In last week's column, I discussed one delusion behind the current "peace process": Ehud Olmert's assertion that Palestinian leaders have accepted Israel as a Jewish state. . Yet the talks also rest on an even more fundamental delusion: that most Palestinians truly want an independent state alongside Israel.
Granted, polls have repeatedly shown a majority for this proposition. The majority may be razor-thin (the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center's latest poll put it at 51.1 percent), but it exists.
Yet those who seize on this as proof of Palestinians' desire for peace have neglected to ask one crucial question: When Palestinians say they favor a two-state solution, what kind of two-state solution are they envisioning? And the answer, as both these same polls and past Palestinian behavior make clear, is not a Palestinian state alongside a Jewish one - the only solution that Israel could, or the world should, accept. What they want is two Palestinian states, or at best one Palestinian and one binational state.
The JMCC poll, for instance, found that 69 percent of Palestinians want all 4.4 million refugees and their descendants relocated to Israel under any agreement, dismissing alternatives such as compensation, resettlement in Palestine or a quota for relocations to Israel. Previous polls have consistently produced similar results. Yet given Israel's current population of roughly 5.7 million Jews and 1.3 million Arabs, that is a clear recipe for eliminating the Jewish state demographically - not for living in peace with it.
Like others before it, this poll also found that 94 percent of Palestinians oppose any Israeli authority over the Temple Mount. In other words, they refuse to accept any Jewish rights in Judaism's holiest site - and if Jews have no rights there, then by implication, they have no rights anywhere in Israel. This denial of any Jewish right to this land is incompatible with acceptance of a Jewish state. But it is perfectly consistent with a two-state solution in which the second state is Palestinian or binational.
SUCH POLLS are not merely theoretical: Israeli-Palestinian talks collapsed over precisely these issues in 2000-2001. And Palestinians wholeheartedly supported this outcome: A July 2000 poll found that 83 percent approved Yasser Arafat's rejection of Israel's offer at that month's Camp David summit; only 6 percent felt he should have been more conciliatory.
And that is the principal reason for doubting that Palestinians' true goal is statehood: People who actually want a state do not keep saying "no" when one is offered.
At Camp David, Israel offered the Palestinians approximately 90 percent of the territories, including parts of Jerusalem. Not only did they refuse; they responded with a terrorist war. In December 2000, the offer was upped to 95 percent, including the Temple Mount; Arafat refused again. At Taba the following month, Israel sweetened the offer to 97 percent; Arafat still said no. Yet Palestinian support for him, and his decisions, remained undiminished.
HAD PALESTINIANS truly desired to "end the occupation" and acquire a state, they would not have rejected these offers; they would have acted as the Jews did in 1947, when the UN partition plan offered them a state on a mere 10 percent of the territory promised by the 1922 League of Nations Mandate. The offer did not even include Jerusalem, to which Jews have prayed for over 2,000 years. In short, it was incomparably worse than Israel's 2000-2001 offers to the Palestinians. Yet Jewish leaders accepted, believing that given their people's sufferings, even a tiny state was better than nothing.
The Palestinians, in contrast, rejected a proffered state that fell a mere 3 percent short of their putative demands, just because it (a) involved acknowledging a Jewish connection to the Temple Mount and (b) required the refugees to resettle in Palestine rather than Israel.
In other words, they preferred continued occupation to any deal that accepted a Jewish state.
One reason for Jewish urgency in 1947 was the refugee problem created by the Holocaust. Israel, with 800,000 inhabitants in 1948, consequently absorbed 687,000 immigrants over the next three years. Palestinians, too, face a pressing refugee problem. Yet far from seeking statehood to assist their refugees, they have repeatedly refused it unless Israel absorbs the refugees in their stead. Such behavior is inexplicable if what Palestinians want is their own state. But it makes perfect sense if the goal is eradicating the Jewish state.
Even on territorial issues, Palestinians' lack of interest in statehood is glaring. The JMCC poll, for instance, found that 82 percent oppose Israel's retention of any settlements, even "in exchange for equal Israeli land." In other words, faced with a theoretical deal for statehood on the equivalent of 100 percent of the territories, fully 82 percent of Palestinians would reject it solely because it would not expel some 100,000 Israelis from their homes. Is that truly the response of people who want a state? Or who want to live in peace with their neighbors? The delusion that Palestinians want a state is far from harmless. Indeed, it perpetuates the conflict by diverting Israeli and international efforts into endless vain attempts to satisfy unsatisfiable demands, instead of focusing these efforts on the true problem:
Palestinian unwillingness to accept a Jewish state in any part of this land. Even worse, it reinforces this unwillingness - because as long as the world responds to every impasse not by confronting this problem, but by pressuring Israel for more concessions, Palestinians will continue to believe that by standing firm, they can eventually secure a deal that will indeed eradicate the Jewish state. And if so, why settle for less?
The only way to truly achieve a two-state solution is for Israel, and the world, to insist that there will be no progress - no talks, and no Israeli concessions - until Palestinians are prepared to accept the Jewish state's existence. That will not produce results quickly, and success is not guaranteed. But unlike the current process, it at least offers a chance - because only if Palestinians see no hope of getting the whole loaf will they ever agree to settle for half.
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Haniyeh speaks at Islamic Jihad rally
The head of the Hamas government spoke Friday at a rally of thousands of supporters of the Islamic Jihad movement, trying to reduce tensions after deadly clashes this week between the two political rivals. Hamas and Islamic Jihad share an Islamic militant ideology, are directed by leaders based in Damascus and receive some support from Iran. Tensions between the two rose after Hamas seized control of Gaza in June, and insisted it had a monopoly on carrying weapons in public. There have been repeated clashes between Hamas police and Islamic Jihad gunmen, including fighting several days ago that left two people dead.
On Friday, an Islamic Jihad rally commemorating the assassination of its founder by Israel in Malta in 1995 drew some 10,000 people, an unexpectedly large turnout for the group.
The crowd gathered in a field in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya, and the group's leader in exile, Ramadan Shalah, spoke by telephone. Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas government in Gaza, and other senior Hamas figures, also attended the rally.
"We will not accept disagreement with any faction, foremost with our brothers in the Islamic Jihad," Haniyeh told the audience. The crowd responded by chanting "Islamic Jihad, Islamic Jihad."
Haniyeh said leaders from both sides will work to contain tension. "Our relation with Islamic Jihad is strategic, stable and will not be shaken with a few events," he said.
Islamic Jihad is much smaller and more radical than the ruling Hamas. It doesn't participate in elections and says only fighting Israel will lead to ending occupation. Hamas took part in elections and has reached cease-fire deals with Israel in the past.
Shalah, speaking from Damascus, said Islamic Jihad is not trying to challenge Hamas' rule.
"Out of concern for the Islamic undertaking and for Hamas .. .which is facing the trials and tribulations of engaging in politics, I tell them we are not competing for authority or positions or gains .... or even for mosques," he said. "Our project is jihad (holy war) and resistance."
On Friday, an Islamic Jihad rally commemorating the assassination of its founder by Israel in Malta in 1995 drew some 10,000 people, an unexpectedly large turnout for the group.
The crowd gathered in a field in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahiya, and the group's leader in exile, Ramadan Shalah, spoke by telephone. Ismail Haniyeh, the head of the Hamas government in Gaza, and other senior Hamas figures, also attended the rally.
"We will not accept disagreement with any faction, foremost with our brothers in the Islamic Jihad," Haniyeh told the audience. The crowd responded by chanting "Islamic Jihad, Islamic Jihad."
Haniyeh said leaders from both sides will work to contain tension. "Our relation with Islamic Jihad is strategic, stable and will not be shaken with a few events," he said.
Islamic Jihad is much smaller and more radical than the ruling Hamas. It doesn't participate in elections and says only fighting Israel will lead to ending occupation. Hamas took part in elections and has reached cease-fire deals with Israel in the past.
Shalah, speaking from Damascus, said Islamic Jihad is not trying to challenge Hamas' rule.
"Out of concern for the Islamic undertaking and for Hamas .. .which is facing the trials and tribulations of engaging in politics, I tell them we are not competing for authority or positions or gains .... or even for mosques," he said. "Our project is jihad (holy war) and resistance."
Friday, October 26, 2007
Islamo Fascism Awareness and Appeasement at Penn
David J. Rusin
FrontPageMagazine.com
10/26/2007
Two sharply contrasting images from life at the University of Pennsylvania confront students pondering the threat posed by radical Islam. One is a plaque just off College Green that bears the names of alumni murdered on September 11. Another is the notorious set of photos from Amy Gutmann’s 2006 Halloween bash, where an undergraduate dressed as a suicide bomber playfully “executed” revelers — and then posed with the Penn president herself.
Are Islamist violence and oppression matters of grave concern to the free world? Or are Islamic radicals the stuff of costume parties, akin to the werewolves and vampires that haunt only our imaginations? The dichotomy marking Penn’s recent past reflects the ongoing confusion that grips society well beyond the ivory tower. It is precisely this fog that Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week intends to clear.
Technically, there was no IFAW at Penn. It was renamed “Terrorism Awareness Week” following objections that the events conflicted with the Muslim Student Association’s Islam Awareness Week. Moreover, in the words of local MSA chairman Samir Malik, the original designation “was very narrow-minded, wasn’t respectful, and wasn’t conducive to the open dialogue environment that Penn strives to foster.” The Penn College Republicans accepted the change as part of a compromise in which Penn’s MSA would compose a statement condemning violence perpetrated in the name of Islam.
However, the MSA failed to uphold its end of the bargain, as its statement does not offer an unambiguous reproach of Islamic-inspired bloodshed. The text instead features lamentations that Islam is misunderstood, a quote decrying the term “Islamo-Fascism” from 9/11 “Truther” Paul Craig Roberts, and other metaphysical murk. Moreover, the Koranic ayat (5:32) put forth to allegedly denounce “violence against innocent civilians” was edited to exclude a phrase that permits the killing of those who promote “mischief in the land.” Were the denizens of the World Trade Center “innocent”? Was Theo van Gogh making “mischief” when he filmed Submission? Were the Penn College Republicans?
While the intention had been to read the statement — or have an MSA representative read it — at the start of IFAW/TAW events, organizers scrapped the idea, rightly deeming the MSA’s words useless. The text has not been officially released by either party. Surely this episode provides a valuable lesson. Based on my conversations with PCR officials, that lesson has been learned — the hard way.
IFAW/TAW kicked off on Monday, October 22, with another compromise that did not quite turn out as expected. Rather than giving Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes his own platform, the organizers placed him in a panel discussion with two Penn professors, terrorism expert Stephen Gale and War on Terror critic Ian Lustick. Unfortunately, the late arrival of Pipes both diminished the impact of his expert voice and demanded a last-minute modification of the format. The panelists instead gave short talks and fielded questions from an audience that totaled about 75 members.
Lustick — who famously endorsed the tenure bid of Israel-hating pseudo-academic Norman Finkelstein and once lamented that the U.S. had achieved its victory in Afghanistan too easily — spoke first and accounted for most of the highlights/lowlights. Gale followed him with an exposition on terrorism from a largely tactical standpoint; he also criticized universities for offering insufficient courses to help students grasp this phenomenon. Pipes closed with a more strategic perspective, identifying radical Islam as the enemy and proposing to bolster moderate forces in the Muslim world.
But the evening belonged to Lustick, whose conspiracy-driven diatribes included many hanging curveballs that Pipes would have hammered if only he had been there to swing away. The professor’s fundamental argument was that the reaction to 9/11 has been overblown, due in no small part to the repeated airing of footage that shows the planes cutting into the Twin Towers. He claimed that this had traumatized viewers into a vastly exaggerated sense of the terrorist threat — which he believes is minimal for America — thus feeding the aims of a “neocon cabal” eager for war in the Middle East.
In response to his implication that 9/11 was a one-off event and that terrorism should be of limited concern to Americans, I recited a list of thwarted and failed attacks against Western targets over the past eighteen months: the Toronto terror plot, the trans-Atlantic airlines plot, the Fort Dix plot, the JFK plot, the London car bomb plot, and the German and Danish plots — not to mention the recent conviction of would-be dirty bomber Jose Padilla. Those familiar with the professor’s work will not be surprised by his counter.
First, Lustick asserted that since many of the above plans were spawned in Europe, terrorism is primarily their problem, not ours. Second, he argued that disrupted U.S.-based plots are often characterized by entrapment or bungling, and hence pose little significant danger. Third, he claimed that the most perilous domestic threat uncovered over the last few years centered on a Christian extremist of whom virtually no one has heard — because the media and politicians are unjustly fixated on the notion that the majority of terrorists are Muslim.
Former Senator Rick Santorum offered greater clarity and purpose when he addressed a few hundred listeners on Wednesday evening. Opening with a condemnation of academia for presenting only one side of controversial issues, Santorum proceeded to do the teaching that American teachers will not do. Indeed, his talk was highlighted by cogent interludes exploring the Islamist mindset, the fundamental differences between Christian and Muslim social systems, the contrasting worldviews of Sunnis and Shiites, the history of Islamic aggression, and the advent of modern Islamism.
Santorum also challenged left-leaning students to heed the testimony of self-described radical feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who escaped genital mutilation and arranged marriage in Somalia. She is now a refugee from Europe as well. He likewise cited the experiences of author Bruce Bawer, who moved to Amsterdam with his homosexual partner in order to free himself from what he had considered America’s oppressive religious atmosphere. Once there, however, Bawer found Muslim youths beating gays on the streets and the Islamist agenda advancing through Dutch society.
The erstwhile senator concluded with the words of Winston Churchill on the eve of World War II, urging action in the face of gathering threats. “How long are we going to wait?” Santorum asked, noting that the Greatest Generation did essentially nothing for two years while Hitler plowed through Europe. He also cautioned against the tendency to always “think that the people opposing us are like us.” The Islamists are not — and we must calibrate our response accordingly.
Despite a couple of obvious missteps, Terrorism Awareness Week both engaged and informed its audience. Chairwoman Abby Huntsman and President Zac Byer of the Penn College Republicans cheered the solid turnout and expressed hope that the events will spark an extended debate. They also reiterated the plea of Professor Stephen Gale for universities to provide additional courses on these vital subjects.
Finally, the Penn community should be praised for the respectful treatment that it accorded each of its distinguished guests. Other than some defamatory flyers, a handful of protesters outside the Santorum talk, and the coordinated walkout of a few dozen attendees midway through his remarks, the opposition hardly mustered a peep. If only the hooligans at Berkeley and Emory could learn to exhibit comparable self-restraint.
David J. Rusin holds a Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy from the University of Pennsylvania. His interests include foreign affairs and security policy. He may be contacted at djrusin@gmail.com.
FrontPageMagazine.com
10/26/2007
Two sharply contrasting images from life at the University of Pennsylvania confront students pondering the threat posed by radical Islam. One is a plaque just off College Green that bears the names of alumni murdered on September 11. Another is the notorious set of photos from Amy Gutmann’s 2006 Halloween bash, where an undergraduate dressed as a suicide bomber playfully “executed” revelers — and then posed with the Penn president herself.
Are Islamist violence and oppression matters of grave concern to the free world? Or are Islamic radicals the stuff of costume parties, akin to the werewolves and vampires that haunt only our imaginations? The dichotomy marking Penn’s recent past reflects the ongoing confusion that grips society well beyond the ivory tower. It is precisely this fog that Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week intends to clear.
Technically, there was no IFAW at Penn. It was renamed “Terrorism Awareness Week” following objections that the events conflicted with the Muslim Student Association’s Islam Awareness Week. Moreover, in the words of local MSA chairman Samir Malik, the original designation “was very narrow-minded, wasn’t respectful, and wasn’t conducive to the open dialogue environment that Penn strives to foster.” The Penn College Republicans accepted the change as part of a compromise in which Penn’s MSA would compose a statement condemning violence perpetrated in the name of Islam.
However, the MSA failed to uphold its end of the bargain, as its statement does not offer an unambiguous reproach of Islamic-inspired bloodshed. The text instead features lamentations that Islam is misunderstood, a quote decrying the term “Islamo-Fascism” from 9/11 “Truther” Paul Craig Roberts, and other metaphysical murk. Moreover, the Koranic ayat (5:32) put forth to allegedly denounce “violence against innocent civilians” was edited to exclude a phrase that permits the killing of those who promote “mischief in the land.” Were the denizens of the World Trade Center “innocent”? Was Theo van Gogh making “mischief” when he filmed Submission? Were the Penn College Republicans?
While the intention had been to read the statement — or have an MSA representative read it — at the start of IFAW/TAW events, organizers scrapped the idea, rightly deeming the MSA’s words useless. The text has not been officially released by either party. Surely this episode provides a valuable lesson. Based on my conversations with PCR officials, that lesson has been learned — the hard way.
IFAW/TAW kicked off on Monday, October 22, with another compromise that did not quite turn out as expected. Rather than giving Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes his own platform, the organizers placed him in a panel discussion with two Penn professors, terrorism expert Stephen Gale and War on Terror critic Ian Lustick. Unfortunately, the late arrival of Pipes both diminished the impact of his expert voice and demanded a last-minute modification of the format. The panelists instead gave short talks and fielded questions from an audience that totaled about 75 members.
Lustick — who famously endorsed the tenure bid of Israel-hating pseudo-academic Norman Finkelstein and once lamented that the U.S. had achieved its victory in Afghanistan too easily — spoke first and accounted for most of the highlights/lowlights. Gale followed him with an exposition on terrorism from a largely tactical standpoint; he also criticized universities for offering insufficient courses to help students grasp this phenomenon. Pipes closed with a more strategic perspective, identifying radical Islam as the enemy and proposing to bolster moderate forces in the Muslim world.
But the evening belonged to Lustick, whose conspiracy-driven diatribes included many hanging curveballs that Pipes would have hammered if only he had been there to swing away. The professor’s fundamental argument was that the reaction to 9/11 has been overblown, due in no small part to the repeated airing of footage that shows the planes cutting into the Twin Towers. He claimed that this had traumatized viewers into a vastly exaggerated sense of the terrorist threat — which he believes is minimal for America — thus feeding the aims of a “neocon cabal” eager for war in the Middle East.
In response to his implication that 9/11 was a one-off event and that terrorism should be of limited concern to Americans, I recited a list of thwarted and failed attacks against Western targets over the past eighteen months: the Toronto terror plot, the trans-Atlantic airlines plot, the Fort Dix plot, the JFK plot, the London car bomb plot, and the German and Danish plots — not to mention the recent conviction of would-be dirty bomber Jose Padilla. Those familiar with the professor’s work will not be surprised by his counter.
First, Lustick asserted that since many of the above plans were spawned in Europe, terrorism is primarily their problem, not ours. Second, he argued that disrupted U.S.-based plots are often characterized by entrapment or bungling, and hence pose little significant danger. Third, he claimed that the most perilous domestic threat uncovered over the last few years centered on a Christian extremist of whom virtually no one has heard — because the media and politicians are unjustly fixated on the notion that the majority of terrorists are Muslim.
Former Senator Rick Santorum offered greater clarity and purpose when he addressed a few hundred listeners on Wednesday evening. Opening with a condemnation of academia for presenting only one side of controversial issues, Santorum proceeded to do the teaching that American teachers will not do. Indeed, his talk was highlighted by cogent interludes exploring the Islamist mindset, the fundamental differences between Christian and Muslim social systems, the contrasting worldviews of Sunnis and Shiites, the history of Islamic aggression, and the advent of modern Islamism.
Santorum also challenged left-leaning students to heed the testimony of self-described radical feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who escaped genital mutilation and arranged marriage in Somalia. She is now a refugee from Europe as well. He likewise cited the experiences of author Bruce Bawer, who moved to Amsterdam with his homosexual partner in order to free himself from what he had considered America’s oppressive religious atmosphere. Once there, however, Bawer found Muslim youths beating gays on the streets and the Islamist agenda advancing through Dutch society.
The erstwhile senator concluded with the words of Winston Churchill on the eve of World War II, urging action in the face of gathering threats. “How long are we going to wait?” Santorum asked, noting that the Greatest Generation did essentially nothing for two years while Hitler plowed through Europe. He also cautioned against the tendency to always “think that the people opposing us are like us.” The Islamists are not — and we must calibrate our response accordingly.
Despite a couple of obvious missteps, Terrorism Awareness Week both engaged and informed its audience. Chairwoman Abby Huntsman and President Zac Byer of the Penn College Republicans cheered the solid turnout and expressed hope that the events will spark an extended debate. They also reiterated the plea of Professor Stephen Gale for universities to provide additional courses on these vital subjects.
Finally, the Penn community should be praised for the respectful treatment that it accorded each of its distinguished guests. Other than some defamatory flyers, a handful of protesters outside the Santorum talk, and the coordinated walkout of a few dozen attendees midway through his remarks, the opposition hardly mustered a peep. If only the hooligans at Berkeley and Emory could learn to exhibit comparable self-restraint.
David J. Rusin holds a Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy from the University of Pennsylvania. His interests include foreign affairs and security policy. He may be contacted at djrusin@gmail.com.
Sabeel’s “Peace façade”
Thanks to Sabeel, an East Jerusalem-based Ecumenical Liberation Center, Americans will soon be provided a window into the backwards nature of the so-called “human rights movement.” On October 26-27, Boston’s well known Old South Church will host a conference led by the North American Friends of Sabeel, a group that purports to “seek justice and peace in the Holy Land.” Their conference, entitled “The Apartheid Paradigm in Palestine-Israel,” will engage in continued political warfare against Israel.
Israel will be blamed for the plight of the Palestinians. Calls for divestment based on Jimmy Carter’s discredited notion of apartheid will be made. Renouncing violence and recognizing Israel are absent from the agenda. So is another critical issue, making it ludicrous for Sabeel to claim the status of a peacemaker.
Not a single session of the Sabeel conference addresses the precarious situation of Christians living in Gaza. That life has become even direr for this community with Hamas in power seems irrelevant to Sabeel. Such indifference can be attributed to the identity of the aggressor. Because the ones perpetrating attacks against Christians are Muslim extremists, Israel can’t be blamed. And if Israel can’t be blamed, the abuse is not worth pointing out.
Sabeel did not venture a word of criticism following the murder on October 7 of Rami Khader Ayyad, a prominent Palestinian Christian activist and Gaza’s only Christian bookstore manager. Nor did they say anything during the summer coup when a convent and Christian school were attacked.
As the Jihadia Salafiya militia roams around Gaza, “enforcing” Islamic law and targeting Christians, Sabeel prefers to sit in Back Bay and hear Noam Chomsky deconstruct the “apartheid paradigm.” Perhaps someone ought to remind these guys that in Hamastan Christians are expected to accept “Islamic rule if they want to live in peace in Gaza,” according to Jihadia Salafiya spokesman.
Such insouciance should come as no surprise to those familiar with Sabeel: their most recent quarterly publication that followed the Gaza takeover contains not a single reference to “Hamas.” Instead, the focus is on “Israeli Violations against the Palestinian Environment.” Such behavior demonstrates that Sabeel is more concerned with criticizing Israel than protesting the mistreatment of its own
Radical anti-Israel agenda
This is only one aspect of Sabeel’s odious behavior. Their rhetorical invectives against Israel stifle any attempt towards reconciliation. Sabeel's leader, Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek, has described Zionism as a “step backward in the development of Judaism,” and Zionists as “oppressors and war makers.” With rhetoric resembling Iranian President Ahmadinejad's, Atik suggests that the Jewish homeland ought to reside in Europe.
As for their treatment of Palestinians, Sabeel undermines its own commitment to “empower the Palestinian community as a whole.” By consistently refusing to assign requisite responsibility to Palestinians for their plight, Sabeel suggests to Palestinians that their behavior is inconsequential to promoting peace. They are treated as helpless victims.
Although Palestinian human rights would be well served by investing their energies to reform the PA and Hamas security services, tackle widespread internal human rights abuses, build accountable governing institutions, and end corruption, nepotism and terror, such steps receive no attention from Sabeel. In fact, Sabeel ends up undermining the promotion of Palestinian human rights.
So too does Jeff Halper, executive director of the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions, and perennial speaker at Sabeel’s conference. ICAHD is a non-governmental organization funded by the European Union, which ostensibly focuses on housing issues. Instead, they use their resources to promote a radical anti-Israel agenda.
Like Atik and Sabeel, Halper disempowers Palestinians by focusing exclusively on Israel. In June 2007, he patronizingly wrote that, given Israel’s supposed desire for turning Gaza into a Bantustan, “what happens in Gaza…is irrelevant to Israel.” He writes that, “not only are Palestinians irrelevant, in Israel’s view, but the Hamas 'takeover' is actually a positive development since it furthers the apartheid process.” The statement is fallacious and Palestinians are depicted as helpless in their quest for peace.
Sabeel and ICAHD are failing dismally to fulfill their responsibility to Palestinians. Deluding Palestinians into thinking that internal human rights violations, internecine Fatah-Hamas violence, incitement and lack of educational reform are secondary and irrelevant to Israeli policymakers is irresponsible and destructive.
How can these groups act in good faith when they know concessions undertaken by Israel are contingent upon a positive change in Palestinian behavior? By promulgating this disempowering narrative, Sabeel strips the Palestinians, not only of their responsibility, but also their dignity - the primary underpinning of any human rights movement.
Despite what the Annapolis Peace Summit could portend, Sabeel and ICAHD will resist every temptation to engage Palestinians in self-criticism. Instead, while Christians are being killed by Muslim Palestinians in Gaza, members of Sabeel and ICAHD find it more useful to travel half way around the world to blame it on Israel.
Israel will be blamed for the plight of the Palestinians. Calls for divestment based on Jimmy Carter’s discredited notion of apartheid will be made. Renouncing violence and recognizing Israel are absent from the agenda. So is another critical issue, making it ludicrous for Sabeel to claim the status of a peacemaker.
Not a single session of the Sabeel conference addresses the precarious situation of Christians living in Gaza. That life has become even direr for this community with Hamas in power seems irrelevant to Sabeel. Such indifference can be attributed to the identity of the aggressor. Because the ones perpetrating attacks against Christians are Muslim extremists, Israel can’t be blamed. And if Israel can’t be blamed, the abuse is not worth pointing out.
Sabeel did not venture a word of criticism following the murder on October 7 of Rami Khader Ayyad, a prominent Palestinian Christian activist and Gaza’s only Christian bookstore manager. Nor did they say anything during the summer coup when a convent and Christian school were attacked.
As the Jihadia Salafiya militia roams around Gaza, “enforcing” Islamic law and targeting Christians, Sabeel prefers to sit in Back Bay and hear Noam Chomsky deconstruct the “apartheid paradigm.” Perhaps someone ought to remind these guys that in Hamastan Christians are expected to accept “Islamic rule if they want to live in peace in Gaza,” according to Jihadia Salafiya spokesman.
Such insouciance should come as no surprise to those familiar with Sabeel: their most recent quarterly publication that followed the Gaza takeover contains not a single reference to “Hamas.” Instead, the focus is on “Israeli Violations against the Palestinian Environment.” Such behavior demonstrates that Sabeel is more concerned with criticizing Israel than protesting the mistreatment of its own
Radical anti-Israel agenda
This is only one aspect of Sabeel’s odious behavior. Their rhetorical invectives against Israel stifle any attempt towards reconciliation. Sabeel's leader, Rev. Dr. Naim Ateek, has described Zionism as a “step backward in the development of Judaism,” and Zionists as “oppressors and war makers.” With rhetoric resembling Iranian President Ahmadinejad's, Atik suggests that the Jewish homeland ought to reside in Europe.
As for their treatment of Palestinians, Sabeel undermines its own commitment to “empower the Palestinian community as a whole.” By consistently refusing to assign requisite responsibility to Palestinians for their plight, Sabeel suggests to Palestinians that their behavior is inconsequential to promoting peace. They are treated as helpless victims.
Although Palestinian human rights would be well served by investing their energies to reform the PA and Hamas security services, tackle widespread internal human rights abuses, build accountable governing institutions, and end corruption, nepotism and terror, such steps receive no attention from Sabeel. In fact, Sabeel ends up undermining the promotion of Palestinian human rights.
So too does Jeff Halper, executive director of the Israeli Committee against House Demolitions, and perennial speaker at Sabeel’s conference. ICAHD is a non-governmental organization funded by the European Union, which ostensibly focuses on housing issues. Instead, they use their resources to promote a radical anti-Israel agenda.
Like Atik and Sabeel, Halper disempowers Palestinians by focusing exclusively on Israel. In June 2007, he patronizingly wrote that, given Israel’s supposed desire for turning Gaza into a Bantustan, “what happens in Gaza…is irrelevant to Israel.” He writes that, “not only are Palestinians irrelevant, in Israel’s view, but the Hamas 'takeover' is actually a positive development since it furthers the apartheid process.” The statement is fallacious and Palestinians are depicted as helpless in their quest for peace.
Sabeel and ICAHD are failing dismally to fulfill their responsibility to Palestinians. Deluding Palestinians into thinking that internal human rights violations, internecine Fatah-Hamas violence, incitement and lack of educational reform are secondary and irrelevant to Israeli policymakers is irresponsible and destructive.
How can these groups act in good faith when they know concessions undertaken by Israel are contingent upon a positive change in Palestinian behavior? By promulgating this disempowering narrative, Sabeel strips the Palestinians, not only of their responsibility, but also their dignity - the primary underpinning of any human rights movement.
Despite what the Annapolis Peace Summit could portend, Sabeel and ICAHD will resist every temptation to engage Palestinians in self-criticism. Instead, while Christians are being killed by Muslim Palestinians in Gaza, members of Sabeel and ICAHD find it more useful to travel half way around the world to blame it on Israel.
One more Request-Arlene Kushner
I have learned that a "pro-peace" group is generating a grass roots campaign to "congratulate" the State of Israel for being flexible in negotiations. Their communication is going to the Israel ambassador in Washington and the Israel Consul General in NY. It behooves us to let these representatives of Israel know that not everyone in the US thinks that what Israel is doing is wonderful. Especially is this the case since Natan Sharansky on his One Jerusalem website is saying that the ambassador and the consul general are getting NO protests about what Israel is doing.
So hang in there with me, guys, please! Take the time to send two more messages and, again, get this word out to absolutely everyone you can reach on this.
The message this time:
Jerusalem is an eternal Jewish heritage and should not be divided under any circumstances. You protest the idea that Jerusalem might be on the table at Annapolis.
Negotiations with the PA will NOT lead to peace but to the establishment of a terrorist state at the border of a weakened Israel. You therefore protest the Olmert government's willingness to negotiate with the PA and to make concessions. This will serve neither the US nor Israel well.
Ambassador Sallai Meridor
phone 202-364-5590 fax 202-364-5560 Emb-sec3@israelemb.org
Ambassador Asaf Shariv
phone 212-499-5450 fax 212-499-5455 ashariv@newyork.mfa.gov.il
To all of you who are cooperating with me during this difficult time, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I cannot emphasize enough how much numbers count and what power is in your hands collectively.
(I give permission to anyone who wishes to share this request for action to copy the above from the full posting that follows, and to put it out separately, with attribution to me-Arlene Kushner)
So hang in there with me, guys, please! Take the time to send two more messages and, again, get this word out to absolutely everyone you can reach on this.
The message this time:
Jerusalem is an eternal Jewish heritage and should not be divided under any circumstances. You protest the idea that Jerusalem might be on the table at Annapolis.
Negotiations with the PA will NOT lead to peace but to the establishment of a terrorist state at the border of a weakened Israel. You therefore protest the Olmert government's willingness to negotiate with the PA and to make concessions. This will serve neither the US nor Israel well.
Ambassador Sallai Meridor
phone 202-364-5590 fax 202-364-5560 Emb-sec3@israelemb.org
Ambassador Asaf Shariv
phone 212-499-5450 fax 212-499-5455 ashariv@newyork.mfa.gov.il
To all of you who are cooperating with me during this difficult time, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I cannot emphasize enough how much numbers count and what power is in your hands collectively.
(I give permission to anyone who wishes to share this request for action to copy the above from the full posting that follows, and to put it out separately, with attribution to me-Arlene Kushner)
Envisioning a divided Jerusalem
Nadav Shragai
It is hard to decide which is more embarrassing: The inconceivable quiescence with which the division of Jerusalem is being discussed, or the unforgivable impotence and weak arguments evinced by the right and the religious in this debate.
Forget about ideology for a moment. Anyone who has not yet understood why Jerusalem is the embodiment of Jewish rights in this land is not going to understand it now. Pragmatism, for better or worse, is what will decide the battle for Jerusalem. Yet on this of all issues, the obliviousness is almost total: It is impossible to talk again and again about the hundreds of thousands of Jews who visit the Old City and Western Wall without explaining that this will stop once Jerusalem is divided. It is impossible to fight for Jerusalem without telling the sorry tale of Rachel's Tomb, which the Oslo Accords turned into a half-abandoned border post on the outskirts of Bethlehem. It is impossible to wage this battle without recalling the 19 years in which Jews were forbidden to visit their holy places, even though the armistice agreement with Jordan ostensibly guaranteed such visits.
There will be no safe, quiet houses in Neveh Yaakov, French Hill or Pisgat Ze'ev without control over "outlying neighborhoods" such as Shoafat and Beit Hanina, which abut them. There will be no safe shopping at Jerusalem's Malkha Mall, no visits to the Biblical Zoo, no train rides from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv and no peaceful houses in Givat Masua and Malkha without the adjacent "outlying neighborhood" of Walaja. There are also "outlying neighborhoods" adjoining Kibbutz Ramat Rachel, Talpiot and Har Homa. Beit Jala, the "outlying neighborhood" next to Gilo, was inhabited by thoroughly decent people, just as Walaja and Shoafat are - until one day (and this was before the rise of Hamas), it was taken over by armed gangs, who shot at Gilo from it every day.
Those who give the Palestinians control over the Temple Mount, the "outlying neighborhood" next to the Western Wall, will no longer be able to pray in peace at the Wall, or hold Memorial Day ceremonies or induction ceremonies for paratroopers there; nor will they be able to ensure the safety of the president or prime minister should either wish to participate in such ceremonies. Imagine the street battles in the alleys of Sajiyeh and Beit Hanun, in the Gaza Strip, transferred to the ancient streets of Jerusalem, which today teem with Jews.
Think about how bar-mitzvah ceremonies or wedding pictures could be held at the Western Wall, or even plain old visits to place a note in the cracks, if Palestinians "controlled" the area a few hundred meters away. How would Jews visit their loved ones who are buried on the Mount of Olives in a divided Jerusalem? In armored cars? Would Mount Scopus, which contains the Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital, once again become an isolated enclave? Har Gilo would also become an enclave. And what would happen to cars on Route 1, one of the city's main arteries, which is dominated by Issawiyeh, Wadi Joz and Sheikh Jarrah; would they also be armored? Granted, in many people's eyes, Jerusalem is already divided. We have discriminated, in terms of both infrastructure and services, against the residents of East Jerusalem. We have ignored many parts of the city's eastern half.
The question is whether one fatal folly justifies another. Would it not be preferable to rectify the first folly and reunite the city, instead of ratifying the division and thereby sinking all of us, Jews and Arabs alike? Do we need to simply accept the "demographic problem," or should we deal with it by strengthening the Jewish presence in the city, through finally implementing an infinity of decisions that were never carried out? In 2000, it was Ehud Olmert who fought for Jerusalem's unity. Today, the city is still searching for a leader to wage the battle against him
It is hard to decide which is more embarrassing: The inconceivable quiescence with which the division of Jerusalem is being discussed, or the unforgivable impotence and weak arguments evinced by the right and the religious in this debate.
Forget about ideology for a moment. Anyone who has not yet understood why Jerusalem is the embodiment of Jewish rights in this land is not going to understand it now. Pragmatism, for better or worse, is what will decide the battle for Jerusalem. Yet on this of all issues, the obliviousness is almost total: It is impossible to talk again and again about the hundreds of thousands of Jews who visit the Old City and Western Wall without explaining that this will stop once Jerusalem is divided. It is impossible to fight for Jerusalem without telling the sorry tale of Rachel's Tomb, which the Oslo Accords turned into a half-abandoned border post on the outskirts of Bethlehem. It is impossible to wage this battle without recalling the 19 years in which Jews were forbidden to visit their holy places, even though the armistice agreement with Jordan ostensibly guaranteed such visits.
There will be no safe, quiet houses in Neveh Yaakov, French Hill or Pisgat Ze'ev without control over "outlying neighborhoods" such as Shoafat and Beit Hanina, which abut them. There will be no safe shopping at Jerusalem's Malkha Mall, no visits to the Biblical Zoo, no train rides from Jerusalem to Tel Aviv and no peaceful houses in Givat Masua and Malkha without the adjacent "outlying neighborhood" of Walaja. There are also "outlying neighborhoods" adjoining Kibbutz Ramat Rachel, Talpiot and Har Homa. Beit Jala, the "outlying neighborhood" next to Gilo, was inhabited by thoroughly decent people, just as Walaja and Shoafat are - until one day (and this was before the rise of Hamas), it was taken over by armed gangs, who shot at Gilo from it every day.
Those who give the Palestinians control over the Temple Mount, the "outlying neighborhood" next to the Western Wall, will no longer be able to pray in peace at the Wall, or hold Memorial Day ceremonies or induction ceremonies for paratroopers there; nor will they be able to ensure the safety of the president or prime minister should either wish to participate in such ceremonies. Imagine the street battles in the alleys of Sajiyeh and Beit Hanun, in the Gaza Strip, transferred to the ancient streets of Jerusalem, which today teem with Jews.
Think about how bar-mitzvah ceremonies or wedding pictures could be held at the Western Wall, or even plain old visits to place a note in the cracks, if Palestinians "controlled" the area a few hundred meters away. How would Jews visit their loved ones who are buried on the Mount of Olives in a divided Jerusalem? In armored cars? Would Mount Scopus, which contains the Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital, once again become an isolated enclave? Har Gilo would also become an enclave. And what would happen to cars on Route 1, one of the city's main arteries, which is dominated by Issawiyeh, Wadi Joz and Sheikh Jarrah; would they also be armored? Granted, in many people's eyes, Jerusalem is already divided. We have discriminated, in terms of both infrastructure and services, against the residents of East Jerusalem. We have ignored many parts of the city's eastern half.
The question is whether one fatal folly justifies another. Would it not be preferable to rectify the first folly and reunite the city, instead of ratifying the division and thereby sinking all of us, Jews and Arabs alike? Do we need to simply accept the "demographic problem," or should we deal with it by strengthening the Jewish presence in the city, through finally implementing an infinity of decisions that were never carried out? In 2000, it was Ehud Olmert who fought for Jerusalem's unity. Today, the city is still searching for a leader to wage the battle against him
Europe condemns Iran over human rights abuses
EU Parliament passes bill with vast majority in favor of criticizing Tehran for death penalty, persecution of journalists, homosexuals, and human rights activists. Israeli ambassador to EU: Resolution doesn't have teeth, but it helps build European consensus against Iran In another diplomatic blow to Iran's international standing, the European Union Parliament on Thursday overwhelmingly voted to pass a motion condemning Iran for human rights abuses including torture and the persecution of homosexuals and journalists.
The motion said that the parliament "expresses its concern with the deterioration in the state of human rights in the last few years. (The Parliament) appeals to the Iranian authorities to respect their commitments to international human rights standards… (The Parliament) severely condemns the practice of stoning and seeks reforms in the methods used for punishment and a cease of the practice of stoning."
Human Rights
Iran hits back at Canada at UN rights forum / Reuters
Tehran accuses Ottawa of racism, police brutality and treating its indigenous people like second class citizens
Full story
The decision was not an Israeli initiative, but comes at a time of considerable change in European attitude towards Iran which Israel has actively encouraged.
Ran Koriel, Israel's ambassador to the EU, told Ynet that "this four-page resolution is a charge-sheet against Iranian human rights practices. This decision refers to human rights and is not only limited to the nuclear program, regional instability or Holocaust denial because there is mechanism that allows human rights motions to be passed in a expedited manner."
Koriel explained that "this decision enumerates Iranian crimes: The death penalty—this year over 200 people (were put to death)—and the manner: stoning, public hangings, death sentences for journalists, human right activists and homosexuals. This is in addition to the oppression of religion, public opinion, journalists and more and it is mentions the names of those who are imprisoned in order to gain their release."
Building consensus in Europe
The motion does not carry the threat of action but it does help shape the public consensus on the matter in Europe and may help the passing of future sanctions against Iran.
"On the operational side, there aren't teeth," Koriel said. "It is mostly directed towards the UN, to strongly condemn Iran and to take steps to halt the death penalty. This is an important decision and it was well received by all parties in the Parliament. It is safe to say that this is part of consensus-building in Europe on the character of the Iran regime."
Koriel was skeptical that this represented a victory for Israel, but he promised that Israel would work to get a resolution passed in the EU on the Iranian nuclear program.
Comment: Wait and watch for Iran's response-it will inclde counter charges-thus takingfocus off of them.
The motion said that the parliament "expresses its concern with the deterioration in the state of human rights in the last few years. (The Parliament) appeals to the Iranian authorities to respect their commitments to international human rights standards… (The Parliament) severely condemns the practice of stoning and seeks reforms in the methods used for punishment and a cease of the practice of stoning."
Human Rights
Iran hits back at Canada at UN rights forum / Reuters
Tehran accuses Ottawa of racism, police brutality and treating its indigenous people like second class citizens
Full story
The decision was not an Israeli initiative, but comes at a time of considerable change in European attitude towards Iran which Israel has actively encouraged.
Ran Koriel, Israel's ambassador to the EU, told Ynet that "this four-page resolution is a charge-sheet against Iranian human rights practices. This decision refers to human rights and is not only limited to the nuclear program, regional instability or Holocaust denial because there is mechanism that allows human rights motions to be passed in a expedited manner."
Koriel explained that "this decision enumerates Iranian crimes: The death penalty—this year over 200 people (were put to death)—and the manner: stoning, public hangings, death sentences for journalists, human right activists and homosexuals. This is in addition to the oppression of religion, public opinion, journalists and more and it is mentions the names of those who are imprisoned in order to gain their release."
Building consensus in Europe
The motion does not carry the threat of action but it does help shape the public consensus on the matter in Europe and may help the passing of future sanctions against Iran.
"On the operational side, there aren't teeth," Koriel said. "It is mostly directed towards the UN, to strongly condemn Iran and to take steps to halt the death penalty. This is an important decision and it was well received by all parties in the Parliament. It is safe to say that this is part of consensus-building in Europe on the character of the Iran regime."
Koriel was skeptical that this represented a victory for Israel, but he promised that Israel would work to get a resolution passed in the EU on the Iranian nuclear program.
Comment: Wait and watch for Iran's response-it will inclde counter charges-thus takingfocus off of them.
The Personal Becomes Political The Attitudinal Prism of Condoleezza Rice
Joel Fishman
Last week in Jerusalem, U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, articulated some of her personal views which ultimately found their way into the press. For Dr. Rice the struggle of the Palestinians is analogous to that of the Afro-Americans for civil rights and she identifies with the Palestinians. She recalled what it meant to travel in segregated buses as a little girl in Alabama. She also compared the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, to Reverend Martin Luther King, because, in her mind, both were committed to peace.
Abbas as committed to the struggle for Palestinian independence and, like Martin Luther King, opposed to terror and violence (Haaretz, October 16, 2007). Independently, David Bedein reported Rice's statements in The Bulletin (Philadelphia, October 17, 2007).
While this juxtaposition of the Afro-American campaign for civil rights and the Palestinian (armed) struggle seems strange, by using methods of political analysis it is possible to appreciate the significance of this type of information. Condoleezza Rice has given us the "Attitudinal Prism" of her decision-making process. Political scientists Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell defined the term and explained its importance: "Men choose among alternative paths in accordance with their perception of the world in which they must act. The lens through which that setting is filtered may … be called the Attitudinal Prism. The content of that which they perceive is the Image. Together these constitute the Psychological Environment, the framework of choice, decision, and action. In foreign policy, as in all politics, the prism is shaped by three interacting variables—political culture, historical legacy, and the personality traits of the decision-makers."
It is clear that Rice personally considers that the Palestinians have a strong moral case and that Israel does not. Furthermore, she bases her views on her personal experience, drawing upon an analogy from the memories of her own childhood, particularly her identification with the Afro-American struggle for civil rights. According to Almond and Powell's analytical criteria, such attitudes are critically important because they become part of the decision-making process.
The problem is that Rice has adopted an incorrect analogy. Mahmoud Abbas was never a man of peace. It certainly would be a positive step forward if Rice could deal with the facts on their own merits and try to grasp why the Palestinians have reached their present situation. She should also face the fact that the Palestinians could have done much better had they refrained from launching the Second Armed Uprising in 2000.
Returning to the civil rights struggle, Condoleezza Rice's statements reveal that in her quest for a simple analogy, she forgot the one group that proved its friendship for the Afro-Americans. American Jewry unreservedly supported the civil rights struggle through participation and financial contributions. No other group in America demonstrated its commitment to social justice, as did American Jewry and its representative institutions. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel was a personal friend of Martin Luther King and marched with him. The Secretary of State should not forget that Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were martyrs for her people's cause, real martyrs – not to be confused with the terrorist murderers who blow up innocent civilians in public buses. The Afro-Americans did not win their campaign for civil rights on their own. They needed allies in Americans society, and the American Jewish community stood by them.
Further, Rice has overlooked a fundamental but not obvious, historical fact: Israel gave the world the idea that that all men are equal, because God created all men in His image. Israel also gave the world the principle that all men are equal under law. "One law and one ordinance shall be both for you and for the stranger that sojourns with you" (Numbers 15:16). This rule is called "isonomia". In Against Apion, written between 96-100 C.E., Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, states that Moses "the Lawgiver" established this rule three thousand years previously, long before the Greeks (and well before the birth of the other two monotheistic religions). Josephus adds: "…. Persons who have espoused the cause of order and law – one law for all – and been the first to introduce them, may fairly be admitted to be more civilized and virtuously disposed than those who lead lawless and disorderly lives." (Against Apion II: 15, 151).
Josephus' statement explains why today many Palestinian Arab residents of Jerusalem stubbornly insist on remaining under Israeli rule. They prefer equality under law – even if they do not particularly care for the Jewish state. Israel's laws and legal system are still superior. And one should not forget that, if it were not for Moses "the Lawgiver," there could not have been a civil rights movement or a Reverend Martin Luther King.
Condoleezza Rice's Attitudinal Prism reveals a perception of the current situation which is limited by her personal experience and hopelessly superficial. It also lacks an awareness of history. Such perceptions, based on a false and oversimplified analogy, prevent the Secretary of State from seeing the facts objectively and dealing fairly, which are the prerequisites of statesmanship.
Dr. Joel Fishman is a Fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. joel.fishman@gmail.com
Last week in Jerusalem, U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, articulated some of her personal views which ultimately found their way into the press. For Dr. Rice the struggle of the Palestinians is analogous to that of the Afro-Americans for civil rights and she identifies with the Palestinians. She recalled what it meant to travel in segregated buses as a little girl in Alabama. She also compared the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, to Reverend Martin Luther King, because, in her mind, both were committed to peace.
Abbas as committed to the struggle for Palestinian independence and, like Martin Luther King, opposed to terror and violence (Haaretz, October 16, 2007). Independently, David Bedein reported Rice's statements in The Bulletin (Philadelphia, October 17, 2007).
While this juxtaposition of the Afro-American campaign for civil rights and the Palestinian (armed) struggle seems strange, by using methods of political analysis it is possible to appreciate the significance of this type of information. Condoleezza Rice has given us the "Attitudinal Prism" of her decision-making process. Political scientists Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell defined the term and explained its importance: "Men choose among alternative paths in accordance with their perception of the world in which they must act. The lens through which that setting is filtered may … be called the Attitudinal Prism. The content of that which they perceive is the Image. Together these constitute the Psychological Environment, the framework of choice, decision, and action. In foreign policy, as in all politics, the prism is shaped by three interacting variables—political culture, historical legacy, and the personality traits of the decision-makers."
It is clear that Rice personally considers that the Palestinians have a strong moral case and that Israel does not. Furthermore, she bases her views on her personal experience, drawing upon an analogy from the memories of her own childhood, particularly her identification with the Afro-American struggle for civil rights. According to Almond and Powell's analytical criteria, such attitudes are critically important because they become part of the decision-making process.
The problem is that Rice has adopted an incorrect analogy. Mahmoud Abbas was never a man of peace. It certainly would be a positive step forward if Rice could deal with the facts on their own merits and try to grasp why the Palestinians have reached their present situation. She should also face the fact that the Palestinians could have done much better had they refrained from launching the Second Armed Uprising in 2000.
Returning to the civil rights struggle, Condoleezza Rice's statements reveal that in her quest for a simple analogy, she forgot the one group that proved its friendship for the Afro-Americans. American Jewry unreservedly supported the civil rights struggle through participation and financial contributions. No other group in America demonstrated its commitment to social justice, as did American Jewry and its representative institutions. Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel was a personal friend of Martin Luther King and marched with him. The Secretary of State should not forget that Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were martyrs for her people's cause, real martyrs – not to be confused with the terrorist murderers who blow up innocent civilians in public buses. The Afro-Americans did not win their campaign for civil rights on their own. They needed allies in Americans society, and the American Jewish community stood by them.
Further, Rice has overlooked a fundamental but not obvious, historical fact: Israel gave the world the idea that that all men are equal, because God created all men in His image. Israel also gave the world the principle that all men are equal under law. "One law and one ordinance shall be both for you and for the stranger that sojourns with you" (Numbers 15:16). This rule is called "isonomia". In Against Apion, written between 96-100 C.E., Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, states that Moses "the Lawgiver" established this rule three thousand years previously, long before the Greeks (and well before the birth of the other two monotheistic religions). Josephus adds: "…. Persons who have espoused the cause of order and law – one law for all – and been the first to introduce them, may fairly be admitted to be more civilized and virtuously disposed than those who lead lawless and disorderly lives." (Against Apion II: 15, 151).
Josephus' statement explains why today many Palestinian Arab residents of Jerusalem stubbornly insist on remaining under Israeli rule. They prefer equality under law – even if they do not particularly care for the Jewish state. Israel's laws and legal system are still superior. And one should not forget that, if it were not for Moses "the Lawgiver," there could not have been a civil rights movement or a Reverend Martin Luther King.
Condoleezza Rice's Attitudinal Prism reveals a perception of the current situation which is limited by her personal experience and hopelessly superficial. It also lacks an awareness of history. Such perceptions, based on a false and oversimplified analogy, prevent the Secretary of State from seeing the facts objectively and dealing fairly, which are the prerequisites of statesmanship.
Dr. Joel Fishman is a Fellow of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. joel.fishman@gmail.com
Director general of SDC expresses willingness to meet Haneyya
GAZA, (PIC)-- Walter Fust, the director-general of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), confirmed his willingness to meet with Ismail Haneyya, the premier of the PA caretaker government, expressing concern at the difficult humanitarian situation in the Gaza Strip During a meeting with a number of Palestinian journalists in Gaza on Tuesday evening, Fust underlined that his government has no objection to cooperate with the caretaker government in Gaza to deliver human aid to the Palestinian people, pointing out that his country have contacts with all the Palestinian parties and have never once happened to reduce the volume of assistance to the Palestinian people.
The director-general of SDC added that the Swiss government's position has never changed, highlighting that it recognized the results of the legislative elections in 2006 and the 10th government formed by Haneyya following the announcement of the election results as well as the Makkah agreement and the government of national unity.
The Swiss official expressed sorrow when he did not find the previous vitality and vigor he had found in the faces of Palestinians ten years ago when he visited Gaza, pointing out that he recently noticed that there was malnutrition in the Gaza children's faces during his visits to primary schools and health centers affiliated with UNRWA.
The Swiss official also pointed out that he also saw during his visit to the Shati refugee camp to the west of Gaza Strip that a third of about one million and a half Palestinians, living in an area of about 362 square kilometers, is below the poverty line and without jobs.
The Swiss official promised to persuade Swiss MPs and officials to increase the share of the Gaza Strip from the Swiss support for the Palestinian people which amount to about $ 24 million during the current year.
In reply to a question about the thing which most affected him in Gaza, he said: "The future of Gaza children," adding that he would convey a message to the Swiss Parliament to increase the funding allocated for children education and health programs in the Strip, adding that his government will never stop its political pressures to guarantee the freedom of movement and commercial transactions in and out of the Gaza Strip.
The director-general of SDC added that the Swiss government's position has never changed, highlighting that it recognized the results of the legislative elections in 2006 and the 10th government formed by Haneyya following the announcement of the election results as well as the Makkah agreement and the government of national unity.
The Swiss official expressed sorrow when he did not find the previous vitality and vigor he had found in the faces of Palestinians ten years ago when he visited Gaza, pointing out that he recently noticed that there was malnutrition in the Gaza children's faces during his visits to primary schools and health centers affiliated with UNRWA.
The Swiss official also pointed out that he also saw during his visit to the Shati refugee camp to the west of Gaza Strip that a third of about one million and a half Palestinians, living in an area of about 362 square kilometers, is below the poverty line and without jobs.
The Swiss official promised to persuade Swiss MPs and officials to increase the share of the Gaza Strip from the Swiss support for the Palestinian people which amount to about $ 24 million during the current year.
In reply to a question about the thing which most affected him in Gaza, he said: "The future of Gaza children," adding that he would convey a message to the Swiss Parliament to increase the funding allocated for children education and health programs in the Strip, adding that his government will never stop its political pressures to guarantee the freedom of movement and commercial transactions in and out of the Gaza Strip.
Abbas attempts crack-down in Nablus
The Palestinian Authority is planning to deploy some 500 policemen in Nablus, the largest West Bank city, as part of an effort to end the state of lawlessness and anarchy and undermine Hamas's influence, PA security officials said Thursday. The officials told The Jerusalem Post that the PA security forces were ready to assume their full responsibilities in the city in the coming days.
They were speaking shortly after meeting with US security coordinator Lt. General Keith Dayton, who visited Nablus for talks with PA security officials on the PA's security plan. He was accompanied on his visit by security officials from Canada, Britain and Australia.
"This is where the Palestinian state will get its first real test," Dayton said. "When you succeed in Nablus, it will send a message throughout the West Bank and it will send a message to your neighbors that you're serious about law and order and that you can do the job."
A PA security official said, "Our forces are ready to enter Nablus on November 1. We are only waiting for a green light from Israel."
Col. Ahmed Sharqawi, commander of the PA police in Nablus, said the policemen would be deployed in many parts of the city. He added that militiamen would be banned from roaming the streets and expressed hope that the residents of Nablus would cooperate with the police.
Sharqawi was among the security officials who met with Dayton. The other PA officials who participated in the meeting were Gen. Majed Faraj, head of the PA Military Intelligence Force, Gen. Abu Al-Fateh, commander of the PA National Security Force, Akram rajoub, head of the PA Preventative Security Force in Nablus and Col. Abu Jihad, head of the PA General Intelligence Service in the city.
Dayton hailed the PA's security plan for Nablus, saying Washington supports any effort to bring security to the West Bank.
The PA governor of Nablus, Jamal Muhaisen, said the Palestinians briefed the security team on the situation in the city. He accused Israel of destroying the economy of the city by repeatedly launching military operations there. He also called for resolving the problem of dozens of Fatah gunmen in the city who are wanted by Israel.
It's not clear at this stage if the PA intends to deploy its forces inside the three main refugee camps surrounding Nablus. Previous attempts by the PA to dispatch policemen to the camps were foiled by members of Fatah's armed wing, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades who, according to local residents, are largely responsible for the ongoing state of anarchy.
In Gaza City, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoun condemned US aid to the Fatah-controlled security forces in the West Bank. He said the Americans were rewarding PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and his security forces because of their "campaign of repression and destruction against Hamas in the West Bank."
Another Hamas representative, Mushir Al-Masri, warned that his men would overthrow Abbas's regime in the West Bank if the clampdown on Hamas continues. "Abbas will never be able to impose his American-Zionist agenda on Hamas," he said. "The Gaza scenario will be copied to the West Bank if
the pressure on Hamas persists."
They were speaking shortly after meeting with US security coordinator Lt. General Keith Dayton, who visited Nablus for talks with PA security officials on the PA's security plan. He was accompanied on his visit by security officials from Canada, Britain and Australia.
"This is where the Palestinian state will get its first real test," Dayton said. "When you succeed in Nablus, it will send a message throughout the West Bank and it will send a message to your neighbors that you're serious about law and order and that you can do the job."
A PA security official said, "Our forces are ready to enter Nablus on November 1. We are only waiting for a green light from Israel."
Col. Ahmed Sharqawi, commander of the PA police in Nablus, said the policemen would be deployed in many parts of the city. He added that militiamen would be banned from roaming the streets and expressed hope that the residents of Nablus would cooperate with the police.
Sharqawi was among the security officials who met with Dayton. The other PA officials who participated in the meeting were Gen. Majed Faraj, head of the PA Military Intelligence Force, Gen. Abu Al-Fateh, commander of the PA National Security Force, Akram rajoub, head of the PA Preventative Security Force in Nablus and Col. Abu Jihad, head of the PA General Intelligence Service in the city.
Dayton hailed the PA's security plan for Nablus, saying Washington supports any effort to bring security to the West Bank.
The PA governor of Nablus, Jamal Muhaisen, said the Palestinians briefed the security team on the situation in the city. He accused Israel of destroying the economy of the city by repeatedly launching military operations there. He also called for resolving the problem of dozens of Fatah gunmen in the city who are wanted by Israel.
It's not clear at this stage if the PA intends to deploy its forces inside the three main refugee camps surrounding Nablus. Previous attempts by the PA to dispatch policemen to the camps were foiled by members of Fatah's armed wing, the Aksa Martyrs Brigades who, according to local residents, are largely responsible for the ongoing state of anarchy.
In Gaza City, Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoun condemned US aid to the Fatah-controlled security forces in the West Bank. He said the Americans were rewarding PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and his security forces because of their "campaign of repression and destruction against Hamas in the West Bank."
Another Hamas representative, Mushir Al-Masri, warned that his men would overthrow Abbas's regime in the West Bank if the clampdown on Hamas continues. "Abbas will never be able to impose his American-Zionist agenda on Hamas," he said. "The Gaza scenario will be copied to the West Bank if
the pressure on Hamas persists."
Sderot residents Cutting electricity won't stop Qassams
Residents of rocket-battered city waiting to see if defense minister will go through with his threats to cut off power to Gaza After experiencing a particularly harsh barrage of rockets and mortars Thursday, Sderot residents have their eyes on the lights of the northern Gaza city of Beit Hanoun to see if Defense Minister Ehud Barak will carry out his threat to cut electricity to the coastal strip in response to continuing rocket and mortar fire.
Sderot Mayor Eli Moyal said that he was "happy that the government is trying, because we live with the feeling that they are not trying, and we need to try this step as well. The government apparently also understands that the response (to the rocket and mortar fire) up until now has been restricted. If (cutting off power) doesn't work, we need to try other things."
Palestinian Response
'Limiting Gaza power supply a crime' / Ali Waked
Defense minister's decision to reduce power supplies to Strip angers Palestinians. 'Decision is a severe escalation which may lead to a humanitarian crisis in the Strip,' says spokesman for Democratic Front for Liberation of Palestinian
Full story
"I hope the government continues to look for ways to combat the rockets," he added.
However not all residents of the beleaguered city believe the government's promises, and most do not believe that Gaza's lights will go out.
"I am sure that there won’t be darkness in Gaza. I remember how workers at the electric company used to switch off the power to protest, but we notify the Palestinians that we're going to cut the electricity, if we want to do this we should just do it without warning them just like that don't tell us when they are going to fire at us," Sasson Sarah, head of the parents' committee in the city said.
Alon Davidi, head of Sderot task force, is also not so sure that a power cutoff will be effective in curbing Qassam rocket attacks on the Gaza periphery community.
"Barak's decision is a mockery and an attempt to throw sand in the face of Sderot residents and Israeli citizens. Power outages are a good way for unions to demonstrate for better work conditions, but in the war against terrorism they are ineffective and a demonstration of weakness," Davidi said.
Most Sderot residents are not satisfied with punitive measures against Gaza residents and are more interesting in see a military response to the unceasing rocket and mortar attacks that are disrupting their day-to-day lives.
The majority of those in Sderot are finding it difficult to have a positive outlook on their situation.
"Shutting off the power is a move to calm (Minister of Strategic Affairs) Avigdor Lieberman, not residents of Sderot, we're not threatening to leave—quite the opposite, we're staying here.
"Maybe as a gesture we'll donate a couple hundred emergency light bulbs to the Palestinians for Lierberman and Abu Mazen," Rina Mor-Yosef, a resident of the besieged city, said sarcastically.
Sderot Mayor Eli Moyal said that he was "happy that the government is trying, because we live with the feeling that they are not trying, and we need to try this step as well. The government apparently also understands that the response (to the rocket and mortar fire) up until now has been restricted. If (cutting off power) doesn't work, we need to try other things."
Palestinian Response
'Limiting Gaza power supply a crime' / Ali Waked
Defense minister's decision to reduce power supplies to Strip angers Palestinians. 'Decision is a severe escalation which may lead to a humanitarian crisis in the Strip,' says spokesman for Democratic Front for Liberation of Palestinian
Full story
"I hope the government continues to look for ways to combat the rockets," he added.
However not all residents of the beleaguered city believe the government's promises, and most do not believe that Gaza's lights will go out.
"I am sure that there won’t be darkness in Gaza. I remember how workers at the electric company used to switch off the power to protest, but we notify the Palestinians that we're going to cut the electricity, if we want to do this we should just do it without warning them just like that don't tell us when they are going to fire at us," Sasson Sarah, head of the parents' committee in the city said.
Alon Davidi, head of Sderot task force, is also not so sure that a power cutoff will be effective in curbing Qassam rocket attacks on the Gaza periphery community.
"Barak's decision is a mockery and an attempt to throw sand in the face of Sderot residents and Israeli citizens. Power outages are a good way for unions to demonstrate for better work conditions, but in the war against terrorism they are ineffective and a demonstration of weakness," Davidi said.
Most Sderot residents are not satisfied with punitive measures against Gaza residents and are more interesting in see a military response to the unceasing rocket and mortar attacks that are disrupting their day-to-day lives.
The majority of those in Sderot are finding it difficult to have a positive outlook on their situation.
"Shutting off the power is a move to calm (Minister of Strategic Affairs) Avigdor Lieberman, not residents of Sderot, we're not threatening to leave—quite the opposite, we're staying here.
"Maybe as a gesture we'll donate a couple hundred emergency light bulbs to the Palestinians for Lierberman and Abu Mazen," Rina Mor-Yosef, a resident of the besieged city, said sarcastically.
Fatah instigating conflict between Islamic Jihad, Hamas
Palestinian source tells al-Sinara newspaper Fatah members infiltrating into other groups to stir up conflict with Hamas Since Hamas' violent takeover of Gaza, their rivals in Fatah have been trying to regain control of the coastal strip—or at least regain some respect.
The Nazareth-based daily al-Sinara reports that Fatah members have been slyly joining other Palestinian groups, such as the Islamic Jihad, in an attempt to push these groups toward confrontation with Hamas.
Fatah activists in question did not join other Palestinian groups to aid them, but rather to "incite them into a civil war with Hamas," he continued.
"Fatah members in Islamic Jihad are the ones that have been shooting at the Executive Force (Hamas' security body) and at Hamas activists," the source said.
According to the source, the recent confrontations between Hamas and Islamic Jihad forces have been a result of this phenomenon.
On Sunday, a Palestinian was killed in an exchange of fire between Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The victim was the nephew of Khaled Mansour, an Islamic Jihad commander in southern Gaza. He was apparently killed in a Hamas attempt to murder his uncle, Palestinian sources said.
Islamic Jihad claims that Hamas is trying to liquidate Palestinian opposition to its rule in Gaza.
The Islamic Resistance Committee has refused to integrate Fatah members into its ranks because of a fear that this will incite conflict with Hamas, according to the source.
Since Hamas seized control of the Strip, exchanges of fire between various armed Palestinian groups has become a common occurrence. The latest confrontation between Fatah and Hamas led to four deaths at least 20 injured.
The Nazareth-based daily al-Sinara reports that Fatah members have been slyly joining other Palestinian groups, such as the Islamic Jihad, in an attempt to push these groups toward confrontation with Hamas.
Fatah activists in question did not join other Palestinian groups to aid them, but rather to "incite them into a civil war with Hamas," he continued.
"Fatah members in Islamic Jihad are the ones that have been shooting at the Executive Force (Hamas' security body) and at Hamas activists," the source said.
According to the source, the recent confrontations between Hamas and Islamic Jihad forces have been a result of this phenomenon.
On Sunday, a Palestinian was killed in an exchange of fire between Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The victim was the nephew of Khaled Mansour, an Islamic Jihad commander in southern Gaza. He was apparently killed in a Hamas attempt to murder his uncle, Palestinian sources said.
Islamic Jihad claims that Hamas is trying to liquidate Palestinian opposition to its rule in Gaza.
The Islamic Resistance Committee has refused to integrate Fatah members into its ranks because of a fear that this will incite conflict with Hamas, according to the source.
Since Hamas seized control of the Strip, exchanges of fire between various armed Palestinian groups has become a common occurrence. The latest confrontation between Fatah and Hamas led to four deaths at least 20 injured.
Erekat calls for intl intervention against Gaza electricity cuts
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat appealed for international intervention and called the Israeli decision to cut off electricity to Gaza after each Kassam rocket "particularly provocative given that Palestinians and Israelis are meeting to negotiate an agreement on the core issues for ending the conflict between them." Defense Minister Ehud Barak's approval earlier Thursday of an IDF plan to impose sanctions on the Gaza Strip in wake of the escalation in Kassam rocket attacks was the first step, defense officials told The Jerusalem Post, towards a "complete disengagement" including the gradual reduction in Palestinian dependency on Israel for gas and electricity.
During his weekly security meeting on Thursday Barak approved the plan that had been formulated by Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilna'i and Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Maj.-Gen. Yosef Mishlav in line with the recent cabinet decision that defined Gaza as a "hostile entity."
According to the plan, one of the power lines connecting Israel and Gaza will be shut down at first for 15 minutes after a rocket attack, gradually increasing the cutoff length if the barrages continue, up to a two-hour limit. In addition, Israel will begin reducing the amount of gasoline it allows into the Gaza Strip.
Defense officials stressed that the fairly-limited sanctions were not capable of creating a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and were being imposed with the eventual goal - of the defense establishment - to completely cut off Palestinian dependency on Israel. The cuts to electricity will not affect Gaza-based hospitals, defense officials said.
Palestinians and human rights groups denounced the measure as collective punishment. One of the groups, Gisha, issued a statement warning, "Playing with electricity is playing with fire," adding, "Even a brief interruption in electricity threatens the safety and well-being of Gaza residents."
Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said Israel had no choice but to take punitive measures. "Should we tell them to continue firing rockets at the same power station that provides them with electricity and continue to bomb the water system that provides them with water?" he asked.
Defense officials stressed that the cuts to electricity and gas were not being taken to "punish" the Palestinians but to instead gradually begin the final disengagement from the Gaza Strip, which was started in 2005 when Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Palestinian territory.
This plan has was recently raised by outgoing Deputy Chief of Staff Maj.-Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky during a series of meetings within the defense establishment.
According to the proposal, which officials stressed was in its early stages, Israel would completely disconnect from Gaza by closing off the Erez, Karni, Sufa and Kerem Shalom crossings and instead direct humanitarian organizations to work with Egypt.
A senior official in the Prime Minister's Office said that while in the long run Israel hoped to reach a situation where Israel could completely cut itself off from Gaza, "we are not at that stage yet."
The official said that such a decision would need to come to the security cabinet and the government, something that has not yet happened. According to the official, the decision to cut back on electric and gas supplies was part of September's cabinet decision that declared the Gaza Strip "hostile territory."
Anticipating a barrage of criticism following the decision to scale back the volume of electricity and gasoline that will be provided to Gaza, the Foreign Ministry already on Wednesday sent out background information and talking points to Israel's representations abroad explaining that the move was a "non- violent response to continued attacks."
The material emphasizes that the actions are a response to the unrelenting Kassam attacks that continued even after Israel fully withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005. The material stresses that the actions are within the realms of international law, and that Israel's first responsibility is to protect its citizens.
Israel's ambassadors and spokesmen are expected to say that Hamas is engaged in war crimes by targeting innocent civilians, and that Israel's steps are not collective punishment but rather the justified response to attacks on Israeli citizens.
Meanwhile in violence on Thursday, IDF troops shot and killed four armed Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Two Hamas operatives were killed during clashes with an IDF reserve unit in southern Gaza and large amounts of weaponry, including an RPG and a grenade, were found on their bodies. The other two, affiliated with Islamic Jihad, were killed after they were spotted laying roadside bombs along the Gaza security fence.
Comment: Right out of their playbook-I called this yesterday in a post on docstalk-they are very predictable
During his weekly security meeting on Thursday Barak approved the plan that had been formulated by Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilna'i and Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories Maj.-Gen. Yosef Mishlav in line with the recent cabinet decision that defined Gaza as a "hostile entity."
According to the plan, one of the power lines connecting Israel and Gaza will be shut down at first for 15 minutes after a rocket attack, gradually increasing the cutoff length if the barrages continue, up to a two-hour limit. In addition, Israel will begin reducing the amount of gasoline it allows into the Gaza Strip.
Defense officials stressed that the fairly-limited sanctions were not capable of creating a humanitarian crisis in Gaza and were being imposed with the eventual goal - of the defense establishment - to completely cut off Palestinian dependency on Israel. The cuts to electricity will not affect Gaza-based hospitals, defense officials said.
Palestinians and human rights groups denounced the measure as collective punishment. One of the groups, Gisha, issued a statement warning, "Playing with electricity is playing with fire," adding, "Even a brief interruption in electricity threatens the safety and well-being of Gaza residents."
Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer said Israel had no choice but to take punitive measures. "Should we tell them to continue firing rockets at the same power station that provides them with electricity and continue to bomb the water system that provides them with water?" he asked.
Defense officials stressed that the cuts to electricity and gas were not being taken to "punish" the Palestinians but to instead gradually begin the final disengagement from the Gaza Strip, which was started in 2005 when Israel unilaterally withdrew from the Palestinian territory.
This plan has was recently raised by outgoing Deputy Chief of Staff Maj.-Gen. Moshe Kaplinsky during a series of meetings within the defense establishment.
According to the proposal, which officials stressed was in its early stages, Israel would completely disconnect from Gaza by closing off the Erez, Karni, Sufa and Kerem Shalom crossings and instead direct humanitarian organizations to work with Egypt.
A senior official in the Prime Minister's Office said that while in the long run Israel hoped to reach a situation where Israel could completely cut itself off from Gaza, "we are not at that stage yet."
The official said that such a decision would need to come to the security cabinet and the government, something that has not yet happened. According to the official, the decision to cut back on electric and gas supplies was part of September's cabinet decision that declared the Gaza Strip "hostile territory."
Anticipating a barrage of criticism following the decision to scale back the volume of electricity and gasoline that will be provided to Gaza, the Foreign Ministry already on Wednesday sent out background information and talking points to Israel's representations abroad explaining that the move was a "non- violent response to continued attacks."
The material emphasizes that the actions are a response to the unrelenting Kassam attacks that continued even after Israel fully withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005. The material stresses that the actions are within the realms of international law, and that Israel's first responsibility is to protect its citizens.
Israel's ambassadors and spokesmen are expected to say that Hamas is engaged in war crimes by targeting innocent civilians, and that Israel's steps are not collective punishment but rather the justified response to attacks on Israeli citizens.
Meanwhile in violence on Thursday, IDF troops shot and killed four armed Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Two Hamas operatives were killed during clashes with an IDF reserve unit in southern Gaza and large amounts of weaponry, including an RPG and a grenade, were found on their bodies. The other two, affiliated with Islamic Jihad, were killed after they were spotted laying roadside bombs along the Gaza security fence.
Comment: Right out of their playbook-I called this yesterday in a post on docstalk-they are very predictable
Thursday, October 25, 2007
From Arlene Kushner in Israel
And so I ask each of you who is a US citizen to help.
Below you will find a short list of the aides to key influential members of Congress with contact information. It is always most productive to contact the aides; a fax or phone call is most effective; e-mail if that is what is possible for you.
The message is simple:
Mahmoud Abbas is not a partner for peace; he has terrorist associations. Pushing negotiations is counterproductive to US interests and goals.
Please, work to stop all pressure on Israel to negotiate and make concessions; the US needs a strong Israel in the Middle East.
Please also work to block further appropriations to the PA, as some of this money will inevitably fund terrorism, which is what the US is supposed to be fighting.
Change the wording a bit to personalize the message. In each instance ask that the message be conveyed to the appropriate Congressperson (or Congresspersons).
Please! Try to do several of these names, and if possible all of them. They all need to hear from us. This is democracy in action and the power is in your hands.
Also, please distribute this information as widely as you can -- on your lists, to family and friends. Numbers count and we need large numbers now.
___________________
ALAN MAKOVSKY
Alan is the senior professional Majority staff member for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He doesn't work with one Congressperson, but rather with the committee. Ask that he convey your message to all Democrats on the Committee.
phone 202-225-6735 fax 202-226-3581 alan.makovsky@mail.house.gov
_____
HOWARD DIAMOND
Deputy Chief of Staff for CONGRESSMAN GARY ACKERMAN, Chair of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and Asia, of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
phone 202-225-2601 fax 202-225-1589 howard.diamond@mail.house.gov
____
MATTHEW ZWEIG
Professional Staff Member, Minority Staff, for House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Works with CONGRESSWOMAN ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, ranking member of the committee (was chair before the elections) and a good friend to Israel. Ask that he convey the message to all Republican members of the Committee and especially to Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen.
phone 202-226-8467 fax 202-226-7269 matthew.zweig@mail.house.gov
_____
ELISE KENDARIAN ARONSON
Chief of Staff for CONGRESSMAN JIM SAXTON, who has opposed Oslo on Capitol Hill and been a staunch friend.
phone 202-225-4765 fax (202) 225-0778 elise.aronson@mail.house.gov
___
JASON STEINBAUM
Chief of Staff for CONGRESSMAN ELIOT ENGEL, who is on the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and Asia and a good friend to Israel.
phone 202-225-2464 fax (202) 225-5513 jason.steinbaum@mail.house.gov
___
TOM STALLINGS
Chief of Staff to CONGRESSMAN TRENT FRANKS, a Congressman with growing influence, who is a solid friend and has taken on the issue of the inciteful PA school books.
phone 202-225-4567 fax 202-225-6328 tom.stallings@mail.house.gov
___
ZAHAVA GOLDMAN
Legislative Assistant to CONGRESSMAN HENRY WAXMAN, who has powerful influence on matters of foreign policy and speaks out for integrity in government.
phone 202-225-3976 fax 202-225-4099 zahava.goldman@mail.house.gov
___
LESTER MUNSON
Chief of Staff for CONGRESSMAN MARK KIRK, who is a member of the House Appropriations Committee, which has considerable power, and co-chairs a Republican caucus group, thus having contact with others.
phone 202-225-4835 fax 202-225-0837 lester.munson@mail.house.gov
___
DON MacDONALD
Staff director for CONGRESSMAN BRAD SHERMAN, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade.
phone 202-225-5911 fax 202-225-5879 don.macdonald@mail.house.gov
____
If you want to check for your own Congressperson, see:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml
Below you will find a short list of the aides to key influential members of Congress with contact information. It is always most productive to contact the aides; a fax or phone call is most effective; e-mail if that is what is possible for you.
The message is simple:
Mahmoud Abbas is not a partner for peace; he has terrorist associations. Pushing negotiations is counterproductive to US interests and goals.
Please, work to stop all pressure on Israel to negotiate and make concessions; the US needs a strong Israel in the Middle East.
Please also work to block further appropriations to the PA, as some of this money will inevitably fund terrorism, which is what the US is supposed to be fighting.
Change the wording a bit to personalize the message. In each instance ask that the message be conveyed to the appropriate Congressperson (or Congresspersons).
Please! Try to do several of these names, and if possible all of them. They all need to hear from us. This is democracy in action and the power is in your hands.
Also, please distribute this information as widely as you can -- on your lists, to family and friends. Numbers count and we need large numbers now.
___________________
ALAN MAKOVSKY
Alan is the senior professional Majority staff member for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. He doesn't work with one Congressperson, but rather with the committee. Ask that he convey your message to all Democrats on the Committee.
phone 202-225-6735 fax 202-226-3581 alan.makovsky@mail.house.gov
_____
HOWARD DIAMOND
Deputy Chief of Staff for CONGRESSMAN GARY ACKERMAN, Chair of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and Asia, of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
phone 202-225-2601 fax 202-225-1589 howard.diamond@mail.house.gov
____
MATTHEW ZWEIG
Professional Staff Member, Minority Staff, for House Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Works with CONGRESSWOMAN ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, ranking member of the committee (was chair before the elections) and a good friend to Israel. Ask that he convey the message to all Republican members of the Committee and especially to Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen.
phone 202-226-8467 fax 202-226-7269 matthew.zweig@mail.house.gov
_____
ELISE KENDARIAN ARONSON
Chief of Staff for CONGRESSMAN JIM SAXTON, who has opposed Oslo on Capitol Hill and been a staunch friend.
phone 202-225-4765 fax (202) 225-0778 elise.aronson@mail.house.gov
___
JASON STEINBAUM
Chief of Staff for CONGRESSMAN ELIOT ENGEL, who is on the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and Asia and a good friend to Israel.
phone 202-225-2464 fax (202) 225-5513 jason.steinbaum@mail.house.gov
___
TOM STALLINGS
Chief of Staff to CONGRESSMAN TRENT FRANKS, a Congressman with growing influence, who is a solid friend and has taken on the issue of the inciteful PA school books.
phone 202-225-4567 fax 202-225-6328 tom.stallings@mail.house.gov
___
ZAHAVA GOLDMAN
Legislative Assistant to CONGRESSMAN HENRY WAXMAN, who has powerful influence on matters of foreign policy and speaks out for integrity in government.
phone 202-225-3976 fax 202-225-4099 zahava.goldman@mail.house.gov
___
LESTER MUNSON
Chief of Staff for CONGRESSMAN MARK KIRK, who is a member of the House Appropriations Committee, which has considerable power, and co-chairs a Republican caucus group, thus having contact with others.
phone 202-225-4835 fax 202-225-0837 lester.munson@mail.house.gov
___
DON MacDONALD
Staff director for CONGRESSMAN BRAD SHERMAN, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade.
phone 202-225-5911 fax 202-225-5879 don.macdonald@mail.house.gov
____
If you want to check for your own Congressperson, see:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml
UN Report Points to Lebanese Militias Re-arming
The latest semi-annual report on Lebanon from United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon paints a gloomy picture. Among the points of concern: groups such as Hizbullah are re-arming, in contravention of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701; weapons smuggling into the country is continuing and Beirut’s political crisis shows no signs of ending. The Lebanese government seized a truckload of Grad rockets, mortars and ammunition for automatic rifles and machine guns belonging to Hizbullah in June, according to the report. A similar cache was discovered in February.
Spencer at DePaul University
Robert Spencer
FrontPageMagazine.com | 10/24/2007
Last night I had the great honor of speaking on a panel with Iranian freedom fighter Amir Abbas Fakhravar. We were at DePaul University, where the crowd was hostile but only made a few attempts actually to shout us down. They restricted their chanting about racism -- an absurd charge to hurl in any discussion of Islam and jihad, but particularly inappropriate to shout at a former inmate of the mullah' prison cells -- to before and after the event. It was hard to be heard at less than a shout level during the book signing after the event, when the peaceful, tolerant folks' moronic chanting made it almost impossible to carry on a conversation.
Should I be glad that nobody got hurt? On one level, I suppose so. But that that kind of gratitude would even cross my mind (and not just mine) is in itself an indication of how bad things have gotten on our college campuses. The posturing, yelling, and windy self-righteous lecturing during the question period indicated just how thoroughly the DePaul student community, with a few courageous exceptions, has been propagandized.
Freedom Folks, whom I had the pleasure of meeting there, has coverage of the evening, plenty of pictures, and video of the talk I gave.
And that reminds me: if you really like that tie, you can see it again in Atlas' video of a talk I gave at the Counterjihad Summit in Brussels last week, which comes at the end of a long and informative post about the summit itself.
Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Religion of Peace?.
FrontPageMagazine.com | 10/24/2007
Last night I had the great honor of speaking on a panel with Iranian freedom fighter Amir Abbas Fakhravar. We were at DePaul University, where the crowd was hostile but only made a few attempts actually to shout us down. They restricted their chanting about racism -- an absurd charge to hurl in any discussion of Islam and jihad, but particularly inappropriate to shout at a former inmate of the mullah' prison cells -- to before and after the event. It was hard to be heard at less than a shout level during the book signing after the event, when the peaceful, tolerant folks' moronic chanting made it almost impossible to carry on a conversation.
Should I be glad that nobody got hurt? On one level, I suppose so. But that that kind of gratitude would even cross my mind (and not just mine) is in itself an indication of how bad things have gotten on our college campuses. The posturing, yelling, and windy self-righteous lecturing during the question period indicated just how thoroughly the DePaul student community, with a few courageous exceptions, has been propagandized.
Freedom Folks, whom I had the pleasure of meeting there, has coverage of the evening, plenty of pictures, and video of the talk I gave.
And that reminds me: if you really like that tie, you can see it again in Atlas' video of a talk I gave at the Counterjihad Summit in Brussels last week, which comes at the end of a long and informative post about the summit itself.
Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of seven books, eight monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Religion of Peace?.
Letter to the President
To President George W. Bush
The White House
October 24, 2007
Dear President Bush,
It appears that you are desirous of creating a Palestinian state regardless of any conditions that you required at the beginning of this goal.
There are daily attacks on Israel from already relinquished territory - 'in the interest of peace' but the only interest that the Arabs have is the destruction of Israel which they announce daily. Then, took, there was a plan to assassinate Prime Minister Olmert when he was enroute to Jericho to meet Abbas. Hardly a minor detail is the fact that the perpetrators of the thwarted plan were no other than those whose task it was to protect the Prime Minister - Abbas' special security guards!
Despite this, Mr. Bush, Sec'y of State Rice feels that there is a desire for peace. Her willingness to forgive the noncompliance of the PA and its leadership with your demands and her desire to overlook the warlike statements and actions of the PA as it relentlessly attacks innocent Israeli citizens - all serve to embolden Israel's enemies. They know in advance that if they wait long enough the big strong United States will yield to their desires!!
Sec'y of State Rice is returning to the Middle East to pressure Israel for more concessions.
Our American government is giving in to Muslim/ Arab blackmail and that is not in the best interests of the country. It is time to stop this downhill effort immediately, Mr. Bush, lest your plan create greater danger for the United States.
Sincerely,
The White House
October 24, 2007
Dear President Bush,
It appears that you are desirous of creating a Palestinian state regardless of any conditions that you required at the beginning of this goal.
There are daily attacks on Israel from already relinquished territory - 'in the interest of peace' but the only interest that the Arabs have is the destruction of Israel which they announce daily. Then, took, there was a plan to assassinate Prime Minister Olmert when he was enroute to Jericho to meet Abbas. Hardly a minor detail is the fact that the perpetrators of the thwarted plan were no other than those whose task it was to protect the Prime Minister - Abbas' special security guards!
Despite this, Mr. Bush, Sec'y of State Rice feels that there is a desire for peace. Her willingness to forgive the noncompliance of the PA and its leadership with your demands and her desire to overlook the warlike statements and actions of the PA as it relentlessly attacks innocent Israeli citizens - all serve to embolden Israel's enemies. They know in advance that if they wait long enough the big strong United States will yield to their desires!!
Sec'y of State Rice is returning to the Middle East to pressure Israel for more concessions.
Our American government is giving in to Muslim/ Arab blackmail and that is not in the best interests of the country. It is time to stop this downhill effort immediately, Mr. Bush, lest your plan create greater danger for the United States.
Sincerely,
Middle East Studies Profs Make Unfounded Claims that They're Smeared by Critics
A group of professors, mostly from the humanities and with a large contingent from Middle East studies, have formed the Ad Hoc Committee to Defend the University. They claim that "outside groups" are "seeking to influence what is taught and who can teach." It's the subject of this story in the web magazine Inside Higher Ed.
But the professors aren't concerned with generic complaints; their real target is more specific. Although Campus Watch isn't mentioned, the Committee clearly alludes to it:
Unfortunately and ironically, many of the most vociferous campaigns targeting universities and their faculty have been launched by groups portraying themselves as defenders of Israel. These groups have targeted scholars who have expressed perspectives on Israeli policies and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with which they disagree.
Aside from there being nothing ironic about that claim, there is also nothing true about it. CW does not target anyone for disagreeing with Israeli policies or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. W
e critique professors of Middle East studies for myriad problems in their writing and teaching, whether Israel is involved or not.
Yet the Committee's first two complaints deal directly with Israel:
*unfounded insinuations and allegations, in the media and on websites, of anti-Semitism or sympathy for terrorism or "un-Americanism;"
*efforts to broaden definitions of anti-Semitism to include scholarship and teaching that is critical of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and of Israel;
Among the signatories (there were 173 as of Wednesday morning) are several professors of Middle East studies. Among them are: Gabriel Piterberg of UCLA; Magid Shihade of UC-Davis; Lisa Hajjar of UC-Santa Barbara; Gil Anidjar of Columbia; Laurie Brand of USC; Joel Beinin, listed as at Stanford, although (for now at least) at the American Univ. in Cairo; Lawrence Davidson of West Chester Univ.; Elliott Colla of Brown; Ahmad Dallal of Georgetown; Mark LeVine of UC-Irvine; Zareena A. Grewal of Yale; Suad Joseph of UC-Davis; Lila Abu-Lughod of Columbia; and others.
Since so many professors of Middle East studies are signatories, let's see if the charges made by critics of contemporary academe are in fact "unfounded," and if the term "anti-Semitism" is in fact tossed around so loosely. Here are just a few examples; judge for yourselves:
Juan Cole of Michigan, writing at his blog on Sunday, Oct. 21:
No one in the US media ever talks about Zionofascism, and the campus groups who yoke the word 'fascism' to other religions and peoples are most often trying to divert attention from their own authoritarianism and approval of brutality.
Joseph Massad of Columbia, writing in Al-Ahram Weekly this past March:
Israel is willing to do anything to convince Palestinians and other Arabs of why it needs and deserves to have the right to be racist. Even at the level of theory, and before it began to realise itself on the ground, the Zionist colonial project sought different means by which it could convince the people whose lands it wanted to steal and against whom it wanted to discriminate to accept as understandable its need to be racist.
Same man, same paper, December, 2004:
All those in the Arab world who deny the Jewish holocaust are in my opinion Zionists.
Saree Makdisi of UCLA, writing on his blog in April:
[Israel's] demand that its 'right to exist' be recognized reflects its own anxiety, not about its existence but about its failure to successfully eliminate the Palestinians' presence inside their homeland — a failure for which verbal recognition would serve merely a palliative and therapeutic function.
Scott Alexander of the Catholic Theological Union of Chicago, speaking in June, 2004, as an expert witness in the defense of Fawaz Damra, charged with immigration fraud and ties to terrorists:
[W]hen Palestinians refer to Jews as 'descended from apes and swine' or encourage support for those who 'kill Jews,' they do so with the reasonably justifiable self-image of victim and persecuted, not of victimizer and persecutor.
Omid Safi of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, speaking to the Associated Press in June, regarding the recent Pew Research Center Poll showing that 26 percent of American Muslim between the ages of 18 and 29 say that suicide bombing is justified in at least some circumstances.
Given what's happened in Iraq and Palestine, I would be shocked if there wasn't discontent.
Rashid Khalidi of Columbia, speaking of the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June, on National Public Radio:
[T]his has to be laid at the doorstep of Bush administration and Israeli government policy, they almost willed this result.
Winfield Myers is director of Campus Watch.
http://www.campus-watch.org/weblog/id/109
But the professors aren't concerned with generic complaints; their real target is more specific. Although Campus Watch isn't mentioned, the Committee clearly alludes to it:
Unfortunately and ironically, many of the most vociferous campaigns targeting universities and their faculty have been launched by groups portraying themselves as defenders of Israel. These groups have targeted scholars who have expressed perspectives on Israeli policies and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with which they disagree.
Aside from there being nothing ironic about that claim, there is also nothing true about it. CW does not target anyone for disagreeing with Israeli policies or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. W
e critique professors of Middle East studies for myriad problems in their writing and teaching, whether Israel is involved or not.
Yet the Committee's first two complaints deal directly with Israel:
*unfounded insinuations and allegations, in the media and on websites, of anti-Semitism or sympathy for terrorism or "un-Americanism;"
*efforts to broaden definitions of anti-Semitism to include scholarship and teaching that is critical of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and of Israel;
Among the signatories (there were 173 as of Wednesday morning) are several professors of Middle East studies. Among them are: Gabriel Piterberg of UCLA; Magid Shihade of UC-Davis; Lisa Hajjar of UC-Santa Barbara; Gil Anidjar of Columbia; Laurie Brand of USC; Joel Beinin, listed as at Stanford, although (for now at least) at the American Univ. in Cairo; Lawrence Davidson of West Chester Univ.; Elliott Colla of Brown; Ahmad Dallal of Georgetown; Mark LeVine of UC-Irvine; Zareena A. Grewal of Yale; Suad Joseph of UC-Davis; Lila Abu-Lughod of Columbia; and others.
Since so many professors of Middle East studies are signatories, let's see if the charges made by critics of contemporary academe are in fact "unfounded," and if the term "anti-Semitism" is in fact tossed around so loosely. Here are just a few examples; judge for yourselves:
Juan Cole of Michigan, writing at his blog on Sunday, Oct. 21:
No one in the US media ever talks about Zionofascism, and the campus groups who yoke the word 'fascism' to other religions and peoples are most often trying to divert attention from their own authoritarianism and approval of brutality.
Joseph Massad of Columbia, writing in Al-Ahram Weekly this past March:
Israel is willing to do anything to convince Palestinians and other Arabs of why it needs and deserves to have the right to be racist. Even at the level of theory, and before it began to realise itself on the ground, the Zionist colonial project sought different means by which it could convince the people whose lands it wanted to steal and against whom it wanted to discriminate to accept as understandable its need to be racist.
Same man, same paper, December, 2004:
All those in the Arab world who deny the Jewish holocaust are in my opinion Zionists.
Saree Makdisi of UCLA, writing on his blog in April:
[Israel's] demand that its 'right to exist' be recognized reflects its own anxiety, not about its existence but about its failure to successfully eliminate the Palestinians' presence inside their homeland — a failure for which verbal recognition would serve merely a palliative and therapeutic function.
Scott Alexander of the Catholic Theological Union of Chicago, speaking in June, 2004, as an expert witness in the defense of Fawaz Damra, charged with immigration fraud and ties to terrorists:
[W]hen Palestinians refer to Jews as 'descended from apes and swine' or encourage support for those who 'kill Jews,' they do so with the reasonably justifiable self-image of victim and persecuted, not of victimizer and persecutor.
Omid Safi of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, speaking to the Associated Press in June, regarding the recent Pew Research Center Poll showing that 26 percent of American Muslim between the ages of 18 and 29 say that suicide bombing is justified in at least some circumstances.
Given what's happened in Iraq and Palestine, I would be shocked if there wasn't discontent.
Rashid Khalidi of Columbia, speaking of the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June, on National Public Radio:
[T]his has to be laid at the doorstep of Bush administration and Israeli government policy, they almost willed this result.
Winfield Myers is director of Campus Watch.
http://www.campus-watch.org/weblog/id/109
PA worried by attempt to create new PLO
Khaled Abu Toameh
THE JERUSALEM POST
Palestinian Authority officials here expressed concern on Wednesday over attempts by Hamas and other Palestinian radical groups to create a new PLO at a conference due to take place in Syria and the Gaza Strip early next month.
The officials told The Jerusalem Post that they were trying to persuade the Syrian government to ban the conference.
They called on the Arab countries and the US to join their efforts to thwart the planned conference.
The conference, which will bring together several Palestinian "rejectionist" groups, has been called in response to the US-sponsored peace conference, which is due to be held in Annapolis, Maryland, late this year. The conference will be held simultaneously in Damascus and Gaza City through a video-conference link.
"The conference in Damascus will deepen divisions among the Palestinians," warned a senior PA official. "This is the first time that several Palestinian factions are talking about the possibility of establishing an alternative to the PLO, which is still regarded by many Palestinians as their sole and legitimate representative."
In addition to the extremist groups, a number of prominent Palestinian figures have been invited to the conference in Syria, including estranged and veteran PLO leader Farouk Kaddoumi. The Tunisian-based Kaddoumi, who also serves as secretary-general of Fatah, is an outspoken critic of the Oslo Accords and the current PA leadership under Mahmoud Abbas.
Invitations issued by Hamas and its political allies described the Syria parley as the "Palestinian National Conference for Resisting Schemes Aimed at Liquidating the Palestinian Cause."
"Their declared goal is to foil the Annapolis conference," said another PA official. "What's worrying is that the conference will be held under the auspices of the Syrian regime, which is also unhappy with the US efforts to reach a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians."
The PLO's parliament-in-exile, the Palestine National Council, urged the Syrian authorities to prevent the gathering for fear that it would escalate tensions on the Palestinian arena. The council also warned against attempts to establish a new PLO, "which was built thanks to the sacrifices of our martyrs, first and foremost President Yasser Arafat."
The council accused Hamas of seeking to exploit the conference to divert attention from its violent takeover of the Gaza Strip. "Hamas wants to legitimize its coup in the Gaza Strip through this conference," it said.
"Hamas's attempt to create a new PLO is doomed to failure," said Yusef al-Qazzaz, a senior official with the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation. "Hamas's attempt is aimed at serving the interests of regional powers and won't help the Palestinians achieve independence and freedom," he said. "Hamas's attempt to drive a wedge between our people won't succeed."
Palestinian columnist Omar al-Ghoul said the Syria conference, which will also be attended by Arab and Islamic parties, was primarily aimed at helping Hamas break the state of isolation it has been facing for many months. "The conference in Syria is aimed at consolidating Hamas's rule in the Gaza Strip," he said. "We must not allow this to happen and the PLO must take measures to explain the dangers of this meeting."
THE JERUSALEM POST
Palestinian Authority officials here expressed concern on Wednesday over attempts by Hamas and other Palestinian radical groups to create a new PLO at a conference due to take place in Syria and the Gaza Strip early next month.
The officials told The Jerusalem Post that they were trying to persuade the Syrian government to ban the conference.
They called on the Arab countries and the US to join their efforts to thwart the planned conference.
The conference, which will bring together several Palestinian "rejectionist" groups, has been called in response to the US-sponsored peace conference, which is due to be held in Annapolis, Maryland, late this year. The conference will be held simultaneously in Damascus and Gaza City through a video-conference link.
"The conference in Damascus will deepen divisions among the Palestinians," warned a senior PA official. "This is the first time that several Palestinian factions are talking about the possibility of establishing an alternative to the PLO, which is still regarded by many Palestinians as their sole and legitimate representative."
In addition to the extremist groups, a number of prominent Palestinian figures have been invited to the conference in Syria, including estranged and veteran PLO leader Farouk Kaddoumi. The Tunisian-based Kaddoumi, who also serves as secretary-general of Fatah, is an outspoken critic of the Oslo Accords and the current PA leadership under Mahmoud Abbas.
Invitations issued by Hamas and its political allies described the Syria parley as the "Palestinian National Conference for Resisting Schemes Aimed at Liquidating the Palestinian Cause."
"Their declared goal is to foil the Annapolis conference," said another PA official. "What's worrying is that the conference will be held under the auspices of the Syrian regime, which is also unhappy with the US efforts to reach a deal between the Israelis and Palestinians."
The PLO's parliament-in-exile, the Palestine National Council, urged the Syrian authorities to prevent the gathering for fear that it would escalate tensions on the Palestinian arena. The council also warned against attempts to establish a new PLO, "which was built thanks to the sacrifices of our martyrs, first and foremost President Yasser Arafat."
The council accused Hamas of seeking to exploit the conference to divert attention from its violent takeover of the Gaza Strip. "Hamas wants to legitimize its coup in the Gaza Strip through this conference," it said.
"Hamas's attempt to create a new PLO is doomed to failure," said Yusef al-Qazzaz, a senior official with the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation. "Hamas's attempt is aimed at serving the interests of regional powers and won't help the Palestinians achieve independence and freedom," he said. "Hamas's attempt to drive a wedge between our people won't succeed."
Palestinian columnist Omar al-Ghoul said the Syria conference, which will also be attended by Arab and Islamic parties, was primarily aimed at helping Hamas break the state of isolation it has been facing for many months. "The conference in Syria is aimed at consolidating Hamas's rule in the Gaza Strip," he said. "We must not allow this to happen and the PLO must take measures to explain the dangers of this meeting."
No more doubts
The revelations regarding the Palestinian cell that attempted to assassinate Israel’s prime minister in Jericho on August 6 put an end to the debate on whether Mahmoud Abbas is the true representative of the Palestinian people. The cell’s detention and subsequent release, in line with the good old “revolving door” tradition, takes the Palestinian Authority 20 years back, to the days of the Palestinian convention, armed struggle, and the slogan “from revolution all the way to victory.”
Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas, Prime Minister Fayyad, and their spokesman Erekat belong to the same organization, Fatah, which is home to the activists who planned to assassinate Ehud Olmert. This organization is indeed representative of Palestinian society – a society that is very far from peace with Israel.
The foiled assassination highlights three fundamental facts that we would do well to promptly discuss. The first one is Palestinian strategy, which has not changed. The second one is Abbas’ helplessness. The third one – what should the Israeli approach be?
Palestinian strategy: If we needed further proof, there it is: Fatah has not changed at all its good old strategy, which views Israel as the bitter enemy. Israeli leaders who push for a peace process are overly impressed by the suit-wearing trio: Abbas, Fayyad, and Erekat. The three use a European look and fluent English to sell real estate that does not belong to them to the Americans. Time and again they are revealed to be the public relations managers of a tough people that supports terrorism and is unwilling to accept any historic and territorial compromise. The three are doing the unbelievable by marketing the Palestinians as a “peace loving nation,” but the latest assassination attempt removes at once the mask on their face. What else needs to happen so that both the US and Israel realize the Palestinians are ideologically unprepared for peace? Arafat at least showed up to meetings in uniform and carrying a gun…will a suit serve to mask all crimes?
Palestinian helplessness: Here is more proof that Abbas and the Fatah organization are unable to implement their rule over even part of the territories, and with every passing day their abilities decline and the area under their control shrinks. It is no coincidence that Abbas does not want to assume responsibility for security in West Bank towns, even in a relatively easy to control peripheral town like Jericho. And if this is the case in Jericho, what can be said about Nablus and Hebron? Not to mention the Gaza Strip? There is no doubt that the bodies under Abbas’ command – the ones that collapsed like a house of cards in the Gaza Strip – are the police scarecrows that will collapse in West Bank towns as well the day the IDF departs. Therefore, while his people “chatter about peace” all that is left for the real Fatah leaders to do is to behave like a fighting opposition to Hamas dominance.
The foiled attack against Israel’s prime minister is exactly the pattern of activity expected of Palestinian opposition – an inter-organization competition over terrorism hegemony. It is easy to predict that if, heaven forbid, the assassination would have succeeded, Fatah would have won the next elections by an overwhelming majority because only a major terror attack is the key to political success across the territories, rather than an agreement with Israel.
The Israel angle: We could assume that in wake of the attempted attack, Abbas will attempt to deny these were Fatah men and that they do not even appear on the list of people who receive salaries from the organization, justify the cell’s release from prison with claims of “insufficient evidence,” promise it will be detained again, or say that those were Hamas members who sought to create a quarrel between Fatah and Israel. It is also likely to assume that Israel’s contacts with Fatah will continue.
It’s a waste of time. If the group that planned to assassinate Israel’s prime minister indeed belongs to Fatah’s armed struggle, and Abbas indeed knew that, the prime minister should be careful of the guest that has been visiting Jerusalem as of late. And if Abbas is so weak and has such feeble control over his own organization, who exactly are we talking peace with?
The writer served in various posts in the territories and currently researches Palestinian society at the Shmuel Neeman Institute at the Technion
Palestinian Authority Chairman Abbas, Prime Minister Fayyad, and their spokesman Erekat belong to the same organization, Fatah, which is home to the activists who planned to assassinate Ehud Olmert. This organization is indeed representative of Palestinian society – a society that is very far from peace with Israel.
The foiled assassination highlights three fundamental facts that we would do well to promptly discuss. The first one is Palestinian strategy, which has not changed. The second one is Abbas’ helplessness. The third one – what should the Israeli approach be?
Palestinian strategy: If we needed further proof, there it is: Fatah has not changed at all its good old strategy, which views Israel as the bitter enemy. Israeli leaders who push for a peace process are overly impressed by the suit-wearing trio: Abbas, Fayyad, and Erekat. The three use a European look and fluent English to sell real estate that does not belong to them to the Americans. Time and again they are revealed to be the public relations managers of a tough people that supports terrorism and is unwilling to accept any historic and territorial compromise. The three are doing the unbelievable by marketing the Palestinians as a “peace loving nation,” but the latest assassination attempt removes at once the mask on their face. What else needs to happen so that both the US and Israel realize the Palestinians are ideologically unprepared for peace? Arafat at least showed up to meetings in uniform and carrying a gun…will a suit serve to mask all crimes?
Palestinian helplessness: Here is more proof that Abbas and the Fatah organization are unable to implement their rule over even part of the territories, and with every passing day their abilities decline and the area under their control shrinks. It is no coincidence that Abbas does not want to assume responsibility for security in West Bank towns, even in a relatively easy to control peripheral town like Jericho. And if this is the case in Jericho, what can be said about Nablus and Hebron? Not to mention the Gaza Strip? There is no doubt that the bodies under Abbas’ command – the ones that collapsed like a house of cards in the Gaza Strip – are the police scarecrows that will collapse in West Bank towns as well the day the IDF departs. Therefore, while his people “chatter about peace” all that is left for the real Fatah leaders to do is to behave like a fighting opposition to Hamas dominance.
The foiled attack against Israel’s prime minister is exactly the pattern of activity expected of Palestinian opposition – an inter-organization competition over terrorism hegemony. It is easy to predict that if, heaven forbid, the assassination would have succeeded, Fatah would have won the next elections by an overwhelming majority because only a major terror attack is the key to political success across the territories, rather than an agreement with Israel.
The Israel angle: We could assume that in wake of the attempted attack, Abbas will attempt to deny these were Fatah men and that they do not even appear on the list of people who receive salaries from the organization, justify the cell’s release from prison with claims of “insufficient evidence,” promise it will be detained again, or say that those were Hamas members who sought to create a quarrel between Fatah and Israel. It is also likely to assume that Israel’s contacts with Fatah will continue.
It’s a waste of time. If the group that planned to assassinate Israel’s prime minister indeed belongs to Fatah’s armed struggle, and Abbas indeed knew that, the prime minister should be careful of the guest that has been visiting Jerusalem as of late. And if Abbas is so weak and has such feeble control over his own organization, who exactly are we talking peace with?
The writer served in various posts in the territories and currently researches Palestinian society at the Shmuel Neeman Institute at the Technion
From Arab media: Occupied Palestinian Territories: Palestinian factional strife fuelling abuses
notice how they always teach lies, "occupied territories"-simply not true. Interfactional fighting between Hamas and Fatah forces in the Gaza Strip earlier this year left 350 Palestinians dead and has been followed by further serious abuses in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Amnesty International said in a new report published today.
The 57-page report, Occupied Palestinian Territories: Torn apart by factional strife, accuses Hamas of resorting increasingly to arbitrary detentions and torture since it took power last June in the Gaza Strip, and of allowing its forces to attack and assault peaceful demonstrators as well as journalists reporting on their protests. In the West Bank, the report blames security forces loyal to Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas of arbitrarily detaining hundreds of Hamas supporters but of failing to take action against Fatah militants responsible for abductions, arson and other attacks.
"The leaders of both the PA and Hamas must take immediate steps to break the cycle of impunity that continues to fuel abuses, including arbitrary detentions, abductions, torture and ill-treatment by their forces," said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International's Middle East Programme Director. "The ongoing factional struggle between Fatah and Hamas is having a dire effect on the lives of Palestinians, especially in the Gaza Strip, compounding and exacerbating the human rights and humanitarian crisis caused by Israeli military campaigns and blockades."
The report calls for the establishment of an independent commission of experts to investigate human rights abuses committed by both parties since the beginning of 2006 and for the leaders on both sides to commit to implementing its recommendations.
According to the report, Palestinian interfactional fighting in the Gaza Strip reached unprecedented levels during the past year, culminating in June 2007 when Hamas seized control of Palestinian Authority security institutions in the territory. It argues that both PA and Hamas security forces and armed groups displayed a flagrant disregard for the safety of the civilian population by launching indiscriminate attacks and reckless gun battles in residential neighbourhoods. This left civilians virtually trapped like prisoners in their own homes while dozens of unarmed bystanders who were not involved in the confrontations, including children, were caught in the line of fire.
The report contains harrowing accounts from victims of both sides and from residents who were directly affected by the waves of armed clashes which took place in the Gaza Strip in June and previous months: "For three days we could not leave the house. Gunmen had taken position on tall buildings and were firing rockets at each others. We feared that a missile could come through the window any time," a resident of Gaza City told Amnesty International in June 2007.
Rival security forces whose responsibility it was to uphold and enforce the law, and to protect the population, betrayed this responsibility and instead acted as partisans, in concert with armed groups that serve as their proxy militias, and themselves broke the laws and committed gross abuses with complete impunity.
President Abbas' decision to suspend the operations of PA security forces and judicial institutions in the Gaza Strip following the de-facto takeover of Hamas in Gaza has created a legal and institutional vacuum. This paved the way for Hamas to establish a parallel security and law enforcement apparatus - but one which lacks appropriately trained personnel, accountability mechanisms or safeguards.
As a result, arbitrary detentions and torture of detainees by Hamas forces are now widespread in Gaza, as are attacks against demonstrators and journalists covering such incidents. The initial improvements in the security situation which followed Hamas' takeover in Gaza are fast being eroded .
In the West Bank, human rights abuses by PA security forces are also rife, though much less well publicised - as the international community is seemingly unwilling to rock the boat ahead of forthcoming US-convened conference aimed at resuscitating the long-stalled peace talks between the Israeli government and the PA emergency government.
Hundreds of Hamas supporters or presumed sympathizers have been arrested and arbitrarily detained by PA security forces, violations of legal detention procedures are routine and reports of torture or other ill-treatment are becoming more frequent. Detainees are held in sites not authorized by law for this purpose and security forces frequently ignore orders the judges' orders to release detainees for lack of evidence.
The PA emergency government has failed to hold to account Fatah gunmen who abducted Hamas supporters and burned down their houses, businesses and charity organizations suspected of links to Hamas in the West Bank - even though the perpetrators of these attacks were often known in their communities and acted in full view of the security forces.
The arrest and detention of more than 1,000 presumed Hamas supporters, most of whom are not accused of any crime, stands in stark contrast to the PA's failure to arrest and bring to justice members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Fatah's armed wing, responsible for unlawful killings, hostage-taking, arson and other attacks against people and property.
"The lawlessness which has increasingly gripped the West Bank and Gaza Strip in recent years, culminating in the recent interfactional fighting, is to a large extent the result of the prolonged and systematic failure of the PA to uphold and enforce the law," said Malcolm Smart.
The report also calls on the international community to cease the sale or transfer of weapons to any parties until guarantees can be secured that they won't be used to violate human rights.
"The international community must hold all Palestinian parties accountable to the same human rights standards," said Malcolm Smart. "It must ensure that the population of the Gaza Strip is not punished for the positions and actions of the Hamas de-facto administration and that emergency assistance essential to fulfilling fundamental human rights is never used as a bargaining tool to further political goals."
Public Document
****************************************
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566
Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. web: http://www.amnesty.org
For latest human rights news view http://news.amnesty.org
The Israel Project is an international non-profit organization devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace. The Israel Project provides journalists, leaders and opinion-makers accurate information about Israel. The Israel Project is not related to any government or government agency.
Board of Advisors: Senator Evan Bayh (IN), Senator Saxby Chambliss (GA), Senator Norm Coleman (MN), Senator Ben Nelson (NE), Senator Arlen Specter (PA), Senator Ron Wyden (OR), Congressman Rob Andrews (NJ), Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (NV), Congressman Tom Davis (VA), Congressman Eliot Engel (NY), Congressman Frank Pallone (NJ), Congressman Jon Porter (NV), Congressman Jim Saxton (NJ), Congressman Brad Sherman (CA), Congressman Joe Wilson (SC), Actor and Director Ron Silver
notice how they always teach lies, "occupied territories"-simply not true. Interfactional fighting between Hamas and Fatah forces in the Gaza Strip earlier this year left 350 Palestinians dead and has been followed by further serious abuses in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, Amnesty International said in a new report published today.
The 57-page report, Occupied Palestinian Territories: Torn apart by factional strife, accuses Hamas of resorting increasingly to arbitrary detentions and torture since it took power last June in the Gaza Strip, and of allowing its forces to attack and assault peaceful demonstrators as well as journalists reporting on their protests. In the West Bank, the report blames security forces loyal to Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas of arbitrarily detaining hundreds of Hamas supporters but of failing to take action against Fatah militants responsible for abductions, arson and other attacks.
"The leaders of both the PA and Hamas must take immediate steps to break the cycle of impunity that continues to fuel abuses, including arbitrary detentions, abductions, torture and ill-treatment by their forces," said Malcolm Smart, Amnesty International's Middle East Programme Director. "The ongoing factional struggle between Fatah and Hamas is having a dire effect on the lives of Palestinians, especially in the Gaza Strip, compounding and exacerbating the human rights and humanitarian crisis caused by Israeli military campaigns and blockades."
The report calls for the establishment of an independent commission of experts to investigate human rights abuses committed by both parties since the beginning of 2006 and for the leaders on both sides to commit to implementing its recommendations.
According to the report, Palestinian interfactional fighting in the Gaza Strip reached unprecedented levels during the past year, culminating in June 2007 when Hamas seized control of Palestinian Authority security institutions in the territory. It argues that both PA and Hamas security forces and armed groups displayed a flagrant disregard for the safety of the civilian population by launching indiscriminate attacks and reckless gun battles in residential neighbourhoods. This left civilians virtually trapped like prisoners in their own homes while dozens of unarmed bystanders who were not involved in the confrontations, including children, were caught in the line of fire.
The report contains harrowing accounts from victims of both sides and from residents who were directly affected by the waves of armed clashes which took place in the Gaza Strip in June and previous months: "For three days we could not leave the house. Gunmen had taken position on tall buildings and were firing rockets at each others. We feared that a missile could come through the window any time," a resident of Gaza City told Amnesty International in June 2007.
Rival security forces whose responsibility it was to uphold and enforce the law, and to protect the population, betrayed this responsibility and instead acted as partisans, in concert with armed groups that serve as their proxy militias, and themselves broke the laws and committed gross abuses with complete impunity.
President Abbas' decision to suspend the operations of PA security forces and judicial institutions in the Gaza Strip following the de-facto takeover of Hamas in Gaza has created a legal and institutional vacuum. This paved the way for Hamas to establish a parallel security and law enforcement apparatus - but one which lacks appropriately trained personnel, accountability mechanisms or safeguards.
As a result, arbitrary detentions and torture of detainees by Hamas forces are now widespread in Gaza, as are attacks against demonstrators and journalists covering such incidents. The initial improvements in the security situation which followed Hamas' takeover in Gaza are fast being eroded .
In the West Bank, human rights abuses by PA security forces are also rife, though much less well publicised - as the international community is seemingly unwilling to rock the boat ahead of forthcoming US-convened conference aimed at resuscitating the long-stalled peace talks between the Israeli government and the PA emergency government.
Hundreds of Hamas supporters or presumed sympathizers have been arrested and arbitrarily detained by PA security forces, violations of legal detention procedures are routine and reports of torture or other ill-treatment are becoming more frequent. Detainees are held in sites not authorized by law for this purpose and security forces frequently ignore orders the judges' orders to release detainees for lack of evidence.
The PA emergency government has failed to hold to account Fatah gunmen who abducted Hamas supporters and burned down their houses, businesses and charity organizations suspected of links to Hamas in the West Bank - even though the perpetrators of these attacks were often known in their communities and acted in full view of the security forces.
The arrest and detention of more than 1,000 presumed Hamas supporters, most of whom are not accused of any crime, stands in stark contrast to the PA's failure to arrest and bring to justice members of the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, Fatah's armed wing, responsible for unlawful killings, hostage-taking, arson and other attacks against people and property.
"The lawlessness which has increasingly gripped the West Bank and Gaza Strip in recent years, culminating in the recent interfactional fighting, is to a large extent the result of the prolonged and systematic failure of the PA to uphold and enforce the law," said Malcolm Smart.
The report also calls on the international community to cease the sale or transfer of weapons to any parties until guarantees can be secured that they won't be used to violate human rights.
"The international community must hold all Palestinian parties accountable to the same human rights standards," said Malcolm Smart. "It must ensure that the population of the Gaza Strip is not punished for the positions and actions of the Hamas de-facto administration and that emergency assistance essential to fulfilling fundamental human rights is never used as a bargaining tool to further political goals."
Public Document
****************************************
For more information please call Amnesty International's press office in London, UK, on +44 20 7413 5566
Amnesty International, 1 Easton St., London WC1X 0DW. web: http://www.amnesty.org
For latest human rights news view http://news.amnesty.org
The Israel Project is an international non-profit organization devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace. The Israel Project provides journalists, leaders and opinion-makers accurate information about Israel. The Israel Project is not related to any government or government agency.
Board of Advisors: Senator Evan Bayh (IN), Senator Saxby Chambliss (GA), Senator Norm Coleman (MN), Senator Ben Nelson (NE), Senator Arlen Specter (PA), Senator Ron Wyden (OR), Congressman Rob Andrews (NJ), Congresswoman Shelley Berkley (NV), Congressman Tom Davis (VA), Congressman Eliot Engel (NY), Congressman Frank Pallone (NJ), Congressman Jon Porter (NV), Congressman Jim Saxton (NJ), Congressman Brad Sherman (CA), Congressman Joe Wilson (SC), Actor and Director Ron Silver
PA: Israel thwarting security efforts
Palestinian security source says Jewish state prevented entry of 500 police officers into West Bank city of Nablus, several days after Defense Minister Barak told US Secretary of State Rice that Palestinians are unable to deploy security personnel According to the source, Israel prevented the entry of some 500 Palestinian police officers into Nablus through the Hawara checkpoint on Tuesday.
Security Cooperation?
The officers were meant to deploy in the West Bank city as part of a Palestinian security plan, which was included in the understandings between the Palestinians, Israel and the United States.
During US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's last visit to the Middle East, Defense Minister Ehud Barak told her that the Palestinians were unable to implement their security plans, presenting as an example the Palestinians' failure to deploy 500 security officers in Nablus.
According to the Palestinian source, the fact that Israel prevented the Palestinian forces' entry proves that the Jewish state is seeking to thwart any Palestinian security effort, in a bid to continue presenting the PA as incompetent and justify the ongoing Israeli refusal to discuss the withdrawals from the West Bank city and the removal of checkpoints.
Another issue raised by the PA source was the amnesty given to members of Fatah's military wing, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, three months ago.
According to the source, following a trial period Israel was meant to grant the men free movement, but now refuses to discuss the issue.
"The Israelis are not cooperating on this issue as well," he said.
According to the source, "The agitation among the organization members is increasing and things could get out of hand."
The security source added that it was not coincidence that Israel was toughening its stances and enhancing the obstacles faced by the PA as the US-sponsored Mideast peace conference approaches.
Security Cooperation?
The officers were meant to deploy in the West Bank city as part of a Palestinian security plan, which was included in the understandings between the Palestinians, Israel and the United States.
During US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's last visit to the Middle East, Defense Minister Ehud Barak told her that the Palestinians were unable to implement their security plans, presenting as an example the Palestinians' failure to deploy 500 security officers in Nablus.
According to the Palestinian source, the fact that Israel prevented the Palestinian forces' entry proves that the Jewish state is seeking to thwart any Palestinian security effort, in a bid to continue presenting the PA as incompetent and justify the ongoing Israeli refusal to discuss the withdrawals from the West Bank city and the removal of checkpoints.
Another issue raised by the PA source was the amnesty given to members of Fatah's military wing, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, three months ago.
According to the source, following a trial period Israel was meant to grant the men free movement, but now refuses to discuss the issue.
"The Israelis are not cooperating on this issue as well," he said.
According to the source, "The agitation among the organization members is increasing and things could get out of hand."
The security source added that it was not coincidence that Israel was toughening its stances and enhancing the obstacles faced by the PA as the US-sponsored Mideast peace conference approaches.
Annapolis Blues
Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com |
The Bush administration's plans to convene a new round of Israeli-Arab diplomacy on Nov. 26 will, I predict, do substantial damage to American and Israeli interests.
As a rule, successful negotiations require a common aim; in management-labor talks, for example, both sides want to get back to work. When a shared premise is lacking, not only do negotiations usually fail, but they usually do more harm than good. Such is the case in the forthcoming Annapolis, Maryland, talks. One side (Israel) seeks peaceful coexistence while the other (the Arabs) seeks to eliminate its negotiating partner, as evidenced by its violent actions, its voting patterns, replies to polls, political rhetoric, media messages, school textbooks, mosque sermons, wall graffiti, and much else.
Damage will be done should the Israeli government make "painful concessions" and get a cold peace or empty promises in return, as has consistently been the case since 1979. This lop-sided outcome would, once again, boost Arab exhilaration and determination to eliminate the Jewish state.
Mahmoud Abbas, Condoleezza Rice, and Ehud Olmert: Will they be celebrating at Annapolis?
Contrarily, should the Israelis resist a joint U.S.-Palestinian position, I see a possible crisis in U.S.-Israel relations of unprecedented proportions – worse than 1975 or even 1957. That's because, in part, the stakes are so high. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated that "the United States sees the establishment of a Palestinian state, a two-state solution, as absolutely essential to the future of not just Palestinians and Israelis but also to the Middle East and, indeed, to American interests." If a Palestinian state is "absolutely essential … to American interests," whoever stands in its way will presumably pay a heavy price. As I have been arguing since November 2004, U.S.-Israel relations are hanging by a thread. Annapolis renders them yet more vulnerable to disruption.
Putting aside these deep and inescapable problems, the talks face two practical challenges: On the Palestinian side, "Fatah figurehead Mahmoud Abbas" (as Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick calls him) is an extremely weak reed. "There is no responsible Palestinian leadership that could deliver a newspaper on time in the morning," the Jerusalem Report's Hirsh Goodman notes, "much less a peace agreement that would stand the test of time."
On the Israeli side, Ehud Olmert's prime ministry could crash if his skittish partners abandon the ruling coalition. Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu have warned against dividing Jerusalem and other steps. Ehud Barak, head of the Labor Party, reportedly will reject any plan denying freedom of movement to the Israel Defense Forces in the West Bank. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni could bolt if a Palestinian "right of return" is not renounced. That a recent poll finds 77 percent of Israelis think their government is "too weak to sign a peace agreement with the Palestinians in Israel's name" increases the chance of defections.
These grim prospects raise the question: Why, after nearly seven years of staying aloof from Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, has the Bush administration now succumbed to the bug? Some possible factors:
· Iranian threat: Rice sees an opportunity for U.S. diplomacy in a Middle East realignment resulting from Iranian aggression, both actual (Hizbullah, Hamas) and future (nuclear weapons).
· Inaction worse: If nothing is done, Kadima's already dismal standing in the polls will continue to fall and Fatah's tenuous hold over in West Bank will erode. The prospect of Likud and Hamas succeeding Olmert and Abbas pleases the Bush administration no more than it does those two men.
· Legacy: Zbigniew Brzezinski has articulated the foreign policy establishment's hopes for Annapolis and its dim view of Rice: "She realizes that her legacy right now is really very poor. If she can pull this off, she will be seen as a real historical figure."
· Civil rights: Rice believes in a bizarre analogy between West Bank Palestinians and southern Blacks.
· Messianism: Both George W. Bush and Rice seem to view themselves as destined to resolve Arab-Israeli hostilities. One interlocutor recounts that "she believes this is the time for the Israeli and Palestinian conflict to end."
Rice's comment echoes both George H.W. Bush's 1991 statement that "the time has come to put an end to Arab-Israeli conflict" and Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's 2005 announcement of his intent "to resolve this problem once and for all." But, as Irving Kristol has memorably observed, "Whom the gods would destroy they first tempt to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Miniatures (Transaction Publishers).
FrontPageMagazine.com |
The Bush administration's plans to convene a new round of Israeli-Arab diplomacy on Nov. 26 will, I predict, do substantial damage to American and Israeli interests.
As a rule, successful negotiations require a common aim; in management-labor talks, for example, both sides want to get back to work. When a shared premise is lacking, not only do negotiations usually fail, but they usually do more harm than good. Such is the case in the forthcoming Annapolis, Maryland, talks. One side (Israel) seeks peaceful coexistence while the other (the Arabs) seeks to eliminate its negotiating partner, as evidenced by its violent actions, its voting patterns, replies to polls, political rhetoric, media messages, school textbooks, mosque sermons, wall graffiti, and much else.
Damage will be done should the Israeli government make "painful concessions" and get a cold peace or empty promises in return, as has consistently been the case since 1979. This lop-sided outcome would, once again, boost Arab exhilaration and determination to eliminate the Jewish state.
Mahmoud Abbas, Condoleezza Rice, and Ehud Olmert: Will they be celebrating at Annapolis?
Contrarily, should the Israelis resist a joint U.S.-Palestinian position, I see a possible crisis in U.S.-Israel relations of unprecedented proportions – worse than 1975 or even 1957. That's because, in part, the stakes are so high. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has stated that "the United States sees the establishment of a Palestinian state, a two-state solution, as absolutely essential to the future of not just Palestinians and Israelis but also to the Middle East and, indeed, to American interests." If a Palestinian state is "absolutely essential … to American interests," whoever stands in its way will presumably pay a heavy price. As I have been arguing since November 2004, U.S.-Israel relations are hanging by a thread. Annapolis renders them yet more vulnerable to disruption.
Putting aside these deep and inescapable problems, the talks face two practical challenges: On the Palestinian side, "Fatah figurehead Mahmoud Abbas" (as Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick calls him) is an extremely weak reed. "There is no responsible Palestinian leadership that could deliver a newspaper on time in the morning," the Jerusalem Report's Hirsh Goodman notes, "much less a peace agreement that would stand the test of time."
On the Israeli side, Ehud Olmert's prime ministry could crash if his skittish partners abandon the ruling coalition. Shas and Yisrael Beiteinu have warned against dividing Jerusalem and other steps. Ehud Barak, head of the Labor Party, reportedly will reject any plan denying freedom of movement to the Israel Defense Forces in the West Bank. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni could bolt if a Palestinian "right of return" is not renounced. That a recent poll finds 77 percent of Israelis think their government is "too weak to sign a peace agreement with the Palestinians in Israel's name" increases the chance of defections.
These grim prospects raise the question: Why, after nearly seven years of staying aloof from Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, has the Bush administration now succumbed to the bug? Some possible factors:
· Iranian threat: Rice sees an opportunity for U.S. diplomacy in a Middle East realignment resulting from Iranian aggression, both actual (Hizbullah, Hamas) and future (nuclear weapons).
· Inaction worse: If nothing is done, Kadima's already dismal standing in the polls will continue to fall and Fatah's tenuous hold over in West Bank will erode. The prospect of Likud and Hamas succeeding Olmert and Abbas pleases the Bush administration no more than it does those two men.
· Legacy: Zbigniew Brzezinski has articulated the foreign policy establishment's hopes for Annapolis and its dim view of Rice: "She realizes that her legacy right now is really very poor. If she can pull this off, she will be seen as a real historical figure."
· Civil rights: Rice believes in a bizarre analogy between West Bank Palestinians and southern Blacks.
· Messianism: Both George W. Bush and Rice seem to view themselves as destined to resolve Arab-Israeli hostilities. One interlocutor recounts that "she believes this is the time for the Israeli and Palestinian conflict to end."
Rice's comment echoes both George H.W. Bush's 1991 statement that "the time has come to put an end to Arab-Israeli conflict" and Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon's 2005 announcement of his intent "to resolve this problem once and for all." But, as Irving Kristol has memorably observed, "Whom the gods would destroy they first tempt to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Mr. Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Miniatures (Transaction Publishers).
Our slow steady slide toward narcissism
There is something wrong - something very, very wrong - going on here. Something has happened to Israeli society over the past few years, something that is slowly and inexorably changing the way people relate to one another. You can see it in the little things, and in the big things, too. It is there when you are waiting on line at the bank, or when you go before yet another lethargic clerk to fill out still another tedious bureaucratic form.
The daily headlines reflect it as well, as burning issues ranging from rocket attacks to widespread poverty to strikes in the educational system elicit little more than a shrug of the shoulders as we turn the page and move on.
As frightening as it sounds, it seems as if the bonds that hold us together as one nation and one people are beginning to wither away.
It is hard to pinpoint exactly when this process started, let alone when (and how) it will end. But it is almost as if the glue binding society has started to weaken, threatening to come undone before our very eyes.
How did this happen? How did we go from being a society that cared - to one that is increasingly so callous?
The answer, I think, is surprisingly simple, and it can best be summed up in one very short and simple, little word: me.
No, I don't mean "me" as in myself, Michael Freund, the author of this article, but "me" in the sense that each of us has increasingly turned inward, to some extent shutting out our responsibility to one another as Jews.
Values and ideals such as patriotism, Jewish pride and love of country are increasingly being replaced by a narrower mode of thinking, one that is focused far more selfishly on what is best for me, myself and especially - for I.
How else does one explain our indifference to the fate of Sderot, which continues to suffer near-daily barrages of Palestinian projectiles? Or the lack of public pressure to return Israel's missing servicemen? It is almost as if we have subconsciously adopted the attitude that as long as something doesn't directly affect our own personal daily existence, then it simply does not matter very much at all.
There are thousands of Jews in the Negev living under constant threat of mortar fire? Hey, not my problem, those rockets can't reach me. Gilad Schalit, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser are all being held in captivity for 15 months and counting? Sorry, but can't you see I'm busy watching TV?
Is this really the kind of society we want to live in? Take, for example, the tragedy of Gush Katif. It has now become acceptable, even tolerable, to throw Jews out of their homes. Of course, just as long as it isn't my home or yours that is under the gun.
Even after Gaza's Jews were expelled, their fate fell out of sight, swept far away from the public's consciousness. I'm not sure which was crueler: forcing them out or forsaking them once they were gone.
HOW DO we stop this slide toward narcissism and self-absorption? How can we turn back the clock on conceit, selfishness and pride?
Here is a little formula that might be worth a try. When you start off your morning, and plan your daily schedule, stop for a moment and ask yourself a very straightforward question: What will I do for the Jewish people today?
Not for the Jewish person staring back at you in the mirror, but for the nation of Israel as a whole.
What activity, what action, what amount of time will you spend doing something, doing anything, for your people today? How you choose to answer this query is not my affair. We must each take an honest look at ourselves, our talents and our abilities and come up with a suitable response.
But just asking ourselves this question each day will challenge us, however briefly, to look beyond ourselves, toward the greater good around us that is so badly in need of repair.
There is so much that is twisted and wrong with our government and the way things are done, that many of us often find ourselves at a loss as to what to do. We want to get involved, we want to make a difference, but it just doesn't seem to matter, as our national predicament only grows worse.
But fending off frustration and doing something focused and concrete is a sure-fire way to start to improve the situation.
For if at the end of each day, we can look back and say that we did something positive and productive for the people of Israel, it will reignite the sense of purpose and meaning that lies dormant within us.
Even if our actions do not appear to have any noticeable effect on the course of events, just by getting involved on behalf of the Jewish people, we will at least succeed in changing ourselves.
And that, in and of itself, is already a step in the right direction.
The daily headlines reflect it as well, as burning issues ranging from rocket attacks to widespread poverty to strikes in the educational system elicit little more than a shrug of the shoulders as we turn the page and move on.
As frightening as it sounds, it seems as if the bonds that hold us together as one nation and one people are beginning to wither away.
It is hard to pinpoint exactly when this process started, let alone when (and how) it will end. But it is almost as if the glue binding society has started to weaken, threatening to come undone before our very eyes.
How did this happen? How did we go from being a society that cared - to one that is increasingly so callous?
The answer, I think, is surprisingly simple, and it can best be summed up in one very short and simple, little word: me.
No, I don't mean "me" as in myself, Michael Freund, the author of this article, but "me" in the sense that each of us has increasingly turned inward, to some extent shutting out our responsibility to one another as Jews.
Values and ideals such as patriotism, Jewish pride and love of country are increasingly being replaced by a narrower mode of thinking, one that is focused far more selfishly on what is best for me, myself and especially - for I.
How else does one explain our indifference to the fate of Sderot, which continues to suffer near-daily barrages of Palestinian projectiles? Or the lack of public pressure to return Israel's missing servicemen? It is almost as if we have subconsciously adopted the attitude that as long as something doesn't directly affect our own personal daily existence, then it simply does not matter very much at all.
There are thousands of Jews in the Negev living under constant threat of mortar fire? Hey, not my problem, those rockets can't reach me. Gilad Schalit, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser are all being held in captivity for 15 months and counting? Sorry, but can't you see I'm busy watching TV?
Is this really the kind of society we want to live in? Take, for example, the tragedy of Gush Katif. It has now become acceptable, even tolerable, to throw Jews out of their homes. Of course, just as long as it isn't my home or yours that is under the gun.
Even after Gaza's Jews were expelled, their fate fell out of sight, swept far away from the public's consciousness. I'm not sure which was crueler: forcing them out or forsaking them once they were gone.
HOW DO we stop this slide toward narcissism and self-absorption? How can we turn back the clock on conceit, selfishness and pride?
Here is a little formula that might be worth a try. When you start off your morning, and plan your daily schedule, stop for a moment and ask yourself a very straightforward question: What will I do for the Jewish people today?
Not for the Jewish person staring back at you in the mirror, but for the nation of Israel as a whole.
What activity, what action, what amount of time will you spend doing something, doing anything, for your people today? How you choose to answer this query is not my affair. We must each take an honest look at ourselves, our talents and our abilities and come up with a suitable response.
But just asking ourselves this question each day will challenge us, however briefly, to look beyond ourselves, toward the greater good around us that is so badly in need of repair.
There is so much that is twisted and wrong with our government and the way things are done, that many of us often find ourselves at a loss as to what to do. We want to get involved, we want to make a difference, but it just doesn't seem to matter, as our national predicament only grows worse.
But fending off frustration and doing something focused and concrete is a sure-fire way to start to improve the situation.
For if at the end of each day, we can look back and say that we did something positive and productive for the people of Israel, it will reignite the sense of purpose and meaning that lies dormant within us.
Even if our actions do not appear to have any noticeable effect on the course of events, just by getting involved on behalf of the Jewish people, we will at least succeed in changing ourselves.
And that, in and of itself, is already a step in the right direction.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
"PA to skip summit if deal not reached'
Comment: Here is the ultimate threat-let's see if we have learned anything from previous experiences with these kinds of threats.
The Palestinian Authority won't attend the US-sponsored peace conference in Annapolis unless an agreement is reached beforehand with Israel on all the final status issues, Saeb Erekat, a member of the PA negotiating team, said Tuesday. "The Palestinian position is very clear," he said. "We won't go to the conference unless we reach an agreement with Israel on the final status issues and a clear timetable for the implementation of any agreement between the two parties."
Erekat said the PA has managed to persuade Arab and Islamic countries to endorse the Palestinian position and to set conditions for attending the planned conference.
"The Arabs are now united toward the conference," he said. "We have all endorsed the Arab peace plan [of 2002] as the basis for solving the Israeli-Arab conflict."
PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who is currently on a tour of Arab, Islamic and European countries, is carrying a message to the effect that failure at Annapolis would lead to another round of violence in the Middle East, PA officials told The Jerusalem Post.
The officials said Abbas was seeking the backing of the international community for his demand that an agreement be reached with Israel ahead of the conference.
"There's no point in going to the conference without an agreement," one official said. "President Abbas is convinced that failure will boost Hamas's popularity and undermine the moderate voices among the Palestinians."
According to Erekat, the Palestinians will boycott the conference unless a deal is reached with Israel on the issues of Jerusalem, water and borders. "Without a clear agreement on these issues, we won't go to the conference," he said.
Erekat accused Israel of using the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip as an excuse to avoid fulfilling its commitments toward the peace process. He said what happened in the Gaza Strip was an internal Palestinian affair that should be resolved between the concerned parties.
Erekat said the Palestinians were also demanding that the first section of the road map, which calls for an end to settlement construction in the West Bank and the removal of all outposts that were established in the past seven years, be implemented.
Nabil Abu Rudaineh, spokesman for the PA leadership in Ramallah, called on the US to exert pressure on Israel to accept the Palestinian preconditions for attending the conference.
"The US must move from rhetoric to action," he said. "The time has come to put pressure on Israel to agree to a detailed document about the final status issues before the conference."
Abu Rudaineh also said the Palestinians would boycott the conference unless an agreement is reached with Israel on all the core issues.
"Israel is avoiding serious negotiations to strike a deal before the conference," he said. "Israel has launched a military and rhetorical offensive aimed at poisoning the atmosphere because they don't want to tackle the final status issues."
In Gaza City, representatives of various Palestinian factions said the conference was doomed to failure because of the PA leadership's "weakness" and Israel's "intransigence."
They also warned that the conference would deepen divisions among the Palestinians and urged the Arabs and Muslims to boycott it.
"The Palestinian Authority is too weak to sign a deal with Israel," said Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar. "The conference will fail and this will have serious consequences on the situation in the region."
Saleh Zeidan, a member of the political bureau of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, said the Israeli government was not ready to address fundamental issues such as the status of Jerusalem and the problem of the refugees.
The Palestinian Authority won't attend the US-sponsored peace conference in Annapolis unless an agreement is reached beforehand with Israel on all the final status issues, Saeb Erekat, a member of the PA negotiating team, said Tuesday. "The Palestinian position is very clear," he said. "We won't go to the conference unless we reach an agreement with Israel on the final status issues and a clear timetable for the implementation of any agreement between the two parties."
Erekat said the PA has managed to persuade Arab and Islamic countries to endorse the Palestinian position and to set conditions for attending the planned conference.
"The Arabs are now united toward the conference," he said. "We have all endorsed the Arab peace plan [of 2002] as the basis for solving the Israeli-Arab conflict."
PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who is currently on a tour of Arab, Islamic and European countries, is carrying a message to the effect that failure at Annapolis would lead to another round of violence in the Middle East, PA officials told The Jerusalem Post.
The officials said Abbas was seeking the backing of the international community for his demand that an agreement be reached with Israel ahead of the conference.
"There's no point in going to the conference without an agreement," one official said. "President Abbas is convinced that failure will boost Hamas's popularity and undermine the moderate voices among the Palestinians."
According to Erekat, the Palestinians will boycott the conference unless a deal is reached with Israel on the issues of Jerusalem, water and borders. "Without a clear agreement on these issues, we won't go to the conference," he said.
Erekat accused Israel of using the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip as an excuse to avoid fulfilling its commitments toward the peace process. He said what happened in the Gaza Strip was an internal Palestinian affair that should be resolved between the concerned parties.
Erekat said the Palestinians were also demanding that the first section of the road map, which calls for an end to settlement construction in the West Bank and the removal of all outposts that were established in the past seven years, be implemented.
Nabil Abu Rudaineh, spokesman for the PA leadership in Ramallah, called on the US to exert pressure on Israel to accept the Palestinian preconditions for attending the conference.
"The US must move from rhetoric to action," he said. "The time has come to put pressure on Israel to agree to a detailed document about the final status issues before the conference."
Abu Rudaineh also said the Palestinians would boycott the conference unless an agreement is reached with Israel on all the core issues.
"Israel is avoiding serious negotiations to strike a deal before the conference," he said. "Israel has launched a military and rhetorical offensive aimed at poisoning the atmosphere because they don't want to tackle the final status issues."
In Gaza City, representatives of various Palestinian factions said the conference was doomed to failure because of the PA leadership's "weakness" and Israel's "intransigence."
They also warned that the conference would deepen divisions among the Palestinians and urged the Arabs and Muslims to boycott it.
"The Palestinian Authority is too weak to sign a deal with Israel," said Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar. "The conference will fail and this will have serious consequences on the situation in the region."
Saleh Zeidan, a member of the political bureau of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, said the Israeli government was not ready to address fundamental issues such as the status of Jerusalem and the problem of the refugees.
Dear President Bush
Recently, it was disclosed that an attempt to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Olmert had been foiled. The facts revealed that those who were assigned to carry out the murder were the special guards of no other than Abbas of the PA. According to the plan, the very ones who were assigned to assure Mr. Olmert's safety on his trip to Jericho were the ones who were to carry out the act!!
Mr. Bush, we are astounded that you still believe that Abbas is the 'moderate' partner for peace! He is a holocaust denier, a terrorist who has perpetrated acts of terror against Israel, he has refused to disarm the terrorists in his government, and heads a group that calls for Israel's destruction.
We are appalled that you would be willing to create yet another terrorist state on the borders of Israel - a nation that is already surrounded by warmongering neighbors. With all of the threats of these countries against Israel Sec'y of State Rice fantasizes that there is a desire for peace in the region? The only one wanting peace is Israel - not a single one of the Muslim/Arab countries.
Pursuing this will not lead to peace but rather to war - one that will engulf the entire region and then the world! Stop now, Mr. President, lest history condemn you for plunging us into a nuclear confrontation!
Sincerely,
Mr. Bush, we are astounded that you still believe that Abbas is the 'moderate' partner for peace! He is a holocaust denier, a terrorist who has perpetrated acts of terror against Israel, he has refused to disarm the terrorists in his government, and heads a group that calls for Israel's destruction.
We are appalled that you would be willing to create yet another terrorist state on the borders of Israel - a nation that is already surrounded by warmongering neighbors. With all of the threats of these countries against Israel Sec'y of State Rice fantasizes that there is a desire for peace in the region? The only one wanting peace is Israel - not a single one of the Muslim/Arab countries.
Pursuing this will not lead to peace but rather to war - one that will engulf the entire region and then the world! Stop now, Mr. President, lest history condemn you for plunging us into a nuclear confrontation!
Sincerely,
MASterful Lies
As the fallout from MAS President Esam Omeish's resignation from Virginia's immigration commission continues, another MAS official's past actions have come back to haunt the organization.Mahdi Bray, head of MAS's "civil rights" arm, the Freedom Foundation, appeared at an October 2000 rally, marking the second Palestinian Intifada. As reported previously , Bray stood by and cheered as now-jailed Islamist leader Abdurrahman Alamoudi announced his support for the terrorist groups Hamas and Hizballah.
Watch the video yourself. Bray is off to the side and spotlighted: click here to watch the video
After the IPT posted this video, journalists and politicians have started investigating ties between high ranking State officials and the Northern Virginia-based Islamist group.
Worried over the prospect of his open support for terrorism damaging his groups' ability to push its Islamist agenda, Bray has started dissembling. Stating that he does not support violence or terrorist groups, Bray claims he and the audience were reacting with laughter, not approval, at Alamoudi's words. He told a local newspaper :
The majority of the people they were kind of raising their hands, and kind of cheering, and so on because this was so uncharacteristic of al-Amoudi. We didn't know he had a problem with law enforcement. He was considered the pillar of the American Muslim community.
Bray said his gestures weren't in support of Hamas and Hezbollah.
You saw me pumping my fists. You didn't see me raising my hands. If they had shown the audience, you would have seen people in the audience raising their hands and falling out laughing. For him to come and make these kinds of radical rants, no one took him seriously.
Now watch the video again click here to watch the video
Clearly, Bray raises his hands in support of Alamoudi's comments, and you can hear the crowd cheering in approval. One thing you do not hear or see is laughter. What does that say about Mahdi Bray's veracity? At the very least, government agencies and the media need to exercise extreme caution when dealing with him and his organization.
Meanwhile, Mr. Omeish is not out of the news either. The Washington Post granted Omeish the opportunity to publish an op-ed this past Sunday, titled Why I resigned , the key portion of which states:
Politics aside, another important issue arose during this controversy. I was attacked for comments I made regarding Israeli military force against Palestinian civilians in Lebanon and the occupied territories and the Lebanon war, a conflict that has been condemned worldwide. Yet we still fail in America, the land of the First Amendment and the melting pot of plurality, to accept differing political views. And we are still willing to stifle dissent while we claim that we want to achieve tolerance and inclusion. Our inability to appreciate the inherent goodness of people and the very powerful tool of dialogue and exchange of ideas will limit our capacity to achieve unity. We should be embracing differences. After all, this rich diversity is the framework of our Constitution.
Note the utter lack of context and specificity. He just made some "comments" about the use of force against Palestinian civilians, and, as a result, he was attacked and forced to resign. No mention that those "comments" included a call for Holy War , while inveighing against the "Zionist entity," when he stood at a microphone and told that crowd that they were assembled on that day to:
[t]ell our Brothers and Sisters in Filasteen that you have learned the way, that you have known that the Jihad way is the way to liberate your land.
Mr. Omeish may indeed be frustrated that society has yet to recognize the "inherent goodness" of a Holy War that involves suicide bombers blowing up civilians on buses, in restaurants and cafes. As for his disingenuous call to "embrace" our differences, Americans, thankfully, are not ready to chalk up pro-terrorist rhetoric, frequently pushed by Islamists generally, and MAS specifically , to the celebration of cultural diversity.
While the Constitution which Omeish cites does grant him the right to say whatever he wants without being jailed, it does not grant him the right to promote Holy War in a consequence-free environment, and true enough, he has suffered consequences from his words.
Both Bray's denials, ridiculous on their face, and Omeish's spin, that "jihad" should be an accepted part of America's cultural diversity, prove yet again that MAS, and the Muslim Brotherhood organizations like it, are not interested in "civil rights" at all. But MAS and its officials have done a masterful job of co-opting the language of civil rights, and are slyly attempting to use such rhetoric to push their pro-Islamist, pro-terrorist agenda.
As Virginia Governor Tim Kaine's reaction to the posting of Omeish's speeches demonstrates, people are slowly becoming aware of MAS' game. The more people that become aware of MAS' contribution to America's "cultural diversity," the more the group will likely be marginalized.
Watch the video yourself. Bray is off to the side and spotlighted: click here to watch the video
After the IPT posted this video, journalists and politicians have started investigating ties between high ranking State officials and the Northern Virginia-based Islamist group.
Worried over the prospect of his open support for terrorism damaging his groups' ability to push its Islamist agenda, Bray has started dissembling. Stating that he does not support violence or terrorist groups, Bray claims he and the audience were reacting with laughter, not approval, at Alamoudi's words. He told a local newspaper :
The majority of the people they were kind of raising their hands, and kind of cheering, and so on because this was so uncharacteristic of al-Amoudi. We didn't know he had a problem with law enforcement. He was considered the pillar of the American Muslim community.
Bray said his gestures weren't in support of Hamas and Hezbollah.
You saw me pumping my fists. You didn't see me raising my hands. If they had shown the audience, you would have seen people in the audience raising their hands and falling out laughing. For him to come and make these kinds of radical rants, no one took him seriously.
Now watch the video again click here to watch the video
Clearly, Bray raises his hands in support of Alamoudi's comments, and you can hear the crowd cheering in approval. One thing you do not hear or see is laughter. What does that say about Mahdi Bray's veracity? At the very least, government agencies and the media need to exercise extreme caution when dealing with him and his organization.
Meanwhile, Mr. Omeish is not out of the news either. The Washington Post granted Omeish the opportunity to publish an op-ed this past Sunday, titled Why I resigned , the key portion of which states:
Politics aside, another important issue arose during this controversy. I was attacked for comments I made regarding Israeli military force against Palestinian civilians in Lebanon and the occupied territories and the Lebanon war, a conflict that has been condemned worldwide. Yet we still fail in America, the land of the First Amendment and the melting pot of plurality, to accept differing political views. And we are still willing to stifle dissent while we claim that we want to achieve tolerance and inclusion. Our inability to appreciate the inherent goodness of people and the very powerful tool of dialogue and exchange of ideas will limit our capacity to achieve unity. We should be embracing differences. After all, this rich diversity is the framework of our Constitution.
Note the utter lack of context and specificity. He just made some "comments" about the use of force against Palestinian civilians, and, as a result, he was attacked and forced to resign. No mention that those "comments" included a call for Holy War , while inveighing against the "Zionist entity," when he stood at a microphone and told that crowd that they were assembled on that day to:
[t]ell our Brothers and Sisters in Filasteen that you have learned the way, that you have known that the Jihad way is the way to liberate your land.
Mr. Omeish may indeed be frustrated that society has yet to recognize the "inherent goodness" of a Holy War that involves suicide bombers blowing up civilians on buses, in restaurants and cafes. As for his disingenuous call to "embrace" our differences, Americans, thankfully, are not ready to chalk up pro-terrorist rhetoric, frequently pushed by Islamists generally, and MAS specifically , to the celebration of cultural diversity.
While the Constitution which Omeish cites does grant him the right to say whatever he wants without being jailed, it does not grant him the right to promote Holy War in a consequence-free environment, and true enough, he has suffered consequences from his words.
Both Bray's denials, ridiculous on their face, and Omeish's spin, that "jihad" should be an accepted part of America's cultural diversity, prove yet again that MAS, and the Muslim Brotherhood organizations like it, are not interested in "civil rights" at all. But MAS and its officials have done a masterful job of co-opting the language of civil rights, and are slyly attempting to use such rhetoric to push their pro-Islamist, pro-terrorist agenda.
As Virginia Governor Tim Kaine's reaction to the posting of Omeish's speeches demonstrates, people are slowly becoming aware of MAS' game. The more people that become aware of MAS' contribution to America's "cultural diversity," the more the group will likely be marginalized.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)