By Dr. Laurie Roth Thursday, July 22, 2010
The Obama regime is not only constitutional and political hell for America and the Democrat party, it is a sick combo of the movie’s Ground Hog Day, where chaos and misused power point and click again and again and to Hitchcock’s classic, ‘The Birds’, where we wait in horror for the next round of flesh eating birds to destroy all in sight.
We saw this week the President sign another 2,300-page draconian Bill, this time hiding behind the terms ‘Financial Reform.’ The sound bites to this horror show Bill are all about Obama reigning in Banks, derivatives, controlling from on high, business assets and procedures. After all, he just wants to protect us, doesn’t he? The signing of this huge bill just flew past most media with a passing mention. I knew it was way more, and once again a betrayal of America.
I interviewed on air the day of the signing, Eric Singer, Manager of the fund Adviser Congressional Effect Management. He manages investment money and does it very well, unlike much of Wall Street these days. I asked Singer what he thought of this Bill. Like myself, he thought it was dangerous and a complete sham.
One major problem that he pointed out on my show with this ‘reform’ bill is it doesn’t reform. It just asserts more Government control and regulation! If Obama and this congress really wanted to reform anything in the financial world, why did they completely ignore Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? They do 80% of the mortgages and were directly responsible for most the problems in the mortgage industry, yet, magically they are completely unaffected by this Bill. Makes ya wonder, doesn’t it? Who paid off who?
Singer also pointed out that this Bill talks about helping 1 Billion in Mortgages, which sounds to the basic American great except that is really like focusing on a hang nail when your whole body is in flames. There are 8 trillion in known Mortgages. Gee, let’s see now, Obama will help 1 billion but I guess hopes no one knows there are 8 trillion in Mortgages. Naturally, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae who give 80% of these loans would completely avoid any more regulation and accountability. It is so much better apparently to control and shred small and medium banks and corporations even more.
This Horror show is hitting us from all sides now. We are starting to feel the forced Obama care bill and see the growing sea of lawsuits from Attorney Generals about this. I broke on my show just this week the sneaky push by Congress to combine and munch together the amnesty issue for illegal aliens and gay marriage. This is to gain total support from Hispanics and the Gay community in votes. Obama and congress would also shred states rights and sovereignty, trumping their laws on gay marriage already on the books, reflecting the will and vote of the people. This Bill has not been talked about, but I have a reliable source who says it is happening behind closed doors. Watch for this soon.
Along with the Health Care nightmare, Financial reform misrepresentation Bill and Security blunders, we have another nightmare on the horizon. Obama must be thrilled out of his smoke infested mind that Bush’s broad based tax cuts are coming to an end Dec 31st this year.
We are already moving at a Tsunami pace with tax increases, revealing many of the lies of this President, that he wouldn’t raise taxes. It will be pretty in January with the Death tax coming back for starters. This will be at a rate of 55% for estates $1 million or more.
There is more tax hell. The lowest tax bracket will go up 50%. The next lowest bracket will go from 25 – 28%. The highest bracket of 33% goes to 39.5%.
We will also experience the glowing and romantic marriage penalty again. There are dozens of unfair and ridiculous taxes that Obama will let return. I have just mentioned a few.
Hopefully, it isn’t a mystery anymore to any race, persuasion, or background. Obama wants and plans to transform this country into a cradle-to-grave, European style, socialist/communist regime that he and his cronies control. In order to do this, as Hitler did, he must control business, opportunities, schools, health, media and the military. He is moving boldly forward in all these areas. WE MUST AND WE WILL STOP HIM AND THIS CONGRESS FROM SHREDDING OUR CONSTITUTION, LAWS AND FREEDOMS.
Obama counts and plans on the created chaos so he can assert more emergency and Government controls. Continue focusing on getting behind REAL conservatives in the races all across the country. With the help of Tea Party minded Americans, we will score big in the Mid Terms, then clean house at year 4. The question is, will the Democrats who are letting this happen to their party ever recover? Canada Free Press
PLO Flag to Fly in Washington D.C.
Av 12, 5770, 23 July 10 04:01, by INN Staff
(Israelnationalnews.com)
The United States State Department has announced to the Palestinian Authority/Palestinian Liberation Organization Mission representative in the United States that its status will be upgraded from a 'bureau' to that of a "general delegation' and that this change will allow the office in which the representation is situated to fly the PLO, now also the Palestine Authority, flag at its entrance.
The upgrading, besides allowing the flag to be flown, also grants certan privileges to the delegation staff, such as diplomatic immunity, although it is not equal to embassy status.
The PLO's chief representative in the United States, Maen Areikat, said that this step makes the PLO's status in the United States equivalent to its status in Canada and many western European countries.
Israeli Radio reported that sources in Prime Minister Netanyahu's office said that the Prime Minister knew of the planned step and did not object to it. . Diplomatic sources in Jerusalem claimed that the step was taken to strengthen Abu Maazen and try to get him to agree to direct talks with Israel. However, they expressed dissapointment that the White House did not make ceasing the PA's anti Israel incitement a condition for the status upgrade.
G. Grass writes a poem
The Symbol of the Latin Christianity
Guenther Grass in 1944
The Passion inspired by M. Gibson's movie
Christian Communism Logo
Che Guevara and Castro meet
Benedict XVi and Castro meet
The Geocentric Dome of Dome of 13th century Bibi-Heybat Mosque
Azeri Language
Lars Vilks, Jesus-pedophile
Benedict XVi kissing sheikh
K. Wojtyla's Ordination as imam-bishop Cracow 1958
Body-soul (Cp. Paul's Spiritual body). Be ready for cosmic journey!
Bonestell-Landing on the Moon
Lunar-lander
Vishnu
Vishnu as Buddha in the sun and Greek Nature
Baal, Shiva, Aten, Odin - Greek god of Nature
The same greenish Hue
The same greenish Hue
Trident Jesus
Angel Gabriel and Virgin Mary
The Darwinian struggle for Survival at theVatican
The Most Learned canon of Ermland
Hegemonikon or the Ruler of von Lauchen's Heliocentrism
A Graphic Rendition of Copernicus's Book
Such circles deceived Copernicus into believing in heliocentrism
Death of Nicolaus Copernicus
Aisha Qaddafi seeks asylum in Israel
The Committee of 300 or British CHEKA
Black SS-Pope
Pope John Paul II's 'Breviary'
Workers-priests
Communist Pope
Superhubris
Very Evil Pope
Lethal Mix AIDS and Alkoholism
Theology of the Body or by boobs and by crux
Theology of the Body or from Palestine with Love
Justin Martyr: Jesus is an erected phallus, like Egyptian Min
The Phallic Mosque in Jerusalem
Symbol of Islam
Karl Marx monument viewed from back looks like a phallus
Hittite, Phoenician, Kassi cult of the Sun and Cross
The Nicene, evolving cat of Massachussetts
The Nicene Jesus in Trinity
UNSC rejects Palestine's bid for membership
An Italian Poster on the funeral day of pope JP2
Swastika - the Perennial symbol of sun gods
Allah is the sun god. He is Mar Alah, or the sun god Surya
Ethereal body in Hindu religion
Saint Paul, an ancient klansman
Obama, the Enabler
Qaddafi's Corpse
OccupyAurora Protest in Sankt Petersburg
The relics of John Paul II in Odessa
The Afghan Crucifix: Jesus died al kiddush ha-Shem
Wernher, shoot him down
Death to Assad
Nazi and fascist Dictators
Farrakhan with Rev. Pfleger
M. Gibson receives a honorary degree from a Catholic Notre Dame University
The Hate Propaganda sposored by theVatican
Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon to me wishing me a happy New Year
Enough is enough
Baal, Ashera with the pagan symbol of Trinity
Jesus with the Pagan Symbol of Trinity
Putin meets Hu Jintao Oct. 12, 2011
Paul and Nancy
The Kurds in Syria demand an independen state of their own
A. Hitler's letter of 1919 postulating destruction of Jews
Who is Confucius but Moses speaking Chinese?
Yassir Arafat Dying of AIDS
The Aryan, heliocentric Ruler of Canaan
Mussolini, a sculpture by Polish artist S. Szukalski
The Jedwabne Monument in Poland Vandalized
Map of the Indo-British Empire of the Sun
Aria in the Behistun Inscription
Aria on Waldseemuler's map o 1507
Madison Grant's Nordic Theory
Moscow - Beijing Express
A New Huge Free Trade Zone in the Making
The Aryan Christ of the Jesuits
The Cosmic dance of Big Bang
Bestiality in Hinduism
Erotic Artwork on the facade of the Lakshmana temple
Buddhist Solar Trinity
Christian Copy of the Buddhist Solar Trinity
the Marriage of Philology and Mercury
Peter-Mercury in St. Peter's Church
The Geocentric Flag of the African Union
Sundisk from Alacohuyuk (Anatolia)
The True Sexist Palestinian
Kill Jesus
The Symbol of the Aryan Trinity AUM within the sun god Surya
A. Hitler's Historical Jesus under the radiant sun
St. Paul's Golden "Calf"
The Whore of Babylon behind the Holocaust
Behind the Holocaust
Holy Ghost in the shape of swastika
A Christian from the catacombs with swastikas
From Emperor Hadrian to Pope Pius XII
Why did he fail to marry?
Iraq buys Czech fighters
Reversed Evolution of Nebuchadnezzar
The Dying children in Warsaw Ghetto
The Warsaw Ghetto Children
Palestinian Children play in water in Gaza Strip
Ammi Hai
M. Gottlieb: Yom Kippur in the Cracow Alte Shul
Obama Scraps the Global War on Terror
H. Clinton has a Crush on Al Jazeerah
Muslim-Obama
Perfect Together
Comrade
the Muslim Brotherhood Flag
The Quartet's Dream
Picture from national Holocaust Memorial Museum
Cartoon from Gaza
Zuckerberg's Intifada
The darwinian Patron Saint of Palestine
The Palestine mandate Flag with the British solar cross and the sun
Prayer to the sun god at Stonehenge, the Temple of the Druids and Masons
Osama Bin laden Dead
The Pentecost under the sungod Surya instead of YHWH
The United States in Burka
They say, Islam will conquer the world
Hamas Jugend
Fatah 11
The Geocentric Seal of Kansas
The Al-Qaeda SS
The Fathers of Modern Atheism
WikiLeaks Watchers over Democracy
After the WikiLeaks
Russian President to visit Israel in 2011
Business as usual
Picture of an early Christian from the catacombs
Jerusalem The Old City
Tea Party
Swastika Koran
Gorbachev: Victory in Afghanistan is impossible
Deauville Summit Supports the Talks
Statue of Confucius, Father of Chinese geocentrism goes up in Russia
Shimon Peres meets guests from China
the Ice Crystals of Auschwitz
Death Fugue
Anna Chapman, a Russian Spy receiving Top Honor
Al Turki in Bejing
The Spider Net
JFK and W. von Braun, SS Major
http://www.angloisrael.com/
In God We Trust - Tea Party
Tea Party on the Horizon
Give them an ultimatum Sept.16,2010
NYT Cartoon: Expect the worse
Burka
Martyrs Brigaes in action
German Award for the Muhammad Cartoonist
Abbas resembling Einstein
Bushehr nuclear power plant
Iran Inaugurates its first bombing drone
Russian 1800 Engraving dpicting the Whore of babylon, Riding the seven-headed monster
William Blake, The Whore of Babylon
Siege and destruction of Jerusalem
J. Pollard on Jerusalem Wall
Friday, July 23, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
'Israel is world’s most isolated country'
By JORDANA HORN, 21/07/2010
NEW YORK – Outgoing Ambassador to the UN Gabriella Shalev told American journalists on Monday that Israel is “the most isolated, lonely country in the world,” and that the biggest threat to its existence is not Iranian nuclear proliferation, but international attempts to delegitimize it.
Shalev told an Israel Project luncheon in Washington that threats to Israel’s right to defend itself constitute the “first challenge” of the Jewish state, according to The Washington Times.
Shalev cited Iran and tensions with the Palestinians as other significant problems, but particularly highlighted the international community’s actions toward Israel as being potentially detrimental to the country’s future.
She specifically cited European court prosecutions of Israeli officials for alleged human rights offenses and UN efforts to single out Israeli conduct for reprimand.
Shalev said that as sanctions resolutions at the UN put international pressure on Iran, Israel’s biggest threat is now those who question the Jewish state’s right to exist and defend itself, the Washington Times reported.
Israel Project president Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi told The Jerusalem Post she felt Shalev’s remarks had been on point.
“Iran has been the No. 1 issue in the pro-Israel community for many years, but right now there is something of a sigh of relief that the world has come to a deeper understanding that Iran is not just Israel’s threat, it is the world’s threat,” Mizrahi said, citing sanction developments in the US, UN and Europe.
“What [Shalev] was saying was that everyone at the UN in theory supports Israel’s right to defend itself, but when it’s actualized, they stop supporting it in many cases,” Mizrahi said, citing the May 31 Gaza flotilla incident as an example.
“I think [Shalev] is right.
I think that this is a major problem, and we’re deeply, deeply concerned about it.”
In terms of the United Nations, UN Watch director Hillel Neuer told the Post from Geneva that “Ambassador Shalev is exactly right. While the UN was founded on the highest ideals, many of its influential assemblies have turned into Ground Zero for ‘lawfare’ – the Arab-led assault on Israel using international law to weaken its legitimacy and international standing.”
Efforts to utilize international law as a blunt instrument against Israel, Neuer said, are particularly evident in the context of the Human Rights Council, a UN body based in Geneva.
“Out of some 40 resolutions adopted since 2006, more than 70 percent target Israel, while granting impunity to Hamas terror,” Neuer said of the Human Rights Council. “Victims of abuses worldwide are ignored. The [HRC] currently has multiple inquiries under way against democratic Israel, yet none on massacres committed by gross violators like China, Iran, Sudan, or Kyrgyzstan.
Eleanor Roosevelt and René Cassin, the proud Zionists who created the UN’s human rights system in response to the atrocities of World War II, are surely turning in their graves.”
Responding to these remarks, a spokesperson for the UN Secretary General’s office said on Tuesday that “Israel is a member in good standing of the United Nations, which has repeatedly stressed the rights of the Israeli people, as has Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Israel’s rights as a member state have been established repeatedly, including through General Assembly and Security Council resolutions.”
At a departing reception held for Shalev last week in New York by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, praised her efforts at the world body. Rice told attendees that she would “continue US efforts to combat all international attempts to challenge the legitimacy of Israel – including and especially at the United Nations.”
Mizrahi pointed out that at Monday’s luncheon, Shalev’s remarks were not made in a despairing tone.
“She was very hopeful,” Mizrahi said. “She wasn’t demoralized. She’s fighting it.”
One-state or two-state solution
By FELICE FRIEDSON, 21/07/2010
“State of Israel is born” – The Palestine Post, May 16, 1948 “At 4 p.m., the State of Israel will be established” – Yediot Aharonot/Haaretz, May 16, 1948 “United Nations approves State of Palestine” – date approaching It is conceivable within the course of realpolitik that despite obfuscation, political filibustering, dancing the diplomatic two-step (direct, indirect), wading through a plethora of plans, initiatives, thinktank reports, white papers and expert opinions (from Madrid to Oslo to Allon to Arab to Fayyad), it appears increasingly likely that all might boil down to a single resolution enacted by the UN Security Council.
When in August 2009, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad laid out his design for perfecting the infrastructure and institutions necessary to support statehood and slapped a two-year time frame on the plan, few realized the speed and intensity with which it would resonate throughout the world, picking up support from a wide range of interests.
Domestically, the Palestinian street became energized with perhaps its first tangible, reachable goals that diverted the populace from the mounting cynicism and skepticism with which it viewed virtually all promises made by its leadership until then. Supplemented by highly visible events showcasing growing private sector entrepreneurialism, the mood on the street improved markedly from where frustration was the dominant emotion slightly more than a year ago.
The international community has bit big time. For reasons ranging from the dynamics of domestic politics to a sense – right or wrong – of supporting the underdog, Fayyad’s start of the “countdown clock to statehood” is allowing Western leaders to vouchsafe support for the Palestinian cause with greater zeal and less personal/political risk.
In Israel, leading security officials acknowledge the success of American and European efforts to train a competent security apparatus and the success of the PA security forces in maintaining the peace wherever they have been given the opportunity to do so.
In response, 60 Israeli tour guides are now being permitted to enter PA areas and it appears that other Israeli citizens will soon be allowed to traverse the checkpoints at will.
SINCE ALL of these developments clearly buttress the mantra of the “two-state solution,” it belies the growing conventional wisdom that it’s primarily the fringe of each camp that prefers the less-fashionable “one-state” option.
On the Israeli right – but hardly “fringe” – former defense minister Moshe Arens recently wrote in Haaretz that Israel “is already a binational Jewish- Palestinian state,” a position echoed by Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin. Those who adhere to this thought are diametrically opposed to those who argue that the “one-state solution” spells death by demography for the democratic Jewish state.
Opponents offer a vision of a dramatic handing over to Israel’s Arab population the keys to the kingdom on the morning that census figures show an Arab majority of one. They even point to support for the one-state approach Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi took in a recent New York Times op-ed as proof positive that it must be “bad for the Jews.”
Supporters of the one-state option respond to the demographic argument in part by pointing to minority rule in Jordan and Syria. Some even cite a 1946 piece by Albert Einstein considered supportive of a single binational character for fledgling “Palestine” – the term predominantly referring to the region’s Jewish population at the time.
The Palestinian side, too, offers mixed views on the question of one- or two-state option. Adopting the demographic argument, some Palestinian leaders have employed the one-state idea as a threat to push the Israelis toward final concessions. It’s an argument many Israelis accept: lose some now or all later.
Munib al-Masri, the Palestinian billionaire whose esteemed position has landed him in the unenviable role as mediator between Fatah and Hamas, recently told The Media Line that “Palestinians can go either way, but the two-state solution is better for Israel.”
The sole factor both sides agree upon is that the status quo is not sustainable, an opinion shared – albeit reluctantly by some – with US President Barack Obama.
Throughout years of interviews with Israelis and Palestinians, it has become noticeable that fewer and fewer still offer references to Jericho cafes filled with Jewish Israelis on Saturday nights or recall what Jewish Israelis not clad in army green and manning checkpoints look like, visions lost to both Israeli and Palestinian youth.
In that vein, the Fayyad plan and the apparition of a UN resolution establishing the state of Palestine loom large in catalyzing Israelis to take a position before one is imposed upon them. Conventional wisdom sees Israeli leadership as being more malleable in the aftermath of the Goldstone and Gaza flotilla image debacles and most believe that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Obama share a clear understanding of what the final agreement is going to look like.
Many also see the American interlocutor as losing patience with Palestinian obfuscation in the form of seemingly endless preconditions: the latest being Israel’s formal acceptance of the ’67 borders and an international force to enforce them.
Those who preach stagnation have it wrong.
Although timing and details are not yet clear, the parties should neither underestimate the movement at hand nor be surprised when the announcement from the UN fills the headlines.
The writer is president and CEO of The Media Line Ltd, an American news agency specializing in coverage of the Middle East, and founder of the Mideast Press Club.
NEW YORK – Outgoing Ambassador to the UN Gabriella Shalev told American journalists on Monday that Israel is “the most isolated, lonely country in the world,” and that the biggest threat to its existence is not Iranian nuclear proliferation, but international attempts to delegitimize it.
Shalev told an Israel Project luncheon in Washington that threats to Israel’s right to defend itself constitute the “first challenge” of the Jewish state, according to The Washington Times.
Shalev cited Iran and tensions with the Palestinians as other significant problems, but particularly highlighted the international community’s actions toward Israel as being potentially detrimental to the country’s future.
She specifically cited European court prosecutions of Israeli officials for alleged human rights offenses and UN efforts to single out Israeli conduct for reprimand.
Shalev said that as sanctions resolutions at the UN put international pressure on Iran, Israel’s biggest threat is now those who question the Jewish state’s right to exist and defend itself, the Washington Times reported.
Israel Project president Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi told The Jerusalem Post she felt Shalev’s remarks had been on point.
“Iran has been the No. 1 issue in the pro-Israel community for many years, but right now there is something of a sigh of relief that the world has come to a deeper understanding that Iran is not just Israel’s threat, it is the world’s threat,” Mizrahi said, citing sanction developments in the US, UN and Europe.
“What [Shalev] was saying was that everyone at the UN in theory supports Israel’s right to defend itself, but when it’s actualized, they stop supporting it in many cases,” Mizrahi said, citing the May 31 Gaza flotilla incident as an example.
“I think [Shalev] is right.
I think that this is a major problem, and we’re deeply, deeply concerned about it.”
In terms of the United Nations, UN Watch director Hillel Neuer told the Post from Geneva that “Ambassador Shalev is exactly right. While the UN was founded on the highest ideals, many of its influential assemblies have turned into Ground Zero for ‘lawfare’ – the Arab-led assault on Israel using international law to weaken its legitimacy and international standing.”
Efforts to utilize international law as a blunt instrument against Israel, Neuer said, are particularly evident in the context of the Human Rights Council, a UN body based in Geneva.
“Out of some 40 resolutions adopted since 2006, more than 70 percent target Israel, while granting impunity to Hamas terror,” Neuer said of the Human Rights Council. “Victims of abuses worldwide are ignored. The [HRC] currently has multiple inquiries under way against democratic Israel, yet none on massacres committed by gross violators like China, Iran, Sudan, or Kyrgyzstan.
Eleanor Roosevelt and René Cassin, the proud Zionists who created the UN’s human rights system in response to the atrocities of World War II, are surely turning in their graves.”
Responding to these remarks, a spokesperson for the UN Secretary General’s office said on Tuesday that “Israel is a member in good standing of the United Nations, which has repeatedly stressed the rights of the Israeli people, as has Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon. Israel’s rights as a member state have been established repeatedly, including through General Assembly and Security Council resolutions.”
At a departing reception held for Shalev last week in New York by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the UN, praised her efforts at the world body. Rice told attendees that she would “continue US efforts to combat all international attempts to challenge the legitimacy of Israel – including and especially at the United Nations.”
Mizrahi pointed out that at Monday’s luncheon, Shalev’s remarks were not made in a despairing tone.
“She was very hopeful,” Mizrahi said. “She wasn’t demoralized. She’s fighting it.”
One-state or two-state solution
By FELICE FRIEDSON, 21/07/2010
“State of Israel is born” – The Palestine Post, May 16, 1948 “At 4 p.m., the State of Israel will be established” – Yediot Aharonot/Haaretz, May 16, 1948 “United Nations approves State of Palestine” – date approaching It is conceivable within the course of realpolitik that despite obfuscation, political filibustering, dancing the diplomatic two-step (direct, indirect), wading through a plethora of plans, initiatives, thinktank reports, white papers and expert opinions (from Madrid to Oslo to Allon to Arab to Fayyad), it appears increasingly likely that all might boil down to a single resolution enacted by the UN Security Council.
When in August 2009, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad laid out his design for perfecting the infrastructure and institutions necessary to support statehood and slapped a two-year time frame on the plan, few realized the speed and intensity with which it would resonate throughout the world, picking up support from a wide range of interests.
Domestically, the Palestinian street became energized with perhaps its first tangible, reachable goals that diverted the populace from the mounting cynicism and skepticism with which it viewed virtually all promises made by its leadership until then. Supplemented by highly visible events showcasing growing private sector entrepreneurialism, the mood on the street improved markedly from where frustration was the dominant emotion slightly more than a year ago.
The international community has bit big time. For reasons ranging from the dynamics of domestic politics to a sense – right or wrong – of supporting the underdog, Fayyad’s start of the “countdown clock to statehood” is allowing Western leaders to vouchsafe support for the Palestinian cause with greater zeal and less personal/political risk.
In Israel, leading security officials acknowledge the success of American and European efforts to train a competent security apparatus and the success of the PA security forces in maintaining the peace wherever they have been given the opportunity to do so.
In response, 60 Israeli tour guides are now being permitted to enter PA areas and it appears that other Israeli citizens will soon be allowed to traverse the checkpoints at will.
SINCE ALL of these developments clearly buttress the mantra of the “two-state solution,” it belies the growing conventional wisdom that it’s primarily the fringe of each camp that prefers the less-fashionable “one-state” option.
On the Israeli right – but hardly “fringe” – former defense minister Moshe Arens recently wrote in Haaretz that Israel “is already a binational Jewish- Palestinian state,” a position echoed by Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin. Those who adhere to this thought are diametrically opposed to those who argue that the “one-state solution” spells death by demography for the democratic Jewish state.
Opponents offer a vision of a dramatic handing over to Israel’s Arab population the keys to the kingdom on the morning that census figures show an Arab majority of one. They even point to support for the one-state approach Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi took in a recent New York Times op-ed as proof positive that it must be “bad for the Jews.”
Supporters of the one-state option respond to the demographic argument in part by pointing to minority rule in Jordan and Syria. Some even cite a 1946 piece by Albert Einstein considered supportive of a single binational character for fledgling “Palestine” – the term predominantly referring to the region’s Jewish population at the time.
The Palestinian side, too, offers mixed views on the question of one- or two-state option. Adopting the demographic argument, some Palestinian leaders have employed the one-state idea as a threat to push the Israelis toward final concessions. It’s an argument many Israelis accept: lose some now or all later.
Munib al-Masri, the Palestinian billionaire whose esteemed position has landed him in the unenviable role as mediator between Fatah and Hamas, recently told The Media Line that “Palestinians can go either way, but the two-state solution is better for Israel.”
The sole factor both sides agree upon is that the status quo is not sustainable, an opinion shared – albeit reluctantly by some – with US President Barack Obama.
Throughout years of interviews with Israelis and Palestinians, it has become noticeable that fewer and fewer still offer references to Jericho cafes filled with Jewish Israelis on Saturday nights or recall what Jewish Israelis not clad in army green and manning checkpoints look like, visions lost to both Israeli and Palestinian youth.
In that vein, the Fayyad plan and the apparition of a UN resolution establishing the state of Palestine loom large in catalyzing Israelis to take a position before one is imposed upon them. Conventional wisdom sees Israeli leadership as being more malleable in the aftermath of the Goldstone and Gaza flotilla image debacles and most believe that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Obama share a clear understanding of what the final agreement is going to look like.
Many also see the American interlocutor as losing patience with Palestinian obfuscation in the form of seemingly endless preconditions: the latest being Israel’s formal acceptance of the ’67 borders and an international force to enforce them.
Those who preach stagnation have it wrong.
Although timing and details are not yet clear, the parties should neither underestimate the movement at hand nor be surprised when the announcement from the UN fills the headlines.
The writer is president and CEO of The Media Line Ltd, an American news agency specializing in coverage of the Middle East, and founder of the Mideast Press Club.
Friday, July 16, 2010
A Quiet Axis Forms Against Iran in the Middle East
By Alexander Smoltczyk and Bernhard Zand
Israel and the Arab states near the Persian Gulf recognize a common threat: the regime in Tehran. A regional diplomat has not even ruled out support by the Arab states for a military strike to end Iran's nuclear ambitions.
It is early in the morning on the wharfs in Sharjah, just below the Museum of Islamic Civilization, where the heavy wooden ships known as dhows are being loaded with cargo. Pakistani laborers hoist engine blocks, plasma monitors and mineral oil into the ships' holds. When asked where the dhows are headed, they say, matter-of-factly: "Iran."
Trade between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and their neighbor across the Strait of Hormuz is an everyday occurrence that hardly deserves mention on the docks.
The same families are often on both shores. The business relationships between them have grown over generations and are more enduring than any war or embargo.
Of course, shipping engine blocks to the Iranian port city of Bandar-e Lengeh is not prohibited. But the busy import and export trade in the dhow ports of the emirates of Sharjah, Dubai and Ras al-Khaimah shows how difficult it is to isolate Tehran.
'Astonishingly Honest'
This makes the words uttered last Tuesday by the UAE's ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al Otaiba, in Aspen, Colorado, more than 12,500 kilometers to the west, all the more interesting. Otaiba was attending a forum at the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival, and the mood was relaxed, or at least it was too relaxed for diplomatic restraint.
The discussion revolved around the Middle East. When asked whether the UAE would support a possible Israeli air strike against the regime in Tehran, Ambassador Otaiba said: "A military attack on Iran by whomever would be a disaster, but Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster."
These were unusually candid words. A military strike, the diplomat continued, would undoubtedly lead to a "backlash." "There will be problems of people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country," he said.
But, he added, "if you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran,' my answer is still the same. We cannot live with a nuclear Iran. I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."
Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman said afterwards that she had never heard anything like it coming from an Arab government official. Otaiba, she added, was "astonishingly honest."
Notwithstanding the shocking nature of his remarks, Otaiba was merely expressing, in a public forum, "the standard position of many Arab countries," says Middle East expert Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for The Atlantic Monthly who moderated the panel discussion in Aspen.
The fact that some Western politicians are unfamiliar with this position has to do with their own ignorance, and with the diplomatic skill with which the smaller Gulf states, in particular, have managed to hide their opposition to their powerful neighbor until now.
"The Jews and Arabs have been fighting for one hundred years. The Arabs and the Persians have been going at (it) for a thousand," argues Goldberg on The Atlantic's Web site.
Almost all Arab neighbors have a hostile relationship with the Islamic Republic. Saudi Arabia suspects Iran of stirring up the Shiite minority in its eastern provinces. The Arab emirates accuse Iran of occupying three islands in the Persian Gulf. Egypt has not had regular diplomatic relations with Iran since a street in Tehran was named after the murderer of former Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat.
Jordanian King Abdullah II warns against the establishment of a "Shiite crescent" between Iran and Lebanon. And Kuwait, fearing the Iranians, installed the Patriot air defense missile system in the spring.
Closely Aligned
Arab governments are concerned about a strong Iran, its nuclear program and the inflammatory speeches of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They share these concerns with another government in the Middle East -- Israel's.
Never have the strategic interests of the Jewish and Arab states been so closely aligned as they are today. While European and American security experts consistently characterize a military strike against Iran as "a last option," notable Arabs have long shared the views of Israel's ultra-nationalist foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. If no one else takes it upon himself to bomb Iran, Saudi cleric Mohsen al-Awaji told SPIEGEL, Israel will have to do it. "Israel's agenda has its limits," he said, noting that it is mainly concerned with securing its national existence. "But Iran's agenda is global."
Sometimes that agenda leads to actions that are as absurd as they are typical. In February, for example, Tehran issued a landing ban on all airlines that used the phrase "Arab Gulf" instead of "Persian Gulf" in their on-board programming.
But Arab countries are pursuing a delicate seesaw policy. The UAE cannot afford to openly offend Iran, which explains why Ambassador Otaiba was promptly ordered to return home on Wednesday.
This caution only conceals the deep divide between the Arabs and the Persians. Despite their public expressions of outrage over Israeli behavior, such as the blockade of the Gaza Strip, Arab countries in the region continue to pursue their pragmatic course. On June 12, The Times in London wrote that Saudi Arabia had recently "conducted tests to stand down its air defenses to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran's nuclear facilities" -- in the event of an attack on the nuclear power plant in Bushehr. In March, Western intelligence agencies reported that there were signs of secret negotiations between Jerusalem and Riyadh to discuss the possibility.
"We are aligned (with the United States) on every policy issue there is in the Middle East," Ambassador Otaiba said in Aspen.
Pragmatism and Shifting Alliances
"The UAE has chosen to side with the camp of those who apply to the letter the new United Nations resolution of June 9," wrote French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, noting that it was "truly a blow to the regime" in Iran. For Lévy, the "union sacrée" of Muslim countries against the "Zionist enemy" is a fantasy. The countries that feel threatened by Tehran, he added, now have the opportunity to form an alliance of convenience.
Next to Jordan, the UAE is the only Arab country with soldiers deployed in Afghanistan -- fighting on the side of the United States. Abu Dhabi, the richest of the seven emirates, has reportedly been pressuring Dubai to keep closer tabs on the many influential Iranians living there.
In late June, the UAE's central bank froze 41 accounts, some of which could be directly linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The accounts were allegedly being used to conduct transactions tied to the smuggling of materials listed under the embargo against Iran.
Before that, the UAE had announced tighter controls on ships in the Dubai free trade zone. "Security forces have interdicted scores of ships suspected of carrying illicit cargo," said Hamad Al Kaabi, the UAE's permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The Arab nations on the Gulf are pursuing realpolitik in their dealings with Iran. When in doubt, they come down on the side of the Americans, but they prefer to pursue the route of negotiation and trade. The ruler of a Gulf emirate recently told a delegation of senior European politicians: "The best way to handle the Iranians is to trade with them."
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
URL:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,706445,00.html
RELATED SPIEGEL ONLINE LINKS:
Photo Gallery: Not What it Seems
Israel and the Arab states near the Persian Gulf recognize a common threat: the regime in Tehran. A regional diplomat has not even ruled out support by the Arab states for a military strike to end Iran's nuclear ambitions.
It is early in the morning on the wharfs in Sharjah, just below the Museum of Islamic Civilization, where the heavy wooden ships known as dhows are being loaded with cargo. Pakistani laborers hoist engine blocks, plasma monitors and mineral oil into the ships' holds. When asked where the dhows are headed, they say, matter-of-factly: "Iran."
Trade between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and their neighbor across the Strait of Hormuz is an everyday occurrence that hardly deserves mention on the docks.
The same families are often on both shores. The business relationships between them have grown over generations and are more enduring than any war or embargo.
Of course, shipping engine blocks to the Iranian port city of Bandar-e Lengeh is not prohibited. But the busy import and export trade in the dhow ports of the emirates of Sharjah, Dubai and Ras al-Khaimah shows how difficult it is to isolate Tehran.
'Astonishingly Honest'
This makes the words uttered last Tuesday by the UAE's ambassador to the United States, Yousef Al Otaiba, in Aspen, Colorado, more than 12,500 kilometers to the west, all the more interesting. Otaiba was attending a forum at the Aspen Institute's Ideas Festival, and the mood was relaxed, or at least it was too relaxed for diplomatic restraint.
The discussion revolved around the Middle East. When asked whether the UAE would support a possible Israeli air strike against the regime in Tehran, Ambassador Otaiba said: "A military attack on Iran by whomever would be a disaster, but Iran with a nuclear weapon would be a bigger disaster."
These were unusually candid words. A military strike, the diplomat continued, would undoubtedly lead to a "backlash." "There will be problems of people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country," he said.
But, he added, "if you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran,' my answer is still the same. We cannot live with a nuclear Iran. I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."
Democratic Congresswoman Jane Harman said afterwards that she had never heard anything like it coming from an Arab government official. Otaiba, she added, was "astonishingly honest."
Notwithstanding the shocking nature of his remarks, Otaiba was merely expressing, in a public forum, "the standard position of many Arab countries," says Middle East expert Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for The Atlantic Monthly who moderated the panel discussion in Aspen.
The fact that some Western politicians are unfamiliar with this position has to do with their own ignorance, and with the diplomatic skill with which the smaller Gulf states, in particular, have managed to hide their opposition to their powerful neighbor until now.
"The Jews and Arabs have been fighting for one hundred years. The Arabs and the Persians have been going at (it) for a thousand," argues Goldberg on The Atlantic's Web site.
Almost all Arab neighbors have a hostile relationship with the Islamic Republic. Saudi Arabia suspects Iran of stirring up the Shiite minority in its eastern provinces. The Arab emirates accuse Iran of occupying three islands in the Persian Gulf. Egypt has not had regular diplomatic relations with Iran since a street in Tehran was named after the murderer of former Egyptian President Anwar el-Sadat.
Jordanian King Abdullah II warns against the establishment of a "Shiite crescent" between Iran and Lebanon. And Kuwait, fearing the Iranians, installed the Patriot air defense missile system in the spring.
Closely Aligned
Arab governments are concerned about a strong Iran, its nuclear program and the inflammatory speeches of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They share these concerns with another government in the Middle East -- Israel's.
Never have the strategic interests of the Jewish and Arab states been so closely aligned as they are today. While European and American security experts consistently characterize a military strike against Iran as "a last option," notable Arabs have long shared the views of Israel's ultra-nationalist foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. If no one else takes it upon himself to bomb Iran, Saudi cleric Mohsen al-Awaji told SPIEGEL, Israel will have to do it. "Israel's agenda has its limits," he said, noting that it is mainly concerned with securing its national existence. "But Iran's agenda is global."
Sometimes that agenda leads to actions that are as absurd as they are typical. In February, for example, Tehran issued a landing ban on all airlines that used the phrase "Arab Gulf" instead of "Persian Gulf" in their on-board programming.
But Arab countries are pursuing a delicate seesaw policy. The UAE cannot afford to openly offend Iran, which explains why Ambassador Otaiba was promptly ordered to return home on Wednesday.
This caution only conceals the deep divide between the Arabs and the Persians. Despite their public expressions of outrage over Israeli behavior, such as the blockade of the Gaza Strip, Arab countries in the region continue to pursue their pragmatic course. On June 12, The Times in London wrote that Saudi Arabia had recently "conducted tests to stand down its air defenses to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran's nuclear facilities" -- in the event of an attack on the nuclear power plant in Bushehr. In March, Western intelligence agencies reported that there were signs of secret negotiations between Jerusalem and Riyadh to discuss the possibility.
"We are aligned (with the United States) on every policy issue there is in the Middle East," Ambassador Otaiba said in Aspen.
Pragmatism and Shifting Alliances
"The UAE has chosen to side with the camp of those who apply to the letter the new United Nations resolution of June 9," wrote French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, noting that it was "truly a blow to the regime" in Iran. For Lévy, the "union sacrée" of Muslim countries against the "Zionist enemy" is a fantasy. The countries that feel threatened by Tehran, he added, now have the opportunity to form an alliance of convenience.
Next to Jordan, the UAE is the only Arab country with soldiers deployed in Afghanistan -- fighting on the side of the United States. Abu Dhabi, the richest of the seven emirates, has reportedly been pressuring Dubai to keep closer tabs on the many influential Iranians living there.
In late June, the UAE's central bank froze 41 accounts, some of which could be directly linked to Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The accounts were allegedly being used to conduct transactions tied to the smuggling of materials listed under the embargo against Iran.
Before that, the UAE had announced tighter controls on ships in the Dubai free trade zone. "Security forces have interdicted scores of ships suspected of carrying illicit cargo," said Hamad Al Kaabi, the UAE's permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
The Arab nations on the Gulf are pursuing realpolitik in their dealings with Iran. When in doubt, they come down on the side of the Americans, but they prefer to pursue the route of negotiation and trade. The ruler of a Gulf emirate recently told a delegation of senior European politicians: "The best way to handle the Iranians is to trade with them."
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
URL:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,706445,00.html
RELATED SPIEGEL ONLINE LINKS:
Photo Gallery: Not What it Seems
Monday, July 12, 2010
'Declare Gaza a Part of Egypt'
Av 1, 5770, 12 July 10 05:27,
The best way to solve the problem of terrorism in Gaza is to move backward, not forward, says Deputy Minister Ayoub Kara, Druze member of the Likud party.
“What we need to do is declare that Gaza is a part of Egypt," Kara told Arutz Sheva's Hebrew news service in an interview Sunday. "That'a a unilateral move that makes sense. They talk about going back to the way things were in 1967 – so we should keep in mind that back then there was no Palestinian people and Gaza was a part of Egypt, and Judea and Samaria a part of Jordan."
The problem with putting Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority is that the PA lacks true control, Kara said. “There is no leadership in the PA, there is nobody prepared to rule. We're playing pretend,” he declared.
When asked why Egypt would agree to return to authority in Gaza, Kara explained that the change in leadership would benefit Egypt as well as Israel. Egypt understands that Iran is developing a foothold in Gaza, and Egypt wants to weaken Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
"[Gaza] is becoming a terrorist power taking orders from Iran. That's a danger to Egypt as well,” Kara stated.
He also spoke about negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Kara expressed frustration with the “masochistic” construction freeze in Judea and Samaria, and stated that he is planning to quit his post if the government does not allow construction to resume in September.
Kara also strongly opposed the 2005 Disengagement. He refused to defect to the breakaway Kadima party, preferring to stay in internal opposition with Likud.
If the freeze had a chance of leading to peace, the MK said, he might feel differently. However, he continued, the freeze is more likely to encourage terrorism.
www.IsraelNationalNews.com
Lieberman: Land for Land, Not Land for Peace
Tammuz 29, 5770, 11 July 10 09:24, by Maayana Miskin
(Israelnationalnews.com)
Instead of trying to base negotiations with the Palestinian Authority on the concept of “land for peace,” as it has in the past, Israel should focus on exchanging territory and populations, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said this week. The minister spoke in an interview for Middle East Magazine, on Voice of Israel state-run radio.
Lieberman has touted his idea of swapping land with the PA for some time, and says that an estimated 70% of Israelis agree with his approach. He recently stated that his party, Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Our Home), would object to the Kadima party joining the government unless Kadima were to be willing to abandon the “land for peace” approach.
The land and population exchange concept has not yet been adopted by the Netanyahu administration, Lieberman admitted. He attributed the government's continued allegiance to the “land for peace” approach to the presence in the cabinet of ministers who, according to Lieberman, are afraid to make controversial decisions.
Despite that hurdle, the government is closer than ever to adopting a new approach to the Israel-PA conflict, he said.
Population transfer between Israel and the PA would benefit the PA as well as Israeli, Lieberman stated. If the PA were to take control of heavily Arab cities in the eastern Galilee, it would gain a relatively educated and financially stable populace with a developed Palestinian identity, he explained.
Israel's next step should be to hold a national referendum on the subject of population and territory exchange, the foreign minister said. If the idea is proven to enjoy popular support, he continued, Israel should present the idea to the international community and bring it up in discussions with the PA.
www.IsraelNationalNews.com
AFP: Peace deal unlikely by 2012, says Netanyahu
12 July 2010 | 00:14 | FOCUS News Agency
Home / World
Jerusalem. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview broadcast Sunday that it was unlikely a peace deal with the Palestinians could be implemented by 2012, AFP disclosed.
"Can we have a negotiated peace? Yes. Can it be implemented by 2012? I think it's going to take longer than that," Netanyahu told Fox News.
Asked if he believes there can be a Palestinian state by 2012, Netanyahu said he thought the process needs to take longer.
"I think there can be a solution. It may be implemented over time, because time is an important factor of getting the solution, both in terms of security arrangements and other things that would be difficult if they're not allowed to take place over time," he said.
For the past two months, Israel and the Palestinians have been engaged in a series of US-backed "proximity talks" which have seen US envoy George Mitchell shuttling between the two sides.
The best way to solve the problem of terrorism in Gaza is to move backward, not forward, says Deputy Minister Ayoub Kara, Druze member of the Likud party.
“What we need to do is declare that Gaza is a part of Egypt," Kara told Arutz Sheva's Hebrew news service in an interview Sunday. "That'a a unilateral move that makes sense. They talk about going back to the way things were in 1967 – so we should keep in mind that back then there was no Palestinian people and Gaza was a part of Egypt, and Judea and Samaria a part of Jordan."
The problem with putting Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority is that the PA lacks true control, Kara said. “There is no leadership in the PA, there is nobody prepared to rule. We're playing pretend,” he declared.
When asked why Egypt would agree to return to authority in Gaza, Kara explained that the change in leadership would benefit Egypt as well as Israel. Egypt understands that Iran is developing a foothold in Gaza, and Egypt wants to weaken Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
"[Gaza] is becoming a terrorist power taking orders from Iran. That's a danger to Egypt as well,” Kara stated.
He also spoke about negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Kara expressed frustration with the “masochistic” construction freeze in Judea and Samaria, and stated that he is planning to quit his post if the government does not allow construction to resume in September.
Kara also strongly opposed the 2005 Disengagement. He refused to defect to the breakaway Kadima party, preferring to stay in internal opposition with Likud.
If the freeze had a chance of leading to peace, the MK said, he might feel differently. However, he continued, the freeze is more likely to encourage terrorism.
www.IsraelNationalNews.com
Lieberman: Land for Land, Not Land for Peace
Tammuz 29, 5770, 11 July 10 09:24, by Maayana Miskin
(Israelnationalnews.com)
Instead of trying to base negotiations with the Palestinian Authority on the concept of “land for peace,” as it has in the past, Israel should focus on exchanging territory and populations, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said this week. The minister spoke in an interview for Middle East Magazine, on Voice of Israel state-run radio.
Lieberman has touted his idea of swapping land with the PA for some time, and says that an estimated 70% of Israelis agree with his approach. He recently stated that his party, Yisrael Beiteinu (Israel Our Home), would object to the Kadima party joining the government unless Kadima were to be willing to abandon the “land for peace” approach.
The land and population exchange concept has not yet been adopted by the Netanyahu administration, Lieberman admitted. He attributed the government's continued allegiance to the “land for peace” approach to the presence in the cabinet of ministers who, according to Lieberman, are afraid to make controversial decisions.
Despite that hurdle, the government is closer than ever to adopting a new approach to the Israel-PA conflict, he said.
Population transfer between Israel and the PA would benefit the PA as well as Israeli, Lieberman stated. If the PA were to take control of heavily Arab cities in the eastern Galilee, it would gain a relatively educated and financially stable populace with a developed Palestinian identity, he explained.
Israel's next step should be to hold a national referendum on the subject of population and territory exchange, the foreign minister said. If the idea is proven to enjoy popular support, he continued, Israel should present the idea to the international community and bring it up in discussions with the PA.
www.IsraelNationalNews.com
AFP: Peace deal unlikely by 2012, says Netanyahu
12 July 2010 | 00:14 | FOCUS News Agency
Home / World
Jerusalem. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an interview broadcast Sunday that it was unlikely a peace deal with the Palestinians could be implemented by 2012, AFP disclosed.
"Can we have a negotiated peace? Yes. Can it be implemented by 2012? I think it's going to take longer than that," Netanyahu told Fox News.
Asked if he believes there can be a Palestinian state by 2012, Netanyahu said he thought the process needs to take longer.
"I think there can be a solution. It may be implemented over time, because time is an important factor of getting the solution, both in terms of security arrangements and other things that would be difficult if they're not allowed to take place over time," he said.
For the past two months, Israel and the Palestinians have been engaged in a series of US-backed "proximity talks" which have seen US envoy George Mitchell shuttling between the two sides.
Friday, July 2, 2010
‘EU doesn't understand what Israel is up against'
By HERB KEINON, 02/07/2010 ,
Bulgaria’s FM laments ‘lost’ European sensitivity to Israel’s security challenges.
European foreign ministers do not always have a fair understanding of what Israel is up against, and Turkey reacted “a little bit too strongly” to the Gaza flotilla episode, Bulgaria’s Foreign Minister Nikolay Mladenov said this week in an interview with The Jerusalem Post.
Mladenov, whose country of some eight million people is among the most supportive of Israel inside the EU, made his comments on Wednesday, shortly before completing a three-day visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority. During this visit, M
European foreign ministers do not always have a fair understanding of what Israel is up against, and Turkey reacted “a little bit too strongly” to the Gaza flotilla episode, Bulgaria’s Foreign Minister Nikolay Mladenov said this week in an interview with The Jerusalem Post.
Mladenov, whose country of some eight million people is among the most supportive of Israel inside the EU, made his comments on Wednesday, shortly before completing a three-day visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority. During this visit, M
ladenov made extremely friendly public comments about Israel at a time when such comments from foreign ministers around the world are anything but the norm.
For instance, on Tuesday, in a meeting with President Shimon Peres, he said, “We are lucky that the majority of Bulgarian Jews were saved [during the Holocaust] and were able to go on to build Israel. This [history] creates a strong, emotional connection and responsibility on our part to ensure Israel’s safety and its future.”
Asked why he made these comments at a time when Israel was facing increasing international isolation, Mladenov – who became Bulgaria’s foreign minister in January, following a six-month stint as its defense minister – said, “Because I think that is what friends are for, to be with our friends when they are in trouble.”
By “trouble,” Mladenov said he meant that there was currently a “dramatic shift in the entire strategic situation in the region.”
“We’ve seen a statement over the last couple years by Iran that it wants to erase Israel from the face of the earth,” he said. He added that the troubles Israel faced also included a “faltering Middle East peace process” and a situation in the South where the disengagement from the Gaza Strip led to a constant barrage of Kassam rockets on the western Negev.
Israel, he said, needed to “work better” on explaining its position in Europe. “And this is one of the reasons why I came here. I wanted to see on the ground – after the flotilla and everything – the views of the Israeli government, how it sees a way out of this.”
Asked if there was a fair understanding among his colleagues in the EU of what Israel was up against, Mladenov replied, “Not always, no. I’m being quite honest – no. I think sometimes we tend to oversimplify things in Europe, perhaps because war and confrontation and terrorism are not something that is a daily threat to many in Europe.”
Mladenov said that “many countries have lost the sensitivity to the difficult security environment in which Israel lives. We often say that ‘we recognize Israel’s legitimate security concerns,’ but I sometimes wonder if we all know what stands behind these words.”
Mladenov, who in 2006 spent time in Iraq as an adviser to the Iraqi parliament, said he had experience living in this part of the world and had a “fair idea of what it means to see someone blow themselves up in the middle of the street and stuff like that.
“I think we should be a little more sensitive to the fact that this is a very tough environment, and that Israel needs to be alert at every single moment in order to be able to protect its security and the security of its people,” he said.
Mladenov said it was important for people to understand Israel’s security concerns, and what it was like living in a place like Sderot under the Kassam threat, or “what does it mean to live in constant fear that somebody might decide to blow themselves up in the street, or what does it mean to live in the fundamental fear that there is a another country in the world that says it wants to destroy you as a country.”
Having said that, the Bulgarian diplomat added that providing security for one’s own people “doesn’t mean that you can’t or shouldn’t look a little bit beyond the horizon and see what is the framework in which you can resolve this conflict in the longer run,” and that it was important to consider the difficulties facing the Palestinians as well.
Asked to explain what some have described as an east-west split on Israel inside the EU, with Israel’s greatest supporters – the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria – coming from Central or Eastern Europe, and its greatest critics – Ireland, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Greece – coming from Western Europe, Mladenov said one reason was simply that for Central and Eastern European countries that emerged from communism, the relationship with Israel was new.
“This relationship was banned under communism, so there is an interest in developing it,” he said. He also said there was “a bit of a guilt feeling in Central and Eastern Europe, because in many countries, what happened in the Holocaust was not addressed in the way it was addressed in Germany, for example.”
As Turkey’s neighbor to the north, Bulgaria is carefully watching developments inside that country, and Mladenov – asked to explain how Sofia viewed Ankara’s shift under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan – said he did not think Turkey’s current search for a “new and more active role in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Balkans” had to do with a feeling of being rejected by the EU.
“I think the relationship between Europe and Turkey is very strong, and will continue to be strong, because Turkey is one of the most fundamental partners we have,” he said. “I would like to see more alignment and coordination between what Europe does and what Turkey does in the region, so that we don’t end up going in different directions, but actually are working in the same direction on a number of issues and conflicts that exist.”
Mladenov said that regarding the “whole situation with the flotilla,” Turkey “reacted a little bit too strongly.”
Asked to explain, he replied, “Too strong in the sense that I’m not sure to what extent it serves the interest of the Palestinians.”
The Turks, he was reminded, have said that this helped the Palestinians because now more goods are being allowed into Gaza.
Mladenov replied that the process of changing the “regime on getting goods in and out of Gaza” was something that had been under discussion for “quite some time. I don’t think people should have died for that.”
The Bulgarian foreign minister tiptoed around the question of whether he felt Israel’s naval blockade on Gaza was legitimate, saying this was a decision Israel had to make based on its own security. He did say, however, that it was important to allow the access of goods in and out of Gaza to develop the economy there, which in turn would create “a bigger constituency in support of peace, because people will see the benefits of that peace emerging.”
Mladenov also avoided a direct answer when asked whether Israel had approached Sofia about conducting IAF exercises over Bulgaria to make up for Turkey’s refusal now to allow Israeli military planes in its airspace. He said Bulgaria and Israel have “very good security and defense cooperation, and that an Israeli-Bulgarian defense cooperation memorandum was signed earlier this year.”
As to whether that memorandum included an agreement for IAF training in Bulgaria, he said, “I would imagine that it would include a lot of things.”
Asked whether the investigative committee Israel set up to look into the flotilla episode was sufficient, Mladenov, echoing the consensus European position, said it was too early to tell, and that this would depend on how the committee performed its work.
Column One: Netanyahu must play for time
By CAROLINE GLICK,2/07/2010
If he plays his cards wisely, he can say no to Obama and avoid an open confrontation.
On Wednesday, Foreign Policy published the content of a memo written last month in the US Military’s Central Command. The memo, a “Red Team” assessment of how the US should position itself vis-à-vis the likes of Hamas and Hizbullah, reveals that among key members of the US policy-making community, Israel is viewed with extreme hostility.
The leaked memo reportedly reflects the views of a significant number of senior and mid-level officers in Centcom, including large numbers of intelligence officers, as well as a significant number of area analysts stationed in the Middle East. It argues that it is wrong for the US to lump jihadist movements like Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida and Hizbullah in one group.
Dismissing the significance of the identical religious dogma that stands at the root of these movements, the memo asserts that Hamas and Hizbullah are pragmatic and important social forces with which the US must foster good relations.
The memo calls for the US to support the integration of Hizbullah forces into the Lebanese military. It also calls for the US to encourage and permit the integration of Hamas forces into the US-trained Palestinian security forces.
As far as Israel is concerned, the memo blames the Jewish state for the US’s failure to date to adopt these recommended policies. Moreover, the memo’s authors condemn Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza as keeping “the area on the verge of a perpetual humanitarian collapse.”
The Centcom memo also condemns Israel’s July 2006 decision to respond to Hizbullah’s unprovoked bombardment of northern Israel and its unprovoked cross-border attack against an IDF patrol in which five soldiers were killed and two were kidnapped and subsequently murdered.
Denying Hizbullah’s subservient relationship with the Iranian regime, the report claims that Israel’s decision to use force to defend itself against Hizbullah’s acts of war served to strengthen Hizbullah’s ties to Teheran.
What this memo shows is that Israel has little hope of seeing a change for the better in US policy in the near future and its best bet today is to play for time. Next week at the Oval Office, Netanyahu should capitalize on his advantage four months ahead of the congressional elections and put the burden on Obama and Abbas to show their good intentions.
caroline@carolineglick.com
US Intelligence Officers: Accept Hamas and Hizbullah in Armies
Tammuz 22, 5770, 04 July 10 10:06
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
(Israelnationalnews.com) A U.S. Central Command intelligence team has suggested that Hamas and Hizbullah terrorist forces be integrated into the Fatah and Lebanese armies, Mark Perry wrote in Foreign Policy.
Perry is a former advisor to Yasser Arafat and was the source of a recent Foreign Policy article charging that General David Petraeus had said that Israel's refusal to agree to the creation of the Palestinian Authority as a state endangers American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Petraeus denied the report.
The CENTCOM intelligence officers’ “Red Team” thinks that the two terrorist groups have to be accepted as a fact and that their grievances should be understood, Perry wrote. The suggestions, which are not a formal policy proposal, fly in the face of current American policy that outlaws both terrorist groups.
“The U.S. role of assistance to an integrated Lebanese defense force that includes Hizballah (sic); and the continued training of Palestinian security forces in a Palestinian entity that includes Hamas in its government, would be more effective than providing assistance to entities -- the government of Lebanon and Fatah -- that represent only a part of the Lebanese and Palestinian populace respectively,” according to the Red Team, Perry reported.
The intelligence officers cited Hamas and Hizbullah as being "pragmatic and opportunistic" and rejects the Israeli view that they cannot be changed by bringing them into the political realm. "Failing to recognize their separate grievances and objectives will result in continued failure in moderating their behavior,” according to the CENTCOM officers.
They wrote that each terror group has to be treated separately instead of lumping them together with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks.
The Red Team also rejects Israel’s claim that Hizbullah acts at the behest of Iran, whose Revolutionary Guard founded Hizbullah. Moreover, the intelligence officers blamed Israel for driving Hizbullah into closer ties with Iran by its retaliation in the Second Lebanon War, touched off when Hizbullah kidnapped and killed reserve soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.
The report charges that Israel's partial embargo on Hamas-controlled Gaza keeps "the area on the verge of a perpetual humanitarian collapse" and "may be radicalizing more people, especially the young, increasing the number of potential recruits." The Red Team argues that lifting the embargo would be "the best hope for mainstreaming Hamas."
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said earlier this year that no humanitarian crisis exists in Gaza, where Israel has each day allowed hundreds of tons of food and supplies to flow, even during the Operation Cast Lead war last year.
The officers' political objectives are clearly stated. A return to a Fatah-Hamas unity government in the Palestinian Authority would gain "widespread international support and deprive the Israelis of any legitimate justification to continue settlement-building and delay statehood negotiations,” they wrote.
www.IsraelNationalNews.com
2. the "red team " wants to harm Israel as much as they can
that's the most plausible explanation. Obama, "blessed "the report since he wants the same thing.The bottom line is:antisemitism still exists, antisemites want Jews and Israel to be eradicated by any means. Antisemitic "red team ", obama,EU,UN,and russia would want to legitimize even adolf hitler if he were killing only Jews.
Wake up, people, please! Wake up before it's too late. The world does not care for peace in the Middle East or elsewhere else. The world cares to exterminate Jewish people. Antisemitism is the oldest hatred, about 2300 years old and still alive and well. Antisemitism will exist for as long as we exist.
It's about time to stop appeasing the goyim, they will not be happy for as long as we are alive. We must strengthen Israel, deport all the hostile elements that don't recognize it back to syria and jordan. Publicly declare Judea and Samaria to be part of Israel.
Me, planet Earth (07/04/10)
3. US Intelligence Officers: Accept Hamas and Hizbullah in Armies
Well the term "Intelligence Officers " is definitely a misnomer!!!!! Have you lost your stinking minds?!!!! You don't, I repeat, DON'T integrate, negotiate or communicate with terrorists....you destroy them and their networks. Very simple!! The suggestion you have made in this article is moronic!! Don't under any circumstance call yourselves intelligent, unpatriotic yes, intelligent, not a chance!! Time to grow up....
warm regards, Gregg Bowman, a patriotic Canadian
gregg bowman, Parksville (07/04/10)
5. The Nazis also had 'grievances'...
The Nazis also had 'grievances'...but they were crimes against humanity as are the 'grievances' of Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel has grievances like the failure of the League of Nations to implement the Paris Agreement, the San Remo Treaty or the British Manate. Israel has grievances like the failure of the UN to adhere to its charter, article 80 in particular. Israel has grievances like the failure of the world community to recognise that it is fighting every day for its survival against an evil implacable enemy that uses women and children as pawns in its genocidal war against the Jews.
Fivish, London (07/04/10)
10. US -- greatest supporter of terrorists
Further proof that the US gov't is Israel's enemy and the Arabs are just doing its dirty work.
Dan, Jerusalem (07/04/10)
9. THis report shows US gearing up to destroy Israel as Jewish state
The simple truth is the US government knows that Hamas and Hizballah have as a goal annihilation of world Jewry and the end of a Jewish state. I apologize to Israel for the anti-Semites we have in power today. It's 1939 again. These morons in Centcom forget how Hizballah killed 241 US marines in 1983 and overlook the Hamas charter Israel, start looking to your own resources. This is rewarding terrorism.
Lee Kaplan, Berkeley (07/04/10)
7. Accept Hamas and Hizbullah?
Unbelievable.
I'm ashamed to admit it was our people.
Carl USA
Carl Neubig, Houma (07/04/10)
Bulgaria’s FM laments ‘lost’ European sensitivity to Israel’s security challenges.
European foreign ministers do not always have a fair understanding of what Israel is up against, and Turkey reacted “a little bit too strongly” to the Gaza flotilla episode, Bulgaria’s Foreign Minister Nikolay Mladenov said this week in an interview with The Jerusalem Post.
Mladenov, whose country of some eight million people is among the most supportive of Israel inside the EU, made his comments on Wednesday, shortly before completing a three-day visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority. During this visit, M
European foreign ministers do not always have a fair understanding of what Israel is up against, and Turkey reacted “a little bit too strongly” to the Gaza flotilla episode, Bulgaria’s Foreign Minister Nikolay Mladenov said this week in an interview with The Jerusalem Post.
Mladenov, whose country of some eight million people is among the most supportive of Israel inside the EU, made his comments on Wednesday, shortly before completing a three-day visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority. During this visit, M
ladenov made extremely friendly public comments about Israel at a time when such comments from foreign ministers around the world are anything but the norm.
For instance, on Tuesday, in a meeting with President Shimon Peres, he said, “We are lucky that the majority of Bulgarian Jews were saved [during the Holocaust] and were able to go on to build Israel. This [history] creates a strong, emotional connection and responsibility on our part to ensure Israel’s safety and its future.”
Asked why he made these comments at a time when Israel was facing increasing international isolation, Mladenov – who became Bulgaria’s foreign minister in January, following a six-month stint as its defense minister – said, “Because I think that is what friends are for, to be with our friends when they are in trouble.”
By “trouble,” Mladenov said he meant that there was currently a “dramatic shift in the entire strategic situation in the region.”
“We’ve seen a statement over the last couple years by Iran that it wants to erase Israel from the face of the earth,” he said. He added that the troubles Israel faced also included a “faltering Middle East peace process” and a situation in the South where the disengagement from the Gaza Strip led to a constant barrage of Kassam rockets on the western Negev.
Israel, he said, needed to “work better” on explaining its position in Europe. “And this is one of the reasons why I came here. I wanted to see on the ground – after the flotilla and everything – the views of the Israeli government, how it sees a way out of this.”
Asked if there was a fair understanding among his colleagues in the EU of what Israel was up against, Mladenov replied, “Not always, no. I’m being quite honest – no. I think sometimes we tend to oversimplify things in Europe, perhaps because war and confrontation and terrorism are not something that is a daily threat to many in Europe.”
Mladenov said that “many countries have lost the sensitivity to the difficult security environment in which Israel lives. We often say that ‘we recognize Israel’s legitimate security concerns,’ but I sometimes wonder if we all know what stands behind these words.”
Mladenov, who in 2006 spent time in Iraq as an adviser to the Iraqi parliament, said he had experience living in this part of the world and had a “fair idea of what it means to see someone blow themselves up in the middle of the street and stuff like that.
“I think we should be a little more sensitive to the fact that this is a very tough environment, and that Israel needs to be alert at every single moment in order to be able to protect its security and the security of its people,” he said.
Mladenov said it was important for people to understand Israel’s security concerns, and what it was like living in a place like Sderot under the Kassam threat, or “what does it mean to live in constant fear that somebody might decide to blow themselves up in the street, or what does it mean to live in the fundamental fear that there is a another country in the world that says it wants to destroy you as a country.”
Having said that, the Bulgarian diplomat added that providing security for one’s own people “doesn’t mean that you can’t or shouldn’t look a little bit beyond the horizon and see what is the framework in which you can resolve this conflict in the longer run,” and that it was important to consider the difficulties facing the Palestinians as well.
Asked to explain what some have described as an east-west split on Israel inside the EU, with Israel’s greatest supporters – the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, Bulgaria – coming from Central or Eastern Europe, and its greatest critics – Ireland, Sweden, Portugal, Belgium, Greece – coming from Western Europe, Mladenov said one reason was simply that for Central and Eastern European countries that emerged from communism, the relationship with Israel was new.
“This relationship was banned under communism, so there is an interest in developing it,” he said. He also said there was “a bit of a guilt feeling in Central and Eastern Europe, because in many countries, what happened in the Holocaust was not addressed in the way it was addressed in Germany, for example.”
As Turkey’s neighbor to the north, Bulgaria is carefully watching developments inside that country, and Mladenov – asked to explain how Sofia viewed Ankara’s shift under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan – said he did not think Turkey’s current search for a “new and more active role in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Balkans” had to do with a feeling of being rejected by the EU.
“I think the relationship between Europe and Turkey is very strong, and will continue to be strong, because Turkey is one of the most fundamental partners we have,” he said. “I would like to see more alignment and coordination between what Europe does and what Turkey does in the region, so that we don’t end up going in different directions, but actually are working in the same direction on a number of issues and conflicts that exist.”
Mladenov said that regarding the “whole situation with the flotilla,” Turkey “reacted a little bit too strongly.”
Asked to explain, he replied, “Too strong in the sense that I’m not sure to what extent it serves the interest of the Palestinians.”
The Turks, he was reminded, have said that this helped the Palestinians because now more goods are being allowed into Gaza.
Mladenov replied that the process of changing the “regime on getting goods in and out of Gaza” was something that had been under discussion for “quite some time. I don’t think people should have died for that.”
The Bulgarian foreign minister tiptoed around the question of whether he felt Israel’s naval blockade on Gaza was legitimate, saying this was a decision Israel had to make based on its own security. He did say, however, that it was important to allow the access of goods in and out of Gaza to develop the economy there, which in turn would create “a bigger constituency in support of peace, because people will see the benefits of that peace emerging.”
Mladenov also avoided a direct answer when asked whether Israel had approached Sofia about conducting IAF exercises over Bulgaria to make up for Turkey’s refusal now to allow Israeli military planes in its airspace. He said Bulgaria and Israel have “very good security and defense cooperation, and that an Israeli-Bulgarian defense cooperation memorandum was signed earlier this year.”
As to whether that memorandum included an agreement for IAF training in Bulgaria, he said, “I would imagine that it would include a lot of things.”
Asked whether the investigative committee Israel set up to look into the flotilla episode was sufficient, Mladenov, echoing the consensus European position, said it was too early to tell, and that this would depend on how the committee performed its work.
Column One: Netanyahu must play for time
By CAROLINE GLICK,2/07/2010
If he plays his cards wisely, he can say no to Obama and avoid an open confrontation.
On Wednesday, Foreign Policy published the content of a memo written last month in the US Military’s Central Command. The memo, a “Red Team” assessment of how the US should position itself vis-à-vis the likes of Hamas and Hizbullah, reveals that among key members of the US policy-making community, Israel is viewed with extreme hostility.
The leaked memo reportedly reflects the views of a significant number of senior and mid-level officers in Centcom, including large numbers of intelligence officers, as well as a significant number of area analysts stationed in the Middle East. It argues that it is wrong for the US to lump jihadist movements like Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaida and Hizbullah in one group.
Dismissing the significance of the identical religious dogma that stands at the root of these movements, the memo asserts that Hamas and Hizbullah are pragmatic and important social forces with which the US must foster good relations.
The memo calls for the US to support the integration of Hizbullah forces into the Lebanese military. It also calls for the US to encourage and permit the integration of Hamas forces into the US-trained Palestinian security forces.
As far as Israel is concerned, the memo blames the Jewish state for the US’s failure to date to adopt these recommended policies. Moreover, the memo’s authors condemn Israel’s maritime blockade of Gaza as keeping “the area on the verge of a perpetual humanitarian collapse.”
The Centcom memo also condemns Israel’s July 2006 decision to respond to Hizbullah’s unprovoked bombardment of northern Israel and its unprovoked cross-border attack against an IDF patrol in which five soldiers were killed and two were kidnapped and subsequently murdered.
Denying Hizbullah’s subservient relationship with the Iranian regime, the report claims that Israel’s decision to use force to defend itself against Hizbullah’s acts of war served to strengthen Hizbullah’s ties to Teheran.
What this memo shows is that Israel has little hope of seeing a change for the better in US policy in the near future and its best bet today is to play for time. Next week at the Oval Office, Netanyahu should capitalize on his advantage four months ahead of the congressional elections and put the burden on Obama and Abbas to show their good intentions.
caroline@carolineglick.com
US Intelligence Officers: Accept Hamas and Hizbullah in Armies
Tammuz 22, 5770, 04 July 10 10:06
by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
(Israelnationalnews.com) A U.S. Central Command intelligence team has suggested that Hamas and Hizbullah terrorist forces be integrated into the Fatah and Lebanese armies, Mark Perry wrote in Foreign Policy.
Perry is a former advisor to Yasser Arafat and was the source of a recent Foreign Policy article charging that General David Petraeus had said that Israel's refusal to agree to the creation of the Palestinian Authority as a state endangers American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Petraeus denied the report.
The CENTCOM intelligence officers’ “Red Team” thinks that the two terrorist groups have to be accepted as a fact and that their grievances should be understood, Perry wrote. The suggestions, which are not a formal policy proposal, fly in the face of current American policy that outlaws both terrorist groups.
“The U.S. role of assistance to an integrated Lebanese defense force that includes Hizballah (sic); and the continued training of Palestinian security forces in a Palestinian entity that includes Hamas in its government, would be more effective than providing assistance to entities -- the government of Lebanon and Fatah -- that represent only a part of the Lebanese and Palestinian populace respectively,” according to the Red Team, Perry reported.
The intelligence officers cited Hamas and Hizbullah as being "pragmatic and opportunistic" and rejects the Israeli view that they cannot be changed by bringing them into the political realm. "Failing to recognize their separate grievances and objectives will result in continued failure in moderating their behavior,” according to the CENTCOM officers.
They wrote that each terror group has to be treated separately instead of lumping them together with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist networks.
The Red Team also rejects Israel’s claim that Hizbullah acts at the behest of Iran, whose Revolutionary Guard founded Hizbullah. Moreover, the intelligence officers blamed Israel for driving Hizbullah into closer ties with Iran by its retaliation in the Second Lebanon War, touched off when Hizbullah kidnapped and killed reserve soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev.
The report charges that Israel's partial embargo on Hamas-controlled Gaza keeps "the area on the verge of a perpetual humanitarian collapse" and "may be radicalizing more people, especially the young, increasing the number of potential recruits." The Red Team argues that lifting the embargo would be "the best hope for mainstreaming Hamas."
United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said earlier this year that no humanitarian crisis exists in Gaza, where Israel has each day allowed hundreds of tons of food and supplies to flow, even during the Operation Cast Lead war last year.
The officers' political objectives are clearly stated. A return to a Fatah-Hamas unity government in the Palestinian Authority would gain "widespread international support and deprive the Israelis of any legitimate justification to continue settlement-building and delay statehood negotiations,” they wrote.
www.IsraelNationalNews.com
2. the "red team " wants to harm Israel as much as they can
that's the most plausible explanation. Obama, "blessed "the report since he wants the same thing.The bottom line is:antisemitism still exists, antisemites want Jews and Israel to be eradicated by any means. Antisemitic "red team ", obama,EU,UN,and russia would want to legitimize even adolf hitler if he were killing only Jews.
Wake up, people, please! Wake up before it's too late. The world does not care for peace in the Middle East or elsewhere else. The world cares to exterminate Jewish people. Antisemitism is the oldest hatred, about 2300 years old and still alive and well. Antisemitism will exist for as long as we exist.
It's about time to stop appeasing the goyim, they will not be happy for as long as we are alive. We must strengthen Israel, deport all the hostile elements that don't recognize it back to syria and jordan. Publicly declare Judea and Samaria to be part of Israel.
Me, planet Earth (07/04/10)
3. US Intelligence Officers: Accept Hamas and Hizbullah in Armies
Well the term "Intelligence Officers " is definitely a misnomer!!!!! Have you lost your stinking minds?!!!! You don't, I repeat, DON'T integrate, negotiate or communicate with terrorists....you destroy them and their networks. Very simple!! The suggestion you have made in this article is moronic!! Don't under any circumstance call yourselves intelligent, unpatriotic yes, intelligent, not a chance!! Time to grow up....
warm regards, Gregg Bowman, a patriotic Canadian
gregg bowman, Parksville (07/04/10)
5. The Nazis also had 'grievances'...
The Nazis also had 'grievances'...but they were crimes against humanity as are the 'grievances' of Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel has grievances like the failure of the League of Nations to implement the Paris Agreement, the San Remo Treaty or the British Manate. Israel has grievances like the failure of the UN to adhere to its charter, article 80 in particular. Israel has grievances like the failure of the world community to recognise that it is fighting every day for its survival against an evil implacable enemy that uses women and children as pawns in its genocidal war against the Jews.
Fivish, London (07/04/10)
10. US -- greatest supporter of terrorists
Further proof that the US gov't is Israel's enemy and the Arabs are just doing its dirty work.
Dan, Jerusalem (07/04/10)
9. THis report shows US gearing up to destroy Israel as Jewish state
The simple truth is the US government knows that Hamas and Hizballah have as a goal annihilation of world Jewry and the end of a Jewish state. I apologize to Israel for the anti-Semites we have in power today. It's 1939 again. These morons in Centcom forget how Hizballah killed 241 US marines in 1983 and overlook the Hamas charter Israel, start looking to your own resources. This is rewarding terrorism.
Lee Kaplan, Berkeley (07/04/10)
7. Accept Hamas and Hizbullah?
Unbelievable.
I'm ashamed to admit it was our people.
Carl USA
Carl Neubig, Houma (07/04/10)
Arab World: An oppressed, forgotten minority
By JOHNATHEN SPYER
02/07/2010
The Kurds of Syria always getting a raw deal.
On March 21, 2010, the Syrian security forces opened fire with live ammunition on a crowd of 5,000 in the northern Syrian town of al-Raqqah. The crowd had gathered to celebrate the Kurdish festival of Nowruz. Three people, including a 15-year-old girl, were killed. Over 50 were injured. Dozens of injured civilians were held incommunicado by the authorities following the events. Some remain incarcerated. This incident was just one example of the repression taking place of the largest national minority in Syria – namely, the Syrian Kurdish population.
Kurds constitute 9 percent-10% of the population of Syria – that is, around 1.75 million in a total population of 22 million. Since the rise of militant Arab nationalism to power in Damascus, they have faced an ongoing campaign for their dissolution as a community.
All this is taking place far from the spotlight of world attention. The current US Administration pursues a general policy of considered silence on the issue of human rights in Middle East countries. The Syrian regime remains the elusive subject of energetic courting by the European Union and by Washington.
As a result, the Kurds of Syria are likely for the foreseeable future to remain the region's forgotten minority.
The severe repression suffered by the Syrian Kurds has its roots in the early period of Ba’ath rule in Syria. The Arab nationalist Ba’athis felt threatened by the presence of a large non-Arab national majority, and set about trying to remove it using the methods usually associated with them.
In 1962, a census undertaken in the area of highest concentration of Kurdish population in Syria – the al- Hasaka province – resulted in 120,000-150,000 Syrian Kurds being arbitrarily stripped of their citizenship.
They and their descendants remain non-persons today.
They are unable to travel outside the country, to own property, or to work in the public sector. People in this category today number about 200,000 – though no official statistics exist for them. They are known as ajanib (foreigners).
A large additional group of around 100,000 Kurds in Syria remain entirely undocumented and unregistered.
This group, known as maktoumeen (muted), similarly live without citizenship or travel and employment rights.
The bureaucratic struggle of the Syrian regime to wish away its non-Arab population has been accompanied by practical measures on the ground to alter the demographic balance of the country.
In the 1970s, a campaign of “Arabization” of Kurdish areas commenced, on the order of president Hafez Assad. The intention was to create a “belt” of Arab population along the northern and northeastern borders of Syria with Turkey and Iraq, where most of the country’s Kurds live. The purpose of this was to prevent Kurdish territorial contiguity. Kurdish place names were changed to Arab ones, Kurds were deprived of their land and instructed to re-settle in the interior. Kurdish language, music, publications and political organization were banned. It was forbidden for parents to register their children with Kurdish names.
The vigorous policy of Arabization later largely faded into bureaucratic torpor. But for a while it produced the desired result – of a divided, demoralized, repressed and largely silent population.
THIS SITUATION no longer pertains. In March 2004, following the recognition of Kurdish autonomous control of northern Iraq, something resembling an uprising began among the Kurds of Syria.
The spark that ignited the wave of protests that month was the shooting dead of seven Kurds by the security forces following a clash between Kurds and Arabs at a football match in Qamishli, a city of high Kurdish population close to the Turkish border. Further shootings took place at the funerals of the dead, and unrest spread across the Jazira, and as far as Aleppo and Damascus. The army moved into the Kurdish areas with heavy armor and air cover, and the protests were crushed.
Despite conciliatory noises made by President Bashar Assad following the 2004 unrest, nothing of substance has been done to change the conditions endured by Kurds in Syria. As a result, the situation since 2004 has been one of simmering tension between the Syrian regime and its Kurdish subjects, with occasional flareups.
In August, 2005, and again in October, 2008, and then again earlier this year, there were clashes between Kurdish citizens and the security forces in Qamishli, with some deaths and many arrests.
Syrian oppositionists speak of the emergence of a young, increasingly nationalistic younger generation, estranged from the Arab opposition in Syria as well as from the regime. As yet, no single movement has emerged to reflect this sentiment. Twelve different political parties exist among the Kurds of Syria, a reflection of the peculiar divisiveness to which regional opposition movements in general, and Kurdish ones in particular, remain prone.
For a variety of reasons, the Kurds have difficulty making their voices heard on the international stage. Their oppressors are fellow Muslims, rather than Christians or Jews, so the powerful alliance of Muslim states on the international stage is not interested. Arab states are by definition indifferent or hostile to their concerns.
And with their regular lucklessness, they now face a situation where the rising powers in the region – Turkey and Iran – and their enthusiastic smaller partner Syria all have sizable Kurdish populations and a shared interest in keeping them suppressed.
The misfortune of the Syrian Kurds is compounded by the fact that contrary to the accepted cliché, the enemy of their enemy is not their friend. This is because the enemy of the Syrian Kurds’ enemy is the west and the United States. These are today led by a philosophy which believes in accommodating, rather than confronting rivals. As a result, the systematic, half-century old campaign of the Syrian Arab Republic to nullify the existence of its Kurdish minority looks set to continue apace.
The writer is a senior researcher at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, IDC, Herzliya.
02/07/2010
The Kurds of Syria always getting a raw deal.
On March 21, 2010, the Syrian security forces opened fire with live ammunition on a crowd of 5,000 in the northern Syrian town of al-Raqqah. The crowd had gathered to celebrate the Kurdish festival of Nowruz. Three people, including a 15-year-old girl, were killed. Over 50 were injured. Dozens of injured civilians were held incommunicado by the authorities following the events. Some remain incarcerated. This incident was just one example of the repression taking place of the largest national minority in Syria – namely, the Syrian Kurdish population.
Kurds constitute 9 percent-10% of the population of Syria – that is, around 1.75 million in a total population of 22 million. Since the rise of militant Arab nationalism to power in Damascus, they have faced an ongoing campaign for their dissolution as a community.
All this is taking place far from the spotlight of world attention. The current US Administration pursues a general policy of considered silence on the issue of human rights in Middle East countries. The Syrian regime remains the elusive subject of energetic courting by the European Union and by Washington.
As a result, the Kurds of Syria are likely for the foreseeable future to remain the region's forgotten minority.
The severe repression suffered by the Syrian Kurds has its roots in the early period of Ba’ath rule in Syria. The Arab nationalist Ba’athis felt threatened by the presence of a large non-Arab national majority, and set about trying to remove it using the methods usually associated with them.
In 1962, a census undertaken in the area of highest concentration of Kurdish population in Syria – the al- Hasaka province – resulted in 120,000-150,000 Syrian Kurds being arbitrarily stripped of their citizenship.
They and their descendants remain non-persons today.
They are unable to travel outside the country, to own property, or to work in the public sector. People in this category today number about 200,000 – though no official statistics exist for them. They are known as ajanib (foreigners).
A large additional group of around 100,000 Kurds in Syria remain entirely undocumented and unregistered.
This group, known as maktoumeen (muted), similarly live without citizenship or travel and employment rights.
The bureaucratic struggle of the Syrian regime to wish away its non-Arab population has been accompanied by practical measures on the ground to alter the demographic balance of the country.
In the 1970s, a campaign of “Arabization” of Kurdish areas commenced, on the order of president Hafez Assad. The intention was to create a “belt” of Arab population along the northern and northeastern borders of Syria with Turkey and Iraq, where most of the country’s Kurds live. The purpose of this was to prevent Kurdish territorial contiguity. Kurdish place names were changed to Arab ones, Kurds were deprived of their land and instructed to re-settle in the interior. Kurdish language, music, publications and political organization were banned. It was forbidden for parents to register their children with Kurdish names.
The vigorous policy of Arabization later largely faded into bureaucratic torpor. But for a while it produced the desired result – of a divided, demoralized, repressed and largely silent population.
THIS SITUATION no longer pertains. In March 2004, following the recognition of Kurdish autonomous control of northern Iraq, something resembling an uprising began among the Kurds of Syria.
The spark that ignited the wave of protests that month was the shooting dead of seven Kurds by the security forces following a clash between Kurds and Arabs at a football match in Qamishli, a city of high Kurdish population close to the Turkish border. Further shootings took place at the funerals of the dead, and unrest spread across the Jazira, and as far as Aleppo and Damascus. The army moved into the Kurdish areas with heavy armor and air cover, and the protests were crushed.
Despite conciliatory noises made by President Bashar Assad following the 2004 unrest, nothing of substance has been done to change the conditions endured by Kurds in Syria. As a result, the situation since 2004 has been one of simmering tension between the Syrian regime and its Kurdish subjects, with occasional flareups.
In August, 2005, and again in October, 2008, and then again earlier this year, there were clashes between Kurdish citizens and the security forces in Qamishli, with some deaths and many arrests.
Syrian oppositionists speak of the emergence of a young, increasingly nationalistic younger generation, estranged from the Arab opposition in Syria as well as from the regime. As yet, no single movement has emerged to reflect this sentiment. Twelve different political parties exist among the Kurds of Syria, a reflection of the peculiar divisiveness to which regional opposition movements in general, and Kurdish ones in particular, remain prone.
For a variety of reasons, the Kurds have difficulty making their voices heard on the international stage. Their oppressors are fellow Muslims, rather than Christians or Jews, so the powerful alliance of Muslim states on the international stage is not interested. Arab states are by definition indifferent or hostile to their concerns.
And with their regular lucklessness, they now face a situation where the rising powers in the region – Turkey and Iran – and their enthusiastic smaller partner Syria all have sizable Kurdish populations and a shared interest in keeping them suppressed.
The misfortune of the Syrian Kurds is compounded by the fact that contrary to the accepted cliché, the enemy of their enemy is not their friend. This is because the enemy of the Syrian Kurds’ enemy is the west and the United States. These are today led by a philosophy which believes in accommodating, rather than confronting rivals. As a result, the systematic, half-century old campaign of the Syrian Arab Republic to nullify the existence of its Kurdish minority looks set to continue apace.
The writer is a senior researcher at the Global Research in International Affairs Center, IDC, Herzliya.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Opinion: Proximity Talks: Questions for Washington
Tammuz 18, 5770, 30 June 10 11:18
by Khaled Abu Toameh
(Israelnationalnews.com) Even if Israel and the Palestinian Authority were to reach a peace agreement sometime in the near future, it is certain that the Palestinian Authority would not be able to implement it or sell it to a majority of Palestinians.
Therefore the first and most important question that decision-makers in Washington and European capitals need to ask themselves these days is: Is there a majority of Palestinians who are prepared to make far-reaching concessions in the context of a peace treaty with Israel? Is there a Palestinian leader who is willing to make compromises on explosive issues such as Jerusalem, settlements and the "right of return?"
Frankly, there is no way that Palestinian Premier Mahmoud Abbas could accept anything less than what his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, rejected at the botched Camp David summit in the summer of 2000. Back then, Arafat refused to sign a document pledging to "end the conflict" with Israel unless he got 100% of his demands.
In addition, there are serious doubts as to whether Abbas would be able to persuade a majority of Palestinians living in refugee camps in the Arab world to accept any peace agreement with Israel that did not include the "right of return" to their original villages in pre-1948 Israel.
Abbas, however, is not in a position to accept even a "partial" agreement on the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. No Palestinian leader has thus far dared to publicly make the slightest concession on this issue.
Further, Abbas could not sign any deal that excluded the Gaza Strip; he would then be accused of "solidifying" the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Moreover, although the Palestinian Authority has said it would consider land swap, apparently many Palestinians are opposed to it.
The second question that Washington needs to ask is: Do Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have enough credibility and support among Palestinians to be able to sell to a majority of them a peace deal with Israel?
Abbas and the Palestinian Authority cannot go to the Gaza strip; they have limited control over the West Bank, and are still lacking in credibility, at least as far as many Palestinians are concerned.
Three years ago, the Palestinian Authority was kicked out of the Gaza Strip by Hamas, thereby losing direct control over 1.5 million Palestinians.
The private and official residences of Abbas in the Gaza strip have been seized by Hamas, which sometimes uses them as interrogation and detention centers.
Just recently Hamas declared that Abbas would not be allowed to enter the Gaza Strip unless he receives permission from its government. This means that when and if Abbas strikes a deal with Israel, he would not even be able to travel to the Gaza Strip to implement it or try to sell it to the Palestinians living there.
Even though Abbas lives and works in the West Bank, many Palestinians have long been questioning whether he really has full control over the area. Moreover, it remains to be seen whether he and Fayyad, enjoy the support of a majority of Palestinians in the West Bank. Some Palestinians are convinced that if a free and democratic election were held tomorrow in the West Bank, Hamas would definitely emerge victorious. Hamas would win, they argue, mainly because most Palestinians still do not regard Abbas's Fatah faction as a better alternative to the Islamic fundamentalist movement.
The third question that the US Administration needs to ask itself is: Where is Abbas supposed to implement a peace agreement with Israel? In Tel Aviv?
So what is the point in launching "proximity talks" between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority while ignoring the fact that the partner in Ramallah would not be able to deliver his side of an agreement?
Also, why do the Americans and the Europeans continue to turn a blind eye to the fact that the Palestinians already have two states – one in the Gaza Strip under Hamas and the second in the West Bank under Fatah?
It is becoming increasingly hard to tell what the Palestinians exactly want. While once a majority of them appeared to support the idea of a two-state solution, many seem to think that the one-state solution, where Jews and Arabs would live together and not apart from each other, is not a bad idea after all. Then there is a third group that continues to believe that the only solution lies in the elimination of the Jewish state.
The only way to move forward with any peace process is by insisting that the Palestinians first get their act together and end the infighting between the two Palestinian states. Perhaps before we search for ways to make peace between Jews and Palestinians, we need first need to find a way to achieve peace between Palestinians and Palestinians.
(The author studied at Hebrew University and began his career as a reporter by working for a PLO-affiliated newspaper in Jerusalem, but currently works for the international media, serving as the 'eyes and ears' of foreign journalists in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.Abu Toameh's articles have appeared in numerous newspapers around the world, including The Wall Street Journal, US News & World Report and The Sunday Times of London. Reprinted with permission from Hudson-NY.org)
www.IsraelNationalNews.com
by Khaled Abu Toameh
(Israelnationalnews.com) Even if Israel and the Palestinian Authority were to reach a peace agreement sometime in the near future, it is certain that the Palestinian Authority would not be able to implement it or sell it to a majority of Palestinians.
Therefore the first and most important question that decision-makers in Washington and European capitals need to ask themselves these days is: Is there a majority of Palestinians who are prepared to make far-reaching concessions in the context of a peace treaty with Israel? Is there a Palestinian leader who is willing to make compromises on explosive issues such as Jerusalem, settlements and the "right of return?"
Frankly, there is no way that Palestinian Premier Mahmoud Abbas could accept anything less than what his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, rejected at the botched Camp David summit in the summer of 2000. Back then, Arafat refused to sign a document pledging to "end the conflict" with Israel unless he got 100% of his demands.
In addition, there are serious doubts as to whether Abbas would be able to persuade a majority of Palestinians living in refugee camps in the Arab world to accept any peace agreement with Israel that did not include the "right of return" to their original villages in pre-1948 Israel.
Abbas, however, is not in a position to accept even a "partial" agreement on the "right of return" for Palestinian refugees. No Palestinian leader has thus far dared to publicly make the slightest concession on this issue.
Further, Abbas could not sign any deal that excluded the Gaza Strip; he would then be accused of "solidifying" the split between the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Moreover, although the Palestinian Authority has said it would consider land swap, apparently many Palestinians are opposed to it.
The second question that Washington needs to ask is: Do Abbas and Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have enough credibility and support among Palestinians to be able to sell to a majority of them a peace deal with Israel?
Abbas and the Palestinian Authority cannot go to the Gaza strip; they have limited control over the West Bank, and are still lacking in credibility, at least as far as many Palestinians are concerned.
Three years ago, the Palestinian Authority was kicked out of the Gaza Strip by Hamas, thereby losing direct control over 1.5 million Palestinians.
The private and official residences of Abbas in the Gaza strip have been seized by Hamas, which sometimes uses them as interrogation and detention centers.
Just recently Hamas declared that Abbas would not be allowed to enter the Gaza Strip unless he receives permission from its government. This means that when and if Abbas strikes a deal with Israel, he would not even be able to travel to the Gaza Strip to implement it or try to sell it to the Palestinians living there.
Even though Abbas lives and works in the West Bank, many Palestinians have long been questioning whether he really has full control over the area. Moreover, it remains to be seen whether he and Fayyad, enjoy the support of a majority of Palestinians in the West Bank. Some Palestinians are convinced that if a free and democratic election were held tomorrow in the West Bank, Hamas would definitely emerge victorious. Hamas would win, they argue, mainly because most Palestinians still do not regard Abbas's Fatah faction as a better alternative to the Islamic fundamentalist movement.
The third question that the US Administration needs to ask itself is: Where is Abbas supposed to implement a peace agreement with Israel? In Tel Aviv?
So what is the point in launching "proximity talks" between the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority while ignoring the fact that the partner in Ramallah would not be able to deliver his side of an agreement?
Also, why do the Americans and the Europeans continue to turn a blind eye to the fact that the Palestinians already have two states – one in the Gaza Strip under Hamas and the second in the West Bank under Fatah?
It is becoming increasingly hard to tell what the Palestinians exactly want. While once a majority of them appeared to support the idea of a two-state solution, many seem to think that the one-state solution, where Jews and Arabs would live together and not apart from each other, is not a bad idea after all. Then there is a third group that continues to believe that the only solution lies in the elimination of the Jewish state.
The only way to move forward with any peace process is by insisting that the Palestinians first get their act together and end the infighting between the two Palestinian states. Perhaps before we search for ways to make peace between Jews and Palestinians, we need first need to find a way to achieve peace between Palestinians and Palestinians.
(The author studied at Hebrew University and began his career as a reporter by working for a PLO-affiliated newspaper in Jerusalem, but currently works for the international media, serving as the 'eyes and ears' of foreign journalists in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.Abu Toameh's articles have appeared in numerous newspapers around the world, including The Wall Street Journal, US News & World Report and The Sunday Times of London. Reprinted with permission from Hudson-NY.org)
www.IsraelNationalNews.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)