Statement by Prime Minister Begin on U.S. Measures Against Israel, 20 December 1981.
VOLUME 7: 1981-1982
In an unprecedented move, Mr. Begin summoned the United States ambassador to Israel, and read to him the following statement in response to the punitive measures threatened by the US against Israel.
It was later read to the cabinet and issued to the public.
Text:
Three times during the past six months, the U.S. Government has “punished” Israel.
On June 7 we destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor “Osirak” near Baghdad. I don’t want to mention to you today from whom we received the final information that this reactor was going to produce atomic bombs. We had no doubt about that: therefore our action was an act of salvation, an act of national self-defense in the most lofty sense of the concept. We saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, including tens of thousands of children.
Nonetheless, you announced that you were punishing us - and you left unfilled a signed and sealed contract that included specific dates for the supply of (war) planes.
Not long after, in a defensive act - after a slaughter was committed against our people leaving three dead (including an Auschwitz survivor) and 29 were injured we bombed the PLO headquarters in Beirut.
You have no moral right to preach to us about civilian casualties. We have read the history of World War Two and we know what happened to civilians when you took action against an enemy. We have also read the history of the Vietnam war and your phrase “body-count”. We always make efforts to avoid hitting civilian populations, but sometimes it is unavoidable - as was the case in our bombing of the PLO headquarters.
We sometimes risk the lives of our soldiers to avoid civilian casualties.
Nonetheless, you punished us: you suspended delivery of F-15 planes.
A week ago, at the instance of the Government, the Knesset passed on all three readings by an overwhelming majority of two-thirds, the “Golan Heights Law.”
Now you once again declare that you are punishing Israel.
What kind of expression is this - “punishing Israel”? Are we a vassal state of yours? Are we a banana republic? Are we youths of fourteen who, if they don’t behave properly, are slapped across the fingers?
Let me tell you who this government is composed of. It is composed of people whose lives were spent in resistance, in fighting and in suffering. You will not frighten us with “punishments”. He who threatens us will find us deaf to his threats. We are only prepared to listen to rational arguments.
You have no right to “punish” Israel - and I protest at the very use of this term.
You have announced that you are suspending consultations on the implementation of the memorandum of understanding on strategic cooperation, and that your return to these consultations in the future will depend on progress achieved in the autonomy talks and on the situation in Lebanon.
You want to make Israel a hostage of the memorandum of understanding.
I regard your announcement suspending the consultations on the memorandum of as the abrogation (by you) of the memorandum. No “sword of Damocles” is going to hang over our head. So we duly take note of the fact that you have abrogated the memorandum of understanding.
The people of Israel has lived 3,700 years without a memorandum of understanding with America - and it will continue to live for another 3,700. In our eyes it (i.e., the U.S. suspension) is an abrogation of the memorandum.
We will not agree that you should demand of us to allow the Arabs of East Jerusalem to take part in the autonomy elections - and threaten us that if we don’t consent you will suspend the memorandum.
You have imposed upon us financial punishments - and have (thereby) violated the word of the President. When Secretary Haig was here he read from a written document the words of President Reagan that you would purchase 200 million dollars worth of Israel arms and other equipment. Now you say it will not be so.
This is therefore a violation of the President’s word. Is it customary? Is it proper?
You cancelled an additional 100 million dollars. What did you want to do - to “hit us in our pocket”?
In 1946 there lived in this house a British general by the name of Barker. Today I live here. When we fought him, you called us “terrorists” - and we carried on fighting. After we attacked his headquarters in the requisitioned building of the King David Hotel, Barker said: “This race will only be influenced by being hit in the pocket” - and he ordered his soldiers to stop patronizing Jewish cafes.
To hit us in the pocket - this is the philosophy of Barker. Now I understand why the whole great effort in the Senate to obtain a majority for the arms deal with Saudi Arabia was accompanied by an ugly campaign of anti-Semitism.
First, the slogan was sounded “Begin or Reagan?” - and that meant that whoever opposes the deal is supporting a foreign prime minister and is not loyal to the President of the United States. And thus Senators like Jackson, Kennedy, Packwood and of course Boschwitz are not loyal citizens.
Then the slogan was sounded “We should not let the Jews determine the foreign policy of the United States.” What was the meaning of this slogan? The Greek minority in the U.S. did much to determine the Senate decision to withhold weapons from Turkey after it invaded Cyprus. No one will frighten the great and free Jewish community of the U.S., no one will succeed in cowing them with anti-Semitic propaganda. They will stand by our side. This is the land of their forefathers - and they have a right and a duty to support it.
Some say we must “rescind” the law passed by the Knesset. “To rescind” is a concept from the days of the Inquisition. Our forefathers went to the stake rather than “rescind” their faith.
We are not going to the stake. Thank God. We have enough strength to defend our independence and to defend our rights.
If it were up to me (alone) I would say we should not rescind the law. But as far as I can judge there is in fact no one on earth who can persuade the Knesset to rescind the law which it passed by a two-thirds majority.
Mr. Weinberger - and later Mr. Haig - said that the law adversely affects UN Resolution 242. Whoever says that has either not read the Resolution or has forgotten it, or has not understood it.
The essence of the Resolution is negotiation to determine agreed and recognized borders. Syria has announced that it will not conduct negotiations with us, that it does not and will not recognize us - and thus removed from Resolution 242 its essence. How, therefore, could we adversely affect 242?
As regards the future, please be kind enough to inform the Secretary of, State that the Golan Heights Law will remain valid. There is no force on earth that can bring about its rescission.
As for the contention that we surprised you, the truth is that we did not want to embarrass you. We knew your difficulties. You come to Riyadh and Damascus. It was President Reagan who said that Mr. Begin was right - that had Israel told the U.S. about the law (in advance) the U.S. would have said no. We did not want you to say no - and then go ahead and apply Israeli law to the Golan Heights.
Our intention was not to embarrass you.
As regards Lebanon, I have asked that the Secretary of State be informed that we will not attack, but if we are attacked, we will counterattack.
See this and more at Israel Behind the News
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Former Israel Deputy Defense Minister: Israel Will Attack Iran by November
by Ken Timmerman at NewsMax
Israel will be compelled to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities by this November unless the U.S. and its allies enact “crippling sanctions that will undermine the regime in Tehran,” former deputy defense minister Brig. Gen. Ephraim Sneh said on Wednesday in Tel Aviv.
The sanctions currently being discussed with Russia, China, and other major powers at the United Nations are likely to be a slightly-enhanced version of the U.N. sanctions already in place, which have had no impact on the Iranian regime.
And despite unanimous passage of the Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act in January, the Obama administration continues to resist efforts by Congress to impose mandatory sanctions on companies selling refined petroleum products to Iran.
In an Op-Ed in the Israeli left-wing daily, Haaretz, Sneh argues that Iran will probably have “a nuclear bomb or two” by 2011.
“An Israeli military campaign against Iran’s nuclear installations is likely to cripple that country’s nuclear project for a number of years. The retaliation against Israel would be painful, but bearable.”
Sneh believes that the “acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran during Obama’s term would do him a great deal of political damage,” but that the damage to Obama resulting from an Israeli strike on Iran “would be devastating.”
Nevertheless, he writes, “for practical reasons, in the absence of genuine sanctions, Israel will not be able to wait until the end of next winter, which means it would have to act around the congressional elections in November, thereby sealing Obama’s fate as president.”
Sneh does not foresee any U.S. military strikes on Iran, an analysis that is shared by most observers in Washington, who see the Obama administration moving toward containment as opposed to confrontation with Iran.
In a recent report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), military analyst Anthony Cordesman concluded that Israel will have to use low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons if it wants to take out deeply-buried nuclear sites in Iran.
“Israel is reported to possess a 200 kilogram nuclear warhead containing 6 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium that could be mounted on the sea launched cruise missiles and producing a Yield of 20 kilo tons,” Cordesman writes in the CSIS study he co-authored by Abdullah Toukan.
Israel would be most likely to launch these missiles from its Dolphin-class submarines, he added.
While Sneh is no longer in the Israeli government, his revelation of a drop-dead date for an Israeli military strike on Iran must be taken seriously, Israel-watchers in the U.S. tell Newsmax.
“Ephraim Sneh is a serious guy,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “He was deputy minister of defense and has long been focused on the issue of Iran.”
Shoshana Bryen, Senior Director for Security Policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), said that what struck her most about Sneh’s comments was the shift of emphasis from resolving the Palestinian problem to Iran.
“For 30 years, he’s been saying that solving the Palestinian problem is Israel’s biggest priority. Now he’s saying, forget about the Palestinians. Iran is the problem.”
Sneh “is extremely well regarded on the left and the right,” she added. “People respect him enormously.”
In his Op-Ed, Sneh argues that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to mend its bridges with the United States, and the only way to do so is by enacting an immediate and total ban on any settlement activity, including in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.
“Without international legitimacy, and with its friend mad at it, Israel would find it very difficult to act on its own” against Iran, he argued.
See the original article at NewsMax
See this and more stories at Israel Behind the News
Israel will be compelled to attack Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities by this November unless the U.S. and its allies enact “crippling sanctions that will undermine the regime in Tehran,” former deputy defense minister Brig. Gen. Ephraim Sneh said on Wednesday in Tel Aviv.
The sanctions currently being discussed with Russia, China, and other major powers at the United Nations are likely to be a slightly-enhanced version of the U.N. sanctions already in place, which have had no impact on the Iranian regime.
And despite unanimous passage of the Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act in January, the Obama administration continues to resist efforts by Congress to impose mandatory sanctions on companies selling refined petroleum products to Iran.
In an Op-Ed in the Israeli left-wing daily, Haaretz, Sneh argues that Iran will probably have “a nuclear bomb or two” by 2011.
“An Israeli military campaign against Iran’s nuclear installations is likely to cripple that country’s nuclear project for a number of years. The retaliation against Israel would be painful, but bearable.”
Sneh believes that the “acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran during Obama’s term would do him a great deal of political damage,” but that the damage to Obama resulting from an Israeli strike on Iran “would be devastating.”
Nevertheless, he writes, “for practical reasons, in the absence of genuine sanctions, Israel will not be able to wait until the end of next winter, which means it would have to act around the congressional elections in November, thereby sealing Obama’s fate as president.”
Sneh does not foresee any U.S. military strikes on Iran, an analysis that is shared by most observers in Washington, who see the Obama administration moving toward containment as opposed to confrontation with Iran.
In a recent report for the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), military analyst Anthony Cordesman concluded that Israel will have to use low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons if it wants to take out deeply-buried nuclear sites in Iran.
“Israel is reported to possess a 200 kilogram nuclear warhead containing 6 kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium that could be mounted on the sea launched cruise missiles and producing a Yield of 20 kilo tons,” Cordesman writes in the CSIS study he co-authored by Abdullah Toukan.
Israel would be most likely to launch these missiles from its Dolphin-class submarines, he added.
While Sneh is no longer in the Israeli government, his revelation of a drop-dead date for an Israeli military strike on Iran must be taken seriously, Israel-watchers in the U.S. tell Newsmax.
“Ephraim Sneh is a serious guy,” said Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. “He was deputy minister of defense and has long been focused on the issue of Iran.”
Shoshana Bryen, Senior Director for Security Policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), said that what struck her most about Sneh’s comments was the shift of emphasis from resolving the Palestinian problem to Iran.
“For 30 years, he’s been saying that solving the Palestinian problem is Israel’s biggest priority. Now he’s saying, forget about the Palestinians. Iran is the problem.”
Sneh “is extremely well regarded on the left and the right,” she added. “People respect him enormously.”
In his Op-Ed, Sneh argues that the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu needs to mend its bridges with the United States, and the only way to do so is by enacting an immediate and total ban on any settlement activity, including in Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem.
“Without international legitimacy, and with its friend mad at it, Israel would find it very difficult to act on its own” against Iran, he argued.
See the original article at NewsMax
See this and more stories at Israel Behind the News
Monday, February 22, 2010
UN Afghanistan report: UN blames Terrorists for Civilian Casualties - Unlike Standards Used For Israel
by David Bedein
A little-noticed “United Nations’ Annual Report on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict”, issued in January, which absolved allied coalition forces of culpability for civilian casualties in the almost decade long war against Taliban terror groups in Afghanistan.
According to the report issued by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, at least “5,978 civilians were killed and injured in 2009, the highest number of civilian casualties recorded since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001.”
The United Nations report asserted that the rising death toll there was due to the Taliban terror group’s suicide attacks and explosive roadside devices placed by the Taliban.
he UN report explained that the Taliban frequently attacked coalition forces in densely populated areas and did not blame the United States army or its allies for deaths of civilians who were non combatants who live near the areas from where Taliban launched its attacks, using the civilian areas as a collective human shield.
The UN Afghanistan report stands in stark contrast to a recent report issued by a United Nations’ Human Rights Council’s investigative team, headed by Judge Richard Goldstone, a South African judge, which conducted an inquiry into Israel’s January 2009 three week military incursion into the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.
The Goldstone Report discussed “eleven incidents in which Israeli forces launched direct attacks against civilians with lethal outcome... in which the facts indicate no justifiable military objective pursued by the attack.” These UN allegations of war crimes by the Israeli Defense Forces have been vociferously protested by Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone so far as to call the Goldstone report a “strategic threat,” saying that it hampers the ability of democracies to fight terrorism and to engage in asymmetrical warfare.
A senior Israeli government official said that Israel is held to a different standard than other countries in international forums.
In direct contrast to the Goldstone Report from the same United Nations, the UN holds the Taliban terrorists directly responsible for collateral deaths in Afghanistan, at the same time that the UN alleges that Israel engages in “intentional attacks against the civilian population and civilian objects,” even though Hamas terrorists openly use homes, schools, hospitals and mosques as their protective place of operation.
Unlike Afghanistan, the UN blames Israel - not Hamas - for collateral deaths, injuries and damage to non combatants. The United Nations even suggests that Israel must award reparations to the population of the Gaza Strip, a territory ruled by an internationally recognized terrorist organization.
The United Nations Afghanistan report, on the other hand, noted that coalition forces have been attempting to minimize civilian casualties in Afghanistan, saying that “International military forces did take strategic and specific steps to minimize civilian casualties in 2009,”
In summarizing its findings, the Afghanistan Annual Report on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict found the “declared strategy of prioritizing the safety and security of civilians is a welcome development.”
By the same token, the report laid the blame on the Taliban for causing Afghan civilian deaths,
Drawing the conclusion that “the inability or unwillingness of the armed opposition to take measures that pre-empt and reduce the harm that their tactics entail for civilians translates into a growing death toll and an ever larger proportion of the total number of civilian dead.”
Significantly, more non-combatants have been injured or killed in Afghanistan by allied troops than by IDF forces in Gaza.
A former British commander in Afghanistan, Col. Richard Kemp, told the BBC that he did “not think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more effort to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the [Israel Defense Forces] is doing... in Gaza."
However, a career diplomat with years of experience at the United Nations, noted that it is no surprise that the United Nations uses a different standard to judge Israel. The diplomat mentioned that the UN defined the Sri Lankan-Tamil conflict as an “internal matter”, and that the UN turned a blind eye to the brutal tactics used by the Sri Lankan army, when it finally crushed the 25 year Tamil terrorist rebellion only last year, causing the deaths of thousands of terrorists and non combatants who were slaughtered by Sri Lankan Government forces in the final stages of the conflict.
View the original link at Israel Behind the News
A little-noticed “United Nations’ Annual Report on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict”, issued in January, which absolved allied coalition forces of culpability for civilian casualties in the almost decade long war against Taliban terror groups in Afghanistan.
According to the report issued by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan, at least “5,978 civilians were killed and injured in 2009, the highest number of civilian casualties recorded since the fall of the Taliban regime in 2001.”
The United Nations report asserted that the rising death toll there was due to the Taliban terror group’s suicide attacks and explosive roadside devices placed by the Taliban.
he UN report explained that the Taliban frequently attacked coalition forces in densely populated areas and did not blame the United States army or its allies for deaths of civilians who were non combatants who live near the areas from where Taliban launched its attacks, using the civilian areas as a collective human shield.
The UN Afghanistan report stands in stark contrast to a recent report issued by a United Nations’ Human Rights Council’s investigative team, headed by Judge Richard Goldstone, a South African judge, which conducted an inquiry into Israel’s January 2009 three week military incursion into the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip.
The Goldstone Report discussed “eleven incidents in which Israeli forces launched direct attacks against civilians with lethal outcome... in which the facts indicate no justifiable military objective pursued by the attack.” These UN allegations of war crimes by the Israeli Defense Forces have been vociferously protested by Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has gone so far as to call the Goldstone report a “strategic threat,” saying that it hampers the ability of democracies to fight terrorism and to engage in asymmetrical warfare.
A senior Israeli government official said that Israel is held to a different standard than other countries in international forums.
In direct contrast to the Goldstone Report from the same United Nations, the UN holds the Taliban terrorists directly responsible for collateral deaths in Afghanistan, at the same time that the UN alleges that Israel engages in “intentional attacks against the civilian population and civilian objects,” even though Hamas terrorists openly use homes, schools, hospitals and mosques as their protective place of operation.
Unlike Afghanistan, the UN blames Israel - not Hamas - for collateral deaths, injuries and damage to non combatants. The United Nations even suggests that Israel must award reparations to the population of the Gaza Strip, a territory ruled by an internationally recognized terrorist organization.
The United Nations Afghanistan report, on the other hand, noted that coalition forces have been attempting to minimize civilian casualties in Afghanistan, saying that “International military forces did take strategic and specific steps to minimize civilian casualties in 2009,”
In summarizing its findings, the Afghanistan Annual Report on Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict found the “declared strategy of prioritizing the safety and security of civilians is a welcome development.”
By the same token, the report laid the blame on the Taliban for causing Afghan civilian deaths,
Drawing the conclusion that “the inability or unwillingness of the armed opposition to take measures that pre-empt and reduce the harm that their tactics entail for civilians translates into a growing death toll and an ever larger proportion of the total number of civilian dead.”
Significantly, more non-combatants have been injured or killed in Afghanistan by allied troops than by IDF forces in Gaza.
A former British commander in Afghanistan, Col. Richard Kemp, told the BBC that he did “not think there has ever been a time in the history of warfare when any army has made more effort to reduce civilian casualties and deaths of innocent people than the [Israel Defense Forces] is doing... in Gaza."
However, a career diplomat with years of experience at the United Nations, noted that it is no surprise that the United Nations uses a different standard to judge Israel. The diplomat mentioned that the UN defined the Sri Lankan-Tamil conflict as an “internal matter”, and that the UN turned a blind eye to the brutal tactics used by the Sri Lankan army, when it finally crushed the 25 year Tamil terrorist rebellion only last year, causing the deaths of thousands of terrorists and non combatants who were slaughtered by Sri Lankan Government forces in the final stages of the conflict.
View the original link at Israel Behind the News
Monday, February 8, 2010
How Hamas has Responded to Goldstone's Charges
by Jonathan Dahohah Halevi for Yediot Ahronot
Israel has recently delivered to the United Nations Secretary-general Ban Ki-moon its official response to the UN’s fact finding mission to Operation Cast Lead, headed by Judge Richard Goldstone. Hamas’ government is also preparing to submit its official response before the grace period of six months set to the parties by the Goldstone committee is overIn sharp contrast to the genuine fears expressed by Israel, Hamas does not seem to feel any threat in the legal arena. On the contrary, Hamas demonstrates self-confidence based on the understanding that the Goldstone committee strived only to incriminate Israel and all other limited references to the other side were just for lip service without any legal significance.
Musa Abu Marzouq, Hamas’ second in command, said in this regard in an interview to al-Mashahid al-Siyasi newspaper (December 8, 2009) that “All paragraphs in the Goldstone report convict Israel and totally exonerate Hamas from any misconduct... Likewise, the (Goldstone) report exonerated Hamas from all other accusations mentioned by Israel and even when the (Goldstone) report is dealing with the rockets which were launched from the Gaza Strip it speaks about military groups without naming Hamas.”
Hamas’ line of defense vis-à-vis the Goldstone report has been shaped by a group of Palestinian jurists headed by Diya Al-Din Muhsin Al-Madhoun, former legal adviser to Ismail Haniyeh (Hamas prime minister) and today chairman of the Tawtheeq (documentation) organization that was the key factor assigned by Hamas’ government, on which the Goldstone committee relied for sources of information in its fact finding mission. In series of interviews to the media, Madhoun elaborated as follows Hamas’ main legal arguments of its would-be response to the Goldstone report assumed to be delivered in the near future to the UN secretary general.
The armed struggle is legitimate
Madhoun asserts that all historic Palestine is an occupied land and that the international law legitimizes the right of self defense and resistance of the Palestinian people, who are living under 61 years of occupation. Therefore, Madhoun argues that “resistance operations conducted by the Palestinian resistance organizations, including launching rockets and mortar shells at the occupying Zionist forces, and all other military operations, are legitimate according the international law under the principle of defending our people and liberating our occupied land.”
Israel has no right to self defense
Madhoun entirely rebuts Israel’s claim for self defence, arguing that it constitutes a grave violation of the Palestinian people’s right for self defence as reflected in its armed struggle to liberate the land of Palestine. And in his words (translated from Arabic): “the war against Gaza was illegitimate... as the international law rules that there isn’t legitimate defence (of the occupier) against the legitimate defence (of the occupied) embodied in the defence through struggle.”
Hamas didn’t want to kill Israeli civilians
According to Madhoun, Hamas and the other “Palestinian resistance organizations” were systematically prudent in implementing the international law and avoided intentionally targeting Israeli civilians. Referring to the many hundreds of rockets which struck Israeli communities during the war, Madhoun explained that the Palestinian organizations launched the rockets only at “military targets,” such as tanks positions, military airports and concentrations of Israeli military forces on their way to invade the Gaza Strip. He finds evidence in the low number of Israeli fatalities totaling only three people who were killed by the “inaccurate rockets when they missed their original targets.” Furthermore, Madhoun stressed that Hamas spared the lives of Israeli civilians, claiming that if they were targeted dozens of them may have been killed.
Rockets were launched only at occupied territories
Madhoun argues that Israel’s claim that Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations launched rockets at its sovereign territory is groundless. Relying on UN resolution 181 (known as the Partition Plan for Palestine), but without accepting it, Madhoun said that all rockets targeted only areas which were designated to the “Arab state” by the UN resolution, and as Israel has no internationally recognized borders with the Palestinian territories, their areas are still under conflict. Consequently, he concludes that Israel violated the rights of the Israeli civilians for security in settling them illegally in this military disputed area and thus risking their life.
No legitimate targets in Gaza
Madhoun unconditionally negates justification for any Israeli military operation in the Gaza Strip. In addition to the aforementioned arguments denying Israel’s right for self defence, Madhoun noted that t international law prohibits attacks on any target when there is a doubt whether it is combatant or civilian. “My stand is that all targets bombed in the Gaza Strip are under the category of doubt”, he said.
Goldstone’s accusations against Hamas are meaningless
Madhoun regards the Goldstone report as a one sided document against Israel, saying that more than 500 pages were dedicated to describing a myriad of widely documented accusations against Israel, while for the Palestinian side only 10 pages were allocated and even they didn’t include any evidence or documentation. Confidently, he asserts: “I can say as a jurist that all allegations mentioned in the (Goldstone) report do not mount to significant accusations of violating the humanitarian international law and the (Hamas) independent investigative committees will prove it.”
War criminals only in Israel
Madhoun boasted of Hamas’ cooperation with international jurists, human rights organizations, the Goldstone committee and UN delegates, which helped in establishing the argument that Israel committed war crimes. The next stage in Hamas’ strategy, according to Madhoun, is prosecuting Israeli “war criminals” worldwide and submitting lawsuits to the International Criminal Court against Israel.
Tawtheeq organization, headed by Madhoun, is backed by the Law Committee of the Palestinian parliament and its Hamas members include Dr. Yunis al-Astal who advocates the extinction of all the Jewish people, Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabia, who urged suicide attacks in Jerusalem, and Jamila al-Shanti, who identifies with terrorist attacks against Israel.
The reality is illusive and strikes time and time again in our faces. A declared terrorist organization, which adheres to the Islamic law (sharia) as the only source of legitimacy and promotes ideology of genocide, receives legal support from human rights organizations and internationally respected jurists in its lawfare waged against a democratic state.
Even more peculiar is Judge Richard Goldstone’s decision to rely without reservations on Tawtheeq and its experts in preparing its report, while they publicly make a travesty of the international law and argue that Israel violated the Palestinians’ rights to kill Israelis in the armed struggle for the liberation of the land of Palestine and to destroy Israel.
Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi is a senior researcher of the Middle East and radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He is a co-founder of the Orient Research Group Ltd. and is a former advisor to the Policy Planning Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Israel has recently delivered to the United Nations Secretary-general Ban Ki-moon its official response to the UN’s fact finding mission to Operation Cast Lead, headed by Judge Richard Goldstone. Hamas’ government is also preparing to submit its official response before the grace period of six months set to the parties by the Goldstone committee is overIn sharp contrast to the genuine fears expressed by Israel, Hamas does not seem to feel any threat in the legal arena. On the contrary, Hamas demonstrates self-confidence based on the understanding that the Goldstone committee strived only to incriminate Israel and all other limited references to the other side were just for lip service without any legal significance.
Musa Abu Marzouq, Hamas’ second in command, said in this regard in an interview to al-Mashahid al-Siyasi newspaper (December 8, 2009) that “All paragraphs in the Goldstone report convict Israel and totally exonerate Hamas from any misconduct... Likewise, the (Goldstone) report exonerated Hamas from all other accusations mentioned by Israel and even when the (Goldstone) report is dealing with the rockets which were launched from the Gaza Strip it speaks about military groups without naming Hamas.”
Hamas’ line of defense vis-à-vis the Goldstone report has been shaped by a group of Palestinian jurists headed by Diya Al-Din Muhsin Al-Madhoun, former legal adviser to Ismail Haniyeh (Hamas prime minister) and today chairman of the Tawtheeq (documentation) organization that was the key factor assigned by Hamas’ government, on which the Goldstone committee relied for sources of information in its fact finding mission. In series of interviews to the media, Madhoun elaborated as follows Hamas’ main legal arguments of its would-be response to the Goldstone report assumed to be delivered in the near future to the UN secretary general.
The armed struggle is legitimate
Madhoun asserts that all historic Palestine is an occupied land and that the international law legitimizes the right of self defense and resistance of the Palestinian people, who are living under 61 years of occupation. Therefore, Madhoun argues that “resistance operations conducted by the Palestinian resistance organizations, including launching rockets and mortar shells at the occupying Zionist forces, and all other military operations, are legitimate according the international law under the principle of defending our people and liberating our occupied land.”
Israel has no right to self defense
Madhoun entirely rebuts Israel’s claim for self defence, arguing that it constitutes a grave violation of the Palestinian people’s right for self defence as reflected in its armed struggle to liberate the land of Palestine. And in his words (translated from Arabic): “the war against Gaza was illegitimate... as the international law rules that there isn’t legitimate defence (of the occupier) against the legitimate defence (of the occupied) embodied in the defence through struggle.”
Hamas didn’t want to kill Israeli civilians
According to Madhoun, Hamas and the other “Palestinian resistance organizations” were systematically prudent in implementing the international law and avoided intentionally targeting Israeli civilians. Referring to the many hundreds of rockets which struck Israeli communities during the war, Madhoun explained that the Palestinian organizations launched the rockets only at “military targets,” such as tanks positions, military airports and concentrations of Israeli military forces on their way to invade the Gaza Strip. He finds evidence in the low number of Israeli fatalities totaling only three people who were killed by the “inaccurate rockets when they missed their original targets.” Furthermore, Madhoun stressed that Hamas spared the lives of Israeli civilians, claiming that if they were targeted dozens of them may have been killed.
Rockets were launched only at occupied territories
Madhoun argues that Israel’s claim that Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations launched rockets at its sovereign territory is groundless. Relying on UN resolution 181 (known as the Partition Plan for Palestine), but without accepting it, Madhoun said that all rockets targeted only areas which were designated to the “Arab state” by the UN resolution, and as Israel has no internationally recognized borders with the Palestinian territories, their areas are still under conflict. Consequently, he concludes that Israel violated the rights of the Israeli civilians for security in settling them illegally in this military disputed area and thus risking their life.
No legitimate targets in Gaza
Madhoun unconditionally negates justification for any Israeli military operation in the Gaza Strip. In addition to the aforementioned arguments denying Israel’s right for self defence, Madhoun noted that t international law prohibits attacks on any target when there is a doubt whether it is combatant or civilian. “My stand is that all targets bombed in the Gaza Strip are under the category of doubt”, he said.
Goldstone’s accusations against Hamas are meaningless
Madhoun regards the Goldstone report as a one sided document against Israel, saying that more than 500 pages were dedicated to describing a myriad of widely documented accusations against Israel, while for the Palestinian side only 10 pages were allocated and even they didn’t include any evidence or documentation. Confidently, he asserts: “I can say as a jurist that all allegations mentioned in the (Goldstone) report do not mount to significant accusations of violating the humanitarian international law and the (Hamas) independent investigative committees will prove it.”
War criminals only in Israel
Madhoun boasted of Hamas’ cooperation with international jurists, human rights organizations, the Goldstone committee and UN delegates, which helped in establishing the argument that Israel committed war crimes. The next stage in Hamas’ strategy, according to Madhoun, is prosecuting Israeli “war criminals” worldwide and submitting lawsuits to the International Criminal Court against Israel.
Tawtheeq organization, headed by Madhoun, is backed by the Law Committee of the Palestinian parliament and its Hamas members include Dr. Yunis al-Astal who advocates the extinction of all the Jewish people, Dr. Ahmad Abu Halabia, who urged suicide attacks in Jerusalem, and Jamila al-Shanti, who identifies with terrorist attacks against Israel.
The reality is illusive and strikes time and time again in our faces. A declared terrorist organization, which adheres to the Islamic law (sharia) as the only source of legitimacy and promotes ideology of genocide, receives legal support from human rights organizations and internationally respected jurists in its lawfare waged against a democratic state.
Even more peculiar is Judge Richard Goldstone’s decision to rely without reservations on Tawtheeq and its experts in preparing its report, while they publicly make a travesty of the international law and argue that Israel violated the Palestinians’ rights to kill Israelis in the armed struggle for the liberation of the land of Palestine and to destroy Israel.
Lt. Col. (res.) Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi is a senior researcher of the Middle East and radical Islam at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He is a co-founder of the Orient Research Group Ltd. and is a former advisor to the Policy Planning Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Israel on Canadian college campuses; an up-hill battle
by Noam Bedein, Director of the Sderot Media Center, www.SderotMedia.org.il
Presenting the human side of Sderot, Israel and the western Negev would seem innocuous enough, as it is the only region in the western world where rockets and missiles target a civilian population. The people of southern Israel have their own story to share.
Yet after a 10-day visit to Canadian college campuses, organized by Hillel Canada and the CIJA umbrella organization of Canadian Jewry, I discovered that even Sderot residents must fight for their legitimate right to live in the land of Israel.
The purpose of this trip was to balance the after-effects of the “Gaza narrative”, exactly one year after Israel's 21-day Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip.
On Canadian college campuses, the challenge became to justify the very existence of the city of Sderot.
This was best exemplified by an article published in a Winnipeg student newspaper, penned by a Palestinian-Canadian sociology student. This student amazingly attacked the credibility of another student for sharing her experiences visiting Sderot. This student had described her shock at the ’15 second’ alarm, known as the “Color Red,” which warns Sderot residents of only a few seconds to escape to safety from the time the missile is fired from Gaza to the time it explodes in Sderot.
The Palestinian student showed little sympathy for Sderot under fire:
“Sderot’ is actually a settlement on the Palestinian land of Najd, an illegally occupied territory stolen from Palestinians. It is a town created on the ashes of an ethnically cleansed and defaced Palestinian village....You want to talk about ‘terror’? Najd’s Palestinian villagers were expelled on May 13th, 1948 by Israeli forces before Israel was even declared a state.”
Here is a well-educated student born in Canada, with Palestinian descent, that calls the Israeli town of Sderot an illegitimate “settlement” constructed on the ruins of an Arab village abandoned during the 1948 war. Indeed this same student makes no acknowledgement of the historical fact that between 1951-1953, the Jews that settled in Sderot were from among the 850,000 Jews expelled in masses from Arab countries in the Middle East. During and after the 1948 war, 670,000 Palestinian Arab refugees were fled or forced from their homes.
Indeed, this Canadian-Palestinian college student is not the first to rationalize the thousands of aerial attacks and terrorizing of Sderot and southern Israel civilians.
“You know why Sderot is under rocket fire? Because there was an Arab village called Najd,” began a BBC reporter in an interview. I recall the reporter sitting in our Sderot Media Center office trying to find a ‘reasonable excuse’ to justify rocket fire against a civilian population.
Ironically, most Israelis/Jews do not even know that Palestinians and their leadership define Sderot as an illegal ‘settlement,’ while under international law it is undisputedly a city in the State of Israel.
Indeed, the first question I often ask student audiences during presentations is the following:
“If Sderot is a settlement and two miles northeast of Sderot lies the ruins of the Arab village called Najd, which the Palestinians say had a population of 30 families, who now live in the United Nations refugee camps in Gaza, what’s the justification for Jews to live in Sderot or anywhere else in Israel?”
The challenge today is to first actually ask these basic questions, before throwing around answers or solutions for the modern Arab-Israeli conflict.
“What is our right, as Jews and as Israelis, to this country in our homeland? Do we have any rights to this land at all?”
This is the way I was able to get across and present Israel’s perspective to Muslims, to pro-Palestinians, Israel critics and to the international press. By asking this basic question, we ask everyone to realize that Israel is the only independent country in the world whose legitimacy as a state is being questioned.
The leadership and governing bodies of the Palestinian side do not recognize Sderot's establishment in the first years of the creation of the Jewish state, while most Israelis/Jews have accepted a two- state solution.
As another Canadian-Palestinian student expressed himself during my presentation at Carleton University in Ottawa, quite matter of fact:
”You Jews dreamt to go back to your home land after 2,000 years... Why do you think we will stop teaching our children to dream to return to our homes in Al-Majdal (Ashkelon) only after 60 years?”
In other words, educated Canadian born Palestinian students living comfortably abroad, view Sderot quite simply as an illegal settlement and do not recognize the Jewish State of Israel. They do not accept my existence as an Israeli. So does the opposite apply to a Palestinian raised in a United Nations refugee camp, who has not been given any solution or hope for the past 60 years- (even though the UN has resettled more than 50 million refugees worldwide since World War II), will that Palestinian recognize my existence as an Israeli?
Instead, Palestinian education focuses on the preparation of the Palestinian people for the ‘right of return’ to homes and villages from 1948 in Israel which no longer exist. Homes and villages for example in and around cities like Sderot, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Beersheba, and more which have all been under terrorist missile fire.
“So, what’s your solution to this reality?” asked students on each of the Canadian campuses that I visited. In the hundreds of presentations I have given in the past three years I always answer, “I’m not here to present you a solution, I’m here to present the problem.”
The answer to that logical question is that there may not be any instant “solution.” Yet that should not exempt students from knowing the reality of what people in Israel have to cope with - and, in the case of Sderot, that their unique miraculous rocket reality is like no other in the world right now. Rockets have become a daily routine of life in Israel, where one civilian population is being targeted by rockets, rocket-launchers take cover under another civilian population on the other side of the border.
Can this definition of terrorism be understood from a typical 5-second daily news broadcast in Israel in the past four years?
“Two rockets fell outside of Sderot today. No injuries, and no damages,” is how the typical broadcast or news update would read, followed by a weather report in Israel.
These five-second news reports have now tallied up to 311 attacks and including 20 different types of rockets, Iranian missiles and mortars fired from Gaza towards southern Israel, since the END of the military operation in Gaza on January 18, 2009.
If things were truly clear about our rights as Jews to live in Israel, I would not have found myself providing a testimony to a Jew, Judge Richard Goldstone in Geneva. I was allowed a 30-minute presentation where I described to the Goldstone Commission the eight-years of life under rocket fire and concluded by raising my hands in front of them:
“I do not have enough fingers on my hands to count the amount of times rockets exploded only 10 meters from a kindergarten packed with children...”
“Why do we have to wait until a kindergarten or classroom full of children suffers a direct hit by a rocket, in order for us Israel, to have the international support and sympathy to do what is right to protect our own citizens?”
This was the question I put forth to Judge Goldstone and the rest of the panel of UN judges, which was met only with stone silence.
The time has come to raise these questions to college students around the world, and to provide them with proper and accurate answers for them to stand up for Israel and for themselves as proud supporters of Israel.
By generating such awareness, we promote peace without instant solutions and we force the world of public opinion to acknowledge the real barriers for peace, beginning with the continuing refusal of the Arab world to recognize the legitimacy of Sderot and of Israel in their neighborhood.
Noam Bedein is the director of the Sderot Media Center.
Presenting the human side of Sderot, Israel and the western Negev would seem innocuous enough, as it is the only region in the western world where rockets and missiles target a civilian population. The people of southern Israel have their own story to share.
Yet after a 10-day visit to Canadian college campuses, organized by Hillel Canada and the CIJA umbrella organization of Canadian Jewry, I discovered that even Sderot residents must fight for their legitimate right to live in the land of Israel.
The purpose of this trip was to balance the after-effects of the “Gaza narrative”, exactly one year after Israel's 21-day Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip.
On Canadian college campuses, the challenge became to justify the very existence of the city of Sderot.
This was best exemplified by an article published in a Winnipeg student newspaper, penned by a Palestinian-Canadian sociology student. This student amazingly attacked the credibility of another student for sharing her experiences visiting Sderot. This student had described her shock at the ’15 second’ alarm, known as the “Color Red,” which warns Sderot residents of only a few seconds to escape to safety from the time the missile is fired from Gaza to the time it explodes in Sderot.
The Palestinian student showed little sympathy for Sderot under fire:
“Sderot’ is actually a settlement on the Palestinian land of Najd, an illegally occupied territory stolen from Palestinians. It is a town created on the ashes of an ethnically cleansed and defaced Palestinian village....You want to talk about ‘terror’? Najd’s Palestinian villagers were expelled on May 13th, 1948 by Israeli forces before Israel was even declared a state.”
Here is a well-educated student born in Canada, with Palestinian descent, that calls the Israeli town of Sderot an illegitimate “settlement” constructed on the ruins of an Arab village abandoned during the 1948 war. Indeed this same student makes no acknowledgement of the historical fact that between 1951-1953, the Jews that settled in Sderot were from among the 850,000 Jews expelled in masses from Arab countries in the Middle East. During and after the 1948 war, 670,000 Palestinian Arab refugees were fled or forced from their homes.
Indeed, this Canadian-Palestinian college student is not the first to rationalize the thousands of aerial attacks and terrorizing of Sderot and southern Israel civilians.
“You know why Sderot is under rocket fire? Because there was an Arab village called Najd,” began a BBC reporter in an interview. I recall the reporter sitting in our Sderot Media Center office trying to find a ‘reasonable excuse’ to justify rocket fire against a civilian population.
Ironically, most Israelis/Jews do not even know that Palestinians and their leadership define Sderot as an illegal ‘settlement,’ while under international law it is undisputedly a city in the State of Israel.
Indeed, the first question I often ask student audiences during presentations is the following:
“If Sderot is a settlement and two miles northeast of Sderot lies the ruins of the Arab village called Najd, which the Palestinians say had a population of 30 families, who now live in the United Nations refugee camps in Gaza, what’s the justification for Jews to live in Sderot or anywhere else in Israel?”
The challenge today is to first actually ask these basic questions, before throwing around answers or solutions for the modern Arab-Israeli conflict.
“What is our right, as Jews and as Israelis, to this country in our homeland? Do we have any rights to this land at all?”
This is the way I was able to get across and present Israel’s perspective to Muslims, to pro-Palestinians, Israel critics and to the international press. By asking this basic question, we ask everyone to realize that Israel is the only independent country in the world whose legitimacy as a state is being questioned.
The leadership and governing bodies of the Palestinian side do not recognize Sderot's establishment in the first years of the creation of the Jewish state, while most Israelis/Jews have accepted a two- state solution.
As another Canadian-Palestinian student expressed himself during my presentation at Carleton University in Ottawa, quite matter of fact:
”You Jews dreamt to go back to your home land after 2,000 years... Why do you think we will stop teaching our children to dream to return to our homes in Al-Majdal (Ashkelon) only after 60 years?”
In other words, educated Canadian born Palestinian students living comfortably abroad, view Sderot quite simply as an illegal settlement and do not recognize the Jewish State of Israel. They do not accept my existence as an Israeli. So does the opposite apply to a Palestinian raised in a United Nations refugee camp, who has not been given any solution or hope for the past 60 years- (even though the UN has resettled more than 50 million refugees worldwide since World War II), will that Palestinian recognize my existence as an Israeli?
Instead, Palestinian education focuses on the preparation of the Palestinian people for the ‘right of return’ to homes and villages from 1948 in Israel which no longer exist. Homes and villages for example in and around cities like Sderot, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Beersheba, and more which have all been under terrorist missile fire.
“So, what’s your solution to this reality?” asked students on each of the Canadian campuses that I visited. In the hundreds of presentations I have given in the past three years I always answer, “I’m not here to present you a solution, I’m here to present the problem.”
The answer to that logical question is that there may not be any instant “solution.” Yet that should not exempt students from knowing the reality of what people in Israel have to cope with - and, in the case of Sderot, that their unique miraculous rocket reality is like no other in the world right now. Rockets have become a daily routine of life in Israel, where one civilian population is being targeted by rockets, rocket-launchers take cover under another civilian population on the other side of the border.
Can this definition of terrorism be understood from a typical 5-second daily news broadcast in Israel in the past four years?
“Two rockets fell outside of Sderot today. No injuries, and no damages,” is how the typical broadcast or news update would read, followed by a weather report in Israel.
These five-second news reports have now tallied up to 311 attacks and including 20 different types of rockets, Iranian missiles and mortars fired from Gaza towards southern Israel, since the END of the military operation in Gaza on January 18, 2009.
If things were truly clear about our rights as Jews to live in Israel, I would not have found myself providing a testimony to a Jew, Judge Richard Goldstone in Geneva. I was allowed a 30-minute presentation where I described to the Goldstone Commission the eight-years of life under rocket fire and concluded by raising my hands in front of them:
“I do not have enough fingers on my hands to count the amount of times rockets exploded only 10 meters from a kindergarten packed with children...”
“Why do we have to wait until a kindergarten or classroom full of children suffers a direct hit by a rocket, in order for us Israel, to have the international support and sympathy to do what is right to protect our own citizens?”
This was the question I put forth to Judge Goldstone and the rest of the panel of UN judges, which was met only with stone silence.
The time has come to raise these questions to college students around the world, and to provide them with proper and accurate answers for them to stand up for Israel and for themselves as proud supporters of Israel.
By generating such awareness, we promote peace without instant solutions and we force the world of public opinion to acknowledge the real barriers for peace, beginning with the continuing refusal of the Arab world to recognize the legitimacy of Sderot and of Israel in their neighborhood.
Noam Bedein is the director of the Sderot Media Center.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Netanyahu Denounces the UN
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the following remarks on Thursday to the media:
“In the next 24 hours, a vote will take place in Geneva in the framework of the council known as the United Nations Human Rights Council. I remind you that in recent years, this council has made more decisions against Israel than against all other 180 countries in the world.”
The Israeli Prime Minister threatened that “if it should decide to forward what is known as the Goldstone report, it will strike a severe blow to three things:
“First of all, it will strike a severe blow to the war against terrorism since it will afford total legitimization to terrorists who fire upon civilians and who hide behind civilians. To those who - from international platforms, and using international law - attack and condemn the victim who legitimately defends himself, this is a mortal blow to the war on terrorism.
“Secondly, it will strike a mortal blow to the stature of the United Nations. It will return it to its darkest days, in which it could make the most absurd decisions, which would empty it of all substance and significance.
“Thirdly, and perhaps the most immediate and obvious of all, forwarding the decision of what is known as the Goldstone report, would strike a fatal blow to the peace process because Israel will no longer be able to take additional steps and take risks for peace if its right to self-defense is denied.”
The Israeli Prime Minister concluded his remarks by saying that “the decision on whether to forward this report which will impair both the struggle against terrorism and stature of the United Nations, and strike a mortal blow to the peace process.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the following remarks on Thursday to the media:
“In the next 24 hours, a vote will take place in Geneva in the framework of the council known as the United Nations Human Rights Council. I remind you that in recent years, this council has made more decisions against Israel than against all other 180 countries in the world.”
The Israeli Prime Minister threatened that “if it should decide to forward what is known as the Goldstone report, it will strike a severe blow to three things:
“First of all, it will strike a severe blow to the war against terrorism since it will afford total legitimization to terrorists who fire upon civilians and who hide behind civilians. To those who - from international platforms, and using international law - attack and condemn the victim who legitimately defends himself, this is a mortal blow to the war on terrorism.
“Secondly, it will strike a mortal blow to the stature of the United Nations. It will return it to its darkest days, in which it could make the most absurd decisions, which would empty it of all substance and significance.
“Thirdly, and perhaps the most immediate and obvious of all, forwarding the decision of what is known as the Goldstone report, would strike a fatal blow to the peace process because Israel will no longer be able to take additional steps and take risks for peace if its right to self-defense is denied.”
The Israeli Prime Minister concluded his remarks by saying that “the decision on whether to forward this report which will impair both the struggle against terrorism and stature of the United Nations, and strike a mortal blow to the peace process.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Sunday, September 27, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Egypt's Hosni Loses UNESCO Secretary General Post
by David Bedein
Egyptian Culture Minister Hosni Farouk reacts as he returns for a hearing following a break at the UNESCO headquarters on Sept. 17 in Paris. Mr. Hosni, who is campaigning to be the next head of the U.N. office that promotes cultural diversity, outraged many Jews with his comments in April 2008 vowing to burn any Israeli books found in Egypt's famed Library of Alexandria. (Jacques Brinon/Associated Press)
Egyptian Culture Minister Farouk Hosni, who was a candidate for secretary general of UNESCO, lost the sought-after post to former Bulgarian Foreign Minister Irina Bokova. Heavy lobbying against Mr. Hosni continued until the last moment.
Mr. Hosni earned the enmity of Jews around the world when he recently promised to burn Hebrew books and boasted that he would be the last Egyptian to visit Israel.
Mr. Hosni forbid Egyptian artists to display their works in Tel Aviv and supported the denunciation of journalists who visited Israel and returned to Cairo with the conclusion that “the monster is not so terrible.”
In addition, Hosni opposed translation of Hebrew literature in Egypt, and refused to open to the Jews the records of the Jewish communities in Egypt, for fear that they would lead to property lawsuits. More than 100,000 Jews were expelled from Egypt during the 1948, 1956 and 1967 wars, without being able to sell their property and without being able to take most possessions with them, while Egyptian Jewish assets in Egyptian banks have been frozen.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Egyptian Culture Minister Hosni Farouk reacts as he returns for a hearing following a break at the UNESCO headquarters on Sept. 17 in Paris. Mr. Hosni, who is campaigning to be the next head of the U.N. office that promotes cultural diversity, outraged many Jews with his comments in April 2008 vowing to burn any Israeli books found in Egypt's famed Library of Alexandria. (Jacques Brinon/Associated Press)
Egyptian Culture Minister Farouk Hosni, who was a candidate for secretary general of UNESCO, lost the sought-after post to former Bulgarian Foreign Minister Irina Bokova. Heavy lobbying against Mr. Hosni continued until the last moment.
Mr. Hosni earned the enmity of Jews around the world when he recently promised to burn Hebrew books and boasted that he would be the last Egyptian to visit Israel.
Mr. Hosni forbid Egyptian artists to display their works in Tel Aviv and supported the denunciation of journalists who visited Israel and returned to Cairo with the conclusion that “the monster is not so terrible.”
In addition, Hosni opposed translation of Hebrew literature in Egypt, and refused to open to the Jews the records of the Jewish communities in Egypt, for fear that they would lead to property lawsuits. More than 100,000 Jews were expelled from Egypt during the 1948, 1956 and 1967 wars, without being able to sell their property and without being able to take most possessions with them, while Egyptian Jewish assets in Egyptian banks have been frozen.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: UN Report Outrages Israel
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - Officials in Jerusalem are mobilizing for battle in an attempt to undermine the standing of the UN report on "Israel's crimes in Gaza," with the hope that it will not come before the UN Security Council or the International Court of Justice at The Hague.
Despite a certain criticism of Hamas, the report deals mainly with "proof of significant violations of international human rights law that Israel committed in the Gaza war, and possibly crimes against humanity as well." Experts in Israel who examined the work of the commission and followed the recorded testimonies published on the UN web site, say that the commission members chose not to make things difficult for the witnesses.
"I listened closely to the testimonies, but also to the questions of the commission members," explained Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi, a senior researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "the commission members didn't try to confront them with other information that they held. They were asked questions that were irrelevant to clarifying the facts of whether war crimes were committed or not."
For example, Dahoah-Halevi relates, in the case of the attack on the mosque in the town Beit Lahiya, the commission members asked many questions on the prayer arrangements, but did not ask even a single question on the presence of armed men or weapons at the site. The Goldstone report admits that it identified "reluctance" by the witnesses to deliver information on the activity of terrorist elements within armed [sic] areas. The report states that it is unable to determine the reason for this "reluctance," but notes that it could not discount the possibility that "the interviewees' reluctance may have stemmed from a fear of reprisals."
The commission approached the Hamas government and requested details on the activity of the organization's activity in populated sites from which rockets were fired. The response of the Hamas government, however, was: We have no data. However, the report determines that the fire constitutes "a deliberate attack against the civilian population.
These actions would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity." This sparked great anger on the part of Hamas.
"Resistance is a legitimate right that is anchored in international law," said Hamas Spokesman Fawzi Barhoum.
Israeli President Shimon Peres also rallied yesterday for the Israeli attack against the report.
"The Goldstone report makes a mockery of history, and fails to distinguish between aggressor and defender," the president said, attaacking the author of the report. "He would not have written this if his children lived in Sderot and experienced the terror of the rockets there." Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said, "the report is a drumhead court martial, the outcome of which was known in advance, and it makes it difficult for democratic countries to fight terror."
Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, who is currently in New York, has already initiated talks with senior members of the US administration and Congress on the report, and is expected to meet with US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, with the aim of recruiting her to the battle against having the report reach the UN Security Council.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - Officials in Jerusalem are mobilizing for battle in an attempt to undermine the standing of the UN report on "Israel's crimes in Gaza," with the hope that it will not come before the UN Security Council or the International Court of Justice at The Hague.
Despite a certain criticism of Hamas, the report deals mainly with "proof of significant violations of international human rights law that Israel committed in the Gaza war, and possibly crimes against humanity as well." Experts in Israel who examined the work of the commission and followed the recorded testimonies published on the UN web site, say that the commission members chose not to make things difficult for the witnesses.
"I listened closely to the testimonies, but also to the questions of the commission members," explained Jonathan Dahoah-Halevi, a senior researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, "the commission members didn't try to confront them with other information that they held. They were asked questions that were irrelevant to clarifying the facts of whether war crimes were committed or not."
For example, Dahoah-Halevi relates, in the case of the attack on the mosque in the town Beit Lahiya, the commission members asked many questions on the prayer arrangements, but did not ask even a single question on the presence of armed men or weapons at the site. The Goldstone report admits that it identified "reluctance" by the witnesses to deliver information on the activity of terrorist elements within armed [sic] areas. The report states that it is unable to determine the reason for this "reluctance," but notes that it could not discount the possibility that "the interviewees' reluctance may have stemmed from a fear of reprisals."
The commission approached the Hamas government and requested details on the activity of the organization's activity in populated sites from which rockets were fired. The response of the Hamas government, however, was: We have no data. However, the report determines that the fire constitutes "a deliberate attack against the civilian population.
These actions would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity." This sparked great anger on the part of Hamas.
"Resistance is a legitimate right that is anchored in international law," said Hamas Spokesman Fawzi Barhoum.
Israeli President Shimon Peres also rallied yesterday for the Israeli attack against the report.
"The Goldstone report makes a mockery of history, and fails to distinguish between aggressor and defender," the president said, attaacking the author of the report. "He would not have written this if his children lived in Sderot and experienced the terror of the rockets there." Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said, "the report is a drumhead court martial, the outcome of which was known in advance, and it makes it difficult for democratic countries to fight terror."
Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, who is currently in New York, has already initiated talks with senior members of the US administration and Congress on the report, and is expected to meet with US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice, with the aim of recruiting her to the battle against having the report reach the UN Security Council.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Friday, May 29, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: State Dept.: Obama’s Demands To Stop West Bank Expansion Includes Jerusalem
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has issued an unprecedented statement clarifying President Barack Obama’s demands for Israel to stop expanding Jewish communities in areas it acquired following the 1967 Six-Day War, including Jerusalem.
The statement, issued Wednesday, applies to the area known in Israel by their Biblical names, Judea and Samaria, and as the West Bank by the international community.
There are now 128 Jewish communities in these areas, with a population of almost 300,000 Jews.
Mrs. Clinton explained President Obama demands that there should be no expansion in these communities for the purpose of “natural growth.”
That would include an American demand to stop construction of kindergartens, schools and housing for young couples.
“West Bank maps” issued by the United Nations also include 18 Jewish neighborhoods inside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, in areas inside the city that Israel formally annexed after the 1967 war.
One of the Jerusalem neighborhoods resettled by Jews after the 1967 war is the Old City of Jerusalem, which hosts the Temple Mount, the holiest place in the world to the Jewish people.
Ms. Clinton’s press spokesman was asked if President Obama’s demand to halt expansion of “West Bank Jewish communities” included a demand to stop expansion of Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem.
The answer was affirmative. The U.S. State Department demands that Israel limit Jewish growth in these areas of Jerusalem, “whose status remains to be determined” in negotiations.
Israeli Government Press Director Daniel Seamen reacted to this Obama administration statement by saying: “I have to admire the residents of Iroquois territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews should live in Jerusalem.”
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Jerusalem - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has issued an unprecedented statement clarifying President Barack Obama’s demands for Israel to stop expanding Jewish communities in areas it acquired following the 1967 Six-Day War, including Jerusalem.
The statement, issued Wednesday, applies to the area known in Israel by their Biblical names, Judea and Samaria, and as the West Bank by the international community.
There are now 128 Jewish communities in these areas, with a population of almost 300,000 Jews.
Mrs. Clinton explained President Obama demands that there should be no expansion in these communities for the purpose of “natural growth.”
That would include an American demand to stop construction of kindergartens, schools and housing for young couples.
“West Bank maps” issued by the United Nations also include 18 Jewish neighborhoods inside the municipal boundaries of Jerusalem, in areas inside the city that Israel formally annexed after the 1967 war.
One of the Jerusalem neighborhoods resettled by Jews after the 1967 war is the Old City of Jerusalem, which hosts the Temple Mount, the holiest place in the world to the Jewish people.
Ms. Clinton’s press spokesman was asked if President Obama’s demand to halt expansion of “West Bank Jewish communities” included a demand to stop expansion of Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem.
The answer was affirmative. The U.S. State Department demands that Israel limit Jewish growth in these areas of Jerusalem, “whose status remains to be determined” in negotiations.
Israeli Government Press Director Daniel Seamen reacted to this Obama administration statement by saying: “I have to admire the residents of Iroquois territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews should live in Jerusalem.”
View this story at Israel Behind the News
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israeli Official - Gaza Report 'Biased, Unfair'
by David Bedein
Assessment Of Shootings On UN Sites During Gaza War Draws Ire
An official U.N. report that studied the Israeli shootings at U.N. institutions during Israel’s December/January incursion into Gaza accuses Israel of grave offenses, including disproportionate shooting and deliberately hitting U.N. civilians and institutions.
The special report, written by former Amnesty International head Ian Martin, studied the circumstances surrounding the Israeli fire that was directed at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) institutions in Gaza in the course of the incursion, referred to by Israel as Operation Cast Lead.
Jerusalem is putting heavy pressure on U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to delay the publication of the report, or at least reduce the grave charges.
The committee members, headed by Mr. Martin, visited the Gaza Strip in February and met with top Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israel Foreign Ministry representatives. The Israelis then showed the members of the U.N. committee detailed findings related to the shooting incidents at UNRWA facilities in the course of the operation.
Israel’s representatives presented aerial photographs, unmanned aerial vehicle photographs and other intelligence material that showed Hamas activities near the UNRWA facilities, which exploited the latter’s immunity.
The IDF carried out a special inquiry in response to the U.N.’s allegations. At the end of the inquiry, Israeli military figures said many measures had been taken to avoid hitting U.N. installations and vehicles, or those belonging to the Red Cross and other international organizations.
Relating to the incident of the shooting at the UNRWA school in Jabalya, the army contended that Hamas fighters fired mortar shells at IDF troops from a point approximately 260 feet from the school.
After identifying the source of the mortar fire with certainty, the information was verified and cross-referenced, and the IDF force that came under fire carried out what it considered was a proportional and minimal counterattack.
The IDF responded to the U.N. comments regarding the strikes against its vehicles, stating: “[1]n one case it was found that a U.N. vehicle was hit as a result of shots fired contrary to orders, and the soldier who opened fire will be court-martialed on disciplinary charges.”
The report reached the U.N. secretary-general’s desk a few days ago, and it is liable to generate a diplomatic earthquake. The report’s authors chose to ignore Israel’s contentions and unequivocally determined that Israel deliberately fired at U.N. institutions even though it knew it was forbidden.
The report accuses Israel of disproportionate fire and excessive use of force. The report also states Israel unnecessarily and excessively shot at Palestinian civilians.
The report is worded in a one-sided manner and includes numerous and grave charges against Israel, while almost entirely ignoring Hamas’ actions during the conflict and the ongoing rocket attacks against Israeli communities.
Some who have seen the report say its authors completely ignored the information Israel passed on to the U.N. after the Gaza incursion.
The report’s main recommendation is liable to get Israel into hot water in the diplomatic sphere and create enormous damage: the appointment of an independent U.N. investigative committee that will thoroughly investigate the operations and other steps taken during the Gaza incursion, which would check whether Israel abided by international laws and charters during the operation.
The independent investigative committee would be sent by the U.N. secretary-general and would take testimony from Palestinians and from UNRWA workers to further investigate whether Israel committed war crimes or deviated from international law.
Such a committee likely would generate a wave of international condemnation against Israel and would open up the possibility of charging top Israeli officials in legal institutions all over the world and drag Israel into deep diplomatic mud.
When the intention to make the report public became known, the new Israel Foreign Ministry director-general, Yossi Gal, left for New York to receive the draft of the report and to hold talks with top U.N. officials.
He hopes to persuade them to delay publication, change some of the sharp language and to obtain a promise the secretary-general will seek to balance the report’s harsh findings in the press conference that will take place after the report comes out.
Israeli officials are very troubled by the timing of the publication - on the eve of this morning’s meeting between President Shimon Peres and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
An Israeli government official said: “The secretary-general’s report is biased, unfair, suffers from blindness and ignores the circumstances that were in place in the course of Operation Cast Lead when Hamas made use of the population as a human shield and fired from inside houses and from inside and close to U.N. installations.”
A member of the French U.N. delegation said if the report’s conclusion are accepted, it could drag Israel into a relentless diplomatic war that was worse than what it underwent during the Second Intifada.
In addition, the report’s conclusion is liable to spark a wave of international repercussions toward Israel and turn it into a main target of human rights organizations.
The chances are increasing that the report will be released next week, which will give Israel a new challenge. It will require it to launch a comprehensive campaign to prevent the conclusion of the U.N. Security Council’s report from being accepted as is.
In addition, it is not out of the question that Israel will be condemned in the U.N. Security Council, since the U.S. will find it hard to veto an official conclusion of a report of the U.N. secretary-general.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Assessment Of Shootings On UN Sites During Gaza War Draws Ire
An official U.N. report that studied the Israeli shootings at U.N. institutions during Israel’s December/January incursion into Gaza accuses Israel of grave offenses, including disproportionate shooting and deliberately hitting U.N. civilians and institutions.
The special report, written by former Amnesty International head Ian Martin, studied the circumstances surrounding the Israeli fire that was directed at the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) institutions in Gaza in the course of the incursion, referred to by Israel as Operation Cast Lead.
Jerusalem is putting heavy pressure on U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to delay the publication of the report, or at least reduce the grave charges.
The committee members, headed by Mr. Martin, visited the Gaza Strip in February and met with top Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israel Foreign Ministry representatives. The Israelis then showed the members of the U.N. committee detailed findings related to the shooting incidents at UNRWA facilities in the course of the operation.
Israel’s representatives presented aerial photographs, unmanned aerial vehicle photographs and other intelligence material that showed Hamas activities near the UNRWA facilities, which exploited the latter’s immunity.
The IDF carried out a special inquiry in response to the U.N.’s allegations. At the end of the inquiry, Israeli military figures said many measures had been taken to avoid hitting U.N. installations and vehicles, or those belonging to the Red Cross and other international organizations.
Relating to the incident of the shooting at the UNRWA school in Jabalya, the army contended that Hamas fighters fired mortar shells at IDF troops from a point approximately 260 feet from the school.
After identifying the source of the mortar fire with certainty, the information was verified and cross-referenced, and the IDF force that came under fire carried out what it considered was a proportional and minimal counterattack.
The IDF responded to the U.N. comments regarding the strikes against its vehicles, stating: “[1]n one case it was found that a U.N. vehicle was hit as a result of shots fired contrary to orders, and the soldier who opened fire will be court-martialed on disciplinary charges.”
The report reached the U.N. secretary-general’s desk a few days ago, and it is liable to generate a diplomatic earthquake. The report’s authors chose to ignore Israel’s contentions and unequivocally determined that Israel deliberately fired at U.N. institutions even though it knew it was forbidden.
The report accuses Israel of disproportionate fire and excessive use of force. The report also states Israel unnecessarily and excessively shot at Palestinian civilians.
The report is worded in a one-sided manner and includes numerous and grave charges against Israel, while almost entirely ignoring Hamas’ actions during the conflict and the ongoing rocket attacks against Israeli communities.
Some who have seen the report say its authors completely ignored the information Israel passed on to the U.N. after the Gaza incursion.
The report’s main recommendation is liable to get Israel into hot water in the diplomatic sphere and create enormous damage: the appointment of an independent U.N. investigative committee that will thoroughly investigate the operations and other steps taken during the Gaza incursion, which would check whether Israel abided by international laws and charters during the operation.
The independent investigative committee would be sent by the U.N. secretary-general and would take testimony from Palestinians and from UNRWA workers to further investigate whether Israel committed war crimes or deviated from international law.
Such a committee likely would generate a wave of international condemnation against Israel and would open up the possibility of charging top Israeli officials in legal institutions all over the world and drag Israel into deep diplomatic mud.
When the intention to make the report public became known, the new Israel Foreign Ministry director-general, Yossi Gal, left for New York to receive the draft of the report and to hold talks with top U.N. officials.
He hopes to persuade them to delay publication, change some of the sharp language and to obtain a promise the secretary-general will seek to balance the report’s harsh findings in the press conference that will take place after the report comes out.
Israeli officials are very troubled by the timing of the publication - on the eve of this morning’s meeting between President Shimon Peres and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
An Israeli government official said: “The secretary-general’s report is biased, unfair, suffers from blindness and ignores the circumstances that were in place in the course of Operation Cast Lead when Hamas made use of the population as a human shield and fired from inside houses and from inside and close to U.N. installations.”
A member of the French U.N. delegation said if the report’s conclusion are accepted, it could drag Israel into a relentless diplomatic war that was worse than what it underwent during the Second Intifada.
In addition, the report’s conclusion is liable to spark a wave of international repercussions toward Israel and turn it into a main target of human rights organizations.
The chances are increasing that the report will be released next week, which will give Israel a new challenge. It will require it to launch a comprehensive campaign to prevent the conclusion of the U.N. Security Council’s report from being accepted as is.
In addition, it is not out of the question that Israel will be condemned in the U.N. Security Council, since the U.S. will find it hard to veto an official conclusion of a report of the U.N. secretary-general.
See this story in the Philadelphia Bulletin
See this story at Israel Behind the News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
