Daled Amos

Review of Robert Spencer's "Did Muhammad Exist?"

2012-05-25T14:59:00.000-04:00

The following is reposted with permission:

Did Muhammad Exist?
An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins

by Robert Spencer
ISI Books, 2012. 254 pp. $27.95

Reviewed by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

The American Spectator
May 25, 2012

http://www.meforum.org/3251/did-muhammad-exist

Go to a high-street or online bookstore, and one can find numerous biographies written about Muhammad -- the reputed founder of Islam -- by the likes of Karen Armstrong and Tariq Ramadan. These works -- generally apologetic in nature -- wholly rely on the traditional Islamic accounts of the Prophet's life, and if they ever delve into the question of the reliability of those sources, it is only in the hope of explaining away incidents in Muhammad's life that might come across as unsavory to modern readers.

Such an approach, however, simply will not do for genuine historical research. One cannot adopt a pick-and-mix method to determining what aspects of Muhammad's life actually occurred on moralistic grounds. It is in this respect that Robert Spencer's latest book differs from the writings of Armstrong and Ramadan.

Without indulging in polemics or pushing a partisan political agenda, the author simply investigates the question of whether we can really trust the traditional Islamic accounts for the life of Muhammad and the supposed early days of Islam during the Arab conquests.

To be sure, serious scholarship on Islamic historiography dates back to the latter half of the 19th century -- with the works of the Belgian Jesuit Henri Lammens and the acclaimed Geschichte des Qorans by Theodor Noldeke, to name just two pioneers of the field -- and Spencer makes no pretense to originality.

Yet a traditional problem with Islamic historiography has been the intended audience: that is, the academic specialist assumed to have extensive background knowledge, rather than the general reader. Thus, Spencer's book serves a useful purpose, for it flows nicely while providing the reader with a firm grounding for delving deeper into the subject. Indeed, the author provides a handy "Further Reading List" (pp. 239-40) for anyone interested in consulting specialist works. Spencer also deserves credit for integrating his sources nicely into his writing, avoiding the practice of simply quoting verbatim large chunks from other authors.

SO WHAT ARE THE MAIN arguments against the historicity of the traditional Islamic accounts of Muhammad's life and the subsequent rise of Islam through the Arab conquests?

To begin with, contemporary non-Muslim sources of the 7th century do not corroborate the canonical story. For example, the Doctrina Jacobi (a document dating to 634-40 CE and probably written by a Christian living in Palestine; p. 20), an account of the Arab conquest of Jerusalem by Sophronius -- the patriarch who is said to have surrendered the city in 637 -- and a letter written in 647 by the patriarch of Seleucia make no reference to the Arab conquerors as Muslims, or show any awareness of a religion called Islam.

The earliest account that can reliably be taken to refer to Muhammad is a chronicle by the Armenian bishop Sebeos, dating either to the 660s or 670s but containing material that sharply diverges from the traditional Islamic accounts: thus he has Muhammad "insisting on the Jews' right to the Holy Land -- even if in the context of claiming that land for the Ishmaelites, acting in conjunction with the Jews" (p. 32).

Only by around 730 CE, nearly one hundred years after Muhammad's death in 632 CE according to the canonical story, do we see an account by John of Damascus make detailed reference to parts of the Qur'an, but even then he does not name the Qur'an or allude to the existence of a complete holy book for those he calls "Hagarians," "Ishmaelites" or "Saracens" (but not Muslims).

Instead, we have reference to Qur'anic chapter titles like "The Women" (this is the fourth Sura of the Qur'an today), implying that he was drawing on fragments of text that were later incorporated into the Qur'an.

Arabic epigraphic evidence from the 7th century similarly fails to validate the canonical account. An inscription attributed to the first Umayyad caliph -- Muawiya -- in 677 or 678 CE makes reference to belief in God but gives no indication of belief in Muhammad as his messenger or the Qur'an as revealed scripture.

On coins from this period, we do find the word "Muhammad" inscribed, but curiously the inscription comes under kingly figures bearing a cross, a symbol of Christianity that is totally antithetical to traditional Islam (pp. 43-4).

Bearing in mind that "Muhammad" can also mean "the chosen/praised one," the coins could well be conveying the idea that the ruler is praised or chosen in God's name (p. 45). Alternatively, they could be referring to Jesus -- at a time when the religion of the Arab conquerors was still a vague monotheism -- or a proto-Muhammad figure still very much unlike the man depicted in the traditional accounts of his life. Even the inscriptions on the Dome of the Rock -- completed in 691 CE and often thought to be the first elaborations on traditional Islamic theology -- could be referring to Jesus, explaining how he ("Muhammad") is a mere messenger and not divine as orthodox Christianity held (pp. 56-7).

IT IS ONLY TOWARDS the middle of the 8th century (735 CE onwards) that we begin to see very clear epigraphic evidence referring to Muhammad as we know him from the Ahadith (plural of hadith) and Sira (pp. 61-2). This observation leads nicely to an examination of the reliability of biographical material from the Ahadith and Siraconcerning the sunna (i.e. example) of Muhammad. The centrality of the Ahadith and Sira in interpreting various Qur'anic verses, whose meaning would otherwise be entirely obscure, cannot be overstated.

However, as Spencer points out, it is notable that the invocation of Muhammad's example begins with the same caliph who had the Dome of the Rock built and issued the first coins invoking Muhammad as the Prophet of God: Abd al-Malik (p. 69), whose successors would do likewise.

Since Muhammad now became such an important figure as a paragon of moral virtue, there naturally arose a need for people to know what the Prophet said and did in various matters of life. The Ahadith in particular then became political weapons, liable to be completely fabricated. Even in the first half of the 8th century, one Islamic scholar wrote that the "emirs forced people to write hadiths" (p. 71).

Factionalism is an especially noteworthy phenomenon here behind the invention of Ahadith.

For example, in the midst of the dispute between the followers of the caliph Muawiya, who Shi'a believe usurped the place of Ali's son and designated successor Husayn, and Ali's followers who would later become the Shi'a, a hadith arose in which Muhammad declared that Ali's father was burning in hellfire (p. 73), while Ali's partisans invented a hadith in which Muhammad declared, "I go to war for the recognition of the Qur'an and Ali will fight for the interpretation of the Qur'an."

It is little surprise that in light of all these disputes, the Ahadith are riddled with contradictions.

To be sure, Muslim scholars did try to devise criteria by which to separate forgeries from Ahadith they deemed to be authentic: for instance, how well a hadith is in accordance with the Qur'an. Yet however reasonable such a criterion may be, "it doesn't get us any closer to what Muhammad actually said and did" (p. 81).

Another devised standard was the supposed reliability of an isnad (chain of oral transmission from the Prophet to the narrator), but this is even more dubious.

While Arabia may well have had "an established practice of memorizing poetry" (p. 84), the Ahadith are not pieces of poetry, and in any event must have been plagued by "embellishment, clarification, or alteration of any kind until the hadiths were finally collected and written down in the ninth century" (p. 85).

In fact, I would add that even if we suppose that we are dealing with poetry in an oral culture, it is erroneous to think that oral poets can transmit verses with perfect recall, word-for-word. Oral poetry is constantly subject to reworking and improvisation.

Hence, for example, the Iliad and the Odyssey were certainly not transmitted through generations of oral poets until they were finally written down. Rather, we understand each of these epics to be the work of a single poet, who would have picked up numerous "formulaic phrases" and stories and then improvised and reworked his material numerous times, while striving for an artistic structure.

In all probability, the poet had his work dictated to a scribe. If the Iliad and Odyssey were subsequently memorized wholesale by bards, the bards were working from written texts, not via oral transmission of the poems.

If the Ahadith cannot be taken as a reliable guide to what Muhammad said and did, then what are we to make of Ibn Ishaq's Sira? It is often noted that Ibn Ishaq's biography, which does not in fact survive intact and is only partially preserved by later transmitters, dates over 100 years after Muhammad's death in 632 CE. Tradition tells of earlier historians, but their purported works have not survived and little is known about their lives.

That Ishaq's work dates so long after the time in which Muhammad supposedly lived is not proof of the Sira's unreliability, but the fact is that Ibn Ishaq would undoubtedly have been working from oral material that would have been embellished and fabricated.

Many of the stories transmitted by Ibn Ishaq would have been tailored to convince the audience that Muhammad was a prophet of God, hence tales of Christians already recognizing him as a prophet in his youth before his prophetic career began (p. 96).

NOW COMES A CRUCIAL PART of the book. One of the key reasons many critics of Islam think that the traditional accounts of Muhammad's life are rooted in historical reality is the argument from embarrassment: that is, Muhammad is presented as doing things that might be deemed abhorrent to pious sensibilities. Ibn Hisham states that his own transmission of Ibn Ishaq's work omits "things which it is disgraceful to discuss" (p. 88).

Even in the traditional accounts, there are still events recounted that have embarrassed Muslim apologists of the modern era: perhaps most notably, Muhammad's marriage to his daughter-in-law Zaynab.

Yet as Spencer notes, "what constitutes a negative depiction is not necessarily constant from age to age and culture to culture" (p. 111). This is certainly true, for example, of the tradition that Aisha married Muhammad when she was six and consummated the marriage with him when she was nine: no one in the traditional accounts is shown having a problem with this betrothal (p. 112).

In any case, Spencer shows that the Zaynab incident is likely to have been a much later invention to explain the fact that there is an apparent doctrine in the Qur'an of a "prophetic bloodline": that is, "the prophetic office is handed down from father to son" (p. 115).

Since Muhammad is regarded as the final prophet, it had to be emphasized that he did not have any sons -- biological or adopted -- who reached puberty. Thus, the status of Zayd as Muhammad's adopted son had to be marginalized, hence the attendant Qur'anic doctrine delegitimizing adoption (Qur'an 33:4) and the emphasis that "Muhammad is not the father of any one of your men" (Qur'an 33:40).

Nevertheless, if the Sira and Ahadith are unreliable, the question arises of where the Qur'an came from. A superficial reading -- noting the consistent message of uncompromising monotheism -- might suggest that the book is the work of a single author.

On closer examination, however, there are good grounds to hypothesize that the Qur'an developed over the 7th and 8th centuries in the religious and cultural milieu of the Arab conquests, rather than just within Arabia itself during Muhammad's purported lifetime (570-632 CE).

For one thing, the Qur'an displays a lack of careful organization: frequently there is an abrupt shift in subject matter and grammatical persons, suggesting at the minimum a rather clumsy process of redaction.

Islamic tradition itself hints at early losses of parts of the Qur'an, with one hadith as follows: "Let none of you say, 'I have acquired the whole of the Qur'an.' How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an has disappeared? Rather let him say, 'I have acquired what has survived'" (p. 137).

Also of interest here is the Qur'an's repeated emphasis that it is a work of "pure" Arabic. This could only be in response to claims that the Qur'an was not wholly Arabic. Indeed, there is evidence of a substantial non-Arabic substrate, as evinced by numerous loan words in both religious and cultural vocabulary. Even the word for God -- Allah -- is thought to derive from Syriac (p. 156). What follows in Spencer's book is a nicely summarized exposition of the arguments of recent scholars like Christoph Luxenberg who have theorized that the Qur'an was originally -- at least in part -- a Syriac Christian liturgical text. This hypothesis does explain many of the linguistic obscurities of the Qur'an.

I am still unsure what to make of this theory, but even if we suppose a text wholly derived from Arabic oral traditions, the canonical accounts of the Qur'an's origins are not vindicated, for reasons outlined above in this review as regards oral transmission and poetry.

In light of this research vis-à-vis the Qur'an, taken together with the fact that the conquered peoples had no idea of the existence of a Muslim holy book in the mid-7th century, it seems unlikely that the third caliph -- Uthman (579-656 CE) -- was responsible for the compilation and distribution of the Qur'an as we know it today, despite the claims of Muslim orthodoxy.

There are reputed Qur'anic manuscripts dating back to the 7th century, but since they lack the diacritical marks that are integral to the Arabic alphabet, we cannot tell whether they were written as the Qur'an in the first place, or separate documents later adapted as part of the Qur'an (p. 192). There is also no complete Qur'an dating from the first century of the Arab conquests.

Moreover, it is possible that the Qur'an's second and longest sura (chapter) was originally a separate book. As late as 730 CE, John of Damascus referred to the "text of the Cow" (p. 196: "The Cow" being the name of the Qur'an's second sura), implying it was a separate text, which in turn suggests that the Qur'an "was not yet fixed in its present form" even towards the mid-8th century (p. 197). It was noted earlier that the first caliph to invoke Muhammad as a messenger of God was Abd al-Malik.

Thus, "from the historical records available to us, it makes sense that the Qur'an was not collected until Abd al-Malik's reign" (p. 197), as part of a collaborative effort between Abd al-Malik and Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, the governor of Iraq (661-714 CE). The work of Hajjaj in collecting the Qur'an is in fact attested in many Ahadith. The compilation was then traced back to Uthman in an attempt to give the project an authentic feel.

From all these findings, the most plausible conclusion to draw is that Islam as we know it emerged over a protracted period between the 7th and 8th centuries, developed in such a way as to (i) unify the vast empire created by the Arab conquests that conquered a vast amount of territory (stretching from Spain to Sindh by 750 CE) and (ii) justify the expansionism.

This "imperial theology" (to borrow Spencer's term; p. 208) was based on a monotheism that perhaps was more tolerant towards Judaism and Christianity in its very early days (hence Qur'anic verses such as 2:62 that include Jews, Christians and Sabaeans in the fold of salvation; p. 209). Yet from the end of the 7th century onwards, Islam takes on a much more distinct identity, with a separate prophet and holy book, supplanting Judaism and Christianity.

SPENCER'S EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGINS and development of early Islam is significantly corroborated by analogy with the rise of the Roman imperial cult after Augustus' creation of the Principate.

Needing to hold the Roman state together with concentration of power in his hands, he made much of the reputed divine descent of his family line (the Julian line), and commissioned Virgil to write an epic celebrating the founding of the Roman race by his supposed ancestor Aeneas. In the same way, we have Muhammad as the founder of Islam and the Muslim ummah. For the first time, we see a coherent and emphatic articulation of an expansionist outlook:

tu regere imperio populos, Romane, memento (hae tibi erunt artes), pacique imponere morem,  parcere subiectis et debellare superbos

Remember, Roman, to rule the peoples with your power (these will be your skills), to impose moson peace, to spare the subdued and war down the proud' -- Aeneid 6.851-3.

Here we have ideas that closely parallel Islamic expansionism in the concept of jihad, as articulated in the classical theology that developed from Muhammad's life and example as a warrior prophet: the notion of establishing peace through warfare and bringing civilization to the subdued.

Though the above lines are instructions from Aeneas' father Anchises to the hero, they have the force of emphasizing the Romans' destiny. The divine mandate to rule the world is corroborated by the chief god Jupiter's famous saying: "imperium sine fine dedi" ('I have given empire without end' -- Aeneid 1.279). Like Mohammed, Aeneas engages in fierce warfare, becoming master of Latium in central Italy.

While the Aeneid's borrowings from earlier epics are apparent, the text also drew on the value system promoted by Augustus and his inner circle (in particular Maecenas) that drew on Stoicism. Thus, the poem had a paradigmatic function, becoming a virtual school-text for Roman boys, and Aeneas himself soon became anidealized figure in the same way that Muhammad came to be seen as a moral paragon among Muslims.

The point of this comparison is not to say that the Arab conquerors borrowed ideas of expansionism and the like from the Romans (they didn't), but rather that Spencer's explanation of the rise of Islam should not be implausible from a historical perspective. It is therefore hardly shocking that Islam was bound with politics from the beginning (p. 214).

As for the question of Muhammad's existence, Spencer gives a concise answer to round off his book: "the full truth of whether a prophet named Muhammad lived in seventh-century Arabia, and if he did, what sort of a man he was, may never be known" (p. 216), but for too long, the topic of Islamic historiography has been confined to highly specialized academia, with the growing problem of Islamist intimidation.

Thus, an accessible primer on the subject as we have here is most welcome. In addition, the project of translating this book into Arabic is to be commended.

In the years to come, it would be good to see Spencer's book prescribed as introductory reading for courses on Islam in schools and universities. I myself have taken the step of donating his book to Brasenose College's library, and hope that others will similarly distribute the work upon reading it.
Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University, and an adjunct fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Technorati Tag: Mohammed and Islam and Robert Spencer.

The Middle East Media Sampler 5/25/2012: Did The Peace Process Ruin Israel's Reputation?

2012-05-25T11:46:00.000-04:00

From DG:

1) Israel's image

Recently, Ambassador Michael Oren wrote a column asking What Happened to Israel's Reputation? (or to access the complete article click on the link from here.)

There was a panoramic portrayal of Jerusalem, described as "the focus of Jewish prayers for 2,000 years" and the nucleus of new Jewish neighborhoods. Life emphasized that in its pre-1967 borders, Israel was "a tiny, parched, scarcely defensible toe-hold." The edition's opening photo shows a father embracing his Israeli-born daughter on an early "settlement," a testament to Israel's birthright to the land.

Would a mainstream magazine depict the Jewish state like this today, during the week of its 64th birthday?

Unlikely. Rather, readers would learn about Israel's overwhelming military might, brutal conduct in warfare and eroding democratic values—plus the Palestinians' plight and Israeli intransigence. The photographs would show not cool students and cutting-edge artists but soldiers at checkpoints and religious radicals.
In a nutshell, Oren explains:

It began with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat's 1974 speech to the U.N., when he received a standing ovation for equating Zionism with racism—a view the U.N. General Assembly endorsed the following year. It gained credibility on college campuses through anti-Israel courses and "Israel Apartheid Weeks." It burgeoned through the boycott of Israeli scholars, artists and athletes, and the embargo of Israeli products. It was perpetuated by journalists who published doctored photos and false Palestinian accounts of Israeli massacres.
Jeff Jacoby takes issue with Oren's argument and responds, The peace process battered Israel's reputation:

The real answer is that Israel's global standing has been debased not despite the "peace process," but because of it.

For 19 years Israel has clung to a policy of appeasement that has made it seem weak and irresolute -- a policy that successive Israeli governments have justified by denigrating Jewish rights to the land, while playing up the Palestinian narrative. Ehud Barak infamously said in 1998 that if he had been a Palestinian, he might have joined a terrorist group, and that "there is legitimacy for a Palestinian to fight." Were an American presidential hopeful to suggest that under other circumstances he could see himself becoming an al-Qaeda terrorist, his White House ambitions would instantly implode. But Barak's remarks didn't prevent him from becoming prime minister.

With its embrace of the peace process, "Israel stopped defending its own claim to the West Bank and Gaza and instead increasingly endorsed the Palestinian claim," Israeli journalist Evelyn Gordon has written. "And with no competing narrative to challenge it any longer, the view of Israel as a thief, with all its attendant consequences, has gained unprecedented traction."
I understand Jacoby's answer, but it's not entirely convincing. During the past nineteen years, clearly statements like Ehud Barak's have fed or justified the growing anti-Israel sentiments we see in the media. But even before Oslo, there was plenty of bias. For example, in honor of the 20th anniversary of the Six Day War, Tom Brokaw hosted a special, Six Days Plus 20 Years: a Dream Is Dying on NBC.

In the United States, though, I'd take issue with Ambassador Oren's concerns. It's true that in certain segments of the opinion making community, there is a strong tendency to blame Israel first. Fortunately, that doesn't seem to have affected the American public as a whole. According to Gallup's latest country ratings 71 percent of Americans look at Israel favorably compared to 24 percent unfavorably. Israel is also viewed more favorably than the Palestinians by a rate of nearly four to one. Granted, without the biased coverage of Israel, I believe Israel's ratings would be even better, but in the United States the hostility of the media and academic elites has not had a major impact on Israel's image.

2) Brag about a pirate day

CAMERA noticed that Iran's boast of having saved an American ship from pirates was denied by the shipping company, but that CNN never published the denial.

So it's interesting to read The Lede blog from the New York Times and see the denial mentioned but ...

The Danish company that operates the ship, the Maersk Line, said its onboard guards repelled an attack from multiple pirate skiffs after the attackers opened fire on the vessel, the Maersk Texas. “Despite clear warning signals, the skiffs continued their direct line toward Maersk Texas and the embarked security team fired warning shots,” the company told the maritime news site gCaptain. “The pirates then fired upon Maersk Texas, and the security team returned fire per established U.S. Coast Guard rules of engagement.”

But Iranian state media had a different interpretation of events on Thursday, crediting the safety of ship to a nearby Iranian naval warship. “An Iranian naval ship was patrolling the area when it received an S O S from the American cargo ship,” read a report on IRNA, the state-run news agency, that quoted Iran’s naval authorities. “Upon arrival of Iranian forces the pirates who had attacked the American ships aboard some speed boats had to flee the scene.”
"[D]ifferent interpretations?" One account is true and one is false. The next paragraph attempts to inject a little more uncertainty:

Lt. Cmdr. Mark Hankey, a spokesman for Combined Task Force 151, an international counterpiracy team off the coast of Africa, was unable to confirm Iran’s role in the episode, though he said such behavior would not be surprising. “If the Iranians responded to a mayday call, then that’s perfectly normal activity,” he told The Associated Press. But, he added, the nature of the episode was not certain. “It is not clear from the information available to date whether this was a piracy event,” he said.
So this source is quoted as saying that Iran may well have checked out the situation and that even at that it may not have a real instance of piracy. The Lede notes reasons that Iran might want to boast about having helped an American ship, but overall seems determined to explain away Iranian claims that seem exaggerated, if not false.

3) Fighting Kirk

In his dispatch over the political battle brewing between the State Department and Sen. Mark Kirk, Josh Rogin reports:

For the people involved in the issue on the ground, the distinction is not as important as the U.N. mission to feed and support these 5 million Palestinians. They see the Kirk amendment as part of a pattern of legislative moves against UNRWA in the U.S. Congress, including a drive to cut off U.S. funding by House Foreign Affairs Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL).
They also note that the drive to redefine how UNRWA classifies refugees is supported by Israeli President Bibi Netanyahu and a similar drive is led in the Israeli parliament by lawmaker Einat Wilf.

"There are some individuals that believe if they unilaterally in America make changes, that will solve peace processes, and that's really naïve," one U.N. official said. "It has to be done by the parties involved, not the U.S. Congress."
There's a point that Rogin is missing here. The UNRWA isn't just about feeding Palestinian refugees, but about maintaining them (and their grievances against Israel.) So one of the effects of UNRWA is to expand the definition and thus the number of Palestinian refugees.

Assaf Romirowsky and Alexander Joffe write in Palestinian Refugees Forever?

It is long past time that limits are set on the never-ending expansion of Palestinian refugees. A new proposal from Kirk therefore sets out a more precise series of definitions for American aid to UNRWA, to be specified in the Memorandum of Understanding with the organization.
The draft amendment states that "a Palestinian refugee is defined as a person whose place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who was personally displaced as a result of the 1948 or 1967 Arab-Israeli conflicts, who currently does not reside in the West Bank or Gaza and who is not a citizen of any other state."

Refugee status would therefore no longer be heritable, at least if UNRWA were to continue to receive U.S. funding. The amendment would also require the secretary of State to report to Congress about the notoriously slippery numbers of refugees and what measures the U.S. government is taking to ensure these limits are abided by.
According to Rogin, in addition to the State Department, Sen. Leahy and the government of Jordan oppose the Kirk amendment.

Technorati Tag: Israel and UNRWA and Iran and Senator Mark Kirk.

Video: Latma--Jews United Against Israel and Media Deprived Terrorists

2012-05-25T10:01:00.000-04:00

Here is the latest Latma.
Very sharp:

Technorati Tag: Israel and Latma.

Arlene Kushner On Israel Dealing With 80,000 Illegal African Immigrants

2012-05-25T08:37:00.001-04:00

From Arlene Kushner:

May 25, 2012

"Transcending the News"

There comes a time when it is important to move beyond the trap of current events and look higher. Such a time is coming with the holiday of Shavuot, which will be celebrated on Sunday here in Israel, and also on Monday outside of Israel.

Shavuot marks the giving of the Torah to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai.

Credit: cornell.hillel

It was a transformative and singular moment of direct revelation. It involved all of the people of Israel, who were present and received the word of the Almighty with fear and trembling.

~~~~~~~~~~

I rather like this Aish video about Shavuot, and so share it here:

Courtesy of Aish.com

The world is decidedly reluctant to give us, as Jews, our rightful place. But the reality is that through the transmission of a code of values at Sinai, the Almighty set into action the process by which Am Yisrael (the people Israel) would become a light unto the nations.

~~~~~~~~~~

The struggle of how to be true to that heritage, marks, I think, one particular painful and difficult controversy in which Israel is currently embroiled: That is, the controversy over what to do with the thousands of African immigrants (currently about 80,000) who have made their way illegally into Israel.

Credit: Soundcloud

~~~~~~~~~~

We Jews are bidden by the Torah to welcome the stranger in our midst. And to an extraordinary degree we have done just that. For Heaven's sake, the Egyptians have no compunction about shooting them in the back.

For the most part, they have come through the Sinai to reach Israel. The claim is that they are political refugees, but the reality is that many -- if not the majority -- are simply economic refugees, that is, not fleeing violence or persecution, but rather seeking a better quality of life.

They are illegal in the country, and either are unemployed or work illegally. They live poorly and are without health care and other benefits accorded by the State. They are tended to in large part by volunteers and NGOs.

And yet they consider this a utopia compared to what they left behind. This tells us a good deal about us, and about their nations of origin -- in the main, Eretria and Sudan.

The word is out -- even in small villages in Eretria -- that Israel is the place to come. A fact of enormous irony considering the accusations of "racial cleansing" and "apartheid" leveled against us. And so their numbers have been growing, leaving us with a problematic and untenable situation:

We simply cannot, nor do we wish to, absorb Africa's poor. We would become, very quickly, something different from what we are intended to be as a Jewish state. We would be swallowed up. And our resources would be overwhelmed.

Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch (Yisrael Beitenu) is on record as saying that "a million Sudanese and Eritrean migrants are currently making their way to Israel, some are near the security fence already and some are in Cairo."

~~~~~~~~~~

Already we are seeing a host of social problems, particularly in south Tel Aviv, where there is a concentration of 25,000 Africans. There are issues of greatly increased crime rates, and rapes. There is major disruption to the community: Cooking fires lit in parks, people wandering the streets at all hours, heavy drug usage.

I will come back to this below.

~~~~~~~~~~

An article by Dr. Gabi Barbash, the CEO of Tel Aviv's Sourasky Medical Center, which appeared a week ago in the JPost, struck me as a particular poignant and disturbing picture of what we are dealing with, and how we have conducted ourselves.

Children are being admitted into the hospital with measles, something that hasn't been seen here in years. Immigrant African children. African women with particular problems are also being admitted: they have twice as many emergency cesarean sections as the Israeli population, and their babies require treatment in the neonatal unit three times as often.

This is just the beginning. The number of cases of active tuberculosis doubled this past year because of the Africans. "Many of those refugees also suffer from extrapulmonary tuberculosis (in the spine, or central nervous system) that requires special interventional diagnostic procedures and biopsies performed under general anesthesia in operating rooms."

All of this is before we even talk about malaria, and HIV: "The HIV carriers are characteristically diagnosed with advanced AIDS-associated illnesses requiring prolonged hospitalization, extensive and repeated laboratory tests and treatments with expensive drugs."

~~~~~~~~~~

In 2011, the cost to the hospital of treating the illegal immigrants was 27 million shekels ($7.5).

"This expenditure is not funded by any government agency: it is paid for with the hospital resources that were earmarked to benefit the citizens of Israel who are often treated side-by-side with the migrant patients. Nevertheless, the message conveyed to the medical team by hospital management is clear and unambiguous and based on inflexible medical ethics: treatment of this population must be in every way identical to the treatment given to Israeli citizens, and no financial considerations can be allowed to enter into the medical decision- making process." (emphasis added)
Read: The challenge of treating illegal African migrants

~~~~~~~~~~

In a similar vein, Tel Aviv Mayor Ron Huldai has said that the municipality has spent millions in taxpayers' funds to create schools and improve infrastructure in neighborhoods where the Africans constitute a majority.

"They are human beings," he said yesterday. "What can I do, I can't see human beings thrown into the street."

So we might say that we are pretty wonderful.

But we must also say that this is an untenable situation that cannot be sustained.

~~~~~~~~~~

On Wednesday night, there was a major demonstration by Israeli residents of south Tel Aviv, demanding that the illegal African immigrants go. Their anger spilled over, resulting in rioting and incidents of violence against some of the Africans.

Unequivocally and across the board Israeli leaders and politicians condemned this violence.  In no terms is it acceptable.  Not in any instance, but especially not perpetrated by Jews, who are bidden to a different standard of behavior, and who have been on the receiving end of violence so often in our history.

Yet, the mother who keeps her children in after dark for fear of who may be walking the streets, the father of a girl who was raped by Africans, these people and many others from this depressed economic neighborhood, resentful of the strain on limited resources, are angry with reason.

It is platitudinous and unfair to simply say they should welcome the stranger within their midst.

~~~~~~~~~~

The point has been made that representatives of NGOs that work with the Africans so identify with them that, in advocating for them, they are prepared to trample the human rights of the Israeli residents of the area where the Africans live.

And the vehemence of the demonstation alerts those same politicians and leaders who criticize the violence to the necessity of acting speedily and effectively to peacefully ameliorate this situation.

The question, of course, is what to be done.

~~~~~~~~~~

The answer that is being provided is two-fold. On the one hand, a fence is being constructed along our border with the Sinai to keep additional immigrants from flocking into Israel in large numbers. Good enough.

And on the other hand, there is talk about sending those who would not be at risk back to their native lands.

The attorney general has ruled that repatriating illegal immigrants is permissible under law. Interior Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) has pledged that they will be moved out in toto by the end of the year.

~~~~~~~~~~

I myself wonder how he reconciles his "across the board" political declaration with the commandments he, as a religious man, believes in upholding. Perhaps he can, and I am missing something. But the situation is vastly complicated:

It is being said that those who are genuine seekers of political asylum would be permitted to stay.  Yet it is difficult to determine precisely who is a genuine political refugee -- and I'm not certain how much of an attempt has even been made or if there is any standard for criteria to use.

~~~~~~~~~~

There was a time when many of the Sudanese here were counted as political refugees. That was when Sudan was in the throes of a violent civil war.  The situation has shifted since South Sudan -- where a number, but not a majority, of the Sudanese here are from -- became an independent nation. We have an excellent relationship with this fledgling nation and are eager to lend support in a variety of ways. The South Sudanese government is grateful for various assistance Israel has provided, and wants good relations -- but plays it low key because in largely Muslim Africa (Sudan is Muslim, South Sudan is Christian and animist), strong relationships with Israel are, shall we say, frowned upon.

~~~~~~~~~~

South Sudanese President Salva Kiir visited Israel this past December. In meetings with Netanyahu, it was agreed in principle that arrangements would be made for sending the South Sudanese back home.

Credit: GPO

Kiir concurred, at least in principle, that his people should come back. And the Israeli ambassador to South Sudan, Dan Shaham, has been coordinating arrangements for their return.

But those Sudanese who danced in the streets of Tel Aviv when their nation declared its independence are none too eager to go. South Sudan, after all, is a poor a struggling nation. It's still better for them here in Israel. "Yes, yes," some of them say. "Of course we want to go home. But just not yet." They protest in the streets for permission to remain here.

When Agricultural Minister of South Sudan, Betty Achan Ogwaro, visited Israel just weeks ago, she said that the people from her country came here for a better life, and she appealed on a humanitarian basis for them to be allowed to remain.

~~~~~~~~~~

They came as political refugees, but we were being asked to keep them for economic reasons.

But we will not be keeping them: Minister Yishai has just given the order to begin rounding up the 3,00 South Sudanese here in order to deport them home.

~~~~~~~~~~

Yet even when those who are from South Sudan are deported, there is still the question of those from Sudan, and from Eretria.

Israel has no diplomatic ties with Sudan and it would be problematic to send people back there. MK Danny Danon has alluded to possible arrangements by which Africans from here would be accepted in east European nations. This may be a possible answer.

As to Eritreans -- who constitute a full 70% of the illegal Africans who are here -- it is my understanding that it will take more time to determine how to handle their situation:

The Eritrean ambassador to Israel Tesfamarian Takeste has said those illegals who are Eritrean can come back home, and that his embassy would make every effort to facilitate their return.

Representatives of NGOs working with the Africans, noting the horrendous human rights record of Eritrea, scoff at the notion that people can be safely sent back there.

MK Yitzhak Herzog (Labor) advocates a more thorough investigation of the situation there -- rather than simply adopting the position of the NGOs. The UN High Commission for Refugees, he says, accepts the testimony of Eritreans (that they are political refugees) on face value.

Interestingly, however, Herzog cites as potentially problematic the repercussions that would be met by returning Eritreans who were draft dodgers. But is it Israel's place to provide refuge to draft dodgers? This speaks directly to the need to determine criteria for legitimate claims of political asylum.

~~~~~~~~~~

There have been some creative proposals advanced. But I fear that in the rush of the heated moment they will be given scant attention. These proposals involve sending people back home slowly and under constructive circumstances.

One, for example, suggests training Africans in the skills of Israeli agriculture. Then when they are sent back they would not be unemployed (a major concern for the returning Africans), but would, rather, be welcomed back by their home countries that are eager for these skills. Not incidentally, Israel would be assisting the countries to which they return -- so that there would be gratitude towards Israel and not resentment.

Herzog has proposed that arrangements be made for some of the African infiltrators here illegally to work legally -- as people from the Philippines, Thailand and other places do -- for a defined period of time, and then be required to go back, but now with money in their pockets.

~~~~~~~~~~

From my own vantage point I see the absolute necessity for the majority of the illegal Africans to be moved out of Israel, but I hope that it can be done with humanity and wisdom. With sufficient care taken for individual cases. And with the acceptance and legalization of some who are legitimately seeking political asylum.

Until such time as final decisions are made, it also seems to me that temporary actions by the State may be required -- affording of health insurance is a key example, and perhaps finding ways for them to be legally and gainfully employed (so that crime can be reduced).

The fear, of course, is that once such accommodations are made, "temporary" quickly and almost irrevocally morphs into "permanent," with the Africans crying about how well they've settled and how they should be permitted to remain indefinitely. I understand this.

Perhaps simply acting quickly is the best of the alternatives. Proposals I've read that we simply allow these Africans to become Jews and stay in Israel are nonsensical ideas from bleeding hearts. (People are only supposed to become Jews because they are committed to Judaism, not because they want to stay in a particular locale.)

Exactly where the line should be drawn between protecting Israel and responding to the "other" is no mean task.

~~~~~~~~~~

© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.

See my website at Arlene From Israel   Contact Arlene atakushner@netvision.net.il

This material is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and include your name in the text of the message.

Technorati Tag: Israel and South Sudan and Eritrea and Shavuot.

Barry Rubin: NEWS FLASH: Muslim Brotherhood Claims Victory in Egypt Presidential Election

2012-05-25T06:59:00.000-04:00

NEWS FLASH: Muslim Brotherhood Claims Victory in Egypt Presidential Election

by Barry Rubin

NEWS FLASH: Muslim Brotherhood Claims Victory in Egypt Presidential Election

Let me make it clear from the start that this article is based on Muslim Brotherhood statements and leaks. The information may not be accurate. We will not know for sure until Sunday when official tallies are provided.

According to the Brotherhood, the uncompleted vote counting for president looks like this.

Mohamed Mursi (Brotherhood) 28.4 percent

Ahmed Shafiq (Mubarak era general) 24.6

Abdul Moeim Abul Fotouh (so-called “moderate Islamist” but supported by radical Islamist Salafists) 18.1

(Hamdeen Sabahi (radical anti-American “left” Nasserist) 17.1%

Amr Moussa (radical nationalist pragmatist) 11.6%.

The Brotherhood claims that this means it will win the second round. I’m not 100 percent sure but it seems very possible. A second round would be a straight contest between a secularist and an Islamist. How would voters choose?
Continue reading NEWS FLASH: Muslim Brotherhood Claims Victory in Egypt Presidential Election

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His latest book is Israel: An Introduction, was published by Yale University Press in January 2012. You can read more of Barry Rubin's posts at Rubin Reports, and Rubin Reports, on Pajamas Media

Technorati Tag: Egypt and Egyptian Elections and Hamas and Operation Cast Lead.

Raymond Ibrahim: Egypt's Presidential Elections: What's at Stake

2012-05-24T21:54:00.000-04:00

The following by Raymond Ibrahim is reposted with permission:

Egypt's Presidential Elections: What's at Stake

by Raymond Ibrahim
FrontPageMagazine.com

May 24, 2012

http://www.meforum.org/3250/egypt-presidential-elections

Egypt's long awaited and much anticipated presidential elections—the first of their kind to take place in the nation's 7,000 year history—are here. As we await the final results—and as the Western mainstream media fixate on images of purple-stained fingers—it is well to remember that there is much more at stake in Egypt's elections than the mere "right" to vote.

While some Egyptians are certainly voting according to their convictions, the fundamental divide revolves around religion—how much or how little the candidates in question are in favor of Islamic Sharia law. In other words, Islamists are voting for Islamists—Abdel Mon'im Abul Futuh and Muhammad Mursi—whereas non-Islamists (secularists, liberals, and non-Muslims) are voting for non-Islamists, such as Amr Musa and Ahmed Shafiq.

Bear in mind that this is not the same thing as American voters being divided between "liberal" Democrats and "conservative" Republicans; rather, this election is much more existential in nature—possibly cataclysmic for Egyptian society. For, whereas both American Republicans and Democrats operate under the selfsame U.S. Constitution, in Egypt, an Islamist president will usher in Sharia law, which will fundamentally transform the nation.

One veiled woman interviewed yesterday at the voting polls put it best: "We came to elect the man who implements Sharia (Islamic law). But I am afraid of liberals, secularists, Christians. I am afraid of their reaction if an Islamist wins. They won't let it go easily. But God be with us."

Interestingly, while she sums up the ultimate purpose Islamists like herself are voting—to empower "the man who implements Sharia"—she also projects her own Islamist mentality onto non-Islamists, implying that if a Sharia-friendly president is fairly elected, non-Islamists will rebel. In fact, it is the Islamists who are on record warning that if a secularist emerges as president, that itself will be proof positive that the elections were rigged, and anarmed jihad will be proclaimed.

None of this is surprising, considering that Islamists have not hid their abhorrence for democracy as an infidel heresy to be exploited as a gateway to a Sharia-enforcing theocracy which will, ironically, eliminate democracy. Some have gone so far as to insist that cheating in elections to empower Sharia is an obligation. And, rather than encourage Egyptians to vote for whom they think is best suited for Egypt, days prior to these elections, various authoritative Muslim clerics and institutions decreed that Egypt's Muslims are "obligated" to vote for Sharia-supporting Islamists, while voters are "forbidden" to vote for non-Islamists—a proclamation with threats of hellfire.

One of the blocs not voting for the Islamists consists of Christian Copts, who make for some 12-15 million people. Not only does an AFP report capture their mood well, but it demonstrates how Egypt's Christians are so convinced that any Islamist president, including the oxymoronic "liberal Islamists" like Abul Futuh, will lead to even more religous intolerance for them—a reminder of reality from those non-Muslims on the ground:

[V]oting lines were long, and the worry and tension felt by many Christians was palpable. "I don't want the Islamists. If they come to power and I oppose them, they will say I am criticizing their religion and who knows what they'll do to me? We can't talk to them," said 57-year-old Sanaa Rateb after casting her ballot…. Nassim Ghaly, a young man with a cross tattooed on his wrist in the distinctive manner of Egyptian Christians, interjected: "God protect us if the Islamists come to power and they control the parliament and the presidency at the same time."…. "What we want is a non-religious state," which would guarantee the rights of all religious groups, Sanaa Halim, in her sixties, said. "The Islamist trends are worrying," one of her friends added, declining to give her name. "And what have they done in parliament? Nothing, except talk about women and female circumcision."

Indeed, above and beyond the recent clash between Egypt's Islamists and the military—where the former exposed their jihadi face, losing some popular support—the elected Islamist-majority parliament is increasingly seen as a disappointment, more interested in banning toys that "humiliate Islam" and legalizing "death-sex," rather than addressing the country's economic woes. As another voter put it, "I voted for the Brotherhood in parliament elections. Now they want to control religious tourism, this is what I got from them. The parliament has failed."

Likewise, Ryan Mauro reports that "the secularists have benefited from a sharp fall in Islamist popularity. In February, 43% of Egyptians supported the Muslim Brotherhood, 40% supported the Salafist Nour Party and 62% felt that it is positive to have a strong Brotherhood presence in parliament. A Gallup poll in April found that the statistics fell to 26%, 30% and 47% respectively."

Notwithstanding all this, perhaps the most decisive voting bloc consists of those tens of millions of impoverished Egyptians who care little about voting, who care little about Sharia or secularism, and are more than happy to exchange their vote for a temporal boon. These, the well-organized Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis—funded by Saudi petro dollars—have been busy buying, including with food and drink.

The outcome of the elections remains uncertain. While Egypt is home to the modern day Islamist movement—giving the world several headaches, including the Muslim Brotherhood, the "godfather of jihad" Sayyid Qutb, and al-Qaeda leader Ayman Zawahiri—up until recently it was also home to one of the Islamic world's most secular and "fun-loving" societies (it's not called the "Hollywood of the Middle East" for nothing). Yet, based on the spectacular advance of political Islam in the last few decades, one remains pessimistic.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Technorati Tag: Middle East and Egypt.

Arlene Kushner On The Failure Of Nuclear Talks With Iran

2012-05-24T20:07:00.000-04:00

From Arlene Kushner:

May 24, 2012

"And Here We See It"

It: the absolute intransigence, the lack of good intentions, the ultimate malevolence of Iran.

Today in Baghdad, the Iranians rejected a proposal that had been put forward by P5 + 1. What was being sought by the international community was a cessation of enrichment of uranium to 20% (not even all enrichment!). In return Iran would have received benefits such as medical isotopes and spare parts that Iran needs for its for civilian airliners.

But what Iran wanted was the easing of economic sanctions on Iranian oil export in return for Iranian pledges that UN inspectors would be permitted wider inspection of their facilities. (Remember: agreeing to permit inspections is not agreeing to halt the process towards nuclear capability.)

~~~~~~~~~~

The Iranians are saying that world powers are making the atmosphere "difficult."

And my favorite accusation, coming from Iranian al-Alam TV:

"The discourse of the six powers during the talks is very similar to that of Israel's prime minister and his defense minister."

If, at all, it may be true that the stance of the negotiating nations is tougher because of Israel's position, this is a blessing.  Not because the tougher stance might have positive results, but rather because it exposes Iranian intentions.

~~~~~~~~~~

One can trace a line from the situation that the world powers who are now negotiating find themselves in backwards to the conciliatory stance offered to Iran over the last few years by the Obama administration and the Europeans.

Obama's "I-don't-want-to-appear-aggressive, rather-I-reach-my-hand-out-to-you-so-we-can-achieve-dialogue" approach delivered the message that the US was going to be a pushover.

One Iranian diplomat, cited by YNet today, said that the package that had been offered fell short of a "compromise."

A compromise?? Excuse me? Thinking is seriously out of line here.

~~~~~~~~~~

Before today's negotiating session had been held, Iran's media were putting out messages of optimism and reflecting the attitude that they had "a strong negotiating position." Greatest criticism was directed at the US Congress, which, in proposing tougher sanctions, "was not giving a good message which shows they are not yet ready to show good will....

"Some have mistakenly thought that if they pressure Iran, Iran will give up." Translation: you cannot defeat us with your sanctions.

~~~~~~~~~~

Iran is the greatest danger to world peace in the world today. The greatest purveyor of terrorism. It is on the edge of achieving nuclear capacity, has said it will destroy Israel, and would, if nuclear, create a shield around renegade groups and nations. Not incidentally, it also want to come after America.

And the world believes it can negotiate with Iran's leaders. The world, incredibly, still imagines that giving something to Iran in good spirit will move it towards a less belligerent, more cooperative stance.

But Iran understands only an iron fist. There should be no compromise, no gift-giving. Rather, a message: "We consider you a threat to all we represent. Cease and desist or we blow your heads off. You decide." Diplomatically said, of course.

~~~~~~~~~~

An IAEA report now says that Iran recently installed 350 additional centrifuges in the Fordo underground uranium enrichment facility near Qom. This is while Iran is supposed to be in the course of negotiations.

This is how it is, folks.

~~~~~~~~~~

In spite of the failure of the current talks, parties have agreed to meet again in Geneva, Switzerland in mid-June. What this means is that from now until mid-June the Iranians can sail along, uninhibited in their progress towards nuclear capacity.

Declared on US official, "We think we still have some time for diplomacy." Some optimism was expressed that the pace of the talks would "pick up."

Not every official in the US is this obtuse or self-deluding. This eager to pretend that negotiations work.

Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, and Independent Joe Lieberman, in an op-ed in yesterday's Wall Street Journal, declared,. "The U.S. must be prepared, if necessary, to use military force to stop Iran from getting a nuclear-weapons capability."

But unfortunately these gentlemen are not running the country.

~~~~~~~~~~

Said Israel's Minister of Security Affairs Bogie Ya'alon:

"As long as the centrifuges are spinning, we will not remain calm." In the end, he observed, if all other methods for trying to stop Iran fail, "someone may have to launch a military strike on Iran."

"Someone."

~~~~~~~~~~

Clifford May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has written a powerful piece on this issue that merits serious attention here (emphasis added):

"It’s no longer possible to pretend we don’t know the intentions of Iran’s rulers. They keep telling us, candidly, clearly and repeatedly. Most recently on Sunday: Addressing a gathering in Tehran, Maj. Gen Hassan Firouzabadi, chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, vowed the 'full annihilation of the Zionist regime of Israel to the end.'

"A few days earlier, during a presentation at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, a respected Israeli think tank, the former Prime Minister of Spain, Jose Maria Aznar, recalled a 'private discussion' in Tehran in October 2000 with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who told him: 'Israel must be burned to the ground and made to disappear from the face of the Earth.'

"...Khamenei also told Aznar that the goal of the Islamic Revolution of 1979 has remained unchanged — to rid the world of two evils: Israel and the U.S. Eventually, there must be an 'open confrontation.' Khamenei said it was his duty to ensure that Iran prevailed.

"With this as context, it is no longer possible to pretend that the acquisition of nuclear weapons is not a priority for Khamenei. The notion that he is merely making — as Reuters has charmingly phrased it — 'a peaceful bid to generate electricity,' or has not decided whether he wants nuclear weapons, or wants them only as a deterrent because he fears foreign aggression, or has issued a fatwa declaring possession of nuclear weapons a sin, or favors diplomatic conflict resolution but requires a series of 'confidence-building measures' is wishful thinking and self-delusion, if not blatant disinformation.

"...Testifying before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs last week, Mark Dubowitz, my colleague at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, warned Congress that Iran’s negotiators would offer concessions that sound meaningful, but are not, in exchange for Western concessions that sound trivial but amount to capitulation.

"Dubowitz cautioned that it will require vigorous Congressional oversight to make sure that Western diplomatsdo not provide Iran with 'sanctions relief in the shadows,' meaning that insurance, energy, financial and shipping-related sanctions that have already passed into law will fail to be strictly enforced to keep 'the process' going. That will be seen as preferable to acknowledging diplomatic failure. The major media are likely to miss this, or misreport it.

"In his presentation in Jerusalem, Aznar recalled also a meeting he had with Vladimir Putin, in which he advised the Russian president against selling surface-to-air missiles to Iran. 'Don’t worry, I, you, we can sell them everything, even if we are worried by an Iranian nuclear bomb,' Aznar quoted Putin as saying. 'Because, at the end of the day, Israel will take care of it.'

"Aznar told this story in Washington about a year ago but at the time asked those of us in the room to keep it off the record. I remember that he added incredulously: 'But that’s the Russian policy? To let Israel take care of it?'

"If, in the days ahead, this becomes the de facto policy of the U.S. and Europe as well, we should not pretend we don’t know, or that we don’t understand the profound implications of that."

Read: What Iran’s rulers want

~~~~~~~~~~

© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.

See my website at Arlene From Israel   Contact Arlene at akushner@netvision.net.il

This material is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and include your name in the text of the message.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran.

Amnesty International Defends Osama Bin Laden Too

2012-05-24T16:06:00.000-04:00

If you thought that they was merely obsessed with Israel, rest assured that the problem with Amnesty International goes further than that, as Jonathan Tobin writes.

Apparently, Amnesty International has never met a terrorist it couldn't defend--including Osama bin Laden:

The news that Amnesty International’s annual report on the state of the world has condemned the American raid on Osama bin Laden’s hideout in Pakistan, as “unlawful” should surprise no one. The group’s obtuse effort to brand every effort of the United States to defend itself against terrorists has long since reached the level of parody. Where once it could claim some moral legitimacy as a neutral compiler and observer of human rights violations wherever they were committed, the decision of the group to treat the West’s ongoing conflict with al-Qaeda and its Islamist allies as if it were a matter of American persecution of Third World innocents has lost Amnesty its last shred of credibility.
The defense of Osama bin Laden’s right to life and liberty should place the group’s criticisms of Israel’s efforts to fend off Palestinian terrorism in perspective. While human rights monitors are vital in a world where tyrannies are still commonplace, the inability of groups like AI to tell the difference between the perpetrators of violence and those attempting to defend themselves is a fatal flaw that has rendered them irrelevant to useful discussions about how to advance the cause of humanity.

Tobin notes that Amnesty International undeniably does good, but it's basic problem remains--and the group's relevance has diminished immeasurably as a result:

It’s not that every instance cited by AI is false. Many of their reports are reliable, especially those that note problems in the Third World, that few in the so-called human rights community that is obsessed with destroying Israel, care about. The organization’s commitment to neutrality in conflicts is fine, the problem is that this has always brought with it a willingness to treat every country and cause as morally equivalent. Such a stance has led them to condemn the raid on Osama bin Laden and in the same report condemn Canada for not arresting former President George W. Bush on bogus human rights charges. AI isn’t just a joke anymore; it’s rendered itself completely irrelevant to the cause that it claims to cherish.

As as result of their attempt to take a neutral approach to both terrorists and victims in the supposed interest of 'balance', Amnesty International's moral compass has indeed been left in neutral.

Technorati Tag: Amnesty International.

Picture: Politics As Usual At The London Olympics: Israel is Located In Europe

2012-05-24T14:03:00.000-04:00

The International Olympic Committee has made it clear that it will not comply with Israel's request for a moment of silence to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Munich Massacre when 11 Israeli athletes were brutally murdered by Palestinian terrorists.

The IOC claims that they have "officially paid tribute to the memory of the athletes on several occasions" and "within the Olympic family, the memory of the victims of the terrible massacre in Munich in 1972 will never fade away."

Offically?

That is a lie. Bridget Johnson notes that the same fear that prevents the IOC from commemorating the murder of Olympic athletes because they are Israeli, also reduces the International Olympic Committee to craven submission:

The IOC has never held a ceremony for the slain Israelis at the Olympic Games, but sends a representative to the ceremony held by the Israel National Olympic Committee at each Games. Ayalon said the response “told us as Israelis that this tragedy is yours alone and not a tragedy within the family of nations.” Berman and Ros-Lehtinen called the attendance at the Israelis’ own ceremony “insufficient.”

Johnson also writes that just how far the International Olympic Committee will go to comply with political pressure can be seen by how they list Israel on their website for National Olympic Committees.

The Olympics website has Israel in Europe:

While the Palestinian Territory is located with the rest of the Middle East in Asia

One doesn't have to worry about politics entering the Olympics.
Politics is alive and all too well at the London Olympics 2012.

Technorati Tag: Israel and London Olympics 2012 and Hamas and Operation Cast Lead.

Iran's Growing Presence in Latin America

2012-05-24T11:52:00.000-04:00

The following is reposted with permission:

Iran's Growing Presence in Latin America

A briefing by Ilan Berman
April 23, 2012

http://www.meforum.org/3249/iran-latin-america

Multimedia for this item

Audio Recording

Ilan Berman, an expert on regional security in the Middle East, Central Asia, and the Russian Federation, is the vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council and has consulted the CIA and the Department of Defense. He has authored several books, including Tehran Rising: Iran's Challenge to the United States (2005) andWinning the Long War: Retaking the Offensive against Radical Islam (2009). On April 23, 2012, Berman addressed the Middle East Forum via conference call.

Tehran's October 2011 attempt to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to Washington using a Mexican drug cartel has focused international attention on what had until then been a largely-overlooked political phenomenon: the Islamic Republic's intrusion into the Western Hemisphere. But how deep is this penetration, and what does it seek to achieve?

In his conference call, Ilan Berman named four strategic objectives behind Tehran's Latin American endeavor:

Loosening the international noose: Squeezed by economic sanctions and increasingly isolated, Tehran has reached out to sympathetic regimes in an attempt to weaken the U.S.-led international effort to prevent it from building nuclear weapons. Exploiting anti-American sentiments in Latin America, the Islamic Republic has steadily increased the number of embassies in the region and built strong ties with the Venezuelan and Bolivian regimes.

Obtaining vital resources for its nuclear project: Having all but exhausted the uranium stockpiles acquired by the Shah from South Africa in the 1970s, Tehran has turned to Latin America in search of strategic resource partnerships and is now mining at several locations throughout Venezuela and Bolivia, albeit to little effect given its highly limited resource extraction capabilities.

Creating informal networks for influence projection and sanctions evasion: Working through proxies in Latin America's gray and black markets, Iran has sought out funding for its own protégés such as Hezbollah, which is said to be active at the crossroads of Paraguay, Brazil and Argentina - also known as the Triple Frontier. In addition, Tehran has sought to leverage the fluid financial situation in the region as a means of circumventing crippling financial sanctions.

Establishing a terror infrastructure that could target the U.S. homeland: Iran's growing penetration of Latin America has also been manifested in paramilitary activity. In its 2010 report to Congress, the Department of Defense noted that elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps were stationed in the Americas and engrained in "embassies, institutions, and charities to develop relationships and ties with a well-established Shiite diaspora in the region." This has given Tehran the ability to destabilize unfriendly regimes and to target the U.S. homeland, as evidenced by the abortive 2011 terror attack.

According to Berman, the incident represents seismic shift in Tehran's strategic calculations: once reluctant to extend its global reach, the Iranian leadership has proved its readiness to attack the U.S. on its own soil. And while Tehran's Latin American effort remains a work in progress, so long as the administration fails to devise an adequate response to this challenge, the Iranian penetration - and the threats it poses to American interests and the U.S. homeland - will only continue to expand.

Summary written by Alex Berman.

Technorati Tag: Iran.

The Middle East Media Sampler 5/24/2012: Filmed Palestinian Conflicts With Israelis Keep Happening On Shabbos

2012-05-24T09:55:00.000-04:00

From DG:

1) Before the cameras rolled

In the absence of regular blogger, Robert Mackey, J David Goodman wrote Video of Settler Shooting Raises Questions Over Israeli Army Response for the New York Times blog, The Lede.

Legal officials from the Israeli Defense Forces are investigating more than a dozen episodes in which its soldiers are accused of failing to intervene as Israeli settlers attacked Palestinians, Haaretz reported on Tuesday.

The report followed the release of footage from a confrontation on Saturday in which armed settlers are said to have fired on rock-throwing Palestinians as Israeli army soldiers stood by watching. The video, posted online by the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem — which provides cameras to Palestinians to monitor the behavior of Israeli forces in the occupied West Bank — drew international attention and raised questions over the mission of the Israeli soldiers.
No doubt, the incident "drew international attention," but among whom?
It doesn't seem to have been reported much, if at all, in American newspapers.

Getting Robert Wright to pontificate against Israel, is really easy.

“The essential mission of Israeli soldiers stationed in the West Bank is to protect settlers against Palestinians,” Robert Wright wrote in The Atlantic of the episode, which left at least one Palestinian wounded. “The job of protecting Palestinians against settlers falls to a separate Israeli police force that, as it happens, is massively understaffed.”
I'll assume this had more traction in the European media and activists who already are anti-Israel. Goodman notes:

In one video from B’Tselem,beginning in middle of what appears to be an already heightened and potentially violent scene, several settlers wearing white shirts — at least two with what appear to be automatic weapons — square off on a grassy slope against a group of young Palestinians.
From the videos posted it's clear that there some incident that precipitated the confrontation but that it wasn't captured on video. Goodman, to his credit, quotes a spokesman for Yitzhar who mentions that the Palestinians were setting fires. Then Goodman cites another video as a rebuttal, but the effectiveness of the rebuttal is dependent on when that video was shot.

Arutz-7 presents an account of what occurred first:

However, B’Tselem, which aims its reports only at Israel and is notorious for publishing one-sided reports aimed at damaging the IDF's and Israel's standing, failed to mention that the residents of Yitzhar were targeted by Arab arsonists and had been on the scene in an attempt to put a fire that had threatened their homes.

The incident began on Saturday afternoon at approximately 5:00 p.m. local time, when PA Arabs started a fire in several locations west of the community.

The local emergency squad and a team of firefighters who arrived on the scene were attacked with rocks that were thrown at them by approximately 200 Arab rioters. IDF soldiers and Border Police officers who arrived also were attacked and were prevented from dispersing the rioters for a long time.
I know that Arutz-7 supports residents of Judea and Samaria, but is it less reliable than B'Tselem? The focus of Goodman's report was simply repeating press releases from B'Tselem and getting support from like minded people and organizations. That's not reporting.

Arutz-7, however, presented a reason for the confrontation, because as commenter Yisrael Medad pointed out:

to expect that Shabbat observant Jews would - with no reason - simply come out of their community, walk down a hill, with IDF present and simply make up a story so they could shoot at Arabs is either a fairy tale or the result of a mindset that cannot allow the Jews to be correct and always justifies Arabs.
It would also suggest why there was no video of the beginning of the confrontation: it ran counter to the narrative presented by B'Tselem. Since it was the Sabbath, the Jews wouldn't have had cameras. Maybe that's why the incident occurred on Satruday.

Just because B'Tselem bills itself as a "human rights organization" doesn't mean that it doesn't have an agenda or that it is above reproach. Unfortunately, too many news organizations take its word as gospel.

2) Iranian missiles

According to Ha'aretz Iran has 450 missiles capable of hitting Israel and including the arsenals of its allies Hezbollah and Syria, it has as many as 65,000 missiles and rockets capable of targeting Israel. (via Daily Alert)

3) Secretary Rice on Israel and terror

During a demonstration in support of Israel in April 2002 - then engaged in Operation Defensive Shield against Palestinian terror groups - there were a number of signs "In Israel 9/11 is 24/7."

The Times of Israel reports on a recent speech given by former Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice that expressed a similar sentiment as she recalled the time after the planes hit the World Trade Center (via Daily Alert):

Furthermore, the attack and its ramifications — including, Rice said, the possibility that American forces might have to shoot down civilian aircraft if it appeared that other sites, like the White House, might be hit — convinced the US that it significantly needed to ramp up security, but in a way that would have as minimal an effect on the average citizen as possible.
“We realized that Israel, our good friend, was very advanced in this area. Security has been a concern of Israel’s since the day it was born.”

Israel, she added, has successfully developed many technologies and methods to fight terror and enable day-to-day life to go on, and the US turned to Israel, and companies like Motorola Solutions — much of whose technology is developed in Israel — for help.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Media Bias and Iran.

Half the Story: Analysis of Amnesty's 2012 World Report

2012-05-24T08:28:00.001-04:00

PRESS RELEASE
May 24, 2012

Contact:
Jason Edelstein
NGO Monitor
+972-52-861-2129
mail@ngo-monitor.org

Half the Story: Analysis of Amnesty's 2012 World Report

JERUSALEM - In response to Amnesty International's 2012 World Report, NGO Monitor today released the following statement:

As in many previous reports, Amnesty continues to level unsupported allegations of violations of international law against Israel, including "collective punishment." In contrast, the organization expressed uncertainty regarding the legal significance of the murder of more than 8,000 Syrians by Bashar al-Assad, claiming that these deaths "may have constituted crimes against humanity". Israel is mentioned 137 times in the report as opposed to 74 mentions for the Syrian regime.

In the 2012 report, Amnesty accuses Israel of "collective punishment" (pg 48) of the Palestinian population, in the form of a blockade against Gaza, which is controlled by Hamas. In making this false claim, the authors of Amnesty's report have stripped away the context. For instance, the organization ignores that Israel's blockade was implemented to stop the smuggling of weapons and rockets used to target Israeli citizens. In September 2011, the UN Secretary General's Palmer Committee found that the naval blockade of Gaza is legal under international law, explicitly rejecting Amnesty's claims. In addition, Amnesty fails to report on the thousands of tons of goods provided by Israel to Gaza every week.

Amnesty also minimizes the ongoing rocket attacks targeting Israeli civilians ranging from Ashkelon and beyond, and terrorizing over one million Israelis, who flee to bomb shelters and suffer severe psychological trauma with every attack. While Amnesty label's Israel's actions as "crimes" under international law, it fails to use this designation for the thousands of indiscriminate Palestinian rocket attacks - every one of which is a war crime.

In a few brief references to attacks, this report blandly states that Palestinian groups "fired indiscriminate rockets and mortars into southern Israel, killing two people and endangering the lives of others." (pg. 267) The phrasing "lives of others" is a gross understatement for characterizing an ongoing campaign of rocket attacks targeting Israeli population centers.

Amnesty continues to level the false claim that Israel had "failed to conduct independent investigations into alleged war crimes by Israeli forces during Operation 'Cast Lead'." Israel has conducted hundreds of investigations into the events relating to the 2008-09 war. Judge Mary McGowan Davis, empanelled by the Human Rights Council to lead the follow-up committee to the Goldstone Report, found that "Israel has dedicated significant resources to investigate over 400 allegations of operational misconduct in Gaza." Judge Goldstone, himself,has noted "our main recommendation was for each party to investigate, transparently and in good faith, the incidents referred to in our report. McGowan Davis has found that Israel has done this to a significant degree."

Amnesty's report again repeats unsupported Palestinian casualty claims, which, as in the case of the 2009 Goldstone Report on the Gaza war, are often demonstrably false. For example, in the summary of the response to attempts to storm Israel's borders in May 2011, the report claims that "Up to 35 people were reportedly killed when Israeli soldiers fired at thousands of Palestinian refugees and others who protested on 15 May and 5 June at the Lebanese border with Israel and the Syrian border with the Israeli-occupied Golan." (pg187). The claim of 35 killed is not supported by any credible sources.

Amnesty continues to repeat the claims of unreliable Israeli and Palestinian NGOs, without any independent review. For example the report cites the findings of Yesh Din, despite the fact that the methodology it employs has been discredited.

The false allegations and double standards in the Amnesty report reflect the employment of Deborah Hyams, whose history of anti-Israel activism is well documented, as a researcher for "Israel, Occupied Palestinian Territories and Palestinian Authority". In 2008, Hyams wassignatory to a letterclaiming Israel is "a state founded on terrorism, massacres and the dispossession of another people from their land." In 2002 Hyams "said that while she does not condone suicide bombings, she personally believes they 'are in response to the occupation.'" Hyams has worked for a number of radical advocacy NGOs, including the Alternative Information Center (AIC), Jews for Justice in Palestine and Israel (JPPI), Rachel Corrie Foundation, and Ma'an Network.

mail@ngo-monitor.org

www.ngo-monitor.org

Technorati Tag: Israel and Amnesty International.

Arlene Kushner On Iran: We're Being Had

2012-05-23T20:34:00.000-04:00

From Arlene Kushner:

May 23, 2012:

Stalemate
No legislation regarding "unauthorized" communities in Judea and Samaria came to the floor of the Knesset today.
Prime Minister Netanyahu requested that the sponsors of these bills give him two weeks to work out the situation in Ulpana without legislation.   One can never be sure what he'll pull out of his sleeve, but I advise my readers not to expect a miracle solution from him.

Credit: Huffington Post

While Likud MKs had been released from coalition obligations, he had not given Likud ministers latitude to vote their conscience -- they would have been expected to vote according to coalition instructions. This in itself made a win unlikely. Ministers can buck coalition discipline, but are liable for disciplinary action if they do. And they'd be very unlikely to do so in light of the prime minister's request. Which meant that pulling the legislation off the floor was a prudent move.
First MK Zevulun Orlev (Habayit Hayehudi) withdrew his proposed legislation.

Credit: Times of Israel
Ya'akov -Ketzeleh- Katz (Chair, National Union) withdrew with great reluctance and only at the last minute.

Credit: IsraelMatzav
~~~~~~~~~~
I've been told by a source inside the Knesset that Netanyahu pledged that Defense Minister Barak would make no move towards the demolition of the Ulpana houses until after the two weeks.
Then I was told that there was a "sort of" commitment from Netanyahu to release the ministers from coalition discipline if he is unable to resolve the issue and the legislation is brought to the floor. Can't say exactly what "sort of" means.
~~~~~~~~~~
For the record, I've been advised that there are some real (if not overwhelming) differences between the two versions of the legislation, with Katz's version more broadly applicable to a variety of communities.
~~~~~~~~~~
I want to turn to the issue of Iran. It is by far THE overriding issue. The number of statements being made, and of words flowing from computer keyboards with regard to what is going on is rather daunting.
In a nutshell: The world is being "had."
Or is allowing itself to be "had," and there's a very good case to be made for this position. See "Talks aim not to thwart Iran nukes, but to stop Israeli attack"
~~~~~~~~~~
Two things are going on.
Negotiations have begun again in Baghdad. Just days ago the NY Times announced that the representatives of the international community who are negotiating with Iran (the five permanent members of the Security Council plus Germany) have said they are prepared to offer "an incentives package" if Iran will agree to end enrichment of uranium.
Incentives? That was fast in coming.
Meanwhile IAEA chief Yukiya Amano has been in Tehran for talks with Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili. On Monday they announced an agreement regarding inspections of nuclear sites.   But there is so very much wrong with all of this. Amano announced before the meeting that he and Jalili had determined that they would come to an agreement.
This being the case, we can speculate with reasonable certainty that Amano didn't go in with intentions of being tough. He did not declare, "You want an agreement? THIS is what we demand." It was more like, "Oh, we've already said we need that agreement, so let's see how we can arrange this." Questions have been raised regarding the cleaning of key sites prior to any inspections, and time limits that Iran wants placed on the IAEA's right to do inspections.
You don't have to be a nuclear scientist (forgive the awful pun) to see what's going on here.
The world is ever so hungry for "success." Iran will accommodate to a point, to give the international community the sense of having achieved something -- and then will run rings around them all.
~~~~~~~~~~
In the face of all of this, I remain relatively calm, for the simple reason that I know neither Israel's prime minister nor defense minister is buying into all of this.
Monday night, Netanyahu said (emphasis added):
"Iran wants to destroy Israel and it is developing nuclear weapons to fulfill that goal. Leading world powers need to display determination and not weakness in the face of this malicious intention. They should not make any concessions to Iran.
"They need to make clear and unequivocal demands that Iran stop all of its nuclear enrichment activity, remove all the material that has been enriched until now and dismantle the underground nuclear facility near Qom. Only then can we be sure Iran will not get an atomic bomb."
Netanyahu made it clear that Israel's views on this matter "will not change."
~~~~~~~~~~
And today, in an Israel Radio interview, Barak said (again, emphasis added):
"Obama and the representatives of the West are not naive.  But they want to achieve progress, so they are willing to compromise.
"Israel is demanding a complete halt to Iranian uranium enrichment." Barak added that the West was setting the bar too low and demanding too little. "We mustn't blink, concede, or cave at the last minute."
As to Amano's negotiations in Tehran, Barak observed:
"The Iranians orchestrated things in such a way that when the Baghdad talks rolled around they would be able to tell the world powers that they were already coordinating the procedural details with the IAEA, and when Amano wanted to talk about the essential issues they could say that they were working those out with the world powers. It gives them a little wiggle room."
~~~~~~~~~~
Please, understand this critical point, which is being made by Israeli officials in the Prime Minister's Office, the Defense Ministry and the Foreign Ministry:
The IAEA agreement only relates to monitoring and is not enough to halt Iran's nuclear progress.
As one senior official was cited as saying (emphasis added), "The problem is [that] Iran's program is continuing unabated and needs to be stopped. We have seen what happened with agreements between the IAEA and Iran in the past. Terms were agreed but facilities were still set up openly, like Natanz in 2002 and Qom in 2009. The latest IAEA report reveals Iran's scams and deceptions."
~~~~~~~~~~
Maj. Gen. Itai Baron, head of the Military Intelligence research department, provided a briefing yesterday for the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee
What he said was that Iran was moving ahead with its nuclear program — enriching uranium and maintaining full operation of the facilities near Qom and Bushehr. Iran has trebled its pace of uranium enrichment to 20 percent. Baron estimates that by the end of 2012, Iran will have enriched sufficient uranium to 20% to build a single nuclear device.
I've read elsewhere that beyond this point it would take Iran somewhere between six and 18 months to produce a bomb.
So, with so many people patting themselves on the back with regard to "progress" in Iranian negotiations, precisely who is paying attention to this critical information?
~~~~~~~~~~
In closing, I leave you with this: Barak has made it clear, once again, in the face of these "negotiations," that Israel does not rule out any option. What this means is that if a deal is struck with Iran, and Israeli leaders deem it insufficient, so that Iran remains a danger to Israel and the world, we will act as we see fit.
We'd stand alone, and so be it. It would hardly be the first time.
~~~~~~~~~~
© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran and West Bank.

"Islamophobia" Proves Islamists Can Play The Victim As Well As Prey On Them

2012-05-23T15:57:00.000-04:00

In Is It Still Possible To Question Islam? Robert Spencer notes the source for the term Islamophobia:

Journalist Claire Berlinski notes [ How the Term 'Islamophobia' Got Shoved Down Your Throat] that “the neologism ‘Islamophobia’ did not simply emerge ex nihilo”:

"It was invented, deliberately, by a Muslim Brotherhood front organization, the International Institute for Islamic Thought, which is based in Northern Virginia. … Abdur-Rahman Muhammad, a former member of the IIIT who has renounced the group in disgust, was an eyewitness to the creation of the word. “This loathsome term,” he writes, “is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliche conceived in the bowels of Muslim think tanks for the purpose of beating down critics.”"

In her article, Berlinkski's notes the model the Islamists used for the term Islamophobia:

Muhammad said the Islamists decided to emulate the homosexual activists who used the term "homophobia" to silence critics. He said the group meeting at IIIT saw "Islamophobia" as a way to "beat up their critics."

Islamic extremists apparently know how to play the victim as well as how to prey on the victim.

Technorati Tag: Islamophobia.

YU's Shavuout-To-Go 5772

2012-05-23T14:27:00.000-04:00

PDF's of previous years are available online as well:

Shavuout-To-Go 5772 (Packet)
Individual Articles download:

An Important Message to Our Rabbinic Colleagues, Students, and Community

Rabbi Elchanan Adler - "Derech Eretz Kadma LaTorah: A Multi-faceted Perspective"

Rabbi Joshua Flug - "Matan Torah as a Form of Conversion"

Dr. Michelle Levine - "Moshe Rabbenu at Ma'amad Har Sinai: Ascending and Descending the Mountain"

Rabbi Shmuel Maybruch - "The Best Part of Waking Up: Birchas HaTorah on Shavuos Morning"

Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner - "The Shabbat Influence"

Rabbi Dr. Richard Weiss - "Overcoming Medical Obstacles to Jewish Conversion"

Dr. Shira Weiss - "Were Obligatory Beliefs Revealed on Sinai?"

Rabbi Mordechai Willig - "Voluntary and Involuntary Acceptance of the Torah"

Shavuot Activities for Families from YUTeach, a project of Yeshiva University's Institute for University- School Partnership

Shavuout-To-Go 5771 (Packet)
Individual Articles download:

Rabbi Elchanan Adler - "Yearning for Salvation"

Rabbi Azarya Berzon - "The Two-Fold Nature of Chag HaShavuot"

Rabbi Reuven Brand - "Converting to Kindness"

Rabbi Joshua Flug - "Torah Study: Results Are Also Important!"

Rabbi Shmuel Goldin - "Why Break the Tablets?"

Rabbi Yosef Kalinsky - "Aliyah Laregel Bzman Hazeh"

Mrs. Deena Rabinovich - "How is this holiday different than all others?"

Rabbi Dr. Andrew Schein - "A Brief History of Tikkun Leil Shavuot"

Dr. Lawrence Schiffman - "Yatziv Pitgam, One of Our Last Aramaic Piyyutim"

Ms. Shuli Taubes - "Habakkuk: The Man, the Mission, the Haftarah for the 2nd Day of Shavuot"

Collected insights from members of the Graduate Program in Biblical and Talmudic Interpretation at Stern College

Shavuot-To-Go 5770 (Packet)
Individual Articles download:

Rabbi Kenneth Brander - "Introduction"

Mrs. Mindy Eisenman - "Ten Steps to a Healthy Relationship: Pesach to Shavuot"

Rabbi Dr. Jacob J. Schacter - "There Is No Sanctity Without Preparation: On The Torah Ethics Of Dating"

Rabbi Zvi Sobolofsky - "Loving Hashem: A Model Relationship"

Rabbi Reuven Brand - "A Walk Down the Aisle"

Rabbi Yitzchak Blau - "Talmud Torah Kneged Kulam BTorat Rav Hutner"

Rabbi Yitzchok Cohen - "Zman Matan Torah: Our Name is Yosef, Not Joe"

Rabbi Joshua Flug - "The Tuition Challenge: A Discussion Guide"

Mrs. Tova Warburg Sinensky - "The Gift That Keeps On Giving"

Rabbi Mordechai Torczyner - "Avraham"s Yom Tov"

Collected Insights from Members of our Kollelim

Shavuot-To-Go 5769 (Packet)
Individual Articles download:

Cantor Bernard Beer - "Liturgical and Musical Aspects of Shavuot"

Rabbi Reuven Brand - "The Wellness of Bread: The Achievement of Shavuot"

Rabbi Joshua Flug - "A Walking Sefer Torah"

Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer - "Eating Dairy on Shavuos"

Rabbi David Horwitz - "The Fundamental Principle of the Torah"

Mrs. Rivka Kahan - "The Transmission of Torah MiSinai"

Rabbi Menachem Leibtag - "A Revolution at Revelation: The Connection Between Shavuot & Shabbat in Sefer Devarim"

Rabbi Baruch Simon - "Seven Weeks of Seven Days - Making Our Time Meaningful"

Dr. Shira Weiss - "How Do We Know Judaism is the True Religion?"

Shavuout-To-Go 5768 (Packet)

Includes:

Learning Packets:
Rabbi Josh Flug - "Halachic Perspectives on Live Kidney Donations"

Rabbi Daniel Stein - "Can I Have a Ride? Carpooling & Middas Sodom"

Divrei Drush:
Dr. Naomi Grunhaus - "The Significance of Matan Torah"

Rabbi Zev Reichman - "Shavuot: Middot and Torah Linked Together"

Rabbi Moshe Taragin - "Twice Kissed"

Family Program:
Pirkei Avot Scavenger Hunt
Environmentalism in Jewish Law and Thought
The Jew's Role in the World
-Aaron Steinberg

Shavuout-To-Go 5767 (Packet)
Includes:

Rabbi Joshua Flug - "Are We All Thieves? Hi-Tech Heists and Halacha"

Teen Program: Avidan Freedman - "Facebook and Friendship"

Technorati Tag: Shavuout and Shavous.

Identity Of The OTHER Mossad Spy In Iran Revealed

2012-05-23T13:01:00.000-04:00

By now you've read about the alleged Mossad spy from Israel who was apparently executed by Iran. You may also have read that the passport used to prove the identity of the spy was forged by Iran--the country with the world's most underpaid graphic artists:

It just so happens that doing a basic online search reveals that the alleged Mossad spy did not act alone--he had an accomplice, one who is highly placed in the upper levels of the Iranian government:

Now we can understand that Ahmadinejad's re-election is the one Zionist conspiracy that the Iranian government missed.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Iran and Mossad and Ahmadinejad.

The Middle East Media Sampler 5/23/2012: Tom Friedman Has Nothing New To Say To Israel

2012-05-23T11:28:00.000-04:00

From DG:

Column without purpose

Thomas Friedman's latest, Power with purpose, exhorts Prime Minister Netanyahu to engage in "constructive unilateralism" as proposed in a recent op-ed Peace without Partners by Ami Ayalon, Orni Petruschka and Gilead Sher. The problem is that, as with the earlier op-ed, the onus for peacemaking falls strictly on Israel.

Here's the impetus for Friedman's suggestion:

I’m keeping an open mind, but the temptation for Bibi to do nothing will be enormous. The Palestinians are divided between Hamas in Gaza and the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and both populations are tired.

Moreover, economic conditions have improved in the West Bank in recent years, and the Palestinian Authority’s security forces are keeping a tight rein on anti-Israeli violence. Aid from the U.S., Europe and the Arabs pays a lot of the authority’s budget. Israel’s security wall keeps Palestinian suicide bombers out. The U.S. election silences any criticism coming from Washington about Israeli settlements. The Israeli peace camp is dead, and the Arab awakening has most Arab states enfeebled or preoccupied. So Israel gets to build settlements, while the Arabs, Americans, Europeans and Palestinians fund and sustain a lot of the occupation.

No wonder then that for most Israelis, the West Bank could be East Timor. “We see the writing on the wall, but we don’t care,” says the columnist Nahum Barnea of the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot, referring to the fact that Arabs could soon outnumber Jews in areas under Israeli control.
Friedman remains a one trick pony. Israel must make peace else Israel will cease to be either Jewish or democratic. This hasn't been true since the end of 1995 as the L.A. Times reported:

In the last seven weeks Israel has handed over six West Bank towns and more than 400 villages to the Palestinian Authority. The authority now controls about 90% of the West Bank's more than 1 million Arabs, and about one-third of the land in the Delaware-size territory.
The question that remains is what the exact borders of the Palestinian state will be. As long as Abbas, or whomever leads the PA, refuses to negotiate that won't be decided. But a vast majority of the Palestinians are no longer under Israel's jurisdiction and thus not part of any calculation of Israel's population. (In addition to which, despite Barnea's and Friedman's claim, as noted above, the demographic projections have changed.) Friedman's insistence that Israel needs to satisfy Palestinian demands to preserve its legitimacy simply gives the Palestinians a veto over any Israeli offer, relieving the Palestinians any impetus to come to an agreement.

Of course there's also the situation that Friedman sketches out that's not quite accurate. If the Palestinian Authority was keeping "a tight rein on anti-Israel violence" Israel wouldn't have needed to arrest the kidnapping ring a few days ago. Israel, though tax remittances helps fund the Palestinians and should have been included in the list those who support the PA's budget but the Palestinians in no way fund the "occupation" as Friedman suggests.

The reason Israel's peace camp is dead is because of the Palestinian refusal to negotiate in good faith and come to an agreement. Twice (at least) now, Palestinian leaders - Arafat in 2000 and 2001 and Abbas in 2008 - have refused final status agreements. But to Friedman, making concessions for peace is Israel's obligation alone; he doesn't even mention that (moderate) Fatah has been a lot more committed to making an agreement with the terrorist organization Hamas, than with making peace with Israel. Friedman writes further:

Whenever a nation or leader amasses this much power, with no checks coming from anywhere, the probability of misreading events grows exponentially. Bibi could be assuming that the Palestinians in the West Bank can be pacified simply with better economic conditions. Don’t count on it. Humiliation remains the single most powerful human emotion. It trumps economic well-being every time. Bibi could be assuming that the Palestinian security services will indefinitely act as Israel’s forward police force in the West Bank — absent any hopes of Palestinian statehood. Not likely — eventually they will be viewed as “traitors.” Bibi could be assuming that Israel could strike Iran — and upend the world economy — and still continue to build settlements in the West Bank. I would not bet on that; the global backlash could be severe. Bibi could be assuming that the West Bank Palestinian leadership will always be moderate, secular and pro-Western. If only ...
While it's true that having no checks on power leads to mistakes, he is wrong that Netanyahu has no checks. As it stands, Netanyahu represents a vast majority of Israel's electorate. If he acts in a way that alienates too many of his partners, he will lose that margin or possibly his power.

It may well be that Palestinians feel humiliation but is it really the "most powerful human emotion?" I would have thought that hate or love would be. And is it the lack of statehood that feeds this humiliation or the bombardment of anti-Israel propaganda in the Palestinian media that purports that Israel has no right to exist? Put another, is the "humiliation" that Friedman cites the result of Israeli policies or of Israel's existence?

I don't believe for a moment, as Friedman seems to, that Netanyahu's decision, if he makes it, to attack Iran will be capricious. If he and his government choose to attack, it will be because they are convinced that a significant and immediate threat to Israel's security exists.

Furthermore, Friedman seems convinced that that only Israel is threatened by Iran. It would be more correct to say that Israel understands the threat that Iran represents better than most Western countries do. If the West helps prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons it will be doing itself a favor too.

Finally, what's really ugly about the above paragraph is the way Friedman uses loaded terms like "humiliation" and "traitors" as a way of excusing terror against Israel.

Finally, let's take a look at the second paragraph of the column:

The stakes could not be higher — for him and Israel. Ami Ayalon, the former commander of Israel’s Navy and later its domestic intelligence service, put it to me this way: “I imagine a book called ‘Jewish Leaders in Recent History’ that one day Bibi’s grandson will be reading. What will it say? In one version, I imagine the section about the State of Israel will say that Herzl envisaged it, Ben-Gurion built it and Netanyahu secured it as a Jewish democracy.” But there is another version that could also be written, added Ayalon. “This version will describe Herzl and Ben-Gurion in the same way, but it will say of Netanyahu that he was the only Israeli leader who had the political power and he missed his moment in history” — and, thereby, created a situation in which Israel is not a Jewish democracy anymore. “Now is his moment to decide.”
Friedman's telling us that the new coalition is of huge importance because it allows Netanayhu to follow his advice and make huge new concessions that will somehow magically make the Palestinians negotiate a final status agreement with Israel.

If the moment is so important why did it take Friedman two weeks to write a column on the new development? And why, instead of crafting a column with a coherent argument did he simply throw together a mixture of dubious demographics and sociology, unsupported assertions and someone else's op-ed? If Friedman really believed in the urgency of the situation, he'd have offered some original insight instead of a column that amounts to reheated verbal cholent. It isn't entirely accurate to claim that this column had no purpose; Friedman sees the new governing coalition as one more excuse to blame Israel.

Related thoughts from My Right Word and Jonathan Tobin.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Tom Friedman.

Barry Rubin: Egypt: If There’s No Danger of Radicalism and Islamism Why Can’t You Provide Evidence?

2012-05-23T10:01:00.000-04:00

Egypt: If There’s No Danger of Radicalism and Islamism Why Can’t You Provide Evidence?

by Barry Rubin

Consider one fact that demolishes the apparatus of nonsense about moderate Islamists and the credibility of those claiming there is nothing to worry about. These are the same people who have been declaring for more than a year that the Muslim Brotherhood is moderate. Yet now the Brotherhood's presidential campaign has shown it to be extraordinarily radical, openly demanding a caliphate and Egypt being a Sharia state.

Suddenly the subject is changed. Nobody acknowledges that they were wrong about the Brotherhood. They focus now on a different candidate who we are told is the true moderate Islamist, as if their previous favorite "moderate Islamist" movement has now thrown off its camouflage.

“Democracy, as Western democracies have long known,” wrote Shadi Hamid, in predicting a Brotherhood majority in the parliamentary election some months ago, “is about the right to make the wrong choice.” True. But foreign policy, as everyone has long known, is about dealing with the consequences of wrong outcomes and trying to prevent them if possible.
Continue reading Egypt: If There’s No Danger of Radicalism and Islamism Why Can’t You Provide Evidence?

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). His latest book is Israel: An Introduction, was published by Yale University Press in January 2012. You can read more of Barry Rubin's posts at Rubin Reports, and now on his new blog, Rubin Reports, on Pajamas Media

Technorati Tag: Egypt and Muslim Brotherhood.

Will Difference Between Obama 2012 and Obama 2008 Make Jewish Vote Irrelevant?

2012-05-23T08:05:00.000-04:00

A sitting president of the United States, seeking reelection, can’t lay out a plan that will gain a single vote in the House or Senate for the financial future of America. It speaks volumes.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AK), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee

Yedidya Atlas describes how we have seen that Obama has to resort to Smoke and Mirrors on the Campaign Trail

In his April 18th column for RealClearPolitics, Senior Elections Analyst Sean Trende notes that the upcoming presidential elections between the incumbent, Democratic President Barack Obama, and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, will be, as usual, “a referendum on the party in power.” That is, President Obama will be running, whether he wants to or not (and he clearly doesn’t), on his performance record.

Considering Mr. Obama’s poor presidential performance, particularly in the key area of the economy, he will have a difficult time selling his self-trumped-up success in turning around the economy since the great crash in September 2008 – the very crash that leveraged him into the White House (“everything is Bush’s fault”) – no matter what is written on his cue cards.

Without a doubt, Team Obama agrees, and their strategy is a combination of Mr. Obama running as if he isn’t the incumbent (“everything is always someone else’s fault” – President Bush, Congress, the Republican majority in the House, anybody and everybody who isn’t Barack Obama), and at the same time, trying to impugn the good name and record of his Republican challenger, Mr. Romney, so the voters will prefer Mr. Obama by comparison.

This explains the Bain Capital ads and other similar attacks. But, like everything else Team Obama has tried in the last two months, this strategy seems to have backfired.

Read the whole thing.

In past presidential elections, it has been clear that no matter how Jewish Democratic voters responded to polls, no matter how strongly they said they identified with Israel and supported Israel's right to exist with secure borders--at the end of the day, it was issues like the economy that were way in front in determining who they voted for.

But in this case, where many Jewish democrats seem to still believe that Obama is a friend--if not the best friend ever--of Israel, the issue of the economy may very well serve to diminish the support of the Jewish vote that Obama is so clearly pursuing.

With each passing day, we find new ways that the Obama campaign of 2012 is very, very different from the Obama campaign 2008.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Election 2012 and Obama.

Arlene Kushner On Why Peace Process Failed--And What Comes Next

2012-05-22T18:22:00.002-04:00

From Arlene Kushner:

May 22, 2012

No Respite

Fighting the good fight is something that must be done without let-up. And it means fighting here at home as well as internationally.

I want to begin by sharing an excellent article by Moshe Dann, "The fundamental misconception about Arab-Israeli peace."

Dann addresses a very basic issue for our nation with clarity (all emphasis added):

"'The “peace process' between Israel and the Arabs, touted as part of a 'two state' plan, failed not because of disagreements over settlements and boundaries, but because of a basic false assumption: that Palestinianism could be fulfilled in a Palestinian state alongside Israel. It failed not because Israel did not give enough, but because nothing would have been enough...

"The dispute is not over territory, but ideology – Palestinianism, the basis of their nearly hundred-year war against Zionism and the State of Israel, the national historic homeland of the Jewish People. For Arabs, Palestinians and most Muslims, that struggle is jihad against the infidel.

"Since a 'peace process' requires Arabs to give up their opposition to a Jewish state, it contradicts their basic principles and historic mission. While some might make temporary concessions, the goal is the same. It explains not only why the “peace process” failed, but why that failure was and is inevitable.

"The primary goal of Palestinian nationalism is to wipe out the State of Israel, not to legitimize its existence.

"...Palestinianism is not an authentic national identity, but a political construct developed in the mid 1960s as part of the PLO’s terrorist agenda. 'Liberation' did not refer to Judea, Samaria, Gaza and eastern Jerusalem, which Arabs then controlled, but to Israel itself.

"...Trying to convince Palestinian Arabs to change their concept of Palestinian identity and accept Israel, therefore, means throwing out the struggle to 'liberate Palestine from the Zionists.' It assumes that their struggle is to achieve statehood alongside Israel, not to replace Israel with an Arab Muslim state.

"...Statehood means denying the Nakba (catastrophe), the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. It means admitting that everything for which they fought and sacrificed was in vain.

"...Statehood means giving up 'the armed struggle' against Israel, the heart of Palestinian identity. It means that the concept of Palestinianism created by Arabs and the PLO, accepted by the UN and the media, and even by Israeli politicians was a hoax, a fake identity with a false purpose. It means that their suffering was for naught.

"Statehood involves taking responsibility and ending incitement and violence, confronting the myths of 'Palestinian archeology,' and 'Palestinian society and culture,' and it requires building authentic nationalism, with just and transparent institutions.

"In this context, for Palestinians, Arabs and most Muslims, a 'peace process,' the 'two-state solution' that accepts Israel, is a metaphor for defeat.

"As long as massive funding and proposals for solutions are based on establishing a second (or third) Arab Palestinian state west of the Jordan River they ignore inherent contradictions, fan the flames of resentment and undermine Israel’s security and viability.

"And, as long as Palestinianism can tap into the unlimited cesspools of Western Jew-hatred and Arab bank accounts the conflict will continue..."

~~~~~~~~~~

For many of us who have been witnessing events here with clear eyes and a sense of horror, what Dann writes is axiomatic: The "two state solution" ain't gonna work. There was never a chance.

He says, "We need to return to reality and leave dreamy visions and hype where they belong." "Ein breira (no choice)."

Agreed. It's absolutely essential to begin the dialogue in earnest about the inherent failure of the Oslo vision and the "two state solution."

We have to start. Yet this will be a long hard haul, not just internationally, but even here at home.

Some people are reluctant to surrender that lovely vision -- they cling to it in the face of all evidence to the contrary. Our president, Shimon Peres, falls into this category. He waxes eloquently optimistic even when there is no cause for optimism -- and is greatly loved abroad for his embrace of this international fantasy.

Others -- whatever they know in their hearts -- are without the courage to buck the international consensus. Our prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, can be counted in this category. While I certainly cannot see into his heart, I am convinced that he knows full well that there is no chance of a peace process succeeding, no possibility of negotiations coming to a meaningful fruition.

Yet, instead of standing up before the nation and telling the unvarnished truth, he plays that game --speaking of his fervent hope that Abbas will come to the table, and of his commitment to a Palestinian state (albeit a "demilitarized" state -- yet another fantasy).

It is likely that he has convinced himself that he is sparing himself and his nation unnecessary grief by playing it this way. I imagine that he hopes to incur less international wrath and secure more support. But in the final analysis he is bringing Israel to a diplomatic dead end (a dead end, admittedly, that he hopes to blame on Abbas), without helping us to move on in positive and constructive terms.

~~~~~~~~~~

What we require now, of course, is serious dialogue at a national level regarding what comes next. Various proposals have been advanced, and must be examined. They include but are not limited to:

Annexation of all of Judea and Samaria, with the Arabs resident within our borders being granted full citizenship. (In spite of much of the hype you've likely heard, they are not a demographic threat.)

Annexation of only area C, which is fully under Israeli control according to Oslo and encompasses all Jewish areas plus areas important for security, but does not encompass the major areas of Arab residence. This might be done as a first stage towards eventual full annexation, or this might be an end unto itself -- in which case questions remain as to what happens to areas A and B, where the Palestinian Arabs have full or partial control (see following).

Movement of the Palestinian Arab "refugees" (those registered with UNRWA) to a third country for resettlement, with an autonomy that provides local control accorded to those remaining Palestinian Arabs who live between the river and the sea.

Establishment of "cantons" in Judea and Samaria, in Palestinian Arab areas, each to be governed by a local clan (hamula). This is the proposal of Dr. Moti Kedar, who says that as the Palestinian Arab society is clan-based only this will truly allow peace. (He actually sees a good deal of the Arab Middle East ultimately breaking back down into clan-controlled regions, rather than remaining as the artificially created "nations" that currently exist.)

Encouragement of voluntary movement of Palestinian Arabs into Jordan, which is the true Palestinian state (although the Jordanian king is loath to acknowledge this). Perhaps along with this an annexation of Palestinian Arab areas of Judea and Samaria to Jordan, so that the Arabs would be franchised via Jordan and not Israel. Or, in another permutation, autonomous areas for Palestinian Arabs in Judea and Samaria that would be federated with Jordan and permit Jordanian citizenship.

~~~~~~~~~~

There is obviously a great deal to consider: precipitous decisions cannot and should not be made with regard to matters of such import for the nation. But we must begin to talk about the possibilities -- in their various permutations -- and the implications of each.

(Please! Do not write to me to tell me which way forward is obviously best. I am simply explaining the various options here.)

With a prime minister who is not on board, this will come slowly.

But I do see hopeful signs of a nationalist turn within the Knesset and the nation. I see good people who are willing to confront the issues. This is not going to move forward without a whole lot of angst. It may even be two steps forward and one step backward.

But I have hopes that over time it indeed will move forward. And -- to the very best of my ability -- I will be tracking and celebrating that progress.

~~~~~~~~~~

One of the really good people right now is Miri Regev (Likud), who is about to start a Knesset lobby to promote annexation of Judea and Samaria. Right on! It will at least be a subject of conversation in the Knesset now. And a other good people will be joining her. I would bet on the firebrand Tzipi Hotovely (Likud) and the long-time fighter for the nationalist cause, Arieh Eldad (National Union).

Another is Ze'ev Elkins (Likud and Coalition Chair), who has, most recently, promoted a bill to provide tax breaks of 35% for donations to NGOs that encourage settlement, including in Judea and Samaria. That bill passed in the Knesset yesterday.

~~~~~~~~~~

Then we've got the good people who are fighting the fight for Ulpana and other "unauthorized" communities. Battle is being done by people such as Zevulun Orlev (Habayit Hayehudi) and Ya'akov Katz (chair, National Union).

I've been alluding for some time to that fact that they will be bringing legislation to the Knesset to address this issue. And tomorrow is the day! Quite a tense day it promises to be.

Originally Orlev said he wouldn't bring the legislation forward unless the prime minister released the government ministers to vote their consciences and did not require coalition discipline. And there was considerable lobbying to try to convince Netanyahu to do just that.

But the latest word is that he will not. Both he and his "coalition buddy" Mofaz have announced that they will not support this legislation. Mofaz particularly irked me with his statement that he would not contravene a ruling of the High Court. This is circular reasoning, since the High Court ruling was based on the position of the government.

Why the legislation is being brought forward in spite of the opposition at the top is not clear, for if it doesn't pass it may not be brought back for several months. Might be some arrangements in process behind the scenes that have yet to become apparent.

~~~~~~~~~~

Again, for the record: broadly, the proposed legislation says that if a certain period of time (roughly four years) has passed during which Jews are living in housing in Judea and Samaria and an Arab suddenly claims ownership, that ownership must be documented in court. But even if it proves valid, if more than 20 Jewish families live in the community, it cannot be dismantled. Instead the Arab owner will be compensated with funds or an alternative site of land.

~~~~~~~~~~

Speaking of "an alternative site of land," Netanyahu, who had made all sorts of noise about how he would find a way to save Ulpana, is now offering the residents an alternative so that the houses in question can be dismantled. He could save Ulpana. By allowing ministers to vote their conscience on that legislation, or by giving the word that the IDF should take the land, which would enable it to be fully and unquestionably legalized. What he is offering here feels like his attempt to pretend to help the people without actually saving Ulpana.

~~~~~~~~~~

Other points of political interest:

The two nationalist parties, National Union (Ihud Leumi) and Habayit Hayehudi (formerly Mafdal), are in process of making arrangements to merge. I see this as positive, because, for maximum political effectiveness, there must unity of nationalist elements. This merger will not be accomplished easily, but is necessary.

I have learned that some polls indicate an increase in support for these parties, combined.

Naftali Bennett, formerly a key aide to Netanyahu, had planned to start his own nationalist party. But as elections won't be held for some 18 months, he has shifted strategies and will be joining Habayit Hayehudi. This, too, I see as positive. For he has considerable political expertise and support -- via his work as head of the Yesha Council -- and will be an asset. MK Uri Orbach is backing him to head the party.

Many of you may feel the need for a score card, or a spread sheet, to keep track of all of this. But I share it because the import -- with the advancement of a nationalist agenda down the road -- is so great.

~~~~~~~~~~

Please, see my most recent article, Really Missing the Point on 'Hudna', up on American Thinker. It deals with the true meaning of hudna, a word used by the Palestinian Arabs that is often erroneously translated as "truce."

~~~~~~~~~~

© Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner, functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Middle East and Peace Process.

Hear Bee Gees Sing About Israel In 1971

2012-05-22T16:30:00.000-04:00

Here are the Bee Gees singing about Israel back in 1972.
The lyrics are below:

Debbie Schlussel has more on the Bee Gees and Israel

Israel
by The Bee Gees

You've had your troubles Israel
I've seen them all
But you put the writing on the wall
Israel Israel yeah

You know I've seen you fall so many times
I've cried for you and that's a crime
Israel Israel Israel

Where there's sand
Where there's beautiful sand yeah
You know you got a kind of feeling
That's just grand
Take me into your arms
Let me be with you
Israel Israel Israel

I like the smiles up on your people's faces
They make you feel warm embraces
And I want that kind of smile
that kind of smile
[ From: http://www.elyrics.net/read/b/bee-gees-lyrics/israel-lyrics.html ]
Israel you make the whole world think about you
And if they don't they'll find a reason
to shout about Israel Israel

You're the only one Israel Israel
Tell me all about it!
Tell me all about it
Tell me all about it
Oh take me into your arms
And make me feel your goodness
Be with me Israel
Hey hey hey hey
Oh oh oh
Take me into your arms
Let me hold hold you to myself
Oh I want to Israel

Israel Oh take me back into into your arms
Israel Israel Israel Israel
Israel

Technorati Tag: Israel and Bee Gees.

Raymond Ibrahim: Voting in Egypt as 'Holy War'--Its Only Value, to Empower Sharia

2012-05-22T14:57:00.000-04:00

The following by Raymond Ibrahim is reposted with permission:

Voting in Egypt as 'Holy War'
Its Only Value, to Empower Sharia

by Raymond Ibrahim
Gatestone Institute
May 22, 2012

http://www.meforum.org/3248/voting-in-egypt

Despite the fact that some in the West portray Islam and democracy as being perfectly compatible, evidence continues to emerge that, for many countries in the Middle East, democracy and elections are various means to one end: the establishment of a decidedly undemocratic form of law—Islamic, or Sharia Law.

Thus, Egyptian cleric Dr. Talat Zahran proclaimed that it is "obligatory to cheat at elections, a beautiful thing," his logic being that voting is a tool, an instrument, the only value of which is to empower Sharia. Likewise, Hazim Shuman, a cleric who has his own TV program, issued a fatwa likening the voting for Islamist candidates as a "jihad," adding that paradise awaits whoever is "martyred" during the electoral campaign.
Most recently, according to Al Wafd, last Friday, May 18, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of if not the most authoritative clerics in the Islamic world, "called on all Egyptians to vote for one of the Islamist candidates," specifically naming the three Islamists, Muhammad Mursi (candidate of the Salafist party), Abd al-Mun'im Abu al-Futuh (candidate of the Muslim Brotherhood's political wing), and Muhammad al-Salim al-Awwa. Qaradawi described them as "best for Egypt" because they will "apply the Islamic Sharia and achieve justice." Moreover, during his Friday sermon, Qaradawi said that it is "mandatory for every Egyptian to go and vote at the presidential elections," calling it a form of "obligatory testimony" on behalf of Islam, and quoting Koran 2:283 as proof: "And do not conceal testimony, and whoever conceals it, his heart is surely sinful; and Allah knows what you do."

Qaradawi's position was restated yesterday, Monday May 21, when, according to Al Ahram, the Sharia Body for Rights and Reforms—one of the most powerful Islamic organizations, with members from the Muslim Brotherhood, the Salafis, and Al Azhar—issued a fatwa asserting that it is "impermissible to vote for anyone not intending to apply Islamic Sharia, and it is obligatory to vote for those who do seek to implement it," adding that the "presidential election is a modern way of directing the state, and therefore it behooves Muslims to use it as a way to enforce Sharia."

If Qaradawi and many others are stressing the obligation to vote for those most likely to enforce Sharia, Sheikh Osama Qassim, a member of Egypt's notorious Islamic Jihad, which also seeks to enforce Islamic law, recently attacked the non-Islamist candidates—specifically naming Ahmed Shafiq and Amr Mussa—saying that if they win the presidential elections, it will only be "by cheating," at which point "the Islamist organizations" will resort to "armed action" (code for Jihad), adding that such presidents will suffer the same fate of Anwar Sadat (assassination), but that this time, the struggle will see "the Islamists achieve complete domination" in Egypt.

Raymond Ibrahim is a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center and an Associate Fellow at the Middle East Forum.

Technorati Tag: Muslim Brotherhood and Egypt.

Media Insists On Holding Abbas's Hand To Get Peace From Israel

2012-05-22T13:31:00.000-04:00

We are informed that after ethnically cleansing Jews from Jerusalem in 1948, Arab East Jerusalem was magically created for all time.

Times Magazine informs us that with his new coalition, it is now up to Netanyahu to make peace--an odd statement only because the media has always assumed that it is Israel's obligation to make unilateral concessions for peace.

Now McClatchy's Frida Ghitis writes Netanyahu's move changes landscape, and that (once again) the ball is in Israel's court because Israel’s national unity coalition “creates a world of tantalizing opportunities” for peace with the Palestinians--and heaven forbid that Abbas have to take a stand for peace without another Israeli concession:

I hope Netanyahu will offer an olive branch, a way for Abbas to return to talks without seeming to capitulate.

Given that his stance has achieved nothing and Netanyahu is essentially assured of staying in office until at least late 2013, Abbas may want to reconsider, especially since elections in the U.S. promise even more of the same, or worse, for Palestinians. Either Obama wins, in which case he will try to pressure an even stronger Netanyahu, or Obama will lose and a Republican president will be much less helpful to Palestinians.

In the meantime, any hopes Abbas had the Arab uprisings would prove a huge help to Palestinians have not materialized.

Ghitis offers broad generalities--but no context.

No mention that Netanyahu already offered to freeze settlements and Abbas did nothing about it
No mention that since Israel is a democracy, Israelis can still protest what they see as capitulation
No mention that those Arab uprisings are about kicking out the corrupt leaders, not maintaining them
No mention that "Israelis and Palestinians have little to lose by making peace" means nothing if Israel does not have secure borders
No mention of Abbas's long history of inciting hatred against Israel
No mention that Abbas's term as president of the Palestinian Authority ended over 3 years ago

Ghitis actually writes that "it's hard to imagine Abbas holding fast to a strategy that has produced absolutely no results." Where has Ghitis been?"

Ghitis does not ignore anything that the rest of the media isn't ignoring.
That is how blind the media is.

Hat tip: HonestReporting's Israel Daily News Stream 05/22/2012

Technorati Tag: Israel and Media Bias and Abbas and Netanyahu.

Video: Request For #JustOneMinute Of Silence At Olympics To Commemorate Munich Massacre

2012-05-22T11:59:00.000-04:00

In a new campaign--justoneminute--Deputy Foreign Minister, Danny Ayalon calls on the International Olympic Committee to dedicate a minute of silence during the opening ceremony at this summer's London Olympic Games in memory of the eleven murdered Israeli athletes who were brutally murdered during the Munich Olympic Games in 1972.

Sign the petition International Olympic Committee: Minute of Silence at the 2012 London Olympics http://goo.gl/Gkw56

Go to the JustOneMinute Facebook page

Here is the video:

Technorati Tag: Israel and Munich Massacre and London Olympics and Terrorism.

The Middle East Media Sampler 5/22/2012: Palestinian Kidnapping Spree

2012-05-22T10:24:00.000-04:00

From DG:

1) The kidnapping ring

One of the fears that accompanied the trade of prisoners for the release of Gilad Shalit is that the exchange would encourage more abductions.

Ha'aretz reports Shin Bet uncovers Palestinian squad bent on kidnapping Israelis in West Bank (via Daily Alert):

According to the indictment, squad members attempted to kidnap Israelis on three different occasions, driving a rental car and equipped with a taser, tear gas, clubs and a replica gun.

In all three tries, according to the indictment, squad members drove to the Binyamin area of the West Bank, in an attempt to stun Israeli drivers and hide them in a cave or a safe house.

They then planed to film their victim, and upload the video to the internet in order to negotiate the release of Palestinian prisoners with Israeli authorities.
At the end of the report there's this:

Senior Palestinian officials told Haaretz that Palestinian Authority security forces recently arrested several Palestinians who had planned to kidnap Israeli soldiers, and that they were part of the same squad.
At Ynet, Yael Shachak recalls the attempt to kidnap her and her daughter:

One night in March, Shahak and her daughter were on their way home from an event in central Israel. "We got onto the Beit El access road and a few minutes later, after one of the bends in the road, I noticed a car standing at the side of the road," she recalled.

"I thought they were drunken Arabs or something similar. I honked my horn and then they zigzagged in front of me. The spot was one where you could not bypass or evade the car in front of you, so I drove behind them and tried to avoid them."

But the Palestinians would not give up. "They saw me backing up so they also backed up. That's when the penny dropped that I had a problem," she said. "I tried to escape but they wouldn't let me move to the side of the road. Eventually they stopped and stood right in front of my vehicle.
While kidnapping is a stated policy of Hamas it isn't clear is this squad is officially associated with Hamas.

Is the claim of "senior Palestinian officials" credible? If they had made the initial arrests, why didn't they arrest the whole squad? Was the Israeli success the result of information from Palestinian security sources? It would be useful to know how much official Palestinian cooperation contributed to this week's arrests.

In March, Alex Joffe and Asaf Romirowsky interviewed Salam Fayyad. Fayyad at one point complained:

Fayyad seemed puzzled about Israel's unwillingness to make security gestures in the West Bank. He also complained that nightly Israeli raids were undermining the Palestinian Authority and resulted in minimal security gains for Israel. This is difficult to assess, but Fayyad was certainly correct in stating that the Israeli public is largely unaware of these activities, or indeed the details of the security situation in the West Bank as whole.
My assumption is that Israel doesn't have the same confidence in the Palestinian security services that the rest of the world does. None of the information available supports or refutes the claim of those officials who talked to Ha'aretz.

Outside of Israel, the attempted kidnappings and arrests appear not to have been reported much, if at all.

2) Out of jail - for now

The New York Times has an interview with a Turkish journalist who is out of jail awaiting trial. This is part of project where journalism students around the world blog for the International Herald Tribune. Ahmet Sik talks about his case:

During an interview on the campus of Bilgi University, where he teaches, Mr. Sik said Monday that whether he was convicted or exonerated, it would not change the oppression of the media in Turkey.

“It is not going to stop, it will go on,” he said through an interpreter. “This is not today’s problem. It has a very long past and history. In the 1990s there were also journalists who were killed, arrested and harassed. Now they are not being killed so commonly, but they are still being arrested. So over the next 20 years, I don’t think anything will change” in the larger sense in Turkey.

Mr. Sik, author of “The Imam’s Army,” was arrested on March 3, 2011, accused of aiding a terrorist organization. He says his research exposed the relationship between followers of Fethullah Gulen, an influential Muslim preacher, and the Turkish police while bringing to light how innocent people were being put on trial because they opposed the Gulen movement. Mr. Sik spent more than a year in custody.
3) The fear no Islamists campaign

David Kirkpatrick and Mayy El Sheik caught up in the campaign excitement of Egypt. In In Streets and Online, Campaign Fever in Egypt they write:

Three days before voting begins in the first competitive presidential election in the history of the Arab world, the combination of novelty, high stakes, suspense and confusion has infected Egypt with a case of campaign fever that makes World Cup soccer finals look tame by comparison, to say nothing of the predictably quadrennial two-party contests that Americans still call exciting.

There are no reliable opinion polls here to help sort through the noise. Nor is there a permanent constitution to set the president’s duties or powers. But there is a widespread conviction that whoever wins the election will play a major role in setting Egypt’s course for decades to come.

So at the streetside cafes where average Egyptians pay about 15 cents a cup for Turkish coffee or sugary tea, a steady buzz of candidates’ names floats above the tables, and the patrons divide themselves into impassioned camps supporting the five plausible contenders still in the race.
There's an accompanying slide show, Egypt's Choice.

But then we read that Leading Egypt candidate calls 'racist' Israel a threat:

Abul Fotouh, a front runner in the May 23-24 election according to polls, had earlier described Israel as an "enemy" in a televised debate with his main contender, former foreign minister and Arab League chief Amr Moussa.

In Saturday's interview with the private Egyptian CBC satellite station, he said he had opposed the treaty since its implementation. "I still view the peace treaty as a national security threat to Egypt, and it must be revised."
In a tweet, Kirkpatrick tells us not to worry.

In Egypt, the presidential candidate most hostile to Israel is secular, left, not Islamist - Hamdeen Sabahy
Kirkpatrick's argument apparently is that it doesn't matter if an anti-Israel Islamist is elected president of Egypt, because a dark horse candidate is even more hostile towards Israel.

Nor does Kirkpatrick seem concerned about the bigger picture: What Do Egyptians Want? A Democratically Elected Islamist Dictatorship

4) Rudoren's helicopter ride

New York Times Jerusalem Bureau Chief, Jodi Rudoren went on a helicopter ride sponsored by the Israel Project to show what security concerns Israel has. She brought a camera and tweeted her observations. Though there's more, I thought that these two were especially worthwhile. Will this affect the way she reports?

Technorati Tag: Israel and Egypt and Turkey and Jodi Rudoren.

Daled Amos

Review of Robert Spencer's "Did Muhammad Exist?"

Did Muhammad Exist?
An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins

The Middle East Media Sampler 5/25/2012: Did The Peace Process Ruin Israel's Reputation?

Video: Latma--Jews United Against Israel and Media Deprived Terrorists

Arlene Kushner On Israel Dealing With 80,000 Illegal African Immigrants

"Transcending the News"

Barry Rubin: NEWS FLASH: Muslim Brotherhood Claims Victory in Egypt Presidential Election

Raymond Ibrahim: Egypt's Presidential Elections: What's at Stake

Egypt's Presidential Elections: What's at Stake

Arlene Kushner On The Failure Of Nuclear Talks With Iran

Amnesty International Defends Osama Bin Laden Too

Picture: Politics As Usual At The London Olympics: Israel is Located In Europe

Iran's Growing Presence in Latin America

Iran's Growing Presence in Latin America

Multimedia for this item

The Middle East Media Sampler 5/24/2012: Filmed Palestinian Conflicts With Israelis Keep Happening On Shabbos

Half the Story: Analysis of Amnesty's 2012 World Report

Arlene Kushner On Iran: We're Being Had

May 23, 2012:

Stalemate

"Islamophobia" Proves Islamists Can Play The Victim As Well As Prey On Them

YU's Shavuout-To-Go 5772

Identity Of The OTHER Mossad Spy In Iran Revealed

The Middle East Media Sampler 5/23/2012: Tom Friedman Has Nothing New To Say To Israel

Barry Rubin: Egypt: If There’s No Danger of Radicalism and Islamism Why Can’t You Provide Evidence?

Will Difference Between Obama 2012 and Obama 2008 Make Jewish Vote Irrelevant?

Arlene Kushner On Why Peace Process Failed--And What Comes Next

Hear Bee Gees Sing About Israel In 1971

Raymond Ibrahim: Voting in Egypt as 'Holy War'--Its Only Value, to Empower Sharia

Voting in Egypt as 'Holy War'
Its Only Value, to Empower Sharia

Media Insists On Holding Abbas's Hand To Get Peace From Israel

Video: Request For #JustOneMinute Of Silence At Olympics To Commemorate Munich Massacre

The Middle East Media Sampler 5/22/2012: Palestinian Kidnapping Spree

Daled Amos

Review of Robert Spencer's "Did Muhammad Exist?"

Did Muhammad Exist? An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins

The Middle East Media Sampler 5/25/2012: Did The Peace Process Ruin Israel's Reputation?

Video: Latma--Jews United Against Israel and Media Deprived Terrorists

Arlene Kushner On Israel Dealing With 80,000 Illegal African Immigrants

"Transcending the News"

Barry Rubin: NEWS FLASH: Muslim Brotherhood Claims Victory in Egypt Presidential Election

Raymond Ibrahim: Egypt's Presidential Elections: What's at Stake

Egypt's Presidential Elections: What's at Stake

Arlene Kushner On The Failure Of Nuclear Talks With Iran

Amnesty International Defends Osama Bin Laden Too

Picture: Politics As Usual At The London Olympics: Israel is Located In Europe

Iran's Growing Presence in Latin America

Iran's Growing Presence in Latin America

Multimedia for this item

The Middle East Media Sampler 5/24/2012: Filmed Palestinian Conflicts With Israelis Keep Happening On Shabbos

Half the Story: Analysis of Amnesty's 2012 World Report

Arlene Kushner On Iran: We're Being Had

May 23, 2012:

Stalemate

"Islamophobia" Proves Islamists Can Play The Victim As Well As Prey On Them

YU's Shavuout-To-Go 5772

Identity Of The OTHER Mossad Spy In Iran Revealed

The Middle East Media Sampler 5/23/2012: Tom Friedman Has Nothing New To Say To Israel

Barry Rubin: Egypt: If There’s No Danger of Radicalism and Islamism Why Can’t You Provide Evidence?

Will Difference Between Obama 2012 and Obama 2008 Make Jewish Vote Irrelevant?

Arlene Kushner On Why Peace Process Failed--And What Comes Next

Hear Bee Gees Sing About Israel In 1971

Raymond Ibrahim: Voting in Egypt as 'Holy War'--Its Only Value, to Empower Sharia

Voting in Egypt as 'Holy War' Its Only Value, to Empower Sharia

Media Insists On Holding Abbas's Hand To Get Peace From Israel

Video: Request For #JustOneMinute Of Silence At Olympics To Commemorate Munich Massacre

The Middle East Media Sampler 5/22/2012: Palestinian Kidnapping Spree

Did Muhammad Exist?
An Inquiry into Islam's Obscure Origins

Voting in Egypt as 'Holy War'
Its Only Value, to Empower Sharia