Israeli parliamentarian says nuclear Iran balances Israel

Yes, she is in the Israeli government
March 31, 2009

On one of her first days in the Knesset, Hanin Zoabi said she welcomed increased Iranian influence in Gazaalso called Israel an "aggressor state." Zoabi is the first woman elected in the Balad party which is Arab. As reported by The Bulletin:

“If this influence is supporting me, so I will not mind this influence. Even, I would ask for this influence ... The question is not whether there is an influence or not, the question whether this influence is supporting you, can support your demands or can go against your demands.”

Queried regarding Iran’s quest to manufacture nuclear weapons, she stated was that “It would [sic] be more supporting me to have a counter-power to Israel” and “I need something to balance its [Israel’s] power.”

She also spoke of Egypt and Jordan as being a threat to the Arabs of the Gaza Strip, intimating that they are scared of a free and democratic Palestinian state.

Ms. Zoabi was then asked if she felt worried due to the fact that Iran is getting close to acquiring a nuclear weapon and because she lives in close proximity to Jews. She replied, “No, I am not, I’m afraid from the nuclear Iran, I am more afraid from the Israeli nuclear [weapons].”

Israel is a democracy that allows free speech. Zoabi's case isn't unique. Many of the Arab party Knesset members speak out against Israel and advise the Palestinian Authority. In many other nations, this would be considered treason, but Israel allows it.

More from Zoabi:

Ms. Zoabi said that Israel was an aggressor state, and that only a situation similar to that which existed between the Soviet Union and United States in the form of the doctrine of “Mutually Ensured Destruction” would restrain Israel.

“It’s the balance of power. This is the only idea. Our only idea that it is more dangerous to the world, more dangerous to everyone, more dangerous to the Palestinians, to Israelis to have Israel as the only powerful state. I need something to balance its power because this balance of power will restrict the Israeli using of power. The Israeli violence of the army is an outcome of the Israel’s convenient feeling that no one will restrict her, that no Arab country will really declare a war against [Israel].”

She continued by saying “and another thing … I need a power which can make contrast to the Israeli power and it’s not for myself. It is not supporting me the fact that Israel would be the only state with a nuclear weapon. It’s more supporting me to have counter power to Israel.”

“I believe that [Israel] would respect its use of power if she’s afraid from others. The fact that she is not afraid from Arab countries, the fact that she is not afraid from a potential declaration of our Arab world to declare war against Israel, makes Israel more violent. You understand me. Sometimes I need power not in order to implement this power but in order to respect the other’s power. “

She was then asked if an Iranian bomb would lead to a nervous America and thus more U.S. pressure on Israel and if that would be good for her she replied “Exactly.”

Checkpoint violence

March 31, 2009

Two Palestinian students said Israeli border patrol guards beat them at a checkpoint on Saturday as they were making their way from Jericho to Jerusalem.

According to Alla and Iad Mazlum, relatives of the two, said the two were detained at the checkpoint along with other Palestinians.

Alla's father told Ynet that after identifying themselves, his son and Iad were taken into a room, where the officers ordered them to strip and "beat them for no reason."

... Border Guard said the officers offered a different version of the events, but added that the incident would be investigated.

If true, a travesty indeed.

Two-state solution older than Israel

March 31, 2009

The two-state solution isn't a new and sudden idea. In this American Thinker piece, Victor Sharpe traces the history of two states to pre-Israel. And it was a lot larger than anything in question now. In fact, present-day Jordan would've been included in Mandatory Palestine.

The Balfour Declaration issued by Lord Balfour, British Foreign Secretary, never envisaged that the Jordan River would be the eastern boundary of the reconstituted Jewish homeland.

The squabbling by the French and British colonial powers over the final frontiers of the Palestine Mandate had earlier led the London Times to urge Paris to accept sensible and rational frontiers in both the north and east of Jewish Palestine. As early as September 19th, 1919 it had thundered in an editorial:

"The Jordan will not do as the eastern frontier of Palestine ... Palestine must have a good military frontier east of Jordan ... Our duty as Mandatory is to make Jewish Palestine not a struggling state but one that is capable of vigorous and independent life ... "

Great read. Article here.

Thanks, Islam. No really.

March 31, 2009

If anyone can believe this, the Anglican church's Archbishop Rowan Williams thanked Muslims for bringing religion back to Great Britain. Muslim.net reported:

In an unprecedented move by a Western Christian leader, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has praised British Muslims for bringing back religion and ethics into public life.

"I think Islam has made a very significant contribution to getting a debate about religion into public life," Williams, the leader of the Anglican Church, told the Muslim News. "And I think it's very right that we should have these debates and discussions between Muslims and Christians and others in public."

Britain is home to more than 2 million Muslims.

This is the first time a Western Christian leader thanks Muslims for bringing back religion to a secular Western society.

Domestic violence against women in Gaza rises

But the war made them do it
March 27, 2009

More human rights violations from Hamas, this time against the usual target: Women. Ok, its men in Gaza not necessarily Hamas. However, there aren't many others left in Gaza besides Hamas after the civil war in 2007. Anyway, I digress:

The UN Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) in Gaza, local Palestinian NGOs and mental health professionals are reporting increased incidents of domestic violence and sexual assault against women in Gaza since the beginning of 2009.

An unpublished UNIFEM survey of male and female heads of 1,100 Gaza households conducted between 28 February and 3 March indicates there was an increase in violence against women during and after the 23-day war which ended on 18 January.

“According to our staff, and through clinical observation, there was increased violence against women and children during and after the war,” said public relations coordinator for the Gaza Community Mental Health Programme (GCMHP), Husam al-Nounou. “We can attribute this to the fact that most people were exposed to traumatic incidents during the war, and one way people react to stress is to become violent.”

So it was the war that caused men to beat or kill their wives? I guess we could find similar numbers in southern Israel where post traumatic stress from daily rockets attacks affects more than 50 percent of the population.

But don't blame the men. Although, if you read about how many women are treated in Islamic nations (and in America) you will find violence against women is rarely limited to war.

But al-Nounou insists.

“This war was extremely harsh, people felt insecure, vulnerable and unable to protect themselves, their children and their families; when people were trapped at home this increased the stress and anxiety,” said al-Nounou.

The center says child visits for divorced parents has doubled since the war (from 30 to 60). Bakr Turkmani, an attorney at the PCDCR, said "the number of divorce and separation cases has increased significantly since the war, and domestic violence played a role in the increase."

However, Turkmani must accompany the victims to the police station, otherwise their reports of abuse are not "accepted.” Why? Because compaints from women are not taken seriously. Therefore, most rapes and abuse are not reported in Islamic societies, according to organizations who work undercover with Muslim women.

But its the war:

Director of the women’s unit at the leading Palestinian human rights organisation, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR), Muna As-Shawa, said the centre had received reports of increased domestic violence and sexual assault during and after the hostilities. The unit had counselled over 600 women.

“During and after the war women struggled to fulfil their roles as mothers, and care for their children without electricity and water, while under attack,” said As-Shawa, “and if the husband died, sometimes the father-in-law took the inheritance and tried to take custody of the children.”

Presumably because the father in law was stressed too.

The full article is here.

Arab reporter shocked by anti-Semitism on U.S. campuses

March 27, 2009

Khaled Abu Toameh, a journalist for The Jerusalem Post, thought he was talking to "a Hamas spokesman or a would-be-suicide bomber" when speaking to some students and professors at American universities.

In an article titles, On Campus: The Pro-Palestinians' Real Agenda, Toameh writes that he "discovered that there is more sympathy for Hamas there than there is in Ramallah."

I was told, for instance, that Israel has no right to exist, that Israel’s “apartheid system” is worse than the one that existed in South Africa and that Operation Cast Lead was launched only because Hamas was beginning to show signs that it was interested in making peace and not because of the rockets that the Islamic movement was launching at Israeli communities.

I was also told that top Fatah operative Marwan Barghouti, who is serving five life terms in prison for masterminding terror attacks against Israeli civilians, was thrown behind bars simply because he was trying to promote peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

Furthermore, I was told that all the talk about financial corruption in the Palestinian Authority was “Zionist propaganda” and that Yasser Arafat had done wonderful things for his people, including the establishment of schools, hospitals and universities.

...When the self-designated “pro-Palestinian” lobbyists are unable to challenge the facts presented by a speaker, they resort to verbal abuse.

On one campus, for example, I was condemned as an “idiot” because I said that a majority of Palestinians voted for Hamas in the January 2006 election because they were fed up with financial corruption in the Palestinian Authority.

On another campus, I was dubbed as a “mouthpiece for the Zionists” because I said that Israel has a free media. There was another campus where someone told me that I was a ‘liar” because I said that Barghouti was sentenced to five life terms because of his role in terrorism.

And then there was the campus (in Chicago) where I was “greeted” with swastikas that were painted over posters promoting my talk. The perpetrators, of course, never showed up at my event because they would not be able to challenge someone who has been working in the field for nearly 30 years.

What struck me more than anything else was the fact that many of the people I met on the campuses supported Hamas and believed that it had the right to “resist the occupation” even if that meant blowing up children and women on a bus in downtown Jerusalem.

I never imagined that I would need police protection while speaking at a university in the U.S. I have been on many Palestinian campuses in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and I cannot recall one case where I felt intimidated or where someone shouted abuse at me.

Ironically, many of the Arabs and Muslims I met on the campuses were much more understanding and even welcomed my “even-handed analysis” of the Israeli-Arab conflict. After all, the views I voiced were not much different than those made by the leaderships both in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. These views include support for the two-state solution and the idea of coexistence between Jews and Arabs in this part of the world.

Their hatred for Israel and what it stands for has blinded them to a point where they no longer care about the real interests of the Palestinians, namely the need to end the anarchy and lawlessness, and to dismantle all the armed gangs that are responsible for the death of hundreds of innocent Palestinians over the past few years.

What is happening on the U.S. campuses is not about supporting the Palestinians as much as it is about promoting hatred for the Jewish state. It is not really about ending the “occupation” as much as it is about ending the existence of Israel.

Frightened? Read the whole thing here.

The danger of verbiage

March 27, 2009

Reporters, myself included, tend to fall into use of hastily created phrases that become part of our verbiage. Israeli analyst Barry Rubin points out some of the offending phrases in the following column:

It's Worse Than a Crime, It's Blundering Analysis
By Barry Rubin
March 21, 2009

The problem, as we see repeatedly, with much media coverage of issues involving Israel is the way the story is defined. There need not be any sense of bias by a reporter. Merely copying what other journalists do or from a specific ideological framework—not because reporters have preconceptions but because they make far less effort than in the past to balance them—leads to a conception of the story that is skewed.

This appears subtly in news stories but very openly in analysis pieces. Consider Steven Gutkin, “Analysis: Mideast peace up to interlocking deals,” March 16, 2009. The lead is innovative but a bit clunky: “The fate of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become a collection of moving parts that somehow need to come together in a single package: an Israel-Hamas prisoner swap, a truce for Gaza, and new governments on both sides of the firing line that could pursue peace.”

There is an attempt to present the issue as involving a number of aspects. Yet the article mixes two very different things: the situation between Israel and Hamas regarding Gaza, and prospects for a comprehensive peace. In a very real sense, these are not related or, to put it another way, they are inversely related.

The undercover assumption here is that the more peace there is between Israel and Hamas, the more likely a comprehensive peace becomes. In fact, the first would damage the second. The reason why should be obvious: Hamas is against any compromise peace but favors long-term, bloody struggle using terrorism. If Hamas survives as ruler in Gaza, and even more damaging if the Palestinian Authority and Hamas make a coalition, the chances for a comprehensive peace—low enough already—decline to zero. All-out war is guaranteed.

The article next discusses the ups-and-downs of Israel-Hamas negotiations over a prisoner exchange and continues: “Such a swap could have helped pave the way for a long-term Israel-Hamas truce deal that in turn might have opened the Gaza Strip's blockaded borders to allow for reconstruction after Israel's punishing offensive there.”

This can be summarized as: truce brings open borders brings reconstruction to repair damage caused by Israel.

The words “rockets” or the phrase cross-border attacks do not appear in the article. There is no hint that Hamas aggression is the cause of conflict, nor that the fighting started because Hamas unilaterally rejected the existing truce (which it wasn’t enforcing any way). Equally, there is no mention that the issue is not just opening the borders but what is allowed to go across them, nor that there is some problem with rebuilding things in order to benefit a radical and repressive Islamist regime to keep it in power.

Thus the story is this: Israel attacked and destroyed Gaza, let’s have a truce so it can be rebuilt.

And who do you think that places the blame on?

Then we turn to an equally important—and misexplained—subject: “Rebuilding Gaza will almost surely also depend on the success of current reconciliation talks in Egypt between Hamas militants and the Western-backed Fatah movement in efforts to reverse the results of a brief 2007 civil war that left rival Palestinian governments in Gaza and the West Bank.”

At least the reporter wrote “Western-backed” rather than moderate, though no hint is given that the civil war was started by Hamas. It was a rather one-sided civil war.

Yet next comes a truly terrible and profoundly misleading sentence: “Getting Hamas and Fatah to reconcile is also key to the success of U.S.-backed Mideast peace talks, as it's unlikely Israel would sign on to a deal if moderates are in control of just the West Bank while militants rule Gaza. The latest news from Egypt is that the Hamas-Fatah talks are not going well.”

Well, where to begin? While it is true that Israel understandably wants to sign a peace deal only with a united Palestinian side which can deliver on its pledges, putting Hamas and Fatah together will ensure no such deal can ever be signed.

There is no hint in this article of why the word “militants” is used to describe Hamas. A lot of people critique the media for not using the word “terrorists” I don’t agree. Terrorism is a tactic and Hamas uses terrorism yet that does not encompass the organization’s views or goals. I’d prefer to see such phrases as: radical Islamist or determined to wipe Israel off the map or repressive, or even genocidal.

But the implication is not that Hamas would block peace—much less that the Palestinian Authority would—for we are next told: “The biggest question now is whether Israel would sign a deal under any circumstances. Prime Minister-designate Benjamin Netanyahu, a political hawk, early Monday initialed a coalition agreement with the ultranationalist Yisrael Beitenu Party, increasing the likelihood that Israel's next government will spurn peace talks.”

“The bottom line is that the obstacles to Palestinian unity, open borders for Gaza and a peace deal that would usher in Palestinian statehood seem as formidable as ever.”
Note that there has not been one phrase or sentence to suggest that Hamas or Fatah or the PA are obstacles, only Israel. The Palestinians problem is just that they cannot unite, not that they oppose peace.

By the way, from a purely analytical point of view it should be pointed out that the reason PA-Hamas talks don’t go well is that both want to be in command, while Hamas is not going to give up control of Gaza. There isn’t going to be any Palestinian unity at all. You can bet on it.

And of course both Netanyahu and the Yisrael Beitenu party support a two-state solution.

But that one sentence is so important let me repeat it: “The bottom line is that the obstacles to Palestinian unity, open borders for Gaza and a peace deal that would usher in Palestinian statehood seem as formidable as ever.”

So this is what is allegedly needed for peace:
---Palestinian unity (in which Hamas would veto any peace);
--Open borders for Gaza (which would not only make Hamas rule permanent but would allow in items used for military purposes so Hamas could build up its army).
--“A peace deal that would usher in Palestinian statehood”

As always, there is no mention of a peace deal that would: end the conflict forever, bring full recognition of Israel, or provide Israel with security structures and guarantees.

This is the standard practice of AP and a lot of the media. What Israel wants in a peace deal is never ever mentioned.

The rest of the article discusses the prisoner exchange using such phrases as “Israel's crushing economic blockade of Gaza” and “bloody Israeli military offensive in Gaza.” No criticism of Hamas; no mention of rockets; no mention of repression and executions of oppositionists in Gaza.

And we are told: “Hamas is desperate to reopen the area's borders to allow in reconstruction supplies.” This makes Hamas seem humanitarian. But usually those who are desperate are ready to make concessions to get what they need. This is not true in Hamas’s case.

And finally, the ending: “If Hamas sticks by its refusal to recognize the Jewish state, as seems likely, a new right-wing Israeli government could use that as an excuse to shun a future Palestinian unity government, and perhaps even intensify the blockade of Gaza.”

Let us consider the full implications of this sentence: If Hamas says that it will never recognize Israel, will continue to attack Israel, does continue to attack Israel, teaches children to be terrorists, and has the goal of wiping Israel off the map, this merely gives Israelis of the “right-wing” an “excuse” to be mean to them.

Can people really be writing this kind of drivel, the slightest examination of which shows its absurdity? Can the AP and other news organs sneeringly reject any criticisms and assert that this is fair and balanced and good and accurate coverage?

Yes.

But is this fair, balanced, accurate, and accurate coverage?

No.

Shalit deal doesn't go through

Captive to remain in Hamas' hands for now
March 18, 2009

In the last week support has swelled for releasing hundreds of Palestinian prisoners with blood on their hands in exchange for kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. Shalit's parents and hundreds of supporters swarm around the tent erected by the prime minister's house in a show of support every day. It's been an emotional week for the nation.

Negotiations failed, however, and it looks like it will fall to the next administration to do anything about it. Here's a glimpse of what might in my article that first appeared here:

The next Israeli government is expected to resume targeted assassinations of Hamas terrorist leaders and cut off family visits to Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails in an effort to pressure Hamas to allow visits to kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and ease up on its demands for an exchange, sources close to the prime minister designate say.

These hardline tactics are likely elements of future attempts to free Shalit since negotiations will now most likely fall to Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, officials said.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert addressed the nation in a televised news conference to explain why Israel and Hamas failed to reach an agreement in Cairo.

“The government of Israel, so long as I stand at its head, will not agree to the dictates [of Hamas] as they were presented,” Olmert said. “Israel agreed to generous and far-reaching compromises. I approved these compromises, which meant releasing dozens of prisoners, some of them murderers.”

But in the end, the deal fell through over 100 prisoners in what could be Olmert’s last chance to leave office with a positive legacy after a stormy three years in office wracked with corruption scandals and two wars. Olmert’s special envoy Ofer Dekel and Israel Security Agency Chief Yuval Diskin blamed Hamas for its “unwillingness” to be flexible and for toughening its stance in recent days. The Israeli cabinet today voted to release to the public Hamas’ prisoner list.

Hamas official Osama Hamdan told Reuters on Tuesday he hoped Israel would resume talks soon.

“If the Israeli government sticks to its negative position, it will not be possible to clinch a deal, at least at the present time,” he said. “If Israel wants to reach a deal, it should come with a serious offer.”

Yoni Ben-Menachem, chief editor of Israel Radio, said the gap between what Hamas was asking and what Israel was willing to cede was too large to overcome, including 100 disputed prisoners accused of direct involvement in deadly terror attacks against Israelis.

“Hamas did not change its initial demand to release the hard-core terrorists, 450 prisoners,” he said at a media briefing in Jerusalem. “They have been very persistent about this demand for three years now.”

Ben-Menachem said that military aides close to Netanyahu believe the next prime minister will renew targeted killings of Hamas, update Israel’s security policy and “make new rules.”

“It’s a new government, it’s a different ball game. If you apply the right pressure ... they will change their position,” he said referring to Hamas. “With the right pressure and incentive ... you can do it.”

Another bargaining chip Israel has, Ben-Menachem pointed out, is the $5 billion in foreign aid promised to rebuild Gaza: “Hamas will want to start rebuilding Gaza. But to get equipment there, the passages must be opened. The passages cannot be opened without Shalit.”

Joshua Teitelbaum, a senior research fellow at the Moshe Dayan Center, agreed that Israel would likely adopt a tougher stance against Hamas under Netanyahu’s administration.

“Definitely there will be a bit of a harder line,” he told Newsmax. “They will resume targeted killings and generally turn up the pressure.”

Shalit was abducted on June 25, 2006 in cross-border raid near the Gaza border. Volunteers at a tent erected outside the prime minister’s residence have marked the 996 days since the kidnapping.

Shalit’s father, Noam, told reporters after Olmert’s speech that the government failed and begged leaders to do everything in its power to return his son.

“We’ve been dealing with these hopes, expectations and disappointments for 1,000 days,” he said. “What's important now is actions, and not hopes and expectations.”

In the last week, a groundswell of public support in favor of exchanging prisoners for Shalit peaked in Israel with 69 percent supporting handing over hundreds of prisoner for a single soldier’s life, according to a poll by the Dahaf Institute.

Hamas has prevented Israeli and international officials from visiting Shalit, but intelligence reports indicate that the soldier, now 22 years old, is still alive, in Gaza and is reportedly being held with explosives strapped to him.

Several Palestinians families in Gaza and the West Bank were disappointed when Israel and Hamas failed to agree on a swap. A few Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails were so confident they would be released, they had started to pack on Monday. Ben-Menachem expects Palestinians to apply some pressure to the Hamas government to get their family members in Israel prisons back, but not as forcefully as in Israel.

”We’re talking about a dictatorship in Gaza,” he said.

Report: British support of Palestinians funds hate textbooks

March 17, 2009

Here is how British taxpayer money is being spent: According to a study due out tomorrow, 100 million pounds of British taxpayer money has been spent promoting terrorism and encouraging young Palestinians to hate the West and to become suicide bombers.

The report by the TaxPayers’ Alliance alleges that British money given to the Palestinian Authority has been used to print textbooks that teach children “death is not bitter in the mouth of the believers" and that the Iraqi insurgency is a "brave resistance" against Britain and the U.S.

Palestinian TV shows and newspapers also call for terrorism and urge Palestinians to pick up weapons. For example, one TV presenter on the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation called Ayat al-Akhras, 18, the youngest Palestinian female suicide bomber, is a hero.

The Daily Mail quotes Timothy Kirkhope, leader of the Conservative delegation in the European Parliament, who said that no more aid money should be sent to the Palestinian territories unless monitored: "Money has been misspent in the area before and used to buy weapons. This time they may not be using it on bullets and guns, but they are using it to turn the minds of young people towards militancy.”

The report mocks claims that textbooks encouraging terrorism stopped being used in classrooms after the Annapolis conference of November 2007, in which both Palestinians and Israelis pledged to reach a peaceful two-state solution.

The following are examples from media or textbooks:

"Palestine is our dream. Brothers, Oh Fatah's loyal masses the land is thirsty [for martyr blood] […] Jaffa, Haifa and Acre are calling. Ramallah.. Nablus and Gaza: "When will we meet and break the chains? To Jerusalem march millions of Martyrs" - Ahmed Dughmus, 8 January 2008

“It doesn't mean that we don't want the 1948 borders [all of Israel], but in our current political program, we [PA] say we want a state on the 1967 borders […] We [Palestinians] were created on this land in order to liberate it, to live on it, to continue as people of Ribat [Religious war]. We are on the land of Ribat and must remain [on it] until Resurrection.” - Najat Abu Bakr, Member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, 26 February 2008

“There are diseases like smallpox, that can be eradicated, but the disease that was inflicted on the Palestinian people and the Arab nation in general, that's the Jewish disease, the Zionist disease, which is a cancerous disease, that started with occupying and taking over lands in 1904 […] Those (Jews), from 1904 to 1947, reached 605,000. That’s the cancer that spreads over the lands.” - Adnan Ayash, History Professor, 5 June 2008

Saudi gang-rape victim gets punished for committing 'adultery'

March 16, 2009

Another dispatch from the religion of peace: A Saudi judge sentenced a pregnant gang-rape victim to 100 lashes for committing adultery even though she isn't married, the Daily Mail reported.

The judge ordered that the woman be jailed for a year and receive 100 lashes, but the lashes could wait until after she delivered the baby, he ruled.

Where's all the women's rights groups to speak up for this woman whose testimony in Islamic court counts as one-fourth that of a man?

The woman, 23, became pregnant from the rape. She was reportedly assaulted after accepting a ride from a man. It is illegal in Saudi Arabia for a woman to be with a man unless he is a relative.

The man took her to a house where she was attacked by him and four of his friends throughout the night. The judge ruled that she she had committed adultery despite not being married.
She later discovered she was pregnant and tried to get an abortion.

The Saudi Gazette reported that she eventually 'confessed' to having 'forced intercourse' with her attackers.

Women have very few rights in Saudi Arabia. They are not allowed to drive and are banned from going out in public in the company of men other than male relatives.

Terror attack in Jordan Valley leaves two cops dead

March 16, 2009

In the last two weeks, two terror attacks have created an eerie reflection in Israel. After each attack, every Israeli wonders if this will be the one to set off the next intifada (uprising). Two weeks ago, a bulldozer driver went after a police car in Jerusalem. he was shot dead before he did any damage.

The story ended differently Sunday night. Last night two Israeli policemen were shot and killed in the West Bank, the first Israeli deaths in that area in nearly a year, on a road that both Israelis and Palestinians frequent Highway 90 is used by Israelis as well as Palestinians to cut through to the Sea of Galilee in the North and the Dead Sea in the South.

The police officers were shot a close range in the valley between Jericho and Jordan.

Israeli police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld said that the two officers were on patrol near the Jewish town of Massua. The small Jewish community is in an agricultural area of the Jordan Valley, north of Jericho and near the Jordanian border.

Police are searching for the killers. The last Israeli deaths in the West Bank occurred on April 25 last year, when two security guards at an industrial park near the city of Tulkarm were shot dead.

More dismal thoughts on the new admin’s Israel tack

Obama has, in essence, turned on Israel
March 16 2009

In a New York Post editorial, John Bolton, the former U.N. Ambassador, notes how the Obama administration’s pressure on Israel to find a solution to the Israeli-Arab dispute is another sign of America’s slow abandonment of the Jewish state.

Bolton explains why:

Almost invariably, Israel is the loser -- because Israel is the party most dependent on the United States, most subject to U.S. pressure and most susceptible to the inevitable chorus of received wisdom from Western diplomats, media and the intelligentsia demanding concessions. When pressure must be applied to make compromises, it's always easier to pressure the more reasonable side.

How will diplomatic pressure work to change Hamas or Hezbollah, where even military force has so far failed? If anything, one can predict coming pressure on Israel to acknowledge the legitimacy of these two terrorist groups, and to negotiate with them as equals. ...

Why would America subject a close ally to this dynamic, playing with the security of an unvarying supporter in world affairs? For America, Israel's intelligence-sharing, military cooperation and significant bilateral economic ties, among many others, are important national-security assets that should not lightly be put at risk.

The only understandable answer is that the Obama administration believes that Israel is as much or more of a problem as it is an ally, at least until Israel's disagreements with its neighbors are resolved. Instead of seeing Israel as a national-security asset, the administration likely sees a relationship complicating its broader policy of diplomatic 'outreach.'

Defining 'moderate' in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict

March 15, 2009

Mustafa Barghouthi, secretary general of the Palestinian National Initiative and a member of the Palestinian Legislative Council, is considered a moderate in the Palestinian world by the West. His column in Friday's Atlanta Journal and Constitution defines 'moderate' for us as he asks for America's help:

The administration can help level the playing field by taking three steps. First, insist Israel immediately stop all settlement activity. Second, reject Israel’s embrace of apartheid. One set of laws for Jewish settlers and another for Palestinians is unacceptable. Third, accept our democratic choice.

The democratic choice mentioned here is the election of Hamas:

Despite the Obama administration’s reluctance to deal with the government Palestinians elected, a breath of fresh air is clearly blowing through Washington. And just in time....

Barghouthi also argues that American principles and interests should make them pro-Palestinian. He doesn't mention any requirements from the Palestinians, for example recognizing Israel's right to exist and cessation of terror.

I am convinced that an evenhanded mediator such as former Sen. George Mitchell will soon find that we are not the recalcitrant party. He will uphold American principles and serve American interests if he has the courage to say so. And let us hope that more American officials go see for themselves the harm Israel is causing Palestinians — and long-term Israeli interests — with American tax dollars.

Chas Freeman controversy sheds light on DC Israel climate

March 15, 2009

By now most everyone knows the former Ambassador Charles "Chas" Freeman has withdrawn his appointment to be the Obama admin's top intelligence analyst. If you heard anything about his controversial nomination and favorable views toward Saudi Arabia and the Tianemen Square massacre, it was no thanks to the mainstream media. Instead conservative and Jewish bloggers are credited with -- or blamed for -- his bowing out. Freeman himself lashed out at the "pro-Israel lobby" in DC for wrecking his nomination.

Mainstream media reported on Freeman's angry withdrawal, but very little of the controversy itself. Caroline Glick, a conservative columnist for The Jerusalem Post, writes about why the entire episode, from his apointment to withdrawal, is disturbing to American intelligence and to Israel.

Glick notes that the main controversy "revolved around his financial and political ties to potential and actual US adversaries" and not his views on Israel, which were prediminantly negative.

Whatever the reason for his resignation, it is a good thing that Freeman was forced to resign. It is a very good thing that the man writing the US's National Intelligence Estimates and briefing the president on intelligence matters is not a hired gun for the Saudi and Chinese governments who believes that Jewish Americans have no right to participate in public debate about US foreign policy. But while his appointment was foiled, the fact that a man like Freeman was even considered for the post tells us two deeply disturbing things about the climate in Washington these days.

First and foremost, Freeman's appointment gives us disconcerting information about how the Obama administration intends to relate to intelligence. Freeman was appointed by Adm. Dennis Blair, President Barack Obama's director of national intelligence. Blair stood by Freeman's appointment even after information became known about his financial ties to foreign governments and his extreme views on Israel and American Jews were exposed. Blair repeatedly extolled Freeman for his willingness to stake out unpopular positions.

Blair ... defended Freeman ...(and) the Islamic Republic. He claimed that just because Iran is enriching uranium, there is no reason to believe that the mullahs are interested in building a bomb. That is, America's top intelligence officer is willing to take Iran's word on everything.

On the other hand, he isn't willing to take Israel's word on anything. Although he acknowledged that his nonchalant assessment of Iran was based on the same information as Israel's dire assessment of Iran, Blair scoffed at Israel's views, claiming that they are colored by the Jewish state's fears. In his words, "The Israelis are far more concerned about it, and they take more of a worst-case approach to these things from their point of view." ...

THE SECOND disturbing development exposed by Freeman's appointment is the emergence of a very committed and powerful anti-Israel lobby in Washington. In the past, while anti-Israel politicians, policy-makers and opinion-shapers were accepted in Washington, they would not have felt comfortable brandishing their anti-Israel positions as a qualifying credential for high position. Freeman's appointment shows that this is no longer the case. ...

From September 11, to Russia's invasion of Georgia, from Hamas's victory in the 2006 Palestinian elections to the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that claimed Iran ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003, it is clear that in recent years, the US intelligence community has regularly substituted wishful thinking for true analysis. Freeman's appointment and the emergence of the anti-Israel lobby as a major force in Washington policy circles show that turning the US away from Israel has become a key component of that wishful thinking.

But, as they say in the world of intelligence, forewarned is forearmed.

Read it all here.

The treachery of driving in Israel

March 15, 2009

Okay, so it isn't just me who experiences new depths of road rage and utter shock on Israeli roads. I've often wondered if there is a correlation between erratic driving and Israel's constant fight for existence. Emma Shevah, writing in the Independent Minds, describes perfectly the situation on the roads and even a link to terrorism in a column. Here are some highlights or read the entire article here. I've always wanted to write about Israeli drivers, but Emma captures the roadway experience/nightmare to a tee. I'll highlight some of the lines that elicited verbal responses:

Israelis are notorious drivers. There's something to be said about the collective character of a nation and the way those attributes are transferred into driving habits. If you think Israelis are rude, impatient, arrogant, tetchy and care only about their own progress in life (and I guarantee you won't be the only one), you should witness the way they drive. ...

The art of queuing has yet to grace these shores: in public toilets or to get on buses, it's a question of push right on in regardless of who may have been before you or how old and weak they are. On the roads it's no different: imagine a junction with a slip road to the right, a stream of cars lining up for two hundred yards to take it, driving slowly, in lane. Then imagine a car sailing past the entire line and ramming in between two cars at the front. Cheeky bastard, right? Now imagine lots of cars doing it, one after the other in a constant effrontery to the done thing. You feel foolish, a sucker, nudging forward politely like that, driving pettily close to the car in front so they can't ram in front of you as you get closer to the turning, but they do, and they'd go into you unless you braked.

There are no grid boxes at junctions so even when there is no forward access, drivers care about nothing other than their own progress through the lights, so they block the entire junction and haughtily ignore the furious beeps of the drivers who can't get past.

The way to get someone out of the fast lane on a motorway is to drive right up to their bumper at 120km an hour and flash your lights, and if they don't move, overtake on the inside and zigzag in and out of the other lanes, in between cars that are too close to each other already, missing them by millimeters. Last week I crossed a set of lights in town only to see a car in front of me, in my (single) lane, reversing. He reversed all the way down the hill backwards, on the wrong side of the road, with me following him open-mouthed. One house near the kids' school has an unfortunate driveway: in order to get out they have to reverse onto a busy roundabout, and I've seen them do it without the slightest hint of caution. I've seen a policeman driving whilst speaking on his mobile phone when a civilian would be fined 1000 shekels for the same crime. I had a police van (not in emergency mode) drive right up behind me, flashing me to move over, but I couldn't change lanes as a car was parallel to me, so the only thing I could do was drive above the speed limit , overtake the other car, and let the police van pass. Forced over the speed limit by the police! I could go on and on and on. Sometimes it's laughable but in reality, driving here is not a pleasant experience - it's fraught with tension and aggression, and worst of all, it makes you drive like a cheeky bastard too.

A recent study by PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA) showed that terror attacks influenced driving behaviour in Israel: following a terror attack there was a 'temporary lull in light accidents followed by a 35% spike in fatal accidents on Israeli roads 3 days after the attack'. The results were based on analyses of road accidents and terror attacks between January 2001 and June 2002, when the intifada was taking place, and whereas previous studies had focused on subjective reports of post-traumatic stress, the report concluded that there was a "population level behavioural response to violent terror attacks".

I have no doubt that the stress of living in this country - not only in relation to terror attacks but the general stresses of not earning enough money for a decent day's work (The Jerusalem Post recently reported that 49% of Israelis don't earn enough to cover the basic monthly expenses); of the persistent threat of survival as a nation state and as individuals on the dangerous streets; of living in a boiling pot of political, religious and economic tensions, and other factors, like the heat of the summer and diabolical road surfaces, all contribute to the atrocious driving habits and exceptionally high accident rates. But also, to a significant extent, the problems on the roads have to do with a basic lack of consideration for other drivers, an absence of civility and manners (I sound like my mother) and driving recklessly and illegally because you bloody well feel like it and who the hell are you anyway? Unlike some of the factors involved, those minor details are things that every single driver on Israeli roads could do something to improve on a daily basis.

Ugh. I'm frustrated just reading about it!

The Score is no Longer ‘Love’

Sweden’s reception of Israeli tennis team full of violence and hate
March 11, 2009

Tennis isn’t what it used to be. And neither is anti-Semitism. Both have undergone a revolution in the Scandinavian country of Sweden where Israel’s tennis team was greeted with protests fit for an evil tyrant or aggressor.

Once upon a time politics stayed out of sports. But for Israel, that ended in a fury in Munich when Palestinian terrorists executed 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team in 1972. Perhaps it is that memory which, for Israelis, makes the Swedish riots last weekend even more poignant when the Israeli Davis Cup team played its match.

The riots come just a few weeks after Israeli tennis player Shahar Pe’er was barred from the Dubai Open by the United Arab Emirates. And just before that, Sweden recommended that an Israeli tae kwondo delegation -- 45 athletes and five coaches on the way to the Swedish championship -- stay home due to Muslim threats against them. They did.

The tennis team didn’t. In the supposed bucolic, neutral country of Sweden, up to 10,000 protestors and masked rioters gave tennis a new face. The protest was dangerous enough that the city banned spectators from the game in Malmo, Sweden’s third largest city with a large Musilm population, saying it could not guarantee the Israeli players‘ safety. The game was played to about 400 media representatives, sponsors and guests in attendance, according to reports. But no fans.

The masked rioters threw paint bottles, stones and firecrackers at police in riot squad vans and on horseback. One of the demonstrators climbed onto a police van and stomped on its flashing lights, smashing them to bits.

“We are ... anarchists who want to protest against the fact that there are this many police officers to protect the representatives of a repressive occupying force that massacred so many innocent people in Gaza,“ a demonstrator named Jan told AFP.

The demonstration was to protest against Israel's recent offensive in Gaza.

For Israel athletes who played the Swedish team, it was all a bit surreal playing to an empty stadium. Israel player Andy Ram described the intense security surrounding the team from the Jewish state, where it is more higher than it was in Dubai.

“At any given moment, we are surrounded by police vehicles, undercover police officers, and anti-terror forces,” Ram wrote in a Ynet editorial. “Every morning, they take us from the hotel to the stadium via another route, through an underground parking lot, with part of the ride being undertaken in armored vehicles. Since we landed here, almost a week ago, we left the hotel only three times.”

He continues: “The feelings within the Israel team are very grim. All the innocence that prompted us to play tennis has disappeared, and this match, which was supposed to be a beautiful moment of sports, has become completely worthless. Nothing here is reminiscent of the Davis Cup; what we have is a war atmosphere, tension, and the feeling that something very bad may happen at any moment.”

Yes, I know sports these days is rarely for the love of the game any more. Fat contracts and glamorous lifestyles add to the allure. But being whisked around by security and playing to empty stands surely curtails the glamor.

If the vitriol and protests continue, its safe to assume that other cities with large Muslim populations will follow suit. This could lead to a ban on Israeli athletes and teams in the name of national security in other countries.

The protests, isolated as they may seem now, could lead to the isolation of Israel, first through its sports.

Fatah party asking West for more money

The $600 million from the US apparently wasn't enough
March 6, 2009

The Palestinian Authority is asking US and European taxpayers to fund a new television station, run by Fatah, in order to counter its rival party Hamas. This is in addition to the millions of dollars promised to the PA and the rebuild Gaza at a donor conference in Sharm el-Sheikh earlier this week. The US promised $900 million: $300 million to go to Gaza rebuilding and $600 million to the PA.

Israeli Arab reporter Khaled Abu Tomeh questions this new move in this article. Here are some excerpts where he makes some astonishing points:

Abbas and his Fatah companions want to tell the Palestinians through the new TV station how bad Hamas is. They want to tell the Palestinians that Hamas is a “dark and bloody militia that seized power over the Gaza Strip through violence.” They want to send out the message that Hamas is acting as an agent of the Iranians, whose primary goal is to undermine all “moderate” Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East.

Moreover, Fatah wants to tell the Palestinians (and whoever wants to listen) that Hamas is largely responsible for their miseries and for the fact that the Gaza Strip has been turned into an Islamic “emirate” and a center for jihadists and suicide bombers.

In which case, the question that pops up is: So why are Abbas and his Fatah lieutenants chasing Hamas and literally begging the Islamist movement to agree to the formation of a “unity government” with them? If the purpose of the new TV station is to discredit Hamas and portray it as a bloodthirsty terrorist movement, so why are Fatah representatives sitting with their Hamas counterparts in Cairo, where they are talking about joining forces and distributing ministerial portfolios?

For the past three years, Fatah’s media outlets have done almost everything to try and discredit Hamas in the eyes of the Palestinian public, but so far with little success. Hamas members and leaders have been accused by Fatah of rape, embezzlement, murder, kidnappings and various other crimes.

Yet there is another problem with the Fatah-controlled media and it’s related this time to Israel.

While targeting Hamas, the Fatah newspapers, radio and TV stations and Web sites have also been inciting against their peace partner, Israel, and against the US and Europe - the same parties that are financing Fatah and supplying it with weapons. Ironically, it is this type of incitement that drives more Palestinians into the open arms of Hamas.

Why? Because if you are telling your people day and night how bad and evil Israel is, your people will then say that this means that Hamas is right - you can’t make peace with Israel or any Jew. And if you are telling your people (through your media) that the Israelis are war criminals and colonialists and land thieves and cowards and vampires and children killers and are basically responsible for all the miseries of the Palestinians, what will the people think of Mahmoud Abbas when they see him meeting with any Israeli? They will certainly spit in his face and ask him, “Why are you talking to these Jews? You yourself have told us how bad and evil they are.”

The last thing the international community needs to do is to fund yet another Palestinian media outlet that promotes hatred, violence and anti-Western sentiments. The new Fatah TV station is not going to be much different than the other Fatah-run media organizations. If anything, it will help raise another regeneration of Palestinians on hatred and glorification of suicide bombers.

First Terror Attack of 2009 Rattles Nerves in Jerusalem

March 5, 2009

Article first published here.

In the first incident of its kind this year, a bulldozer driver sped down a busy Jerusalem street on Thursday afternoon near the city’s largest mall and rammed a police car, sending it sailing into the air and flipping over twice with two officers inside.

The incident comes the day after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in the country speaking with both Israeli and Palestinian leaders about preconditions for a peace agreement.

The bulldozer driver, who had an open Koran in the vehicle according to police, was shot by police officer who had just arrived at the scene. He later died in the hospital. The two officers were slightly wounded, according to a police spokesman.

“We’re 100 percent sure it was an intended terror attack carried out by an Arab or a Palestinian from East Jerusalem based on what we found at the scene and the life-threatening situation it was,” Israel Police Spokesman Micky Rosenfeld tells Newsmax.

The driver had no identification on him so police weren’t certain if he was a Jerusalem resident or a resident of the Palestinian territories with a work permit for Jerusalem. No one claimed responsibility for the attack. Rosenfeld said police were investigating which nearby construction site he was working at the time.

The attack, the first this year in Jerusalem, underscored the fragile relations in the mixed Israeli capital where Arabs and Jews mingle on the job and socially. This was the fourth bulldozer attack in the last year.

Rosenfeld said police had no specific warning or information about an impending terror attack, but since the country’s security forces have gone on high alert now especially ahead of next week’s Purim holiday.

Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat arrived on the scene shortly after the attack. This is the first attack in the city since he was elected.

“The attack targeted us for no reason other than the fact that we live in Jerusalem. This was an attack carried out exclusively for the purpose of harming civilians,” he said.

Improved rockets launched at Israel

March 1, 2009

Palestinians have managed to use during the cease-fire to improve their rockets. One of two improved Kassam rockets were launched and smashed into an Ashkelon school, luckily on Saturday, in an attack that tore through the school and destroyed classrooms.

In all, seven rockets were launched over the weekend, most hitting open fields. Police said terrorists in Gaza assembled the rockets that struck Ashkelon using an improvised technique to make them more powerful.

The two rockets had a 170-mm. diameter, which allowed for a greater amount of explosives to be packed inside.

"These are improved Kassams, more powerful than standard Kassams. They have a longer range and pack a bigger punch," a police source told The Jerusalem Post.