BY: MATZAV
Ominous news from Bolivia
For several months now, Bolivia has been acting like Venezuela's little brother; among other things it broke relations with Israel in January over Operation Cast Lead. This week, there has been ominous news from Bolivia as the authorities have gone out of their way to shut down a local Chabad House that is very popular with Israelis in the town of Rurrenabaque in northeastern Bolivia.
Bolivian police forces raided a Chabad center in the northeastern town of Rurrenabaque a number of times in recent days, ordered its closure and arrested a number of Israeli tourists who were staying there. Rabbi Aharon Fraiman, Shliach to Rurrenabaque, told Chabad.info the police refused to give him a reason for the raid, but rumors throughout the town have linked the police activity to an assassination attempt on the Bolivian president last week.
On Wednesday, after the Chabad House temporarily resumed activity, Fraiman, who was almost arrested himself, said this was nothing more than a local dispute: "An anti-Semitic restaurateur who thinks we are hurting his livelihood is doing everything to get us out of here," the rabbi said.
On Thursday, however, the multiple arrests, closure of the center and the local media's coverage of police activity in the area, led the rabbi to believe it was something more: "Apparently it's not him, but something bigger. He doesn't have this much power".
"Rumors floating around say that it has something to do with an assassination attempt on the president," the rabbi said.
"Meanwhile, I hired a lawyer here to handle the case, but this is not a law-abiding state, and so far, no one has told us what the commotion is about. They also haven't showed us any closure injunctions."
The Shliach told Chabad.info about one Israeli tourist who was arrested by the Bolivian immigration police, taken to the airport in handcuffs and deported from the country. He also said there were a few others still under arrest.
"I am working to have them released from custody, and am also trying to contact the Foreign Ministry or some kind of Israeli representative here. So far, I've had no success," he said.
If the Israelis know anything about this, they are apparently staying tight-lipped.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor called the raid "unexplainable" and said that the developing incident "is preoccupying [the Foreign Ministry]". However, he emphasized in a conversation with Israel National News that his office currently has no information on any Israeli citizens taken into custody.
A deportation order would have required some formal contact with Israel, according to Palmor, but there has been no such request from Bolivian officials.
The town of Rurrenabaque is a major tourist attraction for travelers in Bolivia, including many Israeli backpackers. The town is a center from which tourists leave for trips to the jungles and swamp areas in northern Bolivia.
There are many more pictures and details on this story here.
JPost adds:
Two Israeli travelers staying at the Chabad house were arrested and later released, according to Rabbi Aharon Freiman, 22, who spoke with The Jerusalem Post from Rurrenabaque Thursday.
Freiman said he had not been arrested.
"Nobody from the police or from other government authorities has explained the reason for the raid or for the order to close our place," said Freiman, who opened the Chabad house two months ago.
"I've heard different rumors," added Freiman, who said he did not speak Spanish well. "Some claim that this is a crackdown against drug trafficking. A lot of Israelis who come here smoke hashish and marijuana. Another rumor going around is that this is somehow connected with the attempted assassination of the [Bolivian] president."
On April 16, President Evo Morales, the country's first indigenous president and an outspoken critic of the US, said that police had thwarted an assassination attempt against him. Three suspects were killed and two were arrested.
Morales, who faces strong opposition among wealthy Bolivians, has made allegations in the past of attempts to assassinate him....
Shay Geffen, a member of the more messianic stream within Chabad and a spokesman for the National Union Party, said that several MKs were attempting to intervene with Bolivian authorities on behalf of the Freimans, including Michael Ben-Ari (National Union), Meir Porush (United Torah Judaism) and Danny Ayalon (Israel Beiteinu).
Hmmm. posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:39 AM 1 comments links to this post
Monday, April 27, 2009
EU: Wrong Again
BY: MATZAV
Netanyahu tells Europe they can't dictate to Israel; Czech PM Topolanek agrees.
Earlier this week, the European Union suspended talks on upgrading relations with Israel, because Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu refused to bow to the mantra of the 'two-state solution,' and refused to force Israelis who live in Judea and Samaria to seek European permission to procreate by saying that he would put a full stop to 'settlement expansion' in existing Jewish towns in Judea and Samaria. As a result, the Europeans have canceled a summit between Netanyahu and European leaders that was scheduled for June, and suspended talks on upgrading Israel's relations with the European Union.
Nevertheless, Czech Prime Minister Mirel Topolanek, whose country currently holds the European Union's rotating Presidency, met with Netanyahu yesterday, and said that he would argue with his European counterparts against suspending the talks on upgrading Israel's relations with the European Union.
Topolanek is the first foreign government leader to visit Israel since the Netanyahu cabinet was sworn in three weeks ago. The talks between the two were reportedly conducted in a relaxed atmosphere. But Topolanek brought up the issue of construction in West Bank settlements and European concerns that this could prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.
"If Israelis can't build homes in the West Bank then Palestinians shouldn't be allowed to either," Netanyahu said in response. He told the Czech leader he has no intention of halting the expansion of existing settlements. "I have no plans to build new settlements, but if someone wants to build a new home [in an existing one], I don't think there's a problem." He characterized the West Bank as "disputed territory" over which negotiations must be held.
Topolanek asked Netanyahu whether he intended to evacuate the illegal outposts on the West Bank, as Israel has promised in the past in the road map and other agreements. Netanyahu said the outposts are both a domestic and foreign issue. "I intend to enforce the law with regard to the outposts," he said.
Once again, let's hope Bibi doesn't back off his commitments. posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:22 PM 1 comments links to this post
FREEMAN:Was this Obama's way to give credence to the canard of "Jewish control"
or was it just another stupid mistake?
With ‘Friends’ Like These, Who Needs Enemies?
Melanie Phillips - Apr 21, 2009
Family Security Matters
The response of Chas W. Freeman, the short-lived chairman-designate of the U.S. National Intelligence Council, to being forced to resign recently after protests over his lobbying activities for Saudi Arabia and China and his extreme antipathy to Israel, was not merely to pin the blame on that all-purpose scapegoat, “the Jewish lobby,” or even its modern version, “the Israel lobby.” He came up with another variation on the theme.
He said his opponents “should probably be called the Likud lobby… Whereas Israelis in Israel routinely criticize Israeli policies that they think may prove to be suicidal for their country, those who criticize the same policies here, for the same reasons, are subject to political reprisal.”
Leave aside for the moment the unlovely figure of Chas W. Freeman himself, and that what actually brought him down was the widespread consternation among members of Congress — especially House Leader Nancy Pelosi — that a pivotal role over U.S. intelligence should go to such a brazen apologist for the Tienanmen Square massacre.
His words should cause wider concern for those of us watching aghast as Israel is progressively delegitimized. For the emergence of this new bogeyman, the “Likud lobby,” is an ominous reflection of the attempt to drive a wedge between Israel’s supporters by demonizing one side of an increasingly bitter and desperate internal argument.
In one camp are those who believe that the only route to peace is through the “two-state solution” and the creation of a state of Palestine. In the other, are those who believe the cause of the conflict is not the absence of such a state, but that the Palestinians are being used as a Trojan horse by the Arab and Muslim world to destroy Israel altogether.
Since Israel places conditions upon the Palestinians (to abjure terror) before it will agree to such a state, the “two-staters” agree with the prevailing EU-UK-US consensus that Israel must be pressured to make ‘painful concessions’ to end the stalemate.
The “existential war” camp believes that, with Iran-backed Hamas poised to take control as soon as Israel departs the West Bank, this would be not so much a two-state solution as a Final Solution.
The two-staters respond by demonizing their opponents as “right-wing,” “Likudniks” and “warmongers,” even though they may be innocent of all three charges. No matter — to so-called progressives, anyone who is not on the left must be on the right; and since the left embodies all things that are good, the label “right-wing” is a synonym for all things evil, of which both war and the Likud are without doubt prime exemplars.
The concern is that the Obama administration — although it showed an early graciousness towards the new Netanyahu government — takes the same view. Dominated as it is by a combination of leftists, peace-process retreads and Israel-haters and Jewish-conspiracy theorists, it is seizing upon this division among the Jewish ranks to redefine ‘the Jewish lobby’ as its patsy.
With the predominant view at present apparently being that Israel’s security must be sacrificed to achieve the “grand bargain” with the Iranians (“living with” a nuclear Iran!) it is happy to demonize objectors as “the Likud lobby.” And there is no shortage of Jews coming forward to help it do so — most notably in the form of J-Street, the George Soros-backed alternative Jewish lobby which has set itself to displace AIPAC and the established Jewish groups.
This describes itself as “pro-Israel, pro-peace.” It is composed of Israeli and Jewish leftists such as Daniel Levy, who has done incalculable harm to both Israel and the free world by assiduously peddling the idea to western leaders that talking to Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria and Uncle Tom Jihadist and all is the way to peace.
J-Street is being smiled on by those within the Obama administration who are in tune with J-Street’s appalling core premise: that Israel is to blame for Arab terror — the age-old calumny of blaming the Jews for their own destruction.
The danger of J-Street lies not just in its savvy, web-based mode of operation but through the way it defines itself as “moderate.” So those who believe with overwhelming reason that a Palestine state would bring Iran to Israel’s border are painted as extremists to silence their voice. Yet if they protest, it is the J-Streeters who claim they are being “cowed into silence.”
When Israel’s “friends’ characterize suicidal policies as “moderate,” while policies essential for Israel’s self-preservation are “extreme,” who needs enemies like Chas W. Freeman?
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributor Melanie Phillips is the author of the powerful and frightening Londonistan, and she blogs at The Spectator.
Friends of the Jews
Jerusalem Report
from the founder of the Jerusalem Prayer Team
Dear Art,
I am writing you from Geneva where I have come to defend Israel as the anti-Semitic nations of the world attack her. Iran’s president has led the way, accusing Israel of being a racist and apartheid state while delegates from assenting nations smile and applaud him. The Jerusalem Prayer Team is the only U.S. Christian organization here standing up for Israel.
On May 14, 2009, Israel will celebrate her 61st birthday. It is an historic celebration of one of the greatest miracles in history. A nation was born in a day just as the prophet Isaiah had predicted thousands of years ago.
That Word is found in Isaiah 66:8: “Who has ever seen or heard of anything as strange as this? Has a nation ever been born in a single day? Has a country ever come forth in a mere moment? But by the time Jerusalem's birth pains begin, the baby will be born; the nation will come forth.”
Since May 14, 1948, Israel has lived with the threat of extinction. And though the threat today is greater than ever, God is still defending His chosen people.
I am going to Jerusalem to celebrate Israel’s 61st birthday, and want to take your gift to bless the Jewish people with me. God’s word says, “I will bless those who bless thee and curse him who curses thee.” (Genesis 12:3)
The Jerusalem Prayer Team is leading a worldwide effort to encourage people worldwide to unite…to join their hearts and prayers together to support Israel.
I believe with all my heart that America has been greatly blessed because America recognized Isaiah 66:8. Vice-President Harry S. Truman was sworn in as President of the United States on January 20, 1945. His love for the Bible (he had read it twice through by age twelve) gave him a natural inclination to favor "God's chosen people" in their quest for a safe homeland.
Another factor that would influence Truman's support of Zionism was the plight of the remainder of the Jews in Europe. When the Nazis were finally defeated, the death camps were liberated. The world was not only shocked by what had been done to these people, but over the months to follow would also be shocked about what was to be done with them in their "liberation."
On May 14, 1947, Soviet ambassador Andrei Gromyko stood before the United Nations General Assembly and said that the Soviet Union understood "the legitimate rights of the Jewish people" and that the Soviet Union supported the formation of an "independent, dual, democratic, homogeneous Arab-Jewish state" in Palestine.
Having the U.S.S.R. give such strong support to the proposed Jewish state forced the U.S.'s hand, despite State Department pressure in the opposite direction, to try to become an even stronger supporter of the new nation or risk Israel becoming a Soviet satellite.
Tens of thousands of Russian Jews immigrated to Israel as a result of the anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. Today thousands of those who now live in Israel are poor and are living with the barest of necessities needed to survive.
When you give, the amazing power of the eternal blessing God promised to those who bless the Jews will be unlocked in your life and upon our country.
For more than six decades Israel has been threatened…but she has always survived by God’s grace. Why? During each time of threat and challenge, men and women such as you, men and women of courage and conviction have answered the call.
Isaiah 58:11 and 14 says: “The LORD will guide you continually, watering your life when you are dry and keeping you healthy, too. You will be like a well-watered garden, like an ever-flowing spring…the LORD will be your delight. I will give you great honor and give you your full share of the inheritance I promised to Jacob, your ancestor. I, the LORD, have spoken!"
Your ambassador to Jerusalem,
Mike Evans
Anti-Jewish activities in South America
BY: MATZAV
Ominous news from Bolivia
For several months now, Bolivia has been acting like Venezuela's little brother; among other things it broke relations with Israel in January over Operation Cast Lead. This week, there has been ominous news from Bolivia as the authorities have gone out of their way to shut down a local Chabad House that is very popular with Israelis in the town of Rurrenabaque in northeastern Bolivia.
Bolivian police forces raided a Chabad center in the northeastern town of Rurrenabaque a number of times in recent days, ordered its closure and arrested a number of Israeli tourists who were staying there. Rabbi Aharon Fraiman, Shliach to Rurrenabaque, told Chabad.info the police refused to give him a reason for the raid, but rumors throughout the town have linked the police activity to an assassination attempt on the Bolivian president last week.
On Wednesday, after the Chabad House temporarily resumed activity, Fraiman, who was almost arrested himself, said this was nothing more than a local dispute: "An anti-Semitic restaurateur who thinks we are hurting his livelihood is doing everything to get us out of here," the rabbi said.
On Thursday, however, the multiple arrests, closure of the center and the local media's coverage of police activity in the area, led the rabbi to believe it was something more: "Apparently it's not him, but something bigger. He doesn't have this much power".
"Rumors floating around say that it has something to do with an assassination attempt on the president," the rabbi said.
"Meanwhile, I hired a lawyer here to handle the case, but this is not a law-abiding state, and so far, no one has told us what the commotion is about. They also haven't showed us any closure injunctions."
The Shliach told Chabad.info about one Israeli tourist who was arrested by the Bolivian immigration police, taken to the airport in handcuffs and deported from the country. He also said there were a few others still under arrest.
"I am working to have them released from custody, and am also trying to contact the Foreign Ministry or some kind of Israeli representative here. So far, I've had no success," he said.
If the Israelis know anything about this, they are apparently staying tight-lipped.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor called the raid "unexplainable" and said that the developing incident "is preoccupying [the Foreign Ministry]". However, he emphasized in a conversation with Israel National News that his office currently has no information on any Israeli citizens taken into custody.
A deportation order would have required some formal contact with Israel, according to Palmor, but there has been no such request from Bolivian officials.
The town of Rurrenabaque is a major tourist attraction for travelers in Bolivia, including many Israeli backpackers. The town is a center from which tourists leave for trips to the jungles and swamp areas in northern Bolivia.
There are many more pictures and details on this story here.
JPost adds:
Two Israeli travelers staying at the Chabad house were arrested and later released, according to Rabbi Aharon Freiman, 22, who spoke with The Jerusalem Post from Rurrenabaque Thursday.
Freiman said he had not been arrested.
"Nobody from the police or from other government authorities has explained the reason for the raid or for the order to close our place," said Freiman, who opened the Chabad house two months ago.
"I've heard different rumors," added Freiman, who said he did not speak Spanish well. "Some claim that this is a crackdown against drug trafficking. A lot of Israelis who come here smoke hashish and marijuana. Another rumor going around is that this is somehow connected with the attempted assassination of the [Bolivian] president."
On April 16, President Evo Morales, the country's first indigenous president and an outspoken critic of the US, said that police had thwarted an assassination attempt against him. Three suspects were killed and two were arrested.
Morales, who faces strong opposition among wealthy Bolivians, has made allegations in the past of attempts to assassinate him....
Shay Geffen, a member of the more messianic stream within Chabad and a spokesman for the National Union Party, said that several MKs were attempting to intervene with Bolivian authorities on behalf of the Freimans, including Michael Ben-Ari (National Union), Meir Porush (United Torah Judaism) and Danny Ayalon (Israel Beiteinu).
Hmmm. posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:39 AM 1 comments links to this post
DURBAN, SDEROT & USA: Where is the outcry?
Holocaust Remembrance Day: The Tragedy of Silence
By • Anav Silverman
Wed Apr 22 2009 07:00:41
Today Israel marked Holocaust Remembrance Day. Standing on a street in Sderot, I listened quietly to the siren sound, remembering the tragedy of 6 million Jews killed in Nazi Europe, my great grandparents, uncles and aunts from Poland among them.
I’ve become used to sirens sounding in Sderot during my past two years here-the click of the intercom, followed by a female voice that calmly repeats Tzeva Adom, Tzeva Adom, or Color Red. The scenes that unfold usually entail people dashing into shelters-racing for 15 seconds that may mean the difference between life and death.
But now at this moment, the Holocaust siren gives me a moment to reflect. I watch passerby’s stop, Ethiopians, Russians, Uzbekistanis, Moroccans, Persians and the like; Israeli Jews from countries around the world who make up Sderot’s colorful cultural tapestry. We stand together to remember the tragedy of silence that cost the lives of so many innocent people in our nation.
It is this tragedy of silence which probably strikes hardest here in Sderot.
Eight years of Qassam attacks have wounded over 1,000 Israelis, destroyed hundreds of Jewish homes, and have left thousands of children psychologically traumatized. Today close to one million Israelis in southern Israel live under the threat of Palestinian rocket attack thanks to the financial aid and abetment from Iran.
Who will speak up for these Israelis who continue to be the targets of radical Islam in the form of Hamas rocket terror?
Sderot is targeted not because it is a city outside the 1967 green lines, nor because of an army base located in the city. Sderot is part of the UN Partition Plan of 1948 with a civilian population of 19,000, where over 5,000 residents have been forced to flee since Palestinian rocket fire began on the city in 2001.
Sderot is targeted simply because it is a Jewish city on the frontlines of Israel-an easy target for Palestinian terrorists who seek Israel’s destruction.
THE greatest testimony that the world is once again returning to its apathetic state of silence that defined the era of Nazi Germany was revealed no less ironically today at the Durban II conference when Iranian President Ahmadinejad was invited as a guest speaker. Moreover, Hans-Rudolf Merz, the president of Switzerland, a country that declared its “neutrality” during the Holocaust, agreed to meet with Ahmadinejad, who is a fervent Holocaust denier and has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel.
According to an Associated Press report, the Swiss president defended his meeting with Ahmadinejad and said that the criticism of the meeting was unjustified, stating that “Switzerland is neutral and not part of any alliance.”
Ahmadinejad’s presence at Durban II is symbolic in that there has been no overwhelming international outcry against his views or the fact that he was invited to speak at the UN conference on racism.
Iran is considered the greatest threat to Israel’s survival. Although Iran, an oil-rich country, continues to claim that its nuclear program is meant to produce electricity, it remains clear to Israel that Tehran is intent on building nuclear weapons that could potentially cause massive destruction to the state.
SDEROT residents have been the silent targets of Islamic terror for too long. Last year on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, 13 rockets fell upon Sderot. Although rocket fire has significantly decreased since Operation Cast Lead, close to 200 rockets have still been fired at the western Negev region. If Israel does not effectively stand up for her citizens at home, who will stand up for Israel in the world?
As countries across the world show alarming acceptance of a blatantly anti-Semitic figure like Ahmadinejad, demonstrated in Durban II, the state of Israel and the Jewish people cannot allow silence to become a national policy in the face of anti-Semitic terror, be it rockets or rhetoric, at home or abroad.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
BY: MATZAV
US bill for Durban II: $814,000
The United States paid $814,000 for its share of the hatefest known as "Durban II," according to a report in Thursday's Jerusalem Post.
The gathering, dubbed "Durban II," has cost $5.3 million, including preparatory conferences, spokesman Ramu Damodaran told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.
About $1.6m. of that has come from direct donations from individual countries, but the lion's share - $3.7m. - was funded from the regular budget of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Damodaran said.
The US, which as the largest single contributor to the UN covers 22 percent of the UN's overall budget, has specifically withheld funding for the Durban conference from its UN dues payments. But because of the way the budget process works, individual nations have little or no control over how their dues are ultimately spent, experts said.
"It's more of a symbolic thing - there's no way to direct the withholding to whatever you're trying to do," said Brett Schaefer, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank in Washington.
The Post also has information on some of the countries that gave 'direct donations' to the conference:
UN officials did not release a complete list of direct donations to this week's conference, but UN Watch, an affiliate of the American Jewish Committee that is based in Geneva, reported on its blog that Russia had provided $600,000 for the gathering. The group claims Saudi Arabia gave $150,000, Kuwait $100,000, and the Palestinian Authority $1,700.
I wonder how much Iran gave.
The US certainly did not get its money's worth at Durban II. Showing up would not have made a difference. posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:52 PM 1 comments links to this
By • Anav Silverman
Wed Apr 22 2009 07:00:41
Today Israel marked Holocaust Remembrance Day. Standing on a street in Sderot, I listened quietly to the siren sound, remembering the tragedy of 6 million Jews killed in Nazi Europe, my great grandparents, uncles and aunts from Poland among them.
I’ve become used to sirens sounding in Sderot during my past two years here-the click of the intercom, followed by a female voice that calmly repeats Tzeva Adom, Tzeva Adom, or Color Red. The scenes that unfold usually entail people dashing into shelters-racing for 15 seconds that may mean the difference between life and death.
But now at this moment, the Holocaust siren gives me a moment to reflect. I watch passerby’s stop, Ethiopians, Russians, Uzbekistanis, Moroccans, Persians and the like; Israeli Jews from countries around the world who make up Sderot’s colorful cultural tapestry. We stand together to remember the tragedy of silence that cost the lives of so many innocent people in our nation.
It is this tragedy of silence which probably strikes hardest here in Sderot.
Eight years of Qassam attacks have wounded over 1,000 Israelis, destroyed hundreds of Jewish homes, and have left thousands of children psychologically traumatized. Today close to one million Israelis in southern Israel live under the threat of Palestinian rocket attack thanks to the financial aid and abetment from Iran.
Who will speak up for these Israelis who continue to be the targets of radical Islam in the form of Hamas rocket terror?
Sderot is targeted not because it is a city outside the 1967 green lines, nor because of an army base located in the city. Sderot is part of the UN Partition Plan of 1948 with a civilian population of 19,000, where over 5,000 residents have been forced to flee since Palestinian rocket fire began on the city in 2001.
Sderot is targeted simply because it is a Jewish city on the frontlines of Israel-an easy target for Palestinian terrorists who seek Israel’s destruction.
THE greatest testimony that the world is once again returning to its apathetic state of silence that defined the era of Nazi Germany was revealed no less ironically today at the Durban II conference when Iranian President Ahmadinejad was invited as a guest speaker. Moreover, Hans-Rudolf Merz, the president of Switzerland, a country that declared its “neutrality” during the Holocaust, agreed to meet with Ahmadinejad, who is a fervent Holocaust denier and has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel.
According to an Associated Press report, the Swiss president defended his meeting with Ahmadinejad and said that the criticism of the meeting was unjustified, stating that “Switzerland is neutral and not part of any alliance.”
Ahmadinejad’s presence at Durban II is symbolic in that there has been no overwhelming international outcry against his views or the fact that he was invited to speak at the UN conference on racism.
Iran is considered the greatest threat to Israel’s survival. Although Iran, an oil-rich country, continues to claim that its nuclear program is meant to produce electricity, it remains clear to Israel that Tehran is intent on building nuclear weapons that could potentially cause massive destruction to the state.
SDEROT residents have been the silent targets of Islamic terror for too long. Last year on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, 13 rockets fell upon Sderot. Although rocket fire has significantly decreased since Operation Cast Lead, close to 200 rockets have still been fired at the western Negev region. If Israel does not effectively stand up for her citizens at home, who will stand up for Israel in the world?
As countries across the world show alarming acceptance of a blatantly anti-Semitic figure like Ahmadinejad, demonstrated in Durban II, the state of Israel and the Jewish people cannot allow silence to become a national policy in the face of anti-Semitic terror, be it rockets or rhetoric, at home or abroad.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
BY: MATZAV
US bill for Durban II: $814,000
The United States paid $814,000 for its share of the hatefest known as "Durban II," according to a report in Thursday's Jerusalem Post.
The gathering, dubbed "Durban II," has cost $5.3 million, including preparatory conferences, spokesman Ramu Damodaran told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.
About $1.6m. of that has come from direct donations from individual countries, but the lion's share - $3.7m. - was funded from the regular budget of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Damodaran said.
The US, which as the largest single contributor to the UN covers 22 percent of the UN's overall budget, has specifically withheld funding for the Durban conference from its UN dues payments. But because of the way the budget process works, individual nations have little or no control over how their dues are ultimately spent, experts said.
"It's more of a symbolic thing - there's no way to direct the withholding to whatever you're trying to do," said Brett Schaefer, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank in Washington.
The Post also has information on some of the countries that gave 'direct donations' to the conference:
UN officials did not release a complete list of direct donations to this week's conference, but UN Watch, an affiliate of the American Jewish Committee that is based in Geneva, reported on its blog that Russia had provided $600,000 for the gathering. The group claims Saudi Arabia gave $150,000, Kuwait $100,000, and the Palestinian Authority $1,700.
I wonder how much Iran gave.
The US certainly did not get its money's worth at Durban II. Showing up would not have made a difference. posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:52 PM 1 comments links to this
Sunday, April 26, 2009
IRAN & THE TIRADE
Mike Evans in Geneva at the Palais des Nations, the site of the Durban Review Conference
Nothing reflects the divisiveness between the two cultures better than the reaction to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s tirade at the Durban Review Conference in Geneva, Switzerland. The Muslim world cheered; delegates from twenty-four Western countries rose as one body and marched to the exit.
The diminutive despot chose April 20, 2009, the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, to call for the decimation of Israel. He appealed to the assembly to encourage and support the fight to eradicate what he called Israel’s “barbaric racism. Efforts must be made to put an end to Zionism,” intoned the fanatical Ahmadinejad. We must not forget that eradicate means to exterminate.
The leader gave a nod to what was to be the central point of the conference, human rights worldwide; then he zeroed in on the West and berated what he characterized as the evils of Zionism. He had the audacity to minimize the horrors suffered by the Jewish people during World War II by labeling the Holocaust the “pretext of Jewish suffering.”
Prior to the opening ceremonies of the conference, Germany, Australia, Canada, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Israel and the United States sent their regrets. During Ahmadinejad’s speech dozens of delegates rose and marched out in protest including Britain, France, Greece, Portugal, Spain, and a number of other countries. While Ahmadinejad decried the behavior of those who exited the hall as “rude,” he had no problem being interrupted with applause by delegates from some Muslim countries including Iran and Pakistan.
Outside the conference setting pro-Jewish organizations reverently recited the names of some of the six million people who perished in the Holocaust.
A statement issued by the U.S. called the Iranian’s remarks “hateful.” Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, told reporters: "Obviously, the president disagrees vehemently with what was said, as, from some of the video I saw, so did many others."
Although UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had asked Ahmadinejad not to cause disruption and division with his comments, he was sorely disappointed. Ban pointed out that the comments were used “to accuse, divide and even incite.”
Even as Ahmadinejad was holding court in Geneva, a solemn ceremony was being conducted at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in Israel. President Shimon Peres called Ahmadinejad’s trip to Geneva “a deplorable disgrace.” He said, “The conference opening today in Geneva constitutes an acceptance of racism, rather than the fight against it, and its main speaker is Ahmadinejad, who calls for the annihilation of Israel and denies the Holocaust.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu paid tribute to those countries that chose not to give their seal of approval to the events in Geneva. Netanyahu vowed, “We will not let the Holocaust deniers perpetrate another holocaust on the Jewish people," he said. “This is the highest responsibility of the State of Israel and of myself as prime minister.”
One has to question why the United Nations provided a venue for a head of state who leads a country where methodical and organized tyranny is practiced daily, a country where women are cruelly subjugated.
It is horrifying to think that the rhetoric spouted during yesterday’s speech was delivered by the man who controls a country on the brink of becoming a nuclear power. Iran will soon have the tools to attempt to carry out its threats to wipe Israel off the map.
The leaders of this superpower wanna-be are motivated by an evil and deep-seated hatred for all things the Western world represents – freedom and choice among them. This is a dogma that can’t be ignored by those so wishful for adulation that they will turn a blind eye to the nature of the beast in order affect change. Ahmadinejad is a fanatical leader whose only emotions are hatred and vengeance. This is why delegates from twenty-four countries rose as one and marched out of the conference in Geneva, Switzerland on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day.
Nothing reflects the divisiveness between the two cultures better than the reaction to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s tirade at the Durban Review Conference in Geneva, Switzerland. The Muslim world cheered; delegates from twenty-four Western countries rose as one body and marched to the exit.
The diminutive despot chose April 20, 2009, the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, to call for the decimation of Israel. He appealed to the assembly to encourage and support the fight to eradicate what he called Israel’s “barbaric racism. Efforts must be made to put an end to Zionism,” intoned the fanatical Ahmadinejad. We must not forget that eradicate means to exterminate.
The leader gave a nod to what was to be the central point of the conference, human rights worldwide; then he zeroed in on the West and berated what he characterized as the evils of Zionism. He had the audacity to minimize the horrors suffered by the Jewish people during World War II by labeling the Holocaust the “pretext of Jewish suffering.”
Prior to the opening ceremonies of the conference, Germany, Australia, Canada, Italy, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Israel and the United States sent their regrets. During Ahmadinejad’s speech dozens of delegates rose and marched out in protest including Britain, France, Greece, Portugal, Spain, and a number of other countries. While Ahmadinejad decried the behavior of those who exited the hall as “rude,” he had no problem being interrupted with applause by delegates from some Muslim countries including Iran and Pakistan.
Outside the conference setting pro-Jewish organizations reverently recited the names of some of the six million people who perished in the Holocaust.
A statement issued by the U.S. called the Iranian’s remarks “hateful.” Robert Gibbs, White House press secretary, told reporters: "Obviously, the president disagrees vehemently with what was said, as, from some of the video I saw, so did many others."
Although UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had asked Ahmadinejad not to cause disruption and division with his comments, he was sorely disappointed. Ban pointed out that the comments were used “to accuse, divide and even incite.”
Even as Ahmadinejad was holding court in Geneva, a solemn ceremony was being conducted at Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in Israel. President Shimon Peres called Ahmadinejad’s trip to Geneva “a deplorable disgrace.” He said, “The conference opening today in Geneva constitutes an acceptance of racism, rather than the fight against it, and its main speaker is Ahmadinejad, who calls for the annihilation of Israel and denies the Holocaust.”
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu paid tribute to those countries that chose not to give their seal of approval to the events in Geneva. Netanyahu vowed, “We will not let the Holocaust deniers perpetrate another holocaust on the Jewish people," he said. “This is the highest responsibility of the State of Israel and of myself as prime minister.”
One has to question why the United Nations provided a venue for a head of state who leads a country where methodical and organized tyranny is practiced daily, a country where women are cruelly subjugated.
It is horrifying to think that the rhetoric spouted during yesterday’s speech was delivered by the man who controls a country on the brink of becoming a nuclear power. Iran will soon have the tools to attempt to carry out its threats to wipe Israel off the map.
The leaders of this superpower wanna-be are motivated by an evil and deep-seated hatred for all things the Western world represents – freedom and choice among them. This is a dogma that can’t be ignored by those so wishful for adulation that they will turn a blind eye to the nature of the beast in order affect change. Ahmadinejad is a fanatical leader whose only emotions are hatred and vengeance. This is why delegates from twenty-four countries rose as one and marched out of the conference in Geneva, Switzerland on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day.
IRAN, ISRAEL & OBAMA by Matzav
Iran and the 'Palestinians': Separate or connected?
On Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that Israel has decided to tie progress on the 'Palestinian' issue to progress on stopping Iran's nuclear program.
The new Israeli government will not move ahead on the core issues of peace talks with the Palestinians until it sees progress in U.S. efforts to stop Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon and limit Tehran's rising influence in the region, according to top government officials familiar with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's developing policy on the issue.
"It's a crucial condition if we want to move forward," said Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon, a member of the Israeli parliament and former ambassador to the United States. "If we want to have a real political process with the Palestinians, then you can't have the Iranians undermining and sabotaging."
"Realistically, we need to keep Iran at bay," Ayalon said, and until that happens, the Israeli government will largely limit itself to matters such as trying to improve the Palestinian economy and strengthen its civil institutions. "The Iranian clock should be measured in months," he said in reference to Israel's view that the Islamic republic is approaching the ability to make a nuclear weapon. By contrast, the timetable on Palestinian statehood "is open-ended."
Over at Power Line, Paul Mirengoff calls that strategy "excellent" and lauds it as "statecraft at its best."
First, Israel's approach is consistent with its interests. For Israel, Iran's progress on the nuclear front is the most pressing problem; resolving issues with the Palestinians is of much less concern. After all, Iran, a sworn enemy, may be on the verge of developing weapons that could destroy Israel. The Palestinians, though still capable of small acts of terrorism, pose no such threat.
Second, it creates something like a win-win situation for Israel. In the highly unlikely event that Obama produces serious progress in curbing Iran's nuclear program, that's a big win for Israel. If Obama does not produce such progress, Israel has a basis for resisting his entreaties to engage with the Palestinians (naturally, if Israel concludes that such engagement is in its interest, it can proceed on that basis anyway). Nor is Israel precluded by Obama's failure from taking action of its own against Iran, should it conclude that such action is necessary. In the same report linked above, the Washington Post reports that Israeli analysts agree with Mirengoff.
Israeli analysts and Netanyahu's advisers say that while his focus on Iran may limit the likelihood of any near-term progress toward Palestinian statehood, it opens the door for a broader and more profound step forward if Obama and the Arab states agree with his view of Iran.
Netanyahu's approach "completely recalibrates expectations and understandings about where we really are," said Dan Diker, a senior foreign policy analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a think tank that is close to the Netanyahu administration. "We can only address the region in the context of an ascendant Iran that is close to nuclear weapons and is destabilizing nearly every country in the Middle East."
But as was the case at the end of last week, when Netanyahu first raised and then backed off a demand that the 'Palestinians' recognize Israel as a Jewish state as a condition for resuming negotiations, Netanyahu appears to be backing off the attempt to link progress with the 'Palestinians' to Iran.
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon on Wednesday denied a report that Israel will not move ahead with diplomatic talks with the Palestinians until the US places more pressure on Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program.
"We will deal with the Palestinian issue as if there is no Iranian issue, and with the Iranian issue as if there is no Palestinian issue," Ayalon said.
And the Washington Post quote from Ayalon?
Ayalon seemed to suggest this quote was misinterpreted.
The link between Iran and the Palestinian issue, "if there is such a link, is a negative one. The Iranian influence [among the Palestinians] is destructive," he said.
But there is hope. The 'moderate' Arab states share Netanyahu's concern over Iran and believe that Iran is a more important issue right now than the 'Palestinians.' For Netanyahu to push that line when he visits Washington next month would therefore not be seen as unreasonable anywhere outside the White House. But to stand up to the pressure he will undoubtedly face from the Obama administration, Netanyahu is going to have to find some ba you know what.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:27 PM 3 comments links to this post
Good advice for Obama on Iran
One can only hope and pray that President Obama will listen to advice like this, even if its source is an Israeli think tank.
The Iranians have already made a significant gain, when the US more than hinted that there would be no prior linkage between negotiations and the suspension of enrichment activities. The Iranians are famous for their tactics in playing for time. The US must not fall into that trap. Therefore, President Obama must set himself a time limit even if he does not disclose it to anyone. One can understand why a public disclosure could be seen as presenting Iran with an ultimatum and, given the Iranian sense of pride, greatly diminish the possibility of reaching an agreement. In setting the time limit, the President must remember that any time gained by the Iranians during the negotiation process would be used to further advance their project. In addition, one must bear in mind that nothing would induce the Iranians to "rollback", and demolish any achievement, in materials or facilities, as a part of any agreement. This could only come about by a profound change in the Iranian regime, and even then this is not certain.
Although for the US there is also the grave economic crisis to deal with, this will be resolved one way or the other, given enough time and allocated resources. In a way the Iranian nuclear issue is the Cuban missile crisis all over again. It will test the ability of the newly-elected US President to confront the adversary and better him. In a way this is a make or break situation for Obama.
Given the IAEA assessment that Iran will have accumulated enough Low Enriched Uranium to enable it to further enrich it and produce 25 kilograms of High Enriched Uranium, should it wish to do so, by the end of this year, six months (from now) for talking is too long. posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:07 PM 1 comments links to thi
On Wednesday, the Washington Post reported that Israel has decided to tie progress on the 'Palestinian' issue to progress on stopping Iran's nuclear program.
The new Israeli government will not move ahead on the core issues of peace talks with the Palestinians until it sees progress in U.S. efforts to stop Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon and limit Tehran's rising influence in the region, according to top government officials familiar with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's developing policy on the issue.
"It's a crucial condition if we want to move forward," said Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon, a member of the Israeli parliament and former ambassador to the United States. "If we want to have a real political process with the Palestinians, then you can't have the Iranians undermining and sabotaging."
"Realistically, we need to keep Iran at bay," Ayalon said, and until that happens, the Israeli government will largely limit itself to matters such as trying to improve the Palestinian economy and strengthen its civil institutions. "The Iranian clock should be measured in months," he said in reference to Israel's view that the Islamic republic is approaching the ability to make a nuclear weapon. By contrast, the timetable on Palestinian statehood "is open-ended."
Over at Power Line, Paul Mirengoff calls that strategy "excellent" and lauds it as "statecraft at its best."
First, Israel's approach is consistent with its interests. For Israel, Iran's progress on the nuclear front is the most pressing problem; resolving issues with the Palestinians is of much less concern. After all, Iran, a sworn enemy, may be on the verge of developing weapons that could destroy Israel. The Palestinians, though still capable of small acts of terrorism, pose no such threat.
Second, it creates something like a win-win situation for Israel. In the highly unlikely event that Obama produces serious progress in curbing Iran's nuclear program, that's a big win for Israel. If Obama does not produce such progress, Israel has a basis for resisting his entreaties to engage with the Palestinians (naturally, if Israel concludes that such engagement is in its interest, it can proceed on that basis anyway). Nor is Israel precluded by Obama's failure from taking action of its own against Iran, should it conclude that such action is necessary. In the same report linked above, the Washington Post reports that Israeli analysts agree with Mirengoff.
Israeli analysts and Netanyahu's advisers say that while his focus on Iran may limit the likelihood of any near-term progress toward Palestinian statehood, it opens the door for a broader and more profound step forward if Obama and the Arab states agree with his view of Iran.
Netanyahu's approach "completely recalibrates expectations and understandings about where we really are," said Dan Diker, a senior foreign policy analyst at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a think tank that is close to the Netanyahu administration. "We can only address the region in the context of an ascendant Iran that is close to nuclear weapons and is destabilizing nearly every country in the Middle East."
But as was the case at the end of last week, when Netanyahu first raised and then backed off a demand that the 'Palestinians' recognize Israel as a Jewish state as a condition for resuming negotiations, Netanyahu appears to be backing off the attempt to link progress with the 'Palestinians' to Iran.
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon on Wednesday denied a report that Israel will not move ahead with diplomatic talks with the Palestinians until the US places more pressure on Iran to stop its nuclear weapons program.
"We will deal with the Palestinian issue as if there is no Iranian issue, and with the Iranian issue as if there is no Palestinian issue," Ayalon said.
And the Washington Post quote from Ayalon?
Ayalon seemed to suggest this quote was misinterpreted.
The link between Iran and the Palestinian issue, "if there is such a link, is a negative one. The Iranian influence [among the Palestinians] is destructive," he said.
But there is hope. The 'moderate' Arab states share Netanyahu's concern over Iran and believe that Iran is a more important issue right now than the 'Palestinians.' For Netanyahu to push that line when he visits Washington next month would therefore not be seen as unreasonable anywhere outside the White House. But to stand up to the pressure he will undoubtedly face from the Obama administration, Netanyahu is going to have to find some ba you know what.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:27 PM 3 comments links to this post
Good advice for Obama on Iran
One can only hope and pray that President Obama will listen to advice like this, even if its source is an Israeli think tank.
The Iranians have already made a significant gain, when the US more than hinted that there would be no prior linkage between negotiations and the suspension of enrichment activities. The Iranians are famous for their tactics in playing for time. The US must not fall into that trap. Therefore, President Obama must set himself a time limit even if he does not disclose it to anyone. One can understand why a public disclosure could be seen as presenting Iran with an ultimatum and, given the Iranian sense of pride, greatly diminish the possibility of reaching an agreement. In setting the time limit, the President must remember that any time gained by the Iranians during the negotiation process would be used to further advance their project. In addition, one must bear in mind that nothing would induce the Iranians to "rollback", and demolish any achievement, in materials or facilities, as a part of any agreement. This could only come about by a profound change in the Iranian regime, and even then this is not certain.
Although for the US there is also the grave economic crisis to deal with, this will be resolved one way or the other, given enough time and allocated resources. In a way the Iranian nuclear issue is the Cuban missile crisis all over again. It will test the ability of the newly-elected US President to confront the adversary and better him. In a way this is a make or break situation for Obama.
Given the IAEA assessment that Iran will have accumulated enough Low Enriched Uranium to enable it to further enrich it and produce 25 kilograms of High Enriched Uranium, should it wish to do so, by the end of this year, six months (from now) for talking is too long. posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 12:07 PM 1 comments links to thi
IRAN: Who didn't know this?
What Iran Really Thinks About Talks
by Michael Rubin
Wall Street Journal
April 13, 2009
http://www.meforum.org/2115/what-iran-really-thinks-about-talks
On Apr. 9, Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's atomic energy agency, announced that the Islamic Republic had installed 7,000 centrifuges in its Natanz uranium enrichment facility. The announcement came one day after the U.S. State Department announced it would engage Iran directly in multilateral nuclear talks.
Proponents of engagement with Tehran say dialogue provides the only way forward. Iran's progress over the past eight years, they say, is a testament to the failure of Bush administration strategy. President Barack Obama, for example, in his Mar. 21 address to the Iranian government and people, declared that diplomacy "will not be advanced by threats. We seek engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect."
Thus our president fulfills a pattern in which new administrations place blame for the failure of diplomacy on predecessors rather than on adversaries. The Islamic Republic is not a passive actor, however. Quite the opposite: While President Obama plays checkers, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei plays chess. The enrichment milestone is a testament both to Tehran's pro-active strategy and to Washington's refusal to recognize it.
Iran's nuclear program dates back to 1989, when the Russian government agreed to complete the reactor at Bushehr. It was a year of optimism in the West: The Iran-Iraq War ended the summer before and, with the death of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini, leadership passed to Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, both considered moderates.
At the beginning of the year, George H.W. Bush offered an olive branch to Tehran, declaring in his inaugural address, "Good will begets good will. Good faith can be a spiral that endlessly moves on." The mood grew more euphoric in Europe. In 1992, the German government, ever eager for new business opportunities and arguing that trade could moderate the Islamic Republic, launched its own engagement initiative.
It didn't work. While U.S. and European policy makers draw distinctions between reformers and hard-liners in the Islamic Republic, the difference between the two is style, not substance. Both remain committed to Iran's nuclear program. Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, for example, called for a Dialogue of Civilizations. The European Union (EU) took the bait and, between 2000 and 2005, nearly tripled trade with Iran.
It was a ruse. Iranian officials were as insincere as European diplomats were greedy, gullible or both. Iranian officials now acknowledge that Tehran invested the benefits reaped into its nuclear program.
On June 14, 2008, for example, Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, Mr. Khatami's spokesman, debated advisers to current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the University of Gila in northern Iran. Mr. Ramezanzadeh criticized Mr. Ahmadinejad for his defiant rhetoric, and counseled him to accept the Khatami approach: "We should prove to the entire world that we want power plants for electricity. Afterwards, we can proceed with other activities," Mr. Ramezanzadeh said. The purpose of dialogue, he argued further, was not to compromise, but to build confidence and avoid sanctions. "We had an overt policy, which was one of negotiation and confidence building, and a covert policy, which was continuation of the activities," he said.
The strategy was successful. While today U.S. and European officials laud Mr. Khatami as a peacemaker, it was on his watch that Iran built and operated covertly its Natanz nuclear enrichment plant and, at least until 2003, a nuclear weapons program as well.
Iran's responsiveness to diplomacy is a mirage. After two years of talks following exposure of its Natanz facility, Tehran finally acquiesced to a temporary enrichment suspension, a move which Secretary of State Colin Powell called "a little bit of progress," and the EU hailed.
But, just last Sunday, Hassan Rowhani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator at the time, acknowledged his government's insincerity. The Iranian leadership agreed to suspension, he explained in an interview with the government-run news Web site, Aftab News, "to counter global consensus against Iran," adding, "We did not accept suspension in construction of centrifuges and continued the effort. . . . We needed a greater number." What diplomats considered progress, Iranian engineers understood to be an opportunity to expand their program.
In his March 24 press conference, Mr. Obama said, "I'm a big believer in persistence." Making the same mistake repeatedly, however, is neither wise nor realism; it is arrogant, naïve and dangerous.
When Mr. Obama declared on April 5 that "All countries can access peaceful nuclear energy," the state-run daily newspaper Resalat responded with a front page headline, "The United States capitulates to the nuclear goals of Iran." With Washington embracing dialogue without accountability and Tehran embracing diplomacy without sincerity, it appears the Iranian government is right.
Michael Rubin is editor of the Middle East Quarterly and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Iran's Western enablers
By Caroline B. Glick
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
Egypt's recent actions against Hizbullah operatives are a watershed event for understanding the nature of the threat that Iran constitutes for both regional and global security. For many Israelis, Egypt's actions came as a surprise. For years this country has been appealing to Egypt to take action against Hizbullah operatives in its territory. With minor exceptions, it has refused. Believing that its operatives threatened only us, the Mubarak regime preferred to turn a blind eye.
Then too, now seems a strange time for Egypt to be proving Israel correct. Senior ministers in the new Netanyahu government have for years been outspoken critics of Egypt for its refusal to act against Hizbullah and for its support for the Hizbullah/Iran-sponsored Hamas terror group. By going after Hizbullah now, Egypt is legitimizing both their criticism and the Netanyahu government itself. This in turn seems to go against Egypt's basic interest of weakening Israel politically in general, and weakening rightist Israeli governments in particular.
But none of this seemed to interest Egyptian officials last week when they announced the arrest of 49 Hizbullah operatives and pointed a finger at Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah and his bosses in Teheran, openly accusing them of seeking to undermine Egypt's national security.
The question is what caused Egypt to suddenly act? It appears that two things are motivating the Mubarak regime. First, there is the nature of the Hizbullah network it uncovered. According to the Egyptian Justice Ministry's statements, the arrested operatives were not confining their operations to weapons smuggling to Gaza. They were also targeting Egypt.
The Egyptian state prosecution alleges that while operating as Iranian agents, they were scouting targets along the Suez Canal. That is, they were planning strategic strikes against Egypt's economic lifeline.
The second aspect of the network that clearly concerned Egyptian authorities was what it showed about the breadth of cooperation between the regime's primary opponent - the Muslim Brotherhood - and the Iranian regime.
Forty-one of the suspects arrested are Egyptian citizens, apparently aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. This alignment is signaled by two things. First, many of them have hired Muslim Brotherhood activist Muntaser al-Zayat as their defense attorney. And second, Muslim Brotherhood spokesmen have decried the arrests.
For instance, in an interview with Gulf News last Thursday, Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Issam el-Erian defended Hizbullah (and Iran) against his own government, claiming that Nasrallah and the Iranian ayatollahs are right to accuse President Hosni Mubarak of being little more than an Israeli stooge.
In his words, "The Egyptian government must redraw its national security policies to include Israeli threats against Arab counties like Syria and Lebanon and to consider threats against Palestinians by Israelis as a threat against its national security."
In a nutshell then, both the Hizbullah network's targets and its relationship to Egypt's Sunni Islamist opposition expose clearly the danger the Iranian regime constitutes to Egypt. Iran seeks to undermine and defeat opponents throughout the world through both direct military/terrorist/sabotage operations and through ideological subversion. It is the confluence of both of these aspects of Iran's revolutionary ambitions that forced Egypt to act now, regardless of the impact of its actions on the political fortunes of the Netanyahu government. And it is not a bit surprising that Egypt was forced to act at such a politically inopportune time.
THROUGHOUT the region and indeed throughout much of the world, Iran's star is on the rise. Its burgeoning nuclear program acts as a second arm of a pincer-like campaign against its opponents. The asymmetric and ideological warfare it wages through its terror and state proxies are the campaign's first arm. Together, these two strategic arms are raising the stakes of Iran's challenge to its neighbors and to the West to unprecedented and unacceptable heights. Morocco is so concerned about Iranian subversion of its Sunni population that last month it cut off diplomatic ties with Teheran.
Iran's great leap forward has been exposed by recent events. Last month's Arab League summit in Doha exemplified how Iran has successfully split the Arab world between its proxies and its opponents. For the past three years, and particularly since the 2006 war between Israel and Iran's Hizbullah in Lebanon, Arab League states have been increasingly polarized around the issue of Iran. The country has used its satellite states of Syria, Sudan and Qatar, as well as its burgeoning alliances with Muslim Brotherhood branches in Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and elsewhere, to legitimize its rapidly escalating assaults on Sunni regimes throughout the region.
Although Egypt and Saudi Arabia successfully blocked Qatar from inviting Iran and Hamas to the summit, by using the good offices of Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Thani and Syrian President Bashar Assad, the Iranians were able to get their anti-Saudi/Egyptian platform passed. As the Middle East Media Research Institute chronicled in a report on the proceedings, Assad successfully abrogated the so-called Saudi peace plan that the Arab League adopted in 2002. According to a new Syrian-backed resolution, any Arab rapprochement with Israel would be contingent on Israel first destroying itself by withdrawing into indefensible borders and being overwhelmed by millions of hostile foreign Arab immigrants.
Sensing what awaited him at the summit, Mubarak chose to stay home and send a junior emissary in his place. Saudi King Abdullah said nothing throughout the two-day Arab love-fest with Iran. Both leaders emerged weakened and humiliated.
In recent years, Iran has expanded its sphere of influence to strategic points around the region. Two recent additions to Iran's axis are Eritrea and Somalia. Iran and Eritrea signed a strategic alliance last year that grants Iranian Revolutionary Guard units basing rights in the strategically vital Bab al-Mandab strait that controls the chokepoint connecting the Indian Ocean with the Red Sea. As for Somalia - whose position along the Gulf of Aden provides it a similarly critical maritime posture - Iran has been exploiting its condition as a failed state for several years.
In 2006, the UN reported that some 720 Somali jihadists aligned with al-Qaida fought with Hizbullah in Lebanon during its war against Israel. According to an analysis of Iran's coopting of Somali jihadists published in November 2006 by the on-line Long War Journal, in exchange for the Somali operatives' assistance, Iran and Syria provided advanced military training to the Somalis who had just established the al-Qaida-affiliated Islamic Courts Union regime in the country. Teheran equipped the ICU with anti-aircraft missiles, grenade launchers, machine guns, ammunition, medicine, uniforms and other supplies both before and after it took control of Somalia.
The UN report also linked the ICU to Iran's nuclear program. Its alleged that Iranian agents were operating in ICU chief Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys's hometown of Dusa Mareb, where they sought to buy uranium.
Beyond the Horn of Africa, of course, Iran has been consistently expanding its influence in Iraq and Afghanistan. In both countries the mullahs simultaneously sponsor the insurgencies and offer themselves as the US's indispensible partner for stabilizing the countries they are destabilizing.
What is perhaps most jarring about Iran's ever-expanding influence is the disparate responses it elicits from Israel and Sunni regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia on the one hand, and the West on the other. Whereas Israel and the Sunni Arab states warn about Iran daily, far from acknowledging or confronting this ever-expanding Iranian menace, the US and the Europeans have been alternatively ignoring it and appeasing it. If the US were taking the Iranian threat seriously, the Obama administration would not be begging Iran to negotiate with it after Teheran demonstrated that it has complete control over the nuclear fuel cycle.
If the US were interested in contending with the danger Iran constitutes to global security, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would not be absurdly arguing that the US cannot verify whether Iran's announcement that it is now operating 7,000 centrifuges and its opening of another nuclear site signify an increase in its nuclear capacity.
Were the US taking Iran seriously, it would not be asking Iran to help out in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would not be treating Somali piracy as a strategically insignificant nuisance. It would not be ignoring Eritrea's newfound subservience to Iran. It would not be maintaining the Central Command's headquarters in Qatar. And, of course, it would not be permitting Iran to move forward with its nuclear weapons program.
THEN there is Britain. Last week Michael Ledeen from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies reported that Britain's decision to recognize Hizbullah is part of a deal it struck with Iran and Hizbullah in exchange for five Britons who have been held hostage in Iraq by Hizbullah/Iran-affiliated terrorists for two years. According to the deal, in exchange for the British hostages, London agreed to recognize Hizbullah and the US agreed to release a number of Shi'ite terrorists its forces in Iraq have captured.
As Tariq Alhomayed, the editor of Asharq al-Awsat, noted in response to the news, the deal puts paid Nasrallah's contention that Hizbullah does not operate outside Lebanon except to wage war against Israel. But it also points to a severe problem with the West.
If Britain was willing to acknowledge and contend with the grave threat Iran constitutes for global security, it would not accept the authority of Hizbullah or Iran to negotiate the release of British hostages in Iraq. Instead it would place responsibility for achieving the release of the British hostages on the sovereign Iraqi government and use all the means at its disposal to strengthen that government against agents of Iranian influence in the country.
So, too, rather than participate in the deal, the US would seek to destroy the Iranian-controlled operatives holding the hostages and discredit and defeat the Iraqi political forces operating under Iranian control. Certainly if the US were taking the Iranian threat seriously, it would announce that any withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq will be linked to the complete defeat of agents of Iranian influence in Iraq.
The West's refusal to contend with the burgeoning Iranian menace no doubt has something to do with the West's physical distance from Iran. Whereas Middle Eastern countries have no choice but to deal with Iran, the US and its European allies apparently believe that they can still pretend away the danger. But of course they cannot.
From the Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden to Hizbullah cells from Iraq to Canada; from Iranian agents in British universities to Hizbullah and Iranian military advisers in South and Central America, the West, like the Middle East, is being infiltrated and surrounded.
Egypt's open assault on Hizbullah is yet another warning that concerted action must be taken against the mullocracy. Unfortunately, the absence of Western resolve signals that this warning, too, will go unheeded.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Comment by clicking here.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
By failing to oppose Iran more effectively, the West is unintentionally encouraging it to be more extremist and dangerous. By failing to help relatively moderate Arab regimes, the West is making them more susceptible to having to appease Iran. By pressuring and criticizing Israel, the West is encouraging Iran’s regime to believe it can be destroyed.
Not a pretty picture. But neither is that of the would-be fuehrer being an honored guest at UN meetings. No wonder Ahmadinejad and his backers believe that theirs is a winning bet.
For more on Ahmadinejad’s interview with Der Spiegel, see http://www.gloria-center.org/blog/2009/04/President-Ahmadinejad-East.html.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org/
ShareThis
Posted by Barry Rubin at 12:01 PM 0 comments
Labels: Iran, Middle East politics
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
China has large role in stopping Iran`
Elie Leshem - Apr 23, 2009
The Jerusalem Post
China has a "central role" in preventing Iran`s drive to obtain nuclear weapons, President Shimon Peres said Thursday in a meeting with visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi.
Besides the Iranian nuclear issue the two also discussed the Middle East peace process and the expanding of business and technology ties between the two countries, a statement from Beit Hanassi said.
Alluding to Holocaust-denying remarks made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad in his UN racism conference address, Jeichi said that it was "clear" to his country that "the Holocaust of the Jews is an undeniable and unassailable fact."
Jeichi expressed his support for the road map peace plan and the "principle of land for peace." He said Israel should resume talks with the Palestinians and also open tracks with the Syrians and the Lebanese.
"I know," Jeichi said, "that Israel`s new government needs time to formulate its policy and I hope that it will arrive at sensible decisions that lead to peace and stability in the area."
Peres emphasized the Iranian threat, calling Ahmadinejad a "religious fanatic leader who supports terror, war and bloodshed."
The efforts on the part of Iran, "a poor country," to develop long-range missiles must be a source of anxiety to all "responsible" world leaders, Peres said.
Jiechi arrived in Israel for a three-day visit on Wednesday.
The Jerusalem Post has learned that Israeli officials were planning to tell him that China`s oil and natural gas imports from Iran could be jeopardized in the future if pressure does not increase on the Islamic republic to cease its nuclear program and a military confrontation ensues.
During his stay, Israeli diplomats will argue that a more proactive stance on China`s part to pressure Iran will serve Beijing`s interests, by helping to avert a military conflict, thus safeguarding an important energy source for the growing and energy-hungry Chinese economy.
Jiechi will be urged by officials in Jerusalem to up the ante in the campaign to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear development work.
Diplomatic sources in Jerusalem view Jiechi`s visit as an important opportunity to raise Israel`s concerns over Iran, but they remain uncertain over the impact such a presentation will ultimately make on China`s Iran policy.
Yaakov Lappin contributed to this report
by Michael Rubin
Wall Street Journal
April 13, 2009
http://www.meforum.org/2115/what-iran-really-thinks-about-talks
On Apr. 9, Gholam Reza Aghazadeh, the head of Iran's atomic energy agency, announced that the Islamic Republic had installed 7,000 centrifuges in its Natanz uranium enrichment facility. The announcement came one day after the U.S. State Department announced it would engage Iran directly in multilateral nuclear talks.
Proponents of engagement with Tehran say dialogue provides the only way forward. Iran's progress over the past eight years, they say, is a testament to the failure of Bush administration strategy. President Barack Obama, for example, in his Mar. 21 address to the Iranian government and people, declared that diplomacy "will not be advanced by threats. We seek engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect."
Thus our president fulfills a pattern in which new administrations place blame for the failure of diplomacy on predecessors rather than on adversaries. The Islamic Republic is not a passive actor, however. Quite the opposite: While President Obama plays checkers, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei plays chess. The enrichment milestone is a testament both to Tehran's pro-active strategy and to Washington's refusal to recognize it.
Iran's nuclear program dates back to 1989, when the Russian government agreed to complete the reactor at Bushehr. It was a year of optimism in the West: The Iran-Iraq War ended the summer before and, with the death of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini, leadership passed to Ayatollah Khamenei and President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, both considered moderates.
At the beginning of the year, George H.W. Bush offered an olive branch to Tehran, declaring in his inaugural address, "Good will begets good will. Good faith can be a spiral that endlessly moves on." The mood grew more euphoric in Europe. In 1992, the German government, ever eager for new business opportunities and arguing that trade could moderate the Islamic Republic, launched its own engagement initiative.
It didn't work. While U.S. and European policy makers draw distinctions between reformers and hard-liners in the Islamic Republic, the difference between the two is style, not substance. Both remain committed to Iran's nuclear program. Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, for example, called for a Dialogue of Civilizations. The European Union (EU) took the bait and, between 2000 and 2005, nearly tripled trade with Iran.
It was a ruse. Iranian officials were as insincere as European diplomats were greedy, gullible or both. Iranian officials now acknowledge that Tehran invested the benefits reaped into its nuclear program.
On June 14, 2008, for example, Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, Mr. Khatami's spokesman, debated advisers to current Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the University of Gila in northern Iran. Mr. Ramezanzadeh criticized Mr. Ahmadinejad for his defiant rhetoric, and counseled him to accept the Khatami approach: "We should prove to the entire world that we want power plants for electricity. Afterwards, we can proceed with other activities," Mr. Ramezanzadeh said. The purpose of dialogue, he argued further, was not to compromise, but to build confidence and avoid sanctions. "We had an overt policy, which was one of negotiation and confidence building, and a covert policy, which was continuation of the activities," he said.
The strategy was successful. While today U.S. and European officials laud Mr. Khatami as a peacemaker, it was on his watch that Iran built and operated covertly its Natanz nuclear enrichment plant and, at least until 2003, a nuclear weapons program as well.
Iran's responsiveness to diplomacy is a mirage. After two years of talks following exposure of its Natanz facility, Tehran finally acquiesced to a temporary enrichment suspension, a move which Secretary of State Colin Powell called "a little bit of progress," and the EU hailed.
But, just last Sunday, Hassan Rowhani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator at the time, acknowledged his government's insincerity. The Iranian leadership agreed to suspension, he explained in an interview with the government-run news Web site, Aftab News, "to counter global consensus against Iran," adding, "We did not accept suspension in construction of centrifuges and continued the effort. . . . We needed a greater number." What diplomats considered progress, Iranian engineers understood to be an opportunity to expand their program.
In his March 24 press conference, Mr. Obama said, "I'm a big believer in persistence." Making the same mistake repeatedly, however, is neither wise nor realism; it is arrogant, naïve and dangerous.
When Mr. Obama declared on April 5 that "All countries can access peaceful nuclear energy," the state-run daily newspaper Resalat responded with a front page headline, "The United States capitulates to the nuclear goals of Iran." With Washington embracing dialogue without accountability and Tehran embracing diplomacy without sincerity, it appears the Iranian government is right.
Michael Rubin is editor of the Middle East Quarterly and a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Iran's Western enablers
By Caroline B. Glick
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com
Egypt's recent actions against Hizbullah operatives are a watershed event for understanding the nature of the threat that Iran constitutes for both regional and global security. For many Israelis, Egypt's actions came as a surprise. For years this country has been appealing to Egypt to take action against Hizbullah operatives in its territory. With minor exceptions, it has refused. Believing that its operatives threatened only us, the Mubarak regime preferred to turn a blind eye.
Then too, now seems a strange time for Egypt to be proving Israel correct. Senior ministers in the new Netanyahu government have for years been outspoken critics of Egypt for its refusal to act against Hizbullah and for its support for the Hizbullah/Iran-sponsored Hamas terror group. By going after Hizbullah now, Egypt is legitimizing both their criticism and the Netanyahu government itself. This in turn seems to go against Egypt's basic interest of weakening Israel politically in general, and weakening rightist Israeli governments in particular.
But none of this seemed to interest Egyptian officials last week when they announced the arrest of 49 Hizbullah operatives and pointed a finger at Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah and his bosses in Teheran, openly accusing them of seeking to undermine Egypt's national security.
The question is what caused Egypt to suddenly act? It appears that two things are motivating the Mubarak regime. First, there is the nature of the Hizbullah network it uncovered. According to the Egyptian Justice Ministry's statements, the arrested operatives were not confining their operations to weapons smuggling to Gaza. They were also targeting Egypt.
The Egyptian state prosecution alleges that while operating as Iranian agents, they were scouting targets along the Suez Canal. That is, they were planning strategic strikes against Egypt's economic lifeline.
The second aspect of the network that clearly concerned Egyptian authorities was what it showed about the breadth of cooperation between the regime's primary opponent - the Muslim Brotherhood - and the Iranian regime.
Forty-one of the suspects arrested are Egyptian citizens, apparently aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. This alignment is signaled by two things. First, many of them have hired Muslim Brotherhood activist Muntaser al-Zayat as their defense attorney. And second, Muslim Brotherhood spokesmen have decried the arrests.
For instance, in an interview with Gulf News last Thursday, Muslim Brotherhood spokesman Issam el-Erian defended Hizbullah (and Iran) against his own government, claiming that Nasrallah and the Iranian ayatollahs are right to accuse President Hosni Mubarak of being little more than an Israeli stooge.
In his words, "The Egyptian government must redraw its national security policies to include Israeli threats against Arab counties like Syria and Lebanon and to consider threats against Palestinians by Israelis as a threat against its national security."
In a nutshell then, both the Hizbullah network's targets and its relationship to Egypt's Sunni Islamist opposition expose clearly the danger the Iranian regime constitutes to Egypt. Iran seeks to undermine and defeat opponents throughout the world through both direct military/terrorist/sabotage operations and through ideological subversion. It is the confluence of both of these aspects of Iran's revolutionary ambitions that forced Egypt to act now, regardless of the impact of its actions on the political fortunes of the Netanyahu government. And it is not a bit surprising that Egypt was forced to act at such a politically inopportune time.
THROUGHOUT the region and indeed throughout much of the world, Iran's star is on the rise. Its burgeoning nuclear program acts as a second arm of a pincer-like campaign against its opponents. The asymmetric and ideological warfare it wages through its terror and state proxies are the campaign's first arm. Together, these two strategic arms are raising the stakes of Iran's challenge to its neighbors and to the West to unprecedented and unacceptable heights. Morocco is so concerned about Iranian subversion of its Sunni population that last month it cut off diplomatic ties with Teheran.
Iran's great leap forward has been exposed by recent events. Last month's Arab League summit in Doha exemplified how Iran has successfully split the Arab world between its proxies and its opponents. For the past three years, and particularly since the 2006 war between Israel and Iran's Hizbullah in Lebanon, Arab League states have been increasingly polarized around the issue of Iran. The country has used its satellite states of Syria, Sudan and Qatar, as well as its burgeoning alliances with Muslim Brotherhood branches in Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and elsewhere, to legitimize its rapidly escalating assaults on Sunni regimes throughout the region.
Although Egypt and Saudi Arabia successfully blocked Qatar from inviting Iran and Hamas to the summit, by using the good offices of Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Thani and Syrian President Bashar Assad, the Iranians were able to get their anti-Saudi/Egyptian platform passed. As the Middle East Media Research Institute chronicled in a report on the proceedings, Assad successfully abrogated the so-called Saudi peace plan that the Arab League adopted in 2002. According to a new Syrian-backed resolution, any Arab rapprochement with Israel would be contingent on Israel first destroying itself by withdrawing into indefensible borders and being overwhelmed by millions of hostile foreign Arab immigrants.
Sensing what awaited him at the summit, Mubarak chose to stay home and send a junior emissary in his place. Saudi King Abdullah said nothing throughout the two-day Arab love-fest with Iran. Both leaders emerged weakened and humiliated.
In recent years, Iran has expanded its sphere of influence to strategic points around the region. Two recent additions to Iran's axis are Eritrea and Somalia. Iran and Eritrea signed a strategic alliance last year that grants Iranian Revolutionary Guard units basing rights in the strategically vital Bab al-Mandab strait that controls the chokepoint connecting the Indian Ocean with the Red Sea. As for Somalia - whose position along the Gulf of Aden provides it a similarly critical maritime posture - Iran has been exploiting its condition as a failed state for several years.
In 2006, the UN reported that some 720 Somali jihadists aligned with al-Qaida fought with Hizbullah in Lebanon during its war against Israel. According to an analysis of Iran's coopting of Somali jihadists published in November 2006 by the on-line Long War Journal, in exchange for the Somali operatives' assistance, Iran and Syria provided advanced military training to the Somalis who had just established the al-Qaida-affiliated Islamic Courts Union regime in the country. Teheran equipped the ICU with anti-aircraft missiles, grenade launchers, machine guns, ammunition, medicine, uniforms and other supplies both before and after it took control of Somalia.
The UN report also linked the ICU to Iran's nuclear program. Its alleged that Iranian agents were operating in ICU chief Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys's hometown of Dusa Mareb, where they sought to buy uranium.
Beyond the Horn of Africa, of course, Iran has been consistently expanding its influence in Iraq and Afghanistan. In both countries the mullahs simultaneously sponsor the insurgencies and offer themselves as the US's indispensible partner for stabilizing the countries they are destabilizing.
What is perhaps most jarring about Iran's ever-expanding influence is the disparate responses it elicits from Israel and Sunni regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia on the one hand, and the West on the other. Whereas Israel and the Sunni Arab states warn about Iran daily, far from acknowledging or confronting this ever-expanding Iranian menace, the US and the Europeans have been alternatively ignoring it and appeasing it. If the US were taking the Iranian threat seriously, the Obama administration would not be begging Iran to negotiate with it after Teheran demonstrated that it has complete control over the nuclear fuel cycle.
If the US were interested in contending with the danger Iran constitutes to global security, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would not be absurdly arguing that the US cannot verify whether Iran's announcement that it is now operating 7,000 centrifuges and its opening of another nuclear site signify an increase in its nuclear capacity.
Were the US taking Iran seriously, it would not be asking Iran to help out in Afghanistan and Iraq. It would not be treating Somali piracy as a strategically insignificant nuisance. It would not be ignoring Eritrea's newfound subservience to Iran. It would not be maintaining the Central Command's headquarters in Qatar. And, of course, it would not be permitting Iran to move forward with its nuclear weapons program.
THEN there is Britain. Last week Michael Ledeen from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies reported that Britain's decision to recognize Hizbullah is part of a deal it struck with Iran and Hizbullah in exchange for five Britons who have been held hostage in Iraq by Hizbullah/Iran-affiliated terrorists for two years. According to the deal, in exchange for the British hostages, London agreed to recognize Hizbullah and the US agreed to release a number of Shi'ite terrorists its forces in Iraq have captured.
As Tariq Alhomayed, the editor of Asharq al-Awsat, noted in response to the news, the deal puts paid Nasrallah's contention that Hizbullah does not operate outside Lebanon except to wage war against Israel. But it also points to a severe problem with the West.
If Britain was willing to acknowledge and contend with the grave threat Iran constitutes for global security, it would not accept the authority of Hizbullah or Iran to negotiate the release of British hostages in Iraq. Instead it would place responsibility for achieving the release of the British hostages on the sovereign Iraqi government and use all the means at its disposal to strengthen that government against agents of Iranian influence in the country.
So, too, rather than participate in the deal, the US would seek to destroy the Iranian-controlled operatives holding the hostages and discredit and defeat the Iraqi political forces operating under Iranian control. Certainly if the US were taking the Iranian threat seriously, it would announce that any withdrawal of US combat forces from Iraq will be linked to the complete defeat of agents of Iranian influence in Iraq.
The West's refusal to contend with the burgeoning Iranian menace no doubt has something to do with the West's physical distance from Iran. Whereas Middle Eastern countries have no choice but to deal with Iran, the US and its European allies apparently believe that they can still pretend away the danger. But of course they cannot.
From the Somali pirates in the Gulf of Aden to Hizbullah cells from Iraq to Canada; from Iranian agents in British universities to Hizbullah and Iranian military advisers in South and Central America, the West, like the Middle East, is being infiltrated and surrounded.
Egypt's open assault on Hizbullah is yet another warning that concerted action must be taken against the mullocracy. Unfortunately, the absence of Western resolve signals that this warning, too, will go unheeded.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post. Comment by clicking here.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
By failing to oppose Iran more effectively, the West is unintentionally encouraging it to be more extremist and dangerous. By failing to help relatively moderate Arab regimes, the West is making them more susceptible to having to appease Iran. By pressuring and criticizing Israel, the West is encouraging Iran’s regime to believe it can be destroyed.
Not a pretty picture. But neither is that of the would-be fuehrer being an honored guest at UN meetings. No wonder Ahmadinejad and his backers believe that theirs is a winning bet.
For more on Ahmadinejad’s interview with Der Spiegel, see http://www.gloria-center.org/blog/2009/04/President-Ahmadinejad-East.html.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org/
ShareThis
Posted by Barry Rubin at 12:01 PM 0 comments
Labels: Iran, Middle East politics
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
China has large role in stopping Iran`
Elie Leshem - Apr 23, 2009
The Jerusalem Post
China has a "central role" in preventing Iran`s drive to obtain nuclear weapons, President Shimon Peres said Thursday in a meeting with visiting Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi.
Besides the Iranian nuclear issue the two also discussed the Middle East peace process and the expanding of business and technology ties between the two countries, a statement from Beit Hanassi said.
Alluding to Holocaust-denying remarks made by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahamdinejad in his UN racism conference address, Jeichi said that it was "clear" to his country that "the Holocaust of the Jews is an undeniable and unassailable fact."
Jeichi expressed his support for the road map peace plan and the "principle of land for peace." He said Israel should resume talks with the Palestinians and also open tracks with the Syrians and the Lebanese.
"I know," Jeichi said, "that Israel`s new government needs time to formulate its policy and I hope that it will arrive at sensible decisions that lead to peace and stability in the area."
Peres emphasized the Iranian threat, calling Ahmadinejad a "religious fanatic leader who supports terror, war and bloodshed."
The efforts on the part of Iran, "a poor country," to develop long-range missiles must be a source of anxiety to all "responsible" world leaders, Peres said.
Jiechi arrived in Israel for a three-day visit on Wednesday.
The Jerusalem Post has learned that Israeli officials were planning to tell him that China`s oil and natural gas imports from Iran could be jeopardized in the future if pressure does not increase on the Islamic republic to cease its nuclear program and a military confrontation ensues.
During his stay, Israeli diplomats will argue that a more proactive stance on China`s part to pressure Iran will serve Beijing`s interests, by helping to avert a military conflict, thus safeguarding an important energy source for the growing and energy-hungry Chinese economy.
Jiechi will be urged by officials in Jerusalem to up the ante in the campaign to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear development work.
Diplomatic sources in Jerusalem view Jiechi`s visit as an important opportunity to raise Israel`s concerns over Iran, but they remain uncertain over the impact such a presentation will ultimately make on China`s Iran policy.
Yaakov Lappin contributed to this report
A new and dangerous turn?
Bibi And The Iranian Bomb: Reconsidering Israel`s Policy Of Nuclear Ambiguity
Louis René Beres - Apr 17, 2009
Jewish Press
Until now, the strategic issue of Israel`s nuclear ambiguity - the so-called "bomb in the basement" - has been kept squarely on the back burner. Today, however, time is quickly running out for the Jewish State, and Israel`s new/old prime minister absolutely must reconsider this burning issue. From the standpoint of urgency, of course, the immediate problem is Iran.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has correctly indicated that Iranian nuclearization is issue number one. To manage this critical problem, Mr. Netanyahu also understands that Israel`s own nuclear doctrine will have to adapt. In this connection, a core element of strategic adaptation should concern purposeful patterns of Israeli nuclear disclosure.
From the start, Jerusalem`s nuclear policy has always been to keep Israel`s bomb quietly in the basement. Now, however, it is increasingly likely that a deliberately ambiguous nuclear deterrent may simply not work much longer. Mr. Netanyahu should recall that nuclear strategy is always a work in progress. In the absence of adaptation, it will inevitably fail to achieve its indispensable goals. This is true generically; it is not true exclusively for Israel.
To date, Israel`s nuclear ambiguity has done little to deter "ordinary" conventional enemy aggressions or acts of terror. To be sure, it has succeeded in keeping the country`s enemies from mounting genuinely existential attacks. But certain changes in strategic doctrine could still be necessary.
None of Israel`s foes presently has "the bomb," but together - in any determined collaboration - they could already have acquired the capacity to mount attacks of genuinely existential magnitude. Acting collectively and purposefully, these states and their assorted insurgent proxies, even without nuclear weapons, could still have inflicted enormous harms upon the Jewish State.
Now, oblivious to the feeble call for meaningful sanctions by a plainly impotent "international community," Tehran continues to "go nuclear." Unless there is a prompt, comprehensive and sustained preemptive strike against Iran`s developing nuclear assets and infrastructures, an act of "anticipatory self-defense" under international law, Israel will face an openly genocidal nuclear Iran. Yet, the prospect of such legally permissible defensive strikes is now already very low, and Israel will likely have to prepare to defend against a nuclear Iran with both ballistic missile defense (Arrow) and improved nuclear deterrence.
As my faithful readers in The Jewish Press already know, Iran is a state that might share some of its nuclear components and materials with Hizbullah or certain other terrorist proxy organizations. This means, among other things, that continued nuclear ambiguity might not remain sufficiently persuasive to ensure Israel`s nuclear deterrence posture.
Let me be more precise here. Prime Minister Netanyahu will understand that adequate deterrence of Iran could soon require some release of pertinent Israeli nuclear details. Concerning these details, less rather than more Israeli nuclear secrecy could be required. Ironically, perhaps, what will now need to be determined by the prime minister is the specific extent and subtlety with which Israel should communicate its nuclear positions, intentions and capabilities to Iran, and to certain other selected states and state surrogates in world politics.
The rationale for carefully constructed forms of nuclear disclosure would not lie in expressing the obvious. Instead, it would rest on the understanding that nuclear weapons can serve Israel`s security in a number of different ways, and that all of these ways could benefit the Jewish State to the extent that certain aspects of nuclear weapons and strategies were actually disclosed. The form and extent of such strategic disclosure could be more critical than ever before because the new president of the United States, Barack Obama, seems determined to proceed with a still one-sided "peace process." For President Obama, as for his cliché-trapped Secretary of State, there is still only a "Two State Solution" on the peace horizon.
For the foreseeable future, Israel`s state enemies - especially Iran, Egypt (peace treaty notwithstanding) and Syria - will continue to enlarge and refine their conventional and unconventional military capabilities. Even if certain enemy state capabilities do not yet fully parallel their intentions, this could change very quickly. Mr. Ahmadinejad could even cast aside all of the usual considerations of rational behavior. Were this to happen, the Islamic Republic of Iran could effectively become a nuclear suicide-bomber in macrocosm. Such a destabilizing prospect is improbable, but it is assuredly not inconceivable.
To protect itself against enemy strikes, particularly those attacks that could carry intolerable costs, Israel should properly exploit every relevant aspect and function of its own nuclear arsenal and doctrine. The success of Israel`s efforts will depend not only on its particular choice of targeting doctrine ("counterforce" or "counter city"), but also upon the extent to which this critical choice is made known in advance to both enemy states (primarily Iran) and their non-state surrogates. Before such enemies can be deterred from launching first strikes against Israel, and before they can be deterred from launching retaliatory attacks following an Israeli preemption, it may not be enough to know only that Israel has the Bomb. These enemies may also need to recognize that Israeli nuclear weapons are sufficiently invulnerable to such attacks, and that they are pointed directly at high-value population targets.
Removing the bomb from Israel`s basement could enhance Israel`s nuclear deterrence to the extent that it would heighten enemy perceptions of secure and capable Israeli nuclear forces. Such a calculated end to deliberate ambiguity could also underscore Israel`s willingness to use these nuclear forces in reprisal for certain enemy first-strike and retaliatory attacks. From the standpoint of successful nuclear deterrence, perceived willingness is always just as important as perceived capability.
For now, as Mr. Netanyahu surely understands, Israel`s bomb should remain ambiguous. But soon - at the very moment that Iran is discovered to be close to completing its own nuclear weapons capability - the Jewish State should put a prompt end to deliberate nuclear ambiguity. This is a recommendation that was made by Project Daniel, and communicated directly to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Prime Minister Netanyahu already understandsthat there could never be any reliable peace with a nuclear Iran. But if neither Israel nor the United States will undertake preemptive destruction of Iran`s nearly completed nuclear program (a strategic prospect that now seems increasingly plausible), Israel will then have to take its own bomb out of the basement. Such an essential end to deliberate nuclear ambiguity may still not be sufficient to save Israel from an eventual nuclear war with Iran, but it would surely be far better than continuing dangerously on the present course.
LOUIS RENÉ BERES (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) was Chair of Project Daniel. Born in Switzerland (1945), he is Professor of International Law at Purdue, and is the author of many major books and articles on nuclear strategy and nuclear war. Professor Beres is Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for The Jewish Press.
Louis René Beres - Apr 17, 2009
Jewish Press
Until now, the strategic issue of Israel`s nuclear ambiguity - the so-called "bomb in the basement" - has been kept squarely on the back burner. Today, however, time is quickly running out for the Jewish State, and Israel`s new/old prime minister absolutely must reconsider this burning issue. From the standpoint of urgency, of course, the immediate problem is Iran.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has correctly indicated that Iranian nuclearization is issue number one. To manage this critical problem, Mr. Netanyahu also understands that Israel`s own nuclear doctrine will have to adapt. In this connection, a core element of strategic adaptation should concern purposeful patterns of Israeli nuclear disclosure.
From the start, Jerusalem`s nuclear policy has always been to keep Israel`s bomb quietly in the basement. Now, however, it is increasingly likely that a deliberately ambiguous nuclear deterrent may simply not work much longer. Mr. Netanyahu should recall that nuclear strategy is always a work in progress. In the absence of adaptation, it will inevitably fail to achieve its indispensable goals. This is true generically; it is not true exclusively for Israel.
To date, Israel`s nuclear ambiguity has done little to deter "ordinary" conventional enemy aggressions or acts of terror. To be sure, it has succeeded in keeping the country`s enemies from mounting genuinely existential attacks. But certain changes in strategic doctrine could still be necessary.
None of Israel`s foes presently has "the bomb," but together - in any determined collaboration - they could already have acquired the capacity to mount attacks of genuinely existential magnitude. Acting collectively and purposefully, these states and their assorted insurgent proxies, even without nuclear weapons, could still have inflicted enormous harms upon the Jewish State.
Now, oblivious to the feeble call for meaningful sanctions by a plainly impotent "international community," Tehran continues to "go nuclear." Unless there is a prompt, comprehensive and sustained preemptive strike against Iran`s developing nuclear assets and infrastructures, an act of "anticipatory self-defense" under international law, Israel will face an openly genocidal nuclear Iran. Yet, the prospect of such legally permissible defensive strikes is now already very low, and Israel will likely have to prepare to defend against a nuclear Iran with both ballistic missile defense (Arrow) and improved nuclear deterrence.
As my faithful readers in The Jewish Press already know, Iran is a state that might share some of its nuclear components and materials with Hizbullah or certain other terrorist proxy organizations. This means, among other things, that continued nuclear ambiguity might not remain sufficiently persuasive to ensure Israel`s nuclear deterrence posture.
Let me be more precise here. Prime Minister Netanyahu will understand that adequate deterrence of Iran could soon require some release of pertinent Israeli nuclear details. Concerning these details, less rather than more Israeli nuclear secrecy could be required. Ironically, perhaps, what will now need to be determined by the prime minister is the specific extent and subtlety with which Israel should communicate its nuclear positions, intentions and capabilities to Iran, and to certain other selected states and state surrogates in world politics.
The rationale for carefully constructed forms of nuclear disclosure would not lie in expressing the obvious. Instead, it would rest on the understanding that nuclear weapons can serve Israel`s security in a number of different ways, and that all of these ways could benefit the Jewish State to the extent that certain aspects of nuclear weapons and strategies were actually disclosed. The form and extent of such strategic disclosure could be more critical than ever before because the new president of the United States, Barack Obama, seems determined to proceed with a still one-sided "peace process." For President Obama, as for his cliché-trapped Secretary of State, there is still only a "Two State Solution" on the peace horizon.
For the foreseeable future, Israel`s state enemies - especially Iran, Egypt (peace treaty notwithstanding) and Syria - will continue to enlarge and refine their conventional and unconventional military capabilities. Even if certain enemy state capabilities do not yet fully parallel their intentions, this could change very quickly. Mr. Ahmadinejad could even cast aside all of the usual considerations of rational behavior. Were this to happen, the Islamic Republic of Iran could effectively become a nuclear suicide-bomber in macrocosm. Such a destabilizing prospect is improbable, but it is assuredly not inconceivable.
To protect itself against enemy strikes, particularly those attacks that could carry intolerable costs, Israel should properly exploit every relevant aspect and function of its own nuclear arsenal and doctrine. The success of Israel`s efforts will depend not only on its particular choice of targeting doctrine ("counterforce" or "counter city"), but also upon the extent to which this critical choice is made known in advance to both enemy states (primarily Iran) and their non-state surrogates. Before such enemies can be deterred from launching first strikes against Israel, and before they can be deterred from launching retaliatory attacks following an Israeli preemption, it may not be enough to know only that Israel has the Bomb. These enemies may also need to recognize that Israeli nuclear weapons are sufficiently invulnerable to such attacks, and that they are pointed directly at high-value population targets.
Removing the bomb from Israel`s basement could enhance Israel`s nuclear deterrence to the extent that it would heighten enemy perceptions of secure and capable Israeli nuclear forces. Such a calculated end to deliberate ambiguity could also underscore Israel`s willingness to use these nuclear forces in reprisal for certain enemy first-strike and retaliatory attacks. From the standpoint of successful nuclear deterrence, perceived willingness is always just as important as perceived capability.
For now, as Mr. Netanyahu surely understands, Israel`s bomb should remain ambiguous. But soon - at the very moment that Iran is discovered to be close to completing its own nuclear weapons capability - the Jewish State should put a prompt end to deliberate nuclear ambiguity. This is a recommendation that was made by Project Daniel, and communicated directly to former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.
Prime Minister Netanyahu already understandsthat there could never be any reliable peace with a nuclear Iran. But if neither Israel nor the United States will undertake preemptive destruction of Iran`s nearly completed nuclear program (a strategic prospect that now seems increasingly plausible), Israel will then have to take its own bomb out of the basement. Such an essential end to deliberate nuclear ambiguity may still not be sufficient to save Israel from an eventual nuclear war with Iran, but it would surely be far better than continuing dangerously on the present course.
LOUIS RENÉ BERES (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) was Chair of Project Daniel. Born in Switzerland (1945), he is Professor of International Law at Purdue, and is the author of many major books and articles on nuclear strategy and nuclear war. Professor Beres is Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for The Jewish Press.
America for Arabs
Hillary challenged on Palestinian aid
By Herb Jackson
JewishWorldReview.com | (MCT)
ASHINGTON — A House subcommittee challenged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday for seeking the flexibility to support a potential Palestinian coalition government that she acknowledges may never materialize.
The stumbling block for Rep. Steve Rothman, D-N.J., and several other Democrats and Republicans on the subcommittee that funds the State Department was whether members of the Iranian-backed Islamic [terrorist] group Hamas could end up in a government that gets U.S. aid.
Rothman also questioned the $840 million for Palestinian humanitarian relief in the $7.1 billion supplemental spending request before Congress. Rothman has criticized a United Nations-backed Palestinian relief group for alleged connections to Hamas.
"What new mechanisms do you and your magnificent staff plan to make certain no Hamas member gets humanitarian aid?" Rothman said.
Clinton said the relief group has agreed to strong oversight, including employee background checks and providing staff lists to the United States and Israel.
"We intend to hold any entity that receives American aid to a very high standard," Clinton told Rothman.
Clinton also said the administration was trying to encourage the Mideast peace process and "would only work with a Palestinian Authority government that unambiguously recognizes Israel" and denounces violence.
OK. What about incitement? What about no Israel on maps? What about their motto about killing every Jew?
She said there have been discussions in Cairo about allowing some Hamas ministers in a unity government, and the State Department would like the flexibility to support such a government, but that federal funds would not support Hamas or any entity controlled by Hamas.
"We doubt there will be such a unity agreement, but we don't want to bind our hands," Clinton said.
Several subcommittee members said they would try to write the bill stipulating that the United States would not support any government with Hamas ministers.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
By Herb Jackson
JewishWorldReview.com | (MCT)
ASHINGTON — A House subcommittee challenged Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Thursday for seeking the flexibility to support a potential Palestinian coalition government that she acknowledges may never materialize.
The stumbling block for Rep. Steve Rothman, D-N.J., and several other Democrats and Republicans on the subcommittee that funds the State Department was whether members of the Iranian-backed Islamic [terrorist] group Hamas could end up in a government that gets U.S. aid.
Rothman also questioned the $840 million for Palestinian humanitarian relief in the $7.1 billion supplemental spending request before Congress. Rothman has criticized a United Nations-backed Palestinian relief group for alleged connections to Hamas.
"What new mechanisms do you and your magnificent staff plan to make certain no Hamas member gets humanitarian aid?" Rothman said.
Clinton said the relief group has agreed to strong oversight, including employee background checks and providing staff lists to the United States and Israel.
"We intend to hold any entity that receives American aid to a very high standard," Clinton told Rothman.
Clinton also said the administration was trying to encourage the Mideast peace process and "would only work with a Palestinian Authority government that unambiguously recognizes Israel" and denounces violence.
OK. What about incitement? What about no Israel on maps? What about their motto about killing every Jew?
She said there have been discussions in Cairo about allowing some Hamas ministers in a unity government, and the State Department would like the flexibility to support such a government, but that federal funds would not support Hamas or any entity controlled by Hamas.
"We doubt there will be such a unity agreement, but we don't want to bind our hands," Clinton said.
Several subcommittee members said they would try to write the bill stipulating that the United States would not support any government with Hamas ministers.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Another Muslim state!
The U.S. 2009: "Two-state solution is the only solution"
Eli E. Hertz - Apr 20, 2009
The current U.S. administration that is so persistent on the need to honor `past agreements` seems to ignore unwavering support for reconstructing the Jewish national home in Palestine by our past presidents and both Houses of Congress:
U.S. Resolution 322: A joint resolution of both Houses of Congress unanimously endorsed the "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine - anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. June 30, 1922.
President Woodrow Wilson: "I am persuaded that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundation of a Jewish Commonwealth." March 3, 1919.
President Warren G. Harding: Signed the Lodge-Fish joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. September 21, 1922.
President Calvin Coolidge: Signed the Convention between the United States and Great Britain in respect to British rights in Palestine. The convention was ratified by the Senate on February 20, 1925, and by the president on March 2, 1925. The Convention was proclaimed on December 5, 1925. The convention`s text incorporated the "Mandate for Palestine " text, including the preamble. By doing so, the U.S. government recognized and confirmed the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine - anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – as is spelled out in the Mandate document.
The following text was selected from the U.S. Congressional Record (1922) and exhibits the powerful sense of the Member of Congress in favor of reestablishing the Jewish national home in Palestine:
"Palestine of to-day, the land we now know as Palestine, was peopled by the Jews from the dawn of history until the Roman era. It is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. They were driven from it by force by the relentless Roman military machine and for centuries prevented from returning.
"At different periods various alien people succeeded them, but the Jewish race had left an indelible impress upon the land. To-day it is a Jewish country. Every name, every landmark, every monument, and every trace of whatever civilization remaining there is still Jewish. And it has ever since remained a hope, a longing, as expressed in their prayers for these nearly 2,000 years. No other people has ever claimed Palestine as their national home. No other people has ever shown an aptitude or indicated a genuine desire to make it their homeland. The land has been ruled by foreigners. Only since the beginning of the modern Zionist effort may it be said that a creative, cultural, and economic force has entered Palestine . The Jewish Nation was forced from its natural home. It did not go because it wanted to. A perusal of Jewish history, a reading of Josephus, will convince the most skeptical that the grandest fight that was ever put up against an enemy was put up by the Jew. He never thought of leaving Palestine.
"But he was driven out. But did he, when driven out, give up his hope of getting back? Jewish history and Jewish literature give the answer to that question. The Jew even has a fast day devoted to the day of destruction of the Jewish homeland. Never throughout history did they give up hope of returning there. I am told that 90 per cent of the Jews to-day are praying for the return of the Jewish people to its own home. The best minds among them believe in the necessity of reestablishing the Jewish land. To my mind there is something prophetic in the fact that during the ages no other nation has taken over Palestine and held it in the sense of a homeland; and there is something providential in the fact that for 1,800 years it has remained in desolation as if waiting for the return of its people."
U.S. Congressional Records 9801 (1922)
Eli E. Hertz - Apr 20, 2009
The current U.S. administration that is so persistent on the need to honor `past agreements` seems to ignore unwavering support for reconstructing the Jewish national home in Palestine by our past presidents and both Houses of Congress:
U.S. Resolution 322: A joint resolution of both Houses of Congress unanimously endorsed the "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine - anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. June 30, 1922.
President Woodrow Wilson: "I am persuaded that the Allied nations, with the fullest concurrence of our own government and people, are agreed that in Palestine shall be laid the foundation of a Jewish Commonwealth." March 3, 1919.
President Warren G. Harding: Signed the Lodge-Fish joint resolution of approval to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. September 21, 1922.
President Calvin Coolidge: Signed the Convention between the United States and Great Britain in respect to British rights in Palestine. The convention was ratified by the Senate on February 20, 1925, and by the president on March 2, 1925. The Convention was proclaimed on December 5, 1925. The convention`s text incorporated the "Mandate for Palestine " text, including the preamble. By doing so, the U.S. government recognized and confirmed the irrevocable right of Jews to settle in the area of Palestine - anywhere between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea – as is spelled out in the Mandate document.
The following text was selected from the U.S. Congressional Record (1922) and exhibits the powerful sense of the Member of Congress in favor of reestablishing the Jewish national home in Palestine:
"Palestine of to-day, the land we now know as Palestine, was peopled by the Jews from the dawn of history until the Roman era. It is the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. They were driven from it by force by the relentless Roman military machine and for centuries prevented from returning.
"At different periods various alien people succeeded them, but the Jewish race had left an indelible impress upon the land. To-day it is a Jewish country. Every name, every landmark, every monument, and every trace of whatever civilization remaining there is still Jewish. And it has ever since remained a hope, a longing, as expressed in their prayers for these nearly 2,000 years. No other people has ever claimed Palestine as their national home. No other people has ever shown an aptitude or indicated a genuine desire to make it their homeland. The land has been ruled by foreigners. Only since the beginning of the modern Zionist effort may it be said that a creative, cultural, and economic force has entered Palestine . The Jewish Nation was forced from its natural home. It did not go because it wanted to. A perusal of Jewish history, a reading of Josephus, will convince the most skeptical that the grandest fight that was ever put up against an enemy was put up by the Jew. He never thought of leaving Palestine.
"But he was driven out. But did he, when driven out, give up his hope of getting back? Jewish history and Jewish literature give the answer to that question. The Jew even has a fast day devoted to the day of destruction of the Jewish homeland. Never throughout history did they give up hope of returning there. I am told that 90 per cent of the Jews to-day are praying for the return of the Jewish people to its own home. The best minds among them believe in the necessity of reestablishing the Jewish land. To my mind there is something prophetic in the fact that during the ages no other nation has taken over Palestine and held it in the sense of a homeland; and there is something providential in the fact that for 1,800 years it has remained in desolation as if waiting for the return of its people."
U.S. Congressional Records 9801 (1922)
CLINTON: Unbelievable
BY: MATZAV
Israel to 'lose' Arab support on Iran
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday that the Arab countries need Israel to 'enter into discussions' with the 'Palestinians' in order for the Arab countries to 'deal with' Iran.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Israel on Thursday that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
Clinton said Arab nations had conditioned helping Israel counter Iran on Jerusalem's commitment to the peace process.
"For Israel to get the kind of strong support it is looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts. They go hand in hand," Clinton told the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.
"They (Arab countries) believe that Israel's willingness to re-enter into discussions with the Palestinian Authority strengthens them in being able to deal with Iran," she added.
Clinton's testimony is rather odd. First, it is in the Arab countries' interest for Israel to 'deal with' Iran or for the US to do so on Israel's behalf. The Arab countries, especially the countries in the Gulf and 'moderates' like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are at least as threatened by Iran as Israel is. It is entirely possible that Iran would use its first nuclear weapon to destroy Arab oil assets in the Persian Gulf rather than using it to try to destroy Israel. Why would the Arabs sacrifice their own interests for the 'Palestinians,' who despite being a convenient excuse for despots maintaining their respective holds on power are viewed by the Arabs with nothing but utter contempt?
Second, what support have the Arab countries offered Israel? Clinton acts as if the Arab countries are providing Israel with troops, funding, logistical support, flyover rights (Jordan? Iraq?) or other tangible measures of support for an Israeli strike against Iran - and that the US is attempting to coordinate that strike. But the US - which controls Iraqi airspace - has thus far denied Israel rights to flyover Iraq on the way to a strike in Iran. And Israel has never asked Jordan for those rights, assuming that if necessary it could fly over Jordan and the Jordanians - who have plenty to fear both from Iran and from a second 'Palestinian' state (Jordan being the first itself) to which it pays lip service - would be fools to even try to shoot down Israeli planes or warn Iran they were coming. So what did Clinton mean by that statement?
Third, why does Israel entering into negotiations with the 'Palestinians' strengthen the Arab countries' hands in 'dealing with' Iran? How do the Arab countries propose to 'deal with' Iran? So far, the only measures I have heard - cowering in fear and setting off a nuclear arms race themselves - are not in Israel's interest, and there is no reason Israel should support them. And accepting Clinton's statement at face value, why is it in Israel's interest to strengthen the hands of the Arab countries at all to 'deal with' Iran, when in fact it is not the Arab countries who will ultimately 'deal with' Iran, but Israel or the United States?
Secretary of State Clinton's testimony on Thursday raised far more questions than it answered. It would behoove the Israeli government to insist on getting those answers before making any commitment to enter into any kind of new negotiations with the 'Palestinians.' The connection between 'progress' on the 'Palestinian track' and 'dealing with' Iran is tenuous at best and imaginary at worst.
If anything, it appears that the Israeli government got it right when it insisted that dealing with Iran is a precondition to being able to make 'progress' with the 'Palestinians.' Iran is providing military, financial and tactical support to the most rejectionist among the 'Palestinians' and their allies, including Hamas and Hezbullah. Removing Iran from the picture could have the effect of toning down 'Palestinian' demands and making a settlement possible. posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:01 AM 4 comments links to this post
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Congress may restrict aid to 'Palestinians' to prevent Obama from dealing with 'Palestinian unity government'
This is from the Washington Post's report of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's congressional testimony on Thursday. I discussed another aspect of her testimony here.
Clinton took flak from some lawmakers about the administration's efforts to keep its options open regarding the creation of a Palestinian unity government. The government is split between Fatah, which controls the West Bank, and Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip. Hamas, which the State Department considers a terrorist group, won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, but the United States has refused to deal with the group until it meets conditions, including recognition of Israel.
Clinton indicated that if a unity government is formed, the administration would be willing to deal with that government, even if it contained Hamas ministers, as long as the government agreed to those conditions, much as the United States currently deals with the elected Lebanese government in which the militant group Hezbollah controls 11 out of 30 cabinet seats. But several lawmakers, including Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), chair of the foreign operations subcommittee, and Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) indicated that the House may seek to restrict aid to the Palestinian Authority, which would limit the administration's flexibility.
In other words, if Fatah and Hamas reunite without Hamas accepting the quartet conditions for contact with Hamas (renouncing terror, recognizing Israel, agreeing to be bound by past agreements), Congress will step in to prevent the Obama administration from dealing with that 'Palestinian unity government.' Good for Congress! posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:09 PM 0 comments links to this post
Israel to 'lose' Arab support on Iran
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told the House Appropriations Committee on Thursday that the Arab countries need Israel to 'enter into discussions' with the 'Palestinians' in order for the Arab countries to 'deal with' Iran.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned Israel on Thursday that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians.
Clinton said Arab nations had conditioned helping Israel counter Iran on Jerusalem's commitment to the peace process.
"For Israel to get the kind of strong support it is looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sidelines with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts. They go hand in hand," Clinton told the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee.
"They (Arab countries) believe that Israel's willingness to re-enter into discussions with the Palestinian Authority strengthens them in being able to deal with Iran," she added.
Clinton's testimony is rather odd. First, it is in the Arab countries' interest for Israel to 'deal with' Iran or for the US to do so on Israel's behalf. The Arab countries, especially the countries in the Gulf and 'moderates' like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, are at least as threatened by Iran as Israel is. It is entirely possible that Iran would use its first nuclear weapon to destroy Arab oil assets in the Persian Gulf rather than using it to try to destroy Israel. Why would the Arabs sacrifice their own interests for the 'Palestinians,' who despite being a convenient excuse for despots maintaining their respective holds on power are viewed by the Arabs with nothing but utter contempt?
Second, what support have the Arab countries offered Israel? Clinton acts as if the Arab countries are providing Israel with troops, funding, logistical support, flyover rights (Jordan? Iraq?) or other tangible measures of support for an Israeli strike against Iran - and that the US is attempting to coordinate that strike. But the US - which controls Iraqi airspace - has thus far denied Israel rights to flyover Iraq on the way to a strike in Iran. And Israel has never asked Jordan for those rights, assuming that if necessary it could fly over Jordan and the Jordanians - who have plenty to fear both from Iran and from a second 'Palestinian' state (Jordan being the first itself) to which it pays lip service - would be fools to even try to shoot down Israeli planes or warn Iran they were coming. So what did Clinton mean by that statement?
Third, why does Israel entering into negotiations with the 'Palestinians' strengthen the Arab countries' hands in 'dealing with' Iran? How do the Arab countries propose to 'deal with' Iran? So far, the only measures I have heard - cowering in fear and setting off a nuclear arms race themselves - are not in Israel's interest, and there is no reason Israel should support them. And accepting Clinton's statement at face value, why is it in Israel's interest to strengthen the hands of the Arab countries at all to 'deal with' Iran, when in fact it is not the Arab countries who will ultimately 'deal with' Iran, but Israel or the United States?
Secretary of State Clinton's testimony on Thursday raised far more questions than it answered. It would behoove the Israeli government to insist on getting those answers before making any commitment to enter into any kind of new negotiations with the 'Palestinians.' The connection between 'progress' on the 'Palestinian track' and 'dealing with' Iran is tenuous at best and imaginary at worst.
If anything, it appears that the Israeli government got it right when it insisted that dealing with Iran is a precondition to being able to make 'progress' with the 'Palestinians.' Iran is providing military, financial and tactical support to the most rejectionist among the 'Palestinians' and their allies, including Hamas and Hezbullah. Removing Iran from the picture could have the effect of toning down 'Palestinian' demands and making a settlement possible. posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:01 AM 4 comments links to this post
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Congress may restrict aid to 'Palestinians' to prevent Obama from dealing with 'Palestinian unity government'
This is from the Washington Post's report of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's congressional testimony on Thursday. I discussed another aspect of her testimony here.
Clinton took flak from some lawmakers about the administration's efforts to keep its options open regarding the creation of a Palestinian unity government. The government is split between Fatah, which controls the West Bank, and Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip. Hamas, which the State Department considers a terrorist group, won Palestinian legislative elections in 2006, but the United States has refused to deal with the group until it meets conditions, including recognition of Israel.
Clinton indicated that if a unity government is formed, the administration would be willing to deal with that government, even if it contained Hamas ministers, as long as the government agreed to those conditions, much as the United States currently deals with the elected Lebanese government in which the militant group Hezbollah controls 11 out of 30 cabinet seats. But several lawmakers, including Rep. Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), chair of the foreign operations subcommittee, and Rep. Mark Steven Kirk (R-Ill.) indicated that the House may seek to restrict aid to the Palestinian Authority, which would limit the administration's flexibility.
In other words, if Fatah and Hamas reunite without Hamas accepting the quartet conditions for contact with Hamas (renouncing terror, recognizing Israel, agreeing to be bound by past agreements), Congress will step in to prevent the Obama administration from dealing with that 'Palestinian unity government.' Good for Congress! posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:09 PM 0 comments links to this post
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
OBAMA: Mistake #?????
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Obama Fails to Show International Leadership
An interesting detail is that the United States waited until the last possible moment to cancel its participation in Durban-2. This was a creditable action. But it also showed a problem which may come back repeatedly to haunt not only America but the world.
The United States is viewed as a leader. The Europeans and others were watching Washington to make their own decision. An American president who understood this leadership role would have made the decision earlier and informed others that it was doing so. Another half dozen or dozen countries would have followed and also cancelled their participation.
For the first time since the period before the United States played a leadership role in the world--another way to say it is for the first time since isolationism--under President Herbert Hoover who left office in 1933--America has a president who doesn't want to take up that role of global leadership.
He thinks this shows nobility, that is a lack of arrogance. Yet by leaving the other democracies, and many dictatorial regimes which are moderate in U.S. interest terms, without leadership, he casts them adrift. This makes it more likely they will not act in accord with American needs, be divided among themselves, and be far less effective.
The true term for this is: abdication of responsibility.
Posted by Barry Rubin at 11:09 AM
Labels: U.S. policy
Obama Fails to Show International Leadership
An interesting detail is that the United States waited until the last possible moment to cancel its participation in Durban-2. This was a creditable action. But it also showed a problem which may come back repeatedly to haunt not only America but the world.
The United States is viewed as a leader. The Europeans and others were watching Washington to make their own decision. An American president who understood this leadership role would have made the decision earlier and informed others that it was doing so. Another half dozen or dozen countries would have followed and also cancelled their participation.
For the first time since the period before the United States played a leadership role in the world--another way to say it is for the first time since isolationism--under President Herbert Hoover who left office in 1933--America has a president who doesn't want to take up that role of global leadership.
He thinks this shows nobility, that is a lack of arrogance. Yet by leaving the other democracies, and many dictatorial regimes which are moderate in U.S. interest terms, without leadership, he casts them adrift. This makes it more likely they will not act in accord with American needs, be divided among themselves, and be far less effective.
The true term for this is: abdication of responsibility.
Posted by Barry Rubin at 11:09 AM
Labels: U.S. policy
I could puke!!!!!!!!!! Cancel Tikkun
Why some Jews refused to celebrate Passover this year
By Jonathan Mark
JewishWorldReview.com | Did you observe Passover? The Huffington Post (April 9) headlined a piece by Rabbi Michael Lerner, "Pharaohs Can't Celebrate Passover." If you supported Israel's Gaza war, the pharaoh is you. According to several recent political cartoons, if you support Israel, Hitler is you, too.
Rabbi Lerner, leader of the Jewish Renewal movement and editor of Tikkun, writes, Passover has "become a problem for many Jews. … Millions of Jews have been watching Israel's role in Gaza and the West Bank with particular horror this year." The "wildly disproportionate response of the Israeli army… has shocked and dismayed many Jews whose identification with their Jewishness came primarily through their commitment to its ethical teachings."
He adds, the newly elected Israeli leaders, "whose campaign was filled with racist attacks on Arab citizens … have pushed many American Jews to question how they can celebrate Passover with a full heart this year. As several congregants put it to me, 'We Jews have become Pharaoh to the Palestinian people — so we would be hypocrites to sit around our Passover table celebrating our own freedom, rejoicing at the way the Egyptians were stricken with plagues and their first born killed, while ignoring what Israel is doing today in the name of the Jewish people.'"
In The Washington Post (March 26), columnist David Ignatius took aim at those so-called pharaohs. He points out that the U.S. has a policy against funding the settlements, "yet private organizations in the United States continue to raise tax-exempt contributions for the very activities that the government opposes."
Critics — and he mentions Rabbi Lerner's ally, Peace Now — are questioning, "why American taxpayers are supporting indirectly, through the exempt contributions, a process that the government condemns. A search of IRS records identified 28 U.S. charitable groups that made a total of $33.4 million in tax-exempt contributions to settlements and related organizations between 2004 and 2007."
One wonders if Ignatius, so "troubled" by those tax deductions, was equally troubled by with President Obama's intention to give $600 million of our tax dollars to West Bank Palestinians, and $300 million to Gaza.
In March, Palestinian TV on the West Bank celebrated the anniversary of a 1978 terrorist attack in which an Israeli bus was hijacked, leaving 38 dead Jews, including 13 children. In April, Palestinian Media Watch (PMW.org.il) posted a video of a Hamas TV pre-seder blood libel. The "skit" depicted Jews in black hats, shuckling in prayer, gesturing in a Jewish parody, discussing Muslim blood.
Father: "Shimon, look, my son… You have to hate the Muslims…. You have to drink the Muslims' blood… Where are you going, my son?"
Son: "To wash [before prayer with water]…."
Father: "Muslims do this, not us! … We have to wash our hands with the blood of Muslims."
Meanwhile, with President Obama making overtures to the Islamic world, The Christian Science Monitor (Mar. 28) suggests "ten terms not to use with Muslims."
At a time when "racist" and "apartheid" are commonly used to refer to Zionists, columnist Chris Seiple, president of a group promoting religious freedom, writes, "I want to share the advice given to me from dear Muslim friends… regarding words and concepts that are not useful in building relationships with them…. We need to be very careful about how we use them, and in what context."
The problematic words? "Clash of Civilizations… Secular… Assimilation… Reformation…. Jihadi…. Moderate…. Interfaith… Freedom… Religious Freedom… Tolerance."
Moderate? "This ubiquitous term is meant politically but can be received theologically. If someone called me a 'moderate Christian,' I would be deeply offended."
Interfaith? "This term conjures up images of watered-down, lowest common denominator statements that avoid the tough issues and are consequently irrelevant."
Freedom? "Freedom can imply an unbound licentiousness."
Tolerance? "Tolerance is not enough."
At least seven of those concepts are cherished by Jews, but what do I know? I'm so out of step, at my seder the Jews are the good guys. I'm still on the last page of the Haggadah, where the innocent kid, Shlomo Nativ, 13, was slaughtered with an axe by Islamic Jihad in Gush Etzion, April 2.
As Rabbi Lerner says, Passover was a problem for some Jews this year. The Nativs got up from shiva for the seder. Shlomo took care of his family's goats. One kid. One kid.
Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
To comment, please click here.
JWR contributor Jonathan Mark is Associate Editor of the New York Jewish Week, where this appeared.
© 2008, NY Jewish Week.
By Jonathan Mark
JewishWorldReview.com | Did you observe Passover? The Huffington Post (April 9) headlined a piece by Rabbi Michael Lerner, "Pharaohs Can't Celebrate Passover." If you supported Israel's Gaza war, the pharaoh is you. According to several recent political cartoons, if you support Israel, Hitler is you, too.
Rabbi Lerner, leader of the Jewish Renewal movement and editor of Tikkun, writes, Passover has "become a problem for many Jews. … Millions of Jews have been watching Israel's role in Gaza and the West Bank with particular horror this year." The "wildly disproportionate response of the Israeli army… has shocked and dismayed many Jews whose identification with their Jewishness came primarily through their commitment to its ethical teachings."
He adds, the newly elected Israeli leaders, "whose campaign was filled with racist attacks on Arab citizens … have pushed many American Jews to question how they can celebrate Passover with a full heart this year. As several congregants put it to me, 'We Jews have become Pharaoh to the Palestinian people — so we would be hypocrites to sit around our Passover table celebrating our own freedom, rejoicing at the way the Egyptians were stricken with plagues and their first born killed, while ignoring what Israel is doing today in the name of the Jewish people.'"
In The Washington Post (March 26), columnist David Ignatius took aim at those so-called pharaohs. He points out that the U.S. has a policy against funding the settlements, "yet private organizations in the United States continue to raise tax-exempt contributions for the very activities that the government opposes."
Critics — and he mentions Rabbi Lerner's ally, Peace Now — are questioning, "why American taxpayers are supporting indirectly, through the exempt contributions, a process that the government condemns. A search of IRS records identified 28 U.S. charitable groups that made a total of $33.4 million in tax-exempt contributions to settlements and related organizations between 2004 and 2007."
One wonders if Ignatius, so "troubled" by those tax deductions, was equally troubled by with President Obama's intention to give $600 million of our tax dollars to West Bank Palestinians, and $300 million to Gaza.
In March, Palestinian TV on the West Bank celebrated the anniversary of a 1978 terrorist attack in which an Israeli bus was hijacked, leaving 38 dead Jews, including 13 children. In April, Palestinian Media Watch (PMW.org.il) posted a video of a Hamas TV pre-seder blood libel. The "skit" depicted Jews in black hats, shuckling in prayer, gesturing in a Jewish parody, discussing Muslim blood.
Father: "Shimon, look, my son… You have to hate the Muslims…. You have to drink the Muslims' blood… Where are you going, my son?"
Son: "To wash [before prayer with water]…."
Father: "Muslims do this, not us! … We have to wash our hands with the blood of Muslims."
Meanwhile, with President Obama making overtures to the Islamic world, The Christian Science Monitor (Mar. 28) suggests "ten terms not to use with Muslims."
At a time when "racist" and "apartheid" are commonly used to refer to Zionists, columnist Chris Seiple, president of a group promoting religious freedom, writes, "I want to share the advice given to me from dear Muslim friends… regarding words and concepts that are not useful in building relationships with them…. We need to be very careful about how we use them, and in what context."
The problematic words? "Clash of Civilizations… Secular… Assimilation… Reformation…. Jihadi…. Moderate…. Interfaith… Freedom… Religious Freedom… Tolerance."
Moderate? "This ubiquitous term is meant politically but can be received theologically. If someone called me a 'moderate Christian,' I would be deeply offended."
Interfaith? "This term conjures up images of watered-down, lowest common denominator statements that avoid the tough issues and are consequently irrelevant."
Freedom? "Freedom can imply an unbound licentiousness."
Tolerance? "Tolerance is not enough."
At least seven of those concepts are cherished by Jews, but what do I know? I'm so out of step, at my seder the Jews are the good guys. I'm still on the last page of the Haggadah, where the innocent kid, Shlomo Nativ, 13, was slaughtered with an axe by Islamic Jihad in Gush Etzion, April 2.
As Rabbi Lerner says, Passover was a problem for some Jews this year. The Nativs got up from shiva for the seder. Shlomo took care of his family's goats. One kid. One kid.
Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
To comment, please click here.
JWR contributor Jonathan Mark is Associate Editor of the New York Jewish Week, where this appeared.
© 2008, NY Jewish Week.
Fatah=Hamas; Abbas=Arafat
PA Chairman With PLO Flag That Erases Israel
8 Shevat 5768, 15 January 08 10:57
by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz
(IsraelNN.com) Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas was filmed this week at a PLO Central Committee meeting with an emblem that negates the existence of Israel as a backdrop. The PLO emblem includes the PA flag above a map which depcits Palestine replacing the entirety of the State of Israel.
Palestinian Media Watch Directors Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook explained the emblem: "This symbolizes that all of Israel is, or will someday be, 'Palestine.'"
The video from the PLO meeting, which took place in Ramallah, was broadcast on PA television on Sunday, January 13. The event took place just days after Abbas met with US President George W. Bush and reiterated his commitment to peaceful negotiations with Israel.
The PA's Fatah terrorist faction, under the direct command of Abbas, also continues to promote the elimination of Israel through its maps and symbols. A map on a poster printed in December in honor of the group's 43rd anniversary shows all of Israel as "Palestine" draped in a colorful keffiyeh scarf. A rifle is pictured alongside the map.
Fatah is generally treated by Western leaders as more moderate than rival terrorist groups, as it currently professes to support an Arab Muslim state in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem, but not within Israel’s 1948-1967 borders. However, throughout decades of negotiations, the group never changed its maps or military symbols, and Fatah leaders refuse to recognize Israel as Jewish within any borders. In a 2001 press release in honor of the 37th anniversary of Fatah's first terrorist attack, the organization declared that "a legitimate Palestinian entity forms the most important weapon that Arabs have against Israel...."
On November 28, the day after the Annapolis Conference, official PA television broadcast a map of the region obliterating Israel completely and replacing it with a Palestinian flag.
www.IsraelNationalNews.com
© Copyright IsraelNationalNews.com
Subscribe to the free Daily Israel Report - sub.israelnn.com
8 Shevat 5768, 15 January 08 10:57
by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz
(IsraelNN.com) Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas was filmed this week at a PLO Central Committee meeting with an emblem that negates the existence of Israel as a backdrop. The PLO emblem includes the PA flag above a map which depcits Palestine replacing the entirety of the State of Israel.
Palestinian Media Watch Directors Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook explained the emblem: "This symbolizes that all of Israel is, or will someday be, 'Palestine.'"
The video from the PLO meeting, which took place in Ramallah, was broadcast on PA television on Sunday, January 13. The event took place just days after Abbas met with US President George W. Bush and reiterated his commitment to peaceful negotiations with Israel.
The PA's Fatah terrorist faction, under the direct command of Abbas, also continues to promote the elimination of Israel through its maps and symbols. A map on a poster printed in December in honor of the group's 43rd anniversary shows all of Israel as "Palestine" draped in a colorful keffiyeh scarf. A rifle is pictured alongside the map.
Fatah is generally treated by Western leaders as more moderate than rival terrorist groups, as it currently professes to support an Arab Muslim state in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jerusalem, but not within Israel’s 1948-1967 borders. However, throughout decades of negotiations, the group never changed its maps or military symbols, and Fatah leaders refuse to recognize Israel as Jewish within any borders. In a 2001 press release in honor of the 37th anniversary of Fatah's first terrorist attack, the organization declared that "a legitimate Palestinian entity forms the most important weapon that Arabs have against Israel...."
On November 28, the day after the Annapolis Conference, official PA television broadcast a map of the region obliterating Israel completely and replacing it with a Palestinian flag.
www.IsraelNationalNews.com
© Copyright IsraelNationalNews.com
Subscribe to the free Daily Israel Report - sub.israelnn.com
Great Questions=Great Answers
Tawfik Hamid highlights speech made to European Parliament
Tawfik Hamid - Apr 19, 2009
Dear friends
I came back from Brussels after addressing the European Parliament. The talk was very successful.
The expectations for the number of attendees was 20, however 90 actually attended, including all the middle east advisers and many other reputable members.
I spoke for 20 minutes and we had a Q&A session afterwards. The audience were very impressed and the organizers requested from me that I repeat the visit to Europe again soon.
The topic was Hamas organization and the debate was concerning if the European Parliament should legitimize and support it.
Hamas wants to present itself as a National rather than a religious movement and they want to be legitimized because they were democratically elected. They also want support for their social services such as education and healthcare.
My main points of discussion were:
1- If Hamas was not a religious movement (as they claim), why then do they choose the name “Islamic” Resistance Movement and not “Palestinian” Resistance movement and why do they ONLY build Islamic schools and Mosques and not Christian schools and Churches as well even though many Palestinians are Christians.
2- I asked the members of the European Parliament if they would also legitimize Al-Qaeda if the Afghani people elected them in a democratic election.
3- I also asked if they would have supported the NAZI regimen just because they needed social services such as the building of schools and hospitals. I explained that Hamas leaders repeatedly promote killing all Jews and the eradication Israel. Accordingly, they are not much different from the NAZI system that promoted killing the Jews. The ONLY difference is that HAMAS does not have the power to do this yet!
4- I also reminded them that the freedom they enjoy now in Europe was not the fruit of Interfaith dialogues or mutual understanding with the NAZIs but a military defeat followed by educational and ideological reforms.
5- I was interrupted twice by applauds.
The event was all videotaped and the organizers are preparing a newsletter about the event with video clips which I will send to you once I have received it.
Best regards to you all
Tawfik Hamid
Tawfik Hamid - Apr 19, 2009
Dear friends
I came back from Brussels after addressing the European Parliament. The talk was very successful.
The expectations for the number of attendees was 20, however 90 actually attended, including all the middle east advisers and many other reputable members.
I spoke for 20 minutes and we had a Q&A session afterwards. The audience were very impressed and the organizers requested from me that I repeat the visit to Europe again soon.
The topic was Hamas organization and the debate was concerning if the European Parliament should legitimize and support it.
Hamas wants to present itself as a National rather than a religious movement and they want to be legitimized because they were democratically elected. They also want support for their social services such as education and healthcare.
My main points of discussion were:
1- If Hamas was not a religious movement (as they claim), why then do they choose the name “Islamic” Resistance Movement and not “Palestinian” Resistance movement and why do they ONLY build Islamic schools and Mosques and not Christian schools and Churches as well even though many Palestinians are Christians.
2- I asked the members of the European Parliament if they would also legitimize Al-Qaeda if the Afghani people elected them in a democratic election.
3- I also asked if they would have supported the NAZI regimen just because they needed social services such as the building of schools and hospitals. I explained that Hamas leaders repeatedly promote killing all Jews and the eradication Israel. Accordingly, they are not much different from the NAZI system that promoted killing the Jews. The ONLY difference is that HAMAS does not have the power to do this yet!
4- I also reminded them that the freedom they enjoy now in Europe was not the fruit of Interfaith dialogues or mutual understanding with the NAZIs but a military defeat followed by educational and ideological reforms.
5- I was interrupted twice by applauds.
The event was all videotaped and the organizers are preparing a newsletter about the event with video clips which I will send to you once I have received it.
Best regards to you all
Tawfik Hamid
The Untold Stories: The Murder Sites of the Jews in the Former USSR
- Apr 20, 2009
Yad Vashem
(April 20, 2009 - Jerusalem) A new, comprehensive research project documenting 101 killing sites in the areas of the former Soviet Union has been uploaded to Yad Vashem’s website, www.yadvashem.org. Marking Holocaust Remembrance Day, “The Untold Stories: The Murder Sites of the Jews in the Former USSR” chronicles the murders of thousands of Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators in 51 different communities whose Jewish populations were massacred during the Holocaust.
New Comprehensive Research Project at www.yadvashem.org
The Untold Stories is a project of Yad Vashem’s International Institute for Holocaust Research, which tells the hitherto untold stories of the destruction of the Jews of the Former USSR. It is generously supported by Dr. Moshe Kantor, Chairman of the Board of Governors, Russian Jewish Congress (RJC) and uploaded to the Internet at his initiative and in partnership with the RJC.
The new project began with the collection and registration of all the murder sites in the former USSR being studied by researchers at Yad Vashem. From this pool of data, 51 different communities whose Jewish populations were murdered-in Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia and Russia-were chosen. The historical background serves as the central feature of the site, from which links branch out to a variety of primary and secondary resources, primarily from Yad Vashem’s Archives and private collections - documents, photographs, letters, maps, illustrations, video testimonies, Pages of Testimony, film clips, lists of victims and stories of Righteous Among the Nations-which together create a multi-dimensional historical and human portrait.
“While the world knows about Auschwitz and even Babi Yar, more than a million Jews were murdered in towns and villages that remain relatively unknown,” said Avner Shalev, Chairman of Yad Vashem. “In some locations thousands were gunned down, in others a dozen men and women tortured and killed. This important project sheds light on what happened in these communities, some of which were a cradle of Jewish life for centuries, whose names still resonate in Jewish communities around the world. The use of all the sources available makes this project invaluable to all those who seek to know what happened.”
Containing 139 video clips, of which over 80 are witness accounts, most of them from the collection of the USC Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education (formerly the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation) founded by Steven Spielberg, as well as 1,459 photographs (including scans of original documents) the Untold Stories features chilling testimonies of people - at the time primarily children - who climbed out of the killing pits and managed to survive. It also sheds light on local Jews’ attempts, after the war, to memorialize the murdered Jews and destroyed communities, even as the Soviets were seeking to quell any feelings of Jewish identity.
Contact: Estee Yaari / Foreign Media Liaison / Yad Vashem / +972 2 644 3412/0 estee.yaari@yadvashem.org.
Yad Vashem
(April 20, 2009 - Jerusalem) A new, comprehensive research project documenting 101 killing sites in the areas of the former Soviet Union has been uploaded to Yad Vashem’s website, www.yadvashem.org. Marking Holocaust Remembrance Day, “The Untold Stories: The Murder Sites of the Jews in the Former USSR” chronicles the murders of thousands of Jews by the Nazis and their collaborators in 51 different communities whose Jewish populations were massacred during the Holocaust.
New Comprehensive Research Project at www.yadvashem.org
The Untold Stories is a project of Yad Vashem’s International Institute for Holocaust Research, which tells the hitherto untold stories of the destruction of the Jews of the Former USSR. It is generously supported by Dr. Moshe Kantor, Chairman of the Board of Governors, Russian Jewish Congress (RJC) and uploaded to the Internet at his initiative and in partnership with the RJC.
The new project began with the collection and registration of all the murder sites in the former USSR being studied by researchers at Yad Vashem. From this pool of data, 51 different communities whose Jewish populations were murdered-in Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia and Russia-were chosen. The historical background serves as the central feature of the site, from which links branch out to a variety of primary and secondary resources, primarily from Yad Vashem’s Archives and private collections - documents, photographs, letters, maps, illustrations, video testimonies, Pages of Testimony, film clips, lists of victims and stories of Righteous Among the Nations-which together create a multi-dimensional historical and human portrait.
“While the world knows about Auschwitz and even Babi Yar, more than a million Jews were murdered in towns and villages that remain relatively unknown,” said Avner Shalev, Chairman of Yad Vashem. “In some locations thousands were gunned down, in others a dozen men and women tortured and killed. This important project sheds light on what happened in these communities, some of which were a cradle of Jewish life for centuries, whose names still resonate in Jewish communities around the world. The use of all the sources available makes this project invaluable to all those who seek to know what happened.”
Containing 139 video clips, of which over 80 are witness accounts, most of them from the collection of the USC Shoah Foundation Institute for Visual History and Education (formerly the Survivors of the Shoah Visual History Foundation) founded by Steven Spielberg, as well as 1,459 photographs (including scans of original documents) the Untold Stories features chilling testimonies of people - at the time primarily children - who climbed out of the killing pits and managed to survive. It also sheds light on local Jews’ attempts, after the war, to memorialize the murdered Jews and destroyed communities, even as the Soviets were seeking to quell any feelings of Jewish identity.
Contact: Estee Yaari / Foreign Media Liaison / Yad Vashem / +972 2 644 3412/0 estee.yaari@yadvashem.org.
Especially important to those Jews who voted for Obama
The Media, the Blogisphere and Middle East Madness
Sammy Benoit - Apr 22, 2009
American Thinker
America and its relationship with Israel are at a dynamic crossroads. Both the United States and Israeli governments are relatively new. The extent, parameters and depth of the alliance will certainly change, after all the personalities and the priorities of both countries have changed.
As with any fast changing situations, many of the stories filed by some in the main stream media are either unsubstantiated or simply false and many of us in the blog world take these reports that may have only one source, and run with them. Here are some recent examples:
* Obama Disses Israeli Chief of Staff: Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi cut short his visit to Washington after getting an extraordinarily cool reception from the new U.S. administration. Only source http://www.worldtribune.com/
The truth is he left to join in the talks to liberate Gilad Shalit. It`s relatively easy to figure out the story is fraudulent. While you or I might stop off at a friend`s house without an appointment, no Army COS, or any major governmental official is going to fly off to another country hoping to get a meeting. Their time is too valuable. Every appointment is pre-arraigned or they don`t get on the plane.
* Obama Tells Palestinians that they don`t have to recognize Israel as Jewish State: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu`s demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people as a condition for renewing peace talks is unacceptable to the United States, the State Department said during special envoy George Mitchell`s visits over the weekend to Ramallah and Cairo."
The only source is Ha`aretz. The only place where this appeared was Ha`aretz. Ha`artz is the NY Times of Israel, a newspaper whose leftist agenda supersedes delivering the truth. Last month, Ha`aretz published a story about Israeli War Crimes that was based on rumors. This month they publish the above story to try and make the Netanyahu Govt. look bad. As a rule of thumb if Ha`aretz says the sun is shining make sure to look out the window and double check. It`s not that they are never right, but always get a second source to confirm.
According to Netanyahu he never made the demand about Israel being recognized as a Jewish state. Even if Bibi did make the demand, it doesn`t make sense that Mitchell would make it public, or tell the Palestinians about it. This, his first trip to the region in his new capacity, is for fact-finding not for negotiations.
* Bibi Cancels US Trip Because Obama won`t meet with him: "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has cancelled his visit to the US to attend the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference after he learned that President Barak Obama will not meet on the scheduled time, Arabs48 quoted Israeli sources as saying.
Sources, according to the internet site, said last week that Obama refuses to meet Netanyahu in the time being and that every Israeli effort to make the gathering possible was to no avail." Source a web site called Arabs48 via Al Jazeera.
Al Jazeera contradicted that story a day later:
"Commenting on reports from Israel that Netanyahu could visit US for talks with Obama as soon as May, Gibbs said: "If the prime minister is here, the president would be anxious to sit down and talk with him, as he sat down and talked with him last year about this and other subjects that relate to our security."
Before the election many of us warned of the dangers to Israel of an Obama win. Barack Obama has spent much of his life being mentored by, advised by, or simply associating with people who are Anti-Israel. Additionally it is expected that his one-world, everyone loves each other, let`s engage, approach to foreign policy will be harmful to the Jewish State.
Nothing that he said or done since his election has moved me away from that expectation. In fact his decision to join the UN Human Rights Committee, his promise of engagement with Iran despite Ahmedinijad`s crazy ranting and Iran`s continued nuclear development, and the fact that he toyed with going to the Durban II conference until the day before it started, are all ominous clouds surrounding USA/Israel relations.
The key here is to evaluate the source, and its history. There is so much truth that we must alert out readers about. But if we don`t check our sources, the truth will be washed out with the fiction
Sammy Benoit - Apr 22, 2009
American Thinker
America and its relationship with Israel are at a dynamic crossroads. Both the United States and Israeli governments are relatively new. The extent, parameters and depth of the alliance will certainly change, after all the personalities and the priorities of both countries have changed.
As with any fast changing situations, many of the stories filed by some in the main stream media are either unsubstantiated or simply false and many of us in the blog world take these reports that may have only one source, and run with them. Here are some recent examples:
* Obama Disses Israeli Chief of Staff: Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi cut short his visit to Washington after getting an extraordinarily cool reception from the new U.S. administration. Only source http://www.worldtribune.com/
The truth is he left to join in the talks to liberate Gilad Shalit. It`s relatively easy to figure out the story is fraudulent. While you or I might stop off at a friend`s house without an appointment, no Army COS, or any major governmental official is going to fly off to another country hoping to get a meeting. Their time is too valuable. Every appointment is pre-arraigned or they don`t get on the plane.
* Obama Tells Palestinians that they don`t have to recognize Israel as Jewish State: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu`s demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people as a condition for renewing peace talks is unacceptable to the United States, the State Department said during special envoy George Mitchell`s visits over the weekend to Ramallah and Cairo."
The only source is Ha`aretz. The only place where this appeared was Ha`aretz. Ha`artz is the NY Times of Israel, a newspaper whose leftist agenda supersedes delivering the truth. Last month, Ha`aretz published a story about Israeli War Crimes that was based on rumors. This month they publish the above story to try and make the Netanyahu Govt. look bad. As a rule of thumb if Ha`aretz says the sun is shining make sure to look out the window and double check. It`s not that they are never right, but always get a second source to confirm.
According to Netanyahu he never made the demand about Israel being recognized as a Jewish state. Even if Bibi did make the demand, it doesn`t make sense that Mitchell would make it public, or tell the Palestinians about it. This, his first trip to the region in his new capacity, is for fact-finding not for negotiations.
* Bibi Cancels US Trip Because Obama won`t meet with him: "Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has cancelled his visit to the US to attend the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) conference after he learned that President Barak Obama will not meet on the scheduled time, Arabs48 quoted Israeli sources as saying.
Sources, according to the internet site, said last week that Obama refuses to meet Netanyahu in the time being and that every Israeli effort to make the gathering possible was to no avail." Source a web site called Arabs48 via Al Jazeera.
Al Jazeera contradicted that story a day later:
"Commenting on reports from Israel that Netanyahu could visit US for talks with Obama as soon as May, Gibbs said: "If the prime minister is here, the president would be anxious to sit down and talk with him, as he sat down and talked with him last year about this and other subjects that relate to our security."
Before the election many of us warned of the dangers to Israel of an Obama win. Barack Obama has spent much of his life being mentored by, advised by, or simply associating with people who are Anti-Israel. Additionally it is expected that his one-world, everyone loves each other, let`s engage, approach to foreign policy will be harmful to the Jewish State.
Nothing that he said or done since his election has moved me away from that expectation. In fact his decision to join the UN Human Rights Committee, his promise of engagement with Iran despite Ahmedinijad`s crazy ranting and Iran`s continued nuclear development, and the fact that he toyed with going to the Durban II conference until the day before it started, are all ominous clouds surrounding USA/Israel relations.
The key here is to evaluate the source, and its history. There is so much truth that we must alert out readers about. But if we don`t check our sources, the truth will be washed out with the fiction
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)