“Attention must be paid. He’s not to be allowed to fall in his grave….Attention, attention must finally be paid to such a person.”
–Arthur Miller, “Death of a Salesman”
By Barry Rubin
Let us pause from the frantic pursuit of headlines and fascination at the latest novelty to acknowledge some real heroes. Not the self-publicizing Western intellectuals, academics and artists who preen as they echo every dominant fashion; not the Middle Eastern extremists, praised for terrorist acts or dreaming of bloodbaths and the creation of tyrannical regimes. I refer to those Syrian opposition activists engaged in rescuing the wounded and bringing in food and medical supplies to besieged cities, especially Homs. Of the officials of the Avaaz group, involved in this effort, explained it this way:
“They are just ordinary guys who did not pick up weapons but decided to evacuate injured people….Some of them have basic medical training….Some of them are just guys who can carry heavy weights.”
Forty of these people tried to get four wounded Western journalists out of Homs, after two other reporters were killed there. They were ambushed and thirteen of them lost their lives, after having earlier gotten dozens of other injured Syrians to safety. Three of the four journalists had to turn back to Homs; one escaped to Lebanon after four of his escorts were killed.
This is not to ignore the thousands of other oppositionists, almost all of them unarmed protesters —international estimates now count about 7,500– who have been killed by the regime’s forces. Roughly 100 more people are being slain daily.
They receive virtually no international support. The world ignores the repression in Syria just as it effectively ignored the repression in Iran. There are no protests in the streets of Western capitals; no meetings or teach-ins on Western campuses. Terrorists can expect enthusiastic support; the nonviolent opposition in Iran and the largely nonviolent opposition in Syria cannot.
The mere specter of possible attacks on civilians in Libya prompted a huge international involvement, resulting in support for an armed opposition which did mistreat and murder civilians, and now a regime that is passive in the face of more killings.
And now these Syrian civilians have given their lives to protect Western journalists. Naturally, the opposition wanted the reporters to be there to record what’s going on. It is likely that the Syrian regime forces, whose intelligence is quite good, deliberately targeted the press center for mortar attack to kill the foreign journalists and shut down any coverage from inside the country.
Where’s the outrage? Where’s the deadlocked UN? Where are the noisy activists? Where is the “duty to protect” Obama Administration so eager to help in the overthrow of U.S. allies but so timid where America’s enemies are concerned?
Be ashamed; be every ashamed.
Someday, I hope, the names of these people who sacrificed their lives will be published and given the recognition as heroes they so fully deserve.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. He is author of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
Friday, March 02, 2012
"Making Heads Spin"
Arlene Kushner
Every day, perhaps every hour, there are new reports regarding Iran, the Israeli position, the US position, and the intersection between the two positions. Some of these reports are mutually exclusive: if Israel attacks Iran the US won't be told in order to give the Americans deniability; if Israel attacks Iran the US will provide backup. Etc. etc. Of course this stuff doesn't only make one's head spin, it IS spin. It's a question of what various parties want the public to think. In at least one instance (only one?), I considered reportage by a major newspaper to have been considerably less than professional. When the text of the message (which I will not repeat here) says the source has not been confirmed, but the headline blares the news as if it were fact, there is something terribly amiss. Some of the very vague allusions to various scenarios have come from Wikileaks, which has stolen communication from Stratfor.
~~~~~~~~~~
I share here the broad conclusions I have drawn, to date, while including the proviso that since so much is spin there is a way in which almost everything is speculation.
The one thing that does seem clear is that Israel and the US are attempting to lend at least an impression of being on the same page on Iran. What I'm seeing is that America is advancing a decidedly tougher line with regard to using a military option if necessary.
According to a report released by Bloomberg, US Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said Wednesday that US plans to attack Iran are in place. "What we can do, you wouldn't want to be in the area." Anonymous Pentagon officials are cited as saying plans include the possibility of a joint US-Israeli effort. America, they are reported as saying, would bomb not just nuclear targets, but also "the pillars of the clerical regime, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and its elite Quds Force, regular Iranian military bases and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security."
Just bluff? Don't know. Maybe the Americans are finally getting the message that Iran is more likely to back down in the face of sanctions if there is a credible military threat backing it up. Maybe Obama knows that Netanyahu will move ahead at his own pace, and has decided that it would mitigate Iranian retaliation if the US were ready to be involved.
~~~~~~~~~~
Certainly, despite some reports to the contrary, it appears at a minimum that the US does want as much advance notice as possible if we were to attack.
~~~~~~~~~~
There is no indication that Netanyahu is caving to Obama -- the stronger stance the US is taking, in and of itself, certainly leads towards that conclusion. He appears to be holding fast on his intention to defend Israel as he deems proper.
And I have a distinct impression that he has been out-and-out furious about American efforts to diminish the likelihood that Israel would be able to accomplish a strike on Iran. There was that report in the NYTimes, for example, that carried leaks from military men. Attempting to make Israel look weaker (presumably to diminish support for Israel and Israeli confidence in her own capacity) is most decidedly counterproductive and in the end just plain stupid.
As we all know, Obama would like Netanyahu to delay any action until there is more time for sanctions to work -- although the possibility that they will work is considered by most serious analysts to be very slight indeed. Israeli concern has been that delay would bring us to the time when Iran would have already entered that "zone of immunity," with equipment buried in new, deeper bunkers. If Netanyahu does agree to delay, it may be because he will have secured a commitment from the US, which has more top-flight bunker busters, to be involved when there is an operation. But we won't know this.
There will likely be a joint statement of some sort after the meeting between the heads of state on Monday. Don't count on it for real information.
~~~~~~~~~~
And my final statement at this juncture -- a statement made from Jerusalem by someone who has lost more than a little sleep over this:
Israel is in Iran's sites at the moment. That the world ignores this is painful but not really unexpected. What infuriates is the attitude of the world that Israel is a trouble-maker because of her intent to defend herself as deemed necessary. There is more concern in some quarters about what Israel may or may not do to Iran, than there is about whether Iran may reach nuclear break-out point.
After all, if we hit Iran to save the Jewish nation, oil prices might go up, the "very stable" Middle East might be "destabilized" and there might be some retaliation by Iran -- and none of this would be acceptable to the world. This paints for me in bold relief a picture of the venality of a world that operates in totally amoral terms. As we know, the world is good at weeping about dead Jews. Live ones? That's another story.
But there is much more than this going on. What people don't grasp is that ultimately Iran is not Israel's problem, it's the world's problem.
Perhaps the situation is changing, but until now there has been scant recognition among the American people or their elected president that Iran is seeking a world-wide Islamic caliphate that requires destruction of the Western system. That Iran is building an intercontinental ballistic missile that will be able to reach the eastern US, as well as all of Europe, and is talking about placing missiles in Latin America, from where said missiles could readily reach the US. That, should Iran achieve nuclear capacity, it would feel invincible and raise oil prices, move on its Arab neighbors and generally cause havoc in the region.
This is how I see the world:
Source: mamalizaor.com
Reaching out to Iran to "negotiate" in order to get them to genuinely halt their nuclear efforts? Come on! But the world -- and Obama is very much included here -- has relied on such efforts to make themselves feel they are "doing something."
If Netanyahu has finally convinced Obama to begin to think otherwise, or if Netanyahu's determination to act has convinced the US that there's no choice but to take a different position, this is something to be grateful for.
Only two nations in the world can accomplish a military attack against Iran: Israel and the US. The US can do it better. Israel can set back Iranian nuclear efforts by some years. The US can destroy the entire project.
Suggestions that the US may be involved in our efforts or launch its own efforts -- however much spin there may be here -- have the effect of generating a very tiny spark of hope that perhaps things just might be moving in a better direction.
~~~~~~~~~~
Please see this article by Evelyn Gordon, writing as a JINSA Visiting Fellow -- "Forget the Palestinians, the Future of Land-for-Peace Deals Depends on Egypt":
Her thesis, quite simply, is that pulling out of an area to achieve peace has backfired for Israel several times -- in Lebanon and in Gaza, and with regard to partial pullouts after Oslo. The only agreement in which a pullout -- from Sinai -- has bought Israel peace has been in the treaty with Egypt:
"...the treaty with Egypt served as the shining counterexample - the proof that land for peace could work, given the right partners and the right conditions. Though never more than a cold peace, it consistently provided Israel with the one great good it promised, a secure southern border. And it survived despite repeated tensions, including two Palestinian intifadas and two Israeli-Lebanese wars.
"Now, however, it looks increasingly likely that what made the Egyptian peace succeed was not any intrinsic merit in the land-for-peace paradigm, but merely the remarkable longevity in office of one man, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, whose 30-year tenure encompassed most of the treaty's lifespan.
"And that in turn is leading a growing number of Israelis who previously supported land-for-peace to wonder whether it may not be an inherently unworkable paradigm, due to the fatal flaw encapsulated in its very name. In any land-for-peace deal, only one party actually considers 'peace' a value worth trading for. What interests the other party is not peace, but gaining strategic assets such as land." (Emphasis added)
http://www.jinsa.org/visiting-fellows/evelyn-gordon/forget-palestinians-future-land-peace-depends-egypt
~~~~~~~~~~
And then this excellent article by Gil Troy, from the JPost, about "Abbas, the Masquerading Moderate" (All emphasis added):
"...Mahmoud Abbas is to moderation what moldy oranges are to penicillin. If purified properly, the product could be healing; but as it now stands, it is putrid and possibly toxic.
...Abbas the Masquerading Moderate has been the Great Obstructionist, far more accommodating of his Hamas rivals than his American bankrollers.
"...again and again Abbas has been Dr. No – blocking progress...
"This week, Abbas traveled to Doha to participate in an 'International Conference on Jerusalem,' with representatives from 70 countries. Anti-Zionist discourse in that part of the Middle East was as ubiquitous as Muzak is in elevators in the Midwest, intensified by the added volatility of the Jerusalem issue, with a dash of anti-Americanism thrown in...
"When Abbas spoke, rather than injecting a note of responsibility into the proceedings, providing a reality check, he joined the anti-Israel pile on. He claimed Israel wants to 'carry out continued excavations that threaten to undermine the Al-Aqsa Mosque, in order to extract evidence that supports the Israeli version of Judaism.' He said Israelis wanted to 'Judaize' the city and 'were preparing models of what they call the Temple in order to build on the ruins of Al Aqsa.'
"Any one of these three incendiary ideas would earn an extremist street 'cred' as a flamethrower. Few Israelis are proposing a Third Temple. Claiming 'the Jews' wish to replace the Al-Aqsa Mosque with their own structure is a demagogic call for Arab rioting in Jerusalem and elsewhere. Second, mischievous phrases like 'the Israeli version of Judaism' and 'what they call the Temple,' try to rob Jews of our history, our legitimacy, our nationality. Abbas’s words echo longstanding Palestinian claims that Judaism is a religion with no peoplehood component, that the Temple never existed, and that the whole Zionist, meaning Jewish nationalist, project is a fraud.
"Finally, Abbas’s allegations about 'Judaizing' Jerusalem ignore the fact that Jerusalem is already Jewish and Muslim and Christian. Abbas’s implication, that Jews are engaged in ethnic cleansing, would require us to characterize modern Israelis as incompetent not just evil. Today’s Jerusalem has 800,000 residents, including 268,000 Arabs. In the nearly 45 years since the 1967 Six Day War, the Arab population has grown by 200,000, and many Arabs today appreciate their Israeli rights and services. The number of Arab Jerusalemites granted Israeli citizenship quadrupled from 2006 to 2010. If Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing, Israelis would have to admit to being the worst – meaning the most ineffectual -- 'ethnic cleansers' in history, having triggered a population increase due to higher quality of life including more freedom.
"Once again, Abbas missed an opportunity to play the statesman...He played the Jerusalem card, riling his audience, and alienating Israelis. That he nevertheless passes for a moderate, demonstrates just how extreme other Palestinian voices are, such as Hamas, and just how indulgent world opinion is when it comes to coddling the Palestinians."
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/abbas-masquerading-moderate-caricatures-hellish-jerusalem
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
See my website at www.arlenefromisrael.info Contact Arlene at akushner@netvision.net.il
This material is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and include your name in the text of the message.
Every day, perhaps every hour, there are new reports regarding Iran, the Israeli position, the US position, and the intersection between the two positions. Some of these reports are mutually exclusive: if Israel attacks Iran the US won't be told in order to give the Americans deniability; if Israel attacks Iran the US will provide backup. Etc. etc. Of course this stuff doesn't only make one's head spin, it IS spin. It's a question of what various parties want the public to think. In at least one instance (only one?), I considered reportage by a major newspaper to have been considerably less than professional. When the text of the message (which I will not repeat here) says the source has not been confirmed, but the headline blares the news as if it were fact, there is something terribly amiss. Some of the very vague allusions to various scenarios have come from Wikileaks, which has stolen communication from Stratfor.
~~~~~~~~~~
I share here the broad conclusions I have drawn, to date, while including the proviso that since so much is spin there is a way in which almost everything is speculation.
The one thing that does seem clear is that Israel and the US are attempting to lend at least an impression of being on the same page on Iran. What I'm seeing is that America is advancing a decidedly tougher line with regard to using a military option if necessary.
According to a report released by Bloomberg, US Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said Wednesday that US plans to attack Iran are in place. "What we can do, you wouldn't want to be in the area." Anonymous Pentagon officials are cited as saying plans include the possibility of a joint US-Israeli effort. America, they are reported as saying, would bomb not just nuclear targets, but also "the pillars of the clerical regime, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, and its elite Quds Force, regular Iranian military bases and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security."
Just bluff? Don't know. Maybe the Americans are finally getting the message that Iran is more likely to back down in the face of sanctions if there is a credible military threat backing it up. Maybe Obama knows that Netanyahu will move ahead at his own pace, and has decided that it would mitigate Iranian retaliation if the US were ready to be involved.
~~~~~~~~~~
Certainly, despite some reports to the contrary, it appears at a minimum that the US does want as much advance notice as possible if we were to attack.
~~~~~~~~~~
There is no indication that Netanyahu is caving to Obama -- the stronger stance the US is taking, in and of itself, certainly leads towards that conclusion. He appears to be holding fast on his intention to defend Israel as he deems proper.
And I have a distinct impression that he has been out-and-out furious about American efforts to diminish the likelihood that Israel would be able to accomplish a strike on Iran. There was that report in the NYTimes, for example, that carried leaks from military men. Attempting to make Israel look weaker (presumably to diminish support for Israel and Israeli confidence in her own capacity) is most decidedly counterproductive and in the end just plain stupid.
As we all know, Obama would like Netanyahu to delay any action until there is more time for sanctions to work -- although the possibility that they will work is considered by most serious analysts to be very slight indeed. Israeli concern has been that delay would bring us to the time when Iran would have already entered that "zone of immunity," with equipment buried in new, deeper bunkers. If Netanyahu does agree to delay, it may be because he will have secured a commitment from the US, which has more top-flight bunker busters, to be involved when there is an operation. But we won't know this.
There will likely be a joint statement of some sort after the meeting between the heads of state on Monday. Don't count on it for real information.
~~~~~~~~~~
And my final statement at this juncture -- a statement made from Jerusalem by someone who has lost more than a little sleep over this:
Israel is in Iran's sites at the moment. That the world ignores this is painful but not really unexpected. What infuriates is the attitude of the world that Israel is a trouble-maker because of her intent to defend herself as deemed necessary. There is more concern in some quarters about what Israel may or may not do to Iran, than there is about whether Iran may reach nuclear break-out point.
After all, if we hit Iran to save the Jewish nation, oil prices might go up, the "very stable" Middle East might be "destabilized" and there might be some retaliation by Iran -- and none of this would be acceptable to the world. This paints for me in bold relief a picture of the venality of a world that operates in totally amoral terms. As we know, the world is good at weeping about dead Jews. Live ones? That's another story.
But there is much more than this going on. What people don't grasp is that ultimately Iran is not Israel's problem, it's the world's problem.
Perhaps the situation is changing, but until now there has been scant recognition among the American people or their elected president that Iran is seeking a world-wide Islamic caliphate that requires destruction of the Western system. That Iran is building an intercontinental ballistic missile that will be able to reach the eastern US, as well as all of Europe, and is talking about placing missiles in Latin America, from where said missiles could readily reach the US. That, should Iran achieve nuclear capacity, it would feel invincible and raise oil prices, move on its Arab neighbors and generally cause havoc in the region.
This is how I see the world:
Source: mamalizaor.com
Reaching out to Iran to "negotiate" in order to get them to genuinely halt their nuclear efforts? Come on! But the world -- and Obama is very much included here -- has relied on such efforts to make themselves feel they are "doing something."
If Netanyahu has finally convinced Obama to begin to think otherwise, or if Netanyahu's determination to act has convinced the US that there's no choice but to take a different position, this is something to be grateful for.
Only two nations in the world can accomplish a military attack against Iran: Israel and the US. The US can do it better. Israel can set back Iranian nuclear efforts by some years. The US can destroy the entire project.
Suggestions that the US may be involved in our efforts or launch its own efforts -- however much spin there may be here -- have the effect of generating a very tiny spark of hope that perhaps things just might be moving in a better direction.
~~~~~~~~~~
Please see this article by Evelyn Gordon, writing as a JINSA Visiting Fellow -- "Forget the Palestinians, the Future of Land-for-Peace Deals Depends on Egypt":
Her thesis, quite simply, is that pulling out of an area to achieve peace has backfired for Israel several times -- in Lebanon and in Gaza, and with regard to partial pullouts after Oslo. The only agreement in which a pullout -- from Sinai -- has bought Israel peace has been in the treaty with Egypt:
"...the treaty with Egypt served as the shining counterexample - the proof that land for peace could work, given the right partners and the right conditions. Though never more than a cold peace, it consistently provided Israel with the one great good it promised, a secure southern border. And it survived despite repeated tensions, including two Palestinian intifadas and two Israeli-Lebanese wars.
"Now, however, it looks increasingly likely that what made the Egyptian peace succeed was not any intrinsic merit in the land-for-peace paradigm, but merely the remarkable longevity in office of one man, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, whose 30-year tenure encompassed most of the treaty's lifespan.
"And that in turn is leading a growing number of Israelis who previously supported land-for-peace to wonder whether it may not be an inherently unworkable paradigm, due to the fatal flaw encapsulated in its very name. In any land-for-peace deal, only one party actually considers 'peace' a value worth trading for. What interests the other party is not peace, but gaining strategic assets such as land." (Emphasis added)
http://www.jinsa.org/visiting-fellows/evelyn-gordon/forget-palestinians-future-land-peace-depends-egypt
~~~~~~~~~~
And then this excellent article by Gil Troy, from the JPost, about "Abbas, the Masquerading Moderate" (All emphasis added):
"...Mahmoud Abbas is to moderation what moldy oranges are to penicillin. If purified properly, the product could be healing; but as it now stands, it is putrid and possibly toxic.
...Abbas the Masquerading Moderate has been the Great Obstructionist, far more accommodating of his Hamas rivals than his American bankrollers.
"...again and again Abbas has been Dr. No – blocking progress...
"This week, Abbas traveled to Doha to participate in an 'International Conference on Jerusalem,' with representatives from 70 countries. Anti-Zionist discourse in that part of the Middle East was as ubiquitous as Muzak is in elevators in the Midwest, intensified by the added volatility of the Jerusalem issue, with a dash of anti-Americanism thrown in...
"When Abbas spoke, rather than injecting a note of responsibility into the proceedings, providing a reality check, he joined the anti-Israel pile on. He claimed Israel wants to 'carry out continued excavations that threaten to undermine the Al-Aqsa Mosque, in order to extract evidence that supports the Israeli version of Judaism.' He said Israelis wanted to 'Judaize' the city and 'were preparing models of what they call the Temple in order to build on the ruins of Al Aqsa.'
"Any one of these three incendiary ideas would earn an extremist street 'cred' as a flamethrower. Few Israelis are proposing a Third Temple. Claiming 'the Jews' wish to replace the Al-Aqsa Mosque with their own structure is a demagogic call for Arab rioting in Jerusalem and elsewhere. Second, mischievous phrases like 'the Israeli version of Judaism' and 'what they call the Temple,' try to rob Jews of our history, our legitimacy, our nationality. Abbas’s words echo longstanding Palestinian claims that Judaism is a religion with no peoplehood component, that the Temple never existed, and that the whole Zionist, meaning Jewish nationalist, project is a fraud.
"Finally, Abbas’s allegations about 'Judaizing' Jerusalem ignore the fact that Jerusalem is already Jewish and Muslim and Christian. Abbas’s implication, that Jews are engaged in ethnic cleansing, would require us to characterize modern Israelis as incompetent not just evil. Today’s Jerusalem has 800,000 residents, including 268,000 Arabs. In the nearly 45 years since the 1967 Six Day War, the Arab population has grown by 200,000, and many Arabs today appreciate their Israeli rights and services. The number of Arab Jerusalemites granted Israeli citizenship quadrupled from 2006 to 2010. If Israel is engaged in ethnic cleansing, Israelis would have to admit to being the worst – meaning the most ineffectual -- 'ethnic cleansers' in history, having triggered a population increase due to higher quality of life including more freedom.
"Once again, Abbas missed an opportunity to play the statesman...He played the Jerusalem card, riling his audience, and alienating Israelis. That he nevertheless passes for a moderate, demonstrates just how extreme other Palestinian voices are, such as Hamas, and just how indulgent world opinion is when it comes to coddling the Palestinians."
http://blogs.jpost.com/content/abbas-masquerading-moderate-caricatures-hellish-jerusalem
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
See my website at www.arlenefromisrael.info Contact Arlene at akushner@netvision.net.il
This material is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and include your name in the text of the message.
Thursday, March 01, 2012
Since the end of Operation Cast Lead, 670 rockets and 404 mortar shells have been fired into Israel
Palestinian ceasefire violations since the end of Operation Cast Lead
MFA 29 Feb 2012 For details:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Palestinian_ceasefire_violations_since_end_Operation_Cast_Lead.htm
Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il
Yes, the 670 rockets and 404 mortar shells fired into Israel were a
violation of the "ceasefire", but the almost exclusive focus on the
"ceasefire" is a fundamental flaw in the Israeli approach.
Why "fundamental flaw"?
Because it essentially accepts the principle that the Palestinians can do
whatever they desire to increase the range, accuracy and payload of the "cocked gun" they have aimed at our collective temples - as long as they don't pull the trigger. And they have most certainly increased the range, accuracy and payload of the "cocked gun" well beyond any Israeli's imagination.
So what?
It is a terrible precedent for the future.
After all, we and the West maintain that a necessary condition for a
Palestinian state is that it be demilitarized.
But if today our policymakers essentially say that our problem is with the weapons the Palestinians in Gaza fire at us and not with what they have,
what message does this send about our true position regarding the enforcement of the condition that a Palestinian state be demilitarized?
MFA 29 Feb 2012 For details:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Terrorism-+Obstacle+to+Peace/Hamas+war+against+Israel/Palestinian_ceasefire_violations_since_end_Operation_Cast_Lead.htm
Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il
Yes, the 670 rockets and 404 mortar shells fired into Israel were a
violation of the "ceasefire", but the almost exclusive focus on the
"ceasefire" is a fundamental flaw in the Israeli approach.
Why "fundamental flaw"?
Because it essentially accepts the principle that the Palestinians can do
whatever they desire to increase the range, accuracy and payload of the "cocked gun" they have aimed at our collective temples - as long as they don't pull the trigger. And they have most certainly increased the range, accuracy and payload of the "cocked gun" well beyond any Israeli's imagination.
So what?
It is a terrible precedent for the future.
After all, we and the West maintain that a necessary condition for a
Palestinian state is that it be demilitarized.
But if today our policymakers essentially say that our problem is with the weapons the Palestinians in Gaza fire at us and not with what they have,
what message does this send about our true position regarding the enforcement of the condition that a Palestinian state be demilitarized?
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
SNC willing to work with Hezbollah
THE DAILY STAR
BEIRUT: The head of the Syrian National Council was quoted as saying Monday that Syria’s main opposition group would not have any problem dealing with Hezbollah if the party supported a democratic change in Syria.
“There are no permanent enmities in politics as there are no permanent friendships. Alliances are built on goals. We want to achieve our goals.
If Hezbollah decided to support the democratic process in Syria, there would not be any barrier [to dealing with it],” Burhan Ghalioun said in an interview with the Algerian newspaper Al-Shourouq. “We will not sacrifice Hezbollah if Hezbollah does not sacrifice us as a people and as a cause,” he added.
Hezbollah strongly supports Syrian President Bashar Assad who is facing the gravest challenge to his rule from an 11-month-old popular uprising demanding his ousting.
“Hezbollah’s greatest popularity in the past in the Arab world was in Syria because it did a glorious job when it stood against Israel,” Ghalioun said, adding: “But the people are now having doubts about it [Hezbollah] because it has adopted clear a stance, supporting an oppressive regime that is using all kinds of violence.”
Thanks Ted Belman
BEIRUT: The head of the Syrian National Council was quoted as saying Monday that Syria’s main opposition group would not have any problem dealing with Hezbollah if the party supported a democratic change in Syria.
“There are no permanent enmities in politics as there are no permanent friendships. Alliances are built on goals. We want to achieve our goals.
If Hezbollah decided to support the democratic process in Syria, there would not be any barrier [to dealing with it],” Burhan Ghalioun said in an interview with the Algerian newspaper Al-Shourouq. “We will not sacrifice Hezbollah if Hezbollah does not sacrifice us as a people and as a cause,” he added.
Hezbollah strongly supports Syrian President Bashar Assad who is facing the gravest challenge to his rule from an 11-month-old popular uprising demanding his ousting.
“Hezbollah’s greatest popularity in the past in the Arab world was in Syria because it did a glorious job when it stood against Israel,” Ghalioun said, adding: “But the people are now having doubts about it [Hezbollah] because it has adopted clear a stance, supporting an oppressive regime that is using all kinds of violence.”
Thanks Ted Belman
Mahmoud Abbas Launches Attack Against InLightPress
Challah Hu Akbar
Last week I reported that Mahmoud Abbas was monitoring the phones of his opponents. The source of the report was InLightPress, a site which is very critical of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who is currently engaged in a ruthless campaign against his opponents.
On Saturday, InLightPress was hacked. On Sunday, if you visited InLightPress’ website you received the following message.
The website was attacked by hackers, will be back within a short time.
When I visited the site on Monday morning, the following message appeared.
The website is facing privateering from a political destination which is affected from what we publish and will be back soon.
On Monday afternoon InLightPress’ website read:
The website is facing privateering from a political destination which is affected from what we publish and will be back tomorrow.
I am certain that the “political destination” referred to by InLightPress is the office of Mahmoud Abbas.
Aside for a condemnation from The Center for Defending Freedom of Journalists, the incident has received zero press coverage. I will continue to monitor this very closely, check back here for updates.
Update: It appears that someone may not have taken to kindly to the attack on InLightPress. It appears that Fatah aligned Palestine Press, better known for its attacks against Hamas, has been attacked. If one currently tries to visit the site you receive the following message.
Sorry. There is intense pressure on the site you can try again.
Update: While the InLightPress website remains down, their Twitter account returned to action this morning.
Update: It now appears that hackers may be targeting Wafa, the official news agency of the Palestinian authority.
Update: It now appears that Ma’an News’ Arabic website is down. The English site is up…for now.
Update: It now appears that Maan English is down.
Update: Alright, Maan English is back up, didn’t appear to be real hack, was down for under 10 minutes.
Update: Maan English is back down.
Update: InLightPress is back up and running and has released a scathing press release about the hacking attack. Details here.
Update: IMEMC is reporting that the attacks on Wafa and Maan were more likely part of the hacking war currently going on between Israeli and pro-Palestinian hackers.
In any case, here are some events in which the PA shut down TV stations that may be of interest to people. I have more on suppression of journalists as a whole, but lets just focus on TV and large news sites.
November 2007 - Palestinian Authority forces arrested the owner of the private Al-Amal TV station in Hebron after the station aired one of Ismail Haniyeh's press conferences. http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=81489
December 2008 - Ramattan News Agency forced to stop work after “relentless and heightened persecution” by the Palestinian Authority. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/1606204491.html?dids=1606204491:1606204491&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+01%2C+2008&author=KHALED+ABU+TOAMEH&pub=Jerusalem+Post&desc=Ramattan+news+agency+shuts+down+in+response+to+raids&pqatl=google
August 2009 - Director of Palestine TV, Muhammad Dahoudi, was fired after not covering Salam Fayyad enough.http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=152893
March 2010 - Palestinian Authority forced the closure of the only Christian TV station in Palestinian territory. PA soon backtracked, however, the owner of the station said he would not broadcast again until he received an apology. (Not sure that apology ever came) http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=171669
I have some more with arrests of correspondents for news sites, but you get the point. One could also focus in on recent attacks against InLightPress, there have been attacks against other sites as well including Amal and KofiaPress, but I have focused on InLightPress as there is where it seemed to have all started.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Political Rights in Palestine
Eli. E. Hertz
The Mandate for Palestine, a legally binding document under international law, clearly differentiates between political rights - referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity - and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities. Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine. At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs). Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine explicitly states that the Mandatory should: "Be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."
Political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed by the League of Nations in four other mandates - in Lebanon and Syria [The French Mandate], Iraq and later Trans-Jordan [The British Mandate]. Political rights in Palestine were granted to Jews only.
International law expert Professor Eugene V. Rostow, examining the claim for Arab Palestinian self-determination on the basis of law, concluded:
"The mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent 'natural law' claim to the area."
[1] See Eugene V. Rostow, The Future of Palestine, Institute for National Strategic Studies, November 1993. Professor Rostow was Sterling Professor of Law and Public Affairs Emeritus at Yale University and served as the Dean of Yale Law School (1955-66); Distinguished Research Professor of Law and Diplomacy, National Defense University; Adjunct Fellow, American Enterprise Institute. In 1967, as U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, he became a key draftee of UN Resolution 242. See also his article: "Are Israel's Settlements Legal?" The New Republic, October 21, 1991.
The Mandate for Palestine, a legally binding document under international law, clearly differentiates between political rights - referring to Jewish self-determination as an emerging polity - and civil and religious rights, referring to guarantees of equal personal freedoms to non-Jewish residents as individuals and within select communities. Not once are Arabs as a people mentioned in the Mandate for Palestine. At no point in the entire document is there any granting of political rights to non-Jewish entities (i.e., Arabs). Article 2 of the Mandate for Palestine explicitly states that the Mandatory should: "Be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."
Political rights to self-determination as a polity for Arabs were guaranteed by the League of Nations in four other mandates - in Lebanon and Syria [The French Mandate], Iraq and later Trans-Jordan [The British Mandate]. Political rights in Palestine were granted to Jews only.
International law expert Professor Eugene V. Rostow, examining the claim for Arab Palestinian self-determination on the basis of law, concluded:
"The mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land. Lord Curzon, who was then the British Foreign Minister, made this reading of the mandate explicit. There remains simply the theory that the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have an inherent 'natural law' claim to the area."
[1] See Eugene V. Rostow, The Future of Palestine, Institute for National Strategic Studies, November 1993. Professor Rostow was Sterling Professor of Law and Public Affairs Emeritus at Yale University and served as the Dean of Yale Law School (1955-66); Distinguished Research Professor of Law and Diplomacy, National Defense University; Adjunct Fellow, American Enterprise Institute. In 1967, as U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, he became a key draftee of UN Resolution 242. See also his article: "Are Israel's Settlements Legal?" The New Republic, October 21, 1991.
"Eventually, All Humans Will Be Palestine Refugees"
Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
http://www.meforum.org/pipes/10695/unrwa-palestine-refugees
[WT title: "Peculiar proliferation of Palestine refugees: Status has been passed from one generation to the next"]
Of all the issues that drive the Arab-Israeli conflict, none is more central, malign, primal, enduring, emotional, and complex than the status of those persons known as Palestine refugees.
The origins of this unique case, notes Nitza Nachmias of Tel Aviv University, goes back to Count Folke Bernadotte, the United Nations Security Council's mediator. Referring to those Arabs who fled the British mandate of Palestine, he argued in 1948 that the UN had a "responsibility for their relief" because it was a UN decision, the establishment of Israel, that had made them refugees. However inaccurate his view, it still remains alive and potent and helps explain why the UN devotes unique attention to Palestine refugees pending their own state. True to Bernadotte's legacy, the UN set up a range of special institutions exclusively for Palestine refugees. Of these, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, founded in 1949, stands out as the most important. It is both the only refugee organization to deal with a specific people (the United Nations High Commission for Refugees takes care of all non-Palestinian refugees) and the largest UN organization (in terms of staff).
UNRWA seemingly defines its wards with great specificity: "Palestine refugees are people whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict." The ranks of these refugees (who initially included some Jews) have, of course, much diminished over the past 64 years. Accepting UNRWA's (exaggerated) number of 750,000 original Palestine refugees, only a fraction of that number, about 150,000 persons, remain alive.
UNRWA's staff has taken three major steps over the years to expand the definition of Palestine refugees. First, and contrary to universal practice, it continued the refugee status of those who became citizens of an Arab state (Jordan in particular). Second, it made a little-noticed decision in 1965 that extended the definition of "Palestine refugee" to the descendants of those refugees who are male, a shift that permits Palestine refugees uniquely to pass their refugee status on to subsequent generations. The U.S. government, the agency's largest donor, only mildly protested this momentous change. The UN General Assembly endorsed it in 1982, so that now the definition of a Palestine refugee officially includes "descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children." Third, UNRWA in 1967 added refugees from the Six-Day War to its rolls; today they constitute about a fifth of the Palestine refugee total.
These changes had dramatic results. In contrast to all other refugee populations, which diminish in number as people settle down or die, the Palestine refugee population has grown over time. UNRWA acknowledges this bizarre phenomenon: "When the Agency started working in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services." Further, according to James G. Lindsay, a former UNRWA general counsel, under UNRWA's definition, that 5 million figure represents only half of those potentially eligible for Palestine refugee status.
In other words, rather than diminish 5-fold over six decades, UNRWA has the population of refugees increase almost 7-fold. That number could grow faster yet due to the growing sentiment that female refugees should also pass on their refugee status. Even when, in about 40 years, the last actual refugee from mandatory Palestine dies, pseudo-refugees will continue to proliferate. Thus is the "Palestine refugee" status set to swell indefinitely. Put differently, as Steven J. Rosen of the Middle East Forum notes, "given UNRWA's standards, eventually all humans will be Palestine refugees."
Were the Palestine refugee status a healthy one, this infinite expansion would hardly matter. But the status has destructive implications for two parties: Israel, which suffers from the depredations of a category of persons whose lives are truncated and distorted by an impossible dream of return to their great-grandparents' houses; and the "refugees" themselves, whose status implies a culture of dependency, grievance, rage, and futility.
A giant key (said to be the world's largest) sits atop the entrance to the Aida Refugee Camp in Bethlehem, reminding residents to insist on their "right of return."
All other refugees from the World War II era (including my own parents) have been long settled; the Palestine refugee status has already endured too long and needs to be narrowed down to actual refugees before it does further damage.
Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. This article is based on a recent MEF seminar in Jerusalem on UNRWA.© 2012 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
The Washington Times
http://www.meforum.org/pipes/10695/unrwa-palestine-refugees
[WT title: "Peculiar proliferation of Palestine refugees: Status has been passed from one generation to the next"]
Of all the issues that drive the Arab-Israeli conflict, none is more central, malign, primal, enduring, emotional, and complex than the status of those persons known as Palestine refugees.
The origins of this unique case, notes Nitza Nachmias of Tel Aviv University, goes back to Count Folke Bernadotte, the United Nations Security Council's mediator. Referring to those Arabs who fled the British mandate of Palestine, he argued in 1948 that the UN had a "responsibility for their relief" because it was a UN decision, the establishment of Israel, that had made them refugees. However inaccurate his view, it still remains alive and potent and helps explain why the UN devotes unique attention to Palestine refugees pending their own state. True to Bernadotte's legacy, the UN set up a range of special institutions exclusively for Palestine refugees. Of these, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, founded in 1949, stands out as the most important. It is both the only refugee organization to deal with a specific people (the United Nations High Commission for Refugees takes care of all non-Palestinian refugees) and the largest UN organization (in terms of staff).
UNRWA seemingly defines its wards with great specificity: "Palestine refugees are people whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict." The ranks of these refugees (who initially included some Jews) have, of course, much diminished over the past 64 years. Accepting UNRWA's (exaggerated) number of 750,000 original Palestine refugees, only a fraction of that number, about 150,000 persons, remain alive.
UNRWA's staff has taken three major steps over the years to expand the definition of Palestine refugees. First, and contrary to universal practice, it continued the refugee status of those who became citizens of an Arab state (Jordan in particular). Second, it made a little-noticed decision in 1965 that extended the definition of "Palestine refugee" to the descendants of those refugees who are male, a shift that permits Palestine refugees uniquely to pass their refugee status on to subsequent generations. The U.S. government, the agency's largest donor, only mildly protested this momentous change. The UN General Assembly endorsed it in 1982, so that now the definition of a Palestine refugee officially includes "descendants of Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children." Third, UNRWA in 1967 added refugees from the Six-Day War to its rolls; today they constitute about a fifth of the Palestine refugee total.
These changes had dramatic results. In contrast to all other refugee populations, which diminish in number as people settle down or die, the Palestine refugee population has grown over time. UNRWA acknowledges this bizarre phenomenon: "When the Agency started working in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, 5 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services." Further, according to James G. Lindsay, a former UNRWA general counsel, under UNRWA's definition, that 5 million figure represents only half of those potentially eligible for Palestine refugee status.
In other words, rather than diminish 5-fold over six decades, UNRWA has the population of refugees increase almost 7-fold. That number could grow faster yet due to the growing sentiment that female refugees should also pass on their refugee status. Even when, in about 40 years, the last actual refugee from mandatory Palestine dies, pseudo-refugees will continue to proliferate. Thus is the "Palestine refugee" status set to swell indefinitely. Put differently, as Steven J. Rosen of the Middle East Forum notes, "given UNRWA's standards, eventually all humans will be Palestine refugees."
Were the Palestine refugee status a healthy one, this infinite expansion would hardly matter. But the status has destructive implications for two parties: Israel, which suffers from the depredations of a category of persons whose lives are truncated and distorted by an impossible dream of return to their great-grandparents' houses; and the "refugees" themselves, whose status implies a culture of dependency, grievance, rage, and futility.
A giant key (said to be the world's largest) sits atop the entrance to the Aida Refugee Camp in Bethlehem, reminding residents to insist on their "right of return."
All other refugees from the World War II era (including my own parents) have been long settled; the Palestine refugee status has already endured too long and needs to be narrowed down to actual refugees before it does further damage.
Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org) is president of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University. This article is based on a recent MEF seminar in Jerusalem on UNRWA.© 2012 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
Monday, February 27, 2012
"On the Mount of Olives"
Arlene Kushner
Before beginning my discussion about the Mount, I am delighted to be able to share good news:
Some days ago, I sent out an e-mail about a 16 month old boy -- Rafael Zakkai Avraham ben Yakira Avigael -- who had a very rare cancer in the spine. The situation sounded dire and I asked for prayers. The news now is that the child was misdiagnosed: the tumor in his spine is benign. The parents were very cautious about accepting this new diagnosis prematurely, but have now had confirmation from two labs. Baruch Hashem.
What this means is that this poor baby will not need intense chemotherapy, and the tumor will not metastasize. But he will still require complicated surgery on his spine. The prayers are working, writes the mother -- please, keep praying!!
~~~~~~~~~~
Now to the Mount of Olives (Har HaZeitim), which is on the periphery of eastern Jerusalem.
Found on the Mount is the oldest cemetery in Jewish history, dating back 3,000 years and containing some 150,000 graves. The earliest burial caves date from the First Temple; the cemetery is still actively in use today.
Those buried on this site constitute a cross section of Jewish history -- from prophets to Torah sages to political figures. (See a list of notables here: http://harhazeisim.org/notables.)
The Mount of Olives cemetery truly is a national heritage, to be preserved and treasured.
Unfortunately, the cemetery is in trouble.
At the end of the War of Independence in 1949, eastern Jerusalem -- and with it this cemetery -- was in the hands of the Jordanians. The armistice agreement signed between Israel and Jordan included an understanding that Jews would be able to visit the graves, but the Jordanians did not honor this. The reason became clear in time: When Israel liberated this site in 1967, it was discovered that 75,000 graves had been desecrated by the Jordanians. In the most massive destruction of Jewish graves in history, the Jordanians had removed tombstones to build roads and to use as latrines.
Some repair work has been done over time, but damage still exists. What is more -- the damage continues to this very day. Local Arabs come into the cemetery with the deliberate intention of destroying tombstones.
Source: Jewpi
Additionally, they -- young men and teenagers -- throw stones at those coming into the cemetery. More than one mourner has been injured at the graveside of a loved one; it has become practice for parties visiting the cemetery to come with armed guard. A situation of outrage.
~~~~~~~~~~
It is to the credit of the current government that it has addressed some of the problems of the cemetery, but efforts are not yet sufficient.
In 2010, American Rabbi Avraham Lubinsky, visiting his parents' graves on Har HaZeitim, was horrified to find desecrated graves adjacent. This motivated him to found the International Committee for the Preservation of Har HaZeitim, which has done wonderful work since its founding and has helped to call the issue to public attention.
It is fitting that it should be an international committee that took on this challenge, for Jews from all over have loved ones buried here. It was the International Committee that called the meeting at the Great Synagogue on Motzei Shabbat (Saturday night). What became clear is that there is still much work to be done, but great strides have already been made.
~~~~~~~~~~
Speakers during the course of the evening included Avraham's brother, Rabbi Menachem Lubinsky, a member of the Committee, who ran the program; Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon; Malcolm Hoenlein, Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and a member of the Committee; and Members of Knesset Yitzhak Herzog (Labor) and Tzipi Hotovely (Likud).
In summary, they made a number of significant points:
What is challenged with the attacks on the cemetery is the sovereignty of Israel over eastern Jerusalem. As well, there is attempt to write out the 3,000 year connection of the Jews to this land. Thus the issues transcend the desecration of individual graves, as significant as this is by itself.
It is imperative for Israel to gain full control over this site and to restore it.
Making this a priority can speed the remedies that are required. As the members of the Knesset present made clear, there is so much that the Knesset is concerned with from day-to-day that this issue gets shelved. Herzog and Hotovely pledged to bring the matter vigorously to the attention of the Knesset. Once this happened, they felt confident that everyone would be on board with regard to necessary measures: this is not a controversial issue. And, indeed, it was in the news today that the Knesset Committee on Immigration, Absorption and the Diaspora would be holding a hearing on the situation (this committee because of major diaspora involvement).
~~~~~~~~~~
Resolution to the major problems -- either anticipated or already in process:
-- Legislation must be passed to levy stiff punishment, including prison time, against vandals who desecrate graves. Where minors are involved, the parents must be held responsible.
-- All breaches in the wall around the cemetery must be closed.
-- The roads leading to the cemetery must be secured. There are Arab neighborhood around the area.
-- Better communication with those adjacent Arab neighborhoods is necessary. Local Arab residents must be stopped from using the cemetery as a shortcut and football field (acts of disrespect).
-- A police presence must be on the cemetery grounds at all times. The way the situation is now, the damage has been done, and the perpetrators have fled, before the police get to the site once they are called. Minister of Internal Security Aharonovitch has announced that in two weeks there will be a police station on the Mount, with some 25 police officers assigned to the site; if it turns out more are required, they will be brought in.
-- The cemetery must be well lit. Lights are up or going up.
-- Security cameras are required. Some 90 are now in place, with 137 promised in all.
-- Restoration of all vandalized gravestones. Much work has been done on this, and continues to be in process. The goal is an additional 20,000 gravestones restored in the next few years, but there must not be more vandalism if it is to be met.
-- Regular maintenance of the site is necessary -- this is a municipal responsibility.
~~~~~~~~~~
The point was made, as well, that there should be beautification of the site, because it is a national treasure. And education about the site: Just a there are regular tours to the national cemetery on Mt. Herzl, so should there be here -- run by Egged, special school trips, etc. -- with explanations regarding those who are buried in the cemetery and signs identifying the location of graves.
This instills Jewish pride in our ancient heritage, and lifts morale.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yet another problem, which is more difficult to address -- but which I hope to write more about in time -- is the presence of an illegal mosque, built stealthily, on cemetery grounds.
~~~~~~~~~~
In addition to all the speakers mentioned above, the audience also heard remarks from Congressman Elliot Engel (D-NY) and Congressman Jerald Nadler (D-NY). They were on their way to the airport to return to the States, but felt it important to address the gathering briefly, first.
The day before, Friday, they had been taken to Har HaZeitim by Rabbi Avraham Lubinsky and Malcolm Hoenlein to see the desecration of graves. While they were there, a large rock was thrown at them.
Congressman Engel said that while he expected old destruction he was surprised to see the fresh vandalism. As to the rock thrown, he intends to report to his Congressional colleagues and to work on the issue until he sees resolution.
Congressman Nadler said the desecration of graves is unforgiveable -- an attempt to deny history and a crime against humanity. This is an act of hatred by young people, he declared, and the parents who teach this hatred must be held accountable.
Below from right: Congressman Nadler, Congressman Engel, Rabbi A. Lubinsky and Malcolm Hoenlein.
Credit: Yishai Fleishner
~~~~~~~~~~
A great deal more information, and photos, can be found here:
http://harhazeisim.org/ (fantastic photos)
http://www.mountofolives.co.il/eng/
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
See my website at www.arlenefromisrael.info Contact Arlene at akushner@netvision.net.il
This material is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and include your name in the text of the message.
Before beginning my discussion about the Mount, I am delighted to be able to share good news:
Some days ago, I sent out an e-mail about a 16 month old boy -- Rafael Zakkai Avraham ben Yakira Avigael -- who had a very rare cancer in the spine. The situation sounded dire and I asked for prayers. The news now is that the child was misdiagnosed: the tumor in his spine is benign. The parents were very cautious about accepting this new diagnosis prematurely, but have now had confirmation from two labs. Baruch Hashem.
What this means is that this poor baby will not need intense chemotherapy, and the tumor will not metastasize. But he will still require complicated surgery on his spine. The prayers are working, writes the mother -- please, keep praying!!
~~~~~~~~~~
Now to the Mount of Olives (Har HaZeitim), which is on the periphery of eastern Jerusalem.
Found on the Mount is the oldest cemetery in Jewish history, dating back 3,000 years and containing some 150,000 graves. The earliest burial caves date from the First Temple; the cemetery is still actively in use today.
Those buried on this site constitute a cross section of Jewish history -- from prophets to Torah sages to political figures. (See a list of notables here: http://harhazeisim.org/notables.)
The Mount of Olives cemetery truly is a national heritage, to be preserved and treasured.
Unfortunately, the cemetery is in trouble.
At the end of the War of Independence in 1949, eastern Jerusalem -- and with it this cemetery -- was in the hands of the Jordanians. The armistice agreement signed between Israel and Jordan included an understanding that Jews would be able to visit the graves, but the Jordanians did not honor this. The reason became clear in time: When Israel liberated this site in 1967, it was discovered that 75,000 graves had been desecrated by the Jordanians. In the most massive destruction of Jewish graves in history, the Jordanians had removed tombstones to build roads and to use as latrines.
Some repair work has been done over time, but damage still exists. What is more -- the damage continues to this very day. Local Arabs come into the cemetery with the deliberate intention of destroying tombstones.
Source: Jewpi
Additionally, they -- young men and teenagers -- throw stones at those coming into the cemetery. More than one mourner has been injured at the graveside of a loved one; it has become practice for parties visiting the cemetery to come with armed guard. A situation of outrage.
~~~~~~~~~~
It is to the credit of the current government that it has addressed some of the problems of the cemetery, but efforts are not yet sufficient.
In 2010, American Rabbi Avraham Lubinsky, visiting his parents' graves on Har HaZeitim, was horrified to find desecrated graves adjacent. This motivated him to found the International Committee for the Preservation of Har HaZeitim, which has done wonderful work since its founding and has helped to call the issue to public attention.
It is fitting that it should be an international committee that took on this challenge, for Jews from all over have loved ones buried here. It was the International Committee that called the meeting at the Great Synagogue on Motzei Shabbat (Saturday night). What became clear is that there is still much work to be done, but great strides have already been made.
~~~~~~~~~~
Speakers during the course of the evening included Avraham's brother, Rabbi Menachem Lubinsky, a member of the Committee, who ran the program; Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon; Malcolm Hoenlein, Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and a member of the Committee; and Members of Knesset Yitzhak Herzog (Labor) and Tzipi Hotovely (Likud).
In summary, they made a number of significant points:
What is challenged with the attacks on the cemetery is the sovereignty of Israel over eastern Jerusalem. As well, there is attempt to write out the 3,000 year connection of the Jews to this land. Thus the issues transcend the desecration of individual graves, as significant as this is by itself.
It is imperative for Israel to gain full control over this site and to restore it.
Making this a priority can speed the remedies that are required. As the members of the Knesset present made clear, there is so much that the Knesset is concerned with from day-to-day that this issue gets shelved. Herzog and Hotovely pledged to bring the matter vigorously to the attention of the Knesset. Once this happened, they felt confident that everyone would be on board with regard to necessary measures: this is not a controversial issue. And, indeed, it was in the news today that the Knesset Committee on Immigration, Absorption and the Diaspora would be holding a hearing on the situation (this committee because of major diaspora involvement).
~~~~~~~~~~
Resolution to the major problems -- either anticipated or already in process:
-- Legislation must be passed to levy stiff punishment, including prison time, against vandals who desecrate graves. Where minors are involved, the parents must be held responsible.
-- All breaches in the wall around the cemetery must be closed.
-- The roads leading to the cemetery must be secured. There are Arab neighborhood around the area.
-- Better communication with those adjacent Arab neighborhoods is necessary. Local Arab residents must be stopped from using the cemetery as a shortcut and football field (acts of disrespect).
-- A police presence must be on the cemetery grounds at all times. The way the situation is now, the damage has been done, and the perpetrators have fled, before the police get to the site once they are called. Minister of Internal Security Aharonovitch has announced that in two weeks there will be a police station on the Mount, with some 25 police officers assigned to the site; if it turns out more are required, they will be brought in.
-- The cemetery must be well lit. Lights are up or going up.
-- Security cameras are required. Some 90 are now in place, with 137 promised in all.
-- Restoration of all vandalized gravestones. Much work has been done on this, and continues to be in process. The goal is an additional 20,000 gravestones restored in the next few years, but there must not be more vandalism if it is to be met.
-- Regular maintenance of the site is necessary -- this is a municipal responsibility.
~~~~~~~~~~
The point was made, as well, that there should be beautification of the site, because it is a national treasure. And education about the site: Just a there are regular tours to the national cemetery on Mt. Herzl, so should there be here -- run by Egged, special school trips, etc. -- with explanations regarding those who are buried in the cemetery and signs identifying the location of graves.
This instills Jewish pride in our ancient heritage, and lifts morale.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yet another problem, which is more difficult to address -- but which I hope to write more about in time -- is the presence of an illegal mosque, built stealthily, on cemetery grounds.
~~~~~~~~~~
In addition to all the speakers mentioned above, the audience also heard remarks from Congressman Elliot Engel (D-NY) and Congressman Jerald Nadler (D-NY). They were on their way to the airport to return to the States, but felt it important to address the gathering briefly, first.
The day before, Friday, they had been taken to Har HaZeitim by Rabbi Avraham Lubinsky and Malcolm Hoenlein to see the desecration of graves. While they were there, a large rock was thrown at them.
Congressman Engel said that while he expected old destruction he was surprised to see the fresh vandalism. As to the rock thrown, he intends to report to his Congressional colleagues and to work on the issue until he sees resolution.
Congressman Nadler said the desecration of graves is unforgiveable -- an attempt to deny history and a crime against humanity. This is an act of hatred by young people, he declared, and the parents who teach this hatred must be held accountable.
Below from right: Congressman Nadler, Congressman Engel, Rabbi A. Lubinsky and Malcolm Hoenlein.
Credit: Yishai Fleishner
~~~~~~~~~~
A great deal more information, and photos, can be found here:
http://harhazeisim.org/ (fantastic photos)
http://www.mountofolives.co.il/eng/
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
See my website at www.arlenefromisrael.info Contact Arlene at akushner@netvision.net.il
This material is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and include your name in the text of the message.
Friends Seminary Plays Bait and Switch on Anti-Semitism
Alan M. Dershowitz
The Friends Seminary of New York, which invited the notorious anti-Semite, Gilad Atzmon, to one of its classes, and assigned its students to read his hate-filled writings, has now backed out of an agreement to invite me to the school to talk to the students about the evils of anti-Semitism. The Headmaster of the Friends Seminary, a school which is supposed to be committed to honesty and integrity, has broken his solemn promise to me, and to members of its own community, to allow its students to hear both sides of an issue which really has only one side: namely, the illegitimacy of bringing hate mongers into high school classrooms. After I exposed the original invitations to Gilad Atzmon—who justifies the burning down of synagogues as "reasonable" response to Jewish efforts to "control the world"—the Headmaster of the school agreed to several things. First, he would speak at an assembly to the students about the evils of anti-Semitism; second, he would assign my essay to the students who were assigned Atzmon's essay; and third, he would invite me to address the students. He has now broken each of these promises.
Students who were at the assembly have confirmed that the speakers only made things worse. The teacher who invited Atzmon talked about what a great musician he was. The Headmaster was defensive about how his words were manipulated and justified bringing Atzmon based on Quaker principles. Apparently the word anti-Semitism was never once mentioned during this meeting. My article was not assigned to the students; a citation was sent to them saying that I wanted students to read its content.
When I wrote to the Headmaster complaining about these breaches, they used my letter as an excuse for canceling my appearance. The real reason was almost certainly pressure from hard-left members of his faculty and others.
Let's be clear what this means. The school was unwilling to cancel Atzmon's appearance, even after learning that he was virulent anti-Semite who questions the Holocaust but believes that it may be true that Jews kill Christians to use their blood for religious purposes. But they have canceled my appearance because they didn't like the tone of a private letter that I wrote to them that was critical of the Headmaster's failure to comply with his promises. I ended my letter with the following words: "Please assure me that I am wrong about my judgment about you. I really would like to see this move forward in a positive direction, but you are not helping. The ultimate sufferers are your students, who are being taught the wrong values that will serve them poorly in college and in life."
The values that Headmaster Bo Lauder is imbuing to his students are deception, breach of promise, toleration of anti-Semitism and an unwillingness to present all sides of an issue. In the end, the Headmaster is showing tremendous distrust of his students by refusing to allow them to hear another side of the issue, by canceling my promised appearance, by not assigning my essay and by continuing to be defensive regarding the dreadful mistake of judgment he made in allowing Atzmon to teach his students.
The Headmaster may believe that by breaking his promises, he has ended this issue. Let him be absolute certain, that, as I wrote in my letter to him: "This issue will not go away, and nor will I. Misled once, shame on you. Misled twice, shame on me." Unless I am invited to address the students inside of the school, I will appear outside of the school, where I will hand out my essays to those students who are willing to read them and will address those students who have an interest in hearing a response to anti-Semitism. I am also considering inviting parents, students and other members of the Friends Seminary community to an event, in a venue outside of the school, where these issues can be discussed openly and candidly. Headmaster Lauder may be able to keep me physically outside of his school, but he will not be able to stop my ideas from reaching his community. The truth does not respect artificial boundaries.
The Friends Seminary, like other elite schools around the country, teaches our future leaders. Many Friends Schools around the country have espoused strongly anti-Israel policies for years. The Friends Seminary in New York itself has a rabidly anti-Israel history teacher on its faculty, who propagandizes his students against Israel in the classroom, and who has a picture of Anne Frank wearing a Palestinian headdress on his website. The school has and is again planning to take its students on trips to the Middle East that present a one-sided perspective. Now they have crossed the line from preaching anti-Zionism to tolerating anti-Semitism. I will not remain silent in the face of the Friends Seminary's double standard and neither should you.
The Friends Seminary of New York, which invited the notorious anti-Semite, Gilad Atzmon, to one of its classes, and assigned its students to read his hate-filled writings, has now backed out of an agreement to invite me to the school to talk to the students about the evils of anti-Semitism. The Headmaster of the Friends Seminary, a school which is supposed to be committed to honesty and integrity, has broken his solemn promise to me, and to members of its own community, to allow its students to hear both sides of an issue which really has only one side: namely, the illegitimacy of bringing hate mongers into high school classrooms. After I exposed the original invitations to Gilad Atzmon—who justifies the burning down of synagogues as "reasonable" response to Jewish efforts to "control the world"—the Headmaster of the school agreed to several things. First, he would speak at an assembly to the students about the evils of anti-Semitism; second, he would assign my essay to the students who were assigned Atzmon's essay; and third, he would invite me to address the students. He has now broken each of these promises.
Students who were at the assembly have confirmed that the speakers only made things worse. The teacher who invited Atzmon talked about what a great musician he was. The Headmaster was defensive about how his words were manipulated and justified bringing Atzmon based on Quaker principles. Apparently the word anti-Semitism was never once mentioned during this meeting. My article was not assigned to the students; a citation was sent to them saying that I wanted students to read its content.
When I wrote to the Headmaster complaining about these breaches, they used my letter as an excuse for canceling my appearance. The real reason was almost certainly pressure from hard-left members of his faculty and others.
Let's be clear what this means. The school was unwilling to cancel Atzmon's appearance, even after learning that he was virulent anti-Semite who questions the Holocaust but believes that it may be true that Jews kill Christians to use their blood for religious purposes. But they have canceled my appearance because they didn't like the tone of a private letter that I wrote to them that was critical of the Headmaster's failure to comply with his promises. I ended my letter with the following words: "Please assure me that I am wrong about my judgment about you. I really would like to see this move forward in a positive direction, but you are not helping. The ultimate sufferers are your students, who are being taught the wrong values that will serve them poorly in college and in life."
The values that Headmaster Bo Lauder is imbuing to his students are deception, breach of promise, toleration of anti-Semitism and an unwillingness to present all sides of an issue. In the end, the Headmaster is showing tremendous distrust of his students by refusing to allow them to hear another side of the issue, by canceling my promised appearance, by not assigning my essay and by continuing to be defensive regarding the dreadful mistake of judgment he made in allowing Atzmon to teach his students.
The Headmaster may believe that by breaking his promises, he has ended this issue. Let him be absolute certain, that, as I wrote in my letter to him: "This issue will not go away, and nor will I. Misled once, shame on you. Misled twice, shame on me." Unless I am invited to address the students inside of the school, I will appear outside of the school, where I will hand out my essays to those students who are willing to read them and will address those students who have an interest in hearing a response to anti-Semitism. I am also considering inviting parents, students and other members of the Friends Seminary community to an event, in a venue outside of the school, where these issues can be discussed openly and candidly. Headmaster Lauder may be able to keep me physically outside of his school, but he will not be able to stop my ideas from reaching his community. The truth does not respect artificial boundaries.
The Friends Seminary, like other elite schools around the country, teaches our future leaders. Many Friends Schools around the country have espoused strongly anti-Israel policies for years. The Friends Seminary in New York itself has a rabidly anti-Israel history teacher on its faculty, who propagandizes his students against Israel in the classroom, and who has a picture of Anne Frank wearing a Palestinian headdress on his website. The school has and is again planning to take its students on trips to the Middle East that present a one-sided perspective. Now they have crossed the line from preaching anti-Zionism to tolerating anti-Semitism. I will not remain silent in the face of the Friends Seminary's double standard and neither should you.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Expert Warns of Waqf's Dangerous Plans for Temple Mount
Archaeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar warns: The Waqf is planning to unite all the mosques on the Temple Mount into one.
By Elad Benari
Archaeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar warned on Thursday about the plans of the Muslim religious authority, the Waqf, for the Temple Mount.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Speaking to Arutz Sheva, Mazar said that for the past 12 years, the Waqf has constantly built on the Temple Mount in an attempt to implement its final plan: the establishment of a huge mosque on the Mount.
“There is no order there and no one to uphold the law,” she said. “No one can enforce the law there. Not the Israel Antiquities Authority, not the Nature and Parks Authority and not the city of Jerusalem. The police are there but they are precluded from enforcing.”
The Temple Mount was left in the hands of the Waqf following Jerusalem’s reunification in 1967, a decision of then-Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. The Waqf has taken advantage of this and removed every sign of ancient Jewish presence at the most Jewish holy site. At the entrance, a Waqf sign says, “The Al-Aqsa Mosque courtyard and everything in it is Islamic property”.Police, in an attempt to appease the Waqf, discriminate against Jews. They limit the number of Jewish worshippers allowed on the Temple Mount at one time in order to prevent conflict with Muslim worshippers. They often close the Mount to Jews in response to Muslim riots – despite evidence that Muslim riots have been planned in advance for the specific purpose of forcing Jews out.
Mazar, a member of a group of Israelis who work to prevent the destruction of antiquities on the Temple Mount, said that the State Comptroller wrote a report which exposed serious findings about Israeli authorities’ inability to enforce the law on the Temple Mount, but noted that the report has remained confidential to this day.
“The Comptroller produced a thorough report and questioned all the right people. He came to important conclusions which so far have not been published. Our group has demanded and continues to demand that the contents of the report be published.”
She warned that the excavations of antiquities being performed on the Temple Mount by the Waqf may lead to disaster.
“It has been going on for 12 years. They’re digging there as if it’s a construction site. There is a danger that the ground will collapse under thousands of Muslims. It endangers the safety of the people. There must be engineering control over this huge monument. Every stone on the Temple Mount may contain some of the most important antiquities in the world.”
Mazar added, “I do not accept the argument that this could lead to a world war. The Temple Mount is at the center of Jerusalem. We’re not harming the Muslim rituals. We only want to enforce the law and order so that a disaster can be prevented. The Waqf cannot be trusted. If something collapses there the Western Wall may also be damaged, because the Temple Mount is on a round hill and its edges will be in danger.”
Mazar said the Waqf’s final plan is to unite all the mosques on the Temple Mount and create one big mosque. She added that it has been working for years to put the plan into practice and warned that if this happens, Jews will not be able to go to the Temple Mount.
“We know that the Waqf’s goal is to unite all one the mosques, and unfortunately today it is far from being just an illusion,” she said. “We will definitely weep over this plan in the future.”
Comment: This evening (after Shabbat) I attended a meeting at the Great Synagogue in Jerusalem concerning the 3,000 year-old Jewish cemetery on the Mt. of Olives (Har HaZeitim) .
It is the resting place of so many Jews - leaders as well as private individuals; the inscriptions are all written in Hebrew - testament to the ownership of this place from ancient times.
From 1948 to 1967 the Jordanians controlled the area, destroyed many graves, used the headstones for latrines and stables for their horses, and erected a hotel there. Nineteen years later, in 1967, Israel regained control of the area as a result of war and, finding the desecration, began to repair what had been destroyed and to resume burials there.
Unfortunately, it is not only the non-living Jews whose presence on the Mt. of Olives disturbs the Arabs.
Jews attempting to get to the cemetery are in danger of being hit by rocks thrown by local Arabs. On Friday, Feb. 24th, a delegation of several prominent Americans, including 2 Senators, were at the receiving end of such an attack - witnesses to what Israelis live through.
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and both Senators attended the meeting this evening at the Great synagogue and spoke before a large congregation assembled there, voicing their concerns. Also in attendance were two Members of the Knesset - from 2 different political parties with Barbara Goldstein, President of Hadassah; all spoke with one voice.
All present were told that there will soon be an Israeli police presence on the Mt. of Olives to prevent harm to visitors or destruction graves.
It should also be known that the Arabs have been erecting a mosque at this ancient Jewish cemetery; unfortunately, it was not prevented.
Following is another case of the Muslim plan for another site holy to Jews. These are both Jewish issues - not just Israeli - and should be of concern to Jews all over the world.
Chana
in beloved Jerusalem
By Elad Benari
Archaeologist Dr. Eilat Mazar warned on Thursday about the plans of the Muslim religious authority, the Waqf, for the Temple Mount.http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Speaking to Arutz Sheva, Mazar said that for the past 12 years, the Waqf has constantly built on the Temple Mount in an attempt to implement its final plan: the establishment of a huge mosque on the Mount.
“There is no order there and no one to uphold the law,” she said. “No one can enforce the law there. Not the Israel Antiquities Authority, not the Nature and Parks Authority and not the city of Jerusalem. The police are there but they are precluded from enforcing.”
The Temple Mount was left in the hands of the Waqf following Jerusalem’s reunification in 1967, a decision of then-Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. The Waqf has taken advantage of this and removed every sign of ancient Jewish presence at the most Jewish holy site. At the entrance, a Waqf sign says, “The Al-Aqsa Mosque courtyard and everything in it is Islamic property”.Police, in an attempt to appease the Waqf, discriminate against Jews. They limit the number of Jewish worshippers allowed on the Temple Mount at one time in order to prevent conflict with Muslim worshippers. They often close the Mount to Jews in response to Muslim riots – despite evidence that Muslim riots have been planned in advance for the specific purpose of forcing Jews out.
Mazar, a member of a group of Israelis who work to prevent the destruction of antiquities on the Temple Mount, said that the State Comptroller wrote a report which exposed serious findings about Israeli authorities’ inability to enforce the law on the Temple Mount, but noted that the report has remained confidential to this day.
“The Comptroller produced a thorough report and questioned all the right people. He came to important conclusions which so far have not been published. Our group has demanded and continues to demand that the contents of the report be published.”
She warned that the excavations of antiquities being performed on the Temple Mount by the Waqf may lead to disaster.
“It has been going on for 12 years. They’re digging there as if it’s a construction site. There is a danger that the ground will collapse under thousands of Muslims. It endangers the safety of the people. There must be engineering control over this huge monument. Every stone on the Temple Mount may contain some of the most important antiquities in the world.”
Mazar added, “I do not accept the argument that this could lead to a world war. The Temple Mount is at the center of Jerusalem. We’re not harming the Muslim rituals. We only want to enforce the law and order so that a disaster can be prevented. The Waqf cannot be trusted. If something collapses there the Western Wall may also be damaged, because the Temple Mount is on a round hill and its edges will be in danger.”
Mazar said the Waqf’s final plan is to unite all the mosques on the Temple Mount and create one big mosque. She added that it has been working for years to put the plan into practice and warned that if this happens, Jews will not be able to go to the Temple Mount.
“We know that the Waqf’s goal is to unite all one the mosques, and unfortunately today it is far from being just an illusion,” she said. “We will definitely weep over this plan in the future.”
Comment: This evening (after Shabbat) I attended a meeting at the Great Synagogue in Jerusalem concerning the 3,000 year-old Jewish cemetery on the Mt. of Olives (Har HaZeitim) .
It is the resting place of so many Jews - leaders as well as private individuals; the inscriptions are all written in Hebrew - testament to the ownership of this place from ancient times.
From 1948 to 1967 the Jordanians controlled the area, destroyed many graves, used the headstones for latrines and stables for their horses, and erected a hotel there. Nineteen years later, in 1967, Israel regained control of the area as a result of war and, finding the desecration, began to repair what had been destroyed and to resume burials there.
Unfortunately, it is not only the non-living Jews whose presence on the Mt. of Olives disturbs the Arabs.
Jews attempting to get to the cemetery are in danger of being hit by rocks thrown by local Arabs. On Friday, Feb. 24th, a delegation of several prominent Americans, including 2 Senators, were at the receiving end of such an attack - witnesses to what Israelis live through.
Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and both Senators attended the meeting this evening at the Great synagogue and spoke before a large congregation assembled there, voicing their concerns. Also in attendance were two Members of the Knesset - from 2 different political parties with Barbara Goldstein, President of Hadassah; all spoke with one voice.
All present were told that there will soon be an Israeli police presence on the Mt. of Olives to prevent harm to visitors or destruction graves.
It should also be known that the Arabs have been erecting a mosque at this ancient Jewish cemetery; unfortunately, it was not prevented.
Following is another case of the Muslim plan for another site holy to Jews. These are both Jewish issues - not just Israeli - and should be of concern to Jews all over the world.
Chana
in beloved Jerusalem
Soldiers nearly lynched by Arabs in Haifa
Arab Israelis viciously assault two soldiers in civilian clothing early Saturday; one victim's head 'engraved' by knife-wielding assailant; attackers use bats, rocks
Maor Buchnik
Two IDF soldiers in civilian clothing were viciously attacked by a group of Arab-Israeli men early Saturday near Haifa's Rambam Hospital, with guards deployed in the area narrowly averting a lynching.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Police forces detained four suspects on suspicion of taking part in the assault and expect to make more arrests.
The uncle of one of the soldiers said the assailants asked the victims whether they were Jewish before attacking them.
"They beat the hell out of them, using bats and stones, and resorting to kicks," the uncle said. The soldiers attempted to escape in different directions, at which point some 20 attackers assaulted one of them, the uncle added.
"One of the attackers pounded my nephew's head against the ground and engraved his head with a knife," he said. "Security guards in the area arrived at the site, put him in a wheel chair, and evacuated him for treatment at the emergency room."
'Guards heard screams'
The violent incident took place around 2 am Saturday, when the two soldiers, who serve in the Air Force and Navy, parked near a convenience store.
According to relatives of the soldiers, one of the assailants involved in the attack warned the victims: "We'll come to visit you again, because you involved the police."
The soldiers sustained blows to various body parts, hospital officials said. One of them required facial x-rays in order to ascertain the damage he sustained. The officials added that guards at the medical facility heard screams nearby and rushed to the site of the incident while also calling the police.
The Haifa Police Commander, Moshe Cohen, said "the incident started as a brawl, apparently based on nationalistic motives…the probe continues and more suspects are expected to be arrested."
Israel Police Commissioner Yohanan Danino was briefed about the attack Saturday evening instructed top police chiefs to ensure that all attackers are detained and face the full severity of the law.
"We cannot treat this type of violent attack as a routine matter," Danino said.
Maor Buchnik
Two IDF soldiers in civilian clothing were viciously attacked by a group of Arab-Israeli men early Saturday near Haifa's Rambam Hospital, with guards deployed in the area narrowly averting a lynching.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
Police forces detained four suspects on suspicion of taking part in the assault and expect to make more arrests.
The uncle of one of the soldiers said the assailants asked the victims whether they were Jewish before attacking them.
"They beat the hell out of them, using bats and stones, and resorting to kicks," the uncle said. The soldiers attempted to escape in different directions, at which point some 20 attackers assaulted one of them, the uncle added.
"One of the attackers pounded my nephew's head against the ground and engraved his head with a knife," he said. "Security guards in the area arrived at the site, put him in a wheel chair, and evacuated him for treatment at the emergency room."
'Guards heard screams'
The violent incident took place around 2 am Saturday, when the two soldiers, who serve in the Air Force and Navy, parked near a convenience store.
According to relatives of the soldiers, one of the assailants involved in the attack warned the victims: "We'll come to visit you again, because you involved the police."
The soldiers sustained blows to various body parts, hospital officials said. One of them required facial x-rays in order to ascertain the damage he sustained. The officials added that guards at the medical facility heard screams nearby and rushed to the site of the incident while also calling the police.
The Haifa Police Commander, Moshe Cohen, said "the incident started as a brawl, apparently based on nationalistic motives…the probe continues and more suspects are expected to be arrested."
Israel Police Commissioner Yohanan Danino was briefed about the attack Saturday evening instructed top police chiefs to ensure that all attackers are detained and face the full severity of the law.
"We cannot treat this type of violent attack as a routine matter," Danino said.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Hard-Nosed Campus Group Softens Tactics
Naomi Zeveloff
Universities are, for the most part, not hostile environments for Jewish students. Large campus events in support of Israel can be counterproductive. And using federal civil rights laws to protect Jewish students from anti-Israel activity could create a backlash against them.
These are just a few of the surprising highlights in a new report from an organization previously known for its take-no-prisoners style of Israel advocacy.
The Boston-based David Project, one of a handful of Jewish groups devoted to campus activism on Israel, made a name for itself eight years ago when it produced the film “Columbia Unbecoming,” alleging that Columbia University was a hotbed of anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic activity. But now the group seems to have distanced itself from its aggressive approach. The David Project’s new agenda focuses on selling Israel rather than on reaming out its critics.
This new posture has been welcomed by groups such as Hillel, the national campus network of Jewish student centers. But The David Project’s original backers deride this softer strategy as a misguided approach for addressing the situation faced by pro-Israel Jewish students on campus.
“Sometimes, challenging Israel’s detractors is warranted,” said Executive Director David Bernstein, who took the helm in 2010. “But we also know that the goal of The David Project is to reach and work with as many Jewish students and professionals as possible. That takes a thoughtful approach to Israel.”
The David Project’s report, released on February 8, paints a nuanced picture of the challenges Israel faces on campus. Called “A Burning Campus? Rethinking Israel Advocacy at America’s Universities and Colleges,” the paper claims that universities are host to the worst anti-Israel behavior in America, even as the American public, more broadly, is supportive of the Jewish state.
But veering from the Israel advocacy world’s frequent position, the report makes a strong distinction between “anti-Israelism” and anti-Semitism on campus. Conflating the two does not “jive” with the experience of Jewish students who feel largely comfortable in American universities, the report warns. The problem, it stresses, is not anti-Semitism; it’s a “drip-drip negativity” about Israel that, Bernstein said, threatens to erode support over the long term.
“The chief concern, therefore, is not the welfare of Jewish students,” the report states, “but that a pervasively negative atmosphere will affect the long-term thinking of current college students, negatively affecting strong bipartisan support for Israel.”
The way the new David Project sees it, a subtle problem deserves a subtle response. Rather than counter anti-Israel speech on campus with flashy events featuring big-name speakers, the group proposes a kind of pro-Israel diplomacy in which students “map” their campuses to find and influence thought leaders — namely, other students and faculty members.
“There is a serious cost that we pay in both giving [Israel’s critics] more attention than they deserve and in sounding shrill ourselves,” Bernstein said.
The David Project’s original founders are appalled by this approach.
“Unless you expose and humiliate and taunt and legally threaten and politically challenge the use of the podium as propaganda, and unless you fight the cultural relativist paradigm where no one is allowed to say ‘Hey, that’s a lie’ — unless you bring this out in a public way for the public to see, then you have a problem,” said Charles Jacobs, one of the group’s two co-founders. Jacobs, who left the organization in 2008 to start Americans for Peace and Tolerance, a group focused on radical Islam, said that The David Project’s new strategy leaves a gaping hole in the aggressive Israel advocacy world.
This view was echoed by Avi Goldwasser, the group’s other co-founder, who produced “Columbia Unbecoming.” “They do a good job of educating students, and they feel their strength is in diplomacy,” said Goldwasser, who left the organization in 2005. “Diplomacy by itself can never win. It is only effective in combination with other, more aggressive approaches.”
Bernstein, The David Project’s executive director, countered that his organization was, in fact, filling another void on campus. “Most organizations have been engaging in name and shame,” he said, “but very few have been doing proactive relationship-building on campus.”
The David Project’s gentler tone reflects the change in leadership at the organization. Founded in 2002, The David Project was the brainchild of Jacobs, who had formerly worked at the right-wing media watchdog group Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting. Jacobs saw The David Project as an answer to the mainstream Jewish community’s reluctance to respond aggressively to what he calls the “Muslim-left” anti-Israel alliance on campus. While Israel’s detractors portrayed the Palestinians as “David” and the Israelis as “Goliath,” Jacobs sought to flip this notion on its head. Zooming out, he said, the greater Arab world is the “Goliath” and Israel is “David”: hence, The David Project.
In 2004, The David Project stirred up controversy with its production of “Columbia Unbecoming.” The 40-minute film featured testimony from Jewish students at Columbia University who claimed they felt intimidated by heated criticism of Israel from teachers in the school’s Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures Department. Columbia created an ad-hoc grievance committee in response to the film, which found no evidence of anti-Semitic statements made by faculty. One professor, Joseph Massad, was found, in a specific episode, to have “exceeded commonly accepted bounds” of behavior. Massad denied the incident had taken place in news reports at the time.
Shortly after, The David Project turned its sights on the Islamic Society of Boston, which was planning a mosque in the Roxbury neighborhood. The mosque’s developers filed a defamation suit against The David Project after the group charged the project had terrorist ties. Ultimately, the society dropped its suit.
Still, many in the Jewish community wondered what a pro-Israel campus advocacy group was doing taking on a mosque. In 2008, Jacobs and The David Project parted ways, and Jacobs initiated a new multifaith organization to confront Islamic radicalism. “I wanted to leave The David Project to do its good work unencumbered,” Jacobs said. “It can’t do everything.”
Jacobs’s stated reasons for leaving were corroborated by individuals involved with The David Project who said that the organization wanted to stick to its mission as a campus education and advocacy group.
In 2010 The David Project hired Bernstein, former Washington director of the American Jewish Committee. Bernstein has set his sights on mainstreaming the organization, commissioning Rabinowitz/Dorf Communications — which represents left-of-center groups, like J Street and mainstream groups, like Hadassah and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism — to tout his new report about Israel on campus.
According to the group’s tax forms, the number of employees at the organization has ranged from 20 in 2007, Jacobs’s last full year at the organization, to 35 in 2010, the most recent year for which data are available. There was a spike to 61 employees in 2008 that David Project officials say was a reporting error. Public support dropped from $4.6 million in 2007 to $3.8 million in 2010.
Bernstein’s arrival at the organization was a welcome sign for Hillel, which now collaborates with The David Project after having a policy of “live and let live” with the group during Jacobs’s administration.
“The David Project is trying to ensure that their content and messaging will be accessible for this generation,” said Wayne Firestone, Hillel’s national director.
Contact Naomi Zeveloff at zeveloff@forward.com or on Twitter @naomizeveloff
Universities are, for the most part, not hostile environments for Jewish students. Large campus events in support of Israel can be counterproductive. And using federal civil rights laws to protect Jewish students from anti-Israel activity could create a backlash against them.
These are just a few of the surprising highlights in a new report from an organization previously known for its take-no-prisoners style of Israel advocacy.
The Boston-based David Project, one of a handful of Jewish groups devoted to campus activism on Israel, made a name for itself eight years ago when it produced the film “Columbia Unbecoming,” alleging that Columbia University was a hotbed of anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic activity. But now the group seems to have distanced itself from its aggressive approach. The David Project’s new agenda focuses on selling Israel rather than on reaming out its critics.
This new posture has been welcomed by groups such as Hillel, the national campus network of Jewish student centers. But The David Project’s original backers deride this softer strategy as a misguided approach for addressing the situation faced by pro-Israel Jewish students on campus.
“Sometimes, challenging Israel’s detractors is warranted,” said Executive Director David Bernstein, who took the helm in 2010. “But we also know that the goal of The David Project is to reach and work with as many Jewish students and professionals as possible. That takes a thoughtful approach to Israel.”
The David Project’s report, released on February 8, paints a nuanced picture of the challenges Israel faces on campus. Called “A Burning Campus? Rethinking Israel Advocacy at America’s Universities and Colleges,” the paper claims that universities are host to the worst anti-Israel behavior in America, even as the American public, more broadly, is supportive of the Jewish state.
But veering from the Israel advocacy world’s frequent position, the report makes a strong distinction between “anti-Israelism” and anti-Semitism on campus. Conflating the two does not “jive” with the experience of Jewish students who feel largely comfortable in American universities, the report warns. The problem, it stresses, is not anti-Semitism; it’s a “drip-drip negativity” about Israel that, Bernstein said, threatens to erode support over the long term.
“The chief concern, therefore, is not the welfare of Jewish students,” the report states, “but that a pervasively negative atmosphere will affect the long-term thinking of current college students, negatively affecting strong bipartisan support for Israel.”
The way the new David Project sees it, a subtle problem deserves a subtle response. Rather than counter anti-Israel speech on campus with flashy events featuring big-name speakers, the group proposes a kind of pro-Israel diplomacy in which students “map” their campuses to find and influence thought leaders — namely, other students and faculty members.
“There is a serious cost that we pay in both giving [Israel’s critics] more attention than they deserve and in sounding shrill ourselves,” Bernstein said.
The David Project’s original founders are appalled by this approach.
“Unless you expose and humiliate and taunt and legally threaten and politically challenge the use of the podium as propaganda, and unless you fight the cultural relativist paradigm where no one is allowed to say ‘Hey, that’s a lie’ — unless you bring this out in a public way for the public to see, then you have a problem,” said Charles Jacobs, one of the group’s two co-founders. Jacobs, who left the organization in 2008 to start Americans for Peace and Tolerance, a group focused on radical Islam, said that The David Project’s new strategy leaves a gaping hole in the aggressive Israel advocacy world.
This view was echoed by Avi Goldwasser, the group’s other co-founder, who produced “Columbia Unbecoming.” “They do a good job of educating students, and they feel their strength is in diplomacy,” said Goldwasser, who left the organization in 2005. “Diplomacy by itself can never win. It is only effective in combination with other, more aggressive approaches.”
Bernstein, The David Project’s executive director, countered that his organization was, in fact, filling another void on campus. “Most organizations have been engaging in name and shame,” he said, “but very few have been doing proactive relationship-building on campus.”
The David Project’s gentler tone reflects the change in leadership at the organization. Founded in 2002, The David Project was the brainchild of Jacobs, who had formerly worked at the right-wing media watchdog group Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting. Jacobs saw The David Project as an answer to the mainstream Jewish community’s reluctance to respond aggressively to what he calls the “Muslim-left” anti-Israel alliance on campus. While Israel’s detractors portrayed the Palestinians as “David” and the Israelis as “Goliath,” Jacobs sought to flip this notion on its head. Zooming out, he said, the greater Arab world is the “Goliath” and Israel is “David”: hence, The David Project.
In 2004, The David Project stirred up controversy with its production of “Columbia Unbecoming.” The 40-minute film featured testimony from Jewish students at Columbia University who claimed they felt intimidated by heated criticism of Israel from teachers in the school’s Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures Department. Columbia created an ad-hoc grievance committee in response to the film, which found no evidence of anti-Semitic statements made by faculty. One professor, Joseph Massad, was found, in a specific episode, to have “exceeded commonly accepted bounds” of behavior. Massad denied the incident had taken place in news reports at the time.
Shortly after, The David Project turned its sights on the Islamic Society of Boston, which was planning a mosque in the Roxbury neighborhood. The mosque’s developers filed a defamation suit against The David Project after the group charged the project had terrorist ties. Ultimately, the society dropped its suit.
Still, many in the Jewish community wondered what a pro-Israel campus advocacy group was doing taking on a mosque. In 2008, Jacobs and The David Project parted ways, and Jacobs initiated a new multifaith organization to confront Islamic radicalism. “I wanted to leave The David Project to do its good work unencumbered,” Jacobs said. “It can’t do everything.”
Jacobs’s stated reasons for leaving were corroborated by individuals involved with The David Project who said that the organization wanted to stick to its mission as a campus education and advocacy group.
In 2010 The David Project hired Bernstein, former Washington director of the American Jewish Committee. Bernstein has set his sights on mainstreaming the organization, commissioning Rabinowitz/Dorf Communications — which represents left-of-center groups, like J Street and mainstream groups, like Hadassah and the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism — to tout his new report about Israel on campus.
According to the group’s tax forms, the number of employees at the organization has ranged from 20 in 2007, Jacobs’s last full year at the organization, to 35 in 2010, the most recent year for which data are available. There was a spike to 61 employees in 2008 that David Project officials say was a reporting error. Public support dropped from $4.6 million in 2007 to $3.8 million in 2010.
Bernstein’s arrival at the organization was a welcome sign for Hillel, which now collaborates with The David Project after having a policy of “live and let live” with the group during Jacobs’s administration.
“The David Project is trying to ensure that their content and messaging will be accessible for this generation,” said Wayne Firestone, Hillel’s national director.
Contact Naomi Zeveloff at zeveloff@forward.com or on Twitter @naomizeveloff
Friday, February 24, 2012
Obama Dividend Tax Would Devastate Retirees
Henry J. Reskey
Buried within President Barack Obama’s 2013 budget is a proposal to triple the tax rate on corporate dividends which now stands at 15 percent, a move that would have a severe effect on retirees, The Wall Street Journal notes in an editorial.
Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6 percent, according to the Journal. The rate jumps to 41 percent with the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions and then hits 44.8 percent with the 3.8 percent investment tax surcharge in Obamacare.
“Of course, the White House wants everyone to know that this new rate would apply only to those filthy rich individuals who make $200,000 a year, or $250,000 if you're a greedy couple. We're all supposed to believe that no one would be hurt other than rich folks who can afford it,” the Journal wrote.
. “The truth is that the plan gives new meaning to the term collateral damage, because shareholders of all incomes will share the pain. Here's why. Historical experience indicates that corporate dividend payouts are highly sensitive to the dividend tax. Dividends fell out of favor in the 1990s when the dividend tax rate was roughly twice the rate of capital gains.”
When the rate fell to 15 percent in 2003, dividends reported on tax returns nearly doubled to $196 billion from $103 billion the year before the tax cut, and by 2006, dividend income had grown to nearly $337 billion, The Journal wrote. Economists who examined dividend payouts came to the conclusion that the tax cut played a significant role in the increase in dividend payouts.
“If you reverse the policy, you reverse the incentives,” the Journal wrote. “The tripling of the dividend tax will have a dampening effect on these payments.
“Who would get hurt? IRS data show that retirees and near-retirees who depend on dividend income would be hit especially hard. Almost three of four dividend payments go to those over the age of 55, and more than half go to those older than 65, according to IRS data.”
The Journal concluded that “all American shareholders would lose” as the taxes would make stocks less valuable and prices would fall, causing a sell-off and noting that 51 percent of adults hold shares of stock today either directly or through mutual funds.
“Tens of millions more own stocks through pension funds. Why would the White House endorse a policy that will make these households poorer? Seldom has there been a clearer example of a policy that is supposed to soak the rich but will drench almost all American families.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved
Buried within President Barack Obama’s 2013 budget is a proposal to triple the tax rate on corporate dividends which now stands at 15 percent, a move that would have a severe effect on retirees, The Wall Street Journal notes in an editorial.
Obama is proposing to raise the dividend tax rate to the higher personal income tax rate of 39.6 percent, according to the Journal. The rate jumps to 41 percent with the planned phase-out of deductions and exemptions and then hits 44.8 percent with the 3.8 percent investment tax surcharge in Obamacare.
“Of course, the White House wants everyone to know that this new rate would apply only to those filthy rich individuals who make $200,000 a year, or $250,000 if you're a greedy couple. We're all supposed to believe that no one would be hurt other than rich folks who can afford it,” the Journal wrote.
. “The truth is that the plan gives new meaning to the term collateral damage, because shareholders of all incomes will share the pain. Here's why. Historical experience indicates that corporate dividend payouts are highly sensitive to the dividend tax. Dividends fell out of favor in the 1990s when the dividend tax rate was roughly twice the rate of capital gains.”
When the rate fell to 15 percent in 2003, dividends reported on tax returns nearly doubled to $196 billion from $103 billion the year before the tax cut, and by 2006, dividend income had grown to nearly $337 billion, The Journal wrote. Economists who examined dividend payouts came to the conclusion that the tax cut played a significant role in the increase in dividend payouts.
“If you reverse the policy, you reverse the incentives,” the Journal wrote. “The tripling of the dividend tax will have a dampening effect on these payments.
“Who would get hurt? IRS data show that retirees and near-retirees who depend on dividend income would be hit especially hard. Almost three of four dividend payments go to those over the age of 55, and more than half go to those older than 65, according to IRS data.”
The Journal concluded that “all American shareholders would lose” as the taxes would make stocks less valuable and prices would fall, causing a sell-off and noting that 51 percent of adults hold shares of stock today either directly or through mutual funds.
“Tens of millions more own stocks through pension funds. Why would the White House endorse a policy that will make these households poorer? Seldom has there been a clearer example of a policy that is supposed to soak the rich but will drench almost all American families.”
© Newsmax. All rights reserved
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Is Egypt about to Elect an Islamist President?
Barry Rubin
Registering to run for president of Egypt will begin March 10. The military moved it up from April 15 to show that it is handing over power to the civilians. As I've said before, I've never seen any evidence that the army is not going to turn over control of the country to a new, elected president. All of the mass media and political hysteria to the contrary, the generals don't want to hold onto the government.
Has the Brotherhood's success in parliamentary elections gone to its head? Has the weak international response to its ascendancy emboldened the Islamists to seek total power now rather than go slow and be patient? It's starting to look that way. ABarry Rubin
Registering to run for president of Egypt will begin March 10. The military moved it up from April 15 to show that it is handing over power to the civilians. As I've said before, I've never seen any evidence that the army is not going to turn over control of the country to a new, elected president. All of the mass media and political hysteria to the contrary, the generals don't want to hold onto the government.
Has the Brotherhood's success in parliamentary elections gone to its head? Has the weak international response to its ascendancy emboldened the Islamists to seek total power now rather than go slow and be patient? It's starting to look that way.
Registering to run for president of Egypt will begin March 10. The military moved it up from April 15 to show that it is handing over power to the civilians. As I've said before, I've never seen any evidence that the army is not going to turn over control of the country to a new, elected president. All of the mass media and political hysteria to the contrary, the generals don't want to hold onto the government.
Has the Brotherhood's success in parliamentary elections gone to its head? Has the weak international response to its ascendancy emboldened the Islamists to seek total power now rather than go slow and be patient? It's starting to look that way. ABarry Rubin
Registering to run for president of Egypt will begin March 10. The military moved it up from April 15 to show that it is handing over power to the civilians. As I've said before, I've never seen any evidence that the army is not going to turn over control of the country to a new, elected president. All of the mass media and political hysteria to the contrary, the generals don't want to hold onto the government.
Has the Brotherhood's success in parliamentary elections gone to its head? Has the weak international response to its ascendancy emboldened the Islamists to seek total power now rather than go slow and be patient? It's starting to look that way.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Obama’s Epic Screw-Up
Michael Gerson
Columnist for Washington Post
http://israel-commentary.org/?p=2842
Some of them are now suggesting that his contraceptive mandate on religious institutions was a skilled political stratagem. “I’ve found by observing this president closely for years,” argues Andrew Sullivan, “that what often seem like short-term tactical blunders turn out in the long run to be strategically shrewd. And if this was a trap, the religious right walked right into it.” Religious conservatives are now identified, he says, with “opposition to contraception.” Republicans have achieved “fusion with the Vatican.” Obama is evidently playing the very deep game. Consider the implications of this praise. It means that Obama assaulted the core beliefs of some of his fellow citizens in order to lure them into politically self-destructive behavior. The president is willing to trifle with the constitutional rights of religious people in order to get a rise out of them. In this scenario, Obama is a Machiavellian monster, undeserving of high office.
But I don’t think Sullivan’s indictment is accurate. These events have all the hallmarks of an epic White House screw-up. The policy resulted from an internal debate in which the vice president and the chief of staff took the other side. Liberal true believers won out. The announcement was fumbled. The White House was shocked by the breadth and intensity of opposition.
It is difficult to imagine that Obama desired criticism from Democratic officeholders and candidates, including a former head of the Democratic National Committee. Or a bridge burning with Catholic bishops shortly before an election. Or a promise of civil disobedience from the most prominent evangelical pastor in America, Rick Warren.
The initial policy was a disaster. The partial retreat was more skilled. Obama’s goal was not resolution but obfuscation. (as usual). The contraceptive mandate was shifted from Catholic employers to insurance companies. Instead of being forced to buy an insurance product that violates their beliefs, religious institutions will be forced to buy an insurance product that contributes to the profits and viability of a company that is federally mandated to violate their beliefs. Creative accounting, it seems, can cover a multitude of sins.
But an indirect requirement is less aggressive and humiliating than a direct one. This has become just another in a series of business mandates under Obamacare — motivating eventual repeal instead of civil disobedience. And religious people could easily respond to overreach with overreach. Some conservatives argue that any business — not just religious hospitals and charities — should be able to withhold contraceptive coverage because of the beliefs of its owner. This is probably a bridge too far in our current cultural and political context. The defense of religious freedom unites. Opposition to contraception divides.
Obama has partially defused a crisis of his own creation. But some effects of his blunder will linger.
First, Obama has made clear who is part of his ideological coalition and who is not. Discussions on the structure and restructuring of the contraceptive policy were conducted between the administration and pro-choice and feminist groups. The people most directly affected by the mandate — particularly the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — were not in the room. The administration engaged in no substantive consultation with Catholic bishops, who were only called to receive pronouncements. Interest group liberalism is alive and well in the Obama White House.
Second, the administration has consistently adopted and applied a view of religious liberty so narrow it imposes almost no limits on federal action. In the Hosanna-Tabor Supreme Court case, the Justice Department argued that there should be no “ministerial exception” at all — a contention the court dismissed as “amazing.” The modified contraceptive mandate still presupposes that religious liberty only applies to institutions whose primary purpose is worship, leaving every other religious institution vulnerable to future regulation.
Third, Obama has surrendered his main political appeal to religious voters from the last election — his embrace of faith-based social service providers. Any attempt to repeat this outreach will seem absurdly disconnected from reality.
Fourth, with a single miscalculation, Obama has managed to unite economic and social conservatives in outrage against government activism and energize religious conservatives in a way Mitt Romney could never manage. Culture war debates in America are evenly divided. But the objects of culture war aggression do not easily forget.
If Obama is playing a political chess game, he has just sacrificed his queen, a rook and all his bishops. It would have to be a deep game indeed.
Columnist for Washington Post
http://israel-commentary.org/?p=2842
Some of them are now suggesting that his contraceptive mandate on religious institutions was a skilled political stratagem. “I’ve found by observing this president closely for years,” argues Andrew Sullivan, “that what often seem like short-term tactical blunders turn out in the long run to be strategically shrewd. And if this was a trap, the religious right walked right into it.” Religious conservatives are now identified, he says, with “opposition to contraception.” Republicans have achieved “fusion with the Vatican.” Obama is evidently playing the very deep game. Consider the implications of this praise. It means that Obama assaulted the core beliefs of some of his fellow citizens in order to lure them into politically self-destructive behavior. The president is willing to trifle with the constitutional rights of religious people in order to get a rise out of them. In this scenario, Obama is a Machiavellian monster, undeserving of high office.
But I don’t think Sullivan’s indictment is accurate. These events have all the hallmarks of an epic White House screw-up. The policy resulted from an internal debate in which the vice president and the chief of staff took the other side. Liberal true believers won out. The announcement was fumbled. The White House was shocked by the breadth and intensity of opposition.
It is difficult to imagine that Obama desired criticism from Democratic officeholders and candidates, including a former head of the Democratic National Committee. Or a bridge burning with Catholic bishops shortly before an election. Or a promise of civil disobedience from the most prominent evangelical pastor in America, Rick Warren.
The initial policy was a disaster. The partial retreat was more skilled. Obama’s goal was not resolution but obfuscation. (as usual). The contraceptive mandate was shifted from Catholic employers to insurance companies. Instead of being forced to buy an insurance product that violates their beliefs, religious institutions will be forced to buy an insurance product that contributes to the profits and viability of a company that is federally mandated to violate their beliefs. Creative accounting, it seems, can cover a multitude of sins.
But an indirect requirement is less aggressive and humiliating than a direct one. This has become just another in a series of business mandates under Obamacare — motivating eventual repeal instead of civil disobedience. And religious people could easily respond to overreach with overreach. Some conservatives argue that any business — not just religious hospitals and charities — should be able to withhold contraceptive coverage because of the beliefs of its owner. This is probably a bridge too far in our current cultural and political context. The defense of religious freedom unites. Opposition to contraception divides.
Obama has partially defused a crisis of his own creation. But some effects of his blunder will linger.
First, Obama has made clear who is part of his ideological coalition and who is not. Discussions on the structure and restructuring of the contraceptive policy were conducted between the administration and pro-choice and feminist groups. The people most directly affected by the mandate — particularly the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops — were not in the room. The administration engaged in no substantive consultation with Catholic bishops, who were only called to receive pronouncements. Interest group liberalism is alive and well in the Obama White House.
Second, the administration has consistently adopted and applied a view of religious liberty so narrow it imposes almost no limits on federal action. In the Hosanna-Tabor Supreme Court case, the Justice Department argued that there should be no “ministerial exception” at all — a contention the court dismissed as “amazing.” The modified contraceptive mandate still presupposes that religious liberty only applies to institutions whose primary purpose is worship, leaving every other religious institution vulnerable to future regulation.
Third, Obama has surrendered his main political appeal to religious voters from the last election — his embrace of faith-based social service providers. Any attempt to repeat this outreach will seem absurdly disconnected from reality.
Fourth, with a single miscalculation, Obama has managed to unite economic and social conservatives in outrage against government activism and energize religious conservatives in a way Mitt Romney could never manage. Culture war debates in America are evenly divided. But the objects of culture war aggression do not easily forget.
If Obama is playing a political chess game, he has just sacrificed his queen, a rook and all his bishops. It would have to be a deep game indeed.
50 American Chalutzim Leave for Palestine
JTA
The first American group of "chalutzim," which sailed yesterday on the "Mauretania" for Palestine, was honored by the Zionists of New York City Tuesday night at a farewell reception in the Jewish Club. The group consists of fifty men and women. Several hundred people were present at the reception.
The principal speakers were Dr. Shmarya Levin, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise and Rabbi Gold. Dr. Levin, in the course of his talk, expressed the opinion that six million Jews of Eastern Europe are doomed to perish. He advised the American "chalutzim" to "write good letters home, though without exaggerations," assuring them that no matter what hardships they may have to endure in Palestine as pioneers, they will nevertheless feel happy. Dr. Wise expressed confidence that England has already recognized its mistakes in Palestine and will soon rectity them, and said that the Jews will not surrender under threats of force. "Palestine is not only a refuge for the Jewish homeless, but also, and more so, for Jewish homelessness," he said.
Judge Bernard Rosenblatt presided at the reception.
The first American group of "chalutzim," which sailed yesterday on the "Mauretania" for Palestine, was honored by the Zionists of New York City Tuesday night at a farewell reception in the Jewish Club. The group consists of fifty men and women. Several hundred people were present at the reception.
The principal speakers were Dr. Shmarya Levin, Rabbi Stephen S. Wise and Rabbi Gold. Dr. Levin, in the course of his talk, expressed the opinion that six million Jews of Eastern Europe are doomed to perish. He advised the American "chalutzim" to "write good letters home, though without exaggerations," assuring them that no matter what hardships they may have to endure in Palestine as pioneers, they will nevertheless feel happy. Dr. Wise expressed confidence that England has already recognized its mistakes in Palestine and will soon rectity them, and said that the Jews will not surrender under threats of force. "Palestine is not only a refuge for the Jewish homeless, but also, and more so, for Jewish homelessness," he said.
Judge Bernard Rosenblatt presided at the reception.
Monday, February 20, 2012
Terrorists to Retain Half their National Insurance Benefits
A7 News
Gil Ronen
The Knesset's Labor, Welfare and Health Committee voted Monday in favor of a bill that would cut 50 percent off National Insurance benefits to citizens involved in serious terrorist crimes. Government lawyers had opposed cutting off all benefits to terrorists and the formulation is presented as a compromise between the state lawyers and the bill's initiators, MKs David Rotem and Robert Ilatov of Yisrael Beitenu.
The bill would reduce by 50 percent the stipends to Israeli citizens who were involved in terror activity and sentenced to at least ten years in jail for it.
The stipends that will be slashed are those for people suffering from work-related disabilities, accident insurance, unemployment benefits, bankruptcy, old age pension and surviving relative stipends. It will be brought before the plenum for its first reading. MK Rotem said Monday, "This is a compromise I had no choice but to agree to. The original bill I submitted included a complete cutoff of stipends to anyone who was convicted [of terrorism]. The will to protect the state's citizens is not met with true understanding by all of the advisors in the government's ministries. When one seeks to harm terrorists, 'constitutional problems' crop up. The bill we have before us is better than nothing."
Attorney Shai Somech of the Justice Ministry told MKs who voted on the bill that "the use of stipends as a means of punishment creates constitutional and legal difficulties." In addition, he said, "punishment meted out after the jail sentence has been served and the fact that the more a person is needy, the more severely he will be punished – these are also problems. Even so, the bill's wording is acceptable to us despite the difficulties."
Uri Eldar of the Socialist Education Fund expressed opposition to the bill. "What will happen to a person who does not receive stipends after he completes serving his punishment? He will reach the welfare authorities and a social worker will have to take care of him, so what have we saved here? We need to act as a civilized country."
Welfare Committee Chairman MK Chaim Katz summed up the debate. "The blood of Israel's citizens cannot be shed freely. Let the terrorists see this and know that their old age and welfare may be damaged, and they will be deterred from terrorist activity," he said.
Gil Ronen
The Knesset's Labor, Welfare and Health Committee voted Monday in favor of a bill that would cut 50 percent off National Insurance benefits to citizens involved in serious terrorist crimes. Government lawyers had opposed cutting off all benefits to terrorists and the formulation is presented as a compromise between the state lawyers and the bill's initiators, MKs David Rotem and Robert Ilatov of Yisrael Beitenu.
The bill would reduce by 50 percent the stipends to Israeli citizens who were involved in terror activity and sentenced to at least ten years in jail for it.
The stipends that will be slashed are those for people suffering from work-related disabilities, accident insurance, unemployment benefits, bankruptcy, old age pension and surviving relative stipends. It will be brought before the plenum for its first reading. MK Rotem said Monday, "This is a compromise I had no choice but to agree to. The original bill I submitted included a complete cutoff of stipends to anyone who was convicted [of terrorism]. The will to protect the state's citizens is not met with true understanding by all of the advisors in the government's ministries. When one seeks to harm terrorists, 'constitutional problems' crop up. The bill we have before us is better than nothing."
Attorney Shai Somech of the Justice Ministry told MKs who voted on the bill that "the use of stipends as a means of punishment creates constitutional and legal difficulties." In addition, he said, "punishment meted out after the jail sentence has been served and the fact that the more a person is needy, the more severely he will be punished – these are also problems. Even so, the bill's wording is acceptable to us despite the difficulties."
Uri Eldar of the Socialist Education Fund expressed opposition to the bill. "What will happen to a person who does not receive stipends after he completes serving his punishment? He will reach the welfare authorities and a social worker will have to take care of him, so what have we saved here? We need to act as a civilized country."
Welfare Committee Chairman MK Chaim Katz summed up the debate. "The blood of Israel's citizens cannot be shed freely. Let the terrorists see this and know that their old age and welfare may be damaged, and they will be deterred from terrorist activity," he said.
‘Jews are like the canary in the coal mine’
Still reeling from Yale’s decision to shutter his center for the study of anti-Semitism, Charles Small warns that the West is disregarding one of the fastest-growing threats to its core system of values — hatred of Jews in the Islamic world
By Elie Leshem February 20, 2012
Dr. Charles Small is in the market for a new home. In the months since Yale University pulled the plug on the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism, which he had been presiding over since 2006, Small has been scouring the East Coast of the United States for a campus to host his institute.
Yale’s decision to shutter YIISA in June 2011 was met with a spate of responses, as well as a spirited and sometimes-vociferous debate between advocates of the move and detractors. At the time, Small told the Yale Daily News that “radical Islamic and extreme left-wing bloggers” were to blame for the “bad publicity” that ultimately led to Yale’s decision. The sentiment echoed those of American Jewish Committee director David Harris and Abe Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defmation League, who derided Yale for creating the impression that ”the anti-Jewish forces in the world achieved a significant victory.” But while supporters of the institute maintained that Yale had capitulated to pressure from elements threatened by YIISA’s continuing focus on Islamic manifestations of anti-Semitism, Yale insisted that the move was the inevitable result of YIISA’s “failure to meet the university’s high standards for research and instruction.” Others claimed that the initiative had sealed its own fate by losing sight of its raison d’être and engaging in advocacy rather than pure scholarship.
In a recent meeting in Jerusalem, Small rejected any attempt to challenge YIISA’s academic credentials, decrying the current atmosphere in the United States and some of the trends — and individuals – he felt had been involved in Yale’s decision.
“I think we were engaging in issues that some people, for their own agendas, didn’t want us to engage in,” Small said. “People accused us of being advocates, but those who were accusing us are themselves advocates. I think our record stands for itself… and we’re proud of what we’ve achieved so far.”
Asked to elaborate on the motives and identities of the people in question, Small recalled a large conference held by YIISA in August 2010 under the heading “Global Antisemitism: A Crisis of Modernity,” that some have cited as the “last straw” that led to YIISA’s closure.
‘The US administration seems to be siding with the Muslim Brotherhood, riding the wave of radical Islam, instead of confronting its human rights abuses’
“The plenary sessions in the first days were dedicated to looking at anti-Semitism in the Middle East, and there were people at Yale who thought that if you critically examine these issues, you’re somehow making excuses for Israel, or you’re a Likud member or a Bush supporter. It’s ridiculous,” Small said.
“It’s part of a general atmosphere in the United States,” he continued. “The US Administration seems to be siding with the Muslim Brotherhood, riding the wave of radical Islam, instead of confronting its human rights abuses and its skewed worldview when it comes to the rights of citizens; and it’s becoming increasingly clear that we’re going to reap the ‘rewards’ of this error for generations if this continues.”
Advocacy or scholarship
In the wake of YIISA’s closure, one of the most prominent figures to cast doubt on the academic value of its activities was Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt, who had participated in some of YIISA’s earlier events. In an opinion piece in The Jewish Daily Forward, Lipstadt equated YIISA’s programs with a recent inflation of “advocacy and polemics” at some Middle East Studies departments in US universities, concluding that Small and YIISA had “entered a zone in which advocacy masquerades as scholarship.”
Small, for his part, doesn’t mince words when it comes to Lipstadt and others in “liberal elitist institutions, in academia, or in the media,” who, he says, are burying their heads in the sand and refusing to acknowledge the gravity of the threat emanating from the Muslim Brotherhood and Tehran.
More specifically, he said, “You have people like [New York Times columnist] Thomas Friedman… defending this worldview in the [Obama] administration; you have Deborah Lipstadt in Haaretz, using the words ‘hysterical’ and ‘neurotic’ … when referring to people who are very concerned about the rise of anti-Semitism, i.e., Iran and radical Islam. She accused Jews in Israel and in the United States, who are concerned and even alarmed, of being hysterical and neurotic.”
Debroah Lipstadt (photo credit: Courtesy of Emory University)
Debroah Lipstadt (photo credit: Courtesy of Emory University)
Noting her recent appointment to the Holocaust Memorial Council by US President Barack Obama, Small cited Lipstadt as an example of intellectuals, journalists, and scholars who are “close to Obama’s administration and are doing his dirty work.”
And this at a time, he said, “when there are radical Islamists, the Iranian revolutionary regime and the Brotherhood in Egypt, that are not only Holocaust deniers; they’re holocaust advocates.”
Did Small believe that something had been changing in the approaches of scholars such as Lipstadt, who has been engaging anti-Semitism for decades and was even taken to court by Holocaust denier David Irving following the publication of her book, “Denying the Holocaust,” in 1996?
“I can’t get inside these people’s heads, but I think it’s a so-called ‘liberal’ worldview,” he said. “I consider myself a liberal, politically and intellectually, and to me a liberal is someone who believes in strong notions of citizenship; in the equality of all citizens under one legal system; in the rights of minorities, women, and gay people; in pluralism and workers’ rights.”
At the same time, he noted, “These people are connected to Obama and share his vision that through engagement and by being, in a way, reconciliatory, things will change… In a sense Israel is getting in the way of the realization of this worldview, and I think that rather than attack the problem and care about human rights and the rights of women, gay people, and religious minorities… perhaps it’s easier for them to blame Israel.”
Responding by email to Small’s statements, Deborah Lipstadt praised some of the work done by Charles Small and YIISA’s, allowing that the initiative had done “many very good things,” although “at times it crossed the line from academia to advocacy.”
Lipstadt maintained that she had “never said that contemporary anti-Semitism is not a real threat in certain places,” and noted that during the Haaretz interview cited by Small, she had stressed that it was, in fact, a “real danger.”
However, Lipstadt added, “I also said that there is a heightened fear in the Jewish community that often becomes hysteria, and that there are people who play upon these fears… I don’t believe we accomplish anything by branding people and calling them names.”
Thomas Friedman could not be reached for comment.
The canary in the coal mine
Small seemed taken aback when asked whether Israel could be undermining its own cause or cheapening the memory of the fallen by evoking the Holocaust as a point of reference in warning of the magnitude of the threat emanating from Tehran.
“The discourse on anti-Semitism, politically and academically, is astounding,” he replied. “The very fact that you’re even asking me this question is interesting in and of itself. Would educated people, when they meet a South African, say, ‘It’s been 20 years since apartheid — shut up about apartheid’? I don’t think anyone would have the audacity and insensitivity to tell a South African who had lived through a crime against humanity that it’s time to be quiet.”
‘Why are Israelis silent? I would say that we, in Israel, are too silent; never mind the West’
Jews are like “the canary in the coal mine,” Small added. “Anti-Semitism is a deep, deep hatred, and once we permit this hatred to exist or target one group, it’ll only be a matter of time before other groups are targeted. And mark my words: If the Muslim Brotherhood rises to power and governs — and it looks like they will to some extent, depending on their relations with the Egyptian military — watch the rights of women, watch the rights of gay people, watch the Coptic community.
“And yet, the issue of their hatred of the Other is not being dealt with because it’s anti-Semitism, because people don’t want to hear about it. And to be honest, I’m surprised that the Israeli government does not speak out loud and clear about this social movement that is rising to power, which is antidemocratic and anti-Semitic, and which will violate human rights.
“Why are Israelis silent? I would say that we, in Israel, are too silent; never mind the West. And it’s interesting, why people like Thomas Friedman and Deborah Lipstadt actually blame the Jews for the issues in various areas; it’s fascinating, worthy of study.”
By Elie Leshem February 20, 2012
Dr. Charles Small is in the market for a new home. In the months since Yale University pulled the plug on the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Antisemitism, which he had been presiding over since 2006, Small has been scouring the East Coast of the United States for a campus to host his institute.
Yale’s decision to shutter YIISA in June 2011 was met with a spate of responses, as well as a spirited and sometimes-vociferous debate between advocates of the move and detractors. At the time, Small told the Yale Daily News that “radical Islamic and extreme left-wing bloggers” were to blame for the “bad publicity” that ultimately led to Yale’s decision. The sentiment echoed those of American Jewish Committee director David Harris and Abe Foxman, the national director of the Anti-Defmation League, who derided Yale for creating the impression that ”the anti-Jewish forces in the world achieved a significant victory.” But while supporters of the institute maintained that Yale had capitulated to pressure from elements threatened by YIISA’s continuing focus on Islamic manifestations of anti-Semitism, Yale insisted that the move was the inevitable result of YIISA’s “failure to meet the university’s high standards for research and instruction.” Others claimed that the initiative had sealed its own fate by losing sight of its raison d’être and engaging in advocacy rather than pure scholarship.
In a recent meeting in Jerusalem, Small rejected any attempt to challenge YIISA’s academic credentials, decrying the current atmosphere in the United States and some of the trends — and individuals – he felt had been involved in Yale’s decision.
“I think we were engaging in issues that some people, for their own agendas, didn’t want us to engage in,” Small said. “People accused us of being advocates, but those who were accusing us are themselves advocates. I think our record stands for itself… and we’re proud of what we’ve achieved so far.”
Asked to elaborate on the motives and identities of the people in question, Small recalled a large conference held by YIISA in August 2010 under the heading “Global Antisemitism: A Crisis of Modernity,” that some have cited as the “last straw” that led to YIISA’s closure.
‘The US administration seems to be siding with the Muslim Brotherhood, riding the wave of radical Islam, instead of confronting its human rights abuses’
“The plenary sessions in the first days were dedicated to looking at anti-Semitism in the Middle East, and there were people at Yale who thought that if you critically examine these issues, you’re somehow making excuses for Israel, or you’re a Likud member or a Bush supporter. It’s ridiculous,” Small said.
“It’s part of a general atmosphere in the United States,” he continued. “The US Administration seems to be siding with the Muslim Brotherhood, riding the wave of radical Islam, instead of confronting its human rights abuses and its skewed worldview when it comes to the rights of citizens; and it’s becoming increasingly clear that we’re going to reap the ‘rewards’ of this error for generations if this continues.”
Advocacy or scholarship
In the wake of YIISA’s closure, one of the most prominent figures to cast doubt on the academic value of its activities was Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt, who had participated in some of YIISA’s earlier events. In an opinion piece in The Jewish Daily Forward, Lipstadt equated YIISA’s programs with a recent inflation of “advocacy and polemics” at some Middle East Studies departments in US universities, concluding that Small and YIISA had “entered a zone in which advocacy masquerades as scholarship.”
Small, for his part, doesn’t mince words when it comes to Lipstadt and others in “liberal elitist institutions, in academia, or in the media,” who, he says, are burying their heads in the sand and refusing to acknowledge the gravity of the threat emanating from the Muslim Brotherhood and Tehran.
More specifically, he said, “You have people like [New York Times columnist] Thomas Friedman… defending this worldview in the [Obama] administration; you have Deborah Lipstadt in Haaretz, using the words ‘hysterical’ and ‘neurotic’ … when referring to people who are very concerned about the rise of anti-Semitism, i.e., Iran and radical Islam. She accused Jews in Israel and in the United States, who are concerned and even alarmed, of being hysterical and neurotic.”
Debroah Lipstadt (photo credit: Courtesy of Emory University)
Debroah Lipstadt (photo credit: Courtesy of Emory University)
Noting her recent appointment to the Holocaust Memorial Council by US President Barack Obama, Small cited Lipstadt as an example of intellectuals, journalists, and scholars who are “close to Obama’s administration and are doing his dirty work.”
And this at a time, he said, “when there are radical Islamists, the Iranian revolutionary regime and the Brotherhood in Egypt, that are not only Holocaust deniers; they’re holocaust advocates.”
Did Small believe that something had been changing in the approaches of scholars such as Lipstadt, who has been engaging anti-Semitism for decades and was even taken to court by Holocaust denier David Irving following the publication of her book, “Denying the Holocaust,” in 1996?
“I can’t get inside these people’s heads, but I think it’s a so-called ‘liberal’ worldview,” he said. “I consider myself a liberal, politically and intellectually, and to me a liberal is someone who believes in strong notions of citizenship; in the equality of all citizens under one legal system; in the rights of minorities, women, and gay people; in pluralism and workers’ rights.”
At the same time, he noted, “These people are connected to Obama and share his vision that through engagement and by being, in a way, reconciliatory, things will change… In a sense Israel is getting in the way of the realization of this worldview, and I think that rather than attack the problem and care about human rights and the rights of women, gay people, and religious minorities… perhaps it’s easier for them to blame Israel.”
Responding by email to Small’s statements, Deborah Lipstadt praised some of the work done by Charles Small and YIISA’s, allowing that the initiative had done “many very good things,” although “at times it crossed the line from academia to advocacy.”
Lipstadt maintained that she had “never said that contemporary anti-Semitism is not a real threat in certain places,” and noted that during the Haaretz interview cited by Small, she had stressed that it was, in fact, a “real danger.”
However, Lipstadt added, “I also said that there is a heightened fear in the Jewish community that often becomes hysteria, and that there are people who play upon these fears… I don’t believe we accomplish anything by branding people and calling them names.”
Thomas Friedman could not be reached for comment.
The canary in the coal mine
Small seemed taken aback when asked whether Israel could be undermining its own cause or cheapening the memory of the fallen by evoking the Holocaust as a point of reference in warning of the magnitude of the threat emanating from Tehran.
“The discourse on anti-Semitism, politically and academically, is astounding,” he replied. “The very fact that you’re even asking me this question is interesting in and of itself. Would educated people, when they meet a South African, say, ‘It’s been 20 years since apartheid — shut up about apartheid’? I don’t think anyone would have the audacity and insensitivity to tell a South African who had lived through a crime against humanity that it’s time to be quiet.”
‘Why are Israelis silent? I would say that we, in Israel, are too silent; never mind the West’
Jews are like “the canary in the coal mine,” Small added. “Anti-Semitism is a deep, deep hatred, and once we permit this hatred to exist or target one group, it’ll only be a matter of time before other groups are targeted. And mark my words: If the Muslim Brotherhood rises to power and governs — and it looks like they will to some extent, depending on their relations with the Egyptian military — watch the rights of women, watch the rights of gay people, watch the Coptic community.
“And yet, the issue of their hatred of the Other is not being dealt with because it’s anti-Semitism, because people don’t want to hear about it. And to be honest, I’m surprised that the Israeli government does not speak out loud and clear about this social movement that is rising to power, which is antidemocratic and anti-Semitic, and which will violate human rights.
“Why are Israelis silent? I would say that we, in Israel, are too silent; never mind the West. And it’s interesting, why people like Thomas Friedman and Deborah Lipstadt actually blame the Jews for the issues in various areas; it’s fascinating, worthy of study.”
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Arab Rioters Stone Temple Mount Tourists after Muslim Incitement
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
A7 News
Dozens of Arab stoned tourists and police on the Temple Mount Sunday morning, a day after a former Muslim Mufti warned of a possible “break-in” by Jews.
Police arrested three of the stone-throwers, and no one was injured. The holy site remains open to visitors.
Police closed the Temple Mount to non-Muslims one day last week after an apparent political prank that featured posters of Jewish Leadership faction leader Moshe Feiglin calling for the destruction of Arab mosques on the Temple Mount and building the Third Temple. Sunday’s violence may have been prompted by a sermon on Saturday by former Jerusalem mufti Ekrema Sabri, who warned that alleged Israeli extremists “might implement their threats to break into the Al-Aqsa mosque tomorrow (Sunday) morning.”
He urged all Arabs and Muslims to save the Al-Aqsa mosque and support the people of Jerusalem in dealing with what he called the “Israeli conspiracy against the city and its holy places.”
Ekrema Sabri was appointed by former PA Chairman Yasser Arafat as the Mufti of Jerusalem and also served as the supreme religious authority in the PA.
During the Al-Aqsa or Second Intifada, also known as the Oslo War that began in 2000, Sabri expressed support for terrorist suicide attacks, and police questioned him a year layer after he met in Lebanon with Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
Anti-Jewish incitement by the Palestinian Authority has increased markedly in the past year as the PA continues to try to claim sovereignty over the site, the holiest place in Judaism.
Many Muslim clerics have preached that Jews have no connection to the site and that the First and Second Temples never existed.
The Palestinian Authority has removed tons of dirt from the Temple Mount compound in an effort to prevent discoveries that would reveal artifacts from the era of the Jewish Temples.
A7 News
Dozens of Arab stoned tourists and police on the Temple Mount Sunday morning, a day after a former Muslim Mufti warned of a possible “break-in” by Jews.
Police arrested three of the stone-throwers, and no one was injured. The holy site remains open to visitors.
Police closed the Temple Mount to non-Muslims one day last week after an apparent political prank that featured posters of Jewish Leadership faction leader Moshe Feiglin calling for the destruction of Arab mosques on the Temple Mount and building the Third Temple. Sunday’s violence may have been prompted by a sermon on Saturday by former Jerusalem mufti Ekrema Sabri, who warned that alleged Israeli extremists “might implement their threats to break into the Al-Aqsa mosque tomorrow (Sunday) morning.”
He urged all Arabs and Muslims to save the Al-Aqsa mosque and support the people of Jerusalem in dealing with what he called the “Israeli conspiracy against the city and its holy places.”
Ekrema Sabri was appointed by former PA Chairman Yasser Arafat as the Mufti of Jerusalem and also served as the supreme religious authority in the PA.
During the Al-Aqsa or Second Intifada, also known as the Oslo War that began in 2000, Sabri expressed support for terrorist suicide attacks, and police questioned him a year layer after he met in Lebanon with Hizbullah leader Hassan Nasrallah.
Anti-Jewish incitement by the Palestinian Authority has increased markedly in the past year as the PA continues to try to claim sovereignty over the site, the holiest place in Judaism.
Many Muslim clerics have preached that Jews have no connection to the site and that the First and Second Temples never existed.
The Palestinian Authority has removed tons of dirt from the Temple Mount compound in an effort to prevent discoveries that would reveal artifacts from the era of the Jewish Temples.
The State Dept has embraced the Islamist Agenda at home and abroad
What this means is that the Obama administration has made a strategic decision to join forces with the Islamists rather than fight them. This policy has serious implications for America at home and abroad. It also has serious implications for Israel. It means that America will restrain Israel from besting the Islamists and will favour the Islamists over Israel. It is no accident that the Islamists are now in power in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt or that the The US has fully embraced Islamist Erdogan of Turkey and is supporting the advent of the MB in Syria. Nothing could be more ominous. Ted Belman A note from Investigative Project on Terrorism Executive Director Steven Emerson:
Please take the time to read this very important story written by a courageous Egyptian liberal intellectual about the Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood lobbies in Washington and the Obama Administration’s secret collaboration with these pro-terrorist, anti-Western, anti-women, anti-American and anti-Semitic organizations. This is one of the most important articles I have read in years.
It was just revealed two days ago that FBI Director Mueller secretly met on February 8 at FBI headquarters with a coalition of groups including various Islamist and militant Arabic groups who in the past have defended Hamas and Hizballah and have also issued blatantly anti-Semitic statements. At this meeting, the FBI revealed that it had removed more than 1000 presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices around the country that was deemed “offensive.” The FBI did not reveal what criteria was used to determine why material was considered “offensive” but knowledgeable law enforcement sources have told the IPT that it was these radical groups who made that determination. Moreover, numerous FBI agents have confirmed that from now on, FBI headquarters has banned all FBI offices from inviting any counter-terrorist specialists who are considered “anti-Islam” by Muslim Brotherhood front groups.
The February 8 FBI meeting was the culmination of a series of unpublicized directives issued in the last three months by top FBI officials to all its field offices to immediately recall and withdraw any presentation or curricula on Islam throughout the entire FBI. In fact, according to informed sources and undisclosed documents, the FBI directive was instigated by radical Muslim groups in the US who had repeatedly met with top officials of the Obama Administration to complain, among other things, that the mere usage of the term of “radical Islam” in FBI curricula was “offensive” and ‘racist.” And thus, directives went out by Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Mueller to censor all such material. Included in the material destroyed or removed by the FBI and the DOJ were power-points and articles that defined jihad as “holy war” or presentations that portrayed the Muslim Brotherhood as an organization bent on taking over the world—a major tenant that the Muslim Brotherhood has publicly stated for decades.
During the next several months, the IPT will be releasing a series of major investigative reports revealing the secret infiltration by and collaboration with radical Islamic organizations by the Obama administration that has spread to the National Security Council, the Dept of Justice, the FBI, the Dept of Homeland Security, the CIA and the State Department as well as local law enforcement.
Islamist Lobbies’ Washington War on Arab and Muslim Liberals
by Essam Abdallah
The Cutting Edge News
The most dramatic oppression of the region’s civil societies and the Arab Spring is not by means of weapons, or in the Middle East. It is not led by Gaddafi, Mubarak, Bin Ali, Saleh, or Assad. It is led by the powerful Islamist lobbies in Washington DC. People may find my words curious if not provocative. But my arguments are sharp and well understood by many Arab and middle eastern liberals and freedom fighters. Indeed, we in the region, who are struggling for real democracy, not for the one time election type of democracy have been asking ourselves since January 2011 as the winds of Arab spring started blowing, why isn’t the West in general and the United States Administration in particular clearly and forcefully supporting our civil societies and particularly the secular democrats of the region? Why were the bureaucracies in Washington and in Brussels partnering with Islamists in the region and not with their natural allies the democracy promoting political forces?
Months into the Arab Spring, we realized that the Western powers, and the Obama Administration have put their support behind the new authoritarians, those who are claiming they will be brought to power via the votes of the people. Well, it is not quite so.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Nahda of Tunisia, the Justice Party of Morocco and the Islamist militias in Libya’s Transitional National Council have been systematically supported by Washington at the expense of real liberal and secular forces. We saw day by day how the White House guided carefully the statements and the actions of the US and the State Department followed through to give all the chances to the Islamists and almost no chances to the secular and revolutionary youth. We will come back to detail these diplomatic and financial maneuvers which are giving victory to the fundamentalists while the seculars and progressives are going to be smashed by the forthcoming regimes.
In the US, there are interests that determine foreign policy. And there are lobbies that put pressure to get their objectives met in foreign policy. One of the most powerful lobbies in America under the Obama Administration is the Muslim Brotherhood greater lobby, which has been in action for many years. This lobby has secured many operatives inside the Administration and has been successful in directing US policy towards the Arab world. Among leading advisors sympathetic to the Ikhwan is Daliah Mogahed (Mujahid) and her associate, Georgetown Professor John Esposito. Just as shocking, there is also a pro-Iranian lobby that has been influencing US policy towards Iran and Hezbollah in the region.
One of the most important activities of the Islamist lobby in the US is the waging of political and media wars on the liberal Arabs and Middle Eastern figures and groups in America. This battlefield is among the most important in influencing Washington’s policies in the Arab world. If you strike at the liberal and democratic Middle Eastern groups in Washington who are trying to gain support for civil societies in the region, you actually win a major battle. You will be able to influence the resources of the US Government to support the Islamists in the Middle East and not the weak democrats. This huge war waged by the Islamist lobbies in America started at the end of the Cold war and continued all the way till the Arab spring. The two main forces of this lobby are the Muslim Brotherhood fronts and the Iranian fronts. According to research available in the US, the Ikhwan fronts such as CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), led by Hamas supporter Nihad Awad, as well as the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of North America, and others waged their political war to block the representatives of Arab liberals and Muslim moderates from making their case to the American public. The Iranian lobby, exemplified by the National Iranian American Committee (NIAC), led by Trita Parsi, has been hitting at Iranian exiles.
Since the 1990s CAIR and its allies have attacked Copts, Southern Sudanese, Lebanese, Syrian reformers, Assyrians and Chaldeans, and Muslim dissidents in the United States. The Ikhwan of America demonized any publication, book, article, or interview in the national media or local press raising the issue of secular freedoms in the Middle East. The Islamists wanted to eliminate the liberal cause in the Arab world and replace it with the cause of the Islamists. What is also shocking is that CAIR and its allies stood by the oppressive regimes and visited them, claiming they speak on behalf of the peoples. CAIR and the Brotherhood fronts in America destroyed systematically every project that would have defended the seculars and liberals originating from the Middle East. The notorious and well-funded Islamists of the US allowed no book, documentary, or show on the liberals in Arab civil societies to see the light.
Thanks to this powerful lobbying campaign, the American public was not given a chance to learn about the deep feelings on the youth in the region. Americans were led to believe that all Muslims, all Arabs and all Middle Easterners were a strange species of humans who cannot appreciate freedom. Instead, the American Islamists, helped by apologists on the petrodollars payrolls, convinced the mainstream media that the Arab world has authoritarians and Islamists only.
Dr Shawki Karas, president of the American Coptic Association, told me in the late 1990s how he was harassed by Islamist activists for speaking up against the Mubarak regime and the Muslim Brotherhood in America. He was threatened with losing his job at the college where he taught. Reverend Keith Roderick, who has assembled a coalition of more than 50 group rights from the Muslim world, was severely attacked by the Islamists and was threatened to be removed from his church position. Muslim American leaders who are conservative and secular, such as Dr Zuhdi Jasser, were crucified by CAIR and the Brotherhood for daring to challenge the Party line of the Isl.amists in America and claiming that the Jihadists are the problem in the region. Muslim liberal dissidents such as Somali Ayan Hirsi Ali, Saudi Ali al Yammi, Syrian Farid Ghadri, Iranian Manda Ervin, and many others were trashed by the Islamist lobbies to block them from defending the causes of secular liberty in the US. Egyptian liberals as well as seculars and democracy activists from Iraq, Sudan, Syria, and other countries have been attacked by CAIR and allies. The pro-Iranian lobby targeted most Iranian-American groups and tried to discredit them, particularly with the rise of the Green Revolution in Iran. By smearing the Muslim liberal exiles, the Islamists were trying to destroy their causes in the mother countries. In the 1990s and the years that followed 9/11 the region’s dictators supported the efforts by Islamist lobbies to crush the liberal exiles. The Mubarak, Bashir, Gaddafi, Assad, and Khomeinist regimes fully supported the so-called Islamophobia campaign waged by CAIR and its Iranian counterpart NIAC against dissidents for calling for secular democracy in the region. The dissidents were accused of being pro-Western by both the Islamists and the dictators.
The Islamist lobbies also severely attacked members of the US Congress such as Democrats Tom Lantos, who has since passed away, Eliot Engel, Howard Berman, Gary Ackerman, and Joe Lieberman as well as Republicans Frank Wolfe, Chris Smith, Trent Franks, John McCain, Rick Santorum, and Sam Brownback for their efforts in passing legislative acts in support for democracy and liberty in the Middle East. CAIR and NIAC heavily savaged President Bush’s speeches on Freedom Forward in the Middle East, deploying all the resources they had to block US support to liberal democrats in the region. Islamist lobbies in Washington are directly responsible for killing any initiative in the US Government to support Darfur, southern Sudan, Lebanon, the Kurds, liberal women in the Muslim world, and true democrats in the Arab world and Muslim Africa.
In the think tank world, CAIR and its allies aggressively attacked scholars who raised the issue of persecution against seculars or minorities in the Arab world and Iran. Among those attacked were Nina Shea and Paul Marshal from the Hudson Institute and the founder of an anti-slavery group, Dr Charles Jacobs, who was exposing the Sudan regime for its atrocities.
Last but not least is the Islamists’ relentless campaign to stirke at top scholars who advise Government and appear in the media to push for democratic liberation in the region. The vast and vicious attacks leveled against Professor Walid Phares—initially by CAIR’s Nihad Awad and then widened by pro-Hezbollah and Muslim Brotherhood operatives online—has revealed to Arab and Middle Eastern liberal and seculars how ferocious is the battle for the Middle East in the US.
Phares’s books, particularly the latest one, The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East (2010), hit the Islamist agenda hard by predicting the civil society revolts in the Middle East and then predicting how the Islamists would try to control them. Phares was attacked by an army of Jihadist militia online like no author since Samuel Huntington in the 1990s.
As a freedom activist from the Middle East, Mustafa Geha, wrote, Phares is a hero to Muslim liberals. Along with dissidents, lawmakers, experts, and human rights activists, Phares is a force driving for a strategic change in US foreign policy towards supporting secular democracies in the region.
This explains why the Islamists of America are fighting the battle for the forthcoming regimes with all the means they have.
Dr. Essam Abdallah is an Egyptian liberal intellectual who teaches at Ain Shams University and writes for the leading Arab liberal publication Elaph.
Please take the time to read this very important story written by a courageous Egyptian liberal intellectual about the Islamist and Muslim Brotherhood lobbies in Washington and the Obama Administration’s secret collaboration with these pro-terrorist, anti-Western, anti-women, anti-American and anti-Semitic organizations. This is one of the most important articles I have read in years.
It was just revealed two days ago that FBI Director Mueller secretly met on February 8 at FBI headquarters with a coalition of groups including various Islamist and militant Arabic groups who in the past have defended Hamas and Hizballah and have also issued blatantly anti-Semitic statements. At this meeting, the FBI revealed that it had removed more than 1000 presentations and curricula on Islam from FBI offices around the country that was deemed “offensive.” The FBI did not reveal what criteria was used to determine why material was considered “offensive” but knowledgeable law enforcement sources have told the IPT that it was these radical groups who made that determination. Moreover, numerous FBI agents have confirmed that from now on, FBI headquarters has banned all FBI offices from inviting any counter-terrorist specialists who are considered “anti-Islam” by Muslim Brotherhood front groups.
The February 8 FBI meeting was the culmination of a series of unpublicized directives issued in the last three months by top FBI officials to all its field offices to immediately recall and withdraw any presentation or curricula on Islam throughout the entire FBI. In fact, according to informed sources and undisclosed documents, the FBI directive was instigated by radical Muslim groups in the US who had repeatedly met with top officials of the Obama Administration to complain, among other things, that the mere usage of the term of “radical Islam” in FBI curricula was “offensive” and ‘racist.” And thus, directives went out by Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Mueller to censor all such material. Included in the material destroyed or removed by the FBI and the DOJ were power-points and articles that defined jihad as “holy war” or presentations that portrayed the Muslim Brotherhood as an organization bent on taking over the world—a major tenant that the Muslim Brotherhood has publicly stated for decades.
During the next several months, the IPT will be releasing a series of major investigative reports revealing the secret infiltration by and collaboration with radical Islamic organizations by the Obama administration that has spread to the National Security Council, the Dept of Justice, the FBI, the Dept of Homeland Security, the CIA and the State Department as well as local law enforcement.
Islamist Lobbies’ Washington War on Arab and Muslim Liberals
by Essam Abdallah
The Cutting Edge News
The most dramatic oppression of the region’s civil societies and the Arab Spring is not by means of weapons, or in the Middle East. It is not led by Gaddafi, Mubarak, Bin Ali, Saleh, or Assad. It is led by the powerful Islamist lobbies in Washington DC. People may find my words curious if not provocative. But my arguments are sharp and well understood by many Arab and middle eastern liberals and freedom fighters. Indeed, we in the region, who are struggling for real democracy, not for the one time election type of democracy have been asking ourselves since January 2011 as the winds of Arab spring started blowing, why isn’t the West in general and the United States Administration in particular clearly and forcefully supporting our civil societies and particularly the secular democrats of the region? Why were the bureaucracies in Washington and in Brussels partnering with Islamists in the region and not with their natural allies the democracy promoting political forces?
Months into the Arab Spring, we realized that the Western powers, and the Obama Administration have put their support behind the new authoritarians, those who are claiming they will be brought to power via the votes of the people. Well, it is not quite so.
The Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamic Nahda of Tunisia, the Justice Party of Morocco and the Islamist militias in Libya’s Transitional National Council have been systematically supported by Washington at the expense of real liberal and secular forces. We saw day by day how the White House guided carefully the statements and the actions of the US and the State Department followed through to give all the chances to the Islamists and almost no chances to the secular and revolutionary youth. We will come back to detail these diplomatic and financial maneuvers which are giving victory to the fundamentalists while the seculars and progressives are going to be smashed by the forthcoming regimes.
In the US, there are interests that determine foreign policy. And there are lobbies that put pressure to get their objectives met in foreign policy. One of the most powerful lobbies in America under the Obama Administration is the Muslim Brotherhood greater lobby, which has been in action for many years. This lobby has secured many operatives inside the Administration and has been successful in directing US policy towards the Arab world. Among leading advisors sympathetic to the Ikhwan is Daliah Mogahed (Mujahid) and her associate, Georgetown Professor John Esposito. Just as shocking, there is also a pro-Iranian lobby that has been influencing US policy towards Iran and Hezbollah in the region.
One of the most important activities of the Islamist lobby in the US is the waging of political and media wars on the liberal Arabs and Middle Eastern figures and groups in America. This battlefield is among the most important in influencing Washington’s policies in the Arab world. If you strike at the liberal and democratic Middle Eastern groups in Washington who are trying to gain support for civil societies in the region, you actually win a major battle. You will be able to influence the resources of the US Government to support the Islamists in the Middle East and not the weak democrats. This huge war waged by the Islamist lobbies in America started at the end of the Cold war and continued all the way till the Arab spring. The two main forces of this lobby are the Muslim Brotherhood fronts and the Iranian fronts. According to research available in the US, the Ikhwan fronts such as CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations), led by Hamas supporter Nihad Awad, as well as the Muslim Public Affairs Council, the Islamic Society of North America, and others waged their political war to block the representatives of Arab liberals and Muslim moderates from making their case to the American public. The Iranian lobby, exemplified by the National Iranian American Committee (NIAC), led by Trita Parsi, has been hitting at Iranian exiles.
Since the 1990s CAIR and its allies have attacked Copts, Southern Sudanese, Lebanese, Syrian reformers, Assyrians and Chaldeans, and Muslim dissidents in the United States. The Ikhwan of America demonized any publication, book, article, or interview in the national media or local press raising the issue of secular freedoms in the Middle East. The Islamists wanted to eliminate the liberal cause in the Arab world and replace it with the cause of the Islamists. What is also shocking is that CAIR and its allies stood by the oppressive regimes and visited them, claiming they speak on behalf of the peoples. CAIR and the Brotherhood fronts in America destroyed systematically every project that would have defended the seculars and liberals originating from the Middle East. The notorious and well-funded Islamists of the US allowed no book, documentary, or show on the liberals in Arab civil societies to see the light.
Thanks to this powerful lobbying campaign, the American public was not given a chance to learn about the deep feelings on the youth in the region. Americans were led to believe that all Muslims, all Arabs and all Middle Easterners were a strange species of humans who cannot appreciate freedom. Instead, the American Islamists, helped by apologists on the petrodollars payrolls, convinced the mainstream media that the Arab world has authoritarians and Islamists only.
Dr Shawki Karas, president of the American Coptic Association, told me in the late 1990s how he was harassed by Islamist activists for speaking up against the Mubarak regime and the Muslim Brotherhood in America. He was threatened with losing his job at the college where he taught. Reverend Keith Roderick, who has assembled a coalition of more than 50 group rights from the Muslim world, was severely attacked by the Islamists and was threatened to be removed from his church position. Muslim American leaders who are conservative and secular, such as Dr Zuhdi Jasser, were crucified by CAIR and the Brotherhood for daring to challenge the Party line of the Isl.amists in America and claiming that the Jihadists are the problem in the region. Muslim liberal dissidents such as Somali Ayan Hirsi Ali, Saudi Ali al Yammi, Syrian Farid Ghadri, Iranian Manda Ervin, and many others were trashed by the Islamist lobbies to block them from defending the causes of secular liberty in the US. Egyptian liberals as well as seculars and democracy activists from Iraq, Sudan, Syria, and other countries have been attacked by CAIR and allies. The pro-Iranian lobby targeted most Iranian-American groups and tried to discredit them, particularly with the rise of the Green Revolution in Iran. By smearing the Muslim liberal exiles, the Islamists were trying to destroy their causes in the mother countries. In the 1990s and the years that followed 9/11 the region’s dictators supported the efforts by Islamist lobbies to crush the liberal exiles. The Mubarak, Bashir, Gaddafi, Assad, and Khomeinist regimes fully supported the so-called Islamophobia campaign waged by CAIR and its Iranian counterpart NIAC against dissidents for calling for secular democracy in the region. The dissidents were accused of being pro-Western by both the Islamists and the dictators.
The Islamist lobbies also severely attacked members of the US Congress such as Democrats Tom Lantos, who has since passed away, Eliot Engel, Howard Berman, Gary Ackerman, and Joe Lieberman as well as Republicans Frank Wolfe, Chris Smith, Trent Franks, John McCain, Rick Santorum, and Sam Brownback for their efforts in passing legislative acts in support for democracy and liberty in the Middle East. CAIR and NIAC heavily savaged President Bush’s speeches on Freedom Forward in the Middle East, deploying all the resources they had to block US support to liberal democrats in the region. Islamist lobbies in Washington are directly responsible for killing any initiative in the US Government to support Darfur, southern Sudan, Lebanon, the Kurds, liberal women in the Muslim world, and true democrats in the Arab world and Muslim Africa.
In the think tank world, CAIR and its allies aggressively attacked scholars who raised the issue of persecution against seculars or minorities in the Arab world and Iran. Among those attacked were Nina Shea and Paul Marshal from the Hudson Institute and the founder of an anti-slavery group, Dr Charles Jacobs, who was exposing the Sudan regime for its atrocities.
Last but not least is the Islamists’ relentless campaign to stirke at top scholars who advise Government and appear in the media to push for democratic liberation in the region. The vast and vicious attacks leveled against Professor Walid Phares—initially by CAIR’s Nihad Awad and then widened by pro-Hezbollah and Muslim Brotherhood operatives online—has revealed to Arab and Middle Eastern liberal and seculars how ferocious is the battle for the Middle East in the US.
Phares’s books, particularly the latest one, The Coming Revolution: Struggle for Freedom in the Middle East (2010), hit the Islamist agenda hard by predicting the civil society revolts in the Middle East and then predicting how the Islamists would try to control them. Phares was attacked by an army of Jihadist militia online like no author since Samuel Huntington in the 1990s.
As a freedom activist from the Middle East, Mustafa Geha, wrote, Phares is a hero to Muslim liberals. Along with dissidents, lawmakers, experts, and human rights activists, Phares is a force driving for a strategic change in US foreign policy towards supporting secular democracies in the region.
This explains why the Islamists of America are fighting the battle for the forthcoming regimes with all the means they have.
Dr. Essam Abdallah is an Egyptian liberal intellectual who teaches at Ain Shams University and writes for the leading Arab liberal publication Elaph.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)