by Alex Grobman
Justice Richard Goldstone’s U.N. report charging Israel of “deliberate attacks” against civilians in last January’s defensive war against Hamas, is just the latest assault to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state and her right to defend herself.
That the U.N. continues to play a central in this effort is not surprising. After failing to defeat Israel on the field of battle, the Arabs chose to employ the U.N. to wage a political war against the Jews.
On November 10, 1975, the 37th anniversary of the Kristallnacht (Night of the Broken Glass), the U.N. General Assembly declared that Zionism is Racism and racial discrimination (Z=R) by passing Resolution 3379. The passage was part of an orchestrated worldwide campaign to delegitimize the State of Israel, after her enemies failed to expel her from the U.N.
On the same day the U.N. declared Z=R, the U.N. General Assembly adopted Resolution 3376, establishing an Assembly Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People. Sixteen of the original 20 members on the Assembly committee did not have relations with Israel, and some had never acknowledged Israel’s right to exist.1
The Z=R resolution initiated a new strain of international antisemitism. Although the resolution was abrogated in 1991, depriving it of legal status, the hostility against Israel it generated in most U.N. member nations-and in the U.N.’s own institutions-continues unabated.
Implications of the Resolution
“In the U.N., words take on a life of their own,” noted John R. Bolton, then Assistant U.S. Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs, “To declare as ‘racist’ the historical and cultural underpinnings of a state is tantamount to branding that state an international criminal, for racism is a crime enumerated in the Genocide Convention and numerous other instruments commonly accepted under international law.’’2
Abba Eban, Israel’s first permanent representative to the U.N. was the man who negotiated her entry into the U.N. and was later Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, believed that this was the first time in history that an international body directed its criticism against ideas and articles of faith venerated by one of its member states-and not against its policies. The U.N. had never endorsed or denounced an “-ism” before. Even at the height of the Cold War, the United States never sponsored a resolution condemning communism, socialism, or any other “-ism.” 3
A racist state has “no rights at all, not even the right to defend itself.” observed Jeanne J. Kirkpatrick, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. After 3379 was passed, Israel became “fair game for armed ‘liberation.’” The U.N. General Assembly deliberately branded Israel as illegitimate on the same day it recognized the legitimacy of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).4
Antisemitic rhetoric in the U.N. was no longer taboo. Diplomatic representatives were free to use antisemitic stereotypes in their speeches, reflecting classical Christian antisemitism in their political attacks against Israel.5
Demonizing Israel has turned it into a physical target for terrorist organizations, and into apolitical target for left wing and reactionary forces. Whether there are fatwa’s (legal rulings by Muslim clerics issued to legitimize suicide terrorism) or there are organizations demanding divestment from Israeli corporations, destruction of Israel-physical, spiritual or economic-is one of the mantras of the day. This is political antisemitism.6
For the majority of the members in the U.N., Israel is a locus of evil deserving of international condemnation-unlike many countries in the U.N. who practice ethnic cleansing, offer no rights to women or the poor, starve their own people for political reasons, and commit genocide.
These same nations, in the halls of an institution that was designed to prevent exactly this from happening, deny Israel her rights even in the courts of international law. Israel is the target of the majority of U.N. sanctions, is vilified by The Hague for defending herself and is singled out by the Geneva Convention as the utmost violator of human rights.7
Political science professor Ehud Sprinzak suggests this deliberate delegitimization leads to gradual erosion of Israel’s stature and ultimately her right to exist. Those targeted are the last to recognize the transformation until the consequences of ostracism become evident. This occurs when remarks by the country’s spokesman are “perceived as irrelevant,” and when the leadership is no longer regarded as worthy of engaging in legitimate discourse with other countries.8
Branding Israel as racist, portrays her as a country that harms civilian populations, oppresses minorities, establishes restrictive immigration laws and religious statutes as part of their ideological raison d’être. Thus, Israel’s wars, its military response to terror and laws passed by the Knesset are racist. A significant danger to Israel is that if this charge becomes a new stereotype through popular culture, the media, literature and daily speech, it will taint the Jewish state and become a part of the legacy of the West.9
No logical argument ever succeeded in disputing the blood libels or any other spurious allegation leveled against the Jews. Limited response to Z=R ensured that anti-Zionist resolutions continued to be passed. To counter the process of delegitimization, the charges have to be seen as a “corruption of language and thought,” a threat to freedom, and a campaign of disinformation orchestrated by the Arabs and their collaboraters.10
Dr. Alex Grobman is a Hebrew University trained historian. His is the author of a number of books, including Nations United: How The U.N. Undermines Israel and The West, Denying History: Who Says The Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? and a forthcoming book on Israel's moral and legal right to exist as a Jewish State.
===
1. Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, “The U.N.’s Day of Infamy,” The Washington Post (November 11, 1985): A23; Harris O. Schoenberg, A Mandate For Terror:The United Nations and the PLO (New York: Shapolsky Publishers, Inc., 1989), 108-125.
2. John R. Bolton, “Zionism Is Not Racism,” NYT (December 16, 1991).
3. Abba Eban, “Israel, Anti-Semitism and the United Nations,” The Jerusalem Quarterly (Fall 1976): 110, 118.
4. Kirkpatrick, “The U.N.’s Day of Infamy,” The Washington Post (November 11, 1985), A23; Schoenberg, op. cit., 108-125.
5. Avi Beker, The United Nations and Israel: From Recognition to Reprehension (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Books, 1988), 3, 5, 94.
6. Irwin Cotler. “Why is Israel singled out,” The Jerusalem Post (January 16, 2002); Irwin Cotler, “Human Rights And The New Anti-Jewishness,” The Jerusalem Post, (February 5, 2004); Irwin Cotler.” Durban’s Troubling Legacy One Year Later: Twisting the Cause of International Human Rights Against the Jewish People.” Jerusalem Center For Public Affairs Volume 2, No. 5 (August 20, 2002).
7. Ibid.
8. Ehud Sprinzak, “Anti-Zionism: From Delegitimation to Dehumanization.” Forum-53 (Fall 1984): 3-5.
9. Ibid 7-8.
10. Ibid.9-10
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Saturday, November 7, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israel-U.S. Missile Exercise Confirmed
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - The Middle East Newsline has confirmed Israel and the United States have been conducting a multi-phased missile defense exercise meant to defend against an Iranian attack.
The two countries have been engaged in Juniper Cobra-2010 in several areas of Israel.
“Juniper Cobra”, organized by the Israel Air Force and U.S. European Command, marked the biggest edition of the biannual exercise and sought to counter Iran’s new Sejil-2 solid-fuel ballistic missile. The exercise began on Oct. 21 and is scheduled to end on Thursday.
“Each exercise varies in focus and scope, and this year we are concentrating on combined air defense,” U.S. Navy 6th Fleet chief of staff Capt. Mike Martin said.
The exercise, the fifth edition since 2001, has been divided into three phases. Officials said the first phase was the deployment of more than 1,000 U.S. military personnel, including 17 naval vessels, around Israel.
The second phase would consist of a simulation of ballistic missile attacks meant to reflect Iran’s capabilities. Officials said this phase would link such missile-defense systems as Israel’s Arrow-2, PAC-2 and the U.S. PAC-3, sea-based Aegis and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.
“The simulation would test against a salvo of advanced Iranian missiles,” an official said.
The third phase of Juniper Cobra would feature a live-fire missile defense test. Officials said Israel and the United States would oversee the fire of PAC-3.
“JC-10 is the fifth iteration of this exercise with this year’s focus on testing the active missile-defense capabilities of both U.S. and Israeli armed forces,” the U.S. Navy said Tuesday.
The U.S. Navy has deployed the USS Higgins to transport sailors and soldiers to the Israeli port of Haifa. The exercise was also the first in which the U.S. military’s AN/TPY-2 X-band radar was deployed in Israel.
“We will advance both the art and science of ballistic missile defense between our two forces, and in the end, I am confident we will have a safe and successful Juniper Cobra exercise,” Rear Sixth Fleet deputy chief Adm. John Richardson, also the commander of JC-10’s joint task force, said.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - The Middle East Newsline has confirmed Israel and the United States have been conducting a multi-phased missile defense exercise meant to defend against an Iranian attack.
The two countries have been engaged in Juniper Cobra-2010 in several areas of Israel.
“Juniper Cobra”, organized by the Israel Air Force and U.S. European Command, marked the biggest edition of the biannual exercise and sought to counter Iran’s new Sejil-2 solid-fuel ballistic missile. The exercise began on Oct. 21 and is scheduled to end on Thursday.
“Each exercise varies in focus and scope, and this year we are concentrating on combined air defense,” U.S. Navy 6th Fleet chief of staff Capt. Mike Martin said.
The exercise, the fifth edition since 2001, has been divided into three phases. Officials said the first phase was the deployment of more than 1,000 U.S. military personnel, including 17 naval vessels, around Israel.
The second phase would consist of a simulation of ballistic missile attacks meant to reflect Iran’s capabilities. Officials said this phase would link such missile-defense systems as Israel’s Arrow-2, PAC-2 and the U.S. PAC-3, sea-based Aegis and the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense.
“The simulation would test against a salvo of advanced Iranian missiles,” an official said.
The third phase of Juniper Cobra would feature a live-fire missile defense test. Officials said Israel and the United States would oversee the fire of PAC-3.
“JC-10 is the fifth iteration of this exercise with this year’s focus on testing the active missile-defense capabilities of both U.S. and Israeli armed forces,” the U.S. Navy said Tuesday.
The U.S. Navy has deployed the USS Higgins to transport sailors and soldiers to the Israeli port of Haifa. The exercise was also the first in which the U.S. military’s AN/TPY-2 X-band radar was deployed in Israel.
“We will advance both the art and science of ballistic missile defense between our two forces, and in the end, I am confident we will have a safe and successful Juniper Cobra exercise,” Rear Sixth Fleet deputy chief Adm. John Richardson, also the commander of JC-10’s joint task force, said.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israel Cuts Off Arms Shipment To Hezbollah
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - Israeli naval forces, led by Israel's elite Naval Commando Unit, stormed the Francop cargo ship before dawn on Wednesday and, after searching its containers, found large quantities of weapons and ammunition on board.
This cargo, earmarked for Hezbollah, originated in Iran. The seized weaponry was hidden inside containers, which supposedly were filled with goods.
A senior Israeli government official said, "Our work now is to show the world what Israel has to deal with. The photographs of arms and ammunition will prove that Israel is defending itself against fierce terrorism, and you don't fight terror with silk gloves. What country would allow terrorist groups to arm themselves in a way that endangers the lives of the citizens in its heartland?"
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chose to frame the issue somewhat differently and said, "Anyone who still needed proof that Iran continues to send arms to terrorist organizations received it today, clearly and unequivocally. Iran is sending these arms to terrorist groups in order to strike at Israeli cities and kill civilians. The time has come for the international community to apply real pressure to Iran to stop this criminal activity and give support to Israel when it defends itself against terrorists and their patrons."
Meanwhile, a senior Israeli military source predicted Iran would attempt to find other ways to supply Hezbollah with weapons. He said Iran had settled on a maritime strategy after having confronted difficulty when smuggling over land. The source stressed the seizure of the arms ship was proof that Iran was continuing to invest great energy in smuggling munitions despite the restrictions placed on it. He said it was quite possible Iran had in the past made use of civilian commercial vessels as a cover to supply weapons to various destinations.
Israeli Navy Chief of Staff Brig. Gen. Rani Ben Yehuda said yesterday the amount of munitions apprehended on the ship would have allowed Hezbollah to fight Israel for about a month.
Detailing The Capture
Former Israeli Navy Commander Maj. Gen. Yedidia Yaari still remembers how, seven years ago, he planned and commanded the operation to capture the arms vessel Karine A, which was bound for the Palestinians, at sea.
This time, however, Maj. Gen. Eliezer Marom sat in the war room in the north, commanding from afar the capture of the Francop, which carried hundreds of tons of arms for Hezbollah - 10 times the quantity of arms aboard the Karine A.
The waves were high and the winds reached speeds of 50 knots. But the intelligence information in Operation Four Species was accurate. Using aircraft and Navy missile boats, they tracked the German vessel continuously. The Navy commander gave the order to begin the operation, despite the weather conditions, and had to relax the safety instructions for the ships. Once the missile boats spotted the vessel and contacted it, the information was passed to Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Mr. Barak then issued the order to board the ship.
The countries involved - Antigua, under whose flag the vessel sailed, and Cyprus, the country of its operating firm - were informed. Several hours later, the picture became clear: A ship of the Iranian national merchant fleet had left the port of Bandar Abbas carrying hundreds of containers, in which hundreds of tons of arms were concealed.
The ship's Polish and Ukrainian crew steered the vessel through the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal to the Egyptian city of Domiat.
The containers were unloaded from the Iranian vessel in Domiat and loaded onto the German vessel, Francop, which set out for Cyprus on Tuesday.
One hundred miles out, two Saar 5 missile boats surrounded the German vessel and contacted the Polish captain. The Israeli Navy asked him to inspect the vessel's cargo. The captain agreed to do so at around midnight, and allowed the naval commandos and soldiers of the Combat Engineering Corps's Yahalom unit to search the ship. The troops from the Yahalom unit, covered by naval commando troops, opened the containers and discovered the boxes of arms behind containers of pencils, toilets and polyurethane, a material used in the plastics industry.
The captain and crew were informed of the findings, and, after brief coordination with the Cyprus-based firm and Antigua, were brought to the Ashdod Port, where port workers began to unload the cargo.
A high-ranking security official said last night, "The Iranians hid the fact that the containers concealed arms, thus endangering the ship's crew and all the ports at which the vessel had stopped. Containers carrying explosives are treated completely differently from those carrying civilian material."
As one of the crew members watched the port workers unloading the cargo, he remarked, "We look at the containers, see all the ammunition, and don't believe it."
Gift From Heaven
Officials in Jerusalem had not dared even to dream of better timing for the capture of the vessel carrying so much arms and ammunition bound for Hezbollah. For all practical purposes, in light of the discussion of the Goldstone report that began in the United Nations yesterday and the campaign against Iran, the capture of the ship was, for Israel, like a gift from heaven.
In light of the capture of this ship, Israeli government officials expressed hope that "now the international community will understand whom we're dealing with," as a high-ranking minister said.
Israeli Foreign Ministry officials have been preparing for a major public relations battle in the UN's institutions and Security Council.
High-ranking ministry officials said they intended to bring the subject to the attention of the UN's member countries by means of both photographs and written messages. Jerusalem officials claim the fact that the weapons captured on the ship originated from Iran proves what Israel has been saying for a very long time: Iran has been consistently violating the UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 1747, which forbids Iran from exporting arms and is a blatant violation of Resolution 1701, which had led to the end of the Second Lebanon War and determined that southern Lebanon, between the Blue Line and the Litani River, would be demilitarized and that Hezbollah would disarm.
"None of the papers that we signed, including the Security Council resolutions, are being upheld. They are not worth the paper that they were written on. We have been saying loudly that Hezbollah and Hamas were being armed by Iran, and now we have clear proof that this is the situation that we're dealing with," a high-ranking diplomatic official said. "Iran continues to send arms to Hamas and Hezbollah, ignoring the UN and the international community."
The Israeli PR campaign made an effort to list the long line of UN Security Council resolutions Iran has been violating by such activities as the one thwarted yesterday.
The important aspect of this success, and this is no small thing, is a certain element of deterrence and encumbrance. The Francop is the visible tip of the iceberg. The smuggling routes are known. It is clear the intelligence was good enough to follow the cargo as it made its way on the Iranian ship, that led it from Bandar Abbas to Egypt, and then to the Francop and then to the point where it was detained. It is far more convenient to stop the vessel in the Mediterranean Sea, where a NATO policing force, which Israel is a part of, patrols the seas, and far from Egypt's coast, near which any operation is extremely sensitive.
---
The Francop
The Francop
Name of vessel: Francop
Length: 137 meters
Width: 22 meters
Capacity: 8,622 tons
Year of manufacture: 2003
Ownership: United Feeder, which has a fleet of 41 ships and concentrates on shipping goods in the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea.
1. Oct. 26: Dozens of containers filled with arms and ammunition made their way from Iran to Egypt on a ship belonging to Iran's national merchant fleet.
2. In the Egyptian port of Domiat, the containers were unloaded in order to trick anyone who might be trying to track the shipment.
3. The vessel Francop, on which the camouflaged arms were loaded, made its way to Cyprus, from which it was to proceed to its final destination: Syria.
Distance from Israeli coast: 130 miles
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - Israeli naval forces, led by Israel's elite Naval Commando Unit, stormed the Francop cargo ship before dawn on Wednesday and, after searching its containers, found large quantities of weapons and ammunition on board.
This cargo, earmarked for Hezbollah, originated in Iran. The seized weaponry was hidden inside containers, which supposedly were filled with goods.
A senior Israeli government official said, "Our work now is to show the world what Israel has to deal with. The photographs of arms and ammunition will prove that Israel is defending itself against fierce terrorism, and you don't fight terror with silk gloves. What country would allow terrorist groups to arm themselves in a way that endangers the lives of the citizens in its heartland?"
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chose to frame the issue somewhat differently and said, "Anyone who still needed proof that Iran continues to send arms to terrorist organizations received it today, clearly and unequivocally. Iran is sending these arms to terrorist groups in order to strike at Israeli cities and kill civilians. The time has come for the international community to apply real pressure to Iran to stop this criminal activity and give support to Israel when it defends itself against terrorists and their patrons."
Meanwhile, a senior Israeli military source predicted Iran would attempt to find other ways to supply Hezbollah with weapons. He said Iran had settled on a maritime strategy after having confronted difficulty when smuggling over land. The source stressed the seizure of the arms ship was proof that Iran was continuing to invest great energy in smuggling munitions despite the restrictions placed on it. He said it was quite possible Iran had in the past made use of civilian commercial vessels as a cover to supply weapons to various destinations.
Israeli Navy Chief of Staff Brig. Gen. Rani Ben Yehuda said yesterday the amount of munitions apprehended on the ship would have allowed Hezbollah to fight Israel for about a month.
Detailing The Capture
Former Israeli Navy Commander Maj. Gen. Yedidia Yaari still remembers how, seven years ago, he planned and commanded the operation to capture the arms vessel Karine A, which was bound for the Palestinians, at sea.
This time, however, Maj. Gen. Eliezer Marom sat in the war room in the north, commanding from afar the capture of the Francop, which carried hundreds of tons of arms for Hezbollah - 10 times the quantity of arms aboard the Karine A.
The waves were high and the winds reached speeds of 50 knots. But the intelligence information in Operation Four Species was accurate. Using aircraft and Navy missile boats, they tracked the German vessel continuously. The Navy commander gave the order to begin the operation, despite the weather conditions, and had to relax the safety instructions for the ships. Once the missile boats spotted the vessel and contacted it, the information was passed to Defense Minister Ehud Barak. Mr. Barak then issued the order to board the ship.
The countries involved - Antigua, under whose flag the vessel sailed, and Cyprus, the country of its operating firm - were informed. Several hours later, the picture became clear: A ship of the Iranian national merchant fleet had left the port of Bandar Abbas carrying hundreds of containers, in which hundreds of tons of arms were concealed.
The ship's Polish and Ukrainian crew steered the vessel through the Strait of Hormuz and the Suez Canal to the Egyptian city of Domiat.
The containers were unloaded from the Iranian vessel in Domiat and loaded onto the German vessel, Francop, which set out for Cyprus on Tuesday.
One hundred miles out, two Saar 5 missile boats surrounded the German vessel and contacted the Polish captain. The Israeli Navy asked him to inspect the vessel's cargo. The captain agreed to do so at around midnight, and allowed the naval commandos and soldiers of the Combat Engineering Corps's Yahalom unit to search the ship. The troops from the Yahalom unit, covered by naval commando troops, opened the containers and discovered the boxes of arms behind containers of pencils, toilets and polyurethane, a material used in the plastics industry.
The captain and crew were informed of the findings, and, after brief coordination with the Cyprus-based firm and Antigua, were brought to the Ashdod Port, where port workers began to unload the cargo.
A high-ranking security official said last night, "The Iranians hid the fact that the containers concealed arms, thus endangering the ship's crew and all the ports at which the vessel had stopped. Containers carrying explosives are treated completely differently from those carrying civilian material."
As one of the crew members watched the port workers unloading the cargo, he remarked, "We look at the containers, see all the ammunition, and don't believe it."
Gift From Heaven
Officials in Jerusalem had not dared even to dream of better timing for the capture of the vessel carrying so much arms and ammunition bound for Hezbollah. For all practical purposes, in light of the discussion of the Goldstone report that began in the United Nations yesterday and the campaign against Iran, the capture of the ship was, for Israel, like a gift from heaven.
In light of the capture of this ship, Israeli government officials expressed hope that "now the international community will understand whom we're dealing with," as a high-ranking minister said.
Israeli Foreign Ministry officials have been preparing for a major public relations battle in the UN's institutions and Security Council.
High-ranking ministry officials said they intended to bring the subject to the attention of the UN's member countries by means of both photographs and written messages. Jerusalem officials claim the fact that the weapons captured on the ship originated from Iran proves what Israel has been saying for a very long time: Iran has been consistently violating the UN Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 1747, which forbids Iran from exporting arms and is a blatant violation of Resolution 1701, which had led to the end of the Second Lebanon War and determined that southern Lebanon, between the Blue Line and the Litani River, would be demilitarized and that Hezbollah would disarm.
"None of the papers that we signed, including the Security Council resolutions, are being upheld. They are not worth the paper that they were written on. We have been saying loudly that Hezbollah and Hamas were being armed by Iran, and now we have clear proof that this is the situation that we're dealing with," a high-ranking diplomatic official said. "Iran continues to send arms to Hamas and Hezbollah, ignoring the UN and the international community."
The Israeli PR campaign made an effort to list the long line of UN Security Council resolutions Iran has been violating by such activities as the one thwarted yesterday.
The important aspect of this success, and this is no small thing, is a certain element of deterrence and encumbrance. The Francop is the visible tip of the iceberg. The smuggling routes are known. It is clear the intelligence was good enough to follow the cargo as it made its way on the Iranian ship, that led it from Bandar Abbas to Egypt, and then to the Francop and then to the point where it was detained. It is far more convenient to stop the vessel in the Mediterranean Sea, where a NATO policing force, which Israel is a part of, patrols the seas, and far from Egypt's coast, near which any operation is extremely sensitive.
---
The Francop
The Francop
Name of vessel: Francop
Length: 137 meters
Width: 22 meters
Capacity: 8,622 tons
Year of manufacture: 2003
Ownership: United Feeder, which has a fleet of 41 ships and concentrates on shipping goods in the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea.
1. Oct. 26: Dozens of containers filled with arms and ammunition made their way from Iran to Egypt on a ship belonging to Iran's national merchant fleet.
2. In the Egyptian port of Domiat, the containers were unloaded in order to trick anyone who might be trying to track the shipment.
3. The vessel Francop, on which the camouflaged arms were loaded, made its way to Cyprus, from which it was to proceed to its final destination: Syria.
Distance from Israeli coast: 130 miles
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Improvements Made in Turkish-Iranian Relations
Erdogan Terms Iran Visit As ‘Positive’
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan described his visit to Iran and his meetings with Iranian officials as “positive.”
Speaking at a press conference at the Turkish embassy in Tehran on Wednesday, Mr. Erdogan referred to the results of his trip to Iran, and said, “regarding settlement of regional issues, we share common views and on economic issues we can also perform some works jointly.”
“As regards foreign policy, our main goal is attracting friends and having no enemies, and this is our basic (principle of) thinking at national and international levels,” he told reporters.
Mr. Erdogan received a red carpet welcome by Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi Tuesday morning.
Earlier in a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Tuesday, the Turkish prime minister called for further expansion of all-out bilateral ties between the two neighboring states.
Mr. Erdogan once again stated that pursuance of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is the legitimate right of all world countries, including Iran.
Mr. Erdogan asked for joint efforts by all regional states to provide security in the Middle East.
“Iraq should enjoy stability. All nations should work for stability in the Middle East because other countries are under the effect of terrorism as much as us,” Mr. Erdogan said at a joint meeting between Iranian and Turkish traders and businessmen in Iran’s Chamber of Commerce in Tehran on Thursday.
“There exists no one to provide security in the region, but us. We cannot rely on other parties. We should be brothers and stand firm,” Mr. Erdogan noted.
He described Iran and Turkey as stable islands in the region, adding, “In order to make the whole region stable like our countries, we should initiate joint plans for Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
Elsewhere, Mr. Erdogan underlined Iran’s responsibility for peace and security in the Caucuses, “Iran, like Turkey, is responsible for peace and security in the Caucuses. The presence of foreign troops is not a solution to the problems of the region. A decision by the regional states is needed.”
Mr. Erdogan arrived in Tehran Monday night leading a high-ranking delegation, comprising of five cabinet ministers, 30 parliament members, 80 representatives of the private sector and 30 representatives from the media.
Regarding economic relations between Ankara and Tehran, Mr. Erdogan said that Turkey agrees with Iran on increasing the volume of trade exchange to $30 billion.
He noted that the two countries enjoy the necessary capacities to materialize such amount of trade exchanges.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan described his visit to Iran and his meetings with Iranian officials as “positive.”
Speaking at a press conference at the Turkish embassy in Tehran on Wednesday, Mr. Erdogan referred to the results of his trip to Iran, and said, “regarding settlement of regional issues, we share common views and on economic issues we can also perform some works jointly.”
“As regards foreign policy, our main goal is attracting friends and having no enemies, and this is our basic (principle of) thinking at national and international levels,” he told reporters.
Mr. Erdogan received a red carpet welcome by Iran’s First Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi Tuesday morning.
Earlier in a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Tuesday, the Turkish prime minister called for further expansion of all-out bilateral ties between the two neighboring states.
Mr. Erdogan once again stated that pursuance of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes is the legitimate right of all world countries, including Iran.
Mr. Erdogan asked for joint efforts by all regional states to provide security in the Middle East.
“Iraq should enjoy stability. All nations should work for stability in the Middle East because other countries are under the effect of terrorism as much as us,” Mr. Erdogan said at a joint meeting between Iranian and Turkish traders and businessmen in Iran’s Chamber of Commerce in Tehran on Thursday.
“There exists no one to provide security in the region, but us. We cannot rely on other parties. We should be brothers and stand firm,” Mr. Erdogan noted.
He described Iran and Turkey as stable islands in the region, adding, “In order to make the whole region stable like our countries, we should initiate joint plans for Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
Elsewhere, Mr. Erdogan underlined Iran’s responsibility for peace and security in the Caucuses, “Iran, like Turkey, is responsible for peace and security in the Caucuses. The presence of foreign troops is not a solution to the problems of the region. A decision by the regional states is needed.”
Mr. Erdogan arrived in Tehran Monday night leading a high-ranking delegation, comprising of five cabinet ministers, 30 parliament members, 80 representatives of the private sector and 30 representatives from the media.
Regarding economic relations between Ankara and Tehran, Mr. Erdogan said that Turkey agrees with Iran on increasing the volume of trade exchange to $30 billion.
He noted that the two countries enjoy the necessary capacities to materialize such amount of trade exchanges.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israel Wages Battle Against ‘NY Times’
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - For the past 10 days, the State of Israel has been waging a battle against the New York Times, for what it calls tendentious and unfair coverage of the Jewish state.
At the focus of the storm is the Goldstone report. Recently, there were many exchanges between the newspaper's journalists and editors with Israel Foreign Ministry representatives, and yesterday the Israeli delegation in the UN sent an official complaint to the newspaper's editorial board.
The complaint, signed by the Israel UN delegation's spokeswoman, Mirit Cohen, says that the newspaper uses subjective negative language about Israel and failed in writing fair and accurate coverage.
The complaint also states: "Again and again we encounter distorted phraseology that is liable to cause the innocent reader to think that the report found definitive proof that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza. This is a report that is flawed from the outset, which gives legitimacy to a terror organization that fires missiles at innocent civilians. The New York Times's bias in ignoring this reality requires reexamination", wrote Cohen.
The New York Times has yet to respond to the Israeli government's unprecedented attack on the paper.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - For the past 10 days, the State of Israel has been waging a battle against the New York Times, for what it calls tendentious and unfair coverage of the Jewish state.
At the focus of the storm is the Goldstone report. Recently, there were many exchanges between the newspaper's journalists and editors with Israel Foreign Ministry representatives, and yesterday the Israeli delegation in the UN sent an official complaint to the newspaper's editorial board.
The complaint, signed by the Israel UN delegation's spokeswoman, Mirit Cohen, says that the newspaper uses subjective negative language about Israel and failed in writing fair and accurate coverage.
The complaint also states: "Again and again we encounter distorted phraseology that is liable to cause the innocent reader to think that the report found definitive proof that Israel committed war crimes in Gaza. This is a report that is flawed from the outset, which gives legitimacy to a terror organization that fires missiles at innocent civilians. The New York Times's bias in ignoring this reality requires reexamination", wrote Cohen.
The New York Times has yet to respond to the Israeli government's unprecedented attack on the paper.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Friday, November 6, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Tunnel Smuggling into Gaza Increases
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - The Middle East Newsline confirms that the Hamas regime has approved a huge increase in the number of smuggling tunnels from the Gaza Strip to neighboring Egypt.
Palestinian sources said tunnels that span the Gaza Strip to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula have more than doubled this year.
They cited the Israeli and Egyptian closure of their borders as well as increasing Gazan demand for consumer goods.
“We can get anything for anybody at almost any time,” a Palestinian source said.
The Hamas regime approved the sharp increase of tunnels in wake of the war with Israel in January. They said the number of tunnels skyrocketed from about 700 to 1,500 over the last eight months.
“Hamas directly controls about 100 tunnels and this supplies the government and security forces,” the Palestinian source said. “Whenever they need something fast, they turn to private tunnel operators.”
In August, tunnel operators began smuggling luxury cars from Egypt to Gaza. Over the last two months, the sources said, about 100 late model cars were dismantled in Egypt, transported through the tunnels in parts and reassembled in the Gaza Strip. The price per car was reported at $20,000.
Tunnels are a part of the smuggling industry, the largest industry in the Gaza Strip.
About 30,000 people are employed in the smuggling industry, with diggers earning about $30 day.
The number of tunnels discovered and destroyed by Egypt or Israel marked less than one percent of the smuggling network.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - The Middle East Newsline confirms that the Hamas regime has approved a huge increase in the number of smuggling tunnels from the Gaza Strip to neighboring Egypt.
Palestinian sources said tunnels that span the Gaza Strip to Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula have more than doubled this year.
They cited the Israeli and Egyptian closure of their borders as well as increasing Gazan demand for consumer goods.
“We can get anything for anybody at almost any time,” a Palestinian source said.
The Hamas regime approved the sharp increase of tunnels in wake of the war with Israel in January. They said the number of tunnels skyrocketed from about 700 to 1,500 over the last eight months.
“Hamas directly controls about 100 tunnels and this supplies the government and security forces,” the Palestinian source said. “Whenever they need something fast, they turn to private tunnel operators.”
In August, tunnel operators began smuggling luxury cars from Egypt to Gaza. Over the last two months, the sources said, about 100 late model cars were dismantled in Egypt, transported through the tunnels in parts and reassembled in the Gaza Strip. The price per car was reported at $20,000.
Tunnels are a part of the smuggling industry, the largest industry in the Gaza Strip.
About 30,000 people are employed in the smuggling industry, with diggers earning about $30 day.
The number of tunnels discovered and destroyed by Egypt or Israel marked less than one percent of the smuggling network.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Syria Denies Transporting Weapons, Blames Seized Boat On Piracy
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem disputed Israel's claim that a ship sailing from Syria to Iran was carrying weapons in a press conference held on Thursday in Tehran.
Mr. Muallem, instead, said the ship was carrying goods to Iran.
"The report of the seizure of the Iranian ship carrying weapons to Syria in the vicinity of the Zionist entity is baseless," he argued.
He added that the ship was a victim of piracy.
"There are pirates that take over ships under the pretense of searches and try to halt the passage of commercial vessels," he said.
Iran also denied reports that it had attempted to send weapons to Hezbollah in the ship.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the Iranian news agency Irana: "The report is incorrect. The ship was making its way from Syria to Iran carrying goods, not weapons."
Mr. Mottaki argued that "Syria and Iran are peace loving nations which are interested in the stability of the region."
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem disputed Israel's claim that a ship sailing from Syria to Iran was carrying weapons in a press conference held on Thursday in Tehran.
Mr. Muallem, instead, said the ship was carrying goods to Iran.
"The report of the seizure of the Iranian ship carrying weapons to Syria in the vicinity of the Zionist entity is baseless," he argued.
He added that the ship was a victim of piracy.
"There are pirates that take over ships under the pretense of searches and try to halt the passage of commercial vessels," he said.
Iran also denied reports that it had attempted to send weapons to Hezbollah in the ship.
Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told the Iranian news agency Irana: "The report is incorrect. The ship was making its way from Syria to Iran carrying goods, not weapons."
Mr. Mottaki argued that "Syria and Iran are peace loving nations which are interested in the stability of the region."
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: A Soft Military Coup could Surface in Egypt
by David Bedein
A report to the United States Congress warns that Egypt’s military could stage a coup to prevent the transition of power by President Hosni Mubarak to his 46-year-old son, Gamal.
The Congressional Research Service has found the likelihood of Gamal becoming Egypt’s next president has alarmed the military as well as the Islamic-led opposition.
“If such a situation were to occur, many observers wonder whether the military and security establishment would remain in their barracks or re-enter politics to establish order,” the report, titled “Egypt: Background and U.S. Relations,” said.
The report was released as Egypt’s ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), intensified efforts to prepare Gamal for succession. Senior officials, including Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif, have already called for Gamal to be groomed as Egypt’s next president.
The 81-year-old Mubarak, president since 1981 and said to be in declining health, has not ruled out a re-election bid in 2011. The report, however, said Gamal, the No. 2 figure in the NDP, could emerge as the next candidate for presidency, while retaining his rival, Maj. Gen. Omar Suleiman, as intelligence chief.
Mr. Suleiman has been raised as a candidate to succeed Mr. Mubarak. Arab League secretary-general Amr Moussa was also said to be considering running for president.
“However, at age 73, it is unlikely that Mr. Suleiman, should he become president, would rule for a long period of time,” the report said. “Furthermore, as head of Egypt’s General Intelligence Service, Mr. Suleiman would need to retire from military service since active-duty military officers are not allowed membership in political parties. Mr. Suleiman is currently engaged in a number of sensitive diplomatic operations and is one of Mr. Mubarak’s closest confidants, making his departure from military service unlikely.”
Another scenario was that of a military takeover to prevent a Gamal presidency.
The Congressional Research Service’s report, authored by Jeremy Sharp and dated Sept. 2, said the elder Mubarak has banned military officers from NDP’s Supreme Council.
“An Egyptian military officer carries out a soft coup, in which constitutional proceedings are set aside and civilian elites quietly acquiesce to the military’s re-assertion of power,” the report said.
Some U.S. analysts have raised the scenario of a military coup. Michele Dunne, a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has discussed the prospect of the General Staff helping to install a military officer as president.
Mr. Sharp said that many experts have deemed Egypt’s political system stable and discount a coup. The report also said the student clashes with the Iranian regime in wake of a controversial presidential election in June could signal a similar scenario in Egypt.
“Some analysts fear that a less-than-smooth transition of power could open the door for the Muslim Brotherhood to mobilize its supporters and demand an Islamist government,” the report said.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
A report to the United States Congress warns that Egypt’s military could stage a coup to prevent the transition of power by President Hosni Mubarak to his 46-year-old son, Gamal.
The Congressional Research Service has found the likelihood of Gamal becoming Egypt’s next president has alarmed the military as well as the Islamic-led opposition.
“If such a situation were to occur, many observers wonder whether the military and security establishment would remain in their barracks or re-enter politics to establish order,” the report, titled “Egypt: Background and U.S. Relations,” said.
The report was released as Egypt’s ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), intensified efforts to prepare Gamal for succession. Senior officials, including Prime Minister Ahmed Nazif, have already called for Gamal to be groomed as Egypt’s next president.
The 81-year-old Mubarak, president since 1981 and said to be in declining health, has not ruled out a re-election bid in 2011. The report, however, said Gamal, the No. 2 figure in the NDP, could emerge as the next candidate for presidency, while retaining his rival, Maj. Gen. Omar Suleiman, as intelligence chief.
Mr. Suleiman has been raised as a candidate to succeed Mr. Mubarak. Arab League secretary-general Amr Moussa was also said to be considering running for president.
“However, at age 73, it is unlikely that Mr. Suleiman, should he become president, would rule for a long period of time,” the report said. “Furthermore, as head of Egypt’s General Intelligence Service, Mr. Suleiman would need to retire from military service since active-duty military officers are not allowed membership in political parties. Mr. Suleiman is currently engaged in a number of sensitive diplomatic operations and is one of Mr. Mubarak’s closest confidants, making his departure from military service unlikely.”
Another scenario was that of a military takeover to prevent a Gamal presidency.
The Congressional Research Service’s report, authored by Jeremy Sharp and dated Sept. 2, said the elder Mubarak has banned military officers from NDP’s Supreme Council.
“An Egyptian military officer carries out a soft coup, in which constitutional proceedings are set aside and civilian elites quietly acquiesce to the military’s re-assertion of power,” the report said.
Some U.S. analysts have raised the scenario of a military coup. Michele Dunne, a researcher at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, has discussed the prospect of the General Staff helping to install a military officer as president.
Mr. Sharp said that many experts have deemed Egypt’s political system stable and discount a coup. The report also said the student clashes with the Iranian regime in wake of a controversial presidential election in June could signal a similar scenario in Egypt.
“Some analysts fear that a less-than-smooth transition of power could open the door for the Muslim Brotherhood to mobilize its supporters and demand an Islamist government,” the report said.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israelis Dispute Claims Over Conference - Yet Allegations of Egypt Excluding Israel From Cancer Conference Confirmed
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - The Bulletin of Oct. 25 publicized the revelation that Israeli experts in breast cancer have been barred from attending a conference concerning cures for breasts cancer in Cairo. However, the spokesperson for Nancy Brinker, founder and head of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization, which raises significant amounts of money to fight breast cancer, wrote to The Bulletin that despite threats in Egypt, Israelis were not barred from the Cairo conference.
Yet the Israeli government and the Hadassah Women’s Organization claim that Israeli medical professionals were indeed barred from the conference, leaving The Israel Medical Association (IMA) on Tuesday to denounce “all boycotts of Israelis at international medical conferences such as the one held in Cairo last week on coping with breast cancer.”
IMA chairman Dr. Leonid Eidelman told the Jerusalem Post that “Israeli doctors and scientists are often confronted by hostility when attending professional conferences abroad.”
Dr. Eidelman emphasized that medicine and science are not political. Even those who oppose policies of the government of Israel should never inject politics into these fields, which aim to save lives and to which Israelis contribute a great deal, he said.
Dr. Eidelman added that conferences that keep Israelis out would constitute a “black day for science in Israel and around the world.”
Ms. Brinker was asked for comment on her letter dispatched to The Bulletin, which claimed that Cairo has not barred Israeli medical professionals from the conference. No response was received from her office.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - The Bulletin of Oct. 25 publicized the revelation that Israeli experts in breast cancer have been barred from attending a conference concerning cures for breasts cancer in Cairo. However, the spokesperson for Nancy Brinker, founder and head of the Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization, which raises significant amounts of money to fight breast cancer, wrote to The Bulletin that despite threats in Egypt, Israelis were not barred from the Cairo conference.
Yet the Israeli government and the Hadassah Women’s Organization claim that Israeli medical professionals were indeed barred from the conference, leaving The Israel Medical Association (IMA) on Tuesday to denounce “all boycotts of Israelis at international medical conferences such as the one held in Cairo last week on coping with breast cancer.”
IMA chairman Dr. Leonid Eidelman told the Jerusalem Post that “Israeli doctors and scientists are often confronted by hostility when attending professional conferences abroad.”
Dr. Eidelman emphasized that medicine and science are not political. Even those who oppose policies of the government of Israel should never inject politics into these fields, which aim to save lives and to which Israelis contribute a great deal, he said.
Dr. Eidelman added that conferences that keep Israelis out would constitute a “black day for science in Israel and around the world.”
Ms. Brinker was asked for comment on her letter dispatched to The Bulletin, which claimed that Cairo has not barred Israeli medical professionals from the conference. No response was received from her office.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Ten Obstacles to Middle East Peace
by David Bedein
1. November 2, 2009 marked the 92nd anniversary of Balfour day, which led to the 1922 San Remo Treaty and to the 1924 League of Nations ratification of the San Remo Treaty, which recognized the right of Jews to purchase land in the Jewish national homeland, defined as anywhere west of the Jordan River. Ratified by the UN in 1945, that is the basis of international law by which Israel can, indeed, settle the land of Israel with Jews who come from the four corners of the earth. The internationally ratified legal basis for Israel has been forgotten.
2. The Arab league rejected the idea of a Jewish national home, declaring a war of extermination in 1945 and actualizing that declaration in 1948. That declaration which is still extant, and the Arab League’s war to exterminate Israel continues. Egypt was then the dominant factor of the Arab League. The Saudis, however, remain the dominant factor of the Arab League today, as the only nation contiguous to Israel to have never signed any armistice or peace treaty with the Jewish state.
3. Perhaps the most effective tactic of the Arab League was to spawn the PLO under its aegis, whose task it would be to coordinate indigenous Palestinian Arabs to join the Arab States in their war to conquer and displace the Jewish state. To this day, the PLO, led by the Fatah reports to the Arab League, which has never changed its charter to destroy Israel. For that matter, neither has the PLO changed its charter to destroy Israel. At the same time, the Fatah conveys the false impression to the world that it is the product of a grass roots Palestinian national movement. Yet the PLO, course, changed the map and the perception of the Arab war to exterminate Israel, to make the war look like some kind of war of national liberation.
4. The Arab League continued its war of extermination by confining Palestinian Arab refugees from 1948 to the squalor of refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the right of return. Their presence in UNRWA refugee camps continues to this day, under the aegis of the UN, through UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
5. The purpose of UNRWA is to fulfill successive UN resolutions that promote the supposed “inalienable right” of Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendent's to return to villages from before 1948. Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendants in the UNRWA camps learn that the 531 Israeli villages, kibbutzim, moshavim and neighborhoods that replaced the Arab villages are the illegal Israeli settlements, which are located in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ashkelon, BeerSheva, Ashdod, Sderot and hundreds of other Israeli communities that were established on the ruins of Arab villages after 1948. While the popular imagination posits that the Palestinian Arab national ambition is only to replace the Israeli communities in Judea, Samaria and Katif, the Palestinian Arab ambition as dictated by the PLO and its patron in the Arab League, is to take back the lands lost in 1948. UNRWA, financed by the US and other western nations, reinforces that ambition. UNRWA has recently been taken over by Hamas, to ensure that the ambition to actualize the right of return has gained a new, Islamic emphasis. Just look at how many Palestinian Arab refugees have left the teeming UNRWA Arab refugee camps in Gaza to live on the lands of the expelled Jewish communities from Katif. Not one. Why? Because the dictate of the PA, the PLO and Hamas is that Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendants must return to the homes and villages that they left after 1948 - to Jaffa, Beer Sheva, Ashdod, Ashkelon, etc.
6. The Palestinian Authority, established in 1994, instead of spurring the newly recognized Palestinian national entity to establish a nation state alongside Israel, has instead launched a base from where they can liberate the rest of of Palestine.
7. Meanwhile, the PA has established an educational system to educate the next generation that Israel must not exist. The new PA school books and the new PA maps speak for themselves, as the first school curriculum since the Third Reich that inculcates the idea that you must make war on the Jews and that Jews are less than human. The PA school books go one step beyond the Nazis, however, as they introduce lesson plans which praise those who murder Jews. While the Nazis murdered Jews, the Nazis always tried to obfuscate their acts. The Palestinian Authority instead teaches their children to take pride in the act of murdering a Jew.
8. To further reinforce the Palestinian entity around a renewed religious determination of the continued war to liberate all of Palestine, the Palestinian Authority adopted the draft of an Islamic constitution, based on the Sharia law. This was revealed to the public by a senior official in the Vatican who addressed visiting US congressmen in March 2003. This radical constitution was sponsored by the US government, through US AID.
9. Meanwhile, the Hamas Islamic movement took control of the PA legislature in democratic elections that were held under the sponsorship of the American government, in January 2006, which led to a Fatah-Hamas power sharing agreement known as the Mecca Accord, signed between the Fatah and the Hamas in March 2007. When the Fatah began to hesitate in carrying out the Mecca Accord, Hamas took over Gaza in its entirety in June, 2007.
10. The PA has made it clear that it will make no deal with Israel that does not assure the right of return of Palestinian Arab refugees, the PA control over Jerusalem, and the establishment of full and total sovereignty, which includes an army.
View the Original Link at Israel Behind the News: Ten Obstacles to Middle East Peace
1. November 2, 2009 marked the 92nd anniversary of Balfour day, which led to the 1922 San Remo Treaty and to the 1924 League of Nations ratification of the San Remo Treaty, which recognized the right of Jews to purchase land in the Jewish national homeland, defined as anywhere west of the Jordan River. Ratified by the UN in 1945, that is the basis of international law by which Israel can, indeed, settle the land of Israel with Jews who come from the four corners of the earth. The internationally ratified legal basis for Israel has been forgotten.
2. The Arab league rejected the idea of a Jewish national home, declaring a war of extermination in 1945 and actualizing that declaration in 1948. That declaration which is still extant, and the Arab League’s war to exterminate Israel continues. Egypt was then the dominant factor of the Arab League. The Saudis, however, remain the dominant factor of the Arab League today, as the only nation contiguous to Israel to have never signed any armistice or peace treaty with the Jewish state.
3. Perhaps the most effective tactic of the Arab League was to spawn the PLO under its aegis, whose task it would be to coordinate indigenous Palestinian Arabs to join the Arab States in their war to conquer and displace the Jewish state. To this day, the PLO, led by the Fatah reports to the Arab League, which has never changed its charter to destroy Israel. For that matter, neither has the PLO changed its charter to destroy Israel. At the same time, the Fatah conveys the false impression to the world that it is the product of a grass roots Palestinian national movement. Yet the PLO, course, changed the map and the perception of the Arab war to exterminate Israel, to make the war look like some kind of war of national liberation.
4. The Arab League continued its war of extermination by confining Palestinian Arab refugees from 1948 to the squalor of refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the right of return. Their presence in UNRWA refugee camps continues to this day, under the aegis of the UN, through UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
5. The purpose of UNRWA is to fulfill successive UN resolutions that promote the supposed “inalienable right” of Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendent's to return to villages from before 1948. Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendants in the UNRWA camps learn that the 531 Israeli villages, kibbutzim, moshavim and neighborhoods that replaced the Arab villages are the illegal Israeli settlements, which are located in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ashkelon, BeerSheva, Ashdod, Sderot and hundreds of other Israeli communities that were established on the ruins of Arab villages after 1948. While the popular imagination posits that the Palestinian Arab national ambition is only to replace the Israeli communities in Judea, Samaria and Katif, the Palestinian Arab ambition as dictated by the PLO and its patron in the Arab League, is to take back the lands lost in 1948. UNRWA, financed by the US and other western nations, reinforces that ambition. UNRWA has recently been taken over by Hamas, to ensure that the ambition to actualize the right of return has gained a new, Islamic emphasis. Just look at how many Palestinian Arab refugees have left the teeming UNRWA Arab refugee camps in Gaza to live on the lands of the expelled Jewish communities from Katif. Not one. Why? Because the dictate of the PA, the PLO and Hamas is that Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendants must return to the homes and villages that they left after 1948 - to Jaffa, Beer Sheva, Ashdod, Ashkelon, etc.
6. The Palestinian Authority, established in 1994, instead of spurring the newly recognized Palestinian national entity to establish a nation state alongside Israel, has instead launched a base from where they can liberate the rest of of Palestine.
7. Meanwhile, the PA has established an educational system to educate the next generation that Israel must not exist. The new PA school books and the new PA maps speak for themselves, as the first school curriculum since the Third Reich that inculcates the idea that you must make war on the Jews and that Jews are less than human. The PA school books go one step beyond the Nazis, however, as they introduce lesson plans which praise those who murder Jews. While the Nazis murdered Jews, the Nazis always tried to obfuscate their acts. The Palestinian Authority instead teaches their children to take pride in the act of murdering a Jew.
8. To further reinforce the Palestinian entity around a renewed religious determination of the continued war to liberate all of Palestine, the Palestinian Authority adopted the draft of an Islamic constitution, based on the Sharia law. This was revealed to the public by a senior official in the Vatican who addressed visiting US congressmen in March 2003. This radical constitution was sponsored by the US government, through US AID.
9. Meanwhile, the Hamas Islamic movement took control of the PA legislature in democratic elections that were held under the sponsorship of the American government, in January 2006, which led to a Fatah-Hamas power sharing agreement known as the Mecca Accord, signed between the Fatah and the Hamas in March 2007. When the Fatah began to hesitate in carrying out the Mecca Accord, Hamas took over Gaza in its entirety in June, 2007.
10. The PA has made it clear that it will make no deal with Israel that does not assure the right of return of Palestinian Arab refugees, the PA control over Jerusalem, and the establishment of full and total sovereignty, which includes an army.
View the Original Link at Israel Behind the News: Ten Obstacles to Middle East Peace
The Fatah Conference in August: An Opportunity Missed
The Fatah Conference in August: An Opportunity Missed
By Arlene Kushner, Senior Research Policy Analyst, Center for Near East Policy Research
Fatah - which defines itself as a nationalist movement - is the dominant force within both the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the PA. There is no way to understand the possibilities for resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without understanding its policies.
Contrasted routinely with Hamas, Fatah is seen as “moderate.”
Its constitution,[1] however, tells another story. Written in 1964, when Israel did not yet control the West Bank and Gaza, it uses terms such as “liberation” to refer exclusively to Israel within the Green Line, which it calls “Palestine.” The constitution states:
Liberating Palestine is a national obligation.
UN projects, accords and resolutions, or those of any individual country which undermine the Palestinian people's right in their homeland are illegal and rejected.
The Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a colonial...base...
[A Fatah goal is] complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.
Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine.
This struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.
Many well-informed persons are unaware of this Fatah constitution. And many of those who are familiar with it believe it is an anachronism: That is, as Fatah itself has changed, post-Oslo, its original constitution, which has remained static, is rendered irrelevant.
The fact, however, is that Fatah has two faces. We see this revealed in the “Phased Program” adopted by the PLO in 1974. (Fatah was, and is, by far the largest and most influential faction of the PLO.) This program was an acknowl edgement that “total liberation” in one fell swoop had become unrealistic; instead there was to be a “Strategy of Stages” - to “give the appearance of moderation” while “total liberation” would be pursued slowly over time as Israel was weakened.
The summer of 2009 was not simply post-Oslo, it was also post-Annapolis. What is more, the new American president, reaching out to the Arab world, had made resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict a centerpiece of his administration.
It was an auspicious time for Fatah, if it truly was moderate, to come forth with a stance that definitively demonstrated this. It was the moment to renounce the positions of its pre-Oslo constitution to and speak in unambiguous terms about compromise, end of conflict, and recognition of Israel’s right to exist.
As it happened, Fatah had an extraordinary opportunity to do just that: In early August 2009, Fatah’s Sixth General Congress was held in Bethlehem.
This was a remarkable event historically, for even though its constitution requires the Congress - which is Fatah’s highest authority - to convene every five years, there had been no conference for 20 years.
Now some 2,000 delegates - most selected by Fatah head Mahmoud Abbas and his associates - came together, presumably prepared to establish new policies and elect new representatives to Fatah’s decision-making bodies: the 21-member Central Committee and the 120-member Revolutionary Council. Since the Congress had last met before Oslo, and since many of the leaders elected earlier were now either old or deceased, there was considerable international expectation that genuine changes for Fatah, reflecting new realities, might emerge from the Congress.
On the eve of the Congress, (Arabic-speaking) journalist and commentator Pinchas Inbari, writing for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs,[2] provided insight into the process that was about to unfold. Two documents would be discussed and approved at the Congress: The Political Program, which could be seen as promoting a political process, and the Constitution, referred to by Inbari as the “Internal Order.”
Here we see Fatah’s two faces. The Political Program, which moves in the direction of a political solution, “tries to accommodate international expectations and seems designed to mobilize international legitimacy...” It doesn’t overtly reject the concept of “armed struggle,” and occasionally speaks of a “struggle of all options,” which would include “armed struggle.” But most frequently it refers to “struggle” more generically. This includes a variety of other options, such as peaceful demonstrations, with “armed struggle” alluded to as something from the past.
The “Internal Order” - as is clear from its term of reference - is intended for use in-house (and includes procedural matters). As described above, it rejects negotiations and fervently and unambiguously embraces “armed struggle.”
The key to a genuine change in Fatah, then, would be modification of its “Internal Document.”
Hopes were high, as the Congress began on August 4:
“We have made mistakes,” said Mahmoud Abbas - head of Fatah and PA president - in his opening address. “Twenty years is too long. [This conference should be a] platform for a new start.”
But his words also carried a subtle endorsement of violence:
“Although peace is our choice, we reserve the right to resistance, legitimate under international law...
“We are not terrorists, and we reject a description of our legitimate struggle as terrorism. This will be our firm and lasting position.”
There was a nod early during the proceedings to Fatah’s terrorist past, as a moment of silence was called for the martyrs [i.e., terrorists] of Palestine, and reverence was duly expressed for Yasser Arafat. Discussion was held regarding whether Arafat had been poisoned; in the end, a resolution declared Israel responsible and called for an investigation. (In July, hard-liner Farouk Kaddoumi, secretary-general of the Central Committee, had accused Abbas himself of being involved in Arafat’s poisoning.)
After its first day, Conference proceedings deteriorated. In good part this was a reflection of enormous party rifts - old guard vs. new, hardliners vs. pragmatists, representatives of one region vs. those of another. Anger was expressed about persons not invited to the Conference and the manner in which nominees for the Central Committee were selected, indicating discontent with Abbas’s tight-fisted control. Commented one Fatah official: “There is so much corruption that is occurring from those who hold high positions that I don't think we can come together...”[3] Ahmed Qurei, chief PA negotiator during Annapolis negotiations, was so angry when he discovered that he had lost in the Central Committee elections that he questioned the vote-counting process, declaring that Fatah’s electoral fraud was even greater than Iran's.
On-going tensions so delayed proceedings that the Conference had to be prolonged by some days.
About half of the new members elected to the all-important Central Committee were from the “young guard,” but this is no assurance of increased moderation or revitalization in Fatah. Those who are considered “young” average about 50 years in age (compared to the age of “old guard” members, which is often over 70 years).
Two men elected from the “young guard” to the Central Committee elicit the greatest enthusiasm with regard to hope for change: Marwan Barghouti and Mohammad Dahlan, seen as pragmatists who, each in his way, might unite the party and combat corruption. There is more than a bit of irony in this regard, as Barghouti is serving multiple life sentences in an Israeli prison for his terrorist involvements, and Dahlan has been identified by the CIA and others as being directly associated with terrorism as well.
As it is, Dahlan came in only 10th of the 18 new members who were being elected. The biggest vote getter was Muhammad Ghneim, 71 (who, as an Abbas ally, helped to draft the list of attendees). A hard-liner opposed to Oslo, he for years remained self-exiled in Tunisia. Committed to the “total liberation of Palestine” he has vowed to keep the term “armed resistance” as part of the lexicon of Fatah’s program. A co-founder of Fatah, with Arafat, Abbas, and others, he has continued to maintain close ties with Abbas.
Coming in second was another Abbas ally, Mahmoud al-Aloul, former member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council; he had been a close associate of terrorist Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad) before Israel killed him in 1988.
As to increased moderation in Fatah policy, it would be difficult to say that any progress was made at the Congress. According to veteran Palestinian analyst Hussein Agha, “There was no real political discussion in Bethlehem at all..”[4]
A revised “Political Program,” contained in a 40-page document, was presented to the attendees for approval. It downplayed the concept of “armed resistance” but did not overtly reject it. (It was represented as a practice of the past that would have to be re-evaluated now.)
While it accepted negotiations in principle, across the board it advocated a hard-line: the suspension of peace talks until all Palestinian prisoners are released from Israeli jails, all settlement-building is frozen, and the Gaza blockade is lifted. Some analysts saw in this position an attempt to accommodate Hamas, with which Fatah was scheduled to discuss reconciliation shortly after the conference. Others interpreted this as a necessary attempt to mollify hard-liners within Fatah.
Meyrav Wurmser, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the Hudson Institute, described the Fatah position thus: “...What Fatah gives, if even somewhat vaguely, it then takes in starker terms. Whatever more peaceful language it adopted, was completely contradicted elsewhere in the document.”
With regard to the critical “Internal Document,” presented as a re-write at the conference, there was no change in substance: “armed resistance”(violence and terror as the means of achieving a Palestinian state) was unambiguously embraced and all international peace initiatives were rejected.
“It is a declaration of war on the State of Israel,” declared Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz (Likud), echoing a sentiment expressed by many.
=======================
Citations
[1] http://middleeastfacts.com/middle-east/the-fatah-constitution.php.
[2] http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=3062&TTL=Will_Fatah_Give_Up_the_Armed_Struggle_at_Its_Sixth_General_Congress ?#
[3] Sousan Hammad, who was present at the Conference, writing for Menassat, a website from Lebanon reporting on the Arab world.
[4] Cited on Electric Intifada, August 17, 2009.
By Arlene Kushner, Senior Research Policy Analyst, Center for Near East Policy Research
Fatah - which defines itself as a nationalist movement - is the dominant force within both the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the PA. There is no way to understand the possibilities for resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict without understanding its policies.
Contrasted routinely with Hamas, Fatah is seen as “moderate.”
Its constitution,[1] however, tells another story. Written in 1964, when Israel did not yet control the West Bank and Gaza, it uses terms such as “liberation” to refer exclusively to Israel within the Green Line, which it calls “Palestine.” The constitution states:
Liberating Palestine is a national obligation.
UN projects, accords and resolutions, or those of any individual country which undermine the Palestinian people's right in their homeland are illegal and rejected.
The Israeli existence in Palestine is a Zionist invasion with a colonial...base...
[A Fatah goal is] complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.
Armed public revolution is the inevitable method to liberating Palestine.
This struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated.
Many well-informed persons are unaware of this Fatah constitution. And many of those who are familiar with it believe it is an anachronism: That is, as Fatah itself has changed, post-Oslo, its original constitution, which has remained static, is rendered irrelevant.
The fact, however, is that Fatah has two faces. We see this revealed in the “Phased Program” adopted by the PLO in 1974. (Fatah was, and is, by far the largest and most influential faction of the PLO.) This program was an acknowl edgement that “total liberation” in one fell swoop had become unrealistic; instead there was to be a “Strategy of Stages” - to “give the appearance of moderation” while “total liberation” would be pursued slowly over time as Israel was weakened.
The summer of 2009 was not simply post-Oslo, it was also post-Annapolis. What is more, the new American president, reaching out to the Arab world, had made resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict a centerpiece of his administration.
It was an auspicious time for Fatah, if it truly was moderate, to come forth with a stance that definitively demonstrated this. It was the moment to renounce the positions of its pre-Oslo constitution to and speak in unambiguous terms about compromise, end of conflict, and recognition of Israel’s right to exist.
As it happened, Fatah had an extraordinary opportunity to do just that: In early August 2009, Fatah’s Sixth General Congress was held in Bethlehem.
This was a remarkable event historically, for even though its constitution requires the Congress - which is Fatah’s highest authority - to convene every five years, there had been no conference for 20 years.
Now some 2,000 delegates - most selected by Fatah head Mahmoud Abbas and his associates - came together, presumably prepared to establish new policies and elect new representatives to Fatah’s decision-making bodies: the 21-member Central Committee and the 120-member Revolutionary Council. Since the Congress had last met before Oslo, and since many of the leaders elected earlier were now either old or deceased, there was considerable international expectation that genuine changes for Fatah, reflecting new realities, might emerge from the Congress.
On the eve of the Congress, (Arabic-speaking) journalist and commentator Pinchas Inbari, writing for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs,[2] provided insight into the process that was about to unfold. Two documents would be discussed and approved at the Congress: The Political Program, which could be seen as promoting a political process, and the Constitution, referred to by Inbari as the “Internal Order.”
Here we see Fatah’s two faces. The Political Program, which moves in the direction of a political solution, “tries to accommodate international expectations and seems designed to mobilize international legitimacy...” It doesn’t overtly reject the concept of “armed struggle,” and occasionally speaks of a “struggle of all options,” which would include “armed struggle.” But most frequently it refers to “struggle” more generically. This includes a variety of other options, such as peaceful demonstrations, with “armed struggle” alluded to as something from the past.
The “Internal Order” - as is clear from its term of reference - is intended for use in-house (and includes procedural matters). As described above, it rejects negotiations and fervently and unambiguously embraces “armed struggle.”
The key to a genuine change in Fatah, then, would be modification of its “Internal Document.”
Hopes were high, as the Congress began on August 4:
“We have made mistakes,” said Mahmoud Abbas - head of Fatah and PA president - in his opening address. “Twenty years is too long. [This conference should be a] platform for a new start.”
But his words also carried a subtle endorsement of violence:
“Although peace is our choice, we reserve the right to resistance, legitimate under international law...
“We are not terrorists, and we reject a description of our legitimate struggle as terrorism. This will be our firm and lasting position.”
There was a nod early during the proceedings to Fatah’s terrorist past, as a moment of silence was called for the martyrs [i.e., terrorists] of Palestine, and reverence was duly expressed for Yasser Arafat. Discussion was held regarding whether Arafat had been poisoned; in the end, a resolution declared Israel responsible and called for an investigation. (In July, hard-liner Farouk Kaddoumi, secretary-general of the Central Committee, had accused Abbas himself of being involved in Arafat’s poisoning.)
After its first day, Conference proceedings deteriorated. In good part this was a reflection of enormous party rifts - old guard vs. new, hardliners vs. pragmatists, representatives of one region vs. those of another. Anger was expressed about persons not invited to the Conference and the manner in which nominees for the Central Committee were selected, indicating discontent with Abbas’s tight-fisted control. Commented one Fatah official: “There is so much corruption that is occurring from those who hold high positions that I don't think we can come together...”[3] Ahmed Qurei, chief PA negotiator during Annapolis negotiations, was so angry when he discovered that he had lost in the Central Committee elections that he questioned the vote-counting process, declaring that Fatah’s electoral fraud was even greater than Iran's.
On-going tensions so delayed proceedings that the Conference had to be prolonged by some days.
About half of the new members elected to the all-important Central Committee were from the “young guard,” but this is no assurance of increased moderation or revitalization in Fatah. Those who are considered “young” average about 50 years in age (compared to the age of “old guard” members, which is often over 70 years).
Two men elected from the “young guard” to the Central Committee elicit the greatest enthusiasm with regard to hope for change: Marwan Barghouti and Mohammad Dahlan, seen as pragmatists who, each in his way, might unite the party and combat corruption. There is more than a bit of irony in this regard, as Barghouti is serving multiple life sentences in an Israeli prison for his terrorist involvements, and Dahlan has been identified by the CIA and others as being directly associated with terrorism as well.
As it is, Dahlan came in only 10th of the 18 new members who were being elected. The biggest vote getter was Muhammad Ghneim, 71 (who, as an Abbas ally, helped to draft the list of attendees). A hard-liner opposed to Oslo, he for years remained self-exiled in Tunisia. Committed to the “total liberation of Palestine” he has vowed to keep the term “armed resistance” as part of the lexicon of Fatah’s program. A co-founder of Fatah, with Arafat, Abbas, and others, he has continued to maintain close ties with Abbas.
Coming in second was another Abbas ally, Mahmoud al-Aloul, former member of the Fatah Revolutionary Council; he had been a close associate of terrorist Khalil al-Wazir (Abu Jihad) before Israel killed him in 1988.
As to increased moderation in Fatah policy, it would be difficult to say that any progress was made at the Congress. According to veteran Palestinian analyst Hussein Agha, “There was no real political discussion in Bethlehem at all..”[4]
A revised “Political Program,” contained in a 40-page document, was presented to the attendees for approval. It downplayed the concept of “armed resistance” but did not overtly reject it. (It was represented as a practice of the past that would have to be re-evaluated now.)
While it accepted negotiations in principle, across the board it advocated a hard-line: the suspension of peace talks until all Palestinian prisoners are released from Israeli jails, all settlement-building is frozen, and the Gaza blockade is lifted. Some analysts saw in this position an attempt to accommodate Hamas, with which Fatah was scheduled to discuss reconciliation shortly after the conference. Others interpreted this as a necessary attempt to mollify hard-liners within Fatah.
Meyrav Wurmser, director of the Center for Middle East Studies at the Hudson Institute, described the Fatah position thus: “...What Fatah gives, if even somewhat vaguely, it then takes in starker terms. Whatever more peaceful language it adopted, was completely contradicted elsewhere in the document.”
With regard to the critical “Internal Document,” presented as a re-write at the conference, there was no change in substance: “armed resistance”(violence and terror as the means of achieving a Palestinian state) was unambiguously embraced and all international peace initiatives were rejected.
“It is a declaration of war on the State of Israel,” declared Transportation Minister Yisrael Katz (Likud), echoing a sentiment expressed by many.
=======================
Citations
[1] http://middleeastfacts.com/middle-east/the-fatah-constitution.php.
[2] http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=442&PID=0&IID=3062&TTL=Will_Fatah_Give_Up_the_Armed_Struggle_at_Its_Sixth_General_Congress ?#
[3] Sousan Hammad, who was present at the Conference, writing for Menassat, a website from Lebanon reporting on the Arab world.
[4] Cited on Electric Intifada, August 17, 2009.
Monday, November 2, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Republican Jewish Coalition Opposes Obama’s Appointment Of Hagel
by David Bedein
WASHINGTON - Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks has expressed opposition to President Obama’s appointment of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as co-chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.
In a strongly worded statement issued by the RJC, Mr. Brooks writes that “Chuck Hagel’s troubling record on critical foreign policy issues makes this appointment a matter for serious concern. There has been bipartisan criticism of his positions on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his record on Iran has been very worrisome as well.”
Mr. Brooks view of Mr. Hagel’s record over the years is Mr. Hagel’s record reflects “a fundamental misunderstanding of the region and of the nature of the threats to U.S. interests in the region.”
Brooks says that “Hagel does not seem to understand that the U.S. and Israel are fighting a war against terrorists whose agenda is an existential threat to our free and democratic system.”
Mr. Hagel wrote in a 2002 op-ed in the Washington Post that then-President George W. Bush erred in refusing to meet with Yasser Arafat and that Arafat and his support for terrorism against Israel were not the real issue. He wrote: “We cannot hold the Middle East peace process hostage by making Yasser Arafat the issue... Palestinian reformers cannot promote a democratic agenda for change while both the Israeli military occupation and settlement activity continue.”
Mr. Hagel’s record also includes some indications that he sees those who support a strong and safe Israel as having dual loyalties. In an interview quoted in Aaron David Miller’s book on the peace process called The Much Too Promised Land, Mr. Hagel said: “The political reality is that... the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.”
Mr. Hagel once described a meeting he had in New York with a group of supporters of Israel, one of whom suggested Mr. Hagel wasn’t supportive enough of Israel.
Mr. Hagel responded: “Let me clear something up here, if there’s any doubt in your mind. I’m a United States Senator. I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States Senator. I support Israel. But my first interest is, I took an oath of office to the constitution of the United States, not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel.”
In terms of Mr. Hagel’s record on Iran, in October 2008, he prevented action on a Senate bill - sponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama - proposing economic sanctions against Iran. Mr. Hagel has argued that, “Whether we like it or not, there will be no peace or stability in the Middle East without Iran’s participation,” and opposed this kind of U.S. pressure on Iran.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
WASHINGTON - Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks has expressed opposition to President Obama’s appointment of former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel as co-chair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.
In a strongly worded statement issued by the RJC, Mr. Brooks writes that “Chuck Hagel’s troubling record on critical foreign policy issues makes this appointment a matter for serious concern. There has been bipartisan criticism of his positions on Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his record on Iran has been very worrisome as well.”
Mr. Brooks view of Mr. Hagel’s record over the years is Mr. Hagel’s record reflects “a fundamental misunderstanding of the region and of the nature of the threats to U.S. interests in the region.”
Brooks says that “Hagel does not seem to understand that the U.S. and Israel are fighting a war against terrorists whose agenda is an existential threat to our free and democratic system.”
Mr. Hagel wrote in a 2002 op-ed in the Washington Post that then-President George W. Bush erred in refusing to meet with Yasser Arafat and that Arafat and his support for terrorism against Israel were not the real issue. He wrote: “We cannot hold the Middle East peace process hostage by making Yasser Arafat the issue... Palestinian reformers cannot promote a democratic agenda for change while both the Israeli military occupation and settlement activity continue.”
Mr. Hagel’s record also includes some indications that he sees those who support a strong and safe Israel as having dual loyalties. In an interview quoted in Aaron David Miller’s book on the peace process called The Much Too Promised Land, Mr. Hagel said: “The political reality is that... the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here.”
Mr. Hagel once described a meeting he had in New York with a group of supporters of Israel, one of whom suggested Mr. Hagel wasn’t supportive enough of Israel.
Mr. Hagel responded: “Let me clear something up here, if there’s any doubt in your mind. I’m a United States Senator. I’m not an Israeli senator. I’m a United States Senator. I support Israel. But my first interest is, I took an oath of office to the constitution of the United States, not to a president, not to a party, not to Israel.”
In terms of Mr. Hagel’s record on Iran, in October 2008, he prevented action on a Senate bill - sponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama - proposing economic sanctions against Iran. Mr. Hagel has argued that, “Whether we like it or not, there will be no peace or stability in the Middle East without Iran’s participation,” and opposed this kind of U.S. pressure on Iran.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
