Saturday 16 January 2010

Love of the Land: Palestinians: "Their Charters Call for Dismantling the Jewish State"

Palestinians: "Their Charters Call for Dismantling the Jewish State"


Eli E. Hertz
Hudson New York
15 January '10

Applying double standards by requiring of [Israel] a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation" is anti-Semitism.

For over 46 years, Turkey has knocked on Europe's door requesting membership in the European Union. The Europeans, however, have been in no rush to invite a Muslim country into their midst, even if it is the most westernized and most democratic Muslim country in the Middle East. To add to it, Turkey is already a strategic partner in NATO and nearly 3 million of its citizens are peaceful and productive immigrants/guest workers in Europe.

Joining the EU, however, demands of Turkey far-reaching political and social reform "on the ground" and "10 to 15 years of negotiations" while the Turks prove democratic changes are "irreversible."

On the other end, U.S. [and the Quartet] yardsticks for the Palestinian Arabs, a hostile society demanding statehood, amount to praise for fabricated non-existent reforms and call to abandon the required incremental progress as clearly stated in the "goal-driven Roadmap."

The end to violence and democratic reform, that Palestinians have yet to begin, is tolerable by the U.S. administration -- all in order to forge the way for the establishment of a Palestinian state within two years, one which will endanger the very survival of a free and democratic Israel and the rest of the free world.

Comparison of the goals and the ramifications of each:

The Turks' goal is membership in the European Union - a political alliance that the Europeans have already stated will have an iron-clad reversibility clause for Turkey if it fails to live up to its commitments.

The Palestinians' goal is sovereignty as a State - status for which there is no reversibility mechanism if 'Palestine' turns into a rogue state - the kind of polity the U.S. is currently grappling with in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Yemen and elsewhere.

Logically, the yardsticks of judging readiness and maturity should be at least equal, if not more stringent for the Palestinian Arabs, a society that consciously and purposely sacrifices its own youth for political gain and tactical advantage, with a leadership that champions the murder of Jews and suicide bombers.

(Read full post)


Love of the Land: Palestinians: "Their Charters Call for Dismantling the Jewish State"

The Torah Revolution: Obama against the State of Israel

The Torah Revolution: Obama against the State of Israel

RubinReports: New Failures on Iran Sanctions: Will the Farce Never End?

New Failures on Iran Sanctions: Will the Farce Never End?

If you haven't already done so, subscribe or else! (Ok that was worth a try. :)

By Barry Rubin

It is literally incredible how ineptly the Obama Administration is handling the sanctions on Iran.

After flubbing both the September and December deadlines it set, now a meeting of the "Big Six" (Britain, China, Germany, France, Russia, and the United States) held in New York has ended without agreement on what to do next. The Russians are saying that they decided to hold more meetings with Iran, which has already clearly rejected the last offer made. A high-ranking U.S. official has spoken of the likelihood that the administration will be spending the next six months discussing sanctions. And meanwhile the administration has made clear that it has defined sanctions in a way that will be ineffective, that is focusing them narrowly on specific institutions supporting the regime and not on the Iranian economy.

This situation should be a case study on the Obama Administration's view of the world, diplomatic skills, and unwillingness to take even a moderately tough stance on handling critical issues. Remember that this is the president who said that his foreign policy would succeed because he wouldn't impose U.S. leadership but would instead seek consensus on every issue. Now we see the fruits of this mistaken strategy.


RubinReports: New Failures on Iran Sanctions: Will the Farce Never End?

ESSER AGAROTH - PERHAPS AN APOLOGY ?

Esser Agaroth - Perhaps An Apology?

Love of the Land: Code Red on Code Pink

Code Red on Code Pink


Caroline Glick
carolineglick.com
15 January '10

Oh the shame of it all. Last month, 1,300 pro-Palestinian activists from the US and Europe came to the region in the name of peace and social justice to demonstrate their solidarity with the Palestinians in Gaza. Led by the self-declared feminist, antiwar group Code Pink, the demonstrators' plan was to enter Gaza from the Egyptian border at Rafah and deliver "humanitarian aid" to the Hamas terrorist organization.

But it was not to be. Led by Code Pink founder and California Democratic fund-raiser Jodie Evans, the demonstrators were not welcomed by Egyptian authorities. Many were surrounded by riot police and barbed wire as they demonstrated outside the US and French embassies and the UN Development Program's headquarters. Others were barred from leaving their hotels.

Those who managed to escape their hotels and the bullpens outside the embassies were barred from staging night protests in solidarity with Hamas on the Nile. In the end, as the militant Israeli pro-Palestinian activist Amira Hass chronicled in Haaretz last week, all but 100 of them were barred from travelling to Gaza.

The lucky few allowed into the Strip included neither Evans nor her friends, former Weather Underground terror leaders Bernadine Dohrn and William Ayres. But they bore no grudge against Egypt. The Egyptians were mere puppets of the real culprit: Israel. As Evans said, "It's obvious that the only reason for [Egypt's treatment of the demonstrators] is to make Israel happy. Israel is behind the refusal [to allow the demonstrators into Gaza] - what other excuse could there be?"

(Read full article)


Love of the Land: Code Red on Code Pink

Love of the Land: Cairo's plan B

Cairo's plan B


Gamal A. G. Soltan
Bitter Lemons
14 January '10
Posted before Shabbat

No more ad hoc arrangements. This is the message Egypt is sending to Hamas and the other relevant parties by setting up a fortified barrier along Egypt's border with the Gaza Strip.

The Egyptian move marks the end of an era in Egypt's policy toward Gaza and Hamas. In 2005, when Israel was getting ready to evacuate Gaza, Egypt demanded that the Israeli redeployment include the border region or "philadelphi strip" separating Egypt from Gaza. This was the first time since 1967 that Egypt had a direct land link with a Palestinian territory with no Israeli mediation. Egypt sought maximum possible maneuverability in conducting its relations with the narrow Gaza Strip. The arrangements made in 2005 helped enhance Egypt's role in Palestinian politics.

Developments in the ensuing years, however, have rendered Gaza a liability rather than an asset. Following Hamas' victory in Palestine's legislative elections of 2006 and the Islamists' takeover in Gaza the following year, Hamas became Egypt's neighbor. While Egypt's border with Gaza granted Cairo effective leverage against the radical Islamic organization, Hamas was also given an opportunity to press Egypt in exchange.

The past two years have witnessed complex maneuvers between Egypt and the Hamas government in Gaza. While Egypt has tried to accommodate Hamas so that Palestinian unity could be restored, Hamas sought to consolidate its grip on power in Gaza and enhance its position in Palestinian politics. Egypt employed tactics of cooptation and containment while Hamas was buying time, hoping it could exploit opportunities as they arose.

The Egyptian strategy reached deadlock when Hamas defied Cairo's efforts to reconcile rival Palestinian factions. Hamas' ability to balance its commitments toward its radical allies in Tehran and Damascus with the need to avoid alienating its big neighbor came to an end: Egypt chose not to continue the game of running in circles in its relations with Hamas. It was Hamas' reluctance that provoked Egypt to change course. Hamas' policy made it look as if it were taking Egypt for granted; Cairo realized the time had come to send Hamas a strong message.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Cairo's plan B

Israel Matzav: Iran's largest trading partner

Iran's largest trading partner

As I have noted before, the biggest problem in stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons is not Russia or China. It's Europe.

The Wall Street Journal has a lengthy review of the many business connections between Italy and Iran. Italy is Iran's largest trading partner and has provided Iran with many 'dual use' technologies.

The Journal notes that Italian President Silvio Berlusconi is scheduled to address the Knesset next month. Perhaps someone will suggest to him that Italy ought to join the boycott against Iran.


Israel Matzav: Iran's largest trading partner

Israel Matzav: A Mideast holding action?

A Mideast holding action?

Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.

New York's Jewish Week has a lengthy story with mostly optimism about the 'Middle East peace process.' My own view mostly approximates that of Edward Walker, a former US ambassador to Israel.

Edward Walker, a former state department official and onetime U.S. ambassador in Tel Aviv, said that what’s shaping up may be more a diplomatic holding action than a serious ratcheting up of U.S. involvement.

The reason: leaders on both sides are not ready to embrace the political risks any real move back to serious negotiations would entail. And the administration, he said, knows that.

“There’s nothing new that would warrant a new U.S. peace push at this time,” Walker said. “The Palestinians are still conflicted and unable to operate together; the Israeli government is incapable of moving on the settlement issue, given its composition, without falling. And generally, there is decreasing interest around the world in the two-state solution.”

Walker said that under the new administration strategy, Mitchell will keep “pounding away, pushing, waiting to see if things open up a crack. And to try to push conditions so an opening might occur.”

But he sees that effort more as a way to keep a lid on Mideast tensions until the conditions that are causing the current stalemate change.

Walker also argued that claims the administration’s Mideast policy shop is getting its act in order may be premature.

“The story I’m getting out of the State Department is that there is enormous disorganization in the administration on this; they just don’t seem to have as coherent, unified policy. They’re still trying to sort out the basics.”

Now, let's just hope that the Obama administration gets the message.


Israel Matzav: A Mideast holding action?

JEWISH THOUGHT OF THE DAY - It Pays to be Crooked

JEWISH THOUGHT OF THE DAY - It Pays to be Crooked

Love of the Land: Israel and the illusion of international justice

Israel and the illusion of international justice


Gerald Steinberg/Anne Herzberg
Haaretz
15 January '10
Posted before Shabbat

Speaking at a legal conference on January 4, former Supreme Court president Aharon Barak suggested that Israel would benefit from participation in bodies such as the International Criminal Court in order to fight for "its positions and justice." In endorsing Barak's recommendation, a Haaretz editorial ("Join the Court," January 6) contended that such participation would "place Israel on the side of the enlightened nations." Similarly, the argument goes, Israel erred in refusing to cooperate with the UN Human Rights Council's Goldstone Commission and the International Court of Justice proceedings on the security barrier.

While surely well-intentioned, in practice this line of thinking is pure folly. The dominance of nondemocratic and Islamic nations in international organs, and the increasing politicization of these bodies, virtually guarantees that no justice will be done when it comes to Israel or even NATO countries. In such morally corrupt frameworks, international law and human rights have become political weapons, disconnected from legitimate judicial processes and legal systems in democratic societies.

The ICJ's handling of the 2004 case regarding Israel's security barrier is a telling example. The suit was initiated by the UN General Assembly at the behest of the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference. European-funded advocacy groups such as B'Tselem, aided by NGO superpowers Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, were central to this effort. Legal scholars sharply criticized the court for accepting a predetermined political mandate from the UN and for its breach of procedural protocols in deliberations on the matter.

The ICJ's resulting advisory opinion negated Israel's right of self-defense and displayed an utter lack of sympathy for terror victims. Its simplistic and troubling legal analysis clearly reflected the influence of the Arab League and politicized NGOs. Hardly an independent judicial inquiry, this distorted proceeding encouraged subversion of the rule of law, rather than its enforcement, by allowing for political manipulation of the judicial process.

(Read full article)

Gerald Steinberg is a professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University and president of NGO Monitor; Anne Herzberg is NGO Monitor's legal advisor
.

Love of the Land: Israel and the illusion of international justice

Love of the Land: Save Ezekiel's tomb before it's too late

Save Ezekiel's tomb before it's too late


Bataween
Point of No Return
15 January '10
Posted before Shabbat

The shocking news that the Iraqi authorities have or are planning to erase the Jewish character of the ancient shrine of Ezekiel at al-Kifl, Iraq, first broken on Point of No Return, has reached the ears of Jerusalem Post. Ksenia Svetlova spoke to Professor Shmuel Moreh, who says that millenarian Hebrew inscriptions are now hidden by plaster:

For centuries Jews, Christians and Muslims came to Al-Kifl, a small town south of Baghdad, to visit the tomb of the Prophet Ezekiel and pray.

The distinctive Jewish character of the Al-Kifl shrine, namely the Hebrew inscriptions and the Torah Ark, never bothered the gentile worshipers. In the 14th century a minaret was built next to the shrine, but the interior design remained Jewish. The vast majority of Iraq's Jewish community left some 60 years ago, but Shi'ites took good care of the holy site.

Until now.

Recently "Ur," a local Iraqi news agency, reported that a huge mosque will be built on top of the grave by Iraq's Antiquities and Heritage Authority, while Hebrew inscriptions and ornaments are being removed from the site, all as part of renovations.

Prof. Shmuel Moreh of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, winner of the 1999 Israel Prize in Middle Eastern studies and chairman of the Association of Jewish Academics from Iraq, speaking to The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday, confirmed the report.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Save Ezekiel's tomb before it's too late

Elder of Ziyon: Lots of bombs in Gaza lately

Elder of Ziyon: Lots of bombs in Gaza lately

RubinReports: Israel's Turkey Policy: Why It's Apologizing to the Aggressor

Israel's Turkey Policy: Why It's Apologizing to the Aggressor

By Barry Rubin

Several readers have asked me why Israel apologized to Turkey’s government about a recent incident. The Turkish ambassador to Israel (who is a very good guy) was summoned to hear Israel’s complaints about some of the Turkish government’s latest slanders against Israel. He was seated lower than Israel’s deputy foreign minister and there was no Turkish flag on the table. I’m sure there was no intent to insult him or Turkey but it became a big diplomatic issue.

So how does Israel view Turkey right now? Let me begin by saying that there is absolutely no illusion about the nature of the Turkish government and its hostility to Israel. The problem does not stem from specific Israeli actions but from the ideological and political direction of the semi-Islamist regime in Turkey.

That doesn’t mean that the Gaza or other issues are of no importance. There were frictions between the two countries in the past. But the key factor is that the current Turkish government is systematically anti-Israel. By the way, previous Turkish governments were sympathetic to the Palestinians generally but the current regime is sympathetic to Hamas as an ally. It has also moved very close to Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. At the same time, in contrast to its predecessors, the current Turkish government does not view Israel as an ally. (I’d question whether, at least in its private thinking, it views America as an ally either.)

So if everyone in Israel's government understands how hostile the Turkish regime is, why is it working so hard to patch up relations to the greatest extent possible?

1. There is no sense in making the quarrel worse than it is. Israel does not want to give the Turkish regime excuses for more hostility.

2. Especially important is the conviction that the conflict should remain as much as possible between governments and not between nations. As one Turk put it: remember Israel’s problem with Turkey is with the captain and crew, not the passengers. Israel is aware that Turks are very patriotic so any hint of blaming or insulting "Turkey" must be avoided. One day, it is hoped, there will be another government which can return to a friendly policy toward Israel. There is also a special interest in retaining the best possible relationship with the Turkish armed forces (as well as the many Turkish civilians) which, though their power is greatly reduced, oppose a semi-Islamist Turkey and believe that Iran and Syria still do pose a threat to their country.

3. The current Turkish regime must be made to feel that it has a vested interest in not pushing Israel too far because it has interests in avoiding a hotter quarrel. Turkey derives considerable revenue with Israel from trade and tourism. On a political level, it prizes the ability to claim the role of mediator between Israel and others, especially Syria. By the same token, Israel doesn't want to push Turkey even further into the Syria-Iran camp. This is one case where intimidation, sanctions, strategic leverage, or other such measures will not work, since the Turkish regime wants excuses to bash Israel. Nevertheless, it can be responsive to the bestowal or removal of “carrots.”

4. If Turkey can contribute through a mediation process to give Syria an incentive not to escalate terrorism against Israel through its Lebanese and Palestinian clients that is to the good. There are no illusions among Israeli leaders that a comprehensive Syria-Israel peace is possible or that Syria can be pulled away from Iran. Nevertheless, Israel may attack Iran’s nuclear facilities and while Syria will remain a faithful ally to Tehran, how far it will go in promoting indirect retaliation is going to be important.

Some of my Arab friends from that neighborhood don’t like this argument, saying that the only thing that will discourage Syria’s sponsorship and encouragement of terrorism would be direct pressure on Damascus. Certainly, there is no question of direct attacks from Syria on Israel since the regime in Damascus views that as being too risky.

The effect of Turkish mediation might be small and Hizballah has its own reason for not wanting to fight Israel right now. (It is too busy trying to take over Lebanon). But Turkish diplomatic efforts could contribute to preventing a repeat of the 2006 war after Hizballah launched repeated raids into Israel. In order to look good during a period of diplomatic contacts, Syria could reduce its provocations, even if Damascus’s real purpose in doing so is to get goodies from the United States and also Western support for Syrian control of Lebanon.

At the same time, though, it should be recognized as a fiction that Turkey’s hostility is really over Israel’s policy toward the Gaza Strip and the peace process. Here's how a top spokesperson for the ruling party put it in an off-record speech: "We think we no longer need to be allies with Israel in the new Middle East order, and we no longer need the support of the American Jews because we now get along with the Armenians."

The briefer might have addred regarding the former phrase that Turkey has new friends like Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah so doesn't need Israel's cooperation to defend itself from these radical forces.

The briefer might also have added regarding the latter phrase that since the Obama Administration views the current Turkish government as a great exemplar of a moderate Muslim democracy, Turkey no longer needs the help of Israel's supporters in the United States to ensure its good relations with Washington. In addition, the Obama Administration won't say a word--unlike its various predecessors--to encourage Turkey not to bash Israel.


Turkey’s political leadership and its direction have changed in a way that can only be compared to a revolution. Moreover, the regime there does not have to worry at all about any negative reaction from the U.S. government in response to its hostility against Israel. The conditions that brought about close cooperation between the two countries have changed very much in the estimation of Turkey’s current rulers, who view Iran, Syria, and Islamist revolutionary groups as friends, not threats.

Israel has no great alternative to this policy. It should be stressed that while pressure and tough policies are often the best option, there is nothing to be gained by such an approach in this specific case.

RubinReports: Israel's Turkey Policy: Why It's Apologizing to the Aggressor
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...