Arlene Kushner
My post yesterday elicited quite a response, and I'm glad for this.
This situation on US campuses, which in many places is horrendous, must be considered simply unacceptable by all of us. This means keeping on top of what's going on and becoming activist in the interest of changing the situation. This is one of those times, folks, when numbers matter and it is possible to make a difference.
~~~~~~~~~~
Reader Doris M. has called my attention to the work of Dee Sterling, and I share here Sterling's website, http://www.ha-emet.com/ (ha-emet = the truth). Please take a look at it. It focuses in some good measure on the Olive Tree Initiative (OTI), which I mentioned in passing yesterday. OTI sponsors trips by Jewish American students to Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria, where they are exposed to a seriously biased perspective with regard to Israel. A prime funder of this initiative is the Jewish Federation of Orange County (CA). Other supporters include Hillel and the University of CA. This site offers ways to combat this support of OTI.
Dee is to be congratulated for her efforts, which seem to me just that: sterling.
~~~~~~~~~~
Jerry Gordon, senior editor of New English Review, has today written a piece, "Grassroots revolt against Jewish federations' support of Israel's enemies," which has been called to my attention by Adam T.
Gordon touches on two related topics, among others, that I have already written about. He says that:
"In Orange County, local activists have mined state public records and, in the process, unearthed details of how the local Federation funded more than $60,000 in grants to U.C.-Irvine for student trips to meet with Hamas representatives on the West Bank." That's OTI he's talking about, and some of this information is on the Ha-Emet site. The more we know, the uglier it gets.
~~~~~~~~~~
But before even getting to this, he talks about ADL and Abe Foxman. That's the guy who said there's no anti-Semitism on campuses. When I reported on this, I commented that given Foxman's recent history, his position was not surprising. Gordon takes a look at that recent history.
On August 10, Foxman placed a piece on the ADL website called "Shut Down the Sharia Myth Makers." In it, he says that:
"The threat of the infiltration of Sharia, or Islamic law, into the American court system is one of the more pernicious conspiracy theories to gain traction in our country in recent years...
"We stand at a crossroads in American society. We have the option of heading down a path toward a greater tolerance of anti-Muslim xenophobia and fear of the 'stranger in our midst,' or we can rededicate ourselves to the ideal of an America that is open and welcoming to immigrants as well as minority groups who have been here for decades. Let us hope that the better nature of America will enable us to proceed down the second path and reject those who seek to divide us for political gain, or those who wish to stereotype and scapegoat an entire people because of their religious faith."
Oi vey.
Reports Gordon:
Within a few weeks, the Foxman op-ed...had been, in lockstep fashion, printed in more than two dozen Jewish weeklies subsidized by Jewish Federation charity organizations ranging from North Jersey’s Jewish Standard to Philadelphia’s Jewish Exponent to Wisconsin’s Jewish Chronicle to Los Angeles’s Jewish Journal.
See Gordon's full piece: http://www.examiner.com/ny-in-new-york/grassroots-revolt-against-jewish-federations-support-of-israel-s-enemies
As far as Foxman is concerned, how about this: He should be fired and his very considerable salary utilized for pro-Israel efforts on UC campuses. (My suggestion only, but not a bad one, I think.)
~~~~~~~~~~
Lastly for today, Shurat Ha-Din, the Israel Law Center, sent out this morning letters to university presidents in the US warning them that they have legal obligations to prevent anti-Semitism on their campuses, and to prevent university funds from being diverted to unlawful activities directed against the State of Israel. The bottom line is that the universities "may be liable for massive damages."
This campaign is being carried out because of "an alarming number of incidents of harassment and hate crimes against Jewish and Israeli students on US college campuses."
The letter alludes to a recent Supreme Court ruling in Holder vs. Humanitarian Law Project that holds that it is illegal to provide any support to a terrorist organization -- even if that support appears to be relatively benign. Last year, for example, says Shurat Ha-Din, at Rutgers University, Students United for Middle East Justice applied for allocations from a student-run committee for an event in support of an organization that was trying to buy a ship to run Israel's Gaza blockade. Seems the group is monitoring campus activities carefully.
~~~~~~~~~~
Read about Shurat Ha-Din's efforts here:
http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=237118
See the full warning letter here:
http://israellawcenter.org/uploadimages/image/Letter%20to%20Columbia%20U.pdf
And the list of schools the letter was sent to here:
http://israellawcenter.org/uploadimages/image/list%20of%20schools.pdf
Shurat Ha-Din, you may remember, successfully used a legal approach to take the wind out of the sails of the second flotilla.
Law Center director Nitsana Darshan-Leitner and Kenneth Leitner, director of American Affairs, are top-notch and tireless attorneys doing an incredible job.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
Palmer vs Goldstone: lessons learned
GERALD M. STEINBERG AND GIDON SHAVIV
Criticism of Israel is usually foregone conclusion of any UN commission, particularly when human rights, humanitarian issues are involved.
The blog “Lawfare” began its posting on the Palmer Report – entitled “The UN vindicates Israel” – by stating that the title was neither satire nor an April 1st joke. This tongue-in-cheek reference is indicative of the low expectations of objectivity in any UN report concerning Israel.
Criticism of Israel is usually the foregone conclusion of any UN commission, particularly when human rights or humanitarian issues are involved.
However, the recent Palmer Commission report deserves special notice. It investigated events surrounding the deaths of self-styled “peace activists” who were attempting to run an Israeli naval blockade on Gaza in May 2010.
Compared to previous reports, it was evenhanded to an almost unprecedented degree. The Commission concluded that the Israeli blockade of Gaza was legal, although it criticized Israel for what it said was disproportionate use of force against the members of the IHH organization who attacked the Israeli commandos boarding the ships. This was a striking contrast to the notoriously one-sided, UN-commissioned Goldstone Report, which even Judge Richard Goldstone, its author, recently repudiated. Several factors appear to explain the contrast between the Palmer and Goldstone reports.
The first factor is that different UN bodies were behind the two reports. The Goldstone “fact finding” commission arose out of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) which has 47 member states, including China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and, until recently, Libya and even Iran. The UNHRC has Israel as the only country on its permanent agenda and consistently singles out Israel for condemnations.
The record shows that activities involving the UNHRC are invariably biased.
In sharp contrast, the Palmer Commission was formed under the auspices of the UN Secretary General, reporting directly to him, and not to the UNHRC, where staff and a majority of countries hostile to Israel were unable to control the events.
This structural difference meant that the two commissions had very different mandates. Goldstone’s mandate from the UNHRC was to “investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying power, Israel....” The mandate was so biased that both Mary Robinson (a former UN rights commissioner and harsh critic of Israel), and former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari refused to head the commission. Goldstone also initially refused, but agreed after claiming to have expanded the mandate to include human rights violations by all parties to the conflict. The broader mandate never received formal authorization from the HRC, in part explaining Israel’s decision not to cooperate with Goldstone.
The Palmer Commission’s mandate, however, was straightforward and honest – to “examine and identify the facts, circumstances and context of the incident; and consider and recommend ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future.” This mandate encouraged Israeli participation.
Another factor is the difference in the makeups of the two commissions. Sir Geoffrey Palmer is a former Prime Minister of New Zealand, with no history of bias on either side. Similarly, former President Alvaro Uribe from Colombia assumed this task without a prejudicial record. The commission also included representatives from both Turkey and Israel, which further insured cooperation.
By contrast, the bias of the Goldstone Commission was obvious from the beginning. Prior to joining the commission, three members signed an Amnesty International petition calling for Israel to be investigated for possible war crimes.
The fourth (Christine Chinkin) went further and signed a public letter alleging Israel had acted “contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law.”
Goldstone later acknowledged that “If it had been a judicial inquiry, that letter she’d signed would have been a ground for disqualification.”
Finally and most importantly, the methodology and sources which the two commissions relied upon were entirely different. The Palmer report, as per its mandate, was based mainly on reports submitted by the governments of Israel and Turkey. As a result, the analysis was informed by numerous details and a credible summary of the events. Where the Palmer Commission could not fully reconcile or verify the submissions, they modestly acknowledged this fact.
The Goldstone Report however, relied heavily on submissions from highly politicized, mainly pro-Palestinian NGOs. The claims and so-called eyewitness testimony, quoting Palestinians whose allegations could not be verified, resulted in highly dubious conclusions. Highly distorted NGO analyses of international law were also reflected in the controversial interpretations of law in the Goldstone report. The weight given to such suspect sources is evidenced by over 500 references to NGOs in Goldstone’s publication, while Palmer cited NGOs in three places, without accepting their claims.
Overall, the structure of the Palmer Commission and its report, while not perfect, is a major improvement over Goldstone and the UNHRC’s kangaroo courts. In the future, human rights fact finding, whether on Israel or on other countries and conflicts, should build on Palmer’s solid foundation.
The writer teaches political science at Bar Ilan University and heads NGO Monitor; Gidon Shaviv is an Israel Research Fellow.
Criticism of Israel is usually foregone conclusion of any UN commission, particularly when human rights, humanitarian issues are involved.
The blog “Lawfare” began its posting on the Palmer Report – entitled “The UN vindicates Israel” – by stating that the title was neither satire nor an April 1st joke. This tongue-in-cheek reference is indicative of the low expectations of objectivity in any UN report concerning Israel.
Criticism of Israel is usually the foregone conclusion of any UN commission, particularly when human rights or humanitarian issues are involved.
However, the recent Palmer Commission report deserves special notice. It investigated events surrounding the deaths of self-styled “peace activists” who were attempting to run an Israeli naval blockade on Gaza in May 2010.
Compared to previous reports, it was evenhanded to an almost unprecedented degree. The Commission concluded that the Israeli blockade of Gaza was legal, although it criticized Israel for what it said was disproportionate use of force against the members of the IHH organization who attacked the Israeli commandos boarding the ships. This was a striking contrast to the notoriously one-sided, UN-commissioned Goldstone Report, which even Judge Richard Goldstone, its author, recently repudiated. Several factors appear to explain the contrast between the Palmer and Goldstone reports.
The first factor is that different UN bodies were behind the two reports. The Goldstone “fact finding” commission arose out of the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) which has 47 member states, including China, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and, until recently, Libya and even Iran. The UNHRC has Israel as the only country on its permanent agenda and consistently singles out Israel for condemnations.
The record shows that activities involving the UNHRC are invariably biased.
In sharp contrast, the Palmer Commission was formed under the auspices of the UN Secretary General, reporting directly to him, and not to the UNHRC, where staff and a majority of countries hostile to Israel were unable to control the events.
This structural difference meant that the two commissions had very different mandates. Goldstone’s mandate from the UNHRC was to “investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying power, Israel....” The mandate was so biased that both Mary Robinson (a former UN rights commissioner and harsh critic of Israel), and former Finnish president Martti Ahtisaari refused to head the commission. Goldstone also initially refused, but agreed after claiming to have expanded the mandate to include human rights violations by all parties to the conflict. The broader mandate never received formal authorization from the HRC, in part explaining Israel’s decision not to cooperate with Goldstone.
The Palmer Commission’s mandate, however, was straightforward and honest – to “examine and identify the facts, circumstances and context of the incident; and consider and recommend ways of avoiding similar incidents in the future.” This mandate encouraged Israeli participation.
Another factor is the difference in the makeups of the two commissions. Sir Geoffrey Palmer is a former Prime Minister of New Zealand, with no history of bias on either side. Similarly, former President Alvaro Uribe from Colombia assumed this task without a prejudicial record. The commission also included representatives from both Turkey and Israel, which further insured cooperation.
By contrast, the bias of the Goldstone Commission was obvious from the beginning. Prior to joining the commission, three members signed an Amnesty International petition calling for Israel to be investigated for possible war crimes.
The fourth (Christine Chinkin) went further and signed a public letter alleging Israel had acted “contrary to international humanitarian and human rights law.”
Goldstone later acknowledged that “If it had been a judicial inquiry, that letter she’d signed would have been a ground for disqualification.”
Finally and most importantly, the methodology and sources which the two commissions relied upon were entirely different. The Palmer report, as per its mandate, was based mainly on reports submitted by the governments of Israel and Turkey. As a result, the analysis was informed by numerous details and a credible summary of the events. Where the Palmer Commission could not fully reconcile or verify the submissions, they modestly acknowledged this fact.
The Goldstone Report however, relied heavily on submissions from highly politicized, mainly pro-Palestinian NGOs. The claims and so-called eyewitness testimony, quoting Palestinians whose allegations could not be verified, resulted in highly dubious conclusions. Highly distorted NGO analyses of international law were also reflected in the controversial interpretations of law in the Goldstone report. The weight given to such suspect sources is evidenced by over 500 references to NGOs in Goldstone’s publication, while Palmer cited NGOs in three places, without accepting their claims.
Overall, the structure of the Palmer Commission and its report, while not perfect, is a major improvement over Goldstone and the UNHRC’s kangaroo courts. In the future, human rights fact finding, whether on Israel or on other countries and conflicts, should build on Palmer’s solid foundation.
The writer teaches political science at Bar Ilan University and heads NGO Monitor; Gidon Shaviv is an Israel Research Fellow.
"Anti-Semitism on US Campuses"
Arlene Kushner
Days go by, and life intervenes, but here I am at my computer and prepared to write.
Please follow this posting to the end for a link to a video on this issue, and information on how you can be involved.
~~~~~~~~~~
On Monday, I attended a presentation at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs by Tammi Rossman-Benjamin on anti-Semitism on the campuses of the University of California.
Rossman-Benjamin, who lectures in the Jewish studies department at the Santa Cruz campus of the university, focused on such UC campuses as Santa Cruz, Berkeley, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Irvine. But her words apply in at least some measure to a host of other N. American universities, as well. "Anti-Semitism," as it is referred to here, appears in the guise of anti-Zionism. This is the new anti-Semitism: A double standard is applied to Israel; comparisons are made between Israel and the Nazis; claims are made that the Holocaust is invented or exaggerated.
While many of us are broadly familiar with the problem, the details, as provided by Rossman-Benjamin, are bone-chilling. Her report makes you want to shake your head in incredulity and ask, THIS is happening in America? Sadly, alarmingly, the answer is, yes.
Muslim groups supported by ethnic minority groups on the campuses speak about Israeli "crimes against humanity;" promote BDS campaigns; publicly display bloodied Israeli flags; call for the destruction of Israel; sponsor hostile films and lectures; and engage in harassment of Jewish students (interrupting Jewish programs, following Jewish students to their cars, etc).
The primary Muslim groups involved are Muslim Student Association, which had Brotherhood links at its inception and has come out in support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine). They are officially university student organizations. There are documented instances of members of these groups involved in intimidation of and physical encounters with Jewish students and faculty. (See a report from Steve Emerson on this: http://global-security-news.com/2011/08/15/lawsuit-details-depth-of-berkeley-jewish-student-harassment/ )
~~~~~~~~~~
What must be understood, however, is that sometimes faculty is also complicit. Anti-Israel conferences are sponsored by academic departments within the university, anti-Israel books are assigned in some classes. Some lectures are blatantly anti-Israel and refer to such things as "The Holocaust in the Holy Land."
As one academic put it, what is being encountered is "propaganda spun to look like academic research."
Implications of this academic influence are considerable, as graduates of these classes enter the business and government worlds.
~~~~~~~~~~
Anti-Israel faculty claims protection under the aegis of academic freedom. But academic freedom does not sanction lies and misrepresentations posing as scholarly research.
If all of this is alarming, I find at one level nothing more reprehensible than the fact that some of the faculty members participating in the attacks on Israel are Jews. No reason for surprise here: we see leftist Jews taking inherently anti-Jewish and anti-Israel positions in many contexts. But it is no less shameful for it.
There is, for example, Santa Barbara campus professor William Robinson, who sent out an e-mail to his students with a lengthy series of pictures comparing Nazis to Israelis: a picture of Gaza and a picture of a concentration camp juxtaposed, etc.
Some of the Jews taking these positions actually are members of Jewish studies departments.
While it is not uncommon to think of such persons as self-hating, there is reason to believe that in this situation they are, rather, self-aggrandizing. Their position is actually better accepted in the left wing climate of California than staunch defense of Israel's rights would be. These anti-Zionist faculty members benefit from speaking engagements and enhancement of their professional careers. Professor Gerald Steinberg, head of NGO-Monitor, who was at the presentation, talks about some individuals who receive funds from Europe.
~~~~~~~~~~
The effects of this anti-Semitic activity are two-fold, although the two cannot be entirely separated.
On the one hand, there is delegitimization of Israel, with tens of thousands of students affected by the propaganda being presented in the guise of academic perspective. It is now considered academically legitimate to discuss Israel's right to exist, although no other nation is discussed in these terms.
Secondly, the creation of a hostile environment for Jewish students on the campuses renders them less able to effectively defend Israel. Pro-Israel Jewish students not only feel intimidated, but fear that the climate will ultimately generate violence. They are also convinced that the university administration functions in an unfair manner: they don't feel that they have official support.
~~~~~~~~~~
Action to combat what is going on takes several forms. Pro-Israel students, faculty and concerned citizens are working to counter the delegitimization. Speakers are brought onto the campuses, information is distributed, etc.
The battle against anti-Israel faculty is also being undertaken, but is difficult. Efforts are underway to raise the awareness of administrators and academic faculties with regard to abuses of academic freedom. However, the administration is not always willing to enforce the university's own rules, and faculties are not always willing to apply standards of scholarship.
~~~~~~~~~~
Rossman-Benjamin, who is to be congratulated for her efforts in this regard, has decided to take on the issue of the protection of Jewish students on the campuses of UC.
This is, in some part, a legal battle, with regard to federal law under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Federally funded educational institutions must be free of bias with regard to race, color or national origin, but religion was not originally included and Jews were without this legal protection.
After a protracted struggle with regard to this matter -- with a decision made to grant protection to Jews under Title VI in 2004, and then subsequently withdrawn again -- the federal Office of Civil Right in October 2010 ruled that Jews were entitled to legal protection.
The ZOA was involved in this matter, having filed an appeal at one point, as is Rossman-Benjamin, who filed a complaint that OCR has agreed to hear. In the run-up to the OCR decision, 13 Jewish organizations urged the Secretary of Education to include Jewish students in federal protection under civil rights law, Several Congressmen have followed suit, and additionally have introduced legislation on the matter that is currently pending.
~~~~~~~~~~
In the course of a campaign to mobilize Jewish organizations on the issue, 12 groups agreed to send a letter to UC President Mark Yudof, recommending that clear guidelines be established. Yudof ignored the recommendation.
Additional attempts are being made to rally Jewish organizations to support the Jewish students on the campuses -- the goal is to get these groups to put aside divisive issues and present a united front, recognizing that attacks against the Jewish state are attacks against the identity of Jewish students.
There have been some positive responses. A courageous student group called Tikva, for example, works on the campuses.
But to some not inconsiderable measure this effort has been problematic.
Both ADL and the American Jewish Committee refused to sign the letter to Yudof. ADL's Abe Foxman says there is no anti-Semitism on CA campuses (which, I will observe, given his recent history, is no surprise). Kenneth Stern, who is associated with AJC, signed on to a letter charging that federal law is being misused for political purposes to prevent legitimate criticism of Israel -- which AJC Executive Director David Harris disavowed. The Orange County Federation supports the biased Olive Tree Initiative.
All of this, which is shameful and painful, marks the organized Jewish community as divided and easy to dismiss.
~~~~~~~~~~
Rossman-Benjamin has been instrumental in establishing an Investigative Taskforce on Campus Anti-Semitism, which will be investigating and documenting incidents across the country, and making recommendations -- especially with regard to behavior on campuses that defies university policies and federal law. This is planned as an initiative with teeth.
~~~~~~~~~~
Most significantly, Rossman-Benjamin has established the Amcha Initiative, which is seeking to rally Jews at a grassroots level across the country to come out for the safety of Jewish students on campuses. People are being asked to sign on to a letter that will be presented to Yudof.
The Initiative website can be found at www.Amchainitiative.org . Please visit the site to see a video on the problem and learn more about the initiative.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Days go by, and life intervenes, but here I am at my computer and prepared to write.
Please follow this posting to the end for a link to a video on this issue, and information on how you can be involved.
~~~~~~~~~~
On Monday, I attended a presentation at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs by Tammi Rossman-Benjamin on anti-Semitism on the campuses of the University of California.
Rossman-Benjamin, who lectures in the Jewish studies department at the Santa Cruz campus of the university, focused on such UC campuses as Santa Cruz, Berkeley, San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Irvine. But her words apply in at least some measure to a host of other N. American universities, as well. "Anti-Semitism," as it is referred to here, appears in the guise of anti-Zionism. This is the new anti-Semitism: A double standard is applied to Israel; comparisons are made between Israel and the Nazis; claims are made that the Holocaust is invented or exaggerated.
While many of us are broadly familiar with the problem, the details, as provided by Rossman-Benjamin, are bone-chilling. Her report makes you want to shake your head in incredulity and ask, THIS is happening in America? Sadly, alarmingly, the answer is, yes.
Muslim groups supported by ethnic minority groups on the campuses speak about Israeli "crimes against humanity;" promote BDS campaigns; publicly display bloodied Israeli flags; call for the destruction of Israel; sponsor hostile films and lectures; and engage in harassment of Jewish students (interrupting Jewish programs, following Jewish students to their cars, etc).
The primary Muslim groups involved are Muslim Student Association, which had Brotherhood links at its inception and has come out in support of Hamas and Hezbollah, and SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine). They are officially university student organizations. There are documented instances of members of these groups involved in intimidation of and physical encounters with Jewish students and faculty. (See a report from Steve Emerson on this: http://global-security-news.com/2011/08/15/lawsuit-details-depth-of-berkeley-jewish-student-harassment/ )
~~~~~~~~~~
What must be understood, however, is that sometimes faculty is also complicit. Anti-Israel conferences are sponsored by academic departments within the university, anti-Israel books are assigned in some classes. Some lectures are blatantly anti-Israel and refer to such things as "The Holocaust in the Holy Land."
As one academic put it, what is being encountered is "propaganda spun to look like academic research."
Implications of this academic influence are considerable, as graduates of these classes enter the business and government worlds.
~~~~~~~~~~
Anti-Israel faculty claims protection under the aegis of academic freedom. But academic freedom does not sanction lies and misrepresentations posing as scholarly research.
If all of this is alarming, I find at one level nothing more reprehensible than the fact that some of the faculty members participating in the attacks on Israel are Jews. No reason for surprise here: we see leftist Jews taking inherently anti-Jewish and anti-Israel positions in many contexts. But it is no less shameful for it.
There is, for example, Santa Barbara campus professor William Robinson, who sent out an e-mail to his students with a lengthy series of pictures comparing Nazis to Israelis: a picture of Gaza and a picture of a concentration camp juxtaposed, etc.
Some of the Jews taking these positions actually are members of Jewish studies departments.
While it is not uncommon to think of such persons as self-hating, there is reason to believe that in this situation they are, rather, self-aggrandizing. Their position is actually better accepted in the left wing climate of California than staunch defense of Israel's rights would be. These anti-Zionist faculty members benefit from speaking engagements and enhancement of their professional careers. Professor Gerald Steinberg, head of NGO-Monitor, who was at the presentation, talks about some individuals who receive funds from Europe.
~~~~~~~~~~
The effects of this anti-Semitic activity are two-fold, although the two cannot be entirely separated.
On the one hand, there is delegitimization of Israel, with tens of thousands of students affected by the propaganda being presented in the guise of academic perspective. It is now considered academically legitimate to discuss Israel's right to exist, although no other nation is discussed in these terms.
Secondly, the creation of a hostile environment for Jewish students on the campuses renders them less able to effectively defend Israel. Pro-Israel Jewish students not only feel intimidated, but fear that the climate will ultimately generate violence. They are also convinced that the university administration functions in an unfair manner: they don't feel that they have official support.
~~~~~~~~~~
Action to combat what is going on takes several forms. Pro-Israel students, faculty and concerned citizens are working to counter the delegitimization. Speakers are brought onto the campuses, information is distributed, etc.
The battle against anti-Israel faculty is also being undertaken, but is difficult. Efforts are underway to raise the awareness of administrators and academic faculties with regard to abuses of academic freedom. However, the administration is not always willing to enforce the university's own rules, and faculties are not always willing to apply standards of scholarship.
~~~~~~~~~~
Rossman-Benjamin, who is to be congratulated for her efforts in this regard, has decided to take on the issue of the protection of Jewish students on the campuses of UC.
This is, in some part, a legal battle, with regard to federal law under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Federally funded educational institutions must be free of bias with regard to race, color or national origin, but religion was not originally included and Jews were without this legal protection.
After a protracted struggle with regard to this matter -- with a decision made to grant protection to Jews under Title VI in 2004, and then subsequently withdrawn again -- the federal Office of Civil Right in October 2010 ruled that Jews were entitled to legal protection.
The ZOA was involved in this matter, having filed an appeal at one point, as is Rossman-Benjamin, who filed a complaint that OCR has agreed to hear. In the run-up to the OCR decision, 13 Jewish organizations urged the Secretary of Education to include Jewish students in federal protection under civil rights law, Several Congressmen have followed suit, and additionally have introduced legislation on the matter that is currently pending.
~~~~~~~~~~
In the course of a campaign to mobilize Jewish organizations on the issue, 12 groups agreed to send a letter to UC President Mark Yudof, recommending that clear guidelines be established. Yudof ignored the recommendation.
Additional attempts are being made to rally Jewish organizations to support the Jewish students on the campuses -- the goal is to get these groups to put aside divisive issues and present a united front, recognizing that attacks against the Jewish state are attacks against the identity of Jewish students.
There have been some positive responses. A courageous student group called Tikva, for example, works on the campuses.
But to some not inconsiderable measure this effort has been problematic.
Both ADL and the American Jewish Committee refused to sign the letter to Yudof. ADL's Abe Foxman says there is no anti-Semitism on CA campuses (which, I will observe, given his recent history, is no surprise). Kenneth Stern, who is associated with AJC, signed on to a letter charging that federal law is being misused for political purposes to prevent legitimate criticism of Israel -- which AJC Executive Director David Harris disavowed. The Orange County Federation supports the biased Olive Tree Initiative.
All of this, which is shameful and painful, marks the organized Jewish community as divided and easy to dismiss.
~~~~~~~~~~
Rossman-Benjamin has been instrumental in establishing an Investigative Taskforce on Campus Anti-Semitism, which will be investigating and documenting incidents across the country, and making recommendations -- especially with regard to behavior on campuses that defies university policies and federal law. This is planned as an initiative with teeth.
~~~~~~~~~~
Most significantly, Rossman-Benjamin has established the Amcha Initiative, which is seeking to rally Jews at a grassroots level across the country to come out for the safety of Jewish students on campuses. People are being asked to sign on to a letter that will be presented to Yudof.
The Initiative website can be found at www.Amchainitiative.org . Please visit the site to see a video on the problem and learn more about the initiative.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
see my website www.ArlenefromIsrael.info
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
Jerusalem Schools Refuse to Teach Israeli Revised Textbooks
JERUSALEM, September 7, 2011 (WAFA) – Principals and teachers of occupied East Jerusalem schools Wednesday refused to teach Palestinian textbooks that have been revised and altered by the Israeli Ministry of Education, according to a Palestinian official.
Samir Jibril, a Palestinian Authority official in charge of Jerusalem education, said that 90% of the Palestinian students in Jerusalem bought the Palestinian version of the textbooks, which will be copied and distributed among the rest of the students. He said that every Palestinian school must only teach the Palestinian version of 2011 curricula textbooks that are produced by the Palestinian Ministry of Education.
He described the Israeli measure as “provocative,” accusing Israel to attempting to distort historical facts and misinform students about the Palestinian identity and history.
Ahmad Rweidi, in charge of the Jerusalem file in President Mahmoud Abbas’ office, considered the Israeli decision as “illegal because Jerusalem is an occupied city.”
The Israeli government revised Palestinian textbooks and removed poems by Palestinian poet Haroun Hashim Rashid, terminology relating to the Palestinian Intifada and any reference of Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
It also replaced information in the Islamic religion and Arabic history books by introducing what officials have described as false information about the history of Jews in Jerusalem.
M.H./M.A.
Samir Jibril, a Palestinian Authority official in charge of Jerusalem education, said that 90% of the Palestinian students in Jerusalem bought the Palestinian version of the textbooks, which will be copied and distributed among the rest of the students. He said that every Palestinian school must only teach the Palestinian version of 2011 curricula textbooks that are produced by the Palestinian Ministry of Education.
He described the Israeli measure as “provocative,” accusing Israel to attempting to distort historical facts and misinform students about the Palestinian identity and history.
Ahmad Rweidi, in charge of the Jerusalem file in President Mahmoud Abbas’ office, considered the Israeli decision as “illegal because Jerusalem is an occupied city.”
The Israeli government revised Palestinian textbooks and removed poems by Palestinian poet Haroun Hashim Rashid, terminology relating to the Palestinian Intifada and any reference of Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine.
It also replaced information in the Islamic religion and Arabic history books by introducing what officials have described as false information about the history of Jews in Jerusalem.
M.H./M.A.
Will blogger Silverstein face criminal charges?
Yisrael Medad
Has anti-Zionist progressive blogger Richard Silverstein admitted to possible criminal behavior? Will he be now prosecuted?
According to this New Tork Times story on Shamai Leibowitz, - and on Shamai, read this - it might seem that Richard Silverstein was indeed complicit in criminal behavior. Was he “Recipient A”? Should he have been prosecuted? Should he now be prosecuted?
From the NYTimes report:
When Shamai K. Leibowitz, an F.B.I. translator, was sentenced to 20 months in prison last year for leaking classified information to a blogger, prosecutors revealed little about the case. They identified the blogger in court papers only as “Recipient A.” Mr. Leibowitz, a contract Hebrew translator, passed on secret transcripts of conversations caught on F.B.I. wiretaps of the Israeli Embassy in Washington...according to the blogger, Richard Silverstein...Mr. Silverstein offered a rare glimpse of American spying on a close ally. He said he had burned the secret documents in his Seattle backyard after Mr. Leibowitz came under investigation in mid-2009, but he recalled that there were about 200 pages of verbatim records of telephone calls and what seemed to be embassy conversations.
...Mr. Silverstein, 59, writes a blog called Tikun Olam, named after a Hebrew phrase that he said means “repairing the world.” The blog gives a liberal perspective on Israel and Israeli-American relations. He said he had decided to speak out to make clear that Mr. Leibowitz, though charged under the Espionage Act, was acting out of noble motives...Mr. Silverstein said he got to know Mr. Leibowitz, a lawyer with a history of political activism...“I see him as an American patriot and a whistle-blower, and I’d like his actions to be seen in that context,” Mr. Silverstein said...Mr. Silverstein took the blog posts he had written based on Mr. Leibowitz’s material off his site after the criminal investigation two years ago. But he was able to retrieve three posts from April 2009 from his computer and provided them to The New York Times.
The blog posts make no reference to eavesdropping, but describe information from “a confidential source,” wording Mr. Silverstein said was his attempt to disguise the material’s origin...
So, Silverstein, to my reading, who has a problematic public posture, and has been embroiled in blogosphere contrtemps and who has blocked me from his site, admits, one could think, to being a chief participant in the events that sent Leibowitz to prison. He seems to be, upon his own confession, the recipient of and still the possessor of classified US intelligence information. He is, it appears, the previously unnamed “blogger.”
Silverstein claims to have burned the transcripts when Leibowitz came under investigation. Is that a fair case to be prosecuted for obstruction of justice?
Is Silverstein's claims that Leibowitz’s motives were pure and good, because they were to hurt Israel rather than hurt the United States, a defense against prosecution and eventual conviction?
They didn't help Leibowitz. Why then should they assist Silverstein?
Will the US Attorney-General or another federal prosecutor now initiate criminal proceedings against Silverstein?
And if not, why?
Has anti-Zionist progressive blogger Richard Silverstein admitted to possible criminal behavior? Will he be now prosecuted?
According to this New Tork Times story on Shamai Leibowitz, - and on Shamai, read this - it might seem that Richard Silverstein was indeed complicit in criminal behavior. Was he “Recipient A”? Should he have been prosecuted? Should he now be prosecuted?
From the NYTimes report:
When Shamai K. Leibowitz, an F.B.I. translator, was sentenced to 20 months in prison last year for leaking classified information to a blogger, prosecutors revealed little about the case. They identified the blogger in court papers only as “Recipient A.” Mr. Leibowitz, a contract Hebrew translator, passed on secret transcripts of conversations caught on F.B.I. wiretaps of the Israeli Embassy in Washington...according to the blogger, Richard Silverstein...Mr. Silverstein offered a rare glimpse of American spying on a close ally. He said he had burned the secret documents in his Seattle backyard after Mr. Leibowitz came under investigation in mid-2009, but he recalled that there were about 200 pages of verbatim records of telephone calls and what seemed to be embassy conversations.
...Mr. Silverstein, 59, writes a blog called Tikun Olam, named after a Hebrew phrase that he said means “repairing the world.” The blog gives a liberal perspective on Israel and Israeli-American relations. He said he had decided to speak out to make clear that Mr. Leibowitz, though charged under the Espionage Act, was acting out of noble motives...Mr. Silverstein said he got to know Mr. Leibowitz, a lawyer with a history of political activism...“I see him as an American patriot and a whistle-blower, and I’d like his actions to be seen in that context,” Mr. Silverstein said...Mr. Silverstein took the blog posts he had written based on Mr. Leibowitz’s material off his site after the criminal investigation two years ago. But he was able to retrieve three posts from April 2009 from his computer and provided them to The New York Times.
The blog posts make no reference to eavesdropping, but describe information from “a confidential source,” wording Mr. Silverstein said was his attempt to disguise the material’s origin...
So, Silverstein, to my reading, who has a problematic public posture, and has been embroiled in blogosphere contrtemps and who has blocked me from his site, admits, one could think, to being a chief participant in the events that sent Leibowitz to prison. He seems to be, upon his own confession, the recipient of and still the possessor of classified US intelligence information. He is, it appears, the previously unnamed “blogger.”
Silverstein claims to have burned the transcripts when Leibowitz came under investigation. Is that a fair case to be prosecuted for obstruction of justice?
Is Silverstein's claims that Leibowitz’s motives were pure and good, because they were to hurt Israel rather than hurt the United States, a defense against prosecution and eventual conviction?
They didn't help Leibowitz. Why then should they assist Silverstein?
Will the US Attorney-General or another federal prosecutor now initiate criminal proceedings against Silverstein?
And if not, why?
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
For God Goes with You to War
Ari Bussel
“When you go forth to battle against your enemies, and you see a horse and a chariot, a people much more numerous than you, do not be afraid of them, for the Lord, your God, is with you, He who brought you from the Land of Egypt.
“And as you get near to the war, the priest will approach and talk to the people. And he shall say to them: Hear O, Israel, you are getting near today to war upon your enemies. Your heart should not soften. Do not worry and do not hasten and do not affright from them.
“BECAUSE THE LORD YOUR GOD IS HE WHO WALKS WITH YOU. TO FIGHT FOR YOU WITH YOUR ENEMIES, TO SAVE YOU.” Deuteronomy 20:1-4 Israelis are a strange bunch. At the moment, they seem confused, bewildered, otherwise smartly occupied.
It was before the land incursion into Gaza, that Rabbis and Commanders talked with the soldiers who were about to enter into the Devil’s Inferno. They would risk their lives, and fourteen of them would die. Why? Simply, because the Israeli military protects the lives of the innocent, even at great risk to its own soldiers.
Many would contest the presumption of “innocence” of the Gazans. For them, one simple answer was and is given: A person is a human being, created in the image of the Almighty, and Israel, despite all the blood libels, and unlike any of her enemies, holds the sanctity of life above all else.
Crazy those Israelis.
Indeed, there were many investigations. Most were prompted by lies propagated by Jews and Israelis, haters of Israel. They cannot fathom the very existence of the Jewish state, so they called what happened in Gaza, from the comforts of their homes at the center of the country, a “Blood Bath.” Interestingly, while they may have been the most vocal opponents of Israel, there are the silent voices of the Gazans, who in their hearts knew and know to give thanks that their sworn enemy is neither Muslim nor Arab but the Jewish People. Anyone else, especially Arabs or Iranians, would have butchered them in an instant. Not so the Israelis.
The Israelis called their cell phones and monitored their positions. They knew that Hamas controls their every move and purposely inhabited every kindergarten, school, hospital and mosque throughout Gaza. Those damn Israelis, those pigs and apes that have infested the holy land of the Muslims, they fired warning shots and directed the civilians to clear areas, where they would not be hurt. They did everything possible to avoid civilian casualties.
Indeed, so many maligned Israel, the “Goliath” who with phosphorus bombs inflicted horrors on the population, that we started believing all the wrongdoings and did not stop for a second to think if reality can even be reconciled with the accusations. The truth is drastically different, for any army that did not care about human life, and every army that was determined to end a conflict without risk to its own, would have finished the job in a matter of hours, or even in minutes. Not so the Israelis.
The Gazans know that fact well. The Israeli soldiers know that. But there are those vocal “Peace Activists,” enemies of Israel in disguise, who want us to believe otherwise.
If I did not witness it for myself, I too would have laughed out loud in utter disbelief. There were voices in Israel who criticized Rabbis and Commanders for strengthening their soldiers and preaching the right of way. Why would some Israelis have an issue with going to war prepared? Fret not, for all is done to undermine Israel’s own conviction that its fight is right, that her way is moral. But these voices could not succeed for not only is there nothing to be ashamed of when the war is just, but it is also a necessary condition.
Israel has suffered greatly from Gazans’ firing at will into her cities and population centers. She suffered long, all too long. No other country would tolerate rockets and missiles fired from across the border, but Israel for some odd reason remained quiet for eight long years.
The reason is likely that those living farther away in Tel Aviv, the pretty-ultra-liberal-most-progressive-souls, did not feel the wrath of living under constant, unpredictable bombardment. They continued their lives while those in the south, predominantly from weaker economic segments of society, had no other place to go than their homes, so they stayed and did their best to cope.
Those in Tel Aviv and their media-savvy friends knitted a net of lies and deceit that sounded too good: The “Plight” of the “Palestinians,” the “Apartheid Rule” of Israel, give peace a chance. It is thus not a great surprise that many of their children avoided services, although it is mandatory. It is not at all amazing that most of their children did not visit Jerusalem even once, and one wonders how Israelis today can “give up so easily on Jerusalem.” Give up? Why, when you do not view something as yours. Protect? Not when it happens so far away, in a different land, and you sit at a café or have just returned from the beach in Tel Aviv.
However, Israel is tiny, and what happens in the very north, not far away from the border where Katyusha rockets fall, has a tendency to advance toward the center. In the summer of 2006 the advancement stopped at Haifa, or a little bit further south.
Likewise, what happened across the border with Gaza spread to cover all cities in southern Israel.
From Lebanon in the North and Gaza in the South, the totality of Israel is now in range of very accurate and highly destructive missiles.
So between Hezbollah and Hamas, their unwavering determination to destroy the Jewish state and the new missiles and training they both received from Iran, there is not a single part of Israel that is now a safe haven for fools.
And this is exactly the miracle that is Israel. Israelis may have ignored for too long the plight of those in the north or those in the south, but there is no difference whatsoever between one Israeli and another. Allow me to make this point even stronger: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE ISRAELI OR ANOTHER, EVEN IF THE OTHER IS NOT JEWISH. There you go. This is exactly what our Torah – the Jewish Bible – teaches us, that those foreign to us, the widowed and the orphaned are to be treated equally. So we are commanded, so it is expected. And we are reminded, lest we forget, “for slaves you have been in Egypt.” We, too, have been foreigners in a foreign land once, a land not ours, a land to which we are not to return.
There is something unique about the Jewish State in the Land of Israel. It is the only Jewish country in the world, the only place a Jewish person can, by right, call home. And thus, even if one mistakenly hears or thinks that we have lost our way, we have not. Our conviction is as deep as our history is old. Attempt to take it away, and you will find the lion roaring beneath.
It is only a question of the lion needing awakening, exactly like the people going to war need to be reminded by the priest, encouraged by our history and focus their attention on the fact that we fight in order to exist, and we exist in order to do good. The Almighty, Lord of Hosts, our God, will deal with the enemy, for the enemy is vile, vicious and evil—the enemy is the Enemy of God.
We, Israelis and Jews who seem so divided and lost, will emerge victorious once we realize we are one. We knew it all along, but we were otherwise distracted by chaos, noise and other temptations. Priests and Commanders are needed to direct us properly, to remind us of the path in which we must proceed.
May we live to see the end of chaos, a time when Jewish People reside in the Land of Israel and are allowed to live their lives in peace. May we be part of making that happen, and may we always protect all that has been given to us in trust for safekeeping and passage onto future generations.
The series “Postcards from America—Postcards from Israel” by Ari Bussel and Norma Zager is a compilation of articles capturing the essence of life in America and Israel during the first two decades of the 21st Century.
The writers invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, Israel visitors rarely discover and Israelis often ignore.
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 America — Postcards from Israel,” September, 2011
Contact: bussel@me.com
“When you go forth to battle against your enemies, and you see a horse and a chariot, a people much more numerous than you, do not be afraid of them, for the Lord, your God, is with you, He who brought you from the Land of Egypt.
“And as you get near to the war, the priest will approach and talk to the people. And he shall say to them: Hear O, Israel, you are getting near today to war upon your enemies. Your heart should not soften. Do not worry and do not hasten and do not affright from them.
“BECAUSE THE LORD YOUR GOD IS HE WHO WALKS WITH YOU. TO FIGHT FOR YOU WITH YOUR ENEMIES, TO SAVE YOU.” Deuteronomy 20:1-4 Israelis are a strange bunch. At the moment, they seem confused, bewildered, otherwise smartly occupied.
It was before the land incursion into Gaza, that Rabbis and Commanders talked with the soldiers who were about to enter into the Devil’s Inferno. They would risk their lives, and fourteen of them would die. Why? Simply, because the Israeli military protects the lives of the innocent, even at great risk to its own soldiers.
Many would contest the presumption of “innocence” of the Gazans. For them, one simple answer was and is given: A person is a human being, created in the image of the Almighty, and Israel, despite all the blood libels, and unlike any of her enemies, holds the sanctity of life above all else.
Crazy those Israelis.
Indeed, there were many investigations. Most were prompted by lies propagated by Jews and Israelis, haters of Israel. They cannot fathom the very existence of the Jewish state, so they called what happened in Gaza, from the comforts of their homes at the center of the country, a “Blood Bath.” Interestingly, while they may have been the most vocal opponents of Israel, there are the silent voices of the Gazans, who in their hearts knew and know to give thanks that their sworn enemy is neither Muslim nor Arab but the Jewish People. Anyone else, especially Arabs or Iranians, would have butchered them in an instant. Not so the Israelis.
The Israelis called their cell phones and monitored their positions. They knew that Hamas controls their every move and purposely inhabited every kindergarten, school, hospital and mosque throughout Gaza. Those damn Israelis, those pigs and apes that have infested the holy land of the Muslims, they fired warning shots and directed the civilians to clear areas, where they would not be hurt. They did everything possible to avoid civilian casualties.
Indeed, so many maligned Israel, the “Goliath” who with phosphorus bombs inflicted horrors on the population, that we started believing all the wrongdoings and did not stop for a second to think if reality can even be reconciled with the accusations. The truth is drastically different, for any army that did not care about human life, and every army that was determined to end a conflict without risk to its own, would have finished the job in a matter of hours, or even in minutes. Not so the Israelis.
The Gazans know that fact well. The Israeli soldiers know that. But there are those vocal “Peace Activists,” enemies of Israel in disguise, who want us to believe otherwise.
If I did not witness it for myself, I too would have laughed out loud in utter disbelief. There were voices in Israel who criticized Rabbis and Commanders for strengthening their soldiers and preaching the right of way. Why would some Israelis have an issue with going to war prepared? Fret not, for all is done to undermine Israel’s own conviction that its fight is right, that her way is moral. But these voices could not succeed for not only is there nothing to be ashamed of when the war is just, but it is also a necessary condition.
Israel has suffered greatly from Gazans’ firing at will into her cities and population centers. She suffered long, all too long. No other country would tolerate rockets and missiles fired from across the border, but Israel for some odd reason remained quiet for eight long years.
The reason is likely that those living farther away in Tel Aviv, the pretty-ultra-liberal-most-progressive-souls, did not feel the wrath of living under constant, unpredictable bombardment. They continued their lives while those in the south, predominantly from weaker economic segments of society, had no other place to go than their homes, so they stayed and did their best to cope.
Those in Tel Aviv and their media-savvy friends knitted a net of lies and deceit that sounded too good: The “Plight” of the “Palestinians,” the “Apartheid Rule” of Israel, give peace a chance. It is thus not a great surprise that many of their children avoided services, although it is mandatory. It is not at all amazing that most of their children did not visit Jerusalem even once, and one wonders how Israelis today can “give up so easily on Jerusalem.” Give up? Why, when you do not view something as yours. Protect? Not when it happens so far away, in a different land, and you sit at a café or have just returned from the beach in Tel Aviv.
However, Israel is tiny, and what happens in the very north, not far away from the border where Katyusha rockets fall, has a tendency to advance toward the center. In the summer of 2006 the advancement stopped at Haifa, or a little bit further south.
Likewise, what happened across the border with Gaza spread to cover all cities in southern Israel.
From Lebanon in the North and Gaza in the South, the totality of Israel is now in range of very accurate and highly destructive missiles.
So between Hezbollah and Hamas, their unwavering determination to destroy the Jewish state and the new missiles and training they both received from Iran, there is not a single part of Israel that is now a safe haven for fools.
And this is exactly the miracle that is Israel. Israelis may have ignored for too long the plight of those in the north or those in the south, but there is no difference whatsoever between one Israeli and another. Allow me to make this point even stronger: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ONE ISRAELI OR ANOTHER, EVEN IF THE OTHER IS NOT JEWISH. There you go. This is exactly what our Torah – the Jewish Bible – teaches us, that those foreign to us, the widowed and the orphaned are to be treated equally. So we are commanded, so it is expected. And we are reminded, lest we forget, “for slaves you have been in Egypt.” We, too, have been foreigners in a foreign land once, a land not ours, a land to which we are not to return.
There is something unique about the Jewish State in the Land of Israel. It is the only Jewish country in the world, the only place a Jewish person can, by right, call home. And thus, even if one mistakenly hears or thinks that we have lost our way, we have not. Our conviction is as deep as our history is old. Attempt to take it away, and you will find the lion roaring beneath.
It is only a question of the lion needing awakening, exactly like the people going to war need to be reminded by the priest, encouraged by our history and focus their attention on the fact that we fight in order to exist, and we exist in order to do good. The Almighty, Lord of Hosts, our God, will deal with the enemy, for the enemy is vile, vicious and evil—the enemy is the Enemy of God.
We, Israelis and Jews who seem so divided and lost, will emerge victorious once we realize we are one. We knew it all along, but we were otherwise distracted by chaos, noise and other temptations. Priests and Commanders are needed to direct us properly, to remind us of the path in which we must proceed.
May we live to see the end of chaos, a time when Jewish People reside in the Land of Israel and are allowed to live their lives in peace. May we be part of making that happen, and may we always protect all that has been given to us in trust for safekeeping and passage onto future generations.
The series “Postcards from America—Postcards from Israel” by Ari Bussel and Norma Zager is a compilation of articles capturing the essence of life in America and Israel during the first two decades of the 21st Century.
The writers invite readers to view and experience an Israel and her politics through their eyes, Israel visitors rarely discover and Israelis often ignore.
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 America — Postcards from Israel,” September, 2011
Contact: bussel@me.com
Roger Cohen Plays Dumb
My Right Word
Iran apologist and all-around ASHamed Jew, Roger Cohen, tries to further isolate Israel.
He also seems to lack translation skills for he writes about the UN Palmer Report on the flotilla affair of last year, when Turkish terror-supporters attempted to kill Israeli soldiers who were engaged in a legal act, so:
My rough translation of its conclusion would be this message to Israel: You had the right to do it but what you did was way over the top and just plain dumb.
Cohen, roughage is something you really need to get rid of.
He never misses an opportunity to misinterpret anything to do with Israel.
He further asserts
Israel, increasingly isolated, should do just that. An apology is the right course and the smart course. What’s good for Egypt — an apology over lost lives — is good for Turkey, too.
Mr. Cohen, by the way, when has Turkey apologized for the Armenian Massacre? Wasn't that just a bit heavy-handed and disproportionate?
Comment: Of course these kind of people never answer the obvious questions as they have no defense and know it to be so. This simply discredits them as having any journalistic integrity.
Iran apologist and all-around ASHamed Jew, Roger Cohen, tries to further isolate Israel.
He also seems to lack translation skills for he writes about the UN Palmer Report on the flotilla affair of last year, when Turkish terror-supporters attempted to kill Israeli soldiers who were engaged in a legal act, so:
My rough translation of its conclusion would be this message to Israel: You had the right to do it but what you did was way over the top and just plain dumb.
Cohen, roughage is something you really need to get rid of.
He never misses an opportunity to misinterpret anything to do with Israel.
He further asserts
Israel, increasingly isolated, should do just that. An apology is the right course and the smart course. What’s good for Egypt — an apology over lost lives — is good for Turkey, too.
Mr. Cohen, by the way, when has Turkey apologized for the Armenian Massacre? Wasn't that just a bit heavy-handed and disproportionate?
Comment: Of course these kind of people never answer the obvious questions as they have no defense and know it to be so. This simply discredits them as having any journalistic integrity.
Monday, September 05, 2011
Turkey doesn't deserve an apology
Eli Avidar
Long before the Palmer report was released, initial leaks made it clear why Turkey was demanding an apology from Israel and trying to forestall the report's publication. Even then, everyone understood that the Palmer report's committee had unequivocally accepted Israel's position that the naval blockade of Gaza is legal. The report even established that Turkey had done too little to stop extremists aboard the Mavi Marmara from setting sail in the first place. Turkey understood that once the report was published they would have no chance of squeezing an apology out of Israel, so instead they launched a diplomatic offensive. Israel commendably withstood the pressure. There was nothing to apologize for. Turkey should be satisfied with the fact that the U.N. Palmer Commission gave their country a pass by disregarding its government's relationship with the IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation, as well as that organization's role in the election of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Still, the bottom line is obvious. Despite some criticism of IDF conduct, the report takes Israel's side. It's difficult to describe how humiliating this is for Ankara. For the past few months, Turkey has been proclaiming in every international forum that Israel violated international law. In light of this comeuppance, it is no surprise that Erdogan chose to declare our ambassador in Ankara a persona non grata.
Some have proposed that despite the fact that Israel's position was justified, it would have been better to end the crisis with an apology, if only for the sake of broader geopolitical considerations. This would have constituted a grave mistake. No apology would have ended the crisis. Turkey demanded that we lift our blockade on Gaza, a step that would have earned Erdogan the status of Leader of the Arab World. This would have come at the expense of Israel's citizens, who would have then found themselves under an even greater threat of missile and terror attacks. The analysts who continually harped about Israel's need to ingratiate itself with Turkey are the very same people who helped Turkey paint itself into a corner.
The best way to improve relations with Turkey, using language that Middle Easterners understand, is to exact a heavy diplomatic price. Israel must attack the portion of the Palmer report that downplays Turkey's responsibility in the flotilla crisis, as well as make it clear to the world that Erdogan's government has a negative influence on the Middle East. We must make it clear that Turkey is not a stabilizing force in the region or part of the solution. Rather, it is a provocateur that undermines stability.
Expelling the Israeli ambassador from Ankara is a move that will likely hurt Turkey in the end. Erdogan could learn a lesson from Oman and Morocco, both nations that hosted international conferences and leaders from all over the world in the 1990's, but disappeared from the diplomatic map after severing ties with Israel in 2000. Likewise, Turkey is a former key player that has been taken over by radical, irresponsible ideology. Not only has Turkey failed in its efforts to join the European Union, but its latest steps are pushing it further away from moderate Muslim states and closer to extremists like Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. The deterioration of its relations with Israel is tantamount to a public confession that this is, in fact, the case.
In Ankara's view, no counterweight currently exists in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan and certainly not in the Gulf states. The rejuvenated Arab world views Erdogan as an impulsive leader in the cast of Moammar Gadhafi. The loss of its alliance with Syria and the latter's weakening are liable to cause the long-forgotten Kurds to rise up and force Turkey to deal with its internal problems before it can continue to sow chaos internationally.
Israel must shift from a policy of absorbing blows to taking the diplomatic offensive. While the most natural thing for Israelis to do is wait out the storm, in the Middle East, diplomacy doesn't work that way. Relations with Turkey will improve only once Israel realizes that the current crisis is exacting too high an international price and condemning it to isolation and irrelevance in the region.
The Palmer report has shed light on the extremism and isolation Erdogan has brought to Turkey. Only continued diplomatic pressure will propel Ankara to change direction and, in the long run, restore its former friendly relations with Israel.
Eli Avidar is currently the managing director of the Israel Diamond Institute Group and a former official in the Foreign Ministry.
Long before the Palmer report was released, initial leaks made it clear why Turkey was demanding an apology from Israel and trying to forestall the report's publication. Even then, everyone understood that the Palmer report's committee had unequivocally accepted Israel's position that the naval blockade of Gaza is legal. The report even established that Turkey had done too little to stop extremists aboard the Mavi Marmara from setting sail in the first place. Turkey understood that once the report was published they would have no chance of squeezing an apology out of Israel, so instead they launched a diplomatic offensive. Israel commendably withstood the pressure. There was nothing to apologize for. Turkey should be satisfied with the fact that the U.N. Palmer Commission gave their country a pass by disregarding its government's relationship with the IHH Humanitarian Relief Foundation, as well as that organization's role in the election of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Still, the bottom line is obvious. Despite some criticism of IDF conduct, the report takes Israel's side. It's difficult to describe how humiliating this is for Ankara. For the past few months, Turkey has been proclaiming in every international forum that Israel violated international law. In light of this comeuppance, it is no surprise that Erdogan chose to declare our ambassador in Ankara a persona non grata.
Some have proposed that despite the fact that Israel's position was justified, it would have been better to end the crisis with an apology, if only for the sake of broader geopolitical considerations. This would have constituted a grave mistake. No apology would have ended the crisis. Turkey demanded that we lift our blockade on Gaza, a step that would have earned Erdogan the status of Leader of the Arab World. This would have come at the expense of Israel's citizens, who would have then found themselves under an even greater threat of missile and terror attacks. The analysts who continually harped about Israel's need to ingratiate itself with Turkey are the very same people who helped Turkey paint itself into a corner.
The best way to improve relations with Turkey, using language that Middle Easterners understand, is to exact a heavy diplomatic price. Israel must attack the portion of the Palmer report that downplays Turkey's responsibility in the flotilla crisis, as well as make it clear to the world that Erdogan's government has a negative influence on the Middle East. We must make it clear that Turkey is not a stabilizing force in the region or part of the solution. Rather, it is a provocateur that undermines stability.
Expelling the Israeli ambassador from Ankara is a move that will likely hurt Turkey in the end. Erdogan could learn a lesson from Oman and Morocco, both nations that hosted international conferences and leaders from all over the world in the 1990's, but disappeared from the diplomatic map after severing ties with Israel in 2000. Likewise, Turkey is a former key player that has been taken over by radical, irresponsible ideology. Not only has Turkey failed in its efforts to join the European Union, but its latest steps are pushing it further away from moderate Muslim states and closer to extremists like Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas. The deterioration of its relations with Israel is tantamount to a public confession that this is, in fact, the case.
In Ankara's view, no counterweight currently exists in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan and certainly not in the Gulf states. The rejuvenated Arab world views Erdogan as an impulsive leader in the cast of Moammar Gadhafi. The loss of its alliance with Syria and the latter's weakening are liable to cause the long-forgotten Kurds to rise up and force Turkey to deal with its internal problems before it can continue to sow chaos internationally.
Israel must shift from a policy of absorbing blows to taking the diplomatic offensive. While the most natural thing for Israelis to do is wait out the storm, in the Middle East, diplomacy doesn't work that way. Relations with Turkey will improve only once Israel realizes that the current crisis is exacting too high an international price and condemning it to isolation and irrelevance in the region.
The Palmer report has shed light on the extremism and isolation Erdogan has brought to Turkey. Only continued diplomatic pressure will propel Ankara to change direction and, in the long run, restore its former friendly relations with Israel.
Eli Avidar is currently the managing director of the Israel Diamond Institute Group and a former official in the Foreign Ministry.
The Arab Conquest -- Massacre, Enslavement, Population Transfer, and the like
Emet m'Tsiyon
Descriptions written nowadays of the Arab/Muslim conquest of the Fertile Crescent lands [633-642] often paint a benign, mild picture of the conquest, which supposedly did not cause major inconvenience or disruption in the daily lives of the inhabitants and made few changes. Even a respected historian like Bernard Lewis leaned towards this edulcorated or embellished view in his The Arabs in History. Carl Brockelmann, the German, does likewise, writing: Emperor Heraclius [of the Byzantine Empire]. . . In 632. . . installed Cyrus . . . both as patriarch of Alexandria and head of the civil administration at the same time. His ecclesiastical policy and his tax demands weighed so heavily on the Copts that they necessarily greeted the Arabs as emancipators, just as their Syrian fellow [monophysite] believers had done. . . In return for the promise of a fixed payment of tribute [jizyah] the Muslims bound themselves to leave the Christians in possession of their churches and not to interfere in the administration of their communal affairs. . . [C Brockelmann, History of the Islamic Peoples (New York: Capricorn 1960), pp 56-57]
In Egypt, as in the other provinces, the Muslims took over the substance of their predecessors' administrative system; they even left all their functionaries at their posts, which were generally administered by Copts later also. [This seems generous, but the Arabs, nearly all of them illiterate, were not fit for administration] [p 57]
. . . `Umar dispatched Khalid ibn-Thabit to conquer Jerusalem, which soon surrendered; `Umar himself approved the rather mild terms [p 55]
The cities and rural areas which had submitted to the Muslims without a struggle retained their freedom and their property. . . Localities which had had to be taken by force of arms fell to the victors as booty [p 61]
Brockelmann rightly points out that Muslims placed the conquered cities in two classes, those that had surrendered and those taken by force. However, despite what Brockelmann says, even those who surrendered might be dispossessed, as we shall see below.
In short, there is a common tendency to whitewash the Arab conquest. These mild portrayals of the Arab Conquest often serve the policy needs of 21st century empires, just as today's "neo-colonialism theory" and anti-Zionism often serve those same interests.
The edulcoration notwithstanding, documents from the early period of Arab rule often depict a brutal murderous conquest. Now, Milka Levy-Rubin, an Israeli historian has thoroughly examined Arabic and non-Arabic sources, as well as archeological findings, to show that whereas in some places --typically inland and hilly areas-- the conquest was relatively rather mild, along the coastal plain of the Levant, from Ashqelon to Antioch, there were population transfers, enslavement and massacres of recalcitrant cities and towns, flight by masses of inhabitants, especially Christians, but others as well, induced emigration of non-Arabs soon after the conquest, the takeover by Muslims of homes abandoned by the refugees, who had often hoped to return if the Byzantine Empire had succeeded in retaking their cities, confiscation of homes for the sake of Arab warriors, new populations replacing the old ones, etc. She cites one case where Jews were brought in to replace Christians. One can imagine that these Jews had also been forcibly uprooted from their homes and brought to a coastal city for the conquerors' purposes.
Levy-Rubin makes clear that the reason why inland areas suffered less change in their daily lives and less oppression is that the conquerors feared that if the Christian population --Greek and Aramaic-speaking-- stayed in place in the coastal cities and towns, they might aid a future Byzantine attempt at reconquest. The Jews on the other hand could be trusted more by the Arabs since they had their own resentments of Byzantine anti-Jewish policy. Nevertheless, Jews too suffered from the conquest as in this Syriac account which depicts Jews being massacred along with Samaritans and Christians east of Gaza. Levy-Rubin writes that even after conquest of a town or city had been completed, the conquerors might try to induce the native population to leave. This policy succeeded in several places and in some places freed up the homes formerly housing the departed natives for Arab settlement. We know that many Jewish homes in Tiberias --for example-- were taken over by Arab settlers, although it is not certain that the Jews had left before their homes were taken over.
Here are some passages quoted from Milka Levy-Rubin's article. It represents important, thorough research:
We learn from the words of al-Baladhdhuri [Muslim historian writing in Arabic, died ca. 892] that the northern coastal strip was mostly evacuated of its inhabitants. . . Among the cities of which many of the inhabitants left, he counted. . . Gabala [not to be confused with Gbal = Byblos], Antarados (Tartus), Trablus (Tripolis), Beirut (Berytos), Tyros (Tyre, Sour [= Tsor]), Sidon. [M Levy-Rubin, "The [Arab] Conquest as a Shaper of the Map of Settlement in the Land of Israel in the Early Muslim Period," Cathedra (September 2006; Jerusalem, Yad Ben-Zvi, in Hebrew), p 56]
Meanwhile, Antioch [Antiochia, Antakiya] and Laodicea [Latakiya],
were partially abandoned [p 56]
However,
Caesarea was conquered by the sword [that is, it did not surrender] and its inhabitants were taken captive [and sold as slaves], and it seems that `Akko and Ashqelon too were mostly evacuated of their Christian inhabitants in the end. At the end of the process, the coastal strip was emptied of the overwhelming majority of its previous inhabitants, and the latter were replaced by a new population. [p 56]
What can we learn about the way in which the Christian population was evacuated from the coastal cities? At which stage of the conquest and in which way was it evacuated? . . . In many cases, the city was conquered first and only afterwards abandoned by its inhabitants. [p57]
Milka Levy-Rubin continues her article with details illustrating what happened in particular cities. We will return to her picture of events which vitiates much of Brockelmann's mild depiction, and the claims of other embellishers and edulcorators as well. And her main source is al-Baladhdhuri, a Muslim historian.
At a time, when charlatans like the late Edward Said have demanded adherence to an embellished picture of Arab and Islamic culture in the name of "leftist" political correctness --in the name of "anti-imperialism," God save us-- yet often serving the contemporary policies of empires, the ugly truth is a necessary corrective.
- - - - - -
Descriptions written nowadays of the Arab/Muslim conquest of the Fertile Crescent lands [633-642] often paint a benign, mild picture of the conquest, which supposedly did not cause major inconvenience or disruption in the daily lives of the inhabitants and made few changes. Even a respected historian like Bernard Lewis leaned towards this edulcorated or embellished view in his The Arabs in History. Carl Brockelmann, the German, does likewise, writing: Emperor Heraclius [of the Byzantine Empire]. . . In 632. . . installed Cyrus . . . both as patriarch of Alexandria and head of the civil administration at the same time. His ecclesiastical policy and his tax demands weighed so heavily on the Copts that they necessarily greeted the Arabs as emancipators, just as their Syrian fellow [monophysite] believers had done. . . In return for the promise of a fixed payment of tribute [jizyah] the Muslims bound themselves to leave the Christians in possession of their churches and not to interfere in the administration of their communal affairs. . . [C Brockelmann, History of the Islamic Peoples (New York: Capricorn 1960), pp 56-57]
In Egypt, as in the other provinces, the Muslims took over the substance of their predecessors' administrative system; they even left all their functionaries at their posts, which were generally administered by Copts later also. [This seems generous, but the Arabs, nearly all of them illiterate, were not fit for administration] [p 57]
. . . `Umar dispatched Khalid ibn-Thabit to conquer Jerusalem, which soon surrendered; `Umar himself approved the rather mild terms [p 55]
The cities and rural areas which had submitted to the Muslims without a struggle retained their freedom and their property. . . Localities which had had to be taken by force of arms fell to the victors as booty [p 61]
Brockelmann rightly points out that Muslims placed the conquered cities in two classes, those that had surrendered and those taken by force. However, despite what Brockelmann says, even those who surrendered might be dispossessed, as we shall see below.
In short, there is a common tendency to whitewash the Arab conquest. These mild portrayals of the Arab Conquest often serve the policy needs of 21st century empires, just as today's "neo-colonialism theory" and anti-Zionism often serve those same interests.
The edulcoration notwithstanding, documents from the early period of Arab rule often depict a brutal murderous conquest. Now, Milka Levy-Rubin, an Israeli historian has thoroughly examined Arabic and non-Arabic sources, as well as archeological findings, to show that whereas in some places --typically inland and hilly areas-- the conquest was relatively rather mild, along the coastal plain of the Levant, from Ashqelon to Antioch, there were population transfers, enslavement and massacres of recalcitrant cities and towns, flight by masses of inhabitants, especially Christians, but others as well, induced emigration of non-Arabs soon after the conquest, the takeover by Muslims of homes abandoned by the refugees, who had often hoped to return if the Byzantine Empire had succeeded in retaking their cities, confiscation of homes for the sake of Arab warriors, new populations replacing the old ones, etc. She cites one case where Jews were brought in to replace Christians. One can imagine that these Jews had also been forcibly uprooted from their homes and brought to a coastal city for the conquerors' purposes.
Levy-Rubin makes clear that the reason why inland areas suffered less change in their daily lives and less oppression is that the conquerors feared that if the Christian population --Greek and Aramaic-speaking-- stayed in place in the coastal cities and towns, they might aid a future Byzantine attempt at reconquest. The Jews on the other hand could be trusted more by the Arabs since they had their own resentments of Byzantine anti-Jewish policy. Nevertheless, Jews too suffered from the conquest as in this Syriac account which depicts Jews being massacred along with Samaritans and Christians east of Gaza. Levy-Rubin writes that even after conquest of a town or city had been completed, the conquerors might try to induce the native population to leave. This policy succeeded in several places and in some places freed up the homes formerly housing the departed natives for Arab settlement. We know that many Jewish homes in Tiberias --for example-- were taken over by Arab settlers, although it is not certain that the Jews had left before their homes were taken over.
Here are some passages quoted from Milka Levy-Rubin's article. It represents important, thorough research:
We learn from the words of al-Baladhdhuri [Muslim historian writing in Arabic, died ca. 892] that the northern coastal strip was mostly evacuated of its inhabitants. . . Among the cities of which many of the inhabitants left, he counted. . . Gabala [not to be confused with Gbal = Byblos], Antarados (Tartus), Trablus (Tripolis), Beirut (Berytos), Tyros (Tyre, Sour [= Tsor]), Sidon. [M Levy-Rubin, "The [Arab] Conquest as a Shaper of the Map of Settlement in the Land of Israel in the Early Muslim Period," Cathedra (September 2006; Jerusalem, Yad Ben-Zvi, in Hebrew), p 56]
Meanwhile, Antioch [Antiochia, Antakiya] and Laodicea [Latakiya],
were partially abandoned [p 56]
However,
Caesarea was conquered by the sword [that is, it did not surrender] and its inhabitants were taken captive [and sold as slaves], and it seems that `Akko and Ashqelon too were mostly evacuated of their Christian inhabitants in the end. At the end of the process, the coastal strip was emptied of the overwhelming majority of its previous inhabitants, and the latter were replaced by a new population. [p 56]
What can we learn about the way in which the Christian population was evacuated from the coastal cities? At which stage of the conquest and in which way was it evacuated? . . . In many cases, the city was conquered first and only afterwards abandoned by its inhabitants. [p57]
Milka Levy-Rubin continues her article with details illustrating what happened in particular cities. We will return to her picture of events which vitiates much of Brockelmann's mild depiction, and the claims of other embellishers and edulcorators as well. And her main source is al-Baladhdhuri, a Muslim historian.
At a time, when charlatans like the late Edward Said have demanded adherence to an embellished picture of Arab and Islamic culture in the name of "leftist" political correctness --in the name of "anti-imperialism," God save us-- yet often serving the contemporary policies of empires, the ugly truth is a necessary corrective.
- - - - - -
NYT op-ed defends Sharia in America without ever addressing its contents
Jihad Watch
As is often the case, we hear what Sharia supposedly isn't. We don't hear about what it is. This editorial depends entirely on an analogy of Sharia to Jewish laws, without ever addressing a single tenet of the former system of laws. The author doesn't even take the usual time to dismiss concerns about its specific contents, like a woman's testimony being half that of a man (Qur'an 2:282). Or the double standards in women's ability to get out of a marriage. The Qur'an's endorsement of wife-beating (4:34, which really does say to hit one's wife). The death penalty for apostasy. The subjugation of non-Muslims. The inability to propagate non-Islamic religions. And so on. Defenses of Sharia consistently avoid specifics, or deny the existence or importance of controversial rulings. They depend instead on platitudes and flawed analogies to other legal systems that do not share the unique combination of Sharia's abusive tenets, and supremacist and totalitarian impulses. The fact remains that wherever Sharia gains a foothold, it does not stop at "just a little," and its observable effects are consistently bad for tolerance and civil liberties, whether in Aceh or Tower Hamlets. Indeed, consider how swimmingly things have gone in Britain's experiment with Sharia.
That won't stop Islamic supremacists and their multiculturalist allies from wanting to try it here, of course. It will be "different" this time, they will argue, because America is "different." But one cannot casually invoke the rights, liberties, and values Sharia does not respect as the hope of reforming it -- so much less as Western societies are robbed of their ability to resist and even to criticize Sharia.
"Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America," by Eliyahu Stern for the New York Times, September 3:
More than a dozen American states are considering outlawing aspects of Shariah law. Some of these efforts would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration, while others would go even further in stigmatizing Islamic life: a bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote “the destruction of the national existence of the United States.”
Supporters of these bills contend that such measures are needed to protect the country against homegrown terrorism and safeguard its Judeo-Christian values. The Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has said that “Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.”
This is exactly wrong. The crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority.
The suggestion that Shariah threatens American security is disturbingly reminiscent of the accusation, in 19th-century Europe, that Jewish religious law was seditious. In 1807, Napoleon convened an assembly of rabbinic authorities to address the question of whether Jewish law prevented Jews from being loyal citizens of the republic. (They said that it did not.)
Fear that Jewish law bred disloyalty was not limited to political elites; leading European philosophers also entertained the idea. Kant argued that the particularistic nature of “Jewish legislation” made Jews “hostile to all other peoples.” And Hegel contended that Jewish dietary rules and other Mosaic laws barred Jews from identifying with their fellow Prussians and called into question their ability to be civil servants.
The German philosopher Bruno Bauer offered Jews a bargain: renounce Jewish law and be granted full legal rights. He insisted that, otherwise, laws prohibiting work on the Sabbath made it impossible for Jews to be true citizens. (Bauer conveniently ignored the fact that many fully observant Jews violated the Sabbath to fight in the Prussian wars against Napoleon.)
During that era, Christianity was seen as either a universally valid basis of the state or a faith that harmoniously coexisted with the secular law of the land. Conversely, Judaism was seen as a competing legal system — making Jews at best an unassimilable minority, at worst a fifth column. It was not until the late 19th century that all Jews were granted full citizenship in Western Europe (and even then it was short lived).
Most Americans today would be appalled if Muslims suffered from legally sanctioned discrimination as Jews once did in Europe. Still, there are signs that many Americans view Muslims in this country as disloyal. A recent Gallup poll found that only 56 percent of Protestants think that Muslims are loyal Americans.
This suspicion and mistrust is no doubt fueled by the notion that American Muslims are akin to certain extreme Muslim groups in the Middle East and in Europe. But American Muslims are a different story. They are natural candidates for assimilation. They are demographically the youngest religious group in America, and most of their parents don’t even come from the Middle East (the majority have roots in Southeast Asia). A recent Pew Research Center poll found that Muslim Americans exhibit the highest level of integration among major American religious groups, expressing greater degrees of tolerance toward people of other faiths than do Protestants, Catholics or Jews.
Given time, American Muslims, like all other religious minorities before them, will adjust their legal and theological traditions, if necessary, to accord with American values....
We're to accept a flawed, abusive system on the promise of a reform that could, would, should happen, but has not happened.
No.
As is often the case, we hear what Sharia supposedly isn't. We don't hear about what it is. This editorial depends entirely on an analogy of Sharia to Jewish laws, without ever addressing a single tenet of the former system of laws. The author doesn't even take the usual time to dismiss concerns about its specific contents, like a woman's testimony being half that of a man (Qur'an 2:282). Or the double standards in women's ability to get out of a marriage. The Qur'an's endorsement of wife-beating (4:34, which really does say to hit one's wife). The death penalty for apostasy. The subjugation of non-Muslims. The inability to propagate non-Islamic religions. And so on. Defenses of Sharia consistently avoid specifics, or deny the existence or importance of controversial rulings. They depend instead on platitudes and flawed analogies to other legal systems that do not share the unique combination of Sharia's abusive tenets, and supremacist and totalitarian impulses. The fact remains that wherever Sharia gains a foothold, it does not stop at "just a little," and its observable effects are consistently bad for tolerance and civil liberties, whether in Aceh or Tower Hamlets. Indeed, consider how swimmingly things have gone in Britain's experiment with Sharia.
That won't stop Islamic supremacists and their multiculturalist allies from wanting to try it here, of course. It will be "different" this time, they will argue, because America is "different." But one cannot casually invoke the rights, liberties, and values Sharia does not respect as the hope of reforming it -- so much less as Western societies are robbed of their ability to resist and even to criticize Sharia.
"Don’t Fear Islamic Law in America," by Eliyahu Stern for the New York Times, September 3:
More than a dozen American states are considering outlawing aspects of Shariah law. Some of these efforts would curtail Muslims from settling disputes over dietary laws and marriage through religious arbitration, while others would go even further in stigmatizing Islamic life: a bill recently passed by the Tennessee General Assembly equates Shariah with a set of rules that promote “the destruction of the national existence of the United States.”
Supporters of these bills contend that such measures are needed to protect the country against homegrown terrorism and safeguard its Judeo-Christian values. The Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has said that “Shariah is a mortal threat to the survival of freedom in the United States and in the world as we know it.”
This is exactly wrong. The crusade against Shariah undermines American democracy, ignores our country’s successful history of religious tolerance and assimilation, and creates a dangerous divide between America and its fastest-growing religious minority.
The suggestion that Shariah threatens American security is disturbingly reminiscent of the accusation, in 19th-century Europe, that Jewish religious law was seditious. In 1807, Napoleon convened an assembly of rabbinic authorities to address the question of whether Jewish law prevented Jews from being loyal citizens of the republic. (They said that it did not.)
Fear that Jewish law bred disloyalty was not limited to political elites; leading European philosophers also entertained the idea. Kant argued that the particularistic nature of “Jewish legislation” made Jews “hostile to all other peoples.” And Hegel contended that Jewish dietary rules and other Mosaic laws barred Jews from identifying with their fellow Prussians and called into question their ability to be civil servants.
The German philosopher Bruno Bauer offered Jews a bargain: renounce Jewish law and be granted full legal rights. He insisted that, otherwise, laws prohibiting work on the Sabbath made it impossible for Jews to be true citizens. (Bauer conveniently ignored the fact that many fully observant Jews violated the Sabbath to fight in the Prussian wars against Napoleon.)
During that era, Christianity was seen as either a universally valid basis of the state or a faith that harmoniously coexisted with the secular law of the land. Conversely, Judaism was seen as a competing legal system — making Jews at best an unassimilable minority, at worst a fifth column. It was not until the late 19th century that all Jews were granted full citizenship in Western Europe (and even then it was short lived).
Most Americans today would be appalled if Muslims suffered from legally sanctioned discrimination as Jews once did in Europe. Still, there are signs that many Americans view Muslims in this country as disloyal. A recent Gallup poll found that only 56 percent of Protestants think that Muslims are loyal Americans.
This suspicion and mistrust is no doubt fueled by the notion that American Muslims are akin to certain extreme Muslim groups in the Middle East and in Europe. But American Muslims are a different story. They are natural candidates for assimilation. They are demographically the youngest religious group in America, and most of their parents don’t even come from the Middle East (the majority have roots in Southeast Asia). A recent Pew Research Center poll found that Muslim Americans exhibit the highest level of integration among major American religious groups, expressing greater degrees of tolerance toward people of other faiths than do Protestants, Catholics or Jews.
Given time, American Muslims, like all other religious minorities before them, will adjust their legal and theological traditions, if necessary, to accord with American values....
We're to accept a flawed, abusive system on the promise of a reform that could, would, should happen, but has not happened.
No.
Sunday, September 04, 2011
Report: Hizbullah Establishes Cuba Base
Gavriel Queenann
Arutz 7
According to reports, Hizbullah is founding a Cuba-based terror cell to seek vengeance on Israel for the 2008 death of Imad Mughniyah.
Mughniyeh, a senior commander and head of Hizbullah's security section, was killed when a car bomb he was passing in the Kfar Suseh neighborhood in Damascus, Syria detonated. Hizbullah has long alleged Israel was behind the attack and has sworn it would avenge him.
To this end, Hizbullah has reportedly established a center of operations in Cuba, thereby expanding its foothold in the region while hoping to facilitate an attack on an Israeli target in South America, Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported. According to the paper, three HIzbullah members have already arrived in Cuba with the purpose of establishing the terrorist cell. It is to include 23 operatives, hand-picked by Talal Hamia, a senior member tasked with heading the covert operation.
The operation, titled "The Caribbean Case," was reportedly allocated a budget of $1.5 million. The Cuba base is to be initially used for logistics purposes, including intelligence collection, networking and document forgery.
Hizbullah has been active in South America for quite some time, primarily in Paraguay, Brazil and Venezuela.
However, Israel is not the only nation that had reason to target Mugniyeh, who in intelligence circles is known to have been involved in the bombing of the US Marine Corps barracks and Embassy in 1983, dozens of kidnappings and murders of foreigners - as well as the 2001 Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Ares.
Prior to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States, Mugniyeh was considered the terrorist credited with having slain the most Americans (over 350) and topped the FBI Most Wanted Terrorist List with a USD 5 Million bounty.
The FBI maintained Mugniyeh was responsible for "all but eliminating the US military presence in Lebanon."
Arutz 7
According to reports, Hizbullah is founding a Cuba-based terror cell to seek vengeance on Israel for the 2008 death of Imad Mughniyah.
Mughniyeh, a senior commander and head of Hizbullah's security section, was killed when a car bomb he was passing in the Kfar Suseh neighborhood in Damascus, Syria detonated. Hizbullah has long alleged Israel was behind the attack and has sworn it would avenge him.
To this end, Hizbullah has reportedly established a center of operations in Cuba, thereby expanding its foothold in the region while hoping to facilitate an attack on an Israeli target in South America, Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported. According to the paper, three HIzbullah members have already arrived in Cuba with the purpose of establishing the terrorist cell. It is to include 23 operatives, hand-picked by Talal Hamia, a senior member tasked with heading the covert operation.
The operation, titled "The Caribbean Case," was reportedly allocated a budget of $1.5 million. The Cuba base is to be initially used for logistics purposes, including intelligence collection, networking and document forgery.
Hizbullah has been active in South America for quite some time, primarily in Paraguay, Brazil and Venezuela.
However, Israel is not the only nation that had reason to target Mugniyeh, who in intelligence circles is known to have been involved in the bombing of the US Marine Corps barracks and Embassy in 1983, dozens of kidnappings and murders of foreigners - as well as the 2001 Israeli Embassy attack in Buenos Ares.
Prior to the September 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States, Mugniyeh was considered the terrorist credited with having slain the most Americans (over 350) and topped the FBI Most Wanted Terrorist List with a USD 5 Million bounty.
The FBI maintained Mugniyeh was responsible for "all but eliminating the US military presence in Lebanon."
Saturday, September 03, 2011
Explaining double-speak to our friends
Isi Leibler
These are difficult times as we simultaneously confront threats from our Middle East neighbors and intensified pressures from every direction, including from the Obama administration.
The situation is aggravated by the upheavals in the Arab world, which have in all instances resulted in radical anti-Israeli Islamic elements either taking control or significantly increasing in influence. Even our peace treaty with Egypt is now in question. And at the same time, Hezbollah and Hamas have accumulated arsenals of deadly rockets, which in the event of a conflict would be directed toward all the major Israeli population centers. In this context, the enthusiastic bipartisan congressional support accorded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his Washington visit should not create excessive euphoria. It is the White House, in the main, that controls foreign affairs and, in view of the current economic meltdown, the pro-Israel Congress is more likely to be concentrating on urgent issues of domestic concern rather than confronting Obama over his Middle East policies. We also have legitimate grounds for unease that, should Obama be elected for a second term and no longer face election constraints and party pressures not to alienate Jewish support, he is likely to intensify his one-sided demands of us.
To this day, Obama has not diverged from his initial approach of appeasing Islamic states and making harsh demands on Israel. Yet the U.S. president is respected by neither friends nor foes. The manner in which he unhesitatingly abandoned his long-standing U.S. ally, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, while delaying calls for the ouster of Syrian President Bashar Assad, have encouraged the traditional Muslim allies of the U.S. to lose confidence in him. At the same time, his adversaries consider him a wimp, capitulating on every front. Even Israeli dove and former Labor Minister Yossi Beilin maintains that Obama "holds zero accountability for his presidency" and "waits for someone else to implement his grand plan."
We are confronted with a major challenge in September. Irrespective of whether or not the U.N. General Assembly endorses Palestinian statehood, there are likely to be concerted attempts to encourage tens of thousands of Palestinians to bypass roadblocks into Israeli territory. We will be obliged to exercise force to protect our security and sovereignty. Even taking maximum precautions, there will almost certainly be casualties and Israel is likely to yet again face global condemnation and demonization.
In the face of these imminent challenges, only idiots or those relying exclusively on divine intervention would dismiss the crucial importance of maintaining U.S. support. Aside from our essential defense requirements it is only the U.S. which is in a position to economically pressure the Egyptian military regime not to concede to the Islamic extremists baying for the annulment of the peace treaty with us. In addition, the absence of a U.S. diplomatic umbrella would leave us to the mercies of the Europeans who would have no compunction in abandoning us by supporting boycotts and sanctions at the U.N. in order to appease the Arab and Third World countries.
Politics is the art of the possible and we must therefore resist demagogic populist attitudes exhorting us to be “tough” and face the world alone. In this context, one would not envy the role of an Israeli prime minister. He is obliged to retain the critical support and friendship of the American people and Congress who can, at least substantially, limit the administration's efforts to pressure us. To achieve this in such a fake environment, an extraordinary diplomatic balancing act is required, in which he remains firm on essentials but must not be perceived as the obstacle to resolving the conflict.
It is in this context that one must assess the unconfirmed reports that Netanyahu has tentatively agreed to Obama’s "revised" formula of employing "1967 borders with swaps" as a benchmark for negotiations with the Palestinians. In return, Obama has allegedly decided to revert to the Bush commitments which recognize that demographic changes entitle Israel to retain the major settlement blocs and defensible borders. Netanyahu is said to have made this offer subject to a quid pro quo by the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. As this would imply a repudiation of the Arab refugee right of return – which the Palestinians would never endorse – this exercise remains an extension of the theatre of the absurd in which we are obliged to dance through meaningless motions in order to humor the Obama Administration.
Unfortunately, previous experience shows us that vague understandings are frequently selectively implemented to our detriment. An example is the total disregard of the clause in the Quartet Road Map stipulating that prior to any further Israeli concessions, the terrorist infrastructure would be dismantled.
An agreement along these lines with Obama may thus return to haunt us. In the absence of clear definitions of defensible borders and “major settlement blocs," these new undertakings could be exploited in future negotiations to pressure us into making territorial concessions to the Palestinians with potentially disastrous long-term security consequences.
The even more detrimental outcome of these theatrics is the confusion and bewilderment it sows amongst Diaspora Jews and our friends. On the one hand, we occasionally speak the truth and expose the Palestinians as a criminal society promoting a genocidal culture designed to destroy us. Then, to placate our western "allies" we relate to Abbas as a peace partner and babble on about negotiating for a settlement, fully aware that in the current climate this is simply delusional.
One day our prime minister has a confrontation with the U.S. president and the next day Defense Minister Ehud Barak proclaims that Obama is God’s gift to Israel. In contrast, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has a penchant for occasionally firing aggressive statements (often based on reality) which enthuse his supporters but embarrass the government and frequently detract from our international standing.
Of course, ideally, ministers of a government should speak with one voice. However the concept of cabinet responsibility in Israel has for many years been ignored, and individual ministers feel entitled to say what they like, even in stark opposition to the policy of their own government.
Nevertheless, within the constraints of the fantasy world in which our government must operate, a strategy must be devised to ensure that despite the "double-speak" in which those seeking to destroy us are portrayed as “peace partners," we ensure that Diaspora Jews and our friends are enabled to comprehend the reality of the situation.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
These are difficult times as we simultaneously confront threats from our Middle East neighbors and intensified pressures from every direction, including from the Obama administration.
The situation is aggravated by the upheavals in the Arab world, which have in all instances resulted in radical anti-Israeli Islamic elements either taking control or significantly increasing in influence. Even our peace treaty with Egypt is now in question. And at the same time, Hezbollah and Hamas have accumulated arsenals of deadly rockets, which in the event of a conflict would be directed toward all the major Israeli population centers. In this context, the enthusiastic bipartisan congressional support accorded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his Washington visit should not create excessive euphoria. It is the White House, in the main, that controls foreign affairs and, in view of the current economic meltdown, the pro-Israel Congress is more likely to be concentrating on urgent issues of domestic concern rather than confronting Obama over his Middle East policies. We also have legitimate grounds for unease that, should Obama be elected for a second term and no longer face election constraints and party pressures not to alienate Jewish support, he is likely to intensify his one-sided demands of us.
To this day, Obama has not diverged from his initial approach of appeasing Islamic states and making harsh demands on Israel. Yet the U.S. president is respected by neither friends nor foes. The manner in which he unhesitatingly abandoned his long-standing U.S. ally, former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, while delaying calls for the ouster of Syrian President Bashar Assad, have encouraged the traditional Muslim allies of the U.S. to lose confidence in him. At the same time, his adversaries consider him a wimp, capitulating on every front. Even Israeli dove and former Labor Minister Yossi Beilin maintains that Obama "holds zero accountability for his presidency" and "waits for someone else to implement his grand plan."
We are confronted with a major challenge in September. Irrespective of whether or not the U.N. General Assembly endorses Palestinian statehood, there are likely to be concerted attempts to encourage tens of thousands of Palestinians to bypass roadblocks into Israeli territory. We will be obliged to exercise force to protect our security and sovereignty. Even taking maximum precautions, there will almost certainly be casualties and Israel is likely to yet again face global condemnation and demonization.
In the face of these imminent challenges, only idiots or those relying exclusively on divine intervention would dismiss the crucial importance of maintaining U.S. support. Aside from our essential defense requirements it is only the U.S. which is in a position to economically pressure the Egyptian military regime not to concede to the Islamic extremists baying for the annulment of the peace treaty with us. In addition, the absence of a U.S. diplomatic umbrella would leave us to the mercies of the Europeans who would have no compunction in abandoning us by supporting boycotts and sanctions at the U.N. in order to appease the Arab and Third World countries.
Politics is the art of the possible and we must therefore resist demagogic populist attitudes exhorting us to be “tough” and face the world alone. In this context, one would not envy the role of an Israeli prime minister. He is obliged to retain the critical support and friendship of the American people and Congress who can, at least substantially, limit the administration's efforts to pressure us. To achieve this in such a fake environment, an extraordinary diplomatic balancing act is required, in which he remains firm on essentials but must not be perceived as the obstacle to resolving the conflict.
It is in this context that one must assess the unconfirmed reports that Netanyahu has tentatively agreed to Obama’s "revised" formula of employing "1967 borders with swaps" as a benchmark for negotiations with the Palestinians. In return, Obama has allegedly decided to revert to the Bush commitments which recognize that demographic changes entitle Israel to retain the major settlement blocs and defensible borders. Netanyahu is said to have made this offer subject to a quid pro quo by the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. As this would imply a repudiation of the Arab refugee right of return – which the Palestinians would never endorse – this exercise remains an extension of the theatre of the absurd in which we are obliged to dance through meaningless motions in order to humor the Obama Administration.
Unfortunately, previous experience shows us that vague understandings are frequently selectively implemented to our detriment. An example is the total disregard of the clause in the Quartet Road Map stipulating that prior to any further Israeli concessions, the terrorist infrastructure would be dismantled.
An agreement along these lines with Obama may thus return to haunt us. In the absence of clear definitions of defensible borders and “major settlement blocs," these new undertakings could be exploited in future negotiations to pressure us into making territorial concessions to the Palestinians with potentially disastrous long-term security consequences.
The even more detrimental outcome of these theatrics is the confusion and bewilderment it sows amongst Diaspora Jews and our friends. On the one hand, we occasionally speak the truth and expose the Palestinians as a criminal society promoting a genocidal culture designed to destroy us. Then, to placate our western "allies" we relate to Abbas as a peace partner and babble on about negotiating for a settlement, fully aware that in the current climate this is simply delusional.
One day our prime minister has a confrontation with the U.S. president and the next day Defense Minister Ehud Barak proclaims that Obama is God’s gift to Israel. In contrast, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman has a penchant for occasionally firing aggressive statements (often based on reality) which enthuse his supporters but embarrass the government and frequently detract from our international standing.
Of course, ideally, ministers of a government should speak with one voice. However the concept of cabinet responsibility in Israel has for many years been ignored, and individual ministers feel entitled to say what they like, even in stark opposition to the policy of their own government.
Nevertheless, within the constraints of the fantasy world in which our government must operate, a strategy must be devised to ensure that despite the "double-speak" in which those seeking to destroy us are portrayed as “peace partners," we ensure that Diaspora Jews and our friends are enabled to comprehend the reality of the situation.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
Friday, September 02, 2011
"UN Issues"
Arlene Kushner
I want to concentrate today on the UN, and the up-coming Durban III. What's encouraging here is the enormous response against Durban III that is being mounted. While there is much ugliness in the world, there seems to be far less passivity with regard to it. This is a hopeful sign
~~~~~~~~~~
Eye on the UN, the organization headed by Anne Bayefsky, has put out a short new video regarding "Durban III and the Perils of Global Intolerance": http://www.durbanwatch.com/ On this same page you can find backgrounders regarding Durban I and II.
~~~~~~~~~~
The date for Durban III at the UN is September 22. At the same time, there will be a counter-conference sponsored by The Hudson Institute -- with which Bayefsky is associated -- and Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust at the Millennium UN Plaza Hotel.
What a line-up of speakers they will have, including: John Bolton, Mike Hukabee, Dore Gold, Ruth Wisse, Wafa Sultan, Khaled Abu Toameh, and Simon DengThere will be a live conference webcast and at the durbanwatch site above you can secure information for logging into that.
~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps even more important is "We Have a Dream: Global Summit Against Discrimination and Persecution.," sponsored by an international coalition of NGOs. This will be "a parallel summit to place urgent situations of discrimination and persecution on the international agenda, promote human rights and democracy, and give a voice to the voiceless."
The goal, quite simply, is to focus public attention on the genuine human rights atrocities taking place in the world, as counterpoint to the obscene and libelous UN charge that Israel is the greatest violator of human rights. At one and the same time it will put the lie to the Durban III charges and, as its PR indicates, "give a voice to the voiceless." It will call attention to genuine human suffering that is too often ignored.
The Summit will take place on September 21 and 22 on the UN Plaza across the street from the UN. And it will feature people such as a survivor of Tiananmen Square and president of Initiatives for China; one of the "lost boys of Sudan," as well as people connected to and fighting against human rights abuses in places such as Vietnam, Cuba, Burma, Rwanda, Sudan and Iran. There will be, for example, a spokesperson for the Uyghur people, a Chinese ethnic people that endures suffering at the hands of the Chinese government.
There will be a webcast of these proceedings as well, which you should be able to access at: NGOsummit.org.
~~~~~~~~~~
Lastly, and very significantly, there is this:
Chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) -- who is a wise and forthright woman, and a great friend of Israel -- on August 30 introduced House Resolution 2829, which is now in committee. It is intended to promote transparency, accountability, and reform within the United Nations system, and would have an effect on how US donations to the UN are directed and when they may be withheld. Under this bill, the US -- instead of giving across the board funding -- would decide which programs to support. Funds to the ant-Israel Human Rights Council, for example, would stop immediately.
Significantly, the bill proposes immediately cutting America's financial contribution to any program or agency of the UN that supports Palestinian bid for recognition and membership.
~~~~~~~~~~
The bill currently has 57 co-sponsors. I ask you most urgently to write to your Congresspersons and encourage them to sign on as co-sponsors, if they have not already done so.
The US currently provides 22% of the UN's budget ($7.7 billion in 2010!!). Much of what is funded with this US donation works against US values and goals and is a waste of US tax dollars. It is on this basis that your Congresspersons should be urged to support House Resolution 2829. The US can ill-afford to waste money in this fashion.
Other arguments (with a nod to UCI):
- UN agencies are filled with representatives of the most tyrannical nations in the world, some of the worst abusers of human rights. Yet these nations continue to pass multiple resolutions condemning Israel while ignoring their own inhumanity.
- Financial corruption is rampant and investigation has documented billions of dollars funneled into private accounts of U.N. officials.
- Hamas is not listed as a terrorist entity by the UN. Via a process involving UNRWA, Hamas ends up as a beneficiary of UN largesse.
- The Palestinian refugees have been maintained by UNRWA for more than 60 years. They languish in deplorable conditions in "refugee camps" where they are indoctrinated in terrorism and hatred of Israel.
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
Additionally, please! write letters to the editor and op-eds regarding this issue.
Here is a place to make a difference. Please, don't put this off.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
I want to concentrate today on the UN, and the up-coming Durban III. What's encouraging here is the enormous response against Durban III that is being mounted. While there is much ugliness in the world, there seems to be far less passivity with regard to it. This is a hopeful sign
~~~~~~~~~~
Eye on the UN, the organization headed by Anne Bayefsky, has put out a short new video regarding "Durban III and the Perils of Global Intolerance": http://www.durbanwatch.com/ On this same page you can find backgrounders regarding Durban I and II.
~~~~~~~~~~
The date for Durban III at the UN is September 22. At the same time, there will be a counter-conference sponsored by The Hudson Institute -- with which Bayefsky is associated -- and Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust at the Millennium UN Plaza Hotel.
What a line-up of speakers they will have, including: John Bolton, Mike Hukabee, Dore Gold, Ruth Wisse, Wafa Sultan, Khaled Abu Toameh, and Simon DengThere will be a live conference webcast and at the durbanwatch site above you can secure information for logging into that.
~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps even more important is "We Have a Dream: Global Summit Against Discrimination and Persecution.," sponsored by an international coalition of NGOs. This will be "a parallel summit to place urgent situations of discrimination and persecution on the international agenda, promote human rights and democracy, and give a voice to the voiceless."
The goal, quite simply, is to focus public attention on the genuine human rights atrocities taking place in the world, as counterpoint to the obscene and libelous UN charge that Israel is the greatest violator of human rights. At one and the same time it will put the lie to the Durban III charges and, as its PR indicates, "give a voice to the voiceless." It will call attention to genuine human suffering that is too often ignored.
The Summit will take place on September 21 and 22 on the UN Plaza across the street from the UN. And it will feature people such as a survivor of Tiananmen Square and president of Initiatives for China; one of the "lost boys of Sudan," as well as people connected to and fighting against human rights abuses in places such as Vietnam, Cuba, Burma, Rwanda, Sudan and Iran. There will be, for example, a spokesperson for the Uyghur people, a Chinese ethnic people that endures suffering at the hands of the Chinese government.
There will be a webcast of these proceedings as well, which you should be able to access at: NGOsummit.org.
~~~~~~~~~~
Lastly, and very significantly, there is this:
Chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) -- who is a wise and forthright woman, and a great friend of Israel -- on August 30 introduced House Resolution 2829, which is now in committee. It is intended to promote transparency, accountability, and reform within the United Nations system, and would have an effect on how US donations to the UN are directed and when they may be withheld. Under this bill, the US -- instead of giving across the board funding -- would decide which programs to support. Funds to the ant-Israel Human Rights Council, for example, would stop immediately.
Significantly, the bill proposes immediately cutting America's financial contribution to any program or agency of the UN that supports Palestinian bid for recognition and membership.
~~~~~~~~~~
The bill currently has 57 co-sponsors. I ask you most urgently to write to your Congresspersons and encourage them to sign on as co-sponsors, if they have not already done so.
The US currently provides 22% of the UN's budget ($7.7 billion in 2010!!). Much of what is funded with this US donation works against US values and goals and is a waste of US tax dollars. It is on this basis that your Congresspersons should be urged to support House Resolution 2829. The US can ill-afford to waste money in this fashion.
Other arguments (with a nod to UCI):
- UN agencies are filled with representatives of the most tyrannical nations in the world, some of the worst abusers of human rights. Yet these nations continue to pass multiple resolutions condemning Israel while ignoring their own inhumanity.
- Financial corruption is rampant and investigation has documented billions of dollars funneled into private accounts of U.N. officials.
- Hamas is not listed as a terrorist entity by the UN. Via a process involving UNRWA, Hamas ends up as a beneficiary of UN largesse.
- The Palestinian refugees have been maintained by UNRWA for more than 60 years. They languish in deplorable conditions in "refugee camps" where they are indoctrinated in terrorism and hatred of Israel.
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
Additionally, please! write letters to the editor and op-eds regarding this issue.
Here is a place to make a difference. Please, don't put this off.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
Nowhere to run
DANIEL GORDIS
There is a simple and inexplicable power to being home. It makes you no safer, and it may, in fact, make you a target. But choosing a home like that promotes clarity.
There’s nothing quite like staying in a lakeside cabin in Ontario for a few days to get the Middle East entirely out of your system.
Surrounded by nothing but trees, birds, water and a couple of wonderful friends, it all begins to melt away. The doctors’ strike, the omnipresent stinking piles of garbage on Jerusalem’s streets, the histrionic politics and the looming UN vote – it all fades with time. As there’s little to do there but hike, kayak and read, I brought Yair Lapid’s recent – and truly wonderful – autobiography of his father (no, that’s not a typo) for the vacation. The book opens with Tommy Lapid’s childhood in Nazioccupied Budapest. It’s a harrowing account, as most of them are, particularly when he notes following a narrow escape in a latrine that though he was alive, the danger had not passed. The Nazis and their collaborators were everywhere; there was simply no place to run.
Sobering, to put it mildly; but even Lapid’s exquisite writing couldn’t undo the placidity of the lake. The water was too calm, the forest too thick with the sounds of beavers and loons (real birds, not MKs) for those harrowing memories to undermine the calm. There’s no Internet in the cabin and hardly any 3G.
The world as we know it might as well have been a different planet. I felt I could have stayed there forever.
THERE WAS, though, one windowsill where you could leave your BlackBerry, where every now and then, a signal came through. So if you left the BB there overnight, chances were that in the morning, you could at least check your e-mail and not fall too far behind. A big mistake.
One morning I woke up and checked my e-mail. There wasn’t much, thankfully, but one from my brother caught my attention. “Is everyone OK?” was the subject line, with no text. But there didn’t need to be. An e-mail like that can mean only one thing. I got in the car, raced to town, bought a coffee I didn’t want so I could sit in the Wi-Fiequipped diner and read about what was unfolding on the southern border.
So much for calm that comes with falling asleep to the sound of crickets.
I spent most of the day by that windowsill, trying to coax my BlackBerry into getting the news. Details slowly emerged. Terrorists had infiltrated the Negev. Among others, two sisters, with their husbands on vacation, had been heading south when the border highway was blocked by gunmen who shot them each at point-blank range, an eyewitness said. The other stories were no less gruesome.
I spoke to someone reasonably high up in Intelligence, usually a bit too trusting of our “peace partners” for my taste, but very smart and always worth hearing out. Was this somehow connected to the upcoming September UN vote, I wondered? Not at all, he said. These attacks take months to plan. They launch them when they can.
“Then what’s the point?” I asked.
“What does this do for them?” He laughed. “What do you mean, ‘What’s the point’? They wanted to kill Jews.”
Tommy Lapid came to mind. Seventy years later, there’s really still no place to run. You can be on vacation near Eilat with your husband, your sister and your brother-in-law, not in the “territories,” not near any contested border. And they block the highway and shoot you pointblank anyway – because “they wanted to kill Jews.” A different century. A different continent. A different enemy. Plus ça change.
ON THE way home, I stopped in New York for two days of meetings, including one with one of America’s leading Jewish journalists. She, too, is extraordinarily smart, cares about Israel and is worried.
She’s worried about the building in the settlements and what it does to the peace process. She’s horrified that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu insulted US President Barack Obama during the grand exchange of speeches a few months ago, and in so doing, embarrassed many American Jews. She’s perplexed by Israel’s not taking the necessary steps towards peace.
But she did see one cause for optimism – the tent city on Rothschild Boulevard.
A pity that Israel didn’t make more of that in the international press, she said.
Even her daughter was finally ecstatic about Israel. “Mom,” she’d called home from Tel Aviv and said, “this is totally awesome.” What did I think would come of the protests, my interlocutor wanted to know.
“Nothing,” I told her. Bibi had been in a bit of domestic trouble, but he got a new lease on life with the recent attacks. The protests would dwindle and the country would be forced to think about what it’s always forced to think about – keeping Jews alive.
She looked a bit puzzled, and the room grew quiet. We were both struck, I think, by the radically different ways in which we see the world. She was saddened by the attacks, but they seemed to her to be incidents. To me, though, they weren’t incidents. They are a way of life – for us and for them – and bespeak an insatiable hatred that follows us wherever we go. She believes, honestly and wholeheartedly, that if we just make peace, the violence will stop.
I used to believe that, and wish I still could. She’s desperate for us to make peace so we can turn our attention to social justice. And I think we’re going to need to learn to focus on social justice even while at war, because I see no chance that either she or I will live to see this conflict settled.
I LEFT her office struck by how similar were our values and how different our worldviews. And I had a sudden awareness – I’d had enough vacation. It was time to go home.
On the subway, I opened Lapid’s book. A couple of pages later (page 89 of the Hebrew edition), I read this: “For 60 years, I lived in the State of Israel, and my identification with it was absolute.... [I knew] that I was in the only place in which a Jew can live, the only place that I could live.... The ghetto taught me that I needed a place I could go, but nothing prepared me for the power of having found that place.”
Not surprisingly, Lapid got it right again. There is a simple and inexplicable power to being home. It makes you no safer, and it may, in fact, make you a target. But choosing a home like that promotes clarity; it forces you to decide what you believe in that is more important than your own survival. You know that even when you’re home, there’s nowhere to run. And still, despite it all – or rather, because of it all – you know there’s no place you’d rather be.
The writer is president of the Shalem Foundation and senior fellow at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem. His latest book, Saving Israel: How the Jewish People Can Win a War that May Never End (Wiley), won the 2009 National Jewish Book Award. He is now writing a book on the defense of Israel and the nation-state.
Thursday, September 01, 2011
Construction in Judea and Samaria Up a Whopping 660%
David Lev
With the end of the building freeze, construction has started up in Judea and Samaria (Yesha) communities. In fact, said the Central Bureau of Statistics, building jumped 660% in Judea and Samaria during the first half of 2011, as compared to a year before.
While the statistic was certainly breathtaking, the actual numbers on the ground were less impressive: Construction started on 546 new homes in Yesha communities during the period. Still, it was a sharp improvement over the number of housing starts in the first half of 2010, when only 72 housing starts were announced. Officials of the Yesha Council said they were pleased with the increase, but that clearly many more new homes were needed. "We need at least 500 new homes a month, not just in half a year, in order to accomodate all the families who want to live in Yesha." Last week, Arutz Sheva reported on how dozens of American families who sought to buy or rent homes in Efrat were unable to do so becasue of the lack of housing there.
The jump in Yesha construction this year was part of a general trend in the rest of Israel. According to the CBS, housing starts rose 14.4% overall during the first half of 2011. But certain parts of the country are set to grow far more than that number implies; for example, there are now 7,950 homes under construction in southern Israel, a 55% increase over the 2,495 home starts in the first half of 2010.
In Asheklon alone, 1,576 new homes are currently under construction – the highest number for any city in Israel. Other cities where building jumped in the first half of 2011 included Kiryat Gat (a 607% increase in housing construction starts), Ramle (252%), Ganei Tikvah (451%), Rehovot (203%), and Yavne (165%). Even in the already ultra-expensive Tel Aviv and Jerusalem regions, construction was up 28% and 8% respectively. In the north, housing construction starts were up 11.2% during the period.
Altogether, construction began on some 22,000 new homes. The CBS said that by the end of 2011, taking into consideration construction that was started in 2010, there will be some 75,000 new apartments under construction. Those apartments are expected to come “on-line” between the end of 2012 and during 2013, helping to satisfy the high demand for housing, hopefully at more reasonable prices.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Housing Minister Ariel Attias both expressed great satisfaction at the CBS announcement. “The increasing trend in housing starts reflects the increased successful activity by the government, which we began undertaking as soon as we took power,” Netanyahu said. “The steps we took in the real estate market, including the institution of the Housing Committees Law and the reforms we recently instituted in the Israel Lands Administration, have contributed, and will continue to contribute, to the increased availability of housing – and, as a result, a lowering of prices.”
The Jordan opportunity
Yoel Meltzer
Israel Opinion
Should the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN fail to produce any tangible results, current events in Syria may have the unexpected effect of presenting Israel and the region with a very rare opportunity.
In addition to Hezbollah possibly losing support from Syria should Assad fall, the ouster of the Syrian dictator could have serious ramifications for the Hashemite regime in Jordan.
Although not considered a ruthless dictator like Assad, King Abdullah is similar in that he represents a very small ruling minority - in Syria we have the Alawites while in Jordan it is the Hashemites. Moreover, with most power concentrated in the hands of the Hashemites and their assorted Bedouin allies, much of the roughly 70% Palestinian majority feels alienated or oppressed; indeed, Jordan’s Palestinians would welcome a real change. While the protests in Jordan have not reached the level of intensity as in other Arab countries, they are nevertheless constant and accompanied by repeated calls for change. Moreover, attempts by the king to placate his critics by offering to implement various reforms have been rejected, as they would still allow the king to preserve most of his absolute powers.
With the pressure mounting, the king is surely looking at events in Syria with a very watchful eye. If such a ruthless and feared dictator as Assad, not to mention long time Arab rulers like Mubarak or Gaddafi, can be toppled and removed from power, then the relatively weaker King Abdullah may realize that his days as the leader of Jordan are numbered. The tsunami of change sweeping the region simply cannot be stopped.
Don’t wait for chaos
This being the case, Israel and its supporters should start planning now for the "day after" in Jordan, rather than waiting for chaos to grip our eastern neighbor. Moreover, the incentive should not only be to preserve stability on the border, itself an important aspect, but rather the understanding that the region may be presented with a historic opportunity to finally settle the Palestinian issue.
September events at the UN aside, it is clear that the Oslo two-state approach is a proven failure and that further territorial concessions by Israel will only lead to further warfare. As Einstein said "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." In such an environment, the paradigm for settling the dispute must be changed.
For this reason Israel and its supporters would be wise to discreetly begin hooking up with alternative opposition leaders in Jordan. One such thinker is Mudar Zahran, a former Jordanian political insider turned dissident, who is openly promoting the "Jordan is Palestine" option as the only solution capable of bringing real peace and stability to the region.
Moreover, his calls for the establishment of a Jordanian democracy state that will enjoy peaceful ties with Israel and focus on the development of a thriving economy in order to encourage Palestinians from around the world - including from Judea and Samaria - to opt for a life in Jordan, is something that should be welcomed by anyone who truly cares about the region. Such option would be the only realistic way to end a decades-long humanitarian crisis.
Should Israel and its supporters fail to seize the opportunity to finally settle the Palestinian issue, the eventual fall of King Abdullah will create the usual vacuum that in all likelihood will be filled by various anti-Israel and anti-American forces.
Yoel Meltzer is a freelance writer living in Jerusalem. His personal blog is http://yoelmeltzer.com
Israel Opinion
Should the Palestinian bid for statehood at the UN fail to produce any tangible results, current events in Syria may have the unexpected effect of presenting Israel and the region with a very rare opportunity.
In addition to Hezbollah possibly losing support from Syria should Assad fall, the ouster of the Syrian dictator could have serious ramifications for the Hashemite regime in Jordan.
Although not considered a ruthless dictator like Assad, King Abdullah is similar in that he represents a very small ruling minority - in Syria we have the Alawites while in Jordan it is the Hashemites. Moreover, with most power concentrated in the hands of the Hashemites and their assorted Bedouin allies, much of the roughly 70% Palestinian majority feels alienated or oppressed; indeed, Jordan’s Palestinians would welcome a real change. While the protests in Jordan have not reached the level of intensity as in other Arab countries, they are nevertheless constant and accompanied by repeated calls for change. Moreover, attempts by the king to placate his critics by offering to implement various reforms have been rejected, as they would still allow the king to preserve most of his absolute powers.
With the pressure mounting, the king is surely looking at events in Syria with a very watchful eye. If such a ruthless and feared dictator as Assad, not to mention long time Arab rulers like Mubarak or Gaddafi, can be toppled and removed from power, then the relatively weaker King Abdullah may realize that his days as the leader of Jordan are numbered. The tsunami of change sweeping the region simply cannot be stopped.
Don’t wait for chaos
This being the case, Israel and its supporters should start planning now for the "day after" in Jordan, rather than waiting for chaos to grip our eastern neighbor. Moreover, the incentive should not only be to preserve stability on the border, itself an important aspect, but rather the understanding that the region may be presented with a historic opportunity to finally settle the Palestinian issue.
September events at the UN aside, it is clear that the Oslo two-state approach is a proven failure and that further territorial concessions by Israel will only lead to further warfare. As Einstein said "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." In such an environment, the paradigm for settling the dispute must be changed.
For this reason Israel and its supporters would be wise to discreetly begin hooking up with alternative opposition leaders in Jordan. One such thinker is Mudar Zahran, a former Jordanian political insider turned dissident, who is openly promoting the "Jordan is Palestine" option as the only solution capable of bringing real peace and stability to the region.
Moreover, his calls for the establishment of a Jordanian democracy state that will enjoy peaceful ties with Israel and focus on the development of a thriving economy in order to encourage Palestinians from around the world - including from Judea and Samaria - to opt for a life in Jordan, is something that should be welcomed by anyone who truly cares about the region. Such option would be the only realistic way to end a decades-long humanitarian crisis.
Should Israel and its supporters fail to seize the opportunity to finally settle the Palestinian issue, the eventual fall of King Abdullah will create the usual vacuum that in all likelihood will be filled by various anti-Israel and anti-American forces.
Yoel Meltzer is a freelance writer living in Jerusalem. His personal blog is http://yoelmeltzer.com
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
"A Time of Turmoil"
Arlene Kushner
Well, Kaitana Savta (Grandma Camp), which was great, is over. I am back to normal -- whatever that means -- and prepared to resume more frequent postings. The questions then are where to begin and what to focus on during this upside-down time.
~~~~~~~~~~
Of primary importance is terrorism, attempted terrorism, and the threat of even more terrorism.
Late Sunday, Israel received concrete intelligence regarding Islamic Jihad plans for a second attack involving infiltration from Gaza into southern Israel via the Sinai; the plans reportedly are for the attack to be executed (once more!) along one of the roads running near the border with Sinai and to involve abduction of Israelis. More than 10 terrorists were said to be already in Sinai, preparing.
Several actions were then taken:
Chief of Staff Benny Gantz ordered a sizeable deployment of infantry forces to the area. Two major roads near the border (#10 and #12) were closed, while Israelis with high security clearance were forbidden to drive on roads in the area.
Two large Israeli Navy corvettes (war ships) were docked in Eilat.
And the possibility of the attack was made public.
~~~~~~~~~~
On orders from General Gantz, the Egyptians were informed of IDF plans to deploy along the Sinai border. Because of the tenuous relationship with the Egyptian military, it was decided that there would be no IDF incursion into the Sinai in pursuit of the terrorists.
The Egyptians, for their part -- fearing an upswing in violence at the end of Ramadan (Aid el-Fitr), which was yesterday -- are in process of a military operation to hunt down jihadi groups in the northern Sinai. Launched on Monday with Israeli approval, the operation involves some 1,500 soldiers and police, utilizing tanks and armored vehicles, who have been operating in Al-Arish, Sheikh Zuwayed, and Rafah, near the Gaza border.
~~~~~~~~~~
There is considerable sentiment inside of Egypt for a re-writing of the peace treaty with Israel, in particular with regard to the demilitarization of the Sinai.
Last week, in the course of Egyptian demonstrations outside the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, the Israeli flag was torn down from the roof of the building.
While the flog has been re-instated (this time in a safer locale on a balcony) on instructions from Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the man who tore down that flag has become something of a national hero.
~~~~~~~~~~
I add here that while Defense Minister Barak was gung-ho to permit large scale Egyptian troops into the Sinai (well beyond what has been approved for the specific operation mentioned above), three days ago Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed quite a different opinion. This is "not something that we have to rush into," he said at a meeting with Likud ministers. Furthermore, he indicated that a Cabinet vote would be required for a change in the treaty with Egypt.
Additionally, MK Shaul Mofaz (Kadima), Chair of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, was making noise about the need for his committee to pass on this as well.
~~~~~~~~~~
On Monday, a terrorist, thought to be acting alone, entered Israel illegally from Nablus with intention of striking at a Tel Aviv nightclub filled with young people enjoying an end-of-summer party. Earlier in the evening, the police had made a decision to bolster their presence outside major venues in the city, and thus it was that an attack was adverted. He ran his vehicle into a police roadblock, injuring some officers and yelling "Allahu Akbar."
~~~~~~~~~~
That Palestinian Arab state and the UN:
I think it's reasonably clear at this point, in spite of occasional media reports to the contrary, that nothing will change on the ground for Israel after the PA goes to the UN in September -- something Mahmoud Abbas continues to insist he will do unless Israel caves on his major demands.
What he is seeking to do is secure his state without committing to end of conflict. He, in fact, made it clear just recently that he would still push for "right of return" even after the founding of a Palestinian state (although he may run into difficulty on this -- see below).
Israeli concerns about outcome focus on a possible increase in violence by the Palestinian Arabs -- perhaps with large numbers at the borders attempting to enter Israel -- and greater international legitimacy for the PA. This might give it leverage with regard to bringing charges against Israelis in the International Criminal Court and against Israel in the International Court of Justice.
~~~~~~~~~~
On Sunday night, here in Jerusalem, I attended the first part of a conference on "The Palestinian Statehood Initiative," jointly sponsored by the Association of Americans and Canadians in Israel, and Hadar Israel (a grassroots civic organization).
Michla Pomerance, Professor of International Law, Hebrew University, spoke about the enormous confusion with regard to the whole issue of "UN law," which is very problematic. Traditional international law is not imposed by a central authority but is rooted in reciprocity -- it derives from the consent of states.
The Security Council is not an enforcer of international law, and may not order transfer of/or concessions on territory. It has no power to abrogate sovereignty.
The General Assembly does not have authority to recognize states. Its authority is only with regard to admitting and suspending members, pending SC approval.
Only states already in existence can be admitted to the UN. They are required to be peace-loving, and able and willing to carry out their obligations under the UN charter. There is no admission of a state granted with the intention of eliminating another state.
Within international law, there is no universal right of self-determination recognized.
With regard to a Palestinian state, self-determination would require a defined population. But as there is a question of boundaries, there is no defined population.
~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Tal Becker, International Associate, Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former Israeli negotiator, believes that Abbas is proceeding as he is because of the "Arab Spring" -- fear that street anger will be channeled against his government if he doesn't act; expectations that have been created by Obama and Fayyad; and a desire to secure his legacy.
He cautions that if the PA does go to the UN, it is likely a committee will be created to begin a slow process: there will not be speedy results.
~~~~~~~~~~
General (Res.) Yossie Kuperwasser, Director General, Ministry of Strategic Affairs, addressed security concerns.
The PA, he says, cannot accept Israel as a Jewish state because of the issue of the refugees; because of the Arab population inside of Israel (which would be utilized for demands for a "state of all its citizens" in the second stage of their plans); and because it would require adjusting the narrative.
The bottom line is that the PA goal is to destroy Israel. It is essential that it accept Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. But the Arabs are seeking to end historical claims.
Absent PA acknowledgement that Israel is the Jewish state, Israel may have to begin to think in terms of managing the conflict rather than resolving it.
There are security dangers for the PA, as well. The entire process will be an embarrassment for the PA, and Hamas may end up the winner -- with escalation of violence against the PA.
~~~~~~~~~~
For other takes on the PA initiative:
Israeli Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, in an exclusive interview, said yesterday that if the PA proceeds with its plans, all agreements between the PA and Israel might become null and void:
"We have a lot of agreements with the Palestinian Authority, we have no agreements with a ‘Government of Palestine,' It's just a fact, we have no agreements with a ‘Government of Palestine.' It puts us in a different realm."
Oren was referring, he said, to agreements that cover such matters as import-export, water sharing, and Israel-Palestinian security forces cooperation.
"It's not just our agreements with the Palestinian Authority, it's America's agreements with the Palestinian Authority (that are at risk)," he further explained. "America is a cosignatory to the Oslo Accord and this would seriously undermine it.... Unilateral steps would have legal, economic, and political ramifications for us and for America as a cosignatory."
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/30/
~~~~~~~~~~
Jordan has just urged the PA to reconsider its move to pursue bid for UN recognition King Abdullah considers the move dangerous because it may compromise the "right of return."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4115922,00.html
Jordan, of course, worries that without a "return" of refugees to Israel, there might be a push to make Jordan the Palestinian state officially (while it is now de facto, with a majority Palestinian population).
~~~~~~~~~~
Last week similar discouragement with regard to the PA bid in the UN came from the Arab League:
Said Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby, "The unilateral appeal to the U.N. Security Council and U.N. General Assembly could be a very dangerous move for the Palestinians during this period and I propose that Abbas reconsider the handling of the matter."
Elaraby is concerned because the PA is not in control in Gaza.
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=807
~~~~~~~~~~
The PA team -- headed by Saeb Erekat -- that is preparing the UN initiative has received an independent legal opinion -- from by Guy Goodwin-Gill, a professor of public international law at Oxford University who has long advised the PA on legal matters -- that the initiative could jeopardize the rights of the Palestinian people.
Since 1975, the PLO has been recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and in fact has observer status at the UN. The PA is seeking to replace PLO representation at the UN with a state sitting in the UN. But then there would no longer be an agency that "can represent the inalienable rights of the entire Palestinian people." Palestinians "outside the homeland" would no longer have representation and would be disenfranchised with regard to such matters as "right of return."
This comes from the PLO news agency, Ma'an.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=415804
~~~~~~~~~~
Elliott Abrams, Senor Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, asks "Whose Brilliant Idea Was That UN Vote?" He looks in greater depth at the Goodwin-Gill concerns, and at additional legal/diplomatic issues as well.
http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2011/08/24/whose-brilliant-idea-was-that-un-vote/
~~~~~~~~~~
And we're worried about the UN initiative? I wonder how much sleep Mahmoud Abbas is getting these days.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
Well, Kaitana Savta (Grandma Camp), which was great, is over. I am back to normal -- whatever that means -- and prepared to resume more frequent postings. The questions then are where to begin and what to focus on during this upside-down time.
~~~~~~~~~~
Of primary importance is terrorism, attempted terrorism, and the threat of even more terrorism.
Late Sunday, Israel received concrete intelligence regarding Islamic Jihad plans for a second attack involving infiltration from Gaza into southern Israel via the Sinai; the plans reportedly are for the attack to be executed (once more!) along one of the roads running near the border with Sinai and to involve abduction of Israelis. More than 10 terrorists were said to be already in Sinai, preparing.
Several actions were then taken:
Chief of Staff Benny Gantz ordered a sizeable deployment of infantry forces to the area. Two major roads near the border (#10 and #12) were closed, while Israelis with high security clearance were forbidden to drive on roads in the area.
Two large Israeli Navy corvettes (war ships) were docked in Eilat.
And the possibility of the attack was made public.
~~~~~~~~~~
On orders from General Gantz, the Egyptians were informed of IDF plans to deploy along the Sinai border. Because of the tenuous relationship with the Egyptian military, it was decided that there would be no IDF incursion into the Sinai in pursuit of the terrorists.
The Egyptians, for their part -- fearing an upswing in violence at the end of Ramadan (Aid el-Fitr), which was yesterday -- are in process of a military operation to hunt down jihadi groups in the northern Sinai. Launched on Monday with Israeli approval, the operation involves some 1,500 soldiers and police, utilizing tanks and armored vehicles, who have been operating in Al-Arish, Sheikh Zuwayed, and Rafah, near the Gaza border.
~~~~~~~~~~
There is considerable sentiment inside of Egypt for a re-writing of the peace treaty with Israel, in particular with regard to the demilitarization of the Sinai.
Last week, in the course of Egyptian demonstrations outside the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, the Israeli flag was torn down from the roof of the building.
While the flog has been re-instated (this time in a safer locale on a balcony) on instructions from Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the man who tore down that flag has become something of a national hero.
~~~~~~~~~~
I add here that while Defense Minister Barak was gung-ho to permit large scale Egyptian troops into the Sinai (well beyond what has been approved for the specific operation mentioned above), three days ago Prime Minister Netanyahu expressed quite a different opinion. This is "not something that we have to rush into," he said at a meeting with Likud ministers. Furthermore, he indicated that a Cabinet vote would be required for a change in the treaty with Egypt.
Additionally, MK Shaul Mofaz (Kadima), Chair of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, was making noise about the need for his committee to pass on this as well.
~~~~~~~~~~
On Monday, a terrorist, thought to be acting alone, entered Israel illegally from Nablus with intention of striking at a Tel Aviv nightclub filled with young people enjoying an end-of-summer party. Earlier in the evening, the police had made a decision to bolster their presence outside major venues in the city, and thus it was that an attack was adverted. He ran his vehicle into a police roadblock, injuring some officers and yelling "Allahu Akbar."
~~~~~~~~~~
That Palestinian Arab state and the UN:
I think it's reasonably clear at this point, in spite of occasional media reports to the contrary, that nothing will change on the ground for Israel after the PA goes to the UN in September -- something Mahmoud Abbas continues to insist he will do unless Israel caves on his major demands.
What he is seeking to do is secure his state without committing to end of conflict. He, in fact, made it clear just recently that he would still push for "right of return" even after the founding of a Palestinian state (although he may run into difficulty on this -- see below).
Israeli concerns about outcome focus on a possible increase in violence by the Palestinian Arabs -- perhaps with large numbers at the borders attempting to enter Israel -- and greater international legitimacy for the PA. This might give it leverage with regard to bringing charges against Israelis in the International Criminal Court and against Israel in the International Court of Justice.
~~~~~~~~~~
On Sunday night, here in Jerusalem, I attended the first part of a conference on "The Palestinian Statehood Initiative," jointly sponsored by the Association of Americans and Canadians in Israel, and Hadar Israel (a grassroots civic organization).
Michla Pomerance, Professor of International Law, Hebrew University, spoke about the enormous confusion with regard to the whole issue of "UN law," which is very problematic. Traditional international law is not imposed by a central authority but is rooted in reciprocity -- it derives from the consent of states.
The Security Council is not an enforcer of international law, and may not order transfer of/or concessions on territory. It has no power to abrogate sovereignty.
The General Assembly does not have authority to recognize states. Its authority is only with regard to admitting and suspending members, pending SC approval.
Only states already in existence can be admitted to the UN. They are required to be peace-loving, and able and willing to carry out their obligations under the UN charter. There is no admission of a state granted with the intention of eliminating another state.
Within international law, there is no universal right of self-determination recognized.
With regard to a Palestinian state, self-determination would require a defined population. But as there is a question of boundaries, there is no defined population.
~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Tal Becker, International Associate, Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former Israeli negotiator, believes that Abbas is proceeding as he is because of the "Arab Spring" -- fear that street anger will be channeled against his government if he doesn't act; expectations that have been created by Obama and Fayyad; and a desire to secure his legacy.
He cautions that if the PA does go to the UN, it is likely a committee will be created to begin a slow process: there will not be speedy results.
~~~~~~~~~~
General (Res.) Yossie Kuperwasser, Director General, Ministry of Strategic Affairs, addressed security concerns.
The PA, he says, cannot accept Israel as a Jewish state because of the issue of the refugees; because of the Arab population inside of Israel (which would be utilized for demands for a "state of all its citizens" in the second stage of their plans); and because it would require adjusting the narrative.
The bottom line is that the PA goal is to destroy Israel. It is essential that it accept Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. But the Arabs are seeking to end historical claims.
Absent PA acknowledgement that Israel is the Jewish state, Israel may have to begin to think in terms of managing the conflict rather than resolving it.
There are security dangers for the PA, as well. The entire process will be an embarrassment for the PA, and Hamas may end up the winner -- with escalation of violence against the PA.
~~~~~~~~~~
For other takes on the PA initiative:
Israeli Ambassador to the US, Michael Oren, in an exclusive interview, said yesterday that if the PA proceeds with its plans, all agreements between the PA and Israel might become null and void:
"We have a lot of agreements with the Palestinian Authority, we have no agreements with a ‘Government of Palestine,' It's just a fact, we have no agreements with a ‘Government of Palestine.' It puts us in a different realm."
Oren was referring, he said, to agreements that cover such matters as import-export, water sharing, and Israel-Palestinian security forces cooperation.
"It's not just our agreements with the Palestinian Authority, it's America's agreements with the Palestinian Authority (that are at risk)," he further explained. "America is a cosignatory to the Oslo Accord and this would seriously undermine it.... Unilateral steps would have legal, economic, and political ramifications for us and for America as a cosignatory."
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/08/30/
~~~~~~~~~~
Jordan has just urged the PA to reconsider its move to pursue bid for UN recognition King Abdullah considers the move dangerous because it may compromise the "right of return."
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4115922,00.html
Jordan, of course, worries that without a "return" of refugees to Israel, there might be a push to make Jordan the Palestinian state officially (while it is now de facto, with a majority Palestinian population).
~~~~~~~~~~
Last week similar discouragement with regard to the PA bid in the UN came from the Arab League:
Said Arab League Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby, "The unilateral appeal to the U.N. Security Council and U.N. General Assembly could be a very dangerous move for the Palestinians during this period and I propose that Abbas reconsider the handling of the matter."
Elaraby is concerned because the PA is not in control in Gaza.
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=807
~~~~~~~~~~
The PA team -- headed by Saeb Erekat -- that is preparing the UN initiative has received an independent legal opinion -- from by Guy Goodwin-Gill, a professor of public international law at Oxford University who has long advised the PA on legal matters -- that the initiative could jeopardize the rights of the Palestinian people.
Since 1975, the PLO has been recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, and in fact has observer status at the UN. The PA is seeking to replace PLO representation at the UN with a state sitting in the UN. But then there would no longer be an agency that "can represent the inalienable rights of the entire Palestinian people." Palestinians "outside the homeland" would no longer have representation and would be disenfranchised with regard to such matters as "right of return."
This comes from the PLO news agency, Ma'an.
http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=415804
~~~~~~~~~~
Elliott Abrams, Senor Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, asks "Whose Brilliant Idea Was That UN Vote?" He looks in greater depth at the Goodwin-Gill concerns, and at additional legal/diplomatic issues as well.
http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2011/08/24/whose-brilliant-idea-was-that-un-vote/
~~~~~~~~~~
And we're worried about the UN initiative? I wonder how much sleep Mahmoud Abbas is getting these days.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
An Open and Wide Tent
JoeSettler
For years now, Israel has been under attack by the anti-Semitic BDS movement, their affiliate organizations, their supporters in the Palestinian Authority, and unfortunately their Jewish and Israeli radical left-wing supporters (not to mention those who pretend they are Jewish for the effect). The calls have been to boycott Israeli books, to boycott Israeli academic institutions, to boycott products from the settlements (even those whose companies support hundred and thousands of Arab families), to boycott Israeli investments, and even to boycott companies doing business with Israel.
Israel and the Jews have a terrible habit of not reacting or responding to these attacks. The underlying reasons stem from trying to not rock the boat, hoping the problem will go away, fear, indecision, confused ethics, and often no idea how to even respond – to name just a few explanations
But much of the Jewish people still have an instinctual community self-defense mechanism. They recognize when something has gone too far, when something has crossed the line between being within the tent or without, when an attack has reached a level where if it isn’t responded to it will expand to a level beyond reversal.
The Scottish Whisky Counter-boycott initiated by the Muqata was one such example. That Scottish boycott of Israel was expanding, driven by anti-Semitism, and quite probably part of a larger, more organized attack.
The response to the Scottish boycott among Jewish laymen (though not all Orthodox Jewish leadership I'm embarrassed to say) indicated that they internally felt and understood the threat, and in this case there was a clear action that could be taken in response. And as a result, the Scottish boycott, while not killed, has at least been contained and perhaps even blocked from future expansion.
Boycotts are a tricky thing. The Left loves to call for them against Israel, I would even say that some of our radical Leftists in Israel are the standard-bearers for some of those calls to boycott, but sometimes they bite back and you find yourself on the receiving end.
The Jerusalem Post made a business decision when they decided that keeping Larry Derfner on staff was hurting their bottom line rather than helping it (or even keeping it neutral). While unpopular for a while among certain circles, his expressed opinions weren’t far enough along, until now, to “provoke” a wholesale instinctual community self-defense reaction.
This time, Jerusalem Post subscribers felt that Derfner had stepped outside the very open and wide tent that is within acceptable Jewish opinion and debate, going to a place many Jerusalem Post’s subscriber’s apparently consider as being on the enemy’s side.
I’m not going to discuss which part caused this community response, his statement that he believed that Palestinian terror is “justified”, or the inherent disclosure of his internal narrative where he sees Israel as so evil that it actually led him to this incredible conclusion.
Personally, I see nothing surprising about his statements. It’s clear that this has been his belief for a while. But I would assume that expressing it so openly – despite whatever caveats and stipulations he tried to wrap around it “provoked” many to instinctually respond and demand he be placed outside the camp.
But this whole story raises and creates a number of interesting questions.
One might ask, where are the limits of free speech? But then, no one has actually taken Derfner’s free speech away. He has merely been removed from standing up on someone else’s private soapbox.
One might ask, how far is outside the camp? And that is an interesting question, as Derfner wrote nothing different than what’s regularly written in Haaretz. Though admittedly, most of Haaretz readers outside of Israel don’t identify with the mainstream Israeli narrative (you know what I’m trying to say here) and their readership in Israel is relatively fringe compared to the mainstream Israeli papers (I believe that even the Jerusalem Post prints more copies of their paper than Haaretz). So his views (and Haaretz's) place him (and them) at the same distance as Neturei Karta in so many similar ways.
One might ask, why are some on the radical Left so upset? After all, some of them are the same exact people that support (and introduce) some of these calls to boycott Israel and/or the settlements. Isn’t this how the game works? Or is it only good when it’s going one way? And furthermore, this wasn’t an organized attack like what one sees around the BDS movement and friends, but a natural grass-roots response by the people.
I will leave you with this thought. Boycotts like these are a dangerous game. Yes, this time it was a Leftist who expressed solidarity (or at least understanding) with terrorists and mass murderers, and quite possibly broke various Israeli laws in the process – not that the system will ever investigate him.
But perhaps there is a lesson here.
Perhaps the radical Left in Israel should stop supporting, aiding and demanding boycotts of any parts of Israel or the Jewish people (including calls for no religious Jews in Yafo, for instance). It should obvious to them now that it’s not enjoyable to be on the receiving end of these boycotts, and apparently, when the good Jewish people manage to stand together in solidarity, it’s not on the side of the radical Left.
So how about we call a truce (and not the Gazan version of a cease fire). Stop aiding and abetting in any way, manner, and form the various boycotts and attacks against Israel and your fellow Jews, and perhaps the majority of Jews will see to invite you back into their open and wide tent.
For years now, Israel has been under attack by the anti-Semitic BDS movement, their affiliate organizations, their supporters in the Palestinian Authority, and unfortunately their Jewish and Israeli radical left-wing supporters (not to mention those who pretend they are Jewish for the effect). The calls have been to boycott Israeli books, to boycott Israeli academic institutions, to boycott products from the settlements (even those whose companies support hundred and thousands of Arab families), to boycott Israeli investments, and even to boycott companies doing business with Israel.
Israel and the Jews have a terrible habit of not reacting or responding to these attacks. The underlying reasons stem from trying to not rock the boat, hoping the problem will go away, fear, indecision, confused ethics, and often no idea how to even respond – to name just a few explanations
But much of the Jewish people still have an instinctual community self-defense mechanism. They recognize when something has gone too far, when something has crossed the line between being within the tent or without, when an attack has reached a level where if it isn’t responded to it will expand to a level beyond reversal.
The Scottish Whisky Counter-boycott initiated by the Muqata was one such example. That Scottish boycott of Israel was expanding, driven by anti-Semitism, and quite probably part of a larger, more organized attack.
The response to the Scottish boycott among Jewish laymen (though not all Orthodox Jewish leadership I'm embarrassed to say) indicated that they internally felt and understood the threat, and in this case there was a clear action that could be taken in response. And as a result, the Scottish boycott, while not killed, has at least been contained and perhaps even blocked from future expansion.
Boycotts are a tricky thing. The Left loves to call for them against Israel, I would even say that some of our radical Leftists in Israel are the standard-bearers for some of those calls to boycott, but sometimes they bite back and you find yourself on the receiving end.
The Jerusalem Post made a business decision when they decided that keeping Larry Derfner on staff was hurting their bottom line rather than helping it (or even keeping it neutral). While unpopular for a while among certain circles, his expressed opinions weren’t far enough along, until now, to “provoke” a wholesale instinctual community self-defense reaction.
This time, Jerusalem Post subscribers felt that Derfner had stepped outside the very open and wide tent that is within acceptable Jewish opinion and debate, going to a place many Jerusalem Post’s subscriber’s apparently consider as being on the enemy’s side.
I’m not going to discuss which part caused this community response, his statement that he believed that Palestinian terror is “justified”, or the inherent disclosure of his internal narrative where he sees Israel as so evil that it actually led him to this incredible conclusion.
Personally, I see nothing surprising about his statements. It’s clear that this has been his belief for a while. But I would assume that expressing it so openly – despite whatever caveats and stipulations he tried to wrap around it “provoked” many to instinctually respond and demand he be placed outside the camp.
But this whole story raises and creates a number of interesting questions.
One might ask, where are the limits of free speech? But then, no one has actually taken Derfner’s free speech away. He has merely been removed from standing up on someone else’s private soapbox.
One might ask, how far is outside the camp? And that is an interesting question, as Derfner wrote nothing different than what’s regularly written in Haaretz. Though admittedly, most of Haaretz readers outside of Israel don’t identify with the mainstream Israeli narrative (you know what I’m trying to say here) and their readership in Israel is relatively fringe compared to the mainstream Israeli papers (I believe that even the Jerusalem Post prints more copies of their paper than Haaretz). So his views (and Haaretz's) place him (and them) at the same distance as Neturei Karta in so many similar ways.
One might ask, why are some on the radical Left so upset? After all, some of them are the same exact people that support (and introduce) some of these calls to boycott Israel and/or the settlements. Isn’t this how the game works? Or is it only good when it’s going one way? And furthermore, this wasn’t an organized attack like what one sees around the BDS movement and friends, but a natural grass-roots response by the people.
I will leave you with this thought. Boycotts like these are a dangerous game. Yes, this time it was a Leftist who expressed solidarity (or at least understanding) with terrorists and mass murderers, and quite possibly broke various Israeli laws in the process – not that the system will ever investigate him.
But perhaps there is a lesson here.
Perhaps the radical Left in Israel should stop supporting, aiding and demanding boycotts of any parts of Israel or the Jewish people (including calls for no religious Jews in Yafo, for instance). It should obvious to them now that it’s not enjoyable to be on the receiving end of these boycotts, and apparently, when the good Jewish people manage to stand together in solidarity, it’s not on the side of the radical Left.
So how about we call a truce (and not the Gazan version of a cease fire). Stop aiding and abetting in any way, manner, and form the various boycotts and attacks against Israel and your fellow Jews, and perhaps the majority of Jews will see to invite you back into their open and wide tent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)