Do Free Elections In Muslim Countries Favor Islamist Extremists?

Amir Taheri argues against the accepted wisdom:

The Islamist defeat in Pakistani confirms a trend that's been under way for years. Conventional wisdom had it that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the lack of progress in the Israel-Palestine conflict, would provide radical Islamists with a springboard from which to seize power through elections.

Analysts in the West used that prospect to argue against the Bush Doctrine of spreading democracy in the Middle East. These analysts argued that Muslims were not ready for democracy, and that elections would only translate into victory for hard-line Islamists.

The facts tell a different story. So far, no Islamist party has managed to win a majority of the popular vote in any of the Muslim countries where reasonably clean elections are held. If anything, the Islamist share of the vote has been declining across the board.

Taheri then goes on to give a survey of a variety of Muslim elections that support his thesis: in Jordan, Malaysia, Turkey, Kuwait, Algeria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan--and Hamas' victory in the 2006 elections:

In Gaza and the West Bank, Hamas -- the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood -- won the 2006 general election with 44% of the votes, far short of the "crushing wave of support" it had promised. Even then, it was clear that at least some of those who run on a Hamas ticket did not share its radical Islamist ideology. Despite years of misrule and corruption, Fatah, Hamas's secularist rival, won 42% of the popular vote.

I don't know--arguing by virtue of the fact that Hamas did not win an overwhelming victory is kind of underwhelming. By the same token, to have barely beat out such a motley group of corrupt politicians does not exactly give Hamas--and Islamist fundamentalists--a mandate.

Technorati Tag: Islamists.

Lebanese Respond To Threats Of War With Israel

With Nasrallah's threat of open war against Israel, many Lebanese feel they cannot afford another 'victory':

Dozens of residents interviewed in a number of villages across the region said that while they by no means support Israel, they are also not willing to pay a heavy price again in the event of another conflict.

"We have barely recovered from the 2006 war and if there is another conflict today, who is going to help us?" questioned Mohammed Srour, 49, from the border village of Aita-ash Shaab.

"This is all a game between the major powers and we are helpless in the face of all this," he added, raising his hands to the sky.

Then there are those Lebanese who take the opposite view--some actively, others resignedly:

In the town of Marjayoun, Mohammed Yassin has yet to finish rebuilding his home destroyed in 2006 but that is not important. "We're all behind Nasrallah because nothing but force will stop Israel," said the 38-year-old electrician.

Some, like Suleyman Muhieddin, whose Tyre home was also destroyed by Israeli bombardments, are taking the new threats of war with a grain of salt.

"After listening to Nasrallah's speech in which he threatened open war, I put down all my tools," he said. "I figured that in the event of a new war, they could just compensate me in one go for both conflicts."

Nasrallah is not going to significantly improve his position in Lebanon with another war.

Technorati Tag: Lebanon.

OU Job Fair III-March 12th-Closing Out Soon

From an email:

Register NOW before it's too late- OU Job Fair III-March 12th-Closing out soon

Applicants the OU Job Fair is almost "sold-out" please, if you have not
done so already register now at http://www.ou.org/jobs/job_bank_reg/job
or at www.ou.org/jobs click applicants register under OU Job Fair III,
March 12th.

Learn how the Job Fair works and see why close to 50% of last Job Fair
attendees received Job Offers at or right after the Fair. Learn how it
works by going to the above link

Employers, we are now "SOLD-OUT". Please contact me for upcoming Job
Fair information at jobs @ou.org

Listed below are the opened, ready and available jobs that are being
featured at the upcoming Job Fair (subject to change). For a brief
description of these jobs please go to www.ou.org/jobs and hit the link
View Available Jobs at the Fair under the Job Fair banner. Change your
life-forever. Join the Job Fair NOW!

Featured Jobs

Account Executive – Marketing Company-Administrative Assistant-Art
Director- Assistant Director of Development- Assistant
Teachers-Assistant Teachers/Early childhood-Bookkeeper/AP/AR

-Campus Coordinators-Campus Rabbis –Case Manager –Case Worker-Chief
Operating Officer-Cook-Customer Service Representatives-Day Habilitation
Trainers-Deputy Director of Technology Security-Development
Associate-Direct Care Workers/Counselors-Director Home Care Services,
Healthcare Staffing- Director of community service-Director of
Foodservice Sales-Director of Hospital wide education (Bklyn
only)-Director of Operations-Enrollment Manager-Events
Coordinator-Executive Assistant-Executive Director-Finance
Positions/Real Estate/Non-profit-Food Pantry-Financial Analyst –
Fundraisers-Home Health Aide-Intake Specialist (Bklyn Only)-Internet
Worker (Bklyn only)-IT Technician/Help Desk-Information Technology-Magic
e-Developers-Maintenance/Handyman-Market Research Analyst-Medicaid
Service Coordinator- Medical Escort-Occupational
Therapists-Office/Follow-up Manager-Personal Assistant (bklyn
only)-Physical Therapists-Principals, Heads of School, Directors and
Senior Educators- Product Copywriter-Project Managers- Project Manager
(Web)-Psychologists- Public Relations Coordinator -National Jewish
non-profit-Publications Editor-Receptionist (bklyn only)-Recruiter/Home
Health Care Agency-Recruiter/Human Resources-Registered
Nurses-Residential Habilitation (Bklyn Only)- Res Hab
Supervisor-Residence Director-Residence Manager-RN Educator (Bklyn
Only)-Sales Representatives –Salesman (Bklyn only)-Secular Studies
Principal (Male only)-Senior Media Relations Director-Site
Director-Social Workers-Software Developers-Speech
Therapists-Superintendent-Tax Accountants-Teachers-Teachers/Early
Childhood-Teachers-(male only)- Team Leaders-Vice President for
Community Services – Developmentally disabled agency-Web Developer
(Mid-level)-Web Developer Wizard (Entry-level)-School
Directors/Assistant Directors – and more to come

Apply NOW!

Be prepared for your Job Fair interview, or your next interview
anywhere. Join the March 3rd Nationally Broadcast Work-Seminar on "How
to take an intervew" present by professional HR and acting coaches, who
will teach you how body language can get you a job. Sign up now at
http://www.ou.org/jobs/article/C1294, left hand side of page. Fill out
the form and get the confidence you need to land a job

FMI contact
Michael Rosner
jobs@ou.org

Technorati Tag: Jobs.

Paraguay Pride--In Mengele

He's not a hometown boy, but nonetheless...

No one shares Ilg’s enthusiasm for the Nazis — no one here seems to know what a Jew is, let alone why they might hate one — but oddly many seem to like the idea that Mengele might have walked among them for a few years. They take a strange, solemn pride in their Nazi: The Mengele legend connects their country to the world. Paraguay's big neighbors, Argentina and Brazil, get so much attention. Here is a confirmed connection to the most important event in modern history, and it belongs not just to Paraguay, but to one of Paraguay’s most remote and obscure settlements, a sizzling steambath and open-air entomology lab abandoned by even its own Fatherland.

[Hat tip: Instapundit]

Technorati Tag: Josef Mengele and Paraguay.

Overwhelming Majority Of Israeli Arabs Want To Serve In Sherut Leumi

In Israel, The National Service Program is the 3rd possibility--between military service and exemption--used mostly by Orthodox women.

Until now.

David Hazony has a post at Contentions about the effort to expand the National Service Program to include Israeli Arabs "as a way to help integrate them into mainstream Israel, help their economic situation, and remove the stigma of disloyalty."

Arab leaders--including Arab members of the Knesset are opposed to the idea:

Balad Faction Chairman MK Jamal Zahalka insisted that any Arab who volunteered for national service will be considered "leprous" and the Arab society will "vomit him out."

Haaretz reports that Israeli Arabs are not deterred:

Poll: 75% of Israeli Arab youth back national service

Seventy-five percent of Israeli Arabs between the ages of 16 and 22 support voluntary national service, according to a poll released yesterday.

...The poll found that, once given basic information about national service conditions and its goals, not only Israeli Arab youth were supportive of the idea, but so were 71.9 percent of all Arab men and 83.8 percent of all Arab women.

...Just over 27 percent of Arab youth said they would volunteer even in the face of family members' opposition, while 35 percent said they would volunteer despite the opposition of town leaders. Forty-two percent said they would volunteer even if the majority of Israeli Arab leaders express their opposition.

Sixty-eight percent of those who support national service said they are in favor because it contributes to the country and Israeli society, while 89.7 percent said they support the project because it would lead to greater equality between Arabs and Jews.

What do these poll results reveal? Hazony writes:

This is astonishing on a number of fronts: First, it suggests that what most people think about the loyalty of Israeli Arabs may be just wrong. Second, it suggests an enormous disparity between what elected officials are saying on a central issue of political identity, and what their own voters actually believe–which makes one wonder what the point of all those elections was. Third, it suggests that Israeli Arab leaders are much more interested in appearing to be a part of the Arab world than in advancing the actual interests of their constituents–which makes one wonder where their funding must be coming from. Finally, it suggests that, contrary to proper democratic functioning, there is something preventing more reasonable candidates from being fielded among the Israeli Arab community.

It is also indicates that once again, everyone is all too eager to accept what self-serving Arab leaders are claiming.

Crossposted at Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israeli Arabs.

B'Nefesh Pre-Aliyah Workshops: March 9 in NY and NJ

From an email:

B'Nefesh Pre-Aliyah Workshops - SAVE THE DATE

NEW JERSEY – March 9th
*Young Couples
*Retirees
*General Aliyah

Crowne Plaza Hotel, 401 S Van Brunt Street, Englewood

10am-12:30pm.

------------------------------

NEW YORK – March 9th
*Young Couples
*Retirees
*Physicians

Doubletree Hotel, 135-30 140th Street, JFK Airport
4pm-6:30pm

For more information and to register for these events:
www.nbn.org.il/seminars

***Free babysitting provided during all workshops***

Technorati Tag: Israel and Aliyah.

Without Israeli Opposition, US Embassy Would Be In Jerusalem

From Arutz Sheva:

Former Israeli Consul General to the US Yoram Ettinger revealed at the Jerusalem Conference Wednesday that Israel prevented a move that would have relocated the US Embassy to Jerusalem.

“The US Senate was ready to do away with the waiver that allows the president to defer the moving of the embassy to Jerusalem,” Ettinger said during a round-table discussion at the Jerusalem Conference. “There were over 80 senators – enough to override any [presidential] veto.”

It was the Israeli government, Ettinger said, who intervened on behalf of leaving the Embassy in Tel Aviv. “The problem is that both houses of congress have been firmer on Jerusalem than any Israeli government since 1993.”

Ettinger did not elaborate which Israeli government it was that told Congress to stand down.

Read the whole thing.

Question: Are you surprised by this? If not, what does that say about the actions of Olmert and of the Israeli government over the last number of years?
At some point, peace negotiations require assuming a position of strength

So what was this Jerusalem Conference?

When the Jerusalem Conference was first established, one of the motivations was the left-wing slant of the Herzliya Conference, which went to the extent of not hosting even one opponent of a Palestinian state in 2004 - the year then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon unveiled his Disengagement Plan during the keynote address. Jerusalem Conference Chairman Robert Rechnitz said, however, that the Jerusalem Conference is not seeking to be a sectarian counter-balance, but to be the new consensus - to return Jerusalem to center stage with a diverse meeting of the minds that befits a discussion on the Jewish future taking place in Israel’s eternal capital.

See schedule of what was discussed (February 19-20) here.
More info, some videos and photos here.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Jerusalem.

Has Your Child Had a C.M.?

My Daughter: Abba, there's a C.M. today!
Me: A what?
My Daughter: A C.M.!
Me: What's a C.M.?
My Daughter: In school...I have to bring in food for the C.M...we finished the Perek today.
Me: Oh...you mean a siyum.
My Daughter: That's what I said--a C.M.!

Can Abbas Just Declare A Palestinian State?

In Wednesday's news:

Palestinians should declare an independent state unilaterally if peace talks with Israel continue to falter, a top aide to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas said on Wednesday.

It was not immediately clear if Abbas shared the view of Yasser Abed Rabbo, but Saeb Erekat, another senior Palestinian negotiator, voiced opposition to any unilateral declaration of independence.

According to a paper by Tal Becker of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, the concept of international law--so often quoted as a muzzle on actions taken by Israel--may in fact oppose the sudden declaration of a Palestinian State at this time.

Here is a summary of that paper:

International Recognition of a Unilaterally Declared Palestinian State: Legal and Policy Dilemmas

Executive Summary

Palestinian representatives have repeatedly threatened to unilaterally declare an independent Palestinian state. Indeed, following the conclusion of the Camp David Peace Summit, Palestinian leaders have re-emphasized their purported right to declare statehood unilaterally. In the event of such a declaration, states will need to consider whether the Palestinian entity is, in fact, eligible for recognition as a sovereign state.

The Palestinian entity does not become a state under international law merely by a unilateral declaration to that effect. To be eligible for recognition it must satisfy specific legal criteria. Indeed, under international law, the recognition of an entity which clearly fails to meet these criteria constitutes an unlawful and invalid act.

Effective and Independent Governmental Control

An entity claiming to be a state must possess an effective and independent government. It must exercise all the powers of a state independently of any outside governmental authority.

The Palestinian Authority does not function as an independent government. In accordance with the Israel-PLO agreements which established it, the Palestinian Authority constitutes an autonomous body to which only temporary and limited powers have been transferred, many of which are exercised with the cooperation or approval of Israel. Indeed, pending the outcome of permanent status negotiations, it is Israel which, under the Israeli-Palestinian agreements, retains overriding residual authority in West Bank and Gaza Strip territory. It is, therefore, not surprising that elementary attributes of sovereign government, such as responsibility for external security, control over the airspace, and security responsibility at all border crossings and terminals are not transferred to the Palestinian entity but remain under Israel's sole jurisdiction.

A Palestinian claim to statehood can only be valid with respect to those areas over which it exercises effective and independent control. Such control is lacking even in Area A and the Gaza Strip, where more extensive powers and responsibilities have been transferred to the Palestinian Authority. The absence of the requisite degree of control is all the more evident in Areas B and C, where Palestinian jurisdiction is of a more limited nature, and over which Israel continues to exercise significant authority. Similarly, a Palestinian declaration of statehood which purported to include parts of Jerusalem within the territory of a Palestinian "state" would be legally meaningless in light of the absence of any Palestinian authority over Jerusalem, and the actual exercise of Israeli sovereignty and jurisdiction in all parts of the city. Indeed, as the Israel-PLO agreements make clear, the issue of Jerusalem is reserved as a subject for permanent status negotiations, and no powers or responsibilities have been transferred to the Palestinian Authority in Jerusalem during the interim period.

The Possession of Defined Territory

International law requires that a state be able to show that it has sovereign title over the territory in question and that the territory is adequately defined.

As far as the requirement for sovereign title is concerned, the Palestinians have relied variously on the alleged illegality of the Palestine Mandate and on UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of 1947 (the Partition Resolution). But neither of these positions finds support in international law. The legality of the mandate, which provided for the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish national home, was repeatedly affirmed by international bodies such as the Council of the League of Nations and the Permanent Court of International Justice. Indeed, the United Nations Special Commission on Palestine concluded that the Palestinians "have not been in possession of [Palestine Mandate territory] as a sovereign nation" and that there were "no grounds for questioning the validity of the Mandate for the reason advanced by the Arab states."

The Palestinian dependence on Resolution 181 is equally untenable. For decades the Arab states and the Palestinians themselves declared this resolution legally invalid and ensured the irrelevance of its recommendations by mounting an armed attack on the fledgling State of Israel. In order to respond to the new realities created by this and subsequent attempts to destroy the State of Israel, the UN itself abandoned the proposal contained in Resolution 181, replacing it with Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which have become the accepted basis for the peace process.

The Palestinian entity would not be able to show that sovereignty is vested in its hands. It would also be unable to demonstrate that the territory in question is adequately defined. While international law does not require that the boundaries of a nascent state be accurately delimited in their entirety, the territory must have a sufficient consistency which is conducive to independent governmental control. At present, the areas under Palestinian control are highly fragmented and non-contiguous. Indeed, the Palestinian Authority's powers do not correspond to these portions of territory; it has certain responsibilities in areas not under its territorial control and lacks many in areas which are.

The Capacity to Freely Engage in Foreign Relations

Unless an entity can engage in foreign relations in an unrestricted and independent manner it cannot claim to be a state.

Under the Israeli-Palestinian agreements the issue of foreign relations has been expressly reserved for permanent status negotiations. Accordingly, these agreements specifically provide that, until the conclusion of these negotiations, the Palestinian Authority "will not have powers and responsibilities in the sphere of foreign relations." This is not just the situation on paper. As a matter of practice the Palestinian Authority is incapable of freely engaging in foreign relations with other states. It should be noted that in order to enable international aid and assistance to the Palestinian autonomy, Israel agreed that arrangements could, in certain cases, be made by the PLO. However, these arrangements are restricted to specified fields where it is not unusual for non-sovereign autonomous entities to have some degree of foreign contacts. Additionally, all such arrangements are made not by the Palestinian Authority but by the PLO.

Effective Control Over a Permanent Population

Under international law this criterion of statehood requires that the permanent population of the territory be under the effective and independent control of its own government.

As noted, while the Palestinian Authority does exercise significant powers over Palestinian West Bank and Gaza Strip residents, its jurisdiction cannot be regarded as independent or comprehensive. Moreover, it has been held that where, as in this case, there are doubts as to the territorial scope of an entity, its claim to a permanent population is necessarily also in doubt.

In more recent international practice, several additional criteria have come to be viewed as prerequisites for statehood. Under these contemporary criteria, in addition to satisfying the traditional elements of statehood outlined above, an entity claiming to be eligible for recognition must also show that it has not been established as the result of illegality, that it is willing and able to abide by international law, that it constitutes a viable entity, and that its claim to statehood is compatible with the right to self-determination.

If an entity claiming to be a state has emerged as the result of illegality it is not eligible for recognition. In fact, under international law, states are under a specific legal duty not to grant recognition to such an entity.

In order to justify their unilateral claim to statehood, Palestinian representatives argue that the obligation to refrain from unilateral acts will have expired by September 13, 2000, the new target date set for a permanent status agreement under the Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum. The argument that this obligation is limited in time is indefensible. The undertaking not to attempt to alter the legal status of the territory by unilateral acts but to resolve all issues by negotiation constitutes an independent and ongoing Israeli-Palestinian commitment on which the entire peace process is founded. Indeed, this undertaking was made in separate letters sent to Israeli leaders by Chairman Arafat, which are independent of the Interim Agreement and not subject to any timetable. Significantly, this obligation was restated as recently as July 25, 2000. In the Trilateral Statement issued at the conclusion of the Camp David Peace Summit, Prime Minister Barak and Chairman Arafat reaffirmed "the importance of avoiding unilateral actions that prejudge the outcome of the negotiations and that their differences will be resolved only by good faith negotiations."

Moreover, there is no specific indication in the agreements signed that the interim arrangements expire on a specific date. On the contrary, the interim arrangements continue to apply until permanent status negotiations are concluded. This is why the prohibition against unilateral acts is not linked to a specific date but to "the outcome of permanent status negotiations." It is also why the Interim Agreement provides a date for its entry into force, but does not stipulate a date for its conclusion. Any alternative interpretation would leave the parties without a framework to regulate their relations and effectively signal the end of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Indeed, as a matter of practice, the parties have continued to view the interim arrangements as being in force even after May 4, 1999, the original date when the permanent status agreement was to have been concluded, and have signed subsequent agreements which imply that these arrangements are to continue in place until a final agreement is reached.

A unilateral declaration would not be the only illegality associated with the Palestinian claim to statehood. Indeed, any Palestinian attempts to satisfy the criteria for statehood on the basis of conduct which violates their legal undertakings should prevent their recognition as a sovereign state.

Following the Camp David Peace Summit, it seems clear that Palestinian intransigence is now delaying the conclusion of a permanent status agreement. While Israel expressed its willingness to make painful compromises, a reciprocal Palestinian commitment to flexibility and compromise was lacking with respect to key issues. In these circumstances, it would be inequitable to allow the Palestinian side to rely on the absence of a permanent status agreement so as to justify a unilateral declaration of statehood. Both as a matter of law and as a matter of policy, the Palestinians should be prevented from using the fact that the Camp David Summit ended without an agreement as a pretext to justify unilateral actions which violate existing Palestinian commitments.

Recognition of a unilaterally declared Palestinian state sends a clear message to all ethnic communities with claims for independence that they can accomplish their goals by unilateral measures without the need for genuine negotiations. It suggests that any ethnic group is entitled to disregard the concerns of other states and nations and unilaterally assert its claim to independence.

There is clear evidence that the Palestinian entity fails to satisfy either the traditional or the additional criteria for statehood, and as such should be denied recognition. Moreover, a Palestinian unilateral declaration of statehood would undermine the very foundations of the peace process. Such an act not only jeopardizes the prospects of reaching a just and comprehensive peace, but it also risks plunging the region into instability and conflict.

The international community should refuse to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state because such an entity poses a significant threat to the stability and security of the region. In so doing, the international community would be fulfilling its fundamental obligation of maintaining international peace and security. Concerns regarding regional peace and security motivated the international community to withhold recognition from the former republics of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union until there were guarantees of stability. These same concerns should lead to a refusal to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state and to demand that the future status of the Palestinian entity be resolved by negotiation.

Read the whole thing.

Technorati Tag: Palestinian State.

Jerusalem Doing Well In Monopoly Voting--Israel, Not So Much

The voting continues for the top 20 countries to be listed in a new version of Monopoly (instructions here). To get the full picture of the problem--Jerusalem's name appears in the voting without the name 'Israel'--you cannot do better than Israel Matzav on the original problem and Hasbro's reaction to and resolution of the issue.

The issue of associating Jerusalem with Israel went to the Canadian Supreme Court this month:

A Canadian immigrant has lost his court battle to have his birthplace, Jerusalem, recognized as part of Israel on his passport as Ottawa insists it must remain neutral on the contested holy city.

The Supreme Court refused Thursday to hear the appeal of Eliyahu Veffer, who immigrated to Canada about 12 years ago and wanted his Canadian passport to show he was born in "Jerusalem, Israel."

Meanwhile, last year in the US someone brought a lawsuit on this point as well:

A law passed by Congress and signed by President Bush clearly requires the State Department to record Israel as the place of birth in passports for American citizens born in Jerusalem, but that requirement cannot be enforced by the courts, a federal judge ruled yesterday.

For the second time, Judge Gladys Kessler threw out a lawsuit brought by an American couple, Ari and Naomi Zivotofsky, on behalf of their son, Menachem, who was born in Jerusalem in 2002. The judge said the State Department's refusal to list Israel on the boy's passport presented a "nonjusticiable political question" that courts are required to turn away. The State Department contends that marking Menachem's place of birth as "Jerusalem, Israel" would upset long-standing American policy that the sovereignty of Jerusalem is an issue to be determined in peace talks between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Arabs.

The law referred to is signed is the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for 2003, and both the State Department and President Bush have made a point of working around it:

President Bush's signature Monday on a law that requires the United States to identify the holy city as the capital of Israel is sure to cause both elation and despair.

Mr. Bush – who supported Israel's claim to Jerusalem as its capital in his 2000 campaign – says he takes the new law as an expression of "the sense of Congress," and that despite the law, US policy on Jerusalem "has not changed." That means the US still officially sees Jerusalem as a "permanent-status issue" to be negotiated between the Israelis and the Palestinians in a final peace accord.

Little did Hasbro know what they were stepping into.

Technorati Tag: Jerusalem and Hasbro and Monopoly.