An IDF operation to destroy the terrorist infrastructure in the Gaza Strip is inevitable, Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman told US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Monday in a meeting at Jerusalem's David Citadel Hotel. Lieberman told Rice Israel needed an operation modeled after Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank in the spring of 2002. He outlined his plan for exchanges of territory and populations with the Palestinians and warned Rice against pressuring Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to take steps that would cause the downfall of his government.
"In the current political conditions, the government cannot allow itself to make controversial decisions on sensitive issues," Lieberman told Rice. "The conference planned for Annapolis is a mistake. It will be just another conference and just another document. Without a noticeable improvement in Israeli security or Palestinian economic conditions, the conference will not be different than any of the unsuccessful conferences of the past."
Lieberman emphasized the decision of the Israel Beiteinu central committee last week to view dividing the holy basin of Jerusalem as a red line for the party remaining in the coalition. Shas leader Eli Yishai also warned Rice on Sunday that dividing Jerusalem would lead to the government's downfall.
Like Yishai, Lieberman recommended to Rice that the economic conditions of the Palestinians be improved before issues like Jerusalem are raised.
"There is no point in raising complex and sensitive issues until the Palestinian economic situation is taken care of," Lieberman told Rice.
National Union chairman Benny Elon, whose diplomatic plan also focuses on improving the economic conditions of the Palestinians, presented the plan to Olmert on Monday. Elon said he told Olmert the plan could be used as an alternative for him after the Annapolis summit fails.
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Labor Sources New Elections After Release of Winograd Report
Labor Party chairman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak is determined to remove his party from the coalition and topple the government, even if the Winograd Report includes no personal recommendations. Though it is widely believed that Labor is anxious to remain in the government for as long as possible, Barak will not reverse his public promise to quit the coalition after the release of the final findings of the Winograd Report. So reports the daily Israel Today (Yisrael HaYom), based on unnamed leading Labor party members.
The Winograd Commission was appointed by the Olmert government a year ago to investigate the government's handling of the Second Lebanon War. Its interim report sharply criticized Prime Minister Olmert, then-Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz. The latter two have already left their posts, while Olmert remains.
It was recently reported that the Winograd Commission might not make negative recommendations regarding specific personages, prompting speculation that Labor would no longer have a justification to quit the government. In light of the reports, the Winograd Commission has announced that it will make a final decision in the coming days as to whether or not to issue personal recommendations.
However, Labor ministers Ben-Eliezer, Herzog and Simchon have expressed the hope that Barak will reconsider quitting the government. "Barak never promised to quit simply based on the date of the publication of the Winograd Commission," Herzog said.
Wrong, according to the Israel Today report. The Labor party sources say that Barak "always related to the date of the Winograd Report as the beginning of the process, and he never made it contingent upon how sharp or critical the report might be - unless of course it says that Olmert made no mistakes at all, which is quite unlikely."
A poll taken last week by the Dialog Institute shows that new elections would bring the Likud 28 seats, more than double its representation today, while Olmert's Kadima would plunge from 29 to 13.
MK Ophir Pines of Labor, who resigned his Cabinet position this past February when the more right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party entered the coalition - and demanded that the rest of Labor quit along with him - was the original author of the call for Labor's departure from the government. "If the Prime Minister does not resign before the publication of the final Winograd report," says the Pines-authored resolution later approved by the Labor Party Central Committee, "Labor will end its partnership with his government and will work to either establish a new government or to hold new elections."
The Winograd Commission was appointed by the Olmert government a year ago to investigate the government's handling of the Second Lebanon War. Its interim report sharply criticized Prime Minister Olmert, then-Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz. The latter two have already left their posts, while Olmert remains.
It was recently reported that the Winograd Commission might not make negative recommendations regarding specific personages, prompting speculation that Labor would no longer have a justification to quit the government. In light of the reports, the Winograd Commission has announced that it will make a final decision in the coming days as to whether or not to issue personal recommendations.
However, Labor ministers Ben-Eliezer, Herzog and Simchon have expressed the hope that Barak will reconsider quitting the government. "Barak never promised to quit simply based on the date of the publication of the Winograd Commission," Herzog said.
Wrong, according to the Israel Today report. The Labor party sources say that Barak "always related to the date of the Winograd Report as the beginning of the process, and he never made it contingent upon how sharp or critical the report might be - unless of course it says that Olmert made no mistakes at all, which is quite unlikely."
A poll taken last week by the Dialog Institute shows that new elections would bring the Likud 28 seats, more than double its representation today, while Olmert's Kadima would plunge from 29 to 13.
MK Ophir Pines of Labor, who resigned his Cabinet position this past February when the more right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party entered the coalition - and demanded that the rest of Labor quit along with him - was the original author of the call for Labor's departure from the government. "If the Prime Minister does not resign before the publication of the final Winograd report," says the Pines-authored resolution later approved by the Labor Party Central Committee, "Labor will end its partnership with his government and will work to either establish a new government or to hold new elections."
MKs Wife a Gush Katif Expellee, Speaks
Former long-time Gush Katif resident Rachel Hendel says the trauma of having one's life's work destroyed is not easily overcome. . The manager of the family's large agricultural business in the former Jewish community of Ganei Tal, Mrs. Hendel was speaking with Argaman, a religious women's publication handed out monthly in synagogues.
Though she has overcome the odds and started a new organic pepper farm, the wife of four-term Knesset Member and former Gaza Coast Regional Council chief Tzvi Hendel is still having a hard time of it.
Asked how she feels two years after, Mrs. Hendel said, "After the expulsion, I used to cry at everything; I was full of anger towards the government, towards the army and even towards the nation that allowed such a thing to happen. I felt humiliated and abused. But I began to understand that in order to continue with my life, to get up in the morning and run a house and smile at my children, I have to be cleansed from within. I went to all the psychological counseling and treatments that were offered to the expellees - treatment workshops, group meetings, and even personal psychological treatment."
Q. Why was the trauma so hard? Some people say it's the same as moving to a new apartment.
A. Before the expulsion, I thought to myself that if the decree really happens, we would definitely be able to overcome and recover - because after all, we are healthy, normative people. But to my surprise, I began to realize the enormity of the crisis. It's unbelievable how traumatic it was for us as a community, and even more as individuals. In a trampling show of force, they took away the center of our lives, the homes that we built, our jobs and sustenance, our honor... They trampled everything we believed in and overturned our world, adults and youth alike, into chaos."
The young Hendel family moved from Pardes Chana, in north-central Israel, to the sand dunes of the fledgling Gush Katif in 1978. "We were looking for a religious place, with values, that was good for raising children and for agriculture," she says. "There was an ad in Haaretz newspaper to the effect that [then-Prime Minister Yitzchak] Rabin and the Labor people were working to establish communities in Gaza. We went to see it, and when we saw the sea shore with the sand so clean and warm, and the beautiful palm trees, we just fell in love with the place."
Mrs. Hendel did not mention that the local Arabs were amazed that the Jews would want to try to take up the challenge of living in the area they called El G’erara, the "cursed land." Another former resident - Maayan Yadai, who converted to Judaism after growing up in Croatia, and later moved to Netzer Hazani in Gush Katif, from where she was evicted during the Disengagement - once said that the local Arabs "told me that nobody lived in this area from the time that the last Jews left, because there was not enough rain and nothing could grow properly. They were happy when the Jews returned because the rain started again, and the land began to produce.”
Yad Binyamin
Today, the Hendels and dozens of their long-time neighbors live in the temporary site of Yad Binyamin, with no knowledge of when their permanent homes in Chafetz Chaim, a ten-minute drive away, will be ready.
"I currently feel that I live in the Yad Binyamin Maabarah [Transient Camp]," Rachel Hendel says, with the pain clearly showing. "It's so non-permanent. I generally like to decorate my house and make it look beautiful, but now I find myself afraid to get used to my home. Transience is a terrible feeling, and especially when you see no sign of it ending."
"We lived in Ganei Tal for some 27 years," she recalls, "which is of course a very significant time period of life. We came to Ganei Tal as young families, and together we built a unified, quality community. We became one big family, celebrating britot (ritual circumcisions), Bar Mitzvahs and weddings together, and we were always there for one another."
Q. Did you believe that the Disengagement would never happen [as some said]?
A. "Until the day of the expulsion, I did not believe that it could happen. I didn't believe that the government would dare expel so many families. We lived so many years under the threat of mortar shells and other dangers, and I didn't want to think that everything had been for naught. I also still remembered the old Ariel Sharon, when he would come to us on Fridays with potential investors, trying to build more and more; I couldn't digest the huge change that came over him. I didn't pack at all before the expulsion; it was a matter of principle that nothing would happen, and that if my world was about to collapse, it wouldn't be saved by a hotel room."
Q. And when did you realize what was actually going on?
A. In the days before the expulsion, I still went to the greenhouses to water the plants, and I still prayed for the miracle. But on the day of the expulsion, when I saw all the soldiers with their black uniforms marching in endless rows along the paths of my beautiful town, that's when it dawned on me that the miracle was not going to happen. Within a few hours, we packed up a bunch of suitcases for the hotel, and left Ganei Tal.
The Father's Suffering
Mrs. Hendel's father Yaakov Freiman was another casualty of the expulsion. He lived in N'vei Dekalim for 20 years, was banished to a Jerusalem hotel for nine months, and then lived in the temporary site in Ein Tzurim, a 20-minute drive from Yad Binyamin.
Rachel remembers: "My father was an Etzel man [a member of the anti-British pre-cursor of the nationalist Likud party during pre-State days - ed.], born in Jerusalem to a seven-generation Land of Israel family. His whole life he taught us the value of settlement and giving to the country without limits, and then everything blew up in his face... He was full of faith and tried to strengthen himself; but after living in a large, organized house and then being shut up in a small room for a long period, without his regular routine and quiet corner, I saw him slowly deteriorate. He died less than a month ago."
A year ago, the Hendel family decided to once again work the land, and received a plot of land near Ashkelon. They built a greenhouse, and have now begun selling their organic peppers.
Q. Are you excited?
A. It's a good feeling to know that we have succeeded despite all the hardships, and to build something again. You have to start everything from scratch, and I must admit that I no longer have the necessary energies. Our son-in-law, with his youthful energies, has been the driving force behind everything."
Asked how the Disengagement affected her children, Rachel said, "Each one reacted differently. My 24-year-old son, for example, just burst out crying when he saw the soldiers coming in - and even today it is hard for him to put on an army uniform... Yes, it's our army, but there's tremendous anger at those who are in charge. I remember the top officer who came to remove us from our house, sitting opposite us with glassy eyes and repeating the usual mantras, 'I am just fulfilling an order,' etc. The Israel Defense Forces was not established in order to tear down and destroy, but rather to protect us. I felt they were too loyal; I expected more support for them, and even for some refusals."
"After all," asks Rachel Hendel, with no expectation of an answer to the question that still echoes thunderously today, "by what right do some people in this country decide that their houses are more important than mine?"
Though she has overcome the odds and started a new organic pepper farm, the wife of four-term Knesset Member and former Gaza Coast Regional Council chief Tzvi Hendel is still having a hard time of it.
Asked how she feels two years after, Mrs. Hendel said, "After the expulsion, I used to cry at everything; I was full of anger towards the government, towards the army and even towards the nation that allowed such a thing to happen. I felt humiliated and abused. But I began to understand that in order to continue with my life, to get up in the morning and run a house and smile at my children, I have to be cleansed from within. I went to all the psychological counseling and treatments that were offered to the expellees - treatment workshops, group meetings, and even personal psychological treatment."
Q. Why was the trauma so hard? Some people say it's the same as moving to a new apartment.
A. Before the expulsion, I thought to myself that if the decree really happens, we would definitely be able to overcome and recover - because after all, we are healthy, normative people. But to my surprise, I began to realize the enormity of the crisis. It's unbelievable how traumatic it was for us as a community, and even more as individuals. In a trampling show of force, they took away the center of our lives, the homes that we built, our jobs and sustenance, our honor... They trampled everything we believed in and overturned our world, adults and youth alike, into chaos."
The young Hendel family moved from Pardes Chana, in north-central Israel, to the sand dunes of the fledgling Gush Katif in 1978. "We were looking for a religious place, with values, that was good for raising children and for agriculture," she says. "There was an ad in Haaretz newspaper to the effect that [then-Prime Minister Yitzchak] Rabin and the Labor people were working to establish communities in Gaza. We went to see it, and when we saw the sea shore with the sand so clean and warm, and the beautiful palm trees, we just fell in love with the place."
Mrs. Hendel did not mention that the local Arabs were amazed that the Jews would want to try to take up the challenge of living in the area they called El G’erara, the "cursed land." Another former resident - Maayan Yadai, who converted to Judaism after growing up in Croatia, and later moved to Netzer Hazani in Gush Katif, from where she was evicted during the Disengagement - once said that the local Arabs "told me that nobody lived in this area from the time that the last Jews left, because there was not enough rain and nothing could grow properly. They were happy when the Jews returned because the rain started again, and the land began to produce.”
Yad Binyamin
Today, the Hendels and dozens of their long-time neighbors live in the temporary site of Yad Binyamin, with no knowledge of when their permanent homes in Chafetz Chaim, a ten-minute drive away, will be ready.
"I currently feel that I live in the Yad Binyamin Maabarah [Transient Camp]," Rachel Hendel says, with the pain clearly showing. "It's so non-permanent. I generally like to decorate my house and make it look beautiful, but now I find myself afraid to get used to my home. Transience is a terrible feeling, and especially when you see no sign of it ending."
"We lived in Ganei Tal for some 27 years," she recalls, "which is of course a very significant time period of life. We came to Ganei Tal as young families, and together we built a unified, quality community. We became one big family, celebrating britot (ritual circumcisions), Bar Mitzvahs and weddings together, and we were always there for one another."
Q. Did you believe that the Disengagement would never happen [as some said]?
A. "Until the day of the expulsion, I did not believe that it could happen. I didn't believe that the government would dare expel so many families. We lived so many years under the threat of mortar shells and other dangers, and I didn't want to think that everything had been for naught. I also still remembered the old Ariel Sharon, when he would come to us on Fridays with potential investors, trying to build more and more; I couldn't digest the huge change that came over him. I didn't pack at all before the expulsion; it was a matter of principle that nothing would happen, and that if my world was about to collapse, it wouldn't be saved by a hotel room."
Q. And when did you realize what was actually going on?
A. In the days before the expulsion, I still went to the greenhouses to water the plants, and I still prayed for the miracle. But on the day of the expulsion, when I saw all the soldiers with their black uniforms marching in endless rows along the paths of my beautiful town, that's when it dawned on me that the miracle was not going to happen. Within a few hours, we packed up a bunch of suitcases for the hotel, and left Ganei Tal.
The Father's Suffering
Mrs. Hendel's father Yaakov Freiman was another casualty of the expulsion. He lived in N'vei Dekalim for 20 years, was banished to a Jerusalem hotel for nine months, and then lived in the temporary site in Ein Tzurim, a 20-minute drive from Yad Binyamin.
Rachel remembers: "My father was an Etzel man [a member of the anti-British pre-cursor of the nationalist Likud party during pre-State days - ed.], born in Jerusalem to a seven-generation Land of Israel family. His whole life he taught us the value of settlement and giving to the country without limits, and then everything blew up in his face... He was full of faith and tried to strengthen himself; but after living in a large, organized house and then being shut up in a small room for a long period, without his regular routine and quiet corner, I saw him slowly deteriorate. He died less than a month ago."
A year ago, the Hendel family decided to once again work the land, and received a plot of land near Ashkelon. They built a greenhouse, and have now begun selling their organic peppers.
Q. Are you excited?
A. It's a good feeling to know that we have succeeded despite all the hardships, and to build something again. You have to start everything from scratch, and I must admit that I no longer have the necessary energies. Our son-in-law, with his youthful energies, has been the driving force behind everything."
Asked how the Disengagement affected her children, Rachel said, "Each one reacted differently. My 24-year-old son, for example, just burst out crying when he saw the soldiers coming in - and even today it is hard for him to put on an army uniform... Yes, it's our army, but there's tremendous anger at those who are in charge. I remember the top officer who came to remove us from our house, sitting opposite us with glassy eyes and repeating the usual mantras, 'I am just fulfilling an order,' etc. The Israel Defense Forces was not established in order to tear down and destroy, but rather to protect us. I felt they were too loyal; I expected more support for them, and even for some refusals."
"After all," asks Rachel Hendel, with no expectation of an answer to the question that still echoes thunderously today, "by what right do some people in this country decide that their houses are more important than mine?"
PM questions Israeli control of some east J'lem neighborhoods
As Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams met to work on a joint declaration ahead of a US-sponsored Middle Peace parley scheduled to take place in November, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday raised questions about Israel's control of Arab neighborhoods in east Jerusalem. This was the first time he has openly signaled readiness to share control of the city with the Palestinians.
In a speech dedicated to the memory of Rehavam Ze'evi, a prominent right-wing parliamentarian who was murdered by Palestinian terrorists, Olmert noted that Israel has built a series of thriving Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem, but signaled that Israel's control of Arab areas was unnecessary.
"Was it necessary to also join the Shuafat refugee camp, Sawakra, Walaje and other villages and define them as part of Jerusalem?" he asked. "With that, I must confess it is possible to ask legitimate questions."
Earlier, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday that US President George W. Bush has decided to make ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "one of the highest priorities of his administration."
An international peace conference expected to take place in Annapolis, Maryland, in the fall has to be serious and substantive, Rice said at a press conference with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
"We frankly have better things to do than invite people to Annapolis for a photo op," she said.
Israelis and Palestinians, Rice observed, are making their "most serious effort" in years to resolve the conflict.
"Frankly, it's time for the establishment of a Palestinian state," she added.
Abbas said he hoped the Annapolis parley would launch peace talks with a deadline for completion, and also said he has asked for US help in halting Israeli settlement expansion and construction of Israel's security barrier.
Abbas expressed confidence that Israelis and Palestinians could reach a joint declaration of principles ahead of the conference.
"No doubt that before we go to Washington [the conference], the document will be ready," he said. "The negotiations should not be open-ended, but subject to a certain time period."
In a speech dedicated to the memory of Rehavam Ze'evi, a prominent right-wing parliamentarian who was murdered by Palestinian terrorists, Olmert noted that Israel has built a series of thriving Jewish neighborhoods in east Jerusalem, but signaled that Israel's control of Arab areas was unnecessary.
"Was it necessary to also join the Shuafat refugee camp, Sawakra, Walaje and other villages and define them as part of Jerusalem?" he asked. "With that, I must confess it is possible to ask legitimate questions."
Earlier, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday that US President George W. Bush has decided to make ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict "one of the highest priorities of his administration."
An international peace conference expected to take place in Annapolis, Maryland, in the fall has to be serious and substantive, Rice said at a press conference with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
"We frankly have better things to do than invite people to Annapolis for a photo op," she said.
Israelis and Palestinians, Rice observed, are making their "most serious effort" in years to resolve the conflict.
"Frankly, it's time for the establishment of a Palestinian state," she added.
Abbas said he hoped the Annapolis parley would launch peace talks with a deadline for completion, and also said he has asked for US help in halting Israeli settlement expansion and construction of Israel's security barrier.
Abbas expressed confidence that Israelis and Palestinians could reach a joint declaration of principles ahead of the conference.
"No doubt that before we go to Washington [the conference], the document will be ready," he said. "The negotiations should not be open-ended, but subject to a certain time period."
Monday, October 15, 2007
The 'Two Jerusalems' Myth
Eli E. Hertz
Part 1
Palestinians have nurtured a myth that historically there were two Jerusalems - an Arab 'East Jerusalem' and a Jewish 'West Jerusalem.'
Jerusalem was never an Arab city; Jews have held a majority in Jerusalem since 1870, and 'east-west' is a geographic, not political designation. It is no different than claiming Annapolis, the capital of Maryland, should be a separate political entity from the rest of that state.
In 1880, Jews constituted 52 percent of the Old City population in 'East Jerusalem' and were still inhabiting 42 percent of the Old City in 1914. In 1948, there were 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem, with 60,000 Arabs. A joint Jordanian-Israeli census reported that 67.7 percent of the city's population in 1961 was Jewish. A 1967 aerial photo reveals the truth about the area called 'East Jerusalem': it was no more than an overcrowded walled city with a few scattered neighborhoods surrounded by villages. Prior to unification, Jordanian-controlled 'East Jerusalem' was a mere 6 square kilometers, compared to 38 square kilometers on the Jewish side.
Although uniting the city transformed all of Jerusalem into the largest city in Israel and a bustling metropolis, even moderate Palestinian leaders reject the idea of a united city. Their minimal demand for 'just East Jerusalem' really means the Jewish holy sites (including the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall), which Arabs have failed to protect, and the return of neighborhoods that house a significant percentage of Jerusalem's present-day Jewish population. Most of that city is built on rock-strewn empty land around the city that was in the public domain for the past 40 years. With an overall population of 730,000 today, separating 'East Jerusalem' and 'West Jerusalem' is as viable and acceptable as the notion of splitting Berlin into two cities again, or separating East Harlem from the rest of Manhattan.
Part 1
Palestinians have nurtured a myth that historically there were two Jerusalems - an Arab 'East Jerusalem' and a Jewish 'West Jerusalem.'
Jerusalem was never an Arab city; Jews have held a majority in Jerusalem since 1870, and 'east-west' is a geographic, not political designation. It is no different than claiming Annapolis, the capital of Maryland, should be a separate political entity from the rest of that state.
In 1880, Jews constituted 52 percent of the Old City population in 'East Jerusalem' and were still inhabiting 42 percent of the Old City in 1914. In 1948, there were 100,000 Jews in Jerusalem, with 60,000 Arabs. A joint Jordanian-Israeli census reported that 67.7 percent of the city's population in 1961 was Jewish. A 1967 aerial photo reveals the truth about the area called 'East Jerusalem': it was no more than an overcrowded walled city with a few scattered neighborhoods surrounded by villages. Prior to unification, Jordanian-controlled 'East Jerusalem' was a mere 6 square kilometers, compared to 38 square kilometers on the Jewish side.
Although uniting the city transformed all of Jerusalem into the largest city in Israel and a bustling metropolis, even moderate Palestinian leaders reject the idea of a united city. Their minimal demand for 'just East Jerusalem' really means the Jewish holy sites (including the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall), which Arabs have failed to protect, and the return of neighborhoods that house a significant percentage of Jerusalem's present-day Jewish population. Most of that city is built on rock-strewn empty land around the city that was in the public domain for the past 40 years. With an overall population of 730,000 today, separating 'East Jerusalem' and 'West Jerusalem' is as viable and acceptable as the notion of splitting Berlin into two cities again, or separating East Harlem from the rest of Manhattan.
Labor Sources New Elections After Release of Winograd Report
Labor Party chairman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak is determined to remove his party from the coalition and topple the government, even if the Winograd Report includes no personal recommendations.
Though it is widely believed that Labor is anxious to remain in the government for as long as possible, Barak will not reverse his public promise to quit the coalition after the release of the final findings of the Winograd Report. So reports the daily Israel Today (Yisrael HaYom), based on unnamed leading Labor party members.
The Winograd Commission was appointed by the Olmert government a year ago to investigate the government's handling of the Second Lebanon War. Its interim report sharply criticized Prime Minister Olmert, then-Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz. The latter two have already left their posts, while Olmert remains.
It was recently reported that the Winograd Commission might not make negative recommendations regarding specific personages, prompting speculation that Labor would no longer have a justification to quit the government. In light of the reports, the Winograd Commission has announced that it will make a final decision in the coming days as to whether or not to issue personal recommendations.
However, Labor ministers Ben-Eliezer, Herzog and Simchon have expressed the hope that Barak will reconsider quitting the government. "Barak never promised to quit simply based on the date of the publication of the Winograd Commission," Herzog said.
Wrong, according to the Israel Today report. The Labor party sources say that Barak "always related to the date of the Winograd Report as the beginning of the process, and he never made it contingent upon how sharp or critical the report might be - unless of course it says that Olmert made no mistakes at all, which is quite unlikely."
A poll taken last week by the Dialog Institute shows that new elections would bring the Likud 28 seats, more than double its representation today, while Olmert's Kadima would plunge from 29 to 13.
MK Ophir Pines of Labor, who resigned his Cabinet position this past February when the more right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party entered the coalition - and demanded that the rest of Labor quit along with him - was the original author of the call for Labor's departure from the government. "If the Prime Minister does not resign before the publication of the final Winograd report," says the Pines-authored resolution later approved by the Labor Party Central Committee, "Labor will end its partnership with his government and will work to either establish a new government or to hold new elections."
Though it is widely believed that Labor is anxious to remain in the government for as long as possible, Barak will not reverse his public promise to quit the coalition after the release of the final findings of the Winograd Report. So reports the daily Israel Today (Yisrael HaYom), based on unnamed leading Labor party members.
The Winograd Commission was appointed by the Olmert government a year ago to investigate the government's handling of the Second Lebanon War. Its interim report sharply criticized Prime Minister Olmert, then-Defense Minister Amir Peretz, and IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Dan Halutz. The latter two have already left their posts, while Olmert remains.
It was recently reported that the Winograd Commission might not make negative recommendations regarding specific personages, prompting speculation that Labor would no longer have a justification to quit the government. In light of the reports, the Winograd Commission has announced that it will make a final decision in the coming days as to whether or not to issue personal recommendations.
However, Labor ministers Ben-Eliezer, Herzog and Simchon have expressed the hope that Barak will reconsider quitting the government. "Barak never promised to quit simply based on the date of the publication of the Winograd Commission," Herzog said.
Wrong, according to the Israel Today report. The Labor party sources say that Barak "always related to the date of the Winograd Report as the beginning of the process, and he never made it contingent upon how sharp or critical the report might be - unless of course it says that Olmert made no mistakes at all, which is quite unlikely."
A poll taken last week by the Dialog Institute shows that new elections would bring the Likud 28 seats, more than double its representation today, while Olmert's Kadima would plunge from 29 to 13.
MK Ophir Pines of Labor, who resigned his Cabinet position this past February when the more right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party entered the coalition - and demanded that the rest of Labor quit along with him - was the original author of the call for Labor's departure from the government. "If the Prime Minister does not resign before the publication of the final Winograd report," says the Pines-authored resolution later approved by the Labor Party Central Committee, "Labor will end its partnership with his government and will work to either establish a new government or to hold new elections."
Sample letter to the editor
The following is a very good example of a letter that responds to media gone astray-FOX News Show Dear Alan,
I am a regular viewer of Hannity and Colmes and try to keep an open mind as I see each program although my thinking is more in line with Sean's than with yours. After seeing your show with Steve Emerson as guest I am compelled to write to you.
I am involved with a group that monitors the news and terrorism. Several of those that practice such violence today proudly incorporate the word 'Islam' in their identities; they want to be recognized as believers
who are conducting terrorism in the name of their religion. Suicide bombers invoke the name of Allah as they
destroy themselves and others, inflicting as much damage as possible to human life. They consider it the achievement of martyrdom to do this; I have heard it myself directly from Muslims.
Just to name a few: Ansar al-Islam (Iraq, Kurdistan), Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Egypt), Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (Uzbekistan), Islamic Jihad Group (Syria, Iran), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Palestine).
Then there are other groups that have different names but the same goals. Just to name a few:
Hezbollah (Lebanon, Iran), HAMAS (Palestine), Abu Sayyef (Philippines), and al Qaida which is worldwide
and has senior leaders in other terrorist organizations. The goal of al Qaida is the overthrow of governments and the establishment of a world caliphate.
Alan, your insistence that the word 'Islamofascism' not be used is an attempt to whitewash the danger of which we must all be aware. Radical Islam is the enemy and terrorism is its weapon. This does not refer to moderate Muslims but to those fundamentalists who have declared war on Western civilization using their religion as the basis for their jihadism. So determined are they to destroy our way of life that they train their young to participate in terrorist activities and celebrate their martyrdom.
I hope that you will open your mind to other opinions, Alan, and be able to admit that someone else may have a valid point.
I am a regular viewer of Hannity and Colmes and try to keep an open mind as I see each program although my thinking is more in line with Sean's than with yours. After seeing your show with Steve Emerson as guest I am compelled to write to you.
I am involved with a group that monitors the news and terrorism. Several of those that practice such violence today proudly incorporate the word 'Islam' in their identities; they want to be recognized as believers
who are conducting terrorism in the name of their religion. Suicide bombers invoke the name of Allah as they
destroy themselves and others, inflicting as much damage as possible to human life. They consider it the achievement of martyrdom to do this; I have heard it myself directly from Muslims.
Just to name a few: Ansar al-Islam (Iraq, Kurdistan), Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Egypt), Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (Uzbekistan), Islamic Jihad Group (Syria, Iran), Palestinian Islamic Jihad (Palestine).
Then there are other groups that have different names but the same goals. Just to name a few:
Hezbollah (Lebanon, Iran), HAMAS (Palestine), Abu Sayyef (Philippines), and al Qaida which is worldwide
and has senior leaders in other terrorist organizations. The goal of al Qaida is the overthrow of governments and the establishment of a world caliphate.
Alan, your insistence that the word 'Islamofascism' not be used is an attempt to whitewash the danger of which we must all be aware. Radical Islam is the enemy and terrorism is its weapon. This does not refer to moderate Muslims but to those fundamentalists who have declared war on Western civilization using their religion as the basis for their jihadism. So determined are they to destroy our way of life that they train their young to participate in terrorist activities and celebrate their martyrdom.
I hope that you will open your mind to other opinions, Alan, and be able to admit that someone else may have a valid point.
CAIR Director Caught in a Blatant Lie
On September 10, 2003, in written testimony given to the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology, and Homeland Security, CAIR executive director Nihad Awad denied ever receiving money from the Hamas-linked Holy Land Foundation, and accused terrorism expert Steven Emerson of lying: "This is an outright lie," Awad said. "Our organization did not receive any seed money from HLFRD. CAIR raises its own funds and we challenge Mr. Emerson to provide even a shred of evidence to support his ridiculous claim ."
One shred of evidence, coming up.
As for the memo that reads "CBS," here's a possible reason for that: a month later Nihad Awad was interviewed on CBS' 60 Minutes:
November 13, 1994: During an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes, Nihad Awad was asked about anti-Semitic materials distributed by the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) with which he was associated and about Hamas:
WALLACE: (Voiceover) We asked him about the IAP pamphlets denigrating Jews.
Mr. AWAD: I asked them to remove that from the shelf, and I asked them to clean all these things because it does only damage to the organization and to the cause of the Palestinians – and to the Muslims in general.
WALLACE: What do you think of the military undertakings of Hamas?
Mr. AWAD: Well, I think that's—that's for people to judge there.
WALLACE: I'm asking you.
Mr. AWAD: The United Nations Charter grants people who are under occupation to defend themselves against illegal occupation.
One shred of evidence, coming up.
As for the memo that reads "CBS," here's a possible reason for that: a month later Nihad Awad was interviewed on CBS' 60 Minutes:
November 13, 1994: During an interview with CBS's 60 Minutes, Nihad Awad was asked about anti-Semitic materials distributed by the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP) with which he was associated and about Hamas:
WALLACE: (Voiceover) We asked him about the IAP pamphlets denigrating Jews.
Mr. AWAD: I asked them to remove that from the shelf, and I asked them to clean all these things because it does only damage to the organization and to the cause of the Palestinians – and to the Muslims in general.
WALLACE: What do you think of the military undertakings of Hamas?
Mr. AWAD: Well, I think that's—that's for people to judge there.
WALLACE: I'm asking you.
Mr. AWAD: The United Nations Charter grants people who are under occupation to defend themselves against illegal occupation.
Human rights organisation condemns PA security refusal to implement court ruling
RAMALLAH, (PIC)-- The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) has warned of the repercussions of the refusal by the PA security to implement a court decision and release one of it detainees. The centre said in a statement that the refusal of the PA security in al-Khalil governorate to release Muhammad Abu Arqoub (42 years) despite a court decision stipulating his release on bail despite payment of the prescribed surety.
Feryal Abu Arqoub, wife of the detainee told PCHR researcher that here husband was, who is a teacher at a school in Dura, was arrested by the PA preventive security while on his way to work on 4 October.
On 7 October Mr. Abu Arqoub appeared in a magistrate court in Dura where he was accused of assaulting the security elements who arrested him without providing any evidence or witnesses. The judge ruled that he should be released on bail on payment of a 500 Dinar surety.
PCHR says that despite the court ruling and the payment of the surety the PA security still refuse to release Mr. Abu Arqoub.
The PA security stopped Awad Rojoub, al-Jazeera net correspondent, from photographing the site of the incident.
Rojoub told the PCHR researcher that students of Abu Arqoub threw stones at the PA security when they witnessed the arrest of their teacher which took place just outside the school.
He also told the PCHR that when he went with his friend Khale Amayreh to photograph the site of the incident they were stopped by PA security men and told that they need a permission to do that. They tried to get that permission but their applications were rejected.
The PCHR called for the immediate release of Abu Arqoub and for facilitating the work of journalists and protecting them.
Feryal Abu Arqoub, wife of the detainee told PCHR researcher that here husband was, who is a teacher at a school in Dura, was arrested by the PA preventive security while on his way to work on 4 October.
On 7 October Mr. Abu Arqoub appeared in a magistrate court in Dura where he was accused of assaulting the security elements who arrested him without providing any evidence or witnesses. The judge ruled that he should be released on bail on payment of a 500 Dinar surety.
PCHR says that despite the court ruling and the payment of the surety the PA security still refuse to release Mr. Abu Arqoub.
The PA security stopped Awad Rojoub, al-Jazeera net correspondent, from photographing the site of the incident.
Rojoub told the PCHR researcher that students of Abu Arqoub threw stones at the PA security when they witnessed the arrest of their teacher which took place just outside the school.
He also told the PCHR that when he went with his friend Khale Amayreh to photograph the site of the incident they were stopped by PA security men and told that they need a permission to do that. They tried to get that permission but their applications were rejected.
The PCHR called for the immediate release of Abu Arqoub and for facilitating the work of journalists and protecting them.
Mishaal: Our hand is extended for dialogue, not out of fear
GAZA, (PIC)-- The head of the political bureau of Hamas Khaled Mishaal stressed his movement keenness on inter-Palestinian dialogue confirming that efforts had not stopped since last June. He said that Palestinian and Arab efforts to bring Hamas and Fatah together have failed because "the other party [Fatah] seems to be pleased with the state of division and puts difficult conditions [for dialogue to take place]."
Mishaal stressed in a telephone statement to the Aqsa Radio on the occasion of Eid that "While Hamas is keen on dialogue it does not beg for it. Hamas extends its hand for dialogue with confidence and not out of fear."
He also said that he did not expect anything to happen in this regard before the autumn conference, not because his movement does not want dialogue to take place but because "some are pinning their hopes on this conference," adding that "those who are closing [the doors in the face of ] dialogue today will discover the illusion they are harrowing towards and who ever wants to besiege the Gaza Strip and starve its population will lose the bet."
He also stated that whoever wants to read the events since last June will fail to get a clear picture as the events of that month were the bitter fruits of continuous scheming for a year and a half in an attempt to foil the results of the elections with American and Israeli support.
Mishaal stressed in a telephone statement to the Aqsa Radio on the occasion of Eid that "While Hamas is keen on dialogue it does not beg for it. Hamas extends its hand for dialogue with confidence and not out of fear."
He also said that he did not expect anything to happen in this regard before the autumn conference, not because his movement does not want dialogue to take place but because "some are pinning their hopes on this conference," adding that "those who are closing [the doors in the face of ] dialogue today will discover the illusion they are harrowing towards and who ever wants to besiege the Gaza Strip and starve its population will lose the bet."
He also stated that whoever wants to read the events since last June will fail to get a clear picture as the events of that month were the bitter fruits of continuous scheming for a year and a half in an attempt to foil the results of the elections with American and Israeli support.
Olmert faces 2 more police probes
Two new criminal investigations opened against prime minister over alleged acts of misconduct during his tenure as labor minister, in addition to ongoing investigations in Bank Leumi, Cremieux affairs Attorney General Menachem Mazuz on Sunday ordered police to launch two separate criminal investigations against Prime Minster Ehud Olmert to determine possible illegalities in the investment
center case and illicit appointments in the Small and Medium Enterprises Authority.
Olmert is accused of appointing several unqualified Likud Central Committee members to key positions in various businesses for politically motivated reasons during his tenure as minister of industry, trade and labor.
Olmert has already been investigated twice for allegations of impropriety in the privatization of Bank Leumi. He is also under investigation for his involvement in an alleged real estate scam in Jerusalem.
Olmert's associates responded to the attorney general's decision, saying that "these investigations are unnecessary.
"It is clear beyond any doubt that these investigations will end with nothing, and today's decision will lead to that in practice," the Prime Minister's Office added.
Olmert: Accusers 'seeking headlines'
In April 2007 State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss issued a scathing report regarding Olmert's alleged conflict of interests in the investment center case. In his report Lindenstrauss asserted that Olmert had operated to promote the private interests of Uri Messer, a personal friend to Olmert as well as his former business partner.
Olmert's office categorically rejected the comptroller's conclusions and called Lindenstrauss a man interested solely in seizing headlines.
"The conduct of the comptroller in this matter, as it has been in other critical reports, has once again unfortunately broken all records of unprofessional behavior and bias," the prime minister's office said at the time.
Dichter: Police will conduct proper investigation
Most government ministers remained silent following the attorney general's decisions. Those who agreed to comment settled for neutral remarks.
Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter said, "I trust the police to do their job and to operate only according to the attorney general's instructions."
Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said that he trusted "the law enforcement institutions."
Minister for Pensioner Affairs Rafi Eitan was the only one who agreed to address the question whether Olmert can continue to serve as prime minister, saying that "he definitely must not suspend himself."
Knesset Member Yoel Hasson (Kadima), the acting coalition chairman, said, "I hope all the investigations into the prime minister's affairs will be completed quickly. After all, we have a country to run here and we would all benefit from a swift process with clear conclusions."
Meital Zur, Amnon Meranda, Eyal Gutman and Attila Somfalvi contributed to this report
center case and illicit appointments in the Small and Medium Enterprises Authority.
Olmert is accused of appointing several unqualified Likud Central Committee members to key positions in various businesses for politically motivated reasons during his tenure as minister of industry, trade and labor.
Olmert has already been investigated twice for allegations of impropriety in the privatization of Bank Leumi. He is also under investigation for his involvement in an alleged real estate scam in Jerusalem.
Olmert's associates responded to the attorney general's decision, saying that "these investigations are unnecessary.
"It is clear beyond any doubt that these investigations will end with nothing, and today's decision will lead to that in practice," the Prime Minister's Office added.
Olmert: Accusers 'seeking headlines'
In April 2007 State Comptroller Micha Lindenstrauss issued a scathing report regarding Olmert's alleged conflict of interests in the investment center case. In his report Lindenstrauss asserted that Olmert had operated to promote the private interests of Uri Messer, a personal friend to Olmert as well as his former business partner.
Olmert's office categorically rejected the comptroller's conclusions and called Lindenstrauss a man interested solely in seizing headlines.
"The conduct of the comptroller in this matter, as it has been in other critical reports, has once again unfortunately broken all records of unprofessional behavior and bias," the prime minister's office said at the time.
Dichter: Police will conduct proper investigation
Most government ministers remained silent following the attorney general's decisions. Those who agreed to comment settled for neutral remarks.
Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter said, "I trust the police to do their job and to operate only according to the attorney general's instructions."
Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said that he trusted "the law enforcement institutions."
Minister for Pensioner Affairs Rafi Eitan was the only one who agreed to address the question whether Olmert can continue to serve as prime minister, saying that "he definitely must not suspend himself."
Knesset Member Yoel Hasson (Kadima), the acting coalition chairman, said, "I hope all the investigations into the prime minister's affairs will be completed quickly. After all, we have a country to run here and we would all benefit from a swift process with clear conclusions."
Meital Zur, Amnon Meranda, Eyal Gutman and Attila Somfalvi contributed to this report
Sunday, October 14, 2007
One Treadmill, Two Refugees, One College.
14 October 2007
Daniel Gordis
We start with two stories.
The first story, eight years ago: We’d just moved into our apartment in Jerusalem. After almost two years of living in three different rentals, we were more than anxious to settle down, to have our own furniture once again, to unpack our books, and to make a “real” home. We also wanted a treadmill, which we’d put off buying as long as we kept moving around.
So shortly after we moved in, I went out to “MegaSport” (Eliezer Ben-Yehudah must be spinning in his grave) with a very close friend, Levi, who’d already been here for years. Having narrowed matters down to a few choices, I called my wife on my cell and asked her which one she wanted. We chatted for a few minutes and made a decision. I paid, arranged for delivery, and we went back to the car. As he was backing out of his space, Levi turned to me and said, “You know, when I moved here, I certainly didn’t call my wife on my cell to ask her what model treadmill I should buy.”
I’ve no doubt that by the time we exited the parking lot, Levi had already forgotten that comment. But I never have. I can still picture our location, what the storefront window looked like through the windshield. The image is frozen in my mind. Because though Levi may or may not have meant it, what I understood him to be saying was that we’d gotten here too late. “You’ve moved to a ready-made country,” he essentially said. “ATM’s. Cell phones. A decent opera company. Museums and string quartets. Six universities. A good job in a stable economy. But you came too late to actually build something. You’re too old for the army. The Hula swamps have been drained. Other people did all that, and now, you arrive.”
OK. Maybe he didn’t exactly mean that, but that’s how it felt. True, he didn’t sing that old Zionist ditty Anu Ba’nu Artza, “We came to the land, to build it and to be built in it,” but he might as well have. His point was clear. What’s the point of living here if you don’t actually build something?
So I’ve often wondered, “Did we really come too late to build something, to make a real contribution to what this country can become?” I’ve tried to assuage my discomfort by telling myself that raising decent, thoughtful and committed kids here is its own kind of contribution. Or that my place of work was doing very important things for Israeli leadership. But still, that comment in the parking lot about cell phones and treadmills has never quite stopped nagging at me.
The second story, this past summer: Together with my son, Avi, and a friend visiting from Los Angeles, I drive up north to visit two Sudanese refugees recently released from Israeli jail, just as the Darfur story is starting to become headline news here. By the time we make it to the moshav where they’re living, working as day laborers on a farm, it’s getting a bit dark. We sit outside the converted shipping container in which they’re living (it’s only a metal shipping container, but I notice that it has an air conditioner and a satellite dish on the “roof”), and they begin to tell us their story.
One, whose English is a bit better (and whom we’ll call Ibrahim for our purposes), does most of the talking. He’d had four-hundred head of cattle in Sudan, which I assume made him a wealthy man. He’d also been a teacher, and had a library of some consequence in his home. He didn’t tell his story in anything resembling a chronological account, but we cobbled it together. He was one of eleven siblings, from a respected family. But his wealth and his position did him no good. The Junjaweed attacked his village, killing most of his siblings, forcing him to flee into the wilds with his father. His father eventually died, and he himself was later captured.
His captors, he told us, would burn one or two of the captives alive each night in front of the others, allegedly to get them to reveal “information.” On the eve of the night when he was to be burned alive, his captors ran out of wood. So the captives, under the watchful eyes of their armed guards, were dispatched into the thickets to bring back more wood. Ibrahim knew what would happen if he returned to camp. So he and another man, working in the shoulder-high brush, plotted their escape. The details are complex, but suffice it to say that they evaded their captors, and walked for three days with leg chains until they could find someone to help them saw the chains off.
Eventually, “Ibrahim” made his way to Egypt. There, he met and married another Darfur refugee. A few months later, she was pregnant, and they applied for refugee status from the United Nations. In December 2005, though, they attended a large rally outside the UN headquarters in Cairo, pressing the UN to process them more quickly. But the Egyptian army broke up the demonstration using water canons with ice cold water (in December). In the confusion, Ibrahim was separated from his wife, and as he was pushed onto a bus, he saw her being shoved into a police car.
After several days in an Egyptian prison cell with sixty other inmates (the space was only large enough for thirty to sleep at any one time, so thirty would sleep on the cement floor for a few hours, while the rest stood and then they would switch), Ibrahim was released from prison, and went looking for his wife. At first, there was no sign of her. Eventually, after searching all over the city, he found her name on a list of the dead, affixed to a Church door.
Now, Ibrahim could barely speak. Neither could we, of course. For it was a story we’d heard before, only before, it had been about us. Families, secure and respected, suddenly torn asunder and murdered. Husbands separated from wives. Cruelty that defies description. Entire communities scattered and murdered.
Ibrahim continued. “I knew I must go to Israel. I have read in the Bible that the Jews are good to strangers. Israel will take care of me, I know.”
He paused, and suddenly, I was unable to look at my son I wished that I hadn’t brought him. Because I knew what was coming. Ibrahim was going to tell us that the Bible says that the Jews are good to strangers, but look what we actually do. We throw them in jail, don’t we? I found myself gripping the arms of the plastic chair on which I was sitting, listening to Ibrahim, but staring straight into the ground.
He described how he and another refugee (the quiet man now sitting next to him) had slowly made their way across the Sinai desert, without flashlights or candles. In the day they would sleep and stay still so as not to be detected, and at night they would inch their way forward, trying not to head too far west (and end up in Gaza) or too far east and thus (in their understanding of the geography) end up in Jordan. Eventually, after weeks of wandering at night, they came to a barbed wire fence. They knew it was a border, but they weren’t sure which border it was. They crawled through it with no trouble, he said, and stood up, surveying the new country in which they’d arrived.
Within seconds, Ibrahim told us, army jeeps streamed towards them, spotlights flooding the area with glaring white. Soldiers jumped out, their guns at the ready. It must have been terrifying, I imagined. But Ibrahim said, calmly, pointing at the spot on his shirt above his breast pocket, “I see on the soldiers writing I do not recognize. And I know this is Israel. I know I am OK.”
I almost laughed. He sees Hebrew, so he thinks he’s safe. But I knew that Ibrahim had been arrested, and I just knew that there was going to be a nasty story about these soldiers. I glanced at Avi, and his eye caught mine. Just having graduated high school, he’s not far from getting drafted himself, and I felt for him. They were going to tell us about the army he’s soon to join, and it wasn’t going to be pretty.
Ibrahim continued. The soldiers, having no idea what to do with these men (this was before the flood of refugees began), put them in their jeep, and took them to base. There, they told Ibrahim and his friend, “We’ll figure this out in the morning.” In the meantime, they gave them dinner, made them some beds, and let them go to sleep.
Now, that wasn’t what I’d expected to hear.
The rest of the story is complicated. Because he’d entered the country illegally (and as a Sudanese citizen, he’s a citizen of a country formally at war with Israel), Ibrahim was eventually arrested. When our friend from Los Angles asked him how it was in Israeli prison, he smiled and said, “Yes, very good.” “No,” our friend said, assuming he hadn’t understood the question. “In prison. How was it in prison?” “Yes,” Ibrahim insisted. “Good. They give us food. The guards are kind.” At last, I allowed myself a brief glance at Avi.
Eventually, a judge let him out of prison, and he was permitted to work on this moshav, which had taken in a number of refugees. In a few weeks, he told us, there would be no limits on his freedom. He would head to Tel Aviv, he said, to try to find a job, and to start his life anew.
“Do you think you’ll be allowed to stay in Israel?” my friend asked him. Ibrahim’s smile disappeared. “I must,” he said. “This is wonderful country. People here are very kind. I rather die in Israel than go back to Egypt or Sudan. They will kill me there.” He’s seen them do it, we should recall.
We took some pictures, exchanged cell phone numbers. Ibrahim had forgotten my son’s name, and asked him what it was. “Avi,” Avi said. Ibrahim looked at his friend, and they smiled. He turned to us and said, “Avi was the name of a guard in prison. He was very nice man.”
Driving home along the coast, we talked about what we’d heard. How do some Israelis not see that we simply have to let the Darfur refugees in? Does the story about crossing the desert from Egypt to a promised land not speak to us any longer? Why don’t we get the UN to beef up its forces at the border with experts who can tell the real refugees from genocide from those simply seeking a better life (the latter being probably too numerous for Israel to accommodate)? Why doesn’t the Foreign Ministry get stories like this into the press, instead of succumbing to using absurdly scantily-clad women to allegedly improve Israel’s image abroad?
But something else was bothering me. It wasn’t the government’s pathetic non-policy regarding these refugees, or even the Foreign Ministry’s desperation. It was me. Why had I been so certain that Ibrahim was going to tell us how misanthropic Israelis were, how abusive the soldiers had been? Why did I assume the soldiers had done something wrong, when in fact, they’d been extraordinarily kind? Why was I so positive that here, too, Israel had failed? The Israel that Ibrahim knows is a kind, decent place. If he was so certain, why was I so unsure?
Cynicism is a dangerous disease, a cancer of the soul. Often, we don’t know we have it, until it’s too late, until part of us has died. It’s also contagious. And this country has stage-three cynicism. By cynicism, I don’t mean the occasional snide joke at a cocktail party. I mean a low-grade but constant self-loathing among many of the people I know at the elite of Israel’s intellectual and academic circles, for whom discussion of the Jewish State is more than passé it’s absurd. If you say something about the values inherent in Zionism, you sound odd. If you insist that the Jews have something unique to say and that having a State is our platform on which we can begin to articulate that “something,” they look at you as if you’re “cute.” As if you’d referred to a young dating couple as “courting,” or as if you’d just called a pair of jeans “dungarees.” You’re an anachronism, and no one “in the know” will take you, or your ideas, very seriously.
This self-loathing manifests itself in a relentless discussion of the occupation, with no reference to why the occupation began or to the fact that Israel doesn’t exactly have many sane choices that might end it. You see it when people insist Israel should “just sign a peace agreement already,” with no consideration of what’s unfolding in Gaza, in complete denial of the obvious fact that there’s no way that Abu Mazen can deliver on anything he promises before or during Annapolis. It’s the culture in which post-nationalism is taken as an obvious truth, with no recognition of the fact that it’s only when discussing the state of the Jews that people insist that the nation-state should be dismantled. It’s the conversational style in which every mention of an Israeli soldier has to be followed by an account of some act of barbarity, lest you appear overly nationalistic.
You see it here, too: in the past few years, more than one colleague has told me, with a wink and a smile, about his/her able-bodied son who figured out a way out of military service. “It’s not for him,” they say. He wants to work on his music, his art, his athletic prowess. Because it’s not as if defending the first homeland that the Jews have had in two thousand years is actually a value, is it? But the saxophone? Now, there’s a value.
They’ve gotten to me, I realized as we turned inland from the Mediterranean and started the long climb up to Jerusalem. That night, listening to Ibrahim, I just knew that we’d wronged him –even when we hadn’t. Of course I was appalled by those draft-evasion stories, and yes, I knew which friends and colleagues to avoid after a bombing so I could spare myself the comments about how “the evils of the occupation” justify blowing women and children to smithereens in a café. But other than avoiding those people, I asked myself, what was I doing about it? Nothing.
In the quiet of the car, I wondered about this country, and how you cure a society that no longer engages in any serious discourse about why its existence matters. And I thought about that treadmill, and about Levi’s question – “Isn’t building something the reason you’re here?”
And then, unbelievably, the phone rang (more truthfully, an e-mail made its way into my inbox). It was the Shalem Center (www.shalem.org.il), a Jerusalem-based research and education institute that engages in research, education, and publications on Jewish moral and political thought, Zionist history and ideas, democratic theory and practice, strategic studies, and more. “How about coming over for a visit?” they suggested. Having read their journals and books with great admiration for years, I hastened to accept. (To get the Shalem Center’s e-Newsletter, go to http://www.shalem.org.il/about/?did=47.)
One conversation led to another, and relatively quickly, I was shown one of the most exciting documents I’d read in a long time: a proposal for a College. A four-year liberal-arts college (a model which does not yet exist in Israel), with a core curriculum that will include history, philosophy, the philosophy of science, Greek thought, Jewish thought, Jewish history, Zionist history and thought, religion and morality, and more. “It’s pretty amazing,” I told them. “It could change the country.” “So how about coming on board and helping us build it?” they proposed.
As I’d done with the treadmill, I asked my wife what to do. “What, I should just drop everything out of the blue, and leave a great job at a superb foundation, with fabulous people who’ve become good friends, walk away from it all? Who in their right mind would do such a thing?” I asked her. “You would,” she said. “You should. What are you even wondering about? Remember when you used to say that the main thing you regretted about leaving America was that our kids wouldn’t get the kind of liberal arts education that we did? What if this project could change that?”
“What if,” indeed. What if we could produce generations of university students who didn’t succumb to cynicism, who did believe that the Jews’ greatest contribution to the world has been in the realm of ideas, and who wanted to study and discuss those ideas? What if we could produce students who were profoundly prepared to be citizens of the Jewish State, of the Jewish people, and of the world, who could speak intelligently about nations and states, and political philosophy, and religion and morality, and who eventually rose to become Israel’s political leadership, its great jurists, academics and social entrepreneurs? Could that possibly be less of a contribution than the work of previous generations?
I don’t know what most parents do in situations like this, but we included our kids in our musings about what to do. They’re old enough, I thought, to learn about how you think about these sorts of decisions. We talked about careers and salaries, job security and the ongoing need for challenges. And most importantly, we talked, again, about why we’d moved here in the first place.
There’s an important anniversary coming up here in a few months. And I thought that this would be a good opportunity to remind them that even though, at their age, sixty years might seem like a long time, for a country that’s just a bare beginning. Which is a blessing, when you think about it. Because it means that even if the country appears to be already built, that’s just an illusion. In reality, everything’s still forming. And if you really believe in this place, I wanted them to understand, and you really believe that the future of the Jewish people depends on this still forming State, then some of life’s big decisions are actually relatively simple. You pick a project you believe can make a huge difference, perhaps even change everything. And then you just roll up your sleeves and get to work.
Isn’t that, after all, precisely why we’re here?
Daniel Gordis
We start with two stories.
The first story, eight years ago: We’d just moved into our apartment in Jerusalem. After almost two years of living in three different rentals, we were more than anxious to settle down, to have our own furniture once again, to unpack our books, and to make a “real” home. We also wanted a treadmill, which we’d put off buying as long as we kept moving around.
So shortly after we moved in, I went out to “MegaSport” (Eliezer Ben-Yehudah must be spinning in his grave) with a very close friend, Levi, who’d already been here for years. Having narrowed matters down to a few choices, I called my wife on my cell and asked her which one she wanted. We chatted for a few minutes and made a decision. I paid, arranged for delivery, and we went back to the car. As he was backing out of his space, Levi turned to me and said, “You know, when I moved here, I certainly didn’t call my wife on my cell to ask her what model treadmill I should buy.”
I’ve no doubt that by the time we exited the parking lot, Levi had already forgotten that comment. But I never have. I can still picture our location, what the storefront window looked like through the windshield. The image is frozen in my mind. Because though Levi may or may not have meant it, what I understood him to be saying was that we’d gotten here too late. “You’ve moved to a ready-made country,” he essentially said. “ATM’s. Cell phones. A decent opera company. Museums and string quartets. Six universities. A good job in a stable economy. But you came too late to actually build something. You’re too old for the army. The Hula swamps have been drained. Other people did all that, and now, you arrive.”
OK. Maybe he didn’t exactly mean that, but that’s how it felt. True, he didn’t sing that old Zionist ditty Anu Ba’nu Artza, “We came to the land, to build it and to be built in it,” but he might as well have. His point was clear. What’s the point of living here if you don’t actually build something?
So I’ve often wondered, “Did we really come too late to build something, to make a real contribution to what this country can become?” I’ve tried to assuage my discomfort by telling myself that raising decent, thoughtful and committed kids here is its own kind of contribution. Or that my place of work was doing very important things for Israeli leadership. But still, that comment in the parking lot about cell phones and treadmills has never quite stopped nagging at me.
The second story, this past summer: Together with my son, Avi, and a friend visiting from Los Angeles, I drive up north to visit two Sudanese refugees recently released from Israeli jail, just as the Darfur story is starting to become headline news here. By the time we make it to the moshav where they’re living, working as day laborers on a farm, it’s getting a bit dark. We sit outside the converted shipping container in which they’re living (it’s only a metal shipping container, but I notice that it has an air conditioner and a satellite dish on the “roof”), and they begin to tell us their story.
One, whose English is a bit better (and whom we’ll call Ibrahim for our purposes), does most of the talking. He’d had four-hundred head of cattle in Sudan, which I assume made him a wealthy man. He’d also been a teacher, and had a library of some consequence in his home. He didn’t tell his story in anything resembling a chronological account, but we cobbled it together. He was one of eleven siblings, from a respected family. But his wealth and his position did him no good. The Junjaweed attacked his village, killing most of his siblings, forcing him to flee into the wilds with his father. His father eventually died, and he himself was later captured.
His captors, he told us, would burn one or two of the captives alive each night in front of the others, allegedly to get them to reveal “information.” On the eve of the night when he was to be burned alive, his captors ran out of wood. So the captives, under the watchful eyes of their armed guards, were dispatched into the thickets to bring back more wood. Ibrahim knew what would happen if he returned to camp. So he and another man, working in the shoulder-high brush, plotted their escape. The details are complex, but suffice it to say that they evaded their captors, and walked for three days with leg chains until they could find someone to help them saw the chains off.
Eventually, “Ibrahim” made his way to Egypt. There, he met and married another Darfur refugee. A few months later, she was pregnant, and they applied for refugee status from the United Nations. In December 2005, though, they attended a large rally outside the UN headquarters in Cairo, pressing the UN to process them more quickly. But the Egyptian army broke up the demonstration using water canons with ice cold water (in December). In the confusion, Ibrahim was separated from his wife, and as he was pushed onto a bus, he saw her being shoved into a police car.
After several days in an Egyptian prison cell with sixty other inmates (the space was only large enough for thirty to sleep at any one time, so thirty would sleep on the cement floor for a few hours, while the rest stood and then they would switch), Ibrahim was released from prison, and went looking for his wife. At first, there was no sign of her. Eventually, after searching all over the city, he found her name on a list of the dead, affixed to a Church door.
Now, Ibrahim could barely speak. Neither could we, of course. For it was a story we’d heard before, only before, it had been about us. Families, secure and respected, suddenly torn asunder and murdered. Husbands separated from wives. Cruelty that defies description. Entire communities scattered and murdered.
Ibrahim continued. “I knew I must go to Israel. I have read in the Bible that the Jews are good to strangers. Israel will take care of me, I know.”
He paused, and suddenly, I was unable to look at my son I wished that I hadn’t brought him. Because I knew what was coming. Ibrahim was going to tell us that the Bible says that the Jews are good to strangers, but look what we actually do. We throw them in jail, don’t we? I found myself gripping the arms of the plastic chair on which I was sitting, listening to Ibrahim, but staring straight into the ground.
He described how he and another refugee (the quiet man now sitting next to him) had slowly made their way across the Sinai desert, without flashlights or candles. In the day they would sleep and stay still so as not to be detected, and at night they would inch their way forward, trying not to head too far west (and end up in Gaza) or too far east and thus (in their understanding of the geography) end up in Jordan. Eventually, after weeks of wandering at night, they came to a barbed wire fence. They knew it was a border, but they weren’t sure which border it was. They crawled through it with no trouble, he said, and stood up, surveying the new country in which they’d arrived.
Within seconds, Ibrahim told us, army jeeps streamed towards them, spotlights flooding the area with glaring white. Soldiers jumped out, their guns at the ready. It must have been terrifying, I imagined. But Ibrahim said, calmly, pointing at the spot on his shirt above his breast pocket, “I see on the soldiers writing I do not recognize. And I know this is Israel. I know I am OK.”
I almost laughed. He sees Hebrew, so he thinks he’s safe. But I knew that Ibrahim had been arrested, and I just knew that there was going to be a nasty story about these soldiers. I glanced at Avi, and his eye caught mine. Just having graduated high school, he’s not far from getting drafted himself, and I felt for him. They were going to tell us about the army he’s soon to join, and it wasn’t going to be pretty.
Ibrahim continued. The soldiers, having no idea what to do with these men (this was before the flood of refugees began), put them in their jeep, and took them to base. There, they told Ibrahim and his friend, “We’ll figure this out in the morning.” In the meantime, they gave them dinner, made them some beds, and let them go to sleep.
Now, that wasn’t what I’d expected to hear.
The rest of the story is complicated. Because he’d entered the country illegally (and as a Sudanese citizen, he’s a citizen of a country formally at war with Israel), Ibrahim was eventually arrested. When our friend from Los Angles asked him how it was in Israeli prison, he smiled and said, “Yes, very good.” “No,” our friend said, assuming he hadn’t understood the question. “In prison. How was it in prison?” “Yes,” Ibrahim insisted. “Good. They give us food. The guards are kind.” At last, I allowed myself a brief glance at Avi.
Eventually, a judge let him out of prison, and he was permitted to work on this moshav, which had taken in a number of refugees. In a few weeks, he told us, there would be no limits on his freedom. He would head to Tel Aviv, he said, to try to find a job, and to start his life anew.
“Do you think you’ll be allowed to stay in Israel?” my friend asked him. Ibrahim’s smile disappeared. “I must,” he said. “This is wonderful country. People here are very kind. I rather die in Israel than go back to Egypt or Sudan. They will kill me there.” He’s seen them do it, we should recall.
We took some pictures, exchanged cell phone numbers. Ibrahim had forgotten my son’s name, and asked him what it was. “Avi,” Avi said. Ibrahim looked at his friend, and they smiled. He turned to us and said, “Avi was the name of a guard in prison. He was very nice man.”
Driving home along the coast, we talked about what we’d heard. How do some Israelis not see that we simply have to let the Darfur refugees in? Does the story about crossing the desert from Egypt to a promised land not speak to us any longer? Why don’t we get the UN to beef up its forces at the border with experts who can tell the real refugees from genocide from those simply seeking a better life (the latter being probably too numerous for Israel to accommodate)? Why doesn’t the Foreign Ministry get stories like this into the press, instead of succumbing to using absurdly scantily-clad women to allegedly improve Israel’s image abroad?
But something else was bothering me. It wasn’t the government’s pathetic non-policy regarding these refugees, or even the Foreign Ministry’s desperation. It was me. Why had I been so certain that Ibrahim was going to tell us how misanthropic Israelis were, how abusive the soldiers had been? Why did I assume the soldiers had done something wrong, when in fact, they’d been extraordinarily kind? Why was I so positive that here, too, Israel had failed? The Israel that Ibrahim knows is a kind, decent place. If he was so certain, why was I so unsure?
Cynicism is a dangerous disease, a cancer of the soul. Often, we don’t know we have it, until it’s too late, until part of us has died. It’s also contagious. And this country has stage-three cynicism. By cynicism, I don’t mean the occasional snide joke at a cocktail party. I mean a low-grade but constant self-loathing among many of the people I know at the elite of Israel’s intellectual and academic circles, for whom discussion of the Jewish State is more than passé it’s absurd. If you say something about the values inherent in Zionism, you sound odd. If you insist that the Jews have something unique to say and that having a State is our platform on which we can begin to articulate that “something,” they look at you as if you’re “cute.” As if you’d referred to a young dating couple as “courting,” or as if you’d just called a pair of jeans “dungarees.” You’re an anachronism, and no one “in the know” will take you, or your ideas, very seriously.
This self-loathing manifests itself in a relentless discussion of the occupation, with no reference to why the occupation began or to the fact that Israel doesn’t exactly have many sane choices that might end it. You see it when people insist Israel should “just sign a peace agreement already,” with no consideration of what’s unfolding in Gaza, in complete denial of the obvious fact that there’s no way that Abu Mazen can deliver on anything he promises before or during Annapolis. It’s the culture in which post-nationalism is taken as an obvious truth, with no recognition of the fact that it’s only when discussing the state of the Jews that people insist that the nation-state should be dismantled. It’s the conversational style in which every mention of an Israeli soldier has to be followed by an account of some act of barbarity, lest you appear overly nationalistic.
You see it here, too: in the past few years, more than one colleague has told me, with a wink and a smile, about his/her able-bodied son who figured out a way out of military service. “It’s not for him,” they say. He wants to work on his music, his art, his athletic prowess. Because it’s not as if defending the first homeland that the Jews have had in two thousand years is actually a value, is it? But the saxophone? Now, there’s a value.
They’ve gotten to me, I realized as we turned inland from the Mediterranean and started the long climb up to Jerusalem. That night, listening to Ibrahim, I just knew that we’d wronged him –even when we hadn’t. Of course I was appalled by those draft-evasion stories, and yes, I knew which friends and colleagues to avoid after a bombing so I could spare myself the comments about how “the evils of the occupation” justify blowing women and children to smithereens in a café. But other than avoiding those people, I asked myself, what was I doing about it? Nothing.
In the quiet of the car, I wondered about this country, and how you cure a society that no longer engages in any serious discourse about why its existence matters. And I thought about that treadmill, and about Levi’s question – “Isn’t building something the reason you’re here?”
And then, unbelievably, the phone rang (more truthfully, an e-mail made its way into my inbox). It was the Shalem Center (www.shalem.org.il), a Jerusalem-based research and education institute that engages in research, education, and publications on Jewish moral and political thought, Zionist history and ideas, democratic theory and practice, strategic studies, and more. “How about coming over for a visit?” they suggested. Having read their journals and books with great admiration for years, I hastened to accept. (To get the Shalem Center’s e-Newsletter, go to http://www.shalem.org.il/about/?did=47.)
One conversation led to another, and relatively quickly, I was shown one of the most exciting documents I’d read in a long time: a proposal for a College. A four-year liberal-arts college (a model which does not yet exist in Israel), with a core curriculum that will include history, philosophy, the philosophy of science, Greek thought, Jewish thought, Jewish history, Zionist history and thought, religion and morality, and more. “It’s pretty amazing,” I told them. “It could change the country.” “So how about coming on board and helping us build it?” they proposed.
As I’d done with the treadmill, I asked my wife what to do. “What, I should just drop everything out of the blue, and leave a great job at a superb foundation, with fabulous people who’ve become good friends, walk away from it all? Who in their right mind would do such a thing?” I asked her. “You would,” she said. “You should. What are you even wondering about? Remember when you used to say that the main thing you regretted about leaving America was that our kids wouldn’t get the kind of liberal arts education that we did? What if this project could change that?”
“What if,” indeed. What if we could produce generations of university students who didn’t succumb to cynicism, who did believe that the Jews’ greatest contribution to the world has been in the realm of ideas, and who wanted to study and discuss those ideas? What if we could produce students who were profoundly prepared to be citizens of the Jewish State, of the Jewish people, and of the world, who could speak intelligently about nations and states, and political philosophy, and religion and morality, and who eventually rose to become Israel’s political leadership, its great jurists, academics and social entrepreneurs? Could that possibly be less of a contribution than the work of previous generations?
I don’t know what most parents do in situations like this, but we included our kids in our musings about what to do. They’re old enough, I thought, to learn about how you think about these sorts of decisions. We talked about careers and salaries, job security and the ongoing need for challenges. And most importantly, we talked, again, about why we’d moved here in the first place.
There’s an important anniversary coming up here in a few months. And I thought that this would be a good opportunity to remind them that even though, at their age, sixty years might seem like a long time, for a country that’s just a bare beginning. Which is a blessing, when you think about it. Because it means that even if the country appears to be already built, that’s just an illusion. In reality, everything’s still forming. And if you really believe in this place, I wanted them to understand, and you really believe that the future of the Jewish people depends on this still forming State, then some of life’s big decisions are actually relatively simple. You pick a project you believe can make a huge difference, perhaps even change everything. And then you just roll up your sleeves and get to work.
Isn’t that, after all, precisely why we’re here?
Al Gore: Leading Us to Peace? Really?
He is a “President” himself, the President of a new and growing democracy in Eastern Europe - - but you’ve probably never heard of him. So German Chancellor Angela Merkel and (former) British Prime Minister Tony Blair and “authorities” at the United Nations and other big and important people around the world obsess about so-called “global warming” and seek to, quite literally, “change the weather.“ All the while, President Klaus has repeatedly been so bold and brash as to remind us that “change” is a natural facet of the weather, and that the global temperature hasn’t increased very much in the past one hundred years.
Most important about President Klaus‘ comments is the fact that he identifies the global warming hysteria for what it truly is: yet another attempt to control human behavior and constrain human liberty. These are threats to civilization with which Mr. Klaus is well acquainted, given that he has lived most of his life under communist dictatorships.
In his Financial Times Journal editorial, President Klaus concluded by saying “I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”
By every indication it would seem that Al Gore, officials at the United Nations, and the decision markers with the Nobel Prize believe that a “central, global” economic planning is the very force that can lead humankind closer to prosperity, and peace.
Unfortunately, none of these people would seem to have learned the lessons of history, as President Klaus apparently has.
Austin Hill is a talk show host at NewsTalk 960 KKNT radio in Phoenix, and author of "White House Confidential: The Little Book Of Weird Presidential History." He is also a local columnist for Arizona's East Valley Tribune
Most important about President Klaus‘ comments is the fact that he identifies the global warming hysteria for what it truly is: yet another attempt to control human behavior and constrain human liberty. These are threats to civilization with which Mr. Klaus is well acquainted, given that he has lived most of his life under communist dictatorships.
In his Financial Times Journal editorial, President Klaus concluded by saying “I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.”
By every indication it would seem that Al Gore, officials at the United Nations, and the decision markers with the Nobel Prize believe that a “central, global” economic planning is the very force that can lead humankind closer to prosperity, and peace.
Unfortunately, none of these people would seem to have learned the lessons of history, as President Klaus apparently has.
Austin Hill is a talk show host at NewsTalk 960 KKNT radio in Phoenix, and author of "White House Confidential: The Little Book Of Weird Presidential History." He is also a local columnist for Arizona's East Valley Tribune
When youre Slavic in Detroit
As the immigrant groups we’ve resettled to our shores bring their ethnic rivalries with them and recreate the Balkans here, an American of Serbian descent explains why he moved out of Detroit: As the immigrant groups we’ve resettled to our shores bring their ethnic rivalries with them and recreate the Balkans here, an American of Serbian descent explains why he moved out of Detroit:If you have never been to Kosovo, but would like an idea of just how bad their crime is, (and what the Serbs have tolerated for centuries, not a decade), simply go to Hamtramck, Michigan, a city within the city of Detroit, teaming with Albanians. Remember though, the Detroit police department has Hamtramck circled in red on their city maps, and it’s not because of a low crime rate…Cops there look for a reason not to enter Hamtramck, which was once known and respected for being a very clean, law-abiding and predominantly middle-class Polish community. There are very few Poles left there and the small African American community is being forced out as well. SOUND FAMILIAR TO ANYONE BORN ON BALKAN SOIL? Sadly, if you so much as utter a word in any Slavic language, your life expectancy will be drastically reduced. [This is familiar.] And I’m referring again to Hamtamck, Michigan, not some backward village in Kosovo, where death to Slavs has been a common Albanian practice for as long as anyone can recall.How and why would anyone dare to give away part of someone else’s country to Muslim terrorists, when they are a 20% minority within that country’s borders and constantly threaten it’s non-Muslim inhabitants with death?? Why are US politicians trying to help a Narco/Nazi Muslim people establish a foothold on Serbian soil, and who gave them that right?…I tell my 15 year old daughter, whom we adopted from Yugoslavia in 1993, that I hate no one. I do this for obvious reasons; number one, it’s true and number two, I want her outside any circle of hate.However…I have had a number of more than negative, personal contacts with Albanians in Detroit, my hometown. One left me semi-conscious for three days after I took a severe beating from twelve Albanians on drugs, in our church Saint Lazarus. They used fists, dozens of bottles, steel chairs, tables, knives and guns. They demolished our hall and left me with broken teeth and ribs, two stab wounds to the arm, 54 stitches to my head and permanent damage to the center for sight and sound deep within my brain.Detroit Albanians pipe-bombed our church on several occasions during the seventies, including one attempt to bomb our junior choir’s practice room in our social hall. Had they thrown the bomb through the window twenty minutes earlier, there would be twenty-something grieving Serb families. They painted “Fuck all Serbian Mothers,” in ten-foot red letters, on the face of our church, just prior to a national gathering. Conversely, you will not find one single recorded attack on an Albanian or any of their institutions in Detroit, by a Serb.Here in California, an Albanian from AOL’s discussion board came within ten feet of my daughter’s bedroom window, at three in the morning and fired off four, live 9mm rounds. The same people described the interior of my house on AOL. A silly attempt to shut me up…. I had been careless around predators, thinking we were safe from their narco/nazi fanaticism here in a civilized American Metropolis. When I adopted my daughter in Yugoslavia, I promised the people at the orphanage that I would always keep my child out of harm’s way.…I have not lived in Detroit since 1980…Most of the things I described to you regarding Hamtramck’s sizable Albanian population happened during the 60’s and 70’s. It was also about then that Detroit’s more radical Croatians formed a weird coalition with the Albanians. Their mandate was never publicly stated, however, the Serbs understood all to well that this was simply another cloaked continuation of WW II Nazi doctrines.What I told you about St. Lazarus Serbian Orthodox church of Detroit being bombed at least twice, during that period, and covered in the most vulgar forms of graffiti, was spot-on accurate. Also, young Serbs such as myself, who had made a habit of frequenting Hamtramck’s well known Polish restaurants and Taverns were often accosted or intimidated by Albanian gangs, who were busily trying to cleanse Hamtramck of her old Slav population. They were successful.I think it was an 80 year old Polish owner of Three Star BBQ, on Joseph Campo Street, that had his nose bitten off by Albanian thugs. After resisting their low-ball offers to sell for years, he finally did so within a week of his release from the hospital and at a ridiculously low price. These stories ring true, whether one is describing Albanian behavior on Serbian or US soil.
Today’s short stories-more to follow
Palestinian positions are hardening before the Maryland peace conference. Ahmed Abdel Rahman, an adviser to the PA President and Fatah spokesman, said categorically in an interview with the Saudi newspaper Oukaz ''that the Palestinians do not intend to make concessions because they have nothing to concede.''
An attempt to overthrow Hassan Nasrallah? According to the Kuwaiti daily A-Siassa, the Hezbollah leader escaped an internal coup attempt led by the opposition that wanted to assume the leadership of the Lebanese Shiite militia and remove Nasrallah as general secretary.
During its raid on Syria in early September, Israel bombed a nuclear facility under construction, according to the New York Times. The newspaper said that this facility was used to store North Korean nuclear fuel.
The Palestinian security forces have shot dead a 22 year old man and a child of 5 in Kalkiliya. The Palestinian policemen fired at the youth this afternoon, after he refused to comply with their orders, and were attacked by the family of the deceased. They again opened fire, killing the child.
An attempt to overthrow Hassan Nasrallah? According to the Kuwaiti daily A-Siassa, the Hezbollah leader escaped an internal coup attempt led by the opposition that wanted to assume the leadership of the Lebanese Shiite militia and remove Nasrallah as general secretary.
During its raid on Syria in early September, Israel bombed a nuclear facility under construction, according to the New York Times. The newspaper said that this facility was used to store North Korean nuclear fuel.
The Palestinian security forces have shot dead a 22 year old man and a child of 5 in Kalkiliya. The Palestinian policemen fired at the youth this afternoon, after he refused to comply with their orders, and were attacked by the family of the deceased. They again opened fire, killing the child.
Asharq alawsat Kidnapped IDF reservists have been transferred to Iran
Kidnapped IDF reservists Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev have been transferred to Iran, Asharq alawsat reported on Sunday morning. According to the London-based newspaper, the soldiers were moved last July in an operation directed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a short time after they were kidnapped by Hizbullah in a cross border raid.
Palestinian Leaders Open to Land Swap
Palestinians are open to “slight amendments in the border” in any future final-status agreement with the Israelis, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud ‘Abbas said in an interview with Palestinian TV.
Israel's Negev desert - part of a possible land swap. (Dudi Saad/TML Photos)
Palestinians are open to “slight amendments in the border” in any future final-status agreement with the Israelis, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud ‘Abbas said in an interview with Palestinian TV. ‘Abbas rejected any talk of a land swap involving areas in the Triangle, a region with a large Arab-Israeli population in Israel. An unnamed Palestinian government official told The Media Line there were no details regarding the amount of land to be swapped or the areas where this would take place. This would all depend on the negotiations, he said. The Palestinians have always agreed that a land swap between Israelis and Palestinians would be part of a final-status agreement, the official said. “The area of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is 6,025 square kilometers (2,326 square miles) and this is the area where we want to establish our independent Palestinian state,” ‘Abbas said in the interview. This was the first time ‘Abbas put a number on the demand for land. Ahmad Qurei’, who heads the Palestinian negotiating team, said the Palestinians would consider swapping equal amounts of land with Israel as part of a final agreement. Israel could retain parts of the West Bank if it reciprocated with other territory in equal amounts, he told AP. Qurei’ and ‘Abbas’s comments come in the run-up to the international Mideast peace summit in Annapolis scheduled for next month. Qurei’ warned that a failure to reach an agreement to end the conflict could result in bloodshed, worse than the violence that erupted after the failure of the Camp David Summit in 2000.
.
Israel's Negev desert - part of a possible land swap. (Dudi Saad/TML Photos)
Palestinians are open to “slight amendments in the border” in any future final-status agreement with the Israelis, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud ‘Abbas said in an interview with Palestinian TV. ‘Abbas rejected any talk of a land swap involving areas in the Triangle, a region with a large Arab-Israeli population in Israel. An unnamed Palestinian government official told The Media Line there were no details regarding the amount of land to be swapped or the areas where this would take place. This would all depend on the negotiations, he said. The Palestinians have always agreed that a land swap between Israelis and Palestinians would be part of a final-status agreement, the official said. “The area of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip is 6,025 square kilometers (2,326 square miles) and this is the area where we want to establish our independent Palestinian state,” ‘Abbas said in the interview. This was the first time ‘Abbas put a number on the demand for land. Ahmad Qurei’, who heads the Palestinian negotiating team, said the Palestinians would consider swapping equal amounts of land with Israel as part of a final agreement. Israel could retain parts of the West Bank if it reciprocated with other territory in equal amounts, he told AP. Qurei’ and ‘Abbas’s comments come in the run-up to the international Mideast peace summit in Annapolis scheduled for next month. Qurei’ warned that a failure to reach an agreement to end the conflict could result in bloodshed, worse than the violence that erupted after the failure of the Camp David Summit in 2000.
.
WHAT SWITZERLAND IS NOW PRODUCING: CUCKOO CLOCKS AND JIHADISTS
As jihadist plots continue to be uncovered from Glasgow to New Jersey, it is plain that no place can be considered entirely safe. That includes placid, would-be neutral Switzerland, where a series of incidents and controversies in recent months points to a small but untiring Saudi-sponsored Islamist presence--and to a growing determination to resist its excesses on the part of some Swiss citizens and the Swiss authorities.
Switzerland has more than 300,000 Muslims--some 4.3 percent of the population--few of whom are of Arab descent. Most came as migrants or refugees from the former Yugoslavia (57 percent) or Turkey (20 percent). Yet the small minority who are Arabs (5 percent) have made their mark.
The influential Geneva Islamic Center was founded as long ago as 1961, with roots in the international Islamist movement. Its leader, Said Ramadan, had been expelled from Nasser's Egypt for ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by his father-in-law, Hassan al-Banna. Ramadan also helped create the World Muslim League, funded by the Saudi establishment for the purpose of spreading Wahhabism around the world. Today, Ramadan's sons Tariq, intellectual superstar of European Islamism, and Hani, head of the Geneva Islamic Center, continue to serve the cause.
But the Islamic Center is not the only Islamist institution in the Swiss capital. There is also the Grand Mosque of Geneva, which has undergone sweeping leadership changes in recent months. It has a new director, fresh from Jeddah, who suddenly fired four executives at the end of March. The Swiss daily Le Temps reported that the firings were initiated by the Saudi consul general in Geneva. The fired executives have sued, claiming they lost their jobs for being too moderate.
The new imam at the mosque is Youssef Ibram, a Moroccan who studied Islamic law for six years in Saudi Arabia. He is remembered in Switzerland for his part in a public controversy about the stoning of adulterers. In 2004, in an interview with the Swiss French magazine Coopération, he said, "Regarding stoning, I cannot be against it since it is included in the Islamic law." The ensuing flap prompted Ibram to resign from his position as imam of the Islamic Center in Zurich. Ibram is also a member of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, a transnational group made up mostly of non-European Islamists close to the Muslim Brotherhood and headed by Al Jazeera star Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi. This body takes upon itself to assess the conformity of European laws to Islam.
Meanwhile in Bern, plans were announced in May to build an Islamic center including a museum, a luxury hotel, a conference center, and a mosque, at a cost of up to $50 million. The project raised even some Muslim eyebrows. In particular, Saida Keller-Messahli, founder of the Zurich-based Forum for a Progressive Islam, told Le Temps she was concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the benefactors and initiators of the project, and that she did not see how the Bern Muslim community could raise such a sum without petrodollars from Saudi Arabia or Iran. Farhad Afshar, the Iranian who is spokesman for the organization planning to raise the funds for the project, denies this. By now, however, the question is moot: The other day the city of Bern turned down the development.
Others, too, are challenging the Islamists. A proposal to ban minarets in Switzerland has been floated by Ulrich Schluer, a member of parliament from the right-wing UDC (Union DÃmocratique du Centre). The idea has been featured in the Arabic media and was discussed recently on Al Jazeera's website, where some net surfers proposed boycotting Swiss banks (which hold a lot of Saudi and other Arab money) if the ban is enacted. Al Hayat and Al Arabiya television also expressed concern. Annoyed, Schluer told Le Temps: "Al Jazeera states that Switzerland wants to ban 'mosques or putting Islamic religious symbols on buildings,' but we never said this! We are against minarets, which we consider a symbol of political conquest, but not against mosques, because we respect the freedom of religion."
Schluer takes a dim view of Al Jazeera. Recently he sought an opinion from the Federal Council as to the propriety of the decision by the largest Swiss cable company, Cablecom, to carry Al Jazeera, despite the channel's showing innocent hostages having their throats slit. Perhaps remembering the Danish cartoons controversy, Socialist MP Andreas Gross has urged Swiss ambassadors in Arab countries to explain the Swiss political system to dampen cross-cultural misunderstanding.
Regardless of whether Schluer's proposal takes off, there are indications that Swiss authorities are taking a stronger stand against Islamist extremists. In May, they denied entry to Switzerland to Salman al Odeh, threatening him with up to six months' imprisonment and a fine of up to 10,000 Swiss Francs (about $8,200).
The Federal Police explained their decision this way: "Al Odeh is one of the most influential men on the Radical Islamist scene, a Wahhabi and a fanatic close to Osama Bin Laden. He was jailed in Arabia between 1994 and 1999 because of his extremist views, and from his cell continued the call for an armed Jihad against the infidel Western nations."
In fact, bin Laden cited Odeh as a favorite religious authority in his early communiquÃs and defended him after he was jailed. His release in 1999 was negotiated in a deal with the Saudi government. In exchange for promising to mute his criticism of the regime, Odeh was allowed to go free and resume preaching, both at home and abroad. He has done so actively, developing the website Islam Today to spread extremism worldwide, organizing political statements, and encouraging jihad against America in Iraq.
In an interview with the pan-Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat, al Odeh called the accusations "a big lie impossible to believe," and attributed them to "extremist Zionist forces." He dismissed as ludicrous his alleged links to bin Laden, saying, "I met Bin Laden only once 20 years ago while I was visiting the Sharia faculty." Al Odeh added that he is suing the Swiss authorities.
Similarly, courts are being used in new, if hardly draconian, ways. On June 22, for the first time ever, two people were convicted in a Swiss court of support for a criminal organization in a case linked to Islamist terrorism. The two ran radical websites, complete with images of executions of hostages, massacres of civilians, disfigured people, and detailed instructions for bomb-making, as well as a chat room that promoted jihad. One of the defendants, Malika el-Aroud, is the widow of Abdessater Dahmane, who helped assassinate Massoud, the Afghan Northern Alliance leader killed by al Qaeda on September 9, 2001; she was given a six-month suspended sentence. The other defendant, her boyfriend, a Tunisian living in Switzerland, was sentenced to prison for six months.
In its May 31, 2006, Swiss Domestic Security Report, the Federal Police stated plainly that violent Islamists are using Swiss soil as a strategic location from which to spread propaganda and provide financial and logistical support to people abroad. The report also underlined Geneva's growing importance as a transit point for volunteers from French-speaking Switzerland and France going to join the jihad in Iraq. Further, wrote Jean-Luc Vez, director of the Federal Police, in the foreword: "European-born jihadists could come back from Iraq and other war zones as experienced fighters, linked to a network with the same ideology. . . . These isolated individuals, but also al Qaeda, remain capable of organizing terrorist attacks."
Coincidentally, the largest synagogue in Geneva was gutted by fire on May 24, in what has been ruled a case of criminal arson. As of now, no arrests have been made. But any illusion that Switzerland was somehow immune to the fires of intolerance is long since gone.
Olivier Guitta is counterterrorism consultant based in Washington, D.C. He speaks four languages, including Arabic; he has long experience in international banking and portfolio management; he has a solid reputation for significant articles in serious journals and newspapers; and he is a contributing editor for the prestigious counterterrorism blog:
http://www.counterterrorism.org.
He is the founder of the foreign affairs and counterterrorism newsletter The Croissant --
http://thecroissant.com.
This article appeared in the Weekly Standard, 07/16/2007, Volume 012, Issue 41
(www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/856wrnid.asp).
span>
Switzerland has more than 300,000 Muslims--some 4.3 percent of the population--few of whom are of Arab descent. Most came as migrants or refugees from the former Yugoslavia (57 percent) or Turkey (20 percent). Yet the small minority who are Arabs (5 percent) have made their mark.
The influential Geneva Islamic Center was founded as long ago as 1961, with roots in the international Islamist movement. Its leader, Said Ramadan, had been expelled from Nasser's Egypt for ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, founded by his father-in-law, Hassan al-Banna. Ramadan also helped create the World Muslim League, funded by the Saudi establishment for the purpose of spreading Wahhabism around the world. Today, Ramadan's sons Tariq, intellectual superstar of European Islamism, and Hani, head of the Geneva Islamic Center, continue to serve the cause.
But the Islamic Center is not the only Islamist institution in the Swiss capital. There is also the Grand Mosque of Geneva, which has undergone sweeping leadership changes in recent months. It has a new director, fresh from Jeddah, who suddenly fired four executives at the end of March. The Swiss daily Le Temps reported that the firings were initiated by the Saudi consul general in Geneva. The fired executives have sued, claiming they lost their jobs for being too moderate.
The new imam at the mosque is Youssef Ibram, a Moroccan who studied Islamic law for six years in Saudi Arabia. He is remembered in Switzerland for his part in a public controversy about the stoning of adulterers. In 2004, in an interview with the Swiss French magazine Coopération, he said, "Regarding stoning, I cannot be against it since it is included in the Islamic law." The ensuing flap prompted Ibram to resign from his position as imam of the Islamic Center in Zurich. Ibram is also a member of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, a transnational group made up mostly of non-European Islamists close to the Muslim Brotherhood and headed by Al Jazeera star Sheikh Yusuf al Qaradawi. This body takes upon itself to assess the conformity of European laws to Islam.
Meanwhile in Bern, plans were announced in May to build an Islamic center including a museum, a luxury hotel, a conference center, and a mosque, at a cost of up to $50 million. The project raised even some Muslim eyebrows. In particular, Saida Keller-Messahli, founder of the Zurich-based Forum for a Progressive Islam, told Le Temps she was concerned about the lack of transparency regarding the benefactors and initiators of the project, and that she did not see how the Bern Muslim community could raise such a sum without petrodollars from Saudi Arabia or Iran. Farhad Afshar, the Iranian who is spokesman for the organization planning to raise the funds for the project, denies this. By now, however, the question is moot: The other day the city of Bern turned down the development.
Others, too, are challenging the Islamists. A proposal to ban minarets in Switzerland has been floated by Ulrich Schluer, a member of parliament from the right-wing UDC (Union DÃmocratique du Centre). The idea has been featured in the Arabic media and was discussed recently on Al Jazeera's website, where some net surfers proposed boycotting Swiss banks (which hold a lot of Saudi and other Arab money) if the ban is enacted. Al Hayat and Al Arabiya television also expressed concern. Annoyed, Schluer told Le Temps: "Al Jazeera states that Switzerland wants to ban 'mosques or putting Islamic religious symbols on buildings,' but we never said this! We are against minarets, which we consider a symbol of political conquest, but not against mosques, because we respect the freedom of religion."
Schluer takes a dim view of Al Jazeera. Recently he sought an opinion from the Federal Council as to the propriety of the decision by the largest Swiss cable company, Cablecom, to carry Al Jazeera, despite the channel's showing innocent hostages having their throats slit. Perhaps remembering the Danish cartoons controversy, Socialist MP Andreas Gross has urged Swiss ambassadors in Arab countries to explain the Swiss political system to dampen cross-cultural misunderstanding.
Regardless of whether Schluer's proposal takes off, there are indications that Swiss authorities are taking a stronger stand against Islamist extremists. In May, they denied entry to Switzerland to Salman al Odeh, threatening him with up to six months' imprisonment and a fine of up to 10,000 Swiss Francs (about $8,200).
The Federal Police explained their decision this way: "Al Odeh is one of the most influential men on the Radical Islamist scene, a Wahhabi and a fanatic close to Osama Bin Laden. He was jailed in Arabia between 1994 and 1999 because of his extremist views, and from his cell continued the call for an armed Jihad against the infidel Western nations."
In fact, bin Laden cited Odeh as a favorite religious authority in his early communiquÃs and defended him after he was jailed. His release in 1999 was negotiated in a deal with the Saudi government. In exchange for promising to mute his criticism of the regime, Odeh was allowed to go free and resume preaching, both at home and abroad. He has done so actively, developing the website Islam Today to spread extremism worldwide, organizing political statements, and encouraging jihad against America in Iraq.
In an interview with the pan-Arab daily Asharq Al-Awsat, al Odeh called the accusations "a big lie impossible to believe," and attributed them to "extremist Zionist forces." He dismissed as ludicrous his alleged links to bin Laden, saying, "I met Bin Laden only once 20 years ago while I was visiting the Sharia faculty." Al Odeh added that he is suing the Swiss authorities.
Similarly, courts are being used in new, if hardly draconian, ways. On June 22, for the first time ever, two people were convicted in a Swiss court of support for a criminal organization in a case linked to Islamist terrorism. The two ran radical websites, complete with images of executions of hostages, massacres of civilians, disfigured people, and detailed instructions for bomb-making, as well as a chat room that promoted jihad. One of the defendants, Malika el-Aroud, is the widow of Abdessater Dahmane, who helped assassinate Massoud, the Afghan Northern Alliance leader killed by al Qaeda on September 9, 2001; she was given a six-month suspended sentence. The other defendant, her boyfriend, a Tunisian living in Switzerland, was sentenced to prison for six months.
In its May 31, 2006, Swiss Domestic Security Report, the Federal Police stated plainly that violent Islamists are using Swiss soil as a strategic location from which to spread propaganda and provide financial and logistical support to people abroad. The report also underlined Geneva's growing importance as a transit point for volunteers from French-speaking Switzerland and France going to join the jihad in Iraq. Further, wrote Jean-Luc Vez, director of the Federal Police, in the foreword: "European-born jihadists could come back from Iraq and other war zones as experienced fighters, linked to a network with the same ideology. . . . These isolated individuals, but also al Qaeda, remain capable of organizing terrorist attacks."
Coincidentally, the largest synagogue in Geneva was gutted by fire on May 24, in what has been ruled a case of criminal arson. As of now, no arrests have been made. But any illusion that Switzerland was somehow immune to the fires of intolerance is long since gone.
Olivier Guitta is counterterrorism consultant based in Washington, D.C. He speaks four languages, including Arabic; he has long experience in international banking and portfolio management; he has a solid reputation for significant articles in serious journals and newspapers; and he is a contributing editor for the prestigious counterterrorism blog:
http://www.counterterrorism.org.
He is the founder of the foreign affairs and counterterrorism newsletter The Croissant --
http://thecroissant.com.
This article appeared in the Weekly Standard, 07/16/2007, Volume 012, Issue 41
(www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/856wrnid.asp).
span>
Beilin associates PMs office knew of negotiations
Sources associated with former Labor MK Yossi Beilin, who took part in the negotiations that led to the "Geneva Understandings," said Monday that the Prime Minister's office was continally kept updated on developments in the negotiations. Sources in the Prime Minister's office denied the claims.
The "Geneva Understandings" - a draft memorandum for a permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement formulated by members of the Israeli opposition and Palestinian officials - includes allowing a certain number of Palestinians to return to areas inside the State of Israel, though not as part of a "right of return."
Upon completing the draft of the agreement, Beilin will concentrate efforts on gaining local support among Likud, Shinui and Ultra Orthodox MKs, Army Radio reported.
Beilin and others involved will also try and draw international support for the agreement, among current and former heads of state.
Under the terms of the agreement, the Palestinians would be granted sovereignty over the Temple Mount, and the area would be monitored by international bodies. The Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, as well as the Western Wall, would remain under Israeli sovereignty.
The main points of the draft are as follows:
* The Palestinians will concede the right of return. Some refugees will remain in the countries where they now live, others will be absorbed by the PA, some will be absorbed by other countries and some will receive financial compensation. A limited number will be allowed to settle in Israel, but this will not be defined as realization of the right of return.
* The Palestinians will recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people.
* Israel will withdraw to the 1967 borders, except for certain territorial exchanges, as described below.
* Jerusalem will be divided, with Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem becoming part of the Palestinian state. Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, as well as the West Bank suburbs of Givat Ze'ev, Ma'aleh Adumim and the historic part of Gush Etzion - but not Efrat - will be part of Israel.
* The Temple Mount will be Palestinian, but an international force will ensure freedom of access for visitors of all faiths. However, Jewish prayer will not be permitted on the mount, nor will archaeological digs. The Western Wall will remain under Jewish sovereignty and the "Holy Basin" will be under international supervision.
* The settlements of Ariel, Efrat and Har Homa will be part of the Palestinian state. In addition, Israel will transfer parts of the Negev adjacent to Gaza, but not including Halutza, to the Palestinians in exchange for the parts of the West Bank it will receive.
* The Palestinians will pledge to prevent terror and incitement and disarm all militias. Their state will be demilitarized, and border crossings will be supervised by an international, but not Israeli, force.
* The agreement will replace all UN resolutions and previous agreements.
Members of the Israeli delegation upon returning Sunday from talks with the Palestinians in Amman, Jordan said that the initiative will be released and signed during an international conference to be held in Geneva next month.
Labor Chairman Shimon Peres refused to take part in the agreement because it makes reference to UN Resolution 194 that the Palestinians see as the basis for their “right of return,” and which Peres described as a danger to Israel. Earlier Sunday it was reported that the Palestinians had relinquished their claim to a “right of return.”
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told Channel Two on Sunday that the initiative is hampering the ability to move forward in negotiations towards a practical peace agreement. According to a Channel Two report, Sharon has learned from intelligence sources that Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia and his government intend to adopt the Geneva understandings.
According to Labor MK Amram Mitzna, Marwan Barghouti, the Tanzim chief standing trial in Israel for alleged murder, was partly involved in the initiative, while Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia were aware of it.
The negotiating teams, which included former minister Yossi Beilin, Labor MKs Avraham Burg and Amram Mitzna and Meretz MK Haim Oron on the Israeli side and Yasser Abed Rabbo and Nabil Qassis on the Palestinian side, began their talks in Amman on Thursday. The draft was finalized Sunday and the signing ceremony is to take place in Geneva in several weeks time.
"The document provides solutions to final settlement issues such as the status of Arab East Jerusalem, frontiers, the establishment of a Palestinian state and the right of returning home of Palestinian refugees who were forced to leave Palestine when Israel was founded in 1948," said the deputy Palestinian ambassador to Jordan, Atallah Khairi.
Although the Jordanian government said that it "had nothing to do with the meeting," reliable sources said that the Israeli-Palestinian talks were attended by Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher and other senior Foreign Ministry officials.
The document was prepared over the course of a year by Beilin and Abed Rabbo, with the assistance of several professionals, and is intended to draft a permanent peace agreement to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat has given his blessing to the dialogue.
The draft is based on the Taba agreements that were drafted during the end of Ehud Barak's term as prime minister in 1999, and former U.S. president Bill Clinton's plan for the division of Jerusalem between Israel and the Palestinians, which included providing the right of return for Palestinians in humanitarian cases.
Sarid: 'it's a shame the government won't talk, just shoot'
Meretz MK Yossi Sarid told Israel Radio on Friday that he had participated in the discussions on the draft, but could not leave for Jordan to attend the signing ceremony for personal reasons.
"We believe in these meetings, we think that there is something to talk about and someone to talks too, perhaps today more than ever, and it is a shame that the government won't talk, just shoot," Sarid said.
"These meetings were not carried out in an underground manner or in the dark," Sarid said, referring to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accusations earlier this week that the Labor and the left were cooperating with the Palestinians "behind the back of the government."
Sarid explained that the meetings had to be coordinated with the security establishment.
"I don't understand why the prime minister was angered by the meeting near the Dead Sea... Perhaps Sharon is scared that a terrible secret would come out: that there is someone to talk and something to talk about, and a significant degree of goodwill on the part of the second party, and that this is a time in which calm, even relative calm can be achieved... We, unlike him, are not afraid."
Health Minister Dan Naveh (Likud) dismissed the Belin-Abed Rabbo agreement as a document that "reeked of a bad odor."
"The opposition is negotiating behind the government's back with the Palestinians, while we are in a serious conflict with them, in a war against Palestinian terror, which is directed and encouraged by some of the people with whom the left-wing officials have met," Naveh said.
"It is not the opposition's job to hold talks, it is the government's job, and there are reasons for the government to avoid negotiations today with these people, Arafat's people, who have been behind the campaign of murder of terror over the past three years," Naveh said.
"Those people, Sarid, Beilin and the others, were the architects of the Oslo agreements ten years ago, which in my opinion the agreement that brought this terrible catastrophe on us," he added.
/hasen/objects/pages/Prin
The "Geneva Understandings" - a draft memorandum for a permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement formulated by members of the Israeli opposition and Palestinian officials - includes allowing a certain number of Palestinians to return to areas inside the State of Israel, though not as part of a "right of return."
Upon completing the draft of the agreement, Beilin will concentrate efforts on gaining local support among Likud, Shinui and Ultra Orthodox MKs, Army Radio reported.
Beilin and others involved will also try and draw international support for the agreement, among current and former heads of state.
Under the terms of the agreement, the Palestinians would be granted sovereignty over the Temple Mount, and the area would be monitored by international bodies. The Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, as well as the Western Wall, would remain under Israeli sovereignty.
The main points of the draft are as follows:
* The Palestinians will concede the right of return. Some refugees will remain in the countries where they now live, others will be absorbed by the PA, some will be absorbed by other countries and some will receive financial compensation. A limited number will be allowed to settle in Israel, but this will not be defined as realization of the right of return.
* The Palestinians will recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people.
* Israel will withdraw to the 1967 borders, except for certain territorial exchanges, as described below.
* Jerusalem will be divided, with Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem becoming part of the Palestinian state. Jewish neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, as well as the West Bank suburbs of Givat Ze'ev, Ma'aleh Adumim and the historic part of Gush Etzion - but not Efrat - will be part of Israel.
* The Temple Mount will be Palestinian, but an international force will ensure freedom of access for visitors of all faiths. However, Jewish prayer will not be permitted on the mount, nor will archaeological digs. The Western Wall will remain under Jewish sovereignty and the "Holy Basin" will be under international supervision.
* The settlements of Ariel, Efrat and Har Homa will be part of the Palestinian state. In addition, Israel will transfer parts of the Negev adjacent to Gaza, but not including Halutza, to the Palestinians in exchange for the parts of the West Bank it will receive.
* The Palestinians will pledge to prevent terror and incitement and disarm all militias. Their state will be demilitarized, and border crossings will be supervised by an international, but not Israeli, force.
* The agreement will replace all UN resolutions and previous agreements.
Members of the Israeli delegation upon returning Sunday from talks with the Palestinians in Amman, Jordan said that the initiative will be released and signed during an international conference to be held in Geneva next month.
Labor Chairman Shimon Peres refused to take part in the agreement because it makes reference to UN Resolution 194 that the Palestinians see as the basis for their “right of return,” and which Peres described as a danger to Israel. Earlier Sunday it was reported that the Palestinians had relinquished their claim to a “right of return.”
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon told Channel Two on Sunday that the initiative is hampering the ability to move forward in negotiations towards a practical peace agreement. According to a Channel Two report, Sharon has learned from intelligence sources that Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia and his government intend to adopt the Geneva understandings.
According to Labor MK Amram Mitzna, Marwan Barghouti, the Tanzim chief standing trial in Israel for alleged murder, was partly involved in the initiative, while Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia were aware of it.
The negotiating teams, which included former minister Yossi Beilin, Labor MKs Avraham Burg and Amram Mitzna and Meretz MK Haim Oron on the Israeli side and Yasser Abed Rabbo and Nabil Qassis on the Palestinian side, began their talks in Amman on Thursday. The draft was finalized Sunday and the signing ceremony is to take place in Geneva in several weeks time.
"The document provides solutions to final settlement issues such as the status of Arab East Jerusalem, frontiers, the establishment of a Palestinian state and the right of returning home of Palestinian refugees who were forced to leave Palestine when Israel was founded in 1948," said the deputy Palestinian ambassador to Jordan, Atallah Khairi.
Although the Jordanian government said that it "had nothing to do with the meeting," reliable sources said that the Israeli-Palestinian talks were attended by Jordanian Foreign Minister Marwan Muasher and other senior Foreign Ministry officials.
The document was prepared over the course of a year by Beilin and Abed Rabbo, with the assistance of several professionals, and is intended to draft a permanent peace agreement to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat has given his blessing to the dialogue.
The draft is based on the Taba agreements that were drafted during the end of Ehud Barak's term as prime minister in 1999, and former U.S. president Bill Clinton's plan for the division of Jerusalem between Israel and the Palestinians, which included providing the right of return for Palestinians in humanitarian cases.
Sarid: 'it's a shame the government won't talk, just shoot'
Meretz MK Yossi Sarid told Israel Radio on Friday that he had participated in the discussions on the draft, but could not leave for Jordan to attend the signing ceremony for personal reasons.
"We believe in these meetings, we think that there is something to talk about and someone to talks too, perhaps today more than ever, and it is a shame that the government won't talk, just shoot," Sarid said.
"These meetings were not carried out in an underground manner or in the dark," Sarid said, referring to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon accusations earlier this week that the Labor and the left were cooperating with the Palestinians "behind the back of the government."
Sarid explained that the meetings had to be coordinated with the security establishment.
"I don't understand why the prime minister was angered by the meeting near the Dead Sea... Perhaps Sharon is scared that a terrible secret would come out: that there is someone to talk and something to talk about, and a significant degree of goodwill on the part of the second party, and that this is a time in which calm, even relative calm can be achieved... We, unlike him, are not afraid."
Health Minister Dan Naveh (Likud) dismissed the Belin-Abed Rabbo agreement as a document that "reeked of a bad odor."
"The opposition is negotiating behind the government's back with the Palestinians, while we are in a serious conflict with them, in a war against Palestinian terror, which is directed and encouraged by some of the people with whom the left-wing officials have met," Naveh said.
"It is not the opposition's job to hold talks, it is the government's job, and there are reasons for the government to avoid negotiations today with these people, Arafat's people, who have been behind the campaign of murder of terror over the past three years," Naveh said.
"Those people, Sarid, Beilin and the others, were the architects of the Oslo agreements ten years ago, which in my opinion the agreement that brought this terrible catastrophe on us," he added.
/hasen/objects/pages/Prin
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Olmert Offers Judea, Samaria, Divides J'lem in Draft Accord
Gil Ronen
(IsraelNN.com) Israel's government has agreed, in writing, to hand over 6,250 square kilometers of land – the equivalent of its entire biblical and strategic heartland - to an Arab terror state. So reports Dr. Guy Bechor, a leading expert on Arab affairs, who also supplies some of the details of the negotiations.
Bechor reports, based on "leaks from the Palestinian side," that Israel has, in the past few days, presented Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas at least one draft of an "agreement of principles."
· The agreement calls for a state named Palestine to be established alongside Israel, and have a territory of 6,250 square kilometers: the equivalent of all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
· "Palestine" will be demilitarized.
· Most of the Jewish communities built in Judea and Samaria over the past 40 years are to demolished and their inhabitants expelled, according to the plan. The remaining communities are to be concentrated in small salients
Most of the Jewish communities built in Judea and Samaria over the past 40 years are to demolished and their inhabitants expelled.
for which the Arab state will be compensated with additional territory elsewhere in present-day Israel.
· A passage of some sort will connect Gaza and Judea and Samaria. It will be under Jewish sovereignty and Palestinian administration.
· Israel agrees to redivide Jerusalem. Arab neighborhoods will be under Arab sovereignty and Jewish ones under Jewish sovereignty. Mention is made of "religious areas," but further details are not known as of yet. Each side will recognize the other's spiritual needs.
· The "refugee" question is not mentioned at all, and Bechor reports that this is the main sticking point. Abbas is insisting that Arabs descended from those who fled Israel in 1948 be allowed to return to Israel, at least in principle.
Bechor says that Abbas and his men have gone over the draft and are not pleased; they know how to negotiate, he notes. In a recent interview with PA TV, Abbas said that "declarations of principles are a waste of time" and "useless." What the PA wants, he said, is a clear timetable for establishing Palestine, as well as an Israeli pullback, demolition of Jewish communities and "return of refugees" (i.e., the flooding of Israel with Arab citizens).
The Arabs are hoping Israel will become more pliable in November, when an international diplomatic conference, sponsored by the US, is to be held in an attempt to hammer out an accord.
An official close to Mahmoud Abbas, Mustafa Bargouti, said that the idea of a conference is "an Israeli trap" and that nothing will come of it.
(IsraelNN.com) Israel's government has agreed, in writing, to hand over 6,250 square kilometers of land – the equivalent of its entire biblical and strategic heartland - to an Arab terror state. So reports Dr. Guy Bechor, a leading expert on Arab affairs, who also supplies some of the details of the negotiations.
Bechor reports, based on "leaks from the Palestinian side," that Israel has, in the past few days, presented Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas at least one draft of an "agreement of principles."
· The agreement calls for a state named Palestine to be established alongside Israel, and have a territory of 6,250 square kilometers: the equivalent of all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
· "Palestine" will be demilitarized.
· Most of the Jewish communities built in Judea and Samaria over the past 40 years are to demolished and their inhabitants expelled, according to the plan. The remaining communities are to be concentrated in small salients
Most of the Jewish communities built in Judea and Samaria over the past 40 years are to demolished and their inhabitants expelled.
for which the Arab state will be compensated with additional territory elsewhere in present-day Israel.
· A passage of some sort will connect Gaza and Judea and Samaria. It will be under Jewish sovereignty and Palestinian administration.
· Israel agrees to redivide Jerusalem. Arab neighborhoods will be under Arab sovereignty and Jewish ones under Jewish sovereignty. Mention is made of "religious areas," but further details are not known as of yet. Each side will recognize the other's spiritual needs.
· The "refugee" question is not mentioned at all, and Bechor reports that this is the main sticking point. Abbas is insisting that Arabs descended from those who fled Israel in 1948 be allowed to return to Israel, at least in principle.
Bechor says that Abbas and his men have gone over the draft and are not pleased; they know how to negotiate, he notes. In a recent interview with PA TV, Abbas said that "declarations of principles are a waste of time" and "useless." What the PA wants, he said, is a clear timetable for establishing Palestine, as well as an Israeli pullback, demolition of Jewish communities and "return of refugees" (i.e., the flooding of Israel with Arab citizens).
The Arabs are hoping Israel will become more pliable in November, when an international diplomatic conference, sponsored by the US, is to be held in an attempt to hammer out an accord.
An official close to Mahmoud Abbas, Mustafa Bargouti, said that the idea of a conference is "an Israeli trap" and that nothing will come of it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)