WILLIAM MEHLMAN: ABDULLAH, PICK UP THE PHONE

If it’s solely a National Home for which the so-called Palestinians yearn, rather than the liquidation of the Jewish National Home, such an abode – fully furnished –already exists east of the Jordan River

Filed under Mideast

When all the wild, desperate, improbable solutions to a problem have been exhausted, there is    nothing left to turn to but the obvious.

In respect to the Arab-Israel conflict, the “obvious” has been staring us in face for over 40 years. Encapsulated in the mantra “Two States for Two Peoples on Two Banks of the Jordan River,“ it has the distinction of being the most ignored testament to rationality and common sense in the history of international diplomacy.

An “invented ”nation the so-called Palestinians surely are, but given the world’s acceptance of their claim to sovereignty, it  is on the shoulders of the world, not on Israel’s, that the  realization of  that aspiration rests.

Indeed, if it’s solely a National Home for which the so-called Palestinians yearn, rather than the liquidation of the Jewish National Home, such an abode – fully furnished –already exists east of the Jordan River. “Jordan” it may be called, but encompassing 77 percent of Biblical Israel expropriated by the British and handed over to a Hashemite desert potentate, it is a “Palestinian State” in the purest post-Biblical sense of the term.

That this de facto  “Palestinian State” with its 70 percent  Palestinian Arab  majority should be allowed to stand on the sidelines, like some kibbitzer at  an  interminable diplomatic poker game, exempt from any material obligation toward  its compatriots, boggles the  mind.

Gratuitous advice can no longer be accepted as currency for Jordan King Abdullah’s unsettled debt of responsibility for the “ingathering” of his Palestinian “Diaspora.” His assumption of it should begin by reinstating the Jordanian nationality of hundreds of thousands of Arabs resident in Judea and Samaria wiped off the by King Hussein, his father, in 1988, in brazen contempt of Jordan’s 1954 nationality law. This unappealable disenfranchisement without notice has more recently been intensified for thousands more, including Arabs of   Palestinian origin who have lived in Jordan since the Six-Day War.  Viewed as especially vulnerable to the same treatment are the more than 200,000 Palestinian-origin Jordanian migrant workers expelled from Kuwait in 1991 in the wake of Operation Desert Storm.

Jordan claims its citizen annulment policy is motivated by a desire to reinforce the victims’  “Palestinian birthright” and their right to return to the “West Bank.”   Insiders suspect the real reason is the monarchy’s desire to rid itself of excess population weight on a stagnant economy, with the eventual hope of unloading the problem on Israel’s doorstep as part of a Middle East peace agreement

Meanwhile, the newly minted non-citizens face a bleak future.  Jordanian law prohibits the state from employing them. A similar law, requiring proof of nationality, virtually disbars them from employment in the private sector.  The outlook for professionals is classical Catch 22.  They can’t practice law, medicine or any other calling without being members of  the corresponding professional associations.  And the latter can’t admit them unless they’re Jordanian citizens.

The United States, King Abdullah’s chief political and financial prop, has consigned its  humanitarian instincts to cold storage in the face of this brutal Jordanian onslaught against its  citizenry.  As far as the Obama White House is concerned, the Hashemite monarchy, the only true second party to its vaunted “two-state solution,” remains not only free of involvement,  but free to further exacerbate the problem it was ostensibly designed to resolve.  That charade must end. Moreover, having made the Palestinian issue the fulcrum of its Middle East policy, the United States should bring every material and diplomatic resource at its disposal to the aid of its favorite king in fulfilling his national obligation. That might well be worth the institution  of a modern-day “Marshall Plan” to finance the repatriation and resettlement of the Palestinian Arabs in their homeland on the east bank of the Jordan.

There is no better time than now to begin that process.

In a presentation on Monday evening to a private gathering at the Herzliya Conference, Mr.Baird, who is on his third visit to Israel, explained why the Harper government “believes so passionately in Israel’s right not only to exist, but to exist as a Jewish state and to live in peace and security.”

patrick martin

RAMALLAH, WEST BANK— From Tuesday’s Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Jan. 30, 2012 8:18PM EST

Last updated Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2012 7:49AM EST

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty journeyed to the West Bank on Monday to beard the Palestinian lions in their den.

Over lunch with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, then later with Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Foreign Minister Riad Maliki, the Ottawa tag-team went out of its way to impress upon the Palestinian leadership that it should abandon its efforts to obtain United Nations recognition and return to the negotiating table with Israel “without preconditions.”

More related to this story

• Palestinian sources say Israel proposing West Bank barrier as border
• Baird’s Israel visit comes with a personal mission
• John Baird: Iran’s threat is real, not rhetoric

It was chutzpah of the highest order.

Adopting a harder line than any of Canada’s allies, Mr. Baird told Mr. Maliki, then repeated it in front of reporters, that it was “profoundly wrong” to take the case for Palestinian statehood to the United Nations, and it is far preferable to resume negotiations with Israel than insist that Israel halt settlement construction before resuming direct talks.

“Unilateral action by either side is not helpful,” Mr. Baird acknowledged in an apparent reference to new Israeli settlement construction. “But the two sides would be better off talking [to each other] rather than not talking.”

As for Hamas, many of whose members are being held in Israeli and Palestinian prisons, Mr. Baird said, “We have no interest in interacting with Hamas. It is a terrorist organization.”

Noting that Hamas is currently in reconciliation talks with Mr. Abbas’s Fatah movement, Mr. Baird set out certain steps Hamas would have to take should it seek Canadian recognition.

“You’re not a terrorist organization,” he said, “if you renounce terrorism … if you recognize the right of Israel to exist … if you support a Jewish homeland in the state of Israel … if you respect and honour peace treaties entered into with Israel.”

The list is in keeping with that set out by the Quartet – the diplomatic group of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations working to forge an Israeli-Palestinian peace. But it has one significant addition: the acceptance of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people, an addition that was carefully noted by Palestinian officials.

For his part, Mr. Maliki employed diplomatic language and described the discussions between him and Mr. Baird as “clear and frank.”

A Palestinian official later said they found Mr. Baird’s bluntness “refreshing.”

“There’s no mistaking where he stands,” the official said, somewhat admiringly.

One positive thing Mr. Baird did emphasize was how “incredibly thrilled” he was with the increase in security in the West Bank, a development that also benefits Israel.

Citing Canada’s assistance in training Palestinian judiciary, police, prosecutors and correction officers, he said, “Canada considers this money well spent.”

While Mr. Baird was making his case with the Palestinian Foreign Minister, Mr. Flaherty was meeting with Jihad al-Wazir, governor of the Palestinian Monetary Authority.

During his time in Israel this week, the Finance Minister is expected to explore ways in which the 15-year-old Canada-Israel Free Trade Agreement can be expanded to include trade in services and investment, and its market access for goods improved.

In a presentation on Monday evening to a private gathering at the Herzliya Conference, Mr.Baird, who is on his third visit to Israel, explained why the Harper government “believes so passionately in Israel’s right not only to exist, but to exist as a Jewish state and to live in peace and security.”

In part, he said, it is because “the state of Israel embodies principles that Canada values and respects.”

“It is also, in no small measure,” he added, “because Canada recognizes the long and unbroken history of anti-Semitism.”

“Israel today,” he said, “is a country whose very existence is under attack, both literally and figuratively.”

“Whether it is rockets raining down on Israeli schools, or the constant barrage of rhetorical demonization, double standards and delegitimization, Israel is under attack.”

“The easy thing to do,” Mr. Baird said, “would be simply to go along with anti-Israeli sentiment to get along with other countries.

Taking a swipe at Canada’s own historical stands on Middle East issues, Mr. Baird, who has been Foreign Minister for eight months, said “it would be easier to pretend that engaging in anti-Israeli rhetoric is being somehow even-handed and to excuse it under the false pretence of being an ‘honest broker.’”

“But Canada will not ‘go along to get along,’” he said.

With a report from Campbell Clark in Ottawa

The Arabs, though some may be talented, have a lot of loud-mouthed activists who scream and spew hatred.

By RAY HANANIA
Jerusalem Post, 24/01/2012

If Palestinian groups would band together, perhaps they would achieve something- after 100 years of failure.

If the Israelis wanted to defeat the Palestinians, Israel would immediately recognize a Palestinian State in Gaza, the West Bank and even east Jerusalem rather than embrace policies that push Palestinians to unite. If they did that, all the Israelis would have to do is sit back and watch as the Palestinians tear themselves apart.
Yes, the tragedy of the Palestinians isn’t that they are victims of injustice at the hands of the Israelis. It is their own tendency to destroy themselves from within.
The most powerful factor keeping Palestinians together as a people is the anger they share in response to injustices by Israel. But that’s a pathetic reason for unity. Worse, anger easily turns into hatred and hatred easily turns into violence, terrorism and killings. And violence undermines even the most just of causes.
Palestinians hate Israelis but they hate themselves even more.
Palestinian activists spend as much time bashing their own people as they do bashing Israel. The truth is that for the Palestinians, bashing Israel results in nothing but more defeats and losses. Bashing other Palestinians makes them feel better, and serves to distract their community from their inherent leadership failures.

Yes, it’s true. The Palestinian leadership is a failure, and the activists who lead the hatred, for example against Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate Palestinian like myself, and against anyone who dares to challenge their fanaticism, are the primary cause.
Let’s define failure. In nearly 100 years of battling Jewish immigrants and then the Israeli people, the Palestinians have failed to establish sovereignty over one inch of historic Palestine.
THE DIFFERENCES between Israelis and Jews on one side and the Palestinians and the Arab World on the other is striking.
For example, Israelis and Jews recognize that the American public is the single most important public constituency in the world. The Arab World marginalizes the American public, brushing them off as “ignorant” and “uneducated.”
That may be. But there’s a reason the most powerful lobbying group in the world, AIPAC, operates out of Washington, DC, not London, Paris or the Hague.
And recognizing the importance of the American public means recognition of the significance of American politics. Some of the wealthiest people funding the presidential candidates in the United States are not Arabs who have billions at their disposal, but Jews.
Newt Gingrich this week pulled to the front of the Republican field of candidates seeking to unseat Democrat President Barack Obama in November’s presidential election.
Gingrich did that with the backing of one of the wealthiest people in the world, Sheldon Adelson.
Adelson is the publisher of an Israeli newspaper, Israel Hayom, and the owner of lucrative casinos in Las Vegas. He put up more than $5 million to fund a “Super Pac” that has been bashing Mitt Romney and that is helping Gingrich.
Although Arabs hate Gingrich because he called the Palestinians an “invented people,” the fact is that Gingrich has very moderate views on Israel and Palestine. In interviews with my journalist colleague Ali Younes, who covered the South Carolina Republican primaries, Gingrich explained that he would recognize and support a Palestinian state if Hamas and the Palestinians recognized Israel and renounced violence.
Forget about the politics of Gingrich’s words. Mainstream Palestinians renounced violence years ago and continue to live in the limbo of occupation, while Hamas goes back and forth, one day pretending to be moderate and the next vowing retaliation for brutal Israeli air strikes.
But as a veteran journalist and now columnist, I know presidential candidates will say anything to win elections. In other words, that Gingrich called Palestinians an “invented people” is meaningless in terms of what he might do to bring about compromise if elected president.
The bigger question, though, is where is the Palestinian or Arab version of Sheldon Adelson who is willing to put up much of his wealth to support the interests of his people? Arabs do not own newspapers, television stations or put any real money into the Palestinian lobbying. Pro-Israel groups have donated more than $51 million to candidates, according to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. In contrast, Arabs have only donated $61,000.
The Arabs, though some may be talented, have a lot of loud-mouthed activists who scream and spew hatred. There’s the great jazz musician whose hatred of Israel borders on anti-Semitism. There’s the talented writer at the Electronic Intifada whose words are driven by hatred of Jews.
These hate-driven activists have compromised mainstream Arabs, putting them in a headlock of oppression. Moderate Arabs are discouraged from expressing their views or espousing moderation in the face of the bullying and threats from the fanatics who spend more time and energy beating up their own people than turning legal claims against Israel into meaningful reality.
I was sitting with a group of Arab journalist friends recently at al-Manar restaurant outside of Chicago in Bridgeview, which is the hub of the local Palestinian Muslim community.
What struck me as odd was the restaurant was empty, save for our group. It was lunchtime on a Sunday. Down the street, Arabs were standing in line at two American restaurants owned by Greek Americans.
The real secret is that the Israelis don’t have to work hard at defeating the Palestinians. All they have to do is let Palestinians undermine themselves.

The writer is an award winning columnist and radio talk show host. He can be reached at www.RadioChicagoland.com

Opinion: The new defenders

Vanguard Leadership Group (VLG), is a vigorous defender of the Jewish state. Last year, for example, VLG took out full-page ads in campus newspapers to counter the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state.

http://www.jewishjournal.com/ david_suissa/article/the_new_defenders_20120125/

David Suissa, Jewishjournal.com

How can you defend Israel without being accused of being a tribal loyalist? You know, the type who thinks Israel is unfairly maligned by most of the world, so they’re always pushing “the other side of the story,” which includes — surprise, surprise — a lot of positive items about the Jewish state.

If you exclude Christian evangelists, who defend Israel for religious reasons, most activists who defend Israel are Jews. This makes sense, of course. Why not defend your family if you think it is being unfairly attacked?

But Jarrod Jordan, an African-American activist from Atlanta, Ga., is neither a Christian evangelist nor a Jew. He didn’t study Zionism growing up and has no relatives in Israel.

And yet his organization, Vanguard Leadership Group (VLG), is a vigorous defender of the Jewish state. Last year, for example, VLG took out full-page ads in campus newspapers to counter the accusation that Israel is an apartheid state.

In an open letter to Students for Justice in Palestine, the group behind Israel Apartheid Week, VLG issued a scathing rebuttal:

“The use of the word ‘apartheid’ by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) in its characterization of Israel is patently false and deeply offensive to all who feel a connection to the state of Israel. Your organization’s campaign against Israel is spreading misinformation about its policies, fostering bias in the media, and jeopardizing prospects for a timely resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“Such irresponsibility is a blemish on your efforts.

“Playing the ‘apartheid card’ is a calculated attempt to conjure up images associated with the racist South African regimes of the 20th century. The strategy is as transparent as it is base. Beyond that, it is highly objectionable to those who know the truth about the Israelis’ record on human rights and how it so clearly contrasts with South Africa’s.

“Under apartheid, black South Africans could not vote and had no rights in a country in which they were the overwhelming majority of the population. SJP has chosen to manipulate rather than inform with this illegitimate analogy. Therefore, we request that you immediately stop referring to Israel as an apartheid society …”

The letter goes on, but you get the idea. This was no soft and nuanced analysis of the “apartheid” accusation. This was vigorous defense: You hit me, I hit you back.

The ad caused a buzz in our community, because it didn’t come from the usual suspects: StandWithUs, the Zionist Organization of America, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), etc. In this case, it was not easy to dismiss VLG as “tribal loyalists who believe Israel can do no wrong.”

So, why did they do it?

“We just wanted to protect the truth,” Jordan told me last week over breakfast at Jerry’s Deli. “Our group deals with plenty of other issues, but this one struck a nerve.”

In fact, the group was founded as an honor society to nurture future leaders in the black community. It attracts top students at the nation’s historically black colleges and universities, who get involved with humanitarian and other worthy causes around the United States and the world. It has won many prizes and has a long list of prominent endorsers and successful alumni.

When Jordan visited Israel a few years ago as part of an AIPAC trip, he saw what he calls “the other side of the story.” That gave him and VLG the idea of countering the apartheid accusation with the campus ads. Since then, his group has attracted interest from several Jewish organizations. While he has no formal association with any of them, a few Jewish groups have used him as a speaker.

This is where I see an opportunity for the Jewish community to do…nothing.

Frankly, I think it’s better for Israel if we allow groups like VLG to do their own thing without too much involvement from the Jewish community. Let’s face it, they have a lot more credibility than we do.

Yes, let’s encourage gays, women, progressives and other minorities to visit Israel and see for themselves what is true and what isn’t. If they visit Israel and decide that it is an apartheid state, it’s our loss. But if they decide that the world has unfairly maligned the Jewish state, as Jarrod Jordan and VLG did, then it’s our win.

The truth is, there’s nothing wrong with fighting back when attacked. Groups who malign Israel during Israel Apartheid Week do not deserve nuance or even-handed engagement. They deserve a sharp rebuttal. 

But it’s a lot more effective when the rebuttal comes from a group who has no skin in the game, and can’t be accused of being tribal loyalists or a front for Jewish Zionist organizations.

Jordan told me he’s planning to bring one of America’s most popular black radio DJ’s to Israel, and, eventually, to bring other prominent members of the African-American community there as well. Let’s cheer him on quietly from the sidelines, and wish him well.

This might be a case where staying away from the Jews is good for the Jews.

© Copyright 2012 Tribe Media Corp.
All rights reserved. JewishJournal.com is hosted by Nexcess.net. Homepage design by Koret Communications.
Widgets by Mijits. Site construction by Hop Studios.

Photo by: YouTube / Al Jazeera

Film shows Palestinians, Jews saving lives

By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH
Jerusalem Post, 27/01/2012

Film shows cooperation between Jewish and Palestinian volunteer paramedics in United Hatzalah.

No one believed it could happen, but it has: An Israeli living in England has made a politics-free film about cooperation between Jewish and Palestinian volunteer paramedics for the Orthodox Jerusalem organization United Hatzalah, who save lives together in the capital’s western and eastern neighborhoods.
The 25-minute program has been broadcast four times this month by the global Arab TV network Al Jazeera in English, which has also put it online for all to see.
It is an unusual sight: Arabs wearing orange vests printed with the red Star of David team up with haredi (ultra- Orthodox) Jews wearing black kippot, their sidecurls and tzitzit (ritual fringes) blowing in the wind. And the partners have only praise for each other.
“I don’t care which person I’m saving. I even go to [the ultra-Orthodox neighborhood of] Mea She’arim on Shabbat,” says Fadi, one of 100 Arabs currently volunteering for UH.
“Saving lives is a religious act for me. Forget all the politics and the mess. People need to live.”
“The Arabs are so devoted,” says a haredi paramedic.
“Their chest compressions are incredible. They respect Jewish sensitivities, especially on Shabbat.”
Eli Beer, the haredi founder and head of the lifesaving rescue organization, commented Thursday, “It’s amazing to see how well we all get along together, without conflict.
Everybody knows and respects each other.”
In a phone interview from London on Thursday, the filmmaker, Keren Ghitis, told The Jerusalem Post how the piece came together.

“I started teaching people how to make videos in Latin America and Africa so they could tell their own stories. I made this video as part of the Ir Amim Initiative, which solicited ideas for films from Palestinian and Israeli filmmakers.
We were asked to tell things that usually do not get attention,” she said.
She submitted it to Al Jazeera, which, she said, was very interested in broadcasting it. Nothing was censored or dictated to toe any line. The first showing was on January 16 at prime time.
“The comments from around the world, including the Arab world, have been very positive. There has also been a lot of mention of it on Facebook. A Palestinian community in the US even asked us for permission to use it for educational purposes,” she said, adding, “It broke a lot of stereotypes.”
The Al Jazeera Network has more than 65 bureaus around the world, with a staff of 3,000 – including more than 400 journalists from more than 60 countries. There is a bureau that hires Israeli Jews and Arabs. The English station has more than 1,000 experienced staffers of more than 50 nationalities and broadcasts to some 220 million households in more than 100 countries.
“I wanted to reach people and see more collaboration between Arabs and Jews,” Ghitis explained when asked why she chose the subject. “More support is needed for medical services in east Jerusalem.”
The UH-trained Palestinian paramedics note in the film that there are often delays in Magen David Adom reaching the sick and wounded in east Jerusalem because no ambulance can get there without being accompanied by a police or military escort. UH Arabs and Jews often get there first on their ambucycles. In addition, many streets are unnamed, and houses have no identifying numbers.
Beer said Al Jazeera had set no conditions for the broadcast.
Speaking to the Post from Davos, he said he had just met Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh, who received the Nobel Prize.
“He was amazed,” he said.
“He and lots of people from all over the world tell me that the fact that I am a proud Jew and Israeli makes Israel look very good.”
Beer wants to have Arabs all over the country working hand-in-hand with haredi, religious and secular Jews for his rescue organization. “I want about 3,000 volunteers, about 15 percent of of them Christian and Muslims.”
Jews and Muslims do not oppose working together, he says, despite the invisible boundaries and suspicions that separate their communities.
“In the beginning, I met a few who were surprised about working together, but after they saw that they are great people and really professional, they all like it,” said Beer.
The Jews also work on Shabbat and festivals in an emergency, and the Muslims on Fridays and Ramadan.
The film follows volunteers like Hezi – a former yeshiva student who works in a fishmonger’s shop and has volunteered with UH for 15 years – and Fadi, a security guard at Al-Aksa Mosque.
Fadi, presented as a loving father hugging his young children at home, has been an assistant to the Jewish owner of a Mea She’arim hardware store since the age of 14. His family encourages him to go any time he gets an emergency call, as does Shlomo, the shop owner. “He is like a son to me,” says the Mea Shearim retailer.
Hezi is not worried when dispatched to the Damascus Gate in east Jerusalem, and works with Red Crescent medics.
“Since they started working together in 2010, hundreds of lives have been saved,” Ghitis concluded.

If you miss the events listed below, there will be more next month when airfares are still low.

By SHAWN RODGERS,  01/27/2012

Catch Portuguese fado singer Ana Moura with Idan Raichel at the World Music concert series.

FILM
1.THE DESCENDANTS
Native islander Matt King (George Clooney) lives with his family in Hawaii. Their world shatters when a tragic accident leaves his wife in a coma. Not only must Matt struggle with the stipulation in his wife’s will that she be allowed to die with dignity, but he also faces pressure from relatives to sell their family’s enormous land trust.
At selected cinemas throughout the country.
MUSIC
2. ANALYZING AYA
Aya Korem is considered one of the country’s most promising singer-songwriters, composing both the music and the lyrics of her songs. She continues to prove her songwriting ability with punchy songs about daily life, love and Israeli reality. Catch her as she performs her many hits, as well as songs from her latest album, Le’alef et Hasusim (Taming Horses).
Tonight, 9:30, Cafe Bialik, Tel Aviv, (03) 620-0832
Music
3. MOURA’S UNIVERSE
Appearing for the first time in Israel, Portuguese fado singer Ana Moura will be joined by Idan Raichel in opening the 2012 World Music concert series at the Israeli Opera. Moura, who is one of the most popular fadistas in Portugal, is gaining a global reputation due to her moving performances and stunning vocal talents. She has also collaborated with such artists as Prince and The Rolling Stones.
Friday, 10 p.m., Opera House, Tel Aviv, www.israel-opera.co.il
FESTIVAL
4. THE WORLD’S A STAGE
For the fifth consecutive year, the ever-new Clipa Theater presents Clipa Aduma, its cutting-edge performance art and visual theater festival that takes place over three weeks from February 2 to 22 in all three performance spaces at the Clipa Theater. Highlights include two extraordinary Butoh artists from Japan; Mestoslav, an object theater piece from Russia; and Pieces of Paradise from Brazil. The local pieces, many multimedia and multidisciplinary, include Diamedia, a TV-human love story, and Gindaor, created and performed by Born to Dance winner Arthur Astman.
For more info, visit www.aduma.co.il

THEATER
5. THE IMPORTANCE OF WILDE WIT
The Haifa English Theater presents Oscar Wilde’s play The Importance of Being Earnest. In this classic farce about mistaken identity, Jack (Rory Cunningham) and his freeloading friend Algernon (Jordan Mandell) pursue the hearts of Gwendolen (Theresa O’Toole Kipp) and Cecily (Mary Okonkwo). The disapproval of Gwendolen’s mother Lady Bracknell (Sylvia Lippa) adds to the drama as the men complicate matters by using imaginary alter egos in their attempt to woo the women.
Tonight and Saturday, 8:30 p.m., Beit Hagefen Auditorium, 33 Hatzionut St., Haifa, www.h-e-t.org
KIDS
6. SEARCHING FOR CLUES
This colorful stage version of Erich Kastner’s children’s novel Emil and the Detectives takes young audiences on a fun-filled adventure together with Emil and his friends in search of the robber who stole Emil’s money on the train. The children in the audience become the actors’ accomplices as they turn to them for advice. In Hebrew.
Saturday, 11 a.m., Holon Mediatheque, www.mediatheque.org.il
MIXED BAG
7. IT’S BURNS NIGHT
Celebrate the birthday of Scotland’s national poet, Robert Burns, with the best of Scottish cuisine, music, songs and whisky at the Scots Hotel in Tiberias. The evening will be hosted by Israeli actor and comedian Guri Alfi. Following a roast beef dinner with traditional haggis, there will be performances by the Bodhran Ensemble.
Tonight, Scots Hotel, 1 G’dud Barak Street, Tiberias, (04) 671-0710 or www.scotshotels.co.il
EXHIBITION
8. MIXING BUSINESS WITH PLEASURE
The Jerusalem International Convention Center is playing host to Israel’s first kosher wine exhibition. Some 30 wineries will present their products at this event. This is a great opportunity for wine enthusiasts to explore the new flavors, bouquets and colors of products introduced by the big estates, as well as the boutique wineries. A highlight is Cooking in Wine workshops conducted by chef Shaul Ben-Aderet.
Runs Monday and Tuesday, 3 p.m.-11 p.m., (02) 633-4950
EDUCATIONAL
9. CATCHING THE EARLY BIRD
The new Ramat Hanegev Birding Center is offering accommodation, bird-watching trips around the region, and other assorted ornithological activities on four weekends until the end of February. The trips take in a number of locations around the Negev, such as Sfinat Hamidbar, the Ben-Gurion Field School at Sde Boker and the region between Nitzana and Ezuz. The programs also include sunset trips through the desert, bird ringing and lectures about the species of birds that pass through the region at this time of year.
For more info visit www.weekend.co.il/negev/sfinatamidbar
UPCOMING FESTIVAL
10. BEST OF THE BRITS
A combination of classics and cuttingedge films makes up the 12th British Film Festival. Highlights include Ralph Fiennes’s directorial debut of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus (pictured) starring himself, Gerard Butler and Vanessa Redgrave, as well as Paddy Considine’s Tyrannosaur, which won the Directing Award and Special Jury Prize at the 2011 Sundance Film Festival. This aside, the festival offers everything from documentaries and animated films to shorts from the British Isles.
The BFF takes place February 4 through 12 at cinematheques in Haifa, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

GOP Florida debate sees rare agreement between presidential hopefuls Romney, Gingrich on reasons Israeli-Palestinian peace process is stalling

“My goal for the Palestinian people would be to live in peace, to live in prosperity, to have the dignity of a state, to have freedom, and they can achieve it any morning they are prepared to say: Israel has a right to exist, we give up the right to return, and we recognize that we’re going to live side by side. Now let’s work together to create mutual prosperity. And you could in five years dramatically improve the quality of life of every Palestinian.”

Yitzhak Benhorin, January 27, 2012

WASHINGTON – The Republican Party held yet another stormy presidential debate Thursday, with all four presidential hopefuls vying for the votes of their Florida constitutes.

Banters and political sparring aside, the debate was also the scene of a rare agreement between former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, as both strongly sided with Israel when asked why they believed the Israeli-Palestinian peace process was failing.

Romney blamed President Obama and Gingrich blamed the Palestinians for the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.

“I think he threw Israel under the bus with regards to defining the ’67 borders as a starting point of negotiations,” Romney said.

Asked about the peace process, Romney said: “Well, the reason that there’s not peace between the Palestinians and Israel is because… in the leadership of the Palestinian people are Hamas and others who think like Hamas, who have as their intent the elimination of Israel.” 

“It’s the Palestinians who don’t want a two-state solution,” he continued, “They want to eliminate the state of Israel.

“The best way to have peace in the Middle East is not for us to vacillate and to appease, but is to say we stand with our friend Israel; we are committed to a Jewish state in Israel; we will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and our ally Israel.”

Gingrich then surprised the audience: “Governor Romney is exactly right,” he said, adding that in his opinion, the Palestinians were to blame for the prolonged stalemate in the peace process.

“The leadership in Hamas says not a single Jew will remain. Well, you’re not having a peace negotiation, then. This is war by another form,” he said.

“My goal for the Palestinian people would be to live in peace, to live in prosperity, to have the dignity of a state, to have freedom, and they can achieve it any morning they are prepared to say: Israel has a right to exist, we give up the right to return, and we recognize that we’re going to live side by side. Now let’s work together to create mutual prosperity. And you could in five years dramatically improve the quality of life of every Palestinian.

“But the political leadership would never tolerate that,” Gingrich continued, “and that’s why we are in a continuous state of war, where Obama undermines the Israelis.”

The former speaker also defended his controversial statement about the Palestinian people being “invented“: “It was technically an invention of the late 1970s. And it was clearly, it was clearly so. Prior to that they were Arabs. Many of them were either Syrian, Lebanese or Egyptian or Jordanian,” he said.

As for the peace process, Gingrich said: “There were 11 rockets fired into Israel in November. Now, imagine in Duvall County (in Florida) that 11 rockets hit from your neighbor. How many of you would be for a peace process and how many of you would say, you know, that looks like an act of war?” Gingrich asked the audience.

He also reiterated his pledge to move the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem: “On the first day that I’m president, if I do become president, I will sign an executive order directing the State Department to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem to send the signal we’re with Israel,” Gingrich said.

Four Jewish pilgrims from the US who sought access to Joseph’s Tomb were arrested at gunpoint by PA police in Shechem.

Gavriel Queenann, January 27, 2012

Four Jewish pilgrims from the United States were arrested before dawn on Friday in Shechem as they sought to pray at Joseph’s Tomb.

The four, associated with the Bratslav Hassidic group were confronted at gunpoint by Palestinian Authority police and taken into custody before reaching the grave site.

They were handed over to Israeli police and taken to the Ariel police station.

“Americans are allowed to stay in Nablus and their summary arrest is a violation of international law,” a friend of the four detainees said.

David Ha’ivri of the Shomron Liaison Office who has been directly involved in efforts to allow access for Jews to Joseph’s tomb also decried the arrest.

“This arrest show the irony of the false claims that Israel is apartheid. While Arabs have free access to all areas in Israel, Jewish people are denied access to holy places that are in PA areas administrated by the PLO,” Ha’Ivri said.

“It is outrageous that this discrimination and harassment is going on while the PA is supported through funding of the American and EU governments. Joseph’s tomb must be reopened for full free access for all Jewish people regardless to their citizenship,” he added. 

Israel ceded security and administrative control of Shechem to the Palestinian Authority on 2 October 2000 under the auspices of then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak.

Upon handing the site over to the PA it was pillaged and extensively vandalized by local Arabs.

The next morning the bullet-riddled body of Rabbi Hillel Lieberman, a US citizen who immigrated to Israel and resided in Elon Moreh, was found on the outskirts of Shechem, where he had gone to survery the damage done to the tomb

After these events Barak’s government restricted Israeli access to the site.

Israelis did not return to Joseph’s Tomb until after Operation Defensive Shield in 2002, after which Israelis were allowed access to the site only with an IDF escort.

However, security coordination between IDF and PA forces has been sporadic and the size and frequency of Israeli visits has been limited.

Under this situation, many frustrated Bratslav Hassidim have sought to covertly visit Joseph’s Tomb under the cover of darkness.

Vandalism by local Arabs is routinely reported by Jewish worshipers who reach the site. In late 2009, a group of Jewish worshipers found the headstone smashed and swastikas painted on the walls, as well as boot prints on the grave itself.

Reaching the gravesite without an IDF escort has proved a dangerous undertaking for Jews.

On 24 April 2011, Israeli Ben Yosef Livnat was gunned down in cold blood by a PA security officer in the pre-dawn hours as he sought to reach the tomb. Four of his companions were wounded.

The PA inquiry into the incident found that the men who shot at Livnat acted in “breach of the protocol” for opening fire.

However, the commander of the IDF’s Samaria Brigade said in closed conversations that Livnat was murdered and that the PA police officer who opened fire intended to kill Jews.

Livnat, the son of US immigrants to Israel and nephew of Minister Limor Livnat, was declared a victim of terror by current defense minister Ehud Barak.

www.israelnationalnews.com

Much the way the Nazis assigned their strategic national assets to the destruction of a people, the rulers of Iran are focusing their considerable national resources on creating and fielding nuclear weapons. They do so while publicly embracing time and again a foreign policy that calls for literally wiping Israel off the map.

by Lawrence Kadish
January 24, 2012 at 5:00 am

http://www.stonegateinstitute.org/2779/planning-genocide

When a group of high-ranking Nazi bureaucrats sat down 70 years ago today (Jan. 20, 1942), they didn’t plot the death of 6 million Jews; they aimed at 11 million.

Dubbed the Wannsee Conference, after its location, it was chaired by SS Obergruppenfuhrer Reinhard Heydrich, who brought together some of the most efficient managers of mass murder history has ever seen.

The 90-minute agenda was direct, having been transmitted by Hitler to his deputy, Reich Marshal Herman Goering, and then onto Heydrich: “Make all necessary preparations” for a “total solution of the Jewish question” in all territories under German influence, coordinate the role of all government organizations in accomplishing that goal — and then submit a “comprehensive draft” for the “final solution of the Jewish question.”

In other words, for the first time, the administrative, industrial and transportation resources of an entire nation would be deployed for the purpose of genocide.

While history records that a staggering 6 million Jews would ultimately be destroyed as a result, one of the more chilling documents retrieved from the massive archives of the Nazi regime is a simple list of all European nations with Jewish populations as small as 200. Prepared for the Wannsee meeting by Heydrich’s notorious SS assistant, Adolf Eichmann, it assumed that at some point soon the Nazis would control countries from Ireland to Turkey.

The genocidal census was designed to anticipate the organizational structure required to retrieve and ship those 11 million Jews to the Nazi murder factories, regardless of how distant they were from Auschwitz or Treblinka. The Wannsee conferees met to ensure that all participants would meet their quotas (under Heydrich’s centralized authority) to complete “the final solution.”

It would take untold blood, treasure and sacrifice from the United States, Britain and the Soviet Union to bring the Third Reich to an end. Seventy years later, the ruthless, brutal and unrelenting struggle against one of the darkest regimes ever to plague mankind serves as an eternal reminder that there remain forces that would destroy humanity.

Much the way the Nazis assigned their strategic national assets to the destruction of a people, the rulers of Iran are focusing their considerable national resources on creating and fielding nuclear weapons. They do so while publicly embracing time and again a foreign policy that calls for literally wiping Israel off the map.

Elsewhere, the racial hatred practiced by the Third Reich is echoed in the Taliban revulsion of our Western democracies — and in policies in areas it controls that include burning to death young girls for the high crime of attending school.

On this grim 70th anniversary of Wannsee, let us contemplate how a disbelieving world can stand idly by as evil regimes coolly harness their bureaucracies to methodically achieve horrendous goals. Whatever the double speak (as the Wannsee crowd used the phrase “final solution” to mask its program of mass extermination), the outcome is clear to all who wish to see it. Had they been invited, the Iranian regime and the Taliban would have been enthusiastic participants in the Wannsee Conference.

This Third Reich milestone should serve as a cautionary tale for every 21st-century democracy. Middle East expert Bernard Lewis has observed that Islamist leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are little concerned with the mutual-destruction strategies that kept the Cold War from becoming hot. Instead, they welcome the martyrdom of their subjects.

History consistently reminds us that indifference in the face of an implacable enemy invariably leads to disaster. Further, more often than not, our enemies tell us exactly what they mean to do before they do it. Acting on their warning requires our collective insight, personal courage and national will.

Lawrence Kadish is chairman of the advisory board of the American Airpower Museum in Farmingdale, L.I. Originally published by the New York Post, January 20, 2012, and reprinted by gracious permission of the author.

There is a Pollyanna aspect to Obama arising from his belief that everything would be okay as long as America behaves properly and he is president. In his world there are no real conflicts; few true enemies but only misunderstandings. With Obama the problem is not merely his politics and views but also his total lack of true understanding about international affairs, security issues, and strategy.

Posted By Barry Rubin On January 25, 2012

In his State of the Union message, President Barack Obama began by wrapping himself in the flag, patriotism, and love of the armed forces while trying to highlight his foreign policy achievements. Among his points:

“The United States [is] safer and more respected around the world.”

Presumably, a lot of Americans will believe this. The United States may be said to be safer in terms of facing direct terror attacks but that was basically true in 2002. As for “more respected”—a phrase no doubt chosen to seem more statesmanlike than saying “more popular”–that is a joke. If there’s one thing that should be obvious (and this is often revealed even by international public opinion polls) it is that the United States is not more respected at all.

Moreover, while individual Americans may be relatively safe from terrorist attacks in their homes, neighborhoods and workplaces within the territory of the United States—a perception partly reinforced by redefining terrorist attacks as something else—U.S. interests abroad are far less safe.

“For the first time in nine years, there are no Americans fighting in Iraq.”

True, though the remaining forces may have to fight to defend themselves. This withdrawal, of course, was planned by Obama’s predecessor and Iraq is not doing so well today.

“For the first time in two decades, Osama bin Laden is not a threat to this country. Most of al Qaeda’s top lieutenants have been defeated.”

Aside from the lack of grammar here—was Obama trying to avoid saying that these people were killed?—the statement is true. The problem is that Hamas, Hizballah, the Turkish regime, Iran, Syria, and the Muslim Brotherhood add up to a far bigger threat, a problem magnified by Obama refusing to acknowledge they are a threat.

“The Taliban’s momentum has been broken, and some troops in Afghanistan have begun to come home.”

While the latter point about withdrawal is true, the Taliban is still quite strong. It would be quite possible for the Taliban to return to power within five years.

Then Obama rearranges history—quite obviously though no one in the mass media will point this out:

“Ending the Iraq war has allowed us to strike decisive blows against our enemies. From Pakistan to Yemen, the al Qaeda operatives who remain are scrambling, knowing that they can’t escape the reach of the United States of America.”

In fact, of course, the successes against al-Qaeda were obviously achieved before the withdrawal. Are al-Qaeda operatives trembling in fear before the might of America? Of course not. And in both Pakistan and Yemen (one should add Somalia) they are doing quite well. Obama could have done better by referring to the defeat of al-Qaeda as being part of the American “victory” in Iraq.

“From this position of strength, we’ve begun to wind down the war in Afghanistan. Ten thousand of our troops have come home. Twenty-three thousand more will leave by the end of this summer. This transition to Afghan lead will continue, and we will build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, so that it is never again a source of attacks against America.”

Again, Obama tells an unnecessary lie. The withdrawal from Iraq is a correct move but hardly puts the United States in a position of strength, especially given Obama’s deep cuts on the military. And of course the end of the war in Afghanistan was planned long before any withdrawal in Iraq; indeed it was basically planned during his predecessor’s term.

As for an “enduring partnership with Afghanistan,” that’s the kind of statement bound to come back to haunt Obama. Afghanistan remains unstable, its government is angry with Obama, and the tide may well turn there after a U.S. withdrawal.

Next, Obama turns to the Arab Spring. He refers to his success in Libya:

“A year ago, Qadhafi was one of the world’s longest-serving dictators – a murderer with American blood on his hands. Today, he is gone.”

True, but what will replace him?

“And in Syria, I have no doubt that the Assad regime will soon discover that the forces of change can’t be reversed, and that human dignity can’t be denied.”

In fact, for two and a half years, Obama strongly backed—in contrast to predecessors—that regime which denied “human dignity.” And he’s doing very little to help that transformation now.

My number-one complaint about Obama—not that there aren’t others but this is in first place—is that he never hints at the dangers in the region precisely because he doesn’t recognize that they exist.

And, in total contrast to his actual policy, he gives lip service to doing something productive:

“While it is ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well. We will stand against violence and intimidation. We will stand for the rights and dignity of all human beings – men and women; Christians, Muslims, and Jews. We will support policies that lead to strong and stable democracies and open markets, because tyranny is no match for liberty.”

In fact, though, Obama has basically ignored the “violence and intimidation” against Israel; the people of the Gaza Strip; the Turkish people; the Iranian people; the tyranny taking shape in Lebanon; the Christians in Iraq and Syria; and elsewhere.

How can “tyranny” be “no match for liberty” when U.S. policy is largely on the side of tyranny, indeed a tyranny of a worse kind that has previously prevailed in Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, and Turkey?

When it comes to U.S. security interests, Obama can only talk about Iran, where he claims success:

“Through the power of our diplomacy, a world that was once divided about how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program now stands as one. The regime is more isolated than ever before; its leaders are faced with crippling sanctions, and as long as they shirk their responsibilities, this pressure will not relent.”

Nice. But Iran is still advancing in its nuclear program and its influence in Lebanon and Iraq increases while Tehran adequately defends its interests in Syria. If the State Department had not restrained Obama, he would also have handed Iran a victory in Bahrain.

On nuclear weapons, Obama repeats the standard line:

“America is determined to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, and I will take no options off the table to achieve that goal. But a peaceful resolution of this issue is still possible, and far better, and if Iran changes course and meets its obligations, it can rejoin the community of nations.”

And if it doesn’t? Yes, it is quite true that Obama led a move to tougher sanctions on Iran but he did so only by excluding Russia, Turkey, and China from compliance. I would argue that the same result could have been achieved far earlier than Obama did it.

Here is the worst sentence of the speech: “The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe.” It is precisely the lack of American leadership that is being felt.

“Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever.” Really? The South Koreans would probably agree but generally the alliances are not stronger than ever but about as weak as they have ever been.

“Our ties to the Americas are deeper.” Actually, Latin American leaders are very unhappy, feeling that Obama has coddled the Chavez dictatorship while ignoring them.

“Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history.”

This is a carefully constructed sentence which I find makes me even more suspicious about Obama’s commitment toward Israel. Why? Because it is true that the bilateral military cooperation is as good as it has ever been. But all other areas of relations are terrible. This sentence tells me that Obama understands that and wants to accentuate the positive without doing anything to improve the negative. He thinks U.S.-Israel relations are good enough and will not—even if, or especially if, elected to a second term–make any effort to improve relations with Israel or U.S. support for that country. After all, he thinks that the relationship is perfect right now.

Another point to notice is Obama’s failure to mention—much less highlight—the Israel-Palestinian “peace process.” They’ve given up on that one, at least for 2012.

And then he concludes with this statement, remarkable for being so directly opposite to the truth:

“America is back. Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about.”

Wow, first, America is not back because Obama has reduced U.S. influence, leverage, and activism. Second, who has done more than Obama to assert that U.S. power is in decline? And, third, this fact is totally obvious to leaders in Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, and Asia. Obama, however, is always one for doubling down on his lies or errors. (You choose the word you prefer.):

“That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Capetown to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years.”

The truth is generally the exact opposite and even in the polls one can see this. Obama can be daring because he knows the media won’t bash him for saying stuff like this.

There’s something else I find fascinating and generally ignored about this speech. All presidents, of course, want to put the accent on the positive. But with Obama I don’t see any real consideration of threats and problems. Yes, he mentions al-Qaida and the Taliban (no longer a problem, he says) and Iran (under control and they will be pressed into making a deal), and democratic transitions (we don’t know what will happen but…).

Nevertheless, America faces no real threats or enemies. revolutionary Islamism doesn’t exist as an issue; Russia poses no problem; Chavez and Castro and various other dictators are vanished; even underdevelopment or instability aren’t mentioned. There is a Pollyanna aspect to Obama arising from his belief that everything would be okay as long as America behaves properly and he is president.  In his world there are no real conflicts; few true enemies but only misunderstandings.  With Obama the problem is not merely his politics and views but also his total lack of true understanding about international affairs, security issues, and strategy.

Governor Mitch Daniels gave the Republican response and stuck completely to domestic economic issues, which was after all Obama’s main theme. Yet international affairs was the only other theme and if Obama’s critics can’t do a better job of analyzing his claims, responding to his policies, and offering an alternative to his strategies he is more likely to remain president for five more years.

Article printed from Rubin Reports: http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/barryrubin/2012/01/25/obamas-sotu-speech-my-response/