Fatah elects new leaders in historic vote

With most votes counted, initial results indicate at least 13 of the 18 elected members of Fatah's Central Committee are from movement's younger generation. Marwan Barghouti one of those elected

News agencies
YNET News

Polling officials say the Palestinian Fatah movement has elected a slate of younger leaders to its highest body at its first conference in 20 years. The results of the vote will show whether Fatah — the West's best hope for eventually delivering a peace deal with Israel — has succeeded in reinvigorating the movement by bringing in new faces



Early results show that at least 13 of the 18 elected members of Fatah's Central Committee are from the movement's younger generation. Four other members will be appointed by the Palestinian president, also a Central Committee member.



Palestinian politician Marwan Barghouthi, serving a life sentence in an Israeli jail, was elected to the executive body as well.



Barghouthi was jailed on charges of organizing the killing of Israelis. He denies the charges.

Abbas has said the party, holding its first congress in 20 years, needed to show disillusioned voters a new beginning.


Out of 10 "Old Guard" members seeking re-election, less than half succeeded.



The congress of the main Palestinian political movement began last Tuesday with about 2,000 delegates attending in the West Bank town of Bethlehem. Most of its proceedings have been held behind closed doors.


AP and Reuters contributed to this report

Barack Obama is no friend of Israel

RICHARD BAEHR and ED LASKY , THE JERUSALEM POST

The National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) recently criticized the Web site American Thinker in a Jerusalem Post op-ed entitled The chutzpah of Obama's Jewish critics for having a "fictional understanding" of Barack Obama's approach toward Israel. This kind of attack is typical of the NJDC which maintains a "see no evil, hear no evil" approach toward the president on this and every other issue. This willful blindness is both wrongheaded and a disservice to Jews who care about the fate of Israel. By its loyalty to a president who has gone out of his way to distance his administration from Israel, and who has singled it out for harsh criticism while emboldening its adversaries, the NJDC has served as an enabler of Obama's Mideast mischief.

Increasingly, Obama is being referred to as the least friendly president toward Israel since its founding. In recent weeks, even liberal media organs, such as The New York Times, The Washington Post and The New Republic, have criticized the president's approach to Israel in articles, columns and editorials. The assistant editor of The New Republic, James Kirchick, wrote an op-ed in June saying Obama has betrayed Israel and blames him for the decline in American support for Israel. Somehow all this has escaped the attention of the NJDC, a group that has the gumption to call Obama a great friend of Israel's.

We disagree.

THE AMERICAN Thinker was prescient in being wary of Obama's views toward Israel early on. We published our first article on this topic in March 2007, based on Obama's own words before a pro-Israel advocacy group which revealed very little empathy for the Israeli people. We wondered how he came to have his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Did they come from Jeremiah Wright - a man who he credited with calibrating his "moral compass"? Or was it from Palestinian activists and friends such as Ali Abunimah, founder of the Electronic Intifada, or Rashid Khalidi, former PLO spokesman and fierce opponent of Israel, whom Obama credits with informing his views of the Middle East? Or perhaps from Samantha Power, his closest foreign policy adviser, who has a long history of anti-Israel views - including cutting off foreign aid and imposing a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, which might require an invasion by foreign troops?

Even The Los Angeles Times perceived the reality behind the façade when it published an article "Allies of Palestinians have a friend in Obama." Indeed they do.

Given his words and actions in just six months in office, it should come as no surprise that only six percent of Israelis now regard Obama as pro-Israel. Campaign promises have become "just words" as Obama himself might describe them. Israelis, as the Jerusalem Post-hosted blogger Shmuel Rosner put it, understand what Obama's Change agenda means for them.

What changes have we seen over the last few months? Obama has shown a coolness toward Israel that has warmed the hearts of its enemies around the world and has hardenened the resolve of its adversaries. Mahmoud Abbas and the supposed 'moderate' Palestinian Authority have refused to make any overtures toward Israel, and the current Fatah Convention is keeping alive the armed struggle. Jordan and Saudi Arabia have also refused to offer any conciliatory gestures. Israel's enemies may now feel secure in thinking that Israel will be delivered to them on the proverbial silver platter.

OBAMA IS the one who should be charged with having a fictionalized understanding of the conflict and Israel's history. During his speech in Cairo, Obama made clear that he thinks Israel was founded as an act of atonement by the Western world for the Holocaust, a narrative that is both an insult to the 3,000-year history of the Jewish people and one that reflects the ideology of Arab and Persian rejectionists - that guilty Europeans stole the land to create the state of Israel. Did President Obama not learn anything during that widely publicized photo-op Seder?

During that speech, Obama also equated the Holocaust to the Palestinian predicament, which to a large extent has been caused by the Palestinians' self-destructive behavior. This was not only wrong but an insult to the memory of the 6 million people who were murdered by the Nazis.

While Obama seems to have an infinite degree of patience regarding the Iranian nuclear program, his administration has been on an obsessive quest to halt Israeli settlements, demanding a complete freeze, a policy that ignores prior agreements between president George W. Bush and prime minister Ariel Sharon.

Further, the State Department has called in Israel's ambassador twice in recent weeks to harangue him over the building of 20 apartments in Jerusalem, and challenging an Israeli Supreme Court decision ordering the removal of Palestinian squatters from two apartments in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. This level of interference brings into question whether the Obama administration considers Israel a sovereign nation or an American vassal. His approach to peacemaking makes clear that he believes the Israelis are the obstacle to peace in the region, ignoring a long history of Arab rejectionism.

Is this a way to create trust with a nation which has already shown the willingness to make sacrifices (and suffered for doing so) such as the withdrawal from southern Lebanon and from Gaza?

While meeting with a group of Jewish leaders, Obama made clear that he intended to create "daylight" between Israel and America, arguing that the two countries had been too close for eight years, during which no progress toward peace had occurred.

Again, Obama fictionalizes history: Israel has taken many steps for peace with very little to show for it other than rocket attacks and suicide bombings. During the same meeting, Obama had the audacity to lecture the Israelis to be more self-reflective - a condescending, contemptuous statement given the nature of Israeli society. After 60 years of near total rejection of Israel's existence or permanence in the region, perhaps the president might have counseled some self-reflection by the Arabs and Palestinians.

WHILE OBAMA focuses his ire on Israel, Teheran gets a pass, and continues to spin its centrifuges. Here in America, the NJDC continues spinning too - for its man in the White House. Israelis are not buying the spin. Even some Jewish Democrats seem to have become a bit concerned by the bait and switch on Obama's policies toward Israel. As independent unpaid writers who support a strong US-Israel relationship, we will continue to report the facts in American Thinker, not the spin required of paid propagandists.

Richard Baehr is the chief political correspondent for the American Thinker. Ed Lasky is the news editor.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418563126&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Hamas: We've got UNRWA's ambulances

Aug. 11, 2009
Yaakov Katz , THE JERUSALEM POST

Hamas on Monday claimed to have confiscated three ambulances that were imported into the Gaza Strip for UNRWA several weeks ago, backing up an earlier IDF claim that the ambulances had been seized.

But UNRWA, which last week denied an earlier Jerusalem Post article quoting IDF claims that the ambulances had been confiscated, reiterated Monday that the reports were false, said that the ambulances were safe and sound in its Gaza compound, and even distributed a photograph of one of its officials, Christer Nordal, posing with what it said were the vehicles in question. According to a statement released by the Hamas-controlled Gaza Crossings Directorate on Monday, the ambulances were confiscated in late July because UNRWA did not have proper documentation to import them into Gaza via the Kerem Shalom crossing.

In an August 4 e-mail obtained by the Post, UNRWA official Jodi Clark wrote to Israeli defense officials to state that the ambulances had been "impounded by the authorities in Gaza." The e-mail was sent by Clark to several Israeli defense officials as well as to John Ging, the director of UNRWA, and Nordal, his deputy. The e-mail later circulated throughout the Defense Ministry.

"The three ambulances we imported into Gaza two weeks ago are still impounded by the authorities in Gaza and we continue to negotiate their release which is not going well at this stage," Clark wrote in the e-mail.

She went on to ask the Israeli defense officials for their assistance in coordinating the transfer of three new ambulances into Gaza, but through the Erez crossing, "to avoid the authorities having the opportunity to seize the vehicles from us."

Asked about Clark's e-mail, and about the official Hamas-run Gaza Crossings Directorate's claim to be holding the ambulances, UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness said that the e-mail had been recalled by Clark immediately after being sent and that the story based on its content was untrue. The Post was able to confirm that the e-mail was indeed recalled.

"The e-mail was recalled within minutes because the information contained in it was wrong," Gunness said. "The story is a house of cards based on information that was wrong. We have circulated pictures which prove it was wrong."

And after the e-mail was sent, Gunness added, there was a follow-up communication with an Israeli official "to make it quite certain that he knew that the information was wrong."

In the Gaza Crossings Directorate statement, released to several Palestinian news sites on Monday, Hamas said it confiscated the ambulances since they "did not have proper identification and documentation to confirm UNRWA's ownership."

The directorate said that the ambulances were being stored near the Kerem Shalom crossing and would be released once UNRWA provided the necessary documentation.

On Monday, Gunness released photos of what he said were the three ambulances, with Nordal standing alongside them.

"The story that UNRWA had its vehicles stolen continues to not be true," Gunness said. "The pictures show clearly that these ambulances were not stolen."

Asked if he could provide proof that the ambulances in the picture were the ambulances imported into Gaza in late July, Gunness repeated that the pictures proved that the IDF and Hamas claims were inaccurate.

The ambulance saga began last Thursday with a report on Army Radio claiming that three ambulances transferred into Gaza had been seized by Hamas. The Post's Web site published a story on the reported seizure of the ambulances, attributing it to Army Radio.

The next day, Gunness called the Post and asked that a follow-up report be published, making plain that UNRWA denied the ambulances had been confiscated.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418573127&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

US Affairs: Plane crash

Hilary Leila Krieger , THE JERUSALEM POST

Congress went into recess this week having dealt what is likely a fatal blow to the F-22 program and Israel's hopes of one day acquiring the state-of-the-art bomber. In a tough fight with the Obama administration, which has long been urging that the pricey program end, the House and Senate both eventually voted to cut funding which would have extended production past the current order of 187 planes already on tap. Though nothing's final until the House and Senate reconcile their defense-spending bills - an effort which won't get started until the fall - it's highly unlikely any additional money for the stealth jet would be added in. Jerusalem still has the F-22 Raptor at the top of its wish list, with its hopes for obtaining the advanced aircraft now resting on two moves that appear improbable: Congress reversing the ban on exports of the F-22, as well as producer Lockheed Martin deciding there would be enough foreign demand to keep the production line open. Yet ironically, it is exactly the type of threats and experiences that Israel has faced that are helping the US make the case to Congress and the public that the continued production of F-22 and other high-end conventional warfare megaliths need to be rethought.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other leading military officials routinely point to Israel's experience in Lebanon and the challenge posed by Hizbullah to justify the new Pentagon prioritizing. In a frank speech explaining his thinking in July, Gates spoke of the pressing dangers facing the US, emphasizing that "insurgents and militias are acquiring or seeking precision weapons, sophisticated communications, cyber-capabilities and even weapons of mass destruction."

He singled out Israel's foe across the northern border, saying, "The Lebanese extremist group Hizbullah currently has more rockets and high-end munitions - many quite sophisticated and accurate - than all but a handful of countries."

Later Gates wondered whether the US government would exhibit the political fortitude needed to cut the F-22 program. "If we can't bring ourselves to make this tough but straightforward decision - reflecting the judgment of two very different presidents, two secretaries of defense, two chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the current Air Force secretary and chief of staff - where do we draw the line?" he asked. He then proceeded to quote - albeit perhaps unintentionally - the Jewish sage Hillel. "And if not now, when?"

SINCE COMING into office half-way through then-president George W. Bush's second term, Gates has been reviewing US military systems to determine which ones should be employed to meet current needs, and built to counter emerging strategic threats.

"The challenges I faced in getting what our troops needed in the field stood in stark contrast to the support provided by conventional modernization programs - weapons designed to fight other modern armies, navies and air forces, programs that had been in the pipeline for many years and had acquired a loyal and enthusiastic following in the Pentagon, in the Congress and in industry," he recalled in the same address, delivered on July 16 to the Economic Club of Chicago.

That, he declared, had to change. He described the Obama administration's inaugural defense budget proposal as "the nation's first truly 21st century defense budget. It explicitly recognizes that over the last two decades the nature of conflict has fundamentally changed, and that much of America's defense establishment has yet to fully adapt to the security realities of the post-Cold War world and the complex and dangerous new century."

"Secretary Gates has talked about hybrid warfare, and what he sees is that warfare in the future is not going to fit into neat, tidy categories, and there will not be sharp lines between the tactics [of terrorists] and conventional warfare," explained Jim Thomas, a former Pentagon official now with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "Secretary Gates has laid out that, clearly, our number one priorities are winning the wars we're fighting, and he sees that there's a need to [focus on] irregular warfare."

In that regard, Thomas noted, Israel's war with Hizbullah is illustrative.

"The Second Lebanon War kind of points to different tactics and capabilities that adversaries might employ in the field, particularly Hizbullah's use of rockets, mortars and missiles," he said. "It's a more sophisticated threat, and looking beyond that, the ability of irregular forces to gain guided missiles allows them to have effects that have heretofore been out of their reach."

AS HIZBULLAH'S abilities advance, they highlight the shortcomings of an American military approach Thomas characterized as premised on the notion that the US should develop the greatest capabilities possible against its most potent state foes, in the belief that those capabilities can be adapted to thwart the more limited means of non-state actors, such as Hizbullah.

When the US came to Middle Eastern theaters such as Iraq after September 11, Thomas said, "That really didn't hold."

The F-22 has been indicative of this short-coming, according to Guy Ben-Ari of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies. While it might possess top-of-the-line maneuvering, stealth and targeting abilities, it is also extremely expensive to fly and repair, so lesser planes are almost always preferred.

"It's sort of, 'What have you done for me lately?' applied to a particular weapons acquisition system," he said of the Obama administration's attitude. "What has the F-22 done in the fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan? … The answer is nothing."

But, just because the F-22 hasn't flown a single combat mission doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people - Americans as well as Israelis - who would like to see its production line extended.

Gates has been well aware of these constituencies, whom he referred to as the "loyal and enthusiastic following in the Pentagon, in the Congress and in industry."

As Ben-Ari said of the more modest programs that Gates would like to see more of, "They don't create as many jobs in as many districts."

For instance, the administration has had difficulty getting Congress to fully fund mine-resistant vehicles, despite Gates's assessment that twice as many are needed in the field to adequately protect soldiers currently in combat. At the same time, the defense budget faced a veto threat from the White House for adding in more F-22s until Congress relented and removed them.

The F-22, for its part, provides jobs to a reported 22,000 people in 44 different states. Many of the Congressmen who represent districts with defense projects not only want to keep their voters employed, but also receive sizable campaign contributions from the companies who make the military systems.

Some members of Congress state clearly that they want to keep these projects alive to protect jobs. But others have argued that the US risks losing its conventional superiority by making the cuts Gates seeks.

Privately, some on Capitol Hill complain that the Air Force wants more of the planes, but feels pressured to support Obama's agenda of paring down these kinds of military expenditures. Publicly, several members took to the Congressional floor to stand up for the F-22 as the defense budget was being debated.

"Is this plane militarily required? Yes. Is it useless? No. Is it a Cold War element? Well, actually, almost everything we have is a Cold War element. We just simply try to improve them as time goes on," argued Representative Rob Bishop (R-Utah) last week. "The F-22 moves us forward in the technology debate. However, just having the technology doesn't work, if you don't have the numbers."

He pointed to Russia's plans to build 600 next-generation planes, only some 350 of which they intend to keep.

"You have to ask the logical question, 'What will they do with the others?' They will sell them. And where will they go? The bidders right now are countries like Venezuela and Iran," he answered, "countries that could become a problem with this new generation of fighter that they buy from the Russians."

INDEED, IT is primarily to confront the Iranian threat that Israel has eyed the F-22. Any attack on Iran would require the exact capabilities the Raptor can deliver better than any other plane, and merely owning it would give more heft to Israel's perceived deterrence.

But Ben-Ari maintained that the F-22 "is not a deal breaker" when it comes to Israel's ability to stage such an operation.

"It's more than just the aerial platform - it's the munitions, the number of platforms, it's the intelligence you have, and I would argue that the platform isn't the key component," he assessed.

Which should be of some consolation to Israel, since in Washington, if nowhere else, the F-22 seems to have lost the battle.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418544487&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Truth, Logic, Rationality and The Israel-Palestinian Conflict: “Lying for Peace” to Protect Fata

RubinReports

Barry Rubin

Since the evaluation of the Israel-Palestinian conflict is so often far removed from serious and sober political analysis, one has to resort to philosophical explanations.

To paraphrase Karl Marx: Misunderstanders of the Middle East Unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains of logic. Consider carefully these two chains of logic which simply don’t work and apply them to other Middle East issues.

Chain of Logic 1:

Proposition A: We all want and need peace.

Agreed. Peace is good. Violence is bad. Peace is better than war. It is preferable that everyone get along nicely.

Proposition B: It would be a great thing to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Agreed again.

Proposition C: There can only be a comprehensive and stable peace if it is made by Fatah and the Palestinian Authority.

Once more, agreed.

Therefore: (Uh-oh)

Conclusion: Fatah and the PA want peace and are partners in achieving it in the near future.

Wrong! Doesn’t compute. Yes, if Fatah and the PA are ready to make a deal then a deal can be made, but they aren't. To go from Proposition C to the Conclusion requires a leap of wishful thinking, since they aren’t ready to do so. See here and here and here.

In fact, the Fatah Congress unanimously agreed—with no prior investigation and not a shred of evidence—that Israel murdered Yasir Arafat, the former Fatah and PA leader. Such a belief requires blood vengeance in their society. In other words, Israeli political figures must be killed by Fatah to redress this grievance. Does this sound like a moderate and rational group ready to make peace?

It is being reported that the Fatah Congress demanded all of Jerusalem--that is both west Jerusalem, ruled by Israel and its capital since 1948, and east Jerusalem, ruled by Jordan after 1948 until captured by Israel in 1967. Is this a badly worded resolution or deliberate ambiguity? But if true, this would mark a tremendous escalation in Fatah's demands and would definitely rule out any chance for peace.

OK. But assume you are a politician, government official, journalist, academic expert, or just plain interested person who is convinced of what is written above. Do you then announce and set a policy based on the conviction that Israel-Palestinian peace is far off, Fatah’s moderation has a very thin veneer, and Fatah and the PA are not going to make peace with Israel?

Not necessarily.

And this leads us to…

Chain of Logic 2

This is connected not by logic but by wishful thinking

Proposition A: All good people want a just and lasting Israel-Palestinian peace, which must be between the PA-Fatah and Israel.

All right.

Proposition B: To help bring this about is a good thing.

Check so far

Proposition C: Analysis, information, and policies which promote the idea that Fatah-PA don’t want and are unable to bring about a peace agreement are therefore positive. But to provide data to the contrary helps to make peace impossible and strengthens the bad people (i.e., right-wingers) who "don’t want" peace.

This is a profound misunderstanding of how logic, policymaking, and democracy work, indeed of how institutions like universities and media are supposed to function.

It isn’t so hard to understand. There is a two-step process:

Step 1: Try to find out the most accurate possible picture of leaders, groups, world views, and policies using evidence along with the basic rules of rational thought.

Step 2: Draw conclusions from this analysis.

In other words, without fear or favor, figure out what’s going on and say so honestly. You don’t have to “lie for peace”; or tell fibs because you like “doves” and dislike “hawks”; or because you are on the left so you don’t want to give “aid and comfort” to those on the right; or because you really know best for the people involve so you load the dice.

First you figure out what’s happening and THEN you reach a conclusion, rather than the other way around.

This inversion sort of started with Stalinism, when one couldn’t talk about the regime-made famine or repression, for example, because that would help the “reactionaries” who opposed Communism. Many examples have happened since.

So, for those who say Fatah has changed or moderated, how has it changed? What’s the evidence?

Why don’t you tell the truth about the details of corruption which steals Western aid funds, the extremism so visible in Arabic-language speeches, the education of the next generation to seek to wipe out Israel, the appointment of Islamic clerics who preach genocidal anti-Jewish sermons, and so on?

Why do you pretend that Fatah has changed, has moderated, has pushed armed conflict off the real agenda, and so on?

The answer is: you are “lying for peace”; lying because of your ideological preferences; lying because you don’t like Israel or the Israel right (ignoring the fact that people across the political spectrum in Israel knows everything I’ve written here is true); lying to promote your career; and for other reasons.

For sure, often with the best of intentions, for the good of humanity, out of pity for the Palestinians, but nevertheless you are making a terrible mistake which causes more bloodshed and suffering.

Jewish Fatah member nominated for party's Revolutionary Council

Haaretz Service

A Jewish member of Fatah was nominated for a spot on the party's Revolutionary Council on Saturday, the Palestinian news agency Ma'an reported.

Dr. Uri Davis told Ma'an that one of Fatah's weakest attributes has been its failure to establish ties with international parties, movements and human rights organizations, and promised to step up efforts, if elected. Born to Jewish parents in Jerusalem, Davis describes himself as a Palestinian Hebrew.
Davis has written a series of books and articles that classify the State of Israel as an apartheid state, alleging that Israel's policies towards Palestinians, including Palestinian citizens of Israel, are comparable to South Africa's apartheid policies.

According to Ma'an, Davis explained that every Fatah member can run for a post on the party's 120-member Revolutionary Council regardless of religion, race or color.

While it is common for Palestinian Christians to support Fatah and hold positions within the organization, Davis would likely be the first Jewish member of its Revolutionary Council if elected, the news agency said. He already serves as a Fatah-affiliated observer member (non-Palestinian) of the Palestinian National Council, to which he was appointed by the late Yasser Arafat in 1984.

Davis was recruited to Fatah in the 1980s by Palestine Liberation Organization leader and founder Khalil Al-Wazir, also known as Abu Jihad, who was assassinated in 1988 by an Israeli commando unit led by current Defense Minister Ehud Barak in Tunisia, the Palestinian news agency reported.

"I wasn't convinced that the Israeli left-wing parties were satisfactory because all of them are Zionist parties," Davis explained. "Thus, I examined Palestinian left-wing parties but discovered that most of them adopted Marxism," such as the secular Popular and Democratic Fronts for the Liberation of Palestine.

"However I was pro-socialism rather than Marxism, so I joined Fatah because it contained a liberal framework that encompasses contradictory yet harmonious ideologies," he added. "The movement has struggled to liberate land and people from occupation."

New York Times covers up fierce anti-Israel radicalism at 'moderate' Fatah party convention

Leo Rennert
In its Aug. 7 edition, the New York Times runs an article by Jerusalem correspondent Isabel Kershner about the Fatah party conference that is a textbook example of keeping a lid on how Mahmoud Abbas's political movement has veered toward undying hostility toward Israel ("Fatah Delays Elections, But Extends Conference" page A7). Kershner devotes the first nine paragraphs of her 13-paragraph story to acrimonious disagreements over voting procedures and other disputes between the party's old and new guards.

This allows her to downplay and defang the real news of the conference -- blaming Israel for Arafat's death and the presence of a terrorist killer -- at the bottom of her article. And even then, she goes to extreme lengths to avoid mentioning what really happened in these two instances and why they are more significant than intra-party disagreements.

To wit:

1. In her 10th paragraph, Kershner writes that there was "consensus" about "the notion" that Israel was responsible for the death of Arafat" and that Fatah officials "would continue to investigate the circumstances of his death, and suspicions that Israel poisoned him."

Kershner's report doesn't begin to tell the tale. There was far more than "consensus" about a "notion" that Israel might have killed Arafat. The delegates unanimously adopted a formal resolution that orders an investigation to be headed by Arafat's nephew into the circumstances of how Israel assassinated Arafat. And the investigation is to be conducted with the a priori conclusion that Israel did it!

But you wouldn't know any of this by reading the Times.

2. In her 11th paragraph, Kershner briefly mentions that among the delegates were "Sari Nusseibeth, an intellectual from Jerusalem who has championed non-violence and Khaled Abu-Asba, who took part in a notorious attack in 1978 in which an Israeli bus was hijacked and about about three dozen Israeli civilians were killed."

Again, this doesn't come close to informing Times readers about the real import of the presence at the conference of this terrorist killer. Abu-Asba's presence at the conference wasn't on a par with the presence of Nusseibi. Abu-Asba received thunderous applause when he was extolled as a great Palestinian hero for participating in the murder of 37 Israeli civilians, including 12 children. Nusseibi got no such reception.

And who glorified what came to be known as the Coastal Road Massacre -- the worst terror attack in Israel's history? None other than Ahmed Qurei, a former Paletinian prime minister and chief peace negotiator during Olmert's tenure. Along with his fulsome introduction of Abu-Asba, Qurei extolled as a "heroic martyr" the leader of the terrorist team -- a Palestinian icon -- Dalal Mughrabi. Said Qurei: "All the sisters here are Dalal's sisters."

But you wouldn't know any of this by reading the Times.

Kershner's carefully sanitized reportage ensures that Fatah doesn't get soiled by the conference's vicious anti-Israel proceedings. What she hides from her readership is that, given these anti-Israel outpourings at the Fatah convention, there is no real peace partner on the Paletinian side. Is Abbas again going to tab Qurei as his prime negotiator if and when peace negotiations are resumed between Israel and the Palestinians?

When Fatah leaders -- and their followers -- go to great lengths to glorify terrorist murders and assume as a given that Israel assassinated Arafat, who is there left on the Palestinian side to take the critically necessary steps to achieve a two-state solution?

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/08/new_york_times_covers_up_fierc.html at August 08, 2009 - 01:36:40 AM EDT

Settlers sue state over Hebron evacuation damages

Chaim Levinson, Haaretz Correspondent

Hebron's Jewish settlement filed a lawsuit against the State of Israel on Friday over damages caused during the evacuation of disputed structures in the city's wholesale market. In the suit, the settlers rely on a 2006 agreement reached with the IDF regional command, stating that Jewish residents of the disputed structures would vacate them, while leaving any stationary property.

That agreement was subsequently annulled, leading to the 2007 evacuation, in which police removed doorposts and knocked down plaster walls in order to prevent the settlers from returning to the structures.
Advertisement

The lawsuit, filed by Doron Ben-Tzvi, stated that the settlers demanded NIS 214,000 to compensate for damages they claimed were caused during the evacuation.

"The plaintiffs completed their side of the agreement: the families which had lived in the compound up until the time of the agreement vacated their belongings from the property, and left only stationary belongings," the lawsuit stated.

"That property included walls, doors, windows, closets, bathrooms, toilets, as well as kitchens, and so on. These belongings were left at the premises in the expectation of a promised future use."

Also, the settlers stated that "80 years after the Hebron massacre steps need to be taken to ensure the return of stolen Jewish property to its rightful owners," adding that "events such as the ones which lead to the filing of this suit are unnecessary."

An Israel Defense Forces spokesperson said in response that the IDF had not yet seen the lawsuit, but added that "the evacuation of the wholesale market was conducted in accordance with an explicit ruling by the Supreme Court."

"Claims against IDF forces fulfilling their duty will not deter from continuing to enforce the law and from actions designed to defend the rule of law in the area of Judea and Samaria," the spokesperson said.

The suit came as the most recent episode in a series of attempts to reclaim the structures, which were built on Jewish-owned land that was inhabited by Jews until 1929, when Arabs massacred many members of the local community and the survivors fled.

Hebron settlers have also argued that aside from being on Jewish-owned land, the stores are an integral part of the Jewish Avraham Avinu neighborhood: They share common walls with the houses on the edge of the neighborhood, and the neighborhood's access road passes between them.

Between 1948 and 1967, when Jordan controlled Hebron, the stores were managed by the kingdom's custodian of enemy property. After Israel captured the territories in 1967, it upheld the leases that Palestinian shopkeepers had signed with the Jordanian body and gave them the status of protected tenants.

In 1994, following both Baruch Goldstein's massacre of Muslim worshipers at the Cave of the Patriarchs and a stabbing in the area, the IDF closed both the wholesale and triangle markets and forbade Palestinian merchants to enter.

In 2001, following the murder of infant Shalhevet Pas, squatters moved in, bringing two of the merchants who had rented the stores to ask Peace Now to approach the Civil Administration for an eviction order on their behalf.

In 2006 the settlers reached the said failed agreement with the IDF, which led to the 2007 forceful evacuation of the structures.

Just Ask Arafat

Does world remember why we needed airline security in first place?

Noah Klieger
YNET News

Every time I travel overseas (and I must admit it happens often,) I undergo security checks at airports worldwide. Every time I ask myself how could it be that none of the billions of travelers who have been going the strict and annoying checks for years now dedicate a few seconds to thinking about the reason for this screening process, which has become an integral part of every flight by now. As if it’s pre-destined. Just like one needs a ticket and passport, one needs to stand in line and undergo a security check. A whole generation (and in fact, two generations) of passengers are convinced that the need for security was born along with the first ever flight. However, we the older ones remember why every traveler now needs to undergo those checks. We also remember that many years ago we could fly from one location to another without any interruptions. The planes were slower perhaps, and there was no in-flight movie, but we could just board a plane and fly.



It is therefore odd that even those who still remember this ancient era do not think, or do not want to think, about the reason for the bothersome addition of security: The fact that one, Yasser Arafat, and the terrorist gangs he commanded, introduced the need of security checks after inventing the notion of hijacking planes for the purposes of extorting the Free World.


The real victims

These gangs, such as Black September or Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, prompted the nations of the world and airlines worldwide to invest – and continue investing – billions of dollars in sophisticated electronic equipment.



And if we already mention the names of some gangs, we can also mention that Black September was not named to commemorate the killing of Palestinians by Israel, but rather, the massacre undertaken by Jordan’s King Hussein in September 1970 in a Palestinian refugee camp. Based on Arafat’s estimate, more than 3,000 Palestinians were butchered at the time, yet there is no doubt that the number of victims was much higher.



Once in a while, just to amuse myself, I turn to security officers worldwide – politely, of course – and ask them to explain to me why these checks are necessary. As they always reply in one way or another that it’s about security, ask another question: Yes, but who does the whole world fear, and who are the ones that require us to maintain security screening?” The answer is always the same: Airplanes are hijacked by Arab terrorists.



Even those unfamiliar with what happened 30 or 40 years ago still remember the al-Qaeda hijackers who brought down the Twin Towers and exploded in the Pentagon on September 11th.


So if everyone knows the reason for the daily nuisance suffered by billions of travelers worldwide and for the expenditure of billions of dollars, how could it be that most passengers and their governments still think that the people behind all this are the victims?



The victims are in fact citizens of the entire Free World (and even those of the not-so-free world,) who are being extorted time and again, every day and on every flight.

s U.S. Open To A Settlement Compromise?

Abraham Foxman
Special To The Jewish Week

By this time one would have hoped that the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government would have resolved their dispute over Israeli settlements. In the first instance, what was so troubling about the administration’s approach was its handling of the issue in public, making it harder to reach a compromise and making Israel appear to be the problem in the region. As time goes by, however, and meeting after meeting takes place in Washington, Jerusalem, London and again in Jerusalem, the issue still goes unresolved and the gap between the U.S. and Israel takes on larger meaning. The Israeli government, which after all is a right-wing group committed ideologically to the settlement enterprise, has made significant concessions from its perspective. It has agreed in
principle to dismantle the illegal settlements and not to expand existing ones on new land beyond the boundaries of existing settlements. But this has not been good enough. Washington seems to be eager to squeeze out every last ounce of Israeli resistance on the subject by rejecting not only the concept of natural growth but even of Israel completing structures in midstream.

As the disagreement drags on, the impact goes beyond the subject of settlements. Now the Obama administration’s approach begins to raise a series of more fundamental questions: Is the historic special relationship between the two countries being eroded? Is the administration’s outreach to the Muslim world predicated on distancing the U.S. from Israel and putting pressure on the Jewish state? Are the unrelenting U.S. demands on Israel regarding settlements giving the Palestinians an excuse to avoid direct negotiations with Israel, the only path toward real peace? Is the continuing focus on settlements creating the perception around the world that the U.S. now agrees with Israel’s critics that it is Israeli policy that is the critical obstacle to peace?

If the administration denies the points embodied in these questions, the only way to demonstrate that is to be open to a compromise with Israel on the settlement issue. Such a move will send a very different message to Israel, the Palestinians, the Arabs and the world than it has been sending until now.
To Israelis it will indicate that the administration, like previous ones, wants Israel to stop expanding settlements but it also recognizes the realities of daily life, doesn’t see the issue as the be-all and end-all of the peace process, and knows that a strong U.S.-Israel relationship is critical for any peace process.

To Palestinians, the message will be that the U.S. will press Israel on settlements, but that it won’t allow itself to become the substitute for critical Palestinian decision-making, including good-faith negotiations with Israel, clamping down on terrorism and ending the teaching of hate so rampant in Palestinian society. Ultimately, since there is no greater reason for the duration of the conflict for decades than the unwillingness of Palestinians to make critical decisions for peace, everything must be done to encourage and motivate the Palestinians to accept responsibility for their future rather than to provide a disincentive for them to do so.

To the Arab states, the message will be that they cannot stand on the sidelines, claim that they have made a peace offer and there is nothing else for them to do until Israel gives in to the administration demands. The administration, by reaching agreement with Israel on settlements, will be insisting that there are no longer any excuses to procrastinate about normalizing relations with Israel. At the same time, by removing a source of contention between the U.S. and Israel, the administration will be saying to the Arabs that now we must all focus on the common threat to the region, that of Iran and its impending nuclear capability.

To the world, the administration will be signaling that yes, Washington will be more engaged; that yes, it is making outreach to the Muslim world, but that these important actions should not be misunderstood in any way as a weakening of the special relationship between the U.S. and Israel. This is an important message to convey to tamp down the cynical aspirations of anti-Israel forces that saw the opportunity to turn America away from Israel. It is an important reassurance to nations in the Middle East threatened by radical Islam, that the U.S. will stand strong with its allies Israel and the moderate Arabs, when the extremist threat from Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaeda looms very large.

Continuing the tension over settlements will only produce a lose-lose situation. Israel will feel more insecure and be less willing to consider concessions; Palestinians will feel less of a need to make critical decisions; Arabs will be no closer to getting the Palestinian issue off their agenda and focusing on the Iranian threat. Resolving the problem, on the other hand, can begin to free the process that ultimately can be a win-win proposition, for Israelis on one side and Palestinians and Arabs on the other.

Abraham H. Foxman is national director of the Anti-Defamation League and author of “The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control.”

Erasing facts from Israel eviction story

Rafael Broch
Guardian.co.uk

The Palestinian families evicted in East Jerusalem had failed to pay their rent – a fact omitted from British media reports

Mattresses strewn across the street, a child crying, a woman shouting in despair – it was not a pretty scene in the Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood in East Jerusalem last Sunday, where two Palestinian families were evicted from the homes they had lived in for the last 50 years. Already a bitter pill to swallow, the sight of religious Jews immediately moving in to the properties can't have made things any easier for them.

However, things are not always what they seem and the eviction of the Hanoun and Ghawi families are an apt example of how an appetite for a certain type of story can create that story regardless of the facts. As an organisation that follows media coverage of the Middle East closely, we gathered from Sunday and Monday's reporting, such as on the BBC, in the Guardian and in the Times that the two Palestinian families were evicted because Israeli courts had found that the land belonged to Jews, not to the Palestinians living there. Cut to religiously clad Jews busting in to the newly vacated houses and the whole thing is just obvious: Israel mercilessly turfs Arabs on to the street to plant more settlers in east Jerusalem.

It turns out that this is simply not the case. In fact, there is nothing simple about this case at all. There is a long legal history pertaining to the dispute between 28 Arab families and Jewish organisations over the ownership of the land in question. However, one crucial point was omitted from all reporting from the British sources named above (bar a small amendment to the BBC article made yesterday following a communication from us): the two Arab families evicted on Sunday were evicted for failing to pay rent in violation of the terms of their tenancy agreements. The Arab families who have kept to the terms of their tenancy agreement have not been evicted.

It is true that the non-payment of rent is tied up with the dispute over who owns the land, but it is still intensely relevant to the story. It's all very well for the Guardian's Middle East editor, Ian Black, to describe the evictions as "the ugly face of ethnic cleansing" or for Cif contributor Matt Kennard to claim that they represent "a process of racial purification". But without informing readers that the only people being evicted are the ones who refused to pay rent to the landlords they recognised decades ago, they paint a distorted picture.

As a story that has been widely reported and stirs deep emotions, it is vital that crucial facts are not erased from the narrative. There can be no doubt that there are clearly issues of inequality in Jerusalem which need to be addressed but that is no excuse for British journalists and commentators to misrepresent this particular story. Liberal Israeli daily Ha'aretz saw fit to mention the non-payment of rent element in its reporting, as did the Jerusalem Post.

This information was public. Furthermore, Ir Amim, the Israeli organisation supporting the position of the evicted families, is straight about the fact that the families are being evicted for not paying rent; a representative stated: "The legal issues surrounding the Sheikh Jarrah evictions are quite complex. In short, the Israeli courts have accepted the settlers' claim of ownership over the property, but recognised the Palestinian residents to be protected tenants. Some of the 28 families continued to pay the rent, but some did not accept the court's ruling and therefore did not pay the rent. Against those, the court issued eviction orders."

So why the collective exclusion of this key fact from British reporting?

Hevron Jews Sue for Expulsion Damages

Maayana Miskin
A7 News

Hevron residents say the state violated its obligations as the custodian of Jewish properties in the marketplace. As custodian of the properties, which are rightfully owned by the descendants of the former Sephardi Jewish tenants of the buildings, the state had a responsibility to keep the properties in good condition, they argue. However, instead of protecting the properties while determining what to do with them, the state caused serious damage, the plaintiffs say. As evidence, they have pictures of soldiers destroying apartments in the marketplace with hammers and similar equipment shortly after two Jewish families were expelled from the residences.

The Jewish families, and hundreds of supporters, were expelled from the marketplace in August 2007.

Military officials had reassured the Jewish families living in the marketplace that if they were to agree to leave peacefully, they would be allowed to return and granted legal status. As there were no plans to allow Arab merchants to return to the historically Jewish properties, which they had used as shops during the Jordanian occupation of the city, military officials recommended that the state lease the properties to the Hevron Jewish community – as requested by the surviving original owners.

However, after nine families left peacefully, Attorney General Menachem Mazuz voided the agreement they had made with the IDF and said they would not be allowed to return.

Residents of Hevron are requesting 214,400 shekels to replace the property and infrastructure damaged in the expulsion. In addition, they are asking the government to reverse the previous government's decision and allow Jews to return to the marketplace, which is located in the Jewish Avraham Avinu neighborhood.

Return Fitting for 80 Year Memorial

The lawsuit has been filed two years after the marketplace expulsion, and 80 years after the Hevron massacre, in which Arab Muslim mobs slaughtered 67 Jewish residents of the city and wounded dozens more. Following the slayings, British authorities forcibly removed Jews from the city, and Jewish life was not restored to the area until after the Six Day War.

Prior to the massacre, Jews had lived in Hevron for centuries, and the city was home to an internationally renowned yeshiva.

Allowing Jews to return to historically Jewish property in the Avraham Avinu marketplace would be a fitting action to take in honor of the Jews slaughtered in the 1929 massacre, Hevron Jews say. The government has announced plans to commemorate the 1929 slayings with an official state ceremony.

Obama goes by the road map

yossi alpher , THE JERUSALEM POST

Back in 2003 when the road map was introduced, the clear impression of many observers, myself among them, was that it was stillborn. Palestinian president Yasser Arafat would interfere with the efforts of newly-appointed prime minister Mahmoud Abbas to restrain Palestinian violence. Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon would insist on Palestinian compliance on ceasing violence before he froze settlement construction and removed outposts. US president George W. Bush's newfound commitment to a proactive role in the peace process seemed largely rhetorical.

And indeed, all the villains in this scenario lived up to worst-case expectations. Nevertheless, something happened. Sharon responded to the road map by withdrawing from the Gaza Strip. Arafat passed from the scene and Abbas remains committed to nonviolence. Bush responded to the Hamas takeover of Gaza by investing heavily and successfully in helping the Palestinian Authority, now restricted to the West Bank, deliver on its road map phase I obligations of ending violence and building institutions.

Now along comes a new American president, Barack Obama, and demands that Israel finally seriously fulfill its own phase I obligations regarding settlements. Thus the road map - whose full title, tellingly, is "A Performance-Based Roadmap to a Permanent Two-State Solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" - is still with us.

And phase I in particular is relevant. It presents a logical checklist of the positive developments that have to take place on both sides for any lasting progress toward a two-state solution to be contemplated:

"Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence... accompanied by supportive measures undertaken by Israel. Palestinians and Israelis resume security cooperation... to end violence, terrorism, and incitement through restructured and effective Palestinian security services. Palestinians undertake comprehensive political reform in preparation for statehood, including drafting a Palestinian constitution, and free, fair and open elections upon the basis of those measures. Israel takes all necessary steps to help normalize Palestinian life. Israel withdraws from Palestinian areas occupied from September 28, 2000, and the two sides restore the status quo that existed at that time, as security performance and cooperation progress. Israel also freezes all settlement activity, consistent with the Mitchell report."

True, the timetables have long since expired and the Palestinian elections produced an unwanted and destructive result. But the contrast between PA and Israeli fulfillment of phase I obligations - or at least serious attempts to fulfill them, however tardily - is striking.

In the last two years, the PA has begun solidly delivering on security in the West Bank and building institutions of governance. Israel has done little to stop settlement growth or remove outposts. Nor has a succession of Israeli governments made any move to withdraw to the September 2000 lines or restore the Palestinian institutional status quo in East Jerusalem as phase I demands.

THIS CONTRAST is all the more striking if we factor in Israel's insistence, framed in Sharon's 14 point response to the road map, that phase I obligations be sequential and not parallel: Israel would fulfill its obligations only after the Palestinians fulfilled theirs.

The US and the rest of the Quartet never recognized this Israeli demand, which pointedly contradicts the language of phase I. But even if they were to accept it, Israel still hasn't complied with regard to settlements and Jerusalem in response to Palestinian security achievements. Only the persistent prodding of the Obama administration has brought a grudging government of Israel to begin dismantling West Bank checkpoints and to contemplate a serious effort to remove outposts.

In its final year in office, the Bush administration orchestrated one major structural adjustment to the road map. Under the Annapolis process, Israel and the Palestinians agreed to enter phase III - final-status talks - in parallel with phase I undertakings, with the stipulation that implementation of a negotiated peace would await fulfillment of phase I institution-building obligations. Because Israel and the PLO never reached an agreed final-status agreement, this arrangement could not be put to the test. But it certainly does not appear to have reduced Palestinian motivation in the West Bank to carry out the institution-building and security tasks outlined in phase I.

Interestingly, Obama's demands regarding settlements are not presented publicly as a call for Israeli compliance with the road map. As we see when we look at phases II and III, the Obama team is fairly closely following the road map rule book even as it officially ignores that document and embraces a regional, comprehensive approach. Presumably, it wants to avoid being tainted by what appears to be its predecessor's failure in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.

Yet it's all there in the road map.

Yossi Alpher is coeditor of the bitterlemons.org family of Internet publications. He is former director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University. This article first appeared in bitterlemons.org and is published by permission.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418544481&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

A Place that Never Changes

Robert Fulford
National Post A13, 1 August 2009

A miracle always lifts the spirits, and a miracle as rare as a mostly honest and readable UN report can lift mine. The UN normally publishes material written in a flannel-mouthed style invented for the purpose of evading ugly truths. But in a surprising deviation from the norm, the Arab Human Development Report, a series that began in 2002 under the United Nations Development Programme, has acquired an unexpected habit of honesty. The fifth installment, the work of 90 Arab scholars, appeared last week under the title Challenges to Human Security in the Arab Countries (available at www.arab-hdr.org).

Seven years ago, the first report identified three "deficits" in Arab life — education, political freedom and women’s rights. In these fields, particularly politics, the situation has grown worse. Despite occasional reports of emerging democracy, most of the 350 million people in the region remain afflicted by dictatorships that show no sign of changing.

Economically, news is no better. While the planet has been in a temporary recession, the Arabs live in a permanent depression; Arab unemployment is more than double that of the rest of the world. As the assembled scholars judge it, Arabs are even less industrialized than they were four decades ago. Illiteracy remains high in many countries, health services sketchy. As for public safety, people fear the state security forces as much as they fear foreign invasion.

Rami G. Khouri, a Palestinian-Jordanian journalist, says as an Arab that "we have marginalized ourselves as serious players on the global political stage and now assume the role of nagging annoyances and miscreants." That’s from a paper, The Year that Was, in the report’s closing chapter. Core weaknesses grew during 2008, and democratization remains "buried beneath the stultifying weight of corruption-riddled Arab security states."

Yet most people in the West anticipate improvements in Arab life. The West believes in progress above everything else, and insists on re-asserting its belief against all contrary evidence.

Consider this week’s edition of The Economist, in which the UN report serves as the keystone of a 14-page section on Arab prospects. The editors recount the failures of the Arab countries, but announce in their magazin e’s cover line that the Arab world is "waking from its sleep." The leading editorial ends with glimpses of progress in women’s education, increasingly enlightened businessmen and the growth of satellite television (meaning al-Jazeera and its ilk) as a source of non-government information. Moreover, the unemployed young, more numerous than ever, are ripe for social upheaval.

Grandly, The Economist pronounces that the corrupt authoritarian style of Arab government deserves to die. "At some point it will almost certainly collapse. The great unknown is when." Oh, those wild and crazy Economist optimists.

They should note that the official Arab media have mainly ignored the UN report. This suggests that its authors, many of whom live outside the Arab world, are not taken seriously in their own countries. A piece in the Kuwait Times this week by Meshary Alruwaih, a staff columnist, reflects the approach that Arab governments prefer.

Alruwaih’s article about the Arab Human Development Report, Arab Cultural Security, turns away from practical matters, like the fact that about one Arab in five lives on the equivalent of two American dollars a day. Alruwaih prefers to opine on a philosophical plane. He suggests it’s all very well for the UN scholars to focus on national security, social security, water,=2 0education and so forth. But they miss a vital issue, cultural security, "the soul of the society."

He treats it as a pan-Arab issue: society’s ability "to maintain a theme of its history" while constructing purpose and meaning for the future. According to Alruwaih, what’s needed from social scientists is "proliferation of a discourse on cultural security."His gauzy, sentimental approach perfectly demonstrates the kind of complacent Arab thinking that serves mainly to protect the status and the power of the elites controlling the region’s governments. Confronted with the unpleasant truths in the Arab Human Development Report, Alruwaih does what contemporary Arab leaders have done for all of their lives, and believe they can do forever: He simply changes the subject to something much more pleasant. And then, defying the cover line on The Economist, he goes back to sleep.

Printed and distributed by NewpaperDirect | www.newspaperdirect.com, US/Can: 1.877.980.4040, Intern: 800.6364.6364 | Copyright and protected by applicable law.

U.S. Taxpayers Fund Pro-Hamas Propaganda

IPT News
August 6, 2009
http://www.investigativeproject.org/1349/us-taxpayers-fund-pro-hamas-propaganda

With the federal government facing trillions of dollars in red ink, one might think that the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), which receives upwards of $30 million a year from the taxpayers, would want to show Congress it wasn't squandering money on propaganda for terrorist groups like Hamas. But that hasn't happened. Instead, USIP has issued a new report that twists reality to argue that Hamas has moderated and Israel needs to negotiate with the terror organization. The authors of the report are a Jew and Muslim, USIP informs readers: Paul Scham, a visiting professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Maryland College Park, and Osama Abu-Irshaid.

USIP identified Irshaid as a writer who "is completing a Ph.D. thesis on Hamas at Loughboro University, U.K., and is founder and editor in chief of Al-Meezan newspaper, published in Arabic in the United States." But USIP (and Foreign Policy magazine, which has published lengthy excerpts of the report ) neglected to inform readers that Irshaid used to be editor of Al-Zaytounah, the biweekly Arabic-language newspaper published by the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP).

In the summer of 2007, evidence in the Hamas-support prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development (HLF) and its officers showed that the IAP played a central role in the Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee. The committee was created to advance Hamas' agenda in the United States by, among other things, "what it needs of media, money and men and all of that."

For example, a November 1991 status report approved by the Shura Council explained that the Ikhwan, or Muslim Brotherhood, created IAP "to serve the cause of Palestine on the political and media fronts." It added that "The Association's work has developed a great deal since its inception, particularly with the formation of the Palestine Committee, the beginning of the Intifada at the end of 1987 and the proclamation of the Hamas Movement."

Evidence also included a 1992 internal memo urging the Palestine Committee to work to "increase the financial and the moral support for Hamas" to "fight surrendering solutions" and publicize "the savagery of the Jews." A July 30, 1994 report found in the home of a former Hamas official listed IAP as a member of the Committee.

Al Zaytounah also printed communiqués glorifying Hamas suicide attacks. In its October 27, 1994 issue, Al Zaytounah's headline was: "In its greatest operation, Hamas takes credit for the bombing of an Israeli bus in the heart of Tel Aviv." IAP was listed among more than 300 unindicted co-conspirators in the HLF case. In November 2008, the HLF and five of its senior officials were found guilty on all charges. Read more here.

Given Irshaid's background, it should come as no surprise that the report he co-authored for USIP calls for a "reexamination of our assumptions" that Hamas cannot coexist with Israel. "Indeed, Hamas has been carefully and consciously adjusting its political program for years and has sent repeated signals that it may be ready to begin a process of coexisting with Israel," Irshaid and Scham write. They add that Hamas "has indicated on a number of occasions" its "willingness to accede to a hudna [truce] for a specified period of time] with Israel" if "basic Palestinian rights" are agreed to.

Their case for negotiating with Hamas verges on the farcical, as the authors try to explain away its opposition to any territorial compromise with Israel and its anti-Semitism. Irshaid and Scham note, for example, that Article 11 of the Hamas charter affirms "that the land of Palestine is an Islamic waqf (trust) endowed for Muslim generations until the Day of Resurrection, and should not be compromised entirely or partially." Article 13 states that "various initiatives of settlement, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences to resolve the Palestinian issue contradict the tenets of the Islamic Resistance Movement, as compromising any part of Palestine is equivalent to the omission of a part of our religion." The same article, they point out, declares that there is "no solution to the Palestinian cause save jihad; for initiatives, proposals and international conferences are nothing but a waste of time and absurd nonsense."

Article 7 quotes the famous hadith: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say 'O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.'"

Article 22, "draws on mythology of the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic forgery commissioned by the czarist secret police in the early years of the twentieth century and republished many times since, most recently in numerous Arabic editions," Irshaid and Scham write. "Article 22 of the charter refers specifically to Jewish (or Zionist, the words seem to be used interchangeably) control of the media, finance, Freemasonry, etc., and states that Jews are responsible for World Wars I and II."

This suggests that Hamas is irremovably anti-Semitic and hostile to peace. Not necessarily, according to the authors, who argue that Hamas' literature and statements during the movement's "early years" reflect "a genuine confusion about how to deal with Jews." Hamas has subsequently taken a "clearer position," they report, "that reflects hostility to actions by Jews against Palestinians and not hostility to Jews simply on the basis of belief." How comforting.

Article 13 of the Hamas Charter, which rejects negotiations with Israel, isn't a problem either, because Hamas officials now call for a "phased liberation" of Palestine, "which is a fundamental change in policy opening the door to coexistence with Israel." A few paragraphs later, the authors quote Muhammad Nazzal, a member of Hamas' political bureau, stating that "We are for any 'phased solution,' but without recognizing the Israeli enemy or its existence." [Emphasis added]

That sort of begs the question of how one can co-exist with someone whose existence one refuses to recognize. What might such "coexistence" look like? To Hamas, it looks like getting everything it wants and offering nothing in return. In recent interviews with the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, Meshaal said Hamas would respect a ceasefire with Israel and a prisoner swap that would free Hamas fighters (i.e., terrorists) in exchange for kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. He said Hamas would accept a ceasefire based on the June 4, 1967 borders and Israeli acceptance of the "right of return" for millions of Palestinian refugees.

In other words, Meshaal would agree to a 10-year truce as long as Hamas wouldn't have to recognize Israel's existence if Israel would agree to cripple itself by allowing millions of hostile Palestinians to settle in the country. Then, after Hamas armed itself for a decade, it could resume its war to destroy Israel (which by this point would be only eight miles wide, having relinquished the West Bank.) That isn't a peace agreement in any genuine sense but a formula for Israel's destruction.

But that is what Irshaid and Scham are proposing with support from USIP. Congress needs to start asking some serious questions – such as why taxpayers are being forced to fund pro-Hamas propaganda co-authored by an alumnus of the Hamas/ Muslim Brotherhood public-relations apparatus in the United States.

Israel vs the world: Drawing battle lines over Jerusalem

Aug. 6, 2009
Herb Keinon , THE JERUSALEM POST

The phone call Ambassador to the US Michael Oren received from the State Department on Monday protesting the eviction of two Palestinian families from a Jewish-owned building in Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood - as well as the condemnations of the move by Britain, Egypt, the UN and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton - are the birth pangs of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's new policy on Jerusalem. For the past 40 years, scores of Israeli politicians have been talking about Israel's 3,000-year-old link to Jerusalem and how the city must remain Israel's undivided capital forever.

Former prime minister Ehud Olmert spoke that way for years, especially when he was mayor of the city. But then he became prime minister, changed his tone and - by his own in admission - was willing to compromise on Jerusalem.

In a May interview with Newsweek, Olmert said he agreed that the "holy basin" in Jerusalem would not be under Israel's sovereignty, but rather administered by a consortium of Saudis, Jordanians, Israelis, Palestinians and Americans.

In other words, there has long been a dissonance between Israeli slogans on Jerusalem and the country's negotiating position regarding the city.

Talk to foreign diplomats and they will tell you, with absolute sincerity, that the Arabs will never, ever compromise on Jerusalem, not in a million years.

The Jews, they believe, will compromise.

And their expectations are not unfounded: a quick glance at diplomacy over the last 10 years shows that premise to be true. Ehud Barak was willing to make Israeli concessions to the Palestinians regarding Jerusalem at Camp David and Taba, and Olmert was willing to do the same during his conversations with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Netanyahu, who when he was prime minister the first time around dug the Temple Mount tunnels that sparked riots, and also bucked the condemnation of the entire world in building Har Homa, seems to be made of different stuff on Jerusalem. When he says the city will be the undivided capital of Israel, he - apparently - means it.

What is occurring now - both the US protest over the decision to build 20 apartment units for Jews at the site of the old Shepherd Hotel in Sheikh Jarrah, and the protest over the current evictions - is that both Israel and the world are laying down their markers.

The world is saying "hands off east Jerusalem," and Netanyahu is replying, "no, it's ours." And those diametrically opposed positions are bound to lead to friction.

It is also important to keep in mind three other elements when looking at the current tension with Washington over Jerusalem.

The first is that the government did not initiate the eviction of the families in Sheikh Jarrah. One cannot accuse the government of picking a fight with the US over this issue now, at a very sensitive time in the diplomatic process. Rather, the police were implementing a decision on ownership of the house handed down by the Supreme Court.

Another thing to remember is that no prime minister of Israel has ever agreed to curtail building in east Jerusalem.

Even Olmert, who was willing to compromise a great deal on Jerusalem, continued to approve housing in the eastern part of the city, drawing fire as a result from then-US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice.

Olmert kept building in east Jerusalem, while at the same time indicating willingness to make concessions on it in a final-status deal. Netanyahu, like Olmert, continues to build, but has not indicated that he is willing to compromise on the final status of the city.

And, finally, the noise over Jerusalem now must be seen within the context of the negotiations over a possible settlement moratorium. The Israeli government has made clear that any possible limitations on settlement construction will be just that - limitations on settlements beyond the Green Line, but not in the capital.

The protests and howls coming from the world and Washington over everything Israel does in east Jerusalem is a clear sign that they do not accept that position.
This article can also be read at http://www.jpost.com /servlet/Satellite?cid=1249418533561&pagename=JPArticle%2FShowFull

Peace Talks

Shmuel Rosner
The New Republic

Hey Obama, don't waste your time giving a speech in Israel.
Post Date Wednesday, August 05, 2009


Two Israeli writers caused a stir last week by calling on President Obama to speak directly to Israelis, similar to the way he has addressed populations from Cairo to Moscow. "Simply stated, take your campaign directly to the Israeli people, and soon," Bradley Burston wrote in a Haaretz blog post. "Fail to do this, or wait too long, and you'd be well advised to leave the table while you still have chips." Aluf Benn echoed this sentiment in The New York Times: "This policy of ignoring Israel carries a price." Similar points were made just two weeks ago in a study by the Center for American Progress. Both Benn and Burston seem to believe that Israelis disapprove of Obama because they don't understand what he wants--simply because he has failed to explain it to them. It's unsurprising that columnists friendly to the ideas of the Israeli center-left would suggest that Israelis are actually in line with Obama's agenda. But there's an easier way of interpreting Israelis' uneasiness with Obama: They do understand him, and do not agree with him. If that's the case, more Obama-talk will not make a big difference. It is very common to blame "communication" when things go badly between two parties. However, there are many things that no improvement of communication will remedy.

Both writers assume that Israelis don't care much for settlements, and I tend to agree. However, as Benn starts explaining while not quite completing his argument ("Mr. Obama has made a mistake in focusing on a settlement freeze"), Israelis also don't care much for doing something for no particular reason, or just because there's a new sheriff in town. The settlements should certainly go, most Israelis believe--but they should go at this specific time only if the president can logically explain the benefit Israelis will gain from letting them go now. If all he has is the general "settlements are bad for Israel" argument, then nothing much has changed; Israelis already know that.

Yes, Israelis might appreciate the honor of having the U.S. president talking directly to them. (As Benn writes, "In the 16 rosy years of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Israelis became spoiled by unfettered presidential attention.") But what exactly is he going to tell them? That peace is good for all and that he wants to advance peace? They know. That Palestinians suffer? They know. That he cares deeply for Israel's security? They know he says that, and would like to believe it, but the real game-changer will require proof, not words. Clinton and Bush didn't just say "We care for Israel" and instantly become darlings of the Israeli public. They showed they care--mostly by getting along well with the Israeli governments of Rabin and Sharon respectively. The Obama administration has done little to curry Israeli trust with their churlish attitude toward Netanyahu. In this sense, I agree with Benn and Burston: Regardless of the inevitable vapidity of an Obama speech directed at Israelis, the act of making the trip to Israel would be at least be a "deed"--a demonstration of good will on his part.

But words alone will not make Israelis trust Obama. Israelis do not suffer from lack of understanding of the issues; they suffer from peace-fatigue. They look at "peace processes" with suspicion, based on experience and events. They are scarred enough to know what has working and what has not, and they are tired of the good intentions of enthusiastic novices, believing that with their youth and their smarts they'll be able to come up with some magic trick that can somehow round a square. What Obama needs is a convincing plan that makes sense. It does not look like he has one.

The president has reportedly sent letters to seven Arab leaders reminding them of "the need for CBMs [confidence-building measures] in exchange for [a settlement] freeze and to [get] peace talks restarted." It hasn't worked very well, and Israelis will be aware of this failure if they hear Obama talking about the need to stop settlement construction. So perhaps instead of the president making the effort of "talking directly" to Israelis with nothing new to say, maybe he ought to put his efforts into convincing someone else to address Israelis--somebody whose very act of speaking to Israelis would be significant in its own right. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia or President Bashar Al-Assad of Syria come to mind.

Regardless of its futility, my sources tell me that an Obama address to Israelis is coming soon. (Joe Klein was first to report this.) If he must do so, I can offer three pieces of advice: First, don't lecture Israelis like you know what's good for them better than they know themselves. You don't. Second, don't try to do an end-run on the Israeli government like you've done in other world capitols by speaking directly to "the people." Don't patronize them by saying that the Israel public knows better than its government what needs to be done. The public elected this government; the public you're talking about is the public of some liberal American Jews, which has little relevance to the current reality in Israel. And third, don't promise peace within a year or two. History is a better teacher of that lesson than I am.

I, for one, will not be disappointed if Obama chooses not to make the effort. I don't think that Obama needs the approval of Israelis--nor, for that matter, that it is crucial for Israelis to have the personal sympathies of the American president. In fact, I think those "spoiled" Israelis can benefit from being reminded that not all presidents will be a Clinton or a Bush. Presidents come with different priorities and changing agendas--and Israel should make sure that it is always strategically benefiting the United States rather than relying on intangible romantic notions of shared values and religious sympathies to bolster the relationship. And perhaps more importantly, Israelis need to be reminded that we can live, for a long or short period of time, with a less demonstrably friendly America with no need for hysteria.

Shmuel Rosner is an editor and columnist based in Tel Aviv. He blogs daily at Rosner's Domain.

Jewish Groups Slam Obama's Honoring Anti-Israel Leaders

Avraham Zuroff
A7 News

Two pro-Israel American organizations and the Republican Jewish Coalition lashed out at U.S. President Barack Obama for awarding a Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) called on the administration to “firmly, fully and publicly repudiate her views on Israel and her long public record of hostility and one-sided bias against the Jewish state.” The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) also condemned the decision to award former South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu. The ZOA pointed out that both Tutu and Robinson “have made statements and presided over organizations and conferences that were viciously critical of Israel.” ZOA’s National President Morton A. Klein said, “It is deplorable that President Obama should have honored two such utterly partisan, vociferously anti-Israel figures like Mary Robinson and Desmond Tutu.”

It is deplorable that President Obama should have honored two such utterly partisan, vociferously anti-Israel figures.



Klein noted that human rights groups are continuously being controlled by figures that are anti-Israel. He added, "Neither Robinson nor Tutu ever resigned in protest at the direction these bodies have taken, or took anything that could be called a courageous stand in favor of truth. Rather, both have lent their reputations to travesties of the truth and given the bodies on which they served an aura of undeserved legitimacy. By awarding them the Medal of Freedom, President Obama compounds their offense by lending them further underserved legitimacy.”

Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks said, "Mary Robinson, who was one of the people responsible for the 2001 Durban conference against racism descending into an anti-Israel propaganda forum, is not an appropriate recipient for one of our nation's highest honors. In fact, awarding the Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson does great dishonor to the many outstanding men and women who have received it in the past."

Robinson is widely known for the high-profile role she played in leading in what AIPAC calls “the deeply flawed” U.N. Human Rights Commission and for presiding over the U.N.’s Durban Conference on Racism, which the United States boycotted for “its unprecedented hostility to Israel” and its final outcome document that equated Zionism with racism.



In a BBC interview following the passage of the “Zionism = Racism” Durban text, Robinson described the outcome as “remarkably good, including on the issues of the Middle East.”

In April 2002, Robinson’s Human Rights Commission voted on a decision that condoned suicide bombings as a legitimate means to establish Palestinian statehood after Robinson initiated a drive to become a fact finder to investigate the fictitious massacre in Jenin.

Desmond Tutu has claimed that Zionism has “very many parallels with racism” and has called Jews “arrogant. Tutu accused Jews of exhibiting “an arrogance – the arrogance of power because Jews are a powerful lobby in this land and all kinds of people woo their support.”

White House Responds

In response to AIPAC’s criticism, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told the press on Tuesday that Robinson was being honored due to her being the first female President of Ireland and as a prominent crusader of women's rights in Ireland and throughout the world.

Nevertheless, Gibbs asserted, “There are statements that obviously she has made that the President doesn't agree with, and that's probably true for a number of the people that the President is recognizing for their lifetime contributions.”

CNN interview with Mark Regev, Spokesman for the Israeli Prime Minister

Anchor: The international community is outraged. Israeli police used force to evict two large Palestinian families from an East Jerusalem neighborhood. Security forces were following court orders – still the situation got very tense. Tempers flared and scuffles broke out. The UN spokesman for Palestinian refugees echoed the global condemnation: . Chris Gunness: What we see here lies just strewn on the streets of Jerusalem. This is what occupation is actually about. That's what's going on here, now, in Jerusalem. And that is why we say, "Can the world please wake up and realize what is happening in the holy city?" - Because it is completely unacceptable.



Anchor: Well, the Israeli government had inquired about all of this until now. Israeli Government Spokesman Mark Regev joins us now, live from Jerusalem, with the government's reaction. There is widespread international condemnation of Israel for these evictions. UN envoy to the Middle East has called Israel's actions "totally unacceptable". What is your response?



Mark Regev: Well, I think a lot of the criticism is simply not fair. You had a legal dispute between two private parties. The Israeli government was not involved over who had title to a particular property there in East Jerusalem. And it went up the Israeli court system all the way to our Supreme Court, with both groups, both sides, putting all their documents, all their claims in front of the court.



As you know, the Israeli court system is independent and professional. Many times it rules in favor of the Palestinian side, if that's where it thinks justice lies. In this case it ruled in favor of the Jewish side.



The timing of this event was because the court order was implemented. And I think anyone who lives in a democracy knows that rule of law means that the court's decision must be upheld. Does anyone really think that the Israeli government can overrule its own Supreme Court and pass some sort of racist law that forbids Jews from buying apartments or property in Jerusalem?



Anchor: Mark Regev, would you accept that the scenes that played out for the world to see are not conducive to peace?



Mark Regev: I think peace, and I have heard my Prime Minister Netanyahu say this, peace has to include a situation where Jews in Jerusalem can live in Arab neighborhoods and Arabs in Jerusalem can live in Jewish neighborhoods. Isn't that what peace and coexistence is all about? The whole idea that East Jerusalem has to be free of Jews, surely that is something that no one in the international community can accept.



Anchor: The US State Department has already come out and said that these actions that took place clearly violate Israel's obligation under the US backed road map for peace. Would you accept that? Would you accept that they have repeatedly asked Israel not to carry out these evictions and not to move Jewish families into the area? - Because it undermines any kind of atmosphere for any kind of fruitful negotiations.



Mark Regev: Listen, I of course have empathy for people who are being evicted from houses that the court says they have to leave. I think in any situation like that you have empathy for people who have to leave the house. But of course there is rule of law. And in America, in Europe, in all democratic countries we know that the courts look at the evidence, they hear from both sides and they make a distinction, they make a decision. And that decision has to be upheld by the police, by the executive branch. In this case the court objectively heard all the evidence. Now people are tying to play politics here, but this isn't politics. This is rule of law.



Anchor: So you deny that there is a systematic policy in place, whether or not it is acknowledged as a policy. But there are systematic actions taking place to move Jewish families into East Jerusalem and to move Palestinians out. Would you deny that?



Mark Regev: There is no such government policy. On the contrary, here you have a situation where private people bought private property. And that is what it is. The court dealt with a land dispute between two private groups of people.



But let me make something clear here. Since Israel united the city in 1967, for the first time in the history of that city all great religious groups, whether it is the Christian community, the Jewish community or the Muslim community, have full freedom of religion, freedom of worship. Only under Israeli rule have democratic rights been maintained and guaranteed for all.



And I would ask those Arab residents who go the Israeli Supreme Court and go against these sorts of rulings, where else in the Arab world do you have a situation where the courts are free and independent and truly professional as they are in Israel?



Anchor: Well, a state has a duty of care to its citizens. So what happens now to those residents that are sleeping on the streets?



Mark Regev: Well to be fair, and I understand and have empathy for them, but this was no surprise. I mean, this has gone through all the courts in Israel up to the Supreme Court, and they knew that this court order had come. They were asked to leave voluntarily because the courts had decided it was not their property. They did not have the right to be there, and yet they chose this political statement. Really, they should have known this was coming and made the correct preparations.



Anchor: All right Mark Regev, Israeli Government Spokesman, joining us live at the I Desk, thanks for your time.

The British Firestorm Against Israel

Melanie Phillips

The shocking rise in anti-Jewish attacks demonstrates that the way Israel is presented impacts directly on the safety of British Jews.
According to the Community Security Trust, there were 609 anti-Jewish incidents in the first six months of this year, more than in the whole of 2008. And more than half the incidents reported in January made some reference to Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.

Well, of course. People were being told day in, day out that the Israelis were wantonly killing Palestinian children.

In fact, Israeli figures showed that the vast majority of those killed were Hamas operatives. Given that half of Gaza’s population are children, not to mention the use by Hamas of civilians as human shields, the relatively small number of child casualties testified to the remarkable care Israel took not to kill children.

What makes the Israel-bashing so monstrous is that Israel is being vilified through falsehood and distortion for defending its citizens against attack. This is tantamount to saying it should not defend itself – and therefore should not exist at all.

When a culture goes bad like this, an enormous amount rides on the attitude and behavior of those at the top. But this vicious mood is being reflected and exacerbated by the government of that self-described Israel-lover, Gordon Brown.

There has of late been a flurry of Israel-bashing by the Foreign Office. It has totally disregarded the opinion of Colonel Richard Kemp, formerly commander of British forces in Afghanistan and the intelligence coordinator for the British government.

Col. Kemp recently told a conference in Jerusalem that, like Britain in Afghanistan and Iraq, Israeli forces were up against an enemy that deliberately manipulated Israel’s adherence to international law so as “to produce an international outcry and condemnation.”

And HMG has duly allowed Hamas to manipulate it. The Foreign Office has revoked five export licenses for spare parts for Israeli warships’ guns on the grounds that Israel’s actions were “disproportionate” — even though these are claims fabricated by Hamas and recycled by the UN, media and NGOs.

The FO says it based the revocation on the criterion of whether the proposed items would be used for “internal repression.” But Gaza is not ‘internal’ to Israel. Nor does Israel even occupy Gaza any more.

The Foreign Office told me that because of the “significant control that Israel has over Gaza’s borders, airspace and territorial waters, Israel retains obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention as an occupying power in relation to Gaza.”

But this is nonsense. The Geneva Convention merely lays out the obligations of an occupying power. It does not actually define “occupation” – which, as set out by the Hague Convention, means military boots on the ground, preventing a territory from governing itself. There are very obviously no Israeli boots on the ground in Gaza, which is governed by Hamas.

This and other similar Foreign Office initiatives form part of a frenzied eruption of anti-Israel malice. Malevolently distorted reports by NGOs have provoked a firestorm of similar articles in the Guardian.

A book entitled Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide by Ben White – who has stated: “I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are” – was launched by both War on Want and the Council for Arab British Understanding at a separate Commons reception presided over by Labour MP Brian Iddon.

And a few days ago, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee – in an incoherent report which condemned Hamas but bashed Israel for fighting it – reiterated its call to negotiate with Hamas.

Moral muddle and manipulative malice over Israel: look no farther for the causes of those shocking attacks on British Jews.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Melanie Phillips is the author of the powerful and frightening Londonistan, and she blogs at The Spectator.