Thursday, October 21, 2004

  • Thursday, October 21, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Eight suspected terrorists arrested in Spain this week were planning to bomb the national court in Madrid, police said yesterday.

The suicide attack on the building, a nerve centre in the country's fight against terrorism, would have been timed to kill two senior judges and destroy archives of investigations into Islamic terrorist activity, said a police report.
  • Thursday, October 21, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
THE Lebanese Prime Minister resigned and dismantled his Government yesterday, vowing not to return as his country faces intense international scrutiny.

“I deemed it appropriate to present the Government’s resignation, together with declining to nominate myself to the premiership” of the next government, Rafik Hariri said in a statement.

His resignation came after Syria imposed an extension of the mandate of Lebanon’s President Lahoud last month, a move that spurred the United Nations to demand that Damascus stop meddling in the affairs of its smaller neighbour.

Mr Hariri and Mr Lahoud are bitter rivals whose disagreements have paralysed the economy. A spokesman for Mr Hariri said that he “couldn’t see eye to eye with President Lahoud on forming a new government. He’s not coming back.”

A self-made billionaire and a political moderate, Mr Hariri, 60, has served as Lebanon’s Prime Minister for ten of the past twelve years. He was the driving force behind the multibillion-pound reconstruction programme after the country’s civil war in 1975-90.

But the collapse of the Middle East peace process in the mid-1990s and relentless political bickering among Lebanon’s leadership have saddled the country with £17.2 billion debt.

The departure of Mr Hariri, who is well respected internationally, could further isolate Lebanon and its political master, Syria. On Tuesday the UN Security Council released a demand that Syria should abide by a resolution calling on Damascus to withdraw its 14,000 troops from Lebanon, dismantle the Hezbollah organisation and respect Lebanon’s independence. The Security Council instructed Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary-General, to report back every six months on Syria’s compliance.
  • Thursday, October 21, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Rev. Ronald Stone, a retired social ethics professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, was quoted on Hezbollah's satellite TV network as saying 'relations and conversations with Islamic leaders are a lot easier than dealings and dialogue with Jewish leaders,' and that 'we treasure the precious words of Hezbollah and your expression of good will towards the American people.'

The Rev. Clifton Kirkpatrick, the chief executive at church headquarters in Louisville, Ky., said the Hezbollah visit and comments from delegation members 'do not reflect the official position of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) on peace in the Middle East,' and that they should not be interpreted as lessening its 'commitment to continued Jewish-Christian dialogue, Muslim-Christian dialogue, or Jewish-Christian-Muslim dialogue.'

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

  • Wednesday, October 20, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
The phrase “occupied territories” has come to mean only one particular place in the entire world - namely Gaza and Judea/Samaria (i.e. the West Bank). That phrase is increasingly becoming a battle cry in a rising tide of global anger directed against Israel. Many view this “occupation” as a crime, so heinous that it exceeds all others in the world, and that it justifies the barbaric murder of Jewish men women and children. Few international issues attract so much wide support or generate so much anger. It seems that the nations are evolving into an international angry lynch mob ready to apply increasing punishment to impose their will even if it threatens Israel’s ability to defend itself.

Many people simply assume, without further investigation, that these assertions and accusations must be true because they are so widely held and because an effective refutation is rarely heard. With so much at stake the accusers have a moral obligation to review the facts before taking sides. This article attempts to briefly review the relevant history and to directly challenge the majority view.

Consider two questions: What entitles any group of people to possess any particular tract of land? How can we decide whether Jews or Arabs have the true rights to posses the “occupied territories”?

In the absence of any universally accepted rules, and in general practice among the nations, it usually boils down to who was there first and also right by conquest, especially if the conquest occurred long ago. There are 191 member nations in the U.N. with some having major territorial conflicts of their own, such as India and Pakistan regarding Kashmir. Also within nations there are separatist groups that seek independence, such as Basques in Spain, the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq, and the Chechens in Russia. To further complicate this question is the appearance and disappearance over time of peoples and of nations. Many peoples of antiquity have long ceased to exist. Also, nations and even empires, come and go over the centuries. During the last century countries such as Iraq and Jordan were established although they never existed before.

With such intense feeling over the “occupied territories” there should at least be some standard against which to determine who is right and who is wrong. In the absence of any universally accepted standard I will set forth my own four criteria before proceeding.

1. Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, insofar as possible.

2. Apply the same rules to all nations and all disputes.

3. Keep all promises or else have a compelling reason not to.

4. Respect the vital interests of all sides.

Both Jews and Arabs trace their origins back to Abraham of the Bible. Jews descended through Abraham and Sara, Isaac and Jacob (who was later renamed Israel). Arabs descended through Abraham and Hagar the Egyptian, and through their son Ishmael whose daughter Mahalath also married Esau, the brother of Jacob. Thus Jews and Arabs are actually two branches of the same family which have diverged over the centuries. Both Jews and Arabs come to pray at the tomb of Abraham and Sara who are buried in Hebron. Note that today Jews can pray only with armed Israeli guards present because the Arabs attempt to deny Jews access to the tomb.

The Bible, in the book of Genesis, clearly states that descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will eventually receive their inheritance in the form of the Promised Land, which is later identified to include the general location of present day Israel. But Ishmael and his descendants are also promised an inheritance,

“...for I will make a great nation of him [i.e. Ishmael]” Gen. 21:18.

The very first words in the Bible depict the creation of the world by G-d, Who can therefore assign any land to whomever He chooses. Note that the Jews are assigned only a modest portion of the land in the Middle East, with remaining lands distributed among the other nations. Unlike certain other empires and religions throughout history, the Jews are not promised nor commanded to seize all of the lands in the world, nor to convert all others to their beliefs.

This promise was made at the time of Abraham, about 4,000 years ago and takes further shape in the time of Moses, about 3,300 years ago, where the Jewish People became irrevocably linked to the land of Israel, the “Promised Land.” The Bible assigns this one people to this one specific land and does not do this for any other people. Today there are two billion Christians, plus 14 million Jews, in the world who accept the Five Books of Moses as a pillar of their religion. They all embrace a religion which clearly defines that land as belonging to the Jewish People in perpetuity. Those who deny the validity of this Biblical assignment must then fall back on man-made rules which are subject to constant alteration, disagreement, and conflict.

Historians tell us that at the time of Mohammed, about 1,400 years ago, the Arabs, along with Jews, Christians, and others lived in the Arabian Peninsula. The Quran is the holy book for Islam and is attributed to the prophet Mohammed. The Muslims claim to revere and to follow the teachings of the Quran. It is revealing to compare the frequency of certain key references in the Jewish Bible, the Christian Bible and the Quran as summarized below:

Book / Subject / Number of times mentioned
Jewish Bible / Jerusalem / 669
Jewish Bible / Zion (i.e. Jerusalem or the land) / 154
Christian Bible / Jerusalem / 154
Christian Bible / Zion / 7
Both Jewish and Christian Bibles / Judah or Judea / 877
Both Bibles / Samaria / 123
The Quran / Israel or Israelites / 47
The Quran / Jew or Jewish / 26
The Quran / Christian or Christians / 15
The Quran / Mecca and Medina / 8
The Quran / Jerusalem / Zero!

These numbers provide a telling story. The many references in both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles testify to the integral historic connections between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel and also to Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Judaism and of the Jewish People. Jerusalem was the capital of Israel 3,000 years ago under King David. The Quran was written about 1,600 years later. And unexpectedly, the Quran has more references to things Christian and Jewish than to their own two holy cities of Mecca and Medina. This indicates their early awareness of Jewish roots in that region. But most remarkable is the failure of the Quran to mention Jerusalem even once. And with Muslims facing towards Mecca while praying, and not towards Jerusalem, it is clear that Islam has no Quranic connection to either Jerusalem or to the land of Israel and hence no claim to either.

In addition we have Islamic scholars such as Khaleel Mohammed, at San Diego State University, saying that the Quran actually supports the right of Jews to the land of Israel. He cites Sura 5:20, 5:21 in the Quran which are translated as follows:

5:20. Remember Moses said to his people: “O my People ! call in remembrance the favor of Allah unto you, when He produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what He had not given to any other among the peoples.

5:21. “O my people ! enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned to you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.”

Reference: The Meaning of the Illustrious Qur’an by A. Yusuf Ali

The essence of the Quran’s message is very similar to that in the Jewish Bible. But this Quranic message is evidently not being taught, or not being believed, by certain Muslims. The Quran also never mentions Palestine or Palestinians. We now have the holy books of Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam, recognizing the Jewish claim to the Land of Israel. Those three religious represent half of all humanity.

Two thousand years ago Rome ruled much of the known world. The Jews in the land of Israel (called Judea at that time) were a colony of Rome with their capital in Jerusalem. The Jews revolted against harsh Roman rule and were defeated after a long and brutal war. As punishment the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and renamed that city Aelia Capilolina and renamed the land from Provincia Judea to Provincia Philistia/Palaistina in an attempt to even erase Jewish history. No Arabs were involved in this action. The capital’s name later reverted back to Jerusalem but the name Philistia/Palaistina evolved into Palestine and came to designate only a region, but never a country or a distinct people. This is the origin of the term “Palestine” which is not even an Arabic name.

Over the following centuries that land was overrun multiple times by various armies until about 1517 when that area became part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Four hundred years later in 1917, during WWI the British armies defeated the Turks, and that vast Middle East region, including Palestine, was now the subject for setting new boundaries.

Briefly, England and the victorious allies designated new nations along with establishing new boundaries, such as Iraq and Jordan. Those allies assigned all of Palestine to be a British Mandate to become the Jewish National Home. At international conferences following WWI, boundary issues were settled with Jewish and Arab delegations participating. The Palestine Mandate included all of present day Israel, Jordan, Gaza, the “occupied territories” plus the Golan Heights. The Jews would receive about 45,000 square miles which would be less than 1% of the 5,000,000 square miles assigned to the Arabs.

At the time there was amicable agreement between Emir Feisal and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, representing the Arab and the Zionist delegations respectively.

The League of Nations ratified this agreement making it legally binding under international law. It has never been legally altered or abrogated.

“Under this settlement, the whole of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan was reserved exclusively for the Jewish People as the Jewish National Home, in recognition of their historical connection with that country, dating from the Patriarchal Period ... The Palestine aspect of the global settlement was recorded in three basic documents that led to the founding of the modern State of Israel: ...”

The conventions are cited and they include implementing the Balfour Declaration with commitments by the League of Nations, and the governments of France, England and America.

The British unilaterally detached three fourths of the Palestine Mandate and created Trans Jordan, which was only for Arabs and banned to Jews. The British detached the Golan Heights and transferred that area to French-controlled Syria. They also instigated the local Arabs against the Jews to sabotage the very obligation they were duty bound to implement.

“The British Government repudiated the solemn obligation it undertook to develop Palestine gradually into an independent Jewish state.” ... “The US aided and abetted the British betrayal of the Jewish People by its abject failure to act decisively against the 1939 White Paper [which severely limited Jewish immigration from Nazi controlled Europe into Palestine] despite its own legal obligation to do so under the 1924 treaty. The UN Partition Resolution of November 29, 1947 illegally recommended the restriction of Jewish legal rights to a truncated part of Palestine.

... “Despite all the subversive actions to smother and destroy Jewish legal rights and title of sovereignty to the entire Land of Israel, they still remain in full force by virtue of the Principle of Acquired Rights and the doctrine of Estoppel that apply in all legal systems of the democratic world.”

Had the Western nations and the Arabs honored their international agreements and obligations there would never have been an Israeli-Palestinian conflict today.

In 1947 the U.N. voted to partition the remaining one-fourth of the original Mandate into a Jewish and an Arab sector. The Jews accepted and the Arabs rejected it. Five Arab armies attacked the re-born State of Israel on the day it declared independence. The U.N. totally failed to support its own resolution. During the subsequent war the boundary changed and, when fighting ceased, the armistice line of 1949 became what is referred to as the lines of pre Six-Day War. That armistice line is NOT a legal border or boundary as some prefer to call it, and there is no geographic, demographic, or legal requirement, for it to become permanent.

At this point designations changed. The term Palestine becomes temporarily moot. In that area there were now Israel and Jordan, and the so-called West Bank was occupied by Jordan while Egypt occupied the Gaza strip. The term “Palestinian” originally referred to Jewish pioneers who were returning to reclaim their historic homeland. Local Arabs were simply called Arabs, and they did not want to be confused with the appellation of “Palestinians” who were the Jews.

In the 1960’s Yasser Arafat and others invented their own Palestine/Palestinian identity. In 1964, three years prior to the Six-Day war, and prior to the “occupied territories”, the PLO had issued its infamous PLO Covenant calling for the destruction of Israel. Upon Israel’s rebirth the terms Palestine and Palestinians were now vacated and the local Arabs now seized that identity for themselves as a political tool to use against Israel. A revealing statement comes from PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein as quoted in the Dutch newspaper Trouw on March 3, 1977. In a moment of candor he admitted:

“The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct ‘Palestinian people’ to oppose Zionism.”

Their forged identity now matched their covenant which denied Israel‘s right to exist. The Six-Day War provided another excuse to claim a Palestinian territory and a Palestinian People that never existed. Jewish leadership failed to challenge that identity theft which allowed time for that falsehood to acquire legitimacy. Local Arabs were then taught from birth that they were Palestinians who had their “Palestinian” land stolen by the Jews. This falsehood has existed for decades with little challenge. By now it acquired the status of established truth.

A map of the Middle East shows a vast Arab territory of 5 million square miles plus another area of Muslim non-Arab countries that occupy nearly another 5 million square miles. How did all that come about? At the birth of Mohammed the Arabs resided on the Arabian Peninsula and Islam did not yet exist. Mohammed’s legacy was the Quran, the holy book of Islam, plus a militant drive to spread the faith by conversion and by conquest. Except for the Arabian Peninsula, all the Muslim countries of today, both Arab and non-Arab, are the result of that early expansionist drive. In places such as Spain, that expansion was eventually repulsed but most of that conquest remains in force to this day.

We can now view the Middle East with new eyes. It is not Israel but the Arabs who are the true occupiers in the Middle East. Their long possession of conquered lands does not necessarily legitimize their original conquest. The entire Land of Israel itself bears testimony to the presence of two Jewish commonwealths in ancient times, as evidenced by archaeology, with that presence including the Golan Heights, Gaza, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). Palestinian claims are totally fabricated. There is no evidence of any prior Palestinian culture, language, religion, coinage, leadership or any other evidence backing their extravagant claims.

But if all that is true how come almost everyone believes that the Jews stole part of “historic Palestine”? This happened over recent decades because of Arab fabrications and the dismal failure of the Jewish leadership to even tell the truth in their own behalf. The Arabs committed a crime in lying against the Jews and the Jews committed a crime in acquiescing in these lies.

A brief word for those Americans, both Jewish and non-Jewish, who are adamant in attacking Israel over the so-called “occupied territories.” The lands beneath their own feet are also occupied territories by this logic. America was colonized after Columbus by foreigners who invited themselves over here. They displaced the native peoples, and slaughtered many of them, mainly in the 1800’s. The Indians ‘traded land for peace’ and received neither. Their reservations house the poorest of all the minorities in this country, with over 300 treaties with the U.S. government still unfulfilled. People who live in glass houses should not be throwing stones, as the saying goes.

This conflict has destroyed many lives in the course of the past century with no end in sight. There is much blame to assign to the major powers and to the Arabs. But it is also time to assign blame to those Jewish leaders who failed, from the start, to stand firm for Jewish rights to the land. They foolishly allowed the big lie to grow and over time to become deeply entrenched in popular thinking and even in the minds of many Jews. To this day these failed leaders cannot bring themselves to speak the simple truth on behalf of their own people. It would be revealing if readers would send this article to those in the U.S. Jewish leadership requesting a reply and see if any of them will be able to respond honestly.
BY JACOB GERSHMAN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 20, 2004

At a history class, a professor mockingly tells a female Jewish student she cannot possibly have ancestral ties to Israel because her eyes are green.

During a lecture, a professor of Arab politics refuses to answer a question from an Israeli student and military veteran but instead asks the student, "How many Palestinians have you killed?"

At a student meeting on the topic of divestment from Israel, a Jewish student is singled out as responsible for death of Palestinian Arabs.

Those scenes are described by current and former students interviewed for an underground documentary that is causing a frisson of concern to ripple through the Morningside Heights campus of Columbia University, where the incidents took place.

The film, about anti-Israel sentiment at the school, has not yet been released to the public, but it has been screened for a number of top officials of Columbia, and talk of its impact is spreading rapidly on a campus where some students have complained of anti-Israel bias among faculty members.

"The movie is shocking," one Columbia senior, Ariel Beery, said.

"It is shocking to see blatant use of racial stereotypes by professors and intimidation tactics by professors in order to push a distinct ideological line on the curriculum," Mr. Beery, who was interviewed for the film, said.

The film is the creation of the David Project, a 2-year-old group based in Boston that advocates for Israel and is led by the founder of the American Anti-Slavery Group, Charles Jacobs. The David Project, which is refusing to make the film public, has screened it for Barnard College's president, Judith Shapiro, and Columbia's provost, Alan Brinkley, according to sources.

Neither Ms. Shapiro nor Mr. Brinkley would return calls seeking comment about the film, though at a meeting in Washington this week with women active in Jewish charitable work the Barnard president is said to have spoken of how emotionally affected she was by the film.

With versions at 11 minutes and 25 minutes in playing time, the film consists of interviews with several students who contend that they have felt threatened academically for expressing a pro-Israel point of view in classrooms.

One of the scholars discussed most in the film, according to a person who has seen the film, is Joseph Massad, a non-tenured professor of modern Arab politics, who is teaching a course about Middle East nationalism this fall. Mr. Massad, a professor at Columbia's department of Middle East and Asian languages and cultures, has likened Israel to Nazi Germany and has said Israel doesn't have the right to exist as a Jewish state.

In the film, a former Columbia undergraduate, Tomy Schoenfeld, recalls attending a lecture about the Middle East conflict given by Mr. Massad in spring 2001. At the end of the lecture, Mr. Schoenfeld prefaced a question to the professor by informing Mr. Massad that he was Israeli, Mr. Schoenfeld told The New York Sun. "Before I could continue, he stopped me and said, 'Did you serve in the military?'" Mr. Schoenfeld, who served in the Israeli Air Force between 1996 and 1999, recalled. He said that he told Mr. Massad he had served in the military and that Mr. Massad asked him how many Palestinians he had killed. When Mr. Schoenfeld refused to answer, Mr. Massad said he wouldn't allow him to ask his question.

Mr. Massad did not return phone calls for comment yesterday. Mr. Schoenfeld told the Sun that his encounter with Mr. Massad was not representative of his dealings with Columbia professors and that the Middle East-Asian department is "usually balanced."

Mr. Beery, the senior at the school, told the Sun that anti-Israel bias is prevalent in the department and said the documentary film demonstrates how many students at Columbia have been affected by it.

"You would be surprised," Mr. Beery said, "to find the number of students who were willing to stand up and be counted as members of the student body who oppose the intimidation of students in the classroom, especially on topics related to the Middle East."

In 2003, Columbia's president, Lee Bollinger, convened a committee of six Columbia professors to investigate the possibility of the school's declaring stricter boundaries between academic expression and political activism. But the credibility of the investigation came into doubt among those following the issue seriously when Mr. Bollinger told the New York Daily News that the committee found no claims or evidence of bias or intimidation in the classroom.

Mr. Beery said the committee did not look hard enough for bias and said Jewish students at Columbia have no avenue for pressing complaints about anti-Israel prejudice among faculty members.

"Because Jews are seen as this overrepresented ethnic group and not prone to protests, they sweep it under the rug," he said.

Columbia is looking to raise money for an endowed professorship in Israeli studies to make up for what Mr. Bollinger has said is lack of contemporary Israel scholarship at the school.

That effort comes at a time when the university is under a cloud for having accepted money from the United Arab Emirates, one of the worst human rights violators in the Middle East and a country hostile to Jews and Israel, to help finance a chair named for the late professor Edward Said, who was a writer and anti-Israel Palestinian activist. Harvard University returned money from the UAE after complaints were raised about the propriety of taking money from that source.
  • Wednesday, October 20, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
By Joshua Muravchik, Joshua Muravchik, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is working on a study of the United Nations that will be published by the AEI Press early next year.

This month, the United Nations Security Council voted to condemn terrorism. The resolution was introduced by Russia, still grieving over the terrorist attack on a school in Beslan, and perhaps the unanimous vote will give it a measure of solace.

But the convoluted text and the dealings behind the scenes that were necessary to secure agreement on it offer cold comfort to anyone who cares about winning the war against terrorism. For what they reveal is that even after Beslan and after Madrid and after 9/11, the U.N. still cannot bring itself to oppose terrorism unequivocally.

The reason for this failure is that the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which comprises 56 of the U.N.'s 191 members, defends terrorism as a right.

After the Security Council vote, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John C. Danforth tried to put the best face on the resolution. He said it "states very simply that the deliberate massacre of innocents is never justifiable in any cause. Never."

But in fact it does not state this. Nor has any U.N. resolution ever stated it. The U.S. delegation tried to get such language into the resolution, but it was rebuffed by Algeria and Pakistan, the two OIC members currently sitting on the Security Council. (They have no veto, but the resolution's sponsors were willing to water down the text in return for a unanimous vote.)

True, the final resolution condemns "all acts of terrorism irrespective of their motivation." This sounds clear, but in the Alice-in-Wonderland lexicon of the U.N., the term "acts of terrorism" does not mean what it seems.

For eight years now, a U.N. committee has labored to draft a "comprehensive convention on international terrorism." It has been stalled since Day 1 on the issue of "defining" terrorism. But what is the mystery? At bottom everyone understands what terrorism is: the deliberate targeting of civilians. The Islamic Conference, however, has insisted that terrorism must be defined not by the nature of the act but by its purpose. In this view, any act done in the cause of "national liberation," no matter how bestial or how random or defenseless the victims, cannot be considered terrorism.

This boils down to saying that terrorism on behalf of bad causes is bad, but terrorism on behalf of good causes is good. Obviously, anyone who takes such a position is not against terrorism at all — but only against bad causes.

The U.S. is not alone in failing to get the Islamic states to reconsider their pro-terror stance. Following 9/11, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan pushed to break the deadlock on the terrorism convention. He endorsed compromise language proscribing terrorism unambiguously while reaffirming the right of self-determination. But the Islamic Conference would not budge.

Far from giving ground on terrorism, the Islamic states have often gotten their way on the issue, with others giving in to them. As early as 1970, for instance, the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution "reaffirm[ing] … the legitimacy of the struggle of the colonial peoples and peoples under alien domination to exercise their right to self-determination and independence by all the necessary means at their disposal."

Everyone understood that this final phrase was code for terrorism. Similar formulas have been adopted repeatedly in the years since. Originally, the Western European states joined the U.S. in voting against such motions. But in each of the last few years the U.N. Commission on Human Rights has adopted such a resolution with regard to the Palestinian struggle against Israel, with almost all the European members voting in favor.

Danforth may feel that the U.S. position was vindicated in the new Security Council resolution, but that is not what OIC representatives think. As Pakistan's envoy to the U.N., Munir Akram, put it: "We ought not, in our desire to confront terrorism, erode the principle of the legitimacy of national resistance that we have upheld for 50 years." Accordingly, he expressed satisfaction with the resolution: "It doesn't open any new doors."

Who is right? Hours of parsing the resolution won't resolve that question. But in the end it does not matter. As long as the Islamic states resist any blanket condemnation of terrorism, we will remain a long way from ridding the Earth of its scourge. And the U.N., in which they account for nearly one-third of the votes, will be helpless to bring us any closer.
  • Wednesday, October 20, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
HRW'S REPORT ON GAZA: LACKING CREDIBILITY
AND REFLECTING A POLITICAL AGENDA

On October 18, Kenneth Roth, leader of Human Rights Watch, and Sarah Leah Whitson, head of HRW's Middle East and North Africa Division, held a press conference at the American Colony Hotel in Jerusalem to publicize a 135-page report condemning Israeli security actions in Gaza. (see www.hrw.org)

The press release and report reflect the style of other HRW publications related to Israeli security actions during the past four years of intense violence, consisting of political and ideological claims, unsupported 'military assessments', and denunciations that downplay the context of terrorism. This press release and report regarding IDF operations in Gaza reflect unverifiable Palestinian allegations and unsubstantiated security judgements for which HRW's politicized Middle East Division has no credentials.

For example, HRW claims that IDF actions were taken despite the absence of 'military necessity' and that the 'IDF has apparently failed to explore well-established methods to detect and destroy tunnels...' However, the only evidence presented to back this claim is from interviews with three 'experts', whose personal backgrounds, professional qualifications and assessments remain entirely hidden. Other sources cited in the report consist of journalistic impressions, claims by PLO-based NGOs such as Al Mezan, and unsubstantiated claims from Palestinians and Egyptians (on the other side of the smuggling tunnels). In many cases, these reports are circular, with one source simply quoting another, without verification. This closed process has been responsible for false allegations in the past, and as a result, HRW's dismissal of legitimate security actions are without credibility.

This report also contains numerous allegations and assumptions that reflect HRW's dominant ideology. In this context, Roth asserts that the Israeli response to the lethal missile attacks is a 'pretext to justify home demolitions' and other actions are taken under the 'pretext of protecting its soldiers'. Such statements are clearly subjective, as is also true for claims regarding the legality of specific responses to terror.

This pattern of exploiting the rhetoric of human rights to advance a political agenda has been used repeatedly, as in the case of HRW's role in the 2001 Durban conference that demonized Israel; in HRW's exploitation of the term 'war crimes' to refer to the IDF offensive in Jenin during Operation Defensive Shield following the murder of over 100 Israelis; in its one-sided condemnations of the Israeli anti-terror separation barrier, and in many other examples.

In addition, HRW's 135-page report focusing on Israel's security responses stands in stark contrast to this NGO's minimalist approach to terrorism. In the past four years, HRW has issued well over 100 reports, press releases, and other condemnations of Israeli defensive actions, in contrast to a handful of low-profile reactions to terror. HRW's single substantive analysis was issued in October 2002, and is never mentioned, including in the case of the current publicity campaign.

In conclusion, as this evidence indicates, HRW reports on Israel lack substantive credibility and are driven by a clear and consistent political and ideological agenda. Beyond contributing to the destruction of human right norms and demonization of Israel, this agenda also diverts attention from genuine human rights catastrophes, such as in Sudan, which received far less attention from HRW.
  • Wednesday, October 20, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
MARYSVILLE, Kan. - Eric Swim was surfing on the Internet in June when he stumbled across the story of a 10-year-old Jewish boy from Israel who was in desperate need of a kidney transplant.

'I began thinking that I have two good kidneys,' the Marysville man said, 'and I didn't have to have one of them.'

Swim, 38, returned Sunday from Israel with one less kidney and the thanks of the many Israelis he met.

'It's a humbling thing when a Holocaust survivor comes up to you and says 'you're a big hero,' or 'gibor' in Hebrew,' Swim said Monday during an interview at his home, 'when in reality all I did was donate a kidney. It's very humbling.'

The organ recipient, Moshiko Sharon, who had waited for a compatible kidney donor for more than a year, is doing well after undergoing implant surgery Sept. 21 at a Tel Aviv-area hospital.

But before the surgery could happen Swim had to undergo tests to determine whether he would be a good match. Swim learned the results of the tests Sept. 3 and left three days later for Tel Aviv.

'I was doing my housekeeping work at the hospital when we got the call,' said Swim, who works at Community Memorial Healthcare Inc. in Marysville. 'It was Labor Day weekend and the banks were shutting down, and they wanted us to leave for Israel on Labor Day. So we left, with four airline tickets we had bought at the last minute and $60 in our pockets.'

Swim was joined by his wife, Lori, 34, and the couple's two children, Lucy, 10, and Josiah, 6.

'So many bad things are going on these days that it is hard to look at the world and have any hope for children,' Lori Swim said. 'If you want to have children see a better way, maybe saving one person's life will help us in the bigger scheme of things.'
  • Wednesday, October 20, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Mauritania has appealed for help from Israel fighting a locust epidemic. The appeal for experts in disease control was made via the Israel MP Ayub Kara, a member of the ruling Likud Party and member of the Druze minority in Israel. Kara was visiting Mauritania for a seminar of parliamentarians sponsored by NATO.

According to Israeli press reports, Kara will pass the message on to the Israeli minister of agriculture, Yisrael Katz. The Israeli Ambassador to Mauritania, Boaz Bismuth said that Israel should do its utmost efforts to help Mauritania as it is the only Arab country to have an Ambassador currently serving in Israel.
  • Wednesday, October 20, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Saddam Hussein's government discussed supplying unmanned aerial vehicles to terrorists, according to a CIA report made public last week, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service.

The Iraq Survey Group report stated that the development of the Al Quds remotely piloted aircraft included links between the program director and terrorists.

Al Quds program director Imad Abd-al-Latif Al Rida reported that four Al Quds drones were to be used as 'flying bombs' in an attempt to assassinate Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, according to a source who worked on the Al Quds program.

'According to the source, four UAVs were to be given to a former Hamas member named Abu Radin who was a friend of Saddam Hussein,' the report stated.

'Abu Radin, who was no longer loyal to Hamas, would take the UAVs to Jordan, install 5 kg of C4 explosive and use them to attack Sharon at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem.'

Another Iraqi drone, called the Al Musayara-20, was also to be used as a flying bomb, the report stated.

A Dec. 23, 2000, memorandum discovered in Iraq showed that the Iraqi Air Force and senior members of the Fedayeen Saddam, a paramilitary organization, agreed to develop helicopter UAVs for the Fedayeen Saddam.

A prototype helicopter UAV was built but was destroyed by U.S. cruise missiles in March 2003.
  • Wednesday, October 20, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
LONDON, Oct. 19 - Abu Hamza al-Masri, a radical Muslim cleric who faces extradition to the United States, was charged by the British police on Tuesday with encouraging followers to murder Jews and other non-Muslims. (He may be "radical", but only Jews are "extremists." -EoZ)

Appearing before a magistrates' court at Belmarsh Prison here, Mr. Masri was charged with 16 offenses in all. The other charges included inciting racial hatred, possessing threatening or incendiary sound and video recordings and having a terrorist document in his possession on the day he was arrested.

The charge states that the document 'contained information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism.'

Mr. Masri, who arrived in Britain in 1979, has been in a high security jail in Britain since May, when he was arrested by the British antiterrorism police on a United States extradition warrant. He faces 11 charges in the United States, including hostage taking and providing material support to Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies in Afghanistan.

The British police began pursuing their own charges against Mr. Masri during the summer. Now the British case, one of the highest-profile terrorism cases here, takes precedence, and the American extradition request will be put on hold until after Mr. Masri's trial in Britain. One potential problem with the extradition is that British law bars extradition where the death penalty could be imposed.

The former imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque in north London, Mr. Masri, 46, is considered a radical preacher and was known for delivering fiery speeches to his followers. Last year, the Egyptian-born cleric was stripped of his British citizenship and barred from preaching at the mosque. But he continued to preach on the road just outside the mosque.

Both Richard Reid, the so-called shoe bomber, and Zacarias Moussaoui, accused of being the 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 attacks, reportedly attended that mosque before their arrests. Mr. Reid is in prison in the United States, and Mr. Moussaoui faces trial there. Antiterrorism officials have described the mosque as a focus of terrorist planning.

Mr. Masri, who lost an eye and a hand while fighting Soviet troops in Afghanistan in the 1980's, appeared in court surrounded by several police officers.

He is one of several prominent Muslim clerics who have been accused of supporting terrorism, including Abu Qatada, who is said to have been the spiritual counselor of Mohamed Atta, the man who led the Sept. 11 plot. Mr. Qatada remains in prison here without charges.
  • Wednesday, October 20, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
The al-Qaida affiliated terrorist organization that claimed responsibility for the series of brutal attacks two weeks ago in Sinai published a threatening message promising to continue attacks against Israel and Israeli interests.

'Message to the damned [Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon and [Defense Minister Shaul] Mofaz: We have prepared for you an army of martyrs and we will not rest until you reach the depths of hell,' the message reads.

'We promise the masses of the Islamic nation to continue the Jihad until we destroy the Zionist enemy,' Channel 1 TV quoted the message.
  • Wednesday, October 20, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Syria signed a wide-ranging agreement on political and economic cooperation with the European Union on Tuesday after more than five years of negotiations, snagged over a clause on weapons of mass destruction.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom spoke out against the agreement at Sunday's cabinet meeting, saying that stepping up international pressure and isolating both Syria and Iran at this time is 'critical.'

At the meeting, Shalom called the EU's intention to sign an 'association agreement' with Syria a 'pity.' He called on Europe to 'strengthen the international front against terror,' and said that a continuation of international pressure against Damascus will cause it to abandon terror 'and will bring them back to the negotiating table with Israel faster.'

The association agreement is similar to those the EU has already concluded with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Algeria, Lebanon and Morocco as part of a plan to build trade and political ties across the Mediterranean Sea.

Syria's was delayed by its reluctance to sign, owing to a clause demanding commitment to the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction that the EU has insisted upon since late 2003.

Negotiators wrapped up a deal last month by rewording the clause to satisfy both sides.

EU officials declined to immediately release the exact wording, but issued a statement saying it 'includes essential provisions on... cooperation to counter the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.'

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

  • Tuesday, October 19, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
National Security Advisor Gen. (res.) Giora Eiland said today that in the event of a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, it is likely that an international force would take over the strategic route along the Israeli-Egyptian border separating Egypt from Gaza. He made the remarks at an appearance before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee.

The route, known as the Philadelphi Route, is the scene of much arms smuggling from Egypt into Gaza. Over 100 tunnels have been discovered in the course of the past four years - many more have gone undiscovered - through which have flowed tremendous amounts of arms, explosives and ammunitions, used by Arab terrorists in attacks against Israel. Many Israeli officials have accused Egypt of turning a blind eye to the phenomenon.

The estimated amounts of arms and explosives smuggled in to Gaza over the past four years are: 2,000 kilograms of explosives, 6,700 Kalachnikov rifles (including 5,000 since 2003), 750 anti-tank shell launchers, 33 mortars, 18 submachine guns, 5 anti-aircraft missiles, 580,000 bullets, and dozens of RPG bombs.

MK Yuval Shteinitz, who Chairs the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, said recently that the Egyptians continue to allow arms-smuggling to Gaza because they are interested in the continuation of the conflict between Israel and the Arabs of Gaza, Judea and Samaria.

Gen. Eiland said that the military has considered retaining control of the Philadelphi Route event in the event of a withdrawal from Gaza. He said, however, that the concern that the soldiers would simply be a target of terrorists from both south and north would probably tip the scales in favor of a withdrawal from the area.

Asked what would happen to the houses in Gush Katif in the event of a withdrawal, Eiland said that they would be destroyed. Sharon made the same decision regarding the homes in northern Sinai 22 years ago, and later said that he regretted it.

Committee member MK Uri Ariel said afterwards, 'We learned that what is being planned is not a disengagement, and not half of a disengagement. We will remain responsible for the Arab population, and we will remain responsible for security, and we [may] remain in the Philadelphi Route. So what is Sharon talking about when he says we're leaving Gaza? It's merely cruelty against Jews, nothing more.'
  • Tuesday, October 19, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
(I believe that this is like the British National Guard. -EoZ)

THE Territorial Army has been infiltrated by Al-Qaeda suspects, giving the Islamic terrorist group potential access to military bases, explosives and fuel dumps.

Five Al-Qaeda suspects are believed to have trained as part-time soldiers with the TA. At least one is now in custody.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) has confirmed that other terror suspects have attempted to join the TA, but says they were rejected after undergoing security checks.

The connection with Britain’s Al-Qaeda network was uncovered in a series of wide-ranging investigations by MI5 and Scotland Yard’s Special Branch.

It is believed the terrorist suspects may have been taking advantage of military training as well as gaining access to bases and weapons.

Patrick Mercer, the Tory homeland security spokesman and a former army officer, said Al-Qaeda terrorists could use TA passes to penetrate security at key MoD establishments such as the permanent joint headquarters at Northwood in Greater London.

“This could have very serious security implications. Clearly in the war against terror you need to know who your friends are. The last thing we want is the enemy masquerading as our own people,” Mercer said.

The TA has about 41,000 members and comprises a substantial portion of the 102,000-strong British Army and has 329 centres throughout the country.

AddToAny

EoZ Book:"Protocols: Exposing Modern Antisemitism"

Printfriendly

EoZTV Podcast

Podcast URL

Subscribe in podnovaSubscribe with FeedlyAdd to netvibes
addtomyyahoo4Subscribe with SubToMe

search eoz

comments

Speaking

translate

E-Book

For $18 donation








Sample Text

EoZ's Most Popular Posts in recent years

Hasbys!

Elder of Ziyon - حـكـيـم صـهـيـون



This blog may be a labor of love for me, but it takes a lot of effort, time and money. For 20 years and 40,000 articles I have been providing accurate, original news that would have remained unnoticed. I've written hundreds of scoops and sometimes my reporting ends up making a real difference. I appreciate any donations you can give to keep this blog going.

Donate!

Donate to fight for Israel!

Monthly subscription:
Payment options


One time donation:

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive