Ouch! It’s my Jewish Identity! By Moshe Feiglin

{Moshe Feiglin, a member of the Knesset, is an extreme right winger struggling to take over the Likud Party.} 28 Adar, 5770 March 14, ‘10   {see – significantly – it does not say 2010} Translated from the NRG website {we do not know what NRG stands for} “Israel’s problem is its public relations,” people reason as they attempt to explain how it is that Israel is always at the receiving end of the world’s criticism and hatred. “Israel simply doesn’t know how to highlight all of its positive points.” But the problem is not simply lack of budget for public relations, as the Foreign Ministry would like us to believe. There is also no dearth of eloquent Israelis and fluent English speakers who could take Israel’s case to the world. The problem is that instead of explaining its own position, Israel explains the position of its enemies. When is the last time that you heard an official Israeli representative simply state that this is our Land – without ifs, ands and buts? Simply, “The Land of Israel belongs to the Jewish Nation, period.” Has the prime minister made such a statement? Any minister? Perhaps an ambassador? All the torrents of claims against Israel can be distilled to this one simple question: Whose land is this, anyway? But here’s the caveat: It is impossible to say that this is our Land without falling back on our Jewish foundations. To avoid that unthinkable eventuality, Israel trades it ultimate playing card for paltry claims that its soldiers are the most humane in the world – and endangers their lives to prove it – and that it is the most democratic regime in the region. The world, though, doesn’t really care if Israel’s armed forces are humane. What determines if you are right or wrong is if the ground under their feet belongs to you or not. The most courteous intruder is still an intruder who belongs in jail. The refusal to admit that this is our Land – or in broader terms, to re-connect as a state to our Jewish identity – has brought Israel to its diplomatic knees. Netanyahu’s senior ministers have arrest warrants waiting for them in Israel’s capitals and the assassins of arch-terrorist Mabhouh are wanted all over the world while mass-murderer Ahmadinijad is invited to lecture at Columbia University. The modern-day Amalek does not tell the world that he is humane. He explains that he is right. The world accepts this as fact because Israel’s leadership plays straight into his hands. Just like the first Amalek, who attacked Israel when the entire world was afraid to initiate a fight with the nation that had just defeated the Egyptian empire, so Ahmadinijad publicly declares his intention to destroy Israel and proceeds with his technical preparations basically unhindered. It may be difficult to understand why, instead of losing his legitimacy, Ahmadinijad has managed to place a flashing and threatening question mark over Israel’s head. The reason is that the “State of all its citizens” (as per former Chief Justice Aharon Barak) or the “Singapore of the Middle East” (as per President Shimon Peres) or the “place under the sun” (as per PM Netanyahu) is incapable of standing proud and firm behind its identity and justifying its existence. It really is not right to establish another Singapore at the expense of the “Palestinians.” And there is plenty of place under the sun on the Canary Islands. It comes at a more reasonable price and will not drag the entire world into endless wars. For those readers who do not understand the critical implications of our Jewish identity for our very survival, I would like to quote the following story: In the first Lebanon War in 1982, the IDF essentially forced the PLO terror organization out of Lebanon and into exile in Tunisia. The PLO was in complete disarray. One of the prisoners in the Israeli detention camp, Ansar, was a senior terrorist, admired by his henchmen. His name was Salah Taamari and he was a broken man. In the book about Taamari, Mine Enemy, penned by Israeli journalists Amalia and Aharon Barnea, Taamari told Barnea of the transformation he underwent in Ansar. While in prison, he had completely despaired of any hope that the Palestinians would one day realize any of their territorial dreams. He was ready to renounce the struggle and was well on the way to convincing his prison-mates that they would never defeat Israel. Then, one Passover, he witnessed a Jewish prison guard eating a pita. Taamari was shocked, and asked his jailer how he could so unashamedly eat bread on Passover. The Jew replied: “I feel no obligation to events that occurred to my nation over 2,000 years ago. I have no connection to that.” That entire night Taamari could not sleep. He thought to himself: “A nation whose members have no connection to their past, and are capable of so openly transgressing their most important laws, has cut off all its roots to the Land.” He concluded that the Palestinians could, in fact, achieve all their goals. From that moment, he determined “to fight for everything – not a percentage, not some crumbs that the Israelis might throw us – but for everything. Because opposing us is a nation that has no connection to its roots, which are no longer of interest to it.” Taamari goes on to relate how he shared this insight with “tens of thousands of his colleagues, and all were convinced.” Taamari did indeed convince his co-terrorists and breathed new life into the war against Israel. It is hard to exaggerate the damage done by the pita in the mouth of just one Israeli prison guard on the holiday of Passover. What does this have to do with the current Jerusalem imbroglio? Here is another story – short and current. This story is not about an anonymous soldier who is disconnected from his Jewish roots, but about the prime minister of Israel, who is estranged from his. On his recent trip to Russia, Binyamin Netanyahu chose the non-kosher restaurant, Pushkin, as the venue for his meeting with Greek PM Papandreou. The whole world was able to watch as the leader of the Jewish nation dined heartily on the finest that non-kosher cuisine has to offer. One pita in the mouth of an anonymous soldier was enough to sow the seeds of defeat in Israel’s triumph in Lebanon. What damage will we suffer from the unkosher food in the mouth of the prime minister of Israel? —————————– THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 2010 ‘Day of Rage’ Engulfs Palestine Mel Frykberg QALANDIA, West Bank, Mar 17 (IPS) – On Tuesday tens of hundreds of Palestinians of all political persuasions took to the streets, alleys and sidewalks as widespread rioting and protests spread across East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza and into Israel proper. The worst violence in several years, something of a mini Intifadah or uprising, followed the Islamist movement Hamas calling for a ‘Day of Rage’ to protest Israel’s continued Judaisation of East Jerusalem and what Palestinians see as an attempt to take over Islamic holy sites. The numbers rioting were kept relatively low by Israeli military roadblocks and a closure imposed on the West Bank to prevent Palestinians from reaching Jerusalem. More than 100 Palestinians were wounded, 16 of them suffering broken bones and stomach and eye injuries, and about 80 arrested as the clashes and confrontations with Israeli security forces spread. A number of Israeli soldiers and police were also injured. On Wednesday thousands of Israeli security forces remained on high alert as further riots were predicted. Palestinian security forces were also placed on high alert amidst fears that protests could spread to Israeli checkpoints and settlements in the West Bank and further inflame an already volatile situation. “We will be back tomorrow after school. This is not the end. We are going to come here every day and continue the protests for weeks and months,” one of the protestors told IPS. “This is just the beginning. This is going to be an ongoing campaign against the Israeli occupation and the desecration of our holy sites,” Nasser Edwan (name changed), a local youth leader, told IPS. At Qalandia refugee camp and checkpoint, situated between Jerusalem and Ramallah, hundreds of school boys and young men, continually approached the Israeli checkpoint in waves, hurling stones and bottles. Elsewhere Molotov cocktails were thrown, garbage containers set alight and one Israeli policeman shot by a Palestinian assailant. The Israel Defence Forces tried to disperse the rioters with rubber-coated metal bullets and teargas. But just as soon as the protestors were driven back they would advance again on the checkpoint. Scores were injured and a number arrested. Generally protests here have a set formula with both sides following unspoken rules. Hitherto clashes in various West Bank villages and in East Jerusalem normally last a few hours after which both sides – the Israeli soldiers and the Palestinian protestors – tire and return to “base”. Previous protests at Qalandia witnessed by IPS generally dissipated after several hours. However, Tuesday’s violence raged from early in the morning to well into the night. Similar scenarios unfolded in various locations of occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank while thousands of Gazans took to the streets. There has been a palpable atmosphere of suppressed anger amongst Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank for the last few weeks due to Israel’s accelerated Judaisation of East Jerusalem. Tensions were exacerbated on Monday with the inauguration of a Jewish synagogue on a site where a mosque used to be in the Jewish quarter of Jerusalem’s old city. Attempts by Jewish extremists to enter the Al Aqsa Mosque, Islam’s third holiest shrine have also fuelled Palestinian anger. These extremists have stated that they would like to build the third Jewish Temple on Al Aqsa’s remains. The importance and significance of Al Aqsa even to moderate and secular Muslims is unappreciated in many Western quarters “I have only two sons and I love them dearly but I’m prepared to sacrifice both of them for Al Aqsa,” one IPS source, a secular and previously senior activist of the secular Fatah movement in Jerusalem’s Old City, said. “When there were riots several weeks ago, I phoned my sons and told them to close our tourist shop and go to the mosque to defend it from the settlers. Do you think it is easy to lose my sons? Al Aqsa is a red line which nobody must cross,” he told IPS. This is the reasoning behind the common ground found by the leadership of both Palestinian political factions, Hamas and Fatah, as they called for their respective followers to take to the streets. Senior members of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, affiliated with Fatah, met in the Ambassador Hotel in East Jerusalem a couple of days ago before appealing to Palestinians to take action. The leadership also met in the same hotel and called for defensive measures prior to the outbreak of the Second Intifadah in 2000 when then Israeli premier Ariel Sharon made his provocative visit to the mosque despite being warned against doing so by Israeli security. Furthermore, the Fatah-affiliated Al Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades have called for the Palestinian Authority to allow them to rearm and defend Al Aqsa from the Israelis. Israel recently pardoned over 70 former Al Aqsa members on the condition they give up their weapons and cease resistance. Hundreds of others have been pardoned by Israel over the last few years. Hamas leader Ahmed Bahar called for a renewal of armed attacks against Israel and urged Arab states to support the resistance. Meanwhile, Israeli settlers have warned that they will retaliate against any Palestinian rioting by mounting counter-riots. They have also warned that they will attack “Arabs and their property” if they are prevented in the future from entering the Al Aqsa compound. While a full-scale Intifadah does not appear imminent, further large-scale unrest appears highly possible with some Israeli analysts calling Tuesday’s events an “Intifadah-Light”.

 http://www.jta.org/news/article/2010/03/…

Brazilian president lays wreath at Arafat’s grave.
March 17, 2010
JERUSALEM (JTA) — Brazil’s president laid a wreath at Yasser Arafat’s grave after refusing to visit the grave of Theodor Herzl.

President Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva met with Palestinian Authority leaders Wednesday in Ramallah.

“I dream of an independent and free Palestine living in peace in the Middle East,” Silva said while in the West Bank. “I believe the Palestinians and Israelis are going to share the land of their forefathers.”

Israel had criticized Lula’s plan to visit the grave of the PLO’s Arafat prior to the visit. Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman boycotted Lula’s address to the Knesset Monday afternoon to protest his refusal to visit the grave of Herzl, the founder of modern Zionism.

Lula said prior to his trip to Israel and the Palestinian Authority this week that other countries, like Brazil, should help mediate between Israel and the Palestinians.

——————–
 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con…

U.N. chief chides Israel for confidentiality breach.

By Louis Charbonneau
Reuters , Tuesday, March 16, 2010; 3:28 PM

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on
Tuesday criticized Israel’s Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman for
releasing information about what Ban said was a confidential telephone
call between the two men.

“I’m troubled by just a unilateral announcement,” Ban told reporters
when asked about media reports that Lieberman had urged the
secretary-general to be more balanced with Israel.

“That is regrettable,” said Ban, who was visibly upset. “Normal
diplomatic practice is that you agree in advance” on the release of
information about such conversations to the media.

Ban added that that the point of that practice is “to preserve
confidentiality and diplomatic and political sensitivities.”

In the phone conversation, Lieberman told Ban that Israel had taken a
number of positive steps to improve prospects for peace with the
Palestinians and expected a more objective and constructive approach
from the international community, the Israeli news site Ynet reported.

Among the under-appreciated steps that Lieberman told Ban Israel had
taken were a construction freeze on West Bank settlements, the removal
of checkpoints and other gestures, but the only response has been more
complaints and pressure on Israel, Ynet said.

An Israeli political source in Jerusalem confirmed that the Ynet
report was accurate.

Last week Ban publicly condemned Israeli plans to build 1,600 more
homes on occupied land where Palestinians seek their own state,
echoing earlier comments from U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during his
trip to the Middle East.

Israel’s announcement has threatened to torpedo U.S. efforts to launch
indirect peace talks between the two sides after a 15-month hiatus in
direct negotiations.

Ban said he reiterated his condemnation to Lieberman and explained why
he plans to visit the Gaza Strip soon.

“But there was no mention of that” in the information about their
phone conversation released to Israeli media, he added.

Ban will attend a meeting of the Middle East negotiating “Quartet” –
the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations
– in Moscow later this week. After that, he heads to Israel, the West
Bank and the Gaza Strip.

(Additional reporting by Dan Williams in Jerusalem; Editing by Cynthia Osterman)

Futures of the Obama Administration:

Dan Rather says the President must show resolve and steel. This was echoed by Helene Cooper (He must start showing his accomplishments) and Joe Klein (people want to see him crack the whip). Despite this 11 said he must play to the center and only one said he must play to the left.

There is no contradiction here – all agreed that the Democratic base is a varied coalition while the Republican base is the Republican idiosyncratic right (a much less flattering word was used).

So what do the Democrats need now? The answer in the TV and Internet age is that you must be authentic and have a conversation with the broad constituency that is the country.

——–

Helene Cooper reminded us that in Foreign countries Obama did very well – now he will have a huge welcome in Indonesia and the Tea Party folks will say that this proves he is not from here. But they may overplay because again the President will show he can raise in the world the essence of an ideal. Indonesia is a poor country in recession and a probable breeding ground for Al Qaeda with a war going on in nearby Philippines.

Joe Klein kept repeating that even in the US people rank Obama’s foreign policy much more then his economic policy – so some will say that when he goes overseas to take of the news the needed US internal economic policy – he does not face the economy.

But above is not correct – he actually goes to the energy markets – Indonesia, then India, and probably after that South Africa. This follows the trip he made to China. So there is a pattern here.

Also – we were reminded that Iran has an operation to extract Uranium in a remote location in Venezuela – and yes – there is now a daily flight from Tehran to Caracas while there is only a weekly flight from Caracas to Bogota. AHA – is this not what we say all the time since Copenhagen? Obama needs to have in the White House a clear Western Hemisphere desk in order to be able to do all these other needed activities that are mainly Asia oriented.

We learned that Rahm Emanuel – the White House pragmatist – said all the time – the futures are ENERGY and JOBS. That should have been the laser guided policy from day one.

On the Israeli Palestinian issue, with the latest misery for all to see and a consensus building that the killing in Dubai and the slap to Vice President Biden, were “botched-on-purpose” events. Simply – they are so botched that they must have been on purpose and the purpose was that Israel wanted the world to know that they are ready to take responsibility for their future because they do not want to have to pay for complicated world policies that may treat them as collateral.

The two issues with most impact on the Middle East are clearly the global look into the maze of State-to State energy policies and what seems to emerge – a border set between Israel and the West Bank run by the Palestinian Authority. This as a “what-can-be-done” approach to get us out of this impasse. With the AIPAC meeting coming up in Washington – March 21-23, 2010, President Obama out of town, and Vice President Biden having been pushed aside by the Israelis, it remains now for Secretary Hillary Clinton to try to build such an approach for the only two direct factors in the dispute, and the Arab States the US has friendly relationship with. If this is not accepted by the two sides, the best the US can do is to drop this topic from its agenda all together, and wait the sides come back begging for new mediation.

Karl Rove is making the rounds of the TV stations in order to sell his book “Courage and Consequences.” It is him, former VP Cheney, the daughter Liz Cheney (Chris Matthews Calls Liz Cheney ‘Daughter of Dracula’), and pundist Bill Krystal that try to reinvent history. Of interest to US foreign policy is the mention now that the mismanagement of the war in Iraq under the Bush-Cheney Administration was the fault of Turkey – because of their reluctance to allow NATO overflights. Quite true – but did not one look into such things when planning a war?

Gillian Tett of the Financial Times, declared that  US President Obama is liked in the world but not feared. Russia and China are not going to allow greater restrictions on Iran. She also said that Israel is probably not as fearful of Iran as it is assumed because had they had Iran in mind they would not have turned against the US and the UK the way they did. She thinks the events in Dubai were a clear provocation to the UK. France and the UK will go along with the US grudgingly on Iran but others at the UN Security Council, like Lebanon and Brazil will not.

Candy Crowley’s program was underlined with the idea that the gridlock in Washington on health-care has signaled to the world that it also carries no power overseasand that Obama will now stress in his relations to Congress what he already said: “Ignore the Washington Eco Chamber!”

————-

Pakistan turns into a US Administration’s Show-case: At least something that showed some changes for the better.

On Farred Zakaria with Ambassador Richard Holbrooke – “Pakistan is looking up – A victory for Obama. It helped by dangling of showers of aid – so the Hakami faction of the Taliban that was previously tolerated by the military is now being attacked.

Holbrooke finds that the Afghans in Khandahar and Marja in general, want a conservative society but no corruption. They want education including for girls and are mad at the Taliban. The district leader in Marja is an Afghan who returned from Germany. There are returnees and the US encourages also afghans in the US to return and participate in the rebuilding.

———–

With Fareed – The Jeffrey Sachs, Amity Schlaes (conservative formerly with The Wall Street Journal and presently Council of Foreign Relations specialist), and Christa Freeland (global editor-at-large, The Financial Times – middle of the road, right leaning):

The underlying Jeff Sachs dictum: “EVERY DECENT SOCIETY ENSURES CITIZENS HAVE ACCESS TO HEALTH-CARE.” Without reforms of the health-care delivery system we will get nowhere – this was really not discussed yet he said.

The problem is that we have no cost controls so we use four times more Cat-Scans then Switzerland or France.

Freeland concurred  and said THE SYSTEM ENCOURAGES DOCTORS TO DO TOO MUCH! She had found that in the American system you have to fight excessive treatment more then anywhere else. She herself gave birth in Toronto, Paris, New York and the US was worse. She asked why all those Cesarean treatments for first birth in the US? She concluded that it was not only a problem of greed – which it is – but also a problem of the legal system, the high insurance of the profession, that makes doctors more worried and pushes them to prescribe unnecessary treatments. SO – WE ARE BACK TO THE INSURANCE AND TO THE HEALTH-CARE IMPASSE. She also pointed out that 80% of the health-care cost is in the last years of life and this should be something to be looked at also.

The two seemed to agree that with 10% unemployment it is wrong to tie-in health-care to a job – and Freeland suggested HELP RATHER PEOPLE TO BUY AN INSURANCE.

Talking about the economy at large, Jeff Sachs said we were in a panic situation last year – that was removed – but we are out of control with the budget and a burdened debt consumer is no consumer. We risk a downward spiral as for two and a half years we really did nothing on the economy. He predicts that the US is out for a double recession.

Amity Schlaes in all of this was a parody of the Wall Street Journal – “A person who gets a job – not the happy consumer that goes to the mall – is who saves the economy. Which she is obviously right but nowhere in the discussion did we see an indication of how to get there. Cut spending? From where? She brings up Indiana State tax cuts as an example, but Professor Sachs cuts her short by saying the US is already the lowest taxed country in the developed world and we are paralyzed because we cannot do what a civilized country must do. Can we have a value added tax Fareed asks Schlaes and she gives a clear NO!. We read her stuff in the WSJ many times and wonder now what she can do for the Council on Foreign Relations. We thank Fareed Zakaria for having brought her in to the panel so we understand better what US institutions of long-standing have done to split America.

With a 10% of GNP budget gap while the entitlement amount to a total of 15% for Social Security and existing Health-Care, there is just no way that the US can cut itself out of the coming recession without falling back into the ranks of a third world country – whatever the meaning of that term which we clearly do not accept as part of our own parlance. Clearly – Presidential leadership is needed here and plain conversation with the electorate is the way to honestly explain the situation to the public. Do not expect the media to be able to do this public relations job.

David Axelrod on all channels, kept saying that Illinois got 60% insurance increases this year and the President will speak in Ohio where a woman wrote to him that she had to chose between health insurance and her home – so she stopped her insurance. Then when cancer struck – now she will lose her home. This is the biggest driving force of the economy that the Federal Government must take into consideration first. We say power to him.

Further, on Fareed Zakaria’s program, we learned that March 9th was a year since the Wall Street Dow Index hit bottom from which it climbs up again. Banks have recapitalized with new $150 billion to a safe position, managers make fabulous pay again, Timothy Geithner who took the country on a middle road has shown success, refusing to nationalize the banks, but what did this do to the person on main street who will be voting in November?

———-

Intricacies of the Arab and Islamic world:

On the Amanpour program we started with Sheikh Dr. Tahir Ul-Qadri – an Islamic Theologian from London who started the JIHAD-AGAINST-JIHAD movement. He was a former special advisor on Islamic Law to the Pakistani Supreme Court.

He says – No ifs – No buts – Terrorism is Terrorism. Any good intentions cannot allow terrorism.

A terrorist does not reach Shihada (martyrdom) or in lay language – he does not go to heaven – he rather goes to hell!

He was questioned about “Khawarij” in the “Hadit” – the words of the Prophet as reported by men that wrote them down – “whoever fights against the people (that is the believers) has more rights to Allah then others.”

Sheikh Ul Qadri answered that the ideology that says those that are not Muslims – their blood is allowed – he does no accept. He fights for peace and when asked if his life is in danger he said he is not afraid “one has to live for truth and die for truth” – he is thus a jihadist-against jihad.

Elias Khouri is an Arab lawyer living on the West Bank near Jerusalem. Both – his father and his son were killed by other Palestinians as part of their war against Jews. The father back in the pre-Israel days, the son, George Khouri, who went to the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, in March 2004, when he was mistaken for a Jew.

Elias Khouri paid from his money for the translation into Arabic of the book “A Tale of Love and Darkness” by the famed Israeli author Amos Oz, and had it published in Beiruth so that Arab readers can learn something about the Israelis. This bereaved person wants to help remove prevailing stereotypes in the Middle East.

Amos Oz who can be defined as an Israeli who clearly wants to live in a Middle East mixed environment, depicted in this book the non-heroic ways of the first settlers who lead to the foundation of the State. Elias Khouri says that knowledge is needed to be able to understand if we want to fight them or go along. Since the offer to translate the book, the two families – the Khouri and the Oz families became close friends and visit each other. Amos Oz says that he tried always to put himself in the other’s shoes. Anyone in the Arab world who reads the book will understand the historical events better. Oz says – Imaging the other is a moral thing.

Reuters from Berlin, where President Mubarak, 81 years of age, had a gallbladder operation, reports that his health is improving. The problem is that 30 years in office and having made sure there is no number 2 to him, the fact that he went for an operation plunged the Egyptian economic benchmark by 2.4%. We posted the information about Japanese and Kuwait funds made available to the stagnant economy of Egypt, for purpose of green, and perhaps nuclear energy. With this new information we wonder about the meaning of that that previous posting. Is investment in Egypt these days indeed a safe idea or do the foreign banks believe that Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, former head of the IAEA, will  be the winner in the upcoming elections in Egypt?

———————-

Egypt To Secure $430 Mln Loan For Wind Farm: Agency
Date: 15-Mar-10

by Alexander Dziadosz, Reuters from Egypt.

Egypt is set to secure a $430 million loan from Japan to fund a 220-megawatt wind farm as it tries to boost its renewable energy output, the state news agency MENA said on Friday.

Egypt, an oil and gas producer, has been developing wind power along its eastern Red Sea coast. It aims to generate 12 percent of its power from wind and 20 percent from renewables overall by 2020.

The loan, inked this week, will be used to build a wind farm in Gebel el Zeit on the Gulf of Suez, the report said.

Officials say Egypt’s combined oil and gas reserves will last it roughly three decades, pushing it to develop alternative energy sources, including nuclear and solar.

Last week Egypt said it would receive a $100 million loan from the Kuwait Fund for Arab Economic Development to fund a 1,300 megawatt power plant in the Red Sea coastal town of Ain Sokhna, east of Cairo.

Sunday March 7, 2010, Fareed Zakaria took the measure of the Big Crescent that Stretches from Gaza via Jerusalm, Baghdad, Tehran, Kabul, to Islamabad. He had quite o few first line guests.

Turned out that it is unrealistic to expect democracy in Iraq – what we get at best will be a cross-sectarian coalition – maybe.

There is no certainty that the Iraqis will want to end up in a relationship with the US with less then 25,000 US and other NATO forces present.

The important question came up: “Do we have any economic influence in Iraq?” and the answers included pearls like “This is capitalism at work – there will be competition.” “With the money spent on the invasion the US could have bought all the Iraqi oil production for a decade.” We hope Mr. Cheney was watching the program wherever he is. We wonder if he will evr move finally to the headquarters of Haliburton in Dubai.

———

Regarding Iran – the main observation is that the Basij have had to turn inwards because of the stirring of a political opposition.

“Do you think that Dr. Ahmad Chalabi is an Iranian agent?”

“He was behind the de-Bathification – indeed the Iraqis believe so.”

——-

With Yossi Melman, now with Tel Aviv newspaper HAARETZ, and former Mossad operative and Fawaz A. Gerges, from the London School of economics and Political Science, author of Journey of the Jihadist” present, and Osama Hamdan on video in Damascus – we heard from Mosab Hassan Jousef Jr. how he was, and in many ways still is, a double or triple agent between the Hamas, Patach and the Israelis. His contention is that he saved his father’s life, Sheick Hassan, a founder of the Hamas, by telling his location to the Israelis, so he is now well and alive in Israeli prison with a six years term, while he would have been dead otherwise. That is another tid-bit of Middle East lore. Mosab did not seem to worry having exposed himself before the cameras – seemingly he is more interested in getting royalties from a book he published.

——

In this program we also learned – at least the first time I heard so – finally a religious Islamic leader, talking of the atrocities of 9/11, say the magic words I was waiting for these last 8 years: “COMMITTINGG A TERROR ATTACK LANDS THE PERPETRATORS IN HELL.” So, there is now a “JIHAD AGAINST JIHAD” among some Muslim leaders and they regard 9/11 as the “WAKE UP CALL.”

So far so good – but the announcement by the news-caster that the Pakistanis caught in the city of Karachi, among its 30 million people, American-turncoat Adam Gadahn, the Al Qaeda Spokesman – that was a bum announcement. The beaded man was not caught.

ISRAEL COMES IN FIFTH PLACE OF NATIONS MOST FAVORED BY AMERICANS – GALLUP POLL.
12 March 2010, The San Francisco Sentinel
Israel ranked fifth among countries viewed most favorably by Americans, a new poll found.

Israel finished behind Canada, Britain, Germany and Japan in a February Gallup survey. Respondents were asked to provide their opinions on a list of 20 countries that also included the Palestinian Authority.

Some 67 percent answered that they have a favorable opinion of Israel, compared to 25 percent with an unfavorable opinion.

The telephone poll, an update of Gallup’s annual World Affairs survey, contacted 1,025 American adults last month. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percent.

Some 20 percent of respondents viewed the Palestinian Authority favorably, an improvement over last year’s total of 15 percent, placing it fourth from the bottom. Iran continued to rank last, with a 10 percent favorable rating.

Israel was the only country rated this year that is viewed more favorably by Republicans, with 80 percent of respondents identifying as Republicans viewing the country favorably, compared with 53 percent of Democrats.

Some 63 percent of those polled said their sympathies lie more with Israel than with the Palestinians — the highest level of support for Israel in 19 years.

About 15 percent said they side more with the Palestinians, while 23 percent said they favor both sides, neither side or have no opinion.

——————-

JERUSALEM AND WEST BANK TENSE AFTER DAY OF TURMOIL – At Least 12 Arrested And 15 Injured As Leftists and Palestinians Clash With Security Forces

12 March 2010

Israeli riot police clashed with Palestinians on Friday as they restricted access
to a site that is holy to both Muslims and Jews.

By Nir Hasson and Agencies
Haaretz

An uneasy calm returned to Jerusalem on Friday evening after a day of turmoil that saw Palestinians and leftwing protestors clash with security forces across the city.

In East Jerusalem’s Sheikh Jarrakh neighborhood police arrested eight leftwing activists demonstrating against Jewish construction there.

The detentions sparked fury among protesters, some of whom told Haaretz that the arrests were unlawful. Police has discriminated against the 100-odd leftists who took part in the march, at the same time allowing a rightwing counter-demonstration to continue unimpeded, they claimed.

Palestinian sources, meanwhile, reported that at least 15 Palestinians were injured in demonstrations in the West Bank villages of Bil’in, Na’alim and Dir Nizam, according to an Army Radio report.

Earlier in the day, four Palestinians were detained on suspicion of throwing stones and two officers were slightly injured in clashes in Jerusalem’s old city, a police spokesman said. At least one protester was treated by medics.

Israel had on Friday barred Palestinians from crossing from the West Bank into Israel and Jerusalem, and barred men under 50 from al-Aqsa mosque, the flashpoint holy site in the walled Old City.

As hundreds of youths streamed away from noon prayers at a mosque in the district of Ras al-Amud, men hurled stones at a car carrying Orthodox Jewish children. One rock smashed a side window, but there were no obvious injuries, Reuters reported.

Israel’s closure of the West bank, which authorities say is aimed at preventing a repeat of violent clashes last week in which dozens were injured, is set to last until Sunday.

In the Gaza Strip Islamists rallied supporters to protest at Israel’s policies in Jerusalem: “We will redeem al-Aqsa mosque with our souls and our blood,” the crowd chanted.

As demonstrators burned U.S. and Israeli flags, Khalil al-Hayya, a leader of the Hamas movement which rules Gaza, urged Hamas’s rival, West Bank-based Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, to reverse his decision to engage in “proximity talks” with Israel through U.S. mediators after a hiatus of 15 months.

“These direct and indirect negotiations provide a cover to the Zionist aggression against our people and our lands,” Hayya told the crowd. “Our angry people now are calling on the Palestinian negotiator to back off from these negotiations which encourage more settlements and the Judaisation of Jerusalem.”

——————
NETANYAHU CONVENES PROBE OF ROW WITH U.S. OVER EAST JERUSALEM
13 March 2010

By Barak Ravid and Natasha Mozgovaya
Haaretz

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday said he would establish a committee to probe Israel’s announcement this week that it would construct 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem, which has since led to a diplomatic crisis with the United States.

“Prime Minister Netanyahu decided to create a team to probe the events that unfolded during U.S. Vice President Biden’s visit to Israel,” read a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office.

“The team will formulate regulations to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents in the future,” the statement continued.

The U.S. has waged harsh criticism of Israel’s announcement on Tuesday about new settlement construction – a move that deeply embarrassed the visiting Biden and imperiled U.S. plans to launch indirect negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

The team will be headed by Director-General of the Prime Minister’s Office, Eyal Gabai, and will include members of the Interior Ministry, Housing Ministry and the Jerusalem Municipality.

Netanyahu earlier on Saturday said he was surprised by the U.S. administration’s public condemnation of his government over the building plan in East Jerusalem.

Sources in the Prime Minister’s Office said the crisis appeared to be orchestrated by the U.S. administration, as Netanyahu apologized to U.S. Vice President Biden and believed that the crisis was behind the two allies.

Netanyahu on Saturday evening convened a meeting of the forum of seven cabinet ministers to discuss the diplomatic tension with the Obama administration, and is expected to issue a formal statement about the matter at the start of Sunday’s weekly cabinet meeting.

The prime minister has repeatedly said he was unaware of the East Jerusalem construction plan.

Meanwhile, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Friday called Israel’s announcement “insulting” to the United States.

“I mean, it was just really a very unfortunate and difficult moment for everyone – the United States, our vice president who had gone to reassert our strong support for Israeli security – and I regret deeply that that occurred and made that known,” Clinton said during the CNN interview.

Clinton did not blame Netanyahu personally for the announcement, but she said, “He is the prime minister. Like the president or secretary of state…ultimately, you are responsible.”

Netanyahu spoke with Clinton over the weekend in what was later described to reporters as a 45-minute conversation in which the premier mostly remained quiet and listened to Clinton’s scathing criticism.

Also on Friday, Israeli envoy to the U.S. Michael Oren was summoned for a meeting with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg.

A senior U.S. official predicted “a dicey period here in the next couple days to a couple of weeks” as Palestinians demanded the reversal of the plan.

Netanyahu on Friday also called European officials including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian President Silvio Berlusconi to discuss the crisis with the U.S.

“This was an embarrassing incident,” Netanyahu told the European leaders. “I admit that and I am sorry, and I even apologized to Vice President Biden, but I was not in any way aware of the building plan ahead of the announcement.”

Netanyahu also discussed Israeli construction in East Jerusalem with the two leaders, saying, “This government’s policy regarding building in East Jerusalem is no different than that of any other government.”

He added, “In all negotiations conducted up until now, Israel has clarified for the Palestinians and the U.S. that these neighborhoods are part of the Jerusalem bloc that will remain in Israeli hands in any final-status agreement.”

Netanyahu also told Merkel and Berlusconi that regulations would be implemented to avoid such embarrassments in the future.

Earlier in the week, Netanyahu said he believed that despite the conflict with the U.S. over the plan for new housing in East Jerusalem, indirect talks with the Palestinians would continue as planned early next week.

U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell is expected in Israel on Tuesday and is set to meet with Netanyahu.

—————

SECRETARY CLINTON KEYNOTES 2010 AIPAC POLICY CONFERENCE.

11 March 2010

AIPAC Policy Conference 2010 is taking place March 21-23 in
Washington, D.C. More than 7,000 pro-Israel activists, including over
1,200 students from over 300 campuses and more than 175 elected
student government presidents, will be in Washington to express their
support for a strong relationship between the United States and our
steadfast democratic ally, Israel.

CONFIRMED PLENARY SPEAKERS

– Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

– Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

– Rt. Hon. Tony Blair, Quartet Representative and former Prime
Minister of the United Kingdom

– Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)

– Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)

– Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)

– Amb. Michael Oren, Israeli ambassador to the United States

————

In 2009 Vice President Joe Biden was the closing speaker of the AIPAC meeting. He was also listed originally as speaker for the 2010 meeting, but this week’s events in Israel may now have changed his mind.

—————–

Policy Conference 2009 Highlights
Get an idea of the amazing program that awaits you at the 2010 Policy Conference!

In the closing address of AIPAC Policy Conference 2009, Vice President Joe Biden affirmed the Obama administration’s commitment to a strong and enduring U.S.-Israel relationship. “The bond between Israel and the United States,” Biden said, “was forged by a shared interest in peace and security, by shared values that respect all faiths and peoples, by deep ties among our citizens and by a common commitment to democracy.”

Delegates also heard from Senator John Kerry, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli President Shimon Peres, and House and Senate leaders from both parties.

Turkey is an important State. It was born from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire after having chosen the loosing side in WW I. It went after that through a distilling process with the secular-military revolution of Ataturk, and was on its way to modernization. In the process Turks killed Armenians – that is well documented, and eventually Armenians said it was genocide. Those were clearly the childhood days of a more modern Turkey.

Growing up would have meant recognizing that in its evolution, Turkey has some darker shadows in its history basin – recognize it and stretch out a hand in peace. Instead Turkey preferred to continue without any relations to Armenia, while at the same time distancing itself from its Middle Eastern and Caucasian neighbors while courting a Europe that refuses to forgive a forgetful Turkey its past behaviour in relation to its Armenians, and then later its Kurds.

Turkey, in its ridiculous courting of Europe, has missed even the boat that was anchored in its doorsteps with the creation of five newly independent Central Asian States most of which being of Turkic ethnicity anyway. Turkey is torn now between Islam and secularism with an Islamic background – whatever they chose, it is going to be neither Christian Greek, nor Christian Armenian while the West – that is Europe and the US – are basically Christian and can be  counted upon as backing Armenia’s simple request to call the killings of a century ago an example of genocide like they are ready to call what went on in Kosovo, much more recently, a genocide against Muslims.

Turkey is important to the West as a bridge to the Islamic world of Asia including the Middle East and Central Asia, but the West can not tell its parliaments that for foreign policy reasons they are not allowed to call an old case of genocide by its name, or to tell their more liberal people that a cartoon or some other free expression that might offend someone’s feelings is not plain satire that they can express if it were their own leaders – secular or religious – be it even the Pope.

Turkey has now recalled its Ambassadors to the US and Sweden as sign of displeasure with Congress and Parliamentarian declarations in States that allow free expression via voting – specially as the direct consequence of it if it was genocide or plain heinous killing is not going to bring anyone to life back anyway.

We belabor this topic because our website has placed great hope in a reorienting Turkey on various issues – be these related to the place of Turkey on Kyoto Protocol and climate change, on oil and gas pipelines, or be it on the OIC, peace efforts in the Middle East, relations with Iran, Iraq etc. We are thus unhappy when Turkey steps back from responsibility that comes with maturity.  Why not just tell Armenia – let’s sign a peace accord based on mutual understanding that what has happened then, call it what you want, and we are sorry for it, will never happen again. The whole world would then applaud. Look at Jews and Germans – it was worse – but they talk and do not walk out on each other.

Despite Pundits, Netanyahu Wants Peace – writes Professor Efraim Inbar.

BESA Center Perspectives Papers No. 101, March 11, 2010
 http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/perspectiv…

EXECUTIVE SUMMERY: Israelis, as well as the current Netanyahu government, deeply desire peace. Netanyahu expressed a willingness to reach a territorial compromise through a two-state solution. Netanyahu’s readiness to compromise has been met by continued resistance from the Palestinians, who have displayed a lack of political pragmatism that is a prerequisite for reaching a compromise.  It is wrong to blame Netanyahu for the current political impasse, as it is the Palestinians who have displayed inflexibility in their approach to peace.

Israel’s prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, wants peace and is interested in negotiations with the Palestinians. The Netanyahu government enjoys popular support because a large majority of Israelis agree with this view. All polls show that Israelis deeply desire peace and this issue influences their voting behavior. Indeed, every Israeli government must demonstrate to the electorate its seriousness in the peace process in order to be reelected. Moreover, preserving American support for Israel requires showing seriousness in the pursuit of peace.

True, what is required to convince Israelis about their government’s determination to pursue peace is not always enough to impress the outside world. This gap is the source of much of the criticism leveled against Israel. But the critical and/or hostile circles, which are heavily influenced by misguided notions propagated by the discredited Israeli left and Palestinian propaganda, are not in sync with regional realities and entertain unrealistic expectations.

In his June 2009 speech at the BESA Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University, Netanyahu successfully redefined the Israeli consensus and became a mainstream political leader. Despite the Jews’ ancient claim to their historical homeland, the Land of Israel, Netanyahu expressed a willingness to reach territorial compromise – a two-state solution – in order to satisfy the national needs of the Palestinians.

Netanyahu’s acceptance of a Palestinian state has been conditional, however. His insistence on a demilitarized state reflects ingrained Israeli fears of their dangerous neighbors. Netanyahu also demanded the long overdue recognition of Israel as the Jewish nation-state. The Palestinians still have to reciprocate the recognition of “Palestinian legitimate rights” of 1978 by Menachem Begin. In line with Israeli consensus, Netanyahu insisted on Jerusalem remaining the undivided capital of the Jewish state.

Over 70 percent of Israelis agreed with Netanyahu’s address – quite an achievement for any Israeli prime minister. The Israeli consensus revolves around the willingness to repartition the Land of Israel. There is enormous skepticism about the Palestinians’ ability to reach an historic compromise with the Zionist movement and subsequently implement the agreement. Israelis are most concerned about Palestinian compliance with Israel’s security requirements. Israelis want defensible borders, understanding that the peace process is predicated upon a strong Israel.

Most of the hawkish faction within Netanyahu’s Likud party feels comfortable with Netanyahu’s positions. This faction even supported the ten-month partial freeze on new housing construction in Judea and Samaria that was announced on November 25, 2009 – an unprecedented Israeli concession. Netanyahu’s government is strongly enforcing the moratorium.

Netanyahu believes that progress on the road to peace can only be achieved by a slow process of institution-building and economic growth beginning from the bottom-up. Indeed, his government has done its best to facilitate economic growth in the PA by removing dozens of roadblocks in the West Bank, thereby putting the lives of Jews at risk, and by supporting international and Palestinian economic activity. Moreover, the Israeli prime minister declared at every opportunity his willingness to enter into unconditional talks with the PA. He has even accepted proximity talks despite Israel’s traditional insistence on direct talks.

So far, those advocating great Israeli territorial concessions to the Palestinians in order to bring peace have been proven wrong. Two Israeli prime ministers offered to cede virtually all of the disputed territories. The offers of Ehud Barak and Ehud Olmert were respectively rejected by Yasser Arafat in 2000 and ignored by his successor, Mahmoud Abbas, in 2008. Moreover, in 2000 the Palestinians launched a campaign of terror and recently they have threatened to renew it. Similarly, after the Sharon government unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and dismantled all settlements in 2005, the Gaza Strip was converted into a launching pad for intensified missile attacks.

The Palestinians seem to have a great territorial appetite. Historically, they have displayed a lack of political pragmatism that is a prerequisite for reaching a compromise. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have no Ben-Gurion-type leaders capable of making difficult decisions. The contrast to Israeli leadership is striking, particularly when history shows that Ben-Gurion was ready to accept the convoluted 1947 partition borders and a Jewish state without Jerusalem.

Blaming Netanyahu for the current impasse assumes that the insatiable Palestinians must be placated at the expense of vital Israeli security interests, such as demilitarization of the West Bank and maintaining Israeli control over the Jordan Valley and Greater Jerusalem. Ascribing responsibility to Netanyahu for the impasse with the Palestinians also wrongly assumes that the Palestinians have displayed flexibility in their approach to Israel. Yet it is the Palestinians who insist on preconditions for resuming the talks. Even Netanyahu’s decision for the ten-month freeze on building in the settlements was rejected by the PLO.

As a matter of fact, it is the Palestinians that are dragging their feet in the peace negotiations. Only after heavy American pressure did the West Bank leadership agree to negotiate with Israel, albeit “proximity talks,” refusing to sit in the same room with the Israeli interlocutors. Mahmoud Abbas in his May 2009 Washington Post interview emphasized that he is in no hurry to negotiate with Israel and that he expects the Americans to force Israel to accept the Palestinian conditions. His prime minister, Salam Fayyad, announced a plan to unilaterally establish a Palestinian state in two years instead of a state emerging from negotiations with Israel. Both “moderate” leaders honor suicide bombers as martyrs and provide their families with state pensions. They allow the PA-controlled media, education system and mosques to continue to promote rabid anti-Semitism. Both reject recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

Noteworthy, the PA hardly represents all Palestinians as Gaza is ruled by Hamas and is partly discredited by corruption and ineptitude. Yet, all Palestinians are united by the belief that Israel is the source for all their troubles. Palestinian society in Gaza and in the West Bank is under the spell of Hamas, which has not accepted Israel’s right to exist. Consequently, the Palestinians are not moving in the direction of compromise and reconciliation.

Netanyahu’s government probably has no illusions about the ability of the Palestinians to reach an agreement with Israel and implement it in the near future, but Netanyahu keeps the option of negotiations open. In contrast, the Palestinians’ goal is to extract Israeli concessions without negotiations, hoping that Washington and/or the international community will pressure Israel into accepting Palestinian demands.

Efraim Inbar is professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University and director of the Begin-Sadat (BESA) Center for Strategic Studies. This article is a revised version of a piece published in Bitterlemons on March 8, 2010.

nbsp;http://peacenow.org supports Iran sanctions that can work.

Congress is now considering two pieces of legislation that will limit the Iranian regime’s ability to crack down on freedom of speech within Iran:

HR 4301 – the Iran Digital Enhancement Act (IDEA) – would help give the Iranian people the high-tech tools they need to communicate online. It would also make it harder for the Iranian government to monitor or block Internet communications.

HR 4303 – the Stand with the Iranian People Act (SWIPA) – would punish corporations that help the Iranian government stifle free speech. It would also allow American non-profits to provide humanitarian aid within Iran. And it would bar Iranian officials who have abused the human rights of the Iranian public from entering the United States.

Empowering the Iranian people must be a vital part of the American strategy to deal with the threat posed by Iran to Israel and to key American national security interests.

Now is the time for action.

What happens in Iran can have broad ramifications for Israel and for the future of the Arab-Israeli peace process.

Dear DHFC Supporter,

He warned us!

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama said he wouldn’t quit trying to thrust his radical transformation of America down your throat. Now he’s arrogantly fighting for a health care plan that you don’t want any part of, despite the loud-and-clear message from the voters in New Jersey, Virginia, and most of all Massachusetts, who have rejected his “transformation.”

But a genuine fight is taking place, and I’m proud to say that the Freedom Center is leading the charge! The Freedom Center has published and distributed more than 200,000 copies of two booklets designed to expose Obama and the radical left and empower Tea Party activists as they take to the streets.

The first booklet, Obama’s Rules for Revolution, reveals the links of radicalism from Saul Alinsky right up to today’s White House. Thanks in part to your steadfast support, Obama’s Rules is in the hands of 200,000 Americans! And the demand is still high! And our second booklet, The Art of Political War for Tea Parties, has become a basic text for men and women across the nation who have had enough and are ready to take to the streets to stop Obama’s radical agenda!

Both booklets are flying off the Center’s bookshelves. We need to produce and distribute more. It is precisely because you know who I am are and what the Freedom Center has done to defend our country and its traditions that I now ask you to make a contribution of $25, $50, $100 or more to the Freedom Center to help us print and distribute another 250,000 copies of these booklets.

The real hope on America’s horizon is not in the rhetoric of the President’s empty promises. It’s in the Tea Parties, the demonstrations in Washington, and the recent elections in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia. Your countrymen are learning all about Obama and the radical leftist machine, knowledge you’ve had for a long time by virtue of working beside me at the Freedom Center.

I have said it many times, the Freedom Center is not just another think tank; it is a battle tank. But we can only do this with your help. You have been the backbone of the Center, one of our most loyal supporters. Please make a tax deductible contribution to the Freedom Center that will allow us to complete the mission we have undertaken.

America stands at the precipice. Let’s act together to save our country, our liberty and our future by bringing it back from the brink. Thank you so much for helping me in the past, and I hope you are standing with me still.

Sincerely,

David Horowitz
President & Founder

P.S. I don’t have to tell you that the Freedom Center has been in the forefront of the fight against the left for the last 20 years. Now that it is Paul Revere time in America, we will be even more aggressive in telling it like it is, more active in warning our countrymen what they face, more determined in stopping the left’s advance. As we go to war with the leftists in the Obama administration, I ask you to reenlist one more time to serve with us. We will fight the battles, but we need you to pass the ammunition.

The David Horowitz Freedom Center
P.O. Box 55089
Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964
www.frontpagemag.com

from:    Ignacio Montero <im638@nyu.edu>

date :    Mon, Mar 1, 2010 a

Event: Middle East Lecture Series MONDAY, Mar. 8 with Daniel L. Byman

U.S. and Middle East Policy Lecture Series.

Mondays at 12:30pm at NYU Wagner

Monday, March 8 for – spring semester

Middle East and U.S. Strategy lecture series with Daniel L. Byman, Director, Center for Peace and Security Studies, Georgetown University; and Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Brookings Institution.

Date: Monday, March 8 / 12:30-1:30pm
Location: NYU Wagner, Puck Building
295 Lafayette Street, Rudin Family Forum, 2nd floor
……………………………………………………….

Israeli Counterterrorism and its Implications for the United States
Daniel L. Byman, Director, Center for Peace and Security Studies, Georgetown
University; and Senior Fellow, Saban Center for Middle East Policy,
Brookings Institution

Dr. Byman has written widely on a range of topics related to terrorism,
international security, and the Middle East. In this talk, Dr. Byman will
examine Israel’s counterterrorism efforts against Fatah, Hamas, Hezballah,
and other groups to draw lessons about counterterrorism for Israel and other
countries.

For the last decade, the Middle East has occupied a place of primacy in
debates over U.S. global aims and strategies. NYU Wagner will sponsor a
year-long lecture series that will bring to campus original thinkers from
academics, research centers and government.

RSVP for this event and others in the series (see below) by clicking on the
following link http://wagner.nyu.edu/events/

—————–

Monday, March 22 / 12:30-1:30pm
A Strategy of Tactics: Countintsurgency and the American Army
…with Colonel Gian Gentile, Professor, Department of History, U.S.
Military Academy

Monday, March 29 / 12:30pm – 1:30pm
The Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations
…with Lee Smith, Visiting Fellow, The Hudson Institute; and Middle East
correspondent, The Weekly Standard

Monday, April 5 / 12:30pm – 1:30pm
Why is Muslim Extremism Attractive? And How Do We Uproot It?
…with Ed Husain, co-director of the Quilliam Foundation, and author of The
Islamist

–
Robert F. Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
New York University
295 Lafayette Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10012
e:  yvette.white at nyu.edu
t: 212.992.9884
 http://wagner.nyu.edu

Uri Avnery

27.2.10

White Lie

THIS COMING Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Israel will consider an application by a group of Israeli citizens to compel the Interior Ministry to register them as belonging to the “Israeli nation”.

Odd? Indeed.

The Israeli Interior Ministry recognizes 126 nations, but not the Israeli nation. An Israeli citizen can be registered as belonging to the Assyrian, the Tatar or the Circassian nation. But the Israeli nation? Sorry, no such thing.
According to the official doctrine, the State of Israel cannot recognize an “Israeli” nation because it is the state of the “Jewish” nation. In other words, it belongs to the Jews of Brooklyn, Budapest and Buenos Aires, even though these consider themselves as belonging to the American, Hungarian or Argentine nations.
Messy? Indeed.

THIS MESS started 113 years ago, when the Viennese Journalist Theodor Herzl wrote his book “The State of the Jews”. (That’s the true translation. The generally used name “The Jewish State” is false and means something else.) For this purpose he had to perform an acrobatic exercise. One can say that he used a white lie.

Modern Zionism was born as a direct response to modern anti-Semitism. Not by accident, the term “Zionismus” came into being some 20 years after the term “Antisemitismus” was invented in Germany. They are twins.
In Europe and the Americas another modern term was flourishing: Nationalism. Peoples which had been living together for centuries under dynasties of Emperors and Kings wanted to belong to nation-states of their own. In Argentina, the USA, France and other countries, “national” revolutions took place. The idea infected almost all peoples, big, small and tiny, from Peru to Lithuania, from Colombia to Serbia. They felt a need to belong to the place and the people where they lived and died.

All these national movements were necessarily anti-Semitic, some more, some less, because the very existence of the Jewish Diaspora ran counter to their basic perceptions. A Diaspora without a homeland, dispersed over dozens of countries, could not be reconciled with the idea of a homeland-rooted nation seeking uniformity.
Herzl understood that the new reality was inherently dangerous for the Jews. In the beginning he cherished the idea of complete assimilation: all the Jews would be baptized and disappear in the new nations. As a professional writer for the theater, he even devised the scenario: all Viennese Jews would march together to St. Stephen’s cathedral and be baptized en masse.

When he realized that this scenario was a bit far-fetched, Herzl passed from the idea of individual assimilation to what may be called collective assimilation: if there is no place for the Jews in the new nations, then they should define themselves as a nation like all the others, rooted in a homeland of their own and living in a state of their own. This idea was called Zionism.

BUT THERE was a problem: a Jewish nation did not exist. The Jews were not a nation but a religious-ethnic community.

A nation exists on one level of human society, a religious-ethnic community on another. A “nation” is an entity living together in one country with a common political will. A “community” is a religious entity based on a common faith, which can live in different countries. A German, for example, can be Catholic or Protestant; a Catholic can be German or French.
These two types of entity have two different means of survival, much as different species in nature. When a lion is in danger, it fights, it attacks. For that purpose, nature has equipped it with teeth and claws. When a gazelle is in danger, it runs. Nature has given it quick legs. Every method is good, if it is effective. (If it were not effective, the species would not have survived to this day.)

When a nation is in danger, it stands and fights. When a religious community is in danger, it moves elsewhere. The Jews, more than any others, have perfected the art of escape. Even after the horrors of the Holocaust, the Jewish Diaspora has survived and now, two generations later, it is again flourishing.

IN ORDER to invent a Jewish nation, Herzl had to ignore this difference. He pretended that the Jewish ethnic-religious community was also a Jewish nation. In other words: contrary to all other peoples, the Jews were both a nation and a religious community; as far as Jews were concerned, the two were the same. The nation was a religion, the religion was a nation.

This was the “white lie”. There was no other way: without it, Zionism could not have come into being. The new movement took the Star of David from the synagogue, the candlestick from the Temple, the blue-and-white flag from the prayer shawl. The holy land became a homeland. Zionism filled the religious symbols with secular, national content.
The first to detect the falsification were the Orthodox Rabbis. Almost all of them damned Herzl and his Zionism in no uncertain terms. The most extreme was the Rabbi of Lubavitch, who accused Herzl of destroying Judaism. The Jews, he wrote, are united by their adherence to God’s commandments. Doctor Herzl wants to supplant this God-given bond with secular nationalism.

When Herzl originated the Zionist idea, he did not intend to found the “State of the Jews” in Palestine, but in Argentina. Even when writing his book, he devoted to the country only a few lines, under the headline “Palestine or Argentina?” However, the movement he created compelled him to divert his endeavors to the Land of Israel, and so the state came into being here.
When the State of Israel was founded and the Zionist dream realized, there was no further need for the “white lie”. After the building was finished, the scaffolding should have been removed. A real Israeli nation had come into being, there was no further need for an imaginary one.

THESE DAYS Israel’s largest newspaper, Yediot Aharonot, is running a TV ad showing selected past issues. The day the State of Israel was founded, the giant headline announced: “Hebrew State!”

“Hebrew”, not “Jewish”. And not by accident: at that time, the term “Jewish state” sounded decidedly strange. In the preceding years, people in this country had got used to making a clear distinction between “Jewish” and “Hebrew”, between matters that belonged to the Diaspora and those belonging to this country: Jewish Diaspora, Jewish language (Yiddish), Jewish Stetl, Jewish religion, Jewish tradition – but Hebrew language, Hebrew agriculture, Hebrew industries, Hebrew underground organizations, Hebrew policemen.

If so, why do the words “Jewish state” appear in our Declaration of Independence? There was a simple reason for that: the UN had adopted a resolution to partition the country between an “Arab state” and a “Jewish state”. That was the legal basis of the new state. The declaration, which was drafted in haste, said therefore that we were establishing “the Jewish state (according to the UN resolution), namely the State of Israel”.

The building was finished, but the scaffolding was not taken down. On the contrary: it became the most important part of the building and dominates its facade.

LIKE MOST of us at the time, David Ben-Gurion believed that Zionism had supplanted religion and that religion had become redundant. He was quite sure that it would shrivel and disappear by itself in the new secular state. He decided that we could afford to dispense with the military service of Yeshiva bochers (Talmud school students), believing that their number would dwindle from a few hundred to almost none. The same thought caused him to allow religious schools to continue in existence. Like Herzl, who promised to “keep our Rabbis in the synagogues and our army officers in the barracks”, Ben-Gurion was certain that the state would be entirely secular.

When Herzl wrote of the “state of the Jews” he did not dream that the Jewish Diaspora would continue to exist. In his view, only the citizens of the new state would henceforth be called “Jews”, all other Jews in the world would assimilate in their various nations and disappear from view.

BUT THE “white lie” of Herzl had results he did not dream of, as did the compromises of Ben-Gurion. Religion did not wither away in Israel, but on the contrary: it is gaining control of the state. The government of Israel does not speak of the nation-state of the Israelis who live here, but of the “nation-state of the Jews” – a state that belongs to the Jews all over the world, most of whom belong to other nations.

The religious schools are eating up the general education system and are going to overpower it, if we don’t become aware of the danger and assert our Israeli essence. Voting rights are about to be accorded to Israelis residing abroad, and this is a step towards giving the vote to all Jews around the world. And, most important: the ugly weeds growing in the national-religious field – the fanatical settlers – are pushing the state in a direction that may lead to its destruction.

TO SAFEGUARD the future of Israel one has to start by removing the scaffolding from the building. In other words: burying the “white lie” of religion-equals-nation. The Israeli nation has to be recognized as the basis of the state.
If this principle is accepted, what will the future shape of Israel – within the Green Line – be like?
There are two possible models, and many variations between them.

Model A: the multi-national one. Almost all the citizens of Israel belong to one of two nations: the majority belongs to the Hebrew nation and a minority to the Palestinian-Arab nation. Each nation will enjoy autonomy in certain areas, such as culture, education and religion. Autonomy will not be territorial, but cultural (as Vladimir Ze’ev Jabotinsky proposed a hundred years ago for Czarist Russia). All will be united by Israeli citizenship and loyalty to the state. The inbuilt discrimination of the Arab minority will become a thing of the past, as well as the “demographic demon”.

Model B: the American one. The American nation is composed of all US citizens, and all US citizens constitute the American nation. An immigrant from Jamaica who acquires US citizenship automatically becomes a member of the American nation, an heir to George Washington and Abe Lincoln. All learn at school the same core program and the same history.

Which of the two models is preferable? In my view, Model B is much better. But it would depend on a dialogue between the Hebrew majority and the Arab minority. In the end, the Arab citizens will have to decide whether they prefer the status of equal partners in a general Israeli nation, or the status of a recognized, autonomous national minority in a state that acknowledges and cherishes their separate culture, side by side with the culture of the majority.

In four days, the Supreme Court will decide whether it is prepared to take the first step in this historic march.

Green Reconstruction: UNIFIL Plants Trees in Southern Lebanon

The 2006 Lebanon War caused massive ecological damages, especially in the country’s Southern region: more than one thousand hectare of forests and olive groves have been destroyed by bomb explosions and bush fires—according to a study published in May 2007 by the Association for Forests, Development and Conservation (AFDC). The economic losses of this destruction hit especially farmers and the rural population in South Lebanon.

In January 2010, the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) started an extensive reforestation project in the region around the village Sh’huur. Within about three months, the international troops want to plant 2 300 trees. The project is headed by the “Green Sh’huur” Committee, a local initiative consisting of community residents and their mayor. About 4 000 trees have already been planted by the initiative. At the end of the project the number is supposed to reach a total of 10 452 trees—a symbolic number that represents the total surface area of Lebanon (10 452 km2). UNIFIL also maintains two other reforestation projects in the Southern Lebanese towns of Khiam and Rachaya al-Foukhar.

The projects have several objectives: they prevent further loss of biodiversity in the region, provide natural spaces for recreation and leisure, and foster the economic development in the region by increasing its attractiveness for tourists. Another central objective of the initiative is to strengthen local people’s awareness for environmental issues.

UNIFIL has been based in Lebanon since 1978. It guarantees that there are no illegal weapons between the Litani River and the Blue Line, a zone that separates Lebanese and Israeli armed forces. Engaging Blue Helmets in reforestation projects is nothing unusual: they have already planted more than 30 000 saplings around the world, among others in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Georgia, and Timor-Leste. (Kerstin Fritzsche)

For more information, please visit: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?Ne…

—————–

But we have a problem with the above since back in 2006, when I was asking Mr. Ahmad Fawzi  who took over the Spokesperson’s job at the UN in order to give his one-sided view to the UN accredited Press of what was happening in the Israel-Lebanon and its Hezbollah war.

While the damage in Lebanon was caused by warfare, the damage on the Israeli side was caused by indiscriminate shelling with the unsophisticated rockets that had really no targets. In the process old growth forests in the Galilee were seriously damaged. I was asking as a point of information, to hear from him also on these damages, but he had no interest to hear such questions that went against his grain. Could not the UNIFIL officers realize now that impartiality calls for them doing reforestation work on both sides of the border?

From Eye on the UN
February 22, 2010
Contact:
 list at eyeontheun.org

What the IAEA Knew:  The U.N. agency charged with stopping nuclear proliferation enabled it.

This article, by Anne Bayefsky, originally appeared in Forbes.com.

The most important thing gleaned from the report by the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) circulated on Feb. 18, which states that Iran may indeed be bent on developing a nuclear bomb, is not new information about Iran. It is that for years the United Nations apparatus lied about what they knew and actively stood in the way of efforts to prevent the world’s most dangerous regime from acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapon.

The “confidential” report leaked to every news agency on the planet, is quoted as stating that on the basis of “extensive” and “credible” information the IAEA now has “concerns about the possible existence in Iran of … current undisclosed activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile,” and “concerns about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear program.”

While Obama administration officials have attempted to spin the first report of IAEA chief Yukiya Amano, who took over last December, as a U.N. achievement, the implications of the evident U.N. deceit cannot be overstated. After all, the organization has a choke hold on global imaginations. In 2005 the Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the IAEA and its then Director General Mohammed ElBaradei “for their efforts to prevent nuclear energy from being used for military purposes.” It is now clear that this occurred at the very same time that ElBaradei was engaged in what may well prove to be the most lethal cover-up in human history.

For almost a decade, the IAEA and its director general stalled for time on behalf of Iran, with reports feigning ignorance of Iranian designs while leaving an escape hatch should the IAEA’s disguise as a non-proliferation agency be blown. In February 2006 ElBaradei reported: “Although the Agency has not seen any diversion of nuclear material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the Agency is not at this point in time in a position to conclude that there are no undeclared nuclear materials or activities in Iran. The process of drawing such a conclusion … is a time consuming process.”

In August 2006 ElBaradei reported: “the Agency remains unable to make further progress in its efforts to verify the correctness and completeness of Iran’s declarations with a view to confirming the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme.” In January 2007, in the midst of growing calls for sanctions, ElBaradei suggested a “time-out.” In July 2007 ElBaradei concocted a deliberately nebulous deal between the IAEA and Iran “on the modality for resolving the remaining outstanding issues.” In September 2007, with stiffer sanctions on the horizon, ElBaradei again called for a “time-out.” In January 2008 the IAEA reported: “ElBaradei has repeatedly noted that … the IAEA has not seen any diversion of material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.”p>

And on and on the reports and the carefully timed interviews went. The organization charged with stopping nuclear proliferation enabled it. This latest “revelation” should, therefore, be a shot heard round the world. Or at the very least, in the halls of Congress, where every year at least 5 billion American taxpayer dollars are directed to the United Nations in cash or in kind.

Last week’s report did not see the light of day because the U.N. has turned over a significant new leaf. Rather, this is a desperate attempt by Amano to save the organization’s hide. It is an indication that Iran’s breakout as a nuclear power is so close at hand that the “watchdog” agency can no longer keep a lid on it.

The development does cast a new light, however, on ElBaradei’s assessment of President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize. Over the course of his presidency, Obama has repeatedly taken the heat off Iran: muting criticism over the stolen elections, minimizing response to human rights violations, sidelining the plight of Iran’s American hostages and treading water on sanctions for over a year. One particularly treacherous strategy has been to equate the urgency of nuclear disarmament–including by the United States–with nuclear non-proliferation. This inevitably delays progress on the latter. In the name of some perverse concept of fairness, the peril of a nuclear-armed United States and like-minded democracies is set off against the craving of non-democratic developing states to be equally armed. ElBaradei agreed with this strategy–as did the Nobel Committee.

Fellow honoree ElBaradei was therefore “absolutely delighted” at Obama’s award. Perceiving the Obama-ElBaradei approach to have been applauded once again, he told reporters: “I could not have thought of any other person today that is more deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize than Barack Obama … I think the [Nobel] committee understood fully, as they have done in 2005, that we really need to address the number one security threat we face in the world–which is to get rid of these inhumane weapons. And Obama has … managed to put nuclear disarmament on the top of the international agenda … That is something I think the committee, by giving him the prize today, has applauded and said ‘you are doing the right thing; keep doing what you are doing.’ Exactly the same message that they have sent to the IAEA in 2005 … and myself.”

Two Nobel Peace Prizes later, Iran is much closer to acquiring nuclear weapons and ElBaradei’s days as U.N. proliferator-in-chief may not quite be over. On Friday, Feb. 19, he returned to his native Egypt and declared his interest in replacing President Hosni Mubarak in next year’s elections. If he were to succeed, he will undoubtedly follow an Iranian bomb with a dash to achieve an Egyptian one, with the tried-and-true U.N. formula of non-discrimination and peace.
————————
For more United Nations coverage see www.EYEontheUN.org.

EYEontheUN monitors the UN direct from UN Headquarters in New York. EYEontheUN brings to light the real UN record on the key threats to democracy, human rights, and peace and security in our time.

ISRAEL
Israel Talks Solar With Egypt, Biofuel With Jordan
 http://planetark.org/wen/56819

JORDAN
Jordan Enlists Army In Climate Fight
 http://planetark.org/wen/56814

The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies
mourns the passing of former U.S. Secretary of State

General Alexander M. Haig Jr.

a founding member of the International Advisory Board

of the BESA Center

We salute his unyielding friendship for the State of Israel and his wise counsel to the BESA Center.

www.besacenter.org

Dr. ElBaradei was born in Cairo, Egypt, in 1942, son of the late Mostafa ElBaradei, a lawyer and former President of the Egyptian Bar Association. His father often found himself at odds with the regime of Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser. ElBaradei’s father was also a supporter of democratic rights in Egypt, supporting a free press and a legal system that was independent.

The son gained a Bachelor’s degree in Law in 1962 at the University of Cairo, and a Doctorate in International Law at the New York University School of Law in 1974. He began his career in the Egyptian Diplomatic Service in 1964, serving on two occasions in the Permanent Missions of Egypt to the United Nations in New York and Geneva, in charge of political, legal and arms control issues. From 1974 to 1978 he was a special assistant to the Foreign Minister of Egypt.

In 1980 he left the Egyptian Diplomatic Service for work at the United Nations, and became a senior fellow in charge of the International Law Program at the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR). From 1981 to 1987 he was also an Adjunct Professor of International Law at the New York University School of Law.

From 1984, Dr. ElBaradei has moved to a substantial senior staff member position of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Secretariat, in Vienna, holding a number of high-level policy positions, including Agency’s Legal Adviser and subsequently Assistant Director General for External Relations under  former Swedish Foreign Minister Hans Blix as Director General. The IAEA was set up by suggestions in 1953 from U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower as the world´s sleepy “Atoms for Peace” organization in 1957. It was set up as a UN affiliate that eventually had to become the UN watchdog on nuclear proliferation matters. The first Director General was American, W. Sterling Cole, 1957–1961 – followed by two Swedes 1961-1997 as nuclear issues meant arbitrating between the US ans the Soviet Union.

ElBaradei under UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali (1992-1996), another Egyptian, and it was assumed that this is an opening to what the UN called the Third World, he was then appointed to the office of the Director General of the IAEA effective 1 December 1997, and reappointed to a third term in September 2005 under UNSG Kofi Annan (1997-2006). In November 2009 he retired from that position after three terms of four years, and was succeeded by the Japanese Yukiya Amano defeating Abdul Samad Minty of South Africa and Luis E. Echávarri? of Spain.

Elbaradei’s tenure has been marked by high profile non-proliferation issues including the inspections in Iraq preceding the March 2003 invasion and tensions over the nuclear program of Iran – one could say that a main issue of the IAEA in his time was the ongoing activities to create an Islamic bomb.

In 2005, The United States initially voiced opposition to his election to a third four-year term. In a May 2005 interview with the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Lawrence Wilkerson, the chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, charged former Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John Bolton with an underhanded campaign to unseat ElBaradei. “Mr. Bolton overstepped his bounds in his moves and gyrations to try to keep [ElBaradei] from being reappointed as [IAEA] head,” Wilkerson said. The Washington Post reported in December 2004 that the Bush administration had intercepted dozens of ElBaradei’s phone calls with Iranian diplomats and was scrutinizing them for evidence they could use to force him out. IAEA spokesman Mark Gwozdecky said the agency worked on “the assumption that one or more entities may be listening to our conversations”. “It’s not how we would prefer to work, but it is the reality. At the end of the day, we have nothing to hide,” he said. Iran responded to the Washington Post reports by accusing the United States of violating international law in intercepting the communications. We guesthe deeds were illegal but iran’s actions were worse. What about ElBaradei?

The United States was the only country to oppose ElBaradei’s reappointment and eventually failed to win enough support from other countries to oust ElBaradei. On 9 June 2005, after a meeting between US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and ElBaradei, the United States dropped its objections. Among countries that supported ElBaradei were China, Russia, Germany and France. China praised his leadership and objectivity and supported him for doing “substantial fruitful work, which has maintained the agency’s role and credit in international non-proliferation and promoted the development of peaceful use of nuclear energy.”  France, Germany, and some developing countries, have made clear their support for ElBaradei as well, Russia issued a strong statement in favor of re-electing him as soon as possible, and ElBaradei was unanimously re-appointed by the IAEA Board on 13 June 2005. In 2008 ElBaradei said he would not be seeking a fourth term as Director General. One could say that the squirmish with the US because of the US false alegation regarding the Iraqi bomb, had much to do with El Baradei and the IAEA under his leadership, getting the Nobel Prize for Peace. It seems that this was rather a reaction to US high-handedness. Whatever – not much love was lost between the US last two Administrations and ElBaradei.

The current Board members of the IAEA are: Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, China, Cuba, Denmark, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Japan, Kenya, the Republic of Korea (South Korea), Malaysia, Mongolia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, Peru, Romania, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the UK, and the USA, Uruguay, and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (Venezuela) 2009–2010).

ElBaradei’s two children live and work in London.

ElBaradei’s name has been circulated recently by opposition groups as a possible candidate to succeed President Hosny Mubarak to Egypt’s highest executive position. ElBaradei demanded that certain conditions have to be met to ensure fair elections accompanied by changes to the constitution that will allow more freedom for independent candidates before he would actually consider running for presidency. Several opposition groups and parties have endorsed him, considering him a neutral figure who could transition the country to greater democracy.

—————-

Mr. Ahmad Fawzi, currently News and Media Division Director under the UN USG for Communications and Public Information, has held this position for quite a while and was thus able to shape also the roster of who is allowed to participate at UN Press conferences.

His activities at the UN Headquarters in New York started with his  serving as Deputy Spokesman for UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali from 1992 through 1996 or during the whole time that Mr. Boutros-Ghali held that job.It was thus Mr. Butros Ghali who brought him to the Headquarters.

Born in Cairo on 28 March 1948, Mr. Fawzi has a Bachelor of Arts degree in English literature and Language from Cairo University. He pursued post- graduate studies at the Newhouse School of Communications of Syracuse University, New York.

Before joining the United Nations, he worked for many years in broadcast journalism, as a news editor, reporter and regional news operations manager. Much of his work was in the Middle East and much of it with Reuters. We assume that his contacts with Mr. Boutros-Ghali started in the Middle East and Egypt – perhaps back to interviews at time Mr. Boutros Ghali was part of the Government of Egypt.

After the Boutros-Ghali years, during the Kofi Annan Years at the UN, and until now, Mr. Fawzi continued to work with the UN Department of Public Information and had various stints like his being spokesman for Lakhdar Brahimi the UN special envoy to Iraq.

—————

Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Born the 14 November 1922 in Cairo (Egypt) into a most distinguished Coptic Christian family, Mr Boutros-Ghali received a bachelor’s degree from Cairo University (1946) and a Ph.D. in international law from the University of Paris (1949). He then held a professorship at Cairo University and lectured in international law and international affairs at various universities and institutes in the United States, Europe, India, the Middle East.

From 1960 to about 1975, Boutros-Ghali founded, edited, and wrote for Al-Ahram Iqtisadi, where his beat was regional and international law, diplomacy and political science. He was a member of Parliament in Egypt, and helped negotiate the 1978 Camp David accords, bringing peace between Egypt and Israel. He worked with President Sadat’s foreign service, was known to oppose originally Sadat’s trip to Jerusalem but later was involved in furthering the succes of that mission. He was sort of an odd man in Cairo. His wife – the former Leia Maria Nadler was Jewish.

Hosni Mubarak was appointed Vice President in 1975, and assumed the presidency on 14 October 1981, following the assassination of President Anwar el-Sadat. He really was not interested in keeping Mr. Boutros Ghali in Egypt, and was quite happy to volunteer his services to the UN when that opportunity arose. So he was instrumental in getting Mr. Boutros-Ghali elected UN Secretary- General in 1992 where he lasted till 1996.

Looking back – Mr. Boutros Ghali was the former Secretary-General of the United Nations (1992-1996) and Secretary-General of the International Organization of Francophonie (1997-2002). Currently he is president of the National Council of Human Rights of Egypt, he also chairs the International Panel on Democracy and Development (IPDD), set up by UNESCO in 1998. He is also a member of the Support Committee of the Russell Tribunal on Palestine. From his work at the UN – really nothing positive to be remembered. Basically, our present posting argues that his two appointments – those he made possible to Messrs. ElBaradei and Fawzi – perhapse were his longest lasting legacies he left behind at the UN. Also, some other people he introduced to the UN, including members of his wife’s family, turned up as reasons for the UN blunder that was discovered, under his successor’s time at the UN helm, in what becanme the oil-for-food scandal. The Paul Volker investigation of that affair has left stained both named UNSGs.

—————-

Having introduced the actors – let us now look at the latest news:

Hosni Mubarak is now in his 30th year of his Presidency – that is he is ending his 5-th consecutive six year term. There will be elections, probably in a year – in 2011, but there are no candidates because of the way Mubarak kept out of site any budding opposition. Even what was supposed to be the opening for democratization – the 2005 constitutional amendment that established multi-candidate presidential elections in Egypt came with rules designed to ensure that no independents could easily enter  the race, helping to stifle challenges to Mr. Mubarak’s rule. In fact, even discussing who would replace Hosni Mubaraq was not tolerated. The feeling is that Hosni Mubaraq has full intent to stay on and then pass the mantle to his son – Gamal Mubarak – we think named so after Gamal Nasser – the previous big Chief that run Egypt as if it were still in  the Pharaohnic days – and the whole Arab world was just larger Egypt.

Anwar Sadat (Muhammad Anwar El Sadat, or Anwar El Sadat  was the third President of Egypt, serving from 15 October 1970 until his assassination by Islamists on 6 October 1981 – he was indeed different and he paid with his life for having tried to do something for his country. He also did not ask for a parliament’s permission but at least did not put himself at the center of is world.

And the press? That is all government owned – what is written is the word that comes from Mubarak – that is the kind of Journalism that conquered the UN thanks to Ahmad Fawzi – a good disciple of his Egyptian friends – you get a Press Release and don’t ask questions – you write it down because that is what you are there for. The notion that there is something like a Media Think-Tank, or Media Independent Thinking that does not serve a cause – is unheard off on the shores of the Nile.

But then, Egypt’s people are proud people indeed. They are proud that one of theirs has gotten the Nobel Prize, they also are tired of the face of the old Pharaoh – they are ready to induct ElBaredei to run for the Presidency. He is free and available – but what about those rules/ he asks Egypt to change the rules so that there is an open election and he is ready to run – he seems to be the kind of person that is saying up-front that he is not blind to the barriers that Mubarak encircled himself – something like the security wall of the Israelis.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the basic resistance that was connected in the past with those that Killed Anwar Sadat, or helped foot the Al Kaeda in its infancy, religious nationalistic fanatics that are afraid of nothing – they are still there and sort of tolerated by Mubarak who remembers that they made it all possible for him 30 year ago, they say now: “The question is, can ElBaradei, who lived most of his life – 30 years – working in Europe, can he lead a new Egyptian revolution for change?

El Baradei came for a 10 day visit last week and there were 1,000 people waiting for him at the airport for six hours. his Facebook numbers 60,000 Egyptians – they feel that for the first time there is a viable option besides Mubarak and his son – his actual persona is the symbol that there can be an alternative because some Egyptians speak up now and say – it is our right to chose the person who will represent us. Even the Muslim brotherhood agrees to see in El Baradei the transition to a new Egypt.

Considering the high level of corruption in Egypt, the fact that El Baradei came from outside, so he is not sullied by the home-grown stagnation of Egyptian politics, he has a terrific advantage of being that fresh face they would like to induct.

OK – that is ElBaradei – what about Fawzi? He is retiring next month and we suggest he can be available to be thrown into this new Egyptian brew. He is not a new face, but he knows how to look as media while backing a cause he has in mind. I really do not think that what he had in mind was Mubarak, I rather think he remembers Boutros-Ghali and other Arab interests – be it oil or culture. We do not think that ElBaradei either has fully absorbed Western liberalism and Egypt might not be ready for this either, what seems to be needed is the kind of spokesperson that knows to dress up the concerns of the Middle East environment, and Egypt,  with a good race-horse like ElBaradei, can concoct the public winning formula. So – here for a step of loosing up the frozen major States of the Middle East – Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

HIGH COURT IN TEL AVIV FLEXES ITS LIBERAL MUSCLES.
16 February 2010
BY CHRISTOPH SCHULT
Der Spiegel via The San Francisco Sentinel.

On many issues, from human rights to social mores, Israel’s high court is well out in front of society at large. Israeli politicians now want to clip the court’s wings.

Tel Aviv, an apartment building from the Ottoman era on the edge of the Karmel market. The Sabbath is about to end, and a casserole is baking in the oven in the apartment of the Berner-Kadisch family. The three sons are playing in their rooms, while the parents drink tea in the living room.

The parents are Nicole, 44, an attorney, and Ruti, 45, an academic with a doctorate in Middle Eastern studies. The two women alternated having children, with the help of a sperm bank and a reproduction clinic. Their first son, Matan, was born in 1995. Ruti was his biological mother and Nicole adopted him, which is permitted in some states of the United States.

Their problems began when they moved to Israel a year later. Both women had Israeli citizenship, but the consulate general in Los Angeles refused to recognize Nicole as the adoptive mother. The two women contested the decision in an Israeli court and, after 10 years, the Israeli Supreme Court recognized the adoption. The birth certificate of their youngest son, 6-year-old Segev, is lying on the coffee table in the living room. Nicole and Ruti are listed as his parents, under Israel’s national coat of arms. The Interior Ministry issued the document only recently.

Once again, the Supreme Court was more progressive than the country. The court’s ruling on the parenthood of Nicole and Ruti is only one of many sensational decisions in recent years. “If the Supreme Court didn’t exist, who would safeguard democracy in Israel?” asks Ruti Berner-Kadisch.

Insisting on Compliance

The court takes an interventionist approach. For instance, it prohibited the country’s attorney general from dropping rape charges against former President Moshe Katsav in return for a confession of other, lesser offences.

In the conflict with the Palestinians, the judges have resisted pressure from the military and the government and are insisting on compliance with human rights regulations.

Is it legal to use force on a Palestinian if he has information about an imminent terrorist attack? No, the high court ruled in 1999, when it imposed a torture ban on the military and the intelligence services. In 2006, the judges set narrow limits on the practice of preventive liquidation of presumed terrorists. Under the new rules, the targeted killings are only allowed if no civilians are harmed and there is no possibility of arrest. The Supreme Court has also issued several orders to move the security wall with which Israel protects itself against terrorists along its border with the West Bank. Arguing that there is no such thing as absolute security, the judges limited the Israeli government’s ability to seize land owned by Palestinians.

“In no other country in the world has a high court dealt with issues of international law as much as it has in our country,” says Aharon Barak, the former president of the Supreme Court. This is precisely why the judges have made so many enemies with their liberal administration of justice. For some rabbis, the court’s rulings are nothing short of blasphemy. Some generals consider the judges to be a security risk, and politicians see them as rivals.

Doris Beinisch, 67, an elegant woman wearing gold earrings and a scarf draped over her shoulders, has been the president of the Supreme Court for more than three years. From her office, she has a view of the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, while the prime minister’s office is on the other side. Beinisch points out that her office sits right in the middle, both physically and symbolically, between the legislative and the executive branches of government.

No Constitution

The families of Palestinian terror attack victims recently appealed to the Supreme Court to force the government to release the names of the Palestinian prisoners it intends to set free in exchange for Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier abducted by Hamas in 2006. Beinisch rejected the appeal.

It is only one of 12,000 cases the Supreme Court hears each year (by comparison, the US Supreme Court hears fewer than 100 cases a year). Every Israeli citizen can appeal to the court to raise doubts about government decisions or laws enacted by the Knesset. The “High Court of Justice” (known by the Hebrew acronym “Bagaz”) also serves as a court of appeal for the lower courts.

The central problem, says Beinisch, is that Israel doesn’t have a constitution. Although the 1948 declaration of independence expressly stipulates the creation of a written constitution, it hasn’t been formulated yet — in deference to the ultra-orthodox Jews, who refuse to recognize any constitution other than the Torah. This frequently gives the government and members of parliament an excuse to question the sovereignty of the highest court — for political expediency, of course.

In addition, because there is no constitution, there is nothing that clearly states whether each citizen has certain inalienable rights. The country only has its so-called basic laws, which, like any other laws, can be amended with a simple majority. According to the basic law on “human dignity and freedom,” Israel aims to be a Jewish state and a democracy at the same time. But what does this mean for its roughly 1.3 million Arab citizens?

Not Allowed for Arabs

Adel Kaadan, 54, lives in Baka al-Gharbiya, a small Arab city of 30,000 people halfway between Tel Aviv and Haifa. He wanted to move away years ago, he says, citing problems like bad roads, a lack of waste disposal services and asbestos in schools. He saw an advertisement for a new community, Kazir, which was being planned a few kilometers north of Baka al-Gharbiya. It sounded appealing: new roads, inexpensive land, his own house. But when Kaadan went to see the town council, he was told that Arabs were not allowed to move to Kazir.

“I thought I was a citizen of Israel,” says Kaadan, who works as a nurse in a hospital. “In school, we were taught that discrimination on the basis of race, gender or religion was not allowed.”

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel took on Kaadan’s case. Eleven years and two trials later, Kaadan finally won the case, when the town of Kazir was ordered to sell him a piece of land. Meanwhile, the house is almost finished, and in six months Kaadan plans to move in, together with his wife and their five children. “It’s good that the court exists,” says Kaadan, “but why do you have to go through the trouble of going to court just to assert your rights?”

Even when it comes to the major conflict in the region, between the Palestinians and Israelis, the judges insist on compliance with human rights laws. In Nilin, for example, a small town in the West Bank. The security wall separates the village from the Israeli settlement of Hashmonaim — and Palestinian farmers from their olive plantations. Every morning, the residents of Nilin protest against the wall, usually peacefully. On July 7, 2008, the military stopped the protestors and a few activists were arrested, including Ashraf Abu Rahma. The soldiers blindfolded him, tied his hands behind his back and let him sit in the sun for one-and-a-half hours.

Then He Shoots

“Suddenly something hit my right foot,” says Abu Rahma. “I had the feeling that my leg was flying away from my body.” He is sitting, smoking a cigarette, in the courtyard of the Amira family’s house, at the entrance to Nilin. Journalism student Salam Amira, 18, is sitting next to him. She filmed the events of the day from her window, using a digital camera.

On the video, the Israeli commander holds down Abu Rahma while one of his soldiers points his gun at the Palestinian’s feet. Then he shoots.

The Israel human rights organization Betselem published the video. A military judge merely reprimanded the soldiers for their “improper behavior” and suspended the commander from duty for 10 days. Betselem took the case to the Supreme Court, which ordered that both soldiers be punished more severely. The incident, the court argued, was a “serious deviation from the moral norms incumbent upon all soldiers in the Israeli army, particularly senior commanders.”

“Although it is a Jewish court, it issued a fair verdict,” says Abu Rahma. These words of praise don’t come easy for Rahma, whose brother was killed when he was shot in the chest during a demonstration a few months ago. Journalism student Amira says that she was positively surprised by the verdict. Palestinian judges, she says, rarely demonstrate such independence.

‘Illegal to Attack the Courts’

Israeli politicians, particularly the conservatives, feel that the court is too independent. To address this concern, the administration of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to propose a law that would limit the power of the judges on Jerusalem’s high court in an important way: The court would no longer have the power to invalidate laws enacted by the parliament. The government also wants to supervise the selection of judges more strictly in the future.

The court’s decisions often go too far for many Israelis, as well. Judge Beinisch has become a target of their indignation, so much so that she now has several bodyguards. In a hearing at the end of January, an older, balding man stood up and threw his shoe at the judge. Beinisch was hit in the head and fell, unconscious, from her chair. Although the man who had thrown the shoe was only expressing his dissatisfaction over his divorce decree, the opposition in the parliament claimed that the right wing, with its many reproaches of judges, had made the attack possible in the first place.

Ironically, this left Prime Minister Netanyahu with no choice but to express his solidarity with the judge. He called Beinisch and confirmed publicly: “It is illegal to attack the courts.”

We believe that America was not created by God and that Theocrats have no place among its bureaucrats. America was incorporated by groups of free people – not Peoples – but men and women.

We believe that the EU should take the America as intended – as its example; and we believe that the UN will eventually also be replaced by this sort of incorporation that is based on the concept that all people were created with the intention to live as equals.

——————–

The New York Society for Ethical Culture Believes in Secular Humanism as the driving Force In The American Constitution.

Sunday Meeting, February 21, 2010
Sunday Meeting – 11:15 a.m. – Auditorium

“One Nation Under the Constitution: Moral Values through Humanistic Government”
Sean Faircloth, Executive Director of Secular Coalition for America
The Secular Coalition for America is a leader of what The Nation magazine recently called the newly “visible, assertive, and respected” secular movement. Executive Director Sean Faircloth, will discuss how the values of our nation’s founders directly connect to the values of the secular movement.

Faircloth served for 10 years in the Maine legislature, and was elected to the post of Majority Whip of the Maine House of Representatives by his colleagues. An attorney whose duties include lobbying in Washington on behalf of the Secular Coalition’s 10 member organizations, he will show how injustices in American law based on religion are not a historical artifact but a stark current reality. He argues that all Americans have a moral obligation to address these injustices through rejuvenation of our government’s secular heritage and legal system. Faircloth is a strong advocate of the separation of church and state and has received many awards for his work, including the 2006 Legislator of the Year Award from the Maine People’s Alliance.