Naim Ateek: An Anglican priest disgraces authentic Christianity

Naim Ateek and his Sabeel group are leaders in Christian Israel bashing efforts of mainline Protestant churches in the USA. Ateek and Sabell do not believe in a two state solution and is therefore sabotaging the peace process. If they were Jews with the same ideas, they would be called "ultranationalist" and obstacles to peace. But their one state solution is an Arab state in which the Jews will have no right to self determination. For what reason are they given a platform to legitimize their noxious views at countless churches in the USA?

In his article e Anglican priest disgraces authentic Christianity, Dexter Van Zile asks what type of god inheres in the so-called peacemaking ministry of Anglican Priest Naim Ateek, founder of Sabeel Ecumenical Liberation Theology Center, notes that Naim Ateek is drumming up support for his latest book, A Palestinian Christian Cry for Reconciliation (Orbis, 2008), in which he falsely accuses Israel of perpetrating a "slow and creeping genocide" against Palestinians — who have one of the fastest growing populations in the world.

Ateek has long been a fixture at "Christian" events of a certain kind. The book gives him an excuse to peddle a vile that repeats Christian anti-Semitic accusations and repackages them as "theology." As Van Zile points out:

Apparently, leveling false accusations at the Jewish people and their homeland is not enough to get one barred from polite society in 21st century America.

He concludes:

The story Naim Ateek tells about the Arab-Israeli conflict, cloaked as it is in the language of Christian peacemaking, attests to the existence of a deaf, dumb and blind god who would use Muslim and Arab violence against Israel as a scourge against the Jewish people.

Such a god is not worthy of worship.

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

So-called "Arab Jews"

So-called "Arab Jews"

The term "Arab Jews" (eg see "The Mizrahi('Arab') Jews: The Forgotten Refugees" where the word "Arab" is used ironically) is used in many advocacy articles, such as those of David Shasha, Ella Habiba Shohat and others, referring to Jews who lived in Arab countries, and often extended to Jews who lived in Muslim countries. The term was also used by Prince Turki al Feisal of Saudi Arabia, provoking a debate.

Usually "Arab Jews" is employed by anti-Zionists, who are trying to create a mythical Jewish-Arab society where Jews and Arabs lived in peace and harmony, enjoying the benefits of Islamic tolerance and Arab culture that was destroyed by Zionism, as if the Golden age of Harun al Rashid and Muslim Spain had extended throughout Arabdom and Islamdom in space and time. Some pro-Zionist sources have used this term as well, (eg. "Hundreds of thousands of Arab Jews fled Arab states").

Though my ancestors were born in Turkish Palestine, their ancestors had come from Europe. I am not personally affected by this term, but it seems jarring and out of place to me, just as it does to Bataween (see Reject the Expression "Arab Jew" ) , and to Philologos (see Reject the 'Arab Jew'). As I do not have any personal experience or history to rely upon, I can only reason by analogy from the experience of Jews in Europe, which is understood far more clearly.

Ella Habiba Shohat asserted:

"I am an Arab Jew. Or, more specifically, an Iraqi Israeli woman living, writing and teaching in the U.S…. To be a European or American Jew has hardly been perceived as a contradiction, but to be an Arab Jew has been seen as a kind of logical paradox, even an ontological subversion [leading to] a profound and visceral schizophrenia, since for the first time in our history Arabness and Jewishness have been imposed as antonyms…"

Shohat does seem to have a point at first glance. Of course, if Ella Habiba Shohat wants to call herself an "Arab Jew" it is her privilege, but it seems to to me that most Jews from Arab countries object to this term. As an outsider, I have been trying to explore why the term "Arab Jew" turns my stomach, and why it is objectionable to so many Jews whose ancestors came from Arab countries. After all, we do not object to "European Jew" or "American Jew" or "Egyptian Jew." What is the difference? Why is Ella Habiba Shohat wrong?

The question can perhaps be answered in Jewish fashion, by asking two or three other questions. "What do we mean by 'Jew?'" "What do we mean by 'Arab'"? But first let us ask, "Why aren't Arabs who live in Israel called 'Jewish Arabs'"?

Ella Shohat, David Shasha, Prince Turki al Feisal and others may immediately object that "Jew" refers to a religion and not to a people. Therein lies the first part of the problem. Many of the Arabs of Israel, or as many prefer to call themselves, Palestinians, refuse to accept the validity of our nationhood, and would not like to be associated with the Jewish "religion." But I define my own identity. I do not try to define that of Prince Feisal or that of Mahmoud Abbas, but I don't want them to tell me that I am a member of a religion, or perhaps an "Arab Jew," just because I live in the Middle East.

My ancestors came to the land from Europe, over 100 years ago. Some of my cousin's ancestors came to the land from a different part of Europe, Spain to be exact, several hundred years ago. Even if I spoke fluent Arabic and wore a kaffiyeh, I would not be mistaken for an "Arab Jew," and neither should my cousin's ancestors be called "Arab Jews." If there are "Arab Jews" then the statement, "I am an Arab and you are a Jew" would not make much sense. Nor would it make any sense to say that the Arab Arabs attacked the "Arab Jews" of Hebron and Jerusalem in 1929, yelling "Idbah al Yahoud" - "Murder the Jews." Perhaps they should have yelled, "Murder the Arabs." If there were were really Arab Jews, it would make no sense for Arabs to say "Kulu al ard Arabi" (All the land is Arab) or "Filastin Arduna wa'al yahud kilabuna" (Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs) in order to assert that Israel does not belong to the Jews.. If we are all different types of Arabs, there would be no quarrel here and no problem. There would not be an Israel-Arab conflict. At most there would be a conflict between the Muslim Arabs of Palestine and the Jewish Arabs of the Land of Israel. We can see immediately that the whole line of reasoning is utterly absurd.

In the anti-Zionist narrative, the "Old Yishuv" Jews of Palestine were "Arabs," while the Zionists were all Europeans. The "Arab Jewsm" so the fiction goes, lived in wonderful harmony with their Muslim neighbors, save for a few pogroms here and there that can be excused on the grounds of Arab exuberance. But the new Zionist European Jews did not fit in. In reality of course, Zionism was "invented" by Sephardi as well as European Jews, and was heralded by the writings of Rabbi Yehudah Alkalai before Theodor Herzl was born, but "narratives" reinvent their own historic reality for their own political purposes.

If all that were required to end the Israeli-Arab conflict would be that the Jews of Israel integrate into Arab culture, we could learn Arabic, eat even more humus, tehina, olives, ful and barud, and learn to play the oud and the ney and dance the debka. The early Shomrim did precisely that. They dressed as Bedu and spoke Arabic and did horse tricks better than the natives. They played the ney and sang Arabic songs and danced Arabic dances. Nonetheless, no Arab would call them Arabs or Arab Jews. We would also have to ask why, If Jews living in the Arab countries were "Arab Jews," these particular "Arabs" were summarily expelled from Iraq, Egypt, Libya and other "Arab" countries.

In times past in the Middle East, there were ethnic groups, but for a long time there were no real nation states or national movements. Therefore, there perhaps was not much occasion for opposing Arabness and Jewishness as antonyms in the past. Jew can refer to a person of a particular religion, or a person belonging to an ethnic group, people or nation. It has only in more recent times consciously assumed the full political and social implications of "nation," because the modern consciousness of nationhood is only a few hundred years old at most. Arab originally referred to the people of the Arabian peninsula, an ethnic and tribal grouping, as well as a language and culture group. They included Jews undeniably, who could in some cases quite properly be called "Arab Jews."

However, after the rise of Muhammad, the Arabs forcibly converted or spewed out all the Jews from among them, beginning infamously at Khaybar. From then on, the existence of "Arab Jews" within Arab society was tenuous at best, just as the existence of "German Jews" in German society was a contradiction that had to resolve itself. "Arab Jews" could never fully participate in Arab society. They could not go to war with Arabs, or take part in all aspects of Arab culture, which were built for the most part on Islam. The Arab empire spread over the Middle East, North Africa and Europe, and the term "Arab countries" was applied indiscriminately to Egypt and to Morocco and Tunisia and Algeria, because the conquered inhabitants of these countries adopted the Arabic language. The so-called "Arab Jews" might occasionally be ministers in these countries or advisers, but they could not, by law, be knights or rulers, and their political successes very often ended in disaster and Pogroms.

These "Arab Jews" moreover, were very unlike the German Jews or the French Jews in a significant way. European Jews came to a host country with a majority culture. The Jews of Persia, later called Iran and Iraq, were there before these countries were Arab countries. In Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey there are also Kurds and in North Africa there are native Amazigh peoples. None of these call themselves "Arabs" and nobody calls them "Arabs" except perhaps in propaganda. Only Jews are given this "honor."

If the term "Arab Jews" was based on reality, and expressed the great identification of the Jewish people or religion with surrounding Arabic society and of the Arabs with their Jewish brethren, then we have to ask why the Jews of Sana in Yemen were expelled in the 17th century for example. Why did one group of Arabs take it upon themselves, for no reason, to persecute a different group of "Arabs?"

In modern times, the division became more acute. Arab nationalism arose and became a political force. The Ba'ath party was created as an expression of Arab nationalism. In theory, all 'Arabs' could join this party, but it seems that while it was created by a Christian and a Muslis and had a Christian and Muslim membership, the Ba'ath party did not include many Jews, if any. How was it that the "Arab" Jews were excluded from such a central and defining "Arab" undertaking? Following the Ba'ath party, Gamal Abdel Nasser developed Pan-Arabism. Isn't it peculiar that the Jews, so active in other progressive movements in Europe and even in the Middle East, were not prominent players in the most important Arab nationalist movements? The Baath party had an unfortunate habit of hanging certain "Arabs," just because those "Arabs" were Jews. Why did they distinguish between one sort of Arab and another? The term "Arab Jew" cannot explain this very well.

The obvious truth is that unlike the term "European," which is descriptive of a culture and geographic location, "Arab" today refers to a political and national movement that excludes the legitimacy of Jewish nationality. This is especially the case when the term is used by anti-Zionists. So a part of the answer to Ella Shohat's innocent quesion is, "It's the politics, stupid." But of course, she is not stupid and knows very well that the "Arab Jew" canard is trying to make a political point, and to create a political reality where none existed and none ever did exist. In the original countries of their Diaspora, Ella Shohat's ancestors, and David Shasha's ancestors were not "Arabs" when it came to assigning national allegiances, and they weren't included in real Arab national movements. They might have been prominent journalists and even politicians, but they remained on the periphery and found themselves advocating causes that were really alien to their own reality. They might be mistaken for "Arabs" by USA immigration officers, not by Arabs.

Ella Shohat's family in Iraq were Iraqi Jews, just as Theodor Herzl's family were Austrian Jews. But just as Hitler did not include these "Austrians" in his vision of the greater German Reich, so the Arab nationalists who started the Farhud pogrom in Baghdad did not include Ella's family in the Arabic Ouma. Ella's problem with identity is really the same as that of many European Jews, who tried so hard to be good Germans or good Poles or good Ukrainians or Russians or Communists and to advocate the national and political aspirations of their host country or society. In some rare cases this adopted Jewish nationalism succeeded, but very often in ended in tragedy, rejection and murder. With the rise of nationalism, almost every Diaspora community experienced the same problem. They found that despite adopting the language and some of the culture of their host countries, they could not really be "part of the action" in most cases. Sooner or later, many were vomited forth from their adopted societies whether they liked it or not. This produced the deeply conflicted feelings of many Jews toward their "old countries" - whether the "old country" was Germany or Iraq or Egypt. Jews were well off in Iraq, but they had also been well off in Germany and Austria. The rise of nationalism threatened Jewish existence everywhere in the Diaspora. There is nothing new in that statement and no big discovery.

It is too bad that the Shashas and the Ella Shohats of the world didn't yet come to terms with that frustrating and depressing aspect of Jewish existence -- rejection from a host group with which you may want to identify -- but there is no reason for them to invent a false narrative that portrays a perfect Diaspora extence that never was. German Jews could invent a similar tale, if they left out a few unpleasant details. Wasn't the Lorelei written by a Jew? After all, didn't they have their Heine and their Walther Rathenau and their Fritz Haber? Of course, Rathenau was assassinated by the Nazis and Haber died broken hearted after being disgraced and expelled. But they were very very German, these Jews, with all their heart and soul. Only the Germans didn't think so.

Nonetheless, the terms "German Jews" "French Jews," "Egyptian Jews," "Iraqi Jews" or "Yemeni Jews" all have a reasonable meaning, either because they denote the culture of the group of people in question, or their place of residence or their nationalities. "European Jews" makes sense in several contexts. "Europe" is not a nationality opposed to Judaism, and the northern European Jews had in common their own jargon language (Yiddish). set of customs and social network. "Arab Jews" does not make sense in the same way, since Yemenite Jews do not have the same customs as Iraqi Jews and neither are similar to the Jews or Turkey (descendants of Spanish Jews) or those of North Africa. There is only one country called Arabia, and there are no Jews living in it. There is only one national movement called "Arab" and Jews are excluded from this movement as a national group. Exceptions might be made for "token Jew" individuals to "prove" a perverse political point. Turki al Feisal may talk about "Arab Jews" but he will not let any of them become citizens of Saudi Arabia in the foreseeable future. Why would it be desirable or necessary for Israeli Jews, all of us, to become "Arab Jews" in order for there to be peace in the Middle East? Are there Arab Turks and Arab Persians? If someone suggested that all the Arabs must become Jewish Arabs or Zionist Arabs in order for there to be peace, Turki al Feisal would be very angry indeed.

"Arab Jews" might have been a logical possibility 200 years ago, when "Arab" referred only to culture and language, just as "German Jews" were German speaking Jews who lived in the various principalities where German was spoken, but that is no longer a reality."Arab Jews" as a term today seems to have a logic similar to "mice of the feline persuasion." The mice are not invited to the cat party except as dinner, and the Jews are not invited to the Arab party except in a capacity analogous to that of the mice.

Whatever the connotation of "Arab Jews" might have been two or three centuries ago, today the term must represent something between a fiction and an oxymoron. Through my admittedly non-Mizrachi Jewish eyes, it seems to be an absurd attempt at make believe, no less absurd and dangerous than the term "Germans of the Mosaic faith" coined by Reform Jews in 19th century Germany. Just as there are Jews who insist that they are "Arab Jews," so there are Jews who insist, even after all the horrible history of the last century, that they want to be Germans or Poles who are incidentally "of Jewish origin." It is their right to call themselves whatever they like. At best, it will mean giving up and forgetting their Jewish origin. At worst, it will end in tragedy. The tuition for understanding the depth of that folly was prohibitively high, and should not be paid again.

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Arab News Op Ed against Suicide Bombing

New winds are blowing over the hot Saudi deserts. They have suddenly understood that suicide bombing is not all that wonderful after all.

Saudis who want to find the reasons for suicide bombing needn't look far. They need only examine the mounds of Saudi Fatwas and editorials praising "martyrs" and they need only check the huge subsidies paid by petrodollar millionaires to madrassas that crank out Mujahedin like those who did the 9-11 attack. It is good that Saudis are finally frightened of the Jihad genie they unleashed, but they won't solve the problem until they are honest with themselves.

It is not true, as stated below, that suicide bombings are increasingly being called martyrdom operations. They were called "martyrdom operations" from the start

Saudis financed the extremists on the premise (or excuse) that they could export their terrorists to other countries and keep peace at home. Saudis only became horrified at suicide bombings as it became clear that the targets could be themselves rather than Israelis or Americans. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

Ami Isseroff

Suicide bombing? Perish the thought
Shafquat Ali, shafquat.ali@arabnews.com

Four-year-old Duha can barely hold back her tears as she watches her mother getting dressed to leave home. Knowing full well she will not be accompanying her, she implores: "Mommy, what are you carrying in your arms instead of me?"

There are no answers. Not until a day later. Just when teary-eyed Duha has all but given up questioning her mother's return with eyes transfixed on the door, the evening news tells it all. Her mother, it turns out, had blown herself up, killing four Israelis.

The little girl, inconsolable as she is, seeks solace in her mother's belongings. Rummaging through her dead mother's bedside table, Duha finds a hidden stick of dynamite. She picks it up.

And embraces it. By the looks of it, little Duha may well grow up to follow in her mother's footsteps.

That may not be a true a story — it was a macabre music video that appeared on a television show for Palestinian children — but there's no denying that it drew inspiration from any number of similar real-life stories circulating in the Arab street.

Take Reem Riyashi, a Palestinian mother of two who blew herself up in a suicide attack against Israeli soldiers at a Gaza border crossing in January 2004, for instance. A video statement released hours after her death showed her in battle fatigue, brandishing a semiautomatic rifle.

"I have always wished to knock at the door of heaven carrying skulls belonging to the sons of Zion," Riyashi said menacingly, with a scowl on her face.

Not surprising then that, four years after her bloody death, she continues to be hailed as a courageous resistance fighter throughout Gaza and the West Bank.

But, at the same time, one cannot help but wonder if people had noticed how she was also fighting to ensure that her tough talking did not betray her hidden emotion. The emotion of a mother who was going on a mission from which she would never return to embrace her two children. To take care of them, to caress them.

Never mind. The fact of the matter is: With the number of Riyashis growing everyday, it is not easy to sketch a picture of an archetypical suicide bomber. Not any more.

Today, a suicide bomber could be a weary old man in a wheelchair asking for help on the streets of Baghdad. An elderly lady holding out her palms for charity in a bazaar in Ramallah. Or it could be a zesty young lad cheering along with the crowd at a sporting event in Kandahar.

He could also be a brooding figure offering a hand as a dear one is laid to rest at a cemetery in Mingora town in Pakistan's Swat Valley or a trendy young lad standing outside the discotheque in Tel Aviv.

On the other hand, she could be a mentally handicapped woman nudging past in a Shiite shrine in Karbala or a pretty, young lady sitting next to you on a bus in Colombo.

But that's not all, if slain Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, who was assassinated in a bomb-and-suicide attack in Rawalpindi last year, was to be believed, it could be also be an innocent baby.

In her memoirs, she raised suspicion that a baby a young man was holding out to her at a rally in Karachi was laden with explosives. Moments later, a suicide attack killed 180.

Yes, it is true, such pictures of suicide bombers are now etched in our recent memory.

It's worrisome enough that suicide bombers seem to be springing up everywhere. But, what's worse is the fear that they are no longer shadowy figures that were once described as the pride and joy of former PLO chief Yasser Arafat's arsenal.

Today, they are the most deadly weapons of mass destruction which have no known defense. And the reason for their very existence — and subsequent demise — ranges from political vendetta to social vengeance and from ideological differences to economic disparity.

To put it bluntly, suicide bombers today are furiously crawling out of the woodwork and could even be right next to you as you read this.

No, I am not trying to paint a scary picture and suggest suicide bombers have taken over the world in general and the Middle East in particular. Far from it, they exist in pockets. But those pockets are growing alarmingly deeper — and at a far greater pace than you and I had ever imagined.

What's more, the picture of the quintessential suicide bomber — if there was one — is being rapidly replaced by everyday faces.

But now, the question is: Why are people much like you and me dying to kill themselves, knowing only too well there will be no dignity in death?

Moments after they have pressed the trigger to blow themselves and others around them up, their bodies would be splattered into tiny pieces that may never see a funeral, let alone get recognized in the pool of blood and gore. Also, whatever it is that they choose to answer their Creator thereafter, one thing is clear: They will have to explain why they decided to play God.

And took it upon themselves to end the lives of their victims. It would certainly weaken their case if they have to account for innocent women and children in those numbers.

Without venturing into a debate on the merits or demerits of suicide bombings - given that the term is being increasingly replaced by martyrdom operation - the increase in attacks against civilians, as opposed to military targets, does raise alarm bells.

A Hamas training manual, for instance, apparently notes "It is foolish to hunt for the tiger when there are plenty of sheep around." And that's something we can ill afford to dismiss sheepishly.

(Next week: Socio-Economic Reasons.)

Continued (Permanent Link)

Israel's 12 tribes, per Bradley Burston

Bradley Burston, the Haaretz columnist, sums up Israel as 12 latter-day tribes comprising "the magnificent muck-up that's now about to hit 60." His piece presupposes some familiarity with Israeli politics. Like much of his work, it is amusing and insightful.

Haaretz / Last update - 09:20 25/04/2008
The new tribes of Israel
By Bradley Burston
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/977943.html

My life partner and I once found ourselves on a remote part of the Hawaiian island of Kauai. We got to talking with a calm, perceptive and unusually grounded woman who told us she lived there. When she then asked us where we called home, and we told her Israel, she responded with what seemed to her to be the logical, natural, next question: "Oh ... what tribe are you?"

While we, taken aback, groped for an answer, she told us in a manner as matter-of-fact as an observation about the weather, that she was of the Tribe of Ephraim. Everyone at her church, she continued, knew which tribe they belonged to.

Perhaps the question is harder for us to answer because we no longer see ourselves, as the first 12 Tribes did, as the children of the children of Jacob. The tribes that make up the latter-day State of Israel are, in fact, the remnants of revolution, of a surfeit of concurrent revolutions, in fact. Together those revolutions have built and battered Israel into the magnificent muck-up that's now about to hit 60.

A field guide:

The Tribe of Beitar
Tribal lore blends Polish-Jewish culture of nursing grievances as a way of life, with multigenerational Mizrahi rage at the ghost of Mapai (see below).

Political orientation: Raucously hawkish, but once in power, tends to give away occupied land (for example, Sinai, Gaza, most of Hebron).

Religious orientation: Beitar-odox, a fundamentalist belief in Beitar Jerusalem and the redemptive power of soccer. Sabbath observance may include participation in Orthodox minyan, followed by a chain-smoking convoy drive - yellow-and-black Beitar scarf flying from car windows - to the match of the week.

The Tribe of Mapai
Once the proudly dominant clan, running everything from the Israel Defense Forces to health care to steel production. Now splintered, anemic, rudderless, vestigial, yuppified - barely an extended dysfunctional family.

Political orientation: Once strongly social-democratic. Once strongly dovish.

Identifying characteristics: Equivocation. Nostalgia.

The Tribe of Maran
Named for tribal elder Maran (Revered Rabbi) Ovadia Yosef.

Aim: To restore pride to Jews of Mediterranean and Mideast origin, who often faced discrimination and humiliation at the hands of Mapai.

Political orientation: Tough on religious issues, hard-line though occasionally flexible on matters of defense and diplomacy.

Identifying characteristics: By far the best dressed (and groomed) among the ultra-Orthodox. Not to be confused with the Ashkenazi Tribe of Mamaloshen, too varied (think pro-Gush Emunim to pro-Ahmadinejad) to be detailed here.

The Tribe of Tech
One of the newer clans. Believes in the redemptive power of long hours, innovative ideas, Nasdaq and eventual sale of the company to a global corporation for mega-millions.

Political orientation: Vaguely centrist. Believes in stability and furtherance of peace talks as good for investment and the economy.

Identifying characteristics: Bluetooth implant, polo shirt, car with company logo on back fender and bumper sticker reading "How's my driving?" - but with phone number too small to read when vehicle is traveling at warp speed.

The Tribe of Yesha
Includes many of the some quarter-million Jewish residents of the West Bank, plus a huge number of settler would-have-beens in Jerusalem, Beit Shemesh, Modi'in, Brooklyn and elsewhere.

Political orientation: Vanguard of the religious right, but drifting. Youth are having second thoughts. The disengagement from Gaza shattered faith in the government, the state, the Yesha Council and national Orthodoxy, giving rise to the hardal - the Haredi Leumi amalgam.

The Tribe of Bil'in
A small, poorly organized but vocal clan, with offshoots in South Tel Aviv lofts and elsewhere. Signature ritual is protest against West Bank fence near village of Bi'lin.

Religious orientation: Personal anarchism. Antipathy to Israeli governmental institutions and policies. Antipathy may extend to Zionism as a philosophy, and/or to bourgeois parents.

The Tribe of Kach
The rightist version of the Bil'inist. Feels compulsion to spend all Jewish holidays in Hebron. Feels compulsion to spray-paint "Kahane was right" on all available bus stops.

Political orientation: Far right. Fervent belief in expelling Arabs from Greater Israel. Often characterized by excessive interest in and carrying of large handguns. Tribe has many fellow travelers, notably Women in Green.

Identifying characteristics: Oversized kippot. Oversized earlocks. Oversized sidearms.

The Tribe of Tibi
Israel's Arab minority, perhaps the most difficult grouping to typify, as it is made up of numerous minorities and clans of diverse religions, cultures, and political and social attitudes.

These include Christians, Muslims and Druze, Negev and Galilee Bedouin, IDF officers and firebrand Islamists. Their position also makes them vulnerable to the simultaneous suspicions of fellow Israelis and neighboring Palestinians.

The Tribes of Sheinkin and Bombamela
Two sides of a similar coin, this group - largely native-born Ashkenazi in origin - may tend toward artistic/New Age/yuppie commercial ventures on the one hand, and patchouli-flavored hippie dropout status on the other.

The Tribe of Vesty
More than a million strong, "the Russians," as immigrants from ex-Soviet lands are collectively known, have created a subculture of their own. In some disciplines, notably music, they have brought a level of formality and seriousness, which may put them at odds with the more offhand approach of the native-born.

P.S. After almost two decades here, I still have little idea which tribe is truly mine. Perhaps a little perspective is in order. Perhaps another visit to Kauai.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Iraq Author: Jews have a historic right to Palestine

There is much to ponder in this wonderful article, including this:

"This enormous lie is what the Arabs called the Nakba – that is, the establishment of two states in Palestine: the state of Israel, which the Jews agreed to accept, and the state of Palestine, which the Arabs rejected.

"In our times, when science, with its accurate instruments, can predict climatic changes that will lead to drought or the movement of tectonic plates that causes earthquakes, it is inconceivable that a modern man can, without making a laughingstock of himself, attribute the destruction of cities ancient or modern to the wrath of Allah. Nevertheless, today, 80% of Arabs claim this to be the case. They are neither embarrassed nor afraid of being laughed at.

"This high percentage includes not only the illiterates who densely populate rural areas, villages, and small and large cities, but also students, teachers, lecturers, graduates of institutions of higher education, scientists, technology experts, physicians, graduates of religious universities such as Al-Azhar, historians, and politicians who have held or are currently holding public office.

"It is those numerous educated elites who have forced the Arab mentality into a narrow, restrictive, and deficient cultural mold, spewing violence, terrorism, and zealotry, and prohibiting innovative thought... All this was done to instill a false sense of oppression in the hearts of the Arabs, and to destroy them with the infectious disease of despair and confusion.

"[This attitude] is rooted in the 1947 Arab League resolution stating that Palestine is a 'stolen' land and that none but a Muslim Arab is entitled to benefit from it as an autonomous [political entity], even if another's historic roots there predate those of the Muslims or the Arabs."

...

"Why did the partition resolution, which gave a state in Palestine to the Jews and one to the Arabs next to it, become the Nakba – [the star] that rises and sets daily over the Arab lands without emitting even the tiniest ray of light to illuminate the path for their peoples?

"Did the Jews have any less right to Palestine than the Arabs? What historic criteria can be used to determine the precedence of one [nation's] right over that of the other?

"Refusing to recognize the right of the other so as to usurp his rights was a governing principle of the Islamic conquests from the time of 'Omar bin Al-Khattab; during that historical period it was the norm. [But] at the turn of the [20th] century, this principle was abandoned and prohibited, because it sparked wars and [violent] conflict. The international community passed laws restricting the principle of non-acceptance of the other, in the founding principles of the League of Nations in 1919. Subsequently, with the U.N.'s establishment, these laws were developed [further], with appendices and commentary, to adapt them to the current historical era and to express the commonly accepted values of national sovereignty and peoples' right to self-determination.

"But because of their sentimental yearning for the past and zealous adherence to [old] criteria, the Arabs purged their hearts of any inclination to adjust to the spirit of the age. They thus became captives of the principle of non-acceptance of the other and of denying the other [the right] to live, [among] other rights.

"As a result, damage was done to the rights and interests of non-Arab nations and ethnic groups in the Arab lands – among them the Kurds, the Copts, and the Jews. [Thus,] the Arabs still treat the numerous minorities that came under their dominion 1,400 years ago in accordance with the laws from the era of Arab conquest.

"Despite the consequences of denying the other the right to exist, not to mention other rights – that is, [despite] the oppression, conflicts, wars, and instability [resulting from this]... the Arabs have steadfastly clung to their clearly chauvinist position. All problems in the region arising from minorities' increasing awareness of their rights have been dealt with by the Arabs in accordance with [the principle of non-acceptance]... [even] after the emergence of international institutions giving these rights legal validity, in keeping with the mentality and rationale of our time."

Iraqi Author 'Aref 'Alwan: The Jews Have an Historic Right to Palestine

In an article posted December 7, 2007, on the leftist website http://www.ahewar.org ,(1) 'Aref 'Alwan, an Iraqi author and playwright who resides in London and is the author of 12 novels,(2) states that the Jews have an historic right to Palestine because their presence there preceded the Arab conquest and has continued to this day.

In the article, titled "Do the Jews Have Any Less Right to Palestine than the Arabs?" 'Alwan called on the Arab world to acknowledge the Jews' right to Palestine, because justice demanded it and also because doing so would end the violence and the killing of Arabs, as well as intra-Arab strife. He added that such a move would also open up new avenues for the Arab world that would be more consistent with the values and needs of modern society.

'Alwan writes that the Arab League is to blame for the refusal to recognize the 1947 U.N. partition plan, for starting a war to prevent its implementation, and for the results of that war, which the Arabs call the Nakba (disaster). He points an accusing finger at the Arab regimes, the Arab League, and the educated circles in the Arab world, saying that they had all used the term "nakba" to direct popular consciousness toward a cultural tradition that neither accepts the other side nor recognizes its rights – thereby promoting bigotry, violence and extremism. He also claims that there have been attempts to rewrite Palestinian history, in order to deny any connection between it and the Jewish people.

'Alwan contends that the "Nakba mentality" among Arabs has boomeranged, giving rise to tyrannical rulers, extremist clerics, and religious zealots of every description. In his view, the Arab world will never shed the stigma of terrorism in the West unless it abandons this concept and all that it entails.

To boost his claim that the Jews have an historic right to Palestine, 'Alwan provides an overview of Jewish history in the land of Israel. He questions the validity of the Islamic traditions underpinning the Arab claim to Palestine, Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount, and presents evidence that religions that preceded Islam had conducted rituals on the Temple Mount.

As an example of the traditional Arab mentality that does not accept the other or recognize his rights, 'Alwan discusses the Arabs' abuse of the Kurds in Iraq and of the Christians in Egypt and Lebanon.

The following are excerpts from the article:

The Nakba: A Great Lie


"When the Salafi mob in Gaza tied the hands and feet of a senior Palestinian official and hurled him, alive, from the 14th floor, I asked myself: What political or religious precepts must have been inculcated into the minds of these young people to make them treat a human life with such shocking cruelty?

"Earlier, I had watched on TV as the bodies of two Israeli soldiers were thrown from the second floor [of a building] in a Palestinian city. Whether or not it was the same Salafi mob behind that incident, [one asks oneself]: What language, [or rather,] what historic linguistic distortion could have erased from the human heart [all] moral sensibilities when dealing with a living and helpless human being?

"Arabs who are averse to such inhuman behavior must help me expose and eliminate the enormous lie that has for 60 years justified, extolled, and supported brutality. [Such behavior] is no longer limited to the expression of unconscious [impulses] by individuals, but constitutes a broad cultural phenomenon, which began in Lebanon, [spread to] Iraq and Palestine, and then [spread] – slowly but surely – to other Arab states as well.

"This enormous lie is what the Arabs called the Nakba – that is, the establishment of two states in Palestine: the state of Israel, which the Jews agreed to accept, and the state of Palestine, which the Arabs rejected.

"In our times, when science, with its accurate instruments, can predict climatic changes that will lead to drought or the movement of tectonic plates that causes earthquakes, it is inconceivable that a modern man can, without making a laughingstock of himself, attribute the destruction of cities ancient or modern to the wrath of Allah. Nevertheless, today, 80% of Arabs claim this to be the case. They are neither embarrassed nor afraid of being laughed at.

"This high percentage includes not only the illiterates who densely populate rural areas, villages, and small and large cities, but also students, teachers, lecturers, graduates of institutions of higher education, scientists, technology experts, physicians, graduates of religious universities such as Al-Azhar, historians, and politicians who have held or are currently holding public office.

"It is those numerous educated elites who have forced the Arab mentality into a narrow, restrictive, and deficient cultural mold, spewing violence, terrorism, and zealotry, and prohibiting innovative thought... All this was done to instill a false sense of oppression in the hearts of the Arabs, and to destroy them with the infectious disease of despair and confusion.

"[This attitude] is rooted in the 1947 Arab League resolution stating that Palestine is a 'stolen' land and that none but a Muslim Arab is entitled to benefit from it as an autonomous [political entity], even if another's historic roots there predate those of the Muslims or the Arabs."

The Nakba Boomerang


"[The upshot] of this confusion in [Arab] mentality is that the lie has boomeranged on the Arabs. [Thus] appeared [on the scene] Saddam Hussein, Hafez Al-Assad, Bashar Al-Assad, Osama bin Laden, Ayman Al-Zawahiri, Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi, Hassan Nasrallah, Nabih Berri, Khaled Mash'al, Isma'il Haniya, and Mahmoud Al-Zahar, whose young [thugs] threw the senior Palestinian official from the 14th floor. Finally, from the foot of the eastern mountains bordering the Middle East came Ahmadinejad, who is committed to preparing the way for the anarchy and destruction that accompanies the advent of the long-awaited Mahdi, who will resolve the Palestinian problem.

"Today, owing to the ideological distortions that have afflicted the Arab popular consciousness since the so-called Nakba, and [also owing] to the lies that have accumulated around this notion, [the label of] 'terrorism' has become attached to Arabs, wherever they are.

"Despite the great political and cultural efforts by large and important Arab states such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and some Gulf states to restore Arab ties with the rest of the world, and to curb the culture of terrorism in Arab societies, they have all failed. This is because these attempts to rectify [the situation], from both within and without [the Arab countries], both stemmed from and were a logical extension of the concept of the Nakba.

"This proves that the Arabs have no hope of extricating themselves from the cultural and political challenge of terrorism unless they come up with [new] and different [fundamental] premises, and with an outlook completely free of the fetters of the religious ritual that they have devised in modern times and called the Nakba.

"Although Palestinian senior officials, leaders, educated circles, and public figures, whose patriotism is beyond doubt, have come to terms with the existence of the State of Israel, the aforementioned 80% of Arabs... do not accept this view, and consider it religious apostasy. Leaders of the [Arab] states in the region, and party leaders, inflame sentiment, entrancing them with the drumbeat of extremism.

"With the strident chorus of its secretaries, the Arab League ensures that every car crash in Gaza or the West Bank is interpreted as an Israeli conspiracy against the Arab future. This is because the Arab League... was established as a pan-Arab entity whose main function was to write reports and studies rife with distortions of fact so as to quell the conscience of any Arab who dared think independently and expunge [the concept of] the Nakba from his consciousness. [It has done] this instead of devising creative strategies for cultural and economic development, so as to improve the deteriorating standard of living in the Arab societies."

The Nakba is Rooted in a Culture that Does Not Recognize the Right of the Other


"Why did the partition resolution, which gave a state in Palestine to the Jews and one to the Arabs next to it, become the Nakba – [the star] that rises and sets daily over the Arab lands without emitting even the tiniest ray of light to illuminate the path for their peoples?

"Did the Jews have any less right to Palestine than the Arabs? What historic criteria can be used to determine the precedence of one [nation's] right over that of the other?

"Refusing to recognize the right of the other so as to usurp his rights was a governing principle of the Islamic conquests from the time of 'Omar bin Al-Khattab; during that historical period it was the norm. [But] at the turn of the [20th] century, this principle was abandoned and prohibited, because it sparked wars and [violent] conflict. The international community passed laws restricting the principle of non-acceptance of the other, in the founding principles of the League of Nations in 1919. Subsequently, with the U.N.'s establishment, these laws were developed [further], with appendices and commentary, to adapt them to the current historical era and to express the commonly accepted values of national sovereignty and peoples' right to self-determination.

"But because of their sentimental yearning for the past and zealous adherence to [old] criteria, the Arabs purged their hearts of any inclination to adjust to the spirit of the age. They thus became captives of the principle of non-acceptance of the other and of denying the other [the right] to live, [among] other rights.

"As a result, damage was done to the rights and interests of non-Arab nations and ethnic groups in the Arab lands – among them the Kurds, the Copts, and the Jews. [Thus,] the Arabs still treat the numerous minorities that came under their dominion 1,400 years ago in accordance with the laws from the era of Arab conquest.

"Despite the consequences of denying the other the right to exist, not to mention other rights – that is, [despite] the oppression, conflicts, wars, and instability [resulting from this]... the Arabs have steadfastly clung to their clearly chauvinist position. All problems in the region arising from minorities' increasing awareness of their rights have been dealt with by the Arabs in accordance with [the principle of non-acceptance]... [even] after the emergence of international institutions giving these rights legal validity, in keeping with the mentality and rationale of our time."

Refusing to Accept the Other: The Kurds in Iraq; the Christians in Egypt and Lebanon

The Kurds


"The denial of the Kurds' national rights by the Iraqi government, and the Arab League's support for it, has brought on wars lasting 50 years – that is, three-quarters of the life span of the state that arose in Iraq...

"After fabricating arguments to justify the [1921] combining of the Basra region with the Baghdad region in order to establish a new state in Iraq, British colonialist interests demanded that a large area historically populated by Kurds be added to the new state. [This was done] to satisfy the aspirations of King Faisal bin Al-Hussein [bin Ali Al-Hashemi], who had been proposed as head of state in return for protecting British interests in the region.

"In his persistent refusal to grant the Kurds their rights, from 1988 through 1989 Saddam Hussein murdered approximately 180,000 Kurds, in an organized [genocidal] campaign he called 'Al-Anfal.' He then used mustard gas against one [Kurdish] city (Halabja), killing its residents (5,000 people). The Arab conscience silently acquiesced to this human slaughterhouse, while Arab League secretary-general (Shadhli Al-Qalibi) called the international press coverage of these events 'a colonialist conspiracy against the Arabs and the Iraqi regime.'

"Syrian Kurds are considered second-class citizens, and are banned from using their language or [practicing] their culture in public."

The Christians in Egypt and Lebanon

"The ethnic oppression of the Kurds [in Iraq] was echoed by sectarian extremism against the Copts [in Egypt]. In both cases, the Arabs used the principle of denying the existence of the other so as to strip him of his rights.

"The Copts, who [initially] assimilated Arabs into their society, but who have over time themselves assimilated into Arab society, discover time and again that this assimilated state is but a surface shell, which quickly cracks whenever they demand equality... As a result, Egypt, as a state, is gripped by constant social tensions that keep rising to the surface and threatening to undermine its stability...

"Sectarian extremism in Egypt took the form of an organized party with the 1928 emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood, with the aim of splitting Egyptian society into two mutually hostile and conflicting parts. This was in line with the Arab religious and political principle of denying legitimacy to all non-Muslims or non-Arabs, [a principle practiced] since the Muslim armies reached Egypt in 639 [CE]...

"In Lebanon, the presence of armed Palestinian militias – which was in accordance with the decision of the Arab states – encouraged the formation of Lebanese militias, both Sunni and Shi'ite. Chanting slogans proclaiming Palestinian liberation, they frightened Christians by appearing armed in streets swarming with Lebanese [citizens] and tourists.

"This eventually led to a confrontation with Christian militias, which had also armed themselves out of fear of the pan-Arab slogans and fear for the [preservation of] the rights of the Christian sects.

"Lebanon was engulfed by an ugly 15-year civil war, that ended only after Syria, which had played an ignominious role as instigator [of the hostilities], attained full protectorate status over Lebanese affairs and the Lebanese people – [and this] took on the nature of colonialist hegemony...

"After the Lebanese were liberated from this [Syrian] control, in 2005 the clouds of civil war – albeit of a different kind – reappeared on the Lebanese horizon. The Arab League is making no effort to prevent the eruption [of this civil war] for two main reasons. First, the Syrian regime still supports ethnic tension, in order to regain control of Lebanon; and second, the current majority government, which opposes the renewed Syrian influence, is predominantly Christian...

"We had hoped that the Arab national conscience would recover from the illness afflicting it since the time of the Nakba, and that it would adopt [views] which, if not ahead of their time, would at least be appropriate to our time. But a group of journalists, writers, and several Arab historians guided by the principle of non-acceptance of the other has twisted the facts and concocted a false and gloomy history of the region – thereby trampling these dreams to the ground."

Jews Have a Rich and Ancient History in Palestine


"The Arabs see the Palestinian problem as exceedingly complicated, while it actually appears so only to them – [that is], from the point of view of the Arabs' emotional attitudes and their national and religious philosophy. The Arabs have amassed false claims regarding their exclusive right to the Palestinian land, [and] these are based on phony arguments and on several axioms taken from written and oral sources – most of which they [themselves] created after the Islamic, and which they forbade anyone, Arab or foreigner, from questioning.

"When the Arabs agreed to U.N. arbitration... to resolve the Palestinian problem, it transpired that their axioms clearly contradicted reliable historical documents [that] this new international organization [had in its possession]. As a result, they wasted decades stubbornly defending the validity of their documents, which do not correspond to the officially accepted version of the region's history – which is based on concrete and solid evidence [such as] archaeological findings in the land of Palestine, the holy books of the three monotheistic religions, accounts by Roman, Greek, and Jewish historians... and modern historical research..."

Jewish and Christian Ritual Sites in Jerusalem Predate Muslim Sites


"[A look at] the story of Al-Aqsa is now in order – a site considered holy by Muslim Arabs, who call it 'Al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif' [The Noble Sanctuary] and [believe that] it was set aside for them by Allah since the time of Adam.

"[This site] contains several places of worship, including the Dome of the Rock, built by the [Umayyad Caliph] 'Abd Al-Malik bin Marwan in the seventh century CE – that is, 72 years after the Muslim conquests. This religious public gathering place was erected over a prominent [foundation] stone at the peak of 'Mount Moriah.' [Mount Moriah] contains three ancient Jewish public worship sites, as well as [some] Christian sites... The octagonal structure of the Dome of the Rock Mosque was constructed on the site of an ancient Byzantine church, adjoining Solomon's Temple, destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD.

"Since the majority of Muslims claim that the Temple Mount is an Islamic site to which no one else is entitled, they do not acknowledge the presence of Jewish and Christian places of worship predating the Dome of the Rock within its walls...

"The Arabs take great pride in their tolerance of and benign treatment of the Jews and Christians who lived under the Muslim rule since the Muslim conquests. This account is part of the distortions underpinning the edifice of the Arabs' religious and national culture. [Arab] writers and historians keep eulogizing this epoch... while the truth is the opposite of what they claim. [Indeed,] the Pact of 'Omar [compelled] the Jews and the Christians to choose between either abandoning their religion and embracing Islam, or paying the [poll] tax in return for being permitted to reside... and receive protection of life and property in their homeland. [The Pact of 'Omar] allowed them to practice their religion, build new houses of worship, and repair the old ones [only] with the permission of a Muslim ruler, and subject to numerous conditions.

"In subsequent historical periods, the Muslims imposed [additional restrictions] on the members of [these] two religions: They forbade them to raise their voices during prayer; [they forced them] to conduct their prayers and religious ceremonies in closed areas so as not [to disturb] passersby; they forbade them to carry weapons, ride saddled horses, or build houses taller than those of the Muslims. [Christians and Jews] were required to show respect for the Muslims, e.g. by giving up their seat to a Muslim if he wanted it. They were banned from holding government posts or from working in 'sensitive' public places.

"The Koranic verses cursing the Jews and casting doubt on [the veracity of] their Holy Book [the Torah] promulgated a desire among Arabs to set themselves above the Jews who lived in their midst, humiliating and persecuting them even without pretext. In time, this treatment made large numbers of Jews abandon their cities and their land and emigrate... while those who stayed [in Palestine] until the 19th century remained marginalized, living among the Arabs like criminals in a foreign land...

"The Arabs claim that the 'Wailing Wall' has been their property since the Prophet Muhammad tied his horse Al-Buraq to one of its supports when Allah transported him by night from the Holy Mosque in Mecca to pray at the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem... Although this night-journey story seems dubious, Arab historiography after the advent of Islam contains such oddities as giving a horse the prerogative of making a wall weighing more than 2,000 tons into Muslim property. This is only one of thousands of examples of tales concocted by zealots, with which they swept away the Arab imagination.

"...When the U.N. resolution on the partition of Palestine was issued on November 29, 1947... the Arabs refused to recognize it. They thereby rejected the state set out by the resolution as the right of the Palestinians and the Arabs, with the aim of establishing legal and historical equity. The Arabs called this resolution the Nakba, while their new states, formed several years before the State of Israel, launched the first war against Israel, in which regular military operations were combined with local attacks by gangs comprising Palestinians and Arabs from Arab regions near and far. [That war] ended in [the Arabs'] defeat. Persisting in their error, the Arabs established refugee camps for the Palestinians who had fled during and after the war...

"Chairman Mahmoud 'Abbas... was the first Palestinian leader to acknowledge that the Christian church in Gaza plundered by Hamas gangs had stood there 'before [we] came to Gaza.' By this he meant 'we the Palestinians' – particularly the current Gaza residents, [the descendants of] Bedouins from the Sinai and the Arabian Peninsula and of others, of unknown origin. [These people were] attracted by the wealth of the new Islamic state that extended from Persia to Southern Ethiopia, and came after the Muslim conquests and set themselves up over the local population – Christians, Jews, Phoenicians, Byzantines, and the remnants of the Sumerians...

Arabs Must Recognize the Jews' Right to Palestine


"In order to prevent more bloodshed among the innocent [population]... and in order to keep the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza, and the West Bank from making [these regions into] a quagmire that will spread to engulf all Arab states and societies, the Arabs must reassess the question of the Nakba and come up with a new, courageous vision for the region and for the future of its residents.

"[This vision] must involve public recognition of the Jews' legitimate right to their state – which is based on historical fact – instead of [recognition] of the writings filled with anger and demagogy produced and formed into an ideology by the confused [Arab] consciousness – a consciousness built upon lies, myths, and distortions stemming from the principle of non-acceptance of the other.

"The most important factor in strengthening such a new vision is [the adoption of] a principle [requiring] official condemnation of all individuals, groups, companies, religious and political parties, and totalitarian regimes that built their glory and hollow leaderships upon the notion of the Nakba, and which are always ready to absorb other false claims and fabrications.

"This must be done, so that a modern Arab face is turned to the world – [a face reflecting] ethical values that will not allow any Arab, under any pretext, to oppress his son or his brother who differs from him in religion, ethnicity, or ideology."

Endnotes:
(1) www.ahewar.org (formerly www.rezgar.com), December 7, 2007.
(2) 'Aref 'Alwan is the first Arab author to publish his novels on the Internet. His doing so was the subject of his January 20, 2005 interview in the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat.

Cross posted: Israel News Middle East Analysis

Continued (Permanent Link)

Yad Vashem opens Arabic Web site

Teaching about the Holocaust - in Arabic

 

Last update - 19:35 24/01/2008    

 

 Yad Vashem launches Arabic Web site to combat Holocaust denial 

By The Associated Press 

 

The Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem on Thursday launched an Arabic version of its Web site, including vivid photos of Nazi atrocities and video of survivor testimony, to combat Holocaust denial in the Arab and Muslim world.

 

Among those featured on the site is Dina Beitler, a survivor of the Nazi genocide that killed 6 million Jews in World War II. Beitler, who was shot and left for dead in a pit of bodies in 1941, recalls her story on the site, with Arabic subtitles.

 

"Holocaust denial in various countries exists, and so it is important that people see us, the Holocaust survivors, that they'll listen to our testimonies, and learn the legacy of the Holocaust - also in Arabic," Beitler, 73, said at Yad Vashem on Thursday.

 

Last year, Yad Vashem presented a similar version of its Web site in Farsi, aimed at Iran, whose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called the Holocaust a myth and said Israel should be wiped off the map. He has also hosted a conference that questioned whether the Holocaust took place.

 

On the Arab street, many are indeed hostile to Israel, but Ahmadinejad's comments stand out as much harsher than those of any mainstream Mideast leaders.

 

A wide range of sentiments toward the Holocaust exists across the Arab world, from simple ignorance about its details to outright denial, to a more complicated belief - often expressed by many Arabs - that the Holocaust did indeed happen but does not justify what is viewed as Israeli persecution of Palestinians.

 

Nazi literature is accessible in many Arab cities and some of the media engage in anti-Semitic incitement. However, even Iran last year permitted the broadcast of a television miniseries that told the tale of an Iranian diplomat in Paris who helped Jews escape the Holocaust - and viewers were riveted.

 

"Still, Holocaust denial is quite common," said Edward Walker, a former ambassador to Israel and Egypt.

 

"Students often write their Ph.D. theses denying the Holocaust," he said. "Children are taught by elders that the Holocaust was a hoax. It's widespread in big universities in Cairo, so that means it's probably as common in the small ones in the rest of the country as well."

 

The problem also exists in Israel.

 

Last March, a poll showed that 28 percent of Israel's Arab citizens did not believe the Holocaust happened, and that among high school and college graduates the figure was even higher - 33 percent.

 

The poll, conducted by Sami Smooha, a prominent sociologist at the University of Haifa, surveyed 721 Arabs and had a margin of error of 3.7 percentage points.

 

Raleb Majadele, Israel's lone Arab Cabinet minister, said the Yad Vashem site was imperative in battling that trend. The Internet is difficult to block with barriers of censorship and hate. "From now on, also Arabic speakers will be able to learn the truth about the Holocaust," he said.

 

Speaking in Hebrew at the ceremony marking the site's launching, he called the Holocaust a horrific act against the Jewish people, but not just against the Jewish people. "It was against humanity, against all nations, against all religions."

 

Yad Vashem Chairman Avner Shalev said Arabic-language Holocaust education was long overdue.

 

"Providing an easily accessible and comprehensive Web site about the Holocaust in Arabic is crucial," he said. "We want to offer an alternative source of information to moderates in these countries, to provide them with reliable information."

 

The site also includes chapters about Albanian and Turkish Muslims who risked their lives to save Jews during World War II, a film that documents a recent joint visit of Jews and Arabs to the Auschwitz death camp and a 25-minute video address by Prince Hassan of Jordan.

 

"All the children of Abraham feel a sense of enormous distress at the Holocaust, which afflicted one of the branches of our interlinked family," he said in Arabic.

 

In 2007, Yad Vashem said nearly 7 million people, from more than 200 countries, visited its Web site.

 

Some 56,000 of those came from Muslim countries, including 32,500 from Arabic-speaking countries. Yad Vashem said it hoped the new Arabic site would increase that number drastically and said it had discovered encouraging findings that indicated there was a large demand.

 

On the Net:
Yad Vashem: http://www.yadvashem.org

 

Yad Vashem in Arabic

Source

Continued (Permanent Link)

Negev Bedouin enlist in Israel National Service

This is particularly interesting in view of the calls of Arab leaders to boycott the national service:

A new phenomenon among Negev Bedouin - enlistment in the Israel national service, mostly among women. Recently 25 women have volunteered. Most of them are working in Soroka hospital in Beersheva.

Source: IBA News

Continued (Permanent Link)

Israeli Arabs: We want to be Israelis

This poll confirms the results of many others - Israeli Arabs want to remain in Israel. However, increasing numbers of them want to be known as "Palestinians" - they want to have their Israeli citizenship and destroy it at the same time, it seems.  

Ami Isseroff

---

 

---

Israeli Arabs prefer remaining Israeli citizens over PA citizenship 62%:14%
Dr. Aaron Lerner 26 December, 2007

Poll Methodology Representative sample 514 Israeli Arabs Over 18 years old
Phone calls: 3-5 Dec. 2007
+ - 4.5% margin of error.  KEEVOON Research, Strategy & Communications.

Questions:

1. "There has been a lot of talk lately about the formation of a new Palestinian State.  It has been suggested by some that Israeli Arabs could continue to live in Israel, but change their citizenship to the new Palestinian State.  Given the choice, and continuing to live where you presently live today, would you prefer to be a citizen of Israel or of a new Palestinian State?"

Remain Israeli citizens 62% Join a future Palestinian State 14%
No opinion or refused to answer 24%

The strongest support for remaining citizens of Israel was exhibited by members of the Druse community, 84% of whom would choose Israel.  Lower income households also showed strong support with 71% of them choosing Israel.  Men were more likely than women to choose to remain Israeli citizens (67% vs. 56%).  The strongest support for becoming citizens of a future Palestinian State was among students with 21% as opposed to the average of 14%.   The largest percentage of undecided citizens was among Christian Arab Israelis with 43% compared to the average of 24%.

2. Among Olmert, Barak or Netanyahu, who is more likely to make peace with the Palestinian Authority and Israel's neighbors?
Barak 18% Olmert 8% Netanyahu 7% None of them 36% no opinion or refused to answer 28%

Barak's greatest support is among the Druse with 29%.  Netanyahu's greatest support is among residents of the Negev (22%) and 45-55 year olds (19%). 47% of Christian Arabs and students didn't know or refused to answer this question.

---

IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis
Website: www.imra.org.il

Continued (Permanent Link)

Middle East 'Experts' Surprised by Arab League attendance at Annapolis

Arab Commentators: Egg on the face?

From Adel Darwish 

Arab Commentators are left with egg on their faces by Saudi Arabia's 11th hour change of heart on the decision to attend Annapolis conference after early signals indicated that they were likley to stay away.  

Saudi Arabia change of heart yesterday  ( Friday November 23) and agreeing to  attend the next week American sponsored conference on the Middle East in Annapolis has left many Arab commentators with an egg on their face, to say the least.

It was no problem for the usual suspects ( Arab Nationalists & Baathists  Islamists jihadists, Marxists and the general anti-Semitic and anti American) who have always objected to any  form of dialogue or meeting with the Israelis that would get any Muslim or whoever they consider to be Arab to recognise Israel. Their reaction was expected.  But the Saudis changing their mind at the 11th hour created a dilemma for many of commentators who in principles didn't object  dialogue with Israel, reject terrorism and support Palestinian Israel agreements. Many of those commentators, writing for Saudi or Saudi sponsored newspapers, have been critical of the conference and warning that it would achieve nothing, but a photo opportunity.

Some argued that America has lost credibility as an 'honest broker' that can neutrally mediate between the Palestinians and the Israelis because 'Washington has always supported Israel' which is a stock Arab view for half a century; and those were not as embarrassed as others who's criticism of the conference stemmed of their belief that their comment must always reflect what they perceived as the Saudi position.

Believing  that Saudi Arabia didn't think much of the proposed conference,  commentators lined up  to condemn the conference as an 'American Israeli plot' to undermined the Saudi initiated 'Arab peace plan' adopted in the Arab League  (AL) Beirut summit, and continued to say so until Friday afternoon.

Obviously their words of wisdom were scribed a day or two before Saudi Foreign Secretary Prince Saud Alfaisal announced yesterday that his nation would after all attend the conference.

Same also goes for Arab nationalist commentators who, for years, have been cheerleaders for AL Secretary General Dr Amr Musa's anti-Israeli rhetoric as the latter  also announced, in the same press conference like Prince Saud, yesterday, that AL will attend the conference as a whole to give peace a chance and test the Jewish state's commitment.

It will be interesting to see how those commentators will manage to scrape the egg off their faces!  

Cross posted: Israel News  Middle East Analysis

Continued (Permanent Link)

Guess who is a Jew, or is he?

Samuel Schidem is a guide in the Berlin Jewish Museum. He is engaged in Jewish studies and specializes in the Holocaust. He served in the IDF.

 

He says:

 

"I feel Jewish, but the question is, what is a Jew? To me, a Jew is a humanist...

 

But Samuel Schidem is a Druze.  Is this a new model for Judaism, dictated by the reality of Israel's existence?

 

A Druze Jew? If you will, it is no legend.

 

Ami Isseroff 

 

Continued (Permanent Link)

Sabotaging moderate Muslims

Guess who wrote this?

"Islamist fundamentalist groups, which have concentrated virtually all their efforts on recruitment and consolidating forces, fear the open door from which the winds of independent thought might shake their unity of rank. Thus, their members have been left to create the contours of the fundamentalist dream on the basis of ancient works of jurisprudence. As a result, they have become even more rigid than their leaders and have come to form a powerful pressure group within the movement that not only hampers their leaderships' ability to proclaim fresh ideas but also restricts their leaderships' manoeuvrability, which is one of the essential prerequisites for any drive to attain a dream. What remains, then, is the vast ability to cause problems, bring down disaster on others and generally obstruct progress and development. "

Was it a Zionist Islamophobic Neocon? An advocate of war of civilizations? If we believe some Western whitewashers of Islamist fanaticism, only such people would write bad things about the nice Islamists like the Hezbollah, the Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood Group (see for example, Islamism: Perception versus Reality )

But in fact, it was written in Al Ahram newspaper, by Salah Eissa. In Muslim societies troubled by Islamist (or Jihadist) extremism, there is a growing movement of justifiable alarm and disillusionment with the extremist views and the narrow and reactionary concepts of society that these groups want to impose. Where "Islamist" or more properly "Islamic" political parties have succeeded democraticaly, in countries such as Turkey, they have abandoned, at least temporarily, the ambition of imposing Sha'aria law on all of society.

Paradoxically, in the West, the Islamist fanatics have recruited a coterie of apologists, who insist that any criticism of Islamism is "Islamophobia," and that Westerners had better learn to love restriction of intellectual life, persecution of homosexuals and repression of women in the interests of dialogue and multipluralistic liberal values. This paradoxical acceptance of an ultra-reactionary movement by "liberals" threatens to sabotage the efforts of moderate Muslims to return their societies to sanity, and to find a reasonable and progressive path between the corruption and failure pan-Arabist dictators and reactionary sheikhs on the one hand, and the threat of totalitarian religious societies posed by Islamists.

Ami Isseroff

Islamist inertia
In shutting the door to change, difference and reason, contemporary Islamist movements bind themselves to a mummified past, writes Salah Eissa*

Since 1979, when the Iranian revolution succeeded in toppling the peacock throne and founding an Islamic republic, "The Islamists are coming!" has been a cry that voiced the hopes of some and the fears of others.

For Islamist groups across the Arab- Islamic map, the Iranian revolution rekindled dreams of a victory of their own, even though these groups still suffered the after effects of successive waves of assault waged against them by Arab nationalist regimes from the early 1950s to the mid- 1970s. Not only did these campaigns throw Islamist groups into organisational disarray, and most of their leaders into prison, they also succeeded in turning the majority of the Arab public against them while luring it to the Arab nationalist model which seemed poised to realise their social and national aspirations.

Nevertheless, in the aftermath of the Arab defeat in the 1967 war, the credibility of the Arab nationalist project waned and its popularity dwindled. By the time of the Iranian revolution, Islamist groups had just begun to emerge from their cocoons and present themselves as the alternative to all preceding national revival projects, as the untried path untainted by disaster and defeat.

Since then, all signs indicated that the Muslim fundamentalist movement was marching relentlessly forward. A military coup paved the way for their seizure of power in Sudan. They were steadily gaining ground in the parliaments in Kuwait, Egypt, Morocco, Jordan and Algeria and, indeed, they won sizeable majorities in legislative elections in Palestine and Turkey. Their mounting popularity across the Arab world was also reflected in their growing, if not controlling, presence in many civil society organisations, notably in the occupational syndicates.

One factor that facilitated this progress was that some governments allied themselves with moderate Islamists in the hope of obstructing the danger of radical fundamentalists that espoused the use of violence. Some political parties and movements also pursued the same tactic, if for different ends, such as to combine forces against a common external enemy (the US and Israel) or against a domestic adversary (dictatorial regimes) or merely to hitch up with the Islamist trend in order to win more votes in the polls.

The West, spearheaded by the US, was alarmed at this development, in spite of the fact that it was instrumental in fostering it. The West had worked assiduously to destroy Arab nationalist governments that were once a bulwark against the fundamentalist tide. It also enlisted Muslim fundamentalists in its fight against communism. This alliance reached its zenith in the war to liberate Afghanistan from Soviet occupation and came to a reverberating close with the events of 11 September 2001.

But is the march of Muslim fundamentalists towards power in the Arab world, whether they succeed by coup or through democratic processes, irreversible? Has the civil state ended as a phase in political evolution and must we ready ourselves for a theocratic state?

The answer to these questions is affirmative if we judge solely by the balance of power between Muslim fundamentalists and other political forces. But it quickly moves to the negative once we take a closer look at the contradictions within the greater Islamist movement itself and unearth a number of weak points that could hamper its progress and perhaps thwart its goals entirely.

The problem with the Muslim fundamentalist project is that it is founded upon the utopian dream of reviving the Islamic state as it existed in its golden era. What is conspicuously lacking in the discourse of proponents of this project is a clear conception of the material means needed to resuscitate that past so many centuries after its death and to revive all the attendant circumstances that had enabled that state to flourish.

True, the ability of abstractions to tickle the deep religious grain of the Muslim people is a major reason for the widespread popularity of the fundamentalist project. However, when forced to come down to earth and deal with the difficulties that obstruct its path, or with the brass tacks of rule as dictated by balances of power and the various demands of reality, the project runs out of steam.

The fact is that the fundamentalist project has an Achilles heel. It posits a dream of reviving the glory of the Islamic empire but ignores the fact that what enabled that empire to flourish was its openness to other cultures and civilisations. This applies to Muslim jurists and theologians, as long as the doors to dialogue and the exercise of reason in light of the changes and challenges of contemporary reality remained open, furnishing a constant source of inspiration and renovation. Conversely, the decline of Islamic civilisation began when the door leading to the application of reason and independent thought was slammed shut. If their aim is to revive our ancient glory, proponents of the fundamentalist project should first strive to breach the gap between the 4th century in the Islamic calendar, when the door to ijtihad was closed, and the present, so as to be able to formulate a philosophy that suits the times in which we live.

But this seems unlikely. Islamist fundamentalist groups, which have concentrated virtually all their efforts on recruitment and consolidating forces, fear the open door from which the winds of independent thought might shake their unity of rank. Thus, their members have been left to create the contours of the fundamentalist dream on the basis of ancient works of jurisprudence. As a result, they have become even more rigid than their leaders and have come to form a powerful pressure group within the movement that not only hampers their leaderships' ability to proclaim fresh ideas but also restricts their leaderships' manoeuvrability, which is one of the essential prerequisites for any drive to attain a dream. What remains, then, is the vast ability to cause problems, bring down disaster on others and generally obstruct progress and development.

The danger, therefore, is not so much that "The Islamists are coming," but that they still have the power to obstruct progress towards democracy in Muslim countries.

* The writer is editor-in-chief of Al-Qahira weekly newspaper.

Cross posted: Israel News Middle East Analysis

Continued (Permanent Link)

Ethnic cleansing of Jews in pre-state Israel

Seth Frantzman, a doctoral student at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, has compiled a survey showing that Arabs killed 1,256 Palestinian Jews between the United Nations Palestine partition vote Nov. 29, 1947, and the outbreak of war May 15, 1948.

Frantzman presents the data, drawn from newspaper archives, in an article disputing anti-Zionist historian Ilan Pappe's contention that Jews committed ethnic cleansing against Arabs during the birth of Israel.

Frantzman writes: "Sixty-two Jews were murdered by Arabs in the first week after the UN partition plan was passed, and by May 15, 1948, a total of 1,256 Jews had been killed, most of them civilians. These deaths were caused by Arab militias, gangs, terrorists and army units which attacked every place of Jewish inhabitation in Palestine."

"Even before the first Arab villages were captured in April, 924 Jews had already been killed," he adds.

Franzman suggests that the eventual Jewish victory might have been less sweeping if the Arabs had not carried out across-the-board attacks throughout the Yishuv in 1947-48.

"As it was," he writes, "the ceaseless attacks against all isolated Jewish settlements only gave Zionist commanders every reason to see neighboring Arab villages as threatening and to act accordingly."

He concludes: "Scholarship - including that of the 'new historians' - on the 1948 war will remain incomplete until methodical studies are carried out about widespread and often well-planned Arab assaults on the Yishuv."

Frantzman's article is titled "Ethnic cleansing in Palestine?" It appeared in The Jerusalem Post on Aug. 17. The text follows.

---

The Jerusalem Post, Aug. 17, 2007
Guest Columnist: Ethnic cleansing in Palestine?
by Seth Frantzman
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1186557466176&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

As negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority aimed at creating a Palestinian state willing to live side-by-side with Israel in peace resume, one of the major sticking points continues to be the Arab refugee issue. Bitter arguments among politicians and scholars continue to surround the creation of the refugee problem during Israel's War of Independence in 1948.

It has become fashionable in recent decades to frame the 1948 war as one in which the Arabs were victims of Zionist aggression. Anti-Zionist scholars such as Noam Chomsky, Rashid Khalidi and Ilan Pappe have presented the war as if the only important events were Deir Yassin and the flight or expulsion of Arabs from Haifa, Acre, Tiberias, west Jerusalem, Jaffa and numerous villages.

IN THIS context, Ilan Pappe's work deserves special attention. He was born to a German Jewish family in Haifa in 1954. The former senior lecturer in the University of Haifa's Department of Political Science recently announced he was moving to the UK because it had become "increasingly difficult to live in Israel" with his "unwelcome views and convictions."

These views are those of the "new historians" - leftist scholars who in the 1980s began to reinterpret Israeli and Palestinian history. He is the author of six works on the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict and the Middle East. In his recently released book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Pappe claims that Israel prepared a special plan for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine's Arab population known as Plan D for dalet. Pappe's "evidence" is derived from his interpretations of files found in the Hagana and Israel state archives.

One of his most damning pieces of evidence is the village surveys carried out by the Hagana's intelligence units. These surveys go into minute detail about many Arab villages, including the number of armed men, the mukhtar and any anti-Jewish activity in the village. Pappe lends further evidence to his thesis by showing that Jewish forces, whether Hagana, Irgun or Lehi, attacked Arab villages even before the declaration of the state on May 15, 1948.

But Pappe makes one egregious mistake. He never bothers to ask the same question of the Arabs he does of the Jews: What about their lists, their intelligence reports and their ethnic-cleansing plans? What were Arab intentions in the five months between the passage of the UN partition plan on November 29, 1947, and the birth of Israel?

THE ARCHIVES of The Palestine Post, now The Jerusalem Post and then the newspaper of record of Mandatory Palestine, provide some of the answers and tell a very different story from the one presented by Pappe.

Sixty-two Jews were murdered by Arabs in the first week after the UN partition plan was passed, and by May 15, 1948, a total of 1,256 Jews had been killed, most of them civilians. These deaths were caused by Arab militias, gangs, terrorists and army units which attacked every place of Jewish inhabitation in Palestine.

The attacks succeeded in placing Jerusalem under siege and eventually cutting off its water supply. All Jewish villages in the Negev were attacked, and Jews had to go about the country in convoys. In every major city where Jews and Arabs lived in mixed neighborhoods the Jewish areas came under attack. This was true in Haifa's Hadar Hacarmel as well as Jerusalem's Old City.

Massacres were not uncommon.

THIRTY-NINE Jews were killed by Arab rioters at Haifa's oil refinery on December 30, 1947. On January 16, 1948, 35 Jews were killed trying to reach Gush Etzion. On February 22, 44 Jews were murdered in a bombing on Jerusalem's Rehov Ben-Yehuda. And on February 29, 23 Jews were killed all across Palestine, eight of them at the Hayotzek iron foundry.

Thirty-five Jews were murdered during the Mount Scopus convoy massacre on April 13. And 127 Jews were massacred at Kfar Etzion on May 15, 1948, after 30 others had died defending the Etzion Bloc.

IN ARAB countries more than 100 Jews were also massacred and synagogues were burned in Aleppo and Aden, driving thousands of Jews from their homes.

Back in Palestine many small kibbutzim were subjected to attacks, including Gvulot, Ben-Shemen, Holon, Safed, Bat Yam and Kfar Yavetz - all in December. In January and February, it was the turn of Rishon Lezion, Yehiam, Mishmar Hayarden, Tirat Zvi, Sde Eliahu, Ein Hanatziv, Magdiel, Mitzpe Hagalil and Ma'anit.

In March and April these attacks culminated with an assault on Hartuv by 400 Arabs based in the village of Ishwa and an attack on Kfar Darom by members of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Arab attackers also bombed The Palestine Post in February. In March, the Jewish Agency, the Solel Boneh building in Haifa and an Egged bus were also bombed.

SOME OF today's scholars prefer to present every massacre of Jews as a "response" to some Jewish deed, and to portray as a "myth" the very idea that Israel struggled desperately for existence in 1948.

But it was no myth.

The fact is 1,256 Jews were killed in five months. Even before the first Arab villages were captured in April, 924 Jews had already been killed. Ilan Pappe should have pondered what might have been if those Jews had not been slaughtered.

What if attacks and riots had not been the first Arab reaction to the partition plan?

Plan Dalet was a plan, it was one of many plans. The lists compiled by the Hagana had been cobbled together for a decade before 1948, but they were not blueprints - merely intelligence assessments. The British also kept lists of everything; they knew about weapons in various kibbutzim, about the Hagana and illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine. Those lists weren't blueprints for ethnic cleansing anymore than were the Hagana files on Arab villages.

When a Jewish area was overrun - and some were - the homes were looted or destroyed and any survivors were killed, as at Kfar Etzion (only three of the defenders survived the massacre).

The potential for the ethnic cleansing of Jewish Palestine was never realized because of the discipline, determination and sheer luck of the Yishuv.

If the Arabs had not carried out across the board attacks throughout the Yishuv between 1947 and 1948, perhaps the nature of the subsequent Jewish victory would have been different. As it was, the ceaseless attacks against all isolated Jewish settlements only gave Zionist commanders every reason to see neighboring Arab villages as threatening and to act accordingly.

Scholarship - including that of the "new historians" - on the 1948 war will remain incomplete until methodical studies are carried out about widespread and often well-planned Arab assaults on the Yishuv.
---
The writer is in the doctoral program at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His master's thesis was on the 1948 war.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Hamas tells it like it is, but lies

Hamas speaks. What part is a lie and what part is true? Consider this:

 

No, there were no Palestinian Jews. When the British Mandate began in 1917, there was only one settlement on Palestinian land, which included several dozen Jews, who were living there in violation of the law at the time. I would like to mention that under the Ottoman state – regardless of the many reservations we have about it – there was a law that prohibited the Jews from staying in Palestine for over a month. Their passports and personal documents were taken away from them, and they were given an Ottoman permit at the border, which allowed them to stay for a month on Palestinian land. The only group that can be called Jewish was the one in Nablus. They still live there to this day.

This guy has to be kidding. There are no Jews in Nablus, though there once were. But about four decades before the Balfour declaration, my grandmothers were born in Jerusalem. Five years before the Balfour declaration, my mother was born in Hebron. As for my aunt, her family had lived in Tiberias for over 300 years by the time of Lord Balfour and his declaration. One of my grandfathers was a soldier in the Ottoman army, not a transient with an Ottoman permit. The other grandfather was excused from service because he sold charcoal to the Ottoman army to run their trains.

 

The rest of what he has to say is equally fictitious. He has been smoking too much Lebanese blond, or too many Lebanese blondes.

 

There is one part I believe though:

 

...the final goal of the resistance is to wipe this entity off the face of the earth. This goal necessitates the development of the capabilities of the resistance, until this entity is wiped out.

So much for peace deals with the Hamas.

 

Ami Isseroff

 

 

Special Dispatch-Hamas/Jihad & Terrorism Studies Project
August 16, 2007
No. 1682
 
Hamas Representative in Lebanon Osama Hamdan Justifies Suicide Bombings in Buses: Israeli Soldiers Ride Those Buses
 
 
The following are excerpts from an interview with Hamas representative in Lebanon Osama Hamdan, which aired on Al-Kawthar TV on August 6, 2007.
 
August 06, 2007

Hamas representative in Lebanon Osama Hamdan Justifies Suicide Bombings in Buses: Israeli Soldiers Ride Those Buses

Following are excerpts from an interview with Hamas representative in Lebanon Osama Hamdan, which aired on Al-Kawthar TV on August 6, 2007:

Interviewer: Islamic law has forbidden aggression during Jihad – by forbidding the killing of women, children, the elderly, clerics who devote themselves to the worship of God, and other non-combatant civilians who do not serve in the enemy's army. Do you consider all the Jews in Palestine to be combatants who have plundered the land? We've witnessed martyrdom operations that targeted buses and restaurants.

Osama Hamdan: First of all, let me clarify something very important. What is the ruling regarding those who live in Palestine, in the co-called Israel, and who are aggressors and plunderers of the land? The way we see it, they all came to Palestine from abroad, whether before the declaration of the Zionist entity or after it. If you were to conduct statistics within the Zionist entity, you would find that all these people have their origins in other countries – they came from Europe, Eastern Europe, from American, South America, or other places.

Interviewer: In other words, there were no Palestinian Jews?

Osama Hamdan: No, there were no Palestinian Jews. When the British Mandate began in 1917, there was only one settlement on Palestinian land, which included several dozen Jews, who were living there in violation of the law at the time. I would like to mention that under the Ottoman state – regardless of the many reservations we have about it – there was a law that prohibited the Jews from staying in Palestine for over a month. Their passports and personal documents were taken away from them, and they were given an Ottoman permit at the border, which allowed them to stay for a month on Palestinian land. The only group that can be called Jewish was the one in Nablus. They still live there to this day. The Palestinians regard them as part of the makeup of Palestinian society, and they number no more than several hundred. As for those who immigrated from various countries – they are not Jews. Anyone who comes to live in a war zone is a combatant, regardless of whether he wears a uniform. That's one thing. Secondly, neither Hamas nor the Palestinian resistance force intentionally killed civilians. You mentioned the buses. What's an easier target – a bus, which is protected by various security measures, or a school, a theater, or a stadium, for example? These civilian targets – in which the killing of women and children is intentional – were not targeted by the resistance. Why were buses targeted? Because they are the means of transport used by the soldiers as well. The Zionist soldiers, who go from their homes to their bases and back, use public transport, because it is free or almost free. In my opinion, the occupation soldiers also have a security motive in using public transport: They shield themselves behind the so-called "civilians" within the Zionist entity. Therefore, the way I see it, they need to stop using public transport, or else society should prevent them from using it, because it is the soldiers who are targeted. Just to prove it, in the dozens of operations that were carried out, the Zionists never announced, for example, that 20 children were killed, or that 50 women were killed. On the contrary, if you were to examine who was killed in martyrdom operations that targeted buses, you would find that 70% were occupation soldiers, and they may even have been in uniform at the time of the operation.

[...]

We are making the preparations for a confrontation. This is not because we need to be prepared for an Israeli act of aggression – after all, aggression is intrinsic to this entity – but because the final goal of the resistance is to wipe this entity off the face of the earth. This goal necessitates the development of the capabilities of the resistance, until this entity is wiped out.

Interviewer: Do you think that Mahmoud Abbas, who has found himself in the crisis of the confrontation with Hamas, plays the role of a policeman, who thwarts the Intifada, the resistance, and the Jihad against the Zionist occupation in the Palestinian lands?

Osama Hamdan: He plays a role that is even worse than that. Mahmoud Abbas is doing this out of ideological conviction. He has been calling for a settlement ever since 1973. It was Mahmoud Abbas who created the Oslo Accords, and who was brought in by the Americans to serve as prime minister in order to confront Arafat. In my opinion, he plays this role willingly and out of conviction, which is worse than if he were doing so due to commitments to the occupation.

FONT>
*********************
The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) is an independent, non-profit organization that translates and analyzes the media of the Middle East. Copies of articles and documents cited, as well as background information, are available on request.

MEMRI holds copyrights on all translations. Materials may only be used with proper attribution.

The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI)
P.O. Box 27837, Washington, DC 20038-7837
Phone: (202) 955-9070
Fax: (202) 955-9077
E-Mail: memri@memri.org
Search previous MEMRI publications at www.memri.org

If you no longer wish to receive this publication via email, please reply and enter only the word "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Nukes for Arabs: The French are at it again

How nice that Libyan dicator Muammar Gaddafi (Qadaffi, Kaddafi etc.) agreed to release some Palestinian and Bulgarian doctors accused of giving people AIDS, instead of killing them. A great diplomatic achievement for which France is taking the credit. Vive La France. Vive Sarkozy and his much-touted Jewish ancestry.

 

Un moment s'il vou plait!  Before you start cheering, please look at the fine print. There are  a number of flies in this fine wine. According to AFP:

 

He [Sarkozy] and his wife, however, were accused in the European press of stealing the credit after EU negotiator Benita Ferrero-Waldner had done much of the hard bargaining.

 

Well OK, that's not too bad. AFP continues however:

 

Britain's Times newspaper pointed out that the release of the medics was likely to lead to "lucrative contracts for French companies with the oil-rich African state."

 

We can live with that. Who doesn't want to make some money, after all. But the real story is here:

 

France and Libya on Wednesday inked a deal on the building of a nuclear reactor for water desalination during talks between Libyan leader Muammer Qaddafi and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, a day after the release of six foreign medics.

 

Sarkozy had touted his visit of less than 24 hours as a "political trip" to help Libya's reintegration into the international community after decades of sanctions and isolation.

 

Soon after his late afternoon arrival in Tripoli, Sarkozy and his delegation including French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner were accorded an official welcome at Qaddafi's Bab Azizia palace.

 

It seems that the good will of Colonel/President Daffy Qaddafi was purchased at a price. After the US did all that good work to stop Libya's nuclear project, M. Sarkozy and M. Kouchner, those darling part Jews who were so widely touted as future friends of Israel, are going to build a "desalination" reactor for the Libyans, presumably not too different from the one the French built for Mr. Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

 

M. Qaddafi, to be sure, is known throughout the Middle East as an extremist psychopath. Consider please for a moment, what it must mean to earn such a reputation in the Middle East. Compared to Qaddafi, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a sober and conservative international statesman, and Saddam Hussein was a realist and benefactor of humanity. Here is just a bit of what Wikipedia tells us about France's new ally:

 

Throughout the 1970s, his regime was implicated in subversion and terrorist activities in both Arab and non-Arab countries. By the mid-1980s, he was widely regarded in the West as the principal financier of international terrorism. Reportedly, Gaddafi was a major financier of the "Black September Movement" which perpetrated the Munich massacre at the 1972 Summer Olympics, and was accused by the United States of being responsible for direct control of the 1986 Berlin discotheque bombing that killed three people and wounded more than 200, of whom a substantial number were U.S. servicemen. He is also said to have paid "Carlos the Jackal" to kidnap and then release a number of the Saudi Arabian and Iranian oil ministers.

...

In 1984 British police constable Yvonne Fletcher was shot outside the Libyan Embassy in London while policing an anti-Gaddafi demonstration. A burst of machine-gun fire from within the building was suspected of killing her, but Libyan diplomats asserted their diplomatic immunity and were repatriated. The incident led to the breaking-off of diplomatic relations between the United Kingdom and Libya for over a decade.

 

They say however, that he has reformed in his old age.

 

The French of course, did this in style and with the greatest finesse and good humor, as might be expected of the French:

 

Asked if the deals had been linked to the release of the the five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian-born doctor, Gueant [aide to Sarkozy] replied, "No, not at all."

Remember when all the Zionists were praising M. Sarkozy? I wrote then: Sarkozy will disappoint Israel  and  Sarkozy is not a panacea for Israel . I would rather have been wrong. Quel dommage! mais c'est la vie.      

 

Cela n'importe rien. It doesn't matter. Israeli F-16s can easily reach Libya, especially if the reactor will be located near the sea. Perhaps M. Sarkozy intends to prepare target practice for the Israeli Air Force.

 

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Jewish leaders wake up to dangers of campaign to delegitimize Israel

"Jewish leaders concerned by trend to delegitimize Israel" reads the Haaretz headline. It is good that at last, someone is taking note of the problem.

 

The article states:

 

The trend toward delegitimizing Israel's existence as a Jewish state is growing not only in Europe, but also in the United States, according to Jewish-American academics and community leaders.

 

You don't say? Our fearless leaders have discovered what was under their noses, and has been growing thanks to their own neglect. Palestinians and their supporters understood that enlisting the support of outsiders:  "progressives" and especially Jews, would be a key factor in aiding the violent struggle that was contemplated in 1998. 

 

In 1998, Hisham Sharabi stated:

 

"Popular resistance, which is likely to bring back the intifada, will simultaneously lead to building alliances and grassroots organizations, like the ones that emerged spontaneously in the early days of the original intifada (which was snuffed out by the PLO leadership in Tunis). If this succeeds by the turn of the century, this new post-patriarchal liberation struggle will regain the human face of the first intifada and win the support of progressive forces the world over, including the support of progressive Jewish forces in Israel and the United States. "

A self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

The strategy of attacking "apartheid" and seeming to attack the occupation while actually attacking the existence of Israel was enunciated clearly many times. For example, this was described as the basis of the Boycott Israel campaign: 

 

 

"- The legitimacy of Israel's regime must be challenged...

- There is no chance to change Israeli society from within, we are at a dead end and Israeli society is becoming increasingly fascist.

- We are dealing with the dismantling of power, and the question is how to convince this power to voluntarily dismantle....

...

Targets of boycott and sanction should be the state of Israel, but also Zionist organizations and corporations:

- There is corporate responsibility related to sanctions, divestment, boycott. For example, Caterpillar and Intel (on Iraq al-Manshiyya.). Campaigns should also target the Zionist organization ('National Institutions'), such as WZO, JA, JNF, which are major perpetrators and maintain discrimination inside Israel."

 

Jewish groups did nothing as divestment and boycott campaigns were set up, and the Electronic Intifada and other Web sites were started, and meetings were organized on campuses, in labor unions, churches and other interest groups. The strategy of subversion was admitted and explained by ISM-PSM, which is one of the most successful efforts. They told their people to enter church groups and act like Ned Flanders.

 

In any case, the "Israel advocates" are swamped by hundreds of well run extremist Web sites (and corresponding campus, union and church activism) of every persuasion: Leftists, Fascist anti-Semites, pro-Palestinians, Jewish anti-Zionists. From Stormfront to Israel Shamir, from Neturei Karteh to Indymedia, from Susan Blackwell to Stephen Sizer and Ali Abunimah, from counterpunch to abbc.com and radioislam, the politics and religion do not matter. They all have in common the fact that they hate Israel.

 

I described the situation on the Web two years ago, when the Zionism Web project was started:

 

Systematic delegitimization of Zionism has been "Politically Correct" since the infamous UN "Zionism is Racism" resolution of 1975, and it has not abated. This situation is mirrored on the World Wide Web. Depending on the day, five or six of the ten first links retrieved by a Google search for "Zionism" are anti-Zionist polemics, including some obnoxious racist diatribes. "True Torah Jews Against Zionism," the top-ranked Web site, represents a tiny minority of  medieval Jewish religious fanatics who insist that only their view is correct and brands every other view as heresy. Another site offers us the following enticing introduction: "What Zionism is -- and its pernicious influence upon the USA." ...Here is another: "A Crude Attempt To Equate Anti-Zionism With Anti-Semitism ... Jewish Persecution - A Primary Tool Of International Zionism." ... Many of the Web sites that insist they are not racists and that criticism of Zionism is not racist, have links to Mein Kampf, Protocols of the Elders of Zion and similar racist materials.

 

 

The situation is hardly better today, though we have managed to make a tiny difference for the keyword Zionism.

But these puny little efforts, on both sides, did not seem to merit the attention of grandiose self-important functionaries, who insisted on business as usual. "Israel advocacy" has been largely confined to organizing lectures to preach to the converted,  to taking out advertisements in mainstream media and issuing hysterical press releases at press conferences. This may flatter the egos of the advocates and enrich their organizations, but it does little for the cause.

 

A small group of volunteer Zionist activists, many of them right wing extremists, generally represent the cause of Israel on the Web, on campus and elsewhere. They can't possibly communicate with ordinary folk who do not share their right wing views, don't want to buy "I am a conservative" T-shirts and don't think God promised Israel to the Jews from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates. Their efforts tend to confirm the anti-Zionist slander that all Zionists are neo-con reactionaries intent on conquering the Middle East.  Extremist "Zionist advocacy" played right into the hands of the campaign to delegitimize Israel, by insisting that Zionism is identical with support for the occupation and extremist positions.  

 

Those who think the Web is not "real" need to understand: The Web then, in 2004, represented "reality" in the making. The people reading about "Israeli Apartheid" and the "pernicious nature" of Zionism were not virtual people, but real people. 

 

What we saw at the end of 2004 and in 2005, the flood of unrestrained hatred on the Web, is now being translated into a flood of Boycott Israel resolutions and initiatives. The constant repetition of the phrase "Israel Apartheid" in Web sites, in campus demonstrations and literature derived from Web sites, and at little meetings everywhere filtered its way up through the echelons of respectability, until the time was right for Jimmy Carter to take Israel-Hate Mainstream. According to this article, Abe Foxman of the ADL believes" that Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which was published last November, had a much greater impact than did other publications." That is true, of course. But Carter's book built on all the grass roots "contributions," and so, of course did Walt and Mearsheimer's, "Israel Lobby." What was once hidden is now respectable.

 

It will get worse, unless something is done. Evidently the people responsible for defending Israel do not understand how public opinion is nurtured, how little grass-roots efforts are pooled and maginified to culminate in a large effect. They will go on with the old model of Israel advocacy, which seems to be mostly about appearing at "functions" and collecting honors, and launching empty PR campaigns like the "Israel Branding Campaign" with maximum visibility and minimum effect.

 

To quote the article:

 

'Reinharz [Jehuda Reinharz, President of Brandeis University] said that he is worried by the lack of effective response to anti-Israel publications.

 

"I see no combined effort to fight this by the Jewish organizations, and in truth, I myself don't know how this could be done," he said.'

 

Professor Reinharz, it is not rocket science, to coin a cliche. If the other side is winning and we are losing, we must be doing something wrong. In fact, we are doing just about everything wrong.

 

Study what the other side has done so effectively, and do the same.

 

Part of what is wrong is the sociology of Jewish organizations, and the Israeli government and the way they make decisions. Campus activism, Internet, union activism and interfacing with local church groups are all "small potatoes." They aren't glamorous enough for organizations that need to have splashy annual meetings to show the Jewish lobby at work, and honor the "machers," the Jewish functionaries. They are beneath the dignity of people who are used to fixing matters in private audiences at Number 10 Downing Street and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. These people won't listen to new suggestions. "Why spend ten thousand dollars on unproven schemes, when we can spend a hundred thousand on splashy PR and speaker programs that we know certainly don't work? Where is the "kavod" (honor) in an Internet Web site or a demonstration?" "Why enlist leftist Zionists in defending Zionism? They are all traitors anyhow?"

 

Something can be done, but it won't be done unless Jewish leaders change their way of thinking, or unless we get different Jewish leaders. Israel advocacy has to start speaking to unconvinced people in the language that they understand, and in the places where they listen: on campus, in the internet, in unions and women's groups and church groups. We are fighting genocidal barbarians who throw people from the roofs of buildings, and yet they manage to make out that we are the "bad guys." We must be doing something wrong. We have an almost air-tight case that is based on international law and human rights, but almost nobody is making that case, because they are too busy defending the occupation and fighting "leftists."

 

The article from Haaretz is below.  

 

Ami Isseroff

 

Jewish leaders concerned by trend to delegitimize Israel 

 

By Amiram Barkat, Haaretz Correspondent

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/880061.html

The trend toward delegitimizing Israel's existence as a Jewish state is growing not only in Europe, but also in the United States, according to Jewish-American academics and community leaders.

 

Anti-Israel attacks are even beginning to affect Jewish supporters of Israel, who have been accused of trying to silence public debate, they said.

 

This trend toward delegitimization will be one of the topics discussed at a conference on the future of the Jewish people that opens in Jerusalem on Tuesday morning.

 

The conference, which will be attended by researchers, heads of Jewish organizations and senior Israeli politicians, was organized by the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute.

 

Avinoam Bar-Yosef, JPPPI's director general, said that anti-Israel attacks in the U.S. constitute a "long-term threat" to Israel's standing, American Jewish organizations and the pro-Israel lobby.

 

"Public attention is currently focused on Europe, due to initiatives like the British academic boycott," he said. "In the U.S., the problem is still under the radar. But as a planning institute, we believe that it is necessary to formulate policy on this issue now."

 

Brandeis University President Jehuda Reinharz told Haaretz that American academics are at the forefront of those denying Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

 

Veteran advocates of this position, such as Tony Judt and Noam Chomsky, were joined last year by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, both from reputable academic institutions, who charged that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) dictates American foreign policy.

 

Their article, which generated shock waves, is being turned into a book, which is slated to be published in September. The fact that a respected publisher paid Walt and Mearsheimer an advance that is thought to have totaled hundreds of thousands of dollars attests to how hot the publisher thinks this issue is, Reinharz said.

 

"My feeling and that of many people following Walt and Mearsheimer and other publications is that we are at the start of a new era with regard to attitudes toward Israel in the U.S.," he added.

 

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, believes that Jimmy Carter's book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, which was published last November, had a much greater impact than did other publications.

 

"In the past, people who said that Jewish supporters of Israel control the media and politics belonged to the margins," he said. "But after former president Carter said it, it gained legitimacy in the mainstream.

 

Today, the debate is already on questions such as to what extent the Jews dominate."

 

Foxman said that Jews who challenge anti-Israel attacks find themselves accused of undermining freedom of expression.

 

"I received letters from professors who claimed that when I accuse someone of anti-Semitism, I am trying to silence public debate," he said. "When the president of Harvard University said that the delegitimization of Israel helps anti-Semites, he was accused of silencing public debate.

 

No one would have dared accuse him of this had he been talking about racism or xenophobia."

 

Reinharz said that he is worried by the lack of effective response to anti-Israel publications.

 

"I see no combined effort to fight this by the Jewish organizations, and in truth, I myself don't know how this could be done," he said.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Arabs court Christians including Christian Zionists

The message of this "historic meeting" seems clear. The Arab states have understood that a major factor in the "Israel Lobby" is not the Jews, but Christians, and they are going to try to erode support for Israel by providing missionary opportunities.

 

Zionists may find out that there are much worse possibilities in Christianity than Christian Zionism.

 

Christians and Muslims in historic meeting
Jonathan Falwell - World Net Daily commentary
Posted: July 7, 2007

On Monday, July 2, I attended what I can only pray may become a historic meeting. Several weeks ago, I received a call about attending a meeting at the Egyptian Embassy in Washington, D.C. I was told this meeting would be hosted by the ambassador from Egypt and might be attended by representatives of other Arab nations, as well as by 10-15 pastors, evangelists and Christian media representatives.

My interest stirred, I agreed to attend the meeting even though I was not quite sure of its purpose. I asked Dr. Ron Godwin, Liberty University's executive vice president, to attend with me. When we arrived at the Embassy, we were greeted by Evangelist Benny Hinn and introduced to several other pastors, evangelists, Christian TV producers and representatives of Christian organizations. Among them were Gordon Robertson of the 700 Club, Paul Crouch Jr. of Trinity Broadcasting Network, Christian lobbyist Ralph Reed, Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals, Vernon Brewer of WorldHelp and several others.

Within a period of no more than 10 minutes, the ambassadors from Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Kuwait, Yemen, Iraq, Bahrain and the ambassador from the Arab League of Nations all arrived. I now realized that this meeting was far more than a social gathering. Soon thereafter, we sat down at a large table - evangelicals all on one side and Arab representatives on the other, about 24 of us - for lunch.

The Egyptian ambassador began by graciously saying that we should not worry about diplomacy at this meeting. He went on to emphasize that we should have an open, honest conversation about what is necessary for bridges to be built between Islam and American Christians. At that moment, I realized that the meeting might, indeed, offer far greater potential than I had imagined.

Over the course of several hours, a great deal of candid conversation took place - conversation on the Americans' part that just might begin to crack open the doors to religious freedom in nations where it is now practically forbidden.

One of the ambassadors mentioned that American Christians seemed always to favor Israel in all situations, even when Israel was wrong. He asked if it might be possible that Christians become more "balanced" in our support of Israel.

The answer to this question came from the former head of the Christian Coalition, Ralph Reed. Ralph said that we, as Christians, do take our support of Israel very seriously. Ralph went on to say that our support of Israel comes from our belief in the Scriptures and that this rendered our support for Israel largely nonnegotiable. However, with that understood, Ralph went on to say that we would also love to build far more positive relationships with Arab nations.

We told the ambassadors that we loved the Arab people no more, but certainly no less, than the Israelis. We shared the scriptural truth that God loves the entire world and sent His Son to die for all, regardless of their nationality. Thus, we stated that our love for Arabs was just as important a priority to us as is our love for Israel.

The conversation then turned to the perception among American Christians of the Arab world. I shared that as Christians, we are strongly pro-life, and, that while the vast majority of Christians in America speak out against the horrors of abortion, we never condone or tolerate violence against those who disagree with us on this issue. I went on to say that there is a very small minority in the pro-life community who do resort to violence, and that when they do, the rest of us strongly and publicly condemn their actions. We make it known that we do not support any such violence, and we do everything possible to stop it.

I then told the ambassadors that, likewise, they should strongly condemn the violent actions of their radicals as well. I shared that this would amount to a huge step toward changing perceptions of Muslims in our country. While I may never know if these words will be heeded, I do know they heard these words loud and clear.

We went on to discuss humanitarian and educational assistance. We told them that, as Christians, we welcome the opportunity to work with them to offer humanitarian aid in their countries. And, while we take the Great Commission very seriously, we understand that humanitarian aid only offered with proselytizing strings attached generates great distrust.

We also offered Liberty University to bring fully accredited, American education to their countries through our Distance Learning Program. We shared how any student in their countries could receive a fully accredited American university degree online. We also offered to allow students from their countries to attend LU in our resident program. Throughout this portion of the discussion, we made it clear that LU was a Christian institution and that the only kind of education the world's largest evangelical Christian university would ever offer would be Christ-centered, without apologies.

As the meeting neared its end, one of the ambassadors shared what may be one of the most promising statements made during the entire two hours. He said we must understand that Americans have always been accepting of other religions and faiths because that is how we were founded. He went on to say that their nations did not come from the same background. And, in what could be a glimmer of hope for the freedom to worship in the Arab world, he said we must understand that they are trying to head in that direction as well. He said he knows it has been a slow process, but they truly desire to make the acceptance of other religions a reality in their respective nations.

We all agreed this would not be the last meeting. We promised that this dialogue would continue, that we were willing to visit their countries, meet their people, and attempt to continue the conversation to build a more peaceful future for our children and theirs. And then, we closed the meeting in prayer, in Jesus' name!

This truly was a historic meeting.

Continued (Permanent Link)

Magdi Allam - Muslim Zionist

There are many things to appreciate in this story, not the least of which is the understanding that not all Muslims are enemies of Israel, not all Muslims are anti-Zionist and not all Muslims are fanatics bent on murdering non-believers. And enthusiasts of the Hamas and related causes should carefully weigh these words:

In his new book he describes his long road from profound admiration for Arafat and "the prophet of pan-Arabism," Gamal Abdel Nasser, and strong support for the Palestinian cause, to his unreserved support for Israel. "I want to tell you about my slow and tortured path from the ideology of lies, tyranny, hatred, violence and death, to the culture of truth, freedom, love, peace and life, until it ripened into absolute certainly that defending the sanctity of life is more than ever in keeping with defending Israel's right to exist," he writes. At the end of this "slow and tortured path" he reached the conclusion that the Arab countries' refusal to recognize Israel during the 1950s and 1960s hurt the Palestinians, and that Arafat was a tyrant, a megalomaniac, corrupt and corrupting, and the worst disaster to befall them.

Regarding the present situation in Gaza, Allam says he never had any illusions about Hamas. "I thought it was a big mistake to allow a terror organization to participate in elections. Condoleezza Rice and Tony Blair deluded themselves in believing that Hamas' very participation in the government would turn the group into a pragmatic political power," he says. "Instead, it turned out that Hamas will never recognize Israel's right to exist, will not relinquish terror and will not honor international agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority. Hamas wants absolute rule in order to impose sharia and to revive the international Islamic caliphate. As it pushes for absolute rule, it does not hesitate to massacre its Palestinian brothers in Gaza. It will try to do the same thing in the West Bank."

Ami Isseroff

Muslim, Italian and Zionist

By Saviona Mane


It's not every day that a Muslim intellectual puts his own head on the line to defend Israel's right to exist. But that is exactly what Magdi Allam, an Egyptian-born Italian writer and journalist, has been doing for years. He recently published a book whose name alone is enough to endanger his life: "Long Live Israel - From the Ideology of Death to the Civilization of Life: My Story."

Allam defends Israel even though Hamas condemned him to death in 2003, after he denounced the group's terror attacks. Because of this threat, the Italian government has provided him with round-the-clock bodyguards. But Allam is not afraid. He finds it hard to "live an armored life," but he tells Haaretz in an interview, "I'm willing to pay the price in order to continue to be who I am, to write and speak freely." Those who cut out tongues and slit throats will not subdue him, he writes in the book.

Allam, 55, is the assistant editor of Corriere della Sera and the 2006 Dan David Prize laureate. His new book, which immediately became a best-seller in Italy, is part of his consistent and uncompromising fight against extremist Islam and for Israel's right to exist. In addition, he is trying to convince people that "the culture of hatred and death that the West now attributes to Muslims is not embedded in Islam's DNA."

In "Long Live Israel" ("Viva Israele" in Italian), Allam directly links the denial of Israel's right to exist to the death cult being nurtured in fundamentalist Islamic circles, and refers to "the ethical erosion that has led to even the denial of the supreme value of the sanctity of life." Allam sees Israel as "an ethical parameter that separates between lovers of civilization and those who preach the ideology of death." The sanctity of life, he writes, "applies to everyone, or to no one."

Sanctity of life

In recent days Allam's attention has been focused on another major event - the birth of his son, Davide, brother to Sofia, 27, and Alessandro, 23. Allam says he and his wife Valentina Colombo chose the name Davide "because in the battle for life during the pregnancy, Davide subdued his Goliath, and because it meshes with the name of my new book."

And speaking of names, weren't you afraid when choosing such a strong, even provocative name for the book?

"Those who like me and more or less agree with me see it as a provocation. 'What did you need this for, don't you have enough problems?' they asked. Those who don't like me and condemn me for my opinions see this as additional proof that I am a traitor to the Arab cause and an enemy of Islam, have sold myself to Israel and work for the Mossad. But for me, 'Viva Israele' is a song of praise to Israel's life and to everyone's life. My book opens with the words: 'What you are about to read is a declaration of faith in the sanctity of life, 'the sanctity of life of every human being.'"

Allam was not always a defender of the Jewish state. "'Zionism' was a dirty word for me," he admits in his book. For years he considered Israel an aggressive, racist, colonialist, immoral entity, and he accepted the methods of the Palestinian struggle and its leader Yasser Arafat, "without criticizing the fact that Fatah adopted the path of terror extensively inside and outside Israel." After emigrating from Egypt to Italy in 1972, he even enlisted actively for the Palestinian cause, writing, lecturing and participating in demonstrations by the Italian left: "I also shouted 'Long live Palestine! Long live the Palestinian resistance!'" he writes in the book. "My passion for the Palestinian cause was strong, as was my enthusiasm for Arafat's personality."

In his new book he describes his long road from profound admiration for Arafat and "the prophet of pan-Arabism," Gamal Abdel Nasser, and strong support for the Palestinian cause, to his unreserved support for Israel. "I want to tell you about my slow and tortured path from the ideology of lies, tyranny, hatred, violence and death, to the culture of truth, freedom, love, peace and life, until it ripened into absolute certainly that defending the sanctity of life is more than ever in keeping with defending Israel's right to exist," he writes. At the end of this "slow and tortured path" he reached the conclusion that the Arab countries' refusal to recognize Israel during the 1950s and 1960s hurt the Palestinians, and that Arafat was a tyrant, a megalomaniac, corrupt and corrupting, and the worst disaster to befall them.

Regarding the present situation in Gaza, Allam says he never had any illusions about Hamas. "I thought it was a big mistake to allow a terror organization to participate in elections. Condoleezza Rice and Tony Blair deluded themselves in believing that Hamas' very participation in the government would turn the group into a pragmatic political power," he says. "Instead, it turned out that Hamas will never recognize Israel's right to exist, will not relinquish terror and will not honor international agreements signed by the Palestinian Authority. Hamas wants absolute rule in order to impose sharia and to revive the international Islamic caliphate. As it pushes for absolute rule, it does not hesitate to massacre its Palestinian brothers in Gaza. It will try to do the same thing in the West Bank."

Do you believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be solved before the "ideology of death" is uprooted - that even if Israel returns all the territories it occupied in 1967, it will continue to live by the sword?

"The Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza demonstrates that the problem is not the need to withdraw from territories occupied in preemptive wars, but rather the Arabs' lack of desire to recognize Israel's right to exist. Israel erred in 1967 when it accepted the formula of territory for peace, and thus placed its very existence up for public auction. Experience teaches that the right to life cannot and should not be a subject for negotiation and bargaining. No negotiations should be held with extremists and terrorists who deny Israel's right to exist."

Interrogation trauma

Allam believes the defeat of the Arabs during the Six-Day War was the watershed between the waning of pan-Arabism and the rise of pan-Islamism. Allam, who was then 15, remembers the war, the brainwashing, the deceptive Egyptian propaganda machine, the blind admiration of Nasser and the masses he joined in the streets calling on Nasser not to resign. He devotes a substantial part of his book to the war: three autobiographical chapters seasoned with the fragrances, sounds, colors and flavors of his beloved Aunt Adreya's home and the streets of Naguib Mahfouz's Cairo - a colorful, pluralistic and tolerant city where girls wore miniskirts and boys sported Beatles haircuts.

This was the city where he was detained, interrogated and imprisoned at age 15 by the Muhabarat, the secret services, on suspicion of spying for Israel, because of his relationship with a Jewish girl, also 15 and "the first true love of his life." "The trauma of that interrogation at the Muhabarat barracks accompanied me until that day on Christmas Eve 1972, when I left Egypt to continue my studies in Italy."

In the book you lovingly describe your childhood. Do you miss Egypt? Do you visit often?

"I miss an Egypt that no longer exists and that continues to live inside me thanks to the memories, the songs of Umm Kulthum, the novels of Naguib Mahfouz and the films of Yusuf Shahin. I long for the social fabric that embodied a genuine love of others and a simple life where emotion was more important than money. Unfortunately, for reasons of personal security, I haven't been back to Egypt since 2002."

Regarding the question of the Islamization of Europe, Allam says, "Europe is already a bastion of Islamic extremism. Just look at attack on Mike's Place in Tel Aviv, which was carried out by British suicide bombers drafted by Hamas; the massacre by Islamists in Madrid and in London; the slitting of director Theo Van Gogh's throat in Amsterdam; and the dozens of Islamic terror attacks that were prevented in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Holland.

"This bastion exists thanks to a widespread network of mosques, Koran schools, financial bodies and charitable institutions linked to the Muslim Brotherhood; Moroccan, Tunisian and Algerian Salfists; Saudi Wahabis; Al-Qaida jihadis and Pakistani groups. This multicultural Europe, which has trampled its values and betrayed its identity, is satisfied with reacting to the obvious terror, which is only the tip of the iceberg, but is afraid to deal with terror's ideological and organizational roots."

Why don't we hear the voices of the moderate imams?

"Because they're afraid. They're a minority and they're afraid. Only a handful of Islamic intellectuals, journalists, women and clerics have shown courage and condemned terror and Islamic extremism, and as a result they were sentenced to death by the terrorists. But make no mistake, even those moderates who condemn Islamic terror often legitimize terrorists who massacre in Israel. They feel there is good terror, which massacres Israelis, and bad terror, which threatens their lives."

What do you believe is the best way to deal with the Iranian threat?

"Israel has to prevent the Nazi-Islamic government of [Ali] Khamenei and [Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad from acquiring nuclear weapons. I don't place my faith in the United Nations and I have no illusions about the Bush administration, which now wants only to leave Iraq without losing face. And of course I don't count on a weak, cowardly and divided Europe. I believe Israel is the last bastion in Islamic terror's war against all of human civilization. Therefore I hope Israel will have a strong national unity government, determined to confront the most serious threat to world security since World War II."

Last year, when he came here for his fourth visit, in order to receive the Dan David Prize, he visited Yad Vashem. This was "an experience that left an indelible impression on me," he says. "I hope that some day Israel will capture Ahmadinejad and force him to live the rest of his life between the walls of Yad Vashem."

Continued (Permanent Link)

Zionist Propaganda? Arabs will not progress before they face the truth about their own history

Is this Zionist Propaganda??

Highlights:

 

"Arabs will not progress before they face the truth about their own history.|

 

"No one in the Arab world today would accept that Hamas' actions were a large part responsible for the Israeli barrier. "

 

"Where is the independent commission that studied Hizbullah's actions?"

 

Read on:

 

Events that are portrayed as victories by Arab politicians are not always victories for the Arab people. Last month, the Arab world remembered one of its greatest defeats of the 20th century: the June 1967 war, which marked the end of the hope to wipe out Israel and the loss of East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Sinai, and the Golan Heights.

 

Despite the memory of those losses, Arab media, from Al-Jazeera to Dubai TV, still tried to find an honorable excuse for the Egyptian president in 1967, Gamal Abdel-Nasser. This same distorted logic has been applied to movements such as Hizbullah and Hamas, whose defeats are often transformed into victories. No independent commission has ever assessed any of Abdel-Nasser's, Hamas', or Hizbullah's declarations of victory. The Arab people must dig for the truth in the statements and behavior of these leaders or groups. ....

 

Arabs will not progress before they face the truth about their own history. In memorializing the 1967 defeat, Arab media organized numerous talk shows, documentaries, and interviews. But none clearly defined who was responsible for the Arab loss.

 

Instead, the media tried to remind us how Abdel-Nasser gave Arabs a voice and pride. They failed to remind us that because of his bluff and provocation, in June 1967 Israel was able to win a devastating war. They failed to remind us how Abdel-Nasser encouraged King Hussein of Jordan to take part in the war only hours after he knew that Egypt had been defeated - providing Israel with a reason to occupy East Jerusalem and the West Bank. And they never mentioned that in 1970 Abdel-Nasser was considering accepting the Rogers Plan for a peace settlement with Israel, with terms less favorable than the Camp David agreement later signed by his successor, Anwar Sadat. Instead, Arab media tended to stress that it was Abdel-Nasser who had planned the October 1973 war, which took place three years after his death, removing all credit from Sadat, who had truly led the battle.

 

Some claim that while the June 1967 war was a military loss, the spirit of armed resistance endured. They believe that resistance is still the strategic choice of Arabs. We have seen the results of the strategic choice of violent resistance by Hamas: an ugly Israeli barrier depriving Palestinians of ever more land that has made their lives even grimmer. The slogans of resistance may incite support, but the consequences of these very slogans cannot be accepted by the Arab public. No one in the Arab world today would accept that Hamas' actions were a large part responsible for the Israeli barrier. There has not been and nor will there be independent assessment of Hamas' strategy. Slogans continue to trump the actual results of actions.

The same strategic manipulation of public opinion can be seen in Hizbullah's "victory" against Israel in summer 2006. But what was this victory? A victory that left around 1,200 Lebanese dead, led to billions of dollars in damages and losses in tourism income, and the entry of United Nations troops in Southern Lebanon? With such a balance sheet, how could Hizbullah and its Arab supporters mislead the Arab public and claim victory? Was any inquiry made? Where is the independent commission that studied Hizbullah's actions? Yes, the party's secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, was left standing, just as Abdel-Nasser was. But is that enough when their nations and people were left battered?

 

How can Arabs improve their lot if they do not face up to their truths? Why is it that Arabs have such a propensity to live amid lies? Why is it that so-called "free" or "independent" Arab media are apologists for those who mislead the Arab public? When will Arabs have independent commissions to look into their mistakes and evaluate them transparently?

No, it is not written by an evil Likud neocon. It is written by Khairi Abaza in the Daily Star:

Let's accept the truth of our own defeats

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

"The Saudi Plan Is Dead":

Wonder what happened to the Saudi Plan? It is dead (or sleeping).

 

"The Saudi Plan Is Dead": Senior Saudi Officials Admit to Israel that the Initiative Is No Longer Relevant
Uri Yablonka Ma'ariv-Hebrew 4 July 2007
(Summary by Daily Alert - July 4, 2007
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs

Israel's hope to reach an understanding on a political settlement together with the countries of the Arab League has run aground. Senior political officials in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan announced in closed meetings with senior Israelis that the "Saudi Initiative," which Prime Minister Olmert sees as a basis for an agreement, is presently dead, and that as long as the chaos continues within the Palestinian Authority, there is no point in pursuing this avenue. These clarifications were received by senior Israeli political and defense officials.

An internal document from the Foreign Ministry of July 2 says that Saudi Arabia has significantly changed its policy toward Israel and the PA. "Saudi reluctance to express clear support for Abbas and his new government reflects Saudi opposition to Abbas' policy to isolate Hamas," the document says. It further notes that the Saudis are very disappointed by the rapid failure of the Mecca Agreement brokered between Hamas and Fatah earlier this year. The document states that Israel should stop using the term "the Saudi Initiative."
--------------------------------------------
Hat tip - IMRA - Independent Media Review and Analysis

Cross posted: Israel News Middle East Analysis

Continued (Permanent Link)

Saudi cleric: Islam reveals the truth about women - they are twisted

"It [Islam] has shown that the twisted nature of women stems from their very creation." Not a quote from Steve Emerson or Pat Robertson, but from a Saudi cleric.

A great tradition, worthy of liberal support - and beloved by all men, surely. Alhamdillah - where do we sign up?

Solomonia gives us this:

Saudi Cleric: Wimins is Shtoopid, and Dats Why We Loves 'Em

MEMRI TV:Saudi Cleric Abd Al-Aziz Al-Fawzan: Husbands Should Put Up with Their Wives' Slips and Errors, Because the Twisted Nature of Women Stems from Their Very Creation

The following are excerpts from a lecture delivered by Saudi cleric Abd Al-Aziz Al-Fawzan, which aired on Al-Majd TV on June 11, 2007. It is followed by links to other MEMRI TV clips of Saudi cleric Abd Al-Aziz Al-Fawzan.

Abd Al-Aziz Al-Fawzan: The Prophet Muhammad said about women: "I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you," and so on. This hadith and others like it were misunderstood by the ignorant. Corrupt people interpreted it in a way that differs from its original intent. Because of their ignorance, their insolence, their stupidity, and because of their enmity towards Islam and Muslims, they turned this hadith into evidence that Islam disgraces women, diminishing her value, and describes her in inadequate terms...

...These hadiths provide some of the most decisive evidence that Islam protects women and guarantees their rights. Islam has surrounded the woman with a fence of compassion and mercy. It has shown that the twisted nature of women stems from their very creation. This is how Allah wanted woman to be. Therefore, the husband must adapt himself to her and be patient with her. He should not give her too many things to do, or things that she is incapable of doing. He should not make her do anything that is contrary to her nature, and to the way she was created by Allah. In addition, he should turn a blind eye to her mistakes, he should tolerate her slips and errors, and [he should] put up with all the silly ignorant things she might say, because this constitutes part of the nature of her creation. In addition, women have surging emotions, which in some cases, might overpower their minds. The weakness with which women were created is the secret behind their attractiveness and appeal to their husbands. It is the source of women's seduction of men, and one of the elements strengthening the bond between husband and wife. This is one of the wondrous miracles of Allah: The strength of a woman lies in her weakness. Her power of seduction and appeal lie in her emotions, which might overpower her mind at times.

Posted by Solomon at June 20, 2007 2:44 PM EDT

Continued (Permanent Link)

Arab journalist: Don't Rush to support Abbas, he is not in control

Conference Call with Journalist Khaled Abu Toameh

Ellen Schor sent us this account of a conference call with journalist Abu Toameh a few days ago.

Highlights:

Regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza, Abu Toameh has not heard about anyone starving in the Gaza strip and there is no shortage of water and fuel, Drinking water is supplied by Israel, which is continuing to send water.

"Abu Toameh warns the United States and Israel not to rush to support Abbas, since it is not sure that Abbas will be able to control the West Bank. He said Abbas has failed to take action and failed to reform his party. Money given to Abbas didn't go into the right hands. The conflict in the Gaza strip was over money and power. There were bad guys fighting bad guys."

...

His concern is that Abu Mazen will continue to fail as a leader, as he has not learned from the election nor from the military action in Gaza. He has to convince Palestinians that he can reform the party and get rid of corrupt leaders. He does not see this trend occurring.

He feels Abbas' position is that of "Give me more money or you will get Hamas".

In the future, the West Bank may accept Hamas, as they have enforced law and order. Fatah is not united now. It is still in turmoil and is still weak.

Ami Isseroff

Friends:

This morning I participated in a conference call with Khaled Abu Toameh in Jerusalem. I would like to share the words of this veteran outstanding journalist, who specializes in Palestinian Affairs.

He said the security level now is calm. There has been no fighting on the ground since Friday.

As we have heard, the United States and Israel will release the financial restrictions on the Fatah government in the West Bank. Currently, there is hope and optimism in the West Bank, The question is what will happen to the 1.4 million Palestinians living in Gaza. Will Abu Mazen, the head of Fatah succeed in controlling the West Bank? We do not know what will happen to Gaza. Will there be extreme isolation of Hamas resulting in shortages in food, medicine, fuel, etc.?

Regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza, Abu Toameh has not heard about anyone starving in the Gaza strip and there is no shortage of water and fuel, Drinking water is supplied by Israel, which is continuing to send water.

He feels that the West Bank will give aid to the Palestinians living in Gaza.

Regarding Gaza's financial situation, Hamas has been smuggling millions of dollars into Gaza for the last 1 1/2 years. This money comes from donations, the last donation is from Yemen. 50 million dollars has been raised for the Gaza strip.

Some questions that arise: Sharia law is one of the main points included in the constitution. Will Hamas impose a Taliban style in the Gaza Strip? The Palestinians there are very religious and conservative. If public beheadings are staged in public squares and hands are chopped off for thievery, Abu Toameh predicts they will lose the support of the people.

He does not believe that the emergence of an Islamic Republic between Egypt and Israel will become a military threat, so there shouldn't be a security problem for Israel. Hamas will want to show the world that they are capable of governing and establishing law and order.

Olmert is presently in the United State to consult with Bush. He said they will have to determine what can be done to contain Gaza and if they want to boost Abu Mazen in the West Bank. He thinks Israel might be safer now. The number of rockets aimed at Israel from Gaza has dramatically stopped. He says that Hamas wants to be in full control and they do not want to drag Israel into the conflict.

He tells us that Hamas has been confiscating arms from huge clans. Jordan is sending food and medicine that come through Egypt.

He reports that the Palestinians have mixed reactions to Hamas being in control. He hasn't seen any Palestinians shedding tears over Fatah's loss. Perhaps they don't really miss the Palestinian Authority or perhaps, they are afraid to talk. Abu Toameh states that they believe that United States' and Israel's backing of Mahmoud Abbas is really a conspiracy to pull down their democratically voted government.

A reporter from the Daily News asked whether the West Bank will join with Jordan. Abu Toameh responded that Jordan has 80% Palestinians in their Hashemite Kingdom and they don't feel they need any more.

Abu Toameh warns the United States and Israel not to rush to support Abbas, since it is not sure that Abbas will be able to control the West Bank. He said Abbas has failed to take action and failed to reform his party. Money given to Abbas didn't go into the right hands. The conflict in the Gaza strip was over money and power. There were bad guys fighting bad guys.

Now is the time to extract promises from Abbas, if he is given money. Abu Toameh says that he must get rid of Fatah's gangsters and reform his party. He needs a new list of people in the government and he must offer Palestinians a better authority.

Answering a questions about the fate of Christians in the Gaza strip, he said it was not clear if Hamas was behind the attack on a Latin church. Masked gunman were involved. He said there are less than 3000 Christians in the Gaza Strip. In April, a Christian Book Store was attacked. The Christians are not only being pressured to leave the Gaza Strip, but also the Christians in Bethlehem, Ramallah and other areas.

Answering a question about Hamas building up an army and attacking the West Bank, Abu Toameh said Hamas has many supports in that area. Instead of an army attacking, he thinks sleeping cells of Hamas will wake up in the West Bank.

His concern is that Abu Mazen will continue to fail as a leader, as he has not learned from the election nor from the military action in Gaza. He has to convince Palestinians that he can reform the party and get rid of corrupt leaders. He does not see this trend occurring.

He feels Abbas' position is that of "Give me more money or you will get Hamas".

In the future, the West Bank may accept Hamas, as they have enforced law and order. Fatah is not united now. It is still in turmoil and is still weak.

He said that in the Middle East, you go to sleep with one reality and wake up with a different reality.

Palestinians have never been so divided, Toameh noted. The dream of a Palestinian state is as remote as ever. He wonders how America and Israel will deal with the new reality. He asks can you really ignore Hamas now that it is in power? What to do about the 1.4 million people who live there?

Abu Toameh said the emerging government is composed of good guys, most of whom are technocrats who can run the affairs of their ministries.

He concluded by saying the firing that came from Lebanon is an attempt by certain Palestinians to provoke Israelis to return to Lebanon, so the attention will move away from the Gaza Strip.

Jennifer Lazlo Mizrahi of the Israel Project, which sponsored this conference call, concluded the conversation by bringing up the fortieth anniversary of the Six Day War, the consequences of which are still being faced. She said it is very hard to assess what this new "Six Day War" in Gaza will bring.

Ellen Schor

Continued (Permanent Link)

Israel: Crimes against humanity of reactionaries

Who is a progressive? Who is a reactionary? Who commits "war crimes?" The picture of massive and senseless destruction below should make every decent person angry.

Who committed it, and against whom was it committed?

The structure is not a mosque in Gaza, destroyed by the evil colonialist Zionists. It is a restaurant of Kibbutz Nir Am, a civilian structure in a civilian socialist collective settlement, destroyed by a Qassam rocket launched by the reactionary fanatic and genocidal Hamas in unprovoked attacks on Israeli civilian communities inside Israel. Their declared goal is to eliminate Israel and substitute a Shaaria Muslim state. They never hide their goal.

The rocket attacks are not a response to occupation. They began as Israel decided to withdraw from occupied Gaza, and intensified when Israel withdrew. The rocket attacks are not a response to the international boycott of the Hamas led genocidal racist government, since they began before Hamas was elected to power.

Any fair person has to look at the actual facts, rather than Palestinian propaganda. If that picture showed your home, what would you expect your government to do?

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Hamas blows up good, like a terrorist had oughta

Quoth the Hamas:

Abu Obayda: All options is open including martyrdom operations
"Hamas blows up good, like a terrorist had oughta"
"What do you want, good grammar or good terrorism?"

The "Zionist military escalation" was the result of an incessant rain of Qassam rockets. The "martyrs" are all terrorists launching Qassam rockets, which are duly listed in the article.

The rest of the headline is even more interesting:

"All options is open including the martyrdom operations in the occupied Palestinian land in 1948".

"The occupation" is in all of "Palestine" and can only be ended with the destruction of Israel. What is you thinking of that?

Ami Isseroff

---

Abu Obayda: All options is open including martyrdom operations
Ezzedeen Al-Qassam Brigades Information Office website
May 18th, 2007
[Hamas Web site]

Palestinian sources reported that Five members of the Al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas, were martyred on Friday morning and several others were wounded in a series of raids by Zionist fighter jets. The strikes targeted several Palestinian military bases and metal workshops. The martyrs toll as a result of the Zionist military escalation in Gaza, Thursday morning, has now risen to nine, in addition to dozens of injuries.

Palestinian sources reported that the Zionist F-16 fighters launched three rockets at an Al-Qassam site east of Gaza City, a blacksmith's workshop and a group of Palestinian fighters east of Shija'aia on Friday morning. Five activists were martyred as a result and their bodies were torn to pieces and burnt.

According to the director of ambulance and emergency services in the Palestinian ministry of health, Mu'awya Hassanein, five dead bodies arrived at Al Shifa Hospital. Hassanein added that several injuries also arrived, all of them in critical conditions.

According to Mu'awya Hassanein, ambulances cannot reach the areas which have been bombarded because the Zionist fighter planes continue to dominate the skies and target every moving object. He added that coordination with the Red Cross is ongoing because there are reports of greater numbers of dead people in areas that have been struck.

On Thursday, four people were killed and at least 50 injured in five separate Zionist air strikes on Hamas and Islamic Jihad targets in the Gaza Strip. In the first strike, the Zionist fighter jets bombarded a base of the Hamas loyalist Executive Force in Gaza City, killing one and injuring dozens, in addition to destroying the building. Another air raid killed one and injured at least eight. Later on Thursday, Zionist jets struck a vehicle owned by Rafah municipality killing two workers.

In the same context, and In an exclusive contact with Abu Obayda, the spokesman of the Qassam Brigades said " All options is open including the martyrdom operations in the occupied Palestinian land in 1948".

Ezzedeen Al Qassam continued its operations against the Zionist settlements and the military bases. The Brigades declared in a statement the operations statistic in Thursday and it was as the following:
Operation:10 mortars ~Target:"Sofa" site ~Time:03:15
Operation:2 Qassam rockets ~Target:"Nir Eshaq" settlement ~Time:03:30
Operation:5 Qassam rockets ~Target:"Sedrot" settlement ~Time:08:00, 08:30,
and 09:20
Operation:2 Qassam rockets ~Target:"Nahil Oz" settlement ~Time:17:00
Operation:One Qassam rocket ~Target:"Miftahim" settlement ~Time:18:10
Operation:One Qassam rocket ~Target:"Sedrot" settlement ~Time:18:50
Operation:One Qassam rocket ~Target:"Miftahim" settlement ~Time:18:50
Operation:One Qassam rocket ~Target:"Asqalan" settlement ~Time:19:33
Operation:2 Qassam rockets ~Target:"Biery" settlement ~Time:19:50
Operation:2 Qassam rockets ~Target:"Kfar Azza" settlement~Time:20:30
Operation:One Qassam rocket ~Target:"Kfar Mimon" settlement~Time:20:45
Operation:2 Qassam rockets ~Target:"Bad Murdakhai" settlement~Time:23:30
Operation:2 Qassam rockets ~Target:"Sedrot" settlement ~Time:00:00
Operation:One Qassam rocket ~Target:"Asqalan" settlement ~Time:00:00

Abu Obayda added" These operations are part of the responding campaign against the occupation assault on the Gaza Strip, and the continued targeting of innocent Palestinian civilians and their installations in the West Bank".

Continued (Permanent Link)

Stop the Al-Awda conference

The Hilton hotel in Garden Grove California has agreed to host a displaced Al-Awda conference. Al-Awda means "the Return." The group became active in 2000, helping in the successful effort to sabotage Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. They made it clear that any Palestinian who surrendered the "right" of return would be considered a traitor. Their demonstrations feature posters with the democratic and liberal slogan "Palestine is our land and the Jews are our dogs." That is the liberal, public face of Al-Awda. This conference is to be closed to media and outsiders however, and  presumably delegates will be more frank...

 

Perhaps what is really needed to dissuade them from doing it is an announcement of  picketing and boycott of the Hilton chain. It should not be needed in a better world.

Not everything that Lee Kaplan writes is true. Be cautious about Lee Kaplan's assertions. For example, the contention that Sami Al Arian was convicted seems not be borne out by factual evidence. He was acquitted on many  charges and eventually copped a plea. It is not so relevant, because Al-Awda is a thoroughly bad group with or without Al-Arian. It is also probably hard to make a case that ISM and Al-Awda are related, though they MIGHT be.

In any case, after reading what is below, please write to these addresses:

GOOD GUYS

Write Vice chancellor James Sandoval ( james.sandoval@ucr.edu  ) and Chancellor France Cordova ( france.cordova@ucr.edu ) and praise UC Riverside for doing the right thing once the truth emerged.

PEOPLE TO PRESSURE: (Phone, mail, pickets)

The corporate offices of Hilton Hotel Corporation  and the Mayor of Garden
Grove:

Stephen F. Bollenbach, CEO
Hilton Hotels Corporation World Headquarters
9336 Civic Center Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
310-278-4321 phone

kathy_shepard@hilton.com  VP Cpmmunications

dominic_acolino@hilton.com    Mgr. Embassy Suties. Garden Grove

Mayor of Garden Grove
William Dalton
11222 Acacia Pkwy
Garden Grove, CA 92840
(714) 741-5100
pamha@garden-grove.org
---

Please be calm and respectful, and do not make accusations you cannot prove.

Maybe Paris Hilton should get involved :-)

 

Perhaps the Hilton chain is anxious for the publicity they could get. They could be as famous as the Munich Beer Hall where Hitler began his putsch.

Ami Isseroff

---

How Stop the ISM Stopped Al Awda at UC Riverside
By Lee Kaplan and the Stop the ISM Team
 
Well, it finally happened: UC Riverside, an American taxpayer-supported public university that was to be the venue for the next international  conference of Al Awda, a.k.a. the Palestine Right to Return Coalition, informed Stop the ISM last Sunday morning that the Fifth Annual International Al Awda Conference that was scheduled there for the weekend of May 24-26th has been canceled.

This marks only the second time an American university took enough responsibility to not allow itself to be duped into hosting unconditionally an anti-Semitic hate fest that masquerades itself as an educational event about the Middle East, the other campus being Rutgers in 2003. Al Awda's conference was set to be a training and strategy session for boycotting American and Israeli Jewish businesses and even some American Jews, and to work toward the goals of Hamas to destroy Israel. Al Awda's motto has always been "From the river to the sea," meaning the organization was not in favor of a peaceful two state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but in the ultimate destruction of Israel and its Jewish and Christian population. Al Awda's founder once called Jews who live in Israel "a disease."
 
 According to Assistant Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs James Sandoval at UC Riverside, the student organizers advised him "without explanation" that the event was being canceled. While Sandoval maintained the cancellation of the event was the decision of the student organizers that included the Students for Justice in Palestine and Muslim Students Union at UC Riverside, both International Solidarity Movement-affiliated groups, the UC Riverside administration deserves praise for setting up ground rules that obviously made the event too risky for the organizers to conduct on campus. The UC Riverside Muslim Students Union, like others across the US, has enjoyed an affinity for Hassan al Banna, the inspirational precursor to al Qaeda. Accordingly, anti-Semitism, and hatred for America and Israel were all on the Al Awda menu.
 
After considerable prodding by Stop the ISM, Assistant Vice Chancellor Sandoval set up three restrictions on the event that Al Awda obviously could not abide by.  First, was an objection to a disclaimer posted on the Al Awda website that "the convention host committee reserves the right to decline any reservation at its sole discretion for any reason." A similar disclaimer on the Al Awda website last year for the same conference at San Francisco State University was removed after Stop the ISM called attention to it with the SFSU administration. Public taxpayer-supported universities are not places where people can be barred because of their ethnicity or point of view as long as they behave in a lawful manner. At SFSU some Jews who support the existence of a Jewish state found their reservation requests ignored by the organizers. When notified the same thing was happening at UC Riverside, Sandoval intervened and insisted that the conference be open to anyone who could pay the entrance fee and attend in the spirit of an open university. He made Al Awda remove the restriction from their website.
 
Next came the issue of security. At the previous SFSU Al Awda Conference, the organizers had goons from their organization follow anyone around who they deemed as reporting what was really going on inside the event. The press was intimidated. This reporter was accosted more than once and even followed into the men's room. Sandoval agreed such conduct should not be allowable at a public university and assured Stop the ISM that only UC police officers, some brought in from other campuses, would have sole authority for security. At the previous SFSU event some people were harassed even for taking notes or asking questions. 
 
Of most importance was a decision made by Sandoval that cameras and recorders would not be banned at the UC Riverside event. In all other Al Awda and ISM events, cameras and recorders are banned to prevent outsiders from seeing the anti-Semitism and outright support for terrorist groups overseas that goes on. Sandoval advised the organizers that UC Riverside was not to be used for secret meetings that the public could not scrutinize for legitimacy.
 
Apparently, the above three requirements were more than the Al Awda organizers could handle. Al Awda released this message today:

 
VENUE CHANGE- UNITING FOR THE RETURN - FIFTH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL AL-AWDA CONVENTION
NEW VENUE: Embassy Suites Hotel - Anaheim South, 11767 Harbor Boulevard, Garden Grove, CA 92840

DATE: May 25-27, 2007
 
The host committee of the Fifth Annual International Al-Awda Convention announces a change in venue. The convention will now be held at Embassy Suites Hotel - Anaheim South, 11767 Harbor Boulevard, Garden Grove, CA 92840. The convention will take place on the May 25-27 memorial day week-end.
 
The date of the convention commemorates the Nakba, the 59th year since the "State of Israel" was declared on stolen Palestinian land, and which led to the Zionist occupation of all of Palestine.
 
The community-based local host committee currently includes the Southern California chapters of Al-Awda (Al-Awda Riverside, Los Angeles and San Diego), Students for Justice in Palestine at UCR, The Palestinian American Women's Association, The Free Palestine Alliance, The National Council of Arab Americans, The Middle East Cultural and Information Center, The Muslim Students Association at Palomar College, The Muslim Students Association at UCSD, Students for Justice in Palestine at UCLA, The Muslim Students Union at UCR, The Arab Community Center of the Inland Empire, Campaign to End Israeli Apartheid - Southern California, Students for International Knowledge at CSUSB, and The Muslim Students Association at CSUSB.
 
THE PROGRAM
 
The Fifth Annual International Al-Awda Convention promises to be an amazing three-day event from speakers and workshops, film showings, to a Palestine Cultural Dinner Event. The opening will be held on the evening of Friday 25 May and include a moving event at which survivors of the Nakba, the great catastrophe, share their recollections of their first-hand experience in 1948.

On Saturday May 26, the convention will devote itself to political assessments, and to developing the ongoing work of organizing right to return campaigns such as refugee support, media work, student, art/culture, etc., in addition to our recruitment and outreach projects.
 
On Sunday May 27, the convention will arrive at its resolutions based on the concrete recommendations of the various workshops.
 
The Saturday evening Palestinian Cultural Dinner Event will include keynote addresses as well as music by world-renowned maestro Dr. Nabil Azzam, poetry readings and more. A Naji el-Ali exhibition will also be on display in commemoration of the 20th anniversary of his assassination. The cartoons for this exhibit were kindly provided by Khalid el-Ali, his son.

Among the confirmed convention speakers are:
Dr. Jamal Zahalka, new leader of Balad (National Democratic Assembly, al-Tajamu' al-Watani al-Dimuqrati) who will discuss the current situation of Palestinians living in the areas of their country occupied in 1948 and in the context of the persecution of Dr. Azmi Bishara, former leader of Balad.

Leila Al-Arian, journalist, daughter of political prisoner Sami Al-Arian.

Dr. Naseer Aruri, former member of The Palestine National Council.

Elias Rashmawi, National Coordinator National Council of Arab Americans.

WHY VENUE CHANGE
 
The host committee decided to move the convention from the University of California at Riverside to the Embassy Suites Hotel - Anaheim South when new unacceptable conditions were demanded by certain UCR administrators well after they had approved the venue. For example, the administrators levied new administrative, security and other fees in the thousands of dollars which the hosts of the convention at UCR viz. the Students for Justice in Palestine would be expected to pay. Such prohibitive fees are highly unusual and have almost certainly never before been levied at UCR on any other student group. Additionally, the university administrators insisted that Zionists be allowed to attend the convention, and that they film the convention and its participants, a remarkable attempt at intimidation.

All these new conditions and unreasonable demands were considered by the host committee as an attempt to shut down the Fifth Annual International Al-Awda Convention. Hence, the committee decided to move the convention to the Embassy Suites Hotel - Anaheim South, 11767 Harbor Boulevard, Garden Grove, CA 92840 - The committee felt that this private venue would provide a safer and more secure environment for our community and convention attendees.

 

All of the guests listed above call for Israel's destruction, and are supporters of Hamas and the terrorists who kill US soldiers in Iraq. Al-Arian was convicted of being the US head of Islamic Jihad [Not true apparantly - A.I.]  and involved in killing over 100 people  in terrorist attacks [As far as is known, Al-Arian did not kill anyone, only Islamic Jihad did], including some Americans. The Boycott being promoted also wants US businesses such as Coca Cola, Starbucks, Blockbuster Video and Home Depot boycotted because they have Jewish executives or do business with Israel.

 
Stop the ISM earlier provided the UCR administration with ample photographic evidence and proof over the last thirty days that Al Awda is linked with American Nazi Party organizations such as the Aryan Nations due to their commonality in Jew-hatred, that it engages in blatant anti-Semitism on its affiliated websites and violates US law regarding promoting a boycott of Israeli businesses that was set up by the Arab League. Secondary boycotts of American businesses that do business with Israel are also considered illegal and Al Awda clearly stated on their website their goal was also to boycott American Jews by boycotting certain American firms.  Photographs of Al Awda organizers in San Francisco waving Palestinian flags with red fists dripping with blood on them and exhortations in Arabic that "Palestine is ours and the Jews are our dogs!" sent to the UC Riverside authorities over the last month were not enough to sway the administration to take action at first, allegedly, because the University counsel found "nothing illegal" about it, however, campus restrictions on secretive or abusive behavior apparently were enough to make the event be canceled.
 
Other evidence over the succeeding weeks since the announcement of the event that Stop the ISM provided to the UCR administration included specific examples of Al Awda's blatant anti-Semitism by exhortations to murder Jews.  Such evidence included poetry on the Web by an international Al Awda leader exhorting murder and suicide bombings. Since the UCR event was billed as an "International Al Awda event," calls for suicide bombings and killings were hardly appropriate for a California state campus.
 
Vice Chancellor James Sandoval deserves some credit for not playing the complete fool to Al Awda, by at least setting some ground rules for the event that the organizers no doubt felt they could not adhere to. One was the removal of a disclaimer on the Al Awda website saying the organizers had the right to bar anyone from attending the conference for any reason. That disclaimer was posted on the Al Awda website. San Francisco State University, that hosted last year's national conference, also required the organizers to remove such a restriction from the event that did take place on that taxpayer-supported campus after Stop the ISM pointed the disclaimer out.  Despite that, some who support Israel's right to exist found their reservations ignored or missing at SFSU when that conference took place.  Sandoval intervened after being notified of the restriction on the Al Awda website and advised the organizers that since UCR is a public university, nobody could be barred from the event.
 
The Arab irredentist group Al Awda  has always managed to get by on plausible deniability whenever it came to its outright support for anti-Semitism and the annihilation of Israel, but when the organization came under potential open scrutiny this time, it canceled its own event. In the past, Al Awda has not allowed cameras or video recorders at their events, an ISM tactic, because these events are really terrorist-support strategy festivals, not peace or educational events. The fact is the US Civil Rights Commission just came out condemning anti-Semitism on US colleges that is masked as Middle East "discussion" or only criticism of Israel must have also played at least some role in the UCR administration's requirements for this Al Awda conference that the organizers found unacceptable.
 Al Awda has now moved this conference to private property where they can bar people from seeing what goes on inside. The universities have provided a low cost or free venue in the past and fostering the image of an academic event for conferences like these that belong in despotic totalitarian-state Middle Eastern universities, not on an American campus. Al Awda attendees, although mostly Palestinian Arabs, also voice their unwavering international support for the Ba'ath Party that supplies terrorists who kill American soldiers in Iraq.
Whatever the reasons for the cancellation of this event, UC Riverside deserves praise for conducting itself like a professional institution of learning, not an indoctrination center for Jew-haters. Whether this had something to do with the new finding by the US Civil Rights Commission about campuses being disabused by anti-Semitism masking as political discussion of the Middle East is not the issue; for once, a major American university conducted itself in an intelligent manner that treated veiled anti-Semitism as being every bit as objectionable as attacks on any other ethnicity. Meanwhile, the Al Awda show will still go in Garden Grove, California, but not on a college campus partially subsidized at taxpayer expense.
write Vice chancellor James Sandoval (james.sandoval@ucr.edu  ) and Chancellor France Cordova (france.cordova@ucr.edu) and praise UC Riverside for doing the right thing once the truth emerged. Perhaps other universities will now finally catch on to the ISM and its affiliates like Al Awda. At the same time, get on the phone to
the corporate offices of Hilton Hotel Corporation  and the Mayor of Garden Grove:
 Stephen F. Bollenbach, CEO
Hilton Hotels Corporation World Headquarters              
9336 Civic Center Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
310-278-4321 phone
 kathy_shepard@hilton.com  , VP Communications
 
Mayor of Garden Grove
William Dalton
11222 Acacia Pkwy
Garden Grove, CA 92840
(714) 741-5100
pamha@garden_grove.org

Continued (Permanent Link)

Islamophobia and Londonistan: How Britain should fight terror

You know what sort of person would write something like this, right?

Britain teems with nests of serpents and scorpions of extremism who come from around the world: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Pakistan and other countries due to its flexible systems and the adoption of a policy to receive outcasts during the aftermath of World War II and the Soviet-Western conflict during which doors were opened to persecuted refugees who sought their rights....

I think they must do what other Muslim and non-Muslim countries have done before them--accept fighting extremists by cutting off the oxygen that sustains extremist groups: their newspapers, radio stations, televisions, forums, mosques and websites. Through publicity, they can raise funds, recruit volunteers and secure popular support within foreign communities. The question is: how can the codified British system allow that? The answer lies with the hesitant legislators who are practically on the brink of a terrorist war today. After all, pursuing extremist Muslims today is better than pursuing all Muslims tomorrow.

It must've been a neocon Zionist reactionary Islamophobe, right? Someone with a "Zionist" name like Goldstein or Perle perhaps. Or maybe it was a Christian Zionist zealot?

No, It was Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed, who is general manager of Al Arabiya television.

This is the straight stuff. Blessings to you brother Al-Rashed. Salam Aleikum warahmatulahi.

Ami Isseroff

---

Britain: On the Brink of A Terrorist War

04/05/2007

Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed

I believe that the recent court rulings against the British Muslims [linked to Al Qaeda] were the first strike in a tough war. Britain teems with nests of serpents and scorpions of extremism who come from around the world: Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Pakistan and other countries due to its flexible systems and the adoption of a policy to receive outcasts during the aftermath of World War II and the Soviet-Western conflict during which doors were opened to persecuted refugees who sought their rights. The paradox is that it is in Britain, the object of hate for many fundamentalists, where these very people practice their full rights and enjoy what they were deprived of in their native countries.

Until four years ago, Britain's intellects had said that they were willing to tolerate what these people had to say out of protecting individual rights and the right to free speech and political opposition. We used to say to them that we all supported that right but that these people had no relation to freedom and unfortunately never respected the rights of others. They despised the regime that protected them and privately and publicly conspired against society. Unfortunately, these intellects turned a blind eye, believing that we pursued opponents, instead of examining the extremism phenomenon in the Arab and Muslim world to identify the nature of the problem. Several reports and articles appeared in the British media glorifying and supporting these groups both in their homelands and in Britain without realizing their extremist Fascist nature that compared to and even surpassed the capability of Nazism to destroy the social fabric.

Britain is faced with a very difficult problem, confronting a foreign enemy amid social sensitivity and slow-moving legal systems that limit its activity. A key to success is to know opponents and be capable of integrating with their community, which is possible in the Arab states because extremists share a similar background and these states have large law enforcement agencies that can detain and interrogate suspects and can even expel unwanted foreigners if it is believed that they are causing trouble. However, this is not possible to apply in Britain and therefore it will not be easy for British security to combat both the dangers of secret organizations and education provided in residential communities where extremists hide.

Unfortunately, we can only expect more terrorist operations in Britain because all indicators show that extremists have spent a number of years destroying the minds of young British Muslims under various religious and social claims, and it will not be easy to stop the waves of training or, firstly, ban extremist education.

What can the British authorities do?

I think they must do what other Muslim and non-Muslim countries have done before them—accept fighting extremists by cutting off the oxygen that sustains extremist groups: their newspapers, radio stations, televisions, forums, mosques and websites. Through publicity, they can raise funds, recruit volunteers and secure popular support within foreign communities. The question is: how can the codified British system allow that? The answer lies with the hesitant legislators who are practically on the brink of a terrorist war today. After all, pursuing extremist Muslims today is better than pursuing all Muslims tomorrow.

Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed
the general manager of Al -Arabiya television. Mr. Al Rashed is also the former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al- Awsat, and the leading Arabic weekly magazine, Al Majalla. He is also a senior Columnist in the daily newspapers of Al Madina and Al Bilad. He is a US post-graduate degree in mass communications. He has been a guest on many TV current affairs programs. He is currently based in Dubai.

Continued (Permanent Link)

The One State Final Solution to the Judenfrage - is it a serious subject for debate??

Dan Fleshler (Realistic Dove) is doing a fine job trying to defend Zionism against extreme leftists. It is a worthy attempt, and Dan has interesting things to say, but sometimes it is easy to get caught up in assuming the correctness or legitimacy of the arguments of the other side, when that is not warranted, and this can lead to an ideological and moral dead end.

Here, for example, he has entered the debate over the so called "one state solution" using Uri Avnery's article to bolster his case. But Avnery himself accepts some unacceptable allegations as a starting point.

Once you have accepted the outrageous idea that Jews have no national rights in Palestine, that is, the illegitimacy of Zionism, as Avnery has done, your arguments must be based on compromise, or on vindicating the idea that "might makes right." This is an untenable moral stance. Along with this, Avnery accepts the historical distortions of Ilan Pappe, and takes for granted that they are right. If these are Fleshler's "Zionist" arguments, we do not need any anti-Zionist ones.

Avnery wrote, and Realistic Dove quoted:

There is no doubt that the real disease is not the 40-year long occupation. The occupation is a symptom of a more profound disease, which is connected with the official ideology of the state. The aim of ethnic cleansing and the establishment of a Jewish State from the sea to the river is dear to the hearts of many Israelis, and perhaps Rabbi Meir Kahane was right when he asserted that this is everybody's unspoken desire.

The above is a pack of lies without foundation. The "real disease" is contained in people who spread such falsehoods. The official ideology of Zionism never aimed for "ethnic cleansing" nor for establishment of "a Jewish State from the sea to the river," but only for establishment of a Jewish national home in the land of Israel (somewhere in the land of Israel) secured in international law. Weizmann, Ben Gurion and others held out the hand of security and cooperation to the Arabs of Palestine, even though many were convinced it would not be accepted. Herzl envisioned his Jewish state as a multicultural pluralistic democracy, as he tried to bring to life in his novel, Altneuland (you can read the entire book on line and see for yourself that the above is a pack of lies).

It is hard to understand how a Zionist can legitimize statements such as the above. Kahane and his friends constitute a small and shameful minority who were never part of the Zionist majority. Avnery knows it is so. He knows that the War of Independence had to be fought because it was imposed on us, and that as it was a civil war, it was a war of "us or them." He wrote this in the introduction to his book, "Samson's Foxes" when it was reissued. He fought in that war on the side of the Zionists, whom he now disowns.

The only side that adopted "Ethnic Cleansing" as its official ideology was the Arabs of Palestine. They were led by the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin Al Husseini , a Nazi, who told the British that his solution for the "Jewish problem" in Palestine was the same as the one adopted in Europe, that is, annihilation. He intended to build a death camp near Nablus in order to carry out his "solution." This was the one state solution that he advocated. At various times, the Arabs of Palestine and their Arab allies took steps to implement this solution. The The Ethnic Cleansing of Jerusalem in 1948 was a harbinger of what the "one state solution" advocated by the Arab League and the Mufti had in store for the Jews.

The "Secular Democratic State" program of the PLO (circa 1968) was not much better. It advocated "emigration" of all Jews who arrived after 1917. The rest would in theory be given "equal rights" in a "secular democratic state." Of course, there is no such state in the Middle East, and there could not be such a state today. Perhaps in 500 years it would be possible.

The Mufti is dead, but his repugnant ideology lives on in the Hamas. A Hamas ideologue explained the humanitarian and altruistic nature of the Hamas program: murdering Jews benefits the people of the world:

There is no other choice but to use restraint regarding the condemnation, the attaching of the label of terror [to "resistance"], and the assembling of conferences [for] condemnation [of the attacks]. [This] so that everyone will know, that we did this only because our lord commanded so, "I did it not of my own accord" [*] and so that people will know that the extermination of Jews is good for the inhabitants of the worlds on a land, to which Allah gave his blessing for the sake of the inhabitants of the worlds. [Emphasis added]

That is the real essential ideology of the "One State Solution" and those who subscribe to it are supporting genocide. If you like murdering Jews, you will love the one state solution. In one interpretation, the Jews will lose the right to self determination, but Israel will be just another country where Jews can live, perhaps like America, or more likely like pre-war Poland or Germany - an uncertain home. Even that is unlikely. In a more likely one state scenario, Jews would have to live as second class citizens in an Arab state that would be like Egypt or Syria. It is not likely that many Jews would remain in Israel even if they were not expelled. In the event that Hamas or a similar movement controls the state, the Jews would be murdered, because that is the commandment of Allah, according to them, and it benefits the world.

We should not have to explain to anyone why genocide is wrong, whether it is physically murdering a people, as threatened above, or denying the Jews the right to self self-determination. People who advocate this solution knowing and understanding the consequences, are accomplices in consipiracy to commit genocide. Others who go along with unwittingly it are their dupes.

Avnery's conclusion, which Realistic Dove seems to support, is that while Zionism is evil and the Jews really have no national rights at all in Israel, it is just a bad idea:

But beneath the surface, in the depths of national consciousness, we are succeeding. The question is how to turn the hidden success into an open political fact. In other words: how to change the policy of the Israeli government.

The idea of the "One-State Solution" will harm this effort very much..

It. diverts the effort from a solution that has now, after many years, a broad public basis, in favor of a solution that has no chance at all.

There is no doubt that 99.99% of Jewish Israelis want the State of Israel to exist as a state with a robust Jewish majority, whatever its borders.

The belief that a world-wide boycott could change this is a complete illusion. Immediately after his lecture, my colleague Adam Keller asked the professor a simple question: "The entire world has imposed a blockade on the Palestinian people. But in spite of the terrible misery of the Palestinians, they have not been brought to their knees. Why do you think that a boycott would break the Israeli public, which is far stronger economically, so that they would give up the Jewish character of the state?" (There was no answer.)

Avnery's objection to the plan for destroying Jewish self determination is not that it is wicked and opposed to international law, and that it will probably result in mass murder. Rather, his only objection is that it has no chance of succeeding. In his book, murder would be OK if you could get away with it. Avnery has set himself up to be the O.J. Simpson of anti-Zionist ideology.

The real reason that Jews and Arab Palestinians must support a two state solution, is that the world recognizes the right of national self determination as Jus Cogens, a right that is "powerful" and takes precedence over all other rights. It is enshrined in the UN charter and in international law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Article I, Part I, opens the convention with the following declaration:

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

That is international law. Anyone who opposes a Jewish state or a Palestinian state, if that is the will of those peoples, is opposed to international law.

We Jews cannot deny to the Arab Palestinians what we demand for ourselves, and the Arabs of Palestine cannot deny to us what they assert for themselves. The reason that the One State "solution," whether it is Kahane's or Pappe's is wrong, is that it automatically denies the legal and moral principle on which it purports to be based, because it denies the same right to the other side. It doesn't matter if it is "good for the Jewish Palestinians" or "Bad for the Arab Palestinians" by some cynical pragmatic calculus of "what can we get away with?"

Uri Avnery and Ilan Pappe and to Dan Fleshler must understand that we Zionists believe we are here by right, and not on sufferance. This right is anchored in international law, and is justified both by recent history and past history. We created a viable state out of some inchoate dominions that were the armpit of the Ottoman Turkish Empire. "Palestine" as a viable entity would not exist without the construction of the Zionists. The Jews are the only people who ever established sovereign domain over this territory in all of history.

When Mr Arafat's father was living in Egypt, my grandmothers were born in Jerusalem, and when Izz-e-din el Qassam was a boy in Syria, my mother was born in Hebron, and they became "Palestinians" when British rule became a fact in this area. They were more Palestinian than Mr. Arafat or Mr el Qassam.

By what right does Avnery or Pappe or Fleshler deny to me and to other Israelis the right to live as free people in the land that we built, and that our ancestors built? The evidence of the national ties of the Jews to this land in history is overwhelming. Every objective person, except some Arab propagandists, admit that the Jews were once a sovereign nation in this land, and that we are the only living heirs of the ancient Jewish people. The culture tie of the Jews to the land over 2,000 years is disputed only by degenerate malefactors, the sort of people who accept the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as factual. Those "liberals" (allies of the Mufti and David Duke) who oppose Zionism, claim that they are opposed to imperialism and racism. Yet they insist that the Arab imperialist conquest of the land, and the Ottoman Turkish imperialist racist conquest of the land, and the racist apartheid regime imposed by them, entirely annul the historic rights of the Jewish people to the land! Why? Because the apartheid regime of the Ottomans and the local Arabs prevented Jews from settling here in large numbers for most of Ottoman rule, and made it difficult for Jews to buy land. Therefore, the Arabs of "Palestine" - an entity that did not exist before 1917, remained a majority, a status that was enforced by racist apartheid laws of immigration and settlement.

The vicissitudes of history have established another people in this land as well, the Arabs of Palestine. The rise of Jewish nationalism was met by the parallel rise of Arab nationalism. Whether it is right or wrong in the cosmic conception of justice, the Jewish people cannot claim exclusive rights over the land. In the kingdom of heaven, there might be different laws and different justice. On Earth, we must accept the law of nations. The world recognizes the rights of the Arabs of Palestine to a state of their own, and we Jews must accept that as well as we accept international law. But at the same time, we can demand of the Arabs of Palestine, and of Mr. Pappe and Mr Avnery, that they too must accept international law, even if they exclude themselves from the Jewish nation.

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

The pro-terrorism lobby PR campaign

An Anti-Israel ad campaign for Washington DC subways is being dismissed as ineffective by pro-Israel groups, but any propaganda is effective to some extent. It reaches someone. It helps to popularize a slogan and an attitude. It builds sentiment and a support group incrementally. It would be wrong to try to quash the campaign, but it would surely be right to spend some resources in presenting the case for Israel in the same way. Unfortunately, in the 1950s and 1960s nobody launched a campaign to end the illegal Jordanian occupation of Jerusalem, and in 1914, nobody thought of launching a campaign to end the longest occupation in history, the foreign occupation of the land of Israel. And today, nobody is thinking of effective advertising campaigns to present the truth about Israeli Palestinian conflict.

The ACLU insisted that this unfair advertising campaign had to be allowed in order to provide "freedom of speech." The ACLU is incorrect. The Washington DC subways are a public utility, and the municipality and the directors of the subways have an obligation to keep unseemly racist and political propaganda out of the subways. Advertisements in support of the racial inferiority of black people would not be allowed in the subways under the rubric of "freedom of speech." Moreover, ACLU does not champion "freedom of speech" for causes it does not like. The film Obsession, which documents anti-American and anti-Israel incitement by radical Muslims and Palestinian Arabs, was banned from mainstream American movie theaters and blocked on campuses. The ACLU did not not take up their cause. "Freedom of expression" is guaranteed only for messages that certain people like, and not for others, but nobody seems to mind.

As Snoopy the Goon points out, boycott campaigns and ad campaigns have a cumulative effect, even if they are really representative of a tiny minority at first. Giving them publicity by protesting or blocking them will back-fire, but pro-active publicity and initiatives to counter them are essential.

Here is the full story of the Anti-Israel ad campaign :

WASHINGTON, D.C. - area commuters will be inundated with a controversial poster-ad campaign when they take the city's subway system next month.

Starting May 13 for four weeks, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) has ordered 20 of its subway stations to place posters advertising a June 10 rally to end "Israel's illegal military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem."

Initiated by a charity called the U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation, the 46-by-60-inch posters depict an imposing tank pointing its main firing turret at a child with a schoolbag walking along a dirt road.

"Imagine if this were your child's path to school. Palestinians don't have to imagine," the poster states, before continuing to call for an end to U.S. aid for "Israel's brutal military occupation. paid for by U.S. taxpayers like you."

CBS Outdoor, the New York-based firm that places in-station advertising for WMATA, at first refused to consider the poster, but eventually relented to pressure from WMATA and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

According to an April 4 report in the Washington Jewish Week online, the U.S. Campaign contacted the ACLU, which then advised WMATA to order CBS Outdoor to place the posters, citing freedom of speech rights.

Joanne Ferreira, a WMATA spokesperson, said, "We didn't have any problem with the ad. It was a First Amendment issue."

In the same report, Oren Segal, a spokesperson for the Anti-Defamation League said, "If past events by this organization are any indication, it will make no attempt to present a balanced view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and this ad is a pure reflection of that."

Jodi Senese, CBS Outdoor's executive vice-president in charge of marketing, explained to The CJN last week why she first turned away the poster.

"I initially rejected it on grounds that I thought it was too inflammatory to children," she said over the phone from her Manhattan office.

Senese recalled that she told U.S. Campaign staff that if they wanted to raise awareness for their campaign, she was fine with it based on First Amendment rights, "but not like this," she said.

The U.S. Campaign claims 250 member organizations in the United States. Its website features a prominent logo with the slogan, "Apartheid: Wrong for South Africans. Wrong for Palestinians."

Senese, who is Jewish, indicated that though she was uneasy with the ad, her personal feelings were not a part of her initial decision to dismiss the ad.

"I'm very proud [of being a Jew]," Senese said. "I thought the image was inflammatory, but I also believe in our First Amendment rights. As Jews [in America], we thrive on that right as well."

Senese indicated at the time of the interview, that to her knowledge no other group had yet come forward with a counter-campaign for CBS Outdoor to run.

Arthur Spitzer, who is Jewish and the legal director for the ACLU in the National Capital Area, told the Washington Jewish Week it wasn't "a case about Judaism or Israel. but about establishing someone's right to freedom of speech, which I agree with regardless of whether I agree with their particular political position."

Jewish organizations in the D.C. area downplayed the seriousness of the upcoming campaign.

Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi, president of Washington-based pro-Israel think-tank, the Israel Project, said her organization didn't consider the ad campaign worth wasting resources to counter in the media and expected the ads to have a "minimum impact."

She said when the Israel Project and other prominent Jewish organizations in the area first learned about the ad, they worried about its "ominous" potential.

They discussed the matter at length and then conducted several focus group studies on the ad with dozens of "highly educated people" before concluding the ad wasn't worth combating actively.

In fact, Laszlo Mizrahi claimed that of the dozens who analyzed the ad in the focus groups, upon first glance most thought the tank was an American one surrounded by Iraqi children. And even when they read the poster's words, participants had little sympathy for the cause, she said.

"It's a poorly run... poorly executed campaign and the American people are onto [the U.S. Campaign's] game," Laszlo Mizrahi said. "There are real, legitimate threats to the U.S.-Israel relationship - this is just not one of
them.

"If these guys want to build support for their cause, they need to have something to sell that doesn't encourage children to blow themselves up."

Unfortunately, Laszlo Mizrahi is wrong. Our biggest enemy is complacency, based on the premise that "nobody will believe that crazy rubbish." People believe the darndest things, for reasons that have little to do with logic. The Hamas movement and Al-Qaeda have built their political empires based on the premise that one can encourage children and adults to blow themselves up. It seems crazy to the rest of us, but it works for them. And their "philosophy" is supported by political scientists who excuse terrorism and suicide bombing in different ways. Messages manage to make their way into people's minds in ways that defy logical analysis. If, for example, people at first mistake the tank for an American tank, they will link the Israeli occupation with the US war in Iraq, which most Americans now oppose. Rest assured, that if this campaign makes mistakes, the next ad campaign will learn from those mistakes. Where are our posters, showing the results of suicide bombings and the Muslim demonstrators carrying signs, "Europe is the Cancer, Islam is the answer?"

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

It's official - Bishara to quit knesset

"You won't have Azmi Bishara to kick around any more."

 

Bishara advocates a single Palestinian state and abolition of Israel. He "warned" the Hamas against concessions, and supports Hezbollah. Riad Ali explains why he could not even get support from Israeli Arabs.

 

We hate to see you go, Azmi.

 

Ami Isseroff

---

 

Bishara announces plans for Knesset resignation
JPost.com Staff, THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 12, 2007

Balad Chairman Azmi Bishara announced Thursday evening that he planned toresign from his Knesset post following what he branded "persecution" against him.

"Is it possible that a parliament member is subjected to such persecution," he asked during an interview with Nazareth based Hadit-a-nas.

Bishara said that he had exhausted his parliamentary skills and that is what prompted his decision.

"I did what I could with these skills. Eleven years is enough for me," added the MK.

Continued (Permanent Link)

At the BBC, any occasion is good for Israel Bashing

In the good old days of the Middle Ages, there were three times to blame the Jews:
1. When things go bad - if there is a plague, the Jews must have poisoned the well.

2. When things go well - holidays like Christmans were always good occasions for pogroms. "All I want for Christmas is my two front teeth" had a different meaning then.

3. Whenever else you feel like it.



The BBC has continued in this fine old tradition. When British sailors were released from Iran, BBC used the occassion for Israel-bashing. BBC is spending a fortune to supress a report about its anti-Israel bias. They are wasting their money. Why try to hide what everyone knows?

The item below is from Joy Wolfe. Please do complain to the BBC if you live in Britain and saw the show.

Ami Isseroff

---

Complaint re Newsnight 05/04/07

Complaint registered on the website and reported by telephone on 08700100 222

I wish to complain most strongly that the report on last night's Newsnight about the release of the British marines and sailors was allowed to develop into yet another opportunity to put out negative views about Israel.

Firstly I would contend this report had absolutely no relevant link to Israel, so I question why the producer would invite such a pro Palestinian activist to comment on it.

Secondly if it did have to have a go at Israel, making the outrageous, and in my opinion unsustainable claim, that it was Israel who started hostage taking and at one point was the only country using this tactic, why no mention about those Israelis who currently are hostages, with nothing known about them and the world and the BBC conveniently choosing to forget all about them.

I consider this to be yet another example of the BBC's bias against Israel, and in this case to be particularly deplorable since a link was created where none should legitimately have existed

I would like you to treat this as an official complaint, acknowledge it with a reference number, and I look forward to a response before deciding how and where to pursue this complaint.

Below is the profile of the person you chose as the one to comment on this report last night. Hardly comes into the unbiased and balanced category even if the item was about Israel, which it most clearly was not.

May I suggest you think very carefully about trotting her out on air unless there is a balancing voice to put Israel's point of view, if you wish to retain your alleged view that the BBC is unbiased and balanced.

Karma Nabulsi is the fellow in politics at St Edmund Hall, Oxford, and university lecturer at the department of politics and international relations, Oxford University. She was a PLO representative from 1977-90, working at the United Nations, in Beirut, Tunis, and the United Kingdom. She was an advisory member of the Palestinian delegation to the peace talks in Washington from 1991-1993. She then did her doctorate at Balliol College, and was prize research fellow at Nuffield College until 2005. During this time she was the specialist adviser to the UK all-party parliamentary commission of inquiry on Palestinian refugees (and its report, Right of Return, 2000) and the specialist adviser to the House of Commons select committee's inquiry on development assistance and the occupied Palestinian territories, and its report on donor assistance.

She is currently engaged in an EU-funded collective research project, based at Nuffield College, entitled Foundations for Participation: Civic Structures in Palestinian Refugee Camps and Exile Communities.

She is the author of Traditions of War: Occupation, Resistance and the Law (Oxford University Press, paperback edition 2005) and writes on the philosophy and ethics of war, the laws of war, European political history and theory and Palestinian history and politics. She is currently writing Conspirators for Liberty: The Underground Struggle for Democracy in 19th century Europe for W W Norton, supported by a Leverhulme Trust research grant. The book uncovers the untold story of the associations and networks that worked together to build democratic societies in Europe. She contributes to the Guardian, al Hayat, the Electronic Intifada and other journals.

She is a patron of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, adviser for the Badil legal unit and a member of its expert forum and adviser to Arab Media Watch in the UK. She is a trustee of the Hoping Foundation, which raises money and provides grants to grassroots community organisations working with Palestinian youth in refugee camps all over the Middle East. She was a founding member of the Association of the Palestinian Community in the UK in 1988, and of the Palestinian Women's Union, UK branch.

www.scottishfriendsofisrael.org

"Between the Lines "

I sent the following email to Honest Reporting UK on action@honestreporting.uk

Did anybody see the slot on Newsnight tonight?

"Hi,

I want to draw your attention to yet another side swipe at Israel by the BBC, on Newsnight tonight.

As you know the news is full of the return of the 15 British Marines and sailors from Iran. As a spin-off on Newsnight, there was a slot about hostage-taking in the Middle East. They mentioned all the people taken hostage by Islamists since the American Embassy siege in the 1980s, but as you can guess the Israelis held hostage by terrorists were conspicuous by their absence.

To add insult to injury, the BBC trotted out Karma Nabulsi who then proceeded to list Israel as one of the countries which took hostages and even said there was a time when they were the only ones doing it.

I wasn't able to get a full transcript of what was said, but surely we can complain to the BBC about trotting out a person who sympathises with the aspirations of Hamas in a slot like this is bias of the worst kind?

I look forward to your alert about this, and will gladly join with everybody else in protest. Keep up your wonderful work.

Chag Same'ach LPesach

Ilana Rosen"

Continued (Permanent Link)

Is the Arab peace initiative a fraud?

A joint press conference of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and Amr Moussa, Secretary General of the Arab League, explained the meaning of the Arab peace initiative. Quoting from the Saudi Press Agency:

 

Arabic Sumit 1428-2007

PRINCE SAUD AND AMR MOUSA HOLD JOINT PRESS CONFERENCE 5 RIYADH

 

http://www.spa.gov.sa/English/ContentPage.php?cid=38&id=14493

 

 ON THE ARAB SUMMIT NOT HAVING FIXED A DATE FOR THE PEACE INITIATIVE, PRINCE SAUD SAID THE ARAB LEADERS HAVE DECLARED A CLEAR-CUT INITIATIVE.

HE SAID THE ARAB STATES WILL SIGN A PEACE AGREEMENT WITH ISRAEL WHEN IT CONCLUDES ITS NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PARTIES WHOSE LANDS IT IS OCCUPYING, ADDING THAT THERE IS NO FIXED DATE FOR SUCH A DEVELOPMENT.

This seems to imply that the Arab states expect that Israel will first undertake to withdraw from all territories in separate agreements with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians, and without any formal commitment from the Arab states, and that after the withdrawal, the matter of peace with Israel will be considered, with each Arab state free to make its own decision about peace. Even if agreement is reached with the Lebanase, Syrians and Palestinians, there would be no guarantee that any other Arab states would agree to peace after Israeli withdrawal.

 

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Anniversaries: The Jenin Massacre Myth, the Warsaw Ghetto Revolt and the lie of Zionists as Nazis

Manfred Gerstenfeld has written an excellent article about the demonic demonization of Zionists as Nazis. Georges Sarfaty noted the same phenomenon in his article about the linguistics of hate. The theme is repeated over and over in many ways, and with no foundation in truth whatever.

Contrary to the charges of anti-Zionist extremists. Israel is not herding Palestinian Arabs into death camps. There is no genocide going on the West Bank or Gaza strip and none was ever planned. There are more Palestinian Arabs today than there ever were. There is no Palestinian "Holocaust." In all the years of its existence, Israel has not killed as many Arabs or Muslims as were killed by Muslims in Darfur or in the Iran-Iraq war.

It is particularly fitting to raise the problem of Zionists as Nazis in this season, which approaches the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Revolt, staged by an alliance of Jews led by Zionist Mordechai Anielewitz, and also the anniversary of the mythical Jenin "massacre" of 2002. In the Warsaw Ghetto, Jews were herded together for the purpose of rounding them up and transporting them to death camps. 350,000 Jews were crowded into the ghetto. All but a few were ultimately sent to death camps, and the rest were murdered when the ghetto uprising was crushed. When a few remaining survivors revolted in desperation, the SS and the Wehrmacht moved in with massive force to kill off the remnant of Jews in the Ghetto who had not yet been sent to their deaths elsewhere. The Jews of the Warsaw ghetto had done nothing at all to deserve their fate. They had harmed no German citizens, had attacked no German soldiers prior to being herded into the ghetto.

In 2002, a spate of Palestinian suicide attacks in ever-rising crescendo had reached a peak in March of 2002, when about 100 people were murdered, including diners at a seder celebration. The victims were not soldiers, they had done nothing to any Palestinians and they were leading peaceful lives in Israel. The Palestinians had been granted autonomous rule of Nablus, Jenin and other cities as part of the Oslo peace accords. Instead of negotiating peace, their leaders had started a campaign of terror and suicide bombings. The attacks in March were organized by cells of Palestinian "resistance" people in Jenin and Nablus, financed by the Palestinian authority with the approval of Chairman Yasser Arafat. All through 2001 and 2002 the attacks had continued. The international community and the Palestinian authority had done nothing to stop them. Chairman Yasser Arafat condemned violence publicly while privately signing the pay chits of terrorists. There was a debate in Israel about what to do. The final spate of attacks on eve of Passover 2002 made it irresponsible and politically impossible for the Israeli government to remain idle. Israeli forces entered the West Bank to remove the sources of the terror attacks in operation Defensive Shield. Civilian residents were warned repeatedly to leave the combat area. Most did. A few stayed out of "solidarity" with the terrorists or because no means could be found to transport them. In Jenin, IDF was greeted by gunfire of armed snipers in an ambush that killed about a dozen soldiers. It was decided that the only way to eliminate the terrorists, who would not surrender, was to destroy small area in the center of town. Civilians were once again asked to leave. In the operation, 56 Palestinians were killed, as a report by HRW subsequently found. Most of them were armed terrorists. Even one civilian death is too many, but the accidental death of about 20 civilians in a clearly defensive action cannot be compared with the intentional murder of 350,000 people. However, Palestinians and their supporters, aided by irresponsible and unprofessional international journalists, spread the myth that Israel had "massacred" 500 Palestinian Arabs in Jenin. Had it been true, it still would not have compared with the murder of 350,000 people. But it was a lie. The lie still exists and is perpetuated at numerous Web sites, in books and in movies. Because operation Defensive Shield occurred close to the anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which occurred n Passover of 1943, Jewish and other anti-Zionists built the obscene comparison between the IDF and the Wehrmacht.

A particularly skillful and odious lie that is circulated, is that the IDF studied the tactics of the Wehrmacht and the SS in the Warsaw Ghetto and applied them in Jenin. There is no actual evidence that this occurred, but it is repeated in dozens of places. In the usual fashion of apocryphal "Zionist quotes." the lie quotes or paraphrases, out of context, an article that was written by Amir Oren in Haaretz in January of 2002. Oren was speculating regarding various options that Israel had to deal with the rising wave of terror, and the dreaded possibility of urban warfare. He wrote, among many other things:

In order to prepare properly for the next campaign, one of the Israeli officers in the territories said not long ago, it's justified and in fact essential to learn from every possible source. If the mission will be to seize a densely populated refugee camp, or take over the casbah in Nablus, and if the commander's obligation is to try to execute the mission without casualties on either side, then he must first analyze and internalize the lessons of earlier battles - even, however shocking it may sound, even how the German army fought in the Warsaw ghetto.

The officer indeed succeeded in shocking others, not least because he is not alone in taking this approach. Many of his comrades agree that in order to save Israelis now, it is right to make use of knowledge that originated in that terrible war, whose victims were their kin. The Warsaw ghetto serves them only as an extreme example, not linked to the strategic dialogue that the defense establishments of Israel and Germany will hold next month.

The Warsaw ghetto was an example. Nobody in the IDF said that they were actually studying the tactics of Nazis, or that they would use the tactics of the Nazis. Amir Oren did not write that either. Every army studies the tactics of every other army in every battle. The IDF did NOT use the tactics of the Nazis, who used tanks and air support and artillery to blast the ghetto out of existence, and who did not give civilians a chance to escape to safety. If it were a sane world, I would not have to explain the obvious, but it is not a sane world, as the false and demented accusations of mendacious degenerates in dozens of places will attest.

Ami Isseroff

Continued (Permanent Link)

Sex, Gender and the Middle East: Happy Women's Day - Saudi Woman gets 90 lashes for being raped

Attention all you progressives and women's rights groups out there. There has been a HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION in the Middle East. A really gross one. Get John Dugard out here double quick. OOPS false alarm, it happened in Saudi Arabia, not Israel. "A Saudi woman who was kidnapped at knifepoint, gang-raped and then beaten by her brother has been sentenced to 90 lashes -- for meeting a man who was not a relative."

Is that a sex crime or a gender crime or what? Or are you just going to ignore it because it happened in Saudi Arabia. BBC and New York Times have apparently chosen to ignore it, so that is the politically correct thing to do.  

From Tom Grossmedia:

Today, March 8, marks International Women's Day. The mainstream media, including the New York Times and the BBC, have -- true to form, since they specialize only in skewering the news against Israel and the U.S.-- completely ignored the news that "A Saudi woman who was kidnapped at knifepoint, gang-raped and then beaten by her brother has been sentenced to 90 lashes -- for meeting a man who was not a relative."

The sentencing earlier this week has been reported by AFP and in Arab media, including the Khaleej Times (published in the United Arab Emirates) and the Saudi Gazette. But as far as I can tell the only Western mainstream media outlets to have covered the story are Fox News and the Scotsman (a Scottish newspaper). This is despite the fact that most Western media subscribe to AFP.

The 19-year-old Saudi woman was abducted by a gang of men wielding kitchen knives who took her to a farm where she was raped 14 times by her captors. Five men were arrested for the rape and given jail terms ranging from 10 months to five years by a panel of judges in the eastern Saudi city of Qatif, near the teenager's hometown.

But the judges also decided to sentence the young woman, identified only as "G," to 90 lashes. "G" was told by one of the judges that she was lucky not to have been given jail time. She said yesterday that she would appeal against her sentence.

The woman told the Saudi Gazette that she tried to commit suicide because of her ordeal and was beaten by her younger brother because the rape had brought shame on their family.

Unrelated men and women are forbidden from interacting in public in Saudi Arabia, which strictly enforces Islamic Sharia law of a kind many European Muslims say they would like to introduce in countries like Britain and France.

* On the official International Women's Day website, there is nothing about Saudi Arabia, just publicity for the "Lighting candles for Women in Palestinian society" event.

From Khaleej Times:

A Saudi woman who was kidnapped at knifepoint, gang-raped and then beaten by her brother has been sentenced to 90 lashes – for a meeting a man who was not a relative, a newspaper reported on Monday.

In an interview with the Saudi Gazette, the 19-year-old said she was blackmailed a year ago into meeting a man who threatened to tell her family they were having a relationship outside wedlock, which is illegal in the ultra-conservative desert kingdom.

After driving off together from a shopping mall near her home, the woman and the man were stopped and abducted by a gang of men wielding kitchen knives who took them to a farm where she was raped 14 times by her captors.

Five men were arrested for the rape and given jail terms ranging from 10 months to five years by a panel of judges in the eastern city of Qatif, near the woman's hometown.

But the judges also decided to sentence the woman, identified by the newspaper only as 'G,' and the man to lashes for being alone together in the car.

Unrelated men and women are forbidden from interacting in public in Saudi Arabia, which strictly enforces Islamic Sharia law.

'G' said one of the judges told she was lucky not to have been given jail time. 'I was shocked at the verdict. I couldn't believe my ears,' said the woman, who has appealed against her sentence.

The woman also told the paper she tried to commit suicide because of her ordeal and was beaten by her younger brother because the rape had brought shame on their family.

Aren't you proud to support progressive causes?

Ami Isseroff

 

Continued (Permanent Link)

Constitution proposes to destroy Jewish state from within

Is this how Arab states intend to recognize Israel?

---

Last update - 09:21 28/02/2007

Israeli Arab group proposes new 'multi-cultural' constitution

By Yoav Stern, Haaretz Correspondent

A proposed constitution written by the Israeli Arab advocacy center, Adalah, states that Arab Knesset members will be able to bring about the disqualification of bills that impinge on the rights of Arabs, and classifies the State of Israel as a "bilingual and multicultural" country rather than a Jewish state.

The proposal, entitled "The Democratic Constitution," also calls for majority and minority groups to split control of the government in such a way that will strengthen the Arab minority on issues relating to the character of the state.

Adalah's version of the constitution essentially abolishes the Jewish elements of Israel, but allows the Jewish majority to maintain its character through educational and cultural institutions. The proposal invalidates the Law of Return, which grants automatic citizenship to people with at least one Jewish grandparent, and states that citizenship will be granted to those who come to Israel for humanitarian reasons, regardless of their religion.

The document states that the "internal refugees" Arab residents and their descendants expelled in 1948 and whose number is estimated at about a quarter of today's Israeli Arab citizens will return to the area where they used to live and receive compensation. The introduction to the proposed constitution demands that Israel recognize its responsibility for the "historical injustices that it caused the Palestinian nation in its entirety," withdraw from the territories and recognize the Palestinian people's right to self-determination. The proposal sets the state's borders along the 1967 cease-fire lines.

The proposed constitution grants citizenship to all descendants of Israeli citizens, whether they were born here or abroad, as well as to all spouses of Israeli citizens thereby undermining Israeli efforts to limit marriages between Israeli Arabs and Palestinians living in the territories.

Instead of dealing with the issue of who is a Jew, says Adalah, the proposal deals with the issue of who is a citizen.

Adalah's constitution is the first one proposed by an Arab institution, though there have been many proposed by various Jewish ones. Adalah chairman Prof. Marwan Dwairy said the other proposals are not based on democratic values.

"They relate to Arab citizens like foreigners in this homeland, in which history, memory and collective rights are the legacy of Jews alone," he wrote.

Adalah hopes that its proposal will spur public discourse on the legal and cultural standing of Israeli Arabs.

"If this 'Democratic Constitution' succeeds in highlighting the large gaps that exist between it and the other proposals, and generates dialogue and topical public discussion on the nature of the freedoms and rights in the this country, we will see it as an important step," wrote Dwairy.

According to the proposed constitution, all assets of the Waqf (the Muslim religious trust) that were expropriated after 1948 and all assets seized by the state from Arabs will be returned to their original owners, who will also receive compensation for the period of expropriation. The state must also immediately recognize all unrecognized Arab villages, the proposal states.

The document does not state what the symbols of the country should be, but says that they will be determined either by a Knesset committee, half of whose members will be Arab, or by agreement of 75 percent of Arab MKs.

All official publications, court rulings and media reports will be in both Hebrew and Arabic, according to Adalah. The proposal states that every cultural group, whether religious or ethnic, will be able to run their own institutions, and that national minorities can choose their own representative body, at the state's expense.

The proposed constitution grants the judicial system the authority to overturn any laws that contradict the constitution.

Adalah says that many of its sections are based on international declarations of human rights, and has consulted with legal experts from around the world, including some who were involved in South Africa's changeover from an apartheid state to a democratic one.

Continued (Permanent Link)

"Ethnic Cleansing" in Jerusalem?

Next time you read about the "ethnic cleansing" of Jerusalem by evil Zionists, remember this article. Also remember - from 1948 to 1967, Jerusalem was under Jordanian rule. The Jews of Jerusalem were no longer allowed to live there.

---

Last update - 10:06 21/02/2007

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/828662.html

Study: 57 percent of East Jerusalem residents are Arab

By Nadav Shragai, Haaretz Correspondent

Forty-three percent of East Jerusalem residents - 184,300 people - are
Jewish, and 57 percent Arab, according to figures to be released Thursday by the
Jerusalem Center for Israel Studies.

The study was released to coincide with the start of a lecture series
marking the fortieth anniversary of the city's unification.

From 1967 to 2005, Jerusalem's Arab population has grown from 68,600 to
244,800 - an increase of 257 percent.

During the same period, the Jewish population grew by just 140 percent -
from 197,700 in 1967 to 475,000 in 2005.

The relatively slow growth rate among the Jewish population has led to a
decline in its share of the city's population. From 74 percent in 1967, this
figure was 66 percent in 2005.

The Arab population, meanwhile, rose from 26 to 34 percent.

Population forecasts in Jerusalem indicate that if demographic trends
continue, the capital's population will rise to 958,900 in 2020 - 60 percent
Jews and 40 percent Arabs.

An annual comparison of the growth rate of the two populations shows the
Jewish growth rate higher than the Arab only six times between 1967 and
2005.

The years of high growth occurred in the 1970s, as large-scale building
projects were carried out in Jewish neighborhoods, and in the 1990s during the
massive absorption of immigrants from the former Soviet Union.

The report indicated that the government targets for Jerusalem's Jewish
population have not been reached.

In the early 1970s, the government estimated that the Jewish population had
to grow by 3.7 percent a year to maintain the demographic majority.

In the past four decades, however, the Jewish population grew by an average
of only 2.7 percent annually.

The average rate of population growth among Arabs during the same period
was 3.4 percent.

The large Jewish neighborhoods established in areas attached to the city in
1967 are Pisgat Ze'ev (population approximately 41,000), Ramot (40,000), Gilo
(27,000), Neve Yaakov (20,000), Ramat Shlomo (14,000), and East Talpiot
(12,000).

The largest Arab areas of East Jerusalem are Shuafat (34,000), the Muslim
Quarter of the Old City (26,000), Beit Hanina (24,000) and A-Tur-Aswana
(22,000).

Continued (Permanent Link)

Jews are "evil souls" in new PA TV video clip

Palestinian unity is not so good if it is directed against you know who.

---

Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin - Feb. 14, 2007

Jews are "evil souls" in new PA TV video clip

"The [Jews are] evil souls,
a thousand evil ones [Jews] are in my home!"

by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

The lyrics in a new video clip broadcast on official Palestinian Authority Television refer to Jews as "evil souls, a thousand evil ones. . . in my home." The lyrics are sung to images of a religious Jew walking in Jerusalem and Jews praying at the Western Wall of the Temple.

This overtly anti-Semitic message not only defines Jews as "evil souls," but likewise tells Palestinians to see Jews as outsiders in Jerusalem. Even Jews at the Western Wall are portrayed as intruders.

Click here to view the clip

The following is an excerpt from the song:

"I am Palestinian, and my home is my home.
The evil souls [Visual: Jew walking in Jerusalem],
A thousand evil ones are in my home!" [Visual: Jew walking in Jerusalem]
But I am Palestinian and my home is my home,
The evil souls [Visual: Jews praying at Western Wall],
A thousand evil ones are in my home!" [Visual: Jews praying at Western Wall]
[PA TV, February 13, 2007]

The rest of the video, named "Palestinian Unity," features a teenage boy singing about Palestinian unity, over background images of dead bodies, funerals and military parades of the rival Palestinian terror groups, including Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, the Popular Front and the Democratic Front. The background images also include scenes of violence against Israel, including Israeli tanks and jeeps being hit by stones and Molotov cocktails.

The lyrics include:

"We are all Palestinians in blood and identity, Fatah, Hamas, and the Jihad, the Popular [Front] and the Democratic [Front]…
We want to liberate the land through the national unity..."

The words, "We are a sword which is not drawn, except towards the occupier," are sung to the images of a gun firing, followed by that of falling Israeli soldier.

Please feel free to forward this bulletin, crediting Palestinian Media Watch

Continued (Permanent Link)

Abdullah: Jordan will develop nuclear power

Last update - 03:12 19/01/2007

Abdullah: Jordan will develop nuclear power
By Akiva Eldar, Haaretz Correspondent

www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/815304.html

Jordan aspires to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes and believes
that unless all sides move quickly toward a peace settlement in the region,
the recent confrontation in Lebanon is only a hint of disasters to come. In
an exclusive interview with Haaretz on Thursday, King Abdullah II of Jordan
spoke with Akiva Eldar:

"I can say that on behalf of the U.S. president and the secretary of state,
and I've talked to both, that they're very serious and very committed to
moving the peace process forward, because they realize the dynamics of the
region at the moment.

"And this is the opportunity to reach out to the Palestinians and the
Israelis and say, look, this is the golden chance and to an extent, maybe
the last possibility. We had a conflict this summer.

"The frequency of conflict in this region is extremely alarming, and the
perception, I believe, among Arabs, and partly among Israelis, is that in
the summer Israel lost this round... And that creates a very difficult and a
very dangerous precedence for radical thinking in the area. The stakes are
getting higher and higher.

"So this is an opportunity to reach out to each other and make sure that the
crisis of this summer doesn't happen again. If we don't move the peace
process forward, it's only a matter of time until there is a conflict
between Israel and somebody else in the region. And I think it's coming
sooner rather than later.

"We all need to work together, because solving the Israeli-Palestinian
problem, allows us to tackle the other issues around us. All of us are
looking at Iraq with concern, we don't know what's going to happen in
Lebanon, although we hope that they're moving in the right direction...
Whether people like it or not, the linchpin is always the
Israeli-Palestinian problem."

Do you see a clear link between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the
Iranian nuclear threat and the threat of terrorism?

"Through Hamas, Iran has been able to buy itself a seat on the table in
talking about the Palestinian issue. And, as a result, through Hamas it does
play a role in the issue of the Palestinians, as strange as that should
sound.

"If we start moving the process forward, then there's less reason for
engagement on the Palestinian issue.

"But, the rules have changed on the nuclear subject throughout the whole
region. Where I think Jordan was saying, 'we'd like to have a nuclear-free
zone in the area,' after this summer, everybody's going for nuclear
programs.

"The Egyptians are looking for a nuclear program. The GCC [Gulf Cooperation
Council] are looking at one, and we are actually looking at nuclear power
for peaceful and energy purposes. We've been discussing it with the West.

"I personally believe that any country that has a nuclear program should
conform to international regulations and should have international
regulatory bodies that check to make sure that any nuclear program moves in
the right direction."

In other words, you're saying that you expect Israel to join the NPT.

"What's expected from us should be a standard across the board. We want to
make sure this is used for energy. What we don't want is an arms race to
come out of this. As we become part of an international body and its
international regulations are accepted by all of us, then we become a united
front."

Would you first deal with the Palestinian track and then move on to the
Syrian-Lebanese track?

"Syria seems to be of tremendous interest in the Israeli public opinion, but
I think that the priority, if you want to get the guarantees that Israel
wants for a stable future, the core issue takes the priority. We have to
launch the Palestinian process and then hope that things will go easier with
the other players.

"You have to start with the Palestinian first and look at the other ones as
a close second. I would hedge my bets on how successful the other tracks
would be if the Palestinian one is not solved. And, we don't know how much
of a smokescreen the other tracks would be and if we don't get the right
nuances for what we need on the ground for the next year, then the future
for us looks extremely dismal, for all of us in the region, if we don't move
the process along.

"What happened this summer is just a taste of a lot of worse things to come
if we don't change the direction of this discord.

"We're all on the same boat. The security and the future of Jordan is
hand-in-hand with the future of the Palestinians and the Israelis. ... So, a
failure for us is a failure for you, and vice versa."

How do you think the Americans should further the process?

"You have the road map, you have Taba, you have the Geneva Accords. So, we
don't have to go back to the drawing board. Most of us know the facts and
the issues extremely well. My only issue about the road map is that
circumstances have changed since the road map was launched, and the sort of
long drawn out phase approach, I don't think works anymore. So, we're
looking at combining phases, I think, to move people as quickly as possible.
The silent majority can be easily intimidated or swayed. And, I promise you,
if tomorrow, [Prime Minister Ehud] Olmert and President [Palestinian
Authority Chairman Mahmoud] Abbas sit down and shake hands and launch a
peace process, there'll be extremists on either side that create violence
and loss of life to try and destabilize the conflict. That is a given. We
have to be stronger than that to be able to move the process forward."

Would you suggest we go back to Yitzhak Rabin's formula: to pursue the peace
process as if there were no terrorism, and to fight terrorism as if there
were no peace process?

"I personally believe that my father's last biggest disappointment and
sadness to him was that he lost a partner for peace. And, he believed that
if PM Rabin hadn't been assassinated, we wouldn't be talking about a peace
process today. In the last years of His Majesty's life, I saw him looking at
the Middle East and realizing that there wasn't somebody with the courage to
be able to take the process forward. It is our responsibility to move it
forward.

"His late Majesty, when he started discussions with prime minister Rabin,
they both looked at it the same way, I mean these were two statesmen that
looked at it from an emotional point of view, in that 'who is my partner on
the other side? What are his fears and his insecurities?' If I could put
myself in his shoes then I could understand what to negotiate ... it was a
unique relationship between His Majesty and Rabin. When it came to the
Arab-Israeli Peace Initiative, we tried to do the same thing. An agreed
solution on the issue of refugees.

"Why do we want a two-state solution? We want a two-state solution because
we envisage the future of Israel not just having borders with Jordan, Syria
or Egypt. The future of Israelis, if I was to put myself in your shoes, is
to be welcomed from Morocco on the Atlantic to Oman on the Indian Ocean. I
think that is the prize for the Israelis. But that comes at a price and that
is the future of the Palestinians. So although we're talking politics, I
think that we have a physical problem and we're running out of time, maybe
the wall, maybe the settlements, the lack of hope for the Palestinians will
bring us to a point in time in the near future where a two-state solution is
no longer anything concrete to talk about, then what happens? If we don't
solve the Israeli-Palestinian issue, then we may never be able to solve the
Arab-Israeli issue. Is this what we want to give our children? Do they have
to be brought up like we were brought up ... in conflict or do we want to
give them hope?"

If you were Israel's prime minister, would you settle for a hudna?

"I mean, you talk about the hudna. Tell me what you mean about hudna. If you
and I have a problem and we want to go to the endgame, then we say, let's
hold off with each other so we can have an atmosphere to sit down and talk.
If it's a hudna, you do your thing and I do my thing for x amount of years
and then we'll decide what happens. No, that doesn't solve the problem. In
my vocabulary, a hudna is a truce that allows people to sit around the table
to solve the problem, which I believe is a two-state solution, then I
support that type of hudna. But a hudna to say you mind your business and
I'll mind mine for an indefinite period of time really doesn't get us
anywhere, does it?"

But in our case, Hamas insists on its refusal to recognize even our right to
exists. So, what kind of solution can we talk to Hamas about?

"But, if you've noticed, and I'm not agreeing with either side, but even the
language recently coming from Hamas, even from the Damascus bureau, is quite
interesting. Palestinians are suffering terribly, and I have major concerns.
I hear from Israeli politicians that we don't have a partner for peace. But
the clock is ticking and we're running out of opportunity.

"Palestinians tend to ask, where is the Arab street? Where are the Arab
leaders? We've always been there to support the Palestinians and a two-state
solution, but today, where are the Palestinians for themselves? My concern
is that as we're trying to move the process forward, it may be the
Palestinians that may lose the future of Palestine if they don't get their
act together, if they don't put their differences aside. At the end of the
day, a cohesive Palestinian leadership that can negotiate the future of
Palestine is what's needed today, and if we don't have that in six months or
a year, then there may not be a two-state solution and I fear that the
Palestinians may be the ones to lose."

There are Israeli politicians who say that publicly Jordan supports a
full-fledged Palestinian state, but off-the-record that it is not very
excited about having a Palestinian state right there in the Jordan valley
and would rather have Israel on the other side of its border. What would you
say to them?

"I do not know anybody, any Jordanian, who would say that there is a shred
of common sense to that. The true future of our little area is going to be
Israeli, Palestinian and Jordanian, and it has to be separate entities.
There are also Israelis who want to push the problem to Jordan. An
independent Palestinian state allows us a different future of how we move
economically, socially and even politically."

Jordan never gave up playing a constructive role in the holy cities of
Jerusalem. Do you see a Jordanian role in Jerusalem as part of a final
status solution?

"I look at Jerusalem as being a beacon for the three monotheistic religions.
Now, where Jordan plays a role is obviously from a Muslim point of view, we,
as Hashemites, have a historical role in Jerusalem, but also all the
Christian churches are credited to us. So, there is obviously a role for
Jordan in finding a solution to Jerusalem that is acceptable to all of us.
Jordan will be a very positive element in that."

You're in a very special position, because Jordan is caught right in the
middle of two conflicts: Iraq and Palestine. Is the solution for Iraq
sending more troops?

"Iraq is a challenge that is as important to Jordan as it is to Israel, as
it is to Egypt, as it is to any other country - and to the U.S.

"All we can say about Iraq is that the president has listened to the Maliki
government. He's come up with a statement saying, I'm going to benchmark
you, but you need to make some major changes. "

Next month marks eight years since your coronation. You haven't visited us
yet. When are you coming to Israel?

"We're hoping that in the near future, and that could be weeks or maybe in a
month or two, there'll be an opportunity to re-launch our final chance for a
future for all of us in the region. And, if we're successful in doing that,
then this will allow me to come and visit, and to try and bring the parties
closer and closer together. I'm quite willing to explain the Arab proposal
to the Israeli people and to create an internal dialogue about this issue.
The Arabs are coming to say we want peace, and we want formal relations.
And, as a human being, I can't understand how anybody would not want that.

"We look at the neighborhood and we're all concerned. But, the people who
need to be equally concerned are the Israelis and sometimes, they see the
conflict happening in the Middle East and think well, that's not our
problem. But unfortunately, everything that happens in the Middle East is
interlinked. And so, this is a challenge we all face."

Continued (Permanent Link)

Palestinians and Israel: Top down peace process for a new political horizon

Palestinians and Israel: Top down peace process for a new political horizon

01/18/2007

http://www.mideastweb.org/log/archives/00000555.htm

One day, we all know, there must be peace between Israel and the Palestinians, but the process seems to be mired in eternal deadlock and misery. Is there a way forward?

Israeli Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni and US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice spoke of a "Political Horizon" for the Palestinians. Indeed both sides need a political horizon. All versions of the peace process have brought much talk of peace and many sound bites and photo ops, but no peace.

Israel makes empty promises and the Palestinians, including the moderate ones, make threats, not all empty. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised to make life better for the Palestinians at his last meeting with Palestinian President Abbas, but nothing much happened. The checkpoints are still there, for the most part, the housing units in the settlements are getting built, and the prisoners are still in jail. The safe passage, promised a long time ago in a previous meeting, never materialized.

President Abbas issued moderate declarations of peace and good intentions to Prime Minister Olmert and to Condoleezza Rice, but at almost the same time, he was telling Palestinians to use their guns against Israel. Gilad Shalit is still a hostage in Gaza and Qassam rockets keep falling on Sderot.
We know from opinion surveys that somewhere, hidden in the hearts of the majority of the Israelis and Palestinians there is a will to make peace, but the politicians and the political reality do not allow it come to fruition.

The blocks to realizing the dream are:

"Facts on the ground" - The glum reality is characterized by terror, incitement and repression.
- Palestinians do not believe Israeli promises of a better life, Israelis do not believe Palestinian promises to abandon violence and keep the peace. Indeed, the Hamas insist they will never recognize the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state.

Extremists - Extremists who exploit the reality and the mistrust in order to generate support for more terror, incitement and repression and block constructive solutions.

Diametrically Opposed National Goals - Israelis and Palestinians want the same bit of land, and extremists keep pushing for mutually exclusive maximalist solutions. Goals such as more settlements and Right of Return are adopted by mainstream politicians and used to agitate against a peaceful solution that recognizes the rights of both sides.

Ineffective Peace Movements - On the Israeli side, peace movements either do nothing or advance unpopular demands of the Palestinians. They can't get a real hearing because they ignore the very real concern of Israelis, and because they are marginalized by the political leadership. On the Palestinian side, there are no movements founded with the express goals of making peace. A listing in a recent book about Palestinian "peace movements" and "civil society" included the Hamas and the International Solidarity Movement, neither of which advocate peace with Israel or are likely to bring peace.

The result is an impasse. Tzippi Livni and Condoleezza Rice chose to ignore all of the above, and to skip ahead to a happy conclusion for their press conference. It may solve their current political problems, but we know from past experience that it won't make any difference in reality. Rice and Livni proposed a "provisional" Palestinian state with "temporary" borders, but the Palestinians aren't having any of that. The Hamas would want the "temporary" borders to be along the Green line, and their state would be preparing to take over the rest of Israel. The Israeli government would want the "provisional" state to encompass the land on the other side of the security fence, and assumes that in the Middle East, nothing is more permanent than a "temporary" solution. 

Continued here

Continued (Permanent Link)

Peace Now holds protest despite ban

Jan. 18, 2007 11:01 | Updated Jan. 18, 2007 15:56
Peace Now holds protest despite ban
By JPOST.COM STAFF

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1167467761458

Some 150 Peace Now activists held a demonstration just outside of Hebron on Thursday to protest the harassment of a Palestinian woman by one of her Jewish neighbors.

Last week, a B'tselem video showing Hebron resident Yifat Alkobi pushing the woman from the Abu Isha family and calling her a sharmuta (slut) was released to the media. Alkobi, who claimed that the woman had provoked her, was summoned for questioning by police.

The left-wing protesters tried to enter the West Bank town, despite an IDF order issued earlier in the day against holding the demonstration inside Hebron because of the public security threat it posed. Police who were deployed at the scene stopped the protesters on the outskirts of the city.

Israel Radio reported earlier that the Hebron army commander and the city's police chief had originally permitted the Peace Now demonstration, but OC Central Command Maj.-Gen. Yair Naveh had decided to cancel it, saying in a statement that it was a danger to public security, peace and order in Hebron.

He nonetheless gave permission for the organization to hold a protest at the Okafim Junction north of the city.

At the demonstration, Peace Now Director-General Yariv Oppenheimer called the police "cowards" and accused them of failing to enforce the law against the settlers.

Oppenheimer had earlier called the IDF's decision to cancel the event "outrageous" and declared that the army was caving in to threats from the settlers.

He also pointed out that the IDF frequently allowed Jewish residents to hold public rallies in the city under full police supervision, and insisted on going ahead with the protest.

Speakers at the demonstration included Meretz Chairman Yossi Beilin, who strongly criticized the settlers for their behavior.

Meanwhile, a group of right-wing activists organized a counter-protest at the same spot. A scuffle broke out between the two groups after one side hurled epithets at the other, and police who were at the scene intervened to break up the fight.

Continued (Permanent Link)

'Syria serious about peace talks'

'Syria serious about peace talks'
By ASSOCIATED PRESS
NETANYA, Israel

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1167467765288

Syria is serious about resuming peace talks with Israel, and during the summer's Lebanon war even proposed holding a secret emergency meeting with Israeli officials in Europe, a retired Israeli diplomat said Thursday.

Israel's leaders quickly distanced themselves from unofficial talks the Israeli, former Foreign Ministry director general Alon Liel, held with a Syrian. Liel, going public for the first time Thursday, said he briefed government officials every step of the way.

He said he believed his counterpart, Syrian-American businessman Ibrahim Suleiman, also had channels to the Syrian government.

"Our testimony is that it is very clear to us that Assad wants to talk," said Liel, referring to Syrian President Bashar Assad.

On Tuesday when the talks were leaked in a newspaper report, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert dismissed the talks. "I knew of nothing. No one in the government was involved in this matter. It was a private initiative on the part of an individual who spoke with himself," Olmert told reporters. "From what I read, his interlocutor was an eccentric from the United States, someone not serious or dignified."

Syrian officials said Tuesday that reports of an agreement were "baseless."

In June, the participants wrote a two-page "non-paper" to sum up their talks, Liel said. The centerpiece was a proposal to turn part of the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in the 1967 Mideast War and annexed in 1981, into a "peace park." Syria would be the sovereign in all of the Golan, but Israelis could visit the park freely, without visas.

The Israeli side proposed a Golan pullout over 15 years, the Syrians over five.
Previous peace talks collapsed in 2000 because of a dispute over where the Israeli-Syrian border should run. Syria said any peace deal would have to restore Syrian sovereignty over all the territory captured in 1967, while Israel feared a complete withdrawal could endanger its security and access to water sources, noting that the international border does not reach the shore of the Sea of Galilee.

Liel and Suleiman were brought together by Geoffrey Aronson, head of the Foundation for Middle East Peace in Washington. Eight meetings were held, Liel said, including several reportedly under the auspices of the Swiss.

Liel would not say who his hosts were, but said he believed they used their own diplomatic contacts to check whether the messages coming out of the talks were reaching the Syrian government.

The last meeting took place in late July, during the Israel-Lebanon war, Liel said. On that day, several Israelis were killed by rockets fired by the Lebanese Hezbollah militia, which Israel says is backed and funded by Syria and Iran.

"It was a very difficult day, and the Syrian party suggested that since it's a war and an emergency situation, let's have a very quick track one meeting, high-level meeting, on the level of deputy ministers ... with an American in the room," Liel told a conference at the Netanya Academic College.

Liel said he told Israeli government officials of the offer, and pleaded with them to accept. "And the answer was `no, no we don't want to meet them'," he said.
He said he believes the Israeli government is reluctant to resume peace talks with Syria because the idea of giving up the Golan is unpopular in Israel and because it would counter Washington's policy of trying to isolate Syria.

Liel said he made it very clear at the beginning of each meeting that he did not represent the Israeli government, but that he routinely updated Israeli officials, as well as the Turkish government, after each round. The Turkish government had initially been approached by the participants as a possible sponsor, but turned them down.
Aronson said the time is ripe for a resumption of peace talks, though he acknowledged that Syria could just be feigning interest in resuming talks to get into Washington's good graces. "There is a reasonable basis to assume that well-intentioned official representatives have something to talk about when they sit down," he said.

 

Continued (Permanent Link)

Arabs vs Israel

Arabs vs Israel

By Farrukh Saleem http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=35880 Also at Zionist propaganda?: Arabs vs Israel Imam Ali Ibn Abi Taleb: "If God were to humiliate a human being He would deny him knowledge" The League of Arab States has 22 members. Of the 22, Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman are 'traditional monarchies'. Of the 22, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Tunisia, Algeria and Somalia are 'Authoritarian Regimes' (Source: www.freedomhouse.org). Of the 22, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Morocco and Somalia are among the 'world's most repressive regimes' (Source: A special report to the 59th session of the UN Commission on Human Rights). Of the 330 million Muslim men, women and children living under Arab rulers a mere 486,530 live in a democracy (0.15 per cent of the total). A mere two hundred and fifty miles from the 'League of Dictators' HQ in Cairo is the only 'parliamentary democracy' in the region; universal suffrage, multi-party, multi-candidate, competitive elections. Israel's 6,352,117 residents are 76 per cent Jewish and 23 per cent non-Jewish (mostly Arab). Israel spends $110 on scientific research per year per person while the same figure for the Arab world is $2. Knowledge makes Israel grow by 5.2 per cent a year while "rates of productivity (the average production of one worker) in Arab countries were negative to a large and increasing extent in oil-producing countries during the 1980s and 90s (World Bank; Arab Development Report)." Facts cannot be denied: The state of Israel now has six universities ranked as among the best on the face of the planet. Hebrew University Jerusalem is in the top-100. Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Tel Aviv University and Weizmann Institute of Science are in the top-200. Bar Ilan University and Ben Gurion University are in the top-300. The Arab League does not have a single university in the top-400 (http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/ranking.htm). One in two Arab women can neither read nor write (remember, "If God were to humiliate a human being He would deny him/her knowledge"). Israel's universities are producing knowledge. Israeli society is applying that knowledge plus diffusing knowledge produced by others. On the other hand, within the Arab League, repressive regimes have erected religious, social and cultural barriers to the production as well as diffusion of knowledge. Look at how knowledge is abandoning the Arab world: Between 1998 and 2000 more than 15,000 Arab physicians migrated. According to the World Bank, "roughly 25 per cent of 300,000 first degree graduates from Arab universities emigrated. Roughly 23 per cent of Arab engineers, 50 per cent of Arab doctors and 15 per cent of Arab BSc holders had emigrated." Israel, on the other hand, has more engineers and scientists per capita than any other country (for every 10,000 Israelis there are 145 engineers or scientists). Israel ranks among the top-7 countries worldwide for patents per capita. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Israel's pharmaceutical giant, is the world's largest producer of antibiotics (Teva developed Copaxone, a unique immunomodulator therapy for the treatment of multiple sclerosis, the only non-interferon agent available). Facts are hard to deny: Most members of the Arab League grant Muslim women fewer rights -- with regards to marriage, divorce, dress code, civil rights, legal status and education. Israel does not. Spain translates more books in a year than has the Arab world in the past thousand years (since the reign of Caliph Mamoun; Abbasid, caliph 813-833). Six million Israelis buy 12 million books every year making them one of the highest consumers of books in the world. Israel has the highest number of university degrees per capita in the world; the Arab world has the lowest. Israel produces more scientific papers per capita than any other country (109 per 10,000 Israelis); the Arab world -- next to nothing. Results are for everyone to see: The average per capita income in Israel is $25,000 while the average income within the League of Arab States is $5,000. The writer is an Islamabad-based freelance columnist. Email: farrukh15@hotmail.com

Continued (Permanent Link)