Love of the Land: Guardian delusions over the Palestinians can't change the hard facts

Guardian delusions over the Palestinians can't change the hard facts

Robin Shepherd
The Commentator
12 May '11

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/154/guardian_delusions_over_the_palestinians_can_t_change_the_hard_facts

The tragedy of the Palestinian people is a tragedy of their own making. Guardian columnists need to learn the basic facts

It takes a lot these days to raise hackles among decent and reasonable people at anything written in the Guardian about the State of Israel.

This is a paper, after all, that back in January slated the Palestinian leadership for being “weak” and “craven” after it was revealed they had accepted – as any sane and normal person would – that practically all the so called “settlements” in east Jerusalem would become part of Israel under any real-world peace agreement.

So after you’ve effectively described even the most obvious concessions in meaningful negotiations as the actions of surrender monkeys, the sheer fanaticism of your antipathy to the Jewish state is established once and for all.

Thursday’s piece on the paper’s flagship Comment is free website by the Belgian-Egyptian writer Khaled Diab plumbs no such depths of depravity. It’s just an exercise in pathological self-delusion.

The central point is that with all the revolutions taking place across the Middle East it’s surely time for the Palestinians to rise up in a peaceful uprising to bring unity and democracy to Palestinian society in order to end the occupation. Palestinian youth would join hands with Israeli peaceniks and the conflict would finally be resolved.

“Being the dreamer that I am,” says Diab, “I cannot shake the vision in my head of the joint Israeli-Palestinian activism infecting the masses, with large-scale joint action as the most effective way to end the occupation and bring about peace”.

Diab calls himself a “dreamer” so I suppose he at least has a defence for his ideas in that he came up with them when he was asleep. Those of us who try to generate our thinking in the cold light of day can tell him the following:

1. The Palestinians don’t need a revolution to get a state. They just need to accept Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people and put aside dreams – that word again – of annihilating it. It’s really that simple. The rest is detail.

2. A Palestinian state has been on offer from day one of the conflict. The Jewish/Israeli side accepted a Palestinian state under UN Resolution 181 – the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine, which was adopted in November 1947. The Arab/Palestinian side rejected it and opted for war and violence. That’s why there’s a conflict.

3. Up until the Six Day War in 1967 the so called “occupied territories” were ruled by Jordan and Egypt. “Occupation” took place after the Arab armies again went to war with the aim of destroying Israel.

4. Since 1967, Israel has tried numerous times to give the Palestinians statehood, only to be rejected, as in 2000 and 2001, by the Palestinian leadership.

5. The Palestinian leadership inculcates hatred of Israel on a daily basis in schools, in the mosques and on television. That is why the large majority of Palestinians oppose a two state solution.

6. A comprehensive poll by the Israel Project in November 2010 showed 60 percent of Palestinians supporting the proposition that: “The real goal should be to start with two states but then move to it all being one Palestinian state”. 66 percent supported the proposition that: “Over time Palestinians must work to get back all the land for a Palestinian state”. And 71 percent said Yasser Arafat was right to reject Bill Clinton’s peace proposals in 2000 and 2001.

Amid all the complexities in this conflict, these are the hard facts that simply won’t go away. And the hardest fact to internalise, and the one that encapsulates all of the above, is that the tragedy of the Palestinians is a tragedy of their own making.

Khaled Diab and his friends at the Guardian can “dream” and “hope” all they like. But until the Palestinians put aside their delusions and see the world for what it is, their national tragedy is destined to continue.

Robin Shepherd is owner/publisher of the Commentator. His book, A State Beyond the Pale: Europe's Problem with Israel, is out in paperback.


If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

Love of the Land: Guardian delusions over the Palestinians can't change the hard facts

Love of the Land: Fighting on a Different Front – Debunking the Arab Narrative

Fighting on a Different Front – Debunking the Arab Narrative

West Bank Mama
12 May '11

http://westbankmama.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/fighting-on-a-different-front-debunking-the-arab-narrative/

Im Tirzu has done a public service once again. They have just published Nakba Charta - which in Hebrew means Nakba BS. This 70 page pamphlet refutes the lies and distortions that the Arabs have been publicizing for decades about what happened during the Israeli War of Independence, which they call the Nakba – “The Catastrophe”. It punches holes into the narrative that too many people, including many Israelis, swallow hook, line and sinker.

The pamphlet is only in Hebrew (now). I urge those of you who can to read the original, linked above. For those of you who do not understand Hebrew, I will just give you some of the main points in English.

The introduction explains that our war with the Arabs is being fought on the military front and the front of “justice”. We are winning the first, and unfortunately losing the second. Where in the past we were able to fight bravely against our enemies in the strong belief in the justice of our cause, now there are many who doubt. The Arab narrative has taken root especially in the “elite” of Israel - in academia, culture, and the court system. These elites have expended tremendous effort to convince the Jews to feel guilty, and are deliberately trying to blur the Jewish identity of the state of Israel. The purpose of the pamphlet is simple – to tell the truth.

1. The Arabs attacked the Jews

The authors of the pamphlet point out that they do not refute that the Arabs suffered as a result of the War of Independence. They want to point out, though, that the Arabs brought the sufferring upon themselves. The myth of the Nakba – the “Catastrophe” – is based on so many lies and distortions, that it rewrites history so that the aggressor becomes the victim, and the person defending himself against massacre becomes a war criminal.

The Arabs brought the disaster upon themselves because they attacked the Jewish state – hoping to kill every Jewish man woman and child. The Jews fought back bravely, and won.

2. They fled

The authors go on to state that the refugee problem was caused in large part by the Arab League itself. The authors point to what happened in Haifa as an example, and show that not only did a third of the Arab residents start to vacate Haifa in November of 1947 (months before the war), and that in March women and children were taken out, but that during the war itself the Arab League called the Arab residents to vacate, despite the fact that the Jews urged the Arabs to stay. The Arab League did this as a way to undermine the idea that Arabs and Jews could live together. Afterwards those who fled were warned not to return, as they would be considered traitors and would be killed.

3. Who is really a refugee?

The authors bring up two main points in this section: one, the definition of a refugee, and how this definition was changed by the UN just for the Arabs displaced by the War of Independence. First, the definition of a refugee was changed from those who live in a place and where his ancestors lived from “time immemorial” to someone who lived in a place for two years. Second, the definition of a refugee was changed to include their descendents. Yes, you read correctly: for every other refugee the world over, the status is just for a person with a long past in a region, and the status is for the person actually displaced. But for the Arabs displaced by the War in 1948, the status has been extended to those residing in a place for just two years, and the status was granted to his children and grandchildren. Two, the section discusses the actual statistics of how many Arabs were here at the time, and for how long - and how the Arab narrative about the numbers is exaggerated.

4. What about the Jewish refugees?

This section points out the historical fact that is ignored by most of the world – that many Arab countries in the Middle East persecuted the Jews for centuries, forcing them to flee, and many expelled the Jews outright as a result of the establishment of the State of Israel. In fact, there were 560,000 Arab refugees displaced in 1948, and 900,000 Jews displaced by Arab countries. So for every Arab refugee there are 1.5 Jewish refugees. All of the Jewish refugees were absorbed, mostly by Israel.

5. The Arabs sided with the Nazis

The last section of the pamphlet details the involvement that the Arab League had with the Nazis, including the fact that the Mufti al- Husseini toured Auschwitz with Eichman, and vowed to build similar death camps to exterminate the Jews in the Middle East. He pleaded with the European countries not to let the Jews leave and come to Israel. When he heard that the government of Hungary was to let 900 Jewish children leave, he pressured them to rescind their decision, and in the end these 900 Jewish children were sent to the death camps.

Although it is not stated explicitly in the pamphlet, the last two sections contain important information in order to challenge the Arab narrative. Those who champion the “Palestinian” cause claim that the Arabs are an innocent party, and that the UN imposed upon them the State of Israel to compensate the Jews for the Nazi Holocaust. This narrative ignores the active persecution and killing of Jews that occured in Arab countries for centuries, the Arab riots and terrorist attacks against Jews in Israel even before the War of Independence (let alone the Six Day War), and the support of the Nazis in World War II.

I sincerely hope the whole thing is translated into English soon, and if so I will of course link to it. I also think it needs to be translated into Arabic and Persian and publicized on the internet.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

Love of the Land: Fighting on a Different Front – Debunking the Arab Narrative

UNIVERSAL TORAH: BECHUKOSAI

UNIVERSAL TORAH: BECHUKOSAI

By Rabbi Avraham Greenbaum

Torah Reading: Parshas BECHUKOSAI, Leviticus 26:3-27:34
Haftara: Jeremiah 16:19-17:14

IF YOU WILL GO IN MY STATUTES

Our parshah, BECHUKOSAI, puts the seal on the book of Leviticus, which is the "heart" of the Torah (Genesis being the "head", Exodus the "arms", Numbers the "legs" and Deuteronomy the "mouth", Malchus). BECHUKOSAI marks the conclusion of G-d's revelation to Moses in the Sanctuary in the camp at Sinai and the sealing of the Sinaitic Covenant, while the coming book of Numbers recounts the journeying of the Children of Israel on their way to the Promised Land.

As the seal on Leviticus, the book of the "heart", BECHUKOSAI addresses the two sides of the heart: love and fear. Our love of G-d is aroused by the promises of blessing if we will GO in His statutes, while our fears are aroused by the dire punishments for failure to do so.

What does it mean to GO in His statutes? This is explained by Rabbi Nachman of Breslov:

The life of Torah and mitzvos should be one of constantly striving to move forward from level to level in our fulfillment of the actual commandments. In every commandment that we carry out, there is a level of meaning that we can grasp within our minds, yet at the same time, the mitzvah has profoundly deeper meaning that is now beyond our grasp. These two levels are those of NA'ASEH ("we will do") and VENISHMA ("we shall hear") respectively. NA'ASEH applies to that which is within our grasp now, the physical mitzvah with its plain intention -- WE WILL DO. We must go ahead and do it now on the simple level even if as yet we do not have deeper understanding, even if the level of VENISHMA, WE SHALL HEAR -- understanding -- is still beyond us. To GO in G-d's statutes means to strive constantly to turn that which is as yet beyond us -- our VENISHMA -- and make it into our NA'ASEH, something that we CAN meaningfully accomplish. This is brought about when we pray to G-d to help us in our practice and to give us deeper understanding. Deeper understanding also depends upon deeper study.

When we thus turn what was our VENISHMA into a new level of NA'ASEH -- because we now incorporate our newly attained, deeper insight into our practice -- we thereby discover that a new level of VENISHMA opens up ahead of us. It is this higher level of VENISHMA that we must now strive to attain and turn into a new, higher level of NA'ASEH for ourselves. We must continue this way striving to go from level to level, constantly integrating new levels of understanding into our practice. Thus we constantly GO from level to level in our practice (Likutey Moharan Part I, Torah 22).

* * *

AND IF NOT.

Rashi in his commentary on BECHUKOSAI explains how the terrible penalties for failure to follow the path of the Torah are built upon a seven-fold schema, because the essential cause of the exile was the violation of the Sabbath and the Sabbatical years. At the very core of the sins that invoke the terrible cycle of punishment are seven basic sins, each of which drags the next in train: (1) Neglect of study. (2) Neglect of practice. (3) Despising others who practice. (4) Hatred of the sages. (5) Preventing others from practicing. (6) Denial of the divine origin of the commandments. (7) Denial of the existence of G-d.

Graphic illustrations of the fulfillment of all of the terrible penalties described in our parshah in actual Jewish history are recounted in the Midrash. The infringement of the seven basic sins causing the exile has been a recurrent theme in all of Jewish history from biblical times until today. The rebellion of the Ten Tribes under Jereboam son of Nevat against the House of David under Rehav'am represented a craving for greater license than was permitted by the House of David, whose royalty depends upon constant study of the Torah and in particular the oral tradition. Under the northen king Ahab [whose influence is said to have been worldwide], hatred and persecution of the sages -- the prophets -- became institutionalized. Later on, the Assyrian King Sennacharib's chief spokesman marching against Jerusalem under Hezekiah was a renegade Jew, Ravshekah.

After the end of the Babylonian exile, the return to the land and the building of the Second Temple, new challenges to the authority of the Torah arose, such as from those who denied the afterlife or the oral law, or denied the giving of the Torah at Sinai. Among the most notorious enemies of the Torah were those who hellenized in the Second Temple period, when it was "politically correct" to be Greek. The festival of Chanukah commemorates the miraculous saving of the authentic Torah pathway from the assault upon it by Greek culture.

Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, the Rambam (Maimonides) wrote a letter known as IGERET TEIMAN encouraging the Jews of Yemen to remain faithful to the Torah and give their lives if necessary rather than submit to forced conversion by their Moslem rulers. In this letter, Maimonides explains the difference between the assault upon the Torah by Greek thought and the assault upon the Torah by Christianity and Islam.

The Greek philosophers denied the existence of G-d (Level 7) and the revelation at Sinai (Level 6) and accordingly provided justification for preventing Jews from practicing the Torah, e.g. Shabbos, circumcision, etc. (Level 5). leading to open violation and vilification of the Torah by the Hellenists. Greek philosophy was a direct assault upon the Torah, leaving the Jews of the time with a choice -- whether to go after the Torah or after the Greeks.

On the other hand, Christianity and Islam did not blatantly repudiate the entire Torah of Moses. What they did was to establish alternative Torah's that were more acceptable to non-Jews, leaving the Jews of their respective periods with a different kind of choice: whether to remain faithful to the traditional Torah of Moses or to follow an alternative "Torah".

Hatred of the sages of Israel is deeply entrenched in Christianity, because the claims of its founder and his followers about his divinity were a direct assault upon the authority of the sages and an attempt to steal the Torah from its true guardians, the House of David under Hillel (as later handed down in the Mishneh and Talmud). The adherents of the new religion wrote their own "Torah" openly mocking the Torah of Moses, as when their leader is displayed licensing the plucking of grain on the Sabbath for charitable reasons against the protests of the "Pharisees", who are depicted as being mean. In the writings of the new religion, the Pharisees (i.e. the rabbis of the Mishneh) are characterized as the evil face of institutionalized religion. The new religion drew all of its teachings from the Torah, but detached them from the accompanying stringencies of the Law, while attaching them instead to its own devotional system focussing on its own saints and heroes. Particularly after the conversion of Saul (Paul), who was a Pharisee, the new religion institutionalized the systematic vilification of the Torah tradition of the rabbis, turning the written Torah (Torah, Nevi'im & Kesuvim, TaNaCh) into a mere introduction to its own new "Torah" or "Testament", which was meant to replace the Sinaitic Covenant.

Denial of the pathway of the Torah of Sinai -- the written Torah and the oral Torah -- is thus deeply built into the very structure of Christianity, which became the dominant religion in the western and many other parts of the world and one of the main foundations of its culture, together with that of Greece and Rome. As Christianity gained strength, persecution of Torah-observant Jews together with burnings of Torah scrolls and Talmuds became a regular occurrence.

Denial of the Torah given to Moses at Sinai is also inherent in Islam, the founder of which claimed to have supplanted Moses as the ultimate Prophet. The founder of Islam was initially enamored of the Torah of Moses, but wanted to adapt it in his own way. Angered at the stubbornness of the Jews in resisting his changes, he established his own new "Torah" as an alternative to the "old" Torah. Islam saw itself as the stick with which to beat the recalcitrant Jews who despised and neglected their own Torah. In the writings of Islam the "People of the Book" are depicted as renegades to their own teachings.

During the long exile since the destruction of the Second Temple, the Jews who have remained faithful to the Torah of Moses have been surrounded until today by a most formidable cultural assault against their own tradition from the two younger sister religions, Christianity and Islam. This two have gained the ascendancy and taken all the glory, parading their own alternative Torahs in the face of the Torah of Moses.

It is understandable that over the generations, many Jewish souls, subject to this cultural onslaught, have fallen victim to the allurements of the surrounding religions. In addition, since the time of the European renaissance and the "Age of Reason", secularism has become a new alternative to religion of any kind, creating yet another allurement from the stringent code of Judaism, which looks more irrelevant than ever in the modern world.

In this way the Torah of Sinai has been apparently completely marginalized by almost the entire world. The Sinai tradition is guarded by seemingly powerless networks of rabbis and their students, sitting in the Yeshivahs, daily studying the oral tradition as brought down in the Talmud, and by the numerically tiny proportion of the world's population who are Torah-observant.

What is it about the real Torah that makes those who love her cling to her even in the face of adversity on every side? Throughout the generations until today, those who keep the Torah of Moses and abstain from the 39 forbidden labors on the Sabbath have been the butt of every jester and jeerer. Meanwhile Christianity, Islam and every other religion are on the ascendant, including the religion of Satanism and the universal religion of self-indulgence and material consumption.

What love is it that makes those who strive to follow the authentic Torah of Moses continue day after day in the face of all this? How do we keep on GOING in the Torah, even though her face is shrouded in a dark cover -- for in this upside down world, the deeper meaning of the Torah is not revealed?

But if we keep studying the Torah, she will reveal her face to us. The way to keep GOING in the Torah is to GO ON STUDYING the Torah!

In the merit of our study of the book of Leviticus and our on-going study of all the Five Books of Moses, may we be blessed with all the blessings of our parshah: "If you will GO in My statutes."

Shabbat Shalom!!!

Avraham Yehoshua Greenbaum

--
AZAMRA INSTITUTE
PO Box 50037 Jerusalem 91500 Israel
Website: www.azamra.org

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Overnight music video

Here's a classic: Reb Shlomo Carlebach singing HaMavdil Bein Kodesh l'Chol (He who distinguishes between the Holy and the profane), which is sung immediately after the Havdala service on Saturday night.

Let's go to the videotape.

Israel Matzav: Overnight music video

Israel Matzav: Why Winston Churchill won’t be getting an honorary degree from CUNY

Why Winston Churchill won’t be getting an honorary degree from CUNY

Reader Sunlight has been after me for quite some time to read The River War, a book written in 1899 by Winston Churchill. Like so many other things I’d like to do, I haven’t gotten around to it….

When you see this video, which includes quotes from that book, you will understand why Sunlight wants me to read it. And you will also understand why Winston Churchill won’t be getting any honorary degrees from the City University of New York anytime soon.

Let’s go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Dan F).

Israel Matzav: Why Winston Churchill won’t be getting an honorary degree from CUNY

Israel Matzav: On John Demjanjuk

On John Demjanjuk

A German court convicted former Nazi concentration camp guard John Demjanujuk of 30,000 murders on Thursday, sentenced him to five years in jail… and then released him.

Pending an appeal from Demjanjuk’s attorney, Ulrich Busch, and the court’s statement that there was no compelling reason to keep him in jail until the sentence could be legally imposed, Judge Ralph Alt declared, “The defendant is released.”

Demjanjuk is not deemed at risk of fleeing Germany because of his age and the fact that he is stateless, Alt said.

The five-year sentence cannot be implemented until the appeal process is exhausted.

In a signal that Demjanjuk may not serve the entire term, or even any of it, even if his appeal fails, Alt said that an incarceration period of five years is “not commensurate” with such an elderly defendant.

Demjanjuk has been in German jail for two years.

“It doesn’t seem likely that Demjanjuk will actually serve any more time in the end. The appeal will take at least a year and at that time his health may not allow putting him in prison,” Alt told journalists after the court ruling.

Demjanjuk cannot return to the United States because the US government stripped him of his citizenship in 2002.

How many of Demjanjuk’s victims were spared because they were elderly and/or stateless? What a load of hogwash. Those who are kind to the cruel end up being cruel to the kind.

Israel Matzav: On John Demjanjuk

RubinReports: By The End of This Year Egypt Might Be Run By a Radical Islamist Regime

By The End of This Year Egypt Might Be Run By a Radical Islamist Regime

This article--in an earlier version--was my Jerusalem Post column. I own the rights so only link to this site if forwarding or reprinting.

By Barry Rubin

I'm not saying this lightly. For the first time, there is serious evidence not only for an Islamist-controlled parliament but even potentially for an Islamist president! It's iran all over again except in 1979 Carter didn't publicly demand the shah's overthrow and say he had no problem with Khomeini taking over. In fact, that's what Obama did in Egypt.

First the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood said it wouldn't run a candidate for president and would only contest one-third of the parliamentary seats.

Next, it said it wouldn’t run a presidential candidate and contest just 50 percent of the parliamentary seats. Even that is misleading since it could arrange with other Islamist parties not to compete against each other, thus potentially adding 5 to 10 percent more Islamists, that is a majority, to parliament..

Now, the Muslim Brotherhood says it will run a presidential candidate who might even conceivably win the election. Oh, but he will run as an independent. So that doesn’t count?

One reason for this change on the presidential election is that earlier on the Brotherhood was backing Muhammad ElBaradei. But since the two broke up over the referendum regarding the election timing and rules--ElBaradei thought the changes were too favorable to the Brotherhood so they dropped him--they had no one to support. By the way, the Brotherhood won that referendum by a landslide.

Ah, but it's okay because, according to Reuters, Abdel Moneim Abul Futuh, the Brotherhood’s candidate for president is a leading "reformist member" of the Brotherhood's Shura Council, its highest governing body. Right! He wants to reform Egypt into being an Islamist state.

An al-Ahram poll (it's still early, of course, to know how people will vote) shows Amr Moussa and Abul Futuh are tied at 20 percent with ElBaradei at 12 percent.

Note that since a presidential election would come after a strong Brotherhood showing in the parliamentary election, a lot of voters would be likely to want to join what seems to be the winning side. Also note that the Brotherhood candidate will have a strong organization behind him while Moussa won’t even have a party at all and ElBaradei’s forces should be pretty weak and concentrated largely in Cairo.

Then add into the mix that Abul Futuh will also be supported by non-Brotherhood Islamists while ElBaradei is running against three other “moderate democratic” types in competition for that sector of the votes.

The bottom line is that for the first time this week a Brotherhood takeover of Egypt in 2011 is really possible. Let me underline that point: before one could conceive that this might happen. Now there is hard evidence and real reason to believe that it might actually take place.

Up until now, I had thought that Amr Moussa might be Egypt’s next president with a strong Islamist presence in parliament but not a majority or near-majority. But now Moussa himself predicts that the Brotherhood will have, along with its allies, a majority. And even more recently it is possible that a Brotherhood leader will be elected president.

So here are our alternatives:

Best-case scenario: A radical nationalist president, Moussa, and a strong Islamist contingent in parliament that will also have a big influence in writing the new Constitution. Moussa is anti-Israel and anti-American but might be restrained by his pragmatic streak. On the other hand, the need to play demagogue—he won’t have any money to subsidize food more and provide additional jobs—and to keep the Islamists happy or even outbid them—pushes him toward adventurism.

Worst-case scenario: A Brotherhood president and parliament transforming Egypt into an Islamist state, backing Hamas fully, subverting U.S. influence and other Arab states, and potentially playing jihad in a full-scale war with Israel.

Remember that President Barack Obama said that having the Brotherhood in government is okay with him. So I guess he'll just watch the result of his handiwork and cheer on the results of the process he helped set in motion.

A taste of the future was provided by the massive anti-Israel demonstrations in Cairo today.

Supposedly the rally was to protest sectarian violence within Egypt but it turned into one favoring more sectarian violence next door.

The Brotherhood has now escalated its demands to breaking diplomatic relations with Israel and expelling the Israeli ambassador. Remember all of those articles and statements about how the revolution was good for Israel if only those silly Israelis woke up and understand reality as well as people in Washington DC and the Upper West Side of Manhattan?

Oh, and guess how the demonstration was largely organized. Ready? On Facebook! Hahaha. Those youthful hip twittering moderate young people!

We can also look forward to similar demonstrations in Palestine’s capital, after independence takes place, demanding an abrogation of the Israel-Palestine peace treaty and the end to Israeli occupation of…Israel.

After people finally figured out in April-May what they should have known in January-February about Egypt, might be better to learn the lesson now rather than to repeat the same mistakes infinitely?

PS: Love the AP's "evenhanded" explanation of the Right to Return issue:

"The Palestinians have long maintained that the refugees have a moral and legal right to return to what was once Palestine—including land which is now Israel. But Israel has argued that granting the right of return would compromise the country's identity as the world's only Jewish state."

Yes, all those riots and massive terrorism leading to bloody civil war, with all the neighbors joining in, followed by the genocidal murder of millions of Jews and the transformation of Israel into an Arab and possibly (probably?) Islamist state that would ally with Iran, work to overturn all the region's non-radical regimes, trigger additional wars and massive suffering, and destroy U.S. influence in the Middle East would definitely be an inconvenience.

Ah, but it's okay because, according to Reuters, Abdel Moneim Abul Futuh, is a leading "reformist member" of the Brotherhood's Shura Council. Right! He wants to reform Egypt into being an Islamist state.

An al-Ahram poll (it's still early) shows Amr Moussa and Abul Futuh are tied at 20 percent with ElBaradei at 12 percent..

RubinReports: By The End of This Year Egypt Might Be Run By a Radical Islamist Regime

Sefer Chabibi Deepest Torah: BEHAR: Child Vision

BEHAR: Child Vision

by Rabbi Baruch Binyamin Hakohen Melman


Spending feels good. Whether spending money at the mall or time with one's friends, it is a welcome form of release.

In the Jubilee year all originally designated properties were to be released back to G*d, reverting back to their G*d designated tribal-based owners, regardless of intervening economic happenstance.

There are many levels of reading text. There is the plain meaning, the symbolic meaning, the homiletical meaning and the mystical, esoteric meaning.

The word "Jubilee" in hebrew is yovel. Livlot, in Hebrew, means "to spend," as in money or time. YoVeL means "G*d spends." The earth is His property, He can assign it or re-assign it to whomever He sees fit. G*d "owns the deed," so to speak, for nations, tribes, and even individuals. G*d is the ultimate owner of the land; we are merely its stewards. Like people, G*d feels good when he spends. And His credit ain't so bad either.

After seven seven-year cycles of Shemittah, of giving the land to an opportunity to rest, on the fiftieth year we have a super-shemittah year - a Jubilee year. We still observe the Shemittah year in Israel, but do we still observe the Jubilee year today?

The Talmud (BT Aruchin 32b) states "...deTanya, misheGalu Shevet Reuven veShevet Gad veChatzi Shevet haMenashe bitlu yov'lot,"

which means " ...as we learned in a baraita (outside the canon of the Mishna), from the time when the tribes of Reuven, Gad and half of Menashe were exiled (721 BCE), the (observance of) the Jubilee Years were anulled." I would say that's a pretty long time ago. It hasn't been observed for over 2700 years!

But the Torah is eternal and so even if the observance of the Jubilee Year is anulled, it is incumbent for us to try and make it relevant for our own day, perhaps in a different way.

"Behar" could be read as meaning " two mountains (bet=2 har)," for the Two Torahs- the Oral Torahand the Written Torah; alternatively as two parents-a mother and father- the father who corresponds to the Written Torah, with its overtones of strictness, and the mother, who corresponds to the Oral Torah's compassionate softening of the Law's literal meaning.

In verse 25:10, the text states "veshavtem ish el achuzato, and each man shall return to his heriditary property (achuza)."

And the Torah is suggesting to us, that from this perspective, we should re-imagine ourselves as young children, gazing up at the towering mountain-like influence of our parents. Further, leACHoZ, to "take hold," bespeaks a child-like imagery.

Children are usually seen as grabbing. But that is a misunderstanding. It's simply not true. Very young children (babies) just want to merge with everything around them. There is no "other" with a young baby. The baby puts everything in her mouth because she simply wants to merge with the whole world. It's not an ego thing for a baby. It's just the opposite. All borders are blurred- not because I don't want to see a border. There's simply a sense that all is of the same Divine unity.

On the deepest level the baby knows that everything is connected. Our task, the Torah seems to be telling us, is to recharge ourselves, to view life again from the perspective of an infant, and to know that G*d will meet all our needs for us. Some of us resent G*d because our parents may not have met all our needs for us.

In the shemittah year we let go of the land and let it rest and return to its own child-like, unrestricted, unpruned, untrained natural state of being. And on the Jubilee, the land itself lets go of its anthrocentric human-decreed owners and returns to its G*d-decreed state.

This reflects the double meaning of what shabbat means to us - as both well-resting and returning. That is why the word shavtem in verse 10 above is in the plural form even though it seems to be qualifying the word ish (man) which remains in the singular.

On the plain, or peshat level of meaning this makes no sense without this deeper understanding which resolves the tension in the grammatical incongruity of our text. Thus, in this new dual understanding, we let our physical bodies rest and rejuvenate, all the while letting our spiritual souls return to their Divine dimension, uniting with the holiness of the Sabbath.

Finally, we can read it on the deepest sod, or "secret" level,reading SVA as not "sova" or "sheva," but as SHaVuAh, meaning "oath." Thus it now becomes, "and you shall eat according to the oath." Oath? What oath? This means that just as parents take an oath to feed their child unconditionally, so too G*d will promise to feed us and nourish us if we return to a child-like state of openness to His magnificent bounty.

Of course, we should learn to grow up and take responsibility, but never at the price of losing our child-like sense of awe and wonderment about the world - and its Divine source. Chazon is the Hebrew word for "a vision." When the Torah says "each man shall return to (his) aChuZato (vs 10), it's hinting in the strongest sense possible that we should all return to our "original vision (chazon)."

This means that our holy task in life is to return to and try to attain once more that child-like vision. We should try very much to connect ourselves to the world as does a child- to see ourselves as both inseparable and connected to every other being on the planet. If we truly have a sense of merging with all life, then it would not be possible to ever oppress our neighbor; we would only be oppressing ourselves.

A child always believes in fairness. The adult cynically says,"that's life." But the Torah's utopian vision is that ALL is connected to the ULTIMATE ONENESS, that all is of and from G*d. There is none other. The baby knows best what heaven wants. After all, he just came from there.

Shabbat Shalom

© 2000 - 2011 by Rabbi Baruch Binyamin Hakohen Melman

Sefer Chabibi Deepest Torah: BEHAR: Child Vision

Love of the Land: Feiglin: Throw Achmadinijad into the Sea

Feiglin: Throw Achmadinijad into the Sea

Moshe Feiglin
Manhigut Yehudit
4 Iyar, 5771
(May 8, '11)




Translated from the NRG website

When news of Arafat's terminal illness became public, I hurriedly put up a sign on my car that read: "Kill Arafat Now." I wrote an article entitled: Quick! Kill him Before he Dies and put an ad in the newspaper with the same message. The country was up in arms. Major headlines announced that the Attorney General was considering putting me on trial (again) for sedition.

I was reminded of this entire episode after Bin Laden's assassination.

"Justice has been done," Obama declared. How unusual to hear a Western leader speak of justice. And not just any justice, but justice attained by eliminating the enemy and throwing his body into the sea. The Americans killed him before he could die. They didn't send him a computer virus to unwind his centrifuges. They dragged his body out to sea, threw it overboard and went out to celebrate the great sedition, the sweet taste of revenge, in the streets.

The Americans celebrated the stability that they found in positioning their crumbling world on the foundation of justice. They celebrated a just act of heroism that since the days of Oslo, we in Israel have been brainwashed to think is completely foolish and will ignite a war.

Obama's supporters and opponents are united now in celebrating a tiny historical moment in which they decided to be just and not necessarily smart. There will be Americans who will pay the price of the assassination – that is quite clear. There would have been many more that would have had to pay the price of surrender.

The Holocaust did not begin with the outbreak of World War II. It began six years earlier, when the German leader came into power and initiated a campaign to de-legitimize the Jews. In his venomous speeches, Hitler, may his name be blotted out, created the "Jewish Question." When a Jew is forced to justify the air that he breathes – to pay to stop the Iranian nuclear installations – the door is wide open for the physical destruction that follows.

Achmadinijad is currently following exactly the same pattern and timetable. He, like Amalek, is the first to openly speak about the destruction of Israel. He was also originally viewed as a fanatical and deranged demagogue espousing his hateful views to strengthen his local interests. In his case as well, the Jews prefer to be pragmatic, as recommended by former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan – to be practical, to deal with the technique and not with the substance.

The result is the same as over sixty years ago. Just look at the state of our existential legitimacy. Who is the demagogue and who is melting away?

"Don't be just – be smart" our Mossad Chiefs, foreign ministers and other suits and decorated officers remind us. "Why take a risk if an Iron Dome or anti-centrifugal virus can take care of the problem? Let the rest of the world fight for us. After all, it is in their best interest. What can be stupider than attacking Iran just before it will be neutralized by others?"

What they do not understand is that the real danger stems not from the nuclear weapons, but from the loss of our sense of justice, fostered by the legitimacy given to the calls to destroy us. Today, respectable universities throughout the world openly debate how the world will look without Israel. The Jewish Question of 60 years ago has morphed into the Israel Question of today.

An Israeli attack on Iran can still restore our sense of justice and save us from the destructive process that is well under way. We must learn from the Americans and throw Achmadinijad into the sea. The extent of our success does not matter. And yes, we must be willing to absorb any reaction. Achmadinijad's nuclear weapons are not the danger. The question mark that he has hung over our right to exist is. As long as we do not respond to it, the question mark will grow and grow.

When it comes to justice, you cannot lose. The results on the ground are not as important as the red line that you can once again draw for the entire world to see; the red line that says that there is no Jewish Question or Israel Question that must be solved.

It is high time to throw Achmadinijad into the sea – and to go out to celebrate in the streets.

Love of the Land: Feiglin: Throw Achmadinijad into the Sea

RubinReports: Massive Anti-Israel Rally in Egypt Organized by...Facebook

Massive Anti-Israel Rally in Egypt Organized by...Facebook

This article is published on PajamasMedia.

By Barry Rubin

Repeatedly we were told about the alleged absence of anti-Israel rhetoric and signs in Tahrir square during the revolution. I don’t think it was true then. I certainly don’t think it is true now.

So check out the massive anti-Israel demonstrations in Cairo today. A picture is worth a thousand foreign policy mistakes that got us into this mess. That one is of the massive size of the demonstration; here's a nice one of an Israeli flag being burned.

Supposedly the rally was to protest sectarian violence within Egypt but it turned into one favoring more sectarian violence next door. The main focus became supporting the Hamas-Fatah coalition agreement and calling for Israel’s extinction.

Other demonstrations demanded breaking diplomatic relations with Israel and expelling the Israeli ambassador.

Remember all of those articles and statements about how the revolution was good for Israel if only those silly Israelis woke up and understand reality as understood in Berkeley and the Upper West Side of Manhattan?

Oh, and guess how the demonstration was largely organized. Ready? On Facebook! Hahaha. Those youthful hip twittering moderate young people!

Also notice how this is all happening before elections install a radical, nationalist, anti-Israel, anti-American president and a parliament dominated by revolutionary Islamist anti-American antisemites. What are we going to see after the people have spoken?

We can also look forward to similar demonstrations in Palestine’s capital, after independence takes place, demanding an abrogation of the Israel-Palestine peace treaty and the end to Israeli occupation of…Israel.

After people finally figured out in April-May what they should have known in January-February about Egypt, might be better to learn the lesson now rather than to repeat the same mistakes infinitely?

PS: Love the AP's "evenhanded" explanation of the Right to Return issue:

"The Palestinians have long maintained that the refugees have a moral and legal right to return to what was once Palestine—including land which is now Israel. But Israel has argued that granting the right of return would compromise the country's identity as the world's only Jewish state."

Yes, all those riots and massive terrorism leading to bloody civil war, with all the neighbors joining in, followed by the genocidal murder of millions of Jews and the transformation of Israel into an Arab and possibly (probably?) Islamist state that would ally with Iran, work to overturn all the region's non-radical regimes, trigger additional wars and massive suffering, and destroy U.S. influence in the Middle East would definitely be an inconvenience.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

RubinReports: Massive Anti-Israel Rally in Egypt Organized by...Facebook

RubinReports: President Obama’s “Reset” of Relations with Muslims and a Massacre in Pakistan

President Obama’s “Reset” of Relations with Muslims and a Massacre in Pakistan

This article is published on PajamasMedia.

By Barry Rubin

There’s something particularly poignant about news that at least 80 people were killed in Charsadda, Pakistan, by a Taliban attack on a police training center there. It isn’t that the event was so unique—except for one feature—but it is a suitable symbol of the situation in the Muslim-majority world today and how messed up is the Western perception of that part of the world.

The unique aspect is that the attackers said they are taking revenge for the killing of Usama bin Ladin by the United States.

And so as Americans cheer, 80 Pakistani families are in mourning. Let me quickly add that I do not blame the United States for this new mass murder. The crime is on the terrorists’ head. Nor do I believe the United States should not have killed bin Ladin. Not at all.

But this is a teachable moment so let’s summarize the lessons.

--Terrorism goes on. The death of one man or even of one organization won’t end it.

--If the United States had not killed bin Ladin on that particular day, in that place, or in that way, the Charsadda attack would have happened anyway. Thus, terrorists use specific events as excuses to do what they would have done anyway.

--Pakistan, albeit not to its credit, had nothing to do with the killing. In fact, major elements in the government protected bin Ladin while even more of the regime opposed the U.S. attack. Terrorists don't kill people because their victims are "guilty" nor do they need a "good reason" for murder. Their reason is the attempt to stage a revolutionary transformation of their society which they believe is mandated by the will of God and also would give them wealth and power.


--The main cause of terrorism is not America (or Israel, or any other country) killing terrorists but revolutionary Islamism’s attempts to seize state power or of those revolutionary Islamists (and their allies) already in power (see Iran, Syria, Hamas in Gaza, Hizballah in Lebanon, and perhaps soon the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt?) to overthrow neighbors.

--These policemen were targets not because they were oppressive instruments of capitalism or imperialism but because the revolutionaries want to destroy order so they can operate in a situation of anarchy which they hope to replace with their own rule.

--Most of the victims of terrorism are Muslim but those who proclaim their love of Muslims and of Third World people (the Western left and most Muslim activists there) couldn’t care less about these thousands of killings. Their only interest is to blame them on America, Israel, the West, or Islamophobia. In fact, they attempt to interfere with the battle against the terrorists and revolutionary Islamists, thus leading to the death of more Muslims.

--Revolutionary Islamism uses terrorism because it is a reflection of the movement’s ultimate totalitarian and repressive aims.

--If revolutionary Islamism was just a heretical caricature of Islam then no Muslims would follow it. Why did millions of Iranians support the Islamic Republic? Why has Hizballah come to dominate the Lebanese Shia community? Why will millions of Egyptians vote for Muslim Brotherhood candidates? The reason is that revolutionary Islamism is a "legitimate" interpretation of Islam based on its texts and traditions. But it is not the only, or "best," or most beneficial (for Muslims and others) interpretation. To deny that Islamism is derived from Islam won't convince any Muslims because they know better. This is a battle over politics and interpretation, not "Islamophobia," a concept largely created by Islamists for their own benefit.

--Relatively moderate Arab governments are not just using the threat of revolutionary Islamism to stay in power (although they do that also) but as a reflection of a very real danger to their countries and societies. Whatever one thinks of the Mubarak regime, a Brotherhood regime would be worse. In contrast, it is ridiculous to protect the Assad regime in Syria because it is an ally of revolutionary Islamists, helping them to murder people in Iraq, Israel, Jordan, and Lebanon.

--Any true friend of Muslims would want the revolutionary Islamists defeated and the regimes supporting them overthrown. Such a person would join the fight against not only al-Qaida but also Hamas, Hizballah, Iran, the Muslim Brotherhood, Syria, and the Taliban.

--Most of the obsessive demonization of Israel today does not spring from some humanitarian impulse but is orchestrated by revolutionary Islamists and their Western allies (witting or otherwise) to commit genocide on Israeli Jews, expel or oppress Palestinian Christians, and impose a totalitarian state on Palestinians.

--Until Western leaders understand the above principles, their policies will not only fail they will be counterproductive for the interests of both their own countries and millions of Muslims, who do not want to be ruled by revolutionary Islamism.

Now here's an interesting question. Suppose the above list of propositions was submitted to leading politicians, policymakers, journalists, and academic experts, how many of these points would they accept as obvious and how many totally reject? If this list was given to average people how many of these points would they say that they've never heard expressed by their mass media or leaders?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

RubinReports: President Obama’s “Reset” of Relations with Muslims and a Massacre in Pakistan

Israel Matzav: Zahar: Hamas will accept state on '67 borders... for now

Zahar: Hamas will accept state on '67 borders... for now

Hamas foreign minister Mahmoud Zahar says his organization will accept a 'Palestinian state' based on the 1967 borders... for now (Hat Tip: Stephen D).

Hamas would accept a Palestinian state "on any part of Palestine," he said in an interview with Palestinian news agency Ma'an. Hamas has previously said it is willing to temporarily accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. The ultimate goal, however, would be a state of "Palestine in its entirety," Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal told Charlie Rose last year.

At the same time, Zahar said that Hamas would not recognize Israel, because doing so would "cancel the right of the next generation to liberate the land." He added that recognition of Israel could lead to Palestinian refugees losing their right of return.

"What will be the fate of the five million Palestinians in the diaspora?" Zahar asked.

The Hamas leader told the Palestinian news agency that his faction's unity deal with Fatah, which included maintaining a ceasefire with Israel is "part of the resistance, not a cancellation." He added that "a truce is not peace."

And they actually believe that we would agree to this?

But what may be the best part is Zahar's explanation for why Abu Bluff isn't going to be visiting Gaza anytime soon.

Zahar also said that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas will not visit Gaza soon. One of the reasons, he said, is that he can not guarantee that "Israel will not send its infiltrators to shoot Abbas" or that some Palestinians may "come out and throw rocks at him."

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: Zahar: Hamas will accept state on '67 borders... for now

Israel Matzav: Freedom of speech for me but not for thee

Freedom of speech for me but not for thee

Now that the PC thought police have ensured that Tony Kushner will get his honorary degree from the City University of New York, they're going after the other side of the equation and trying to shut down Jeffrey Wiesenfeld by kicking him off CUNY's Board of Trustees (Hat Tip: Dan F). The CUNY faculty union renewed its calls for the trustee, Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld, to step down, while CUNY officials said they had received dozens of e-mails — including some form letters — demanding his removal.

Barbara Bowen, president of the union, the Professional Staff Congress, which represents 22,000 faculty and staff members, said the honorary degree was the latest episode in which Mr. Wiesenfeld had inserted himself inappropriately in university activities.

In 2001, he called participation in an October “teach-in” sponsored by the union about the 9/11 attacks “seditious.” In 2006, he blasted a book that Baruch College had chosen for its freshman reading, “War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning,” by Chris Hedges, calling it “deeply offensive” and “anti-Semitic.”

“That’s overstepping one’s role as a trustee,” Dr. Bowen said. “There’s a consistent pattern of vilifying students and particularly faculty whose political views he objects to. He is entitled to his political views, but to use those views to interfere with academic freedom is not acceptable.” Jeffrey Goldberg suggests that the people at CUNY need to learn to get along.

Perhaps everyone in the CUNY universe should simply learn to live with objectionable views. And perhaps the CUNY board should consider whether it wants to turn Jeffrey Wiesenfeld into a free-speech martyr, just as Wiesenfeld tried to turn Tony Kushner into same.

That drew this response from one James Fallows:

The obnoxious guy at CUNY is not having his "freedom of speech" threatened.

He's having his presence on the board called into question. Freedom of speech is a right; membership on the board is a privilege. FWIW.

Silly me. I thought that getting an honorary degree was a privilege and not a right too.

Israel Matzav: Freedom of speech for me but not for thee

Israel Matzav: IDF investigation: 'PA police' including 'former' terrorist shot 44 bullets at unarmed Israelis

IDF investigation: 'PA police' including 'former' terrorist shot 44 bullets at unarmed Israelis

An IDF investigation has concluded that 'Palestinian police' shot 44 bullets at mostly unarmed Israeli civilians in the April 24 incident in which Ben Yosef Livnat was murdered. The investigation has also concluded that at least one of the 'Palestinian police' was a terrorist who had been released from an Israeli jail.

A probe by the Judea and Samaria division of the IDF stated the attack at Joseph's Tomb was unwarranted, and the report did not rule out the possibility that it may have been a terrorist attack, Voice of Israel government radio reported. The soldiers shot with the intention to kill, according to the IDF.

The Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) and police are conducting a further investigation to determine whether the shooting and murder were pre-meditated.

Israel National News reported last week that an internal Palestinian Authority probe contradicted initial claims that the PA soldiers shot at the worshippers because they allegedly broke through a PA checkpoint on their way home from the holy site.

The IDF report confirmed that the PA troops shot 44 bullets without any provocation and that there was no danger to their lives. Most, if not all, of the Jews were unarmed, contrary to claims disseminated by Palestinian Authority media.

At least two of the PA soldiers, commonly called “police” by mainstream media, were trained by American officers at an American-funded training base in Jordan.

The IDF report concluded the attack is a ”warning” of what may await Jews this summer and also serves as a caution sign concerning further cooperation with the PA security forces.

What could go wrong?

Israel Matzav: IDF investigation: 'PA police' including 'former' terrorist shot 44 bullets at unarmed Israelis

Israel Matzav: US to call for end to Assad regime?

US to call for end to Assad regime?

It allegedly took Barack Obama 16 hours to decide to let the Navy SEALS go get Osama Bin Laden once they knew they had him. How long will it take for Obama to call for an end to Bashar al-Assad's regime? That's anyone's guess. But 'administration officials' said on Tuesday that Obama is 'edging closer' to making that call.

The tougher U.S. line almost certainly would echo demands for "democratic transition" that the administration used in Egypt and is now espousing in Libya, the officials said. But directly challenging Assad's leadership is a decision fraught with problems: Arab countries are divided, Europe is still trying to gauge its response, and there are major doubts over how far the United States could go to back up its words with action.

If the Syrian government should persist with its harsh crackdown on political opponents, the United States could be forced into choosing between an undesired military operation to protect civilians, as in Libya, or an embarrassing U-turn that makes it look weak before an Arab world that is on the tipping point between greater democracy or greater repression.

That's what happens when you spend two and a half years bowing and apologizing to foreign leaders, dissing your friends and coddling enemies like Assad. No one believes you'll back up your word anymore.

Two administration officials said the U.S. worries about a prevailing perception that its response to Assad's repression has been too soft, especially after helping usher longtime ally Hosni Mubarak out of power in Egypt and joining the international military coalition to shield civilians from attacks by Moammar Gadhafi's forces in Libya.

Gee, ya think so? You mean, no one is buying Hillary Clinton's repeated declarations that Assad is a 'reformer'?

Israeli concerns loom large as well. The officials said Israel, Washington's closest Mideast ally, is worried about a possible collapse of Assad's leadership and a fracturing of the country's stability. Although Syria and Israel remain technically at war, Israel's border with Syria has been relatively calm for years.

No one here is talking about it. No one official anyway. And every pundit I have seen here has argued that Assad ought to go.

The officials say there is a lack of any organized opposition in Syria, and little understanding of what the alternatives are to four decades of rule under Assad and his father, Hafez Assad, and whether a chaotic power void would lead to even greater bloodshed.

Funny that didn't bother anyone when they were deciding what to do about Egypt or Libya.

AP sources: US closer to declaring Assad's rule in Syria illegitimate

By Bradley Klapper,Matthew Lee, The Associated Press – 22 hours ago

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is edging closer to calling for an end to the long rule of the Assad family in Syria.

Administration officials said Tuesday that the first step would be to say for the first time that President Bashar Assad has forfeited his legitimacy to rule, a major policy shift that would amount to a call for regime change that has questionable support in the world community.

The tougher U.S. line almost certainly would echo demands for "democratic transition" that the administration used in Egypt and is now espousing in Libya, the officials said. But directly challenging Assad's leadership is a decision fraught with problems: Arab countries are divided, Europe is still trying to gauge its response, and there are major doubts over how far the United States could go to back up its words with action.

If the Syrian government should persist with its harsh crackdown on political opponents, the United States could be forced into choosing between an undesired military operation to protect civilians, as in Libya, or an embarrassing U-turn that makes it look weak before an Arab world that is on the tipping point between greater democracy or greater repression.

The internal administration debate over a tougher approach to Assad's regime is occurring amid a backdrop of brutality in Syria. More than 750 civilians have been killed since the uprising began nearly two months ago and some 9,000 people remain in custody, according to a leading Syrian human rights group.

"We urge the Syrian government to stop shooting protesters, to allow for peaceful marches and to stop these campaigns of arbitrary arrests and to start a meaningful dialogue," State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Tuesday. He said Assad still had a chance to make amends, but acknowledged "the window is narrowing."

Two administration officials said the U.S. worries about a prevailing perception that its response to Assad's repression has been too soft, especially after helping usher longtime ally Hosni Mubarak out of power in Egypt and joining the international military coalition to shield civilians from attacks by Moammar Gadhafi's forces in Libya.

Speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive internal planning, the officials said Assad has dispelled nearly any lingering hope that he can or will deliver on grandiose pledges of reform he has made since coming to power 11 years ago. After ending decades of martial law last month, his regime renewed its crackdown on peaceful protesters even more aggressively, using live ammunition and arbitrarily arrestoing thousands of people.

"We're getting close," one official said on the question of challenging Assad's legitimacy, adding that such a step would oblige the U.S. and, if other countries agree, the international community, to act.

The U.S. has demanded that Gadhafi leave power after four decades of dictatorship in Libya but has struggled to make that happen, the official noted. "So we need to make sure that what we say matches what we can and will do. It's not just a matter of putting out a statement and giving the magic words that people want to hear. It's a significant decision."

President Barack Obama welcomed the European Union's decision Monday to impose sanctions on 13 Syrian officials, prohibiting them from travelling anywhere in the 27-nation organization. U.S. sanctions target the assets of two Assad relatives and another top Syrian official. But neither EU nor U.S. sanctions affect Assad himself, at least not yet.

The officials said the administration may decide to target Assad, although American sanctions against him likely would mean little as the United States has long had unrelated restrictions on Syria because of its designation as a "state sponsor of terrorism."

Obama has tried to engage Syria, seeing it as critical to comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, but the U.S. remains disturbed by the government's ties to Iran, support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinian militant group Hamas, and suspicions that it has sought to develop weapons of mass destruction.

Israeli concerns loom large as well. The officials said Israel, Washington's closest Mideast ally, is worried about a possible collapse of Assad's leadership and a fracturing of the country's stability. Although Syria and Israel remain technically at war, Israel's border with Syria has been relatively calm for years.

The reality is that the United States has very little sway in Syria. Unlike Egypt, where the United States spent billions of dollars and decades cultivating strong military, government and civil society ties, the isolation of Syria has left the administration with few ways of coaxing better behaviour out of Assad's government.

Toner, the State Department spokesman, said Tuesday the Syrian government was stirring up violence with its repression in towns such as Daraa and Banias. He called the government's claims of reforms "false," and demanded that the regime stop shooting protesters even as security forces entered new cities in southern Syria that have been peaceful up to now. Yet it does not appear the regime is listening to the U.S. case and that he may be trying to see how much force he can get away with.

Assad's minority ruling Alawite sect wants to placate enough middle-class members of Syria's Sunni majority to limit the domestic anger, and keep the violence just under the threshold that would prompt serious calls for concerted international action against his government.

The U.S. would like to sharpen the choice for Assad, so that he moves toward a more conciliatory approach. But one of the things holding the administration back is a classic "better-the-devil-you-know" scenario.

The officials say there is a lack of any organized opposition in Syria, and little understanding of what the alternatives are to four decades of rule under Assad and his father, Hafez Assad, and whether a chaotic power void would lead to even greater bloodshed.

Love of the Land: Talking Point Combat: The Seven Percent

Talking Point Combat: The Seven Percent

Matt
Huffington Post Monitor
11 May '11

http://hpmonitor.blogspot.com/2011/05/talking-point-combat-seven-percent.html

I'd like to address an anti-Zionist talking point that was used a lot recently on multiple threads and talk about how to combat it. Here's a post that exhibits it, we're interested mostly in the first sentence:

Anti-Zionists love to talk about how the Jews "only" owned 7% of the land in Palestine and then talk about how ridiculous it is that they ended up with so much after the dust settled. Any time one of them posts this talking point, just ask them the following: How much of the land did the Arabs own? The answer is about 10% of the land. 80% of Palestinian Arabs did not own any land at all. The rest of the land was government mandated, and therefore up for grabs when the British departed and the war the Palestinian Arabs started began.

So don't let the anti-Zionist revisionist history get away unchallenged. The Jewish and Arab populations in Palestine were approximately equal in terms of legal land ownership, and if the Palestinians didn't want to lose the land they were getting for the first time, they shouldn't have tried to take land from the Jews.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

Love of the Land: Talking Point Combat: The Seven Percent

Love of the Land: Israel is an Asset to the USA and the Western World - Israel Straight Talk

Israel is an Asset to the USA and the Western World - Israel Straight Talk

Avi Abelow
Israel Straight Talk
IST #62
11 May '11

People must understand that America and the Western World need Israel just as much as Israel needs them. Israel is the one democratic and stable ally in the Middle East. In addition, the intelligence it provides the US and the Western World is priceless for their own defense and diplomatic needs. People should understand that Israel is an asset that the US wouldn't be able to pay to create, if Israel wouldn't exist.




Please share this video and it's very important message. For any questions or comments you have, join us on http://www.facebook.com/israelstraighttalk

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

Love of the Land: Israel is an Asset to the USA and the Western World - Israel Straight Talk

Love of the Land: 5771 edition - Proud to be a Zionist

5771 edition - Proud to be a Zionist

Elder of Ziyon
10 May '11




http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2011/05/proud-to-be-zionist-5771-edition.html

I wrote the original essay around 2002 and I have been modifying it since then. Here is this year's edition:

Every year, the State of Israel seems to be up against yet another unsolvable crisis. Whether it is war against terrible odds, a wave of terror attacks, a new feeling of isolation as friends seem to turn hostile, the threat of nuclear-armed enemies, or political threats from the international community, there are always new challenges that she faces - sometimes simultaneously.

Yet, here she is, 63 years old and more beautiful than she was at birth.

In prayers every morning Jews recite a phrase praising G-d, describing Him as המחדש בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית - He who continually renews the act of Creation. In other words, the Jewish concept of G-d has him in an active role keeping the universe running, and as such it is appropriate to praise Him.

It is a little hard to conceptualize this idea, that the very laws of physics, that the world rotating and revolving around the sun is not automatic, but only occurs due to the constant will of G-d. But perhaps it is easier to understand this phrase if we apply it to the modern state of Israel.

Every single day that the Jewish state continues to exist cannot be explained adequately with historical or social or military reasons. Which means that we are witnessing a miracle every day.

The most recent years have been very hard for Zionists. Yet when we step back and look at the big picture, Israel is something to be very proud of.

Yes, I am a Zionist and I am proud of it.

I know that Israel has the absolute right to exist in peace and security, just like - and possibly more than - any other country.

I am proud of how the IDF conducts itself during the war on Palestinian terror. There is no other country on the planet, save the US, that would try to minimize civilian casualties in such a situation where innocent Israelis are being threatened, shot at, mortared, rocketed, and murdered in cold blood. At times there are discussions whether the IDF's moral standards end up being counterproductive - and what other army could one even have that conversation about?



I am also proud that Israel investigates any mistakes that happen on the battlefield and keeps trying to improve its methods to maximize damage to the terrorists while minimizing damage to the people that the enemy is hiding behind. This is not done because of pressure from "human rights" organizations - it is done because it is the right thing to do. Even when everyone knows that the world will accuse it of "war crimes," the IDF retains incredibly high moral standards.

I am proud that Israel remains a true democracy, with a free press and vigorous opposition parties, while in a constant war situation. Any other nation, again besides the US, would have imposed martial law to maintain peace.

I am proud of how the IDF responded to the terror attacks of the early days of the intifada, managing to bring deadly suicide attacks from 60 in 2002 down to practically none. The enemy has not stopped trying, and if Israel hadn't acted decisively things would look like Iraq or Afghanistan today. For every "successful" attack (if you can use such a term) there have been many failed attempts, and these are truly miraculous.

There is a right and a wrong in this conflict, and I am proud that Israel is in the right.

Of course, I am equally proud of Israel's many accomplishments in building up a desert wasteland into a thriving and vibrant modern country, with its many scientific achievements, leadership in environmental issues, world class universities and culture. A tiny nation, under constant siege, with almost no natural resources besides breathtaking beauty, has used its brains - and strength - to build a modern success story. In a short period of time Israel made itself into a strong yet open nation that its neighbors can only dream of becoming.

And they are indeed starting to dream. The so-called "Arab Spring" is, in many ways, a subconscious cry from Israel's Arab neighbors to be more like Israel. Despite the constant incitement against Israel in their media, ordinary Arabs know that Israel treats its minorities with more respect, and gives them more civil rights, than Arab nations give their own Arab citizens.

At a time that groups are trying to hurt Israel economically, the nation has thrived. Every boycott attempt since the 1940s has failed to dent Israel's amazing growth. Israel is in the lead in lifesaving medical breakthroughs and clean energy technologies. Even more amazing, practically every computer and mobile phone being built today includes technology and innovations from a single, tiny, Middle Eastern country.

I am proud that the vast majority of Americans support Israel as I do, and that the rabid terror-lovers we see on the Internet are the aberration.

The word "Zionist" is not an epithet - it is a compliment.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

Love of the Land: 5771 edition - Proud to be a Zionist