Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Thomas Joscelyn, an expert on the international terrorist network. He has written extensively on al Qaeda and its allies, including Iran. He is the author, most recently, of Iran’s Proxy War Against America, a booklet published by the Claremont Institute and available for download at its web site. . (Click here to download the booklet.)
FP: Thomas Joscelyn, welcome to Frontpage Interview.
Joscleyn: Good to be here Jamie.
FP: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia has sparked great controversy. Yesterday, Ahmadinejad announced in front of the U.N. General Assembly that Iran will defy U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding that his regime suspend its uranium enrichment.
What should the American people know about Ahmadinejad and the regime he represents?
Joscelyn: Ahmadinejad is a puppet for the Ayatollah and his attending mullahs, who have the real power in Iran. This clerical regime, which rose to power in 1979, is intrinsically opposed to America and her allies throughout the world. When they chant “Death to America,” they mean it. The Iranian regime is also dedicated to revolution. That is, they want to export the Iranian revolution throughout the Middle East and the world. And they have often done so on the backs of terrorists.
Iran has provided vital assistance to terrorist organizations in at least all of the following nations/areas: the Palestinian territories (Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad), Lebanon (Hezbollah), Egypt (the Islamic Group and Egyptian Islamic Jihad), Sudan (a variety of terrorist groups), Somalia (Sunni terrorists), Algeria (an al Qaeda affiliate), Saudi Arabia (Saudi Hezbollah), Southeast Asia (various terrorist groups, including affiliates of al Qaeda), Iraq (both Sunni and Shiite terrorist groups), Afghanistan (Iran now even arms the Taliban, its one-time enemy), the Gulf States, and elsewhere.
So, Iran is the fountainhead of terrorism.
Much of the public outrage over Ahmadinejad’s visit has focused on Iran’s ongoing support for our terrorist enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as his nation’s burgeoning nuclear program. These are, of course, legitimate and grave concerns. Unfortunately, however, there has been little focus on the relationship between Iran and al Qaeda, despite the fact that the relationship reportedly dates back to 1990.
FP: What evidence ties Iran to al Qaeda as early as 1990?
Joscelyn: According to Lawrence Wright in his book The Looming Tower, a top al Qaeda operative named Ali Mohamed told the FBI that Ayman al Zawahiri and the Iranians agreed to cooperate on a coup attempt in Egypt in 1990. The Iranians have long targeted Hosni Mubarak’s regime and so they were very willing to assist Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad (“EIJ”) in a coup attempt. According to Mohamed, the Iranians gave Zawahiri $2 million and trained his EIJ operatives for the coup attempt, which was ultimately aborted.
Coming from Ali Mohamed, this is especially damning testimony. Mohamed was one of the U.S. Government’s star witnesses during the trial of some of the al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the August 7, 1998, embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Mohamed himself admitted to his involvement in the embassy bombings – he did the surveillance that was used to plan the operation. He also looms large in al Qaeda’s early history: he compiled al Qaeda’s first training manual, trained bin Laden’s security guards, helped organize al Qaeda’s move from Afghanistan to the Sudan in the early 1990’s, and was trusted by Zawahiri to penetrate America’s intelligence and military establishments (he even feigned cooperation with the CIA as an informant and went on to become a sergeant in the U.S. Army).
So, Mohamed’s testimony is good evidence that the Iranians and al Qaeda were cooperating all the way back in 1990.
FP: And the cooperation didn’t end there, did it?
Joscelyn: No, it did not end there. There is evidence of cooperation between Iran, Hezbollah and al Qaeda from 1990 through the present. I go into more detail about this evidence in Iran’s Proxy War Against America, but let me provide some of the highlights here.
According to the 9/11 Commission, the Iranians and al Qaeda held discussions in the early 1990’s. During the embassy bombings trial we learned that one of these meetings involved a sit down between Imad Mugniyah, who is Iran’s master terrorist as well as Hezbollah’s chief of terrorist operations, and Osama bin Laden. As a result of these meetings, Iran and al Qaeda agreed to cooperate on attacks against America and Israel. Al Qaeda terrorists were then trained in Iranian and Hezbollah training camps in Lebanon, Sudan and Iran.
Mugniyah had a profound impact on al Qaeda’s transition from an Afghani-based insurgency group into an international terrorist empire. As a result of the cooperation between Mugniyah and bin Laden, al Qaeda consciously modeled itself after Hezbollah in many ways. As Lawrence Wright notes in The Looming Tower, there are good reasons to suspect that al Qaeda even adopted the use of suicide bombers because of Hezbollah’s influence. I think that prior to 1993 (there may be an isolated incident or two prior to then), suicide attacks were an anathema to Sunni Islam. They were strictly prohibited. The Shiite Hezbollah, however, had used suicide bombers since as early 1983, when Mugniyah’s suicide truck bombers destroyed the U.S. embassy and the U.S. Marine Barracks in Lebanon. Zawahiri and al Qaeda adopted suicide attacks as their modus operandi only in the early 1990’s, after Hezbollah had shown them the utility of such operations.
According to Bob Baer in See No Evil, the CIA uncovered evidence that Mugniyah helped facilitate the travel of an al Qaeda terrorist en route to an attack on the Egyptian embassy in Pakistan in 1995. In June 1996, according to Gerald Posner in Why America Slept, the CIA obtained reports from a terrorist summit in Tehran. The reports indicated that al Qaeda, Iran and Hezbollah had agreed to step up their attacks on American targets throughout the Middle East. A few days later, on June 25, 1996, Hezbollah – under direct orders from Tehran – bombed the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia.
The 9/11 Commission found that in addition to strong evidence of Iran’s involvement, there were also signs that al Qaeda played a role in the Khobar Towers bombing. Al Qaeda had reportedly been planning a similar operation in the months prior to the attack and intelligence officials found that bin Laden was congratulated by senior al Qaeda members, such as Ayman al Zawahiri, shortly thereafter. Contemporaneous reports by the CIA and the State Department noted that Iran and al Qaeda were both suspects. Therefore, although we don’t know for sure, there is, at the very least, a strong possibility that the Khobar Towers operation was a joint operation between Iran, Hezbollah and al Qaeda.
The 9/11 Commission found that the al Qaeda cell in Kenya, which was responsible for bombing the embassy there on August 7, 1998, was trained by Hezbollah for the operation. The 9/11 Commission also found that there is evidence that Iran and Hezbollah facilitated the travels of 8 to 10 of the hijackers responsible for the September 11 attacks.
There is strong evidence that Iran helped al Qaeda and Taliban members escape from Afghanistan in late 2001 and, therefore, evade American justice. Finally, Iran harbors senior al Qaeda leaders such as Saif al Adel (al Qaeda’s military chief) and Saad bin Laden (Osama’s son and heir) to this day.
This is just some of the evidence of Iran’s involvement in al Qaeda’s terror.
FP: So in your opinion, what is the strongest evidence of Iran’s support for al Qaeda?
Joscelyn: The simultaneous suicide bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998. As I explain in Iran’s Proxy War Against America, there is strong evidence that: (1) Bin Laden and al Qaeda deliberately modeled the attack after Hezbollah’s simultaneous suicide bombings of the U.S. Marine barracks and a headquarters for French paratroopers in Lebanon in 1983. (2) According to the 9/11 Commission, Iran and Hezbollah trained at least one of the cells responsible for the attack. They showed them how to execute this type of operation. (3) There is evidence that Iran supplied al Qaeda with a large amount of explosives used in the attack. (4) Iran gives safe haven to the senior al Qaeda terrorist wanted for his involvement in the bombings, Saif al Adel, to this day.
Therefore, we have Iran and Hezbollah inspiring, training, arming and giving safe haven to the al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the embassy bombings. And this was al Qaeda’s most successful operation prior to 9/11. If this isn’t support for al Qaeda, then I don’t know what is.
FP: So wait a minute then, could it be fairly said that Iran was, to one extent or another, behind 9/11?
Joscelyn: I do not think that Iran was “behind 9/11.” I think that, just as the 9/11 Commission found, there are open questions about Iran’s and Hezbollah’s involvement in the September 11 attacks. If you read pages 240 and 241 of the 9/11 Commission’s final report very carefully you realize there are a lot of dots connecting Iran and Hezbollah to the travels of 8 to 10 of the 9/11 hijackers. However, the 9/11 Commission sort of kicked the can down the road, so to speak, on this issue. The commissioners called for further investigation into this matter in 2004, but more than three years later no such investigation has been launched. That’s one of the reasons I wrote this booklet.
I would also point out that the 9/11 Commission did not cover all of the threads potentially tying Iran and Hezbollah to 9/11. As Newsweek first reported, Ramzi Binalshibh – al Qaeda’s point man for 9/11 – made a very suspicious trip to Iran during the planning stages of the operation. And shortly before the attack he left Germany on a flight that landed at Tehran International Airport. Thus, one of the main al Qaeda conspirators involved in 9/11 found it convenient (or something more?) to travel to Iran during the key stages of the 9/11 plot. Binalshibh reportedly told his CIA interrogators that there was nothing to any of this, but one has to wonder if he wasn’t simply lying. And certainly we shouldn’t take his disavowal at face value.
FP: Some on the left will no doubt accuse you of trying to bolster the case for a war with Iran. How would you respond to this allegation?
Joscelyn: I think this hits on a big problem we face right now as a nation. The discourse has become too politicized. The focus in this nation is largely on our own domestic political situation and the Bush administration. I think we would be better served by asking more of the tough questions about al Qaeda that need answering.
In the booklet, I explicitly argue that an invasion of Iran would be disastrous. I do not think that military strikes should be taken off the table entirely, but I have doubts about their efficacy. And force may be required to stop Iran’s sponsorship of terrorists who are killing American servicemen inside Iraq. But the point of the booklet is not to advocate for a particular course of action. The reason I wrote it was to stir debate about what I think are a significant body of facts and evidence tying Iran to al Qaeda. I don’t think the public interest is served by pretending that none of this evidence exists.
FP: Why is there such reticence to engage the evidence of Iran’s involvement with al Qaeda?
Joscelyn: It seems to me that al Qaeda is an enemy we have never really understood. Ignorance is widespread. We face a large network of terrorists, but many prefer not to get into the nuts and bolts of how they actually work. For example, we often hear that the Sunnis of al Qaeda and the Shiites of Iran and Hezbollah are incapable of cooperation due to their theological differences. A cursory examination of Iran’s and al Qaeda’s behavior reveals, however, that this is nonsense. When it comes to facing their common enemies the two have been more than willing to set aside their differences. In fact, Iran has long supported Sunni terrorists, including groups such as Hamas, which is the ideological cousin of al Qaeda. The 9/11 Commission also explicitly found that ideological or theological differences did not prevent Iran and Hezbollah from cooperating with al Qaeda.
More than six years have passed since 9/11. I think it is about time we got rid of some of our more shallow assumptions about our terrorist enemies.
And perhaps we should start asking President Ahmadinejad why it is that his nation harbors scores of al Qaeda terrorists to this day.
FP: Thomas Joscelyn, thank you for joining Frontpage Interview.
Joscelyn: Thank you Jamie.
Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine's managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He edited and wrote the introduction to David Horowitz’s Left Illusions. He is also the co-editor (with David Horowitz) of The Hate America Left and the author of Canadian Policy Toward Khrushchev’s Soviet Union (McGill-Queens University Press, 2002) and 15 Tips on How to be a Good Leftist. To see his previous symposiums, interviews and articles Click Here. Email him at jglazov@rogers.com.
Monday, October 01, 2007
Ahmadinejads Holocaust Myths
In his speeches, most especially the one at Columbia University, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad repeats two myths about the Holocaust. The first every reasonable person knows is a total lie: namely that the Holocaust did not occur. The second myth, however, is one that escapes critical attention for the most part, because many people are not aware of its falsity. The myth is that the Palestinian people and their leadership had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust. The conclusion that is supposed to follow from this “fact” is that the establishment of Israel in the wake of the Nazi genocide of the Jewish people was unfair to the Palestinians. This is the way Ahmadinejad put it in his Columbia talk.
“…[G]iven this historical event [the Holocaust], if it is a reality, we need to question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it… “The Palestinian people didn’t commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II.”
These statements about the role of the Palestinians are demonstrably false. The truth is that the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust. The Palestinian leader at the time was Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufit of Jerusalem. As Professor Edward Said has acknowledged:
“Hajj Amin al-Husseini represented the Palestinian Arab national consensus, had the backing of the Palestinian political parties that functioned in Palestine, and was recognized in some form by Arab governments as the voice of the Palestinian people.”
Husseini was “Palestine’s national leader” and it was in that capacity that he made his notorious alliance with Hitler and played an active role in promoting the Holocaust. Here is the true story that Ahmadinejad tried to mythologize.
Shortly after Hitler came to power, the Grand Mufti decided to emulate him. He informed the German consul in Jerusalem that “the Muslims inside and outside Palestine welcome the new regime of Germany and hope for the extension of the fascist anti-democratic, governmental system to other countries.” In an effort to bring it to his own country, Husseini organized the “Nazi Scouts,” based on the “Hitler Youth.” The swastika became a welcome symbol among many Palestinians.
The mid to late 1930’s were marked by Arab efforts to curtail immigration and Jewish efforts to rescue as many Jews as possible from Hitler’s Europe. These years were also marked by escalating Muslim violence orchestrated by Husseini and other Muslim leaders. In 1936, Arab terrorism took on a new dimension. In the beginning the targets were once again defenseless Jewish civilians in hospitals, movie theatres, homes and stores. This was followed by strikes and shop closures, and then by the bombing of British offices. The Nazi regime in Germany and the Italian fascists supported the violence, sending “millions” to the Mufti. The SS, under the leadership of Heinrich Himmler, provided both financial and logistical support for anti-Semitic pogroms in Palestine. Adolf Eichmann visited Husseini in Palestine and subsequently maintained regular contact with him. The support was mutual, as one Arab commentator put it:
“Feeling the whip of Jewish pressure and influence, the Arabs sympathized with the Nazis and Fascists in their agony and trials at the hands of Jewish intrigues and international financial pressures.”
The Palestinians and their Arab allies were anything but neutral about the fate of European Jewry. The official leader of the Palestinians, Haj Amin al-Husseini, spent the war years in Berlin with Hitler, serving as a consultant on the Jewish question. He was taken on a tour of Auschwitz by Himmler and expressed support for the mass murder of European Jews. He also sought to “solve the problems of the Jewish element in Palestine and other Arab countries” by employing “the same method” being used “in the Axis countries.’ He would not be satisfied with the Jewish residents of Palestine - - many of whom were descendants of Sephardic Jews who had lived there for hundreds, even thousands, of years - - remaining as a minority in a Muslim state. Like Hitler, he wanted to be rid of “every last Jew.” As Husseini wrote in his memoirs:
“Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: “The Jews are yours.”
The Mufti was apparently planning to return to Palestine in the event of a German victory and to construct a death camp, modeled after Auschwitz, near Nablus. Husseini incited his pro-Nazi followers with the words “Arise, o sons of Arabia. Fight for your sacred rights. Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Their spilled blood pleases Allah, our history and religion. That will save our honor.” In 1944, a German-Arab commando unit, under Husseini’s command, parachuted into Palestine and poisoned Tel Aviv’s wells.
Husseini also helped to inspire a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq and helped to organize thousands of Muslims in the Balkans into military units known as Handselar divisions which carried out atrocities against Yugoslav Jews, Serbs and Gypsies. After a meeting with Hitler, he recorded the following in his diary:
The Mufti: “The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends… They were therefore prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in a war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion. In this struggle, the Arabs were striving for the independence and the unity of Palestine, Syria and Iraq….
Hitler: “Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well. Hitler. Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. The moment that Germany’s tank divisions and air squadrons had made their appearance south of the Caucasus, the public appeal requested by the Grand Mufti could go out to the Arab world.”
It is fair to conclude that the official leader of the Muslims in Palestine, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was a full fledged Nazi war criminal and he was so declared at Nuremberg and sought by Yugoslavia as a war criminal after the war. He escaped to Egypt where he was given asylum and helped to organize many former Nazis and Nazi sympathizers against Israel.
It is also fair to say that Husseini’s pro-Nazi sympathies and support were widespread among his Palestinian followers, who regarded him as a hero even after the war and the disclosure of his role in Nazi atrocities. According to his biographer,
“Haj Amin’s popularity among the Palestinian Arabs and within the Arab states actually increased more than ever during his period with the Nazis… [because] large parts of the Arab world shared this sympathy with Nazi Germany during the Second World War.”
Nor was it merely a hatred of Zionism that animated this support for Nazi ideology. The grand mufti’s “hatred of Jews…was fathomless, and he gave full vent to it during his period of activity alongside the Nazis (October 1941-May 1945).” His speeches on Berlin Radio were anti-Semitic to the core: “Kill the Jews wherever you find them—this pleases God, history and religion.” In 1948, the National Palestinian Council elected Husseini as its president, even though he was still a wanted war criminal living in exile in Egypt. Indeed, Husseini is still revered today among many Palestinians as a national hero. Yasser Arafat, in an interview conducted in 2002 and reprinted in the Palestinian daily Al-Quds on August 2, 2002, calls Haj Amin al-Husseini “our hero,” referring to the Palestinian people. Arafat also boasted of being “one of his troops,” even though he knew he was “considered an ally of Nazis.” (If a German today were to call Hitler “our hero,” he would appropriately be labeled a neo-Nazi.!)
It is a myth therefore – another myth perpetrated by Iran’s myth-maker-in-chief – that the Palestinians played “no role” in the Holocaust. Considering the active support by the Palestinian leadership and masses for the losing side of a genocidal war, it was more than fair for the United Nations to offer them a state of their own on more than half of the arable land of the British mandate. The Sudeten Germans got a lot less!
“…[G]iven this historical event [the Holocaust], if it is a reality, we need to question whether the Palestinian people should be paying for it… “The Palestinian people didn’t commit any crime. They had no role to play in World War II.”
These statements about the role of the Palestinians are demonstrably false. The truth is that the Palestinian leadership, supported by the Palestinian masses, played a significant role in Hitler’s Holocaust. The Palestinian leader at the time was Hajj Amin Al-Husseini, the Grand Mufit of Jerusalem. As Professor Edward Said has acknowledged:
“Hajj Amin al-Husseini represented the Palestinian Arab national consensus, had the backing of the Palestinian political parties that functioned in Palestine, and was recognized in some form by Arab governments as the voice of the Palestinian people.”
Husseini was “Palestine’s national leader” and it was in that capacity that he made his notorious alliance with Hitler and played an active role in promoting the Holocaust. Here is the true story that Ahmadinejad tried to mythologize.
Shortly after Hitler came to power, the Grand Mufti decided to emulate him. He informed the German consul in Jerusalem that “the Muslims inside and outside Palestine welcome the new regime of Germany and hope for the extension of the fascist anti-democratic, governmental system to other countries.” In an effort to bring it to his own country, Husseini organized the “Nazi Scouts,” based on the “Hitler Youth.” The swastika became a welcome symbol among many Palestinians.
The mid to late 1930’s were marked by Arab efforts to curtail immigration and Jewish efforts to rescue as many Jews as possible from Hitler’s Europe. These years were also marked by escalating Muslim violence orchestrated by Husseini and other Muslim leaders. In 1936, Arab terrorism took on a new dimension. In the beginning the targets were once again defenseless Jewish civilians in hospitals, movie theatres, homes and stores. This was followed by strikes and shop closures, and then by the bombing of British offices. The Nazi regime in Germany and the Italian fascists supported the violence, sending “millions” to the Mufti. The SS, under the leadership of Heinrich Himmler, provided both financial and logistical support for anti-Semitic pogroms in Palestine. Adolf Eichmann visited Husseini in Palestine and subsequently maintained regular contact with him. The support was mutual, as one Arab commentator put it:
“Feeling the whip of Jewish pressure and influence, the Arabs sympathized with the Nazis and Fascists in their agony and trials at the hands of Jewish intrigues and international financial pressures.”
The Palestinians and their Arab allies were anything but neutral about the fate of European Jewry. The official leader of the Palestinians, Haj Amin al-Husseini, spent the war years in Berlin with Hitler, serving as a consultant on the Jewish question. He was taken on a tour of Auschwitz by Himmler and expressed support for the mass murder of European Jews. He also sought to “solve the problems of the Jewish element in Palestine and other Arab countries” by employing “the same method” being used “in the Axis countries.’ He would not be satisfied with the Jewish residents of Palestine - - many of whom were descendants of Sephardic Jews who had lived there for hundreds, even thousands, of years - - remaining as a minority in a Muslim state. Like Hitler, he wanted to be rid of “every last Jew.” As Husseini wrote in his memoirs:
“Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of its Jews. The answer I got was: “The Jews are yours.”
The Mufti was apparently planning to return to Palestine in the event of a German victory and to construct a death camp, modeled after Auschwitz, near Nablus. Husseini incited his pro-Nazi followers with the words “Arise, o sons of Arabia. Fight for your sacred rights. Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Their spilled blood pleases Allah, our history and religion. That will save our honor.” In 1944, a German-Arab commando unit, under Husseini’s command, parachuted into Palestine and poisoned Tel Aviv’s wells.
Husseini also helped to inspire a pro-Nazi coup in Iraq and helped to organize thousands of Muslims in the Balkans into military units known as Handselar divisions which carried out atrocities against Yugoslav Jews, Serbs and Gypsies. After a meeting with Hitler, he recorded the following in his diary:
The Mufti: “The Arabs were Germany’s natural friends… They were therefore prepared to cooperate with Germany with all their hearts and stood ready to participate in a war, not only negatively by the commission of acts of sabotage and the instigation of revolutions, but also positively by the formation of an Arab Legion. In this struggle, the Arabs were striving for the independence and the unity of Palestine, Syria and Iraq….
Hitler: “Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well. Hitler. Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. The moment that Germany’s tank divisions and air squadrons had made their appearance south of the Caucasus, the public appeal requested by the Grand Mufti could go out to the Arab world.”
It is fair to conclude that the official leader of the Muslims in Palestine, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was a full fledged Nazi war criminal and he was so declared at Nuremberg and sought by Yugoslavia as a war criminal after the war. He escaped to Egypt where he was given asylum and helped to organize many former Nazis and Nazi sympathizers against Israel.
It is also fair to say that Husseini’s pro-Nazi sympathies and support were widespread among his Palestinian followers, who regarded him as a hero even after the war and the disclosure of his role in Nazi atrocities. According to his biographer,
“Haj Amin’s popularity among the Palestinian Arabs and within the Arab states actually increased more than ever during his period with the Nazis… [because] large parts of the Arab world shared this sympathy with Nazi Germany during the Second World War.”
Nor was it merely a hatred of Zionism that animated this support for Nazi ideology. The grand mufti’s “hatred of Jews…was fathomless, and he gave full vent to it during his period of activity alongside the Nazis (October 1941-May 1945).” His speeches on Berlin Radio were anti-Semitic to the core: “Kill the Jews wherever you find them—this pleases God, history and religion.” In 1948, the National Palestinian Council elected Husseini as its president, even though he was still a wanted war criminal living in exile in Egypt. Indeed, Husseini is still revered today among many Palestinians as a national hero. Yasser Arafat, in an interview conducted in 2002 and reprinted in the Palestinian daily Al-Quds on August 2, 2002, calls Haj Amin al-Husseini “our hero,” referring to the Palestinian people. Arafat also boasted of being “one of his troops,” even though he knew he was “considered an ally of Nazis.” (If a German today were to call Hitler “our hero,” he would appropriately be labeled a neo-Nazi.!)
It is a myth therefore – another myth perpetrated by Iran’s myth-maker-in-chief – that the Palestinians played “no role” in the Holocaust. Considering the active support by the Palestinian leadership and masses for the losing side of a genocidal war, it was more than fair for the United Nations to offer them a state of their own on more than half of the arable land of the British mandate. The Sudeten Germans got a lot less!
Abbas Calls for Final Status of State on US Summit Agenda
GAZA CITY, 1 October 2007 — Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called yesterday for a clear agenda to be drawn up dealing with the final status of a future Palestinian state ahead of a US-sponsored Middle East peace conference. “We must have a clear and precise document so that we can begin detailed negotiations on final status questions,” Abbas told journalists after discussing the conference with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Cairo.
Abbas also hit back at Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni who had warned him to be “realistic” about a timeframe for Middle East peace after he said a peace deal could be signed within six months of the conference.
“Being realistic means that we discuss final status matters — does being realistic mean we’re going to the conference with a general statement? I don’t think that would be useful,” Abbas said. The Palestinian leader and other Arab powers want the conference to cover the most contested issues of the Middle East conflict, including borders of the future Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem and refugees.
Abbas’ talks with Mubarak came ahead of his meeting tomorrow with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during which “they will discuss a joint statement” to be issued at the conference, according to one of Olmert’s spokesmen. The negotiating teams set up during the last round of Abbas-Olmert talks on Sept. 10 will hold their first meeting in the coming days to work out the wording of the statement, Olmert’s spokesman said.
Tomorrow’s meeting will be the fourth in two months between the two leaders as they attempt to come up with some kind of an agreement before the Middle East conference, expected to take place in November in Annapolis, Maryland, according to Israeli media.
The two sides have been at odds over what they hope to accomplish leading up to the conference aimed at jump starting the dormant peace process. Israeli government spokesman David Baker said the Olmert-Abbas meeting would be held in the prime minister’s residence in Jerusalem.
Olmert and Abbas have been meeting regularly since June as part of a US-led campaign to shore up the Fatah leader in the occupied West Bank and to isolate Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In another development, the Hamas movement ruling Gaza has arrested Fatah member Yahya Rabah, who served as Palestinian representative to Yemen, accusing him of corruption, witnesses and officials said yesterday.
Rabah, who is also a columnist at the Al-Hayat Al-Jadida daily, was arrested overnight at his home, witnesses said. “Yahya Rabah was summoned after numerous complaints from citizens concerning problems of money,” a spokesman for the Hamas-run Interior Ministry, Ihab Al-Ghassin, told AFP. A writer and well-known columnist, Rabah represented the Palestinians in Yemen for more than 20 years until 2004. He was one of the founders of the Voice of Palestine, the radio station of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in the 1970s. Since seizing control of Gaza in mid-June, Hamas has arrested many members of the Fatah party. Fatah says Hamas is conducting a political witch hunt, a charge the Islamists have denied, saying they are battling rampant corruption.
Meanwhile, under a deal struck with Egypt, dozens of Hamas members were allowed to return to the Gaza Strip via the Rafah crossing early yesterday after months of being stuck at the border, a Hamas spokesman said. Around 100 Palestinians crossed into Gaza from Egypt before dawn through the Rafah crossing, which has been closed since mid-June.
“Numerous people who came back belong to Hamas,” said spokesman Taher Al-Nunu. “There was an accord between the (Hamas) government of Ismail Haniyeh and the Egyptian side, which allowed these people to re-enter.” There was no immediate comment from Egypt.
Abbas also hit back at Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni who had warned him to be “realistic” about a timeframe for Middle East peace after he said a peace deal could be signed within six months of the conference.
“Being realistic means that we discuss final status matters — does being realistic mean we’re going to the conference with a general statement? I don’t think that would be useful,” Abbas said. The Palestinian leader and other Arab powers want the conference to cover the most contested issues of the Middle East conflict, including borders of the future Palestinian state, the status of Jerusalem and refugees.
Abbas’ talks with Mubarak came ahead of his meeting tomorrow with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during which “they will discuss a joint statement” to be issued at the conference, according to one of Olmert’s spokesmen. The negotiating teams set up during the last round of Abbas-Olmert talks on Sept. 10 will hold their first meeting in the coming days to work out the wording of the statement, Olmert’s spokesman said.
Tomorrow’s meeting will be the fourth in two months between the two leaders as they attempt to come up with some kind of an agreement before the Middle East conference, expected to take place in November in Annapolis, Maryland, according to Israeli media.
The two sides have been at odds over what they hope to accomplish leading up to the conference aimed at jump starting the dormant peace process. Israeli government spokesman David Baker said the Olmert-Abbas meeting would be held in the prime minister’s residence in Jerusalem.
Olmert and Abbas have been meeting regularly since June as part of a US-led campaign to shore up the Fatah leader in the occupied West Bank and to isolate Hamas in the Gaza Strip. In another development, the Hamas movement ruling Gaza has arrested Fatah member Yahya Rabah, who served as Palestinian representative to Yemen, accusing him of corruption, witnesses and officials said yesterday.
Rabah, who is also a columnist at the Al-Hayat Al-Jadida daily, was arrested overnight at his home, witnesses said. “Yahya Rabah was summoned after numerous complaints from citizens concerning problems of money,” a spokesman for the Hamas-run Interior Ministry, Ihab Al-Ghassin, told AFP. A writer and well-known columnist, Rabah represented the Palestinians in Yemen for more than 20 years until 2004. He was one of the founders of the Voice of Palestine, the radio station of the Palestine Liberation Organization, in the 1970s. Since seizing control of Gaza in mid-June, Hamas has arrested many members of the Fatah party. Fatah says Hamas is conducting a political witch hunt, a charge the Islamists have denied, saying they are battling rampant corruption.
Meanwhile, under a deal struck with Egypt, dozens of Hamas members were allowed to return to the Gaza Strip via the Rafah crossing early yesterday after months of being stuck at the border, a Hamas spokesman said. Around 100 Palestinians crossed into Gaza from Egypt before dawn through the Rafah crossing, which has been closed since mid-June.
“Numerous people who came back belong to Hamas,” said spokesman Taher Al-Nunu. “There was an accord between the (Hamas) government of Ismail Haniyeh and the Egyptian side, which allowed these people to re-enter.” There was no immediate comment from Egypt.
Arafats Jihad: the Palestinians have never been interested in a state. They are part of the Islamo-fascist jihad against the West.
Arafat: Jihad to Liberate Jerusalem The Jihad [Islamic holy war] will continue, and Jerusalem is not [only] for the Palestinian people, it is for all the Muslim nation. Arafat's Johannesburg Speech Below are excerpts from a speech given by PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat on May 10, 1994, in a mosque in Johannesburg, South Africa. The text was transcribed directly from a tape recording of Arafat's address. Arafat's English is far from perfect, and his grammer is often choppy. Editorial comments and clarifications are in square brackets. ________________________________________
Arafat: Jihad to Liberate Jerusalem The Jihad [Islamic holy war] will continue, and Jerusalem is not [only] for the Palestinian people, it is for all the Muslim nation. You are responsible for Palestine and for Jerusalem before me [applause], the land which had been blessed for the whole world. Now after this agreement you have to understand our main battle. Our main battle is Jerusalem. Jerusalem. The first shrine of the Moslems. This has to be understood for everybody and for this I was insisting before signing to have a letter from them, the Israelis, that Jerusalem is one of the items which has to be under discussion and not the state, the permanent State of Israel! No! It is the permanent State of Palestine [applause]. Yes, it is the permanent State of Palestine. And in this letter it is very important for everybody to know I insist to mention and they have written it, and I have this letter, I didn't declare and publish it until now. In this letter we are responsible for all the Christian and the Moslem and Islamic holy sacred places. I have to speak frankly, I can't do it alone without the support of the Islamic nation. I can't do it alone. No, you have to come and to fight and to start the Jihad to liberate Jerusalem, your first shrine. In the agreement I insist with my colleagues, with my brothers, to mention that not exceeding the beginning of the third year, and after -- directly after -- the signing of their agreement, to start discussing the future of Jerusalem. The future of Jerusalem. What they are saying is that [Jerusalem] is their capital. No, it is not their capital. It is our capital. It is the first shrine of the Islam and the Moslems.
This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Mohammed and Koraish, and you remember the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and [considered] it a despicable truce. [Ed. note: The agreement with Koraish allowed Mohammed to pray in Mecca, which was under Koraish control, for ten years. When Mohammed grew stronger two years later, he abrogated the agreement, slaughtered the tribe of Koraish and conquered Mecca.] But Mohammed had accepted it and we are accepting now this peace offer. But to continue our way to Jerusalem, to the first shrine together and not alone. We are in need of you as Moslems, as warriors of Jihad [in Arabic, Mujaheddin]. Hat tip: http://www.iris.org.il/quotes/joburg.htm
Arafat: Jihad to Liberate Jerusalem The Jihad [Islamic holy war] will continue, and Jerusalem is not [only] for the Palestinian people, it is for all the Muslim nation. You are responsible for Palestine and for Jerusalem before me [applause], the land which had been blessed for the whole world. Now after this agreement you have to understand our main battle. Our main battle is Jerusalem. Jerusalem. The first shrine of the Moslems. This has to be understood for everybody and for this I was insisting before signing to have a letter from them, the Israelis, that Jerusalem is one of the items which has to be under discussion and not the state, the permanent State of Israel! No! It is the permanent State of Palestine [applause]. Yes, it is the permanent State of Palestine. And in this letter it is very important for everybody to know I insist to mention and they have written it, and I have this letter, I didn't declare and publish it until now. In this letter we are responsible for all the Christian and the Moslem and Islamic holy sacred places. I have to speak frankly, I can't do it alone without the support of the Islamic nation. I can't do it alone. No, you have to come and to fight and to start the Jihad to liberate Jerusalem, your first shrine. In the agreement I insist with my colleagues, with my brothers, to mention that not exceeding the beginning of the third year, and after -- directly after -- the signing of their agreement, to start discussing the future of Jerusalem. The future of Jerusalem. What they are saying is that [Jerusalem] is their capital. No, it is not their capital. It is our capital. It is the first shrine of the Islam and the Moslems.
This agreement, I am not considering it more than the agreement which had been signed between our prophet Mohammed and Koraish, and you remember the Caliph Omar had refused this agreement and [considered] it a despicable truce. [Ed. note: The agreement with Koraish allowed Mohammed to pray in Mecca, which was under Koraish control, for ten years. When Mohammed grew stronger two years later, he abrogated the agreement, slaughtered the tribe of Koraish and conquered Mecca.] But Mohammed had accepted it and we are accepting now this peace offer. But to continue our way to Jerusalem, to the first shrine together and not alone. We are in need of you as Moslems, as warriors of Jihad [in Arabic, Mujaheddin]. Hat tip: http://www.iris.org.il/quotes/joburg.htm
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Arafat Turned Down Jordanian Offer to be Deputy PM
King Hussein of Jordan offered Yasser Arafat the position of Deputy Prime Minister if he would agree to the annexation of Judea and Samaria to Jordan. Secret documents released only now by the National Archives of the United Kingdom show that King Hussein and other top Jordanian officials made the offer to Arafat in 1974. Nothing ever came of the offer.
Arafat, who was at the height of his leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) at the time, was actively involved in trying to declare a Palestinian state, with the support of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Jordan, however, was opposed, though it could not express it freely. Instead, its leaders wanted to include Judea and Samaria in their country, formalizing the
Just three years earlier, thousands of Jordanians and PLO supporters were killed in hostilities between the Jordanian Army and the PLO, culminating in the month known as Black September. In July 1971, the PLO was expelled from Jordan to Lebanon. Even today, the ruling Hashemite Kingdom continues to be wary of the 40% of the population claiming Palestinian origins.
The newly-released documents, which were forbidden for publication for 30 years, indicate that the Jordanian leaders attempted to convince Arafat not to declare an independent Palestinian state. The Jordanians told Arafat that this would pave the way for Israel to continue to control Judea and Samaria. The documents further indicate that the British were anxious to see whether Arafat would in fact declare a state, and what reactions there might be in Jordan and other Arab countries.
In addition, the documents show that wealthy Arab businessmen in Judea and Samaria were also not in favor of an independent state. Instead, they supported an alliance with Jordan, with which they had strong business ties.
Arafat, who was at the height of his leadership of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) at the time, was actively involved in trying to declare a Palestinian state, with the support of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Jordan, however, was opposed, though it could not express it freely. Instead, its leaders wanted to include Judea and Samaria in their country, formalizing the
Just three years earlier, thousands of Jordanians and PLO supporters were killed in hostilities between the Jordanian Army and the PLO, culminating in the month known as Black September. In July 1971, the PLO was expelled from Jordan to Lebanon. Even today, the ruling Hashemite Kingdom continues to be wary of the 40% of the population claiming Palestinian origins.
The newly-released documents, which were forbidden for publication for 30 years, indicate that the Jordanian leaders attempted to convince Arafat not to declare an independent Palestinian state. The Jordanians told Arafat that this would pave the way for Israel to continue to control Judea and Samaria. The documents further indicate that the British were anxious to see whether Arafat would in fact declare a state, and what reactions there might be in Jordan and other Arab countries.
In addition, the documents show that wealthy Arab businessmen in Judea and Samaria were also not in favor of an independent state. Instead, they supported an alliance with Jordan, with which they had strong business ties.
Tehran denies militants' claim of hidden nuclear facility
TEHRAN: Iran denied on Friday claims by an opposition group that it is building a new bomb-proof underground site for developing nuclear weapons, linked by tunnel to an existing complex at Natanz. Ali Larijani, the chief for international relations of the Supreme National Security Council, "denies the existence of a secret nuclear site in Iran," according to a statement that Larijani's deputy, Javad Vaidi, read on national television. "These baseless and erroneous accusations are aimed at destroying the positive climate ... created by Iran's cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the president's trip to New York," the statement said, referring to Iranian head of state Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
They are also aimed at unsettling matters ahead of talks Friday among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with Germany, on possible further UN sanctions over Tehran's refusing to stop enriching uranium, he said.
On Thursday, Mehdi Abrichamtchi, of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), said "information we have from inside the regime indicates that the site is destined for military nuclear activity, mainly for the further enrichment of uranium."
Located in central Iran, it consists of a "vast underground area beneath the Karkass Mountains linked to the surface by two tunnels and connecting with a third tunnel" to the Natanz nuclear complex, 5 kilometers away, Abrichamtchi told a press conference in Paris.
"The site is protected against aerial attack. If Natanz is bombed, it won't be touched," he said. "To maintain secrecy, the area has been declared a military zone and the regime has bought up all the local land."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
According to the NCRI, plans for the new complex were drawn up two years ago and it will be operational in six months.
In July, the US-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) reported satellite evidence showing Iran was building a "tunnel facility near the Natanz uranium enrichment complex."
In 2002, the NCRI was the first to reveal the existence of secret nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak. Its new allegations come at a time of growing international tension over Iran's nuclear program.
The NCRI is the political arm of the People's Mujahideen of Iran, which has been declared a terrorist organization in the EU and the US.
The IAEA has been probing Iran's program for the past four years but has so far failed to label its purpose as military.
Tehran rejects Western charges that it is trying to build atomic weapons under the guise of its civilian nuclear program and insists it is entitled to pursue uranium enrichment as a signatory to the non-Proliferation Treaty.
The UN Security Council has already passed two rounds of sanctions to force Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, which can be used to supply the fuel for power generation or, possibly, nuclear arms. - AFP
They are also aimed at unsettling matters ahead of talks Friday among the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, along with Germany, on possible further UN sanctions over Tehran's refusing to stop enriching uranium, he said.
On Thursday, Mehdi Abrichamtchi, of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), said "information we have from inside the regime indicates that the site is destined for military nuclear activity, mainly for the further enrichment of uranium."
Located in central Iran, it consists of a "vast underground area beneath the Karkass Mountains linked to the surface by two tunnels and connecting with a third tunnel" to the Natanz nuclear complex, 5 kilometers away, Abrichamtchi told a press conference in Paris.
"The site is protected against aerial attack. If Natanz is bombed, it won't be touched," he said. "To maintain secrecy, the area has been declared a military zone and the regime has bought up all the local land."
http://www.dailystar.com.lb
According to the NCRI, plans for the new complex were drawn up two years ago and it will be operational in six months.
In July, the US-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) reported satellite evidence showing Iran was building a "tunnel facility near the Natanz uranium enrichment complex."
In 2002, the NCRI was the first to reveal the existence of secret nuclear facilities at Natanz and Arak. Its new allegations come at a time of growing international tension over Iran's nuclear program.
The NCRI is the political arm of the People's Mujahideen of Iran, which has been declared a terrorist organization in the EU and the US.
The IAEA has been probing Iran's program for the past four years but has so far failed to label its purpose as military.
Tehran rejects Western charges that it is trying to build atomic weapons under the guise of its civilian nuclear program and insists it is entitled to pursue uranium enrichment as a signatory to the non-Proliferation Treaty.
The UN Security Council has already passed two rounds of sanctions to force Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, which can be used to supply the fuel for power generation or, possibly, nuclear arms. - AFP
Abbas says even 92% of West Bank, Gaza is unacceptable
An offer similar to the 92 percent of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip for a Palestinian state extended at Camp David in 2000 would not be enough, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas told The Washington Post in an interview due to be published on Sunday. He insisted on the pre-1967 borders, speaking ahead of Tuesday's scheduled meeting with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in his Jerusalem succa to discuss a memorandum of understanding on principles for a peace deal.
The two leaders are meeting in advance of November's Middle East conference that is likely to take place in Annapolis, Maryland. Representatives of Israel, the US and the Palestinians are expected to be joined there by officials from moderate Arab states.
On Friday, Abbas told AFP he thought a final agreement could be hammered out within six months of the November talks.
Speaking with the Washington Post, Abbas said Saudi Arabia would be at the conference.
"Saudi Arabia had reservations in the beginning because the whole situation was very vague. Now, everything is clear. Yesterday, I met with [Saudi Foreign Minister] Prince Saud al-Faisal, and he was satisfied. So I believe they will attend the conference," Abbas said.
A working group of Israelis and Palestinians is also expected to begin hammering out a joint understanding between the two sides to be issued at the conference.
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni met with Abbas in New York on Friday to discuss the November talks. PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki, Abbas adviser Yasser Abed Rabo and former PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala) were also present.
Livni told Abbas, "We need to be courageous in our decision making and at the same time wise enough to advance the process in an intelligent and realistic manner so that it will not fail."
Neither she nor Olmert supports a return to the pre-1967 border.
Livni also held talks with former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, ex-president Bill Clinton and New York Sen. Hilary Clinton.
Addressing the UN General Assembly earlier Friday, Abbas vowed to pursue peace with Israel.
Abbas pledged that the "olive branch of peace that never withers or dies, will not fall from my hands," an apparent reference to Yasser Arafat's 1974 address to the same forum. Then, Arafat said he carried both an olive branch and "the freedom fighter's gun," and implored the world not to let that branch fall from his hands.
"Today, there is not the slightest obstacle to promoting the holding of [the US-sponsored] peace meeting, in particular because our brother Arab countries have demonstrated through the Arab Peace Initiative their true readiness to bring about a just, lasting and comprehensive peace," Abbas said.
"From this podium of the United Nations, I say to the Palestinian people in Palestine and abroad, I can tell them that there is a historic horizon emerging so that our people can restore their legitimate rights and achieve [the] peace and prosperity to which we aspire," he said.
Abbas reiterated his government's position that the key to solving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was directly addressing the "final status" issues, including Palestinian statehood, the status of Jerusalem and the right of return for refugees.
In his Washington Post interview, he expanded on the future of a Palestinian state.
"We will be flexible," said Abbas. "But before 1947, we had 95% of Palestine. In 1937, the partition plan gave the Israelis only part of Palestine. And they were very happy at that time. [David] Ben-Gurion was very happy with it. It didn't work. After that [came] the 1947 partition plan - we rejected this, so we lost... Now, we accept [the pre-'67 borders]."
He added that like Arafat, he too would have rejected the offer Bill Clinton made at Camp David in 2000.
"Ninety-two [percent] is unacceptable to us," Abbas said.
He then gave a nod in the direction of Vice Premier Haim Ramon's idea of giving the Palestinians parts of east Jerusalem.
"In principle, this is the right direction. The Palestinians should have their own part and the Israelis should have their own part... I say and have always said that east Jerusalem is an occupied territory. We have to restore it."
Asked if he would demand to return to his birthplace, Safed, Abbas said: "This is my right, but how I will use this right is up to me and to the refugees and to the agreement which will take place between us."
"We want to find a permanent solution," added Abbas. "The Israelis want security, and we are in need of independence. We want to bridge the gap during the negotiations."
"We should have a safe passage between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank because Gaza is a part of Palestine... all the Arabs support this vision," he continued.
Abbas said he was not interested in returning to a national unity government with Hamas.
Abbas said Olmert was a sincere and serious leader who wanted to make peace. "I know his internal problems. But he is determined to do something," he added.
In his talks with Olmert, Abbas said, "We tackled all the sensitive issues like borders, refugees, settlements, Jerusalem and security... We have already established the teams that are drafting an agreement about these sensitive issues.
"After the conference, we will start negotiating the details of these issues in order to have a peace treaty," said Abbas.
Nevertheless, Arab nations have been reluctant to commit to attending, fearing that a failure to address the final status issues will result in a gathering high on show, but low on substance. An agenda has yet to be set and the invitations have not been sent.
Syrian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Bushra Kanafani said Damascus wanted answers to a number of questions, including details on the agenda of the meeting, and whether the Syria-Israel dispute over the Golan Heights would be discussed.
Abbas said he would take whatever came out of the conference to the Palestinian people in a referendum.
Arab officials offered a measure of guarded support Friday in the General Assembly, with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit saying the proposed conference, if well prepared, could provide "an important opportunity to achieve long-awaited progress."
His Jordanian counterpart, Abdul-Ilah al-Khatib, said it "may be the last chance to achieve progress" and, as a result, the US and others must ensure it tackles the final status issues.
Earlier, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa told reporters his discussions over the past few days with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others were "reassuring" and that there was a strong desire to have all parties participate in the meeting.
"We, on the Arab side, have shown through our initiative that we are ready for peace with Israel," he said. "We are ready to turn the page."
But Moussa also stressed that the Arabs were not prepared to negotiate continuously if the commitment to the process was not mutual. At the very least, he said, Israel should halt the expansion of settlements.
"It is inconceivable for us to sit and talk about the new state of Palestine... while the map that would be before us, at that moment, would change if we meet in the afternoon because of building settlements," Moussa told reporters on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. "This has to stop."
"If they [the Israelis] are not ready, then we will not run after them. But they should not blame anyone if there is a sense of hopelessness" and actions that stem from that despair, he said.
AP contributed to this report.•
The two leaders are meeting in advance of November's Middle East conference that is likely to take place in Annapolis, Maryland. Representatives of Israel, the US and the Palestinians are expected to be joined there by officials from moderate Arab states.
On Friday, Abbas told AFP he thought a final agreement could be hammered out within six months of the November talks.
Speaking with the Washington Post, Abbas said Saudi Arabia would be at the conference.
"Saudi Arabia had reservations in the beginning because the whole situation was very vague. Now, everything is clear. Yesterday, I met with [Saudi Foreign Minister] Prince Saud al-Faisal, and he was satisfied. So I believe they will attend the conference," Abbas said.
A working group of Israelis and Palestinians is also expected to begin hammering out a joint understanding between the two sides to be issued at the conference.
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni met with Abbas in New York on Friday to discuss the November talks. PA Foreign Minister Riyad al-Malki, Abbas adviser Yasser Abed Rabo and former PA Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala) were also present.
Livni told Abbas, "We need to be courageous in our decision making and at the same time wise enough to advance the process in an intelligent and realistic manner so that it will not fail."
Neither she nor Olmert supports a return to the pre-1967 border.
Livni also held talks with former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, ex-president Bill Clinton and New York Sen. Hilary Clinton.
Addressing the UN General Assembly earlier Friday, Abbas vowed to pursue peace with Israel.
Abbas pledged that the "olive branch of peace that never withers or dies, will not fall from my hands," an apparent reference to Yasser Arafat's 1974 address to the same forum. Then, Arafat said he carried both an olive branch and "the freedom fighter's gun," and implored the world not to let that branch fall from his hands.
"Today, there is not the slightest obstacle to promoting the holding of [the US-sponsored] peace meeting, in particular because our brother Arab countries have demonstrated through the Arab Peace Initiative their true readiness to bring about a just, lasting and comprehensive peace," Abbas said.
"From this podium of the United Nations, I say to the Palestinian people in Palestine and abroad, I can tell them that there is a historic horizon emerging so that our people can restore their legitimate rights and achieve [the] peace and prosperity to which we aspire," he said.
Abbas reiterated his government's position that the key to solving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was directly addressing the "final status" issues, including Palestinian statehood, the status of Jerusalem and the right of return for refugees.
In his Washington Post interview, he expanded on the future of a Palestinian state.
"We will be flexible," said Abbas. "But before 1947, we had 95% of Palestine. In 1937, the partition plan gave the Israelis only part of Palestine. And they were very happy at that time. [David] Ben-Gurion was very happy with it. It didn't work. After that [came] the 1947 partition plan - we rejected this, so we lost... Now, we accept [the pre-'67 borders]."
He added that like Arafat, he too would have rejected the offer Bill Clinton made at Camp David in 2000.
"Ninety-two [percent] is unacceptable to us," Abbas said.
He then gave a nod in the direction of Vice Premier Haim Ramon's idea of giving the Palestinians parts of east Jerusalem.
"In principle, this is the right direction. The Palestinians should have their own part and the Israelis should have their own part... I say and have always said that east Jerusalem is an occupied territory. We have to restore it."
Asked if he would demand to return to his birthplace, Safed, Abbas said: "This is my right, but how I will use this right is up to me and to the refugees and to the agreement which will take place between us."
"We want to find a permanent solution," added Abbas. "The Israelis want security, and we are in need of independence. We want to bridge the gap during the negotiations."
"We should have a safe passage between the Gaza Strip and the West Bank because Gaza is a part of Palestine... all the Arabs support this vision," he continued.
Abbas said he was not interested in returning to a national unity government with Hamas.
Abbas said Olmert was a sincere and serious leader who wanted to make peace. "I know his internal problems. But he is determined to do something," he added.
In his talks with Olmert, Abbas said, "We tackled all the sensitive issues like borders, refugees, settlements, Jerusalem and security... We have already established the teams that are drafting an agreement about these sensitive issues.
"After the conference, we will start negotiating the details of these issues in order to have a peace treaty," said Abbas.
Nevertheless, Arab nations have been reluctant to commit to attending, fearing that a failure to address the final status issues will result in a gathering high on show, but low on substance. An agenda has yet to be set and the invitations have not been sent.
Syrian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Bushra Kanafani said Damascus wanted answers to a number of questions, including details on the agenda of the meeting, and whether the Syria-Israel dispute over the Golan Heights would be discussed.
Abbas said he would take whatever came out of the conference to the Palestinian people in a referendum.
Arab officials offered a measure of guarded support Friday in the General Assembly, with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul-Gheit saying the proposed conference, if well prepared, could provide "an important opportunity to achieve long-awaited progress."
His Jordanian counterpart, Abdul-Ilah al-Khatib, said it "may be the last chance to achieve progress" and, as a result, the US and others must ensure it tackles the final status issues.
Earlier, Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa told reporters his discussions over the past few days with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and others were "reassuring" and that there was a strong desire to have all parties participate in the meeting.
"We, on the Arab side, have shown through our initiative that we are ready for peace with Israel," he said. "We are ready to turn the page."
But Moussa also stressed that the Arabs were not prepared to negotiate continuously if the commitment to the process was not mutual. At the very least, he said, Israel should halt the expansion of settlements.
"It is inconceivable for us to sit and talk about the new state of Palestine... while the map that would be before us, at that moment, would change if we meet in the afternoon because of building settlements," Moussa told reporters on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. "This has to stop."
"If they [the Israelis] are not ready, then we will not run after them. But they should not blame anyone if there is a sense of hopelessness" and actions that stem from that despair, he said.
AP contributed to this report.•
US report slams religious freedom in Egypt
CAIRO: According to the US State Department’s annual report on religious freedom, conditions in Egypt as well as a number of other countries including Iran, Iraq and China, have deteriorated A significant section of the 800-page report released Friday is allocated to religious freedom in Egypt, and tackles issues such as the freedom to choose one’s religion, the legal status of minority religions like Christianity and Baha’ism, sectarianism, forced conversions, and freedom to build places of worship.
Egypt’s courts have strongly resisted attempts by Muslims to convert to Christianity in recent months. High-profile cases such as those of Mohammed Hegazy and 12 Christian-born Muslims who are currently pressing to revert to Christianity, have shone the spotlight on the country’s attitude toward religious freedom.
Egypt has also been wracked by numerous incidents of sectarian violence, and a series of clashes between Muslims and Christians in areas like Bimha, South of Cairo, and Udayssat, near Luxor, are cited in the report.
Many such incidents, the report notes, arise from disagreements over the building and repairing of churches, the approval process for which is often “hindered by lengthy delays, often measured in years”.
The report acknowledges that a 2005 Presidential decree allows local authorities to deal with requests for church building and reparations in order to speed up the process, but points out that delays by the Interior Ministry and local authorities cause many requests to reach the President “slowly or not at all”.
A statement issued yesterday by Egypt’s Foreign Ministry rejected the report, saying it "confuses official policy with events caused by societal sensitivities."
Yet the refusal to recognize the Bahai faith, which is also condemned in the report, is official government policy. Members of this group experience “personal and collective hardship,” the report says.
The Bahais are denied ID cards, birth and death certificates, and their marriages are not recognized by law. They also face difficulties availing of public services such as health and education.
According to Labib Hanna, a Bahai and professor of mathematics at Cairo University, this makes life extremely difficult for the Bahai community.
“Even the simple things like getting my driving license renewed, are hard,” he told Daily news Egypt.
An April 2006 decision by the Administrative Court, which had supported the right of Bahai citizens to receive ID cards and birth certificates with religion noted on the documents, was overturned in December 2006 following a government appeal. Members of the Bahai community are currently fighting the decision in court.
Hanna agrees with the report’s premise that religious freedom has declined in recent years, but says he is hopeful that civil society organizations and the National Council for Human Rights, who work to promote religious freedom, will bring about change.
Although there has been a “general decline” in freedom of religion in recent years says Yousef Sidhom, editor of Christian weekly Watani, there have been some encouraging signs too.
“Christians are making a comeback in public life,” he told Daily News Egypt, “in marked contrast to their withdrawal from Egyptian public life over the past 30 years.”
Sidhom points out that more Copts were elected to the National Democratic Party’s (NDP) regional commissions this month (albeit because they would have “no chance” in national elections), and adds that the public controversy over conversions indicates that people are becoming bolder about their right to choose what they believe in.
“Conversion cases have always been there but were beneath the surface. Now more individuals have the courage to reveal their intentions to convert.”
The report goes on to criticize the under-representation of Christians in politics, pointing out that although Christians comprise between 8-12 percent of the population, they hold less that two percent of the seats in the People’s Assembly and Shoura Council.
Government practices, it continues, discriminate against Christians in hiring for the public sector and making staff appointments to public universities. Christians are also banned from studying at the publicly-funded Al-Azhar schools and university, and public funds pay Muslim imams but not Christian clergy.
The Foreign Ministry maintains that the report “reflects an ignorance of the true situation in Egypt”.
"Egyptian-American relations are broad and diverse, but that does not give the United States the right to interfere in Egypt’s internal affairs under any pretext,” the Ministry said in a statement.
Egypt’s courts have strongly resisted attempts by Muslims to convert to Christianity in recent months. High-profile cases such as those of Mohammed Hegazy and 12 Christian-born Muslims who are currently pressing to revert to Christianity, have shone the spotlight on the country’s attitude toward religious freedom.
Egypt has also been wracked by numerous incidents of sectarian violence, and a series of clashes between Muslims and Christians in areas like Bimha, South of Cairo, and Udayssat, near Luxor, are cited in the report.
Many such incidents, the report notes, arise from disagreements over the building and repairing of churches, the approval process for which is often “hindered by lengthy delays, often measured in years”.
The report acknowledges that a 2005 Presidential decree allows local authorities to deal with requests for church building and reparations in order to speed up the process, but points out that delays by the Interior Ministry and local authorities cause many requests to reach the President “slowly or not at all”.
A statement issued yesterday by Egypt’s Foreign Ministry rejected the report, saying it "confuses official policy with events caused by societal sensitivities."
Yet the refusal to recognize the Bahai faith, which is also condemned in the report, is official government policy. Members of this group experience “personal and collective hardship,” the report says.
The Bahais are denied ID cards, birth and death certificates, and their marriages are not recognized by law. They also face difficulties availing of public services such as health and education.
According to Labib Hanna, a Bahai and professor of mathematics at Cairo University, this makes life extremely difficult for the Bahai community.
“Even the simple things like getting my driving license renewed, are hard,” he told Daily news Egypt.
An April 2006 decision by the Administrative Court, which had supported the right of Bahai citizens to receive ID cards and birth certificates with religion noted on the documents, was overturned in December 2006 following a government appeal. Members of the Bahai community are currently fighting the decision in court.
Hanna agrees with the report’s premise that religious freedom has declined in recent years, but says he is hopeful that civil society organizations and the National Council for Human Rights, who work to promote religious freedom, will bring about change.
Although there has been a “general decline” in freedom of religion in recent years says Yousef Sidhom, editor of Christian weekly Watani, there have been some encouraging signs too.
“Christians are making a comeback in public life,” he told Daily News Egypt, “in marked contrast to their withdrawal from Egyptian public life over the past 30 years.”
Sidhom points out that more Copts were elected to the National Democratic Party’s (NDP) regional commissions this month (albeit because they would have “no chance” in national elections), and adds that the public controversy over conversions indicates that people are becoming bolder about their right to choose what they believe in.
“Conversion cases have always been there but were beneath the surface. Now more individuals have the courage to reveal their intentions to convert.”
The report goes on to criticize the under-representation of Christians in politics, pointing out that although Christians comprise between 8-12 percent of the population, they hold less that two percent of the seats in the People’s Assembly and Shoura Council.
Government practices, it continues, discriminate against Christians in hiring for the public sector and making staff appointments to public universities. Christians are also banned from studying at the publicly-funded Al-Azhar schools and university, and public funds pay Muslim imams but not Christian clergy.
The Foreign Ministry maintains that the report “reflects an ignorance of the true situation in Egypt”.
"Egyptian-American relations are broad and diverse, but that does not give the United States the right to interfere in Egypt’s internal affairs under any pretext,” the Ministry said in a statement.
Egypts ranking drops from 70 to 105 in international corruption index
Corruption is perceived as rampant in Egypt, as the country’s ranking declined from 70 to 105 out of 180 countries listed on the Corruption Perceptions Index 2007 (CPI) recently released by Transparency International, an anti-corruption watchdog. Egypt scored 2.9 on the index — way below last year’s 3.3 score. The Index examines perceptions of the degree of corruption as seen by business people and country analysts. It scores countries on a scale from zero (highly corrupt) to ten (highly clean).
Egypt was surpassed by countries such as Israel (30), Qatar (32), United Arab Emirates (34), South Africa (43), Bahrain (46), Jordan (53), Kuwait (60), Colombia (68), Saudi Arabia (79), and Lebanon (99).
Somalia and Myanmar share the lowest score of 1.4. At the opposite end are Denmark, Finland and New Zealand with 9.4, showing fair judiciaries and transparent public finances. War-stricken countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Sudan have also deeply suffered from rampant corruption and are at the very bottom of the index.
Transparency International (TI) is a global coalition leading the fight against corruption which publishes its annual ranking of how corrupt different countries are perceived. As its name indicates, the CPI does not measure corruption itself. Rather, it looks at expert perceptions of the level of corruption in a given country’s public sector.
The index findings are in line with a recent public opinion poll conducted by the Information Decision Support Center that revealed that 75.2 percent of Egyptians believe corruption exists in the country with a prevalence of 66 percent.
The index finds that the divide in perceived levels of corruption in rich and poor countries remains as sharp as ever, and that a strong correlation between corruption and poverty continues to be evident. “Forty percent of those scoring below three…are classified by the World Bank as low income countries,” reveals the report.
“Despite some gains, corruption remains an enormous drain on resources sorely needed for education, health and infrastructure,” said Huguette Labelle, TI chair, in a press statement. “Low scoring countries need to take these results seriously and act now to strengthen accountability in public institutions. But action from top scoring countries is just as important, particularly in cracking down on corrupt activity in the private sector.”
The index states that the poorest countries suffer most under the yoke of corruption. “But corruption is not simply a problem of poor countries, as continuing corporate and government scandals show,” Labelle pointed out. “And with the cross-border nature of corruption in poorer countries, rich and poor nations share the heavy responsibility of breaking the corruption cycle.”
She blamed multinationals for helping spread corruption in developing countries and criticized them for double standards, paying bribes in poor countries while behaving better at home.
It is not surprising, she said, that rich countries come at the top of the index because they tend to have powerful advantages: political stability, material wealth, mature freedom of information and regulatory regimes, and a relatively clean public sector.
“But despite the very real good news for these countries, there is an unseemly dark side: the world’s richest countries — the CPI’s top scorers — are often complicit in driving corruption in poor nations, and in stymieing efforts to return funds stolen by corrupt officials and stashed abroad,” she stated. “The bribe money that buys a champagne lifestyle for corrupt officials in the poorest nations often originates in multinational companies based in the world’s richest countries — the CPI’s top scorers.”
Labelle added that bribery on foreign shores was no longer an acceptable business strategy, and that perpetrators were increasingly feeling the heat. “But corruption isn’t just brown envelopes, slipped under tables or passed in dark alleys.”
Too often, she explained, corruption has meant wholesale theft of public resources by leaders and high-level public officials exploiting pliant or non-existent enforcement systems. “Billions of dollars of this money, so desperately needed for basic services in the poorest countries, has quietly traversed borders and landed in bank accounts in financial centers in some of the wealthiest places on earth.”
While corruption is a problem with global roots, good governance still begins at home. The index indicates that poorest countries suffer most from corruption, and that it is ultimately their responsibility to tackle the problem.
“The first order of business is to improve transparency in financial management, from revenue collection to expenditure, as well as strengthening oversight and putting an end to the impunity of corrupt officials,” reads the index.
The index stresses on the vital role an independent and professional judicial system plays in combating corruption as well as promoting public, donor, and investor confidence. “If courts cannot be relied upon to pursue corrupt officials or to assist in tracing and returning illicit wealth, progress against corruption is unlikely.”
Not only must judicial proceedings be freed of political influence, judges themselves must subject to disciplinary rules, limited immunity and a code of judicial conduct to help ensure justice is served.
The CPI also calls on top scoring countries to help developing nations build legal and technical expertise to pursue corrupt officials and the assets they loot.
“Aid money should be used to strengthen institutions of governance and oversight in developing nations, and to incorporate strengthened integrity and corruption prevention into poverty reduction programs,” Labelle suggested.
She added that anti-money laundering measures needed to be introduced to eradicate safe havens for stolen assets. Moreover, developed countries must strictly enforce the Anti-Bribery Convention, which criminalizes the bribery of foreign public officials, as lack of compliance with the convention continues to hinder corruption investigations and prosecutions.
“As we launch this index, the world's leaders are gathering at the UN general assembly. The results of the index are a warning signal for them, and for many, that corruption remains a major impediment to deal with poverty and world stability,” she said. “We look to them for explicit action to end corruption, through domestic reform and by supporting the UN Convention and initiatives such as the new World Bank/United Nations asset recovery program.”
Egypt was surpassed by countries such as Israel (30), Qatar (32), United Arab Emirates (34), South Africa (43), Bahrain (46), Jordan (53), Kuwait (60), Colombia (68), Saudi Arabia (79), and Lebanon (99).
Somalia and Myanmar share the lowest score of 1.4. At the opposite end are Denmark, Finland and New Zealand with 9.4, showing fair judiciaries and transparent public finances. War-stricken countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Sudan have also deeply suffered from rampant corruption and are at the very bottom of the index.
Transparency International (TI) is a global coalition leading the fight against corruption which publishes its annual ranking of how corrupt different countries are perceived. As its name indicates, the CPI does not measure corruption itself. Rather, it looks at expert perceptions of the level of corruption in a given country’s public sector.
The index findings are in line with a recent public opinion poll conducted by the Information Decision Support Center that revealed that 75.2 percent of Egyptians believe corruption exists in the country with a prevalence of 66 percent.
The index finds that the divide in perceived levels of corruption in rich and poor countries remains as sharp as ever, and that a strong correlation between corruption and poverty continues to be evident. “Forty percent of those scoring below three…are classified by the World Bank as low income countries,” reveals the report.
“Despite some gains, corruption remains an enormous drain on resources sorely needed for education, health and infrastructure,” said Huguette Labelle, TI chair, in a press statement. “Low scoring countries need to take these results seriously and act now to strengthen accountability in public institutions. But action from top scoring countries is just as important, particularly in cracking down on corrupt activity in the private sector.”
The index states that the poorest countries suffer most under the yoke of corruption. “But corruption is not simply a problem of poor countries, as continuing corporate and government scandals show,” Labelle pointed out. “And with the cross-border nature of corruption in poorer countries, rich and poor nations share the heavy responsibility of breaking the corruption cycle.”
She blamed multinationals for helping spread corruption in developing countries and criticized them for double standards, paying bribes in poor countries while behaving better at home.
It is not surprising, she said, that rich countries come at the top of the index because they tend to have powerful advantages: political stability, material wealth, mature freedom of information and regulatory regimes, and a relatively clean public sector.
“But despite the very real good news for these countries, there is an unseemly dark side: the world’s richest countries — the CPI’s top scorers — are often complicit in driving corruption in poor nations, and in stymieing efforts to return funds stolen by corrupt officials and stashed abroad,” she stated. “The bribe money that buys a champagne lifestyle for corrupt officials in the poorest nations often originates in multinational companies based in the world’s richest countries — the CPI’s top scorers.”
Labelle added that bribery on foreign shores was no longer an acceptable business strategy, and that perpetrators were increasingly feeling the heat. “But corruption isn’t just brown envelopes, slipped under tables or passed in dark alleys.”
Too often, she explained, corruption has meant wholesale theft of public resources by leaders and high-level public officials exploiting pliant or non-existent enforcement systems. “Billions of dollars of this money, so desperately needed for basic services in the poorest countries, has quietly traversed borders and landed in bank accounts in financial centers in some of the wealthiest places on earth.”
While corruption is a problem with global roots, good governance still begins at home. The index indicates that poorest countries suffer most from corruption, and that it is ultimately their responsibility to tackle the problem.
“The first order of business is to improve transparency in financial management, from revenue collection to expenditure, as well as strengthening oversight and putting an end to the impunity of corrupt officials,” reads the index.
The index stresses on the vital role an independent and professional judicial system plays in combating corruption as well as promoting public, donor, and investor confidence. “If courts cannot be relied upon to pursue corrupt officials or to assist in tracing and returning illicit wealth, progress against corruption is unlikely.”
Not only must judicial proceedings be freed of political influence, judges themselves must subject to disciplinary rules, limited immunity and a code of judicial conduct to help ensure justice is served.
The CPI also calls on top scoring countries to help developing nations build legal and technical expertise to pursue corrupt officials and the assets they loot.
“Aid money should be used to strengthen institutions of governance and oversight in developing nations, and to incorporate strengthened integrity and corruption prevention into poverty reduction programs,” Labelle suggested.
She added that anti-money laundering measures needed to be introduced to eradicate safe havens for stolen assets. Moreover, developed countries must strictly enforce the Anti-Bribery Convention, which criminalizes the bribery of foreign public officials, as lack of compliance with the convention continues to hinder corruption investigations and prosecutions.
“As we launch this index, the world's leaders are gathering at the UN general assembly. The results of the index are a warning signal for them, and for many, that corruption remains a major impediment to deal with poverty and world stability,” she said. “We look to them for explicit action to end corruption, through domestic reform and by supporting the UN Convention and initiatives such as the new World Bank/United Nations asset recovery program.”
A very exceptional trap
Is the Jewish people capable of defending itself properly? This may seem an absurd question to ask when Israel has created a formidably armed society in an explicit renunciation of the powerlessness of the Jewish diaspora.
But with Israel under internal and external pressure over its decision to designate Gaza a ‘hostile entity’ and the prospect that it may cut off its fuel and electricity, we might ponder the absurdity of it not doing so.
After all, Israel is under continuous rocket bombardment from Gaza. What other people is expected to provide its enemies with the means to continue to perpetrate their murderous attacks? What other people, moreover, expects itself to make such provision?
Such reflections are brought into focus by Jews and Power, a new book by Ruth Wisse, a professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard. In this subtle and learned reflection on the political effect of exile and dispersion on the Jews, Wisse argues that their very success in adapting to the societies where they settled has also been a source of profound weakness.
They believed that exile from the land of Israel was punishment for turning away from God. Far from fighting their enemies, therefore, the Jews concentrated on reaching an accommodation with their diaspora hosts which would allow them better to obey God’s laws. Their redemption would not come from defeating their persecutors. It was God who would do that — but only if the Jews mended their own behaviour.
With their focus shifting inwards towards their spiritual failings, the Jews accordingly became less pre-occupied with the culpability of their enemies and instead dwelt upon the blame they attached to themselves.
Wisse provides three modern examples of this ‘moral solipsism’. In 1939, a Jewish mother in Warsaw rescued her little son from two bullying German soldiers. ‘Come inside the courtyard and za a mentsh,’ she said, telling the child in Yiddish to become ‘what a human being ought to be’.
The same tendency — to see the real danger in themselves rather than their persecutors — was on display in Golda Meir’s famous reproach to Anwar Sadat that, while she could forgive the Egyptian army for killing Israeli soldiers, she could never forgive Sadat for forcing her young soldiers to kill young Egyptians.
Wisse’s third example was Israel’s rush to sign the Oslo accords — with an enemy which, presented with the Jews’ yearning to forgive it so that they would never have to attack it, took the opportunity it was thus offered to attack the Jews with redoubled ferocity.
Such a suicidal politics of accommodation also makes the Jews vulnerable to internal treachery — as we can see from today’s Jewish Israel-bashers who succumb, in Wisse’s words, to ‘the corrupting temptations of powerlessness’ by seeking personal advantage at the expense of their own community.
Conniving at the obnoxious canard of illegitimate global Jewish power, they claim that Israel’s military actions prove that power has corrupted Jewish values by turning Jews from victims into oppressors.
As Wisse points out, this is entirely contrary to the facts. Tiny Israel’s power to defend itself against millions of Arab and Muslim enemies is hugely constrained not only by international pressure but by its own disinclination to fight those from whom it seeks acceptance instead. Jews are patently no more inclined to subdue the Arabs than they were the nations of the diaspora in which they lived.
The Jews are trapped on the proverbial horns of a dilemma. Effective self-defence means they must be allowed to behave like any other people under attack. But the Jews are not like any other people. Jewish moral exceptionalism entails a veneration of human life and concern to protect the innocents, even among the most cruel of enemies. Hence the basic humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza.
But at the same time, the Jews have a moral obligation to defend their own people. Failing to defend themselves so that their own innocents are abandoned to death and destruction and Jewish peoplehood put at risk of extinction is a negation of Jewish ethics.
This is why the ‘asymmetrical warfare’ of Palestinianism is such a threat to Israel. Attack by the armies of neighbouring states poses such a direct existential threat to Israel there are few qualms about self-defence. But fashioning a wretched people into a weapon of war plays upon the weakness caused by Jewish exceptionalism and ‘moral solipsism’, so that the Jews feel guilty about the welfare of their attackers even as the rockets rain down on them from Gaza.
The Arabs know this, and play the Jews like fish on a line. There is no easy resolution of this dilemma; but Ruth Wisse’s book helps us understand the exquisite awfulness of the trap.
But with Israel under internal and external pressure over its decision to designate Gaza a ‘hostile entity’ and the prospect that it may cut off its fuel and electricity, we might ponder the absurdity of it not doing so.
After all, Israel is under continuous rocket bombardment from Gaza. What other people is expected to provide its enemies with the means to continue to perpetrate their murderous attacks? What other people, moreover, expects itself to make such provision?
Such reflections are brought into focus by Jews and Power, a new book by Ruth Wisse, a professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at Harvard. In this subtle and learned reflection on the political effect of exile and dispersion on the Jews, Wisse argues that their very success in adapting to the societies where they settled has also been a source of profound weakness.
They believed that exile from the land of Israel was punishment for turning away from God. Far from fighting their enemies, therefore, the Jews concentrated on reaching an accommodation with their diaspora hosts which would allow them better to obey God’s laws. Their redemption would not come from defeating their persecutors. It was God who would do that — but only if the Jews mended their own behaviour.
With their focus shifting inwards towards their spiritual failings, the Jews accordingly became less pre-occupied with the culpability of their enemies and instead dwelt upon the blame they attached to themselves.
Wisse provides three modern examples of this ‘moral solipsism’. In 1939, a Jewish mother in Warsaw rescued her little son from two bullying German soldiers. ‘Come inside the courtyard and za a mentsh,’ she said, telling the child in Yiddish to become ‘what a human being ought to be’.
The same tendency — to see the real danger in themselves rather than their persecutors — was on display in Golda Meir’s famous reproach to Anwar Sadat that, while she could forgive the Egyptian army for killing Israeli soldiers, she could never forgive Sadat for forcing her young soldiers to kill young Egyptians.
Wisse’s third example was Israel’s rush to sign the Oslo accords — with an enemy which, presented with the Jews’ yearning to forgive it so that they would never have to attack it, took the opportunity it was thus offered to attack the Jews with redoubled ferocity.
Such a suicidal politics of accommodation also makes the Jews vulnerable to internal treachery — as we can see from today’s Jewish Israel-bashers who succumb, in Wisse’s words, to ‘the corrupting temptations of powerlessness’ by seeking personal advantage at the expense of their own community.
Conniving at the obnoxious canard of illegitimate global Jewish power, they claim that Israel’s military actions prove that power has corrupted Jewish values by turning Jews from victims into oppressors.
As Wisse points out, this is entirely contrary to the facts. Tiny Israel’s power to defend itself against millions of Arab and Muslim enemies is hugely constrained not only by international pressure but by its own disinclination to fight those from whom it seeks acceptance instead. Jews are patently no more inclined to subdue the Arabs than they were the nations of the diaspora in which they lived.
The Jews are trapped on the proverbial horns of a dilemma. Effective self-defence means they must be allowed to behave like any other people under attack. But the Jews are not like any other people. Jewish moral exceptionalism entails a veneration of human life and concern to protect the innocents, even among the most cruel of enemies. Hence the basic humanitarian assistance to the people of Gaza.
But at the same time, the Jews have a moral obligation to defend their own people. Failing to defend themselves so that their own innocents are abandoned to death and destruction and Jewish peoplehood put at risk of extinction is a negation of Jewish ethics.
This is why the ‘asymmetrical warfare’ of Palestinianism is such a threat to Israel. Attack by the armies of neighbouring states poses such a direct existential threat to Israel there are few qualms about self-defence. But fashioning a wretched people into a weapon of war plays upon the weakness caused by Jewish exceptionalism and ‘moral solipsism’, so that the Jews feel guilty about the welfare of their attackers even as the rockets rain down on them from Gaza.
The Arabs know this, and play the Jews like fish on a line. There is no easy resolution of this dilemma; but Ruth Wisse’s book helps us understand the exquisite awfulness of the trap.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Changing History's Course
Something important has been taking place in a court case in Paris that the world has paid little attention to. Last week the 11th Chamber of the Appeals Court of Paris heard an argument from the lawyer of Philippe Karsenty, a French press watcher who, in 2004-2005, was sued by the national television station France 2 and by its Middle-East correspondent Charles Enderlin.
The plaintiffs had accused Mr. Karsenty of defaming them by declaring on his Web site they had participated in a fabricated news report about the killing by Israeli troops at the Netsarim Junction in the Gaza Strip, on September 30, 2000, of 12-year-old Mohammed el-Dura, the most famous Palestinian "martyr" of the Second Intifada. Found guilty by a lower court, which awarded the plaintiffs symbolic damages, Mr. Karsenty is now appealing his conviction.
The court did not rule last week on this appeal. Instead, it issued an order to France 2 to show it the 27 minutes of rushes originally received from Palestinian photographer Talal Abu-Rahmeh, who shot the events in Gaza. Condensed into 45 seconds of TV reportage, this footage, which France 2 has repeatedly refused to release, provided the raw material for its newscast. Mr. Karsenty and others have long claimed that if it were made public and studied, the hoax perpetrated by France 2 would be provable.
For a hoax it most certainly was. Today, seven years after the event, it should be clear to anyone who has read the literature on the subject and viewed the available film clips that the entire episode of Mohammed el-Dura was staged by the Palestinian Authority. The evidence is overwhelming.
The shots seemingly aimed at the boy and his father could not, because of their angle, have come from an Israeli position; Palestinian civilians were strolling unconcernedly between that position and the two el-Duras at the very moment that they were supposedly being fired at it; while father and son were allegedly taking cover behind a barrel, other Palestinians, who were not being shot at, came running by them and could have been joined by them; there was no blood on the sidewalk where Mohammed el-Dura was said to have been fatally wounded; in the film clips he can be seen calmly changing his position to make himself more comfortable after the alleged moment of his death, etc., etc.
Indeed, Mohammed el-Dura may never have died and may not even have been named Mohammed el-Dura. There was never any autopsy and what was said to be the boy's funeral was very likely that of someone else. He could easily have been any Palestinian child from Gaza, paid a few dollars to play his part in the deception, and make himself scarce afterwards.
If France 2 did not know of this deception at the time it broke the story, Talal Abu Rahmeh certainly did. And there is no way that France 2 and Mr. Enderlin could have failed to become aware of it themselves once they had a chance to go back to the footage and review it more carefully. The worst part of the Mohammed el-Dura story, which did incalculable harm to Israel's image and helped pave the way for many of the other lies spread about the Jewish state during the Intifada, is not that it was uncritically aired by France 2 and just as uncritically picked up and parroted by hundreds of other television stations and newspapers around the world. This was scandalous, but such things happen.
The greater scandal has been that to this day neither France 2 nor any other of the story's propagators has bothered to confess its negligence, much less apologize for it, let alone deal seriously with the whole subject of the international press's collaboration, time and again, with the Palestinian Authority's systematic dishonesty in the Yasser Arafat years.
The prevalent attitude has been: So maybe Mohammed el-Dura wasn't killed by the Israelis as we all said that he was — so what?
Last week's decision by the Paris Appeals Court has been hailed as a victory, not only for Philippe Karsenty, but for Israel and the historical truth. And yet, as Mr. Karsenty pointed out to me in a phone conversation the other day, this is not necessarily so. Even while ordering France 2 to produce the footage, the court's three judges were hostile toward him — and it is these same judges who will view the 27 minutes of rushes in November and decide after doing so whether or not to uphold his appeal. Unless they choose to bring in experts to scrutinize the footage professionally, Mr. Karenty fears, they may overlook the ways in which it was doctored and end up by whitewashing France 2 instead of exposing it.
Mr. Karsenty is now calling upon the president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, who as chief of state has ultimate authority over France 2, to appoint such a panel of experts himself. Whether this is politically or legally feasible, I don't know.
If the Appeal Court's judges do their work conscientiously, or order France 2 to make the original rushes available to the general public instead of showing them just once to the court, Mr. Sarkozy's intervention will in any case not be necessary.
The truth about Mohammed el-Dura is not a minor matter, or one having to do with his case alone. It is not even just a matter of the campaign of lies against Israel that has caused it to become the most disliked country in European opinion polls. It is also a matter of how, in general, today's press feels free to manipulate the truth as they wish and then to disclaim all responsibility for what they have done.
Philippe Karsenty is not Dreyfus, but if he can win his case, he may have done something of historical importance. In wishing him luck, I am wishing it to all of us.
Mr. Halkin is a contributing editor of The New York Sun.
The plaintiffs had accused Mr. Karsenty of defaming them by declaring on his Web site they had participated in a fabricated news report about the killing by Israeli troops at the Netsarim Junction in the Gaza Strip, on September 30, 2000, of 12-year-old Mohammed el-Dura, the most famous Palestinian "martyr" of the Second Intifada. Found guilty by a lower court, which awarded the plaintiffs symbolic damages, Mr. Karsenty is now appealing his conviction.
The court did not rule last week on this appeal. Instead, it issued an order to France 2 to show it the 27 minutes of rushes originally received from Palestinian photographer Talal Abu-Rahmeh, who shot the events in Gaza. Condensed into 45 seconds of TV reportage, this footage, which France 2 has repeatedly refused to release, provided the raw material for its newscast. Mr. Karsenty and others have long claimed that if it were made public and studied, the hoax perpetrated by France 2 would be provable.
For a hoax it most certainly was. Today, seven years after the event, it should be clear to anyone who has read the literature on the subject and viewed the available film clips that the entire episode of Mohammed el-Dura was staged by the Palestinian Authority. The evidence is overwhelming.
The shots seemingly aimed at the boy and his father could not, because of their angle, have come from an Israeli position; Palestinian civilians were strolling unconcernedly between that position and the two el-Duras at the very moment that they were supposedly being fired at it; while father and son were allegedly taking cover behind a barrel, other Palestinians, who were not being shot at, came running by them and could have been joined by them; there was no blood on the sidewalk where Mohammed el-Dura was said to have been fatally wounded; in the film clips he can be seen calmly changing his position to make himself more comfortable after the alleged moment of his death, etc., etc.
Indeed, Mohammed el-Dura may never have died and may not even have been named Mohammed el-Dura. There was never any autopsy and what was said to be the boy's funeral was very likely that of someone else. He could easily have been any Palestinian child from Gaza, paid a few dollars to play his part in the deception, and make himself scarce afterwards.
If France 2 did not know of this deception at the time it broke the story, Talal Abu Rahmeh certainly did. And there is no way that France 2 and Mr. Enderlin could have failed to become aware of it themselves once they had a chance to go back to the footage and review it more carefully. The worst part of the Mohammed el-Dura story, which did incalculable harm to Israel's image and helped pave the way for many of the other lies spread about the Jewish state during the Intifada, is not that it was uncritically aired by France 2 and just as uncritically picked up and parroted by hundreds of other television stations and newspapers around the world. This was scandalous, but such things happen.
The greater scandal has been that to this day neither France 2 nor any other of the story's propagators has bothered to confess its negligence, much less apologize for it, let alone deal seriously with the whole subject of the international press's collaboration, time and again, with the Palestinian Authority's systematic dishonesty in the Yasser Arafat years.
The prevalent attitude has been: So maybe Mohammed el-Dura wasn't killed by the Israelis as we all said that he was — so what?
Last week's decision by the Paris Appeals Court has been hailed as a victory, not only for Philippe Karsenty, but for Israel and the historical truth. And yet, as Mr. Karsenty pointed out to me in a phone conversation the other day, this is not necessarily so. Even while ordering France 2 to produce the footage, the court's three judges were hostile toward him — and it is these same judges who will view the 27 minutes of rushes in November and decide after doing so whether or not to uphold his appeal. Unless they choose to bring in experts to scrutinize the footage professionally, Mr. Karenty fears, they may overlook the ways in which it was doctored and end up by whitewashing France 2 instead of exposing it.
Mr. Karsenty is now calling upon the president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, who as chief of state has ultimate authority over France 2, to appoint such a panel of experts himself. Whether this is politically or legally feasible, I don't know.
If the Appeal Court's judges do their work conscientiously, or order France 2 to make the original rushes available to the general public instead of showing them just once to the court, Mr. Sarkozy's intervention will in any case not be necessary.
The truth about Mohammed el-Dura is not a minor matter, or one having to do with his case alone. It is not even just a matter of the campaign of lies against Israel that has caused it to become the most disliked country in European opinion polls. It is also a matter of how, in general, today's press feels free to manipulate the truth as they wish and then to disclaim all responsibility for what they have done.
Philippe Karsenty is not Dreyfus, but if he can win his case, he may have done something of historical importance. In wishing him luck, I am wishing it to all of us.
Mr. Halkin is a contributing editor of The New York Sun.
Why Is The Temple Mount So Important ?
One Jerusalem proudly brings you an important bloggers interview with one of the world's leading Biblical Archaeologists Dr. Gabriel Barkay and Yigal Caspi of the Committee Against the Destruction of Antiquities on the Temple Mount. Dr. Barkay succinctly articulates the meaning of the Temple Mount to Jews and Christians as he calls for the world to stop the destruction being carried out by the Waqf.
Listening to Dr. Barkay explain the Jewish and Christian connections to the Temple Mount you further understand why it is vital to stop the destruction of Jewish antiquities on the Temple Mount:
"The Temple Mount is the heart, soul, and spirit of the Jewish people. It is the only holy place that Jews have and it is the place that is identified with the place chosen by the almighty which is mentioned in Deutoronomy. This is the place which is believed to be the place of the binding of Isaac, this is the place where David built the altar on the threshing floor of Aravna the Jebusite to stop the plague, this is the place where the first temple was built and the second followed it built by the returnees to Zion from the Babylonian captivity. This is also the place of the third edifice built on the site by King Herod the Great – that is the building which is so frequently mentioned in the New Testament."
"The temple Mount occupies about 1/6th of the total area of the old city of Jerusalem and this is one of the most important cornerstones of Western Civilization. It is at the moment the focus of a political battle and it is embodies within it the crux of the Near-Eastern conflict as both parties claim to have historical linkage to the site."
"The Temple Mount represents the Near Eastern conflict in a nutshell and whatever happens to the Temple Mount will happen to the rest of the country. If the Temple Mount is under Palestinian rule and there is no accessibility to Jews to the Temple Mount and no control upon the antiquities discovered there that means that the legitimacy of Jews in the entire country is questioned."
"The gigantic stones of the Temple Mount are mentioned in the New Testament ; Jesus was presented upon the Temple Mount as an infant, and later in his career he chased away the money changers from the Temple Mount; there are approximately twenty references to the Temple Mount in the New Testament and beyond any doubt the Temple Mount is an integral part of the Christian Heritage… it should be sacred and important to any civilized person all around the world.
"I am amazed that there was a world outcry concerning the blowing up of the statues of Buddha in the Bamiyan Valley by the Taliban Authorities in Afghanistan while the destruction on the Temple Mount didn't hit the media and there was no outrage expressed."
Listening to Dr. Barkay explain the Jewish and Christian connections to the Temple Mount you further understand why it is vital to stop the destruction of Jewish antiquities on the Temple Mount:
"The Temple Mount is the heart, soul, and spirit of the Jewish people. It is the only holy place that Jews have and it is the place that is identified with the place chosen by the almighty which is mentioned in Deutoronomy. This is the place which is believed to be the place of the binding of Isaac, this is the place where David built the altar on the threshing floor of Aravna the Jebusite to stop the plague, this is the place where the first temple was built and the second followed it built by the returnees to Zion from the Babylonian captivity. This is also the place of the third edifice built on the site by King Herod the Great – that is the building which is so frequently mentioned in the New Testament."
"The temple Mount occupies about 1/6th of the total area of the old city of Jerusalem and this is one of the most important cornerstones of Western Civilization. It is at the moment the focus of a political battle and it is embodies within it the crux of the Near-Eastern conflict as both parties claim to have historical linkage to the site."
"The Temple Mount represents the Near Eastern conflict in a nutshell and whatever happens to the Temple Mount will happen to the rest of the country. If the Temple Mount is under Palestinian rule and there is no accessibility to Jews to the Temple Mount and no control upon the antiquities discovered there that means that the legitimacy of Jews in the entire country is questioned."
"The gigantic stones of the Temple Mount are mentioned in the New Testament ; Jesus was presented upon the Temple Mount as an infant, and later in his career he chased away the money changers from the Temple Mount; there are approximately twenty references to the Temple Mount in the New Testament and beyond any doubt the Temple Mount is an integral part of the Christian Heritage… it should be sacred and important to any civilized person all around the world.
"I am amazed that there was a world outcry concerning the blowing up of the statues of Buddha in the Bamiyan Valley by the Taliban Authorities in Afghanistan while the destruction on the Temple Mount didn't hit the media and there was no outrage expressed."
Who really rules Israel?
In light of the battle between Olmert, Netanyahu and Barak for the next premiership, the public debate focuses on the question on who of these three politicians is the "strong leader" many Israelis yearn for At the same time, the failures of all Israeli leaders throughout history and their inability to implement their policies are attributed to a series of elements, including political instability, the plethora of parties, and the low popularity of all government institutions.
However, despite the weakness of leaders and the Knesset, policy is still formulated and decisions are still being taken both on the diplomatic and local level. This gives rise to the following question: Who rules the State of Israel? If we closely examine the state of our political system, and particularly the question of who rules Israel in practice, which is something that is not done often, a disturbing picture emerges:
Four informal "networks," which are unelected and often act surreptitiously, rule Israel, with "strong leaders" associated with them to some extent and even being controlled by them. The membership of these networks is not permanent and their makeup changes. Yet the members of these networks have a joint agenda, common ideological and practical perceptions, joint interests, common ways of acting, and the ability to influence public opinion, and of course influence politicians.
The defense network is made up of senior military officers, both past and present, heads of the secret services and police, and business owners in the security sphere. The members of this network have determined the political and military moves en route to all our wars, and between them. They are both leftist and rightist (as of late, there are more rightist and religious ones) and also took part in important political moves and in the peace process.
In addition, they are also intimately involved in economic, political, and cultural developments that pertain to the defense establishment. It is no secret that most Israeli prime ministers, even if not all of them, were members of this network. There was not always agreement between them and between those serving in the defense establishment during their tenure, but ultimately they acted together – and this can be clearly seen when we examine the evacuation of southern Lebanon, the disengagement from Gaza, the security fence, etc.
The capitalist network is made up of the 12 or 18 wealthiest families in Israel, as well as the large business owners. Its members are interested in the continuation of privatization processes, low taxation levels, low salary levels, etc. The members of this network are connected to senior politicians who enjoy their assistance and are willing to maintain neo-liberal policies, which led to great destruction of the Israeli welfare state and huge gaps between the highest and lowest echelons.
The strictly Orthodox rabbinical network is relatively small, and its members share common interests in all matters pertaining to the relationship between religion and state. They influence, and in fact determine, matters of personal status, yeshiva students' exemption from military service, conversion policy, attitude to foreign workers, and to a growing extent our policy in the territories.
The network of senior bureaucratic officials is particularly important. Its most prominent members include senior Treasury, Bank of Israel, Defense Ministry and Education Ministry officials. On the one hand, they are the ones who determine and formulate most of the important decisions and laws passed by the Knesset, and on the other hand they have the power to torpedo decisions and laws, particularly through inaction.
All Israeli prime ministers and senior ministers in recent decades were connected to or members of these networks. The three candidates for the next premiership are also connected to these networks: Benjamin Netanyahu is affiliated with the capitalist and Orthodox networks. Ehud Olmert is also affiliated with the capitalist and Orthodox networks. Meanwhile, Ehud Barak is associated with the defense and capitalist networks.
The three of them have attempted to, and will continue to attempt to, cultivate their relations with the network of senior bureaucratic officials.
This is one of the major problems of Israeli democracy. Until it gives power to the representatives of the genuine sovereign – the people – Israeli democracy will suffer from these ills, and even talented and inspirational leaders who subscribe to ideology that meets the needs of the people won't be able to function properly.
The writer is a professor at the Hebrew University's political science department and a senior research fellow at the Van Leer Institute
However, despite the weakness of leaders and the Knesset, policy is still formulated and decisions are still being taken both on the diplomatic and local level. This gives rise to the following question: Who rules the State of Israel? If we closely examine the state of our political system, and particularly the question of who rules Israel in practice, which is something that is not done often, a disturbing picture emerges:
Four informal "networks," which are unelected and often act surreptitiously, rule Israel, with "strong leaders" associated with them to some extent and even being controlled by them. The membership of these networks is not permanent and their makeup changes. Yet the members of these networks have a joint agenda, common ideological and practical perceptions, joint interests, common ways of acting, and the ability to influence public opinion, and of course influence politicians.
The defense network is made up of senior military officers, both past and present, heads of the secret services and police, and business owners in the security sphere. The members of this network have determined the political and military moves en route to all our wars, and between them. They are both leftist and rightist (as of late, there are more rightist and religious ones) and also took part in important political moves and in the peace process.
In addition, they are also intimately involved in economic, political, and cultural developments that pertain to the defense establishment. It is no secret that most Israeli prime ministers, even if not all of them, were members of this network. There was not always agreement between them and between those serving in the defense establishment during their tenure, but ultimately they acted together – and this can be clearly seen when we examine the evacuation of southern Lebanon, the disengagement from Gaza, the security fence, etc.
The capitalist network is made up of the 12 or 18 wealthiest families in Israel, as well as the large business owners. Its members are interested in the continuation of privatization processes, low taxation levels, low salary levels, etc. The members of this network are connected to senior politicians who enjoy their assistance and are willing to maintain neo-liberal policies, which led to great destruction of the Israeli welfare state and huge gaps between the highest and lowest echelons.
The strictly Orthodox rabbinical network is relatively small, and its members share common interests in all matters pertaining to the relationship between religion and state. They influence, and in fact determine, matters of personal status, yeshiva students' exemption from military service, conversion policy, attitude to foreign workers, and to a growing extent our policy in the territories.
The network of senior bureaucratic officials is particularly important. Its most prominent members include senior Treasury, Bank of Israel, Defense Ministry and Education Ministry officials. On the one hand, they are the ones who determine and formulate most of the important decisions and laws passed by the Knesset, and on the other hand they have the power to torpedo decisions and laws, particularly through inaction.
All Israeli prime ministers and senior ministers in recent decades were connected to or members of these networks. The three candidates for the next premiership are also connected to these networks: Benjamin Netanyahu is affiliated with the capitalist and Orthodox networks. Ehud Olmert is also affiliated with the capitalist and Orthodox networks. Meanwhile, Ehud Barak is associated with the defense and capitalist networks.
The three of them have attempted to, and will continue to attempt to, cultivate their relations with the network of senior bureaucratic officials.
This is one of the major problems of Israeli democracy. Until it gives power to the representatives of the genuine sovereign – the people – Israeli democracy will suffer from these ills, and even talented and inspirational leaders who subscribe to ideology that meets the needs of the people won't be able to function properly.
The writer is a professor at the Hebrew University's political science department and a senior research fellow at the Van Leer Institute
Friday, September 28, 2007
The Internet in the service of terrorist organizations
Palestinian Islamic Jihad’s Internet network and the service providers by which the organization is supported Overview
1. The PIJ is a relatively small radical Islamic terrorist organization sponsored by Iran and Syria and directed by its headquarters in Damascus . At the present time the PIJ is the most prominent organization in launching rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel . Since 2005 it has taken dominance from Hamas in carrying out deadly suicide bombing attacks in Tel Aviv, Hadera, Netanya and other population centers in Israel .
2. Like Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist organizations, the PIJ makes extensive use of the Internet , which serves as one of its main weapons in the battle for hearts and minds . The PIJ's Internet network has six sites , four of them news-oriented and two devoted to the organization's founder and former leader, Fathi al-Shikaki , and to its present leader, Abdallah Ramadan Shalah. As opposed to Hamas, which appeals to world-wide audiences, the PIJ's target audiences are mainly Palestinians and Arabic-speakers. Thus, with the exception of one site, all the PIJ's sites are in Arabic, as opposed to the Hamas sites, which appear in eight languages.
3. Since it is a small organization, and it resources and manpower are limited, its Internet network is smaller and its technical level is lower than that of Hamas. 1However, during the past year the technology and content of its sites have improved . It offers more video clips, its design has been improved and it is updated more frequently.
4. All the PIJ's Websites send messages of hatred for Israel and the West, are rife with incitement to terrorism and foster the ideas of dying the death of a martyr for the sake of Allah ( shahadah ), committing suicide for the sake of Allah ( istishad ), and holy war ( jihad ). The messages it sends and its propaganda are in line with the PIJ's being a militant organization which regards the use of terrorism as the only way to advance its objectives, central to which is the destruction of the State of Israel and the establishment of a radical Islamic state run in accordance with Islamic law throughout all the territory of “Palestine.”
5. Technically, the PIJ's Internet network is supported by ISPs located in Iran (which hosts Qudsway , the PIJ's main site), Malaysia (one site), Canada (one site) and the United States (three sites). 2 The pattern of having the main site Iranian and most of the others American has not changed since our previous examination, carried out in May 2006. That is true although the PIJ is clearly a terrorist organization and appears on the United States list of designated terrorist organizations. That provides an additional illustration that the Internet is the main medium through which the global jihad can spread its propaganda encouraging hatred and terrorism, and the radical Islamic ideology of the Palestinian terrorist organizations.
PIJ Websites classified according to content
6. The PIJ Websites fall into three groups :
A. News-oriented sites :
1) www.qudsway.net : the central site.
2) www.qudsnews.net : news site.
3) www.paltoday.com: new site appearing in both Arabic and English.
B. Designated sites : www.sarayaalquds.ps (and www.sarayalquds.org) : the site of the Jerusalem Battalions, the PIJ's terrorist operative wing.
C. Sites devoted to the PIJ leadership :
1 ) www.shikaki.net : site devoted to the memory of PIJ founder Fathi al-Shiqaqi.
2) www.falestiny.net : site devoted to organization leader Abdallah Ramadan Shalah.
7. Following is a description of the sites, as of September 18, 2007 :
Group A: News-oriented sites
www.qudsway.net
8. The site is called “The net of the call to Jerusalem ” and its Internet addresses are www.qudsway.net (or www.qudsway.com or www.qudsway.ir). It is the organization's most important site .
9. The site is updated regularly and focuses on organizational activities related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On July 25, 2007 , it was upgraded both technically and with regard to content.
10. The site has news flashes, articles (mostly dealing with the organization), interviews, commentaries, “studies” and links to the organization's other sites. It provides detailed reports about the organization's terrorist activities including announcements, claims of responsibility for terrorist attacks and the wills of shaheeds . 3The site also monitors the Israeli press. The organization's journal, called Jihad , can be reached through a link on the homepage.
11. Qudsway, like the PIJ's other sites, is rife with hate-propaganda against Israel and the West, fosters the shaheed myth (glorification of the suicide bombers and presenting them as role models) and praises violence and terrorism carried out in the name of jihad.
1. The PIJ is a relatively small radical Islamic terrorist organization sponsored by Iran and Syria and directed by its headquarters in Damascus . At the present time the PIJ is the most prominent organization in launching rockets from the Gaza Strip into Israel . Since 2005 it has taken dominance from Hamas in carrying out deadly suicide bombing attacks in Tel Aviv, Hadera, Netanya and other population centers in Israel .
2. Like Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist organizations, the PIJ makes extensive use of the Internet , which serves as one of its main weapons in the battle for hearts and minds . The PIJ's Internet network has six sites , four of them news-oriented and two devoted to the organization's founder and former leader, Fathi al-Shikaki , and to its present leader, Abdallah Ramadan Shalah. As opposed to Hamas, which appeals to world-wide audiences, the PIJ's target audiences are mainly Palestinians and Arabic-speakers. Thus, with the exception of one site, all the PIJ's sites are in Arabic, as opposed to the Hamas sites, which appear in eight languages.
3. Since it is a small organization, and it resources and manpower are limited, its Internet network is smaller and its technical level is lower than that of Hamas. 1However, during the past year the technology and content of its sites have improved . It offers more video clips, its design has been improved and it is updated more frequently.
4. All the PIJ's Websites send messages of hatred for Israel and the West, are rife with incitement to terrorism and foster the ideas of dying the death of a martyr for the sake of Allah ( shahadah ), committing suicide for the sake of Allah ( istishad ), and holy war ( jihad ). The messages it sends and its propaganda are in line with the PIJ's being a militant organization which regards the use of terrorism as the only way to advance its objectives, central to which is the destruction of the State of Israel and the establishment of a radical Islamic state run in accordance with Islamic law throughout all the territory of “Palestine.”
5. Technically, the PIJ's Internet network is supported by ISPs located in Iran (which hosts Qudsway , the PIJ's main site), Malaysia (one site), Canada (one site) and the United States (three sites). 2 The pattern of having the main site Iranian and most of the others American has not changed since our previous examination, carried out in May 2006. That is true although the PIJ is clearly a terrorist organization and appears on the United States list of designated terrorist organizations. That provides an additional illustration that the Internet is the main medium through which the global jihad can spread its propaganda encouraging hatred and terrorism, and the radical Islamic ideology of the Palestinian terrorist organizations.
PIJ Websites classified according to content
6. The PIJ Websites fall into three groups :
A. News-oriented sites :
1) www.qudsway.net : the central site.
2) www.qudsnews.net : news site.
3) www.paltoday.com: new site appearing in both Arabic and English.
B. Designated sites : www.sarayaalquds.ps (and www.sarayalquds.org) : the site of the Jerusalem Battalions, the PIJ's terrorist operative wing.
C. Sites devoted to the PIJ leadership :
1 ) www.shikaki.net : site devoted to the memory of PIJ founder Fathi al-Shiqaqi.
2) www.falestiny.net : site devoted to organization leader Abdallah Ramadan Shalah.
7. Following is a description of the sites, as of September 18, 2007 :
Group A: News-oriented sites
www.qudsway.net
8. The site is called “The net of the call to Jerusalem ” and its Internet addresses are www.qudsway.net (or www.qudsway.com or www.qudsway.ir). It is the organization's most important site .
9. The site is updated regularly and focuses on organizational activities related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On July 25, 2007 , it was upgraded both technically and with regard to content.
10. The site has news flashes, articles (mostly dealing with the organization), interviews, commentaries, “studies” and links to the organization's other sites. It provides detailed reports about the organization's terrorist activities including announcements, claims of responsibility for terrorist attacks and the wills of shaheeds . 3The site also monitors the Israeli press. The organization's journal, called Jihad , can be reached through a link on the homepage.
11. Qudsway, like the PIJ's other sites, is rife with hate-propaganda against Israel and the West, fosters the shaheed myth (glorification of the suicide bombers and presenting them as role models) and praises violence and terrorism carried out in the name of jihad.
Why Peace Eludes Israel*
Israel is retreating toward its 1949 Auschwitz lines . Many attribute this retreat to Israel ’s ardent desire for peace . This desire for peace, however, peace has resulted in ceaseless Arab terrorism and Israel ’s emasculation . This desire for peace, uttered ad nauseum by Israeli policy-makers and opinion-makers, has stupefied Israelis, emboldened Israel ’s enemies; and made Muslims contemptuous of Jews .
Did England ’s or France ’s desire for peace transform Germans into doves? Germany was the home of humanism, of philosophy and science . Are Muslims more humanistic than the nation that produced Kant, Schiller, Heine, and Einstein?
But let me address Israel ’s current political elites: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak—and of course Israel ’s so-called elder statesman President Shimon Peres . These Alice-in-Wonderland politicians would have us believe that withdrawing from Judea and Samaria will pacify Israel’s distraught Arab neighbors—like giving them a daily dose of Prozac .
I ask these peace addicts: “Why should you expect peace from Muslims who despise Israel as an outpost of Western civilization that threatens the autocratic power structure of Islamic states?”
“Why should you expect peace from Arabs who teach their children to hate Jews and exalt suicide bombers? Is it not foolish of you and shameless to negotiate with Palestinians when 85% of these Arabs are committed to Israel ’s destruction? What do you want to negotiate—the mode and date of your destruction?”
I ask you: “Why should you expect peace from Fatah leaders like Mahmoud Abbas who deceive and despoil their own people? What peace will you obtain from a Muslim whose attitude toward infidels is based on the primacy of fraud and force typical of 22 Arab-Islamic tyrannies?”
Here let me pause to address “right-minded” Israeli politicians and intellectuals who, though skeptical about the land-for-peace policy, also intone the mantra of “peace . ” Suppose you declared: “I do not desire peace with Arab despots who luxuriate in splendor while their people are steeped in abject poverty . ” Are you manly enough to proclaim such an attitude? Then let me suggest some other declarations one might make in a world threatened by Islamic Imperialism .
Suppose you said, “I do not want peace with tyrannies, regimes ruled by evil men . I do not want to dignify them and thereby abet their wicked designs . ”
“I do not seek peace with Arab or Muslim despots lest I confuse, disarm, and foster cynicism among my own countrymen . Better to arouse fear in these despots, instead of allowing them to lull unwary Jews with professions of peace . ”
“Do you think such statements will make these despots more bellicose? What have your “politically correct” professions of peace accomplished? Has Israel ’s peace treaty with Egypt made that dictatorship less militant? Then why is Egypt , a regime threatened by no one, engaged in a vast military build-up? Why do Egypt ’s state-controlled media continue to spew anti-Israel and anti-Jewish venom? Why did Egypt facilitate the shipment of arms to Arab terrorists in Gaza ? And please explain why Egypt ’s tourist maps depict Israel as ‘ Palestine . ’”
To Condoleezza Rice I ask: “Leaving aside the killers and killing fields in Algeria , Bangladesh , Bosnia , Chechnya , Indonesia , Iran , Iraq , Lebanon , Sudan , and Syria , why should Palestinian Arabs, who supported Saddam Hussein’s rape of Kuwait , another Muslim country, live in abiding peace with Israel ?”
I ask Secretary Rice: “Why do you cozy up to Palestinians who cheered the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and the murder of 3,000 innocent people?
To Condi as well as peace-intoxicated politicians of Israel , I ask: “Inasmuch as Sunni and Shiite Muslim sects since the time of Muhammad have not been able to live in peace with each other, why should you expect them to live in abiding peace with Jews?”
Now let me address critics of Israel ’s land-for-peace policy . Many blame that policy on American pressure, or, conversely, on the timidity of Israeli prime ministers . True but superficial . Let me offer two different ways of understanding why peace eludes Israel .
Exodus 15:3 states that “God is the Master of war . ” Hence must also be the Master of peace . Since war and peace are in the hands of God, whether Israel will have peace or war depends on how its ruling elites relate to God . So long as they dismiss God from the domain of statecraft, or so long as Israel ’s government scorns the Torah, the people of Israel will not have peace .
But the God of Israel is not a man that goes to sleep, indifferent to Israel ’s destiny . This infinitely wise God has given the people of Israel the best of enemies—Arabs who will not and cannot be pacified by giving them parts of the land God promised the Jewish people!
God has therefore given His people an enemy that unwittingly compels Jews to face the ultimate reason why peace eludes the so-called Jewish State of Israel!
Notice that Israel ’s political elites are incapable of competing with Muslims at the negotiating table . Since Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy” in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, one Israeli government after another has surrendered or compromised Israel ’s retention of the land the IDF regained in the Six-Day War of 1967 . This has been the case whether the government was led by Labor, the Likud, or Kadima .
How is one to explain this territorial retreat given Israel ’s superior military power, to say nothing of Israel ’s legal entitlement to the land it repossessed in the Six-Day War?
I have indicated that whatever the merit of conventional explanations, they do not go to the root of the problem . Israel may need American military aid, but Israel gets this aid because it serves America ’s national interest . Yet this fact, which involves Israel ’s geostrategic importance, does not embolden Israel ’s ruling elites . Why not? Don’t they understand that peace depends on the wise and courageous use of power? Or has their estrangement from God stupefied and cowed them?
I contend, first, that peace eludes Israel because it is a secular state which, by posing as a democracy, induces its ruling elites to make foolish concessions to preserve their democratic reputation in the United States . Second, I contend that the ceaseless terrorist attacks and wars waged by Israel ’s enemies serve the world-historical function of making this secular state with its pseudo-democratic institutions non-viable!
Israel has become a pathological state devoid of an authentic and vibrant national identity . Israel has suffered more than 10,000 casualties since the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of September 1993 . That agreement was secretly negotiated by Shimon Peres’ lackeys contrary to the Labor Party’s campaign program in the June 1992 election . The Oslo negotiations also violated the 1985 Anti-Terrorist Ordinance . And Oslo was foisted on the public without serious debate .
Fast forward: Labor’s policy of “unilateral disengagement” from Gaza was rejected by an overwhelming majority of the public in the 2003 election . Nevertheless, Likud leader Ariel Sharon, contrary to his long-standing opposition to the Gaza retreat, adopted Labor’s policy without any public debate . By so doing he nullified the 2003 election and became, in effect, Labor’s surrogate prime minister! This is not only treachery: it’s madness, the kind Isaiah attributes to Jews who abandon God .
As predicted, withdrawing from Gaza has not given Israel peace . Gaza has become Hamastan, from which thousands of missiles have been raining on Sderot . Thanks to Egypt ’s benign neglect or complicity, arms are being smuggled into Judea and Samaria . Every city in Israel may soon become another Sderot . Yes, this is suicidal madness .
Prime Minister Olmert, who once idiotically declared that Israel was tired of being courageous, is anxious to extend the inane or insane policy of disengagement to Judea and Samaria —despite his having a public approval rating of less than 10% . What a charming democracy or democratically elected despotism! Yes, and how self-destructive .
So, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that this secular and pseudo-democratic State of Israel is incapable of securing the safety of its citizens . “Regime change” is absolutely essential . But regime change must pave the way for a Torah-oriented system of governance—an absolutely a necessary precondition of achieving peace . Is anyone with noble ambitions listening?
____________________
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, September 24, 2007 .
Did England ’s or France ’s desire for peace transform Germans into doves? Germany was the home of humanism, of philosophy and science . Are Muslims more humanistic than the nation that produced Kant, Schiller, Heine, and Einstein?
But let me address Israel ’s current political elites: Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Ehud Barak—and of course Israel ’s so-called elder statesman President Shimon Peres . These Alice-in-Wonderland politicians would have us believe that withdrawing from Judea and Samaria will pacify Israel’s distraught Arab neighbors—like giving them a daily dose of Prozac .
I ask these peace addicts: “Why should you expect peace from Muslims who despise Israel as an outpost of Western civilization that threatens the autocratic power structure of Islamic states?”
“Why should you expect peace from Arabs who teach their children to hate Jews and exalt suicide bombers? Is it not foolish of you and shameless to negotiate with Palestinians when 85% of these Arabs are committed to Israel ’s destruction? What do you want to negotiate—the mode and date of your destruction?”
I ask you: “Why should you expect peace from Fatah leaders like Mahmoud Abbas who deceive and despoil their own people? What peace will you obtain from a Muslim whose attitude toward infidels is based on the primacy of fraud and force typical of 22 Arab-Islamic tyrannies?”
Here let me pause to address “right-minded” Israeli politicians and intellectuals who, though skeptical about the land-for-peace policy, also intone the mantra of “peace . ” Suppose you declared: “I do not desire peace with Arab despots who luxuriate in splendor while their people are steeped in abject poverty . ” Are you manly enough to proclaim such an attitude? Then let me suggest some other declarations one might make in a world threatened by Islamic Imperialism .
Suppose you said, “I do not want peace with tyrannies, regimes ruled by evil men . I do not want to dignify them and thereby abet their wicked designs . ”
“I do not seek peace with Arab or Muslim despots lest I confuse, disarm, and foster cynicism among my own countrymen . Better to arouse fear in these despots, instead of allowing them to lull unwary Jews with professions of peace . ”
“Do you think such statements will make these despots more bellicose? What have your “politically correct” professions of peace accomplished? Has Israel ’s peace treaty with Egypt made that dictatorship less militant? Then why is Egypt , a regime threatened by no one, engaged in a vast military build-up? Why do Egypt ’s state-controlled media continue to spew anti-Israel and anti-Jewish venom? Why did Egypt facilitate the shipment of arms to Arab terrorists in Gaza ? And please explain why Egypt ’s tourist maps depict Israel as ‘ Palestine . ’”
To Condoleezza Rice I ask: “Leaving aside the killers and killing fields in Algeria , Bangladesh , Bosnia , Chechnya , Indonesia , Iran , Iraq , Lebanon , Sudan , and Syria , why should Palestinian Arabs, who supported Saddam Hussein’s rape of Kuwait , another Muslim country, live in abiding peace with Israel ?”
I ask Secretary Rice: “Why do you cozy up to Palestinians who cheered the destruction of the Twin Towers in New York and the murder of 3,000 innocent people?
To Condi as well as peace-intoxicated politicians of Israel , I ask: “Inasmuch as Sunni and Shiite Muslim sects since the time of Muhammad have not been able to live in peace with each other, why should you expect them to live in abiding peace with Jews?”
Now let me address critics of Israel ’s land-for-peace policy . Many blame that policy on American pressure, or, conversely, on the timidity of Israeli prime ministers . True but superficial . Let me offer two different ways of understanding why peace eludes Israel .
Exodus 15:3 states that “God is the Master of war . ” Hence must also be the Master of peace . Since war and peace are in the hands of God, whether Israel will have peace or war depends on how its ruling elites relate to God . So long as they dismiss God from the domain of statecraft, or so long as Israel ’s government scorns the Torah, the people of Israel will not have peace .
But the God of Israel is not a man that goes to sleep, indifferent to Israel ’s destiny . This infinitely wise God has given the people of Israel the best of enemies—Arabs who will not and cannot be pacified by giving them parts of the land God promised the Jewish people!
God has therefore given His people an enemy that unwittingly compels Jews to face the ultimate reason why peace eludes the so-called Jewish State of Israel!
Notice that Israel ’s political elites are incapable of competing with Muslims at the negotiating table . Since Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy” in the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War, one Israeli government after another has surrendered or compromised Israel ’s retention of the land the IDF regained in the Six-Day War of 1967 . This has been the case whether the government was led by Labor, the Likud, or Kadima .
How is one to explain this territorial retreat given Israel ’s superior military power, to say nothing of Israel ’s legal entitlement to the land it repossessed in the Six-Day War?
I have indicated that whatever the merit of conventional explanations, they do not go to the root of the problem . Israel may need American military aid, but Israel gets this aid because it serves America ’s national interest . Yet this fact, which involves Israel ’s geostrategic importance, does not embolden Israel ’s ruling elites . Why not? Don’t they understand that peace depends on the wise and courageous use of power? Or has their estrangement from God stupefied and cowed them?
I contend, first, that peace eludes Israel because it is a secular state which, by posing as a democracy, induces its ruling elites to make foolish concessions to preserve their democratic reputation in the United States . Second, I contend that the ceaseless terrorist attacks and wars waged by Israel ’s enemies serve the world-historical function of making this secular state with its pseudo-democratic institutions non-viable!
Israel has become a pathological state devoid of an authentic and vibrant national identity . Israel has suffered more than 10,000 casualties since the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of September 1993 . That agreement was secretly negotiated by Shimon Peres’ lackeys contrary to the Labor Party’s campaign program in the June 1992 election . The Oslo negotiations also violated the 1985 Anti-Terrorist Ordinance . And Oslo was foisted on the public without serious debate .
Fast forward: Labor’s policy of “unilateral disengagement” from Gaza was rejected by an overwhelming majority of the public in the 2003 election . Nevertheless, Likud leader Ariel Sharon, contrary to his long-standing opposition to the Gaza retreat, adopted Labor’s policy without any public debate . By so doing he nullified the 2003 election and became, in effect, Labor’s surrogate prime minister! This is not only treachery: it’s madness, the kind Isaiah attributes to Jews who abandon God .
As predicted, withdrawing from Gaza has not given Israel peace . Gaza has become Hamastan, from which thousands of missiles have been raining on Sderot . Thanks to Egypt ’s benign neglect or complicity, arms are being smuggled into Judea and Samaria . Every city in Israel may soon become another Sderot . Yes, this is suicidal madness .
Prime Minister Olmert, who once idiotically declared that Israel was tired of being courageous, is anxious to extend the inane or insane policy of disengagement to Judea and Samaria —despite his having a public approval rating of less than 10% . What a charming democracy or democratically elected despotism! Yes, and how self-destructive .
So, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that this secular and pseudo-democratic State of Israel is incapable of securing the safety of its citizens . “Regime change” is absolutely essential . But regime change must pave the way for a Torah-oriented system of governance—an absolutely a necessary precondition of achieving peace . Is anyone with noble ambitions listening?
____________________
*Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, September 24, 2007 .
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The Frivolity of Evil
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got one thing right in his rant at Columbia University. History, he said, can't close the books on the Holocaust because the subject must be approached from different perspectives. That also got him to concede, sort of, what everybody else knows -- that the Holocaust actually happened.
Ahmadinejad in America coincides with the opening of a remarkable new online exhibition at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (ushmm.org), which features photographs of Nazi SS officers laughing, flirting and reclining at Auschwitz. These photographs offer a different perspective, true enough, because there aren't many photographs of SS officers at play. Here we see Camp Commandant Hans Hocker, who created the album, smile handsomely into the camera. We see pretty Eva, Angela and Irmgard, "communications specialists" at the camps, enjoying bowls of fresh blueberries. We watch an officer serenading them with an accordion solo.
These photographs document not the banality of evil, but the frivolity of evil. The photographs challenge anew our understanding about how such things can happen among so-called civilized men and women. The devil wears many disguises, and one of them is the appearance of normality, perhaps the most dangerous phenomenon of all, because it's a disguise unto itself.
Museum historian Judith Cohen notes that the photograph of the blueberry feast occurred on a day that 150 new prisoners arrived at the camp, and 33 were selected for work. The rest were sent to gas chambers. The vile odor of burning flesh seems not to have affected the appetites of Eva, Angela and Irmgard. The photographs were chosen because they reveal evil in its deceptive ordinariness: "In their self-image, they were good men, good comrades, even civilized."
That can be said as well of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His clowning, his weaving, his bobbing, his smiling on the podium at Columbia University lent an air of normality to his lies and deceitfulness. He looked silly at times, but he didn't frighten anyone with his stage presence. Imagine how the footage with his applause lines will play in the Middle East where they will, no doubt, censor Lee Bollinger's introduction of criticism. The Iranian media reported none of the questions, only that the students gave him a prolonged standing ovation. (An ovation nobody else there saw.)
He had a lot of the Hitler rant in him. For a long time we didn't take Hitler seriously here. He was easily satirized as the "little dictator." In the whole Ahmadinejad controversy over his invitation to Columbia, no remark was more fatuous than Dean John Coatsworth's observation that in defense of free speech, he would have invited Hitler to speak if he were here. His clarification wasn't much better. "[H]ad he come to the United States in 1939, he would have found a country with lots of admirers of his regime. An appearance by Hitler at Columbia," the dean said, "could have led him to appreciate what a great power the U.S. had already become." Some dean's list.
This dean should, in fact, go back to the history classroom. Hitler was anything but a quick learner. He could never see beyond his own prejudices. He thought Britain would capitulate quickly, that the Americans wouldn't fight and that he could defeat the Russians easily.
When William Randolph Hearst interviewed Hitler in Germany in 1934, he went with the hunch that he might do "some good" by meeting him. When the powerful newspaper publisher asked Hitler about the persecution of the Jews, der Fuehrer replied, "There is no persecution of any sort." Hearst was convinced. When someone later asked him about Hitler's anti-Semitism, he replied: "The whole policy . . . of anti-Semitism is such an obvious mistake I am sure that it must soon be abandoned. In fact I think it is already well on the way to abandonment."
When I hear Hitler evoked in contemporary arguments, I return to my dog-eared copy of "Mein Kampf" to reacquaint myself with what that "petty and cruel dictator" had to say in the years before he assumed the power to wreak ruin on so much of the world. He, like Ahmadinejad, was pleased to be vilified. "Any man who is not attacked in the Jewish newspapers, not slandered and vilified, is no decent German and no true National Socialist," he wrote. "The best yardstick for the value of his attitude, for the sincerity of his conviction, and the force of his will is the hostility he receives from the moral enemy of our people."
Ahmadinejad understands how to update such an attitude for the 21st century. We may think he was humiliated by the hostility he confronted at Columbia, but maybe he, like Hitler, understands how to play it out to his advantage against the gullible, the feckless and the frightened.
Suzanne Fields is a columnist with The Washington Times.
Ahmadinejad in America coincides with the opening of a remarkable new online exhibition at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (ushmm.org), which features photographs of Nazi SS officers laughing, flirting and reclining at Auschwitz. These photographs offer a different perspective, true enough, because there aren't many photographs of SS officers at play. Here we see Camp Commandant Hans Hocker, who created the album, smile handsomely into the camera. We see pretty Eva, Angela and Irmgard, "communications specialists" at the camps, enjoying bowls of fresh blueberries. We watch an officer serenading them with an accordion solo.
These photographs document not the banality of evil, but the frivolity of evil. The photographs challenge anew our understanding about how such things can happen among so-called civilized men and women. The devil wears many disguises, and one of them is the appearance of normality, perhaps the most dangerous phenomenon of all, because it's a disguise unto itself.
Museum historian Judith Cohen notes that the photograph of the blueberry feast occurred on a day that 150 new prisoners arrived at the camp, and 33 were selected for work. The rest were sent to gas chambers. The vile odor of burning flesh seems not to have affected the appetites of Eva, Angela and Irmgard. The photographs were chosen because they reveal evil in its deceptive ordinariness: "In their self-image, they were good men, good comrades, even civilized."
That can be said as well of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His clowning, his weaving, his bobbing, his smiling on the podium at Columbia University lent an air of normality to his lies and deceitfulness. He looked silly at times, but he didn't frighten anyone with his stage presence. Imagine how the footage with his applause lines will play in the Middle East where they will, no doubt, censor Lee Bollinger's introduction of criticism. The Iranian media reported none of the questions, only that the students gave him a prolonged standing ovation. (An ovation nobody else there saw.)
He had a lot of the Hitler rant in him. For a long time we didn't take Hitler seriously here. He was easily satirized as the "little dictator." In the whole Ahmadinejad controversy over his invitation to Columbia, no remark was more fatuous than Dean John Coatsworth's observation that in defense of free speech, he would have invited Hitler to speak if he were here. His clarification wasn't much better. "[H]ad he come to the United States in 1939, he would have found a country with lots of admirers of his regime. An appearance by Hitler at Columbia," the dean said, "could have led him to appreciate what a great power the U.S. had already become." Some dean's list.
This dean should, in fact, go back to the history classroom. Hitler was anything but a quick learner. He could never see beyond his own prejudices. He thought Britain would capitulate quickly, that the Americans wouldn't fight and that he could defeat the Russians easily.
When William Randolph Hearst interviewed Hitler in Germany in 1934, he went with the hunch that he might do "some good" by meeting him. When the powerful newspaper publisher asked Hitler about the persecution of the Jews, der Fuehrer replied, "There is no persecution of any sort." Hearst was convinced. When someone later asked him about Hitler's anti-Semitism, he replied: "The whole policy . . . of anti-Semitism is such an obvious mistake I am sure that it must soon be abandoned. In fact I think it is already well on the way to abandonment."
When I hear Hitler evoked in contemporary arguments, I return to my dog-eared copy of "Mein Kampf" to reacquaint myself with what that "petty and cruel dictator" had to say in the years before he assumed the power to wreak ruin on so much of the world. He, like Ahmadinejad, was pleased to be vilified. "Any man who is not attacked in the Jewish newspapers, not slandered and vilified, is no decent German and no true National Socialist," he wrote. "The best yardstick for the value of his attitude, for the sincerity of his conviction, and the force of his will is the hostility he receives from the moral enemy of our people."
Ahmadinejad understands how to update such an attitude for the 21st century. We may think he was humiliated by the hostility he confronted at Columbia, but maybe he, like Hitler, understands how to play it out to his advantage against the gullible, the feckless and the frightened.
Suzanne Fields is a columnist with The Washington Times.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
What Israel Really Gained by Bombing Syria
Denis Ross
Sometimes in international relations it is good to preserve mystery. The irony is that often when an action has been taken but not admitted, everyone seems to know anyway. That certainly seems to be the case with Israel's military strike against a target in northern Syria.
The Israelis aren't talking about it or acknowledging anything. The Syrians are describing an episode in which they fired on Israeli aircraft, the aircraft dropped something, and fled Syrian airspace. The President of the United States won't comment on the event -- of course, by not denying it, he leaves the impression that something significant absolutely took place.
And, it appears, something did. The sketchy reports that have emerged, again all citing anonymous sources in Israel or in the intelligence community here, are that Israel took out a facility in northern Syria in which North Korea was helping Syria develop a nuclear capability. The absence of leaks coming out of Israel lends credence to the reports. Israel used to be one of the best keepers of secrets. Excluding this episode, it has become one of the worst. Everything seems to leak -- and not in drips, but in torrents. (Once when I was negotiating, the Israeli prime minister at the time insisted on a one-on-one meeting with me because, he told me, this was the only way he could ensure that nothing would leak out of the meeting. He wasn't concerned with my side, but his.)
In this case, Israel has played it very smartly. Much is being made about the silence of Arab criticism of the apparent Israeli raid and what it says about Arab attitudes toward Syria. In fact, had Israel taken credit for the raid, Arab states would have felt duty-bound to condemn it, Israel's resort to force, and its unilateral effort to impose its will once again.
Why would Israel carry out such a raid now? Anything involving a Syrian nuclear development is going to be a concern for the Israelis -- and their threshold of tolerance is going to be low. Israel has tracked the North Korea-Syrian military relationship very closely for a long time. North Korea has provided Syria with advanced missile technology and surface-to-surface rockets of increasing range, accuracy, and payload. Moreover, the Israelis know that North Korea has practically never developed a weapons system that it has not sold. Given that history, North Korea's nuclear developments and continuing military cooperation with Syrian has drawn extremely close Israeli scrutiny.
So, on one level the Israeli raid simply reflected an effort to blunt North Korean-Syrian nuclear development before it could allow the Syrians to develop a nuclear capability. But that is only part of the story.
The Israeli security establishment has become increasingly concerned about significant Syrian weapons acquisitions, forward deployment of forces, training exercises, and directives about a possible war. Israeli military officials to whom I have spoken have become convinced that Syria's president, Bashar al Assad, has begun to believe that he could fight a limited war against Israel. Using as many as 20,000 rockets -- with some chemically armed as a reserve and a deterrent to prevent Israel from striking at the strategic underpinnings of his regime -- he appears, at least according to many in Israel's intelligence community, to believe he could fight a war on his terms. He was impressed by what Hezbollah did in the war with Israel in the summer of 2006 and believes he, too, could win by not losing in a limited war.
Israel has been looking for ways to convince Assad that he is miscalculating; that he will not be allowed to fight a war on his terms; and that he had better not play with fire. This summer, Israel has conducted military exercises designed not just to improve Israel's readiness but to convey a message to Assad. The raid not only blunts Syria's nuclear development but also reinforces the Israeli message of deterrence. In effect, it tells President Assad that Syria has few secrets it can keep from Israel. For a conspiratorial and paranoid regime, this is bound to keep its leaders preoccupied internally trying to figure out what Israel knows and doesn't know.
Beyond this, the raid sends the message that Israel can hit what it wants -- no matter how valuable and sensitive to the regime -- when it wants, and Syria is powerless to stop it. Here the silence from the Arab world, even if a function of Israel's silence, can provide small comfort to President Assad. No one in the Arab world much cares if Syria suffers blows to its prestige and losses to its military capabilities.
So, the raid is as much about preemption of a potential nuclear threat as it is about reestablishing Israel's deterrent in the eyes of the Syrian regime. Indeed, Major General Amos Yadlin, the head of Israel's military intelligence, was quoted as telling the Israeli cabinet that Israel had "restored its deterrence."
From this standpoint, Israel may also have had Iran in mind. The press is now reporting that an accident took place in July in Syria at a chemical plant at which a number of Iranian experts were killed. Perhaps this is just a coincidence. Or perhaps Israel is also sending messages to Iran that it has the capacity, and more importantly, the will to protect itself from those who would seek to threaten it with weapons of mass destruction.
At a time when Iran appears to be determined to press ahead with its nuclear program and may have doubted Israel's will to do anything about it, Israel may well be acting to show it will do whatever it takes to ensure its security. With the United States bogged down in Iraq and apparently unable or unwilling to prevent Iran's nuclear developments, the Israelis may be signaling everyone, including the Bush Administration, that if the international community doesn't take more decisive action, it will.
Statecraft involves using all the tools of the state to affect the behavior of friends and foes alike. Israel's raid against the Syrian plant reflects the use of a military instrument applied quite selectively to affect the psychologies of many different actors on the world stage. Whether it will have the affect the Israelis desire remains to be seen. But for now, the Israelis have made a statement without triggering a wider conflict in the process.
Dennis Ross is counselor and Ziegler distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of Statecraft: And How to Restore America's Standing in the World.
View this article on our website at http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1094
Sometimes in international relations it is good to preserve mystery. The irony is that often when an action has been taken but not admitted, everyone seems to know anyway. That certainly seems to be the case with Israel's military strike against a target in northern Syria.
The Israelis aren't talking about it or acknowledging anything. The Syrians are describing an episode in which they fired on Israeli aircraft, the aircraft dropped something, and fled Syrian airspace. The President of the United States won't comment on the event -- of course, by not denying it, he leaves the impression that something significant absolutely took place.
And, it appears, something did. The sketchy reports that have emerged, again all citing anonymous sources in Israel or in the intelligence community here, are that Israel took out a facility in northern Syria in which North Korea was helping Syria develop a nuclear capability. The absence of leaks coming out of Israel lends credence to the reports. Israel used to be one of the best keepers of secrets. Excluding this episode, it has become one of the worst. Everything seems to leak -- and not in drips, but in torrents. (Once when I was negotiating, the Israeli prime minister at the time insisted on a one-on-one meeting with me because, he told me, this was the only way he could ensure that nothing would leak out of the meeting. He wasn't concerned with my side, but his.)
In this case, Israel has played it very smartly. Much is being made about the silence of Arab criticism of the apparent Israeli raid and what it says about Arab attitudes toward Syria. In fact, had Israel taken credit for the raid, Arab states would have felt duty-bound to condemn it, Israel's resort to force, and its unilateral effort to impose its will once again.
Why would Israel carry out such a raid now? Anything involving a Syrian nuclear development is going to be a concern for the Israelis -- and their threshold of tolerance is going to be low. Israel has tracked the North Korea-Syrian military relationship very closely for a long time. North Korea has provided Syria with advanced missile technology and surface-to-surface rockets of increasing range, accuracy, and payload. Moreover, the Israelis know that North Korea has practically never developed a weapons system that it has not sold. Given that history, North Korea's nuclear developments and continuing military cooperation with Syrian has drawn extremely close Israeli scrutiny.
So, on one level the Israeli raid simply reflected an effort to blunt North Korean-Syrian nuclear development before it could allow the Syrians to develop a nuclear capability. But that is only part of the story.
The Israeli security establishment has become increasingly concerned about significant Syrian weapons acquisitions, forward deployment of forces, training exercises, and directives about a possible war. Israeli military officials to whom I have spoken have become convinced that Syria's president, Bashar al Assad, has begun to believe that he could fight a limited war against Israel. Using as many as 20,000 rockets -- with some chemically armed as a reserve and a deterrent to prevent Israel from striking at the strategic underpinnings of his regime -- he appears, at least according to many in Israel's intelligence community, to believe he could fight a war on his terms. He was impressed by what Hezbollah did in the war with Israel in the summer of 2006 and believes he, too, could win by not losing in a limited war.
Israel has been looking for ways to convince Assad that he is miscalculating; that he will not be allowed to fight a war on his terms; and that he had better not play with fire. This summer, Israel has conducted military exercises designed not just to improve Israel's readiness but to convey a message to Assad. The raid not only blunts Syria's nuclear development but also reinforces the Israeli message of deterrence. In effect, it tells President Assad that Syria has few secrets it can keep from Israel. For a conspiratorial and paranoid regime, this is bound to keep its leaders preoccupied internally trying to figure out what Israel knows and doesn't know.
Beyond this, the raid sends the message that Israel can hit what it wants -- no matter how valuable and sensitive to the regime -- when it wants, and Syria is powerless to stop it. Here the silence from the Arab world, even if a function of Israel's silence, can provide small comfort to President Assad. No one in the Arab world much cares if Syria suffers blows to its prestige and losses to its military capabilities.
So, the raid is as much about preemption of a potential nuclear threat as it is about reestablishing Israel's deterrent in the eyes of the Syrian regime. Indeed, Major General Amos Yadlin, the head of Israel's military intelligence, was quoted as telling the Israeli cabinet that Israel had "restored its deterrence."
From this standpoint, Israel may also have had Iran in mind. The press is now reporting that an accident took place in July in Syria at a chemical plant at which a number of Iranian experts were killed. Perhaps this is just a coincidence. Or perhaps Israel is also sending messages to Iran that it has the capacity, and more importantly, the will to protect itself from those who would seek to threaten it with weapons of mass destruction.
At a time when Iran appears to be determined to press ahead with its nuclear program and may have doubted Israel's will to do anything about it, Israel may well be acting to show it will do whatever it takes to ensure its security. With the United States bogged down in Iraq and apparently unable or unwilling to prevent Iran's nuclear developments, the Israelis may be signaling everyone, including the Bush Administration, that if the international community doesn't take more decisive action, it will.
Statecraft involves using all the tools of the state to affect the behavior of friends and foes alike. Israel's raid against the Syrian plant reflects the use of a military instrument applied quite selectively to affect the psychologies of many different actors on the world stage. Whether it will have the affect the Israelis desire remains to be seen. But for now, the Israelis have made a statement without triggering a wider conflict in the process.
Dennis Ross is counselor and Ziegler distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of Statecraft: And How to Restore America's Standing in the World.
View this article on our website at http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC06.php?CID=1094
Bush to U.N.: Lay Off Israel
United States President George W. Bush urged the United Nations to reform its Human Rights Council Tuesday, criticizing the body for ignoring abuses in places like Iran "while focusing its criticism excessively on Israel.” "The American people are disappointed by the failures of the Human Rights Council," Bush said. "The United Nations must reform its own Human Rights Council."
In the course of his speech, Bush pointed out several regimes which he termed "brutal" and "cruel." He announced new sanctions against the military dictatorship in Myanmar (Burma), accusing it of imposing "a 19-year reign of fear" that denies the basic freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.
"Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma," the president said in an address to the U.N. General Assembly. He purposely used the country's old name, Burma: the military junta renamed the Asian country Myanmar but the U.S. refuses to recognize the change.
"Basic freedoms of speech, assembly and worship are severely restricted," he said. "Ethnic minorities are persecuted. Forced child labor, human trafficking and rape are common. The regime is holding more than a thousand political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party was elected overwhelmingly by the Burmese people in 1990.
"The ruling junta remains unyielding, yet the people's desire for freedom is unmistakable," Bush said.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sat in the chamber and checked his watch during Bush's remarks. First Lady Laura Bush, also present for the president's speech, walked by the seated Iranian president without making contact, and Israeli Ambassador Danny Gillerman, too, made a point of avoiding Ahmadinejad.
Bush urged the world's nations to support countries that are struggling for democracy.
Israeli Ambassador Danny Gillerman made a point of avoiding Ahmadinejad.
"The people of Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have asked for our help, and every civilized nation has a responsibility to stand with them," he said. "Every civilized nation also has a responsibility to stand up for the people suffering under dictatorship," he added. "In Belarus, North Korea, Syria and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration" of the United Nations.
"In Cuba, the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end," Bush said. "The Cuban people are ready for their freedom. And as that nation enters a period of transition, the United Nations must insist on free speech, free assembly and, ultimately, free and competitive elections."
The Cuban delegation walked out of the chamber in reaction to the statement.
In the course of his speech, Bush pointed out several regimes which he termed "brutal" and "cruel." He announced new sanctions against the military dictatorship in Myanmar (Burma), accusing it of imposing "a 19-year reign of fear" that denies the basic freedoms of speech, assembly and worship.
"Americans are outraged by the situation in Burma," the president said in an address to the U.N. General Assembly. He purposely used the country's old name, Burma: the military junta renamed the Asian country Myanmar but the U.S. refuses to recognize the change.
"Basic freedoms of speech, assembly and worship are severely restricted," he said. "Ethnic minorities are persecuted. Forced child labor, human trafficking and rape are common. The regime is holding more than a thousand political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi, whose party was elected overwhelmingly by the Burmese people in 1990.
"The ruling junta remains unyielding, yet the people's desire for freedom is unmistakable," Bush said.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sat in the chamber and checked his watch during Bush's remarks. First Lady Laura Bush, also present for the president's speech, walked by the seated Iranian president without making contact, and Israeli Ambassador Danny Gillerman, too, made a point of avoiding Ahmadinejad.
Bush urged the world's nations to support countries that are struggling for democracy.
Israeli Ambassador Danny Gillerman made a point of avoiding Ahmadinejad.
"The people of Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have asked for our help, and every civilized nation has a responsibility to stand with them," he said. "Every civilized nation also has a responsibility to stand up for the people suffering under dictatorship," he added. "In Belarus, North Korea, Syria and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration" of the United Nations.
"In Cuba, the long rule of a cruel dictator is nearing its end," Bush said. "The Cuban people are ready for their freedom. And as that nation enters a period of transition, the United Nations must insist on free speech, free assembly and, ultimately, free and competitive elections."
The Cuban delegation walked out of the chamber in reaction to the statement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)