Arlene Kushner
It's helpful sometimes to start with positive news. We should never think that it's all bad.
The Jerusalem District Planning and Construction Committee has approved the construction of 32 new units in Pisgat Ze'ev, which is an eastern Jerusalem neighborhood over the Green Line.
This decision was delayed for weeks because of the visit of Netanyahu to Washington -- to avoid charges of sabotaging his meeting with the president. Now it is said that construction can begin immediately.
The 32 units represent just a small part of a larger project of 220 units that is in the works. Another 48 units are expected to be approved next week.
According to YNet, Attorney Elisha Peleg, a member of the committee and head of the Likud faction at the Jerusalem municipality, has said, "We will continue to build Jerusalem in all of its neighborhoods, without political considerations, in the planning and construction committee."
~~~~~~~~~~
Of course, the furor has already begun, with PA officials claiming that we're destroying chances of peace, etc. etc. Especially in light of Netanyahu's recent comment on Jerusalem, we must hope that the municipality stands strong.
~~~~~~~~~~
The latest not-so-good news comes from the PA side: Reportedly, Abbas might reconsider and come to the table for direct negotiations after all. This will be determined after Mitchell's next visit, which is to take place soon.
It is quite clear -- but I feel the need to make this explicit -- that a promise by Israel to make such gestures as taking down some checkpoints is not what would be bringing the PA back to the table. Hardly.
PA officials are saying they've now had "direct assurances" from Obama. Exactly what those assurances are is left unsaid, but they are claiming that the president briefed them after his meeting with Netanyahu.
If this is true, it is not exactly surprising, but would be MOST unsettling. We still don't know what Netanyahu promised Obama -- and there is certainly no reason whatsoever to trust the president when he offers conciliatory words regarding his deep and abiding concern for Israel.
But I wonder if there is not something additional going on. For Netanyahu met Obama a week ago. Would the PA have first been briefed now? On Saturday, three days after that meeting, Abbas was still saying there was no reason to go to direct talks. Obama is undoubtedly applying a great deal of pressure. It would be the style of PA officials, when pressed, to make it appear that they weren't conceding anything, but had been "given" something.
~~~~~~~~~~
The PA position, which really hasn't changed, is that before they go into direct talks they want answers on whether Israel will be willing to freeze construction (after September) in Judea and Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem.
This is where we come smack up against the announcement regarding building in Pisgat Ze'ev. I must assume that if Netanyahu had made a commitment to Obama regarding no building in eastern Jerusalem, he would act now to stop the building. Whether or not it actually moves ahead is not an insignificant matter.
The PA, additionally, wants to know if Israel will commit to recognizing the pre-'67 line as the future border for a Palestinian state.
~~~~~~~~~~
It may be that PA officials are simply posturing to appease Obama, and that they intend to blame Israel for lack of cooperation and refuse to come to the table. The blame game works both ways.
What is certain is that -- no matter if they sit at the table -- no deal will be reached. Quite simply, if Abbas wishes to live (and I mean this literally) and perhaps retain his position, he cannot accept as his closing deal -- which would include "end of conflict"-- anything that Israel is prepared to offer.
In the end he would walk away as Arafat walked away from the offer made by Ehud Barak in 2000. It is said that no PA leader can accept less than what Arafat demanded. Abbas knows that Hamas waits eagerly to be able to finger him as the sell-out.
Perhaps Netanyahu is not intimidated by the possibility of Abbas coming to the table because he is counting on being able to throw up his hands and say, "See, world, I tried my best, but look what I'm up against."
~~~~~~~~~~
There has been talk for many months about a bill that would require a public referendum within 180 days if our government made a decision to cede land in the Golan Heights or Jerusalem. Only the approval of 80 members of Knesset (out of 120) would render the referendum unnecessary.
At one point I was quite excited about the possibility that it would pass, thus tying the hands of the prime minister with regard to his ability to unilaterally commit to giving away these significant parts of Israel. There was a great deal of discussion on the issue -- including expression of concern about how the referendum would be structured. In December, in the course of a Knesset debate at the time of the first reading of the bill, it became clear that a majority of the members of Knesset supported this.
Since then, however, it has been lost in the Ministerial Committee on Legislation. It eludes me as to why it ended back there if there had been one reading: I see it as a delaying tactic. As wise and sensible as such an approach sounds to some of us, it is something of a political hot potato. Those on the left oppose it, because it makes less likely the possibility that the government could concede these areas in the course of "peace" negotiations. That is the point, is it not? The prime minister is also undoubtedly opposed. Whether he would choose to give away these areas or not, he would not want his freedom to do so restricted. (When does a head of state ever willing accept additional limitations placed on his or her power?)
~~~~~~~~~~
Right now, passage of this bill would have a significant impact on the possibility for direct negotiations. The PA would know, up front, it was not going to get any of Jerusalem, even if there had been Obama reassurances.
And precisely because of the current political situation, those on the left are saying passage of the bill now would be an affront to Obama -- and would undercut Netanyahu's declarations about putting everything on the table for discussion. While those on the right are thinking, "If not now, when?"
Enter MK Yariv Levin (Likud), Chair of the Knesset House Committee and one of the bill's initiators. He says he will not wait for a vote in the Ministerial Committee on Legislation, but will soon be bringing the bill to the Knesset for its required second and third readings.
If only!
You can be sure that I will monitor this carefully. Given various legalities and political pressures, I hardly see this as a done deal.
~~~~~~~~~~
A note of explanation: Some of you may be wondering why this bill wasn't worded to apply to surrendering land in Judea and Samaria as well. While it is fervently to be wished for -- that our government should be prevented from facile decisions to give away any part of the land -- there is legally a difference between Judea and Samaria on the one hand, and eastern Jerusalem and the Golan on the other.
Civil law was applied to all of Jerusalem and to the Golan. These areas are considered to be fully Israeli. Foolishly, the same was not done with Judea and Samaria. These areas remain a theoretically contested region that Israel administers.
Thus a bill that restricted giving away any part of these areas would have a tougher time passing in the Knesset. (Certainly a higher percentage of Israelis would consider a surrender of some of Judea and Samaria than would permit giving up of some of Jerusalem.) As I understand it, it was thought wiser to present a narrower bill that has a better chance of passage.
In point of fact, if a national referendum prevented surrendering any of Jerusalem, there would be no deal and no surrender of Judea and Samaria anyway. For the PA would accept no deal that didn't include Jerusalem.
Finally, I add that there are those today pushing for applying civil law at least to the Jewish communities of Judea and Samaria, if not to all of the region. This is past due if only because residents of Judea and Samaria live under different (military) administrative law, when they should be counted as equal to every other Israeli citizen.
~~~~~~~~~~
The investigation of the Turkish flotilla incident by a committee headed by Maj.Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland has ended and the report has been presented. In brief he faulted the IDF for "mistakes," but not failures. He criticized the lack of a back-up plan, and inadequate sharing of intelligence. He said, however, that the commandos conducted themselves with "professionalism, bravery and resourcefulness," and that the actions taken on the ship that resulted in nine deaths were justified.
http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=48719
The Turkish foreign minister, while welcoming this report, says his government will continue to push for an additional international inquiry.
~~~~~~~~~~
Now, hopefully having learned the necessary lessons from the confrontation with the Turkish ship, we are on the edge of confronting a Libyan ship.
The ship, known as the Almalthea, which left from Greece over the weekend flying a Moldovian flag, is reportedly being"shadowed" by the Israeli Navy; if it were to continue on course, unimpeded, it would reach Gaza tomorrow. Oue navy in touch with the ship; the message that has been delivered is if it does not change course by midnight tonight and head for El-Arish, Egypt, it will be intercepted.
Allegedly, the ship is carrying 2,000 tons of food and medicine, under the auspices of a charity chaired by the son of Muammar Gaddafi. But there are no limits to the amount of food and medicine that Israel would permit into Gaza via land crossings. Carrying these goods by sea is an exercise in futility, unless the intention is simply to break the blockade. Once unloaded in Egypt and inspected, all humanitarian goods would be transferred to Gaza.
~~~~~~~~~~
It should be worth your while to read JINSA Report 1005, "The President's Tin Ear."
This examines the "disconnect [on Obama's part] between words, attitudes, facts and policies that makes a lot of people - not just Jews, not just Israelis - anxious."
http://www.jinsa.org/node/1938
~~~~~~~~~~
Brigitte Gabriel -- an American journalist with Christian Lebanese roots and founder of ACT! for America -- has written a stunning response to journalist Helen Thomas, in which she documents Jewish rights to the land better than many Jews might be able to do it:
Read it, and share it:
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Crowd of 10,000 Declare: The Temple Mount Belongs to Jews
Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
A7 News
A huge crowd of 10,000 Jews gathered at the old gates of the Temple Mount Monday night and declared their allegiance to the holy site, which rally organizers said is being separated from Jews by discriminatory practices by the police The “pledge of allegiance” to a Jewish Temple Mount and a united Jerusalem was part of the monthly “March around Old City Temple Gates,” a colorful event featuring the recital of Psalms at various closed gates around the Temple Mount.
The monthly march usually attracts 2,000-3,000 people, but organizers successfully brought out thousands more Monday night as Jews around the world marked the beginning of the Hebrew month of Av. The Ninth of Av is marked every year as the day when foreign invaders destroyed the First and Second Holy Temples.
The marches feature music and dancing and are peaceful, but police have barred several of the monthly prayer rallies during the past year because of fears of Arab violence.
National Union Knesset Member Uri Ariel told the crowd that deterioration in security and the increasing discrimination against Jews in Jerusalem prompted the unusually large turnout. In his speech he described the “surrender of Jerusalem to Arabs,” the worsening security in several Jewish neighborhoods, disturbances by anarchists and the discrimination by police who severely restrict the ability of Jews to ascend the Temple Mount.
Jerusalem council member Aryeh King reminded the crowd that the Temple Mount site is closed to Jews most of the time while police allow non-Jewish tourists to freely visit the holy site.
Israel accepts Muslim rules that forbid a Jew from praying out loud or even carrying a prayer book when ascending the Temple Mount.
Farrakhan Demands Reparations from Jews
Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
July 13, 2010
http://www.meforum.org/pipes/8616/farrakhan-demands-reparations-from-jews
Louis Farrakhan recently sent a three-page letter along with two books to the heads of sixteen Jewish organizations.
Dated June 24, 2010, the letter is resplendent with a crescent-and-moon flag and Farrakhan's impressive-sounding title ("National Representative of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam"). In it, he announces that the books (volume two of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews and Jews Selling Blacks: Slave Trade by American Jews) present an undeniable record of Jewish anti-Black behavior, starting with the horror of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, plantation slavery, Jim Crow, sharecropping, the labor movement of the North and South, the unions and the misuse of our people that continues to this very moment.
Farrakhan challenges the recipients of his letter – who range politically from Jeremy Ben-Ami (of J-Street) to Lee Rosenberg (of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) to Morton Klein (of the Zionist Organization of America) –
to find one act committed by me or those who follow me that has injured one Jewish person, stopped Jews from doing business, hindered their education, injured their families, sullied or desecrated their synagogues.
"You will not find one," declares Farrakhan, who then asks: "on what basis do you charge me and us as being 'anti-Semitic'?" Quite the contrary, Farrakhan avers, "we could now charge you with the most vehement anti-Black behavior in the annals of our history in America and the world. We could charge you with being the most deceitful so-called friend, while your history with us shows you have been our worst enemy." Farrakhan could also dwell on the fact that Jews are "sitting on top of the world in power, with riches and influence, while the masses of my people here in America, in the Caribbean, Central and South America and elsewhere in the world are in the worst condition of any member of the human family."
He could make these points, he notes, but he chooses not to: "I do not write this with vitriol, hatred, bitterness, or a spirit of vengeance." Instead, he hopes to establish ties with Jews: "I have pleaded with you over the years for a sensible, intelligent dialogue. You have rejected me." Despite prior failures, the publication of these two books inspires Farrakhan to try anew: "I again ask you for a dialogue."
For Farrakhan, dialogue equals reparations. Because Jews "are in a position to help me in the civilizing work that The Honorable Elijah Muhammad was given to do by Allah (God)." More specifically: "This is an offer asking you and the gentiles whom you influence to help me in the repair of my people from the damage that has been done by your ancestors to mine." In other words, after years of unsuccessfully demanding reparations for blatcks from the U.S. government, he is now looking to Jews to make amends for their alleged past injustices.
Farrakhan presents this moment as both a unique opportunity for Jews ("This is a wonderful way of the present generation of Jews to escape the Judgment of Allah") and as an ultimatum:
you may either gather your forces for an all-out struggle against me, the Nation of Islam, and the truth that I and we speak and write, or as an intelligent and civilized people, we can sit down and carve out a way forward that can obliterate the stain of the past and render us, Jews and Blacks … in a new, honorable, and mutually respectful relationship.
Should Jews spurn this offer, Farrakhan threatens "disgrace and ruin":
should you choose to make our struggle to our people more difficult, then I respectfully warn you … that the more you fight and oppose me rather than help me to lift my people from their degraded state, Allah (God) and His Messiah will bring you and your people to disgrace and ruin and destroy your power and influence here and throughout the world.
He signs off with "Respectfully and Sincerely Submitted, The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, Servant to the Lost-Found Nation of Islam in the West."
Comments:
(1) In a major speech on June 26, Farrakhan announced having sent these books to more than the named Jewish leaders:
we have published Volume No. 2 of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. … I sent this book, and another one that is printed called Jews Selling Blacks, to Mr. Abraham Foxman of B'nai B'rith [sic], and to all the leaders of the major Jewish organizations. I sent it to President Obama, to Rahm Emanuel, to David Axelrod, to Timothy Geithner, to Larry Summers, to Ben Bernanke.
(2) According to Farrakhan's publication, The Final Call, none of the Jewish leaders responded to his letter other than to denounce it.
(3) The "Nation of Islam Historical Research Team" (note the absence of individuals' names) produced the first volume of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews in 1991. In brief, the first volume was akin to The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, not a scholarly tome but an artifact of conspiracist propaganda intended solely to spawn hatred against Jews. Harold Brackman began to demolish its scholarly pretensions in Ministry of Lies: The Truth behind the Nation of Islam's "The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews" (Four Walls Eight Windows, 1994) and Saul S. Friedman finished the job in Jews and the American Slave Trade (Transaction, 1998).
(4) Attempts to blame the trans-Atlantic slave trade on Jews reminds one of conspiracy theories blaming 9/11 on Jews: in both cases, Jews are brought gratuitously into a story overwhelmingly about Muslims.
(5) Farrakhan relies on obvious but clever duplicity in his letter: "we could charge you" with a host a charges but will not do so. We are offering you a deal but if you turn it down, "disgrace and ruin" await you. The letter amounts to an unsubtle attempt at extortion.
(6) It also offers a perverse example of benign antisemitism, whereby a person hopes that Jews will use what he imagines to be their power to help him – in this case appealing for help with "the gentiles whom you influence."
(7) One might think that with Barack Obama in the White House and Africa enjoying high economic growth rates, Farrakhan would stop focusing on Jews to "lift my people from their degraded state."
(8) The letter fits a pattern of antisemitism on Farrakhan's part that goes back to his re-establishing the Nation of Islam in 1978. In contrast, under Elijah Muhammad, who died in 1975, Farrakhan and the NoI more generally evinced little interest in Jews.
(9) Klein of ZOA calls this letter "a veiled call for violence against Jews" and he is right: Farrakhan full well knows he would not get the reply he demands.
(10) Farrakhan has praised Obama as "the hope of the entire world," the "one who can lift America from her fall," and as one sent by "the Messiah." Obama's presidency has apparently emboldened him to renew his attacks on Jews.
(11) Where are the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council? One awaits their condemnations of Farrakhan.
Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
National Review Online
July 13, 2010
http://www.meforum.org/pipes/8616/farrakhan-demands-reparations-from-jews
Louis Farrakhan recently sent a three-page letter along with two books to the heads of sixteen Jewish organizations.
Dated June 24, 2010, the letter is resplendent with a crescent-and-moon flag and Farrakhan's impressive-sounding title ("National Representative of the Honorable Elijah Muhammad and the Nation of Islam"). In it, he announces that the books (volume two of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews and Jews Selling Blacks: Slave Trade by American Jews) present an undeniable record of Jewish anti-Black behavior, starting with the horror of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, plantation slavery, Jim Crow, sharecropping, the labor movement of the North and South, the unions and the misuse of our people that continues to this very moment.
Farrakhan challenges the recipients of his letter – who range politically from Jeremy Ben-Ami (of J-Street) to Lee Rosenberg (of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) to Morton Klein (of the Zionist Organization of America) –
to find one act committed by me or those who follow me that has injured one Jewish person, stopped Jews from doing business, hindered their education, injured their families, sullied or desecrated their synagogues.
"You will not find one," declares Farrakhan, who then asks: "on what basis do you charge me and us as being 'anti-Semitic'?" Quite the contrary, Farrakhan avers, "we could now charge you with the most vehement anti-Black behavior in the annals of our history in America and the world. We could charge you with being the most deceitful so-called friend, while your history with us shows you have been our worst enemy." Farrakhan could also dwell on the fact that Jews are "sitting on top of the world in power, with riches and influence, while the masses of my people here in America, in the Caribbean, Central and South America and elsewhere in the world are in the worst condition of any member of the human family."
He could make these points, he notes, but he chooses not to: "I do not write this with vitriol, hatred, bitterness, or a spirit of vengeance." Instead, he hopes to establish ties with Jews: "I have pleaded with you over the years for a sensible, intelligent dialogue. You have rejected me." Despite prior failures, the publication of these two books inspires Farrakhan to try anew: "I again ask you for a dialogue."
For Farrakhan, dialogue equals reparations. Because Jews "are in a position to help me in the civilizing work that The Honorable Elijah Muhammad was given to do by Allah (God)." More specifically: "This is an offer asking you and the gentiles whom you influence to help me in the repair of my people from the damage that has been done by your ancestors to mine." In other words, after years of unsuccessfully demanding reparations for blatcks from the U.S. government, he is now looking to Jews to make amends for their alleged past injustices.
Farrakhan presents this moment as both a unique opportunity for Jews ("This is a wonderful way of the present generation of Jews to escape the Judgment of Allah") and as an ultimatum:
you may either gather your forces for an all-out struggle against me, the Nation of Islam, and the truth that I and we speak and write, or as an intelligent and civilized people, we can sit down and carve out a way forward that can obliterate the stain of the past and render us, Jews and Blacks … in a new, honorable, and mutually respectful relationship.
Should Jews spurn this offer, Farrakhan threatens "disgrace and ruin":
should you choose to make our struggle to our people more difficult, then I respectfully warn you … that the more you fight and oppose me rather than help me to lift my people from their degraded state, Allah (God) and His Messiah will bring you and your people to disgrace and ruin and destroy your power and influence here and throughout the world.
He signs off with "Respectfully and Sincerely Submitted, The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan, Servant to the Lost-Found Nation of Islam in the West."
Comments:
(1) In a major speech on June 26, Farrakhan announced having sent these books to more than the named Jewish leaders:
we have published Volume No. 2 of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews. … I sent this book, and another one that is printed called Jews Selling Blacks, to Mr. Abraham Foxman of B'nai B'rith [sic], and to all the leaders of the major Jewish organizations. I sent it to President Obama, to Rahm Emanuel, to David Axelrod, to Timothy Geithner, to Larry Summers, to Ben Bernanke.
(2) According to Farrakhan's publication, The Final Call, none of the Jewish leaders responded to his letter other than to denounce it.
(3) The "Nation of Islam Historical Research Team" (note the absence of individuals' names) produced the first volume of The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews in 1991. In brief, the first volume was akin to The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, not a scholarly tome but an artifact of conspiracist propaganda intended solely to spawn hatred against Jews. Harold Brackman began to demolish its scholarly pretensions in Ministry of Lies: The Truth behind the Nation of Islam's "The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews" (Four Walls Eight Windows, 1994) and Saul S. Friedman finished the job in Jews and the American Slave Trade (Transaction, 1998).
(4) Attempts to blame the trans-Atlantic slave trade on Jews reminds one of conspiracy theories blaming 9/11 on Jews: in both cases, Jews are brought gratuitously into a story overwhelmingly about Muslims.
(5) Farrakhan relies on obvious but clever duplicity in his letter: "we could charge you" with a host a charges but will not do so. We are offering you a deal but if you turn it down, "disgrace and ruin" await you. The letter amounts to an unsubtle attempt at extortion.
(6) It also offers a perverse example of benign antisemitism, whereby a person hopes that Jews will use what he imagines to be their power to help him – in this case appealing for help with "the gentiles whom you influence."
(7) One might think that with Barack Obama in the White House and Africa enjoying high economic growth rates, Farrakhan would stop focusing on Jews to "lift my people from their degraded state."
(8) The letter fits a pattern of antisemitism on Farrakhan's part that goes back to his re-establishing the Nation of Islam in 1978. In contrast, under Elijah Muhammad, who died in 1975, Farrakhan and the NoI more generally evinced little interest in Jews.
(9) Klein of ZOA calls this letter "a veiled call for violence against Jews" and he is right: Farrakhan full well knows he would not get the reply he demands.
(10) Farrakhan has praised Obama as "the hope of the entire world," the "one who can lift America from her fall," and as one sent by "the Messiah." Obama's presidency has apparently emboldened him to renew his attacks on Jews.
(11) Where are the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council? One awaits their condemnations of Farrakhan.
Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
Why the Death of Israel Wouldn't Slow Anti-U.S. Terrorism
IPT News
http://www.investigativeproject.org/2054/why-the-death-of-israel-wouldnt-slow-anti-us
A fairly dishonest discussion about the root causes of Islamist terrorism is being pushed with renewed vigor. It is based on the false claim that American support for Israel fuels the terrorism targeting us. At best, this is academically dishonest, ignoring a laundry list of grievances that has been used to justify terrorism.
Yet, as Americans celebrated Independence Day, Thaddeus Russell took to the pages of the Daily Beast to argue just that. In an article titled, "Does Israel Make Us Safer?," Russell puts the issue bluntly:
"There was not a single act of Arab terrorism against Americans before 1968, when the U.S. became the chief supplier of military equipment and economic aid to Israel. In light of this fact, it's difficult to credibly sustain the argument that Arab terrorism is spawned by Islam's alleged promotion of violence and antipathy toward American culture or by a 'natural Arab anti-Semitism.'"
That's not exactly true, as others have pointed out. And it ignores the words terrorists themselves have used to explain their motivation.
A look at recent terror attempts finds American support for Israel nowhere in the picture. Instead, terrorists describe their belief that America is at war with Islam. They want to strike back, or to stop Americans from fighting Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, or to punish them for having done so.
That's what would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad said in his defiant guilty plea in federal court last month. "It's a war," he told the court. "I'm going to plead guilty a hundred times over because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes ... we will be attacking the U.S. And I plead guilty to that."
Nidal Hasan gunned down 13 soldiers at Fort Hood because he felt he had to stop them from going to battle zones where they might kill his fellow Muslims. His spiritual mentor, radical Yemeni cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki, called Hasan "a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people."
Russell is but one voice pushing the theory about American support for Israel despite evidence to the contrary. During the annual Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) conference July 4th weekend in Chicago, speaker Paul Larudee called the Palestinian issue the most important to resolve, arguing that while "people are constantly talking about terrorism," the Palestinian issue "is at the bottom of many of the problems that our community is facing. It's at the root of the problems we are facing in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Yemen and in the United States."
Fellow panelist Hatem Bazian called Israel's 2008 war with Hizballah in Lebanon "a poster recruitment for terrorism," because "they see that the one-sided U.S. policy is failing them and therefore they feel that militarization and going through terrorism is the only option."
National Islamist organizations have pushed this line for years. At a March 2006 fundraising dinner in Anaheim, "Sami Al-Arian Banquet Dinner," Ali Mazrui of the American Muslim Alliance (AMA) Policy Committee said that Israel's "militarism" triggered the terrorism against it and the United States:
"Israeli repression and militarism provoke suicide bombers and give rise to movements like Hamas and Al Qaeda. The Israeli atrocities and repression cause terrorism in the United States, and terrorism in turn threatens civil liberties in America….The behavior of the State of Israel threatens not merely democracy within the Jewish state; Israel threatens democracy in America as well."
At a January 2009 program at Masjid Omar al Farouk in Anaheim, entitled "Gaza, Jerusalem and Palestine: What You Need to Know," Hussam Ayloush of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) said the perception that America is Israel's "partner in the crimes" against Muslims makes us an enemy ripe for targeting by terrorists:
"We tend to forget that actually the terrorists who committed the September 11 attacks, one of the main grievances they raised, almost the only one they raised, what was it? Palestine. They said it was because of the U.S.'s unconditional support of Israel that we're doing this."
Reading these statements, one would think that the panacea to America's problems—or at least the end of terrorism aimed at America—is simple. Cease support for Israel, even if that allows Islamist extremists to destroy it. After that, radical Islamists and terrorists like Al Qaeda will leave us alone.
While Israeli action, or the country's mere existence, may indeed serve as a source of motivation for some terrorists, it is not the primary cause. For proof, look no further than a 1998 fatwa issued by the World Islamic Front, widely considered to be synonymous with Al Qaeda, calling on Muslims "to kill Americans and their allies-civilians and military." The primary justifications for the edict?
* "First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
* Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million…despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
* Third, if the Americans' aim behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula."
A plain-text reading of the fatwa suggests that America's support for Israel constitutes one half of one of the three main justifications of terrorism. The fatwa places far more emphasis on justifying terrorism against Americans who are "the crusaders" and are "occupying" and "plundering" Muslim lands such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
Even when Osama bin Laden talks about Palestine, analysts believe it is at least partially a cynical play at popular support. He started speaking more exclusively about Palestine in 2008, prompting Nigel Inkster, Director of Transnational Threats and Political Risk at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, to note the shift came as Al Qaeda in Iraq was defeated.
In addition, many Muslims turned against it after Al Qaeda attacks killed so many fellow Muslims.
"Al Qaeda could now be preparing its followers for a strategic failure in Iraq," Inkster told the BBC. "It therefore needs a rallying cry and Palestine is a no-brainer."
A Slate magazine article reached a similar conclusion four years earlier:
"Bin Laden continues to emphasize the plight of the Palestinians, as he has since the second intifada broke out in 2000, because he knows that is a bigger winner for him with ordinary Muslims than the corruption of the Saudi monarchy, his old hobbyhorse."
Arguments like Russell's fail to address the threat posed by Islamic terror to Western countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, Australia, Canada, Bosnia, India, and so many others that do not significantly support Israel. It also ignores the threat of terrorism faced by the Philippines by Abu Sayyaf and to Somalia by al Shabaab—a violence that is unrelated to Israel but shares a foundation of Islamist extremism.
Then there are the global aspirations for many hardcore Islamists. They want a Caliphate, a world ruled by Islamic law, and will do what it takes to create that. Take Abu Hamsa al-Masri, an imam jailed in England for inciting murder, and wanted by the U.S. for terror charges. In addition to coveting global sharia law, al-Masri's interpretation of Koranic verses allows for open season on non-Muslims, or the Kaffir.
"Killing of the Kaffir for any reason you can say it is OK, even if there is no reason for it," he has said, advocating a variety of means from poisoning to ambushes. "You must have a stand with your heart, with your tongue, with your money, with your hand, with your sword, with your Kalashnikov. Don't ask shall I do this, just do it."
Does such a blood lust die if America abandoned a long-standing ally? Not likely.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/2054/why-the-death-of-israel-wouldnt-slow-anti-us
A fairly dishonest discussion about the root causes of Islamist terrorism is being pushed with renewed vigor. It is based on the false claim that American support for Israel fuels the terrorism targeting us. At best, this is academically dishonest, ignoring a laundry list of grievances that has been used to justify terrorism.
Yet, as Americans celebrated Independence Day, Thaddeus Russell took to the pages of the Daily Beast to argue just that. In an article titled, "Does Israel Make Us Safer?," Russell puts the issue bluntly:
"There was not a single act of Arab terrorism against Americans before 1968, when the U.S. became the chief supplier of military equipment and economic aid to Israel. In light of this fact, it's difficult to credibly sustain the argument that Arab terrorism is spawned by Islam's alleged promotion of violence and antipathy toward American culture or by a 'natural Arab anti-Semitism.'"
That's not exactly true, as others have pointed out. And it ignores the words terrorists themselves have used to explain their motivation.
A look at recent terror attempts finds American support for Israel nowhere in the picture. Instead, terrorists describe their belief that America is at war with Islam. They want to strike back, or to stop Americans from fighting Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq, or to punish them for having done so.
That's what would-be Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad said in his defiant guilty plea in federal court last month. "It's a war," he told the court. "I'm going to plead guilty a hundred times over because until the hour the U.S. pulls its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan and stops the drone strikes ... we will be attacking the U.S. And I plead guilty to that."
Nidal Hasan gunned down 13 soldiers at Fort Hood because he felt he had to stop them from going to battle zones where they might kill his fellow Muslims. His spiritual mentor, radical Yemeni cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki, called Hasan "a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people."
Russell is but one voice pushing the theory about American support for Israel despite evidence to the contrary. During the annual Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) conference July 4th weekend in Chicago, speaker Paul Larudee called the Palestinian issue the most important to resolve, arguing that while "people are constantly talking about terrorism," the Palestinian issue "is at the bottom of many of the problems that our community is facing. It's at the root of the problems we are facing in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Yemen and in the United States."
Fellow panelist Hatem Bazian called Israel's 2008 war with Hizballah in Lebanon "a poster recruitment for terrorism," because "they see that the one-sided U.S. policy is failing them and therefore they feel that militarization and going through terrorism is the only option."
National Islamist organizations have pushed this line for years. At a March 2006 fundraising dinner in Anaheim, "Sami Al-Arian Banquet Dinner," Ali Mazrui of the American Muslim Alliance (AMA) Policy Committee said that Israel's "militarism" triggered the terrorism against it and the United States:
"Israeli repression and militarism provoke suicide bombers and give rise to movements like Hamas and Al Qaeda. The Israeli atrocities and repression cause terrorism in the United States, and terrorism in turn threatens civil liberties in America….The behavior of the State of Israel threatens not merely democracy within the Jewish state; Israel threatens democracy in America as well."
At a January 2009 program at Masjid Omar al Farouk in Anaheim, entitled "Gaza, Jerusalem and Palestine: What You Need to Know," Hussam Ayloush of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) said the perception that America is Israel's "partner in the crimes" against Muslims makes us an enemy ripe for targeting by terrorists:
"We tend to forget that actually the terrorists who committed the September 11 attacks, one of the main grievances they raised, almost the only one they raised, what was it? Palestine. They said it was because of the U.S.'s unconditional support of Israel that we're doing this."
Reading these statements, one would think that the panacea to America's problems—or at least the end of terrorism aimed at America—is simple. Cease support for Israel, even if that allows Islamist extremists to destroy it. After that, radical Islamists and terrorists like Al Qaeda will leave us alone.
While Israeli action, or the country's mere existence, may indeed serve as a source of motivation for some terrorists, it is not the primary cause. For proof, look no further than a 1998 fatwa issued by the World Islamic Front, widely considered to be synonymous with Al Qaeda, calling on Muslims "to kill Americans and their allies-civilians and military." The primary justifications for the edict?
* "First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.
* Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million…despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation. So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.
* Third, if the Americans' aim behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula."
A plain-text reading of the fatwa suggests that America's support for Israel constitutes one half of one of the three main justifications of terrorism. The fatwa places far more emphasis on justifying terrorism against Americans who are "the crusaders" and are "occupying" and "plundering" Muslim lands such as Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
Even when Osama bin Laden talks about Palestine, analysts believe it is at least partially a cynical play at popular support. He started speaking more exclusively about Palestine in 2008, prompting Nigel Inkster, Director of Transnational Threats and Political Risk at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, to note the shift came as Al Qaeda in Iraq was defeated.
In addition, many Muslims turned against it after Al Qaeda attacks killed so many fellow Muslims.
"Al Qaeda could now be preparing its followers for a strategic failure in Iraq," Inkster told the BBC. "It therefore needs a rallying cry and Palestine is a no-brainer."
A Slate magazine article reached a similar conclusion four years earlier:
"Bin Laden continues to emphasize the plight of the Palestinians, as he has since the second intifada broke out in 2000, because he knows that is a bigger winner for him with ordinary Muslims than the corruption of the Saudi monarchy, his old hobbyhorse."
Arguments like Russell's fail to address the threat posed by Islamic terror to Western countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Italy, Spain, Russia, Australia, Canada, Bosnia, India, and so many others that do not significantly support Israel. It also ignores the threat of terrorism faced by the Philippines by Abu Sayyaf and to Somalia by al Shabaab—a violence that is unrelated to Israel but shares a foundation of Islamist extremism.
Then there are the global aspirations for many hardcore Islamists. They want a Caliphate, a world ruled by Islamic law, and will do what it takes to create that. Take Abu Hamsa al-Masri, an imam jailed in England for inciting murder, and wanted by the U.S. for terror charges. In addition to coveting global sharia law, al-Masri's interpretation of Koranic verses allows for open season on non-Muslims, or the Kaffir.
"Killing of the Kaffir for any reason you can say it is OK, even if there is no reason for it," he has said, advocating a variety of means from poisoning to ambushes. "You must have a stand with your heart, with your tongue, with your money, with your hand, with your sword, with your Kalashnikov. Don't ask shall I do this, just do it."
Does such a blood lust die if America abandoned a long-standing ally? Not likely.
"Swallowing Hard"
Arlene Kushner
That swallowing is necessary before taking in information on all the things our prime minister is saying as he pursues peace -- or the illusion thereof. Pursues it with a vengeance. I remain convinced that he is confident that Abbas will not come through -- the evidence for this smacks us in the face! -- and that there will be no meaningful negotiations, and that in the end there will be no Palestinian state. As I have indicated previously, I believe that he sees this charade as the smartest way to make Israel come out on top at the end of the day. He will be able to point to himself as the person ready to cooperate and to Abbas as the stumbling block.
At one point, in an interview, he even said that he is prepared to take "surprising" risks for peace, but that he needs a partner -- he cannot go out on the trapeze alone. His analogy is clear, as Abbas's hands are not outstretched to us.
But yet, the things he says! That he believes we can have peace in a year. Really? Under ideal conditions I don't believe this would be the case. Of course, he qualifies this by saying implementation would take a lot longer.
And then there were these unsettling words:
"We have differences of views with the Palestinians. We want a united city [Jerusalem]. They have their own views. This is one of the issues that will have to be negotiated. But I think the main point is to get on with it, what are we wasting more time for?"
~~~~~~~~~~
I myself remain unconvinced that this is the best way to go.
If I correctly understand what he suggests regarding the time lag between laying out parameters and actually implementing everything, he's going down a very dangerous road. You don't agree to anything (especially not on paper) unless you are certain that implementation is possible. We must protect ourselves, making certain that when the whole thing does fall apart, we're not committed to parameters that might come back to haunt us later.
Netanyahu is able to reject PA demands that we begin negotiations where Olmert left off because Olmert had put nothing in writing. It must remain thus.
~~~~~~~~~~
I deeply regret our failure, even now, to hold PA feet to the fire. Netanyahu will advance to the table for face-to-face talks (if Abbas will show up) even though there has been no movement at all towards re-publishing PA textbooks without the message that jihad is good. The time necessary for peace to be implemented is actually decades. There can be no genuine peace until we have a generation of Palestinian Arabs that wasn't raised on hatred for us.
This is the party that Netanyahu is prepared to negotiate with:
Last week, Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a Hezbollah "spiritual leader," died. Fadlallah was on the US list of terrorists. He had issued a fatwa (religious ruling) sanctioning suicide attacks on US troops and on Israel. According to Reuters, a doctor treating Fadlallah before his death reported that, while he was still conscious a nurse him asked if there was anything she could bring him. His reply: "I ask for nothing except that the Zionist entity should pass from the world."
Palestinian Media Watch reports -- http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=2566 -- that Abbas sent an emissary to the hospital to wish Fadlallah a speedy recovery, and then sent condolences to the family after his death. Additionally, Fatah has set up a mourning tent for Fadlallah in Jenin.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, as I indicated above, Abbas is still balking. Two days ago, he said:
"We have presented our vision and thoughts and said that if progress is made, we will move to direct talks, but that if no progress is made, it [direct talks] will be futile.
"If they say, 'Come and let's start negotiations from zero,'that is futile and pointless."
Even statements from Obama regarding the need to move to direct talks are not having an effect, at least not yet.
~~~~~~~~~~
But what are we doing? In a "been-there, done-that" action, following Netanyahu's meeting with Obama, we are talking about some "good will gestures." When you read about this, you made need to do more than swallow hard. You might be inclined to bang your head against the wall.
Why are we doing this? Because Obama wants us to, clearly. But this is after statements had come from our side (pre-Obama meeting, admittedly) declaring that we have made enough concessions and it was the PA's turn. How foolish this makes us.
There is the usual litany of possibilities -- varying slightly with the source -- regarding taking down of checkpoints, increasing security cooperation, release of some prisoners, etc. Ostensibly what will these get us? Why, they'll provide incentives for Abbas to come to the table.
Forgive me, but this is very very stupid. If Abbas genuinely wanted a Palestinian state he'd be rushing to the table to firm up details. (And we must thank Heaven that he's not doing this!)
As it is, Abbas has some very big problems. If he comes to the table he is going to be expected to make some accommodations towards a settlement, and he has neither the inclination nor the latitude to make them. The political climate in the Palestinian Arab areas of Judea and Samaria won't allow it, and he has Hamas breathing down his neck as well. Any concessions and he'll be labeled a traitor. Why does he publicly salute a terrorist such as Fadlallah? Because the street expects this.
It's terribly foolish to imagine that the concessions we would make will convince the street to embrace negotiations. Because we release some prisoners, or take down some checkpoints is no guarantee that the "refugees" will be able to "return," or that the PA will get all of eastern Jerusalem. And these are non-negotiable items for them.
~~~~~~~~~~
We're are also seeing here in Israel a great deal of press regarding the changes in Obama. As I believe the changes are tactical and do not represent a change of heart, I do not intend to belabor this matter unduly.
You might find this piece by Yisrael Harel, "Obama sobers up," interesting:
http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=48712
~~~~~~~~~~
A great deal more to follow soon...
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
That swallowing is necessary before taking in information on all the things our prime minister is saying as he pursues peace -- or the illusion thereof. Pursues it with a vengeance. I remain convinced that he is confident that Abbas will not come through -- the evidence for this smacks us in the face! -- and that there will be no meaningful negotiations, and that in the end there will be no Palestinian state. As I have indicated previously, I believe that he sees this charade as the smartest way to make Israel come out on top at the end of the day. He will be able to point to himself as the person ready to cooperate and to Abbas as the stumbling block.
At one point, in an interview, he even said that he is prepared to take "surprising" risks for peace, but that he needs a partner -- he cannot go out on the trapeze alone. His analogy is clear, as Abbas's hands are not outstretched to us.
But yet, the things he says! That he believes we can have peace in a year. Really? Under ideal conditions I don't believe this would be the case. Of course, he qualifies this by saying implementation would take a lot longer.
And then there were these unsettling words:
"We have differences of views with the Palestinians. We want a united city [Jerusalem]. They have their own views. This is one of the issues that will have to be negotiated. But I think the main point is to get on with it, what are we wasting more time for?"
~~~~~~~~~~
I myself remain unconvinced that this is the best way to go.
If I correctly understand what he suggests regarding the time lag between laying out parameters and actually implementing everything, he's going down a very dangerous road. You don't agree to anything (especially not on paper) unless you are certain that implementation is possible. We must protect ourselves, making certain that when the whole thing does fall apart, we're not committed to parameters that might come back to haunt us later.
Netanyahu is able to reject PA demands that we begin negotiations where Olmert left off because Olmert had put nothing in writing. It must remain thus.
~~~~~~~~~~
I deeply regret our failure, even now, to hold PA feet to the fire. Netanyahu will advance to the table for face-to-face talks (if Abbas will show up) even though there has been no movement at all towards re-publishing PA textbooks without the message that jihad is good. The time necessary for peace to be implemented is actually decades. There can be no genuine peace until we have a generation of Palestinian Arabs that wasn't raised on hatred for us.
This is the party that Netanyahu is prepared to negotiate with:
Last week, Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Hussein Fadlallah, a Hezbollah "spiritual leader," died. Fadlallah was on the US list of terrorists. He had issued a fatwa (religious ruling) sanctioning suicide attacks on US troops and on Israel. According to Reuters, a doctor treating Fadlallah before his death reported that, while he was still conscious a nurse him asked if there was anything she could bring him. His reply: "I ask for nothing except that the Zionist entity should pass from the world."
Palestinian Media Watch reports -- http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=2566 -- that Abbas sent an emissary to the hospital to wish Fadlallah a speedy recovery, and then sent condolences to the family after his death. Additionally, Fatah has set up a mourning tent for Fadlallah in Jenin.
~~~~~~~~~~
Meanwhile, as I indicated above, Abbas is still balking. Two days ago, he said:
"We have presented our vision and thoughts and said that if progress is made, we will move to direct talks, but that if no progress is made, it [direct talks] will be futile.
"If they say, 'Come and let's start negotiations from zero,'that is futile and pointless."
Even statements from Obama regarding the need to move to direct talks are not having an effect, at least not yet.
~~~~~~~~~~
But what are we doing? In a "been-there, done-that" action, following Netanyahu's meeting with Obama, we are talking about some "good will gestures." When you read about this, you made need to do more than swallow hard. You might be inclined to bang your head against the wall.
Why are we doing this? Because Obama wants us to, clearly. But this is after statements had come from our side (pre-Obama meeting, admittedly) declaring that we have made enough concessions and it was the PA's turn. How foolish this makes us.
There is the usual litany of possibilities -- varying slightly with the source -- regarding taking down of checkpoints, increasing security cooperation, release of some prisoners, etc. Ostensibly what will these get us? Why, they'll provide incentives for Abbas to come to the table.
Forgive me, but this is very very stupid. If Abbas genuinely wanted a Palestinian state he'd be rushing to the table to firm up details. (And we must thank Heaven that he's not doing this!)
As it is, Abbas has some very big problems. If he comes to the table he is going to be expected to make some accommodations towards a settlement, and he has neither the inclination nor the latitude to make them. The political climate in the Palestinian Arab areas of Judea and Samaria won't allow it, and he has Hamas breathing down his neck as well. Any concessions and he'll be labeled a traitor. Why does he publicly salute a terrorist such as Fadlallah? Because the street expects this.
It's terribly foolish to imagine that the concessions we would make will convince the street to embrace negotiations. Because we release some prisoners, or take down some checkpoints is no guarantee that the "refugees" will be able to "return," or that the PA will get all of eastern Jerusalem. And these are non-negotiable items for them.
~~~~~~~~~~
We're are also seeing here in Israel a great deal of press regarding the changes in Obama. As I believe the changes are tactical and do not represent a change of heart, I do not intend to belabor this matter unduly.
You might find this piece by Yisrael Harel, "Obama sobers up," interesting:
http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=48712
~~~~~~~~~~
A great deal more to follow soon...
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Monday, July 12, 2010
Come Visit Israel
Ari Bussel
I like to fly light, but it never seems to work. The one exception is when I return from Israel to the United States. Everything here is cheaper, so I really do not buy things in Israel, other than recently published books in Hebrew. In Israel, magazines and books in duty free are exempt from VAT, a substantial savings when the price of a book is close to $20. On the way to Israel, however, the situation is quite different. I take everything, from grocery bags (the paper type because they are bigger here) to paper towels (also bigger and better). Truth be told, one can buy everything in Israel, American made, but the cost is often prohibitive.
During a recent visit I had a cold, but the price of Vitamin C frightened me so much I decided not to buy any. Somehow, Israelis manage. I could not. My American dollars disappear quickly, their buying power sadly insufficient.
Time and again I am amazed at how many people have not been to Israel. The Israeli Ministry of Tourism dedicates a substantial budget to promote Israel, and indeed Europeans are coming to Eilat, where it is summer year round (they all return home burned red from too much sun), Christians are coming to the holy places, from Bethlehem to Nazareth to Jerusalem. Israelis arrive in droves to visit their families and, in recent years, young Jews are treated to “Birthright Taglit (Discovery),” a free trip to explore their Jewish roots.
Yet, there are so many who are afraid to go. I cannot blame them since Israel is in the news daily, usually portrayed as an evil occupier, an Apartheid state, a dangerous place altogether. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Israel is modern and ancient, magical from within and like no other place on earth. It does not simply possess history; Israel is history. Its shopping centers bustle with people, its streets are full of pedestrians. Traffic is a mess, but still people communicate with one another. Some shout, others curse, still others just use their hands for obscene gestures. It is all done in a way you can understand, even if you do not speak Hebrew.
One dares not cross the street in a cross walk, since hardly anyone will stop. Although, the situation is not much different here in Beverly Hills, where a new operation will soon be on the way to enforce the law. The markets are a “must” place to visit, for the colors and smells and abundance is like nowhere else. At entrances to all public places, one needs to open one’s bags for inspection, a constant reminder of the Palestinian’s aspirations for 72 virgins and penchant for homicide bombings.
Tel Aviv is a microcosm of New York and Europe combined; a city that neither stops nor sleeps. There are nightlife and cafes on the major streets. There is a beach with warm Mediterranean water, museums, more per capita than elsewhere in the world, and history in every building. There are also sectors where foreign, illegal workers congregate and others where it is too sleazy and too dangerous for respectable people to even visit.
The very best breakfasts are served at Israeli hotels, included in the price of the stay. These are buffets filled with foods as far as the eye can see, an amazing feast to the eyes and taste buds. Be warned, though, as prices for overnight stays are very expensive. It is exactly for that reason that Israeli tourists prefer Cyprus, Turkey (yes, Israelis are forgiving and quite forgetful), Greece and the former Soviet Union countries. A weekend excursion, including airfare, is cheaper than a one-night stay at an Israeli hotel. Then again, there is that breakfast like no other.
I would highly suggest not to drive but to use public transport instead. Israel is so tiny that the sense of distance is distorted. A wrong turn, a few more miles (kilometers in Israel), and you are at a border crossing. Zoom, where did Israel go? Better safe than sorry – do not drive!
When using public transportation, if you do get lost, it will be part of the adventure, and you will still be safe. People will be eager to help as everyone speaks English. You will find that many other languages are spoken, a mixture of Jews who came to their homeland and yet carry their former lives, accents and modes of behavior. Taking a bus or the train between cities is a true experience since you will hear people conducting their lives on the phone, all in public. Anyone can listen, and often people will provide an opinion.
Israelis are very warm people. They not only communicate while driving and express what they think to others but will be eager to invite you for Shabbat dinner or just to a visit. Do that for it is always safe. Part of the Middle Eastern mentality dictates that a guest is a king. This is also true in regard to enemies. Once invited, they are sacred. Possibly this is the reason Palestinians, Hamas members, Gazans and other terrorists seek medical treatment in Israeli hospitals. They receive the very best medical care, even when the reason for their arrival is an injury suffered during a terrorist attack they carried out.
Amazing when you hear of instances where patients returned strapped with explosives to repay those who saved their lives and rehabilitated them. Some things in the Middle East never change.
You will see many soldiers, young men and women of 18 or 19, in uniform and carrying handguns or M16s. They are part and parcel of the country’s very being, of Israel’s future. They, representing all walks of life, are in a melting pot that matures and molds them into productive members of society.
You need only see the smile on a young woman fighter pilot to understand there is no differentiation between men and women. The magnificent smiles on the faces of Ethiopian children will assure you Israelis also do not differentiate based on skin color. Even before its formation as a modern state, Israel openly absorbed immigration. The process is never easy, but the harvest is the children born in Israel. They know nothing else, and are like fruits of a cactus, spiked on the outside, juicy and full of life within.
Israel is wondrous and miraculous. Make sure to visit her capital, the heart of Jews for thousands of years. Jerusalem is the most unique place in the world, for there one feels closest with the Creator. Breathing the air, walking in the streets of Jerusalem is a fulfilling experience that begs for more. Go visit the Western Wall, the archeological excavations and just wander the streets. You will witness for yourself the miracle of a united city, the capital of the Jewish State.
Nestled on a mountain among trees is Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial. There, on the Avenue of the Righteous, we stop to remember those who, despite great personal danger, risked everything to help others. Forever they will remind us there remains a grain of goodness in humanity, a flame that cannot be doused despite the darkness that seeks to engulf us.
Israel is a unique country, safe and inviting, welcoming and enticing. You are filled with a sense of wanting “more.” Thus, while my suitcases are always empty on the return, I am filled with memories and experiences that have energized me, feelings that keep me charged until the next visit.
I am surprised I have never been charged for overweight luggage when returning to the United States. I know the spiritual, emotional and precious gifts I receive while in Israel place me way over the limit.
Come visit Israel, it never disappoints and always delivers the experience of a lifetime.
In the series “Postcards from Israel—Postcards from America,” Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, an Israel visitors rarely discover.
This point—and often—counter-point presentation is sprinkled with humor and sadness and attempts to tackle serious and relevant issues of the day. The series began in 2008, appears both in print in the USA and on numerous websites and is followed regularly by readership from around the world.
© “Postcards from Israel—Postcards from America,” July, 2010
Contact: aribussel@gmail.com
I like to fly light, but it never seems to work. The one exception is when I return from Israel to the United States. Everything here is cheaper, so I really do not buy things in Israel, other than recently published books in Hebrew. In Israel, magazines and books in duty free are exempt from VAT, a substantial savings when the price of a book is close to $20. On the way to Israel, however, the situation is quite different. I take everything, from grocery bags (the paper type because they are bigger here) to paper towels (also bigger and better). Truth be told, one can buy everything in Israel, American made, but the cost is often prohibitive.
During a recent visit I had a cold, but the price of Vitamin C frightened me so much I decided not to buy any. Somehow, Israelis manage. I could not. My American dollars disappear quickly, their buying power sadly insufficient.
Time and again I am amazed at how many people have not been to Israel. The Israeli Ministry of Tourism dedicates a substantial budget to promote Israel, and indeed Europeans are coming to Eilat, where it is summer year round (they all return home burned red from too much sun), Christians are coming to the holy places, from Bethlehem to Nazareth to Jerusalem. Israelis arrive in droves to visit their families and, in recent years, young Jews are treated to “Birthright Taglit (Discovery),” a free trip to explore their Jewish roots.
Yet, there are so many who are afraid to go. I cannot blame them since Israel is in the news daily, usually portrayed as an evil occupier, an Apartheid state, a dangerous place altogether. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Israel is modern and ancient, magical from within and like no other place on earth. It does not simply possess history; Israel is history. Its shopping centers bustle with people, its streets are full of pedestrians. Traffic is a mess, but still people communicate with one another. Some shout, others curse, still others just use their hands for obscene gestures. It is all done in a way you can understand, even if you do not speak Hebrew.
One dares not cross the street in a cross walk, since hardly anyone will stop. Although, the situation is not much different here in Beverly Hills, where a new operation will soon be on the way to enforce the law. The markets are a “must” place to visit, for the colors and smells and abundance is like nowhere else. At entrances to all public places, one needs to open one’s bags for inspection, a constant reminder of the Palestinian’s aspirations for 72 virgins and penchant for homicide bombings.
Tel Aviv is a microcosm of New York and Europe combined; a city that neither stops nor sleeps. There are nightlife and cafes on the major streets. There is a beach with warm Mediterranean water, museums, more per capita than elsewhere in the world, and history in every building. There are also sectors where foreign, illegal workers congregate and others where it is too sleazy and too dangerous for respectable people to even visit.
The very best breakfasts are served at Israeli hotels, included in the price of the stay. These are buffets filled with foods as far as the eye can see, an amazing feast to the eyes and taste buds. Be warned, though, as prices for overnight stays are very expensive. It is exactly for that reason that Israeli tourists prefer Cyprus, Turkey (yes, Israelis are forgiving and quite forgetful), Greece and the former Soviet Union countries. A weekend excursion, including airfare, is cheaper than a one-night stay at an Israeli hotel. Then again, there is that breakfast like no other.
I would highly suggest not to drive but to use public transport instead. Israel is so tiny that the sense of distance is distorted. A wrong turn, a few more miles (kilometers in Israel), and you are at a border crossing. Zoom, where did Israel go? Better safe than sorry – do not drive!
When using public transportation, if you do get lost, it will be part of the adventure, and you will still be safe. People will be eager to help as everyone speaks English. You will find that many other languages are spoken, a mixture of Jews who came to their homeland and yet carry their former lives, accents and modes of behavior. Taking a bus or the train between cities is a true experience since you will hear people conducting their lives on the phone, all in public. Anyone can listen, and often people will provide an opinion.
Israelis are very warm people. They not only communicate while driving and express what they think to others but will be eager to invite you for Shabbat dinner or just to a visit. Do that for it is always safe. Part of the Middle Eastern mentality dictates that a guest is a king. This is also true in regard to enemies. Once invited, they are sacred. Possibly this is the reason Palestinians, Hamas members, Gazans and other terrorists seek medical treatment in Israeli hospitals. They receive the very best medical care, even when the reason for their arrival is an injury suffered during a terrorist attack they carried out.
Amazing when you hear of instances where patients returned strapped with explosives to repay those who saved their lives and rehabilitated them. Some things in the Middle East never change.
You will see many soldiers, young men and women of 18 or 19, in uniform and carrying handguns or M16s. They are part and parcel of the country’s very being, of Israel’s future. They, representing all walks of life, are in a melting pot that matures and molds them into productive members of society.
You need only see the smile on a young woman fighter pilot to understand there is no differentiation between men and women. The magnificent smiles on the faces of Ethiopian children will assure you Israelis also do not differentiate based on skin color. Even before its formation as a modern state, Israel openly absorbed immigration. The process is never easy, but the harvest is the children born in Israel. They know nothing else, and are like fruits of a cactus, spiked on the outside, juicy and full of life within.
Israel is wondrous and miraculous. Make sure to visit her capital, the heart of Jews for thousands of years. Jerusalem is the most unique place in the world, for there one feels closest with the Creator. Breathing the air, walking in the streets of Jerusalem is a fulfilling experience that begs for more. Go visit the Western Wall, the archeological excavations and just wander the streets. You will witness for yourself the miracle of a united city, the capital of the Jewish State.
Nestled on a mountain among trees is Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial. There, on the Avenue of the Righteous, we stop to remember those who, despite great personal danger, risked everything to help others. Forever they will remind us there remains a grain of goodness in humanity, a flame that cannot be doused despite the darkness that seeks to engulf us.
Israel is a unique country, safe and inviting, welcoming and enticing. You are filled with a sense of wanting “more.” Thus, while my suitcases are always empty on the return, I am filled with memories and experiences that have energized me, feelings that keep me charged until the next visit.
I am surprised I have never been charged for overweight luggage when returning to the United States. I know the spiritual, emotional and precious gifts I receive while in Israel place me way over the limit.
Come visit Israel, it never disappoints and always delivers the experience of a lifetime.
In the series “Postcards from Israel—Postcards from America,” Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, an Israel visitors rarely discover.
This point—and often—counter-point presentation is sprinkled with humor and sadness and attempts to tackle serious and relevant issues of the day. The series began in 2008, appears both in print in the USA and on numerous websites and is followed regularly by readership from around the world.
© “Postcards from Israel—Postcards from America,” July, 2010
Contact: aribussel@gmail.com
Sunday, July 11, 2010
The Two Worlds: An Insight Into Culture Wars and Political Battles
RubinReports
Barry Rubin
When does a cliché become a major social revelation? I was reading a novel by Clive Barker, Galilee, (despite the title it has nothing to do with the Middle East) and came upon a passage that shook me up. Sure, I’ve read this kind of thing before, seen it in films and on television, heard it in songs, yet there was something special about this rendering.
Barker is introducing a character who was born in a small Ohio town and has now become incredibly wealthy, powerful, and famous. He contrasts her past and present in two paragraphs.
On the one hand is the Ohio town where she was born and grew up: “It was a claustrophobic life she lived here: dull and repetitive. And the future had looked grim. Single women in Dansky [the town] didn’t break their hearts trying for very much. Marriage was what they wanted, and if their husbands were reasonably sober two or three nights a week and their children were born with all their limbs then they counted themselves lucky, and dug in for a long decline.”
Pretty depressing, right? But now….
“There was another life out there, which she’d seen in magazines and on the television screen: a life of possibilities, a movie-star life, a life she was determined to have for herself.” And she gets it.
I think, with suitable adaptations for those of an intellectual bent and for different countries, this is the elite vision of the two worlds. In one, life is dreadful and boring, dominated by tradition, religion (she went to church in Dansky), and a closed mentality. There is nothing positive about such a life. It is dominated by the conservative, the status quo, scary religious fundamentalists, small-town bigots, and the…well let’s have an expert explain it:
"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Thus says Barack Obama, currently president of the United States. No wonder these people--the "common people"--are so hated and looked down on by their "betters" up at the Harvard (ivory) castle.
And of course we aren’t just talking about looking down on small towns but also small or medium-sized cities deemed provincial, whole areas of the country, and even the wrong side of the tracks--which in this case means the suburbs--in big cities. That's pretty much everything outside of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, tracts of northern California and the Pacific Northwest, and scattered academic enclaves.
That's Cambridge, Massachusetts, not Cambridge, Maryland. Washington DC, not Washington, Pa. New York, New York, not York, Pennsylvania. San Francisco, not San Jose.
No wonder young people who go to college from this background—or who are told that this is their background—want to forget their pasts and reach for the glamorous world of cosmopolitan utopia, unlimited immigration, no war, no enemies, those who cling to...what exactly? How about this:
They get bitter that their intellectual professional class hasn't been in power, they cling to gun control or atheism or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or romanticizing illegal immigration and foreign revolutionaries, or the destruction of a real sense of community and of institutions and traditions that work.
Who do you imitate and who are your role models if you want to pass from one world--which you are told, and may consider, dingy and boring and depressing--to another? The beautiful people of decades ago were movie stars, sports' heroes, the rich, and entertainers who were largely apolitical. Today's equivalent convey leftist values (perhaps disguised as liberal). You don't need to seize control of the corporations if you indoctrinate the business elite's children. Anyone who produces or sells goods is from the lower order. The way to go is government employment, law, academia, or non-profit groups, perhaps running a labor union (but not being a worker) or being a community organizer (getting money from government.
Today, teachers and professors explain why World I ideas are bad and World II ideas are great. Patriotism, religion, earning money through business are World I; cosmopolitan sneering, trashing traditional values, and making a living through government jobs or grants is World II How could one who thinks that way not vote for someone like Barack Obama?
Yet if one has contempt for most of the American people how could one possibly not have contempt for America itself? And that's precisely what has happened.
What of the sense of community? The beauty of worship. The satisfaction of hard work and being self-reliant. The closeness of the traditional family. Those things that used to be considered so essential to the virtues and values of America? How about the way that immigrants, because they knew
I don’t want to romanticize small-town values or traditions as such. There is truth, too, of course in what Barker describes. Yet it seems to me some kind of balance is needed, a balance that has been thrown out the window in our era. Rather than try to treat people equally and to be truly open to other viewpoints--which is the pretense--the only change regards precisely who is demonized.
To me, being a liberal—in American terms, the points can be adjusted for other democratic countries--is not to think a Republican politician more frightening than anti-American demagogues, a believing Christian scarier than a revolutionary Islamist, or that most of America is more distasteful than foreign cultures whose values are alien to democracy and freedom. People who think that way aren’t liberals, they are radicals who want to transform their own societies into something very bad. And you can insert the appropriate names.
For a related article on this topic, see here.
Note: For those who don't know, Barker is British, apolitical, and widely considered the world's greatest author of horror fiction, though this book is more of an alternative history. The fact that he's so far removed from politics made the observation all the sharper in inspiring me to write this. Which reminds me of the time I was reading a really arcane academic book on medieval Spain and suddenly came on a totally out of place passage attacking Israel.
Barry Rubin
When does a cliché become a major social revelation? I was reading a novel by Clive Barker, Galilee, (despite the title it has nothing to do with the Middle East) and came upon a passage that shook me up. Sure, I’ve read this kind of thing before, seen it in films and on television, heard it in songs, yet there was something special about this rendering.
Barker is introducing a character who was born in a small Ohio town and has now become incredibly wealthy, powerful, and famous. He contrasts her past and present in two paragraphs.
On the one hand is the Ohio town where she was born and grew up: “It was a claustrophobic life she lived here: dull and repetitive. And the future had looked grim. Single women in Dansky [the town] didn’t break their hearts trying for very much. Marriage was what they wanted, and if their husbands were reasonably sober two or three nights a week and their children were born with all their limbs then they counted themselves lucky, and dug in for a long decline.”
Pretty depressing, right? But now….
“There was another life out there, which she’d seen in magazines and on the television screen: a life of possibilities, a movie-star life, a life she was determined to have for herself.” And she gets it.
I think, with suitable adaptations for those of an intellectual bent and for different countries, this is the elite vision of the two worlds. In one, life is dreadful and boring, dominated by tradition, religion (she went to church in Dansky), and a closed mentality. There is nothing positive about such a life. It is dominated by the conservative, the status quo, scary religious fundamentalists, small-town bigots, and the…well let’s have an expert explain it:
"They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Thus says Barack Obama, currently president of the United States. No wonder these people--the "common people"--are so hated and looked down on by their "betters" up at the Harvard (ivory) castle.
And of course we aren’t just talking about looking down on small towns but also small or medium-sized cities deemed provincial, whole areas of the country, and even the wrong side of the tracks--which in this case means the suburbs--in big cities. That's pretty much everything outside of Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Los Angeles, San Francisco, tracts of northern California and the Pacific Northwest, and scattered academic enclaves.
That's Cambridge, Massachusetts, not Cambridge, Maryland. Washington DC, not Washington, Pa. New York, New York, not York, Pennsylvania. San Francisco, not San Jose.
No wonder young people who go to college from this background—or who are told that this is their background—want to forget their pasts and reach for the glamorous world of cosmopolitan utopia, unlimited immigration, no war, no enemies, those who cling to...what exactly? How about this:
They get bitter that their intellectual professional class hasn't been in power, they cling to gun control or atheism or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or romanticizing illegal immigration and foreign revolutionaries, or the destruction of a real sense of community and of institutions and traditions that work.
Who do you imitate and who are your role models if you want to pass from one world--which you are told, and may consider, dingy and boring and depressing--to another? The beautiful people of decades ago were movie stars, sports' heroes, the rich, and entertainers who were largely apolitical. Today's equivalent convey leftist values (perhaps disguised as liberal). You don't need to seize control of the corporations if you indoctrinate the business elite's children. Anyone who produces or sells goods is from the lower order. The way to go is government employment, law, academia, or non-profit groups, perhaps running a labor union (but not being a worker) or being a community organizer (getting money from government.
Today, teachers and professors explain why World I ideas are bad and World II ideas are great. Patriotism, religion, earning money through business are World I; cosmopolitan sneering, trashing traditional values, and making a living through government jobs or grants is World II How could one who thinks that way not vote for someone like Barack Obama?
Yet if one has contempt for most of the American people how could one possibly not have contempt for America itself? And that's precisely what has happened.
What of the sense of community? The beauty of worship. The satisfaction of hard work and being self-reliant. The closeness of the traditional family. Those things that used to be considered so essential to the virtues and values of America? How about the way that immigrants, because they knew
I don’t want to romanticize small-town values or traditions as such. There is truth, too, of course in what Barker describes. Yet it seems to me some kind of balance is needed, a balance that has been thrown out the window in our era. Rather than try to treat people equally and to be truly open to other viewpoints--which is the pretense--the only change regards precisely who is demonized.
To me, being a liberal—in American terms, the points can be adjusted for other democratic countries--is not to think a Republican politician more frightening than anti-American demagogues, a believing Christian scarier than a revolutionary Islamist, or that most of America is more distasteful than foreign cultures whose values are alien to democracy and freedom. People who think that way aren’t liberals, they are radicals who want to transform their own societies into something very bad. And you can insert the appropriate names.
For a related article on this topic, see here.
Note: For those who don't know, Barker is British, apolitical, and widely considered the world's greatest author of horror fiction, though this book is more of an alternative history. The fact that he's so far removed from politics made the observation all the sharper in inspiring me to write this. Which reminds me of the time I was reading a really arcane academic book on medieval Spain and suddenly came on a totally out of place passage attacking Israel.
Study Shows that Beinisch Prefers Left-Wing Groups
Hillel Fendel
A7 News
The Regavim Association has issued a report showing that the Supreme Court gives blatant preferential treatment to left-wing associations.
Regavim’s full name is the Association for the Preservation of State Lands –i.e. from being taken over by hostile elements. Its report is based on the results of a four-year study of the Supreme Court’s approach to law suits brought by various groups – and especially in the pre-ruling stages, when the legal merits of the various cases are not yet known. The report shows the Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch, in particular, is biased towards the left wing.
The preferential treatment towards lawsuits brought by the left wing is manifest in the following areas: Rushed proceedings, Beinisch’s participation on the judicial panel, the issuance of restraining orders against the State, intervention in government decisions, and especially the final rulings.
The report includes many petitions brought against illegal construction, Jewish and Arab. The seriousness with which suits against Jewish construction is taken is shown to be much greater than similar petitions against illegal Arab building.
“The Court’s approach to the various suits brought before it was analyzed based on objective and quantifiable parameters,” the report states, “and the findings show clearly that while left-wing petitions receive serious and rigorous consideration, similar suits brought by those identified with the right-wing [nationalist camp] are treated lightly and with derision.”
Among the parameters analyzed were the time it took for the Court to respond to a petition; the number of sessions held on the matter and the duration over which they were spread out; the panel of justices appointed to deal with them; and the issuance of restraining and interim orders.
Regavim explains that its report concentrated on the procedural matters of a given suit, which take place before its merits are considered. “At this stage,” the report’s author, Betzalel Smutrich, explains, “the decisions reflect the judges’ basic positions and biases, if any, towards the matter. This is why the tremendous differences between the right-wing and left-wing petitions, as we show in the report, cannot be attributed to scholarly legal hairsplitting.”
“The facts described in the report clearly indicate a consistent and conscious policy that is based on political outlooks,” Smutrich says, “and it is led unequivocally by Chief Justice Dorit Beinisch.”
Smutrich stopped short of calling for Beinisch to disqualify herself from political lawsuits, however – presumably because she is not likely to do so.
“The public cannot be expected to place its trust in its judges under such circumstance,” he concluded.
Compliment in Presbyterian Report Embarrasses J-Street
Gil Ronen
A7 News
The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (USA) convening in Minneapolis will debate this week whether to endorse an official church study committee report that compares Israel to the worst regimes of the 20th century, including Nazi Germany. The report, which also mentions ultra-liberal Jewish lobby group J Street as a sign of “hope,” seems to have embarrassed that group. J Street Vice President Rachel Lerner called out to the Presbyterians to reject the 'study.' She said that the report’s authors never consulted her group before choosing to mention it.
She added that “with the passage of this study, the Church will alienate us and as a result our activists will not want to work with you and this will damage completely the possibility of a future relationship.” She said she was “saddened” and “angered” by the report. However, Lerner clarified that even if the study is adopted, J-Street will not be issuing a directive to its local branches to cease partnering with local Presbyterian churches.
Presbyterian Alan Wisdom also asked his fellow church members to reject the report. In his testimony in Minneapolis, he said that the report likens Israel to a “Nazi state,” to South Africa under apartheid, and to the former Soviet Union.
Wisdom was quoted by Mark Tooley, President of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, in an article in FrontPage Magazine.
The report mentioned Hamas as being “militant” but fails to note that its charter calls for Israel’s annihilation. It also claims that Iran poses no danger even if it acquires nuclear weapons because it “has not invaded any other country for centuries.” The study further urges that the U.S. cut off aid to the Jewish state in order to “bring Israel to compliance.”
New York Times religion reporter Gus Niebuhr, grand nephew of pro-Zionist Christian ethicist Reinhold Niebuhr, warned fellow Presbyterians that the “terribly imbalanced” report would “obscure” Presbyterian influence in America.
Niebuhr was joined by Presbyterian pastor and Christian Century magazine publisher John Buchanan.
“Early reports suggest Presbyterians will tone down the report somewhat,” Tooley wrote, “more explicitly affirming Israel’s right to existence and deleting some of the harsher anti-Israel rhetoric.”
In June 2004, the U.S. Presbyterian Church's General Assembly adopted a resolution that called on the church "to initiate a process of phased, selective divestment in multinational corporations operating in Israel."
Israeli millionaire builds mosque in France
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3907600,00.html
Jewish businessman Robert Harush who grew up in Ashkelon spends fortune on renovation of large Muslim house of worship in Montereau, in effort to promote co-existence
Ofer Petersburg
An unlikely benefactor. An Ashkelon resident who made a fortune in the European real estate business has decided to pay for the construction of a mosque in France for the benefit of the local Muslim community.
Father of four Robert Harush, 58, grew up in Ashkelon and having completed his military service tried his luck in the real estate business in Europe. His success has won him many hotels and buildings and he is estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of shekels. Despite his success Harush did not forget his hometown and has returned to Ashkelon and invested in local building ventures. For the past 10 years he has been dividing his time between Israel and France. His four children all speak Hebrew.
The businessman even chose to stay in the southern city during Operation Cast Lead. He remained in Israel also after a Grad rocket landed near his house.
Surprisingly, he has not harbored any ill-feelings against the Arab side and is a strong supporter of co-existence. He was recently approached by the mayor of Montereau, a French city adjacent to Paris, who informed him of his difficulties in financing the renovation of a large mosque in the city.
"I told myself 'here is an opportunity to bring the people together' and decided to donate the money," Harush said. "People were dumbfounded. What does a Jewish-Israeli man have do to with refurbishing a mosque? The answer is simple: I'm sick and tired of the hatred. A sane voice must emerge."
Harush explained that he built the mosque in order to promote co-existence. "It wasn't a cheap venture but I did with all my heart."
Ashkelon projects
Leaders of the Montereau Muslim community have thanked Harush for the gesture and maintain a warm relationship with him.
The businessman, however, is not interested in supporting the Muslim community alone and has paid for the construction of one of the largest and most grandiose synagogues in Asheklon last year, which was named after his late father.
He is currently working on setting up a mikveh in the southern city to be dedicated to his late mother. "I myself am not a religious person but I feel that in the absence of upstanding politicians it falls on businessmen to bring together Jews and Arabs and seculars and the religious.
Jewish businessman Robert Harush who grew up in Ashkelon spends fortune on renovation of large Muslim house of worship in Montereau, in effort to promote co-existence
Ofer Petersburg
An unlikely benefactor. An Ashkelon resident who made a fortune in the European real estate business has decided to pay for the construction of a mosque in France for the benefit of the local Muslim community.
Father of four Robert Harush, 58, grew up in Ashkelon and having completed his military service tried his luck in the real estate business in Europe. His success has won him many hotels and buildings and he is estimated to be worth hundreds of millions of shekels. Despite his success Harush did not forget his hometown and has returned to Ashkelon and invested in local building ventures. For the past 10 years he has been dividing his time between Israel and France. His four children all speak Hebrew.
The businessman even chose to stay in the southern city during Operation Cast Lead. He remained in Israel also after a Grad rocket landed near his house.
Surprisingly, he has not harbored any ill-feelings against the Arab side and is a strong supporter of co-existence. He was recently approached by the mayor of Montereau, a French city adjacent to Paris, who informed him of his difficulties in financing the renovation of a large mosque in the city.
"I told myself 'here is an opportunity to bring the people together' and decided to donate the money," Harush said. "People were dumbfounded. What does a Jewish-Israeli man have do to with refurbishing a mosque? The answer is simple: I'm sick and tired of the hatred. A sane voice must emerge."
Harush explained that he built the mosque in order to promote co-existence. "It wasn't a cheap venture but I did with all my heart."
Ashkelon projects
Leaders of the Montereau Muslim community have thanked Harush for the gesture and maintain a warm relationship with him.
The businessman, however, is not interested in supporting the Muslim community alone and has paid for the construction of one of the largest and most grandiose synagogues in Asheklon last year, which was named after his late father.
He is currently working on setting up a mikveh in the southern city to be dedicated to his late mother. "I myself am not a religious person but I feel that in the absence of upstanding politicians it falls on businessmen to bring together Jews and Arabs and seculars and the religious.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
'Greece, Moldova to stop Libyan ship'
JPOST.COM STAFF, AP AND REBECCA ANNA STOIL
07/10/2010 12:30
Israel reportedly reaches understanding with the two countries.
Israeli officials on Saturday said they believed a Libyan ship planning to break the naval blockade on the Gaza Strip would not sail for Gaza after all, following understandings between Israel, Greece and Moldova The ship, which was docked at a Greek port and flying a Moldovan flag, had intended to set sail Friday. It was carrying humanitarian aid as well as activists intending to reach Gaza, and was funded by an organization headed by the son of Lybian leader Muammar Gaddafi.
According to reports, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman held talks with his Greek and Moldovan counterparts in recent days and agreed with them that the ship would not sail to Gaza, but would be diverted to the Egyptian port of El-Arish.
On Friday requested that the UN step up efforts to prevent the Gaza-bound ship from setting sail.
In an in an official letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Israeli Ambassador to the UN Gabriela Shalev requested the international community use its power to halt the ship.
"Israel calls upon the international community to exert its influence on the government of Libya to demonstrate responsibility and prevent the ship from departing to the Gaza Strip," the envoy said.
"Israel reserves the right under international law to prevent this ship from violating the existing naval blockade on the Gaza Strip," Shalev told Ban Ki Moon.
On Friday officials from the Libyan organization told The Associated Press that the Amalthea would leave no later than Saturday from the port of Lavrio, south of Athens, carrying 2,000 tons of food and medical supplies, and 27 people on board.
"The declared intentions of this mission are even more questionable and provocative given the recent measures taken by Israel to ensure the increase of humanitarian aid flowing into the Gaza Strip," Shalev stated in the letter.
Amalthea's journey to Gaza was expected to take up to 80 hours. Aid on the Amalthea included sacks of rice and sugar, and corn oil and olive paste mostly donated from Greek companies and charities, organizers said.
The Israeli ambassador asked the UN and international community "to discourage their nationals from taking part in such action" and "expects the international community to ensure that this ship does not sail."
'Israel must meet Hamas demands'
JPOST.COM STAFF
07/10/2010 17:18
Hamas official says Schalit won't be released until prisoners freed.
Hamas official Khalil al-Hayeh said that Gilad Schalit will not be released until Israel meets all of Hamas's demands while speaking at a Gaza rally Saturday.
Al-Hayeh also said at the ceremony that Israeli intelligence is trying to gather information on the location of the kidnapped soldier, according to reports by Ma'an news agency. Al-Hayeh said Hamas security interrogators had been informed that many attempts had been made by Israeli intelligence to obtain information about Schalit.
"All of Israel's efforts will fail until Schalit is released by the will of Hamas when Israel releases Palestinian prisoners," Al-Hayeh said at the ceremony to commemorate Prophet Muhammad's night journey.
Al-Hayeh added that Hamas is ready to conduct serious negotiations with Israel in order to finalize a prisoner swap deal.
The Schalit family with met Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, on Friday, after the Netanyahus returned from their state visit to the US, to discuss the government's efforts to free their kidnapped son, IDF soldier Gilad Schalit.
The Schalits left the meeting disappointed. "We did not receive any news today, that can calm us," said Noam. He continued, "the prime minister did not tell use anything new. We will not leave the protest tent [outside the prime minister's official residence] without Gilad."
Friday, July 09, 2010
"This, or That?"
Arlene Kushner
So, what is the difference between agreeing secretly to an extension of the construction freeze, but -- for domestic political reasons -- not declaring it... And not formally extending the freeze but agreeing secretly that if there is significant progress on the "talks" before the end of the freeze then there will be no announcement of resumed construction that would threaten the process or upset the US? There is a difference, buried in this somewhere. But it's a fine line, and in part a matter of semantics. The difference lies in the fact that the first is formal, even if secret. Things would be frozen. The second, which would depend upon a certain state of affairs to be put in place, is informal, de facto, and could be reversed at any time.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yediot Achronot is saying that the second set of circumstances is what we can expect: That Netanyahu has agreed not to publicly announce a resumption of building at the end of the freeze. That is, if direct talks are already under way or there has been such progress in the "proximity talks" that direct talks are expected to begin very soon.
This is how Yediot interprets the statement made by Obama, when asked about an extension of the freeze, that he hopes that face-to-face will begin before the freeze expires. He hopes this, presumably, because it would preclude an announcement of renewed building.
The major question to be asked, of course, is what it means to not "announce publicly" so as to not "sabotage the talks" (i.e., give the PA a reason to walk away)? Does "not announcing" mean not building? Or would it be understood that some quiet building would take place? If, that is, "quiet" is possible with Peace Now watching every nail that is hammered and running to let the press know about it.
And, if the direct talks have not yet begun, how "serious" do the proximity talks have to be -- what is it they will have had to achieve -- for this agreement to go into effect? I can see potential for serious disagreement on this, with Obama declaring any one of a number of statements to be "progress."
~~~~~~~~~~
None of this goes down very well. The whole notion of face-to-face talks that might set (first, if the PA has its way) the future borders of a Palestinian state generates some severe indigestion. And this is so, even as I remain convinced that it is not really going to happen -- that there will not be a resolution of issues that will lead to a "two-state solution." As I have written multiple times, Abbas is not going to sign off on anything -- he cannot. And I believe that Netanyahu is proceeding firm in the conviction that Abbas will stall. He is marking time.
And yet... To give the whole procedure credence. To set precedents with regard to borders to a Palestinian state. To give the PA more latitude in terms of managing security. Not a happy prospect.
~~~~~~~~~~
At any rate, right now, in spite of a renewed eagerness on the part of Obama to see face-to-face start almost immediately, Abbas is still saying that there's nothing doing because we won't agree upfront to what those borders would be. He may, very deliberately, kill the whole thing before it proceeds further -- counting on that UN resolution instead.
And there is, as well, the response of our right wing that Netanyahu will have to contend with once he's back home. This is why the Yediot version of matters has a certain ring of truth. Netanyahu may well have told Obama that there has to be another way -- that his coalition might not stand in the face of an announcement of a freeze extension, and that he would be considerably weakened politically. This way he can say,"What? Me agree to a freeze extension? No way."
Would the right wing sit still for an understanding that resumption of building will not be announced? Depends on what it means and how it is spun, I imagine. But right now the right wing is gearing up for major construction at the end of September.
~~~~~~~~~~
A great deal has been made in the media of the fact that Netanyahu, in his Washington meetings, managed to successfully convey to US leaders a major Israeli concern.
To wit: Times are not what they were in 1993, when Oslo was negotiated. Previous Israeli withdrawals have led to takeover of territory by terrorist groups, so that our security has been reduced and our population threatened. Both south Lebanon and Gaza have become bases for rocket launchings and stockpiling of weapons. All of this has caused a shift in Israeli perspective: We ask why we should surrender more land.
What further exacerbates the situation is deep concern about the fact that the US intends to leave Iraq soon. This greatly increases the possibility of Iranian forces making their way through Iraq, and then Jordan, to our eastern border (which would mean going through a vulnerable and possibly cooperative Palestinian state if it were established to our east). We need to have a presence in the Jordan Valley for defensive purposes.
Thus, we cannot negotiate as we once did, we need guarantees with regard to security. And we are less willing to simply trust. We've learned that we cannot depend on the international community to protect us (see how UNIFIL failed to do so).
All absolutely true.
It seems to me that what's going on here is that Netanyahu is giving the American government, in the most rational of terms (Jackson Diehl, called it a "pragmatic and non-ideological position"), a heads up regarding the fact that we will be tough in negotiations and will not settle easily. That we CANNOT settle easily and, in fairness, should not be expected to.
~~~~~~~~~~
What I ponder -- given the fact that I'm reading that the Americans, including Obama, "got it" -- is how we might look for the Americans to adjust their expectations or recalibrate their demands in light of this.
Demands will remain demands, I think. They care not a fig about what's secure for us. But this approach might have an effect on their expectations. A modicum of real politic may have been introduced, so that they understand that we can be pushed just so far and that certain factors must be in place. Maybe.
~~~~~~~~~~
In the meantime, it's business as usual, even though incitement is rampant in the PA and the issue of Hamas is not resolved.
~~~~~~~~~~
For the latest evidence that Abbas is not a "partner for peace" see this from Palestinian Media Watch:
The PA daily Al-Hayat al-Jadida reported on July 6, that when Abbas was in Jordan recently, he made this statement to journalists while at the home of the Palestinian ambassador to Jordan:
"...We are unable to confront Israel militarily, and this point was discussed at the Arab League Summit in March in Sirt [Libya]. There I turned to the Arab States and I said: 'If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it.' He [Abbas] said: 'The West Bank was completely destroyed and we will not agree that it will be destroyed again,' in addition to 'the inability to confront Israel militarily.'"
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=2543
~~~~~~~~~~
I just wrote about how a "hint" from Obama is worthless because he reverses himself at the drop of a hat. And now he has provided another example of just that. When with Obama, Netanyahu publicly invited him to Israel, and the president responded that he was looking forward to the visit. Already, since then, his office has announced that there are no plans for the president to visit Israel this year.
In this instance, we have to be thankful that he is reluctant to displease the Palestinian Arabs, or perhaps the larger "Muslim World." If he were to visit here his popularity might go up.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
So, what is the difference between agreeing secretly to an extension of the construction freeze, but -- for domestic political reasons -- not declaring it... And not formally extending the freeze but agreeing secretly that if there is significant progress on the "talks" before the end of the freeze then there will be no announcement of resumed construction that would threaten the process or upset the US? There is a difference, buried in this somewhere. But it's a fine line, and in part a matter of semantics. The difference lies in the fact that the first is formal, even if secret. Things would be frozen. The second, which would depend upon a certain state of affairs to be put in place, is informal, de facto, and could be reversed at any time.
~~~~~~~~~~
Yediot Achronot is saying that the second set of circumstances is what we can expect: That Netanyahu has agreed not to publicly announce a resumption of building at the end of the freeze. That is, if direct talks are already under way or there has been such progress in the "proximity talks" that direct talks are expected to begin very soon.
This is how Yediot interprets the statement made by Obama, when asked about an extension of the freeze, that he hopes that face-to-face will begin before the freeze expires. He hopes this, presumably, because it would preclude an announcement of renewed building.
The major question to be asked, of course, is what it means to not "announce publicly" so as to not "sabotage the talks" (i.e., give the PA a reason to walk away)? Does "not announcing" mean not building? Or would it be understood that some quiet building would take place? If, that is, "quiet" is possible with Peace Now watching every nail that is hammered and running to let the press know about it.
And, if the direct talks have not yet begun, how "serious" do the proximity talks have to be -- what is it they will have had to achieve -- for this agreement to go into effect? I can see potential for serious disagreement on this, with Obama declaring any one of a number of statements to be "progress."
~~~~~~~~~~
None of this goes down very well. The whole notion of face-to-face talks that might set (first, if the PA has its way) the future borders of a Palestinian state generates some severe indigestion. And this is so, even as I remain convinced that it is not really going to happen -- that there will not be a resolution of issues that will lead to a "two-state solution." As I have written multiple times, Abbas is not going to sign off on anything -- he cannot. And I believe that Netanyahu is proceeding firm in the conviction that Abbas will stall. He is marking time.
And yet... To give the whole procedure credence. To set precedents with regard to borders to a Palestinian state. To give the PA more latitude in terms of managing security. Not a happy prospect.
~~~~~~~~~~
At any rate, right now, in spite of a renewed eagerness on the part of Obama to see face-to-face start almost immediately, Abbas is still saying that there's nothing doing because we won't agree upfront to what those borders would be. He may, very deliberately, kill the whole thing before it proceeds further -- counting on that UN resolution instead.
And there is, as well, the response of our right wing that Netanyahu will have to contend with once he's back home. This is why the Yediot version of matters has a certain ring of truth. Netanyahu may well have told Obama that there has to be another way -- that his coalition might not stand in the face of an announcement of a freeze extension, and that he would be considerably weakened politically. This way he can say,"What? Me agree to a freeze extension? No way."
Would the right wing sit still for an understanding that resumption of building will not be announced? Depends on what it means and how it is spun, I imagine. But right now the right wing is gearing up for major construction at the end of September.
~~~~~~~~~~
A great deal has been made in the media of the fact that Netanyahu, in his Washington meetings, managed to successfully convey to US leaders a major Israeli concern.
To wit: Times are not what they were in 1993, when Oslo was negotiated. Previous Israeli withdrawals have led to takeover of territory by terrorist groups, so that our security has been reduced and our population threatened. Both south Lebanon and Gaza have become bases for rocket launchings and stockpiling of weapons. All of this has caused a shift in Israeli perspective: We ask why we should surrender more land.
What further exacerbates the situation is deep concern about the fact that the US intends to leave Iraq soon. This greatly increases the possibility of Iranian forces making their way through Iraq, and then Jordan, to our eastern border (which would mean going through a vulnerable and possibly cooperative Palestinian state if it were established to our east). We need to have a presence in the Jordan Valley for defensive purposes.
Thus, we cannot negotiate as we once did, we need guarantees with regard to security. And we are less willing to simply trust. We've learned that we cannot depend on the international community to protect us (see how UNIFIL failed to do so).
All absolutely true.
It seems to me that what's going on here is that Netanyahu is giving the American government, in the most rational of terms (Jackson Diehl, called it a "pragmatic and non-ideological position"), a heads up regarding the fact that we will be tough in negotiations and will not settle easily. That we CANNOT settle easily and, in fairness, should not be expected to.
~~~~~~~~~~
What I ponder -- given the fact that I'm reading that the Americans, including Obama, "got it" -- is how we might look for the Americans to adjust their expectations or recalibrate their demands in light of this.
Demands will remain demands, I think. They care not a fig about what's secure for us. But this approach might have an effect on their expectations. A modicum of real politic may have been introduced, so that they understand that we can be pushed just so far and that certain factors must be in place. Maybe.
~~~~~~~~~~
In the meantime, it's business as usual, even though incitement is rampant in the PA and the issue of Hamas is not resolved.
~~~~~~~~~~
For the latest evidence that Abbas is not a "partner for peace" see this from Palestinian Media Watch:
The PA daily Al-Hayat al-Jadida reported on July 6, that when Abbas was in Jordan recently, he made this statement to journalists while at the home of the Palestinian ambassador to Jordan:
"...We are unable to confront Israel militarily, and this point was discussed at the Arab League Summit in March in Sirt [Libya]. There I turned to the Arab States and I said: 'If you want war, and if all of you will fight Israel, we are in favor. But the Palestinians will not fight alone because they don't have the ability to do it.' He [Abbas] said: 'The West Bank was completely destroyed and we will not agree that it will be destroyed again,' in addition to 'the inability to confront Israel militarily.'"
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=2543
~~~~~~~~~~
I just wrote about how a "hint" from Obama is worthless because he reverses himself at the drop of a hat. And now he has provided another example of just that. When with Obama, Netanyahu publicly invited him to Israel, and the president responded that he was looking forward to the visit. Already, since then, his office has announced that there are no plans for the president to visit Israel this year.
In this instance, we have to be thankful that he is reluctant to displease the Palestinian Arabs, or perhaps the larger "Muslim World." If he were to visit here his popularity might go up.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
500 Israeli Academics Demand Right to Boycott Selves
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138506
by Gil Ronen
About 500 professors and other members of Israel's academe, including two former education ministers, have signed a petition against Minister of Education Gideon Saar following his vow to take steps against Israeli academics who call for an academic boycott of Israel.
Saar said it is “unacceptable” for Israeli academics to call for an academic boycott on their own country: “I have already spoken about this to the chair of the Committee for Planning and Budgets in the Council for Higher Education (CHE) and I will also move on this with heads of institutions. This issue is on our agenda,” he said. Saar's statements were made after he received a report compiled by Im Tirtzu, a self-described mainstream Zionist student group, which detailed subversive infiltration of the academe.
About 500 professors, lecturers and students, including former education ministers Yuli Tamir and Yossi Sarid, signed a petition which said that “freedom of expression and academic freedom are the life blood of the Israeli academic system.”
The professors warned Saar: "Grave damage will be caused to the Israeli academe if politicians – whatever their views and political-partisan position, whatever their status and role in the political system – dictate to it what is proper or improper to say, think, research and teach, and instruct it to adopt criteria of this type for acceptance, promotion or distancing of researchers or lecturers.”
"Your statements about your intent to use your authority of government – through the head of CHE and the heads of academic institutions – for acting against lecturers who supported an academic boycott on Israel – cause damage of this kind.”
The lecturers called on Saar to “wake up” and “retract your statements before it is too late to save Israeli higher education.
Analysts noted that if a boycott were to spread, it too might pose a danger to Israeli higher education, whereas if the academics would forego their salaries, leave the universities and and call for boycotts as private citizens, they could do so without interference..
(IsraelNationalNews.com)
by Gil Ronen
About 500 professors and other members of Israel's academe, including two former education ministers, have signed a petition against Minister of Education Gideon Saar following his vow to take steps against Israeli academics who call for an academic boycott of Israel.
Saar said it is “unacceptable” for Israeli academics to call for an academic boycott on their own country: “I have already spoken about this to the chair of the Committee for Planning and Budgets in the Council for Higher Education (CHE) and I will also move on this with heads of institutions. This issue is on our agenda,” he said. Saar's statements were made after he received a report compiled by Im Tirtzu, a self-described mainstream Zionist student group, which detailed subversive infiltration of the academe.
About 500 professors, lecturers and students, including former education ministers Yuli Tamir and Yossi Sarid, signed a petition which said that “freedom of expression and academic freedom are the life blood of the Israeli academic system.”
The professors warned Saar: "Grave damage will be caused to the Israeli academe if politicians – whatever their views and political-partisan position, whatever their status and role in the political system – dictate to it what is proper or improper to say, think, research and teach, and instruct it to adopt criteria of this type for acceptance, promotion or distancing of researchers or lecturers.”
"Your statements about your intent to use your authority of government – through the head of CHE and the heads of academic institutions – for acting against lecturers who supported an academic boycott on Israel – cause damage of this kind.”
The lecturers called on Saar to “wake up” and “retract your statements before it is too late to save Israeli higher education.
Analysts noted that if a boycott were to spread, it too might pose a danger to Israeli higher education, whereas if the academics would forego their salaries, leave the universities and and call for boycotts as private citizens, they could do so without interference..
(IsraelNationalNews.com)
Thursday, July 08, 2010
Most of the injured in the confrontation on board the Mavi Marmara have been positively identified as activists of IHH and Turkish organizations colla
Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
Overview
1. Information accumulated since the violent confrontation on board the Mavi Marmara has made it possible to identify most of the people injured in the confrontation and analyze their organizational affiliation. The names of the 53 injured people (23 of them severely injured) appeared on lists published by the IHH (see Appendix A). Their organizational affiliation was examined based on a document seized in the latest flotilla, specifying the organizations to which the Turkish passengers belonged (see Appendix B). 2. Judging by the names of those injured in the confrontation, all of them but one are Turkish nationals. Most of them belonged to IHH or Turkish local networks affiliated with IHH, most probably Islamist by nature. That conclusion supports a similar conclusion reached by examining the names of the Turkish nationals killed in the confrontation, according to which eight out of the nine people killed belonged to Islamist organizations, most of them radical and anti-Western, with about half of them having expressed an intention to die as shaheeds.
3. On the other hand, the list of injured people released by IHH did not include activists belonging to pro-Palestinian organizations or human rights organizations from Western countries or the Arab/Muslim world, except for one activist (who was not seriously injured) from Indonesia. That conclusion is similar to the one reached by examining the names of the people killed in the confrontation. This is yet another testimony that human rights activists who joined the flotilla out of humanitarian considerations took no part in the violent confrontation initiated by IHH.
4. The findings are supported by a great deal of information accumulated since the IDF takeover of the Mavi Marmara pertaining to advance preparations for severe violence against IDF soldiers, which was carried out by a hard core of operatives belonging to IHH and Turkish organizations collaborating with it (some of them known to us as clearly Islamist).
Details of the examination results
The data base
5. The examination of the identity and organizational affiliation of those injured on board the Mavi Marmara is based on lists released by IHH following the incident. Those tables contain the names of 23 people who were seriously injured and 30 people who sustained less severe injuries.1 The lists were compared to the list of Turkish passengers seized in the last flotilla, which specified the organizational affiliation and function of each Turkish passenger.
Findings from the list of seriously injured people
6. All 23 people who were seriously injured are Turkish—none of them is a foreign national. All those injured are men. Comparison of their names to another document seized in the flotilla shows that each one of them (with the exception of one) boarded the Mavi Marmara in Antalya.
7. Out of the people who were seriously injured, three are IHH activists (including a first aid medic). Thirteen others are activists from local Turkish networks, probably Islamist, which cooperate with IHH. The rest of the seriously injured men are: two first aid medics (whose organizational affiliation is unclear); two donors who were probably permitted to join the flotilla because of their donations; one clerk and two Turkish passengers who do not appear on the list of Turkish passengers which served as the data base for the examination (therefore, their identity is unknown to us).
Findings from the list of other people who sustained injuries
(that were not defined as serious)
8. Thirty injured people appeared in that category (the IHH table goes up to 31; however, one number was skipped, meaning that the correct total is 30). All the injured people, with the exception of one (an Indonesian) are Turkish nationals. All except for one boarded the ship in Antalya.
9. Out of those injured, seven belong to IHH (activists and volunteers), two of them being first aid medics. Thirteen others are activists and volunteers belonging to local Turkish networks (believed by the ITIC to be Islamist organizations) which collaborate with IHH. Another is a member of the Felicity Party (SP), an Islamic party which collaborates with IHH. The rest of the injured people in that category include a journalist, five activists whose identity is unclear, one Turkish passenger who does not appear on the list of Turkish passengers that we have, one donor and one person from Indonesia.2
Conclusions
10. Examination of the identity and affiliation of the wounded supports the conclusion that the fighting against the IDF was waged by hard core IHH operatives and people from Turkish Islamist organizations and networks which collaborate with IHH. The number of injured among operatives belonging to IHH and its allies was at least 16 out of those 23 who sustained serious injuries, and 21 out of the 30 other injured people (that number of IHH activists and those affiliated with it may be larger since the affiliation of some of the injured is unclear to us).
11. Other categories of flotilla participants who sustained injuries:
1.
First aid medics: a relatively large number of first aid medics were injured in the incident (three of them sustained serious injuries, and two sustained other injuries). Three of the first aid medics belong to IHH. It may be assumed (even though we do not possess concrete information to that effect) that putting a large number of first aid medics among the Mavi Marmara passengers was part of the plan prepared by IHH for the confrontation with the IDF (which was conceived in the first place as a violent confrontation that would involve casualties).
2.
Journalist: many journalists were put on board the Mavi Marmara as part of the preparations for the media coverage of the confrontation; their presence on the battle field is therefore not incidental (about 10 percent of all Turkish passengers were media people; in addition, there were dozens of reporters from the Arab/Muslim world and Western countries).
12. Conspicuously absent from the list of people injured in the confrontation were activists and volunteers from the Arab/Muslim world (with the exception of the person from Indonesia) and Western countries. This reinforces the assumption that activists and volunteers who did not belong to the hard core IHH operatives and their Islamist supporters avoided taking part in the fighting.
1 The tables appeared in an IHH summary about the flotilla, on the websites of IHH and ECESG, the European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza. The numbers appearing in the tables are similar to the number given in an interview by Bulent Yildirim, who said that “We have sacrificed nine martyrs and fifty men were injured… However, we shall not rest until our goal is achieved” (felixnews, June 29, 2010).
2 The injured Indonesian national is Okvianto Emil Baharuddin, who sustained an injury to his hand. He is an activist for a pro-Palestinian organization called KISPA. There were also reports about two other Indonesians injured in the confrontation, who do not appear on the IHH list for unclear reasons. It is unclear why the Indonesian activist (or activists) were injured. To the best of our knowledge, the Indonesian delegation consisted of humanitarian aid activists who did not take part in the violence initiated by IHH.
Overview
1. Information accumulated since the violent confrontation on board the Mavi Marmara has made it possible to identify most of the people injured in the confrontation and analyze their organizational affiliation. The names of the 53 injured people (23 of them severely injured) appeared on lists published by the IHH (see Appendix A). Their organizational affiliation was examined based on a document seized in the latest flotilla, specifying the organizations to which the Turkish passengers belonged (see Appendix B). 2. Judging by the names of those injured in the confrontation, all of them but one are Turkish nationals. Most of them belonged to IHH or Turkish local networks affiliated with IHH, most probably Islamist by nature. That conclusion supports a similar conclusion reached by examining the names of the Turkish nationals killed in the confrontation, according to which eight out of the nine people killed belonged to Islamist organizations, most of them radical and anti-Western, with about half of them having expressed an intention to die as shaheeds.
3. On the other hand, the list of injured people released by IHH did not include activists belonging to pro-Palestinian organizations or human rights organizations from Western countries or the Arab/Muslim world, except for one activist (who was not seriously injured) from Indonesia. That conclusion is similar to the one reached by examining the names of the people killed in the confrontation. This is yet another testimony that human rights activists who joined the flotilla out of humanitarian considerations took no part in the violent confrontation initiated by IHH.
4. The findings are supported by a great deal of information accumulated since the IDF takeover of the Mavi Marmara pertaining to advance preparations for severe violence against IDF soldiers, which was carried out by a hard core of operatives belonging to IHH and Turkish organizations collaborating with it (some of them known to us as clearly Islamist).
Details of the examination results
The data base
5. The examination of the identity and organizational affiliation of those injured on board the Mavi Marmara is based on lists released by IHH following the incident. Those tables contain the names of 23 people who were seriously injured and 30 people who sustained less severe injuries.1 The lists were compared to the list of Turkish passengers seized in the last flotilla, which specified the organizational affiliation and function of each Turkish passenger.
Findings from the list of seriously injured people
6. All 23 people who were seriously injured are Turkish—none of them is a foreign national. All those injured are men. Comparison of their names to another document seized in the flotilla shows that each one of them (with the exception of one) boarded the Mavi Marmara in Antalya.
7. Out of the people who were seriously injured, three are IHH activists (including a first aid medic). Thirteen others are activists from local Turkish networks, probably Islamist, which cooperate with IHH. The rest of the seriously injured men are: two first aid medics (whose organizational affiliation is unclear); two donors who were probably permitted to join the flotilla because of their donations; one clerk and two Turkish passengers who do not appear on the list of Turkish passengers which served as the data base for the examination (therefore, their identity is unknown to us).
Findings from the list of other people who sustained injuries
(that were not defined as serious)
8. Thirty injured people appeared in that category (the IHH table goes up to 31; however, one number was skipped, meaning that the correct total is 30). All the injured people, with the exception of one (an Indonesian) are Turkish nationals. All except for one boarded the ship in Antalya.
9. Out of those injured, seven belong to IHH (activists and volunteers), two of them being first aid medics. Thirteen others are activists and volunteers belonging to local Turkish networks (believed by the ITIC to be Islamist organizations) which collaborate with IHH. Another is a member of the Felicity Party (SP), an Islamic party which collaborates with IHH. The rest of the injured people in that category include a journalist, five activists whose identity is unclear, one Turkish passenger who does not appear on the list of Turkish passengers that we have, one donor and one person from Indonesia.2
Conclusions
10. Examination of the identity and affiliation of the wounded supports the conclusion that the fighting against the IDF was waged by hard core IHH operatives and people from Turkish Islamist organizations and networks which collaborate with IHH. The number of injured among operatives belonging to IHH and its allies was at least 16 out of those 23 who sustained serious injuries, and 21 out of the 30 other injured people (that number of IHH activists and those affiliated with it may be larger since the affiliation of some of the injured is unclear to us).
11. Other categories of flotilla participants who sustained injuries:
1.
First aid medics: a relatively large number of first aid medics were injured in the incident (three of them sustained serious injuries, and two sustained other injuries). Three of the first aid medics belong to IHH. It may be assumed (even though we do not possess concrete information to that effect) that putting a large number of first aid medics among the Mavi Marmara passengers was part of the plan prepared by IHH for the confrontation with the IDF (which was conceived in the first place as a violent confrontation that would involve casualties).
2.
Journalist: many journalists were put on board the Mavi Marmara as part of the preparations for the media coverage of the confrontation; their presence on the battle field is therefore not incidental (about 10 percent of all Turkish passengers were media people; in addition, there were dozens of reporters from the Arab/Muslim world and Western countries).
12. Conspicuously absent from the list of people injured in the confrontation were activists and volunteers from the Arab/Muslim world (with the exception of the person from Indonesia) and Western countries. This reinforces the assumption that activists and volunteers who did not belong to the hard core IHH operatives and their Islamist supporters avoided taking part in the fighting.
1 The tables appeared in an IHH summary about the flotilla, on the websites of IHH and ECESG, the European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza. The numbers appearing in the tables are similar to the number given in an interview by Bulent Yildirim, who said that “We have sacrificed nine martyrs and fifty men were injured… However, we shall not rest until our goal is achieved” (felixnews, June 29, 2010).
2 The injured Indonesian national is Okvianto Emil Baharuddin, who sustained an injury to his hand. He is an activist for a pro-Palestinian organization called KISPA. There were also reports about two other Indonesians injured in the confrontation, who do not appear on the IHH list for unclear reasons. It is unclear why the Indonesian activist (or activists) were injured. To the best of our knowledge, the Indonesian delegation consisted of humanitarian aid activists who did not take part in the violence initiated by IHH.
Wednesday, July 07, 2010
MK Orlev tells PM to Give Obama a Lesson on PA School Syllabus
INN Staff Orlev Sends Obama a Lesson
MK Zevulun Orlev, (The Jewish Home), who chairs the Knesset Education Committee, turned to Prime Minister Netanyahu with a request that when meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama, he bring up the subject of the incitement to hatred that fills PA textbooks. He asked the PM to tell Obama the conclusions of the Knesset Committee’s Monday discussion on the subject.. When the curriculum is based on a sequence that starts with Holocaust denial, and goes on to teach that Israel’s existence is not legitimate and that a violent struggle must be waged against Israel, there is not much chance of a Palestinian leader completing a peace process.”, Orlev said at the meeting.
“If one’s cultural milieu does not allow for discourse, it is no surprise that when former PM’s Olmert and Barak each offered the Palestinians everything and anything, they still refused to make peace. Their educational framework doesn’t allow them to consider peace and the recognition of Israel as a legitimate neighbor as options.”
Ido Mizrachi of the SE-IMPACT NGO reported to the committee that the Muslim Wakf’s textbooks are replete with antisemitic expressions and calls to fight and kill Jews. The particular textbooks he discusses are used by over 1,000 pupils.
Lieutenant Colonel Eviatar from the unit headed by the Coordinator of Activities for Judea and Samaria told the committee that all of the schools in Judea and Samaria, whether in areas A,B,or C, use the same textbooks.
MK Orlev asked him: “Do you simply keep track of the textbooks or do you demand that they be changed? Who is in charge of seeing to this change?” Eviatar replied that his office has turned to all the relevant agencies in the security forces and Foreign Ministry.
“The PM’s office, the FM’s office and the office for Strategic Affairs did not come to this meeting even though they were invited,” MK Orlev noted. “They are expected to come to the next meeting. The committee also heard various representatives whose reports show that the common denominator in PA textbooks is deligitimizing Israel, rejecting the connection between the Jewish people and this land, teaching hatred, violent struggle, jihad, shaheedism, and erasing Israel from school maps. These findings will make it impossible to achieve peace now and not ever and Obama has to know that.”
"Behind Closed Doors"
Arlene Kushner
So we waited patiently -- or impatiently, as the case may be -- to hear what would come out of the Obama-Netanyahu meeting today. We knew going in that it was going to be cordial: that was a given because Obama is trying to repair damage he's done with his hostile attitude towards Israel.
But what did they actually SAY to each other?
Well, they met in the oval office for just under two hours and then had a "joint press availability" with a press pool. Not quite a full-blown press conference.
Netanyahu spoke about how any suggestion that the relationship between the two nations was failing was "flat wrong." And Obama said that Netanyahu had convinced him that he "wants peace" and is serious about moving forward to direct negotiations with the PA.
My next question, then, is precisely what did Netanyahu do to "convince" the president? This is what we don't know. Whatever it was, it was behind closed doors.
The president said a bit more: He expressed pleasure at the new rules established by Israel for goods permitted into Gaza via the land crossings (and I'll get to that below). And there was mention of Iran sanctions.
~~~~~~~~~~
The president also declared that "the US would never ask Israel to undermine its security." I consider this the biggest joke of all. The US asks this of us all the time, in a dozen different ways.
~~~~~~~~~~
When questioned as to whether he would like Netanyahu to extend the freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria, he avoided a direct answer and segued into a comment about how he hopes direct negotiations will begin before the freeze ends in late September.
So, my final question here: Is there some linkage between an extension of the freeze and progress made in the talks by late September?
~~~~~~~~~~
The two heads of state then moved on to a (fully kosher) working lunch, also behind closed doors. No further meeting of the two leaders with the press was scheduled.
~~~~~~~~~~
Here in Israel, the issue of the freeze has been a major focus of concern. As Netanyahu was preparing to take off for the US yesterday, the faction chairmen of Likud, Yisrael Beitenu, Shas, UTJ, Habayit Hayehudi (all part of the coalition) and National Union (which is not) signed a joint declaration that they "strenuously oppose an extension of the building freeze past 18 Tishrei, September 26.
"Ending the freeze at the date that was set is the minimum needed for keeping Israel an independent state and for safeguarding its vital interests. We will use all of the parliamentary tools at our disposal and the full extent of our political influence so that this commitment is honored and implemented."
Additionally, there was talk from Habayit Yehudi of quitting the coalition if the freeze was extended. And Foreign Minister Leiberman has made a direct statement about our not paying for direct talks with an additional freeze.
~~~~~~~~~~
On the flip side, an attempt to push through legislation that would have required Knesset approval for any additional freeze after September was just defeated. I was surprised, as were many -- it had looked like a pretty sure thing at one point.
The prime minister had pushed hard for its defeat. His position was that this would have motivated Obama to lean even harder on him with regard to a freeze. But I'm not sure I buy that: it might have provided Netanyahu with the perfect out -- the ability to advance a freeze would no longer have been in his hands.
His position did not inspire a great deal of confidence as to his readiness to hold tight on resuming construction. But this does not necessarily mean that he did cave; he may have simply wanted the latitude to do bargaining on the issue.
~~~~~~~~~~
A rumor was floated in the past couple of days with regard to a proposal that Netanyahu might offer Obama for a partial freeze: Obama would "hint" at the fact that Israel would retain major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, in line with the letter sent by (then) President Bush to (then) PM Sharon.
The letter stated:
"It is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.
"It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."
The sentiments expressed in this letter were endorsed by both houses of Congress, and there is solid legal opinion in at least some quarters that this is a binding executive agreement.
Enormous tension developed between Israel and Obama in the early days of his administration over this. Obama -- as well as his mouthpiece Secretary of State Clinton -- denied that there was an obligation to honor what was perceived by Israel to be a commitment. Obama was plugging for Israel to move back to the '67 line, per PA demands.
You might like to see the JINSA Report (#1003) on this:
http://www.jinsa.org/node/1936
~~~~~~~~~~
At any rate, the proposal was that in return for a nod in the direction of this letter by Obama, Netanyahu would agree to freeze construction in all communities in Judea and Samaria outside of the major settlement blocs. We may never know if such a proposal was advanced. We simply know that to this point there has been no nod from Obama (which would have to be public), and no apparent reciprocal commitment from Netanyahu.
What particularly disturbed me with regard to how this proposal was structured in news reports is that it called for a "hint" from Obama. A hint? How easy to backtrack on a hint, to say that he was misunderstood. Remember the statement by presidential candidate Obama, who declared to AIPAC that Jerusalem must be undivided (which is code for remaining under Israeli sovereignty), only to explain a day or two later that he was misunderstood -- that what he meant was that the Israeli and Palestinian portions of Jerusalem should be open to each other. With this man, very explicit clarifications are necessary.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to the new rules for goods into Gaza:
What Israel has done now is to shift from an official list of what can go in, to an official list of what may not be permitted in -- items that might be used for building weapons, etc.
A big deal has been made about all of the things that Israel had prevented from going in -- things like potato chips. The point ostensibly being that Israeli officials were mean and hard-hearted and arbitrary. But no. Potato chips weren't permitted in because of how the previous list was fashioned. Officials had drawn up a list of what people reasonably needed: meat, fish, dairy products, legumes, basic hygiene items, flour, cooking oil, fresh produce, etc. etc. No one ever saw fit to include potato chips as a reasonable basic need. I would bet potato chips were never discussed. Now they can be brought in.
This new approach is what Obama was praising.
~~~~~~~~~~
So where are we? My take, based on what I'm seeing and what I understand about how Netanyahu functions:
He is making the case that he really, really wants to proceed with seriousness in peace talks, and that this is only possible in face-to-face talks. This, hopefully, puts the onus on the PA: he is representing himself as the party more eager to proceed.
While he is doing this, he knows, knows full well, that Abbas will find reasons not to proceed, just as he will never accept any deal that Israel would offer. But all the while Israel's desire to proceed must be apparent to the world, and most particularly to the president of the United States.
~~~~~~~~~~
Right now Abbas is saying that there has been no progress in the proximity talks. The PA, actually, expressed bewilderment at the recent US statement that there had been considerable progress. And, says Abbas, until there is progress (which he defines, at least in part, as an Israeli acknowledgement of the PA borders, up front), there will be no movement to face-to-face.
Then comes the next part of the PA plan. They are still making the assumption that they don't have to bargain and can use diplomatic means to get what they want, on the way to destroying Israel. The PA declaration is that if there is no progress by September, then they will revert to the Saudi Peace Plan (otherwise known as a plan for destroying Israel), and take this to the UN Security Council and ask the Council to recognize a Palestinian state on all the land beyond the Green Line.
I still have reservations as to how serious this is, and how much idle threat. I also have doubts as to whether, according to international law, it is even possible for the Security Council to "recognize" a state. There is no precedent for this. What is more, this would require overturning of earlier Security Council resolutions that call very specifically for a setting of borders via negotiations. So it is all a bit dubious.
Netanyahu's plan, then, would seem to be two-fold. First, to be able to strongly make the case that we were ready to proceed with those negotiations, as required by earlier resolutions. This would seriously call into question the legal propriety of seeking to overturn them. And then, to be on sufficiently solid terms with Obama so that a US veto in the Security Council on this would be a sure thing.
~~~~~~~~~~
I hasten to assure one and all that I am not advocating a caving to Obama's demands by Israel so that we can keep him happy. Never! I advocate strength and a solid expression of our sovereignty. I am speaking here of what may be Netanyahu's approach. He's walking a fine line. And as he typically tries to please both sides, his policies lack a certain clarity.
A position of clarity would be one in which our prime minister comes to the White House armed with well documented evidence of why the PA cannot be trusted: of how it supports terrorism and promotes incitement. MK Zevulun Orlev (Habayit HaYehudi), who is chair of the Knesset Education Committee, suggested, for example, putting PA textbooks, rife with incitement, on the president's desk. And then, following this, a position of clarity would require a statement about Israeli rights, coupled with a refusal to deal with the PA as a legitimate and trustworthy negotiating partner.
But this will never be Netanyahu's style.
~~~~~~~~~~
Not for a moment do I minimize the difficulty of being the Israeli prime minister today. I will make specific criticisms of Netanyahu now. Whatever the speculation, I do not know yet what went on behind those closed doors. It's possible that, mindful of domestic demands and the risk of a crumbling coalition, he held strong.
A great deal will yet emerge both via leaks, and actions that follow from whatever may have been agreed upon. Then it will be time for further comment.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
So we waited patiently -- or impatiently, as the case may be -- to hear what would come out of the Obama-Netanyahu meeting today. We knew going in that it was going to be cordial: that was a given because Obama is trying to repair damage he's done with his hostile attitude towards Israel.
But what did they actually SAY to each other?
Well, they met in the oval office for just under two hours and then had a "joint press availability" with a press pool. Not quite a full-blown press conference.
Netanyahu spoke about how any suggestion that the relationship between the two nations was failing was "flat wrong." And Obama said that Netanyahu had convinced him that he "wants peace" and is serious about moving forward to direct negotiations with the PA.
My next question, then, is precisely what did Netanyahu do to "convince" the president? This is what we don't know. Whatever it was, it was behind closed doors.
The president said a bit more: He expressed pleasure at the new rules established by Israel for goods permitted into Gaza via the land crossings (and I'll get to that below). And there was mention of Iran sanctions.
~~~~~~~~~~
The president also declared that "the US would never ask Israel to undermine its security." I consider this the biggest joke of all. The US asks this of us all the time, in a dozen different ways.
~~~~~~~~~~
When questioned as to whether he would like Netanyahu to extend the freeze on construction in Judea and Samaria, he avoided a direct answer and segued into a comment about how he hopes direct negotiations will begin before the freeze ends in late September.
So, my final question here: Is there some linkage between an extension of the freeze and progress made in the talks by late September?
~~~~~~~~~~
The two heads of state then moved on to a (fully kosher) working lunch, also behind closed doors. No further meeting of the two leaders with the press was scheduled.
~~~~~~~~~~
Here in Israel, the issue of the freeze has been a major focus of concern. As Netanyahu was preparing to take off for the US yesterday, the faction chairmen of Likud, Yisrael Beitenu, Shas, UTJ, Habayit Hayehudi (all part of the coalition) and National Union (which is not) signed a joint declaration that they "strenuously oppose an extension of the building freeze past 18 Tishrei, September 26.
"Ending the freeze at the date that was set is the minimum needed for keeping Israel an independent state and for safeguarding its vital interests. We will use all of the parliamentary tools at our disposal and the full extent of our political influence so that this commitment is honored and implemented."
Additionally, there was talk from Habayit Yehudi of quitting the coalition if the freeze was extended. And Foreign Minister Leiberman has made a direct statement about our not paying for direct talks with an additional freeze.
~~~~~~~~~~
On the flip side, an attempt to push through legislation that would have required Knesset approval for any additional freeze after September was just defeated. I was surprised, as were many -- it had looked like a pretty sure thing at one point.
The prime minister had pushed hard for its defeat. His position was that this would have motivated Obama to lean even harder on him with regard to a freeze. But I'm not sure I buy that: it might have provided Netanyahu with the perfect out -- the ability to advance a freeze would no longer have been in his hands.
His position did not inspire a great deal of confidence as to his readiness to hold tight on resuming construction. But this does not necessarily mean that he did cave; he may have simply wanted the latitude to do bargaining on the issue.
~~~~~~~~~~
A rumor was floated in the past couple of days with regard to a proposal that Netanyahu might offer Obama for a partial freeze: Obama would "hint" at the fact that Israel would retain major settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria, in line with the letter sent by (then) President Bush to (then) PM Sharon.
The letter stated:
"It is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.
"It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."
The sentiments expressed in this letter were endorsed by both houses of Congress, and there is solid legal opinion in at least some quarters that this is a binding executive agreement.
Enormous tension developed between Israel and Obama in the early days of his administration over this. Obama -- as well as his mouthpiece Secretary of State Clinton -- denied that there was an obligation to honor what was perceived by Israel to be a commitment. Obama was plugging for Israel to move back to the '67 line, per PA demands.
You might like to see the JINSA Report (#1003) on this:
http://www.jinsa.org/node/1936
~~~~~~~~~~
At any rate, the proposal was that in return for a nod in the direction of this letter by Obama, Netanyahu would agree to freeze construction in all communities in Judea and Samaria outside of the major settlement blocs. We may never know if such a proposal was advanced. We simply know that to this point there has been no nod from Obama (which would have to be public), and no apparent reciprocal commitment from Netanyahu.
What particularly disturbed me with regard to how this proposal was structured in news reports is that it called for a "hint" from Obama. A hint? How easy to backtrack on a hint, to say that he was misunderstood. Remember the statement by presidential candidate Obama, who declared to AIPAC that Jerusalem must be undivided (which is code for remaining under Israeli sovereignty), only to explain a day or two later that he was misunderstood -- that what he meant was that the Israeli and Palestinian portions of Jerusalem should be open to each other. With this man, very explicit clarifications are necessary.
~~~~~~~~~~
As to the new rules for goods into Gaza:
What Israel has done now is to shift from an official list of what can go in, to an official list of what may not be permitted in -- items that might be used for building weapons, etc.
A big deal has been made about all of the things that Israel had prevented from going in -- things like potato chips. The point ostensibly being that Israeli officials were mean and hard-hearted and arbitrary. But no. Potato chips weren't permitted in because of how the previous list was fashioned. Officials had drawn up a list of what people reasonably needed: meat, fish, dairy products, legumes, basic hygiene items, flour, cooking oil, fresh produce, etc. etc. No one ever saw fit to include potato chips as a reasonable basic need. I would bet potato chips were never discussed. Now they can be brought in.
This new approach is what Obama was praising.
~~~~~~~~~~
So where are we? My take, based on what I'm seeing and what I understand about how Netanyahu functions:
He is making the case that he really, really wants to proceed with seriousness in peace talks, and that this is only possible in face-to-face talks. This, hopefully, puts the onus on the PA: he is representing himself as the party more eager to proceed.
While he is doing this, he knows, knows full well, that Abbas will find reasons not to proceed, just as he will never accept any deal that Israel would offer. But all the while Israel's desire to proceed must be apparent to the world, and most particularly to the president of the United States.
~~~~~~~~~~
Right now Abbas is saying that there has been no progress in the proximity talks. The PA, actually, expressed bewilderment at the recent US statement that there had been considerable progress. And, says Abbas, until there is progress (which he defines, at least in part, as an Israeli acknowledgement of the PA borders, up front), there will be no movement to face-to-face.
Then comes the next part of the PA plan. They are still making the assumption that they don't have to bargain and can use diplomatic means to get what they want, on the way to destroying Israel. The PA declaration is that if there is no progress by September, then they will revert to the Saudi Peace Plan (otherwise known as a plan for destroying Israel), and take this to the UN Security Council and ask the Council to recognize a Palestinian state on all the land beyond the Green Line.
I still have reservations as to how serious this is, and how much idle threat. I also have doubts as to whether, according to international law, it is even possible for the Security Council to "recognize" a state. There is no precedent for this. What is more, this would require overturning of earlier Security Council resolutions that call very specifically for a setting of borders via negotiations. So it is all a bit dubious.
Netanyahu's plan, then, would seem to be two-fold. First, to be able to strongly make the case that we were ready to proceed with those negotiations, as required by earlier resolutions. This would seriously call into question the legal propriety of seeking to overturn them. And then, to be on sufficiently solid terms with Obama so that a US veto in the Security Council on this would be a sure thing.
~~~~~~~~~~
I hasten to assure one and all that I am not advocating a caving to Obama's demands by Israel so that we can keep him happy. Never! I advocate strength and a solid expression of our sovereignty. I am speaking here of what may be Netanyahu's approach. He's walking a fine line. And as he typically tries to please both sides, his policies lack a certain clarity.
A position of clarity would be one in which our prime minister comes to the White House armed with well documented evidence of why the PA cannot be trusted: of how it supports terrorism and promotes incitement. MK Zevulun Orlev (Habayit HaYehudi), who is chair of the Knesset Education Committee, suggested, for example, putting PA textbooks, rife with incitement, on the president's desk. And then, following this, a position of clarity would require a statement about Israeli rights, coupled with a refusal to deal with the PA as a legitimate and trustworthy negotiating partner.
But this will never be Netanyahu's style.
~~~~~~~~~~
Not for a moment do I minimize the difficulty of being the Israeli prime minister today. I will make specific criticisms of Netanyahu now. Whatever the speculation, I do not know yet what went on behind those closed doors. It's possible that, mindful of domestic demands and the risk of a crumbling coalition, he held strong.
A great deal will yet emerge both via leaks, and actions that follow from whatever may have been agreed upon. Then it will be time for further comment.
~~~~~~~~~~
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)