The Rubin Report
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/04/unbearable-lightness-of-wishful.html
Unfortunately, as I predicted, Western newspapers like the Daily Telegraph are now reporting that Ahmadinejad is ready to accept a two-state solution. Like much of what happens in the Middle East, this would be worthy satire if it weren't so tragic. Iran's president has now made a significant gain in appearing "moderate" despite his Durban-2 speech (one should not overstate this, of course). Incidentally, although I feel the points I make below are sufficient to show what Ahmadinejad actually said, I could add one more point to be considered: he is capable of lying, too, hard as that might be to conceive (irony alert). Yes, you see. Here is the headlines in Canada for April 27:
Toronto Globe & Mail: "Iran prepared to back Palestinian deal with Israel, Ahmadinejad
National Post: "Iranian president appears to recognize Israel's right to exist for first time" (!)
And Agence France Presse: "Iran `Ready to Back Mideast Peace Deal`"
Congratulations, the conflict is over! Ahmadinejad isn't a radical, aggressive Islamist and Holocaust denier but a peacenik! [irony alert] Next step: Soon they will be asking, Since Iran's leader is so willing to make peace why doesn't Israel make lots of unilateral concessions? [intense irony alert]
Come to think of it, Ahmadinejad refuses to accept two-state solution and is cheered as having done so; Israel's government repeatedly endorses two-state solution and is accused of not doing so!
No wonder Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek, whose country is the current president of the EU states that the organization "underestimates the Iranian threat."
As always, one can only quote Shakespeare, one of the world's greatest political analysts:
"Shall we their fond pageant see?
Lord, what fools these mortals be!"
Here is the original text of my blog item:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad gave an interview to George Stephanopoulos of ABC. He knew what he was saying but others want to insist on refusing to understand him.
First the relevant exchange:
STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinian people negotiate an agreement with Israel and the Palestinian people vote and support that agreement, a two state solution, will Iran support it?
AHMADINEJAD: Nobody should interfere, allow the Palestinian people to decide for themselves. Whatever they decide….
STEPHANOPOULOS: If they choose a two state solution with Israel, that's fine.
AHMADINEJAD: Well, what we are saying is that you and us should not determine the course of things beforehand. Allow the Palestinian people to make their own decisions.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But if they choose a two state solution, if they choose to recognize Israel's existence, Iran will as well?
AHMADINEJAD; Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinians decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision? Will they accept this Palestinian point of view?
STEPHANOPOULOS: I'll ask them. But I'm asking you if Palestinians accept the existence of Israel, would Iran support that?....
STEPHANOPOULOS: If the Palestinians sign an agreement with Israel, will Iran support it?
AHMADINEJAD: Whatever decision they take is fine with us. We are not going to determine anything. Whatever decision they take, we will support that. We think that this is the right of the Palestinian people, however we fully expect other states to do so as well.
And how did the Israeli online service of Yediot Aharnot newspaper, YNet News, play this? Here’s the headline: “”Ahmadinejad 'fine' with two-state solution.”
Well, not exactly. He refused to say that. All Ahmadinejad said was that he would support what the Palestinian people decided. What does that mean?
First, he personally believes that they would never accept a two-state solution so there’s nothing to worry about in that respect.
Second, of course, he knows that Hamas would never agree to such a thing and Hamas already controls how people vote in the Gaza Strip. One might presume that if a referendum was held there, the vote would be “100 percent” against a two-state solution. In addition, Hamas and others opposing a two-state solution would get between 30 and 70 percent of votes in the West Bank. A lot of Fatah supporters would also vote against it. The exact numbers aren’t important because whether the number is the higher or lower figure such a proposition would always be defeated.
Third, any two-state solution would only be made by Fatah. Iran supports Hamas. If Fatah and the Palestinian Authority were to make a deal with Israel, Tehran would still back Hamas in overthrowing that government, using the deal to portray its rival as treasonous. Once Hamas took over the state of Palestine, it would tear up all the agreements and invite in the Iranian military.
So in effect Ahmadinejad just said that he would never accept a two-state solution but why put that in clear words when the dumb Westerners can be left to interpret it as they wish.
But Ahmadinejad also put a little bomb in the interview which no one seems to notice. Let me repeat one of his answers:
AHMADINEJAD; “Let me approach this from another perspective. If the Palestinians decide that the Zionist regime needs to leave all Palestinian lands, would the American administration accept their decision? Will they accept this Palestinian point of view?“
What’s he saying here? “All Palestinian lands” might sound like saying the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem to Western ears, but everyone in Iran and among the Palestinians knows this means: all of Israel plus all the territories it captured in 1967.
So here’s what the Iranian president is saying: Suppose the Palestinians vote that they want all of Israel, would the United States accept that? The answer, of course, is “no” and so, Ahmadinejad is saying: I’m the one in favor of democracy and you’re against it.
(According to him, of course, Israelis have no rights to a state so they don’t get to vote.)
Ahmadinejad has built his own career on regarding the West as extremely stupid, cowardly, and easy to fool. Many or most of his colleagues in the Iranian regime agree with him.
I could write at this point that the one exception was when in the mid-1980s the United States was appearing ready to attack Iran unless it ended the Iran-Iraq war. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini did so but I think he was misreading American intentions (albeit to the credit of U.S. policymakers in pulling off that bluff).
Still, I’m tempted to say that up to now that the Iranian leaders’ assumption has never proven to be wrong.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Recognition of 'Jewish state' is crucial
J Post staff
The Foreign Ministry on Monday evening responded to remarks made by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who said that he refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and stressed that Palestinian recognition of the Jewish nature of the country is a crucial step in the peace process. "Recognizing Israel as the sovereign state of the Jewish people is a crucial and necessary stage in the historical reconciliation process between Israelis and the Palestinians," the ministry said in a statement. "The sooner the Palestinians internalize this basic fact, the sooner the peace between our nations will progress."
Earlier Monday, Abbas delivered a tough speech on peace-making, rejecting Israeli demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, saying it was not his job to define the state of Israel.
"Name yourself, it's not my business," he said. "All I know is that there is the state of Israel, in the borders of 1967, not one centimeter more, not one centimeter less. Anything else, I don't accept," said Abbas.
The PA president also stated that Israel was defined by the borders it had before the Six Day War and no more.
In previous talks, negotiators had discussed the idea of a land swap that would enable Israel to keep some West Bank land.
Abbas also said Monday that a complete settlement freeze was a prerequisite for resuming talks and that he would not give in to possible Israeli or international pressure on the Palestinians to resume negotiations even if such construction continues.
"For sure, we won't submit to pressures. For example, if they say 'come and then we'll see, come.' No, we won't accept. Regarding the peace talks, this is our position, even if someone, if anyone in the world, says 'you're wrong,'" he said.
The Palestinian leader's comments drew an angry response from Israel. "This is more evidence that the Palestinians are not interested in true peace with Israel," Likud MK Ofer Akunis said.
On Sunday evening, Abbas urged the United States to push Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's government into accelerating the peace process.
Speaking to a Jordanian television station, Abbas questioned the US commitment to peace in the Middle East and warned Israel that if it refuses to make peace with the Palestinian people, it will be responsible for destabilizing the security and politics of the entire region.
The Foreign Ministry on Monday evening responded to remarks made by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who said that he refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and stressed that Palestinian recognition of the Jewish nature of the country is a crucial step in the peace process. "Recognizing Israel as the sovereign state of the Jewish people is a crucial and necessary stage in the historical reconciliation process between Israelis and the Palestinians," the ministry said in a statement. "The sooner the Palestinians internalize this basic fact, the sooner the peace between our nations will progress."
Earlier Monday, Abbas delivered a tough speech on peace-making, rejecting Israeli demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, saying it was not his job to define the state of Israel.
"Name yourself, it's not my business," he said. "All I know is that there is the state of Israel, in the borders of 1967, not one centimeter more, not one centimeter less. Anything else, I don't accept," said Abbas.
The PA president also stated that Israel was defined by the borders it had before the Six Day War and no more.
In previous talks, negotiators had discussed the idea of a land swap that would enable Israel to keep some West Bank land.
Abbas also said Monday that a complete settlement freeze was a prerequisite for resuming talks and that he would not give in to possible Israeli or international pressure on the Palestinians to resume negotiations even if such construction continues.
"For sure, we won't submit to pressures. For example, if they say 'come and then we'll see, come.' No, we won't accept. Regarding the peace talks, this is our position, even if someone, if anyone in the world, says 'you're wrong,'" he said.
The Palestinian leader's comments drew an angry response from Israel. "This is more evidence that the Palestinians are not interested in true peace with Israel," Likud MK Ofer Akunis said.
On Sunday evening, Abbas urged the United States to push Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's government into accelerating the peace process.
Speaking to a Jordanian television station, Abbas questioned the US commitment to peace in the Middle East and warned Israel that if it refuses to make peace with the Palestinian people, it will be responsible for destabilizing the security and politics of the entire region.
‘Secret’ Terrorist Attack
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
A7 News
An Arab terrorist shot more than a dozen bullets at six Jews riding in car in the southern Hevron Hills last Wednesday, but the media totally ignored the incident. Israel National News learned of the incident from a student whose father was in the targeted car. The attack occurred on Highway 60, several miles southwest of Hevron. No one was injured, and the terrorists, possibly with the aide of a waiting driver, escaped to the nearby village of Samoa.
Yehoshua Rosenfeld, director of education for the Hevron Hills Regional Council, said he had left the nearby community of Otniel with the head of the region’s pre-school facilities along with four hitchhikers.
“At exactly 4:02 p.m., as we approached the road to Samoa, there was a burst of gunfire," he said. "Everyone instinctively ducked for cover, and I stomped on the gas pedal. After about a minute, I stopped the car and blocked the opposite lane so no one would drive in the terrorist’s path.”
Rosenfeld and his passengers were not wounded, and he did not see any damage to the car. But soldiers later discovered 14-15 bullet shells less than 100 feet from the road. A large number of troops, including the commanding officer of the Hevron Brigade, arrived at the scene within several minutes.
One of the passengers said she thought she saw a car waiting for the terrorist. An army spokesman said the incident is under security and intelligence wraps, however, and no further details may be published.
Unanswered questions include whether the terrorist acted alone or was a part of a cell, and whether he arrived by foot or used a road to Samoa that until the last year had been closed by the IDF for security reasons.
Two weeks earlier a lone terrorist armed with a knife infiltrated the community of Beit Haggai. The would-be attacker was shot dead by the local first-response team before he could carry out his plan. At the beginning of the month, an axe-wielding terrorist murdered a young boy and wounded another in an attack on the Judean community of Bat Ayin, located in western Gush Etzion.
The suspect in the Bat Ayin murder was arrested on Sunday, but none of the other terrorists has been caught.
he said it AGAIN: Abbas Refuses Jewish Israel
Malkah Fleisher Abbas Refuses Jewish Israel
Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas openly refused Monday to recognize Israel as a Jewish State. The statement came as a direct slap against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's insistence that such an acknowledgement is a necessary condition for "progress" in final-status talks. An uproar ensued in the PA two weeks ago following an initial statement by Netanyahu aides in which it appeared the prime minister had issued an ultimatum, with PA officials calling Netanyahu's insistence on this basic understanding a "provocation" and promising a "poisonous effect" on the Israel-PA relationship. Netanyahu later clarified that recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people was a necessary component for progress in negotiations with the PA, although it would not prevent the initiation of the talks.
This is the first time since Netanyahu's statement on the matter that Abbas has publicly rejected the notion of Israel as a Jewish State.
"A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean?" Abbas asked at a speech Monday in Ramallah. "You can call yourselves what you want, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly."
The Ramallah-based Abbas government has been propped up by the United States and Israel since the PA's first democratic election in 2006, in which the Hamas terrorist organization won almost twice the number of parliamentary seats as Fatah. Both Israel and the United States rejected the election results, and instituted Fatah leader Abbas as PA "President," calling him a "moderate" alternative to Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and political bureau chief, Khaled Mashaal, who is based in Damascus.
Israel has also thwarted several assassination attempts on Abbas by providing intelligence to Ramallah-based PA officials before the attempts could take place.
Abbas will meet for talks in Washington, D.C. with U.S. President Barack Obama on May 28, 10 days after Netanyahu meets with the American president, according to the Jordan Times.
Comments by Aggie:It is infuriating that Abbas, who has been supported by millions and billions of dollars from the US, Israel, and the EU, should refuse to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Surely his solution for a Two State Solution is not two Arab or Muslim states? And the US and world community remain silent in the face of this absolute racist approach, while demanding that Israel cede control of Judea and Samaria and divide Jerusalem. And of course, the money will continue to flow to Abbas and even Hamas in Gaza.
The position of King Abudullah of Jordan, which has a peace treaty with Israel, is not substantially different. On Sunday, he repeatedly stated on Meet the Press that the entire problem in the Middle East is the failure to solve the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. The Good King was clearly ignoring the Hamas, Hizballah and PA charters and manifestos which call for the destruction of Israel. As far as he is concerned, there will be another war and it is up to Israel to prevent it, by agreeing to divide Jerusalem. Yet, it was his father who illegally occupied Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967, destroying all Jewish synagogues and cemeteries and forbidding any Jew to enter Jerusalem. That was never a problem.
What a swell neighborhood Israel lives in. Even its peaceful neighbors wish it ill.
--
Best,
Aggie
"We Remember"
Arlene Kushner
When the siren sounds tonight at 8:00 across the nation, we will begin Yom HaZikaron --the Day of Remembrance -- and we will pay tribute to all those who have fallen for Israel. It is because of our soldiers that we stand as a nation, and their sacrifices are keenly felt. A national ceremony will be held at the Kotel (Western Wall). Tomorrow at 10:00 AM another siren will sound, and people all over Israel will stop what they are doing and stand silently in honor of the fallen.
~~~~~~~~~~
So far, so good. Very good indeed.
Now Minister of Strategic Affairs (and former chief of staff) Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon has given an interview to the Jerusalem Post. Among the points he made:
-- President Obama must set a time frame and benchmarks for his negotiations with Iran, or else they will use the dialogue to stall for time as they move towards nuclear capacity.
"What is happening between the Western world and the Islamic jihadists of Iran is a process that is built on previous surrenders and concessions," he said. "What the West needs to do is stand up against this wave and confront it."
If the US wants to hold dialogue with Iran, it must do so while holding the "stick of military pressure."
As to whether Israel is capable of an effective strike against Iranian facilities on her own, Yaalon replied:
"We need to hope that the job will be done by someone else and at the same time, as the Talmudic sage Hillel said, 'If I am not for myself who will be?'"
-- He dismissed Hillary Clinton's statement regarding Israel's loss of support from Arab nations for action against Iran if we don't negotiate with the Palestinians as "superficial."
"I believe that this whole idea is wrong at its core."
-- As to the negotiations with the Palestinians, he stressed the PA's refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, so that even at Annapolis Abbas refused to include the phrase "two states for two peoples" in a joint declaration. (see below)
"That is why the prime minister says that we want them to recognize Israel's right to be a Jewish state," he said. "This right does not depend on them [important that he clarified this!] but if they don't recognize it then there is nothing to talk about."
He rejects the Saudi plan: "From our perspective, the pre-1967 borders are not defensible. To go onto this track is dangerous."
[Note: the idea that the 1967 armistice lines were "borders" is so thoroughly ingrained in the public discourse, per the constant prodding of Palestinian PR, that even Ya'alon, who rejects return to those lines, refers to "borders."]
What the government, which is close to completing its assessment, favors, Yaalon said, is a "bottoms up" approach. This means that before anything else happens the PA has to institute serious educational, political, security and economic reforms.
This is the only thing that remotely makes sense. But Obama -- who wants to impose a Palestinian state by tomorrow, damn whether it can be a successful state -- is not going to like it.
~~~~~~~~~~
The enormous irony of the US desire for talks with Iran without preconditions is that Ahmadinejad is calling for "a clear cut framework" and a "clear agenda" in talks with the Americans. This means he wants control over what will be discussed. In fact, in an ABC "This Week" interview yesterday, he said that the nuclear program was a "special issue":
"We think that the nuclear issue needs to be resolved in the context of the agency and regulations. We are just utilizing our legal rights."
Sounds to me as if he's telling the Americans that he'll be happy to talk, but not about nuclear development. Rather puts the ball in Obama's court, I think.
~~~~~~~~~~
Never let it be said that we don't have friends (at least in some contexts). Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini proudly expresses a sense of commitment to Israel, and says that the Italian boycott of Durban 2 was required.
"...We could not participate in an event where, once again, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was manipulated and Israel labeled a racist nation, as happened in 2001. The events of [last] Monday afternoon [Ahmadinejad's talk] confirmed that foresight."
Frattini says there were three key issues in the proposed document for the conference that were of concern to Italy: approval of the Durban 2001 document, which singled out Israel; insufficient treatment of the Holocaust; and motions aimed at limiting freedom of expression regarding criticism of religions and their followers.
"An international forum on a crucial issue such as racism cannot be exploited to attack Israel," he declared. "The EU displayed political weakness and lost an occasion for expressing unity."
~~~~~~~~~~
In point of fact, the Durban 2 conference was not quite the disaster that had been anticipated -- did not have the horrific tenor of the first conference, where virulently anti-Israel groups demonstrated and documents where produced that charged Israel with every evil under the sun.
Satisfactory? Productive for the sake of human rights? Of course not. But this time we were prepared, and the willingness of several states to pull out (in part as the result of intense Israeli diplomatic effort) undercut the legitimacy of the proceedings.
My own opinion is that the organizers overplayed their hand; to have Ahmadinejad as key note speaker at a human rights conference is nothing short of farcical. Who but states such as Libya and Cuba could find him acceptable?
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay added to the sense of farce when she concluded the conference on Friday by calling it "a celebration of tolerance and dignity for all."
So much for what we can expect from the UN. Frattini recalled a former American proposal (I believe it was by John Bolton) that Western democracies form a separate coalition.
~~~~~~~~~~
Precisely what has gotten into King Abdullah of Jordan?
In the US, he met with President Obama and called for serious negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians based on the concept of two states. Then, on the "Meet the Press" television show yesterday, he referred to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as the "core issue" of the Middle East. Not only is he advocating strenuously for a Palestinian state, he has suggested that one of the main reasons that Iran is working towards nuclear development is because Palestinians are suffering and there is the matter of Jerusalem [which is in Israeli hands].
Now, really... If you know the ideology of the Mullahs in Iran, and their goal of controlling the entire region in order to impose Shiite Islam, and you know that the US is referred to as the Big Satan, you know that a whole lot more than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict occupies them.
But see for yourself: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/30418412#30418412 (Thanks, Bob H.)
Until not long ago it was well known in intelligence circles that Abdullah preferred Israel at his border rather than a PA state. What he feared was a Hamas take-over that would cause instability in his nation. And now?
I'm not sure how to read him. Is he playing to Obama (very likely)? Afraid that Netanyahu might propose a federation of Palestinian areas with Jordan?
~~~~~~~~~~
Pope Benedict XVI is coming to Israel on May 16, and the signals about what is likely to transpire when he's here are not positive. He is scheduled to visit Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem -- as well as the nearby al-Aida UNRWA refugee camp, where he will preach.
Fouad Twal, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem and president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Holy Land, said yesterday that the camp "symbolizes the refugees' suffering and their right of return." Their right of return?
According to YNet, the stage hosting the Pope was supposed to be built in a school yard, but Palestinians violated an agreement regarding this with Israel (which controls the area) and built the stage instead near the security fence. A demolition order has been issued and the stage is supposed to be re-built.
Insisted Twal: "The fence will be seen from the location of the pope's seat."
In due course there will be more to say on this issue.
~~~~~~~~~~
PA President Mahmoud Abbas gave an impassioned speech in Ramallah today:
"A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean? You can call yourselves as you like, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly," he declared.
Accepting a "Jewish state" would mean relinquishing the "right of return" -- which is, in fact, a device for ensuring an Arab majority inside Israel, and which has been promoted among the people as a sacred and inalienable right. The current Palestinian position is not "two states for two people," but ultimately "two states for one people."
"All I know is that there is the state of Israel, in the borders of 1967, not one centimeter more, not one centimeter less. Anything else, I don't accept."
The Palestinians would have not only Har Habayit -- the Temple Mount -- but also the Kotel, with no sharing.
He further said that there will be no negotiations unless Netanyahu puts a total freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria, something Netanyahu has said he does not intend to do.
No negotiations? That's fine.
Netanyahu's tough choices
Benjamin Netanyahu discovering that things look different from Prime Minister’s Office
Eitan Haber
Israel Opinion
The legends of Israeli politics, which tend to become better with the passage of years, include the story of a meeting that took place a decade ago between US President Bill Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As the legend goes, following the meeting Clinton turned to his advisors and asked: “Tell me, which one here is the president of the US?” And to those who failed to understand what he meant, he explained: “He spoke to me as if he was the president of the world’s greatest superpower.” This legend was probably appreciated by those who are preoccupied with national pride. “This is how an Israeli prime minister should be talking,” they whispered to themselves with great pleasure.
Whether this story is true or merely a political myth, we should hope and believe that in the 10 years that have passed since then, Netanyahu learned plenty and has indeed changed, as he claims. When he arrives at the White House in May, President Obama will not be stunned. We should assume that everything would be prepared and clear to the president, his close aides, and the secretary of state by then.
One should not be jealous of Netanyahu. Obama will ask him, just like President Johnson asked late PM Levi Eshkol, what kind of State of Israel do you want? And should Netanyahu attempt to recycle diplomatic initiatives, Obama will show him the paper bin below his desk at the Oval Office. If Obama has a sense of humor (or alternately, a Jewish advisor,) he would say something in Yiddish about the “cold noodles,” and send the Israeli prime minister to prepare different answers for their next meeting.
Netanyahu apparently knows this. Therefore, there are leaks from his direction in recent days about “preparations,” and “new diplomatic plans,” as well as hints that “Netanyahu understands the issue of two states for two peoples.” I’m guessing that at this time Netanyahu is going through the process that Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir (to a lesser extent,) Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and Tzipi Livni went through before.
Will he make history?
Before he made it to the Prime Minister’s Office, Netanyahu had the privilege of talking without knowing too much. In the past two or three weeks he sat at his office, heard briefings, and was presented with amazing and difficult information regarding the State of Israel’s strategic, security, economic, and diplomatic position. Apparently, he discovered that speeches are one thing but reality is an entirely different thing. Dreams of generations and an ideology he innocently believed in, as well as thoughts he’s been having for years, are no longer commensurate with reality.
Yet when Netanyahu closes his eyes for a moment, he sees his father, Bentzion, who doesn’t believe in peace, and Lieberman, and his government and party colleagues, and the education he received at home, and the hundreds of thousands of people who believed in Jabotinsky’s doctrine for generations.
And now he needs to decide who he should fear more. Daniela Weiss and her friends or the Iranian bomb? His father who is waiting at home, or Obama who is waiting at the White House? The two-state solution, or the notion that the entire land belongs to us?
Netanyahu is into his second term as prime minister also (but not only) in order to make history with a historical deed. For him, the most important moment in his life as prime minister is approaching. This moment can be postponed to another visit or conversation, but it shall arrive.
In the hallway near his office, there are photos of all of Israel’s prime ministers, including Begin and Sharon, Rabin and Olmert, who changed their principled positioned completely. Now is Netanyahu’s time: Will history books be written about him, or will his name only be mentioned in the footnotes of those same books?
Thank YNET News
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Axe-Murderer Caught
Hillel Fendel Axe-Murderer Caught
It has now been released for publication that the axe-wielding murderer of 13-year-old Shlomo Nativ in Bat Ayin just over two weeks ago was arrested only a few days later. The terrorist, Mustafa Teet, 26, of an Arab village near Gush Etzion, has confessed to the murder and to the wounding of 7-year-old Yair Gamliel. He said he wished to die as a “shahid,” a holy martyr.
On Thursday, April 9, Teet entered the Jewish town of Bat Ayin in Gush Etzion. He approached a group of children who were playing outside, and proceeded to attack them with an axe. Shlomo barely managed to stagger back home, where he died of his wounds, while the terrorist continued to attack one other child and attempt to do the same to a third. A local man tried to take the axe from the terrorist, suffering wounds in the process, but the terrorist escaped.
Five days later, Shabak (General Security Service) agents apprehended him.
Yair Gamliel, wounded in the attack, is the son of Ofer Gamliel, who is serving a harsh 15-year-sentence for involvement in an attempted bombing of an Arab girls’ school. He has not been granted many of the privileges, including vacation rights, given to other prisoners, and was barely allowed to visit his wounded son. Upon hearing the news of the attack, he was taken in leg-cuffs to the hospital to see him.
The terrorist, though he expected to die in the attack, continued to live his life normally afterwards. A will he wrote before the attack is part of the evidence against him.
Palestinian terrorism targeting the Jews of Judea and Samaria has been on an upswing over the past three weeks. Recent incidents include, in addition to the murder in Bat Ayin:
* The running-over of two policemen at the Hizme checkpoint north of Jerusalem;
* the attempt to throw a Molotov cocktail at Beit El (an incident that ended with the death of one terrorist and the escape of two others, including one who was wounded);
* a bomb placed outside Dolev;
* the arrest of an attempted infiltrator into Elon Moreh;
* the arrest of a terrorist who entered a Jewish home in Hevron
Ministry Mulls Judean Expansion
Avraham Zuroff Ministry Mulls Judean Expansion
A special committee of the Interior Ministry has recommended the annexation of the Yesha [Judea and Sama community of Keidar to Maaleh Adumim, a city three kilometers away. The annexation would add another 12,000 dunam (nearly 3,000 acres) to the municipality. The Interior Ministry decided to make its recommendations in a recent report, despite U.S. objections to Jewish settling within Judea and Samaria. Keidar’s 800 residents would receive most of its municipal benefits from the neighboring Maaleh Adumim, located 7 km (4.5 miles) east of Jerusalem, on the edge of the Judean desert.
The High Court is currently deliberating where to place the security barrier in the Maaleh Adumim region. The Court will have to consider the Ministry’s new recommendations.
The Interior Ministry report calls for the annexation of additional land to Maaleh Adumim, along with plans to build another 6,000 housing units. However, Ministry officials stated Sunday that the recommendations require approval by Interior Minister Eli Yishai. The Ministry regards the decision’s political ramifications as “minor, if at all.”
In response, Peace Now secretary-general Yariv Oppenheimer stated that the Ministry decision has important political ramifications. “The government is attempting to use the term ‘settlements blocs’ in order to annex isolated settlements like Keidar to the State of Israel’s territory, and move the separation fence routes along the way,” Oppenheimer stated. “According to this logic, [the Arab-populated city o Ramallah will soon be able to be annexed with the assertion that it is a neighborhood within Maaleh Adumim.”
Maaleh Adumim’s mayor, Benny Kashriel, rejects Oppenheimer’s claims. “According to the decision of the Sharon and Olmert government, Keidar is within the fence,” he responded. “The attempt by people from the leftwing to remove it from the fence is against all understandings between Israel and the Americans in the Road Map agreement."
The Jerusalem suburb of Maaleh Adumim is mentioned in the Book of Joshua 15:7: “The boundary [of the tribe of Juda ascended from the Valley of Achor to Debir and turned north to Gilgal, facing Maaleh [Ascent o Adumim which is south of the wadi.” Maaleh Adumim, literally “red heights,” takes its name from the red rock lining the ascent from the Dead Sea, and from the Biblical Edomite nation.
Thanks A7 News
A special committee of the Interior Ministry has recommended the annexation of the Yesha [Judea and Sama community of Keidar to Maaleh Adumim, a city three kilometers away. The annexation would add another 12,000 dunam (nearly 3,000 acres) to the municipality. The Interior Ministry decided to make its recommendations in a recent report, despite U.S. objections to Jewish settling within Judea and Samaria. Keidar’s 800 residents would receive most of its municipal benefits from the neighboring Maaleh Adumim, located 7 km (4.5 miles) east of Jerusalem, on the edge of the Judean desert.
The High Court is currently deliberating where to place the security barrier in the Maaleh Adumim region. The Court will have to consider the Ministry’s new recommendations.
The Interior Ministry report calls for the annexation of additional land to Maaleh Adumim, along with plans to build another 6,000 housing units. However, Ministry officials stated Sunday that the recommendations require approval by Interior Minister Eli Yishai. The Ministry regards the decision’s political ramifications as “minor, if at all.”
In response, Peace Now secretary-general Yariv Oppenheimer stated that the Ministry decision has important political ramifications. “The government is attempting to use the term ‘settlements blocs’ in order to annex isolated settlements like Keidar to the State of Israel’s territory, and move the separation fence routes along the way,” Oppenheimer stated. “According to this logic, [the Arab-populated city o Ramallah will soon be able to be annexed with the assertion that it is a neighborhood within Maaleh Adumim.”
Maaleh Adumim’s mayor, Benny Kashriel, rejects Oppenheimer’s claims. “According to the decision of the Sharon and Olmert government, Keidar is within the fence,” he responded. “The attempt by people from the leftwing to remove it from the fence is against all understandings between Israel and the Americans in the Road Map agreement."
The Jerusalem suburb of Maaleh Adumim is mentioned in the Book of Joshua 15:7: “The boundary [of the tribe of Juda ascended from the Valley of Achor to Debir and turned north to Gilgal, facing Maaleh [Ascent o Adumim which is south of the wadi.” Maaleh Adumim, literally “red heights,” takes its name from the red rock lining the ascent from the Dead Sea, and from the Biblical Edomite nation.
Thanks A7 News
The Genocide Mechanism
PMW director Itamar Marcus was in Geneva during the UN Durban II conference and counter-conferences last week, and writes about how ordinary people can be convinced to participate in genocide.
Demonized Israeli eating Palestinian childSurvivors of the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur spoke in Geneva this week at the parallel conference on human rights to counter the UN Durban II event.Listening to them describe how they were systematically demonized by the killers made it clear that genocide does not happen in a vacuum. The hate condition of a population willing and anxious to commit genocide needs nurturing. Genocide must be framed positively to get the necessary broad public support.
Common to the framing of all genocide is a very specific kind of demonization. In Rwanda, the Hutus taught that the Tutsis were cockroaches and snakes. Tutsi women were portrayed as cunning seductresses who used beauty and sexual power to conquer the Hutus. In Bosnia, a fictitious news report said Muslims were feeding Serb children to animals at the Sarajevo zoo. Radio Rwanda repeatedly broadcast a warning that Hutus were about to be attacked by Tutsis, to convince the Hutus that they needed to attack first to protect themselves.
This demonization included two specific components. First, the victims had to be perceived as a clear and present threat, so that the killers were convinced they were acting in self-defense. Second, the victims were dehumanized, so that the killers convinced themselves that they were not destroying real human beings.
A decent person will not join in a murder of innocents, but a decent person might join in the killing of a subhuman who is threatening his very existence. Framing genocide as self-defense can turn decent people into killers. Protection of children and family can turn a calm neighbor into a passionate murderer, because self-defense is always justified.
In Darfur and Rwanda, all that was necessary to turn a society of ordinary people into killers was to convince them that they were in danger, and that the people endangering them were less than human.
LOOKING BACK on Jewish history, it is clear that the method used to foment violence against Jews has always involved the same framing of "self-defense," with only the details changed.
So when Jews were falsely accused of poisoning wells in the Middle Ages, causing thousands of deaths, even decent people joined in the killings. They did not perceive themselves as murderers because they were defending themselves and their families.
When Jews were believed to be using blood of children for Passover matzot, even decent people felt comfortable massacring Jews, as they were defending their children from horrific torture.
Even Hitler used this argument of self-defense in Mein Kampf: "In this case [given the Jews' threat to the German people] the only salvation remaining was war, war with all the weapons the human spirit, reason, and will could muster... If the Jew... is victorious over the peoples of this world, then his crown will be the funeral wreath of humanity... Thus I believe today that I am acting according to the will of the almighty creator: When I defend myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
Hitler, too, packaged his genocide as legitimate self-defense. The details may change in each society, but the framing is always the same.
EXAMINING PALESTINIAN hate promotion today, it is especially striking and disconcerting that these components of the past genocides against Jews are prominent elements of the hate promotion of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas against Jews and Israelis.
Two items on Hamas TV earlier this month clearly document this.
Hamas TV broadcast a skit featuring actors playing a Jewish father and son, in traditional hassidic garb, discussing the hatred of Muslims that their Jewish religion mandates. The father even revives the age-old libel that Jews drink the blood of Muslims: "Shimon, look, my son, I want to teach you a few things. You have to hate the Muslims... we want to kill the Muslims, we Jews want to drink the blood of Muslims." He later criticizes his son for washing his hands in water before prayer: "We have to wash our hands with the blood of Muslims" (Al-Aqsa TV, April 3). Ironically, the Hamas accusation that Jews drink Muslim blood came the week before Passover, the anniversary of many horrific blood libels.
That same day, a Hamas religious leader ended his sermon with the promise of eventual genocide of the Jews. But to frame it properly, he opened with a depiction of Jews as the enemies of humanity: The Jews are inherently evil, seek to rule the world and are a threat to Muslims and all of humanity.
This is how Ziad Abu Alhaj framed it: "Hatred for Muhammad and Islam is in their [Jews'] souls, they are naturally disposed to it... Israel is a cancer that wants to rule the world." He concluded that the Jews are destined to be annihilated: "The time will come, by Allah's will, when their property will be destroyed and their children will be exterminated, and no Jew or Zionist will be left on the face of this earth" (Al-Aqsa TV, April 3).
THIS DEMONIZATION and dehumanization of Jews is not limited to Hamas. Although hesitant to call for explicit murdering of Jews while seeking Western money, the PA continues its unrelenting framing of genocide as self-defense and for the common good.
In the PA-Fatah media today, Jews and Israelis are demonized through malicious libels, including such lies as the assertion that Israel intentionally spreads AIDS and drugs, conducts Nazi-like medical experiments on Palestinian prisoners and is planning to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque.
Says the Palestinian chief religious justice, Tayseer al-Tamimi: "The AIDS issue needs to receive due attention... since we neighbor a society [Israel] where the disease is widespread and which acts to transmit [AIDS] to Palestinian society. The occupying authorities, especially in Jerusalem, are working to spread drugs and drug addiction, without a doubt" (PA radio, February 17, 2008).
And this from Dr. Mutawakil Taha, head of the Palestinian Writers' Union and former PA deputy minister: "We saw how they [Zionists] stab bellies of pregnant women, slaughter infants and eat life in cold blood. They targeted children and the wombs of women so this people won't reproduce" (PA TV, March 4, 2008).
A July 2008 article in Al-Ayyam accused Israeli settlers of releasing rats in Jerusalem's Old City "to turn the [Arab] residents' life into a living hell, forcing then to leave..." (July 17, 2008). A PA TV video clip juxtaposes scenes of a real Israeli tank with fictitious scenes of a child actor being shot, creating the fiction that Israelis deliberately target and shoot Palestinian children (PATV, May 15, 2008).
Just as the Tutsis were described as cockroaches and snakes, both Hamas and the PA have described Jews as loathsome and dangerous animals, including cockroaches, spiders, scorpions and alligators.
While each libel is somewhat different, their essence is the same: The Israelis and the Jews are dangerous, they are not human, we need to defend ourselves from them and we are clearly justified in doing so.
It is tragic that this framing of genocide as necessary self-defense has been so chillingly successful.
A poll after last year's murders of eight teenage yeshiva students found that "84 percent of Palestinians support the terror attack killing eight young students in a Jerusalem yeshiva on March 6, 2008" (Poll by Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, The New York Times, March 19, 2008). How can an entire Palestinian society support the murder of children? Clearly, the framing of Jews and Israelis as mortally dangerous to Palestinians has been totally successful.
Israel now faces a society that is very possibly past the stage of genocide framing and at the point of seeing the killing of Israelis, even teens, as justified. All that would be necessary for the population to go along with the final script, detailed so many times by its leaders, would be the means.
Palestinians vandalize Joseph's Tomb with swastikas
Jihad Watch
But deep down they really, really want peace. "Joseph's Tomb compound vandalized: Worshippers arriving at compound to hold prayer service shocked to discover smashed headstones, swastika graffiti," by Efrat Weiss for Ynet News, April 23 (thanks to all who sent this in): Hundreds of Jewish worshipers who arrived at Joseph's Tomb in the West Bank city of Nablus overnight were stunned to find the compound severely vandalized – yet again. Israel pulled its forces out of the compound in October 2000. The IDF disallowed Jewish worshippers from entering it for a long period of time due to security concerns; and deserted, it has been burnt down and defaced many times. December of 2008 saw Joseph Tomb's restored and the military began allowing worshippers to visit it once more, but always at night and under heavy military guard, for their own safety.
Wednesday night's visit was approved by the proper military authorities and the IDF provided the worshippers with an escort.
The group which entered the compound was made up of some 500 people. Upon entering the tomb they found it had been defaced – the headstone smashed and swastikas sprayed on the walls, as well as graffiti of a blood-dripping sward over a Star of David, and another "trampled" by a boot.
Some reported seeing visible boot prints all over the compounds, which they claim are consistent with the Palestinian police standard issue boots. [...]
Yossi Dagan, of Homesh First, added that "if Jews were to even to consider inflicting one-tenth of this horror on a tomb of an Arab sheik, the entire world would get up on its hind legs and protest. What's absurd is that we are to blame, since even the Oslo Accords place the tomb under our responsibility."
But deep down they really, really want peace. "Joseph's Tomb compound vandalized: Worshippers arriving at compound to hold prayer service shocked to discover smashed headstones, swastika graffiti," by Efrat Weiss for Ynet News, April 23 (thanks to all who sent this in): Hundreds of Jewish worshipers who arrived at Joseph's Tomb in the West Bank city of Nablus overnight were stunned to find the compound severely vandalized – yet again. Israel pulled its forces out of the compound in October 2000. The IDF disallowed Jewish worshippers from entering it for a long period of time due to security concerns; and deserted, it has been burnt down and defaced many times. December of 2008 saw Joseph Tomb's restored and the military began allowing worshippers to visit it once more, but always at night and under heavy military guard, for their own safety.
Wednesday night's visit was approved by the proper military authorities and the IDF provided the worshippers with an escort.
The group which entered the compound was made up of some 500 people. Upon entering the tomb they found it had been defaced – the headstone smashed and swastikas sprayed on the walls, as well as graffiti of a blood-dripping sward over a Star of David, and another "trampled" by a boot.
Some reported seeing visible boot prints all over the compounds, which they claim are consistent with the Palestinian police standard issue boots. [...]
Yossi Dagan, of Homesh First, added that "if Jews were to even to consider inflicting one-tenth of this horror on a tomb of an Arab sheik, the entire world would get up on its hind legs and protest. What's absurd is that we are to blame, since even the Oslo Accords place the tomb under our responsibility."
Saturday, April 25, 2009
In praise of new policy
Despite criticism, Lieberman says precisely what his voters want him to say
Hanoch Daum
Israel Opinion
You must have noticed that media outlets in Israel have already decided that Avigdor Lieberman is a disaster for the State of Israel. This is a decisive verdict, whereby Lieberman will be causing us irreversible damage across the globe. The moment this verdict has been handed down, every development becomes commensurate with it. Every statement made by the foreign minister prompts huge headlines: “Lieberman is firing in all directions again,” “Lieberman is embarrassing Israel again,” or “The Americans are in shock.”
The fact that there is a huge constituency that voted for Lieberman precisely so that he will proceed to express his views, and the fact that the policy adopted by the previous government brought us nothing with the exception of two failed wars, is of no interest to the media. They decided that Lieberman is a disaster, and they start every day with a new declaration that appears to reinforce the prophecy: This disaster is indeed here.
So let’s get things straight here: Israel, for the first time in a very long time, is standing up for what it believes in. Israel, for the first time in a very long time, is also talking about the things that are important to it, and not only about the things that the world finds important.
The Netanyahu government has been in place for less than a month now, and we can already feel that the declarations against Iran have been stepped up a notch.
What did Livni achieve?
So indeed, the Israeli government did not rush to announce that it will be giving the Palestinians everything they want. And indeed, officials in the Obama administration may not like it too much – so what? Where exactly did former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni’s policy, which was flattering and obsequious, bring us? Did we fail to notice that some kind of peace broke out around here?
The Israeli media fans the flames of the self-righteous and concerned agenda, which is obsessively preoccupied with the question of what others think about us. However, the Israeli media fails to note that the Israeli public elected a new government and now expects this new government to present a new policy.
Or in other words: Why do we need to hold elections around here if every government that is ever formed will have to present the same political doctrine?
Thank you YNET News
Friday, April 24, 2009
The Other Intelligence Failure
Ryan Mauro
FrontPageMagazine.com | 4/24/2009
The inability to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction will go down as one of the greatest intelligence failures in American history. However, critical information provided by Iraqis and foreign governments was not acted upon or placed into the right hands. This additional failure is a reminder that the Intelligence Community is still broken. A series of high-level meetings were held on February 10-12, 2004, involving officials from the U.S., U.K., and Ukraine. Attendees of these meetings included Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw, director of MI6 Richard Dearlove, the head of the Ukrainian SBU intelligence service Ihor Smeshko, among others. As discussed in Shadow Warriors by Kenneth Timmerman, Smeshko and the other Ukrainians informed the U.S. and British governments that Iraq’s WMD had been sent outside of the country with Russian assistance. The information included the dates and locations of meetings to plan the operation, and even names of the Russian Spetsnaz officers involved. Shaw also worked with a British solider of fortune who ran an intelligence network in the region, and had tracked the movement of WMDs to Syria and Lebanon.
The information provided by this network substantiated the information provided by the Ukrainians. Ion Pacepa, the former head of Romanian intelligence during the Cold War, has also provided information supporting these allegations, saying he had personal knowledge of a Soviet plan called “Operation Sarindar” where the Russians would cleanse an ally, such as Iraq, of traces of illicit activity if threatened with Western attack. The plan’s purpose was to deny the West of any evidence incriminating the Russian ally, as well as to wipe Russia’s own fingerprints off of the state’s illegal activity. The presence of Russian advisors in Iraq shortly before the invasion, some of whom received medals from Saddam Hussein, indicates this plan was activated.
It should also be mentioned that Dave Gaubatz, a special agent with the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations, was the first civilian federal agent deployed to Iraq and he said that he saw intelligence that “suggested that some WMD had been moved to Syria with the help of Russian intelligence.” Iraqis also told him that there was a Russian presence in the country before the war.
According to Timmerman, Smeshko expressed his frustration that the CIA station chief in Kiev was not cooperative when he tried to pass along the intelligence. Shaw described similar resistance from members of the Intelligence Community who tried to discredit his sources. This sort of opposition may indicate that the information did not survive the inter-agency battles long enough to reach the highest policy-makers.
On February 24, I went to see a talk at the Free Library of Philadelphia by Charles Duelfer, the leader of the Iraq Survey Group, who was promoting his new book, Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq. The ISG had been assembled in 2003 to search for weapons of mass destruction, ultimately concluding that no stockpiles of such arms existed at the time of the invasion. Duelfer stated emphatically that he was “convinced” that no Iraqi WMD had made its way to Syria, although he admitted there were some “loose ends” remaining on the issue.
During the question-and-answer session, I asked Duelfer if he had seen any information passed to the United States by the Ukrainian government about Iraq’s WMDs going to Syria and Russian involvement in the transfer. He responded by saying that he had seen no such information. In a follow-up email interview, he said “This does not mean…that it was not passed on to ISG [Iraq Survey Group].” The fact that the head of the WMD search was not given specific intelligence provided by a foreign government is a stunning intelligence failure itself, casting doubt upon the efficiency of the Intelligence Community.
Duelfer has confirmed that the Russians had a presence in Iraq and had fingerprints to hide. He says that the Russians were assisting Saddam Hussein’s illegal ballistic missile program, which Duelfer notes was a violation of the United Nations, and had a strong relationship with his regime.
“Russians were present in Iraq for many activities….Russian officials regularly met with Iraqi officials…Russian KGB officers were in regular contact with the regime at very senior levels…Russian businessmen were all over Baghdad tryng to secure a variety of deals. And of course Russians, including very senior Russians, were in receipt of lucrative oil allocations under the UN Oil-for-Food Program,” Duelfer said in my interview with him. He also noted that, to the best of his knowledge, Russia did not investigate any of the officials involved in the scandal.
At the Philadelphia event, Duelfer also told me that he did not believe Iraq sent WMD to Syria. He cited the testimony of Naji Sabri, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, in particular.
“I knew him very well, and I had been authorized to make his life a lot better, or a lot worse,” he told me, adding that as foreign minister, he’d handle any such dealings with Syria. However, in his book, Duelfer says that Sabri had nothing to do with any WMD programs at any time. “His statements on WMD from an intelligence perspective would have been irrelevant,” Duelfer writes.
Additional information was also not evaluated. General Georges Sada, the former second-in-command of the Iraqi Air Force. In his 2006 book, Saddam's Secrets, Sada writes that he knows two Iraqi pilots who flew WMDs into Syria over the summer of 2002. Sada also said there was a ground shipment that followed later on. Nizar Najoef, a Syrian journalist who defected to France, told De Telegraaf on January 5, 2004 that his sources inside Syria identified the three locations where Iraq’s WMD had been shipped to.
“I did not interview the pilots nor did I speak with the Syrian journalist you mentioned,” Duelfer said. “We were inundated with WMD reports and could not investigate them all...To narrow the problem, we investigated those people and places we knew would have either been involved or aware of regime WMD activities.”
The fact that no such individuals disclosed such a transfer is part of the reason Duelfer doubts that anything was transferred out of the country. “Someone among the people we interviewed would have described this,” he said. However, Don Bordenkircher, who served as the nation director of jail and prison operations in Iraq for two years, told me that he spoke to about 40 Iraqis, either military personnel or civilians assigned to the military, who discussed the movement of WMDs to Syria and Lebanon, some of whom claimed to having actually been involved.
Until the information provided by people like Smeshko and Sada is followed-up on and evaluated, the truth about Iraq’s WMD can not be certain. Even Duelfer leaves a little window of possibility open that such a transfer occurred, with his final report saying that the investigation into the possibility could not be completed due to the security situation. He also discusses reports of Iraqi truck drivers working for a company connected to Uday Hussein transporting “sensitive” cargo into Syria shortly before the war began in his book, which he described to me as the “loose ends” that remain.
Duelfer can not be faulted for the Intelligence Community’s failure to provide him with the information given by the Ukrainians, and it does not detract from his book, which should serve as a textbook for intelligence analysts in training. The implications of this failure, however, are greater than the question of whether Iraq possessed WMD materials, as it still remains quite possible that the information provided about a movement to Syria is false. The fact that such data, of the most sensitive nature, would not be passed to the appropriate authorities strongly indicates that the Intelligence Community is still severely flawed, leaving open a frightening vulnerability for the United States.
Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com and the Assistant-Director of Intelligence at C2I. He’s also the National Security Researcher for the Christian Action Network and a published author. He can be contacted at TDCAnalyst@aol.com.
FrontPageMagazine.com | 4/24/2009
The inability to find Iraqi weapons of mass destruction will go down as one of the greatest intelligence failures in American history. However, critical information provided by Iraqis and foreign governments was not acted upon or placed into the right hands. This additional failure is a reminder that the Intelligence Community is still broken. A series of high-level meetings were held on February 10-12, 2004, involving officials from the U.S., U.K., and Ukraine. Attendees of these meetings included Deputy Undersecretary of Defense John A. Shaw, director of MI6 Richard Dearlove, the head of the Ukrainian SBU intelligence service Ihor Smeshko, among others. As discussed in Shadow Warriors by Kenneth Timmerman, Smeshko and the other Ukrainians informed the U.S. and British governments that Iraq’s WMD had been sent outside of the country with Russian assistance. The information included the dates and locations of meetings to plan the operation, and even names of the Russian Spetsnaz officers involved. Shaw also worked with a British solider of fortune who ran an intelligence network in the region, and had tracked the movement of WMDs to Syria and Lebanon.
The information provided by this network substantiated the information provided by the Ukrainians. Ion Pacepa, the former head of Romanian intelligence during the Cold War, has also provided information supporting these allegations, saying he had personal knowledge of a Soviet plan called “Operation Sarindar” where the Russians would cleanse an ally, such as Iraq, of traces of illicit activity if threatened with Western attack. The plan’s purpose was to deny the West of any evidence incriminating the Russian ally, as well as to wipe Russia’s own fingerprints off of the state’s illegal activity. The presence of Russian advisors in Iraq shortly before the invasion, some of whom received medals from Saddam Hussein, indicates this plan was activated.
It should also be mentioned that Dave Gaubatz, a special agent with the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigations, was the first civilian federal agent deployed to Iraq and he said that he saw intelligence that “suggested that some WMD had been moved to Syria with the help of Russian intelligence.” Iraqis also told him that there was a Russian presence in the country before the war.
According to Timmerman, Smeshko expressed his frustration that the CIA station chief in Kiev was not cooperative when he tried to pass along the intelligence. Shaw described similar resistance from members of the Intelligence Community who tried to discredit his sources. This sort of opposition may indicate that the information did not survive the inter-agency battles long enough to reach the highest policy-makers.
On February 24, I went to see a talk at the Free Library of Philadelphia by Charles Duelfer, the leader of the Iraq Survey Group, who was promoting his new book, Hide and Seek: The Search for Truth in Iraq. The ISG had been assembled in 2003 to search for weapons of mass destruction, ultimately concluding that no stockpiles of such arms existed at the time of the invasion. Duelfer stated emphatically that he was “convinced” that no Iraqi WMD had made its way to Syria, although he admitted there were some “loose ends” remaining on the issue.
During the question-and-answer session, I asked Duelfer if he had seen any information passed to the United States by the Ukrainian government about Iraq’s WMDs going to Syria and Russian involvement in the transfer. He responded by saying that he had seen no such information. In a follow-up email interview, he said “This does not mean…that it was not passed on to ISG [Iraq Survey Group].” The fact that the head of the WMD search was not given specific intelligence provided by a foreign government is a stunning intelligence failure itself, casting doubt upon the efficiency of the Intelligence Community.
Duelfer has confirmed that the Russians had a presence in Iraq and had fingerprints to hide. He says that the Russians were assisting Saddam Hussein’s illegal ballistic missile program, which Duelfer notes was a violation of the United Nations, and had a strong relationship with his regime.
“Russians were present in Iraq for many activities….Russian officials regularly met with Iraqi officials…Russian KGB officers were in regular contact with the regime at very senior levels…Russian businessmen were all over Baghdad tryng to secure a variety of deals. And of course Russians, including very senior Russians, were in receipt of lucrative oil allocations under the UN Oil-for-Food Program,” Duelfer said in my interview with him. He also noted that, to the best of his knowledge, Russia did not investigate any of the officials involved in the scandal.
At the Philadelphia event, Duelfer also told me that he did not believe Iraq sent WMD to Syria. He cited the testimony of Naji Sabri, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, in particular.
“I knew him very well, and I had been authorized to make his life a lot better, or a lot worse,” he told me, adding that as foreign minister, he’d handle any such dealings with Syria. However, in his book, Duelfer says that Sabri had nothing to do with any WMD programs at any time. “His statements on WMD from an intelligence perspective would have been irrelevant,” Duelfer writes.
Additional information was also not evaluated. General Georges Sada, the former second-in-command of the Iraqi Air Force. In his 2006 book, Saddam's Secrets, Sada writes that he knows two Iraqi pilots who flew WMDs into Syria over the summer of 2002. Sada also said there was a ground shipment that followed later on. Nizar Najoef, a Syrian journalist who defected to France, told De Telegraaf on January 5, 2004 that his sources inside Syria identified the three locations where Iraq’s WMD had been shipped to.
“I did not interview the pilots nor did I speak with the Syrian journalist you mentioned,” Duelfer said. “We were inundated with WMD reports and could not investigate them all...To narrow the problem, we investigated those people and places we knew would have either been involved or aware of regime WMD activities.”
The fact that no such individuals disclosed such a transfer is part of the reason Duelfer doubts that anything was transferred out of the country. “Someone among the people we interviewed would have described this,” he said. However, Don Bordenkircher, who served as the nation director of jail and prison operations in Iraq for two years, told me that he spoke to about 40 Iraqis, either military personnel or civilians assigned to the military, who discussed the movement of WMDs to Syria and Lebanon, some of whom claimed to having actually been involved.
Until the information provided by people like Smeshko and Sada is followed-up on and evaluated, the truth about Iraq’s WMD can not be certain. Even Duelfer leaves a little window of possibility open that such a transfer occurred, with his final report saying that the investigation into the possibility could not be completed due to the security situation. He also discusses reports of Iraqi truck drivers working for a company connected to Uday Hussein transporting “sensitive” cargo into Syria shortly before the war began in his book, which he described to me as the “loose ends” that remain.
Duelfer can not be faulted for the Intelligence Community’s failure to provide him with the information given by the Ukrainians, and it does not detract from his book, which should serve as a textbook for intelligence analysts in training. The implications of this failure, however, are greater than the question of whether Iraq possessed WMD materials, as it still remains quite possible that the information provided about a movement to Syria is false. The fact that such data, of the most sensitive nature, would not be passed to the appropriate authorities strongly indicates that the Intelligence Community is still severely flawed, leaving open a frightening vulnerability for the United States.
Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com and the Assistant-Director of Intelligence at C2I. He’s also the National Security Researcher for the Christian Action Network and a published author. He can be contacted at TDCAnalyst@aol.com.
Giving Back Cold War Gains
Jonah Goldberg
Friday, April 24, 2009
In 1993, Bill Clinton joked, "Gosh, I miss the Cold War." And, he explained, somberly: "We had an intellectually coherent thing. The American people knew what the rules were." Such Cold War nostalgia vexed many conservatives. It seemed to us that the Cold War consensus had broken down with the Vietnam War. Clinton himself didn't much like that Cold War endeavor, which is one reason he worked so assiduously to avoid serving in it. A young John Kerry did serve, but he also threw away his medals and denounced his fellow servicemen as war criminals. Jimmy Carter, meanwhile, had proclaimed that he had no "inordinate fear of Communism," suggesting that those who disagreed with him did.
The "intellectual coherence" of the Cold War didn't stop many liberals from opposing Ronald Reagan's foreign-policy efforts in Europe, the Caribbean and Central America, nor did it temper Hollywood's ardor in portraying Reagan as a warmonger, a dunce or both. In the 1980s, the SANE/Freeze movement fired the minds of much of the Democratic Party. And when the Cold War ended without a shot fired, the left worked hard to give all the credit to Mikhail Gorbachev, since he seemed like a more reasonable fellow.
All of that comes to mind as I watch Barack Obama stroll across the globe apologizing for, or condemning, the sins of his predecessors and, by extension, his country.
After former Soviet pawn and now Nicaraguan president Daniel Ortega berated the United States at a recent summit, President Obama joked, in reference to the failed Bay of Pigs operation, "I'm grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was 3 months old."
Ah, yes, because the pressing issue is Obama's blamelessness, not the apparently embarrassing faux pas of America's effort to rid Cuba of a brutal Communist dictator and lackey of the Soviets, 90 miles off our coast.
In Prague, Obama declared that "the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War" is the large stockpile of nuclear weapons left behind after the war, sounding as if he might have been one of those teenagers who translated SANE/Freeze brochures into high school term papers.
The truth is that the Cold War's most dangerous legacy remains the bundle of radioactive lies that poisoned so many lands and deformed so many minds. The Soviets fueled national-socialist movements around the globe, telling the poor that if they embraced violent revolution and systematically purged capitalism, tradition and religion from their societies, they would hasten their ascent to the sunny uplands of history. The reverse was true: Whole generations were either slaughtered or left to live as dehumanized industrial cogs, or to labor as serfs tending crops amidst the bleached bones of their fellow countrymen.
The Soviets spread lies about the nature of democracy and destroyed indigenous democratic movements, lest they leech off the revolutionary ardor of groups both more murderous and more loyal to the Kremlin. In the West, they employed useful idiots in academia and the press to foment self-hatred and eat away at civilizational self-confidence with cancerously idiotic arguments about the "moral equivalence" between West and East. They funded antiwar movements, peace congresses and supposedly crusading "independent" journalists. For example, they spread the lie around the globe that America invented AIDS to kill blacks.
That lie made it all the way to Barack Obama's church, where Obama's former mentor and pastor, Jeremiah Wright, would repeat it with blindingly ignorant passion, saying that America invented "the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color."
Obama talks a lot about wanting to move beyond the "stale arguments" of the Cold War. In one sense that's fine, since that twilight struggle is over. But in another sense, as we watch him apologize for America's history, it is hard to shake the feeling that he only saw one side's arguments as "stale."
That wouldn't matter if the past were a page one could merely turn, as Obama frequently claims. But the Cold War's lessons aren't so irrelevant to the times we live in. The past is never completely irrelevant.
One small example: The Wall Street Journal's Dan Henninger asked a former Eastern European dissident imprisoned by Communists: "If you were sitting in a cell in Cuba, Iran or Syria and saw this photo of a smiling American president shaking hands with a smiling Hugo Chavez, what would you think?"
The former dissident responded: "I would think that I was losing ground."
When I see the president telling so many of America's enemies and critics what they want to hear, I feel like we're all losing ground -- ground that was worth winning.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.
"Reasons for Gratitude"
Arlene Kushner
Before Shabbat I would like to focus on sources of hope.
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has given an interview to The Jerusalem Post -- his first such interview since taking office. f the international community wants to help bring stability to the area, he said, they should "stop speaking in slogans." His counterparts tend to speak as if they are in a campaign, using words like "occupation," "settlements," and "settlers." The slogans they rely upon -- such as "land for peace" and "two-state solution" are overly simplistic and ignore the root of the ongoing conflict.
"It's impossible to artificially impose any political solution. It will fail, for sure. You cannot start a peace process from nothing." The issues to deal with are "economy, security, stability."
Lieberman was emphatic in stating that there could be no negotiations that entertained the possibility of "right of return." "It cannot be on the table, I'm not willing to discuss the 'right of return' of even one refugee."
At the same time, he indicated that "somebody who really wants a solution, someone who desires a real peace and a real agreement, must realize that this would be impossible without recognizing Israel as a Jewish state...
"[The real reason for the deadlock with the Palestinians] is not occupation, not settlements and not settlers. This conflict is really a very deep conflict..."
What is more, it would be "impossible to resolve any problems in our region without resolving the Iranian problem [which is related to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria, and Hamas in Gaza]. He believes the prime responsibility for Iran rests with the international community.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to EU threats to suspend an upgrade in its relationship with Israel.
"Don't set conditions for us," Netanyahu told Czech Premier Mirek Topolanek during his visit here.
When Topolanek brought up the issue of settlements, Netanyahu responded, "If Israelis can't build homes in the West Bank then Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to either. I have no plans to build new settlements, but if someone wants to build a new home [in an existing one], I don't think there's a problem." The West Bank, he said, was "disputed territory" over which negotiations must be held. This cedes nothing.
~~~~~~~~~~
Understand that a very short time ago we had a foreign minister and a prime minister who couldn't wait to give away parts of Israel, divide Jerusalem and push our people back to the '67 lines, all in the name of what we "had to do" for peace.
So, Baruch Hashem for what we have now: Leaders who won't be threatened and stand for Israeli rights. May their strength increase.
There will be more to say on this.
~~~~~~~~~~
I'll look at Hillary's latest statement (a stupid threat) after Shabbat.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Before Shabbat I would like to focus on sources of hope.
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has given an interview to The Jerusalem Post -- his first such interview since taking office. f the international community wants to help bring stability to the area, he said, they should "stop speaking in slogans." His counterparts tend to speak as if they are in a campaign, using words like "occupation," "settlements," and "settlers." The slogans they rely upon -- such as "land for peace" and "two-state solution" are overly simplistic and ignore the root of the ongoing conflict.
"It's impossible to artificially impose any political solution. It will fail, for sure. You cannot start a peace process from nothing." The issues to deal with are "economy, security, stability."
Lieberman was emphatic in stating that there could be no negotiations that entertained the possibility of "right of return." "It cannot be on the table, I'm not willing to discuss the 'right of return' of even one refugee."
At the same time, he indicated that "somebody who really wants a solution, someone who desires a real peace and a real agreement, must realize that this would be impossible without recognizing Israel as a Jewish state...
"[The real reason for the deadlock with the Palestinians] is not occupation, not settlements and not settlers. This conflict is really a very deep conflict..."
What is more, it would be "impossible to resolve any problems in our region without resolving the Iranian problem [which is related to Hezbollah in Lebanon, Syria, and Hamas in Gaza]. He believes the prime responsibility for Iran rests with the international community.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu responded to EU threats to suspend an upgrade in its relationship with Israel.
"Don't set conditions for us," Netanyahu told Czech Premier Mirek Topolanek during his visit here.
When Topolanek brought up the issue of settlements, Netanyahu responded, "If Israelis can't build homes in the West Bank then Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to either. I have no plans to build new settlements, but if someone wants to build a new home [in an existing one], I don't think there's a problem." The West Bank, he said, was "disputed territory" over which negotiations must be held. This cedes nothing.
~~~~~~~~~~
Understand that a very short time ago we had a foreign minister and a prime minister who couldn't wait to give away parts of Israel, divide Jerusalem and push our people back to the '67 lines, all in the name of what we "had to do" for peace.
So, Baruch Hashem for what we have now: Leaders who won't be threatened and stand for Israeli rights. May their strength increase.
There will be more to say on this.
~~~~~~~~~~
I'll look at Hillary's latest statement (a stupid threat) after Shabbat.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Can the al-Asad Regime Make Peace with Israel?
J. Scott Carpenter
April 21, 2009
U.S. and European observers believe that Israel's new government will seek peace with Damascus in an attempt to pry the Syrian regime away from Tehran. Pursuing the Syrian track would also give the Obama administration an outlet for its peacemaking energies, given the ongoing dysfunction of Palestinian politics. Syrian president Bashar al-Asad, however, poured cold water on such prospects at the Arab League Summit in Doha, calling efforts toward peace with Israel "useless." Rhetoric notwithstanding, advocates of the Syrian track hope an isolated and economically desperate Damascus will grasp the olive branch, ushering in a strategic regional realignment and a period of relative stability. Although these are laudable objectives, such a peace with Syria remains highly unlikely for a fundamental reason: without Israel as an enemy, Syria's minority regime loses its sole rationale for retaining power.
Background
Syrian politics began its current trajectory in 1948, when Damascus, along with its Arab allies, sought to smother the newborn Israeli state in its cradle. The Syrian army's defeat led ultimately to a successful Baathist coup on March 8, 1963, and, following another stinging military loss in 1967, the consolidation of Hafiz al-Asad's power in November 1970.
From the beginning, al-Asad's struggle for power relied heavily on loyal Alawite officers scattered throughout the military and security apparatus. Even today, Alawites, who comprise only 12 percent of the population, remain the backbone of the Baathist regime. Within this minority, the al-Asad clan has benefited disproportionately, especially since the death of Hafiz. Today, a small clique around President Bashar al-Asad controls nearly all levers of political power and has outsized influence over the economy.
To maintain this minority dominance, the Baathist regime imposed a state of emergency forty-six years ago, providing the state a vast array of tools to monitor all social communication and to restrict individual freedoms of expression and association. Since its proclamation, the State of Emergency Law of 1962 has been used as the prime justification for authoritarian practices and, as a consequence, the perpetuation of the al-Asad regime. Examples abound.
Hama
In 1982, militant members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama challenged the legitimacy of the regime and were brutally crushed. According to Amnesty International, three weeks of shelling killed between 10,000 and 25,000 people. The emergency law provided the legal fig leaf for the government's actions, which included torture, mass executions, the reported use of poison gas, and other horrendous human rights abuses. As Hafiz indicated in a radio address on March 7, 1982, "Death a thousand times to the hired Muslim Brothers, who linked themselves with the enemies of the homeland and who were employed by the imperialist, Zionist, and reactionary enemies." After the Hama massacre, anyone who dared oppose the regime was labeled a traitor to or enemy of the state -- one that remained at war with Israel.
Damascus Spring
Shortly after the death of his father, Bashar became president in June 2000. With weaker ties to the Alawite heartland, a British education, and a Sunni wife, Bashar professed a desire to liberalize Syrian society, and for a short time, pluralism was tolerated and intellectuals and reformers dared to hope for change. This so-called Damascus Spring proved short-lived, however, coming to an end in 2001 when the Alawite-dominated security clique realized that the inexperienced president's policy of openness could imperil the regime's continued existence and their own dominance within it.
The first sign of reversal came with the arrest of dissidents and forcible closure of intellectual salons and forums. Most recently, the Atassi Forum was prohibited after a member read a statement from Ali Sadreddine al-Bayanuni, the leader of the UK Muslim Brotherhood, crossing one of the government's clear redlines. Again, the emergency law provided public justification for the crackdown.
Damascus Declaration
In the fall of 2005, a group of political parties and intellectuals came together to issue the Damascus Declaration. Among its demands were the suspension of the emergency law and the "adoption of democracy as a modern system." This was perceived as a threat, however meager, to Bashar's regime, which responded predictably. It moved quickly to criminalize the Damascus Declaration movement and sentenced many of its signatories, including its leader Riad Saif, to harsh prison sentences on charges of "weakening national sentiment" and "spreading false or exaggerated news that would affect the morale of the country."
Current Trends
Such legal tactics have justified routine human rights abuses. Today, freedom within Syria has been sharply curtailed even as Bashar's base of support has shrunk. Freedom House lists Syria as "not free" and indicates a decline in standing from 2007 "because of a renewed crackdown on members of the democratic opposition." The large Kurdish minority are barely treated as citizens and the majority Sunnis are barred from many high-level positions. Anyone who speaks out is quickly detained or imprisoned.
In defending its human rights record in 2006 before the UN Human Rights Council, the Syrian government rationalized its retention of the emergency law by pointing to "an imminent threat to the country's integrity," adding:
"...This state of affairs, namely, a real threat of war, Israel's continued occupation of part of the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic, and the real threat of expansion of the occupation, all in violation of United Nations resolutions, created an exceptional situation requiring the rapid and extraordinary mobilization of Syrian forces and efforts to enable the Administration to act quickly to deal with these imminent threats in accordance with the Constitution and laws in force in the Syrian Arab Republic. It was therefore necessary to promulgate the Act and maintain it in force."
It follows that ending the "threat of war" by making peace with Israel would eliminate the need to maintain the law in force, something the regime will clearly be loath to do. Some may argue that Egypt has managed to retain its emergency law after securing a cold peace with Israel, but the legitimacy of the respective regimes cannot be compared. The Mubarak regime, whatever its source of legitimacy, is not based on the narrow support of a sectarian minority within his country. Nor does Egypt rely on surrogates like Hamas or Hizballah to carry out facets of its foreign policy. The stakes are quite different for the two countries; Bashar's Syria needs Israel as an enemy.
Conclusion
Since the threat from Israel has been the essential and necessary myth for retaining the authoritarian grip of the Alawite minority in Damascus, losing it would eliminate the al-Asad regime's raison d'etre. For this reason, in any successful U.S.-brokered negotiation with Israel, Damascus would likely require guarantees from the United States to ease its pressure on the regime and perhaps give the nod to Syria's reasserted control over Lebanon. Doing so, however, would be highly problematic in Washington and would send the worst possible message to those in the region, especially the Lebanese who are struggling to free themselves from their own autocrats. Sacrificing human rights in pursuit of a possible peace deal may seem an acceptable trade-off to some, but given the ruling clique's view that peace and regime preservation are zero-sum options, to seek a peace agreement is to chase a mirage.
J. Scott Carpenter is Keston Family fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and director of its Project Fikra.
April 21, 2009
U.S. and European observers believe that Israel's new government will seek peace with Damascus in an attempt to pry the Syrian regime away from Tehran. Pursuing the Syrian track would also give the Obama administration an outlet for its peacemaking energies, given the ongoing dysfunction of Palestinian politics. Syrian president Bashar al-Asad, however, poured cold water on such prospects at the Arab League Summit in Doha, calling efforts toward peace with Israel "useless." Rhetoric notwithstanding, advocates of the Syrian track hope an isolated and economically desperate Damascus will grasp the olive branch, ushering in a strategic regional realignment and a period of relative stability. Although these are laudable objectives, such a peace with Syria remains highly unlikely for a fundamental reason: without Israel as an enemy, Syria's minority regime loses its sole rationale for retaining power.
Background
Syrian politics began its current trajectory in 1948, when Damascus, along with its Arab allies, sought to smother the newborn Israeli state in its cradle. The Syrian army's defeat led ultimately to a successful Baathist coup on March 8, 1963, and, following another stinging military loss in 1967, the consolidation of Hafiz al-Asad's power in November 1970.
From the beginning, al-Asad's struggle for power relied heavily on loyal Alawite officers scattered throughout the military and security apparatus. Even today, Alawites, who comprise only 12 percent of the population, remain the backbone of the Baathist regime. Within this minority, the al-Asad clan has benefited disproportionately, especially since the death of Hafiz. Today, a small clique around President Bashar al-Asad controls nearly all levers of political power and has outsized influence over the economy.
To maintain this minority dominance, the Baathist regime imposed a state of emergency forty-six years ago, providing the state a vast array of tools to monitor all social communication and to restrict individual freedoms of expression and association. Since its proclamation, the State of Emergency Law of 1962 has been used as the prime justification for authoritarian practices and, as a consequence, the perpetuation of the al-Asad regime. Examples abound.
Hama
In 1982, militant members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Hama challenged the legitimacy of the regime and were brutally crushed. According to Amnesty International, three weeks of shelling killed between 10,000 and 25,000 people. The emergency law provided the legal fig leaf for the government's actions, which included torture, mass executions, the reported use of poison gas, and other horrendous human rights abuses. As Hafiz indicated in a radio address on March 7, 1982, "Death a thousand times to the hired Muslim Brothers, who linked themselves with the enemies of the homeland and who were employed by the imperialist, Zionist, and reactionary enemies." After the Hama massacre, anyone who dared oppose the regime was labeled a traitor to or enemy of the state -- one that remained at war with Israel.
Damascus Spring
Shortly after the death of his father, Bashar became president in June 2000. With weaker ties to the Alawite heartland, a British education, and a Sunni wife, Bashar professed a desire to liberalize Syrian society, and for a short time, pluralism was tolerated and intellectuals and reformers dared to hope for change. This so-called Damascus Spring proved short-lived, however, coming to an end in 2001 when the Alawite-dominated security clique realized that the inexperienced president's policy of openness could imperil the regime's continued existence and their own dominance within it.
The first sign of reversal came with the arrest of dissidents and forcible closure of intellectual salons and forums. Most recently, the Atassi Forum was prohibited after a member read a statement from Ali Sadreddine al-Bayanuni, the leader of the UK Muslim Brotherhood, crossing one of the government's clear redlines. Again, the emergency law provided public justification for the crackdown.
Damascus Declaration
In the fall of 2005, a group of political parties and intellectuals came together to issue the Damascus Declaration. Among its demands were the suspension of the emergency law and the "adoption of democracy as a modern system." This was perceived as a threat, however meager, to Bashar's regime, which responded predictably. It moved quickly to criminalize the Damascus Declaration movement and sentenced many of its signatories, including its leader Riad Saif, to harsh prison sentences on charges of "weakening national sentiment" and "spreading false or exaggerated news that would affect the morale of the country."
Current Trends
Such legal tactics have justified routine human rights abuses. Today, freedom within Syria has been sharply curtailed even as Bashar's base of support has shrunk. Freedom House lists Syria as "not free" and indicates a decline in standing from 2007 "because of a renewed crackdown on members of the democratic opposition." The large Kurdish minority are barely treated as citizens and the majority Sunnis are barred from many high-level positions. Anyone who speaks out is quickly detained or imprisoned.
In defending its human rights record in 2006 before the UN Human Rights Council, the Syrian government rationalized its retention of the emergency law by pointing to "an imminent threat to the country's integrity," adding:
"...This state of affairs, namely, a real threat of war, Israel's continued occupation of part of the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic, and the real threat of expansion of the occupation, all in violation of United Nations resolutions, created an exceptional situation requiring the rapid and extraordinary mobilization of Syrian forces and efforts to enable the Administration to act quickly to deal with these imminent threats in accordance with the Constitution and laws in force in the Syrian Arab Republic. It was therefore necessary to promulgate the Act and maintain it in force."
It follows that ending the "threat of war" by making peace with Israel would eliminate the need to maintain the law in force, something the regime will clearly be loath to do. Some may argue that Egypt has managed to retain its emergency law after securing a cold peace with Israel, but the legitimacy of the respective regimes cannot be compared. The Mubarak regime, whatever its source of legitimacy, is not based on the narrow support of a sectarian minority within his country. Nor does Egypt rely on surrogates like Hamas or Hizballah to carry out facets of its foreign policy. The stakes are quite different for the two countries; Bashar's Syria needs Israel as an enemy.
Conclusion
Since the threat from Israel has been the essential and necessary myth for retaining the authoritarian grip of the Alawite minority in Damascus, losing it would eliminate the al-Asad regime's raison d'etre. For this reason, in any successful U.S.-brokered negotiation with Israel, Damascus would likely require guarantees from the United States to ease its pressure on the regime and perhaps give the nod to Syria's reasserted control over Lebanon. Doing so, however, would be highly problematic in Washington and would send the worst possible message to those in the region, especially the Lebanese who are struggling to free themselves from their own autocrats. Sacrificing human rights in pursuit of a possible peace deal may seem an acceptable trade-off to some, but given the ruling clique's view that peace and regime preservation are zero-sum options, to seek a peace agreement is to chase a mirage.
J. Scott Carpenter is Keston Family fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and director of its Project Fikra.
Czech PM: We'll fight EU calls to freeze Israel ties
Barak Ravid
Czech Prime Minister Mirel Topolanek told President Shimon Peres on Friday that his country, which holds the EU's six-month rotating presidency, would fight against calls within Europe to suspend the upgrade of relations with Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday told the visiting Czech premier that Israel's relationship to the European Union should not be linked to its relationship to the Palestinians.
"Don't set conditions for us," Netanyahu told Topolanek during their meeting. "Peace is in Israel's interest no less than it is in Europe's interest, and there's no need to make the upgrade in relations with Israel conditional on progress on the peace process."
Topolanek is the first foreign government leader to visit Israel since the Netanyahu cabinet was sworn in three weeks ago. The talks between the two were reportedly conducted in a relaxed atmosphere. But Topolanek brought up the issue of construction in West Bank settlements and European concerns that this could prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
"If Israelis can't build homes in the West Bank then Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to either," Netanyahu said in response. He told the Czech leader he has no intention of halting the expansion of existing settlements. "I have no plans to build new settlements, but if someone wants to build a new home [in an existing one], I don't think there's a problem." He characterized the West Bank as "disputed territory" over which negotiations must be held.
Topolanek asked Netanyahu whether he intended to evacuate the illegal outposts on the West Bank, as Israel has promised in the past in the road map and other agreements. Netanyahu said the outposts are both a domestic and foreign issue. "I intend to enforce the law with regard to the outposts," he said.
As rotating president of the EU, the Czech Republic is involved in the upgrading of Israel's relations with that organization. The upgrade was suspended after the formation of the Netanyahu government and his refusal to accept the "two states for two peoples" formula. A few weeks ago, Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg announced the cancellation of a summit scheduled for June between Netanyahu and his European counterparts.
"We expect a clear commitment from the new [Israeli] government to pursue negotiations with the Palestinians," EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said in Brussels on Thursday. "We expect a stop of all activities undermining our objective to a two-state solution - and this includes in particular settlement expansion, which is continuing on a daily basis. The ball is now in the court of Israel."
Czech Prime Minister Mirel Topolanek told President Shimon Peres on Friday that his country, which holds the EU's six-month rotating presidency, would fight against calls within Europe to suspend the upgrade of relations with Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday told the visiting Czech premier that Israel's relationship to the European Union should not be linked to its relationship to the Palestinians.
"Don't set conditions for us," Netanyahu told Topolanek during their meeting. "Peace is in Israel's interest no less than it is in Europe's interest, and there's no need to make the upgrade in relations with Israel conditional on progress on the peace process."
Topolanek is the first foreign government leader to visit Israel since the Netanyahu cabinet was sworn in three weeks ago. The talks between the two were reportedly conducted in a relaxed atmosphere. But Topolanek brought up the issue of construction in West Bank settlements and European concerns that this could prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
"If Israelis can't build homes in the West Bank then Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to either," Netanyahu said in response. He told the Czech leader he has no intention of halting the expansion of existing settlements. "I have no plans to build new settlements, but if someone wants to build a new home [in an existing one], I don't think there's a problem." He characterized the West Bank as "disputed territory" over which negotiations must be held.
Topolanek asked Netanyahu whether he intended to evacuate the illegal outposts on the West Bank, as Israel has promised in the past in the road map and other agreements. Netanyahu said the outposts are both a domestic and foreign issue. "I intend to enforce the law with regard to the outposts," he said.
As rotating president of the EU, the Czech Republic is involved in the upgrading of Israel's relations with that organization. The upgrade was suspended after the formation of the Netanyahu government and his refusal to accept the "two states for two peoples" formula. A few weeks ago, Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg announced the cancellation of a summit scheduled for June between Netanyahu and his European counterparts.
"We expect a clear commitment from the new [Israeli] government to pursue negotiations with the Palestinians," EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said in Brussels on Thursday. "We expect a stop of all activities undermining our objective to a two-state solution - and this includes in particular settlement expansion, which is continuing on a daily basis. The ball is now in the court of Israel."
Mossad warns businessman: Hizbullah may target you
Israeli businessman returns from Europe after Mossad warns him of kidnapping plot
Roni Sofer
Israel News
Terror alert: An Israeli businessman who is also an IDF lieutenant-colonel (res.) has returned to Israel from Europe recently after being warned that he may be a Hizbullah target. Channel 10 reported Thursday that Israeli businesspeople have been returning to the Jewish State from Europe as of late due to similar threats. However, officials at the Counter Terrorism Bureau said they were not familiar with any other specific cases aside from the above-mentioned one.
Israel's security establishment has warned that Hizbullah plans to commit terror attacks against Israelis and Jews across the world in retaliation for the killing of Imad Mugniyah, a senior member of the group, in Damascus in February of 2008. The group accused Israel of the assassination, even though Jerusalem did not claim responsibility for it.
A senior security official told Ynet that the businessman returned to Israel due to fears that he would be kidnapped. According to the few details that have been cleared for publication, the man received a warning to this effect from the Mossad.
Hizbullah's other assumed targets include Israeli and Jewish institutions throughout the world, as well as Israeli airlines and delegations.
Thanks YNET news</span>
Obama asks Congress to relax rules on aid to Palestinians, softens tone on Hamas
Cozying up to jihad terrorists -- the outcome of that can in no way be positive.
Washington signals softer tone on Hamas," by Daniel Dombey and Tobias Buck in the Financial Times, April 22 (thanks to Pamela): Barack Obama's administration is trying to smooth the way for aid to a Palestinian government backed by Hamas in a striking contrast to the policy of George W. Bush, the former president, who sought to bring down any such government.
In a request for more than $800m in US funds for the West Bank and Gaza, the administration has asked Congress to soften rules for granting assistance to the Palestinians, to prevent disruption of aid in the event of a national unity government being formed....
According to legislation passed this year, aid to a power-sharing government including Hamas can only continue if Mr Obama certifies that the militant Islamist organisation has accepted international principles including renouncing violence, abiding by past agreements and recognising Israel's right to exist.
The latest request by the administration would instead require that the president certify "that such [a] government has accepted and is complying with the principles".
That is a much easier test, since Palestinian officials say any coalition agreed by the two parties would not include members of Hamas or its rival Fatah, but instead rely on independent politicians and technocrats.
The US move comes in spite of Israeli arguments that peace would not be advanced by a Palestinian government that included Hamas, which Israel, the US and the European Union all identify as a terrorist organisation....
Meanwhile, Obama has approved a Turkish arms sale to Lebanon, and the Russians, ever eager to aid the global jihad, are giving Lebanon fighter jets for free. Hmmm. I wonder who the Lebanese will use them against? Pamela has details.
Washington signals softer tone on Hamas," by Daniel Dombey and Tobias Buck in the Financial Times, April 22 (thanks to Pamela): Barack Obama's administration is trying to smooth the way for aid to a Palestinian government backed by Hamas in a striking contrast to the policy of George W. Bush, the former president, who sought to bring down any such government.
In a request for more than $800m in US funds for the West Bank and Gaza, the administration has asked Congress to soften rules for granting assistance to the Palestinians, to prevent disruption of aid in the event of a national unity government being formed....
According to legislation passed this year, aid to a power-sharing government including Hamas can only continue if Mr Obama certifies that the militant Islamist organisation has accepted international principles including renouncing violence, abiding by past agreements and recognising Israel's right to exist.
The latest request by the administration would instead require that the president certify "that such [a] government has accepted and is complying with the principles".
That is a much easier test, since Palestinian officials say any coalition agreed by the two parties would not include members of Hamas or its rival Fatah, but instead rely on independent politicians and technocrats.
The US move comes in spite of Israeli arguments that peace would not be advanced by a Palestinian government that included Hamas, which Israel, the US and the European Union all identify as a terrorist organisation....
Meanwhile, Obama has approved a Turkish arms sale to Lebanon, and the Russians, ever eager to aid the global jihad, are giving Lebanon fighter jets for free. Hmmm. I wonder who the Lebanese will use them against? Pamela has details.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Clinton Stays On Course
Rubin Reports
23 Apr 2009 05:37 AM PDT
In the same congressional testimony where she discussed U.S. Iran policy, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also said that the United States would only work with a Palestinian regime that met the conditions of the Quartet (Europe, UN, Russia, United States). That is: recognize Israel, abandon violence, accept all previous agreements. President Barack Obama included a similar point in his statement after meeting King Abdallah of Jordan. This reinforces the U.S. boycott of Hamas, which seems to have weakened somewhat in British policy. In theory, it leaves the door open for dealing with a Palestinian Authority (PA) coalition regime of Fatah and Hamas. In practice, though, this isn't going to happen.
Fatah and Hamas each want to dominate the other. Hamas believes it is winning. It is allied with Iran which will be a nuclear power in the not-distant future, it probably expects (more likely, but not necessarily, wrongly) to take over the West Bank in a few years, and it believes (with more good reasons) that the Western opposition to it is crumbling.
Meanwhile, the PA continues to be corrupt and provides no alternative world view of how beneficial peace with Israel would be, including allowing creation of a Palestinian state. Its strategy seems to consist of: blaming Israel for all problems and hoping the world will pressure Israel into unilateral concessions so it can get a state without doing anything to earn one in a peace based on mutual compromise and conciliation.
[A digression on PA corruption. It has just been revealed that two sons of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas received $2 million in U.S. aid money for various projects including improving America's image among Palestinians. Memo to Tarek and Yasser Abbas: Easy way to earn the money! Tell your father to stop running anti-American materials in the PA's radio, television and newspaper outlets.]
In addition, the Hamas leaders really believe what they are saying and are not closet pragmatists. On a practical level, however, they understand that their advantage over Fatah and the PA is their open extremism and their more energetic practice of terrorist violence.
For four reasons then--desire for power, ideology, strategy, and confidence--Hamas is not going to submit itself to the PA. It certainly isn't going to meet the Quartet's conditions.
There are those in Fatah eager for a deal with Hamas. Indeed, they are far more eager for peace with Hamas than for peace with Israel. They are ready to sacrifice the latter for the former. Yet Hamas's terms are likely to be too steep for them.
Thus, Clinton's statement and U.S. policy are that the United States puts its faith in Fatah and the PA as the vehicle for making rapid progress in the "peace process." They will funnel money to the PA and train its military forces.
They are wrong to expect the PA to move toward peace but right to back it (though this should not be done so idealistically and uncritically). Hamas must be kept from taking over Palestinian leadership.
And remember, this like every issue is in the context of the great battle now going on in the region: the struggle between nationalists (including Israeli and Turkish) against Islamists, and between an Iran-led coalition (the HISH--Hamas, Iran, Hizballah, and Syria) and most Arab regimes plus Israel.
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/04/clinton-stays-on-course.html
23 Apr 2009 05:37 AM PDT
In the same congressional testimony where she discussed U.S. Iran policy, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also said that the United States would only work with a Palestinian regime that met the conditions of the Quartet (Europe, UN, Russia, United States). That is: recognize Israel, abandon violence, accept all previous agreements. President Barack Obama included a similar point in his statement after meeting King Abdallah of Jordan. This reinforces the U.S. boycott of Hamas, which seems to have weakened somewhat in British policy. In theory, it leaves the door open for dealing with a Palestinian Authority (PA) coalition regime of Fatah and Hamas. In practice, though, this isn't going to happen.
Fatah and Hamas each want to dominate the other. Hamas believes it is winning. It is allied with Iran which will be a nuclear power in the not-distant future, it probably expects (more likely, but not necessarily, wrongly) to take over the West Bank in a few years, and it believes (with more good reasons) that the Western opposition to it is crumbling.
Meanwhile, the PA continues to be corrupt and provides no alternative world view of how beneficial peace with Israel would be, including allowing creation of a Palestinian state. Its strategy seems to consist of: blaming Israel for all problems and hoping the world will pressure Israel into unilateral concessions so it can get a state without doing anything to earn one in a peace based on mutual compromise and conciliation.
[A digression on PA corruption. It has just been revealed that two sons of PA leader Mahmoud Abbas received $2 million in U.S. aid money for various projects including improving America's image among Palestinians. Memo to Tarek and Yasser Abbas: Easy way to earn the money! Tell your father to stop running anti-American materials in the PA's radio, television and newspaper outlets.]
In addition, the Hamas leaders really believe what they are saying and are not closet pragmatists. On a practical level, however, they understand that their advantage over Fatah and the PA is their open extremism and their more energetic practice of terrorist violence.
For four reasons then--desire for power, ideology, strategy, and confidence--Hamas is not going to submit itself to the PA. It certainly isn't going to meet the Quartet's conditions.
There are those in Fatah eager for a deal with Hamas. Indeed, they are far more eager for peace with Hamas than for peace with Israel. They are ready to sacrifice the latter for the former. Yet Hamas's terms are likely to be too steep for them.
Thus, Clinton's statement and U.S. policy are that the United States puts its faith in Fatah and the PA as the vehicle for making rapid progress in the "peace process." They will funnel money to the PA and train its military forces.
They are wrong to expect the PA to move toward peace but right to back it (though this should not be done so idealistically and uncritically). Hamas must be kept from taking over Palestinian leadership.
And remember, this like every issue is in the context of the great battle now going on in the region: the struggle between nationalists (including Israeli and Turkish) against Islamists, and between an Iran-led coalition (the HISH--Hamas, Iran, Hizballah, and Syria) and most Arab regimes plus Israel.
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/04/clinton-stays-on-course.html
Clinton: PA Arabs Must Recognize Israel
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/130992
April 23, '09
by Avraham Zuroff
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, stated Wednesday that the States would not finance or participate in contacts with a government run by Palestinian Authority (PA) Arabs that included Hamas unless it would renounce violence and recognize Israel. Clinton furthermore stated that three conditions, which were adopted by the international community, would have to be fulfilled before the US would deal with a PA that includes Hamas. "We will not deal with nor in any way fund a Palestinian government that includes Hamas unless and until Hamas has renounced violence, recognized Israel and agrees to follow the previous obligations of the Palestinian Authority," Clinton told the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee.
Clinton’s appearance in the House of Representatives was the first since her confirmation hearings in January.
Regarding the diplomatic process between Israel and the PA, Clinton said that Washington is actively involved in assisting the sides in arriving at a two-state solution.
US Running Dual Diplomacy towards Iran
Clinton told the Washington lawmakers that the Obama administration is running a dual-track program in its persuading Iran to prevent its development of nuclear weaponry.
“We are more than willing to reach out to the Iranians to discuss a range of issues,” should Tehran reciprocate, Clinton stated. However, if all else fails, Clinton said that the U.S. would implement sanctions towards Iran. “We are also laying the groundwork for the kind of very tough sanctions, I think you said crippling sanctions, that might be necessary in the event that our offers are either rejected or the process is inconclusive or unsuccessful,” Clinton added.
Iran said Wednesday that it is open to “constructive dialogue” with world powers regarding its nuclear ambitions. However, chief nuclear negotiator Said Jalili told Iranian news agencies that Iran would not halt its nuclear program.
Last week, Ahmadinejad stated that Iran would present a package of proposals to a group of permanent members of the UN’s Security Council who favor dialogue with Iran. The package, a revamp of Iran’s proposals offered in May 2008, would be presented as “solving the world’s problems” – including the setting-up of a uranium enrichment facility and nuclear fuel manufacturing plant in Iran.
_______________________________________
(IsraelNN.com) Arab Faces Death for Land Sale
by Hillel Fendel
As a Palestinian Authority Arab faces the death sentence for selling land to Jews, a civil rights group asks Prime Minister Netanyahu to demand that PA rescind death penalty for the “crime.”
The Yesha (Judea and Samaria) Civil Rights Organization has written an urgent letter to Binyamin Netanyahu and ministers in his government in light of the opening of the trial this week. According to PA law, the defendant faces the death penalty if convicted.
The letter, addressed to Netanyahu and the Ministers of Justice, Defense, and Public Security, states, “The Land of Israel is now the only place in the world where the law officially bans the sale of land to Jews because they are Jews. Even worse, the punishment for violators is actually death.”
The organization says that Netanyahu’s government must set an ultimatum: “No negotiations with the Palestinian Authority until this anti-Semitic law is rescinded. This demand takes precedence even over the insistence that the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish state.”
The trial of the Hevron resident in a special PA court began on Tuesday, with the defendant accused of having sold land in the Hevron area to Jews. The Yesha group asks Netanyahu and the ministers to step in to save the man, who is being charged with treason.
Israel’s intervention in the past has caused the PA to release others who had been jailed on suspicion of selling land to Jews. These include Arab-Israelis living in eastern Jerusalem.
Strook: "Such a Law is a Red Light for Diplomatic Relations"
Orit Strook of the Jewish Community of Hevron, the director of the Yesha Civil Rights group, says, “Israel would never have diplomatic relations with any country that has on its books a law forbidding the sale of land to Jews.”
Her organization’s letter states that the confiscation of Beit HaShalom (Peace House) from its rightful Jewish owners in Hevron several months ago is directly related to the fact that Arabs must fear for their lives when selling to Jews: “The Israeli authorities act as if the Arab sellers are free people, when in fact a gun is pointed at their heads and they must do everything they can to hide their actions – and this is why they claimed after the sale of Beit HaShalom [to Jew that they never sold it.”
“So long as the ‘Palestinian rule of law’ is not uprooted from its source,” the letter concludes, “all the talk about Israeli rule of law in Judea and Samaria has no foothold in reality.”
Comments from Aggie: Either the headline does not accurately reflect the article or Clinton misses the mark. She speaks of what Hamas must do, yet the PA is no different. Abbas recently became hysterical when Netanyahu suggested that the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Worse yet, to date the PA charter continues to call for the destruction of Israel, while incitement, terror, and death sentence for selling land to Jews is a fact of everyday life. The PA has met none of its obligations under the Road Map, yet it demands an end to Jews living in Judea and Samaria and the flooding of Israel with its "refugees."
The PA makes many demands but is willing to give up nothing. Its actions demonstrate zero good faith. This is not a willing peace partner. Wake up Hillary!
--
Best,
Aggie
April 23, '09
by Avraham Zuroff
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, stated Wednesday that the States would not finance or participate in contacts with a government run by Palestinian Authority (PA) Arabs that included Hamas unless it would renounce violence and recognize Israel. Clinton furthermore stated that three conditions, which were adopted by the international community, would have to be fulfilled before the US would deal with a PA that includes Hamas. "We will not deal with nor in any way fund a Palestinian government that includes Hamas unless and until Hamas has renounced violence, recognized Israel and agrees to follow the previous obligations of the Palestinian Authority," Clinton told the U.S. House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee.
Clinton’s appearance in the House of Representatives was the first since her confirmation hearings in January.
Regarding the diplomatic process between Israel and the PA, Clinton said that Washington is actively involved in assisting the sides in arriving at a two-state solution.
US Running Dual Diplomacy towards Iran
Clinton told the Washington lawmakers that the Obama administration is running a dual-track program in its persuading Iran to prevent its development of nuclear weaponry.
“We are more than willing to reach out to the Iranians to discuss a range of issues,” should Tehran reciprocate, Clinton stated. However, if all else fails, Clinton said that the U.S. would implement sanctions towards Iran. “We are also laying the groundwork for the kind of very tough sanctions, I think you said crippling sanctions, that might be necessary in the event that our offers are either rejected or the process is inconclusive or unsuccessful,” Clinton added.
Iran said Wednesday that it is open to “constructive dialogue” with world powers regarding its nuclear ambitions. However, chief nuclear negotiator Said Jalili told Iranian news agencies that Iran would not halt its nuclear program.
Last week, Ahmadinejad stated that Iran would present a package of proposals to a group of permanent members of the UN’s Security Council who favor dialogue with Iran. The package, a revamp of Iran’s proposals offered in May 2008, would be presented as “solving the world’s problems” – including the setting-up of a uranium enrichment facility and nuclear fuel manufacturing plant in Iran.
_______________________________________
(IsraelNN.com) Arab Faces Death for Land Sale
by Hillel Fendel
As a Palestinian Authority Arab faces the death sentence for selling land to Jews, a civil rights group asks Prime Minister Netanyahu to demand that PA rescind death penalty for the “crime.”
The Yesha (Judea and Samaria) Civil Rights Organization has written an urgent letter to Binyamin Netanyahu and ministers in his government in light of the opening of the trial this week. According to PA law, the defendant faces the death penalty if convicted.
The letter, addressed to Netanyahu and the Ministers of Justice, Defense, and Public Security, states, “The Land of Israel is now the only place in the world where the law officially bans the sale of land to Jews because they are Jews. Even worse, the punishment for violators is actually death.”
The organization says that Netanyahu’s government must set an ultimatum: “No negotiations with the Palestinian Authority until this anti-Semitic law is rescinded. This demand takes precedence even over the insistence that the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish state.”
The trial of the Hevron resident in a special PA court began on Tuesday, with the defendant accused of having sold land in the Hevron area to Jews. The Yesha group asks Netanyahu and the ministers to step in to save the man, who is being charged with treason.
Israel’s intervention in the past has caused the PA to release others who had been jailed on suspicion of selling land to Jews. These include Arab-Israelis living in eastern Jerusalem.
Strook: "Such a Law is a Red Light for Diplomatic Relations"
Orit Strook of the Jewish Community of Hevron, the director of the Yesha Civil Rights group, says, “Israel would never have diplomatic relations with any country that has on its books a law forbidding the sale of land to Jews.”
Her organization’s letter states that the confiscation of Beit HaShalom (Peace House) from its rightful Jewish owners in Hevron several months ago is directly related to the fact that Arabs must fear for their lives when selling to Jews: “The Israeli authorities act as if the Arab sellers are free people, when in fact a gun is pointed at their heads and they must do everything they can to hide their actions – and this is why they claimed after the sale of Beit HaShalom [to Jew that they never sold it.”
“So long as the ‘Palestinian rule of law’ is not uprooted from its source,” the letter concludes, “all the talk about Israeli rule of law in Judea and Samaria has no foothold in reality.”
Comments from Aggie: Either the headline does not accurately reflect the article or Clinton misses the mark. She speaks of what Hamas must do, yet the PA is no different. Abbas recently became hysterical when Netanyahu suggested that the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Worse yet, to date the PA charter continues to call for the destruction of Israel, while incitement, terror, and death sentence for selling land to Jews is a fact of everyday life. The PA has met none of its obligations under the Road Map, yet it demands an end to Jews living in Judea and Samaria and the flooding of Israel with its "refugees."
The PA makes many demands but is willing to give up nothing. Its actions demonstrate zero good faith. This is not a willing peace partner. Wake up Hillary!
--
Best,
Aggie
Arab Faces Death for Land Sale
Hillel Fendel Arab Faces Death for Land Sale
As a Palestinian Authority Arab faces the death sentence for selling land to Jews, a civil rights group asks Prime Minister Netanyahu to demand that PA rescind death penalty for the “crime.” The Yesha (Judea and Samaria) Civil Rights Organization has written an urgent letter to Binyamin Netanyahu and ministers in his government in light of the opening of the trial this week. According to PA law, the defendant faces the death penalty if convicted.
The letter, addressed to Netanyahu and the Ministers of Justice, Defense, and Public Security, states, “The Land of Israel is now the only place in the world where the law officially bans the sale of land to Jews because they are Jews. Even worse, the punishment for violators is actually death.”
The organization says that Netanyahu’s government must set an ultimatum: “No negotiations with the Palestinian Authority until this anti-Semitic law is rescinded. This demand takes precedence even over the insistence that the PA recognize Israel as a Jewish state.”
The trial of the Hevron resident in a special PA court began on Tuesday, with the defendant accused of having sold land in the Hevron area to Jews. The Yesha group asks Netanyahu and the ministers to step in to save the man, who is being charged with treason.
Israel’s intervention in the past has caused the PA to release others who had been jailed on suspicion of selling land to Jews. These include Arab-Israelis living in eastern Jerusalem.
Strook: "Such a Law is a Red Light for Diplomatic Relations"
Orit Strook of the Jewish Community of Hevron, the director of the Yesha Civil Rights group, says, “Israel would never have diplomatic relations with any country that has on its books a law forbidding the sale of land to Jews.”
Her organization’s letter states that the confiscation of Beit HaShalom (Peace House) from its rightful Jewish owners in Hevron several months ago is directly related to the fact that Arabs must fear for their lives when selling to Jews: “The Israeli authorities act as if the Arab sellers are free people, when in fact a gun is pointed at their heads and they must do everything they can to hide their actions – and this is why they claimed after the sale of Beit HaShalom [to Jew that they never sold it.”
“So long as the ‘Palestinian rule of law’ is not uprooted from its source,” the letter concludes, “all the talk about Israeli rule of law in Judea and Samaria has no foothold in reality.”
Israel must present its own Plan
Ted Belman
Now that Obama has indicated that Netanyahu will be invited to Washington for talks, Netanyahu is getting ready.
DEBKAfile’s exclusive Washington sources disclose,
the US president accepted the extended Arab peace plan initiated by Saudi Arabia and reaffirmed at a foreign ministers’ conference in Amman this month. He will present this formula to his three Middle East visitors as the starting point for the diplomatic process. Three major flies in Washington’s peacemaking ointment are,
1, the rival Palestinian Hamas and Fatah factions failed to achieve a power-sharing accord in the negotiations brokered in person by Gen. Suleiman. Mahmoud Abbas therefore represents only one Palestinian faction - and not necessarily the largest one. The rejectionist Hamas and the Gaza Strip would be left out of any peace equation and be well-placed to sabotage it.
2. Syria stands opposed to the Arab peace initiative.
3. The Israeli position will be clarified by Netanyahu when he meets the US president in Washington in about a month. Whatever concessions he may offer, they will not include acceptance of the 1948 Palestinian refugees or the renunciation of historic Jerusalem to the Palestinian state, both key Arab demands.
Why is Netanyahu silent on the issue of borders and uprooting Jews from the land?
At a minimum Netanyahu should take the position that his government will not offer as much as the former government.
In addition, he should say that
1. Israel Is entitled by Res 242 to secure borders otherwise known as defensible borders.
2. Israel does not recognize any obligation to retreat from all the land and therefore there is no justification for demanding mutual exchanges of land.
3. Israel will not offer more land to the new entity than the 93% already offered and such offer may be withdrawn at any time.
4. Israel will consider offereing Israeli land on which Arabs live in exchange for the settlements.
5. Israel must retain Maaleh Adumin and Ariel.
6. Israel is not obligated to connect Gaza to Judea and Samaria.
7. Israel will not abandon the Roadmap, requiring an end to violence and incitement, for the Arab Initiative. For Obama to embrace the Plan, is to prejudge the outcome.
8. The Arab Initiative has no standing in the peace process. It is just an offer.
Israel should set this all out in a Plan so that there will be two plans on the table. Israel should not agree to allow the Arab Initiative to frame the debate.
If the Arabs reject Israel’s plan out of hand then Israel should similarily reject their plan.
Now that Obama has indicated that Netanyahu will be invited to Washington for talks, Netanyahu is getting ready.
DEBKAfile’s exclusive Washington sources disclose,
the US president accepted the extended Arab peace plan initiated by Saudi Arabia and reaffirmed at a foreign ministers’ conference in Amman this month. He will present this formula to his three Middle East visitors as the starting point for the diplomatic process. Three major flies in Washington’s peacemaking ointment are,
1, the rival Palestinian Hamas and Fatah factions failed to achieve a power-sharing accord in the negotiations brokered in person by Gen. Suleiman. Mahmoud Abbas therefore represents only one Palestinian faction - and not necessarily the largest one. The rejectionist Hamas and the Gaza Strip would be left out of any peace equation and be well-placed to sabotage it.
2. Syria stands opposed to the Arab peace initiative.
3. The Israeli position will be clarified by Netanyahu when he meets the US president in Washington in about a month. Whatever concessions he may offer, they will not include acceptance of the 1948 Palestinian refugees or the renunciation of historic Jerusalem to the Palestinian state, both key Arab demands.
Why is Netanyahu silent on the issue of borders and uprooting Jews from the land?
At a minimum Netanyahu should take the position that his government will not offer as much as the former government.
In addition, he should say that
1. Israel Is entitled by Res 242 to secure borders otherwise known as defensible borders.
2. Israel does not recognize any obligation to retreat from all the land and therefore there is no justification for demanding mutual exchanges of land.
3. Israel will not offer more land to the new entity than the 93% already offered and such offer may be withdrawn at any time.
4. Israel will consider offereing Israeli land on which Arabs live in exchange for the settlements.
5. Israel must retain Maaleh Adumin and Ariel.
6. Israel is not obligated to connect Gaza to Judea and Samaria.
7. Israel will not abandon the Roadmap, requiring an end to violence and incitement, for the Arab Initiative. For Obama to embrace the Plan, is to prejudge the outcome.
8. The Arab Initiative has no standing in the peace process. It is just an offer.
Israel should set this all out in a Plan so that there will be two plans on the table. Israel should not agree to allow the Arab Initiative to frame the debate.
If the Arabs reject Israel’s plan out of hand then Israel should similarily reject their plan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)