Elder Of Ziyon - Israel News

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Zionist human rights activist barred from UN

The United Nations detained an outspoken critic and booted her from its New York headquarters in what the woman, a human rights watchdog, is calling an effort to silence her opposition to the world body.

Anne Bayefsky claims that as retaliation for giving a two-minute impromptu speech defending Israel, her 25-year career of monitoring the U.N. is now in jeopardy — likely to be placed in the hands of a committee chaired by the genocidal regime in Sudan.

Bayefsky gets special access to U.N. meetings in her capacity as the director of a non-governmental organization, the Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust at New York's Touro College.

But the longtime U.N. observer has found herself in what she calls a "Kafkaesque" gray zone, where the U.N. confiscated her credentials, then denied to reporters that her access had been blocked.

"This is no accident," she told FoxNews.com, arguing that she is being denied access to vital meetings concerning her prime focus: defending Israel. "This is keeping [the U.N.'s] major critic absent during the heart of the year."

Following a vote Nov. 5 at the U.N. General Assembly, a microphone was set up outside the UNGA chamber for delegates to tout their endorsement of the controversial Goldstone Report, which accuses Israel of committing war crimes during its invasion of Gaza last winter.
Without an invitation, Bayefsky approached the empty podium to offer what she thought would be a counter-balance to speeches from the Libyan president of the UNGA and the Palestinian observer, who both supported the resolution.

"I didn't expect that there would be a problem at all," said Bayefsky, who noted that she and other NGOs have spoken there in the past without incident. (Archived U.N. video shows an official from the NGO Human Rights Watch speaking in praise of the U.N. at the same podium in May 2007.)

Bayefsky blasted the Goldstone Report and called the U.N. a "laughingstock" for singling out Israel and ignoring human rights violations committed by the terrorist organization Hamas against Israeli and Palestinian civilians during the three-week campaign in December and January.

"This is a resolution that purports to be evenhanded; it is anything but," she said of the document approved by the UNGA. "It is a travesty — it calls for accountability, and in fact what we see instead is impunity for the Palestinian side."

Soon after she finished speaking, Bayefsky was swarmed by four U.N. security guards, who brought her to their security office, confiscated her NGO pass and kicked her out of the building, she said.

But the U.N. told reporters a different story at a press conference Tuesday — claiming that there has been no change in status for Bayefsky, even as she continues to sit in limbo.

After this article was printed on Wednesday, the UN then admitted that it did revoke her pass, and said that the reason was because she misused it by allegedly lending it to someone else. I guess that the fact that they happened to kick her out of the building right when she was giving a speech criticizing the UN was simply an amazing coincidence.

More from WSJ:

Yet the U.N. continues to bar Ms. Bayefsky from the premises, despite calls on her behalf by the U.S. mission and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel. Best-case scenario, one U.N. insider tells us, is that "they'll put her on probation." We hear the U.N.'s NGO accreditation committee, chaired by Sudan, will likely make the final decision.

The full details, including text of the UN denials and then reversal can be seen at Inner City Press, which has followed this story from the beginning and concludes that "The UN likes to expel its critics, then deny doing so."

Did Gaza terror groups agree to stop rockets?

Al Arabiya, AFP and others have reported that Hamas announced that it reached an agreement with other armed groups in Gaza to stop rocket attacks on Israel:

"The agreement between (Ezzedine) Al-Qassam (Brigades) and other factions to stop rocket (fire) is not a sign of weakness," the group said in a statement.
The agreement is "aimed at keeping together the internal front and the supreme national interest of the Palestinian people."
It warned, however, that the groups would respond in the case of Israeli strikes on the territory.
"Al-Qassam Brigades will not stand idly by in case of a Zionist escalation and will defend ourselves with all our force."

The Al-Qassam website, which publishes all of the Al Qassam Brigades press releases, has nothing on this purported agreement.

Not only that, but Islamic Jihad and the PFLP have both denied that any such agreement took place, according to Palestine Press Agency.

At least 4 Qassams have been fired at Israel this month.

Book review: "Fromms: How Julius Fromm's Condom Empire Fell to the Nazis"

(I was sent this book for review.)

Julius Fromm was Germany's condom king between the two world wars. He innovated the manufacture and quality control of the product and became fabulously successful.

But, he was Jewish.

The book, "Fromms: How Julius Fromm's Condom Empire Fell to the Nazis" is an English translation of a book published two years ago in Germany. It is a quick read, less than 200 pages of actual text. Even at this short length, it feels as if the authors padded it as much as they could.

It is a story of an eastern European Jewish family, headed by a brilliant businessman, who tried to assimilate into German society and failed.

It is difficult to know what the aim of the book is. In the beginning, it is a description of the burgeoning sexualization of Germany in the 1920s; it then turns into a short biography of Julius Fromm and how he built his business, and then finally into a relatively detailed review of how his business was systematically dismantled by the Nazis (and, to an extent, by the Germans and Russians after the war, refusing to compensate the family.)

This last part is the most interesting. Fromm was forced to sell the company to Herman Göring's godmother at a fraction of its value in 1938. It also describes the "Jew auctions" that would be held regularly in Berlin to sell off the possessions of the expelled, the doomed and the dead. The finest objects would be confiscated by the Nazi elite; only the second and third tier possessions made it to these auctions, and a majority of Berliners took advantage of them.

Another interesting chapter deals with one of Fromm's brothers who was shipped to Australia from England on the Dunera along with many other Jewish refugees and prisoners of war.

Julius Fromm himself managed to escape Germany before the war with most of his family and a small part of his fortune. Although he died only days after the war ended, reportedly of excitement at the chance to start his business anew, it is hard to feel empathy for him as he rode out the war in relative luxury in England.

For serious Holocaust historians, the book adds a bit of detail that has been so far unexplored about the fate of Jewish-owned businesses before, during and after the war. Otherwise, the main parts of the book can be gleaned from the Wikipedia article on Fromm.

German leftists scream "Jewish pigs!"

From JPost:

Prominent French Jewish filmmaker Claude Lanzmann expressed "shock" last week that German leftists in Hamburg had violently prevented the showing of his debut documentary film, Why Israel, about the role of the Jewish state as a homeland for refugees.

In late October, the 1973-produced film was scheduled to be shown at the B-Movie cinema, but roughly 50 left-wing activists from diverse anti-Israel groups affiliated with the anti-Zionist International Center B5 barred visitors from entering the movie house.

In Why Israel, Lanzmann - perhaps best known for his groundbreaking documentary Shoah - depicts Israelis who found refuge in Israel after the Holocaust.

The movie house said in a statement that it had been compelled to cancel the film screening and a podium discussion because "we were threatened with violence."

According to eyewitness reports in the German media, left-wing protesters ranging in age from 16 to 70 shouted "Jewish pigs" and "faggots" to the cinema attendees. A pro-Israel left-of-center group, Kritikmaximierung, cosponsored the showing of the film.

Werner Pomrehn, a radio host for the Hamburg-based station FSK, told the The Jerusalem Post on Friday that an anti-Israel activist had struck him in the face at the screening event. Asked about the International Center B5 demonstrators, Pomrehn, who reports on anti-Semitism in Hamburg, termed the group the "Pol-Pot Left."

This happened last month, and it took three weeks for Der Spiegel to report it.

The organizers plan to try to show the film again in December.

Saturday night open thread

Not in the mood to post, so I leave it to you to find interesting items to share.

Iran admits ties to anti-semitism

From the Tehran Times:

French actor and political activist Dieudonné M’bala M’bala met with Deputy Culture Minister for Cinematic Affairs Javad Shamaqdari here on Thursday.

Dieudonné M’bala M’bala was a jury member of the 26th edition of Tehran International Short Film Festival which concluded here last Monday.

They both held talks in Shamaqdari’s office and both agreed to make a joint production with the French actor. The project centers on a storyline that takes place during the reign of King Louis XIV of France and treats the issue of the African slave trade in France.

Dieudonné is famous for his anti-Zionist attitudes. He is also the owner of the Théâtre de la Main d’Or in Paris, which is used for both stand-up comedy and political events by himself and friends and colleagues such as the militant anti-Semitic “Tribu Ka”.

Dieudonné has been convicted multiple times in French courts of anti-semitic remarks.

Tribu Ka is proudly anti-semitic as well.

So Iran, which loudly claims not to be anti-semitic, proudly hosts anti-semites, and even mentions the fact that they are anti-semitic on their government-run news sites!

"Moderate" Fatah showing their peaceful side

From Daylife/AP:

Palestinian supporters of the Fatah movement loyal to the Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas during a march in the west bank city of Nablus. Thursday, Nov. 19, 2009.

The "moderate" PA pretended to outlaw public displays of weapons in 2005 outside of their security forces. Apparently, that doesn't apply to Fatah.

These sorts of organized rallies, together with Mahmoud Abbas' latest statements, all indicate a conscious decision on the Palestinian Arab side to abandon negotiations with Israel and to move towards the more traditional Arab model of diplomacy via threats and intimidation.

Good news Friday: Israeli breakthrough in bone repair

From JPost:

A team at Jerusalem's Hadassah University Medical Center has managed for the first time in the world to separate platelets and adult stem cells from the blood and bone marrow of patients with fractures and inject them - causing the bones to meld in a quarter to third of the time it usually takes to repair bones, and repairing some breaks that without the therapy would fail to heal at all.

Prof. Meir Liebergall, chairman of the orthopedics department on the Ein Kerem campus, gene therapy expert Prof. Eithan Galun and colleagues worked for years on the technique, which he said involves a "breakthrough in concept and overcomes major scientific and logistical problems."

All seven of those who received the experimental cell-based therapy have seen the broken tibias in their legs heal, even though the fractured bone in at least one control group patient who received only conventional treatment of screws or bone grafts failed to meld. Instead of taking six to nine months to heal, the fractures treated with adult stem cells and platelets healed in two months.

(h/t Sigmund, Carl and Alfred)

"Moderate" Abbas taunts Hamas as being too peaceful

Mahmoud Abbas was interviewed in Arabic by the BBC last night, and he proved yet again that the oft-used appellation "moderate" is a misnomer.

The Israeli press is reporting on some of his more outrageous statements.

"Those who have to resist are the people, and there are different types of resistance, like in (West Bank villages of) Bilin and Naalin, where people are injured every day"

Protests that happen in Bilin and Na'alin (weekly, not daily) are anything but peaceful, and IDF soldiers often get injured from the violence.

Even more outrageously, Abbas taunts Hamas for stopping rocket attacks against Israel:

"Hamas talks about the importance of resistance, but why aren't they resisting now. There is a truce between them and Israel, and since the war in Gaza Hamas has not carried out any act of resistance."

Abbas went on to accuse Hamas of negotiating with Israel over final status issues, including accepting temporary borders.

The Arabic reports of the interview show that Abbas actually contrasted the two points, first saying that Hamas has abandoned resistance even while talking about it incessantly and then proudly saying that the West Bank Arabs are doing real resistance. He accused Hamas of attempting to deceive Gazans with its slogans of resistance, noting that "you can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

When asked why the Netanyahu government was allegedly secretly negotiating with Hamas and not with Abbas' PA, Abbas again placed himself as being more intransigent than Hamas, responding haughtily in third person,

Because Mahmoud Abbas wants the 1967 borders, in full, and wanted to solve the refugee problem on the basis of international resolutions, wants Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state, and wants a solution of water, and illegal settlements.

On the other hand, even while Abbas taunted Hamas for stopping rocket fire, he rejected the "militarization" of resistance, acknowledging that such a move is not in the interests of the people.

He claimed that he was a "man of peace" and that he refused to fight Hamas in Gaza because of his supposed pacifism!

Gazans who aren't happy living under Hamas' regime, take note of how Abbas is bragging about abandoning you to the Islamists.

UPDATE: A Nazareth newspaper says that the Fatah Central Committee is calling for a "third intifada" centered around demonstrations (and presumably Bilin-style projectiles,) and that Abbas is supporting it.

Root causes of media bias against Israel

Tonight, Dr. Richard Landes spoke at Rutgers University. He is the author of The Augean Stables blog, The Second Draft blog documenting media manipulation by Palestinian Arabs and their supporters, and the driving force behind the Understanding the Goldstone Report blog. Somehow, he also manages to be a professor of history at Boston University and the author of numerous books and articles on topics I cannot begin to understand.

His topics tonight were wide-ranging but centered on the media and the Middle East conflict. He brought up numerous videos showing how the media reported on Gaza and how they purposefully ignored facts that would make Hamas look bad. Landes also spent a bit of time on the Goldstone report and on the Mohammed al-Dura Pallywood case. I hadn't told him one way or the other whether I would attend, and tried to keep a low profile, but when he mentioned my blog I admitted who I was. (I am not utterly without ego, but I am working on it.)

So this was a rare public appearance by The Elder. Landes ascribes much of the anti-Israel bias of the media to the media's fear of Hamas (and Hezbollah.) There is no doubt that this is a strong contributor - terrorists make no secret of the fact that if they are displeased with you, they will make your life unpleasant. And they watch the news. We saw it happen in Lebanon with Hezbollah, and we saw it in Gaza with Hamas and the other terror groups, especially a few years ago when journalists were regularly kidnapped.

After Western reporters all fled Gaza, all that were left were Palestinian reporters who have an inherent anti-Israel bias. But more importantly, they are scared witless of Hamas. Hamas has attacked press agencies numerous times. Here is an incident last year when Hamas attacked a mosque, beat people there and trashed it before taking it over. Not one mainstream media outlet published this story. The reason is clearly because of Hamas' threats against Gaza reporters. (Hezbollah also carefully managed news media access to the Lebanon war in 2006, a lot more subtly than Hamas but very effectively.) The New York Times did run a story once on how Gaza reporters censor themselves out of fear. One can pinpoint the exact date that Gaza journalism died. It was mid-June, 2007, and it is detailed in this article from Ma'an - possibly the last objective article Ma'an has ever written about Hamas:

Local Palestinian radio stations in the Gaza Strip were launched in quick succession over recent years. As many as eleven radio stations were counted operating in Gaza Strip in a short space of time. Many of the stations had been closed and looted during the recent conflict in the strip. Ash Sha'b station, affiliated to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, was looted, whilst Al Hurriya and Ash Shabab, affiliated to Fatah, chose to cease transmission. The spokesperson of the military wing of Hamas, the Qassam Brigades, Abu Ubayda, vehemently denied that the brigades had threatened any of the local stations. Abu Ubayda told Ma'an that the radio stations halted transmission willingly because they were working within a certain framework and their coverage of events in Gaza was partial, rather than objective. He added that the employees and owners of the radio stations closed them out of fear, rather than any direct threats from the Qassam Brigades. Abu Ubayda also said that some of the radio stations were affiliated to well-known Fatah figures, or directly owned by Fatah. Palestine radio stopped transmission from the Gaza Strip during the recent events. A statement was issued accusing the Al Qassam Brigades of torching the station's headquarters and a local transmission tower in Khan Younis. Palestine satellite and terrestrial TV stopped transmission last Friday in Gaza City and began transmitting from Ramallah, in the central West Bank. The director of the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation, Basim Abu Sumayya, ascribed the stoppage to Hamas' seizure of the Gaza Strip, which prevented employees from accessing the company's buildings in order to work. Abu Sumayya accused Hamas of taking control of every property that belongs to the PBC, in addition to the live transmission vehicle and the satellite frequency, which the PBC changed immediately. ...As for the radio stations, which stopped their transmission, Abu Zuhri said they did so voluntarily because they were involved in inciting and they committed criminal acts when they were fuelling disputes in the Palestinian arena. He asserted that the Al-Qassam Brigades and Executive Force never attacked or robbed any radio station. The Hamas-affiliated Al-Aqsa satellite TV station, which many accuse of lacking professionalism and fuelling dispute, was the sole TV station that continued broadcasting during the conflict in the Gaza Strip. They transmitted special photos of the Al-Qassam Brigades and the Executive Force, while they were storming the security HQs. They also conducted exclusive interviews with Hamas leaders. The most criticism-provoking act of Al-Aqsa TV was the transmission of the execution of Samih Al-Madhoun. The chief editor of Ma'an News Agency threatened to close the agency's Gaza office as a result of the pressure exerted on him and the agency's correspondents and photojournalists. The Al-Qassam Brigades visited the office, but did not harm any employee or property. Meanwhile, Hamas and their Fatah allies criticised Ma'an's reports and some issued threats.

Things only got worse after that. I agree with Richard that fear is a factor in the loss of objectivity in journalism. He mentioned other factors as well, such as the fact that liberal reporters are (perhaps subconsciously) advocates of the simplistic idea that the absence of war is always a desirable objective and that their role is to help that to happen. Therefore you will see a large number of stories about Israel's use of "disproportionate" force and of Arab civilian victims, but very few giving context of everything Israel tried to do over eight years to stop rocket attacks before resorting to the battlefield. I think that a lot can be ascribed to ignorance. Arabs have hammered the West with consistent, simple-minded memes ("occupation," "intransigence," "illegal settlements," "Likud=far right hawks," "Fatah is moderate") that have become ingrained in the very psyche of the media personalities themselves. This is how we see situations like I mentioned today of Fox misrepresenting their own interview with Obama, after it was colored through the glass of Middle East conventional wisdom.

Another factor that I mentioned in the Q&A, and that Dr. Landes expanded on, is that Israeli self-criticism, which is part of what makes it strong, is perceived by the media as proof of its being immoral. As Richard noted, when the media interviews 100% of Arabs who say that Israel is completely wrong, and 50% of Israelis interviewed agree with the Arabs, then the impression one gets is that Israel is 75% wrong. All in all, it was an interesting evening, and as you can imagine, Richard is a really nice fellow. The turnout might have been better had this not also been the night that Rutgers held a meeting to discuss contributing leftover meal-plan money to the Palestine Children’s Relief Fund, a charity that has uncomfortably close connections to terrorism.

Algeria beats Egypt, and Algerians beat Egyptians

The rivalry between the Egyptian and Algerian soccer teams, which caused so much violence last week, is over for this year, as Algeria prevailed in a tiebreaker in Khartoum, 1-0:

Silence and despair loomed over Egypt Wednesday night as the national football team lost their tiebreaker against Algeria in Sudan in a bid to secure a qualification ticket to the World Cup in South Africa next summer.
Algerian defender, Antar Yahia scored the game’s only goal in the 40th minute, clinching a spot for his team after a 24-year absence from the world football stage.

And the Algerians celebrated in typical fashion:

Violence broke out in Khartoum following the World Cup qualifier between Egypt and Algeria as Algerian fans attacked a bus carrying Egyptians, according to news and television reports.
The injured mainly suffered from bruises in the face, arms and chest, with a couple suspected to have a fractured foot and thigh. Nine of them were transferred to Nasser Institute and Heliopolis and Al Safa hospitals. The remaining 11 received first aid in the airport and were immediately released, according to the news report.
Algerian fans attacked a bus carrying Egyptian journalists, actors and singers, breaking its windows and leaving some injured after the match, singer Mohamed Fouad told Orbit satellite TV show “Al-Qahera Al-Youm” over the phone.

To put this violence in a wider perspective, check out the second panel in this comic strip from that same Egyptian newspaper:

The last panel indicates another truth: as much as Arabs hate each other, they hate everyone else worse.

That is, pretty much, the definition of Arab unity.

(By the way, the Al Khan comic strip noted above is very good.)

A case study in news media incompetence

A couple of days ago, an internal Jerusalem planning committee approved, as a preliminary first step, plans to build some 900 housing units in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo.

The news media altogether has blown this story way out of proportion, and world leaders have dutifully followed suit, roundly condemning Israel for "settlement construction." Reading the news stories about this would make it appear like this is the end of the world or that construction is imminent, when in fact no Israeli leader from the left or the right would ever abandon the Gilo neighborhood in any final status agreement, it is already a Jewish neighborhood, and it does not (to my knowledge) expand the boundaries of Gilo. It is a pure pressure campaign against Israel about something that does not affect the lives of any Palestinian Arab now or in the future, except as possible employees in the construction.

Fox News' Major Barrett asked President Obama about the story:

The Israelis have announced intentions to put more settlements in Gilo, I believe is the name of the city, how helpful or hurtful to the process it that and do you consider it a rebuke of your efforts to stop those settlements?

Gilo is a city? If it is a city, how can one build "settlements" inside it? The question betrays an incredible ignorance about the topic because the news media misrepresents and oversimplifies the truth, and even a senior correspondent doesn't understand the basics about the facts on the ground and what exactly happened.

President Obama answered more generally about "settlements," not Gilo, and made this response (from the original transcript:)

Well there is no doubt that I haven't been able to stop the settlements; and, there is also no doubt from my perspective that it’s in, not only the US interests but actually Israeli interests to not build settlements.

Look, the situation in the Middle East is very difficult, and I’ve said repeatedly and I’ll say again, Israel’s security is a vital national interest to the United States, and we will make sure they are secure.

I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel’s security, I think it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors, I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous, and it makes, makes it hard to re-launch any kind of serious talks about how you achieve a two state solution.

Note the highlighted phrase. Obama is saying that building over the Green Line makes Palestinian Arabs angry and could prompt them towards violence. This is accurate. Many things prompt Arabs to violence; that does not make those things inherently bad but it is admittedly a factor in making decisions and it is a major way that Arabs and Muslims historically have tried to manipulate the West to do their will, often successfully. I have called this "the diplomacy of fear" and Muslims have been doing it as a matter of course for over a century.

The danger that Obama is highlighting is not that the settlements are dangerous in and of themselves, but that Palestinian Arab reaction could be dangerous to Israel. This is, of course, a calculus that Israel should be making, not the US.

Incredibly, and incompetently, Fox News mischaracterizes Obama's statement in its own article about the interview:

Obama Calls Israeli Settlement Building in East Jerusalem 'Dangerous'

President Obama on Wednesday called it "dangerous" that Israel plans to add 900 new apartments to an existing Jewish settlement in East Jerusalem -- an area Palestinians hope to claim as their capital absent a peace agreement with Israel.

From here, the media plays the old children's game of "telephone" and compounds the mistake, as AFP reported:

Israel’s decision to press ahead with the construction of new settlements in occupied east Jerusalem could be “very dangerous,” US President Barack Obama said Wednesday in an interview with Fox News.

No, the decision wasn't "very dangerous," the potential reaction is what is dangerous. Adding houses to existing Jewish neighborhoods is not the danger - the Arab reaction could be.

Just like publishing a cartoon about Mohammed isn't "dangerous" but the potential backlash by thin-skinned and insecure Muslims is.

Indonesia Muslims clerics against "2012"

From Al-Arabiya:

Hollywood's latest doomsday offering "2012" has caused a storm in Indonesia, with conservative clerics condemning it Thursday as a "provocation against Islam".

[W]hile most viewers said they had enjoyed the film's apocalyptic vision of life after December 21, 2012, when the fulfillment of a Mayan prophecy sees the Earth engulfed by catastrophe, senior clerics were deeply troubled.

The country's top Islamic body, the National Council of Ulema (MUI), is divided over whether or not to issue a fatwa or religious edict against the film. One local branch has already done so, to little apparent effect.

"The controversial things about the film are, first, in Islam doomsday should not be visualized or predicted, it's the secret of God," council chairman Amidhan told AFP.

"For the common people, the portrayal of doomsday in this film could distort their faith, that's what I'm worried about."

He also complained that the film showed mosques being destroyed but not churches, despite sequences depicting the Vatican collapsing and Rio de Janeiro's monumental Christ the Redeemer statue crumbling to pieces.

"The film shows that everything including Kaaba (Islam holiest shrine) and mosques were devastated except for churches. The film is a provocation against Islam," Amidhan said.

"The Indonesian film censorship body should have cut part of the scene on the devastation of mosques or the Kaaba because it hurts the Muslim people."

But few people who emerged from a packed matinee showing in Jakarta on Thursday shared the clerics' worries.

"It's actually a beautiful film. The MUI branch is wrong about issuing a fatwa as the movie actually has increased my faith and not the other way around," insurance broker Ian Ramelan, 49, said.

"I'm a Muslim, my faith in Allah is stronger after watching this flick," he added, urging the clerics to worry more about rampant corruption in Indonesia than about Hollywood's apocalyptic Christmas blockbuster.

Who says Jews and Arabs can't work together?

From YNet:

A rabbi from northwest Britain has been accused of financing a drug-dealing business and offering cocaine to girls in exchange for sex, the British Broadcasting Corporation reported Wednesday.
Rabbi Baruch Chalomish, of Upper Park Road, Salford, is said to have rented an apartment where he could "relax and have a party". Police raided the flat and discovered a total of 101 grams (3.6 ounces) of cocaine and more than £17,000 (about $28,567).

Chalomish, 54, admitted two counts of possessing cocaine but denied two of possession with intent to supply.

His business partner Nasir Abbas, 54, has failed to turn up for the trial and is being sought by police, the Manchester Crown Court was told by prosecutor Michael Goldwater. He faces one charge of possessing cocaine and one of possession with intent to supply.

According to the BBC, Goldwater said police found both defendants at the one-bedroom apartment during a raid on January 5. Forms showed that it was rented from the firm Premier Apartments in the name of Abbas.

"Our case is that Abbas and Chalomish were dealing in controlled drugs," he said. "They were running, we say, a commercial cocaine supply operation from an apartment-hotel in Shudehill, Manchester. Rabbi Chalomish also had a substantial store of drugs, cocaine, and cash at his home address."

Peace and harmony as a Jew and an Arab work towards a common goal!

60 years ago: When the Arabs didn't want east Jerusalem

In 1949, the UN was set to debate what was to happen with Jerusalem. The 1947 partition plan envisioned Jerusalem as an international city, but by 1949 Israel had taken the western part and Transjordan the eastern section - which includes all the holy sites, including the Al Aqsa mosque, regarded as the third holiest site in Islam.

It is therefore interesting that the Arab world (except Transjordan) wanted the UN in 1949 to push again for an internationalization for Jerusalem, as well as the other surrounding areas like Bethlehem.

From the November 20, 1949 Palestine Post (click to enlarge):

The Arab plan included provisions for exclusive and permanent UN control over the city, for expelling any residents (meaning Jews) who moved into the city after November 2, 1947, for stopping all immigration to Jerusalem and for creating a corridor between Jaffa and Jerusalem (cutting Israel in half.)

Now, Arabs had control over the Old City and surrounding areas. They controlled all the holy sites. They had expelled all Jews from the Old City and from across the Green Line.

Why would they want to give up their control of the holy places and give it to the UN?

The reason is obvious. They couldn't stand any Jews controlling any part of Jerusalem, even the western part (or Palestine itself, for that matter.) The plan would have expelled thousands of Jews from the western part of the city and would have ended Jewish sovereignty over it - the relatively new part of the city that was built by Jews to begin with.

The Arab hatred of Jews was far greater than their supposed love of Jerusalem. The chance to decrease the number of Jews in the western part of the city, and to remove Jewish rule over it, was worth more to them than Muslim sovereignty over the Al Aqsa Mosque!

Since 1967, the Arab world has made a huge propaganda effort to convince the West that they must control their holy places and how supremely important Jerusalem is to Muslims. Yet only 18 short years beforehand, they wanted to give it all away.

Arab motivation may be a bit less obvious nowadays, but it has not changed. From their perspective, it is not "occupation" - it is Jews controlling land they consider theirs by right. And just as they tried to use the Jaffa corridor and this Jerusalem plan to slowly slice away Jewish control then, so they are using excuses of "occupation" and "settlements" - issues that are given an importance far disproportionate to reality - as reasons to take control of land away from Jews today. And just as the Green Line was unimportant to them then, so is it just a temporary goal for them now.