Eye of the Terror Storm

Victor Davis Hanson

Another anniversary of September 11, 2001, is near. It has been nearly six long years since a catastrophic attack on our shores, and we've understandably turned to infighting and second-guessing — about everything from Guantanamo to wiretaps.

But this six-year calm, unfortunately, has allowed some Americans to believe "our war on terror" remedy is worse than the original Islamic terrorist disease.
We see this self-recrimination reflected in our current Hollywood fare, which dwells on the evil of American interventions overseas, largely ignoring the courage of our soldiers or the atrocities of jihadists. Our tell-all best-sellers, endless lawsuits and congressional investigations have deflected our September 11-era furor away from the terrorists to ourselves.

All this tail-chasing comes only with the illusory thinking that the present lull is the same as perpetual peace. Have we forgotten that experts still insist another strike will come, carried out by those already here or soon to enter the United States?

Look back at jihadist near-misses in this country since September 11, 2001 — along with a disturbing recent Pew poll that found 1 in 4 younger Muslim-Americans approve, at least in certain circumstances, of suicide bombing to "defend Islam" — and the dire predictions seem plausible.

Recall the jihadists arrested in Albany and near Buffalo, N.Y., or the recently uncovered plot to attack Fort Dix, N.J. Past foiled targets included the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Brooklyn Bridge, Kennedy International Airport in New York and the New York Stock Exchange.

Some angry loners — mouthing jihadist propaganda or anti-American slogans — simply act on their own to try to kill Americans. Iranian-American college student Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar hit several University of North Carolina classmates with his car in March 2006. Last summer, Omeed Aziz Popal was arrested for a hit-and-run rampage in San Francisco. And Naveed Afzal Haq is charged with shooting several women last summer at a Jewish center in Seattle.

Recall also the American residents and citizens with direct connections to al Qaeda's terrorism network: American Jose Padilla (a k a Abdullah al-Muhajir) was just convicted by a jury of terrorist conspiracy. Khalid Abu-al-Dahab, a key al Qaeda recruiter, operated out of California's Silicon Valley. "Sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman advised Egyptian jihadists from his U.S. jail cell, after his conviction for helping plan the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. U.S. visitor and asylum-seeker Ramzi Yousef was convicted of the same crime. His partner, the indicted American citizen Abdul Rahman Yasin, fled to prewar Iraq. Another American, Adam Gadahn, regularly narrates al Qaeda communiques.

Khalid Sheik Mohammed — mastermind of the September 11 mass murder and the Daniel Pearl decapitation — studied in North Carolina for a number of years. Egyptian-American and U.S. Army veteran Ali Mohamed helped plan the destruction of American embassies in East Africa. The convicted "20th hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui attended flight school in Oklahoma.

Two things seem clear:
(1) There have been, and are now, plenty of Islamic terrorists and their helpers in the United States.
(2) We are dangerously shortsighted about the ongoing threat they pose.
Meanwhile, Islamic-American organizations and sympathetic civil-liberties associations file lawsuits about supposed American security excesses and illiberal vigilance.

Last fall, for example, several imams were taken off a flight from Minneapolis when the group's erratic behavior scared fellow passengers. Afterward, one of the so-called "flying imams," Arizonan Omar Shahin, called for boycotting the airline and legislation to stop supposed anti-Muslim profiling.

But the brazen Mr. Shahin, it turns out, is more than just a bullied Islamic scholar; he has also helped raise funds for an organization that the U.S. government has tied to Hamas.

Our experts are too often in denial or disarray. Former White House counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clark, former CIA operative Michael Scheuer and former CIA director George Tenet now make widely publicized strident attacks on ongoing efforts to stop terrorists and level charges against others — and each other. They rarely talk with any humility, much less apprise us of what we can learn from their own failures to stop the September 11 jihadists during their long tenures.

In short, six years of quiet at home have fooled some into thinking terrorists pose little danger here — or that we may be doing far too much rather than too little to stop such killers. No matter that this week a jihadist plot to destroy U.S. facilities in Germany was thwarted.

Others make the mistake of endlessly refighting the last six years — who let al Qaeda grow, who "lost" Osama bin Laden, who fouled up postwar Iraq? — instead of concentrating on the storm ahead.

Before 2001, the excuse for American complacence and infighting was naivete. But what will be the reason for the next successful strike against us by the jihadists? More naivete — or is it simple hubris?

Victor Davis Hanson is a military historian at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of "A War Like No Other" (Random House).

This is rich-Hamas complaining about media fairness!

Palestinian MP Dr. Ayman Daraghma of Hamas Movement has strongly condemned the "obvious bias" of a number of media outlets working in the West Bank while covering events in the West Bank, affirming that media men must cover events with high and unbiased professionalism. He also accused a number of those outlets of "pouring oil on the fire", and of attempting to deepen political division in the Palestinian street with the aim to complicate the Palestinian internal crisis further.

According to Daraghma, a number of those apparatuses had "twisted" facts and tried to portray the unfortunate clashes at Al-Khalil University as a Hamas attempt to spark violence in the West Bank, which he categorically denied.
In a statement he made to the Quds Press news agency Tuesday, Daraghma explained that the students' protest in Al-Khalil University was purely an academic affair and has nothing to do with politics.

Thousands of Al-Khalil University held sit-in rally inside the University campus to protest the rise in tuition fees, and the University's policy of granting scholarship, but the gathering was harshly dispersed by hundreds of PA policemen and armed Fatah militias.

Scores of the protesters were wounded, with at least one of them reportedly in serious condition.

A number of journalists were also wounded in the clashes and a number of camera films were confiscated from cameramen in a bid to conceal the truth.

He added that Palestinian lawmakers in the West Bank were and still are trying to defuse tension in the city in the wake of that savage crackdown on the demonstrators, explaining that the persistent arrest campaigns and maltreatment of Hamas's cadres in the West Bank at the hands of PA security apparatuses loyal to PA chief Mahmoud Abbas significantly contribute to the growing tension in the West Bank.
Hamas Movement insisted that dialogue and dialogue only is the way for the Palestinians to resolve their differences, but Abbas rejected repeated calls from Movement to sit together on the table of negotiations, and to resolve those disputes amicably.

Moreover, the legislator urged journalists working for local and foreign agencies in the Palestinian arena to be "fair" in reporting news, and to always unveil human rights violations against the Palestinian people everywhere.
He also warned that behavior of the PA security apparatuses in dealing with the protestors reveals that those policemen were absorbing the culture of violence and disrespect of freedom of expression.

In this context, Daraghma called on the PA leadership to stop such "mouth muzzling" policies that the PA security men in the West Bank were practicing against the Palestinian people in the West Bank.

The Israel liquidation sale

Zalman Shoval

Principles currently discussed by Olmert endorse virtually all Palestinian demands As of late, the Israeli government has been moving into high gear with regards to the planned agreement with the virtual government of Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad. Perhaps it is doing so to appease the United States, or possibly for reasons pertaining to the political survival of the government and the person who heads it.

Seemingly, there's a degree of disharmony between the parties involved, possibly reflecting the manner in which the entire government functions: Haim Ramon is acting "with the prime minister's permission, yet without authority," and offers his interlocutors a "document of principles"; the prime minister's associates are talking about a "document of understandings"; Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni continues to search for a "political horizon," and the "non-political" president advances his own plans.

However, despite the nuances, and despite the declarations that for the time being "nothing has been agreed upon," we can certainly identify the common denominator of all the proposals - in terms of concessions they are even more far-reaching than the Oslo Accords.

The fact that all the relevant points appear in various media outlets in almost the same wording shows that this is not the product of one journalist's imagination, but rather, information that comes from someone who knows what he's talking about.

Contrary to the past, Israel is currently willing to discuss all the "core issues" – including Jerusalem, borders, settlements, and refugees. Ostensibly, we should be praising this, as Israel is indeed interested in a real peace treaty. Yet in practice we are not talking about a peace agreement or even mutual compromise, but rather, a full endorsement of all Palestinian demands, coupled with the renunciation of major Israeli demands in the realm of security, diplomacy and Jewish life.

Based on various reports, the Palestinian "partner" is not even willing to pledge that in exchange for the Israeli liquidation sale it will declare an end to the conflict between the two peoples.

No peace; more pressure
The clauses raised in meetings with Palestinian representatives and apparently also backed by written documents raise questions as to Israel's willingness to hand over its assets. This includes the following:

Jerusalem will be divided (we're talking not only about the Arab neighborhoods in peripheral areas, but rather, the eastern section of the city, including the Old City, with Israel giving up its sovereignty on Temple Mount); Israel will adopt the Green Line as an opening position on the subject of borders, yet demand that three settlements be kept in place (Gush Etzion, Ma'ale Adumim and Ariel). In exchange, Israel will hand over areas west of the Green Line to the Palestinians.

Israel will evacuate all other Judea and Samaria communities – the same communities that ever since the Alon Plan through to Ariel Sharon's "security maps" are considered a major strategic pillar in defending the country.

Yet Palestinian villages near Jewish settlement blocs won't be addressed the same way. Apparently we're also talking about a "safe passage" between Gaza and the "West Bank" that will come under Palestinian control as well.

Another important clause pertains to the question of refugees: As far as we know, Israel will agree to accept "declaratory" responsibility for the creation of the refugee problem – something that is dangerous in and of itself in terms of the country's moral standing and also has practical implications. Similar to the Taba agreement case, Israel will agree to absorb about 1,000 Palestinian families as a "humanitarian gesture."

It appears that the Palestinians, who are encouraged by the government of Israel's domestic and external weakness, are not satisfied with these concessions and are demanding an accelerated timetable for implementing all these steps.

Government spokespersons indeed claim that we are not talking about an agreement, but rather, only about "principles." Yet as any political rookie knows, these principles will inevitably become the opening position of any future negotiations on a final-status agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Peace won't come out of this, yet continued Arab pressure for additional Israeli concessions is certain.

The writer is a former Israel ambassador to Washington and member of the Israeli delegation at the Madrid Conference

Experts Propose Other Military Options in Gaza

In light of continued Kassam rocket attacks against Israel, military and political leaders are saying a massive ground offensive into Gaza is inevitable But even those who favor an invasion into Gaza are not sure the time is ripe for it. Other alternatives are being offered.

Dr. Guy Bechor, an Arab affairs expert at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, writes that there are those in Gaza who would like Israel to "take over Gaza in a great offensive, liquidate Hamas, and grant Gaza back to Fatah - so that they will be able to once again fire Kassams at us, as they did when Fatah ruled Gaza up to a few months ago. Would we like our sons to be killed for the sake of Fatah? I don't think so."

Therefore, Bechor writes, what must be done is to "part from Gaza totally and absolutely. No more supply of water, electricity, food, or other services. Never before in history has a nation kept its enemies alive so that they could continue to strike out at it. Militarily, we know the precise locations of all the homes of the leaders of Hamas, Fatah and Islamic Jihad, and of the Hamas army camps, weapons storehouses, and military infrastructures; there is no problem of ability, but just of making the courageous decisions and giving the right orders."

Indor: Civilian-Free Buffer Zone
Lt.-Col. (res.) Meir Indor of the Almagor Terror Victims Association said this morning, "We must create a buffer zone in Gaza, clean of Palestinian population. Ever since the appeals to the Supreme Court put a near-total end to Israel's artillery counter-fire - because of the proximity to Arab homes and the Court's fear that they might get hit - the shells are fired in one direction only, from Gaza to us. Israel must create a buffer zone under our control. If we do not, we will have to create a similar zone on our side - by evacuating Israelis."

Dr. Bechor agrees with this idea: "Just like the Egyptians have begun making forbidden-entry zones around Gaza (in order to stop arms-smuggling into Gaza, which has led to a freeze on some US aid), we can do the same - create no-man's land areas in northern and eastern Gaza so as to prevent Kassams from being fired at a sovereign state. We are within our rights to do this, according to the UN Charter's Clause 51 on the right to self-defense."

Ron Ben-Yishai, military affairs commentator of Israel's largest daily, Yediot Acharonot, disagrees with Bechor's major premise, and feels that a major ground offensive is both inevitable and necessary - but not right now.
For various reasons, Ben-Yishai writes, a large-scale offensive is not in the cards in the immediate future. For one thing, the government fears reactions questioning why the army response came only in the wake of a Kassam attack on an army base, and not as a result of any one of dozen injurious attacks against civilians in Sderot and elsewhere.

In addition, the government is not likely to want to disrupt plans for the international US-sponsored summit in November.
Rather, what is likely to happen, Ben-Yishai feels, is a series of small-scale but potentially effective moves that could significantly reduce Kassam attacks against Israel. These include:
· targeted attacks of Hamas leaders
· targeted attacks against those involved in manufacturing and firing Kassams
· more and deeper ground infiltrations into Gaza, in order to gather intelligence and destroy Hamas and Islamic Jihad military infrastructures
· artillery and air power at Kassam launching grounds, even without concrete targets
· economic sanctions
In addition, other methods such as blowing up roads are being considered, to hamper the transport of Kassam rockets to the firing areas within range of Israel.

The Region Influence in the Mideast

The big picture can be seen in the small details . Here's a great example. Iran recently held a summit meeting bringing together Palestinian leaders. Hamas was there, of course, and Islamic Jihad too. No surprise that. But there was someone else participating in the gathering: Farouk Kaddoumi.

Kaddoumi is a veteran Fatah and PLO bureaucrat who now heads the former group. He is one of three men - the other two were Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas - who represented Fatah on the PLO Executive Committee. He has never accepted even the 1993 Oslo Accords. In most ways, he is more representative of the Fatah leadership than the Palestinian Authority's relatively moderate two heads, Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayad.

What was Kaddoumi doing in Teheran? Well, he has long been an ally of Syria which is Teheran's closest ally. But there is something else going on here which is of historic importance and which shows the difference between reality and what is said in the Western media or governments. Not Egypt, not Saudi Arabia, but Iran is now the mediator between Hamas and Fatah.

The Egyptians spent a lot of time negotiating with the two groups but never pushed very hard or achieved anything. The Saudis thought they had ensured cooperation with the recent Medina agreement. But Hamas, another ally of Iran, used the deal to seize full power in the Gaza Strip and kick out Fatah altogether.

So it makes perfect sense for Palestinian leaders to see Iran holding the cards. If anyone is going to persuade Hamas to make up with Fatah it would be Teheran, the Islamist group's sponsor. Of course, Iran is not going to do it, but it can play games with Fatah, perhaps find Fatah people who, in exchange for power and money, might accept second place as a junior Palestinian partner of Hamas and Teheran.

PERHAPS YOU thought the United States is now Fatah's sponsor and good buddy. Well, Fatah is an equal-opportunity embezzler. Again, let me make clear my support for a strategy of talking with Fatah and helping it survive in the West Bank in exchange for its clamping down on terrorism and incitement. Fatah is preferable to Hamas. But a strong dose of cynicism and some tough bargaining is needed in this policy, which has been adopted by the United States, Israel, and - with a bit more ambiguity, yearning for the chance to appease Hamas - Europe.

As so often happens, however, the debate jumps out of one fire and into another. Now that US policy has abandoned democracy as the magic incantation to solve the Middle East's problems it simply has a new mantra, economic development. The argument is that if America funnels money to Fatah, the group will use the funds to benefit the people on the West Bank. And, in the best tradition of the American big city political boss, the Palestinians will reciprocate by cheering Fatah and booing Hamas.
But the American method is up against the Iranian method. Iran employs the appeal of intoxicating revolutionary rhetoric, a seductive use of Islam (the divine will wants you to do what we say), a cathartic orgy of hatred, an appeal to macho heroism, money into one's pocket (to buy guns or live "high on the non-hog"), direct provision of social services to supporters, and encouraging macho and supposedly heroic violence.
If people were saints, the US approach would be better. Given the reality of the Middle East, a combination of rewards (only in return for actual deeds) and punishments would be more effective. This is called power diplomacy and politicians or diplomats seem to understand it perfectly well except when it comes to the Middle East.

Instead, the American debate is largely over who to reward and to whom United States should prove itself nice and friendly. Consider the two camps furiously contending today.

The White House strategy is: We'll be good to moderates so they'll work with us against the bad guys. The label "moderate" was first bestowed on the masses; helping them as meaning urging more democracy. Now moderate allies are defined in the old-fashioned way as the regimes: Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Fatah. In Iraq, the strategy is to keep fighting to show the United States helps the Shi'ites stay in power and protects the Sunnis by pushing for compromise. The implication is that if America just gives everyone enough they will stand alongside it.

In contrast, the Democratic opposition's general approach is: We'll be nice to the radicals so they will become moderates. We will prove our willingness to compromise with Iran, Syria, and the Islamists, convincing them that we are not their enemy. We will get out of Iraq, too. Sometimes they argue that being more distant to Israel and a stronger advocate of the Palestinian cause (whatever and whoever that is nowadays) will prove that America is ok.

"Oh, we get it," one imagines the leaders of Syria, Iran, Hamas, and Hizbullah saying, "we thought the Americans were our enemies but now we understand that they have our best interests at heart."

THE PROBLEM with both approaches is that they insist on expecting Middle Easterners to act like Americans. I can't help but recall several true anecdotes about this kind of mistake:
· How secretary of state John Foster Dulles, in the mid-1950s, urged the two sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict two behave more like "Christian gentlemen."
· Jordan's King Hussein explaining to an interviewer that he would rule his country like Switzerland when his people began behaving like Swiss.
· An Iranian journalist explaining in the late 1940s, when asked why he condemned America but never the USSR, that the Russians killed people who criticized them (as Syria and Islamists do today).

POLICY MUST be tough, cynical, and involve equal trade-offs, rather than proofs of good will or flattery designed to win friends. Iran knows that; America often does, and Europe usually doesn't. That's why flattering Mahmoud Abbas, showering money and arms on Fatah, and thinking one can turn the West Bank into a showcase of economic progress isn't going to work. Nor will persuading the Arab world that America and Europe care about the Palestinians, want to give them a state, and don't like Israel.

A reasonable strategy requires showing how unprofitable it is to be an enemy while helping those on the other side only to the extent that they cooperate. It means not having to apologize but getting those who ignore your interests to apologize to you. It requires taking into account regional realities rather than sentimentalizing them into morality plays. It includes not expecting to solve neatly problems which have no solution.

Listen to our elders:Holocaust survivors shocked

We warned of Israeli neo-Nazis, Holocaust survivors say The uncovering of the neo-Nazi cell in Petah Tikva recently, left many Holocaust survivors shocked, but very few were actually surprised.

Gitta Keufman, a Holocaust survivor and head of the organization for concentration camps and ghetto survivors, told Ynet, "We've been hearing of this for quite some time now, but every time we tried to warn someone, that such things were going on, we were told it was an insignificant, local occurrence," she said.


The mere existence of a neo-Nazi cell in Israel made her visibly uncomfortable. "I'm afraid. We don't even have any laws against it… these teens came to Israel, received every opportunity the country had to offer and this is what they do?"


She said she had mixed feelings after hearing of the arrests.


"On the one hand, it's incomprehensible, especially for those of us who have survived the Holocaust. On the other hand, it was a relief that they were finally caught… this exposure might make the government do something so this won't happen again," she said.


"I hope they get sent back. Anyone celebrating Hitler's birthday is not a part of the Israeli nation and does not belong here."


Sergei Sushon, who was 13-years-old when World War Two broke out and lost his entire family in the


Holocaust, told Ynet "when someone such as myself sees these things it is infuriating, especially since this is not new to us and we wrote and warned but no one understood how serious this phenomenon was.


"The government must severely punish the cell members and annihilate these barbarians," he said.

Israel Needs A New Law-Treason

A member of the Israeli parliament who defied a government order not to visit Syria criticized Israel on Monday for a reported overflight of Syria by Israeli warplanes last week and for having "aggressive intentions". Lawmaker Said Naffaa, heading a delegation of Druze clerics, spoke to reporters in Damascus after meeting Syrian Vice-President Farouk al-Sharaa.


Syria has said that Israeli aircraft broke the sound barrier flying over northern Syria before dawn Thursday, then "dropped munitions" onto deserted areas after being shot at by Syria's air defenses. Turkey has complained to Israel that the warplanes dropped fuel tanks on its soil.


The purpose of the overflight is not clear, and Israel and Washington have declined to comment. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem, on a trip to Turkey on Monday, called the overflight a "hostile act".


Naffaa said Syria's announcement of the reported Israeli violation aimed to send Israel a message, "Don't play with fire and try to heat up the region."



'Israel will not let this go unpunished'

He accused Israel of not being serious about establishing peace in the Middle East, warning that the clouds of war are gathering between Syria and Israel as a result of "Israel's aggressive intentions".


Naffaa made the visit despite an earlier government order specifically banning him from going to Syria, one of the Jewish state's arch foes. The government did not specify how it would respond. In Damascus, he said he was expecting the government might punish him.


"We know well that Israel will not let this go (unpunished)," he said. The delegation of Druze clerics was ready to pay any price "to strengthen communications with Syria".

Azmi Bishara, a former Arab Israeli lawmaker, has been on the run since June after he was accused by Israel of spying for Lebanon's militant Hizbullah group, an ally of Syria, during its war with Israel last summer.


Bishara, who denies the accusation, angered Israeli officials over the years by meeting with some of Israel's bitterest enemies, including the leaders of Syria and Hizbullah.


Bishara left Israel in early June after being grilled twice by investigators and later resigned his parliament seat. Israeli police said he would be arrested immediately if he returns to Israel.

Comment: In America this man would be tried and convicted of treason-Israel, you must move to stop this behavior yesterday! You hve fallen prey to political correctness and it will harm you, bit by bit.

The Israeli population is standing at 7.2 million people on the eve of the new year 5768.

According to the data from the Central Bureau of Statistics 75.8% of Israelis are Jews and 19.9% are Arabs. And here is the rest of it.

Mr. Olmert: WHY ISRAEL MUST NOW MOVE FROM CONCESSIONS-BASED DIPLOMACY TO RIGHTS-BASED DIPLOMACY

Government leaders and diplomats would be advised to adopt a more aggressive diplomatic stance based on Israel’s longstanding international legal and historical rights to a sovereign state in its own homeland with a united Jerusalem as its capital.2 Generous Israeli concessions have, if inadvertently, reinforced the charges by some that Israel not only lacks legal rights to the disputed territories of Gaza and the West Bank, but that Israel ’s very legitimacy is inextricably linked to further territorial concessions. Therefore, Israel should now recalibrate the moral force of its rightful claims that today have been all but lost to the Palestinians in the international court of public opinion.

The Failure of the “Concessions-Based Paradigm”
The tepid international response to continuing, Iranian-backed, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad rocket attacks on southern Israel points to an uncomfortable conclusion. Israel’s far-reaching diplomatic concessions to its Arab and Palestinian neighbors — withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, the offer of nearly 95 percent of the West Bank at Camp David in 2000, continuous territorial withdrawals during the Oslo process from 1993 to 2000, and the IDF’s unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000 — have failed to generate security for Israelis, diplomatic progress with Palestinian and Arab neighbors, or greater international support for Israel’s diplomatic positions.

Unfortunately, recent experience shows that Israeli diplomatic gestures and territorial generosity have backfired. Since Israel ’s unilateral Gaza withdrawal and particularly following last summer’s war with Hizbullah in Lebanon , Palestinian rocket attacks from Gaza have increased exponentially6 despite Sharon ’s statement on the eve of the 2005 pullout that removing the IDF was intended to “reduce terror as much as possible, and grant Israeli citizens the maximum level of security.”7 Similarly, Israel ’s unilateral withdrawal from southern Lebanon in May 2000 failed to end hostilities with Iranian proxy Hizbullah. Instead, it fueled war preparations that resulted in Hizbullah firing more than 4,200 rockets that paralyzed Israel ’s northern cities during the Second Lebanon War.8

Oslo ’s Shift Away from Rights-Based Diplomacy
Much of Israel ’s current diplomatic posture was established with the 1993 Oslo accords. The Oslo process represented a diplomatic paradigm shift for Israel away from “rights-based” diplomacy to “concession-driven” diplomacy.36 The White House signing ceremony in September 1993 was illustrative. Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin deemphasized Israel ’s territorial rights and instead focused on its desire to end its violent conflict with the Palestinians, declaring, “Enough of blood and tears. We have come to try and put an end to the hostilities, so that our children, our children’s children, will no longer experience the painful cost of war, violence and terror.”37 His words were poetic and well-meaning, but they lacked any reference to Israel ’s historical rights and claims.

Reasserting Israel’s Legitimacy and Rights to Sovereignty
Israel has always expressed its readiness for territorial compromise and this principle will continue to play a role in future diplomatic processes. However, in view of the fundamental doubts expressed regarding Israel ’s legitimacy in many international circles, Israeli government leaders and diplomats would be well advised to reiterate to their foreign counterparts the following historical and legal principles of Israel ’s rights-based diplomacy.

Historical Context
The modern State of Israel is not a child of European colonialism. Rather, it is the result of Ottoman decolonialization and one of the first fruits of the international community’s commitment to self-determination in the post-World War I era. The State of Israel also is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish nation and the third Jewish commonwealth to arise in the Land of Israel over the past three thousand years. In fact, the Jewish people is the only nation that has ever established an independent homeland in the Land of Israel with Jerusalem as its capital.

The Modern Legal Context of Israel’s Rights to Sovereignty
It was the sui generis Jewish historical bond with Jerusalem and Israel that led the League of Nations and then the United Nations during the last century to recognize the Jewish people’s legal right to “reconstitute its national home in that country.”48 In other words, the international community formally recognized a preexisting right to Jewish sovereignty in Western-mandated Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea . It was Winston Churchill who noted in 1922 that “the Jews are in Palestine by right, not sufferance.”49 The High Commissioner for Palestine reiterated in his first report to the British government in 1925 the basis of international guarantees for a Jewish state. He noted:

The Balfour Declaration was endorsed at the time by several of the Allied Governments. It was reaffirmed by the conference of the Principal Allied powers at San Remo in 1920. It was subsequently endorsed by unanimous resolutions by both houses of the Congress of the United States; it was embodied in the Mandate for Palestine approved by the League of Nations in 1922; it was declared in a formal statement of policy issued by the Colonial Secretary in the same year, “not to be susceptible of change”; and it has been the guiding principle in their direction of the affairs of Palestine of four successive British Governments. The policy was fixed and internationally guaranteed.50

Nothing prevents Israel from conceding its potential claims to sovereignty within the context of a peace process that brings Israel to agreed-upon secure borders. Preemptive concession of such claims, however, is unnecessary and has proved diplomatically counterproductive.

The adoption of a rights-based paradigm for Israeli diplomacy will not likely trigger an immediate improvement in the UN General Assembly’s voting patterns regarding Israel . It also is unlikely that diplomats from Muslim countries will be persuaded by Israel ’s rightful claims. However, the international community’s position toward Israel is in greater flux in the wake of the Hamas takeover of Gaza in June 2007. Israel might now begin to enjoy greater understanding in some European and Asian circles. Therefore, rights-based diplomacy can make a difference for those who might express greater sympathy for Israel ’s position but would first seek a firm basis in international law before offering diplomatic support.


full

But of course this is what we should do...and more!

'Deny Hamas prisoners visits until Red Cross sees Schalit' Family members of Hamas men held in Israeli prisons should be denied visitation rights until the Red Cross is allowed to visit kidnapped IDF soldier Cpl. Gilad Schalit, held by Hamas in Gaza since he was kidnapped in June 2006, Army Radio reported Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman as saying Monday evening.
Lieberman's comments came hours after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas that he would push for a prisoner release ahead of the Muslim holiday of Ramadan. In his response to the meeting, the strategic affairs minister insisted that no prisoner release should be considered.

Earlier on Monday, Olmert and Abbas met in Jerusalem, accompanied for the first time by PA Prime Minister Salaam Fayad.

Israeli officials believed Fayad's presence was significant because it showed that the meetings were beginning to concentrate on the governing aspect of a Palestinian state, rather than just the idea of having one.
The three agreed to set up working groups to discuss general issues pertaining to Palestinian state negotiations, as talks took a step toward determining how such a state would be run.

Regarding a Palestinian prisoner release as a goodwill gesture ahead of Ramadan, Olmert said he understood the importance of the issue and hoped to bring it up at the upcoming cabinet meeting.

Ramadan begins on Thursday.

The issue was supposed to be raised at last Sunday's cabinet meeting, but a prisoner release was deemed politically implausible due to the tense security situation in both the North and South, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

During the talks, the leaders decided that ministers from each side would meet to discuss governing issues for a Palestinian state.

In the working groups, the Israeli team will be made up of representatives from the Defense Ministry, the Prime Minister's Office and the Justice Ministry.
The issue of lifting West Bank roadblocks to allow Palestinians greater accessibility came up yet again in the latest meeting, and Olmert said again that Israel was waiting for a plan from the Defense Ministry and would present it to Abbas when it was ready.

The Post has learned that disagreement exists between the Prime Minister's Office and the Defense Ministry on the roadblock issue, with the Defense Ministry less enthused by the prospect of lifting them.

Olmert promises to release prisoners for Ramadan

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared Monday that they wanted "to contribute to the success of the planned international meeting." Official sources in Jerusalem said that the Israeli team would include two representatives from the Prime Minister's Office, a representative from the Foreign Ministry and another representative from the Defense Ministry


Olmert and Abbas are expected to meet again in two weeks, before the Palestinian president attends the United Nations General Assembly Session on September 25.


Abbas asked Olmert during the meeting to release Palestinian prisoners as a goodwill gesture for the holiday of Ramadan. The prime minister promised to release prisoners to the West Bank and Gaza, but the leaders did not discuss the number of prisoners to be released.


Olmert accepted a request made by Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who also took part in the meeting, to send aid to security prisoners jailed in Israel, including food, drinks and cigarettes.


Fayyad spokes about his role in building the Palestinian Authority's security and civil organizations, and the future relations between the two governments.

The Palestinians also asked for future security cooperation, and Israel said it would look into this request.


Olmert said that he shared the Palestinians' need to increase the freedom of movement in the West Bank. He promised that the freedom of movement would be felt after the Defense Ministry receives a plan aimed at solving the issue.


The plan for boosting the movement between Palestinian cities is expected to be submitted to the prime minister on Sunday.

Comment: Huh? It's our holiday and we are giving...? What gifts in their celebration of Ramadan are they giving to us in return? Yes, we can solve the freedom of movement issue right after they stop sending teenagers,dressed to kill (homicide bomber belts); right after they stop loading up cars with explosives designed to kill and maim our citizens.Come on Mr. Olmert, it is the holiday time but we did not take "stupid potion" today-you re only spitting rhetoric, unfortunately your associated actions are literally killing us. Every day you act, Mr. Olmert, you display your inability to lead!

Israeli Water Program Taught in China, Latin America, Elswhere

With water-supply issues gaining in world-wide importance, countries around the world recognize Israel's contribution to study of water. A junior high school program named Blue Planet is on its way to being translated into Chinese, with UNESCO's backing, after having already been translated into Spanish. Translations into three other languages are also being prepared.

The curriculum, written by Weizmann Institute scientists Prof. Nir Orion and his former student Dr. Orit Ben-Zvi Assaraf, involves inter-disciplinary learning, with an emphasis on outdoors field activities. The chemical, physical, and biological aspects of the water cycle are taught in an integrated manner, featuring processes such as permeation, vaporization, and the rocks/water reciprocical relationship.

Questions of relevant interest are raised, such as, "Would the amount of water on earth be depleted following increased use of water? Is the water in Israel drinkable? What is considered good-quality water? How is water quality tested?"

A ceremony was held on Sunday in Weizmann Institute's unique glass-enclosed EcoSphere dome, where the Spanish version of the book was presented to a UNESCO representative. The authors plan to visit Latin America in the near future, where they will help teachers implement the Blue Planet study program.

Progressive developments

The convening of the Sharia judiciary conference in Amman last week was an occasion not only to discuss the progressive development of the Sharia judiciary system The issue that was often faced when considering periodic reports from Muslim and Arab countries by various treaty bodies was whether the Sharia provisions are open for more enlightened interpretation so that they may not remain contrary to international human rights standards.
Some Arab countries have indeed begun to interpret the Sharia in a manner which is harmonious with international norms, especially on matters touching on women’s rights and equal gender treatment. Tunisia, for example, has abolished polygamy, not so much in repudiation of the Sharia but rather in a progressive reinterpretation of the Sharia in a manner that is consistent with international human rights conventions.
Tunisia has pointed out that Islam does not really condone polygamy since the acceptance of polygamy is made conditional on respect and equal treatment of spouses, something that the Koran itself stipulates is not possible.
Sharia principles on women’s rights and gender discrimination should receive the attention they deserve during meetings on the progressive development of the Sharia judiciary, so that a more enlightened interpretation of the Islamic law can be codified and applied by Arab and Muslim judiciaries everywhere in the world.
This is the right thing to do in order for discrimination against women in Muslim and Arab countries to end once and for all.
span>

Hamas: PLO factions cover up for PA presidency's liquidation of Palestine cause

The Hamas Movement on Sunday warned that the PLO factions were covering up the PA chief Mahmoud Abbas and his entourage's attempt to prepare the atmosphere for liquidating the Palestine cause. The Movement, in a statement, called on those factions to reconsider their positions that exaggerate what happens in Gaza and give a blind eye to what is happening in the West Bank.
It said that the PLO factions' call for a general strike, which ended up in failure, was meant to put hurdles in face of Hamas and to weaken it in line with a regional and international scheme, which the PA presidency is enthusiastically carrying out.
Hamas saluted the Palestinian masses in the Strip that refused the call for strike and advised the PLO factions to call for a protest sit-in against the civil servants who receive salaries from Ramallah and do not go to work.

In a similar tone, Dr. Abdul Sattar Qassem, the political science professor in Najah University, strongly denounced the call for a general strike in Gaza on Sunday.
He questioned those factions' stands, saying: "Why didn't you call for strike when hundreds of Hamas and Islamic Jihad activists were held in PA jails?"

The political analyst championed balanced stands away from bias, which he said only leads to pitfalls.
.

Dweik: National unity is the will of Palestinian people

PLC speaker Dr. Aziz Dweik, who is imprisoned in Israeli jails, confirmed that national unity is the will of the Palestinian people and that the current stage is "very sensitive" and requires everyone to assume his/her responsibility. In an interview with the PIC, Dr. Dweik commented on PA chief Mahmoud Abbas's refusal to have dialogue with Hamas, saying: "There is no doubt that the PA chief's duty is to comply with the will of his people and regarding our case, the demand of the Palestinian people as well as the Arab and Islamic masses is national unity and whoever denies that is certainly against this will."

Regarding Abbas's edicts aimed at disabling the PLC's role, the speaker stated: "In view of the Palestinian basic law amended in 2003, the PLC is the one which has authority to deal with all issues concerning the occupied Palestinian lands."
Dwaik called for not shunning the agreements signed by the factions' leaders such as the Cairo and Makkah agreements, and the national agreement document.

Regarding the international conference on the Palestinian cause scheduled to be held in autumn, the speaker said that this conference will not positively deal with the interest of the Palestinian people, and the international media agreed that all the participants in this conference will act as if there is remarkable progress although there will be no progress.
He pointed out that the conference will be held to serve the interests of the American president and his party in the coming elections.
span>

Is there any method to Bin Laden’s madness?

After years of not being seen in public, he is apparently surfacing on the eve of the 6th anniversary of his Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. Intelligence agencies have stated that Islamic terrorists like to mark anniversaries with attacks. As religious fundamentalists, they may even be motivated by Islam’s interest in numbers or numerology.

While the number 6 has little religious significance for Islamics, this Sept. 11 will mark an important number: 72.
That’s 72 months since the 9/11 strikes of 2001.

Could there be significance in that number?

We did some research on Islamic numerology and found that, indeed, 72 is a very significant number in Muslim culture:
· The Prophet Muhammad predicted that after his death, Islam would divide into 72 factions.
· According to the Koran, Allah has 72 angels guarding his throne.
· The warriors of Islam are rewarded with 72 “perpetual virgins” in paradise.
· At the important battle of Karbala in the year 680, tradition holds that there were 72 martyr-heroes fighting in the name of Husayn ibn Ali, Muhammad’s grandson, against a much larger force under the Umayyad caliph.
Could it be that al-Qaida has been preparing a major operation to commemorate the 72-month anniversary of 9/11?

Curiously, the number 72 figures prominently elsewhere. The Shemhamphorasch — which has many alternate spellings — is an epithet for a 72-letter name of God derived by medieval kabbalists from the Book of Exodus, by reading the letters of three verses in a specific order.

Another number significant to Muslims is “7.” The Koran contains approximately 25 references to seven, including the seven heavens and the seven periods of creation. The number is thought to be directly linked to the power of the divine, and figures into Islamic art, folklore, literature and rituals.

The date of the bombings in the London transit system was July 7, 2005 — or 7/7.

Qassam Brigades to use new combat means against IOF incursion

GAZA, (PIC)-- The Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of the Hamas Movement, on Saturday announced that new combat means would be used against the IOF troops if they ventured into the Gaza Strip. Abu Obaida, the spokesman of the Brigades, told 'Palestine' newspaper that his armed wing along with other resistance factions were preparing for any fresh IOF incursion into the Strip.

He affirmed that any such invasion would be met with stiff resistance and that new combat means would be used. However, the spokesman would not reveal those means leaving it as a "surprise" for the IOF.

Abu Obaida attributed the IOA constant threat to invade Gaza to Israel's internal political crisis as a result of repeated failures on various levels.
"Entering Gaza won't be easy and if the enemy dared to threw itself into the Gaza quagmire it would not get out of it safely," he warned.

The spokesman underscored that all armed wings were taking those threats seriously, noting that they have pursued new tactics in face of IOF incursions mainly foiling the troops' attempts to drag the resistance fighters into open areas.
Meanwhile, the Qassam Brigades announced that one of its field commanders had died at dawn Saturday while on a Jihad mission.

The Brigades' communiqué did not specify how did Nabil Abdul Al die but said that he was one of the prominent commanders and took part in confronting the repeated IOF raids on Gaza city.

We Won't Let Red Cross Visit Shalit

Al-Mazini said. "We refuse to allow any visit to Shalit, in order to preserve his life and in order to guarantee the success of an exchange of captives AOsama Al-Mazini, the Hamas spokesman for the Gilad Shalit case, says the reports of an upcoming visit by the International Red Cross to the captive soldier are untrue. Al-Mazini explained that the Shalit case is "different than others," and that a Red Cross visit could endanger his life.

"This is a complex security issue," Al-Mazini said. "We refuse to allow any visit to Shalit, in order to preserve his life and in order to guarantee the success of an exchange of captives to bring about the release of the Palestinian prisoners from jail."

How would a Red Cross visit endanger Shalit's life? Al-Mazini explained that if, as a result of the visit, Israel manages to locate the place where Shalit is being held, "Israel is liable to bomb it in order to liquidate Shalit and thus extricate itself from the whole business, just as it did with Nachshon Wachsman."

Wachsman Background
Nachshon Wachsman was a 20-year-old IDF soldier who was kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists in Oct. 1994, and was murdered a week later by his kidnappers during a military attempt to rescue him. It appeared that the entire country was mobilized on behalf of the abducted soldier; the Wachsman family received 30,000 letters in a matter of days, and 100,000 people attended a prayer service on his behalf at the Western Wall. The man thought to have masterminded the attack, Muhammad Deif, survived several Israeli attempts to kill him - but just barely. In July 2006, he was attending a high-level Hamas meeting in Gaza when Israeli aircraft attacked, leaving Deif with serious spine injuries and costing him his arms and legs, according to some PA sources. A year ago, an Egyptian newspaper reported his arrest by Egypt as he tried to enter the country for health care.

Gilad Shalit has been held, apparently in Gaza, ever since his abduction by a Hamas cell in June 2006. No word was heard from him until two months ago, when the terrorists released a recording of his voice. The terrorists have released no other signs that he is well or even alive.

Israel, On the Other Hand...
In August 2001, a five-judge Israeli Supreme Court panel decided unanimously to allow Red Cross representatives to visit Lebanese terrorists Mustafa Dirani and Sheikh Abdul Karim Obeid in Israeli prison. This, despite the government claim that withholding such privileges was an important bargaining chip in the continuing efforts on behalf of several Israelis being held hostage at the time by Hizbullah. The judges ruled, "The State of Israel is a democracy that respects civil rights... Compassion and humanism are rooted in our national character... Human dignity even of our enemy is precious to us."

Talks Mired
Al-Mazini further said that talks for Shalit's release have gone nowhere. Egypt has abandoned its mediation efforts, and Israel is apparently seeking another country to take its place. It is generally believe that Israel has agreed in principle to release at least 1,000 PA prisoners from prison, in three stages, in return for Shalit.

Two other IDF captives, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, have been held by Hizbullah in Lebanon for 14 months. There is no talk of a Red Cross visit to them, and in fact a Lebanese daily reported this summer, quoting German sources, that one of the two is apparently dead. Hizbullah chieftain Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah has said that he plans to divulge no hint at all as to the wellbeing or whereabouts of the two captives, unless Israel releases Lebanese terrorists from Israeli prison.

Prisoner release likely before Thursday

Comment: The release in exchange for what? All past prisoner releases have netted us zero, nada, nothing! If this was a business operation we would have gone broke years ago-no return on our investment; yet Israel, pressurred by the USA is told time and again that we must release prisoners. When was the last time they released, unconditionally, any of our prisoners? Fact is that our recent prisoners have not been allowed visitation even by the Red Cross-a clear violation of the Geneva Agreements and all International Law. Have you noticed the absolute silence from Human Rights groups, the UN and even Western Jews who criticize most of what Israel does? We take the high, humanitarian road and not even a "way to go"! Yet, these same people cry and complain if the Palestinians mention an upset-what hypocrits you are! Cabinet ministers are expected on Sunday to discuss the release of 100 Palestinian prisoners before Ramadan as a good-will gesture, government officials said Saturday night.


Palestinian prisoners released earlier this year, on the bus to Ramallah.
Photo: Ariel Jerozolimski
If the release is approved, it would likely be discussed and possibly announced at a planned meeting Monday in Jerusalem between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and PA chairman Mahmoud Abbas.



The release has been discussed in recent days by an interministerial committee, made up of representatives from the Prime Minister's Office, Justice Ministry, Defense Ministry and security establishment, that deals with prisoner releases.

This release would follow by about two months a previous release of some 250 Palestinian prisoners, and the criteria would be similar: only Fatah prisoners who have served significant sentences and still have more than a year left to serve.

In addition to the prisoner release, Abbas and Olmert will continue discussing a document that they are trying to formulate prior to the US-sponsored meeting later in the year that will serve as the framework for further negotiations.

While the Prime Minister's Office has given almost no information about what is being discussed, beyond saying that the two men in their ongoing meetings are discussing "fundamental principles," Yediot Ahronot published the outlines of a diplomatic plan being promoted by Vice Premier Haim Ramon.

This plan calls for basing the West Bank border on the security fence and annexing 3-8 percent of the West Bank, but giving up large settlements like Karnei Shomron, Beit El and Ofra.

According to the plan, the Palestinians would be given a land bridge from Hebron to Gaza to compensate them for the West Bank settlement blocs remaining in Israeli hands.

The plan would also roughly follow former US President Bill Clinton's parameters regarding Jerusalem, meaning that what is populated by Jews would remain part of Israel, and the Arab-populated sections of the city would be part of a Palestinian state. Regarding the so-called "Holy basin," the old city and its environs, each religion would have authority over its holy places, and no national flags would fly there.

Under the plan, Palestinian refugees would have the right of return to the Palestinian state, and Israel would not allow in any refugees except for a token amount for "humanitarian reasons." The Prime Minister's Office had no response to the plan, other than to say that it was Ramon's ideas, not Olmert's. Ramon, nevertheless, is considered one of the minister's closest to the prime minister.

Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter, however, criticized the diplomatic plan in a speech at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center's 7th annual international anti-terrorism conference on Saturday night.

"This is not the day to talk about a permanent agreement with the Palestinians," Dichter said. "To talk about a safe passage between Gaza and the West Bank now is like talking about how to handle an oil pipeline between an oil well and fresh water. Discussions on a permanent agreement will have to wait for better days."

Observers at the conference interpreted Dichter's remarks as criticism of Olmert's talks with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. But Dichter's associates said he was not referring to Olmert, because the prime minister has not said that he was working on a permanent agreement.

The Ramon plan, as well as the situation in Lebanon and the tension with Syria, are expected to feature prominently in meetings this week with Portuguese Foreign Minister Luis Amada, who arrives Sunday, and French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who will arrive Monday. Portugal currently holds the EU's rotating presidency.

Kouchner's visit is viewed as especially significant because it will be his first visit here as foreign minister and the first high level visit since Nicolas Sarkozy was elected France's president earlier in the summer.
.

Anti-Semitism and the Anti-Israel Lobby

A crop of Israel's critics -- most prominently Jimmy Carter and now Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the authors of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" -- have managed something of a feat... Anti-Semitism and the Anti-Israel LobbyBy JEFF ROBBINS September 7, 2007; Page A15 A crop of Israel's critics -- most prominently Jimmy Carter and now Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, the authors of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" -- have managed something of a feat: They express no concerns about the massive pro-Arab effort, funded in significant measure by foreign oil money, taking American Jews to task for participating in the American political process; meanwhile, they inoculate themselves against charges of anti-Jewish bias by pre-emptively predicting that "the Jewish lobby" will accuse them of it.Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer, in particular, have been heralded by Israel's critics for their "courage" in attacking American Jews, who have allegedly "strangled" criticism of Israel. Their case seems one part laughable, and one part eyebrow-raising.An anecdote from my own experience with the anti-Israel lobby may shed some light on the absurdity of the Walt-Mearsheimer offensive. Not long after Sept. 11, 2001, I received a call from a major defense contractor asking for a favor. I was serving as president of the Boston chapter of the World Affairs Council, a national organization that debates foreign policy, and the defense contractor was one of the Council's principal sponsors.The Saudi Arabian government was sponsoring a national public relations campaign to cultivate American public opinion, and was sending Saudi emissaries around the country to make the case that Saudi Arabia was a tolerant, moderate nation worthy of American support. Would the Council organize a forum of Boston's community leaders so that the Saudis could make their case?While this was patently no more than a Saudi lobbying effort, we organized the forum, and it was well-attended by precisely the slice of Boston's political and corporate elite that the Saudis and their defense contractor benefactor had hoped for. The Saudis maintained that their Kingdom should be regarded as a promoter of Middle East peace, and that the abundant evidence that Saudi Arabia was in fact promoting a virulent brand of extremist Islam should be discounted.Saudi Arabia paid for the trip of its emissaries to Boston, for the Washington, D.C.-based public relations and lobbying company which organized the trip, and for the Boston public relations and lobbying company that handled the Boston part of the visit. And it drew upon the resources and relationships of the defense contractor, which sells hundreds of millions of dollars of military equipment to Saudi Arabia, to support and orchestrate its public relations effort. The billions in petrodollars Arab states spend in the U.S. for defense, construction, engineering and consulting contracts position them nicely to win friends in high places, and friends are what they have. That is true all over the world, is true in this country, and has been true for quite some time. As U.S. Secretary of State Cordell Hull noted 60 years ago, "The oil of Saudi Arabia constitutes one of the world's great prizes." His successor, Edward Stettinius, opposed the creation of a Jewish state in the Middle East, stating "It would seriously prejudice our ability to afford protection to American interests, economic and commercial . . . throughout the area." The Saudis and their allies have not been shy about supplementing their considerable leverage in the U.S. by targeting expenditures to affect the debate over Middle East policy by funding think tanks, Middle East studies programs, advocacy groups, community centers and other institutions. To take one obvious example, just last year Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal donated $20 million each to Harvard and Georgetown Universities for programs in Islamic studies. Prince Alwaleed, chairman of a Riyadh-based conglomerate, is the fellow whose $10 million donation to the Twin Towers Fund following the Sept. 11 attacks was rejected by then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani after the Saudi Prince suggested that the U.S. "re-examine its policies in the Middle East and adopt a more balanced stance toward the Palestinians." Georgetown and Harvard had no apparent qualms about accepting Prince Alwaleed's money. The director of Georgetown's newly-renamed Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Center rejected any suggestion that the Saudi magnate was attempting to use Saudi oil wealth to influence American policy in the Middle East. " There is nothing wrong with [Prince Alwaleed] expressing his opinion on American foreign policy," he said. "Clearly, it was done in a constructive way."In other words, for those who accept the Arab line on the Israel-Arab conflict -- namely, that it is the product of Israeli intransigence in some form or another -- the increasing proliferation of Middle East-funded enterprises all across the country aimed at advancing the Arab view of the conflict constitute "nothing wrong." Nor are those hewing to the anti-Israel line troubled by the way in which the massive Islamic bloc of nations, by dint both of their number and their economic leverage over the rest of the world, are able to guarantee an incessantly anti-Israel agenda at the United Nations and other international fora.Although the aggressive deployment of petrodollars and oil-based influence from foreign sources aimed at advancing a pro-Arab line constitutes "nothing wrong" as far as Israel's critics are concerned, a new political fashion holds that there is something very wrong indeed about American Jews and other American backers of Israel expressing their support for Israel, and urging their political leaders to join them in that support. Our major newspapers and networks, with correspondents in Israel able to take advantage of an Israeli political system that is a free-for-all and an astonishingly vibrant and self-critical Israeli press , report daily on every twist and turn of the conflict and are very frequently critical of Israel. As for American campuses, most objective observers would have little difficulty concluding that far from being criticism-free, they are in fact dominated by critics of Israel. Clearly, as strangleholds on criticism go, whatever stranglehold the pro-Israel community has on debate in the U.S. is a very loose one indeed.If the charge that American Jews are able to stifle criticism of Israel is simply silly, the leveling of the charge that there is something nefarious about Jews urging support for the Jewish state raises questions about whether Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer have descended into a certain ugliness . And the tactic of trying to neutralize those questions by loudly predicting that they will be asked, however clever a tactic it may be, does not neutralize them.It is apparently the authors' position that, even in the face of the overwhelming leverage of an Arab world swimming in petrodollars, with a lock on the U.N. and an unlimited ability to pay for pro-Arab public relations, American Jews are obliged to stay silent. In essence, Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer have repackaged the "the-Jews-run-the-country" stuff which has long been the bread and butter of anti-Semites. Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer deny that they are anti-Semitic, and that is certainly good news. But where they are apparently content with foreign oil money being used to advance a pro-Arab position on the Middle East, but devote themselves to criticizing American Jews for lobbying their public officials in support of the Jewish state, one may legitimately wonder what phrase would apply. Surely, one's denial that he is anti-Semitic, while welcome, is hardly dispositive; after all, the marked increase in anti-Semitism around the world is well-documented, and yet one rarely hears anyone actually announce that they are anti-Semitic, or that their views are anti-Semitic. But if anti-Semitism is too harsh a term, and if the word "bigoted" is also taken off the table, perhaps one can be forgiven for concluding that "anti-Jewish bias" fits the bill here . After all, where there is nothing wrong with foreign money from Arab countries advancing a pro-Arab agenda in Messrs. Walt's and Mearsheimer's world -- but there is something very wrong with American citizens who are Jewish exercising their civic right to speak out on behalf of Israel and taking issue with the pro-Arab agenda -- even the most vehement disclaimers of any bias against Jews lack a certain credibility.The potency of the Middle East-funded anti-Israel lobby around the world and in the U.S. is difficult to ignore. Yet, Messrs. Walt and Mearsheimer and others who adhere to an anti-Israel line ignore it. In and of itself, this is not surprising. When at the same time they portray American Jews' efforts to make the case for Israel as morally suspect, however, they open themselves up to reasonable charges of something far more troublesome than mere hypocrisy, and that is anti-Jewish bias, by whatever name. Mr. Robbins, a U.S. Delegate to the U.N. Human Rights Commission during the Clinton administration, is an attorney at Mintz, Levin in Boston. URL for this article:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118912590978320145.html


Copyright 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com.