries are perceived. As its name indicates, the CPI does not measure corruption itself. Rather, it looks at expert perceptions of the level of corruption in a given country’s public sector.
The index findings are in line with a recent public opinion poll conducted by the Information Decision Support Center that revealed that 75.2 percent of Egyptians believe corruption exists in the country with a prevalence of 66 percent.
The index finds that the divide in perceived levels of corruption in rich and poor countries remains as sharp as ever, and that a strong correlation between corruption and poverty continues to be evident. “Forty percent of those scoring below three…are classified by the World Bank as low income countries,” reveals the report.
“Despite some gains, corruption remains an enormous drain on resources sorely needed for education, health and infrastructure,” said Huguette Labelle, TI chair, in a press statement. “Low scoring countries need to take these results seriously and act now to strengthen accountability in public institutions. But action from top scoring countries is just as important, particularly in cracking down on corrupt activity in the private sector.”
The index states that the poorest countries suffer most under the yoke of corruption. “But corruption is not simply a problem of poor countries, as continuing corporate and government scandals show,” Labelle pointed out. “And with the cross-border nature of corruption in poorer countries, rich and poor nations share the heavy responsibility of breaking the corruption cycle.”
She blamed multinationals for helping spread corruption in developing countries and criticized them for double standards, paying bribes in poor countries while behaving better at home.
It is not surprising, she said, that rich countries come at the top of the index because they tend to have powerful advantages: political stability, material wealth, mature freedom of information and regulatory regimes, and a relatively clean public sector.
“But despite the very real good news for these countries, there is an unseemly dark side: the world’s richest countries — the CPI’s top scorers — are often complicit in driving corruption in poor nations, and in stymieing efforts to return funds stolen by corrupt officials and stashed abroad,” she stated. “The bribe money that buys a champagne lifestyle for corrupt officials in the poorest nations often originates in multinational companies based in the world’s richest countries — the CPI’s top scorers.”
Labelle added that bribery on foreign shores was no longer an acceptable business strategy, and that perpetrators were increasingly feeling the heat. “But corruption isn’t just brown envelopes, slipped under tables or passed in dark alleys.”
Too often, she explained, corruption has meant wholesale theft of public resources by leaders and high-level public officials exploiting pliant or non-existent enforcement systems. “Billions of dollars of this money, so desperately needed for basic services in the poorest countries, has quietly traversed borders and landed in bank accounts in financial centers in some of the wealthiest places on earth.”
While corruption is a problem with global roots, good governance still begins at home. The index indicates that poorest countries suffer most from corruption, and that it is ultimately their responsibility to tackle the problem.
“The first order of business is to improve transparency in financial management, from revenue collection to expenditure, as well as strengthening oversight and putting an end to the impunity of corrupt officials,” reads the index.
The index stresses on the vital role an independent and professional judicial system plays in combating corruption as well as promoting public, donor, and investor confidence. “If courts cannot be relied upon to pursue corrupt officials or to assist in tracing and returning illicit wealth, progress against corruption is unlikely.”
Not only must judicial proceedings be freed of political influence, judges themselves must subject to disciplinary rules, limited immunity and a code of judicial conduct to help ensure justice is served.
The CPI also calls on top scoring countries to help developing nations build legal and technical expertise to pursue corrupt officials and the assets they loot.
“Aid money should be used to strengthen institutions of governance and oversight in developing nations, and to incorporate strengthened integrity and corruption prevention into poverty reduction programs,” Labelle suggested.
She added that anti-money laundering measures needed to be introduced to eradicate safe havens for stolen assets. Moreover, developed countries must strictly enforce the Anti-Bribery Convention, which criminalizes the bribery of foreign public officials, as lack of compliance with the convention continues to hinder corruption investigations and prosecutions.
“As we launch this index, the world's leaders are gathering at the UN general assembly. The results of the index are a warning signal for them, and for many, that corruption remains a major impediment to deal with poverty and world stability,” she said. “We look to them for explicit action to end corruption, through domestic reform and by supporting the UN Convention and initiatives such as the new World Bank/United Nations asset recovery program.”
Egypt was surpassed by countries such as Israel (30), Qatar (32), United Arab Emirates (34), South Africa (43), Bahrain (46), Jordan (53), Kuwait (60), Colombia (68), Saudi Arabia (79), and Lebanon (99).
Somalia and Myanmar share the lowest score of 1.4. At the opposite end are Denmark, Finland and New Zealand with 9.4, showing fair judiciaries and transparent public finances. War-stricken countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Sudan have also deeply suffered from rampant corruption and are at the very bottom of the index.
Transparency International (TI) is a global coalition leading the fight against corruption which publishes its annual ranking of how corrupt different countries are perceived. As its name indicates, the CPI does not measure corruption itself. Rather, it looks at expert perceptions of the level of corruption in a given country’s public sector.
The index findings are in line with a recent public opinion poll conducted by the Information Decision Support Center that revealed that 75.2 percent of Egyptians believe corruption exists in the country with a prevalence of 66 percent.
The index finds that the divide in perceived levels of corruption in rich and poor countries remains as sharp as ever, and that a strong correlation between corruption and poverty continues to be evident. “Forty percent of those scoring below three…are classified by the World Bank as low income countries,” reveals the report.
“Despite some gains, corruption remains an enormous drain on resources sorely needed for education, health and infrastructure,” said Huguette Labelle, TI chair, in a press statement. “Low scoring countries need to take these results seriously and act now to strengthen accountability in public institutions. But action from top scoring countries is just as important, particularly in cracking down on corrupt activity in the private sector.”
The index states that the poorest countries suffer most under the yoke of corruption. “But corruption is not simply a problem of poor countries, as continuing corporate and government scandals show,” Labelle pointed out. “And with the cross-border nature of corruption in poorer countries, rich and poor nations share the heavy responsibility of breaking the corruption cycle.”
She blamed multinationals for helping spread corruption in developing countries and criticized them for double standards, paying bribes in poor countries while behaving better at home.
It is not surprising, she said, that rich countries come at the top of the index because they tend to have powerful advantages: political stability, material wealth, mature freedom of information and regulatory regimes, and a relatively clean public sector.
“But despite the very real good news for these countries, there is an unseemly dark side: the world’s richest countries — the CPI’s top scorers — are often complicit in driving corruption in poor nations, and in stymieing efforts to return funds stolen by corrupt officials and stashed abroad,” she stated. “The bribe money that buys a champagne lifestyle for corrupt officials in the poorest nations often originates in multinational companies based in the world’s richest countries — the CPI’s top scorers.”
Labelle added that bribery on foreign shores was no longer an acceptable business strategy, and that perpetrators were increasingly feeling the heat. “But corruption isn’t just brown envelopes, slipped under tables or passed in dark alleys.”
Too often, she explained, corruption has meant wholesale theft of public resources by leaders and high-level public officials exploiting pliant or non-existent enforcement systems. “Billions of dollars of this money, so desperately needed for basic services in the poorest countries, has quietly traversed borders and landed in bank accounts in financial centers in some of the wealthiest places on earth.”
While corruption is a problem with global roots, good governance still begins at home. The index indicates that poorest countries suffer most from corruption, and that it is ultimately their responsibility to tackle the problem.
“The first order of business is to improve transparency in financial management, from revenue collection to expenditure, as well as strengthening oversight and putting an end to the impunity of corrupt officials,” reads the index.
The index stresses on the vital role an independent and professional judicial system plays in combating corruption as well as promoting public, donor, and investor confidence. “If courts cannot be relied upon to pursue corrupt officials or to assist in tracing and returning illicit wealth, progress against corruption is unlikely.”
Not only must judicial proceedings be freed of political influence, judges themselves must subject to disciplinary rules, limited immunity and a code of judicial conduct to help ensure justice is served.
The CPI also calls on top scoring countries to help developing nations build legal and technical expertise to pursue corrupt officials and the assets they loot.
“Aid money should be used to strengthen institutions of governance and oversight in developing nations, and to incorporate strengthened integrity and corruption prevention into poverty reduction programs,” Labelle suggested.
She added that anti-money laundering measures needed to be introduced to eradicate safe havens for stolen assets. Moreover, developed countries must strictly enforce the Anti-Bribery Convention, which criminalizes the bribery of foreign public officials, as lack of compliance with the convention continues to hinder corruption investigations and prosecutions.
“As we launch this index, the world's leaders are gathering at the UN general assembly. The results of the index are a warning signal for them, and for many, that corruption remains a major impediment to deal with poverty and world stability,” she said. “We look to them for explicit action to end corruption, through domestic reform and by supporting the UN Convention and initiatives such as the new World Bank/United Nations asset recovery program.”
A very exceptional trap
Is the Jewish people capable of defending itself properly? This may seem an absurd question to ask when Israel has created a formidably armed society in an explicit renunciation of the powerlessness of the Jewish diaspora.
But with Israel under internal and external pressure over its decision to designate Gaza a ‘hostile entity’ and the prospect that it may cut off its fuel and electricity, we might ponder the absurdity of it not doing so.
After all, Israel is under continuous rocket bombardment from Gaza. What other people is expected to provide its enemies with the means to continue to perpetrate their murderous attacks? What other people, moreover, expects itself to make such provision?
Such reflections are brought into focus by Jews and Power, a new book by Ruth Wisse, a professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard. In this subtle and learned reflection on the political effect of exile and dispersion on the Jews, Wisse argues that their very success in adapting to the societies where they settled has also been a source of profound weakness.
They believed that exile from the land of Israel was punishment for turning away from God. Far from fighting their enemies, therefore, the Jews concentrated on reaching an accommodation with their diaspora hosts which would allow them better to obey God’s laws. Their redemption would not come from defeating their persecutors. It was God who would do that — but only if the Jews mended their own behaviour.
With their focus shifting inwards towards their spiritual failings, the Jews accordingly became less pre-occupied with the culpability of their enemies and instead dwelt upon the blame they attached to themselves.
Wisse provides three modern examples of this ‘moral solipsism’. In 1939, a Jewish mother in Warsaw rescued her little son from two bullying German soldiers. ‘Come inside the courtyard and za a mentsh,’ she said, telling the child in Yiddish to become ‘what a human being ought to be’.
The same tendency — to see the real danger in themselves rather than their persecutors — was on display in Golda Meir’s famous reproach to Anwar Sadat that, while she could forgive the Egyptian army for killing Israeli soldiers, she could never forgive Sadat for forcing her young soldiers to kill young Egyptians.
Wisse’s third example was Israel’s rush to sign the Oslo accords — with an enemy which, presented with the Jews’ yearning to forgive it so that they would never have to attack it, took the opportunity it was thus offered to attack the Jews with redoubled ferocity.
Such a suicidal politics of accommodation also makes the Jews vulnerable to internal treachery — as we can see from today’s Jewish Israel-bashers who succumb, in Wisse’s words, to ‘the corrupting temptations of powerlessness’ by seeking personal advantage at the expense of their own community.
Conniving at the obnoxious canard of illegitimate global Jewish power, they claim that Israel’s military actions prove that power has corrupted Jewish values by turning Jews from victims into oppressors.
As Wisse points out, this is entirely contrary to the facts. Tiny Israel’s power to defend itself against millions of Arab and Muslim enemies is hugely constrained not only by international pressure but by its own disinclination to fight those from whom it seeks acceptance instead. Jews are patently no more inclined to subdue the Arabs than they were the nations of the diaspora in which they lived.
The Jews are trapped on the proverbial horns of a dilemma. Effective self-defence means they must be allowed to behave like any other people under attack. But the Jews are not like any other people. Jewish moral exceptionalism entails a veneration of human life and concern to protect the innocents, even among the most cruel of enemies. Hence the basic humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza.
But at the same time, the Jews have a moral obligation to defend their own people. Failing to defend themselves so that their own innocents are abandoned to death and destruction and Jewish peoplehood put at risk of extinction is a negation of Jewish ethics.
This is why the ‘asymmetrical warfare’ of Palestinianism is such a threat to Israel. Attack by the armies of neighbouring states poses such a direct existential threat to Israel there are few qualms about self-defence. But fashioning a wretched people into a weapon of war plays upon the weakness caused by Jewish exceptionalism and ‘moral solipsism’, so that the Jews feel guilty about the welfare of their attackers even as the rockets rain down on them from Gaza.
The Arabs know this, and play the Jews like fish on a line. There is no easy resolution of this dilemma; but Ruth Wisse’s book helps us understand the exquisite awfulness of the trap.
But with Israel under internal and external pressure over its decision to designate Gaza a ‘hostile entity’ and the prospect that it may cut off its fuel and electricity, we might ponder the absurdity of it not doing so.
After all, Israel is under continuous rocket bombardment from Gaza. What other people is expected to provide its enemies with the means to continue to perpetrate their murderous attacks? What other people, moreover, expects itself to make such provision?
Such reflections are brought into focus by Jews and Power, a new book by Ruth Wisse, a professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard. In this subtle and learned reflection on the political effect of exile and dispersion on the Jews, Wisse argues that their very success in adapting to the societies where they settled has also been a source of profound weakness.
They believed that exile from the land of Israel was punishment for turning away from God. Far from fighting their enemies, therefore, the Jews concentrated on reaching an accommodation with their diaspora hosts which would allow them better to obey God’s laws. Their redemption would not come from defeating their persecutors. It was God who would do that — but only if the Jews mended their own behaviour.
With their focus shifting inwards towards their spiritual failings, the Jews accordingly became less pre-occupied with the culpability of their enemies and instead dwelt upon the blame they attached to themselves.
Wisse provides three modern examples of this ‘moral solipsism’. In 1939, a Jewish mother in Warsaw rescued her little son from two bullying German soldiers. ‘Come inside the courtyard and za a mentsh,’ she said, telling the child in Yiddish to become ‘what a human being ought to be’.
The same tendency — to see the real danger in themselves rather than their persecutors — was on display in Golda Meir’s famous reproach to Anwar Sadat that, while she could forgive the Egyptian army for killing Israeli soldiers, she could never forgive Sadat for forcing her young soldiers to kill young Egyptians.
Wisse’s third example was Israel’s rush to sign the Oslo accords — with an enemy which, presented with the Jews’ yearning to forgive it so that they would never have to attack it, took the opportunity it was thus offered to attack the Jews with redoubled ferocity.
Such a suicidal politics of accommodation also makes the Jews vulnerable to internal treachery — as we can see from today’s Jewish Israel-bashers who succumb, in Wisse’s words, to ‘the corrupting temptations of powerlessness’ by seeking personal advantage at the expense of their own community.
Conniving at the obnoxious canard of illegitimate global Jewish power, they claim that Israel’s military actions prove that power has corrupted Jewish values by turning Jews from victims into oppressors.
As Wisse points out, this is entirely contrary to the facts. Tiny Israel’s power to defend itself against millions of Arab and Muslim enemies is hugely constrained not only by international pressure but by its own disinclination to fight those from whom it seeks acceptance instead. Jews are patently no more inclined to subdue the Arabs than they were the nations of the diaspora in which they lived.
The Jews are trapped on the proverbial horns of a dilemma. Effective self-defence means they must be allowed to behave like any other people under attack. But the Jews are not like any other people. Jewish moral exceptionalism entails a veneration of human life and concern to protect the innocents, even among the most cruel of enemies. Hence the basic humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza.
But at the same time, the Jews have a moral obligation to defend their own people. Failing to defend themselves so that their own innocents are abandoned to death and destruction and Jewish peoplehood put at risk of extinction is a negation of Jewish ethics.
This is why the ‘asymmetrical warfare’ of Palestinianism is such a threat to Israel. Attack by the armies of neighbouring states poses such a direct existential threat to Israel there are few qualms about self-defence. But fashioning a wretched people into a weapon of war plays upon the weakness caused by Jewish exceptionalism and ‘moral solipsism’, so that the Jews feel guilty about the welfare of their attackers even as the rockets rain down on them from Gaza.
The Arabs know this, and play the Jews like fish on a line. There is no easy resolution of this dilemma; but Ruth Wisse’s book helps us understand the exquisite awfulness of the trap.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)