Monday, December 06, 2004

  • Monday, December 06, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Hamas ruled out any truce with Israel Sunday and repeated its desire to destroy the Jewish state, rejecting what had appeared to be more conciliatory comments by one of the Islamic militant group's leaders.

'There is no talk about a truce now at all,' Mahmoud Al-Zahar, a top Hamas leader, told reporters.

'Our strategy is to liberate all Palestinian soil,' Zahar said, referring to the West Bank, Gaza and Israel.

Funny how Reuters throws Israel itself as the third item, almost as an afterthought. A responsible reporter would have said "referring to all of Israel, as well as the West Bank and Gaza." - EoZ

Friday, December 03, 2004

  • Friday, December 03, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
By Frimet Roth December 2, 2004

The past week saw a flurry of harsh accusations and lame defenses hurled between the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) and Machsom Watch, a self-appointed watchdog of Israel's security checkpoints.

The catalyst was a video taken by a Machsom Watch volunteer. It shows a Palestinian playing a violin at a checkpoint while a line of Palestinians stands behind him, waiting. This appeared on the cover page of the November 25 edition of the Israeli daily, Haaretz. The accompanying account, written by Akiva Eldar, begins with this: "An officer and soldier ... forced a Palestinian youth to play his violin for them." The article mentions that the volunteer's "shocked" reaction to the scene was related to her status as "the child of a holocaust survivor."

Eldar quotes the official response of an IDF spokesman. While conceding that the incident demonstrates "insensitive treatment by soldiers contending with a complicated and dangerous reality", the IDF adds that everything is being done "to improve the situation at roadblocks". The Palestinian, according to Haaretz, was asked to remove his violin to confirm that no explosives were concealed within it. To that extent, the inspection was deemed acceptable. However, requiring the man to play his violin was, in Haaretz's view, abusive and demeaning.

Three days later in Haaretz's pages again, the veteran left-wing Knesset member Yossi Sarid devoted an op-ed to the 'outrage' in which he speculated on possible justifications the army might have had for demanding the music. Ever the cynic, he writes: "Perhaps the soldiers decided to entertain those waiting on that stationary line so they wouldn't grow impatient or angry ... perhaps the soldiers are classical music fans, in particular of solo violin...."

The violinist is 28 years old and clearly balding in the photo. But for Haaretz and Sarid he is, eternally, a Palestinian "youth".

Also responding in a letter to Haaretz was a former principal violinist for the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra. He writes: "Over a decade ago, I found myself in a very similar situation. During a concert tour in Great Britain, we arrived at Belfast airport and at border control I was asked to open my violin case and immediately afterwards even to play for them? It is appropriate to point out that musical instrument cases have been used at times to hide weapons." (He cites a movie and television show as examples.) In letters to the Jerusalem Post, other musicians described similar requests to play their instruments at overseas airport inspections.

Nevertheless, the notion that the request of this Palestinian to play was humiliating and unjustified could not be laid to rest. Even the IDF bought it in revising its statement to deny that the request had been made at all. The Palestinian had volunteered to play, was its claim now.

One of the Machsom Watch activists present at the scene originally agreed with the IDF's amended version. However, she retracted her testimony on learning that the Palestinian insisted he had played only because he had been ordered to play and that he had felt humiliated as a result.

The activist decided she liked his version better. She explained her see-sawing to the press: "I gave my first version before I read the Palestinian violinist's testimony which appeared yesterday.... I was prepared to believe the soldier's version but when I learned that the Palestinian rejects it, I had no reason to favor the soldier's version."

It's worth noting that the Machsom Watch activists at the roadblock all conceded that they hadn't heard the actual conversation between the soldier and the Palestinian. Even if they had, it was in Arabic, a language not one of them (by their own account) understands.

The story of the soldier and the violinist has been blown way out of proportion to its significance. I too would like it removed from the media burner. But not before another musical instrument gets its deserved mention.

I'm referring to a guitar. One that also grabbed a few headlines on 9th August, 2001.

On that morning, Izzadin Al-Masri, the newly-religious son of a well-to-do Palestinian restaurateur, passed through a machsom -- a checkpoint -- on the edge of West Jerusalem. Accompanied by a Palestinian women dressed as an Israeli to allay suspicions, he strode into the center of the city. A guitar case was slung over his shoulder. At 1:45 pm, he reached the intersection of King George and Jaffa streets. The restaurant was packed with mothers and children. This was lunch time, and the country's schools were closed for summer vacation. Al-Masri entered easily -- there was no security guard. Seconds later, he activated the explosives in his guitar and murdered fifteen Israelis in cold blood. My daughter Malki, 15, was one of them.

Has Machsom Watch forgotten that terror attack? Did Haaretz as well? And what about the apologetic IDF spokesperson? Or does the meddlesome Machsom Watch have them all shivering in their pants?

The person who truly ought to make them shiver is Abdullah Barghouti. On Tuesday, this senior Hamas operative was sentenced to 67 life terms in prison for his responsibility in terror attacks that resulted in the deaths, by murder, of 66 Israelis. Barghouti lived in his native Kuwait until five years ago when he moved to Ramallah. An engineer, he built the bomb that murdered the Sbarro fifteen as well as the victims of two other lethal attacks in Jerusalem and another in Rishon Letzion.

I watched him on television confessing that, yes, he did fill a guitar with explosives. "In a guitar? Why in a guitar?" a shocked TV interviewer asked.

"This is war," the stone-faced Barghouti answered.

It seems to me that far too many people have forgotten that basic truth. This is war. We are under attack. Machsom Watch volunteers have a problem acknowledging that. It is a dangerous problem.

One day, an IDF soldier on machsom duty, distracted and intimidated by those camera-clicking, note-scribbling activists, is going to cut short a routine security check to appease them.

The results might be very far from routine.
  • Friday, December 03, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
By Jonathan S. Tobin

Can a group number as many as 70 million individuals fly under the radar? Outside of the context of politics, Christian evangelicals are virtually invisible in American culture, except to be laughed at or feared.

Just as the image of the Jew can be a dangerously misleading generalization, the same is true for the image of the evangelical.

Listen to many Jews talk about conservative Christians and you'd think they're discussing the Taliban.

This disconnect between image and reality is of no small importance in the aftermath of a presidential election in which evangelicals and "moral values" voters are said to have provided the margin of victory for President Bush.

As much as many Jews like to think of themselves as open-minded (i.e., liberal), there is more to the divide between Jews and evangelicals than disagreements about church-state separation or abortion.

Some of the same people who are most fearful of the Christian right are also quick to dismiss the support that many of them demonstrate for Israel. They tend to put it down to millenarian beliefs based in a fundamentalist worldview that values Jews only to the extent that they help bring on an end-of-days Messianic return of Jesus.

All of which should prompt us -- no matter where are votes went earlier this month -- to ask: Who really are these evangelical moralists?

CHRISTIANS WHO GIVE
In searching for the answer to that question, one group whose contributors are almost all evangelicals ought to give pause to those most convinced of the Christian right's perfidy.

The International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (www.ifcj.org) has been around for two decades, operating on the margins of the Jewish world but deeply embedded in the hearts of evangelicals.

Founded by Chicago-based Yechiel Eckstein, an Orthodox rabbi, and intended to be a partnership between Jews and non-Jews, some 98 percent to 99 percent of its money now comes from the Christian right.

Where does the money go? To the same sort of programs that dollars raised by local Jewish federations across the country: to aid in the immigration and absorption of Jews to Israel, and to help care for needy Jews and endangered Jewish communities in places like the former Soviet Union, much of it via the Jewish Agency for Israel and the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee.

According to George Mamo, a Philadelphia-born evangelical who serves as chief operating officer of the group, the fellowship raises around $45 million per year for these purposes, most of it coming in small gifts from more than 350,000 American Christians.

Most of the money comes in as a result of infomercials on Christian TV stations, but it winds up funding projects such as the $500,00 the group recently gave to provide security for Turkish synagogues previously targeted by Islamic terrorists.

Mamo says the group's database shows that most of those who give to the fellowship are "giving sacrificially."

Some, he told me, even tithe to this cause out of their Social Security checks.

Do they do it because they think this will bring on Armageddon? Surveys conducted by the group reveal that this is the belief of only a tiny percentage. Instead, says Mamo, most of it is based on a reading of scripture that the Lord will bless those "who bless the seed of Abraham."

Eckstein has written that these Bible-based beliefs blend in a love for the Jewish people with a need for contrition for millennia of Christian persecution of Jews, as well as a sense of Israel as a fellow democracy. All of this is in direct contrast with the drift toward anti-Zionism among liberal Protestant sects of late.

Mamo answers those who view evangelical Zionism with distaste by responding that "most of us recognize that without Judaism, there would be no Christianity."

Nor do most of them anticipate any mass conversion, as Jewish critics contend. "We believe G-d is sovereign," says Mamo. "There is no magic number of Jews [who make aliyah] that will bring about a transformation of the world. Nobody believes that."

He tells stories of various small contributors who may not know any Jews in their own communities, but who believe Jews "are the apple of G-d's eye" -- and are thus owed support.

Nobody is saying that Jews who disagree with evangelicals on a host of domestic issues should stop advocating for what they believe to be right.

Nor should we lower our guard on the separation of religion and state. Even those of us who are less extreme on separation issues (such as supporters of much-needed school-choice initiatives) cannot share the blithe dismissal of separation that is often heard on the right.

DEBATE WITH RESPECT
But what we should be doing is debating these issues fairly. We should not allow disparaging stereotypes about evangelicals to characterize our interaction with them. And we should reprove those who use such hateful words just as we would hope our Christian neighbors would react similarly to anti-Semitic comments.

Nor should we accept wild and wholly inaccurate charges about a supposed conservative drive to undo the Bill of Rights.

And, most of all, we should stop questioning their loyalty to Israel. On that point, evangelicals have established their bona fides. If they do indeed have more clout, you can bet they will use some of it to back up the Israelis if a new diplomatic process puts them in a corner.

Will many Jews do as much?

And, as the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews has shown, many of them are willing to put their money where their mouths are -- to help Jews in need and to aid Israel.

We ought to be touched by the story of what this group has accomplished, as well as moved by the willingness of so many of its contributors to give to Jewish causes.

Disagree all you want with the evangelicals, but give them their due. They have earned our respect. As Yechiel Eckstein and George Mamo have proved, they have given as much to us.
  • Friday, December 03, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
The image “http://www.geocities.com/coolboardpresident/Back2Work.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.
"He's a bit under the weather but in a couple of days he should be back to work."
  • Friday, December 03, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
The Kuwaiti progressive scholar Ahmad Al-Baghdadi, a political science lecturer at Kuwait University, recently published several articles in the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassa, denouncing religious thought and praising secularism. The following are excerpts from the articles:

'Muslims Have no Future as Long as They are Subjected to Religious Thought'

In an article titled 'Secularism and Life,' Al-Baghdadi claimed that only a society free of religion could make progress and develop, arguing that Islamic religious thought prevents progress and development:

"… Secularism as a [world] view and as a way of life was not formed in a vacuum, but is the outcome of the painful life experience of human beings which has continued for close to a millennium and in the course of which the religious thought of the Church, devised by the religious clergy, was abolished… During this experience, Western man lived in intellectual darkness and [endured] devastating wars in a period called 'the Dark Middle Ages.'

"For the person educated in sciences, industry, finances, politics, and culture there was only one solution, which constitutes a refuge for the poor societies. That [solution] is: distancing the man of the cloth from life… From that moment on, the Western world became the only world to develop, progress, and flourish in all spheres of life.

"In order [to avoid] being accused of subjectivity against the religious way of thought, let us present examples from the reality of life in the Muslim and Arab countries:

"1. Religious thought is the only way of thought nowadays that refuses to accept the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' on religious grounds, and this constitutes an obstacle to [the realization of] these rights in the Islamic countries, not only in the matter of inheritance, but also in matters such as equality, freedom of thought, and freedom of speech.

"2. Islamic religious thought is the only way of thought nowadays to persist in [accusations] of ridda [apostasy]… Unfortunately, this persistence [leads to] the killing of human beings, even without trial.

"3. Religious thought objects to freedom of thought and freedom of speech when religion is criticized. Moreover, religious thought reveres things that religion itself does not instruct [us] to revere. Thus, for example, regarding [the immunity from criticism of] the Prophet's companions, who are not considered part of the principles of religion or of the roots of belief. Religious thought does not distinguish between religion and its believers.

"4. Religious thought is still anti-woman even if the religious clerics claim otherwise.

"5. Religious thought is opposed to human health in matters of treatment and medicine. The prohibition of including alcohol in most medicines leads to their reduced effectiveness… [Moreover,] the Muslim doctor nowadays does not dare to instruct a patient not to fast [during the month of Ramadhan], and the hospitals therefore become full of patients who fasted.

"6. Religious thought supports political tyranny, because it opposes democracy and the constitution. [For example,] in Kuwait [some] strive to destroy the constitution and the constitutional state, and in Saudi Arabia there is complete opposition to democracy.

"7. If we were to imagine that an [Arab] regime adopted a certain religious school of thought, what could happen to the other schools of thought?

"8. Religious thought opposes the Other, accuses him of heresy, and objects to living by his side. Proof of this are the supplications and appeals [to Allah] that we hear in the mosques to destroy all non-Muslims and harm them, rather than requesting guidance for them on the straight path, [as would have occurred] had there been an ounce of human tolerance.

"9. Religious thought is the main reason for the production of terror, because of the negative interpretations of the [Quranic] verses regarding Jihad.

"10. Religious thought opposes any kind of creativity and art…

"The West did not make progress until it became free of this way of thinking. This is the only solution facing the Muslims. They have no future as long as they are subjected to religious thought." [1]

'Muslim Countries cannot Adopt Secularism because its Principles Contradict Tyranny, Oppression, Backwardness, and Anarchy'

In an article published two days later in Al-Siyassa, titled 'The Good in Secularism and the Bad in You,' Al-Baghdadi explained the differences between secular and Islamic countries:

"There is no Islamic country in which a Christian or a Jew could reveal a cross or a skullcap, and get away with it peacefully. In addition, members of [other] human religions, like Buddhism and Hinduism, are prohibited from conducting their ceremonies in public, even with governmental approval, without people harming them, as happened at the Hindu place of worship in Kuwait. In contrast to this religious persecution [in Islamic countries,] of which the [Islamic] religious stream boasts, there is no secular country that prohibits the construction of mosques, even in the event that the government does not finance them. Moreover, there is no secular country that prevents the Muslim from praying in public…

"There is no church in the secular Christian world in which a priest stands and curses anyone who disagrees with his religion or prays for trouble and disaster to befall them, as do the preachers in our Friday sermons. [Moreover,] our religious thought has no parallel to the message recently pronounced by the present Pope regarding the importance of peace for all. Contrary to the ease with which a mosque is built in secular Europe and America, the construction of a church [in a Moslem country] is carried out only with the approval of the country's president, [and even then] it is rare.

"There is no non-Muslim religious institute that teaches its students to hate the Other, claiming that he is considered an infidel, doomed to hell, regardless of whether he was of any use to mankind. This hatred is present in the curricula of the Islamic religion.

"Throughout [Muslim] history there has not been one Muslim judge who strived to attain justice for a non-Muslim who was wronged, whereas the U.S. and Europe have saved many peoples from oppression, while sacrificing human life and property in order to save other [peoples.] [In this context] one cannot but note the benevolence of the secular toward the Kuwaitis when they decided to liberate Kuwait and reinstate the honor of its government and its people.

"In the secular world the author, the intellectual, and the journalist are not sent to jail for their opinions – with the exception of the European laws concerning the denial of the Holocaust that annihilated the Jews of Europe, because this is a fact from which the European conscience still suffers. [Even in such a case, the Holocaust denier] is not imprisoned, but is merely fined. They do not consider him a murtadd [apostate], and do not seek his death, try to assassinate him, harm his livelihood, or separate him from his wife and children. In contrast, the extremist Muslims and the Islamic clerics often adopt ideological terror, issuing calls for killing, and accusations of ridda [apostasy]…

"Those in the religious stream cannot avoid admitting that all the good is in the secular thought, and all the evil is in the religious thought, for they take advantage of religion in order to harm not only people but religion itself, to the point that Muslims no longer respect their religion, and they start to exploit it for financial gain by selling Islamic books and drink.

"Do you know why Allah helps the secular country? Because it is just. Why doesn't He help countries that build mosques every day? Because these countries are oppressive…

"The Muslim countries cannot adopt secularism for a simple reason: the principles of secularism contradict the outlook of these countries, which are based on tyranny, oppression, aggression, backwardness, and anarchy. Moreover, these countries exploit religious thought in order to impose their legitimacy. Thus you find that they are the most avid supporters of the religious groups, knowing that these groups include those who support terrorism and harm society. For the religious groups do not support rights and justice as much as they support oppression and tyranny, whereas secularism [acts] in the opposite manner." [2]

[1] Al-Siyassa (Kuwait), November 14, 2004.

[2] Al-Siyassa (Kuwait), November 16-17, 2004.
  • Friday, December 03, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Anti-Israeli campus groups have made inroads at American universities by using the campus media, creating strategic partnerships with mainstream left-wing groups, and supporting certain members of the faculty and staff. Pro-Israeli activists who wish to combat this threat must respond to all three of these avenues by getting organized, utilizing the media, and maintaining relationships with organizations, campus influentials, and the Jewish community. The Coalition of Hopkins Activists for Israel (CHAI) was created in September 2000 to enact these steps in seeking to preempt potential anti-Israelism on the Johns Hopkins University's Homewood campus.

.....

Conclusion

Anti-Israeli activism - often called pro-Palestinian activism - stands on three legs: strategic relationships, professors, and the media. Each must be addressed systematically by pro-Israeli activists. Although CHAI, like most other pro-Israeli organizations on American campuses, began as an ad hoc, quick-response group addressing bias and misinformation, it quickly developed a larger mission. It geared its strategy to the specific character of JHU and concentrated on the types of activity most likely to succeed there. Since JHU tends to be cerebral and not actively political (that is, while many students study politics, they are not involved in political protests, debates, and large-scale campaigns), education campaigns, with emphasis on exposing bias in the media, were deemed the best approach.13 At the same time, CHAI established its niche in the university's Jewish community.

Once the on-campus approach proved successful, it was important to forge relationships within the university and the larger Jewish community. By involving university officials in the planning and execution of events, CHAI maintained a significant profile within the university. By planning events that drew the larger Jewish community to the campus, CHAI became an integral part of the Baltimore pro-Israeli community. Relationships with alumni and professors have also been critical in effecting long-term change on the campus. Finally, CHAI's connections with a broader pro-Israeli network have proved important for training activists and for planning and refining the group's activities.

Four years after CHAI's creation, all its original founders have graduated and left the area. However, the mark of success is that CHAI members now play a role in all the major campus organizations, and have maintained the ties with the university officials and faculty. Indeed, this campus has never become prone to extreme or violent anti-Israeli activity.

The main lesson from CHAI's experience is that it is crucial that pro-Israeli activism be conducted strategically.
  • Friday, December 03, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Prof. Khaleel Mohammed is not a beloved figure among Muslim students in the United States. His visits to campuses to lecture are almost always accompanied by demonstrations of protesters condemning his opinions and his views. He has also felt hostile looks at the mosque where he used to worship in the city where he lives, San Diego, and therefore he rarely goes there. And indeed Mohammed's views are very unusual in the Arab world. His main thesis is that the Holy Land (according to most commentators, this refers to the area of Israel-Palestine) was given to the Jews. He takes this from the Koran itself, the divine book that is sanctified by Muslims, and is prepared to do battle with anyone who disagrees with him.
"O my people! Go into the holy land which Allah hath ordained for you. Turn not in flight, for surely ye turn back as losers," says the Prophet Moussa (Moses) to his people, the Children of Israel, in verse 21 of Sura (Koran chapter) 5, which is called "Al Ma'ida" ("The Table Spread"; English translation by Muhammad Marmaduke Pickthall, "The Meaning of the Glorious Qu'ran," 1930).

Sinful behavior

The word "ordained" is a translation of the Arabic word katab, a strong imperative that implies compulsion, orders and the determining of fate. "If Allah katab the Holy Land to the Jews, then it is theirs unless stated otherwise - and it is not stated otherwise in the Koran," explains Prof. Mohammed. The continuation of the koranic story, which is based to a large extent on the biblical story, is that the Children of Israel refused to enter the land that was promised or bequeathed to them. They were afraid to do this because it was inhabited at the time by "a nation of giants" that frightened them. Because of their refusal of Moses' call and their cowardice, the land was forbidden to them for 40 years and they lost their way without the guidance of the Prophet Moses. From that moment, they were considered a nation of criminals who defy divine will.

"[Their Lord] said: "For this land will surely be forbidden them for forty years that they will wander in the earth, bewildered. So grieve not over the wrongdoing folk" (verse 26; Pickthall). Prof. Mohammed stresses that this refers to a period of 40 years only. "They received punishment for their sins - a prohibition limited in time on their entry to the land. This makes no difference to the principle whereby the land was intended for them," he says. "The establishment of the State of Israel is the expression of the fact that the Jews desired to return to their land. The State of Israel was established thanks to the `Jewish jihad,' and the acts of terror that are being carried out by Palestinians inside Israel are not jihad because this is not their land."

The Children of Israel are mentioned in the Koran several dozen times, and usually the attitude toward them is ambivalent. The Koran respects the chosen people because Allah chose it. Allah favors the Children of Israel, sends them prophets and makes them kings, but they disobey his commandments. They are supposed to observe God's laws, believe in the law, keep the Sabbath - but they do not do this. The most flagrant act of disobedience is the refusal to enter the "holy land" that was promised to them. The sinful behavior of the Children of Israel is what causes the decline in their status.

The Koran stresses that they lose their senior status in favor of the new community that is gaining strength in the region, the Muslim-Arab community. As Prof. Uri Rubin of Tel Aviv University writes in his book "Between Bible and Qu'ran: The Children of Israel and the Islamic Self-Image" (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam, Darwin Press, 1999), the Koran concentrates on the choosing of Israel only to show that the Children of Israel broke their commitment to God and thus lost their status. In order to prove this, it brings at length the biblical stories of the sins that the Children of Israel committed on their way to the promised land. In the eyes of mainstream Islam, the fact that the Children of Israel broke their commitment sufficed to deprive them of all their rights, including the rights to the Holy Land.

Not afraid

Prof. Mohammed, 40, was born in Guyana in South America, studied classical Islamic theology at Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He did his master's degree in Judaism and Islam in Canada, and afterwards completed a doctorate in Islamic law at McGill University in Montreal. He currently teaches at San Diego State University. He says he is not afraid to voice his opinions, even though they are not liked. "These are my opinions, and I am prepared to debate them with anyone. The average Muslim is not prepared to conduct a discussion about this. He needs backing from sheikhs and imams," he says. It is clear he enjoys the debate.

Prof. Mohammed is in Jerusalem as the guest of the Jerusalem Summit, an organization with a right-wing orientation that is currently holding a conference at the King David Hotel. Tomorrow morning, he will present his theories at a panel discussion on "Focusing on Elements of Tolerance and Openness in the Koran."

It is doubtful Mohammed's colleagues on the panel will accept what he has to say. General (ret.) Mansour Abu Rashid, formerly head of Jordanian intelligence, will chair the panel. He belongs to the dwindling number of Jordanians who still support peace with Israel. All he needs is for the opposition in Jordan to accuse him of collaborating with someone who brings a revolutionary interpretation of the Koran, as this involves not only political opinions but also opinions that undermine modern Islamic thought.

Prof. Yohanan Friedmann of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, an internationally respected expert on Islam who will also participate in the panel discussion, would like to take a far more cautious approach with respect to the relevant verses. "The Koran is a difficult book. It is customary to try to understand it through the various commentators who worked on it during the course of history, and the shelves are laden with books that testify to how many people have tried to do this. But it is necessary to be very careful about using the Koran for current political purposes," he says diplomatically.

Prof. Friedmann believes it is impossible to harness scripture to the political conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, because for every verse, its opposite can be found. According to him, it is possible that the Koran says that the Holy Land was given to the Jews, but it also says that they were big sinners.

No proof of ownership

Prof. Mohammed agrees that the use of koranic verses in the context of current political questions is problematic, but he says he does this because the national conflict in the region has become a religious conflict. Testifying to this more than anything is the fact that Yasser Arafat would make use of a term taken from this group of verses. He used to call the Palestinian people sha'ab al jabarin, the nation of giants, referring to the nation that the Children of Israel feared as they approached the Holy Land.

Prof. Mohammed almost sounds like he is ready to throw himself into battle. "I show Muslims who use religious arguments that they don't have a case. Even the Koran, the basis of our religion, states explicitly that this is land that belongs to the Jews." With regard to the future of the Palestinian inhabitants, Mohammed refrains from expressing a clear opinion: "They have the right to exist with honor. There must not be a situation in which they continue the terror against Israel from within their territories."

Sheikh Abdullah Nimr Darwish, the founder of the Islamic movement in Israel, disagrees entirely with Prof. Mohammed's opinion. He is very familiar with the relevant verse, and in his opinion it does not prove any ownership of the land. "The verse says that Moussa's people must enter the Holy Land. Does ownership derive from this? When I invite someone to enter my office, does the office become his? Definitely not."

In Darwish's opinion, the fact that Abraham and Jacob paid for their burial site with money shows that the land did not belong to the Children of Israel. "If we're talking about religion, then according to Islam only the prophets inherit from one another. Mohammed succeeded all the prophets who came before him, including Moussa, who is Moses, and he brought the word to all human beings. This does not mean that the Muslims are claiming the lands of others if they do not have certification of ownership in the land registry, and the use of the world katab does not justify anything," he says. According to Darwish, the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians is national and political, not religious. "The Palestinians are fighting against the occupation, not against Judaism, and therefore it is necessary to reach a political compromise with them, not a religious compromise," he explains.

Thursday, December 02, 2004

  • Thursday, December 02, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
An Iranian man, prepares his daughter, who is a member of a suicide commandos unit, by covering her face in the same style of Palestinian and Lebanese militants, during a ceremony where the first suicide commandos unit was inaugurated at the Behesht-e-Zahra cemetery just outside Tehran, Iran, Thursday, Dec. 2, 2004. Some 200 masked young men and women gathered at the cemetery Thursday to pledge their willingness to carry out suicide bomb attacks against Americans in Iraq and Israelis.The ceremony was organized by the Headquarters for Commemorating Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement, a shadowy group that has since June been seeking volunteers for attacks in Iraq and Israel. (AP Photo/Vahid Salemi)



An Iranian man, prepares his daughter, who is a member of a suicide commandos unit, by covering her face in the same style of Palestinian and Lebanese militants, during a ceremony where the first suicide commandos unit was inaugurated at the Behesht-e-Zahra cemetery just outside Tehran, Iran, Thursday, Dec. 2, 2004. Some 200 masked young men and women gathered at the cemetery Thursday to pledge their willingness to carry out suicide bomb attacks against Americans in Iraq and Israelis.The ceremony was organized by the Headquarters for Commemorating Martyrs of the Global Islamic Movement, a shadowy group that has since June been seeking volunteers for attacks in Iraq and Israel.
  • Thursday, December 02, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Eye of the Storm: What if it's not Israel they loathe?
By AMIR TAHERI

In his recent foray into Ramallah, Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw identified the Palestine-Israel conflict as the most important issue between the West and the Muslim world. Straw was echoing the conventional wisdom according to which a solution to that problem would transform relations between Islam and the West from what is almost a clash of civilizations to one of cuddly camaraderie.

But what if conventional wisdom got it wrong?

I have just spent the whole fasting month of Ramadan in several Arab countries, where long nights are spent eating, drinking coffee and, of course, discussing politics.

There are no free elections or reliable opinion polls in the Arab world. So no one knows what the silent majority really thinks. The best one can do is rely on anecdotal evidence. On that basis, I came to believe that the Palestine-Israel issue was low down on the list of priorities for the man in the street but something approaching an obsession for the political, business, and intellectual elites.

When it came to ordinary people, almost no one ever mentioned the Palestine issue, even on days when Yasser Arafat's death dominated the headlines. When I asked them about issues that most preoccupied them, farmers, shopkeepers, taxi drivers and office workers never mentioned Palestine.

But when I talked to princes and princesses, business tycoons, high officials, and the glitterati of Arab academia, Palestine was the ur-issue.

The reason why the elites fake passion about this issue is that it is the only one on which they agree. In many cases, it is also the only political issue that people can discuss without running into trouble with the secret services.

More importantly, perhaps, it is the one issue on which the elites feel they have the sympathy of the outside world. For example, I found almost no one who, speaking in private, had any esteem for Arafat. But all felt obliged to hide their thoughts because Arafat had been honored by French President Jacques Chirac.

When some Arab newspapers ran articles on Arafat's alleged corruption and despotism, other Arab media attacked them for being disrespectful to a man who had been treated like "a hero of humanity" by Chirac.

Conventional wisdom also insists that the US is hated by Muslims because it is pro-Israel. That view is shared by most American officials posted to the Arab capitals. But is it not possible that the reverse is true – that Israel is hated because it is pro-American?

When I raised that possibility in Ramadan-night debates, I was at first greeted with deafening silence. Soon, however, some interlocutors admitted that my suggestion was, perhaps, not quite fanciful.

Let us consider some facts.

If Muslims hate the US because it backs Israel which, in turn, is oppressing Muslims in Palestine, then why don't other oppressed Muslims benefit from the same degree of solidarity from their co-religionists?

During Ramadan, news came that more than 500 Muslims had been killed in clashes with the police in southern Thailand. At least 80 were suffocated to death in police buses under suspicious circumstances.

The Arab and the Iranian press, however, either ignored the event or relegated it to inside pages. To my knowledge, only one Muslim newspaper devoted an editorial to it. And only two newspapers mentioned that Thailand was building a wall to cordon off almost two million Muslims in southern Thailand – a wall higher and longer than the controversial "security fence" Israel is building.

Muslim states have never supported Pakistan on Kashmir because most were close to India in the so-called nonaligned movement while Pakistan was a US ally in CENTO and SEATO.

When Hindu nationalists demolished the Ayodhya Mosque, no one thought it necessary to inflame Muslim passions.

Nor has a single Muslim nation recognized the republic set up by Muslim Turks in northern Cyprus. The reason? Greece has always sided with the Arabs on Palestine and plays occasional anti-American music while Turkey is a US ally.

When the Serbs massacred 8,000 Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica 10 years ago, not a ripple disturbed the serene calm of Muslim opinion. At that time, the mullahs of Teheran and Col. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya were in cahoots with Slobodan Milosevic, supplying him with oil and money because Yugoslavia held the presidency of the so-called nonaligned movement. Belgrade was the only European capital to be graced with a state visit by Ali Khamenehi, the mullah who is now the Supreme Guide of the Islamic Republic.

And what about Chechnya which is, by any standard, the Muslim nation that has most suffered in the past two centuries? Last October the Muslim summit in the Malaysian capital, Kuala Lumpur, gave a hero's welcome to Vladimir Putin, the man who has presided over the massacre of more Chechens than anyone in any other period in Russian history.

Right now there are 22 active conflicts across the globe in which Muslims are involved. Most Muslims have not even heard of most of them because those conflicts do not provide excuses for fomenting hatred against the United States.

Next time you hear someone say the US was in trouble in the Muslim world because of Israel, remember that things may not be that simple.
  • Thursday, December 02, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
UNITED NATIONS — UN Ambassador Allan Rock Tuesday delivered a scathing denunciation of the General Assembly's resolutions isolating and attacking Israel, confirming a shift in Canada's approach to the Middle East.

During an annual debate on the question of Palestine, Mr. Rock said Canada will vote Wednesday against two key resolutions on which it has abstained in the past, lining up with the United States, often the only major power to defend Israel at the United Nations.

"We believe that the time has come, especially given the renewed hope for the peace process, to evaluate the efforts that all of us make at the United Nations to determine if they could be redirected towards more constructive outcomes," Mr. Rock said.

He said the General Assembly and the much more powerful Security Council should do more to foster respect and trust between Israelis and Palestinians in order to help bring peace to the region.

Canada has typically abstained on resolutions that condemn Israel's occupation of and settlements in the West Bank and Gaza.

Only the United States and a few others have been left to support the embattled Jewish state.

Mr. Rock's speech Tuesday confirmed a shift in approach to UN questions involving the Middle East that has been evident since last summer. Then, Canada abstained on a widely supported resolution that noted the International Court of Justice's finding that Israel's security fence violated international law.

Critics in the Canadian-Arab community suggest the Martin government is in danger of abandoning Canada's long-standing evenhandedness toward the region, while Jewish lobbyists insist the government is merely adjusting its UN positions to reflect its overall approach.

Mr. Rock said General Assembly resolutions on the Middle East are "often divisive and lack in balance" because they condemn Israeli violence but play down attacks against Israeli civilians.

"References to Israeli security needs are often overlooked in the General Assembly. Repeatedly emphasizing Israel's responsibility under international law obscures equally important responsibilities of other parties to the conflict."

He added that the UN often fails to adequately condemn the Palestinians for their failure to rein in terrorists who target civilians or to reform their own governing bodies.

In an effort to be evenhanded, Canada will support a resolution on which it has abstained in the past: It calls for a nuclear-free Middle East and singles out Israel, which is widely suspected (but has never admitted it) to have nuclear capability.

Mr. Rock said the government's fundamental policy toward the Middle East remains unchanged.

It supports Israel's right to exist with secure borders, and its right to defend its citizens from terrorist attacks, in accordance with standards of international law and human rights.

It also supports the creation of a Palestinian state, and opposes the establishment of settlements in the territories, unilateral moves by Israel to annex East Jerusalem and the construction of the security fence inside the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Mazen Chouaib, executive director of the National Council on Canada-Arab Relations, said the shift at the UN sends a troubling signal to Arabs in Canada and around the world.

"It can be read as a message that Canada is abandoning its position as far as the Palestinians are concerned, if this pattern continues," he said. "Canada will start to be seen in a different light; this could send the signal that Canada is abandoning its honest broker's role."

But Shimon Fogel, chief executive of the Canada-Israel Committee, said the UN General Assembly has long been a venue for one-sided, anti-Israeli rhetoric from the Islamic world.

Changing Canada's policy toward votes at the UN has been a cause célèbre for the pro-Israel lobby.

"The concerns about the abuses in the General Assembly, as well as the other institutions of the UN system like the Commission on Human Rights, have been a concern to Canada for a long time," he said.

Mr. Fogel said Canada's more aggressive stand at the UN provides moral support for Israel, rather than having any practical effect.

Wednesday, December 01, 2004

  • Wednesday, December 01, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Jerusalem Newswire November 30, 2004

JERUSALEM - Nearly two-thirds of Israelis believe the post-Arafat Palestinian Authority should be given one last chance to honor its peace obligations, or face a full-scale Israeli military effort to eliminate the scourge of Palestinian Arab terror.

Asked what Israel should do if the new PA leadership continues to espouse Yasser Arafats policy of anti-Jewish terrorism by this time next year, 60 percent of respondents in a new public opinion poll voted for abandoning peace efforts and dealing with the situation militarily.

Nineteen percent believed Israel should continue to seek a diplomatic settlement with the PA, despite its refusal to curb the ongoing Islamic terror.

Showing public disapproval for Prime Minister Ariel Sharons policies, only one-third of Israelis backed the idea of conducting a unilateral withdrawal from Judea, Samaria and Gaza in the face of persistent Palestinian non-compliance.

An overwhelming 80 percent of respondents felt a sovereign Palestinian Arab state ruled by known terrorists would pose an existential or very grave threat to Israel.

The poll was conducted by telephone from November 18-22 among a random sampling of 528 adult Israelis. It was carried out by Maagar Mohot Interdisciplinary Research and Consulting Institute Ltd.
  • Wednesday, December 01, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
EGYPT SAID TO AID PALESTINIAN STRIKES

TEL AVIV [MENL] -- Israel's military has determined that Egypt seeks to weaken Israel through attacks by Palestinian insurgency groups.

Israeli military sources said the assessment was contained in Military Intelligence reports relayed to the General Staff and the Cabinet over the last two months. The sources said MI has determined that Egypt has facilitated the smuggling of weapons and insurgents from the Sinai Peninsula to the Gaza Strip for attacks on Israeli soldiers and civilians.

'We are not only talking about weapons,' a senior military source said. 'We are talking about the infiltration of Egyptian and other trainers to help improve the capability of Palestinian terrorist groups and the Palestinian Authority.'

The MI assessment comes amid Israel's effort to launch security cooperation with Egypt. Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abu Al Gheit and intelligence chief Gen. Omar Suleiman were scheduled to visit Israel and the Palestinian Authority on Dec. 1.
  • Wednesday, December 01, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Ramallah, West Bank, Nov. 30 (UPI) -- A Palestinian Information Ministry official denied Tuesday the Palestinian Authority ordered its mass media to stop inciting violence against Israel.

'The news on that subject published by certain Arab and foreign media are completely untrue,' Ahmed Sobh told a local radio in Ramallah.

'The aim of such wrong news is to give the impression to the public in the Arab world that the Palestinian Authority heeds the instructions of Israel instead of achieving the aspirations and ambitions of the Palestinian people,' Sobh said.

Official sources told UPI Monday Palestinian Liberation Organization Chairman Mahmoud Abbas recently visited PA media and television operations in Ramallah and Gaza and asked them to stop publishing and airing anti-Israel material.

Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called on the PA to end incitement and change anti-Israel school curriculums as a condition for resuming peace talks. However, the sources said the PA insisted any action on incitement must be reciprocal.

Tuesday, November 30, 2004

  • Tuesday, November 30, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
OSLO (AFP) - Former Norwegian prime minister Thorbjoern Jagland called for the creation of an independent Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital as a first step towards stabilizing the region.

'A Palestinian state must be created, with east Jerusalem as its capital... This would be the first and the best of steps to establish a dialogue with Muslims and Arabs,' said Jagland, currently the head of the Norwegian parliament's foreign affairs committee and one of the leading members of the Labour opposition.

Giving in to suicide bombers is the first step? I guess dismantling Israel is step 2, converting all of Europe to Islam is step 3 and giving Iran nukes is step 4, according to this clown. - EoZ
  • Tuesday, November 30, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Aviation Week & Space Technology reports in its November 29 issue that U. S. intelligence analysts are concerned about the planned launch from Iran, by early 2005, of an Iranian built satellite on an upgraded version of Tehran's largest ballistic missile, the Shahab-3.

The preparations for and launch of one or more Iranian satellite 'is something that needs to be watched closely,' a U. S. government missile analyst familiar with Iranian capabilities told AW&ST.

Such an 'Iranian Sputnik' would elevate the stature of the Iran in the Middle East.

Tehran's satellite launch plans could also be a 'Trojan Horse' to further advance ballistic missile or nuclear warhead related technologies, sources told the magazine. Some of the materials and micro-electronic technologies necessary for Iranian satellite design could also be important for the development of tiny high quality components needed to produce small nuclear weapons, AW&ST reports.

The U. S. intelligence community was taken by surprise in 1998 when a North Korean satellite launch attempt unexpectedly demonstrated a long range North Korean missile capability. U. S. intelligence officials said they do not want to be surprised again, this time by Iran.

Even if they fail initially, Iranian satellite launch attempts would help Iran develop both range and warhead improvements to the Shahab-3 missile under the cover of a civilian space program, AW&ST reports.

If the Iranians are successful with the space launch program, it will have political and technological ramifications in both the U. S. and Middle East. 'It would move the Iranians from the junior varsity into the big leagues,' an analyst told the magazine.

And as previous experience with North Korea shows, such a space launch demonstration can have significant impact in a weapons context. 'Something like that from Iran would certainly have a similar effect in the Middle East,' sources told AW&ST.
  • Tuesday, November 30, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
A United Nations committee condemned suicide bombings in Israel.

The resolution from the committee on decolonization, concerning Israeli practices affecting Palestinian human rights, included an oral amendment expressing “grave concern at the use of suicide bombing attacks against Israeli civilians, resulting in extensive loss of life and injury.”

Israeli officials said the language was included at European nations’ behest. “We said that every time the resolutions include condemning Israel for its acts, there’s no mention of the suicide bombers,” an Israeli spokeswoman said. “We’re glad that the Europeans made sure” to condemn suicide bombings in Israel this time. The resolution passed by a vote of 142 to 6, with 15 abstentions.

"Oral amendment"? SOunds like it is not worth the paper it it written on. -EoZ
  • Tuesday, November 30, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Company commanders and division commanders will be able to, as of next year view at the appropriate time intelligence photographs from pilotless aircraft, on a small screen worn on their hands. The micro receivers will replace verbal reports that commanders have received daily via the communicator from the Home Front Headquarters. The Ground Forces Command is expected to soon purchase dozens of these programs, priced at 10,000 dollars each.

The inventor of the program will produce an even larger receiver which will connect to the command's vehicle.

'The commander will be able to view the field at the appropriate time and to direct his forces without needing to rely on verbal reports that can become sometimes problematic', explains Head of the Field Intelligence Department of the weapons unit at the Ground Forces Headquarters, Lieutenant Colonel Yoni."
  • Tuesday, November 30, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa — Authorities pursuing traffickers in nuclear weapons technology recently uncovered an audacious scheme to deliver a complete uranium enrichment plant to Libya, documents and interviews show.

The discovery provides fresh evidence of the reach and sophistication of Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan's global black market in nuclear know-how and equipment. It also exposes a previously undetected South African branch of the Khan network.

Monday, November 29, 2004

  • Monday, November 29, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Summary:

When the IDF updated its military doctrine in 2003, Prof. Asa Kasher, Professor of Professional Ethics at Tel Aviv University, joined me on an ethics committee to craft principles on how to make moral and ethical decisions in Israel's operational campaign against terror.

As we sought to formulate how to fight terror, we understood that the main asymmetry is in the values of the two societies involved in the conflict - in the rules they obey. We are fighting with a people that have totally different values and rules of engagement.


How do we differentiate between terrorists and non-terrorists? Everyone who is directly involved in terror is a legitimate target. Those who are indirectly involved in terror are not a legitimate target.
#

Some asked if the collateral damage was producing future terrorists. We found that because of the level of incitement, the collateral damage only raised public support for terror from 95 to 96 percent.
#

In August 2002 we had all the leadership of Hamas in one room and we knew we needed a 2,000-pound bomb to eliminate all of them. Think about having Osama bin Laden and all the top leadership of al-Qaeda in one house. However, use of a 2,000-pound bomb was not approved - we used a much smaller bomb - and they all got up and ran away.
#

We should do the job at the checkpoints ethically, professionally, and as fast as we can because we have to care about the many times the ambulance is really carrying somebody who needs help.
#

The bottom line is that Israel has to fight terror because terror declared war on us. In the current war Israel has lost over 1,000 people - equivalent to the U.S. suffering 45,000 dead and 300,000 wounded. We can win, but we must do it ethically as the Jewish people, as a democratic state, and as IDF officers who respect our ethical profession."
  • Monday, November 29, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Julie Burchill
Unreservedly pro-Israel, our correspondent reveals how her first visit to the country fulfilled a long emotional and political love affair

WHEN I TOLD people that I was going to Israel this autumn, I noticed that a lot of them had the same reaction. They’d look dubious, then worried, then say: “Ooo. Is it a story?” The implication being that only professional interests could take one to such a hellhole. They also expressed fear for my safety, going as far on the part of one friend (Gentile, never been there) to actually weep, and on the part of my beloved former mother-in-law (Jewish, never been there) to write to me that she would pray every night for my intact return, even though she is an atheist!

I had had it coming, the Big Jew Thing; ever since as a nine-year-old girl in a working-class West Country Stalinist family, I learnt about the Shoah and the Six-Day War at the same time. It must have been that collision, that schism; death, life, struggle, NEVER AGAIN! — how could I ever not believe? Then I learnt the word for what I was; philo-Semite. That so few people have heard of philo-Semitism, whereas everyone has heard of anti-Semitism, says it all, really.

And the puzzle comes back to this — why do these people, above all others, inspire such ludicrous, ceaseless, surreal loathing? Why is it that one of my sweetest, youngest, most educated friends said to me one night, not even drunk: “Come on babe, admit it — don’t you ever EVER think that if the Jews had never existed how much easier life would be?”

Over the years I have pursued the Jewish Enigma and, it must be said, often got it wrong. My marriage to a non-observing Jew in the 1980s ended after a decade, most of which was spent either having very good sex (yay!) or rowing about the Palestinian question (oy!), with the shiksa on the side of the Jews and the Jew having a good old kvetch on behalf of the Palestinians. It was during such rows with my Jewish husband and his Jewish family, for the first time, that I wondered whether it was actually the Jews I really liked most . . . or the Israelis, those SuperJews, on whose behalf I seemed increasingly to be going into battle.

It didn’t take a genius to see that the more Jews stood up for themselves, the less the world liked it, whereas other races were cheered on and drooled over as “freedom fighters”, no matter how bloody their hands got, I reflected. Could it be that anti-Semitism in England in particular was based on the fact that we had gone in the opposite direction to the Jews — from powerful to powerless — and felt great resentment about this fact? After all, they’d had a good deal more than loss of empire to deal with in the 20th century — the loss of one third of world Jewry, for instance.

And Israel is a country the size of Wales, which within the first 25 years of its re-establishment (remember, the Jews were in the countries of the Middle East some seven centuries before the Muslims even existed) — from the Declaration of Independence in 1948 to the Yom Kippur War of 1973 — single-handedly fought off murderous attacks from such neighbouring dictatorships as Egypt, Jordan and Syria. (The US, surprisingly, did not begin to aid Israel in any major way until the mid-1970s; the country was founded with arms from the Communist bloc, and the first Government comprised a coalition of the majority Socialist Mapai Party with the Stalinist Mapam Party to the Left and religious and liberal groups to the Right. Beat that for pluralism!)

During the same period, it’s worth noting, the might of the British Armed Forces couldn’t even keep the oddballs and bishop-bashers of the IRA under control, so tied were the hands of our soldiers. It became common in working-class English households during the Seventies to hear Dad, never a great fan of the Jews (“sneaky”, “arrogant”, “cliquey”), say grimly as the latest atrocity from Ulster made itself felt through the medium of the Six O’Clock News: “The Israelis would have that lot sorted out in no time!” In 30 years, the image of the archetype Jew had gone from that of a frail, bullied scholar walking meekly to his doom to that of a big blond brute in a tank bulldozing across the desert, scattering tyrannies before him, STANDING UP FOR HIMSELF!

If the English working class were seeing the Jews in a new and favourable light due to Israel’s military triumphs — small and scrappy, innee, yer Israeli? Bit like us! — it’s fair to say that both the right-wing ruling class and the liberal middle class were shocked senseless by developments. You could see the bafflement on the faces of the most well-meaning of liberals as the mild-mannered, ever-scapegoated People Of The Book morphed into the creators of the Uzi machine gun and the proud owners of a nuclear capacity. (Interestingly, when the Jews put their scientific brilliance to the service of the European powers, no one ever complained, as I remembered. No one ever said: “Ooo, Albert Einstein, don’t do that!”)

What the Jews had done, unique of all the oppressed races of the world, was to come back better than ever.

This was a country founded on socialist principles, by idealists and intellectuals, which could shape-shift at the merest whiff of cordite into a lean, mean, fighting machine that did not allow soldiers to salute their “superiors” yet was deadly effective. It was the only Jewish country in the world, yet surrounded as it was by hate-filled theocracies who had wan-ted Hitler to kill the lot of them, it held secularism to be the most precious cornerstone of its democracy; only in Israel do you find that the most religious Jews, the Haredim, are the most opposed to the existence of the Jewish state — the most extreme of these, the Neturei Karta, even supported the PLO’s charter calling for its destruction. Ultra-religious Jews are not generally drafted into the Israeli Army, and those who are end up in the “Rabbinical Corps”, checking that the kitchens are kosher.

Secular Israel regards them with its characteristic, ceaseless tolerance; but for their part, the men in their side-curls and suits walk alongside young Israeli hotties wearing less on the street than other girls wear on the beach with never a sneer or slur, let alone a stoning. Surrounded on all sides by countries where religion and politics are one, to the point that democracy is considered ungodly, and where the chosen religion spends so much time acting as a tireless curtain-twitching Mrs Grundy, determined above all to curtail the freedom of women, that it has no time to tackle the subjugation and impoverishment of its faithful by their filthy rich rulers, Israel’s cool, clear-eyed take on matters of faith and secularism is a lesson to all of us. Imagine — a country in which the MOST religious are the LEAST nationalistic!

Anti-semitism can be as in-your-face as smashing up synagogues. But it can also be sly, sneaky, subtle and sometimes surreal. It must, in my opinion, go some way to explaining why Israeli human rights issues are so obsessively concentrated on, while many Arab and African countries are allowed to treat their citizens with as much subhuman sadism as they wish — the pregnant, raped women so frequently sentenced to death by stoning under Islamic regimes come immediately to mind, but the list is never-ending.

In having one human rights rule for democratic Israel — which can be summed up as “Be perfect or we’ll come down on you like a ton of bricks” — and another for the dictatorships which surround it — “Do what you like to your people, it’s your culture!” — Whitey displays an interestingly sly bit of anti-Semitism which is also rather insulting to the said dictatorships and the people they lord it over. The Jews are seen to be the one ethnic group who “pass” as white; their insistence on making their state a democracy is also seen as a sign of their stubborn refusal to act the savage to Whitey’s civilising influence. In short, the Lord forbid that any ethnic group should ignore the all-important world dominance hierarchy and dare to turn from victim into victor — and that is Israel’s ultimate crime. So why did it never occur to me to actually go to Israel before? After all, since I broke my self-imposed travel embargo a decade ago (didn’t want to have sex with my various husbands, if you’re interested) I’ve been a veritable globetrotter, nipping off to places as far away as the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean at the drop of a luggage tab. Why I would choose to make 12-hour flights to places I had absolutely no interest in while Israel is a mere four hours away, has a climate which makes the Bahamas look like Bradford and everything about it fascinates me, is a mystery to me, but a lot of it probably has to do with inertia, fear and a long-held belief that one should never meet one’s heroes. This was the first time a whole country had been my hero — millions of the f******, all ready to let me down! — so naturally I held back.

Finally, the turn of events led me there. An avalanche of congratulatory e-mail from Jews around the world led to lunch with beautiful Michelle from the Israeli Tourist Board, which led to me and my best friend Nadia Petrovic — the only person I know whose philo-Semitism leaves mine in the shade — boarding an aircraft to Tel Aviv this October.

Even before your baggage goes through airport X-ray machines so huge that it would be possible for a standing adult, barely stooping, to walk through one, everything about going to Israel is larger than life, which is strange considering that it’s a country the size of Wales. Everything from the clothes you need to pack — not many, nothing warm, because it’s always hot and always informal unless you plan to hang around some neurotic, misogynistic Muslim/Catholic “ Holy Place”, in which case, COVER YOURSELF YOU FILTHY DAUGHTER OF A WHORE! — to the reaction you get from your friends — OH NO, YOU'RE GOING TO DIEEEEEE! — is Not Normal.

But that feeling ended, for me, the minute I was settled on the El Al aircraft. Looking around at my fellow passengers, in their various skullcaps, side-curls and crop-tops, I felt an eerie sense of calm, so different from the irritation, nerves and boredom that air travel usually provokes. My favourite bit of the Bible, verse 16, Chapter 1 of The Book of Ruth, came back to me, triumphantly this time after a lifetime of aloneness: “Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee; for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge; thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.”

To be among them, but not of them; to “pass”, of all the outrageous things, when one of the stewardesses (minimal make-up, stern slacks; Israeli girls make the rest of us, even Oriental women, look like inappropriate drag queens, but somehow you can’t hate them because they’re beautiful as they don’t mean to be) speaks to me in Hebrew! I can’t get over this — it’s what I’ve been waiting for since I was nine years old! — but my face falls a little when snub-nosed, baby-blonde Nadia is similarly spoken to; no one could mistake her for one. Bitch. And this is the first of many sad lessons I learn in Israel — that because of the terrible fall-off in tourism since the intifada, Israelis presume that they have no friends abroad any more. They simply presume that every person on an Israeli plane, or in an Israeli hotel, is an Israeli. That was the first thing that broke my heart, there.

But it healed the moment we stepped out of the plane into the sunshine. In Portnoy’s Complaint, Philip Roth’s self-loathing hero remarks of his first visit to Israel something like: “Look! — Jews — Jews everywhere — walking around as if they own the place! WHICH THEY DO!” What was striking to me, though, all through Israel, was the very absence of weight being thrown around.

“Shalom.” They say it, them Jews, every time. It’s their hello, their goodbye, their have-a-nice-day, and they mean it. You hear them say it, you see them do it, and sometimes, just a little bit, got to say it, it makes you hate them — makes you hate their endless belief in the goodness of Mankind, the very Mankind that came so very near to destroying them.

You see it in Jerusalem, where the mosques and churches gleam free. You see it in Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Memorial, where the Avenue of the Righteous comes before everything else — the Righteous being un-Jews, that is. You see it from the car, being driven from Jerusalem to Eilat, when you ask your Israeli tour guide what is that place over there that looks . . . different? Oh, that’s the Bedouins. That’s the Palestinians. That’s where they cut off people ’s hands and stone women to death, because it’s their culture, and that’s what so much of the “civilised” world wants even more of Israel to be sacrificed unto.

You see it in Ariel Sharon, that alleged hawk of hawks, sending in the Israeli Defence Force to violently evict 8,000 Jews from the Gaza in order to go ONE STEP CLOSER towards peace with a people who want his own people dead. You see it in the beautiful English Jewish journalist Charlotte Halle from Haaretz, the “Tel Aviv Guardian”, married to an Israeli, with a three-year-old son, who only comes near to losing her temper once with me — when I express too much antipathy towards the Palestinians who already want her baby son dead, because he will grow up to be a Jew, and she is prepared to go, as her ceaseless, blameless, shameless people are always prepared to go, for ever a bridge too far.

You see it in Nadia’s eyes when she says, so serenely, in the car after Yad Vashem: “I always knew that lots of people had suffered. But if ever, EVER, anyone says that anyone has ever suffered like the Jews did, you know now that they’re either one of two things. One, they're silly. Or two, they’re just a little bit WICKED.”

You see it in Tel Aviv, on your balcony, your last night in Israel, with Nadia crying back in the room, and you really want to go home and see your husband and she does her son . . . but you really wonder how you will live now, back at home, beyond the wild blue yonder where these people, these F****** PEOPLE, did the thing they did — where they literally created the modern world.

Where they turned a place the size of Wales, which was just another regular barren Arab desert, into a Garden of Eden overnight, or at least over a decade. Where they came straight off the ships from Auschwitz and Belsen and Drancy and simply rolled up their sleeves and shook their heads and said, “Oyyyy . . .”

Where they created Tel Aviv — the first Jewish city in 2,000 years — by simply saying it was so, a few dozen ragged-ass Hebrew re-settlers, standing on some sand in 1909.

Where they don’t even WANT your help, the obdurate, stubborn, stiff-necked f****** —

All seven million of them —
Seven million . . .
So we won, then . . .

Back in the room, Nadia is singing now as she packs.

I’ve been back from Israel less than a week as I start writing this, and my suntan is already fading as my mind and soul shrink back to the size they were before — the size that fits so snugly around The X Factor and Brit Art and Whither the Novel Now and all those cultural Hula Hoops we keep up so frantically to distract ourselves from the big hole in the middle that is us.

Don’t get me wrong — I love my life. This isn’t a cheesy old I-was-lost-and-now-I’m-found snow job — I find that such woe-is-me eulogies tend to come from your basic dust-in-the-wind types anyway, who have neither the guts nor the inclination to change their lives but can’t pass up the chance of a little extra whine-time. No, like I said — I love my life. I love my God, my husband, my son Jack, my job, my friends and reality TV. I’m a happy bunny with such a high level of optimism that I frequently wake up in the morning, at the age of 45, feeling almost excited about washing my face and drinking my coffee — a sure sign, according to my shrink friend, of a person in A Happy Place. (Or a cretin.)

And yet, and yet . . . while all other parts of my heart beat properly, I feel that, increasingly, I have a country-sized hole in it. I have always loved my country with a fierce cool pride, knowing our faults, and still thinking “Yeah, we may well be stiff-upper-lipped/stuffed-shirts/sex-maniacs/drunks/po-faced/frivolous/whatever — but what’s the option? Being French — BEING GERMAN? I don’t think so!” No country is perfect, but relatively, I have always felt blessed to be British; generally, when prejudiced push comes to murderous shove, we have always tended to be on the side of the angels.

But increasingly, I don’t feel this. Because, in the face of all the evidence of history, and thus in the face of logic, Britain is slowly but surely ceasing to be Britain and becoming little more than an outpost of the “European Union” — the very name, I feel, echoes the join-us-in-friendship-or-else! promise/threat of an earlier European Unity dream-turned-nightmare. I have many minor gripes against the EU, such as its monstrous levels of corruption and waste.

But mainly I loathe the EU as I believe it to be a massive threat to what remains of the world Jewry which its leader, Germany, did so much to destroy. I cannot trust an organisation which has a belligerent Germany, aided and abetted by his vicious short sidekick, France, at its head — especially when that Germany is increasingly painting itself as the real “victim” of the Second World War. And it’s not just them, it’s us — in 2003 an EU survey claimed that six out of ten Britons believed Israel to be a threat to “world peace”, whatever that is.

Israel is not without its problems — but they are problems which are a result of other countries’ ignorant and destructive instincts and actions rather than its own. Because of this, they will be easier to solve — and, crucially, they make “war-torn” Israel a far better place to be in than peaceful Britain. Israelis can at least see the bombs that go off in their country — whereas ours go off in our minds and hearts, day after day, destroying everything which was once precious to us. I’m bad at languages, but I do have a heartful of soul and pretty soon I’ll have a Hebrew teacher — a female teacher, thankyouverymuch! — who I’ll see once a week. And eventually, I’ll get there.

Once I couldn’t imagine not living — or dying — in England, but as I get older the more I feel the need to walk in the sun; in the blatant, blameless light of confidence, of communal effort, of a cause greater than keeping the European gravy train/hate machine on track. It’s not exactly next year in Jerusalem — but, God willing, five years from now in Tel Aviv will do me just fine.

Sunday, November 28, 2004

  • Sunday, November 28, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
This is the text of a message on dozens of pro-Israeli blogs being posted today. I didn't participate officially because of my vacation, but the message is important. - EoZ

November 29, 2004:

Anniversary of the UN vote on Resolution 181



2004_11_13 - un_resolution_181.jpg


Today is the anniversary of the UN vote on resolution 181, which approved the partition of the western part Palestine into a predominately Jewish state and a predominately Arab state. (It is vital to recall that the UN partition plan referred to western Palestine, to underscore that in 1921 the eastern part was ripped off the Jewish National Home by the British Government and handed over to the then Emir Abdullah.)

The partition plan was approved by 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions.

The 33 countries that cast the “Yes” vote were: Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussia, Canada, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Haiti, Iceland, Liberia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, Union of South Africa, USSR, USA, Uruguay, Venezuela. (Among other countries, the list includes the US, the three British Dominions, all the European countries except for Greece and the UK, but including all the Soviet-block countries.)

The 13 countries that chose the Hall of Shame and voted “No” were: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Greece, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen. (Ten of these are Moslem countries; Greece has the special distinction of being the only European country to have joined the Hall of Shame.)

The ten countries that abstained are: Argentina, Chile, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Honduras, Mexico, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia.

On November 30, 1947, the day following the vote, the Palestinian Arabs murdered six Jews in a bus making its way to Jerusalem, and proceeded to murder another Jew in the Tel-Aviv - Jaffa area. This was a prelude to a war that claimed the lives of 6,000 Jews, or 1% of the total Jewish population in 1948. This toll is the per capita equivalent of today’s Canada losing 300,000 lives, or the US losing 3,000,000.

The object of the war, launched by the Arabs in the former Palestine and the armies of Egypt, Tansjordan, Syria and Lebanon (with help from other Arab countries), was to "throw the Jews into the sea". As the partition map indicates, however, rather than annihilate the Jewish population, the Arabs ended up with less territory than they would have gained by peaceful means.

In addition to the bloodshed in nascent Israel, immediately after the UN vote, Arabs attacks their Jewish neighbours in a number of Arab countries, the murders in Syria’s Aleppo being the best known.

Bruised and bleeding, Israel prevailed nonetheless. May our sister-democracy thrive and flourish.

List of participating sites, in alphabetical order of site name

Anti Idiotarian Rottweiler
Arkansas Bushwacker
Armies Of Liberation
Bama Pachyderm
Biurchametz
Blimpish
Blithered
Blog Willy
Blue Rev
Canadian Comment

Cao's Blog
Catholic Friends of Israel
Christian Patriot
Christian Action for Israel
Clarity and Resolve
Crusader War College
Cuanas
Danegerus
Daniel Davis
Flig

Harald Tribune
Heretics Almanac
Hidden Nook
History Nerd
Ice Viking
I Love America
Instant Knowledge News
Israpundit

JPundit
Jersusalem Posts
Leaning Right News
Lindasog
Live Journal
MCNS
Martinipundit
Mererhetoric
Motnews

Mugged By Reality
Mystical Paths
Naebunny
NetWMD
Nice Jewish Boy
Peaktalk
Protect Our Heritage
Reaganesque
Red Tigress

Riteturnonly
Shimshon9
Solomonia
Spitball Defense
Supernatural
Tampa Bay Primer
Techie Vampire
Texasbug
Tex The Pontificator
The Autism homepage

The Conservative
The Seal Club
Wackingday
Who's Your Rabbi
Voxfelisi
Weblog of a Wandering Jew

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

  • Tuesday, November 23, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
How Not to Promote Democracy
Palestinian elections shouldn’t come before a free society has been built.

By Meyrav Wurmser

Since the death of Yasser Arafat, many in European capitals and within various circles of Washington have called on the Palestinians to hold elections. Former special Middle East coordinator Dennis Ross, for example, recently asserted that to avoid a violent competition for power, elections can become "the mechanism for shaping the Palestinians' future and determining Palestinian leadership." Palestinian basic law requires that elections be held 60 days after the death of a Palestinian president. On the surface, elections appear to be a step that will further Palestinian democracy and President Bush's vision of a free and democratic Palestinian society. In reality, however, the election, scheduled for January 9, 2005, would be part of the smoke and mirrors that is Palestinian politics. It would merely dress an enduring dictatorship with democratic robes.

Even before Arafat's demise, Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Queria (Abu Ala) and the new chairman of the PLO, Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), had divvyed up the chairman's powers amongst themselves. Abu Mazen's appointment as the central figure of the PLO puts him in control of the most powerful body in Palestinian society. The PLO's powers remain superior to the institutions of the PA. In his capacity as the chairman of the PLO, Abu Mazen is responsible for all Palestinian foreign affairs and negotians with Israel. His associate, Abu Ala, continues to be the Palestinian prime minister, a position he held prior to Arafat's death. Since then, however, his powers have been redefined: He now controls all internal affairs of the PA and the mulitplicity of unruly security services. Rawhi Fatooh, a junior political player and the speaker of the parliament, replaced Arafat as the temporary president of the Palestinian Authority until elections are held.

When Arafat was alive, he controlled the powers — and more — now shared by the new triumvirate. He was chairman of the PLO, president of the Palestinian Authority, and head of the largest faction of the PLO, Fatah. It took many years of international pressure to force him to appoint a prime minister. Even when he did, Arafat made certain that his prime minister would remain weak and unable to control any of the security services. A typical example of Arafat's treatment of his revolving prime ministers is the rumor that he slapped Abu Ala across the face several weeks ago. In response, Abu Ala threatened resignation until it became clear that Arafat's health was deteriorating. But the multi-tentacled style of Arafat's reign could not have been maintained by any one of his successors, because they all lack his gravitas. Realizing their unpopularity, they opted to divide and rule.

But the division is not between equals. Abu Mazen and Abu Ala remain the senior partners. They have taken all substantial powers, leaving the position of the president virtually void of real authority. Taking away from the president control over the guns of the security services and the money held in the PA's entangled accounts has reduced his position to that of a glorified debate-club leader. Elections, now deemed by many in Europe and the State Department as the flood gate for Palestinian democracy (and by extension the renewal of the peace-process), only serve to legitimize Abu Ala's and Abu Mazen's unelected and unchecked grip on power.

One could argue that Abu Ala and Abu Mazen could not control the results of an election, that a challenger to their power could win. But these two are attempting to stack the cards in their favor. Even if relatively orderly elections occurred in 60 days, they would not be free and democratic. Abu Mazen, who recently announced his candidacy, is trying to make sure that no one of any real influence will compete against him. Not wishing to look undemocratic, he might find — as Arafat did in the elections of 1996 — a single, unknown, and unpopular candidate to "oppose" him. Even if there is a strong opposing candidate, the lack of a free press, the existence of bodies (such as the PLO) that are more powerful than the elected institution, and an insufficient period for the oppositional candidates to organize, these elections will not accurately reflect the will of the people.

The Bush administration, which remains committed to a vision of a free and democratic Middle East, must be certain not to legitimize oppression by endorsing Palestinian elections now. In the process of building a free and democratic society, elections are the last — not the first — step. Elections should come after limits on governmental institutions are in place and the basic freedoms of individuals have been guaranteed. Western recognition of this masquerade of freedom would only serve to strengthen the undemocratic nature of Palestinian society.

Even if elections will renew hopes for an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue, peace must not come at the price of liberty. Only a free Palestinian society can confront Arafat's legacy of terror, chaos, corruption, and poverty.
  • Tuesday, November 23, 2004
  • Elder of Ziyon
Moderate Muslims, Real and Phony
By Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com | November 23, 2004

There is good news to report: the idea that “militant Islam is the problem, moderate Islam is the solution” is finding greater acceptance over time. But there is also bad news, namely growing confusion over who really is a moderate Muslim. This means that the ideological side of the war on terror is making some, but only limited, progress.

The good news: Anti-Islamist Muslims are finding their voice since 9/11. Their numbers include distinguished academics such as Azar Nafisi (Johns Hopkins), Ahmed al-Rahim (formerly of Harvard), Kemal Silay (Indiana), and Bassam Tibi (Göttingen). Important Islamic figures like Ahmed Subhy Mansour and Muhammad Hisham Kabbani are speaking out.

Organizations are coming into existence. The American Islamic Forum for Democracy, headed by Zuhdi Jasser, is active in Phoenix, Arizona. The Free Muslim Coalition Against Terrorism appears to be genuinely anti-Islamist, despite my initial doubts about its founder, Kamal Nawash.

Internationally, an important petition posted a month ago by a group of liberal Arabs calls for a treaty banning religious incitement to violence and specifically names “sheikhs of death” (such as Yusuf Al-Qaradawi of Al-Jazeera television), demanding that they be tried before an international court. Over 2,500 Muslim intellectuals from 23 countries rapidly signed this petition.

With time, individual Muslims are finding their voice to condemn Islamist connections to terrorism. Perhaps most outstanding is an article by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, a Saudi journalist in London: “It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists,” he writes, “but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims. … We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women.”

Other analysts have followed al-Rashed’s example. Osama El-Ghazali Harb writes from Egypt that “Muslim and Arab intellectuals and opinion leaders must confront and oppose any attempt to excuse the barbaric acts of these [terrorist] groups on the grounds of the suffering endured by Muslims.” From Virginia, Anouar Boukhars holds that “Terrorism is a Muslim problem, and refusal to admit so is indeed troubling.”

The bad news: There are lots of fake-moderates parading about, and they can be difficult to identify, even for someone like me who devotes much attention to this topic. The Council on American-Islamic Relations still wins mainstream support and the Islamic Society of North America still sometimes hoodwinks the U.S. government. The brand-new Progressive Muslim Union wins rave reviews for its alleged moderation from gullible journalists, despite much of its leadership (Salam Al-Marayati, Sarah Eltantawi, Hussein Ibish, Ali Abunimah) being well-known extremists.

Fortunately, the authorities kept both Tariq Ramadan and Yusuf Islam out of the United States, but Khaled Abou El Fadl got through and, worse, received a presidential appointment.

Even anti-terrorist rallies are not always what they seem to be. On Nov. 21, several thousand demonstrators, some of them Muslim, marched under banners proclaiming “Together for Peace and against Terror” in Cologne, Germany. Marchers shouted “No to terror” and politicians made feel-good statements. But the Cologne demonstration, coming soon after the murder of Theo van Gogh on Nov. 2, served as a clever defense operation. The organizer of the event, the Islamist Diyanet Iþleri Türk-Islam Birliði, used it as a smokescreen to fend off pressure for real change. Speeches at the demonstration included no mea culpas or calls for introspection, only apologetics for jihad and invocations of stale and empty slogans such as “Islam means peace.”

This complex, confusing record points to several conclusions:

· Islamists note the urge to find moderate Muslims and are learning how to fake moderation. Over time, their camouflage will undoubtedly further improve.

· Figuring out who’s who is a high priority. It may be obvious that Osama bin Laden is Islamist and Irshad Manji anti-Islamist, but plenty of Muslims are in the murky middle. An unresolved debate has raged for years in Turkey whether the current prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdoðan, is an Islamist or not.

· The task of identifying true moderates cannot be done through guesswork and intuition; for proof, note the U.S. government’s persistent record of supporting Islamists by providing them with legitimacy, education, and (perhaps even) money. I too have made my share of mistakes. What’s needed is serious, sustained research.

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 over 19 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:

subscribe via email

Follow EoZ on Twitter!

Interesting Blogs

Blog Archive