Israel News

Google co-founder Brin praises Israeli innovation in technology, environment

2008-05-15T10:34:00.000Z

Last update - 13:56 15/05/2008
Google co-founder lauds Israeli innovation in tech, environment
By Lior Kodner, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service

Google co-founder Sergey Brin on Thursday lauded Israeli innovations in technology and environmental efforts, saying Israel "takes our climate challenges very seriously."

Brin, visiting as a delegate to President Shimon Peres' Presidential Conference, told Haaretz that these challenges have "great geopolitcal ramifications on this country, in addition to environmental ones."

He noted that Israel's leading efforts in the field of sustainable energy, saying: "Obviously in Israel they need to innovate with water and things like that. I was really intrigued to see drip irrigation. I just realized that came out of Israel."

Brin gave particular attention to Israel's work in environmentally friendly transportation.

A prototype of the world's first fully electric car was demonstrated for the first time on Sunday in Tel Aviv, by Israeli entrepreneur Shai Agassi.

Developers hope the car will revolutionize transportation in the country and serve as a pilot for the rest of the world. If all goes as planned, Israel will be the first country to have electric cars on its highways in large numbers in the next few years.

Brin also spoke about new projects ongoing at Google, including the "huge range of efforts" being made on mobile technology and the patience needed in the field.

"I think it takes a while to devlop the technology, to devlop,
to educate advertisers about it," he said. "We have to bootstrap everything. our search based targeted ads took a number of yearsand people are expecting overnight that you work a miracle. It is a combination of technology, advertising networks, abd user expectations. All those things have to come together and that takes time," he said.

During his visit, Brin toured Jewish sites, including the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem.

Brothers in Arms - All Israeli soldiers

2008-05-15T05:15:00.000Z

My brother, Beduin tracker
nachman shai , THE JERUSALEM POST May. 14, 2008

Last Wednesday, Remembrance Day, I had the honor of speaking on behalf of the UJC at a memorial ceremony in Jerusalem for Israel's 22,437 fallen. I would like to share those words with you:

It is a sad reality in our region that the wars do not stop for one moment. Sometimes they are at a higher intensity, sometimes at a lower one, but soldiers fall all the time, and the pain and grief are deep.

Since last Remembrance Day another 132 families have joined the "bereaved family" of the State of Israel. Among the soldiers who fell over the past year were three non-Jewish soldiers: First Sgt. Sayef Bisan from the Druse village of Jatt, Sgt. Menhash Albaniat, from the Beduin settlement of Kuseife, and a third soldier, whose name we do not know and whose picture we have never seen. All that appeared in the newspaper was a silhouette.

The Beduin tracker fell in a terrorist ambush next to the fence dividing Gaza and Israel, alongside his Jewish comrades; he had volunteered for service in the IDF.

We do not differentiate between the blood of fallen soldiers, whether Jews or non-Jews, but it struck me that although it is known who this soldier is and where he came from, for the Israeli public, he is an Unknown Soldier. His family requested that neither his name, nor his picture, nor even where he lived be published. All we know is that he left behind two wives and seven children, and that on the day he fell he was supposed to become engaged for the third time. No doubt, his family feared that they may be harmed in some way.

BEDUIN TRACKERS go ahead of patrols. They are the first out there, and they are the first to be injured or killed. They are aware of the danger; but nonetheless, they serve - voluntarily. No one can replace them. No one can identify the tracks and signs over the hundreds of kilometers of dirt roads along Israel's borders the way they do. It takes trained and experienced eyes, and this is what the Beduin trackers have been doing better than anyone else, generation after generation.

We frequently speak of the "covenant" between us, the Jews, and them, the Druse and Beduin. It is a pledge between those who are destined to live together in this country and give up their lives for it.

But these people hear very little from us about the covenant of life, the covenant between people who are supposed to build their lives alongside one another.

The Beduin tracker who fell on the Israel-Gaza border lived in an unrecognized village. Tomorrow, bulldozers could come to demolish his house, leaving his two wives and seven children homeless.

On this day, we must think of him, of his friends and also of ourselves, and we must promise to cultivate solidarity and mutual commitment - ours and theirs - not just in order to die for our country, but to live for it, together.

Thank you my brother, Beduin tracker.

The writer is senior vice president and director-general of UJC Israel and a former IDF spokesman.

Dealing wih terror - not just a Jewish problem

2008-05-15T05:13:00.000Z

The gathering storm, and beyond

Irwin Cotler,

THE JERUSALEM POST May. 14,

The incendiary hate language emanating from Ahmadinejad's Iran - in which Israel is referred to as "filthy bacteria" and a "cancerous tumor" and Jews are characterized as "a bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians" - is only the head wind of the gathering storm confronting Israel on its 60th anniversary.

Indeed, we are witnessing, and have been for some time, a series of mega-events, political earthquakes that have been impacting not only upon Israel and world Jewry but upon the human condition as a whole.

These include:

state-sanctioned incitement to genocide in Ahmadinejad's Iran (and I use that term to distinguish it from the many publics and peoples in Iran who are themselves the object of massive state repression) dramatized by the parading of a Shihab-3 missile in the streets of Teheran draped with the emblem "Wipe Israel off the map";

symmetrical terrorist militias confronting Israel, in particular Hamas in the south and Hizbullah in the north. These are not simply - though that would be threatening enough - terrorist in their instrumentality, but genocidal in their purpose as they openly and avowedly seek the destruction of Israel and anti-Jewish in their ideology. Both, by their own acknowledgement, demonize Judaism and Jews, not just Israel and the Israeli, as "the sons of monkeys and pigs" and "defilers of Islam";

the globalization of a totalitarian, radical Islam that threatens not only Jews and Israel but international peace and security, while warning Muslims who seek peace with Israel that they will "burn in the Umma of Islam";

the fragility, even erosion, of the Lebanon-Hizbullah divides, aided and abetted by the Iranian-Syrian pincer movements and further exacerbated in the present Lebanese-Hizbullah warfare;

the phenomenon of radicalized home-grown extremism, fuelled by Internet incitement, threatening the security of Jewish communities in the Diaspora;

exploding energy prices, with oil at $120 a barrel - six times what it was just six years ago - with the windfall billions of petrodollars encouraging and financing rogue states like Iran. Every $1 increase in the price of a barrel of oil represents millions more in the coffers of Iran;

the ugly canard of double loyalty, where the Jewish and Israeli lobbies are accused of acting in a matter inimical to the American and European national interest, as if it is somehow "un-American" or "un-European" to petition government for redress of grievances, an Orwellian politics of intimidation that chills free speech and public advocacy;

the trahison des clercs - betrayal of the elites - of which the UK is a case study, exemplified in the calls for academic, trade union, journalist, medical and intellectual boycotts of Israeli and Jewish nationals;

the singling out of Israel for differential and discriminatory treatment in the international arena, as when the UN Human Rights Council,, the repository for human rights standards-setting, adopted 10 resolutions of condemnation against one member state of the international community, Israel, in its first year of operation alone; while the major human rights violators - Iran, Sudan, China - enjoyed exculpatory immunity; and

the emergence of a new, escalating, global, virulent and even lethal anti-Semitism.

WITH ISRAEL'S 60th anniversary, these mega-events have not only intensified but congealed into what might be called a "gathering storm," finding expression in the two theses that underpin this article.

First, that this gathering storm appears to be without parallel or precedent since 1938, suggesting thereby that 2008 is reflective and reminiscent of 1938. The second thesis, which reflects my own position and is not inconsistent with the previous notion, is that whatever 2008 may be, it is not 1938.

Simply put, there is a Jewish state today that is an antidote to the vulnerabilities of 1938. There is a Jewish people with untold moral, intellectual, economic and political resources. There are non-Jews prepared to join the Jewish people in common cause, seeing the cause of Israel not simply as a Jewish cause, but - with all its imperfections - as a just cause.

Nor is Israel is isolated or alone. It has important friends and allies: for example, the United States, Canada, Germany and France, to name a few; and it has diplomatic relations with the two emerging superpowers, China and India. There are peace treaties, however imperfect, with Egypt and Jordan.

In a word, if one looks at Israel at 60 in this global configuration, 2008 is, even with an admittedly gathering storm not unlike 1938, nonetheless very different from the Thirties.

It is important, therefore, that Israel not be viewed as an Andy Warhol of the international media, or what passes as virtual reality on the Internet of the day. Israel is not simply a snapshot at age 60, nor a fragment frozen in time; nor is it anchored only in 60 years of Israeli statehood, or 120 years of Zionism.

For Israel, rooted in the Jewish people, as an Abrahamic people, is a prototypical First Nation or aboriginal people, just as the Jewish religion is a prototypical aboriginal religion, the first of the Abrahamic religions.

IN A WORD, the Jewish people is the only people that still inhabits the same land, embraces the same religion, studies the same Torah, hearkens to the same prophets, speaks the same aboriginal language - Hebrew - and bears the same aboriginal name, Israel, as it did 3,500 years ago.

Israel, then, is the aboriginal homeland of the Jewish people across space and time. It is not just a homeland for the Jewish people, a place of refuge, asylum and protection. It is the homeland of the Jewish people, wherever and whenever it may be; and its birth certificate originates in its inception as a First Nation, and not simply, however important, in its United Nations international birth certificate.

The State of Israel, then, as a political and juridical entity, overlaps with the "aboriginal Jewish homeland"; it is, in international legal terms, a successor state to the biblical, or aboriginal, Jewish kingdoms. But that aboriginal homeland is also claimed by another people, the Palestinian/Arab people, who see it as their place and patrimony.

THE EXISTENCE of a parallel claim does not vitiate that of the Jewish people or cause it to resonate any less as memory and memoir of homeland - where homeland represents history, roots, religion, language, culture, literature, law, custom, family, myth and values. Rather, the equities of the claim mandate the logic of Israeli-Palestinian partition - a logic which in moral and juridical terms requires that a just solution be organized around the "principle of least injustice," and that includes mutual recognition of the legitimacy of two states for two peoples.

Nor should the internal divides besetting Israel mask the existential raison d'etre, and moral imperative, of Israel itself. Nazism, and the gathering storm of the Thirties, almost succeeded not only because of its pathology of hate and industry of death, but because of the powerlessness of the stateless Jew and the vulnerability of the powerless without a state. Israel, then, is an antidote to Jewish vulnerability, the raison d'etre in the most profound existential sense for Jewish self-determination.

It is not the case, as it sometimes said, that if there had been no Holocaust, there would not have been a State of Israel, as if a state could somehow even compensate for the murder of six million Jews. It is the other way around: If there had been an Israel, there would not have been a Holocaust, or others horrors of Jewish history.

In the end, we come back to the beginning: that whatever the gathering storm from without may be, whatever the internal grievances, the Kulturkampf of the Jews' despair in 2008 would not only be a betrayal of the Jewish aboriginal past, but a denial of the next 60 years and beyond.

The writer is the member of parliament for Mount Royal and the former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada. He is a professor of law (on leave) at McGill University and has written extensively on human rights and Middle-East issues.

Israel is an ally, not a charity case

2008-05-15T04:38:00.000Z

German War Guilt and the Jewish State

By DANIEL SCHWAMMENTHAL
May 14, 2008; Page A19

As Israel celebrates its 60th anniversary there is no denying that the Jewish state has an image problem in Europe.

Opinion polls in the U.S. consistently show that a majority of Americans are sympathetic to Israel. But the situation is the reverse on the other side of the Atlantic. It's particularly bad in Germany. In a British Broadcasting Corp. (BBC) survey last month, for example, Germans were among the Europeans with the least favorable views of Israel, second only to Spain. Even the respondents in the United Arab Emirates had a more positive perception of the Jewish state than Germans did.

Associated Press Photo/Baz Ratner Angela Merkel visits the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, January 2006.

This may be surprising, given that Berlin is considered one of Israel's more reliable allies in Europe. Successive German governments have justified the "special" relationship with Israel by pointing to the countries' "special" history. In light of the Holocaust, Germany seems to have no choice but to support the Jewish state. Former Green Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer advocated this policy of "historical responsibility" as effortlessly as Christian-Democratic Chancellor Angela Merkel does.

But guilt is an unhealthy basis for a relationship; it easily turns into resentment. This may help explain why so many Germans 30% according to last year's survey by Bertelsmann Foundation are eager to compare Israel to fascist Germany. If it were true that Israelis are modern-day Nazis, there would be less reason to feel guilty about the real Nazis.

Historical obligations also tend to have a statute of limitations. Postwar Germans may reasonably reject any special obligations to Israel as a result of crimes committed before they were born.

This brings us to the fundamental problem with Berlin's Israel policy. It implies that had there been no Holocaust, Israel would have no right to exist or, at least would have no reason to expect Germany's support. Israel's detractors take this argument one step further, claiming it was immoral to establish a Jewish state in the Middle East to atone for European crimes.

In 1922, long before the Holocaust, Winston Churchill debunked the idea that Israel could be justified only as reparation for past atrocities when he said, "The Jews are in Palestine by right and not by sufferance." Europe and Germany should thus be able to support Israel not just because of past wrongs committed against Jews, but because of Jews' inalienable right to a state in their ancestral homeland.

Israel's right to exist doesn't mean Germans must automatically back it. There has to be a special bond between nations to prompt support. Such alliances are usually forged around common interests and values. As the Mideast's most vibrant democracy, Israel should qualify for a truly "special relationship."

But unlike Americans, Germans rarely argue that Israel deserves solidarity as a Western ally. Americans generally see Israel as a fellow democracy under attack. But in Germany and much of Europe, Israel is often seen as a human-rights violator.

What explains this difference in perceptions? The U.S. media are not that much better in presenting a balanced view of the Middle East than their European counterparts. More likely, Americans are simply less disposed to believe the worst of Israel.

A key factor is Americans' appreciation of their Judeo-Christian heritage. While this is a common term in the U.S., it is a novel concept in Europe. Only recently has it found its way into the vocabulary of a few conservative Germans. Ms. Merkel and colleagues from Poland and Italy wanted to add a reference to the Continent's Judeo-Christian heritage to Europe's proposed constitution. The idea was rejected as too divisive.

But the term does not just cover the moral standards shared by Judaism and Christianity. Its meaning goes beyond matters of faith. It describes the fact that next to the Greco-Roman heritage, the Judeo-Christian tradition is the other main pillar of Western civilization. Acknowledging this fact helps Americans view Jews as part of that civilization and the Jewish state as part of the broader Western alliance.

In post-Christian Europe and Germany, this realization is largely missing. Moses's law, the foundation for Western legal codes and moral values, is hardly acknowledged on the Continent. Jews are more often seen as having contributed to Western civilization, rather than being an integral part of it, thanks to the role they played as a nation. Jews often viewed as some kind of guest contributors thus remain strangers in Europe, as does the Jewish state. And one can be inclined to believe bad things about strangers.

Given the similar threats Europe and Israel face from Islamic terror and a nuclear Iran, an alliance between them would seem natural. But as long as Europe's public considers Israel more as part of the problem than as part of the solution, any alliance will suffer. It's time for German and European officials to make the real case for Israel that of solidarity with an embattled ally.

Mr. Schwammenthal is an editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.

Write to Daniel Schwammenthal at daniel.schwammenthal@dowjones.com

US, EU money promotes Palestinian ideology of world without Israel

2008-05-14T16:50:00.000Z

US, EU money promotes Palestinian ideology of world without Israel
By Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

Palestinian Authority (PA) infrastructures controlled by Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah continue to promote the ideology that "Palestine" will replace a destroyed Israel. US and EU money facilitates this.

1- The Palestinian Security Services Academy, a military branch of Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah government, prominently depicts as the center of its symbol the map of a "Palestine" state that erases all of Israel. This map is common in the Palestinian Authority and symbolizes the hope for the destruction of Israel. Voice of America reports that the academy is funded by "... Arab states and the European Union. The U.S. also has offered some indirect support." See here

2- The second example is of a "Sport and Cultural Club" built by USAID that prominently displays both the words "USAID" and the map of a "Palestine" state that erases all of Israel, encircled by the Palestinian flag.

As long as the US and the EU fund the PA while choosing to ignore or at times actually funding these PA-Fatah hate messages and symbols, the US and the EU are among the impediments to peace.

President Bush on Israel - Interview with Shmuel Rosner

2008-05-14T15:29:00.000Z

Here's the whole interview of Shmuel Rosner with President Bush before his trip to Israel, warts and all for the sake of completeness.

Some more important ideas:

See, the interesting thing that's happened during my presidency is twofold: One, there's been clarity for people to see the world the way it really is -- a failed leadership of Hamas in Gaza, for example, or the true aims of these extremist killers -- plus the emergence of thought in Israel that the only way to exist in the long term is for there to be a Palestinian state. And it's a powerful idea. And therefore, I believe in powerful ideas, and I believe with U.S. help that the negotiators can come up with the definition of a state.

The state won't exist until certain obligations are met, but it's the definition itself which becomes a powerful engine for the marginalization of people who murder innocent to achieve their objectives. And that's really what the struggle is about. And it's the same struggle in Iraq and it's the same struggle in Lebanon. And an effective Bush foreign policy is to put the focus of the United States squarely in the middle of the Middle East.

...

You know, on all these issues, just so you know, there needs -- I'm going to say the word several times -- maybe this is like the word of the day -- clarity. In my time as President, it's easy to excuse people until there's just kind of moments where it's so obvious that the skeptics can't see reality. It's one of the reasons I supported the elections in Gaza, because there had to be a moment for everybody to be able to express themselves, and the expression, by the way, was we're sick and tired of corrupt government. We were tired of Arafat's false promises; we want to live in peace.

But instead, what they got was a government of war. It's not what they campaigned on, but that's what they got. And all of a sudden people now see the truth. And the truth is Hamas is not a passive, political party trying to embetter people's lives; they are trying to destroy Israel. That's the truth. Well, the other truth is, is that Iran is involved in funding Hamas and Hezbollah, and it's that Iranian influence which I'm deeply concerned about, but there needs to be more than just the United States concerned about it.

And some great Bushisms:

I could wax poetically forever.

Or you could wax unpoetically, but the floor better shine. Bush talks good, like a President had oughtta.

That's like our top priority.

Like yeah man, far out.

Ami isseroff

Interview with President Bush: the transcript

Shmuel Rosner

It starts with the president talking about his daughter's wedding:

THE PRESIDENT: It was a big deal. I didn't realize how big a deal it was until the moment came, and then I realized how blessed a man I am that my little girl found such a good guy. But it was -- she looked beautiful and stunning, the ranch looked great, the sun set just at the right time.

Q. Then you came back, right, to the rain --

THE PRESIDENT: Came the rain. Yes, then I'm heading over, going to your country. I'm looking forward to my trip to Israel and Saudi and Egypt. You know, I've been given an honor of speaking in the Knesset and I'm looking forward to it. It's -- working on my speech right now. There's no better place to talk about democracy and the history of democracies and the challenge of democracies in dealing with existential threats of terrorists and state-sponsored terrorists than in the Knesset. And I'm not sure how long I'm going to go on for, but I'd like your advice -- long or short? Either way, I'm looking forward, it's going to be a good deal.

And every time -- I'm not going to anticipate -- okay, I am anticipating your questions, but every time I've come to the Middle East it's always the same questions: Can you succeed? And I'll wait for your questions, but my only point is, this is a very complex part of the world.

Anyway, we'll go around the corner here. Fire away. I could wax poetically forever.

Q Mr. President, Prime Minister Olmert is under a corruption probe and is basically almost on the verge of being forced out from office. And his counterpart, Abu Abbas, is also very weak. So really the question is, do you still think that you can achieve peace until the end of 2008?

THE PRESIDENT: I do, yes. Look, I -- first of all, let me say something about Prime Minister Olmert. It's a legal matter inside the system, the system will deal with it. Israel is -- believes in rule of law, and I understand that; believes in fair hearings and giving a person a chance. And having said that, my relations with the Prime Minister have been nothing but excellent. I found him to be an honest guy. He loves his family, he's easy to talk to, he's a strategic thinker. And so we'll see what happens.

But the vision of a state is such a powerful notion and such an important notion for Israel's very existence, that I do believe that we have a chance to get something defined. There is a -- this is not an Olmert plan; this is a plan of a government. Tzipi Livni is handling the negotiations -- I'm not telling you anything you don't know -- Barak is involved. And on the Palestinian side, there's more than one person involved.

See, the interesting thing that's happened during my presidency is twofold: One, there's been clarity for people to see the world the way it really is -- a failed leadership of Hamas in Gaza, for example, or the true aims of these extremist killers -- plus the emergence of thought in Israel that the only way to exist in the long term is for there to be a Palestinian state. And it's a powerful idea. And therefore, I believe in powerful ideas, and I believe with U.S. help that the negotiators can come up with the definition of a state.

The state won't exist until certain obligations are met, but it's the definition itself which becomes a powerful engine for the marginalization of people who murder innocent to achieve their objectives. And that's really what the struggle is about. And it's the same struggle in Iraq and it's the same struggle in Lebanon. And an effective Bush foreign policy is to put the focus of the United States squarely in the middle of the Middle East. That's like our top priority. And it should be. And it should be the top priority -- it is the top priority of this government. I'm talking about subsequent governments. I'm not checking out of here yet, but I'm beginning to --

Q How troubled are you by Iran's expansion of influence in Gaza and Lebanon? And most importantly, are you confident that you can stop Iran's drive to a nuclear capability?

THE PRESIDENT: Iran is an incredibly negative influence. They are sending weapons into Iraq. And we're pushing back hard, and will continue to do so. As you mentioned, they are -- Hezbollah now has -- no longer the great force against Israel, all of a sudden, they've turned against they're own people.

You know, on all these issues, just so you know, there needs -- I'm going to say the word several times -- maybe this is like the word of the day -- clarity. In my time as President, it's easy to excuse people until there's just kind of moments where it's so obvious that the skeptics can't see reality. It's one of the reasons I supported the elections in Gaza, because there had to be a moment for everybody to be able to express themselves, and the expression, by the way, was we're sick and tired of corrupt government. We were tired of Arafat's false promises; we want to live in peace.

But instead, what they got was a government of war. It's not what they campaigned on, but that's what they got. And all of a sudden people now see the truth. And the truth is Hamas is not a passive, political party trying to embetter people's lives; they are trying to destroy Israel. That's the truth. Well, the other truth is, is that Iran is involved in funding Hamas and Hezbollah, and it's that Iranian influence which I'm deeply concerned about, but there needs to be more than just the United States concerned about it.

One of the interesting strategic shifts that has taken place in the Middle East is that no longer is Israel being blamed for the problems of the Middle East in a lot of quarters. All of a sudden it's a shift of strategic thought because of the Iranian influence, so it's a positive development.

Q Anything that can yet be done before you leave office [about the nuclearization of Iran]?

THE PRESIDENT: I think what definitely will be done is a structure on how to deal with this -- to try to resolve this diplomatically; in other words, sanctions, pressures, financial sanctions; a history of pressure that will serve as a framework to make sure other countries are involved. As I told you, all options are on the table.

Q I would like to ask about recent events in Lebanon, Mr. President, and about the fact that we do have in place U.N. resolutions, Security Council resolutions, that were meant to deal with the problem of Hezbollah. Nevertheless, it has not seemed to help. So what kind of framework would you advise for dealing with the problem of Hezbollah in the future?

THE PRESIDENT: I'd advise the world backing Siniora. He's a good guy; he's tough and he's in a really tough situation. I admire him. And we're doing that by support of the Lebanese armed forces. We believe that he needs to have a modern force behind him that's capable of responding. Remember, when he went in the northern part of Lebanon, he went after some camps when they had radicals inside his country that were destabilizing. That was a positive signal. It was a hopeful moment. And it inspired me to then send one of our top military people to Siniora to ask, what do you need? If this is your attitude, if this is your will, then we want to help you.

See, I have found you can't make people have courage. That's -- it's a wellspring inside their soul. But you can support courageous people. And so that's our attitude. And then to remind countries like France and others that, one, the Lebanese democracy is vital for a peaceful Middle East, it's a part of the vision -- and that there are U.N. Security Council resolutions that need to be upheld.

Look, you're looking at a guy who made the case early in my presidency that if you're going to pass a resolution, you better mean it. I don't know how many resolutions that were on Iraq, 16 or 17, you know? And you can't have a world where people are held to account unless there are consequences.

Q Back to the Palestinian question. In your meeting this week in Israel, are you going to demand from Israel certain things, such as settlements removal, or getting to a more concrete agreement in writing about borders?

THE PRESIDENT: I will come not as somebody who demands, but somebody who encourages. I've said from the beginning of my presidency the United States cannot impose peace. It's tempting to say to the United States, go make it happen. That's what happens all the time, you know -- you go in there. And lasting peace happens when people understand that in this case, the definition of a state is the first step toward peace. And it's hard work.

And as I told you, I'm not running for the Nobel Peace Prize; I'm just trying to be a guy to use the influence of the United States to move the process along.

People say to me, aren't you a little slow on the draw? Where have you been, man? Well, they just forget that when I showed up there was an intifada, and there was an Iraq -- then I made the decision on Iraq. We had an event like Lebanon. I mean, there's a certain course of history that sometimes makes it easier, sometimes makes it more difficult to use -- and we've got a lot of influence, I readily concede that -- but to use it in a proper way so that the peace is lasting, so we don't create false hopes, so that there's -- and I think one of the very hopeful things that's happened on this issue is that Palestinians -- some Palestinians -- are beginning to get a sense for there is a better future.

I don't see how -- I just don't see how the Middle East evolves without a Palestinian state that's free and democratic. I don't see how the Middle East can evolve without a democratic Lebanon, or the Middle East -- evolve into a peaceful, kind of normal place without an Iraq that succeeds. And by the way, Iraq is succeeding. And that ought to make a lot of people in Israel comfortable -- more comfortable than what the status quo could have been.

Q Are you convinced that Abbas is a viable partner, specifically --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q Mr. President, there's been a lot of talk recently about the possibility of new negotiations between Israel and Syria, and about the assumed reluctance of the United States administration about such talks.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, first of all, I have made some very clear conditions for the United States talking with them. We said, look, you're housing Hamas. You're enabling transit of materials to Hezbollah in Lebanon -- at this moment they were also trying to control and run Lebanon. They've made life miserable for the young democracy in Iraq, and that -- it's easy to get our attention, and that has actually become a constructive force, a positive force, a force for peace, not a force that continually uses these extremist groups to destabilize the neighborhood. That's the position of the United States, separated from Syria by an ocean.

Israeli politicians, responsible to the people and responsive to the people, got to come up with their own vision of security. And I have never told Olmert one thing or another about what to do with his security. That's not what friends do. I expect an explanation, but I'm -- he made a decision that he made -- or no decisions have been made except the idea of trying to get some dialogue moving, which is -- and I know him well, and know that he is as concerned about Israeli security as any other person that's ever been the Prime Minister of Israel. And so I presume the decision is made.

My hope, of course, is that a decision is made with Israel's interests at heart. And my -- one of the things I try to do is think strategically, and the biggest long-term threat to peace in the Middle East is Iran. The Iranian connection with Syria is very troubling for not only the United States, but Israel, as well as other Arab nations. And anything done should be -- keep that strategic vision in mind. And of all the people who understand the existential threat that the Iranians pose, it's the Israelis.

Q I have more of a general question. Looking back at your seven last years here, do you think there was a point of time that you have -- should have maybe made different decisions from the one you took, pertaining to the Israeli original conflict and other --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that's an interesting question. They always ask me, would you have done things different? I probably would have toned my rhetoric down at times. And I think it's important to speak clearly and then do what you say you're going to do. But in terms of the -- in terms of Israel, I would hope that history would say, from everybody's perspective, including the Israeli perspective, that this is a guy who clearly saw the world the way it is.

And the temptation in this world is to be an isolationist and a protectionist. It's just too hard, you know? It's -- we'd much rather be judged by the latest Gallup poll than making the necessary decisions to keep the peace, to do the hard things now to confront the realities of the world in order to make sure our children grow up in peace.

And I can assure you that al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah don't think about the comforts of life. They are driven. And the fundamental challenge facing this world is, will countries like the United States be prepared to continue to stand and lead?

And so you asked about legacy and all that business -- which I don't worry about, by the way. I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what happened inside this Oval Office. But one of them has got to be, he clearly saw the threat and he did something about it.

Far out! Bumper grass and Hashish crop in Lebanon

2008-05-14T15:04:00.000Z

At Ahmad's grass... There is always a silver lining, right?

Last update - 12:33 14/05/2008
As fighting flares up, Lebanese cannabis growers expect a bumper crop
By Zvi Bar'el, Haaretz Correspondent

For the cannabis-growing residents of eastern Lebanon, recent internecine fighting in the country has been a blessing, albeit one covered in hash resin and dollar signs.

To these villagers, gunshots and warfare are good for business, and the last three years have been far too quiet for their taste, leaving the authorities more than enough time and resources to come for their crops.

Peace and quiet frees the Lebanese Army to help local law enforcement combat the drug trade, especially in the summer, when soldiers and police are deployed to cannabis fields to rip and cut the flowering stalks of marijuana set for processing and export to Israel, Europe and beyond.

The army has signaled that it could step up its involvement to bring an end to fighting that broke out last week - the country's worst internal clashes since the end of the civil war in 1990, which has left at least 54 people dead and scores more wounded.

The last time the cannabis farmers of Lebanon had such a bumper crop was during the Second Lebanon War in 2006, when the security situation in the country brought anti-drug law enforcement to a halt. With fighting flaring up again in Lebanon, the farmers can expect another marijuana windfall, especially if the army is deployed in force throughout the country's cities to quell the recent bloodshed.

Newspaper reports have stated that even in peacetime security forces are often wary of entering the cannabis growing areas, as many of the farmers and their security guards are heavily armed.

An investigation by the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat has found that over 25,000 acres of cannabis were planted in Lebanon this year, an amount that should yield an impressive amount of hashish for the area's farmers.

A report compiled by the United States Government in 2003 praised Lebanon's efforts to combat cannabis cultivation, as well as the Syrian government's cooperation in fighting the drug trade.

Nonetheless, in spite of the profitability of the drug trade, little improvement has been seen recently in the quality of life of the estimated 180,000 residents of eastern Lebanon.

Hamas: Never going to recognize Israel

2008-05-14T15:00:00.000Z

Just in case you weren't sure about this, Mr. Obama and the J-Street Lobby, here's a timely reminder from this story in Ha'aretz:

... senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar told a conference commemorating the Nakba that his radical Islamic movement would "never" recognize Israel, which he said will one day "disappear."

"On this occasion, the occasion of the Nakba, we reiterate that we will never recognize the raping enemy. We will never recognize Israel. We will never recognize Israel," al-Zahar told a cheering audience.

"Our lands are not for sale or for trade, and the right of resistance is holy," he said.

"Israel is going to disappear one day and the Palestinian people will remain to fully liberate all their occupied lands," he told the conference, entitled "Sixty years since the Nakba - the return is imminent."

"The day of liberation and return is coming very soon," al-Zahar said. "We are good readers of reality and the powers of war and destruction are not terrifying us."

Bush arrived in Israel to much fanfare on Wednesday for a 48-hour visit in honor of Israel's 60th anniversary. The visit is his second in four months.

Regarding Bush's visit, Zahar said, "There is no welcome for Bush in the Holy Land. There is no welcome for hypocrite presidents who are defiling our land."

"We will never recognize Israel" - what part of that did you NOT understand?

Ami Isseroff

Bush: Israel is US's strongest friend, ally in Mideast

2008-05-14T14:55:00.000Z

Bush said:

"What happened here is possible everywhere"

As he was speaking, a Hamas rocket landed in Ashkelon, wounding several people. What happens here, can indeed happen everywhere.

Last update - 18:19 14/05/2008
Bush in Jerusalem: Israel is our strongest friend, ally in Mideast
By Barak Ravid and Shahar Ilan, Haaretz Correspondents, Haaretz Service and Agencies

Shortly after he arrived on Wednesday to participate in celebrations of Israel's 60th anniversary, U.S. President George W. Bush vowed to continue his country's support for Israel.

"The objective of the United States must be to support our strongest ally and friend in the Middle East ... and, at the same time, talk about a hopeful future," Bush said in Jerusalem. He also signalled his aim to make a new push for Israeli-Palestinian peace during his three-day trip.

Bush, speaking at a meeting with President Shimon Peres, said that 60 years of democracy in Israel is cause for optimism for democratic change throughout the Middle East.

"What happened here is possible everywhere," Bush said.

"I suspect if you looked back 60 years ago and tried to guess where Israel would be at that time, it would be hard to be able to project such a prosperous, hopeful land," Bush added. "No question, people would have said, 'We'd be surrounded by hostile forces.'"

But Bush said he doubted that people would have been able to envision a modern Israel.

The U.S. president has expressed some optimism that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement could be struck before his term ends in January 2009, while holding out little hope for a major breakthrough during this trip.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday that reaching such a deal within the next eight months might be improbable but it's not impossible.

Peres, a Nobel peace laureate, backed Bush's optimism for a Mideast accord, saying Israelis want to work with Palestinians. "We are not their enemies," he said.

"We would like to see the Palestinians living together," he said. "They have suffered a great deal of their life. The separation is a tragedy for them and for the rest of us."

Peres chastised Hezbollah for aiming to destroy Lebanon and accused Hamas, the militant group that controls the Gaza Strip, of working to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state.

Bush and Peres spoke after briefly strolling through the gardens behind the Israeli president's residence. They sat with their aides under an ivy-covered sandstone trellis amid a grove of trees and flowers.

Stepping somewhat on the message of the anniversary festivities, Bush joked that, "Israel really isn't so long in the tooth. As a person who's 61 years old, it doesn't seem that old," he said.

Olmert: Strategic alliance with U.S. one of Israel's pillars of security

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert earlier on Wednesday welcomed Bush upon his arrival in Israel, praising his visit as an extraordinary gesture of friendship.

In opening remarks, the prime minister declared: "Our strategic alliance with the U.S is one of Israel`s pillars of security."

Bush, for his part, addressed the assembled Israeli dignitaries at Ben Gurion international airport, stating: "Our two nations both faced great challenges when they were founded. And our two nations have both relied on the same principles to help us succeed."

"We built strong democracies to protect the freedoms given to us by an almighty God," he said at the red-carpet ceremony.

The U.S. president concluded: "We consider the Holy Land a very special place and we consider the Israeli people our close friends. Shalom."

As an army band played the American and Israeli national anthems, the U.S. president was greeted by Israel's political leadership, including Olmert, Peres and opposition leader MK Benjamin Netanyahu.

Peres, who also spoke at the ceremony, told Bush that, "We are grateful to you for gracing this occasion." He then lauded the U.S. president for his "steady dedication to the promotion of peace and security."

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, part of Bush's entourage, accompanied the U.S. leader as he walked across the airport runway, as did Bush's wife Laura.

Bush is to participate in the "Facing Tomorrow" presidential conference held in Jerusalem during his three-day visit, at which he will deliver a speech on Wednesday evening. He will also speak before the Knesset on Thursday, and will visit Saudi Arabia and Egypt later on in this trip.

Despite the festive nature of the visit, Bush was to find his host, Ehud Olmert, in deep trouble as a widening investigation into the prime minister's conduct has raised serious doubt over his political future.

Most probably in reference to the investigation, Olmert gave assurances to a senior U.S. official as Bush arrived in Israel. "Holding on, holding on, don't worry," Olmert told Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, at the airport. The remarks were picked up by broadcasters' microphones.

On the first day of the presidential conference, Olmert said on Tuesday that he and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have reached "understandings and points of agreement" on key issues in U.S-backed peace talks but he gave no details.

During Bush's visit, Olmert is expected to ask him to upgrade substantially the security relationship between Israel and the U.S., according to sources close to the prime minister.

Olmert's people are leaning, said the sources, toward presenting the visiting president with a list of weapon systems that Israel wants to purchase or otherwise gain access to.

On Monday, Bush said that the peace process is not dependent on a single individual, indirectly responding to fears that investigation into Olmert could derail Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

Al-Zahar: No welcome for Bush in the Holy Land

In the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, Mahmoud al-Zahar, a leader of the Islamist group opposed to the U.S. peace efforts, said: "There is no welcome for Bush in the Holy Land. There is no welcome for hypocrite presidents who are defiling our land."

Bush, who flew on to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv by helicopter, will not visit the Palestinian territories but planned to meet Abbas in Egypt on Saturday. In Jerusalem, Mrs. Bush toured a government clinic that offers low-cost immunizations and other health care services to families with young children.

Ahead of the visit, three human rights groups sent a letter to Bush urging him to pressure Israel to lift the Gaza blockade. Israel imposed the blockade in an attempt to halt ongoing rocket attacks from Gaza at western Negev towns, but the groups said the move is collective punishment that is harming Palestinian civilians.

The president's final stop will be at the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, where he will meet over two days with a handful of leaders: Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, Jordan's King Abdullah II and Iraqi leaders. Bush also is scheduled to meet with Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, but that is in doubt now after clashes between the U.S.-backed government in Beirut and Hezbollah-led opposition.

While the president is in the Middle East this week, Bush administration officials plan to work during UN Security Council meetings to rally other countries to support Lebanon's government and to condemn Iran and Syria, which the White House believes are behind the recent clashes. "Obviously, we are also going to talk to various countries about additional pressure that can be put on Syria and Iran," Hadley said.

Hamas salute to Bush - rocket in Ashkelon

2008-05-14T14:43:00.000Z

According to Israel TV Channel 1, eleven people were wounded. Some were briefly trapped in wreckage. There is no doubt that the self-imposed (or US imposed) Israeli restraint during the visit of president Bush is an invitation for more and better rocket attacks.

Ami Isseroff

Last update - 18:27 14/05/2008
Gaza rocket hits Ashkelon mall; several people hurt
By The Associated Press

A rocket fired from the Gaza Strip, apparently a Katyusha-type rocket, exploded in a shopping center in the southern city of Ashkelon on Wednesday, police said.

A rescue service spokesman Eli Bean said at least three people, including two babies were among the wounded. Witnesses told various radio stations that the rocket caused considerable damage. Bean said at least two people were trapped under the rubble.

The rocket attack came as U.S. President George W. Bush wrapped up talks in Jerusalem with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The Israeli leader said at the end of the talks that Israel would not tolerate attacks from Gaza militants.

Casualties have mounted recently from the daily rocket attacks by Palestinian militants on Israeli communities outside Gaza. Two people were killed during the last week.

The homemade rockets militants usually fire at Israel do not have enough range to reach Ashkelon. Instead, militants use Grad-type rockets to hit the city of 100,000, about 15 kilometers (9 miles) from the Gaza-Israel border

Photos That Lie: Building the Case Against Israel, Article by Article, Day After Day.

2008-05-14T14:18:00.000Z

Photos That Lie: Building the Case Against Israel, Article by Article, Day After Day.

http://pajamasmedia.com/phyllischesler/2008/05/12/photos-that-lie-building-the-case-against-israel-article-by-article-day-after-day/

For fifteen years, (1993-2008), Charlie Bernhaut of Americans for a Safe Israel has been sending Open Letters to the staff at the New York Times. Charlie loves Jewish cantorial music and Jewish jokes. He is an amiable, sociable man. So, what has driven him to launch such a lonely, one-man crusade?

I doubt he can stop himself. Perhaps the Biblical bush burned for him too, perhaps, like Moses, he could not refuse the missionwhich consists of documenting and protesting the newspaper's contemporary "use of photographs to prejudice their readers against Israel." He was at this long before CAMERA, MEMRI, or HonestReporting saw the same burning bush. The Times has never acknowledged Bernhaut's lettersnor have the Jewish media and organizations who also received copies.

Of course, as the author Laurel Leff, (Buried By the Times. The Holocaust and America's Most Important Newspaper), has documented, the Paper of Record did not cover the Holocaust either, they did not document Jewish suffering or genocide.

The photos Charlie brought me were all taken by Rina Castelnuovo. Google her and you will find sixteen pages devoted to her photos in the Paper of Record, and to her gallery exhibits and prestigious awards. Castelnuovo was born in Tel Aviv but her focus is mainly upon the suffering of Israel's non-Jewish Arab citizens and that of Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza. A minority of her photos focus on positive Israeli realities but there is no real balance or complexity to her photojournalism. Of course, the articles that accompany her work are similarly unbalanced. One might conclude that she has been asked to focus only on Palestinian grief and to avoid Israeli grief altogether.

Castelnuovo's photos enjoy prominent placement and sometimes occupy an incredible one-third of a page. Obviously, so do the articles that her photos illustrate. Bernhaut believes that some, if not all of her work, is staged; it therefore pre-dates the kind of faux-tography that characterizes the full-steam-ahead Arab, Palestinian, and Islamist visual and narrative brainwashing of the world's masses that gathered force during the al-Aqsa intifada.

Stay tuned for an interview with Phillipe Karsenty, the hero who has been battling France's media over their use of the quintessential staged, fake event known as the Mohammed Al-Dura"Affaire," in which a small Palestinian boy was "seen" being shot to death in his father's arms by Israeli troops at the Netzarim junction.

It turns out that the Israelis did not shoot him. Actually, the boy was neither shot nor killed. The poster child and father for the al-Aqsa intifada were actors. The harm is done. It cannot be repaired. But, perhaps the families of all those Israelis who were martyred between 2000-2008 can sue France's Channel Two, the Palestinian Authority, Arafat's estate, and the world media for damages.

The propaganda against the Jews and Israel is relentless and effective and has reduced the truth to a lie. After forty years of manipulating the truth, millions, perhaps billions of people view Israel as the "Nazi, apartheid, occupier" of noble, oppressed, and suffering Palestinian people.

They do not understand that the Palestinians have never existed as a group or as a nation-state; that early Zionist pioneers and Israelis improved both the non-Jewish Arab standard of living and life expectancy so much so that more and more family- and clan-identified non-Jewish Egyptians, Syrians, and Jordanians gravitated to Jewish lands; that, in 1948, the Arabs who occupied villages in Gaza and on the West Bank were not forced out by Israelis but rather by their own Arab leaders who wanted to use their homes for battle-purposes and who were absolutely convinced that they would drive the upstart Jews into the sea.

They failed to do so. However, thereafter, the Arab High Command and individual Arab tyrants refused citizenship to all "Palestinian" refugees and also kept the enormous sums donated to alleviate their suffering for themselves and for weapons. The Israelis wanted mutual cooperation and peace with their non-Jewish Arab neighbors. The Arab and eventually the "Palestinian" leadership only wanted to use the "Palestinians" as human fodder in their eternal war against the Jews and against the West.

Read Ephraim Karsh's excellent piece on this very subject in the latest issue of Commentary magazine.

The first Castelnuovo photo that Bernhaut showed me appeared on February 17, 1993. It showed Muslims in full prayer position outside a mosque in Bir Nabala which the Israelis had "sealed." The photo caption, the article , and the headline do not explain that Hamas was using the mosque to store weapons and that the Israelis had raided it for that reason. The fact that the Israeli government is a faithful protector of religious shrines of all religions is never mentionednor is the Arab and Muslim shameful record of burning down, building over, or using the religious shrines of non-Muslim faiths as garbage dumps.

On March 21, 1996, we see sorrowful, patient Palestinian women and children who have cancer "waiting for permission to go to Israel for treatment." Not shown are the scores of Palestinian patients who are routinely treated in Israeli Jewish hospitals. Even Arab and Muslim "militants"/terrorists who are captured in battle are treated in Israeli Jewish hospitals. The Times provides no photos of them.

On September 11, (!) 1998, Castelnuovo provided a photo of the grieving family of a Palestinian woman shot "by accident." It did not balance this photo with that of a grieving Israeli family whose civilian member was shot "on purpose." As Bernhaut phrased it in his letter to Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr. in April, 2000: "Of course, Jewish suffering is nonexistent (irrelevant).

Bernhaut's latest letter is dated May 9, 2008 and addresses the two Castelnuovo photos that accompany the May 7, 2008 headline: "After 60 Years, Arabs in Israel are Outsiders and Their Anger is Growing." Pictured is a traditionally dressed 84 year old Arab who is touching the door of Hittin, a former Arab village in the north of Israel. Bernhaut suggests that Castelnuovo must have said: "Go over to the wall and face the door..that's it. Now, raise your handno, not the right hand, it will hide your face. That's it, the left hand, raised. Now, look longingly at the wall..Perfect. Here's the payment for your services."

Yes, western journalists routinely pay for such theatrical participation. I am not saying that Castelnuovo did so in this particular instance.

Bernhaut brought me one other article, which was dated April 23, 2000 and which concerned the photo which, much earlier, depicted the evacuation of people from the roof of the American Embassy in Vietnam. According to New York Times journalists Fox Butterfield and Kari Haskell, this photo became the "most remembered photo of the fall of Saigon." However, the caption in the New York Times was "wrong." Those boarding the helicopter to flee Saigon were not Americans; they were Vietnamese." Butterfield and Haskell write: "In it's way, the photo is a metaphor for all the misunderstanding that plagued the Vietnam war."

Bernhaut writes that perhaps one day the New York Times will also write: "In it's way, the photographs that the New York Times featured to bias the public against Jews are metaphors for many of the misunderstanding that plagued the tiny, beleaguered Jewish state."

I think Bernhaut is far too optimistic.

LIES BEGGING TO BE EXPOSED

2008-05-14T13:39:00.000Z

LIES BEGGING TO BE EXPOSED

by Evelyn Gordon

Many factors contribute to Israel's perennially poor public relations, most of them stemming from its own incompetence. They range from spokesmen who are not fluent in the relevant foreign language to the failure to formulate a clear, simple and consistent message for these spokesmen to convey. One aspect of the problem, however, is Israel's persistent failure to refute Palestinian lies.

Two weeks ago, for instance, the New York Times/International Herald Tribune ran a report on the latest poll by Khalil Shikaki's Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR). It stated that Shikaki "was shocked" because the poll "showed greater support for violence than any other he had conducted over the past 15 years... Never before, he said, had a majority favored an end to negotiations or the shooting of rockets at Israel."

Shikaki's "explanation for the shift," it continued, "is that recent actions by Israel, especially attacks on Gaza that killed nearly 130 people, an undercover operation in Bethlehem that killed four militants and the announced expansion of several West Bank settlements, have led to despair and rage among average Palestinians."

The message could not be clearer: The normally peace-loving Palestinians, who previously opposed rocket attacks on Israeli civilians, have been driven to violence by Israel's brutality. There is only one problem: Shikaki's claim is utterly false.

HIS LATEST POLL found that 64 percent of Palestinians favored rocket attacks on Israeli civilians. Far from being unprecedented, however, that figure is almost identical to what it was 18 months ago, according to Shikaki's own data: A PSR poll conducted in late August, 2006 found that 63 percent of Palestinians favored such attacks. And it is lower than the figure in some earlier Shikaki polls: In September 2004, for instance, PSR found that 75 percent of Palestinians supported rocket attacks on Israel.

The other leading Palestinian pollster, the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center, has consistently produced similar results: A JMCC poll from July 2006, for instance, found that 60 percent of Palestinians supported rocket attacks on Israel.

In other words, peace-loving Palestinians have not been suddenly radicalized by Israeli brutality; they have supported rocket attacks on Israeli civilians from the moment they acquired this capability.

This is not a trivial issue. First, the main international criticism of Israel's counterterrorism operations in Gaza is that they hurt "innocent civilians." Yet that argument loses much of its force if those "innocent civilians" actually support the rocket attacks, because repeated studies have shown that whether terrorist organizations wither or thrive depends substantially on the support they receive from the local population. Thus a populace that backs terrorist activities is not "innocent," it is an active and essential contributor to the terrorists' success.

This is even truer for the Palestinians, because Hamas is not only a terrorist organization; it is also an elected ruling party. Public opinion is thus an especially crucial component of its power, one it cannot afford to totally disregard. Hence were ordinary Palestinians largely opposed to rather than supportive of rocket attacks, Hamas would be much more likely to restrain both its own military wing and smaller groups like Islamic Jihad.

Israeli operations in Gaza are also routinely slammed as counterproductive - which might be valid if these operations indeed increased support for anti-Israel attacks. But if support for rocket attacks against Israel has remained steadily high for years, regardless of the ups and downs of the fighting, that claim, too, loses much of its force.

THE SHIKAKI POLL, of course, is merely one of many Palestinian lies that have gone unrefuted by Israel. Another excellent example is the partial fuel embargo on Gaza.

Palestinians have had great success in charging that this embargo deprives them of fuel for such humanitarian essentials as pumping water and running hospital generators. Israel routinely counters that it does provide enough fuel for humanitarian needs, but since it never provides evidence to back this assertion, the world has largely dismissed it.

Yet such evidence is readily available: One need look no farther than the New York Times.

On February 26, for instance, the International Herald Tribune ran a Times report on a protest against the Israeli embargo that Hamas organized in northern Gaza. Of the approximately 4,000 demonstrators, it said, "many were schoolchildren who arrived directly from their classrooms ... They had been bused in to join the protest, despite complaints from Gaza about a dire shortage of gasoline because of the Israeli sanctions."

On March 11, the Times reported on another Hamas-organized protest, in Gaza City. Palestinian livestock owners "were paid 100 shekels each (about $28) to attend the protest, as well as transportation costs. Hundreds of animals - sheep, camels and donkeys - came from all over Gaza."

Busing in schoolchildren from all over Gaza guzzles fuel; so does trucking in livestock from all over Gaza. Thus clearly, Hamas has fuel for things it deems important. If it considers anti-Israel demonstrations more important than supplying hospitals and pumping stations, that is hardly Israel's fault; it is Hamas that has chosen to deprive its own people in order to score propaganda points.

Again, this is a nontrivial issue. Virtually nothing could damage Israel's image more than people worldwide imagining Palestinian children with no water to drink, or hospitals unable to perform lifesaving operations, due to an Israeli embargo. And virtually nothing could damage Hamas's image more than having people worldwide realize that it is cynically withholding vital fuel from its own people in order to make Israel look bad.

It would be nice if journalists, world leaders and international human rights organizations consistently noticed such lies on their own, but the reality is that they rarely have the time, energy or interest to do the necessary research. For Israel, however, exposing Palestinian lies is a vital interest. Hence it is Israel's responsibility to invest the resources necessary to document these lies and expose them to international opinion leaders.

That would still be only one small element of the comprehensive public relations strategy that Israel needs. But it would be far better than the current policy of letting such damaging lies go unchallenged.

Evelyn Gordon is a columnist for the Jerusalem Post.

Zionism: Obama talks the talk and walks the walk

2008-05-14T08:38:00.000Z

A thoroughly reasonable interview, if we can forget that Obama wants to negotiate with Iran...

Obama on Zionism and Hamas

12 May 2008 11:58 am

The Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef did Barack Obama no favor recently when he said: "We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election." John McCain jumped on this statement, calling it a "legitimate point of discussion," and tied it to Obama's putative softness on Iran, whose ever-charming president last week called Israel a "stinking corpse" and predicted its "annihilation."

The Hamas episode won't help Obama's attempts to win over Jewish voters, particularly those in such places as - to pull an example from the air - Palm Beach County, Florida, whose Jewish residents tend to appreciate robust American support for Israel, and worry about whether presidential candidates feel the importance of Israel in their kishkes, or guts.

Obama and I spoke over the weekend about Hamas, about Jimmy Carter, and about the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. He seemed eager to talk about his ties to the Jewish community, and about the influence Jews have had on his life. Among other things, he told me that he learned the art of moral anguish from Jews. We spoke as well about my Atlantic cover story on Israel's future. He mentioned his interest in the opinions of the writer David Grossman, who is featured in the article. "I remember reading The Yellow Wind when it came out, and reading about Grossman now is powerful, painful stuff." And, speaking in a kind of code Jews readily understand, Obama also made sure to mention that he was fond of the writer Leon Uris, the author of Exodus.

Here are excerpts from our conversation:

JEFFREY GOLDBERG: I'm curious to hear you talk about the Zionist idea. Do you believe that it has justice on its side?

BARACK OBAMA: You know, when I think about the Zionist idea, I think about how my feelings about Israel were shaped as a young man -- as a child, in fact. I had a camp counselor when I was in sixth grade who was Jewish-American but who had spent time in Israel, and during the course of this two-week camp he shared with me the idea of returning to a homeland and what that meant for people who had suffered from the Holocaust, and he talked about the idea of preserving a culture when a people had been uprooted with the view of eventually returning home. There was something so powerful and compelling for me, maybe because I was a kid who never entirely felt like he was rooted. That was part of my upbringing, to be traveling and always having a sense of values and culture but wanting a place. So that is my first memory of thinking about Israel.

And then that mixed with a great affinity for the idea of social justice that was embodied in the early Zionist movement and the kibbutz, and the notion that not only do you find a place but you also have this opportunity to start over and to repair the breaches of the past. I found this very appealing.

JG: You've talked about the role of Jews in the development of your thinking

BO: I always joke that my intellectual formation was through Jewish scholars and writers, even though I didn't know it at the time. Whether it was theologians or Philip Roth who helped shape my sensibility, or some of the more popular writers like Leon Uris. So when I became more politically conscious, my starting point when I think about the Middle East is this enormous emotional attachment and sympathy for Israel, mindful of its history, mindful of the hardship and pain and suffering that the Jewish people have undergone, but also mindful of the incredible opportunity that is presented when people finally return to a land and are able to try to excavate their best traditions and their best selves. And obviously it's something that has great resonance with the African-American experience.

One of the things that is frustrating about the recent conversations on Israel is the loss of what I think is the natural affinity between the African-American community and the Jewish community, one that was deeply understood by Jewish and black leaders in the early civil-rights movement but has been estranged for a whole host of reasons that you and I don't need to elaborate.

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.

JG: Go to the kishke question, the gut question: the idea that if Jews know that you love them, then you can say whatever you want about Israel, but if we don't know you -- Jim Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski -- then everything is suspect. There seems to be in some quarters, in Florida and other places, a sense that you don't feel Jewish worry the way a senator from New York would feel it.

BO: I find that really interesting. I think the idea of Israel and the reality of Israel is one that I find important to me personally. Because it speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus, it describes the history of overcoming great odds and a courage and a commitment to carving out a democracy and prosperity in the midst of hardscrabble land. One of the things I loved about Israel when I went there is that the land itself is a metaphor for rebirth, for what's been accomplished. What I also love about Israel is the fact that people argue about these issues, and that they're asking themselves moral questions.

Sometimes I'm attacked in the press for maybe being too deliberative. My staff teases me sometimes about anguishing over moral questions. I think I learned that partly from Jewish thought, that your actions have consequences and that they matter and that we have moral imperatives. The point is, if you look at my writings and my history, my commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it's more than political expediency. When it comes to the gut issue, I have such ardent defenders among my Jewish friends in Chicago. I don't think people have noticed how fiercely they defend me, and how central they are to my success, because they've interacted with me long enough to know that I've got it in my gut. During the Wright episode, they didn't flinch for a minute, because they know me and trust me, and they've seen me operate in difficult political situations.

The other irony in this whole process is that in my early political life in Chicago, one of the raps against me in the black community is that I was too close to the Jews. When I ran against Bobby Rush [for Congress], the perception was that I was Hyde Park, I'm University of Chicago, I've got all these Jewish friends. When I started organizing, the two fellow organizers in Chicago were Jews, and I was attacked for associating with them. So I've been in the foxhole with my Jewish friends, so when I find on the national level my commitment being questioned, it's curious.

JG: Why do you think Ahmed Yousef of Hamas said what he said about you?

BO: My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from the position of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I said they are a terrorist organization and I've repeatedly condemned them. I've repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.

JG: Were you flummoxed by it?

BO: I wasn't flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don't do nuance well in politics and especially don't do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, "This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush," and that's something they're hopeful about. I think that's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security.

When I visited Ramallah, among a group of Palestinian students, one of the things that I said to those students was: "Look, I am sympathetic to you and the need for you guys to have a country that can function, but understand this: if you're waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional. Because my commitment, our commitment, to Israel's security is non-negotiable." I've said this in front of audiences where, if there were any doubts about my position, that'd be a place where you'd hear it.

When Israel invaded Lebanon two summers ago, I was in South Africa, a place where, obviously, when you get outside the United States, you can hear much more critical commentary about Israel's actions, and I was asked about this in a press conference, and that time, and for the entire summer, I was very adamant about Israel's right to defend itself. I said that there's not a nation-state on Earth that would tolerate having two of its soldiers kidnapped and just let it go. So I welcome the Muslim world's accurate perception that I am interested in opening up dialogue and interested in moving away from the unilateral policies of George Bush, but nobody should mistake that for a softer stance when it comes to terrorism or when it comes to protecting Israel's security or making sure that the alliance is strong and firm. You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel's security.

JG: What do you make of Jimmy Carter's suggestion that Israel resembles an apartheid state?

BO: I strongly reject the characterization. Israel is a vibrant democracy, the only one in the Middle East, and there's no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn't advance that goal. It's emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it's not what I believe.

JG: If you become President, will you denounce settlements publicly?

BO: What I will say is what I've said previously. Settlements at this juncture are not helpful. Look, my interest is in solving this problem not only for Israel but for the United States.

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I'm not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that's the safest ground politically.

I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we're going to be stuck in the same status quo that we've been stuck in for decades now, and that won't lift that existential dread that David Grossman described in your article.

The notion that a vibrant, successful society with incredible economic growth and incredible cultural vitality is still plagued by this notion that this could all end at any moment -- you know, I don't know what that feels like, but I can use my imagination to understand it. I would not want to raise my children in those circumstances. I want to make sure that the people of Israel, when they kiss their kids and put them on that bus, feel at least no more existential dread than any parent does whenever their kids leave their sight. So that then becomes the question: is settlement policy conducive to relieving that over the long term, or is it just making the situation worse? That's the question that has to be asked.

Abu Dabi: Arab intellectual welcomes the Jews

2008-05-14T00:31:00.000Z

You do not see an article like this every day in the Middle East:

Welcome Back Our Long-gone Neighbours

April 26, 2008
The National, Abu Dhabi
Sultan Al Qassemi

Many of us have heard of the famous advertising empire known as Saatchi and Saatchi, laughed at the jokes of Jerry Seinfeld, tapped our feet to the beats of Paula Abdul and shopped at Max Azria's BCBG stores. So what do all these successful people from various industries have in common?

They are all of Arab origins.

The Jewish presence in what is now the Arab world dates back thousands of years; in fact, the very religion was founded in this region. Arab Muslims, Christians and Jews have been living in peace and harmony for centuries, so what happened? In short, after the violent wave of European anti-Semitism in the mid-20th century there was an exodus of European Jewry into historic Palestine, much of it forced, armed and violent, lead by groups such as the Hagana and the Irgun (who were responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel).

Unfortunately, many Muslim Arabs from across the region reacted violently to these developments and decided to reciprocate; as a result, Jews who were living amongst them were shunned and assaulted. In Iraq, for example, about 120,000 Jews were compelled to emigrate to Israel, the US and Europe in just less than three years.

The streets of Cairo, the historic neighbourhoods of Syria, the mountainous terrains of Lebanon and the bustling markets of Baghdad were, for the first time in thousands of years, emptied of one of the most successful ethnic minorities living within their communities. Doctors, architects, businessmen, scientists, poets and writers started to pack up and leave, some with good reason and some to avoid the repercussions of the founding of the state of Israel.

It wasn't all bad blood between the Arabs and the Jews; in fact, there were stories of heroism that have gone unreported and unnoticed in the Arab media. In the midst of the horrors of the Nazi occupation of France in the 1940s, the imam of the Paris Mosque saved the lives of scores of Jews by issuing certificates stating their faith to be Muslim. In Tunis, entire Jewish families were saved by a local hero, Khaled Abdelwahhab, who hid them in his farm at great risk to himself and his family; he was honoured posthumously for his bravery. As a result of such actions fewer than one per cent of the Jews of Arabia who numbered in their hundreds of thousands perished compared to more than 50 per cent of the Jews of Europe.

Since then, there has been predominantly negative coverage of Judeo-Arab relations. Europe, after the Second World War, was able to turn the page almost immediately, yet many Arabs still paint all Jews with the same brush used for Israelis.

In 1975, after the death of the Egyptian revolutionary leader Jamal Abdul Nasser, many countries in which he financed and encouraged revolutions were free from his pan-Arab nationalism and scaremongering and decided to take action in order to restore the social unity of their countries. The pre-Saddam Iraqi Revolution Command Council issued advertisements in The New York Times and elsewhere inviting Jews to return to their home countries and guaranteeing their rights. Sadat's Egypt and Hafez Al Assad's Syria also issued such statements.

In recent history it has only been two forward-thinking Middle Eastern kingdoms of Morocco and Bahrain that have broken the mould of suspicion towards their Jewish citizens and integrated them into the social and political spheres. The first with the case of André Azoulay, an adviser to the previous and current kings; and the latter with the recent appointment of Huda Ezra Ebrahim Nonoo as the new Bahraini ambassador to America.

Today in New York City alone there are more than 75,000 Jews of Syrian origin, many of them educated in the best schools, speaking or understanding Arabic and still having an affinity for Syria. Is it not possible to imagine that such persons have the right, if they so choose, to be full citizens of Syria?

Is it not time to reassure the Jews of Arab origin that their ancestral homes are mature enough to welcome them back if they decide to invest, visit or even take up citizenship? If football players who spend a few months in the Middle East are given citizenship, shouldn't people who have a natural birth-right, tremendous wealth and valuable education and skills be given the same?

Of course such statements will be met with criticisms and reminders of what the Israelis are doing to our Palestinian brothers and sisters. To that one can say that in the Middle East, no one has been more cruel and violent to Arabs, more exploitive of the Palestinians and more manipulative of their cause than Arabs themselves. Do we forget it was Iraq that invaded Kuwait, Egypt that encouraged bloody revolutions throughout the region and mostly militants from the Arabian Peninsula responsible for atrocious crimes of terrorism in Iraq? We ourselves have been the victims of unfair generalisations by the Western media, but should we learn from past lessons, or should we continue to reciprocate?

Sultan Al Qassemi is a Sharjah-based businessman and graduate of the American University of Paris. He is founder of Barjeel Securities, Dubai.

This article was first published in The National on April 26, 2008. [A.I - the original Web site is not on line at the moment]

sultan.alqassemi@gmail.com

Cross posted: Israel News Middle East Analysis