Ted Belman
"Peace Process" is a vehicle that the world community rides to force Israel to capitulate to Arab demands.In my article Why I hate the “peace process”, I set out in point form what is wrong with it.
Bottom line is that it is a vehicle that the world community rides to force Israel to capitulate to Arab demands. Many people including Jews support the process and even support US pressure on Israel to make more concessions. Without making a further argument in support of my rejection and against their designs, I would like to identify certain facts which inform the reality upon which I base my ideas of the way forward.
1. Before the Oslo Accords, the Arabs living in Judea and Samaria had good relations with Israel. Israel provided schools for them and even universities. As a result, such Arabs, now called “Palestinians” had a better education than their Arab brethren in adjacent countries. Their standard of living was higher also and they weren’t dependent on the world for charity. Jews and Arabs mixed freely for the benefit of all.
2. Oslo changed all this. The US led the way in forcing Israel into a peace process by convening the Madrid Conference in 1991. No doubt it did so at the request of Saudi Arabia. Why, I don’t understand, because the US had just invaded Iraq to protect Saudi Arabia. It owed it nothing. As a result of the process that it started and kept pushing, Arafat and his PLO terrorists, who had been exiled to Tunisia, were invited into Israel to form the Palestinian Authority. This influx of terrorists enabled them totake over from the local Palestinians.
3. The authority given to the PA by the Oslo Accords, lead to an incessant diet of incitement to hate and to terrorist attacks. As a result, the peace process brought war not peace. This war has resulted in about 1700 Israeli deaths which is more than double per capita the number of casualties suffered by the US in the Vietnam War. Furthermore the US kept compounding the problem by its decision to
- arm and train the Palestinians
- restrain Israel in its self defense
- require that Israel not control the border between Gaza and Egypt thereby enabling the transfer of arms, munitions and terrorists from Sinai to Gaza
- insist on Hamas being allowed to contest the elections
- convene the Annapolis Conference which humiliated Israel
4. Hamas continues to arm and train for war and to fire daily rockets at Israel. Israel must deal with the problem sooner or later. It has been estimated that over 100 IDF fatalities would result. The longer it waits, the more the casualties. A Hudna, even if offered on terms acceptable, will only postpone the problem and enable it to become an even bigger problem.
5. The Palestinians and Israelis have been unable to agree on a settlement of the core issues despite 14 years of the peace process. Now both Evelyn Gordon and Yossi Alpher report that the gaps separating the parties are wider than ever. In my opinion they are unbridgeable no matter how much pressure may be applied.
So what’s to be done?
Israel must accept that the peace process is a deadend street, literally.
Judea and Samaria
Israel must abrogate Oslo and the PA. It must then return to the pre-Oslo days. This would involve expelling the terrorists, stopping the incitement, changing the school curriculum to one designed for peace not war, disarming the Palestinians and arranging for local leaders to maintain order. The Palestinians will then be rewarded for cooperation and progress by the lifting of roadblocks and by humanitarian relief as required.
Israel must pass a Constitution that declares Israel to be a Jewish state and ensures human and civil rights for all. The Palestinians should be entitled to citizenship after the elapse of 15 years (to enable their detoxification) providing they speak Hebrew, pledge allegiance and sign a loyalty oath. They should also be given financial incentives to emigrate if they so wish. National service, military or otherwise, should be a prerequisite to certain state benefits.
Israel must extend Israeli law to the Jordan, just as it did in Jerusalem and the Golan.
Israel should investigate whether Jordan is prepared to extend citizenship to the Palestinians as set out in the Elon Plan, but it should not depend on it.
Gaza
Israel should immediately retake the Philidelphi Corridor to prevent smuggling. It should retake the norther five miles of Gaza to prevent rocket attacks on Ashkelon and vicinity. Similarly it should occupy whatever is needed to stop rocket attacks on Sderot. As for Gaza City, I leave that to the military to decide both when and how. It should be a military decision and not a political one.
At some future time say in five years after Israel’s policies have proven themselves in Judea and Samaria, Israel should do the same in Gaza.
The “right of return” should in no way be recognized.
This is the only way to peace. It is the only way forward
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Outright defeatism
Isi Leibler
December 23, 2007
http://www.leibler.com/article/285
Without exception, appeasement, self-deprecation and preemptive concessions to terrorists have inevitably served to embolden them. Israel's experience has demonstrated that our enemies are restrained when they perceive us as being resolute, and conversely they become more violent when they sense that we are losing our resolve Prior to Annapolis, presumably to please the Americans, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert initiated three preemptive concessions. He unilaterally suspended the Quartet-endorsed requirement that the Palestinians curtail terror before negotiating an end of conflict; he dispensed with the need for defensible borders by agreeing to return to the '67 boundaries with minor modifications; and he permitted his deputy to float proposals relating to Jerusalem which included handing over jurisdiction of the Temple Mount to the Palestinians.
Olmert also delegated to the Americans a referee role, arbitrating breaches of undertakings between Israel and the PA, thereby inhibiting Israel's future ability to respond to terrorist onslaughts.
It is fallacious to suggest that because the Palestinians have no intention of reaching any meaningful accommodation, the current concessions are of no consequence. Because, if and when we ultimately do negotiate an end of conflict agreement, what we have now unilaterally offered will represent the starting point of such negotiations. We will be asked: "How much beyond what was offered in Annapolis is Israel willing to offer to achieve genuine peace?"
Having already squandered most of our bargaining chips without getting anything in return, all that is left is the Palestinian Arab "right of return" which would amount to the end of a Jewish state.
This mind numbing appeasement by Israel continues unabated at all levels. Instead of at least remaining silent, Olmert repeatedly recites the politically correct mantra that Mahmoud Abbas is a man of peace, despite his failure to clamp down on his own gunmen or curtail vicious incitement against Israel which continues to dominate all areas under his jurisdiction.
Olmert released hundreds of terrorists despite the realization that Abbas still maintains control of his Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades which murdered more Israelis than Hamas. He also authorized the provision of weapons and armored cars to Palestinian security forces, ignoring the fact that on every previous occasion when arms were provided, they were subsequently employed against Israelis. Indeed, nobody seems too fussed that the killers of Ido Zoltan last month happened to be members of Abbas's police force and employed weapons authorized by the Israeli government.
TO MAKE matters worse the corrupt PA, whose survival is dependent on Israeli protection, announced a willingness to dialogue with Hamas and warned that if Israel took definitive steps to curtail rocket attacks from Gaza, Fatah would join forces with Hamas. In response, our government continued its policy of restraint. Will it take a mass slaughter in Sderot before an offensive against Gaza is launched?
Our policy of appeasement has also led to an erosion of our global standing. That was reflected in Annapolis when President George W. Bush omitted to restate his previous position that demographic facts on the ground (settlement blocs) had to be taken into account. He also made no reference to Israel's need for defensible borders. Indeed, following Annapolis, Condoleezza Rice even criticized Israel for building homes inside Jerusalem's Har Homa neighborhood.
Israel's diplomatic recklessness is also manifested by an ongoing stream of irresponsible off-the-cuff statements by our prime minister.
It started with Olmert's outburst prior to the election, when he told a gathering of the Israel Policy Forum in New York that "we have become tired of fighting, tired of being arrogant, tired of winning, tired of defeating our enemies." That statement will haunt him for the rest of his political career. But since becoming premier, Olmert continues to display a penchant for making faux pas as exemplified by the bombastic speeches he made during the Second Lebanon War and his remarks about Israel's nuclear capabilities.
But at Annapolis, Olmert hit the jackpot when he adopted the Palestinian narrative, publicly stating that "for dozens of years, many Palestinians have been living in camps, disconnected from the environment in which they grew, wallowing in poverty, neglect, alienation, bitterness and a deep, unrelenting sense of deprivation... I know that this pain and this humiliation are the deepest foundations which fomented the hatred against us."
Olmert alluded to an Israeli and Palestinian equivalence of suffering and totally ignored the historical context. He then allowed the joint statement at Annapolis to include the almost obscene remark about "terrorism and incitement whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis" implying that both parties were culpable.
Olmert's desperation to spin how "liberal" he was brought Israel back to the pre-Bush era when rights and wrongs in the Arab-Israel dispute were subsumed by moral equivalency, and when killers and victims were mindlessly jumbled together as components of a cycle of violence.
When our premier makes such statements it paves the way for Rice to make outrageous comparisons between the self-inflicted suffering of Palestinian Arabs and the discrimination and humiliation she experienced from white supremacists under segregation.
In his Annapolis address, Abbas failed to even acknowledge Olmert's groveling remarks. Instead he concentrated on the nakba of Israel's creation, and reiterated that the solution to the suffering of his people would only be achieved by the implementation of the Arab right of return, a code word for the dissolution of the Jewish state. He subsequently stressed that the Palestinians would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
But if that were not enough, our Olmert went one step further, giving the impression that he had truly taken leave of his senses. Taking a cue from Jimmy Carter who had been castigated for his offensive remarks condemning Israel for practicing apartheid, Olmert told the Israeli media that the nation risked being compared to apartheid-era South Africa and "if the two-state solution is shattered... the State of Israel is finished."
What is this if not outright defeatism? Can one visualize a prime minister in any normal nation making such remarks? What is most exasperating is the deafening silence surrounding these concessions and irresponsible outbursts which increasingly undermine confidence in the justice of our cause. Neither the Knesset nor the cabinet have anything to say. Israel Beiteinu and Shas, whose constituents must be appalled, remain glued to their ministerial posts. Equally frustrating is that the leader of the opposition, Binyamin Netanyahu, seems to be sanguinely waiting for the political system to implode. This is not good enough. He should be rallying the nation to raise its voice in an unprecedented challenge against those who are leading us into a tunnel from which it will be very difficult to extricate ourselves.
It is said that a country gets the leaders it deserves. Woe unto us if this be true.
The writer is a former chairman of the governing board of the World Jewish Congress and a veteran international Jewish leader. ileibler@netvision.net.il
December 23, 2007
http://www.leibler.com/article/285
Without exception, appeasement, self-deprecation and preemptive concessions to terrorists have inevitably served to embolden them. Israel's experience has demonstrated that our enemies are restrained when they perceive us as being resolute, and conversely they become more violent when they sense that we are losing our resolve Prior to Annapolis, presumably to please the Americans, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert initiated three preemptive concessions. He unilaterally suspended the Quartet-endorsed requirement that the Palestinians curtail terror before negotiating an end of conflict; he dispensed with the need for defensible borders by agreeing to return to the '67 boundaries with minor modifications; and he permitted his deputy to float proposals relating to Jerusalem which included handing over jurisdiction of the Temple Mount to the Palestinians.
Olmert also delegated to the Americans a referee role, arbitrating breaches of undertakings between Israel and the PA, thereby inhibiting Israel's future ability to respond to terrorist onslaughts.
It is fallacious to suggest that because the Palestinians have no intention of reaching any meaningful accommodation, the current concessions are of no consequence. Because, if and when we ultimately do negotiate an end of conflict agreement, what we have now unilaterally offered will represent the starting point of such negotiations. We will be asked: "How much beyond what was offered in Annapolis is Israel willing to offer to achieve genuine peace?"
Having already squandered most of our bargaining chips without getting anything in return, all that is left is the Palestinian Arab "right of return" which would amount to the end of a Jewish state.
This mind numbing appeasement by Israel continues unabated at all levels. Instead of at least remaining silent, Olmert repeatedly recites the politically correct mantra that Mahmoud Abbas is a man of peace, despite his failure to clamp down on his own gunmen or curtail vicious incitement against Israel which continues to dominate all areas under his jurisdiction.
Olmert released hundreds of terrorists despite the realization that Abbas still maintains control of his Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigades which murdered more Israelis than Hamas. He also authorized the provision of weapons and armored cars to Palestinian security forces, ignoring the fact that on every previous occasion when arms were provided, they were subsequently employed against Israelis. Indeed, nobody seems too fussed that the killers of Ido Zoltan last month happened to be members of Abbas's police force and employed weapons authorized by the Israeli government.
TO MAKE matters worse the corrupt PA, whose survival is dependent on Israeli protection, announced a willingness to dialogue with Hamas and warned that if Israel took definitive steps to curtail rocket attacks from Gaza, Fatah would join forces with Hamas. In response, our government continued its policy of restraint. Will it take a mass slaughter in Sderot before an offensive against Gaza is launched?
Our policy of appeasement has also led to an erosion of our global standing. That was reflected in Annapolis when President George W. Bush omitted to restate his previous position that demographic facts on the ground (settlement blocs) had to be taken into account. He also made no reference to Israel's need for defensible borders. Indeed, following Annapolis, Condoleezza Rice even criticized Israel for building homes inside Jerusalem's Har Homa neighborhood.
Israel's diplomatic recklessness is also manifested by an ongoing stream of irresponsible off-the-cuff statements by our prime minister.
It started with Olmert's outburst prior to the election, when he told a gathering of the Israel Policy Forum in New York that "we have become tired of fighting, tired of being arrogant, tired of winning, tired of defeating our enemies." That statement will haunt him for the rest of his political career. But since becoming premier, Olmert continues to display a penchant for making faux pas as exemplified by the bombastic speeches he made during the Second Lebanon War and his remarks about Israel's nuclear capabilities.
But at Annapolis, Olmert hit the jackpot when he adopted the Palestinian narrative, publicly stating that "for dozens of years, many Palestinians have been living in camps, disconnected from the environment in which they grew, wallowing in poverty, neglect, alienation, bitterness and a deep, unrelenting sense of deprivation... I know that this pain and this humiliation are the deepest foundations which fomented the hatred against us."
Olmert alluded to an Israeli and Palestinian equivalence of suffering and totally ignored the historical context. He then allowed the joint statement at Annapolis to include the almost obscene remark about "terrorism and incitement whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis" implying that both parties were culpable.
Olmert's desperation to spin how "liberal" he was brought Israel back to the pre-Bush era when rights and wrongs in the Arab-Israel dispute were subsumed by moral equivalency, and when killers and victims were mindlessly jumbled together as components of a cycle of violence.
When our premier makes such statements it paves the way for Rice to make outrageous comparisons between the self-inflicted suffering of Palestinian Arabs and the discrimination and humiliation she experienced from white supremacists under segregation.
In his Annapolis address, Abbas failed to even acknowledge Olmert's groveling remarks. Instead he concentrated on the nakba of Israel's creation, and reiterated that the solution to the suffering of his people would only be achieved by the implementation of the Arab right of return, a code word for the dissolution of the Jewish state. He subsequently stressed that the Palestinians would never recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
But if that were not enough, our Olmert went one step further, giving the impression that he had truly taken leave of his senses. Taking a cue from Jimmy Carter who had been castigated for his offensive remarks condemning Israel for practicing apartheid, Olmert told the Israeli media that the nation risked being compared to apartheid-era South Africa and "if the two-state solution is shattered... the State of Israel is finished."
What is this if not outright defeatism? Can one visualize a prime minister in any normal nation making such remarks? What is most exasperating is the deafening silence surrounding these concessions and irresponsible outbursts which increasingly undermine confidence in the justice of our cause. Neither the Knesset nor the cabinet have anything to say. Israel Beiteinu and Shas, whose constituents must be appalled, remain glued to their ministerial posts. Equally frustrating is that the leader of the opposition, Binyamin Netanyahu, seems to be sanguinely waiting for the political system to implode. This is not good enough. He should be rallying the nation to raise its voice in an unprecedented challenge against those who are leading us into a tunnel from which it will be very difficult to extricate ourselves.
It is said that a country gets the leaders it deserves. Woe unto us if this be true.
The writer is a former chairman of the governing board of the World Jewish Congress and a veteran international Jewish leader. ileibler@netvision.net.il
Official Behind Open-Door-For-Saudis To Resign
Joel Mowbray
Defying the axiom that no bungling bureaucrat goes unrewarded, the woman ultimately responsible for the backlog of 2 million passports this year — and who then withheld the truth from Congress — was passed over for a major promotion, and consequently will resign her post early next year. While the millions whose honeymoons, vacations and business plans were ruined will be pleased that someone has been held responsible, it is U.S. border security that could be the biggest beneficiary of consular chief Maura Harty stepping down.
As head of consular affairs at the State Department, Harty oversaw passports, administration of embassies and consulates, and, most important, visas. It was in visa policy where she continued the path blazed by her predecessor, Mary Ryan, who had made it easier than ever in countries around the world for foreigners to receive visas — often in contravention of the law.
Though visa policy receives little congressional scrutiny, it is a critical component of border security. All 19 of the September 11 terrorists came here on valid temporary visas — despite the fact that at least 15 of the terrorists did not qualify for one under the law.
The terrorists didn't acquire visas through skill or fraud; they simply took advantage of a system rigged to approve almost every Saudi national who wished to come to the United States — a practice that plainly violated the law.
Congress years ago required that all applicants be presumed ineligible until they prove their own eligibility — an intentionally high bar to clear. It was intended to discourage illegal immigration from people who overstay their visas by requiring that applicants show ties to their home country, meaning reasons to return home. But those qualifications also serve to screen out the people most likely to be terrorist operatives: young, single, unattached males.
This provision, however, was turned on its head by Ryan, then by Harty.
Despite being a controversial nominee, Harty was confirmed in 2002 after she pledged to the Senate that she would protect Americans from future terrorists by vigorously enforcing the laws relating to visas. She didn’t.
Rather than tighten visa procedures, Harty oversaw a relaxing of the rules in countries such as Egypt and Pakistan. Even in the country that produced 15 of the September 11 terrorists — Saudi Arabia — approval rates for visa applicants remained stunningly high.
Her "punishment" for refusing to enforce the law was a promotion. She was elevated this May, on a semi-acting basis, to under secretary for management — or just one level removed from the secretary of State. She probably would have gotten the permanent appointment, but she was still needed to tend to the passport crisis.
Well-regarded for her managerial acumen, Harty's clumsy handling of the passport mess was surprising. As reported by this columnist in June, Harty ignored the private consulting study that correctly predicted the surge of applications that would come with the new regulation requiring passports for all Western Hemisphere air travel. But once her lower estimates were proven wrong, Harty made matters worse by failing to act even after the backlog had ballooned over several months.
This would lead to Harty's downfall. While her efforts to systematically increase visa approval rates in countries with large populations of radical Islamists had gone largely unnoticed by Congress, the three-month wait for passports earlier this year became a top priority for every congressman and senator.
Feigning contrition at a congressional hearing, Harty nonetheless blamed private consulting firm BearingPoint for underestimating the number of applications to expect. But as reported by this columnist, it was her office that shifted the forecast downward by nearly 2 million, which is what caused the backlog.
Needless to say, misleading the same senators she would need to confirm her for any promotion was not a smart career move. This, along with conservative pressure exerted on the White House, slowed the permanent appointment to under secretary of management that had seemed imminent only months earlier. The White House eventually changed course, nominating Foreign Service Career Minister Patrick Kennedy. The Senate quickly confirmed him.
With Harty poised to retire by the end of February, the White House needs to avoid the mistake it made five years ago. Without conducting a meaningful search to fill one of the top border security positions in the entire U.S. government, the White House simply accepted the State Department's recommendation of Harty to replace the fired Mary Ryan.
Had President Bush's advisers conducted even a cursory review, they would have learned that Harty was a protégé and clone of Ryan, who almost certainly would not undo the very policies the September 11 terrorists exploited to enter the United States.
If the White House follows the same trajectory this time in naming a Harty loyalist to head consular affairs, then Saudi nationals trying to get into the U.S. can continue to expect the royal treatment. The only way to strengthen border security, in short, is to hire from outside, either a security-minded member of the Foreign Service or a genuine political appointee.
Let's hope the White House has learned its lesson and appoints someone whose top priority is to follow the law and keep us safe.
Joel Mowbray, who got his start with Townhall.com, is an award-winning investigative journalist, nationally-syndicated columnist and author of Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens America's Security.
Defying the axiom that no bungling bureaucrat goes unrewarded, the woman ultimately responsible for the backlog of 2 million passports this year — and who then withheld the truth from Congress — was passed over for a major promotion, and consequently will resign her post early next year. While the millions whose honeymoons, vacations and business plans were ruined will be pleased that someone has been held responsible, it is U.S. border security that could be the biggest beneficiary of consular chief Maura Harty stepping down.
As head of consular affairs at the State Department, Harty oversaw passports, administration of embassies and consulates, and, most important, visas. It was in visa policy where she continued the path blazed by her predecessor, Mary Ryan, who had made it easier than ever in countries around the world for foreigners to receive visas — often in contravention of the law.
Though visa policy receives little congressional scrutiny, it is a critical component of border security. All 19 of the September 11 terrorists came here on valid temporary visas — despite the fact that at least 15 of the terrorists did not qualify for one under the law.
The terrorists didn't acquire visas through skill or fraud; they simply took advantage of a system rigged to approve almost every Saudi national who wished to come to the United States — a practice that plainly violated the law.
Congress years ago required that all applicants be presumed ineligible until they prove their own eligibility — an intentionally high bar to clear. It was intended to discourage illegal immigration from people who overstay their visas by requiring that applicants show ties to their home country, meaning reasons to return home. But those qualifications also serve to screen out the people most likely to be terrorist operatives: young, single, unattached males.
This provision, however, was turned on its head by Ryan, then by Harty.
Despite being a controversial nominee, Harty was confirmed in 2002 after she pledged to the Senate that she would protect Americans from future terrorists by vigorously enforcing the laws relating to visas. She didn’t.
Rather than tighten visa procedures, Harty oversaw a relaxing of the rules in countries such as Egypt and Pakistan. Even in the country that produced 15 of the September 11 terrorists — Saudi Arabia — approval rates for visa applicants remained stunningly high.
Her "punishment" for refusing to enforce the law was a promotion. She was elevated this May, on a semi-acting basis, to under secretary for management — or just one level removed from the secretary of State. She probably would have gotten the permanent appointment, but she was still needed to tend to the passport crisis.
Well-regarded for her managerial acumen, Harty's clumsy handling of the passport mess was surprising. As reported by this columnist in June, Harty ignored the private consulting study that correctly predicted the surge of applications that would come with the new regulation requiring passports for all Western Hemisphere air travel. But once her lower estimates were proven wrong, Harty made matters worse by failing to act even after the backlog had ballooned over several months.
This would lead to Harty's downfall. While her efforts to systematically increase visa approval rates in countries with large populations of radical Islamists had gone largely unnoticed by Congress, the three-month wait for passports earlier this year became a top priority for every congressman and senator.
Feigning contrition at a congressional hearing, Harty nonetheless blamed private consulting firm BearingPoint for underestimating the number of applications to expect. But as reported by this columnist, it was her office that shifted the forecast downward by nearly 2 million, which is what caused the backlog.
Needless to say, misleading the same senators she would need to confirm her for any promotion was not a smart career move. This, along with conservative pressure exerted on the White House, slowed the permanent appointment to under secretary of management that had seemed imminent only months earlier. The White House eventually changed course, nominating Foreign Service Career Minister Patrick Kennedy. The Senate quickly confirmed him.
With Harty poised to retire by the end of February, the White House needs to avoid the mistake it made five years ago. Without conducting a meaningful search to fill one of the top border security positions in the entire U.S. government, the White House simply accepted the State Department's recommendation of Harty to replace the fired Mary Ryan.
Had President Bush's advisers conducted even a cursory review, they would have learned that Harty was a protégé and clone of Ryan, who almost certainly would not undo the very policies the September 11 terrorists exploited to enter the United States.
If the White House follows the same trajectory this time in naming a Harty loyalist to head consular affairs, then Saudi nationals trying to get into the U.S. can continue to expect the royal treatment. The only way to strengthen border security, in short, is to hire from outside, either a security-minded member of the Foreign Service or a genuine political appointee.
Let's hope the White House has learned its lesson and appoints someone whose top priority is to follow the law and keep us safe.
Joel Mowbray, who got his start with Townhall.com, is an award-winning investigative journalist, nationally-syndicated columnist and author of Dangerous Diplomacy: How the State Department Threatens America's Security.
Does the Prospective Purchase of British Gas from Gaza's Coastal Waters
Lt. Gen. (ret.) Moshe Yaalon
* British Gas is supposed to be the crown jewel of the Palestinian economy, and provide part of the solution to Israel's pressing energy needs. * . The British energy giant, now called the "BG Group," and its local partners - the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas and the private, Palestinian-owned Consolidated Contractors Company (CCC) - are currently involved in advanced negotiations to sell to Israel massive amounts of natural gas - reserves of nearly 1.4 trillion cubic feet - that BG first discovered in 2000 off the Gaza coast. The market value of the gas has been estimated at $4 billion. Therefore, sale of the gas to Israel would mean a billion-dollar windfall for the PA and, potentially, for the Palestinian people.
* Unfortunately, British assessments, including those of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, that Gaza gas can be a key driver of an economically more viable Palestinian state, are misguided. Proceeds of a Palestinian gas sale to Israel would likely not trickle down to help an impoverished Palestinian public. Rather, based on Israel's past experience, the proceeds will likely serve to fund further terror attacks against Israel. No less threatening is the fact that terror organizations associated with the global Jihad, like al-Qaeda, will be highly motivated to attack any British Gas installation off Gaza's shores that provided fuel to Israel.
* For Israel, the need for BG's gas may have already taken a toll. It is possible that the prospect of an Israeli gas purchase may have played a role in influencing the Olmert cabinet to avoid ordering a major IDF ground operation in Gaza, despite at least 1,000 rocket and mortar attacks against southern Israel since the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June 2007.
* Clearly, Israel needs additional natural gas sources, while the Palestinian people sorely need new sources of revenue. However, with Gaza currently a radical Islamic stronghold, and the West Bank in danger of becoming the next one, Israel's funneling a billion dollars into local or international bank accounts on behalf of the Palestinian Authority would be tantamount to Israel's bankrolling terror against itself. Therefore, an urgent review is required of the far-reaching security implications of an Israeli decision to purchase Gaza gas.
Selling British Gas to Israel: A Key British Foreign Policy Goal Since 2000
The British government seems to have pinned much of its Middle East policy on the successful outcome of British Gas negotiations with Israel. A September 18, 2007, report in the Arabic al-Quds newspaper noted that the British government views Gaza's natural gas reserves as central to 10 Downing Street's "economic road map" for the Middle East region."1 Tony Blair's position, first as prime minister and now as the very active Quartet Envoy for Palestinian Economic Development, has been that the Palestinian Authority's share of the gas sale proceeds, which could reach well over a billion dollars, could serve as the economic fuel to jump-start the Palestinian economy and advance the peace process.
The Blair government's admirable goal of helping the Palestinian economy wean itself from about a billion dollars a year in international handouts may have driven BG in November 1999 to make former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and his tightly-controlled Palestinian Authority a local partner in the gas project, together with the Athens-based Palestinian concern, the Consolidated Contractors Company (CCC). Arafat clearly understood the financial potential of a billion dollars in royalties. Soon after the gas discovery, BG and its local Palestinian licensees approached the State of Israel to buy the gas. Then Prime Minister Tony Blair personally urged former Prime Ministers Barak and Sharon to finalize a deal.
Despite Blair's enthusiasm for the deal, Mossad Chief Meir Dagan opposed the transaction on security grounds, that the proceeds would fund terror.2 Israeli fears were justified. Arafat and Fatah leaders stole billions from the public till to finance terror against Israel, as documents recovered by the Israel Defense Forces from Arafat's compound revealed.3 Israel also faced virtually non-stop Palestinian terror attacks from 2000 to 2005, resulting in more than 1,000 Israelis killed.4
There had been no comprehensive interagency security assessment between 2002 and 2005 regarding a potential BG deal with Israel. However, Dagan's opposition to it (as noted by Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan in a 2006 speech to the Knesset Plenum) was also shared by former Prime Minister Sharon. Today, Prime Minister Olmert has revived the relationship with BG and has exerted much energy to reach a definitive agreement for the purchase of the offshore natural gas.
Today's Prohibitive Strategic Security Environment
Since Sharon's opposition to the BG deal, and its subsequent collapse in 2005, strategic security threats to Israel have worsened considerably. Iran has fully penetrated Palestinian areas, particularly Gaza, from which its proxies Hamas and Islamic Jihad have fired some 2,000 rockets at Israel since its 2005 withdrawal. Iran is today the major funder, trainer and provider of advanced weaponry to its various Shiite and Sunni proxies including Hizbullah in southern Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and the Fatah-associated Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades in the West Bank. Iran funneled more than $250 million to Hamas in 2006 alone. Other Sunni Jihadi groups associated with al-Qaeda and the global Jihad also operate in Gaza.
Iran is also interested in controlling energy assets in the region and would likely target off-shore gas reserves either as a "carrot" to induce Hamas cooperation or as a "stick" against Hamas in the event of diverging interests with Teheran.
Hamas' "Partnership" in the BG Transaction
British officials have expressed confidence that the gas proceeds can bypass Hamas and benefit the Palestinian public by being deposited and monitored in international bank accounts.5 Israel has also proposed paying for the gas in goods and services.6 However, these assessments are mistaken. A gas transaction with the Palestinian Authority will, by definition, involve Hamas. Hamas will either benefit from the royalties or it will sabotage the project and launch attacks against Fatah, the gas installations, Israel - or all three.
Soon after Hamas' takeover of Gaza in June 2007, Hamas' economic minister in the PA government, Ziad Zaza, blasted BG as "an embarrassment to the Palestinian people," while labeling the transaction an "act of theft" against Palestinian lands.7 However, Hamas soon reversed its position and now insists on renegotiating the agreed percentages in the deal to reflect its participation.8 Dr. Mohammed Mustafa, head of the PA's Palestinian Investment Fund, a local BG partner, has indicated on more than one occasion that at least 10 percent of the gas proceeds will be directed to Gaza and that arrangements could be made to satisfy "the organizations" - meaning Hamas - in negotiations.9 This means, in simple terms, that the current terms of the deal are still unsatisfactory to Hamas, although it stands to receive a minimum direct payout of $100 million, while the PA's Fatah leadership will likely pocket close to $900 million.
Hamas, in anticipation of its participation in BG negotiations, has confirmed its capability to bomb Israel's strategic gas and electricity installations in Ashkelon.10 This type of threat is a pressure tactic against Israel that will most likely increase if the BG deal moves closer to completion. It is clear that without an overall military operation to uproot Hamas control of Gaza, no drilling work can take place without the consent of the radical Islamic movement.
Israel's Past Experience: Money Flowing into PA Also Funds Fatah Terror Groups
Israel's experience during the Oslo years indicates Palestinian gas profits would likely end up funding terrorism against Israel. The threat is not limited to Hamas. Since the establishment of the PA in 1993, monies that flowed into the Palestinian Authority from international donations, tax revenues, or profits from business with Israelis and other international investors - such as the Jericho Casino and other transactions - have ended up funding terror groups such as the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah Tanzim, and others. Simply put, once the funds reached the PA in the past, they could not be controlled by any outside authority.
For example, in the Oslo era, it has already been disclosed that monies that flowed through the PA's PCSC - a division of the PA's Palestinian Investment Fund (PIF), one of the partners in the current British Gas negotiations - ended up funding terror actions against Israel by the Fatah-associated Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades.11 Another good example is the money raised by Hamas charities in the United States that U.S. government prosecutors now charge is funding Hamas terror activities in Gaza.12 True, part of these monies raised by charity ended up funding the Hamas' "Dawa" social programs in Gaza. However, a good portion of these financial resources also ended up funding terror against Israel. While senior British officials have continued to call Hamas "a problem that can be solved," their confidence is misplaced if they believe that they can find international financial mechanisms to bypass Hamas and other terror groups. Simply put, Israel's longstanding experience shows empirically that it is impossible to prevent at least some of the gas proceeds from reaching Palestinian terror groups.
BG Gas Deal Frees Hamas from Isolation
BG's negotiations with Israel, that have the full backing of the British government, have already helped unshackle Hamas from political and diplomatic isolation. While British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's official position is that Britain will not talk to Hamas as long as its goal is to destroy Israel, a number of prominent voices in Britain including the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee are calling for reengaging with "moderate" Hamas elements.13
Former MI6 official Alistair Crooke, who was also a former advisor to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, has "opened up unofficial channels of communications between Hamas and Western governments."14 Quartet envoy Tony Blair has also advocated speaking to Hamas to replicate the Northern Ireland model.15 Crooke's formal plan, entitled "Politicizing Hamas," was backed by Blair during his tenure as prime minister. Crooke's ideas today are clearly illustrated in the recent Labor conference speech by Foreign Minister David Miliband, who praised Hamas for the release of BBC journalist Alan Johnston and called for "listening" to Islamists.16 Senior Hamas official Ahmad Yusuf has indicated that many behind-the-scenes meetings between Hamas and European officials have been keys to a Hamas reengagement in the diplomatic process.17
Furthermore, current British Gas negotiations have already helped fuel Fatah and Hamas discussions of a possible reengagement. Hamas' Yusuf has also indicated that despite U.S. and Israeli isolation of Hamas, Fatah and Hamas have been conducting back-channel negotiations to resolve their differences and reenergize a national unity government.18 Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayad has also continued to pay the salaries of the Hamas Executive Force in Gaza.
A Prospective Gaza Off-Shore Gas Installation: A Magnet for Global Jihad
The Israeli government reportedly intends to deploy IDF naval combat vessels to protect a future British-Palestinian gas installation about 800 feet below sea level. According to this strategy, the BG installation would be guarded against above sea terror attacks while diver terrorists would not be able to execute attacks so far below sea level.19
However, even with IDF protection, the sea-based British gas installation will be a very attractive target for both local and international terror groups. Al-Qaeda's deadly "rubber dingy" attack in 2000 against the USS Cole is just one illustration. Hamas has announced the formation of a 150-man light naval force that will be deployed to protect "Palestinian interests" in Gaza's territorial waters.20 Hamas has also smuggled high-quality weaponry into Gaza via underground tunnels from Egyptian Sinai, including medium-range Katyusha rockets, much of it supplied and financed by Iran. Some of the weaponry captured on the Karine A weapons ship in 2002 by the IDF included 22-km.-range Katyusha rockets and amphibious equipment that could be effective in attacks against an off-shore gas installation. Moreover, the tens of tons of heavy weaponry that have been smuggled into Gaza since 2006 alone via the Rafah tunnels include Katyusha rockets.
Al-Qaeda would also clearly be interested in sabotaging gas flow to Israel. Global Jihad groups, particularly al-Qaeda, would also be interested in attacking British targets, as was illustrated in the London attacks of July 7, 2005, and the ongoing al-Qaeda operations against British forces in Iraq. Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, and other local terror groups will be highly motivated to attack BG gas drilling installations, particularly to sabotage a multi-billion dollar deal that excludes them.
BG and Israeli Security Decisions Regarding Gaza
Israel must consider whether it can afford to be dependant on the Palestinians for such a critical energy asset as natural gas. If Israel becomes the Palestinians' main gas customer in a multi-year agreement, the PA or Palestinian terror groups could use the continued supply of gas as a lever to pressure Israel to make additional concessions and "gestures" as part of political negotiations. More significantly, the Palestinians could threaten to cut off the natural gas supply to Israel to prevent the IDF from responding to terror attacks and other threats emanating from Gaza or the West Bank.
It is possible that the prospect of a major natural gas transaction with the Palestinians has been a factor in the Israeli cabinet's refusal to launch a Defensive Shield II operation in Gaza. This concern is a result of the high price Israel has already paid for its relatively muted responses to Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza. The September 11, 2007, rocket attack by the Iranian-commanded and financed Palestinian Islamic Jihad, that wounded 61 IDF soldiers asleep in their Negev base, is a recent example. Despite hundreds of rockets and mortars, and various terrorist infiltration attempts against Israel from Gaza, there still has been no comprehensive military response by Israel.21
Have British Gas Negotiations Prejudiced Israel from Exploring Other Supply Options?
Another national security issue that must be considered is whether Israel's preference to advance the British Gas purchase has prevented or delayed government consideration of other natural gas options. For example, BG's original license was for drilling and exploration of natural gas off of Haifa Bay with the Israeli-owned drilling company Yam Thetis. While the license was granted in 1998, the nearly single focus on pursuing the Gaza gas option resulted in major delays in exploration and drilling off the coast of Haifa. It is possible that Yam Thetis will eventually be able to provide sufficient amounts of natural gas found in Israel's coastal waters, thus obviating the need to take unnecessary risks at this juncture in the Palestinian transaction. In fact, Yam Thetis is currently arguing this case in a petition to Israel's Supreme Court.
Conduct a Thorough Security Assessment Before Approving the British Gas Deal
The multiple dangers lurking behind Israel's potential natural gas purchase from BG have not deterred another attempt at finalizing a deal, due in large part to the redoubled efforts of Quartet envoy Tony Blair. The latest indications are that the BG Group, with the full backing of the British government, intends to finalize a multi-year agreement with Israel before the end of 2007.22
The dangers inherent in Israel's potential purchase of British Gas from the marine reserves off Gaza require an immediate, comprehensive, interagency security assessment by the IDF, Israeli Security Agency, Mossad, and other organs. This type of interagency assessment did not take place when I was IDF Chief of Staff from 2002 to 2005. Since then, to the best of my understanding, no comprehensive security assessment has occurred, despite the intention of the parties to sign an agreement in the coming weeks.
Regional and local security conditions have worsened since 2005, and Israel must be prepared to face a possible two-front war against Hamas in Gaza, and Syria and Hizbullah in the north. Therefore, Israel will pay a painful price in its security if the British Gas transaction were to take place in the foreseeable future.
Israel needs additional sources of energy, including natural gas, and the Palestinians clearly need to create a peaceful civil society and a self-sustaining economy. However, with Gaza currently a radical Islamic stronghold, and the West Bank in danger of becoming the next one, Israel's funneling a billion dollars into local or international bank accounts on behalf of the Palestinian Authority would be tantamount to Israel's bankrolling terror against itself. Therefore, an urgent review is required of the far-reaching security implications of an Israeli decision to purchase Gaza gas by the State Comptroller's office or another external review panel.
* * *
Notes
1. "The Economic Road Map for the Middle East," Al Quds, September 18, 2007.
2. Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan, Address to the Knesset on "The Intention of Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Purchase Gas from the Palestinians When Payment Will Serve Hamas," March 1, 2006.
3. Dan Diker and Khaled Abu Toameh, "What Happened to Reform of the Palestinian Authority?" Jerusalem Issue Brief, vol. 3, no. 20, March 3, 2004, http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief3-20.htm. See also Lesley Stahl, "Arafat's Billions," CBSNews.com, November 9, 2003.
4. Between 2000 and 2005, 26,159 terrorist attacks were carried out against Israeli targets, leaving 1,060 Israelis dead and 6,089 wounded, http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/eng_n/pro_13_10_e .htm.
5. Mathew Krieger, "British Gas, Israel to Freeze Hamas Out of $4B Gas Deal," Jerusalem Post, July 5, 2007. Senior British diplomats also indicated in July 2007 that gas proceeds would be placed in international bank accounts.
6. Uri Yablonka, "Israel Close to BG Deal," Ha'aretz, July 2007.
7. Sonia Verma and Steve Hawkes, "Hamas Says BG Plan to Pump Gas to Israel an Act of Theft," Times (UK), May 24, 2007.
8. Interview in Arabic with Hamas official Mahmoud Al Zahar by a senior foreign journalist based in Israel, July 2007.
9. Pazit Ravina, "One Hundred Million Dollars for the Hamas Command," Makor Rishon, August, 18, 2007 (Hebrew).
10. Wa'ri Suleiman, "Was Gaza Gas One Reason for the Coup?" AMIN website, June 23, 2007, http://www.amin.org/look/amin/press.htm. Wa'ri claimed that Hamas timed the coup in Gaza according to the reports of progress in negotiations on the BG deal in order to be party to it. He also noted that if Hamas' participation was rejected, Hamas would launch a "rocket intifada" covering all the areas in reach around Gaza.
11. Uzrad Lev, In the Pocket of the Chairman (Tel Aviv, 2005), pp. 162-63, 239 (Hebrew).
12. Associated Press, "HLF Found Guilty of Funding Hamas," Jerusalem Post, September 18, 2007.
13. Melanie Phillips, "Engaged to Hamas," Jerusalem Post, September 15, 2007.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. David Stringer , "UK's Diplomacy Chief Vows New Approach," Associated Press, September 25, 2007, http://www.savvy.com/news/general,102/uk-s-diplomacy-chief-vows-new-approach,182175.html.
17. Ahmad Yusuf, "Hamas Is the Key," Ha'aertz, September 21, 2007.
18. "Ahmad Yusuf Reveals: Secret Draft Negotiations between Hamas and Fatah," Maan Palestinian News Agency September 20, 2007 (Arabic), and Khaled Abu Toameh, "Hamas Ready to Settle Tough Issues," Jerusalem Post, September 21, 2007.
19. Yablonka "Israel Close to BG Deal."
20. Ali Waked, "Hamas Establishes Naval Force," Ynet News, August 9, 2007 (Hebrew).
21. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/zikim_e0907.htm.
22. Yablonka, "Israel Close to BG Deal."
* * *
Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Moshe Yaalon is a distinguished fellow at the Shalem Center's Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies. Capping a distinguished career as an officer in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), he served as Chief of Staff from 2002 to 2005, during which time he led the army's successful effort to quell the Palestinian terror war launched in September 2000.
* British Gas is supposed to be the crown jewel of the Palestinian economy, and provide part of the solution to Israel's pressing energy needs. * . The British energy giant, now called the "BG Group," and its local partners - the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas and the private, Palestinian-owned Consolidated Contractors Company (CCC) - are currently involved in advanced negotiations to sell to Israel massive amounts of natural gas - reserves of nearly 1.4 trillion cubic feet - that BG first discovered in 2000 off the Gaza coast. The market value of the gas has been estimated at $4 billion. Therefore, sale of the gas to Israel would mean a billion-dollar windfall for the PA and, potentially, for the Palestinian people.
* Unfortunately, British assessments, including those of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, that Gaza gas can be a key driver of an economically more viable Palestinian state, are misguided. Proceeds of a Palestinian gas sale to Israel would likely not trickle down to help an impoverished Palestinian public. Rather, based on Israel's past experience, the proceeds will likely serve to fund further terror attacks against Israel. No less threatening is the fact that terror organizations associated with the global Jihad, like al-Qaeda, will be highly motivated to attack any British Gas installation off Gaza's shores that provided fuel to Israel.
* For Israel, the need for BG's gas may have already taken a toll. It is possible that the prospect of an Israeli gas purchase may have played a role in influencing the Olmert cabinet to avoid ordering a major IDF ground operation in Gaza, despite at least 1,000 rocket and mortar attacks against southern Israel since the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June 2007.
* Clearly, Israel needs additional natural gas sources, while the Palestinian people sorely need new sources of revenue. However, with Gaza currently a radical Islamic stronghold, and the West Bank in danger of becoming the next one, Israel's funneling a billion dollars into local or international bank accounts on behalf of the Palestinian Authority would be tantamount to Israel's bankrolling terror against itself. Therefore, an urgent review is required of the far-reaching security implications of an Israeli decision to purchase Gaza gas.
Selling British Gas to Israel: A Key British Foreign Policy Goal Since 2000
The British government seems to have pinned much of its Middle East policy on the successful outcome of British Gas negotiations with Israel. A September 18, 2007, report in the Arabic al-Quds newspaper noted that the British government views Gaza's natural gas reserves as central to 10 Downing Street's "economic road map" for the Middle East region."1 Tony Blair's position, first as prime minister and now as the very active Quartet Envoy for Palestinian Economic Development, has been that the Palestinian Authority's share of the gas sale proceeds, which could reach well over a billion dollars, could serve as the economic fuel to jump-start the Palestinian economy and advance the peace process.
The Blair government's admirable goal of helping the Palestinian economy wean itself from about a billion dollars a year in international handouts may have driven BG in November 1999 to make former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and his tightly-controlled Palestinian Authority a local partner in the gas project, together with the Athens-based Palestinian concern, the Consolidated Contractors Company (CCC). Arafat clearly understood the financial potential of a billion dollars in royalties. Soon after the gas discovery, BG and its local Palestinian licensees approached the State of Israel to buy the gas. Then Prime Minister Tony Blair personally urged former Prime Ministers Barak and Sharon to finalize a deal.
Despite Blair's enthusiasm for the deal, Mossad Chief Meir Dagan opposed the transaction on security grounds, that the proceeds would fund terror.2 Israeli fears were justified. Arafat and Fatah leaders stole billions from the public till to finance terror against Israel, as documents recovered by the Israel Defense Forces from Arafat's compound revealed.3 Israel also faced virtually non-stop Palestinian terror attacks from 2000 to 2005, resulting in more than 1,000 Israelis killed.4
There had been no comprehensive interagency security assessment between 2002 and 2005 regarding a potential BG deal with Israel. However, Dagan's opposition to it (as noted by Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan in a 2006 speech to the Knesset Plenum) was also shared by former Prime Minister Sharon. Today, Prime Minister Olmert has revived the relationship with BG and has exerted much energy to reach a definitive agreement for the purchase of the offshore natural gas.
Today's Prohibitive Strategic Security Environment
Since Sharon's opposition to the BG deal, and its subsequent collapse in 2005, strategic security threats to Israel have worsened considerably. Iran has fully penetrated Palestinian areas, particularly Gaza, from which its proxies Hamas and Islamic Jihad have fired some 2,000 rockets at Israel since its 2005 withdrawal. Iran is today the major funder, trainer and provider of advanced weaponry to its various Shiite and Sunni proxies including Hizbullah in southern Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, and the Fatah-associated Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades in the West Bank. Iran funneled more than $250 million to Hamas in 2006 alone. Other Sunni Jihadi groups associated with al-Qaeda and the global Jihad also operate in Gaza.
Iran is also interested in controlling energy assets in the region and would likely target off-shore gas reserves either as a "carrot" to induce Hamas cooperation or as a "stick" against Hamas in the event of diverging interests with Teheran.
Hamas' "Partnership" in the BG Transaction
British officials have expressed confidence that the gas proceeds can bypass Hamas and benefit the Palestinian public by being deposited and monitored in international bank accounts.5 Israel has also proposed paying for the gas in goods and services.6 However, these assessments are mistaken. A gas transaction with the Palestinian Authority will, by definition, involve Hamas. Hamas will either benefit from the royalties or it will sabotage the project and launch attacks against Fatah, the gas installations, Israel - or all three.
Soon after Hamas' takeover of Gaza in June 2007, Hamas' economic minister in the PA government, Ziad Zaza, blasted BG as "an embarrassment to the Palestinian people," while labeling the transaction an "act of theft" against Palestinian lands.7 However, Hamas soon reversed its position and now insists on renegotiating the agreed percentages in the deal to reflect its participation.8 Dr. Mohammed Mustafa, head of the PA's Palestinian Investment Fund, a local BG partner, has indicated on more than one occasion that at least 10 percent of the gas proceeds will be directed to Gaza and that arrangements could be made to satisfy "the organizations" - meaning Hamas - in negotiations.9 This means, in simple terms, that the current terms of the deal are still unsatisfactory to Hamas, although it stands to receive a minimum direct payout of $100 million, while the PA's Fatah leadership will likely pocket close to $900 million.
Hamas, in anticipation of its participation in BG negotiations, has confirmed its capability to bomb Israel's strategic gas and electricity installations in Ashkelon.10 This type of threat is a pressure tactic against Israel that will most likely increase if the BG deal moves closer to completion. It is clear that without an overall military operation to uproot Hamas control of Gaza, no drilling work can take place without the consent of the radical Islamic movement.
Israel's Past Experience: Money Flowing into PA Also Funds Fatah Terror Groups
Israel's experience during the Oslo years indicates Palestinian gas profits would likely end up funding terrorism against Israel. The threat is not limited to Hamas. Since the establishment of the PA in 1993, monies that flowed into the Palestinian Authority from international donations, tax revenues, or profits from business with Israelis and other international investors - such as the Jericho Casino and other transactions - have ended up funding terror groups such as the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, Fatah Tanzim, and others. Simply put, once the funds reached the PA in the past, they could not be controlled by any outside authority.
For example, in the Oslo era, it has already been disclosed that monies that flowed through the PA's PCSC - a division of the PA's Palestinian Investment Fund (PIF), one of the partners in the current British Gas negotiations - ended up funding terror actions against Israel by the Fatah-associated Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades.11 Another good example is the money raised by Hamas charities in the United States that U.S. government prosecutors now charge is funding Hamas terror activities in Gaza.12 True, part of these monies raised by charity ended up funding the Hamas' "Dawa" social programs in Gaza. However, a good portion of these financial resources also ended up funding terror against Israel. While senior British officials have continued to call Hamas "a problem that can be solved," their confidence is misplaced if they believe that they can find international financial mechanisms to bypass Hamas and other terror groups. Simply put, Israel's longstanding experience shows empirically that it is impossible to prevent at least some of the gas proceeds from reaching Palestinian terror groups.
BG Gas Deal Frees Hamas from Isolation
BG's negotiations with Israel, that have the full backing of the British government, have already helped unshackle Hamas from political and diplomatic isolation. While British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's official position is that Britain will not talk to Hamas as long as its goal is to destroy Israel, a number of prominent voices in Britain including the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee are calling for reengaging with "moderate" Hamas elements.13
Former MI6 official Alistair Crooke, who was also a former advisor to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, has "opened up unofficial channels of communications between Hamas and Western governments."14 Quartet envoy Tony Blair has also advocated speaking to Hamas to replicate the Northern Ireland model.15 Crooke's formal plan, entitled "Politicizing Hamas," was backed by Blair during his tenure as prime minister. Crooke's ideas today are clearly illustrated in the recent Labor conference speech by Foreign Minister David Miliband, who praised Hamas for the release of BBC journalist Alan Johnston and called for "listening" to Islamists.16 Senior Hamas official Ahmad Yusuf has indicated that many behind-the-scenes meetings between Hamas and European officials have been keys to a Hamas reengagement in the diplomatic process.17
Furthermore, current British Gas negotiations have already helped fuel Fatah and Hamas discussions of a possible reengagement. Hamas' Yusuf has also indicated that despite U.S. and Israeli isolation of Hamas, Fatah and Hamas have been conducting back-channel negotiations to resolve their differences and reenergize a national unity government.18 Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayad has also continued to pay the salaries of the Hamas Executive Force in Gaza.
A Prospective Gaza Off-Shore Gas Installation: A Magnet for Global Jihad
The Israeli government reportedly intends to deploy IDF naval combat vessels to protect a future British-Palestinian gas installation about 800 feet below sea level. According to this strategy, the BG installation would be guarded against above sea terror attacks while diver terrorists would not be able to execute attacks so far below sea level.19
However, even with IDF protection, the sea-based British gas installation will be a very attractive target for both local and international terror groups. Al-Qaeda's deadly "rubber dingy" attack in 2000 against the USS Cole is just one illustration. Hamas has announced the formation of a 150-man light naval force that will be deployed to protect "Palestinian interests" in Gaza's territorial waters.20 Hamas has also smuggled high-quality weaponry into Gaza via underground tunnels from Egyptian Sinai, including medium-range Katyusha rockets, much of it supplied and financed by Iran. Some of the weaponry captured on the Karine A weapons ship in 2002 by the IDF included 22-km.-range Katyusha rockets and amphibious equipment that could be effective in attacks against an off-shore gas installation. Moreover, the tens of tons of heavy weaponry that have been smuggled into Gaza since 2006 alone via the Rafah tunnels include Katyusha rockets.
Al-Qaeda would also clearly be interested in sabotaging gas flow to Israel. Global Jihad groups, particularly al-Qaeda, would also be interested in attacking British targets, as was illustrated in the London attacks of July 7, 2005, and the ongoing al-Qaeda operations against British forces in Iraq. Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, and other local terror groups will be highly motivated to attack BG gas drilling installations, particularly to sabotage a multi-billion dollar deal that excludes them.
BG and Israeli Security Decisions Regarding Gaza
Israel must consider whether it can afford to be dependant on the Palestinians for such a critical energy asset as natural gas. If Israel becomes the Palestinians' main gas customer in a multi-year agreement, the PA or Palestinian terror groups could use the continued supply of gas as a lever to pressure Israel to make additional concessions and "gestures" as part of political negotiations. More significantly, the Palestinians could threaten to cut off the natural gas supply to Israel to prevent the IDF from responding to terror attacks and other threats emanating from Gaza or the West Bank.
It is possible that the prospect of a major natural gas transaction with the Palestinians has been a factor in the Israeli cabinet's refusal to launch a Defensive Shield II operation in Gaza. This concern is a result of the high price Israel has already paid for its relatively muted responses to Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza. The September 11, 2007, rocket attack by the Iranian-commanded and financed Palestinian Islamic Jihad, that wounded 61 IDF soldiers asleep in their Negev base, is a recent example. Despite hundreds of rockets and mortars, and various terrorist infiltration attempts against Israel from Gaza, there still has been no comprehensive military response by Israel.21
Have British Gas Negotiations Prejudiced Israel from Exploring Other Supply Options?
Another national security issue that must be considered is whether Israel's preference to advance the British Gas purchase has prevented or delayed government consideration of other natural gas options. For example, BG's original license was for drilling and exploration of natural gas off of Haifa Bay with the Israeli-owned drilling company Yam Thetis. While the license was granted in 1998, the nearly single focus on pursuing the Gaza gas option resulted in major delays in exploration and drilling off the coast of Haifa. It is possible that Yam Thetis will eventually be able to provide sufficient amounts of natural gas found in Israel's coastal waters, thus obviating the need to take unnecessary risks at this juncture in the Palestinian transaction. In fact, Yam Thetis is currently arguing this case in a petition to Israel's Supreme Court.
Conduct a Thorough Security Assessment Before Approving the British Gas Deal
The multiple dangers lurking behind Israel's potential natural gas purchase from BG have not deterred another attempt at finalizing a deal, due in large part to the redoubled efforts of Quartet envoy Tony Blair. The latest indications are that the BG Group, with the full backing of the British government, intends to finalize a multi-year agreement with Israel before the end of 2007.22
The dangers inherent in Israel's potential purchase of British Gas from the marine reserves off Gaza require an immediate, comprehensive, interagency security assessment by the IDF, Israeli Security Agency, Mossad, and other organs. This type of interagency assessment did not take place when I was IDF Chief of Staff from 2002 to 2005. Since then, to the best of my understanding, no comprehensive security assessment has occurred, despite the intention of the parties to sign an agreement in the coming weeks.
Regional and local security conditions have worsened since 2005, and Israel must be prepared to face a possible two-front war against Hamas in Gaza, and Syria and Hizbullah in the north. Therefore, Israel will pay a painful price in its security if the British Gas transaction were to take place in the foreseeable future.
Israel needs additional sources of energy, including natural gas, and the Palestinians clearly need to create a peaceful civil society and a self-sustaining economy. However, with Gaza currently a radical Islamic stronghold, and the West Bank in danger of becoming the next one, Israel's funneling a billion dollars into local or international bank accounts on behalf of the Palestinian Authority would be tantamount to Israel's bankrolling terror against itself. Therefore, an urgent review is required of the far-reaching security implications of an Israeli decision to purchase Gaza gas by the State Comptroller's office or another external review panel.
* * *
Notes
1. "The Economic Road Map for the Middle East," Al Quds, September 18, 2007.
2. Member of Knesset Gilad Erdan, Address to the Knesset on "The Intention of Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Purchase Gas from the Palestinians When Payment Will Serve Hamas," March 1, 2006.
3. Dan Diker and Khaled Abu Toameh, "What Happened to Reform of the Palestinian Authority?" Jerusalem Issue Brief, vol. 3, no. 20, March 3, 2004, http://www.jcpa.org/brief/brief3-20.htm. See also Lesley Stahl, "Arafat's Billions," CBSNews.com, November 9, 2003.
4. Between 2000 and 2005, 26,159 terrorist attacks were carried out against Israeli targets, leaving 1,060 Israelis dead and 6,089 wounded, http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/html/final/eng/eng_n/pro_13_10_e .htm.
5. Mathew Krieger, "British Gas, Israel to Freeze Hamas Out of $4B Gas Deal," Jerusalem Post, July 5, 2007. Senior British diplomats also indicated in July 2007 that gas proceeds would be placed in international bank accounts.
6. Uri Yablonka, "Israel Close to BG Deal," Ha'aretz, July 2007.
7. Sonia Verma and Steve Hawkes, "Hamas Says BG Plan to Pump Gas to Israel an Act of Theft," Times (UK), May 24, 2007.
8. Interview in Arabic with Hamas official Mahmoud Al Zahar by a senior foreign journalist based in Israel, July 2007.
9. Pazit Ravina, "One Hundred Million Dollars for the Hamas Command," Makor Rishon, August, 18, 2007 (Hebrew).
10. Wa'ri Suleiman, "Was Gaza Gas One Reason for the Coup?" AMIN website, June 23, 2007, http://www.amin.org/look/amin/press.htm. Wa'ri claimed that Hamas timed the coup in Gaza according to the reports of progress in negotiations on the BG deal in order to be party to it. He also noted that if Hamas' participation was rejected, Hamas would launch a "rocket intifada" covering all the areas in reach around Gaza.
11. Uzrad Lev, In the Pocket of the Chairman (Tel Aviv, 2005), pp. 162-63, 239 (Hebrew).
12. Associated Press, "HLF Found Guilty of Funding Hamas," Jerusalem Post, September 18, 2007.
13. Melanie Phillips, "Engaged to Hamas," Jerusalem Post, September 15, 2007.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid.
16. David Stringer , "UK's Diplomacy Chief Vows New Approach," Associated Press, September 25, 2007, http://www.savvy.com/news/general,102/uk-s-diplomacy-chief-vows-new-approach,182175.html.
17. Ahmad Yusuf, "Hamas Is the Key," Ha'aertz, September 21, 2007.
18. "Ahmad Yusuf Reveals: Secret Draft Negotiations between Hamas and Fatah," Maan Palestinian News Agency September 20, 2007 (Arabic), and Khaled Abu Toameh, "Hamas Ready to Settle Tough Issues," Jerusalem Post, September 21, 2007.
19. Yablonka "Israel Close to BG Deal."
20. Ali Waked, "Hamas Establishes Naval Force," Ynet News, August 9, 2007 (Hebrew).
21. http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/zikim_e0907.htm.
22. Yablonka, "Israel Close to BG Deal."
* * *
Lt. Gen. (Ret.) Moshe Yaalon is a distinguished fellow at the Shalem Center's Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies. Capping a distinguished career as an officer in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), he served as Chief of Staff from 2002 to 2005, during which time he led the army's successful effort to quell the Palestinian terror war launched in September 2000.
There'll be no peace in our time
Austrlian perspective:
Greg Sheridan
The Sunday Telegraph
THIS past week in Israel, where I have been staying for a couple of weeks, there began what should be a historic process: negotiation of a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
This is the outcome of the recent Annapolis conference in the US.
Three leaders - US President George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmood Abbas - have committed to finding a final settlement within a year.
They have not committed to full implementation of this final settlement in that time, merely to the conclusion of an agreement on what the terms of the final settlement will be.
This covers areas such as the amount of territory an independent Palestinian state will get; the so-called right of return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants (which Israel interprets as a right of return to a new Palestinian state and the Palestinians interpret as a right of return to Israel itself), and the arrangements that will cover Jerusalem.
The obstacles to any settlement are enormous. For a start, the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction over one-third of its population, which lives in the Gaza Strip under the control of the Islamist terrorist organisation Hamas - an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
But even in the West Bank, the real power of the Palestinian Authority is very limited. Several West Bank cities are ruled by warlords, not the Authority.
Indeed, Palestinian leaders cannot travel safely in all their own cities and are not ready to take over security in most of their cities from Israeli security forces.
In truth, the Palestinian Authority does not have functioning state institutions.
Outside donors, including Australia, are set to pump an enormous amount of money into the West Bank to try to improve the quality of life there.
This is designed, in part, to strengthen Mahmood Abbas and to show the Palestinians that life on the moderate path, in the West Bank, is much better than life under the extremist path, as in Gaza under Hamas.
The Palestinian Authority, however, shows no signs of re-establishing control of the Gaza Strip, and it is inconceivable that Israel would allow the creation of a Palestinian state that did not control both the West Bank and Gaza.
Many people around the world tell Israel to withdraw to its 1967 borders. Two years ago, Israel did pull out of Gaza - and the result was that Hamas took over.
Every day now, Hamas terrorists fire rockets - aimed at civilians - from Gaza into Israel.
Eventually, one of these rockets will kill a large number of Israeli civilians and there will be a huge Israeli military response inside Gaza.
Whatever Mahmood Abbas thinks of this, or Hamas (some of whom have pledged to kill him), he would be forced to make an ultra-nationalist response - and that, in itself, could kill the peace process.
Further, the Annapolis process requires the fulfilment of the conditions of the so-called Road Map, the very first of which is that the Palestinians stamp out terrorism and stop attacks on Israeli civilians.
There is no sign the Palestinian Authority can do this, or even that it really wants to do this. Its educational materials are full of hatred against Israel and incitement to terrorism.
And that is the fundamental problem. Neither the Palestinian leadership, nor most of the surrounding Arab states, has really come to grips with Israel's right to exist at peace behind secure borders.
Until that happens, no agreement is likely to work on the ground.
So, what should have been an epic week may prove only to have been just another footnote of failure in the long saga of failure in the Middle East.
Greg Sheridan
The Sunday Telegraph
THIS past week in Israel, where I have been staying for a couple of weeks, there began what should be a historic process: negotiation of a final settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.
This is the outcome of the recent Annapolis conference in the US.
Three leaders - US President George W. Bush, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmood Abbas - have committed to finding a final settlement within a year.
They have not committed to full implementation of this final settlement in that time, merely to the conclusion of an agreement on what the terms of the final settlement will be.
This covers areas such as the amount of territory an independent Palestinian state will get; the so-called right of return of Palestinian refugees and their descendants (which Israel interprets as a right of return to a new Palestinian state and the Palestinians interpret as a right of return to Israel itself), and the arrangements that will cover Jerusalem.
The obstacles to any settlement are enormous. For a start, the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction over one-third of its population, which lives in the Gaza Strip under the control of the Islamist terrorist organisation Hamas - an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood.
But even in the West Bank, the real power of the Palestinian Authority is very limited. Several West Bank cities are ruled by warlords, not the Authority.
Indeed, Palestinian leaders cannot travel safely in all their own cities and are not ready to take over security in most of their cities from Israeli security forces.
In truth, the Palestinian Authority does not have functioning state institutions.
Outside donors, including Australia, are set to pump an enormous amount of money into the West Bank to try to improve the quality of life there.
This is designed, in part, to strengthen Mahmood Abbas and to show the Palestinians that life on the moderate path, in the West Bank, is much better than life under the extremist path, as in Gaza under Hamas.
The Palestinian Authority, however, shows no signs of re-establishing control of the Gaza Strip, and it is inconceivable that Israel would allow the creation of a Palestinian state that did not control both the West Bank and Gaza.
Many people around the world tell Israel to withdraw to its 1967 borders. Two years ago, Israel did pull out of Gaza - and the result was that Hamas took over.
Every day now, Hamas terrorists fire rockets - aimed at civilians - from Gaza into Israel.
Eventually, one of these rockets will kill a large number of Israeli civilians and there will be a huge Israeli military response inside Gaza.
Whatever Mahmood Abbas thinks of this, or Hamas (some of whom have pledged to kill him), he would be forced to make an ultra-nationalist response - and that, in itself, could kill the peace process.
Further, the Annapolis process requires the fulfilment of the conditions of the so-called Road Map, the very first of which is that the Palestinians stamp out terrorism and stop attacks on Israeli civilians.
There is no sign the Palestinian Authority can do this, or even that it really wants to do this. Its educational materials are full of hatred against Israel and incitement to terrorism.
And that is the fundamental problem. Neither the Palestinian leadership, nor most of the surrounding Arab states, has really come to grips with Israel's right to exist at peace behind secure borders.
Until that happens, no agreement is likely to work on the ground.
So, what should have been an epic week may prove only to have been just another footnote of failure in the long saga of failure in the Middle East.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Peace Now Suspected of Financial Scam to Mask Backers
Ezra HaLevi and Gil Ronen
The Peace Now movement is suspected of setting up a financial scam to mask the European sources of its funding for its reconnaissance work against Israeli Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria. The Non Profit Associations Registrar suspects Peace Now of operating a front organization for improper collection of funds, according to a report on Channel 2 TV by reporter Amit Segal.
The radical left-wing Peace Now group allegedly used a non-profit organization (amuta) called Sha'al, which supposedly dealt with educational matters, to receive and disburse millions of shekels over a period of many years.
Some of the organization's donors were exposed in the course of the inquiry. They include the British government, which donated more that 500,000 shekels, Norway (800,000 shekels) and the European Union, which donated 451,000 shekels earmarked for Peace Now's ongoing "settlement hunting" activity: the documentation of construction activity by Jews in Judea and Samaria.
This is not the first time Peace Now has crossed the lines of legality. In 2004, journalist David Bedein revealed and later the Knesset Interior Committee confirmed that Peace Now had received a budget in the amount of 50,000 Euros from the government of Finland to conduct intelligence activities in Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, the Golan, Gaza and Jerusalem. The Israel Penal Code for Espionage was distributed to Knesset Interior Committees, with the third clause defining “photography of sensitive areas of Israel for any foreign power” as an act of espionage, punishable by ten years imprisonment if convicted.
It is not clear whether Segal's report was the result of a new investigative web site dedicated to researching and documenting the group's misdeeds.
The Non Profit Associations Registrar summoned 'Peace Now' to a hearing and instructed them to reply to the allegations by December 31.
Peace Now Calls on US to Talk to Iran
Americans for Peace Now, the Israeli leftist group’s fundraising arm that also engages in anti-Israel lobbying in the United States, urged US President George W. Bush “to open serious, determined and unconditional diplomacy with Iran,” according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Franklin Fisher and Debra DeLee, Chairman and President respectively of the group, sent a letter to Bush arguing that it is in the “best interests of both the US and Israel [to engage in] direct, sustained, and unconditional US-led diplomacy and engagement with Iran to resolve issues surrounding Iran’s nuclear program."
“The letter reflects Americans for Peace Now’s longstanding contention that a U.S. policy toward Iran consisting of sanctions and threats of force is insufficient and potentially harmful to the interests of both the United States and Israel,” JTA reported. The letter was sent to all members of the House and Senate, as well as all the US presidential candidates.
The Peace Now movement is suspected of setting up a financial scam to mask the European sources of its funding for its reconnaissance work against Israeli Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria. The Non Profit Associations Registrar suspects Peace Now of operating a front organization for improper collection of funds, according to a report on Channel 2 TV by reporter Amit Segal.
The radical left-wing Peace Now group allegedly used a non-profit organization (amuta) called Sha'al, which supposedly dealt with educational matters, to receive and disburse millions of shekels over a period of many years.
Some of the organization's donors were exposed in the course of the inquiry. They include the British government, which donated more that 500,000 shekels, Norway (800,000 shekels) and the European Union, which donated 451,000 shekels earmarked for Peace Now's ongoing "settlement hunting" activity: the documentation of construction activity by Jews in Judea and Samaria.
This is not the first time Peace Now has crossed the lines of legality. In 2004, journalist David Bedein revealed and later the Knesset Interior Committee confirmed that Peace Now had received a budget in the amount of 50,000 Euros from the government of Finland to conduct intelligence activities in Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria, the Golan, Gaza and Jerusalem. The Israel Penal Code for Espionage was distributed to Knesset Interior Committees, with the third clause defining “photography of sensitive areas of Israel for any foreign power” as an act of espionage, punishable by ten years imprisonment if convicted.
It is not clear whether Segal's report was the result of a new investigative web site dedicated to researching and documenting the group's misdeeds.
The Non Profit Associations Registrar summoned 'Peace Now' to a hearing and instructed them to reply to the allegations by December 31.
Peace Now Calls on US to Talk to Iran
Americans for Peace Now, the Israeli leftist group’s fundraising arm that also engages in anti-Israel lobbying in the United States, urged US President George W. Bush “to open serious, determined and unconditional diplomacy with Iran,” according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Franklin Fisher and Debra DeLee, Chairman and President respectively of the group, sent a letter to Bush arguing that it is in the “best interests of both the US and Israel [to engage in] direct, sustained, and unconditional US-led diplomacy and engagement with Iran to resolve issues surrounding Iran’s nuclear program."
“The letter reflects Americans for Peace Now’s longstanding contention that a U.S. policy toward Iran consisting of sanctions and threats of force is insufficient and potentially harmful to the interests of both the United States and Israel,” JTA reported. The letter was sent to all members of the House and Senate, as well as all the US presidential candidates.
My Prayer for the Jewish People
Sheikh Abdul Hadi Palazzi
IsraelNationalNews.com
As a Zionist Muslim clergyman and a friend of the Jewish people, I cannot keep silent. I feel a moral urge to declare that the nations of the world are once again preparing bad days for the Jewish people. A US Administration, which pays lip service to a supposed "war on terror," is ready to bow to Saudi-funded Islamist terror and to accept the Saudi diktat compelling Jews to withdraw from the Land of Israel. The Jewish people is at risk of getting restricted by order of its American "friends," ever closer to what Abba Eban used to call "the Auschwitz borders."
People are rarely satisfied with their politicians, and the case of contemporary Israelis is no different. Most of them feel betrayed by both leftist politicians who try to introduce surrender to Abu Mazen as a "step toward peace," and by reputed nationalist politicians who declare they oppose Jewish deportation from Judea and Samaria, but who do not move a inch to prevent it.
The more time passes, the more moral leadership of the Jewish people at home is restricted to a powerless minority. The nightmare of Oslo returned and became even darker in Annapolis. That was the reason for the recent creation in Jerusalem of the New Jewish Congress, a federation of different authentic Zionist groups and organizations, blessed by the New Sanhedrin and by the most authoritative Israeli rabbis, and supported by 30% of concerned secular Israelis. I regretted being unable to attend the founding session, held in Jerusalem, Israel, on November 27, but I was thankful to Allah the Most High for giving me the opportunity to thank Prof. Hillel Weiss for the honor of the invitation and to send the participants my greetings.
I was glad to have been given the opportunity to reiterate that the territories of Judea and Samaria are the home Allah granted to the Jewish people, and that any attempt to steal them from their legitimate owners is a declaration of war against a Divine decree. In my humble view, each of my Jewish brothers and sisters is morally obligated to struggle for the integrity of the Land of Israel, in order to ease the task of the Jewish people to be a "light unto the nations" and to pave the way for Redemption.
The oil lobbies are imposing the follow-up of Oslo, and compelling the whole civilized world to bow to a leader of kleptocracy like Abu Mazen and to again fund his anti-Jewish terror. In these tragic days, my heart is with the Jews in Israel, with all those Jewish families at risk of deportation from Judea and Samaria to appease oil-sultans and their Western counterparts.
I pray that hardship is overcome and defeated by a new Jewish leadership, which will prove that the Zionist dream is still alive. The dream of the Jewish people to live in peace and security in the Land of Israel was not crushed by strong governments in the past, and will not be crushed even today, despite the attempts of Arab dictators, the American politicians who cave in to their demands, and the corrupt Israeli politicians who bowed down in submission in Annapolis. One might easily envision that the nightmare that began in Oslo will now reach its most terrific level, with a possible ascendancy of Hamas gangsters over the areas to be vacated by Israel, including even Jerusalem.
President George Bush claims he reads the Bible daily, but seems to forget that it is written there that the Land of Israel is G-d's gift to the Children of Israel, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It was not given to anyone else, including the descendants of Ishmael, since they received plenty of territory in other locations. Even so, whoever attempts to steal any of the Divine inheritance of the Jewish people declares war not only on a particular nation, but on G-d and His decree. As long as the US stood up for the rights of Israel in her land, Allah rewarded them with a flow of abundance and blessings, while the Soviet Empire - which denied the national rights of the Jewish people - was canceled from maps. Now, the risk is that the US Administration wants to emulate the Soviet Union. I pray for a new US Administration, more respectful of the rights of the Jewish people over its land.
Sheikh Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi is the Director of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community, Muslim Co-Founder and Co-Chairman of the Islam-Israel Fellowship, Root & Branch Association, Ltd.
IsraelNationalNews.com
As a Zionist Muslim clergyman and a friend of the Jewish people, I cannot keep silent. I feel a moral urge to declare that the nations of the world are once again preparing bad days for the Jewish people. A US Administration, which pays lip service to a supposed "war on terror," is ready to bow to Saudi-funded Islamist terror and to accept the Saudi diktat compelling Jews to withdraw from the Land of Israel. The Jewish people is at risk of getting restricted by order of its American "friends," ever closer to what Abba Eban used to call "the Auschwitz borders."
People are rarely satisfied with their politicians, and the case of contemporary Israelis is no different. Most of them feel betrayed by both leftist politicians who try to introduce surrender to Abu Mazen as a "step toward peace," and by reputed nationalist politicians who declare they oppose Jewish deportation from Judea and Samaria, but who do not move a inch to prevent it.
The more time passes, the more moral leadership of the Jewish people at home is restricted to a powerless minority. The nightmare of Oslo returned and became even darker in Annapolis. That was the reason for the recent creation in Jerusalem of the New Jewish Congress, a federation of different authentic Zionist groups and organizations, blessed by the New Sanhedrin and by the most authoritative Israeli rabbis, and supported by 30% of concerned secular Israelis. I regretted being unable to attend the founding session, held in Jerusalem, Israel, on November 27, but I was thankful to Allah the Most High for giving me the opportunity to thank Prof. Hillel Weiss for the honor of the invitation and to send the participants my greetings.
I was glad to have been given the opportunity to reiterate that the territories of Judea and Samaria are the home Allah granted to the Jewish people, and that any attempt to steal them from their legitimate owners is a declaration of war against a Divine decree. In my humble view, each of my Jewish brothers and sisters is morally obligated to struggle for the integrity of the Land of Israel, in order to ease the task of the Jewish people to be a "light unto the nations" and to pave the way for Redemption.
The oil lobbies are imposing the follow-up of Oslo, and compelling the whole civilized world to bow to a leader of kleptocracy like Abu Mazen and to again fund his anti-Jewish terror. In these tragic days, my heart is with the Jews in Israel, with all those Jewish families at risk of deportation from Judea and Samaria to appease oil-sultans and their Western counterparts.
I pray that hardship is overcome and defeated by a new Jewish leadership, which will prove that the Zionist dream is still alive. The dream of the Jewish people to live in peace and security in the Land of Israel was not crushed by strong governments in the past, and will not be crushed even today, despite the attempts of Arab dictators, the American politicians who cave in to their demands, and the corrupt Israeli politicians who bowed down in submission in Annapolis. One might easily envision that the nightmare that began in Oslo will now reach its most terrific level, with a possible ascendancy of Hamas gangsters over the areas to be vacated by Israel, including even Jerusalem.
President George Bush claims he reads the Bible daily, but seems to forget that it is written there that the Land of Israel is G-d's gift to the Children of Israel, the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It was not given to anyone else, including the descendants of Ishmael, since they received plenty of territory in other locations. Even so, whoever attempts to steal any of the Divine inheritance of the Jewish people declares war not only on a particular nation, but on G-d and His decree. As long as the US stood up for the rights of Israel in her land, Allah rewarded them with a flow of abundance and blessings, while the Soviet Empire - which denied the national rights of the Jewish people - was canceled from maps. Now, the risk is that the US Administration wants to emulate the Soviet Union. I pray for a new US Administration, more respectful of the rights of the Jewish people over its land.
Sheikh Professor Abdul Hadi Palazzi is the Director of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community, Muslim Co-Founder and Co-Chairman of the Islam-Israel Fellowship, Root & Branch Association, Ltd.
Mark Steyn is Not Alone
There's a definite chill in the air and this cold front comes to us from Canada, where author Mark Steyn finds himself in trouble for speaking his mind. Steyn is a brilliant writer and many of us have been amused (he is often hilarious) and enriched by his commentaries upon our culture in general and, in particular, what awaits us if we don't face up to terrorism. He's written a book on that very subject, America Alone, and this book is a bestseller in America and number one in Canada - and it's also the number one reason he's being summoned for "hate crimes."
Steyn, by the way, is a passionate friend of Israel, and no, he is not Jewish.
Two "human rights" panels, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, have him on trial for his alleged claim that Islam does not square with Western ideals. Whatever the outcome, we're all on notice that Big Brother is watching. The word "tribunal" itself reeks of an Orwellian nightmare and Soviet gulagism.
From my own days in Montreal, I remember singing these words from Canada's national anthem: "O' Canada, Glorious and Free."
Those words may have to be expunged.
But is Steyn alone? Can't happen here in the US? Well it has been happening here.
Conservative, pro-Western and pro Israel commentators like Robert Spencer (Religion of Peace? his latest), Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz consistently get shouted down from campus to campus. Some get physically roughed up and require bodyguards and double security when they dare to deliver a message that displeases peace-loving professors and students.
Some, like Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, are being sued in British courts. Ehrenfeld wrote the book Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed - And How To Stop It, and though the book was not published in the UK, it's still being taken up by the courts over there for defamation. Ehrenfeld refuses to recognize British jurisdiction and is fighting back through America's court system.
If Canada is on the verge of being "glorious and free" no more, "America Alone" (as Steyn has it) is being asked to remember that it is still the "land of the free" and "home of the brave." That's Steyn's thesis in a nutshell. He's counting on America to save the world from a campaign of tyranny being waged against words spoken and words written.
Bangladeshi novelist Taslima Nasrin is another writer in jeopardy, and on the run somewhere in Europe, after her words provoked riots among jihadists. Recent reports had it that she was rewriting a novel for fear of her life, but according to a late posting on her web site, "Come what may, I will never be silenced."
This, then, is war, but it is not a war of words - it is a war against words.
Israel has its own laws and tribunals for those who "insult public officials." Israel's political and cultural leaders, who whimsically define the word "insult" to isolate dissent from "right-wing" Israelis, may wish to consult Hatikvah for the stanza that summons the people "to be a free nation in our own homeland."
All this - Steyn's Canadian fatwa and the attempts to muzzle all freedom of expression - is not quite the same as the short life of Theo Van Gogh after he produced the documentary Submission. Nor is it quite the same as the fate of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who scripted that film and was forced to escape the Netherlands. She has since moved to the United States, where, of course, she travels with bodyguards.
Not quite the same, but close enough to remind us that Mark Steyn is Not Alone.
Jack Engelhard's latest novel, the newsroom thriller The Bathsheba Deadline, is now ready in paperback and available from Amazon.com and other outlets. Engelhard wrote the international bestselling novel Indecent Proposal, which was translated into more than 22 languages and turned into a Paramount motion picture starring Robert Redford and Demi Moore.
Steyn, by the way, is a passionate friend of Israel, and no, he is not Jewish.
Two "human rights" panels, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, have him on trial for his alleged claim that Islam does not square with Western ideals. Whatever the outcome, we're all on notice that Big Brother is watching. The word "tribunal" itself reeks of an Orwellian nightmare and Soviet gulagism.
From my own days in Montreal, I remember singing these words from Canada's national anthem: "O' Canada, Glorious and Free."
Those words may have to be expunged.
But is Steyn alone? Can't happen here in the US? Well it has been happening here.
Conservative, pro-Western and pro Israel commentators like Robert Spencer (Religion of Peace? his latest), Daniel Pipes and David Horowitz consistently get shouted down from campus to campus. Some get physically roughed up and require bodyguards and double security when they dare to deliver a message that displeases peace-loving professors and students.
Some, like Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld, are being sued in British courts. Ehrenfeld wrote the book Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed - And How To Stop It, and though the book was not published in the UK, it's still being taken up by the courts over there for defamation. Ehrenfeld refuses to recognize British jurisdiction and is fighting back through America's court system.
If Canada is on the verge of being "glorious and free" no more, "America Alone" (as Steyn has it) is being asked to remember that it is still the "land of the free" and "home of the brave." That's Steyn's thesis in a nutshell. He's counting on America to save the world from a campaign of tyranny being waged against words spoken and words written.
Bangladeshi novelist Taslima Nasrin is another writer in jeopardy, and on the run somewhere in Europe, after her words provoked riots among jihadists. Recent reports had it that she was rewriting a novel for fear of her life, but according to a late posting on her web site, "Come what may, I will never be silenced."
This, then, is war, but it is not a war of words - it is a war against words.
Israel has its own laws and tribunals for those who "insult public officials." Israel's political and cultural leaders, who whimsically define the word "insult" to isolate dissent from "right-wing" Israelis, may wish to consult Hatikvah for the stanza that summons the people "to be a free nation in our own homeland."
All this - Steyn's Canadian fatwa and the attempts to muzzle all freedom of expression - is not quite the same as the short life of Theo Van Gogh after he produced the documentary Submission. Nor is it quite the same as the fate of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who scripted that film and was forced to escape the Netherlands. She has since moved to the United States, where, of course, she travels with bodyguards.
Not quite the same, but close enough to remind us that Mark Steyn is Not Alone.
Jack Engelhard's latest novel, the newsroom thriller The Bathsheba Deadline, is now ready in paperback and available from Amazon.com and other outlets. Engelhard wrote the international bestselling novel Indecent Proposal, which was translated into more than 22 languages and turned into a Paramount motion picture starring Robert Redford and Demi Moore.
The Other Side of the News From Israel
Yoram ettinger
Israel is ranked as the top foreign source of deal-flow, ahead of Canada, China and India, by US VC fund managers. The survey, conducted by Delloite Touche, has also ranked Israel as the second (to Canada) most attractive source of entrepreneurs. 46% of US VC funds invest abroad (The Marker, December 6, 2007).
Standard & Poor's raised Israel's credit ratings, for the first time since 1995, to A (long-term foreign currency rating), to AA- (long-term local currency rating) and to A1+ (short-term domestic rating). S&P based its decision on Israel's economic indicators: GDP growth; a shrinking budget deficit; reduced public debt per GDP (2000 - 87%, 2001 - 92%, 2002 - 100%, 2003 - 102%, 2004 - 101%, 2005 - 97%, 2006 - 88%, 2007 - 80%); low inflation; balance of payment and balance of trade surplus; tax decrease; continued market reforms, etc. Improved rating is expected to attract more overseas investments and lower interest on loans (The Marker, November 28).
Israel was fifth in the world in GDP growth - 5.2% in 2006 (Globes, December 5). Israel's GDP grew 6.1% during the third quarter of 2007, the 17th quarter of straight growth since mid-2003, the longest growth streak since 1948 (2001 - minus 0.4%, 2002 - minus 0.6%, 2003 - 2.3%, 2004 - 2.5%, 2005 - 5.3%, 2006 - 5.2%, 2007 - projected 5.5%-6%). Overall investments rose 24% during the quarter (Globes, November 26).
And Israel leads the world in civilian Research & Development per GDP - 4.5%, compared to 3% expected by the EEC by 2010. SAP and McCaffee expand their R&D operations in Israel, with both hiring additional personnel and McCaffee constructing a new site (Globes, November 14).
Israel has the second largest concentration of startups per capital next to Silicon Valley. Israeli startups developed crucial flash drive, call center and instant messaging technologies.
According to Jon Medved, both Israel and Silicon Valley share energized entrepreneurial spirit, informal work atmosphere, pioneering risk-taking ethos and a large number of high-quality immigrants. 400 Israeli startups emerge annually, more than any European country. The number of funded startups has doubled since 2000.
Next to the US, Israel has more stocks traded on NASDAQ than any other country. High-tech (which is minimally vulnerable to terrorism and political instability) accounts for 50% of Israel's exports - about $15 billion annually. Israeli companies have easier access to Asian markets, since they are not perceived as a commercial threat (Washington Post, December 5, 2007).
Israel's Telematics was acquired by Singapore's St. Electronics (Globes, November 20). Israel's Esther Neuroscience was acquired by Britain's Amarin for $15 million and additional $17 million per milestones (Globes, December 6). Israel's Oridian was acquired by India's Ybrant for $15 million (Globes, December 5).
GE Medical participated in a $30 million round by Israel's InsighTech (November 30). US-based Radius Venture participated in a $27 million second round by Israel's Mendigo (Globes, November 21). Varburg-Pinkus participated in an $8 million third round by Israel's NuLens (Globes, November 21). Sequoia invested $8 million in the first round of private placement by Israel's DensBits (Globes, December 3). Taiwan's CIDC VC fund led a $6 million third round by Israel's AdvaSense (Globes, November 22).
May Israel's entrepreneurs and policy-makers heed the legacy of the Maccabees and of the Biblical Joseph: never compromise your dream-vision; especially when you're at the helm, besieged by temptations, pressure and public opinion polls.
Israel is ranked as the top foreign source of deal-flow, ahead of Canada, China and India, by US VC fund managers. The survey, conducted by Delloite Touche, has also ranked Israel as the second (to Canada) most attractive source of entrepreneurs. 46% of US VC funds invest abroad (The Marker, December 6, 2007).
Standard & Poor's raised Israel's credit ratings, for the first time since 1995, to A (long-term foreign currency rating), to AA- (long-term local currency rating) and to A1+ (short-term domestic rating). S&P based its decision on Israel's economic indicators: GDP growth; a shrinking budget deficit; reduced public debt per GDP (2000 - 87%, 2001 - 92%, 2002 - 100%, 2003 - 102%, 2004 - 101%, 2005 - 97%, 2006 - 88%, 2007 - 80%); low inflation; balance of payment and balance of trade surplus; tax decrease; continued market reforms, etc. Improved rating is expected to attract more overseas investments and lower interest on loans (The Marker, November 28).
Israel was fifth in the world in GDP growth - 5.2% in 2006 (Globes, December 5). Israel's GDP grew 6.1% during the third quarter of 2007, the 17th quarter of straight growth since mid-2003, the longest growth streak since 1948 (2001 - minus 0.4%, 2002 - minus 0.6%, 2003 - 2.3%, 2004 - 2.5%, 2005 - 5.3%, 2006 - 5.2%, 2007 - projected 5.5%-6%). Overall investments rose 24% during the quarter (Globes, November 26).
And Israel leads the world in civilian Research & Development per GDP - 4.5%, compared to 3% expected by the EEC by 2010. SAP and McCaffee expand their R&D operations in Israel, with both hiring additional personnel and McCaffee constructing a new site (Globes, November 14).
Israel has the second largest concentration of startups per capital next to Silicon Valley. Israeli startups developed crucial flash drive, call center and instant messaging technologies.
According to Jon Medved, both Israel and Silicon Valley share energized entrepreneurial spirit, informal work atmosphere, pioneering risk-taking ethos and a large number of high-quality immigrants. 400 Israeli startups emerge annually, more than any European country. The number of funded startups has doubled since 2000.
Next to the US, Israel has more stocks traded on NASDAQ than any other country. High-tech (which is minimally vulnerable to terrorism and political instability) accounts for 50% of Israel's exports - about $15 billion annually. Israeli companies have easier access to Asian markets, since they are not perceived as a commercial threat (Washington Post, December 5, 2007).
Israel's Telematics was acquired by Singapore's St. Electronics (Globes, November 20). Israel's Esther Neuroscience was acquired by Britain's Amarin for $15 million and additional $17 million per milestones (Globes, December 6). Israel's Oridian was acquired by India's Ybrant for $15 million (Globes, December 5).
GE Medical participated in a $30 million round by Israel's InsighTech (November 30). US-based Radius Venture participated in a $27 million second round by Israel's Mendigo (Globes, November 21). Varburg-Pinkus participated in an $8 million third round by Israel's NuLens (Globes, November 21). Sequoia invested $8 million in the first round of private placement by Israel's DensBits (Globes, December 3). Taiwan's CIDC VC fund led a $6 million third round by Israel's AdvaSense (Globes, November 22).
May Israel's entrepreneurs and policy-makers heed the legacy of the Maccabees and of the Biblical Joseph: never compromise your dream-vision; especially when you're at the helm, besieged by temptations, pressure and public opinion polls.
Friday, December 21, 2007
They Never Had it So Good
Michal Nissenson / Omedia
The UN Committee on the Status of Women examined the status of women around the globe and declared that only one violated women’s rights: Israel. Millions of women in the Muslim world and elsewhere would be glad to hear that the committee thinks they are fine Fact can sometimes be stranger than fiction. At least that is what we learn from the official statement of the UN Committee on the Status of Women, which convened to examine the status of women across the globe. The committee is responsible for an issue of unrivalled importance—the repression and abuse of women across the world, mostly in non-western countries. However, when the committee convened and delivered its conclusions, it was impossible not to be startled by the incredible gap between what is happening in the world and the situation as the committee sees it. Out of all the UN member countries, the committee deemed it appropriate to accuse only one country of violating women’s rights and to call for measures to be taken against it. That country is Israel. Forty of the 42 member states of the committee that participated in the debate were in favor of singling out Israel as the only country in the world today found in violation of women’s rights, to be more precise, Palestinian women’s rights. The expression “UN shmu en” coined by Ben Gurion fifty years ago, still applies.
Judging by the conclusions of the UN Committee on the Status of Women, millions of women across the Muslim world, Africa, the Far East, and elsewhere do not suffer from officially sanctioned discrimination, discrimination with regard to inheritance, division of property, abuse by marriage and divorce laws, forced female circumcision, in fact they aren’t suffering one tiny bit. At any rate, not in a way that is worthy of the UN General Assembly’s attention. Ask Iran, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, China, and other countries famous for their liberal policies towards women—they are all committee members. Israel is the only country where women suffer from discrimination. In Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, it’s not like that at all. The women there are free—to walk around behind a veil, to be beaten by their husband if they refuse to have sex with him, to leave the house only if he allows it. So to avoid throwing accusations around, here is a short survey of the status of women in the above countries so we can see how marvelous women’s personal circumstances are and how much they don’t need the attention of the UN committee on the status of women.
Afghanistan: The Patient Died After Being Forbidden to Be Treated by a Male Doctor
In her article “The Invisible Women of Afghanistan”, published in “Noga—A Feminist Journal”, writer Ariella Deor examined the status of women in Afghanistan since the Taliban came to power. Deor made contact with an Afghan feminist women’s organization called RAWA. Owing to the laws of the Taliban, RAWA could not operate in Afghanistan and so its members are exiled in Pakistan. Women from the organization described the rigid laws of the Taliban concerning Afghan women and the continuous oppression of women in the country. Although the Taliban regime was overthrown, a large part of what she says in her article still applies in Afghanistan. Among other things, the article describes the story of an Afghan woman who arrived at a hospital suffering from horrific burns to 80% of her body. The only doctor in the hospital at that hour was a man and the Taliban representative on the premises forbad him to treat the women, who died of her injuries.
RAWA has a website with particularly disturbing stories about women who were injured by their husbands or directly by the Afghan authorities and nothing was done to help them or punish their attackers. The following link (Warning: highly distressing images) tells the story of Golbar, a woman who was burned by her husband. Despite the injuries he caused, the Afghanistan authorities did see it necessary to arrest the abusing husband. This link (Warning: highly distressing images) contains the story of a young girl who was raped by the local police of the province where she lived and a report about the sale of young girls and children in Afghanistan. The price of a young child / girl is 50,000 afghanis, $1,000. Human trafficking is considered a serious crime. Despite the lively trade in women in another province of Afghanistan, the representatives of the UN committee on the status of women did not think it of any importance to come out strongly against the Afghan government which does not do enough to erase the problem.
For the information of the UN committee on the status of women, this is how liberated Afghan women are: by Taliban law, Afghan women are forbidden to work outside the home, actually, it is forbidden for them to leave the house at all without the close escort of a male relative. They are forbidden to attend school, and all the schools for girls in the country were closed down. It is forbidden for them to take part in any cultural or sports activities. Women may not receive legal protection, and are only allowed to turn to the courts through the mediation of a man and as in the tragic case described above, it is forbidden for women to receive medical treatment from a male doctor. Also, they may not have surgery if the surgical team includes men. This is a difficult problem because women are forbidden to work or study, which means there cannot be women doctors.
Iran: A Father Has the Right to Marry His Daughter to Whoever he Likes and At Any Age
The status of Iranian women is not as bad as Afghan women, but you would hardly call them “liberated”. For example, a father has the right to marry off his daughter at any age. The requirement that the bride must agree to her marriage is bypassed by a loophole in the law allowing a father to gain his daughter’s consent after the marriage, years later. A husband can divorce his wife without her consent, and have additional wives. A woman has no right to ask her husband for a divorce because he decided to have other wives. Moreover, despite all the conservative apparel, Iran has a bustling prostitution industry, some of it forced. Permission to commit rape is given with religious consent, and the prohibition on sexual relations outside marriage is solved by what the Koran calls “temporary marriage”. A man marries a woman and divorces her after several hours. The “temporary husband” does not have to support the woman who has no rights whatsoever. In addition, members of the “Revolutionary Guard” marry/ rape women who are imprisoned in Iranian jails and awaiting execution before the sentence is carried out. The justification is that according to the Muslim religion a virgin goes to paradise and rape ensures that the imprisoned regime opponents will go to hell.
Saudi Arabia: Cannot Leave the House without Permission
Saudi Arabian women are also liberated women, and can do what they like. On condition, of course, that it doesn’t involve extreme behavior like leaving the house semi-clothed, without their abaya and veil—they must never do that. They can’t leave their house without permission either, they cannot work in the same place as men. However, it is clear why the committee on the status of women decided not to come out strongly against Saudi Arabia and accuse it of using the law to violate women’s freedom of movement and employment: because this is a “relatively advanced” country and to solve the problem it has built industrial villages for women only. Nor was the committee bothered it seems by the fact that women are forced to divorce their husbands if their tribal pedigree is higher than that of their husband.
Omedia recently published the translation of a poem by Wajeha Al-Huwaider, a Saudi liberal, explaining how you know when you are in an Arab country. The following extracts relate to the status of women in Arab countries.
"When covering the woman's head is more important than financial and administrative corruption, embezzlement, and betrayal of the homeland - do not be astonished, you are in an Arab country…
"When you discover that a woman is worth half of what a man is worth, or less - do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country…
"When young women students are publicly flogged merely for exposing their eyes - you are in an Arab country…
"When women are [seen as] house ornaments which can be replaced at any time - bemoan your fate, you are in an Arab country.
"When birth control and family planning are perceived as a Western plot - place your trust in Allah, you are in an Arab country…
Progress….
On consideration, it is difficult to understand why the committee chose to single Israel out as the only country in the world that violates women’s rights, and on top of that why only three years’ ago the UN committee on the status of women reported what great progress and improvement Arab countries have made regarding women’s rights. There is an internet video clip of an Iranian cleric placing restrictions on men who wish to beat their wives and forbidding them to hit their wife in front of the children or on her face (the rest of the body is permitted). Is this a sign of the progress in the status of women from Arab counties that the committee on the status of women was referring to?
It may be unpleasant to admit, but the only way to understand the shocking conclusions reached by UN committees, including the ones addressing meta-national issues like the status of women, is that it is pure aggression against Israel, never mind about the facts. Without sounding like a conspiracy theory nut, this current example certainly indicates a serious problem with the UN’s thinking and an inbuilt hostility to Israel in its committee structure. If nary a whisper of condemnation is heard against countries where women are forcibly circumcised, while a country in which women can run for president is condemned and scolded by a huge majority—then something is very, very wrong.
Comment: Can this get any more outrageous? I live in Israel and I can tell you how false this report is-fact of the matter, women have achieved a status in Israel that makes every other Western woman envious. This report should once and for all indicate how absurd the UN has become-how out of balance and how dangerous for Western countries. Even the most ardent of UN supporters has to cringe today reading this report that does nothing more than crown the UN the best liar in the univesre!
The UN Committee on the Status of Women examined the status of women around the globe and declared that only one violated women’s rights: Israel. Millions of women in the Muslim world and elsewhere would be glad to hear that the committee thinks they are fine Fact can sometimes be stranger than fiction. At least that is what we learn from the official statement of the UN Committee on the Status of Women, which convened to examine the status of women across the globe. The committee is responsible for an issue of unrivalled importance—the repression and abuse of women across the world, mostly in non-western countries. However, when the committee convened and delivered its conclusions, it was impossible not to be startled by the incredible gap between what is happening in the world and the situation as the committee sees it. Out of all the UN member countries, the committee deemed it appropriate to accuse only one country of violating women’s rights and to call for measures to be taken against it. That country is Israel. Forty of the 42 member states of the committee that participated in the debate were in favor of singling out Israel as the only country in the world today found in violation of women’s rights, to be more precise, Palestinian women’s rights. The expression “UN shmu en” coined by Ben Gurion fifty years ago, still applies.
Judging by the conclusions of the UN Committee on the Status of Women, millions of women across the Muslim world, Africa, the Far East, and elsewhere do not suffer from officially sanctioned discrimination, discrimination with regard to inheritance, division of property, abuse by marriage and divorce laws, forced female circumcision, in fact they aren’t suffering one tiny bit. At any rate, not in a way that is worthy of the UN General Assembly’s attention. Ask Iran, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, China, and other countries famous for their liberal policies towards women—they are all committee members. Israel is the only country where women suffer from discrimination. In Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere, it’s not like that at all. The women there are free—to walk around behind a veil, to be beaten by their husband if they refuse to have sex with him, to leave the house only if he allows it. So to avoid throwing accusations around, here is a short survey of the status of women in the above countries so we can see how marvelous women’s personal circumstances are and how much they don’t need the attention of the UN committee on the status of women.
Afghanistan: The Patient Died After Being Forbidden to Be Treated by a Male Doctor
In her article “The Invisible Women of Afghanistan”, published in “Noga—A Feminist Journal”, writer Ariella Deor examined the status of women in Afghanistan since the Taliban came to power. Deor made contact with an Afghan feminist women’s organization called RAWA. Owing to the laws of the Taliban, RAWA could not operate in Afghanistan and so its members are exiled in Pakistan. Women from the organization described the rigid laws of the Taliban concerning Afghan women and the continuous oppression of women in the country. Although the Taliban regime was overthrown, a large part of what she says in her article still applies in Afghanistan. Among other things, the article describes the story of an Afghan woman who arrived at a hospital suffering from horrific burns to 80% of her body. The only doctor in the hospital at that hour was a man and the Taliban representative on the premises forbad him to treat the women, who died of her injuries.
RAWA has a website with particularly disturbing stories about women who were injured by their husbands or directly by the Afghan authorities and nothing was done to help them or punish their attackers. The following link (Warning: highly distressing images) tells the story of Golbar, a woman who was burned by her husband. Despite the injuries he caused, the Afghanistan authorities did see it necessary to arrest the abusing husband. This link (Warning: highly distressing images) contains the story of a young girl who was raped by the local police of the province where she lived and a report about the sale of young girls and children in Afghanistan. The price of a young child / girl is 50,000 afghanis, $1,000. Human trafficking is considered a serious crime. Despite the lively trade in women in another province of Afghanistan, the representatives of the UN committee on the status of women did not think it of any importance to come out strongly against the Afghan government which does not do enough to erase the problem.
For the information of the UN committee on the status of women, this is how liberated Afghan women are: by Taliban law, Afghan women are forbidden to work outside the home, actually, it is forbidden for them to leave the house at all without the close escort of a male relative. They are forbidden to attend school, and all the schools for girls in the country were closed down. It is forbidden for them to take part in any cultural or sports activities. Women may not receive legal protection, and are only allowed to turn to the courts through the mediation of a man and as in the tragic case described above, it is forbidden for women to receive medical treatment from a male doctor. Also, they may not have surgery if the surgical team includes men. This is a difficult problem because women are forbidden to work or study, which means there cannot be women doctors.
Iran: A Father Has the Right to Marry His Daughter to Whoever he Likes and At Any Age
The status of Iranian women is not as bad as Afghan women, but you would hardly call them “liberated”. For example, a father has the right to marry off his daughter at any age. The requirement that the bride must agree to her marriage is bypassed by a loophole in the law allowing a father to gain his daughter’s consent after the marriage, years later. A husband can divorce his wife without her consent, and have additional wives. A woman has no right to ask her husband for a divorce because he decided to have other wives. Moreover, despite all the conservative apparel, Iran has a bustling prostitution industry, some of it forced. Permission to commit rape is given with religious consent, and the prohibition on sexual relations outside marriage is solved by what the Koran calls “temporary marriage”. A man marries a woman and divorces her after several hours. The “temporary husband” does not have to support the woman who has no rights whatsoever. In addition, members of the “Revolutionary Guard” marry/ rape women who are imprisoned in Iranian jails and awaiting execution before the sentence is carried out. The justification is that according to the Muslim religion a virgin goes to paradise and rape ensures that the imprisoned regime opponents will go to hell.
Saudi Arabia: Cannot Leave the House without Permission
Saudi Arabian women are also liberated women, and can do what they like. On condition, of course, that it doesn’t involve extreme behavior like leaving the house semi-clothed, without their abaya and veil—they must never do that. They can’t leave their house without permission either, they cannot work in the same place as men. However, it is clear why the committee on the status of women decided not to come out strongly against Saudi Arabia and accuse it of using the law to violate women’s freedom of movement and employment: because this is a “relatively advanced” country and to solve the problem it has built industrial villages for women only. Nor was the committee bothered it seems by the fact that women are forced to divorce their husbands if their tribal pedigree is higher than that of their husband.
Omedia recently published the translation of a poem by Wajeha Al-Huwaider, a Saudi liberal, explaining how you know when you are in an Arab country. The following extracts relate to the status of women in Arab countries.
"When covering the woman's head is more important than financial and administrative corruption, embezzlement, and betrayal of the homeland - do not be astonished, you are in an Arab country…
"When you discover that a woman is worth half of what a man is worth, or less - do not be surprised, you are in an Arab country…
"When young women students are publicly flogged merely for exposing their eyes - you are in an Arab country…
"When women are [seen as] house ornaments which can be replaced at any time - bemoan your fate, you are in an Arab country.
"When birth control and family planning are perceived as a Western plot - place your trust in Allah, you are in an Arab country…
Progress….
On consideration, it is difficult to understand why the committee chose to single Israel out as the only country in the world that violates women’s rights, and on top of that why only three years’ ago the UN committee on the status of women reported what great progress and improvement Arab countries have made regarding women’s rights. There is an internet video clip of an Iranian cleric placing restrictions on men who wish to beat their wives and forbidding them to hit their wife in front of the children or on her face (the rest of the body is permitted). Is this a sign of the progress in the status of women from Arab counties that the committee on the status of women was referring to?
It may be unpleasant to admit, but the only way to understand the shocking conclusions reached by UN committees, including the ones addressing meta-national issues like the status of women, is that it is pure aggression against Israel, never mind about the facts. Without sounding like a conspiracy theory nut, this current example certainly indicates a serious problem with the UN’s thinking and an inbuilt hostility to Israel in its committee structure. If nary a whisper of condemnation is heard against countries where women are forcibly circumcised, while a country in which women can run for president is condemned and scolded by a huge majority—then something is very, very wrong.
Comment: Can this get any more outrageous? I live in Israel and I can tell you how false this report is-fact of the matter, women have achieved a status in Israel that makes every other Western woman envious. This report should once and for all indicate how absurd the UN has become-how out of balance and how dangerous for Western countries. Even the most ardent of UN supporters has to cringe today reading this report that does nothing more than crown the UN the best liar in the univesre!
Olmert Gov't Bows to US Pressure, Nixes J'lem Neighborhood
Ezra HaLevi
Wednesday's leak of a municipal plan to build a new Jerusalem neighborhood on land of a moshav destroyed in the War of Independence has caused the repudiation of the plan in the face of American pressure. The leak of the plan to build 10,000-15,000 housing units in Atarot, located in the northeastern part of the capital, was followed by hysterical headlines, outraged editorials and a dose of US pressure, resulting in its repudiation by the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Housing Minister.
Haaretz, who published the leaked plan, featured an editorial calling on Jerusalem to be built “up, not out.” The British Daily Telegraph innacurately titled its own piece: “Israel plans new town on seized land,” despite the fact that the area of Atarot is wholly owned by Jews and was even home to a Jewish community before the War of Independence, when it was destroyed by the Jordanians.
In a carefully-crafted, ambiguously worded Hebrew statement sent to Arutz-7, Housing Minister Ze'ev Boim said that there is no "plan/planning" (tichnun) to establish a neighborhood in Atarot.
A day earlier, Boim had defended the plan, saying Israel has the right to build within Jerusalem's municipal boundaries. The eastern neighborhoods of Jerusalem, including the Old City, ethnically cleansed of Jews in 1948 and liberated in the 1967 Six Day War, were annexed by the Knesset and are considered sovereign Israeli territory.
Boim's about-face followed statements from the Prime Minister's Office and Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni that the plan had not yet been authorized and would not be. Aides of both Olmert and Livni claimed their bosses had not been informed of the plans being drawn up for Atarot.
Boim's spokesman Eran Sidis tried to downplay the plan, telling the Hebrew daily newspaper Yediot Acharonot that the plan was but one of several proposals for expanding Jerusalem. “This one was obviously ruled out because of the sensitive nature of the peace talks. We wouldn't even dream of doing it '' the spokesman said.
Rice Pleased
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the AFP news agency, following Olmert, Livni and Boim’s statements, that Israel “Took a good step. I don't know the calculations that went into it, but obviously it's helpful that you don't have that decision to contend with.” Rice said new Jewish communities would “undermine confidence.
“I think that the Israelis understood that what had happened with Har Homa had had an effect of undermining the confidence in the very fragile and brand new peace process,” Rice she added.
Boim Looks West
Boim’s written statement said the Housing Minister was now examining the possibility of renewing the discussion of the Safdie Plan for expanding Jerusalem westward, “in order to provide a solution for the housing crisis in the city.”
Safdie’s plan was rejected by city planners and environmental groups as it entailed the destruction of large swathes of the Jerusalem Forest.
Municipality Looking Beyond Olmert
A common sentiment expressed by Jerusalem municipality members on the condition of anonymity is that building plans take a very long time to make it to the actual building stage.
“Olmert is not going to be prime minister forever,” said one insider. “We have to have plans ready for someone who is willing to solve the housing crunch in Jerusalem and respect Israeli law – which is that Jerusalem was annexed, end of story.”.
Wednesday's leak of a municipal plan to build a new Jerusalem neighborhood on land of a moshav destroyed in the War of Independence has caused the repudiation of the plan in the face of American pressure. The leak of the plan to build 10,000-15,000 housing units in Atarot, located in the northeastern part of the capital, was followed by hysterical headlines, outraged editorials and a dose of US pressure, resulting in its repudiation by the Prime Minister, Foreign Minister and Housing Minister.
Haaretz, who published the leaked plan, featured an editorial calling on Jerusalem to be built “up, not out.” The British Daily Telegraph innacurately titled its own piece: “Israel plans new town on seized land,” despite the fact that the area of Atarot is wholly owned by Jews and was even home to a Jewish community before the War of Independence, when it was destroyed by the Jordanians.
In a carefully-crafted, ambiguously worded Hebrew statement sent to Arutz-7, Housing Minister Ze'ev Boim said that there is no "plan/planning" (tichnun) to establish a neighborhood in Atarot.
A day earlier, Boim had defended the plan, saying Israel has the right to build within Jerusalem's municipal boundaries. The eastern neighborhoods of Jerusalem, including the Old City, ethnically cleansed of Jews in 1948 and liberated in the 1967 Six Day War, were annexed by the Knesset and are considered sovereign Israeli territory.
Boim's about-face followed statements from the Prime Minister's Office and Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni that the plan had not yet been authorized and would not be. Aides of both Olmert and Livni claimed their bosses had not been informed of the plans being drawn up for Atarot.
Boim's spokesman Eran Sidis tried to downplay the plan, telling the Hebrew daily newspaper Yediot Acharonot that the plan was but one of several proposals for expanding Jerusalem. “This one was obviously ruled out because of the sensitive nature of the peace talks. We wouldn't even dream of doing it '' the spokesman said.
Rice Pleased
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the AFP news agency, following Olmert, Livni and Boim’s statements, that Israel “Took a good step. I don't know the calculations that went into it, but obviously it's helpful that you don't have that decision to contend with.” Rice said new Jewish communities would “undermine confidence.
“I think that the Israelis understood that what had happened with Har Homa had had an effect of undermining the confidence in the very fragile and brand new peace process,” Rice she added.
Boim Looks West
Boim’s written statement said the Housing Minister was now examining the possibility of renewing the discussion of the Safdie Plan for expanding Jerusalem westward, “in order to provide a solution for the housing crisis in the city.”
Safdie’s plan was rejected by city planners and environmental groups as it entailed the destruction of large swathes of the Jerusalem Forest.
Municipality Looking Beyond Olmert
A common sentiment expressed by Jerusalem municipality members on the condition of anonymity is that building plans take a very long time to make it to the actual building stage.
“Olmert is not going to be prime minister forever,” said one insider. “We have to have plans ready for someone who is willing to solve the housing crunch in Jerusalem and respect Israeli law – which is that Jerusalem was annexed, end of story.”.
Saudi Arabia Doesn’t Consider Palestinian Arabs a Good Investment
Elder of Ziyon
The Independent (UK) notes:
Saudi Arabia has so far refused to commit to budget support for the emergency government set up by the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in a political move casting a shadow over Monday’s international donors’ conference in Paris. . The kingdom, along with the Gulf states which normally follow its lead, has declined ahead of the conference to promise around half the $1.4bn (£700m) a year needed to meet the Ramallah government’s annual deficit, according to diplomatic and Palestinian sources. One key reason is thought to be Saudi Arabia’s reluctance to be seen to be throwing all its weight behind one of the two parties to the coalition deal which it brokered and which then collapsed in bloody internal conflict and Hamas’s seizure of control in Gaza in June.
The pro-Hamas IMEMC adds:
Of $421 million in support pledged by Arab nations for this year’s Palestinian Authority budget, only $80 million has been delivered.
Arab nations have in the past pledged big and delivered little to their Pali brethren:
Many nations will be assembled at the Paris donor conference, but unfortunately the countries that could contribute the most — the Gulf states — have done the least. It will be interesting to see whether Paris marks a new departure for these countries. For all their statements on behalf of their Palestinian Arab brethren and how important the peace issue is to progress on other regional fronts, the Gulf Arabs have contributed very little financially to the Palestinians in recent years. According to World Bank officials, the annual Saudi contribution to the Palestinian Authority has been $84 million for most of this decade, while the other Gulf countries have given less or nothing at all. Despite their joint pledge of $660 million per year at an emergency Arab League summit in 2002, when oil prices were a fraction of what they are today, little has actually happened. Similarly, a Saudi promise last year to provide $300-$500 million was never fulfilled, according to U.S. and Arab officials.
The minute amount that Saudi Arabia gives is even more telling in light of its huge oil revenues. As the Washington Institute for Near East Policy notices:
The shortage of Gulf aid to the Palestinians certainly does not result from a lack of wealth, which has reached staggering proportions due to the quadrupling of oil prices since 2002. According to the U.S. Department of Energy and the IMF, oil revenue for the six Gulf Cooperation Council states (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain) should reach about $400 billion this year, half of it belonging to the Saudis. This would make their joint contribution to the Palestinians only 0.04 percent of their annual oil revenues. Adding to that wealth is their cumulative current account surplus since 2003, which will reach $700 billion this year.
And although this question is not meant to be rhetorical, it really is:
Do Gulf Arabs really think that the U.S. mortgage market and similar opportunities represent better investments than funding the economic infrastructure and future well being of the Palestinians, for whom they have campaigned for decades?
As Arabs who have watched the Palestinian Arabs whine and fritter away opportunities for peace and stability for decades, the Saudis know far better than the West how supremely bad an investment the Palis are. Money given to them has historically, invariably been thrown away. Decades of UNRWA aid as well as Western aid has not improved things one bit - their leaders still choose terror rather than peace, living in “camps” rather than permanent housing, and investing in weapons rather than infrastructure.
The Saudis know a bad investment when they see one. Too bad that today, in Paris, the West is likely to continue to throw out billions of dollars on a people whose leaders will use that money to fund death.
The Independent (UK) notes:
Saudi Arabia has so far refused to commit to budget support for the emergency government set up by the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in a political move casting a shadow over Monday’s international donors’ conference in Paris. . The kingdom, along with the Gulf states which normally follow its lead, has declined ahead of the conference to promise around half the $1.4bn (£700m) a year needed to meet the Ramallah government’s annual deficit, according to diplomatic and Palestinian sources. One key reason is thought to be Saudi Arabia’s reluctance to be seen to be throwing all its weight behind one of the two parties to the coalition deal which it brokered and which then collapsed in bloody internal conflict and Hamas’s seizure of control in Gaza in June.
The pro-Hamas IMEMC adds:
Of $421 million in support pledged by Arab nations for this year’s Palestinian Authority budget, only $80 million has been delivered.
Arab nations have in the past pledged big and delivered little to their Pali brethren:
Many nations will be assembled at the Paris donor conference, but unfortunately the countries that could contribute the most — the Gulf states — have done the least. It will be interesting to see whether Paris marks a new departure for these countries. For all their statements on behalf of their Palestinian Arab brethren and how important the peace issue is to progress on other regional fronts, the Gulf Arabs have contributed very little financially to the Palestinians in recent years. According to World Bank officials, the annual Saudi contribution to the Palestinian Authority has been $84 million for most of this decade, while the other Gulf countries have given less or nothing at all. Despite their joint pledge of $660 million per year at an emergency Arab League summit in 2002, when oil prices were a fraction of what they are today, little has actually happened. Similarly, a Saudi promise last year to provide $300-$500 million was never fulfilled, according to U.S. and Arab officials.
The minute amount that Saudi Arabia gives is even more telling in light of its huge oil revenues. As the Washington Institute for Near East Policy notices:
The shortage of Gulf aid to the Palestinians certainly does not result from a lack of wealth, which has reached staggering proportions due to the quadrupling of oil prices since 2002. According to the U.S. Department of Energy and the IMF, oil revenue for the six Gulf Cooperation Council states (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, and Bahrain) should reach about $400 billion this year, half of it belonging to the Saudis. This would make their joint contribution to the Palestinians only 0.04 percent of their annual oil revenues. Adding to that wealth is their cumulative current account surplus since 2003, which will reach $700 billion this year.
And although this question is not meant to be rhetorical, it really is:
Do Gulf Arabs really think that the U.S. mortgage market and similar opportunities represent better investments than funding the economic infrastructure and future well being of the Palestinians, for whom they have campaigned for decades?
As Arabs who have watched the Palestinian Arabs whine and fritter away opportunities for peace and stability for decades, the Saudis know far better than the West how supremely bad an investment the Palis are. Money given to them has historically, invariably been thrown away. Decades of UNRWA aid as well as Western aid has not improved things one bit - their leaders still choose terror rather than peace, living in “camps” rather than permanent housing, and investing in weapons rather than infrastructure.
The Saudis know a bad investment when they see one. Too bad that today, in Paris, the West is likely to continue to throw out billions of dollars on a people whose leaders will use that money to fund death.
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Regious hypocrisy
Top Catholic Clergyman Denounces Israel's "Jewish Identity" atin Patriarch Michel Sabbah, the top Roman Catholic clergyman in Israel, has denounced the nation's Jewish identity in his annual Christmas address delivered in Jerusalem on Wednesday. Sabbah said non-Jewish religions are discriminated against and called on Israel to abandon its Jewish character and instead become a ''political, normal state for Christians, Muslims and Jews.'' Sabbah placed the blame for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict directly on Israel, asserting that, "If Israel decides for peace, there will be peace." He said there has been no peace until now "simply because of Israel's unwillingness to make it." Israeli officials denounced Sabbah's remarks, insisting that all religions enjoy equal rights in the Jewish state.
Gulf states are scared
Saudi invitation to Ahmadinejad marks recognition of Iran’s menacing presence, growing power It's a big week for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. For the first time in his life, the Iranian president joined millions of other Muslims in Saudi Arabia for the annual Hajj pilgrimage. Images of a serious and unusually well-groomed Iranian president consulting the Koran in Iran before boarding his plane to Saudi Arabia have appeared in the world media. Yet this is not merely a story about a pilgrimage.
Ahmadinejad is the leader of the Shiite Islamic Republic, a country that has jolted the entire Middle East and frightened its Sunni neighbors in recent years with its push for Shiite political and religious superiority. That push is being accompanied by patient work on a nuclear program and ingenious deception and time-delay tactics to keep Western critics at bay.
Saudi Arabia, the leader of the Sunni bloc, is one of Iran's frightened neighbors. And yet, it was Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah who made the surprising friendly gesture, inviting Ahmadinejad to Mecca for the Hajj.
Even from a purely Sunni religious standpoint, the invitation of a Shiite leader to the Hajj is big news. Shiites are viewed by many Sunni clerics as infidels. It's easy to find evidence of that hatred, especially when one looks at the religious decrees originating in Saudi Arabia. One fatwa by Saudi sheikh Abdel-Rahman al-Barrak ruled last year that Shiites "in their entirety are the worst of the Islamic nation's sects. They bear all the characteristics of infidels. They are in truth polytheist infidels, though they hide this."
Shiites have long been rejected by Sunnis as fellow Muslims. The split dates back to the origins of Islam, when two camps were battling for the right to succeed Muhammad. In the end, the group that went on to become the Sunnis massacred Hussein, the martyr of the Shiites, along with his army, during a massive battle in Karbala (modern day Iraq).
Shiites will never forget that day, enshrined into their collective memory and relived annually through the festival of Ashura. But the Shiites haven't given up trying to take back what they view as their right for the throne of the Islamic world. Armed with a sword and a smile, Iran has been making offers that its cowered Sunni neighbors can't refuse.
"We propose the establishment of economical and security pacts and institutions among the seven states," Ahmadinejad told a summit of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) at the beginning of the month. Iran wants a regional set-up free from "foreign influence," Ahmadinejad said. Like the Hajj pilgrimage, Iran's presence at this event marks big changes. It is yet another signal of Iran's disturbing ascent. The invitations are nods from the Sunni states in recognition of Iran's menacing presence and growing power.
Sign of US retreat
The fact that Iran was invited to the GCC conference right after the US National Intelligence Estimate ruled that the Islamic Republic halted work on nuclear weapons in 2003 is no coincidence. The NIE is seen as a sign of an American retreat. The report is a cannon ball that has blown an irreparable hole in the ship sailing towards significantly tighter UN sanctions on Iran. As that ship sinks, the one behind it, carrying the US military option vis-à-vis Iran, has made a U-turn, in the eyes of Gulf states. Ahmadinejad has become a Gulf celebrity, invited to conferences and pilgrimages other Iranian leaders could only dream of attending; The Gulf states are scared.
As far as Iran's regime is concerned, this is just the beginning of things to come. Not long ago, a close associate of Iran's supreme leader, who edits the state-approved Iranian newspaper, Kahyan, said neighboring Bahrain is a actually a province of Iran. The comment triggered alarm and was later followed by a reassurance from the Iranian foreign minister, who said that Iran and Bahrain "respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity." Sometimes, Iranian officials speak too soon.
In the final act of the Hajj, the masses of Muslim pilgrims circle the black stone in Mecca, known as the Kaaba, seven times. Iran's leader circled with them, representing the Shiite state's glaring presence.
Ahmadinejad is the leader of the Shiite Islamic Republic, a country that has jolted the entire Middle East and frightened its Sunni neighbors in recent years with its push for Shiite political and religious superiority. That push is being accompanied by patient work on a nuclear program and ingenious deception and time-delay tactics to keep Western critics at bay.
Saudi Arabia, the leader of the Sunni bloc, is one of Iran's frightened neighbors. And yet, it was Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah who made the surprising friendly gesture, inviting Ahmadinejad to Mecca for the Hajj.
Even from a purely Sunni religious standpoint, the invitation of a Shiite leader to the Hajj is big news. Shiites are viewed by many Sunni clerics as infidels. It's easy to find evidence of that hatred, especially when one looks at the religious decrees originating in Saudi Arabia. One fatwa by Saudi sheikh Abdel-Rahman al-Barrak ruled last year that Shiites "in their entirety are the worst of the Islamic nation's sects. They bear all the characteristics of infidels. They are in truth polytheist infidels, though they hide this."
Shiites have long been rejected by Sunnis as fellow Muslims. The split dates back to the origins of Islam, when two camps were battling for the right to succeed Muhammad. In the end, the group that went on to become the Sunnis massacred Hussein, the martyr of the Shiites, along with his army, during a massive battle in Karbala (modern day Iraq).
Shiites will never forget that day, enshrined into their collective memory and relived annually through the festival of Ashura. But the Shiites haven't given up trying to take back what they view as their right for the throne of the Islamic world. Armed with a sword and a smile, Iran has been making offers that its cowered Sunni neighbors can't refuse.
"We propose the establishment of economical and security pacts and institutions among the seven states," Ahmadinejad told a summit of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) at the beginning of the month. Iran wants a regional set-up free from "foreign influence," Ahmadinejad said. Like the Hajj pilgrimage, Iran's presence at this event marks big changes. It is yet another signal of Iran's disturbing ascent. The invitations are nods from the Sunni states in recognition of Iran's menacing presence and growing power.
Sign of US retreat
The fact that Iran was invited to the GCC conference right after the US National Intelligence Estimate ruled that the Islamic Republic halted work on nuclear weapons in 2003 is no coincidence. The NIE is seen as a sign of an American retreat. The report is a cannon ball that has blown an irreparable hole in the ship sailing towards significantly tighter UN sanctions on Iran. As that ship sinks, the one behind it, carrying the US military option vis-à-vis Iran, has made a U-turn, in the eyes of Gulf states. Ahmadinejad has become a Gulf celebrity, invited to conferences and pilgrimages other Iranian leaders could only dream of attending; The Gulf states are scared.
As far as Iran's regime is concerned, this is just the beginning of things to come. Not long ago, a close associate of Iran's supreme leader, who edits the state-approved Iranian newspaper, Kahyan, said neighboring Bahrain is a actually a province of Iran. The comment triggered alarm and was later followed by a reassurance from the Iranian foreign minister, who said that Iran and Bahrain "respect each other's sovereignty and territorial integrity." Sometimes, Iranian officials speak too soon.
In the final act of the Hajj, the masses of Muslim pilgrims circle the black stone in Mecca, known as the Kaaba, seven times. Iran's leader circled with them, representing the Shiite state's glaring presence.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Islamist in the Army
Joe Kaufman
FrontPageMagazine.com
In April of 2000, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) – the American arm of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), the Muslim Brotherhood of Pakistan – launched a website to provide information about Islam to non-Muslims, appropriately called Why Islam? (WI). Since then, the website has been used, instead, to propagate support for overseas terrorist groups and to spread violent hatred against non-Muslims. One of the individuals that has been involved in both is currently located in Iraq. However, he is no Iraqi. He is an American and a member of the United States Army. The following exposes this individual, in hopes that a potential threat will be averted.
Dawah is the Arabic term for outreach (with the intent to convert non-Muslims to Islam). WI is ICNA’s program for just such outreach. For it, ICNA created a toll-free helpline and built an interactive website. One of the main functions of the website is a forum, where group members get together on-line to discuss numerous subjects regarding Islam and current events. Many times these discussions result in praise for terrorist organizations, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and extreme hateful statements aimed at non-Muslims, particularly members of the Jewish faith. This occurs from not only WI members, but from forum leaders, as well.
One of the forum members goes by the screen name “Deep Thought.” While he stated that he joined to “learn about Islam,” it didn’t take long for Mr. Thought (DT) to become a party to the hate fest. In March of 2006, less than a month after he signed up, he took aim at Jews, whites and Christians, saying that the reason for U.S. support for Israel was due to the fact that “Jews in America have money,” that he is “very cautious of white people,” and that “Christians are hypocrites” for thinking that beheadings by Muslims are any different than capital punishment in the U.S. He stated, “Personally I think I would rather a quick chop to the head then the electric chair.”
In time, the rhetoric would become much worse, leading towards his support of terrorist organizations, a violent obsession with Jews and Israel, and repeated assaults on President Bush.
Concerning Hamas, Hezbollah and Chechen militants, DT stated:
* “I cant believe Christians and Israel supporters condemn groups like Hamas and Hezbollah!!... Far in between I tell u brothers and sisters in Islam.... We will prevail... Allahu Akbar.” (August 9, 2006)
* “You choose to believe it because in your mind HAMAS CAN DO NO RIGHT... The article fits your perception of them.... as terroist.... I on the other hand see them as freedom fighters... FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!” (May 1, 2006)
* “You mention Chechen rebels and Hezbollah... Unfair of you to call them terroist unless you know THEIR story... Believe me their cause is a worthy one.” (November 10, 2006)
* “I consider them [Hamas] freedom fighters... G-d bless them.” (May 5, 2006)
About Jews, DT wrote:
* “I would tell you face to face how I feel about you israel supporting ‘jews’... Likewise, If a Jew attacks me or my muslim brothers.....GAME OVER.” (July 20, 2006)
* “I have never personally met a Jew but if he is anything like you.. I'm gonna put my combat boots in his jew a**.” (July 20, 2006)
* “As if there is not enough of Pro-jewish/ christian crusader groups in the United States! Hell, the whole government for that matter.. Tell me that they are not!! I dare u, this is an argument or ‘debate’ that you CAN NOT win.” (August 9, 2006)
* “Jews own the American media.” (August 27, 2006)
Regarding President George W. Bush, DT stated:
* “Its all about money and strategic airfields to overun other countries we deem as a threat, or a threat to that international law biding ‘stat’ we call Israel... I say again... Bush has blood on his hands.” (June 8, 2006)
* “He wouldnt dare [bomb Iran] Bro... dont worry.... I would leave the Army if he did... I rather spend time in prison or [be] called a traitor to the U..S then to have a leader like Bush nuke someone.” (April 9, 2006)
* “Bush is an absolute idiot.... 2008 couldnt come sooner.” (April 21, 2006)
* “Bush created terroiSm in Iraq.. Before he invaded there were no terroist... jUST LIKE jEWS CREATED HAMAS.” (November 12, 2006)
DT associating himself with Palestinian violence:
* “I would kill if I was a Palestinian.” (July 14, 2006)
* “It seems everyone is against us... We are being killed off by the thousands and we get crap for fighting back... No one sees what Israel does.. They only see the things muslims do in Response to what Israel does are to stop them from taking homes of Palestinains... They want Palestine to accept and and just lie down to oppression... Yeah, just lay down while Israel kicks them in the face.” (July 29, 2006)
* “If it were me brother Fazz, I would fight until they kill me... It would be inhumane on every able bodied Palestinian man to NOT resist the Israeli Army... Sometimes you have to fight for something greater than yourself.” (July 14, 2006)
* “[F]or Palestinians to allow Israel to murder their people would be the biggest crime that the Palestinians can commit in my book.” (June 18, 2006)
Concerning Israel’s existence, DT said:
* “I dont just blame Zionist.. I blame ALL who had a hand in creating a Israeli state in a region dominated by Palestinains... People wonder why there are groups like HAMAS around?? Give me a break..... There is no way anyone on this forum can morally justify the creation of Israel.” (May 5, 2006)
* “Also, no one said that you are a racist if you dont believe in fighting Zionism to the death.. But then again, whats the problem with killing racism?” (August 30, 2006)
* “So what if there is a UN charter stated than Israel has a right to exist... Screw the UN resolutions.” (July 15, 2006)
* “‘Palestinians need to recognize the right of Israel to exist on its ancestral land. Israel is willing to start toward the two-state solution, but it can't be expected to negotiate if Israelis will remain targets of violence.’ What a load of crap.” (August 9, 2006)
He described an Israeli warship that suffered a July 2006 attack by Hezbollah as a “legitimate military target,” and he even called the United States an “enemy” for being allied with Israel, stating, “Wouldnt you dislike America too....? I have said it before... My enemies friend is my enemy.” Certainly the quotes are disturbing, but what is even more so is the source from which the quotes came from.
Who is Deep Thought? According to his WI profile, his “real name” is Lawrence, and his birthday is January 10, 1985. [Although, in March of 2006, he declared his age was 23.] He has posted that his hometown is Louisiana, that his wife’s name is Adrienne and that she is Christian, that he has four children, and that his mother died sometime in 2006. We find from his posts that he embraced Islam via the forum, proclaiming “Thank G-D I am a muslim,” and “took an oath of allegiance to Islam” around August of 2006, which he proudly displayed with his user icon stating, “my religion, ISLAM.” In at least one post, he signed his name as “Bilal,” which is a common Muslim name.
What’s most interesting, though, is that, within DT’s profile, under the section “occupation,” he put “military.”
Unless he created an elaborate fantasy world, it turns out that DT is a soldier in the United States Army. He has made a number of posts discussing this aspect of his life, including that he enlisted when he was 17 years old. He wrote that he created the screen name Deep Thought, because “I always find my self ‘zoning out’ thinking of life, family, being a soldier.” In fact, if we are to believe what he says in his posts, he is currently serving in Iraq.
In May of 2006, DT posted on the WI forum that he was stationed in South Korea. He wrote, “I am a soldier in South Korea... My job is to protect south korea from Kim Jong Il... I am 30 miles from the DMZ.” In November of 2006, he stated, “I have had cnversations with many muslims during my tour of duty in South Korea... Trust me... They hate our policy and our greedy government.”
On July 17, 2007, DT wrote, “[A]s u know I am a American soldier.. I will be in Baghdad in 45 Days.” On September 27, 2007, he posted, “I am actually in Kuwait for now.. I will be in Iraq in a couple of days.”
DT’s statements, regarding him going to Iraq, caused a riff in the WI forum. People that he considered his friends turned on him, even to the point where at least one said he wanted to cause DT bodily harm for even thinking about going. M.A.R.W.A.N is a moderator for WI. About DT going to Iraq, he stated, “I support you 100%. And since I'm far away, my support comes in the form of advice. If we were really good friends and trusted each other, my support would come in the form of breaking your limbs, including your trigger finger, before you made took regretable and unreversible actions.”
Islamway wrote to DT, “I'm sure that your intention are good but what you are going to do is completely wrong, and against Islam... there are at least 80 operation done daily by the Iraqi resistance against the amercian army .. are these people guilty for fighting the American? actually, according to ISLAM resisting the foreign invasion is not only recommended bur REQUIRED from anyone capable of it. And by fighting these people under the american flag you will be committing a grave sin.”
Ibn Abu Talib told DT, “[S]pare me the poignant drivel! you could have joined your brothers in Palestine, Chechnya or Kashmir. Instead, you want to go into Iraq and exacerbate the situation by joining the US army. Are you going to kill Mujahideen who solely target American soldiers?”
Another poster, Gothika, suggested to DT that he should not join his “infidel U.S. Army” and should, instead, “fight the Americans and get them out of Iraq! Once all the western infidels are gone, the sunni and shias will, Insha’Allah, engage in deliberations and restor peace in Iraq.”
Hearing these condemnations voiced from his once trusted colleagues shook Lawrence and caused him to question his newfound religion. However, that did not stop him from continuing to post on the forum – and from Iraq, yet.
On November 26, 2007, DT wrote, “Well, I have been in Iraq for 2 months now.. I have pretty much seen this entire country... I have takened some very nice pictures of Iraq which I will be posting on a later date.. I'll be sure to give a link to them when its complete.. Well, I hope all is well with EVERY member of this forum... I am sooo homesick and wish I was home now.... But, my life is here and now... In Iraq..... It feels good to finally have decent internet access.”
There are a number of problems with the abovementioned: 1. While he is wearing a United States military uniform, and while he is supposed to be fighting against terrorists in Iraq, Lawrence is writing on a forum that has many outspoken members that support terrorist groups (himself included) and that was founded by an organization, ICNA, that has been implicated in the financing of Hamas and Al-Qaeda; 2. The pictures and information he posts to WI may very well contain sensitive material that could put U.S. troops in harms way; and 3. Past statements of his show that Lawrence has a vehement distaste and disloyalty to the war in Iraq, to begin with.
In April of 2006, DT stated, “[The] federal government is a JOKE... After the lies of Iraq, I dont believe anything this administration says... 2 years left in the Army and I'M DONE.. I hate our foreign policy and its not worth dying for... 7 years of my life went to this country... I owe the American government NOTHING.” And in July of 2006, he said, “What the hell did Iraq had to do with 9/11... Iraq and 9/11 had NO TIES, NO WMD... The whole war is bull... period... I for one didnt join the Army to fight an unjust war... Bottom line... This war is garbage and we shouldnt be there.”
So why is he there?
On Sunday, March 23, 2003, Sgt. Asan Akbar, a soldier in the 326th Engineer Battalion of the Army’s 101st Airborne Division stationed in Iraq, rolled a grenade into each of three tents of his fellow sleeping officers and shot at least two of the soldiers as they fled the tents. The attack left one dead and 15 wounded. According to survivors, after Akbar, a convert to Islam, was apprehended, he shouted anti-American statements. [Ironically, Akbar’s Los Angeles mosque bears the same name as DT’s Muslim alias, Masjid Bilal Islamic Center.]
Is DT or Bilal in Iraq to help bring peace and stability to the area, or is he there, like Sgt. Akbar before him, for something entirely different? Or maybe, to him, the two things are one and the same.
“I am for peace.. I would die for any muslim.”
- Deep Thought, March 2, 2007
“‘The life of this world is no more than an illusion.’ Allah (swt) will be my final judge... If I am wrong in my actions I pray that he shows me mercy... Nevertheless, Allah (swt) knows best.”
- Deep Thought, September 1, 2007
“Allah (swt) will give us justice in this life or the next. Be patient brothers and sisters.. either way we will prevail over those who mistreat us.. I firmly believe this.... Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!”
- Deep Thought, August 9, 2006
A potential disaster should be averted. If anyone has any information regarding Deep Thought, a.k.a. Lawrence, a.k.a. Bilal, please contact the U.S. Army immediately. Or, if you wish, you can send an e-mail to info@americansagainsthate.org, and the information will be forwarded to the proper authorities.
Joe Kaufman is the Chairman of Americans Against Hate, the founder of CAIR Watch, and the spokesman for Terror-Free Oil Initiative
FrontPageMagazine.com
In April of 2000, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) – the American arm of Jamaat-e-Islami (JI), the Muslim Brotherhood of Pakistan – launched a website to provide information about Islam to non-Muslims, appropriately called Why Islam? (WI). Since then, the website has been used, instead, to propagate support for overseas terrorist groups and to spread violent hatred against non-Muslims. One of the individuals that has been involved in both is currently located in Iraq. However, he is no Iraqi. He is an American and a member of the United States Army. The following exposes this individual, in hopes that a potential threat will be averted.
Dawah is the Arabic term for outreach (with the intent to convert non-Muslims to Islam). WI is ICNA’s program for just such outreach. For it, ICNA created a toll-free helpline and built an interactive website. One of the main functions of the website is a forum, where group members get together on-line to discuss numerous subjects regarding Islam and current events. Many times these discussions result in praise for terrorist organizations, such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and extreme hateful statements aimed at non-Muslims, particularly members of the Jewish faith. This occurs from not only WI members, but from forum leaders, as well.
One of the forum members goes by the screen name “Deep Thought.” While he stated that he joined to “learn about Islam,” it didn’t take long for Mr. Thought (DT) to become a party to the hate fest. In March of 2006, less than a month after he signed up, he took aim at Jews, whites and Christians, saying that the reason for U.S. support for Israel was due to the fact that “Jews in America have money,” that he is “very cautious of white people,” and that “Christians are hypocrites” for thinking that beheadings by Muslims are any different than capital punishment in the U.S. He stated, “Personally I think I would rather a quick chop to the head then the electric chair.”
In time, the rhetoric would become much worse, leading towards his support of terrorist organizations, a violent obsession with Jews and Israel, and repeated assaults on President Bush.
Concerning Hamas, Hezbollah and Chechen militants, DT stated:
* “I cant believe Christians and Israel supporters condemn groups like Hamas and Hezbollah!!... Far in between I tell u brothers and sisters in Islam.... We will prevail... Allahu Akbar.” (August 9, 2006)
* “You choose to believe it because in your mind HAMAS CAN DO NO RIGHT... The article fits your perception of them.... as terroist.... I on the other hand see them as freedom fighters... FREE PALESTINE!!!!!!!” (May 1, 2006)
* “You mention Chechen rebels and Hezbollah... Unfair of you to call them terroist unless you know THEIR story... Believe me their cause is a worthy one.” (November 10, 2006)
* “I consider them [Hamas] freedom fighters... G-d bless them.” (May 5, 2006)
About Jews, DT wrote:
* “I would tell you face to face how I feel about you israel supporting ‘jews’... Likewise, If a Jew attacks me or my muslim brothers.....GAME OVER.” (July 20, 2006)
* “I have never personally met a Jew but if he is anything like you.. I'm gonna put my combat boots in his jew a**.” (July 20, 2006)
* “As if there is not enough of Pro-jewish/ christian crusader groups in the United States! Hell, the whole government for that matter.. Tell me that they are not!! I dare u, this is an argument or ‘debate’ that you CAN NOT win.” (August 9, 2006)
* “Jews own the American media.” (August 27, 2006)
Regarding President George W. Bush, DT stated:
* “Its all about money and strategic airfields to overun other countries we deem as a threat, or a threat to that international law biding ‘stat’ we call Israel... I say again... Bush has blood on his hands.” (June 8, 2006)
* “He wouldnt dare [bomb Iran] Bro... dont worry.... I would leave the Army if he did... I rather spend time in prison or [be] called a traitor to the U..S then to have a leader like Bush nuke someone.” (April 9, 2006)
* “Bush is an absolute idiot.... 2008 couldnt come sooner.” (April 21, 2006)
* “Bush created terroiSm in Iraq.. Before he invaded there were no terroist... jUST LIKE jEWS CREATED HAMAS.” (November 12, 2006)
DT associating himself with Palestinian violence:
* “I would kill if I was a Palestinian.” (July 14, 2006)
* “It seems everyone is against us... We are being killed off by the thousands and we get crap for fighting back... No one sees what Israel does.. They only see the things muslims do in Response to what Israel does are to stop them from taking homes of Palestinains... They want Palestine to accept and and just lie down to oppression... Yeah, just lay down while Israel kicks them in the face.” (July 29, 2006)
* “If it were me brother Fazz, I would fight until they kill me... It would be inhumane on every able bodied Palestinian man to NOT resist the Israeli Army... Sometimes you have to fight for something greater than yourself.” (July 14, 2006)
* “[F]or Palestinians to allow Israel to murder their people would be the biggest crime that the Palestinians can commit in my book.” (June 18, 2006)
Concerning Israel’s existence, DT said:
* “I dont just blame Zionist.. I blame ALL who had a hand in creating a Israeli state in a region dominated by Palestinains... People wonder why there are groups like HAMAS around?? Give me a break..... There is no way anyone on this forum can morally justify the creation of Israel.” (May 5, 2006)
* “Also, no one said that you are a racist if you dont believe in fighting Zionism to the death.. But then again, whats the problem with killing racism?” (August 30, 2006)
* “So what if there is a UN charter stated than Israel has a right to exist... Screw the UN resolutions.” (July 15, 2006)
* “‘Palestinians need to recognize the right of Israel to exist on its ancestral land. Israel is willing to start toward the two-state solution, but it can't be expected to negotiate if Israelis will remain targets of violence.’ What a load of crap.” (August 9, 2006)
He described an Israeli warship that suffered a July 2006 attack by Hezbollah as a “legitimate military target,” and he even called the United States an “enemy” for being allied with Israel, stating, “Wouldnt you dislike America too....? I have said it before... My enemies friend is my enemy.” Certainly the quotes are disturbing, but what is even more so is the source from which the quotes came from.
Who is Deep Thought? According to his WI profile, his “real name” is Lawrence, and his birthday is January 10, 1985. [Although, in March of 2006, he declared his age was 23.] He has posted that his hometown is Louisiana, that his wife’s name is Adrienne and that she is Christian, that he has four children, and that his mother died sometime in 2006. We find from his posts that he embraced Islam via the forum, proclaiming “Thank G-D I am a muslim,” and “took an oath of allegiance to Islam” around August of 2006, which he proudly displayed with his user icon stating, “my religion, ISLAM.” In at least one post, he signed his name as “Bilal,” which is a common Muslim name.
What’s most interesting, though, is that, within DT’s profile, under the section “occupation,” he put “military.”
Unless he created an elaborate fantasy world, it turns out that DT is a soldier in the United States Army. He has made a number of posts discussing this aspect of his life, including that he enlisted when he was 17 years old. He wrote that he created the screen name Deep Thought, because “I always find my self ‘zoning out’ thinking of life, family, being a soldier.” In fact, if we are to believe what he says in his posts, he is currently serving in Iraq.
In May of 2006, DT posted on the WI forum that he was stationed in South Korea. He wrote, “I am a soldier in South Korea... My job is to protect south korea from Kim Jong Il... I am 30 miles from the DMZ.” In November of 2006, he stated, “I have had cnversations with many muslims during my tour of duty in South Korea... Trust me... They hate our policy and our greedy government.”
On July 17, 2007, DT wrote, “[A]s u know I am a American soldier.. I will be in Baghdad in 45 Days.” On September 27, 2007, he posted, “I am actually in Kuwait for now.. I will be in Iraq in a couple of days.”
DT’s statements, regarding him going to Iraq, caused a riff in the WI forum. People that he considered his friends turned on him, even to the point where at least one said he wanted to cause DT bodily harm for even thinking about going. M.A.R.W.A.N is a moderator for WI. About DT going to Iraq, he stated, “I support you 100%. And since I'm far away, my support comes in the form of advice. If we were really good friends and trusted each other, my support would come in the form of breaking your limbs, including your trigger finger, before you made took regretable and unreversible actions.”
Islamway wrote to DT, “I'm sure that your intention are good but what you are going to do is completely wrong, and against Islam... there are at least 80 operation done daily by the Iraqi resistance against the amercian army .. are these people guilty for fighting the American? actually, according to ISLAM resisting the foreign invasion is not only recommended bur REQUIRED from anyone capable of it. And by fighting these people under the american flag you will be committing a grave sin.”
Ibn Abu Talib told DT, “[S]pare me the poignant drivel! you could have joined your brothers in Palestine, Chechnya or Kashmir. Instead, you want to go into Iraq and exacerbate the situation by joining the US army. Are you going to kill Mujahideen who solely target American soldiers?”
Another poster, Gothika, suggested to DT that he should not join his “infidel U.S. Army” and should, instead, “fight the Americans and get them out of Iraq! Once all the western infidels are gone, the sunni and shias will, Insha’Allah, engage in deliberations and restor peace in Iraq.”
Hearing these condemnations voiced from his once trusted colleagues shook Lawrence and caused him to question his newfound religion. However, that did not stop him from continuing to post on the forum – and from Iraq, yet.
On November 26, 2007, DT wrote, “Well, I have been in Iraq for 2 months now.. I have pretty much seen this entire country... I have takened some very nice pictures of Iraq which I will be posting on a later date.. I'll be sure to give a link to them when its complete.. Well, I hope all is well with EVERY member of this forum... I am sooo homesick and wish I was home now.... But, my life is here and now... In Iraq..... It feels good to finally have decent internet access.”
There are a number of problems with the abovementioned: 1. While he is wearing a United States military uniform, and while he is supposed to be fighting against terrorists in Iraq, Lawrence is writing on a forum that has many outspoken members that support terrorist groups (himself included) and that was founded by an organization, ICNA, that has been implicated in the financing of Hamas and Al-Qaeda; 2. The pictures and information he posts to WI may very well contain sensitive material that could put U.S. troops in harms way; and 3. Past statements of his show that Lawrence has a vehement distaste and disloyalty to the war in Iraq, to begin with.
In April of 2006, DT stated, “[The] federal government is a JOKE... After the lies of Iraq, I dont believe anything this administration says... 2 years left in the Army and I'M DONE.. I hate our foreign policy and its not worth dying for... 7 years of my life went to this country... I owe the American government NOTHING.” And in July of 2006, he said, “What the hell did Iraq had to do with 9/11... Iraq and 9/11 had NO TIES, NO WMD... The whole war is bull... period... I for one didnt join the Army to fight an unjust war... Bottom line... This war is garbage and we shouldnt be there.”
So why is he there?
On Sunday, March 23, 2003, Sgt. Asan Akbar, a soldier in the 326th Engineer Battalion of the Army’s 101st Airborne Division stationed in Iraq, rolled a grenade into each of three tents of his fellow sleeping officers and shot at least two of the soldiers as they fled the tents. The attack left one dead and 15 wounded. According to survivors, after Akbar, a convert to Islam, was apprehended, he shouted anti-American statements. [Ironically, Akbar’s Los Angeles mosque bears the same name as DT’s Muslim alias, Masjid Bilal Islamic Center.]
Is DT or Bilal in Iraq to help bring peace and stability to the area, or is he there, like Sgt. Akbar before him, for something entirely different? Or maybe, to him, the two things are one and the same.
“I am for peace.. I would die for any muslim.”
- Deep Thought, March 2, 2007
“‘The life of this world is no more than an illusion.’ Allah (swt) will be my final judge... If I am wrong in my actions I pray that he shows me mercy... Nevertheless, Allah (swt) knows best.”
- Deep Thought, September 1, 2007
“Allah (swt) will give us justice in this life or the next. Be patient brothers and sisters.. either way we will prevail over those who mistreat us.. I firmly believe this.... Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!”
- Deep Thought, August 9, 2006
A potential disaster should be averted. If anyone has any information regarding Deep Thought, a.k.a. Lawrence, a.k.a. Bilal, please contact the U.S. Army immediately. Or, if you wish, you can send an e-mail to info@americansagainsthate.org, and the information will be forwarded to the proper authorities.
Joe Kaufman is the Chairman of Americans Against Hate, the founder of CAIR Watch, and the spokesman for Terror-Free Oil Initiative
Gov't official: Road map duties not morally equal
Herb Keinon
THE JERUSALEM POST
With the world increasingly putting Israel's obligation under the road map to stop settlement activity on par with the Palestinian obligation to uproot the terrorist infrastructure, Israeli officials have begun taking the offensive, with one official saying Monday that the two obligations are not "morally equivalent." Construction on Har Homa, the official said, doesn't kill anyone.
Building in the Jerusalem neighborhood, which was approved in 1997 and planned as a community of 6,500 units, will continue, he said.
The official said 4,500 housing units in Har Homa had been built, meaning that in addition to the 300 units for which tenders were just issued, another 1,700 are in the pipeline.
The official indicated that neither the fate of Har Homa, nor any of the other settlements, would be determined by the construction of another 300 units.
"If Har Homa will not be part of Israel, it doesn't matter if Har Homa is 5,000 units or 6,000 units - Har Homa will be dismantled," the official said.
It was clarified afterward that the official was not putting Har Homa on the negotiating table, but rather speaking in theoretical terms; that if the government decides to dismantle a settlement, it will do so, and an addition of a few hundred units would not tip the balance.
The official reiterated Israel's long-standing position that it will allow construction in existing settlements within the built-up construction lines, but would not build any new settlements or allow the expansion beyond the built-up areas of existing settlements.
When asked if the US approves of this definition, the official said, "America doesn't have to approve if we are doing something that we think, as a sovereign state, we have to do."
Nevertheless, Israeli officials took some comfort when US President George W. Bush spoke at Annapolis about the need for Israel to end settlement activity, saying there should be no more settlement "expansion," but saying nothing of ending all construction.
The official said Israel would not build new settlements, confiscate land in the West Bank or give financial incentives to people to move to the settlements, as has been done in the past.
But, he said, this didn't mean that the government would prohibit people from moving to empty flats in existing settlements.
Also, he said, "If somebody bought an empty lot in one of the settlements 10 years ago and he owns it, and he decides now in the year 2007, 10 or 15 years after he purchased it, to build on it, the government of Israel cannot do anything about it."
Regarding the settlement outposts, of the 108 that were set up since March 2001, and which Israel has said it will dismantle, 82 have been taken down, leaving another 26, the official said. While he did not give a timetable for their removal, he said Israel was committed to doing so.
Vice Premier Haim Ramon, meanwhile, said Tuesday almost all current construction over the Green Line was in the large settlement blocs that Israel has indicated it will retain in any agreement.
"The Palestinians won't say that this is good, but there is no doubt that the Palestinians understand that in the end of the peace process the settlement blocs will be under Israeli sovereignty in return for an exchange of territory," he told Army Radio.
Ramon, advocating an eventual territory swap, said Israel should reach an agreement with the Palestinians "over the principle of settlement blocs under Israeli sovereignty, and in return an exchange of territory."
THE JERUSALEM POST
With the world increasingly putting Israel's obligation under the road map to stop settlement activity on par with the Palestinian obligation to uproot the terrorist infrastructure, Israeli officials have begun taking the offensive, with one official saying Monday that the two obligations are not "morally equivalent." Construction on Har Homa, the official said, doesn't kill anyone.
Building in the Jerusalem neighborhood, which was approved in 1997 and planned as a community of 6,500 units, will continue, he said.
The official said 4,500 housing units in Har Homa had been built, meaning that in addition to the 300 units for which tenders were just issued, another 1,700 are in the pipeline.
The official indicated that neither the fate of Har Homa, nor any of the other settlements, would be determined by the construction of another 300 units.
"If Har Homa will not be part of Israel, it doesn't matter if Har Homa is 5,000 units or 6,000 units - Har Homa will be dismantled," the official said.
It was clarified afterward that the official was not putting Har Homa on the negotiating table, but rather speaking in theoretical terms; that if the government decides to dismantle a settlement, it will do so, and an addition of a few hundred units would not tip the balance.
The official reiterated Israel's long-standing position that it will allow construction in existing settlements within the built-up construction lines, but would not build any new settlements or allow the expansion beyond the built-up areas of existing settlements.
When asked if the US approves of this definition, the official said, "America doesn't have to approve if we are doing something that we think, as a sovereign state, we have to do."
Nevertheless, Israeli officials took some comfort when US President George W. Bush spoke at Annapolis about the need for Israel to end settlement activity, saying there should be no more settlement "expansion," but saying nothing of ending all construction.
The official said Israel would not build new settlements, confiscate land in the West Bank or give financial incentives to people to move to the settlements, as has been done in the past.
But, he said, this didn't mean that the government would prohibit people from moving to empty flats in existing settlements.
Also, he said, "If somebody bought an empty lot in one of the settlements 10 years ago and he owns it, and he decides now in the year 2007, 10 or 15 years after he purchased it, to build on it, the government of Israel cannot do anything about it."
Regarding the settlement outposts, of the 108 that were set up since March 2001, and which Israel has said it will dismantle, 82 have been taken down, leaving another 26, the official said. While he did not give a timetable for their removal, he said Israel was committed to doing so.
Vice Premier Haim Ramon, meanwhile, said Tuesday almost all current construction over the Green Line was in the large settlement blocs that Israel has indicated it will retain in any agreement.
"The Palestinians won't say that this is good, but there is no doubt that the Palestinians understand that in the end of the peace process the settlement blocs will be under Israeli sovereignty in return for an exchange of territory," he told Army Radio.
Ramon, advocating an eventual territory swap, said Israel should reach an agreement with the Palestinians "over the principle of settlement blocs under Israeli sovereignty, and in return an exchange of territory."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)