Palestinian Authority Ready To Sentence Palestinian To Death--In Violation Of Oslo

The crime:

In the first case of its kind, a Palestinian Authority "military court" on Tuesday sentenced a Palestinian man to death by hanging after finding him guilty of selling land to Jews.

The three-judge panel found the defendant guilty of violating PA laws that bar Palestinians from selling property to "the enemy." In its ruling, the court, which convened in Hebron, said that Brigith had acted in violation of a Palestinian "military law" dating back to 1979, which states that it is forbidden for a Palestinian to sell land to Jews.

The accused was also found guilty of violating a law dating back to 1958 that calls for a boycott against Israel, as well as another law from 1953 that bans trade with Israelis.

The judges issued the verdict unanimously and pointed out that the defendant did not have the right to appeal. The death sentence, however, must be approved by PA President Mahmoud Abbas. [emphasis added]

It seems that as opposed to the 1953 and 1958 laws that ban sales to Israelis, the 1979 law bans sales to Jews--apparently independent of increasing the size of Israel at the expense of Arab lands. I'm curious if that law is based on Islamic law that considers Jews to be dhimmis--second-class citizens.

Jonathan Tobin emphasizes:

Mind you, this is not the act of the extremist Islamists of Hamas. This comes from a court whose officers and judges are all affiliated with the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority — the supposedly moderate peace-partner to whom most of the world is pressuring Israel to make concessions. But even to these “moderates,” a real-estate transaction with a Jew is a capital offense because it is an article of Palestinian faith that every inch of their country must be rendered Judenrein in order for their national destiny to be fulfilled.

So much for our moderate peace partners.

In Can Arabs Buy Land In Israel?--Alex Safian elaborated in 1997 on Palestinian laws regarding sale of land--both an older version based on Jordanian law and a newer revised version--and finds that such laws are  null and void due to the Oslo Accords:

Enforcement of the old Jordanian law. The PA's justice minister, Meddein, has repeatedly stated his intention to enforce the 1973 Jordanian law. It is doubtful, however, that this law has any legal standing in territories under control of the PA. The Oslo 2 Agreement of September 1995 specifically deals with regulations of this sort and renders them null and void in PA territories. Oslo 2 states that any legislation "inconsistent with the provisions of the DOP (Declaration of Principles, the agreement signed on the White House lawn in September 1993.), [or] this Agreement ... shall have no effect and shall be void ab initio."Imposing the death penalty on Palestinians for selling land to Israelis clearly violates at least two provisions of Oslo 2. [emphasis added]

In a footnote, Safian describes the 2 provisions of Oslo 2 in question: 

Article XVI, paragraph 2 of Oslo 2 requires that Palestinians who have "maintained contact with the Israeli authorities" will not on this account be subject to "harassment, violence, retribution or prosecution." Article XIX requires that the Palestinian Council "shall exercise their powers and responsibilities pursuant to this agreement with due regard to internationally—accepted norms and principles of human rights and the rule of law."

The Palestinians also created a new law to outlaw selling property to Israelis:

The new Palestinian law. The Palestinian Legislative Council has passed the first reading of a draft law intended to supersede the 1973 Jordanian statute. This new law reportedly bar sales to "occupiers" whom it defines as the "Israeli occupying government and its civil and military institutions, settlements and whomever is under their authority." It declares the sale of land in "Palestine" to such occupiers to be "high treason" punishable "according to the criminal law." And it states that foreign violators have "committed harm to the national security and will be punished according to the criminal law." The draft law is vague about punishment, but according to the Jordanian Penal Code, which is still in effect on the West Bank, the crime for treason is death.

According to PA legislators, the term "Palestine" in the law refers to all the territory of the Palestine Mandate, meaning all of Israel. Under this proposed statute, then, an Israeli Arab who sells any land in Israel to an Israeli Jew would face the death penalty. Such extraterritorial threats receive added weight from the reported formation by the PA of a shadowy force known as "The Long Arm," whose task is to track down and execute Palestinians living anywhere in the world who have sold land to Israeli Jews. [emphasis added]

Just how Palestinian law can continue to define Palestine as referring to all of Israel while the Palestinian Authority in general and Abbas in particular are supposed to 'recognize' the right of Israel to exist--is unclear.

In any case there is more at stake here that the cruel execution of a Palestinian by his own people. The actions of the Palestinian court, and Abbas's apparent consent, raise major questions about the reliability of both the PA and Abbas to accept previous agreements that have been accepted--and raise concerns once again about just how a reliable peace partner Abbas really is.

Before pushing Israel into agreeing to the creation of a second Palestinian state, perhaps Clinton and Obama should finally address that issue.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Abbas.

BMI's "Apolitical Policy" Takes Israel Off The Map (Updated)

Airline BMI Takes Israel off Maps:

IDF Army Radio reports that British airline BMI has removed Israel from the electronic maps displayed to passengers in some of its planes. The report claimed that the reason was to avoid offending Muslim passengers.
Israel does not appear in maps on BMI flights between London and Tel Aviv, and that the pre-independence Arabic name for Haifa appears instead, according to the report.

In addition, the electronic maps display the distance between the plane and Mecca. "This is a fault. The electronic map will be removed from the airline's two planes that operate the route to Tel Aviv,” BMI said in response. “We make every effort to take passengers' sensitivities into account through an apolitical policy."[emphasis added]

I suppose it would be pointless to note that the BMI policy is anything but apolitical. It is a policy that takes the politically expedient course in doing what is necessary to prevent complaints.

Electronic maps that tell you the distance from the plane to Mecca is an extra thrown in for a particular group. It is not necessary, but a nice plus for particular customers.

Having a complete and accurate map is a normal service--go to the trouble of removing a country from a map is a political statement.

Which countries will BMI remove out of respect for the sensitivities of other customers?

UPDATE: More details on what happened--some that cast a better light on BMI, some that don't.

Israel has been excluded from digital maps displayed for passengers on British airline BMI flights from London Heathrow to Ben-Gurion Airport.

Instead of viewing Tel Aviv or other Israeli cities signposted on screens, customers flying on two BMI-owned Airbus A320 airplanes have instead been exclusively shown Haifa, spelled "Khefa" - the Arab name of the city before 1948.

BMI, which runs flights to Ben-Gurion Airport twice daily, has declared that the maps are the result of a logistical error due to the company's failure to modify the system created by British airline BMED (British Mediterranean Airways), now defunct, from which BMI acquired the planes two years ago.

Okay, so maybe it is all a mistake and BMI is less culpable.

But then there is this, which indicates a mentality at BMI that is very much in tune with the 'mistake' that happened:

BMI also made headlines lately for firing a staff member for refusing to fly to Saudi Arabia.

Flight attendant Lisa Ashton was told to wear an abaya, a black robe which covers everything but the face, feet and hand, in public places in Saudi Arabia. She was also instructed to walk behind her male colleagues, irrespective of rank.

Ashton, a practicing Christian, filed for unfair dismissal at a UK employment tribunal earlier this year; the court dismissed the case, stating that BMI was justified in imposing "rules of a different culture" on staff.

Ashton may seek a judicial review of the decision and has been in consultations with human rights organization Liberty

I suppose that if BMI can employ "rules of a different culture" on an employee, they would see now problem imposing them on a map. Still, the phony distinction the court made between culture and religion is absurd and only opens the door to more pandering to Islamists.

Technorati Tag: Israel and BMI.

Obama And Israel: Imitating Bush 41?

After initial hits by Scud missiles, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir hesitantly refused any retaliating measures against Iraq, due to increasing pressure from the United States to remain out of the conflict. The US government was concerned that any Israeli action would cost them allies and escalate the conflict, and an air strike by the IAF would have required overflying hostile Jordan or Syria, which could have provoked them to enter the war on Iraq's side or to attack Israel.
Wikipedia, on The First Gulf War

The First Gulf War was probably the first and most visible example of the US telling Israel to sacrifice in order not to upset US relations with the Muslim world. Israelis died as a result.

Now, once again, Obama apparently finds that Israel is an impediment to engaging with the Muslim world.

Arutz Sheva reports:

According to a classified intelligence assessment handed to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, U.S. President Barack Obama and his senior advisors wish to “incrementally diminish U.S. strategic cooperation with Israel.”

A report in World Tribune quoted an Israeli source familiar with the intelligence assessment who said that "Obama wants to make friends with our worst enemies and [those who were] until now the worst enemies of the United States. Under this policy,” the source added, “we are more than irrelevant. We have become an obstacle.”

[Note: the report by the World Tribune has thus far not been corroborated by other news sources]

Apparently, Israel is not the only obstacle to the Muslim world accepting the US and Obama--there is only one other thing:

Meanwhile, Syrian President Bashar Assad said Tuesday that Obama would face “a serious crisis in the Middle East” if he does not fix the mistakes made by his predecessor George W. Bush, within a year’s time.

On a visit to Vienna after meeting Austrian leaders and intellectuals, Assad called on the U.S. to rapidly withdraw its troops from Iraq. This, he claimed, would resolve "50 per cent of the problem," Austrian news agency APA reported. [emphasis added]

I assume that Israel makes up the other 50%.

Of course, the Arab world in general is wary of Iran, which is working to increase its influence--so that ironically a number of Arab countries feel themselves in the same boat as Israel, wondering to what extent Obama's overtures to Iran are going to undercut their own security interests.

In Just The Beginning, Michael Rubin analyzes Obama's new policy in the Middle East, and the belief system beneath it:

There is an unfortunate dynamic in Washington in which new administrations fault predecessors rather than adversaries for failure to engage productively. No matter what their preconceptions before entering the Oval Office, however, all presidents discover they are powerless to resolve differences with Tehran when Iran's leadership does not desire it...And while journalists and academics applaud Obama's overtures, they too often ignore the Iranian response, for example Khamenei's Apr. 15, 2009 speech at Imam Hossein University where he declared, "The recommendation to return to the global order is the same as capitulating to the bullying powers and accepting the unjust world order."

Today, it is not just that Obama faults predecessors instead of adversaries--he seems to fault allies as well.

Today in an opinion piece, 100 Days: 'Harry, I Have a Gift', Daniel Henninger writes about Obama's confidence in his oratorical gifts. But the gift Henninger describes is the ability to make all sides believe that Obama agrees with them--not that Obama is persuasive per se. 

We've seen that the former has worked very well for Obama in maintaining his popularity.

What we have yet to see is whether Obama's particular brand of charisma will work overseas.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Iran.

Obama: Lessons Of The Holocaust

In “Never Again,” Obama Style, Michael Ledeen examines a speech Obamba made in the Capitol on the Holocaust Day of Remembrance:

It is the grimmest of ironies that one of the most savage, barbaric acts of evil in history began in one of the most modernized societies of its time, where so many markers of human progress became tools of human depravity: science that can heal, used to kill; education that can enlighten, used to rationalize away basic moral impulses; the bureaucracy that sustains modern life, used as the machinery of mass death, a ruthless, chillingly efficient system where many were responsible for the killing, but few got actual blood on their hands.

While Ledeen finds much that is right about what Obama says, he notes that Obama, in talking about what can be learned from the Holocaust, overlooks the historical context behind that bureaucracy--and in taking a lesson from the Holocaust about government in general, misses an important point:

Those words about bureaucracy, “that sustains modern life,” are a useful window into the way Obama views government. He loves government, especially his own. But he’s got the Nazi story wrong. The bureaucracy that conducted the mass murders was largely military, and the most important component was not part of the bureaucracy, or even the traditional army, but rather the SS, which was tied directly to the Fuhrer, not to the old German state.

Obama's strength is his oratory, and the Holocaust presents too strong an image to pass up in making a point--even if it does not really reflect the evils of government that he is trying to speak about, which makes Obama's point all the more jarring in the association his is trying to create.

The issue of the Holocaust and a different lesson that he gleaned from it came up last year in May in an interview Obama did with Jeffrey Goldberg for The Atlantic:

JG: Do you think that justice is still on Israel’s side?

BO: I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience. I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea.

That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel, because it’s a government and it has politicians, and as a politician myself I am deeply mindful that we are imperfect creatures and don’t always act with justice uppermost on our minds. But the fundamental premise of Israel and the need to preserve a Jewish state that is secure is, I think, a just idea and one that should be supported here in the United States and around the world. [emphasis added]

Here, Obama seems very close to saying that the Holocaust is the justification for a state of Israel: the insecurity of Jews made the US insufficient as a safe refuge and made it necessary for Jews to create a state of their own.

Of course, how much of this is the rhetoric of the moment and how much of this reflects his actual point of view is not clear.

Come to think of it, we are still waiting to get an accurate idea of how Obama feels about Israel.

UPDATE: Check out Israel Matzav, who highlights Obama's unusual explanation of what is meant by "Never Again".

More at Memeorandum

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

Obama Congratulates Israel On 61st Anniversary

From the Office of the Press Secretary:

Statement on the 61st Anniversary of Israel’s Independence

On behalf of the people of the United States, President Obama congratulates the people and government of Israel on the 61st anniversary of Israel’s independence. The United States was the first country to recognize Israel in 1948, minutes after its declaration of independence, and the deep bonds of friendship between the U.S. and Israel remain as strong and unshakeable as ever. The President looks forward to working with Israel to advance our common interests, including the realization of a comprehensive peace in the Middle East, ensuring Israel’s security, and strengthening the bilateral relationship, over the months and years to come.

Jonathan Tobin has some questions:

• While a “comprehensive peace” is an intrinsic good that both countries desire, how can it be achieved while the party with which Israel is expected to make such a peace is led by two factions — Hamas and Fatah — neither of which actually support the idea of real peace with a Jewish state?

• What sort of pressure are you prepared to put on the Palestinians in order to force them to cease support for terrorism and the fomenting of hatred against Israelis and Jews (hint: they already pledged to do this in the Oslo Accords and several follow-up agreements, but never made good on the promise)?

• While the United States is open in its desire for Israel to make more territorial withdrawals in the West Bank, what assurances can you possibly give the Israelis that this land will not be used as a launching pad for further terrorist attacks — as has been the case with the Gaza Strip since Israel left in 2005?

• Most importantly, what, other than making statements that the Iranians consider a sign of weakness and irresolution, are you prepared to do in order to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons — something that you promised to do during your campaign for the presidency — with which they can threaten both Israel’s existence and the stability of every Arab regime in the region?

Obama's statement is simple and straightforward--what one would have expected. Down the road though, it would be nice to get past the rhetoric and address the hard questions that lurk behind the inevitable talk about the two state solution and the problems it poses.

But someone we never get to the hard questions.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Torah Podcasts From Yeshivat Har Etzion

From an email:

Yeshivat Har Etzion

KMTT The  Torah  Podcast

The Israel KoschitzkyVBM

http://www.kimitzion.org

Zman Kayitz - Summer session begins

KMTT returns with 2 new series:

On Wednesdays:     Rav Moshe Taragin - Pirkei Avot
On Thursdays:         Dr. Yael Ziegler - Megilat Ruth

The other series continue:

Monday:                  Rav Binyamin Tabory - Moadei HaShana
Tuesday:                  Rav Ezra Bick - Ramban on the Parsha
Friday                      The Erev Shabbat Program

Subscribe to the KMTT podcast 
or visit the KMTT blog to download individual shiurim

One half-hour shiur every day - Learn Torah every day

Technorati Tag: Torah.

Yom Haatzmaut Carnival

Check out Yid With Lid, who has put together links to various blogs that are covering various aspects of Yom Haatzmaut.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Yom Haatzmaut.

Why Require Hamas To Recognize Israel When Abbas Won't?

The Obama administration has embarked on a path some feel may lead to recognition of Hamas. True, Hamas remains on the official list of terrorist groups:

But the administration has asked Congress for minor changes in U.S. law that would permit aid to continue flowing to Palestinians in the unlikely event that Hamas-backed officials become part of a unified Palestinian government.

Now whenever there is any hint of recognition of Hamas, the response is that any recognition would require that Hamas acquiesce on the big 3:

U.S. officials insist the proposal does not mean they would be recognizing or aiding Hamas. Under law, any U.S. aid would require that the Palestinian government meet three long-standing criteria: recognizing Israel, renouncing violence and agreeing to follow past Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

The question is--does the US require the same from the PA?

This week, Abbas came out with his refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state:

"A Jewish state, what is that supposed to mean?" Abbas asked in a speech in the West Bank's political capital of Ramallah. "You can call yourselves as you like, but I don't accept it and I say so publicly."

He said it's not his job to define the state of Israel. "Name yourself, it's not my business," He said. "All I know is that there is the state of Israel, in the borders of 1967, not one centimeter more, not one centimeter less. Anything else, I don't accept."

Now you could argue that Abbas is only refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state--in order not to mess the negotiations for the return of Palestinian Arabs to Israel. But Abbas has gone further than that.

Joel Mowbray wrote in March of last year that Abbas's definition of simple recognition of Israel has also been dummied down:

"Defending his “recognition” of Israel on TV network Al-Arabiya in October 2006, he explained that it was more a practical reality than a meaningful political position. He cited as an example the need for the PA to get $500 million from Israel: “The Palestinian finance minister has to come to an agreement with the Israeli finance minister about the transfer of the money. So how can he make an agreement with him if [the PA finance minister] does not recognize him? So I do not demand of Hamas nor any other to recognize Israel. But from the government that works with Israelis in day to day life, yes.”"

This is not the kind of minimal recognition that one expects of a peace partner; it is the cynical kind of recognition that is the minimum necessary to get the money. Of course, the fact that Abbas himself would not require Hamas to recognize Israel makes the US claim that they would require Hamas to recognize Israel somewhat less than meaningful.

But that is what Obama's promise to look out for Israel's security has become--

Less than meaningful.

Note: Come to think of it, what about the other 2 requirements: renouncing violence and agreeing to follow past Israeli-Palestinian agreements.

When is the last time that Abbas renounced violence against Israel? What we get instead, according to Mowbray's article:

Appearing much less careful than when speaking in English, Mr. Abbas last week told the Arabic-language Al-Dastur, I was honored to be the one to shoot the first bullet in 1965, the year his organization, Fatah, initiated terrorism against Israel. (Transcript provided by PMW.) The renowned moderate Palestinian leader then explained his pride in having taught resistance to many in this area and around the world ... including Hezbollah, who were trained in [PLO] camps.

As far as keeping past agreements, phase one of the Road Map requires "Issue unequivocal statement affirming Israel’s right to exist in peace and security." Abbas's comments about Israel not being a Jewish state--and his watered down version of what recognition means--run counter to that. 

Then of course there is Abbas's refusal to disarm terrorist groups, stop attacks against Israel, and use force to confront terrorism--remember that the Kassam rockets did not suddenly begin when Abbas was kicked out of Gaza.

So the question really is: if recognition of Hamas is based on recognizing Israel, renouncing violence and agreeing to follow past Israeli-Palestinian agreements--what is recognition of (and aid to) Abbas and the Palestinian Authority based on?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Hamas.

Hatikva Live--From Around The World

From The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website:

On Wednesday, April 29th beginning at 10:50PM Israel time, communities from around the world will join together to sing Israel's national anthem Hatikva. Broadcasting from Tel Aviv, the Mayor will join with over 100 young adults celebrating Tel Aviv's 100th Birthday and the 61st birthday of the State of Israel. Last year, Live Hatikva broke the Guinness Book of Records for the number of people singing a national anthem in unison. You're welcome to watch last year's Live Hatikva at http://www.livehatikva.org/.

Live Hatikva will be broadcast around America and on the Internet streaming live at www.jltv.tv

Here is video of last year's Live Hatikva:

Technorati Tag: Israel and HaTikva.

Clinton On Iran: Putting The Cart Before The Camel

Once again, if there is trouble in the Middle East--Israel is to blame. While appearing before the House Appropriations Committee, Hillary Clinton indicated that  while she sympathizes with Israel's wariness about Iran--

...she then cautioned that Israel was unlikely to gain support for thwarting Iran unless there were visible efforts to achieve Palestinian statehood.

"For Israel to get the kind of strong support it's looking for vis-a-vis Iran it can't stay on the sideline with respect to the Palestinian and the peace efforts, that they go hand-in-hand," Clinton said.

Clinton noted that every Arab official she has met with "wants very much to support the strongest possible policy toward Iran." But, she said, "they believe that Israel's willingness to reenter into discussions with the Palestinian Authority strengthens them in being able to deal with Iran."

That's right, although it is true that Iran is a threat not only to Israel but to the entire region as a whole, the Arabs cannot face up to the Iranian threat until and unless Israel agrees to negotiate with the PA for the creation of a second Palestinian state--only then will the Arab world be able to confront Iran head on.

First of all, why would the Arabs need the Israel to first negotiate with Abbas--how is that really supposed to strengthen the resolve of the Arab world? Secondly, there are indications that what is making the Arab world uncomfortable in dealing with Iran has nothing to do with Israel at--what is making the Arab world uncomfortable is the US:

Arab governments have been seeking assurances from Mr. Ross and other U.S. officials that Washington's overtures toward Iran won't undercut their security interests, U.S. and Arab diplomats said. The Arab governments are asking the U.S. to consult regularly with them as President Barack Obama seeks to hold high-level negotiations with Tehran aimed at ending its nuclear activities.

"The discomfort among the Arabs is quite real. They have deep anxieties about Iran," said a senior U.S. official working on the country. "The first thing is to be in the position of consulting with them, and taking into effect their concerns."

Jennifer Rubin concludes:

Yes, the Arab states would like Ross to repeat the mantra that Israel must engage in “negotiations” with Palestinians (with whom exactly and to what end is unclear), but the gravamen of the Arab states’ concern is that Obama is engaged in an open-ended and foolhardy “talk” strategy with Iran while Iran pursues regional hegemony. Ross will try to convince them otherwise.

The bottom line: the Clintonian spin that Israel needs to shape up before Arab help on Iran is forthcoming is hogwash. If there is cause for concern among the Arab states it is Clinton’s boss and his penchant for denial about the intentions and behavior of rogue states.

Ed Morrissey is not so polite:

Arabs oppose Iranian hegemony for entirely selfish reasons; none of them want to live under a Persian thumb. That has nothing to do with Israel. If an American State Department can’t arrange Arab opposition to Iran, then they should quit in shame over their complete and abject incompetence. I’m not sure I’ve heard such a dumb excuse coming from State, and certainly not from a Secretary of State.

We have already seen the readiness of the Obama administration to lunge into major decisions--such as the stimilus package--without reading what it actually entails. Is the new US approach to the Middle East any different? How much attention is really being paid to the consequences of the actions that the US is preparing to take--consequences that could well be as severe as the economic ones that Americans now face?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Obama and Hillary Clinton and Iran.

Yom HaZikaron: On Memory

The Word Well writes about today, Yom HaZikaron:

On Memory

Is a memory something you have or something you’ve lost? – Woody Allen (Spoken by Gena Rowlands (as Marion) in ‘Another Woman’)

Today we think of who we do not have and why, and then what that lack demands of us.

Tomorrow, about how we celebrate being alive to meet those demands.

Today is Memorial Day in Israel, honoring fallen soldiers and victims of terror, observed here a day before Independence Day. The connection is essential since it is widely recognized that without the former, celebrating the latter would be impossible, while always hoping that one day, this will not be the case. That there will be no more names on next year’s list of the fallen. It is, in other words, a sacred day we wish with all our hearts we didn’t need to observe, and in fact grapple with its necessity all the time.

Here’s something I wrote about potential loss and war when my husband was commanding an APC in Lebanon II. I was essentially the least supportive war wife ever, because I didn’t believe in the war. I later learned, from the Disney franchise of all places, that Hassan Nasrallah was counting on people like me to behave exactly as I did.

(What does Disney have to do with the IDF and Hezbollah? Think Mufasa / Scar / Simba / Pridelands / Hakuna Matata / Circle of Life… Or just read the essay.)

Read the whole thing.

The essay, Proving something to myself, begins:

A well-known editor of a widely read Jewish American weekly wrote recently of his deep fear that Israel, with its many hostile and tacit enemies, may be (God forbid, he added) on its way out. The truth is that there is no way to make someone feel better about a qualm like that. It is a logical fear - - although logic, for better and worse, has never been the stuff of Jewish, and especially not Israeli, survival.

The other truth is that scary columns are useful, even when they contain no real operative suggestions, because anxiety often - or hopefully - prompts communal discourse, action, and change. My (quasi-logical) response to him, in Jewish fashion, is a problem, and a Talmudic reinterpretation of Churchill:

Read the whole essay.

As Mufasa said to Simba: Remember who you are.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Yom HaZikaron.

Hudson Institute: Leading Muslim Scholars Condemn Racism and Intolerance Disguised as Cultural Diversity

From an email:

For Immediate Release:

April 23, 2009

Leading Muslim Scholars Condemn Racism and Intolerance Disguised as Cultural Diversity Responding to the Declaration of the Durban Review Conference Zeyno Baran, Khaled Abu Toameh, Tarek Heggy, Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, Irfan al-Alawi and Veli Sirin decry the failure to recognize and condemn rampant oppression in the name of Islam.

The Hudson Institute hosted a panel today during the Durban Review Conference with an eminent group of Muslim scholars from Egypt, Israel, the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany. All were highly disappointed by the conference's failure to grapple with one of the leading sources of intolerance in the world today - namely, bigotry and xenophobia in the name of religion itself and Islam in particular. "The conference reaffirms the perception that Islam has been hijacked by a dominant minority of thugs, extremists and anti-Semites who claim that they are speaking on behalf of a majority of Muslims. Ahmadinejad and his likes should be the last to talk about racism, human rights and tolerance" said Khaled Abu Toameh, an Israeli-Arab journalist and filmmaker. Zeyno Baran, Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute, remarked that "It is time the silent majority of Muslims speaks up in defense of universal human rights for all, regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion or gender. Humanity is one; labels have tragically divided us and Durban II sadly has missed another opportunity for an honest discussion." Egyptian scholar Tarek Heggy noted that "The west has been listening to and dealing with a single Islamic voice - an extremely rigid one. It is the historic responsibility of the west to now listen to the many other voices, some of which are entirely different." "Durban II," pointed out Dr. Irfan al-Alawi, executive director of the Islamic Heritage Research Foundation UK, "has been discredited by hate speech, efforts to deny freedom of expression and attempts to limit the reach of anti-racism treaty obligations. The ploy has undermined, rather than supported, diversity in religion and culture. The United Nations has repeatedly failed to protect human rights and, ironically, Durban II uses alleged human rights principles to continue that inauspicious record." Al-Alawi, noted that the attempt to limit free speech by invoking Islam was illegitimate. "Islam benefits from debate and criticism. Islam needs free speech and Islam is strong enough to withstand negative speech." Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, executive director of the Center of Islamic Pluralism added that "All religion and spirituality originates with criticism and freedom of speech. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all began with a criticism of earlier, idolatrous religion, and no religion can flourish without freedom of opinion." Veli Sirin, director of the Zentrum fur den Islamische Pluralismus (ZIP) in Germany and an activist in the Alevi youth opinion, said: "The experience of the Alevis in Turkey shows the negative consequences of monolithic attitudes in religion and the use of differences as a pretext for the brutal suppression of minorities. By ignoring the experience of these minorities, Durban II has done a tremendous disservice to many victims of racism and intolerance." Hudson Institute is a non-partisan policy research organization dedicated to innovative research and analysis that promotes global security, prosperity, and freedom.

For further information, please contact: Zeyno Baran, +1-202-255-2073, zeyno@hudson.org

Technorati Tag: UN and Durban II.

EYEontheUN: How Durban II Undermined Human Rights

From an email:

For Immediate Release: April 27, 2009

Contact: Anne Bayefsky info@EYEontheUN.org

How Durban II Undermined Human Rights The U.N. conference degrades the very causes it says it fights for.

This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in Forbes.

Durban II, the U.N. conference in Geneva that ended on Friday, will forever be remembered for handing a global megaphone to genocidal hatemonger Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the name of combating racism. By the end of the week-long jamboree, even the South African ambassador insisted that participants stop referring to the meeting as Durban II because "it is maligning my country."

But the facts aren't stopping the U.N. apparatus from already attempting to rewrite history. Navanethem Pillay, U.N. high commissioner for human rights and secretary-general of Durban II, called a news conference on Friday hours before the adoption of the final declaration to claim Durban II was "a celebration of tolerance and dignity for all." Well, not quite all.

Pillay was open about her intentions to the press corps: "I'm jumping the gun ... the Durban Review Conference is technically not over until later this afternoon. But I know you have deadlines." Rather than changing perceptions, however, her heavily-orchestrated plea confirmed that neither she nor the U.N. understood what had hit them.

The high commissioner bragged: "... a few states disengaged from the process ... they are not part of the consensus that adopted this text ... and Iran is part of that consensus. When the final call came, Iran did not oppose the text." She didn't seem to have a clue that a result approved by Iran--but not by the U.S., Canada, Australia, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, New Zealand, Poland, the Czech Republic (currently head of the European Union) or Israel--reflected on the merits of Durban II rather than on these leading democracies.

Pillay is no stranger to double-talk. Since taking office last September, she has repeatedly claimed that the 2001 Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (the DDPA)--which singles out only Israel of 192 U.N. member states, saying that Palestinians are victims of Israeli racism--"transcended divisive and intolerant approaches." She has alleged that back in 2001 "abusive or hurtful remarks against Israel" were confined to "a small section of the NGO parallel forum." In a last-ditch effort to avoid a boycott of Durban II, she told reporters on April 2 that the language on Israel had been removed from the Durban II draft outcome document.

When it was over, however, she evidently felt the need for subterfuge was gone. Her audience had changed, and she noted both that Israel had been singled out and demonized by the DDPA, and that Durban II had done the same by reaffirming the DDPA in its opening paragraph. In her words: "The DDPA includes ... one paragraph which mentions the suffering of the Palestinians ... Palestine is mentioned ... in the DDPA, and the word "reaffirm" carries those paragraphs into this document."

By comparison, the U.N.'s highest human rights officer had no problem with the silence of Durban I and II on the plight of Israelis, or any other specific victim of discrimination or intolerance in the Arab, Islamic and developing world. She had no comment on the fact that the transatlantic slave trade was highlighted in Durban II, while the slave trade and slavery in Arab and Muslim states was deliberately omitted. She said nothing about the fact that ongoing genocide in Darfur was again totally ignored.

Durban II, therefore, revealed a startling development in the world of human rights. Since the position of U.N. high commissioner for human rights was created in 1993, there has never been an incumbent so obviously in the pocket of Arab and Islamic countries. These states invented the global conference formula years ago in an attempt to isolate Israel, curtail free expression, manufacture victimhood that would offset concern with anti-Semitism, and prevent any mention of the racial and religious intolerance and discrimination rampant in their own backyards.

And yet, the high commissioner took the unusual step of singling out these states for praise in her closing remarks. She claimed Arab countries had made "extremely difficult" "political concessions" in not insisting on even more condemnations of Israel, while the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) "was also very cooperative." In fact, it was the stubborn refusal of Arab and Islamic states to agree to any U.N. "anti-racism" declaration that did not allege Israel is racist, which kept the U.S. and other states away.

The Geneva venue for the Durban Review Conference, deliberately chosen to allow the U.N. greater control over events, makes it impossible to pin the blame for what occurred on anyone but the U.N. and governments themselves. The proceedings were entirely conducted in an oppressively controlling atmosphere. Pillay acknowledged, for example, the nexus between the U.N. and the press corps (which have permanent offices inside U.N. premises). On the final day, she said, "I want to say at this point particularly to you that the Geneva press corps has been terrific during the later stages of this process. You have seen through the propaganda. ... So on behalf of my entire office, I would like to extend you a very warm thank you for that. I believe you have played an exceptionally important role. I know that some of you have had to argue with editors who, like so many others, have succumbed to the mythology."

Congratulating the Geneva-based press for telling tales her way was a fairly accurate reflection of what transpired. A news conference, called to respond to Ahmadinejad's anti-Semitic tirade featuring, among others, Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, Academy Award-winning actor Jon Voight and prize-winning author Shelby Steele, was dominated by U.N. talking points and a list of falsehoods the high commissioner had been peddling for months. Pillay's press corps was more interested in alleged Israeli atrocities than in the fact that Ahmadinejad had been promoting genocide from a U.N. "anti-racism" soapbox.

Non-governmental organizations also became victims of Durban II's official line. Some NGOs representing Dalits, Tamils and Tibetans were denied accreditation to attend the conference at all. Cameras and film crews were prevented from recording selected NGO panels that took place on U.N. premises. The final declaration was adopted two days before NGOs were permitted to make a single comment. Allowed to speak with only 24 hours left in the proceedings, NGOs mentioning Ahmadinejad or Tibetans or Berbers were constantly interrupted and silenced by spurious points of order from Libya, China, Iran and South Africa.

The chair announced the governing rule was that "proper language must be used with respect and dignity at all times," and then proceeded to let speeches likening Israelis to Nazis and claiming "9/11 is an unexplained mystery blamed on Arabs" go unchallenged. By Friday afternoon, the voices of NGOs were so obviously censored or irrelevant that many who had signed the speakers' list didn't bother to show up to deliver their statements.

The U.N.'s NGO liaison officer, Ricardo Espinosa, harassed me for 15 minutes following a speech I delivered condemning the proceedings. When I insisted on having someone with me, or a tape recording of whatever it was he was intending to communicate, he objected, "this is not the United States, this is the U.N."--a fact with which I was only too familiar. When I finally found colleagues and offered to speak to him in the presence of others and a recorder, he suddenly fell silent, said nothing and left with the words "you'll be hearing from us." It remains to be seen whether he or his U.N. bosses are prepared to put their unidentified threat in writing.

Manufacturing a Durban success story is now the primary goal of all the participants--some of whom began to speak of the next conference, "Durban plus 10 years," in the typical U.N. mode of perpetual self-reproduction. In the final minutes on Friday, India (on behalf of the Asian regional group of states), Sweden (on behalf of the remaining E.U. states), Switzerland (the host country) and the Kenyan chair declared NGOs had played an "important role" and "all participated actively." Brazil, Pakistan and Cuba, speaking on behalf of larger regional and political groups, lined up to declare that Durban II's outcome represented a "consensus in international politics" that "makes us all happy." Particularly preposterous was the final comment of the U.K., which "welcomes the adoption by consensus of the outcome"--a very odd description of a product adopted without the approval of key members of the E.U.

The U.K. also claimed that its support for the Durban II outcome was conditional "on the clear understanding that it does not single out any country for consideration." Given that foreign office lawyers know full well that Israel was singled out when Durban II reaffirmed the Durban I Declaration, issuing an interpretive declaration saying the opposite looks like a cynical attempt to deceive the British public. British voters will also be interested to know that their government "was disappointed not to have seen the program budget implications"--meaning the dollars and cents associated with all the undertakings in the document--before it was adopted. But being kept in the dark about the financial implications of Durban II for British taxpayers was still not enough to prevent Britain from jumping on board.

Cuba, on behalf of the 117 member Non-Aligned Movement, best illustrates the Durban fiction that the U.N. hopes will now take hold. It called the Durban document and its reaffirmation the "most far-reaching and transcending document of the international community in the struggle against racism."

A closer look at the final product, however, reveals a variety of troubling provisions rammed through in 15 minutes on the conference's second day. There are a dozen references to cultural diversity, cultural identity and cultural respect aimed at threatening universal human rights standards; new reliance on the U.N. Human Rights Council (a body dominated by human rights abusers); a new provision on racism and foreign occupation written for a party of one, various actions demanded for "victims as defined by the DDPA" (which means Palestinians); and a commitment to grant Durban declarations I and II biblical-like status and implement them throughout "the whole U.N. system."

In her final press conference, Pillay singled out an article I had written last December for Forbes entitled, "The U.N.'s Dangerous High Commissioner for Human Rights." She made light of the title, but having watched her Durban II performance, she is probably the only one laughing. The United Nations and its high commissioner cajoled, pressured and threatened states to legitimize a campaign to undermine the universal values at the heart of the genuine protection of human rights. In so doing, they had no qualms about making promises they had no intention of keeping. Before the conference, on April 15, U.N. spokeswoman Marie Heuze announced: "Hate speech and ethnic insults will be barred at next week's United Nations conference on fighting racism and intolerance." Pillay's post-conference claims of "a celebration of tolerance and dignity for all" show the same disdain for honesty.

Durban II does not represent tolerance and dignity for all, or a consensus in international politics, or restraint by Arab and Islamic states that seek the destruction of the Jewish state. It represents the corruption of the U.N. human rights system itself.

For a complete source of information on Durban II
see www.EYEontheUN.org/durban.

Technorati Tag: UN and Durban II.

What Really Is Behind Anti-Israel Critics?

One of the most visible examples of anti-Israel feeling is the cry to divest from Israel. For example, divestment is in the air again--this time from Scotland:

The Scottish Trades Union Congress [STUC] this week backed boycotts and disinvestment, and called for sanctions against the state of Israel because of the state’s failure to comply with international laws and agreed principles of human rights.

Following extensive debate and deliberation, the Scottish trade unions have endorsed a report recommending the STUC support a boycott and disinvest from Israeli companies, call for sanctions against Israel, and encourage positive investments in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Speaking after the debate at the Congress, STUC General Secretary, Grahame Smith, said: “The STUC is deeply concerned at the daily violations of human rights experienced by Palestinian people. The decision taken by our Congress is not a knee jerk reaction, but arrived at after careful consideration over a two year period. During this time the STUC engaged in discussions with interested groups in Scotland and the UK, and undertook a fact finding delegation to Israel and Palestine”.

Mr Smith added “by taking this decision, the STUC intends to campaign for economic, political and social pressure to be brought upon the Israeli Government, and world powers, to reach a peaceful and just two state solution for Palestine and Israel”.

STUC general-secretary Grahame Smith makes a point to indicate how much effort went into examining the issue:

"On our recent visit to Israel and Palestine, we witnessed the human rights violations experienced by ordinary Palestinians on a daily basis. We saw how restrictions on movement and checkpoints prevent people from going to work, to school and to visit their families even when they are sick and dying," he said.

"We heard powerful arguments from [Palestinian Human Rights Organization] al-Haq, outlining how Israel is in breach of the Geneva Convention and the need for other signatories to international laws to hold Israel to account," he continued.

Smith went on to say the STUC had "carefully considered" the complex issues involved, and concluded, "We believe that we have a moral obligation to show solidarity to Palestinian people. STUC calls for divisive boycott of Israel."

What amazes me is the ease with which people will talk about 'international law' and 'human rights' when they attack the actions of Israel, ignoring the fact that international law operates according to definitions and terms. Since people take a subjective approach to 'human rights' and assume they know what those are, they appear ready to take the next step and assume that international law likewise is subjective--all one has to do is see human suffering and know what to do. And where 2 sides are suffering, all one has to do is count the bodies.

Thus 'disproportionate force' no longer compares the force used with the goal: instead, it measures the force each side uses--and if one side happens to insist on hiding behind its own people while bombing schools, so much the worse for Israel.

Likewise, the accusation of being an 'occupational force' ignores the fact that Israel does not govern over Gaza. 

I suppose one must be thankful that things are going so well in Great Britain that in Scotland they can take time to worry about Palestinian Arabs.

In France, they apparently have some free time on their hands as well:



These heated responses to Israel and the issue of Palestinian Arabs are all the more interesting in light of a study that was done:

As part of the study, participants were asked a series of questions and were instructed to grade their level of sympathy of Israel on a 1-10 scale. Later, participants were presented with several branding videos on Israel, before being asked more questions in order to see whether their opinions changed after watching the clips.

The videos showed many aspects of life in Israel, including the beaches, landscape, culture, food, technology, and religious sites.

After watching the videos, a total of 51% of all respondents said their views on Israel changed for the better. The percentage of respondents who perceived Israel as an aggressive state subsequently dropped from 35% to 21%. Meanwhile, the percentage of respondents who perceived Israel as a creative country rose from 24% to 40% after watching the clips. [emphasis added]

This tends to highlight the fact that those most eager to defend Palestinian Arabs against Israel seem to gloss over the Palestinian vs. Palestinian violence--especially as addressed in the recent Human Rights Watch report. Instead, the protests about defending Palestinian rights are always about Israel vs. the Arab Palestinians, never about the violence and cruelty of Hamas and the Palestinian Authority against their own people.

The possibility has been raised that the fact the defenders for Palestinian rights appear only when Israel is involved indicates that it is not concern for Palestinian Arabs that motivates these people--it is their anti-Israel animus. 

If positive videos about Israel have this great an effect on people's perceptions of Israel--keeping in mind that the videos are not political in nature and do not address the issue of Palestinian Arabs--then what created the negative perceptions of Israel in the first place appears not to have been the Palestinian issue in the first place, or at least not the facts, but rather the impressions about the country as a whole.

I have commented before that the nature of the Palestinian propaganda is such that a 2-word bumper sticker is all that it takes to present their case--and that Israel has nothing in response but a long-winded response of a list of facts and history.

Apparently, I was wrong.

A potent response to "Free Palestine" is "Israel Is For Lovers"

It is simplistic--but apparently so too is what animates much of these anti-Israel protesters. 

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel.

When It Comes To Israel, Those Realists Are Such Dreamers

The latest from Roger Cohen includes the necessity of talking with Hamas:

Clinton also indicated an important shift on Hamas, which the State Department calls a terrorist group. While stressing that no funds would flow to Hamas “or any entity controlled by it,” she argued for keeping American options open on a possible Palestinian unity government between the moderate Fatah and Hamas.

So long as a unity government meets three conditions — renounces violence, recognizes Israel’s right to exist and abides by past agreements — the United States would be prepared to deal with it, including on $900 million in proposed aid, Clinton indicated. Washington does business with a Lebanese government in which Hezbollah controls 11 of 30 seats, although Hezbollah is also deemed a terrorist group.

First of all, when it comes to the $900 million that the US is talking about providing Gaza, there apparently have been no preconditions applied (such as stopping terrorist attacks)--since the money is intended to rebuild Gaza, one would assume that time is of the essence and waiting for Hell to freeze over is not an option.

In any case, Cohen's mantra about the '3 conditions' conveniently overlooks the fact that Hamas continues to say, "We cannot, we will not, and we will never recognize the enemy in any way, shape or form." For some reason, the more Hamas refuses to honor the 3 conditions, the more devoutly the apologists repeat this magic formula.

Also odd is Cohen's comparison of Hamas with Hizbollah--while Cohen makes clear he wants to see Hamas as part of a unity party, the fact is that it is not, while Lebanon is an established country, albeit with the Hizbollah cancer firmly attached.

Such a changed U.S. policy makes a lot more sense than the previous one, which insisted on Hamas itself — rather than any Palestinian unity government — meeting the three conditions. No peace can be made by pretending Hamas does not exist, which is why advancing Palestinian unity must be a U.S. priority.

This sensible shift will anger Israel, although it deals indirectly with Hamas through Egypt. Israel’s de jure stand on Hamas — that it must recognize Israel before any talks begin — is wildly at odds with Israel’s de facto methodology since 1948.

Roger Cohen is also fixated on the magical unity government of Hamas and Fatah (maybe because they both have Charters calling for the destruction of Israel?). Perhaps Cohen has also forgotten some simple history:

Hamas won a Palestinian legislative election in 2006, forming a unity government with Fatah that was dissolved by Abbas after the Islamists seized control of Gaza in 2007

But then again, the road to peace in the Middle East appears strewn with failed ideas that 'realists' remain eager to try again and again.

And why is it that those who say you cannot ignore Hamas seem intent to ignore the history of Hamas' terrorism against their fellow Palestinian Arabs--making the Human Rights Watch report about Hamas all the more important:

This 26-page report documents a pattern since late December 2008 of arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture, maimings by shooting, and extrajudicial executions by alleged members of Hamas security forces. The report is based on interviews with victims and witnesses in Gaza and case reports by Palestinian human rights groups.

Read the whole thing.

Alas, Roger Cohen bewails Israel's de facto methodology since 1948 and how it differs from today, totally ignoring that Israel's approach to Arab countries who make war on Israel differs from its approach to dealing with terrorist groups who attack its citizens.

Cohen writes about Hillary Clinton's pirouette--that's nothing compared to the somersaults that he goes through.

More at Memeorandum

Technorati Tag: Israel and Roger Cohen.

How Do Avigdor Lieberman's Comments Affect Israel's Relations With Europe?

David Hazony suggests that the danger to Israel-European relations posed by Avigdor Lieberman's comments may not be all that great:

one wonders whether the damage to Israel’s relations with Europe is real at all. Over the last decade, European governments have largely shifted towards far greater support for Israel. The willingness of countries like Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, and Germany to boycott Durban II, alongside the most pro-Israel government France has had since the early 1960s, and the overtly friendly government in the Czech Republic, reflects a Europe that is the most heavily supportive of Israel in a very long time. Part of this may have something to do with Israel’s pulling out of Gaza in 2005, which made it politically easier for European leaders to soften their stances. But there are alternate explanations as well: the combination of 8 years of unflinching American solidarity with Israel, an increasing European awareness that its true enemies are the same Islamic extremists that Israel is fighting, and the actual rise of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the prospect of a nuclear Iran — all these have made a great many Europeans understand that pressuring Israel may hurt Europeans in the long run more than alienating the sources of their oil. If Europe once managed to present a united front in support of Israel’s concessions to the Palestinians, today Europe seems utterly divided. [emphasis added]

However, by the same token, those days of unflinching US support are over, and Obama does not seem to see the enemy as being Islamic extremists, and the threat of a nuclear Iran does not seem to phase the new US administration. Is the pendulum now swinging in a whole new direction?

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Nachum Segal Internviews Malcolm Hoenlein (April 24)

On Fridays, Nachum Segal interviews Malcolm Hoenlein:

Nachum interviewed Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who called in live for the latest Weekly Update. Nachum and Malcolm began this week's Update by addressing the allegations that Congresswoman Jane Harman is somehow involved in the on-going espionage case against former AIPAC members. Malcolm explained the situation and emphasized how weak the entire case is. Nachum asked Malcolm to discuss the Durbin II Conference that started this week including his thoughts on its proximity to Yom Hashoah. They covered several other important issues including: Statements made by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton regarding Israel, President Obama's encounter with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, elections in Lebanon, developments between Hizbollah and Egypt, and much more. Click the link to listen.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

US Strategy In Lebanon Election: Hamas Redux

Gee, this sounds familiar:

Ahead of an election that could oust the U.S.-backed Beirut government, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday that Washington supports "voices of moderation" and never will make a deal Syria that "sells out" Lebanon's interests.

The June 7 vote could boost the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and its allies, possibly paving the way for renewed Syrian influence over Lebanon.

"The people of Lebanon must be able to choose their own representatives in open and fair elections without the specter of violence or intimidation and free of outside interference," Clinton told a news conference after meeting with President Michel Suleiman. [emphasis added]

This is of course the same kind of US attitude we saw back in 2006 leading up to the "open and fair" elections that put Hamas in power, something that has actually occured to the new administration:

While urging free and fair elections, the Obama administration is treading carefully. The Bush administration encouraged the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006 and then saw the radical Hamas movement win handily and badly damage efforts to broker an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

Reflecting that concern, Clinton met during her brief stay with just one senior official, Suleiman.

U.S. officials say her meeting with Suleiman only is because the U.S. doesn't want to be seen as taking sides in the elections. Suleiman is considered a consensus leader and neutral in the political struggle.

As things stand now, due to the power-sharing system in Lebanese politics, Hizbollah would not be able to seize control regardless of the outcome of the election--merely strengthen and consolidate their control.

I suppose that is why Secretary of State Clinton put her foot down:

Before leaving Lebanon, Clinton stopped at Hariri's grave to lay a wreath. She renewed U.S. support for an international tribunal based in the Netherlands to try his killers. "There needs to be an absolute end to an era of impunity for political assassinations in Lebanon," Clinton said.

Yet this has not stopped the US from talking to Syria. I suppose that referring to Hizbollah and Hamas, which both have connections with Syria, as 'militants' does help to get around the fact that Syria helps sponsors 2 terrorist groups, one of which is tightening its grip on Lebanon.

But its all good--after all, assurances to Israel and Lebanon are surely no less sincere than those made to Iraq:

“Let me assure you and repeat what President Obama said, we are committed to Iraq, we want to see a stable, sovereign, self-reliant Iraq,” she told a nervous but receptive crowd at a town hall meeting at the U.S. Embassy here.

[Hat tip: Instapundit]

Technorati Tag: Lebanon and Syria.

One Jerusalem: End of Week Review: April 26, 2009

From an email from One Jerusalem:

End of Week Review: April 26, 2009

Dear Friend of Jerusalem,

Here are the latest headlines from the One Jerusalem Blog:

● Obama's War On Israel: During the past two weeks, senior members of the Obama Administration, including the President himself, have publicly sought to bully Israel into adopting policies that would be harmful and dangerous to the people of Israel. Secretary of State Hillary... (read more)

● Obama Appoints A Muslim With A Troubling Record: When a left-wing, Obama adoring publication hails an action by this President of the United States it is always prudent to research the facts.This week the LA Times, celebrates Obama's appointment of Dalia Mogahed to his Advisory Council on Faith-Based... (read more)

Sincerely, The One Jerusalem Team

Technorati Tag: Israel .

IDF Releases Findings On Operation Cast Lead

From The IDF Website--A Summary Of Its Findings:

IDF Releases Information on Military Investigations
22 April 2009 , 17:20

The IDF has released information regarding comprehensive military investigations related to Operation Cast Lead

IDF Spokesperson

The IDF Chief of the General Staff, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, recently approved and authorized the publication of the conclusions of five investigative teams assigned to investigate events related to the conduct of IDF soldiers during Operation Cast Lead. These investigations are supplementary investigations and are in addition to the investigations that take place following all IDF operations. Additional issues are also undergoing a process of verification or investigation at various levels within the IDF and the IDF aims to complete these investigations by June 2009.

The teams were headed by officers of the rank of Colonel and those who took part in the investigation were not a direct part of the chain of command in the operations that were in question. The teams were appointed by Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi.

The five investigative teams dealt with the following five issues:

1. Claims regarding incidents where UN and international facilities were fired upon and damaged during Operation Cast Lead. This investigation was conducted by Col. Itzik Turgeman.

-Regarding the UNRWA school in Jabaliya, the Fahoura School, the investigation concluded that the IDF used minimal and proportionate retaliatory fire, using the most precise weapons available to them. Hamas made this necessary, as it fired mortar shells at Israeli forces 80 meters from the school. Additionally, it was concluded that all of the shells fired by IDF forces landed outside of the school grounds. According to a Senior IDF Military Official, the United Nations has also confirmed this finding.
-Regarding damage done to the UNRWA Headquarters and to a pharmaceutical storage facility in Tel El-Hawa neighborhood, the IDF concluded that IDF forces came under fire near these structures and an exchange of fire occurred. The IDF returned fire only after an IDF armored bulldozer suffered a direct hit from anti-tank fire. Additionally, no one was injured during this incident.
-Regarding the alleged attack on a UNRWA vehicle in Tel El Hawa, the investigation concluded that the vehicle did not bear UN markings, and it that it contained an Palestinian anti-tank squad.
-In one incident, in which a soldier was found to have fired at a UN vehicle in breach of the IDF’s rules of engagement, the soldier in question was court-martialed.
-The IDF did not, at any time, fire with the deliberate intention to hit a UN vehicle or facility in any of the 13 incidents investigated.

2. Incidents involving shooting at medical facilities, buildings, vehicles and crews. This investigation was conducted by Col.Erez Katz.

-The IDF investigated an incident in which a building containing a mother-and-child clinic was attacked by the IDF. The investigation concluded that Hamas used this building as a weapons storage facility. Despite the fact that the building was not identifiable as a clinic and contained no relevant markings, the IDF still warnd the residents of the building prior to the attack.
-The IDF investigation also concluded that all IDF forces were ordered to take special care in order to protect Palestinian civilians. The forces took extraordinary care, as obliged by international law and even acted beyond those obligations. In some incidents, forces even refrained from attacking ‘medical vehicles’ that were being used by Hamas.

3. Claims regarding incidents in which many uninvolved civilians were harmed. This investigation was conducted by Col. Tamir Yedai.

-Regarding the attack in the house of senior Hamas Operative Nazar Ri’an, the IDF concluded that Ri’an was a legitimate military target due to his involvement in the execution and planning of terrorists attacks, and that his house was a legitimate military target due to the fact that it was used as a weapons storage facility, as proven by investigation and secondary explosions after the attack. Additionally, it was found that for unknown reasons, Ri’an’s family stayed in the house, despite numerous warnings and a length period of time during which they were able to evacuate.
-Regarding an attack on a truck carrying oxygen tanks, the IDF concluded that intelligence information led forces to believe that the truck was carrying rockets between a known Hamas manufacturing facility and known rocket launching site. Later, it was found that the truck contained oxygen tanks, which were likely to be used by Hamas for rocket manufacturing. Four Hamas operatives and four uninvolved civilians were killed in the incident.
-Regarding the Al-Daia family residence in Gaza City, the IDF concluded that the Al-Daia family did receive a number of warnings, including a ‘knock on the roof’ warning, but the warning phone call was received by residents of a weapons storage facility, not by the Al-Daia family. This was a result of a mistake in identifying the building.

4. The use of weaponry containing phosphorous. This investigation was conducted by Col. Shai Alkalai.

-The use of weapons containing white phosphorus is standard, legal, and a tactic employed by other western militaries worldwide, including states that are signatories of the Third Protocol of the Convention Weapons (CCW).
-The IDF’s use of white phosphorus was in accordance with Israel’s obligations under international humanitarian law, and more specifically, the obligations with regard to munitions with incendiary characteristics.
-The IDF uses white phosphorus as a smoke screen, and uses certain smoke bombs that contain elements of white phosphorus. These uses are standard and legal. The use of smoke obscurants proved to be a very effective means, and in many cases, prevented the need to use explosive munitions whose impact would have been considerably more dangerous.
-According to a Senior IDF Military Official, the IDF stopped using white phosphorus on January 7, 2009, despite its legality and tactical benefits, in response to the outrage in the media regarding its use.

5. Damage to infrastructure and the destruction of buildings by ground forces. This investigation was conducted by Col. Adam Zusman.

-According to a Senior IDF Military Official, the decision to destroy a structure was made my officers of the rank of Brigade Commander and above.
-The investigation determined that no uninvolved civilians were harmed during the demolition of infrastructure and buildings by IDF forces.
-In many cases, the preparations (including the planting of explosives or weaponry) made by Hamas and other terrorist organizations—including booby-traps aimed at harming IDF forces-- were responsible for the significant damage caused to the structures.
-The investigations did not identify any instances of intentional harm done to civilian infrastructure, nor did it find any incidents in which structures were damaged as means of punishment or without operational justification.

Regarding the conclusions drawn from these investigations, a Senior IDF Military Official said, “The bottom line is that the IDF conducted itself in an appropriate manner wuth within the limits of international law. We kept a high professional and moral standard; all of this, against an enemy that was shooting at our civilian population and using the Palestinian population as human shields.” A Senior IDF Military Official also stated that the investigations shed light on a very small number of mistakes and incidents that indicated inappropriate conduct. These unfortunate incidents were unavoidable and occur in all combat situations in which militaries are forced to fight in urban centers were civilians are used as human shields.

The process of examination involved a series of operational investigations that are both standard protocol for IDF investigative activities, and are employed by other western militaries. In accordance with accepted IDF protocol for professional investigations, the investigators operated independently and were provided with access to all relevant materials and the freedom to question any of the relevant personnel. It should be noted that each soldier whose testimony was requested was required to cooperate with the investigation, and the investigators received full cooperation.Additionally, a Senior IDF Military Official made clear that in order to complete these investigations, Palestinian sources were consulted as necessary and as possible, citing that the IDF has a cooperative relationship with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Interior.

The government of Israel ordered the IDF to embark on Operation Cast Lead as part of its duty to protect its citizens following eight years of rocket fire on Israeli communities in southern Israel. This fire was heightened during the three years following Disengagement, when Israel withdrew from Gaza, and during the two months prior to Operation Cast Lead. During this time, hundreds of thousands of Israeli children, women and men were terrorized by endless attacks executed by Hamas and other terrorist organizations operating in the Gaza Strip. Thousands of rockets and mortars were fired at schools, kindergartens and residential neighborhoods. Israel was left with no choice other than to act against these continuous acts of terrorism that killed and injured many, not only physically but mentally and emotionally as well. It was impossible for Israeli civilians in these areas to live normal lives.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Operation Cast Lead.

Terrorists Find That Having Your Own State Is Highly Overrated

A few months ago, I found an entry on WikiHow on the topic: How To Start Your Own Country. I made a mental note--and sent myself a copy of the article to put on my Google email account for safe keeping. I figured that at some point it would be a handy article to have to make a point.

Now it looks like I'm too late.

According to the article:

Anyone can start their own country! That doesn't mean that people will recognize it, but hey, they generally won't stop you from trying--as long as they don't see it as a threat. So if you'd like to do your own thing in your own country, here's how to establish a micronation.

It then goes on to give you the 5 basic steps

1. Find territory for your micronation
   
2. Declare your independence
   
3. Set up a government and constitution
   
4. Acquire citizens
   
5. Decide on symbols for your country
   

The instructions are basic, and seem doable. Under the first step for finding terrirtory you'll find:

Most micronationalists use their houses, land no one wants, or land on other planets. Some micronations exist on land unclaimed by other countries because of a loophole in a treaty. The Republic of Indian Stream, for example, was on land between the U.S. and Canada but is not under the jurisdiction of either because of ambiguous terms in the Treaty of Paris. If you can't find land, though, make some! One millionaire activist piled sand onto a reef located in the Pacific Ocean south of Fiji and created an artificial island to start the Republic of Minerva. But if you're not rich enough to make land, then just make it up--some of the more lighthearted micronations claim land on imaginary continents or planets.

So far, so good--but now it seems that countries based on land are somewhat passe.

In Do the Palestinians Really Want a State?, Robert D. Kaplan writes about the novel ideas expressed in a new paper, The Power of Statelessness by Jakub Grygiel.

Kaplan takes the position that Israel bears a good deal of responsibility for the current situation, but also brings in Grygiel to explain the Palestinian side:

Statehood is no longer a goal, he writes. Many stateless groups “do not aspire to have a state,” for they are more capable of achieving their objectives without one. Instead of actively seeking statehood to address their weakness, as Zionist Jews did in an earlier phase of history, groups like the Palestinians now embrace their statelessness as a source of power.

New communication technologies allow people to achieve virtual unity without a state, even as new military technologies give stateless groups a lethal capacity that in former decades could be attained only by states. Grygiel explains that it is now “highly desirable” not to have a state—for a state is a target that can be destroyed or damaged, and hence pressured politically. It was the very quasi-statehood achieved by Hamas in the Gaza Strip that made it easier for Israel to bomb it. A state entails responsibilities that limit a people’s freedom of action. A group like Hezbollah in Lebanon, the author notes, could probably take over the Lebanese state today, but why would it want to? Why would it want responsibility for providing safety and services to all Lebanese? Why would it want to provide the Israelis with so many tempting targets of reprisal? Statelessness offers a level of “impunity” from retaliation.

But the most tempting aspect of statelessness is that it permits a people to savor the pleasures of religious zeal, extremist ideologies, and moral absolutes, without having to make the kinds of messy, mundane compromises that accompany the work of looking after a geographical space.

It's that last paragraph where I think Kaplan's quote of Grygiel undercuts his point. Islam is more than a religion in the Western sense--in addition to religious tenets and rituals, Islam also has its own language and a strong sense of land and territory. 

Kaplan overlooks the strong bond in Islam between 'religious zeal' on the one hand and 'geographical space' on the other--Islam finds nothing messy or mundane about that linkage at all: land is part and parcel of the religious obligations. And there are no compromises, since Sharia law is the rule.

Leanne Piggott, a lecturer in at the University of Sydney and a director of Academic Programs of the Centre for International Security Studies had a similar insight from a different angle in an article she wrote in July 2004 about the Hague's decision on Israel's Security Fence--Judges' ruling rewrites UN Charter on self-defence:

THE advisory opinion brought down by the International Court of Justice last Friday in relation to Israel's separation barrier has implications far beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Buried deep in the text of its opinion is a bombshell that purports to radically rewrite the rules of international law governing the inherent right of states to defend themselves and their citizens.

The ICJ recognises that this right is enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. But the ICJ then says that this right is limited to self-defence in the case of armed attack "by one state against another state". That limitation does not appear anywhere in the text of Article 51 itself. Article 51 recognises that states have an inherent right of self-defence "if an armed attack occurs". It does not say that the armed attack must have been carried out by, or be attributable to, another state.

The distinction is critical in the on-going struggle against international terrorism. Although every act of terrorism necessarily originates in territory (or aboard a ship or aircraft) that is owned or occupied by a sovereign state, it does not follow that every such act of terrorism is supported by that state, and attributable to it in a legal sense.

The ICJ is now saying that if terrorists based in the territory of state A attack state B without the passive or active support of state A, state B may not have the right to defend itself from future attack by striking back at the terrorist base – despite Article 51.[emphasis added]

From Piggott's perspective, this is a pragmatic as opposed to a philosophical one for the terrorists.

Hizbollah benefits from this kind of interpretation of international law, but does it want to preserve that kind of splintered situation? Hizbollah is an armed faction--one of many, not necessarily a situation that suits its interests. 

Grygiel asks, "Why would it want responsibility for providing safety and services to all Lebanese?" 

The answer is that being able to provide services to the Lebanese differentiates it from being merely a leech that does nothing more than invite attack and destruction from Israel. It allows Hizbollah to create the myth of providing services and not being merely a terrorist organization--and it attracts dedicated followers. This is a situation any terrorist organization under similar situations would face.

Technorati Tag: Terrorism.

Disproportionate Force: Pesach, The IDF, And My Daughter

I was visiting family in Ohio during Pesach, and davened in a shul where an old chevrusa of mine is the rabbi--Rabbi Hanan Balk. While I always enjoy his drashas, one in particular made an impression on me, and after Pesach I asked him to fax me the text he quoted--it comes from Leading The Passover Journey: The Seder's Meaning Revealed, The Haggadah's Story Retold by Rabbi Nathan Laufer. Rabbi Laufer, a talmid of the Rav, deals with why the Rabbis seek to increase the potency of the plagues the Egyptians suffered, and explains it in a way that is relevant today:

While the plagues themselves represented a powerful response to Egyptian evil, the Rabbis in this midrash on the plagues felt the need to multiply that powerful response four and five times so that it became overwhelming rather than merely "measure for measure." In so doing, the Rabbis in the Haggadah are teaching us that to effectively parry forces of radical evil, one needs to use overwhelming rather than merely commensurate force. While commensurate force is an important limiting factor in petty criminal law (e.g., one may not use lethal force to stop a common pickpocket) in dealing criminally with heinous or potentially lethal crimes, as well as in dealing politically with radically evil regimes, one needs to exercise power that goes beyond a mere proportionate response; to the evil perpetuated.

Overwhelming force is necessary against an evil regime for two reasons. First, the total impact of all the evil perpetrated by the individual members of the regime is greater than the mere sum of its parts. This totality of evil needs to be met with an appropriately vigorous, even exponentially powerful response. Second, in order to create a deterrent effect, the punishment for the evildoers needs to be greater than the evil perpetuated...

Interestingly, besides seeing the relevance to the response Israel must take against the terrorist attacks against it, another application occurred to me--L'havdil:

At home, we have a curious situation where our 16 month old son occasionally picks on our 9 year old daughter--occasionally biting her. 

My immediate reaction of course, especially considering the age difference, is to tell her that under no circumstances should she hit him--rather she must tell him firmly "no biting!"

Listening to my friend's drasha, it occurred to me how absurd my demand was. The baby has no real understanding of what is being said to him, nor can we afford to wait around for him to understand what is being said and to comprehend the concept of consequences. Better for my daughter to 'hit him'--on the shoulder or hand in a firm but not vengeful way along with the verbal message.

This after all is the way of HaShem as well: the punishments had a pedagogic component and were not purely out of wrath--just as when resorting to anger we learn we should exhibit the anger but not allow ourselves to be controlled by it. 

Similarly, this is what we expect of the IDF: during Operation Cast Lead, while civilian casualties are unavoidable, we expect that no identifiable civilian will ever be purposely targeted. The operation is to make a point, not to blindly strike out in anger.

A lesson we all should remember--and teach the world.

Technorati Tag: Passover and Pesach and Haggadah.

The Politics Of Blame And Yom HaShoah: A Survivor Did More Than Just Survive

I came across On Work and Freedom: For Holocaust Remembrance Day and Durban II on a new blog called The Word Well. He is writing about his 91 year old grandmother, who was liberated from the camps. This part especially caught me eye:

...I don’t know of any Holocaust survivors who entered a café in Germany or Poland circa 1946 or 1996 or 2006 and blew themselves up to liberate their family’s land or business stolen by the Nazis. Nor do I know of any Holocaust remembrance conferences where the chief subject is hating Hitler and his SS and the German and Polish and Hungarian people who kept quiet. The subject is remembering the dead and the lost. And how we’ve moved on. Grown, beyond survival. Celebrating the fact that Hitler ultimately failed miserably, precisely because he did not manage to infect his victims with the thing that drove him: Hate.

My grandmother was poor when she arrived in the US. And oppressed. She had almost no one left in the world and hasn’t smelled a thing since the day they told her what that smoke was coming out of the chimneys back in Auschwitz. (The one who told her, a week or so into her stay, was a drunk guard, with a gruff laugh, who she struggled not to believe, until it was heinously clear he had spoken the truth.)

Obviously, however, she had read the “welcome sign” on the gate. It said, horribly: Work makes you free. So she worked… on herself. On remembering her dead but forgetting about revenge or about stewing in what she’d lost. She worked on raising a moral, productive, educated family. On “living her best life.” She worked 12 hour days alongside my grandfather to feed their kids when there was no one alive to call for a loan. (She had been fairly well-to-do back in Seredna.)

Read the whole thing.

Technorati Tag: Yom HaShoah.

In Light Of The International Perception Of Obama, Netanyahu Pushes Back (Updated)

From The Washington Post:

Israel Puts Iran Issue Ahead of Palestinians
Shift on One Tied to Progress on Other

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.

Ed Morrissey puts Netanyahu's move into perspective:

Give Benjamin Netanyahu credit for learning from the experience of others. The new Israeli Prime Minister has watched Barack Obama get pushed around on the international stage for the past 100 days, and figures that he can redefine a relationship, too. Bibi will tell Obama that Israel will move no further on Palestinian peace talks until the US removes the threat from Iran

If accurate, maybe we will finally see a different Israel--one that is not quites as easily pushed around as in past years. 

I remember when we felt the same way the first time Netanyahu was Prime Minister. I recall reading one source back then that went so far as to point out that while walking and talking with President Clinton, Clinton put his arm around Netanyahu's shoulder--a gesture implying superiority--immediately after which Netanyahu put his arm around Clinton, balancing the equation. 

That is a bit much for me, but Obama's apparent lack of gravitas (American Thinker claims he has more levitas than gravitas) on the international stage may make him more of a pushover than Bush--how's that for change.

David Hazony writes:

Lieberman is not just an ideologue but a shrewd political player, and together with Netanyahu, Israel is taking a foreign-policy stance that is overtly independent of the Obama Administration. This may make things trickier for the State Department in the short run, but down the road it will make it much easier for the Israeli government to strike deals, make concessions, or, alternatively, serve Israel’s interests by refusing to make concessions. Israeli voters do not want to feel disenfranchised by American pressure.

The US is not used to the idea of an Israel that stands up for itself and refuses to automatically make concessions. In the short term, that may give Israelis a certain amount of self-respect. The key is the long term--whether Israel can take such a position consistently without appearing to be outright rejectionist. Of course, the Palestinian Arabs have shown themselves quite a adept at this, but that is mostly because have cornered the market on being the underdog victim, a position that Israel lost long ago.

Not so long ago, it was considered a slam dunk that an Obama Administration would put the screws to Israsel pure and simple.

Now that is not so obvious.

But neither will Netanyahu's task be easy.

UPDATE: Yid With Lid notes the denial by Israel of what the Washington Post article said, coming from the Jerusalem Post:

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.

He was responding to a Washington Post article published earlier in the day that claimed the "new Israeli government will not move ahead on the core issues of peace talks with the Palestinians until it sees progress in US efforts to stop Iran's suspected pursuit of a nuclear weapon and limit Teheran's rising influence in the region."

Hmmmm, "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"--that's an odd paraphrase of Ben Gurion's "We will assist the British in the war as if there were no White Paper and we must resist the White Paper as if there were no war."

But in Ben Gurion's case, his message was that Israel's problem with Great Britain would not prevent them from joining them against the greater menace. 

Is Ayalon saying that Israel will still cooperate with the US in the search for an equitable peace with the Palestinian Arabs even while pursuing its own interests in defense against Iran?--or merely that both issues will be pursued concurrently.

Ben Gurion was making an important point. 
If Ayalon is doing nothing more than resorting to clever rhetoric, then Israel has not made much progress yet after all.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Netanyau and Obama.

Video: Egyptian State TV On Jews And Starbucks

A sample of peace with the Muslim world in action:

[Hat tip: Eric Trager]

Technorati Tag: Starbucks and Queen Esther and Purim.

Video: A Taste Of Durban II--Elie Wiesel Called Zio-Nazi

The US contribution to the UN at work:

Technorati Tag: Durban II and Elie Wiesel and UN.

The Harman Case: Another Attack on Jewish Influence, Revenge Against Harman, Or A Slap At Obama? (Updated)

Those who thought there would be fewer attacks on the Israel Lobby with Bush and the "neo-cons" out of office now find that there is one more carryover from the Bush years.

We now read in CQ Politics from Jeff Stein, "CQ SpyTalk Columnist":

Sources: Wiretap Recorded Rep. Harman Promising to Intervene for AIPAC

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

You can check out the transcript of an online Stein had about his article here.

Where to begin? Is this simply part of the Pelosi-Harman feud?

Most focus instead on the implications of Israeli influence.

Israel Matzav, wonders whether the timing has to do with AIPAC spy case--in an attempt to bolster the weak and questionable case.

Legal Insurrection differs and writes:

As others have pointed out, the story is replete with open questions, such as who was the "suspected Israeli agent," and whether such person was Israeli or American or other. Others question the timing, coming soon before the trial of the AIPAC officials is to take place (after the DOJ suffered serious legal setbacks on the case)..

...The leak of the Harman wiretap cannot be divorced from the looming Iran issue. What else could explain the timing of a leak of a conversation which took place years ago? Leaking such a conversation would have little or no effect on the upcoming trial, but would affect the ability of supporters of Israel on Capital Hill from being heard in support of Israel's right of self-defense.

Legal Insurrection also notes the reference to a "suspected" Israeli agent--"which means there likely is no hard evidence that the person was actually acting on behalf of the government of Israel, as opposed to merely being a supporter of Israel".

The Strata-Sphere raises questions about the story--not the least of which is the denial by The New York Times that Harman ever asked the Times to hold back on its warrantless wiretapping story, as is alleged in the original CQ story.

Foreign Policy points out a second discourdant note in the CQ article, noting a difference of opinion of whether the NSA or the FBI was actually behind the wiretap--claiming that "Hill intelligence committee sources cast doubt Monday on whether the NSA was the relevant agency here"--as Stein has claimed.

So besides questions about who this leak is directed against, there are questions about whether the leak itself is accurate. Keep in mind that according to Stein in his online discussion of his article:

The fact is, there is no "timing" to any "leak."

No sources "came forward," so to speak.

I learned about this quite a while ago and was just recently able to turn my full attention to it. Total coincidence.

...The story was not "planted" on me to influence any other events -- in particular the looming AIPAC trial or things related to the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program. I've known about it for some time but just not been able to pull it together until now for various reasons.

But this continues to be view as just that--a leak.

Under Bush, these sorts of 'leaks' were said to be undercutting his administration.

What about now, under Obama?

According to the Foreign Policy article mentioned above, the leak is actually a push back against Obama:

As U.S. President Barack Obama appeared at the CIA Monday, a conflagration sparked by his administration's decision last week to release Bush-era memos describing harsh interrogation techniques was having gasoline poured on it.

Though Obama pointedly said he would decline to pursue any legal action against the intelligence officers involved, his decision seems to have left the intelligence community, and in particular its Bush-era leadership, feeling targeted. Even as Obama chief of staff Rahm Emanuel reiterated the White House's desire to move forward, several former intelligence directors and former attorney general Michael Mukasey took to the talk shows and oped pages to argue against the Obama administration's decision to release the memos.

The memos' release coincided with a report in the New York Times last week alleging that the NSA had captured the communications of an unidentified congress-member without a warrant and committed other recent abuses as part of the controversial domestic surveillance program.

So it's perhaps not surprising that Bush-era intelligence officials might want to push back against a Democratic congresswoman and, by extension, the Democratic Congress as well. After all, even as the Obama administration insists it opposes any legal action against those involved, Democrats on the Hill might feel pressured to step up their investigations and even pursue legal actions. The message of the pushback is loud and clear: Congress and the Democrats weren't innocent in these activities either.

Maybe this whole case is nothing more than giving Mr. Obama a proper welcome to Washington.

[Hat tip: Soccer Dad]

UPDATE: In his new blog, RubinReports, Barry Rubin points out a number of incongruencies in the CQ story:

o The CQ story fails to take into account the way the NSA operates
o Due to FBI intimidation, AIPAC has already completely disassociated itself from the 2 AIPAC employees and has let them go

Read the whole thing.

Technorati Tag: Jane Harman and AIPAC.

More Claims About Israel's Influence

This article has been rewritten and reposted as:

The Harman Case: Another Attack on Jewish Influence, Revenge Against Harman, Or A Slap At Obama?

"US Presidents and the Jews: From George Washington to George Bush"

Note: I first came across this in September 2003 on The Jewish Post--the URL at the time was www.jewishpost.com/jp0803/jpn0803j.htm, but that no longer works and 'search' is disabled on the site.

While a number of versions of this are floating on the Internet, only 2 give the correct source--Tina Levitan, author of First Facts in American Jewish History: From 1492 to the Present. Of the others, many add Clinton and Bush 43 to the list (claiming that the former had more Jews in his cabinet than all previous presidents combined and--falsely--that the latter had none). This new version is falsely ascribed to Professor Sherman L. Cohn, Georgetown University Law Center, who has written:

The email is a forgery. I did NOT write it. I vouch for nothing in it. Moreover, like you, I know that there is false information in the forgery. Whatever else one says about George W. Bush, he has appointed at least two Jews to is cabinet: Attorney General Michael Mukasey, an Orthodox Jew, and Secretary Michael Chertoff, the son of a conservative rabbi. Moreover, I know that Bush has appointed Jews as federal judges.

This forgery has been floating around for over a year. Well over 100 persons have inquired of me as to its veracity. I have asked each of them to please send this message to all persons to whom he or she sent the forgery, as well as to the person who sent the forger to him or her, and ask that person to do the same.

Since he is only calling the appended part referring to Bush 43 a forgery, I see no problem passing along the original piece--sorry for the long winded intro.

US Presidents and the Jews: From George Washington to George Bush

Who was the first President to attend a synagogue service? To receive a Torah as a gift? To name a Jew to his cabinet?

You'll find the answer to these and other curious queries in this non-partisan feature prepared by a lady who knows this subject well, except who will be the first Jewish President of the United States.

GEORGE WASHINGTON was the first President to write to a synagogue. In 1790 he addressed separate letters to the Touro Synagogue in Newport, RI, and to Mikveh Israel Congregation in Savannah, GA, and a joint letter to Congregation Beth Shalom, Richmond, VA, Mikveh Israel Philadelphia, Beth Elohim, Charleston, S. C., and Shearith Israel, New York. His letters are an eloquent expression and hope for religious harmony and endure as indelible statements of the most fundamental tenets of American democracy.

THOMAS JEFFERSON was the fist President to appoint a Jew to a Federal post. In 1801 he named Reuben Etting of Baltimore as US Marshall for Maryland.

JAMES MADISON was the first President to appoint a Jew to a diplomatic post. He sent Mordecai M. Noah to Tunis from 1813 to 1816.

MARTIN VAN BUREN was the first President to order an American consul to intervene on behalf of Jews abroad. In 1840 he instructed the U.S. consul in Alexandria, Egypt to use his good offices to protect the Jews of Damascus who were under attack because of a false blood ritual accusation.

JOHN TYLER was the first President to nominate a U.S. consul to Palestine. Warder Cresson, a Quaker convert to Judaism who established a pioneer Zionist colony, received the appointment in 1844.

FRANKLIN PIERCE was the first and probably the only President whose name appears on the charter of a synagogue. Pierce signed the Act of Congress in 1857 that amended the laws of the District of Columbia to enable the incorporation of the city's first synagogue, the Washington Hebrew Congregation.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN was the first President to make it possible for rabbis to serve as military chaplains. He did this by signing the 1862 Act of Congress which changed the law that had previously barred all but Christian clergymen from the chaplainry. Lincoln was also the first, and happily the only President who was called upon to revoke an official act of anti-Semitism by the U.S. government. It was Lincoln who cancelled General Ulysses S. Grant's "Order No. 11" expelling all Jews from Tennessee from the district controlled by his armies during the Civil War. Grant always denied personal responsibility for this act attributing it to his subordinate.

ULYSSES S. GRANT was the first President to attend a synagogue service while in office. When Adas Israel Congregation in Washington D.C. was dedicated in 1874, Grant and all members of his Cabinet were present.

RUTHERFORD HAYS was the first President to designate a Jewish ambassador for the stated purpose of fighting anti-Semitism. In 1870, he named Benjamin Peixotto Consul-General to Rumania. Hays also was the first President to assure a civil service employee her right to work for the Federal government and yet observe the Sabbath. He ordered the employment of a Jewish woman who had been denied a position in the Department of the Interior because of her refusal to work on Saturday.

THEODORE ROOSEVELT was the first President to appoint a Jew to a presidential cabinet. In 1906 he named Oscar S. Straus Secretary of Commerce and Labor. Theodore Roosevelt was also the first President to contribute his own funds to a Jewish cause. In 1919, when he received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts while President to settle the Russo-Japanese War, Roosevelt contributed part of his prize to the National Jewish Welfare Board.

WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT was the first President to attend a Seder while in office. In 1912, when he visited Providence, RI, he participated in the family Seder of Colonel Harry Cutler, first president of the National Jewish Welfare Board, in the Cutler home on Glenham Street.

WOODROW WILSON was the first President to nominate a Jew to the United States Supreme Court. Standing firm against great pressure to withdraw the nomination, Wilson insisted that he knew no one better qualified by judicial temperament as well as legal and social understanding, confirmation was finally voted by the Senate on June 1, 1916. Wilson was also the first President to publicly endorse a national Jewish philanthropic campaign. In a letter to Jacob Schiff, on November 22, 1917, Wilson called for wide support of the United Jewish Relief Campaign which was raising funds for European War relief.

WARREN HARDING was the first President to sign a Joint Congressional Resolution endorsing the Balfour Declaration and the Palestine Mandate supporting the establishment in Palestine of a national Jewish home for the Jewish people. The resolution was signed September 22, 1922.

CALVIN COOLIDGE was the first President to participate in the dedication of a Jewish community institution that was not a house of worship. On May 3, 1925, he helped dedicate the cornerstone of the Washington, D.C. Jewish Community center.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT was the first President to be given a Torah as a gift. He received a miniature Torah from Young Israel and another that had been rescued from a burning synagogue in Czechoslovakia. Both are now in the Roosevelt Memorial Library in Hyde Park. The Roosevelt administration's failure to expand the existing refuge quota system ensured that large numbers of Jews would ultimately become some of the Holocaust's six million victims. Fifty-six years after Roosevelt's death, the arguments continue over Roosevelt's response to the Holocaust.

HARRY S. TRUMAN, on May 14, 1948, just eleven minutes after Israel's proclamation of independence, was the first head of a government to announce to the press that "the United Stated recognizes the provisional government as the de facto authority of the new state of Israel." Truman was also the first U.S. President to receive a president of Israel at the White House - Chaim Weizman, in 1948 and an Ambassador from Israel - Eliahu Elat in 1948. With Israel staggering under the burdens of mass immigration in 1951-1952, President Truman obtained from Congress close to $140 million in loans and grants.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER was the first President to participate in a coast-to-coast TV program sponsored by a Jewish organization. It was a network show in 1954 celebrating the 300th anniversary of the American Jewish community. On this occasion he said that it was one of the enduring satisfactions of his life that he was privileged to lead the forces of the free world which finally crushed the brutal regime in Germany, freeing the remnant of Jews for a new life and hope in Israel.

JOHN F. KENNEDY named two Jews to his cabinet - Abraham Ribicoff as Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, and Arthur Goldberg as Secretary of Labor. Kennedy was the only President for whom a national Jewish Award was named. The annual peace award of the Synagogue Council of America was re-named the John F. Kennedy Peace Award after his assassination in 1963.

JIMMY CARTER in a number of impassioned speeches stated his concern for human rights and stressed the right of Russian Jews to emigrate. He is credited with being the person responsible for the Camp David Accords.

GEORGE BUSH I in 1985 as Vice President had played a personal role in "Operation Joshua," the airlift which brought 10,000 Jews out of Ethiopia directly to resettlement in Israel. Then, again in 1991, when Bush was President, American help played a critical role in "Operation Solomon", the escape of 14,000 more Ethiopian Jews. Most dramatically, Bush got to the U.N. to revoke its 1975 "Zionism is Racism" resolution.

Tina Levitan is the author of First Facts in American Jewish History: From 1492 to the Present, published by Jason Aronson Publishers

Technorati Tag: Jewish History and US History.

Iran Loves A Good Kidnapping

Noah Pollak notes:

Why does the Iranian regime have such a penchant for abductions? And why are they often timed to follow American announcements of a desire for diplomacy? Because in the eyes of the Islamic revolutionaries, the overthrow of the American-backed shah in 1979 was proof not only of the revolution’s divine ordination, but of America’s weakness and the ease with which the Great Satan could be disgraced. The regime has never paid a price for the provocations that started at our embassy in Tehran — the Marine Corps barracks bombings in Lebanon in 1983, the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires that killed 85 people, its campaign of assassinations and bombings in Europe during the 1980’s, its sponsorship of Hezbollah and Hamas, etc.

Israel is not alone in being unable to teach a permanent lesson to the terrorists who attack its citizens--does anyone seriously think that Syria will ever pay a price for its assassination of Rafik Hariri?

Pollak's recounting of the history of Iran and kidnappings includes back in 1987, when Iran justified the abduction of Westerners in Beirut on the basis of the fact that, well, what else is an oppressed people supposed to do?

The Speaker of the Iranian Parliament today defended the seizure of Western hostages in Beirut and other terrorist actions by Lebanese groups, saying the Lebanese had no other way to defend themselves.

Referring specifically to recent kidnappings in Beirut, the speaker, Hojatolislam Hashemi Rafsanjani said, ''The people of Lebanon are so ignored and so oppressed that they have no other defense for themselves other than this.''

Even back then it was clear that there was no terrorist act that could not be justified based on one pretext or another.

And there is no excuse that the West will not use to continue to use negotiation and diplomacy with terrorists and their enablers.

Technorati Tag: Iran.

Obama's $900 Million Bailout of Gaza: Hamas Is Not General Motors

Ed Morrissey is not impressed by the nearly $1 billion that Obama is ready to send to the terrorists that run Gaza. Can the US be any more successful keeping the money out of the hands of the terrorist rulers of Gaza than it was in keeping money and influence out of the hands of Saddam Hussein?

Obama says that the money flowing into Gaza from the US will not go to Hamas, which remains on the State Department terrorist list. The money may not directly go to Hamas, but Hamas controls the flow of goods and services throughout Gaza. Any resources flowing into Gaza will eventually wind up in the hands of Hamas, probably almost immediately by comandeering the aid as it enters Gaza, or through a series of kickbacks from the NGOs that get it.

Pretending otherwise is silliness; it’s the same pretense that people used about the UN Oil-for-Food Program in assuring people that Saddam Hussein didn’t get any of the money. Hamas controls Gaza almost as completely as Saddam did Iraq.

Besides, as Claudia Rosett has already pointed out, every dollar that Obama gives Gaza is one less that Hamas will have to put out of its own pocket towards the upkeep of Gaza--and siphoned off instead towards firing more rockets at schools in Israel.

Or does Obama think that by bailing out the terrorist group, he will have some sort of influence on Hamas.

Hamas is not General Motors.

Technorati Tag: Obama and Gaza and Hamas.

U.N. Surprise: Victim of Qaddafi Torture Confronts Libyan Chair of Durban 2

When the Human Rights Council of the UN finds itself confronted with someone other than Israel as the target of gross violations of human rights, it can get embarrassing--as Libya found out.

UN Watch has a copy of Dr. El-Hojouj's complete statement:

Thank you, Madame Chair.

I don’t know if you recognize me. I am the Palestinian medical intern who was scapegoated by your country, Libya, in the HIV case in the Benghazi hospital, together with five Bulgarian nurses.

Section 1 of the draft declaration for this conference speaks about victims of racism, discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance. Based on my own suffering, I wish to offer some proposals.

Starting in 1999, as you know, the five nurses and I were falsely arrested, prosecuted, imprisoned, brutally tortured, convicted, and sentenced to death. All of this, which lasted for nearly a decade, was for only one reason: because the Libyan government was looking to scapegoat foreigners.

Madame Chair, if that is not discrimination, then what is?

On the basis of my personal experience, I would like to propose the following amendments regarding remedies, redress and compensatory measures:

One: The United Nations should condemn countries that scapegoat, falsely arrest, and torture vulnerable minorities.

Two: Countries that have committed such crimes must recognize their past, and issue an official, public, and unequivocal apology to the victims.

Three: In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, such countries must provide victims of discrimination with an appropriate remedy, including adequate compensation for material and immaterial damage.

Madame Chair, Libya told this conference that it practices no inequality or discrimination.

But then how do you account for what was done to me, to my colleagues, and to my family, who gave over thirty years serving your country, only to be kicked out from their home, threatened with death, and subjected to state terrorism?

How can your government chair the planning committee for a world conference on discrimination, when it is on the list of the world’s worst of the worst, when it comes to discrimination and human rights violations?

When will your government recognize their crimes, apologize to me, to my colleagues, and to our families?

This week, at the Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance and Democracy, the five nurses and I will present our complaint and compensation claim against Libya, filed with the UN Human Rights Committee, the highest international tribunal for individual petitions.

The slogan for this Conference is “Dignity and justice for all.” Does this include your own country’s victims of discrimination?

Thank you, Madame Chair.

Here is a picture of Dr. Ashraf Ahmed El-Hojouj from when he was falsely imprisoned in Libya--and below is his story. Note that Dr. El-Hojouj is a Palestinian Arab.

From a press release of The Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance, and Democracy

On April 17, 2009, two days before the historic Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance and Democracy, and the opening of the Durban Review Conference, Dr. Ashraf Ahmed El-Hojouj announced the delivery of the legal complaint he is filing, along with 5 Bulgarian nurses to the UN Human Rights Council.

Dr. El Houjouj, and his colleagues were illegally scapegoated and imprisoned for the HIV epidimic that broke out at Bengazi Hospital in 1999. All six medical professionals were brutally tortured, convicted, and sentenced to death so that the Libyan government could shift the blame for their unsafe hospitals onto foreigners. “The United Nations should condemn countries that scapegoat, falsely arrest, and torture vulnerable minorities.” Said Dr. El Hojouj, who addressed Mrs. Najjat Al-Hajjaji, the Libyan chair of the proceedings. “Countries that have committed such crimes must recognize their past, and issue an official, public, and unequivocal apology to the victims.”

Mrs. Al-Hajjaji was visibly uncomforatable and interrupted Dr. El-Hojouj three times during his testimony. She broke every rule of chairmanship and then gave Libya the floor to make an objection, and finally cut him off. Nevertheless, he was able to speak the important truth. The room was gripped, and Dr. El Houjouj spoke out for himself, his colleagues, and the many people still in Libya who have no voice of their own. Both Dr. Dr. El-Hojouj and Bulagrian nurse Kristiyna Valcheva will testify before the Geneva Summit for Human Rights, Tolerance and Democracy, this Sunday, 19 April 2009. Dr. El-Hojouj will be able to deliver his full speech — without interruptions.

Technorati Tag: UN and Dr. Ashraf Ahmed El-Hojouj.

Prospects For Israel And Palestinian State Heading In Opposite Directions

That is the upshot in a post by Emanuele Ottolenghi.

On the one hand, Palestinian Arabs seem further than ever from reaching their apparent goal of creating a second Palestinian state:

The Palestinians have never been so far from a state as today — all rhetoric and renewed American engagement notwithstanding. They have lost their charismatic leader and failed to replace him with someone who could unify the tribal, clannish, and fragmented patchwork of Palestinian constituencies. They lost any pretense of unity between the West Bank and Gaza — now split between two competing governments. They also lost their centrality in Arab politics, and most importantly they lost the ability — which the late Yasser Arafat had — to blackmail Arab leaders. Their society is torn between a Palestinian nationalist agenda that cannot reconcile itself with the reality of Israel and an Islamist agenda that cannot reconcile itself with the reality of Israel (and with a uniquely Palestinian nationalist agenda). Their struggle has been overtaken by Iran and has turned off erstwhile friends and allies. Their economy is one of subsistence — their people have been turned into paupers and parasites, while their leaders either get rich or divert funds to weapons smuggling. They may not be terminally ill as a people, true, but the picture of the Palestinian polity is not exactly one of health, for sure.

On the other hand, Israel's political health seems healtier:

Compare Israel, 2009 with Israel, 1967:

• A much freer and feistier press.

• A much more diverse society.

• Thousands of NGO’s have sprung out to lobby the political elites, to pressure them, and to expose their flaws and shortcomings.

• Israel’s judiciary is as pugnacious as anyone concerned about democracy, human rights, and rule of law could dream — even more so, sometimes.

• Israel’s military remains subordinate to civilian authority — no authoritarian temptation despite the occupation and ongoing conflict.

Of course, not everyone agrees with Ottolenghi's prognosis--take journalist Aaron Klein for example. He has come out with a new book: The Late Great State of Israel: How Enemies Within and Without Threaten the Jewish Nation's Survival
, about how Israel is her own worst enemy--even without Hamas and Hizbollah.

Obama's pressure on Netanyahu is only the tip of the iceberg.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air is apparently working on getting an interview with Klein this week.

Technorati Tag: Israel

Chag Kasher V'Sameach!

My family and I will be in Ohio for all of Pesach.
I do not expect to be blogging during Chol HaMoed.

Jonathan Rosenblum: "Many Types Of Heroes"

Many Types of Heroes
by Jonathan Rosenblum
Mishpacha Magazine
March 31, 2009
http://www.jewishmediaresources.com/1287/many-types-of-heroes

What a difference a year makes. Last year, I wrote just before Pesach about Pesach hotels. The impact of my words was probably close to zero. The economic crash, however, proved far more effective than any words of mussar. As our Sages teach, "Greater is the removal of [Achashverosh's] ring than forty-eight prophets and seven prophetesses who prophesied to Israel . . . . For all of them did not return them to the good path, but the removal of the ring did return them to the good path" (Megillah 14a).

Conspicuous consumption might have been a topic last year. Today it does not rate high on the challenges of American Orthodoxy. Even among those who continue to enjoy financial security, lavish, highly visible expenditures have become decidedly uncool.

A few weeks ago, The New York Times ran an article on a number of people who were until very recently earning salaries of between $100,000-$200,000 annually and who are today working as pizza delivery boys and the like for minimum wage plus tips. Reading these stories, I was struck by the quiet heroism of the people described. It would have been easy for them to curl up in a fetal position, spending the day in bed. After all, their efforts are not likely to be sufficient to pay their mortgages or continue with even a fraction of their families' previous lifestyles.

It takes courage for them just to go out wearing a set of work clothes far removed from their previous well-tailored suits, knowing that everyone who sees them will make a series of assumptions far different from those made when they were dressed in classier apparel. I thought to myself while reading that I was not sufficiently sympathetic to the trials of the immigrants from the FSU over the last twenty years and what it was like for them to go from being respected doctors and engineers to being unable to find work even as lowly technicians in their former fields.

One interesting aspect of the Times profiles was how many of the subjects were described as waking early in the morning to pray and finding in their relationship with G-d the strength to go on doing what has to be done, without being consumed with self-pity. (The Times is not generally known for its pro-religion sentiment.) Actually, many of us are the beneficiaries of precisely such heroism, as descendants of the post-World War II immigrants. Arriving, in most cases, with no English, little education, nightmares of the horrors they had seen, and little support structure, they took whatever menial jobs they could find and even started families. We are not appreciative enough of what indomitable acts of faith their building of new lives constituted.

I DON'T EXPECT TO SEE in the religious media too many stories like those of the Times profiles. Our community is too small and insular to allow for such a ready sharing of personal details. But no doubt such quiet heroism is being demanded from many religious Jews today, as the plethora or articles on coping with financial stress and unemployment indicate..

A different form of heroism is required today from another group in our community: the remaining gvirim (very wealthy individuals). The heroism to which I refer is to keep giving generously, at a time when the need for tzedakkah dollars by both individuals and institutions has never been greater. The world-wide financial crash has cast tens of thousands of frum Jews below the poverty line, and placed even greater pressure on chesed organizations. Yeshivos, at all levels are increasingly financially strapped, even to the point of cutting the food served to bochurim.

At the same time, the donor class has been dramatically depleted. Some who were generous donors in the past are themselves today in need of communal support. The hardest hit industries – financial services and real estate – are precisely those in which Orthodox Jews were disproportionately found.

It may be hard for the average Joe to understand why it takes a form of heroism for someone who still has, let's say, $30,000,000, to keep giving generously, even if last year he had $60,000,000. He understands that someone who has lost $30,000,000 cannot be expected to give as much as the year before. But he has a hard time comprehending why it is so hard for him to give even as much as others with $30,000,000 did in the past. (I confess that my own speculations on this subject are, to say the least, not based on personal knowledge or even any discussions with those who fall into this category.)

For one thing, someone who has lost tens of millions of dollars over a few months does not view his remaining millions as he did in the past. A cloud of uncertainty hovers over that money as well. If thirty million dollars can disappear in six months, why not the next thirty million as well? And nothing he reads on the financial pages is likely to alleviate that uncertainty.

In addition, the loss of tens of millions of dollars is not only a financial blow, it is a psychological one. For those who don't have money, it may be hard to imagine the degree to which one's self-image can be based on the amount of one's money. But if we think about it, we will recognize that many of us have self-images based on what are pure gifts from Hashem. A person of great beauty will usually react more strongly to being scarred in an accident than someone who self-image has little to do with physical appearance. And another known for his superior intelligence will take the loss of memory harder. So it should not be surprising to hear reports of those broken by their financial reversals, even if they remain very rich by most standards.

Those who have kept giving with their past generosity – and there are many such heroes – deserve our admiration. In some cases, that giving is of an entirely different nature than in the past. For now, they are giving like the average avreich gives. Not with the assurance that they will never need the money being given or because there is nothing else that they could possibly imagine spending it on, but because Klal Yisrael requires it. Those gvirim who step up to the plate today are taking their avodas Hashem to an entirely new level.

Nachum Segal Interviews Malcolm Hoenlein April 3, 2009

On Fridays, Nachum Segal interviews Malcolm Hoenlein about the week's events:

Nachum interviewed Malcolm Hoenlein, Executive Vice Chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who called in live for the latest Weekly Update. Nachum and Malcolm began this week's Update with the terrorist attack that took place in Bat Ayin this week and its possible relation to the swearing in of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. They also discussed a statement made by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman regarding Annapolis, and its possible consequences, which lead into an in-depth discussion of the new Israeli Government. Nachum also asked Malcolm to address aspects of the G-20 conference including President Obama's meeting with various world leaders. They covered several other important issues including: The new Russian Minister of Tourism, world reaction to President Obama's stimulus plan, the United States involvement in the UN Security Council, the federal court ordering Iran to pay $25 million to the family of Nachshon Waxman, and much more. Click the link to listen.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

Are You Smarter Than An 8th Grader--From 1895?

Go ahead--give it a try!

This is the eighth-grade final exam from 1895 in Salina, Kansas. It was taken from the original document on file at the Smokey Valley Genealogical Society and Library in Salina, and reprinted by the Salina Journal.
8th Grade Final Exam: Salina , KS - 1895

FIVE hours to complete:
-

Grammar (Time, one hour)
1. Give nine rules for the use of capital letters..
2. Name the parts of speech and define those that have no modifications.
3. Define verse, stanza and paragraph
4. What are the principal parts of a verb? Give principal parts of 'lie,''play,' and 'run.'
5. Define case; illustrate each case.
6 What is punctuation? Give rules for principal marks of punctuation.
7 - 10. Write a composition of about 150 words and show therein that you understand the practical use of the rules of grammar.

Arithmetic (Time,1 hour 15 minutes)
1. Name and define the Fundamental Rules of Arithmetic.
2. A wagon box is 2 ft. Deep, 10 feet long, and 3 ft. Wide. How many bushels of wheat will it hold?
3. If a load of wheat weighs 3,942 lbs., what is it worth at 50cts/bushel, deducting 1,050 lbs. For tare?
4. District No 33 has a valuation of $35,000. What is the necessary levy to carry on a school seven months at $50 per month, and have $104 for incidentals?
5. Find the cost of 6,720 lbs. Coal at $6.00 per ton.
6. Find the interest of $512.60 for 8 months and 18 days at 7 percent.
7. What is the cost of 40 boards 12 inches wide and 16 ft.. Long at $20 per metre?
8. Find bank discount on $300 for 90 days (no grace) at 10 percent.
9. What is the cost of a square farm at $15 per acre, the distance of which is 640 rods?
10. Write a Bank Check, a Promissory Note, and a Receipt

U.S. History (Time, 45 minutes)
1. Give the epochs into which U.S. History is divided
2. Give an account of the discovery of America by Columbus
3. Relate the causes and results of the Revolutionary War.
4. Show the territorial growth of the United States
5. Tell what you can of the history of Kansas
6. Describe three of the most prominent battles of the Rebellion..
7. Who were the following: Morse, Whitney, Fulton , Bell , Lincoln , Penn, and Howe?
8. Name events connected with the following dates: 1607, 1620, 1800, 1849, 1865.

Orthography (Time, one hour)
[Do we even know what this is??]
1.. What is meant by the following: alphabet, phonetic, orthography, etymology, syllabication
2. What are elementary sounds? How classified?
3. What are the following, and give examples of each: trigraph, subvocals, diphthong, cognate letters, linguals& nbsp;
4. Give four substitutes for caret 'u.' (HUH?)
5. Give two rules for spelling words with final 'e.' Name two exceptions under each rule.
6. Give two uses of silent letters in spelling. Illustrate each.
7. Define the following prefixes and use in connection with a word: bi, dis-mis, pre, semi, post, non, inter, mono, sup.
8. Mark diacritically and divide into syllables the following, and name the sign that indicates the sound: card, ball, mercy, sir, odd, cell, rise, blood, fare, last.
9. Use the following correctly in sentences: cite, site, sight, fane, f ain, feign, vane , vain, vein, raze, raise, rays.
10. Write 10 words frequently mispronounced and indicate pronunciation by use of diacritical marks and by syllabication.

Geography (Time, one hour)
1 What is climate? Upon what does climate depend?
2. How do you account for the extremes of climate in Kansas ?
3. Of what use are rivers? Of what use is the ocean?
4. Describe the mountains of North America
5. Name and describe the following: Monrovia , Odessa , Denver , Manitoba , Hecla , Yukon , St. Helena, Juan Fernandez, Aspinwall and Orinoco
6. Name and locate the principal trade centers of the U.S. Name all the republics of Europe and give the capital of each.
8. Why is the Atlantic Coast colder than the Pacific in the same latitude?
9. Describe the process by which the water of the ocean returns to the sources of rivers.
10. Describe the movements of the earth. Give the inclination of the earth.

I know when I'm beat--how about you?

Technorati Tag: Education.

Obama Inching Towards Accepting The Saudi Initiative (Updated)

It's only a matter of time.

On November 16, 2009, Uzi Mahnaimi reported in The Times Online:

Barack Obama links Israel peace plan to 1967 borders deal

Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect.

Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party.

...On a visit to the Middle East last July, the president-elect said privately it would be “crazy” for Israel to refuse a deal that could “give them peace with the Muslim world”, according to a senior Obama adviser.

At the time, there were reasons to doubt the story, and the Obama camp denied that Obama backed the plan:

Top Obama aide denies report president-elect will back Arab peace plan

A senior adviser to Barack Obama on Sunday denied reports that the U.S. president-elect plans to throw his weight behind the 2002 Arab peace plan, which calls for Israel to withdraw from all territories captured during the 1967 Six-Day War in exchange for normalized ties with the Arab world.

...Dennis Ross, Obama's adviser on Middle East policy, issued a statement Sunday, saying "I was in the meeting in Ramallah. Then-senator Obama did not say this, the story is false."

The Times cited a senior adviser who quoted Obama as telling Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas: "The Israelis would be crazy not to accept this initiative. It would give them peace with the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco.

Maybe what Obama said at the time was false, but the story that Obama backed the Saudi Plan apparently remained true. The Financial Times reported about Obama on January 22nd that:

He called on Arab governments to “act on” the promise of a Saudi-led 2002 Arab peace initiative by supporting the Palestinian Authority headed by President Mahmoud Abbas “taking steps towards normalising relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all.”

Four days later Obama was even more explicit. In describing George Mitchell's itinerary to the Middle East, the ABC News blog noted:

A visit to Saudi Arabia is a nod to the Saudi-backed Arab Peace Initiative, which Obama said Thursday "contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts." Mitchell will also make stops in Europe to make sure allies are all on board.

The fuller context of Obama's comments is:

Lasting peace requires more than a long cease-fire. And that's why I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security. Senator Mitchell will carry forward this commitment, as well as the effort to help Israel reach a broader peace with the Arab world that recognizes its rightful place in the community of nations.

I should add that the Arab Peace Initiative contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now -- now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiatives promised by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all.

Biden is doing his share as well to lay the foundation for acceptance of the Saudi Plan. On February 7th, he said at the Munich Conference on Security Policy that:

we must lay the foundation for a broader peacemaking effort. In the past -- well, look at it this way -- it's long time passed for us to secure a just, two-state solution. We will work to achieve it. And we'll work to defeat extremists who perpetuate the conflict. And in building on positive elements of the Arab Peace Initiative put forward by Saudi Arabia, we'll work toward a broader regional peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, and we'll responsibly draw down our forces that are in Iraq in the process.

The latest read on Obama's support for the Saudi Initiative comes on April 3rd from The Jerusalem Post:

On Thursday night, US President Barack Obama reiterated his support for the Saudi Mideast peace initiative in a meeting with King Abdullah, the White House said in a statement.

The full text of the White House release is:

The President met with King Abdullah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia today in London. The leaders reaffirmed the long-standing, strong relationship between the two countries. They discussed international cooperation regarding the global economy, regional political and security issues, and cooperation against terrorism. The President reiterated his appreciation for Saudi Arabia's leadership in promoting the Arab Peace Initiative. He and King Abdullah agreed to continue close consultations on a range of bilateral and regional issues.

Obama may not have come straight out and declared that the Saudi Initiative is the way to go, but neither has Obama--contrary to what Dennis Ross appeared to say--dropped the idea entirely.

The basics of the peace initiative as provided in The Beirut Declaration are:

A. Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon.

B. Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194.

C. Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.

In return the Arab states will do the following:

Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region

Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace

In other words, in exchange for Israel accepting indefensible borders, diluting the Israeli majority and creating an unstable terrorist state on its border--Israel will receive a peace similar to what it has now with Egypt, where the government-regulated press still comes out with anti-Israel material.

But this is the direction Obama appears to be headed.

UPDATE: At American Thinker, Leo Rennert discusses the same issue in more detail and discusses the consequences.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Saudi Peace Plan and Obama.

If Gaza Is Occupied, Why Are Kassams Still Being Fired?

When it comes to Israel, International Law has become a favorite tool for bashing the Jewish state. As a result, everyone has become an expert in International Law. During Operation Cast Lead, the term 'disproportionate force' was thrown around by Israel's critics to denounce any step Iserel would take to defend its children.

But the favorite term is 'occupation'--which, like 'disproportionate force', is taken out of context.

In reaction to a New York Times op-ed by George Bisharat of the University of California Hastings College of the Law, attacking Israel, Noah Pollak debunks Bisharat's anti-Israel claims--starting with the cornerstone of his attack:

Bishara doesn’t explain how it is conceivable under international law that Israel is still occupying Gaza, but consistency has never been the hobgoblin of international law fetishists. He cites the Fourth Geneva Convention elsewhere in his piece, so he must be familiar with its definition of occupation: “the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory.” As Dore Gold wrote in an analysis after the Gaza disengagement [Legal Acrobatics: The Palestinian Claim that Gaza is Still "Occupied" Even After Israel Withdraws],

what creates an “occupation” is the existence of a military government which “exercises the functions of government.” This is a confirmation of the older 1907 Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which state, “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.” The Hague Regulations also stipulate: “The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” What follows is that if no Israeli military government is exercising its authority or any of “the functions of government” in the Gaza Strip, then there is no occupation.

The way Noah Pollak takes apart Basharat's claims is instructive.

Read the whole thing.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Occupation and George Bisharat.

Remembering the Massacre of the Hadassah Convoy April 13, 1948

Remembering the Massacre of the Hadassah Convoy April 13, 1948

Dr. Alex Grobman

During World War II, the staff of Hadassah Hospital played a significant role in helping Allied military forces throughout the Middle East. They offered weekly lectures and meetings to British medical personnel that acquainted them with regional medical issues including blood diseases, jaundice, dysentery, anemia and high blood pressure. Courses were also given on how to deal with infestations of sand-flies, worms, poisonous snakes, mosquitoes and other disease carrying insects.

The Hebrew University’s Department of Bacteriology and Hygiene provided anti-typhus and anti-dysentery vaccines. The Zoology Department’s research on relapsing cave fever taught the British army to avoid encampments near caves.

Malaria was a major debilitating threat to Allied forces. As a result, the British Army established ten anti-malaria units that were sent to Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran, India, Burma, Greece and Italy in advance of their troops. Four of these units were under the command of Jewish malaria experts, who pioneered the use of aerial use of pesticides to kill nests of mosquitoes. Medical expertise was provided by the Parasitology Department.

While Hadassah and Hebrew University were assisting the British, Arabs led by the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin el-Husseini, were fighting a guerrilla war against the British and Jews. In late 1941, as a refugee in Berlin, the Mufti used radio broadcasts to urge Arabs to become fifth columns in the lands where they lived and to commit sabotage and to murder Allied troops and Jews.

His spies provided the Nazis with information about British troop movements. His reports also described successful acts of sabotage in the Middle East by many of his agents. They cut water pipes and fuel and telephone lines, and destroyed bridges and blew up railroads. He organized an Axis-Arab Legion, the Arabisches Freiheitskorps, who wore German uniforms with “Free Arabia,” patches. They were part of the German army, and were responsible for protecting the Nazi communication system in Macedonia and for hunting down American and British paratroopers who landed in Yugoslavia.

Once the partition of Palestine was approved by the United Nations on November 29, 1947, the violence against the Jews intensified. The equivalent of a Red Cross medical convoy comprised of non-combatants including doctors, nurses and university faculty and students was ambushed by Arabs in the Sheikh Jarrah section of Jerusalem. Although The British High Commissioner and the British Secretary of State personally gave their assurances that these convoys would be protected by British troops and police, seventy-eight Jews were murdered.

The attack, which lasted seven hours, began at 9:30 a.m. and took place less than 600 feet from the British military post. The British watched from the sidelines. Jewish appeals for help were ignored until mid-afternoon. But by then the Jews had either been burned alive in buses or shot. There were 28 survivors, only eight had no injuries.

Among the dead were the founders of the new faculty of medicine, a physicist, a philologist, a cancer researcher, the head of the university’s department of psychology, and an authority on Jewish law. A doctor who waited four years to marry the nurse he loved was killed when he went to say good bye to his patients before leaving on his honeymoon.

One victim, a doctor, treated the Arab peasants in the village of Isawiye on Mount Scopus two weeks prior to the attack. Yet Arabs claimed that the ambush was a heroic act, and the British had no business intervening even at the last-minute: They did not want a single Jewish passenger to remain alive.

Thousands of furious Jews attended the funeral and lined the streets of the procession. British indifference was responsible for this loss of life. The British Army dismissed the ambush as retaliation for an Irgun attack on the Arab village of Deir Yassin. Official Arab response was that they had heard that Jewish gangs were assembled near Hadassah Hospital and Hebrew University. R.M.Graves, the British appointed Chairman of the Jerusalem Municipal Commission, said “…the Arabs do not realize that the killing of doctors, nurses and university teachers was a dastardly outrage.”

Despite this sad and bloody piece of history, Hadassah has endured through hundreds of terrorist attacks and always has been there for the health of Jews and Arabs in the region.

Dr. Grobman is a historian with an MA and Ph.D. from the Hebrew University. He is the author of Nations United: How The UN Undermines Israel and the West. His latest book is on the legitimacy of Israel.

Sources used:

“Fortnightly Intelligence Newsletter” Number 66. (April 21, 1948), National British Archives; Philip Graves, Palestine, the Land of Three Faiths (London: Jonathan Cape, 1923); Rivka Ashbel, As Much As We Could Do (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press of The Hebrew University, 1989). Dov Joseph, The Faithful City: The Siege of Jerusalem 1948 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960). Harry Levin, Jerusalem Embattled: A Diary of the City Under Siege (London: Cassell, 1997).

Technorati Tag: Israel and Hadassah Convoy.

Marketing In Israel (Humor)

From an email:

Know your market.......

A disappointed Coca Cola salesman returns from his assignment to Israel. A friend asked, "Why weren't you successful with the Israelis?"

The salesman explained, "When I got posted, I was very confident that I would make it. But, I had a problem. I didn't know Hebrew. So, I planned to convey the message via 3 posters.


First poster: A man lying in the hot desert sand, totally exhausted.
Second poster: The man drinks Coca Cola.
Third poster: The man is now totally refreshed.

"These posters were pasted all over the place."

"That should have worked!!" said the friend.
"The heck it should have!!, said the salesman.
"I didn't realize that Israelis read from right to left!!!"

Technorati Tag: Israel and Humor.

Jews And The Stimulus Package--Of Nazi Germany

Jonathan Tobin writes about the attempt of some--particularly David Leonhardt of The New York Times--to support Obama's economic policies by defending FDR against those who claim that FDR's New Deal was not as effective as is claimed.

Leonhardt writes:

Every so often, history serves up an analogy that’s uncomfortable, a little distracting and yet still very relevant.

...More than any other country, Germany — Nazi Germany — then set out on a serious stimulus program. The government built up the military, expanded the autobahn, put up stadiums for the 1936 Berlin Olympics and built monuments to the Nazi Party across Munich and Berlin.

The economic benefits of this vast works program never flowed to most workers, because fascism doesn’t look kindly on collective bargaining. But Germany did escape the Great Depression faster than other countries.

In response, Tobin writes:

...I found it fascinating that in the course of Leonhardt’s latest piece on this issue, he saw it fit to prove the genius of stimulus spending by pointing to the example of the Third Reich.

That’s right. Leonhardt believes that Adolf Hitler’s building of the autobahn, facilities for the 1936 Olympics, and other public works projects such as monuments to the Nazi Party “helped Germany escape the Great Depression faster than other countries.” Unmentioned by Leonhardt was Hitler’s vast expansion of the German military (long before the United States expanded its own armed forces) as well as the wealth that accumulated to various official arms of the state from the theft of Jewish properties. Later in the same piece, Leonhardt also lauds America’s World War II mobilization as showing the genius of a stimulus, though he fails to mention that along with all the tanks, planes, and ships that were built, nearly 15 million Americans were also under arms during the war. That helped lower unemployment too. [emphasis added]

I was struck by the idea that part of the success of the economy of Nazi Germany was derived by what they did to the Jews in Germany at the time.

I am also struck by the lengths some will go to find redemption in evil.

When it comes to reviving a country's economy, history records that Mussolini was no slouch either:

Now with some backing Mussolini formed the National Fascist Party. With this power he was able to take over the government and declared a complete dictatorship. The Italy that was once falling apart was now back up on its feet. Mussolini was a dictator of the people. He built roads, harnessed rivers, increased production and ran the trains on time. The standard of living Italy was increasing and the people were loving him. He was someone the people could relate to he was a success story. From poverty to ruling the country and improving it on the way.

All can be forgiven when one is 'a dictator of the people.'

Back in November 2005, Steven Erlanger was already writing:

And yet, the budget deficit has been tamed, city employees are getting raises and more roads are being paved courtesy of the new party in power - Hamas.

...But in its short tenure, Hamas has also brought a new measure of modernity to this town of 45,000 people. It has tackled the budget and even predicts a surplus. It has introduced previously alien practices, like computerized bookkeeping and competitive bidding on city contracts, and has begun to investigate past corruption.

From dictators of the people to terrorists of the people.

Nazi Germany and Mussolini brought disaster to their people--and Hamas is doing the same.

Let's hope that in a democracy the long range results are better.

Technorati Tag: Stimulus and Global Economy.

Anecdote: Golda Meir On The PLO And UNESCO

Jay Nordlinger compares Obama's decision to join The UN Human Rights Council in the context of how the US withdrew both from The UNHRC and UNESCO. In a postscript to that post, Nordlinger recalls:

Bernard Lewis once told me a story about Golda Meir at Princeton. She did not give a speech. She just said, “Look, you know my views. You know my outlook on the world. I have been a public figure for a long time. Why don’t you just ask me some questions.”

So, during this session, someone said, “Why is it that the PLO belongs to UNESCO while Israel does not?” (Israel was forbidden to join, of course.) And Golda said, “Well, let’s see: ‘UNESCO’ stands for ‘United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.’ Obviously, the Palestinians have more to contribute to education, science, and culture than we do.”

 

Sometimes, sarcasm is the most effective tool in the box.

Technorati Tag: UNESCO and Golda Meir.

Avigdor Lieberman Speech: If The World Is Aghast, Why Is Daniel Pipes Elated? (Updated)

In Avigdor Lieberman's Brilliant Debut, Daniel Pipes finds a number of points in Avigdor Lieberman's first speech worthy of note. Among them:

The Road Map: The speech's most surprising piece of news is Lieberman's focus on and endorsement of the Road Map, a 2003 diplomatic initiative he voted against at the time but which is, as he puts it, "the only document approved by the cabinet and by the Security Council." He calls it "a binding resolution" that the new government must implement. In contrast, he specifically notes that the government is not bound by the Annapolis accord of 2007 ("Neither the cabinet nor the Knesset ever ratified it").

Implementing the Road Map: Lieberman intends to "act exactly" according to the letter of the Road Map, including its Tenet and Zinni sub-documents. Then comes one of his two central statements of the speech:

I will never agree to our waiving all the clauses - I believe there are 48 of them - and going directly to the last clause, negotiations on a permanent settlement. No. These concessions do not achieve anything. We will adhere to it to the letter, exactly as written. Clauses one, two, three, four - dismantling terrorist organizations, establishing an effective government, making a profound constitutional change in the Palestinian Authority. We will proceed exactly according to the clauses. We are also obligated to implement what is required of us in each clause, but so is the other side. They must implement the document in full.

Read the whole thing.

One can imagine how uncomfortable Lieberman has made Israel's critics: imagine saying point blank that Abbas and the PA have obligations of their own to fulfill--obligations that they agreed to in writing!

The world sees a second Palestinian state as a right--it is not, and never has been. 
The world wants to give a second Palestinian state away as a gift--without any precondition other than empty promises.

Giving a state to the Palestinian Arabs should amount to more than giving a dog to a child who promises to walk and feed it. The parents knows that inevitably they will end up cleaning behind the dog. In the case of the Palestinians, after the world hands over the state, it will be Israel that has to clean up the mess.

UPDATE: Check out Rick Richman, who notes that Lieberman apparently drew the wrath of the New York Times by quoting in Latin.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Avigdor Lieberman.

Video: Palestinians On Why They Left In 1948

This video comes from Pierre Rehov, who has made a number of Middle East documentaries, including The Road to Jenin, From The River To The Sea and Holy Land: Christians in Peril.

Check out Pierre Rehov's YouTube Accout for more videos.

Phyllis Chesler describes Pierre Rehov:

Pierre Rehov, a nom de guerre is, indeed, a resistance fighter; he resists the Islamist propaganda wars against Israel, the Jews, and the West by making films which document the truth. Many people will forever remember the awful Intifada of 2000, which preceded 9/11 by a year and which still continues to this day, through Rehov’s many films about it.

He is the documentarian of the Al-Aqsa Intifada; the filmmaker who showed us what Jenin was really about (The Road to Jenin), and who the suicide killers really are (Suicide Killers). Early on, in The Silent Exodus, Rehov also documented the story of Arab and North African Jews who were forced to flee their homelands. This is the largest and largely forgotten refugee “narrative” of the Muslim Middle East. It is also a film which Rehov has continued to improve and expand. And, in The Trojan Horse/Holy Land: Christians in Peril, he documents the persecution of Christians in the Islamist Middle East.l

Read the whole thing--and also check out his YouTube account.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Pierre Rehov.

Bat Ayin: All Muslims Who Kill Israelis Are Militants (Updated)

Haaretz waited hours before publishing a poll critical of Netanyahu.

Palestinian terrorists waited a little longer:

An ax-wielding Palestinian militant went on a rampage Thursday in a Jewish settlement in the West Bank, killing an Israeli 13-year-old and wounding a 7-year-old boy before fleeing the area.

The attack posed an important test for Israel's new prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who has promised a firm hand against militants and expressed skepticism about prospects for peace. Government spokesman Mark Regev called it a "senseless act of brutality against innocents."

The murdered boy has been identified as Shlomo Nativ.

This AP report refers to the attacker as a 'militant'; it is not till later in the article that we are told that the identity of the killer is not known and that a terrorist group took responsibility. Yet, despite the lack of confirmed information, the Muslim who killed a Jew is nothing more than a militant--"engaged in warfare; fighting; combating; serving as a soldier".

Does any Muslim who murders a Jew in Israel automatically get a pass from the media?

Apparently so:

Muslims who kill Israelis are militants--unless the deed is done by a piece of machinery that mysteriously gets possessed:

Bulldozer Goes on Rampage in Israel, Driver Killed

It is not until afterwards that a Muslim was behind the wheel--and we all know what that makes him:

A Palestinian driver rammed a construction vehicle into a bus and police car on a highway Thursday, wounding two officers before he was shot dead, police said, the latest in a string of attacks by militants using heavy machinery against Israeli targets [emphasis added]

A Muslim murderer is a militant; Israelis are merely targets--from the description, you wouldn't even know if the objective was a living being or an object.

And it goes without saying, as Elder of Ziyon points out, that the murderer of Shlomo Nativ in Bat Ayin will become a hero to the Palestinian Arabs.

And the media, that automatically dismisses the severity of the slaying of Shlomo Nativ as a militant act, is a party to the acceptance of such a heinous act as something noble.

It is worth noting that Roget's Thesaurus apparently has not yet caught up to the nuances in the word militant, equating the word with 'activist, belligerent, combatant, demonstrator, fighter, objector, partisan, protester, rioter, warrior'--but not terrorist. (Though it does equate murder with terrorism)

For those who may be interested in facts, Soccer Dad notes a piece of history unlikely to be picked up by eitherthe media or other apologists:

What's important to remember as part of Gush Etzion, (the Etzion bloc) Bat Ayin was occupied territory, from 1948 to 1967. It was purchased by Shmuel Yosef Holtzman in 1930 and acquired by force by Jordanian forces during Israel's War for Independence.

When it comes to Palestinian terrorism, the facts--like the acts themselves--are twisted.

See also: Jameel, Israelly Cool, Treppenwitz and Israel Matzav

UPDATE: Jonathan Tobin provides some more history of the area where the terrorist attack took place:

But though I don’t doubt the murdered child, whose name was Shlomo Nativ, will be simply called a “settler” in most accounts, it isn’t likely that we will hear much about the history of the area where he lived.

You see, Bat Ayin is part of the Gush Etzion bloc of settlements. Far from being built after the 1967 war and thus, wrongly considered a violation of international law, Gush Etzion was settled by Jews prior to 1948. In 1948, the Gush Etzion bloc was attacked by Arab gangs and after a long siege, overwhelmed by the attackers who were aided by Jordan’s Arab Legion. Most of the Jewish inhabitants were massacred. After this territory was retaken by Israel in June 1967, some of the survivors of the 1948 attack returned to the area and began the work of restoring Jewish life to this part of historic Biblical Judea.

Technorati Tag: Bat Ayin and Terrorism and Shlomo Nativ.

Haaretz Poll on Netanyahu: Why Ask Why?

From the people who brought you accusations against the IDF from people who weren't there, comes the survey about Netanyahu that doesn't ask why they said what they said--Haaretz poll: 54% of public dissatisfied with new government

...perhaps because it has so many ministers and deputy ministers, or because so many of them have dubious portfolios.

The problem could also be the friction that accompanied the government's formation; two key cabinet members are suffering embarrassingly low support ratings.

Haaretz seems to be hardpressed to push their point. On the one hand, they compare Yuval Steinitz and Avigdor Lieberman:

 The result is that two leading ministers have poor approval ratings their first day in office.

This after having already admiting:

Finance Minister Steinitz received 22 percent in his favor, compared with 27 percent against. More than half the respondents said they simply do not know what they think of him - they do not know who Steinitz is.[emphasis added]

Then again, after less than 24 hours--how much do those polled know about how Netanyahu is going to pursue his agenda?

David Hazony notes the unusual degree of vagueness in the poll in general about just what it is that those polled are dissatisfied about:

In fact, there is no indication whether the dissatisfaction is coming from the Left or the Right, or both, or neither. As Shmuel Rosner pointed out, Netanyahu is steering his Right-heavy electorate towards dead center, at least as far as his opening-day rhetoric indicates. Nor does Haaretz mention whether dissatisfaction with the new government reflects opposition to its policies. With the media on the attack before Netanyahu has done anything, it’s not even clear whether 54 percent is a large number or, as we may suspect given the tone of Israeli public discourse, a pretty small one.

Apparently, according to Haaretz the 'grace period' given to Netanyahu is the amount of time it takes to bentsch.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Netanyahu and Bibi and Haaretz and Media Bias.

Are Both Bush's AND Obama's Approach To The Middle East Wrong?

That's the position taken in this analysis from JCPA:

The Obama Administration and Implications for Freedom and Democracy in the Middle East

Scott Carpenter

• The Obama administration marks the return of a so-called "realist" approach and an intentional downplaying of President Bush's vision of an America that would use its power actively to advance freedom around the world. Few will lament the demise of Bush's "Freedom Agenda," which came to be seen as dangerous naivete which risked the stability of the region and with it Israel's security.
  
  
• The height of folly was the Palestinian elections in January 2006 when, in contradiction to the Oslo Accords, Hamas was allowed to compete and ultimately win without laying down its weapons. Too late, the administration recognized it could no longer take the risk of bringing potentially hostile forces to power through democratic elections.
  
  
• Unfortunately, neither approach addresses the structural and demographic time bombs in the region. A youth "bulge" requires the creation of 100 million new jobs by 2010, according to the World Bank. Yet if economic reform is to be advanced and sustained, democratic development must also take place.
  
  
• The U.S. government can use Arab governments' insecurity regarding Iran as leverage to encourage real reform. This is particularly true for Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia - now engaged in the ideological fight of their lives with Iran and its reactionary allies. Only by establishing a new bargain with these regimes that stresses the need for them to respect internal civil and political rights, while forging a joint response to the reactionary threat, can the U.S. offer a true alternative to theocratic and minority rule.
  
  
• This is not to say that democratic and economic reform need be the priority for the West, but it must remain a priority, if otherwise intractable problems which pose a longer-term national security threat are to be addressed. Allowing autocrats to continue to get away with inaction will simply make the coming tidal wave of Iranian-style revolutions larger and more damaging, placing Israel's existence in even greater jeopardy than it is now.
  

Scott Carpenter, a fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs from 2004 to 2007. He served in Baghdad as director of the governance group for the Coalition Provisional Authority, where he initiated a wide array of democracy initiatives. Prior to that, he was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State in the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, involved in democracy promotion and human rights policy.

To view the full article, Click here.

The analysis appears to undercut Obama's approach to singlemindedly pursuing and 2-state solution, while justifying Netanyahu's economic approach and his stated intent of addressing the threat of Iran. At the same time, the approach does not actually rule out a second Palestinian statee--it merely addresses the necessary underlying issues that must be resolved first.

Technorati Tag: Middle East and Iran.

Which Netanyahu Took Office? (Updated)

Dr. Mitchell addresses the common perception of Netanyahu as an extreme right wing hawk--From an email from the AICE mail list (join here)

Posted with permission

MYTH

“Netanyahu is not an advocate for peace.”

FACT

Before even taking office, Benjamin Netanyahu is being caricatured as a right-wing extremist uninterested in peace when, in fact, he is a proven peacemaker who carried out the last large-scale Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and negotiated with even his sworn enemy Yasser Arafat. It was no surprise that Netanyahu staked out tough positions during his election campaign, emphasizing his commitment to Israel’s security, but after being chosen to serve as prime minister he also pledged his government a “partner for peace.”²⁴⁷

When Netanyahu became prime minister the first time, he also was vilified by the media and Arab leaders; yet, he entered talks withArafat and agreed to withdraw Israeli troops from Hebron. Both leaders signed the Protocol Concerning the Redeployment in Hebron on January 17, 1997, turning over to Palestinian jurisdiction more than 80 percent of the city of Hebron with the promise of further redeployment from the West Bank in the coming weeks.²⁴⁸ Here was the “right-wing” prime minister agreeing to give up territory in a city with a long Jewish religious and political history in the hope of achieving peace.

This same opponent of peace signed the Wye River Memorandum on October 23, 1998, at the White House. Netanyahu agreed to turn over another 13 percent of the remaining territory under full Israeli control to the Palestinians in return for their pledge to outlaw and combat terrorist organizations, prohibit illegal weapons and prevent weapons smuggling, and prevent incitement of violence andterrorism. Netanyahu’s government also agreed to resume permanent status negotiations.²⁴⁹ Unfortunately, the Palestinians once again failed to fulfill their promise to end terror and sabotaged the plan for additional Israeli redeployments.

Dr. Bard describes the concessions that Netanyahu showed a willingness to make the during his first term as Prime Minister, while at the same time describing why he feels Bibi cannot make similar concessions this time around:

Today, the political climate is very different. The Palestinians are in disarray. The Palestinian Authority is split, with Hamas terrorists controlling Gaza and Fatah clinging to power in the West Bank. The nominal president of the PA is considered a reasonable person who simply is impotent to negotiate or implement an agreement. In addition, Israelis are in no mood to make territorial compromises after seeing how the complete evacuation of Gaza brought them more terror rather than peace. Until the Palestinians demonstrate they are committed to peace, few Israelis are prepared to give up territory the Palestinians may use to launch rockets at Tel Aviv,Jerusalem or Ben-Gurion Airport.

In this context, Netanyahu is advocating that the next steps in the peace process focus on improving the lives of the Palestinians. He believes that by strengthening the Palestinian economy and promoting rapid growth, the average Palestinian civilian will have a greater stake in coexistence.²⁵⁰ While critics seeking to discredit Netanyahu suggest he is trying to avoid political concessions, Netanyahu has made clear this is not the case. “The economic track is not a substitute for political negotiations, it’s a complement to it,” he explained. “If we have a strong Israeli-Palestinian economic relationship, that’s a strong foundation for peace.”²⁵¹ He has also told international leaders that the Palestinians should have the rights to govern themselves as long as they do not threaten Israel²⁵² and at the Knesset’s commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the signing of the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, Netanyahu reaffirmed this commitment. “The government I am about to form will do all in its power to reach peace with our neighbor. … Every one of our neighbors who will be ready for peace will find our hands outstretched before them.”²⁵³

Footnotes

²⁴⁷“Netanyahu ‘will be peace partner,’” BBC, (March 25, 2009).
²⁴⁸“Chronological Review of Events Related to the Question of Palestine,” United Nations, (January 31, 1997).
²⁴⁹“The Wye River Memorandum,” US Department of State, (October 23, 1998).
²⁵⁰Raphael Ahren, “Netanyahu: Economics, not politics, is the key to peace,” Haaretz, (November 21, 2008).
²⁵¹Raphael Ahren, “Netanyahu promises peace talks,” Haaretz, (March 27, 2009).
²⁵²Herb Keinon, “Netanyahu refused to nix two state solution,” Jerusalem Post, (March 28, 2009).
²⁵³Shahar Ilan, “Netanyahu vows ‘every effort to reach viable peace,’” Haaretz, (March 30, 2009).

Join mail list

In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, Netanyahu also explained why it would be difficult to finalize a peace deal with the Palestinian Arabs, though he gives a different reason for the problem:

Netanyahu, for his part, promises to move forward on negotiations with the Palestinians, but he made it clear in our conversation that he believes a comprehensive peace will be difficult to achieve if Iran continues to threaten Israel, and he cited Iran’s sponsorship of such Islamist groups as Hezbollah and Hamas as a stumbling block.

Bibi also pointed to his previous term as Prime Minister as proof that he is no hawk:

When I noted that many in Washington doubt his commitment to curtailing Jewish settlement on the West Bank, he said, in reference to his previous term as prime minister, from 1996 to 1999, “I can only point to what I did as prime minister in the first round. I certainly didn’t build new settlements.”

In a previous post, Bush and Bibi, I suggested that BDS is likely to live on--this time as Bibi Derangement Syndrome. The world that considers Netanyahu a hawk will not change their mind about Bibi until they see him take actions that convince them otherwise.

The question is whether such actions will cause the Israeli voters who voted for right wing parties to then consider Netanyahu a traitor to the cause.

Bibi's political machinations that brought him this far have only begun.

UPDATE: Of course, nothing Netanyahu has or will do can satisfy his critics--short of wholeheartedly endorsing a second Palestinian state. Powerline points out:

The Washington Post's editors joined that chorus today. It noted that Netanyahu "has never endorsed the creation of a Palestinian state." Others like to put it that Netanyahu is "skeptical" about such a state.

What's missing in the Post's editorial, and in other such pieces, is any argument as to why Netanyahu should not be skeptical about a Palestinian state, or why he should endorse the creation of one unconditionally. The most rational response to the question of whether a new state should be established in an existing state's suburbs is "what kind of state." If the new state is to be a sworn enemy under the political control or sway of a terrorist organization, the most rational response, indeed the only rational response, is "no thank you."

Technorati Tag: Netanyahu.