Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
A7 News
Hamas is moving its headquarters from Damascus to Egypt, and the terror group is strengthening itself in the Sinai, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Security Committee Monday.
He also noted that the Muslim Brotherhood, from which Hamas sprung, also has become a more powerful force in Egypt since the ouster of Hosni Mubarak. The Prime Minister stated his concern about the inability of the provisional military regime in Egypt to exercise sovereignty in the Sinai, which borders Israel and from where Bedouin and Hamas terrorists smuggle weapons from Iran, Sudan, Syria and elsewhere into Gaza. Al-Qaeda also has brought 400 terrorists into the area, according to an Egyptian official quoted by an Arab news agency,
The Prime Minister confirmed previous reports that Hamas supreme leader Khaled Mashaal has pulled out of Damascus, where his presence and welcome by Syrian President Bashar Assad is an additional worry for him in the face of the continuing uprising.
The vacuum of power in the Sinai has been illustrated by “the two gas explosions that occurred there” this year, Prime Minister Netanyahu told the Knesset committee. “Global terrorist organizations are interfering, there and their presence is increasing because of the geographic connection between Sinai and Gaza."
The Sharon government agreed to pull out of Gaza following the 2005 expulsion of nearly 10,000 Jews in the area. Agreements with Egypt on security in the Sinai began falling apart after Hamas ousted Fatah from Gaza four years ago.
Following the Operation Cast Lead counterterrorist campaign at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009, Israel relied on American and European guarantees to monitor the transfer of goods and merchandise from the Sinai to Gaza, but these also have eroded. The opening of the Rafiah crossing this past Saturday has further harmed security.
The de facto dominance of Bedouin tribes and allied terrorists in the Sinai has set the stage for further stockpiling of advanced arms by Hamas and for plotting terrorist attacks at tourist and holy sites in Egypt.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Why Arab Intellectual Decadence & Lack of Progress?
Emet m'Tsiyon
Emile Dermenghem, a French scholarly apologist for Islam, nevertheless saw that intellectually, Arab-Muslim society had become decadent in the Middle Ages, after a relatively brief period of flourishing. He saw this intellectual decadence or stultification as a cause of the social-economic backwardness of the Arabs and other Muslims. Dermenghem wrote the passages below in the 1950s, long before Islam became a political issue of major public concern.
The decadence of Muslim religious thought, practically limited to fiqh [jurisprudence, legalism], is only equalled by the devout fervor and the amazing sureness of faith. Intellectual activity is almost entirely concerned with problems of jurisprudence and casuistry; ignorance of philosophy and of classical and modern literature is nearly complete. It is not surprising that this lack of culture is reflected in religion, depriving it of the best of its forces. The great rites . . . have come to be part of a static religion. Superstition, the fruit of ignorance, was rife. . . [p 82]
If we try to see at a turning point in history how decadence has operated, it will help us to see how to correct it. In 1169 the Almohad caliph Abu Ya`qub Yusuf summoned Averroes [Ibn Rushd] to Marrakesh. . . It was at the ruler's own wish that he undertook his great commentary on Aristotle. . . Unfortunately the third Almohad, Abu Yusuf Ya`qub. . . sent Averroes into temporary exile and had his books burnt, just as the Almoravids had burnt those of al-Ghazali. The liberal free-thinking philosophers and the Sufis or mystics were likewise condemned. Now these two schools were the living forces in the Muslim civilization of the time. They balanced one another and made progress possible. Their elimination or their eclipse brought about that of authentic living culture. Philosophy emigrated to Europe, and it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who profited from Averroes' commentary on Aristotle. Sufism took refuge in the brotherhoods and sank into maraboutism in the narrow sense. [pp 85-86] Emile Dermenghem, Muhammad and the Islamic Tradition (London: Longmans, Green, 1958), tr. from French]
Besides Averroes, other notable names of Arab or other Muslim intellectuals who made a contribution to general world culture were Avicenna [Ibn Sina] and Ibn Khaldun. Avicenna, a Persian, not an Arab, was roughly close in time to Averroes, while Ibn Khaldun died in 1406. Since then there has been no Muslim that I can think of who made any notable cultural contribution of world significance.
- - - - - -
coming soon: Jews in Muslim society, poems of Zion
Emile Dermenghem, a French scholarly apologist for Islam, nevertheless saw that intellectually, Arab-Muslim society had become decadent in the Middle Ages, after a relatively brief period of flourishing. He saw this intellectual decadence or stultification as a cause of the social-economic backwardness of the Arabs and other Muslims. Dermenghem wrote the passages below in the 1950s, long before Islam became a political issue of major public concern.
The decadence of Muslim religious thought, practically limited to fiqh [jurisprudence, legalism], is only equalled by the devout fervor and the amazing sureness of faith. Intellectual activity is almost entirely concerned with problems of jurisprudence and casuistry; ignorance of philosophy and of classical and modern literature is nearly complete. It is not surprising that this lack of culture is reflected in religion, depriving it of the best of its forces. The great rites . . . have come to be part of a static religion. Superstition, the fruit of ignorance, was rife. . . [p 82]
If we try to see at a turning point in history how decadence has operated, it will help us to see how to correct it. In 1169 the Almohad caliph Abu Ya`qub Yusuf summoned Averroes [Ibn Rushd] to Marrakesh. . . It was at the ruler's own wish that he undertook his great commentary on Aristotle. . . Unfortunately the third Almohad, Abu Yusuf Ya`qub. . . sent Averroes into temporary exile and had his books burnt, just as the Almoravids had burnt those of al-Ghazali. The liberal free-thinking philosophers and the Sufis or mystics were likewise condemned. Now these two schools were the living forces in the Muslim civilization of the time. They balanced one another and made progress possible. Their elimination or their eclipse brought about that of authentic living culture. Philosophy emigrated to Europe, and it was Saint Thomas Aquinas who profited from Averroes' commentary on Aristotle. Sufism took refuge in the brotherhoods and sank into maraboutism in the narrow sense. [pp 85-86] Emile Dermenghem, Muhammad and the Islamic Tradition (London: Longmans, Green, 1958), tr. from French]
Besides Averroes, other notable names of Arab or other Muslim intellectuals who made a contribution to general world culture were Avicenna [Ibn Sina] and Ibn Khaldun. Avicenna, a Persian, not an Arab, was roughly close in time to Averroes, while Ibn Khaldun died in 1406. Since then there has been no Muslim that I can think of who made any notable cultural contribution of world significance.
- - - - - -
coming soon: Jews in Muslim society, poems of Zion
Remembering the Heroes on This Memorial Day
Published on FrontPageMag.com by Michael Finch on May 30th, 2011
It is Memorial Day and while we are enjoying warm sunny days (one hopes), a cold beer, listening to baseball on the radio and getting our BBQ’s ready, it is also time to reflect on the sacrifice made by the thousands of soldiers who have given their lives so we could be the most free, prosperous and extraordinary country in the history of mankind.
I for one am spending my weekend hitting on all the above notes, but also reading a terrific biography of the one of the greatest Americans ever to live. The author, Robert Coram, should be applauded for bringing to light the incredible life of Marine General Victor Krulak. It is an amazing story; it is indeed, the quintessential American story. It is a story that runs through all of us; it is the real story that truly makes the American myth so real. his book, Brute: The Life of Victor Krulak, U.S. Marine, deserves a fuller review and I hope it comes into the hands of every American. And I have to wonder why I had to wait until midlife to hear this man’s story and cannot help but ask, why hasn’t Hollywood told this story? But at least these stories are still being told and we are remembering.
America has its skeptics and doubters, it is so easy to fall prey to those thoughts. Perhaps we do stand on a precipice, but then I think, we always have. I have been fortunate enough to meet some of the men and women who have come back from Iraq and Afghanistan and I see the same mettle and courage that was at Trenton, Antietam, the Somme, Iwo Jima, Chosin and Khe Sanh. So long as America produces these warriors, there is more than hope. Shake the hand and hear the story of a Marine who was at Fallujah and you will indeed know the flame for the last best hope of mankind still burns bright.
I can sit here and have a cold beer and light the coals on my BBQ, anguish over my White Sox as they struggle through another nail biting late finish, listen to my children play and laugh, all because of men like Victor Krulak and the many that fell in battle to keep us free. May we continue to be blessed. Thank you to all the fallen heroes.
Michael Finch is the chief of operations of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
It is Memorial Day and while we are enjoying warm sunny days (one hopes), a cold beer, listening to baseball on the radio and getting our BBQ’s ready, it is also time to reflect on the sacrifice made by the thousands of soldiers who have given their lives so we could be the most free, prosperous and extraordinary country in the history of mankind.
I for one am spending my weekend hitting on all the above notes, but also reading a terrific biography of the one of the greatest Americans ever to live. The author, Robert Coram, should be applauded for bringing to light the incredible life of Marine General Victor Krulak. It is an amazing story; it is indeed, the quintessential American story. It is a story that runs through all of us; it is the real story that truly makes the American myth so real. his book, Brute: The Life of Victor Krulak, U.S. Marine, deserves a fuller review and I hope it comes into the hands of every American. And I have to wonder why I had to wait until midlife to hear this man’s story and cannot help but ask, why hasn’t Hollywood told this story? But at least these stories are still being told and we are remembering.
America has its skeptics and doubters, it is so easy to fall prey to those thoughts. Perhaps we do stand on a precipice, but then I think, we always have. I have been fortunate enough to meet some of the men and women who have come back from Iraq and Afghanistan and I see the same mettle and courage that was at Trenton, Antietam, the Somme, Iwo Jima, Chosin and Khe Sanh. So long as America produces these warriors, there is more than hope. Shake the hand and hear the story of a Marine who was at Fallujah and you will indeed know the flame for the last best hope of mankind still burns bright.
I can sit here and have a cold beer and light the coals on my BBQ, anguish over my White Sox as they struggle through another nail biting late finish, listen to my children play and laugh, all because of men like Victor Krulak and the many that fell in battle to keep us free. May we continue to be blessed. Thank you to all the fallen heroes.
Michael Finch is the chief of operations of the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
Will Islam Destroy Itself?
Sultan Knish
In his address to congress, Netanyahu said that militant Islam threatens Islam. As if there were any such thing as a non-militant form of Islam. An ideology that was militantly expansionistic from birth. And yet that expansionism does threaten it.
It's not mere militancy that threatens Islam, but its own lack of proportion. Had the Nazis satisfied themselves with a round of domestic purges and only a little territorial expansionism, today they might still be running a bankrupt decaying state. And news stories from the 1970's and 1980's might carry reports of popular protests against the disastrous economics of National Socialism. But Hitler and his cronies lacked a sense of proportion. When they capped off an invasion of Russia, war in Africa and an air campaign against England, with a declaration of war on America-- they were done. And their ideology went down with them.
If an ideology fighting a simultaneous war on nearly every continent sounds familiar, it should. The new Islamic crusade is just as arrogantly overextended. Just as certain that it can win every battle because it's destined to. That its inherent superiority makes it unbeatable. And that its enemies are cowards who are easily tricked and even more easily beaten. Petrodollars and Jihadis are being rushed to conflicts around the globe. And Muslim countries are racing to acquire nuclear weapons, even though it puts their own populations in the firing line of a nuclear war. Muslim terrorism is turning immigration into a national security issue. And Sharia is raising hackles even among many liberals. The arrogance and hubris of the Islamic crusade for a new caliphate has made too many enemies, too fast. And it relies on Western complicity and money. That remains its weak point.
Had Muslims focused on domestic revolutions, most of the world would have let it go. Western countries have lost their enthusiasm for armed interventions on behalf of tyrants. And if foreign businessmen can learn to live with Dubai and Saudi Arabia, they would have accepted similar transformations in Egypt and Syria. Muslims could have assembled a Caliphate with hardly an objection from abroad. But instead they spent more time focused on conquest, than on revolution.
Like an amateur gambler flush with his winnings, the Imams and Mullahs swelled with pride and decided they couldn't lose. They wouldn't just bring down their own countries, instead they would tie everything together and pull it all down. Use terrorism to blackmail and intimidate the West. And then use that as a lever for regime change. It's working quite well so far. But then again most battle plans work, when the enemy is hardly fighting back.
The Islamists are assembling too many enemies too fast, to consider what would happen if those enemies united against them. They have spent too much time gloating over the Western dependency on their oil and their immigrants to think about what will happen the day the oil pipeline and the immigration pipeline are cut off. Like the Nazis, they are spending too much time moving pins on a map to note all the places where they are advancing, all the wars they are fighting and all the mosques they are building, to take the time to realize how vulnerable that makes them.
Fortune rewards the aggressor who takes the initiative. But that's only until he overreaches. And then the other side takes the initiative.
Hitler thought himself quite clever for taking the Rhineland, seizing Austria and carving up the industrial riches of Czechoslovakia with the consent of his old enemies. Then with bombers flying over London and tanks deep in Russia, the Third Reich and its allies seemed unstoppable. But then a few years later, enemy troops were closing in on Berlin. That's the problem with believing you'll win because you're destined to. By the time you realize how badly you screwed up, it's too late.
By the end of 1941, Hitler was actually taking the initiative against America, which last time around had decisively turned the tide. There's hardly a more clear cut case of completely forgetting the lessons of a war that you had actually fought in. But the Nazi drive to power had been built on denying the real political, military and economic lessons of WW1. The assertion that Germany lost because it was betrayed, doomed it to lose a second time.
The Islamists suffer from the same problem. Their denial of history dooms them to repeat it all over again. Their assertion that Islamic states are immune from the social and economic problems of secular states means that their aspirations for a Caliphate will fall apart into bickering and civil war. And their belief that Islamic warriors are any better than ordinary tribals armed with machine guns and RPG's has been disproven on countless battlefields. The myth of the suicide bomber is the last resort of a delusional ideology trying to deny its own human vulnerabilities.
Racial and religious doctrinal purity does not equal omnipotence. And Islamic expansionism is due to relearn the same lesson that World War II meted out to the aggressors. The Caliphate and Third Reich are the vision of maniacs and demagogues trying to turn back the clock to a mythical past. Building castles in the sand by a bloody shore.
The obsessive petrodollar construction projects of Dubai have something of Albert Speer about them. Huge tasteless buildings constructed to show the grandeur of a regime, even while revealing its lack of taste and creativity. And its underlying insecurity. The Nazi, Communists and now Muslims obsession with constructing gargantuan inhuman structures reveal some of the insecurity behind the violence. Giant concrete and steel security blankets by vicious men terrified of their own mortality.
Insecurities lead to grandiosity. The tilting shots of Leni Riefenstahl depicting the Aryan man as more than human, or the Muslim martyr who willingly kills himself for the Jihad, share a common contempt for humanity. And beneath that contempt a craven fear of being merely human.
The ambition of the Caliphate conceals its own rot. The graffiti portraits of martyrs on walls turn them into museums of fear. The grandiosity of a worldwide Jihad is not the work of strongminded men, but of weak ones. The Jihad is not on the march because it is strong, but because it is unable to offer any real solutions to domestic problems. All that Islamic groups do is offer subsidized services and bribes in exchange for popular support. The same cheap trick that every Muslim and even non-Muslim government does.
Like Nazism and Communism, the Islamic utopia is unsustainable. A fool's dream overseen by greedy thieves and guarded by vicious butchers. And like them it gains credibility only from extending the conflict. From positioning itself as the force of light standing against the darkness. And like them, Islam destroys the societies it takes over in order to continue a war that has no purpose except to disguise the foolishness of its doctrines and the incompetence of its visionaries.
The inherent social instability of Islam necessitates its expansionism. Just as the economic instability of National Socialism made Kristalnacht and the invasion of Poland necessary for the Nazi elite. Or the economic failures of Soviet Communism made its own expansionism inevitable. A strong warlike country's ideology doesn't fail internally, until it also fails externally.
The Islamic Jihad is a social instability disguised as brute force expansionism. Weakness trying to pretend it's strength. Events in Iran have shown that Islamic regimes are no more stable than secular ones. Eventually the greed of the ruling oligarchy and the fanaticism of its clerics runs into the barrier of public frustration and rage. Exporting the same instability and fanatical violence to Western countries through immigration may topple the free world. But it's more likely to lead a backlash. And that is exactly what's starting to take place now.
Western socialists need immigrants, but even they have their limits. And that limit will be reached when they realize that Islamic immigration and violence makes their dream of a new Europe and a world united under international law null and void. Even without that, their welfare state utopias have a limited lifespan. And when those utopias collapse, they won't have much use for immigrants. Or for the violence they bring with them.
Islam is overreaching badly. Its political successes have inflamed its sense of destiny. But politics turns. And unlike a high tech society or a competent military-- the political advantage and wealth that comes from an addiction to oil are both vulnerable to sudden change. The wheel of history is turning. And while Muslims are confident that it is turning in their direction, they would do well to remember that the glorious days of mastery they are trying to recapture came to an end for a reason. That the ruler of history raps hardest the knuckles of those who refuse to learn its lessons. And that they have now become its worst pupils.
Scotland Goes Mad for Islam
Daniel Greenfield
The West Dunbartonshire Council led by the loony Scottish National Party has decided to ban books from Israel. The first book on their list should be the Bible, a notorious Zionist tract which claims divine sanction for a Greater Israel. But the Bible will likely remain on the shelves of West Dunbartonshire libraries, while zealous SNP members will keep a watch for books by Amos Oz, who agrees with them on all the essential details.The silly thing about European boycotts of Israeli books and movies is that it almost always comes down to leftists boycotting other leftists. Imagine the UK boycotting Michael Moore to protest the War in Iraq and American leftists reciprocating with a ban on Ian McEwan. Purging Amos Oz from libraries and Samuel Maoz from theaters does Israel a favor. It also does America and Europe a favor by sparing them from the prolonged leftist diatribes of the cafe crowd. And maybe that’s why directors like Ken Loach and writers like Iain Banks bring down the axe, it spares them the competition. Why import leftist writers and directors to Europe? You might as well ship coal to Newcastle.
Keeping Israeli books off the shelf won’t help the people of West Dunbartonshire, which has the worst unemployment in the UK, with thousands out of work. It might move another one or two of Ian McEwan’s depressing tomes to the register and into someone’s suicide kit, but it won’t create any more jobs. It does however make for a useful distraction. The SNP will try to divert attention from their funding cuts with a round of “Bash the Jews.” Considering the minute number of Jews in Scotland, they have to make do with Israel.
Of course it’s not entirely fair to blame the SNP for all this. The actual idiotic motion came from Councillor Jim Bollan, of the Scottish Socialist Party, formerly of the Communist Party. To clear up any confusion between the two, the Scottish Socialist Party has a red flag with a yellow star, with optional clenched fists on it, and its abbreviation is one Cyrillic letter away from that of the Soviet Union. It’s not clear what the difference between the SSP and the Communist party is, except that it’s easier to get elected to the West Dunbartonshire Council as a Socialist than a Communist, whereupon you are then free to tackle such vital issues as the surplus of Israeli books in community libraries and boycotts of Marks and Spencer for selling Zionist underwear.
According to itself, the Scottish Socialist Party is a “fresh, forward-looking party which dares to be different.” And there is no better way to be fresh, different and forward-looking than by waving the red and yellow flag of a bankrupt ideology that not even the Russians and Chinese want anything to do with anymore. But what doesn’t sell in Russia, China or even Cuba still passes muster in Scotland, where the welfare state has become a way of life and the SNP makes David Sutch’s Official Monster Raving Loony Party seem downright sensible.
Scotland is in the midst of an economic disaster and the SSP and SNP are bent on turning it into an even bigger disaster. The SSP has a bold program of opposing the war, independence and taxing the rich. This distinguishes it from the SNP which also opposes the war, wants independence and a local income tax. But neither the SNP or SSP really want independence. Their own economic policies make Scottish independence all but impossible. Their only real election program is the welfare state, and independence would kill the golden goose that makes it possible. Instead, they look to the EU to take over where the UK would leave off. But someone still has to foot the bill.
For a party running a country into the ground during an economic crisis, the Scottish National Party spends a peculiar amount of time obsessing over Israel. But then considering the SNP’s dueling Marxist and Fascist roots, that’s hardly surprising. Before Arthur Donaldson headed up the SNP, he was cooling his heels in a cell for his enthusiastic desire to be Scotland’s own Vidkun Quisling. SNP founding member Hugh MacDiarmid championed Scottish fascism before switching to the Communist party. Another SNP founder, Andrew Dewar Gibb, met with Nazi emissaries to prepare for an independent Scotland under German rule.
Click here to read more
A UN Resolution to Recognize a Palestinian State within “1967 Borders” Would Be Illegal
Ted Belman
The following is a letter drafted jointly by lawyers of the Legal Forum for Israel and by Amb. Alan Baker, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
The letter is directed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and signed by jurists and international lawyers from around the world.
The letter cautions the Secretary General as to the inherent illegality and harm to the UN and to the Middle East peace process which would be caused by the adoption of a resolution declaring a Palestinian state and determining its borders.
May 25, 2011
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon,
Secretary-General of the United Nations,
Re: The Proposed General Assembly Resolution to Recognize a Palestinian State “within 1967 Borders” – An Illegal Action
We, the undersigned, attorneys from across the world who are involved in general matters of international law, as well as being closely concerned with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, appeal to you to use your influence and authority among the member states of the UN, with a view to preventing the adoption of the resolution that the Palestinian delegation intends to table at the forthcoming session of the General Assembly, to recognize a Palestinian state “within the 1967 borders.”
By all standards and criteria, such a resolution, if adopted, would be in stark violation of all the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as contravening UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and those other resolutions based thereon.
Our reasoning is as follows: 1. The legal basis for the establishment of the State of Israel was the resolution unanimously adopted by the League of Nations in 1922, affirming the establishment of a national home for the Jewish People in the historical area of the Land of Israel. This included the areas of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem, and close Jewish settlement throughout. This was subsequently affirmed by both houses of the U.S. Congress.
2. Article 80 of the UN Charter determines the continued validity of the rights granted to all states or peoples, or already existing international instruments (including those adopted by the League of Nations). Accordingly, the above-noted League resolution remains valid, and the 650,000 Jews presently resident in the areas of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem reside there legitimately.
3. “The 1967 borders” do not exist, and have never existed. The 1949 Armistice Agreements entered into by Israel and its Arab neighbors, establishing the Armistice Demarcation Lines, clearly stated that these lines “are without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.” Accordingly, they cannot be accepted or declared to be the international boundaries of a Palestinian state.
4. UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) called upon the parties to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and specifically stressed the need to negotiate in order to achieve “secure and recognized boundaries.”
5. The Palestinian proposal, in attempting to unilaterally change the status of the territory and determine the “1967 borders” as its recognized borders, in addition to running squarely against Resolutions 242 and 338, would be a fundamental breach of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in which the parties undertook to negotiate the issue of borders and not act to change the status of the territories pending outcome of the permanent status negotiations.
6. The Palestinians entered into the various agreements constituting what is known as the “Oslo Accords” in the full knowledge that Israel’s settlements existed in the areas, and that settlements would be one of the issues to be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations. Furthermore, the Oslo Accords impose no limitation on Israel’s settlement activity in those areas that the Palestinians agreed would continue to be under Israel’s jurisdiction and control pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.
7. While the Interim Agreement was signed by Israel and the PLO, it was witnessed by the UN together with the EU, the Russian Federation, the U.S., Egypt, and Norway. It is thus inconceivable that such witnesses, including first and foremost the UN, would now give license to a measure in the UN aimed at violating this agreement and undermining major resolutions of the Security Council.
8. While the UN has maintained a persistent policy of non-recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem pending a negotiated solution, despite Israel’s historic rights to the city, it is inconceivable that the UN would now recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, the borders of which would include eastern Jerusalem. This would represent the ultimate in hypocrisy, double standards, and discrimination, as well as an utter disregard of the rights of Israel and the Jewish People.
9. Such unilateral action by the Palestinians could give rise to reciprocal initiatives in the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) which could include proposed legislation to declare Israel’s sovereignty over extensive parts of Judea and Samaria, if and when the Palestinians carry out their unilateral action.
Excellency,
It appears to be patently clear to all that the Palestinian exercise, aimed at advancing their political claims, represents a cynical abuse of the UN Organization and of the members of the General Assembly. Its aim is to bypass the negotiation process called for by the Security Council.
Regrettably, this abuse of the UN and its integrity, in addition to undermining international law, has the potential to derail the Middle East peace process.
We trust that you will use your authority to protect the UN and its integrity from this abuse, and act to prevent any affirmation or recognition of this dangerous Palestinian initiative.
Signed by:
Ambassador (Ret) Attorney Baker Alan, Ambassador (Ret) Dr. Rosenne Meir, Dr. Arnon Harel. Adv. Prof. Einhorn Talia, Prof. Shochetman Eliav, Abu Lior, Adv., Asraf Shlomo, Adv. (LL.B, LL.M) Baba-Nahary Merav, Adv., Benjamin Aryeh N., Adv. LL.M Ben-Shahar Meir, Adv. LL.B, LL.M Bulshtein Ariel, Adv., Burstyn Yitzhak .adv LL.M, Carmi Anat, Adv. Cohen Hila, Adv. Daniely Mirit, Adv., David Liat, Adv. (LL.B, LL.M) Dermer Yossi, Adv., Eagle Shira, Adv. Eisenberg M., Adv Elad Cohen, Adv. Elkalay Shimrit, Adv., Friedman Shlomo, Adv., Fuchs Yossi ,Adv. Ganan Yuval. Adv. Goelman Avinoam, Adv. Goldman Ezra Adv., Guggenheim Chanania U., Adv Hacohen Itay, Adv. Harshoshanim Ariel, Adv. Hershkovitz David, Adv. LL.M Jarden Elon ,Adv., Kavatz Gad, Adv. Koslowe Avital Adv. (LL.B, LL.M) Lapidot Harel, Adv. Lapidot Ohad Ziv, Adv., Levy Yechezkel, Adv. LL.M. Magen Alon, Adv. LL.B Meiri Eddy, Esq. Morginstin Philip B.,Adv Nadel Gill, Adv. Naor Avi, Adv., Nimni Eliyahu, Adv. Nir-Tzvi Doron, Adv. Orbach Nir, Adv. Peretz Yitzhak, (LLB, Hons.) Adv. Rotenberg Zvi E. ,Adv., Shaya Dotan, Adv. Shimon Yehuda Arye, Adv. Shmuelyan Eli, Adv., Tamari Amir, Adv. Tamari Ilana, Adv., Teplow Michael I., J.D adv. Vaknin Emanuel, Adv. Weistuch Elad, Adv. Wiseman Gabriel, Adv. Yamin Uri, Adv. Zell Mark, Adv.
The following is a letter drafted jointly by lawyers of the Legal Forum for Israel and by Amb. Alan Baker, Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs.
The letter is directed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and signed by jurists and international lawyers from around the world.
The letter cautions the Secretary General as to the inherent illegality and harm to the UN and to the Middle East peace process which would be caused by the adoption of a resolution declaring a Palestinian state and determining its borders.
May 25, 2011
His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon,
Secretary-General of the United Nations,
Re: The Proposed General Assembly Resolution to Recognize a Palestinian State “within 1967 Borders” – An Illegal Action
We, the undersigned, attorneys from across the world who are involved in general matters of international law, as well as being closely concerned with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, appeal to you to use your influence and authority among the member states of the UN, with a view to preventing the adoption of the resolution that the Palestinian delegation intends to table at the forthcoming session of the General Assembly, to recognize a Palestinian state “within the 1967 borders.”
By all standards and criteria, such a resolution, if adopted, would be in stark violation of all the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as contravening UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) and those other resolutions based thereon.
Our reasoning is as follows: 1. The legal basis for the establishment of the State of Israel was the resolution unanimously adopted by the League of Nations in 1922, affirming the establishment of a national home for the Jewish People in the historical area of the Land of Israel. This included the areas of Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem, and close Jewish settlement throughout. This was subsequently affirmed by both houses of the U.S. Congress.
2. Article 80 of the UN Charter determines the continued validity of the rights granted to all states or peoples, or already existing international instruments (including those adopted by the League of Nations). Accordingly, the above-noted League resolution remains valid, and the 650,000 Jews presently resident in the areas of Judea, Samaria and eastern Jerusalem reside there legitimately.
3. “The 1967 borders” do not exist, and have never existed. The 1949 Armistice Agreements entered into by Israel and its Arab neighbors, establishing the Armistice Demarcation Lines, clearly stated that these lines “are without prejudice to future territorial settlements or boundary lines or to claims of either Party relating thereto.” Accordingly, they cannot be accepted or declared to be the international boundaries of a Palestinian state.
4. UN Security Council Resolutions 242 (1967) and 338 (1973) called upon the parties to achieve a just and lasting peace in the Middle East and specifically stressed the need to negotiate in order to achieve “secure and recognized boundaries.”
5. The Palestinian proposal, in attempting to unilaterally change the status of the territory and determine the “1967 borders” as its recognized borders, in addition to running squarely against Resolutions 242 and 338, would be a fundamental breach of the 1995 Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, in which the parties undertook to negotiate the issue of borders and not act to change the status of the territories pending outcome of the permanent status negotiations.
6. The Palestinians entered into the various agreements constituting what is known as the “Oslo Accords” in the full knowledge that Israel’s settlements existed in the areas, and that settlements would be one of the issues to be negotiated in the permanent status negotiations. Furthermore, the Oslo Accords impose no limitation on Israel’s settlement activity in those areas that the Palestinians agreed would continue to be under Israel’s jurisdiction and control pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations.
7. While the Interim Agreement was signed by Israel and the PLO, it was witnessed by the UN together with the EU, the Russian Federation, the U.S., Egypt, and Norway. It is thus inconceivable that such witnesses, including first and foremost the UN, would now give license to a measure in the UN aimed at violating this agreement and undermining major resolutions of the Security Council.
8. While the UN has maintained a persistent policy of non-recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem pending a negotiated solution, despite Israel’s historic rights to the city, it is inconceivable that the UN would now recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state, the borders of which would include eastern Jerusalem. This would represent the ultimate in hypocrisy, double standards, and discrimination, as well as an utter disregard of the rights of Israel and the Jewish People.
9. Such unilateral action by the Palestinians could give rise to reciprocal initiatives in the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) which could include proposed legislation to declare Israel’s sovereignty over extensive parts of Judea and Samaria, if and when the Palestinians carry out their unilateral action.
Excellency,
It appears to be patently clear to all that the Palestinian exercise, aimed at advancing their political claims, represents a cynical abuse of the UN Organization and of the members of the General Assembly. Its aim is to bypass the negotiation process called for by the Security Council.
Regrettably, this abuse of the UN and its integrity, in addition to undermining international law, has the potential to derail the Middle East peace process.
We trust that you will use your authority to protect the UN and its integrity from this abuse, and act to prevent any affirmation or recognition of this dangerous Palestinian initiative.
Signed by:
Ambassador (Ret) Attorney Baker Alan, Ambassador (Ret) Dr. Rosenne Meir, Dr. Arnon Harel. Adv. Prof. Einhorn Talia, Prof. Shochetman Eliav, Abu Lior, Adv., Asraf Shlomo, Adv. (LL.B, LL.M) Baba-Nahary Merav, Adv., Benjamin Aryeh N., Adv. LL.M Ben-Shahar Meir, Adv. LL.B, LL.M Bulshtein Ariel, Adv., Burstyn Yitzhak .adv LL.M, Carmi Anat, Adv. Cohen Hila, Adv. Daniely Mirit, Adv., David Liat, Adv. (LL.B, LL.M) Dermer Yossi, Adv., Eagle Shira, Adv. Eisenberg M., Adv Elad Cohen, Adv. Elkalay Shimrit, Adv., Friedman Shlomo, Adv., Fuchs Yossi ,Adv. Ganan Yuval. Adv. Goelman Avinoam, Adv. Goldman Ezra Adv., Guggenheim Chanania U., Adv Hacohen Itay, Adv. Harshoshanim Ariel, Adv. Hershkovitz David, Adv. LL.M Jarden Elon ,Adv., Kavatz Gad, Adv. Koslowe Avital Adv. (LL.B, LL.M) Lapidot Harel, Adv. Lapidot Ohad Ziv, Adv., Levy Yechezkel, Adv. LL.M. Magen Alon, Adv. LL.B Meiri Eddy, Esq. Morginstin Philip B.,Adv Nadel Gill, Adv. Naor Avi, Adv., Nimni Eliyahu, Adv. Nir-Tzvi Doron, Adv. Orbach Nir, Adv. Peretz Yitzhak, (LLB, Hons.) Adv. Rotenberg Zvi E. ,Adv., Shaya Dotan, Adv. Shimon Yehuda Arye, Adv. Shmuelyan Eli, Adv., Tamari Amir, Adv. Tamari Ilana, Adv., Teplow Michael I., J.D adv. Vaknin Emanuel, Adv. Weistuch Elad, Adv. Wiseman Gabriel, Adv. Yamin Uri, Adv. Zell Mark, Adv.
Close down that yellow brick road
If you recall, the lyrics of Elton John's Yellow Brick Road contain these lines:
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
You know you can't hold me forever,
I didn't sign up with you
I'm not a present for your friends to open
...So goodbye yellow brick road
Where the dogs of society howl
Those words came to mind when I was referred to a BBC report on the opening of the Rafah Crossing, which included a reference to Gisha, an Israeli not-for-profit organization, founded in 2005, whose goal is to protect the freedom of movement of Palestinians, especially Gaza residents:
Egypt will permanently open its Rafah border crossing into Gaza beginning Saturday, an Egyptian official reported Wednesday...All the country's security apparatus will be involved in the security of the border, he said. Rafah Crossing has been "...all but closed Erez Crossing to Palestinians" four years ago, said the Israeli non-governmental organization Gisha, which advocates on the issue of Palestinian freedom of movement. Erez Crossing is on the border between Gaza and Israel. Passage through it has been limited to "extraordinary humanitarian cases, especially urgent medical cases," which has prevented Palestinians from traveling between Gaza and the West Bank, the group says...
As a friend noted, will Gisha be taking credit or will they deny any responsibility when the weapons and terrorists that will use this border-crossing are involved in attacks on Israelis?
But you want to know about that reference above to Yellow Brick Road, yes?
So, who conduits money for Gisha? Who, I presume, views them as fit and proper to receive charity money to promote blatant political goals that possess a high probability that terror will evolve from their activity?
The New Israel Fund, the group that claims it "is the leading organization committed to equality and democracy for all Israelis...dedicated to a vision of Israel as both the Jewish homeland and a shared society at peace with itself and its neighbors."
Read on:
We appreciate your contribution to Gisha - Legal Center for Freedom of Movement. Donations from the US may be made by:
3. donation through the New Israel Fund: Tax-exempt donations to Gisha of $100 or more may be made through the New Israel Fund, which is recognized as a 501(c)(3) organization under the U.S. tax code. Contributions should be clearly marked as donor-advised to Gisha 5276 (in the memo of the check and in an accompanying note), and the check should be payable to the order of the "New Israel Fund". The address for checks is: New Israel Fund, P.O.B 91588, Washington, D.C. 20090-1588 USA; 4. Matching Gifts: The Federal Employee Identification Number for the New Israel Fund is: 942607722.
Can I ask: will NIF take responsibility for any deaths, injuries or property damage as a result of feeding money to a group which is enthralled that the Rafah Crossing is open - and campaigns that it should be open - and most probably will thus permit arms, weapons and such to be entered into the Gaza Strip and used against Israel?
Will they?
Or will that "yellow brick road" be closed down?
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
You know you can't hold me forever,
I didn't sign up with you
I'm not a present for your friends to open
...So goodbye yellow brick road
Where the dogs of society howl
Those words came to mind when I was referred to a BBC report on the opening of the Rafah Crossing, which included a reference to Gisha, an Israeli not-for-profit organization, founded in 2005, whose goal is to protect the freedom of movement of Palestinians, especially Gaza residents:
Egypt will permanently open its Rafah border crossing into Gaza beginning Saturday, an Egyptian official reported Wednesday...All the country's security apparatus will be involved in the security of the border, he said. Rafah Crossing has been "...all but closed Erez Crossing to Palestinians" four years ago, said the Israeli non-governmental organization Gisha, which advocates on the issue of Palestinian freedom of movement. Erez Crossing is on the border between Gaza and Israel. Passage through it has been limited to "extraordinary humanitarian cases, especially urgent medical cases," which has prevented Palestinians from traveling between Gaza and the West Bank, the group says...
As a friend noted, will Gisha be taking credit or will they deny any responsibility when the weapons and terrorists that will use this border-crossing are involved in attacks on Israelis?
But you want to know about that reference above to Yellow Brick Road, yes?
So, who conduits money for Gisha? Who, I presume, views them as fit and proper to receive charity money to promote blatant political goals that possess a high probability that terror will evolve from their activity?
The New Israel Fund, the group that claims it "is the leading organization committed to equality and democracy for all Israelis...dedicated to a vision of Israel as both the Jewish homeland and a shared society at peace with itself and its neighbors."
Read on:
We appreciate your contribution to Gisha - Legal Center for Freedom of Movement. Donations from the US may be made by:
3. donation through the New Israel Fund: Tax-exempt donations to Gisha of $100 or more may be made through the New Israel Fund, which is recognized as a 501(c)(3) organization under the U.S. tax code. Contributions should be clearly marked as donor-advised to Gisha 5276 (in the memo of the check and in an accompanying note), and the check should be payable to the order of the "New Israel Fund". The address for checks is: New Israel Fund, P.O.B 91588, Washington, D.C. 20090-1588 USA; 4. Matching Gifts: The Federal Employee Identification Number for the New Israel Fund is: 942607722.
Can I ask: will NIF take responsibility for any deaths, injuries or property damage as a result of feeding money to a group which is enthralled that the Rafah Crossing is open - and campaigns that it should be open - and most probably will thus permit arms, weapons and such to be entered into the Gaza Strip and used against Israel?
Will they?
Or will that "yellow brick road" be closed down?
The Key to Obama’s Foreign Policy: The World Turned Upside Down
Barry Rubin
“If buttercups buzz’d after the bee,
If boats were on land, churches on sea,
If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows,
And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse….
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.”
–“The World Turned Upside Down,” English ballad, 1643
I think I’ve made a breakthrough in understanding President Barack Obama’s foreign policy of punishing friends, rewarding enemies, and taking risks toward empowering enemies by bashing friends. It isn’t that Obama is a Muslim or a Marxist; it’s that … he is America’s first (and hopefully last) 1960s New Left president.
Think of how the American left looked at the Cold War. For them, the phrase “Free World” was a joke. America’s allies were often repressive dictators. In Europe, even democratic states like Britain and France were, or until recently were, colonial powers.
Vietnam: America supported South Vietnam (boo) and fought North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front (LBJ, how many kids have you killed today; Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win).ALatin America: In Chile, America supported the army (boo!) and fought President Salvador Allende and the Communists (yeah!). Not to mention those military dictatorships who murdered peasants in South America and killed Che Guevara. And how about those Sandinistas. They wanted land reform and to help the poor and the United States plundered them for United Fruit and other greedy capitalists.
Great Britain: America supported Britain and thought Winston Churchill was a hero, but what about colonialism (get his bust out of the White House!)? Say, in a country like Kenya? Mau-Maus (possibly Obama’s grandfather) who were called “terrorists,” good guys; British, bad guys.
Middle East: America supported the bad guys (Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) against the good guys (PLO, Egypt, Syria, Iraq).
The Communists: They had their shortcomings but at least they wanted to help people, right? And if the USSR was old-fashioned and degenerate, at least there were a lot of cool new revolutionaries.
Africa: Obama’s own father opposed a generally U.S.-backed Kenyan regime. In theory, he was a leftist and a man of the people. In reality, he was a womanizing, alcoholic, and corrupt politician, just the kind of “progressive” Third World politician who pretends to represent the voice of the masses.
And so on.
So the leftist view has been that American allies were bad guys. And since America was also the bad guy, American allies were doubly bad guys.
In contrast, those opposing U.S. policy or allies — notably, Latin American guerrillas; Fidel Castro; the Viet Cong (or National Liberation Front if you wish); Mao Zedong; Che Guevara (remember that Che Guevara poster in the Obama election headquarters in Arizona, was it?); Patrice Lumumba; and so on and so forth were heroes.
Pakistan has it both ways. On one hand, it is an American “ally,” but since it just takes money, hides al-Qaeda leaders, and sponsors cross-border terrorism against India, it is enough of an enemy to receive favored treatment.
So the bad guys to America were the good guys and the good guys to America were the bad guys.
I’m putting this in slangy language, but I’m very serious.
And for someone raised personally and politically the way Obama was (hat tip to Stanley Kurtz and Dinesh D’Souza) this was taken for granted.
Thus, be it England or Egypt or Israel or Colombia, if you are partnered with the United States it proves you are bad. And for Venezuela, Syria, or the Palestinian Authority, the more hostile you are to America the better you are.
Hence, the business of American policy should be to win over the heroic guerrillas who fight on behalf of the wretched of the earth (reference: Che Guevara, Frantz Fanon, the Communist “Internationale”). These are the people who — as they say in Hollywood — we’d like to be in business with.
Consider Obama’s profound disrespect for realpolitik as evidenced in his State Department speech:
“For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.”
He says that the United States will continue to do these things. But listen to the subtle differences in that list:
“We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to people’s hopes; they’re essential to them. We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks. We believe people everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut-off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.”
For decades, the United States wanted mainly to keep hostile countries from getting nuclear weapons, while Obama’s policy is to put the priority on eliminating nuclear weapons (including those of the United States) entirely. “Countering terrorism” becomes stopping al-Qaeda! How about stopping Hamas and Hizballah or the Muslim Brotherhood? Nope. Not part of the policy. “Standing up for Israel’s security” becomes the generic “we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.”
“If buttercups buzz’d after the bee,
If boats were on land, churches on sea,
If ponies rode men and if grass ate the cows,
And cats should be chased into holes by the mouse….
If summer were spring and the other way round,
Then all the world would be upside down.”
–“The World Turned Upside Down,” English ballad, 1643
I think I’ve made a breakthrough in understanding President Barack Obama’s foreign policy of punishing friends, rewarding enemies, and taking risks toward empowering enemies by bashing friends. It isn’t that Obama is a Muslim or a Marxist; it’s that … he is America’s first (and hopefully last) 1960s New Left president.
Think of how the American left looked at the Cold War. For them, the phrase “Free World” was a joke. America’s allies were often repressive dictators. In Europe, even democratic states like Britain and France were, or until recently were, colonial powers.
Vietnam: America supported South Vietnam (boo) and fought North Vietnam and the National Liberation Front (LBJ, how many kids have you killed today; Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is gonna win).ALatin America: In Chile, America supported the army (boo!) and fought President Salvador Allende and the Communists (yeah!). Not to mention those military dictatorships who murdered peasants in South America and killed Che Guevara. And how about those Sandinistas. They wanted land reform and to help the poor and the United States plundered them for United Fruit and other greedy capitalists.
Great Britain: America supported Britain and thought Winston Churchill was a hero, but what about colonialism (get his bust out of the White House!)? Say, in a country like Kenya? Mau-Maus (possibly Obama’s grandfather) who were called “terrorists,” good guys; British, bad guys.
Middle East: America supported the bad guys (Israel, Jordan, Saudi Arabia) against the good guys (PLO, Egypt, Syria, Iraq).
The Communists: They had their shortcomings but at least they wanted to help people, right? And if the USSR was old-fashioned and degenerate, at least there were a lot of cool new revolutionaries.
Africa: Obama’s own father opposed a generally U.S.-backed Kenyan regime. In theory, he was a leftist and a man of the people. In reality, he was a womanizing, alcoholic, and corrupt politician, just the kind of “progressive” Third World politician who pretends to represent the voice of the masses.
And so on.
So the leftist view has been that American allies were bad guys. And since America was also the bad guy, American allies were doubly bad guys.
In contrast, those opposing U.S. policy or allies — notably, Latin American guerrillas; Fidel Castro; the Viet Cong (or National Liberation Front if you wish); Mao Zedong; Che Guevara (remember that Che Guevara poster in the Obama election headquarters in Arizona, was it?); Patrice Lumumba; and so on and so forth were heroes.
Pakistan has it both ways. On one hand, it is an American “ally,” but since it just takes money, hides al-Qaeda leaders, and sponsors cross-border terrorism against India, it is enough of an enemy to receive favored treatment.
So the bad guys to America were the good guys and the good guys to America were the bad guys.
I’m putting this in slangy language, but I’m very serious.
And for someone raised personally and politically the way Obama was (hat tip to Stanley Kurtz and Dinesh D’Souza) this was taken for granted.
Thus, be it England or Egypt or Israel or Colombia, if you are partnered with the United States it proves you are bad. And for Venezuela, Syria, or the Palestinian Authority, the more hostile you are to America the better you are.
Hence, the business of American policy should be to win over the heroic guerrillas who fight on behalf of the wretched of the earth (reference: Che Guevara, Frantz Fanon, the Communist “Internationale”). These are the people who — as they say in Hollywood — we’d like to be in business with.
Consider Obama’s profound disrespect for realpolitik as evidenced in his State Department speech:
“For decades, the United States has pursued a set of core interests in the region: countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.”
He says that the United States will continue to do these things. But listen to the subtle differences in that list:
“We will continue to do these things, with the firm belief that America’s interests are not hostile to people’s hopes; they’re essential to them. We believe that no one benefits from a nuclear arms race in the region, or al Qaeda’s brutal attacks. We believe people everywhere would see their economies crippled by a cut-off in energy supplies. As we did in the Gulf War, we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.”
For decades, the United States wanted mainly to keep hostile countries from getting nuclear weapons, while Obama’s policy is to put the priority on eliminating nuclear weapons (including those of the United States) entirely. “Countering terrorism” becomes stopping al-Qaeda! How about stopping Hamas and Hizballah or the Muslim Brotherhood? Nope. Not part of the policy. “Standing up for Israel’s security” becomes the generic “we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.”
"Reprise"
Arlene Kushner
Yours truly is back at the computer -- a tired and very grateful savta: My grandson, my 12th grandchild, was born last Monday. (For those interested in a peek, you can see him at the end of this post.)
It is with great gratitude to Hashem that I write that he is healthy, very alert, and beautiful, and that my daughter-in-law came through exceedingly well.
~~~~~~~~~~
While I was tending to other matters, a great deal was going on in the larger world. I do not wish to belabor the obvious, and yet, before turning to matters current, I would like to take a look at what has transpired in the last nine days -- with a few commentaries added for good measure. I left off posting over a week ago by looking at the way in which Obama undercut Netanyahu by making a speech at the State Department that, in essence, called for resolution of the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict via return to the '67 lines, and suggested that Israel make "bold" moves for peace before the question of "refugees" or Jerusalem was even settled.
I subsequently learned that Netanyahu knew what Obama was considering before he got on the plane to fly to the US. He had had a long conversation by phone with Hillary Clinton, imploring that the president not go this route. (No US president had ever come out with a statement on the "'67 lines" such as Obama was planning.)
Obama ignored Netanyahu's urgent request. And when the prime minister got off the plane, he was furious.
~~~~~~~~~~
Observations made by Caroline Glick with regard to the Obama speech were enormously on the mark, and it is worth sharing highlights:
In "Obama's diversionary tactics" she argues that the president deliberately picked a fight with Netanyahu:
"And so it was a stinging rebuke when Obama declared...'The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.' According to the Washington Post, Obama wrote these lines of his speech himself and Netanyahu was informed of them just as he was scheduled to fly to the US on Thursday evening. Obama gave the speech while Netanyahu was in the air on his way to Washington to meet Obama the next morning. It is hard to think of a more stunning insult or a greater display of contempt for the leader of a US ally and fellow democracy than Obama’s actions last week. And it is obvious that Netanyahu had no choice but to react forcefully to Obama’s provocation.
The question is why would Obama act as he did? What did he wish to accomplish by purposely starting such an ugly fight with Netanyahu?
...On May 4, two weeks before Obama gave his speech, Fatah and Hamas signed a unity agreement.
"...The agreement between Fatah and Hamas makes Hamas a partner in the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. It also paves the way for Hamas to win the planned Palestinian legislative and presidential elections that are scheduled for September just after the UN General Assembly is scheduled to endorse Palestinian statehood. It also sets the conditions for Hamas to integrate its forces and eventually take over the US trained Palestinian army in Judea and Samaria and to join the PLO.
The Hamas-Fatah unity deal constitutes a complete repudiation of the assumptions informing Obama’s policies towards the Palestinians and Israel. Obama perceives the conflict as a direct consequence of two things: prior US administrations’ refusal to 'put light' between the US and Israel, and Israel’s unwillingness to surrender all of the territory it took during the course of the 1967 Six Day War.
The Hamas-Fatah unity deal is indisputable proof that contrary to what Obama believes, the conflict has nothing to do with previous administrations’ support for Israel or with Israel’s size. It is instead entirely the consequence of the Palestinians’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist and their commitment to bringing about Israel’s destruction.
"Obama had two options for contending with the Palestinian unity deal. He could pay attention to it or he could create a distraction in order to ignore it. If he paid attention to it, he would have been forced to disavow his policy of blaming his predecessors in the White House and Israel for the absence of peace. By creating a distraction he would be able to change the subject in a manner that would enable him to maintain those policies.
"And so he picked a fight with Netanyahu. And by picking the fight, he created a distraction that has, in fact, changed the subject and enabled Obama to maintain his policies that have been wholly repudiated by the reality of the Palestinian unity deal.
"By inserting the citation of the 1949 armistice lines into his speech, Obama made Israel’s size again the issue.
"The Hamas-Fatah unity deal actually demonstrates that not only is Israel’s size not the cause of the conflict, it is the main reason that Israelis and Palestinians live in relative peace..."
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=221899
~~~~~~~~~~
In an earlier piece, Glick had written about "Obama's abandonment of America."
Here she pointed out that:
"Quite simply, Obama's speech represents the effective renunciation of the US's right to have and to pursue national interests. Consequently, his speech imperils the real interests that the US has in the region - first and foremost, the US's interest in securing its national security. Obama's renunciation of the US national interests unfolded as follows:
"First, Obama mentioned a number of core US interests in the region. In his view these are: 'Countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel's security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.'
"Then he said, 'Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind.'
"While this is true enough, Obama went on to say that the Arabs have good reason to hate the US and that it is up to the US to put its national interests aside in the interest of making them like America. As he put it, 'a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities.'
"And you know what that means. If the US doesn't end the 'spiral of division,' (sounds sort of like 'spiral of violence' doesn't it?), then the Muslims will come after America. So the US better straighten up and fly right.
"And how does it do that? Well, by courting the Muslim Brotherhood which spawned Al Qaeda, Hamas, Jamma Islamiya and a number of other terror groups and is allies with Hezbollah.
"How do we know this is Obama's plan? Because right after he said that the US needs to end the 'spiral of division,' he recalled his speech in Egypt in June 2009 when he spoke at the Brotherhood controlled Al Azhar University and made sure that Brotherhood members were in the audience in a direct diplomatic assault on US ally Hosni Mubarak.
"And of course, intimations of Obama's plan to woo and appease the jihadists appear throughout the speech. For instance:
"'There will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region.'
"So US short term interests, like for instance preventing terrorist attacks against itself or its interests, will have to be sacrificed for the greater good of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in democratic elections..."
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/05/obamas-abandonment-of-america.php
Read the entire piece, if you have not already done so, please. It's difficult for me to imagine any American who confronts the realities Glick writes about not being very very worried.
Of course, what she is describing is a continuation of the Obama pattern.
~~~~~~~~~~
Moving back to our scenario:
A week ago Friday, Netanyahu and Obama met in the White House, after which they held a press conference. It was a stunning success for the Israeli prime minister, who sat facing the American president and coolly informed him that what he was proposing for Israel would never happen.
You can see that press conference here:
http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news.php?Itemid=3644
~~~~~~~~~~
Last Sunday, just a week ago, Obama spoke to AIPAC. His position had not changed in any significant way. He still said:
"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."
He still spoke about a full phased IDF withdrawal from areas past the pre-'67 line.
And he indicated that:
"What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. " This is the old, fallacious "we all know where the lines are going to be, so let's stop pretending" routine.
He also said:
"No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction..."
But he didn't follow the logic of this statement and declare that nothing should demanded of Israel until it is certain that the PA is a legitimate negotiating partner. Instead, he continued with:
"And yet, no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under the current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. The status quo is unsustainable."
This means Israel is supposed to make "hard choices for peace" in the face of the potential for a Hamas-controlled PA.
Perhaps most outrageously, he said:
"There is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process – or the absence of one."
And precisely whose fault is the absence of a peace process? Now Israel is supposed to move on it, no matter the sacrifice, to keep the PA from the UN.
~~~~~~~~~~
What Obama did this time was put a softer tone to his same old message. And then he flew to Europe.
~~~~~~~~~~
On Monday, Netanyahu gave his talk at AIPAC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABz281gfneY&feature=channel[/youtube).
But more significantly, on Tuesday he gave his historic speech at a joint session of Congress.
It was a rousing success. I had longed for him to speak on Israel's behalf before the world. And he did so, eloquently (emphasis added):
Israel has no better friend than America. And America has no better friend than Israel. We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism.
"In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America’s unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American.
"My friends, you don’t need to do nation building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. You don’t need to send American troops to defend Israel. We defend ourselves.
"...So today, the Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads. Like all of you, I pray that the peoples of the region choose the path less traveled, the path of liberty. No one knows what this path consists of better than you. This path is not paved by elections alone. It is paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.
"...Israel has always embraced this path, in the Middle East has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different.
"As the great English writer George Eliot predicted over a century ago, that once established, the Jewish state will "shine like a bright star of freedom amid the despotisms of the East.” Well, she was right. We have a free press, independent courts, an open economy, rambunctious parliamentary debates.
"Courageous Arab protesters, are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We're proud that over one million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of one-percent are truly free, and they're all citizens of Israel!
"This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East.
"...In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo.
"This is the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history can deny the four thousand year old bond, between the Jewish people and the Jewish land."
~~~~~~~~~~
But then the prime minister spoke about the need to share our land with the Palestinians, and to make sacrifices, when the time is right, for a true peace. Did he say more in this regard than I would have preferred. He did.
But he laid out red lines as well and spoke truth to the world:
"...If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us? Because all six Israeli Prime Ministers since the signing of Oslo accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state. Myself included. So why has peace not been achieved? Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state, if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.
"You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said yes. The Palestinians said no. In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli Prime Ministers, to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six Day War.
"They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.
"My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… 'I will accept a Palestinian state.' It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… 'I will accept a Jewish state.'
"Those six words will change history. They will make clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end. That they are not building a state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it. They will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace. With such a partner, the people of Israel will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise.
This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. [I.e., Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.]...
"Under any realistic peace agreement, these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance, will be incorporated into the final borders of Israel.
"...Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967.
"...As for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected freedom of worship for all faiths in the city. Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel...
"And Hamas is not a partner for peace. Hamas remains committed to Israel's destruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not only calls for the obliteration of Israel, but says ‘kill the Jews wherever you find them’...Israel is prepared to sit down today and negotiate peace with the Palestinian Authority. I believe we can fashion a brilliant future of peace for our children. But Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of Al Qaeda."
You can find a video and transcript of the speech here:
http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2011/05/transcript-of-netanyahus-speech-before.html
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu's reception by Congress was extraordinary. I understand that he was interrupted by applause more times than anyone who has ever addressed a joint session of Congress.
A time for Israelis to hold their heads high.
~~~~~~~~~~
Had he adopted a tough nationalist ideological line (as some undoubtedly would have preferred) that reception would not have been what it was. He would have been attacked as anti-peace and a radical, obstructionist. And in the end, this would not have served Israel well.
And so he spoke of compromises, and I accept that he had to. But such were the red lines he laid out -- all fair and appropriate and in our national interest -- that he knows, as surely as he expects to take his next breath, that it is not going to happen. Abbas is not going to recognize a Jewish state and renounce the right of return, and walk away from Hamas.
This is the Netanyahu style: Let the world see the Arabs as obstructionist. We might quibble with some details of what he said, but essentially I believe he played it brilliantly.
~~~~~~~~~~
It is being said that Obama's speech promotes war. And this is so. That it inhibits "peace" is not the case, for there was going to be no peace in any event, and it's time this fact were more broadly acknowledged. What Obama has done is make it easier for the PA to be obstructionist -- for they followed Obama's speech by demanding that Israel agree to the '67 line as a starting point if we want them to come to the table.
And now we've moved beyond this:
As of yesterday, according to Reuters, the "peace process follow-up committee" of the Arab League -- following an address by Abbas -- said it would request membership for the state of Palestine at the UN General Assembly's meeting in New York in September. "A Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, with east Jerusalem as its capital."
I hope to devote my next posting to the issue of the UN as venue for establishing a Palestinian state.
~~~~~~~~~~
My beautiful new grandson:
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
Yours truly is back at the computer -- a tired and very grateful savta: My grandson, my 12th grandchild, was born last Monday. (For those interested in a peek, you can see him at the end of this post.)
It is with great gratitude to Hashem that I write that he is healthy, very alert, and beautiful, and that my daughter-in-law came through exceedingly well.
~~~~~~~~~~
While I was tending to other matters, a great deal was going on in the larger world. I do not wish to belabor the obvious, and yet, before turning to matters current, I would like to take a look at what has transpired in the last nine days -- with a few commentaries added for good measure. I left off posting over a week ago by looking at the way in which Obama undercut Netanyahu by making a speech at the State Department that, in essence, called for resolution of the Palestinian Arab-Israeli conflict via return to the '67 lines, and suggested that Israel make "bold" moves for peace before the question of "refugees" or Jerusalem was even settled.
I subsequently learned that Netanyahu knew what Obama was considering before he got on the plane to fly to the US. He had had a long conversation by phone with Hillary Clinton, imploring that the president not go this route. (No US president had ever come out with a statement on the "'67 lines" such as Obama was planning.)
Obama ignored Netanyahu's urgent request. And when the prime minister got off the plane, he was furious.
~~~~~~~~~~
Observations made by Caroline Glick with regard to the Obama speech were enormously on the mark, and it is worth sharing highlights:
In "Obama's diversionary tactics" she argues that the president deliberately picked a fight with Netanyahu:
"And so it was a stinging rebuke when Obama declared...'The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.' According to the Washington Post, Obama wrote these lines of his speech himself and Netanyahu was informed of them just as he was scheduled to fly to the US on Thursday evening. Obama gave the speech while Netanyahu was in the air on his way to Washington to meet Obama the next morning. It is hard to think of a more stunning insult or a greater display of contempt for the leader of a US ally and fellow democracy than Obama’s actions last week. And it is obvious that Netanyahu had no choice but to react forcefully to Obama’s provocation.
The question is why would Obama act as he did? What did he wish to accomplish by purposely starting such an ugly fight with Netanyahu?
...On May 4, two weeks before Obama gave his speech, Fatah and Hamas signed a unity agreement.
"...The agreement between Fatah and Hamas makes Hamas a partner in the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. It also paves the way for Hamas to win the planned Palestinian legislative and presidential elections that are scheduled for September just after the UN General Assembly is scheduled to endorse Palestinian statehood. It also sets the conditions for Hamas to integrate its forces and eventually take over the US trained Palestinian army in Judea and Samaria and to join the PLO.
The Hamas-Fatah unity deal constitutes a complete repudiation of the assumptions informing Obama’s policies towards the Palestinians and Israel. Obama perceives the conflict as a direct consequence of two things: prior US administrations’ refusal to 'put light' between the US and Israel, and Israel’s unwillingness to surrender all of the territory it took during the course of the 1967 Six Day War.
The Hamas-Fatah unity deal is indisputable proof that contrary to what Obama believes, the conflict has nothing to do with previous administrations’ support for Israel or with Israel’s size. It is instead entirely the consequence of the Palestinians’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist and their commitment to bringing about Israel’s destruction.
"Obama had two options for contending with the Palestinian unity deal. He could pay attention to it or he could create a distraction in order to ignore it. If he paid attention to it, he would have been forced to disavow his policy of blaming his predecessors in the White House and Israel for the absence of peace. By creating a distraction he would be able to change the subject in a manner that would enable him to maintain those policies.
"And so he picked a fight with Netanyahu. And by picking the fight, he created a distraction that has, in fact, changed the subject and enabled Obama to maintain his policies that have been wholly repudiated by the reality of the Palestinian unity deal.
"By inserting the citation of the 1949 armistice lines into his speech, Obama made Israel’s size again the issue.
"The Hamas-Fatah unity deal actually demonstrates that not only is Israel’s size not the cause of the conflict, it is the main reason that Israelis and Palestinians live in relative peace..."
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=221899
~~~~~~~~~~
In an earlier piece, Glick had written about "Obama's abandonment of America."
Here she pointed out that:
"Quite simply, Obama's speech represents the effective renunciation of the US's right to have and to pursue national interests. Consequently, his speech imperils the real interests that the US has in the region - first and foremost, the US's interest in securing its national security. Obama's renunciation of the US national interests unfolded as follows:
"First, Obama mentioned a number of core US interests in the region. In his view these are: 'Countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel's security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.'
"Then he said, 'Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind.'
"While this is true enough, Obama went on to say that the Arabs have good reason to hate the US and that it is up to the US to put its national interests aside in the interest of making them like America. As he put it, 'a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities.'
"And you know what that means. If the US doesn't end the 'spiral of division,' (sounds sort of like 'spiral of violence' doesn't it?), then the Muslims will come after America. So the US better straighten up and fly right.
"And how does it do that? Well, by courting the Muslim Brotherhood which spawned Al Qaeda, Hamas, Jamma Islamiya and a number of other terror groups and is allies with Hezbollah.
"How do we know this is Obama's plan? Because right after he said that the US needs to end the 'spiral of division,' he recalled his speech in Egypt in June 2009 when he spoke at the Brotherhood controlled Al Azhar University and made sure that Brotherhood members were in the audience in a direct diplomatic assault on US ally Hosni Mubarak.
"And of course, intimations of Obama's plan to woo and appease the jihadists appear throughout the speech. For instance:
"'There will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region.'
"So US short term interests, like for instance preventing terrorist attacks against itself or its interests, will have to be sacrificed for the greater good of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in democratic elections..."
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/05/obamas-abandonment-of-america.php
Read the entire piece, if you have not already done so, please. It's difficult for me to imagine any American who confronts the realities Glick writes about not being very very worried.
Of course, what she is describing is a continuation of the Obama pattern.
~~~~~~~~~~
Moving back to our scenario:
A week ago Friday, Netanyahu and Obama met in the White House, after which they held a press conference. It was a stunning success for the Israeli prime minister, who sat facing the American president and coolly informed him that what he was proposing for Israel would never happen.
You can see that press conference here:
http://www.virtualjerusalem.com/news.php?Itemid=3644
~~~~~~~~~~
Last Sunday, just a week ago, Obama spoke to AIPAC. His position had not changed in any significant way. He still said:
"The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states."
He still spoke about a full phased IDF withdrawal from areas past the pre-'67 line.
And he indicated that:
"What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. " This is the old, fallacious "we all know where the lines are going to be, so let's stop pretending" routine.
He also said:
"No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction..."
But he didn't follow the logic of this statement and declare that nothing should demanded of Israel until it is certain that the PA is a legitimate negotiating partner. Instead, he continued with:
"And yet, no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under the current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. The status quo is unsustainable."
This means Israel is supposed to make "hard choices for peace" in the face of the potential for a Hamas-controlled PA.
Perhaps most outrageously, he said:
"There is a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process – or the absence of one."
And precisely whose fault is the absence of a peace process? Now Israel is supposed to move on it, no matter the sacrifice, to keep the PA from the UN.
~~~~~~~~~~
What Obama did this time was put a softer tone to his same old message. And then he flew to Europe.
~~~~~~~~~~
On Monday, Netanyahu gave his talk at AIPAC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABz281gfneY&feature=channel[/youtube).
But more significantly, on Tuesday he gave his historic speech at a joint session of Congress.
It was a rousing success. I had longed for him to speak on Israel's behalf before the world. And he did so, eloquently (emphasis added):
Israel has no better friend than America. And America has no better friend than Israel. We stand together to defend democracy. We stand together to advance peace. We stand together to fight terrorism.
"In an unstable Middle East, Israel is the one anchor of stability. In a region of shifting alliances, Israel is America’s unwavering ally. Israel has always been pro-American. Israel will always be pro-American.
"My friends, you don’t need to do nation building in Israel. We’re already built. You don’t need to export democracy to Israel. We’ve already got it. You don’t need to send American troops to defend Israel. We defend ourselves.
"...So today, the Middle East stands at a fateful crossroads. Like all of you, I pray that the peoples of the region choose the path less traveled, the path of liberty. No one knows what this path consists of better than you. This path is not paved by elections alone. It is paved when governments permit protests in town squares, when limits are placed on the powers of rulers, when judges are beholden to laws and not men, and when human rights cannot be crushed by tribal loyalties or mob rule.
"...Israel has always embraced this path, in the Middle East has long rejected it. In a region where women are stoned, gays are hanged, Christians are persecuted, Israel stands out. It is different.
"As the great English writer George Eliot predicted over a century ago, that once established, the Jewish state will "shine like a bright star of freedom amid the despotisms of the East.” Well, she was right. We have a free press, independent courts, an open economy, rambunctious parliamentary debates.
"Courageous Arab protesters, are now struggling to secure these very same rights for their peoples, for their societies. We're proud that over one million Arab citizens of Israel have been enjoying these rights for decades. Of the 300 million Arabs in the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel’s Arab citizens enjoy real democratic rights. I want you to stop for a second and think about that. Of those 300 million Arabs, less than one-half of one-percent are truly free, and they're all citizens of Israel!
"This startling fact reveals a basic truth: Israel is not what is wrong about the Middle East. Israel is what is right about the Middle East.
"...In Judea and Samaria, the Jewish people are not foreign occupiers. We are not the British in India. We are not the Belgians in the Congo.
"This is the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history can deny the four thousand year old bond, between the Jewish people and the Jewish land."
~~~~~~~~~~
But then the prime minister spoke about the need to share our land with the Palestinians, and to make sacrifices, when the time is right, for a true peace. Did he say more in this regard than I would have preferred. He did.
But he laid out red lines as well and spoke truth to the world:
"...If the benefits of peace with the Palestinians are so clear, why has peace eluded us? Because all six Israeli Prime Ministers since the signing of Oslo accords agreed to establish a Palestinian state. Myself included. So why has peace not been achieved? Because so far, the Palestinians have been unwilling to accept a Palestinian state, if it meant accepting a Jewish state alongside it.
"You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about. In 1947, the United Nations voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews said yes. The Palestinians said no. In recent years, the Palestinians twice refused generous offers by Israeli Prime Ministers, to establish a Palestinian state on virtually all the territory won by Israel in the Six Day War.
"They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.
"My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… 'I will accept a Palestinian state.' It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… 'I will accept a Jewish state.'
"Those six words will change history. They will make clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end. That they are not building a state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it. They will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace. With such a partner, the people of Israel will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise.
This compromise must reflect the dramatic demographic changes that have occurred since 1967. [I.e., Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria.]...
"Under any realistic peace agreement, these areas, as well as other places of critical strategic and national importance, will be incorporated into the final borders of Israel.
"...Israel will not return to the indefensible lines of 1967.
"...As for Jerusalem, only a democratic Israel has protected freedom of worship for all faiths in the city. Jerusalem must never again be divided. Jerusalem must remain the united capital of Israel...
"And Hamas is not a partner for peace. Hamas remains committed to Israel's destruction and to terrorism. They have a charter. That charter not only calls for the obliteration of Israel, but says ‘kill the Jews wherever you find them’...Israel is prepared to sit down today and negotiate peace with the Palestinian Authority. I believe we can fashion a brilliant future of peace for our children. But Israel will not negotiate with a Palestinian government backed by the Palestinian version of Al Qaeda."
You can find a video and transcript of the speech here:
http://daledamos.blogspot.com/2011/05/transcript-of-netanyahus-speech-before.html
~~~~~~~~~~
Netanyahu's reception by Congress was extraordinary. I understand that he was interrupted by applause more times than anyone who has ever addressed a joint session of Congress.
A time for Israelis to hold their heads high.
~~~~~~~~~~
Had he adopted a tough nationalist ideological line (as some undoubtedly would have preferred) that reception would not have been what it was. He would have been attacked as anti-peace and a radical, obstructionist. And in the end, this would not have served Israel well.
And so he spoke of compromises, and I accept that he had to. But such were the red lines he laid out -- all fair and appropriate and in our national interest -- that he knows, as surely as he expects to take his next breath, that it is not going to happen. Abbas is not going to recognize a Jewish state and renounce the right of return, and walk away from Hamas.
This is the Netanyahu style: Let the world see the Arabs as obstructionist. We might quibble with some details of what he said, but essentially I believe he played it brilliantly.
~~~~~~~~~~
It is being said that Obama's speech promotes war. And this is so. That it inhibits "peace" is not the case, for there was going to be no peace in any event, and it's time this fact were more broadly acknowledged. What Obama has done is make it easier for the PA to be obstructionist -- for they followed Obama's speech by demanding that Israel agree to the '67 line as a starting point if we want them to come to the table.
And now we've moved beyond this:
As of yesterday, according to Reuters, the "peace process follow-up committee" of the Arab League -- following an address by Abbas -- said it would request membership for the state of Palestine at the UN General Assembly's meeting in New York in September. "A Palestinian state in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, with east Jerusalem as its capital."
I hope to devote my next posting to the issue of the UN as venue for establishing a Palestinian state.
~~~~~~~~~~
My beautiful new grandson:
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
A Day at the Races
Daniel Greenfield
If the Republican presidential field were any more unstable, it would be radioactive. At this point just about anyone can jump in and briefly poll on top of the heap, before slowly sinking down to the bottom again, like a banana in a bowl of stale jello. Party players pin their hopes on candidates that aren't running. Pilgrims in thousand dollar suits court state governors. Activists assemble petitions. But none of that is the solution. It's not so much that the man is missing, but the message.
It's a long way from 2011 to 2010. A year ago it was about the message, not the personalities. Now it is all about the personalities. And such scant personalities they are. After months of this, we can finally begin dividing the field into RINO's who have experience, populists who have no experience and those who have decided not to run. For all the feverish speculation, we find ourselves without the usual surplus of candidates. Instead it's more like a shortage.
Trump's ring toss and retreat has become the opening number of the race. Mid-terms are dangerous. It takes huge amounts of money and coordination to pull off a presidential run. Not to mention facing a media gauntlet of unprecedented ugliness. It's easier not to run. Especially if you have no compelling reason. t's the lack of a compelling reason, a gut issue, that has left the field so pale. If 2010 was an uprising against government mismanagement, 2011 is more like a career fair in which no one is eager to take a leaflet or claim a job. The gut issues of smaller government, less regulation and more economic growth have been swallowed into the belly of budget debates. And you can't run on budget debates. Pawlenty's Time for Truth ad with its faintly upbeat music and downbeat message is the problem. Its forlorn sincerity is downright Carteresque. An insurance commercial for austerity.
The grass roots uprising spoke to individual grievances and a sense that.the country was being lost. And now that message has been buried in policy wonkery at the worst possible time. It's not that the policy debates don't matter. They do. But they have to be summed up in a larger vision. And that vision has to focus on a resurgence. It has to be hopeful. It has to be Reagan's Morning in America, not Carter's Gloomy Gus. Cutting spending has to be positioned as empowerment, not depression. The right thing to do even if we weren't in the midst of an economic disaster.
2010 accomplished what it was meant to. It put Obama, Pelosi and Reid in a stalemate. Not a perfect stalemate. But enough to slow them down. Hamstring their agenda. The next step will either be a comprehensive victory or an extension of the stalemate. A Republican victory breaks the stalemate, but if Obama wins and the Republicans make some limited gains, then the stalemate goes on.
The reason Obama loses against a generic Republican ballot, but does better against some known candidates, is that right now the negative vote is a powerful force in American politics. More powerful than the positive vote. Obama knows he doesn't have to win over most of the swing voters. He just has to make the Republican opposition look like a worse option.
This is what we're up against. This time around we're not up against the messiah of hope and change. It's the governor of the status quo that we're running against. The candidate of the devil you know. And while to most people reading this, the devil you know is never a viable option. To many people he will be. Even those who don't like him and who know he doesn't like them. Because the alternative is either uninspiring or scary. Summed up as that most frightening of words. Insecurity. And in an insecure time, many will cling to what they know, if the alternative doesn't offer them much hope.
Any Republican who hopes to win is going to have to draw on a positive vote. And that is not going to be easy. This time we're going to be the ones selling hope and change. And we're going to have to do it inspirationally. If we can't do that, then all we can do is warn of a disaster and hope the negative vote is enough. And it probably won't be.
Last year we tapped into discontent. This time we're going to have to do more than that. The economy is the binding issue, but it's a blade that cuts both ways. The candidate offering hard truths doesn't have a history of performing well in national elections. Especially in an economic crisis. Otherwise FDR would have never taken the White House. And that was before a sizable portion of the country depended on entitlements. Afterward, it's even more of an uphill battle. That's without factoring in the media barrage or last minute surprises. That doesn't mean the hard truths don't belong, but that they have to be part of an optimistic vision.
There's a glumness to the field right now. A dourness. Only the populist favorites like Trump and Cain seemed to be enjoying themselves. The infighting, the opposition research, the articles and posts indicting one candidate or another for the faults that most of them have, only add to the mood. It all feels too much like 2008 all over again. Or 1996. A campaign of old hands fighting for a desperate shot at a race they don't really hope to win.
And the connection to the gut issues is missing. The Battle of ObamaCare had become about more than just the law. It was a metaphor for the overreaching hubris of an administration. Its interference, its arrogance and its refusal to listen. Its wild spending and bills that couldn't be read. The backlash tapped into a frustration with government authority and uncontrollable spending. But despite the NLRB's abuses and the latest insane spending sprees, that focus has been lost.
The public is still dissatisfied, but the leadership has diffused into civil wars in echo chambers. Insiders debating over who the real insiders are. Agendas being set that can't be fulfilled. Everyone is positioning themselves in a battle. But the morale is lacking. There are a thousand flags, but no single flag to wave high. The Gadsden flag, that became the banner of the Tea Party movement, with its motto, 'Don't Tread On Me' is ideal for what is missing. For what we aren't fighting for.
The problem of all policy debates is that they sink into the workings of governments. They turn into a debate over what bills to pass and what laws to make. And then that reflexive outrage of, 'Don't Tread on Me' is lost. And what you have left are generic candidates angling for the best strategy. Fighting to win, but with no real reason to win.
The disparity of power between the government and the governed is at the heart of a populist movement. But to win, the grass roots still have to back politicians. And if they win, the politicians turn into the government. They take on another perspective. That of the other side.
The challenge of 2012 is to unite the Gadsden flag with the flag of the United States. To merge popular dissent into a vision of independence. A vision that enlarges rather than diminishes. Outrage is enough for a populist backlash in a midterm election. But outrage alone won't see us through. Neither will all the criticisms of Obama. Every rebellion has to give way to a vision of a better nation. And it must transcend the personal ambitions of its leaders, but not the personal grievances of its people.
The field we have now is driven by personal ambition. And ambition has limits to its resonance. Even when dressed up in messianic clothes and turned into the illusion of democratized fame. None of this is enough. Unless we can raise a flag that beams, 'Morning in America', then the race will become Obama's to lose.
End the refugee problem
Op-ed: Arab, Palestinian leaders must stop using their people as negotiating chips
Nicole Brackman, Asaf Romirowsky
05.29.11, 12:41 / Israel Opinion
In President Barack Obama’s speech of May 19, he credits the recent “Arab Spring” with opening the first windows onto the prospect of burgeoning democracy across the Arab world. Crediting technology and the availability of information via the Internet with revealing the possibility of freedom to the oppressed masses under the thumbs of dictators, the president described his vision of a grass-roots inspired movement to grace Arab states with democratic governments and its people with human rights and the dignity of freedom. However, the president – and the Department of State – is still convinced that the “root cause” of problems in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The reality on the ground paints quite a different picture. While Obama began by examining the rising unrest across the Arab world and its potential consequences both for those countries and the world at large, in the end the focus reverted by force of habit to the perennial “black sheep” of the Middle East – Israel and the Palestinian conflict. Despite overwhelming evidence that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not in fact responsible for all the region’s ills, the president’s (and the State Department) reflex is to conflate the “lack of progress” in Israeli/Palestinian negotiations to an absurd magnitude.
Historically, US presidents at the behest of the Department of State, have remained fixated on what Israel should “do” to “advance the cause of peace” at the expense of discerning the trends of disquiet rolling through the Middle East in ways which have profoundly threatened regional (and global) stability. In that regard, Obama is no different. That said, Obama did state that resolution between Israelis and Palestinians will come about by basing the disposition of territory on the 1948 Armistice lines. Though that expectation is a foregone conclusion in the eyes of all but Israel (which - somewhat naively - insists that there be no preconditions to negotiations), President Obama laid down the gauntlet to Israel.
In a departure for American foreign policy, Obama did not preface his statement by saying that the 1967 boundaries are a “Palestinian goal” but rather articulated it as a specifically American initiative. This contravenes stated US policy to protect Israel’s security; the 1948 Armistice lines, which were hardly defensible in 1967, are only more precarious now.
There are real (and realistic) ways for the President to assert American interests in the “peace process” and take concrete steps not only toward establishing a real premise for a workable negotiation between the Palestinians and Israelis – but also toward improving and gaining traction in bilateral relationships with Arab countries. Palestinian “refugeeness” has become a central symbol of their struggle and the raison d'être of their cause; Palestinian proponents argue that as long as they are refugees, no peace with Israel can ever come about.
The End of UNRWA?
This issue has been poorly understood and handled by America since the 1950s. It has been used – first by the Arab League, then by the Palestinians themselves – as a diversion; as a “ticking bomb;” and as an ideological, no-holds-barred, Armageddon-esque threat to topple negotiations and destroy Israel from within and without. The US helps perpetuate the quagmire through continued financial support of UNRWA (the UN body solely devoted to aiding Palestinian refugees) notwithstanding clear evidence that UNRWA has been co-opted by terrorist elements and despite directives from the US Congress to demand by UNRWA transparency and accountability.
Defusing this threat is not only possible, but relatively simple (although not easy). The United States has disparate interests in, relationships with, and goals for Arab states which have significant Palestinian refugee populations (Palestinian Authority; Gaza; Jordan; Syria; Lebanon). Conversely each of those states (or entities) have something they want or need from the US. Treating the Palestinian refugee issue as a matter for bilateral negotiations between America and each state significantly mutes the ideological component, and defuses its potential use as a “weapon” in negotiations.
This strategy re-focuses the context of the refugee issue - making it a matter for logistical and operational-oriented solutions. It obliges the Arab states to confront their own responsibility for the treatment of the Palestinians within their borders as chattel (not to mention their outright persecution in Syria and Lebanon) and highlights the incongruous irony that Palestinians are still living in refugee “camps” while under the autonomous jurisdiction of their own (ostensibly democratically elected) governments in the Palestinian Authority areas and Gaza.
Such a refocusing is also a boon for US policy interests, both in the short and long term. In re-evaluating a long-held but faulty axiom of 20th century American foreign policy, the Obama administration can signal its intent to establish “cooperative dominance” that is oriented toward productive results rather than ideological posturing for the new, 21st century realities in the Middle East. President Obama can establish a pattern of pragmatic diplomacy that alerts both the new and old Arab regimes that the United States is interested not in ceaseless dogmatic whining but in brass-tacks negotiating intended to produce real payoffs.
Finally, employing such approach would go a long way toward compelling the Arabs and Palestinians to stop rewriting history to accommodate the myth that the West (and specifically Israel) created the refugee problem. Palestinian recidivism and a selective historical memory prevent the acknowledgement that it was the Arab rejection of UN Resolution 181 and the Partition Plan that created the Palestinian refugee problem. Ending the refugee problem means (among other things) dismantling UNRWA and other enabling NGOs and requiring the Palestinians and Arab states to step up and take responsibility for both past actions and the future disposition of those who would be citizens.
As Israel absorbed approximately a million Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim nations in the wake of independence in 1948 alone, it is time for the Palestinians to be freed of refugee “servitude” by their leaders. Whatever the timetable for an independent Palestinian state – and it is coming, as part of a viable two-state solution – it is long past due that Palestinian and Arab leaders stop using their people as negotiating chips and start recognizing them as citizens with full rights where they live today.
Nicole Brackman, Ph.D. is a former Soref Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Asaf Romirowsky is a Philadelphia-based Middle East analyst, a lecturer in history at Pennsylvania State University and an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Forum.
Nicole Brackman, Asaf Romirowsky
05.29.11, 12:41 / Israel Opinion
In President Barack Obama’s speech of May 19, he credits the recent “Arab Spring” with opening the first windows onto the prospect of burgeoning democracy across the Arab world. Crediting technology and the availability of information via the Internet with revealing the possibility of freedom to the oppressed masses under the thumbs of dictators, the president described his vision of a grass-roots inspired movement to grace Arab states with democratic governments and its people with human rights and the dignity of freedom. However, the president – and the Department of State – is still convinced that the “root cause” of problems in the Middle East is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The reality on the ground paints quite a different picture. While Obama began by examining the rising unrest across the Arab world and its potential consequences both for those countries and the world at large, in the end the focus reverted by force of habit to the perennial “black sheep” of the Middle East – Israel and the Palestinian conflict. Despite overwhelming evidence that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is not in fact responsible for all the region’s ills, the president’s (and the State Department) reflex is to conflate the “lack of progress” in Israeli/Palestinian negotiations to an absurd magnitude.
Historically, US presidents at the behest of the Department of State, have remained fixated on what Israel should “do” to “advance the cause of peace” at the expense of discerning the trends of disquiet rolling through the Middle East in ways which have profoundly threatened regional (and global) stability. In that regard, Obama is no different. That said, Obama did state that resolution between Israelis and Palestinians will come about by basing the disposition of territory on the 1948 Armistice lines. Though that expectation is a foregone conclusion in the eyes of all but Israel (which - somewhat naively - insists that there be no preconditions to negotiations), President Obama laid down the gauntlet to Israel.
In a departure for American foreign policy, Obama did not preface his statement by saying that the 1967 boundaries are a “Palestinian goal” but rather articulated it as a specifically American initiative. This contravenes stated US policy to protect Israel’s security; the 1948 Armistice lines, which were hardly defensible in 1967, are only more precarious now.
There are real (and realistic) ways for the President to assert American interests in the “peace process” and take concrete steps not only toward establishing a real premise for a workable negotiation between the Palestinians and Israelis – but also toward improving and gaining traction in bilateral relationships with Arab countries. Palestinian “refugeeness” has become a central symbol of their struggle and the raison d'être of their cause; Palestinian proponents argue that as long as they are refugees, no peace with Israel can ever come about.
The End of UNRWA?
This issue has been poorly understood and handled by America since the 1950s. It has been used – first by the Arab League, then by the Palestinians themselves – as a diversion; as a “ticking bomb;” and as an ideological, no-holds-barred, Armageddon-esque threat to topple negotiations and destroy Israel from within and without. The US helps perpetuate the quagmire through continued financial support of UNRWA (the UN body solely devoted to aiding Palestinian refugees) notwithstanding clear evidence that UNRWA has been co-opted by terrorist elements and despite directives from the US Congress to demand by UNRWA transparency and accountability.
Defusing this threat is not only possible, but relatively simple (although not easy). The United States has disparate interests in, relationships with, and goals for Arab states which have significant Palestinian refugee populations (Palestinian Authority; Gaza; Jordan; Syria; Lebanon). Conversely each of those states (or entities) have something they want or need from the US. Treating the Palestinian refugee issue as a matter for bilateral negotiations between America and each state significantly mutes the ideological component, and defuses its potential use as a “weapon” in negotiations.
This strategy re-focuses the context of the refugee issue - making it a matter for logistical and operational-oriented solutions. It obliges the Arab states to confront their own responsibility for the treatment of the Palestinians within their borders as chattel (not to mention their outright persecution in Syria and Lebanon) and highlights the incongruous irony that Palestinians are still living in refugee “camps” while under the autonomous jurisdiction of their own (ostensibly democratically elected) governments in the Palestinian Authority areas and Gaza.
Such a refocusing is also a boon for US policy interests, both in the short and long term. In re-evaluating a long-held but faulty axiom of 20th century American foreign policy, the Obama administration can signal its intent to establish “cooperative dominance” that is oriented toward productive results rather than ideological posturing for the new, 21st century realities in the Middle East. President Obama can establish a pattern of pragmatic diplomacy that alerts both the new and old Arab regimes that the United States is interested not in ceaseless dogmatic whining but in brass-tacks negotiating intended to produce real payoffs.
Finally, employing such approach would go a long way toward compelling the Arabs and Palestinians to stop rewriting history to accommodate the myth that the West (and specifically Israel) created the refugee problem. Palestinian recidivism and a selective historical memory prevent the acknowledgement that it was the Arab rejection of UN Resolution 181 and the Partition Plan that created the Palestinian refugee problem. Ending the refugee problem means (among other things) dismantling UNRWA and other enabling NGOs and requiring the Palestinians and Arab states to step up and take responsibility for both past actions and the future disposition of those who would be citizens.
As Israel absorbed approximately a million Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim nations in the wake of independence in 1948 alone, it is time for the Palestinians to be freed of refugee “servitude” by their leaders. Whatever the timetable for an independent Palestinian state – and it is coming, as part of a viable two-state solution – it is long past due that Palestinian and Arab leaders stop using their people as negotiating chips and start recognizing them as citizens with full rights where they live today.
Nicole Brackman, Ph.D. is a former Soref Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Asaf Romirowsky is a Philadelphia-based Middle East analyst, a lecturer in history at Pennsylvania State University and an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Forum.
The Audacity of Reality
Lori Lowenthal Marcus
Despite the avalanche of articles analyzing U.S. President Barack Obama's May 19, 2011 Middle East speech, one irony has not been mentioned. The president laid out a magnificent blueprint for the countries in the region to follow in order to ensure dignity, freedom, and hope for their citizens. But all the president had to do was look reality in the face, and find his vision reflected in Israel. Yet Israel was the only country which the president wants both to shrink, and away from which he told Arabs to turn. Obama's refusal to credit Israel's freedom as a value for Arabs as well as Jews is symptomatic of an epic error: the insistence on acting on political ideology rather than asking what's really best for the people on the ground. Even just focusing on what's really going to help the Arabs in the Disputed Territories has been submerged in place of the fixation on establishing a Palestinian Arab State. Let's call those afflicted with this mindset the Palestinian Statists.
Earlier this month the grassroots organization Z STREET held a one-day summit in Washington, D.C. where speakers rewound this tape and tried to address the real issue of how to do the most good for all of the people who live in the Middle East. At that conference -- RETHINKING THE END GAME: Improving Lives in the Middle East -- the focus was on whether a Palestinian State would be a positive step not for Israeli Jews, but for Arab Palestinians.
The seven Z STREET speakers -- people who for decades have studied or lived in the Arab and Jewish quarters of that region of the world -- argued, as did President Obama, that peace in the region will be built upon the pillars upon which all of Western Civilization is built: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, economic dignity, entrepreneurship and independence, and respect for and the assurance of the equality of women and minorities.
But in his speech President Obama took Israel -- which should have been his Exhibit A because it is the sole country in the region that embraces and ensures these freedoms and opportunities for all its citizens -- and demanded that it:
give over territory that it has governed, with all of these freedoms, for both Arab and Jew, and hand that territory to regimes under which none of these freedoms will be respected for either Jew or Arab;
attempt to make peace, and share "security arrangements," with regimes that are sworn and publicly committed to immolating their own children (never mind the Jews' children) in a bonfire of war against the Jewish State and to undermining security arrangements with their neighbor Israel.
In his impatience to "press the reset button" on the Middle East "peace process," as if it were a malfunctioning Sony PlayStation, President Obama and all those other Palestinian Statists ignore the real impact of this proposal even on the people they claim they most want to help: the Arab Palestinians.
You see, the Palestinian Statists have the causation reversed. They think that the Arab Palestinians should start a state, which will then create freedom and personal security. What these people ignore is the fact that a Palestinian State will be run, right out of the block, by men who oppose those very freedoms, think their country should be ruled by Sharia -- not as a democracy that guarantees human rights -- and who daily sacrifice their peoples' security in a never-ending war with the Jews.
The hard-headed reality is that the causation works the other way round: start with the freedoms and personal and economic security for the average Tom, Dick, and Muhammad on the street, and let government grow organically out of peaceful communities, composed of free men and women and safe children, oriented towards education and prosperity instead of martyrdom and murder. Another dose of reality: there is only one government anywhere in the Middle East that has ever provided freedom and security to the Arab on the street: that country is called Israel.
The Z STREET speakers provided a raft of cold, clear statistics and examples of the sharp contrast in quality of life for the Arabs.
George Gilder discussed the higher standard of living enjoyed by Arab Palestinians within Israel and in those disputed territories that Israel has governed. This he compared to radically lower standards of living for Palestinian Arabs in any surrounding Arab country.
Those at the Z STREET conference heard about the complete dependence -- upon Israel, not Jordan, or Syria, or Lebanon, but upon the only engine of free market capitalism in the Middle East -- of the burgeoning Palestinian Authority economy. The political economist Gal Luft explained that a huge source of wealth for the PA economy comes from Israel's transfer to the PA of millions of shekels. The PA isn't actually entitled to this transfer, because they've never recognized the state of Israel. As of now, the PA only has this deal via the Oslo Accords, the tattered remnants of which will be completely abrogated by a Palestinian State created before the incitement ends. Luft further revealed the pitiable level to which the PA economy will sink if it is torn from its interdependence with Israel for many reasons, including their current use of the Israeli sheckel which is stronger than the dollar, the yen, or the euro, and certainly stronger than any fiat currency of a Palestinian State.
From Steve Rosen, who has studied the Middle East for decades, we learned that all optimistic estimates of Palestinian governance rests on Salam Fayyad, whom Hamas, which Fatah recently remarried, has said it will not support. Nonie Darwish, an Egyptian-born and Gaza-reared human rights activist, described the brutal misogyny evidenced by polygamy, female genital mutilation, and honor killings forced on Arab women under the system that will prevail in a Palestinian State -- not the Bill of Rights, but Sharia. And we learned as well that the freedoms President Obama sings about are protected -- for women, and gays and lesbians, and atheists, and journalists -- only in the Israeli territory that Palestinian Statists are so eager to shrink.
Arab Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh writes for Western news sources for the simple reason that they let him tell the truth as he sees it, while the PLO house organ he originally worked for only permitted journalists to take dictation from the official propagandists. Abu Toameh told the Z STREET audience about the dashed hopes of Arab Palestinian journalists anywhere but in Israel for freedom in the media. He also informed us that every second person he meets in Gaza and in the territories want to move to Israel, not because they are Zionists or believe in Herzl or Jabotinsky, but because they want a better life. His bold assertion is backed up by recent polls.
So if the first part of President Obama's May 19th speech, the part about encouraging and enshrining western values of tolerance, freedoms, and economic entrepreneurship was correct -- and there were few if any critics of that portion of his speech -- then, it follows, that Israel which is the sole regional repository of those values, should be strengthened, and ties to it should be encouraged.
Rather than Israel being told that the world cannot wait much longer for the creation of a Palestinian State, perhaps those Palestinian Statists should be called upon to answer the following: why condemn Palestinian Arabs to live in a new, third world, Sharia-ruled, economically impoverished country, and deprive them of access to the economic powerhouse and western values-driven nation of Israel? Force them to answer to the audacity of reality.
Lori Lowenthal Marcus is president of Z STREET, WWW.ZSTREET.ORG.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_audacity_of_reality.html at May 29,
Despite the avalanche of articles analyzing U.S. President Barack Obama's May 19, 2011 Middle East speech, one irony has not been mentioned. The president laid out a magnificent blueprint for the countries in the region to follow in order to ensure dignity, freedom, and hope for their citizens. But all the president had to do was look reality in the face, and find his vision reflected in Israel. Yet Israel was the only country which the president wants both to shrink, and away from which he told Arabs to turn. Obama's refusal to credit Israel's freedom as a value for Arabs as well as Jews is symptomatic of an epic error: the insistence on acting on political ideology rather than asking what's really best for the people on the ground. Even just focusing on what's really going to help the Arabs in the Disputed Territories has been submerged in place of the fixation on establishing a Palestinian Arab State. Let's call those afflicted with this mindset the Palestinian Statists.
Earlier this month the grassroots organization Z STREET held a one-day summit in Washington, D.C. where speakers rewound this tape and tried to address the real issue of how to do the most good for all of the people who live in the Middle East. At that conference -- RETHINKING THE END GAME: Improving Lives in the Middle East -- the focus was on whether a Palestinian State would be a positive step not for Israeli Jews, but for Arab Palestinians.
The seven Z STREET speakers -- people who for decades have studied or lived in the Arab and Jewish quarters of that region of the world -- argued, as did President Obama, that peace in the region will be built upon the pillars upon which all of Western Civilization is built: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, economic dignity, entrepreneurship and independence, and respect for and the assurance of the equality of women and minorities.
But in his speech President Obama took Israel -- which should have been his Exhibit A because it is the sole country in the region that embraces and ensures these freedoms and opportunities for all its citizens -- and demanded that it:
give over territory that it has governed, with all of these freedoms, for both Arab and Jew, and hand that territory to regimes under which none of these freedoms will be respected for either Jew or Arab;
attempt to make peace, and share "security arrangements," with regimes that are sworn and publicly committed to immolating their own children (never mind the Jews' children) in a bonfire of war against the Jewish State and to undermining security arrangements with their neighbor Israel.
In his impatience to "press the reset button" on the Middle East "peace process," as if it were a malfunctioning Sony PlayStation, President Obama and all those other Palestinian Statists ignore the real impact of this proposal even on the people they claim they most want to help: the Arab Palestinians.
You see, the Palestinian Statists have the causation reversed. They think that the Arab Palestinians should start a state, which will then create freedom and personal security. What these people ignore is the fact that a Palestinian State will be run, right out of the block, by men who oppose those very freedoms, think their country should be ruled by Sharia -- not as a democracy that guarantees human rights -- and who daily sacrifice their peoples' security in a never-ending war with the Jews.
The hard-headed reality is that the causation works the other way round: start with the freedoms and personal and economic security for the average Tom, Dick, and Muhammad on the street, and let government grow organically out of peaceful communities, composed of free men and women and safe children, oriented towards education and prosperity instead of martyrdom and murder. Another dose of reality: there is only one government anywhere in the Middle East that has ever provided freedom and security to the Arab on the street: that country is called Israel.
The Z STREET speakers provided a raft of cold, clear statistics and examples of the sharp contrast in quality of life for the Arabs.
George Gilder discussed the higher standard of living enjoyed by Arab Palestinians within Israel and in those disputed territories that Israel has governed. This he compared to radically lower standards of living for Palestinian Arabs in any surrounding Arab country.
Those at the Z STREET conference heard about the complete dependence -- upon Israel, not Jordan, or Syria, or Lebanon, but upon the only engine of free market capitalism in the Middle East -- of the burgeoning Palestinian Authority economy. The political economist Gal Luft explained that a huge source of wealth for the PA economy comes from Israel's transfer to the PA of millions of shekels. The PA isn't actually entitled to this transfer, because they've never recognized the state of Israel. As of now, the PA only has this deal via the Oslo Accords, the tattered remnants of which will be completely abrogated by a Palestinian State created before the incitement ends. Luft further revealed the pitiable level to which the PA economy will sink if it is torn from its interdependence with Israel for many reasons, including their current use of the Israeli sheckel which is stronger than the dollar, the yen, or the euro, and certainly stronger than any fiat currency of a Palestinian State.
From Steve Rosen, who has studied the Middle East for decades, we learned that all optimistic estimates of Palestinian governance rests on Salam Fayyad, whom Hamas, which Fatah recently remarried, has said it will not support. Nonie Darwish, an Egyptian-born and Gaza-reared human rights activist, described the brutal misogyny evidenced by polygamy, female genital mutilation, and honor killings forced on Arab women under the system that will prevail in a Palestinian State -- not the Bill of Rights, but Sharia. And we learned as well that the freedoms President Obama sings about are protected -- for women, and gays and lesbians, and atheists, and journalists -- only in the Israeli territory that Palestinian Statists are so eager to shrink.
Arab Israeli journalist Khaled Abu Toameh writes for Western news sources for the simple reason that they let him tell the truth as he sees it, while the PLO house organ he originally worked for only permitted journalists to take dictation from the official propagandists. Abu Toameh told the Z STREET audience about the dashed hopes of Arab Palestinian journalists anywhere but in Israel for freedom in the media. He also informed us that every second person he meets in Gaza and in the territories want to move to Israel, not because they are Zionists or believe in Herzl or Jabotinsky, but because they want a better life. His bold assertion is backed up by recent polls.
So if the first part of President Obama's May 19th speech, the part about encouraging and enshrining western values of tolerance, freedoms, and economic entrepreneurship was correct -- and there were few if any critics of that portion of his speech -- then, it follows, that Israel which is the sole regional repository of those values, should be strengthened, and ties to it should be encouraged.
Rather than Israel being told that the world cannot wait much longer for the creation of a Palestinian State, perhaps those Palestinian Statists should be called upon to answer the following: why condemn Palestinian Arabs to live in a new, third world, Sharia-ruled, economically impoverished country, and deprive them of access to the economic powerhouse and western values-driven nation of Israel? Force them to answer to the audacity of reality.
Lori Lowenthal Marcus is president of Z STREET, WWW.ZSTREET.ORG.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_audacity_of_reality.html at May 29,
The Five Stages of Islam
Richard Butrick
Forget the Five Pillars of Islam. It is the Five Stages of Islam that threaten the fundamental freedoms of Western Democracy. Freedoms which include freedom of thought, expression, and association and the crucial derived right of freedom of the press. We should never forget that "Islam" means submission -- the opposite of self-determination and Enlightenment values. Six years ago Dr. Peter Hammond published a remarkable book which included a statistical study of the correlation between Muslim to non-Muslim population ratios and the transition from conciliatory Islam to fascist Islam. The stages are the same in 2011 but the demographics have changed to show an alarming progression. Many European nations and the U.S. are on the cusp of moving to a higher bracket. The demographics change but the story is the same. First comes the taqiyya and the kitman; then comes the Sword of Islam. Imam Rauf, the Ground Zero Mosque promoter, is the current master of taqiyya. He has gulled everyone from Bloomberg to Maureen Dowd of the NYT -- who fanaticizes over male Muslims. Expect doppelgangers of Khomeini for stage 5 and Islamic PEACE at last.
Stage 1. Establish a Beachhead
Population density à 2% (US, Australia, Canada).
Muslims are conciliatory, deferential but request harmless special treatment (foot bath facilities, removal/elimination of that which is offensive to delicate Muslim sensibilities - like walking dogs near Mosques).
Stage 2. Establish Outposts
Population density 2% - 5% (UK, Germany, Denmark).
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. A recent example is that of Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal who is back in Jamaica after being kicked out of the UK. Sound harmless? Read on:
The dispatch, dated February 2010, warns that that Jamaica could be fertile ground for jihadists because of its underground drug economy, marginalized youth, insufficient security and gang networks in U.S. and British prisons.
Stage 3. Establish Sectional Control of Major Cities.
Population density 5% - 10% (France, Sweden, Netherlands).
First comes the demand for halal food in supermarkets, and the blocking of streets for prayers; then comes the demand for self rule (within their ghettos) under Sharia. When Muslims approach 10% of the population the demands turn to lawlessness. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any criticism of Islam results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam. In France which may be over the 10% range, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrassas. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.
Stage 4. Establish Regional Control.
Population density 20% - 50% (Europe 2020?).
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues.
Stage 5. Total Control, Brutal Suppression, and Dhimmitude.
Population density > 50%.
Unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels. As Muslim population levels increase and all infidels cower in submission there will peace at last. Dar al-Islam is achieved and everyone lives under Sharia and the Koran is the only word.
Our current Western world leaders are suckered by taqiyya and kitman and steering us into stage 3. Allen West seems to get it but I can't see that any of the crop of current GOP contenders really get it. Fear of bigotry at stage 2 is the Islamists' greatest weapon. Crucified on the cross of bigotry -- is that the future of the Western democracies? Bigotry is only bigotry if it is out of touch with reality and it is the suckers who believe the stage 1-2 peace pitch of Islam who are the ones who are out of touch with reality -- not to mention our mesmerized President. The first GOP candidate who announces to Imam Rauf and his supporters, "Fine. A Mosque at ground zero. But how about a cathedral in Mecca first? It is part of our Christian outreach program of bridge building." will be the first to get it and a big boost in the polls.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_five_stages_of_islam.html at May 29, 2011 - 02:32:26 AM CDT
Forget the Five Pillars of Islam. It is the Five Stages of Islam that threaten the fundamental freedoms of Western Democracy. Freedoms which include freedom of thought, expression, and association and the crucial derived right of freedom of the press. We should never forget that "Islam" means submission -- the opposite of self-determination and Enlightenment values. Six years ago Dr. Peter Hammond published a remarkable book which included a statistical study of the correlation between Muslim to non-Muslim population ratios and the transition from conciliatory Islam to fascist Islam. The stages are the same in 2011 but the demographics have changed to show an alarming progression. Many European nations and the U.S. are on the cusp of moving to a higher bracket. The demographics change but the story is the same. First comes the taqiyya and the kitman; then comes the Sword of Islam. Imam Rauf, the Ground Zero Mosque promoter, is the current master of taqiyya. He has gulled everyone from Bloomberg to Maureen Dowd of the NYT -- who fanaticizes over male Muslims. Expect doppelgangers of Khomeini for stage 5 and Islamic PEACE at last.
Stage 1. Establish a Beachhead
Population density à 2% (US, Australia, Canada).
Muslims are conciliatory, deferential but request harmless special treatment (foot bath facilities, removal/elimination of that which is offensive to delicate Muslim sensibilities - like walking dogs near Mosques).
Stage 2. Establish Outposts
Population density 2% - 5% (UK, Germany, Denmark).
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. A recent example is that of Sheikh Abdullah el-Faisal who is back in Jamaica after being kicked out of the UK. Sound harmless? Read on:
The dispatch, dated February 2010, warns that that Jamaica could be fertile ground for jihadists because of its underground drug economy, marginalized youth, insufficient security and gang networks in U.S. and British prisons.
Stage 3. Establish Sectional Control of Major Cities.
Population density 5% - 10% (France, Sweden, Netherlands).
First comes the demand for halal food in supermarkets, and the blocking of streets for prayers; then comes the demand for self rule (within their ghettos) under Sharia. When Muslims approach 10% of the population the demands turn to lawlessness. In Paris, we are already seeing car-burnings. Any criticism of Islam results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam. In France which may be over the 10% range, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts, nor schools, nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrassas. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death.
Stage 4. Establish Regional Control.
Population density 20% - 50% (Europe 2020?).
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues.
Stage 5. Total Control, Brutal Suppression, and Dhimmitude.
Population density > 50%.
Unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and jizya, the tax placed on infidels. As Muslim population levels increase and all infidels cower in submission there will peace at last. Dar al-Islam is achieved and everyone lives under Sharia and the Koran is the only word.
Our current Western world leaders are suckered by taqiyya and kitman and steering us into stage 3. Allen West seems to get it but I can't see that any of the crop of current GOP contenders really get it. Fear of bigotry at stage 2 is the Islamists' greatest weapon. Crucified on the cross of bigotry -- is that the future of the Western democracies? Bigotry is only bigotry if it is out of touch with reality and it is the suckers who believe the stage 1-2 peace pitch of Islam who are the ones who are out of touch with reality -- not to mention our mesmerized President. The first GOP candidate who announces to Imam Rauf and his supporters, "Fine. A Mosque at ground zero. But how about a cathedral in Mecca first? It is part of our Christian outreach program of bridge building." will be the first to get it and a big boost in the polls.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/the_five_stages_of_islam.html at May 29, 2011 - 02:32:26 AM CDT
(PJM Exclusive) Iran’s Supreme Leader Declared the Mythical Figure in End of Times
'Reza Kahlili'
In my recent exposé of the Iranian documentary The Coming is Upon Us, I noted that the film informed Muslims throughout the world that the end times are near. I also showed that “Seyed Khoarasani” — the mythical figure who will create the conditions for the end of times and the reappearance of the last Islamic messiah, the Shiites’ 12th Imam, by destroying Israel and the West — was revealed to be Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. (See my articles here and here, as well as PJTV coverage here.)
Many of the Hadith, both from Sunni and Shiite sources, conclude that the figure “Seyed Khorasani” is the leader of the people in the East, or one of their high ranking officials who will pass on the flag of Islam to the last messiah. The Hadith also point out that Seyed Khorasani is from the province of Khorasan and has a sign or a disorder on his right hand. Ayatollah Khamenei is from the province of Khorasan and has a disorder of his right hand due to the injury he received in an assassination attempt in 1981.Some in the West have refused to accept the Iranian documentary as the official position of the Iranian regime, and until now, the Iranian authorities have been very careful not to make any strong statements to further verify the statements made in the movie. At first, many in the Iranian establishment objected to the production as it revealed their true ideology to the West. As I reported, the movie’s producers clearly stated that they had been authorized by the offices of supreme leader and the Iranian president to go ahead with the project.
However, the supreme leader’s position regarding the movie, including the description in the Hadith that he is that mythical figure, has only now been officially confirmed.
On Tuesday, April 12, Mojtaba Zolnoor, the representative of Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei in the Revolutionary Guards Corps, told the Iranian regime-run news outlet Khabar Online that a number of the Ulama (Islamic scholars) and authoritative grand ayatollahs have announced that Ali Khamenei is quite possibly the fabled “Seyed Khorasani.” According to the Islamic Hadith, Khorasani is an individual from the region who is not only a companion of the Mahdi (or 12th Imam), but is responsible for setting the stage for the Mahdi’s emergence.
Zolnoor also stated that the producers of the controversial documentary are of the same opinion, claiming that Khamenei and Seyed Khorasani are one and the same.
During the past year believers have related and compared dozens of Shiite anecdotes to the world’s current conditions in an attempt to prove their point. Reportedly, Khamenei himself knows that he is Seyed Khorasani but humbly prefers not to discuss it.
With Ayatollah Khamenei officially taking a position on this, there can be no doubt that the Iranian regime is truly messianic and that once they have their nuclear bomb, they will attempt to bring about the end of times and the reappearance of Imam Mahdi, as they have clearly shown in the movie. They intend to do this by destroying Israel and bringing about a total breakdown of the global economy.
Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for an ex-CIA spy who requires anonymity for safety reasons. A Time to Betray, his book about his double life as a CIA agent in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, was published by Simon & Schuster on April 6.
In my recent exposé of the Iranian documentary The Coming is Upon Us, I noted that the film informed Muslims throughout the world that the end times are near. I also showed that “Seyed Khoarasani” — the mythical figure who will create the conditions for the end of times and the reappearance of the last Islamic messiah, the Shiites’ 12th Imam, by destroying Israel and the West — was revealed to be Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. (See my articles here and here, as well as PJTV coverage here.)
Many of the Hadith, both from Sunni and Shiite sources, conclude that the figure “Seyed Khorasani” is the leader of the people in the East, or one of their high ranking officials who will pass on the flag of Islam to the last messiah. The Hadith also point out that Seyed Khorasani is from the province of Khorasan and has a sign or a disorder on his right hand. Ayatollah Khamenei is from the province of Khorasan and has a disorder of his right hand due to the injury he received in an assassination attempt in 1981.Some in the West have refused to accept the Iranian documentary as the official position of the Iranian regime, and until now, the Iranian authorities have been very careful not to make any strong statements to further verify the statements made in the movie. At first, many in the Iranian establishment objected to the production as it revealed their true ideology to the West. As I reported, the movie’s producers clearly stated that they had been authorized by the offices of supreme leader and the Iranian president to go ahead with the project.
However, the supreme leader’s position regarding the movie, including the description in the Hadith that he is that mythical figure, has only now been officially confirmed.
On Tuesday, April 12, Mojtaba Zolnoor, the representative of Iranian leader Ayatollah Khamenei in the Revolutionary Guards Corps, told the Iranian regime-run news outlet Khabar Online that a number of the Ulama (Islamic scholars) and authoritative grand ayatollahs have announced that Ali Khamenei is quite possibly the fabled “Seyed Khorasani.” According to the Islamic Hadith, Khorasani is an individual from the region who is not only a companion of the Mahdi (or 12th Imam), but is responsible for setting the stage for the Mahdi’s emergence.
Zolnoor also stated that the producers of the controversial documentary are of the same opinion, claiming that Khamenei and Seyed Khorasani are one and the same.
During the past year believers have related and compared dozens of Shiite anecdotes to the world’s current conditions in an attempt to prove their point. Reportedly, Khamenei himself knows that he is Seyed Khorasani but humbly prefers not to discuss it.
With Ayatollah Khamenei officially taking a position on this, there can be no doubt that the Iranian regime is truly messianic and that once they have their nuclear bomb, they will attempt to bring about the end of times and the reappearance of Imam Mahdi, as they have clearly shown in the movie. They intend to do this by destroying Israel and bringing about a total breakdown of the global economy.
Reza Kahlili is a pseudonym for an ex-CIA spy who requires anonymity for safety reasons. A Time to Betray, his book about his double life as a CIA agent in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, was published by Simon & Schuster on April 6.
Saturday, May 28, 2011
Dubai's skyscrapers, stained by the blood of migrant workers
Dubai seems to be a place where the worst of western capitalism and Gulf Arab racism meet in a horrible vortex
Nesrine Malik
Visiting Dubai on a work trip, I was wandering the resplendent hallways of my a hotel searching for an ATM when a commotion occurred. Some of the hotel staff were scurrying about, looking obviously distressed. I asked one of them if there was any trouble and he responded with a glossy smile. There was no trouble, madam, and was there anything he could help me with?
A few hours later, I discovered that there had indeed been trouble. A man – an Indian worker – had jumped from Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world, and a symbol of Dubai's prowess. It is a needle-shaped skyscraper which impales the bleak Dubai sky. Originally known as Burj Dubai, the building was planned during the city's orgiastic construction phase, where the sky was the limit, but completed after the bubble had burst. It was then renamed in honour of Abu Dhabi's ruler, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed, who rescued Dubai from its debt crisis.
Gossip about the suicide was horrifyingly callous. "It only took 10 months" [after the opening of the hotel], one person said. "He's inaugurated the building," another almost laughed. "Why did he jump?" I asked. People shrugged. He's probably an expatriate worker, I was told – it's usually them.
There is nothing remarkable about people being desensitised to suicides. London commuters on the underground can probably understand, but when the suicides are almost exclusively from one minority working in certain jobs, it is nothing short of inhumane. The dark underbelly of Dubai is never far away and sometimes we see the effect of this uglier side lying lifeless on a pavement.
The man, apparently an Indian cleaner who had been denied a holiday, was scraped off the floor on which he landed on and life went back to normal. Tourists and expats lapped up the luxury and sunshine, while workers from south Asia, little moving dots on the facades of the buildings under construction throughout the city, were ferried in buses to and from their living quarters. A couple of days later, another Indian man jumped from Jumeirah Lake Towers.
The Indian consulate in Dubai has since revealed that at least two Indian expats commit suicide each week. The consul-general stated that most are blue-collar workers who are either semi-skilled or skilled.
There is something deeply sinister about Dubai luxury, even more so since the local economy went into spectacular decline with the sovereign debt default in 2009. Fawning staff (almost exclusively expatriate) encircle you from the moment you arrive. From handler to driver to receptionist to concierge, the over-the-top attention is underpinned not by a dedication to a superlative service, but by fear.
If there is a problem, grovelling apologies are proffered and olive branches extended – all to prevent a complaint that in today's economic climate almost certainly means dismissal or extreme chastisement. People, nationalities and jobs exist in silos, isolated from each other. You can be in Dubai for days and not interact with a local.
It seems to me a place where the worst of western capitalism and the worst of Gulf Arab racism meet in a horrible vortex. The most pervasive feeling is of a lack of compassion, where the commoditisation of everything and the disdain for certain nationalities thickens the skin to the tragic plight of fellow human beings.
Psychologically, these workers are isolated and alienated; practically, they are trapped by draconian sponsorship laws in the UAE, and in debt to agents back home. This is exacerbated by the fact that there is such little enforceable employment law in these markets. Such economies have developed so rapidly that social and civic attitudes have not kept pace, and the sponsorship system is open to abuse and still victimises migrant workers throughout the Gulf.
Dubai is considered an emirate under a popular, liberal, benevolent and forward-looking ruling family that has managed to develop the economy and extend its hands to the outside world without compromising its culture or values. Nobody is naive enough to claim that capitalism does not claim casualties and create classes, or that expatriates from the sub-continent have not made happy and relatively lucrative lives in the region, but Dubai's name is becoming stained by the blood of migrant workers.
Identity Crisis and Identity Enlightenment
Nurit Greenger
I recently wrote an article I named, 'Jerusalem, Israel Is The Violin For All Your Songs. (http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2011/05/jerusalem-israel-is-violin-for-all-your.html)'. The article's title is associated with the song, 'Yerushalayim Shel Zahav'-Jerusalem of Gold, in which the repetitious verse is, "Jerusalem of gold, and of bronze, and of light, behold I am a violin for all your songs."
Reaction to the article came from Christians. I provided a link to the song, Jerusalem of Gold, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlIJOAZ1pak and readers told me their eyes did not remain dry. I was on my last leg of the Israeli military service when the Six Day War broke and the song was sang, literally, from morning to night over the radio waves of Israel. The melody and words are now embedded, with much pride of humongous and miraculous Jewish victory over the ongoing aggression of the Arab nations on the Jewish State. More so, the song has brought to Jerusalem the attention and eternal national and spiritual fame it needed. Until the day the song became known and Israel regaining the Old Part of City, though the Capital of Israel, Israelis were missing access to all the ancient Jewish spiritual sites. The song introduced Jerusalem to the world in an expression of the feelings the Jewish Nation has for their ancient city of gold and light.
The reason Jerusalem in on my mind is because it has become one of the Arab-"Palestinians' pawns in their ongoing war on Israel. For now, they have forgone the military attacks and are using political terrorism against the Jewish State. The Arab-"Palestinians'" are now demanding that Jerusalem be divided so they can have part of it to themselves. That part, the one that was in Jordanian's captivity for nineteen years, is to become their Palestinian state capital.
Jerusalem has never ever been any other nation's capital, so why now? Because the Arabs want to stab the Jewish nation in its heart, as part of their larger scheme to bring the Jewish state to its final demise.
In his recent visit to the United States, Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Congress and avowed that Jerusalem will not be divided. This is an important declaration to Jews and Christians alike because, if part of the city is to be controlled by Arab-"Palestinian" Moslems, seeking to make it their capital, Jews will no longer have access to it and that is unacceptable. As for Christians, visiting a Moslem controlled city will be at their peril. More so, as history attests, we can then expect that the Jewish and Christians holy sites be desecrated.
When it comes to Jerusalem, deep feelings for the city play part with Israel and the Jewish nation. But not only for Jews. The city is a significant center for the Christian religion. Just as every Muslim is commanded, at least once in his life time, to embark on a pilgrimage to Mecca, Christians will embark on pilgrimage to Jerusalem as often as they can.
Jerusalem is the Jewish nation Identity Card. When the Jews regained their sovereignty in the Land of Israel, many, but not all, have gone through identity enlightenment. Israelis may know the Hebrew, but not necessary identify themselves through religious prayers and their scriptures. In comparison, Diaspora Jews may know religious prayers, but in all likelihood do not fully understand the prayers, which is in Hebrew.
Jews live with both, identity crisis and identity enlightenment. One has to know whom they are, as HaShem says they are, to really understand the identity they are fighting for. Part of this identity, for both Jews and Christians, is indelibly tied with the Land of Israel. Regrettably, members of synagogues' in the world seem to be more interested in building great social programs but the idea of fighting for the Land of Israel is, in many cases, of no interest to them. That is bit foreign. For many Jews, their identity is there, only it is hidden and needs to brought out through identity enlightenment. This same concept applies to Christians as well.
For 2000 years Jews lived on the fringe and margin of societies, always wondering what the level of their acceptance in the host country was but were also accustomed to be badly treated and made to be scapegoats. Finally, against many odds, miraculously and with Godly intervention, the modern State of Israel was established and now Jews can defend themselves. Sadly, the world has not come to grip with the fact that Jews are no longer an easy target; the world's forever scapegoating victim has slipped away.
More irking is the fact that Israeli-Jews have not come to full comprehension of their sovereignty.
Jews make a problematic society and so is their land. The Land of Israel was designated and given to the Jewish Nation by their God. Yet, because there is a gap between secular Jews and religious Jews, the facts of the Devine's gift is not deeply embedded in the belief and sentiments of all Jews.
That is why, one Israeli prime minister after another, to include Benjamin Netanyahu, and many Israelis and Jews are so “ready” to offer up, on every turn, as appeasement tool to the enemy, Jewish territory, even parts of Jerusalem. It is a sign that there is still a lack of total belonging mentality, which goes back to the kind of People Jews were when they lived in the Diaspora.
Note that it was the secular Jews who created Zionism and moved to build the Jewish State. But, ultimately, the State of Israel, as a whole, should trust in G-d, not in chariots and horses! The Jewish People need to follow the promises He made to His People and know they were good. Perhaps Israel is in a greater trouble today because it has not grasped His promises. And one does not need to be religious to believe and know that.
For that reason I hold deep respect for Christians like Pastor John Hagee, media mogul Glenn Beck and millions of Christian parishioners so stanchly support the State of Israel. I admire their clarity about the Land of Israel position: "Israel is defined by His covenant, an unconditional promise," which way too many Israelis toss aside.
It has been very encouraging to see the growth of the pro-Israel Christian movement. In this movement the support for Israel is reaching beyond political, socioeconomic, and ethnic lines. The pro-Israel Christians are Asians, Blacks, Caucasians, and Hispanics; very young to seniors. They regularly participate in pro-Israel rallies, they advocate and petition for the Jewish state when necessary, they take their place in Holocaust commemorations and Israel's Independence Day celebrations , they donate to the cause of helping Israel grow and they travel to Jerusalem as often as their pocket book allows. They are cognizant how vital important it is for the world to recognize Israel's legal right to the Land as well as to have truly defensible borders.
Like Jews, many Christians have identity problems. I sincerely believe that these identity issues are caused because neither Jews or Christians have been taught how to embrace religion without being fanatic or overzealous about it. Many understand that if they cannot practice religion, at their pace, they simply walk away from it. It also has much to do with religious leaders, who, in many cases, do more harm than good to ingather the people around them, to include trust issues they project in negative light.
Israel is young and people there are still ridden with Ghetto and persecution mentality and the 'Sha, Shtil', state of mind, which is to stay away and not cause problem, a mentality of people who lived for way too long on the fringe of society and simply knew no other way of life.
A good question to ask is, "who is a Jew?" or, "who is a Christian?" At the end, it is that person who has a real heart for Israel, is cognizant that he or she is not just a fashionable friend of Israel but has deep rooted sentiments for and in Israel as grafted into His roots. These people know all well that their very identity has deep ties with Israel. Their support of Israel is stanch, though may attract increasingly greater opposition. They know and are aware it comes with the, support Israel territory.
Though, the past has been stained with Jewish bloody, when Christians killed millions of Jews, in the evolving world of today, real Jews and real Christians are now very much depending on one another to be and show who they really are, the people He designed them to be; His people!
Whether it is Jews or Christians, praying and advocating for Israel is a vital part of understanding the scriptures and the biblical mandate to pray for the Land and its People.
You think you may have an identity issue, travel to Israel. You wish to have deeper understanding of your identity, going to Israel will help shape your identity. When you come back you will know much more about your identity and how that is so well tied with the Land of Israel.
Israel is the grounds' keeper, the keeper of the LAND, all the land, simply because it belongs to the Jewish people. And Christians have the same vested interest there. For if there were no Jews, there was no Jesus. We, the Jewish People, gave the Christian world our humble Jewish rabbi, Yehoshua to lead them. Therefore, Judaism and Israel defines Christians too! You may go along by His definition that Jews have defined Christians.
Each time I hear the song Yerushalayim Shel Zahav, the tears flow.
When politicians speak, so haphazardly, about dividing Jerusalem and giving the Arabs part of it, as their capital – or giving them a "generous" part of the Land of Israel - they need to listen to the song, 'Yerushalayim Shel Zahav'-Jerusalem of Gold and then they will know it is simply mission impossible.
While the lines are blurring on who are Jews and who are Christians, the need to pray for, stand for, and advocate for Israel is important, now more than ever.
Writer's Note: Some of this article's insight was given to me by Wane Wong and daughter Elizabeth Wong, both belong to the Christians For Israel Movement
***
משבר זהות והארת זהות
מאי 27, 2011 – אייר 23, 5771
על ידי נורית גרינגר
לאחרונה כתבתי מאמר שלו קראתי בשם, 'ירושלים, ישראל היא כינור לכל שירייך'
http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/0023-D-60032-00.html
שם המאמר קשור לשיר, 'ירושלים של זהב', שבו הפזמון החוזר הוא, "ירושלים של זהב ושל נחושת ושל אור הלא לכל שירייך אני כינור...".
תגובת למאמר באו מנוצרים. אני סיפקתי קישור לשיר 'ירושלים של זהב' והקוראים אמרו לי שעיניהם לא נישארו יבשות.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlIJOAZ1pak
הייתי בימי השירות הצבאי האחרונים שלי בצה"ל כשמלחמת ששת הימים פרצה והשיר הושר, פשוטו כמשמעו, מהבוקר עד הערב מעל גלי הרדיו של ישראל. הלחן והמילים הם כעת משובצים עם גאווה מרובה, בנצחון הענק והמופלא של היהודים על התוקפנות המתמשכת של מדינות ערב על המדינה היהודית. יותר מכך, השיר הביא לירושלים תשומת לב ותהילה לאומית ורוחנית נצחית שלזה העיר היתה זקוקה. עד אותו יום שבו השיר נעשה ידוע וישראל החזירה לידיה את החלק העתיק של העיר, אם כי בירת ישראל, לישראלים לא היתה גישה לכל האתרים הקדומים הרוחנים היהודים של ירושלים. השיר הציג את ירושלים לעולם כשביטה אל רגשותיו של העם היהודי כלפי עיר הזהב והאור העתיקה.
הסיבה שירושלים במחשבתי היא כי היא הפכה להיות אחת ממטרות הערבים-"פלסטינים" במלחמתם המתמשכת על ישראל. לעת עתה, הם וויתרו על התקפות הצבאיות שלהם ופנו להשתמש בטרור פוליטי נגד המדינה היהודית. הערבים-"פלסטינים" עכשיו דורשים שירושלים תחולק כך שחלק ממנה יהיה שלהם. חלק זה, שהיה בשבי הירדני במשך תשע עשרה שנה, אמור להיות בירת המדינה הפלסטינית שלהם.
ירושלים מעולם לא היתה בירתה של כל אומה אחרת, אז למה עכשיו? כי הערבים רוצים לדקור את האומה היהודית בלבה, כחלק מתוכניתם הגדולה יותר להביא את המדינה היהודית לסופה הסוף סופי.
בביקורו האחרון בארצות הברית, בנאומו של ראש ממשלת ישראל, בנימין נתניהו, בפני הקונגרס הוא הצהיר שירושלים לא תחולק. זוהי הצהרה חשובה ליהודים ולנוצרים כאחד, כי אם חלק של העיר יהיה בשליטת ערבים-"פלסטינים" מוסלמים, שרוצים לעשות אותה לבירתם, ליהודים לא תהיה גישה אליה וזה לא מקובל. באשר לנוצרים, ביקור בעיר שבה שולטים המוסלמים יהיה תוך סיכון. יותר מכך, כפי שההיסטוריה מעידה, אנחנו יכולים לצפות שהמקומות הקדושים ליהודים והנוצרים יחוללו כל ידם.
כשמדובר בירושלים, למדינת ישראל והעם היהודי יש קשר ריגשי עמוק לעיר. אבל לא רק עבור היהודים. העיר מהווה מרכז משמעותי עבור הדת הנוצרית. בדיוק כמו שכל מוסלמי צריך, לפחות פעם אחת בחייו, לעשות עלייה לרגל למכה, נוצרים יעלו לרגל לירושלים לעתים קרובות ככל שבאשרותם.
ירושלים היא תעודת זהות של האומה היהודית. כשהיהודים החזירו את ריבונותם על ארץ ישראל, רבים, אך לא כולם, עברו הארה זהות. הישראלים אולי יודעים עברית, אבל לא מוצאים צורך לזהות את עצמם באמצעות תפילות דת וכיתבי הקודש שלהם. לשם השוואה, יהודי התפוצות יודעים תפילות דת, אבל ככל הנראה לא מבינים לחלוטין את התפילות, שהן בשפה העברית.
היהודים חיות עם משבר זהות והארה זהות. הם צריכים לדעת מי הם, כפי שהשם אומר שהם, כדי באמת להבין את הזהות עבורה הם נלחמים. חלק מהזהות הזו, עבור יהודים ונוצרים כאחד, קשורה באופן אל יימחה עם ארץ ישראל. למרבה הצער, חברי קהילות בתי כנסת בעולם כנראה מעוניים יותר בבניית תוכניות חברתיות נהדרות, אבל הרעיון של לחימה על ארץ ישראל, במקרים רבים, לא מעניית אותם. זה קצת מוזר. עבור יהודים רבים, הזהות שלהם היא שם, רק שהיא מוסתרת ועליה לצאת דרך הארה זהות. אותו רעיון חל גם על נוצרים.
במשך 2000 שנים היהודים חיו בשולי חברות עמים, תמיד תוהים מה היא מידת המקובלות שלהם במדינה המארחת ורגילים שיתייחסו אליהם בנוקשות והיותם תמיד השעיר לעזאזל. לבסוף, כנגד סיכויים מרובים, באורח פלא, עם התערבות עליונה, מדינת ישראל המודרנית הוקמה ועכשיו היהודים יכולים להגן על עצמם. למרבה הצער, העולם עדיין לא תופש את העובדה שיהודים הם כבר לא מטרה קלה; השעיר לעזאזל והקורבן הנצחי של העולם חמק ממנו.
יותר מרגיזה היא העובדה שישראלים-יהודים לא מבינים הבנה מלאה את עצם הריבונות שלהם.
יהודים יוצרים חברה בעייתית וגם ארצם היא בעייתית. ארץ ישראל יועדה וניתנה לעם היהודי על ידי אלוהיהם. עם זאת, בגלל שקיים פער בין יהודים חילוניים ליהודים דתיים, העובדה של מתנה אלוהית זו אינה מוטבעת עמוק באמונה וברגשות של כל היהודים.
לכן, ראש ממשלה ישראלי, אחד אחר השני, כולל בנימין נתניהו, וישראלים ויהודים רבים "מוכנים" לתת, על כל צעד ושעל, ככלי כפיוס לאויב, שטחי ארץ יהודית וגם חלקים מירושלים. זה סימן שעדיין שוררת מנטליות של חוסר שייכות מוחלטת, שמקורה בסוג האנשים שיהודים היו כשחיו בגלות.
צריך לזכור שהיהודים החילוניים הם אילו שהקימו את התנועה הציונות ובאו לבנות את מדינת היהודים. אבל, בסופו של דבר, מדינת ישראל, ככלל, צריכה לסמוך על הקב"ה, ולא על מרכבות סוסים! העם היהודי צריך ללכת בעיקבות ההבטחות שהקב"ה נתן לו ולדעת שהם טובים. אולי ישראל נמצאת בצרה גדולה יותר היום כי היא לא תופסת את מהות הבטחותיו. ולא צריך להיות דתי כדי להאמין ולדעת זאת.
מסיבה זו יש לי כבוד עמוק לנוצרים כמו הכומר ג'ון הייגי, איש התקשורת המפורסם, גלן בק, ומיליוני חברי קהילות נוצריות בעקשנות רבה כל כך תומכים במדינת ישראל. אני מעריצה את בהירות מחשבתם על עמדתה של ישראל: "ישראל מוגדרת באמנתו של הקב"ה, הבטחה ללא תנאי," שלדאבוננו ישראלים רבים מדי מהשליכים הצידה.
זה מאוד מעודד לראות את התרחבות התנועה הנוצרית למען ישראל. בתנועה זו, התמיכה בישראל היא מעבר לקווים הפוליטיים, החברתיים, וגזע. הנוצרים שתומכים בישראל הם אסיאתים, שחורים, לבנים,ו היספאנים; צעירים מאוד וקשישים. הם באופן קבוע משתתפים בהפגנות למען ישראל, בעת הצורך הם מסנגרים ועותרים למדינה היהודית, הם לוקחים את מקומם בטכסי הנצחת השואה וחגיגות יום העצמאות של מדינת ישראל, הם תורמים למטרות שמסייעות לישראל להתפתח ובאים לבקר בירושלים לעתים קרובות, ככל שכסף כיסם מאפשר להם. הם מודעים כמה שזה חשוב שהעולם יכיר בזכותו החוקית של עם ישראל לארצו וכן שגבולות המדינה יהיו בעלי הגנה ממשית.
כמו היהודים, לנוצרים רבים יש בעיות זהות. אני באמת ובתמים מאמינה כי בעיות זהות אלה נגרמות מכך שיהודים או נוצרים לא לומדו איך לאמץ דת בלי להיות קנאים או להוטים מידי לגבי הדת. רבים מבינים כי אינם יכולים להיות דתיים, בקצב שלהם, ולכן פשוט עוזבים את הענין. זה קשור הרבה עם מנהיגים דתיים, שהם, במקרים רבים, עושים יותר נזק מתועלת לאנשים מסביבם שכולל, מסרי אמון שהם מפיצים באור שלילי.
ישראל היא צעירה, ולאנשים שחיים בה יש שמץ של מנטליות גטו ורדיפות והלך רוח של "שא, שתיל', , שהוא, לשמור מרחק ולא לגרום לבעיות, מנטליות של אנשים שחיו במשך זמן ארוך למדי בשולי החברה ופשוט לא ידעו דרך חיים אחרת.
שאלה טובה לשאול היא, "מיהו יהודי?" או, "מי הוא נוצרי?" בסופו של דבר, זה הוא אותו אדם שליבו באמת עם ישראל. הוא או היא מודעים שהם לא רק חברים אופנתיים של ישראל, אלא בעלי שורש רגשי עמוק עבור ובתוך ישראל כמו שמושתל בתוך שורשי הקב"ה. אנשים אלה יודעים היטב כי זהותם קשורה עמוקות עם ישראל. תמיכתם בישראל היא עיקשת, אף כי עשויה לבוא עם התנגדות גוברת. הם יודעים ומודעים שזה בא עם הטריטוריה של תמיכה בישראל.
אמנם, העבר מוכתם בדם יהודי, כשהנוצרים הרגו מיליוני יהודים, אך בעולם המתפתח של היום, יהודים ונוצרים אמיתיים תלויים מאד זה בזה כדי להיות ולהראות מי הם באמת, האנשים שהקב"ה תיכנן שהם יהיו; עמו.
אם זה יהודים או נוצרים, להתפלל ולסנגר לישראל הוא חלק חיוני להבנת הכתובים והמנדט המקראי שלפיו צריך להתפלל למען הארץ ואנשיה.
אתם חושבעם שיש לם בעית זהות, סעו לישראל. ברצונכם לקבל הבנה עמוקה יותר של זהותכם, סעו לישראל שתסייע לעצב את זהותכם. כשתחזרו תדעו רבות יותר על זהותכם וכיצד היא קשורה היטיב עם ארץ ישראל.
ישראל היא שומר האדמות, שומר הארץ, כל הארץ, פשוט מפני שהארץ שייכת לעם היהודי. לנוצרים יש אינטרס זהה שם. שהרי אם לא היו יהודים, לא היה ישו. אנחנו, העם היהודי, נתן לעולם הנוצרי את הרב היהודי הצנוע שלנו, יהושע, להיות מנהיגם. לכן, היהדות וישראל מגדירים גם את הנוצרים! אתה יכול ללכת לפי ההגדרה של הקב"ה, לפיה היהודים הגדירו את הנוצרים.
כל פעם שאני שומעת את השיר ירושלים של זהב, הדמעות זורמות.
כאשר פוליטיקאים מדברים, כל כך באקראי, על חלוקת ירושלים ועל לתת לערבים חלק ממנה, כעיר בירתם - או לתת להם חלק "נדיב" של ארץ ישראל - הם צריכים לשמוע את השיר רושלים של זהב ואז הם יידעו שזו משימה פשוט בלתי אפשרית.
בעוד הקווים של מי הם יהודים ומי הם נוצרים הם מטושטשים, הצורך להתפלל, לעמוד בעד ולסנגר לישראל זה חשוב עכשיו, יותר מתמיד.
הערת הכותבת: חלק מהתובנה של מאמר זה ניתנה לי על ידי ויין וונג ובתו אליזבת וונג, שניהם שייכים לתנועת הנוצרים למען ישראל.
I recently wrote an article I named, 'Jerusalem, Israel Is The Violin For All Your Songs. (http://docstalk.blogspot.com/2011/05/jerusalem-israel-is-violin-for-all-your.html)'. The article's title is associated with the song, 'Yerushalayim Shel Zahav'-Jerusalem of Gold, in which the repetitious verse is, "Jerusalem of gold, and of bronze, and of light, behold I am a violin for all your songs."
Reaction to the article came from Christians. I provided a link to the song, Jerusalem of Gold, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlIJOAZ1pak and readers told me their eyes did not remain dry. I was on my last leg of the Israeli military service when the Six Day War broke and the song was sang, literally, from morning to night over the radio waves of Israel. The melody and words are now embedded, with much pride of humongous and miraculous Jewish victory over the ongoing aggression of the Arab nations on the Jewish State. More so, the song has brought to Jerusalem the attention and eternal national and spiritual fame it needed. Until the day the song became known and Israel regaining the Old Part of City, though the Capital of Israel, Israelis were missing access to all the ancient Jewish spiritual sites. The song introduced Jerusalem to the world in an expression of the feelings the Jewish Nation has for their ancient city of gold and light.
The reason Jerusalem in on my mind is because it has become one of the Arab-"Palestinians' pawns in their ongoing war on Israel. For now, they have forgone the military attacks and are using political terrorism against the Jewish State. The Arab-"Palestinians'" are now demanding that Jerusalem be divided so they can have part of it to themselves. That part, the one that was in Jordanian's captivity for nineteen years, is to become their Palestinian state capital.
Jerusalem has never ever been any other nation's capital, so why now? Because the Arabs want to stab the Jewish nation in its heart, as part of their larger scheme to bring the Jewish state to its final demise.
In his recent visit to the United States, Israel's prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Congress and avowed that Jerusalem will not be divided. This is an important declaration to Jews and Christians alike because, if part of the city is to be controlled by Arab-"Palestinian" Moslems, seeking to make it their capital, Jews will no longer have access to it and that is unacceptable. As for Christians, visiting a Moslem controlled city will be at their peril. More so, as history attests, we can then expect that the Jewish and Christians holy sites be desecrated.
When it comes to Jerusalem, deep feelings for the city play part with Israel and the Jewish nation. But not only for Jews. The city is a significant center for the Christian religion. Just as every Muslim is commanded, at least once in his life time, to embark on a pilgrimage to Mecca, Christians will embark on pilgrimage to Jerusalem as often as they can.
Jerusalem is the Jewish nation Identity Card. When the Jews regained their sovereignty in the Land of Israel, many, but not all, have gone through identity enlightenment. Israelis may know the Hebrew, but not necessary identify themselves through religious prayers and their scriptures. In comparison, Diaspora Jews may know religious prayers, but in all likelihood do not fully understand the prayers, which is in Hebrew.
Jews live with both, identity crisis and identity enlightenment. One has to know whom they are, as HaShem says they are, to really understand the identity they are fighting for. Part of this identity, for both Jews and Christians, is indelibly tied with the Land of Israel. Regrettably, members of synagogues' in the world seem to be more interested in building great social programs but the idea of fighting for the Land of Israel is, in many cases, of no interest to them. That is bit foreign. For many Jews, their identity is there, only it is hidden and needs to brought out through identity enlightenment. This same concept applies to Christians as well.
For 2000 years Jews lived on the fringe and margin of societies, always wondering what the level of their acceptance in the host country was but were also accustomed to be badly treated and made to be scapegoats. Finally, against many odds, miraculously and with Godly intervention, the modern State of Israel was established and now Jews can defend themselves. Sadly, the world has not come to grip with the fact that Jews are no longer an easy target; the world's forever scapegoating victim has slipped away.
More irking is the fact that Israeli-Jews have not come to full comprehension of their sovereignty.
Jews make a problematic society and so is their land. The Land of Israel was designated and given to the Jewish Nation by their God. Yet, because there is a gap between secular Jews and religious Jews, the facts of the Devine's gift is not deeply embedded in the belief and sentiments of all Jews.
That is why, one Israeli prime minister after another, to include Benjamin Netanyahu, and many Israelis and Jews are so “ready” to offer up, on every turn, as appeasement tool to the enemy, Jewish territory, even parts of Jerusalem. It is a sign that there is still a lack of total belonging mentality, which goes back to the kind of People Jews were when they lived in the Diaspora.
Note that it was the secular Jews who created Zionism and moved to build the Jewish State. But, ultimately, the State of Israel, as a whole, should trust in G-d, not in chariots and horses! The Jewish People need to follow the promises He made to His People and know they were good. Perhaps Israel is in a greater trouble today because it has not grasped His promises. And one does not need to be religious to believe and know that.
For that reason I hold deep respect for Christians like Pastor John Hagee, media mogul Glenn Beck and millions of Christian parishioners so stanchly support the State of Israel. I admire their clarity about the Land of Israel position: "Israel is defined by His covenant, an unconditional promise," which way too many Israelis toss aside.
It has been very encouraging to see the growth of the pro-Israel Christian movement. In this movement the support for Israel is reaching beyond political, socioeconomic, and ethnic lines. The pro-Israel Christians are Asians, Blacks, Caucasians, and Hispanics; very young to seniors. They regularly participate in pro-Israel rallies, they advocate and petition for the Jewish state when necessary, they take their place in Holocaust commemorations and Israel's Independence Day celebrations , they donate to the cause of helping Israel grow and they travel to Jerusalem as often as their pocket book allows. They are cognizant how vital important it is for the world to recognize Israel's legal right to the Land as well as to have truly defensible borders.
Like Jews, many Christians have identity problems. I sincerely believe that these identity issues are caused because neither Jews or Christians have been taught how to embrace religion without being fanatic or overzealous about it. Many understand that if they cannot practice religion, at their pace, they simply walk away from it. It also has much to do with religious leaders, who, in many cases, do more harm than good to ingather the people around them, to include trust issues they project in negative light.
Israel is young and people there are still ridden with Ghetto and persecution mentality and the 'Sha, Shtil', state of mind, which is to stay away and not cause problem, a mentality of people who lived for way too long on the fringe of society and simply knew no other way of life.
A good question to ask is, "who is a Jew?" or, "who is a Christian?" At the end, it is that person who has a real heart for Israel, is cognizant that he or she is not just a fashionable friend of Israel but has deep rooted sentiments for and in Israel as grafted into His roots. These people know all well that their very identity has deep ties with Israel. Their support of Israel is stanch, though may attract increasingly greater opposition. They know and are aware it comes with the, support Israel territory.
Though, the past has been stained with Jewish bloody, when Christians killed millions of Jews, in the evolving world of today, real Jews and real Christians are now very much depending on one another to be and show who they really are, the people He designed them to be; His people!
Whether it is Jews or Christians, praying and advocating for Israel is a vital part of understanding the scriptures and the biblical mandate to pray for the Land and its People.
You think you may have an identity issue, travel to Israel. You wish to have deeper understanding of your identity, going to Israel will help shape your identity. When you come back you will know much more about your identity and how that is so well tied with the Land of Israel.
Israel is the grounds' keeper, the keeper of the LAND, all the land, simply because it belongs to the Jewish people. And Christians have the same vested interest there. For if there were no Jews, there was no Jesus. We, the Jewish People, gave the Christian world our humble Jewish rabbi, Yehoshua to lead them. Therefore, Judaism and Israel defines Christians too! You may go along by His definition that Jews have defined Christians.
Each time I hear the song Yerushalayim Shel Zahav, the tears flow.
When politicians speak, so haphazardly, about dividing Jerusalem and giving the Arabs part of it, as their capital – or giving them a "generous" part of the Land of Israel - they need to listen to the song, 'Yerushalayim Shel Zahav'-Jerusalem of Gold and then they will know it is simply mission impossible.
While the lines are blurring on who are Jews and who are Christians, the need to pray for, stand for, and advocate for Israel is important, now more than ever.
Writer's Note: Some of this article's insight was given to me by Wane Wong and daughter Elizabeth Wong, both belong to the Christians For Israel Movement
***
משבר זהות והארת זהות
מאי 27, 2011 – אייר 23, 5771
על ידי נורית גרינגר
לאחרונה כתבתי מאמר שלו קראתי בשם, 'ירושלים, ישראל היא כינור לכל שירייך'
http://www.news1.co.il/Archive/0023-D-60032-00.html
שם המאמר קשור לשיר, 'ירושלים של זהב', שבו הפזמון החוזר הוא, "ירושלים של זהב ושל נחושת ושל אור הלא לכל שירייך אני כינור...".
תגובת למאמר באו מנוצרים. אני סיפקתי קישור לשיר 'ירושלים של זהב' והקוראים אמרו לי שעיניהם לא נישארו יבשות.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlIJOAZ1pak
הייתי בימי השירות הצבאי האחרונים שלי בצה"ל כשמלחמת ששת הימים פרצה והשיר הושר, פשוטו כמשמעו, מהבוקר עד הערב מעל גלי הרדיו של ישראל. הלחן והמילים הם כעת משובצים עם גאווה מרובה, בנצחון הענק והמופלא של היהודים על התוקפנות המתמשכת של מדינות ערב על המדינה היהודית. יותר מכך, השיר הביא לירושלים תשומת לב ותהילה לאומית ורוחנית נצחית שלזה העיר היתה זקוקה. עד אותו יום שבו השיר נעשה ידוע וישראל החזירה לידיה את החלק העתיק של העיר, אם כי בירת ישראל, לישראלים לא היתה גישה לכל האתרים הקדומים הרוחנים היהודים של ירושלים. השיר הציג את ירושלים לעולם כשביטה אל רגשותיו של העם היהודי כלפי עיר הזהב והאור העתיקה.
הסיבה שירושלים במחשבתי היא כי היא הפכה להיות אחת ממטרות הערבים-"פלסטינים" במלחמתם המתמשכת על ישראל. לעת עתה, הם וויתרו על התקפות הצבאיות שלהם ופנו להשתמש בטרור פוליטי נגד המדינה היהודית. הערבים-"פלסטינים" עכשיו דורשים שירושלים תחולק כך שחלק ממנה יהיה שלהם. חלק זה, שהיה בשבי הירדני במשך תשע עשרה שנה, אמור להיות בירת המדינה הפלסטינית שלהם.
ירושלים מעולם לא היתה בירתה של כל אומה אחרת, אז למה עכשיו? כי הערבים רוצים לדקור את האומה היהודית בלבה, כחלק מתוכניתם הגדולה יותר להביא את המדינה היהודית לסופה הסוף סופי.
בביקורו האחרון בארצות הברית, בנאומו של ראש ממשלת ישראל, בנימין נתניהו, בפני הקונגרס הוא הצהיר שירושלים לא תחולק. זוהי הצהרה חשובה ליהודים ולנוצרים כאחד, כי אם חלק של העיר יהיה בשליטת ערבים-"פלסטינים" מוסלמים, שרוצים לעשות אותה לבירתם, ליהודים לא תהיה גישה אליה וזה לא מקובל. באשר לנוצרים, ביקור בעיר שבה שולטים המוסלמים יהיה תוך סיכון. יותר מכך, כפי שההיסטוריה מעידה, אנחנו יכולים לצפות שהמקומות הקדושים ליהודים והנוצרים יחוללו כל ידם.
כשמדובר בירושלים, למדינת ישראל והעם היהודי יש קשר ריגשי עמוק לעיר. אבל לא רק עבור היהודים. העיר מהווה מרכז משמעותי עבור הדת הנוצרית. בדיוק כמו שכל מוסלמי צריך, לפחות פעם אחת בחייו, לעשות עלייה לרגל למכה, נוצרים יעלו לרגל לירושלים לעתים קרובות ככל שבאשרותם.
ירושלים היא תעודת זהות של האומה היהודית. כשהיהודים החזירו את ריבונותם על ארץ ישראל, רבים, אך לא כולם, עברו הארה זהות. הישראלים אולי יודעים עברית, אבל לא מוצאים צורך לזהות את עצמם באמצעות תפילות דת וכיתבי הקודש שלהם. לשם השוואה, יהודי התפוצות יודעים תפילות דת, אבל ככל הנראה לא מבינים לחלוטין את התפילות, שהן בשפה העברית.
היהודים חיות עם משבר זהות והארה זהות. הם צריכים לדעת מי הם, כפי שהשם אומר שהם, כדי באמת להבין את הזהות עבורה הם נלחמים. חלק מהזהות הזו, עבור יהודים ונוצרים כאחד, קשורה באופן אל יימחה עם ארץ ישראל. למרבה הצער, חברי קהילות בתי כנסת בעולם כנראה מעוניים יותר בבניית תוכניות חברתיות נהדרות, אבל הרעיון של לחימה על ארץ ישראל, במקרים רבים, לא מעניית אותם. זה קצת מוזר. עבור יהודים רבים, הזהות שלהם היא שם, רק שהיא מוסתרת ועליה לצאת דרך הארה זהות. אותו רעיון חל גם על נוצרים.
במשך 2000 שנים היהודים חיו בשולי חברות עמים, תמיד תוהים מה היא מידת המקובלות שלהם במדינה המארחת ורגילים שיתייחסו אליהם בנוקשות והיותם תמיד השעיר לעזאזל. לבסוף, כנגד סיכויים מרובים, באורח פלא, עם התערבות עליונה, מדינת ישראל המודרנית הוקמה ועכשיו היהודים יכולים להגן על עצמם. למרבה הצער, העולם עדיין לא תופש את העובדה שיהודים הם כבר לא מטרה קלה; השעיר לעזאזל והקורבן הנצחי של העולם חמק ממנו.
יותר מרגיזה היא העובדה שישראלים-יהודים לא מבינים הבנה מלאה את עצם הריבונות שלהם.
יהודים יוצרים חברה בעייתית וגם ארצם היא בעייתית. ארץ ישראל יועדה וניתנה לעם היהודי על ידי אלוהיהם. עם זאת, בגלל שקיים פער בין יהודים חילוניים ליהודים דתיים, העובדה של מתנה אלוהית זו אינה מוטבעת עמוק באמונה וברגשות של כל היהודים.
לכן, ראש ממשלה ישראלי, אחד אחר השני, כולל בנימין נתניהו, וישראלים ויהודים רבים "מוכנים" לתת, על כל צעד ושעל, ככלי כפיוס לאויב, שטחי ארץ יהודית וגם חלקים מירושלים. זה סימן שעדיין שוררת מנטליות של חוסר שייכות מוחלטת, שמקורה בסוג האנשים שיהודים היו כשחיו בגלות.
צריך לזכור שהיהודים החילוניים הם אילו שהקימו את התנועה הציונות ובאו לבנות את מדינת היהודים. אבל, בסופו של דבר, מדינת ישראל, ככלל, צריכה לסמוך על הקב"ה, ולא על מרכבות סוסים! העם היהודי צריך ללכת בעיקבות ההבטחות שהקב"ה נתן לו ולדעת שהם טובים. אולי ישראל נמצאת בצרה גדולה יותר היום כי היא לא תופסת את מהות הבטחותיו. ולא צריך להיות דתי כדי להאמין ולדעת זאת.
מסיבה זו יש לי כבוד עמוק לנוצרים כמו הכומר ג'ון הייגי, איש התקשורת המפורסם, גלן בק, ומיליוני חברי קהילות נוצריות בעקשנות רבה כל כך תומכים במדינת ישראל. אני מעריצה את בהירות מחשבתם על עמדתה של ישראל: "ישראל מוגדרת באמנתו של הקב"ה, הבטחה ללא תנאי," שלדאבוננו ישראלים רבים מדי מהשליכים הצידה.
זה מאוד מעודד לראות את התרחבות התנועה הנוצרית למען ישראל. בתנועה זו, התמיכה בישראל היא מעבר לקווים הפוליטיים, החברתיים, וגזע. הנוצרים שתומכים בישראל הם אסיאתים, שחורים, לבנים,ו היספאנים; צעירים מאוד וקשישים. הם באופן קבוע משתתפים בהפגנות למען ישראל, בעת הצורך הם מסנגרים ועותרים למדינה היהודית, הם לוקחים את מקומם בטכסי הנצחת השואה וחגיגות יום העצמאות של מדינת ישראל, הם תורמים למטרות שמסייעות לישראל להתפתח ובאים לבקר בירושלים לעתים קרובות, ככל שכסף כיסם מאפשר להם. הם מודעים כמה שזה חשוב שהעולם יכיר בזכותו החוקית של עם ישראל לארצו וכן שגבולות המדינה יהיו בעלי הגנה ממשית.
כמו היהודים, לנוצרים רבים יש בעיות זהות. אני באמת ובתמים מאמינה כי בעיות זהות אלה נגרמות מכך שיהודים או נוצרים לא לומדו איך לאמץ דת בלי להיות קנאים או להוטים מידי לגבי הדת. רבים מבינים כי אינם יכולים להיות דתיים, בקצב שלהם, ולכן פשוט עוזבים את הענין. זה קשור הרבה עם מנהיגים דתיים, שהם, במקרים רבים, עושים יותר נזק מתועלת לאנשים מסביבם שכולל, מסרי אמון שהם מפיצים באור שלילי.
ישראל היא צעירה, ולאנשים שחיים בה יש שמץ של מנטליות גטו ורדיפות והלך רוח של "שא, שתיל', , שהוא, לשמור מרחק ולא לגרום לבעיות, מנטליות של אנשים שחיו במשך זמן ארוך למדי בשולי החברה ופשוט לא ידעו דרך חיים אחרת.
שאלה טובה לשאול היא, "מיהו יהודי?" או, "מי הוא נוצרי?" בסופו של דבר, זה הוא אותו אדם שליבו באמת עם ישראל. הוא או היא מודעים שהם לא רק חברים אופנתיים של ישראל, אלא בעלי שורש רגשי עמוק עבור ובתוך ישראל כמו שמושתל בתוך שורשי הקב"ה. אנשים אלה יודעים היטב כי זהותם קשורה עמוקות עם ישראל. תמיכתם בישראל היא עיקשת, אף כי עשויה לבוא עם התנגדות גוברת. הם יודעים ומודעים שזה בא עם הטריטוריה של תמיכה בישראל.
אמנם, העבר מוכתם בדם יהודי, כשהנוצרים הרגו מיליוני יהודים, אך בעולם המתפתח של היום, יהודים ונוצרים אמיתיים תלויים מאד זה בזה כדי להיות ולהראות מי הם באמת, האנשים שהקב"ה תיכנן שהם יהיו; עמו.
אם זה יהודים או נוצרים, להתפלל ולסנגר לישראל הוא חלק חיוני להבנת הכתובים והמנדט המקראי שלפיו צריך להתפלל למען הארץ ואנשיה.
אתם חושבעם שיש לם בעית זהות, סעו לישראל. ברצונכם לקבל הבנה עמוקה יותר של זהותכם, סעו לישראל שתסייע לעצב את זהותכם. כשתחזרו תדעו רבות יותר על זהותכם וכיצד היא קשורה היטיב עם ארץ ישראל.
ישראל היא שומר האדמות, שומר הארץ, כל הארץ, פשוט מפני שהארץ שייכת לעם היהודי. לנוצרים יש אינטרס זהה שם. שהרי אם לא היו יהודים, לא היה ישו. אנחנו, העם היהודי, נתן לעולם הנוצרי את הרב היהודי הצנוע שלנו, יהושע, להיות מנהיגם. לכן, היהדות וישראל מגדירים גם את הנוצרים! אתה יכול ללכת לפי ההגדרה של הקב"ה, לפיה היהודים הגדירו את הנוצרים.
כל פעם שאני שומעת את השיר ירושלים של זהב, הדמעות זורמות.
כאשר פוליטיקאים מדברים, כל כך באקראי, על חלוקת ירושלים ועל לתת לערבים חלק ממנה, כעיר בירתם - או לתת להם חלק "נדיב" של ארץ ישראל - הם צריכים לשמוע את השיר רושלים של זהב ואז הם יידעו שזו משימה פשוט בלתי אפשרית.
בעוד הקווים של מי הם יהודים ומי הם נוצרים הם מטושטשים, הצורך להתפלל, לעמוד בעד ולסנגר לישראל זה חשוב עכשיו, יותר מתמיד.
הערת הכותבת: חלק מהתובנה של מאמר זה ניתנה לי על ידי ויין וונג ובתו אליזבת וונג, שניהם שייכים לתנועת הנוצרים למען ישראל.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)