Defining Moral and Courageous Leadership in Perilous Times

2009-01-30T09:48:00.003-05:00

2009-01-30T09:48:00.001-05:00

2009-01-30T09:47:00.001-05:00

2009-01-30T09:46:00.003-05:00

2009-01-30T09:46:00.001-05:00

2009-01-30T09:44:00.001-05:00

2009-01-30T09:43:00.001-05:00

2009-01-30T09:42:00.001-05:00

2009-01-30T09:40:00.000-05:00

Hell on Earth...Hamas Terrorists Supporters in Chicago at Israeli Consulate, 2 January 2009

2009-01-03T13:04:00.004-05:00

NO ON 2-STATE

2008-12-19T12:52:00.002-05:00

Perspective on the Expulsion from Beit HaShalom in Chevron...

2008-12-05T14:06:00.002-05:00

Friday, 5 December 2008
Eric J. Voogd

As I watch the situation unfold in Israel at this time regarding the expulsion of members of the Jewish community from Beit HaShalom in Chevron and the fallout of such actions, I am filled with righteous indignation over the actions of this current government of Olmert/Lvini and those in the HCJ responsible for this crisis that rips apart the internal fabric of Jewish society. What is next? The complete expulsion of 200,000 members of the Jewish community from Judea and Samaria?!? BTW, Judea and Samria belong to Israel....Reduction of Israel to the quarter size of a postage stamp?!? Give the Golan Heights to Syria?!? The continued policy of releasing terrorists to attempt to bring about pretentious "reconciliation", a false premise of peace with individuals who seek nothing but the destruction of Israel's existence is so contemptuous. Entertaining dictators of countries who seek the wanton destruction of Israel...what has been learned since the time of the bloody shameful Oslo Peace Accords? ANYTHING?!?

So as Israel and the world wide Jewish community continue mourning the loss of members of the Chabad Center in Mumbai, the Israeli government decides to act with force against members of their own community. Today, as the Jewish community around the world prepares for Shabbat, this service should be a time of continued mourning for the loss of the innocent lives of Rabbi Gabi, his wife Rivki and others in the Chabad Center in Mumbai AND a time of national mourning for the expulsion of the Jewish community from the Peace House by the Israeli government. Those responsible at the highest levels in the Israeli government should not be able to go to bed at night and sleep in peace regarding their decision.

The current Israeli government under the leadership of Olmert/Livni, et al is arrogant and compromised in its conduct. The actions of this government are to the detriment of Israeli national security with a negative impact on public policy and national security implications for the future of the Jewish Homeland. Israel's enemies in the international community are cheering this decision of the Israeli government and mocking the Israeli people. New terrorist plots to destroy the innocent lives of the Jewish community in Israel and throughout the international community are an unending reality.

Not withstanding this absolute position of weakness illustrated by the leadership of the current Israeli government, the members of the Knesset and members of the HCJ, have no idea regarding the long term consequences of their actions, how this affects Israel's standing in the international community. Whenever Israel has appeared weak in the eyes of the international community, incidents of anti-Semitism have dramatically increased during such times, which endangers members of the Jewish community world wide. Anti-Semitism is at the highest levels now since the time of the Shoah.

Anyone is able to enter a synagogue and go through motions on Shabbat; however, lip service to G-d without genuine belief in G-d combined with a disregard and/or disdain for the commandments of the Torah is most problematic. Whether a member of the Israeli government or not, no individual is able to enter a synagogue in good conscience before G-d, with disrespect for G-d and the clearly defined commandments of the Torah. Sadly, as a rabbi spoke on Yom Kippur in the Chicago area, he noted that a recent poll in the United States revealed that only 30% of the Jewish community in the United States believes with absolute certainty in the existence of G-d.

The actions by members of the Israeli Knesset and HCJ to circumvent legal procedures and reasonable, fair, honest adjudication of this legal matter are inherently evil. The expulsion of Jews by Jews is evil to the core. All members of the Israeli Knesset and the HCJ will ultimately answer to G-d for their actions and be held fully accountable in all respects. These members of government appear to have no fear of G-d for their actions.

A well known and often quoted phrase by members of the legal community comes from the words of St. Thomas Aquinas:

"Lex malla, lex nulla" meaning "A bad law is no law at all."

Circumvention of law and blatant disregard for the rule of law are grave actions when members of government act with impunity.

In the words of Elie Wiesel..."There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest."

We cannot allow ourselves to be paralyzed by fear, thus silencing our voices to communicate the absolute legal atrocity of the expulsion of Jewish brothers and sisters and their families.

In the words of Edmund Burke..."The great difference between the real leader and the pretender is that the one sees into the future, while the other regards only the present; the one lives by the day, and acts upon expediency; the other acts on enduring principles and for the immortality."

Israel stands at a crucial cross road in a time, where now more than ever before in history, strong national leadership and bold voices in the Knesset are imperative to represent the interests of the Jewish Homeland and preserve the national security of her people and Eretz Yisrael. The challenges faced by Israel in the international community are significant, where Israel's existence is threatened by Ahmadinejad and the proxy wars waged by her enemies.

I recently saw a speech by General Moshe Ya'alon, IDF Former Chief of Staff, when he addressed the To Protect Our Heritage Political Action Committee in Chicago. His words regarding the nature of crises and the levels of complexity serve as a warning to the weak leadership of the current government in Israel. Earlier this year during a meeting I attended at the Embassy of Israel in Washington, DC with Israeli Ambassador to the United States H.E. Sallai Meridor, Meridor also addressed these crises faced by the world wide Jewish community and Israel. The handwriting was clearly on the wall before the events of Kristall Nacht...today, the handwriting on the wall is so clear, yet individuals are so blind and naive...

So at a time when Israel must contend with the anti-Semitic/anti-Israel/a

nti-Zionist driven forces of the UN, the implicit and explicit anti-Semitic/anti-Israel/anti-Zionist policies of the Muslim appeasing European Union and international media onslaught to deligitimize Israel, the brokering of "peace" deals by the West with Saudi Arabia and other actors, who have no respect for Israel, create a set of conditions that have potential to create a perfect storm. Hence, the internal crises in the current Israeli government serve to distract the members of the Knesset from taking resolute measures to address these significant external crises threatening Israel's right of sovereignty and right of existence.

We desperately require a generation of new leadership in Israel to stand up and act with both fear and humility before G-d. The righteous among the Jewish community cannot be silent regarding the current state of affairs in Israel; the voices of the righteous among the Jewish community must be heard around the world. In the words of of 19th century Zionist and British Parliamentarian William Wilberforce: "No matter how loud you shout, you cannot drown out the voice of the people!" In this spirit, I encourage everyone to make their voices be heard...

May the G-d of Israel be merciful to Israel during this time where members of the Israeli government have promoted and enacted policies that go against the heart of the Jewish Homeland and violate the covenant that G-d has with Israel. May G-d direct the steps of new Israeli leaders to rise to the challenge and be a voice of reason for the Jewish Homeland. May G-d grant these new leaders the courage and strength of Joshua, so that they are able to stand strong and boldly confront the enemies of Israel. May these leaders understand the context of Psalm 121 and Deuteronomy 33:27, because the G-d of Israel will not let the Jewish Homeland be destroyed by her enemies, despite the forces of the darkest evil that surround Israel at this time in the 21st century, where Israel is currently preparing options for taking out the nuclear capacity of Iran.

Shabbat Shalom,

Eric J. Voogd

עם ישראל חי

Mumbai-Based Rabbi and Wife Killed in Terrorist Attacks

2008-11-28T11:52:00.001-05:00

By Joshua Runyan and Motti Seligson
Nov 28, 2008 11:00 AM

Rabbi Gavriel and Rivka Holtzberg, the beloved directors of Chabad-Lubavitch of Mumbai, were killed during one of the worst terrorist attacks to strike India in recent memory.

Jewish communities around the world reacted with shock to the loss of the couple, who were killed Thursday at their Chabad House during an apparent standoff between Indian military forces and terrorists.

Their toddler son, Moshe, managed to escape with his nanny some hours before Indian commandos stormed their building, known as the Nariman House, in the popular touristy neighborhood of Colaba. The Associated Press reported that the boy was unharmed, but was wearing blood-soaked pants.

"Gabi and Rivky Holtzberg made the ultimate sacrifice," said Rabbi Moshe Kotlarsky, vice chairman of Merkos L'Inyonei Chinuch, the educational arm of Chabad-Lubavitch. "As emissaries to Mumbai, Gabi and Rivky gave up the comforts of the West in order to spread Jewish pride in a corner of the world that was a frequent stop for throngs of Israeli tourists. Their Chabad House was popular among the local community, as well as with visiting businesspeople.

"For five years, they ran a synagogue and Torah classes, and helped people dealing with drug addiction and poverty," continued the statement. "Their selfless love will live on with all the people they touched. We will continue the work they started."

One of the Mumbai terrorists is seen in a closed-circuit television image at a central train station Wednesday night.

The Holtzbergs arrived in Mumbai in 2003 to serve the small local Jewish community, visiting businesspeople and the throngs of tourists, many of them Israeli, who annually travel to the seaside city.

Gavriel Holtzberg, 29, was born in Israel and moved to the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn, N.Y., with his parents when he was nine. A prodigious student, Holtzberg was a two-time champion in a competition of memorizing the Mishnah, a compendium of rabbinical enactments redacted in the second century C.E.

He studied at yeshivas in New York and Argentina, and as a rabbinical student served communities in Thailand and China under the Summer Rabbinical Visitation Program run by Merkos L’Inyonei Chinuch, the educational arm of Chabad-Lubavitch.

His 28-year-old wife, born Rivkah Rosenberg, is a native of Afula, Israel. Chayki Rosenberg described her sister as dedicated to helping Jews.

She “gives lots of classes for women at the Chabad House,” Rosenberg told The Jerusalem Post.

Friends described her as always having a positive outlook and a kind word for everyone.

Two years ago, the Holtzbergs raised funds to purchas the current location of the Chabad House, a five-story building in Mumbai’s Colaba market area known as Narimon House. A trained ritual circumciser and slaughterer, the rabbi also conducts weddings for local Jewish couples in addition to teaching Torah classes and visiting with tourists.

His last known phone call was to the Israeli Consulate to report that gunmen were in his house. In the middle of the conversation, the line went dead.

The Holtzbergs joined the more than 125 people who were killed in the Wednesday night through Friday attacks, which saw dozens of suspected Islamic terrorists come ashore in Mumbai near the Gateway of India monument. The terrorists, carrying assault rifles and grenades, quickly fanned out to a central train station, the Chabad House and other tourist locations, including several popular hotels.

According to security services, the Chabad House was a pre-selected target.

Rivkah Holtzberg cuts the ribbon at the grand opening of a Jewish ritual bath in Mumbai.

A team of 15 Chabad-Lubavitch representatives in California, New York, Washington, Israel, India and Bangkok worked the phones throughout the crisis, spending a long, sleepless night awaiting any morsel of information and working to confirm at-times conflicting reports from the field. Hundreds of thousands of Jews around the world prayed for the Holtzbergs, saying Psalms in their merit.

The local police in Mumbai and the highest reaches of the Indian government got involved, but military assault teams first concentrated their efforts on the Taj Mahal and Oberoi hotels, where hundreds of foreign tourists were either holed up or being held hostage. When they finally entered the Chabad House on Friday, they found that the worst had occured.

Rivky Holtzberg's parents in Israel, Rabbi Shimon and Yehudit Rosenberg, were planning to travel to Mumbai to bring their now-orphaned grandson home to family.

To contribute to a fund established to aid relief efforts in Mumbai, go to www.ChabadIndia.org.

This story will be updated as new information becomes available.

A press comference will be given by Rabbi Yehuda Krinsky, chairman of the Educational and Social Services arms of the Chabad-Lubavitch Movement at 12:30pm at the Jewish Children's Museum, 792 Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn, NY.

"Say It Ain't So Joe..."

2008-10-03T23:09:00.004-04:00

Joe Biden's 14 Lies

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted “the exact same way” as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOT VOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, “Drill we must.” But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to “raping” the Outer Continental Shelf.”

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it’s passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he’s always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coal plants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain’s record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes on people's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offset any tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack is false

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: When Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was “dead wrong on Iraq”, because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where they John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn’t see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn’t meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of “part of a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20.”

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama, Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

MUSE WITH INDY JANE

IITV Daily News / Sept. 28, 2008

2008-09-29T16:04:00.001-04:00

President Peres greetings for the Jewish New Year

2008-09-26T15:13:00.004-04:00

Greetings by the President of the State of Israel, Mr. Shimon Peres, to the Jewish People, on the occasion of the Jewish New Year 5769

A country as small in size as Israel has little alternative but to seek greatness in other facets. It must explore strength of spirit, depth of faith, the bid for innovation and the hidden promise of science.

Since its inception, 60 years ago, Israel has proven that despite the shortage of land and water, it developed one of the most advanced and resilient economies on earth. Facing challenges disproportionate to its territorial and demographic scale, as well as existential threats, Israel nevertheless persevered. It did so, through the mobilization of its human resources and military fortitude. It reinforced its democracy and desire for peace.

Israel went through seven wars in its sixty years. Outnumbered and under-gunned, it was self reliant and confident. Winning wars enabled Israel to triumph in its battle for peace and to sign peace agreements with Egypt and Jordan. Today, it continues to negotiate with the Palestinians, never losing hope of making peace with the entire Arab world.

By promoting a policy of peace and being true to the Jewish ethic, "Love thy neighbour like thyself, maintaining a defense system that pre-empts danger, and a resilient democracy guided by the moral values of our tradition, we can prove that what was bestowed upon us on Mount Sinai was not lost in the desert.

The realization of the Zionist vision is a story that inspired both nation and state. With its establishment, the Jewish people entrusted Israel with the role of preserving and developing the Jewish historic heritage, on the moral platform, proclaiming that "All human beings are born in the image of the Lord. "

Committed to our faith and to the value of Tikkun Olam, Israel must continue to play a role in meeting the global challenges of tomorrow. Being small in size and people, we must be greater in the field of science and serve as a world laboratory in a quest for alternative energy, mostly from the sun, so as to decrease pollution and dry the petro-dollar swamp that breeds terror.
Humanity will have to generate water to meet growing human demand, prevent thirst and enable a harmonious and sustainable environment for man and nature. Israel excelled in that domain and we have to continue investing efforts in this pursuit.

We must also cultivate an innovative teaching system focused on thinking tools and capacities, rather than just on the accumulation of data. The historic strength of the Jewish people was, and must remain, anchored in learning and applying knowledge.

We have proven in the past, and we must do so again in the future, that the Jewish people can serve as leaders at the forefront of modernity and innovation, in order to tackle challenges such as violence and ubiquitous terror which the world now faces.

Likewise, we need to address the challenges which face Jewish communities throughout the world, such as assimilation, a growing gap between the different communities and a greater need to strengthen the ties between Jewish youth in the diaspora and in Israel.

It is precisely because we are a small nation, that the Jewish people must generate the greatness inherent in the human capacities.

Rosh Ha'Shana Sameach!Shimon Peres

VIDEO LINK:

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Pages/MediaPlayer.aspx?MediaUrl=http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=58!!!!ar=peres2008newyear-view!!!!ak=null&LANGUAGE_NAME=En

In Honor of the Falkenberg Family as We Remember September 11, 2001

2008-09-11T18:47:00.010-04:00

We pause to reflect and remember the lives of those individuals who were tragically taken from us on September 11, 2001. Each one of us distinctly recalls the events that day, where we were, what we were doing, when we received that painful news. As a Rotarian, I know an individual from Illinois who was in a board meeting on the top floor of the second World Trade Center tower that morning and witnessed the plane striking the first tower. He then lived through the hell of the second tower being struck minutes after the first attack; he was spared as he climbed through twisted carnage and saved lives during the course of his escape from an inferno. Other friends, who lived several blocks from the World Trade Center, have moved from that area since the memories still haunt their dreams. When only fourteen years old, I experienced terrorism firsthand in Jerusalem; however, I never thought the devastation of the attacks on September 11 was ever possible on United States soil. When the events of September 11, 2001 were coming across the news wire, I was holding my 8 week old son in my arms with my nearly 3 year old son at my side....

As we remember the 7th anniversary of the events that forever changed our country on September 11, 2001, clear challenges remain in the war on terrorism in the international community. And today, my heart goes out to all those children who are fatherless and motherless because of the heinous perpetrators who tragically stole the lives of their parents. As the proud Father of two precious sons, each passing anniversary of September 11 brings tears to my eyes as I am reminded of the precious children on September 11 who were murdered by the callous acts of the cowards who acted with brutality in a most odious manner. The story of the Falkenberg Family on American Airlines Flight 77 rips to the core of my heart as a Father. While I do not personally know the Falkenberg Family, I have flown many times with my children across the United States and overseas. To think of joy and excitement of your children as you are seated on an airplane preparing to take a vacation, seeing those smiles on their faces and that twinkle in their eyes.....AND THEN to have this beautiful picture suddenly ripped from you with the most unspeakable horror...Charles and Leslie Falkenberg and their two precious daughters Zoe (8 years old) and Dana (3 years old) never made their final destination to Australia where their Mommy received an appointment as a visiting fellow at the Australian National University at Canberra. This entire family was destroyed as American Airlines Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. During this 7th anniversary of September 11, I am paying my tribute to Zoe and Dana and their parents.

How do we ever move beyond the tears? I have not moved beyond the tears as we solemnly remember each passing anniversary of September 11. The images of these heinous attacks are still raw in my mind, as they were on the cool sunny autumn like day in Chicago. Today, as I listened to children at Ground Zero mourning the loss of their parents, my heart was overwhelmed by such grief and anguish. We are left with the memories and pictures of those who were taken from us so tragically on that day that lives in infamy in the United States. To think of the plans that Charles and Leslie Falkenberg had for their family, the dreams for the future, raising their daughters, hoping someday to see their daughters accomplish dreams of their own and have children of their own...for the Parents of Charles and Leslie Falkenberg and for the Grandparents of Zoe and Dana, the reality is these dreams and hopes for the future are gone. The beautiful lives of the members in this precious family are now only memories. So, how do we move on and remember and honor their lives and the memories shared by their families? What message do we convey to our own children who may be old enough to begin to understand what took place on September 11, 2001? How do we honor the memories of the precious lives of Zoe and Dana?

My sons love working in the garden and planting flowers; they are fond of growing wild flowers and sunflowers. As I learned from doing research on the Falkenberg Family, a campaign was orchestrated to grow Zinnias in honor of Zoe and Dana, as these were flowers loved by the two girls. That is a beautiful reminder each year to see blossoming Zinnias to point to us the beauty in life and as a way to remember the lives of these precious daughters of Charles and Leslie Falkenberg. For the Parents of Charles and Leslie Falkenberg and the Grandparents of Zoe and Dana, the act of planting Zinnias to honor and remember the lives of these two precious girls is one way we are able to express our sorrow for their heart ache and tremendous loss. This also serves as an opportunity to teach our children examples from impressionable lessons in life how to love each other, how to care for each other and how to reach out to others in times of need. As a society, we all need to remember that above all else, life is beautiful, and we must celebrate the beauty of life given to us by our Eternal Creator. I encourage everyone to plant Zinnias in honor of these two precious girls, Dana and Zoe, and plant a seed of hope for the future by making positive contributions to society that bring us together not only in times of disaster and tragedy. May G-d comfort the Parents of Charles and Leslie Falkenberg and the Grandparents of Zoe and Dana. May G-d bless the Parents of Charles and Leslie Falkenberg and the Grandparents of Zoe and Dana and be with them in this process of healing in their lives. To the Parents and Grandparents of the Falkenberg Family, you have my prayers, and I hope each day brings healing in your lives.

For more information on how you are able to remember and honor the lives of those lost on September 11, 2001, please visit Project 2996

For more information on the Falkenberg Family and the Zinnias planted across the United States in memory of Zoe and Dana, please visit Zoe's Zinnias

The 1972 Israeli Olympic Athletes Tribute

2008-09-07T01:08:00.005-04:00

-- of blessed memory --

We pause to remember
those who died

With so much courage,
so much pride

They’ll never come back,
yet memories endure

To remind us of freedom:
fragile and pure

We’re worthy of their sacrifice
if we pause each day

Not just on the 14th of May

-- OLYMPIANS --

David Berger
Weightlifter

Ze'ev Friedman
Weightlifter

Yossef Gutfreund
Wrestling Referee

Eliezer Halfin
Wrestler

Yossef Romano
Weightlifter

Amitzur Shapira
Track Coach

Kehat Shorr
Shooting Coach

Mark Slavin
Greco-Roman Wrestler

Andre Spitzer
Fencing Coach

Yakov Springer
Weightlifting Judge

Moshe Weinberg
Wrestling Coach

Hizbullah’s global reach

2008-08-11T10:26:00.003-04:00

J. Halevi, A. Perry
Ynetnews.com
8/10/08

Shiite group’s reach extends far beyond Lebanon, poses global threat

Recently, Iran’s sabre-rattling has escalated in an attempt to deter an attack on its nuclear facilities. Last month Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened that “the (Iranian) armed forces will cut off the enemies’ hands before they can put their fingers on the trigger.”

While many have interpreted this as a possible pre-emptive missile strike emanating from Iran, there is an even more sinister possibility.

Over the last few years, Iran's proxy Hizbullah has been spreading its influence far and wide. In its brinksmanship with the West, Iran has learned much from the two neighboring Gulf Wars. As opposed to Saddam Hussein, whose threat of an all-out campaign against the West was largely rhetoric, Iran takes a global view and is diligently preparing terrorist networks all over the world to spring into action when the word is given.

Hizbullah is an integral part of the Islamic revolution regime in Tehran. The ruling Iranian religious authority gave Hassan Nasrallah the title of Lebanese “representative,” making him an essential part of the Iranian revolution.

Hizbullah receives millions of dollars a year from Iran to finance its operations. After the Second Lebanon War it received even more funds to compensate for its military and civilian losses and to rehabilitate the Shiite villages that supported it. The Iranian funds are transferred to Hizbullah by the al-Quds Force of the Revolutionary Guards, the Iranian Foreign Ministry, and official institutions with branches in Lebanon.

The current relative calm along Lebanon’s border with Israel should not be mistaken for a cooling off of Hizbullah’s enthusiasm. Rather, it serves to mask Hizbullah’s focus of its main goals: changing the Lebanese constitution and ensuring a greater Shiite presence in the Lebanese parliament, with an eye to eventually taking over Lebanon by exploiting the country’s democratic processes to turn it into a radical Shiite Islamic country like Iran.

However, Hizbullah’s mission reaches far beyond Lebanon. Hizbullah is very popular in the Arab world, even amongst Sunnis, and is an important factor in sweeping the masses into jihad. The organization assists those who target their own governments in weakening Sunni opposition and in creating an admittedly ad hoc strategic alliance with the all the branches of the Muslim Brotherhood across the globe, infiltrating even Palestinian areas.

These activities are in line with the Iranian leadership’s 50-year plan made public at the end of the 1990s. According to an Iranian document, the plan is to export the Islamic revolution to neighboring countries and beyond through preaching, encouraging Shiite emigration, purchasing real estate, forming political organizations, infiltrating the local political establishments, and taking over the various parliaments and focal points of political power.

‘We have the means’
Iranian-Hizbullah footprints can be found in various African and South American countries. In Nigeria, for example, Hizbullah operates within the expatriate Lebanese Shiite and local populations. The leader of the indigenous Shiites in Nigeria, Sheikh Zakzaky, has created idolism for Hassan Nasrallah and the leaders of Iran.

In Venezuela and other South American countries Hizbullah has been waging a long-term campaign to convert the native Indians to Shiite Islam. Teodoro Rafael Darnott, also known as “'Commander Teodoro,” recently claimed, “If the United States were to attack Iran, the only country ruled by God, we would counterattack in Latin America and even inside the United States itself. We have the means and we know how to go about it. We will sabotage the transportation of oil from Latin America to the US. You have been warned.”

On June 29 the Kuwaiti daily al-Siasa reported that Hizbullah was training young men from Venezuela in its military camps in south Lebanon to prepare them to attack American targets. In addition, Hizbullah and Iran has set up secret cells abroad for carrying out terrorist attacks. Such cells were responsible for the attacks on the Israeli Embassy and the AMIA Jewish Center building in Buenos Aires in the early 1990s, the attacks in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, and attempted attacks in London and Thailand.

Meanwhile, ABC reported that the American and Canadian intelligence services had information about Hizbullah sleeper cells in Canada whose role was to gather intelligence about Israeli and Jewish targets in Ottawa and Toronto for possible terrorist attacks.

The ramifications of Hizbullah's reach are the very real threat they pose in many corners of the world. Iran has understood that to truly threaten and hold the West hostage it must create a multi-faceted menace to the citizens of these nations and their interests. Hizbullah's web of terror cells provides them just that.

The UK government is one of very few in the world to fully recognize this threat by recently outlawing the military wing of Hizbullah. It is time that more Western nations follow suit if they are going to neutralize Iran's surrogate and joker card in case of an attack on its nuclear program.

Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan D. Halevi is a senior researcher of the Middle East and radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He is the co-founder of the Orient Research Group Ltd. and is a former advisor to the Policy Planning Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Ashley Perry is an editor at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs for the Middle East Strategic Information project

Qassam rocket lands in western Negev, no injuries

2008-08-11T10:10:00.003-04:00

Yonat Atlas
Ynetnews.com
08/09/08

Palestinians fire rocket from northern Gaza for first time since last Wednesday

A Qassam rocket fired from northern Gaza landed in an open area belonging to the Sha'ar Hanegev Regional Council early Saturday evening. No injuries were reported and no damage was caused.

Another rocket landed in the same region last Wednesday, also causing no injuries. The 'Color Red' rocket alert sirens sounded throughout Sderot and the other communities neighboring Gaza.

The area has been relatively quiet since Israel signed a ceasefire agreement with Hamas and other Palestinian groups in Gaza, though intermittent rocket and mortar fire has been recorded every several days.

On Wednesday the Qassam rocket landed as thousands gathered near Kibbutz Kissufim to mark the third anniversary of the disengagement from Gaza and the evacuation of Gush Katif.

Rally organizer Ohad Bart told Ynet the "escape" from Gaza had only emboldened terror organizations. Yesha Council Spokesman Yishai Hollander added to Bart's sentiment, saying that "Those who thought the disengagement would enable us to get away from terror realized that terror is chasing them," he said.

"We're being hit by Qassams and mortar shells across the south. By now, everyone knows that the withdrawal led to a sharp rise in terror. There's nobody who thinks otherwise today."

Knesset Passes Funding Law for Pre-Military Academies, 72-0

2008-08-01T13:05:00.001-04:00

by Hillel Fendel
Arutz Sheva
29 Tammuz 5768, August 1, '08

(IsraelNN.com) It took only three months for the law to be passed, and now the mechinot - the pre-military academies, including yeshivot - will no longer have to fear annual budget cuts.

The bill was proposed by MKs Rabbi Michael Melchior (Labor) and Limor Livnat (Likud). They explained that the yearly ritual of proposed budget cuts in the mechinot, which are then followed by political intervention by interested political parties to make up the missing funds, was becoming wearisome and wasteful. The budget of the institutions will now be protected by law.

The law passed its final readings on Wednesday in a whopping 72-0 vote.

"The pre-military academies are a Zionist and principled enterprise of the first degree," MK Livnat told Arutz-7's Hebrew newsmagazine, adding that she helped develop the project when she was Minister of Education.

Pre-military academies in Israel currently number 34, nine of which are in the process of receiving recognition. Of the 25 recognized mechinot, 13 are yeshiva academies, and the others are "general" - either secular or mixed secular/religious. The first mechina - Yeshivat Bnei David - was established in the Samaria town of Eli 1987, and within two years there were four more. In 1997, the first non-religious mechina sprouted - Nachshon, currently located in Metzudat Yoav near Ashkelon.

Cooperation and Respect

Rabbi Ze'ev Sharon, head of the Maaleh Efraim Mechina Yeshiva, told IsraelNationalNews, "The cooperation, affection and respect between the religious and non-religious leaders of the mechina movement is something that should be emulated in the rest of the country. It is simply outstanding, and truly - and not just as a turn of phrase - one for all and all for one."

The yeshiva mechinot study Talmud, Jewish Law and Jewish thought, together with the courses in Zionism, leadership and Judaism given in the other pre-military academies. "The best IDF officers and commanders come from the mechinot," Livnat said.

Rabbi Melchior

Co-sponsor MK Melchior, Chairman of the Knesset Education Committee, said, "The passage of this bill is a great achievement for everyone for whom Israeli society is close to his heart. The mechinot place their graduates in the front line of social action in Israel - in the army, on the periphery, in settlement and in volunteer work, and I am gratified that we were able to guarantee their continued existence and growth."

The Funding
The new law provides for the government to give the mechinot a set sum for each student, though the total sum to be given cannot exceed 15% more than that of the previous year. The current cost of 33 million shekels will be split between by the Defense and Education Ministries.

"The great thing about this bill is that the cost will now be a permanent part of the annual budget," Rabbi Sharon explained, "and will not have to be negotiated separately each year. This is the same as elementary and high schools - though yeshiva high schools still have a problem, since much of their funding still comes from the national budget's 'extra' clauses, not from the permanent clauses."

Sharon noted that in the past, the National Religious Party and National Union sometimes gave of their own specially-designated monies to the non-religious mechinot, even though parties normally use these funds for their own special interests.

Abbas to Open Door for Arrested Hamas Terrorists

2008-08-01T12:59:00.002-04:00

by Hana Levi Julian
Arutz Sheva
29 Tammuz 5768, August 1, '08

(IsraelNN.com) Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas will free scores of Hamas terrorists and supporters arrested this week by PA security forces.

Abbas issued the order late Thursday night from Tunis, where he held talks with Tunisian officials. According to the announcement, the mass prisoner release will be carried out by Sunday.

Fatah forces have arrested approximately 200 Hamas terrorists in Judea and Samaria, more or less matching the number of Fatah loyalists rounded up by Hamas forces in Gaza last week.

The Hamas roundup came in the wake of a beachside explosion that left five terrorists and one little girl dead. Hamas blamed Fatah for the blast, but Fatah denied responsibility for the attack.

Gaza terrorists also kidnapped German ARD TV cameraman Sawah Abu Seif following the blast. Terrorists released him early Thursday morning in Gaza after holding the 42-year-old broadcast journalist for five days without allowing him to contact his family or a lawyer. Seif refused to comment after his release. Before his release, his boss was sure Seif had been tortured.

Another Attempt at Reconciliation by Abbas

Thursday night's announcement by Abbas, reported by the official PA news agency, is seen as a bid to end the current round of kidnappings, arrests and resurging violence between the two factions.

Abbas agreed earlier in the week to renewed unity talks with Hamas following his meeting Sunday in Cairo with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The PA Chairman announced at a news conference following that meeting that Egyptian officials would immediately begin the process of coordinating reconciliation talks between the two factions.

Abbas's willingness to re-unite with Hamas came in the face of billions of dollars in aid that Israel and Western nations have given Abbas to help prop up his government at the expense of Hamas.

Abbas's willingness to re-unite with Hamas came in the face of billions of dollars in aid that Israel and Western nations that have given Abbas.

Hundreds of PA terrorists have been freed and hundreds of fugitives granted amnesty by Israel, in addition to wide-ranging security concessions as part of numerous "good will gestures" made in an effort to ratchet up Abbas's credit on the PA street.

Abbas has also received billions of dollars in aid, including weaponry and other equipment from the United States, Israel and other Western nations since Fatah split from Hamas. Quartet Middle East envoy Tony Blair raised more than seven billion dollars in pledges at an international forum for a five-year economic development program to help get the cash-strapped PA back on its feet.

Final status talks between Israel and the PA were resumed on the condition that Abbas would not reunite with Hamas, which has refused to recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce terrorism or uphold agreements signed by previous PA governments.

Abbas has said he will continue talks with whoever replaces Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as head of the Israeli government. However, both PA and Israeli negotiators have said it will be impossible to close a final status deal for a PA state by the end of this year -- a goal expressed by the Bush administation last November in Annapolis.

Will Olmert Make A Lame Duck Peace Push?

2008-08-01T12:56:00.002-04:00

By YOSSI KLEIN HALEVI and MICHAEL OREN
The Wall Street Journal
August 1, 2008; Page A11

Jerusalem
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's announcement -- that he intends to resign following his party's mid-September primaries to select a new leader -- was greeted graciously across the Israeli political spectrum. Even political rivals commended Mr. Olmert for displaying courage and dignity in acknowledging his inability to continue leading the country under a pall of police investigations into his alleged corruption. In fact, though, Mr. Olmert may be about to embark on one of the most politically corrupt maneuvers in Israel's history.

According to aides, Mr. Olmert intends in the coming weeks to intensify negotiations with both Syrian and Palestinian leaders. He knows, of course, that what remains of his term is hardly enough time to reach an agreement on either track. Instead, he seeks to create the foundation for a future agreement -- hoping, aides say, to ensure that he isn't remembered only as the prime minister removed from office by scandal.

But there could be a more nefarious motive at work: that Mr. Olmert will use peace negotiations to prolong his stay in office. According to this scenario, neither of Mr. Olmert's likely successors, Foreign Minister Tzippi Livni or Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz, is likely to create a stable coalition. The collapse of the government would then be followed by elections, which, polls say, would result in a victory for Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu. Mr. Olmert may believe that progress toward a peace agreement with either the Palestinians or the Syrians will convince the all-powerful Israeli media -- overwhelmingly left-wing and deeply antagonistic to Mr. Netanyahu -- to support his continuation in office.

There is precedent for Mr. Olmert to suspect that such a maneuver might actually work. Advocates of this scenario recall that, following the disastrous Lebanon War two years ago, Mr. Olmert attempted to deflect calls for his resignation by meeting with leading figures on the Israeli left, including novelist Amos Oz. If you don't support me and my peace initiatives, he is said to have warned them, you will end up with Netanyahu as prime minister. In fact, Mr. Olmert's peace efforts on the Syrian and Palestinian tracks led to a demonstrative reduction in calls for his resignation in the Israeli media.

Mr. Olmert's use of peace negotiations to ensure his political survival was sufficiently cynical then. Now, in his desperation to achieve progress in negotiations -- either with an eye toward his place in history or toward prolonging his stay in office -- he could make concessions that violate Israel's most basic positions.

Mr. Olmert may be tempted to concede the Syrian demand, rejected by three former Israeli prime ministers, for a foothold on the shores of the Sea of Galilee, Israel's main fresh-water source. Likewise, on the Palestinian track, Mr. Olmert could undermine Israel's refusal to accept the principle of the "right of return" of descendants of Palestinian refugees to the Jewish state. For Syrian and Palestinians leaders, Mr. Olmert's vulnerability presents an opportunity to extract concessions from Israel that would not be attainable under a more legitimate prime minister.

True, those concessions would almost certainly be dismissed as meaningless by the Israeli public and by the Knesset. The danger for Israel, though, is that the international community is likely to regard Mr. Olmert's concessions as binding on his successor. According to former chief American Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross, that was precisely the intention of Prime Minister Ehud Barak who, in January 2001, knowingly made far-reaching concessions to the Palestinians in order to commit his successor, Ariel Sharon.

Despite the accolades of Israeli leaders, Mr. Olmert has long since forfeited his chance to honorably leave office. He should have resigned following the Lebanon War, or after admitting that he had accepted envelopes filled with cash from New York businessman Morris Talansky, or after being accused of stealing from charities to subsidize his family's vacations abroad.

Mr. Olmert's replacement offers the political system a chance to begin healing itself from pervasive corruption. For a country facing existential threat, maintaining the public's trust in the decency of its leaders is an essential component of national defense. Israel does not have a written constitution. But it does have a powerful social contract, according to which the leader who sends Israelis into battle or who decides on ceding territory vital to Israel's future must be perceived as acting from national, and not personal or political, motives. Mr. Olmert has violated that contract.

Members of Mr. Olmert's Kadima party, and of the governing coalition, need to ensure that all substantive negotiations with Arab leaders are suspended until a new prime minister assumes office. Allowing Mr. Olmert to negotiate over life-and-death issues means continuing to hold Israel hostage to his political maneuvers.

Messrs. Klein Halevi and Oren are senior fellows at the Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies of the Shalem Center in Jerusalem.

Seal of King Zedekiah's minister found in J'lem dig

2008-08-01T12:53:00.000-04:00

Jul 31, 2008 22:04 | Updated Aug 1, 2008 8:48
By ETGAR LEFKOVITS

A seal impression belonging to a minister of the Biblical King Zedekiah which dates back 2,600 years has been uncovered completely intact during an archeological dig in Jerusalem's ancient City of David, a prominent Israeli archeologist said on Thursday.

The seal impression, or bulla, with the name Gedalyahu ben Pashur, who served as minister to King Zedekiah (597-586 BCE) according to the Book of Jeremiah, was found just meters away from a separate seal impression of another of Zedekia's ministers, Yehukual ben Shelemyahu, which was uncovered three years ago, said Prof. Eilat Mazar who is leading the dig at the site.

The excavation at the history-rich City of David, which is located just outside the walls of the Old City near Dung Gate, has proven, in recent years, to be a treasure trove for archeologists.

"On the one hand it is so unexpected to find such a fragile bulla in such harsh conditions of excavation, while on the other hand it was logical to find precisely here the bulla of Gedalyahu ben Pashur - only meters away from the place where we found the bulla of Yehukhal ben Shelemyahu - since these two ministers are mentioned side by side in the Bible as having served together in the kingdom of King Zedekiah," Mazar said.

The first bulla was uncovered inside an impressive stone structure, which Mazar believes is the Palace of David, while the second bulla was found at the foot of the external wall of the same structure, under a tower that was built in the days of Nehemiah.

Both of the bullae with the names of the two ministers, measuring 1 cm. in diameter each, were found among the debris of the destruction of the First Temple period.

The letters are in ancient Hebrew and are very clearly preserved, Mazar said.

Both ministers are mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 38 1-4) along with two other ministers when they came to King Zedekiah demanding the death of the prophet Jeremiah for preaching to the besieged city to surrender.

Mazar said it was "absolutely fantastic" to have uncovered the seals "complete and in perfect condition" after 2,600 years, affording scholars a clear read of the names that were impressed on them.

"It is not very often that such a discovery happens in which real figures of the past shake off the dust of history and so vividly revive the stories of the Bible," she said.

The archeologist, who rose to international prominence for her excavation that may have uncovered the Biblical palace of King David nearby, has been at the forefront of a series of back-to-back Jerusalem archeological finds, including the remnants of a wall from the Biblical prophet Nehemiah, also in the area.

Other Biblical-era bullae were previously found a quarter century ago at the City of David site. In 1982, the Israeli archeologist Yigal Shiloh discovered a cache of bullae in a nearby site, including one with the name of Gemaryahu ben Shaphan - mentioned in the Bible as a minister and scribe during the reign of King Jehoiakim (608-597 BCE).

The current dig is being conducted on behalf of the Shalem center, a Jerusalem research institute, and the right-wing City of David Foundation, and was carried out under the academic auspices of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Olmert's Announcement Fuels Uncertainty in Israel

2008-08-01T12:28:00.000-04:00

By David Makovsky
July 31, 2008

Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert announced yesterday that he will not compete in his party's September primary and will resign as premier once a new leader is elected. The move ends Olmert's two and half years as Israeli premier, a post he took up after Ariel Sharon's debilitating stroke in January 2006. High-profile allegations of financial wrongdoing have cast a shadow over his administration in past months, and until recently, he pledged he would only leave if there were a formal indictment. His announcement comes at a critical time for Israel and will certainly lead to sense of uncertainty about the future.

Two Scenarios for Succession

Olmert's decision offers two possible scenarios for the Israeli government. In the first one, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni or Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz will establish a majority coalition much like the one that exists today. This rationale is predicated on the view that neither the Kadima Party nor its junior partner Labor Party are doing well enough in the polls to favor new elections and therefore will be eager to continue the current coalition arrangement. Only Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party, has announced his desire for new elections.

In the other scenario, Olmert's announcement will mark the beginning of political turbulence, culminating in new general elections. Since coalition formation proves difficult when a party decides that joining a new, short-lived alliance does not serve its interests, Israel may be forced to hold new elections if the government cannot form a coalition after ninety days. Israeli law requires a new general election by 2010, and Israeli coalitions are famous for not surviving their full term. One party that may want early elections is Shas -- the Orthodox Sephardic party. Its voter base is more consistent than that of Kadima or Labor, so early elections would not be viewed as an electoral risk. Shas could use the perennial budgetary battle in the coming months to pressure Livni or Mofaz to accept difficult fiscal demands for its constituents.

In either scenario, Kadima -- Olmert's party -- will choose a new leader in a primary on September 17 or in a subsequent run-off between the top two candidates one week later. Once the leader is chosen, Olmert will resign. At that point, Israeli president Shimon Peres will authorize an Israeli official, presumably the new head of Kadima, to form a new government. This individual will have up to forty-two days to put a new government together. Until then, Olmert's administration will serve as a caretaker government with the same legal authority as before.

Livni v. Mofaz: Differing Strategies

September will mark Kadima's first-ever primary. Sharon founded the party at the end of 2005, amid frustration that many in Likud did not support disengagement from Gaza. If the pattern of other parties holds true for Kadima, out of its estimated 80,000 eligible members, only about half will actually vote.

The two top candidates to succeed Olmert have distinct campaign strategies. Livni is the front-runner, but polls suggest her lead over Mofaz is narrowing. She has made clear that she will run on her perceived strength of personal probity, which she hopes will provide counterpoint to Olmert. She also hopes that her stature as foreign minister will make her more electable than Mofaz, since one of them will have to face two former prime ministers -- Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu -- in the general election. Livni's proponents state that her electability is based on her embodiment of the pragmatic Israeli center, thus giving fresh life to the new party that was catapulted to power in the March 2006 election. She will argue that the mixture of Likud political roots and her moderate demeanor enables her to take votes both from the right and left.

Mofaz, in contrast, will undoubtedly make a security argument. He will assert that he is best positioned to lead Israel, given his background as a former defense minister and chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces. He will emphasize Israel's deep anxiety about Iran's nuclear program, an issue with which he has substantial experience as leader of the strategic dialog with the United States. Mofaz has also touted close ties with Shas and has therefore painted himself as someone who is best positioned to win that party's support to form a coalition until 2010.

Palestinians and Iran

Olmert's resignation seemingly ends the efforts of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to bring about an Israeli-Palestinian breakthrough by the end of the year, a goal she and President Bush set at the Annapolis peace conference last November. Although Olmert's loss of political and moral authority is only partly responsible for the lack of progress, his resignation provides Rice with an excuse to explain why the U.S. administration was unable to produce a successful conclusion.

At the same time, the current negotiating positions of the Israelis and Palestinians could become a baseline for talks under the new U.S. president in 2009. To demonstrate improvement, Rice wants a document that publicly discloses this year's progress, since there seems to be only narrow differences on certain issues, such as West Bank territory for a Palestinian state. This approach, however, may be nothing short of anathema to Livni and Mofaz, who both are seeking the support of ex-Likud voters in next month's primaries. For these voters, such an approach would publicly expose the political concessions that Kadima made to the Palestinians without any compensatory benefits of a diplomatic breakthrough. Speculation arose that Rice counted on Olmert's sinking popularity as precisely the reason to grasp for a diplomatic breakthrough; he would then use the breakthrough as a rationale for his candidacy in the Kadima primary. This approach, however, was not taken, perhaps amid concern that such a strategy could have backfired if the Israeli public thought he made concessions to secure his own political future. As caretaker, he now will certainly lack the moral authority to move ahead on the peace process.

The most pressing policy question remaining is whether the new Israeli political dynamic will add fresh uncertainty regarding Iran in the coming months. There has been increasing speculation, coupled with Israeli statements and a major air force exercise off the coast of Greece, that Israel might attack Iran in the final months of a Bush presidency. In addition to questions about the prospects and advisability of such an attack, there is now uncertainty as to who will be making the decisions.

Conclusion

Undoubtedly, the circumstances surrounding the fall of Olmert will be dissected for a long time. Between an inconclusive 2006 war against Hizballah and a swirl of personal-corruption allegations, it is unclear as to what extent each factor contributed to his announcement this week. Other aspects of his legacy -- an improving economy, efficient day-to-day political management, and wider Israeli public support for the principle of a two-state solution -- will be debated as well. In the meantime, political uncertainty will be the immediate impact of Olmert's latest decision.

David Makovsky is a senior fellow and director of The Washington Institute's Project on the Middle East Peace Process.

Israel criticises German firm's deal with Iran

2008-08-01T12:25:00.000-04:00

Israel criticises German firm's deal with Iran
Thu Jul 31, 2008 4:07pm BST

BERLIN (Reuters) - Israel said on Thursday it was disappointed by Germany's decision to allow a German firm to export gas plants to Iran, saying it contravened the spirit of world powers' sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme.

Germany's BAFA Federal Office of Economics and Export Control approved plans by a German company to export three liquefied natural gas plants to Iran in February, the German Economy Ministry said in a statement on Thursday.

It said the plants did not fall under any category of goods banned from export.

Israel's Foreign Ministry said it was disappointed by the German move.

"The German government's decision contravenes the spirit of sanctions handed down by members of the (U.N.) Security Council on Iran," the ministry said in a statement.

"The fact that Germany, a member of the leading European group EU3, which includes France, Britain and Germany, is adopting a position that harms the international effort to considerably toughen sanctions against Iran over its continued nuclear programme, is worrying," it said.

The Israeli Foreign Ministry said it would contact "the most senior officials in the German government" to seek explanations and express concern about the case.

Germany's Economy Ministry said: "There was no legal possibility to deny the export."

A German source said the deal concerned engineering firm Steiner Prematechnik Gastec GmbH.

Germany is one of six nations leading efforts to rein in Iran's nuclear programme.

The West accuses Iran of planning to build nuclear warheads under cover of a civilian power programme. Iran, the world's fourth largest oil producer, denies the charge.

(Additional reporting by Jerusalem bureau)

(Reporting by Kerstin Gehmlich; editing by Andrew Roche)

Future Weapons from Israel Part 2/2

2008-07-31T12:55:00.001-04:00

Future Weapons from Israel Part 1/2

2008-07-31T12:53:00.000-04:00

Strike on Iran still possible, U.S. tells Israel

2008-07-30T18:51:00.002-04:00

By Paul Richter and Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
July 30, 2008

Ehud Barak, the Israeli defense chief, is visiting as Washington is perceived to be softening its stance toward Tehran.

WASHINGTON -- Bush administration officials reassured Israel's defense minister this week that the United States has not abandoned all possibility of a military attack on Iran, despite widespread Israeli concern that Washington has begun softening its position toward Tehran.

In meetings Monday and Tuesday, administration officials told Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the option of attacking Iran over its nuclear program remains on the table, though U.S. officials are primarily seeking a diplomatic solution.
At the same time, U.S. officials acknowledged that there is a rare divergence in the U.S. and Israeli approaches, with Israelis emphasizing the possibility of a military response out of concern that Tehran may soon have the know-how for building a nuclear bomb.

"Is there a difference of emphasis? It certainly looks as though there is," said a senior American Defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the sensitive talks.

U.S. and Israeli officials believe Iran is enriching uranium with the aim of building nuclear weapons.

Tehran says that it is engaged in a peaceful enrichment program for civilian energy purposes.

Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell said in an interview that U.S. officials have often made it clear to Israeli officials that Washington prefers to try to mitigate the threat from Tehran by applying economic pressure.

"The military option, although always available, is not our preferred route," Morrell said.

"We have made that point clear to them and the world in our public statements and private meetings."

Barak left Israel for Washington amid reports in the Israeli press that he would try to talk the Bush administration out of what many Israelis perceive as a more conciliatory policy toward Iran.

On Tuesday, the Israeli Defense Ministry released a statement saying that Barak had told Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates that "a policy that consists of keeping all options on the table must be maintained."

Speaking to reporters in Washington, Barak said that there remains time for "accelerated sanctions" to try to persuade Iran to abandon the nuclear program.

Israeli officials were concerned in December when a key U.S. intelligence report concluded that Iran had abandoned an effort to build a nuclear bomb. They also have noted with concern comments this month by Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that an Israeli airstrike on Iran would further destabilize the Middle East and compound the strain on overworked U.S. forces.

Also this month, in a rare move toward engagement with Tehran, a senior U.S. diplomat took part in international talks in Geneva about the nuclear program.

And U.S. officials have floated a proposal for opening a low-level diplomatic office in Tehran.

These gestures have taken place at a time of intensifying discussion in Israel about the wisdom of an Israeli military attack on Iran before the Bush administration leaves office.

A senior State Department official said Tuesday that Israel "is a sovereign state and we understand that they view this as an existential threat. And we take the threat that's posed by Iran seriously as well."

But the official, who asked to remain unidentified in keeping with diplomatic rules, said the administration is "pursuing the strategy we believe is the right one."

Gates, in an hourlong meeting with Barak, told the minister that the United States intends to consider providing radar to Israel that can detect ballistic missiles launched from Iran and supplying weapons to counter rocket attacks from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, according to a senior Defense official.

paul.richter@latimes.com

julian.barnes@latimes.com

U.S. to help Israel with missile detection

2008-07-30T18:45:00.001-04:00

By Dan Williams
Tue Jul 29, 2008 11:24pm BST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States will soon link Israel up to two advanced missile detection systems as a precaution against any future attack by a nuclear-armed Iran, Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak said on Tuesday.

The allies are also in advanced talks on upgrading Israel's Arrow II ballistic shield, though they disagree over whether it should incorporate an American interceptor missile, Barak said after meeting U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates.

Washington has been leading efforts to curb Iran's atomic ambitions through sanctions, mindful of Israel's threats to resort to military strikes if it deems diplomacy a dead end.

Barak told reporters that the Israeli and U.S. governments "see eye to eye on the need to keep all options on the table ... though we may not agree on each and every detail."

"It's important the Americans understand our position, and I think that they understand it a lot better after this visit," said Barak, who was one of the more vocal Israeli critics of a U.S. intelligence report last year that concluded Iran had shelved a military nuclear program in 2003.

Barak declined to give details on whether Israel, which is believed to have the Middle East's only nuclear arsenal, would be prepared to take on Iran alone. Iran denies seeking atomic weapons and has vowed to retaliate for any attack.

The dispute has fed speculation in the global financial markets about a possible confrontation between Iran and Israel or the United States. That helped push oil prices to record highs earlier this month.

Signalling willingness to focus on defensive measures, Barak said he had secured the Pentagon's agreement to post a powerful radar, known as the forward-based X-band, in Israel "before the new (U.S.) administration arrives" in January.

Built by Raytheon Co, the system has been described by U.S. officials as capable of tracking an object the size of a baseball from about 2,900 miles (4,700 km) away. It would let the Arrow engage an Iranian Shehab-3 ballistic missile about halfway through what would be its 11-minute flight to Israel.

A senior U.S. Defence official confirmed the United States was looking to deploy the X-band system to Israel.

"We're stationing our system there so it may benefit them," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing high-level talks.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said: "Like the Israelis, we see the Iranians racing to build a ballistic missile capability and so we are working to help the Israelis fortify their defences as quickly as possible."

'LONG-DISTANCE THREAT'

Barak said the United States will also increase Israel's access to its Defence Support Program (DSP) satellites, which spot missile launches. Israeli officials say past access to the DSP has been on a per-request, rather than constant, basis.

"In a few months, Israel will be stronger and more prepared in the realm of protection against long-distance threats," he said.

Israel announced last year that Arrow, a project funded largely by the United States, would be upgraded. The envisaged Arrow-III would be capable of shooting down missiles at greater atmospheric heights -- a safeguard against nuclear fallout.

Israeli and U.S. officials this month voiced differing assessments on when Iran might acquire advanced S-300 anti-aircraft systems from Russia. The S-300s would complicate any pre-emptive air strikes on Iran's nuclear sites.

Gates said in a July 9 briefing that the systems would not be in Iranian hands "any time soon" while Israeli Defence officials, speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity, predicted first delivery of the systems as early as September.

Pentagon press secretary Morrell said Gates was referring to a complete, deployable system reaching Iran -- which does not preclude the possibility of ancillary equipment arriving sooner.

Morrell said last week the Pentagon did not expect Iran to have the system this year.

Iran announced in December that it would buy an unspecified number of S-300s. Russia denied that there was any such deal.

(Additional reporting by Andrew Gray and David Morgan; Editing by Eric Walsh)

Olmert: Living with 270,000 Arabs in Jerusalem means more terror

2008-07-30T00:04:00.002-04:00

By Shahar Ilan, Avi Issacharoff and Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondents
Last update - 22:46 28/07/2008

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Monday that the situation in which Jews and Arabs live side by side in Jerusalem inevitably leads to terror attacks.

"Whoever thinks its possible to live with 270,000 Arabs in Jerusalem must take into account that there will be more bulldozers, more tractors, and more cars carrying out [terror] attacks," Olmert said, referring to two incidents this month in which Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem deliberately plowed bulldozers into passing cars in the capital, causing casualties.

Olmert added that in light of the volatile situation in Jerusalem, it was unlikely that Israel and the Palestinians would reach an agreement on the issue by the end of the year, as is the stated goal. He said that other core issues, such as the fate of the Palestinian refugees and the borders of a future Palestinian state, could be agreed upon by the year-end deadline.

"I don't believe that understandings that will include Jerusalem can be reached this year. But on the other core issues, the gaps are not insurmountable," he told members of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, according to an official present at the meeting. "There is no practical chance of reaching an overall understanding on Jerusalem."

Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said Olmert's comments showed "Israel's determination to destroy the negotiations and the peace process."

Olmert, who earlier this month said Israel and the Palestinians had never been so close to an agreement, has been talking up peace prospects as he clings to office in the face of a police investigation that could force him to step down.

Nabil Abu Rdainah, Abbas' spokesman, said Jerusalem was a "red line" for Palestinians, who want the city's Arab eastern half as the capital of their future state. "We will not accept any agreement that excludes Jerusalem," he added.

Israeli officials said the joint document Olmert envisages signing by the end of the year should refer to Jerusalem in the context of continuing negotiations, rather than delineating how the city's neighborhoods and holy sites would be controlled.

"Instead of letting the most difficult issues torpedo the entire process, we think it's important to find an agreed mechanism to keep discussing these issues into 2009," Olmert's spokesman, Mark Regev, said.

Olmert and Abbas launched U.S.-sponsored peace talks in November but these have been bogged down by disputes, mainly over Jewish settlement building in and around Jerusalem.

According to Palestinian and Western officials, Olmert has offered to return some 92.7 percent of the West Bank, plus all of the Gaza Strip.

Olmert has also proposed a 5.3 percent land swap for major settlement blocs which Israel wants to keep as part of any accord.

Abbas has demanded all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but officials say he may accept a 1.5-2 percent swap under which Palestinians would be compensated with land from Israel.

Olmert wants any agreement to address the refugee issue by saying that just as Israel is the homeland for the Jewish people, Palestine would be the homeland for the Palestinian people, officials said.

That formula effectively denies Palestinian refugees what they consider their right to return to their former homes in what became the state of Israel in 1948.

The West Bank and Gaza Strip constitute 22 percent of British Mandate Palestine.

They were captured by Israel from Jordan and Egypt in the 1967 Six-Day War.

Meanwhile, Palestinian sources said that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is pressuring Israel and the Palestinian Authority to try to agree on a document of understandings by September, ahead of the United Nations General Assembly.

The sources said Rice wants to be able to present the document during the General Assembly to show progress in the talks.

The document would include agreed-on points particularly on borders, an issue where, according to an American diplomat, the gap is not significant. According to Palestinian sources, the gap regarding a right of return for Palestinian refugees has also narrowed.

The United States is pressing for an agreement by which Palestinian refugees will have the right of return to what were the Palestinian territories before 1967, except for a yet-unclear small number of family reunifications. The PA says the U.S. will not take a dramatic step of a "Camp David" nature before the end of President George W. Bush's term in office.

A senior government official in Jerusalem confirmed that Rice wants to use the UN General Assembly to present a document summarizing the progress of the last nine months. "Rice brings up the idea in various diplomatic forums, both in the administration," he said.

The Israeli and PA teams, headed by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Ahmed Qureia, are set to arrive in Washington on Wednesday to continue negotiations. Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz were to join the Israeli delegation.

A three-way meeting with Rice is expected where she will be updated on the status of the talks. The United States and the PA have long been interested in holding such talks, but Israel says the meeting is routine.

According to the Israeli official, the main issue the Americans will bring up in the meeting is the document they hope to present at the General Assembly. But he added that "neither we nor the Palestinians want a deadline that can't be met. That will only hurt the talks and the good progress that has been achieved so far."

The official said gaps remain on most issues and confirmed that the parties are closest on borders. The debate now is over the percentage of land Israel will annex and the kind of compensation the PA will get in exchange. Olmert has told associates that the gap stands at a mere 2 to 3 percent.

The question of refugees is still open and the matter of Jerusalem has not even come up for discussion yet. Livni and Qureia meet at least once a week. Their advisers, Tal Becker and Saeb Erekat, also meet to work on draft agreements, and committees of experts are continuing their talks.

Livni and Qureia agree that talks should reach a point where they can survive changes of government on all sides, including in the United States. As opposed to Olmert and Abbas, who reiterate their desire to reach an agreement in 2008, Livni and Qureia are discussing ways to continue the talks through 2009. One idea is to use the November Moscow Conference on the Middle East to announce talks in 2009.

IDF kills terror mastermind in Hebron

2008-07-28T22:25:00.002-04:00

Efrat Weiss
Latest Update: 07.27.08, 11:21
Israel News

Forces encircle house in search of wanted Hamas member. Blasts heard in building during exchanges of fire as result of explosive devices kept inside. Body of man who planned Dimona terror attack removed from rubble. Hamas: Our response will be painful
IDF and police forces have killed senior Hamas member Shihab Natsheh, who was behind a terror attack in Dimona last February which left one woman dead.

Natsheh was killed during exchanges of fire with IDF forces in the West Bank city of Hebron early Sunday. There were injuries among the forces.

The IDF stated that the forces encircled a building in Hebron where wanted Hamas members were hiding. The gunmen refused to surrender and exchanges of fire erupted in the area.

During the incident, blasts were heard in the building as a result of explosive devices kept inside.

Natsheh was the man who prepared the demolition charge used to carry out the Dimona suicide bombing. The soldiers also arrested his assistant, Wal Bitar, and another Hamas member, Abe Abu-Aisha.

Palestinian sources said the Israeli soldiers eventually bulldozed the house hours later when the man refused to surrender. His badly mauled body was seen being removed from the rubble.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert praised the security forces' operation in Hebron at the start of Sunday's cabinet meeting.

"Naturally, we won't go into details here, but it was a very successful operation," he said. He sent the government's gratitude to the security services and members of the Israel police's special units who took part in the operation.

Hamas's armed wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, vowed to avenge Natsheh's killing. "Our response will be swift and painful," the group said in a statement.

The attack engineered by Natsheh took place on February 4, when a suicide bomber arrived at a commercial center in the southern city of Dimona. The terrorist detonated himself, murdering 73-year-old Liuvov Razdolskiya and injuring 10 people.

A police officer who was in the area, Supeintendent Kobi Mor, shot and killed another terrorist before the latter managed to detonate the explosives he was carrying. Sappers detonated this explosive device in a controlled manner.

'We're happy, but it's no comfort'

Liuvov Razdolsky's family received the news on Natsheh's assassination with mixed feelings. "We hoped such a thing would happen," her son, Professor Michael Gedalin, told Ynet.

"We have already heard of similar operations carried out by the army in the past, and believe that one day the person responsible for my mother's death would be assassinated," Gedalin added. "I'm glad he was assassinated, but it's no comfort to me. My mother is already gone."

Gedalin added that the condition of his father, Edward Gedalin, who was seriously injured in the attack, has improved, but that he had yet to return to fully function. The father has remained at home since being released from hospital several months ago.

"We don’t talk much about the attack," Michael Gedalin said. "My father hardly ever talks about that day and about the fact that my mother is gone. These are wounds which will never heal."

Dimona Mayor Meir Cohen also welcomed the assassination of the man responsible for the terror attack in his city.

"I am glad the IDF's long arm reached this despicable criminal as well. It's the only way to deal with such people, and the sooner the better," said Cohen.

Truce in Gaza, activity in West Bank

Despite the ceasefire in the Gaza Strip, the IDF continues to operate extensively in the West Bank. During a detention operation last month, an IDF force spotted and fired at three Palestinians hurling Molotov cocktails at Highway 60 in the West Bank, north of Hebron.

The Palestinian news agency, Wafa, reported that a 17-year-old boy was killed in the incident during a violent clash with IDF soldiers. The teenager, identified as Muhammad Anwar Abu Sarakh, was reportedly shot in the head.

Earlier that week, a senior commander of the Islamic Jihad and an additional member of the group were killed in the West Bank city of Nablus in an exchange of fire with IDF and Shin Bet forces who had entered the city to arrest several wanted Palestinians.

Troops belonging to the elite Duvdevan unit were operating in the city's Rafidiyah neighborhood, in pursuit of 25-year-old Tariq Abu Ra'ali from Jenin.

Attila Somfalvi, Yonat Atlas, Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report

First Published: 07.27.08, 08:39

FM warns of US pressure before election

2008-07-28T22:20:00.004-04:00

Jul 28, 2008 0:50 | Updated Jul 28, 2008 14:39
Gil Hoffman

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni came out on Sunday against American efforts to have Israel reach an interim agreement with the Palestinians before the end of US President George W. Bush's term based on the diplomatic talks that she has led.

Speaking at a Kadima rally in Jerusalem that was closed to the press, Livni expressed concern that the Bush administration would pressure Israel, as president Bill Clinton did at Camp David before he left office in 2001.

"I purposely am not setting deadlines [for the negotiations with the Palestinians], because I think that's very bad," Livni said. "I very much don't want to be in the same situation that Ehud Barak was in at at Camp David of the end of an American administration finishing its term and trying to put pressure on everyone to bridge gaps that cannot be bridged."

Diplomatic officials told The Jerusalem Post last week that the US was interested in Israel and the Palestinians codifying the progress they have made in their talks up to now so there would be a document to serve as the basis for further negotiations following the changeover of governments in the US and - possibly - in Israel.

According to the officials, the document the US is interested in emerging from Israeli-Palestinian talks would be in lieu of a "shelf-agreement" that US President George W. Bush had said at last November's Annapolis Conference he hoped to see completed by the time he left office in January 2009.

Olmert has reportedly expressed interest in drafting such a document, but Livni has blocked this. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is expected to convene a trilateral meeting in Washington at the end of the month, with Livni and the chief Palestinian Authority negotiator Ahmed Qurei, but it not expected to lead to the drafting of a document.

Kadima officials speculated that the reason Livni was so adamant in blocking the drafting of such a document was that she was afraid that if the concessions she has already agreed to were revealed before the mid-September Kadima race, she could lose support to her chief rival, Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz.

In her speech to Kadima activists, Livni took credit for convincing the American administration to rule out the return of Palestinian refugees to the State of Israel in return for Israel's 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip. She called that commitment, which Bush made in his pre-disengagement letter, "Israel's greatest diplomatic achievement of the last decade."

A Kadima activist criticized Livni at the event for not quitting Olmert's government after the Second Lebanon War or in the wake of the latest allegations of corruption against him. She defended herself by saying that the moves she made and chose not to make were right for the country at the time.

"If I would have left then, people would have applauded and it wouldn't have changed anything," Livni said. "Now I said what had to be said and processes are taking place. Judge me not just on what I say but on what I do in my own way."

Livni vowed that if she won the September primary, she would be able to rehabilitate the party and lead it to victory in the next general election.

"We failed once, and I don't intend to let us fail again," she said. "Kadima made promises and didn't keep them. Kadima needs to fix itself from inside and then take it to the public. According to the polls, if we make that change, we can continue to lead the country."

An Open Letter to Barack Obama

2008-07-24T10:42:00.002-04:00

19 Tammuz 5768 / 22 July 08
by David Ha'ivri
Arutz Sheva Israel National News

We know who you are and who your friends are.

Barack Obama, why don't you just go home?

Barack, your visit here is just a waste of time; you're not wanted or needed here. We'll do just fine without you and you'll probably do better with out us, too. Don't come around here making as if you're looking out for the good of Israel. We know who you are and who your friends are. Zigzagging back and forth about dividing or un-dividing Jerusalem won't clear your history.

I'm not talking about your middle name. Any good Christian might have the middle name Hussein (although I can't think of any others). We won't hold that against you. There are worse things than having an Arab name; like for instance being supported by a known Jew-hater, bigot Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, who among other statements has accused the Jews of bringing on the Holocaust through cooperation with Hitler - "They helped him get the Third Reich on the road." But, of course, it would be wrong to hold that against you, because you haven't been rallying for his support (recently).

We can't really blame you for the beliefs of Father Michael Pfleger, who embraces Black Liberation Theology, which claims that Jesus was Black - so the Jews have no claim to Israel and, therefore, the Muslims are the rightful heirs of the Holy Land. Those beliefs have nothing to do with you, aside from the fact that you have coined the man your "moral compass." But one must admit that Pfleger is not your only mentor and also is not alone in looking up to Farrakhan.

Your spiritual mentor is Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who has praised Jimmy Carter for denouncing Zionism. Last year, the Trumpet Newsmagazine of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to Louis Farrakhan and said that he is a man who "truly epitomized greatness." You are a member of that Church and Jeremiah Wright is its leader and your spiritual adviser.

Now you won't go so far as to criticize Jimmy Carter, not even for meeting with the heads of Hamas, because, to paraphrase your words, "It's not your place to criticize him." That is, not until the next day, when you were seeking the support of Jewish leaders. Then you must have found a new place for criticism. Aren't the Jews great for giving a guy a new vision and a sense of self-confidence? Is that what you meant by, "It's time for change"?

Barack Hussein, we won't hold it against you. But can you tell us what you mean by supporting a Palestinian State along side Israel? Do you mean a replay of the ethnic cleansing of Jews from Gaza three years ago? Do you foresee soldiers carrying men, women and children away from their homes, which are to be demolished by bulldozers? Palestinian rule brought on the endless rocket fire on Sderot and the thousands of Jewish refugees who have yet to find permanent homes or means of a steady income. Is that your vision of a new hope that Farakkhan's Final Call website praises you for?

Barack Hussein, why don't you just go home? Your visit to Israel this week is not because you're looking out for the wellbeing of Israel and the Jewish people. You're coming to Israel looking for the Jewish vote; your goal is to speak with the Jewish American voters through the press coverage of this tour to the holy land. You want them to think that you took the time off from your busy campaign to further peace in the Middle East. Your hope is that enough stupid Jews will misread the message and take it as an act of support for Israel.

Don't use us or our land as a photo-op to transmit a twisted call for support to Jewish-American voters. You don't fool us. We know who you and your friends are.

Barack Hussein, why don't you just go home? But on the way out, remember the words you heard here from the proud Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria: "This is our land!" We are back after two thousand years of forced exile and we are not about to leave it again.

Analysis: Deterrence is the only effective tool against east Jerusalem terror

2008-07-23T16:36:00.002-04:00

Jul 23, 2008 1:39 | Updated Jul 23, 2008 16:29
By YAAKOV KATZ

Since January 1, the IDF, Israel Police and Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) have arrested close to 80 Arabs from east Jerusalem on suspicion of involvement in terrorism.

The figure represents a sharp increase over the previous seven years, when only 270 east Jerusalem Arabs were arrested. The numbers, released by the Shin Bet on Tuesday following the second bulldozer attack in Jerusalem, represent a growing terror trend among east Jerusalem Arabs, who, with blue identity cards, benefit from free access to Israel without inspections at checkpoints.

On the other hand, the fact that bulldozers were used in the two most recent attacks in the capital demonstrate the difficulty these terrorists are having in getting their hands on more lethal materials such as explosives, machine guns or other weaponry, so that they resort to what is available - their bulldozers.

While Jerusalem has known the occasional terror stabbing over the past few years, before the shooting attack in the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva in March in which eight students were killed, the last major attack in the capital was in 2004, when two border policemen were killed in a suicide bombing in the French Hill neighborhood.

This has to do with the remarkable job the IDF Central Command and the Shin Bet have done in preventing terror infiltrations into Israeli cities. This is not due to any drop in motivation or attempts - as the rise in arrests in east Jerusalem shows - but has to do with the near-completion of the security barrier, as well as the operational freedom the IDF enjoys throughout the West Bank.

Just two hours before the attack in Jerusalem, Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin appeared before the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee to discuss recent trends in Palestinian terrorism.

Diskin portrayed a gloomy picture of the situation in the Gaza Strip, noting the new range of Hamas's rockets - capable of reaching Kiryat Gat and Ashdod - as well as the work the terror group is doing in laying mines along the border fence.

When asked, however, to discuss the first bulldozer attack in Jerusalem, on July 2, Diskin turned critical, noting that Israel lacked effective deterrence against such attacks, mainly due to the foot-dragging on the demolition of homes belonging to the perpetrators of the Mercaz Harav and first bulldozer attacks.

Considering the dozens of construction sites throughout Jerusalem and the many Arabs who work on them, there is almost no effective way to prevent a lone attacker from deciding to turn his work tool into a killing machine except for deterrence. The failure to demolish or even seal the homes of the previous attackers is a mistake that, according to the Shin Bet, is enabling future attacks.

Another problem the Shin Bet chief noted was the lack of coordination between the police and the IDF vis-à-vis operations in east Jerusalem refugee camps. One example is in Shuafat, where to this day it is unclear who is responsible for performing arrest raids - the Border Police or the IDF.

What is needed, security officials said, is a daily presence of security forces inside these east Jerusalem neighborhoods and refugee camps - another step that would add to Israel's deterrence and cause a potential terrorist to rethink his plans.

Breaking the Code: Obama’s Anti-Israel Message

2008-07-23T10:03:00.001-04:00

Written by Rand H. Fishbein, Ph.D.
Published Monday, July 21, 2008
The Media Line: MidEast News Source

If words are a window onto the soul, then Barack Obama’s comments before a recent gathering of more than 7,000 delegates at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) 2008 Policy Conference reveals much about his true attitude towards Israel and the not-so-secret agenda of his foreign policy advisors. Here was an opportunity for the great orator to set the record straight and to disabuse his critics of the widely held notion that his sympathies lie not with Israel’s enemies, but with the safety of the besieged Jewish State.

“Let me be clear,” Obama declared to his pro-Israel audience, “Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper - but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders.”

For most of those in attendance, the statement by the Illinois Senator was nothing short of a ringing endorsement of Israel and its security requirements, an unambiguous declaration that if elected, the new President would not pressure Israel into making life-threatening concessions in the name of peace. So convinced was the AIPAC audience of his sincerity that he received rapturous applause from a crowd long accustomed to lofty pro-Israel declarations by aspiring candidates.

But what was Obama hinting at? A careful parsing of the passage suggests that either he was calling for all Palestinian towns on the West Bank to be linked territorially, something that already exists, or more likely that in any final peace deal Hamas-controlled Gaza must be connected to the West Bank via a land bridge.

In fact, the Obama statement was a sinister reformulation of a key Palestinian demand that if implemented, would erode not only the geographic continuity of the Jewish State, but could fatally undermine its security as well.

By asserting that “The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive,” Obama implicitly called for the partitioning of Israel, the break-up of a U.N. member state and U.S. democratic ally, and the sacrifice of its territorial integrity in the face of unrelenting terrorism. This is surely not what the AIPAC audience understood and certainly not what the American People expect of a possible future President.

Nonetheless, the erosion of Israeli security is the logical consequence of any proposal that would press for a contiguous Palestinian state between 'Hamastan' and the Palestinian territories on the West Bank. Hamas, after all, is committed to the destruction of Israel and has demonstrated this fact by firing over 4,000 rockets into Israeli towns and cities since the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza in 2005. The U.S. Government has branded Hamas a terrorist organization and has noted its links not only with terrorist groups in Egypt, Lebanon and Syria, but also its close association with Al-Qa'ida.

Surely those advising Obama on foreign policy matters are aware that what their candidate is asking of Israel is nothing short of national suicide. Individuals like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Lee H. Hamilton, Susan E. Rice, Lawrence J. Korb, Joseph Cirincione, W. Anthony Lake and David Bonior boast long resumes opposing Israel security interests and challenging the extent of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Today, neither Egypt nor Israel is able to stem the flow of guns, rockets and explosives from the Sinai Peninsula into Gaza. How then will it be possible to stop this weaponry from migrating over a land bridge and into the West Bank? Setting aside the fact that Hamas and Abbas’s Fatah are today implacable foes, such a corridor would only facilitate terrorist infiltration of the West Bank and bring Hamas terrorists closer to Israeli population centers. A corridor would complete the encirclement of the Jewish State by hostile Arab forces, something that no sane Israeli government could willingly accept.

Obama’s call for Palestinian territorial continuity contradicts all mainstream notions of Israeli defensible borders and security, effectively nullifying his pledge to safeguard the well-being of the Jewish State. It also invalidates his declaration that “We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements,” something they have pledged never to do.

Troubling, as well, is the use of the word “need” in the Obama declaration: “The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive…” It demonstrates not only a conspicuous break with longstanding American policy, but also a striking ignorance of the historic realities that brought the Palestinians to this point in history. The U.N. Partition Plan of 1947 gave the Arabs a contiguous and cohesive portion of Palestine upon which to build their state. That portion is called Jordan and constitutes 77 percent of historic Palestine. But the Arabs rejected that generous offer preferring, instead, to attack the nascent Israeli state in the hope of stealing the entire loaf.

Senator Obama should understand that the Palestinians do not “need” more land. They may desire a corridor between Gaza and the West Bank, but a ”desire” is not a “need.” Such a corridor is no more a requirement of self-sufficiency than was a land corridor running through India and connecting Muslim Pakistan and Muslim Bangladesh following the partition of India in 1947. If the island state of Malta is able to prosper with a land area of 122 square miles then the Gaza Strip, at 146 square miles, should be able to do the same. In fact, there are 17 countries that are less than 200 square miles in size. All are economically and politically viable.

History has taught us that appeasement and intimidation should never be the basis for American policy. What the Palestinians deserve is a leadership that cares more about the welfare of its own people than in its unremitting obsession with the destruction of Israel.

If adopted by a future Obama administration, the candidate’s proposal would nullify any pretense that the U.S. backed safe and secure borders for Israel. Without geographic and economic continuity, the main population centers of Israel would be divided, the security services would be further strained, Israeli military mobilization would be severely impaired, military training bases would be isolated, traffic from the port of Eilat would be slowed, and the cost of exploiting the Negev’s mineral wealth probably would rise significantly.

Shorn of platitudes, the Obama speech to AIPAC was a sober warning to all who support the Democratic candidate for president. The subtext was clear: under an Obama administration Israel's security is not “sacrosanct.” Everything is “negotiable.” And the Jewish State will be “pressured” to concede its very territorial continuity to satisfy an Obama vision of peace in the region.

After all, it took only twenty-four hours following his AIPAC speech for Obama to repudiate his own declaration that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” After senior Hamas and Palestinian Authority leaders condemned the statement, he retreated, telling CNN’s Candy Crowley in an interview that "obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be a part of these negotiations."

Could this new approach to Israel signal the emergence of an “Obama Doctrine,” one that calls for the weakening of democratic states that do not capitulate to the relentless assaults of terrorist insurgencies? Hopefully, it is not. America can ill afford to abandon a stalwart democratic ally in the Middle East any more than Israel can afford the price of many more concessions.

Other countries facing local insurrections are watching to see if the formula Obama has sketched for Israel will be their fate as well. The clock is ticking. It is time that Israel and the American voting public carefully reexamine Obama’s words. Thankfully, he has helped us to break the code before it is too late.

Obama told his AIPAC audience: “…(W)e know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as President I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security. Sadly, Senator, by your words and your associations, you already have.

Rand H. Fishbein, PH.D., President of Fishbein Associates, Inc., a public policy consulting firm based in Potomac, Maryland, is a former Professional Staff Member on the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee, and Special Assistant for National Security Affairs to Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI).

'All the terrorist wanted to do was to kill Jews'

2008-07-23T09:56:00.002-04:00

Last update - 22:52 22/07/2008
By Haaretz Service and News Agencies

Within minutes of the bulldozer attack in central Jerusalem, many locals and tourists on the city's King David Street were debating whether the terrorist's actions were inspired by the expected arrival of U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama, or if it was simply an imitation of the similar incident two weeks ago.

"I don't think the terrorist cares who sleeps here tonight, all he wanted to do is kill Jews," said Paul Packer, of Long Island, New York. Packer had come to Jerusalem for a business trip and stayed in an apartment near the site where an East Jerusalem resident rammed a bulldozer into passing vehicles, injuring at least 24 people, mere yards from the hotel where Obama was to stay later in the day.

Watching the scene being cleared, he added, "I think they should leave the truck here so Obama can see what Jews and Israelis are facing every day."

"It was just a matter of time until there is a copy cat," said James Kennedy, a student at Tufts University in Boston who currently studies at the Hebrew University. His friend Jacob Abolafia believes the location of the attack was no accident: "We're between the King David and the Inbal hotel, where all the important people stay. Maybe there was a message that the terrorist wanted to send us."

Kenneth Hanson, a professor of Judaic studies from Orlando, Florida, had organized an Israel trip for his students, who were staying in the nearby Prima Royale Hotel on Tuesday. He insisted that despite the attacks, he had no plans to relocate. "Maybe somebody wanted to make a statement: You come here to support Israel, Mr. Obama, well, we have something else to tell you."

Other witnesses said Tuesday that the driver of the bulldozer had targeted pedestrians and vehicles before he was shot dead by a civilian and a Border Policeman.

"[The driver] tried to bring the blade of the bulldozer on the head of a pedestrian, but missed her by an inch," said one eyewitness. "At first I thought it was an accident, but then he kept going in a zigzag down the slope of King David Street, overturned a car and hit a few cars. The whole thing happened very quickly.

"One car flipped over and others were crushed. I started running in the direction of the tractor. People regained their composure within seconds. A guy from Susya, near southern Mount Hebron, shot him in the head and a few minutes later a Border Police officer shot him as well," the witness added.

The driver of the bus hit by the bulldozer said he was chased as the driver wielded the vehicle's shovel.

"I was driving on the main road when the [bulldozer] hit me in the rear, on the right hand side," the driver of the bus, who was not identified, told Channel 10 TV.

"After I passed him he turned round, made a U-turn and rammed the windows twice with the shovel. The third time he aimed for my head, he came up to my window and I swerved to the right, otherwise I would have gone to meet my maker," he said.

Witness Moshe Shimshi said the driver, who was wearing a large, white skullcap commonly worn by religious Muslims, slammed into the side of the bus, then sped away and went for a car.

"He didn't yell anything, he just kept ramming into cars," Shimshi said. "The driver then headed for cars waiting at a red light and rammed into them with all his might."

An Israeli Watershed: Strike on Syria

2008-07-21T16:57:00.004-04:00

by Eyal Zisser
Middle East Quarterly
Summer 2008, pp. 57-62

On the morning of September 6, 2007, Israel Air Force (IAF) planes penetrated deep into Syrian airspace and attacked a nuclear facility near the town of Dayr al-Zur in the northeastern part of the country. In an almost unprecedented fashion, the Israeli government and military refused to confirm the involvement of Israeli aircraft, the target, or the raid's success, with the first report of the operation coming from Damascus.[1] The lack of disclosure from Israel has been in inverse proportion to the raid's importance, which effectively called Bashar al-Assad's bluff. Since the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war in Lebanon, Assad had created a sense of fear that threatened to limit the Israeli military's options regarding Syria. After a decades-long status quo between Damascus and Jerusalem, Israeli leaders found themselves on the defensive. The strike on this suspect nuclear facility restored the status quo ante, and by doing so, Israeli leaders revealed Bashar's strategic weakness. While diplomats praised Bashar's restraint and maturity, his inaction undercut the image he sought to project. Despite his bellicose rhetoric, Assad feared a confrontation with Israel and was not prepared to pay the price of a conflict. Nevertheless, Damascus's covert flirtation with nuclear technology suggests Assad has not moved beyond rashness and that his judgement remains poor.
Syria: Calling for Peace, Preparing for War

On August 15, 2006, the day after a cease-fire ended fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, Assad claimed victory for himself and Syria.[2] The Israeli military had failed to achieve Jerusalem's stated aims: a return of the Israeli soldiers seized by Hezbollah and an end to Hezbollah's ability to fire rockets into northern Israel.[3] While the Syrian military had not participated directly in the fighting, Damascus did not conceal its support for Hezbollah. In a speech before the Fourth Annual Conference of the Syrian Journalists Union in Damascus, Bashar declared that he viewed the results of the battles as an important, and even historic, victory of the Hezbollah organization:

When we declare that we have chosen the path of peace and that peace is for us a strategic choice, this does not mean that we are renouncing all the other options. On the contrary, the more distant peace becomes, the more there is a need to seek other paths and solutions with the aim of regaining what is rightfully ours. Resistance in all its various forms is the alternative for regaining our rights.[4]

With a tone more forceful than in years past, Assad gave Israel the option of peace or confrontation: Either Israel could withdraw from the Golan Heights to the shores of the Sea of Galilee or risk a war of attrition on the Golan Heights similar to what Israel experienced with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.[5]

Assad's strident declarations raised questions about what operative conclusions he had drawn. His statements suggested that he believed that the "Israeli demon" was not so terrible. Hezbollah's missiles deterred Israel for years and, even when Israel did engage Hezbollah, they forced Israel to curtail the conflict without achieving Jerusalem's declared goals. Assad might conclude that Syrian missiles, more advanced than Hezbollah's arsenal,[6] could achieve the same effect should the Syrian regime sponsor a Hezbollah-like campaign on the Golan Heights. Syrian officials speaking to Western diplomats in Damascus even hinted that the possibility of all-out warfare might not restrain Bashar any longer.[7] While Hezbollah rained rockets on Haifa, Damascus possessed an arsenal including Scud-C and Scud-D missiles with respective ranges of 250 and 375 miles, capable of striking the entirety of Israel.[8]

Assad's threats, even if coupled with declarations of readiness to resume peace negotiations, received broad public exposure in the Syrian media. Senior Syrian officials amplified them in subsequent interviews, and columnists and political commentators repeated them in state newspapers, on the radio, and on television.

An August 16, 2006 editorial in the state-run Ath-Thawra daily declared that "just as Hezbollah fought against Israel, so will the Syrian people fight on the Hermon and at Mas'ada and Majdal Shams."[9] On September 4, 2006, Radio Damascus broadcast a political commentary in which it was declared that "the resistance option is available if the enemy refuses to return the land of the Golan."[10] The following month, Sulayman Haddad, a member of the Syrian People's Assembly, declared that "Israel understands only the language of resistance, and therefore it must understand that the bitter experience it suffered with the Lebanese resistance is liable to be repeated on the Golan Heights front if Israel continues its occupation of the Golan. It must understand," he added, "that we will do this, not because we love war, but because Israel is pushing us to the wall."[11] Then, on December 7, 2006, Syrian deputy foreign minister Faysal al-Miqdad declared in a speech to students at the University of Aleppo that "it must be understood that the patience of the Syrian people is running out" with regard to Israeli possession of the Golan.[12]

Syrian officials transmitted the same message to Arab and foreign journalists in Damascus. Syrian vice president Faruq al-Shar'a told the BBC, "Syria will do everything in its power to return the Golan Heights to its hands although it prefers to do this by means of negotiations for peace."[13] On July 13, 2007, the Qatari newspaper Al-Watan reported, "Syria has learned the lesson of the Lebanon war, so that if the peace negotiations with Israel are not renewed, then Syria will turn to adopt the option of resistance."[14] Senior Syrian officials told The New York Sun that Syria might establish a guerrilla organization to attack Israeli towns on the Golan and might rocket Israel Defense Forces positions there.[15] Such talk prepared Syrian public opinion for the possibility of confrontation with Israel.

Indeed, on June 26, 2006, during a ceremony commemorating the 1974 return of the border town of Qunaytra seized during the previous year's war, Syrian officials announced the establishment of the Popular Resistance Committees for the Liberation of the Golan Heights.[16] Media reports in Israel mentioned these committees in connection to several incidents, such as setting fires and blocking roads in the Golan. It is doubtful that these committees have any connection to events, however, and appear to be little more than storefronts in Damascus for issuing propaganda communiqués.[17]

Both the Syrian and Israeli militaries, meanwhile, readied for the possibility of renewed conflict with fortifications, rearmament, and robust training exercises.[18] With tensions so high, Israeli as well as Western analysts and journalists worried that any small incident might ignite a war.[19] What if a Syrian-supported terrorist group staged an attack in Israel, assuming that the Jewish state would not retaliate as it had in Lebanon because of Syrian missile deterrence? It was just such a flawed assumption that led Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah to order his men to kidnap two Israeli soldiers in July 12, 2006, sparking that summer's war.[20]

Until 2006, Israeli strategists calculated that they had room to maneuver against Syria. Israeli warplanes had buzzed Assad's palace twice, in August 2003 and June 2006, in response to actions by Syrian-backed terrorists. In October 2003, IAF planes attacked a deserted Palestinian training camp at ‘Ayn al-Sahab, 6 kilometers northwest of Damascus, after Palestinian Islamic Jihad, headquartered in Damascus, killed twenty-two Israeli civilians at the Maxim restaurant in Haifa. Israeli officials would not have conducted such operations had they believed a hot war would result. The 2006 Israel-Hezbollah war suggested that neither state had significant room to maneuver—that amid bellicose rhetoric, any spark might lead to conflagration. But, as Amos Yadlin, head of the Israel Defense Forces' Directorate of Military Intelligence, commented, the September 2007 raid restored Israeli deterrence vis-à-vis Syria.[21]
Israel's Air Raid

It was against such a backdrop that the IAF carried out its raid. Officially, Israeli spokesmen refrained from saying anything, perhaps to avoid humiliating Assad in such a manner that might force him to respond and provoke an all-out war. On September 19, twelve days after the strike, opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that the IAF had raided a site in Syria and that he had congratulated Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on the success of the operation.[22] Later, the Israeli military censorship board gave permission to all the media in the country to talk about the operation as a confirmed fact without having to state that their reports were based on Western sources, as previously required.[23]

Syria decided for its own reasons to publicize the attack. Perhaps Assad preferred not to wait for Israel to make an announcement as had happened in the past. Inconsistency in Syrian statements, though, intensified the mystery surrounding the strike. The Syrian military spokesman published a statement confirming that Israeli aircraft had penetrated Syrian airspace but said that they had been driven out by Syrian air defense units and forced to drop their bombs over unpopulated territory.[24] Several days later, Syrian foreign minister Walid Mu'alim denied that the intruding Israeli planes had attacked any targets inside of Syria.[25] The admission that the Israeli planes had indeed attacked something in Syria came in the end from Assad. He told the BBC that Israeli aircraft had attacked an "unused military building" but refused to say why he thought Israel would attack a target of "no value."[26] Ten days later, he told a Tunisian newspaper that the Israeli planes had targeted, "a military installation in the process of being constructed, and [so] there were no military personnel or other persons in it, either before or during the time of the bombing."[27]

The Syrians could not have failed to notice the lack of international support for Syria. Even more problematic for Damascus was the lack of any Arab support, let alone solidarity. Every Arab country, without exception, chose to ignore the Israeli operation. The only leader Assad called after the attack was Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan,[28] whereas the Israeli prime minister contacted Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah II to discuss the incident.[29]

Indeed, the only cause for concern for the Turkish government was the possibility that Israeli aircraft may have violated Turkish airspace on their way to their target—but a few days later, Ankara announced that it was satisfied with Israeli explanations.[30]

The U.S. and British media speculated initially that the operation was a dry run for a possible attack on Iran or that it was meant to intercept advanced weapons systems being transported overland to Hezbollah.[31] Reports soon emerged that the target was a nuclear facility being built with North Korean aid.[32] On April 24, 2008, this was confirmed by the U.S. government. Whatever the truth, it is clear that Jerusalem considered it imperative to destroy the target with the utmost speed. In response to Western allegations, Assad said he did not seek nuclear weapons and that, in 2001, he rejected an offer from middlemen answering to rogue Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadir Khan out of fear that it was an Israeli entrapment operation.[33]

It is plausible, though, that Assad had changed his mind. For more than three decades, Damascus and Pyongyang have enjoyed intimate relations. It was North Korea that, following the Soviet lead, supplied Syria with advanced missiles and, later, with technology to enable Syria to improve significantly its arsenal of long-range ground-to-ground missiles.[34] The experience of both North Korea and Libya shows that small, backward states can procure nuclear arms if they set that objective as a top priority. Perhaps the only reason Libya is not a nuclear state today is because Libyan strongman Mu'ammar Qadhafi believed the U.S. military might launch a preemptive strike on his regime.[35] Committed by its own diplomacy to cease nuclear work at Yongbyon, the North Korean regime may have looked favorably upon the opportunity to simply outsource its research and development.

Assad may also have decided that he wished to gain the immunity that nuclear weapons provide to any regime holding them. U.S. forces ousted Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq but offered concessions to North Korea in the face of the Hermit Kingdom's nuclear defiance. Assad may feel his regime faces regional if not international threats to its stability to which nuclear weapons could be an antidote. He may have alluded to this in the wake of the Israel-Hezbollah war when on August 15, 2006, he declared, "When we strengthen the resistance, our aim is to achieve peace, and not to advance war. The way to advance peace is by means of deterrent power that will enable us to prevent aggression against us."[36] He later told the German magazine Der Spiegel, "As far as I myself am concerned, I do not believe in war. But I do believe in deterrence, that is, in the principle of deterrence."[37] Such a policy would be a natural continuance of his father's attempts to achieve strategic balance between Israel and the Arab states. While Hafez al-Assad may have conceived this balance in terms of conventional military strength, by the beginning of the 1990s, he had adjusted his strategy to achieve parity based on a balance of terror—that is, Damascus strived to equip itself with unconventional weapons, such as chemical weapons.[38]

As time passed, it became clear that Bashar al-Assad had no interest in a flare up, let alone war. The Syrian leader told the BBC, "When we say to respond or to repay [Israel for its aggression], we do not necessarily mean to send a missile for every missile or a bomb for every bomb. We have our own ways of responding, for example, a political response, or perhaps a response by other means and in other ways. It is clear that it is our right to respond, but if we respond militarily, then we will be acting in accord with the Israeli agenda, which we are not interested in doing."[39] Seldom do Arab statesmen forget slights; it is possible that Assad will seek to attribute a future transgression to revenge.
Conclusions

The September 2007 IAF raid may well be the most formative event of recent years in Israeli-Syrian relations. Jerusalem surprised Assad and compelled him to recognize that the Israel-Hezbollah war had not changed the strategic balance as much as he believed. Not only had Israeli forces reached deep into Syria, but Jerusalem had also won diplomatically by focusing international attention on Syrian nuclear intentions. First, exposure of his nuclear adventurism cancelled any plaudits Assad had won for maturity and judgment; second, the raid exposed Assad's posturing to be false, not only for his domestic Syrian constituency but also for Arab and Islamic states.

Quite a few Israeli observers have claimed that one of the results—even if indirect—of the IAF attack in September was Syria's decision to participate in the Annapolis peace conference in November 2007.[40] Still, the dynamic between Syria and Israel remains negative. In the absence of any genuine prospects for a peace process, and despite the temporary relaxation of tensions between the two countries, it would seem that their relations will continue to be marked by accumulating tension, military preparations, and forecasts of war—if not in the spring, then in the summer, and if not in 2008, then in 2009.

Eyal Zisser is the director of the Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies at Tel Aviv University.

[1] SANA (Syrian Arab News Agency), Sept. 6, 2007.
[2] Bashar al-Assad speech, Aug. 15, 2006, SANA, Aug. 15, 2006; Tishrin (Damascus), Aug. 15, 2006.
[3] "Winograd Commission Interim Report," Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Apr. 30, 2007; Ha'artez (Tel Aviv), May 18, 2007.
[4] Radio Damascus, Aug. 15, 2006; Tishrin, Aug. 16, 2006.
[5] Ibid.
[6] See, for example, The New York Sun, July 8, 2007; Ephraim Kam, "The Impact of the War on Arab Security Concepts," in Shlomo Brom and Meir Eliran, eds. The Second Lebanon War: Strategic Perspectives (Tel Aviv: The Institute for National Security Studies, 2007), pp. 197-208.
[7] The New York Sun, July 8, 2007
[8] Alon Ben David, military correspondent, report on the Syrian missile arsenal, Channel 10, Israeli television, Aug. 13 2007; Elaph (London), June 25, 2007; "Syria," Institute for National Strategic Studies, The National Defense University, Washington, D.C., May 16, 2007; "Jane's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defence Profile: Syria," Jane's, Nov. 3 2006.
[9] Ath-Thawra (Damascus), Aug. 16, 2006.
[10] Radio Damascus, Sept. 4, 2006.
[11] Radio Damascus, Oct. 11, 2006.
[12] SANA, Dec. 7, 2006.
[13] BBC Radio (Arabic service), May 4, 2007.
[14] Al-Watan (Qatar), July 13, 2007.
[15] The New York Sun, July 8, 2007.
[16] SANA, June 26, 2006; Al-Hayat (London), June 27, 2006.
[17] Ha'aretz, Feb. 14, 15, 2007.
[18] Ha'aretz, Dec. 22, 2006; Ma'ariv (Tel Aviv), Dec. 29, 2006; Anthony H. Cordesman, "Israel and Syria: The Military Balance and Prospects of War," Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., Aug. 15, 2007.
[19] Ha'aretz, Dec. 22, 2006; Ma'ariv, Dec. 29, 2006.
[20] Ha'aretz, Dec. 22, 2006; Ma'ariv, Dec. 28, 2006.
[21] Yedi'ot Aharonot (Tel Aviv), Sept. 17, 2007.
[22] Channel 1, Israeli television, Sept. 19, 2007; Ha'aretz, Sept. 20, 2007.
[23] Ha'aretz, Oct. 3, 2007.
[24] SANA, Sept. 6, 2007.
[25] SANA, Sept. 17, 2007.
[26] BBC News International, Oct. 1, 2007; Tishrin, Oct. 2, 2007.
[27] Ash-Shuruq (Tunis), Oct. 11, 2007.
[28] SANA, Sept. 9, 2007; Al-Hayat, Sept. 10, 2007.
[29] Yedi'ot Aharonot, Sept. 9, 14, 2007.
[30] Ha'aretz, Nov. 9, 12, 2007.
[31] CNN, Sept. 11, 2007; "Hisad al-Yum," Al-Jazeera, Sept. 10, 11, 2007.
[32] The New York Times, Oct. 25, 2007; The Washington Post, Oct. 19, 2007.
[33] Die Presse (Vienna), Dec. 19, 2007.
[34] Michael Eisenstadt, "Syria's Strategic Weapons Programs," The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, PolicyWatch, no. 1288, Sept. 20, 2007.
[35] Charles Krauthammer, "Bush's ‘Axis of Evil,' Six Years Later," The Washington Post, Dec. 21, 2007.
[36] SANA, Aug. 15, 2006.
[37] Der Spiegel, Sept. 24, 2006.
[38] Moshe Maoz, Assad: The Sphinx of Damascus (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1988), pp. 173-92.
[39] BBC News International, Oct. 1, 2007.
[40] Ha'aretz, Nov. 27, 2007; Yedi'ot Aharonot, Nov. 30, 2006.

Israel names first female U.N. envoy

2008-07-21T16:39:00.002-04:00

Published: 07/20/2008
JTA Breaking News

Israel appointed its first female ambassador to the United Nations.

Gabriela Shalev, the rector of the Ono Academic College in the Tel Aviv district, was approved Sunday by the Cabinet. She was chosen by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to succeed Dan Gillerman.

"It was important to me to appoint a woman to represent Israel in such an important place," Livni told the Cabinet. "In addition, her extraordinary talents will enable her to deal with the challenges facing Israel.

"Professor Shalev is internationally respected, she has fulfilled many public positions in Israel, and the appointment committee determined that her impressive reputation and background, as well as her personality, make her a fitting candidate for the position of ambassador to the U.N."

Shalev has served as chairman of the Israel Broadcasting Authority, as a member of the Jewish Agency's Board of Trustees and a member of the committee for formulating ethics of Cabinet members.

How McCain Could Win

2008-07-20T10:43:00.003-04:00

July 10, 2008
By Richard Baehr
American Thinker

Yesterday, I laid out the very favorable environment for any Democrat running for President this year. I noted that the current Obama lead of 4-5% is very modest, given the structural advantages any Democrat would have in this year's race.

But there is another way to look at the race: namely that absent some of the unique structural or environmental advantages that exist for Democrats this year, John McCain should be running away from Barack Obama.

While this may sound irrational to some, I believe the key to a McCain victory is to focus his campaign and the voting public on the two candidates themselves -- their life stories, their experiences and accomplishments, their visions for the country, and their characters. If the election is decided on these factors, McCain should win.

The Obama campaign has a simple message: you hate (or really, really don't like) the job George Bush is doing. John McCain will run things just like George Bush, and I (Obama) offer a very different and exciting change in approach. The corollaries to the Obama message are a not very subtle pitch that the voter can demonstrate his or her decency and lack of bias by voting for the first African American presidential candidate, and by the way, John McCain is too old.

McCain needs to make the case that he is a far "safer" choice to be the next occupant in the White House. This case should be not that difficult to make. In essence, who is the "untested" candidate, and who is the "riskier" choice? These are specific words, as Frank Luntz might say, that matter.

Secondarily, there are particular choices for the Vice Presidential pick who could add some energy and excitement to the McCain campaign. The Obama-McCain contest has not been a fair fight in the charisma derby. Barack Obama is very good at reading a prepared speech from a teleprompter (John McCain is really bad at this), and Obama has been wowing the media and live audiences reading prepared texts. He has frequently stumbled with off the cuff remarks, which is why his campaign pays such attention to details regarding the setting for events, and on prepared remarks.

While it is likely that McCain will be outspent, and out organized, he should have enough money to get a message across, if it is focused and he stays on script. By accepting federal campaign funding, McCain will also not have to fundraise during the fall campaign, while Obama will likely waste days if not weeks doing this. It is also the case that fund raising events tend to be very partisan, requiring a candidate to pander to activists. In a general election campaign, when a candidate is trying to move to the center to appear moderate and acceptable to more than the party's base voters (an approach Obama has clearly undertaken of late), a shriller pitch to the base can lead to problems, as it did for Obama in San Francisco a few months back.

The Case against Obama

So what is the case for McCain? To begin with in a two party system, a case against Obama. No candidate for President since Wendell Wilkie in 1940 has had as little relevant experience before running for President as Barack Obama. The Illinois Senator served for 8 years, in a generally undistinguished fashion, in the Illinois legislature. He was best known for voting present more often than any other State Senator. When the Democrats took over the Legislature the last two years he served, Obama worked out a deal with the Democratic leader, Emil Jones, to get his name on some bills so he could buff up his resume before running for the open US Senate seat.

After a string of revelations about two opponents' marital problems, Obama wound up effectively running unopposed for the US Senate seat (Alan Keyes was the GOP standard-bearer). In the US Senate, Obama missed many votes in his first term even before he launched his Presidential bid, as he traveled the country speaking to Democratic Party events (and positioning himself with activists for a future Presidential run). Since the campaign began, he has missed virtually all Senate votes and failed to hold meetings of his own subcommittee. So the Obama record is very thin.

His major campaign themes have been lofty messages of change and hope and bipartisan unity. This is a smart course to take, when you have little to show for your years in public office. McCain needs to focus on Obama's record of scant legislative accomplishment and inexperience. What has Barack Obama done, as opposed to claiming to have done?

Obama has argued in the Democratic nominating contest that he showed good judgment by opposing the Iraq War in 2002 while John Edwards and Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the President's use of force, if necessary. But when he was elected to the Senate, Obama admitted that had he been in the Senate in 2002, and exposed to the same intelligence briefings as his two rivals, he might have voted the same way as they did, and as most Democrats in the Senate did -- to support the war resolution. So did Obama show good judgment in 2002, or was he just on the outside looking in, finding a smart way to appeal to anti-war activists in his party for an upcoming Senate campaign?

The real judgment issue comes into play with regard to Obama's call for a quick withdrawal from Iraq, and his opposition to the surge in the spring and summer of 2007. John McCain risked his political future calling for more troops for an unpopular war and said he would rather win the war than the White House. Obama stuck to his left wing anti-war mantra, and has been proven to have been wrong. Obama thought the surge would fail, but it has succeeded beyond anyone's expectations.

When General Petraeus showed up to testify to Congress last September, the group MoveOn.org in one of its vilest displays (and there are many to choose from), called Petraeus a betrayer of America in a full page ad the New York Times willingly ran. Obama, competing for the group's endorsement and contributions, said nothing. He missed the vote in the Senate, when by a 3 to 1 margin, that body condemned the ad. And now Obama wants to be the Commander in Chief and have the respect of the men fighting under Petraeus. Potential McCain ads about this episode, and the debate about the wisdom of the surge, scream off the page.

As opposed to the appearance of limitless ambition of the Democratic nominee, the GOP has a candidate who performed one of the most remarkable acts of personal courage ever displayed in the military -- consigning himself to years of torture and abuse, so as to not to break the morale of his fellow prisoners of war by accepting an early release. A new McCain ad does a pretty good job presenting McCain's decision as part of a long pattern of acts of love and devotion to his country. Generation after generation, the McCains have served in the military. Duty, honor, country are not just words for John McCain. What does Barack Obama offer to measure up? A couple of years as a community organizer? The McCain camp will almost certainly not run an ad juxtaposing Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, and Michael Pfleger and some of their juicier comments about Åmerica with the McCain record of service to his country, but maybe some group or the RNC will.

The history of the "Chicago friends of Barack Obama" is an uncomfortable one for the Illinois Senator, but it is a commentary on Obama's judgment as to the kind of people he chose as friends, mentors, and even spiritual advisors. Palestinian radicals opposed to the existence of Israel were good friends of Barack Obama. So was Tony Rezko, and the aforementioned Wright, Ayers and Pfleger.

Since entering the Senate, Barack Obama has compiled, in his limited number of votes, the most left wing record of all 100 US Senators. There is reason for Obama to be pivoting right while there is still time to change the script. John McCain on the other hand, has one of the most independent voting records in the Senate. Obama is far closer to Bernie Sanders, the socialist Senator from Vermont, than John McCain is to George Bush. But a hundred million dollars worth of negative ads will have George Bush morphing into John McCain so as to keep the focus on Bush and his unpopularity.

Obama believes in wealth and income redistribution, regardless of its effects on the size of the total economic pie. Most Americans do not. This is not pragmatic, but dogmatic, and certainly not moderate. If Obama wins and the Democrats have much larger majorities in the Senate and the House after 2008 (as they will), the country‘s politics will move sharply left. If America is still a slightly center-right nation (though clearly it is less so than in 2004) and basically moderate in its disposition, a vote for McCain would be a way to check such a sharp swing to the left. McCain would be smart to talk about this, and the need to serve as a check on what would be a heavy tax and spend Democratic controlled Congress.

The message for McCain needs to be as simple as the one Obama is selling. John McCain offers a a lifetime of love and service to country, an independent (maverick) streak that enables him to compromise and get results, and a strong leader in a time of continuing serious threats and challenges to our national security. This needs to be contrasted to the substantively empty record of Barack Obama -- a thin, but doctrinaire down the line left wing voting record when he shows up to vote . Obama is a candidate committed to taxing his way out of the current economic hard times. He is a candidate with no national security experience who might well convey weakness to our enemies, and thereby serve to invite them to act more provocatively. And Obama is a candidate with a history of long term relationships with people who seem to think very badly of their country.

Finally, there is the energy issue, which is now playing into the hands of the Republicans, if properly handled. Obama and the Democrats say no - to more drilling, and to increased use of nuclear power, and are offering no solutions to the increase in energy costs, which are proving to be a significant and damaging new burden for most American families. The Obama approach: to tax more of oil company profits and to end energy futures speculation, will not change the growing supply demand imbalance, which is a primary reason for rising energy costs. McCain is supporting more drilling, and more nuclear power, and greater conservation. So McCain is for more supply, and reduced demand. Obama and his Party appear to be looking for villains, not solutions.

Energy needed in the campaign

Even if McCain gets the messaging right, it may not be enough unless the candidate can inject some energy into the campaign. More than most Presidential candidates, McCain needs to get a boost from his Vice Presidential selection. There are concerns about McCain's age, and many expect he will only serve one term if elected. In the end McCain may make the decision to commit to only one term and to announce that he will use that term to achieve specific goals: to exit from Iraq with honor and success, to get the economy moving again, and to push the country on the road to energy independence. In any case, voters will look to McCain's VP choice as a more serious one than would be the case for a younger nominee.

The McCain camp can get some momentum in the two summer months before the convention by not only announcing a VP choice, but also some Cabinet choices. An early VP selection would mean that the media would be covering two GOP candidates and Obama for a period of time, a 2 to 1 advantage for the McCain team. That would be the reverse of what happened in the last few months of the Democratic nominating contest. But also announcing some Cabinet picks would magnify the roles and attention to these spokespeople during the campaign.

Several possible Cabinet picks could be very helpful to McCain. Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman may not be ideal VP candidates, but would be solid choices to be part of a McCain administration. These are women who have had pivotal roles in the new digital economy, and would deliver a positive message to younger voters, the high tech community, and women upset by what happened to Hillary Clinton in the nominating fight. Joe Lieberman and Tom Ridge are very capable men who could serve in an Administration at senior levels in foreign policy or defense roles. Bobby Jindal could be the head of HHS, with a directive to undertake a serious examination of the options for reform of entitlement programs, to ensure that the county does not go broke from Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security in the coming decades. None of the three are likely VP picks at this point. But they would help the ticket if their future roles were known.

Veepstakes

So who would help the ticket most as a VP selection? One interesting choice would be Alaska's very popular Governor, Sarah Palin. She would be an immediate media sensation and rob the Obama campaign of its monopoly of saturation media infatuation. Given the way the media was perceived to have ganged up on Hillary Clinton, there might be much greater care about avoiding doing it again with Palin. Of course Palin would be challenged for her youth and inexperience in foreign policy matters. But the reality is that Palin, unlike almost all US Senators (including Barack Obama), has actually run something, and with 84% approval for her job as Governor, seems to be running it well. Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis and Bill Clinton all ran for President directly from service as Governor. Raising the experience issue with Palin would be a risky strategy for the Obama campaign. After all, Palin would only be running for the #2 spot, and Obama, with arguably less of a track record, is running for the top spot. Palin would also be very effective in helping focus the energy issue, and the need to explore and drill for what we have in this country. She could take McCain to ANWR and give him reason to shift on that issue.

Other selections who could help the ticket include Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor, South Dakota Senator John Thune, and Mitt Romney. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty gets lots of mention, but Minnesota is likely not in play even with Pawlenty on the ticket, and he seems like a weaker choice then the other four. Romney proved he is Presidential calibre during the primaries, and would help the ticket in Michigan, which McCain may have to win, and New Hampshire, where McCain has a decent chance to win. Thune adds no state, but is a hero to the GOP base for knocking off Tom Daschle, is a respected leader in the Party, and might energize the volunteers needed for a large get out the vote operation, which was essential to Bush's victory in 2004, particularly in Ohio. Cantor would be a good pick as well. He is a very articulate conservative spokesperson, and would help McCain in Virginia, a state that will be closely contested this year. He is Jewish and would aid McCain's promising effort to significantly increase the GOP's share of the Jewish vote this year. He is also a good fundraiser. Finally, there is Rob Portman, the very capable Budget Director, and former Cincinnati area Congressman. Portman would help the ticket in Ohio, a tossup state and add real economic experience to the ticket. But his ties to the Bush administration may provide too much fodder for the Obama team to risk his selection .

It is worth mentioning that several of the most promising potential VP picks for Barack Obama have pulled themselves out of contention. This list includes Virginia Senator Jim Webb, former Virginia Governor Mark Warner and Ohio Governor Ted Strickland. These three men were arguably the three best VP picks for Obama. All of the top picks for McCain are still in the running. On this front, it is advantage McCain, if he takes advantage.

Richard Baehr is chief political correspondent of American Thinker.

New program battles northern children's war trauma

2008-07-17T17:52:00.001-04:00

Psychological studies find thousands of children still traumatized by Second Lebanon War; two years later, they fear school bells, news reports, terror attack reports. Afula Medical Center struggles to make parents aware of anxiety disorders

Sharon Roffe-Ofir
Published: 07.12.08, 12:21 / Israel Activism

Two years have passed since the Second Lebanon War broke out, and Israel's north has already been cleared of all visible damage. However, mothers living in the north have found that perhaps the most serious damage is the harm done to the minds of their children.

"For the children of the north," says the mother of a 7-year old girl from Amakim, "the war is not over. This week we saw military vehicles and she asked me: Mom, will we have a war this vacation, too?"

The mother said it had taken her a while to understand that her daughter was suffering from mental trauma. When she was afraid to go to school upon entering the first grade, her mother thought it was normal, and even when she asked whether the school had a fortified room and called the bell an 'alarm', the reason for her daughter's fears did not dawn on her.

The family resides near a school, which was turned into a military camp during the war. The girl could not understand where the soldiers were upon returning to school from summer vacation, and eventually asked the teacher why the soldiers were not coming back to school. "Then I began to understand that maybe there was some connection to the war. Suddenly everything came together," the mother said.

Immediately after the war 55,000 children were diagnosed with different levels of anxiety syndromes. Many of them arrived at HaEmek Hospital's mental health clinic for children and teens in Afula. When patient arrivals tapered off a little after the war ended, Dr. Ziva Bracha, who manages the department, wondered where they had disappeared to.

"Months passed, and none of the parents came in," Bracha said. "On the other hand, I kept hearing the medical team telling of a long list of anxieties their children were suffering from. I realized something had to be done, and that we had to tell the community."

With a donation from United Jewish Appeal the wheels were set into motion, though Bracha claims some of the local authorities had trouble believing her claims. "Some raised an eyebrow; how can it be that after over a year since the war, there are still those who suffer from shock. Finally we got full cooperation," she explained.

'No spontaneous recovery'

At first educators were asked to filter out the children in the schools that appeared to require treatment. "We were exposed to a large number of children suffering from post-trauma," said Shay Sorer, a social worker who deals with children.

"We saw children that are unable to listen to the news, and children who fear the noise made by airplanes, the school bell, or attacks that occur elsewhere," he added. The symptoms included sleep and learning disorders, troublesome thoughts about the war, and fear of leaving the house, as well as bedwetting in younger ages.

Using a new treatment developed by Prof. Edna Foa, a clinical psychologist from the University of Pennsylvania, therapists return the children to the painful time and teach them how to deal with it. "It is important that parents understand there is no spontaneous recovery here – time in this case will not heal all wounds," said Sorer.

The community program, scheduled to run until December, includes house calls made by a psychological and medical team. Part of its aim is to fight the stigma latched onto the appeal for psychological therapy. "We have treated 70 children suffering from post-trauma so far," Bracha said. "I fear there are many more who have not yet received treatment, either because of the stigma or because parents have not connected the symptoms of fear to the war."

The 7-year old girl is expected to join the program during the next few weeks, along with her 9-year old brother, who suffers traumatic recurrences of the summer of 2006. "I'm not afraid, I'm worried, because unfortunately the wars are not over," he claims while discussing the anxiety he feels when he hears about another terror attack.

"I believe mortar shells will still fall, because there are bad people in the world. I'm worried something will happen to my dog, or that I'll lose a relative, or that Hizbullah will harm my legos and books. In the war I was scared, too. If they came close, I'd teach them with Capoeira kicks that they shouldn't try to mess with us."

'Think of Zionism as an answer for materialism'

2008-07-16T20:19:00.002-04:00

Jul 15, 2008 20:36 | Updated Jul 16, 2008 15:52
By JUDY SIEGEL, THE JERUSALEM POST, LOS ANGELES

The growing materialism and "meaninglessness" in much of American Jewry could be fought with teaching Zionism by creating savings accounts for children and teenagers to be used for eventual trips to Israel, suggested McGill University history Prof. Gil Troy.

Speaking on Monday, the second day of the 94th annual Hadassah convention at the Westin Bonaventure Hotel in Los Angeles, Troy and other speakers at a plenary session "Is Israel on Your Radar Screen?" bemoaned the fact that the younger Diaspora Jews are, the less likely they are to care about or identify with Israel.

The birthright program that will bring 42,000 young Jews to Israel for 10-day trips this year is excellent, said Troy, "but we have also to take personal responsibility for it and take more vacations in Israel. As the father of four young children, I know that Jewish children get more and more unnecessary gifts. Instead, think of Zionism as an answer for materialism. Hadassah, he suggested, can lead by organizing such savings accounts for travel to Israel. He also advocated widespread teaching of Hebrew to American Jews.

The convention's 2,000 delegates were polled instantaneously using electronic devices that captured their opinions. When asked whether their youngest adult child was just as attached to Israel as they were, only half answered yes, and 85 percent felt that Jews in their 20s and 30s are not as attached to Israel as their elders.

Prof. Steven Cohen, a researcher in Jewish social policy at the Hebrew Union College, conducted his own scientific study of non-Orthodox American Jews who constitute 90% of Americans who identify themselves as Jews.

According to all measures, the younger they are, the less attachment they feel about Israel. "It's a terrible tragedy. The only exception of less activity compared to their elders is that younger Jews are more likely to speak to non-Jews about Israel, but this is because they know more non-Jews."

Because the poll queried people who identified as Jews, Cohen said it "overrepresents Jewish attachment to Israel because there are many intermarried and assimilated Jews who do not identify themselves as such."

The serious decline in donations to Jewish causes since the 1980s reflects the fact that unmarried intermarried Jews are less inclined to financially support Jewish and Israeli causes, Cohen said.

"The strongest predictor of attachment to Israel is if you have a Jewish marriage partner. There is a corrosive effect on Jewish identity in the US. You can't sustain ethnicity if don't have Jewish friends, neighbors and spouses, but two-thirds of young Jews have a non-Jewish romantic partner.

"Assimilation and intermarriage is at the root of declining identification by Jews with and support for Israel. But an antidote is to travel to Israel, and the more you come, the better."

Cohen also endorsed Jewish financial support for Jewish summer camps and youth movements, independent prayer groups and Jewish learning.

Rabbi Eli Stern, director of special projects at the Samuel Bronfman Foundation, said that there is a "profound identity shift among young Diaspora Jews from assumed Jewish identify to asking why one should be Jewish at all."

The serious decline of the Conservative Movement, which always supported Israel, Stern said, reflects this disillusionment.

While political support for Israel in the general American population remains strong, using Israel as a source for collective Jewish identity has taken a tremendous hit, Stern added.

Former Israeli cabinet minister, refusenik and human rights activist in the Soviet Union, Natan Sharansky, who is now chairman of the Institute for Strategic Studies at the Shalem Center in Jerusalem, said at the convention that the growing view among young Jews that freedom and peace can be achieved only by rejecting ethnicity, nationalism and faith was dangerous.

"They think that freedom and identity are on opposite sides, that there no values worth dying for. There must be no hesitation in saying proudly that we are for justice and human rights, but the only way we can defend and protect Israel is going back to our roots and being proud Jews," he said, earning a standing ovation.

Goldwasser and Regev were killed in the initial attack

2008-07-16T20:11:00.002-04:00

Jul 16, 2008 1:56 | Updated Jul 17, 2008 1:21
By YAAKOV KATZ AND TOVAH LAZAROFF
Jerusalem Post

Two years of uncertainty came to a bitter end on Wednesday as the bodies of Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser were returned to Israel in a long and multi-staged prisoner swap at the Rosh Hanikra border crossing.

Officials said an initial examination of the bodies, transferred by Hizbullah, revealed that both soldiers were killed during the assault on their border patrol two years ago, an attack that sparked the Second Lebanon War.

Goldwasser, officials said, suffered a lethal wound to the chest from a rocket-propelled grenade and Regev appeared to have been shot in the head, perhaps when trying to escape their burning IDF Hummer.

The bodies of Goldwasser and Regev were unloaded on the Lebanese side of the crossing early Wednesday morning, bringing an end to last-ditch hopes that one, or even both, men were alive. In the morning, the families gathered in their respective home towns; the Goldwassers in Nahariya and the Regevs in Kiryat Motzkin. Here, away from the media, they first heard the bitter news on television and then waited for final words from the army.

With the exchange complete, defense officials said Wednesday evening that the IDF would raise its level of alert along the border out of concern that Hizbullah would use the period following the swap to strike at Israel in retaliation for February's assassination of arch-terrorist Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus.

The identification process took several hours due to the bodies' poor state. The final identification was done using an advanced imaging system, specially brought to Rosh Hanikra, that scanned the soldiers' teeth. DNA tests were also conducted at the crossing.

Before the identification process could begin, sappers inspected the coffins to ensure that they were not booby-trapped.

The process ended at close to 4 p.m. and both bodies were placed in coffins, draped in Israeli flags and carried by noncommissioned officers from the Golani Brigade to military trucks that transported them to the Shraga Base, south of Nahariya, where the families - as well as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi - paid their final respects.

Also present was Lt.-Gen. (res.) Dan Halutz, chief of General Staff during the war, who had asked Ashkenazi for permission to attend the intimate ceremony.

"My throat is dry, my eyes are tearing and my heart goes out to the families who struggled without a sign [of life], and didn't lose hope until the very last moment," Olmert said following the swap. "This is a day of removal of doubt. Certainly with regards to the fate of Udi [Ehud] and Eldad, may their memories be blessed, but also regarding the moral and ethical power of Israel."

"By virtue of this power we decided to return the boys, even with the heavy price of releasing a despicable murderer," the prime minister said. "Nobody else will understand what every Israeli understands well: The concern over the fate of every one of our soldiers is the glue that binds us as a society, and it is this which allows us to survive in an region that is surrounded by enemies and terrorist organizations."

The IDF said military rabbis would recite psalms next to the coffins overnight, until they were taken to military cemeteries in the morning for burial. Goldwasser will be buried in Nahariya at 10 a.m. and Regev will be laid to rest at 2 p.m. in Haifa. The soldiers were given posthumous promotions.

Minutes after the bodies left Rosh Hanikra, Palestinian Liberation Front murderer Samir Kuntar and four Hizbullah guerrillas caught during the war arrived at the border and crossed into Lebanon, where they were met by the top Hizbullah leadership and thousands of supporters.

After the five crossed into Lebanon, another coffin, containing body parts belonging to IDF soldiers from the Second Lebanon War, was transferred to Israel. The IDF then facilitated the transfer of close to 200 bodies of Lebanese and Palestinian gunmen to Lebanon.

In Nahariya, Ehud's father-in-law, Omri Avni, told reporters: "It is a difficult moment for us the family and for me personally after two years of meetings, traveling, talking, writing and being in the process of trying to bring Udi back home." He said he wanted to thank Ofer Dekel, who had negotiated the deal. "Udi and Eldad are back. We wanted them to be back," Avni said.

"I would like to thank the prime minister and the government of Israel for taking the right decision, which made the deal come through. We would like to thank the public who supported us for the last two years, it gave us courage and strength," Avni said, adding that the public's support had helped bring the two men home.

Earlier, Shlomo Goldwasser, Ehud's father, also expressed appreciation for the support he received from the public.

"In the last two years we discovered what a wonderful people [the Jewish nation] is," he said. "We would like to thank the entire Jewish nation. This nation is our answer to [Hizbullah leader Hassan] Nasrallah, who is trying to play with our emotions."

Tzvi Regev, the father of Eldad, echoed Goldwasser: "I thank the Jewish nation, the media and all who have intervened on our behalf. We hoped Udi and Eldad would return alive; now we will have to adjust to a new reality."

Yaakov Lappin, AP and Jerusalem Post staff contributed to this report.

Deals at Paris summit, but nothing major on Mideast peace

2008-07-14T15:33:00.003-04:00

Thaer Ganaim/PPO/BPH Images
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, center, clasps the hands of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, left, and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Paris on July 13, 2008

By Devorah Lauter
Published: 07/13/2008

PARIS (JTA) -- While the French-initiated summit for the Union for the Mediterranean did not produce any major breakthroughs, French President Nicolas Sarkozy recognized one achievement: every Arab country but Libya sitting down with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert..

"The fact that we were all in the same room is already a lot," Sarkozy said at a news Sunday in the French capital following the inaugural summit.

Conference participants approved six projects and signed an accord that, among other things, talks of developing peace and fighting terrorism. All 43 nations also signed on to support the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Sarkozy underlined that much work still needed to be done to implement the projects.

Peace between Israel and Syria and the Palestinian Authority was a major focus of the event.

On Sunday, Sarkozy hosted a meeting of Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and a day earlier Syrian President Bashar Assad met with Sarkozy and the new president of Lebanon, Michel Suleiman, to discuss peace in the region.

Olmert spoke about his morning discussion with Abbas.

"It seems to me that we have never been closer to the possibility of a peace accord than we are today,” Olmert told reporters.

"We are living through an essential and critical moment," he said, evoking the "very serious negotiations" currently under way.

Abbas said at the news conference that "it is in all of our interests to reach" peace. "We should achieve peace for the people of the Middle East in general, but also for peace in the world."

The summit, which aimed to normalize Israel's relationship with its Mediterranean Arab neighbors through shared economic and cultural projects, was considered risky due to the huge differences among the participating nations.

Referring to critics who questioned the feasibility of the French-initiated project, Sarkozy asked in his opening remarks Sunday, "Who can live without taking risks?”

He added, “The very idea of life is that: to take risks. The risk we are taking in Europe is to extend a hand of friendship to [Egyptian] President [Hosni] Mubarak and to invite Prime Minister Olmert as a friend. If the risk we are taking is just that, extending a hand of friendship, and trying to construct peace, then it would have been an even greater risk not to have taken that risk."

At the conference, Assad sat opposite Olmert at a large, circular table set in alphabetical order so the disputing countries were not placed side by side. The leaders did not meet one on one, nor did they shake hands.

Afterward, Sarkozy dismissed rumors that Assad stepped out before Olmert's closed-door speech to member states, insisting that the event went off "without an incident."

But according to several diplomats and participants, Assad and Abbas left for meetings on the sidelines of the summit. Assad reportedly met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Israeli officials confirmed Monday that Assad snubbed Olmert, just hours after the prime minister sent the Syrian leader a message pleading for direct talks between their nations before a new American administration takes office in January and insisting on his "serious" desire for peace.

The officials, who could not be named due to the sensitivity of the issue, told the JTA in an interview that "Olmert sat through and listened to everything Assad said, but Assad left when Olmert spoke." The officials were citing Israeli officials in the conference room at the time.

Olmert had told Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan that he was "extremely serious in his desire to move forward in peace talks" with Syria, said Israeli officials. Syria and Israel are holding indirect talks through Turkey.

A European source reportedly confirmed that both Assad and Abbas were absent, but insisted their absence was "neither ostentatious, nor intended to create an incident."

Mubarak wondered, "If Mr. Assad has things to do outside of the plenary session, what is the problem?"

Assad and Arab statesmen also apparently refused to be photographed in a group picture with Olmert.

A Reuters photographer captured a photo of Olmert apparently trying to catch Assad's attention while Assad blocks his face with his hand to avoid eye contact.

Assad also reportedly tried to avoid being photographed with Olmert during Monday's Bastille Day national holiday, where Union for the Mediterranean participants were invited to watch the annual parade down the Champs-Elysees.

Following a Saturday meeting with Sarkozy, a visibly cheerful Assad told reporters that he wanted France to co-mediate any direct talks between Israel and Syria with the United States when a new American president takes office next year.

At a news conference Saturday, Sarkozy told reporters that he asked the Syrian leader to "bring him proof" that Iran was not planning to build nuclear weapons.

The next day Sarkozy told journalists that during his meeting with Assad, he discussed the Syrian leader's potential contribution to the freeing of Israeli kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, who is also a French citizen, held captive by Hamas since 2006.

In a Bastille Day speech, Sarkozy said he would take steps to free Shalit.

"We're going to mobilize to get him out," the French president said after honoring Ingrid Betancourt, a French Colombian who was rescued recently after being held hostage for six years by Colombian rebels, with the Legion of Honor.

Assad is in a position to speak to Hamas on the subject because of Syria's close ties to the group.

Israel and Syria have raised the specter of direct talks but there have been no agreements.

Olmert said he hoped the indirect talks with Turkey would be upgraded to direct talks "in the future," but added, "The Syrian track will under no circumstances come at the expense of the Palestinian talks, which are of utmost importance to us."

Assad's visit to France, a first since Syria and France froze ties in 2005, marks his newly improved relationship with Europe.

In his opening remarks Sunday, Mubarak said, "This new phase we're entering into must be an age of peace in the Middle East, and I would invite Mahmoud Abbas and Olmert to pursue their peace negotiations in order to achieve total peace, and in order to establish an independent Palestinian state and to open a new era of peace in the Middle East."

Mubarak, who was presiding over the conference with Sarkozy, called for a realistic approach to Sunday's discussions while maintaining a new and positive outlook for improved negotiations.

"We must not overlook the consequences of the gap between the countries of the South and those of the North," he said. "We must take a realistic view of that gap, but we must also approach it in a new spirit with a new philosophy."

Following the conference, Sarkozy congratulated "the Arab countries for their courage" in accepting the invitation to join Israel at the discussion table.

Until last week it appeared that a handful of key Arab states, such as Algeria, would not attend the summit because of Israel's presence and fears that northern European nations would take an upper hand in the conference, which initially did not include all of the European Union.

Jordan's King Abdullah II and King Mohammed VI of Morocco sent senior representatives because of reported scheduling problems.

All the participants were invited to Monday's Bastille Day celebrations, which at first incited an outcry from human rights activists who criticized Assad's presence.

Sarkozy announced that the participants had adopted six projects that involve cleaning up the Mediterranean Sea, as well as creating maritime and land highways, civil protection programs, solar energy laboratories, a Euro-Mediterranean university and a business development initiative for the region.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner told French radio Europe 1 on Monday, however, that the accord needed to be amended due to an Israeli and Palestinian disagreement.

"At the last minute we failed, perhaps 30 minutes before the end, on one word," Kouchner said.

He added that the text which Sarkozy lauded as being unanimously approved on Sunday "still needs to be corrected a little."

Kouchner said the conflict was over the definition of Israel as a Jewish homeland and whether it should be called a "nation-state, a national and democratic state."

"National implies a whole difficulty around the return of refugees to a state that is Jewish or not from a Palestinian state," he said.

"The peace process, if it is going well at the summit, is not going well at its core," Kouchner added in specific reference to trouble over Palestinian mobility in the region.

The final accord adopted Sunday says that "heads of state and government reaffirm their support for the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, as referred to in the Lisbon Euromed Ministerial Meeting (November 2007) and according to the Annapolis process."

Neither the Lisbon or Annapolis agreements refer to a "nation-state."

The Palestinian foreign minister, Riyad Al-Maliki told the AFP news agency Monday that "Israel insisted on including the mention of a 'state for the Jewish people,' to which we are categorically opposed."

"We would have liked the final declaration on this point to be more clear," Al-Maliki said.

However, an Israeli spokesperson told the AFP that Israel "agreed with everything that was adopted in the declaration because it was done through consensus."

"In four hours we couldn't solve everything," Sarkozy joked Sunday, "but now we need to develop [discussions] and go farther."

Knesset bill would revoke terrorists' residency

2008-07-14T15:04:00.001-04:00

JTA Breaking News
Published: 07/14/2008

A Knesset committee approved a bill that would revoke the Israeli citizenship or residency of people participating in terrorism.

The Knesset Internal Affairs Committee approved the bill, submitted a year ago, permitting the interior minister to revoke citizenship or residency of anyone convicted of being involved in a terrorist organization, involvement in a terrorist activity, espionage or treason. The bill now moves on to the Knesset for its second and third readings.

The bill is similar to several other bills submitted following attacks in Jerusalem including the shooting attack on the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva and a bulldozer attack on Jaffa Road.

Also Monday, the Knesset Labor, Welfare and Health Committee approved a bill that would allow the cancellation of state-funded burials for terrorists. It is now headed to the Knesset for its first reading.

Israeli residents who commit terrorist acts and are killed currently receive the same National Insurance Institute funeral benefits as residents killed in the attacks.

Israel has 'amber light' on Iran attack

2008-07-14T15:01:00.000-04:00

JTA Breaking News
Published: 07/13/2008

President Bush has given Israel an "amber light" to prepare for a military strike against Iran, a Pentagon official said.

Britain's Sunday Times reported that a senior Pentagon official said the U.S. president told Israel that he would back a military strike on Iran's main nuclear sites if diplomatic talks fail.

“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” The Times quoted the official as saying.

But amber will not turn to green without a workable military proposal from Israel and proof that Iran is planning to launch an attack of its own, the official said.

The report adds that Israel cannot expect to receive any help from U.S. troops and will not have access to U.S. military bases nearby in Iraq for refueling or other support.

“It’s really all down to the Israelis," the official told the Times. "This administration will not attack Iran. This has already been decided. But the president is really preoccupied with the nuclear threat against Israel and I know he doesn’t believe that anything but force will deter Iran.”

Pentagon officials are opposed to a strike on Iran, in part out of concern that it will put U.S. soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan in danger.

The Times reported that there has been speculation that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who is facing a major corruption scandal at home, would order an attack on Iran to take attention away from his problems. The Times quoted one of Olmert's closest friends as saying that “in three months’ time it will be a different Middle East."

Israeli Airforce: Watch out Iran and Syria.........

2008-07-12T19:07:00.002-04:00

Hizballah Rearms and Declares War Against Israel

2008-07-12T12:49:00.002-04:00

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee

With the support of Iran and Syria, Hizballah has strengthened its military capabilities and can now strike deep within Israel’s heartland. Despite an enhanced presence of UN peacekeeping forces, the terrorist army now possesses an arsenal of more than 40,000 rockets—nearly three times its stockpile prior to the 2006 war with Israel. As Hizballah rebuilds and steps up its calls for Israel’s elimination, the U.N. forces in Lebanon and the larger international community should take further action to disarm Hizballah in order to prevent another outbreak of war and to help stabilize Lebanon.

With support from Iran and Syria, Hizballah has amassed a larger weapons arsenal than before the 2006 Lebanon war.

Israeli officials report that Hizballah has amassed more than 40,000 long- and short-range rockets deployed both north and south of the Litani River.
Hizballah’s growing rocket arsenal is nearly three times more than the amount the terrorist army had before the war with Israel in 2006.
Israeli defense officials report that Hizballah has acquired new Iranian rockets with a range of 185 miles, allowing it to target all major Israeli population centers.
Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in February that “Lebanese Hezbollah continues to receive weapons, training and resources from Iran.”
Hizballah sends some 300 men each month to Iran for terrorist training. A report published in The Independent (UK) in April stated that nearly 4,500 Hizballah fighters have participated in three-month training sessions on live-fire ammunition and rocket exercises.

Hizballah has increased its calls for Israel’s elimination, declaring “open war” against Israel.

Following the assassination of Imad Mughniyeh, one of the world’s most sought-after terrorist masterminds, Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah declared, “We will wage war [against Israel] without any preconditions,” adding, “The disappearance of Israel is an inevitable fact.”
During a memorial to mark the 40th day following the assassination, Nasrallah echoed statements by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, proclaiming, “Can Israel be eliminated? Yes and a thousand yeses, Israel can be eliminated.”
At a ceremony marking the beginning of Hizballah’s annual “week of the resistance” at the end of February to honor dead Hizballah leaders, Nasrallah warned Israel, “We will kill you in the fields, we will kill you in the cities, we will fight you like you have never seen before.”

U.N. forces in southern Lebanon are ignoring Hizballah’s rearming and failing to confront Hizballah terrorists.

On at least four separate occasions in the last six months, U.N. forces identified armed Hizballah operatives and weapons convoys but failed to intercede in accord with U.N. rules and to submit full statements on the incidents to the U.N. Security Council, according to a report in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz.
On the night of March 30, U.N. troops on patrol in southern Lebanon stopped a truck carrying weapons and ammunition, but let it go after armed Hizballah men threatened the troops at gunpoint. UNIFIL declined to report the incident at the time and refused to use force to disarm the terrorists as required by its mandate.
Under U.N. Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 Israel-Hizballah war, U.N. forces in Lebanon are specifically authorized to “take all necessary action… to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind.”
UNIFIL has not addressed Hizballah’s maintenance of an independent weapons and communications infrastructure. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon identified this infrastructure as having “adverse effects” on the ability of the Lebanese government “to assert its exclusive control over the entire territory of Lebanon.”

The international community must take further action to ensure that Hizballah is disarmed and cannot threaten Israel.

U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701 established an arms embargo and called for the disarming of all militias in Lebanon, including Hizballah.
Recognizing the continued threat that Hizballah’s weapons pose to the State of Israel and to the stability of the region, the Security Council on April 15 called for “greater progress” and the need to “intensify… efforts” to implement Resolution 1701.
The mandate of U.N. forces in Lebanon should be expanded to allow for the monitoring of the Lebanese-Syrian border in order to stop the flow of arms from Iran and Syria to Hizballah. The mandate should also be expanded to allow forces to patrol Hizballah strongholds north of the Litani River.
The United States should hold Syria and Iran accountable for violating Resolution 1701’s arms embargo against Hizballah by bringing the full force of U.S. sanctions to bear against both nations. Foreign companies continuing to conduct business in those countries should be sanctioned.

Israeli Children Arrive in the United States for Summers Free of War

2008-07-10T14:22:00.001-04:00

Chabad.org News
By Saadya Notik
July 7, 2008

More than 100 children from the Israeli desert town of Sderot arrived in the United States to begin a summer season free of the threat of Palestinian rockets raining down while they play.

In an emotional ceremony July 2 at the international arrivals hall at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York, 10 Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis gathered to welcome 70 children to the United States before taking them to East Coast branches of the Lubavitch-run Camp Gan Israel network.

Bedecked in a bright yellow T-shirt bearing the logo of his Camp Gan Israel of the North Shore and carrying a guitar on his back, Rabbi Yossi Lipsker – co-director of Chabad-Lubavitch of the North Shore in Swampscott, Mass. – gathered the Israelis together in a specially cordoned-off area. Tired from the trans-Atlantic flight, the dazed children perked up and clapped along when Lipsker began strumming Hebrew tunes on his guitar.

Ophir Turjeman, 12, turned to Rabbi Sholom Deitsch, co-director of the Fairfax-based Chabad-Lubavitch of Northern Virginia, and told him that he was looking forward to swimming more than anything else.

“Can we swim twice a day?” asked Turjeman, who was heading to Camp Gan Israel of Northern Virginia. “What about three times?”

All told, supporters from four states and Canada were on hand for the ceremony. On the West Coast, 40 more children arrived at Los Angeles International Airport to begin their summers at Camp Gan Israel in Running Springs, Calif. An additional 50 children traveled to Europe where they were being hosted by camps in Denmark and Belgium.

According to organizers, the campers’ no-cost American experience – funded in large part by George and Pamela Rohr, and Morris and Lillian Tabacinic – will allow them the chance to temporarily forget the troubles of home, where a steady barrage of rockets fired by terrorists in the Gaza Strip has claimed lives and left Sderot a virtual ghost town.

Rabbi Dan Rodkin, co-director of Brighton, Mass.’s Shaloh House, said that the effort grew out of a smaller-scale program he helped coordinate last year with a camp in New Hampshire. Back then, 10 children joined him at his suburban Boston Camp Gan Israel, while another 10 went to the Granite State. By all accounts, the Israelis – some of whom returned for this summer’s fun – had a great time, but Rodkin saw a change among the locals over the course of the past year.

The local children told him they wanted to see their peers from Sderot again. Rodkin, however, didn’t want the effort to end in New England, so he reached out to his fellow camp directors.

“We feel we are giving to the children of Sderot, when really it is we and our children who are so enriched and enlightened by their presence,” said Rodkin. “Spending time with these children strengthens our identity, and connects us to the Land of Israel and to the people of Israel.”

Family and Friends

Rabbi Yossi Lipsker, co-director of Chabad-Lubavitch of the North Shore in Swampscott, Mass., serenades the visiting Israelis.

Among those who showed up at the ceremony was Berry Vaknin, a middle-aged woman from New York City’s Upper West Side. She came with her 18-year-old son Shlomo to greet her nephew and niece: Yehuda, 14, and Yarden, 12. Another nephew was part of the California contingent.

“We do all sorts of things in our own community for the citizens of Sderot,” said Berry, “including helping with camp in Israel and donating money. But what Chabad is doing is unbelievable, and I admire them for it.”

Many of the newcomers at JFK could intimately testify to the horrors of the rocket attacks, having family or friends killed or maimed over the past few years. Solomon and Chanan Yakobov, whose father was killed in a rocket attack last year, each arrived wearing a silver medallion necklace bearing their slain parent’s image.

David El Derry, 13, said that he was hoping for a carefree summer.

“I can’t wait to have all sorts of different experiences,” said the boy. “But most of all, I’m looking forward to us all being united as campmates.”

“I’m really looking forward to some quiet,” said Noah, 14, one of five siblings. “It’s not easy living in Sderot. It’s constant pressure. Any moment, there could be a red-alert siren and we’ll have to run to our bunkers. Here, it’s very different. I feel secure.”

Lior, her 13-year-old friend, said she was looking forward to some independence.

“I just want to enjoy, make friends, and break the language barrier,” she said. “It’s going to be so much fun here, but we’ll be thinking about our families back home.”

Hamas Preparing to Pounce

2008-07-10T13:20:00.004-04:00

Arutz Sheva
by Hillel Fendel and Ze'ev Ben-Yechiel
7/10/2008

IDF sources have warned Western Negev municipal leaders that Hamas is preparing to renew its rocket attacks - and that it has the wherewithal to do so with fury.

The current ceasefire has held, more or less, for three weeks, but it is not expected to last for a long time. Hamas and other Gaza terrorists have fired an average of two shells or rockets at Israel every three days.

Hamas overthrew Fatah control of Gaza in June of last year, and was able to amass at least 230 tons of explosives, 30,000 rifles, over six million rounds of ammunition, and scores of anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles by the time they had been in power just six months. Many military experts have warned that Hamas is using the ceasefire period to amass a tremendous arsenal of weapons and explosives, for use against Israel when the time is ripe.

In the meantime, Hamas continues to "drip-drop" mortar shells and rockets at Israel, with the goal of getting Israel used to a situation in which Hamas is "allowed" to respond to perceived Israeli violations of the ceasefire.

"The problem with the government's work plan is that the work plan of Hamas is not waiting for 2010 or even for 2009," Yellin said.

Analyst Yehonatan D. HaLevi says that Hamas uses "subcontractors" - small terrorist groups seemingly unlinked to Hamas - to fire many of the rockets is designed, so as to distance the ruling terror organization from official responsibility. Members of the Hamas leadership are afraid of an Israeli response at them personally, and some of them have gone into hiding for various durations of time.

This morning (Thursday), the ceasefire's first fatality was registered, when IDF soldiers shot and killed a Gaza Arab as he attempted to cross the security barrier near the Kissufim crossing. Though he was not armed, he ignored repeated warnings to stop, and was finally shot in accordance with IDF guidelines.

"The area has seen numerous attempts to infiltrate Israel and plant explosives [along the fence]," an IDF spokesman said aferwards. "When Palestinians attempt to cross into Israel, they are considered terror suspects." The army has published warnings to Gaza Arabs that whoever approaches within 1,000 feet of the security fence does so at the risk of his life.

Meanwhile, the Israeli government has backtracked on its promise to provide rocket-protection to all western Negev communities within range of Hamas rockets. Some fortifications for communities within 4.5 kilometers of Gaza are being worked on, but the government has put the rest of the project on hold due to what has been called "budgetary constraints."

Chaim Yellin, head of the Eshkol District Municipal Council, told Arutz-7's Hebrew newsmagazine that he was told by the Prime Minister's Bureau that the project will be considered again in 2009 for possible implementation in 2010. "The problem with this work plan is that the work plan of Hamas is not waiting for 2010 or even for 2009," Yellin said.

2008-07-09T20:03:00.002-04:00

Living in a Horror Movie

2008-07-08T12:36:00.000-04:00

An Unwelcome Hero: Hezbollah bargains for a child-killer's freedom

2008-07-07T17:49:00.002-04:00

Editorials
Washington Post
Monday, July 7, 2008; Page A12

FAR BE IT from us to second-guess the Israeli government's decision to trade Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners for the bodies of two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah in the July 2006 incident that triggered a bloody 34-day war between Israel and the Lebanese Shiite organization. Many in Israel felt that ending the agony of the soldiers' families outweighed the risk that a trade would simply encourage more terrorism and hostage-taking. Many disagreed -- though in the end the Israeli cabinet's vote in favor was a lopsided 22 to 3. The exchange is now expected to take place in the coming week. Perhaps Prime Minister Ehud Olmert thought it was time to empty his jails of their last Lebanese inmates, so as to deprive Hezbollah of that perennial complaint. Or perhaps the prisoner exchange fits into a wider diplomatic strategy that includes incipient talks with Syria, an offer of talks with Lebanon and a shaky truce with Hamas. This turn of events does, however, tell us a lot about Hezbollah and about those within Lebanon's political culture who either support it or can't quite bring themselves to oppose it.

The story begins in 1979, when four terrorists based in Lebanon and affiliated with Abu Abbas landed in northern Israel, on a mission ostensibly aimed at protesting the recent Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement. The raid quickly went awry, and Israeli police cornered the terrorists. Hiding among rocks on the beach, one of the infiltrators, a 16-year-old named Samir Kuntar, proceeded to shoot and kill one of his hostages, then took the man's 4-year-old daughter and smashed her head between his rifle butt and a boulder until she was dead, too. Hiding elsewhere, the mother in this family covered her 2-year-old's mouth so tightly to prevent her sobs from being heard that she accidentally suffocated the child. Israel captured Mr. Kuntar and sentenced him to four life terms.

If anyone ever deserved the title "baby-killer," it is Samir Kuntar. Yet his freedom has been a popular demand in Lebanon and the cause of Lebanon-based gunslingers for almost three decades. Abbas's gang hijacked the Achille Lauro in 1985 in a failed effort to win Mr. Kuntar's release. After Abbas faded into semi-retirement in Saddam Hussein's Baghdad, Hezbollah took up the Kuntar cause, attempting to get Israel to swap him for bodies of Israelis killed in Hezbollah raids.

Great changes must take place across the Middle East before a lasting peace can be achieved. Israel must make territorial compromises and foster a dignified future for the Palestinians. But attitudes among Israel's enemies must be transformed as well. A good place to start would be to declare that people such as Samir Kuntar deserve to rot in prison, no matter what the religion or nationality of the children they kill.

The Peace Test: Bush offered Palestinians a state; they said no deal.

2008-07-07T16:59:00.002-04:00

By Clifford D. May
NRO Contributor
July 3, 2008

The anniversary passed with scarcely a mention. Six years ago, on June 24, 2002, President Bush turned American policy in the Middle East in a new direction. In a ground-breaking speech, he announced that the U.S. would support the creation of a Palestinian state. His only condition was that Palestinians first choose “leaders not compromised by terror.” He asked also that they “confront corruption,” and “build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty.”

Bush was optimistic that this would come to pass, and that by the time he left the White House, a Palestinian state and a Jewish state would be living side by side in peace. In the years that followed, the stars appeared to be aligning.

In 2004, Yasser Arafat died, removing from the scene the longtime Palestinian leader most identified with terrorism and corruption (and never seriously tempted by tolerance or liberty). In 2005, Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, pulling out every soldier, farmer, and grave, but leaving behind greenhouses for Palestinians to use to grow vegetables and flowers. (They were trashed instead.)

In 2006, elections were held in Gaza and the West Bank. Those elections were widely regarded as free and fair. (That required ignoring the fact that Palestinians did not enjoy freedom of speech, the press, or assembly.) Hamas, a terrorist organization, declared itself a political party and won. Even so, there was hope that, entrusted with authority, Hamas would demonstrate responsibility over time.

But it was more power that Hamas’ leaders coveted so, in 2007, they launched a wave of violence against rival Fatah security forces. Since then, Hamas has been unchallenged in Gaza and no one talks of new elections or civil rights.

Nor has Hamas attempted to build an economic base. Instead, it turned to Iran’s rulers for money and guidance — and then complained that Palestinians were living in squalor because they weren’t receiving sufficient funds from the U.S. and Europe.

Hamas rains missiles on Israeli towns, sends terrorists into Israel on killing and kidnapping missions, and assigns suicide-bombers to blow up the few border crossings with Israel. Then Hamas complains that Israel is not delivering as much food, medicine, gasoline, and electricity as Palestinians require. (United Nations employees in Gaza complain about that, too.)

Meanwhile, in the West Bank, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas is in charge of increasingly less. Is he at least uncompromised by terror? Samir Quntar has been incarcerated in an Israeli prison for having used his rifle to crush the head of a four-year-old Israeli girl, after first killing her father. As I write this, Quntar is expected to be freed in a prisoner swap with Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in neighboring Lebanon. Palestinian Media Watch reports that on the Palestinian television station run by Abbas, Qunar is being celebrated as a “hero” and a “brave warrior.”

Despite all this, on his most recent visit to the Middle East in May, President Bush expressed optimism that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement could be struck before his term ends in January 2009. The basis for his optimism is elusive. He might just as well hold out hope that before New Year’s Eve, Social Security will be reformed, the tax code will be simplified, a bipartisan agreement will be struck on immigration and Harriet Miers will take her seat on the Supreme Court.

Six years ago last month, President Bush established a new paradigm for American policy in the Middle East — but he did not take into account the reality of the radical ideologies ascendant in the Muslim world. He believed that Palestinians wanted a state to call their own — and that they wanted that more than they wanted the destruction of the Jewish state next door.

With that in mind, in 2002 Bush said: “If liberty can blossom in the rocky soil of the West Bank and Gaza, it will inspire millions of men and women around the globe who are equally weary of poverty and oppression. . . . This moment is both an opportunity and a test for all parties in the Middle East: an opportunity to lay the foundations for future peace; a test to show who is serious about peace and who is not.”

He was right. It was a test. And now it’s time to be candid about the results. Israelis, Americans, and Europeans are serious about peace. The enemies of Israelis, Americans, and European are serious about defeating Israelis, Americans, and Europeans. It’s as simple — and as complex — as that.

— Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism.

2008-07-05T14:02:00.000-04:00

JerusalemOnline video

2008-07-03T15:51:00.001-04:00

'Attacker a murderer, not a terrorist'

2008-07-03T13:21:00.002-04:00

Jul 3, 2008 0:36 | Updated Jul 3, 2008 17:04
By KHALED ABU TOAMEH AND JPOST STAFF

Husam Taysir Dwayat, the 30-year-old east Jerusalem man who carried out Wednesday's terrorist attack in the capital, was "a murderer and not a terrorist," according to his family's attorney, Shimon Kukush. Dwayat "went berserk and ran over everyone in his vicinity," Kukush told Israel Radio, pointing out that "We're talking about the center of Jerusalem, and Arab residents could have been there as well. He could have killed anyone and there is no evidence that it was terrorism."

ccording to Kukush, Dwayat's family was "hurting and aching" over their son's action and condemns the killing of innocents. He insisted that Dwayat had not been sent by any organization. "Minutes before the attack he was eating with a group of coworkers and did not show any signs that anything was about to happen. But then he went amok."

"The prime minister and the defense minister are sparring for the credit of who will demolish the family's house first, even before it is clear if he was a terrorist," Kukush continued, adding that he had the sense "that there is an indictment by the State of Israel against Arab Israelis."

Dwayat, a father of two from the Sur Bahir neighborhood in the city's southeast, once lived with a Jewish woman, his relatives told The Jerusalem Post.

Residents expressed surprise at the identity of the terrorist.

Dwayat did not belong to any political faction, they said. "He was not a member of Hamas or Fatah," said a man who knew him very well. "He was never part of any political framework."

A neighbor who asked not to be identified told the Post that Dwayat was known for his involvement in criminal, and not political, activities.

"In the past he got into trouble with the law," he said. "I think his problems started while he was still with the Jewish wife. Some people say he was a drug addict."

Shortly after the midday attack, police raided Dwayat's home and arrested his father and one of his brothers.

Zuhier Hamdan, one of the mukhtars of Sur Bahir, also said he and most people in the neighborhood were surprised when they heard that Dwayat was behind the attack.

"He's the last person you would think would do such a thing," Hamdan told the Post. "He was an ordinary young man who was never involved in anti-Israel activities."

Hamdan said he was convinced that the attack was a personal initiative and that Dwayat did not act on behalf of any Palestinian group.

As for the motive, Hamdan said he and Dwayat's family did not rule out the possibility that haredi teenagers had assaulted him before the attack.

"There's a rumor going on that some haredi students had thrown stones at him and cursed him at the construction site before the attack," Hamdan said. "Perhaps he was so angry that he decided to go on a rampage."

Hamdan said that while he condemned the killing of innocent civilians, he was also concerned about the "pressure" that the Jerusalem Municipality and the Israeli authorities were exerting on residents of Sur Bahir in particular and east Jerusalem in general.

"Many people in Sur Bahir and other Arab neighborhoods in Jerusalem are angry because of the demolition of illegally built houses," he said. "They are also angry with the taxes imposed on them. Almost every second resident of Sur Bahir is facing a financial crisis because of the heavy taxes and lack of jobs."

Another Sur Bahir chief expressed fear that Wednesday's attack would prompt the authorities to toughen their measures against the Arab residents of Jerusalem.

"Each time an Arab from Jerusalem carries out an attack, some Israeli politicians start inciting against all the Arabs," he said. "The Israelis need to understand that the majority of Jerusalem Arabs are peaceful people."

He also complained that Israel's refusal to grant citizenship to thousands of Arabs in the city was another reason why many of them were angry.

"About 40,000 Arabs have applied for Israeli citizenship over the past few years," he said. "But the Israeli authorities are refusing to approve their applications."

פיגוע הטרקטור בירושלים

2008-07-02T11:43:00.001-04:00

Terrorist Bulldozer Rampages in Jerusalem, Murders Three

2008-07-02T11:34:00.003-04:00

by Hillel Fendel
Arutz Sheva
2 July 2008

An Arab terrorist from eastern Jerusalem sped with a bulldozer down Jerusalem's busiest street just before noon Wednesday, ramming buses and crushing cars. At least three people were murdered in the unprecedented attack.

Two policemen caught up with the tractor and climbed inside, after a policewoman shot the driver but did not kill him. They first struggled with the terrorist-driver, and the driver stopped - but then abruptly started up again, until he was shot and killed, putting an end to the murderous spree.

Some 45 injuries have been reported, including at least three dead and two in moderate or serious condition. Two bodies were extricated from the wrecked cars, and one woman died of her wounds on the way to the hospital. Most of the bus passengers are reported to have suffered only light injuries, though at least one - an infant - is in serious condition.

An eyewitness said that he saw the bulldozer ram the bus several times, and then continue on in his attempt to run down passersby and cars. "Some cars were able to get away, but at least one was not, and he rammed his shovel right into the windshield," the man said.

The terrorist is a 30-year-old father of two from the Arab neighborhood of Tzur Baher in eastern Jerusalem - the same neighborhood in which the perpetrator of the Merkaz HaRav slaughter lived.

As of 2 PM, a baby in light condition was in Shaarei Tzedek Hospital - but its parents have not yet been located. The parents of another baby were found somewhat earlier.

Magen David Adom sources confirm that the incident, which began at the intersection of Jaffa and Sarei Yisrael Streets, was a terror attack. The Arab tractor driver crushed or damaged at least six cars and two buses. One Toyota car, for instance, is totally crushed; the woman driver was killed.

An emergency situation was declared in the capital.

Construction work on the new light-railway is taking place in the area, and Arab workers, including tractor drivers, are a familiar sight on the scene.

The overturned bus lay on its side on the sidewalk outside the old Shaarei Tzedek building, which are the current offices and studios of the Israel Broadcasting Authority. Several reporters were eyewitnesses to the attack.

The security services are investigating whether the terrorist was acting alone and without backing from a known terrorist organization, as was apparently the case this past March, when an eastern Jerusalem terrorist murdered seven students in Yeshivat Merkaz HaRav.

IITV Daily News

2008-07-01T19:43:00.001-04:00

A Map for the Road Not Taken

2008-07-01T19:34:00.002-04:00

Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad

by Caroline Glick
Gefen; 427 pages; $29.95

Reviewed by Jonathan Schanzer

Jerusalem Post
June 26, 2008
http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/article/241

It is often said that either you are an idealist or a realist. Indeed, these two worldviews almost always clash. But Jerusalem Post deputy managing editor Caroline Glick, an American-Israeli with strong Zionist convictions, somehow embraces both with vigor. This has helped her produce consistently compelling commentary that wastes little time cutting to the very essence of the issues she explores.

Yet, in nearly every dispatch, Glick conveys either a subtle or even strong sense of frustration with her Israeli and Jewish-American audiences that refuse to wake up to the dangers that loom in the Middle East. Her first book, a well-structured compendium of her columns, may sadly serve as a map for the road not taken in the fight against radical Islam.

The seemingly endless Palestinian war against Israel is perhaps the greatest source of frustration for Glick. Several of her most compelling pieces hammer home the fact that the "Palestinian goal today is genocide," and their "central organizing principle is the physical elimination of the Jewish people." This should be obvious to most readers of Middle Eastern affairs. Yet a majority of American Jews and even Israelis continue to hold out hope for peace.

The author soundly rejects the notion that even the sweetest US or Israeli incentives can prod the Palestinians toward peace. She observes that the Palestinian people receive "more aid per capita than any people on earth" but prefer "poverty, violence and war to prosperity." This applies to all Palestinians; while Hamas is typically vilified for its gruesome acts of terror, we cannot forget that Fatah maintains "goals that are incompatible with the continued existence of the State of Israel." In other words, it has become impossible to separate the "general Palestinian population from those involved in terrorism."

She arrives at the sound conclusion that "Palestinian society itself must be transformed before there is to be peaceful coexistence."

Glick sums up Israel's security predicament succinctly: Israel must find the "courage to recognize that security, not peace," is the ultimate goal. Yet, she observes that her country is suffering from a "lack of outrage," and Israelis have "gotten used to being killed." She therefore yearns for Israel to win its security through a show of force on the battlefield.

The poor Israeli performance in the 2006 war against Hizbullah was a source of agitation for the author. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's military blunder not only weakened Israel's deterrence in the Arab world, but it may have also weakened Israel's Western alliances. Moving forward, she believes that only Israeli military victories will end the growing notion that Israel has become a "strategic liability for the West."

Regarding Iran, Glick could not be any clearer. She notes that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has started a "countdown to the next Holocaust" and that the "catastrophe that will follow an American collapse into isolationism and appeasement is undeniable." She further warns that the failure to prevent Iran from going nuclear will result in "suffering, destruction and death on an unimaginable scale."

To Glick's chagrin, the international coalition necessary to thwart Iran's nuclear ambitions has been moving at glacial speed. She therefore encourages her readers to support the growing movement led by several states in the US that are divesting their pension funds from companies that do business with Tehran.

But divestment for Glick is not enough. Through the pages of this book, she growls at Ahmadinejad, asserting that the maniacal Iranian leader uses Holocaust denial as a ruse among his county's other dangerous foreign policies, so that appeasing nations can claim to stand against Iran "without actually doing anything to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons."

Looking beyond Iran, the author understands that the West is now engaged in a "world war" with Islamists, but yet most of us "do not notice it." Glick is unrelenting in her insistence that "we must do everything to destroy them and nothing to give them hope for victory." One key to this victory, she correctly notes, is strategic communication. Unfortunately, she notes, the enemies of the West continue "to define our world for us." Put another way, the "leftist-Islamist front is eroding the free world's sense of justice." This is a battle the West continues to lose.

Notably, the battle is being lost quite badly on America's university campuses. Indeed, "campuses throughout the Western world are known as hotbeds for radicalism" - including Israeli campuses. Glick notes that "educators," such as Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, attack those who support Israel as bigoted or virulent. She observes that jihadists are now teaching the next generation in ways that "prevent us from seeing the dangers and defending ourselves."

But, in the battle of ideas, the West is taking its worst drubbing over the war in Iraq. Glick, who was embedded with the US military during the Iraq War, immediately understood the importance of the US-led reconstruction efforts, and the need to properly explain the military operations there. Glick's dispatches from her time in the field with American military men revealed her enduring patriotism for the country she left behind. She lambastes critics for "buying into Hizbullah's psychological warfare in repeating the analogy between Iraq and Vietnam." She notes that if the American public falls prey to the wrong messages, prompting the US to leave too early, the US would lose its standing "as the leader of the free world in the midst of a global war."

While a great many of Glick's observations ring true, the reader may not always walk away from Glick's work nodding in agreement. For example, she asserts that during the 2006 war with Lebanon, the Bush administration supported Hizbullah's claims to Mount Dov (also known as Shaba Farms), or that it sought to "appease Iran." At another point, she claims that Bush has followed a string of US presidents who allow Israel to "beat Arab aggression militarily, but [force] it to lose the war politically."

In a column last July, she warned that the US was pursuing an "alliance with Saudi Arabia with vigor while eschewing and downgrading its alliance with Israel." Castigating Israel's loyal ally - particularly an administration that has been incredibly supportive for eight years - hardly seems like a battle worth fighting.

In the end, however, Glick understands that radical Islam is the enemy. She snarls at the "rotten evil that characterizes the ideology of our enemies" and unabashedly states that defeating this enemy is the "mission of our generation." Indeed, the author seeks to "pave the way for a secure, peaceful and moral future for our people and our world."

The writer, a former US Treasury intelligence analyst, is director of policy for the Jewish Policy Center and author of the forthcoming book Hamas vs Fatah: The Struggle for Palestine (Palgrave, November 2008).

Tel Aviv Meets Wall Street in Stock Exchange Pact

2008-07-01T17:09:00.004-04:00

by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
Arutz Sheva
1 July 2008

The Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE) and its New York counterpart (NYSE) have signed a new cooperative agreement to boost cross listing of trading. More than 100 Israeli companies, mostly in the high-tech industry, are currently traded on the NYSE, NASDAQ and other exchanges. The agreement with NYSE is aimed at encouraging more Israeli companies to list their securities in New York and Europe as well as on the TASE in order to attract international investors.

"The signing of the (agreement) with NYSE Euronext is another very important step forward in the globalization of the Israeli capital market," said Ester Levanon, chief executive of the TASE.

The move comes on the heels of similar agreements signed last year with the London stock exchange and NASDAQ and enables the TASE to promote Israeli companies to investors. Israel's strong and stable economic growth have helped put Israel on the road to be upgraded from an emerging market to a developed market, opening up the country to more institutional investors looking for stable investments.

Seven Israeli companies, such as Amdocs and Cellcom, trade their securities on the prestigious NYSE. Other companies, including the giant Teva Pharmaceuticals and Scandisk, trade their stocks on the NASDAQ, where Israel has the largest representation of stocks after the United States and Canada.

The NYSE estimated the dollar value of trading in NYSE-listed Israeli firms at a staggering $6.1 billion compared with a paltry $320,000 in 2001. The TASE's 653 listed companies have a combined value of $208 billion.

The TASE's 653 listed companies have a combined value of $208 billion.

Tel Aviv and New York have been developing closer ties in the past two years, and an Israeli executive last November rang the traditional bell signaling the opening of the trading day in New York. TASE vice president Ronit Harel Ben-Zev rang the opening bell on Monday in honor of the new agreement.

On the downside, TASE workers staged a walkout Tuesday, shutting down trading for the second time in a month. They are demanding the practice of using manpower agencies.

Families of missing Iranian Jews want answers

2008-06-30T08:53:00.002-04:00

Gido Ran

Published: 06.29.08, 23:21 / Israel News

Government-confirmed prisoner exchange agreement with Hizbullah opens Pandora’s box when relatives of 12 missing Iranian Jews appeal to High Court in attempt to prevent government from using last bargaining chip

The prisoner exchange agreement with Hizbullah is opening additional wounds. On Monday, families of the 12 missing Iranian Jews who disappeared while trying to immigrate to Israel in the 90’s will appeal to the High Court of Justice. They are demanding that no information is provided in the framework of the swap deal about four Iranian diplomats without furthering the search of their close ones, as promised.

Dalia avizada, whose father Nuriel disappeared while most likely trying to cross the border to Pakistan on his way to Israel, told Ynet that, “twelve years have passed and we still know nothing about my father.” He and 11 other Jews throughout the years 1994-1997 simply vanished while assumedly trying to cross a dangerous escape path with the help of smugglers. “It is like the earth swallowed them whole. The government promised to deal with this, but nothing is happening,” said Ravizada. All attempts to locate them have failed.

In 2004, when the media continually reported the actualization of the second stage of the previous agreement with Hizbullah which was to include the release of Samir Kuntar, the families appealed to the High Court against the deal. The appeal was postponed but the government promised to continue making an effort to receive information regarding their fate. Since then, the families say they have been left in the dark.

“The missing Jews in Iran tried making Aliyah to Israel with the encouragement and assistance of the Israeli government and this is why it is the government’s obligation to do everything possible in order to attain reliable and substantial information that will put an end to these families’ suffering,” said attorney Nitzana Darshan-Leitner, who is representing the families.

‘Only High Court can help us’

The case has been silenced for many years and in the past, the family members were told that it is preferable to remain quiet as to not endanger those missing or to harm the chance of attaining information. However, at the beginning of the decade, they realized that if they don’t talk, nothing will happen. “If we would have gone to the media to begin with, we wouldn’t be discussing 12 missing people today,” said Dariush Salari, brother of Kamran Salari a few years ago to Yedioth Ahronoth.

As part of the current deal, the Israeli government agreed to convey information via the UN, concerning the fate of the Iranian diplomats who disappeared in Beirut during the first Lebanese war. “It is our last bargaining chip and we have to find a solution,” said Daliya Ravizada, “no one is responding to our demands and we have no one to turn to anymore – only the High Court can help us.” Before the government’s decision on Sunday, the family members said that they sent an urgent letter to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert demanding he does not pass any information on concerning the status of the Iranian diplomats. “I understand their pain and it is exactly like mine,” said Ravizada referring to the families of kidnapped soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. She also discussed the similar uncertainty regarding her father. “As long as no body was seen, I believe that he and the others are alive and even if they aren’t, it is not a reason to stop contending with the situation. My father also placed his life in Israel’s hands,” she said.

Attorney Darshan-Leitner emphasized that “we are not appealing against the exchange deal itself. Our hearts, just like the hearts of the whole Israeli nation are with the families of the missing and kidnapped, but the 12 families received a binding promise from the Israeli government. If information is passed on to Iran, as noted, the families’ basic rights will clearly be violated,” she said.

The Prime Minister’s Office said that they will respond to the claims at the High Court.

Families of Missing Iranian Jews Petition Against Hizbullah Deal

2008-06-30T08:44:00.002-04:00

Hillel Fendel, Arutz Sheva, 30 June 2008

(IsraelNN.com) The families of 12 missing Iranian Jews have petitioned against one clause of the exchange with Hizbullah: Israel's consent to provide information on four missing Iranian diplomats.

Among the various obligations Israel took upon itself in the agreement approved by the Cabinet on Sunday is to provide information on four Iranian diplomats who disappeared in June 1982. Israeli forces had just invaded Lebanon in the Peace for Galilee War, in order to put a stop to incessant Palestinian terrorist and rocket attacks against northern Israel. Christian anti-Palestinian forces - the Samir Jaja faction of a Lebanese-Christian militia - apparently captured the four Iranian diplomats, who have never been heard from since.

Attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of the Shurat HaDin Israel Law Center, representing the families of the 12 missing Iranian Jews, filed suit in the Supreme Court Monday morning. The urgently-filed petition demands that Israel not provide information on the diplomats until reliable and detailed information is received about the missing Jews. The petition makes clear that the target is not the entire agreement with Hizbullah, but rather the clause regarding the information on the Iranian diplomats.

The families of the 12 Jews in question say their loved ones were arrested by Iranian security authorities in the 1990s as they sought to escape from Iran across the border with Pakistan. At least some of them are believed to still be in Iranian prison. The Iranians have never acknowledged the Jews' arrest, nor have they given any word on their status or whereabouts.

The petitioners argue that the government must honor the obligations imposed upon it by the Israeli High Court approximately two years ago to "push forward diligently, sparing no effort, to gain information about the [12 missing] Jews of Iran."

In addition to this Court-ordered obligation, Attorney Darshan-Leitner adds another consideration: "These individuals attempted to come to Israel at the encouragement and with the assistance of the Israeli government. It is therefore the responsibility of the Israeli government to do everything it can to gain reliable, specific information regarding their whereabouts in order to save them if we can, and give closure and end the suffering of the wives, children, fathers and mothers of those who were murdered by the Islamic Republic."

To do otherwise, the lawyer stated, means that the 12 Iranian Jews "have been abandoned. It is simply unthinkable that the State of Israel would convey information about the four Iranian diplomats without receiving in exchange information about the twelve missing Jews in Iran. Information about the diplomats is the last bargaining chip in Israel's hands toward acquiring information about the missing Jews in Iran. If we give it up with nothing in return, the possibility of knowing what happened to the twelve missing is totally dead."

"Saving the lives of these missing Jews, still being held in Iranian prisons after years of torture must be a central component of any deal with Hizbollah and Iran," she concluded.

Israel Law Center sources say that the information on the missing Iranian officials is being requested from Israel by Hizbullah's financial patrons in Iran.

Similar Suit Not Filed on Behalf of Ron Arad
The suit filed on behalf of the Iranian Jews raises the question of why the family of Israel Air Force navigator Ron Arad does not do the same. Arad has been missing since his plane crashed over Lebanon in 1986, and is believed to have been last seen in Iran. Hizbullah claims that it has been unable to find information on Arad's whereabouts or fate. If any such information does exist, it would seem to be in Iran.

The release of Lebanese Druze murderer Samir Kuntar has been lamented as the loss of the last chance for information on Arad. No explanation has been offered as to why the same approach taken by the families of the 12 has not been taken by the Arad family.

A former major activist for Ron Arad said recently that he abandoned his efforts when the offer of $10 million for information on Arad produced absolutely nothing.

Hizbullah Deal Not Certain
Voice of Israel government radio reported this morning that after Hizbullah submits its reports on the steps it took to find out about Ron Arad, Israel will review them and will then decide if the exchange should actually be carried out.

Other MIA's
Still missing and with no information on their whereabouts are Tzvi Feldman, Yehuda Katz and Zecharia Baumel - assumed to be in Syrian hands after they were captured in the Sultan Yaakub battle in June 1982, Guy Hever, who disappeared near the Syrian border in 1997, and Druze IDF soldier Majdi Halaby, who was last seen in the Golan Heights in May 1995. Their families have asked that the indirect negotiations that have recently begun with Syria take their sons into account.

Click here to receive our free Daily Israel Report

Children of Sderot Just Want A Little Peace

2008-06-29T17:55:00.001-04:00

Israel and the United States: To Think Together

2008-06-28T10:06:00.000-04:00

Report Concludes Civilian Leaderships Must Give Clearly Defined Military Missions

A JINSA delegation participated in the February 2008 conference, Israel and the United States: To Think Together, co-sponsored by JINSA, the Institute for National Security Studies at Tel Aviv University in Israel and the DADO Center of the IDF Command and General Staff College. A full report was drafted summarizing the findings and is an attempt to distill the lessons learned from that conference. You can download the full report from the link provided at the end of this article.

Shortly before the JINSA delegation arrived in Israel, the Winograd Commission investigating Israeli government and military operations during the 2006 Lebanon War arrived at its final conclusions. Media coverage of focused on the political implications for the Israeli government. When the Commission did not cause the Olmert government to fall, the media lost interest. From the military point of view, however, the most important findings related to shortcomings in communication between the civilian and military hierarchies, and the lack of a specific, achievable military mission to place before the civilian leadership. It was the Commission’s view that the accomplishment of such specific missions would have provided the government with a better political bargaining position. [See Appendix II for relevant sections of the Commission Report.]

It is hard to overstate the need for clearly defined military missions, particularly when the civilian leadership does not have extensive military experience - which was the case in Israel during 2006 and is the case in the U.S. Administration and Congress today. Actually sitting and thinking together, we found that the American and Israeli military establishments face many of the same difficulties in addressing an enemy of amorphous shape and size, and with values that often deliberately go against the grain of Western thinking and military operations.

It is JINSA’s intention that this report will assist American readers by providing a window into Israeli thinking and policy decision-making - particularly the section on strongmen and democratic interests. We also hope to assist Israeli readers in finding American military thinking that parallels, intersects or constructively challenges Israeli thinking in ways that encourage additional discussion of critical security issues.

To download the full report, click HERE.

Presbyterian Officials Prepare for General Assembly With Bait and Switch Tactics

2008-06-28T08:35:00.002-04:00

Dexter Van Zile
Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America
June 20, 2008

On May 2, 2008, the Office of Interfaith Affairs of the Presbyterian Church (USA) issued a statement titled “Vigilance against anti-Jewish ideas and bias.” This statement offered a thoroughgoing critique of the denomination’s public speech about the Arab-Israeli conflict and included a long-overdue acknowledgment that “examples of anti-Jewish theology can unfortunately be found in connection with PC(USA) overtures …” While the document did not state exactly who was responsible for the anti-Jewish rhetoric, it did provide a clue by stating that some of the materials affirmed in a resolution condemning Christian Zionism passed by the denomination’s General Assembly in 2004 included expressions of “anti-Jewish theology.”

Despite its importance, both the Presbyterian Outlook and the Presbyterian News Service ignored the document issued in May. A CAMERA inquiry to the Religion News Service revealed that the document was on the news agency’s radar, but that it fell through the cracks as a result of staff transitioning. Other news outlets such as The Christian Century, Christianity Today, the Ecumenical News International (ENI) also paid scant, if any, attention to the document.

The document did however, engender effusive praise from leaders in the Jewish community. The American Jewish Committee issued a statement, on May 19, 2008 which read in part:

“This statement is tough, thorough and balanced - we warmly welcome it," said Rabbi Gary Greenebaum, AJC's U.S. director of Interreligious Affairs. “No other Mainline Protestant denomination has yet taken such a critical look at its own teachings and how Christian teaching can be horribly misused to demonize Israel.”

On May 22, 2008 the Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago issued a statement that called the PC(USA) document “groundbreaking.”

“This document is seminal, positive, and has the potential to open a new chapter in Christian-Jewish relations," said Rabbi Steven Gutow, JCPA Executive Director. These sentiments were echoed by Midge Perlman-Shafton, chair of JUF’s Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC) and a JCPA Vice-Chair. “The PCUSA document calling for “Vigilance against Anti-Jewish Ideas and Bias” is testament to the value of hard work, faithful dialogue, active listening, and honest confrontation of difficult issues,” added Perlman-Shafton.

The Switch

On June 11, 2008 – 10 days before the denomination’s General Assembly was set to begin – the PC(USA) issued a drastically altered version of the document. The new version substantially downplayed previous admissions that the PC(USA) had a problem with anti-Jewish bias in its public speech about the Arab-Israeli conflict. What had been a thoroughgoing expression of wrongdoing became a litany of what not to do – without the acknowledgement that this litany was in fact, a good description of what Presbyterians – to their sorrow – had done.

One crucial admission of wrongdoing (quoted below) did survive the revision in an altered form, but for the most part, the document was denuded of its moral force.

This bait-and-switch episode prompted criticism from Jewish leaders, who expressed sadness at the evisceration of the original document. Interestingly enough, media outlets that did not cover the document when Jewish groups praised it, now found it newsworthy.

CONTINUE READING

Rockets Illuminate Three-Way Choice For Embattled States

2008-06-27T19:25:00.004-04:00

by Michael Medved
Palestinian Rocket Report
June 3, 2008

When faced with a deadly and determined foe, a nation must choose among three policy goals: negotiation, isolation, or military victory.

The rockets from Gaza that rain on Israel nearly every day should remind the world – and the United States in particular – that only one of these strategies stands a chance of success.

Concerning the Palestinians, Israel has tried both negotiation and isolation, with disastrous results.

The Failure of Negotiation

The Oslo Accords of 1993 supposedly represented a triumph of negotiation, with Nobel Peace Prizes handed out to Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Yasser Arafat, and a great photo op going to Bill Clinton. The novel premise of the approach involved enhancing the power of Israel's prime enemy, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), rather than reducing or destroying it. Israel's leaders, with the enthusiastic support of the United States and the world community, built up Arafat and the PLO in return for promises on paper, but the result brought continued terrorism culminating in the obscene orgy of violence known as the "Al-Aqsa Intifada" in 2000.

History indicates that negotiation never works as a means of settling bitter, bloody, long-standing disputes. The infamous appeasement of Adolf Hitler in the 1930s offers only the most celebrated example. Following World War I, the world community celebrated numerous grand, international agreements – limiting naval forces, and outlawing war altogether – but the generation of negotiation inevitably gave way to the worst conflagration in human history.

Major conflicts in every century end only when one side wins and the other loses. Negotiations work only when they amount to detailing the terms of victory or defeat already achieved. In that context, the Camp David Accords of 1978 between Egypt and Israel succeeded (and have kept peace for thirty years) only because they followed the Jewish state's second decisive triumph in two major wars. Egyptian President Anwar Sadat knew that the Israeli General Ariel Sharon (yes, that Ariel Sharon) had surrounded the Egyptian Third Army and could have destroyed it at will, had not U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger persuaded Prime Minister Golda Meir's government in Jerusalem to accept an end to the fighting. After another crushing defeat (following the disaster of the 1967 Six-Day War), Egypt proved ready to accept the only demands Israel ever cared about: full recognition, and a pledge against further attack.

The Palestinians made similar pledges at Oslo, of course, but those promises followed a dramatic improvement in their international standing, and their Israeli-sponsored return from Tunisian exile, not a decisive military defeat.

The Folly of Isolation

With the collapse of the Oslo Accords, and facing relentless assaults from homicide bombers and deadly terrorist gangs, Israel tried another policy under Prime Minister Sharon. This approach, designated with the euphemistic title "disengagement," amounted to isolation of the enemy, rather than negotiation or confrontation. By forcing Jewish residents out of harm's way in the Gaza Strip, and giving the Palestinian Authority full control in that blighted territory, and by constructing a formidable barrier separating the West Bank from major Israeli population centers, Sharon proposed to isolate the Palestinians or, more to the point, isolate Israel from their murderous madness.

The whole notion of Israeli isolationism shared a similar foundation to the traditional idea of American isolationism: the naïve and simplistic assumption that "if we leave them alone, they'll leave us alone."

Supporters of this policy never expected that the unilateral Israeli withdrawal would lead to a sweeping election victory for the Hamas jihadist fanatics, who used force to seize control of Gaza from their hapless Palestinian rivals in June 2007.

The now ceaseless Hamas rocket attacks show the folly of any policy of isolation – much as 9/11 reminded Americans that they couldn't isolate themselves forever from the aggressive, international evil of Islamo-Nazism. In today's world of global conflicts and high-tech transportation and communication, there's no logical basis for maintaining the belief that high-tech walls or even oceans can forever deter attacks and other dangers. A policy of isolation might provide the short-lived luxury of ignoring a festering problem, but it hardly amounts to a solution.

Lessons for America

By now, the Gaza rockets have taught painful lessons to the Israeli public, where confidence in deterring the Palestinian threat through negotiation or isolation has plummeted. The same realities should influence U.S. voters where, in the midst of a fateful presidential campaign, candidates and populace seem deeply divided among the three eternal alternatives for confronting implacable adversaries: negotiation, isolation, or victory.

There are some who hold fervent faith in the power of negotiation and determinedly defend the idea of face-to-face meetings with leaders of Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Cuba. Ironically, those who support this policy say they won't negotiate with Hamas because Hamas won't recognize Israel, won't renounce violence, and refuses to honor prior agreements in the name of the Palestinian people, yet insist that it is perfectly logical to sit down with Ahmadinejad of Iran who doesn't recognize Israel, won't renounce violence, and rejects previous agreements.

Beyond this confusion and inconsistency, those who call for negotiation with Iran cite the examples of JFK in the Cuban Missile Crisis and President Reagan at the height of the Cold War. They refuse to note however, that it wasn't pleasant talk that got Khrushchev to withdraw the missiles from Cuba, but a unilateral naval blockade – technically an act of war. And it wasn't the chumminess between Reagan and Gorbachev that led to Soviet collapse, but the unwavering hard line ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" and "evil empire") that gave hope and encouragement to forces of freedom everywhere.

The hopeless presidential hopeful Ron Paul and his glassy-eyed "Paulestinians" take a different approach, favoring isolation rather than negotiation. At least they realize that there's no chance of reaching meaningful agreements with bloodthirsty jihadists. Instead, Paul and his promoters favor a modern-day isolationism, based on the notion that if we get out of their part of the world and do nothing to protect our own interests in the Middle East, the Islamo-Nazis will lose interest in striking back at the United States. It's the old idea of leave them alone, and they'll leave us alone—hardly reliable when applied to fanatics who seek nothing less than the destruction of Western Civilization.

Consider the abysmal record of the Carter administration, which withheld American support for our ally the Shah of Iran and smiled on the rise to power of the Islamist Revolution. Far from leaving us alone as we rapidly withdrew from Iranian society and business, the Ayatollah seized hostages in our embassy – using as a pretext that we had offered U.S. hospital treatment for the ailing Shah.

We certainly kept hands off the fanatical Taliban in Afghanistan, practicing scrupulous non-intervention when they shattered 1,500 year-old Buddhas in the Bamian Valley, or ruthlessly oppressed their own suffering populous, or openly welcomed al-Qaeda terrorist training camps on their soil. We reaped the rewards of such non-intervention with the East Africa embassy bombings in 1998, and then on September 11th.

The gallant Israelis of battered Sderot can speak to the effectiveness of isolation as a policy for dealing with monomaniacal murderers: the Gazans have lived now for years in a Jew-free, all-Palestinian paradise, with all Israeli settlers and troops removed, but their attacks sharply increased rather than declining.

No Substitute

For the United States, for Israel and for all other nation states, negotiation and isolation can't take the place of the capacity and determination to win a military struggle. This doesn't mean total war against all adversaries: the United States and our allies prevailed in the Cold War because of patient strategizing and a preponderance of military and economic resources, applied with bi-partisan consistency over the course of 40 years and interrupted only intermittently by bloody struggles (Korea, Vietnam, Central America, Afghanistan).

Sophisticates derided Ronald Reagan when he came to power in 1981, expressing his conviction that in the struggle between the United States and Soviet Communism, one side would ultimately lose and one side would ultimately win. According to "enlightened" thinking of the time, this attitude brought a childish, cowboy sense of black-and-white, good-and-evil to a worldwide competition full of grey areas, moral confusion and permanent standoffs. Reagan persisted in his historically based conviction that every long-term battle ultimately resolves itself in favor of one side or the other. As much as a weary participant to such a struggle may wish to isolate itself from the conflict, withdrawal or retreat can't bring security or success. Moreover, negotiation may serve as a tool in winning concessions from a foe already at the point of defeat or surrender, but it never serves to resolve disputes between two powers that each maintain reasonable hopes of prevailing.

In short, Reagan understood, as did MacArthur before him, that in the clash of national ambitions and irreconcilable claims there is, in the end, no substitute for victory.

Michael Medved, a nationally syndicated talk radio host, is author of 10 non-fiction books, including The Shadow Presidents, Right Turns and the upcoming The Ten Big Lies About America (Random House, November 2008). He is a distinguished scholar at the Jewish Policy Center, and host of the JPC's forums nationwide.

Livni: Truce violations warrant immediate military response

2008-06-26T16:13:00.002-04:00

Jun 26, 2008 0:41 | Updated Jun 26, 2008 21:49
By JPOST.COM STAFF

Israel must respond militarily to the latest breach of the cease-fire by Palestinian gunmen, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Thursday.

The Fatah-affiliated Aksa Martyrs Brigades claimed responsibility for the attack. In a text message sent to reporters, it said "the truce must include the West Bank and all sorts of aggression must stop."

Nevertheless, Israel has stated on numerous occasions that it holds Hamas responsible for any attack emanating from Gaza, irrespective of which faction carries it out.

The rocket attack was the third time that the cease-fire was broken by Palestinians since it went into effect last Thursday. On Tuesday, Islamic Jihad fired three Kassam rockets at the South, damaging a Sderot home, and a mortar shell was fired at Israel the previous day.

Thursday's rocket fire came as Hamas accused Israel of violating the terms of the cease-fire after the Defense Ministry decided to keep the Gaza border crossings closed for the day, except for special humanitarian cases, in response to Tuesday's attack.

"If the crossings remain closed, the truce will collapse," Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said.

Defense officials had said Wednesday night that they planned to open the crossings between Gaza and Israel on Friday if there were no more violations of the cease-fire.

Also Thursday, Islamic Jihad spokesman Daoud Shihab said that from now on, the group would coordinate its "responses to Israel's actions" with Hamas.

At the end of a meeting in Gaza between representatives of both groups, Islamic Jihad spokesman Daoud Shihab said that while his Gaza faction could not, therefore, immediately respond to Israeli actions, the move would not stop the Islamic Jihad from operating in the West Bank.

Islamic Jihad official Nafez Azzam said that while the truce agreement applied to Gaza only, Israeli "crimes" like its "targeted killing" in Nablus on Monday night "embarrassed the Palestinian factions."

On Wednesday, an aide to Defense Minister Ehud Barak said the decision to end talks on reopening the Rafah border crossing between Sinai and Gaza was a response to the cease-fire violations. The aide was responding to a report in Kuwait's Al-Qabas newspaper, according to which Israel had agreed to refrain from responding to Tuesday's rocket attacks.

Israel would carefully watch the situation in the Gaza Strip and determine whether the cease-fire was being maintained before going ahead with plans to ease the sanctions on goods and material allowed into the area, and before beginning discussions with the Egyptians about opening the Rafah crossing, a senior diplomatic official said.

Under the agreement brokered by the Egyptians last week, Israel was to gradually increase the number of trucks allowed into the Gaza Strip as the cease-fire held, intensive negotiations were to begin on the release of Schalit, and Israel was to begin talks with the Egyptians about normalizing the situation at the Gaza crossings, including Rafah, with an eye to perhaps creating a temporary crossing between Egypt and the Strip at Kerem Shalom.

Tuesday's firing of rockets at the western Negev had scuttled those plans and they could now be set back further following Thursday's Kassam attack.

As to when the meetings on Rafah will take place, and when there will be an additional increase in what is allowed into the Gaza Strip, the official said, "It is too early to tell, we have to watch and see in which direction the security calm is headed."

Yaakov Katz, Yaakov Lappin, Herb Keinon and AP contributed to this report

Google Earth: A New Platform for Anti-Israel Propaganda

2008-06-26T08:53:00.004-04:00

by Andre Oboler
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs
Published June 2008
Vol. 8, No. 5 26 June 2008

Virtual Israel, as represented by Google Earth, is littered with orange dots, many of which claim to represent "Palestinian localities evacuated and destroyed after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war." Thus, Israel is depicted as a state born out of colonial conquest rather than the return of a people from exile. Each dot links to the "Palestine Remembered" site, where further information advancing this narrative can be obtained.

Many of the claims staked out in Google Earth present misinformation, and sites known to be ruins in 1946 are claimed to be villages destroyed in 1948. Arab villages which still exist today are listed as sites of destruction. The Google Earth initiative is not only creating a virtual Palestine, it is creating a falsification of history.

The concept of "replacement geography" replaces the historical connection of one people to the land with a connection between another people and the land. The inclusion of virtual Palestine, superimposed on Israel in the core layer of Google Earth, is an example of replacement geography advanced by technology.

Those wishing to explore Israel in Google Earth are immediately taken to a politically motivated narrative unrelated to their quest. Google should remove the narrative and treat Israel as it treats every other country on the globe. The core layer of Google Earth should be ideology free and not serve as a platform for indoctrination or a campaign to wipe Israel off the virtual map.

The influence of the Internet on our lives is increasing. News, advertising, employment, education, and networking are being affected. Israel's security is especially vulnerable to the manipulation of geography. The online world allows the creation of a virtual reality that at times bears only passing resemblance to facts on the ground. The gap between reality and virtual reality is further exploited by political activists promoting what we term "replacement geography," a means of controlling the virtual representation of land in place of controlling the land itself. In an information age, control on the common map may be worth more in negotiations than control on the ground.

Google Earth

With a user base of 400 million,¹ Google Earth uses satellite imagery combined with maps, terrain, and 3D buildings to present the earth at various levels of magnification. Key features (geography, place details, pictures, etc.) are included with the download of Google Earth in what is known as a "core layer." Users can also download "custom layers" created by other users, which provide educational, historical, or special interest information to be accessed by those wishing to take the Google Earth experience further.

The Google Earth website was the 8th most searched for website in the UK at the start of 2006.² The user base in June 2007 was 200 million,³ up 100 percent from reports10 months earlier.⁴ The application has broad appeal, with almost a quarter of the visitors to Google Earth over the age of 55.⁵ Google Earth has been used by campaign groups to raise public awareness; examples include grass roots environmental campaigns that created a layer with information against deforestation; a WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature) layer showing large-scale environmental and socioeconomic shifts; and the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum which created a layer with information on the crisis in Darfur. These projects were custom layers which users could add to Google Earth.⁶

Virtual Reality

Virtual Israel, as represented by Google Earth, is littered with dozens of orange dots. Orange dots represent contributions from the user community, and those appearing by default have been accepted into the core layout by Google Earth. In the case of Israel, most of these dots claim to represent "one of the Palestinian localities evacuated and destroyed after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war." For example, Ramat Aviv, the site of Tel Aviv University, appears as Al Shaykh Muwannis. While generally Google Earth does not erase Israeli towns and kibbutzim, it has heavily integrated a politically motivated Palestinian narrative into the map of Israel. As a result, Israel is depicted as a state born out of colonial conquest rather than the return of a people from exile. Each orange dot links to the "Palestine Remembered" site, where custom layers which further advance this narrative can be obtained.

Early press reports portrayed the virtual Palestine initiative as documentation of fact and included Israeli comments that it was "biased but legitimate."⁷ Later research showed that many of the claims staked out in Google Earth were presenting misinformation. Kiryat Yam was wrongly claimed to be built on the Palestinian village of Ghawarina. Many sites known to be ruins in 1946 are claimed to be villages destroyed in 1948. Arab villages which still exist today are listed as sites of destruction.⁸ The Google Earth initiative is not only creating a virtual Palestine, it is creating a falsification of history.

Google Earth's core information also includes other problems. Previously, areas beyond the "green line" were labelled as "Occupied Territories," a phraseology which is sometimes used to justify terrorism, rather than "disputed territories."⁹ The area listed as "occupied" also included the Temple Mount in Jerusalem.¹⁰ Google Earth places Mt. Scopus and its Hebrew University campusin Jerusalem within Jordanian territory prior to 1967, even though it was an area where Israel exercised control during that period, according to the 1949 Armistice Agreement.

In March 2008 the Gaza Strip was still listed as "Israeli-occupied," despite Israel's full withdrawal in 2005 and the military takeover of the Strip by Hamas in mid-2007. By May 2008 (after press coverage), the label was changed to read "Gaza Strip." A note states: "Many sources still regard the Gaza Strip as ‘Israeli-occupied' despite formal Israeli withdrawal in September 2005."¹¹ There is still no mention of Hamas' control.

Politically-Loaded Geography

"Replacement geography" builds on the concept of "replacement theology," a position that spurred anti-Semitism within the church and which, starting with Vatican II, has been removed from Christian doctrine. Indeed, it has been stated that recognition of the State of Israel by the Vatican completed this process.¹² Replacement theology stated that Christians had inherited the covenant and replaced the Jews as the chosen people. The concept of replacement geography similarly replaces the historical connection of one people to the land with a connection between another people and the land.

This was famously applied by the Romans when they renamed Judea to Palaestinia, and Jerusalem to Aelia Capitolina in 135 CE in an effort to destroy the Jewish people after the Bar Kokhba revolt. In more recent times, replacement geography has resulted in the destruction of Jewish artifacts at the Temple Mount.¹³

The inclusion of virtual Palestine, superimposed on Israel in the core layer of Google Earth, is an example of replacement geography advanced by technology. Those wishing to find directions, explore the cities of Israel, or randomly wander across this small piece of land are immediately taken to a politically motivated narrative unrelated to their quest. This is the sort of replacement the ancient Romans tried and failed to achieve. The promotion of a replacement narrative works against a compromise solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, inspiring absolutist positions rather than a negotiated settlement.

Main Implications

Generally, Google allows all kinds of organizations or individuals to create overlays with their own information on its map. These overlays are only available to those who specifically request them, but they are not automatically incorporated into the core map of Google Earth that every user entering its website can see. Disturbingly, Google has incorporated the Palestinians' overlays and their accompanying narrative into its core maps of Israel. As Google maintains editorial control over its core layer, it has responsibility for its content, which it clearly has not adequately exercised.

Google Earth presents a tremendous challenge by allowing historical revisionism. Maps of the world have changed with evolving historical circumstances everywhere. Yet theoretically, with this tool, organizations seeking to make a claim for Mexican sovereignty over territories incorporated into the U.S. in the nineteenth century could raise such arguments by revising the map of Texas or California. Rather than serving as an educational resource, Google Earth could simply evolve into a website for political warfare.

For those who do not physically visit Israel, the "facts" on this virtual ground are real. It is to be expected that people will form their opinion on issues such as borders, land rights, and historic connection based on sources like Google Earth. The social propagation of a narrative of Israeli aggression and ethnic cleansing - an aspect of "Anti-Semitism 2.0"¹⁴ - is spread through Google Earth.

Without a response that includes new information about the historical connection of the Jewish people to Israel throughout the ages, as well as modern Israeli history and the Israel of today, the world's opinion of Israel can only grow dimmer. An increase in content - assuming Google will eventually add it to the core layer, something that is far from certain - would address the vast imbalance, yet do little for the user experience.

A far better solution would be for Google to remove the narrative and treat Israel as it treats every other country on the globe. Both the Palestinian narrative and promotion of Israel can have their place, but this should be in optional layers. The core layer of Google Earth should be ideology free and not serve as a platform for indoctrination or a campaign to wipe Israel off the virtual map.

* * *

Notes

1. Mike Swain, "Amazon Tribe Using Google Earth to Battle Illegal Loggers," Daily Mirror, 21 June 2008,

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/topstories/2008/06/21/amazon-tribe-using-google-earth-to-battle-illegal-loggers-89520-20615602/

2. Quentin Reade, "Google Earth's Popularity Booms," Web User Magazine, 25 January 2006, http://www.webuser.co.uk/news/news.php?id=73488

3. Stefanie Olsen, "Do-Gooders Doing Google Earth," CNET News.com, 7 June 2007, http://www.news.com/2100-1038_3-6189464.html

4. David Meyer, "Google, Microsoft Vie for Earth Domination," CNET News.com, 12 September 2006, http://news.cnet.com/Google,-Microsoft-vie-for-Earth-domination/2100-1032_3-6114828.html

5. Quentin Reade, "Google Earth's Popularity Booms," Web User Magazine, 25 January 2006, www.webuser.co.uk/news/news.php?id=73488.

6. Stefanie Olsen, op. cit.

7. Gal Mor, "Palestinian Villages Commemorated on Google Maps," Ynet News, 13 July 2006.

8. David Shamah, "Digital World: Google Earth's ‘False Flags'," Jerusalem Post, 4 March 2008.

9. Dore Gold, "From ‘Occupied Territories' to ‘Disputed Territories'," Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 470, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 16 January 2002.

10. "Google's Latest Anti-Jewish Outrage," WorldNetDaily, 11 March 2008.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58658

11. See in Google Earth, 22 June 2008.

12. Padraic O'Hare, The Enduring Covenant: The Education of Christians and the End of Antisemitism, (Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1997).

13. Mark Ami-El, "The Destruction of the Temple Mount Antiquities," Jerusalem Viewpoints, No. 483, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 1 August 2002, http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp483.htm

14. Andre Oboler, "Online Antisemitism 2.0. ‘Social Antisemitism' on the ‘Social Web'," Post-Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, No. 67, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, 1 April 2008.

* * *

Dr. Andre Oboler is a social media expert. He holds a Ph.D. in computer science from Lancaster University, UK and is a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Political Science at Bar-Ilan University in Israel. He is currently a Legacy Heritage Fellow at NGO Monitor in Jerusalem, and edits ZionismOnTheWeb.org - a website countering on-line hate.

Address by FM Tzipi Livni on The State of the Nations

2008-06-25T09:58:00.006-04:00

Address by Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs Tzipi Livni at the annual Major-General Aharon Yariv Memorial Conference June 22, 2008

[Translated from Hebrew]

I think there is a connection between Israel's international standing and our internal situation. They are not disconnected, because our ability to achieve our objectives depends, among other things, upon the world’s willingness to accept some of our fundamental principles, and to support or at least not oppose the actions we must take. Institute for Strategic Studies

We must first remind ourselves of the common denominator between all of us here. I repeat it like a mantra, because it has to be the writing on the wall, and it is Israel’s supreme goal: its existence as a Jewish and democratic state, with those values integrated rather than in conflict, a state that is as secure as possible and living in peace with its neighbors in the Land of Israel.

I believe it is possible to integrate both these values at once. The need to do so unquestionably mandates certain political decisions, as they also pertain to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But this writing has to be on the wall, because all of our decisions derive from it. I am speaking now of the decisions made by the people sitting in government meetings. Options in the Middle East always involve choosing between bad options in complex situations, and there’s usually a clash between the long run and the short run. Just looking at our most recent decisions - you can paint a short-term picture of calm that still may cost us strategically in the long term. We must always consider whether the price is worthwhile and if the alternative would have exacted a higher strategic price or not. We cannot allow ourselves to look only at the short term.

What are the ramifications of what I am saying on Israel's international standing? The establishment of a Jewish state, or of two states, which was adopted by a majority in 1948 or even back in 1947, is no longer taken for granted by today’s international community.

Today, the existence of Israel is being delegitimized, not just its physical survival but also its existence as a national home for the Jewish people. The conditions the Quartet demanded from any Palestinian government included of course renouncing terror and recognizing previous agreements, and those are important, but also recognizing the existence of Israel.

Were we to ask the international community to add two words: the existence of Israel as a Jewish state - I'm afraid in the best-case scenario we would find ourselves in an argument, and in the worst case the phrasing would not be endorsed. I say so because, as I see it, all the wars we’ve waged for 60 years over Israel's existence, even prior to the founding of the state, were not meant only to safeguard its physical existence but also its principled existence that is just as essential, namely our existence as the national home for the Jewish people.

Moreover, only the fact that a profound international argument is being waged because of the Palestinians' demand for their own national state leads the world to perceive Israel's demand to be recognized as a national home for the Jewish people as legitimate, since there are two peoples here asking for two states on the same piece of land between Jordan and the Mediterranean. That means, perhaps somewhat absurdly, that their demand solidifies and reinforces the perception of the existence of Israel as the national home of the Jewish people.

Our situation appears natural to us, but in fact we live in a country without internationally recognized borders. Substantial parts of what we consider Israel today are actually disputed by the international community. And while we're still living with the image of little Israel wearing a kibbutz worker’s hat, the international community is in a very different place. Although we want to view ourselves as David, the world sees us as Goliath and the Palestinians as David. We have to face up to some giant discrepancies between what we really are, how we see ourselves, and how the international community perceives us.

Just as we spoke of 60 years of positive processes we can be proud of, it is also important to say that Israel is now on the way to the OECD. A week ago we obtained a European Union decision to upgrade relations with Israel. But that old controversy is always lurking in the corner, that gap between Israel's image in its own eyes and in the eyes of others.

At the same time, processes are taking place, not only in this region but in the entire world, that theoretically should serve our purposes. The international community is coming increasingly to understand that the world today is divided between moderates and extremists. In the past, the common principle or perception was that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the cause of extremism in the Middle East. International leadership is gradually grasping that even if we manage to resolve this conflict tomorrow, Iran will not alter its ideology, as their ideology stems from other sources.

This change is very problematic, because growing extremism is by definition problematic for us. The fact that political disputes tend to become more religious in nature is certainly a problem, because a national conflict can be resolved whereas a religious conflict cannot. We can solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with two national states, but if it turns into a religious conflict, which is what Hamas represents, it is irresolvable. But it also presents an opportunity, because international elements, and the Arab and Moslem leadership of the kind we call more "pragmatic" and "moderate," both understand that in the new camps that have formed in the region Israel belongs to the camp of pragmatists and moderates, and that we have common enemies - Iran and the radical elements.

On a positive note, when we look at this opportunity, our ability to translate it into practical terms, to enlist this camp for support in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through compromise on both sides, to support the moderate Palestinians and not Hamas would seem to be the next step. Namely, everyone in this camp understands that Israel is not really the cause of extremism, Iran cannot be allowed to win, Hizbullah must not win in Lebanon, and Hamas must not be allowed to establish itself in Gaza.

All the cards appear to call for our enlisting this camp to attain what is required on our part to resolve the conflict while at the same time fighting terrorism and extremism. On the other hand, and this is the source of some of the frustration encountered by anyone who deals with these processes, the moderate elements I'm speaking of are the weaker elements in the region. That is to say, those who understand the new division in the region are the same ones who do not have - I don't want to say the power - do not have the ability or the will to tell this truth to the radical elements amongst their people.

So most of them are sitting on the fence, telling us in closed rooms that they truly believe action should be taken against Iran, but at the same time when we take measures and sanctions, ask that bank accounts be blocked, or ask Europeans to cut their ties with Iran, those will be the same states with which Iran is able to continue relations, providing an alternative to the sanctions that the Western world is imposing.

Similarly, when we ask them to take action and immediately carry out what they’re telling us in private, i.e., unreserved support for the pragmatic elements in the Palestinian Authority to strengthen them alongside the actions that Israel has to take to combat terrorism, we usually find them speaking in terms of the "need for unity" and "cooperation" among the Palestinian public, because they wish to avoid a confrontation with the radical elements.

If we look at the Doha Agreement and what happened in Lebanon, Hizbullah and the March 14 Alliance, and the Mecca Agreement that was in effect for a time between Hamas and Fatah, we can see that despite the common perception of the region, there is actually a desire to promote calm, to bridge between moderates and extremists, and not to wage war between the moderates or pragmatics and the extremists. That's why the gap between understanding the situation and translating it into action is very problematic.

Next, we are today seeing a trend of less and less accountability by countries in the face of actions by organizations - and this is also related to the division between moderates and extremists. If in the past we were used to wars between states, with national responsibility and ending with the surrender of a country, by attacking those symbols or places which will bring the war to an end in a ceasefire or some kind of closure, today we are dealing with a situation of international terrorist organizations that exploit the weakness of countries or entities, using their territory to launch attacks.

The rules of war have changed. I believe we - not only on the leadership level but also among the Israeli public - came to understand this during the Lebanon war. The terms of winning wars that we were used to in the past, are now completely different. You have to use new, different tools to improve your situation, or to eliminate or weaken the threat. The methods or processes we were used to before do not always work today. Some of these conclusions need to be applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the attempt to end it.

Apropos the gaps between Israel and the international community, when I give a speech like this one, certainly in the United States and in many parts of Europe, I usually find the leaders nodding their heads because they understand what is really going on. The problem is twofold: the first is the gap between the understanding and the willingness to pay the price.

We have no choice; we know that part of our struggle for survival involves paying the price, whether immediately or later on. We need to make the calculations but all in all the Israeli public knows, and the leadership most certainly knows, that advancing the subjects strategically important to us entails paying a price, sometimes on the spot. The rest of the world, mainly meaning some of the European countries for our purposes, understands the threat, but some are unwilling to pay the price.

The second problem is the need for a consensus. We must remember that Europe today has practically turned into one unit, and in making decisions - certainly of the kind needed in our context or with regard to actions we demand of Europe - they need a consensus. They need a consensus in the Security Council when it comes to Iran. A consensus is important but it also has a price, because in any dialogue about necessary sanctions or actions, the first price paid is a very low common denominator which is therefore less effective.

Even more problematic for us is the fact that sometimes Israel is the one asked to pay the price. Israel is perceived by the international community as holding all the payments needed by the moderate and weak elements, in order to appease and strengthen them. Thus we usually find that when the international community is faced with a common threat, Israel is asked to give something.

For example, in the current debate on Lebanon following the Doha Agreements, with the Siniora government being perceived as weak, the issue of the Shaba farms is being brought up once again as a way to strengthen this government even though the demand was made by Hizbullah. Similarly, Israel is asked to pay a price in situations involving extremist elements in the Palestinian Authority - who are at least perceived as stronger - some of which I believe are worth considering in the interests of advancing the common understanding, but some of which we cannot pay.

It’s not enough to talk about the situation. We also have to examine how we are coping with it and what we are doing to advance the common objectives. In this context are two factors. The first is the effort to change Israel's image on the most basic level. I know this may seem less important but it is critical for decision-making in the international arena. Serious leaders are influenced not only by what they think but also by their own countries’ interests; not only by their own values but also by public opinion in their countries. I have too many times heard a foreign minister or head of state telling me, "You're right but I have no choice but to censure you." As long as it’s just words, so be it, but tomorrow we will see it as part of a decision-making process in the United Nations, the Security Council, or the European Union, because they owe it to domestic public opinion or the local media.

So this is a strategic problem for Israel, which has to be handled. I’m not just talking about public relations, but a long-term branding process meant to change the basic perception of the word "Israel" from the ground up to something closer to what we really are - and less of Israel viewed through the mirror of the conflict, less the picture of the soldier next to the Palestinian women giving birth at an IDF roadblock or a Palestinian child standing by a tank.

The second important factor, which is necessary for our own sake and certainly also internationally relevant, is the effort to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict according to the principles that serve and correspond with the supreme goal I spoke of earlier, namely of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state - and these principles can also correspond to those of the international community.

However, a process of erosion is taking place in Israel's basic positions on everything related to ending the Israel-Palestinian conflict in the international community. Issues that were very obvious to us and principles that we could clearly stick to are gradually being worn down, and for these two reasons - both the erosion of our positions and the transition to more religious rather than national conflicts - time is not on our side. It is in Israel's interest to end the conflict; it is not a gift we want to give the Palestinians or the international community. It is in our interest to provide a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict according to our principles.

Our principles derive from the supreme goal I spoke of - Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. This means relinquishing part of the Land of Israel. A national home for the Jewish people in the framework of two nation states plainly says one thing: Israel is the national home for the Jewish people, and the future Palestinian state is the national home for the Palestinian people - the national, complete, full and comprehensive solution for all Palestinians everywhere, including those residing in Judea and Samaria, in Gaza, in refugee camps, and those who are Israeli citizens with equal rights who define themselves as Palestinians.

Let me briefly explain how this works, to avoid any misunderstandings. Regarding the refugees, the establishment of the Palestinian state is naturally the full solution for all Palestinians everywhere, meaning that Israel is not an option for a solution. Since the year 2000 and Camp David, I have been conducting meetings with most of the world’s leaders, including Arab leaders, and this principle is the only one that matches the two-state principle, because otherwise we are not speaking in terms of two nation states. The result was President Bush’s letter to Israel right before the disengagement stating that the solution will be the establishment of a Palestinian state. There is today a virtual consensus on this among the international community, which can be maintained if Israel does not start talking about numbers. It is not a matter of numbers or of price but one of principle. We cannot allow ourselves to open this issue to discussion, because it touches on Israel’s legitimacy since its establishment. Our agreement to the two-state principle and our readiness to lead the two-state process are designed also to provide a solution to this problem.

I would like to clarify what this means for the Arab citizens of Israel, because I think this also has internal strategic importance. Certainly they are all citizens with equal rights, and of course it is the government’s duty to grant equality. We are also all aware that over the years the Israeli administrations did not always know how to do this. Solving this conflict by establishing two nation states in effect says to the Arab citizens of Israel: You are citizens with equal rights in the State of Israel, but must accept the existence of Israel as a national home for the Jewish people, including acceptance of the Law of Return and certain national symbols. It does not, of course, force anyone to do anything in their own homes, nor does it clash with the principle of equality. But it does create a framework that all citizens know that they live in - something that was not always clear before.

The second principle is obviously to implement the idea of two states living in security. These comprises a few basic things that are critical to Israel's security. Here we cannot speak of general principles, but must be clear and precise. We have to know what will happen the day after the borders are drawn.

I said earlier that today we are a state without recognized borders. Setting borders is in our interest, but we cannot and do not intend to throw the key to the other side of the border and hope for the best. That won't work. We have to determine ahead of time what will happen in the future Palestinian state. We've seen cases, of which I spoke of before, of weak countries being taken advantage of by terrorist organizations operating within their territory. We cannot afford to let this happen. We cannot afford another terrorist state in the region.

Therefore the negotiating process I'm currently conducting with the Palestinians must be very specific regarding borders, security and the solution of the conflict, so that the agreement that I hope we can draft and sign will express what I think are the interests of both sides, but certainly Israel's interests, and not be yet another paper sketching out a few principles which becomes another point of ongoing frustration, as has happened so far.

No doubt this dialogue serves Israel's interests but also answers Israel's needs in the international context - though I admit that I the main if not only thing I take into the room when I meet with the Palestinians is Israel's interests, and less the international context. First and foremost we must safeguard Israel's interests. But in this case I think Israel's interests have something in common with improving our status in the international community. The actions we take and the decisions we make today are meant to serve our long-term interests and are not just something for the "here and now" and tomorrow morning’s headlines.

Netanyahu: Jerusalem won't be divided

2008-06-24T14:42:00.004-04:00

Jun 24, 2008 9:00 | Updated Jun 24, 2008 18:38
By JPOST.COM STAFF

"Jerusalem will never be divided," Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu told French President Nicolas Sarkozy when the two met on Tuesday morning.

Only a united Jerusalem would "make freedom of religion possible for people of all religions in the city," Netanyahu said.

He also presented Sarkozy with an economic plan for peace with the Palestinians that he is trying to advance.

Also Tuesday, the London-based Arabic daily Asharq Al-Awsat published an interview with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in which he was quoted as saying that tangible progress had been made in talks with the Palestinians regarding the fate of refugees, as well as the issues of borders and security arrangements.

According to Olmert, the issue of Jerusalem would only be discussed in the final stage of talks because it was "volatile," but expressed hope that the two sides could overcome the obstacles and reach an agreement over the fate of the capital.

The prime minister brushed aside recent reports of a possible meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad on the sidelines of the upcoming Mediterranean nations conference in Paris, saying that such a meeting "is not the reason for my participation in the conference."

He also claimed that it was Syria rather than Israel that insisted that the indirect talks between Jerusalem and Damascus be made public.

"In the past, they have not done so, and it is an important and positive thing," he said in reference to the Syrian's insistence on disclosure, reiterating that a peace agreement with the Syrians must take the place of Damascus's relationship with the Iranians. "Let us be honest and clear: Does it make sense that we will sign a peace treaty with Syria and open an embassy in Damascus, and that they will open an embassy in Tel Aviv... and Syria-Iran ties will remain as-is?"

Regarding the Gaza truce, Olmert warned that continued weapons smuggling from the Sinai into the Gaza Strip "will be a breach of the truce agreement, and we will be forced to return to military action."

Olmert expressed real hope that a peace deal with the Palestinians could be hammered out by the end of 2008. He said that talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas were not only about a statement of principles but rather strove toward attaining a real, detailed agreement.

The prime minister reiterated Israel's commitment to denying Iran a nuclear weapon.

"We cannot sit on our hands in the face of the nuclearization of [a country] that calls for Israel's destruction day in and day out," he asserted, adding that the "Iranian problem" was not only Israel's to deal with, but pertained to the US, Russia, Europe, Japan and even the Arabs. He demanded that all of the parties work together in order to deny Iran military nuclear capabilities.

Olmert refused to divulge any information regarding reports that an extensive IAF drill over Greek waters was meant to simulate an attack against Iran's nuclear facilities, which are also approximately 1,500 kilometers away from Israel.

"We did not measure the distance," he said, asking the interviewer to "leave it alone."

"These are maneuvers that are part of the IDF's preparations for facing up to the challenges that Israel faces," he said.

First Kassams since cease-fire: Three rockets hit western Negev

2008-06-24T10:05:00.003-04:00

By JPOST.COM STAFF AND AP
Jun 24, 2008 6:59 | Updated Jun 24, 2008 16:47

Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack, saying that the attack was to avenge an IDF raid that killed one of its members in the West Bank early Tuesday.

The West Bank is not formally part of the truce, however Islamic Jihad said it "cannot keep its hands tied" when its brothers in the West Bank are being targeted.

Hamas, however, said it remains committed to the cease-fire agreeement.

One of the rockets damaged a house in Sderot, where two women were treated for shock. A second rocket landed in the Sderot area, causing no casualties or damage, and a third landed in an open area in the western Negev.

The rockets were fired just as Prime Minister Ehud Olmert was meeting with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in an effort to piggyback on the momentum of the cease-fire and push the release of kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Schalit.

Earlier Monday overnight, Palestinian gunmen in the Gaza Strip fired a mortar shell into Israel - the first breach of the cease-fire since it went into effect five days ago.

There were no reports of casualties or damage.

Meanwhile, two Islamic Jihad gunmen, one of them a senior operative by the name of Tarek abu Ghally, 25, were killed in a joint IDF-Shin Bet operation Monday night in Nablus.

The army said the two were killed in exchanges of fire that ensued during an attempt to arrest them.

According to the military, Ghally was planning to carry out a terror attack in Israel "in the very near future."

The soldiers found large amounts of weapons and ammunition on his person.

The Chief Rabbinate of Israel has requested that this prayer be recited for the safety of the kidnapped soldiers

2008-06-24T06:45:00.004-04:00

The Chief Rabbinate of Israel has requested that this prayer be recited for the safety of the kidnapped soldiers: Gilad ben Aviva (Shalit), Ehud ben Malka (Goldwasser) and Eldad ben Tova (Regev). Additionally, Tehillim 70, 13, 126 and 142 should be recited.

תפילה לשלומו של גלעד, אהוד ואלדד
יהי רצון מלפניך ה' אלהינו ואלהי אבותינו,
שיעלו לרצון מזמורי תהלים אלו שקראנו לפניך היום
ויתקבלו לפניך כאילו אמרם דוד המלך עבדך משיחך ע"ה.
ותקבל ברחמים וברצון את תפילתנו ובקשתינו
ותבוא לפניך תחינתנו ותחוס ותחמול ותרחם
על עבדכם
גלעד בן אביבה שליט
אהוד בן מלכה גולדווסר
אלדד בן טובה רגב
ותושיע אותם בישועה ורחמים
יחד עם כל השבויים והאסירים מעמך ישראל.
מוציא אסירים בכושרות הוא יפדם מידי שוביהם
' ויוציאם מעבדות לחירות ומשעבוד לגאולה ומאפילה לאורה
וירפאם רפואה שלימה, רפואת הנפש ורפואת הגוף.
ויאמץ את רוחם וירבה את כוחם ויאזרם בשמחה ובגילה.
אז יתחזקו ויתרפאו והייתה להם שמחת עולם.
וזכות תפילת רבים וצעקתם ונאקתם
המעתירים בעדם בכל אתר ואתר, תעמוד להם למגן וצינה ולפדותם מבית שבים,
ויקרע רוע גזר דינם ויקראו לפניהם יתברך כל זכויותם וכל אשר פעלו ועשו למען עמנו ונחלתנו,
ויקרע גזר דינם.
קבל רנת עמך שגבנו טהרנו נורא.
ויקיים בו מקרא שכתוב:
"ופדויי ה' ישובון ובאו ציון ברינה ושמחת עולם על ראשם, ששון ושמחה ישיגו ונסו יגון ואנחה."
במהרה בימנו. אמן.

Note from Eric: To help the families of the kidnapped soldiers and for more information on Gilad ben Aviva (Shalit), Ehud ben Malka (Goldwasser) and Eldad ben Tova (Regev), please visit the following website: Ve'Shavu Banim Legvulam

Children reading for Gilad Shalit

2008-06-24T06:27:00.000-04:00

'Anti-Israel' map exhibit in Chicago Jewish institute

2008-06-23T16:33:00.002-04:00

By AMY SOBERANO
Jun 22, 2008 21:39 | Updated Jun 23, 2008 16:09
Jpost.com

The Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies in Chicago recently removed a controversial exhibit from its gallery in response to accusations of housing an anti-Israel display.

"Imaginary Coordinates," a collaboration of artwork and cartography, has been a point of contention since its inauguration in May of 2008.

The collection was designed to portray the Middle Eastern struggle through artifacts, videos, historical Holy Land maps and contemporary artwork. The display also included postcards depicting everyday Palestinian life in an effort to humanize territorial disputes.

As the city's lone Jewish museum, Spertus exhibitions are central to Chicago Jewry and many expressed great outrage in response to this one's depiction of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The critics charged the presentation portrayed Israel in a negative light, and were especially disturbed by pieces that challenged Israeli borders.

Championed by the Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, patrons have applied intense pressure on the Spertus Institute and "Imaginary Coordinates" has since been shut down.

However, critics of the move maintain that withdrawing the exhibit is a reflection of a desire to repress meaningful discourse about the Middle East.

In an interview with the Chicago Tribune, Spertus President Howard Sulkin explained his rationale in launching the presentation. "A willingness to experiment is incorporated right into our core principles, and we see one of our roles as being a place that inspires dialogue on the critical issues of our time," he said.

"Imaginary Coordinates" was designed as an exploration of Israeli and Palestinian understandings of Israel as a homeland throughout history.

A dramatic conclusion to Chicago's yearlong Festival of Maps, the exhibit was accused of echoing global anti-Israel sentiments. "Aspects of it were clearly anti-Israel," Steven Nasatir, president of the Jewish United Fund/Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago, told the Chicago Tribune. "I was surprised that a Jewish institution would put forward this exhibition. I was surprised and saddened by it."

Why Americans are saying yes to Israeli carrots

2008-06-23T10:08:00.001-04:00

By Karin Kloosterman
Israel21c: A Focus Beyond
June 17, 2008

When your mother or grandmother tells you to eat your carrots, they probably have a good reason. According to the new Israeli beauty products company, Yes To Carrots, the average person eats almost 11,000 carrots in their lifetime. "We thought there was probably something to it," says the company's CEO, Ido Leffler, who today has the words "Carrot Lover" printed on his business cards.

In 2005, Yes to Carrots was established in Israel to extract all the rich orange goodness found in carrots and apply these vitamins with minerals from the Dead Sea in natural products for your skin and hair. With about 16 products in its portfolio, the company combines all the goodness of carrots and other veggies into a shower gel, shampoo, a hand cream, body lotion, a body mist, and more.

Leffler tells ISRAEL21c that carrots are a rich source of beta-carotene, a natural form of vitamin A, and are essential for maintaining your skin's health. A lack of vitamin A can lead to dry skin: "Carrots also contain high levels of antioxidants which work wonders to help prevent damage caused by exposure to environmental stresses, such as sun and pollution," he says.

Carrots, however, are only part of the story, he adds. "We've also extracted beta-carotene from other orange fruits and vegetables - sweet potato, melon, pumpkins, and oranges. And all the produce used in our product formulations are sourced from certified organic farmers," he says.

Studies show, explains Leffler, that organic fruits and vegetables have a 40 percent higher antioxidant value than conventionally grown produce. While there are a few companies that have recognized the benefits of carrots in their cosmetics, "we are the only company that has dedicated an entire hair and skincare line that builds on the benefits of organically-sourced beta-carotene, in combination with Dead Sea mud and minerals," Leffler boasts.

Headquartered in Tel Aviv, with manufacturing facilities in Arad, an economic development town in the Negev desert, Yes To Carrots, has a US base outside Chicago in Libertyville, Illinois.

Sold in 17 countries worldwide, you can find the company's products at Walgreens, Ulta and Duane Reade in the United States, as well as in countries such as Canada, Australia, Belgium and Holland. And of course, also in Israel, where they are sold in tourist shops next to the Dead Sea and at other locations.

Today, with 160 employees, the company is not only growing carrots into something big around the world, it is looking to nurture nature as well. The company has created a seed fund, where five percent of its sales goes back to the land: "We are working all year round with Israeli farmers to source the fruits and vegetables found in our products so we wanted to find a way to give back to the land, but also to provide underserved communities with access to organic food sources and healthy nutrition," says Leffler.

Yes To Carrots gets even better: certified organic by the Israeli Bio-Organic Association, the products are paraben-free, a preservative common in beauty products, which is a known carcinogen. Using pomegranate peel extract instead, along with traces of imidazolidinyl urea, Yes To Carrots preserves its products in a more healthy way. "We are constantly researching products and technology that will allow us to provide the best possible product to our consumers," says Leffler.

And what's next in store for Yes To Carrots? "We will launch the first certified USDA Organic lip balm in mass retail outlets - C Me Smile Lip Butter - in five delicious flavors: berry, citrus, melon, mint, carrot. We will also launch two new lines later this summer in the US: Yes To Tomatoes and Yes To Cucumbers," Leffler says.

That's a whole lot of healthy fruit and veggies packed into beauty products to look forward to. Your mother and grandmother would be proud.

An Open Letter to the World by Rabbi Meir Kahane, hy"d

2008-06-23T09:19:00.002-04:00

To see Jimmy Carter's true allegiances, just follow the money

2008-06-22T20:18:00.001-04:00

By Lloyd Greif
New York Daily News
Sunday, April 27th 2008, 4:00 AM

In embracing Hamas last week in direct defiance of the wishes of Congress and the President, ex-President Jimmy Carter raised the question of why he was granting precious prestige and credibility to an organization the U.S. government has designated a "foreign terrorist organization" since 1995.

If he was hoping to rekindle a flagging peace process, Carter's trip was doomed to failure; Hamas remains committed to the destruction of the state of Israel. So does this trip merely reflect a tremendous lack of judgment on Carter's part?

Perhaps the answer is more complicated. You see, the Carter Center, the ex-President's not-for-profit research and activist organization, has prospered over the years as a direct result of Arab largesse. Many of these "charitable" interests support Islamic fundamentalism and are vehemently anti-Israel.

The full extent of these connections is unknown because the amount and source of the Carter Center's funding is not public. But from various news reports and press releases, one can begin to sketch a very troubling picture.

For example, Saudi Arabia, the source of 15 of the 19 plane hijackers on 9/11 and whose royal family has funded terrorism outside the kingdom, has channeled tens of millions of dollars into the Carter Center over the years. In 1993 alone, the late King Fahd gifted $7.6 million, while more recently, the king's nephew, Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal, donated at least $5 million to the Carter Center. The Carter Center has a $36 million annual budget; these amounts are hardly insignificant to its ongoing operations.

Another million-dollar-plus backer is Sultan Qaboos sin Said, monarch of Oman. Considerable financial support comes from the United Arab Emirates as well.

There's more. In 2001, Carter received the $500,000 Zayed International Prize for the Environment and, the following year, praised the efforts of the Abu Dhabi-based Zayed Center for Coordination and Follow Up.

The Zayed Center has repeatedly hosted anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers, supported terrorism and asserted that there is an international conspiracy of Jews and Zionists for world domination, and that a Jewish-American conspiracy perpetrated the atrocities of 9/11.

It would seem that all of this money is not without its influence. Contrast Carter's relentless criticism of Israel, the most modern and democratic country in the Middle East, to his appreciation of such authoritarian countries as the UAE, which he described as an "almost completely open and free society."

Whether the United States can or should interrupt this stream of funding to Carter's operations, it at the very least should not supplement it.

Yet - believe it or not - the United States government itself has been providing millions of dollars to the Carter Center over the years. Representative Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.) estimates that the center received $19 million in federal funding since 2001 alone, and has called for passage of a bill that would immediately cut off all federal financing for the center.

Carter is free to travel around the world, stir up trouble, and cheer on terrorists and terrorist sympathizers. But U.S. taxpayers should not help him do this. And Carter should finally come clean and disclose the amounts and sources of all foreign funding for his center.

Just as the American public has a right to know whether a scientist researching the root causes of global warming is being funded by major oil companies, we should know who is supporting Carter's lobbying efforts to bring "peace" to the Middle East.

It is indeed a sad day in American history when a former President lowers himself to becoming a propaganda tool for terrorists bent on harming our country and the democratic principles by which we live - and we cannot even discover who is paying his bills.

Greif is president & CEO of Greif & Co., an investment bank, and a director of the Los Angeles Economic Development Corporation.

Ahinoam Nini (Noa) "We"

2008-06-22T20:01:00.001-04:00