A British Jew Committed to Prosecuting Israeli Leaders
by Nissan Ratzlav-Katz A British Jew vs Israeli Leaders
Attorney Nitzana Darshan-Leitner, chairwoman of the Shurat Hadin legal advocacy organization, told Arutz Sheva Radio on Thursday who exactly is behind the effort to prosecute former IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Yaalon and other IDF commanders. He is Daniel Machover - a British lawyer who is also a former Israeli.
Machover, a co-founder of Lawyers for Palestinian Human Rights, represents the Palestinian Center for Human Rights, based in the Hamas-run Gaza half of the Palestinian Authority. According to Leitner, Machover has dedicated his life to collecting evidence against IDF officers and political leaders in an effort to charge them with war crimes in Europe. He and the center he represents prepare legal ambushes for Israeli military and civilian leaders who visit European countries, hoping to bring about their arrest and prosecution.
"Attorney Daniel Machover is an expatriate Israeli, son of a Communist family that emigrated to England after the Six Day War," Leitner said. The family left Israel because of what they saw as "the suffering of the Palestinians and the Israeli occupation. The family distanced itself from anything related to Jews and Israel and became close to the Palestinians," Leitner continued.
According to the Shurat Hadin chairwoman, Machover has been trying to bring about the prosecution of Israeli officers long before the recent Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. "We have been following his activities for several years," Leitner said. "Thank God, thus far he has not seen the fruits of his efforts and we hope that it will continue to be possible to foil his despicable efforts."
The British Jewish lawyer Machover is one of a string of "former Israelis who hold hard Left opinions" who have set themselves up as enemies of Israel, Leitner explained. "The goal of people such as him is to undermine the Jewish identity and the Jewish people."
Last year, for example, Machover took part in the the International Jewish Solidarity (later, Anti-Zionist) Network's conference under the heading, "International Resistance to Zionism: In solidarity with 60-plus years of Palestinian resistance to the founding of Israel".
"I can only be saddened that that man calls himself an international human rights attorney, because he cares only for Palestinian human rights and doesn't care about Jewish blood [that is s. If human rights are important to him, then let him worry about the rights of both sides," Attorney Leitner added.
Leitner's organization is attempting to fight back against all the hostile elements currently active in the courts. "We are engaged on several fronts," she detailed. "First of all, in assisting with the filing of counterclaims of war crimes by Israel's enemies, despite the fact that in this way we are in effect recognizing the jurisdiction of foreign courts; however, if that is the field our enemies are playing in, then we too will compete in the same arena, with the same tools. And then we can perhaps prove who the real war criminals are."
Leitner told Arutz Sheva about several successes. "In Spain, they wanted to file charges against Israeli officers who were involved in the elimination of [Hamas mastermi Saleh Shehadeh. We also turned to a Spanish attorney and requested to initiate a similar investigation of Javier Solana, who was the head of NATO forces during the war in Kosovo, responsible for the accidental bombing of a hospital, leading to the deaths of children. After a short time, it was decided in Spain to end the investigation of the Shehadeh incident and we were informed that our counter-investigation caused the Spanish legal system to understand that there is no place for investigations in Spain of actions carried out in other countries."
Saturday, October 31, 2009
SET UP: LEGAL BLACKMAIL BY IMAMS
Katherine Kersten: 'Flying imams' case is settled at our expense
It's all too easy to apply hindsight to a potentially perilous situation.
By KATHERINE KERSTEN, Star Tribune
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/65839372.html?page=1&c=y
Last update: October 25, 2009 - 11:44 AM
The "flying imams" and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) are declaring victory in their legal war against law-enforcement personnel and safety procedures at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. Their "victory" -- aided and abetted by a judge arrogantly dismissive of law-enforcement realities -- is a major setback for transportation safety.
The case made news three years ago when the six imams were removed from a U.S. Airways jet after passengers and airline employees reported that the six were engaging in suspicious behavior, including changing seats into a so-called 9/11 pattern; cursing the United States and its conflict with Saddam Hussein; chanting "Allah, Allah" when boarding was called, and unnecessarily requesting seat-belt extenders that could be used as weapons.
The imams were questioned and released. Subsequently, they sued U.S. Airways, the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), the officers involved and even passengers they suspected of reporting their behavior, until an outraged, bipartisan Congress passed a law giving the passengers immunity.
Last week, a settlement was announced in the case. Details remain confidential, and the judge must approve the agreement. But the parties have said publicly that -- though there is no admission of guilt or fault -- money will change hands. MAC's insurance company exercised its right to take charge of the defense and chose to settle, according to MAC spokesman Patrick Hogan.
No wonder. In a ruling this summer, U.S. District Judge Ann Montgomery pinned the law-enforcement officials involved to the wall -- one from the FBI and six from MAC -- second-guessing their conduct with the luxury of a Monday-morning quarterback.
When the officers were summoned to Flight 300 on Nov. 20, 2006, they believed that passengers might be in danger, and they had to make quick decisions based on limited information. Montgomery, in contrast, had the opportunity to review hundreds of pages of briefs, depositions and exhibits before concluding -- in hindsight -- that the officers had erred in detaining the imams. After hearing lawyers' arguments, she deliberated for almost three months before penning a 47-page dissertation on what, in her view, the officers should or shouldn't have done that day.
Most important, she -- unlike the officers -- knew with the benefit of hindsight that passengers had not been in danger.
On July 24, 2009, Montgomery issued her ruling. "No reasonably competent officer," she wrote, could have believed he was acting legally by detaining and questioning the imams in a way that, in her view, amounted to an "arrest." The fact that at least 15 officers involved in the incident -- from the MAC, the Federal Air Marshal Service, the FBI and the Secret Service -- had all apparently believed they were acting appropriately and responsibly did not appear to give her pause. The MAC officers, Montgomery ruled, were actually guilty of a "willful or malicious wrong."
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, worries about the impact of a settlement reached under such circumstances.
"Terrorism operates on fear," says Jasser. "Transportation authorities don't know when, where or how terrorists will strike, so they must be vigilant." After this settlement, he adds, the men and women charged with protecting the public will have to contend with a "competing fear" as they make tough decisions: "They may ask, 'If I detain and question someone who is acting suspiciously, will I cost my employer thousands of dollars, or even lose my job?'"
This chilling effect may lead to risky changes in airport security policies and pilot training, Jasser warns. As a result, officials may miss "vital nuances" in behavior that put the rest of us in danger.
Despite a potential increase in safety risks at the airport, is the flying imams' settlement at least a victory for Muslim civil rights, as CAIR has declared? On the contrary, says Jasser -- a Muslim -- it's a victory for the legal strategy of "victimization," which grievance groups have often employed to "shake down" defendants. CAIR and the imams dismiss national security concerns, he says, in order to portray airport security measures as motivated by ethnic and religious bigotry. In the process, they ignore the central role of suspicious behavior and cast themselves as victims of irrational bias.
This obsession with victimization leads CAIR and the imams to ignore Muslims' real interests, Jasser adds.
"Muslims have responsibility for religious reform, aimed at removing the fuel that powers the growth of radical Islam. We will have succeeded when we no longer see arrests for terrorist-related activities -- as we did recently in Denver, New Jersey and Boston," he says. "The real victory for Muslims will come when the cancer of political Islamist ideology, which feeds terrorism, disappears."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add actforamerica@donationnet.net to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org
ACT for America is an issues advocacy organization dedicated to effectively organizing and mobilizing the most powerful grassroots citizen action network in America, a grassroots network committed to informed and coordinated civic action that will lead to public policies that promote America’s national security and the defense of American democratic values against the assault of radical Islam. We are only as strong as our supporters, and your volunteer and financial support is essential to our success. Thank you for helping us make America safer and more secure.
Don't blockade the enemy
////////////editorial////////
Could you please explain the logic of furnishing those who attack you with the means to continue? Further, no democratically elected government could survive waging aggressive war without the acquiescence of its population. Please convince me of the efficacy of the logic that all 11 of you have determined.
P. S. It is no wonder that no ally of the USA (as well as the USA) has ever won a major conflict since WW2!
England should have helped all those innocent Germans during the Blitz.
No, maybe Russia should help the Chechnya's while they terrorize Russia.
Hey guys, where are all the Republicans in this fine Democrat initiative?
Oh, I forgot. There are different rules when Jews are involved!
///////////////
Lawmakers press U.S. on Gaza shutdown
Published: 01/28/2008
Eleven Democratic Congress members led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich urged the United States to press Israel to end the Gaza Strip blockade.
"I urge you to exert your influence to lift the Israeli blockade of Gaza, to allow humanitarian aid workers to resume their functions in the territory, and to support a political solution to this conflict because Palestinians in Gaza cannot live on emergency aid forever and Israelis in southern Israel deserve to live without fear," said the letter sent last week to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Israel sealed Gaza in a bid to stop rocket attacks on the country's south.
Kucinich (D-Ohio) just dropped a long-shot bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Another signatory is Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.
Could you please explain the logic of furnishing those who attack you with the means to continue? Further, no democratically elected government could survive waging aggressive war without the acquiescence of its population. Please convince me of the efficacy of the logic that all 11 of you have determined.
P. S. It is no wonder that no ally of the USA (as well as the USA) has ever won a major conflict since WW2!
England should have helped all those innocent Germans during the Blitz.
No, maybe Russia should help the Chechnya's while they terrorize Russia.
Hey guys, where are all the Republicans in this fine Democrat initiative?
Oh, I forgot. There are different rules when Jews are involved!
///////////////
Lawmakers press U.S. on Gaza shutdown
Published: 01/28/2008
Eleven Democratic Congress members led by Rep. Dennis Kucinich urged the United States to press Israel to end the Gaza Strip blockade.
"I urge you to exert your influence to lift the Israeli blockade of Gaza, to allow humanitarian aid workers to resume their functions in the territory, and to support a political solution to this conflict because Palestinians in Gaza cannot live on emergency aid forever and Israelis in southern Israel deserve to live without fear," said the letter sent last week to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Israel sealed Gaza in a bid to stop rocket attacks on the country's south.
Kucinich (D-Ohio) just dropped a long-shot bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. Another signatory is Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.), the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee.
Mogahed: WHY IS OBAMA WITH HER?
Mogahed's Excuses Don't Add Up
by Cinnamon Stillwell
FrontPage Magazine
October 30, 2009
http://frontpagemag.com/2009/10/30/mogahed%E2%80%99s-excuses-don%E2%80%99t-add-up-by-cinnamon-stillwell/
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/8600
As reported last week by Campus Watch, Dalia Mogahed, appointee to President Obama's Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, executive director and senior analyst of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, and co-author, along with Georgetown University's John Esposito, of Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think, appeared (by phone) earlier this month on the UK-based Islam Channel television program "Muslimah Dilemma" (view here and read the complete transcript here.) Ibtihal Bsis, the show's host, is a member of the Islamist group Hizb ut Tahrir; Mogahed's fellow guest, Nazreen Nawaz, is the group's national women's media representative. Given these affiliations, it's no surprise that the discussion included such extremist fare as the promotion of sharia law for—of all things—protecting women's rights, condemnation for secular pluralistic democracy, and the revival of a mythical caliphate as the answer to the Muslim world's woes.
Mogahed has been roundly criticized for appearing on the show and, in a transparent attempt at damage control, she told U.S. News & World Report last week she has experienced second thoughts about her decision. Stretching credulity, she claimed she "had no idea that the show's host or the other guest was affiliated with Hizb ut Tahrir," that she only "found out the affiliation on air, when the other guest was being introduced in the beginning," and that her staff "checked the show with a PR firm in Britain who told us there were no problems with it." Even if it's true that Mogahed herself was ignorant of the nature of the show, it's hard to imagine that her sophisticated vetting system missed what a simple Google search would have turned up in seconds. Moreover, if she was truly surprised to find herself among radicals, wouldn't she be more likely to speak up against them?
One has to wonder if this was a case of incompetence or fabrication.
When asked why she didn't just hang up the phone, Mogahed, demonstrating further ignorance about the availability of data in the age of the Internet (apparently, she's never heard of YouTube,) said:
"I assumed that very few people would watch this show but that doing something more dramatic would bring more attention."
But it was Mogahed's tepid response to and, at times, backhanded support for the objectionable opinions expressed on the show that brought attention.
To explain her reticence to speak out against such radicalism, Mogahed had another handy justification:
"As an analyst, I don't engage in ideological debates. I am always on programs to explain the views and opinions of others—in this case, Muslims around the world—not to discuss my own views. Being on a program with people who are representing ideological movements puts an analyst in a very awkward position, where they are unable to respond to objectionable comments because of the limits of our role as analysts."
This is unconvincing. What are analysts for other than to analyze what is said in discussions of which they are part? Was she invited on the show in order to "not discuss [her] own views"? In fact, she had plenty of opportunities to rebut the extremist statements of those with whom she appeared, or at least to state for the record that she—particularly as Obama's Muslim affairs advisor—disagreed. Yet she chose to remain silent. In doing so, she missed a monumental opportunity to publicly condemn Islamist ideology. Perhaps that was the point.
As for Mogahed's own endorsements of sharia law—delivered, she claimed, as the will of billions of surveyed Muslim women, not her own—she had only this to say:
"I don't feel that I have regrets about what I said. I did a fair job of reporting the data. My one regret is appearing on the show to begin with."
It's a little late for that.
by Cinnamon Stillwell
FrontPage Magazine
October 30, 2009
http://frontpagemag.com/2009/10/30/mogahed%E2%80%99s-excuses-don%E2%80%99t-add-up-by-cinnamon-stillwell/
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/8600
As reported last week by Campus Watch, Dalia Mogahed, appointee to President Obama's Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, executive director and senior analyst of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, and co-author, along with Georgetown University's John Esposito, of Who Speaks for Islam?: What a Billion Muslims Really Think, appeared (by phone) earlier this month on the UK-based Islam Channel television program "Muslimah Dilemma" (view here and read the complete transcript here.) Ibtihal Bsis, the show's host, is a member of the Islamist group Hizb ut Tahrir; Mogahed's fellow guest, Nazreen Nawaz, is the group's national women's media representative. Given these affiliations, it's no surprise that the discussion included such extremist fare as the promotion of sharia law for—of all things—protecting women's rights, condemnation for secular pluralistic democracy, and the revival of a mythical caliphate as the answer to the Muslim world's woes.
Mogahed has been roundly criticized for appearing on the show and, in a transparent attempt at damage control, she told U.S. News & World Report last week she has experienced second thoughts about her decision. Stretching credulity, she claimed she "had no idea that the show's host or the other guest was affiliated with Hizb ut Tahrir," that she only "found out the affiliation on air, when the other guest was being introduced in the beginning," and that her staff "checked the show with a PR firm in Britain who told us there were no problems with it." Even if it's true that Mogahed herself was ignorant of the nature of the show, it's hard to imagine that her sophisticated vetting system missed what a simple Google search would have turned up in seconds. Moreover, if she was truly surprised to find herself among radicals, wouldn't she be more likely to speak up against them?
One has to wonder if this was a case of incompetence or fabrication.
When asked why she didn't just hang up the phone, Mogahed, demonstrating further ignorance about the availability of data in the age of the Internet (apparently, she's never heard of YouTube,) said:
"I assumed that very few people would watch this show but that doing something more dramatic would bring more attention."
But it was Mogahed's tepid response to and, at times, backhanded support for the objectionable opinions expressed on the show that brought attention.
To explain her reticence to speak out against such radicalism, Mogahed had another handy justification:
"As an analyst, I don't engage in ideological debates. I am always on programs to explain the views and opinions of others—in this case, Muslims around the world—not to discuss my own views. Being on a program with people who are representing ideological movements puts an analyst in a very awkward position, where they are unable to respond to objectionable comments because of the limits of our role as analysts."
This is unconvincing. What are analysts for other than to analyze what is said in discussions of which they are part? Was she invited on the show in order to "not discuss [her] own views"? In fact, she had plenty of opportunities to rebut the extremist statements of those with whom she appeared, or at least to state for the record that she—particularly as Obama's Muslim affairs advisor—disagreed. Yet she chose to remain silent. In doing so, she missed a monumental opportunity to publicly condemn Islamist ideology. Perhaps that was the point.
As for Mogahed's own endorsements of sharia law—delivered, she claimed, as the will of billions of surveyed Muslim women, not her own—she had only this to say:
"I don't feel that I have regrets about what I said. I did a fair job of reporting the data. My one regret is appearing on the show to begin with."
It's a little late for that.
Israel - Judaism
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125214
You will find this 3/4hr tape most interesting!
ISRAEL'S ENEMY: THE UNITED NATIONS
AMERICA'S ENEMY: THE UNITED NATIONS
A Day of Infamy: November 10, 1975
Alex Grobman - Oct 23, 2009
Justice Richard Goldstone's U.N. report charging Israel of "deliberate attacks" against civilians in last January's defensive war against Hamas, is just the latest assault to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state and her right to defend herself.
That the U.N. continues to play a central role in this effort is not surprising. After failing to defeat Israel on the field of battle, the Arabs chose to employ the U.N. to wage a political war against the Jews.
On November 10, 1975, the 37th anniversary of the Kristallnacht (Night of the Broken Glass), the U.N. General Assembly declared that Zionism is Racism and racial discrimination (Z=R) by passing Resolution 3379. The passage was part of an orchestrated worldwide campaign to delegitimize the State of Israel, after her enemies failed to expel her from the U.N.
On the same day the U.N. declared Z=R, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 3376, establishing an Assembly Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. Sixteen of the original 20 members on the Assembly committee did not have relations with Israel, and some had never acknowledged Israel's right to exist.1
The Z=R resolution initiated a new strain of international antisemitism. Although the resolution was abrogated in 1991, depriving it of legal status, the hostility against Israel it generated in most U.N. member nations-and in the U.N.'s own institutions-continues unabated.
Implications of the Resolution
"In the U.N., words take on a life of their own," noted John R. Bolton, then Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, "To declare as 'racist' the historical and cultural underpinnings of a state is tantamount to branding that state an international criminal, for racism is a crime enumerated in the Genocide Convention and numerous other instruments commonly accepted under international law.''2
Abba Eban, Israel's first permanent representative to the U.N. was the man who negotiated her entry into the U.N. and was later Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs, believed that this was the first time in history that an international body directed its criticism against ideas and articles of faith venerated by one of its member states-and not against its policies. The U.N. had never endorsed or denounced an "-ism" before. Even at the height of the Cold War, the United States never sponsored a resolution condemning communism, socialism, or any other "-ism." 3
A racist state has "no rights at all, not even the right to defend itself." observed Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. After 3379 was passed, Israel became "fair game for armed 'liberation.'" The U.N. General Assembly deliberately branded Israel as illegitimate on the same day it recognized the legitimacy of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).4
Antisemitic rhetoric in the U.N. was no longer taboo. Diplomatic representatives were free to use antisemitic stereotypes in their speeches, reflecting classical Christian antisemitism in their political attacks against Israel.5
Demonizing Israel has turned it into a physical target for terrorist organizations, and into apolitical target for left wing and reactionary forces. Whether there are fatwa's (legal rulings by Muslim clerics issued to legitimize suicide terrorism) or there are organizations demanding divestment from Israeli corporations, destruction of Israel-physical, spiritual or economic-is one of the mantras of the day. This is political antisemitism.6
For the majority of the members in the U.N., Israel is a locus of evil deserving of international condemnation-unlike many countries in the U.N. who practice ethnic cleansing, offer no rights to women or the poor, starve their own people for political reasons, and commit genocide.
These same nations, in the halls of an institution that was designed to prevent exactly this from happening, deny Israel her rights even in the courts of international law. Israel is the target of the majority of U.N. sanctions, is vilified by The Hague for defending herself and is singled out by the Geneva Convention as the utmost violator of human rights.7
Political science professor Ehud Sprinzak suggests this deliberate delegitimization leads to gradual erosion of Israel's stature and ultimately her right to exist. Those targeted are the last to recognize the transformation until the consequences of ostracism become evident. This occurs when remarks by the country's spokesman are "perceived as irrelevant," and when the leadership is no longer regarded as worthy of engaging in legitimate discourse with other countries.8
Branding Israel as racist, portrays her as a country that harms civilian populations, oppresses minorities, establishes restrictive immigration laws and religious statutes as part of their ideological raison d'être. Thus, Israel's wars, its military response to terror and laws passed by the Knesset are racist. A significant danger to Israel is that if this charge becomes a new stereotype through popular culture, the media, literature and daily speech, it will taint the Jewish state and become a part of the legacy of the West.9
No logical argument ever succeeded in disputing the blood libels or any other spurious allegation leveled against the Jews. Limited response to Z=R ensured that anti-Zionist resolutions continued to be passed. To counter the process of delegitimization, the charges have to be seen as a "corruption of language and thought," a threat to freedom, and a campaign of disinformation orchestrated by the Arabs and their collaboraters.10
1. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, "The U.N.'s Day of Infamy," The Washington Post (November 11, 1985): A23; Harris O. Schoenberg, A Mandate For Terror: The United Nations and the PLO (New York: Shapolsky Publishers, Inc., 1989), 108-125.
2. John R. Bolton, "Zionism Is Not Racism," NYT (December 16, 1991).
3. Abba Eban, "Israel, Anti-Semitism and the United Nations," The Jerusalem Quarterly (Fall 1976): 110, 118.
4. Kirkpatrick, "The U.N.'s Day of Infamy," The Washington Post (November 11, 1985), A23; Schoenberg, op. cit., 108-125.
5. Avi Beker, The United Nations and Israel: From Recognition to Reprehension (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1988), 3, 5, 94.
6. Irwin Cotler. "Why is Israel singled out," The Jerusalem Post (January 16, 2002); Irwin Cotler, "Human Rights And The New Anti-Jewishness," The Jerusalem Post, (February 5, 2004); Irwin Cotler." Durban's Troubling Legacy One Year Later: Twisting the Cause of International Human Rights Against the Jewish People." Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs Volume 2, No. 5 (August 20, 2002).
7. Ibid.
8. Ehud Sprinzak, "Anti-Zionism: From Delegitimation to Dehumanization." Forum-53 (Fall 1984): 3-5.
9. Ibid 7-8.
10. Ibid.9-10
About The Author
Dr. Alex Grobman is a Hebrew University trained historian. His is the author of a number of books, including Nations United: How The U.N. Undermines Israel and The West, Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? and a forthcoming book on Israel's moral and legal right to exist as a Jewish State.
A Day of Infamy: November 10, 1975
Alex Grobman - Oct 23, 2009
Justice Richard Goldstone's U.N. report charging Israel of "deliberate attacks" against civilians in last January's defensive war against Hamas, is just the latest assault to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state and her right to defend herself.
That the U.N. continues to play a central role in this effort is not surprising. After failing to defeat Israel on the field of battle, the Arabs chose to employ the U.N. to wage a political war against the Jews.
On November 10, 1975, the 37th anniversary of the Kristallnacht (Night of the Broken Glass), the U.N. General Assembly declared that Zionism is Racism and racial discrimination (Z=R) by passing Resolution 3379. The passage was part of an orchestrated worldwide campaign to delegitimize the State of Israel, after her enemies failed to expel her from the U.N.
On the same day the U.N. declared Z=R, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 3376, establishing an Assembly Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. Sixteen of the original 20 members on the Assembly committee did not have relations with Israel, and some had never acknowledged Israel's right to exist.1
The Z=R resolution initiated a new strain of international antisemitism. Although the resolution was abrogated in 1991, depriving it of legal status, the hostility against Israel it generated in most U.N. member nations-and in the U.N.'s own institutions-continues unabated.
Implications of the Resolution
"In the U.N., words take on a life of their own," noted John R. Bolton, then Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, "To declare as 'racist' the historical and cultural underpinnings of a state is tantamount to branding that state an international criminal, for racism is a crime enumerated in the Genocide Convention and numerous other instruments commonly accepted under international law.''2
Abba Eban, Israel's first permanent representative to the U.N. was the man who negotiated her entry into the U.N. and was later Israel's Minister of Foreign Affairs, believed that this was the first time in history that an international body directed its criticism against ideas and articles of faith venerated by one of its member states-and not against its policies. The U.N. had never endorsed or denounced an "-ism" before. Even at the height of the Cold War, the United States never sponsored a resolution condemning communism, socialism, or any other "-ism." 3
A racist state has "no rights at all, not even the right to defend itself." observed Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. After 3379 was passed, Israel became "fair game for armed 'liberation.'" The U.N. General Assembly deliberately branded Israel as illegitimate on the same day it recognized the legitimacy of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).4
Antisemitic rhetoric in the U.N. was no longer taboo. Diplomatic representatives were free to use antisemitic stereotypes in their speeches, reflecting classical Christian antisemitism in their political attacks against Israel.5
Demonizing Israel has turned it into a physical target for terrorist organizations, and into apolitical target for left wing and reactionary forces. Whether there are fatwa's (legal rulings by Muslim clerics issued to legitimize suicide terrorism) or there are organizations demanding divestment from Israeli corporations, destruction of Israel-physical, spiritual or economic-is one of the mantras of the day. This is political antisemitism.6
For the majority of the members in the U.N., Israel is a locus of evil deserving of international condemnation-unlike many countries in the U.N. who practice ethnic cleansing, offer no rights to women or the poor, starve their own people for political reasons, and commit genocide.
These same nations, in the halls of an institution that was designed to prevent exactly this from happening, deny Israel her rights even in the courts of international law. Israel is the target of the majority of U.N. sanctions, is vilified by The Hague for defending herself and is singled out by the Geneva Convention as the utmost violator of human rights.7
Political science professor Ehud Sprinzak suggests this deliberate delegitimization leads to gradual erosion of Israel's stature and ultimately her right to exist. Those targeted are the last to recognize the transformation until the consequences of ostracism become evident. This occurs when remarks by the country's spokesman are "perceived as irrelevant," and when the leadership is no longer regarded as worthy of engaging in legitimate discourse with other countries.8
Branding Israel as racist, portrays her as a country that harms civilian populations, oppresses minorities, establishes restrictive immigration laws and religious statutes as part of their ideological raison d'être. Thus, Israel's wars, its military response to terror and laws passed by the Knesset are racist. A significant danger to Israel is that if this charge becomes a new stereotype through popular culture, the media, literature and daily speech, it will taint the Jewish state and become a part of the legacy of the West.9
No logical argument ever succeeded in disputing the blood libels or any other spurious allegation leveled against the Jews. Limited response to Z=R ensured that anti-Zionist resolutions continued to be passed. To counter the process of delegitimization, the charges have to be seen as a "corruption of language and thought," a threat to freedom, and a campaign of disinformation orchestrated by the Arabs and their collaboraters.10
1. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, "The U.N.'s Day of Infamy," The Washington Post (November 11, 1985): A23; Harris O. Schoenberg, A Mandate For Terror: The United Nations and the PLO (New York: Shapolsky Publishers, Inc., 1989), 108-125.
2. John R. Bolton, "Zionism Is Not Racism," NYT (December 16, 1991).
3. Abba Eban, "Israel, Anti-Semitism and the United Nations," The Jerusalem Quarterly (Fall 1976): 110, 118.
4. Kirkpatrick, "The U.N.'s Day of Infamy," The Washington Post (November 11, 1985), A23; Schoenberg, op. cit., 108-125.
5. Avi Beker, The United Nations and Israel: From Recognition to Reprehension (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1988), 3, 5, 94.
6. Irwin Cotler. "Why is Israel singled out," The Jerusalem Post (January 16, 2002); Irwin Cotler, "Human Rights And The New Anti-Jewishness," The Jerusalem Post, (February 5, 2004); Irwin Cotler." Durban's Troubling Legacy One Year Later: Twisting the Cause of International Human Rights Against the Jewish People." Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs Volume 2, No. 5 (August 20, 2002).
7. Ibid.
8. Ehud Sprinzak, "Anti-Zionism: From Delegitimation to Dehumanization." Forum-53 (Fall 1984): 3-5.
9. Ibid 7-8.
10. Ibid.9-10
About The Author
Dr. Alex Grobman is a Hebrew University trained historian. His is the author of a number of books, including Nations United: How The U.N. Undermines Israel and The West, Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? and a forthcoming book on Israel's moral and legal right to exist as a Jewish State.
TURKEY; NOW AN ISLAMIC STATE
There's No Bigger Fool Than an Over-educated Fool The professor must be living in a world of his own creation - his refusal to face the facts is truly mind-boggling. There's no question the Turkish Islamists wouldn't mind for Israelis to keep providing them with military hardware, intelligence, lobby on their behalf, and keep behaving like dhimmis. There's also no question that these policies are misguided and dishonorable. It's much better to face the reality, accept it no matter how unpleasant it is, and move on. A relationship is like a two-way street, otherwise, it's not worth having it. massaraksh - USA (10/29/2009 05:21)
////////////////////////////////
Oct 28, 2009 21:52 | Updated Oct 29, 2009 11:07
Mending a strained alliance
By ALON BEN-MEIR
Earlier this month, what should have been a multinational exhibit of military cooperation between the Turkish air force and its counterparts in the US, Italy and Israel, became yet another political snub in the growing public rift between Turkey and Israel. The joint exercise, which takes place every few years, was canceled indefinitely after Turkey canceled Israel's participation, causing the US and Italy to forgo the exercise in response. This public rebuff is one of many in a string of events that has shown Turkey's visceral frustration with Israel's handling of its incursion into Gaza late last year.
Iranian President Mahmoud...
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, welcomes Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for a meeting in Tehran on Tuesday.
Photo: AP
While Turkey and Israel continue to enjoy a strong alliance and their commercial and trade relations remain uninterrupted, the public slights have undoubtedly put a strain on their bilateral relationship, especially after Turkey relied heavily on the Israel lobby to prevent the Armenian genocide bill from being passed in the US Congress only two years ago.
But what is Turkey gaining from these public outcries? Unless Turkey wants to seriously undermine its relations with Israel and its Western allies, it should start to act judiciously as a partner to both Israel and the Arab world.
Turkey's ability to lead in the future will depend on its capacity to balance its relations with the powers in its diverse neighborhood - Iran, Syria, Israel, Russia and Greece all being immediate neighbors - without trading one bilateral relation for another. Turkey views itself as a strategic power with the capacity to maintain regional stability, not only in the Middle East, but as a bridge between East and West.
RELATED
* Turkey: An ally no more
But after the infamous Davos incident in January, where Prime Minister Recep Erdogan walked out on a panel with President Shimon Peres after stating, "When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill," Turkey has looked less like a skillful diplomatic mediator and more like an instigator.
At this point, after earning the praise of the international community for its efforts as a member of NATO and the G-20, Turkey has too much at stake to start playing the blaming game in this intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
MUCH OF Turkey's animosity towards Israel is likely out of frustration, after Israel's failure to deliver an initial agreement with Syria from negotiations Turkey so painstakingly mediated throughout 2008. Furthermore, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has refused to resume the negotiations from where they were left off. But Turkey should not underestimate its role as the only strong political ally of Israel, Iran and the Arab world. Apart from government and diplomatic relations, Turkey has been the number one tourist destination for both Israelis and Iranians, though since January it has seen a huge downturn in Israeli tourists.
To sabotage its unique standing in this delicate global order at such a crucial time would be a major strategic blunder. Sooner rather than later, Turkey should realize that this isn't a fight worth having at this particular junction, especially when Israel has seen an increase in cooperation from its Arab neighbors since the Gaza war.
Many recall January 2008, when Sudan's Omar al-Bashir came to Ankara as a guest of the Turkish government after being accused by the International Criminal Court of heinous war crimes in Darfur. Only months later, Turkey participated in joint naval exercises with Israel, a tradition that has continued even after the Gaza war. The point is that Turkey has chosen a path as an ally to the many feuding nations it sits between, and in recent years has seen its integrality as an international partner skyrocket. It even made the final step of reconciliation with the Armenians this month, establishing diplomatic ties and reopening their shared border.
So why now, should Turkey find it necessary to undermine its historic and valuable ties with Israel, which has considered Turkey a partner of the utmost importance since its foundation as a state? As Turkey found out through the US's and Italy's immediate withdrawal from the military exercise, a rift with Israel can have destructive ramifications in its ties with the West. At this point, in its push for EU membership and as it seeks to work with the US over its Kurdish issue, a public schism with Israel will only weaken the Turkish case. And as the international community - including the Arab states - unites around the Iranian nuclear threat which is as worrisome to Turkey, it is in Ankara's best interest to cooperate.
To be sure, the importance of Turkish-Israeli relations cannot be overstated, as Turkey and Israel share not only critically important strategic relations but a deep affinity that goes back between the Jews and the Ottoman Empire.
It is not a minute too early to end public condemnations and begin mending the relationship; any further deterioration will serve neither Turkish nor Israeli interests now or in the future.
Israelis have good reason to feel indignant, but they should not allow a temporary political mishap to obscure Turkey's contribution to regional peace and prosperity. And likewise, Turkey must not allow the significant relations with Israel to be marred by an unfortunate chain of political mishaps.
Ankara must demonstrate that it can rise to the occasion and stretch its hand to the Israelis in friendship and show publicly that it values and reciprocates its partnership with the Jewish state. Israelis must now show magnanimity by accepting this invitation to join their Turkish friends and allies to celebrate the anniversary of the Turkish Republic on October 29 and use the occasion as a symbol of renewed partnership.
The writer is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. www.alonben-meir.com
////////////////////////////////
Oct 28, 2009 21:52 | Updated Oct 29, 2009 11:07
Mending a strained alliance
By ALON BEN-MEIR
Earlier this month, what should have been a multinational exhibit of military cooperation between the Turkish air force and its counterparts in the US, Italy and Israel, became yet another political snub in the growing public rift between Turkey and Israel. The joint exercise, which takes place every few years, was canceled indefinitely after Turkey canceled Israel's participation, causing the US and Italy to forgo the exercise in response. This public rebuff is one of many in a string of events that has shown Turkey's visceral frustration with Israel's handling of its incursion into Gaza late last year.
Iranian President Mahmoud...
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, left, welcomes Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, for a meeting in Tehran on Tuesday.
Photo: AP
While Turkey and Israel continue to enjoy a strong alliance and their commercial and trade relations remain uninterrupted, the public slights have undoubtedly put a strain on their bilateral relationship, especially after Turkey relied heavily on the Israel lobby to prevent the Armenian genocide bill from being passed in the US Congress only two years ago.
But what is Turkey gaining from these public outcries? Unless Turkey wants to seriously undermine its relations with Israel and its Western allies, it should start to act judiciously as a partner to both Israel and the Arab world.
Turkey's ability to lead in the future will depend on its capacity to balance its relations with the powers in its diverse neighborhood - Iran, Syria, Israel, Russia and Greece all being immediate neighbors - without trading one bilateral relation for another. Turkey views itself as a strategic power with the capacity to maintain regional stability, not only in the Middle East, but as a bridge between East and West.
RELATED
* Turkey: An ally no more
But after the infamous Davos incident in January, where Prime Minister Recep Erdogan walked out on a panel with President Shimon Peres after stating, "When it comes to killing, you know well how to kill," Turkey has looked less like a skillful diplomatic mediator and more like an instigator.
At this point, after earning the praise of the international community for its efforts as a member of NATO and the G-20, Turkey has too much at stake to start playing the blaming game in this intractable Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
MUCH OF Turkey's animosity towards Israel is likely out of frustration, after Israel's failure to deliver an initial agreement with Syria from negotiations Turkey so painstakingly mediated throughout 2008. Furthermore, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has refused to resume the negotiations from where they were left off. But Turkey should not underestimate its role as the only strong political ally of Israel, Iran and the Arab world. Apart from government and diplomatic relations, Turkey has been the number one tourist destination for both Israelis and Iranians, though since January it has seen a huge downturn in Israeli tourists.
To sabotage its unique standing in this delicate global order at such a crucial time would be a major strategic blunder. Sooner rather than later, Turkey should realize that this isn't a fight worth having at this particular junction, especially when Israel has seen an increase in cooperation from its Arab neighbors since the Gaza war.
Many recall January 2008, when Sudan's Omar al-Bashir came to Ankara as a guest of the Turkish government after being accused by the International Criminal Court of heinous war crimes in Darfur. Only months later, Turkey participated in joint naval exercises with Israel, a tradition that has continued even after the Gaza war. The point is that Turkey has chosen a path as an ally to the many feuding nations it sits between, and in recent years has seen its integrality as an international partner skyrocket. It even made the final step of reconciliation with the Armenians this month, establishing diplomatic ties and reopening their shared border.
So why now, should Turkey find it necessary to undermine its historic and valuable ties with Israel, which has considered Turkey a partner of the utmost importance since its foundation as a state? As Turkey found out through the US's and Italy's immediate withdrawal from the military exercise, a rift with Israel can have destructive ramifications in its ties with the West. At this point, in its push for EU membership and as it seeks to work with the US over its Kurdish issue, a public schism with Israel will only weaken the Turkish case. And as the international community - including the Arab states - unites around the Iranian nuclear threat which is as worrisome to Turkey, it is in Ankara's best interest to cooperate.
To be sure, the importance of Turkish-Israeli relations cannot be overstated, as Turkey and Israel share not only critically important strategic relations but a deep affinity that goes back between the Jews and the Ottoman Empire.
It is not a minute too early to end public condemnations and begin mending the relationship; any further deterioration will serve neither Turkish nor Israeli interests now or in the future.
Israelis have good reason to feel indignant, but they should not allow a temporary political mishap to obscure Turkey's contribution to regional peace and prosperity. And likewise, Turkey must not allow the significant relations with Israel to be marred by an unfortunate chain of political mishaps.
Ankara must demonstrate that it can rise to the occasion and stretch its hand to the Israelis in friendship and show publicly that it values and reciprocates its partnership with the Jewish state. Israelis must now show magnanimity by accepting this invitation to join their Turkish friends and allies to celebrate the anniversary of the Turkish Republic on October 29 and use the occasion as a symbol of renewed partnership.
The writer is a professor of international relations at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He teaches international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies. www.alonben-meir.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)