Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel. Show all posts

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Describing Hamas As Insane Is Far too Kind



Moral clarity in Gaza


By Charles Krauthammer July 17, 2014 
Israel accepts an Egyptian-proposed Gaza cease-fire; Hamas keeps firing. Hamas deliberately aims rockets at civilians; Israel painstakingly tries to avoid them, actually telephoning civilians in the area and dropping warning charges, so-called roof knocking.
“Here’s the difference between us,” explains the Israeli prime minister. “We’re using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they’re using their civilians to protect their missiles.”
Rarely does international politics present a moment of such moral clarity. Yet we routinely hear this Israel-Gaza fighting described as a morally equivalent “cycle of violence.” This is absurd. What possible interest can Israel have in cross-border fighting? Everyone knows Hamas set off this mini-war. And everyone knows Hamas’ proudly self-declared raison d’etre: the eradication of Israel and its Jews.
Apologists for Hamas attribute the blood lust to the Israeli occupation and blockade. Occupation? Does no one remember anything? It was less than 10 years ago that worldwide television showed the Israeli army pulling die-hard settlers off synagogue roofs in Gaza as Israel uprooted its settlements, expelled its citizens, withdrew its military and turned every inch of Gaza over to the Palestinians. There was not a soldier, not a settler, not a single Israeli left in Gaza.
And there was no blockade. On the contrary. Israel wanted this new Palestinian state to succeed. To help the Gaza economy, Israel gave the Palestinians its 3,000 greenhouses that had produced fruit and flowers for export. It opened border crossings and encouraged commerce.
The whole idea was to establish the model for two states living peacefully and productively side by side. No one seems to remember that, simultaneous with the Gaza withdrawal, Israel dismantled four smaller settlements in the northern West Bank as a clear signal of Israel’s desire to leave the West Bank as well and thus achieve an amicable two-state solution.
This is not ancient history. This was nine years ago.
And how did the Gaza Palestinians react to being granted by the Israelis what no previous ruler, neither Egyptian, nor British, nor Turkish, had ever given them — an independent territory? First, they demolished the greenhouses. Then they elected Hamas. Then, instead of building a state with its attendant political and economic institutions, they spent the better part of a decade turning Gaza into a massive military base, brimming with terror weapons, to make ceaseless war on Israel.
Where are the roads and rail, the industry and infrastructure of the new Palestinian state? Nowhere. Instead, they built mile upon mile of underground tunnels to hide their weapons and, when the going gets tough, their military commanders. They spent millions importing and producing rockets, launchers, mortars, small arms, even drones. They deliberately placed them in schools, hospitals, mosques and private homes to better expose their own civilians. (Just Thursday, the U.N. announced that itfound 20 rockets in a Gaza school.) And from which they fire rockets at Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.
Why? The rockets can’t even inflict serious damage, being almost uniformly intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system. Even West Bank leader Mahmoud Abbas has asked: “What are you trying to achieve by sending rockets?”
It makes no sense. Unless you understand, as Tuesday’s Post editorial explained, that the whole point is to draw Israeli counterfire.
This produces dead Palestinians for international television. Which is why Hamas perversely urges its own people not to seek safety when Israel drops leaflets warning of an imminent attack.
To deliberately wage war so that your own people can be telegenically killed is indeed moral and tactical insanity. But it rests on a very rational premise: Given the Orwellian state of the world’s treatment of Israel (see: the U.N.’s grotesque Human Rights Council), fueled by a mix of classic anti-Semitism, near-total historical ignorance and reflexive sympathy for the ostensible Third World underdog, these eruptions featuring Palestinian casualties ultimately undermine support for Israel’s legitimacy and right to self-defense.
In a world of such Kafkaesque ethical inversions, Hamas’ depravity begins to make sense. This is a world in which the Munich massacre is a movie and the murder of Klinghoffer is an opera — both deeply sympathetic to the killers. This is a world in which the U.N. ignores humanity’s worst war criminals while incessantly condemning Israel, a state warred upon for 66 years which nonetheless goes to extraordinary lengths to avoid harming the very innocents its enemies use as shields.
It’s to the Israelis’ credit that amid all this madness they haven’t lost their moral scruples. Or their nerve. Those outside the region have the minimum obligation, therefore, to expose the madness and speak the truth. Rarely has it been so blindingly clear.

Saturday, March 01, 2014

Thursday, December 12, 2013

International Sympathy? Who Needs It


  Foreign Secretary, William Hague, warned Israel that if it sent troops into Gaza to confront Hamas, it risked losing the sympathy of the international community.
                 On November 19th, a Jewish woman in Britain, Mindy Wiesenberger, sent the following letter to Mr. Hague, in response. The letter has been published in many newspapers, including the Times of Israel .
                 Dear Mr. Hague
                You have stated that if Israel tries to defend its population through a ground offensive in Gaza 'it risks losing the sympathy of the international community.'
 
              Let me tell you something about the sympathy of the international community Mr. Hague. My father was liberated from Buchenwald concentration camp in 1945, having lost his entire family but gaining the sympathy of the international community at the time. After 6 million Jews had been annihilated at the hands of the Nazi regime, the international community had plenty of sympathy for the Jewish people. There is always plenty of sympathy for victims.

             Israel doesn't need the sympathy of the international community. What it needs is to defend its citizens.

             When as a tiny country it gained its independence in 1948 it had to absorb 800,000 Jews who were thrown out of Arab lands in the Middle East, and it did so without fuss and with dignity giving them shelter and a place of security in which their children could grow up to become productive citizens. When Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria tried to destroy Israel in 1948 and again in 1967 they took in hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Arabs, but did they give them dignity or shelter? No they left them to rot in refugee camps in order to maintain a symbol of grievance againstIsrael and use them as a political tool against the Jewish state. What has arisen in those camps is a complicated situation, but it is what has led to Gaza today.
 
                So don't lecture Israel on international sympathy Mr. Hague. Not when Israel has just sent in 120 truck loads of food into Gaza to feed the Palestinian people there, because their own leadership is more interested in using its population as human shields, launching rockets against Israel from within major civilian centers.

                Don't lecture Israel on international sympathy Mr. Hague. Not when Israel targets with as much military precision as it can, only terrorists and their bases, trying its utmost to prevent civilian casualties.

                Don't lecture Israel on international sympathy Mr. Hague. Not when the Palestinian media deliberately uses images of victims of the Syrian civil war and presents them as casualties in Gaza to gain international sympathy.

               Go read your history books Mr. Hague, go see that since the beginning of the twentieth century all the Arabs wanted to do was destroy Israel. Go look at the country of Israel now since the Jews have established a state there. Go read what advances in science, medicine, biotechnology, agriculture and high tech Israel has developed, and dedicated that knowledge to making the world a better place for humanity. Can you imagine any other country that after 60 years of continuously being under attack could have achieved so much.

               So Mr. Hague don't lecture Israel on international sympathy. Israel will do whatever it takes to defend itself from outright attack on its citizens, whether it be from Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran or any other country or terrorist group that attacks it.

                And if it loses the sympathy of the international community so be it. We don't need the international community's sympathy.

              We don't need another 6 million victims.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

The Back-Asswards European Union


Gotta love that European Union
Posted By David M. Weinberg On July 19, 2013 @ 8:58 am 
Old habits, it seems, die hard. European countries have a knack for restricting Jews to specific pales of settlement. 


You gotta love that European Union. Always at the forefront of the drive for Mideast peace. So concerned about the sources of malevolence and violence in the region. Malevolent threats like Jewish families and businesses in Judea and Samaria.

At the moment, women are being raped left, right and center in Egypt and Syria, and Christians are being driven out or slaughtered with abandon in both these locations.

But don’t worry, Christian Europe is right on top of things. It is tackling those dangerous Israeli settlers raising their children and developing their businesses in Judea and Samaria.

Hezbollah is fighting side by side with Bashar Assad’s forces of butchery, and is about to get its hands on sophisticated Russian missiles along with Assad’s bio-chem weapons.

But don’t worry, the European Union is sure that Hezbollah is not a terrorist group. Instead, Europe is confronting those treacherous Israeli settlements.

Dame Catherine Ashton of the EU is delicately tongue-tied about the upheavals in Egypt. (She expressed mere concern, and mainly about the fate of the Moslem Brotherhood’s Mohamed Morsi). She is also perplexed into silence by the sharp increase in Iranian nuclear fuel production despite the election of Teheran’s new “moderate” poster-boy Rouhani. (I think she hiccupped a bit and daintily press-released on the matter this week).

But have no fear, Ashton is truly hard at work where it counts: Wrestling with those damn Israeli settlements. They need to be boycotted.

The Kurds – one of the oldest ethnic groups in the world – don’t have a state. Neither do the Tamils of Sri Lanka, the Uighurs and Tibetans of China, the Basques of Spain, the Chechens of Russia, or the Flemish of Belgium. However, thanks in part to the pressures of the sagacious EU, the Palestinians already have two states: A radical Islamic state in Gaza established by force against Israel’s will, and an authoritarian state-on-paper in the West Bank recognized by the EU and the UN against Israel’s will. Both Palestinian states are more interested in tearing Israel down than in building a decent political culture of their own.

But don’t worry about that. The EU certainly isn’t. Worry about the real obstacles to peace: Israeli people, goods and services in the so-called “occupied territories.”

The EU continues to pour oodles of money into an economically and politically corrupt Palestinian Authority – well over $7 billion since Oslo, aside from funds contributed separately by individual EU countries and additional support for UNRWA. This includes everything from training and equipment for the PA’s thuggish mini-armies and police forces, salaries for more than 50,000 PA bureaucrats, antenna towers and studios for the viciously anti-Semitic and murderer-martyr-glorifying Palestinian TV station, and hundreds of millions of euros for new PA textbooks which deny any ancient Jewish claim to Jerusalem and Israel.

But don’t worry. The EU is determined to put a stop to all fonts of radicalism – like EU scholarships for Hebrew University students who live in Efrat or Maale Adumim. After all, these students and their professors (who might also, G-d forbid, live in the “occupied” Old City of Jerusalem), are the real threats to peace in the region.

The EU is perfectly happy to continue lavishing funds on the most viciously anti-Israel “human rights” groups, including Al-Haq, LAW, Adallah, the Committee against House Demolitions, the Palestinian Jerusalem Media Communications Center (the PA’s main propaganda conduit to foreign journalists), and an outfit called the Middle East Center for Legal and Economic Research, which has received hundreds of thousands of Euros “to identify and appraise Palestinian refugee real estate holdings in Israel.”

But don’t worry, the EU has crystal-clear ethical standards. It is determined not to indirectly fund any more scientific research or productive commercial activity by Israelis who live or work over the Green Line.

The EU is obviously pleased with the long distance (sic.) towards moderation that the Palestinian Authority has traveled over the past 20 years. (Oops, it hasn’t!) Europe is much less royally pleased with the distance traveled by Israeli governments, even though Israel has moved from rejecting Palestinian statehood to begging for it and offering to cede most of the West Bank and all of Gaza.

But in the warped weltanschauung of the European Union it is nevertheless logical to pressure Israel and kowtow to the Arabs.

The EU can’t get its own economic house in order; in fact its insolvency threatens the entire world economic order. And it handles its own Moslem populations so well. Nevertheless, Europe is so certain about what Israel’s borders ought to be that it is going to ram its view down the Jewish People’s throat via boycott and discrimination. Europe simply knows what’s best for the Jews and the Middle East, and it’s going to insist on it.

Old habits, it seems, die hard. European countries have a knack for judging and moving Jews. They’re actually quite experienced at banning Jews from schools and universities, depriving Jews of scholarships, and restricting Jews to specific pales of settlement.

Don’t you love that evenhanded, judicious European Union; always at the forefront of the push for Mideast peace?

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Disengagement from Gaza?



Yaalon: Disengagement from Gaza Not Really Complete

Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon: If there's a disengagement, let Gazans get their own water and electricity.
AAFont Size
By Elad Benari, Canada
First Publish: 10/19/2012, 9:33 PM

Moshe Yaalon
Moshe Yaalon
Flash 90
Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Yaalon said on Friday that Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza is not yet complete, since Israel continues to supply Gazans with necessities such as water and electricity.
“I think that we theoretically disengaged from Gaza but we didn’t really disengage,” he said during a gathering in Tel Aviv. “The world considers us as being responsible for what happens there. We provide themelectricity with which they manufacturethe rockets they fire at us. We provide them with water and energy and they use that against us. If there’s disengagement, I want to complete that disengagement. Let them desalinate their own water, produce their own energy, let them be connected to Egypt. Then the situation will be clearer.

“Our policy is to against Gaza is deterrence,” said Yaalon. “Targeted killing for them is a significant event. It’s not a stable situation, so the best defense is to attack. Extracting a price from them is what creates the deterrence. If there was no such deterrent we would receive rockets every day.”

Addressing the situation in Egypt, he said, “Egypt will remain unstable for a long time. Economically, Egyptians will have 87 million mouths to feed. In terms of security, the only border that does not threaten Egyptians is the one with Israel, but it's a very problematic security situation as the main problem for us is the Sinai. The Sinai Peninsula has become a haven for terrorism.

“There is an exploitation of non-governance which began already in the days of Mubarak,” explained Yaalon.  “An infrastructure of terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda, supported by Iran and Palestinians for whom it is convenient to leave Gaza can be established in the Sinai. Sinai is Egyptian and we have a peace treaty with Egypt. We do not carry out targeted killings in the Sinai, so the terrorists have much greater freedom. We demand that the Egyptian regime show determination and sovereignty, and this will be tested.”

Yaalon warned against Egypt’s attempts to change parts of the treaty it signed with Israel, saying that “for us this is not an option. If they want to put in a military force, we’ll talk about it. But it would be a very bad precedent if we start opening agreements. President Morsi is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, but his statements have been cautious. He does not mention Israel, but on the other hand is forced to work under constraints. Although he would very much like to open the peace agreement, at the end of the day he is forced to say that he is committed to it. Because if that does not happen, American money would stop flowing into Egypt. That’s why an agreement that isn’t backed by interests is not worth the paper on which it was signed.”

Yaalon also spoke about the peace process with the Palestinian Authority and said, “[PA Chairman] Abbas does not say he wants two states for two peoples and denies the existence of the Jewish people. He also does not say that this agreement that will bring about the end of the conflict and an end to his demands. The argument with Abbas is about the very existence of Israel.

“When Condoleezza Rice heard [former Prime Minister] Olmert's proposal [to Abbas] she was surprised by its generosity, but Abbas refused immediately,” said Yaalon, adding, “I was not surprised by his reaction, because for him to agree to a solution of two states for two peoples is disastrous. He needs the conflict sustained over time. As well, as long as the PA educates young people to wear explosive belts and blow us up, there will be no peace or coexistence. Now the people of Israel know that we tried and it does not work. Abbas has no interest in reaching an agreement with us, but he will blame us. For the past twenty years, the worst terrorist attacks took place during periods of concessions. That's why we need to stand firm.”

(Arutz Sheva’s North American Desk is keeping you updated until the start of Shabbat in New York. The time posted automatically on all Arutz Sheva articles, however, is Israeli time.)

Saturday, September 22, 2012

Sermon By Rabbi Schlomo Lewis

Sermon delivered by Rabbi Schlomo Lewis of Atlanta

I thought long and I thought hard on whether to deliver the sermon I am about to share. We all wish to bounce happily out of shul on the High Holidays, filled with warm fuzzies, ready to gobble up our brisket, our honey cakes and our kugel. We want to be shaken and stirred – but not too much. We want to be guilt-schlepped – but not too much. We want to be provoked but not too much. We want to be transformed but not too much.

I get it, but as a rabbi I have a compelling obligation, a responsibility to articulate what is in my heart and what I passionately believe must be said and must be heard. And so, I am guided not by what is easy to say but by what is painful to express. I am guided not by the frivolous but by the serious. I am guided not by delicacy but by urgency.

We are at war. We are at war with an enemy as savage, as voracious, as heartless as the Nazis but one wouldn’t know it from our behavior. During WWII we didn’t refer to storm troopers as freedom fighters. We didn’t call the Gestapo, militants. We didn’t see the attacks on our Merchant Marine as acts by rogue sailors. We did not justify the Nazis rise to power as our fault. We did not grovel before the Nazis, thumping our hearts and confessing to abusing and mistreating and humiliating the German people.

We did not apologize for Dresden , nor for The Battle of the Bulge, nor for El Alamein , nor for D-Day.

Evil – ultimate, irreconcilable, evil threatened us and Roosevelt and Churchill had moral clarity and an exquisite understanding of what was at stake. It was not just the Sudetenland, not just Tubruk, not just Vienna , not just Casablanca . It was the entire planet. Read history and be shocked at how frighteningly close Hitler came to creating a Pax Germana on every continent.

Not all Germans were Nazis – most were decent, most were revolted by the Third Reich, most were good citizens hoisting a beer, earning a living and tucking in their children at night. But, too many looked away, too many cried out in lame defense – I didn’t know.” Too many were silent. Guilt absolutely falls upon those who committed the atrocities, but responsibility and guilt falls upon those who did nothing as well. Fault was not just with the goose steppers but with those who pulled the curtains shut, said and did nothing.

In WWII we won because we got it. We understood who the enemy was and we knew that the end had to be unconditional and absolute. We did not stumble around worrying about offending the Nazis. We did not measure every word so as not to upset our foe. We built planes and tanks and battleships and went to war to win….. to rid the world of malevolence.

We are at war… yet too many stubbornly and foolishly don’t put the pieces together and refuse to identify the evil doers. We are circumspect and disgracefully politically correct.

Let me mince no words in saying that from Fort Hood to Bali, from Times Square to London , from Madrid to Mumbai, from 9/11 to Gaza , the murderers, the barbarians are radical Islamists.

To camouflage their identity is sedition. To excuse their deeds is contemptible. To mask their intentions is unconscionable.

A few years ago I visited Lithuania on a Jewish genealogical tour. It was a stunning journey and a very personal, spiritual pilgrimage. When we visited Kovno we davened Maariv at the only remaining shul in the city. Before the war there were thirty-seven shuls for 38,000 Jews. Now only one, a shrinking, gray congregation. We made minyon for the handful of aged worshippers in the Choral Synagogue, a once majestic, jewel in Kovno.

After my return home I visited Cherry Hill for Shabbos. At the oneg an elderly family friend, Joe Magun, came over to me.

“Shalom,” he said. “Your abba told me you just came back from Lithuania .”

“Yes,” I replied. “It was quite a powerful experience.” “Did you visit the Choral Synagogue in Kovno? The one with the big arch in the courtyard?” “Yes, I did. In fact, we helped them make minyon.” His eyes opened wide in joy at our shared memory. For a moment he gazed into the distance and then, he returned. “Shalom, I grew up only a few feet away from the arch. The Choral Synagogue was where I davened as a child.”

He paused for a moment and once again was lost in the past. His smile faded. Pain filled his wrinkled face. “I remember one Shabbos in 1938 when Vladimir Jabotinsky came to the shul” (Jabotinsky was Menachim Begin’s mentor – he was a fiery orator, an unflinching Zionist radical, whose politics were to the far right.) Joe continued “When Jabotinsky came, he delivered the drash on Shabbos morning and I can still hear his words burning in my ears. He climbed up to the shtender, stared at us from the bima, glared at us with eyes full of fire and cried out. ‘EHR KUMT. YIDN FARLAWST AYER SHTETL – He’s coming. Jews abandon your city.’ ”

We thought we were safe in Lithuania from the Nazis, from Hitler. We had lived there, thrived for a thousand years but Jabotinsky was right -- his warning prophetic. We got out but most did not.”

We are not in Lithuania . It is not the 1930s. There is no Luftwaffe overhead. No U-boats off the coast of long Island . No Panzer divisions on our borders. But make no mistake; we are under attack – our values, our tolerance, our freedom, our virtue, our land.

Now before some folks roll their eyes and glance at their watches let me state emphatically, unmistakably – I have no pathology of hate, nor am I a manic Paul Revere, galloping through the countryside. I am not a pessimist, nor prone to panic attacks. I am a lover of humanity, all humanity. Whether they worship in a synagogue, a church, a mosque, a temple or don’t worship at all. I have no bone of bigotry in my body, but what I do have is hatred for those who hate, intolerance for those who are intolerant, and a guiltless, unstoppable obsession to see evil eradicated.

Today the enemy is radical Islam but it must be said sadly and reluctantly that there are unwitting, co-conspirators who strengthen the hands of the evil doers. Let me state that the overwhelming number of Muslims are good Muslims, fine human beings who want nothing more than a Jeep Cherokee in their driveway, a flat screen TV on their wall and a good education for their children, but these good Muslims have an obligation to destiny, to decency that thus far for the most part they have avoided. The Kulturkampf is not only external but internal as well. The good Muslims must sponsor rallies in Times Square, in Trafalgar Square , in the UN Plaza, on the Champs Elysee, in Mecca condemning terrorism, denouncing unequivocally the slaughter of the innocent. Thus far, they have not. The good Muslims must place ads in the NY Times. They must buy time on network TV, on cable stations, in the Jerusalem Post, in Le Monde, in Al Watan, on Al Jazeena condemning terrorism, denouncing unequivocally the slaughter of the innocent – thus far, they have not. Their silence allows the vicious to tarnish Islam and define it.

Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.

I recall a conversation with my father shortly before he died that helped me understand how perilous and how broken is our world; that we are living on the narrow seam of civilization and moral oblivion. Knowing he had little time left he shared the following – “Shal. I am ready to leave this earth. Sure I’d like to live a little longer, see a few more sunrises, but truthfully, I’ve had it. I’m done. Finished. I hope the Good Lord takes me soon because I am unable to live in this world knowing what it has become.”

This startling admission of moral exhaustion from a man who witnessed and lived through the Depression, the Holocaust, WWII, Communist triumphalism, McCarthyism, Strontium 90 and polio. – Yet his twilight observation was – “The worst is yet to come.” And he wanted out.

I share my father’s angst and fear that too many do not see the authentic, existential threat we face nor confront the source of our peril. We must wake up and smell the hookah.

“Lighten up, Lewis. Take a chill pill, some of you are quietly thinking. You’re sounding like Glen Beck. It’s not that bad. It’s not that real.”

But I am here to tell you – “It is.” Ask the member of our shul whose sister was vaporized in the Twin Towers and identified finally by her charred teeth, if this is real or not. Ask the members of our shul who fled a bus in downtown Paris , fearing for their safety from a gang of Muslim thugs, if this is an exaggeration. Ask the member of our shul whose son tracks Arab terrorist infiltrators who target – pizza parlors, nursery schools, Pesach seders, city buses and play grounds, if this is dramatic, paranoid hyperbole.

Ask them, ask all of them – ask the American GI’s we sit next to on planes who are here for a brief respite while we fly off on our Delta vacation package. Ask them if it’s bad. Ask them if it’s real.

Did anyone imagine in the 1920’s what Europe would look like in the 1940’s. Did anyone presume to know in the coffee houses of Berlin or in the opera halls of Vienna that genocide would soon become the celebrated culture? Did anyone think that a goofy-looking painter named Shickelgruber would go from the beer halls of Munich and jail, to the Reichstag as Feuhrer in less than a decade? Did Jews pack their bags and leave Warsaw , Vilna, Athens , Paris , Bialystok , Minsk , knowing that soon their new address would be Treblinka, Sobibor, Dachau and Auschwitz ?

The sages teach – “Aizehu chacham – haroeh et hanolad – Who is a wise person – he who sees into the future.” We dare not wallow in complacency, in a misguided tolerance and naïve sense of security.

We must be diligent students of history and not sit in ash cloth at the waters of Babylon weeping. We cannot be hypnotized by eloquent-sounding rhetoric that soothes our heart but endangers our soul. We cannot be lulled into inaction for fear of offending the offenders. Radical Islam is the scourge and this must be cried out from every mountain top. From sea to shining sea, we must stand tall, prideful of our stunning decency and moral resilience. Immediately after 9/11 how many mosques were destroyed in America ? None. After 9/11, how many Muslims were killed in America ? None. After 9/11, how many anti-Muslim rallies were held in America ? None. And yet, we apologize. We grovel. We beg forgiveness.

The mystifying litany of our foolishness continues. Should there be a shul in Hebron on the site where Baruch Goldstein gunned down twenty-seven Arabs at noonday prayers? Should there be a museum praising the U.S. Calvary on the site of Wounded Knee ? Should there be a German cultural center in Auschwitz ? Should a church be built in the Syrian town of Ma’arra where Crusaders slaughtered over 100,000 Muslims? Should there be a thirteen story mosque and Islamic Center only a few steps from Ground Zero?

Despite all the rhetoric, the essence of the matter can be distilled quite easily. The Muslim community has the absolute, constitutional right to build their building wherever they wish. I don’t buy the argument – “When we can build a church or a synagogue in Mecca they can build a mosque here.” America is greater than Saudi Arabia . And New York is greater than Mecca . Democracy and freedom must prevail. Can they build? Certainly. May they build? Certainly. But should they build at that site? No -- but that decision must come from them, not from us. Sensitivity, compassion cannot be measured in feet or yards or in blocks. One either feels the pain of others and cares, or does not.

If those behind this project are good, peace-loving, sincere, tolerant Muslims, as they claim, then they should know better, rip up the zoning permits and build elsewhere.

Believe it or not, I am a dues-paying, card carrying member of the ACLU, yet from start of finish, I find this sorry episode disturbing to say the least.

William Burroughs, the novelist and poet, in a wry moment wrote – “After one look at this planet, any visitor from outer space would say – “I want to see the manager.”

Let us understand that the radical Islamist assaults all over the globe are but skirmishes, fire fights, and vicious decoys. Christ and the anti-Christ. Gog U’Magog. The Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness; the bloody collision between civilization and depravity is on the border between Lebanon and Israel . It is on the Gaza Coast and in the Judean Hills of the West Bank . It is on the sandy beaches of Tel Aviv and on the cobblestoned mall of Ben Yehuda Street . It is in the underground schools of Sderot and on the bullet-proofed inner-city buses. It is in every school yard, hospital, nursery, classroom, park, theater – in every place of innocence and purity.

Israel is the laboratory – the test market. Every death, every explosion, every grisly encounter is not a random, bloody orgy. It is a calculated, strategic probe into the heart, guts and soul of the West.

In the Six Day War, Israel was the proxy of Western values and strategy while the Arab alliance was the proxy of Eastern, Soviet values and strategy. Today too, it is a confrontation of proxies, but the stakes are greater than East Jerusalem and the West Bank . Israel in her struggle represents the civilized world, while Hamas, Hezbollah, Al Queda, Iran , Islamic Jihad, represent the world of psychopathic, loathesome evil.

As Israel , imperfect as she is, resists the onslaught, many in the Western World have lost their way displaying not admiration, not sympathy, not understanding, for Israel ’s galling plight, but downright hostility and contempt. Without moral clarity, we are doomed because Israel ’s galling plight ultimately will be ours. Hanna Arendt in her classic Origins of Totalitarianism accurately portrays the first target of tyranny as the Jew. We are the trial balloon. The canary in the coal mine. If the Jew/Israel is permitted to bleed with nary a protest from “good guys” then tyranny snickers and pushes forward with its agenda.

Moral confusion is a deadly weakness and it has reached epic proportions in the West; from the Oval Office to the UN, from the BBC to Reuters to MSNBC, from the New York Times to Le Monde, from university campuses to British teachers unions, from the International Red Cross to Amnesty International, from Goldstone to Elvis Costello, from the Presbyterian Church to the Archbishop of Canterbury.

There is a message sent and consequences when our president visits Turkey and Egypt and Saudi Arabia , and not Israel .

There is a message sent and consequences when free speech on campus is only for those championing Palestinian rights.

There is a message sent and consequences when the media deliberately doctors and edits film clips to demonize Israel .

There is a message sent and consequences when the UN blasts Israel relentlessly, effectively ignoring Iran , Sudan , Venezuela , North Korea , China and other noxious states.

There is a message sent and consequences when liberal churches are motivated by Liberation Theology, not historical accuracy.

There is a message sent and consequences when murderers and terrorists are defended by the obscenely transparent “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

John Milton warned, “Hypocrisy is the only evil that walks invisible.”

A few days after the Gaza blockade incident in the spring, a congregant happened past my office, glanced in and asked in a friendly tone – “Rabbi. How’re y’ doing?”

I looked up, sort of smiled and replied – “I’ve had better days.” “What’s the matter? Is there anything I can do to cheer you up?” he inquired.

“Thank you for the offer but I’m just bummed out today and I showed him a newspaper article I was reading.

“ Madrid gay pride parade bans Israeli group over Gaza Ship Raid.” I explained to my visitor – “The Israeli gay pride contingent from Tel Aviv was not allowed to participate in the Spanish gay pride parade because the mayor of Tel Aviv did not apologize for the raid by the Israeli military.”

The only country in the entire Middle East where gay rights exist, is Israel . The only country in the entire Middle East where there is a gay pride parade, is Israel . The only country in the Middle East that has gay neighborhoods and gay bars, is Israel .

Gays in the Gaza would be strung up, executed by Hamas if they came out and yet Israel is vilified and ostracized. Disinvited to the parade.

Looking for logic?

Looking for reason?

Looking for sanity?

Kafka on his darkest, gloomiest day could not keep up with this bizarre spectacle and we “useful idiots” pander and fawn over cutthroats, sinking deeper and deeper into moral decay, as the enemy laughs all the way to the West Bank and beyond.

It is exhausting and dispiriting. We live in an age that is redefining righteousness where those with moral clarity are an endangered, beleaguered specie. Isaiah warned us thousands of years ago – “Oye Lehem Sheh-Korim Layome, Laila v’Laila, yome – Woe to them who call the day, night and the night, day.” We live on a planet that is both Chelm and Sodom . It is a frightening and maddening place to be.

How do we convince the world and many of our own, that this is not just anti-Semitism, that this is not just anti-Zionism but a full throttled attack by unholy, radical Islamists on everything that is morally precious to us?

How do we convince the world and many of our own that conciliation is not an option, that compromise is not a choice?

Everything we are. Everything we believe. Everything we treasure, is at risk.

The threat is so unbelievably clear and the enemy so unbelievably ruthless how anyone in their right mind doesn’t get it is baffling. Let’s try an analogy. If someone contracted a life-threatening infection and we not only scolded them for using antibiotics but insisted that the bacteria had a right to infect their body and that perhaps, if we gave the invading infection an arm and a few toes, the bacteria would be satisfied and stop spreading.

Anyone buy that medical advice? Well, folks, that’s our approach to the radical Islamist bacteria. It is amoral, has no conscience and will spread unless it is eradicated. – There is no negotiating. Appeasement is death.

I was no great fan of George Bush – didn’t vote for him. (By the way, I’m still a registered Democrat.) I disagreed with many of his policies but one thing he had right. His moral clarity was flawless when it came to the War on Terror, the War on Radical Islamist Terror. There was no middle ground – either you were friend or foe. There was no place in Bush’s world for a Switzerland . He knew that this competition was not Toyota against G.M., not the Iphone against the Droid, not the Braves against the Phillies, but a deadly serious war, winner take all. Blink and you lose. Underestimate, and you get crushed.

I know that there are those sitting here today who have turned me off. But I also know that many turned off their rabbis seventy five years ago in Warsaw , Riga , Berlin , Amsterdam , Cracow , Vilna. I get no satisfaction from that knowledge, only a bitter sense that there is nothing new under the sun.

Enough rhetoric – how about a little “show and tell?” A few weeks ago on the cover of Time magazine was a horrific picture with a horrific story. The photo was of an eighteen year old Afghani woman, Bibi Aisha, who fled her abusive husband and his abusive family. Days later the Taliban found her and dragged her to a mountain clearing where she was found guilty of violating Sharia Law. Her punishment was immediate. She was pinned to the ground by four men while her husband sliced off her ears, and then he cut off her nose.

That is the enemy (show enlarged copy of magazine cover.)

If nothing else stirs us. If nothing else convinces us, let Bibi Aisha’s mutilated face be the face of Islamic radicalism. Let her face shake up even the most complacent and naïve among us. In the holy crusade against this ultimate evil, pictures of Bibi Aisha’s disfigurement should be displayed on billboards, along every highway from Route 66 to the Autobahn, to the Transarabian Highway . Her picture should be posted on every lobby wall from Tokyo to Stockholm to Rio . On every network, at every commercial break, Bibi Aisha’s face should appear with the caption – “Radical Islamic savages did this.” And underneath – “This ad was approved by Hamas, by Hezbollah, by Taliban, by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, by Islamic Jihad, by Fatah al Islam, by Magar Nodal Hassan, by Richard Reid, by Ahmanijad, by Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, by Osama bin Laden, by Edward Said, by The Muslim Brotherhood, by Al Queda, by CAIR.”

“The moral sentiment is the drop that balances the sea” said Ralph Waldo Emerson. Today, my friends, the sea is woefully out of balance and we could easily drown in our moral myopia and worship of political correctness.

We peer up into the heavens sending probes to distant galaxies. We peer down into quarks discovering particles that would astonish Einstein. We create computers that rival the mind, technologies that surpass science fiction. What we imagine, with astounding rapidity, becomes real. If we dream it, it does, indeed, come. And yet, we are at a critical point in the history of this planet that could send us back into the cave, to a culture that would make the Neanderthal blush with shame.

Our parents and grandparents saw the swastika and recoiled, understood the threat and destroyed the Nazis. We see the banner of Radical Islam and can do no less.

A rabbi was once asked by his students…. “Rebbi. Why are your sermons so stern?” Replied the rabbi, “If a house is on fire and we chose not to wake up our children, for fear of disturbing their sleep, would that be love? Kinderlach, ‘di hoyz brent.’ Children our house is on fire and I must arouse you from your slumber.”

During WWII and the Holocaust was it business as usual for priests, ministers, rabbis? Did they deliver benign homilies and lovely sermons as Europe fell, as the Pacific fell, as North Africa fell, as the Mideast and South America tottered, as England bled? Did they ignore the demonic juggernaut and the foul breath of evil? They did not. There was clarity, courage, vision, determination, sacrifice, and we were victorious. Today it must be our finest hour as well. We dare not retreat into the banality of our routines, glance at headlines and presume that the good guys will prevail.

Democracies don’t always win.
Tyrannies don’t always lose.
My friends – the world is on fire and we must awake from our slumber. “ER KUMT.”

Sunday, September 16, 2012

'Nothing Will Remain'


Iran commander: 'Nothing will remain' of Israel if it takes military action
Published September 16, 2012Associated Press

TEHRAN – The top commander in Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard warned Sunday that "nothing will remain" of Israel if it takes military action against Tehran over its controversial nuclear program.

Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari said Iran's response to any attack will begin near the Israeli border. The Islamic Republic has close ties with militants in Gaza and Lebanon, both of which border Israel.

Iran has in the past made reference to the destruction of Israel but his comments at a Tehran news conference were unusually strongly worded and detailed.

He also said that Iran warned that oil shipments through the strategic Strait of Hormuz will be in jeopardy if a war breaks out between Iran and the United States. Iranian officials have previously threatened to close the waterway, the route for a fifth of the world's oil, but less frequently in recent months.

Gen. Jafari also told a news conference in Tehran Sunday that if it is attacked, Iran will no longer be committed to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, under whose terms U.N. inspectors visit Iranian nuclear sites. He said however that this does not mean that Iran would build a nuclear weapon.

The U.S and Israel have both left open the possibility of a strike on Iran if diplomacy fails to stop what it says is a push for a nuclear weapon. Tehran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Gen. Jafari however said that Iran believes the United States won't attack Iran because it is very vulnerable and its military bases in the Middle East are within the range of Iran's missiles. Jafari also said Israel is very unlikely to take unilateral action.

Israel believes that any attack would likely unleash retaliation, in the form of Iranian missiles as well as rocket attacks by Iranian proxies Hezbollah and Hamas on its northern and southern borders.

Jafari's comments come as U.S.-led naval forces from the West and Arab allies gather for naval maneuvers in the Persian Gulf that include mine-sweeping exercises.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/09/16/iran-commander-nothing-will-remain-israel-if-it-takes-military-action/#ixzz26e3R3DQm

Friday, December 09, 2011

The Truth About Refugees



WORLD
ISRAELI DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER BLASTS UN AGENCY ON ‘THE TRUTH’ ABOUT PALESTINIAN REFUGEES
Posted on December 9, 2011 at 9:27am by Sharona Schwartz

In a new YouTube video called “The Truth About the Refugees,” Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon takes a sharp look at the Palestinian refugee problem, and blasts the UN agency tasked with aiding them and their descendants. Ayalon asks:

    Why after more than 60 years are the Arab-Palestinian refugees still not welcomed and absorbed among their own brethren? And how could their numbers have grown from 500,000 to 4.7 million? The sad reality is that Palestinian refugees never had a chance. Attempts at resettlement were blocked by a variety of discriminatory laws enacted in Arab countries such as: a ban on receiving citizenship – with the exception of Jordan; blocking them from entering many professions; restrictions on owning land; restrictions on movement…

From Israel’s perspective, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees, or UNRWA, with the encouragement of Arab states, has engaged in a highly political mission to perpetuate the refugee problem rather than finding a dignified solution for those living 63 years in substandard housing that is clearly no longer “temporary.” Ayalon quotes a former UNRWA director in Jordan Sir Alexander Galloway who said:

    …the Arab nations do not want to solve the Arab refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore…as a weapon against Israel.”

He also asks why the UN formed an entirely separate bureaucracy to aid Palestinian refugees, when all other refugees are handled by the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR):

    The answer is, because while the United Nations’ central refugee agency helps refugees resettle, the United Nations Palestinian refugee agency helps perpetuate their status by applying unique criteria…Refugees lose their status after receiving citizenship from a recognized country – Palestinians do not. Refugees cannot transmit their status from generation to generation. Palestinian refugees can.

Arab states are all too willing to obstruct any livable arrangement for these mostly impoverished Palestinians by withholding citizenship, preventing moves to more adequate dwellings, and feeding the dream of their future “return” to their purported homes in Israel. Homes, it should be added, that many never actually saw since they were born years after the 1948 and 1967 Arab-Israeli wars.

Now, even their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are granted refugee status by UNRWA and are daily fed the myth Israelis will eventually, after a violent struggle, vacate their homes leading to a so-called “return” of those who weren’t even born in 1948.

Instead of encouraging the refugees to move forward with their lives constructively, UNRWA – ceding to Arab state policies – has set up a massive bureaucracy predicated on handouts to the poor and perpetuating the problem, rather than acknowledging reality and allowing them to attempt financially-independent lives.

Ayalon explains in his video that there were more Jewish refugees – 850,000 – forced from Arab states than the estimated 500,000 Arabs who fled their homes in 1948. Also by contrast, the Jews were allowed to build free lives in Israel and were never granted refugee status. Ayalon is himself the son of a Jew who was forced to leave Algeria.

Ayalon’s first two videos on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and the West Bank went viral. The Israeli Foreign Ministry hopes this one will also be widely viewed, offering the public a perspective not widely disseminated by the mainstream media, which like UNRWA tends to report on the issue without pointing to the basic logical complication – how can someone who was born decades after an armed conflict be considered a refugee?

Tuesday, September 06, 2011

Letter To University

DENIS MACEOIN: LETTER TO EDINBURGH UNIVERSITY STUDENT ASSOCIATION
By • Denis MacEoin
Published in: A Liberal Defence of Israel April 06, 2011

The following letter was written to the EUSA following their vote to boycott Israel because of its 'apartheid'.



The Committee
Edinburgh University Student Association



May I be permitted to say a few words to members of the EUSA? I am an Edinburgh graduate (MA 1975) who studied Persian, Arabic and Islamic History in Buccleuch Place under William Montgomery Watt and Laurence Elwell Sutton, two of Britain’s great Middle East experts in their day. I later went on to do a PhD at Cambridge and to teach Arabic and Islamic Studies at Newcastle University. Naturally, I am the author of several books and hundreds of articles in this field.

I say all that to show that I am well informed in Middle Eastern affairs and that, for that reason, I am shocked and disheartened by the EUSA motion and vote. I am shocked for a simple reason: there is not and has never been a system of apartheid in Israel. That is not my opinion, that is fact that can be tested against reality by any Edinburgh student, should he or she choose to visit Israel to see for themselves.

Let me spell this out, since I have the impression that those members of EUSA who voted for this motion are absolutely clueless in matters concerning Israel, and that they are, in all likelihood, the victims of extremely biased propaganda coming from the anti-Israel lobby. Being anti-Israel is not in itself objectionable. But I’m not talking about ordinary criticism of Israel. I’m speaking of a hatred that permits itself no boundaries in the lies and myths it pours out. Thus, Israel is repeatedly referred to as a ‘Nazi’ state. In what sense is this true, even as a metaphor? Where are the Israeli concentration camps? The einzatsgruppen? The SS? The Nüremberg Laws? The Final Solution? None of these things nor anything remotely resembling them exists in Israel, precisely because the Jews, more than anyone on earth, understand what Nazism stood for. It is claimed that there has been an Israeli Holocaust in Gaza (or elsewhere). Where? When? No honest historian would treat that claim with anything but the contempt it deserves. But calling Jews Nazis and saying they have committed a Holocaust is as basic a way to subvert historical fact as anything I can think of.

Likewise apartheid. For apartheid to exist, there would have to be a situation that closely resembled things in South Africa under the apartheid regime. Unfortunately for those who believe this, a weekend in any part of Israel would be enough to show how ridiculous the claim is. That a body of university students actually fell for this and voted on it is a sad comment on the state of modern education. The most obvious focus for apartheid would be the country’s 20% Arab population. Under Israeli law, Arab Israelis have exactly the same rights as Jews or anyone else; Muslims have the same rights as Jews or Christians; Baha’is, severely persecuted in Iran, flourish in Israel, where they have their world centre; Ahmadi Muslims, severely persecuted in Pakistan and elsewhere, are kept safe by Israel; the holy places of all religions are protected under a specific Israeli law. Arabs form 20% of the university population (an exact echo of their percentage in the general population). In Iran, the Baha’is (the largest religious minority) are forbidden to study in any university or to run their own universities: why aren’t your members boycotting Iran?

Arabs in Israel can go anywhere they want, unlike blacks in apartheid South Africa. They use public transport, they eat in restaurants, they go to swimming pools, they use libraries, they go to cinemas alongside Jews - something no blacks could do in South Africa. Israeli hospitals not only treat Jews and Arabs, they also treat Palestinians from Gaza or the West Bank. On the same wards, in the same operating theatres.

In Israel, women have the same rights as men: there is no gender apartheid. Gay men and women face no restrictions, and Palestinian gays often escape into Israel, knowing they may be killed at home. It seems bizarre to me that LGBT groups call for a boycott of Israel and say nothing about countries like Iran, where gay men are hanged or stoned to death. That illustrates a mindset that beggars belief. Intelligent students thinking it’s better to be silent about regimes that kill gay people, but good to condemn the only country in the Middle East that rescues and protects gay people. Is that supposed to be a sick joke?

University is supposed to be about learning to use your brain, to think rationally, to examine evidence, to reach conclusions based on solid evidence, to compare sources, to weigh up one view against one or more others. If the best Edinburgh can now produce are students who have no idea how to do any of these things, then the future is bleak. I do not object to well documented criticism of Israel. I do object when supposedly intelligent people single the Jewish state out above states that are horrific in their treatment of their populations. We are going through the biggest upheaval in the Middle East since the 7th and 8th centuries, and it’s clear that Arabs and Iranians are rebelling against terrifying regimes that fight back by killing their own citizens. Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs alike, do not rebel (though they are free to protest). Yet Edinburgh students mount no demonstrations and call for no boycotts against Libya, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iran. They prefer to make false accusations against one of the world’s freest countries, the only country in the Middle East that has taken in Darfur refugees, the only country in the Middle East that gives refuge to gay men and women, the only country in the Middle East that protects the Baha’is.... Need I go on? The imbalance is perceptible, and it sheds no credit on anyone who voted for this boycott.

I ask you to show some common sense. Get information from the Israeli embassy. Ask for some speakers. Listen to more than one side. Do not make your minds up until you have given a fair hearing to both parties. You have a duty to your students, and that is to protect them from one-sided argument. They are not at university to be propagandized. And they are certainly not there to be tricked into anti-Semitism by punishing one country among all the countries of the world, which happens to be the only Jewish state. If there had been a single Jewish state in the 1930s (which, sadly, there was not), don’t you think Adolf Hitler would have decided to boycott it? Of course he would, and he would not have stopped there. Your generation has a duty to ensure that the perennial racism of anti-Semitism never sets down roots among you. Today, however, there are clear signs that it has done so and is putting down more. You have a chance to avert a very great evil, simply by using reason and a sense of fair play. Please tell me that this makes sense to you. I have given you some of the evidence. It’s up to you to find out more.

Yours sincerely,


Dr. Denis MacEoin

http://mid-eastplus.blogspot.com/2011/04/letter-to-edinburgh-university-student.html

Thursday, June 23, 2011

Lyndon B. Johnson

Lyndon B. Johnson

A few months ago, the Associated Press reported that newly released
tapes from US president Lyndon Johnson’s White House office showed
LBJ’s “personal and often emotional connection to Israel.” The news
agency pointed out that during the Johnson presidency (1963-1969),
“the United States became Israel’s chief diplomatic ally and primary
arms supplier.”

But the news report does little to reveal the full historical extent
of Johnson’s actions on behalf of the Jewish people and the State of
Israel.
Most students of the Arab-Israeli conflict can identify Johnson as
the president during the 1967 war. But few know about LBJ’s actions
to rescue hundreds of endangered Jews during the Holocaust – actions
that could have thrown him out of Congress and into jail. Indeed, the
title of “Righteous Gentile” is certainly appropriate in the case of
the Texan, whose centennial year is being commemorated this year.

Appropriately enough, the annual Jerusalem Conference announced this
week that it will honor Johnson.

Historians have revealed that Johnson, while serving as a young
congressman in 1938 and 1939, arranged for visas to be supplied to
Jews in Warsaw, and oversaw the apparently illegal immigration of
hundreds of Jews through the port of Galveston, Texas.

A key resource for uncovering LBJ’s pro-Jewish activity is the
unpublished 1989 doctoral thesis by University of Texas student Louis
Gomolak, “Prologue: LBJ’s Foreign Affairs Background, 1908-1948.”
Johnson’s activities were confirmed by other historians in interviews
with his wife, family members and political associates.

Research into Johnson’s personal history indicates that he inherited
his concern for the Jewish people from his family. His aunt Jessie
Johnson Hatcher, a major influence on LBJ, was a member of the Zionist
Organization of America. According to Gomolak, Aunt Jessie had
nurtured LBJ’s commitment to befriending Jews for 50 years. As young
boy, Lyndon watched his politically active grandfather “Big Sam” and
father “Little Sam” seek clemency for Leo Frank, the Jewish victim of
a blood libel in Atlanta.
Frank was lynched by a mob in 1915, and the Ku Klux Klan in Texas
threatened to kill the Johnsons. The Johnsons later told friends that
Lyndon’s family hid in their cellar while his father and uncles stood
guard with shotguns on their porch in case of KKK attacks. Johnson’s
speech writer later stated, “Johnson often cited Leo Frank’s lynching
as the source of his opposition to both anti-Semitism and
isolationism.”

Already in 1934 – four years before Chamberlain’s Munich sellout to
Hitler – Johnson was keenly alert to the dangers of Nazism and
presented a book of essays, ‘Nazism: An Assault on Civilization’, to
the 21-year-old woman he was courting, Claudia Taylor – later known as
“Lady Bird” Johnson. It was an incredible engagement present.

FIVE DAYS after taking office in 1937, LBJ broke with the
“Dixiecrats” and supported an immigration bill that would naturalize
illegal aliens, mostly Jews from Lithuania and Poland . In 1938,
Johnson was told of a young Austrian Jewish musician who was about to
be deported from the United States. With an element of subterfuge,
LBJ sent him to the US Consulate in Havana to obtain a residency
permit. Erich Leinsdorf, the world famous musician and conductor,
credited LBJ for saving his live.

That same year, LBJ warned Jewish friend, Jim Novy, that European
Jews faced annihilation. “Get as many Jewish people as possible out of
Germany and Poland,” were Johnson’s instructions. Somehow, Johnson
provided him with a pile of signed immigration papers that were used
to get 42 Jews out of Warsaw.

But that wasn’t enough. According to historian James M. Smallwood,
Congressman Johnson used legal and sometimes illegal methods to
smuggle “hundreds of Jews into Texas, using Galveston as the entry
port.
Enough money could buy false passports and fake visas in Cuba, Mexico
and other Latin American countries. Johnson smuggled boatloads and
planeloads of Jews into Texas. He hid them in the Texas National
Youth Administration. Johnson saved at least four or five hundred
Jews, possibly more.

During World War II Johnson joined Novy at a small Austin gathering
to sell $65,000 in war bonds. According to Gomolak, Novy and Johnson
then raised a very “substantial sum for arms for Jewish underground
fighters in Palestine.” One source cited by the historian reports
that “Novy and Johnson had been secretly shipping heavy crates labeled
‘Texas Grapefruit’ – but containing arms – to Jewish underground
‘freedom fighters’ in Palestine.”

ON JUNE 4, 1945, Johnson visited Dachau. According to Smallwood,
Lady Bird later recalled that when her husband returned home, “he was
still shaken, stunned, terrorized, and bursting with an overpowering
revulsion and incredulous horror at what he had seen.”

A decade later while serving in the Senate, Johnson blocked the
Eisenhower administration’s attempts to apply sanctions against Israel
following the 1956 Sinai Campaign. ”The indefatigable Johnson had
never ceased pressure on the administration,” wrote I.L. “Si” Kenen,
the head of AIPAC at the time.

As Senate majority leader, Johnson consistently blocked the
anti-Israel initiatives of his fellow Democrat, William Fulbright, the
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Among Johnson’s
closest advisers during this period were several strong pro-Israel
advocates, including Benjamin Cohen (who 30 years earlier was the
liaison between Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis and Chaim
Weizmann) and Abe Fortas, the legendary Washington “insider.”

Johnson’s concern for the Jewish people continued through his
presidency. Soon after taking office in the aftermath of John F.
Kennedy’s assassination in 1963, Johnson told an Israeli diplomat,
“You have lost a very great friend, but you have found a better one.”

Just one month after succeeding Kennedy, LBJ attended the December
1963 dedication of the Agudas Achim Synagogue in Austin . Novy opened
the ceremony by saying to Johnson, “We can’t thank him enough for all
those Jews he got out of Germany during the days of Hitler.”

Lady Bird would later describe the day, according to Gomolak: “Person
after person plucked at my sleeve and said, ‘I wouldn’t be here today
if it wasn’t for him. He helped me get out.’” Lady Bird elaborated,
“Jews had been woven into the warp and woof of all [Lyndon's] years.”

THE PRELUDE to the 1967 war was a terrifying period for Israel, with
the US State Department led by the historically unfriendly Dean Rusk
urging an evenhanded policy despite Arab threats and acts of
aggression. Johnson held no such illusions. After the war he placed
the blame firmly on Egypt : “If a single act of folly was more
responsible for this explosion than any other, it was the arbitrary
and dangerous announced decision by Egypt that the Strait of Tiran
would be closed [to Israeli ships and Israeli-bound cargo].”

Kennedy was the first president to approve the sale of defensive US
weapons to Israel , specifically Hawk anti-aircraft missiles. But
Johnson approved tanks and fighter jets, all vital after the 1967 war
when France imposed a freeze on sales to Israel . Yehuda Avner
recently described on these pages prime minister Levi Eshkol’s
successful appeal for these weapons on a visit to the LBJ ranch.

Israel won the 1967 war, and Johnson worked to make sure it also won
the peace. “I sure as hell want to be careful and not run out on
little Israel,” Johnson said in a March 1968 conversation with his
ambassador to the United Nations, Arthur Goldberg, according to White
House tapes recently released.

Soon after the 1967 war, Soviet premier Aleksei Kosygin asked Johnson
at the Glassboro Summit why the US supported Israel when there were 80
million Arabs and only three million Israelis. ”Because it is
right” responded the straight-shooting Texan.

The crafting of UN Resolution 242 in November 1967 was done under
Johnson’s scrutiny. The call for “secure and recognized boundaries”
was critical. The American and British drafters of the resolution
opposed Israel returning all the territories captured in the war. In
September 1968, Johnson explained, “We are not the ones to say where
other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the
greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the
situation of 4 June 1967 will not bring peace. There must be secure
and there must be recognized borders. Some such lines must be agreed
to by the neighbors involved.”

Goldberg later noted, “Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem
and this omission was deliberate.” This historic diplomacy was
conducted under Johnson’s stewardship, as Goldberg related in oral
history to the Johnson Library. “I must say for Johnson,” Goldberg
stated, “he gave me great personal support.”

Robert David Johnson, a professor of history at Brooklyn College,
recently wrote in The New York Sun, Johnson’s policies stemmed more
from personal concerns – his friendship with leading Zionists, his
belief that America had a moral obligation to bolster Israeli security
and his conception of Israel as a frontier land much like his home
state of Texas. His personal concerns led him to intervene when he
felt that the State or Defense departments had insufficiently
appreciated Israel’s diplomatic or military needs.

President Johnson firmly pointed American policy in a pro-Israel
direction. In an historical context, the American emergency airlift
to Israel in 1973, the constant diplomatic support, the economic and
military assistance and the strategic bonds between the two countries
can all be credited to the seeds planted by LBJ.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Obama Calls For Israeli Border Roll-Back

Netanyahu Rejects Obama Call for Palestinian State Based on 1967 Borders
Published May 19, 2011

May 19: President Barack Obama delivers a policy address on events in the Middle East at the State Department in Washington.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu swiftly rejected President Obama's call Thursday for Israel to pull back to the borders that existed before the 1967 Six-Day War, calling those lines militarily "indefensible."

Obama, in a sweeping address tackling the uprisings in the Middle East and the stalled peace process, stunned Washington and Jerusalem by endorsing Palestinians' demand for their own state based on the pre-1967 borders. The break with longstanding U.S. policy appeared to immediately aggravate the Israelis, who want the borders of any future Palestinian state determined through negotiations.

In a statement released late Thursday, Netanyahu said such a withdrawal would jeopardize Israel's security and leave major West Bank settlements outside Israeli borders.

"Israel appreciates President Obama's commitment to peace," the statement said. "Israel believes that for peace to endure between Israelis and Palestinians, the viability of a Palestinian state cannot come at the expense of the viability of the one and only Jewish state. That is why Prime Minister Netanyahu expects to hear a reaffirmation from President Obama of U.S. commitments made to Israel in 2004. ... Among other things, those commitments relate to Israel not having to withdraw to the 1967 lines."

The U.S. had previously endorsed the concept of a Palestinian state, but not the demand for permanent pre-1967 borders, with mutually agreed land swaps. The declaration comes ahead of a meeting in Washington between Obama and Netanyahu.

"The status quo is unsustainable," Obama said. "A lasting peace will involve two states for two peoples."

Though the shift will likely create tension as the president meets with Netanyahu and heads next to address Israel advocacy group AIPAC this weekend, Obama sought to assure that the United States' commitment to Israeli security is "unshakable."

He said Israeli's right to defend itself will remain paramount, and suggested the recent unity agreement between Fatah and Hamas, which the U.S. deems a terrorist group, is problematic for negotiations. Though Israel occupied East Jerusalem, along with the West Bank and Gaza Strip, in the 1967 Six Day War, Obama said Thursday that the "future of Jerusalem" remains to be worked out, as does the fate of Palestinian refugees.

He also publicly rejected attempts by the Palestinians to gain recognition for their own state before the United Nations. "Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won't create an independent state," Obama said.

The border announcement, which came toward the end of the president's 50-minute speech, was arguably the most significant statement in an address otherwise devoted to underscoring U.S. support for the uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa. Speaking at the State Department, the president sought to align the U.S. with the ambitions of protesters pushing for economic and political reform, while warning heads of state who resist this wave that the U.S. is losing patience.

"We cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just," he said.

Obama, in his strongest words to date, offered an ultimatum to Syrian President Bashar Assad. "President Assad now has a choice. He can lead that transition or get out of the way," Obama said.

He said Assad's regime, which has killed hundreds in an effort to quell the unrest in Syria, must stop shooting and arresting its people.

Obama also called Al Qaeda and Usama bin Laden, who was killed by U.S. forces in Pakistan, a "dead end," suggesting the push for reform will represent the future of the region. He sought to connect the death of bin Laden to the wave of protests, arguing that anti-western rhetoric and attacks are losing their audience. "The slaughter of innocents did not answer their cry for a better life," he said.

Rather, Obama said: "A new generation has emerged and their voices tell us that change cannot be denied."
The president is taking a carrot-and-stick approach as the Arab Spring turns to summer and protesters' demands across the region are met with repression.

After sending U.S. forces into Libya two months ago to halt strongman Muammar al-Qaddafi's advances against his people, the Obama administration sent a message Wednesday to Assad by slapping him and top officials in Damascus with financial sanctions over his regime's brutal crackdown.

Obama, in his speech Thursday, addressed the standoff in these two countries, staunchly defending U.S. military involvement in Libya. But he also offered new levels of support to Egypt and Tunisia, countries where demonstrations ousted entrenched leaders and which the administration is holding up as a "beacon" in the region, according to one official.

He outlined specific dollar support for Egypt, where the nation's tourism-fueled economy has fallen into a slump in the wake of the upheaval, in turn increasing the country's projected deficit. Obama said Thursday the U.S. would forgive roughly $1 billion in debt owed by Egypt to free up money for job-creation efforts there. Plus he plans to guarantee up to $1 billion in loans for Egypt through the Overseas Private Investment Corp., a U.S. government institution that mobilizes private capital.

Obama is pushing other steps to bolster loans, trade and international support in Egypt and in Tunisia. Protesters in Bahrain, Yemen, Syria and other nations have endured brutal setbacks. He said the changes in the region mark a "new chapter" for U.S. diplomacy and argued that America has an important role to play.

A new poll out of the Pew Research Center, though, found that the shifting political sands in the Middle East have not generally led to an improvement in the U.S. image in the region.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/19/obamas-mideast-speech-offers-punishment-praise/#ixzz1Mpdn4snG

Sunday, December 05, 2010

What The American Media Misses

Abu Toameh: What the Western Media Misses
by Arsen Ostrovsky, Frum Forum
http://www.frumforum.com/abu-toameh-what-the-western-media-misses

A few days ago, I was fortunate to attend a talk by Israeli Arab journalist Khaled Abu Toameh in Jerusalem.

Toameh gave an incredibly wide ranging talk about the peace process, the double standards rife in the West and the media when it comes to coverage of the Middle East and his perspective as a Muslim Arab of Palestinian descent living in Israel (and you thought you had identity issues!).

Toameh has been working as a journalist for almost 30 years now, covering Palestinian affairs, focusing predominantly on the West Bank and Gaza, including for the Palestinian press under the PLO and for various international media outlets in the US and Europe. He is currently at the Jerusalem Post writing on Palestinian issues. Toameh is also an Israeli citizen living in Jerusalem. In other words, he is aptly qualified to comment on the issues of his discussion.

However, if you expected Toameh to jump on the anti-Israel bandwagon with the familiar cries that Israel is an un-democratic apartheid state responsible for all that is wrong including the bubonic plague or to have a single-minded focus on the occupation, you would have been sorely disappointed.

Instead, he spoke openly, courageously and in his words, said it "as it is". Asked what he thought was the essence of the conflict, Toameh said it was not about money or even settlements, as many so-called pundits often imply, as a precursor to blaming Israel. Rather, his answer was very simple: "This conflict is about Israel's very existence in this part of the world."

But before you get any conclusions, Toameh is not a card-carrying Zionist or as somebody once asked him "when did you get on the Israel lobby payroll". In his own words, he says:

"I'm not pro-Israel, I'm not pro-Palestinian and I'm not pro-American. But as a journalist, I'm pro the facts and pro the truth."

Here are some of Toameh's illuminating comments:

I asked Toameh how, as an Arab Muslim Israeli, he responds to accusations that Israel is an apartheid state.

His response:

"Israel is not an apartheid state. But there are problems and some discrimination with the Arab minority inside Israel. If Israel were an apartheid state, I, for example, would not be allowed to work for a Jewish newspaper or live in a Jewish neighborhood or own a home. The real apartheid is in Lebanon, where there is a law that bans Palestinians from working in over 50 professions. Can you imagine if the Knesset passed a law banning Arabs from working even in one profession? The real apartheid is also in many Arab and Muslim nations, like Kuwait, where my Palestinian uncle, who has been living there for 35 years, is banned from buying a house. The law of Israel does not distinguish between a Jew and an Arab."

As for the uniqueness of the Israeli media in the middle East, Toameh added:

"Israel is a free and open country with a democracy, that respects the freedom of the media. You can basically write any anti-Israel story and still walk in downtown Jerusalem or Tel Aviv without having to worry about your safety. Anyone can be a journalist in Israel."

Toameh says he finds it ironic that as an Arab Muslim living in this part of the world, the only place he can express himself freely is in a 'Jewish newspaper', noting that:

"We don't have a free media in the Palestinian area, we didn't have one when I was working there in the late 70's and early 80's, we didn't have one when the PLO came here after the signing of the Oslo accords and we still don't have one under Fatah and Hamas."

But what about the media's need for an anti-Israeli angle on stories? Toameh says that when he tried to alert many of his foreign colleagues that Palestinians were dying because of an internal power struggle or gross corruption by Arafat and the Palestinian Authority, their reflex response was:

Where's the anti-Israel angle to the story? Give us an anti-occupation story. Make our lives much easier. An Arab killing an Arab, that's not a story for us.

Toameh notes that the same foreign journalists would then ask him: "Are you on the payroll of the Israel lobby?" "Do they [the Jews] pay you to say these things against Arafat and the PLO?" Toameh's response to them:

"What do the Jews have to do with this? I'm telling you what the Palestinians are saying about there being corruption in the Palestinian Authority. I'm even telling you that the PA is saying that the PA is corrupt.

"It is a sad reflection on the state of society, and in particular, the media industry, that not only are they not sufficiently concerned or outraged at the death of Arabs by Arabs (which coincidentally has claimed many more lives than the Israel ? Palestinian conflict), but that they will only muster even an iota of concern if they can put in an 'anti-Israel' angle."

On the proposed loyalty oath as well, Toameh offered a pragmatic response: "I have no problem with it because it applies equally to both Jews and non-Jews alike."

One of the biggest and most intractable sticking points has consistently been the Palestinian demand for a right of return, which Israel will not agree to because it would mean the death knell of Israel as a Jewish state.

However, Toameh offers a very simple and pragmatic three stage solution, where the Palestinian refugees could:

1. Go to the future Palestinian state;

2. Resettle elsewhere, including other Arab states; and

3. Be offered compensation.

Most tellingly though, and in a statement seldom ever heard from Arabs (or the West), Toameh then asked: "And what about Jewish refugees that were forced to flee Arab nations", suggesting that the issue of Jewish refugees must also be part of any future solution.

Focusing on the problem from Arab dictatorships and their insistence on inciting their people against Israel, Toameh says that we have a problem in the West in failing to believe what people tell us.

"If Hamas say they want to destroy you, you have no reason not to believe them. And if Ahmadinejad says he wants to destroy you, there's no need to start analyzing what he means by that. Stop fooling ourselves, and if anyone thinks that Hamas will ever recognize Israel's right to exist, you're also living in an illusion. Take it from their mouth directly?the PLO however is different ? they will tell you one thing in English and then another in Arabic."

On the subject of Arab dictatorship, Toameh says:

"Arab dictators survive by constantly blaming the misery of their people on Jews and the West and never accepting responsibility for anything. And by inciting against Israel and the West, you divert attention from problems at home. Why? Because you always need to make sure that your people are busy hating someone else. If they're not hating Israel and the West, they might wake up one day and come to you, and God forbid, demand reform and democracy."

The crux of the message is:

"If you keep inciting your people, then they ask 'well, why are we then making peace with the Jews?' We should be killing them as Hamas is saying'."

So what does Toameh think about Mahmoud Abbas, the PA President?

"Abbas is corrupt, discredited, weak and does not have much power. He is reliant on Israel, whose presence in the West Bank is ironically the only reason he has managed to stay in power."

And if Israel withdrew to the 1967 borders as demanded by Abbas and the PLO:

"Abbas will collapse and Hamas will take over the West Bank in less than a day. If I were Israel, I would not give Abbas one inch of land in the West Bank ? not for ideological reasons, but to avoid a situation where Hamas and others would take over the area."

When we asked him how best to defeat the extremists, radicals and terrorists like Hamas and Hizbullah, Toameh answered:

"The first and most important thing is you go to the Arab governments and tell them, "Stop the incitement that's feeding these radicals and driving people into their hands." Sometimes there's no difference between what is written about Israel and the Jews in the papers in Egypt and Saudi Arabia with what is written by Hamas."

Noting again the billions of dollars in aid provided by the US and EU to various Arab dictatorships, Toameh says: In other words, and even more clearly, they should tell them: "Stop calling for my death with my money."

I asked Toameh about what steps were needed to move forward. According to him, the answer is "very simple" and involves the following steps:

1) The Palestinians must start investing money (provided to them mainly by the US and EU) for the welfare of their people instead of incitement. Then dismantle all militias, establish a free press and democratic institutions, end the infighting, insist on good governance and speak with one voice so at least we know who we're talking to. And then, he suggests, they should go speak with Israel and see what it has to offer them.

2) Deal with the enemies of peace ? if you weaken the enemies of peace, like Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas, the moderates will rise and start speaking out. But as long as Iran is breathing down the neck and threatening, together with Hamas and Hizbullah, who are threatening to kill anyone who makes concessions, no moderate Arab will ever dare sign an agreement with Israel. Toameh says:

"I don't even rule out military action against any of them because this is the only language these guys understand. Talking to them and appeasing them is even more dangerous."

3) "We can't move forward when you don't have a clear, strong, reliable and credible partner on the Palestinian side" says Toameh. According to him: "Abbas is not a partner. He and Fayaad might be nice guys with good intentions ? but they cannot deliver. So the PA are not partners because they cannot deliver and Hamas are not partners because they don't want to be partners."

Addressing the issue of whether there was a clear and credible partner on the Israeli side, Toameh said:

"I don't care who is in government in Israel. There is a partner. And my partner is the Jewish people. Why? Because a majority of Jews have already accepted a two-state solution. I see a majority of Jews who don't care anymore about Gaza. I see a majority of Jews who want to disengage from the Palestinians. I see a majority of Jews over the last 15 years marching toward moderation and pragmatism. I don't know today of one Jewish mother that wants to send her son back to the streets of Ramallah or Gaza. I don't know of one Jew who wants to control the lives of the Palestinians and run their education and health system. Sadly though, while the Jewish public has been marching towards pragmatism and realism and moderation, on the Arab side the message remains no, no and no."

In an incredibly candid address, for me perhaps the most defining statement Toameh made was when I asked him: Would you rather continue living as a member of a minority in Israel or move to another Arab country? Toameh's response was simple, honest, and telling:

"Israel is a free and open democratic country. I enjoy living here and I would rather live as a second-class citizen in Israel, even though I'm not, than a first-class citizen in any Arab country."

In a world where it's all too easy to turn a blind eye to courage, Khaled Abu Toameh is a welcome breath of fresh air. A man, deeply committed to peace, who is seen as a traitor by many and who bravely continues to put his own life on the line each day, Toameh perhaps says it best himself:

"I'm not pro-Israel, I'm not pro-Palestinian and I'm not pro-American. But as a journalist, I'm pro the facts and pro the truth."