Israel’s Govt. Has Not Endorsed Creating Palestinian State
Fmr. IDF Chief Yaalon: “Palestinian state will lead to war.”
The ZOA has expressed deep concern that the America-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a leading pro-Israel lobby, has endorsed establishing a Palestinian Arab state alongside Israel’s longest border on the assumption that such a state will produce peace. In this year’s lobbying effort by AIPAC, AIPAC activists were instructed to ask their congressmen to sign on to letters addressed to Obama that explicitly promotes the need for a “viable Palestinian state.” ZOA is mystified that AIPAC is supporting the establishment of a Palestinian state despite the fact that Mahmoud Abbas refuses to accept Israel as a Jewish state and other PA leaders refuse to accept Israel at all.
Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority, last week displaying a map of all of Israel labeled as “Palestine”. Notice at top of map the word “Palestine” in English.
AIPAC has always said that it supports the policies of the Israeli government, but it now supports a Palestinian state while the Netanyahu government has taken no such position. This is untrue. On other occasions, it is also true that AIPAC has not supported Israel’s policies. For example, when Prime Ministers Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir asked AIPAC to support the right of Jews to live in Judea and Samaria, AIPAC refused. In May 2002, Binyamin Netanyahu, in a major speech, clearly spelt out the dangers of a Palestinian Arab state and the reasons its creation under existing conditions had to be opposed:
“The biggest mistake that can be made is to promise [to the Palestinians] the establishment of their own independent state … it will demand all the powers of a state, such as controlling borders, bringing in weapons, control of airspace and the ability to knock down any Israeli plane that enters its area, the ability to sign peace treaties and military alliances with other countries. Once you give them a state, you give them all these things, even if there is an agreement to the contrary, for within a short time they will demand all these things, and they will assume these powers, and the world will stand by and do nothing - but it will stop us from trying to stop them ... We will thus have created with our own hands a threat to our very existence. On the day that we sign an agreement for a state with limited authorities, what will happen if the Palestinians do what the Germans did after World War I, when they nullified the demilitarized zone? The world did nothing then, and the world will do nothing now as well. Even now, the Palestinians are removing all the restrictions to which they agreed in Oslo – they are smuggling in arms, polluting the water sources, building an army, making military deals with Iran and others, and more… But when we try to take action against this, the world opposes us – and not them... Arafat said it best when talking to reporters the day he signed the Oslo Accords: ‘Since we can’t defeat Israel in war, we must do it in stages, we must take whatever area of Palestine we can get, establish sovereignty there, and then at the right time, we will have to convince the Arab nations to join us in dealing the final blow to Israel.’ Self-rule, yes. But a state with which to destroy the State of Israel – no ... We are told that the idea of a Palestinian state is just a vision for the future, not for right now. Well, our nation, too, has a vision for the future: ‘The wolf shall lie down with the lamb.’ When this vision is fulfilled in the Middle East, then we’ll convene this Committee again and re-consider the issue … On matters vital to our existence, we always took clear action, even if others didn’t agree with us. Because the bottom line is that saying ‘Yes’ to a Palestinian state means ‘No’ to a Jewish State, and vice-versa” (Hillel Fendel, ‘Netanyahu: Why We Must Oppose a Palestinian State,’ Israel National News, April 30, 2009)
However, today, AIPAC is supporting a Palestinian Arab state even though the Netanyahu government has not done so. The letters being circulated to law makers on Capitol Hill are especially troubling in that they promote Palestinian statehood while Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah (strongly supported by Palestinian opinion) refuse to accept Israel or even to depict the country on PA maps, atlases and the Fatah emblem; continue to permit incitement to hatred and murder against Jews and Israel in the PA-controlled media, mosques, schools and youth camps; do not arrest and jail terrorists or outlaw terrorist groups; retain the Fatah Constitution with its calls for terrorism and Israel’s destruction; and honors terrorists like George Habash and Samir Kuntar. Negotiating the creation of any Palestinian Arab state should be conditional on ending all these things and transforming Palestinian society. In the absence of this, ZOA has argued that this is no time to be endorsing or promoting the creation of a Palestinian state.
ZOA criticism is therefore two-fold: it opposes this move by AIPAC because supporting or promoting a Palestinian Arab state under prevailing conditions is seriously mistaken and because AIPAC is thereby supporting a major policy affecting Israel’s vital interests despite the fact that the Israeli government has not supported such a policy. As the Jerusalem Post report, “While Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is refusing to explicitly endorse a two-state solution to resolve the Palestinian conflict, participants at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference will this week be urging their elected representatives to press President Barack Obama for precisely that” (Hilary Leila Krieger, ‘AIPAC delegates to lobby for two-state solution,’ Jerusalem Post, May 4, 2009).
Polls of both American Jews and Israelis show less than majority support for establishing a Palestinian state:
American Jews:
§ The 2007 American Jewish Committee poll showed that 55% of American Jews don’t believe that current negotiations can lead to peace, while only 36% were hopeful that it would; 58% of American Jews reject Israeli concessions on Jerusalem, even in context of permanent peace, with only 36% supporting the idea. It showed 81% of American Jews agree that “The goal of the Arabs is not the return of occupied territories but rather the destruction of Israel.” Also, less than half (46%) support the creation of a Palestinian state.
§ A March 2007 McLaughlin & Associates poll shows that non-Jewish Americans as well, by a margin of 5 to 1, oppose Israel land concession to the Palestinian Arabs and by 2 to 1, believe that a Palestinian state will be a terrorist state, not a peaceful democracy.
Israelis:
§ February 2009: Israelis oppose 51 percent – 31 percent the creation of a Palestinian state, as opposed to merely 31 percent that favor its establishment; Israelis believe 52 percent – 22 percent that the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria will lead to rocket fire on Jerusalem, Kfar Sava and other cities in central Israel. (‘Poll: Israelis oppose Palestinian State 51%:32% - 31% of Kadima voters would drop support if thought Kadima supports Pal State,’ Independent Media Review & Analysis, February 9, 2009).
§ July 2008: Jerusalem’s residents (including Israeli Arabs) oppose the division of the city with physical barriers 73 percent – 27 percent, (‘Polls: 73%:27% Jerusalem residents oppose physical separation in city in wake of attacks,’ Independent Media Review & Analysis, July 24, 2008).
§ An October 2007 Tami Steinmetz Center for Peace Research and the Evens Program in Mediation and Conflict Resolution of Tel Aviv University poll has shown that a clear majority of Jewish Israelis – 59% to 33% – oppose, even in return for a peace agreement, Israel handing over to the PA various Arab neighborhoods in the eastern half of Jerusalem.
Moreover, the Palestinian leadership of Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas does not accept Israel’s existence, let alone as a Jewish state:
§ Mahmoud Abbas, PA president and Fatah chairman: “Alluding to the dispute over whether the Palestinian government should recognize Israel and abide by past Palestinian agreements, Abbas noted that ‘forces don’t need to accept what the government accepts, and we say that the government has to accept the international legitimacy.’” (‘Abbas calls for all-inclusive unity government,’ Ma’an News [Palestinian wire service], April 27, 2009); “I say this clearly: I do not accept the Jewish State, call it what you will.” A smiling Abbas held up a large framed map of ‘Palestine’ covering the entire area of Israel, which was featured on the front page of both PA daily newspaper, with ‘Palestine’ printed in English (Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, ‘Mahmoud Abbas: “I do not accept the Jewish State, call it what you will,” Palestinian Media Watch, April 28, 2009).
§ Abbas: “The Palestinians do not accept the formula that the state of Israel is a Jewish state.” (David Bedein, ‘Olmert reports to Israel Cabinet Meeting,’ Bulletin [Philadelphia], December 3, 2007).
§ Abbas: “Hamas is not required, Hamas is not required to recognize Israel... It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front to recognize Israel, all right? The PLO, in 1993, recognized Israel ... But the government which will be formed, and which will function opposite the Israelis on a daily basis ... every hour and perhaps every second, there will be contact between Palestinian ministers and Israeli ministers ... [Abbas then gives an example of 500 million dollars in taxes intended for the Palestinians, but put on hold by Israelis. The Palestinian finance minister has to come to an agreement with the Israeli finance minister regarding the transfer of that money.] So how can he make an agreement with him if he does not recognize him? So I do not demand of Hamas nor any other [organizations] to recognize Israel. But from the government that works with Israelis in day to day life, yes” (Al-Arabiya [Dubai] and PA TV, October 3, 2006, Itamar Marcus & Barbara Crook, ‘Abbas dupes US: “Recognition” is functional, not inherent,’ Palestinian Media Watch, October 5, 2006).
§ Senior Fatah commander, Muhammad Dahlan, former commander of Fatah forces in Gaza: “[Hamas says] that the Fatah movement wants Hamas to recognize Israel. This is a gross deception. And I want to say for the thousandth time, in my own name and in the name of all of my fellow members of the Fatah movement: We do not demand that the Hamas movement recognize Israel. On the contrary, we demand of the Hamas movement not to recognize Israel, because the Fatah movement does not recognize Israel, even today … We of the Fatah do not recognize Israel; we recognized [corrects himself] recognize that which the PLO recognized, but that does not obligate us as a Palestinian resistance faction. It is not being demanded of Hamas that it recognize Israel ... The entire Palestinian economy is dependent on Israel. The government’s role is to manage the day-to-day life of the Palestinian people. I cannot force my thinking and my position [non-recognition of Israel] on the government, and then [were I to do so] – should the Palestinian people pay the price for this position? … It’s not the political parties [that must recognize]; it’s required of the government and not of the parties. It’s required of the government but not of Hamas; it’s required of the government but not of the Fatah” (Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, ‘Western funders misled: Fatah still refuses to recognize Israel, PA’s “recognition” only to receive international aid,’ Palestinian Media Watch, March 17, 2009)
§ Abu Ahmed, Fatah commander: ‘“The base of our Fatah movement keeps dreaming of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Jaffa and Acco. ...There is no change in our official position. Fatah as a movement never recognized Israel,” the terrorist, calling himself Abu Ahmed, explained. He went on to say that the Al-Aksa Brigades is ‘one and the same’ with the Fatah party.’ (David Bedein, ‘The American Sanitizing of a Terrorist Group,’ Israel National News, October 5, 2006).
Palestinian society opposes Israel’s existence and supports terrorism against Israel:
* January 2009 poll: Jerusalem Media & Communications Center poll that found that 55.4 percent of Palestinians support continued suicide bombings against Israel, as against 37.6 percent who oppose it. (Jerusalem Media & Communications Center, Poll No. 67, January 2009).
* March 2008 Poll: 83.5% of Palestinians approve of the March 6 terrorist attack on the Mercaz Harav seminary in Jerusalem in which 8 people, mainly teenagers, were murdered and a further 40 wounded; 63.6% support rocket attacks on Israeli towns, as against 32.6% who oppose it. (Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research poll, March 2008).
§ February 2007 Poll: 75% of Palestinian Arabs do not think that Israel has a right to exist; 70% of Palestinian Arabs support a one-state solution in which Jews would be a minority, not a two-state solution with a Palestinian Arab state living peacefully alongside Israel (Near East Consulting (NEC) poll, February 12-15, 2007, ‘NEC 12-15 February Poll: 75% of Palestinians do not think that Israel has the right to exist,’ Independent Media Review Analysis, February 16, 2007).
§ September 2006 Poll: 57% of Palestinian Arabs support terrorist attacks upon Israeli civilians; 75% support the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers in a bid to obtain the release of jailed Palestinians terrorists; 63% are inspired by the Lebanese Islamist terror group Hizballah and seek to emulate it (Harry S. Truman Research Institute for the Advancement of Peace, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PCPSR) poll, September 2006).
ZOA National President Morton A. Klein, National Chairman of the Board Dr. Michael Goldblatt, Executive Committee Chairman Dr. Alan Mazurek and Treasurer Henry Schwartz said, “We are perplexed and critical of the fact that a major pro-Israel organization like AIPAC has taken this step. It constitutes a major reward for Palestinian terrorism and non-acceptance of Israel when we should only be rewarding moderation and acceptance and fulfillment of written agreements of Oslo, Wye and the Roadmap. By doing this, AIPAC is sending a message to Palestinians that they need to do nothing but accept unilateral Israeli concessions, rather than extirpate their armed extremists and reform their society for peace with and acceptance of Israel.
“For an organization that prides itself as one that gives support to the democratically elected Israeli government of the day, AIPAC is helping to increase pressures on the Israeli government to accept creation of a Palestinian state at a time and under conditions in which creating a Palestinian state would mean giving birth to a new, unreconstructed terror state on Israel’s longest border.
“If a Palestinian Arab state were to be established next door to the U.S. in the near-certainty that it would be a corrupt, terror-promoting state which would also be beggar state, dependent on an infusion of billions of dollars, would Americans agree to this? Of course, not – yet that is the sort of idea that AIPAC is now urging upon Congress.
“Under prevailing conditions, there is no sound basis for working to create a Palestinian Arab state, which would become simply another terror state. It’s the height of naiveté to think that sovereignty will resolve this conflict. It would not cause Palestinians to moderate or their leaders to act like good neighbors. On the contrary, it would give Palestinians enhanced capacity to wage war against Israel and further their rejectionist agenda. Remember, Iran, North Korea and Syria are sovereign states. Has that made them peace-loving and moderate?
“There is a growing number of people who oppose the establishment of a Palestinian State, including military and intelligence figures who are speaking out on this issue. They include former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, Lt.-Gen. Moshe Yaalon; former head of the CIA, Jim Woolsey; Mideast scholar, Professor Emeritus, Princeton University, Bernard Lewis and Dr. Daniel Pipes, Director of the Middle East Forum.
“Lt.-Gen. Moshe Yaalon, has observed that ‘the establishment of a Palestinian state will lead, at some stage, to war ... The idea that a Palestinian state will achieve stability is disconnected from reality and dangerous.’ Similarly, James Woolsey, CIA director under Bill Clinton, has argued that ‘the Palestinians should not be granted the right to statehood until they start to treat Israeli Jews who settle in the West Bank as fairly as Israel treats its Muslim citizens ... As long as Wahabbis are running Palestinian education, and little boys are taught to be suicide bombers, I don’t see any reasonable prospects for settlement.’
“Since the Palestinian Authority (PA) was established in 1994, Palestinian Arab society has been educated for terrorism, war and the destruction of Israel. Remember, Palestinians turned down offers of statehood in 1937, 1947 and 2000. If they truly desire statehood, they could obtain it by stopping terrorism. They haven’t, because they prefer to pursue Israel’s elimination.
“PA maps do not show a country called ‘Israel.’ Nor does Fatah’s 43rd anniversary emblem, which shows Israel labeled ‘Palestine’ and draped in a Palestinian headdress. Fatah’s Constitution, to this day calls for the “complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence” (Article 12) and for terrorism as “ a strategy and not a tactic … this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished” (Article 19). Fatah’s own Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades has murdered over 500 Israelis in eight years of suicide bombing, roadside attacks and shootings. Why is AIPAC supporting the creation of a Palestinian state when the Palestinian leadership and society as a whole does not accept Israel’s continued existence as a Jewish state?
“Under such conditions, AIPAC should not be supporting the creating of a Palestinian state. In addition to being the wrong policy at this time, such support will increase pressures on Israel’s democratically elected government, which was approved by an electorate that voted overwhelmingly for right-of-center parties that oppose creating a Palestinian state under current conditions.”
“We urge AIPAC to stop promoting the establishment of what would be a Palestinian terrorist state in which Hamas and Iran would wield considerable power and influence. Such an outcome is in the interest of neither Israel nor the United States. In this scenario, Israel will be reduced to a narrow waist a mere 9 miles wide, which would render Israel indefensible – what Abba Eban used to call the ‘Auschwitz borders.’ It would also be a humanitarian disaster, as hundreds of thousands of Jews living beyond the pre-1967 lines may well be uprooted in Jerusalem and in Judea and Samaria. There will surely be a demand for their forcible removal from their homes. Yet while AIPAC is presently telling Members of Congress how concerned they are about Palestinian suffering, they have said nothing about the 10,000 Jews forcibly removed from their thriving communities in Gaza. What will they then have to say about hundreds of thousands of Jews ousted from their homes to create a judenrein Palestinian state? We need to end terror states, not create new ones.”
Friday, May 08, 2009
Obama reinstating immigration program that has brought 24 suspected jihadists into the US
Jihd Watch
Here is today's Which-Side-Is-Obama-On Alert: "U.S. Importing Somali 'Pirate-Jihadists,'" by David A. Patten for Newsmax, May 6 (thanks to James): The Obama administration is preparing to reinstate a fraud-riddled immigration program that has brought over 36,000 Somalis into the United States under questionable circumstances, including two dozen Minneapolis men that the FBI fears may be planning a terrorist attack.
The FBI has launched an “aggressive” manhunt for the men, who have “gone to ground” and have mysteriously disappeared, terrorism experts tell Newsmax. Authorities fear the men may have been recruited by extremists to carry out suicide attacks inside the United States, or abroad.
Critics of the State Department programs that brought the Somalis to America express grave concerns about the practice of admitting refugees from failed nation-states known to harbor extremists. It can be difficult or impossible to verify a person’s identity in such a country, let alone obtain knowledge of their past associations, several experts tell Newsmax.
One Somali refugee who vanished in early November, Shirwa Ahmed, re-emerged in northern Somalia in February behind the wheel of a truck packed with explosives.
Ahmed, whose family immigrated to the Minneapolis area in the mid-1990s, drove his truck into a crowd and triggered a massive explosion that left some 30 persons dead. Ahmed’s case marked the first known suicide bombing conducted by an American citizen, according to FBI director Robert S. Mueller III.
“It appears that this individual was radicalized in his hometown in Minnesota,” Mueller told the Council on Foreign Relations, warning that in the past two years, about two dozen Somali men have disappeared from their residences near Minneapolis.
Authorities say the men may have been recruited by al-Shabab, a terrorist group believed to have ties to al-Qaida. There has been speculation the men were radicalized at mosques in the area....
Conservative foreign-policy expert Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, is among those who perceives a definite link between Somali’s pirates and its violent Islamic extremists.
“Shariah-adherent Somali pirates are a threat to the world's shipping,” Gaffney tells Newsmax. “Their refugee counterparts being dumped into American communities are a threat to our country and its people. It adds insult to potentially enormous injury that, as the State Department has acknowledged, 80 percent of those refugees are here on the basis of fraudulent family-reunification grounds.”
Gaffney says the State Department “imports pirate/jihadist types into this country.”
One major concern: The pirates’ statements following the freeing of Phillips appeared to be couched in jihadist terms. They identified America as their “No. 1 enemy,” and one pirate leader told The Associated Press: “In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying.”...
There are three State Department programs that vet and process refugees for admittance:...
# The Priority Three (P-3) program awards refugee status specifically for the purpose of family reunification with other refugees already legally residing in the United States....
The P-3 program was suspended in October, after reports of fraud led the State Department and DHS to conduct DNA testing on 3,000 applicants. Those tests revealed that as many as 80 percent of the family-reunification claims were false and did not involve relatives....
Barnett tells Newsmax that the State Department is prepared to resume the troubled P-3 program in June. He also criticizes the P-1 program, due to U.N. refugee programs he describes as “one big long running fraud.” He adds: “The U.N. referral program itself has been subject to bribery and fraud.”
The State Department spokesman tells Newsmax it is unclear if the P-3 program will be reinstated by June, adding, “We do anticipate that the program will restart. A little later this year, we will have this program reinstated.”...
Here is today's Which-Side-Is-Obama-On Alert: "U.S. Importing Somali 'Pirate-Jihadists,'" by David A. Patten for Newsmax, May 6 (thanks to James): The Obama administration is preparing to reinstate a fraud-riddled immigration program that has brought over 36,000 Somalis into the United States under questionable circumstances, including two dozen Minneapolis men that the FBI fears may be planning a terrorist attack.
The FBI has launched an “aggressive” manhunt for the men, who have “gone to ground” and have mysteriously disappeared, terrorism experts tell Newsmax. Authorities fear the men may have been recruited by extremists to carry out suicide attacks inside the United States, or abroad.
Critics of the State Department programs that brought the Somalis to America express grave concerns about the practice of admitting refugees from failed nation-states known to harbor extremists. It can be difficult or impossible to verify a person’s identity in such a country, let alone obtain knowledge of their past associations, several experts tell Newsmax.
One Somali refugee who vanished in early November, Shirwa Ahmed, re-emerged in northern Somalia in February behind the wheel of a truck packed with explosives.
Ahmed, whose family immigrated to the Minneapolis area in the mid-1990s, drove his truck into a crowd and triggered a massive explosion that left some 30 persons dead. Ahmed’s case marked the first known suicide bombing conducted by an American citizen, according to FBI director Robert S. Mueller III.
“It appears that this individual was radicalized in his hometown in Minnesota,” Mueller told the Council on Foreign Relations, warning that in the past two years, about two dozen Somali men have disappeared from their residences near Minneapolis.
Authorities say the men may have been recruited by al-Shabab, a terrorist group believed to have ties to al-Qaida. There has been speculation the men were radicalized at mosques in the area....
Conservative foreign-policy expert Frank Gaffney, founder and president of the D.C.-based Center for Security Policy, is among those who perceives a definite link between Somali’s pirates and its violent Islamic extremists.
“Shariah-adherent Somali pirates are a threat to the world's shipping,” Gaffney tells Newsmax. “Their refugee counterparts being dumped into American communities are a threat to our country and its people. It adds insult to potentially enormous injury that, as the State Department has acknowledged, 80 percent of those refugees are here on the basis of fraudulent family-reunification grounds.”
Gaffney says the State Department “imports pirate/jihadist types into this country.”
One major concern: The pirates’ statements following the freeing of Phillips appeared to be couched in jihadist terms. They identified America as their “No. 1 enemy,” and one pirate leader told The Associated Press: “In the future, America will be the one mourning and crying.”...
There are three State Department programs that vet and process refugees for admittance:...
# The Priority Three (P-3) program awards refugee status specifically for the purpose of family reunification with other refugees already legally residing in the United States....
The P-3 program was suspended in October, after reports of fraud led the State Department and DHS to conduct DNA testing on 3,000 applicants. Those tests revealed that as many as 80 percent of the family-reunification claims were false and did not involve relatives....
Barnett tells Newsmax that the State Department is prepared to resume the troubled P-3 program in June. He also criticizes the P-1 program, due to U.N. refugee programs he describes as “one big long running fraud.” He adds: “The U.N. referral program itself has been subject to bribery and fraud.”
The State Department spokesman tells Newsmax it is unclear if the P-3 program will be reinstated by June, adding, “We do anticipate that the program will restart. A little later this year, we will have this program reinstated.”...
Thursday, May 07, 2009
"Pushing Along"
Arlene Kushner
There were transmission difficulties yesterday that were beyond both my comprehension and my control. Apparently, while many of you received my posting, "Hamas and More," some of you did not. My apologies.
The posting can be found at www.ArlenefromIsrael.info. Hopefully today's message will go out without interference.
For the record one final time: The correct number for sending a fax to PM Netanyahu: 011-972-2-670-5369. fter meeting with Quartet envoy Tony Blair, PM Netanyahu today announced a ministerial committee to work on improving the economic situation and the quality of life for the Palestinians.
Members include Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz and Minister Silvan Shalom; Netanyahu himself will chair the committee. Shalom has been asked to begin with economic projects in Jenin and Jericho. Also, at the Qasr al-Yehud baptismal site, which is on the Jordan River, near Jericho, although I haven't a remote clue as to what sort of economic project would be initiated at a baptismal site.
The release about this emphasizes that the projects are in line with the economic track to peace that Netanyahu had announced earlier. May be. But I would describe this as the do-something-for-the-Palestinians-to-show-good intentions announcement that is traditionally a precursor to high level meetings between our officials and US officials.
~~~~~~~~~~
Also announced was outreach by Netanyahu to Egyptian president Mubarak. Eager to stress Egypt's diplomatic importance, Netanyahu will be traveling to Sharm el Sheikh on Monday for a meeting. This will be his first trip abroad since assuming office.
Netanyahu wants to see greater involvement by the "moderate" states -- Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia -- in what is alluded to as "the peace process" -- whatever that entails at present -- which would be approached at a regional level. (Note: while Jordan and Egypt have peace treaties with Israel, Saudi Arabia is technically still at war with us.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Just as important, if not more so, in Netanyahu's meeting with Mubarak is seeking Egyptian cooperation in thwarting Iran's nuclear goals.
Egypt is not a nation to be trusted, nor one that has ever exhibited good will towards Israel. But Sunni Egypt fears and hates Shiite Iran and will find a measure of common cause with Israel here. Of some concern, however, have been recent statements by Mubarak regarding the dangers of Israel as a nuclear power. (Mubarak's position is that the Middle East would be safer nuclear-free.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Word had come in the last few days -- from anonymous Arab diplomatic sources -- that the Obama administration had requested of the Arab League that the Arab (Saudi) peace plan be adjusted in order to be more palatable to Israel. The Al Quds Al Arabi newspaper on Tuesday then indicated the Arabs were considering concessions, most specifically with regard to withdrawing the demand for the return of refugees and permitting UN control of the Old City of Jerusalem, where holy sites are situated.
But there has now been a rejection of the request in several quarters:
"It is not possible to amend the Arab peace initiative. ... I don't see any justification for amending this initiative," Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem told a press conference.
Similarly, Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa has voiced his rejection.
And the PA news agency Maan has quoted PA president Mahmoud Abbas as saying that there will be "no new document," as all sides were in agreement regarding the soundness of the current proposal.
~~~~~~~~~~
At the same time, it has been announced that Abbas will be asking prime minister Salem Fayyad to begin formation of a new government without inclusion of Hamas. He's tired of waiting on failed negotiations; he will attend one more meeting on May 16, where he expects nothing will be achieved.
~~~~~~~~~~
And where does this leave Barack Obama and his grand plans to push ahead peace between Israel and the Palestinians?
It is clear that the Arabs are adamant -- as is their wont -- that there will be no compromise on right of return or control of all eastern Jerusalem.
And if there is no unity government, he's stuck with the problem of what happens with Hamas and Gaza.
One might hope that this dose of reality might set him back a bit, give him just a little pause, inject a note of humility into his assumption that he can succeed here. But that would be silly. He is Barack Obama. He is the president. And he is going to go ahead with his new plan.
~~~~~~~~~~
In fact, not only is he going full steam ahead on this front, he is also pushing for us to negotiate with Syria. Jeffrey Feltman, the State Department's top Middle East envoy, and White House official Daniel Shapiro have gone to Damascus as part of the Obama plan to reach out to nations shunned by President Bush.
"We came here today as part of President Obama's commitment to use diplomacy, to use dialogue in order to try to see where we can move forward," said Feltman.
After a meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem, Feltman indicated that he had conveyed "President Obama's sincere commitment to pursue Arab-Israeli peace on all tracks including on the Syria-Israel track."
~~~~~~~~~~
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has been tasked with overseeing "strategic dialogue" with the US. I'll have more definitive information on this in due course.
Additionally, he will be heading a ministerial committee to lead the Israeli struggle against lawsuits filed around the world against Israelis -- public figures, ministers, military and defense officials -- their goal being to foil these actions.
In a spate of highly politicized and deeply anti-Israel maneuvers, various parties are abusing universal jurisdiction laws that permit charges to be brought in courts in one country against parties in another, even if the country in which the charges are brought has nothing to do with the issue.
The committee will include Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Interior Minister Eli Yishai, Justice Minister Yaakov Ne'eman, Deputy Premier and Minister for Regional Development Silvan Shalom, Welfare and Social Services Minister Isaac Herzog, Minister of Information and Diaspora Yuli Edelstein and Minister Yossi Peled. They will call upon the services of experts in international law, PR, and more.
This is a serious matter -- just one more attempt to delegitimize and weaken Israel, and I applaud the seriousness with which the new government is approaching this.
The first issue to be addressed will be the reopening in Spanish court of the matter of the 2002 assassination of Hamas official Salah Shehadeh.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
The news is so often grim, I've decided to make an effort to also share good news (largely non-political) with my readers from time to time.
--- Research by geneticist Prof. Karen Avraham of Tel Aviv University's Sackler School of Medicine and Dr. Lilach Friedman and other post-doctoral researchers in her lab, has brought about a discovery that may lead to a cure for deafness, whether caused by genetics, disease, aging, or drugs.
Single-stranded RNA molecules, called MicroRNAs, regulate gene expression in cells and decide whether proteins will be produced. The research team has discovered for the first time that these molecules are vital to the development and survival of hair cells in the inner ear necessary for normal hearing.
Healthy babies are born with 15,000 sensory hair cells in each ear, which are responsible for translating sounds to electrical pulses. When these cells die off hearing disability results. Avraham believes that scientists now need to figure out how MicroRNAs regulate hair cell growth.
-- Scientists at the Weizmann Institute have been researching the nature of sea urchin teeth. While these animals dig themselves holes for shelter in underwater limestone, the sharp edge of their teeth never grows dull or blunt. Their teeth in the main are composed of the same calcite as the limestone, but they also contain crystals of magnesium calcite that are harder.
What is more, all the crystalline elements are aligned in two different arrays that are interlocked like the fingers of folded hands, just at the tip of the tooth. It is believed that this interlocking results in a notched, serrated ridge -- like that of a carpenter’s file -- that is self-sharpening. As the tooth is ground down, the crystalline layers break in such a way that the ridge always stays serrated.
It is hoped that the information being explored will lead to the development of ever-sharp tools and mechanical parts that do not go blunt.
-- A new archeological garden has been opened outside the Knesset, on display are some artifacts that are 2,000 years old.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
There were transmission difficulties yesterday that were beyond both my comprehension and my control. Apparently, while many of you received my posting, "Hamas and More," some of you did not. My apologies.
The posting can be found at www.ArlenefromIsrael.info. Hopefully today's message will go out without interference.
For the record one final time: The correct number for sending a fax to PM Netanyahu: 011-972-2-670-5369. fter meeting with Quartet envoy Tony Blair, PM Netanyahu today announced a ministerial committee to work on improving the economic situation and the quality of life for the Palestinians.
Members include Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz and Minister Silvan Shalom; Netanyahu himself will chair the committee. Shalom has been asked to begin with economic projects in Jenin and Jericho. Also, at the Qasr al-Yehud baptismal site, which is on the Jordan River, near Jericho, although I haven't a remote clue as to what sort of economic project would be initiated at a baptismal site.
The release about this emphasizes that the projects are in line with the economic track to peace that Netanyahu had announced earlier. May be. But I would describe this as the do-something-for-the-Palestinians-to-show-good intentions announcement that is traditionally a precursor to high level meetings between our officials and US officials.
~~~~~~~~~~
Also announced was outreach by Netanyahu to Egyptian president Mubarak. Eager to stress Egypt's diplomatic importance, Netanyahu will be traveling to Sharm el Sheikh on Monday for a meeting. This will be his first trip abroad since assuming office.
Netanyahu wants to see greater involvement by the "moderate" states -- Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia -- in what is alluded to as "the peace process" -- whatever that entails at present -- which would be approached at a regional level. (Note: while Jordan and Egypt have peace treaties with Israel, Saudi Arabia is technically still at war with us.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Just as important, if not more so, in Netanyahu's meeting with Mubarak is seeking Egyptian cooperation in thwarting Iran's nuclear goals.
Egypt is not a nation to be trusted, nor one that has ever exhibited good will towards Israel. But Sunni Egypt fears and hates Shiite Iran and will find a measure of common cause with Israel here. Of some concern, however, have been recent statements by Mubarak regarding the dangers of Israel as a nuclear power. (Mubarak's position is that the Middle East would be safer nuclear-free.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Word had come in the last few days -- from anonymous Arab diplomatic sources -- that the Obama administration had requested of the Arab League that the Arab (Saudi) peace plan be adjusted in order to be more palatable to Israel. The Al Quds Al Arabi newspaper on Tuesday then indicated the Arabs were considering concessions, most specifically with regard to withdrawing the demand for the return of refugees and permitting UN control of the Old City of Jerusalem, where holy sites are situated.
But there has now been a rejection of the request in several quarters:
"It is not possible to amend the Arab peace initiative. ... I don't see any justification for amending this initiative," Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem told a press conference.
Similarly, Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa has voiced his rejection.
And the PA news agency Maan has quoted PA president Mahmoud Abbas as saying that there will be "no new document," as all sides were in agreement regarding the soundness of the current proposal.
~~~~~~~~~~
At the same time, it has been announced that Abbas will be asking prime minister Salem Fayyad to begin formation of a new government without inclusion of Hamas. He's tired of waiting on failed negotiations; he will attend one more meeting on May 16, where he expects nothing will be achieved.
~~~~~~~~~~
And where does this leave Barack Obama and his grand plans to push ahead peace between Israel and the Palestinians?
It is clear that the Arabs are adamant -- as is their wont -- that there will be no compromise on right of return or control of all eastern Jerusalem.
And if there is no unity government, he's stuck with the problem of what happens with Hamas and Gaza.
One might hope that this dose of reality might set him back a bit, give him just a little pause, inject a note of humility into his assumption that he can succeed here. But that would be silly. He is Barack Obama. He is the president. And he is going to go ahead with his new plan.
~~~~~~~~~~
In fact, not only is he going full steam ahead on this front, he is also pushing for us to negotiate with Syria. Jeffrey Feltman, the State Department's top Middle East envoy, and White House official Daniel Shapiro have gone to Damascus as part of the Obama plan to reach out to nations shunned by President Bush.
"We came here today as part of President Obama's commitment to use diplomacy, to use dialogue in order to try to see where we can move forward," said Feltman.
After a meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moallem, Feltman indicated that he had conveyed "President Obama's sincere commitment to pursue Arab-Israeli peace on all tracks including on the Syria-Israel track."
~~~~~~~~~~
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has been tasked with overseeing "strategic dialogue" with the US. I'll have more definitive information on this in due course.
Additionally, he will be heading a ministerial committee to lead the Israeli struggle against lawsuits filed around the world against Israelis -- public figures, ministers, military and defense officials -- their goal being to foil these actions.
In a spate of highly politicized and deeply anti-Israel maneuvers, various parties are abusing universal jurisdiction laws that permit charges to be brought in courts in one country against parties in another, even if the country in which the charges are brought has nothing to do with the issue.
The committee will include Attorney General Menachem Mazuz, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Interior Minister Eli Yishai, Justice Minister Yaakov Ne'eman, Deputy Premier and Minister for Regional Development Silvan Shalom, Welfare and Social Services Minister Isaac Herzog, Minister of Information and Diaspora Yuli Edelstein and Minister Yossi Peled. They will call upon the services of experts in international law, PR, and more.
This is a serious matter -- just one more attempt to delegitimize and weaken Israel, and I applaud the seriousness with which the new government is approaching this.
The first issue to be addressed will be the reopening in Spanish court of the matter of the 2002 assassination of Hamas official Salah Shehadeh.
~~~~~~~~~~
"The Good News Corner"
The news is so often grim, I've decided to make an effort to also share good news (largely non-political) with my readers from time to time.
--- Research by geneticist Prof. Karen Avraham of Tel Aviv University's Sackler School of Medicine and Dr. Lilach Friedman and other post-doctoral researchers in her lab, has brought about a discovery that may lead to a cure for deafness, whether caused by genetics, disease, aging, or drugs.
Single-stranded RNA molecules, called MicroRNAs, regulate gene expression in cells and decide whether proteins will be produced. The research team has discovered for the first time that these molecules are vital to the development and survival of hair cells in the inner ear necessary for normal hearing.
Healthy babies are born with 15,000 sensory hair cells in each ear, which are responsible for translating sounds to electrical pulses. When these cells die off hearing disability results. Avraham believes that scientists now need to figure out how MicroRNAs regulate hair cell growth.
-- Scientists at the Weizmann Institute have been researching the nature of sea urchin teeth. While these animals dig themselves holes for shelter in underwater limestone, the sharp edge of their teeth never grows dull or blunt. Their teeth in the main are composed of the same calcite as the limestone, but they also contain crystals of magnesium calcite that are harder.
What is more, all the crystalline elements are aligned in two different arrays that are interlocked like the fingers of folded hands, just at the tip of the tooth. It is believed that this interlocking results in a notched, serrated ridge -- like that of a carpenter’s file -- that is self-sharpening. As the tooth is ground down, the crystalline layers break in such a way that the ridge always stays serrated.
It is hoped that the information being explored will lead to the development of ever-sharp tools and mechanical parts that do not go blunt.
-- A new archeological garden has been opened outside the Knesset, on display are some artifacts that are 2,000 years old.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Israel Outraged at 'Biased' UN Report on Gaza Operation
Hana Levi Julian
(IsraelNN.com) The Foreign Ministry expressed outrage Tuesday in response to a United Nations report that accused the IDF of deliberately targeting United Nations buildings during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.
The report was "unbalanced, biased and ignores the facts," Israel said in its rejection. It called on the U.N. to take a second look at the "complex reality in which a terror organization operates in proximity" to its facilities. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is expected to submit his response to the report to the Security Council on Tuesday, when he will release the full report.
IDF Investigation Completed 2 Weeks Ago
Two weeks ago, Israel completed its own independent investigation into allegations that the IDF fired at a UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) compound during the war.
"The findings of these inquiries… proved beyond doubt that the IDF did not intentionally fire at the U.N. installations," said the Foreign Ministry in a statement.
"One must wonder why the report assigns no blame to the Hamas organization, which placed its installations and dispatched its men to confront the IDF in proximity to the U.N. installations. It is very regrettable that this pattern, as well as the responsibility of Hamas for harming Israeli and Palestinian civilians, was disregarded by the [U.N.] investigators."
The Foreign Ministry noted that the IDF "took a series of measures meant to ensure international and U.N. facilities and vehicles were not harmed, including clearly marking them on operational maps and briefing officers and soldiers on the ground."
Report 'Ignores the Facts'
The report did not mention even once the circumstances that led to the counterterrorist operation – eight years of increasing rocket and missile attacks on civilians in southern Israel. Nor did it include any evidence provided by Israel that would have supported the IDF's claim that it had not deliberately targeted U.N. facilities.
It did, however, rely on evidence provided by Hamas, which used "violence and intimidation against citizens of Gaza as tools to prevent them from presenting the actual truth," the ministry reminded.
Israel "rejects the criticism in the committee's summary report, and determines that in both spirit and language, the report is tendentious, patently biased, and ignores the facts presented to the committee," said the ministry in a formal statement.
Ban is expected to note "the close cooperation accorded the inspection team by the Israeli authorities" and the "coordination between the IDF and the U.N. during Operation Cast Lead" in his response to the report Tuesday.
Israeli investigators provided "full cooperation" to U.N. investigators – unlike the Hamas terrorists – in the form of "intelligence materials, including videos, aerial photographs, eyewitness reports and other materials," said the ministry.
Nevertheless, "The committee has preferred the claims of Hamas, a murderous terror organization, and by doing so has misled the world."
(IsraelNN.com) The Foreign Ministry expressed outrage Tuesday in response to a United Nations report that accused the IDF of deliberately targeting United Nations buildings during Operation Cast Lead in Gaza.
The report was "unbalanced, biased and ignores the facts," Israel said in its rejection. It called on the U.N. to take a second look at the "complex reality in which a terror organization operates in proximity" to its facilities. U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is expected to submit his response to the report to the Security Council on Tuesday, when he will release the full report.
IDF Investigation Completed 2 Weeks Ago
Two weeks ago, Israel completed its own independent investigation into allegations that the IDF fired at a UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency) compound during the war.
"The findings of these inquiries… proved beyond doubt that the IDF did not intentionally fire at the U.N. installations," said the Foreign Ministry in a statement.
"One must wonder why the report assigns no blame to the Hamas organization, which placed its installations and dispatched its men to confront the IDF in proximity to the U.N. installations. It is very regrettable that this pattern, as well as the responsibility of Hamas for harming Israeli and Palestinian civilians, was disregarded by the [U.N.] investigators."
The Foreign Ministry noted that the IDF "took a series of measures meant to ensure international and U.N. facilities and vehicles were not harmed, including clearly marking them on operational maps and briefing officers and soldiers on the ground."
Report 'Ignores the Facts'
The report did not mention even once the circumstances that led to the counterterrorist operation – eight years of increasing rocket and missile attacks on civilians in southern Israel. Nor did it include any evidence provided by Israel that would have supported the IDF's claim that it had not deliberately targeted U.N. facilities.
It did, however, rely on evidence provided by Hamas, which used "violence and intimidation against citizens of Gaza as tools to prevent them from presenting the actual truth," the ministry reminded.
Israel "rejects the criticism in the committee's summary report, and determines that in both spirit and language, the report is tendentious, patently biased, and ignores the facts presented to the committee," said the ministry in a formal statement.
Ban is expected to note "the close cooperation accorded the inspection team by the Israeli authorities" and the "coordination between the IDF and the U.N. during Operation Cast Lead" in his response to the report Tuesday.
Israeli investigators provided "full cooperation" to U.N. investigators – unlike the Hamas terrorists – in the form of "intelligence materials, including videos, aerial photographs, eyewitness reports and other materials," said the ministry.
Nevertheless, "The committee has preferred the claims of Hamas, a murderous terror organization, and by doing so has misled the world."
The American appeaser
Shaul Rosenfeld
Israel Opinion
YNET News
Part 2 of analysis
The appeasement equation has a complementary aspect which habitual appeasers seek to use in order to mitigate the anger of threatening wicked men. About 70 years ago, it appeared to British appeaser Chamberlain that the Sudetenland region would be a good enough lifesaver that would satisfy the hunger of a megalomaniac German dictator. At this time, it appears to the American appeaser that the Judea and Samaria region would be a good quality lifesaver even as a remedy to the Iranian nuclear threat.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that “without peace there would be no support for Israel against Iran,” while the White House chief of staff stated that America’s ability to face up to Iran depends on the administration’s ability to show progress on the Palestinian front.
It appears that the unfounded link between “peace with the Palestinians” and the neutralization of the Iranian nuclear threat is becoming a top priority for Obama and his senior aides.
Indeed, what could be simpler than stripping Israel naked of its best territorial assets in Judea and Samaria and turning the evacuated area into a Hamas-land at first and ultimately into an Ahmadinejad-land, while these moves are supposed to provide real backwind to the effort to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program?
Even a rookie would realize that the likelihood that Obama’s pleasant ways (with Judea and Samaria or without it) would convince Iran to avert its quest for nuclear weapons is no greater than the likelihood that a repeat offender would return to the straight and narrow following a reprimand by an etiquette expert or a crash course on Kantian morality.
Indeed, Israel must make it clear to the new US administration that it has no urge to be like Czechoslovakia in the 1930s.
Similarly to Churchill’s speech about Chamberlin, the time has come perhaps to a begin drafting a speech that starts with the words “It fell to Barack Obama to be contradicted by events and to be deceived and cheated by wicked men.” However, it is much more important for Israel to unequivocally explain to the Americans that walking like lambs to the slaughter is not part of our plans.
Dr. Shaul Rosenfeld is a philosophy lecturer
Comment: It is past time that we educate and/or indoctrinate (as is Obama doing) that there is no cause and effect relationship between Iran's behavior and the so-called resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Do not stand or sit idly by and allow Obama's group to spew such nonsense-it is their mantra on the month-stand up and state the truth-Obama et al are blackmailing ?Israel-this means you and me-I will not stand for it-please join in the chorus of clarification! Doc
Israel Opinion
YNET News
Part 2 of analysis
The appeasement equation has a complementary aspect which habitual appeasers seek to use in order to mitigate the anger of threatening wicked men. About 70 years ago, it appeared to British appeaser Chamberlain that the Sudetenland region would be a good enough lifesaver that would satisfy the hunger of a megalomaniac German dictator. At this time, it appears to the American appeaser that the Judea and Samaria region would be a good quality lifesaver even as a remedy to the Iranian nuclear threat.
Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that “without peace there would be no support for Israel against Iran,” while the White House chief of staff stated that America’s ability to face up to Iran depends on the administration’s ability to show progress on the Palestinian front.
It appears that the unfounded link between “peace with the Palestinians” and the neutralization of the Iranian nuclear threat is becoming a top priority for Obama and his senior aides.
Indeed, what could be simpler than stripping Israel naked of its best territorial assets in Judea and Samaria and turning the evacuated area into a Hamas-land at first and ultimately into an Ahmadinejad-land, while these moves are supposed to provide real backwind to the effort to eliminate the Iranian nuclear program?
Even a rookie would realize that the likelihood that Obama’s pleasant ways (with Judea and Samaria or without it) would convince Iran to avert its quest for nuclear weapons is no greater than the likelihood that a repeat offender would return to the straight and narrow following a reprimand by an etiquette expert or a crash course on Kantian morality.
Indeed, Israel must make it clear to the new US administration that it has no urge to be like Czechoslovakia in the 1930s.
Similarly to Churchill’s speech about Chamberlin, the time has come perhaps to a begin drafting a speech that starts with the words “It fell to Barack Obama to be contradicted by events and to be deceived and cheated by wicked men.” However, it is much more important for Israel to unequivocally explain to the Americans that walking like lambs to the slaughter is not part of our plans.
Dr. Shaul Rosenfeld is a philosophy lecturer
Comment: It is past time that we educate and/or indoctrinate (as is Obama doing) that there is no cause and effect relationship between Iran's behavior and the so-called resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Do not stand or sit idly by and allow Obama's group to spew such nonsense-it is their mantra on the month-stand up and state the truth-Obama et al are blackmailing ?Israel-this means you and me-I will not stand for it-please join in the chorus of clarification! Doc
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Homeland Insecurity, American Style
John Perazzo
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, May 06, 2009
During her first few weeks on the job, the Secretary of America’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS), former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, has shown herself to be unqualified for her new post in a number of significant ways. she has proudly banished the word “terrorism” from the federal lexicon; she is ignorant of the most elementary facts regarding 9/11; she is eager to blame the United States for drug cartels violence in Mexico, without a shred of evidence; despite that violence, she is demonstrably averse to halting illegal immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border; and she is inclined to smear American conservatives as potential “terrorists.” Because of her already dismal performance, some have begun to call for Napolitano’s resignation. Republican Congressman John Carter of Texas, for one, says that Napolitano “has no business serving in the position she’s in now” and “should be fired by the administration.” The conservative group Move America Forward is calling for Napolitano’s dismissal on grounds that she is “so ignorant” of a host of key facts that bear heavily on her ability to fulfill the duties of her office.
Although much commentary has focused on the recent report that brands conservatives as terrorists, the former Arizona governor still enjoys an undeserved reputation as a tough border governor. Consider Napolitano’s record vis à vis illegal immigration. As Arizona governor, she vetoed a bill that sought to eliminate voter fraud by requiring voters to present a valid driver’s license or two alternate forms of identification when casting their ballots. According to Napolitano, such a requirement would have disenfranchised “poor voters” who might not possess the requisite documents. She also supported a proposal to grant driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants; she supported a Senate bill that would have granted amnesty to millions of illegals; she vetoed a state bill that would have required police to enforce federal immigration laws; she vetoed measures to cut illegal-alien welfare benefits and college-tuition discounts; she vetoed a proposal that would have allowed local police and federal immigration officials to work collaboratively on immigration cases; and she opposed legislation that would have officially barred the use of the easily forged Mexican Matricula Consular card as a valid form of identification.
During her stint at DHS, Napolitano already has called off a series of scheduled immigration raids at U.S. workplaces. When Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents busted dozens of illegal aliens at a Bellingham, Washington engine plant, a furious Napolitano chastised ICE supervisors and ordered an immediate investigation into the raid because it violated President Obama’s campaign pledge (to Hispanic lobby groups) that illegal aliens would not be arrested at their workplaces. Moreover, she supports a pathway to citizenship whereby illegals could, within a relatively short time, become naturalized.
It is difficult to see how Americans are made safer by Napolitano’s stance on immigration.
In an April interview with CNN’s John King, Napolitano casually dismissed Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio’s assertion that illegal aliens should be prosecuted and jailed. Said the DHS Secretary:
“Sheriff Joe … knows that there aren’t enough law-enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying. What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery. And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil.”
Contrary to Napolitano’s absurd claim, however, illegal immigration is indeed a criminal offense under United States law. Section 8, Title 1325 of the U.S. Code clearly states:
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willfull concealment of a material fact shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Why doesn’t the head of DHS know that illegal immigration is a crime?
In a March 2009 speech to the Brookings Institution, Napolitano characterized U.S. efforts to protect its southern border as insensitive displays of jingoistic arrogance. “One of the things that we need to be sensitive to,” she said, “is the very real feelings among southern border states and in Mexico that if things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border.” Absent from Napolitano’s logic was any recognition of the rapidly growing epidemic of violence, abductions, and murders near the Mexican border—a state of affairs that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the situation along the U.S.-Canada border. To make matters worse, in an April 20th interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Napolitano claimed, incorrectly, that some of the 9/11 hijackers had entered the U.S. through Canada.
Napolitano is exceedingly prone to prevarication. For instance, she claimed recently that “70 percent of the weapons in the hands of the [Mexican] drug cartels are coming from the U.S.” But in fact, more than two-thirds of the guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes are never even sent to the U.S. for tracing, because their markings make it obvious that they originated from somewhere else. Moreover, a large number of the recovered weapons lack serial numbers entirely and thus cannot be traced to any location. In the final analysis, a mere 17 percent of all the guns in question can actually be traced to America.
That is a far cry from Napolitano’s 70-percent fairytale.
One of Napolitano’s most controversial moves as DHS Secretary has been to break with the Department’s tradition of warning the American public about potential terrorist threats by Islamic extremists. Instead, she refers to such acts of terrorism as “man-caused disasters.” In an interview with Germany’s Spiegel Online, she was asked whether her avoidance of the term “terrorism” meant that “Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pos[es] a threat to your country.” She replied:
Of course it does [pose a threat]. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.
It seems, however, that Napolitano’s aversion to the so-called “politics of fear” comes into play only with regard to Islamic terrorists. By contrast, unfounded smears implying that American conservatives represent a “terrorist” threat fall well within the bounds of legitimate political discourse, according to Napolitano.
You may recall that in April, Napolitano’s DHS released a report warning that “right-wing extremists” who were “hate-oriented” might be “gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues” such as “the economic downturn,” “the election of the first African American president,” and “the possible passage of new restrictions on firearms.” Particularly susceptible to recruitment, added the report, were: “anti-government” groups; people “dedicated to…opposition to abortion or immigration”; and military veterans (returning from Iraq and Afghanistan) who face “significant challenges reintegrating into their communities.”
Remarkably, the text of this DHS report was liberally peppered with explicit references to the otherwise forbidden word—“terrorism”—as the supposedly exclusive domain of “right-wingers.” The report said, for example, that its warnings would be “provided to…counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter…terrorist attacks against the United States”; that DHS “has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits”; that during the 1990s, “an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers…contributed to the growth in the number of domestic right-wing terrorist and extremist groups”; that “[t]he possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups”; that “the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years”; that “white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage…[have] contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups”; and that DHS “assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”
So much for avoiding the word “terrorism.”
For actions such as this, the aforementioned Rep. John Carter says, “We shouldn’t even give [Napolitano] the respect of letting her resign. She should be fired by the administration for accusing honest, American citizens—because of their political beliefs—of being domestic terrorists.” The Texas Republican says he will “keep pounding” the issue “until we get rid of this woman.”
Congresswoman Mary Fallin, R-OK, declares that Napolitano is “out of touch with mainstream America” if she believes that returning war veterans and people who support the Second Amendment are predisposed to engage in “terrorism.” In addition, says Fallin, the DHS Secretary “insulted our friends in Canada by falsely claiming the 9/11 terrorists came from there.”
According to Move Forward America (MFA), Napolitano has demonstrated that she is “ignoran[t] about Islamic terrorism” and “has no clue about the details of what happened to America on September 11, 2001.” “Her outlook and priorities are exactly backward and plainly dangerous,” says MFA. “Napolitano is unfit to serve as secretary of Homeland Security and President Obama must fire her before she causes more damage to our country.”
Examining her belief system, damage is the most likely prognosis.
John Perazzo is the Managing Editor of DiscoverTheNetworks and is the author of The Myths That Divide Us: How Lies Have Poisoned American Race Relations. For more information on his book, click here. E-mail him at WorldStudiesBooks@gmail.com
FrontPageMagazine.com | Wednesday, May 06, 2009
During her first few weeks on the job, the Secretary of America’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS), former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, has shown herself to be unqualified for her new post in a number of significant ways. she has proudly banished the word “terrorism” from the federal lexicon; she is ignorant of the most elementary facts regarding 9/11; she is eager to blame the United States for drug cartels violence in Mexico, without a shred of evidence; despite that violence, she is demonstrably averse to halting illegal immigration across the U.S.-Mexico border; and she is inclined to smear American conservatives as potential “terrorists.” Because of her already dismal performance, some have begun to call for Napolitano’s resignation. Republican Congressman John Carter of Texas, for one, says that Napolitano “has no business serving in the position she’s in now” and “should be fired by the administration.” The conservative group Move America Forward is calling for Napolitano’s dismissal on grounds that she is “so ignorant” of a host of key facts that bear heavily on her ability to fulfill the duties of her office.
Although much commentary has focused on the recent report that brands conservatives as terrorists, the former Arizona governor still enjoys an undeserved reputation as a tough border governor. Consider Napolitano’s record vis à vis illegal immigration. As Arizona governor, she vetoed a bill that sought to eliminate voter fraud by requiring voters to present a valid driver’s license or two alternate forms of identification when casting their ballots. According to Napolitano, such a requirement would have disenfranchised “poor voters” who might not possess the requisite documents. She also supported a proposal to grant driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants; she supported a Senate bill that would have granted amnesty to millions of illegals; she vetoed a state bill that would have required police to enforce federal immigration laws; she vetoed measures to cut illegal-alien welfare benefits and college-tuition discounts; she vetoed a proposal that would have allowed local police and federal immigration officials to work collaboratively on immigration cases; and she opposed legislation that would have officially barred the use of the easily forged Mexican Matricula Consular card as a valid form of identification.
During her stint at DHS, Napolitano already has called off a series of scheduled immigration raids at U.S. workplaces. When Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents busted dozens of illegal aliens at a Bellingham, Washington engine plant, a furious Napolitano chastised ICE supervisors and ordered an immediate investigation into the raid because it violated President Obama’s campaign pledge (to Hispanic lobby groups) that illegal aliens would not be arrested at their workplaces. Moreover, she supports a pathway to citizenship whereby illegals could, within a relatively short time, become naturalized.
It is difficult to see how Americans are made safer by Napolitano’s stance on immigration.
In an April interview with CNN’s John King, Napolitano casually dismissed Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio’s assertion that illegal aliens should be prosecuted and jailed. Said the DHS Secretary:
“Sheriff Joe … knows that there aren’t enough law-enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying. What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery. And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil.”
Contrary to Napolitano’s absurd claim, however, illegal immigration is indeed a criminal offense under United States law. Section 8, Title 1325 of the U.S. Code clearly states:
Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willfull concealment of a material fact shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than six months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
Why doesn’t the head of DHS know that illegal immigration is a crime?
In a March 2009 speech to the Brookings Institution, Napolitano characterized U.S. efforts to protect its southern border as insensitive displays of jingoistic arrogance. “One of the things that we need to be sensitive to,” she said, “is the very real feelings among southern border states and in Mexico that if things are being done on the Mexican border, they should also be done on the Canadian border.” Absent from Napolitano’s logic was any recognition of the rapidly growing epidemic of violence, abductions, and murders near the Mexican border—a state of affairs that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the situation along the U.S.-Canada border. To make matters worse, in an April 20th interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Napolitano claimed, incorrectly, that some of the 9/11 hijackers had entered the U.S. through Canada.
Napolitano is exceedingly prone to prevarication. For instance, she claimed recently that “70 percent of the weapons in the hands of the [Mexican] drug cartels are coming from the U.S.” But in fact, more than two-thirds of the guns recovered at Mexican crime scenes are never even sent to the U.S. for tracing, because their markings make it obvious that they originated from somewhere else. Moreover, a large number of the recovered weapons lack serial numbers entirely and thus cannot be traced to any location. In the final analysis, a mere 17 percent of all the guns in question can actually be traced to America.
That is a far cry from Napolitano’s 70-percent fairytale.
One of Napolitano’s most controversial moves as DHS Secretary has been to break with the Department’s tradition of warning the American public about potential terrorist threats by Islamic extremists. Instead, she refers to such acts of terrorism as “man-caused disasters.” In an interview with Germany’s Spiegel Online, she was asked whether her avoidance of the term “terrorism” meant that “Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pos[es] a threat to your country.” She replied:
Of course it does [pose a threat]. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.
It seems, however, that Napolitano’s aversion to the so-called “politics of fear” comes into play only with regard to Islamic terrorists. By contrast, unfounded smears implying that American conservatives represent a “terrorist” threat fall well within the bounds of legitimate political discourse, according to Napolitano.
You may recall that in April, Napolitano’s DHS released a report warning that “right-wing extremists” who were “hate-oriented” might be “gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues” such as “the economic downturn,” “the election of the first African American president,” and “the possible passage of new restrictions on firearms.” Particularly susceptible to recruitment, added the report, were: “anti-government” groups; people “dedicated to…opposition to abortion or immigration”; and military veterans (returning from Iraq and Afghanistan) who face “significant challenges reintegrating into their communities.”
Remarkably, the text of this DHS report was liberally peppered with explicit references to the otherwise forbidden word—“terrorism”—as the supposedly exclusive domain of “right-wingers.” The report said, for example, that its warnings would be “provided to…counterterrorism and law enforcement officials so they may effectively deter…terrorist attacks against the United States”; that DHS “has no specific information that domestic right-wing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits”; that during the 1990s, “an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers…contributed to the growth in the number of domestic right-wing terrorist and extremist groups”; that “[t]he possible passage of new restrictions on firearms and the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups”; that “the threat posed by lone wolves and small terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years”; that “white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage…[have] contributed to the growth in the number of domestic rightwing terrorist and extremist groups”; and that DHS “assesses that lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing violent rightwing extremist ideology are the most dangerous domestic terrorism threat in the United States.”
So much for avoiding the word “terrorism.”
For actions such as this, the aforementioned Rep. John Carter says, “We shouldn’t even give [Napolitano] the respect of letting her resign. She should be fired by the administration for accusing honest, American citizens—because of their political beliefs—of being domestic terrorists.” The Texas Republican says he will “keep pounding” the issue “until we get rid of this woman.”
Congresswoman Mary Fallin, R-OK, declares that Napolitano is “out of touch with mainstream America” if she believes that returning war veterans and people who support the Second Amendment are predisposed to engage in “terrorism.” In addition, says Fallin, the DHS Secretary “insulted our friends in Canada by falsely claiming the 9/11 terrorists came from there.”
According to Move Forward America (MFA), Napolitano has demonstrated that she is “ignoran[t] about Islamic terrorism” and “has no clue about the details of what happened to America on September 11, 2001.” “Her outlook and priorities are exactly backward and plainly dangerous,” says MFA. “Napolitano is unfit to serve as secretary of Homeland Security and President Obama must fire her before she causes more damage to our country.”
Examining her belief system, damage is the most likely prognosis.
John Perazzo is the Managing Editor of DiscoverTheNetworks and is the author of The Myths That Divide Us: How Lies Have Poisoned American Race Relations. For more information on his book, click here. E-mail him at WorldStudiesBooks@gmail.com
"Hamas and More"
Arlene Kushner
Correction: Spell check doesn't pick up errors in numbers and this typo slipped by me. The correct fax number for PM Netanyahu, if dialed from the States is: 011-972-2-670-5369. I apologize for any inconvenience.
(The general rule for dialing from the States is to dial 011-972, then drop the 0 from the area code or from the beginning of a cell phone number and proceed with the rest of the number.) Yesterday Vice President Biden addressed the AIPAC conference, and he sang the very same administration song as we've been hearing in other quarters.
President Obama, he told the delegates gathered, is "strongly and personally committed to achieving what all have basically said is needed - a two-state solution..."
Then he made a link between Iran and a peace agreement with the Palestinians: "One of the most pressing reasons may be to deprive Iran of the ability to extend its destabilizing influence."
Well, he's got that absolutely backwards too. For the possibility to achieve peace with the Palestinians is far greater if we defang Iran first. In fact, there are statements from Netanyahu regarding the absolute impossibility of reaching peace here until the Iran issue is confronted. I've written extensively about Hamas -- the "elephant in the room" -- making a viable peace impossible. Hamas is funded and guided from Teheran.
~~~~~~~~~~
And here we have it:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, after a meeting in Damascus yesterday, told journalists that they continue to support “Palestinian resistance.” The two were conducting meetings with the key Hamas officials in Damascus.
~~~~~~~~~~
And with regard to Hamas...
I indicated yesterday that there will likely be a separate Hamas government in Gaza. If a final unity government agreement is not achieved at a May 16 meeting, they are likely to proceed. Apparently Ismail Haniyeh -- who was briefly the prime minister of a 2007 joint Fatah-Hamas government -- is slated to be prime minister.
~~~~~~~~~~
But Hamas has also gone public in another venue, as politburo head in Damascus, Khaled Mashaal (newly elected to another term), has just given an interview to the NY Times.
What is obvious here is that Mashaal is playing to the Obama administration, which has not yet recognized this group as a negotiating partner (but is on its way to doing so should Hamas join a unity government). "His [Obama's] language is different and positive," he said.
Shouldn't we take note of the fact that a jihadist terror group sees Obama's language as positive??
"I promise the American administration and the international community that we will be part of the solution, period," he intoned.
But he was not going to recognize Israel, for "There is only one enemy in the region, and that is Israel."
In light of Hamas intentions to be "part of the solution," Mashaal says Hamas has stopped firing rockets at Israel for now.
"Not firing the rockets currently is part of an evaluation from the movement which serves the Palestinians' interest. After all, the firing is a method, not a goal. Resistance is a legitimate right, but practicing such a right comes under an evaluation by the movement's leaders."
This is what Hamas is proposing:
Israel must return to '67 lines (which includes leaving eastern Jerusalem), dismantle settlements, and permit the "right of return."
In exchange, Hamas would offer a 10 year truce. Not a final cessation of hostilities. Oh, no. For 10 years Hamas would not fire rockets on us, and but would reserve the right to do so again thereafter. To secure this, we would have to move into indefensible borders and permit ourselves to be overrun by hostile Arab so-called refugees.
Actually, as I think about it, the cessation of rocket fire might be permanent, because at the end of 10 years with this formulation, there'd be so little of Israel left that Hamas might not want to bother.
I note that there is nothing said about cessation of smuggling weapons during that period of truce. Nor was it said that there would be a renunciation of terrorism -- which means Hamas, while not shooting rockets, could covertly foster terror attacks from which it distanced itself.
All in all, quite a deal, is it not? Mark my words, there will comments somewhere indicating that Hamas is moderating.
~~~~~~~~~~
Both Hamas and the PA have rejected Netanyahu's statements made by video to the AIPAC conference regarding readiness to enter talks without delay. This is no surprise, for he doesn't speak about a two-state solution.
What raises the blood pressure once again is this, however:
Tony Blair, envoy for the Quartet (i.e., the US, the UN, the EU, and Russia), has announced that the Quartet
will be unveiling a new peace plan in a few weeks. It is being devised by the "highest level of the American administration."
Another attempt to dictate terms from the outside.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Reuters, at a meeting of Non-Proliferation Treaty signatories yesterday, Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller was quoted as saying, "Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea...remains a fundamental objective of the United States."
Uh oh. Big time. This hits at our essential right to protect ourselves.
Dov Weisglass, a former Israeli strategist, told Army Radio that these comments were alarming:
"If these statements indicate a change in American policy on this issue, I believe this may be the most worrisome development for Israel's security in many years."
Today, however, Israel Radio quoted an Israeli Foreign Ministry official as saying there was no significant shift in US policy on this matter.
I hope so, but I don't know. I have the sense that the world is upside down and that we are besieged on all sides.
~~~~~~~~~~
British journalist Melanie Phillips has my greatest respect and regard. I close today with excerpts from her latest piece, "Obama prepares to throw Israel under the bus."
"...It is of course, by any sane standard, quite fantastic [i.e., incredible] that America is behaving as if it is Israel which is holding up a peace settlement when Israel has made concession after concession: giving up Sinai, giving up Gaza, offering all the territories to the Arabs in return for peace in 1967, offering more than 90 per cent of them ditto in 2000, ditto again to Mahmoud Abbas in the past year -- only to be attacked in return by a Palestinian terrorist entity, backed in its continued aggression, let us not forget, by the countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has made no concessions at all and is not being pressured to do so.
"It is not the aggressor here but the victim of aggression that America is now choosing to beat up. In any sane world, one might think the Americans would be piling the pressure on the Palestinians to renounce their genocidal ambitions against Israel, to stop teaching and training their children to hate and kill Jews, to adhere to the primary requirement in the Road Map that they must dismantle their infrastructure of violence as the first step in the peace process; one might think, indeed, that they would view Mahmoud Abbas's
repeated statements that the Palestinians will never accept Israel as a Jewish state to be the main impediment to peace.
"But no. The repeated professions that America will never jeopardise Israel's security are stomach churning when Obama is actually blaming Israel for measures it has taken to safeguard its security -- the settlements were always first and foremost a security measure, and the travel restrictions are there solely to
prevent more Israelis being murdered -- and trying to force it to abandon them. Today comes further news that Obama will also try to force Israel to give up its nuclear weapons -- which it only has as a last ditch insurance against the attempt to annihilate it to which several billion Arabs remain pledged.
"Of course Obama doesn't care that Hamas would run any Palestinian state. Of course he doesn't care that Israel would be unable to defend itself against such a terrorist state. Because he regards Israel as at best totally expendable, and at worst as a running sore on the world's body politic that has to be purged
altogether (see this bleak assessment by Sultan Knish). His administration is proceeding on the entirely false analysis that a state of Palestine is the solution to the Middle East impasse and the route to peace in the region. What that state will look like or do is something to which at best the administration's collective mind is shut and at worst makes it a potential cynical accomplice to the unconscionable. So Israel is to be forced out of the West Bank. Far from building a coalition against Iran, Obama is thus doing Iran's work for it.
"None of this, however, should come as the slightest surprise to anyone who paid any attention to Obama's background, associations and friendships before he became President and to the cabal of Israel-bashers, appeasers and Jew-haters he appointed to his administration, with a few useful idiots thrown in for
plausible deniability.
"...But the ordinary American people are a different matter. They do value and support Israel. They do understand that if Israel is thrown under that bus, the west is next. And it is they to whom Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu must now appeal, over the heads of the politicians and the media and certainly America's Jews and everyone else. He must tell the American people the terrible truth, that America is now run by a man who is intent on sacrificing Israel for a reckless and amoral political strategy which will put America and the rest of the free world at risk.
"This is shaping up to be the biggest crisis in relations between Israel and America since the foundation of Israel six decades ago. Those who hate Israel and the Jews will be gloating. This after all is precisely what they hoped Obama would do. To any decent person looking on aghast, this is where the moral sickness of the west reaches the critical care ward.(Emphasis added)
http://www.spectator.co.uk:80/melaniephillips/3590646/obama-prepares-to-throw-israel-under-the-bus.thtml
~~~~~~~~~~
Phillips alludes to the "bleak assessment of Sultan Knish." She is referring to "Obama's plan to destroy Israel," written by NY- based, Israeli-born writer Daniel Greenfield , who posts as Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/05/obamas-plan-to-destroy-israel.html.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Correction: Spell check doesn't pick up errors in numbers and this typo slipped by me. The correct fax number for PM Netanyahu, if dialed from the States is: 011-972-2-670-5369. I apologize for any inconvenience.
(The general rule for dialing from the States is to dial 011-972, then drop the 0 from the area code or from the beginning of a cell phone number and proceed with the rest of the number.) Yesterday Vice President Biden addressed the AIPAC conference, and he sang the very same administration song as we've been hearing in other quarters.
President Obama, he told the delegates gathered, is "strongly and personally committed to achieving what all have basically said is needed - a two-state solution..."
Then he made a link between Iran and a peace agreement with the Palestinians: "One of the most pressing reasons may be to deprive Iran of the ability to extend its destabilizing influence."
Well, he's got that absolutely backwards too. For the possibility to achieve peace with the Palestinians is far greater if we defang Iran first. In fact, there are statements from Netanyahu regarding the absolute impossibility of reaching peace here until the Iran issue is confronted. I've written extensively about Hamas -- the "elephant in the room" -- making a viable peace impossible. Hamas is funded and guided from Teheran.
~~~~~~~~~~
And here we have it:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, after a meeting in Damascus yesterday, told journalists that they continue to support “Palestinian resistance.” The two were conducting meetings with the key Hamas officials in Damascus.
~~~~~~~~~~
And with regard to Hamas...
I indicated yesterday that there will likely be a separate Hamas government in Gaza. If a final unity government agreement is not achieved at a May 16 meeting, they are likely to proceed. Apparently Ismail Haniyeh -- who was briefly the prime minister of a 2007 joint Fatah-Hamas government -- is slated to be prime minister.
~~~~~~~~~~
But Hamas has also gone public in another venue, as politburo head in Damascus, Khaled Mashaal (newly elected to another term), has just given an interview to the NY Times.
What is obvious here is that Mashaal is playing to the Obama administration, which has not yet recognized this group as a negotiating partner (but is on its way to doing so should Hamas join a unity government). "His [Obama's] language is different and positive," he said.
Shouldn't we take note of the fact that a jihadist terror group sees Obama's language as positive??
"I promise the American administration and the international community that we will be part of the solution, period," he intoned.
But he was not going to recognize Israel, for "There is only one enemy in the region, and that is Israel."
In light of Hamas intentions to be "part of the solution," Mashaal says Hamas has stopped firing rockets at Israel for now.
"Not firing the rockets currently is part of an evaluation from the movement which serves the Palestinians' interest. After all, the firing is a method, not a goal. Resistance is a legitimate right, but practicing such a right comes under an evaluation by the movement's leaders."
This is what Hamas is proposing:
Israel must return to '67 lines (which includes leaving eastern Jerusalem), dismantle settlements, and permit the "right of return."
In exchange, Hamas would offer a 10 year truce. Not a final cessation of hostilities. Oh, no. For 10 years Hamas would not fire rockets on us, and but would reserve the right to do so again thereafter. To secure this, we would have to move into indefensible borders and permit ourselves to be overrun by hostile Arab so-called refugees.
Actually, as I think about it, the cessation of rocket fire might be permanent, because at the end of 10 years with this formulation, there'd be so little of Israel left that Hamas might not want to bother.
I note that there is nothing said about cessation of smuggling weapons during that period of truce. Nor was it said that there would be a renunciation of terrorism -- which means Hamas, while not shooting rockets, could covertly foster terror attacks from which it distanced itself.
All in all, quite a deal, is it not? Mark my words, there will comments somewhere indicating that Hamas is moderating.
~~~~~~~~~~
Both Hamas and the PA have rejected Netanyahu's statements made by video to the AIPAC conference regarding readiness to enter talks without delay. This is no surprise, for he doesn't speak about a two-state solution.
What raises the blood pressure once again is this, however:
Tony Blair, envoy for the Quartet (i.e., the US, the UN, the EU, and Russia), has announced that the Quartet
will be unveiling a new peace plan in a few weeks. It is being devised by the "highest level of the American administration."
Another attempt to dictate terms from the outside.
~~~~~~~~~~
According to Reuters, at a meeting of Non-Proliferation Treaty signatories yesterday, Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller was quoted as saying, "Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea...remains a fundamental objective of the United States."
Uh oh. Big time. This hits at our essential right to protect ourselves.
Dov Weisglass, a former Israeli strategist, told Army Radio that these comments were alarming:
"If these statements indicate a change in American policy on this issue, I believe this may be the most worrisome development for Israel's security in many years."
Today, however, Israel Radio quoted an Israeli Foreign Ministry official as saying there was no significant shift in US policy on this matter.
I hope so, but I don't know. I have the sense that the world is upside down and that we are besieged on all sides.
~~~~~~~~~~
British journalist Melanie Phillips has my greatest respect and regard. I close today with excerpts from her latest piece, "Obama prepares to throw Israel under the bus."
"...It is of course, by any sane standard, quite fantastic [i.e., incredible] that America is behaving as if it is Israel which is holding up a peace settlement when Israel has made concession after concession: giving up Sinai, giving up Gaza, offering all the territories to the Arabs in return for peace in 1967, offering more than 90 per cent of them ditto in 2000, ditto again to Mahmoud Abbas in the past year -- only to be attacked in return by a Palestinian terrorist entity, backed in its continued aggression, let us not forget, by the countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has made no concessions at all and is not being pressured to do so.
"It is not the aggressor here but the victim of aggression that America is now choosing to beat up. In any sane world, one might think the Americans would be piling the pressure on the Palestinians to renounce their genocidal ambitions against Israel, to stop teaching and training their children to hate and kill Jews, to adhere to the primary requirement in the Road Map that they must dismantle their infrastructure of violence as the first step in the peace process; one might think, indeed, that they would view Mahmoud Abbas's
repeated statements that the Palestinians will never accept Israel as a Jewish state to be the main impediment to peace.
"But no. The repeated professions that America will never jeopardise Israel's security are stomach churning when Obama is actually blaming Israel for measures it has taken to safeguard its security -- the settlements were always first and foremost a security measure, and the travel restrictions are there solely to
prevent more Israelis being murdered -- and trying to force it to abandon them. Today comes further news that Obama will also try to force Israel to give up its nuclear weapons -- which it only has as a last ditch insurance against the attempt to annihilate it to which several billion Arabs remain pledged.
"Of course Obama doesn't care that Hamas would run any Palestinian state. Of course he doesn't care that Israel would be unable to defend itself against such a terrorist state. Because he regards Israel as at best totally expendable, and at worst as a running sore on the world's body politic that has to be purged
altogether (see this bleak assessment by Sultan Knish). His administration is proceeding on the entirely false analysis that a state of Palestine is the solution to the Middle East impasse and the route to peace in the region. What that state will look like or do is something to which at best the administration's collective mind is shut and at worst makes it a potential cynical accomplice to the unconscionable. So Israel is to be forced out of the West Bank. Far from building a coalition against Iran, Obama is thus doing Iran's work for it.
"None of this, however, should come as the slightest surprise to anyone who paid any attention to Obama's background, associations and friendships before he became President and to the cabal of Israel-bashers, appeasers and Jew-haters he appointed to his administration, with a few useful idiots thrown in for
plausible deniability.
"...But the ordinary American people are a different matter. They do value and support Israel. They do understand that if Israel is thrown under that bus, the west is next. And it is they to whom Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu must now appeal, over the heads of the politicians and the media and certainly America's Jews and everyone else. He must tell the American people the terrible truth, that America is now run by a man who is intent on sacrificing Israel for a reckless and amoral political strategy which will put America and the rest of the free world at risk.
"This is shaping up to be the biggest crisis in relations between Israel and America since the foundation of Israel six decades ago. Those who hate Israel and the Jews will be gloating. This after all is precisely what they hoped Obama would do. To any decent person looking on aghast, this is where the moral sickness of the west reaches the critical care ward.(Emphasis added)
http://www.spectator.co.uk:80/melaniephillips/3590646/obama-prepares-to-throw-israel-under-the-bus.thtml
~~~~~~~~~~
Phillips alludes to the "bleak assessment of Sultan Knish." She is referring to "Obama's plan to destroy Israel," written by NY- based, Israeli-born writer Daniel Greenfield , who posts as Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2009/05/obamas-plan-to-destroy-israel.html.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Almagor: Investigate NATO Crimes
Nissan Ratzlav-Katz Almagor: Investigate NATO Crimes
The Israel terror victim's association, Almagor, is preparing to petition for a war crimes trial of NATO leaders and nations over the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s. As with a similar initiative by MK Aryeh Eldad earlier this year, the Almagor suit is meant as a counterweight to a Spanish court's investigation targeting Israel. On Monday, a Spanish judge decided to proceed with the investigation of Israel over the 2002 assassination of leading Hamas terrorist Saleh Shehadeh. Sixteen other people were also killed in the IDF airstrike.
Earlier this year, the same court had agreed to hear the case for prosecution of former Israeli Air Force Commander Dan Halutz, former Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, and five other senior Israeli officials for war crimes over their decision to assassinate the Hamas leader while he was in a building in Gaza City. Spanish law gives their domestic courts universal jurisdiction for serious crimes, regardless of the location and identity of the alleged victims.
"This case against Israel is based on an ancient hatred of the Jewish people - 'the lamb among 70 wolves'," Almagor Chairman Meir Indor told Israel National News on Tuesday.
In response to the Spanish case, Almagor is currently preparing a petition to the Spanish court system demanding that it also investigate NATO countries and leaders for war crimes during the air campaign against Serbia in the late 1990s. Over 2,000 civilians were killed in the attacks. Almagor is specifically looking into a NATO bombing that destroyed a passenger train on a bridge, killing over 100 people, and airstrikes on Serbian hospitals and two Serbian TV stations.
The suit would force the court to look into wartime actions by several former and current Spanish leaders, as well as those of other NATO member states. Chief among the potential targets of the Almagor suit is European Union (EU) foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who was NATO's Secretary-General during the Serbia bombing campaign.
The suit is a way to open what Indor called a "Pandora's Box", which he hoped would pressure the Spanish court to close both cases. Such a scenario took place in 2001, when Almagor filed suit against Yasser Arafat after a similar case was opened against Ariel Sharon in Belgium. The cases were ultimately dropped by the court.
A Cautionary Tale
Indor told a cautionary tale his investigators heard of a Serbian pilot who bombed a NATO unit during the war against Milosevic's Yugoslavia. The pilot was just recently arrested when he crossed the border for medical treatment abroad. Interpol had a warrant out for him as a result of his wartime military service in the Yugoslav army.
The same situation could easily develop for Israeli pilots and soldiers traveling abroad, the Almagor chairman warned. If any European court, even the most obscure, decides to prosecute Israelis for their IDF service, according to Indor, a trip abroad may end in a year-long imprisonment in a EU holding cell as the courts hash out the case.
While there is a clear Israeli interest in pursuing the Serbian case in Spain, Indor insisted, "we are a human rights group for all intents and purposes, through which Serbian victims can sue NATO." Indor assured Israel National News that Almagor will not drop the case against NATO of its own initiative.
Asked if his organization will pursue the Serbian issue in other courts, Indor replied, "Perhaps in Israel."
Eldad: Bring Spanish Leaders to Justice
The idea of a suit designed to expose Spanish hypocrisy in that government's decision to investigate Israel over the Shehadeh assassination was first floated in February of this year, when Knesset Member Aryeh Eldad (Ichud Leumi/National Union) called for Israel to put former Spanish officials on trial for their role in the NATO bombings. Eldad petitioned Israel's Attorney General Menachem Mazuz to charge the former Spanish Prime Minister, Defense Minister and Army Chief of Staff in Israeli courts for war crimes against the people of Belgrade and other Serbian areas.
"In those bombings," Eldad's petition said, "hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent civilians were killed because NATO pilots dropped their bombs from extremely high altitudes in order not to endanger themselves. They thus caused mass civilian casualties. It is fitting that the State of Israel try the Spanish political and military leaders for war crimes if Spain does not immediately revoke the charges against the Israeli Defense Minister and Chief of Staff."
MK Eldad wrote to the Attorney General that "in the event that Israeli law does not allow charging and trying someone for war crimes not committed within the national jurisdiction, I would appreciate it if you would instruct the State Prosecutor to turn to the International Court in The Hague so that the Spanish leaders will be tried for war crimes by the international court."
Failing to see the hypocrisy inherent in the charges against Israel for its actions while NATO carried out the same, or worse, actions against Serbia, Eldad concluded, "is testimony to hatred for Israel - Israel the people and Israel the state equally - and the State of Israel must fight back against this wave of anti-Semitism."
The Israel terror victim's association, Almagor, is preparing to petition for a war crimes trial of NATO leaders and nations over the bombing of Serbia in the 1990s. As with a similar initiative by MK Aryeh Eldad earlier this year, the Almagor suit is meant as a counterweight to a Spanish court's investigation targeting Israel. On Monday, a Spanish judge decided to proceed with the investigation of Israel over the 2002 assassination of leading Hamas terrorist Saleh Shehadeh. Sixteen other people were also killed in the IDF airstrike.
Earlier this year, the same court had agreed to hear the case for prosecution of former Israeli Air Force Commander Dan Halutz, former Defense Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, and five other senior Israeli officials for war crimes over their decision to assassinate the Hamas leader while he was in a building in Gaza City. Spanish law gives their domestic courts universal jurisdiction for serious crimes, regardless of the location and identity of the alleged victims.
"This case against Israel is based on an ancient hatred of the Jewish people - 'the lamb among 70 wolves'," Almagor Chairman Meir Indor told Israel National News on Tuesday.
In response to the Spanish case, Almagor is currently preparing a petition to the Spanish court system demanding that it also investigate NATO countries and leaders for war crimes during the air campaign against Serbia in the late 1990s. Over 2,000 civilians were killed in the attacks. Almagor is specifically looking into a NATO bombing that destroyed a passenger train on a bridge, killing over 100 people, and airstrikes on Serbian hospitals and two Serbian TV stations.
The suit would force the court to look into wartime actions by several former and current Spanish leaders, as well as those of other NATO member states. Chief among the potential targets of the Almagor suit is European Union (EU) foreign policy chief Javier Solana, who was NATO's Secretary-General during the Serbia bombing campaign.
The suit is a way to open what Indor called a "Pandora's Box", which he hoped would pressure the Spanish court to close both cases. Such a scenario took place in 2001, when Almagor filed suit against Yasser Arafat after a similar case was opened against Ariel Sharon in Belgium. The cases were ultimately dropped by the court.
A Cautionary Tale
Indor told a cautionary tale his investigators heard of a Serbian pilot who bombed a NATO unit during the war against Milosevic's Yugoslavia. The pilot was just recently arrested when he crossed the border for medical treatment abroad. Interpol had a warrant out for him as a result of his wartime military service in the Yugoslav army.
The same situation could easily develop for Israeli pilots and soldiers traveling abroad, the Almagor chairman warned. If any European court, even the most obscure, decides to prosecute Israelis for their IDF service, according to Indor, a trip abroad may end in a year-long imprisonment in a EU holding cell as the courts hash out the case.
While there is a clear Israeli interest in pursuing the Serbian case in Spain, Indor insisted, "we are a human rights group for all intents and purposes, through which Serbian victims can sue NATO." Indor assured Israel National News that Almagor will not drop the case against NATO of its own initiative.
Asked if his organization will pursue the Serbian issue in other courts, Indor replied, "Perhaps in Israel."
Eldad: Bring Spanish Leaders to Justice
The idea of a suit designed to expose Spanish hypocrisy in that government's decision to investigate Israel over the Shehadeh assassination was first floated in February of this year, when Knesset Member Aryeh Eldad (Ichud Leumi/National Union) called for Israel to put former Spanish officials on trial for their role in the NATO bombings. Eldad petitioned Israel's Attorney General Menachem Mazuz to charge the former Spanish Prime Minister, Defense Minister and Army Chief of Staff in Israeli courts for war crimes against the people of Belgrade and other Serbian areas.
"In those bombings," Eldad's petition said, "hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent civilians were killed because NATO pilots dropped their bombs from extremely high altitudes in order not to endanger themselves. They thus caused mass civilian casualties. It is fitting that the State of Israel try the Spanish political and military leaders for war crimes if Spain does not immediately revoke the charges against the Israeli Defense Minister and Chief of Staff."
MK Eldad wrote to the Attorney General that "in the event that Israeli law does not allow charging and trying someone for war crimes not committed within the national jurisdiction, I would appreciate it if you would instruct the State Prosecutor to turn to the International Court in The Hague so that the Spanish leaders will be tried for war crimes by the international court."
Failing to see the hypocrisy inherent in the charges against Israel for its actions while NATO carried out the same, or worse, actions against Serbia, Eldad concluded, "is testimony to hatred for Israel - Israel the people and Israel the state equally - and the State of Israel must fight back against this wave of anti-Semitism."
Secret U.S.-Israel nuclear accord in jeopardy
President Obama's efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel's nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say. The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.
Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.
"Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, ... remains a fundamental objective of the United States," Ms. Gottemoeller told the meeting, according to Reuters.
She declined to say, however, whether the Obama administration would press Israel to join the treaty.
A senior White House official said the administration considered the nuclear programs of Israel and Iran to be unrelated "apples and oranges."
Asked by The Washington Times whether the administration would press Israel to join the NPT, the official said, "We support universal adherence to the NPT. [It] remains a long-term goal."
The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
Avner Cohen, author of "Israel and the Bomb" and the leading expert outside the Israeli government on the history of Israel's nuclear program, said Mr. Obama's "upcoming meeting with Netanyahu, due to the impending discussions with Iran, will be a platform for Israel to ask for reassurances that old understandings on the nuclear issue are still valid."
For the past 40 years, Israel and the U.S. have kept quiet about an Israeli nuclear arsenal that is now estimated at 80 to 200 weapons. Israel has promised not to test nuclear weapons while the U.S. has not pressed Israel to sign the nuclear NPT, which permits only five countries - the U.S., France, Britain, China and Russia - to have nuclear arms.
The U.S. also has opposed most regional calls for a "nuclear-free Middle East." The accord was forged at a summit between Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir and President Nixon on Sept. 25, 1969, according to recently released documents, but remains so secret that there is no explicit record of it. Mr. Cohen has referred to the deal as "don't ask, don't tell," because it commits both the U.S. and Israel never to acknowledge in public Israels nuclear arsenal.
When asked what the Obama administration's position was on the 1969 understanding, the senior White House official offered no comment.
Over the years, demands for Israel to come clean have multiplied.
The Iran factor
Iranian leaders have long complained about being subjected to a double standard that allows non-NPT members India and Pakistan, as well as Israel, to maintain and even increase their nuclear arsenals but sanctions Tehran, an NPT member, for not cooperating fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
On Monday, Iranian Deputy Foreign MinisterMohammad Ali Hosseini told a U.N. meeting preparing for a major review of the NPT next year that nuclear cooperation by the U.S., France and Britain with Israel is "in total disregard with the obligations under the treaty and commitments undertaken in 1995 and 2000, and a source of real concern for the international community, especially the parties to the treaty in the Middle East."
The Obama administration is seeking talks with Iran on its nuclear program and has dropped a precondition for negotiations that Iran first suspend its uranium enrichment program.
"What the Israelis sense, rightly, is that Obama wants to do something new on Iran and this may very well involve doing something new about Israel's program," said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington think tank.
Bruce Riedel, a former senior director for the Middle East and South Asia on the White House National Security Council, said, "If you're really serious about a deal with Iran, Israel has to come out of the closet. A policy based on fiction and double standards is bound to fail sooner or later. What's remarkable is that it's lasted so long." Mr. Riedel headed the Obama administration's review of strategy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan but does not hold a permanent administration position and has returned to private life as a scholar at the Brookings Institution.
The open secret
Elliott Abrams, deputy national security adviser for the George W. Bush administration, said that administration resisted international efforts to pressure Israel on the nuclear front.
"We did not want to accept any operational language that would put Israel at a disadvantage and raise the question of whether Israel was a nuclear power," he said. "That was not a discussion that we thought was helpful. We allowed very general statements about the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East as long that language was hortatory."
Israel began its nuclear program shortly after the state was founded in 1948 and produced its first weapons, according to Mr. Cohen's book, on the eve of the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli defense doctrine considers the nuclear arsenal to be a strategic deterrent against extinction. But its nuclear monopoly is increasingly jeopardized by Iranian advances and the possibility that Iran's program could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region.
Israel's arsenal has also been an open secret for decades, despite the fact that Israeli law forbids Israeli journalists from referring to the state's nuclear weapons unless they quote non-Israeli sources.
In 1986, the Israeli nuclear scientist, Mordecai Vanunu disclosed in the Sunday Times of London photographs and the first insider account of Dimona, the location of Israels primary nuclear facility. Israel responded by convicting him of treason. He was released in 2004 after spending 18 years in prison but has continued to talk about the program on occasion. The government has barred Mr. Vanunu from leaving Israel.
'Nuclear-free' zone
References to a "nuclear-free Middle East," meanwhile, have cropped up increasingly in international resolutions and conferences. For example, the 1991 U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, which sanctioned Saddam Hussein's Iraq, noted "the objective of achieving balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region." More recently, a March 2006 IAEA resolution, in referring Iran to the Security Council, noted "that a solution to the Iranian issue would contribute to global nonproliferation efforts and to realizing the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction."
U.S. allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia also have pressed the U.S. to link Israel's weapons to Iran's as part of a plan to implement a nuclear-free Middle East.
A proposal to introduce a Security Council resolution declaring the Middle East a nuclear-free zone and calling for sanctions against those countries that did not comply was broached in a 2006 strategic dialogue between Saudi Arabia and the United States, said Turki al-Faisal, who was Saudi ambassador to the U.S.
"When I talked to American officials about that when I was ambassador here, and before that to British officials in the U.K., the immediate response was, 'Israel is not going to accept,' " Prince Turki told editors and reporters of The Washington Times last month. "And my immediate response was, 'So what?' If Israel doesnt accept, it doesnt mean its a bad idea."
A balancing act
Mr. Netanyahu, whose meeting with Mr. Obama on May 18 will be the first since both took office, raised the issue of the nuclear understanding during a previous tenure as prime minister.
Israeli journalists and officials said Mr. Netanyahu asked for a reaffirmation and clarification of the Nixon-Meir understanding in 1998 at Wye River, where the U.S. mediated an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Mr. Netanyahu wanted a personal commitment from President Clinton because of concerns about a treaty that Mr. Clinton supported to bar production of fissile materials that can be used to make weapons. Israel was worried that the treaty would apply to de facto nuclear states, including Israel, and might oblige it to allow inspections of Dimona.
In 2000, Israeli journalist Aluf Benn disclosed that Mr. Clinton at Wye River promised Mr. Netanyahu that "Israels nuclear capability will be preserved." Mr. Benn described as testy an exchange of letters between the two leaders over the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. He said Mr. Netanyahu wrote Mr. Clinton: "We will never sign the treaty, and do not delude yourselves - no pressure will help. We will not sign the treaty because we will not commit suicide."
The Bush administration largely dropped the treaty in its first term and reopened negotiations in its second term with a proposal that did not include verification.
The Obama agenda
Mr. Obama has made nuclear disarmament a bigger priority in part to undercut Iran's and North Korea's rationale for proliferation. His administration has begun negotiations with Russia on a new treaty to reduce U.S. and Russian arsenals. He also has expressed support for the fissile material treaty.
"To cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons," he said last month in Prague. "If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them."
David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington think tank, said such a treaty would be the first step toward limiting the Israeli nuclear program.
"The question is how much of a priority is this for the Obama administration?" he said.
John R. Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador and undersecretary of state, said Israel was right to be concerned.
"If I were the Israeli government, I would be very worried about the Obama administration's attitude on their nuclear deterrent," he said. "You can barely raise the subject of nuclear weapons in the Middle East without someone saying: 'What about Israel?' If Israel's opponents put it on the table, it is entirely possible Obama will pick it up."
Asked about the issue, Jonathan Peled, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said, "We don't discuss the strategic relationship between the United States and Israel." The White House had no immediate comment.
However, Ms. Gottemoeller endorsed the concept of a nuclear-free Middle East in a 2005 paper that she co-authored, "Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security."
"Instead of defensively trying to ignore Israels nuclear status, the United States and Israel should proactively call for regional dialogue to specify the conditions necessary to achieve a zone free of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons," she wrote.
The paper recommends that Israel take steps to disarm in exchange for its neighbors getting rid of chemical and biological weapons programs as well as Iran forgoing uranium enrichment.
• Barbara Slavin and Erin Spiegel contributed to this report from Washington.
Comment: Any movement to force Israel to join the NPT will demonstrate the truth behind Obama's real agenda and support (totasl disregard for) Israel's security. If you do not understand this principle then you need to become acquainted immediately and if you choose not to do this, you are no friend of Israel-regardless of what religious persuasion you practice.This is THE game changer in the ME-we are about to find out the courage of Israel's new leaders and the arrogance of the USA government. I see a bus nearby!
Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.
"Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, ... remains a fundamental objective of the United States," Ms. Gottemoeller told the meeting, according to Reuters.
She declined to say, however, whether the Obama administration would press Israel to join the treaty.
A senior White House official said the administration considered the nuclear programs of Israel and Iran to be unrelated "apples and oranges."
Asked by The Washington Times whether the administration would press Israel to join the NPT, the official said, "We support universal adherence to the NPT. [It] remains a long-term goal."
The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.
Avner Cohen, author of "Israel and the Bomb" and the leading expert outside the Israeli government on the history of Israel's nuclear program, said Mr. Obama's "upcoming meeting with Netanyahu, due to the impending discussions with Iran, will be a platform for Israel to ask for reassurances that old understandings on the nuclear issue are still valid."
For the past 40 years, Israel and the U.S. have kept quiet about an Israeli nuclear arsenal that is now estimated at 80 to 200 weapons. Israel has promised not to test nuclear weapons while the U.S. has not pressed Israel to sign the nuclear NPT, which permits only five countries - the U.S., France, Britain, China and Russia - to have nuclear arms.
The U.S. also has opposed most regional calls for a "nuclear-free Middle East." The accord was forged at a summit between Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir and President Nixon on Sept. 25, 1969, according to recently released documents, but remains so secret that there is no explicit record of it. Mr. Cohen has referred to the deal as "don't ask, don't tell," because it commits both the U.S. and Israel never to acknowledge in public Israels nuclear arsenal.
When asked what the Obama administration's position was on the 1969 understanding, the senior White House official offered no comment.
Over the years, demands for Israel to come clean have multiplied.
The Iran factor
Iranian leaders have long complained about being subjected to a double standard that allows non-NPT members India and Pakistan, as well as Israel, to maintain and even increase their nuclear arsenals but sanctions Tehran, an NPT member, for not cooperating fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
On Monday, Iranian Deputy Foreign MinisterMohammad Ali Hosseini told a U.N. meeting preparing for a major review of the NPT next year that nuclear cooperation by the U.S., France and Britain with Israel is "in total disregard with the obligations under the treaty and commitments undertaken in 1995 and 2000, and a source of real concern for the international community, especially the parties to the treaty in the Middle East."
The Obama administration is seeking talks with Iran on its nuclear program and has dropped a precondition for negotiations that Iran first suspend its uranium enrichment program.
"What the Israelis sense, rightly, is that Obama wants to do something new on Iran and this may very well involve doing something new about Israel's program," said Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, a Washington think tank.
Bruce Riedel, a former senior director for the Middle East and South Asia on the White House National Security Council, said, "If you're really serious about a deal with Iran, Israel has to come out of the closet. A policy based on fiction and double standards is bound to fail sooner or later. What's remarkable is that it's lasted so long." Mr. Riedel headed the Obama administration's review of strategy toward Afghanistan and Pakistan but does not hold a permanent administration position and has returned to private life as a scholar at the Brookings Institution.
The open secret
Elliott Abrams, deputy national security adviser for the George W. Bush administration, said that administration resisted international efforts to pressure Israel on the nuclear front.
"We did not want to accept any operational language that would put Israel at a disadvantage and raise the question of whether Israel was a nuclear power," he said. "That was not a discussion that we thought was helpful. We allowed very general statements about the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East as long that language was hortatory."
Israel began its nuclear program shortly after the state was founded in 1948 and produced its first weapons, according to Mr. Cohen's book, on the eve of the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli defense doctrine considers the nuclear arsenal to be a strategic deterrent against extinction. But its nuclear monopoly is increasingly jeopardized by Iranian advances and the possibility that Iran's program could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region.
Israel's arsenal has also been an open secret for decades, despite the fact that Israeli law forbids Israeli journalists from referring to the state's nuclear weapons unless they quote non-Israeli sources.
In 1986, the Israeli nuclear scientist, Mordecai Vanunu disclosed in the Sunday Times of London photographs and the first insider account of Dimona, the location of Israels primary nuclear facility. Israel responded by convicting him of treason. He was released in 2004 after spending 18 years in prison but has continued to talk about the program on occasion. The government has barred Mr. Vanunu from leaving Israel.
'Nuclear-free' zone
References to a "nuclear-free Middle East," meanwhile, have cropped up increasingly in international resolutions and conferences. For example, the 1991 U.N. Security Council Resolution 687, which sanctioned Saddam Hussein's Iraq, noted "the objective of achieving balanced and comprehensive control of armaments in the region." More recently, a March 2006 IAEA resolution, in referring Iran to the Security Council, noted "that a solution to the Iranian issue would contribute to global nonproliferation efforts and to realizing the objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction."
U.S. allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia also have pressed the U.S. to link Israel's weapons to Iran's as part of a plan to implement a nuclear-free Middle East.
A proposal to introduce a Security Council resolution declaring the Middle East a nuclear-free zone and calling for sanctions against those countries that did not comply was broached in a 2006 strategic dialogue between Saudi Arabia and the United States, said Turki al-Faisal, who was Saudi ambassador to the U.S.
"When I talked to American officials about that when I was ambassador here, and before that to British officials in the U.K., the immediate response was, 'Israel is not going to accept,' " Prince Turki told editors and reporters of The Washington Times last month. "And my immediate response was, 'So what?' If Israel doesnt accept, it doesnt mean its a bad idea."
A balancing act
Mr. Netanyahu, whose meeting with Mr. Obama on May 18 will be the first since both took office, raised the issue of the nuclear understanding during a previous tenure as prime minister.
Israeli journalists and officials said Mr. Netanyahu asked for a reaffirmation and clarification of the Nixon-Meir understanding in 1998 at Wye River, where the U.S. mediated an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Mr. Netanyahu wanted a personal commitment from President Clinton because of concerns about a treaty that Mr. Clinton supported to bar production of fissile materials that can be used to make weapons. Israel was worried that the treaty would apply to de facto nuclear states, including Israel, and might oblige it to allow inspections of Dimona.
In 2000, Israeli journalist Aluf Benn disclosed that Mr. Clinton at Wye River promised Mr. Netanyahu that "Israels nuclear capability will be preserved." Mr. Benn described as testy an exchange of letters between the two leaders over the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty. He said Mr. Netanyahu wrote Mr. Clinton: "We will never sign the treaty, and do not delude yourselves - no pressure will help. We will not sign the treaty because we will not commit suicide."
The Bush administration largely dropped the treaty in its first term and reopened negotiations in its second term with a proposal that did not include verification.
The Obama agenda
Mr. Obama has made nuclear disarmament a bigger priority in part to undercut Iran's and North Korea's rationale for proliferation. His administration has begun negotiations with Russia on a new treaty to reduce U.S. and Russian arsenals. He also has expressed support for the fissile material treaty.
"To cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons," he said last month in Prague. "If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them."
David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington think tank, said such a treaty would be the first step toward limiting the Israeli nuclear program.
"The question is how much of a priority is this for the Obama administration?" he said.
John R. Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador and undersecretary of state, said Israel was right to be concerned.
"If I were the Israeli government, I would be very worried about the Obama administration's attitude on their nuclear deterrent," he said. "You can barely raise the subject of nuclear weapons in the Middle East without someone saying: 'What about Israel?' If Israel's opponents put it on the table, it is entirely possible Obama will pick it up."
Asked about the issue, Jonathan Peled, spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said, "We don't discuss the strategic relationship between the United States and Israel." The White House had no immediate comment.
However, Ms. Gottemoeller endorsed the concept of a nuclear-free Middle East in a 2005 paper that she co-authored, "Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security."
"Instead of defensively trying to ignore Israels nuclear status, the United States and Israel should proactively call for regional dialogue to specify the conditions necessary to achieve a zone free of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons," she wrote.
The paper recommends that Israel take steps to disarm in exchange for its neighbors getting rid of chemical and biological weapons programs as well as Iran forgoing uranium enrichment.
• Barbara Slavin and Erin Spiegel contributed to this report from Washington.
Comment: Any movement to force Israel to join the NPT will demonstrate the truth behind Obama's real agenda and support (totasl disregard for) Israel's security. If you do not understand this principle then you need to become acquainted immediately and if you choose not to do this, you are no friend of Israel-regardless of what religious persuasion you practice.This is THE game changer in the ME-we are about to find out the courage of Israel's new leaders and the arrogance of the USA government. I see a bus nearby!
The Origins of Christian Anti-Semitism
Interview with Pieter van der Horst
www.jcpa.org/indexph.asp
Christian anti-Semitism began much later than Jesus' life. In the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which are the historically more reliable ones, Jesus views himself as a messenger of God to the Jews and as a member of the Jewish people.
The New Testament has several anti-Semitic elements in its chronologically latest documents. The Gospel of John has Jesus call the Jews "sons of the devil." There is also a case of an anti-Jewish outburst by the Apostle Paul.
The split between Jewish and gentile Christians brought with it the beginning of Christian anti-Jewish sentiments. In creating a new identity for itself, Christianity attacked the old religion as fiercely as it could, including demonization.
Toward the end of the fourth century, much-publicized sermons of the church father John Chrysostom combined Christian anti-Jewish elements derived from the New Testament with earlier pagan ones. These themes were gradually integrated into the anti-Jewish discourse of the church. "Christian anti-Semitism began much later than Jesus' life. In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which are the historically more reliable ones, Jesus views himself as a messenger of God to the Jews and as a member of the Jewish people. He wanted to prepare them for what he saw as the approaching end of time and God's imminent kingdom. Jesus was not planning to initiate a new religion. The writer of a later book, the Gospel of John, has Jesus make anti-Semitic remarks. That book, however, is much less historical."
Prof. Pieter van der Horst studied classical philology and literature. In 1978, he received his PhD in theology from Utrecht University. After his studies, he taught the literature and history of early Christianity and Judaism. Prof. Van der Horst is a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
He remarks: "In the three more historically based earlier Gospels, one sees Jesus in fierce dispute with leaders of the various Jewish groups, such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees. It is clear from these texts that this is an internal Jewish debate. When, according to the Gospels, the Pharisees attacked Jesus because of his behavior, there followed a dispute of a halachic [Jewish law] nature. Jesus reasons in this context, remaining within the fold of Judaism. The debate, however fierce it may be, is less so than, for instance, the internal Jewish dispute between the Qumran sect and the Pharisees and the Sadducees."
Non-Jews Become Christians
Van der Horst says it is difficult to determine where to place the beginning of Christian anti-Semitism. "It varied from location to location. In the Jerusalem Christian community it started much later than in the communities in Asia Minor, Greece, or Rome, or wherever else Christian communities came into being.
"The earliest Christian generation in Jerusalem consisted almost entirely of Jews. These people believed in Jesus as the Messiah, but saw themselves as true Jews. The book of Acts of the Apostles makes it clear that the first Jewish Christians went to the Temple in Jerusalem, attended synagogue services, and wanted to remain Jews.[1] There were tensions with mainstream Jews, who looked askance at the belief that a crucified person was the Messiah. There was, however, no breaking point or even a discussion of excommunicating the Jewish Christians.
"The situation changed slowly in the second generation of Christians. This was directly related to the missionary activities of people like the Apostle Paul and his collaborators. Their vision was that 'salvation,' as they called it, was intended by God not only for the Jewish people but also for others. They began to preach their message to non-Jews outside the Land of Israel as well.
"These earliest missionaries wanted to facilitate the entrance of non-Jews into the growing Christian community. They therefore began to downgrade the Torah (the Pentateuch) and its commandments. Later they started to toy with the idea that, if God wanted non-Jews to be part of the community as well, the commandments of the Torah should be solely for the Jewish members. That gave rise to the first tensions between Jewish and gentile Christians."
Tension between Jewish and Gentile Christians
"Later on, as is also made quite clear in the New Testament, gentile Christians began to claim that their communities were the true Israel.[2] They asserted that in neglecting many of the Torah's commandments, they-and not the Jews-knew what God wanted from His people. The issues of the centrality and the remaining value and validity of the Torah were among the first reasons for tensions. Here one sees the beginnings of a split between Judaism and Christianity.
"With this came the beginning of anti-Jewish sentiments in Christianity. It was also aggravated by a second factor. In the same period, perhaps in the second and certainly in the third generation of Christians-by the end of the first century of the Common Era-they began to explicitly call Jesus God. He, as a Jew, had never done so. In the four chronologically latest books of the New Testament, Jesus is called God, though only incidentally. These documents are all from around the turn of the first to the second century: the Gospel of John, the Epistle of the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, and the so-called Epistle of Titus.
"In the Gospel of John it is clear that this is going to be a breaking point between Jews and Christians. The Gospel's author has Jews saying about Jesus, 'He makes himself equal to God.' We have to interpret this to mean that it is the Christians who are equating Jesus with God.
"From a Jewish viewpoint this is terrible. Once the Christians began to declare Jesus as equal to God, the core of Jewish monotheism was in danger. The Jewish leaders decided that they could no longer live under one roof with this group, which led to the break. The Christians then claimed that the Jews said they had to throw Jesus' followers out of the synagogue.[3] That is not historical, because it was not said in Jesus' time but probably later, in the time of the writer of the Gospel of John."
Heretics
"The Gospel of John is the only one to use the Greek word Aposynagogos. It means 'thrown out of the synagogue' and reflects the situation around the year 100 CE. Here one sees for the first time that Judaism and Christianity have split apart completely. It was probably in more or less the same period-which began after the year 70 CE-that the early rabbinical authorities inserted the additional benediction, the birkat haminim, into the Amidah [the main daily Jewish prayer].
"This birkat haminim consists of a curse of the heretics. Without doubt the Christians at this time held beliefs that contradicted Jewish religious precepts. They were heretics because they no longer lived according to the Torah and they regarded a human being as God. These two major factors caused the definitive split between Judaism and Christianity.
"There were some lesser reasons as well. One was that in the Jewish wars against the Romans in 66 and 132, the Christians did not fight against the Romans. The Jews reproached them for this."
Jesus, Son of God
Van der Horst adds that one should not confuse Jesus' being considered God with his being called, earlier, "the Son of God." He observes: "This is far less explosive. In the Jewish parlance of the first century the expression 'Son of God' had connotations that differ widely from what we are inclined to think of now. In those days the usage of the Hebrew Bible was still quite present in the minds of Jews. There the term 'Son of God' is used for the Jewish people as well as for the kings and prophets of Israel.[4]
"No one thought at that time that God was, so to speak, physically the father of prophets or kings. It was a metaphor for being in a very close relationship. That is why, for instance, the prophets' disciples in the Hebrew Bible are called 'Sons of the Prophets.' Everyone knew that the prophets were not the fathers of their disciples.
"We do not know exactly when the expression 'Son of God' was used for the first time. In the New Testament it appears from very early onward, but not everyone meant the same by it. When the Apostle Paul called Jesus 'the Son of God' it was in the 50s CE, about twenty to thirty years after Jesus' activities in the Galilee.
"Paul speaks of Jesus as being born from a woman.[5] If he had thought Jesus was born from a virgin, he would have said so. Jesus' immaculate conception does not appear in the earliest Gospel either, that of Mark. It is only in the Gospels-more or less one generation later-of Matthew and Luke that one reads that Jesus is the 'Son of God' in a different sense. In this context it has to be interpreted in terms of Jesus being begotten by the Holy Spirit, which means by God. So it is only in these later texts that 'sonship of God' is understood in a more physical sense, that is, in a sense different from what it means in the Hebrew Bible."
Matthew's Gospel
When asked about the anti-Jewish texts in the Gospel of Matthew, Van der Horst answers: "That fits into another picture that is not in itself anti-Semitic. Only in this Gospel's passion narrative of Jesus does one find that Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, says 'I do not see anything evil in this man.' Pilate then washes his hands as a token of his wish to have nothing to do with Jesus' execution. Pilate's wife says, 'I had a dream about this man. Don't touch him because he is completely innocent.'[6] This text is blatantly unhistorical. Everything we know from other sources tells us that Pilate was thoroughly unscrupulous and ruthless. The idea that he would save a person from capital punishment because he thought him innocent is almost ridiculous.
"Why then does Matthew exculpate the Romans from the death of Jesus? The text has to be understood in the context of his time, around the 80s of the first century. In the middle of the 60s CE, under the Emperor Nero, the first persecutions of Christians had begun. There are indications that after that period there were further minor persecutions on a local level. This frightened the Christians.
"For political reasons Matthew was keen that his writings should give the Romans the impression that Christians were not a danger to their empire. If a highly positioned person like Pilate says about Jesus 'This man is completely innocent,' it implies that Christianity is not something Romans have to fear. This in turn leads to the story of the Jews supposedly shouting 'Let his blood come over us'-which means, 'We take the responsibility for his death.' Shifting the responsibility for Jesus' death to the Jewish people is at odds with what Matthew says in the earlier parts of his Gospel to the effect that Jesus enjoyed immense popularity with the masses, that is, with the majority of the common Jewish people."
Paul's Anti-Semitic Outburst
"There is also an isolated case of an anti-Jewish outburst by the Apostle Paul. In one of his letters to the Thessalonians, the Christian community in the Greek town of Thessalonica, he reports that the Jews strongly oppose his preaching. Paul then works himself into a fury and says, 'These Jews killed Jesus and the prophets and for that reason they displease God and are the enemies of all mankind.'[7]
"This is the only text in the New Testament that says the Jews are the enemy of the rest of mankind. This motif derives from pre-Christian pagan anti-Semitism, where it appears many times. It stands in complete opposition to what Paul says at length about the Jewish people in his Epistle to the Romans. In three chapters-9, 10, and 11-Paul paints a far more positive picture of the Jewish people. There is no mention of their being the enemy of humanity; nor is there any in Paul's other letters.
"In his later letter to the Romans, Paul says: 'We Christians should realize that the olive tree is the people of Israel and we are only grafted into this olive tree.'[8] His one case of an anti-Jewish outburst seems to be that of someone who did not always control his emotions."
Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic?
Van der Horst relates to the often asked question whether the New Testament itself has anti-Semitic elements. "I would say yes, but again only in the chronologically latest documents. The clearest instance is that of the Gospel of John. There one sees that the split between Christians and Jews has occurred. It has happened recently and that is also why the language is so vehement. The anti-Jewish sentiment permeates the whole book, and it contains the most anti-Semitic verse in the New Testament.
"The author has Jesus distance himself completely from the Jewish people. He lets him speak about the Jews, their laws and festivals, as if he himself is no longer one of them. Worst of all, in a dispute between Jesus and the Jewish leaders, John has him say: 'You have the devil as your father.'[9] In later Christian literature, that expression is picked up. This fatal short remark has had lethal consequences over two millennia. It cost tens of thousands of Jewish lives in later history, especially in the Middle Ages. This verse was taken by Christian Jew-haters as a license to murder Jews. These murderers thought: 'If Jesus says that Jews have the devil as their father, we should eradicate them as best as we can.'
"All New Testament scholars agree that Jesus did not say what John puts into his mouth, but that it is the position of the Gospel's author. When one religious group breaks away from its mother religion, it has to create its own new identity. The sociology of religion teaches us that, in its first phase, the new group always begins to attack the old religion as fiercely as it can and to demonize it. The most effective demonization is calling the Jews 'children of the devil' and having Jesus, the most important person in the new religion, say this himself.
"I once argued before an audience of Christian ministers that if we were to confront John with the consequences of what he wrote, he would deeply apologize and say, 'Please, delete it from my Gospel.' Until the present day these words have their influence, because the average Bible reader cannot contextualize them in the first century when they were written. The Gospel of John unfortunately is also one of the most popular books in Christianity."
The Jewish Christians
"In the final decades of the first century, Jewish Christians no longer felt at home in mainstream Christianity. It had, by that period, become dominated by gentile Christians who disregarded the Torah and its rules of life. They also began to talk more and more easily about Jesus as being equal to God.
"Hence the Jewish Christians broke away and formed their own communities. They lived according to the laws of Moses, kept Shabbat, circumcised their children, and followed kashrut [the dietary laws]. At the same time they were believers in Jesus as the Messiah.
"There were by that time a variety of Jewish Christian movements, with different names. They survived for several centuries, but did not matter very much. In the fifth century we hear for the last time about the tiny, minority churches of Jewish Christians in the Middle East. Thereafter they must have died out."
A Global Christian Church
Van der Horst explains that by the end of the first century, all or most of the documents that would form the New Testament had been written, but had not yet been canonized. "Deciding what belonged to the Christian canon took several centuries. Only by the end of the second century do we find for the first time a list of books of the New Testament. Several documents that nowadays are part of it were not yet included.
"It would take two more centuries before there was a complete New Testament. Until then there were disagreements about what was authoritative between, for instance, the communities in Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt. One needed an overarching organization to unify the texts. The definitive canon of the New Testament as we now know it dates from the fourth century.
"Predominantly gentile Christianity slowly began to organize into what one would call a global church. Quite soon, the anti-Jewish sentiments and doctrines became part and parcel of the official doctrine of the mainline church. This occurred from the middle of the second century onward. In Sardis in western Turkey, Bishop Melito, in his so-called Peri Pascha [Passover sermon], says many negative things about the Jews and accuses them of having killed Jesus. Because Jesus is now clearly considered a God, the motif of deicide becomes one of the main elements in the anti-Jewish doctrines of the church.
"In Sardis there was a major synagogue, the ruins of which exist till today. The Jewish community there went on to flourish so much that even by the end of antiquity, or the early Middle Ages, i.e. the sixth and seventh centuries, this synagogue was still the largest religious building in town, larger than the main church.
"Gradually the motif of Jews being Christ-killers assumed a major role in the church's anti-Jewish preaching. This is still very much alive in our day. Only many years after the Holocaust has the accusation that the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus been officially rescinded by mainstream Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church. It is, however, still adhered to by many of their followers.
"The motif of deicide committed by Jews is very much alive in other major churches, especially Orthodox ones such as the Russian, Greek, Serbian, and Bulgarian Orthodox Churches. The poisonous combination of the Jews being both guilty of deicide and children of the devil flourishes there. The two elements reinforce each other."
John Chrysostom
"Among the church fathers, some are quite mild in their position toward Judaism while others are fiercely hostile. John Chrysostom, one of the best- known church fathers, is one of the most anti-Jewish.
"This bishop of Antioch, Syria, lived in the second half of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century. His name means 'man with the golden mouth,' but much venom came from this mouth. He is not the first, but certainly the most outspoken, church father who combined horrific Christian anti-Jewish elements derived from the New Testament with originally pagan ones.
"John Chrysostom's most notorious writings are a series of long anti-Jewish sermons, which he delivered in the main church of Antioch in 386 and 387 CE. They belong to the worst Christian anti-Semitic documents in antiquity. Besides calling the Jews 'Christ-killers'-claiming they killed the person who was sent to them by God to save them in the Final Judgment-and 'children of the devil,' he also adopted various anti-Jewish clichés from pre-Christian pagan antiquity. These include motifs such as the Jews as haters of the rest of humanity and as nonbelievers in any god whatsoever.
"John Chrysostom and others could also reach back to the one statement where the Apostle Paul said the Jews were enemies of mankind. Through John Chrysostom these themes began to be integrated into the anti-Jewish discourse of Christianity. His anti-Jewish sermons have since become very influential."
De-Judaized Christianity
"From a contemporary point of view we also have to give some attention to the heretic Marcion. A second-century figure, he was born in the Black Sea area but later moved to Rome. Marcion said that Christianity had completely superseded Judaism and should shed its last remnants. He thus claimed that the Christian canon should not contain the Old Testament.
"Marcion is important because his positions forced the mainstream church to take a stand on this issue and decide that the Old Testament would be part of its canon. This was despite the growing anti-Jewish sentiments in its developing doctrine. The church did not want to eliminate its Jewish roots, the Jewishness of Jesus, and the Jewish elements in the Gospels and the letters of Paul.
"There were still Marcionites in the third and fourth centuries. It is significant that in Christianity such a person could arise and attract a following. The main biography of Marcion was written by the German theologian Adolf von Harnack in the 1920s. He claimed it was inevitable that the church condemned Marcion in the second century, but a mistake that in the sixteenth century Luther and Calvin still took the same position. Von Harnack further described it as a tragedy that, in the twentieth century, the church still retained the Old Testament. He evidently was a Marcionite who wanted to expurgate all Jewish elements from Christianity. Other theologians in the Nazi period also tried to create a form of Christianity devoid of any Jewish elements. Some went so far as to say that Jesus was a racially pure Aryan and not a Jew. Walter Grundman was the most notorious among them.[10]
"There were many Christian heretics in the second, third, and fourth centuries. They were as unfriendly to Judaism as the mainstream church. The small Jewish Christian movements were also considered heretical. The antiheretical books of the church fathers usually begin with attacks on the Jewish Christians. But, in the dispute between the mainstream church and other heretics, the stance toward Judaism only played a role in the excommunication of Marcion."
Jewish Anti-Christian Discourse
"If one reviews the writings of the church fathers from the second to the sixth centuries, almost all are anti-Jewish. This discourse has become part and parcel of the doctrine of mainstream Christianity. This may be due partly to the anti-Christian discourse that Jews developed as a reaction to the attacks on them by Christians.
"In the second century one already hears from church fathers that Jews are spreading the story that Jesus was not born of a virgin, that his father was not God or a holy spirit, and even that Joseph, Mary's husband, was not his father. The story claimed that Jesus was the child of Mary and a Roman soldier called Panthera and thus that she was an adulteress.[11]
"This is confirmed by Jewish sources. For instance, another text from the sixth or seventh century, the so-called Toldot Yeshu [History of Jesus], elaborates on this story. Besides saying that Jesus is the son of a Roman soldier, it claims that his healing miracles were magic tricks learned in Egypt with the purpose of destroying the Torah. We only know of some cases of such anti-Christian statements, but they are relatively well anchored in historical facts and are also found in the Talmud.[12]
"On some occasions Jews participated with the Romans in the persecution of Christians, so they were not only victims. Jews struck back on a much more limited scale than the church, which gradually achieved its position of power after the first Christian emperor Constantine allowed Christianity to exist in the Roman Empire in 313.
"While the Jews did not remain silent, their reactions had to be careful and limited, especially after the Roman Empire had officially become Christian at the end of the fourth century. Around 390 CE, the Emperor Theodosius I decreed that Christianity was the only acceptable religion. This did not mean that from then onward all people in the Roman Empire became Christians. There was fierce opposition, especially from the aristocrats who clung to their Roman or Greek religions. The Jews were not the church's main target in that period as it still had to fight with the old pagans. That took one to two more centuries."
Augustine
"The situation concerning the Jews more or less stabilized in the lifetime of the best-known church father, Augustine, who lived in Hippo in today's Tunisia in the second half of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century. He said with great authority that the Jews were a damned people but should not be persecuted and killed. They should be kept alive as witnesses that Christianity was right.
"Augustine did not want to convert Jews by force. Such forced conversion remained rare in antiquity. The first major case occurred around 630 CE in the Byzantine Empire, when the Emperor Heraclius decreed that all Jews there must be baptized and converted to Christianity. We know from historical sources that this decree was carried out in some places. Elsewhere, however, the authorities did nothing. This case occurred in the period when Islam was on the rise and only a few years before Muslims captured Jerusalem."
Van der Horst concludes: "Over the centuries many discriminatory measures have been taken in Christian environments against Jews. The infrastructure for this was laid in the early history of Christianity, albeit not in the time of Jesus' life or immediately thereafter."
Interview by Manfred Gerstenfeld
Prof. Pieter van der Horst studied classical philology and literature. In 1978, he received his PhD in theology from Utrecht University. After his studies he taught there, among other things, as professor of early Christian and Jewish studies. His retirement lecture in 2006 on the myth of Jewish cannibalism, and the censorship by Utrecht University of a part of the lecture dealing with contemporary Muslim anti-Semitism, led to a major debate in the Dutch national media and academic world that drew international attention. Prof. Van der Horst is a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
* * *
Notes
[1] Acts 2-5.
[2] Galatians 6:16.
[3] John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2.
[4] E.g. Psalms 2:7 and Hosea 11:1.
[5] Galatians 4:4.
[6] Matthew 27:15-26.
[7] 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16.
[8] Romans 11:24.
[9] John 8:44.
[10] Susannah Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008).
[11] E.g. Origen, Contra Celsum 1:32.
[12] For references to these sources see Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).
Other related articles:
The Seventh-Century Christian Obsession with the Jews: A Historical Parallel for the Present? - Rivkah Duker Fishman
The Egyptian Beginning of Anti-Semitism's Long History - Interview with Pieter van der Horst
Thank yous to Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
www.jcpa.org/indexph.asp
Christian anti-Semitism began much later than Jesus' life. In the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which are the historically more reliable ones, Jesus views himself as a messenger of God to the Jews and as a member of the Jewish people.
The New Testament has several anti-Semitic elements in its chronologically latest documents. The Gospel of John has Jesus call the Jews "sons of the devil." There is also a case of an anti-Jewish outburst by the Apostle Paul.
The split between Jewish and gentile Christians brought with it the beginning of Christian anti-Jewish sentiments. In creating a new identity for itself, Christianity attacked the old religion as fiercely as it could, including demonization.
Toward the end of the fourth century, much-publicized sermons of the church father John Chrysostom combined Christian anti-Jewish elements derived from the New Testament with earlier pagan ones. These themes were gradually integrated into the anti-Jewish discourse of the church. "Christian anti-Semitism began much later than Jesus' life. In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which are the historically more reliable ones, Jesus views himself as a messenger of God to the Jews and as a member of the Jewish people. He wanted to prepare them for what he saw as the approaching end of time and God's imminent kingdom. Jesus was not planning to initiate a new religion. The writer of a later book, the Gospel of John, has Jesus make anti-Semitic remarks. That book, however, is much less historical."
Prof. Pieter van der Horst studied classical philology and literature. In 1978, he received his PhD in theology from Utrecht University. After his studies, he taught the literature and history of early Christianity and Judaism. Prof. Van der Horst is a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
He remarks: "In the three more historically based earlier Gospels, one sees Jesus in fierce dispute with leaders of the various Jewish groups, such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees. It is clear from these texts that this is an internal Jewish debate. When, according to the Gospels, the Pharisees attacked Jesus because of his behavior, there followed a dispute of a halachic [Jewish law] nature. Jesus reasons in this context, remaining within the fold of Judaism. The debate, however fierce it may be, is less so than, for instance, the internal Jewish dispute between the Qumran sect and the Pharisees and the Sadducees."
Non-Jews Become Christians
Van der Horst says it is difficult to determine where to place the beginning of Christian anti-Semitism. "It varied from location to location. In the Jerusalem Christian community it started much later than in the communities in Asia Minor, Greece, or Rome, or wherever else Christian communities came into being.
"The earliest Christian generation in Jerusalem consisted almost entirely of Jews. These people believed in Jesus as the Messiah, but saw themselves as true Jews. The book of Acts of the Apostles makes it clear that the first Jewish Christians went to the Temple in Jerusalem, attended synagogue services, and wanted to remain Jews.[1] There were tensions with mainstream Jews, who looked askance at the belief that a crucified person was the Messiah. There was, however, no breaking point or even a discussion of excommunicating the Jewish Christians.
"The situation changed slowly in the second generation of Christians. This was directly related to the missionary activities of people like the Apostle Paul and his collaborators. Their vision was that 'salvation,' as they called it, was intended by God not only for the Jewish people but also for others. They began to preach their message to non-Jews outside the Land of Israel as well.
"These earliest missionaries wanted to facilitate the entrance of non-Jews into the growing Christian community. They therefore began to downgrade the Torah (the Pentateuch) and its commandments. Later they started to toy with the idea that, if God wanted non-Jews to be part of the community as well, the commandments of the Torah should be solely for the Jewish members. That gave rise to the first tensions between Jewish and gentile Christians."
Tension between Jewish and Gentile Christians
"Later on, as is also made quite clear in the New Testament, gentile Christians began to claim that their communities were the true Israel.[2] They asserted that in neglecting many of the Torah's commandments, they-and not the Jews-knew what God wanted from His people. The issues of the centrality and the remaining value and validity of the Torah were among the first reasons for tensions. Here one sees the beginnings of a split between Judaism and Christianity.
"With this came the beginning of anti-Jewish sentiments in Christianity. It was also aggravated by a second factor. In the same period, perhaps in the second and certainly in the third generation of Christians-by the end of the first century of the Common Era-they began to explicitly call Jesus God. He, as a Jew, had never done so. In the four chronologically latest books of the New Testament, Jesus is called God, though only incidentally. These documents are all from around the turn of the first to the second century: the Gospel of John, the Epistle of the Hebrews, the Second Epistle of Peter, and the so-called Epistle of Titus.
"In the Gospel of John it is clear that this is going to be a breaking point between Jews and Christians. The Gospel's author has Jews saying about Jesus, 'He makes himself equal to God.' We have to interpret this to mean that it is the Christians who are equating Jesus with God.
"From a Jewish viewpoint this is terrible. Once the Christians began to declare Jesus as equal to God, the core of Jewish monotheism was in danger. The Jewish leaders decided that they could no longer live under one roof with this group, which led to the break. The Christians then claimed that the Jews said they had to throw Jesus' followers out of the synagogue.[3] That is not historical, because it was not said in Jesus' time but probably later, in the time of the writer of the Gospel of John."
Heretics
"The Gospel of John is the only one to use the Greek word Aposynagogos. It means 'thrown out of the synagogue' and reflects the situation around the year 100 CE. Here one sees for the first time that Judaism and Christianity have split apart completely. It was probably in more or less the same period-which began after the year 70 CE-that the early rabbinical authorities inserted the additional benediction, the birkat haminim, into the Amidah [the main daily Jewish prayer].
"This birkat haminim consists of a curse of the heretics. Without doubt the Christians at this time held beliefs that contradicted Jewish religious precepts. They were heretics because they no longer lived according to the Torah and they regarded a human being as God. These two major factors caused the definitive split between Judaism and Christianity.
"There were some lesser reasons as well. One was that in the Jewish wars against the Romans in 66 and 132, the Christians did not fight against the Romans. The Jews reproached them for this."
Jesus, Son of God
Van der Horst adds that one should not confuse Jesus' being considered God with his being called, earlier, "the Son of God." He observes: "This is far less explosive. In the Jewish parlance of the first century the expression 'Son of God' had connotations that differ widely from what we are inclined to think of now. In those days the usage of the Hebrew Bible was still quite present in the minds of Jews. There the term 'Son of God' is used for the Jewish people as well as for the kings and prophets of Israel.[4]
"No one thought at that time that God was, so to speak, physically the father of prophets or kings. It was a metaphor for being in a very close relationship. That is why, for instance, the prophets' disciples in the Hebrew Bible are called 'Sons of the Prophets.' Everyone knew that the prophets were not the fathers of their disciples.
"We do not know exactly when the expression 'Son of God' was used for the first time. In the New Testament it appears from very early onward, but not everyone meant the same by it. When the Apostle Paul called Jesus 'the Son of God' it was in the 50s CE, about twenty to thirty years after Jesus' activities in the Galilee.
"Paul speaks of Jesus as being born from a woman.[5] If he had thought Jesus was born from a virgin, he would have said so. Jesus' immaculate conception does not appear in the earliest Gospel either, that of Mark. It is only in the Gospels-more or less one generation later-of Matthew and Luke that one reads that Jesus is the 'Son of God' in a different sense. In this context it has to be interpreted in terms of Jesus being begotten by the Holy Spirit, which means by God. So it is only in these later texts that 'sonship of God' is understood in a more physical sense, that is, in a sense different from what it means in the Hebrew Bible."
Matthew's Gospel
When asked about the anti-Jewish texts in the Gospel of Matthew, Van der Horst answers: "That fits into another picture that is not in itself anti-Semitic. Only in this Gospel's passion narrative of Jesus does one find that Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea, says 'I do not see anything evil in this man.' Pilate then washes his hands as a token of his wish to have nothing to do with Jesus' execution. Pilate's wife says, 'I had a dream about this man. Don't touch him because he is completely innocent.'[6] This text is blatantly unhistorical. Everything we know from other sources tells us that Pilate was thoroughly unscrupulous and ruthless. The idea that he would save a person from capital punishment because he thought him innocent is almost ridiculous.
"Why then does Matthew exculpate the Romans from the death of Jesus? The text has to be understood in the context of his time, around the 80s of the first century. In the middle of the 60s CE, under the Emperor Nero, the first persecutions of Christians had begun. There are indications that after that period there were further minor persecutions on a local level. This frightened the Christians.
"For political reasons Matthew was keen that his writings should give the Romans the impression that Christians were not a danger to their empire. If a highly positioned person like Pilate says about Jesus 'This man is completely innocent,' it implies that Christianity is not something Romans have to fear. This in turn leads to the story of the Jews supposedly shouting 'Let his blood come over us'-which means, 'We take the responsibility for his death.' Shifting the responsibility for Jesus' death to the Jewish people is at odds with what Matthew says in the earlier parts of his Gospel to the effect that Jesus enjoyed immense popularity with the masses, that is, with the majority of the common Jewish people."
Paul's Anti-Semitic Outburst
"There is also an isolated case of an anti-Jewish outburst by the Apostle Paul. In one of his letters to the Thessalonians, the Christian community in the Greek town of Thessalonica, he reports that the Jews strongly oppose his preaching. Paul then works himself into a fury and says, 'These Jews killed Jesus and the prophets and for that reason they displease God and are the enemies of all mankind.'[7]
"This is the only text in the New Testament that says the Jews are the enemy of the rest of mankind. This motif derives from pre-Christian pagan anti-Semitism, where it appears many times. It stands in complete opposition to what Paul says at length about the Jewish people in his Epistle to the Romans. In three chapters-9, 10, and 11-Paul paints a far more positive picture of the Jewish people. There is no mention of their being the enemy of humanity; nor is there any in Paul's other letters.
"In his later letter to the Romans, Paul says: 'We Christians should realize that the olive tree is the people of Israel and we are only grafted into this olive tree.'[8] His one case of an anti-Jewish outburst seems to be that of someone who did not always control his emotions."
Is the New Testament Anti-Semitic?
Van der Horst relates to the often asked question whether the New Testament itself has anti-Semitic elements. "I would say yes, but again only in the chronologically latest documents. The clearest instance is that of the Gospel of John. There one sees that the split between Christians and Jews has occurred. It has happened recently and that is also why the language is so vehement. The anti-Jewish sentiment permeates the whole book, and it contains the most anti-Semitic verse in the New Testament.
"The author has Jesus distance himself completely from the Jewish people. He lets him speak about the Jews, their laws and festivals, as if he himself is no longer one of them. Worst of all, in a dispute between Jesus and the Jewish leaders, John has him say: 'You have the devil as your father.'[9] In later Christian literature, that expression is picked up. This fatal short remark has had lethal consequences over two millennia. It cost tens of thousands of Jewish lives in later history, especially in the Middle Ages. This verse was taken by Christian Jew-haters as a license to murder Jews. These murderers thought: 'If Jesus says that Jews have the devil as their father, we should eradicate them as best as we can.'
"All New Testament scholars agree that Jesus did not say what John puts into his mouth, but that it is the position of the Gospel's author. When one religious group breaks away from its mother religion, it has to create its own new identity. The sociology of religion teaches us that, in its first phase, the new group always begins to attack the old religion as fiercely as it can and to demonize it. The most effective demonization is calling the Jews 'children of the devil' and having Jesus, the most important person in the new religion, say this himself.
"I once argued before an audience of Christian ministers that if we were to confront John with the consequences of what he wrote, he would deeply apologize and say, 'Please, delete it from my Gospel.' Until the present day these words have their influence, because the average Bible reader cannot contextualize them in the first century when they were written. The Gospel of John unfortunately is also one of the most popular books in Christianity."
The Jewish Christians
"In the final decades of the first century, Jewish Christians no longer felt at home in mainstream Christianity. It had, by that period, become dominated by gentile Christians who disregarded the Torah and its rules of life. They also began to talk more and more easily about Jesus as being equal to God.
"Hence the Jewish Christians broke away and formed their own communities. They lived according to the laws of Moses, kept Shabbat, circumcised their children, and followed kashrut [the dietary laws]. At the same time they were believers in Jesus as the Messiah.
"There were by that time a variety of Jewish Christian movements, with different names. They survived for several centuries, but did not matter very much. In the fifth century we hear for the last time about the tiny, minority churches of Jewish Christians in the Middle East. Thereafter they must have died out."
A Global Christian Church
Van der Horst explains that by the end of the first century, all or most of the documents that would form the New Testament had been written, but had not yet been canonized. "Deciding what belonged to the Christian canon took several centuries. Only by the end of the second century do we find for the first time a list of books of the New Testament. Several documents that nowadays are part of it were not yet included.
"It would take two more centuries before there was a complete New Testament. Until then there were disagreements about what was authoritative between, for instance, the communities in Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt. One needed an overarching organization to unify the texts. The definitive canon of the New Testament as we now know it dates from the fourth century.
"Predominantly gentile Christianity slowly began to organize into what one would call a global church. Quite soon, the anti-Jewish sentiments and doctrines became part and parcel of the official doctrine of the mainline church. This occurred from the middle of the second century onward. In Sardis in western Turkey, Bishop Melito, in his so-called Peri Pascha [Passover sermon], says many negative things about the Jews and accuses them of having killed Jesus. Because Jesus is now clearly considered a God, the motif of deicide becomes one of the main elements in the anti-Jewish doctrines of the church.
"In Sardis there was a major synagogue, the ruins of which exist till today. The Jewish community there went on to flourish so much that even by the end of antiquity, or the early Middle Ages, i.e. the sixth and seventh centuries, this synagogue was still the largest religious building in town, larger than the main church.
"Gradually the motif of Jews being Christ-killers assumed a major role in the church's anti-Jewish preaching. This is still very much alive in our day. Only many years after the Holocaust has the accusation that the Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus been officially rescinded by mainstream Protestantism and the Roman Catholic Church. It is, however, still adhered to by many of their followers.
"The motif of deicide committed by Jews is very much alive in other major churches, especially Orthodox ones such as the Russian, Greek, Serbian, and Bulgarian Orthodox Churches. The poisonous combination of the Jews being both guilty of deicide and children of the devil flourishes there. The two elements reinforce each other."
John Chrysostom
"Among the church fathers, some are quite mild in their position toward Judaism while others are fiercely hostile. John Chrysostom, one of the best- known church fathers, is one of the most anti-Jewish.
"This bishop of Antioch, Syria, lived in the second half of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century. His name means 'man with the golden mouth,' but much venom came from this mouth. He is not the first, but certainly the most outspoken, church father who combined horrific Christian anti-Jewish elements derived from the New Testament with originally pagan ones.
"John Chrysostom's most notorious writings are a series of long anti-Jewish sermons, which he delivered in the main church of Antioch in 386 and 387 CE. They belong to the worst Christian anti-Semitic documents in antiquity. Besides calling the Jews 'Christ-killers'-claiming they killed the person who was sent to them by God to save them in the Final Judgment-and 'children of the devil,' he also adopted various anti-Jewish clichés from pre-Christian pagan antiquity. These include motifs such as the Jews as haters of the rest of humanity and as nonbelievers in any god whatsoever.
"John Chrysostom and others could also reach back to the one statement where the Apostle Paul said the Jews were enemies of mankind. Through John Chrysostom these themes began to be integrated into the anti-Jewish discourse of Christianity. His anti-Jewish sermons have since become very influential."
De-Judaized Christianity
"From a contemporary point of view we also have to give some attention to the heretic Marcion. A second-century figure, he was born in the Black Sea area but later moved to Rome. Marcion said that Christianity had completely superseded Judaism and should shed its last remnants. He thus claimed that the Christian canon should not contain the Old Testament.
"Marcion is important because his positions forced the mainstream church to take a stand on this issue and decide that the Old Testament would be part of its canon. This was despite the growing anti-Jewish sentiments in its developing doctrine. The church did not want to eliminate its Jewish roots, the Jewishness of Jesus, and the Jewish elements in the Gospels and the letters of Paul.
"There were still Marcionites in the third and fourth centuries. It is significant that in Christianity such a person could arise and attract a following. The main biography of Marcion was written by the German theologian Adolf von Harnack in the 1920s. He claimed it was inevitable that the church condemned Marcion in the second century, but a mistake that in the sixteenth century Luther and Calvin still took the same position. Von Harnack further described it as a tragedy that, in the twentieth century, the church still retained the Old Testament. He evidently was a Marcionite who wanted to expurgate all Jewish elements from Christianity. Other theologians in the Nazi period also tried to create a form of Christianity devoid of any Jewish elements. Some went so far as to say that Jesus was a racially pure Aryan and not a Jew. Walter Grundman was the most notorious among them.[10]
"There were many Christian heretics in the second, third, and fourth centuries. They were as unfriendly to Judaism as the mainstream church. The small Jewish Christian movements were also considered heretical. The antiheretical books of the church fathers usually begin with attacks on the Jewish Christians. But, in the dispute between the mainstream church and other heretics, the stance toward Judaism only played a role in the excommunication of Marcion."
Jewish Anti-Christian Discourse
"If one reviews the writings of the church fathers from the second to the sixth centuries, almost all are anti-Jewish. This discourse has become part and parcel of the doctrine of mainstream Christianity. This may be due partly to the anti-Christian discourse that Jews developed as a reaction to the attacks on them by Christians.
"In the second century one already hears from church fathers that Jews are spreading the story that Jesus was not born of a virgin, that his father was not God or a holy spirit, and even that Joseph, Mary's husband, was not his father. The story claimed that Jesus was the child of Mary and a Roman soldier called Panthera and thus that she was an adulteress.[11]
"This is confirmed by Jewish sources. For instance, another text from the sixth or seventh century, the so-called Toldot Yeshu [History of Jesus], elaborates on this story. Besides saying that Jesus is the son of a Roman soldier, it claims that his healing miracles were magic tricks learned in Egypt with the purpose of destroying the Torah. We only know of some cases of such anti-Christian statements, but they are relatively well anchored in historical facts and are also found in the Talmud.[12]
"On some occasions Jews participated with the Romans in the persecution of Christians, so they were not only victims. Jews struck back on a much more limited scale than the church, which gradually achieved its position of power after the first Christian emperor Constantine allowed Christianity to exist in the Roman Empire in 313.
"While the Jews did not remain silent, their reactions had to be careful and limited, especially after the Roman Empire had officially become Christian at the end of the fourth century. Around 390 CE, the Emperor Theodosius I decreed that Christianity was the only acceptable religion. This did not mean that from then onward all people in the Roman Empire became Christians. There was fierce opposition, especially from the aristocrats who clung to their Roman or Greek religions. The Jews were not the church's main target in that period as it still had to fight with the old pagans. That took one to two more centuries."
Augustine
"The situation concerning the Jews more or less stabilized in the lifetime of the best-known church father, Augustine, who lived in Hippo in today's Tunisia in the second half of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century. He said with great authority that the Jews were a damned people but should not be persecuted and killed. They should be kept alive as witnesses that Christianity was right.
"Augustine did not want to convert Jews by force. Such forced conversion remained rare in antiquity. The first major case occurred around 630 CE in the Byzantine Empire, when the Emperor Heraclius decreed that all Jews there must be baptized and converted to Christianity. We know from historical sources that this decree was carried out in some places. Elsewhere, however, the authorities did nothing. This case occurred in the period when Islam was on the rise and only a few years before Muslims captured Jerusalem."
Van der Horst concludes: "Over the centuries many discriminatory measures have been taken in Christian environments against Jews. The infrastructure for this was laid in the early history of Christianity, albeit not in the time of Jesus' life or immediately thereafter."
Interview by Manfred Gerstenfeld
Prof. Pieter van der Horst studied classical philology and literature. In 1978, he received his PhD in theology from Utrecht University. After his studies he taught there, among other things, as professor of early Christian and Jewish studies. His retirement lecture in 2006 on the myth of Jewish cannibalism, and the censorship by Utrecht University of a part of the lecture dealing with contemporary Muslim anti-Semitism, led to a major debate in the Dutch national media and academic world that drew international attention. Prof. Van der Horst is a member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.
* * *
Notes
[1] Acts 2-5.
[2] Galatians 6:16.
[3] John 9:22; 12:42; 16:2.
[4] E.g. Psalms 2:7 and Hosea 11:1.
[5] Galatians 4:4.
[6] Matthew 27:15-26.
[7] 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16.
[8] Romans 11:24.
[9] John 8:44.
[10] Susannah Heschel, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008).
[11] E.g. Origen, Contra Celsum 1:32.
[12] For references to these sources see Peter Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).
Other related articles:
The Seventh-Century Christian Obsession with the Jews: A Historical Parallel for the Present? - Rivkah Duker Fishman
The Egyptian Beginning of Anti-Semitism's Long History - Interview with Pieter van der Horst
Thank yous to Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
Support media doing a good job
Dear Bret,
I am an American in Jerusalem involved in research on world anti-Semitism and terrorism. You will be pleased to know that I am an avid Fox viewer and want to compliment you on the manner in which you conduct the panel discussions. The present situation in the Middle East is most complex; it did not begin in 1967 or even 1948. Arab terrorism against the Jewish residents in the land was carried out for many decades before that. Does anyone know that for about 2000 years Jews living in the territory were called 'Palestinians' until they became 'Israelis' with the founding of the State in 1948? In contrast, the Arabs did not want to call themselves by that name until years later when they realized that it would be politically expedient to use that name. "Arab" and "Palestinian" are not synonymous.
Listening to tonight's (it is 2.a.m. here now - testament to my loyalty to your program!) panel discussion I must tell you that Chas. Krauthammer expressed clearly what confronts Israel as the Obama administration is ready to apply unyielding pressure on her for a 'quick fix'. Nina Easton appears to understand as well. Unfortunately, Juan Williams has bought into language like 'occupation' and 'settlements' and does not appear to have any understanding of the workings of the Middle East.
One last important point, Bret. While the Obama administration is attempting to link the Palestinian issue with Iran there is no connection. In 1979 Khomeini, in Iran, decreed that the Islamic revolution would be exported to the world - by force if necessary. This is already happening in Europe with the murders of people who disagree; the vicious killing of Theo Van Gogh is just one example. The dangers presented by a nuclear Iran exist not only for Israel but the rest of the civilized world. The small democracy in the M.E. is the 'obstacle' to an Iranian takeover of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, as well as Israel and the establishment of a regional haven for the international network of radical Islam. This would further endanger Europe, the United States, and all other freedom-loving countries. A strong pro-West Israel is vital to the protection of civilization as we know it and should not be sacrificed for the temporary appeasement of worldwide terrorist regimes..
Most sincerely,
Chana Givon
Co-Director
WRITING THE WRONGS
I am an American in Jerusalem involved in research on world anti-Semitism and terrorism. You will be pleased to know that I am an avid Fox viewer and want to compliment you on the manner in which you conduct the panel discussions. The present situation in the Middle East is most complex; it did not begin in 1967 or even 1948. Arab terrorism against the Jewish residents in the land was carried out for many decades before that. Does anyone know that for about 2000 years Jews living in the territory were called 'Palestinians' until they became 'Israelis' with the founding of the State in 1948? In contrast, the Arabs did not want to call themselves by that name until years later when they realized that it would be politically expedient to use that name. "Arab" and "Palestinian" are not synonymous.
Listening to tonight's (it is 2.a.m. here now - testament to my loyalty to your program!) panel discussion I must tell you that Chas. Krauthammer expressed clearly what confronts Israel as the Obama administration is ready to apply unyielding pressure on her for a 'quick fix'. Nina Easton appears to understand as well. Unfortunately, Juan Williams has bought into language like 'occupation' and 'settlements' and does not appear to have any understanding of the workings of the Middle East.
One last important point, Bret. While the Obama administration is attempting to link the Palestinian issue with Iran there is no connection. In 1979 Khomeini, in Iran, decreed that the Islamic revolution would be exported to the world - by force if necessary. This is already happening in Europe with the murders of people who disagree; the vicious killing of Theo Van Gogh is just one example. The dangers presented by a nuclear Iran exist not only for Israel but the rest of the civilized world. The small democracy in the M.E. is the 'obstacle' to an Iranian takeover of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, as well as Israel and the establishment of a regional haven for the international network of radical Islam. This would further endanger Europe, the United States, and all other freedom-loving countries. A strong pro-West Israel is vital to the protection of civilization as we know it and should not be sacrificed for the temporary appeasement of worldwide terrorist regimes..
Most sincerely,
Chana Givon
Co-Director
WRITING THE WRONGS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)