Published today in the Jerusalem Post
Sir,
With all respect to Elie Wiesel, the tension between the Obama administration and Israel is not so easily erased. It is fueled by the President's acceptance of the Arab narrative and his avoidance of antagonizing those whom he wishes to woo. When Mr. Obama announced months ago at an AIPAC meeting - for Jewish consumption - that Jerusalem should remain united under Israel, the pressure from the Arabs brought an immediate reversal - for Arab consumption. This is part of Obama's style- appeasement of the enemies of the free world; he has been an apologist for the U.S. and for radical Islam whose name he cannot even utter. He does not understand that a strong Israel is necessary to the safety of the United States and the West. Israel does not need a visit by Obama as Martin Indyk suggests; those of us who understand the dangers to the Jewish state will not be 'charmed' as, unfortunately, was Mr. Wiesel.
Chana Givon
Monday, May 10, 2010
New Israeli technology, making a tank disappear
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2010-05/10/c_13284523.htm
by Gur Salomon
JERUSALEM, May 9 (Xinhua) -- In the modern battlefield, as thermal imaging and radar detection systems grow more sophisticated by the day, war machines are increasingly vulnerable to enemy fire. Would an armored battalion commander want to be able to make his tanks simply vanish from enemy eyes? You can bet on it. Eltics Ltd., an Israeli start-up that develops electronic warfare systems, says it has come up with technology that will eventually turn fantasy into reality -- a system that can make tanks, armored personnel carriers, helicopter gunships and even naval vessels invisible to night vision systems and heat-seeking missiles.
The company and its technology, the Eltics system or Black Fox Active Adaptive IR Stealth System, were revealed for the first time on Sunday by Israeli TV Channel 10.
The Black Fox system equips any tank, helicopter or ship with a FLIR camera that photographs the surroundings in which they are operating. The system then analyzes the area's thermal signature and screens the exact same signature onto plates fitted on the machine, thus enabling it to completely disintegrate from sight.
"A tank, armored personnel carrier or ship, equipped with this system, become invisible to thermal night vision systems, guided missiles and a missile's sight," explained Eltics CEO Ronen Meir, in his first televised appearance.
http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/Tech/10/04/3001.htm
Israeli Company Develops Through-Wall Vision System
30 April 2010 , 15:17
רואה ואינו נראה
Through-wall vision system. Photo: Roman Poretski, BaMahane.
geresh
Share|
geresh
The Camero system reveals the location of people in any room without having to venture into it. Its products are already deployed worldwide and have already helped in a hijacking rescue in a foreign country
Nir Costi
Through-Wall Vision: The Israeli company Camero has developed a piece of equipment that will greatly help soldiers and law enforcement officials throughout the world. The device enables you to know where people are located in a room in real time before having to enter it. The Xavier 400 is about the size of a laptop computer weighing under 3kg including the battery. It also has an optimized design for tactical operations which makes it easy to carry around by combat soldiers in the field.
The identification system is based on a unique, multichannel, Ultra-Wideband (UWB) sensor that operates at very high bandwidth that enables reliable detection and object resolution. The Xavier 400 system is able to locate images through walls using electromagnetic pulses and is able to provide quick location and number of people hidden by walls and barriers.
“This technology saves lives,” explained David Gazelle, Vice President of R&D.
The system is already an operational success and is being deployed worldwide. Six months ago a girl was kidnapped in a foreign country by kidnappers who demanded ransom for her release in the amount of two million shekels. The SWAT equivalent local unit utilized Xaver 400 to see where the abductors were located. The picture on the device revealed four kidnappers and the girl who was kept hostage. While three kidnappers were in another room of the house, one of them was keeping guard on the girl in the same room. When he left the room to go to the bathroom the police broke in and saved the girl.
by Gur Salomon
JERUSALEM, May 9 (Xinhua) -- In the modern battlefield, as thermal imaging and radar detection systems grow more sophisticated by the day, war machines are increasingly vulnerable to enemy fire. Would an armored battalion commander want to be able to make his tanks simply vanish from enemy eyes? You can bet on it. Eltics Ltd., an Israeli start-up that develops electronic warfare systems, says it has come up with technology that will eventually turn fantasy into reality -- a system that can make tanks, armored personnel carriers, helicopter gunships and even naval vessels invisible to night vision systems and heat-seeking missiles.
The company and its technology, the Eltics system or Black Fox Active Adaptive IR Stealth System, were revealed for the first time on Sunday by Israeli TV Channel 10.
The Black Fox system equips any tank, helicopter or ship with a FLIR camera that photographs the surroundings in which they are operating. The system then analyzes the area's thermal signature and screens the exact same signature onto plates fitted on the machine, thus enabling it to completely disintegrate from sight.
"A tank, armored personnel carrier or ship, equipped with this system, become invisible to thermal night vision systems, guided missiles and a missile's sight," explained Eltics CEO Ronen Meir, in his first televised appearance.
http://dover.idf.il/IDF/English/News/Tech/10/04/3001.htm
Israeli Company Develops Through-Wall Vision System
30 April 2010 , 15:17
רואה ואינו נראה
Through-wall vision system. Photo: Roman Poretski, BaMahane.
geresh
Share|
geresh
The Camero system reveals the location of people in any room without having to venture into it. Its products are already deployed worldwide and have already helped in a hijacking rescue in a foreign country
Nir Costi
Through-Wall Vision: The Israeli company Camero has developed a piece of equipment that will greatly help soldiers and law enforcement officials throughout the world. The device enables you to know where people are located in a room in real time before having to enter it. The Xavier 400 is about the size of a laptop computer weighing under 3kg including the battery. It also has an optimized design for tactical operations which makes it easy to carry around by combat soldiers in the field.
The identification system is based on a unique, multichannel, Ultra-Wideband (UWB) sensor that operates at very high bandwidth that enables reliable detection and object resolution. The Xavier 400 system is able to locate images through walls using electromagnetic pulses and is able to provide quick location and number of people hidden by walls and barriers.
“This technology saves lives,” explained David Gazelle, Vice President of R&D.
The system is already an operational success and is being deployed worldwide. Six months ago a girl was kidnapped in a foreign country by kidnappers who demanded ransom for her release in the amount of two million shekels. The SWAT equivalent local unit utilized Xaver 400 to see where the abductors were located. The picture on the device revealed four kidnappers and the girl who was kept hostage. While three kidnappers were in another room of the house, one of them was keeping guard on the girl in the same room. When he left the room to go to the bathroom the police broke in and saved the girl.
Sunday, May 09, 2010
The Jihadis' marriage-fraud scam
Michelle Malkin
America's homeland-security amnesia never ceases to amaze. In the aftermath of the botched Times Square terror attack, Pakistani-born bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad's US citizenship status caused a bit of shock and awe. The Atlantic magazine writer Jeffrey Goldberg's response was typical: "I am struck by the fact that he is a naturalized American citizen, not a recent or temporary visitor." Well, wake up and smell the deadly deception. Shahzad's path to American citizenship -- he reportedly married an American woman, Huma Mian, in 2008 after spending a decade in the country on foreign student and employment visas -- is a tried-and-true terror formula. Jihadists have been gaming the sham-marriage racket for years. And immigration-benefit fraud has provided invaluable cover and aid for US-based Islamic plotters, including many planning attacks on New York City. As I've reported previously:
* El Sayyid A. Nosair wed Karen Ann Mills Sweeney to avoid deportation for overstaying his visa. He acquired US citizenship, allowing him to remain in the country, and was later convicted for conspiracy in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that claimed six lives.
* Ali Mohamed became a US citizen after marrying a woman he met on a plane trip from Egypt to New York. He became a top aide to Osama bin Laden and was later convicted for his role in the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa that killed 12 Americans and more than 200 others.
* Embassy-bombing plotter Khalid Abu al Dahab obtained citizenship after marrying three different American women.
* Embassy-bombing plotter Wadih el Hage, Osama bin Laden's personal secretary, married April Ray in 1985 and became a naturalized citizen in 1989. Ray knew of her husband's employment with bin Laden, but like many of these women in bogus marriages, she pleaded ignorance about her husband's work.
* Lebanon-born Chawki Youssef Hammoud, convicted in a Hezbollah cigarette-smuggling operation based out of Charlotte, NC, married American citizen Jessica Fortune for a green card.
* Hammoud's brother, Mohammed Hammoud, married three different American women. After arriving here on a counterfeit visa, being ordered deported and filing an appeal, he wed Sabina Edwards to gain a green card. Federal immigration officials refused to award him legal status after this first marriage was deemed bogus in 1994. Undaunted, he married Jessica Wedel in May 1997 and, while still wed to her, paid Angela Tsioumas to marry him in Detroit. The Tsioumas union netted Mohammed Hammoud temporary legal residence to operate the terror-cash scam. He was later convicted on 16 counts that included providing material support to Hezbollah.
* Eight Mideastern men who plotted to bomb New York landmarks in 1993 -- Fadil Abdelgani, Amir Abdelgani, Siddig Ibrahim Siddig Ali, Tarig Elhassan, Abdo Mohammed Haggag, Fares Khallafalla, Mohammed Saleh and Matarawy Mohammed Said Saleh -- all obtained legal permanent residence by marrying US citizens.
A year after 9/11, homeland-security officials cracked a vast illegal-alien Middle Eastern marriage-fraud ring in "Operation Broken Vows." Authorities were stunned by the scope of the operations, which stretched from Boston to South Carolina to California. But marriage fraud remains a treacherous path of least resistance. The waiting period for US citizenship is cut by more than half for marriage-visa beneficiaries.
As former federal immigration official Michael Cutler warned years ago: "Immigration benefit fraud is certainly one of the major 'dots' that was not connected prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and remains a 'dot' that is not really being addressed the way it needs to be in order to secure our nation against criminals and terrorists."
Jihadists have exploited our lax immigration and entrance policies to secure the rights and benefits of US citizenship while they plot mass murder -- and we haven't done a thing to stop them.
America's homeland-security amnesia never ceases to amaze. In the aftermath of the botched Times Square terror attack, Pakistani-born bombing suspect Faisal Shahzad's US citizenship status caused a bit of shock and awe. The Atlantic magazine writer Jeffrey Goldberg's response was typical: "I am struck by the fact that he is a naturalized American citizen, not a recent or temporary visitor." Well, wake up and smell the deadly deception. Shahzad's path to American citizenship -- he reportedly married an American woman, Huma Mian, in 2008 after spending a decade in the country on foreign student and employment visas -- is a tried-and-true terror formula. Jihadists have been gaming the sham-marriage racket for years. And immigration-benefit fraud has provided invaluable cover and aid for US-based Islamic plotters, including many planning attacks on New York City. As I've reported previously:
* El Sayyid A. Nosair wed Karen Ann Mills Sweeney to avoid deportation for overstaying his visa. He acquired US citizenship, allowing him to remain in the country, and was later convicted for conspiracy in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that claimed six lives.
* Ali Mohamed became a US citizen after marrying a woman he met on a plane trip from Egypt to New York. He became a top aide to Osama bin Laden and was later convicted for his role in the 1998 US embassy bombings in Africa that killed 12 Americans and more than 200 others.
* Embassy-bombing plotter Khalid Abu al Dahab obtained citizenship after marrying three different American women.
* Embassy-bombing plotter Wadih el Hage, Osama bin Laden's personal secretary, married April Ray in 1985 and became a naturalized citizen in 1989. Ray knew of her husband's employment with bin Laden, but like many of these women in bogus marriages, she pleaded ignorance about her husband's work.
* Lebanon-born Chawki Youssef Hammoud, convicted in a Hezbollah cigarette-smuggling operation based out of Charlotte, NC, married American citizen Jessica Fortune for a green card.
* Hammoud's brother, Mohammed Hammoud, married three different American women. After arriving here on a counterfeit visa, being ordered deported and filing an appeal, he wed Sabina Edwards to gain a green card. Federal immigration officials refused to award him legal status after this first marriage was deemed bogus in 1994. Undaunted, he married Jessica Wedel in May 1997 and, while still wed to her, paid Angela Tsioumas to marry him in Detroit. The Tsioumas union netted Mohammed Hammoud temporary legal residence to operate the terror-cash scam. He was later convicted on 16 counts that included providing material support to Hezbollah.
* Eight Mideastern men who plotted to bomb New York landmarks in 1993 -- Fadil Abdelgani, Amir Abdelgani, Siddig Ibrahim Siddig Ali, Tarig Elhassan, Abdo Mohammed Haggag, Fares Khallafalla, Mohammed Saleh and Matarawy Mohammed Said Saleh -- all obtained legal permanent residence by marrying US citizens.
A year after 9/11, homeland-security officials cracked a vast illegal-alien Middle Eastern marriage-fraud ring in "Operation Broken Vows." Authorities were stunned by the scope of the operations, which stretched from Boston to South Carolina to California. But marriage fraud remains a treacherous path of least resistance. The waiting period for US citizenship is cut by more than half for marriage-visa beneficiaries.
As former federal immigration official Michael Cutler warned years ago: "Immigration benefit fraud is certainly one of the major 'dots' that was not connected prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, and remains a 'dot' that is not really being addressed the way it needs to be in order to secure our nation against criminals and terrorists."
Jihadists have exploited our lax immigration and entrance policies to secure the rights and benefits of US citizenship while they plot mass murder -- and we haven't done a thing to stop them.
. Israeli Arab Incitement over Temple Mount
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
A7 News
Israeli Arabs, along with the entire Arab world, have escalated a propaganda campaign to stir up agitation as great or greater than that of the PA, while Israel complains to the United States that the Palestinian Authority is guilty of incitement against Israel. The Israeli government has raised the issue of the PA with U.S. Middle East envoy George Mitchell, but the other provocations are far beyond his reach. The Islamic Movement, headed by Arabs holding Israeli citizenship and living in the north, recently posted an announcement charging that “Israel Occupation Forces” attacked Muslim worshippers at the Al Aqsa mosque on the Temple Mount. There were no reports from the police or from Israel about it and foreign media mentioned no such attack.
The Movement’s website posted an announcement, translated by Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), stating, "We strictly denounce the vicious and criminal attack perpetrated today after Friday prayer. Al-Aqsa is our mosque.”
The Saudi Arabia-based Arab News website, while describing King Abdullah as the “Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques,” noted that he” initiated the setting up of an Al-Quds uprising fund” in addition to proposing the 2002 plan that Israel surrender all of the land restored to the Jewish State in the Six-Day War in 1967. Saudi Arabia suggested that if Israel were to agree to its plan, the Arab League would normalize diplomatic relations with Israel.
The British-based Muslim News website reported that nine Arabs were wounded in a clash with during an arrest by police, who allegedly “attempted to kidnap a number of residents,” with the term ”kidnap” becoming more common in Arab media when Israeli security forces arrest suspected terrorists.
On Friday, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Sheikh Tayssir Tamimi, warned that Israeli development plans in Jerusalem are aimed at excluding Muslims and Christians.
“Jerusalem is Arab land,” he said in a report by Eurasia Review, which added, “The Mufti also warned that by 2014 Israel is planning an ‘exclusively Jewish district’ in Jerusalem where any signs of a Christian or Muslim presence would be forbidden.”
The same report repeated previous Palestinian Authority allegations that excavation work in the Old City has damaged the structure of the Al Aqsa mosque.
The facts are different. During the period from 1949-1967, when Jordan occupied Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem, it prohibited Jews from visiting the Western Wall and also banned Christians, except for high-profile dignitaries, from all holy sites. Since Israel regained sovereignty in the areas in the 1967 Six-Day War, it opened all of the holy sites to members of all religions and has acted to preserve them.
Retrieving the Jewish Land and Keeping it in Jewish Hands
Hillel Fendel
A7 News
The Israel Land Fund has embarked upon a campaign to once again implement the original goals of the Jewish National Fund.
“Take part in the restoration of the Land of Israel now!” calls out the new website of the Israel Land Fund. The group was founded by Jerusalem land activist Aryeh King and others in 2007, with the stated goal of “continuing the original efforts by the Jewish forefathers, and in more recent history, over a century ago, by pioneers of the State.” Specifically, the Fund (ILF) has set out to “acquire all the land of Israel for the Jewish people,” by inviting Jews around the world to help retrieve properties currently under Arab ownership, or that are in danger of becoming so.
The ILF’s website states that it strives to “enable all Jewish non-Israeli citizens to own a part of Israel [and] to ensure that Jewish land is once again reclaimed and in Jewish hands.”
The organization offers a combination of business prospects and ideology. “Invest in Israel and yield high returns,” it states, offering various properties around the country that are currently available – and recommended for Jewish purchase.
“With hundreds of properties all over Israel being offered for sale,” ILF states, “the Israel Land Fund offers every Jew, regardless of location, the opportunity to obtain a portion of the land. House by house, lot by lot, the Israel Land Fund is ensuring the land of Israel stays in the hands of the Jewish people forever. You, too, can take part in this great endeavor.”
The site has sections on the various areas of Israel, proposing sale of properties in Jerusalem, where Arabs have made it their goal to purchase widely, as well as the Galilee, the Negev, Acco (Acre), Jaffa, and elsewhere.
Information Treasures and Proposals
It is also a veritable treasure house of information on the different parts of the Land of Israel. It tells us, for instance, that Acco, in northwestern Israel, is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities, dating back to 1504 BCE, and was once a leading port in the Middle East, in the same league as Alexandria and Constantinople. Web-site visitors are offered a three-story house in Acco, with arches and a sea-view balcony, next door to Jewish neighbors and in need of some renovation.
Group investments are encouraged as well, such as in the following proposal in Jaffa: a 300-square-meter plot with three large apartments offered, with an option to add another penthouse apartment. Information on the religious-Zionist Jaffa core-group, currently numbering 28 families, is provided.
Rising Values, Jewish Law, Politics
The website also emphasizes and details the increasing land values in Israel in general, the importance in Jewish Law of buying plots in the Land of Israel, and the need to counter-act the trend of hostile and enemy elements to purchase properties.
Obama’s dangerous initiative
New ‘nuke-free’ strategy blurs distinction between West, radical regimes
Eytan Gilboa
YNET News
The attempt to wholly change America’s nuclear policy and the rules of play on the nuclear front is commensurate with President Obama’s “Change” and “Yes, we can” slogans. This attempt may hold far-reaching implications for Israel’s traditional nuclear policy and its significance to our ties with the US. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently revealed, for the first time in history, the number of operational nuclear warheads held by the US: 5,113. America is the first nuclear country to do this. Other states attempt to keep such figures under wraps, while intelligence agencies invest great efforts and resources in eliciting this information.
Why did the Obama Administration choose to publish the figures? And why now?
The move joins previous Obama steps aimed at minimizing nuclear proliferation. The US adopted the recent unusual move in order to convey a determined message: America wants to lead the struggle to prevent the proliferation of weapons and dismantle them, while serving as a personal and national model.
Now, the US expects Russia and other members of the nuclear club to follow in its footsteps, publish information about their own stockpiles, subject their facilities to tighter monitoring, and later agree to the mutual dismantlement of nuclear weapons.
Implications for Israel
The US has always objected to nuclear proliferation for fear that the likelihood of using nukes will grow as more states possess them. Israel was an exception, and the attitude to its nuclear policy was unique.
America preferred to ignore Israel’s nuclear weapons because their development was justified in light of the Holocaust, the military power of Arab states, and their constant threats to destroy the Jewish State.
However, Obama’s new nuclear policy may change America’s traditional stance on Israel’s nukes.
Clinton already expressed her support for the notion of a nuke-free Middle East and the Egyptian initiative to realize this view. For years now, Egypt had been trying to place Israel’s nukes on the global agenda in an effort to reveal Israel’s stockpiles, monitor them, limit them, and dismantle them.
The US curbed these efforts so far, yet at this time it appears that America is willing to accept the Egyptian position and possibly work towards realizing it.
American naiveté
However, Obama’s nuclear strategy is dangerous and problematic. It is premised on a certain degree of naiveté and unfounded idealism. States such as Iran are wholly unimpressed by America’s goodwill and gestures.
The US position completely ignores the weakness of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the institutions tasked with implementing it. Under the NPT, states such as Iraq and Libya developed infrastructure for the production of nuclear weapons. In recent years, Iran has been doing the same.
While the US currently proposes new measures aimed at allowing announced inspections and punishment of rogue states, it’s clear these moves won’t be approved. Conventions are secured through consensus, and it’s enough for states such as China and Iran to resist in order to thwart the required changes.
The new American strategy also blurs the distinction between the very possession of nukes and the nature of the governments holding them. The problem does not have to do with the weapons held by the US, Britain, France, India, or Israel. The main issue has to do with radical, authoritative and violent regimes such as Iran, which threatens to destroy Israel and turn all Mideastern regimes into radical Islamic ones.
A discussion of a nuke-free Middle East means exclusive preoccupation with Israel’s nuclear program. Iran won’t cease its effort to acquire nukes, and the preoccupation with Israel will merely serve Tehran’s aims by diverting some attention away from it.
Egyptian trap
Moreover, the focus on nuclear weapons ignores other types of weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological means, which are held by some of Israel’s foes.
The vision of a nuke-free Middle East is an appropriate and worthwhile one, yet it could only be realized after all of Israel’s close and distant neighbors, including Iran, secure stable peace treaties with it, cut back their armies, and eliminate their WMD arsenals.
At this time, the issue of nuclear weapons cannot be separated from the other major issues of war and peace in the Mideast. Should the Obama Administration fall into the Egyptian trap and allow attention to be shifted to Israel’s nuclear programs, we’ll see another focal point of tension in Israel-US relations. Our government will then have to carefully weigh its steps on what is currently the most sensitive international relations issue.
Professor Eytan Gilboa is a political science and communication lecturer and a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University
Eytan Gilboa
YNET News
The attempt to wholly change America’s nuclear policy and the rules of play on the nuclear front is commensurate with President Obama’s “Change” and “Yes, we can” slogans. This attempt may hold far-reaching implications for Israel’s traditional nuclear policy and its significance to our ties with the US. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently revealed, for the first time in history, the number of operational nuclear warheads held by the US: 5,113. America is the first nuclear country to do this. Other states attempt to keep such figures under wraps, while intelligence agencies invest great efforts and resources in eliciting this information.
Why did the Obama Administration choose to publish the figures? And why now?
The move joins previous Obama steps aimed at minimizing nuclear proliferation. The US adopted the recent unusual move in order to convey a determined message: America wants to lead the struggle to prevent the proliferation of weapons and dismantle them, while serving as a personal and national model.
Now, the US expects Russia and other members of the nuclear club to follow in its footsteps, publish information about their own stockpiles, subject their facilities to tighter monitoring, and later agree to the mutual dismantlement of nuclear weapons.
Implications for Israel
The US has always objected to nuclear proliferation for fear that the likelihood of using nukes will grow as more states possess them. Israel was an exception, and the attitude to its nuclear policy was unique.
America preferred to ignore Israel’s nuclear weapons because their development was justified in light of the Holocaust, the military power of Arab states, and their constant threats to destroy the Jewish State.
However, Obama’s new nuclear policy may change America’s traditional stance on Israel’s nukes.
Clinton already expressed her support for the notion of a nuke-free Middle East and the Egyptian initiative to realize this view. For years now, Egypt had been trying to place Israel’s nukes on the global agenda in an effort to reveal Israel’s stockpiles, monitor them, limit them, and dismantle them.
The US curbed these efforts so far, yet at this time it appears that America is willing to accept the Egyptian position and possibly work towards realizing it.
American naiveté
However, Obama’s nuclear strategy is dangerous and problematic. It is premised on a certain degree of naiveté and unfounded idealism. States such as Iran are wholly unimpressed by America’s goodwill and gestures.
The US position completely ignores the weakness of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the institutions tasked with implementing it. Under the NPT, states such as Iraq and Libya developed infrastructure for the production of nuclear weapons. In recent years, Iran has been doing the same.
While the US currently proposes new measures aimed at allowing announced inspections and punishment of rogue states, it’s clear these moves won’t be approved. Conventions are secured through consensus, and it’s enough for states such as China and Iran to resist in order to thwart the required changes.
The new American strategy also blurs the distinction between the very possession of nukes and the nature of the governments holding them. The problem does not have to do with the weapons held by the US, Britain, France, India, or Israel. The main issue has to do with radical, authoritative and violent regimes such as Iran, which threatens to destroy Israel and turn all Mideastern regimes into radical Islamic ones.
A discussion of a nuke-free Middle East means exclusive preoccupation with Israel’s nuclear program. Iran won’t cease its effort to acquire nukes, and the preoccupation with Israel will merely serve Tehran’s aims by diverting some attention away from it.
Egyptian trap
Moreover, the focus on nuclear weapons ignores other types of weapons of mass destruction such as chemical and biological means, which are held by some of Israel’s foes.
The vision of a nuke-free Middle East is an appropriate and worthwhile one, yet it could only be realized after all of Israel’s close and distant neighbors, including Iran, secure stable peace treaties with it, cut back their armies, and eliminate their WMD arsenals.
At this time, the issue of nuclear weapons cannot be separated from the other major issues of war and peace in the Mideast. Should the Obama Administration fall into the Egyptian trap and allow attention to be shifted to Israel’s nuclear programs, we’ll see another focal point of tension in Israel-US relations. Our government will then have to carefully weigh its steps on what is currently the most sensitive international relations issue.
Professor Eytan Gilboa is a political science and communication lecturer and a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University
Saturday, May 08, 2010
Israel fears energy targets will be hit
www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2010/05/06/Israel-fears-energy-targets-will-be-hit/UPI-98661273164219/
TEL AVIV, Israel, May 6 (UPI) -- Israel's mounting alarm at Hezbollah's reported acquisition of increasing numbers of long-range missiles stems in part from concern for the security of the country's emerging infrastructure.Jane's Intelligence Review reported the Israelis are concerned that their drive to develop an energy infrastructure built around the natural gas fields recently discovered in the Mediterranean off the northern port of Haifa would be put at risk by Hezbollah's swelling arsenal.
The magazine, published in Britain, said the "relatively unsophisticated nature of Hezbollah's arsenal means that the militants' ability to successfully target individual critical energy sites in and around Haifa would be limited.
"However, the risk remains that the use of a combination of mass indirect fire and more sophisticated guided systems would place such infrastructure at risk." During the 34-day war between Hezbollah and Israel in the summer of 2006, the Iranian-backed Shiite movement pounded northern Israel with nearly 4,000 rockets, the overwhelming majority of which were relatively short-range, unguided weapons.
Several hit Haifa, which is also a major naval base, and caused some industrial damage.
Otherwise they did relatively little critical damage beyond the profound psychological impact the unprecedented bombardment -- and the Israeli forces' failure to stop it -- had on Israel's civilian population.
But now, the Israeli military claims Hezbollah has an arsenal of around 45,000 rockets and missiles, some of them with the range to hit pretty much anywhere in the Jewish state all the way to the southern Negev Desert.
Israel claims that Syria, Iran's Arab ally, provided Hezbollah with an unspecified number of road-mobile M600 short-range ballistic missiles in
2009. The M600 is a Syrian-engineered version of Iran's Fateh surface-to-surface missile. It has a range of at least 160 miles and carries a 1,100-pound warhead.
Most importantly, it also has an inertial guidance system that means it impacts within 500 yards of its target and blowing up gas installations can trigger immense fireballs that can cause widespread destruction.
In April, the Israelis claimed Syria had also supplied Hezbollah with an unspecified number of Soviet-designed Scud ballistic missiles which have a range of up to 430 miles.
But there has been no evidence of this and even the Americans are skeptical that Hezbollah would resort to using these cumbersome systems that take up to 45 minutes to prepare for launch and are far more detectable than the more nimble M600s.
Israel has to import almost all its energy requirements, so developing a domestic energy infrastructure has a strategic dimension.
The gas strike of up to 200 billion cubic meters of gas at the Tamar and Dalat fields makes Haifa even more of an import target for Israel's enemies. The Israelis plan to build a liquefied gas plant there with an annual capacity of 4 billion cubic meters.
Jane's said that it is likely that the plant will be located offshore, mostly probably in Haifa Bay.
"It may be 2015 before the plant comes online, making its significance and the threat it faces a long-term one," the report said.
The M600s would be able to reach as far south as the port of Ashdod, which also has an oil refinery, if they were fired just south of Beirut.
That would make them more vulnerable to Israeli attack. But even M600s fired from further north in the Bekaa Valley, Hezbollah's heartland, could hit Tel Aviv and Israel's industrial center.
If a missile bombardment of Haifa and its environs was successful "the impact for Israel could be significant," Jane's reported.
"The new plant is designed to receive liquefied natural gas from a variety of international sources to diversify the country's energy supplies.
"At full operating capacity, the 4 billion cubic meters of natural gas this would be able to receive would more than cover Israel's current domestic consumption." That is estimated to be around 2.5 billion cubic meters a year.
"Although the liquefied natural gas plant is designed to supplement other sources of Israeli gas . The loss of the plant for a prolonged period of time would mark a major blow to Israel's efforts to diversify its energy supplies." Jane's concluded.
"It would also place greater importance on existing gas supplies, the supply infrastructure for which could also come under threat, certainly around Haifa and potentially further afield."
- -------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis Website: www.imra.org.il
TEL AVIV, Israel, May 6 (UPI) -- Israel's mounting alarm at Hezbollah's reported acquisition of increasing numbers of long-range missiles stems in part from concern for the security of the country's emerging infrastructure.Jane's Intelligence Review reported the Israelis are concerned that their drive to develop an energy infrastructure built around the natural gas fields recently discovered in the Mediterranean off the northern port of Haifa would be put at risk by Hezbollah's swelling arsenal.
The magazine, published in Britain, said the "relatively unsophisticated nature of Hezbollah's arsenal means that the militants' ability to successfully target individual critical energy sites in and around Haifa would be limited.
"However, the risk remains that the use of a combination of mass indirect fire and more sophisticated guided systems would place such infrastructure at risk." During the 34-day war between Hezbollah and Israel in the summer of 2006, the Iranian-backed Shiite movement pounded northern Israel with nearly 4,000 rockets, the overwhelming majority of which were relatively short-range, unguided weapons.
Several hit Haifa, which is also a major naval base, and caused some industrial damage.
Otherwise they did relatively little critical damage beyond the profound psychological impact the unprecedented bombardment -- and the Israeli forces' failure to stop it -- had on Israel's civilian population.
But now, the Israeli military claims Hezbollah has an arsenal of around 45,000 rockets and missiles, some of them with the range to hit pretty much anywhere in the Jewish state all the way to the southern Negev Desert.
Israel claims that Syria, Iran's Arab ally, provided Hezbollah with an unspecified number of road-mobile M600 short-range ballistic missiles in
2009. The M600 is a Syrian-engineered version of Iran's Fateh surface-to-surface missile. It has a range of at least 160 miles and carries a 1,100-pound warhead.
Most importantly, it also has an inertial guidance system that means it impacts within 500 yards of its target and blowing up gas installations can trigger immense fireballs that can cause widespread destruction.
In April, the Israelis claimed Syria had also supplied Hezbollah with an unspecified number of Soviet-designed Scud ballistic missiles which have a range of up to 430 miles.
But there has been no evidence of this and even the Americans are skeptical that Hezbollah would resort to using these cumbersome systems that take up to 45 minutes to prepare for launch and are far more detectable than the more nimble M600s.
Israel has to import almost all its energy requirements, so developing a domestic energy infrastructure has a strategic dimension.
The gas strike of up to 200 billion cubic meters of gas at the Tamar and Dalat fields makes Haifa even more of an import target for Israel's enemies. The Israelis plan to build a liquefied gas plant there with an annual capacity of 4 billion cubic meters.
Jane's said that it is likely that the plant will be located offshore, mostly probably in Haifa Bay.
"It may be 2015 before the plant comes online, making its significance and the threat it faces a long-term one," the report said.
The M600s would be able to reach as far south as the port of Ashdod, which also has an oil refinery, if they were fired just south of Beirut.
That would make them more vulnerable to Israeli attack. But even M600s fired from further north in the Bekaa Valley, Hezbollah's heartland, could hit Tel Aviv and Israel's industrial center.
If a missile bombardment of Haifa and its environs was successful "the impact for Israel could be significant," Jane's reported.
"The new plant is designed to receive liquefied natural gas from a variety of international sources to diversify the country's energy supplies.
"At full operating capacity, the 4 billion cubic meters of natural gas this would be able to receive would more than cover Israel's current domestic consumption." That is estimated to be around 2.5 billion cubic meters a year.
"Although the liquefied natural gas plant is designed to supplement other sources of Israeli gas . The loss of the plant for a prolonged period of time would mark a major blow to Israel's efforts to diversify its energy supplies." Jane's concluded.
"It would also place greater importance on existing gas supplies, the supply infrastructure for which could also come under threat, certainly around Haifa and potentially further afield."
- -------------------------------------------
IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis Website: www.imra.org.il
How to Accuse IDF of War Crimes
Dan Illouz
Follow Israel opinion on Twitterand Facebook.
Would you like to help accuse Israeli soldiers, officers, and leaders of war crimes? It's easy as writing a check.
Did you ever wish you could be part of the international movement for the delegitimization of the Jewish state? Did you always want to be part of the struggle against Zionism? Did you ever want to assist those who are accusing Israeli soldiers of War crimes and getting international warrants issued against Israeli military and political officials?
Well, now you can! A recently published research paper from Im Tirtzu, a student organization whose goal is to re-engage Israeli society with Zionism, showed that the New Israel Fund is playing a central role in providing support for organizations which have issued arrest warrants against Israeli officers and politicians for war crimes.
Do you want Tzipi Livni to cancel her next diplomatic visit to England out of fear of arrest? No problem! Support the New Israel Fund! Do you want to stop Major General Doron Almog from leaving the country? No problem! Support
the New Israel Fund!
The greatest part is that you don’t even need to openly oppose Zionism! The New Israel Fund has been created in such a masterfully misleading way that if you support it, people will actually think you are supporting Israel. In other words, you can support anti-Zionism and anti-Israel sentiment while claiming you are actually partnering to make Israel a better place!
How did the New Israel Fund manage to pull off such a great maneuver?
Well, within the long list of programs supported by the New Israel Fund, actual programs for positive social change have been included. By this means, if anyone ever accuses you of supporting an anti-Israel organization, you can simply point to those programs and tell them those are the real reason for your support. Now don’t worry: the NIF will spend your money wisely and Israel will be attacked on the diplomatic and legal fronts, but the NIF will not look like an extremist organization and its actions will be more effective.
One important note needs to be added: as you know, Im Tirtzu has recently started blowing the cover of the NIF by publishing some well researched reports. These reports show the great amount influence the NIF has on all the fronts on which Israel is currently being attacked internationally.
The best way for NIF to deal with this is by simply accusing Im Tirtzu of McCarthyism. McCarthyism is a political strategy through which one makes accusations of disloyalty or treason without proper evidence in order to silence opponents. Now, the NIF knows that the reports published by Im Tirtzu are well researched and that they have enough evidence to back their claims. The NIF also knows that accusations of McCarthyism towards Im Tirtzu can themselves qualify as McCarthyism. After all, the NIF is made of smart people coming from the elite strata of society. They know that Im Tirtzu is simply adding new layers to the public discourse by giving more information and transparency to the public.
However, the NIF also knows that dealing with the actual arguments Im Tirtzu has levelled against it will surely result in their loss because, after all, Im Tirtzu has discovered the truth. This is why a recent email sent by the leadership of the New Israel Fund clearly instructed its supporters to engage in the delegitimization of Im Tirtzu and that is also why the NIF is publicly characterizing Im Tirtzu as “a radical right wing movement”. The NIF knows that Im Tirtzu has members who identify with Labor, Kadima, Likud. They also know that this issue has affected Tzipi Livni’s last trip to England and no one would characterize her as a radical right winger.
Still, if NIF does not delegitimize Im Tirtzu, the facts will be exposed, and all the NIF’s strategies and campaigns against Zionism will be useless. The great majority of the public will agree with Im Tirtzu when it characterizes the accusations of War crimes as being affronts to Zionism and the NIF’s cover will be blown. Therefore, the NIF cannot let this truth come out!
Everyone can take part in the struggle against the State of Israel! Just write a check to the New Israel Fund and they will use your money in the struggle against Zionism. Your 'dream' has now true: you too can be part of this movement!
Im Tirtzu recently published a report clearly proving the relationship between the New Israel Fund and the organizations which have advocated (sometimes successfully) the issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli officials for War crimes. As a response, the New Israel Fund has engaged in a vast campaign delegitimizing Im Tirtzu without ever addressing the findings of the report.
Just like the previous time Im Tirtzu managed to uncover the NIF’s actions, the NIF is using a strategy of McCarthyism in order not to have to answer to the well researched report published by Im Tirtzu. Im Tirtzu stands behinds its report and continues to believe that the NIF has become a serious diplomatic and legal threat to Israel.
Im Tirtzu says: While we do not advocate any type of thought policing, we do advocate transparency and we will therefore continue publishing reports on the NIF which makes public information they would rather keep private. By bringing the whole story to the public, we believe that the public will know how much value to give to NIF actions and arguments. We also believe that this information is critical to donors who are often tricked into supporting the NIF through its portrayal as a pro-Israel organization. It is time to remove the mask from the NIF’s face and to make clear to everyone their true intentions!
Iyar 20, 5770 / 04 May 10
Sorry, no url, sent via email
Follow Israel opinion on Twitterand Facebook.
Would you like to help accuse Israeli soldiers, officers, and leaders of war crimes? It's easy as writing a check.
Did you ever wish you could be part of the international movement for the delegitimization of the Jewish state? Did you always want to be part of the struggle against Zionism? Did you ever want to assist those who are accusing Israeli soldiers of War crimes and getting international warrants issued against Israeli military and political officials?
Well, now you can! A recently published research paper from Im Tirtzu, a student organization whose goal is to re-engage Israeli society with Zionism, showed that the New Israel Fund is playing a central role in providing support for organizations which have issued arrest warrants against Israeli officers and politicians for war crimes.
Do you want Tzipi Livni to cancel her next diplomatic visit to England out of fear of arrest? No problem! Support the New Israel Fund! Do you want to stop Major General Doron Almog from leaving the country? No problem! Support
the New Israel Fund!
The greatest part is that you don’t even need to openly oppose Zionism! The New Israel Fund has been created in such a masterfully misleading way that if you support it, people will actually think you are supporting Israel. In other words, you can support anti-Zionism and anti-Israel sentiment while claiming you are actually partnering to make Israel a better place!
How did the New Israel Fund manage to pull off such a great maneuver?
Well, within the long list of programs supported by the New Israel Fund, actual programs for positive social change have been included. By this means, if anyone ever accuses you of supporting an anti-Israel organization, you can simply point to those programs and tell them those are the real reason for your support. Now don’t worry: the NIF will spend your money wisely and Israel will be attacked on the diplomatic and legal fronts, but the NIF will not look like an extremist organization and its actions will be more effective.
One important note needs to be added: as you know, Im Tirtzu has recently started blowing the cover of the NIF by publishing some well researched reports. These reports show the great amount influence the NIF has on all the fronts on which Israel is currently being attacked internationally.
The best way for NIF to deal with this is by simply accusing Im Tirtzu of McCarthyism. McCarthyism is a political strategy through which one makes accusations of disloyalty or treason without proper evidence in order to silence opponents. Now, the NIF knows that the reports published by Im Tirtzu are well researched and that they have enough evidence to back their claims. The NIF also knows that accusations of McCarthyism towards Im Tirtzu can themselves qualify as McCarthyism. After all, the NIF is made of smart people coming from the elite strata of society. They know that Im Tirtzu is simply adding new layers to the public discourse by giving more information and transparency to the public.
However, the NIF also knows that dealing with the actual arguments Im Tirtzu has levelled against it will surely result in their loss because, after all, Im Tirtzu has discovered the truth. This is why a recent email sent by the leadership of the New Israel Fund clearly instructed its supporters to engage in the delegitimization of Im Tirtzu and that is also why the NIF is publicly characterizing Im Tirtzu as “a radical right wing movement”. The NIF knows that Im Tirtzu has members who identify with Labor, Kadima, Likud. They also know that this issue has affected Tzipi Livni’s last trip to England and no one would characterize her as a radical right winger.
Still, if NIF does not delegitimize Im Tirtzu, the facts will be exposed, and all the NIF’s strategies and campaigns against Zionism will be useless. The great majority of the public will agree with Im Tirtzu when it characterizes the accusations of War crimes as being affronts to Zionism and the NIF’s cover will be blown. Therefore, the NIF cannot let this truth come out!
Everyone can take part in the struggle against the State of Israel! Just write a check to the New Israel Fund and they will use your money in the struggle against Zionism. Your 'dream' has now true: you too can be part of this movement!
Im Tirtzu recently published a report clearly proving the relationship between the New Israel Fund and the organizations which have advocated (sometimes successfully) the issuance of arrest warrants against Israeli officials for War crimes. As a response, the New Israel Fund has engaged in a vast campaign delegitimizing Im Tirtzu without ever addressing the findings of the report.
Just like the previous time Im Tirtzu managed to uncover the NIF’s actions, the NIF is using a strategy of McCarthyism in order not to have to answer to the well researched report published by Im Tirtzu. Im Tirtzu stands behinds its report and continues to believe that the NIF has become a serious diplomatic and legal threat to Israel.
Im Tirtzu says: While we do not advocate any type of thought policing, we do advocate transparency and we will therefore continue publishing reports on the NIF which makes public information they would rather keep private. By bringing the whole story to the public, we believe that the public will know how much value to give to NIF actions and arguments. We also believe that this information is critical to donors who are often tricked into supporting the NIF through its portrayal as a pro-Israel organization. It is time to remove the mask from the NIF’s face and to make clear to everyone their true intentions!
Iyar 20, 5770 / 04 May 10
Sorry, no url, sent via email
Friday, May 07, 2010
'Feiglin to Announce He is Leaving Likud'
Gil Ronen
A7 NEWS
Moshe Feiglin, head of the Manhigut Yehudit oppositional faction within the Likud party, has decided to leave the Likud along with his movement, Makor Rishon reported Friday.
Feiglin has reportedly called a meeting of the central activists in Manhigut Yehudit for Sunday, in which he intends to announce his decision. He will recommend that the movement seek its political home outside Likud. On the record, Feiglin would only tell Makor Rishon that “we are in a period of internal inquiries that will last about two weeks and we are involving the activists in the dilemmas.” Speaking with Arutz Sheva's Uzi Baruch Friday, Feiglin did not deny the report but said: “The movement already announced a week ago that it would be choosing its options vis-a-vis Netanyahu – including the possibility of another contest with Netanyahu a year from now, as well as leaving the Likud."
A senior source within Manhigut Yehudit denied the Makor Rishon report and also said that the meeting of activists will not be held this Sunday but one week later.
Feiglin joined the Likud 10 years ago, out of a conviction that the multi-party system does not really work in Israel, and that the only way to seize leadership is through the largest party, Likud. He vied twice for party leadership and failed both times. Feiglin was in the party's 20th slot for the Knesset in the last elections, but legalistic and political maneuvers by Binyamin Netanyahu forced him out of that slot and prevented his entry into the Knesset. It should be noted that Feiglin never seemed to content himself with the goal of getting elected to a Knesset seat, but was intent from the outset on becoming the party's leader.
Before forming Manhigut Yehudit, Feiglin led 'Zo Artzenu', a high-profile protest movement against the Oslo process.
Feiglin, who is considered a bright and creative mind by his supporters and foes alike, also writes a weekly column in one of the leading news websites.
Netanyahu nemesis
Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu has seen Feiglin as his nemesis within Likud, and accused him of trying to effect a hostile takeover of the Likud with the aim of turning it into a religious party. “We are not an extremist messianic party; we are a national and liberal movement,” he said ahead of the latest confrontation with Feiglin.
That confrontation took place late April and centered on an internal Likud vote to change the party's constitution in a way that would put off to 2011 the elections to its central committee. The move was seen as a bid to prevent Feiglin from gaining strength in the party's grassroots leadership and to give Netanyahu time to add more moderate grassroots members to Likud, to offset the ones that Feiglin had brought in.
Feiglin said the showdown would ultimately determine the fate of Jerusalem. Netanyahu, he warned emotionally, wants to silence opposition in the Likud because he has made a secret pact with US President Barack Obama that involves partitioning Jerusalem. Several Likud Knesset members, including Danny Danon, Tzipi Hotovely and Yariv Levin, also opposed Netanyahu's move – but Netanyahu succeeded in passing the resolution anyway.
This last failure is what seems to have convinced Feiglin to leave the Likud and essentially abandon his decade-long project.
A source within the National Union estimated Friday that the NU would issue a call to Likud members who followed Feiglin to join the NU instead. NU leader MK Yaakov (Ketzaleh) Katz has said that Feiglin's political strategy was not completely above board in that it called on people who did not really vote for Likud or believe in its path to become official party members. That enabled them to have a voice in determining the party's list but it was not certain that they voted for the party in the ensuing elections.
Shavou’ot (Pentecost) Guide for the Perplexed
Shabbat Shalom and Happy Shavou'ot (May 19, 2010),
Yoram Ettinger (based on Ancient Jewish Sages)
May 7, 2010
1. Shavou’ot commemorates the bestowing of the Torah upon the Jewish People, which shaped the nature of the world in general and Western democracies in particular. The bestowing of the Torah took place over 3,300 years ago, setting the Jewish People on the Road Map to the Land of Israel. It also highlights the eternity of the Jewish People. Thus, the first and the last Hebrew letters of Shavou'ot ((שבועות constitute the name of the third son of Adam & Eve, Seth (שת), the righteous ancestor of Noah, hence of all mankind. The Hebrew meaning of Seth is מתן, which is the Hebrew word for the bestowing of the Torah vow in English, referring to the exchange of vows between G-D and the Jewish People. It is celebrated on the 6th day of the Jewish month of Sivan, 50 days following the Exodus. Shavou'ot took place 26 generations following Adam. The Hebrew word for Jehovah (יהוה) equals 26 in Gimatriya. There are 26 Hebrew letters in the names of the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs: Abraham (אברהם), Yitzhak (יצחק), Yaakov יעקב)) Sarah (שרה), Rivka (רבקה), Rachel (רחל) and Leah (לאה).
3. The Hebrew root of Shavou’ot (and Shvoua’) is the word Seven – Sheva (שבע). Shavou’ot (the Festival of Weeks in Hebrew) is celebrated 7 weeks following Passover, reflecting the 7X7=49 gates of impurity in Egypt, which had to be rectified, in order to be worthy of the Torah. It also represents the 7 earthly attributes employed by God to create the universe (in addition to the 3 divine attributes. It stands for the 7 basic human traits, which individuals are supposed to resurrect/enhance in preparation for Shavou'ot. 7 key Jewish/universal leaders - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aharon, Joseph and David – represent the qualities of the Torah. Number 7 represents the wholesomeness of Judaism and the Land of Israel – 7 days of Creation and a 7 day week. The Sabbath is the 7th day, the first Hebrew verse in Genesis consists of 7 words, 7 species of the Land of Israel (barley, wheat, grape, fig, pomegranate, olive and date/honey, there are 7 directions (north, south, west, east, up, down, one’s own position), 7 gates to The Temple, 7 Noah Commandments, Moses’ birth/death was on the 7th day of Adar, Jethro had 7 names and 7 daughters, Passover and Sukkot last for 7 days each, each Plague lasted for 7 days, The Menorah has 7 branches, Jubilee follows seven 7-year cycles, 7 Continents, 7 notes in a musical scale, 7 days of mourning, 7 blessings in a Jewish wedding, 7 Jewish Prophetesses (Sarah, Miriam, Devorah, Chana, Abigail, Choulda and Esther), etc. Pentecost is celebrated – by Christians – on the 7th Sunday after Easter.
4. Shavou’ot is the second of the 3 Jewish Pilgrimages (Sukkot-Tabernacles, Passover and Shavou’ot), celebrated in the 3rd Jewish month, Sivan. It highlights Jewish Unity, compared by King Solomon to a triangular cord, which cannot be broken. The Torah - the first of the 3 parts of the Old Testament – was granted to the Jewish People (which consists of 3 components: Priests, Levites and Israel), by Moses (the youngest of 3 children, brother of Aharon and Miriam), a successor to the 3 Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and to Seth, the 3rd son of Adam & Eve. The Torah was forged in 3 ways: Fire (commitment to principles), Water (lucidity and purity) and Desert (humility and principle-driven tenacity). The Torah is one of the 3 global pillars, along with labor and gratitude/charity. The Torah is one of the 3 pillars of Judaism, along with the Jewish People and the Land of Israel.
5. Shavou’ot highlights the Scroll of Ruth, who lived 3 generations before King David, son of Jesse, grandson of Ovad, the son of Ruth. The Scroll of Ruth is the first of the five Biblical scrolls: Ruth (Shavou’ot), Song of Songs (Passover), Ecclesiastes (Sukkot), Book of Lamentations (Ninth of Av), Esther (Purim). Ruth – a Moabite Princess - stuck by her mother-in-law, Naomi, who lost her husband (president of the Tribe of Judah) and two sons, in spite of Naomi's Job-like disastrous times, financially and socially. Naomi’s suffering constituted a punishment for the desertion of the People of Israel (emigration to Moab) during a most difficult draught. Leaders do not desert their people when the going gets rough! Ruth’s Legacy: Respect thy mother in-law, principles (loyalty, concern, modesty and love) over convenience. The total sum of the Hebrew letters of Ruth (רות) - in Gimatriya - yield the number of laws granted at Mt. Sinai (606), which together with the 7 laws of Noah total The 613 Laws of Moses.
The Scroll of Ruth highlights the Judean Desert as the Cradle of Jewish history – is it "occupied territory???"
6. Shavou’ot sheds light on the unique covenant between the Jewish State and the USA – Judeo-Christian Values (Torah and Biblical values of morality and justice). These values impacted the world view of the Pilgrims, the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Separation of Powers, Checks & Balances, etc. John Locke wanted the “613 Laws of Moses” to become the legal foundation of the new society established in America. Lincoln’s famous 1863 quote paraphrased the 14th century John Wycliffe’s dedication to his English translation of the Bible: “a book of the people, by the people, for the people.”
7. Shavou’ot is the day of birth/death of King David (as well as the day that Moses was saved by Pharaoh's daughter), who united the Jewish People, elevating them to a most powerful position. David – along with Moses and Abraham – was a role model of humility and repentance, hence the Hebrew acronym of Adam (אדם- human being in Hebrew): Abraham (אברהם), David (דוד) and Moses (משה). In contrast with King Saul, King David assumed responsibility and accountability for his sins. He didn't just talk the talk; he walked the walk! 150 candles are lit at King David's tomb on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem, consistent with the 150 chapters of Psalms mostly attributed to David. Number 150 is the numerical value of Nest (קן), the warm environment of the Torah. David’s personal history (from shepherd to king) provides a lesson for individuals and nations: Every problem is an opportunity in disguise; the road to success is paved with ups & downs; human beings are fallible but they must recognize their own fallibility, as a springboard toward improvement.
8. The Torah was granted on the small, modest Mt. Sinai – to a small People - in the desert. The Torah was delivered by Moses, "the humblest of all human beings." The content of the Torah doesn't require an impressive stage. Humility constitutes a prerequisite for studying the Torah and for constructive relationships and leadership.
9. The Torah was granted in the desert, a platform of Humility & Liberty. Celebrated fifty day following the Exodus (physical deliverance), Shavou’ot signifies spiritual liberation. Shavou’ot – Holiday of Reaping, Holiday of First Fruit, Day of Solemn - celebrates the culmination of the agricultural, physical and spiritual harvest season of optimism, which starts on the second day of Passover. Shavou’ot highlights the critical connection between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel.
10. Dairy dishes consumed during Shavou’ot, commemorate divine providence. According to the Kabbalah (Jewish mystical school of thoughts), milk represents divine quality. Babies – divine creation – are breast fed by mothers. Dairy dishes commemorate the most common food - of shepherds like King David - during the 40 years in the desert, on the way to the Land of Milk and Honey, the Land of Israel. Unlike wine, milk is poured into simple glasses. The total sum of milk (חלב) is 40 in Gimatriya, which is equal to the 40 days and nights spent by Moses on Mt. Sinai and the 40 years spent by the Jewish People in the Desert. 40 is also the value of the first Hebrew letter (מ) of key Exodus-Terms: Moses (משה), Miriam (מרים), Manna (מן), Egypt (מצרים), Desert (מדבר), Menorah (מנורה), Tabernacle (משכן), Mitzvah-Commandment (מצווה), etc.
40 generations passed from Moses – who delivered the "Written Torah" – to Rabbi Ashi and Rabbi Rabina, who concluded the editing of the Talmud, the "Oral Torah." The first and the last letters in the Talmud is the Hebrew “מ”, which equals 40 in Gimatriya.
http://www.theettingerreport.co.il.
Yoram Ettinger (based on Ancient Jewish Sages)
May 7, 2010
1. Shavou’ot commemorates the bestowing of the Torah upon the Jewish People, which shaped the nature of the world in general and Western democracies in particular. The bestowing of the Torah took place over 3,300 years ago, setting the Jewish People on the Road Map to the Land of Israel. It also highlights the eternity of the Jewish People. Thus, the first and the last Hebrew letters of Shavou'ot ((שבועות constitute the name of the third son of Adam & Eve, Seth (שת), the righteous ancestor of Noah, hence of all mankind. The Hebrew meaning of Seth is מתן, which is the Hebrew word for the bestowing of the Torah vow in English, referring to the exchange of vows between G-D and the Jewish People. It is celebrated on the 6th day of the Jewish month of Sivan, 50 days following the Exodus. Shavou'ot took place 26 generations following Adam. The Hebrew word for Jehovah (יהוה) equals 26 in Gimatriya. There are 26 Hebrew letters in the names of the Jewish Patriarchs and Matriarchs: Abraham (אברהם), Yitzhak (יצחק), Yaakov יעקב)) Sarah (שרה), Rivka (רבקה), Rachel (רחל) and Leah (לאה).
3. The Hebrew root of Shavou’ot (and Shvoua’) is the word Seven – Sheva (שבע). Shavou’ot (the Festival of Weeks in Hebrew) is celebrated 7 weeks following Passover, reflecting the 7X7=49 gates of impurity in Egypt, which had to be rectified, in order to be worthy of the Torah. It also represents the 7 earthly attributes employed by God to create the universe (in addition to the 3 divine attributes. It stands for the 7 basic human traits, which individuals are supposed to resurrect/enhance in preparation for Shavou'ot. 7 key Jewish/universal leaders - Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Aharon, Joseph and David – represent the qualities of the Torah. Number 7 represents the wholesomeness of Judaism and the Land of Israel – 7 days of Creation and a 7 day week. The Sabbath is the 7th day, the first Hebrew verse in Genesis consists of 7 words, 7 species of the Land of Israel (barley, wheat, grape, fig, pomegranate, olive and date/honey, there are 7 directions (north, south, west, east, up, down, one’s own position), 7 gates to The Temple, 7 Noah Commandments, Moses’ birth/death was on the 7th day of Adar, Jethro had 7 names and 7 daughters, Passover and Sukkot last for 7 days each, each Plague lasted for 7 days, The Menorah has 7 branches, Jubilee follows seven 7-year cycles, 7 Continents, 7 notes in a musical scale, 7 days of mourning, 7 blessings in a Jewish wedding, 7 Jewish Prophetesses (Sarah, Miriam, Devorah, Chana, Abigail, Choulda and Esther), etc. Pentecost is celebrated – by Christians – on the 7th Sunday after Easter.
4. Shavou’ot is the second of the 3 Jewish Pilgrimages (Sukkot-Tabernacles, Passover and Shavou’ot), celebrated in the 3rd Jewish month, Sivan. It highlights Jewish Unity, compared by King Solomon to a triangular cord, which cannot be broken. The Torah - the first of the 3 parts of the Old Testament – was granted to the Jewish People (which consists of 3 components: Priests, Levites and Israel), by Moses (the youngest of 3 children, brother of Aharon and Miriam), a successor to the 3 Patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) and to Seth, the 3rd son of Adam & Eve. The Torah was forged in 3 ways: Fire (commitment to principles), Water (lucidity and purity) and Desert (humility and principle-driven tenacity). The Torah is one of the 3 global pillars, along with labor and gratitude/charity. The Torah is one of the 3 pillars of Judaism, along with the Jewish People and the Land of Israel.
5. Shavou’ot highlights the Scroll of Ruth, who lived 3 generations before King David, son of Jesse, grandson of Ovad, the son of Ruth. The Scroll of Ruth is the first of the five Biblical scrolls: Ruth (Shavou’ot), Song of Songs (Passover), Ecclesiastes (Sukkot), Book of Lamentations (Ninth of Av), Esther (Purim). Ruth – a Moabite Princess - stuck by her mother-in-law, Naomi, who lost her husband (president of the Tribe of Judah) and two sons, in spite of Naomi's Job-like disastrous times, financially and socially. Naomi’s suffering constituted a punishment for the desertion of the People of Israel (emigration to Moab) during a most difficult draught. Leaders do not desert their people when the going gets rough! Ruth’s Legacy: Respect thy mother in-law, principles (loyalty, concern, modesty and love) over convenience. The total sum of the Hebrew letters of Ruth (רות) - in Gimatriya - yield the number of laws granted at Mt. Sinai (606), which together with the 7 laws of Noah total The 613 Laws of Moses.
The Scroll of Ruth highlights the Judean Desert as the Cradle of Jewish history – is it "occupied territory???"
6. Shavou’ot sheds light on the unique covenant between the Jewish State and the USA – Judeo-Christian Values (Torah and Biblical values of morality and justice). These values impacted the world view of the Pilgrims, the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution, Bill of Rights, Separation of Powers, Checks & Balances, etc. John Locke wanted the “613 Laws of Moses” to become the legal foundation of the new society established in America. Lincoln’s famous 1863 quote paraphrased the 14th century John Wycliffe’s dedication to his English translation of the Bible: “a book of the people, by the people, for the people.”
7. Shavou’ot is the day of birth/death of King David (as well as the day that Moses was saved by Pharaoh's daughter), who united the Jewish People, elevating them to a most powerful position. David – along with Moses and Abraham – was a role model of humility and repentance, hence the Hebrew acronym of Adam (אדם- human being in Hebrew): Abraham (אברהם), David (דוד) and Moses (משה). In contrast with King Saul, King David assumed responsibility and accountability for his sins. He didn't just talk the talk; he walked the walk! 150 candles are lit at King David's tomb on Mt. Zion in Jerusalem, consistent with the 150 chapters of Psalms mostly attributed to David. Number 150 is the numerical value of Nest (קן), the warm environment of the Torah. David’s personal history (from shepherd to king) provides a lesson for individuals and nations: Every problem is an opportunity in disguise; the road to success is paved with ups & downs; human beings are fallible but they must recognize their own fallibility, as a springboard toward improvement.
8. The Torah was granted on the small, modest Mt. Sinai – to a small People - in the desert. The Torah was delivered by Moses, "the humblest of all human beings." The content of the Torah doesn't require an impressive stage. Humility constitutes a prerequisite for studying the Torah and for constructive relationships and leadership.
9. The Torah was granted in the desert, a platform of Humility & Liberty. Celebrated fifty day following the Exodus (physical deliverance), Shavou’ot signifies spiritual liberation. Shavou’ot – Holiday of Reaping, Holiday of First Fruit, Day of Solemn - celebrates the culmination of the agricultural, physical and spiritual harvest season of optimism, which starts on the second day of Passover. Shavou’ot highlights the critical connection between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel.
10. Dairy dishes consumed during Shavou’ot, commemorate divine providence. According to the Kabbalah (Jewish mystical school of thoughts), milk represents divine quality. Babies – divine creation – are breast fed by mothers. Dairy dishes commemorate the most common food - of shepherds like King David - during the 40 years in the desert, on the way to the Land of Milk and Honey, the Land of Israel. Unlike wine, milk is poured into simple glasses. The total sum of milk (חלב) is 40 in Gimatriya, which is equal to the 40 days and nights spent by Moses on Mt. Sinai and the 40 years spent by the Jewish People in the Desert. 40 is also the value of the first Hebrew letter (מ) of key Exodus-Terms: Moses (משה), Miriam (מרים), Manna (מן), Egypt (מצרים), Desert (מדבר), Menorah (מנורה), Tabernacle (משכן), Mitzvah-Commandment (מצווה), etc.
40 generations passed from Moses – who delivered the "Written Torah" – to Rabbi Ashi and Rabbi Rabina, who concluded the editing of the Talmud, the "Oral Torah." The first and the last letters in the Talmud is the Hebrew “מ”, which equals 40 in Gimatriya.
http://www.theettingerreport.co.il.
The Impending War
Ari Bussel
I can feel the war with my fingertips. Quite how bad will it be I do not know; only time will tell. The approaching day of reckoning is upon us; the build-up is almost complete. Following, there will be peace that will last many generations. To achieve such peace however, a fatal blow must be dealt. The players will align themselves; preliminary moves have already begun. Iran, Russia and China may be one block, although this may change in time. Israel, the USA and Europe will inevitably be the other, although not as much a coalition of willing participants. The hatred toward the West is simply too large, too engrained in modern culture and psyche.
Possibly I am completely wrong—not about the inevitability of war looming over the very near horizon, but about these shifting alliances. Ultimately, it matters not. As the volcano erupts with Israel at its center, ashes will spew the world over. From the Straits of Hormuz, civilization as we know it will be dealt a blow that would bring us to a grinding halt, at a time our economies are not as stable: from Greece, awaiting the bailout it demands, to one in five unemployed in Spain, and the USA with one in ten unemployed.
Why even think about war in the Spring of 2010, on the eve of President Ajmadinejad’s visit to New York? Is anyone planning to blow up his plane as a declaration of war on the Islamic Republic of Iran? Will Israel strike despite the American Administration doing everything in its power to prevent such a move?
The war will not happen because of any action by Israel or preventive measures by the USA. The world is slowly capitulating to Iran’s thirst for more power and increasing spheres of influence, the Iranians’ unrelenting terrorism. The American President holds a nuclear summit, the largest in scope ever, but it is interesting to see who rushes to Iran’s summit a week later. Much like in an election time, we can all feel Iran’s power, a victor’s energy and magnetic pull. The world is attracted to tomorrow’s ruler, for everyone needs to take care of one’s own interests first.
The world prepares. A seemingly local struggle between the Palestinians and Israelis on a tiny piece of land will not be the cause of the next World War. Simply put, it is the last standing wall preventing the Iranian sphere of influence from engulfing the world. For this reason it bothers the Iranian regime. Weaken Israel, make it disappear off the face of this earth, and the future of the Shiite’s 12th Imam is guaranteed. Shariah Law will be established over a global caliphate, and there will be no one to stop the march.
Who really cares if the Palestinians were promised 97 or 98 percent of the land? And what if their true intentions are the destruction of the Jewish State? A flourishing, tiny piece of land along the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea should have so much influence? There are no oil reserves there, there is very little water, the neighborhood is awash with centuries-old tribal mentality and there is little that Iran, or for that matter anyone else, can want—gold, diamonds, uranium, salt—what can be so dear in Israel that the world stops at nothing short of demonizing her, ordering her very existence illegitimate?
This is not a territorial dispute, as many have pointed out before. It has become clear to many this is the new crusade—the Islamists’ attempt at conquering the world. Yet, what is becoming so evident is lost on both Europe and the United States. In the latter, the President has forbidden the usage of “terror” in combination with “Muslims,” since Islam, he declared, is a most peaceful religion. While in the former, waves of Muslim domination slowly gather momentum and strength, washing over the body Europe even as it is being slaughtered, its beauty pale from loss of blood.
The Jews serve a purpose—to galvanize the world’s hatred toward a uniform target. Like concentrating the sun’s rays at a single point until fire erupts, the Palestinian “struggle” serves a singular purpose. If anyone thinks that either the Iranians or the Suni Muslims throughout Arab lands care even an iota about their “Palestinian” brethren, awake!
For decades, Palestinian “refugees” live and multiply throughout the Arab countries as second-class citizens, forbidden to intermingle or earn equal rights. The “Palestinians” came into being when Zionism settled in the Land of Israel and work was plentiful. They came to find work and earn a living, as the Zionists dried out the deadly swamps and made the desert bloom. They were attracted by the humane treatment and better conditions, the likes of which they never had in Arab lands. To-date they will secretly admit, they still receive better treatment in Israel than in any Arab country.
Their refugee status remains intact because none of their “brethren” wants them. Anyone looking at the Jewish analog will see that refugees from 1948 from Morocco, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia, totaling hundreds of thousands, were assimilated into the Jewish State and today are indistinguishable from any other Israeli citizen. At the very same time, no one wants the Palestinians. In their eternal servitude, they probably fare best in the Jordanian Kingdom, once part of Greater Israel (Two States for Two People?).
Hitler also used the Jews as a galvanizing force. Setting a goal to eradicate the “Jewish problem” once and for all from the face of this earth and ensure no more human vermin infestations of Europe served his dream of returning Germany to former glory. It is not a coincidence that today similarities are drawn to the 1930’s. The same cartoons, the same hatred, identical incitement and similar rhetoric are all centered around Jews’ current manifestation as the Jewish State of Israel.
Thus, if the Israeli-Palestinian so-called “conflict” is not the issue, why can others not see the same agenda? Are the signs so obscure? Am I so mistaken? The campaign has been in the works for the past three decades. Feelings that were well disguised for seven decades are now resurfacing with new vigor and remain hidden no more. It is now perfectly acceptable to blame the Jews for all the ills of the world. It is now commonplace to ignore reality, facts or history and instead create one’s own fictional narrative of some anticipated world order on a fast track toward Armageddon.
The plan was incredibly sophisticated, the execution so successful, that even Israelis have fallen victim to the “vision of a Palestinian State” (living in peace side by side with Israel). What complete and utter nonsense—the Arabs themselves do not ascribe an ounce of credibility to such aspirations: Israel appears nowhere on their maps. Their Charters call for the imminent and utter destruction of the Jewish State. Can one call this peaceful coexistence?
Only one thing has changed. In the past Arabs spoke about “throwing the Jews into the Sea,” now they allow the Palestinians do their dirty work. The Arabs collectively probably do not hate Israel as much today. The Iranians, although, a superior race over the nomad Arab peasants, are a different story entirely. They effectively play the world against Israel, and their intentions are as clear as the sun at its mid-day zenith.
To aid and abate, many Post-Zionist Israelis have fallen victim to the very same sophisticated trap. Thus, while Israel needs to protect herself from a tsunami of anti-Semitism unseen for seventy years, and the magnitude of which will dwarf that of World War II, she has fallen victim to those from within herself. Members of the Academia, the Legal System, the Elite who instead of working together to ensure her survival are now catalysts for her downfall.
Why is the world sitting idle as the geopolitical map realigns itself into a new world order?
I see the impending war looming over the horizon, as I am asked repeatedly “Why do I focus on war?” This period in history will be studied in great detail, and a similar question will be asked some decades from now: “Why did humanity not realize a war was fast approaching?” I focus on the inevitable for we must recognize the dangers and try to prevent. We must rise now and prepare. We must act.
In the series “Postcards from Israel—Postcards from America,” Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, an Israel visitors rarely discover
I can feel the war with my fingertips. Quite how bad will it be I do not know; only time will tell. The approaching day of reckoning is upon us; the build-up is almost complete. Following, there will be peace that will last many generations. To achieve such peace however, a fatal blow must be dealt. The players will align themselves; preliminary moves have already begun. Iran, Russia and China may be one block, although this may change in time. Israel, the USA and Europe will inevitably be the other, although not as much a coalition of willing participants. The hatred toward the West is simply too large, too engrained in modern culture and psyche.
Possibly I am completely wrong—not about the inevitability of war looming over the very near horizon, but about these shifting alliances. Ultimately, it matters not. As the volcano erupts with Israel at its center, ashes will spew the world over. From the Straits of Hormuz, civilization as we know it will be dealt a blow that would bring us to a grinding halt, at a time our economies are not as stable: from Greece, awaiting the bailout it demands, to one in five unemployed in Spain, and the USA with one in ten unemployed.
Why even think about war in the Spring of 2010, on the eve of President Ajmadinejad’s visit to New York? Is anyone planning to blow up his plane as a declaration of war on the Islamic Republic of Iran? Will Israel strike despite the American Administration doing everything in its power to prevent such a move?
The war will not happen because of any action by Israel or preventive measures by the USA. The world is slowly capitulating to Iran’s thirst for more power and increasing spheres of influence, the Iranians’ unrelenting terrorism. The American President holds a nuclear summit, the largest in scope ever, but it is interesting to see who rushes to Iran’s summit a week later. Much like in an election time, we can all feel Iran’s power, a victor’s energy and magnetic pull. The world is attracted to tomorrow’s ruler, for everyone needs to take care of one’s own interests first.
The world prepares. A seemingly local struggle between the Palestinians and Israelis on a tiny piece of land will not be the cause of the next World War. Simply put, it is the last standing wall preventing the Iranian sphere of influence from engulfing the world. For this reason it bothers the Iranian regime. Weaken Israel, make it disappear off the face of this earth, and the future of the Shiite’s 12th Imam is guaranteed. Shariah Law will be established over a global caliphate, and there will be no one to stop the march.
Who really cares if the Palestinians were promised 97 or 98 percent of the land? And what if their true intentions are the destruction of the Jewish State? A flourishing, tiny piece of land along the Eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea should have so much influence? There are no oil reserves there, there is very little water, the neighborhood is awash with centuries-old tribal mentality and there is little that Iran, or for that matter anyone else, can want—gold, diamonds, uranium, salt—what can be so dear in Israel that the world stops at nothing short of demonizing her, ordering her very existence illegitimate?
This is not a territorial dispute, as many have pointed out before. It has become clear to many this is the new crusade—the Islamists’ attempt at conquering the world. Yet, what is becoming so evident is lost on both Europe and the United States. In the latter, the President has forbidden the usage of “terror” in combination with “Muslims,” since Islam, he declared, is a most peaceful religion. While in the former, waves of Muslim domination slowly gather momentum and strength, washing over the body Europe even as it is being slaughtered, its beauty pale from loss of blood.
The Jews serve a purpose—to galvanize the world’s hatred toward a uniform target. Like concentrating the sun’s rays at a single point until fire erupts, the Palestinian “struggle” serves a singular purpose. If anyone thinks that either the Iranians or the Suni Muslims throughout Arab lands care even an iota about their “Palestinian” brethren, awake!
For decades, Palestinian “refugees” live and multiply throughout the Arab countries as second-class citizens, forbidden to intermingle or earn equal rights. The “Palestinians” came into being when Zionism settled in the Land of Israel and work was plentiful. They came to find work and earn a living, as the Zionists dried out the deadly swamps and made the desert bloom. They were attracted by the humane treatment and better conditions, the likes of which they never had in Arab lands. To-date they will secretly admit, they still receive better treatment in Israel than in any Arab country.
Their refugee status remains intact because none of their “brethren” wants them. Anyone looking at the Jewish analog will see that refugees from 1948 from Morocco, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia, totaling hundreds of thousands, were assimilated into the Jewish State and today are indistinguishable from any other Israeli citizen. At the very same time, no one wants the Palestinians. In their eternal servitude, they probably fare best in the Jordanian Kingdom, once part of Greater Israel (Two States for Two People?).
Hitler also used the Jews as a galvanizing force. Setting a goal to eradicate the “Jewish problem” once and for all from the face of this earth and ensure no more human vermin infestations of Europe served his dream of returning Germany to former glory. It is not a coincidence that today similarities are drawn to the 1930’s. The same cartoons, the same hatred, identical incitement and similar rhetoric are all centered around Jews’ current manifestation as the Jewish State of Israel.
Thus, if the Israeli-Palestinian so-called “conflict” is not the issue, why can others not see the same agenda? Are the signs so obscure? Am I so mistaken? The campaign has been in the works for the past three decades. Feelings that were well disguised for seven decades are now resurfacing with new vigor and remain hidden no more. It is now perfectly acceptable to blame the Jews for all the ills of the world. It is now commonplace to ignore reality, facts or history and instead create one’s own fictional narrative of some anticipated world order on a fast track toward Armageddon.
The plan was incredibly sophisticated, the execution so successful, that even Israelis have fallen victim to the “vision of a Palestinian State” (living in peace side by side with Israel). What complete and utter nonsense—the Arabs themselves do not ascribe an ounce of credibility to such aspirations: Israel appears nowhere on their maps. Their Charters call for the imminent and utter destruction of the Jewish State. Can one call this peaceful coexistence?
Only one thing has changed. In the past Arabs spoke about “throwing the Jews into the Sea,” now they allow the Palestinians do their dirty work. The Arabs collectively probably do not hate Israel as much today. The Iranians, although, a superior race over the nomad Arab peasants, are a different story entirely. They effectively play the world against Israel, and their intentions are as clear as the sun at its mid-day zenith.
To aid and abate, many Post-Zionist Israelis have fallen victim to the very same sophisticated trap. Thus, while Israel needs to protect herself from a tsunami of anti-Semitism unseen for seventy years, and the magnitude of which will dwarf that of World War II, she has fallen victim to those from within herself. Members of the Academia, the Legal System, the Elite who instead of working together to ensure her survival are now catalysts for her downfall.
Why is the world sitting idle as the geopolitical map realigns itself into a new world order?
I see the impending war looming over the horizon, as I am asked repeatedly “Why do I focus on war?” This period in history will be studied in great detail, and a similar question will be asked some decades from now: “Why did humanity not realize a war was fast approaching?” I focus on the inevitable for we must recognize the dangers and try to prevent. We must rise now and prepare. We must act.
In the series “Postcards from Israel—Postcards from America,” Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, an Israel visitors rarely discover
Thursday, May 06, 2010
Another missed opportunity?
Over the years, not even one Palestinian leader truly wanted to end conflict
Yechiel Shabi
YNET News
It appears that the Palestinians make an effort to miss every opportunity to establish a state in the western Land of Israel precisely when such state can take shape. They rejected the partition offer in 1947, launched a war and went into exile in 1948, embarked on a wave of terror attacks in 1994, and ignited a second Intifada in 2000. Last week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rejected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s secret offer to establish a temporary Palestinian state on about 60% of Judea and Samaria land. Those in the know noted that according to Netanyahu’s pragmatic plan, the talks on final-status issues will continue after the temporary state was to be formed.
Abbas argued that this was an attempt to drag him into lengthy negotiations that would reinforce the temporary state’s borders and turn them into final-status borders. He preferred to keep on dreaming instead of realizing the dream. Meanwhile, he reprimanded the Palestinian project manager who works towards establishing the Palestinian State, Salam Fayyad.
Fayyad’s declaration about establishing a state in about two years was misunderstood, Abbas said. While Fayyad is indeed working towards forming such state, he did not commit himself to declaring the state’s establishment.
What prevents the Palestinians from deciding that half a loaf is better than none? Why does Abbas insist on discussing all the issues that may thwart the talks all at once – Jerusalem, borders, refugees, settlements, and territorial contiguity? Did the Americans promise him to realize all his demands? Why doesn’t he choose to be the first president in the history of the first Palestinian state, regardless of how small it is?
One reason for this is that the Palestinians had not yet renounced their plan to establish the “Greater Palestine.” Secondly, they appear to feel that Western public opinion and Western governments support them to a greater extent than ever before.
Palestinians haven’t moved an inch
While Israel, under Netanyahu’s leadership, adopted several steps – endorsing the two-state discourse, removing roadblocks, freezing settlement construction, and imposing a de facto freeze in east Jerusalem – the Palestinians have not moved an inch forward. This should worry Netanyahu.
The Palestinians have no intention of recognizing Israel as the Jewish State because they have not abandoned their old dream: Returning to Jaffa, Haifa and Ashkelon. To be honest, why should they? The mass of Arabs in the Galilee, Negev, and Triangle area constitutes a potential for an irredenta. Moreover, Israel’s Arab leadership stresses its Palestinian identity at this time. While most Arabs in Israel prefer to remain citizens of the country, many feel they are more Palestinian than in the past.
While Fayyad represents the pragmatic leadership of Arabs in the territories who wish to make the dream come true and finally establish a national home, Abbas is chained to the Palestinian pathos. As a refugee born in the Arab Safed he cannot renounce his people’s legitimate right – as he perceives it – to regain Palestinian areas within the mandatory Palestine. As moderate as he may be, he too failed to realize the opportunity to form a Palestinian state during the moderate Olmert’s term in office.
Since the days of Haj Amin al-Husseini and to this day, not even one Palestinian leader truly wanted to end the conflict. Hamas took over Gaza and Abbas has no intention of letting go of the West Bank. He views himself as the president of all Palestinians – in the West Bank, in Gaza, in Lebanon, in Jordan, in Syria, and also in Israel. For him, Israel constitutes future potential for a return and should not be renounced quickly.
Fayyad, who does not belong to the Fatah school of thought, is already establishing the state which he and residents of the territories dream of. He already compromised. He understands that half a loaf is better than the dream of a whole loaf.
The question that remains is as follows: Will there be someone who declares this state, and will a responsible leadership emerge?
Yechiel Shabi is an expert on Mideast affairs and specializes in the Arab-Israeli conflict
Tweeting Terror
Jacob Shrybman
Front Page Mag
When developing this article I really couldn’t decide if I was going to write it in a satirical manner or in a concerned manner. The concept was just so ridiculous to me, I wasn’t sure how to convey it to the world. The military wing of the terrorist organization Hamas, the Al Qassam Brigades –which murders, pillages, persecutes, fires rockets, stones, lynches, blows themselves up, etc. — has a Twitter account. No folks, I am not joking. The days when the world is spooked by an unmarked video or cassette tape which arrives at the Al Jazeera offices are over. You can simply “Follow” them with your personal Twitter account.
I was stunned to see the user name @AlqassamBrigade pop up amongst the average 100 tweets an hour mentioning Gaza. I had been to the terrorists’ website (which has the fun option to choose your favorite color scheme for the menus) to see their propagandized use of images from Operation Cast Lead, and this was their matching Twitter account.
Sitting at my laptop using our Sderot Media Center Twitter account, @SderotMedia, most likely only a couple of miles away from the terrorists managing the Hamas Twitter account, I thought to engage them in dialogue on one of the base debates in this conflict:
@AlqassamBrigade As you know, you terrorize thousands just over the border from Gaza here in Sderot. Or do you call it Najd?
Never receiving an answer and following protocol, I filed a complaint with Twitter and this is the automated response I received: Twitter provides a communication service. As a policy, we do not mediate content or intervene in disputes between users. Users are allowed to post content, including potentially inflammatory content, provided that they do not violate the Twitter Terms of Service and Rules (name calling is not a violation.)
Essentially, this gives the terrorist organization the most popular worldwide platform to preach whatever propaganda or hate speech they like because, as you see above, “name calling is not a violation.”
The automated Twitter response continues, “If a violent threat is posted in the future, please let us know, and send the status link.” So, only if Hamas tweets about the imminent launch of a missile attack will Twitter take action?
In the worldwide blockbuster jaw-dropping movie Bruno, created by comic mastermind Sasha Baron Cohen, the main character Bruno is attempting to make peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict and while hosting a dialogue session he continually misuses the word “Hamas” for “Hummus;” it exemplifies the great light humor for which Baron Cohen is famous. The mainstream legitimization of the terrorist organization Hamas is so widespread that, these days, it is almost a household term and this is how the caricaturist can comically draw that connection on screen.
However, it is more than a joke when the entire world has turned its back on Hamas’ actions for nearly a decade thereby accepting it into the public domain. Rocket and suicide attacks on Jewish civilians are clearly not enough, but why won’t the world delegitimize Hamas for human rights abuses such as “honor killings?” Instead, the United Nations and Judge Goldstone chose to give Hamas and radical Islam around the world an over 500 page report to continue their terrorism.
Let’s be clear: This is not an issue of freedom of speech as Hamas is a terrorist organization even to the United Nations. I encourage everyone with a Twitter account to file a complaint against Hamas’ account @AlqassamBrigade to get Hamas out of our households and stop the tweeting of terror.
Jacob Shrybman is the Assistant Director of the Sderot Media Center, www.SderotMedia.org.il. He hosts elected officials from around the world and international media visiting the Sderot/Gaza region. He has been published in The Jerusalem Post, Israel National News, YNet News, and has appeared on several international television and radio stations.
"Ye Old Stalling Game"
Arlene Kushner
Well, Mitchell is here in order to begin those "proximity talks." But even though he met with Netanyahu today -- and some media sources referred to this meeting as the kick-off of those talks -- they have not officially started yet.
Mitchell had arrived under the assumption that all systems were "go." However, Abbas then indicated he had additional stops along the way to starting. Yesterday it was said that he had to check with the PLO -- with their Central Committee scheduled to meet on Saturday. Today it was Fatah he had to clear things with: to that end the Fatah Central Committee is being convened. Fatah -- which is still committed to "resistance" -- is less than enthusiastic about talks, but is expected to provide at least a tentative go-ahead. Abbas is not leaving any bases uncovered. Whatever happens, he wants to sure that he had political sanction to proceed and that he's not going to be out there standing by himself. Or, put another way, he's looking to drag this out as long as possible because he really, really does not want to be involved.
~~~~~~~~~~
In case you've just tuned in: The political atmosphere within the PA -- influenced to a considerable degree by the radical jihadist Hamas -- is decidedly not moderate, whatever the spin of media and certain politicians. In the years that I have been monitoring Fatah, I've watched it pull back from even a semblance of moderation. The stronger Hamas has become, the more blatant is the Fatah-dominated PA in following its line.
It's a cyclical, self-perpetuating pattern: Incitement by the PA encourages radicalism, and then the street, which celebrates terrorists as heroes (is taught to celebrate terrorists as heroes), has expectations of its leaders that tilts in favor of violence and obstructionism. Abbas has virtually no wiggle room in terms of compromise with Israel. Agreeing to concessions that are perceived as a sell-out (e.g., that Israel is the Jewish state), could literally cost him his life. And yet, the world is calling upon him to "make the hard decisions for peace."
Thus the foot-dragging, an omen of the failure that is bound to follow from this "process." If I did not so thoroughly despise this man, and feel so convinced that he set himself up for this and deserves what he will get, I might be tempted to pity him. Might, metaphorically.
This is a man, you understand, who likes to travel abroad, but hesitates to move about in certain areas controlled by the PA, because his life would not be safe. A pathetic pretense for a leader, yet embraced by Obama.
~~~~~~~~~~
I'm hardly alone in my assessment of what's happening -- many far more knowledgeable than I have the same (self-evident) take. Pessimism is in the air.
Minister of Intelligence Dan Meridor, who is on the left flank of Likud, has already put out a statement to the JPost regarding his concern that the PA will avoid making those "tough decisions."
While Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov (Yisrael Beitenu) has declared, "With my hand on my heart, I don't believe the proximity talks will lead to anything..."
And National Infrastructures Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu) told Army Radio this morning that the PA is already planning the breakdown of the proximity talks.
This was the sentiment of Brig.-Gen. Yossi Baidatz, head of Military Intelligence’s Research Division, who delivered a briefing yesterday to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. The Palestinians were “already preparing the ground for the failure” of the proximity talks, he told the committee.
~~~~~~~~~~
Sure enough, today Abbas made a statement with regard to those talks, even before he had even officially entered them:
"Negotiations will focus on final status issues and there's no need to enter into details and small matters because we have had enough of that in the previous negotiations. We said the indirect negotiations will last only four months. After that, we will go to the Arab League to consult on whether to continue or what to do."
Abbas and his cohorts have further let it be known that during the course of these four months they want us to pull back to pre-intifada lines, and open Orient House for the PA in eastern Jerusalem. Further they want us to cede full control of the Jordan Valley to the PA.
In addition, Abbas has said he will terminate talks if there is building in the "West Bank."
~~~~~~~~~~
During the course of all of this, Netanyahu continued to declare that he was ready. That eager declaration was, once again, undoubtedly for international consumption: "See, see, who the problem is." (Yes, I know...)
He has put together a small negotiating team (small, I understand, to prevent leaks.) It's unclear -- because of conflicting reports -- as to whether the prime minister himself will be heading it, or attorney Yitzhak Molcho, a trusted Netanyahu confidant who has done negotiating for him before. Also included are National Security Advisor Uzi Arad, and Ron Dermer, a key Netanyahu advisor.
Whatever the case, today Netanyahu met with Mitchell -- part of the time the two were alone, and for a portion of the meeting Arad and Molcho, as well as Mitchell aides Dan Shapiro and David Hale participated. The meeting was pronounced "good" (whatever that means); they will be meeting again tomorrow.
In due course, presumably before the end of this week, Mitchell will be traveling to Ramallah for a meeting there, as well. But it will be some days yet before those talks officially begin, if indeed they do.
~~~~~~~~~~
In advance of the talks, Obama placed a call to Netanyahu. In the course of the discussion, as related by Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, "The president reaffirmed his unshakable commitment to Israel's security."
Grabs you in the heart, does it not?
Allow me to elaborate on how strong and deep that commitment is:
The five permanent members of the Security Council -- which includes the US -- have issued a statement at a NPT review conference saying, "We are committed to full implementation of the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty resolution on the Middle East and we support all ongoing efforts to this end.
"We are ready to consider all relevant proposals in the course of the (NPT) Review Conference in order to come to an agreed decision aimed at taking concrete steps in this direction."
This is a call for establishing a nuclear-free zone that would require Israel to relinquish whatever such arms she has.
Egypt has been pushing for a conference by next year to rid the Middle East of nuclear arms. Reuters reports that negotiations are on-going with Egypt to come up with a compromise proposal. Clinton has said she supports a nuclear-free zone here, but this may not yet be the time.
You might, however, want to read John Bolton's take on this:
Explains CBN, in citing Bolton: Successive U.S. administrations - aware of the vulnerability of the tiny Jewish state surrounded by a sea of less-than-friendly Arab neighbors - have supported Israel's longstanding policy of ambiguity on its nuclear weapons programs.
"When I was in the Bush administration, we refused to even talk about these kinds of ideas," said Bolton. "I'd be quite worried about the possible outcome here.
"The president is not happy with Israel's nuclear capabilities. I think he would be delighted if Israel gave up its nuclear weapons.
"The only unknown answer at this point is exactly how much pressure he would exert on Israel to do just that."
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2010/May/Bolton-Obama-Pressuring-Israel-on-Weapons-Program/
See, also, the editorial in today's JPost on the subject:
"Not many fair-minded people, including in this region, have lost sleep over the fact that responsible Israel reportedly has nuclear warheads. Much of this region is profoundly panicked by the specter of a nuclear Iran.
"Preventing this is the single most important challenge that faces the Obama administration...
IT SHOULD be crystal clear that, instead of allowing Egypt to sidetrack it with talk of disarming Israel, the US should focus on galvanizing the international community to stop Iran.
"Glibly calling for a 'nuclear free Middle East' blurs the moral distinctions between the hegemonic designs of that messianic, apocalyptic regime and the essential deterrent and defensive needs of our small, embattled democracy."
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=174692
~~~~~~~~~~
At its joint press conference with the Foreign Ministry earlier this week, the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) announced release of a study, “From Terrorists to Role Models: The Institutionalization of Incitement.” It is important because it makes the point that an attitude of honoring terrorists is pervasive within the Palestinian Arab society -- it's not a fringe attitude. PMW director Itamar Marcus outlined four steps in the process of incitement: promoting hate, redefining acts of terror as acts of resistance, calling for the killing of Jews, and glorifying murder and terror.
Tomorrow, at 2:00 PM, at the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, Marcus will be releasing his report. I have no idea how widely this is open to the public, but PMW did put out a release. For more information or to RSVP: iromartin@aol.com.
In addition to this activity, the Security Cabinet began today to discuss a new mechanism for monitoring incitement: an incitement index for monitoring and quantifying incitement on a regular basis. This is being advanced by Yossi Kuperwasser, director-general of the Strategic Affairs Ministry.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Well, Mitchell is here in order to begin those "proximity talks." But even though he met with Netanyahu today -- and some media sources referred to this meeting as the kick-off of those talks -- they have not officially started yet.
Mitchell had arrived under the assumption that all systems were "go." However, Abbas then indicated he had additional stops along the way to starting. Yesterday it was said that he had to check with the PLO -- with their Central Committee scheduled to meet on Saturday. Today it was Fatah he had to clear things with: to that end the Fatah Central Committee is being convened. Fatah -- which is still committed to "resistance" -- is less than enthusiastic about talks, but is expected to provide at least a tentative go-ahead. Abbas is not leaving any bases uncovered. Whatever happens, he wants to sure that he had political sanction to proceed and that he's not going to be out there standing by himself. Or, put another way, he's looking to drag this out as long as possible because he really, really does not want to be involved.
~~~~~~~~~~
In case you've just tuned in: The political atmosphere within the PA -- influenced to a considerable degree by the radical jihadist Hamas -- is decidedly not moderate, whatever the spin of media and certain politicians. In the years that I have been monitoring Fatah, I've watched it pull back from even a semblance of moderation. The stronger Hamas has become, the more blatant is the Fatah-dominated PA in following its line.
It's a cyclical, self-perpetuating pattern: Incitement by the PA encourages radicalism, and then the street, which celebrates terrorists as heroes (is taught to celebrate terrorists as heroes), has expectations of its leaders that tilts in favor of violence and obstructionism. Abbas has virtually no wiggle room in terms of compromise with Israel. Agreeing to concessions that are perceived as a sell-out (e.g., that Israel is the Jewish state), could literally cost him his life. And yet, the world is calling upon him to "make the hard decisions for peace."
Thus the foot-dragging, an omen of the failure that is bound to follow from this "process." If I did not so thoroughly despise this man, and feel so convinced that he set himself up for this and deserves what he will get, I might be tempted to pity him. Might, metaphorically.
This is a man, you understand, who likes to travel abroad, but hesitates to move about in certain areas controlled by the PA, because his life would not be safe. A pathetic pretense for a leader, yet embraced by Obama.
~~~~~~~~~~
I'm hardly alone in my assessment of what's happening -- many far more knowledgeable than I have the same (self-evident) take. Pessimism is in the air.
Minister of Intelligence Dan Meridor, who is on the left flank of Likud, has already put out a statement to the JPost regarding his concern that the PA will avoid making those "tough decisions."
While Tourism Minister Stas Misezhnikov (Yisrael Beitenu) has declared, "With my hand on my heart, I don't believe the proximity talks will lead to anything..."
And National Infrastructures Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beitenu) told Army Radio this morning that the PA is already planning the breakdown of the proximity talks.
This was the sentiment of Brig.-Gen. Yossi Baidatz, head of Military Intelligence’s Research Division, who delivered a briefing yesterday to the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. The Palestinians were “already preparing the ground for the failure” of the proximity talks, he told the committee.
~~~~~~~~~~
Sure enough, today Abbas made a statement with regard to those talks, even before he had even officially entered them:
"Negotiations will focus on final status issues and there's no need to enter into details and small matters because we have had enough of that in the previous negotiations. We said the indirect negotiations will last only four months. After that, we will go to the Arab League to consult on whether to continue or what to do."
Abbas and his cohorts have further let it be known that during the course of these four months they want us to pull back to pre-intifada lines, and open Orient House for the PA in eastern Jerusalem. Further they want us to cede full control of the Jordan Valley to the PA.
In addition, Abbas has said he will terminate talks if there is building in the "West Bank."
~~~~~~~~~~
During the course of all of this, Netanyahu continued to declare that he was ready. That eager declaration was, once again, undoubtedly for international consumption: "See, see, who the problem is." (Yes, I know...)
He has put together a small negotiating team (small, I understand, to prevent leaks.) It's unclear -- because of conflicting reports -- as to whether the prime minister himself will be heading it, or attorney Yitzhak Molcho, a trusted Netanyahu confidant who has done negotiating for him before. Also included are National Security Advisor Uzi Arad, and Ron Dermer, a key Netanyahu advisor.
Whatever the case, today Netanyahu met with Mitchell -- part of the time the two were alone, and for a portion of the meeting Arad and Molcho, as well as Mitchell aides Dan Shapiro and David Hale participated. The meeting was pronounced "good" (whatever that means); they will be meeting again tomorrow.
In due course, presumably before the end of this week, Mitchell will be traveling to Ramallah for a meeting there, as well. But it will be some days yet before those talks officially begin, if indeed they do.
~~~~~~~~~~
In advance of the talks, Obama placed a call to Netanyahu. In the course of the discussion, as related by Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, "The president reaffirmed his unshakable commitment to Israel's security."
Grabs you in the heart, does it not?
Allow me to elaborate on how strong and deep that commitment is:
The five permanent members of the Security Council -- which includes the US -- have issued a statement at a NPT review conference saying, "We are committed to full implementation of the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty resolution on the Middle East and we support all ongoing efforts to this end.
"We are ready to consider all relevant proposals in the course of the (NPT) Review Conference in order to come to an agreed decision aimed at taking concrete steps in this direction."
This is a call for establishing a nuclear-free zone that would require Israel to relinquish whatever such arms she has.
Egypt has been pushing for a conference by next year to rid the Middle East of nuclear arms. Reuters reports that negotiations are on-going with Egypt to come up with a compromise proposal. Clinton has said she supports a nuclear-free zone here, but this may not yet be the time.
You might, however, want to read John Bolton's take on this:
Explains CBN, in citing Bolton: Successive U.S. administrations - aware of the vulnerability of the tiny Jewish state surrounded by a sea of less-than-friendly Arab neighbors - have supported Israel's longstanding policy of ambiguity on its nuclear weapons programs.
"When I was in the Bush administration, we refused to even talk about these kinds of ideas," said Bolton. "I'd be quite worried about the possible outcome here.
"The president is not happy with Israel's nuclear capabilities. I think he would be delighted if Israel gave up its nuclear weapons.
"The only unknown answer at this point is exactly how much pressure he would exert on Israel to do just that."
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2010/May/Bolton-Obama-Pressuring-Israel-on-Weapons-Program/
See, also, the editorial in today's JPost on the subject:
"Not many fair-minded people, including in this region, have lost sleep over the fact that responsible Israel reportedly has nuclear warheads. Much of this region is profoundly panicked by the specter of a nuclear Iran.
"Preventing this is the single most important challenge that faces the Obama administration...
IT SHOULD be crystal clear that, instead of allowing Egypt to sidetrack it with talk of disarming Israel, the US should focus on galvanizing the international community to stop Iran.
"Glibly calling for a 'nuclear free Middle East' blurs the moral distinctions between the hegemonic designs of that messianic, apocalyptic regime and the essential deterrent and defensive needs of our small, embattled democracy."
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=174692
~~~~~~~~~~
At its joint press conference with the Foreign Ministry earlier this week, the Palestinian Media Watch (PMW) announced release of a study, “From Terrorists to Role Models: The Institutionalization of Incitement.” It is important because it makes the point that an attitude of honoring terrorists is pervasive within the Palestinian Arab society -- it's not a fringe attitude. PMW director Itamar Marcus outlined four steps in the process of incitement: promoting hate, redefining acts of terror as acts of resistance, calling for the killing of Jews, and glorifying murder and terror.
Tomorrow, at 2:00 PM, at the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, Marcus will be releasing his report. I have no idea how widely this is open to the public, but PMW did put out a release. For more information or to RSVP: iromartin@aol.com.
In addition to this activity, the Security Cabinet began today to discuss a new mechanism for monitoring incitement: an incitement index for monitoring and quantifying incitement on a regular basis. This is being advanced by Yossi Kuperwasser, director-general of the Strategic Affairs Ministry.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Worldwide Trends in Honor Killings
Phyllis Chesler
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2010, pp. 3-11
http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings
To combat the epidemic of honor killings requires understanding what makes these murders unique. They differ from plain and psychopathic homicides, serial killings, crimes of passion, revenge killings, and domestic violence. Their motivation is different and based on codes of morality and behavior that typify some cultures, often reinforced by fundamentalist religious dictates. In 2000, the United Nations estimated that there are 5,000 honor killings every year.[1] That number might be reasonable for Pakistan alone, but worldwide the numbers are much greater. In 2002 and again in 2004, the U.N. brought a resolution to end honor killings and other honor-related crimes. In 2004, at a meeting in The Hague about the rising tide of honor killings in Europe, law enforcement officers from the U.K. announced plans to begin reopening old cases to see if certain murders were, indeed, honor murders.[2] The number of honor killings is routinely underestimated, and most estimates are little more than guesses that vary widely. Definitive or reliable worldwide estimates of honor killing incidence do not exist.
Morsal O, a 16-year-old German-Afghan girl, was killed in May 2008 by her 24-year-old brother Ahmad Sobair O. He stabbed her twenty-three times in a parking lot in Hamburg, Germany, because of her alleged impure moral conduct. Murder of teenage or young adult women by their fathers or other close male relatives is characteristic of classic honor killings and is not a pattern in non-immigrant Western populations.
Most honor killings are not classified as such, are rarely prosecuted, or when prosecuted in the Muslim world, result in relatively light sentences.[3] When an honor killing occurs in the West, many people, including the police, still shy away from calling it an honor killing. In the West, both Islamist and feminist groups, including domestic violence activists, continue to insist that honor killings are a form of Western-style domestic violence or femicide (killing of women).[4] They are not.[5] This study documents that there are at least two types of honor killings and two victim populations. Both types differ significantly from each other, just as they differ from Western domestic femicide. One group has an average age of seventeen; the other group's average age is thirty-six. The age difference is a statistically significant one.
Families Killing Their Young Women
The study's findings indicate that honor killings accelerated significantly in a 20-year period between 1989 and 2009.[6] This may mean that honor killings are genuinely escalating, perhaps as a function of jihadist extremism and Islamic fundamentalism, or that honor killings are being more accurately reported and prosecuted, especially in the West, but also in the East. The expansion of the Internet may account for wider reporting of these incidents.
The worldwide average age of victims for the entire population is twenty-three (Table 1). This is true for all geographical regions. Thus, wherever an honor killing is committed, it is primarily a crime against young people. Just over half of these victims were daughters and sisters; about a quarter were wives and girlfriends of the perpetrators. The remainder included mothers, aunts, nieces, cousins, uncles, or non-relatives.
Honor killings are a family collaboration. Worldwide, two-thirds of the victims were killed by their families of origin. (See Table 1). Murder by the family of origin was at its highest (72 percent) in the Muslim world and at its lowest in North America (49 percent); European families of origin were involved almost as often as those in the Muslim world, possibly because so many are first- or second-generation immigrants and, therefore, still tightly bound to their native cultures. Alternatively, this might be due to the Islamist radicalization of third or even fourth generations. Internationally, fathers played an active role in over one-third of the honor murders. Fathers were most involved in North America (52 percent) and least involved in the Muslim world; in Europe, fathers were involved in more than one-third of the murders.
Worldwide, 42 percent of these murders were carried out by multiple perpetrators, a characteristic which distinguishes them considerably from Western domestic femicide. A small number of the murders worldwide involved more than one victim. Multiple murders were at their highest in North America and at their lowest in Europe. In the Muslim world, just under a quarter of the murders involved more than one victim. Additional victims included the dead woman's children, boyfriend, fiancé, husband, sister, brother, or parents.
Worldwide, more than half the victims were tortured; i.e., they did not die instantly but in agony. In North America, over one-third of the victims were tortured; in Europe, two-thirds were tortured; in the Muslim world, half were tortured. Torturous deaths include: being raped or gang-raped before being killed; being strangled or bludgeoned to death; being stabbed many times (10 to 40 times); being stoned or burned to death; being beheaded, or having one's throat slashed.
Finally, worldwide, 58 percent of the victims were murdered for being "too Western" and/or for resisting or disobeying cultural and religious expectations (see Table 1). The accusation of being "too Western" was the exact language used by the perpetrator or perpetrators. Being "too Western" meant being seen as too independent, not subservient enough, refusing to wear varieties of Islamic clothing (including forms of the veil), wanting an advanced education and a career, having non-Muslim (or non-Sikh or non-Hindu) friends or boyfriends, refusing to marry one's first cousin, wanting to choose one's own husband, choosing a socially "inferior" or non-Muslim (or non-Sikh or non-Hindu) husband; or leaving an abusive husband. There were statistically significant regional differences for this motive. For example, in North America, 91 percent of victims were murdered for being "too Western" as compared to a smaller but still substantial number (71 percent) in Europe. In comparison, only 43 percent of victims were killed for this reason in the Muslim world.
Less than half (42 percent) of the victims worldwide were murdered for committing an alleged "sexual impropriety"; this refers to victims who had been raped, were allegedly having extra-marital affairs, or who were viewed as "promiscuous" (even where this might not refer to actual sexual promiscuity or even sexual activity). However, in the Muslim world, 57 percent of victims were murdered for this motive as compared to 29 percent in Europe and a small number (9 percent) in North America.
What the Age Differences Mean
This study documents that there are at least two different kinds of honor killings and/or two different victim populations: one made up of female children and young women whose average age is seventeen (Table 3), the other composed of women whose average age is thirty-six (Table 5). Both kinds of honor murders differ from Western domestic femicide.
In the non-immigrant West, serious domestic violence exists which includes incest, child abuse, marital rape, marital battering, marital stalking, and marital post-battering femicide. However, there is no cultural pattern of fathers specifically targeting or murdering their teenage or young adult daughters, nor do families of origin participate in planning, perpetrating, justifying, and valorizing such murders. Clearly, these characteristics define the classic honor killing of younger women and girls.
The honor murders of older women might seem to resemble Western-style domestic femicide. The victim is an older married woman, usually a mother, who is often killed by her husband but also by multiple perpetrators (30 percent of the time). Worldwide, almost half (44 percent) of those who kill older-age victims include members of either the victim's family of origin or members of her husband's family of origin. (See Table 5.) This is extremely rare in a Western domestic femicide; the husband who kills his wife in the West is rarely assisted by members of his family of origin or by his in-laws.
However, in the Muslim world, older-age honor killing victims are murdered by their own families of origin nearly two-thirds of the time. This suggests that the old-world custom has changed somewhat in Europe where the victim's family of origin participates in her murder only one-third (31 percent) of the time. Thus far, in North America, no members of the family of origin have participated in the honor killing of an older-age victim. Whether North America will eventually come to resemble Europe or even the Muslim world remains to be seen, as this will be influenced by immigration and other demographic factors. Finally, nearly half the older-age victims are subjected to a torturous death. However, the torture rate was at its highest (68 percent) in Europe for female victims of all ages. The torture rate was 35 percent and 51 percent in North America and in the Muslim world, respectively.
Worldwide, younger-age victims were killed by their families of origin 81 percent of the time. In North America, 94 percent were killed by their family of origin; this figure was 77 percent in Europe and 82 percent in the Muslim world. (See Table 3.) In North America, fathers had a hands-on role in 100 percent of the cases when the daughter was eighteen-years-old or younger (See Table 4). Worldwide, younger-age women and girls were tortured 53 percent of the time; however, in Europe, they were tortured between 72 and 83 percent of the time—significantly more than older-age women worldwide.
Western Responses to Honor Killing
Many Western feminists and advocates for victims of domestic violence have confused Western domestic violence or domestic femicide (the two are different) with the honor killings of older-age victims. Representatives of Islamist pressure groups including Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Canadian Islamic Congress, various academics (e.g., Ajay Nair, Tom Keil), activists (e.g., Rana Husseini), and religious leaders (e.g., Abdulhai Patel of the Canadian Council of Imams) have insisted that honor killings either do not exist or have nothing to do with Islam; that they are cultural, tribal, pre-Islamic customs, and that, in any event, domestic violence exists everywhere.[7] Feminists who work with the victims of domestic violence have seen so much violence against women that they are uncomfortable singling out one group of perpetrators, especially an immigrant or Muslim group. However, Western domestic femicide differs significantly from honor killing.[8]
Former National Organization for Women (NOW) president Kim Gandy compared the battered and beheaded Aasiya Hassan[9] to the battered (but still living) pop star Rihanna and further questioned whether Hassan's murder was an honor killing:
Is a Muslim man in Buffalo more likely to kill his wife than a Catholic man in Buffalo? A Jewish man in Buffalo? I don't know the answer to that, but I know that there is plenty of violence to go around—and that the long and sordid history of oppressing women in the name of religion surely includes Islam, but is not limited to Islam.[10]
At the time of the Hassan beheading, a coalition of domestic violence workers sent an (unpublished) letter to the Erie County district attorney's office and to some media stating that this was not an honor killing, that honor killings had nothing to do with Islam, and that sensationalizing Muslim domestic violence was not only racist but also served to render invisible the much larger incidence of both domestic violence and domestic femicide. They have a point, but they also miss the point, namely, that apples are not oranges and that honor killings are not the same as Western domestic femicides.
One might argue that the stated murder motive of being "too Westernized" may, in a sense, overlap substantively with the stated and unstated motives involved in Western domestic femicide. In both instances, the woman is expected to live with male violence and to remain silent about it. She is not supposed to leave—or to leave with the children or any other male "property." However, the need to keep a woman isolated, subordinate, fearful, and dependent through the use of violence does not reflect a Western cultural or religious value; rather, it reflects the individual, psychological pathology of the Western batterer-murderer. On the other hand, an honor killing reflects the culture's values aimed at regulating female behavior—values that the family, including the victim's family, is expected to enforce and uphold.
Further, such cultural, ethnic, or tribal values are not often condemned by the major religious and political leaders in developing Muslim countries or in immigrant communities in the West. On the contrary, such communities maintain an enforced silence on all matters of religious, cultural, or communal "sensitivity." Today, such leaders (and their many followers) often tempt, shame, or force Muslim girls and women into wearing a variety of body coverings including the hijab (head covering), burqa, or chadari (full-body covering) as an expression of religiosity and cultural pride or as an expression of symbolic resistance to the non-Muslim West.[11] Muslim men are allowed to dress like Westerners, and no one challenges the ubiquitous use of Western technology, including airplanes, cell phones, the Internet, or satellite television as un-Islamic. But Muslim women are expected to bear the burden of upholding these ancient and allegedly religious customs of gender apartheid.
It is clear that Muslim girls and women are murdered for honor in both the West and the East when they refuse to wear the hijab or choose to wear it improperly. In addition, they are killed for behaving in accepted Western or modern ways when they express a desire to attend college, have careers, live independent lives, have non-Muslim friends (including boyfriends with whom they may or may not be sexually involved), choose their own husbands, refuse to marry their first cousins, or want to leave an abusive husband. This "Westernization" trend also exists in Muslim countries but to a lesser extent. Allegations of unacceptable "Westernization" accounted for 44 percent of honor murders in the Muslim world as compared to 71 percent in Europe and 91 percent in North America.
Tempted by Western ideas, desiring to assimilate, and hoping to escape lives of subordination, those girls and women who exercise their option to be Western are killed—at early ages and in particularly gruesome ways. Frightening honor murders may constitute an object lesson to other Muslim girls and women about what may happen to them if they act on the temptation to do more than serve their fathers and brothers as domestic servants, marry their first cousin, and breed as many children as possible. The deaths of females already living in the West may also be intended as lessons for other female immigrants who are expected to lead subordinate and segregated lives amid the temptations and privileges of freedom. This is especially true in Europe where large Muslim ghettos have formed in the past few decades. It is particularly alarming to note that in Europe 96 percent of the honor killing perpetrators are Muslims.
The level of primal, sadistic, or barbaric savagery shown in honor killings towards a female family intimate more closely approximates some of the murders in the West perpetrated by serial killers against prostitutes or randomly selected women. It also suggests that gender separatism, the devaluation of girls and women, normalized child abuse, including arranged child marriages of both boys and girls, sexual repression, misogyny (sometimes inspired by misogynist interpretations of the Qur'an), and the demands made by an increase in the violent ideology of jihad all lead to murderous levels of aggression towards girls and women. One only has to kill a few girls and women to keep the others in line. Honor killings are, in a sense, a form of domestic terrorism, meant to ensure that Muslim women wear the Islamic veil, have Muslim babies, and mingle only with other Muslims.
Since Muslim immigration and, therefore, family networks are more restricted in North America than in Europe, honor-killing fathers may feel that the entire burden for upholding standards for female behavior falls heavily upon them and them alone. This may account for the fact that fathers are responsible 100 percent of the time for the honor murders of the youngest-age victims. In Europe and in the Muslim world, that burden may more easily be shared by sons and brothers, grandfathers, uncles, and male cousins.
What Must Be Done
How can this problem be addressed? Immigration, law enforcement, and religious authorities must all be included in education, prevention, and prosecution efforts in the matter of honor killings.
In addition, shelters for battered Muslim girls and women should be established and multilingual staff appropriately trained in the facts about honor killings. For example, young Muslim girls are frequently lured back home by their mothers. When a shelter resident receives such a phone call, the staff must immediately go on high alert. The equivalent of a federal witness protection program for the intended targets of honor killings should be created; England has already established such a program.[12] Extended safe surrogate family networks must be created to replace existing family networks; the intended victims themselves, with enormous assistance, may become each other's "sisters."
In addition, clear government warnings must be issued to Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu immigrants and citizens: Honor killings must be prosecuted in the West, and perpetrators, accomplices, and enablers must all be prosecuted. Participating families should be publicly shamed. Criminals must be deported after they have served their sentences.
Western judicial systems and governments have recently begun to address this problem. In 2006, a Danish court convicted nine members of a clan for the honor murder of Ghazala Khan.[13] In 2009, a German court sentenced a father to life in prison for having ordered his son to murder his sister for the family honor while the 20-year-old son was sentenced to nine and a half years.[14] In another case, a British court, with the help of testimony from the victim's mother and fiancé, convicted a father of a 10-year-old honor murder after the crime was reclassified;[15] and, for the first time, the Canadian government informed new immigrants:
Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, "honour killings," female genital mutilation or other gender-based violence. Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada's criminal laws.[16]
Islamic gender apartheid is a human rights violation and cannot be justified in the name of cultural relativism, tolerance, anti-racism, diversity, or political correctness. As long as Islamist groups continue to deny, minimize, or obfuscate the problem, and government and police officials accept their inaccurate versions of reality, women will continue to be killed for honor in the West.
The battle for women's rights is central to the battle for Europe and for Western values. It is a necessary part of true democracy, along with freedom of religion, tolerance for homosexuals, and freedom of dissent. Here, then, is exactly where the greatest battle of the twenty-first century is joined.
Phyllis Chesler is emerita professor of psychology and women's studies at the Richmond College of the City University of New York and co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology and the National Women's Health Network. The author wishes to thank Jonathan Francis Carmona, graduate student at Hunter College, CUNY, for the statistical tests for this study, and Prof. Howard Lune, director of the Graduate Social Research Program at Hunter College.
Table One: Entire Population (N = 230)
REGION Worldwide North America Europe Muslim World
AVERAGE AGE 23 25 22 23
BY PERCENTAGE
Killed by Family of Origin1,2 66 49 66 72
Family Position1
Daughter/Sister 53 50 49 56
Wife/Girlfriend 23 27 34 17
Other3 24 33 27 27
Paternal Participation4 37 53 39 31
Multiple Perpetrators 42 42 45 41
Multiple Victims1 17 30 7 21
Tortured1 53 39 67 49
Motive4
"too Western" 58 91 71 43
"sexual impropriety" 42 9 29 57
1 Significant according to a chi square test.
2 Family of origin includes fathers, mothers, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, and male cousins.
3 "Other" includes mothers, aunts, cousins, and no familial relation.
4 Significant according to a Pearson correlation test.
Table Two: Women Only, All Ages (N = 214)
REGION Worldwide North America Europe Muslim World
AVERAGE AGE 23 26 21 23
BY PERCENTAGE
Killed by Family of Origin1,2 69 52 66 75
Family Position1
Daughter/Sister 56 52 53 58
Wife/Girlfriend 24 28 37 17
Other3 20 20 10 25
Paternal Participation4 39 52 42 33
Multiple Perpetrators 42 45 44 40
Multiple Victims1 18 30 7 21
Tortured1 54 35 68 51
Motive4
"too Western" 58 89 73 44
"sexual impropriety" 42 11 27 56
1 Significant according to a chi square test.
2 Family of origin includes fathers, mothers, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, and male cousins.
3 "Other" includes mothers, aunts, cousins, and no familial relation.
4 Significant according to a Pearson correlation test.
Table Three: Females 25 Years of Age and Younger (N = 129)
REGION Worldwide North America Europe Muslim World
AVERAGE AGE 17 18 18 17
BY PERCENTAGE
Killed by Family of Origin1,2 81 94 77 82
Family Position1
Daughter/Sister 74 94 67 73
Wife/Girlfriend 14 0 20 14
Other3 3 6 13 13
Paternal Participation4 54 88 54 46
Multiple Perpetrators 46 75 46 38
Multiple Victims1 17 30 8 20
Tortured1 53 25 72 47
Motive4
"too Western" 57 88 74 38
"sexual impropriety" 43 12 26 62
1 Significant according to a chi square test.
2 Family of origin includes fathers, mothers, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, and male cousins.
3 "Other" includes mothers, aunts, cousins, and no familial relation.
4 Significant according to a Pearson correlation test.
Table Four: Females 18 Years of Age and Younger (N = 68)
REGION Worldwide North America Europe Muslim World
AVERAGE AGE 15 15 14 13
BY PERCENTAGE
Killed by Family of Origin1,2 89 90 86 90
Family Position1
Daughter/Sister 82 100 78 79
Wife/Girlfriend 8 0 13 6
Other3 10 0 9 15
Paternal Participation4 70 100 68 61
Multiple Perpetrators 39 80 32 32
Multiple Victims1 25 29 16 30
Tortured1 55 30 83 58
Motive4
"too Western" 55 80 67 41
"sexual impropriety" 45 20 33 59
1 Significant according to a chi square test.
2 Family of origin includes fathers, mothers, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, and male cousins.
3 "Other" includes mothers, aunts, cousins, and no familial relation.
4 Significant according to a Pearson correlation test.
Table Five: Females 26 Years of Age and Older (N = 51)
REGION Worldwide North America Europe Muslim World
AVERAGE AGE 36 40 31 37
BY PERCENTAGE
Killed by Family of Origin1,2 44 0 31 65
Family Position1
Daughter/Sister 24 0 13 37
Wife/Girlfriend 55 89 87 26
Other3 21 11 0 37
Paternal Participation4 8 0 13 7
Multiple Perpetrators 30 11 43 30
Multiple Victims1 9 29 8 5
Tortured1 45 44 53 44
Motive4
"too Western" 56 88 69 38
"sexual impropriety" 44 12 31 62
1 Significant according to a chi square test.
2 Family of origin includes fathers, mothers, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, and male cousins.
3 "Other" includes mothers, aunts, cousins, and no familial relation.
4 Significant according to a Pearson correlation test.
Methodology
This study analyzes 172 incidents and 230 honor-killing victims. The information was obtained from the English-language media around the world with one exception. There were 100 victims murdered for honor in the West, including 33 in North America and 67 in Europe. There were 130 additional victims in the Muslim world. Most of the perpetrators were Muslims, as were their victims, and most of the victims were women.
The perpetrators and victims in this study lived in the following twenty-nine countries or territories: Afghanistan, Albania, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Gaza Strip, Germany, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, and the West Bank.
In general, statistically significant interactions were found for age, geographical region, the participation of multiple perpetrators (mainly members of the victim's family of origin, including the victim's father), family position, multiple victims, the use of torture, and the stated motive for the murder. Between 1989 and 2009, honor killings also escalated over time in a statistically significant way.
Worldwide, the majority of victims were women; a mere 7 percent were men. Only five men were killed by their families of origin whereas the rest of the male victims were killed by the families of the women with whom they were allegedly consorting or planning to consort with either within or outside of marriage. The murdered male victims were usually perceived as men who were unacceptable due to lower class or caste status, because the marriage had not been arranged by the woman's family of origin, because they were not the woman's first cousin, or because the men allegedly engaged in pre- or extramarital sex. Men were rarely killed when they were alone; 81 percent were killed when the couple in question was together.
Although Sikhs and Hindus do sometimes commit such murders, honor killings, both worldwide and in the West, are mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crimes. In this study, worldwide, 91 percent of perpetrators were Muslims. In North America, most killers (84 percent) were Muslims, with only a few Sikhs and even fewer Hindus perpetrating honor killings; in Europe, Muslims comprised an even larger majority at 96 percent while Sikhs were a tiny percentage. In Muslim countries, obviously almost all the perpetrators were Muslims. With only two exceptions, the victims were all members of the same religious group as their murderers.
In the West, 76 individuals or groups of multiple perpetrators killed one hundred people. Of these perpetrators, 37 percent came from Pakistan; 17 percent were of Iraqi origin while Turks and Afghans made up 12 and 11 percent, respectively. The remainder, just under a quarter in all, came from Albania, Algeria, Bosnia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guyana, India, Iran, Morocco, and the West Bank.
[1] "Ending Violence against Women and Girls," State of the World Population 2000 (New York: United Nations Population Fund, 2000), chap. 3.
[2] BBC News, June 22, 2004.
[3] Yotam Feldner, "'Honor' Murders–Why the Perps Get off Easy," Middle East Quarterly, Dec. 2000, pp. 41-50.
[4] See, for example, SoundVision.com, Islamic information and products site, Aug. 24, 2000; Sheila Musaji, "The Death of Aqsa Parvez Should Be an Interfaith Call to Action," The American Muslim, Dec. 14, 2007; Mohammed Elmasry, Canadian Islamic Congress, Fox News.com, Dec. 12, 2007; Mustafaa Carroll, Dallas branch of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, FoxNews.com, Oct. 14, 2008.
[5] Phyllis Chesler, "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?" Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2009, pp. 61-9.
[6] According to the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, the most widely used measure of correlation or association.
[7] See, for example, SoundVision.com, Aug. 24, 2000; Musaji, "The Death of Aqsa Parvez Should Be an Interfaith Call to Action"; Elmasry, Fox News.com, Dec. 12, 2007; Carroll, FoxNews.com, Oct. 14, 2008.
[8] Chesler," Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?"; "A Civilized Dialogue about Islam and Honor Killing: When Feminist Heroes Disagree," Chesler Chronicles, Mar. 2, 2009; "Jordanian Journalist Rana Husseini on 'Murder in the Name of Honor: The True Story of One Woman's Heroic Fight Against an Unbelievable Crime,'" Democracy Now, Oct. 21, 2009.
[9] Fox News, Feb. 16, 2009.
[10] Kim Gandy, NOW president, "Below the Belt. No Woman, No Culture Immune to Violence against Women," Feb. 20, 2009.
[11] BBC News, Oct. 5, 2006; Aisha Stacey, "Why Muslim Women Wear the Veil," IslamReligion.com, Nov 15, 2009.
[12] James Brandon and Salam Hafez, Crimes of the Community: Honour-based Violence in the UK (London: Centre for Social Cohesion, 2008), pp. 136-40.
[13] Brussels Journal, July 2, 2006.
[14] Deutsche Welle (Bonn), Dec. 29, 2009.
[15] The Guardian (London), Dec. 17, 2009.
[16] The National Post (Don Mills, Ont.), Nov. 12, 2009.
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2010, pp. 3-11
http://www.meforum.org/2646/worldwide-trends-in-honor-killings
To combat the epidemic of honor killings requires understanding what makes these murders unique. They differ from plain and psychopathic homicides, serial killings, crimes of passion, revenge killings, and domestic violence. Their motivation is different and based on codes of morality and behavior that typify some cultures, often reinforced by fundamentalist religious dictates. In 2000, the United Nations estimated that there are 5,000 honor killings every year.[1] That number might be reasonable for Pakistan alone, but worldwide the numbers are much greater. In 2002 and again in 2004, the U.N. brought a resolution to end honor killings and other honor-related crimes. In 2004, at a meeting in The Hague about the rising tide of honor killings in Europe, law enforcement officers from the U.K. announced plans to begin reopening old cases to see if certain murders were, indeed, honor murders.[2] The number of honor killings is routinely underestimated, and most estimates are little more than guesses that vary widely. Definitive or reliable worldwide estimates of honor killing incidence do not exist.
Morsal O, a 16-year-old German-Afghan girl, was killed in May 2008 by her 24-year-old brother Ahmad Sobair O. He stabbed her twenty-three times in a parking lot in Hamburg, Germany, because of her alleged impure moral conduct. Murder of teenage or young adult women by their fathers or other close male relatives is characteristic of classic honor killings and is not a pattern in non-immigrant Western populations.
Most honor killings are not classified as such, are rarely prosecuted, or when prosecuted in the Muslim world, result in relatively light sentences.[3] When an honor killing occurs in the West, many people, including the police, still shy away from calling it an honor killing. In the West, both Islamist and feminist groups, including domestic violence activists, continue to insist that honor killings are a form of Western-style domestic violence or femicide (killing of women).[4] They are not.[5] This study documents that there are at least two types of honor killings and two victim populations. Both types differ significantly from each other, just as they differ from Western domestic femicide. One group has an average age of seventeen; the other group's average age is thirty-six. The age difference is a statistically significant one.
Families Killing Their Young Women
The study's findings indicate that honor killings accelerated significantly in a 20-year period between 1989 and 2009.[6] This may mean that honor killings are genuinely escalating, perhaps as a function of jihadist extremism and Islamic fundamentalism, or that honor killings are being more accurately reported and prosecuted, especially in the West, but also in the East. The expansion of the Internet may account for wider reporting of these incidents.
The worldwide average age of victims for the entire population is twenty-three (Table 1). This is true for all geographical regions. Thus, wherever an honor killing is committed, it is primarily a crime against young people. Just over half of these victims were daughters and sisters; about a quarter were wives and girlfriends of the perpetrators. The remainder included mothers, aunts, nieces, cousins, uncles, or non-relatives.
Honor killings are a family collaboration. Worldwide, two-thirds of the victims were killed by their families of origin. (See Table 1). Murder by the family of origin was at its highest (72 percent) in the Muslim world and at its lowest in North America (49 percent); European families of origin were involved almost as often as those in the Muslim world, possibly because so many are first- or second-generation immigrants and, therefore, still tightly bound to their native cultures. Alternatively, this might be due to the Islamist radicalization of third or even fourth generations. Internationally, fathers played an active role in over one-third of the honor murders. Fathers were most involved in North America (52 percent) and least involved in the Muslim world; in Europe, fathers were involved in more than one-third of the murders.
Worldwide, 42 percent of these murders were carried out by multiple perpetrators, a characteristic which distinguishes them considerably from Western domestic femicide. A small number of the murders worldwide involved more than one victim. Multiple murders were at their highest in North America and at their lowest in Europe. In the Muslim world, just under a quarter of the murders involved more than one victim. Additional victims included the dead woman's children, boyfriend, fiancé, husband, sister, brother, or parents.
Worldwide, more than half the victims were tortured; i.e., they did not die instantly but in agony. In North America, over one-third of the victims were tortured; in Europe, two-thirds were tortured; in the Muslim world, half were tortured. Torturous deaths include: being raped or gang-raped before being killed; being strangled or bludgeoned to death; being stabbed many times (10 to 40 times); being stoned or burned to death; being beheaded, or having one's throat slashed.
Finally, worldwide, 58 percent of the victims were murdered for being "too Western" and/or for resisting or disobeying cultural and religious expectations (see Table 1). The accusation of being "too Western" was the exact language used by the perpetrator or perpetrators. Being "too Western" meant being seen as too independent, not subservient enough, refusing to wear varieties of Islamic clothing (including forms of the veil), wanting an advanced education and a career, having non-Muslim (or non-Sikh or non-Hindu) friends or boyfriends, refusing to marry one's first cousin, wanting to choose one's own husband, choosing a socially "inferior" or non-Muslim (or non-Sikh or non-Hindu) husband; or leaving an abusive husband. There were statistically significant regional differences for this motive. For example, in North America, 91 percent of victims were murdered for being "too Western" as compared to a smaller but still substantial number (71 percent) in Europe. In comparison, only 43 percent of victims were killed for this reason in the Muslim world.
Less than half (42 percent) of the victims worldwide were murdered for committing an alleged "sexual impropriety"; this refers to victims who had been raped, were allegedly having extra-marital affairs, or who were viewed as "promiscuous" (even where this might not refer to actual sexual promiscuity or even sexual activity). However, in the Muslim world, 57 percent of victims were murdered for this motive as compared to 29 percent in Europe and a small number (9 percent) in North America.
What the Age Differences Mean
This study documents that there are at least two different kinds of honor killings and/or two different victim populations: one made up of female children and young women whose average age is seventeen (Table 3), the other composed of women whose average age is thirty-six (Table 5). Both kinds of honor murders differ from Western domestic femicide.
In the non-immigrant West, serious domestic violence exists which includes incest, child abuse, marital rape, marital battering, marital stalking, and marital post-battering femicide. However, there is no cultural pattern of fathers specifically targeting or murdering their teenage or young adult daughters, nor do families of origin participate in planning, perpetrating, justifying, and valorizing such murders. Clearly, these characteristics define the classic honor killing of younger women and girls.
The honor murders of older women might seem to resemble Western-style domestic femicide. The victim is an older married woman, usually a mother, who is often killed by her husband but also by multiple perpetrators (30 percent of the time). Worldwide, almost half (44 percent) of those who kill older-age victims include members of either the victim's family of origin or members of her husband's family of origin. (See Table 5.) This is extremely rare in a Western domestic femicide; the husband who kills his wife in the West is rarely assisted by members of his family of origin or by his in-laws.
However, in the Muslim world, older-age honor killing victims are murdered by their own families of origin nearly two-thirds of the time. This suggests that the old-world custom has changed somewhat in Europe where the victim's family of origin participates in her murder only one-third (31 percent) of the time. Thus far, in North America, no members of the family of origin have participated in the honor killing of an older-age victim. Whether North America will eventually come to resemble Europe or even the Muslim world remains to be seen, as this will be influenced by immigration and other demographic factors. Finally, nearly half the older-age victims are subjected to a torturous death. However, the torture rate was at its highest (68 percent) in Europe for female victims of all ages. The torture rate was 35 percent and 51 percent in North America and in the Muslim world, respectively.
Worldwide, younger-age victims were killed by their families of origin 81 percent of the time. In North America, 94 percent were killed by their family of origin; this figure was 77 percent in Europe and 82 percent in the Muslim world. (See Table 3.) In North America, fathers had a hands-on role in 100 percent of the cases when the daughter was eighteen-years-old or younger (See Table 4). Worldwide, younger-age women and girls were tortured 53 percent of the time; however, in Europe, they were tortured between 72 and 83 percent of the time—significantly more than older-age women worldwide.
Western Responses to Honor Killing
Many Western feminists and advocates for victims of domestic violence have confused Western domestic violence or domestic femicide (the two are different) with the honor killings of older-age victims. Representatives of Islamist pressure groups including Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Canadian Islamic Congress, various academics (e.g., Ajay Nair, Tom Keil), activists (e.g., Rana Husseini), and religious leaders (e.g., Abdulhai Patel of the Canadian Council of Imams) have insisted that honor killings either do not exist or have nothing to do with Islam; that they are cultural, tribal, pre-Islamic customs, and that, in any event, domestic violence exists everywhere.[7] Feminists who work with the victims of domestic violence have seen so much violence against women that they are uncomfortable singling out one group of perpetrators, especially an immigrant or Muslim group. However, Western domestic femicide differs significantly from honor killing.[8]
Former National Organization for Women (NOW) president Kim Gandy compared the battered and beheaded Aasiya Hassan[9] to the battered (but still living) pop star Rihanna and further questioned whether Hassan's murder was an honor killing:
Is a Muslim man in Buffalo more likely to kill his wife than a Catholic man in Buffalo? A Jewish man in Buffalo? I don't know the answer to that, but I know that there is plenty of violence to go around—and that the long and sordid history of oppressing women in the name of religion surely includes Islam, but is not limited to Islam.[10]
At the time of the Hassan beheading, a coalition of domestic violence workers sent an (unpublished) letter to the Erie County district attorney's office and to some media stating that this was not an honor killing, that honor killings had nothing to do with Islam, and that sensationalizing Muslim domestic violence was not only racist but also served to render invisible the much larger incidence of both domestic violence and domestic femicide. They have a point, but they also miss the point, namely, that apples are not oranges and that honor killings are not the same as Western domestic femicides.
One might argue that the stated murder motive of being "too Westernized" may, in a sense, overlap substantively with the stated and unstated motives involved in Western domestic femicide. In both instances, the woman is expected to live with male violence and to remain silent about it. She is not supposed to leave—or to leave with the children or any other male "property." However, the need to keep a woman isolated, subordinate, fearful, and dependent through the use of violence does not reflect a Western cultural or religious value; rather, it reflects the individual, psychological pathology of the Western batterer-murderer. On the other hand, an honor killing reflects the culture's values aimed at regulating female behavior—values that the family, including the victim's family, is expected to enforce and uphold.
Further, such cultural, ethnic, or tribal values are not often condemned by the major religious and political leaders in developing Muslim countries or in immigrant communities in the West. On the contrary, such communities maintain an enforced silence on all matters of religious, cultural, or communal "sensitivity." Today, such leaders (and their many followers) often tempt, shame, or force Muslim girls and women into wearing a variety of body coverings including the hijab (head covering), burqa, or chadari (full-body covering) as an expression of religiosity and cultural pride or as an expression of symbolic resistance to the non-Muslim West.[11] Muslim men are allowed to dress like Westerners, and no one challenges the ubiquitous use of Western technology, including airplanes, cell phones, the Internet, or satellite television as un-Islamic. But Muslim women are expected to bear the burden of upholding these ancient and allegedly religious customs of gender apartheid.
It is clear that Muslim girls and women are murdered for honor in both the West and the East when they refuse to wear the hijab or choose to wear it improperly. In addition, they are killed for behaving in accepted Western or modern ways when they express a desire to attend college, have careers, live independent lives, have non-Muslim friends (including boyfriends with whom they may or may not be sexually involved), choose their own husbands, refuse to marry their first cousins, or want to leave an abusive husband. This "Westernization" trend also exists in Muslim countries but to a lesser extent. Allegations of unacceptable "Westernization" accounted for 44 percent of honor murders in the Muslim world as compared to 71 percent in Europe and 91 percent in North America.
Tempted by Western ideas, desiring to assimilate, and hoping to escape lives of subordination, those girls and women who exercise their option to be Western are killed—at early ages and in particularly gruesome ways. Frightening honor murders may constitute an object lesson to other Muslim girls and women about what may happen to them if they act on the temptation to do more than serve their fathers and brothers as domestic servants, marry their first cousin, and breed as many children as possible. The deaths of females already living in the West may also be intended as lessons for other female immigrants who are expected to lead subordinate and segregated lives amid the temptations and privileges of freedom. This is especially true in Europe where large Muslim ghettos have formed in the past few decades. It is particularly alarming to note that in Europe 96 percent of the honor killing perpetrators are Muslims.
The level of primal, sadistic, or barbaric savagery shown in honor killings towards a female family intimate more closely approximates some of the murders in the West perpetrated by serial killers against prostitutes or randomly selected women. It also suggests that gender separatism, the devaluation of girls and women, normalized child abuse, including arranged child marriages of both boys and girls, sexual repression, misogyny (sometimes inspired by misogynist interpretations of the Qur'an), and the demands made by an increase in the violent ideology of jihad all lead to murderous levels of aggression towards girls and women. One only has to kill a few girls and women to keep the others in line. Honor killings are, in a sense, a form of domestic terrorism, meant to ensure that Muslim women wear the Islamic veil, have Muslim babies, and mingle only with other Muslims.
Since Muslim immigration and, therefore, family networks are more restricted in North America than in Europe, honor-killing fathers may feel that the entire burden for upholding standards for female behavior falls heavily upon them and them alone. This may account for the fact that fathers are responsible 100 percent of the time for the honor murders of the youngest-age victims. In Europe and in the Muslim world, that burden may more easily be shared by sons and brothers, grandfathers, uncles, and male cousins.
What Must Be Done
How can this problem be addressed? Immigration, law enforcement, and religious authorities must all be included in education, prevention, and prosecution efforts in the matter of honor killings.
In addition, shelters for battered Muslim girls and women should be established and multilingual staff appropriately trained in the facts about honor killings. For example, young Muslim girls are frequently lured back home by their mothers. When a shelter resident receives such a phone call, the staff must immediately go on high alert. The equivalent of a federal witness protection program for the intended targets of honor killings should be created; England has already established such a program.[12] Extended safe surrogate family networks must be created to replace existing family networks; the intended victims themselves, with enormous assistance, may become each other's "sisters."
In addition, clear government warnings must be issued to Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu immigrants and citizens: Honor killings must be prosecuted in the West, and perpetrators, accomplices, and enablers must all be prosecuted. Participating families should be publicly shamed. Criminals must be deported after they have served their sentences.
Western judicial systems and governments have recently begun to address this problem. In 2006, a Danish court convicted nine members of a clan for the honor murder of Ghazala Khan.[13] In 2009, a German court sentenced a father to life in prison for having ordered his son to murder his sister for the family honor while the 20-year-old son was sentenced to nine and a half years.[14] In another case, a British court, with the help of testimony from the victim's mother and fiancé, convicted a father of a 10-year-old honor murder after the crime was reclassified;[15] and, for the first time, the Canadian government informed new immigrants:
Canada's openness and generosity do not extend to barbaric cultural practices that tolerate spousal abuse, "honour killings," female genital mutilation or other gender-based violence. Those guilty of these crimes are severely punished under Canada's criminal laws.[16]
Islamic gender apartheid is a human rights violation and cannot be justified in the name of cultural relativism, tolerance, anti-racism, diversity, or political correctness. As long as Islamist groups continue to deny, minimize, or obfuscate the problem, and government and police officials accept their inaccurate versions of reality, women will continue to be killed for honor in the West.
The battle for women's rights is central to the battle for Europe and for Western values. It is a necessary part of true democracy, along with freedom of religion, tolerance for homosexuals, and freedom of dissent. Here, then, is exactly where the greatest battle of the twenty-first century is joined.
Phyllis Chesler is emerita professor of psychology and women's studies at the Richmond College of the City University of New York and co-founder of the Association for Women in Psychology and the National Women's Health Network. The author wishes to thank Jonathan Francis Carmona, graduate student at Hunter College, CUNY, for the statistical tests for this study, and Prof. Howard Lune, director of the Graduate Social Research Program at Hunter College.
Table One: Entire Population (N = 230)
REGION Worldwide North America Europe Muslim World
AVERAGE AGE 23 25 22 23
BY PERCENTAGE
Killed by Family of Origin1,2 66 49 66 72
Family Position1
Daughter/Sister 53 50 49 56
Wife/Girlfriend 23 27 34 17
Other3 24 33 27 27
Paternal Participation4 37 53 39 31
Multiple Perpetrators 42 42 45 41
Multiple Victims1 17 30 7 21
Tortured1 53 39 67 49
Motive4
"too Western" 58 91 71 43
"sexual impropriety" 42 9 29 57
1 Significant according to a chi square test.
2 Family of origin includes fathers, mothers, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, and male cousins.
3 "Other" includes mothers, aunts, cousins, and no familial relation.
4 Significant according to a Pearson correlation test.
Table Two: Women Only, All Ages (N = 214)
REGION Worldwide North America Europe Muslim World
AVERAGE AGE 23 26 21 23
BY PERCENTAGE
Killed by Family of Origin1,2 69 52 66 75
Family Position1
Daughter/Sister 56 52 53 58
Wife/Girlfriend 24 28 37 17
Other3 20 20 10 25
Paternal Participation4 39 52 42 33
Multiple Perpetrators 42 45 44 40
Multiple Victims1 18 30 7 21
Tortured1 54 35 68 51
Motive4
"too Western" 58 89 73 44
"sexual impropriety" 42 11 27 56
1 Significant according to a chi square test.
2 Family of origin includes fathers, mothers, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, and male cousins.
3 "Other" includes mothers, aunts, cousins, and no familial relation.
4 Significant according to a Pearson correlation test.
Table Three: Females 25 Years of Age and Younger (N = 129)
REGION Worldwide North America Europe Muslim World
AVERAGE AGE 17 18 18 17
BY PERCENTAGE
Killed by Family of Origin1,2 81 94 77 82
Family Position1
Daughter/Sister 74 94 67 73
Wife/Girlfriend 14 0 20 14
Other3 3 6 13 13
Paternal Participation4 54 88 54 46
Multiple Perpetrators 46 75 46 38
Multiple Victims1 17 30 8 20
Tortured1 53 25 72 47
Motive4
"too Western" 57 88 74 38
"sexual impropriety" 43 12 26 62
1 Significant according to a chi square test.
2 Family of origin includes fathers, mothers, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, and male cousins.
3 "Other" includes mothers, aunts, cousins, and no familial relation.
4 Significant according to a Pearson correlation test.
Table Four: Females 18 Years of Age and Younger (N = 68)
REGION Worldwide North America Europe Muslim World
AVERAGE AGE 15 15 14 13
BY PERCENTAGE
Killed by Family of Origin1,2 89 90 86 90
Family Position1
Daughter/Sister 82 100 78 79
Wife/Girlfriend 8 0 13 6
Other3 10 0 9 15
Paternal Participation4 70 100 68 61
Multiple Perpetrators 39 80 32 32
Multiple Victims1 25 29 16 30
Tortured1 55 30 83 58
Motive4
"too Western" 55 80 67 41
"sexual impropriety" 45 20 33 59
1 Significant according to a chi square test.
2 Family of origin includes fathers, mothers, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, and male cousins.
3 "Other" includes mothers, aunts, cousins, and no familial relation.
4 Significant according to a Pearson correlation test.
Table Five: Females 26 Years of Age and Older (N = 51)
REGION Worldwide North America Europe Muslim World
AVERAGE AGE 36 40 31 37
BY PERCENTAGE
Killed by Family of Origin1,2 44 0 31 65
Family Position1
Daughter/Sister 24 0 13 37
Wife/Girlfriend 55 89 87 26
Other3 21 11 0 37
Paternal Participation4 8 0 13 7
Multiple Perpetrators 30 11 43 30
Multiple Victims1 9 29 8 5
Tortured1 45 44 53 44
Motive4
"too Western" 56 88 69 38
"sexual impropriety" 44 12 31 62
1 Significant according to a chi square test.
2 Family of origin includes fathers, mothers, brothers, grandfathers, uncles, and male cousins.
3 "Other" includes mothers, aunts, cousins, and no familial relation.
4 Significant according to a Pearson correlation test.
Methodology
This study analyzes 172 incidents and 230 honor-killing victims. The information was obtained from the English-language media around the world with one exception. There were 100 victims murdered for honor in the West, including 33 in North America and 67 in Europe. There were 130 additional victims in the Muslim world. Most of the perpetrators were Muslims, as were their victims, and most of the victims were women.
The perpetrators and victims in this study lived in the following twenty-nine countries or territories: Afghanistan, Albania, Bangladesh, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Egypt, France, Gaza Strip, Germany, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Italy, Jordan, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States, and the West Bank.
In general, statistically significant interactions were found for age, geographical region, the participation of multiple perpetrators (mainly members of the victim's family of origin, including the victim's father), family position, multiple victims, the use of torture, and the stated motive for the murder. Between 1989 and 2009, honor killings also escalated over time in a statistically significant way.
Worldwide, the majority of victims were women; a mere 7 percent were men. Only five men were killed by their families of origin whereas the rest of the male victims were killed by the families of the women with whom they were allegedly consorting or planning to consort with either within or outside of marriage. The murdered male victims were usually perceived as men who were unacceptable due to lower class or caste status, because the marriage had not been arranged by the woman's family of origin, because they were not the woman's first cousin, or because the men allegedly engaged in pre- or extramarital sex. Men were rarely killed when they were alone; 81 percent were killed when the couple in question was together.
Although Sikhs and Hindus do sometimes commit such murders, honor killings, both worldwide and in the West, are mainly Muslim-on-Muslim crimes. In this study, worldwide, 91 percent of perpetrators were Muslims. In North America, most killers (84 percent) were Muslims, with only a few Sikhs and even fewer Hindus perpetrating honor killings; in Europe, Muslims comprised an even larger majority at 96 percent while Sikhs were a tiny percentage. In Muslim countries, obviously almost all the perpetrators were Muslims. With only two exceptions, the victims were all members of the same religious group as their murderers.
In the West, 76 individuals or groups of multiple perpetrators killed one hundred people. Of these perpetrators, 37 percent came from Pakistan; 17 percent were of Iraqi origin while Turks and Afghans made up 12 and 11 percent, respectively. The remainder, just under a quarter in all, came from Albania, Algeria, Bosnia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guyana, India, Iran, Morocco, and the West Bank.
[1] "Ending Violence against Women and Girls," State of the World Population 2000 (New York: United Nations Population Fund, 2000), chap. 3.
[2] BBC News, June 22, 2004.
[3] Yotam Feldner, "'Honor' Murders–Why the Perps Get off Easy," Middle East Quarterly, Dec. 2000, pp. 41-50.
[4] See, for example, SoundVision.com, Islamic information and products site, Aug. 24, 2000; Sheila Musaji, "The Death of Aqsa Parvez Should Be an Interfaith Call to Action," The American Muslim, Dec. 14, 2007; Mohammed Elmasry, Canadian Islamic Congress, Fox News.com, Dec. 12, 2007; Mustafaa Carroll, Dallas branch of the Council of American-Islamic Relations, FoxNews.com, Oct. 14, 2008.
[5] Phyllis Chesler, "Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?" Middle East Quarterly, Spring 2009, pp. 61-9.
[6] According to the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, the most widely used measure of correlation or association.
[7] See, for example, SoundVision.com, Aug. 24, 2000; Musaji, "The Death of Aqsa Parvez Should Be an Interfaith Call to Action"; Elmasry, Fox News.com, Dec. 12, 2007; Carroll, FoxNews.com, Oct. 14, 2008.
[8] Chesler," Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence?"; "A Civilized Dialogue about Islam and Honor Killing: When Feminist Heroes Disagree," Chesler Chronicles, Mar. 2, 2009; "Jordanian Journalist Rana Husseini on 'Murder in the Name of Honor: The True Story of One Woman's Heroic Fight Against an Unbelievable Crime,'" Democracy Now, Oct. 21, 2009.
[9] Fox News, Feb. 16, 2009.
[10] Kim Gandy, NOW president, "Below the Belt. No Woman, No Culture Immune to Violence against Women," Feb. 20, 2009.
[11] BBC News, Oct. 5, 2006; Aisha Stacey, "Why Muslim Women Wear the Veil," IslamReligion.com, Nov 15, 2009.
[12] James Brandon and Salam Hafez, Crimes of the Community: Honour-based Violence in the UK (London: Centre for Social Cohesion, 2008), pp. 136-40.
[13] Brussels Journal, July 2, 2006.
[14] Deutsche Welle (Bonn), Dec. 29, 2009.
[15] The Guardian (London), Dec. 17, 2009.
[16] The National Post (Don Mills, Ont.), Nov. 12, 2009.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)