Dichter turns down speech in Spain for fear of arrest
By GILL HOFFMAN
10/25/2010 20:46
Kadima MK Avi Dichter canceled a visit to Spain on Monday, because Spanish authorities would not guarantee that he would not be arrested.
Dichter, a former Shin-Bet chief, was invited to speak at a conference. Arrest warrants for top Israeli politicians and generals have been issued in Spain, including for Dichter, who was internal security minister at the time of Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Being in Israel
Looking at kinneret right now. Going to tzfat today. On the Golan yesterday at Katzrin and Gamla. Ate St Peters fish overlooking the kinneret last night. A mechiyah
us drops ball on Iranian nuks
Iranian nuks
US drops ball on Iranian nuks
To: edlasky@att.netFirst the numerous skipped deadlines….the silence and lack of support for Iranian protesters..the continual pushback of the date that Iran would be nuclear-weapon capable..and now “US has no problem with Iran’s Busherh atomic plant”. Iran is rich with natural gas- a relatively clean way to generate electricity. Iran does not need nuclear power. BTW, when America makes a statement such as this one the rest of the world will see no reason to be less complacent.
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=192871
Clinton: US has no problem with Iran's Bushehr atomic plant
By JPOST.COM STAFF
26/10/2010
As Iranians begin injecting uranium fuel rods into the core of the nuclear power plant, US secretary of state says Washington more concerned with facilities at Natanz, Qom where they fear weapons program conducted.
The United States does not see Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor as a threat, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday, on the day that the Islamic Republic began fueling the core of the power plant.
Clinton said that the US is more concerned with other Iranian sites where they believe the Islamic Republic may be attempting to create nuclear weapons.
"Our problem is not with their reactor at Bushehr, our problem is with their facilities at places like Natanz and their secret facility at Qom and other places where we believe they are conducting their weapons program," Clinton stated while addressing reporters at a meeting with Austria's foreign minister.
Iranian authorities began injecting uranium fuel rods into the core of the Bushehr nuclear power plant on Tuesday, Iranian Press TV reported.
According to the report, the nuclear plant will become operational once all 163 fuel rods have been injected into the plant's core, and it should begin generating electricity in early 2011.
On Monday, an Iranian lawmaker declared Iran's intent to continue with its nuclear program despite international concern.
"Despite all efforts and policies of America and the European Union to put sanctions on Iran, the fuel of the Bushehr power plant will be loaded into its core tomorrow," Iranian MP Alaeddin Boroujerdi was quoted as saying by official media.
Boroujerdi is the head of the Iranian parliament's national security and foreign policy committee.
US drops ball on Iranian nuks
To: edlasky@att.netFirst the numerous skipped deadlines….the silence and lack of support for Iranian protesters..the continual pushback of the date that Iran would be nuclear-weapon capable..and now “US has no problem with Iran’s Busherh atomic plant”. Iran is rich with natural gas- a relatively clean way to generate electricity. Iran does not need nuclear power. BTW, when America makes a statement such as this one the rest of the world will see no reason to be less complacent.
http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=192871
Clinton: US has no problem with Iran's Bushehr atomic plant
By JPOST.COM STAFF
26/10/2010
As Iranians begin injecting uranium fuel rods into the core of the nuclear power plant, US secretary of state says Washington more concerned with facilities at Natanz, Qom where they fear weapons program conducted.
The United States does not see Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor as a threat, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Tuesday, on the day that the Islamic Republic began fueling the core of the power plant.
Clinton said that the US is more concerned with other Iranian sites where they believe the Islamic Republic may be attempting to create nuclear weapons.
"Our problem is not with their reactor at Bushehr, our problem is with their facilities at places like Natanz and their secret facility at Qom and other places where we believe they are conducting their weapons program," Clinton stated while addressing reporters at a meeting with Austria's foreign minister.
Iranian authorities began injecting uranium fuel rods into the core of the Bushehr nuclear power plant on Tuesday, Iranian Press TV reported.
According to the report, the nuclear plant will become operational once all 163 fuel rods have been injected into the plant's core, and it should begin generating electricity in early 2011.
On Monday, an Iranian lawmaker declared Iran's intent to continue with its nuclear program despite international concern.
"Despite all efforts and policies of America and the European Union to put sanctions on Iran, the fuel of the Bushehr power plant will be loaded into its core tomorrow," Iranian MP Alaeddin Boroujerdi was quoted as saying by official media.
Boroujerdi is the head of the Iranian parliament's national security and foreign policy committee.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Arabist CBS 60 minutes lies about Jews and Jerusalem
One of the main obstacles in previous peace-making efforts has been Arab unwillingness to accept Israel as a Jewish state and Muslim denial of Judaism's historical and religious ties to Jerusalem. U.S. negotiator Dennis Ross complained that during the July 2000 negotiations at Camp David, Palestinian leader Yasir Arafat's only contribution was his refusal to acknowledge Jewish ties to Jerusalem, claiming the Jewish Temple never existed there. When talks resumed in Taba later that year, the Israelis agreed to full Palestinian sovereignty on the Temple Mount, but requested Palestinians acknowledge the sacredness of the place to Judaism. They refused. (See "The Battle Over Jerusalem and the Temple Mount ") Moreover, Palestinian leaders not only deny the existence of Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem, they falsely allege that Jews are trying to takeover or destroy Muslim holy sites there. In that way, they follow the lead of Jerusalem Mufti and Nazi sympathizer Haj al Amin Husseini who so successfully incited anti-Jewish rioting in the1920's by making his battle cry "Defend Muslim Holy Sites."
But this is not the story 60 Minutes wanted to tell. Instead host Lesley Stahl promoted Arab delegitimization of Jewish roots and rights in Jerusalem as follows:
1) Characterize as "controversial" Israel's publicizing ofarcheological findings of Israelite history in Jerusalem, discredit the field of biblical archeology and dismiss archeological excavations as something run by a "settler organization."
According to Ms. Stahl:
It's controversial that the City of David uses discoveries to try to confirm what's in the Bible, particularly from the time of David, the king who made Jerusalem his capital...
and
...But for all the talk of King David, one thing is glaringly missing here at the City of David. There`s actually no evidence of David, right?
Ms. Stahl dismisses the field of biblical archeology,especially the City of David enterprise, by throwing outa red herring — that there is no archeological proof of a King David himself.But, while it is impossible to uncover archeological evidence of any single individual, there is strong archeological evidence for the existence of a Davidic Kingdom. Stahl omits mention, for instance, that in 2005, archeologist Eilat Mazar uncovered remnants of amassive palacein the City of David dating to the 10th century BCE which is believed to be King David's palace.
It is unlikely that Ms. Stahl would ever challengePalestinians about the existence of Mohammed, or whether shewould questionChristians about the existence of Jesus, based on lack of direct archeological proof of those individuals. Her approach, of course, supports attempts by Arab and Muslim leaders to erase any evidence of Jewish history in Jerusalem, whether through the Waqf's unsupervised construction and dumping of artifacts, or whether through the riots that are incited whenever Israel excavates, builds or discovers evidence of its Jewish roots in Jerusalem's holy basin.
Ms. Stahl studiously avoided mention of this issue. She also did not bother to note that City of David archeologists, who are respected internationally for their scholarly contributions to the field, carry out their work under the auspices of the well-regarded Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). Nor did she elaborate on the strict protocols which govern their work.
Excavations must be supervised by scholars associated with recognized institutes of archaeology, where there is an infrastructure for research, laboratory treatment, and processing. These scholars publish all of their finds (both Israelite and others) according to accepted scientific standards, and they conserve each uncovered layer of the excavated area as required by the Conservation Department of the IAA. But Ms. Stahl chose tosmear the excavations as governed by a "settler organization." According to the CBS reporter:
While a government agency oversees the excavations, the dig and the site are largely funded and run by something called El`Ad...which claims they`re not a settlers` organization, though, people we spoke to say they are.
2) Call it political "indoctrination" to teach Jews about their historical roots in Jerusalem.
According to Ms. Stahl:
Half a million tourists visit the site every year, with guides who try to bring King David to life. There's an implicit message: that because David conquered the city for the Jews back then, Jerusalem belongs to the Jews today....
and
...So archeology is being used as a political tool. I mean, I hate to use the word, but indoctrination...
Would Ms. Stahl similarly suggest that archeologists should avoid telling Arabs about their own history in the area? Should Americans not send their children to Washington to visit the Lincoln Memorial? By conveying the attitude that it is somehow sinister to strengthen Jewish knowledge about and connection to Jerusalem, Ms. Stahl reflects the Arab perspective where Muslim rights and connection to the Holy Basin are a given, while Jewish rights and connection to the area are considered dubious and an obstacle to peace.
Needless to say, Ms. Stahl does not mention anything about indoctrination by Arab leaders who deny that Jews have any history in the area.
3) Portray Silwan as an area that does or should belong to Arabs. Describe Jews as interlopers with no right to live or carry out excavations there and ignore "inconvenient" history – both of Jewish habitation there as well as Jordan's illegal and racist occupation that ended it.
According to Ms. Stahl:
Another problem is an inconvenient truth that biblical Jerusalem is not located in the western half of the city. It`s right under the densely-populated Arab neighborhood of Silwan. And according to the Clinton parameters, Silwan should be part of a Palestinian state...
and
...organizations that move Jewish settlers into Arab areas have infiltrated Silwan...
and
...El Ad has raised tens of millions of dollars, half from the United States, and buys these homes on land the Palestinians claim for a future state......
What Ms. Stahl fails to report is that there was a community of Yemenite Jewish families in Silwan as early as 1882 in the neighborhood known as Kfar HaShiloach, and additional Jewish families from various countries joined them in the following years. In the early 1900's Baron de Rothschild bought several acres of land there for the Jewish community. Silwan's Jewish residents lived in the area until they were forced out by Arab attacks in the late 1920s. The City of David, situated in the Silwan valley, is still 60 percent Jewish-owned, including the area bought by Baron de Rothschild. And it is perfectly legal to continue to buy homes there.
The notion that this area must nowbe renderedJudenrein — free of Jewish habitation,with Jews prohibited from purchasing homes there — echoes the racist policies of Jordan's 19-year illegal occupation of the area, something that Ms. Stahl assiduously avoids mentioning.
4) Gloss over, minimize or ignore "inconvenient truths" that show Arabs as interlopers in the area.
Ms. Stahl discusses the plans to create a tourist park in King's Garden near the City of David, noting that this "requires demolishing twenty-two Arab homes in Silwan," something she suggests would be an "explosive" action.
Ms. Stahl attributes to the mayor the argument that the "Arab houses were built illegally," and that he plans to relocate them, but viewers are never informed that the land had been set aside as conservation parklandwith residential buildingprohibited long before the Arab homes in question were illegally erected. Instead she concludes, "but the locals want to stay in their homes," as if describing them as "locals" is reason enough for them to be allowed to defy the law governing this archeologically-rich area.
The missing "inconvenient truth" can be found in an article by Ha'aretz journalist Nadav Shragai:
Progress has brought troubles along with it to the King's Valley. For hundreds of years floodwaters drained into the garden of the kings of Judea, east of the Shiloah Pool in Jerusalem. In winter it was a swamp, but in summer it became a blooming garden.
With a bit of imagination and with the help of varied historical sources it is possible to imagine King David strolling in the royal garden with its abundant greenery and water among the olive, fig, pomegranate and almond trees, singing Psalms.
According to one tradition, this is where the Book of Ecclesiastes was composed.
About 20 years ago, the Jerusalem municipality shored up the water runoff there, and in the open green area (al Bustan, in Arabic), which the Turks and the British took care to preserve for hundreds of years as a public area intended for preservation and development of parks and tourism, an illegal Palestinian outpost arose.
Within 18 years 88 buildings went up there, under the noses of mayors Teddy Kollek and now outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Under former mayor Uri Lupolianski, the construction was halted, after the municipality confiscated tractors and heavy machinery from the lawbreakers.
Last summer the director general of the Antiquities Authority, Shuka Dorfman, noted in a kind of "post mortem" that the construction in the King's Garden caused significant and irreversible damage to antiquities.
Representatives of the municipality and Dorfman admitted that they had no good explanation for what has happened in this lovely garden, which is described in the Books of Nechemiah and Ecclesiastes, in midrashim (rabbinic Biblical homiletics) and in many historical sources. Dorfman stressed that together with Tel David, the garden constitutes the only complete archaeological garden of first-rate importance.
5) Challenge Israeli statements with Palestinian accusations.
Ms. Stahl gave up all pretense of journalistic objectivity when she took on the role of court prosecutor with Israeli interviewees. She challenged them by echoing Palestinian allegations:
LESLEY STAHL: So El Ad is doing archaeology and settlements?
DORON SPIELMAN: We are doing archaeology, and we are buying homes and buying land.
LESLEY STAHL: But is it El Ad`s goal to ease the Arabs away from right where we are right now?
DORON SPIELMAN: Put it this way, if there`s a home that an Arab wants to sell and I have the money to buy it and I can move, enable a Jewish family to live there, and I can dig archaeologically underneath it, then I think that`s a wonderful thing to do.
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): The Arabs say it`s a provocative thing to do.
and
LESLEY STAHL: I heard you wanted to evict people. Where are-- where are those houses?
NIR BARKAT: That`s-- that`s just not true. To accept--
LESLEY STAHL (overlapping): Well, wait, but if you make a park, then those houses can`t be there anymore.
NIR BARKAT: They mustn`t have been there in the first place.
LESLEY STAHL: Yeah, but so-- so you will evict. You will evict.
NIR BARKAT: Not evict. When you improve their quality of life, the right word to say is that you`re dealing with improvement of quality of life.
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): His park, he says, will upgrade the area, and he`ll allow the people who`ll be evicted to build new houses nearby. But locals tell us the only way to do that would be to build on top of other homes in Silwan...
...The European Union, the United Nations has criticized this plan to get rid of these twenty-two homes. Public opinion, especially while the peace talks are under way, is-- is looking at this and saying you`re trying to get rid- - move Arabs out of Jerusalem.
NIR BARKAT (overlapping): That`s not true.
LESLEY STAHL: But that`s the way it looks......
6) Do not challenge or fact-check any Palestinian statements. Instead accept, repeat and endorse them.
In sharp contrastto her prosecutorial attitude toward Israeli interviewees, Stahl accepts Palestinianstatements without challenge.
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): Palestinian Jawad Siyam was born in [Silwan] and says he can trace his roots here back nine hundred thirty years. He`s pessimistic about the Palestinians ever having their own state....
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): Jawad says that El`Ad uses the dig`s archeological prestige to hide its aim of moving the locals out. And he believes that the tunneling is a way for El`Ad to extend its reach deeper into Silwan...
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): There`s a feeling of encroachment. The Arabs feel it...
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): But as with the dig, the local Arabs see this as another attempt to gobble up their side of Jerusalem...
7) Avoid mention of anything that might portray Palestinians and Arab leaders in a poor light, or as an obstacle to peace.
There was no mention of Jordan's ethnic cleansing of Jews from the region or their Judenrein policy during their illegal occupation, no mention of attempts by Palestinian and Muslim leaders to erase – both mentally (with denials) and physically (by destroying archeological remnants) Jewish history here. There is no mention of the deadly attacks by eastern Jerusalem Arabs against Jews both in eastern and western Jerusalem — a contributing factor to why Israel does not want Jerusalem divided.
Whileshe mentions "escalating confrontations" near Silwan, Ms. Stahlfocuses on one incident which she says "became violent" when a car driven by an Israeli whoturned out to be "of all people, the head of Elad," struck twomaskedPalestinianyouths who had been throwing stones.Of course, the incident was violentfrom the start,asmasked Palestinian youths and adults surrounded the car, hurling stones at it. Three people, two of them minors and one adult, were subsequently arrested for thowing stones and smashing the window of a car.There were also many questions about the incident itself, particularly, why so many photographers had converged at the site well before the Israeli driver had entered the scene. Had they beenalerted in advance? Had they been told that there would be dramatic distubances or confrontations they might want to photograph? (See: "Silwan Distortions in the Israeli Press") Needless to say, Ms. Stahl did not explore any of this, as it did not support the story she was telling.
8) Suggest instead that it is Israeli actions – whether archeological excavations, purchasing of homes, or enforcing municipal laws – that obstruct the possibility of peace.
According to Ms. Stahl:
Settlements have been a stumbling block in peace negotiations of the past. And ...could become the stumbling block again.
A decade ago, Chairman President Mahmoud Abbas went on record challenging Jerusalem's Jewish heritage and the existence of a Jewish Temple, adding that even if there were one, "we do not accept it, because it is not logical for someone who wants a practical peace." (Kul Al-Arab, August 25, 2000; Translation: MEMRI) Today, he refuses to accept Israel as a Jewish state.
But to Ms. Stahl and CBS, thePalestinians' refusal to recognize Israel andthe attempt to erase Jerusalem's Jewish heritageare not the story she wants to tell. To her, the only obstacle to peace is Israel's commitment to its Jewish roots in Jerusalem.
But this is not the story 60 Minutes wanted to tell. Instead host Lesley Stahl promoted Arab delegitimization of Jewish roots and rights in Jerusalem as follows:
1) Characterize as "controversial" Israel's publicizing ofarcheological findings of Israelite history in Jerusalem, discredit the field of biblical archeology and dismiss archeological excavations as something run by a "settler organization."
According to Ms. Stahl:
It's controversial that the City of David uses discoveries to try to confirm what's in the Bible, particularly from the time of David, the king who made Jerusalem his capital...
and
...But for all the talk of King David, one thing is glaringly missing here at the City of David. There`s actually no evidence of David, right?
Ms. Stahl dismisses the field of biblical archeology,especially the City of David enterprise, by throwing outa red herring — that there is no archeological proof of a King David himself.But, while it is impossible to uncover archeological evidence of any single individual, there is strong archeological evidence for the existence of a Davidic Kingdom. Stahl omits mention, for instance, that in 2005, archeologist Eilat Mazar uncovered remnants of amassive palacein the City of David dating to the 10th century BCE which is believed to be King David's palace.
It is unlikely that Ms. Stahl would ever challengePalestinians about the existence of Mohammed, or whether shewould questionChristians about the existence of Jesus, based on lack of direct archeological proof of those individuals. Her approach, of course, supports attempts by Arab and Muslim leaders to erase any evidence of Jewish history in Jerusalem, whether through the Waqf's unsupervised construction and dumping of artifacts, or whether through the riots that are incited whenever Israel excavates, builds or discovers evidence of its Jewish roots in Jerusalem's holy basin.
Ms. Stahl studiously avoided mention of this issue. She also did not bother to note that City of David archeologists, who are respected internationally for their scholarly contributions to the field, carry out their work under the auspices of the well-regarded Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA). Nor did she elaborate on the strict protocols which govern their work.
Excavations must be supervised by scholars associated with recognized institutes of archaeology, where there is an infrastructure for research, laboratory treatment, and processing. These scholars publish all of their finds (both Israelite and others) according to accepted scientific standards, and they conserve each uncovered layer of the excavated area as required by the Conservation Department of the IAA. But Ms. Stahl chose tosmear the excavations as governed by a "settler organization." According to the CBS reporter:
While a government agency oversees the excavations, the dig and the site are largely funded and run by something called El`Ad...which claims they`re not a settlers` organization, though, people we spoke to say they are.
2) Call it political "indoctrination" to teach Jews about their historical roots in Jerusalem.
According to Ms. Stahl:
Half a million tourists visit the site every year, with guides who try to bring King David to life. There's an implicit message: that because David conquered the city for the Jews back then, Jerusalem belongs to the Jews today....
and
...So archeology is being used as a political tool. I mean, I hate to use the word, but indoctrination...
Would Ms. Stahl similarly suggest that archeologists should avoid telling Arabs about their own history in the area? Should Americans not send their children to Washington to visit the Lincoln Memorial? By conveying the attitude that it is somehow sinister to strengthen Jewish knowledge about and connection to Jerusalem, Ms. Stahl reflects the Arab perspective where Muslim rights and connection to the Holy Basin are a given, while Jewish rights and connection to the area are considered dubious and an obstacle to peace.
Needless to say, Ms. Stahl does not mention anything about indoctrination by Arab leaders who deny that Jews have any history in the area.
3) Portray Silwan as an area that does or should belong to Arabs. Describe Jews as interlopers with no right to live or carry out excavations there and ignore "inconvenient" history – both of Jewish habitation there as well as Jordan's illegal and racist occupation that ended it.
According to Ms. Stahl:
Another problem is an inconvenient truth that biblical Jerusalem is not located in the western half of the city. It`s right under the densely-populated Arab neighborhood of Silwan. And according to the Clinton parameters, Silwan should be part of a Palestinian state...
and
...organizations that move Jewish settlers into Arab areas have infiltrated Silwan...
and
...El Ad has raised tens of millions of dollars, half from the United States, and buys these homes on land the Palestinians claim for a future state......
What Ms. Stahl fails to report is that there was a community of Yemenite Jewish families in Silwan as early as 1882 in the neighborhood known as Kfar HaShiloach, and additional Jewish families from various countries joined them in the following years. In the early 1900's Baron de Rothschild bought several acres of land there for the Jewish community. Silwan's Jewish residents lived in the area until they were forced out by Arab attacks in the late 1920s. The City of David, situated in the Silwan valley, is still 60 percent Jewish-owned, including the area bought by Baron de Rothschild. And it is perfectly legal to continue to buy homes there.
The notion that this area must nowbe renderedJudenrein — free of Jewish habitation,with Jews prohibited from purchasing homes there — echoes the racist policies of Jordan's 19-year illegal occupation of the area, something that Ms. Stahl assiduously avoids mentioning.
4) Gloss over, minimize or ignore "inconvenient truths" that show Arabs as interlopers in the area.
Ms. Stahl discusses the plans to create a tourist park in King's Garden near the City of David, noting that this "requires demolishing twenty-two Arab homes in Silwan," something she suggests would be an "explosive" action.
Ms. Stahl attributes to the mayor the argument that the "Arab houses were built illegally," and that he plans to relocate them, but viewers are never informed that the land had been set aside as conservation parklandwith residential buildingprohibited long before the Arab homes in question were illegally erected. Instead she concludes, "but the locals want to stay in their homes," as if describing them as "locals" is reason enough for them to be allowed to defy the law governing this archeologically-rich area.
The missing "inconvenient truth" can be found in an article by Ha'aretz journalist Nadav Shragai:
Progress has brought troubles along with it to the King's Valley. For hundreds of years floodwaters drained into the garden of the kings of Judea, east of the Shiloah Pool in Jerusalem. In winter it was a swamp, but in summer it became a blooming garden.
With a bit of imagination and with the help of varied historical sources it is possible to imagine King David strolling in the royal garden with its abundant greenery and water among the olive, fig, pomegranate and almond trees, singing Psalms.
According to one tradition, this is where the Book of Ecclesiastes was composed.
About 20 years ago, the Jerusalem municipality shored up the water runoff there, and in the open green area (al Bustan, in Arabic), which the Turks and the British took care to preserve for hundreds of years as a public area intended for preservation and development of parks and tourism, an illegal Palestinian outpost arose.
Within 18 years 88 buildings went up there, under the noses of mayors Teddy Kollek and now outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Under former mayor Uri Lupolianski, the construction was halted, after the municipality confiscated tractors and heavy machinery from the lawbreakers.
Last summer the director general of the Antiquities Authority, Shuka Dorfman, noted in a kind of "post mortem" that the construction in the King's Garden caused significant and irreversible damage to antiquities.
Representatives of the municipality and Dorfman admitted that they had no good explanation for what has happened in this lovely garden, which is described in the Books of Nechemiah and Ecclesiastes, in midrashim (rabbinic Biblical homiletics) and in many historical sources. Dorfman stressed that together with Tel David, the garden constitutes the only complete archaeological garden of first-rate importance.
5) Challenge Israeli statements with Palestinian accusations.
Ms. Stahl gave up all pretense of journalistic objectivity when she took on the role of court prosecutor with Israeli interviewees. She challenged them by echoing Palestinian allegations:
LESLEY STAHL: So El Ad is doing archaeology and settlements?
DORON SPIELMAN: We are doing archaeology, and we are buying homes and buying land.
LESLEY STAHL: But is it El Ad`s goal to ease the Arabs away from right where we are right now?
DORON SPIELMAN: Put it this way, if there`s a home that an Arab wants to sell and I have the money to buy it and I can move, enable a Jewish family to live there, and I can dig archaeologically underneath it, then I think that`s a wonderful thing to do.
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): The Arabs say it`s a provocative thing to do.
and
LESLEY STAHL: I heard you wanted to evict people. Where are-- where are those houses?
NIR BARKAT: That`s-- that`s just not true. To accept--
LESLEY STAHL (overlapping): Well, wait, but if you make a park, then those houses can`t be there anymore.
NIR BARKAT: They mustn`t have been there in the first place.
LESLEY STAHL: Yeah, but so-- so you will evict. You will evict.
NIR BARKAT: Not evict. When you improve their quality of life, the right word to say is that you`re dealing with improvement of quality of life.
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): His park, he says, will upgrade the area, and he`ll allow the people who`ll be evicted to build new houses nearby. But locals tell us the only way to do that would be to build on top of other homes in Silwan...
...The European Union, the United Nations has criticized this plan to get rid of these twenty-two homes. Public opinion, especially while the peace talks are under way, is-- is looking at this and saying you`re trying to get rid- - move Arabs out of Jerusalem.
NIR BARKAT (overlapping): That`s not true.
LESLEY STAHL: But that`s the way it looks......
6) Do not challenge or fact-check any Palestinian statements. Instead accept, repeat and endorse them.
In sharp contrastto her prosecutorial attitude toward Israeli interviewees, Stahl accepts Palestinianstatements without challenge.
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): Palestinian Jawad Siyam was born in [Silwan] and says he can trace his roots here back nine hundred thirty years. He`s pessimistic about the Palestinians ever having their own state....
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): Jawad says that El`Ad uses the dig`s archeological prestige to hide its aim of moving the locals out. And he believes that the tunneling is a way for El`Ad to extend its reach deeper into Silwan...
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): There`s a feeling of encroachment. The Arabs feel it...
LESLEY STAHL (voiceover): But as with the dig, the local Arabs see this as another attempt to gobble up their side of Jerusalem...
7) Avoid mention of anything that might portray Palestinians and Arab leaders in a poor light, or as an obstacle to peace.
There was no mention of Jordan's ethnic cleansing of Jews from the region or their Judenrein policy during their illegal occupation, no mention of attempts by Palestinian and Muslim leaders to erase – both mentally (with denials) and physically (by destroying archeological remnants) Jewish history here. There is no mention of the deadly attacks by eastern Jerusalem Arabs against Jews both in eastern and western Jerusalem — a contributing factor to why Israel does not want Jerusalem divided.
Whileshe mentions "escalating confrontations" near Silwan, Ms. Stahlfocuses on one incident which she says "became violent" when a car driven by an Israeli whoturned out to be "of all people, the head of Elad," struck twomaskedPalestinianyouths who had been throwing stones.Of course, the incident was violentfrom the start,asmasked Palestinian youths and adults surrounded the car, hurling stones at it. Three people, two of them minors and one adult, were subsequently arrested for thowing stones and smashing the window of a car.There were also many questions about the incident itself, particularly, why so many photographers had converged at the site well before the Israeli driver had entered the scene. Had they beenalerted in advance? Had they been told that there would be dramatic distubances or confrontations they might want to photograph? (See: "Silwan Distortions in the Israeli Press") Needless to say, Ms. Stahl did not explore any of this, as it did not support the story she was telling.
8) Suggest instead that it is Israeli actions – whether archeological excavations, purchasing of homes, or enforcing municipal laws – that obstruct the possibility of peace.
According to Ms. Stahl:
Settlements have been a stumbling block in peace negotiations of the past. And ...could become the stumbling block again.
A decade ago, Chairman President Mahmoud Abbas went on record challenging Jerusalem's Jewish heritage and the existence of a Jewish Temple, adding that even if there were one, "we do not accept it, because it is not logical for someone who wants a practical peace." (Kul Al-Arab, August 25, 2000; Translation: MEMRI) Today, he refuses to accept Israel as a Jewish state.
But to Ms. Stahl and CBS, thePalestinians' refusal to recognize Israel andthe attempt to erase Jerusalem's Jewish heritageare not the story she wants to tell. To her, the only obstacle to peace is Israel's commitment to its Jewish roots in Jerusalem.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
time to take away Friedman's pulitzer
Rick Richman - 10.20.2010 - 8:56 AM
Thomas Friedman unloads on Israel, asserting that it is “behaving like a spoiled child” because Netanyahu will not agree to a new settlement-construction moratorium without additional assurances:
Just one time you would like Israel to say, “You know, Mr. President, we’re dubious that a continued settlement freeze will have an impact. But you think it will, so, let’s test it. This one’s for you.”
I think he means that just two times he would like Israel to say it.
Last year, Obama demanded a settlement freeze — after reneging on agreements about such a freeze that had governed the peace process for the prior six years and refusing to endorse the presidential letter given to Israel in exchange for the dismantlement of every settlement in Gaza. The proposed deal was a construction freeze in exchange for small steps toward normalization with Israel that the U.S. would obtain from Arab states. Obama failed to get anything from the Arab states, but Israel announced a 10-month moratorium anyway. It had no impact at all.
Friedman writes that he has “no idea whether the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, has the will and the guts to make peace with Israel” but thinks Abbas should be tested with another moratorium. No idea?
He knows that Abbas’s term of office expired nearly two years ago and that Abbas is “President Abbas” only in the sense that George Mitchell is “Senator Mitchell.” He knows Abbas declined an offer of a state on 100 percent of the West Bank (after land swaps) with a shared Jerusalem. He knows Abbas has stated he will “never” recognize Israel as a Jewish state nor negotiate any land swap. He knows Abbas cannot make peace even with Hamas, which controls half the putative Palestinian state. He knows Abbas has repeatedly canceled elections and that the idea of the Palestinian Authority as a stable democratic entity is a joke. He knows Abbas has declared he will never waive the “right of return,” which makes a peace agreement impossible even if every other issue could be resolved. He knows Abbas has taken no steps to prepare his public for any of the compromises that would be necessary for a peace agreement. How many tests does Abbas have to fail before Thomas Friedman has an idea?
Would it be too much to ask that Abbas first give his Bir Zeit speech? Or that Obama commit to veto any Palestinian state that does not result from direct negotiations that provide Israel with defensible borders? Or would that be acting like a spoiled child?
Thomas Friedman unloads on Israel, asserting that it is “behaving like a spoiled child” because Netanyahu will not agree to a new settlement-construction moratorium without additional assurances:
Just one time you would like Israel to say, “You know, Mr. President, we’re dubious that a continued settlement freeze will have an impact. But you think it will, so, let’s test it. This one’s for you.”
I think he means that just two times he would like Israel to say it.
Last year, Obama demanded a settlement freeze — after reneging on agreements about such a freeze that had governed the peace process for the prior six years and refusing to endorse the presidential letter given to Israel in exchange for the dismantlement of every settlement in Gaza. The proposed deal was a construction freeze in exchange for small steps toward normalization with Israel that the U.S. would obtain from Arab states. Obama failed to get anything from the Arab states, but Israel announced a 10-month moratorium anyway. It had no impact at all.
Friedman writes that he has “no idea whether the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, has the will and the guts to make peace with Israel” but thinks Abbas should be tested with another moratorium. No idea?
He knows that Abbas’s term of office expired nearly two years ago and that Abbas is “President Abbas” only in the sense that George Mitchell is “Senator Mitchell.” He knows Abbas declined an offer of a state on 100 percent of the West Bank (after land swaps) with a shared Jerusalem. He knows Abbas has stated he will “never” recognize Israel as a Jewish state nor negotiate any land swap. He knows Abbas cannot make peace even with Hamas, which controls half the putative Palestinian state. He knows Abbas has repeatedly canceled elections and that the idea of the Palestinian Authority as a stable democratic entity is a joke. He knows Abbas has declared he will never waive the “right of return,” which makes a peace agreement impossible even if every other issue could be resolved. He knows Abbas has taken no steps to prepare his public for any of the compromises that would be necessary for a peace agreement. How many tests does Abbas have to fail before Thomas Friedman has an idea?
Would it be too much to ask that Abbas first give his Bir Zeit speech? Or that Obama commit to veto any Palestinian state that does not result from direct negotiations that provide Israel with defensible borders? Or would that be acting like a spoiled child?
PAC endores Pollak over Schakowsky
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
TO PROTECT OUR HERITAGE PAC ENDORSES JOEL POLLAK FOR ILLINOIS 9TH DISTRICT CONGRESSIONAL SEAT.
joel
On Sunday, October 17th, To Protect Our Heritage (TPOH) PAC, along with thirty co-sponsoring organizations, held a Candidates' Forum, giving 900 guests the opportunity to listen to Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-9th) and her opponent Joel Pollak answer in-depth questions about their stances and proposed Congressional actions involving Israel, its neighbors and the U.S. relationship. To Protect Our Heritage, the Midwest's oldest and largest bi-partisan, pro-Israel PAC, recognizes and welcomes that both candidates define themselves as strongly pro-Israel.
The PAC has endorsed and contributed to Rep. Schakowsky in the past because of her excellent voting record on Israel-related issues. We appreciate Rep. Schakowsky's stance, stated at the Forum, that an undivided city of Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of the Jewish State of Israel and that our country should promptly move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. We also appreciate her statement that Mohammad Abbas should immediately recognize Israel as a Jewish state in return for a two-month continuation of Israel's moratorium on additional building of homes in the West Bank, as offered by Benjamin Netanyahu.
However, following the forum, the TPOH candidate selection committee conferred and chose to endorse Joel Pollak for the 9th District U.S. Congressional seat because his responses to the questions showed him to be an articulate and unwavering LEADER for the U.S.-Israel relationship. While we appreciate Rep. Schakowsky's history of affirmative votes on legislation introduced by others, we are convinced that Joel Pollak will be a stronger advocate for the critical relationship between our country and Israel. In seeking out ways to strengthen the ties and protect Israel, he will be helping both nations.
In response to the question "What two pieces of Israel-related legislation will you propose if you are in the House of Representatives next February?" Pollak advocated (1) ceasing U.S. funding of the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose leadership has included many of the world's most sadistic tyrants and whose primary function and accomplishment for years has been to condemn Israel - while ignoring real human rights violations throughout the rest of the world, and (2) making a clear statement to Iran that the U.S. considers Israel an ally like NATO allies and thus "a strike against Israel would be a strike against the U.S." Although Rep. Schakowsky mentioned reaffirming the U.S. commitment to Israel, she offered no specifics. We note that in her twelve years in Congress she has not authored any legislation on Israel.
Problematic are Rep. Schakowsky's strong ties with individuals and groups such as J Street, whose members came as a group to cheer her at the forum. J Street has labeled itself as pro-Israel; however, its underlying mission has been revealed to be the weakening of bi-partisan Congressional support for Israel by, among other tactics, drawing away Democratic support for that relationship. J Street leadership has come out not only against AIPAC (American Public Affairs Committee) on various congressional initiatives but has ridiculed and attacked some of Israel's strongest defenders, such as Elie Wiesel, Alan Dershowitz, and Joe Lieberman. Israel's Ambassador Michael Oren characterized J Street as "a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments...This is not a matter of settlements here [or] there. We understand there are differences of opinion, but when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion." J Street has recently been exposed as deceiving the public by presenting its funders as pro-Israel, when in fact they include major contributions from a mysterious Hong Kong donor and George Soros, whose antipathy towards Israel is well documented. Rep. Schakowsky, by her staunch support of J Street since its inception - and she has been a main if not the main beneficiary of J Street fundraising efforts - likely unwittingly threatens to make Israel a partisan issue between the two political parties.
The answers to the question "Why is Israel important to the U.S?" highlighted the core difference between the candidates. Rep. Schakowsky listed Israel's important technological and medical achievements which benefit the U.S. On the other hand, Pollak underscored the deeper philosophical and cultural connection between the two nations. He noted that America and Israel represent the values of opportunity, liberty, and respect for the individual human being. Moreover he stated, "America and Israel were founded on the same idea that oppressed and persecuted people could build something new through nothing more than hard work and faith... A world that is not safe for Israel and the idea of Israel is not safe for the United States and the idea of the United States."
Joel Pollak, who brilliantly articulates his pro-Israel message whether his audience is in a synagogue, church or mosque, understands the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship and is unafraid to declare a clear and compelling case for that relationship. Therefore, To Protect Our Heritage PAC, whose sole mission is strengthening the bonds between Israel and the U.S., endorses Joel Pollak. By serving as a leader on the issue, Joel Pollak will strengthen both nations.
NOTE: The endorsement is by To Protect Our Heritage PAC and not event co-sponsors, most of whom do not endorse or contribute to political candidates.
[L
TO PROTECT OUR HERITAGE PAC ENDORSES JOEL POLLAK FOR ILLINOIS 9TH DISTRICT CONGRESSIONAL SEAT.
joel
On Sunday, October 17th, To Protect Our Heritage (TPOH) PAC, along with thirty co-sponsoring organizations, held a Candidates' Forum, giving 900 guests the opportunity to listen to Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-9th) and her opponent Joel Pollak answer in-depth questions about their stances and proposed Congressional actions involving Israel, its neighbors and the U.S. relationship. To Protect Our Heritage, the Midwest's oldest and largest bi-partisan, pro-Israel PAC, recognizes and welcomes that both candidates define themselves as strongly pro-Israel.
The PAC has endorsed and contributed to Rep. Schakowsky in the past because of her excellent voting record on Israel-related issues. We appreciate Rep. Schakowsky's stance, stated at the Forum, that an undivided city of Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of the Jewish State of Israel and that our country should promptly move our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. We also appreciate her statement that Mohammad Abbas should immediately recognize Israel as a Jewish state in return for a two-month continuation of Israel's moratorium on additional building of homes in the West Bank, as offered by Benjamin Netanyahu.
However, following the forum, the TPOH candidate selection committee conferred and chose to endorse Joel Pollak for the 9th District U.S. Congressional seat because his responses to the questions showed him to be an articulate and unwavering LEADER for the U.S.-Israel relationship. While we appreciate Rep. Schakowsky's history of affirmative votes on legislation introduced by others, we are convinced that Joel Pollak will be a stronger advocate for the critical relationship between our country and Israel. In seeking out ways to strengthen the ties and protect Israel, he will be helping both nations.
In response to the question "What two pieces of Israel-related legislation will you propose if you are in the House of Representatives next February?" Pollak advocated (1) ceasing U.S. funding of the U.N. Human Rights Council, whose leadership has included many of the world's most sadistic tyrants and whose primary function and accomplishment for years has been to condemn Israel - while ignoring real human rights violations throughout the rest of the world, and (2) making a clear statement to Iran that the U.S. considers Israel an ally like NATO allies and thus "a strike against Israel would be a strike against the U.S." Although Rep. Schakowsky mentioned reaffirming the U.S. commitment to Israel, she offered no specifics. We note that in her twelve years in Congress she has not authored any legislation on Israel.
Problematic are Rep. Schakowsky's strong ties with individuals and groups such as J Street, whose members came as a group to cheer her at the forum. J Street has labeled itself as pro-Israel; however, its underlying mission has been revealed to be the weakening of bi-partisan Congressional support for Israel by, among other tactics, drawing away Democratic support for that relationship. J Street leadership has come out not only against AIPAC (American Public Affairs Committee) on various congressional initiatives but has ridiculed and attacked some of Israel's strongest defenders, such as Elie Wiesel, Alan Dershowitz, and Joe Lieberman. Israel's Ambassador Michael Oren characterized J Street as "a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments...This is not a matter of settlements here [or] there. We understand there are differences of opinion, but when it comes to the survival of the Jewish state, there should be no differences of opinion." J Street has recently been exposed as deceiving the public by presenting its funders as pro-Israel, when in fact they include major contributions from a mysterious Hong Kong donor and George Soros, whose antipathy towards Israel is well documented. Rep. Schakowsky, by her staunch support of J Street since its inception - and she has been a main if not the main beneficiary of J Street fundraising efforts - likely unwittingly threatens to make Israel a partisan issue between the two political parties.
The answers to the question "Why is Israel important to the U.S?" highlighted the core difference between the candidates. Rep. Schakowsky listed Israel's important technological and medical achievements which benefit the U.S. On the other hand, Pollak underscored the deeper philosophical and cultural connection between the two nations. He noted that America and Israel represent the values of opportunity, liberty, and respect for the individual human being. Moreover he stated, "America and Israel were founded on the same idea that oppressed and persecuted people could build something new through nothing more than hard work and faith... A world that is not safe for Israel and the idea of Israel is not safe for the United States and the idea of the United States."
Joel Pollak, who brilliantly articulates his pro-Israel message whether his audience is in a synagogue, church or mosque, understands the importance of the U.S.-Israel relationship and is unafraid to declare a clear and compelling case for that relationship. Therefore, To Protect Our Heritage PAC, whose sole mission is strengthening the bonds between Israel and the U.S., endorses Joel Pollak. By serving as a leader on the issue, Joel Pollak will strengthen both nations.
NOTE: The endorsement is by To Protect Our Heritage PAC and not event co-sponsors, most of whom do not endorse or contribute to political candidates.
[L
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Are Dems becoming the anti-Israel party?
Congress: The pattern of weak Democratic support began just a week after Inauguration Day 2009, right after the Israel-Hamas war, when 60 House Democrats (including such left-wingers as Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, and Maxine Waters) and not a single Republican wrote the secretary of state to "respectfully request that the State Department release emergency funds to [the anti-Israel organization] UNRWA for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance" in Gaza.
In the same spirit, 54 House Democrats and not a single Republican signed a letter to Barack Obama a year later, in January 2010, asking him to "advocate for immediate improvements for Gaza in the following areas" and then listed ten ways to help Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization.
In dramatic contrast, 78 House Republicans wrote a "Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu" letter a few months later to express their "steadfast support" for him and Israel. The signatories were not just Republicans but members of the House Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus.
So, count 54 Democrats for Hamas and 78 Republicans for Israel.
In the aftermath of the March 2010 crisis when Joe Biden went to Jerusalem, 333 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter to the secretary of state reaffirming the U.S.-Israel alliance. The 102 members who did not sign included 94 Democrats (including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) and 8 Republicans, a 12-to-1 ratio. Seventy-six senators signed a similar letter; the 24 who did not sign included 20 Democrats and 4 Republicans, a 5-to-1 ratio.
Voters: Public opinion explains these differences on Capitol Hill.
An April 2009 poll by Zogby International asked about U.S. policy: Ten percent of Obama voters and 60 percent of voters for Republican John McCain wanted the president to support Israel. Get tough with Israel? Eighty percent of Obama voters said yes and 73 percent of McCain voters said no. Conversely, 67 percent of Obama voters said yes and 79 percent of McCain voters said no to Washington engaging with Hamas. And 61 percent of Obama voters endorsed a Palestinian "right of return," while only 21 percent of McCain voters concurred.
Almost a year later, the same pollster asked American adults how best to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict and found "a strong divide" on this question. Seventy-three percent of Democrats wanted the president to end the historic bond with Israel but treat Arabs and Israelis alike; only 24 percent of Republicans endorsed this shift.
Gallup on "Sympathy for Israelis vs. Palestinians in Mideast Situation, by Party ID."
A survey this month asked if a likely voter is "more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate whom you perceive as pro-Israel." Thirty-nine percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans prefer the pro-Israel candidate. Turned around, 33 percent of Democrats and 14 percent of Republicans would be less likely to support a candidate because he is pro-Israel. Democrats are somewhat evenly split on Israel but Republicans favor it by a 5-to-1 ratio.
A consensus exists that the two parties are growing further apart over time. Pro-Israel, conservative Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe finds that "the old political consensus that brought Republicans and Democrats together in support of the Middle East's only flourishing democracy is breaking down." Anti-Israel, left-wing James Zogby of the Arab American Institute agrees, writing that "traditional U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have bipartisan backing." Thanks to changes in the Democratic party, Israel has become a partisan issue in American politics, an unwelcome development for it.
In late March 2010, during a nadir of U.S.-Israel relations, Janine Zacharia wrote in the Washington Post that some Israelis expect their prime minister to "search for ways to buy time until the midterm U.S. elections [of November 2010] in hopes that Obama would lose support and that more pro-Israel Republicans would be elected." That an Israeli leader is thought to stall for fewer Congressional Democrats confirms the changes outlined here. It also provides guidance for voters.
Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
In the same spirit, 54 House Democrats and not a single Republican signed a letter to Barack Obama a year later, in January 2010, asking him to "advocate for immediate improvements for Gaza in the following areas" and then listed ten ways to help Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization.
In dramatic contrast, 78 House Republicans wrote a "Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu" letter a few months later to express their "steadfast support" for him and Israel. The signatories were not just Republicans but members of the House Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus.
So, count 54 Democrats for Hamas and 78 Republicans for Israel.
In the aftermath of the March 2010 crisis when Joe Biden went to Jerusalem, 333 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter to the secretary of state reaffirming the U.S.-Israel alliance. The 102 members who did not sign included 94 Democrats (including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) and 8 Republicans, a 12-to-1 ratio. Seventy-six senators signed a similar letter; the 24 who did not sign included 20 Democrats and 4 Republicans, a 5-to-1 ratio.
Voters: Public opinion explains these differences on Capitol Hill.
An April 2009 poll by Zogby International asked about U.S. policy: Ten percent of Obama voters and 60 percent of voters for Republican John McCain wanted the president to support Israel. Get tough with Israel? Eighty percent of Obama voters said yes and 73 percent of McCain voters said no. Conversely, 67 percent of Obama voters said yes and 79 percent of McCain voters said no to Washington engaging with Hamas. And 61 percent of Obama voters endorsed a Palestinian "right of return," while only 21 percent of McCain voters concurred.
Almost a year later, the same pollster asked American adults how best to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict and found "a strong divide" on this question. Seventy-three percent of Democrats wanted the president to end the historic bond with Israel but treat Arabs and Israelis alike; only 24 percent of Republicans endorsed this shift.
Gallup on "Sympathy for Israelis vs. Palestinians in Mideast Situation, by Party ID."
A survey this month asked if a likely voter is "more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate whom you perceive as pro-Israel." Thirty-nine percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans prefer the pro-Israel candidate. Turned around, 33 percent of Democrats and 14 percent of Republicans would be less likely to support a candidate because he is pro-Israel. Democrats are somewhat evenly split on Israel but Republicans favor it by a 5-to-1 ratio.
A consensus exists that the two parties are growing further apart over time. Pro-Israel, conservative Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe finds that "the old political consensus that brought Republicans and Democrats together in support of the Middle East's only flourishing democracy is breaking down." Anti-Israel, left-wing James Zogby of the Arab American Institute agrees, writing that "traditional U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have bipartisan backing." Thanks to changes in the Democratic party, Israel has become a partisan issue in American politics, an unwelcome development for it.
In late March 2010, during a nadir of U.S.-Israel relations, Janine Zacharia wrote in the Washington Post that some Israelis expect their prime minister to "search for ways to buy time until the midterm U.S. elections [of November 2010] in hopes that Obama would lose support and that more pro-Israel Republicans would be elected." That an Israeli leader is thought to stall for fewer Congressional Democrats confirms the changes outlined here. It also provides guidance for voters.
Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.
Murdoch on antisemitism today
Murdoch on Anti-Semitism
The Press Magnate Warns of a War Against the Jews
Editorial of The New York Sun | October 14, 2010
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/murdoch-on-anti-semitism/87113/
It will be some time before a major public figure confronts the question of anti-Semitism in a speech as to the point as that delivered last night by Rupert Murdoch to the annual banquet of the Anti-Defamation League in New York. The honoree of the evening, he noted that the League has been so successful that a few years ago some people were beginning to say, “Maybe we don’t need an ADL any more.” That, he said, “is a much harder argument to make these days” when, as he put it, “we live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews.”
The war has, moreover, entered what the world’s most successful newspaper magnate called a new phase. The first phase had been “conventional in nature,” with the goal “to use military force to overrun Israel.” He described the approach as having failed, even before the Berlin Wall came down. Phase two was terrorism, targeting Israelis both home and abroad — “from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the second intifada.” He noted that the terrorists “continue to target Jews across the world” but observed that they haven’t succeeded in bringing down the government of Israel or weakening Israel’s resolve
The new phase of the war is what Mr. Murdoch called “the soft war that seeks to isolate Israel by delegitimizing it.” It’s a war in which, he said, “[t]he battleground is everywhere,” such as the press and broadcasting, multinational organizations and non-governmental organizations. The aim is the same, “to make Israel a pariah.” The result, Mr. Murdoch said, “is the curious situation we have today: Israel becomes increasingly ostracized, while Iran – a nation that has made no secret of wishing Israel’s destruction – pursues nuclear weapons loudly, proudly, and without apparent fear of rebuke.”
What worries Mr. Murdoch most is what he called “the disturbing new home that anti-Semitism has found in polite society — especially in Europe” and the way “violence and extremism are encouraged when the world sees Israel’s greatest ally” — America — “distancing herself from the Jewish state.” He asserted today it seems that the “most virulent strains” of anti-Semitism “come from the left,” often dressed up “as legitimate disagreement with Israel.”
He quoted Lawrence Summers’ warning, back when he was president of Harvard: “Where anti-Semitism and views that are profoundly anti-Israeli have traditionally been the primary preserve of poorly educated right-wing populists, profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent.”
Mr. Murdoch, however, did not reserve his warning merely for the university elites. He warned that anti-Semitism today “enjoys support at both the highest and lowest reaches of European society — from its most elite politicians to its largely Muslim ghettoes. European Jews find themselves caught in this pincer.” He quoted a European Commission trade minister who declared that peace in the Middle East is impossible because of the Jewish lobby in America — and, savvy editor that he is, went on to deconstruct the minister’s language, which was:
“There is indeed a belief — it’s difficult to describe it otherwise — among most Jews that they are right. And it’s not so much whether these are religious Jews or not. Lay Jews also share the same belief that they are right. So it is not easy to have, even with moderate Jews, a rational discussion about what is actually happening in the Middle East.” Quoth Mr. Murdoch: “This minister did not suggest the problem was any specific Israeli policy. The problem, as he defined it, is the nature of the Jews.”
Mr. Murdoch took on the Swedish mayor who responded to riots against a visiting Israeli tennis team by equating Zionism with anti-Semitism “and suggesting,” as Mr. Murdoch put it, “that Swedish Jews would be safer in his town if they distanced themselves from Israeli actions in Gaza.” He noted that the Norwegian government “forbids a Norwegian-based, German shipbuilder from using its waters to test a submarine being built for the Israeli navy.” He also noted that Britain and Spain are boycotting an OECD tourism meeting in Jerusalem and that in the Low Lands, police are reporting a 50% increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents.
For Mr. Murdoch, what this underlines is the importance of good relations between Israel and America. “Some believe that if America wants to gain credibility in the Muslim world and advance the cause of peace, Washington needs to put some distance between itself and Israel,” he said. “My view is the opposite. Far from making peace more possible, we are making hostilities more certain. Far from making things better for the Palestinian people, sour relations between the United States and Israel guarantees that ordinary Palestinians will continue to suffer. The peace we all want will come when Israel feels secure — not when Washington feels distant.”
The most significant part of Mr. Murdoch’s speech, by our lights, came toward the end, when the man who owns the biggest newspaper in Britain reached down deep and spoke of the testimony presented to a British commission back in 1937 by the Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky, who urged Britain to open up what Mr. Murdoch called “an escape route for Jews fleeing Europe.” He quoted Jabotinsky, who went on to write a famous book called “The Jewish War Front” and emerged as one of the Founding Fathers of Israel, as saying that only a Jewish homeland could protect European Jews from the coming calamity. Then, calling Jabotinsky’s words “prophetic,” he quoted one his most famous formulations: “It is not the anti-Semitism of men. It is, above all, the anti-Semitism of things, the inherent xenophobia of the body social or the body economic under which we suffer.”
* * *
It is still the anti-Semitism of things, and it is a radical, a newsworthy speech to say so. And it is something — we would even say inspiring — to think that the most powerful press lord on the planet can take the stage on this head and reach deep into history and conclude that Jabotinsky is a prophet for our times. Mr. Murdoch was not saying that we are on the brink of another Holocaust. “The world of 2010 is not the world of the 1930s. The threats Jews face today are different,” he said. But he was marking that we are in a serious moment. “These threats are real,” he concluded. “These threats are soaked in an ugly language familiar to anyone old enough to remember World War II. And these threats cannot be addressed until we see them for what they are: part of an ongoing war against the Jews.
The Press Magnate Warns of a War Against the Jews
Editorial of The New York Sun | October 14, 2010
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/murdoch-on-anti-semitism/87113/
It will be some time before a major public figure confronts the question of anti-Semitism in a speech as to the point as that delivered last night by Rupert Murdoch to the annual banquet of the Anti-Defamation League in New York. The honoree of the evening, he noted that the League has been so successful that a few years ago some people were beginning to say, “Maybe we don’t need an ADL any more.” That, he said, “is a much harder argument to make these days” when, as he put it, “we live in a world where there is an ongoing war against the Jews.”
The war has, moreover, entered what the world’s most successful newspaper magnate called a new phase. The first phase had been “conventional in nature,” with the goal “to use military force to overrun Israel.” He described the approach as having failed, even before the Berlin Wall came down. Phase two was terrorism, targeting Israelis both home and abroad — “from the massacre of Israeli athletes at Munich to the second intifada.” He noted that the terrorists “continue to target Jews across the world” but observed that they haven’t succeeded in bringing down the government of Israel or weakening Israel’s resolve
The new phase of the war is what Mr. Murdoch called “the soft war that seeks to isolate Israel by delegitimizing it.” It’s a war in which, he said, “[t]he battleground is everywhere,” such as the press and broadcasting, multinational organizations and non-governmental organizations. The aim is the same, “to make Israel a pariah.” The result, Mr. Murdoch said, “is the curious situation we have today: Israel becomes increasingly ostracized, while Iran – a nation that has made no secret of wishing Israel’s destruction – pursues nuclear weapons loudly, proudly, and without apparent fear of rebuke.”
What worries Mr. Murdoch most is what he called “the disturbing new home that anti-Semitism has found in polite society — especially in Europe” and the way “violence and extremism are encouraged when the world sees Israel’s greatest ally” — America — “distancing herself from the Jewish state.” He asserted today it seems that the “most virulent strains” of anti-Semitism “come from the left,” often dressed up “as legitimate disagreement with Israel.”
He quoted Lawrence Summers’ warning, back when he was president of Harvard: “Where anti-Semitism and views that are profoundly anti-Israeli have traditionally been the primary preserve of poorly educated right-wing populists, profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent.”
Mr. Murdoch, however, did not reserve his warning merely for the university elites. He warned that anti-Semitism today “enjoys support at both the highest and lowest reaches of European society — from its most elite politicians to its largely Muslim ghettoes. European Jews find themselves caught in this pincer.” He quoted a European Commission trade minister who declared that peace in the Middle East is impossible because of the Jewish lobby in America — and, savvy editor that he is, went on to deconstruct the minister’s language, which was:
“There is indeed a belief — it’s difficult to describe it otherwise — among most Jews that they are right. And it’s not so much whether these are religious Jews or not. Lay Jews also share the same belief that they are right. So it is not easy to have, even with moderate Jews, a rational discussion about what is actually happening in the Middle East.” Quoth Mr. Murdoch: “This minister did not suggest the problem was any specific Israeli policy. The problem, as he defined it, is the nature of the Jews.”
Mr. Murdoch took on the Swedish mayor who responded to riots against a visiting Israeli tennis team by equating Zionism with anti-Semitism “and suggesting,” as Mr. Murdoch put it, “that Swedish Jews would be safer in his town if they distanced themselves from Israeli actions in Gaza.” He noted that the Norwegian government “forbids a Norwegian-based, German shipbuilder from using its waters to test a submarine being built for the Israeli navy.” He also noted that Britain and Spain are boycotting an OECD tourism meeting in Jerusalem and that in the Low Lands, police are reporting a 50% increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents.
For Mr. Murdoch, what this underlines is the importance of good relations between Israel and America. “Some believe that if America wants to gain credibility in the Muslim world and advance the cause of peace, Washington needs to put some distance between itself and Israel,” he said. “My view is the opposite. Far from making peace more possible, we are making hostilities more certain. Far from making things better for the Palestinian people, sour relations between the United States and Israel guarantees that ordinary Palestinians will continue to suffer. The peace we all want will come when Israel feels secure — not when Washington feels distant.”
The most significant part of Mr. Murdoch’s speech, by our lights, came toward the end, when the man who owns the biggest newspaper in Britain reached down deep and spoke of the testimony presented to a British commission back in 1937 by the Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky, who urged Britain to open up what Mr. Murdoch called “an escape route for Jews fleeing Europe.” He quoted Jabotinsky, who went on to write a famous book called “The Jewish War Front” and emerged as one of the Founding Fathers of Israel, as saying that only a Jewish homeland could protect European Jews from the coming calamity. Then, calling Jabotinsky’s words “prophetic,” he quoted one his most famous formulations: “It is not the anti-Semitism of men. It is, above all, the anti-Semitism of things, the inherent xenophobia of the body social or the body economic under which we suffer.”
* * *
It is still the anti-Semitism of things, and it is a radical, a newsworthy speech to say so. And it is something — we would even say inspiring — to think that the most powerful press lord on the planet can take the stage on this head and reach deep into history and conclude that Jabotinsky is a prophet for our times. Mr. Murdoch was not saying that we are on the brink of another Holocaust. “The world of 2010 is not the world of the 1930s. The threats Jews face today are different,” he said. But he was marking that we are in a serious moment. “These threats are real,” he concluded. “These threats are soaked in an ugly language familiar to anyone old enough to remember World War II. And these threats cannot be addressed until we see them for what they are: part of an ongoing war against the Jews.
Friday, October 15, 2010
they don't recognize jewish state, there should be no 23rd Arab Muslim state
Your Support
In-Depth Issues:
PA Rejects Inferred Recognition of Jewish State - Kevin Flower (CNN)
Top PA negotiator Nabil Sha'ath, an advisor to Mahmoud Abbas, distanced the PA government from comments by PLO official Yasser Abed Rabbo inferring that Palestinians might recognize Israel as a Jewish state in exchange for a future Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders.
"We are not going to do it - forget it," Sha'ath told CNN, adding that Abed Rabbo's comments did not represent the position of the PLO or the Fatah faction which dominates the Palestinian Authority.
In-Depth Issues:
PA Rejects Inferred Recognition of Jewish State - Kevin Flower (CNN)
Top PA negotiator Nabil Sha'ath, an advisor to Mahmoud Abbas, distanced the PA government from comments by PLO official Yasser Abed Rabbo inferring that Palestinians might recognize Israel as a Jewish state in exchange for a future Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders.
"We are not going to do it - forget it," Sha'ath told CNN, adding that Abed Rabbo's comments did not represent the position of the PLO or the Fatah faction which dominates the Palestinian Authority.
Shame on Jan Schakowski Illinois 9 Congresswoman
J Street PAC has teamed up with Jan Schakowsky to attack our campaign’s pro-America, pro-Israel event this evening: “The U.S. & Israel: Winning the Media War.”
In an email to supporters (below), J Street PAC--which has given tens of thousands of dollars to Schakowsky--attacks pro-Israel speakers Jennifer Rubin and Daniel Pipes, both of whom are going to be speaking at our event this evening (7016 Carpenter, Skokie IL, 7:00-9:00 p.m.).
J Street’s email also includes a message from Schakowsky:
“I reject calls by my GOP opponent to return campaign contributions from JStreetPAC and his cynical attempt to turn Israel into a partisan wedge issue at this delicate and potentially historic moment. I stand behind President Obama's efforts to provide Israel with the lasting peace and security that only a two-state solution can achieve. And I commend JStreetPAC for its ongoing efforts to encourage debate and broaden the pro-Israel tent.”
It is radical groups like J Street--sponsored by George Soros and foreign donors--that have made Israel into a political football. Today, while 85% of Republicans support Israel, only 48% of Democrats do. That is the direct result of pressure groups like J Street, together with the Obama administration’s ill treatment of Israel, and the weakness of Democratic leaders in confronting the anti-Israel radicals in their midst.
Jan Schakowsky has decided where she stands: with J Street and against Israel’s strongest defenders--not just Rubin and Pipes, but Elie Wiesel, Alan Dershowitz, Joe Lieberman, and Malcolm Hoenlein, each of whom has been attacked by J Street in recent months.
A true leader on Israel would not stand with a group that lies about taking foreign money and trashes America’s best ally. Schakowsky has to go!
In an email to supporters (below), J Street PAC--which has given tens of thousands of dollars to Schakowsky--attacks pro-Israel speakers Jennifer Rubin and Daniel Pipes, both of whom are going to be speaking at our event this evening (7016 Carpenter, Skokie IL, 7:00-9:00 p.m.).
J Street’s email also includes a message from Schakowsky:
“I reject calls by my GOP opponent to return campaign contributions from JStreetPAC and his cynical attempt to turn Israel into a partisan wedge issue at this delicate and potentially historic moment. I stand behind President Obama's efforts to provide Israel with the lasting peace and security that only a two-state solution can achieve. And I commend JStreetPAC for its ongoing efforts to encourage debate and broaden the pro-Israel tent.”
It is radical groups like J Street--sponsored by George Soros and foreign donors--that have made Israel into a political football. Today, while 85% of Republicans support Israel, only 48% of Democrats do. That is the direct result of pressure groups like J Street, together with the Obama administration’s ill treatment of Israel, and the weakness of Democratic leaders in confronting the anti-Israel radicals in their midst.
Jan Schakowsky has decided where she stands: with J Street and against Israel’s strongest defenders--not just Rubin and Pipes, but Elie Wiesel, Alan Dershowitz, Joe Lieberman, and Malcolm Hoenlein, each of whom has been attacked by J Street in recent months.
A true leader on Israel would not stand with a group that lies about taking foreign money and trashes America’s best ally. Schakowsky has to go!
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
www.ustream.tv Esynagogue channel shows this week
Jewish Television shows on the internet
Esynagogue tv shows this week on www.ustream.tv
Wed 1:15 Chgo time Contemporary Jewish law-mourning
Friday 8 pm Kabbalat Shabbat
Sun 9:30 am Intro to Judaism marriage, divorce, sickness, death, Messiah
Esynagogue tv shows this week on www.ustream.tv
Wed 1:15 Chgo time Contemporary Jewish law-mourning
Friday 8 pm Kabbalat Shabbat
Sun 9:30 am Intro to Judaism marriage, divorce, sickness, death, Messiah
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Mn. Muslim Congressman Ellsion gos on Hajj by Moslerm brotherhood
Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Muslim Brotherhood) likens resistance to Islamic
supremacism to racism
$13,350 from the group that wants to destroy the West from within
In December 2008, when it was first revealed that Ellison's Hajj was paid for
with $13,350 from the Muslim American Society:
The Muslim Brotherhood "must understand that their work in America is a kind of
grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within
and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the
believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over
all other religions." -- "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic
Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991.
What does that have to do with Congressman Ellison? Everything. The Muslim
American Society paid for his Hajj. And what is the Muslim American Society? The
Muslim Brotherhood.
"In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American
Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation's major
Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious
debate among Brotherhood members." -- Chicago Tribune, 2004.
Imagine if a conservative Congressman had taken a trip that had been paid for by
a Christian group that was, according to one of its own documents, dedicated to
"eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and
'sabotaging' its miserable house" so that Christian law would replace
the U.S. Constitution. I expect we would hear more of an outcry than we ever
heard about Ellison's Brotherhood-funded hajj.
Yet I am pretty much the only one calling attention to Ellison's having taken
money from the Brotherhood. But also remember that the Muslim Brotherhood is a
pro-Sharia group -- i.e., it opposes the freedom of speech, the freedom of
conscience, and the equality of rights before the law of women with men and
non-Muslims with Muslims. I, am fighting to defend those rights against Islamic
supremacists who would chip away at them. So who is really fronting for "hate,"
Congressman -- you or I? I'd say you.
An aside: several people have written to me asking why I was so quiet during the
ABC "This Week" panel hosted by nakedly biased pseudo-journalist Christiane
Amanpour. In fact, I wasn't: they taped two hours and only broadcast one,
cutting out much of what I said. I also learned later that my microphone was
off, such that I could be heard commenting in the background, being picked up
faintly on other people's mics, but what I said was consequently too faint to be
heard on the show itself. Par for the course for the mainstream media.
Oddly enough, Ellison is unhappy about the ABC show, even though it was a patent
whitewash of the jihad and Islamic supremacism. "Should we fear Islam?," by
Congressman Keith Ellison in the Washington Post, October 7:
At a time when our nation is seeing a rise in intolerant behavior, crossing
every cultural line, whether based on race, religion or sexual orientation, we
seem simultaneously stuck with a national news media that is preoccupied with
conflict and controversy when we desperately need one that weighs facts and
reports fairly. A recent national news program reinforced these concerns. Let me
explain what I mean.
>Imagine a respected TV show or news magazine article with the title, "Should
>Americans Fear Black People?"..
supremacism to racism
$13,350 from the group that wants to destroy the West from within
In December 2008, when it was first revealed that Ellison's Hajj was paid for
with $13,350 from the Muslim American Society:
The Muslim Brotherhood "must understand that their work in America is a kind of
grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within
and "sabotaging" its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the
believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over
all other religions." -- "An Explanatory Memorandum on the General Strategic
Goal for the Brotherhood in North America," by Mohamed Akram, May 19, 1991.
What does that have to do with Congressman Ellison? Everything. The Muslim
American Society paid for his Hajj. And what is the Muslim American Society? The
Muslim Brotherhood.
"In recent years, the U.S. Brotherhood operated under the name Muslim American
Society, according to documents and interviews. One of the nation's major
Islamic groups, it was incorporated in Illinois in 1993 after a contentious
debate among Brotherhood members." -- Chicago Tribune, 2004.
Imagine if a conservative Congressman had taken a trip that had been paid for by
a Christian group that was, according to one of its own documents, dedicated to
"eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and
'sabotaging' its miserable house" so that Christian law would replace
the U.S. Constitution. I expect we would hear more of an outcry than we ever
heard about Ellison's Brotherhood-funded hajj.
Yet I am pretty much the only one calling attention to Ellison's having taken
money from the Brotherhood. But also remember that the Muslim Brotherhood is a
pro-Sharia group -- i.e., it opposes the freedom of speech, the freedom of
conscience, and the equality of rights before the law of women with men and
non-Muslims with Muslims. I, am fighting to defend those rights against Islamic
supremacists who would chip away at them. So who is really fronting for "hate,"
Congressman -- you or I? I'd say you.
An aside: several people have written to me asking why I was so quiet during the
ABC "This Week" panel hosted by nakedly biased pseudo-journalist Christiane
Amanpour. In fact, I wasn't: they taped two hours and only broadcast one,
cutting out much of what I said. I also learned later that my microphone was
off, such that I could be heard commenting in the background, being picked up
faintly on other people's mics, but what I said was consequently too faint to be
heard on the show itself. Par for the course for the mainstream media.
Oddly enough, Ellison is unhappy about the ABC show, even though it was a patent
whitewash of the jihad and Islamic supremacism. "Should we fear Islam?," by
Congressman Keith Ellison in the Washington Post, October 7:
At a time when our nation is seeing a rise in intolerant behavior, crossing
every cultural line, whether based on race, religion or sexual orientation, we
seem simultaneously stuck with a national news media that is preoccupied with
conflict and controversy when we desperately need one that weighs facts and
reports fairly. A recent national news program reinforced these concerns. Let me
explain what I mean.
>Imagine a respected TV show or news magazine article with the title, "Should
>Americans Fear Black People?"..
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
How make peace with them?
PA Continues to Teach Denial of Israel's Existence - Itamar Marcus and Nan Jacques Zilberdik
The PA continues to educate its people to envision a world without Israel, presenting Israeli cities and regions as "Palestinian." Last week, PA TV rebroadcast an educational documentary that describes the Israeli cities of Haifa, Acre, Ashkelon, Jaffa and the Sea of Galilee as Palestinian. PA TV is under the direct control of the office of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. (Palestinian Media Watch)
The PA continues to educate its people to envision a world without Israel, presenting Israeli cities and regions as "Palestinian." Last week, PA TV rebroadcast an educational documentary that describes the Israeli cities of Haifa, Acre, Ashkelon, Jaffa and the Sea of Galilee as Palestinian. PA TV is under the direct control of the office of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. (Palestinian Media Watch)
Rick Sanchez's antisemitism
When ‘Bigotry’ Backfires: The Rick Sanchez Affair
4Share
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Abraham H. Foxman
Special To The Jewish Week
So now CNN host Rick Sanchez has added his name to the long list of public figures, here and abroad, who accuse the Jews of control, in this case of control of the television news business. Others gear the accusation to the media in general or the entertainment world or government or the international economy.
For those of you who may have missed his remarks, which nearly overnight turned the popular, pugnacious host of CNN’s “Rick’s List” into the ranks of the unemployed, here’s a quick recap: In a Sept. 30 interview with the comedian Pete Dominick on satellite radio, Sanchez suggested that as a Cuban-American, he had experienced subtle forms of discrimination in his career as a television reporter and anchor. He then accused Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” of being “a bigot.”
When pressed on that characterization by one of the show’s hosts, who pointed out that Stewart was Jewish and like Sanchez a member of a minority group, Sanchez’s response was to suggest that, “Everybody that runs CNN is a lot like Stewart. And a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart. And to imply that somehow they — the people in this country who are Jewish — are an oppressed minority? Yeah.” CNN fired Sanchez on Friday, a day after the interview.
As often is the case with these situations, it took an unguarded moment for Sanchez to reveal his own bigotry, ironically, in awkwardly fashioning the same accusation against another media type. And there it was again: the age-old conspiracy theory about Jewish control of the news media, this time brought to the fore by a well-known television personality with a loyal audience following on CNN.
What’s interesting about a person like Sanchez making this claim is that he is not an extremist, not a religious fanatic and not an ideologue.
Jewish conspiracy theories coming from extreme anti-Semites are par for the course and a recurring theme in the history of the Jewish people. In the Middle Ages it took the form of blood libel charges or accusations that Jews were responsible for the Black Plague because it was said that they were poisoning the wells. In modern times, the infamous phony document “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” allegedly the secret plan of Jewish leaders to take over the world, resonated and still resonates with millions.
It is true that there are many Jewish executives and owners of news outlets and entertainment vehicles. There is nothing wrong with saying that — indeed, Jewish accomplishments in these areas are something to be proud of. But to say that Jews control these areas is a whole other thing. That reflects the age-old canard because it doesn’t focus on individual Jews who may have a talent for these fields (like non-Jewish Americans who have talents in their fields), but suggests Jews working in conspiracy to serve their narrow interests. Anti-Semites never sees Jews as individuals but rather as a coordinated group to serve Jewish interests against the interests of others.
The fact that individuals who are not usually associated with extremism feel comfortable making similar charges shows how deeply embedded such ideas are in Western civilization, even in America, where by any standard anti-Semitism is not as powerful a force as it has been historically and as it continues to be in other parts of the world.
Some of the more well-known examples of this kind of thing include filmmaker Oliver Stone’s recent reference to “Jewish domination of the media;” Mel Gibson’s notorious comment in 2006 that “Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world;” and Ralph Nader’s statement in 2004 that the “Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington, meets with the puppet in the White House and goes down Pennsylvania Avenue and meets with the puppets in Congress.”
Others in the mainstream who have voiced similar themes were Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia, who in 2003 suggested that we are at war in Iraq because of American Jews, and country singer and entertainer Dolly Parton, who in a 1994 Vogue interview blamed Jews in Hollywood for not getting her pet project produced.
There is a tendency to want to shrug off these sad cases as not typical of what America is about. And surely, we should keep such statements, no matter how disturbing, in perspective. However, they do speak to what is unique about anti-Semitism and what urges all of us not to be complacent about the subject even when and where things are a lot better than they used to be.
Anti-Semitism shares with other forms of hatred a number of well-documented elements such as stereotyping, discrimination and fear of difference.
What has been the special characteristic of anti-Semitism and what goes a long way to explain why it has lasted so long, why it has been so lethal and why it exists in so many contradictory settings is the idea that Jews are not what they appear to be, that they are, in fact, secretive, poisonous, all-powerful and acting as a cabal.
As a result, since according to this view, reality is not what it seems to be, Jews can be and frequently are conjured up for all kinds of ills of mankind.
Is the Rick Sanchez episode important? Yes — not because of his influence, which I would hope will be in decline, but because this dangerous notion has shown a resiliency and life of its own, even in very surprising places. n
Abraham H. Foxman is the national director of the Anti-Defamation League. His books include “The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control” and the forthcoming “Jews and Money: The Story of a Stereotype” (Palgrave Macmillan, November 2010).
4Share
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Abraham H. Foxman
Special To The Jewish Week
So now CNN host Rick Sanchez has added his name to the long list of public figures, here and abroad, who accuse the Jews of control, in this case of control of the television news business. Others gear the accusation to the media in general or the entertainment world or government or the international economy.
For those of you who may have missed his remarks, which nearly overnight turned the popular, pugnacious host of CNN’s “Rick’s List” into the ranks of the unemployed, here’s a quick recap: In a Sept. 30 interview with the comedian Pete Dominick on satellite radio, Sanchez suggested that as a Cuban-American, he had experienced subtle forms of discrimination in his career as a television reporter and anchor. He then accused Jon Stewart of “The Daily Show” of being “a bigot.”
When pressed on that characterization by one of the show’s hosts, who pointed out that Stewart was Jewish and like Sanchez a member of a minority group, Sanchez’s response was to suggest that, “Everybody that runs CNN is a lot like Stewart. And a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart. And to imply that somehow they — the people in this country who are Jewish — are an oppressed minority? Yeah.” CNN fired Sanchez on Friday, a day after the interview.
As often is the case with these situations, it took an unguarded moment for Sanchez to reveal his own bigotry, ironically, in awkwardly fashioning the same accusation against another media type. And there it was again: the age-old conspiracy theory about Jewish control of the news media, this time brought to the fore by a well-known television personality with a loyal audience following on CNN.
What’s interesting about a person like Sanchez making this claim is that he is not an extremist, not a religious fanatic and not an ideologue.
Jewish conspiracy theories coming from extreme anti-Semites are par for the course and a recurring theme in the history of the Jewish people. In the Middle Ages it took the form of blood libel charges or accusations that Jews were responsible for the Black Plague because it was said that they were poisoning the wells. In modern times, the infamous phony document “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion,” allegedly the secret plan of Jewish leaders to take over the world, resonated and still resonates with millions.
It is true that there are many Jewish executives and owners of news outlets and entertainment vehicles. There is nothing wrong with saying that — indeed, Jewish accomplishments in these areas are something to be proud of. But to say that Jews control these areas is a whole other thing. That reflects the age-old canard because it doesn’t focus on individual Jews who may have a talent for these fields (like non-Jewish Americans who have talents in their fields), but suggests Jews working in conspiracy to serve their narrow interests. Anti-Semites never sees Jews as individuals but rather as a coordinated group to serve Jewish interests against the interests of others.
The fact that individuals who are not usually associated with extremism feel comfortable making similar charges shows how deeply embedded such ideas are in Western civilization, even in America, where by any standard anti-Semitism is not as powerful a force as it has been historically and as it continues to be in other parts of the world.
Some of the more well-known examples of this kind of thing include filmmaker Oliver Stone’s recent reference to “Jewish domination of the media;” Mel Gibson’s notorious comment in 2006 that “Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world;” and Ralph Nader’s statement in 2004 that the “Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington, meets with the puppet in the White House and goes down Pennsylvania Avenue and meets with the puppets in Congress.”
Others in the mainstream who have voiced similar themes were Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia, who in 2003 suggested that we are at war in Iraq because of American Jews, and country singer and entertainer Dolly Parton, who in a 1994 Vogue interview blamed Jews in Hollywood for not getting her pet project produced.
There is a tendency to want to shrug off these sad cases as not typical of what America is about. And surely, we should keep such statements, no matter how disturbing, in perspective. However, they do speak to what is unique about anti-Semitism and what urges all of us not to be complacent about the subject even when and where things are a lot better than they used to be.
Anti-Semitism shares with other forms of hatred a number of well-documented elements such as stereotyping, discrimination and fear of difference.
What has been the special characteristic of anti-Semitism and what goes a long way to explain why it has lasted so long, why it has been so lethal and why it exists in so many contradictory settings is the idea that Jews are not what they appear to be, that they are, in fact, secretive, poisonous, all-powerful and acting as a cabal.
As a result, since according to this view, reality is not what it seems to be, Jews can be and frequently are conjured up for all kinds of ills of mankind.
Is the Rick Sanchez episode important? Yes — not because of his influence, which I would hope will be in decline, but because this dangerous notion has shown a resiliency and life of its own, even in very surprising places. n
Abraham H. Foxman is the national director of the Anti-Defamation League. His books include “The Deadliest Lies: The Israel Lobby and the Myth of Jewish Control” and the forthcoming “Jews and Money: The Story of a Stereotype” (Palgrave Macmillan, November 2010).
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
UN United Nuts
UN Poisons Its Human Rights Mission - Irwin Cotler
The UN Human Rights Council is the mandated UN body responsible for the promotion and protection of international human rights. But the council has turned its mandate on its head. It has turned a blind eye to the world's most serious human rights violators, failing to adopt any resolution or investigative mandate for such human rights violator countries as China, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Russia or Iran, to name but a few - all being listed on Freedom House's list of the 20 worst human rights abusers. While the UN General Assembly calls for countries to be elected to the council based on their human rights records, 24 out of 47 present members (51%) fail to meet fundamental standards of democracy and human rights.
Since its 2006 creation, 80% of the council's resolutions have singled out one member state - Israel - for differential and discriminatory treatment, thereby breaching the UN charter's foundational principle of "equality for all nations, large and small." The tragedy in all this is that a UN body, established for the protection of human rights, has become a human rights violator. In particular, these violations now take place under the protective cover of the UN, invoking the imprimatur of international law and marching under the banner of human rights. The writer is a former minister of justice and attorney-general of Canada. (The Australian)
The UN Human Rights Council is the mandated UN body responsible for the promotion and protection of international human rights. But the council has turned its mandate on its head. It has turned a blind eye to the world's most serious human rights violators, failing to adopt any resolution or investigative mandate for such human rights violator countries as China, Cuba, Libya, North Korea, Russia or Iran, to name but a few - all being listed on Freedom House's list of the 20 worst human rights abusers. While the UN General Assembly calls for countries to be elected to the council based on their human rights records, 24 out of 47 present members (51%) fail to meet fundamental standards of democracy and human rights.
Since its 2006 creation, 80% of the council's resolutions have singled out one member state - Israel - for differential and discriminatory treatment, thereby breaching the UN charter's foundational principle of "equality for all nations, large and small." The tragedy in all this is that a UN body, established for the protection of human rights, has become a human rights violator. In particular, these violations now take place under the protective cover of the UN, invoking the imprimatur of international law and marching under the banner of human rights. The writer is a former minister of justice and attorney-general of Canada. (The Australian)
Sunday, October 3, 2010
worm attack on Iran's nuks
* Home
* World
o All world
o United States
o Britain
o Europe
o Asia
o The Americas
o Africa
o Middle East
* Business & finance
o All business & finance
o Business education
o Which MBA?
* Science & technology
* Economics
o All Economics
o Markets & Data
* Culture
* Site Index
* Print Edition
International
The Stuxnet outbreak
A worm in the centrifuge
An unusually sophisticated cyber-weapon is mysterious but important
Sep 30th 2010 | From The Economist print edition
IT SOUNDS like the plot of an airport thriller or a James Bond film. A crack team of experts, assembled by a shadowy government agency, develops a cyber-weapon designed to shut down a rogue country’s nuclear programme. The software uses previously unknown tricks to worm its way into industrial control systems undetected, searching for a particular configuration that matches its target—at which point it wreaks havoc by reprogramming the system, closing valves and shutting down pipelines.
This is not fiction, but fact. A new software “worm” called Stuxnet (its name is derived from keywords buried in the code) seems to have been developed to attack a specific nuclear facility in Iran. Its sophistication suggests that it is the work of a well-financed team working for a government, rather than a group of rogue hackers trying to steal secrets or cause trouble. America and Israel are the obvious suspects. But Stuxnet’s origins and effects are unknown.
Stuxnet first came to light in June, when it was identified by VirusBlokAda, a security firm in Belarus. The next month Siemens, a German industrial giant, warned customers that their “supervisory control and data acquisition” (SCADA) management systems, which control valves, pipelines and industrial equipment, were vulnerable to the worm. It targets a piece of Siemens software, called WinCC, which runs on Microsoft Windows.
For security reasons SCADA systems are not usually connected to the internet. But Stuxnet can spread via infected memory sticks plugged into a computer’s USB port. Stuxnet checks to see if WinCC is running. If it is, it tries to log in, to install a clandestine “back door” to the internet, and then to contact a server in Denmark or Malaysia for instructions. (Analysis of traffic to these servers is continuing, and may offer the best chance of casting light on Stuxnet’s purpose and origins.) If it cannot find WinCC, it tries to copy itself on to other USB devices. It can also spread across local networks via shared folders and print spoolers.
Initially, Stuxnet seemed to be designed for industrial espionage or to allow hackers to blackmail companies by threatening to shut down vital systems. But its unusual characteristics suggest another explanation. WinCC is a rather obscure SCADA system. Hackers hoping to target as many companies as possible would have focused on more popular systems. And Stuxnet searches for a particular configuration of industrial equipment as it spreads. It launches an attack only when it finds a match. “The bad news is that the virus is targeting a specific process or plant,” says Wieland Simon of Siemens. “The good news is that most industrial processes are not the target of the virus.” (Siemens says it knows of 15 plants around the world that were infected by Stuxnet, but their operations were unaffected as they were not the intended target.)
Another odd feature is that Stuxnet uses two compromised security certificates (stolen from firms in Taiwan) and a previously unknown security hole in Windows to launch itself automatically from a memory stick. The use of such “zero-day vulnerabilities” by viruses is not unusual. But Stuxnet can exploit four entirely different ones in order to worm its way into a system. These holes are so valuable that hackers would not normally use four of them in a single attack. Whoever created Stuxnet did just that to boost its chances. They also had detailed knowledge of Siemens’s industrial-production processes and control systems, and access to the target plant’s blueprints. In short, Stuxnet was the work neither of amateur hackers nor of cybercriminals, but of a well- financed team. “Behind this virus there are experts,” says Mr Simon. “They need money and know-how.”
So what was the target? Microsoft said in August that Stuxnet had infected more than 45,000 computers. Symantec, a computer-security firm, found that 60% of the infected machines were in Iran, 18% in Indonesia and 8% in India. That could be a coincidence. But if Stuxnet was aimed at Iran, one possible target is the Bushehr nuclear reactor. This week Iranian officials confirmed that Stuxnet had infected computers at Bushehr, but said that no damage to major systems had been done. Bushehr has been dogged by problems for years and its opening was recently delayed once again. Given that history, the latest hitch may not have been Stuxnet’s work.
A more plausible target is Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz. Inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s watchdog, have found that about half Iran’s centrifuges are idle and those that work are yielding little. Some say a fall in the number of working centrifuges at Natanz in early 2009 is evidence of a successful Stuxnet attack.
Last year Scott Borg of the United States Cyber-Consequences Unit, a think-tank, said that Israel might prefer to mount a cyber-attack rather than a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. That could involve disrupting sensitive equipment such as centrifuges, he said, using malware introduced via infected memory sticks.
His observation now looks astonishingly prescient. “Since the autumn of 2002, I have regularly predicted that this sort of cyber-attack tool would eventually be developed,” he says. Israel certainly has the ability to create Stuxnet, he adds, and there is little downside to such an attack, because it would be virtually impossible to prove who did it. So a tool like Stuxnet is “Israel’s obvious weapon of choice”. Some have even noted keywords in Stuxnet’s code drawn from the Bible’s Book of Esther—in which the Jews fight back to foil a plot to exterminate them.
* World
o All world
o United States
o Britain
o Europe
o Asia
o The Americas
o Africa
o Middle East
* Business & finance
o All business & finance
o Business education
o Which MBA?
* Science & technology
* Economics
o All Economics
o Markets & Data
* Culture
* Site Index
* Print Edition
International
The Stuxnet outbreak
A worm in the centrifuge
An unusually sophisticated cyber-weapon is mysterious but important
Sep 30th 2010 | From The Economist print edition
IT SOUNDS like the plot of an airport thriller or a James Bond film. A crack team of experts, assembled by a shadowy government agency, develops a cyber-weapon designed to shut down a rogue country’s nuclear programme. The software uses previously unknown tricks to worm its way into industrial control systems undetected, searching for a particular configuration that matches its target—at which point it wreaks havoc by reprogramming the system, closing valves and shutting down pipelines.
This is not fiction, but fact. A new software “worm” called Stuxnet (its name is derived from keywords buried in the code) seems to have been developed to attack a specific nuclear facility in Iran. Its sophistication suggests that it is the work of a well-financed team working for a government, rather than a group of rogue hackers trying to steal secrets or cause trouble. America and Israel are the obvious suspects. But Stuxnet’s origins and effects are unknown.
Stuxnet first came to light in June, when it was identified by VirusBlokAda, a security firm in Belarus. The next month Siemens, a German industrial giant, warned customers that their “supervisory control and data acquisition” (SCADA) management systems, which control valves, pipelines and industrial equipment, were vulnerable to the worm. It targets a piece of Siemens software, called WinCC, which runs on Microsoft Windows.
For security reasons SCADA systems are not usually connected to the internet. But Stuxnet can spread via infected memory sticks plugged into a computer’s USB port. Stuxnet checks to see if WinCC is running. If it is, it tries to log in, to install a clandestine “back door” to the internet, and then to contact a server in Denmark or Malaysia for instructions. (Analysis of traffic to these servers is continuing, and may offer the best chance of casting light on Stuxnet’s purpose and origins.) If it cannot find WinCC, it tries to copy itself on to other USB devices. It can also spread across local networks via shared folders and print spoolers.
Initially, Stuxnet seemed to be designed for industrial espionage or to allow hackers to blackmail companies by threatening to shut down vital systems. But its unusual characteristics suggest another explanation. WinCC is a rather obscure SCADA system. Hackers hoping to target as many companies as possible would have focused on more popular systems. And Stuxnet searches for a particular configuration of industrial equipment as it spreads. It launches an attack only when it finds a match. “The bad news is that the virus is targeting a specific process or plant,” says Wieland Simon of Siemens. “The good news is that most industrial processes are not the target of the virus.” (Siemens says it knows of 15 plants around the world that were infected by Stuxnet, but their operations were unaffected as they were not the intended target.)
Another odd feature is that Stuxnet uses two compromised security certificates (stolen from firms in Taiwan) and a previously unknown security hole in Windows to launch itself automatically from a memory stick. The use of such “zero-day vulnerabilities” by viruses is not unusual. But Stuxnet can exploit four entirely different ones in order to worm its way into a system. These holes are so valuable that hackers would not normally use four of them in a single attack. Whoever created Stuxnet did just that to boost its chances. They also had detailed knowledge of Siemens’s industrial-production processes and control systems, and access to the target plant’s blueprints. In short, Stuxnet was the work neither of amateur hackers nor of cybercriminals, but of a well- financed team. “Behind this virus there are experts,” says Mr Simon. “They need money and know-how.”
So what was the target? Microsoft said in August that Stuxnet had infected more than 45,000 computers. Symantec, a computer-security firm, found that 60% of the infected machines were in Iran, 18% in Indonesia and 8% in India. That could be a coincidence. But if Stuxnet was aimed at Iran, one possible target is the Bushehr nuclear reactor. This week Iranian officials confirmed that Stuxnet had infected computers at Bushehr, but said that no damage to major systems had been done. Bushehr has been dogged by problems for years and its opening was recently delayed once again. Given that history, the latest hitch may not have been Stuxnet’s work.
A more plausible target is Iran’s uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz. Inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN’s watchdog, have found that about half Iran’s centrifuges are idle and those that work are yielding little. Some say a fall in the number of working centrifuges at Natanz in early 2009 is evidence of a successful Stuxnet attack.
Last year Scott Borg of the United States Cyber-Consequences Unit, a think-tank, said that Israel might prefer to mount a cyber-attack rather than a military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. That could involve disrupting sensitive equipment such as centrifuges, he said, using malware introduced via infected memory sticks.
His observation now looks astonishingly prescient. “Since the autumn of 2002, I have regularly predicted that this sort of cyber-attack tool would eventually be developed,” he says. Israel certainly has the ability to create Stuxnet, he adds, and there is little downside to such an attack, because it would be virtually impossible to prove who did it. So a tool like Stuxnet is “Israel’s obvious weapon of choice”. Some have even noted keywords in Stuxnet’s code drawn from the Bible’s Book of Esther—in which the Jews fight back to foil a plot to exterminate them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
