Helen Freedman
Member of Knesset Dr. Arieh Eldad, Brigadier General (Res) and former Surgeon General in the IDF Medical Corps, drew upon his medical experience to diagnose the illness that permeates Israel today. Speaking at the Safra Synagogue in New York City on Tuesday evening, April 29, MK Dr. Eldad explained that the disease is not territorial. If treated as such, there can be no cure for Israel’s ailment. No amount of land give-aways to the PA terrorists will cure their appetite for Israel’s demise. The war being fought in Israel today is a cultural, religious war. Only by diagnosing it as such can there be hope for saving Israel. MK Dr. Eldad is promoting a new right wing secular National Zionist party, HATIKVAH. He is also creating a new secular Zionist youth movement, AMICHAI. When asked why he believes Israel needs yet another political party, he explained that secular right wing Zionists have no party which meets their needs. Today, right wing parties are identified with the Orthodox. He wants to change that. Eldad also believes there is no weakening of the right by adding another party. He reminds us that when the National Union and the National Religious parties ran as separate entities, they garnished more Knesset seats than when they united into one party.
When asked how his HATIKVAH party would deal with the present situation in Sderot, he came up with a number of concrete proposals: The Philadelphi route would once again come under Israeli control to stop the flow of weapons from Egypt. A buffer zone would be created in the northern part of the Gaza strip, where the Gush Katif communities of Nissanit, Dugit and Elei Sinai once existed. Israel would take over this buffer zone and rebuild the destroyed settlements. Finally, Gaza would be taken by military force, if necessary.
MK Dr. Eldad went on to dispute the misleading numbers of Arabs given by demographers trying to prove that Jews would quickly be outnumbered by Arabs simply by their birth rate. He spoke about the real possibility of voluntary re-settlement of Arabs into Jordan with a generous benefits basket, especially since 70% of Jordan’s population is already “Palestinian.”
He believes a PA state must be prevented. He points out that the only occupation of land in Israel is that begun by the Arabs in the 7th Century. Calling Judea and Samaria “occupied” territory which must be cleansed of Jewish settlements, is a dangerous rewriting of history. He points to the disastrous situation in Gaza today, following the painful and misguided expulsion of the Jews from Gush Katif. Egypt supports the smuggling of weapons through the Sinai into Gaza. Thousands of Kassam rockets have been landing in Sderot for the last seven years. With Iran’s supply of longer range rockets, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Netanya and Tel Aviv become likely targets.
MK Dr. Eldad’s response to the problem of a Fifth Column in Israel, exemplified by the Arab MK’s who openly reject Israel’s right to exist, was that every citizen should take an oath of loyalty to the State of Israel. Those who refuse may remain as residents, but would have no rights of citizens.
Israel’s electoral system must be changed so that MK’s would have responsibility to a constituency, NOT to their party. Under the present system, there is no representational government. The procedures for selecting Supreme Court judges must also be changed. At the present, sitting judges select their own successors. This fiasco leads to horrific miscarriages of justice.
A question was asked about Israel’s robust economy. Eldad surprised many in the audience by stating that 75% of the wealth of the nation belongs to 25-30 families who are all connected to the government. This leads to a depth of corruption that is an existential threat to Israel.
MK Dr. Arieh Eldad’s answer to Israel’s disease is his new political party – HATIKVAH – hope. Believing that one must face the truth about the cultural and religious aims of the Islamo-fascists, MK Dr. Eldad gives us hope for Israel’s future. For additional information about the HATIKVAH program: www.hatikva.org.il/en.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
From Israel: Who Knows?
Israel's internal crisis at this time re the Prime Minister should not be exacerbated by outside pressure which would have international repercussions and worsen an already dangerous situation.
Specifically, it is unconscionable for Sec'y of State Rice to demand more and more concessions of Israel at a time like this. She is clueless about the Middle East, pro-Palestinian, and is not the elected leader of Israel! Her expressions of exasperation with Israel are in direct contrast to her continuous acquiescence to the complaints of Abbas about Israel 'not doing enough' to appease a rapacious enemy. The immediate goal is the creation of a terrorist apartheid state where no other religion is tolerated. Israelis must do their own work here to rectify the government situation - without the pressure being exerted upon them. Anyone naive enough to believe that this is a 'Palestine/ Israel' conflict ought to think twice. Iran has no common border with Israel yet is involved in threatening the very existence of the country.
Israel is at the forefront of the same battle against radical Islam that is facing the free world today.
It is being played out all over the planet - militarily in some places and culturally in other spots. Boycotts and anti-Semitic demonstrations on campuses all over the world should be an indicator of the scope of the battle - and it is a battle for the establishment of a worldwide caliphate. This is the long range goal that is publicized - announced daily.
Anyone who thinks that Israel and Jews worldwide would be the only victims ought to get in touch with reality; it would be only the beginning! Remember that, although 6 million Jews were murdered during WWll, many more millions of other groups were killed.
If we do not all work together to fight and win this war we will all suffer the same fate. Peace-loving Christians, Muslims, Jews, and members of other faiths must stand together. The threat must be stemmed in the Middle East by keeping Israel strong and not demanding continuation of the already dangerous concessions that have been made.
The fight is not about territory; Israel already yielded large areas won in battle and uprooted 10,000 of her citizens for a 'peace process' that does not exist. Enough of the game that demands concessions from Israel while allowing the Arabs complete noncompliance to any demands made of them.
Please call the White House (202) 456-1111-and demand that the pressure on Israel stop immediately in the interest of the U.S. Call members of Congress and heads of Committees as well. Write polite and informative letters to newspapers. Volume counts. We can do this - together!
Chana
in beloved Jerusalem
Specifically, it is unconscionable for Sec'y of State Rice to demand more and more concessions of Israel at a time like this. She is clueless about the Middle East, pro-Palestinian, and is not the elected leader of Israel! Her expressions of exasperation with Israel are in direct contrast to her continuous acquiescence to the complaints of Abbas about Israel 'not doing enough' to appease a rapacious enemy. The immediate goal is the creation of a terrorist apartheid state where no other religion is tolerated. Israelis must do their own work here to rectify the government situation - without the pressure being exerted upon them. Anyone naive enough to believe that this is a 'Palestine/ Israel' conflict ought to think twice. Iran has no common border with Israel yet is involved in threatening the very existence of the country.
Israel is at the forefront of the same battle against radical Islam that is facing the free world today.
It is being played out all over the planet - militarily in some places and culturally in other spots. Boycotts and anti-Semitic demonstrations on campuses all over the world should be an indicator of the scope of the battle - and it is a battle for the establishment of a worldwide caliphate. This is the long range goal that is publicized - announced daily.
Anyone who thinks that Israel and Jews worldwide would be the only victims ought to get in touch with reality; it would be only the beginning! Remember that, although 6 million Jews were murdered during WWll, many more millions of other groups were killed.
If we do not all work together to fight and win this war we will all suffer the same fate. Peace-loving Christians, Muslims, Jews, and members of other faiths must stand together. The threat must be stemmed in the Middle East by keeping Israel strong and not demanding continuation of the already dangerous concessions that have been made.
The fight is not about territory; Israel already yielded large areas won in battle and uprooted 10,000 of her citizens for a 'peace process' that does not exist. Enough of the game that demands concessions from Israel while allowing the Arabs complete noncompliance to any demands made of them.
Please call the White House (202) 456-1111-and demand that the pressure on Israel stop immediately in the interest of the U.S. Call members of Congress and heads of Committees as well. Write polite and informative letters to newspapers. Volume counts. We can do this - together!
Chana
in beloved Jerusalem
Pepsi: It's a Zionist plot!
Paranoid Conspiracy Theory Alert. "Hamas MP Salem Salamah: PEPSI Stands for 'Pay Every Pence to Save Israel,'" from MEMRITV (thanks to Israel Matsav): Following are excerpts from an interview with Hamas MP Salem Salamah, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on April 23, 2008.
Salem Salamah: There are companies established by the colonialists and occupiers - large companies with branches all over the world, like Pepsi, Pepsi Cola. This is a well-known company. Pepsi is an acronym. P-E-P-S-I - Pay Every Pence to Save Israel. Pay every pence - pence is one hundredth of a dollar – to save Israel. Pay every pence to save Israel. Shouldn't the Muslims have a fund, a company, or a large project to save the Al-Aqsa Mosque?
Before you hoist a Pepsi for the anti-jihad, note that Coca Cola, to another set of paranoid conspiracy theorists, means "No Muhammad, no Mecca." Apparently the fiendish Zionists, when not casting verses into the Qur'an and Hadith, are busy with the soft-drink recipes.
Incidentally, is Pepsi trying to counter this with the Middle Eastern music at its website?
Thanks MEMRI TV
If Israel can't survive the jihadist onslaught, neither can the rest of the civilized world
Words to ponder. "As goest Israel ... If the Jewish state can't survive the onslaught of militant Islam, neither can the rest of the civilized world," by Lorne Gunter in the National Post, May 5 (thanks to Doug): Israel is Western civilization's canary in the coal mine. If Israel cannot survive, perhaps Western civilization -- pluralistic, democratic, individualistic, secular, free-trading and devoted to the rule of law -- will be unable to last, either.
On the eve of Israel's 60th anniversary, those of us who cherish our own fundamental freedoms had better hope the Jewish state makes it through its second 60 years; or else our own right to think, say or worship as we please (unless, of course, we come under the scrutiny of a so-called human rights commission) is in jeopardy.
To many Canadians, that may seem a farfetched warning.
What has Israel's survival got to do with us? Israel is far away. It has different enemies than we do. Even among Islamic extremists, they are battling Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO and Islamic Jihad, while the West is confronting the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Besides, if we're nice and accommodating of diversity, the terrorists will respect our attempts to honour their culture and faith and leave us alone.
Nice theory. Too bad jihadis of every label view Israel and the West as conjoined and inseparable. Even though we may not see our destiny as inextricably linked with Israel's, they do. If we give up on Israel, they will simply take that as a sign they might be able to pressure us next to give up on Quebec, Mississauga, Michigan, Birmingham and the Paris suburbs.
Yes, and your city, too. Read it all.
On the eve of Israel's 60th anniversary, those of us who cherish our own fundamental freedoms had better hope the Jewish state makes it through its second 60 years; or else our own right to think, say or worship as we please (unless, of course, we come under the scrutiny of a so-called human rights commission) is in jeopardy.
To many Canadians, that may seem a farfetched warning.
What has Israel's survival got to do with us? Israel is far away. It has different enemies than we do. Even among Islamic extremists, they are battling Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO and Islamic Jihad, while the West is confronting the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
Besides, if we're nice and accommodating of diversity, the terrorists will respect our attempts to honour their culture and faith and leave us alone.
Nice theory. Too bad jihadis of every label view Israel and the West as conjoined and inseparable. Even though we may not see our destiny as inextricably linked with Israel's, they do. If we give up on Israel, they will simply take that as a sign they might be able to pressure us next to give up on Quebec, Mississauga, Michigan, Birmingham and the Paris suburbs.
Yes, and your city, too. Read it all.
Monday, May 05, 2008
USA Politics (USAP)
In just one year. Remember the election in 2006?
Thought you might like to read the following:
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate
(stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President.
He has to work with what's handed to him.
Quote of the Day........
'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.' -- Barack Obama
Part 2
Taxes... Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics
enlightening and amazing.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush
is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama
or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and
a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait
for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you
scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.
Part 3
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:
Boy am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the
Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.
I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they
are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have
included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'
Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.'
Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
Are we THAT stupid?
If this doesn't bother you then ...
Thought you might like to read the following:
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate
(stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!
Remember it's Congress that makes law not the President.
He has to work with what's handed to him.
Quote of the Day........
'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.
I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.' -- Barack Obama
Part 2
Taxes... Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics
enlightening and amazing.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/151.html
Taxes under Clinton 1999 Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 30K - tax $4,500
Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 50K - tax $12,500
Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Single making 75K - tax $18,750
Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250
Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush
is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama
or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and
a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can't wait
for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you
scam somebody out of some money and they don't even know what happened.
Part 3
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much? Read this:
Boy am I confused. I have been hammered with the propaganda that it is the
Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.
I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again until they
are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them. I have
included the URL's for verification of all the following facts.
1. $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens each year by state governments.
Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2. $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
3. $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://www.cis..org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
4. $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.0.html
5. $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
Verify at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
6. $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
7. 30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
8. $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.
Verify at: http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCIPTS/0610/29/ldt.01.html
9. $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/01/ldt.01.html
10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US .
Verify at: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0606/12/ldt.01.html
11. During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from Terrorist Countries Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin and marijuana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report: http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12. The National Policy Institute, 'estimated that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.'
Verify at: http://www.nationalpolicyinstitute.org/pdf/deportation.pdf
13. In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin.
Verify at: http://www.rense.com/general75/niht.htm
14. 'The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.'
Verify at: http://www.drdsk.com/articles.html
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.
Are we THAT stupid?
If this doesn't bother you then ...
Documents show UK post-WWII dilemma over Jewish refugees
GREGORY KATZ - Associated Press Writer
LONDON (AP) Documents released Monday show how the British government tried to send thousands of Palestine-bound Jewish survivors of the Nazi genocide back to postwar Germany without inflaming world opinion.
Could it be done? The answer was no. It was just two years after the end of the war and the world was outraged by the systematic murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazis in what became known as the Holocaust. Despite the best efforts of early spin doctors to portray the move in the most sympathetic light, the decision to turn away the more than 4,500 Jews on board the Exodus refugee ship turned into a humanitarian and public relations debacle for Britain.
The story is detailed in more than 400 pages of formerly secret documents at Britain's National Archives made available to the public on Monday.
The Jews aboard the Exodus were trying to enter Palestine illegally during the tumultuous months in 1947 before the United Nations voted to create a Jewish homeland in part of Palestine.
Britain was still governing Palestine and the British government felt it had to keep the immigrants out to preserve the demographic balance between Arab and Jew. But Britain did not have a safe place to send the Jews from the Exodus, who were placed on three smaller British steamers.
After much agonizing, the British concluded that the only place they could send the Jews was to the British-controlled zone of postwar Germany, where the Jews could be placed in camps and screened for extremists.
The Exodus passengers were successfully taken off the vessels in Germany, although a number were injured in confrontations with British troops that involved the use of batons and fire hoses.
After Germany, many of the passengers were eventually detained in military camps in Cyprus along with other Jews deported from Palestine. When the state of Israel was founded in 1948, the Exodus' passengers were able to move there.
The Exodus' ordeal focused world attention on the British blockade of Palestine and the plight of Jews fleeing Europe after World War II.
The documents show that diplomats and military officers knew that sending Jews back to Germany and putting them in camps so soon after the Holocaust would set off protests.
"These documents show the British perspective for the first time," said Mark Dunton, contemporary history specialist at the National Archives. "It's obvious in the files the British were sensitive to the claim they were putting Jews into concentration camps."
A British diplomat in France sent a coded warning to the Foreign Office in London in August 1947.
"You will realize that an announcement of decision to send immigrants back to Germany will produce violent hostile outburst in the press," he says.
He suggests an early measure of spin control _ telling the press that the Jews will enjoy some freedoms even though they will be confined.
An unsigned cable from the Foreign Office on Aug. 19, 1947, explains that the decision to land the Jews in Germany has been made because it is the only suitable territory under British control that can handle so many people at short notice.
Three days later, a follow-up Foreign Office cable warns diplomats that they should be ready to "emphatically" deny that the Jews will be housed in former concentration camps after they are offloaded in Germany.
The Aug. 22 cable states that German guards will not be used to keep the Jews in the "refugee camps" and adds that British guards will be withdrawn once the Jews have been screened.
But security concerns were heightened on Aug. 30 when a secret telegram from the British Embassy in Washington warned of a possible terrorist attack by the Irgun and Stern gangs, two Zionist extremist groups determined to prevent the forced offloading of the Jews in Germany.
An officer identified as Lt. Col. Gregson, in a formerly secret report, said he considered using tear gas to subdue the Jews but decided not to risk inflaming the situation.
"The Jew is liable to panic," he wrote.
Security fears seemed justified after the Jews were removed when a large, homemade bomb with a timed fuse was found on one of the three ships. It was apparently rigged to detonate after the Jews had been removed, the cables indicate.
The postscript on the operation comes from the British regional commander who says that the disembarkation could be regarded as successful because it was carried out with only minimal casualties. But he says Britain's reputation was damaged by the highly critical press coverage of OASIS, as the operation was known in diplomatic and military circles.
"It is impossible to deny that among the Hamburg population OASIS was one additional cause for reduction in British prestige," he ruefully concludes.
Associated Press Writers Mark Lavie in Jerusalem and Meera Selva in London contributed to this article.
LONDON (AP) Documents released Monday show how the British government tried to send thousands of Palestine-bound Jewish survivors of the Nazi genocide back to postwar Germany without inflaming world opinion.
Could it be done? The answer was no. It was just two years after the end of the war and the world was outraged by the systematic murder of 6 million Jews by the Nazis in what became known as the Holocaust. Despite the best efforts of early spin doctors to portray the move in the most sympathetic light, the decision to turn away the more than 4,500 Jews on board the Exodus refugee ship turned into a humanitarian and public relations debacle for Britain.
The story is detailed in more than 400 pages of formerly secret documents at Britain's National Archives made available to the public on Monday.
The Jews aboard the Exodus were trying to enter Palestine illegally during the tumultuous months in 1947 before the United Nations voted to create a Jewish homeland in part of Palestine.
Britain was still governing Palestine and the British government felt it had to keep the immigrants out to preserve the demographic balance between Arab and Jew. But Britain did not have a safe place to send the Jews from the Exodus, who were placed on three smaller British steamers.
After much agonizing, the British concluded that the only place they could send the Jews was to the British-controlled zone of postwar Germany, where the Jews could be placed in camps and screened for extremists.
The Exodus passengers were successfully taken off the vessels in Germany, although a number were injured in confrontations with British troops that involved the use of batons and fire hoses.
After Germany, many of the passengers were eventually detained in military camps in Cyprus along with other Jews deported from Palestine. When the state of Israel was founded in 1948, the Exodus' passengers were able to move there.
The Exodus' ordeal focused world attention on the British blockade of Palestine and the plight of Jews fleeing Europe after World War II.
The documents show that diplomats and military officers knew that sending Jews back to Germany and putting them in camps so soon after the Holocaust would set off protests.
"These documents show the British perspective for the first time," said Mark Dunton, contemporary history specialist at the National Archives. "It's obvious in the files the British were sensitive to the claim they were putting Jews into concentration camps."
A British diplomat in France sent a coded warning to the Foreign Office in London in August 1947.
"You will realize that an announcement of decision to send immigrants back to Germany will produce violent hostile outburst in the press," he says.
He suggests an early measure of spin control _ telling the press that the Jews will enjoy some freedoms even though they will be confined.
An unsigned cable from the Foreign Office on Aug. 19, 1947, explains that the decision to land the Jews in Germany has been made because it is the only suitable territory under British control that can handle so many people at short notice.
Three days later, a follow-up Foreign Office cable warns diplomats that they should be ready to "emphatically" deny that the Jews will be housed in former concentration camps after they are offloaded in Germany.
The Aug. 22 cable states that German guards will not be used to keep the Jews in the "refugee camps" and adds that British guards will be withdrawn once the Jews have been screened.
But security concerns were heightened on Aug. 30 when a secret telegram from the British Embassy in Washington warned of a possible terrorist attack by the Irgun and Stern gangs, two Zionist extremist groups determined to prevent the forced offloading of the Jews in Germany.
An officer identified as Lt. Col. Gregson, in a formerly secret report, said he considered using tear gas to subdue the Jews but decided not to risk inflaming the situation.
"The Jew is liable to panic," he wrote.
Security fears seemed justified after the Jews were removed when a large, homemade bomb with a timed fuse was found on one of the three ships. It was apparently rigged to detonate after the Jews had been removed, the cables indicate.
The postscript on the operation comes from the British regional commander who says that the disembarkation could be regarded as successful because it was carried out with only minimal casualties. But he says Britain's reputation was damaged by the highly critical press coverage of OASIS, as the operation was known in diplomatic and military circles.
"It is impossible to deny that among the Hamburg population OASIS was one additional cause for reduction in British prestige," he ruefully concludes.
Associated Press Writers Mark Lavie in Jerusalem and Meera Selva in London contributed to this article.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
AP EXPLAINS TO YOU WHY ISRAEL SHOULDN'T EXIST
Barry Rubin
If I would choose one article in the Western media that I have read over many decades as the worst piece of anti-Israel propaganda of all, it might well be Karin Laub’s April 26, 2008 piece, “Palestinian plight is flip side of Israel's independence joy.”
Why? Because many articles have slandered Israel on various points or told falsehoods ranging from the disgusting to the humorous or been based on assumptions that were at odds with the truth. But in this case, the article encapsulates the way in which much of the world has turned from admiration to loathing of Israel, and the way in which Israel’s destruction—which in other contexts would be seen as genocidal—has been justified.
Sound exaggerated? No doubt, reading the above two paragraphs would shock the author who, I believe, had no conscious intention of perpetuating such a verbal atrocity. It is, once again, the unchallenged myths that are blithely assumed, that do so much damage. Let me explain, first briefly and then at length. Israel is the only country in the world which is regularly slated for extermination and it is certainly the one most reviled. Without entering into a discussion of why such extraordinary double standards are maintained the core issue is that Israel is allegedly an illegitimate country because it is founded on the theft of other’s property and the suffering of other people.
This is the modern equivalent of the blood libel, which held that Jews murdered Christian children to use their blood for the Passover matzoh. But if that myth is too exotic for people remember that its “secular” equivalent was responsible for even more anti-Semitic persecution. That was the idea that any Jewish prosperity was based on the blood-sucking of Christian peasants or of society at large.
In this case, Israel is said to have murdered, ethnically cleansed and otherwise persecuted the Palestinians. Therefore, nothing it does can be good, no achievement of itself counts, and it has no right to self-defense. Obviously, such claims are often greatly diluted but nonetheless rest on this basis.
The Laub article is a systematic restatement of this thesis. To begin with, it is extraordinarily long for an AP article, 1,724 words. If this isn’t a record for an AP dispatch, it must be up near the top. Obviously, this is a message that the AP editors are especially eager to convey: that everything Israel has is at Palestinian expense.
That this is a lie can be explained on many levels but at least two must be presented here. First, why is this measure applied only to Israel, and certainly only to Israel on an existential basis? It is well-known, certainly, that Germany has taken responsibility for Nazi crimes, and also there are applications for reimbursement of Jewish property seized in eastern Europe during the Nazi period.
Yet most countries are founded on expropriation, often of Jewish property. For example, Oxford University, where recently debates were conducted calling for Israel’s destruction, was started on property stolen from Jews expelled in 1290. Far more recently, many Arab states received a huge infusion of capital from the expropriation of Jewish property after Israel’s creation. Does France’s or Britain’s or Belgium’s independence day require discussion of colonial depredations? We don’t read articles that Japan’s independence day is blighted by Chinese or Korean suffering, though the Japanese did engage in mass murder of those people. What about the fact that every country in the Western Hemisphere is based on the suffering of the indigenous natives? Or even in the case of Russia, given Czarist and Soviet behavior? In no case, however, is far worse behavior said to have poisoned any other country’s very existence.
But perhaps even more important is the question of where true responsibility for Palestinian suffering lies.
Here is how Laub’s article begins:
“JALAZOUN REFUGEE CAMP, West Bank - Mohammed Shaikha was 9 when the carefree rhythm of his village childhood, going to third grade, picking olives, playing hide-and-seek , was abruptly cut short. Uprooted during the 1948 war over Israel's creation, he's now a wrinkled old man. He has spent a lifetime in this cramped refugee camp, and Israel's 60th independence day, to be celebrated with fanfare on May 8, fills him with pain.
"For 60 years, Israel has been sitting on my heart. It kicked me out of my home, my nation, and deprived me of many things," he said. And each Israeli birthday makes it harder for 70-year-old Shaikha and his elderly gin rummy partners in the camp's coffee house to cling to dreams of going back to Beit Nabala, one village among hundreds leveled to make way for the influx of Jewish immigrants into the newborn Jewish state.”
Well, let us ask the following questions: How did Shaikha leave his “carefree” utopia of Palestine? Most likely because his parents decided to get out of the way while, they expected, the Jews were exterminated by Arab armies. He was in fact “kicked out” by an Arab decision to reject partition—in which case at worst he would be living as an Arab citizen of Israel and at best, depending on where he lived, be a citizen of Palestine celebrating its own sixtieth birthday.
Consider a worst-case alternative history:
Mohammaed Shaikha sat in his nice house and recalled how in 1948 his familyleft its village and moved a few miles into a village in the new state of Palestine. “It was rough for a while,” he said. “But with the compensation money we got for making peace and aid from Arab states I was able to build a very nice life for myself.”
In fact, it was the Palestinian and Arab leadership which—in contrast to every other refugee situation in modern history—insisted on keeping these people suffering and in refugee camps to use as political pawns. They, too, rejected every offer of peace and resettlement.
For example, if Yasir Arafat had negotiated a solution on the basis of the framework proposed at Camp David in 2000, Shaikha and the other refugees would have shared out over $20 billion in compensation and a Palestinian state might be celebrating its seventh birthday. The PLO refused—a policy pursued since 1993 by the Palestinian Authority—to move people out of refugee camps. They must be kept there as tools with which to blame Israel and also to continue the fires of hatred and violence burning.
A hint of the truth is inadvertently given in the article—though not explained—by a Palestinian ideologue:
“Anthropologist Sharif Kaananeh urges his fellow Palestinians to take the long view and learn from Jewish history: "If they waited 2,000 years to claim this country, we can wait 200 years."
During those 2,000 years, however, Jews whenever possible built up their own lives and acted peacefully and productively. In Kaananeh’s version, he is willing to keep Shaikha and his descendants in refugee camps for 200 years. And why not since the media will blame their suffering on Israel and provide it as a reason why Israel should disappear or make endless concessions or be denied full support despite the assault on itself.
By the way, this is what the author prettifies as “perseverance” as if it were something admirable. Don’t make a peaceful compromise; keep fighting and spilling blood unless or until you achieve total victory. In any other situation, this would be decried as a foolish, bloodthirsty, and fanatical world view.
If the Palestinians want to make this their strategy they certainly should not be allowed to blame this on Israel.
The true nakba (catastrophe) was not Israel’s creation but the Arab failure to create Palestine and their continuation of conflict to this day.
But only Israel is branded, in effect, as a war criminal nation. In this light, the hateful and vicious attacks on it make sense.
Yet why don’t we see the following headline: “Israeli plight a flip side of Palestinian celebration,” or substitute “Israeli plight is flip side of [insert name of any Arab state name or Iran]” or “Israeli [or Jewish] plight is flip side of [insert name of any European state]”?
This could be followed with interviews of displaced Jews (living in poverty since they never left post-World War Two refugee camps in Europe or the transit camps built in Israel to house Jewish refugees from the Arab world. Or interviews with Israelis who were maimed or whose families were murdered in wars or terrorist attacks?
For, indeed, Israeli misery is built on the support of terrorism and hatred by Arab states, the incitement to murder and appeals for genocide among Palestinian groups.
Even in direct Palestinian terms, the irony doesn’t stop. The same week as this article was written, it was reported (by Reuters) that while Arab states have promised $717.1 million in aid to the Palestinians, only $153.2 million, that is a bit more than 20 percent, was actually delivered. If Palestinians are not well-off perhaps this is what one must examine, or at least acknowledge.
How about this: “The 1948 war had largely separated Israelis and Palestinians, except for some 150,000 Palestinians who stayed put and became Israeli citizens.” No mention of the fact that those Israeli Palestinians have prospered.
And this: “The symbols of occupation, settlements, army bases, roadblocks, are visible across the West Bank.” No mention of the fact that Israel has withdrawn from large parts of the West Bank, in all the populated areas (except a section of Hebron) Palestinians have had self-government, with massive international aid for 14 years!
And this: “Palestinians under Yasser Arafat took to bombings and hijackings to make the world notice their existence….” So the sole purpose of terrorism was as a misguided public relations’ campaign so the world would take pity on Palestinian suffering, not an attempt to destroy Israel.
Or this, “Few refugees can realistically expect to go home again, because Israelis fear being swamped by a mass repatriation.” That makes the Palestinian predicament especially harsh, said Karen Abu Zayd, commissioner of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency which helps the Palestinian refugees.” While at least a motive is given for Israel’s refusal (though not that the problem here is not just a massive influx of Palestinians might overwhelm social services but that the “returnees” goal would be turning Israel into a Palestinian Arab nationalist or Islamist state through violence), no other alternative is presented, not even resettlement in an independent Palestine. That last point was, after all, the whole idea of the 1990s’ peace process. But the reporter collaborates with the Palestinian line: the only two choices are suffering or total victory, wiping out all other options.
I could literally write a book on the misstatements and misleading basis of this article. But it can be summarized as follows:
This is the Palestinian narrative adapted by a large sector of the American media, as well as academia: It is a zero-sum game in which either Israel must be eliminated or poor Palestinians suffer. That the continued conflict—and their own suffering--is due to Palestinian actions or that it could be resolved by the kind of compromises Israel has long been advocating (and Palestinians rejecting) and taking risks to bring about is not mentioned. Equally, the perspective that Palestinian radical leadership (by both Fatah and Hamas) and doctrine must be eliminated as the source of Israeli suffering is understated or ignored.
The real victim here is both Israelis and Palestinians. The real cause of the suffering is Arab state intransigence and the kind of Palestinian leadership, strategy, goals, ideology, and behavior that this and so many media stories extol.
Remember that the poisonous forest of hatred and violence grow from the acorns of articles like this.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA and other GLORIA Center publications or to order books, visit http://www.gloriacenter.org.
If I would choose one article in the Western media that I have read over many decades as the worst piece of anti-Israel propaganda of all, it might well be Karin Laub’s April 26, 2008 piece, “Palestinian plight is flip side of Israel's independence joy.”
Why? Because many articles have slandered Israel on various points or told falsehoods ranging from the disgusting to the humorous or been based on assumptions that were at odds with the truth. But in this case, the article encapsulates the way in which much of the world has turned from admiration to loathing of Israel, and the way in which Israel’s destruction—which in other contexts would be seen as genocidal—has been justified.
Sound exaggerated? No doubt, reading the above two paragraphs would shock the author who, I believe, had no conscious intention of perpetuating such a verbal atrocity. It is, once again, the unchallenged myths that are blithely assumed, that do so much damage. Let me explain, first briefly and then at length. Israel is the only country in the world which is regularly slated for extermination and it is certainly the one most reviled. Without entering into a discussion of why such extraordinary double standards are maintained the core issue is that Israel is allegedly an illegitimate country because it is founded on the theft of other’s property and the suffering of other people.
This is the modern equivalent of the blood libel, which held that Jews murdered Christian children to use their blood for the Passover matzoh. But if that myth is too exotic for people remember that its “secular” equivalent was responsible for even more anti-Semitic persecution. That was the idea that any Jewish prosperity was based on the blood-sucking of Christian peasants or of society at large.
In this case, Israel is said to have murdered, ethnically cleansed and otherwise persecuted the Palestinians. Therefore, nothing it does can be good, no achievement of itself counts, and it has no right to self-defense. Obviously, such claims are often greatly diluted but nonetheless rest on this basis.
The Laub article is a systematic restatement of this thesis. To begin with, it is extraordinarily long for an AP article, 1,724 words. If this isn’t a record for an AP dispatch, it must be up near the top. Obviously, this is a message that the AP editors are especially eager to convey: that everything Israel has is at Palestinian expense.
That this is a lie can be explained on many levels but at least two must be presented here. First, why is this measure applied only to Israel, and certainly only to Israel on an existential basis? It is well-known, certainly, that Germany has taken responsibility for Nazi crimes, and also there are applications for reimbursement of Jewish property seized in eastern Europe during the Nazi period.
Yet most countries are founded on expropriation, often of Jewish property. For example, Oxford University, where recently debates were conducted calling for Israel’s destruction, was started on property stolen from Jews expelled in 1290. Far more recently, many Arab states received a huge infusion of capital from the expropriation of Jewish property after Israel’s creation. Does France’s or Britain’s or Belgium’s independence day require discussion of colonial depredations? We don’t read articles that Japan’s independence day is blighted by Chinese or Korean suffering, though the Japanese did engage in mass murder of those people. What about the fact that every country in the Western Hemisphere is based on the suffering of the indigenous natives? Or even in the case of Russia, given Czarist and Soviet behavior? In no case, however, is far worse behavior said to have poisoned any other country’s very existence.
But perhaps even more important is the question of where true responsibility for Palestinian suffering lies.
Here is how Laub’s article begins:
“JALAZOUN REFUGEE CAMP, West Bank - Mohammed Shaikha was 9 when the carefree rhythm of his village childhood, going to third grade, picking olives, playing hide-and-seek , was abruptly cut short. Uprooted during the 1948 war over Israel's creation, he's now a wrinkled old man. He has spent a lifetime in this cramped refugee camp, and Israel's 60th independence day, to be celebrated with fanfare on May 8, fills him with pain.
"For 60 years, Israel has been sitting on my heart. It kicked me out of my home, my nation, and deprived me of many things," he said. And each Israeli birthday makes it harder for 70-year-old Shaikha and his elderly gin rummy partners in the camp's coffee house to cling to dreams of going back to Beit Nabala, one village among hundreds leveled to make way for the influx of Jewish immigrants into the newborn Jewish state.”
Well, let us ask the following questions: How did Shaikha leave his “carefree” utopia of Palestine? Most likely because his parents decided to get out of the way while, they expected, the Jews were exterminated by Arab armies. He was in fact “kicked out” by an Arab decision to reject partition—in which case at worst he would be living as an Arab citizen of Israel and at best, depending on where he lived, be a citizen of Palestine celebrating its own sixtieth birthday.
Consider a worst-case alternative history:
Mohammaed Shaikha sat in his nice house and recalled how in 1948 his familyleft its village and moved a few miles into a village in the new state of Palestine. “It was rough for a while,” he said. “But with the compensation money we got for making peace and aid from Arab states I was able to build a very nice life for myself.”
In fact, it was the Palestinian and Arab leadership which—in contrast to every other refugee situation in modern history—insisted on keeping these people suffering and in refugee camps to use as political pawns. They, too, rejected every offer of peace and resettlement.
For example, if Yasir Arafat had negotiated a solution on the basis of the framework proposed at Camp David in 2000, Shaikha and the other refugees would have shared out over $20 billion in compensation and a Palestinian state might be celebrating its seventh birthday. The PLO refused—a policy pursued since 1993 by the Palestinian Authority—to move people out of refugee camps. They must be kept there as tools with which to blame Israel and also to continue the fires of hatred and violence burning.
A hint of the truth is inadvertently given in the article—though not explained—by a Palestinian ideologue:
“Anthropologist Sharif Kaananeh urges his fellow Palestinians to take the long view and learn from Jewish history: "If they waited 2,000 years to claim this country, we can wait 200 years."
During those 2,000 years, however, Jews whenever possible built up their own lives and acted peacefully and productively. In Kaananeh’s version, he is willing to keep Shaikha and his descendants in refugee camps for 200 years. And why not since the media will blame their suffering on Israel and provide it as a reason why Israel should disappear or make endless concessions or be denied full support despite the assault on itself.
By the way, this is what the author prettifies as “perseverance” as if it were something admirable. Don’t make a peaceful compromise; keep fighting and spilling blood unless or until you achieve total victory. In any other situation, this would be decried as a foolish, bloodthirsty, and fanatical world view.
If the Palestinians want to make this their strategy they certainly should not be allowed to blame this on Israel.
The true nakba (catastrophe) was not Israel’s creation but the Arab failure to create Palestine and their continuation of conflict to this day.
But only Israel is branded, in effect, as a war criminal nation. In this light, the hateful and vicious attacks on it make sense.
Yet why don’t we see the following headline: “Israeli plight a flip side of Palestinian celebration,” or substitute “Israeli plight is flip side of [insert name of any Arab state name or Iran]” or “Israeli [or Jewish] plight is flip side of [insert name of any European state]”?
This could be followed with interviews of displaced Jews (living in poverty since they never left post-World War Two refugee camps in Europe or the transit camps built in Israel to house Jewish refugees from the Arab world. Or interviews with Israelis who were maimed or whose families were murdered in wars or terrorist attacks?
For, indeed, Israeli misery is built on the support of terrorism and hatred by Arab states, the incitement to murder and appeals for genocide among Palestinian groups.
Even in direct Palestinian terms, the irony doesn’t stop. The same week as this article was written, it was reported (by Reuters) that while Arab states have promised $717.1 million in aid to the Palestinians, only $153.2 million, that is a bit more than 20 percent, was actually delivered. If Palestinians are not well-off perhaps this is what one must examine, or at least acknowledge.
How about this: “The 1948 war had largely separated Israelis and Palestinians, except for some 150,000 Palestinians who stayed put and became Israeli citizens.” No mention of the fact that those Israeli Palestinians have prospered.
And this: “The symbols of occupation, settlements, army bases, roadblocks, are visible across the West Bank.” No mention of the fact that Israel has withdrawn from large parts of the West Bank, in all the populated areas (except a section of Hebron) Palestinians have had self-government, with massive international aid for 14 years!
And this: “Palestinians under Yasser Arafat took to bombings and hijackings to make the world notice their existence….” So the sole purpose of terrorism was as a misguided public relations’ campaign so the world would take pity on Palestinian suffering, not an attempt to destroy Israel.
Or this, “Few refugees can realistically expect to go home again, because Israelis fear being swamped by a mass repatriation.” That makes the Palestinian predicament especially harsh, said Karen Abu Zayd, commissioner of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency which helps the Palestinian refugees.” While at least a motive is given for Israel’s refusal (though not that the problem here is not just a massive influx of Palestinians might overwhelm social services but that the “returnees” goal would be turning Israel into a Palestinian Arab nationalist or Islamist state through violence), no other alternative is presented, not even resettlement in an independent Palestine. That last point was, after all, the whole idea of the 1990s’ peace process. But the reporter collaborates with the Palestinian line: the only two choices are suffering or total victory, wiping out all other options.
I could literally write a book on the misstatements and misleading basis of this article. But it can be summarized as follows:
This is the Palestinian narrative adapted by a large sector of the American media, as well as academia: It is a zero-sum game in which either Israel must be eliminated or poor Palestinians suffer. That the continued conflict—and their own suffering--is due to Palestinian actions or that it could be resolved by the kind of compromises Israel has long been advocating (and Palestinians rejecting) and taking risks to bring about is not mentioned. Equally, the perspective that Palestinian radical leadership (by both Fatah and Hamas) and doctrine must be eliminated as the source of Israeli suffering is understated or ignored.
The real victim here is both Israelis and Palestinians. The real cause of the suffering is Arab state intransigence and the kind of Palestinian leadership, strategy, goals, ideology, and behavior that this and so many media stories extol.
Remember that the poisonous forest of hatred and violence grow from the acorns of articles like this.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA and other GLORIA Center publications or to order books, visit http://www.gloriacenter.org.
MK BRIG.-GEN. ELDAD: WAR NOT ABOUT TERRITORY,
The former Senior Commander and Chief Medical Officer of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), current Member of Knesset on the National Union list, and former head of Jerusalem's Hadassah Hospital's Burn Unit at the height of the ongoing Palestinian terror war, Brigadier-General Arieh Eldad, delivered the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)'s Bob Guzzardi Distinguished Lecture this week in New York. Speaking to an audience of 400 at New York City's beautiful Congregation Edmond J. Safra, on the topic of "Israel at 60: Where Are We Now?,” Gen. Eldad explained the background to his decision to forsake the world of medicine and enter politics, recounting the story of a failed suicide bomber who came to Israel from Europe and suffered massive burns to his body when his explosives detonated early. The bomber, who had a wife and children, was not from an impoverished background and spoke at length with him during his hospitalization, which "taught me some very important lessons about the conflict in the Middle East." This included the realization that Arabs will never agree to Israel's presence, even though radical leftists continue to work for the absorption of Jews into the Arab world. Continuing to treat hundreds of victims of suicide bombings, Gen. Eldad concluded that he should enter politics to deal with the situation causing death and injury to hundreds of Israelis since, "as in other fields of medicine, preventive medicine is the most cost effective to practice. Vaccination rather than antibiotics, but this is best done in the Knesset, not in the emergency room."
Gen. Eldad reminded his audience that Yitzhak Rabin, in his autobiography, written before he embarked on the Oslo process, stated that a Palestinian state can only be created on the ruins of the state of Israel. (Rabin, in his last address to the Knesset in October 1995, said that the Palestinian entity to be created would be "less than a state"). Eldad also said that his experiences had taught him that "the conflict between Jews and Arabs in land of Israel is not a territorial conflict," and that this fact invalidates the idea that sharing the land between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs can of itself bring a solution. Eldad revisited all the past attempts at sharing land – the 1922 excision of Transjordan, the 1937 Peel Commission plan, the 1947 UN partition plan – all of which led to ¾ of the land given to the Arab side, without that ever being enough to placate it.
Gen. Eldad quoted Einstein's well-known definition of insanity as consisting of repeating the same experiment while expecting different results to describe the on-going, current efforts to again divide the land by handing it over to a Palestinian partner who still does not accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. To those who advocate this course, territory possesses no strategic significance, but the results of the 2005 unilateral withdrawal from Gaza has shown the falsity of this idea when it comes to the security of Israel and its citizens. He also discussed the failure of the Israeli education system and its present inability to educate the public as to its own historical, religious and legal connection to the land.
Gen. Eldad also repudiated clearly the notion that Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas is some sort of moderate who ought to be strengthened so he can fight Hamas, when in fact he "can't even prevent a car theft in Ramallah." Moreover real Palestinian moderates remain unfortunately irrelevant, since they have no power or influence in Palestinian society, whereas most Muslims see Israel as a waqf, a Muslim land over which infidels like Jews may not rule. Failure to understand this has produced Israel's policy failures, because "when you misdiagnose, you have only a very small chance to prescribe well." Yet, when Yossi Beilin and his associates "introduced Arafat into our body and reduced the immunity of the Israelis by intoxicating them with false hopes of peace, that is when the weakness of Israel became the main characteristic of Israel we see today."
On the demographic threat to Israel that many have pointed to as necessitating Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, Gen. Eldad debunked some of the oft-heard claims of an impending Palestinian majority, pointing out how many politically-motivated demographers, keen to push Israel towards a path of concessions, counted twice the Arabs of Jerusalem, incorrectly extrapolated population forecasts and accepted uncritically Palestinian figures that had been deliberately inflated. These matters have been dissected in detail by Bennett Zimmerman and others. The demographic problem is real, but not urgent in the way many think and in any case not solvable by renouncing the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria. To applause, Gen. Eldad said, that "If we have the right to live in Tel Aviv, certainly we have the right to live in Hebron."
General Eldad continued: "I believe that Jordan is a de facto Palestinian state. I believe that if we are able to resettle the bulk of the Arab refugees and their descendents, we could solve much of the problem. In the last 60 years, your tax dollars go to UNRWA [United Nations Relief and Works Agency] which means going to incitement to kill Americans and Jews all over the world. Even in east Jerusalem, which is under the Israeli state, the schools teach the Palestinian state curriculum." Gen. Eldad said that with $35 billion, it would be possible to resettle 1 million refugees in ten years – an achievable goal, whereas other plans like two-state solution ignore the refugee problem. Yet, as long as it exists, they'll be more potential fuel for this conflict. "We will not have peace with the Arabs, but we can reduce the friction."
Gen. Eldad also recounted how he had submitted in the Knesset a 'Land of Israel' bill, which many in Likud opposed. Eldad showed them afterwards that every line of his bill was copied verbatim from the Likud platform. He also told of his efforts to found a new party, Hatikvah, which is a party neither religious nor secular aimed at representing that large part of the Israeli population which opposed concessions to the PA but which does not feel represented by the current mix of religious and nationalist Knesset lists.
During question time, Gen. Eldad noted that, as commander of the field hospital in Rwanda following the 1994 genocide, he had seen how one million refugees had been resettled within 9 months, whereas only the Palestinian refugees are maintained in a holding pattern for decades. He added that U.S. pressure alone could succeed in reforming UNRWA and altering its mandate to conform to that of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) which deals with, and solves, all other refugee problems. He also proposed a three-step process for dealing with the incessant continuing rocket fire directed at Sderot, Ashkelon and other Israeli cities: first, to disconnect Gaza from Egypt by Israel retaking control of the Philadelphi Corridor, seeing that Egypt does not fulfill its obligations under the 1979 peace treaty to prevent terrorism and infiltration from Egyptian territory. This will cost Israel lives, but he warned there is "no way for Israel to exist in the Middle East without paying the price, because refusing to pay the price now means paying a very much higher one later; second, Israel should take over the northern buffer zone and rebuild and restore the three flourishing communities that it destroyed; and third, retake Gaza by military force and clear it of all armed Palestinian groups. Failing to do so will only increase the risks and losses over time: "we are going to have katyusha missiles on Ashkelon and Kiryat Gat, then missiles that reach Dimona and Tel Aviv as well."
Gen. Eldad also noted that it is crucial for the U.S. to cut aid to Egypt if it hopes to have any change in Egypt's policy of doing nothing to stop terrorism into Israel and failing to co-operate more generally in the war on Islamism. As to the possibility of Israel's Arab population constituting a fifth column, he said that reading the statements and documents of Israeli Arab MKs, and various Israeli Arab representative bodies show that they really reject Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. The solution is for every Israeli citizen to take an oath of loyalty to the Jewish democratic state: whoever does not would lose the right to vote: "They will be residents, not citizens." For the Knesset to deal with this, however, there must first be electoral reform so that Knesset members become answerable to the public and constituencies, not just party whips: at present, Israelis vote only for party lists, not individual candidates, who represent no electoral district to whose constituency they are accountable. This impedes scrutiny of the conduct of individual MKs and thus reduces accountability to the electorate. It would also be necessary to have judicial reform, especially of the appointment process for judges to the Supreme Court. At present, the judges are not appointed by the Knesset, but by a panel in which unelected judges and lawyers are the majority. This serves to perpetuate the stranglehold on the court by radical, left-wing activist judges. Gen. Eldad also addressed the issue of political corruption in Israel and how the corruption of officials has even extended to prime ministers who in turn become susceptible to blackmail and who therefore may pursue policies not in the national interest in order to appease the media and to provide a distraction.
Guest Comments:Neither continuous yielding by Israel of territory nor the establishment of another Palestinian state will change the goals of the Arabs to destroy Israel; they say this every day - in both word and action.
The war against Israel is not a Palestinian- Arab/Israeli issue; Iran does not share a border with Israel yet harbors the same hatred and goals against the Jewish state. Worldwide anti-Semitism - boycotts of Israel all over the planet - Europe - U.S. campuses - should be a warning to all.
Israel is at the forefront of the same battle being waged against the West ; the goal is to first annihilate the Jewish State which is an 'obstacle to peace' - their version ) to the takeover of the whole region and the establishment of a radical Islamic state which would be a haven for terrorism. This would provide headquarters for more attacks on Europe (remember London, Madrid, etc.), on the United States and the rest of the West.
The stated goal is the establishment of a worldwide caliphate with strict Islamic law - sharia - in place of democracy. This is repeated daily by those who speak with hatred about Israel - demonizing her in with false accusations in order to delegitimize her. This validates destroying the country.
Unfortunately, at present Israel has weak leaders who lack the moral fiber required to stand up to the enemy. That is changing as more people are becoming aware of the danger. Gen. Arieh Eldad is one who does not lack that courage and he is speaking out. Read his words!
Chana.
Gen. Eldad reminded his audience that Yitzhak Rabin, in his autobiography, written before he embarked on the Oslo process, stated that a Palestinian state can only be created on the ruins of the state of Israel. (Rabin, in his last address to the Knesset in October 1995, said that the Palestinian entity to be created would be "less than a state"). Eldad also said that his experiences had taught him that "the conflict between Jews and Arabs in land of Israel is not a territorial conflict," and that this fact invalidates the idea that sharing the land between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs can of itself bring a solution. Eldad revisited all the past attempts at sharing land – the 1922 excision of Transjordan, the 1937 Peel Commission plan, the 1947 UN partition plan – all of which led to ¾ of the land given to the Arab side, without that ever being enough to placate it.
Gen. Eldad quoted Einstein's well-known definition of insanity as consisting of repeating the same experiment while expecting different results to describe the on-going, current efforts to again divide the land by handing it over to a Palestinian partner who still does not accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. To those who advocate this course, territory possesses no strategic significance, but the results of the 2005 unilateral withdrawal from Gaza has shown the falsity of this idea when it comes to the security of Israel and its citizens. He also discussed the failure of the Israeli education system and its present inability to educate the public as to its own historical, religious and legal connection to the land.
Gen. Eldad also repudiated clearly the notion that Palestinian Authority (PA) president Mahmoud Abbas is some sort of moderate who ought to be strengthened so he can fight Hamas, when in fact he "can't even prevent a car theft in Ramallah." Moreover real Palestinian moderates remain unfortunately irrelevant, since they have no power or influence in Palestinian society, whereas most Muslims see Israel as a waqf, a Muslim land over which infidels like Jews may not rule. Failure to understand this has produced Israel's policy failures, because "when you misdiagnose, you have only a very small chance to prescribe well." Yet, when Yossi Beilin and his associates "introduced Arafat into our body and reduced the immunity of the Israelis by intoxicating them with false hopes of peace, that is when the weakness of Israel became the main characteristic of Israel we see today."
On the demographic threat to Israel that many have pointed to as necessitating Israeli withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, Gen. Eldad debunked some of the oft-heard claims of an impending Palestinian majority, pointing out how many politically-motivated demographers, keen to push Israel towards a path of concessions, counted twice the Arabs of Jerusalem, incorrectly extrapolated population forecasts and accepted uncritically Palestinian figures that had been deliberately inflated. These matters have been dissected in detail by Bennett Zimmerman and others. The demographic problem is real, but not urgent in the way many think and in any case not solvable by renouncing the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria. To applause, Gen. Eldad said, that "If we have the right to live in Tel Aviv, certainly we have the right to live in Hebron."
General Eldad continued: "I believe that Jordan is a de facto Palestinian state. I believe that if we are able to resettle the bulk of the Arab refugees and their descendents, we could solve much of the problem. In the last 60 years, your tax dollars go to UNRWA [United Nations Relief and Works Agency] which means going to incitement to kill Americans and Jews all over the world. Even in east Jerusalem, which is under the Israeli state, the schools teach the Palestinian state curriculum." Gen. Eldad said that with $35 billion, it would be possible to resettle 1 million refugees in ten years – an achievable goal, whereas other plans like two-state solution ignore the refugee problem. Yet, as long as it exists, they'll be more potential fuel for this conflict. "We will not have peace with the Arabs, but we can reduce the friction."
Gen. Eldad also recounted how he had submitted in the Knesset a 'Land of Israel' bill, which many in Likud opposed. Eldad showed them afterwards that every line of his bill was copied verbatim from the Likud platform. He also told of his efforts to found a new party, Hatikvah, which is a party neither religious nor secular aimed at representing that large part of the Israeli population which opposed concessions to the PA but which does not feel represented by the current mix of religious and nationalist Knesset lists.
During question time, Gen. Eldad noted that, as commander of the field hospital in Rwanda following the 1994 genocide, he had seen how one million refugees had been resettled within 9 months, whereas only the Palestinian refugees are maintained in a holding pattern for decades. He added that U.S. pressure alone could succeed in reforming UNRWA and altering its mandate to conform to that of the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) which deals with, and solves, all other refugee problems. He also proposed a three-step process for dealing with the incessant continuing rocket fire directed at Sderot, Ashkelon and other Israeli cities: first, to disconnect Gaza from Egypt by Israel retaking control of the Philadelphi Corridor, seeing that Egypt does not fulfill its obligations under the 1979 peace treaty to prevent terrorism and infiltration from Egyptian territory. This will cost Israel lives, but he warned there is "no way for Israel to exist in the Middle East without paying the price, because refusing to pay the price now means paying a very much higher one later; second, Israel should take over the northern buffer zone and rebuild and restore the three flourishing communities that it destroyed; and third, retake Gaza by military force and clear it of all armed Palestinian groups. Failing to do so will only increase the risks and losses over time: "we are going to have katyusha missiles on Ashkelon and Kiryat Gat, then missiles that reach Dimona and Tel Aviv as well."
Gen. Eldad also noted that it is crucial for the U.S. to cut aid to Egypt if it hopes to have any change in Egypt's policy of doing nothing to stop terrorism into Israel and failing to co-operate more generally in the war on Islamism. As to the possibility of Israel's Arab population constituting a fifth column, he said that reading the statements and documents of Israeli Arab MKs, and various Israeli Arab representative bodies show that they really reject Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. The solution is for every Israeli citizen to take an oath of loyalty to the Jewish democratic state: whoever does not would lose the right to vote: "They will be residents, not citizens." For the Knesset to deal with this, however, there must first be electoral reform so that Knesset members become answerable to the public and constituencies, not just party whips: at present, Israelis vote only for party lists, not individual candidates, who represent no electoral district to whose constituency they are accountable. This impedes scrutiny of the conduct of individual MKs and thus reduces accountability to the electorate. It would also be necessary to have judicial reform, especially of the appointment process for judges to the Supreme Court. At present, the judges are not appointed by the Knesset, but by a panel in which unelected judges and lawyers are the majority. This serves to perpetuate the stranglehold on the court by radical, left-wing activist judges. Gen. Eldad also addressed the issue of political corruption in Israel and how the corruption of officials has even extended to prime ministers who in turn become susceptible to blackmail and who therefore may pursue policies not in the national interest in order to appease the media and to provide a distraction.
Guest Comments:Neither continuous yielding by Israel of territory nor the establishment of another Palestinian state will change the goals of the Arabs to destroy Israel; they say this every day - in both word and action.
The war against Israel is not a Palestinian- Arab/Israeli issue; Iran does not share a border with Israel yet harbors the same hatred and goals against the Jewish state. Worldwide anti-Semitism - boycotts of Israel all over the planet - Europe - U.S. campuses - should be a warning to all.
Israel is at the forefront of the same battle being waged against the West ; the goal is to first annihilate the Jewish State which is an 'obstacle to peace' - their version ) to the takeover of the whole region and the establishment of a radical Islamic state which would be a haven for terrorism. This would provide headquarters for more attacks on Europe (remember London, Madrid, etc.), on the United States and the rest of the West.
The stated goal is the establishment of a worldwide caliphate with strict Islamic law - sharia - in place of democracy. This is repeated daily by those who speak with hatred about Israel - demonizing her in with false accusations in order to delegitimize her. This validates destroying the country.
Unfortunately, at present Israel has weak leaders who lack the moral fiber required to stand up to the enemy. That is changing as more people are becoming aware of the danger. Gen. Arieh Eldad is one who does not lack that courage and he is speaking out. Read his words!
Chana.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Gaza dumps raw sewage into sea, UN blames Israel
I'll bet you could see that coming, couldn't you?
And in any case, step back for a moment and consider: the Hamas regime in Gaza has made no secret of its intention to destroy Israel. In response, the UN expects Israel to supply Gaza with electricity, uninterrupted, no questions asked. Did the League of Nations scold Poland for not supplying electricity to Nazi Germany? The Israelis, on the other hand, are actually doing it, and getting no credit for doing so.
"UN: Gaza is dumping sewage into the sea," by Ehud Zion Waldoks for the Jerusalem Post (thanks to Ruth King):
Gaza's water authority has dumped 60 million liters of partially treated and untreated sewage into the Mediterranean Sea since January 24, the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said in a report released on Wednesday.
"The sewage discharge is contaminating Gaza seawater and posing health risks for bathers and consumers of seafood. The sewage flows northward to Israeli coasts, including near the Ashkelon desalination plant. Urgent studies are needed to examine the extent of the impact," the report reads.
The report's authors blamed Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip for the Gazans' inability to treat the sewage.
"This sewage cannot be treated due to the lack of a steady electricity supply within the Gaza Strip, Israel's restrictions on fuel imports and prohibitions on the import of materials and necessary spare parts," according to the report.
The UN said Gaza's water authority, the Coastal Municipalities Water Utility, required 14 days of uninterrupted electricity to treat the sewage. The utility provides more than 130 million cubic meters of water per year, according to the report, 80 percent of which ends up as sewage. Moreover, because of the restrictions on imports and exports into and out of the Strip, spare parts needed to repair the sewage treatment plants had not been allowed in.
But a security source familiar with the situation told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday that the vast majority of Gaza's electrical needs were being met by Israel and Egypt.
"Gaza is receiving 141 megawatts a day out of [its normal requirements of] 200 megawatts at this time from Israel and Egypt," the source said.
He also said Hamas should be dealing with the issue. "Hamas is in charge there now and they should find a solution to the problem," he told the Post.
Israel Water Authority spokesman Uri Schor said the problem was not new and that Israel was doing all it could to help Gaza process its sewage.
"The Palestinians have been pumping partially treated or untreated sewage water into the sea for years, and not just since the beginning of this year. The State of Israel assists in various ways to the pumping and water distribution and to the continued operation of the sewage treatment plants. That assistance includes approval to transfer most of equipment the Palestinian Authority has requested - the rest is in the process of being verified - and all the diesel fuel necessary to run the plants," Schor said.
These plants had not been affected by any cutbacks to electricity, he said.
[...]
"Israel is very much assisting in the approval, funding [$45m.] and in executing a large project to deal with northern Gaza's sewage, despite the continuing situation," he said, "Likewise, the construction of a large treatment plant in central Gaza has also been approved, and Israel is willing to help build two more plants in the southern region of the Strip."...
And in any case, step back for a moment and consider: the Hamas regime in Gaza has made no secret of its intention to destroy Israel. In response, the UN expects Israel to supply Gaza with electricity, uninterrupted, no questions asked. Did the League of Nations scold Poland for not supplying electricity to Nazi Germany? The Israelis, on the other hand, are actually doing it, and getting no credit for doing so.
"UN: Gaza is dumping sewage into the sea," by Ehud Zion Waldoks for the Jerusalem Post (thanks to Ruth King):
Gaza's water authority has dumped 60 million liters of partially treated and untreated sewage into the Mediterranean Sea since January 24, the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs said in a report released on Wednesday.
"The sewage discharge is contaminating Gaza seawater and posing health risks for bathers and consumers of seafood. The sewage flows northward to Israeli coasts, including near the Ashkelon desalination plant. Urgent studies are needed to examine the extent of the impact," the report reads.
The report's authors blamed Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip for the Gazans' inability to treat the sewage.
"This sewage cannot be treated due to the lack of a steady electricity supply within the Gaza Strip, Israel's restrictions on fuel imports and prohibitions on the import of materials and necessary spare parts," according to the report.
The UN said Gaza's water authority, the Coastal Municipalities Water Utility, required 14 days of uninterrupted electricity to treat the sewage. The utility provides more than 130 million cubic meters of water per year, according to the report, 80 percent of which ends up as sewage. Moreover, because of the restrictions on imports and exports into and out of the Strip, spare parts needed to repair the sewage treatment plants had not been allowed in.
But a security source familiar with the situation told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday that the vast majority of Gaza's electrical needs were being met by Israel and Egypt.
"Gaza is receiving 141 megawatts a day out of [its normal requirements of] 200 megawatts at this time from Israel and Egypt," the source said.
He also said Hamas should be dealing with the issue. "Hamas is in charge there now and they should find a solution to the problem," he told the Post.
Israel Water Authority spokesman Uri Schor said the problem was not new and that Israel was doing all it could to help Gaza process its sewage.
"The Palestinians have been pumping partially treated or untreated sewage water into the sea for years, and not just since the beginning of this year. The State of Israel assists in various ways to the pumping and water distribution and to the continued operation of the sewage treatment plants. That assistance includes approval to transfer most of equipment the Palestinian Authority has requested - the rest is in the process of being verified - and all the diesel fuel necessary to run the plants," Schor said.
These plants had not been affected by any cutbacks to electricity, he said.
[...]
"Israel is very much assisting in the approval, funding [$45m.] and in executing a large project to deal with northern Gaza's sewage, despite the continuing situation," he said, "Likewise, the construction of a large treatment plant in central Gaza has also been approved, and Israel is willing to help build two more plants in the southern region of the Strip."...
Friday, May 02, 2008
Rice: Israelis, Palestinians must agree on final borders
Determining final borders is 'best thing we can possibly do,' Secretary of State says
Associated Press
Israel News
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators should decide once and for all where to draw the line between Israeli and Palestinian territory, ending the argument over Jewish housing expansion on disputed ground, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday. Rice also warned that the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank do not equal a "fait accompli" that the houses or towns would remain in Israeli hands under a final settlement of the conflict.
"Ultimately the best answer is to determine what's going to be in Israel and what's going to be in Palestine," Rice said before meetings with negotiators and leaders on both sides in London and the Mideast.
Determining final borders is "the best thing we can possibly do," Rice said, suggesting she has heard Palestinian, Arab and other complaints that there is little momentum and less clarity in peace talks that are supposed to frame an independent Palestinian state before Bush leaves office.
Shared responsibility
The Bush administration has as much as promised Israel it could keep some sensitive land, but Rice was effectively warning Israel not to carry the policy too far or assume it has no consequences.
"I do not, and the U.S. government does not, accept that anything done prior to agreement can ... present a fait accompli or determine the final outcome of this," Rice said.
She did not single out any particular Israeli project as improper, but repeated the US diplomatic criticism of housing expansion in general. "It's not helpful," she said.
Rice also said that "It's far too early to start any sense of despair about the end of the year," but acknowledged that Palestinians are losing patience. "I do believe the window for the two-state solution is not open forever," Rshe told reporters traveling with her. "I think you could argue it's gotten narrower and narrower over time."
"Israel has probably the lead responsibility in helping to improve the lives of the Palestinian people but it's a shared responsibility," she said.
Associated Press
Israel News
Israeli and Palestinian negotiators should decide once and for all where to draw the line between Israeli and Palestinian territory, ending the argument over Jewish housing expansion on disputed ground, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Thursday. Rice also warned that the expansion of Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank do not equal a "fait accompli" that the houses or towns would remain in Israeli hands under a final settlement of the conflict.
"Ultimately the best answer is to determine what's going to be in Israel and what's going to be in Palestine," Rice said before meetings with negotiators and leaders on both sides in London and the Mideast.
Determining final borders is "the best thing we can possibly do," Rice said, suggesting she has heard Palestinian, Arab and other complaints that there is little momentum and less clarity in peace talks that are supposed to frame an independent Palestinian state before Bush leaves office.
Shared responsibility
The Bush administration has as much as promised Israel it could keep some sensitive land, but Rice was effectively warning Israel not to carry the policy too far or assume it has no consequences.
"I do not, and the U.S. government does not, accept that anything done prior to agreement can ... present a fait accompli or determine the final outcome of this," Rice said.
She did not single out any particular Israeli project as improper, but repeated the US diplomatic criticism of housing expansion in general. "It's not helpful," she said.
Rice also said that "It's far too early to start any sense of despair about the end of the year," but acknowledged that Palestinians are losing patience. "I do believe the window for the two-state solution is not open forever," Rshe told reporters traveling with her. "I think you could argue it's gotten narrower and narrower over time."
"Israel has probably the lead responsibility in helping to improve the lives of the Palestinian people but it's a shared responsibility," she said.
100,000 Palestinian refugees set to march toward northern border
Khaled Abu Toameh
THE JERUSALEM POST
More than 100,000 Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon are expected to march toward the border with Israel on May 14 in the context of the Palestinian Authority's plan to mark the 60th anniversary of the establishment of Israel, PA officials told The Jerusalem Post Thursday.
The PA leadership has, meanwhile, announced that it would boycott any world leader who arrived in Israel to participate in the anniversary celebrations.
The officials said the boycott would be a temporary action, adding that the Palestinians would not receive the guests in the Palestinian territories during their visits to Israel. The PA ambassador to Beirut, Zaki Abbas, has been working in the past few weeks to recruit refugees from various refugee camps throughout Lebanon for the march.
Fatah's top representative in Lebanon, Sultan Abu Aynain, has also been instrumental in organizing the event, the Post has learned.
The two have been coordinating their efforts with PA Deputy Minister for Prisoners Affairs, Ziad Abu Ein, who has drawn up a plan calling on Palestinian refugees to "invade" Israel by land, air and sea in protest against Israel's anniversary celebrations.
The plan states that the Palestinians have decided to implement United Nations Resolution 194 regarding the Palestinian refugees.
Article 11 of the resolution, which was passed in December 1948, says that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest predictable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return."
Entitled "The Initiative of Return and Coexistence," the plan urges all Israelis to "welcome the Palestinians who will be returning to live together with them in the land of peace."
A committee established by the organizers to prepare for the event met at the Al-Bireh Municipality offices this week to discuss ways of rallying support. Abu Ein told participants that more than 100,000 refugees from Lebanon were expected to take part in the march toward Israel's northern border.
He added that refugees from the West Bank and Gaza Strip would also participate in the events by staging marches toward Israeli checkpoints and border crossings.
At the meeting in Al-Bireh, the organizers strongly condemned world leaders and dignitaries who were planning to participate in the Israeli celebrations. "This is the day when the Palestinians were uprooted from their lands," they added. "It would have been better if these leaders visited the refugee camps which are the victims of Israel's so-called independence."
The plan calls on the refugees to return to Israel with suitcases and tents so that they can settle down in their former villages. The refuges are requested to carry UN flags upon their return and to be equipped with their UNRWA-issued ID cards.
The plan asks Arab countries hosting the refugees to facilitate their return by opening their borders. The plan specifically refers to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.
Palestinian refugees living in the US, EU, Canada and Latin America have been requested to use their foreign passports to fly to Ben- Gurion Airport, while dozens of ships carrying refugees will converge on Israeli ports.
THE JERUSALEM POST
More than 100,000 Palestinian refugees living in Lebanon are expected to march toward the border with Israel on May 14 in the context of the Palestinian Authority's plan to mark the 60th anniversary of the establishment of Israel, PA officials told The Jerusalem Post Thursday.
The PA leadership has, meanwhile, announced that it would boycott any world leader who arrived in Israel to participate in the anniversary celebrations.
The officials said the boycott would be a temporary action, adding that the Palestinians would not receive the guests in the Palestinian territories during their visits to Israel. The PA ambassador to Beirut, Zaki Abbas, has been working in the past few weeks to recruit refugees from various refugee camps throughout Lebanon for the march.
Fatah's top representative in Lebanon, Sultan Abu Aynain, has also been instrumental in organizing the event, the Post has learned.
The two have been coordinating their efforts with PA Deputy Minister for Prisoners Affairs, Ziad Abu Ein, who has drawn up a plan calling on Palestinian refugees to "invade" Israel by land, air and sea in protest against Israel's anniversary celebrations.
The plan states that the Palestinians have decided to implement United Nations Resolution 194 regarding the Palestinian refugees.
Article 11 of the resolution, which was passed in December 1948, says that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest predictable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return."
Entitled "The Initiative of Return and Coexistence," the plan urges all Israelis to "welcome the Palestinians who will be returning to live together with them in the land of peace."
A committee established by the organizers to prepare for the event met at the Al-Bireh Municipality offices this week to discuss ways of rallying support. Abu Ein told participants that more than 100,000 refugees from Lebanon were expected to take part in the march toward Israel's northern border.
He added that refugees from the West Bank and Gaza Strip would also participate in the events by staging marches toward Israeli checkpoints and border crossings.
At the meeting in Al-Bireh, the organizers strongly condemned world leaders and dignitaries who were planning to participate in the Israeli celebrations. "This is the day when the Palestinians were uprooted from their lands," they added. "It would have been better if these leaders visited the refugee camps which are the victims of Israel's so-called independence."
The plan calls on the refugees to return to Israel with suitcases and tents so that they can settle down in their former villages. The refuges are requested to carry UN flags upon their return and to be equipped with their UNRWA-issued ID cards.
The plan asks Arab countries hosting the refugees to facilitate their return by opening their borders. The plan specifically refers to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.
Palestinian refugees living in the US, EU, Canada and Latin America have been requested to use their foreign passports to fly to Ben- Gurion Airport, while dozens of ships carrying refugees will converge on Israeli ports.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
The myth of Palestinian moderation
In his "Fundamentally Freund" column "The myth of Palestinian moderation" in the Jerusalem Post, Michael Freund rightly skewers the Administration's fantasy-based policymaking regarding Israel:
Even for a president prone to misusing the English language, George W. Bush outdid himself last week. Sitting next to Mahmoud Abbas at the White House, Bush gushed and swooned over the visiting Palestinian leader, describing him in terms usually reserved for heroes and saints.
"The president is a man of peace," Bush assured the gaggle of reporters who were present. "He's a man of vision. He rejects the idea of using violence to achieve objectives, which distinguishes him from other people in the region."
While Bush's grammar may have been uncommonly accurate that day, his description of Abbas was anything but. For even a cursory glance at some of the Palestinian president's outbursts in recent months reveal a man wholly undeserving of such praise.
On March 1, Abbas had the gall to insult the memory of the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis when he declared that Israel's counter-terror operations in Gaza were "worse than the Holocaust" (Jerusalem Post, March 2).
And in an interview with the Jordanian newspaper Al-Dustur on February 28, Abbas boasted that he had been the first Palestinian to fire a bullet at Israel after the birth of the PLO in 1965.
This ostensible "man of peace" then took pride in the fact that his Fatah movement had trained Hizbullah terrorists, and he did not rule out a return to the "armed struggle" against Israel in the future. And just two weeks ago, Abbas was planning to confer the Al-Quds Mark of Honor, the PLO's highest award, to two female Palestinian terrorists who took part in the killing of Israelis (Israel Radio, April 16). The event was cancelled only after it was publicized widely in the media. Need we also mention the Palestinian president's refusal late last year to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state"?
[...]
And let's cease calling Mahmoud Abbas a "moderate." Anyone who refuses to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state," makes a mockery of the Holocaust, and threatens a return to violence, is certainly not deserving of such a characterization. Instead, let's call Abbas what he really is. For if he looks like an extremist, sounds like an extremist, and acts like an extremist, chances are that he is one.
And more importantly, let's start treating him as such.
Even for a president prone to misusing the English language, George W. Bush outdid himself last week. Sitting next to Mahmoud Abbas at the White House, Bush gushed and swooned over the visiting Palestinian leader, describing him in terms usually reserved for heroes and saints.
"The president is a man of peace," Bush assured the gaggle of reporters who were present. "He's a man of vision. He rejects the idea of using violence to achieve objectives, which distinguishes him from other people in the region."
While Bush's grammar may have been uncommonly accurate that day, his description of Abbas was anything but. For even a cursory glance at some of the Palestinian president's outbursts in recent months reveal a man wholly undeserving of such praise.
On March 1, Abbas had the gall to insult the memory of the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis when he declared that Israel's counter-terror operations in Gaza were "worse than the Holocaust" (Jerusalem Post, March 2).
And in an interview with the Jordanian newspaper Al-Dustur on February 28, Abbas boasted that he had been the first Palestinian to fire a bullet at Israel after the birth of the PLO in 1965.
This ostensible "man of peace" then took pride in the fact that his Fatah movement had trained Hizbullah terrorists, and he did not rule out a return to the "armed struggle" against Israel in the future. And just two weeks ago, Abbas was planning to confer the Al-Quds Mark of Honor, the PLO's highest award, to two female Palestinian terrorists who took part in the killing of Israelis (Israel Radio, April 16). The event was cancelled only after it was publicized widely in the media. Need we also mention the Palestinian president's refusal late last year to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state"?
[...]
And let's cease calling Mahmoud Abbas a "moderate." Anyone who refuses to recognize Israel as a "Jewish state," makes a mockery of the Holocaust, and threatens a return to violence, is certainly not deserving of such a characterization. Instead, let's call Abbas what he really is. For if he looks like an extremist, sounds like an extremist, and acts like an extremist, chances are that he is one.
And more importantly, let's start treating him as such.
The myth of the Palestinian ceasefire
While we're on the subject of Palestinian myths, here's another.
"Palestinian groups shell Israeli areas near Gaza despite news of ceasefire," from the Ma'an News Agency (thanks to Sr. Soph):
Gaza – Ma'an – Palestinian military groups continued to launch homemade projectiles and mortar shells into Israel from the Gaza Strip despite news that the factions had agreed during talks in Egypt on a ceasefire. The military wing of Islamic Jihad, the Al-Quds Brigades, and the military wing of the Popular Resistance Committees, the An-Nasser Salah Addin Brigades, said that their fighters fired barrages of projectiles and mortars at the Israeli cities of Sderot and Ashkelon in the western Negev.
It appears that Palestinian factions are awaiting for the official announcement of a ceasefire before holding their fire....
Yeah, sure, that's it.
"Palestinian groups shell Israeli areas near Gaza despite news of ceasefire," from the Ma'an News Agency (thanks to Sr. Soph):
Gaza – Ma'an – Palestinian military groups continued to launch homemade projectiles and mortar shells into Israel from the Gaza Strip despite news that the factions had agreed during talks in Egypt on a ceasefire. The military wing of Islamic Jihad, the Al-Quds Brigades, and the military wing of the Popular Resistance Committees, the An-Nasser Salah Addin Brigades, said that their fighters fired barrages of projectiles and mortars at the Israeli cities of Sderot and Ashkelon in the western Negev.
It appears that Palestinian factions are awaiting for the official announcement of a ceasefire before holding their fire....
Yeah, sure, that's it.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The Shift Toward an Israeli-Syrian Agreement
George Friedman
Stratfor
The Middle East, already monstrously complex, grew more complex last week. First, there were strong indications that both Israel and Syria were prepared to engage in discussions on peace. That alone is startling enough. But with the indicators arising in the same week that the United States decided to reveal that the purpose behind Israel’s raid on Syria in September 2007 was to destroy a North Korean-supplied nuclear reactor, the situation becomes even more baffling.
But before we dive into the what-will-be, let us first explain how truly bizarre things have gotten. On April 8 we wrote about how a number of seemingly unconnected events were piecing themselves into a pattern that might indicate an imminent war, a sequel to the summer 2006 Lebanon conflict. This mystery in the Middle East has since matured greatly, but in an unexpected direction. Israeli-Syrian peace talks — serious Israeli-Syrian peace talks — are occurring.
First, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Israeli media that Israel had been talking to the Syrians, and then that “Very clearly we want peace with the Syrians and are taking all manners of action to this end. They know what we want from them, and I know full well what they want from us.” Then Syrian President Bashar al Assad publicly acknowledged that negotiations with Syria were taking place. Later, a Syrian minister appeared on Al Jazeera and said that, “Olmert is ready for peace with Syria on the grounds of international conditions, on the grounds of the return of the Golan Heights to Syria.” At almost exactly the same moment, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said that, “If Israel is serious and wants peace, nothing will stop the renewal of peace talks. What made this statement really interesting was that it was made in Tehran, standing next to Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, an ally of Syria whose government rejects the very concept of peace with Israel.
We would have expected the Syrians to choose another venue to make this statement, and we would have expected the Iranians to object. It didn’t happen. We waited for a blistering denial from Israel. Nothing came; all that happened was that Israeli spokesmen referred journalists to Olmert’s previous statement. Clearly something was on the table. The Turks had been pressing the Israelis to negotiate with the Syrians, and the Israelis might have been making a gesture to placate them, but the public exchanges clearly went beyond that point. This process could well fail, but it gave every appearance of being serious.
According to the existing understanding of the region’s geopolitical structure, an Israeli-Syrian peace deal is impossible.
The United States and Iran are locked into talks over the future of Iraq, and both regularly use their respective allies in Israel and Syria to shape those negotiations. An Israeli-Syrian peace would at the very least inconvenience American and Iranian plans.
Any peace deal would require defanging Hezbollah. But Hezbollah is not simply a Syrian proxy with an independent streak, it is also an Iranian proxy. So long as Iran is Syria’s only real ally in the Muslim world, such a step seems inimical to Syrian interests.
Hezbollah is also deeply entwined into the economic life of Lebanon — and in Lebanon’s drug production and distribution network — and threatening the relationship with Hezbollah would massively impact Damascus’ bottom line.
From the other side, Syria cannot accept a peace that does not restore its control over the Golan Heights, captured during the 1967 war. Since this patch of ground overlooks some of Israel’s most densely populated regions, it seems unnatural that Israel ever would even consider such a trade.
Forget issues of Zionism or jihadism, or even simple bad blood; the reality is that any deal between Israel and Syria clashes with the strategic interests of both sides, making peace is impossible. Or is it? Talks are happening nonetheless, meaning one of two things is true: Either Olmert and Assad have lost it, or this view of reality is wrong.
Let’s reground this discussion away from what everyone — ourselves included — thinks they know and go back to the basics, namely, the geopolitical realities in which Israel and Syria exist.
Israel
Peace with Egypt and Jordan means Israel is secure on its eastern and southern frontiers. Its fundamental problem is counterinsurgency in Gaza and at times in the West Bank. Its ability to impose a military solution to this problem is limited, so it has settled for separating itself from the Palestinians and on efforts to break up the Palestinian movement into different factions. The split in the Palestinian community between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza helped this strategy immensely, dividing the Palestinians geographically, ideologically, economically and politically. The deeper the intra-Palestinian conflict is, the less of a strategic threat to Israel the Palestinians can be. It is hardly a beautiful solution — and dividing the Palestinians does not reduce the security burden on Israel — but it is manageable.
Israel does not perceive Syria as a serious threat. Not only is the Syrian military a pale shadow of Israeli capability, Israel does not even consider sacrificing the Golan Heights to weakening the Israeli military meaningfully. The territory has become the pivot of public discussions, but losing it hasn’t been a real problem for Israel since the 1970s. In today’s battlefield environment, artillery on the heights would rapidly be destroyed by counter-battery fire, helicopter gunships or aircraft. Indeed, the main threat to Israel from Syria is missiles. Damascus now has one of the largest Scud missile and surface-to-surface missile arsenals in the region — and those can reach Israel from far beyond the Golan Heights regardless of where the Israeli-Syrian political border is located. Technological advances — even those from just the last decade — have minimized the need for a physical presence on that territory that was essential militarily decades ago.
The remaining threat to Israel is posed by Lebanon, where Hezbollah has a sufficient military capability to pose a limited threat to northern Israel, as was seen in the summer of 2006. Israel can engage and destroy a force in Lebanon, but the 1982-2002 Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon vividly demonstrated that the cost-benefit ratio to justify an ongoing presence simply does not make sense.
At the current time, Israel’s strategic interests are twofold. First, maintain and encourage the incipient civil war between Hamas and Fatah. The key to this is to leverage tensions between neighboring Arab states and the Palestinians. And this is easy. The Hashemite government of Jordan detests the West Bank Palestinians because more than three-quarters of the population of Jordan is Palestinian, but the Hashemite king rather likes being king. Egypt equally hates the Gaza Palestinians as Hamas’ ideological roots lie in the Muslim Brotherhood — a group whose ideology not only contributed to al Qaeda’s formation, but also that of groups who have exhibited a nasty habit of assassinating Egyptian presidents.
The second Israeli strategic interest is finding a means of neutralizing any threat from Lebanon without Israel being forced into war — or worse yet, into an occupation of Lebanon. The key to this strategy lies with the other player in this game.
Syria
Ultimately Syria only has its western border to worry about. To the east is the vast desert border with Iraq, an excellent barrier to attack for both nations. To the north are the Turks who, if they chose, could swallow Syria in a hard day’s work and be home in time for coffee. Managing that border is a political matter, not a military one.
That leaves the west. Syria does not worry too much about an Israeli invasion. It is not that Damascus thinks that Israel is incapable of such an operation — Israel would face only a slightly more complicated task of eliminating Syria than Turkey would — but that the al Assads know full well that Israel is happy with them in power. The al Assads and their fellow elites hail from the Alawite sect of Islam, an offshoot of Shiite Islam that the Sunnis consider apostate. Alawite rule in Syria essentially is secular, and the government has a historic fear of an uprising by the majority Sunnis.
The Israelis know that any overthrow of the al Assads would probably land Israel with a radical Sunni government on its northeastern frontier. From Israel’s point of view, it is far better to deal with a terrified and insecure Syrian government more concerned with maintaining internal control than a confident and popular Syrian government with the freedom to look outward.
Just as Syria’s defensive issues vis-à-vis Israel are not what they seem, neither are Syrian tools for dealing with Israel in an offensive manner as robust as most think.
Syria is not particularly comfortable with the entities that pose the largest security threats to Israel, namely, the main Palestinian factions. Damascus has never been friendly to the secular Fatah movement, with which it fought many battles in Lebanon; nor is it comfortable with the more fundamentalist Sunni Hamas. (Syria massacred its own fundamentalists during the 1980s.) So while the Syrians have dabbled in Palestinian politics, they have never favored a Palestinian state. In fact, it should be recalled that when Syria first invaded Lebanon in 1975, it was against the Palestinians and in support of Lebanese Christians.
That invasion — as well as most Syrian operations in Lebanon — was not about security, but about money. Lebanon, the descendent of Phoenicia, has always been a vibrant economic region (save when there is war). It is the terminus of trade routes from the east and south and the door to the Mediterranean basin. It is a trading and banking hub, with Beirut in particular as the economic engine of the region. Without Beirut and Lebanon, Syria is an isolated backwater. With it, Damascus is a major player.
As such, Syria’s closest ties among Israel’s foes are not with the two major indigenous Palestinian factions, but with the Shiite group Hezbollah. The Syrians have a somewhat tighter religious affinity with Hezbollah, as well as a generation of complex business dealings with the group’s leaders. But its support for Hezbollah is multifaceted, and anti-Israeli tendencies are only one aspect of the relationship. And Hezbollah is much more important to Syria as a tool for managing Damascus’ affairs in Lebanon.
The Basis of a Deal
Israel and Syria’s geopolitical interests diverge less than it might appear. By itself, Syria poses no conventional threat to Israel. Syria is dangerous only in the context of a coalition with Egypt. In 1973, fighting on two fronts, the Syrians were a threat. With Egypt neutralized now and behind the buffer in the Sinai, Syria poses no threat. As for unconventional weapons, the Israelis indicated with their bombing of the Syrian research facility in September 2007 that they know full well how — and are perfectly willing unilaterally — to take that option off Damascus’ table.
Since neither side wants a war with the other — Israel does not want to replace the Alawites, and the Alawites are not enamored of being replaced — the issue boils down to whether Israel and Syria can coordinate their interests in Lebanon. Israel has no real economic interests in Lebanon. Its primary interest is security — to make certain that forces hostile to Israel cannot use Lebanon as a base for launching attacks. Syria has no real security interests so long its economic primacy is guaranteed. And neither country wants to see an independent Palestinian state.
The issue boils down to Lebanon. In a sense, the Israelis had an accommodation with Syria over Lebanon when Israel withdrew. It ceded economic pre-eminence in Lebanon to the Syrians. In return, the Syrians controlled Hezbollah and in effect took responsibility for Israeli security in return for economic power. It was only after Syria withdrew from Lebanon under U.S. pressure that Hezbollah evolved into a threat to Israel, precipitating the 2006 conflict.
This was a point on which Israel and the United States didn’t agree. The United States, fighting in Iraq, wanted an additional lever with which to try to control Syrian support for militants fighting in Iraq. They saw Lebanon as a way to punish Syria for actions in Iraq. But the Israelis saw themselves as having to live with the consequences of that withdrawal. Israel understood that Syria’s withdrawal shifted the burden of controlling Hezbollah to Israel — something that could not be achieved without an occupation.
What appears to be under consideration between the supposed archrivals, therefore, is the restoration of the 2005 status quo in Lebanon. The Syrians would reclaim their position in Lebanon, unopposed by Israel. In return, the Syrians would control Hezbollah. For the Syrians, this has the added benefit that by controlling Hezbollah and restraining it in the south, Syria would have both additional strength on the ground in Lebanon, as well as closer economic collaboration — on more favorable terms — with Hezbollah. For Syria, Hezbollah is worth more as a puppet than as a heroic anti-Israeli force.
This is something Israel understands. In the last fight between Israel and Syria in Lebanon, there were different local allies: Israel had the South Lebanese Army. The Syrians were allied with the Christian Franjieh clan. In the end, both countries dumped their allies. Syria and Israel have permanent interests in Lebanon. They do not have permanent allies.
The Other Players
The big loser in this game, of course, would be the Lebanese. But that is more complicated than it appears. Many of the Lebanese factions — including most of the Christian clans — have close relations with the Syrians. Moreover, the period of informal Syrian occupation was a prosperous time. Lebanon is a country of businessmen and militia, sometimes the same. The stability the Syrians imposed was good for business.
The one faction that would clearly oppose this would be Hezbollah. It would be squeezed on all sides. Ideologically speaking, constrained from confronting Israel, its place in the Islamic sun would be undermined. Economically speaking, Hezbollah would be forced into less favorable economic relations with the Syrians than it enjoyed on its own. And politically speaking, Hezbollah would have the choice of fighting the Syrians (not an attractive option) or of becoming a Syrian tool. Either way, Hezbollah would have to do something in response to any rumors floating about of a Syrian deal with the Israelis. And given the quality of Syrian intelligence in these matters, key Hezbollah operatives opposed to such a deal might find themselves blown up. Perhaps they already have.
Iran will not be happy about all this. Tehran has invested a fair amount of resources in bulking up Hezbollah, and will not be pleased to see the militia shift from Syrian management to Syrian control. But in the end, what can Iran do? It cannot support Hezbollah directly, and even if it were to attempt to undermine Damascus, those Syrians most susceptible to Tehran’s Shiite-flavored entreaties are the Alawites themselves.
The other player that at the very least would be uneasy about all of this is the United States. The American view of Syria remains extremely negative, still driven by the sense that the Syrians continue to empower militants in Iraq. Certainly that aid — and that negative U.S. feeling — is not as intense as it was two years ago, but the Americans might not feel that this is the right time for such a deal. Thus, the release of the information on the Syrian reactor might well have been an attempt to throw a spoke in the wheel of the Israeli-Syrian negotiations.
That might not be necessary. Nothing disappears faster than Syrian-Israeli negotiations. In this case, however, both countries have fundamental geopolitical interests at stake. Israel wants to secure its northern frontier without committing its troops into Lebanon. The Syrians want to guarantee their access to the economic possibilities in Lebanon. Neither care about the Golan Heights. The Israelis don’t care what happens in Lebanon so long as it doesn’t explode in Israel. The Syrians don’t care what happens to the Palestinians so long as it doesn’t spread onto their turf.
Deals have been made on less. Israel and Syria are moving toward a deal that would leave a lot of players in the region — including Iran — quite unhappy. Given this deal has lots of uneasy observers, including Iran, the United States, Hezbollah, the Palestinians and others, it could blow apart with the best will in the world. And given that this is Syria and Israel, the best will isn’t exactly in abundant supply.
Stratfor
The Middle East, already monstrously complex, grew more complex last week. First, there were strong indications that both Israel and Syria were prepared to engage in discussions on peace. That alone is startling enough. But with the indicators arising in the same week that the United States decided to reveal that the purpose behind Israel’s raid on Syria in September 2007 was to destroy a North Korean-supplied nuclear reactor, the situation becomes even more baffling.
But before we dive into the what-will-be, let us first explain how truly bizarre things have gotten. On April 8 we wrote about how a number of seemingly unconnected events were piecing themselves into a pattern that might indicate an imminent war, a sequel to the summer 2006 Lebanon conflict. This mystery in the Middle East has since matured greatly, but in an unexpected direction. Israeli-Syrian peace talks — serious Israeli-Syrian peace talks — are occurring.
First, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told the Israeli media that Israel had been talking to the Syrians, and then that “Very clearly we want peace with the Syrians and are taking all manners of action to this end. They know what we want from them, and I know full well what they want from us.” Then Syrian President Bashar al Assad publicly acknowledged that negotiations with Syria were taking place. Later, a Syrian minister appeared on Al Jazeera and said that, “Olmert is ready for peace with Syria on the grounds of international conditions, on the grounds of the return of the Golan Heights to Syria.” At almost exactly the same moment, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem said that, “If Israel is serious and wants peace, nothing will stop the renewal of peace talks. What made this statement really interesting was that it was made in Tehran, standing next to Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, an ally of Syria whose government rejects the very concept of peace with Israel.
We would have expected the Syrians to choose another venue to make this statement, and we would have expected the Iranians to object. It didn’t happen. We waited for a blistering denial from Israel. Nothing came; all that happened was that Israeli spokesmen referred journalists to Olmert’s previous statement. Clearly something was on the table. The Turks had been pressing the Israelis to negotiate with the Syrians, and the Israelis might have been making a gesture to placate them, but the public exchanges clearly went beyond that point. This process could well fail, but it gave every appearance of being serious.
According to the existing understanding of the region’s geopolitical structure, an Israeli-Syrian peace deal is impossible.
The United States and Iran are locked into talks over the future of Iraq, and both regularly use their respective allies in Israel and Syria to shape those negotiations. An Israeli-Syrian peace would at the very least inconvenience American and Iranian plans.
Any peace deal would require defanging Hezbollah. But Hezbollah is not simply a Syrian proxy with an independent streak, it is also an Iranian proxy. So long as Iran is Syria’s only real ally in the Muslim world, such a step seems inimical to Syrian interests.
Hezbollah is also deeply entwined into the economic life of Lebanon — and in Lebanon’s drug production and distribution network — and threatening the relationship with Hezbollah would massively impact Damascus’ bottom line.
From the other side, Syria cannot accept a peace that does not restore its control over the Golan Heights, captured during the 1967 war. Since this patch of ground overlooks some of Israel’s most densely populated regions, it seems unnatural that Israel ever would even consider such a trade.
Forget issues of Zionism or jihadism, or even simple bad blood; the reality is that any deal between Israel and Syria clashes with the strategic interests of both sides, making peace is impossible. Or is it? Talks are happening nonetheless, meaning one of two things is true: Either Olmert and Assad have lost it, or this view of reality is wrong.
Let’s reground this discussion away from what everyone — ourselves included — thinks they know and go back to the basics, namely, the geopolitical realities in which Israel and Syria exist.
Israel
Peace with Egypt and Jordan means Israel is secure on its eastern and southern frontiers. Its fundamental problem is counterinsurgency in Gaza and at times in the West Bank. Its ability to impose a military solution to this problem is limited, so it has settled for separating itself from the Palestinians and on efforts to break up the Palestinian movement into different factions. The split in the Palestinian community between Fatah in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza helped this strategy immensely, dividing the Palestinians geographically, ideologically, economically and politically. The deeper the intra-Palestinian conflict is, the less of a strategic threat to Israel the Palestinians can be. It is hardly a beautiful solution — and dividing the Palestinians does not reduce the security burden on Israel — but it is manageable.
Israel does not perceive Syria as a serious threat. Not only is the Syrian military a pale shadow of Israeli capability, Israel does not even consider sacrificing the Golan Heights to weakening the Israeli military meaningfully. The territory has become the pivot of public discussions, but losing it hasn’t been a real problem for Israel since the 1970s. In today’s battlefield environment, artillery on the heights would rapidly be destroyed by counter-battery fire, helicopter gunships or aircraft. Indeed, the main threat to Israel from Syria is missiles. Damascus now has one of the largest Scud missile and surface-to-surface missile arsenals in the region — and those can reach Israel from far beyond the Golan Heights regardless of where the Israeli-Syrian political border is located. Technological advances — even those from just the last decade — have minimized the need for a physical presence on that territory that was essential militarily decades ago.
The remaining threat to Israel is posed by Lebanon, where Hezbollah has a sufficient military capability to pose a limited threat to northern Israel, as was seen in the summer of 2006. Israel can engage and destroy a force in Lebanon, but the 1982-2002 Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon vividly demonstrated that the cost-benefit ratio to justify an ongoing presence simply does not make sense.
At the current time, Israel’s strategic interests are twofold. First, maintain and encourage the incipient civil war between Hamas and Fatah. The key to this is to leverage tensions between neighboring Arab states and the Palestinians. And this is easy. The Hashemite government of Jordan detests the West Bank Palestinians because more than three-quarters of the population of Jordan is Palestinian, but the Hashemite king rather likes being king. Egypt equally hates the Gaza Palestinians as Hamas’ ideological roots lie in the Muslim Brotherhood — a group whose ideology not only contributed to al Qaeda’s formation, but also that of groups who have exhibited a nasty habit of assassinating Egyptian presidents.
The second Israeli strategic interest is finding a means of neutralizing any threat from Lebanon without Israel being forced into war — or worse yet, into an occupation of Lebanon. The key to this strategy lies with the other player in this game.
Syria
Ultimately Syria only has its western border to worry about. To the east is the vast desert border with Iraq, an excellent barrier to attack for both nations. To the north are the Turks who, if they chose, could swallow Syria in a hard day’s work and be home in time for coffee. Managing that border is a political matter, not a military one.
That leaves the west. Syria does not worry too much about an Israeli invasion. It is not that Damascus thinks that Israel is incapable of such an operation — Israel would face only a slightly more complicated task of eliminating Syria than Turkey would — but that the al Assads know full well that Israel is happy with them in power. The al Assads and their fellow elites hail from the Alawite sect of Islam, an offshoot of Shiite Islam that the Sunnis consider apostate. Alawite rule in Syria essentially is secular, and the government has a historic fear of an uprising by the majority Sunnis.
The Israelis know that any overthrow of the al Assads would probably land Israel with a radical Sunni government on its northeastern frontier. From Israel’s point of view, it is far better to deal with a terrified and insecure Syrian government more concerned with maintaining internal control than a confident and popular Syrian government with the freedom to look outward.
Just as Syria’s defensive issues vis-à-vis Israel are not what they seem, neither are Syrian tools for dealing with Israel in an offensive manner as robust as most think.
Syria is not particularly comfortable with the entities that pose the largest security threats to Israel, namely, the main Palestinian factions. Damascus has never been friendly to the secular Fatah movement, with which it fought many battles in Lebanon; nor is it comfortable with the more fundamentalist Sunni Hamas. (Syria massacred its own fundamentalists during the 1980s.) So while the Syrians have dabbled in Palestinian politics, they have never favored a Palestinian state. In fact, it should be recalled that when Syria first invaded Lebanon in 1975, it was against the Palestinians and in support of Lebanese Christians.
That invasion — as well as most Syrian operations in Lebanon — was not about security, but about money. Lebanon, the descendent of Phoenicia, has always been a vibrant economic region (save when there is war). It is the terminus of trade routes from the east and south and the door to the Mediterranean basin. It is a trading and banking hub, with Beirut in particular as the economic engine of the region. Without Beirut and Lebanon, Syria is an isolated backwater. With it, Damascus is a major player.
As such, Syria’s closest ties among Israel’s foes are not with the two major indigenous Palestinian factions, but with the Shiite group Hezbollah. The Syrians have a somewhat tighter religious affinity with Hezbollah, as well as a generation of complex business dealings with the group’s leaders. But its support for Hezbollah is multifaceted, and anti-Israeli tendencies are only one aspect of the relationship. And Hezbollah is much more important to Syria as a tool for managing Damascus’ affairs in Lebanon.
The Basis of a Deal
Israel and Syria’s geopolitical interests diverge less than it might appear. By itself, Syria poses no conventional threat to Israel. Syria is dangerous only in the context of a coalition with Egypt. In 1973, fighting on two fronts, the Syrians were a threat. With Egypt neutralized now and behind the buffer in the Sinai, Syria poses no threat. As for unconventional weapons, the Israelis indicated with their bombing of the Syrian research facility in September 2007 that they know full well how — and are perfectly willing unilaterally — to take that option off Damascus’ table.
Since neither side wants a war with the other — Israel does not want to replace the Alawites, and the Alawites are not enamored of being replaced — the issue boils down to whether Israel and Syria can coordinate their interests in Lebanon. Israel has no real economic interests in Lebanon. Its primary interest is security — to make certain that forces hostile to Israel cannot use Lebanon as a base for launching attacks. Syria has no real security interests so long its economic primacy is guaranteed. And neither country wants to see an independent Palestinian state.
The issue boils down to Lebanon. In a sense, the Israelis had an accommodation with Syria over Lebanon when Israel withdrew. It ceded economic pre-eminence in Lebanon to the Syrians. In return, the Syrians controlled Hezbollah and in effect took responsibility for Israeli security in return for economic power. It was only after Syria withdrew from Lebanon under U.S. pressure that Hezbollah evolved into a threat to Israel, precipitating the 2006 conflict.
This was a point on which Israel and the United States didn’t agree. The United States, fighting in Iraq, wanted an additional lever with which to try to control Syrian support for militants fighting in Iraq. They saw Lebanon as a way to punish Syria for actions in Iraq. But the Israelis saw themselves as having to live with the consequences of that withdrawal. Israel understood that Syria’s withdrawal shifted the burden of controlling Hezbollah to Israel — something that could not be achieved without an occupation.
What appears to be under consideration between the supposed archrivals, therefore, is the restoration of the 2005 status quo in Lebanon. The Syrians would reclaim their position in Lebanon, unopposed by Israel. In return, the Syrians would control Hezbollah. For the Syrians, this has the added benefit that by controlling Hezbollah and restraining it in the south, Syria would have both additional strength on the ground in Lebanon, as well as closer economic collaboration — on more favorable terms — with Hezbollah. For Syria, Hezbollah is worth more as a puppet than as a heroic anti-Israeli force.
This is something Israel understands. In the last fight between Israel and Syria in Lebanon, there were different local allies: Israel had the South Lebanese Army. The Syrians were allied with the Christian Franjieh clan. In the end, both countries dumped their allies. Syria and Israel have permanent interests in Lebanon. They do not have permanent allies.
The Other Players
The big loser in this game, of course, would be the Lebanese. But that is more complicated than it appears. Many of the Lebanese factions — including most of the Christian clans — have close relations with the Syrians. Moreover, the period of informal Syrian occupation was a prosperous time. Lebanon is a country of businessmen and militia, sometimes the same. The stability the Syrians imposed was good for business.
The one faction that would clearly oppose this would be Hezbollah. It would be squeezed on all sides. Ideologically speaking, constrained from confronting Israel, its place in the Islamic sun would be undermined. Economically speaking, Hezbollah would be forced into less favorable economic relations with the Syrians than it enjoyed on its own. And politically speaking, Hezbollah would have the choice of fighting the Syrians (not an attractive option) or of becoming a Syrian tool. Either way, Hezbollah would have to do something in response to any rumors floating about of a Syrian deal with the Israelis. And given the quality of Syrian intelligence in these matters, key Hezbollah operatives opposed to such a deal might find themselves blown up. Perhaps they already have.
Iran will not be happy about all this. Tehran has invested a fair amount of resources in bulking up Hezbollah, and will not be pleased to see the militia shift from Syrian management to Syrian control. But in the end, what can Iran do? It cannot support Hezbollah directly, and even if it were to attempt to undermine Damascus, those Syrians most susceptible to Tehran’s Shiite-flavored entreaties are the Alawites themselves.
The other player that at the very least would be uneasy about all of this is the United States. The American view of Syria remains extremely negative, still driven by the sense that the Syrians continue to empower militants in Iraq. Certainly that aid — and that negative U.S. feeling — is not as intense as it was two years ago, but the Americans might not feel that this is the right time for such a deal. Thus, the release of the information on the Syrian reactor might well have been an attempt to throw a spoke in the wheel of the Israeli-Syrian negotiations.
That might not be necessary. Nothing disappears faster than Syrian-Israeli negotiations. In this case, however, both countries have fundamental geopolitical interests at stake. Israel wants to secure its northern frontier without committing its troops into Lebanon. The Syrians want to guarantee their access to the economic possibilities in Lebanon. Neither care about the Golan Heights. The Israelis don’t care what happens in Lebanon so long as it doesn’t explode in Israel. The Syrians don’t care what happens to the Palestinians so long as it doesn’t spread onto their turf.
Deals have been made on less. Israel and Syria are moving toward a deal that would leave a lot of players in the region — including Iran — quite unhappy. Given this deal has lots of uneasy observers, including Iran, the United States, Hezbollah, the Palestinians and others, it could blow apart with the best will in the world. And given that this is Syria and Israel, the best will isn’t exactly in abundant supply.
'Hamas stole 60,000 liters of Gaza fuel'
THE JERUSALEM POST
The head of the Palestinian Authority's gas agency confirmed Tuesday that Hamas gunmen had raided the Palestinian side of the Nahal Oz fuel terminal, stealing at least 60,000 liters of fuel meant for the Gaza power station in order to fill their own vehicles.
The Jerusalem Post reported Sunday that on at least four occasions over the past few weeks, Hamas militiamen confiscated trucks loaded with fuel as they were on their way from Nahal Oz to the city. Eyewitnesses said that the fuel supplies were taken to Hamas-controlled security installations throughout the city.
Gas agency head Mojahed Salam told Israel Radio that his workers were threatened at gunpoint and that he instructed them to obey the orders of the armed men so they wouldn't be harmed.
"They took control of the fuel and fired toward the terminal in order to torpedo the flow of fuel to the Strip and to pressure Egypt into reopening the Rafah border crossing," said Salam.
Also Tuesday, an Egyptian security official said that Egyptian border guards discovered five new underground smuggling tunnels north of the Rafah border crossing.
The official said two tunnels were used to pump fuel to the Gaza Strip due to the severe energy shortages. One of the tunnels was found in a kitchen with a pump connected to a hose running through it.
The tunnels were found early on Monday, added the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Some 50 jerry cans of fuel and another pump were found in the second tunnel which opened into an olive orchard 150 meters from the border.
Meanwhile, under heavy security, Israel transferred a large amount of wheat to the Gaza Strip.
Khaled Abu Toameh contributed to this report
The head of the Palestinian Authority's gas agency confirmed Tuesday that Hamas gunmen had raided the Palestinian side of the Nahal Oz fuel terminal, stealing at least 60,000 liters of fuel meant for the Gaza power station in order to fill their own vehicles.
The Jerusalem Post reported Sunday that on at least four occasions over the past few weeks, Hamas militiamen confiscated trucks loaded with fuel as they were on their way from Nahal Oz to the city. Eyewitnesses said that the fuel supplies were taken to Hamas-controlled security installations throughout the city.
Gas agency head Mojahed Salam told Israel Radio that his workers were threatened at gunpoint and that he instructed them to obey the orders of the armed men so they wouldn't be harmed.
"They took control of the fuel and fired toward the terminal in order to torpedo the flow of fuel to the Strip and to pressure Egypt into reopening the Rafah border crossing," said Salam.
Also Tuesday, an Egyptian security official said that Egyptian border guards discovered five new underground smuggling tunnels north of the Rafah border crossing.
The official said two tunnels were used to pump fuel to the Gaza Strip due to the severe energy shortages. One of the tunnels was found in a kitchen with a pump connected to a hose running through it.
The tunnels were found early on Monday, added the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
Some 50 jerry cans of fuel and another pump were found in the second tunnel which opened into an olive orchard 150 meters from the border.
Meanwhile, under heavy security, Israel transferred a large amount of wheat to the Gaza Strip.
Khaled Abu Toameh contributed to this report
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Isi Leibler
April 29, 2008
http://www.leibler.com/article/328
It's disconcerting and sad to see American Jewish "progressives" frenziedly lobbying the American administration to pressure Israel for further unilateral concessions to the Palestinians.
To make matters worse, they understate - even obfuscate - their real game plan. They describe themselves as "pro-Israel," "Zionist" and "moderate." They lay claim to being the true custodians of peace, portraying other Jewish leaders and AIPAC as neoconservatives and extremists. While tempting to dismiss their behavior and Orwellian doublespeak as naïve and inconsequential, recall that the sham Soviet peace fronts succeeded in duping many gullible well-meaning liberals into endorsing campaigns promoting totalitarianism. It's all the more bizarre because no one would suggest that the current Israeli government is "hawkish." On the contrary, the Olmert government has lost the confidence of its people precisely because of unilateral concessions which undermine Israel's security and embolden terrorists. His government is an amen chorus which capitulates to every demand imposed on it by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. It has provided weapons to the Palestinians which will almost certainly once again be redirected against Israel; it has released and granted amnesty to terrorists; and despite bitter opposition from the IDF, it has closed checkpoints and acceded to demands compromising security which have already resulted in Israeli casualties.
Yet like a replay of the odious behavior of Haaretz editor David Landau, who told Rice that it would be his "wet dream" for the US "to rape Israel" for its own good, American "progressives" are urging their government to exert pressure on Israel for further unilateral concessions.
This is not a new phenomenon. For years the Israel Policy Forum (IPF) has been lobbying the White House to get tougher with Israel. They claim that in 1993, prime minister Yitzhak Rabin appreciated their support for his efforts to reach a peace settlement with Arafat. They fail to mention that in contrast to Olmert, Rabin did stand up to US pressure. Rabin would have exploded had he encountered Jewish organizations exploiting his name as a means to justify lobbying the US administration to exert pressure on Israel.
As far back as 2005, IPF president Seymour Reich boasted how his organization had successfully persuaded Rice to force Israel to make concessions on the Gaza border crossing - concession that have since resulted in the loss of Israeli lives.
More recently the IPF shamelessly lobbied the White House to press Israel to negotiate directly with Hamas. Reich wrote to Rice on March 21 that "no progress can be made if Hamas - the governing body in Gaza - is totally excluded from the process." M.J. Rosenberg, IPF's policy director, urged the U.S. to "be extending carrots and not just slapping them [Hamas] with sticks".
The Progressive Jewish Alliance, another self-styled "pro-Israel" body, promotes exhibitions on US campuses of photo montages alleging the dehumanization of Palestinians by the Israeli army. They insist that their demonization of the IDF represent an expression of their love for Zion.
Now with great fanfare and endorsement by much of the US liberal media, we have a new "progressive" initiative: an amalgam of various far-left organizations and individuals spearheaded by "Americans for Peace Now" and "Brit Tzedek V'Shalom" to establish "J.Street," a political action committee. Although proclaiming their intention to espouse "moderation" and bring "balance" into American Jewish leadership, their actual intent is to further US pressure on Israel and to undermine AIPAC, the highly effective pro-Israel lobby.
Such behavior is especially unconscionable since - aside from permits for extra housing to cope with natural growth in the densely Jewish populated settlement blocs implicitly endorsed by President Bush - the Olmert government has conceded to all US government demands. It has even discouraged AIPAC and American Jewish leaders from trying to neutralize State Department pressures on itself for fear of antagonizing the administration.
J Street also publicly opposes the use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities, which undermines Israel's campaign to pressure Iran from going nuclear. In addition, J Street supports a swift withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, calls for direct dealings with Hamas and urges Jews to boycott Christian Zionists - Israel's strongest allies. J Street intends to raise funds to provide $50,000 for selected Congressional candidates supporting these aims.
Aside from a number of respectable personalities under the illusion that they have associated themselves with a "moderate" body seeking to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians, J Street is mainly supported by prominent far-left Americans and Israelis like Ron Pundak, architect of the Oslo Accord. One of its principal theorists is Daniel Levy, a former adviser to Yossi Beilin who trivializes Palestinian incitement to murder Israelis.
Former Jewish Agency chairman Avrum Burg, who has compared Israelis to Nazis and has urged the former to follow his lead and obtain European passports, is another notable J Street supporter. Burg's ranting against his country is so vile that even most of his Israeli associates distanced themselves from him. Writing this week in Haaretz, Burg pushed the envelope further and provided a gift to anti-Semites everywhere by accusing AIPAC of imposing "dual loyalties" on American Jews and of "institutionalizing near-treason and turning it into an enormous octopus of a political mechanism with enormous dimensions and numerous victims."
Another key Israeli supporter is David Kimche, a leading figure in Israel Policy Forum. Kimche was director general of the Foreign Ministry under Yitzhak Shamir, where I had regular dealings with him. In those days, not only was he a hawk, but he even had the reputation of savagely roasting any Jewish leader who dared question Israeli government policies. "We live and die by our decisions, while you sit and pontificate from your armchair," he would say. Today he identifies with the extreme left. The Israel Council of Foreign Relations, which he heads, recently hosted a meeting in Jerusalem for ex-president Jimmy Carter, obliging the sponsor, the World Jewish Congress, to formally dissociate itself from the event.
The "progressives" will also try to capitalize on the fact that the Barack Obama campaign has embraced former ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer and appointed him Obama's adviser on Middle East affairs. Kurtzer, a Jewish dove, previously urged the Administration to take a tougher line with Israel. In his just-released book - Negotiating Arab Israel Peace - Kurtzer refers to the withholding of loan guarantees from the Shamir government by the first President Bush as an example of how an American government can effectively bring Israel into line. He accused Dennis Ross - the Clinton-designated Middle East representative - of having been biased in favor of Israel. He even castigates the Clinton and Bush Administrations for not employing sufficient Arabists in the State Department.
The US is the only country capable of withstanding pressure from Arabs and their allies to isolate and delegitimize Israel. Thankfully, US public opinion and Congress has never been more favorably disposed towards Israel than today.
Yet over the past year, the Bush Administration has tilted from its former policy. Nor can we exclude the possibility of a future US administration distancing itself further from Israel.
It is therefore imperative that American Jewish leaders not underestimate the damage "progressive pro-Israel" groups can inflict, especially in light of the mainstream liberal media support J Street has enjoyed at its launch.
In the face of existential threats, Israel needs the support of America Jewry more than ever. While all are free to express their opinions, "peaceniks" who have the gall to call on the US to put the heat on Israel to act as they believe best, rather than what the citizens of that democracy have decided is, must be exposed as fringe groups outside the Jewish mainstream.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
April 29, 2008
http://www.leibler.com/article/328
It's disconcerting and sad to see American Jewish "progressives" frenziedly lobbying the American administration to pressure Israel for further unilateral concessions to the Palestinians.
To make matters worse, they understate - even obfuscate - their real game plan. They describe themselves as "pro-Israel," "Zionist" and "moderate." They lay claim to being the true custodians of peace, portraying other Jewish leaders and AIPAC as neoconservatives and extremists. While tempting to dismiss their behavior and Orwellian doublespeak as naïve and inconsequential, recall that the sham Soviet peace fronts succeeded in duping many gullible well-meaning liberals into endorsing campaigns promoting totalitarianism. It's all the more bizarre because no one would suggest that the current Israeli government is "hawkish." On the contrary, the Olmert government has lost the confidence of its people precisely because of unilateral concessions which undermine Israel's security and embolden terrorists. His government is an amen chorus which capitulates to every demand imposed on it by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. It has provided weapons to the Palestinians which will almost certainly once again be redirected against Israel; it has released and granted amnesty to terrorists; and despite bitter opposition from the IDF, it has closed checkpoints and acceded to demands compromising security which have already resulted in Israeli casualties.
Yet like a replay of the odious behavior of Haaretz editor David Landau, who told Rice that it would be his "wet dream" for the US "to rape Israel" for its own good, American "progressives" are urging their government to exert pressure on Israel for further unilateral concessions.
This is not a new phenomenon. For years the Israel Policy Forum (IPF) has been lobbying the White House to get tougher with Israel. They claim that in 1993, prime minister Yitzhak Rabin appreciated their support for his efforts to reach a peace settlement with Arafat. They fail to mention that in contrast to Olmert, Rabin did stand up to US pressure. Rabin would have exploded had he encountered Jewish organizations exploiting his name as a means to justify lobbying the US administration to exert pressure on Israel.
As far back as 2005, IPF president Seymour Reich boasted how his organization had successfully persuaded Rice to force Israel to make concessions on the Gaza border crossing - concession that have since resulted in the loss of Israeli lives.
More recently the IPF shamelessly lobbied the White House to press Israel to negotiate directly with Hamas. Reich wrote to Rice on March 21 that "no progress can be made if Hamas - the governing body in Gaza - is totally excluded from the process." M.J. Rosenberg, IPF's policy director, urged the U.S. to "be extending carrots and not just slapping them [Hamas] with sticks".
The Progressive Jewish Alliance, another self-styled "pro-Israel" body, promotes exhibitions on US campuses of photo montages alleging the dehumanization of Palestinians by the Israeli army. They insist that their demonization of the IDF represent an expression of their love for Zion.
Now with great fanfare and endorsement by much of the US liberal media, we have a new "progressive" initiative: an amalgam of various far-left organizations and individuals spearheaded by "Americans for Peace Now" and "Brit Tzedek V'Shalom" to establish "J.Street," a political action committee. Although proclaiming their intention to espouse "moderation" and bring "balance" into American Jewish leadership, their actual intent is to further US pressure on Israel and to undermine AIPAC, the highly effective pro-Israel lobby.
Such behavior is especially unconscionable since - aside from permits for extra housing to cope with natural growth in the densely Jewish populated settlement blocs implicitly endorsed by President Bush - the Olmert government has conceded to all US government demands. It has even discouraged AIPAC and American Jewish leaders from trying to neutralize State Department pressures on itself for fear of antagonizing the administration.
J Street also publicly opposes the use of force to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear capabilities, which undermines Israel's campaign to pressure Iran from going nuclear. In addition, J Street supports a swift withdrawal of US forces from Iraq, calls for direct dealings with Hamas and urges Jews to boycott Christian Zionists - Israel's strongest allies. J Street intends to raise funds to provide $50,000 for selected Congressional candidates supporting these aims.
Aside from a number of respectable personalities under the illusion that they have associated themselves with a "moderate" body seeking to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians, J Street is mainly supported by prominent far-left Americans and Israelis like Ron Pundak, architect of the Oslo Accord. One of its principal theorists is Daniel Levy, a former adviser to Yossi Beilin who trivializes Palestinian incitement to murder Israelis.
Former Jewish Agency chairman Avrum Burg, who has compared Israelis to Nazis and has urged the former to follow his lead and obtain European passports, is another notable J Street supporter. Burg's ranting against his country is so vile that even most of his Israeli associates distanced themselves from him. Writing this week in Haaretz, Burg pushed the envelope further and provided a gift to anti-Semites everywhere by accusing AIPAC of imposing "dual loyalties" on American Jews and of "institutionalizing near-treason and turning it into an enormous octopus of a political mechanism with enormous dimensions and numerous victims."
Another key Israeli supporter is David Kimche, a leading figure in Israel Policy Forum. Kimche was director general of the Foreign Ministry under Yitzhak Shamir, where I had regular dealings with him. In those days, not only was he a hawk, but he even had the reputation of savagely roasting any Jewish leader who dared question Israeli government policies. "We live and die by our decisions, while you sit and pontificate from your armchair," he would say. Today he identifies with the extreme left. The Israel Council of Foreign Relations, which he heads, recently hosted a meeting in Jerusalem for ex-president Jimmy Carter, obliging the sponsor, the World Jewish Congress, to formally dissociate itself from the event.
The "progressives" will also try to capitalize on the fact that the Barack Obama campaign has embraced former ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer and appointed him Obama's adviser on Middle East affairs. Kurtzer, a Jewish dove, previously urged the Administration to take a tougher line with Israel. In his just-released book - Negotiating Arab Israel Peace - Kurtzer refers to the withholding of loan guarantees from the Shamir government by the first President Bush as an example of how an American government can effectively bring Israel into line. He accused Dennis Ross - the Clinton-designated Middle East representative - of having been biased in favor of Israel. He even castigates the Clinton and Bush Administrations for not employing sufficient Arabists in the State Department.
The US is the only country capable of withstanding pressure from Arabs and their allies to isolate and delegitimize Israel. Thankfully, US public opinion and Congress has never been more favorably disposed towards Israel than today.
Yet over the past year, the Bush Administration has tilted from its former policy. Nor can we exclude the possibility of a future US administration distancing itself further from Israel.
It is therefore imperative that American Jewish leaders not underestimate the damage "progressive pro-Israel" groups can inflict, especially in light of the mainstream liberal media support J Street has enjoyed at its launch.
In the face of existential threats, Israel needs the support of America Jewry more than ever. While all are free to express their opinions, "peaceniks" who have the gall to call on the US to put the heat on Israel to act as they believe best, rather than what the citizens of that democracy have decided is, must be exposed as fringe groups outside the Jewish mainstream.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
Turkey says Israeli-Syrian peace needs long time
Arab media:
ANKARA (AP) - Turkey's foreign minister said Monday that a lot remains to be achieved before any peace agreement between Israel and Syria, but that his country will continue to act as a go-between to encourage them to restart direct negotiations.
Turkey, which has close ties to both Israel and Syria, revealed recently that it is trying to help restart low-level talks between the two countries as a prelude to bringing their leaders together for peace negotiations.
Ali Babacan said an agreement between the longtime enemies would require "strong political determination" from both sides.
"We are still at the very beginning of the process," Babacan told reporters during a news conference with New Zealand's foreign minister. His comments were in response to a question on Turkey's mediation efforts.
The last round of direct peace talks between the two countries broke down in 2000 over the details of Israel's proposed withdrawal from the Golan Heights, the strategic plateau it seized from Syria in the 1967 Mideast War.
Babacan said Turkey would pass messages between the sides until they are ready to meet.
"Talks will continue to take place through Turkey for a while," the foreign minister said. "When the issue is a little more mature, then I hope that the sides will meet each other." "It is a very promising development," Babacan said of Turkey's mediation efforts.
"There has been diplomatic traffic for the past year, which has intensified in the past few months." Turkey has not commented on media reports saying Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Syria indicating that Israel was willing to give up the Golan Heights in return for a peace treaty. Erdogan met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus on Saturday.
Israel has refused to comment on the reports. But Olmert said earlier this month that he sent messages to Damascus on peace prospects though he would not disclose the contents.
ANKARA (AP) - Turkey's foreign minister said Monday that a lot remains to be achieved before any peace agreement between Israel and Syria, but that his country will continue to act as a go-between to encourage them to restart direct negotiations.
Turkey, which has close ties to both Israel and Syria, revealed recently that it is trying to help restart low-level talks between the two countries as a prelude to bringing their leaders together for peace negotiations.
Ali Babacan said an agreement between the longtime enemies would require "strong political determination" from both sides.
"We are still at the very beginning of the process," Babacan told reporters during a news conference with New Zealand's foreign minister. His comments were in response to a question on Turkey's mediation efforts.
The last round of direct peace talks between the two countries broke down in 2000 over the details of Israel's proposed withdrawal from the Golan Heights, the strategic plateau it seized from Syria in the 1967 Mideast War.
Babacan said Turkey would pass messages between the sides until they are ready to meet.
"Talks will continue to take place through Turkey for a while," the foreign minister said. "When the issue is a little more mature, then I hope that the sides will meet each other." "It is a very promising development," Babacan said of Turkey's mediation efforts.
"There has been diplomatic traffic for the past year, which has intensified in the past few months." Turkey has not commented on media reports saying Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan delivered a message from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Syria indicating that Israel was willing to give up the Golan Heights in return for a peace treaty. Erdogan met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus on Saturday.
Israel has refused to comment on the reports. But Olmert said earlier this month that he sent messages to Damascus on peace prospects though he would not disclose the contents.
A 'Long Hot Summer' in Lebanon?
Rick Moran
"Whenever I want to know how bad the situation is in Lebanon, I look in the trunk of Rabieh's car. If there are only a few revolvers, the situation is fine. If there are a few automatic weapons, the situation is tense. And if it is packed with AKs and M16s, I know the situation could explode at any time."
(A member of the Democratic Left Party in Lebanon)
The talk is of guns in some quarters in Lebanon and of how expensive firearms have gotten. An AK-47 that cost $75-$100 a year ago now goes for between $700-$1000. The government is fully aware of the gun market but can do nothing. After all, they can't disarm Palestinians in the refugee camps nor take Hezb'allah's guns away from them. How can they stop people from arming themselves for protection against... what? Indeed, that is the question in Lebanon today as the political stalemate between the western backed March 14 government and Syrian/Iranian backed Hezb'allah continues. Plans to end the stalemate come and go but the political life of Lebanon is at a standstill. Hezb'allah ally Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri continues to schedule a vote for President in Parliament -- 17 times since December. But Berri and the Hezb'allah led opposition (which includes the largest Christian party led by Michel Aoun) do not recognize the "legitimacy" of the government led by Prime Minister Foaud Siniora, and hence are agitating for a new one -- this time with Hezb'allah dominant. They refuse to show up at these scheduled parliamentary sessions thus denying the majority a quorum to get the business of electing a president over with.
The question "Can they do that?" is irrelevant. This is Lebanon. And in a nation so tied up in political knots, so on edge as the result of the murderous Syrian gangster regime next door that assassinates ministers and Members of Parliament who oppose them, all sides recognize the peril of taking the wrong step or making the wrong move or even of saying the wrong word.
The immediate problem facing the factions is a replacement for Syrian puppet President Emile Lahoud. He stepped down last November and the two sides have been at it hammer and tongs since. Every candidate put forward by the March 14th Forces has been summarily rejected by Hezb'allah. This was true even when the government swallowed its pride somewhat and agreed to nominate General Michel Suleiman, head of the Lebanese army and a nominally pro-Syrian figure.
At first, it appeared that Suleiman would breeze through and solve the presidential problem. But like a gambler who just can't take his winnings and leave the table. President Assad in Syria nixed the idea until the make up of a new government had been agreed to. Since then, Hezb'allah has added the stipulation that there will be no president until the current electoral law -- which favors Christians at the expense of Muslims -- is reformed.
Back to square one -- or before square one if you wish. Since early in the year, Sunnis and Shias have been buying guns while the old militias -- who never gave their firearms up in the first place -- have reportedly begun to drill. There have been some clashes in the streets between the factions, mostly riots over some perceived insult by one side or the other. The overall mood in the country is tense.
And now that they have completely bollixed up the political situation in Lebanon, Hezb'allah has felt free to get back to the business of destroying Israel. In recent months, a gigantic recruiting campaign has been underway as they have emptied towns and villages in the south of young men and sent them off to training camps in the Bekaa Valley, and in special cases, Syria and Iran:
The significance of this latest recruitment drive is that Hezb'allah is apparently seeking to not only replace losses suffered in the war but also expand its military capabilities. And many analysts believe there is only one reason for Hezb'allah to make this move: they plan to incite another war with Israel sometime soon -- perhaps as early as this summer.
The Israelis are still reeling from their perceived failure in the war with Hezb'allah. The Winograd Commission Report exposed several deficiencies in leadership, training, and tactics that are just now being addressed by the IDF. But the army can hardly be expected to have reformed itself in a few months. And with a looming conflict with an expanded Hezb'allah on the horizon, the Israeli government is watching political developments in Lebanon very closely.
Indeed, one reason for the expansion of the militia could be to have more fighters available if the clashes in the streets get serious -- something Hezb'allah is perfectly capable of manipulating if they choose. At the moment, it appears unnecessary because the paralyzed government of Prime Minister Siniora continues an inexorable process of moving toward meeting opposition demands on changing the electoral law and forming a new "Government of National Unity" that would give the opposition veto power over cabinet decisions.
What choice do they have? The canny old Druze warlord Walid Jumblatt has come to the conclusion that the majority must talk with the opposition and that the basis of those talks must be meeting opposition demands:
"Jumblatt noted the divergence in point of views between opposition leaders over dialogue. "MP Michel Aoun is rejecting dialogue while Berri is calling for it. If this is a maneuver on their behalf, let us check their intentions."
"'If this dialogue will not lead to the election of a president, the public opinion will be at least informed of the obstructing party,' he added.
"'Probably this is the justification of the Syrian support to dialogue,' Jumblatt declared.
"He also noted that March 14 forces must agree over the electoral law. 'Dialogue will indicate the matter over which we can agree with the opposition.'"
The majority could, in fact, call a special session of parliament and elect a president by majority vote any time they wish. But Hezb'allah has hinted that if they do that, the opposition will form their own government thus all but precipitating a civil war.
It comes down to this: the majority is seeking to act responsibly, bending over backward to accommodate the opposition's demands while trying to maintain its position as the legally elected government. The opposition, backed by Syria, is simply sitting back and throwing monkey wrench after monkey wrench into the process. For in the end, chaos in Lebanon benefits only one man and one regime: Bashar Assad's Syria.
There is little the US can do to prevent Syrian influence in Lebanon from causing an eruption of violence. In fact, it is an open question whether the next president -- be he McCain or Obama -- can resist the temptation to abandon Lebanon in favor of jump starting the Middle East peace process or getting Syria to assist us in Iraq.
Michael Young points out the perils of engaging Syria in dialogue:
"Is it really in the U.S. interest to engage Syria in this context, when its major Arab allies are in the midst of a conflict with Iran they view as vital? In fact, I'm not at all convinced that asking Arab states to change Syrian behavior through 'more robust interactions and investments in the country' would work. The Arabs have repeatedly tried to change Syrian behavior through more congenial means, most prominently at the Arab League summit in Riyadh last year. The Syrians have ignored this. Why? Because they know the price for their return to the Arab fold would be to give up on a return to Lebanon. They're not about to do that, because only such a return, one that is total, with soldiers, would give Syria the regional relevance it lost in 2005, when it was forced out of Lebanon.
"It would also allow Syria, from Beirut, to undermine the Hariri tribunal, which threatens the future of the Syrian regime and which will probably begin operating next year. In this, Syria has the full support of Hezbollah, which realizes that without a Syrian comeback, the party will continue to face a majority in Lebanon that wants the party to disarm. I find it revealing that Jon failed to mention Lebanon once in his post. That's because advocates of engaging Syria realize that the only way you can bring about an advantageous dialogue with Damascus is to give it something worthwhile. That something can only be Lebanon, the minimal price Syria would demand to offer positive concessions in return."
And that, gentle reader, is the bottom line. Obama can talk about meeting with Assad all he wants and it won't advance the cause of peace with Israel one damn bit unless he's willing to betray Lebanon.
Lebanon is not only the key to Syrian influence in the region it is also the key to Assad's survival. Some may be unfamiliar with Syria's role in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri and the formation of a tribunal (now under UN auspices due to Lebanon's political paralysis) to try and convict the perpetrators.
The ongoing UN investigation has shown that 4 Lebanese army generals (now in custody) in cahoots with Syrian intelligence, carried out the car bombing that killed Hariri. The prosecutors have also uncovered evidence that the subsequent political assassinations of several leading government parliamentarians, journalists, and other anti-Syrian figures was also masterminded by Syrian intelligence as well as leading members of Assad's regime -- including Assad's own brother in law Assef Shawkat who became head of intelligence 30 minutes after Hariri was killed.
The Tribunal, if allowed to function fully and properly, will no doubt indict people very close to Bashar Assad himself. This would spell catastrophe for Assad and Syria which would come under severe sanctions by the US and the United Nations. Since Syria's forced withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005, the economy has taken a nosedive thanks to the drying up of "protection money" and other means by which Syria milked the Lebanese economy to benefit the regime. The pressure to get rid of Assad would be intense. There would probably also be calls for regime change from both Arab and western governments.
In short, most analysts agree that the number one priority of the Syrian regime is to get back into Lebanon and try and derail the Tribunal. No deal with the Arabs or the west about Iraq, about WMD, about the Golan, or about their relationship with Iran will take place without a quid pro quo involving Lebanon.
There is no apparent timetable to Hezb'allah's plans. They don't have to war with Israel anytime soon nor do they appear in any hurry to force the political situation in Lebanon to any kind of dénouement. But it is equally clear that they now feel they have the upper hand in Lebanon. The explosion may not occur this summer. But it appears that the Syrians and Hezb'allah will get everything they want unless the government is prepared to stop them.
Rick Moran is associate editor of American Thinker, and proprietor of the website Rightwing Nuthouse.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/a_long_hot_summer_in_lebanon.html at April 28, 2008 - 11:57:37 PM EDT
"Whenever I want to know how bad the situation is in Lebanon, I look in the trunk of Rabieh's car. If there are only a few revolvers, the situation is fine. If there are a few automatic weapons, the situation is tense. And if it is packed with AKs and M16s, I know the situation could explode at any time."
(A member of the Democratic Left Party in Lebanon)
The talk is of guns in some quarters in Lebanon and of how expensive firearms have gotten. An AK-47 that cost $75-$100 a year ago now goes for between $700-$1000. The government is fully aware of the gun market but can do nothing. After all, they can't disarm Palestinians in the refugee camps nor take Hezb'allah's guns away from them. How can they stop people from arming themselves for protection against... what? Indeed, that is the question in Lebanon today as the political stalemate between the western backed March 14 government and Syrian/Iranian backed Hezb'allah continues. Plans to end the stalemate come and go but the political life of Lebanon is at a standstill. Hezb'allah ally Speaker of the Parliament Nabih Berri continues to schedule a vote for President in Parliament -- 17 times since December. But Berri and the Hezb'allah led opposition (which includes the largest Christian party led by Michel Aoun) do not recognize the "legitimacy" of the government led by Prime Minister Foaud Siniora, and hence are agitating for a new one -- this time with Hezb'allah dominant. They refuse to show up at these scheduled parliamentary sessions thus denying the majority a quorum to get the business of electing a president over with.
The question "Can they do that?" is irrelevant. This is Lebanon. And in a nation so tied up in political knots, so on edge as the result of the murderous Syrian gangster regime next door that assassinates ministers and Members of Parliament who oppose them, all sides recognize the peril of taking the wrong step or making the wrong move or even of saying the wrong word.
The immediate problem facing the factions is a replacement for Syrian puppet President Emile Lahoud. He stepped down last November and the two sides have been at it hammer and tongs since. Every candidate put forward by the March 14th Forces has been summarily rejected by Hezb'allah. This was true even when the government swallowed its pride somewhat and agreed to nominate General Michel Suleiman, head of the Lebanese army and a nominally pro-Syrian figure.
At first, it appeared that Suleiman would breeze through and solve the presidential problem. But like a gambler who just can't take his winnings and leave the table. President Assad in Syria nixed the idea until the make up of a new government had been agreed to. Since then, Hezb'allah has added the stipulation that there will be no president until the current electoral law -- which favors Christians at the expense of Muslims -- is reformed.
Back to square one -- or before square one if you wish. Since early in the year, Sunnis and Shias have been buying guns while the old militias -- who never gave their firearms up in the first place -- have reportedly begun to drill. There have been some clashes in the streets between the factions, mostly riots over some perceived insult by one side or the other. The overall mood in the country is tense.
And now that they have completely bollixed up the political situation in Lebanon, Hezb'allah has felt free to get back to the business of destroying Israel. In recent months, a gigantic recruiting campaign has been underway as they have emptied towns and villages in the south of young men and sent them off to training camps in the Bekaa Valley, and in special cases, Syria and Iran:
The significance of this latest recruitment drive is that Hezb'allah is apparently seeking to not only replace losses suffered in the war but also expand its military capabilities. And many analysts believe there is only one reason for Hezb'allah to make this move: they plan to incite another war with Israel sometime soon -- perhaps as early as this summer.
The Israelis are still reeling from their perceived failure in the war with Hezb'allah. The Winograd Commission Report exposed several deficiencies in leadership, training, and tactics that are just now being addressed by the IDF. But the army can hardly be expected to have reformed itself in a few months. And with a looming conflict with an expanded Hezb'allah on the horizon, the Israeli government is watching political developments in Lebanon very closely.
Indeed, one reason for the expansion of the militia could be to have more fighters available if the clashes in the streets get serious -- something Hezb'allah is perfectly capable of manipulating if they choose. At the moment, it appears unnecessary because the paralyzed government of Prime Minister Siniora continues an inexorable process of moving toward meeting opposition demands on changing the electoral law and forming a new "Government of National Unity" that would give the opposition veto power over cabinet decisions.
What choice do they have? The canny old Druze warlord Walid Jumblatt has come to the conclusion that the majority must talk with the opposition and that the basis of those talks must be meeting opposition demands:
"Jumblatt noted the divergence in point of views between opposition leaders over dialogue. "MP Michel Aoun is rejecting dialogue while Berri is calling for it. If this is a maneuver on their behalf, let us check their intentions."
"'If this dialogue will not lead to the election of a president, the public opinion will be at least informed of the obstructing party,' he added.
"'Probably this is the justification of the Syrian support to dialogue,' Jumblatt declared.
"He also noted that March 14 forces must agree over the electoral law. 'Dialogue will indicate the matter over which we can agree with the opposition.'"
The majority could, in fact, call a special session of parliament and elect a president by majority vote any time they wish. But Hezb'allah has hinted that if they do that, the opposition will form their own government thus all but precipitating a civil war.
It comes down to this: the majority is seeking to act responsibly, bending over backward to accommodate the opposition's demands while trying to maintain its position as the legally elected government. The opposition, backed by Syria, is simply sitting back and throwing monkey wrench after monkey wrench into the process. For in the end, chaos in Lebanon benefits only one man and one regime: Bashar Assad's Syria.
There is little the US can do to prevent Syrian influence in Lebanon from causing an eruption of violence. In fact, it is an open question whether the next president -- be he McCain or Obama -- can resist the temptation to abandon Lebanon in favor of jump starting the Middle East peace process or getting Syria to assist us in Iraq.
Michael Young points out the perils of engaging Syria in dialogue:
"Is it really in the U.S. interest to engage Syria in this context, when its major Arab allies are in the midst of a conflict with Iran they view as vital? In fact, I'm not at all convinced that asking Arab states to change Syrian behavior through 'more robust interactions and investments in the country' would work. The Arabs have repeatedly tried to change Syrian behavior through more congenial means, most prominently at the Arab League summit in Riyadh last year. The Syrians have ignored this. Why? Because they know the price for their return to the Arab fold would be to give up on a return to Lebanon. They're not about to do that, because only such a return, one that is total, with soldiers, would give Syria the regional relevance it lost in 2005, when it was forced out of Lebanon.
"It would also allow Syria, from Beirut, to undermine the Hariri tribunal, which threatens the future of the Syrian regime and which will probably begin operating next year. In this, Syria has the full support of Hezbollah, which realizes that without a Syrian comeback, the party will continue to face a majority in Lebanon that wants the party to disarm. I find it revealing that Jon failed to mention Lebanon once in his post. That's because advocates of engaging Syria realize that the only way you can bring about an advantageous dialogue with Damascus is to give it something worthwhile. That something can only be Lebanon, the minimal price Syria would demand to offer positive concessions in return."
And that, gentle reader, is the bottom line. Obama can talk about meeting with Assad all he wants and it won't advance the cause of peace with Israel one damn bit unless he's willing to betray Lebanon.
Lebanon is not only the key to Syrian influence in the region it is also the key to Assad's survival. Some may be unfamiliar with Syria's role in the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Hariri and the formation of a tribunal (now under UN auspices due to Lebanon's political paralysis) to try and convict the perpetrators.
The ongoing UN investigation has shown that 4 Lebanese army generals (now in custody) in cahoots with Syrian intelligence, carried out the car bombing that killed Hariri. The prosecutors have also uncovered evidence that the subsequent political assassinations of several leading government parliamentarians, journalists, and other anti-Syrian figures was also masterminded by Syrian intelligence as well as leading members of Assad's regime -- including Assad's own brother in law Assef Shawkat who became head of intelligence 30 minutes after Hariri was killed.
The Tribunal, if allowed to function fully and properly, will no doubt indict people very close to Bashar Assad himself. This would spell catastrophe for Assad and Syria which would come under severe sanctions by the US and the United Nations. Since Syria's forced withdrawal from Lebanon in 2005, the economy has taken a nosedive thanks to the drying up of "protection money" and other means by which Syria milked the Lebanese economy to benefit the regime. The pressure to get rid of Assad would be intense. There would probably also be calls for regime change from both Arab and western governments.
In short, most analysts agree that the number one priority of the Syrian regime is to get back into Lebanon and try and derail the Tribunal. No deal with the Arabs or the west about Iraq, about WMD, about the Golan, or about their relationship with Iran will take place without a quid pro quo involving Lebanon.
There is no apparent timetable to Hezb'allah's plans. They don't have to war with Israel anytime soon nor do they appear in any hurry to force the political situation in Lebanon to any kind of dénouement. But it is equally clear that they now feel they have the upper hand in Lebanon. The explosion may not occur this summer. But it appears that the Syrians and Hezb'allah will get everything they want unless the government is prepared to stop them.
Rick Moran is associate editor of American Thinker, and proprietor of the website Rightwing Nuthouse.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/04/a_long_hot_summer_in_lebanon.html at April 28, 2008 - 11:57:37 PM EDT
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)