Comment: UK is not Israel's "friend"-naive and ignorant at the same time
UK blocks Israel arms deals for fear of rights violations
GEORGE CONGER Jerusalem Post correspondent, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 14, 2007
The British government has blocked almost one third of British military exports to Israel this year, citing possible threats to regional stability and fears the equipment might facilitate human rights violations.
According to official figures, the value of UK military sales arms to Israel declined by one third last year, and has fallen by a drastic 75 percent since 2005.
. "There is evidence that the British government's export control policy to Israel may have been tightened up," said Parliament's new 2007 Strategic Export Controls report, issued by the Quadrapartite Commission, which comprises representatives from four ministries.
The change in policy, said the report, reflects a convergence of government attitudes with its own official guidelines.
The report comes amid a period of uncertainty in Anglo-Israeli relations.
While the new prime minister, Gordon Brown, has voiced public support for Israel and has appointed several pro-Israel MPs to cabinet positions, he has also promoted a leading critic of US and Israeli policy, former UN deputy secretary-general Mark Malloch Brown, to a key Foreign Office post.
Outside of government, the opposition Liberal Democrat party has called for a rethinking of arms sales to Israel, while in May the UK's Legal Services Commission, the state agency that provides funding for attorney's fees for indigent defendants, agreed to underwrite the costs of litigation brought by a Palestinian man in a British court seeking a ban on arms sales to Israel.
The August 7 Quadripartite Committee report largely praised the government's overall handling of strategic exports but warned that the rapid pace of technological change and rising threat of terrorism required increased state vigilance.
"Any gaps in the legislation could have serious consequences for the UK," it concluded.
However, it criticized as "unclear" the British government's policies on arms sales to Israel.
While the "case-by-case" approach gave the government a "flexibility" that allowed a "latitude to adjust policy without the need for public explanation," its arms sales policies towards Israel were "neither transparent nor accountable," the panel found.
The committee asked that "the government explain its policy on licensing exports to Israel, Jordan or other countries in the Middle East and that it explain whether it has adjusted its policy since 1997 as events in the Occupied Territories and Middle East have unfolded."
"We further recommend that the government explain how it assesses whether there is a clear risk‚ that a proposed export to Israel might be used for internal repression," it said.
Statistics published by the committee showed that arms exports to Israel totaled 14.5 million pounds last year (about $29 million), compared to 22.5 million pounds in 2005. Between 1997 and 2006 Britain granted Israel 1561 Standard Individual Export Licenses (SIELs) valued at 113 million pounds. During the same period it authorized 626 SIELs valued at 136.5 million pounds for shipment to Jordan.
However, over the last 10 years, 190 application for military sales to Israel have been prohibited, comprising 11 percent of all applications for sales of military equipment. During the same period, only two such applications were rejected for military and restricted goods bound for Jordan.
The British government reported it had approved 37 military SIELs to Israel in the first quarter of 2007 valued at 1.5 million pounds, a rate that if held constant throughout the year would cut British sales to Israel by three quarters since 2005.
The UK also blocked 11 SIELs to Israel in the first three months of 2007: three for airborne guidance systems, four for information security systems and equipment, one for munitions, one for fire control equipment, one for electronic components, and one for specialty aluminum alloys.
Three SIELs for the sale of radar and avionics guidance systems to a third country for use in aircraft destined for the IAF were blocked this year also.
The 14 rejected SIELs violated various "Consolidated EU and National Arms Licensing Criteria," the Foreign Office stated, citing concerns the shipments would not respect "human rights and the fundamental freedoms in the country of final destination," would worsen the "the internal situation in the country of final destination;" and would harm "regional peace, security and stability."
One SIEL was denied due to the "behavior of the buyer country with regard to the international community; in particular its attitude to terrorism, the nature of its alliances and respect for international law," while concerns the equipment would be "diverted" for non-approved uses or "re-exported under undesirable conditions" were cited in rejecting three SIELs.
The Foreign Office said in its annual human rights report to Parliament that "progress on improving the human rights situation" in Israel and the territories had been "limited."
Testifying before the committee on March 15, foreign secretary Margaret Beckett stated that the Foreign Office kept a "close eye" on the uses made by the IDF of British military equipment.
The then-foreign secretary said: "If we discovered that equipment had been sold to Israel and was being used contrary to agreed terms, we would regard that with grave concern and we would make sure we did not issue licenses for such equipment in the future."
Beckett said at the time that Britain's total arms sales to Israel were slight. "I believe something like 0.1% of Israel's total arms imports comes from the United Kingdom, and we have not sold main equipment like tanks or artillery or warships to Israel since 1997," she said, noting the Blair government had "visibly conformed" to EU guidelines not to sell equipment that might harm regional peace, security and stability in the Middle East.
During last year's Second Lebanon War, the leader of the opposition Liberal Democrat party urged the government to review its arms sales to Israel.
Sir Menzies Campbell said the government "must now comply with its own arms export rules and institute an immediate suspension of all UK arms exports to Israel."
Pressure is also being exerted through the courts to end arms sales to Israel.
Last November, Public Interest Lawyers, in cooperation with the Palestinian rights group, al-Haq, filed suit against the British government on behalf of Saleh Hasan of Bethlehem. Hasan claimed the sale of military goods to Israel violated British export guidelines and contributed to his "oppression" as a Palestinian by Israel.
Phil Shiner, head of Public Interest Lawyers, stated the crux of their case was whether the British government had met its own criteria about what it can and cannot do in terms of arms exports where there is a risk of internal repression in another country.
In May, a spokesman for the Legal Services Commission said Hasan's lawsuit was receiving legal aid as a test case.
"The fact that applicants may live abroad is not a factor under the legal aid scheme," he told The Times. "The key is whether the case involves issues of English law and will be tried in this jurisdiction."
The case is scheduled for a court hearing in October.
.
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Monday, August 13, 2007
Spanish Op-ed
Los ataques palestinos
http://www.laopinion.com/editorial/tribuna.html?rkey=00000000000001905783
04 de julio de 2007
Aggie R. Hoffman, Los Ángeles, California
Tal como se esperaban, cuando Israel realiza una acción defensiva ("Ataques israelíes matan a 10 palestinos en Gaza", La Opinión, 28 de junio), los periodistas corren para informar cuántos "palestinos" fueron muertos. La costumbre de mostrar a Israel como agresor continúa, incluso después de la captura de Gaza por parte de Hamás y cuyos actos terroristas incluyen lanzar cohetes Kassam contra las ciudades israelíes de Sderot y Askelon.
Por más de un año los cohetes palestinos atacaron, dando sólo 15 segundos a los residentes para buscar refugio. El resultado fueron 15 muertes de civiles, incluyendo a niños, así como heridos, y daños a escuelas, sinagogas y zonas industriales. La prensa no debe ignorar que incluso ahora, Israel sigue suministrando a Gaza con electricidad, agua, suministros médicos y camiones llenos de leche, comida y alimento para animales. ¿Quién más lo haría?
La responsabilidad por la violencia debe ser atribuida a quien la comete, en el lado de los palestinos.. Predictably, when Israel takes defensive action ( Ataques israelíes matan a 10 palestinos en Gaza/ 28 de junio de 2007 ) journalists run to report how many "Palestinians" were killed. Wrongly painting Israel as the aggressor continues even after the recent Hamas takeover of Gaza, whose terrorist acts have incessantly launched Kassam rockets at the Isreali towns of Sderot and Ashkelon .
For over a year Palestinian rockets have given Israeli residents just 15 seconds notice to seek shelter. This has resulted in 15 civilian deaths, including children, injury, and damage to schools, synagogues, and industrial zones. The media must not ignore that even under these unequivocal acts of war, Israel continues to supply Gaza with electricity, water, medical aid, and daily truckloads of milk, food, and animal feed. What other courntry would do this?
Responsibility for violence must be placed where it belongs-- on the Palestinians. .
http://www.laopinion.com/editorial/tribuna.html?rkey=00000000000001905783
04 de julio de 2007
Aggie R. Hoffman, Los Ángeles, California
Tal como se esperaban, cuando Israel realiza una acción defensiva ("Ataques israelíes matan a 10 palestinos en Gaza", La Opinión, 28 de junio), los periodistas corren para informar cuántos "palestinos" fueron muertos. La costumbre de mostrar a Israel como agresor continúa, incluso después de la captura de Gaza por parte de Hamás y cuyos actos terroristas incluyen lanzar cohetes Kassam contra las ciudades israelíes de Sderot y Askelon.
Por más de un año los cohetes palestinos atacaron, dando sólo 15 segundos a los residentes para buscar refugio. El resultado fueron 15 muertes de civiles, incluyendo a niños, así como heridos, y daños a escuelas, sinagogas y zonas industriales. La prensa no debe ignorar que incluso ahora, Israel sigue suministrando a Gaza con electricidad, agua, suministros médicos y camiones llenos de leche, comida y alimento para animales. ¿Quién más lo haría?
La responsabilidad por la violencia debe ser atribuida a quien la comete, en el lado de los palestinos.. Predictably, when Israel takes defensive action ( Ataques israelíes matan a 10 palestinos en Gaza/ 28 de junio de 2007 ) journalists run to report how many "Palestinians" were killed. Wrongly painting Israel as the aggressor continues even after the recent Hamas takeover of Gaza, whose terrorist acts have incessantly launched Kassam rockets at the Isreali towns of Sderot and Ashkelon .
For over a year Palestinian rockets have given Israeli residents just 15 seconds notice to seek shelter. This has resulted in 15 civilian deaths, including children, injury, and damage to schools, synagogues, and industrial zones. The media must not ignore that even under these unequivocal acts of war, Israel continues to supply Gaza with electricity, water, medical aid, and daily truckloads of milk, food, and animal feed. What other courntry would do this?
Responsibility for violence must be placed where it belongs-- on the Palestinians. .
The enemy within
Jerusalem terrorist hails from Israeli Arab town teeming with evil intentions
Uri Ariel
News websites on Sunday started to doubt whether the terrorist who snatched a gun from a security guard in Jerusalem's Old City was indeed a terrorist. They made sure to refer to him as "the man who was shot," rather than as "terrorist Ahmad Khatib, who was eliminated." They reported that he was a new father and that all his acquaintances from the Arab Israeli town of Manda in the lower Galilee said he was a shy man and that his wife was pregnant.
Yet Manda has been a place teeming with evil intentions for a while now. Boaz Gilam, an distinguished basketball player and coach, can tell you all about it. Almost seven years ago, upon the outbreak of the Oslo War, during what Arab citizens of Israel refer to as the "October events," he learned in person who Manda's residents are.
On Monday, October 2, 2000, at 1:15 pm, he was traveling northbound on Route 784 near Manda. When he reached Manda he noticed a roadblock made of stones on the road. He attempted to turn around and drive back to the junction, but when residents realized he was Jewish they assaulted him with stones, bottles, and iron rods.
Gilam was hurt in his neck by a bottle, his face was cut, and his vehicle was badly damaged. He continued driving to the nearby Border Guard base and from there was taken by ambulance to hospital in Tiberius.
Thousands of Manda Arabs participated in these riots and stoned Jews traveling on the main road, which passes near their homes. Two area junctions were blocked for days because Manda residents made sure to bring light polls down. For long days, every car carrying Jews was stoned by rioters from Manda.
Hatred of Israel and terrorist activity are a tradition in Manda. A year and a half ago, two dentists from Manda were jailed on suspicion of joining Hamas during their studies in Romania and undergoing terror training on behalf of Hamas in Turkey. The two were supposed to assist Hamas in enlisting additional Arab-Israelis, identifying hiding spots, picking locations for carrying out terror attacks, and purchasing fertilizer for the purpose of producing explosives.
Routine criminal activity
Two years earlier, three Manda residents were detained after joining Islamic Jihad. They were asked to carry out attacks in crowded locations in Israel, and particularly in shopping malls in the north of the country.
Several terrorists from Manda were also connected to the terror cell that abducted and murdered IDF soldier Oleg Shaichat.
Manda is one of the bases of support of the radical and violent northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel. The terrorist, Khatib, was a member of the "al-Aqsa" institution in the town, which is closely associated with this branch. On Friday of last week, he arrived, on behalf of this institution and by pre-arranged transportation, in order to "pray at the Temple Mount mosques."
Meanwhile, Arab residents of the area are constantly involved in routine criminal activity, property offences, assault, murder, violence, and arson. Even mere traffic police officers are met with curses and are assaulted in Manda. That's just another way of fighting the occupation.
For a long time now, the State of Israel has not been conducting itself as if it seeks life. If it was, Manda would be somewhere else by now. .
Jerusalem terrorist hails from Israeli Arab town teeming with evil intentions
Uri Ariel
News websites on Sunday started to doubt whether the terrorist who snatched a gun from a security guard in Jerusalem's Old City was indeed a terrorist. They made sure to refer to him as "the man who was shot," rather than as "terrorist Ahmad Khatib, who was eliminated." They reported that he was a new father and that all his acquaintances from the Arab Israeli town of Manda in the lower Galilee said he was a shy man and that his wife was pregnant.
Yet Manda has been a place teeming with evil intentions for a while now. Boaz Gilam, an distinguished basketball player and coach, can tell you all about it. Almost seven years ago, upon the outbreak of the Oslo War, during what Arab citizens of Israel refer to as the "October events," he learned in person who Manda's residents are.
On Monday, October 2, 2000, at 1:15 pm, he was traveling northbound on Route 784 near Manda. When he reached Manda he noticed a roadblock made of stones on the road. He attempted to turn around and drive back to the junction, but when residents realized he was Jewish they assaulted him with stones, bottles, and iron rods.
Gilam was hurt in his neck by a bottle, his face was cut, and his vehicle was badly damaged. He continued driving to the nearby Border Guard base and from there was taken by ambulance to hospital in Tiberius.
Thousands of Manda Arabs participated in these riots and stoned Jews traveling on the main road, which passes near their homes. Two area junctions were blocked for days because Manda residents made sure to bring light polls down. For long days, every car carrying Jews was stoned by rioters from Manda.
Hatred of Israel and terrorist activity are a tradition in Manda. A year and a half ago, two dentists from Manda were jailed on suspicion of joining Hamas during their studies in Romania and undergoing terror training on behalf of Hamas in Turkey. The two were supposed to assist Hamas in enlisting additional Arab-Israelis, identifying hiding spots, picking locations for carrying out terror attacks, and purchasing fertilizer for the purpose of producing explosives.
Routine criminal activity
Two years earlier, three Manda residents were detained after joining Islamic Jihad. They were asked to carry out attacks in crowded locations in Israel, and particularly in shopping malls in the north of the country.
Several terrorists from Manda were also connected to the terror cell that abducted and murdered IDF soldier Oleg Shaichat.
Manda is one of the bases of support of the radical and violent northern branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel. The terrorist, Khatib, was a member of the "al-Aqsa" institution in the town, which is closely associated with this branch. On Friday of last week, he arrived, on behalf of this institution and by pre-arranged transportation, in order to "pray at the Temple Mount mosques."
Meanwhile, Arab residents of the area are constantly involved in routine criminal activity, property offences, assault, murder, violence, and arson. Even mere traffic police officers are met with curses and are assaulted in Manda. That's just another way of fighting the occupation.
For a long time now, the State of Israel has not been conducting itself as if it seeks life. If it was, Manda would be somewhere else by now. .
Knesset votes for divesting convicted MKs of perks
House Committee approves move to withhold state benefits from Knesset members convicted of crimes of moral turpitude
Amnon Meranda
The Knesset House Committee voted unanimously Monday in favor of divesting Knesset members of perks if they are convicted of offenses of moral turpitude.
Former president
Katsav may lose all benefits but pension / Zvi Lavi
Knesset Finance Committee decides to revoke benefits from ex PMs and presidents who committed offenses that carry moral turpitude
The move comes weeks after the Finance Committee approved a similar law to withhold state benefits from former and present government officials who are convicted of criminal offenses.
Under the new law, convicted MKs will no longer be entitled to stipends to cover their phone bills and transportation expenses.
The Finance Committee approved the new regulation in the wake of former president Moshe Katsav's sexual assault scandal.
The committee divested Katsav of a series of perks, including a state-funded residence in Jerusalem, a driver and a state car.
House Committee approves move to withhold state benefits from Knesset members convicted of crimes of moral turpitude
Amnon Meranda
The Knesset House Committee voted unanimously Monday in favor of divesting Knesset members of perks if they are convicted of offenses of moral turpitude.
Former president
Katsav may lose all benefits but pension / Zvi Lavi
Knesset Finance Committee decides to revoke benefits from ex PMs and presidents who committed offenses that carry moral turpitude
The move comes weeks after the Finance Committee approved a similar law to withhold state benefits from former and present government officials who are convicted of criminal offenses.
Under the new law, convicted MKs will no longer be entitled to stipends to cover their phone bills and transportation expenses.
The Finance Committee approved the new regulation in the wake of former president Moshe Katsav's sexual assault scandal.
The committee divested Katsav of a series of perks, including a state-funded residence in Jerusalem, a driver and a state car.
Israeli-Jordanian team set up first artificial coral reef in the Red Sea
Facing the possible extinction of the breathtaking coral reef which populate the Red Sea shoreline off of Eilat and Aqaba, Israeli and Jordanian marine biologists have implemented a unique new approach to conservation - an artificial reef. The developers hope that the Tamar reef - the largest in the world - will steer divers away from the natural reefs and enable them to recover. In addition the reef provides the researchers with a unique underwater laboratory, enabling them to observe and unravel the development and growth of the unique and complex ecosystem.
Facing the possible extinction of the breathtaking coral reef which populate the Red Sea shoreline off of Eilat and Aqaba, Israeli and Jordanian marine biologists have implemented a unique new approach to conservation - an artificial reef. The developers hope that the Tamar reef - the largest in the world - will steer divers away from the natural reefs and enable them to recover. In addition the reef provides the researchers with a unique underwater laboratory, enabling them to observe and unravel the development and growth of the unique and complex ecosystem.
Your son, my son
Mother of combat soldier calls for 'equality' through compulsory national service
Tal Bashan
We came a long way together: Neighbors, friends, raising children and dogs together. Here and there we both expressed our anger over the destructive occupation or the discrimination against women - but more than anything, we saw our children growing up together, ready to conquer the world when the time comes.
Your firstborn didn't join the army. Faithful to your ultra-left wing world, you declared that the military is an occupation army, a machine that exploits the young and innocent. Your son, you said, would not be a part of it. Your son was exempted from service and traveled abroad, enrolled in university and played the guitar in his spare time.
Each time I went by your house and heard the music, I felt uncomfortable. The sons of my friends were perspiring somewhere out there in their military units, and your son was sitting at home and strumming his guitar. It bothered me, but I didn't say anything, for the sake of our relationship.
Meanwhile, my son joined a commando unit. He gave up a career in sports because he wanted to do "something worthwhile" in the army, as he put it. At times such as this, I don’t hear from him for over a week - that's the nature of the service he chose.
Had I argued with him, stood in his way, perhaps he wouldn't have enlisted into a combat unit. Because we both know all too well that today's parents have substantial influence over everything pertaining to their children's enlistment – particularly the spoiled and rich kids.
I must admit, the strictly Orthodox community that doesn't serve in the army bothers me a lot less - we have long given up on them and their problematic military service. What bothers me more is the fact that more and more young and normative people, healthy in mind and soul, such as your son and the sons of my other acquaintances, do not serve in the army and do not fulfill their duty in any other way.
My views do not differ that much from those of my friends who oppose the occupation. I respect ideological, pacifist, anti militaristic views. But why not national service, for God's sake? Aren’t there enough youngsters, elderly and sick people in need of assistance?
I feel that there is something immoral about parents who enable their children to advance themselves only while their friends contribute years of their lives to the State, with some of them even risking their lives.
This entire dilemma may have been spared had a compulsory national service law been passed: Every young Israeli who does not deem himself fit for military service, or simply doesn't feel like serving (and that's the real motive in most cases,) should have to contribute three years to society in some other way: One could teach children at risk to sing and play an instrument, another could spend time with hospital patients, and your children could fulfill their duty among Jewish-Arab youth or in institutions for underprivileged kids. All that's needed is urgent legislation on the matter.
On a humid evening, while taking the dogs out for a walk together, I asked you candidly for the first time: How is my son different to your children? Why can he contribute while your's can't? You responded with your familiar answer about the occupation army, which only exists to perpetuate itself, and that the army should have been dissolved and turned into a professional army with salaried personnel.
And I hear myself telling you angrily: Perhaps, but meanwhile the children of others are serving in this army and risking their lives. You say that "everyone" and "for the sake of the country" is not a valid argument. Your children will do their bit when the time comes, if and when they choose. And you add: "Don't forget that your son wanted this, he volunteered."
Our dogs, which are so sensitive to the feelings of their owners, began to bark restlessly. After the long years of friendship, I am sorry to say that the break is inevitable. We have reached a point in which what's political has become personal, and what's personal touches a raw nerve, and the things that mothers of soldiers experience on nights replete with worry are not experienced by others.
Mother of combat soldier calls for 'equality' through compulsory national service
Tal Bashan
We came a long way together: Neighbors, friends, raising children and dogs together. Here and there we both expressed our anger over the destructive occupation or the discrimination against women - but more than anything, we saw our children growing up together, ready to conquer the world when the time comes.
Your firstborn didn't join the army. Faithful to your ultra-left wing world, you declared that the military is an occupation army, a machine that exploits the young and innocent. Your son, you said, would not be a part of it. Your son was exempted from service and traveled abroad, enrolled in university and played the guitar in his spare time.
Each time I went by your house and heard the music, I felt uncomfortable. The sons of my friends were perspiring somewhere out there in their military units, and your son was sitting at home and strumming his guitar. It bothered me, but I didn't say anything, for the sake of our relationship.
Meanwhile, my son joined a commando unit. He gave up a career in sports because he wanted to do "something worthwhile" in the army, as he put it. At times such as this, I don’t hear from him for over a week - that's the nature of the service he chose.
Had I argued with him, stood in his way, perhaps he wouldn't have enlisted into a combat unit. Because we both know all too well that today's parents have substantial influence over everything pertaining to their children's enlistment – particularly the spoiled and rich kids.
I must admit, the strictly Orthodox community that doesn't serve in the army bothers me a lot less - we have long given up on them and their problematic military service. What bothers me more is the fact that more and more young and normative people, healthy in mind and soul, such as your son and the sons of my other acquaintances, do not serve in the army and do not fulfill their duty in any other way.
My views do not differ that much from those of my friends who oppose the occupation. I respect ideological, pacifist, anti militaristic views. But why not national service, for God's sake? Aren’t there enough youngsters, elderly and sick people in need of assistance?
I feel that there is something immoral about parents who enable their children to advance themselves only while their friends contribute years of their lives to the State, with some of them even risking their lives.
This entire dilemma may have been spared had a compulsory national service law been passed: Every young Israeli who does not deem himself fit for military service, or simply doesn't feel like serving (and that's the real motive in most cases,) should have to contribute three years to society in some other way: One could teach children at risk to sing and play an instrument, another could spend time with hospital patients, and your children could fulfill their duty among Jewish-Arab youth or in institutions for underprivileged kids. All that's needed is urgent legislation on the matter.
On a humid evening, while taking the dogs out for a walk together, I asked you candidly for the first time: How is my son different to your children? Why can he contribute while your's can't? You responded with your familiar answer about the occupation army, which only exists to perpetuate itself, and that the army should have been dissolved and turned into a professional army with salaried personnel.
And I hear myself telling you angrily: Perhaps, but meanwhile the children of others are serving in this army and risking their lives. You say that "everyone" and "for the sake of the country" is not a valid argument. Your children will do their bit when the time comes, if and when they choose. And you add: "Don't forget that your son wanted this, he volunteered."
Our dogs, which are so sensitive to the feelings of their owners, began to bark restlessly. After the long years of friendship, I am sorry to say that the break is inevitable. We have reached a point in which what's political has become personal, and what's personal touches a raw nerve, and the things that mothers of soldiers experience on nights replete with worry are not experienced by others.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
U.S. Pressure on Israel for a Palestinian State Foreseen
by Hillel Fendel
As the US, Jordan, the PA and others prepare for a high-level Middle East summit in November, a squeeze on Israel to agree to a Palestinian state just kilometers from Tel Aviv is feared.
PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) has met in recent days with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and with Jordan's King Abdullah, reportedly discussing plans for the upcoming Middle East summit. The summit is the brainchild of U.S. President George Bush, and is scheduled to be held three months from now. Some Israelis fear that it will mark the climax of a heavy series of pressures upon Israel to agree formally to the formation of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
. "With a quiet and densely-packed timetable," writes IDF Col. (res.) Moti Yogev, "the US Administration is cooking up, together with Prime Minister Olmert and Abu Mazen, very fateful plans for the State of Israel. The US will apply very heavy pressure on Israel to agree to understandings that will form the basis of the declaration of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria within just two months."
Yogev explains that the Bush Administration is working under the pressure of the 2008 elections. "By then," Yogev posits, "Bush plans to hit the Iranian nuclear infrastructures. This is why he is in such a rush to give the Palestinians and the moderate Moslem states fat weapons deals and a Palestinian state - in order to silence them in anticipation of the planned attack on Iran."
"Bush has partners," Yogev continues, "Abu Mazen and Olmert, and the common denominator for all of them is their unpleasant political situation, which is prodding them to take steps they hope will improve their standing."
Shteinitz Opposes Summit
MK Yuval Shteinitz (Likud) told Arutz-7 this morning that the summit is something that must be strongly opposed: "This summit could well lead to a Palestinian state, with clear Hamas and Iranian influence, right on the doorstep of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Ben Gurion International Airport. Even if it just serves as a small support for this idea, the summit is something that we must not allow." Shteinitz served as head of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the previous Knesset.
Though plans are proceeding apace for the summit to be held, several major stumbling blocks remain - including the refusal of Saudi Arabia to announce its participation, and the questionable status of Abu Mazen. Conflicting reports abound as to whether Hamas and Fatah are on the road to peace between them or to a resumption of hostilities. If the latter, then Abu Mazen could find himself a target of assassination; a statement by Hamas elements accuses him of "launching a war against Hamas together with the Zionist occupation forces." In addition, a group of influential businessmen in the PA is considering starting a new party, which Abu Mazen said he "supports."
A Dangerous Israeli Commitment
Yogev says we must be very far from complacent, however: "[Israeli Cabinet ministers] are again working, trying to give between 70 and 90% of Judea and Samaria to the PA for a state. True, some say the present government does not have the political strength to pull it off. But what is now on the agenda is just a signature on a 'declaration of principles' for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Even if the implementation is put off, it will still be an international Israeli commitment, and this is very grave. In addition, if it is marketed as a way of saving Israel from the Iranian nuclear threat, it will be very hard to convince the average Israeli of the dangers of abandoning most of Judea and Samaria - despite what has happened in Gaza."
The only way to stop this, Yogev writes, is for the "nationalist, religious, Zionist camp to wake up, unite as one, and work together... We have the strength to declare firmly that the Land of Israel belongs to the People of Israel, and that any thought of giving it to 'moderate' murderers is immoral and will not bring peace or security."
by Hillel Fendel
As the US, Jordan, the PA and others prepare for a high-level Middle East summit in November, a squeeze on Israel to agree to a Palestinian state just kilometers from Tel Aviv is feared.
PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) has met in recent days with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and with Jordan's King Abdullah, reportedly discussing plans for the upcoming Middle East summit. The summit is the brainchild of U.S. President George Bush, and is scheduled to be held three months from now. Some Israelis fear that it will mark the climax of a heavy series of pressures upon Israel to agree formally to the formation of a Palestinian state in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
. "With a quiet and densely-packed timetable," writes IDF Col. (res.) Moti Yogev, "the US Administration is cooking up, together with Prime Minister Olmert and Abu Mazen, very fateful plans for the State of Israel. The US will apply very heavy pressure on Israel to agree to understandings that will form the basis of the declaration of a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria within just two months."
Yogev explains that the Bush Administration is working under the pressure of the 2008 elections. "By then," Yogev posits, "Bush plans to hit the Iranian nuclear infrastructures. This is why he is in such a rush to give the Palestinians and the moderate Moslem states fat weapons deals and a Palestinian state - in order to silence them in anticipation of the planned attack on Iran."
"Bush has partners," Yogev continues, "Abu Mazen and Olmert, and the common denominator for all of them is their unpleasant political situation, which is prodding them to take steps they hope will improve their standing."
Shteinitz Opposes Summit
MK Yuval Shteinitz (Likud) told Arutz-7 this morning that the summit is something that must be strongly opposed: "This summit could well lead to a Palestinian state, with clear Hamas and Iranian influence, right on the doorstep of Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Ben Gurion International Airport. Even if it just serves as a small support for this idea, the summit is something that we must not allow." Shteinitz served as head of the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee in the previous Knesset.
Though plans are proceeding apace for the summit to be held, several major stumbling blocks remain - including the refusal of Saudi Arabia to announce its participation, and the questionable status of Abu Mazen. Conflicting reports abound as to whether Hamas and Fatah are on the road to peace between them or to a resumption of hostilities. If the latter, then Abu Mazen could find himself a target of assassination; a statement by Hamas elements accuses him of "launching a war against Hamas together with the Zionist occupation forces." In addition, a group of influential businessmen in the PA is considering starting a new party, which Abu Mazen said he "supports."
A Dangerous Israeli Commitment
Yogev says we must be very far from complacent, however: "[Israeli Cabinet ministers] are again working, trying to give between 70 and 90% of Judea and Samaria to the PA for a state. True, some say the present government does not have the political strength to pull it off. But what is now on the agenda is just a signature on a 'declaration of principles' for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Even if the implementation is put off, it will still be an international Israeli commitment, and this is very grave. In addition, if it is marketed as a way of saving Israel from the Iranian nuclear threat, it will be very hard to convince the average Israeli of the dangers of abandoning most of Judea and Samaria - despite what has happened in Gaza."
The only way to stop this, Yogev writes, is for the "nationalist, religious, Zionist camp to wake up, unite as one, and work together... We have the strength to declare firmly that the Land of Israel belongs to the People of Israel, and that any thought of giving it to 'moderate' murderers is immoral and will not bring peace or security."
Islamists urge caliphate revival
Some 80,000 Islamists have met in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, to press for the re-establishment of a caliphate across the Muslim world.
The Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir - which organised the conference - said it had been the largest gathering of Muslim activists from around the world.
However, the group is illegal in many countries and key speakers have been stopped from entering Indonesia.
A caliphate - or single state for Muslims - last existed in 1924.
Hizb ut-Tahrir regards this as the ideal form of government, because it follows what it believes are the laws of God as set out in the Koran, rather than laws designed by man.
The groups says it seeks to set up a caliphate by non-violent means - but many experts see it as ideologically close to jihadist groups.
It is banned in most of the Middle East and parts of Europe.
HIZB UT-TAHRIR
Founded in the 1950s by Palestinian jurist Taqiuddin an-Nabhani
Active across the Middle East, central and south-east Asia and, increasingly, Europe
Seeks a caliphate, or single state, across the Muslim world
Banned in most Middle-Eastern countries
The BBC's Lucy Williamson in Jakarta says that of the estimated 80,000 people packing the stadium hired for the event, the overwhelming majority were women, who have travelled from across Indonesia to attend.
If the audience turnout was impressive, not so the speakers lined up to address the crowd, our correspondent adds.
One by one, over the past few days, seven of the delegates invited to speak have dropped out.
Barred
Hizb ut-Tahrir says at least two of its foreign activists - one from Britain and another from Australia - were barred by the Indonesian government.
The group's spokesman Muhammad Ismail Yusanto said: "The organising committee deplores the deportation because they came to Indonesia... to give their good advice for the progress of Islam, for the progress of this country."
Controversial Indonesian cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir was also scheduled to address the conference, but organisers asked him not to attend after police raised security concerns.
Hizb ut-Tahrir - or Liberation Party - was founded in Jerusalem in the 1950s by Palestinian religious scholar Taqiuddin an-Nabhani.
Today it has a mainly clandestine following in the Middle East, a large presence in Central Asia - where hundreds of its members have been jailed - and active supporters in the West, including London, which is believed to be one of its main bases.
Many experts see it as ideologically close to jihadist groups, and suspect its commitment to peaceful means is purely tactical.
.
Some 80,000 Islamists have met in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, to press for the re-establishment of a caliphate across the Muslim world.
The Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir - which organised the conference - said it had been the largest gathering of Muslim activists from around the world.
However, the group is illegal in many countries and key speakers have been stopped from entering Indonesia.
A caliphate - or single state for Muslims - last existed in 1924.
Hizb ut-Tahrir regards this as the ideal form of government, because it follows what it believes are the laws of God as set out in the Koran, rather than laws designed by man.
The groups says it seeks to set up a caliphate by non-violent means - but many experts see it as ideologically close to jihadist groups.
It is banned in most of the Middle East and parts of Europe.
HIZB UT-TAHRIR
Founded in the 1950s by Palestinian jurist Taqiuddin an-Nabhani
Active across the Middle East, central and south-east Asia and, increasingly, Europe
Seeks a caliphate, or single state, across the Muslim world
Banned in most Middle-Eastern countries
The BBC's Lucy Williamson in Jakarta says that of the estimated 80,000 people packing the stadium hired for the event, the overwhelming majority were women, who have travelled from across Indonesia to attend.
If the audience turnout was impressive, not so the speakers lined up to address the crowd, our correspondent adds.
One by one, over the past few days, seven of the delegates invited to speak have dropped out.
Barred
Hizb ut-Tahrir says at least two of its foreign activists - one from Britain and another from Australia - were barred by the Indonesian government.
The group's spokesman Muhammad Ismail Yusanto said: "The organising committee deplores the deportation because they came to Indonesia... to give their good advice for the progress of Islam, for the progress of this country."
Controversial Indonesian cleric Abu Bakar Ba'asyir was also scheduled to address the conference, but organisers asked him not to attend after police raised security concerns.
Hizb ut-Tahrir - or Liberation Party - was founded in Jerusalem in the 1950s by Palestinian religious scholar Taqiuddin an-Nabhani.
Today it has a mainly clandestine following in the Middle East, a large presence in Central Asia - where hundreds of its members have been jailed - and active supporters in the West, including London, which is believed to be one of its main bases.
Many experts see it as ideologically close to jihadist groups, and suspect its commitment to peaceful means is purely tactical.
.
Hizbollah buys frontier land to attack Israel
By Charles Levinson in Chbail, Lebanon, Sunday Telegraph
12/08/2007
Hizbollah is buying up large tracts of land owned by Christians and other
non-Shias in southern Lebanon as the militant group rebuilds its defences in
preparation for a new war with Israel, The Sunday Telegraph has been told.
Hizbollah is buying land beyond the reach of the UN
The land grab is thought to be driven by the Iranian-backed guerrillas'
efforts to rearm themselves and fortify the strategically important ravines north of the Litani River, just north of the front line in last year's
34-day conflict with its Jewish neighbour.
Here, Hizbollah has been free to press forward without harassment from the
13,000 United Nations peacekeepers and 20,000 Lebanese army troops who were
deployed south of the Litani as part of the ceasefire agreement that ended
the conflict.
Just south of the Litani, the UN is conducting hundreds of patrols each day
in a bid to keep Hizbollah weapons out of the area, but the peacekeepers'
mandate ends at the river.
The Lebanese army, meanwhile, is about 50 per cent Shia and seems to be
turning a blind eye to Hizbollah activities north of the river.
In these rugged gorges, the group appears to be readying for round two with
Israel, and many fear it is not far off after the inconclusive end to last
year's war and reports of -Hizbollah rearming.
The area's forested wadis, or valleys, make ideal terrain for Hizbollah's
brand of guerrilla warfare and, just 10 miles from the border, are within
rocket range of Israeli cities.
The Shia encroachment into a mixed area of Christians, Shias and Druze
Muslims threatens to disrupt Lebanon's delicate sectarian balance, which is
already teetering after three years of political tumult.
"Christians and Druze are selling land and moving out, while the Shia are
moving in. There is an extraordinary demo-graphic shift taking place," said
Edmund Rizk, a Christian MP for the area until 1992.
On a scenic, sparsely populated ridge, the farming village of Chbail was
once Christian. Today, the land belongs to a wealthy Shia businessman with
alleged ties to Hizbollah. Its new residents are recent Shia transplants
from the Hizbollah-controlled south.
Entry to the village is forbidden to outsiders - not by the Lebanese army
that technically holds sway here, but by the chabab, the plain-clothed,
bearded youths who act as look-outs in Hizbollah territory."The village is closed for security reasons," said a youth who had recently moved from a Hizbollah-controlled area near the regional capital, Tyre. Like many neighbouring hamlets, Chbail has steadily decayed ever since civil war broke out in 1975. Fleeing first Palestinian guerrillas, then invading Israeli soldiers, and finally Hizbollah, villagers steadily migrated to seek better lives in Beirut or overseas.
While The Sunday Telegraph was at Chbail's outskirts, a rust-coloured Volvo
station wagon rolled in, piled high with wooden building beams. A dozen or
so other young men with dirt-caked fingernails came and went freely. On the
wadis' western edge, a metal sign strung across an unmarked dirt track
erased any doubt about what, or rather who, now lies beyond. "Entry forbidden. Hizbollah area," the sign read in Arabic. The closure was manned by a pair of teenage gunmen in olive green fatigues, armed with walkie-talkies and AK47s.
The buy-up of land in Chbail and half a dozen Druze and Christian villages
is said to be the work of a wealthy Shia businessman, Ali Tajeddine, who
made his fortune trading diamonds in Sierra Leone before returning to
Lebanon and starting a successful construction company. Squat and bearded, Mr Tajeddine keeps a Hizbollah charity box in the waiting room of his Tyre office. He is believed to be a major player in Hizbollah's massive reconstruction programme called Jihad al Bina, or the Building Jihad.
During an interview, Mr Tajeddine fidgeted nervously as he denied any
connection with Hizbollah. He said his projects at Chbail represent just a
fraction of the dozens of developments he is building throughout Lebanon.
But his distinctive arc of land-buys around Hizbollah's new stronghold has
triggered alarm among the district's Christian and Druze leaders, who say he
is using Iranian funds to buy land from destitute villagers at up to four
times the going rate. Druze sheikhs have responded by forbidding the sale of land to Shias and wealthy Christians have been asked to buy property in the area to stem the Shia tide.
In Chbail and two neighbouring Christian villages, Mr Tajeddine has already
bought 200-300 acres of land, according to the mayor, Kamil Fares. "There
are new people coming," he said. "Shias have moved into apartments belonging
to Ali Tajeddine. But we're poor. What can we do?"
In the Druze village of Al Sreiri, the mayor, Hafed Kiwane, told a similar
story. "We have nothing here, so it was good to see money coming into the
area, but now we fear there are suspicious motives," he said.
Among the Hizbollah settlements is the fledgling village of Ahmediyya, where
a billboard in Hebrew warns Israeli invaders: "Do not enter!"
Dozens of housing units have been built here in the past year. A supermarket
is open for business, and 10 Shia families have moved in so far. Among them
is project foreman Mohammad Atwa, 51. As two men photographed The Sunday
Telegraph's car, he said: "The rockets of the resistance showed us there was
someone to defend us."
Critics fear that Ahmediyya will further stretch the Shia reach to the
north-east, as part of a grand scheme to create a strip of Shia-controlled
land connecting the south to Hizbollah's other power centre in Lebanon, the
Bekaa Valley.
"It is part of Hizbollah's plan to create a state within a state," said
Walid Jumblatt, a Druze leader. He also pointed to the four-lane road being
built to connect the Hizbollah stronghold of Nabatieh in the south to the
western Bekaa.
Banners openly proclaim the source of the road's funding: "510km of new
roads paid for by the Iranian Organization for Sharing in the Building of
Lebanon".
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/12/wmid112.xml
By Charles Levinson in Chbail, Lebanon, Sunday Telegraph
12/08/2007
Hizbollah is buying up large tracts of land owned by Christians and other
non-Shias in southern Lebanon as the militant group rebuilds its defences in
preparation for a new war with Israel, The Sunday Telegraph has been told.
Hizbollah is buying land beyond the reach of the UN
The land grab is thought to be driven by the Iranian-backed guerrillas'
efforts to rearm themselves and fortify the strategically important ravines north of the Litani River, just north of the front line in last year's
34-day conflict with its Jewish neighbour.
Here, Hizbollah has been free to press forward without harassment from the
13,000 United Nations peacekeepers and 20,000 Lebanese army troops who were
deployed south of the Litani as part of the ceasefire agreement that ended
the conflict.
Just south of the Litani, the UN is conducting hundreds of patrols each day
in a bid to keep Hizbollah weapons out of the area, but the peacekeepers'
mandate ends at the river.
The Lebanese army, meanwhile, is about 50 per cent Shia and seems to be
turning a blind eye to Hizbollah activities north of the river.
In these rugged gorges, the group appears to be readying for round two with
Israel, and many fear it is not far off after the inconclusive end to last
year's war and reports of -Hizbollah rearming.
The area's forested wadis, or valleys, make ideal terrain for Hizbollah's
brand of guerrilla warfare and, just 10 miles from the border, are within
rocket range of Israeli cities.
The Shia encroachment into a mixed area of Christians, Shias and Druze
Muslims threatens to disrupt Lebanon's delicate sectarian balance, which is
already teetering after three years of political tumult.
"Christians and Druze are selling land and moving out, while the Shia are
moving in. There is an extraordinary demo-graphic shift taking place," said
Edmund Rizk, a Christian MP for the area until 1992.
On a scenic, sparsely populated ridge, the farming village of Chbail was
once Christian. Today, the land belongs to a wealthy Shia businessman with
alleged ties to Hizbollah. Its new residents are recent Shia transplants
from the Hizbollah-controlled south.
Entry to the village is forbidden to outsiders - not by the Lebanese army
that technically holds sway here, but by the chabab, the plain-clothed,
bearded youths who act as look-outs in Hizbollah territory."The village is closed for security reasons," said a youth who had recently moved from a Hizbollah-controlled area near the regional capital, Tyre. Like many neighbouring hamlets, Chbail has steadily decayed ever since civil war broke out in 1975. Fleeing first Palestinian guerrillas, then invading Israeli soldiers, and finally Hizbollah, villagers steadily migrated to seek better lives in Beirut or overseas.
While The Sunday Telegraph was at Chbail's outskirts, a rust-coloured Volvo
station wagon rolled in, piled high with wooden building beams. A dozen or
so other young men with dirt-caked fingernails came and went freely. On the
wadis' western edge, a metal sign strung across an unmarked dirt track
erased any doubt about what, or rather who, now lies beyond. "Entry forbidden. Hizbollah area," the sign read in Arabic. The closure was manned by a pair of teenage gunmen in olive green fatigues, armed with walkie-talkies and AK47s.
The buy-up of land in Chbail and half a dozen Druze and Christian villages
is said to be the work of a wealthy Shia businessman, Ali Tajeddine, who
made his fortune trading diamonds in Sierra Leone before returning to
Lebanon and starting a successful construction company. Squat and bearded, Mr Tajeddine keeps a Hizbollah charity box in the waiting room of his Tyre office. He is believed to be a major player in Hizbollah's massive reconstruction programme called Jihad al Bina, or the Building Jihad.
During an interview, Mr Tajeddine fidgeted nervously as he denied any
connection with Hizbollah. He said his projects at Chbail represent just a
fraction of the dozens of developments he is building throughout Lebanon.
But his distinctive arc of land-buys around Hizbollah's new stronghold has
triggered alarm among the district's Christian and Druze leaders, who say he
is using Iranian funds to buy land from destitute villagers at up to four
times the going rate. Druze sheikhs have responded by forbidding the sale of land to Shias and wealthy Christians have been asked to buy property in the area to stem the Shia tide.
In Chbail and two neighbouring Christian villages, Mr Tajeddine has already
bought 200-300 acres of land, according to the mayor, Kamil Fares. "There
are new people coming," he said. "Shias have moved into apartments belonging
to Ali Tajeddine. But we're poor. What can we do?"
In the Druze village of Al Sreiri, the mayor, Hafed Kiwane, told a similar
story. "We have nothing here, so it was good to see money coming into the
area, but now we fear there are suspicious motives," he said.
Among the Hizbollah settlements is the fledgling village of Ahmediyya, where
a billboard in Hebrew warns Israeli invaders: "Do not enter!"
Dozens of housing units have been built here in the past year. A supermarket
is open for business, and 10 Shia families have moved in so far. Among them
is project foreman Mohammad Atwa, 51. As two men photographed The Sunday
Telegraph's car, he said: "The rockets of the resistance showed us there was
someone to defend us."
Critics fear that Ahmediyya will further stretch the Shia reach to the
north-east, as part of a grand scheme to create a strip of Shia-controlled
land connecting the south to Hizbollah's other power centre in Lebanon, the
Bekaa Valley.
"It is part of Hizbollah's plan to create a state within a state," said
Walid Jumblatt, a Druze leader. He also pointed to the four-lane road being
built to connect the Hizbollah stronghold of Nabatieh in the south to the
western Bekaa.
Banners openly proclaim the source of the road's funding: "510km of new
roads paid for by the Iranian Organization for Sharing in the Building of
Lebanon".
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/08/12/wmid112.xml
Cluing Condi in
Sarah Honig, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 9, 2007
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is by all accounts studiously professorial and smarter than the average State Department hack. Hence, perhaps, her schoolmarmy tone and authoritative demeanor here last week, during yet another stopover to reform benighted natives by reprimand and further the cause of her boss's "vision" for a Palestinian state.
In addition to everything that has so far gone vexingly awry en route to G.W.'s two-state-solution, the Palestinians violently split themselves into two mutually antagonistic components, a complication sure to diminish their self-government's anyway improbable viability.
But is Condi disheartened? Heck no! Her latest mantra is "a Palestinian state first." Presumably once that state is hocus-pocused into nominal existence (and once Bush expiates Arab wrath at Israel's expense), Palestinian independence would provide impetus to unify rival Palestinian militias.
That's about as realistic an assumption as underpinned the last attempt to create two states between the Jordan and the Mediterranean - on November 29, 1947, when the UN General Assembly approved this tiny territory's partition into a Palestinian Arab state and a pitifully puny, terrifyingly vulnerable Jewish counterpart (wedged mainly along the coastal highway between Tel Aviv and Haifa). Jerusalem was consigned to international administration, and the entire unlikely shebang was to form one economic unit in the abiding spirit of brotherly love.
The pipe dream's single outstanding shortcoming was the palpable paucity of brotherly love. The Arabs contemptuously rebuffed the high-minded scheme and invaded newborn Israel. Two weeks pre-invasion, on May 1, 1948, Arab League secretary-general Abdul-Rahman Azzam Pasha declared: "If the Zionists dare establish a state, the massacres we would unleash would dwarf anything which Genghis Khan and Hitler perpetrated."
Lest any doubt linger, Azzam reiterated his message the day seven Arab armies attacked: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."
But things, alas, didn't turn out as per Azzam's bravado. Ever since, consequently, frustrated Arabs rage with bitterest indignation about being unfairly denied their state under the partition plan they deliberately foiled.
THE SOLICITOUS international community, ostensibly out to help the underdog, responds sympathetically to their grievances and avidly offers redress. By subscribing to Oslo and its derivatives, some ever-gullible and eager-to-please Israelis enlist enthusiastically in efforts to undo what hostile Arabs brought upon themselves. Nonetheless, despite abundant goodwill and global largess, no Palestinian state yet exists - thwarted repeatedly by Azzam's spiritual heirs and torchbearers.
Understandably Condi prefers to pooh-pooh continuous Arab aggression for the past 60 years. Presumably Bush's vision would inspire more fraternal coexistence than the UN did in 1947, rendering ongoing Islamofascist blood lust irrelevant.
All the same, it might serve Condi well to examine what transpired in this land between November 1947 and May 1948. More than anything else - even genocidal Arab impulses, which she expediently downplays - the manner each of the two would-be states conducted their internal affairs then may clue Condi into why Palestinian democracy remains unlikely now, American pressure and Israeli appeasement notwithstanding.
UN Resolution 181 detailed prerequisites leading to independence for the projected Jewish and Arab states alike. These included the formation of "a Provisional Council of Government in each state" that would "proceed to the establishment of administrative organs of government" and "hold elections to the Constituent Assembly which shall be conducted on democratic lines."
Despite demonstrative British obstructionism, the Jews embarked on fulfilling these obligations with remarkably pedantic earnestness. The Provisional Council was set up with both legislative and executive wings and the 13-member executive was entrusted with drafting the Declaration of Independence. The meticulous care invested into each phrase of that declaration and the hair-splitting attention to every possible legalistic nuance can only engender ungrudging admiration.
The minutiae from which Israel's founding fathers didn't shrink while guns already furiously blazed (the Tel Aviv venue of the May 14 independence proclamation ceremony had to be kept secret to evade an air raid) attest more than anything to the inherently democratic mind-set and phenomenal conscientiousness-under-fire of the Jewish collective.
Nothing was left to chance - not even under whose auspices courts would operate in the brief potential hiatus between the termination of British rule and the commencement of Jewish authority. Little can enlighten more than that concentration on any conceivable contingency, no matter how far-fetched.
In the starkest of contrasts, not only did nothing of the sort occur within the blueprinted Arab Palestinian state, but in fact no move whatever was made to prepare for sovereignty. The Arabs shrilly and boastfully prepared for battle. It was patently clear they weren't interested in running their own state. All their aspirations focused on destroying the nascent Jewish entity, responsible in their eyes for the separate Palestinian designation in the first place - one which they then passionately rejected but which today they assiduously embrace and promote as their casus belli.
Throughout the Mandate, local Arabs failed consistently to avail themselves of British-made opportunities for setting up autonomous institutions. Jews energetically constructed a broad network of services and developed an enviable civic infrastructure in health, education, welfare, economy, agriculture and culture. An ultravibrant democracy was under way and a free press flourished. Nothing even remotely similar was cultivated by the Arab constituency. Instead, internecine carnage was already in those early days the way intra-Arab controversies were resolved.
If Condi quits fooling herself and us, she'd have to admit that nothing at all has changed among those she calls Palestinians. Indeed nothing has changed in the entire Arab world. It remains as incorrigibly undemocratic as all those decades ago. Didactically instructing Palestinians to meet her expectations because she says so is hardly going do the trick.
.
Sarah Honig, THE JERUSALEM POST Aug. 9, 2007
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is by all accounts studiously professorial and smarter than the average State Department hack. Hence, perhaps, her schoolmarmy tone and authoritative demeanor here last week, during yet another stopover to reform benighted natives by reprimand and further the cause of her boss's "vision" for a Palestinian state.
In addition to everything that has so far gone vexingly awry en route to G.W.'s two-state-solution, the Palestinians violently split themselves into two mutually antagonistic components, a complication sure to diminish their self-government's anyway improbable viability.
But is Condi disheartened? Heck no! Her latest mantra is "a Palestinian state first." Presumably once that state is hocus-pocused into nominal existence (and once Bush expiates Arab wrath at Israel's expense), Palestinian independence would provide impetus to unify rival Palestinian militias.
That's about as realistic an assumption as underpinned the last attempt to create two states between the Jordan and the Mediterranean - on November 29, 1947, when the UN General Assembly approved this tiny territory's partition into a Palestinian Arab state and a pitifully puny, terrifyingly vulnerable Jewish counterpart (wedged mainly along the coastal highway between Tel Aviv and Haifa). Jerusalem was consigned to international administration, and the entire unlikely shebang was to form one economic unit in the abiding spirit of brotherly love.
The pipe dream's single outstanding shortcoming was the palpable paucity of brotherly love. The Arabs contemptuously rebuffed the high-minded scheme and invaded newborn Israel. Two weeks pre-invasion, on May 1, 1948, Arab League secretary-general Abdul-Rahman Azzam Pasha declared: "If the Zionists dare establish a state, the massacres we would unleash would dwarf anything which Genghis Khan and Hitler perpetrated."
Lest any doubt linger, Azzam reiterated his message the day seven Arab armies attacked: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."
But things, alas, didn't turn out as per Azzam's bravado. Ever since, consequently, frustrated Arabs rage with bitterest indignation about being unfairly denied their state under the partition plan they deliberately foiled.
THE SOLICITOUS international community, ostensibly out to help the underdog, responds sympathetically to their grievances and avidly offers redress. By subscribing to Oslo and its derivatives, some ever-gullible and eager-to-please Israelis enlist enthusiastically in efforts to undo what hostile Arabs brought upon themselves. Nonetheless, despite abundant goodwill and global largess, no Palestinian state yet exists - thwarted repeatedly by Azzam's spiritual heirs and torchbearers.
Understandably Condi prefers to pooh-pooh continuous Arab aggression for the past 60 years. Presumably Bush's vision would inspire more fraternal coexistence than the UN did in 1947, rendering ongoing Islamofascist blood lust irrelevant.
All the same, it might serve Condi well to examine what transpired in this land between November 1947 and May 1948. More than anything else - even genocidal Arab impulses, which she expediently downplays - the manner each of the two would-be states conducted their internal affairs then may clue Condi into why Palestinian democracy remains unlikely now, American pressure and Israeli appeasement notwithstanding.
UN Resolution 181 detailed prerequisites leading to independence for the projected Jewish and Arab states alike. These included the formation of "a Provisional Council of Government in each state" that would "proceed to the establishment of administrative organs of government" and "hold elections to the Constituent Assembly which shall be conducted on democratic lines."
Despite demonstrative British obstructionism, the Jews embarked on fulfilling these obligations with remarkably pedantic earnestness. The Provisional Council was set up with both legislative and executive wings and the 13-member executive was entrusted with drafting the Declaration of Independence. The meticulous care invested into each phrase of that declaration and the hair-splitting attention to every possible legalistic nuance can only engender ungrudging admiration.
The minutiae from which Israel's founding fathers didn't shrink while guns already furiously blazed (the Tel Aviv venue of the May 14 independence proclamation ceremony had to be kept secret to evade an air raid) attest more than anything to the inherently democratic mind-set and phenomenal conscientiousness-under-fire of the Jewish collective.
Nothing was left to chance - not even under whose auspices courts would operate in the brief potential hiatus between the termination of British rule and the commencement of Jewish authority. Little can enlighten more than that concentration on any conceivable contingency, no matter how far-fetched.
In the starkest of contrasts, not only did nothing of the sort occur within the blueprinted Arab Palestinian state, but in fact no move whatever was made to prepare for sovereignty. The Arabs shrilly and boastfully prepared for battle. It was patently clear they weren't interested in running their own state. All their aspirations focused on destroying the nascent Jewish entity, responsible in their eyes for the separate Palestinian designation in the first place - one which they then passionately rejected but which today they assiduously embrace and promote as their casus belli.
Throughout the Mandate, local Arabs failed consistently to avail themselves of British-made opportunities for setting up autonomous institutions. Jews energetically constructed a broad network of services and developed an enviable civic infrastructure in health, education, welfare, economy, agriculture and culture. An ultravibrant democracy was under way and a free press flourished. Nothing even remotely similar was cultivated by the Arab constituency. Instead, internecine carnage was already in those early days the way intra-Arab controversies were resolved.
If Condi quits fooling herself and us, she'd have to admit that nothing at all has changed among those she calls Palestinians. Indeed nothing has changed in the entire Arab world. It remains as incorrigibly undemocratic as all those decades ago. Didactically instructing Palestinians to meet her expectations because she says so is hardly going do the trick.
.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Pay attention HOW WORLD'S HYPOCRISY WORKS: Canada has disputed territories issue! Occupied land! What does Canada do to assert her presence? Canada is immediately building two military bases—not building ‘settlements‘—and sending to assert her presence in the disputed land.
So all of a sudden Canada—the country that is treating Israel with great hostility—has disputed territory issue! Though the Bible does not tell us that this disputed land is the cradle of the Canadian Nation…rather, it is land in the North Pole—not historical land the Canadians longed to return to its for 2000…but you see what is happening without one U.N. Security Council meeting, without a meeting of the G8, or a murmur from the world; without objections and out cry of any organization!
Why and for what Israel apologizing all the time? This is OUR LAND, and you Kofi Anna, Tzipi Livni and Condoleezza Rice, listen well, listen closely: We are not selling our land and our land is not an item in the international bazaar! Our land is not an item at the negotiation table!
We are not interested in “peace.” All we are interested is in returning our nation to his Biblical and historical land. For the past one hundred and twenty (120) years we have not done badly gathering our people to their Homeland from all corners of the world and that despite your on going disturbance and disruption! Despite the fact that there are traitors amongst us, we will continue doing just that!
This is the land of the Jewish Nation; forget giving the land away to the blood sucking, Islamofascistic enemy. If you want to give to the Arabs a state, choose another place, any where in the world, to include the North Pole. Perhaps you need to approach Canada and she may agree to give the Arabs the North Pole. How about that? Will the Canadians agree? Do you get the hypocrisy?! It is about time you do! (Origin text in Hebrew by Tsafrir Ronen)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Times
Arctic military bases signal new Cold War
August 11, 2007
URL: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2238243.ece
Canada fired a warning shot in a new Cold War over the vast resources of the far North by announcing last night that it will build two new military bases in the Arctic wilderness.
A week after Russia laid claim to the North Pole in what is rapidly becoming a global scramble for the region’s vast oil and gas reserves, Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, said that Canada would open a new army training centre for cold-weather fighting at Resolute Bay, and a deep-water port at Nanisivik, on the northern tip of Baffin Island. The country is also beefing up its military presence in the far North with 900 Rangers.
“Canada’s Government understands that the first principle of Arctic sovereignty is use it or lose it,” Mr. Harper said. The move comes a week after Russia planted a rustproof titanium flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole in a blatant attempt to stake a claim to the billions of tonnes of untapped energy resources believed to be under the Arctic Ocean.
Under international law, each of five Arctic countries–Canada, Russia, the United States, Norway and Denmark–controls an economic zone within 200 miles of its continental shelf. But the limits of that shelf are in dispute, and as Russia seeks to expand its gas and oil reserves, the region is at the centre of a battle for energy rights and ownership. Last week’s Russian expedition, when two mini-submarines reached the seabed 13,980ft (4,261m) beneath the North Pole, was part of a push by Moscow to find evidence for its claim that the Arctic seabed and Siberia are linked by a single continental shelf, thus making the polar region a geological extension of Russia.
The vessels recovered samples from the seabed in an attempt to demonstrate that the Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater shelf that runs through the Arctic, is an extension of Russian territory. The United Nations rejected that claim in 2002, citing lack of proof, but Moscow is expected to make its case again in 2009. Denmark and Canada also argue that the Lomonosov Ridge is connected to their territories. Norway is also conducting a survey to strengthen its case. All five Arctic nations are competing to secure subsurface rights to the seabed.
One study by the US Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic has as much as 25 per cent of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas. Canada was furious at the attempted Russian land grab. “This isn’t the 15th century,” Peter MacKay, the Canadian Foreign Minister, said. “You can’t go around the world and just plant flags and say, ‘We’re claiming this territory’.”
The move has clearly rattled the Harper administration, which is under domestic pressure to beef up its sovereignty claims to the disputed region.
Mr Harper said that his announcement of the new military facilities would “tell the world that Canada has a real, growing, long-term presence in the Arctic”. Standing next to Gordon O’Connor, his Defence Minister, and a group of Rangers–a rifle-toting Inuit volunteer force–Mr. Harper added: “Protecting national sovereignty, the integrity of our borders, is the first and foremost responsibility of a national government.”
Last month Mr. Harper announced that six to eight new navy patrol ships would be built to guard the Northwest Passage sea route in the Arctic..
So all of a sudden Canada—the country that is treating Israel with great hostility—has disputed territory issue! Though the Bible does not tell us that this disputed land is the cradle of the Canadian Nation…rather, it is land in the North Pole—not historical land the Canadians longed to return to its for 2000…but you see what is happening without one U.N. Security Council meeting, without a meeting of the G8, or a murmur from the world; without objections and out cry of any organization!
Why and for what Israel apologizing all the time? This is OUR LAND, and you Kofi Anna, Tzipi Livni and Condoleezza Rice, listen well, listen closely: We are not selling our land and our land is not an item in the international bazaar! Our land is not an item at the negotiation table!
We are not interested in “peace.” All we are interested is in returning our nation to his Biblical and historical land. For the past one hundred and twenty (120) years we have not done badly gathering our people to their Homeland from all corners of the world and that despite your on going disturbance and disruption! Despite the fact that there are traitors amongst us, we will continue doing just that!
This is the land of the Jewish Nation; forget giving the land away to the blood sucking, Islamofascistic enemy. If you want to give to the Arabs a state, choose another place, any where in the world, to include the North Pole. Perhaps you need to approach Canada and she may agree to give the Arabs the North Pole. How about that? Will the Canadians agree? Do you get the hypocrisy?! It is about time you do! (Origin text in Hebrew by Tsafrir Ronen)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Times
Arctic military bases signal new Cold War
August 11, 2007
URL: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2238243.ece
Canada fired a warning shot in a new Cold War over the vast resources of the far North by announcing last night that it will build two new military bases in the Arctic wilderness.
A week after Russia laid claim to the North Pole in what is rapidly becoming a global scramble for the region’s vast oil and gas reserves, Stephen Harper, the Canadian Prime Minister, said that Canada would open a new army training centre for cold-weather fighting at Resolute Bay, and a deep-water port at Nanisivik, on the northern tip of Baffin Island. The country is also beefing up its military presence in the far North with 900 Rangers.
“Canada’s Government understands that the first principle of Arctic sovereignty is use it or lose it,” Mr. Harper said. The move comes a week after Russia planted a rustproof titanium flag on the seabed beneath the North Pole in a blatant attempt to stake a claim to the billions of tonnes of untapped energy resources believed to be under the Arctic Ocean.
Under international law, each of five Arctic countries–Canada, Russia, the United States, Norway and Denmark–controls an economic zone within 200 miles of its continental shelf. But the limits of that shelf are in dispute, and as Russia seeks to expand its gas and oil reserves, the region is at the centre of a battle for energy rights and ownership. Last week’s Russian expedition, when two mini-submarines reached the seabed 13,980ft (4,261m) beneath the North Pole, was part of a push by Moscow to find evidence for its claim that the Arctic seabed and Siberia are linked by a single continental shelf, thus making the polar region a geological extension of Russia.
The vessels recovered samples from the seabed in an attempt to demonstrate that the Lomonosov Ridge, an underwater shelf that runs through the Arctic, is an extension of Russian territory. The United Nations rejected that claim in 2002, citing lack of proof, but Moscow is expected to make its case again in 2009. Denmark and Canada also argue that the Lomonosov Ridge is connected to their territories. Norway is also conducting a survey to strengthen its case. All five Arctic nations are competing to secure subsurface rights to the seabed.
One study by the US Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic has as much as 25 per cent of the world’s undiscovered oil and gas. Canada was furious at the attempted Russian land grab. “This isn’t the 15th century,” Peter MacKay, the Canadian Foreign Minister, said. “You can’t go around the world and just plant flags and say, ‘We’re claiming this territory’.”
The move has clearly rattled the Harper administration, which is under domestic pressure to beef up its sovereignty claims to the disputed region.
Mr Harper said that his announcement of the new military facilities would “tell the world that Canada has a real, growing, long-term presence in the Arctic”. Standing next to Gordon O’Connor, his Defence Minister, and a group of Rangers–a rifle-toting Inuit volunteer force–Mr. Harper added: “Protecting national sovereignty, the integrity of our borders, is the first and foremost responsibility of a national government.”
Last month Mr. Harper announced that six to eight new navy patrol ships would be built to guard the Northwest Passage sea route in the Arctic..
The vanishing jihad exposés
Mark Steyn column
MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist
How will we lose the war against "radical Islam"?
Well, it won't be in a tank battle. Or in the Sunni Triangle or the caves of Bora Bora. It won't be because terrorists fly three jets into the Oval Office, Buckingham Palace and the Basilica of St Peter's on the same Tuesday morning.
The war will be lost incrementally because we are unable to reverse the ongoing radicalization of Muslim populations in South Asia, Indonesia, the Balkans, Western Europe and, yes, North America. And who's behind that radicalization? Who funds the mosques and Islamic centers that in the past 30 years have set up shop on just about every Main Street around the planet?
For the answer, let us turn to a fascinating book called "Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World," by J. Millard Burr, a former USAID relief coordinator, and the scholar Robert O Collins. Can't find it in your local Barnes & Noble? Never mind, let's go to Amazon. Everything's available there. And sure enough, you'll come through to the "Alms for Jihad" page and find a smattering of approving reviews from respectably torpid publications: "The most comprehensive look at the web of Islamic charities that have financed conflicts all around the world," according to Canada's Globe And Mail, which is like the New York Times but without the jokes.
Unfortunately, if you then try to buy "Alms for Jihad," you discover that the book is "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock." Hang on, it was only published last year. At Amazon, items are either shipped within 24 hours or, if a little more specialized, within four to six weeks, but not many books from 2006 are entirely unavailable with no restock in sight.
Well, let us cross the ocean, thousands of miles from the Amazon warehouse, to the High Court in London. Last week, the Cambridge University Press agreed to recall all unsold copies of "Alms for Jihad" and pulp them. In addition, it has asked hundreds of libraries around the world to remove the volume from their shelves. This highly unusual action was accompanied by a letter to Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz, in care of his English lawyers, explaining their reasons:
"Throughout the book there are serious and defamatory allegations about yourself and your family, alleging support for terrorism through your businesses, family and charities, and directly.
"As a result of what we now know, we accept and acknowledge that all of those allegations about you and your family, businesses and charities are entirely and manifestly false."
Who is Sheikh Khalid bin Mahfouz? Well, he's a very wealthy and influential Saudi. Big deal, you say. Is there any other kind? Yes, but even by the standards of very wealthy and influential Saudis, this guy is plugged in: He was the personal banker to the Saudi royal family and head of the National Commercial Bank of Saudi Arabia, until he sold it to the Saudi government. He has a swanky pad in London and an Irish passport and multiple U.S. business connections, including to Thomas Kean, the chairman of the 9/11 Commission.
I'm not saying the 9/11 Commission is a Saudi shell operation, merely making the observation that, whenever you come across a big-shot Saudi, it's considerably less than six degrees of separation between him and the most respectable pillars of the American establishment.
As to whether allegations about support for terrorism by the sheikh and his "family, businesses and charities" are "entirely and manifestly false," the Cambridge University Press is going way further than the United States or most foreign governments would. Of his bank's funding of terrorism, Sheikh Mahfouz's lawyer has said: "Like upper management at any other major banking institution, Khalid Bin Mahfouz was not, of course, aware of every wire transfer moving through the bank. Had he known of any transfers that were going to fund al-Qaida or terrorism, he would not have permitted them." Sounds reasonable enough. Except that in this instance the Mahfouz bank was wiring money to the principal Mahfouz charity, the Muwafaq (or "Blessed Relief") Foundation, which in turn transferred them to Osama bin Laden.
In October 2001, the Treasury Department named Muwafaq as "an al-Qaida front that receives funding from wealthy Saudi businessmen" and its chairman as a "specially designated global terrorist." As the Treasury concluded, "Saudi businessmen have been transferring millions of dollars to bin Laden through Blessed Relief."
Indeed, this "charity" seems to have no other purpose than to fund jihad. It seeds Islamism wherever it operates. In Chechnya, it helped transform a reasonably conventional nationalist struggle into an outpost of the jihad. In the Balkans, it played a key role in replacing a traditionally moderate Islam with a form of Mitteleuropean Wahhabism. Pick a Muwafaq branch office almost anywhere on the planet and you get an interesting glimpse of the typical Saudi charity worker. The former head of its mission in Zagreb, Croatia, for example, is a guy called Ayadi Chafiq bin Muhammad. Well, he's called that most of the time. But he has at least four aliases and residences in at least three nations (Germany, Austria and Belgium). He was named as a bin Laden financier by the U.S. government and disappeared from the United Kingdom shortly after 9/11.
So why would the Cambridge University Press, one of the most respected publishers on the planet, absolve Khalid bin Mahfouz, his family, his businesses and his charities to a degree that neither (to pluck at random) the U.S., French, Albanian, Swiss and Pakistani governments would be prepared to do?
Because English libel law overwhelmingly favors the plaintiff. And like many other big-shot Saudis, Sheikh Mahfouz has become very adept at using foreign courts to silence American authors – in effect, using distant jurisdictions to nullify the First Amendment. He may be a wronged man, but his use of what the British call "libel chill" is designed not to vindicate his good name but to shut down the discussion, which is why Cambridge University Press made no serious attempt to mount a defense. He's one of the richest men on the planet, and they're an academic publisher with very small profit margins. But, even if you've got a bestseller, your pockets are unlikely to be deep enough: "House Of Saud, House Of Bush" did boffo biz with the anti-Bush crowd in America, but there's no British edition – because Sheikh Mahfouz had indicated he was prepared to spend what it takes to challenge it in court, and Random House decided it wasn't worth it.
We've gotten used to one-way multiculturalism: The world accepts that you can't open an Episcopal or Congregational church in Jeddah or Riyadh, but every week the Saudis can open radical mosques and madrassahs and pro-Saudi think-tanks in London and Toronto and Dearborn, Mich., and Falls Church, Va. And their global reach extends a little further day by day, inch by inch, in the lengthening shadows, as the lights go out one by one around the world.
Suppose you've got a manuscript about the Saudis. Where are you going to shop it? Think Cambridge University Press will be publishing anything anytime soon?
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/mark-steyn-jihad-1797347-exposs-column
Friday, August 10, 2007
The Surge-could it be working?
A Ranking Senate Democrat Concedes Surge Is Working
BY ELI LAKE - Staff Reporter of the Sun
August 9, 2007
WASHINGTON — The no. 2 Democrat in the Senate — the assistant majority leader, Richard Durbin of Illinois — is conceding that the surge of American troops has led to military progress in Iraq.
His comments make him the second Democratic leader in 10 days to make comments that could open the door for the majority party in Congress to pivot away from its insistence on a deadline for an American retreat.
To read more:
Ooops, Israel Pays Hamas Leaders Back Pay
Error or corruption? Salam Fayyad's Palestinian government transferred to Hamas payments for 3,500 of its executive members, despite ruptures in the relationship between the two factions since the Hamas revolt in Gaza. At the beginning they claimed that it was an IT error, but after an enquiry a Treasury director was stopped for collaboration with Hamas. Some of these funds were released by Israel as part of the good will gestures shown towards Mahmoud Abbas.
600 millimeter rockets that can carry hundreds of kilograms of explosives – up to 500 – and can reach Tel Aviv.
Syrian rockets aimed at Tel Aviv
Long-range rockets already in place on Golan; is Syria preparing for war?
Ron Ben Yishai
The latest official IDF intelligence branch assessment, adopted by the Israeli government, is that Syria is not planning to attack Israel. At least not in the coming months.
The accelerated preparations for war undertaken by the Syrian army recently, according to the assessment, are not aimed at launching an offensive, but rather, stem from fears in Damascus that the IDF plans to attack Syria. As proof of this, IDF intelligence researchers point to the fact that the Syrian army has not fundamentally changed its deployment, which is still mostly defensive, vis-à-vis Israel.
To read more: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3435543,00.html
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Please watch this important video
It supports the existence and foundation of Israel-make use of the information-thank you don and chana
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened
It supports the existence and foundation of Israel-make use of the information-thank you don and chana
http://www.terrorismawareness.org/what-really-happened
Don’t junk the pre-conditions in the road map
A standard example of unfair negotiations is when one side “moves the goalposts” by increasing its demands just as the other side tries to fulfill them. The “peace process” with the Palestinians suffers from the opposite problem: whenever there seems to be an opportunity for the Palestinians to move in the right direction, the goalposts are quickly moved toward them, thereby eliminating any incentive for and bringing a halt to the much-desired progress.Such is the case with Prime Minister Olmert’s meeting with Palestinian Authority President Abbas on Monday. At that meeting, Olmert reportedly discussed “fundamental issues” with the purpose of developing a “framework” for a Palestinian state. In other words, Olmert seems to be caving in to pressure from the US to fudge the sequencing of the road map, which clearly requires that terrorism be fought first and a Palestinian state negotiated later.
To read more: http://www.israpundit.com/2006/
A standard example of unfair negotiations is when one side “moves the goalposts” by increasing its demands just as the other side tries to fulfill them. The “peace process” with the Palestinians suffers from the opposite problem: whenever there seems to be an opportunity for the Palestinians to move in the right direction, the goalposts are quickly moved toward them, thereby eliminating any incentive for and bringing a halt to the much-desired progress.Such is the case with Prime Minister Olmert’s meeting with Palestinian Authority President Abbas on Monday. At that meeting, Olmert reportedly discussed “fundamental issues” with the purpose of developing a “framework” for a Palestinian state. In other words, Olmert seems to be caving in to pressure from the US to fudge the sequencing of the road map, which clearly requires that terrorism be fought first and a Palestinian state negotiated later.
To read more: http://www.israpundit.com/2006/
Lessons Still Remain Intact
Israelis must oppose the eviction of Jews from Hebron
by Ariel Sharon (1994)
It wasn’t easy for me to come out with a public call last week to Israeli residents to oppose the evacuation of Jews from Hebron. Hebron is Jerusalem, NOT Yamit.
I called for passive, non-violent resistance against the declared intentions of the government in Hebron. It was only because I am convinced that the security and inalienable rights of Jews in every part of Eretz Yisrael will be irreversibly eroded if the government carries out its plans in Hebron, that I decided that we must arise and passively resist the uprooting of Jews from Hebron. And if, G-d forbid, the government does carry out its intention, it should know, in advance, that we will return to Hebron.
I have no doubt that the Jews in Israel and abroad feel that the government of Israel has lost its sense of Jewish-Zionist direction. The mere thought of sending IDF soldiers to evacuate Jews from Hebron is clear proof of this. Jews feel, justifiably, that the fate and future of the State of Israel is being threatened.
For most of my life I have obeyed orders as well as issued them as a soldier and commander in the IDF. Therefore, I am aware of the absolute importance of the duty incumbent on every soldier to carry out the legal orders, in order to preserve the military system which defends us.
At the same time, warning must be given, that if the Israeli government dares to uproot Jews from the heart of Eretz-Yisrael – a situation will develop in which the military will eventually have nothing to defend except itself, and will ultimately fall apart and disintegrate. After all, the IDF was organized to defend the Zionist settlement drive, which was threatened from the start as a result of Arab aggression, even before we returned home to Hebron. It was only with tremendous pain that we were able, in 1948, to retain part of Jerusalem.
If the government uproots the Jews of Hebron, it will be uprooting a vital cornerstone of the IDF -- which is indispensable for the defense of all parts of Israel. Therefore, although every soldier and commander must obey the legal orders of the government, so too, must every citizen in a democratic country ask himself what he is supposed to do when he is convinced that the policy of the government endangers him, his future and his family.
This question is a particularly burning one, with regard to the security of the Jewish state which is increasingly being jeopardized as the government continues to give the PLO a hold on our land by undermining and uprooting Jews from their homes.
Every Jew must feel as if he is personally going to be ousted from Hebron. Each one of us must understand that if we will not stand up to stop the uprooting of Jews form Hebron, we may very well – in the future – be uprooted from Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beer Sheba or from any other place.
In contrast to the days of exile, it is not only the right, but the obligation of every Jew, in a Jewish democratic state, to stand up and warn his government, through passive resistance, of the disaster that it is bringing upon all of us. What Jews could not do in Germany and Poland before their extermination, they must do in their own country. They have to rise en masse and resist.
Written by Ariel Sharon, April 15, 1994
This article entitled "Israel Is Being Used As A Guinea Pig For The Oslo Peace Experiment" appeared in The Jewish Press.
Reported again: http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/story/hebron-expulsion-august-7-2007.html
Comment: We certainly have a current government that does not believe in the previous ideas. Sharon's words should be heard today. Olmert has the luxury of Sharon's inability to ever defend the disconnect between 1994 and 2007 policies and no one is calling Olmert on his rush to judgment day as he acts as though the past never mattered. Shameful behavior for an Israeli PM!
by Ariel Sharon (1994)
It wasn’t easy for me to come out with a public call last week to Israeli residents to oppose the evacuation of Jews from Hebron. Hebron is Jerusalem, NOT Yamit.
I called for passive, non-violent resistance against the declared intentions of the government in Hebron. It was only because I am convinced that the security and inalienable rights of Jews in every part of Eretz Yisrael will be irreversibly eroded if the government carries out its plans in Hebron, that I decided that we must arise and passively resist the uprooting of Jews from Hebron. And if, G-d forbid, the government does carry out its intention, it should know, in advance, that we will return to Hebron.
I have no doubt that the Jews in Israel and abroad feel that the government of Israel has lost its sense of Jewish-Zionist direction. The mere thought of sending IDF soldiers to evacuate Jews from Hebron is clear proof of this. Jews feel, justifiably, that the fate and future of the State of Israel is being threatened.
For most of my life I have obeyed orders as well as issued them as a soldier and commander in the IDF. Therefore, I am aware of the absolute importance of the duty incumbent on every soldier to carry out the legal orders, in order to preserve the military system which defends us.
At the same time, warning must be given, that if the Israeli government dares to uproot Jews from the heart of Eretz-Yisrael – a situation will develop in which the military will eventually have nothing to defend except itself, and will ultimately fall apart and disintegrate. After all, the IDF was organized to defend the Zionist settlement drive, which was threatened from the start as a result of Arab aggression, even before we returned home to Hebron. It was only with tremendous pain that we were able, in 1948, to retain part of Jerusalem.
If the government uproots the Jews of Hebron, it will be uprooting a vital cornerstone of the IDF -- which is indispensable for the defense of all parts of Israel. Therefore, although every soldier and commander must obey the legal orders of the government, so too, must every citizen in a democratic country ask himself what he is supposed to do when he is convinced that the policy of the government endangers him, his future and his family.
This question is a particularly burning one, with regard to the security of the Jewish state which is increasingly being jeopardized as the government continues to give the PLO a hold on our land by undermining and uprooting Jews from their homes.
Every Jew must feel as if he is personally going to be ousted from Hebron. Each one of us must understand that if we will not stand up to stop the uprooting of Jews form Hebron, we may very well – in the future – be uprooted from Tel Aviv, Haifa, Beer Sheba or from any other place.
In contrast to the days of exile, it is not only the right, but the obligation of every Jew, in a Jewish democratic state, to stand up and warn his government, through passive resistance, of the disaster that it is bringing upon all of us. What Jews could not do in Germany and Poland before their extermination, they must do in their own country. They have to rise en masse and resist.
Written by Ariel Sharon, April 15, 1994
This article entitled "Israel Is Being Used As A Guinea Pig For The Oslo Peace Experiment" appeared in The Jewish Press.
Reported again: http://www.ourjerusalem.com/opinion/story/hebron-expulsion-august-7-2007.html
Comment: We certainly have a current government that does not believe in the previous ideas. Sharon's words should be heard today. Olmert has the luxury of Sharon's inability to ever defend the disconnect between 1994 and 2007 policies and no one is calling Olmert on his rush to judgment day as he acts as though the past never mattered. Shameful behavior for an Israeli PM!
Egyptian Court in Controversial Ruling: Christians Who Convert to Islam, Cannot Convert Back
A public debate has been underway in Egypt over the regime's treatment of
the country's Christians. This debate emerged following lawsuits by
Christians who had converted to Islam and then reconverted to Christianity, and who were now demanding that the Egyptian Interior Ministry issue them new official documents in their original names and with "Christian" in the "religion" entry field.
In April 2007, the Egyptian administrative court rejected an appeal by
Christians who had converted to Islam and then reverted to Christianity, and
also accused them of apostasy against Islam - the punishment for which is death, according to the common interpretation.
Two months after the court ruling, the plaintiffs' appeal was accepted. The
Supreme Administrative Court instructed the Interior Ministry to permit the plaintiffs to have their identity cards again denote them as Christians, and called for a new law banning "playing" with religions. Further ruling in the case was postponed until September 2007.(1)
To read more: www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD167507.
A public debate has been underway in Egypt over the regime's treatment of
the country's Christians. This debate emerged following lawsuits by
Christians who had converted to Islam and then reconverted to Christianity, and who were now demanding that the Egyptian Interior Ministry issue them new official documents in their original names and with "Christian" in the "religion" entry field.
In April 2007, the Egyptian administrative court rejected an appeal by
Christians who had converted to Islam and then reverted to Christianity, and
also accused them of apostasy against Islam - the punishment for which is death, according to the common interpretation.
Two months after the court ruling, the plaintiffs' appeal was accepted. The
Supreme Administrative Court instructed the Interior Ministry to permit the plaintiffs to have their identity cards again denote them as Christians, and called for a new law banning "playing" with religions. Further ruling in the case was postponed until September 2007.(1)
To read more: www.memri.org/bin/opener_latest.cgi?ID=SD167507.
The arrogance...!
Notice the audacity of Abbas. Not only does he expect to be given the weapons, he refuses to call Jordan by its official name. Transjordan was the name first used in modern times to describe the country of Jordan.
The Palestinian Authority has asked for authorization from the Israeli government to import arms from Egypt and Jordan. According to the PA, "these arms are necessary for Fatah to defend itself against another rebellion by Hamas and to maintain order in Transjordan."
The Palestinian Authority has asked for authorization from the Israeli government to import arms from Egypt and Jordan. According to the PA, "these arms are necessary for Fatah to defend itself against another rebellion by Hamas and to maintain order in Transjordan."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)