by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - Israel does not intend to give up on the Pacific Ocean islands and let them fall into the hands of Iran, as happened with the Solomon Islands. The support of the Solomon Islands, however, was “bought” by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s country for a grant of only $200,000.
Next month, the presidents of three of the island states that are considered strong supporters of Israel - Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Nauru, will be coming to Israel for an official visit. They will meet with Israeli President Shimon Peres and, perhaps, also with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and will be paid royal honors.
Israeli officials ascribe great importance to the support of these Pacific islands, mainly because it can be transferred easily from one side to another. A year ago, Iran signed a memorandum with the Solomon Islands stating that it would fund scholarships in the amount of $200,000 for students living there to study medicine in Cuba. The payment was not long in coming: The Solomon Islands voted in the United Nations (U.N.) for adopting the conclusions of the Goldstone Report, which blasted Israel for its counterattack in Gaza last year.
The vote surprised Israel because the Solomon Islands were considered a strong ally.
“This is part of a long-term effort to preserve and nurture relations with countries with which we would like to keep in contact,” explained Michael Ronen, the director-general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s Pacific desk. Mr. Ronen, who also serves as the ambassador to these islands, emphasized that Israel does not intend to offer money, as Iran did. “I will defeat the Iranians on my court by offering humanitarian and medical assistance, which Israel has made sure to give these islands throughout the years, without promising money or making my assistance conditional upon political support, as the Iranians have done,” he said.
The Pacific Ocean region has sixteen countries, including Australia and New Zealand. All the rest are tiny countries. Since size does not matter, the votes of 13 of these countries matter in votes that take place in the U.N. Tiny Micronesia’s vote is equal to that of enormous China.
Israel was among the first of the countries outside the Pacific region to recognize the independence of the island nations in the 1980s and formed diplomatic relations with them. Since then, Israel has worked a great deal in those countries, sending them medical equipment, vaccines, medicines and medical specialists. Thus, for example, an Israeli ear, nose and throat specialist has been in Nauru for the past three weeks at the request of the Nauruan government. Equipment worth $130,000 was sent to Samoa as assistance in coping with the damage from the latest tsunami. Israel also assisted the Solomon Islands, despite its vote in favor of the Goldstone Report, and continued to send it medical equipment in order to help it cope with diabetes, which is widespread there. The result of this ongoing assistance has been that in the U.N. votes, these countries have supported Israel or abstained from voting against it.
However, in recent years, countries such as Iran, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba have tried to change this situation by means of money, and Israel is trying to stop this from happening.
“Israel extends its hand to all countries, great and small,” Mr. Ronen said. “In the Pacific region, we have found tiny and far-flung states that know a great deal more about us than we know about them, and that have shown us extraordinary friendship. In the U.N., there is an almost absolute majority against Israel and, therefore, we are making every effort to keep them with us.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Monday, December 7, 2009
Hamas, Hezbollah Continue Partnership
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - Hamas terror organization representatives in Lebanon, led by Osama Hamdan, Hamas's bureau director in Beirut, met Wednesday with Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah.
Hamas Political Bureau Director Khaled Mashaal has recently revealed that his organization had consulted several times with Hezbollah's leadership.
This meeting carries new significance, since Hezbollah, this week, assumed the role of a full coalition partner in the Lebanese government.
As part of the official coalition agreement, Hezbollah inserted a clause to renew the official state of war that exists between Lebanon and Israel since 1948.
Unlike Jordan and Egypt, which have signed official peace treaties with Israel to end the state of war that had existed since 1948, Lebanon has only signed armistice agreements since the 1948 war. The new government in Lebanon, at the urging of Hezbollah, issued a statement on Thursday that, “The armed struggle with Israel will continue until all conquered land in the hands of Israel is recovered," referring to the entire land mass that composes the current state of Israel.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - Hamas terror organization representatives in Lebanon, led by Osama Hamdan, Hamas's bureau director in Beirut, met Wednesday with Hezbollah Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah.
Hamas Political Bureau Director Khaled Mashaal has recently revealed that his organization had consulted several times with Hezbollah's leadership.
This meeting carries new significance, since Hezbollah, this week, assumed the role of a full coalition partner in the Lebanese government.
As part of the official coalition agreement, Hezbollah inserted a clause to renew the official state of war that exists between Lebanon and Israel since 1948.
Unlike Jordan and Egypt, which have signed official peace treaties with Israel to end the state of war that had existed since 1948, Lebanon has only signed armistice agreements since the 1948 war. The new government in Lebanon, at the urging of Hezbollah, issued a statement on Thursday that, “The armed struggle with Israel will continue until all conquered land in the hands of Israel is recovered," referring to the entire land mass that composes the current state of Israel.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Lieberman, Berman Fail To Press Fayyad
Lieberman, Berman Fail To Press Fayyad
Monday, December 07, 2009
Jerusalem - At a recent press conference in Ramallah, Jerusalem Post Editor David Horovitz described how “two staunch Jewish supporters of Israel,” Senator Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., former Democratic vice presidential candidate, and current Representative Howard Berman, D-Ca., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “nodded their encouragement” when Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Salam Fayyad explained how he was preparing Palestinians for statehood. Mr. Fayyad outlined a Palestinian state in formation regarding security forces, the economy, and civic institutions, with an optimistic sense of what the PA is achieving.
Regrettably, Senator Lieberman and Representative Berman did not use the press conference to raise some troublesome questions, conveying the notion that all is well with Palestinian statehood plans.
Questions that Senator Lieberman, Rep. Berman or Mr. Horovitz could have asked might have centered around these issues:
Renunciation Of PLO State Of War With Israel
The charter of Fatah, the predominant element in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the PA, to this day, continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Written in 1964, before Israel controlled the West Bank and Gaza, it uses the term “Palestine” to refer exclusively to Israel within the Green Line. The charter declares that “Liberating Palestine is a national obligation,” and that “Armed public revolution is the inevitable method” for doing so. This cannot be dismissed as an irrelevant anachronism. Last August, Fatah held its first General Congress in 20 years. Hope was held out for a charter revision, with violence officially renounced, but it never happened. Instead, Fatah continued to unambiguously embrace “armed resistance” to liberate Palestine.
Cessation Of Incitement From PA Textbooks
The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Tolerance in School Education has issued six reports on new PA textbooks issued over the last eight years. Journalist and scholar Dr. Arnon Groiss, who translated these PA textbooks, has just completed an update. He writes that the new PA texts:
• Deny the historical and religious presence of Jews in Palestine.
• Fail to recognize the State of Israel.
• Demonize Jews and Israel.
• Assign blame for the conflict exclusively on Israel, totally absolving Palestinians.
• Stress the idea of a violent struggle of liberation rather than a peaceful settlement.
It is disingenuous for Mr. Fayyad to profess dedication to peace, while the PA curriculum infuses these ideas within its youngsters. Peace is impossible until the message changes. Why do visiting elected officials and journalists not hold Mr. Fayyad and the PA accountable for the new PA textbooks?
Cessation Of PA Pursuit Of Hamas As A Partner
The PA inclination to participate in a government that includes Hamas remains an “elephant in the room” that the international community, somewhat inexplicably, has chosen to ignore: Hamas is recognized by the U.S. and the European Union as a terrorist entity. Yet, in March 2007, Fatah and Hamas briefly formed a “unity government,” negotiated by Saudi Arabia via the Mecca Accord, which saw Fatah acceding to Hamas demands. It fell apart with the Hamas coup in Gaza, but, in recent months the news is awash with reports of negotiations via Egypt for a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. Pursuing negotiations with Israel and Hamas at one and the same time is not acceptable. Why not ask the PA to make a choice?
Renunciation Of The “Right Of Return”
The “right of return,” promoted for 60 years by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and embraced by the PA as a non-negotiable right, remains a recipe for the destruction of Israel from within. If Mr. Fayyad and the PA are serious about peace, why not ask them to accept the principle of permanent resettlement of the refugees? The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), which oversees all refugees except Palestinians, operates according to this principle. Only Palestinian refugees are not resettled, but, instead, for purely political reasons, are forced to linger in a rage-inducing state of limbo. Mr. Fayyad, in his master plan for a Palestinian state, openly states that he supports the “right of return.” Isn’t it time to ask for Senator Lieberman and Representative Berman to ask Mr. Fayyad and the PA to openly embrace the UNHCR policy and pave the way for UNRWA to adjust its mandate?
David Bedein can be reached at bedein@thebulletin.us
Monday, December 07, 2009
Jerusalem - At a recent press conference in Ramallah, Jerusalem Post Editor David Horovitz described how “two staunch Jewish supporters of Israel,” Senator Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., former Democratic vice presidential candidate, and current Representative Howard Berman, D-Ca., chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, “nodded their encouragement” when Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister Salam Fayyad explained how he was preparing Palestinians for statehood. Mr. Fayyad outlined a Palestinian state in formation regarding security forces, the economy, and civic institutions, with an optimistic sense of what the PA is achieving.
Regrettably, Senator Lieberman and Representative Berman did not use the press conference to raise some troublesome questions, conveying the notion that all is well with Palestinian statehood plans.
Questions that Senator Lieberman, Rep. Berman or Mr. Horovitz could have asked might have centered around these issues:
Renunciation Of PLO State Of War With Israel
The charter of Fatah, the predominant element in the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the PA, to this day, continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Written in 1964, before Israel controlled the West Bank and Gaza, it uses the term “Palestine” to refer exclusively to Israel within the Green Line. The charter declares that “Liberating Palestine is a national obligation,” and that “Armed public revolution is the inevitable method” for doing so. This cannot be dismissed as an irrelevant anachronism. Last August, Fatah held its first General Congress in 20 years. Hope was held out for a charter revision, with violence officially renounced, but it never happened. Instead, Fatah continued to unambiguously embrace “armed resistance” to liberate Palestine.
Cessation Of Incitement From PA Textbooks
The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Tolerance in School Education has issued six reports on new PA textbooks issued over the last eight years. Journalist and scholar Dr. Arnon Groiss, who translated these PA textbooks, has just completed an update. He writes that the new PA texts:
• Deny the historical and religious presence of Jews in Palestine.
• Fail to recognize the State of Israel.
• Demonize Jews and Israel.
• Assign blame for the conflict exclusively on Israel, totally absolving Palestinians.
• Stress the idea of a violent struggle of liberation rather than a peaceful settlement.
It is disingenuous for Mr. Fayyad to profess dedication to peace, while the PA curriculum infuses these ideas within its youngsters. Peace is impossible until the message changes. Why do visiting elected officials and journalists not hold Mr. Fayyad and the PA accountable for the new PA textbooks?
Cessation Of PA Pursuit Of Hamas As A Partner
The PA inclination to participate in a government that includes Hamas remains an “elephant in the room” that the international community, somewhat inexplicably, has chosen to ignore: Hamas is recognized by the U.S. and the European Union as a terrorist entity. Yet, in March 2007, Fatah and Hamas briefly formed a “unity government,” negotiated by Saudi Arabia via the Mecca Accord, which saw Fatah acceding to Hamas demands. It fell apart with the Hamas coup in Gaza, but, in recent months the news is awash with reports of negotiations via Egypt for a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. Pursuing negotiations with Israel and Hamas at one and the same time is not acceptable. Why not ask the PA to make a choice?
Renunciation Of The “Right Of Return”
The “right of return,” promoted for 60 years by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and embraced by the PA as a non-negotiable right, remains a recipe for the destruction of Israel from within. If Mr. Fayyad and the PA are serious about peace, why not ask them to accept the principle of permanent resettlement of the refugees? The United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), which oversees all refugees except Palestinians, operates according to this principle. Only Palestinian refugees are not resettled, but, instead, for purely political reasons, are forced to linger in a rage-inducing state of limbo. Mr. Fayyad, in his master plan for a Palestinian state, openly states that he supports the “right of return.” Isn’t it time to ask for Senator Lieberman and Representative Berman to ask Mr. Fayyad and the PA to openly embrace the UNHCR policy and pave the way for UNRWA to adjust its mandate?
David Bedein can be reached at bedein@thebulletin.us
Friday, December 4, 2009
Palestinians Uncompromising on Right of Return
As originally published in the Winnipeg Jewish Report
By Rhonda Spivak
BETHLEHEM- Although many Palestinians in the West Bank say they are interested in "peace," the vast majority of those encountered on a recent visit to the area, insisted that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a right to return to homes and villages they left during the 1948 Israeli War of Independence.
Osama Alhrithi, a fourth-year law student at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, said that even if Israel withdrew to the Green Line[ Israel's pre-1967 borders] and all Jewish settlements over the Green Line were dismantled, any Palestinian refugee who wants to return to his home that he left in 1948 should be able to come back."There are a lot of Palestinian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon, and if they want to come back, that is their holy right," he said.
Rami Sleimyyeh, a Muslim who works as a liaison officer for the Palestinian Authority in Hebron, nodded in agreement with Althrithi. Alhrithi's view that Israel, rather than a future Palestinian state, ought to be obliged to take in waves of Palestinian refugees was typical even among those who said they supported Fatah, not Hamas. It was also the predominant view among those people whom The Winnipeg Jewish Report encountered at a conference devoted to promoting dialogue and peace, held in Beit Jalla, near Bethlehem, put on by the Israel-Palestine Centre for Research and Information this past summer.
Ra'id Abdalla Otair, director of the Palestinian Authority's ministry of health in Tulkarem, said: "All refugees in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and elsewhere should be asked to come back to their land in Israel, in Haifa, and Jaffa and Akko."
Otair, who is also the representative for the NGO, Future Vision, dismissed the possibility that Palestinian refugees would receive some form of financial compensation and return only to a future Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. "People in Tulkarem like [to have] all Palestine," he said.
Badia Dweik, from Hebron who also attended the conference, said he became disenchanted with Fatah after former PA president Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo accords, because, among other things, it didn't deal with the refugee issue.
"The two-state solution is a big lie. Most of my friends are pushing for a one-state solution [where Jews would be a minority in a Palestinian majority between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River]. When there is 'one state', the Palestinian refugees can live wherever they want. Maybe the refugee can come back to the same house he left if it is still there. Maybe a refugee from Lebanon can come back to Haifa, and even if his house has been demolished, he can still live in that area."
Sumayah Soboh, a Muslim sociologist from Bethlehem, who also advocates a one-state solution, said: "Any Palestinian refugees who want can return to their land. Maybe the one state could be called 'Jew Palestina.' I am angry with Fatah for saying there could be two states. There shouldn't be a Jewish state, but just one state, one leader, one God, one people."
Soboh's sister, Mary, an occupational therapist, and her mother, Jamileh, a speech therapist, both agreed with her.
Firas Arafat, a pharmacist from Hebron, said that only if Israel returned to the pre-67 borders and dismantled all of settlements would he agree to forgo the right of return."I know [former U.S. president] Jimmy Carter just came to the Gush Etzion Jewish settlement [in June 2009] and told the Jews there that they would remain part of Israel in the future. I respect Jimmy Carter, but I don't agree. Israel must get out of every Jewish settlement in the West Bank," he said.
Mari Sadi, a Christian Palestinian artist from Bethlehem, said "We hope that all of the refugees will be able to come back. I have many relatives in Jordan and the U.S. and a lot of different lands. They are from Nazareth and Haifa and Jaffa, and they should be able to come back. They will want to come back."
Inam Mitwassi and Laila Nazzal, Christian Palestinian artisans in Bethlehem, agreed with Sadi that Israel should go back to the '67 line and Palestinian refugees should be able to return to the pre-67 Israel. Lorette Zoughbi, who runs a small patisserie in Bethlehem, said she accepted the two-state solution. "If we ask for everything, all we'll get is nothing." But then she added, "My grandfather had a house in Katamon and in Jaffa. I still have the keys. We' ll never give up our land."
Only a small number of Palestinians encountered, appeared willing to make concessions regarding the issue of Palestinian refugees. Fatima, a Muslim Palestinian said she believed "there should be a "Palestine and Israel," and she added, "We must finish this conflict. To end it, refugees should return only to the Palestinian state."
When contacted to discuss these findings, Guy Lupo, the chairperson of the dovish organization, One Voice, in Be-ersheba said that polls done by his organization have shown that "most Palestinians want recognition of their right of return, but most will not actually use the right of return."
He added that the maximum figure for the number of refugees and their descendents spead out everywhere in the world is 11 million. If one percent returned, "then we'd be talking about 100,000 people. Israelis fear that it could be 10% [ of Palestinian refugees]that return, which would be 1 million people. This issue is not something that can be solved tommorrow. But we think that there is a way to market the issue to the Palestinian people in the context of an overall agreeement. Some Palestinians will be willing to give up recognition of the right of return. Others will be satisfied with recognition only, others will agree to compensation in lieu of returning, and about 100,000 people could be allowed to return on the basis of the principle of family unification."
Rhonda Spivak is an attorney and writer. She is a member of the Canadian & Israel Bar Associations, and now edits the Winnipeg Jewish Report
By Rhonda Spivak
BETHLEHEM- Although many Palestinians in the West Bank say they are interested in "peace," the vast majority of those encountered on a recent visit to the area, insisted that Palestinian refugees and their descendants have a right to return to homes and villages they left during the 1948 Israeli War of Independence.
Osama Alhrithi, a fourth-year law student at Al-Quds University in Jerusalem, said that even if Israel withdrew to the Green Line[ Israel's pre-1967 borders] and all Jewish settlements over the Green Line were dismantled, any Palestinian refugee who wants to return to his home that he left in 1948 should be able to come back."There are a lot of Palestinian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon, and if they want to come back, that is their holy right," he said.
Rami Sleimyyeh, a Muslim who works as a liaison officer for the Palestinian Authority in Hebron, nodded in agreement with Althrithi. Alhrithi's view that Israel, rather than a future Palestinian state, ought to be obliged to take in waves of Palestinian refugees was typical even among those who said they supported Fatah, not Hamas. It was also the predominant view among those people whom The Winnipeg Jewish Report encountered at a conference devoted to promoting dialogue and peace, held in Beit Jalla, near Bethlehem, put on by the Israel-Palestine Centre for Research and Information this past summer.
Ra'id Abdalla Otair, director of the Palestinian Authority's ministry of health in Tulkarem, said: "All refugees in Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and elsewhere should be asked to come back to their land in Israel, in Haifa, and Jaffa and Akko."
Otair, who is also the representative for the NGO, Future Vision, dismissed the possibility that Palestinian refugees would receive some form of financial compensation and return only to a future Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. "People in Tulkarem like [to have] all Palestine," he said.
Badia Dweik, from Hebron who also attended the conference, said he became disenchanted with Fatah after former PA president Yasser Arafat signed the Oslo accords, because, among other things, it didn't deal with the refugee issue.
"The two-state solution is a big lie. Most of my friends are pushing for a one-state solution [where Jews would be a minority in a Palestinian majority between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River]. When there is 'one state', the Palestinian refugees can live wherever they want. Maybe the refugee can come back to the same house he left if it is still there. Maybe a refugee from Lebanon can come back to Haifa, and even if his house has been demolished, he can still live in that area."
Sumayah Soboh, a Muslim sociologist from Bethlehem, who also advocates a one-state solution, said: "Any Palestinian refugees who want can return to their land. Maybe the one state could be called 'Jew Palestina.' I am angry with Fatah for saying there could be two states. There shouldn't be a Jewish state, but just one state, one leader, one God, one people."
Soboh's sister, Mary, an occupational therapist, and her mother, Jamileh, a speech therapist, both agreed with her.
Firas Arafat, a pharmacist from Hebron, said that only if Israel returned to the pre-67 borders and dismantled all of settlements would he agree to forgo the right of return."I know [former U.S. president] Jimmy Carter just came to the Gush Etzion Jewish settlement [in June 2009] and told the Jews there that they would remain part of Israel in the future. I respect Jimmy Carter, but I don't agree. Israel must get out of every Jewish settlement in the West Bank," he said.
Mari Sadi, a Christian Palestinian artist from Bethlehem, said "We hope that all of the refugees will be able to come back. I have many relatives in Jordan and the U.S. and a lot of different lands. They are from Nazareth and Haifa and Jaffa, and they should be able to come back. They will want to come back."
Inam Mitwassi and Laila Nazzal, Christian Palestinian artisans in Bethlehem, agreed with Sadi that Israel should go back to the '67 line and Palestinian refugees should be able to return to the pre-67 Israel. Lorette Zoughbi, who runs a small patisserie in Bethlehem, said she accepted the two-state solution. "If we ask for everything, all we'll get is nothing." But then she added, "My grandfather had a house in Katamon and in Jaffa. I still have the keys. We' ll never give up our land."
Only a small number of Palestinians encountered, appeared willing to make concessions regarding the issue of Palestinian refugees. Fatima, a Muslim Palestinian said she believed "there should be a "Palestine and Israel," and she added, "We must finish this conflict. To end it, refugees should return only to the Palestinian state."
When contacted to discuss these findings, Guy Lupo, the chairperson of the dovish organization, One Voice, in Be-ersheba said that polls done by his organization have shown that "most Palestinians want recognition of their right of return, but most will not actually use the right of return."
He added that the maximum figure for the number of refugees and their descendents spead out everywhere in the world is 11 million. If one percent returned, "then we'd be talking about 100,000 people. Israelis fear that it could be 10% [ of Palestinian refugees]that return, which would be 1 million people. This issue is not something that can be solved tommorrow. But we think that there is a way to market the issue to the Palestinian people in the context of an overall agreeement. Some Palestinians will be willing to give up recognition of the right of return. Others will be satisfied with recognition only, others will agree to compensation in lieu of returning, and about 100,000 people could be allowed to return on the basis of the principle of family unification."
Rhonda Spivak is an attorney and writer. She is a member of the Canadian & Israel Bar Associations, and now edits the Winnipeg Jewish Report
Saturday, November 28, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Turkish Jews Living under the Threat of Extremism
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - A nervous Rabbi recently appeared at The Bulletin’s bureau in Jerusalem and related that the small Jewish community in Turkey feels threatened by the new Islamic resurgence and by the new Turkish alliance with Iran.
As a result, there is a a significant increase in the number of Jews leaving Turkey and immigrating to Israel.
One hundred and thirty five immigrants from Turkey have made the journey this year, compared with 108 in 2008.
The Jewish Agency predicts that, by the year’s end, some 200 immigrants will have come, nearly twice as many as in previous years.
The assessment is based on the fact that, for the first time in many years, Jewish Agency representatives are being swamped with calls. As of now there is a 100 percent increase in those expressing interest in immigrating to Israel, inquiring as to their rights and obligations - and for the first time, a long list of Jews hoping to relocate their businesses from Turkey to Israel.
Most of those asking to register as new immigrants explain that this is due to the new extremist attitudes towards Jews in Turkey.
One of those who have registered, a 39-yard-old father of four who did not give his name, is the owner of a large and prosperous shop in the capital. The man decided to sell his business and move to Israel.
“We are being harassed, Turkey is no longer the same Turkey. They listen to the words of the prime minister and refrain from setting foot in Jewish shops. Turkey is falling into extremism,” he explained.
He said that many of his Jewish colleagues were leaving for the West, not only to Israel, and others were considering doing so.
“We anticipated that the number of people interested in moving to Israel was going to rise, but we didn’t anticipate that there would be such a large number of people who wanted to immigrate and so swiftly,” said a senior Jewish Agency executive. He said that 600 Jews were expected to immigrate to Israel from Turkey in 2010, which is an unprecedented number.
Eli Cohen, the director of the Aliyah Department in the Jewish Agency, personally oversees the immigration of Turkish Jews told the Yediot Ahronot newspaper that “2009 is going to be a very successful year in terms of Aliyah - immigration to Israel - mainly from Turkey. We are pleased with this and have been operating to absorb them across Israel in the best way possible.”
Mr. Cohen said that there has been a 20 percent rise around the world in immigration to Israel, after years in which interest had declined, and that interest in Turkey was significantly higher than that.
“That proves that Israel is the home of the Jewish people. We serve as a safe haven for Jews. We do everything we can to improve the methods of absorption and to give the new immigrants a sense of belonging,” said Mr. Cohen.
Three Jewish families that came from Turkey not long ago currently live in an absorption center in Ashdod. One of the families explained yesterday that the reason they decided to immigrate to Israel was the sense that the Turkish public was taking the statements made by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan into action.
“I was born in Turkey, I grew up in Turkey, I know the Turks, and they’re tolerant of Jews. Regrettably, in the past year there has been a shift that has hurt the Jews. Curses, anti-Semitic comments, radicalization on the street - all of that left me with no choice. I took my family and immigrated to Israel. Some of my extended family intends to immigrate to Israel or to uproot for America,” said one woman who recently moved to Israel from Turkey.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - A nervous Rabbi recently appeared at The Bulletin’s bureau in Jerusalem and related that the small Jewish community in Turkey feels threatened by the new Islamic resurgence and by the new Turkish alliance with Iran.
As a result, there is a a significant increase in the number of Jews leaving Turkey and immigrating to Israel.
One hundred and thirty five immigrants from Turkey have made the journey this year, compared with 108 in 2008.
The Jewish Agency predicts that, by the year’s end, some 200 immigrants will have come, nearly twice as many as in previous years.
The assessment is based on the fact that, for the first time in many years, Jewish Agency representatives are being swamped with calls. As of now there is a 100 percent increase in those expressing interest in immigrating to Israel, inquiring as to their rights and obligations - and for the first time, a long list of Jews hoping to relocate their businesses from Turkey to Israel.
Most of those asking to register as new immigrants explain that this is due to the new extremist attitudes towards Jews in Turkey.
One of those who have registered, a 39-yard-old father of four who did not give his name, is the owner of a large and prosperous shop in the capital. The man decided to sell his business and move to Israel.
“We are being harassed, Turkey is no longer the same Turkey. They listen to the words of the prime minister and refrain from setting foot in Jewish shops. Turkey is falling into extremism,” he explained.
He said that many of his Jewish colleagues were leaving for the West, not only to Israel, and others were considering doing so.
“We anticipated that the number of people interested in moving to Israel was going to rise, but we didn’t anticipate that there would be such a large number of people who wanted to immigrate and so swiftly,” said a senior Jewish Agency executive. He said that 600 Jews were expected to immigrate to Israel from Turkey in 2010, which is an unprecedented number.
Eli Cohen, the director of the Aliyah Department in the Jewish Agency, personally oversees the immigration of Turkish Jews told the Yediot Ahronot newspaper that “2009 is going to be a very successful year in terms of Aliyah - immigration to Israel - mainly from Turkey. We are pleased with this and have been operating to absorb them across Israel in the best way possible.”
Mr. Cohen said that there has been a 20 percent rise around the world in immigration to Israel, after years in which interest had declined, and that interest in Turkey was significantly higher than that.
“That proves that Israel is the home of the Jewish people. We serve as a safe haven for Jews. We do everything we can to improve the methods of absorption and to give the new immigrants a sense of belonging,” said Mr. Cohen.
Three Jewish families that came from Turkey not long ago currently live in an absorption center in Ashdod. One of the families explained yesterday that the reason they decided to immigrate to Israel was the sense that the Turkish public was taking the statements made by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan into action.
“I was born in Turkey, I grew up in Turkey, I know the Turks, and they’re tolerant of Jews. Regrettably, in the past year there has been a shift that has hurt the Jews. Curses, anti-Semitic comments, radicalization on the street - all of that left me with no choice. I took my family and immigrated to Israel. Some of my extended family intends to immigrate to Israel or to uproot for America,” said one woman who recently moved to Israel from Turkey.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Turkey, Austria Fail to Play Israeli Anthem at Sporting Events
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - Moments after her moving victory in the world junior chess championship, Marcel Efroimsky of Kfar Saba, Israel, stood proudly at the podium as the new world champion. She grasped her silver cup, stole another glance at the gold medal around her neck, and expected the Israeli national anthem to be played in the background, as is customary in every competition. But silence filled the air. An irksome silence.
Ms. Efroimsky, 14, comes from a dynasty of chess masters. She began playing at the age of 6 and at 9 competed in her first world championship. Her dream came true when she won the first place in the world championship for players ages 14 and under, which was held in Turkey, but was very disappointed when the Israeli national anthem, “Hatikva,” was not played, as the winning country’s national anthem customarily is.
“This is simply a scandal,” fumed Shai Efroimsky, the new champion’s father. “How dare they mix politics with sports? The rules explicitly say that the national anthem is to be played. And that was the case two years ago as well, when she won the championship for girls up to the age of 12 that was held in the same location in Turkey.”
Indeed, two years ago Ms. Efroimsky won the championship for girls aged 12 and under, held in Turkey, and she became the first Israeli girl to do so. At that time, before relations between Ankara and Jerusalem had deteriorated, the Israeli national anthem was played.
But, this time the competition ended in a very different way. The medals were handed out, the trophy was presented to Ms. Efroimsky and, after the speeches, the organizers suddenly decided not to play the national anthems of the countries from which the award-winners hailed. The exception was the Russian national anthem, after Russia won the largest number of awards in the various competitions that were held. This is the second incident in the space of a week in which Israel’s national anthem was not played despite the fact that an Israeli won first place.
The organizers claimed in their defense that they had been forced to shorten the ceremony and that was the reason why the national anthems were not played, but officials involved in the competition said they suspected that the Turks’ intentions had been clear-to refrain from playing the Israeli national anthem. “I suspect that this was a specific move against Israel,” said Mr. Efroimsky.
In the wake of the incident last night, Aviv Bushinsky, the chairman of the Israeli Chess Association, sent a telegram to the president of the World Chess Federation with a request that he investigate the incident. Mr. Bushinsky wrote that steps ought to be taken against the Turks if it should become evident that the decision to refrain from playing the national anthem was deliberate.
Hatikva Not Played At Fencing Championship
Precisely one week ago Daria Sterlinkov, of Israel, won the gold medal in a prestigious fencing competition in Austria, while Alona Komorov won the bronze medal. However, in this case, too, the Israeli national anthem was not played upon the conclusion of the ceremony at which the awards were handed out.
The Israeli team coach, Yaakov Federman, said that the person responsible for playing the national anthems told him they were unable to find the Israeli national anthem.
“So, we decided to take the initiative and all the members of the delegation, 22 in number, sang Hatikva ourselves,” said Mr. Federman, who added that this was not the first time that an incident of this sort has happened. “Five months ago in Sweden we had the same story,” he said.
Yesterday, a moving ceremony was held at the Ort Maalot school in honor of the pupils Ms. Sterlinkov and Ms. Komorov, and in honor of the teacher at the school, Yaakov Federman, their professional coach. “We decided not to be silent over the Austrian decision to ignore playing the national anthem of the first place winner and that is why we held a ceremony at the school, in the course of which the Israeli national anthem was played proudly,” said the school’s principal, Avi Manshes.
“The Austrian ambassador was also invited to the ceremony, but he did not attend and sent a letter of apology about what happened in Austria as well.” The ceremony was conducted with the blessing of Dr. Orna Simhon, the director of the Israel Education Ministry’s northern district
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - Moments after her moving victory in the world junior chess championship, Marcel Efroimsky of Kfar Saba, Israel, stood proudly at the podium as the new world champion. She grasped her silver cup, stole another glance at the gold medal around her neck, and expected the Israeli national anthem to be played in the background, as is customary in every competition. But silence filled the air. An irksome silence.
Ms. Efroimsky, 14, comes from a dynasty of chess masters. She began playing at the age of 6 and at 9 competed in her first world championship. Her dream came true when she won the first place in the world championship for players ages 14 and under, which was held in Turkey, but was very disappointed when the Israeli national anthem, “Hatikva,” was not played, as the winning country’s national anthem customarily is.
“This is simply a scandal,” fumed Shai Efroimsky, the new champion’s father. “How dare they mix politics with sports? The rules explicitly say that the national anthem is to be played. And that was the case two years ago as well, when she won the championship for girls up to the age of 12 that was held in the same location in Turkey.”
Indeed, two years ago Ms. Efroimsky won the championship for girls aged 12 and under, held in Turkey, and she became the first Israeli girl to do so. At that time, before relations between Ankara and Jerusalem had deteriorated, the Israeli national anthem was played.
But, this time the competition ended in a very different way. The medals were handed out, the trophy was presented to Ms. Efroimsky and, after the speeches, the organizers suddenly decided not to play the national anthems of the countries from which the award-winners hailed. The exception was the Russian national anthem, after Russia won the largest number of awards in the various competitions that were held. This is the second incident in the space of a week in which Israel’s national anthem was not played despite the fact that an Israeli won first place.
The organizers claimed in their defense that they had been forced to shorten the ceremony and that was the reason why the national anthems were not played, but officials involved in the competition said they suspected that the Turks’ intentions had been clear-to refrain from playing the Israeli national anthem. “I suspect that this was a specific move against Israel,” said Mr. Efroimsky.
In the wake of the incident last night, Aviv Bushinsky, the chairman of the Israeli Chess Association, sent a telegram to the president of the World Chess Federation with a request that he investigate the incident. Mr. Bushinsky wrote that steps ought to be taken against the Turks if it should become evident that the decision to refrain from playing the national anthem was deliberate.
Hatikva Not Played At Fencing Championship
Precisely one week ago Daria Sterlinkov, of Israel, won the gold medal in a prestigious fencing competition in Austria, while Alona Komorov won the bronze medal. However, in this case, too, the Israeli national anthem was not played upon the conclusion of the ceremony at which the awards were handed out.
The Israeli team coach, Yaakov Federman, said that the person responsible for playing the national anthems told him they were unable to find the Israeli national anthem.
“So, we decided to take the initiative and all the members of the delegation, 22 in number, sang Hatikva ourselves,” said Mr. Federman, who added that this was not the first time that an incident of this sort has happened. “Five months ago in Sweden we had the same story,” he said.
Yesterday, a moving ceremony was held at the Ort Maalot school in honor of the pupils Ms. Sterlinkov and Ms. Komorov, and in honor of the teacher at the school, Yaakov Federman, their professional coach. “We decided not to be silent over the Austrian decision to ignore playing the national anthem of the first place winner and that is why we held a ceremony at the school, in the course of which the Israeli national anthem was played proudly,” said the school’s principal, Avi Manshes.
“The Austrian ambassador was also invited to the ceremony, but he did not attend and sent a letter of apology about what happened in Austria as well.” The ceremony was conducted with the blessing of Dr. Orna Simhon, the director of the Israel Education Ministry’s northern district
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Iran Launches Largest Air Force Exercise
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - Iran launched its largest air force exercise this past week.
The air exercise is part of an effort to introduce new indigenous platforms and systems and protect nuclear facilities. They said the five-day exercise, titled “Seal of the Prophets,” began last Sunday and would integrate operations by the regular air force and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
“The Iranian Air Force and IRGC will hold the largest air exercise in the history of the country,” Iranian Air Defense Commander Brig. Gen. Ahmed Miqani said Nov. 21.
Mr. Miqani told a news conference that Seal of the Prophets is taking place in central and western Iran and focus on air space protection and air defense. He said the exercise tested new systems, including air defense and electronic warfare. He said Iran has deployed air defense batteries around its nuclear facilities.
“The Air Defense Command is responsible for sensitive installations in the country, including nuclear facilities and will shoot down any plane that violates Iranian air space,” Mr. Miqani said. “This week’s air defense maneuvers will be held with the intention of protecting the country’s nuclear facilities.”
The exercise would also seek to enhance interoperability between fighter jets of the regular air force and IRGC. They said Seal of the Prophets would also test integration of operations by combat and reconnaissance platforms.
“Our unit will be in charge of the maneuver, but there will be units from IRGC and the Basij militia,” Mr. Miqani said.
Seal of the Prophet would contain three stages and envisioned an attack by an unnamed enemy, officials said. They said the exercise would test Russian-origin air defense systems, including the TOR-M1 and Pantsyr-S1.
Iran has been awaiting the longer-range S-300 system from Moscow. Mr. Miqani said Iran would test S-300 interceptors, but did not elaborate.
“In various maneuvers, new and modern missile networks will be used and evaluated, including the advanced S-300 missiles, for which production capability exists in Iran,” Mr. Miqani said.
IRGC has asserted that Iran reached the capability to defend against any Israeli air strike. IRGC Air Force Chief Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh said the military has developed an air defense umbrella that combined surface-to-air missiles, surface-to-surface missiles and fighter jets.
“Be assured that in case of aggression, the Zionist F-15 and F-16s will be trapped by our air defense and destroyed,” Mr. Hajizadeh said. “And, if one of their aircraft manages to escape Iran’s air defense, the bases from which these aircraft took off will be struck by our destructive ground to ground missiles.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - Iran launched its largest air force exercise this past week.
The air exercise is part of an effort to introduce new indigenous platforms and systems and protect nuclear facilities. They said the five-day exercise, titled “Seal of the Prophets,” began last Sunday and would integrate operations by the regular air force and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
“The Iranian Air Force and IRGC will hold the largest air exercise in the history of the country,” Iranian Air Defense Commander Brig. Gen. Ahmed Miqani said Nov. 21.
Mr. Miqani told a news conference that Seal of the Prophets is taking place in central and western Iran and focus on air space protection and air defense. He said the exercise tested new systems, including air defense and electronic warfare. He said Iran has deployed air defense batteries around its nuclear facilities.
“The Air Defense Command is responsible for sensitive installations in the country, including nuclear facilities and will shoot down any plane that violates Iranian air space,” Mr. Miqani said. “This week’s air defense maneuvers will be held with the intention of protecting the country’s nuclear facilities.”
The exercise would also seek to enhance interoperability between fighter jets of the regular air force and IRGC. They said Seal of the Prophets would also test integration of operations by combat and reconnaissance platforms.
“Our unit will be in charge of the maneuver, but there will be units from IRGC and the Basij militia,” Mr. Miqani said.
Seal of the Prophet would contain three stages and envisioned an attack by an unnamed enemy, officials said. They said the exercise would test Russian-origin air defense systems, including the TOR-M1 and Pantsyr-S1.
Iran has been awaiting the longer-range S-300 system from Moscow. Mr. Miqani said Iran would test S-300 interceptors, but did not elaborate.
“In various maneuvers, new and modern missile networks will be used and evaluated, including the advanced S-300 missiles, for which production capability exists in Iran,” Mr. Miqani said.
IRGC has asserted that Iran reached the capability to defend against any Israeli air strike. IRGC Air Force Chief Brig. Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh said the military has developed an air defense umbrella that combined surface-to-air missiles, surface-to-surface missiles and fighter jets.
“Be assured that in case of aggression, the Zionist F-15 and F-16s will be trapped by our air defense and destroyed,” Mr. Hajizadeh said. “And, if one of their aircraft manages to escape Iran’s air defense, the bases from which these aircraft took off will be struck by our destructive ground to ground missiles.”
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Darwish Engagement Canceled at Princeton
by David Bedein
JERUSALEM - For more than a generation, people who follow the Arab-Israeli War wonder if articulate Arab spokespeople will emerge to express genuine recognition of Israel, with a clear and unambiguous desire for peace.
Seven years ago, when Israel marked the 25th anniversary of the 1977 visit by the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to Israel - which led to the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab State - a young Egyptian native, now an American citizen, Nonie Darwish, whose late father fought against Israel, made a presentation for a large mixed audience of Arabs and Jews at the same place President Sadat had landed - at Jerusalem’s posh King David Hotel.
At the same hotel where Sadat first proclaimed his desire for peace with Israel, Nonie Darwish, announced that she had formed a new organization, calling it Arabs For Israel.
Ms. Darwish described her passion and pride for Arab nationalism and the need for every Arab nationalist to embrace the state and people of Israel as a neighbor in the Middle East.
Skeptical reporters who felt that Nonie Darwish was, perhaps, too good to be true began to bombard her with questions after her erudite presentation.
After all, one reporter said, this has been a “cold peace” and very few Egyptians have come to visit Israel with any such proclamation.
Ms. Darwish responded in the affirmative, saying that, indeed, the same radical Muslims who murdered Sadat had intimidated Egyptians from all walks of life from visiting Israel and from expressing any kind of affinity for the Jewish state.
Three years later, Nonie Darwish addressed a memorial rally for victims of Arab terror in Berkeley, Calif., where the rally organizers had brought the remains of a bombed out bus in which 17 people had been murdered.
Ms. Darwish’s message had not changed. She remained a proud Arab who spoke with passion about the state and people of Israel and stated that she felt shamed by what the crimes that people do in the name of Islam.
Yet, by 2005, Ms. Darwish did not exude the same smile that she bore in her appearance in 2002 in Jerusalem. She described in private conversations how radical Muslims had stalked her all over the United States and have tried to prevent her from speaking.
Indeed, radical Muslims even succeeded in preventing Ms. Darwish from speaking at Princeton University Hillel Foundation’s “Center for Jewish Life.”
Last week, on November 18th, a student group Tigers for Israel, a Princeton undergraduate student organization that is also affiliated with the Center for Jewish Life, scheduled then, suddenly, cancelled a lecture by Nonie Darwish.
Jewish students had invited her to speak on campus because they felt it was important to hear her critique of radical Islam.
However, the Islamic leader on campus, Muslim Life Coordinator, Imam Sohaib Sultan threatened Tigers for Israel and demanded that they cancel Ms. Darwish’s appearance because, he contended, “she perpetuates stereotypes about Islam that implicate all Muslims, not just Muslim fundamentalists”.
In the spirit of academic freedom and dialogue, Tigers for Israel Vice President Rafael Grinberg offered Imam Sultan the opportunity to rebut and respond to Nonie Darwish after her presentation and to offer him equal time to express his point of view.
The Islamic leader would hear nothing of any such a suggestion for a dialogue in an academic setting and furthered his demand that Nonie Darwish’s lecture simply be cancelled.
According to Mr. Grinberg, Rabbi Julie Roth, the Executive Director of the Center for Jewish Life at Hillel in Princeton, supported the intimidation of the campus Imam and told the students, “An invitation to Nonie Darwish is like an invitation to a neo-Nazi.”
According to a statement by Rabbi Roth to The Bulletin, however, “The students made an independent decision to cancel the lecture because it is not in accordance with their mission to perpetuate stereotypes or generalizations about any group.”
When The Bulletin asked as to why Rabbi Roth did not encourage a dialogue with Ms. Darwish that would befit the academic and democratic atmosphere of a University, Rabbi Roth acknowledged that, “It is true, in our university environment and in our country, free speech and open debate and exchange of ideas are primary values.” However, she added, “It is also true that our university environment and our country support the right of any group to disassociate themselves with views they deem do not represent their mission or goals or values.”
Asked as to whether Rabbi Roth had met with and spoken with Nonie Darwish to discern for herself whether Ms. Darwish would be an appropriate speaker, Rabbi Roth did not respond because she did not make any effort to meet with or speak with Ms. Dawrish before expressing her passionate support for the decision of Tigers for Israel to buckle under the demand of the radical Muslims on campus to cancel the appearance of Ms. Darwish in front of the campus Jewish community.
This leads one to wonder if Rabbi Roth, who describes herself as a leader in the promotion of “dialogue between the Muslim and Jewish communities on campus,” can ever muster the courage to present views that disturb radical Muslims at Princeton.
So much for the spirit of academic freedom and dialogue on an Ivy League campus.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
JERUSALEM - For more than a generation, people who follow the Arab-Israeli War wonder if articulate Arab spokespeople will emerge to express genuine recognition of Israel, with a clear and unambiguous desire for peace.
Seven years ago, when Israel marked the 25th anniversary of the 1977 visit by the late Egyptian President Anwar Sadat to Israel - which led to the first peace treaty between Israel and an Arab State - a young Egyptian native, now an American citizen, Nonie Darwish, whose late father fought against Israel, made a presentation for a large mixed audience of Arabs and Jews at the same place President Sadat had landed - at Jerusalem’s posh King David Hotel.
At the same hotel where Sadat first proclaimed his desire for peace with Israel, Nonie Darwish, announced that she had formed a new organization, calling it Arabs For Israel.
Ms. Darwish described her passion and pride for Arab nationalism and the need for every Arab nationalist to embrace the state and people of Israel as a neighbor in the Middle East.
Skeptical reporters who felt that Nonie Darwish was, perhaps, too good to be true began to bombard her with questions after her erudite presentation.
After all, one reporter said, this has been a “cold peace” and very few Egyptians have come to visit Israel with any such proclamation.
Ms. Darwish responded in the affirmative, saying that, indeed, the same radical Muslims who murdered Sadat had intimidated Egyptians from all walks of life from visiting Israel and from expressing any kind of affinity for the Jewish state.
Three years later, Nonie Darwish addressed a memorial rally for victims of Arab terror in Berkeley, Calif., where the rally organizers had brought the remains of a bombed out bus in which 17 people had been murdered.
Ms. Darwish’s message had not changed. She remained a proud Arab who spoke with passion about the state and people of Israel and stated that she felt shamed by what the crimes that people do in the name of Islam.
Yet, by 2005, Ms. Darwish did not exude the same smile that she bore in her appearance in 2002 in Jerusalem. She described in private conversations how radical Muslims had stalked her all over the United States and have tried to prevent her from speaking.
Indeed, radical Muslims even succeeded in preventing Ms. Darwish from speaking at Princeton University Hillel Foundation’s “Center for Jewish Life.”
Last week, on November 18th, a student group Tigers for Israel, a Princeton undergraduate student organization that is also affiliated with the Center for Jewish Life, scheduled then, suddenly, cancelled a lecture by Nonie Darwish.
Jewish students had invited her to speak on campus because they felt it was important to hear her critique of radical Islam.
However, the Islamic leader on campus, Muslim Life Coordinator, Imam Sohaib Sultan threatened Tigers for Israel and demanded that they cancel Ms. Darwish’s appearance because, he contended, “she perpetuates stereotypes about Islam that implicate all Muslims, not just Muslim fundamentalists”.
In the spirit of academic freedom and dialogue, Tigers for Israel Vice President Rafael Grinberg offered Imam Sultan the opportunity to rebut and respond to Nonie Darwish after her presentation and to offer him equal time to express his point of view.
The Islamic leader would hear nothing of any such a suggestion for a dialogue in an academic setting and furthered his demand that Nonie Darwish’s lecture simply be cancelled.
According to Mr. Grinberg, Rabbi Julie Roth, the Executive Director of the Center for Jewish Life at Hillel in Princeton, supported the intimidation of the campus Imam and told the students, “An invitation to Nonie Darwish is like an invitation to a neo-Nazi.”
According to a statement by Rabbi Roth to The Bulletin, however, “The students made an independent decision to cancel the lecture because it is not in accordance with their mission to perpetuate stereotypes or generalizations about any group.”
When The Bulletin asked as to why Rabbi Roth did not encourage a dialogue with Ms. Darwish that would befit the academic and democratic atmosphere of a University, Rabbi Roth acknowledged that, “It is true, in our university environment and in our country, free speech and open debate and exchange of ideas are primary values.” However, she added, “It is also true that our university environment and our country support the right of any group to disassociate themselves with views they deem do not represent their mission or goals or values.”
Asked as to whether Rabbi Roth had met with and spoken with Nonie Darwish to discern for herself whether Ms. Darwish would be an appropriate speaker, Rabbi Roth did not respond because she did not make any effort to meet with or speak with Ms. Dawrish before expressing her passionate support for the decision of Tigers for Israel to buckle under the demand of the radical Muslims on campus to cancel the appearance of Ms. Darwish in front of the campus Jewish community.
This leads one to wonder if Rabbi Roth, who describes herself as a leader in the promotion of “dialogue between the Muslim and Jewish communities on campus,” can ever muster the courage to present views that disturb radical Muslims at Princeton.
So much for the spirit of academic freedom and dialogue on an Ivy League campus.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Israel Warned To Prepare For Ballistic Missile Threats
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - Israel has been urged to prepare for ballistic missile threats from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
A senior defense executive warned that Israel’s military and Defense Ministry might not have been allowed to prepare its missile defense umbrella to combat possible future threats from Middle East states, which are not directly threatening Israel at this time, due to political constraints.
The executive, who works closely with the Defense Ministry, said the threat could come from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which have been developing or procuring medium- and intermediate-range missiles.
“We are not paying attention to what is going on in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey,” Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) vice president Yair Ramati said.
Mr. Ramati, who for years headed IAI’s Arrow missile defense program, cited Turkey’s growing missile and rocket capabilities.
He said Ankara has been acquiring U.S. and Chinese systems as well as developing Turkish weapons.
This included the Chinese-origin 302 mm rocket, with a range of 150 kilometers.
The Israel Defense Ministry has never cited Egypt or Turkey as threats. Egypt has maintained a peace treaty with Israel since 1979, and Turkey was regarded as a strategic ally of the Jewish state from 1996 until 2008. Over the last year, Turkey increased ties with neighboring Iran and Syria.
In a presentation to the International Aerospace Conference and Exhibition-Israel on Nov. 17, Mr. Ramati said Egypt and other Arab states could constitute missile threats by 2020. He said Saudi Arabia, concerned over Iran’s military modernization effort, was expected to replace its Chinese-origin intermediate-range CSSS2 for an advanced modern ballistic missile.
Yet, leading strategists in Israel forget that Saudi Arabia remains in a state of war with Israel. Saudi Arabia is the only neighboring country contiguous to Israel to have never signed a peace treaty or even an armistice with Israel since 1948.
Mr. Ramati stated clearly that Israeli missile defense exercises do not take the Egyptian, Saudi and Turkish capabilities into account.
He suggested that the Defense Ministry and military were under political constraints from the government.
“Are these scenarios politically correct?” Mr. Ramati asked.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - Israel has been urged to prepare for ballistic missile threats from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.
A senior defense executive warned that Israel’s military and Defense Ministry might not have been allowed to prepare its missile defense umbrella to combat possible future threats from Middle East states, which are not directly threatening Israel at this time, due to political constraints.
The executive, who works closely with the Defense Ministry, said the threat could come from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, which have been developing or procuring medium- and intermediate-range missiles.
“We are not paying attention to what is going on in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey,” Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) vice president Yair Ramati said.
Mr. Ramati, who for years headed IAI’s Arrow missile defense program, cited Turkey’s growing missile and rocket capabilities.
He said Ankara has been acquiring U.S. and Chinese systems as well as developing Turkish weapons.
This included the Chinese-origin 302 mm rocket, with a range of 150 kilometers.
The Israel Defense Ministry has never cited Egypt or Turkey as threats. Egypt has maintained a peace treaty with Israel since 1979, and Turkey was regarded as a strategic ally of the Jewish state from 1996 until 2008. Over the last year, Turkey increased ties with neighboring Iran and Syria.
In a presentation to the International Aerospace Conference and Exhibition-Israel on Nov. 17, Mr. Ramati said Egypt and other Arab states could constitute missile threats by 2020. He said Saudi Arabia, concerned over Iran’s military modernization effort, was expected to replace its Chinese-origin intermediate-range CSSS2 for an advanced modern ballistic missile.
Yet, leading strategists in Israel forget that Saudi Arabia remains in a state of war with Israel. Saudi Arabia is the only neighboring country contiguous to Israel to have never signed a peace treaty or even an armistice with Israel since 1948.
Mr. Ramati stated clearly that Israeli missile defense exercises do not take the Egyptian, Saudi and Turkish capabilities into account.
He suggested that the Defense Ministry and military were under political constraints from the government.
“Are these scenarios politically correct?” Mr. Ramati asked.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: Born In India, Doctor Has Jewish Spirit
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - Dr. Aharon Avraham opens his Jewish prayer book with trepidation.
His lips mouth the verses in Hebrew, his new language.
When he finally lifts his eyes from the page, his gaze stops at the framed photograph on the shelf. Dr. Avraham glances at the photograph of the couple who changed his life, and his eyes glimmer.
"I truly loved Rabbi Gabi and his wife Rivka," he sighs. "I miss them so much."
On Wednesday night, Dr. Avraham was one of the guests of honor at the central memorial ceremony held by Chabad's youth division to mark the first anniversary of the terror attack at the Chabad House in Mumbai in which six Israelis were murdered. Those attending the ceremony will also mark the third birthday of Moishie, the little son of Gabriel and Rivky Holtzberg. His parents, who were Chabad emissaries in the Indian city, were murdered by terrorists. Moishie survived.
This coming Thursday, the morning after the memorial ceremony, Dr. Avraham will mark one of the most meaningful days of his life. The 51-year-old physician, who was born to an Indian family, will remarry his wife Ruth-Malka, this time in a Jewish ceremony. In attendance will be the couple's three children, who converted together with them: Shmuel, 18, Sarah, 15 and Sharon, 10.
The ceremony will be held at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, fairly close to Kiryat Arba, a Jewish community close to Hebron, where the physician from India has made his home.
Dr. Avraham was born Bhagirath Prasad. Materially speaking, he was very well off. He excelled in his medical studies, became well-known and served as the director of the intensive-care department at the prestigious Breach Candy Hospital in Mumbai.
Spiritually speaking, an abyss opened up in his heart. In his youth, he shrank from Hinduism, a polytheistic faith.
"I found no rest for my spirit because I felt that I did not believe in the true God," he said last night.
"Twenty years ago, I was exposed to the Bible and began to come close to Judaism. Over the past five years, I began to study the Torah and observe the commandments as a way of life. I changed my Indian name to a Jewish one, and I went to the Chabad House in Mumbai almost every day to study with Rabbi Gabi. Chabad House became my second home, until that terrible day."
Dr. Avraham will never forget Nov. 26, 2008, the day of the terror attack in Mumbai.
"I met with Rabbi Gabi and Rebbetzin Rivky almost every day," Dr. Avraham said. “
I was as close to them as family. On the day of terror attack, I was about 1,000 kilometers away from Mumbai. I remember that I prayed for a miracle, that the Holtzberg family wouldn't be harmed. On the way back to Mumbai, my thoughts ran wild: how to treat Gabi and Rivky if it turned out that they'd been wounded. But when I got there, I realized that of the whole family, only little Moishie had survived."
The massacre shocked Dr. Avraham to the depths of his soul.
He decided to immigrate to Israel with his wife and children.
"I got fed up with the corrupt way of life in India," he explains. "Relations with my family have remained very good. I don't believe in their religion, but I still have a great deal of love for them. They weren't happy with my decision, but accepted it in a good spirit. 'It's your life,' they told me."
Five months ago, the physician arrived in Israel. Today, he is crowded into a tiny apartment with his wife and their three children in Kiryat Arba.
Dr. Avraham says that no one is happier than he. "I'm thrilled anew every day that I live near Hebron, the second-holiest place to the Jewish people. Soon, when I get my Israeli medical license, I'll start working at the Kiryat Arba first-aid center. At the same time, I hope to be accepted for work at Shaarei Zedek Hospital in Jerusalem."
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - Dr. Aharon Avraham opens his Jewish prayer book with trepidation.
His lips mouth the verses in Hebrew, his new language.
When he finally lifts his eyes from the page, his gaze stops at the framed photograph on the shelf. Dr. Avraham glances at the photograph of the couple who changed his life, and his eyes glimmer.
"I truly loved Rabbi Gabi and his wife Rivka," he sighs. "I miss them so much."
On Wednesday night, Dr. Avraham was one of the guests of honor at the central memorial ceremony held by Chabad's youth division to mark the first anniversary of the terror attack at the Chabad House in Mumbai in which six Israelis were murdered. Those attending the ceremony will also mark the third birthday of Moishie, the little son of Gabriel and Rivky Holtzberg. His parents, who were Chabad emissaries in the Indian city, were murdered by terrorists. Moishie survived.
This coming Thursday, the morning after the memorial ceremony, Dr. Avraham will mark one of the most meaningful days of his life. The 51-year-old physician, who was born to an Indian family, will remarry his wife Ruth-Malka, this time in a Jewish ceremony. In attendance will be the couple's three children, who converted together with them: Shmuel, 18, Sarah, 15 and Sharon, 10.
The ceremony will be held at the Tomb of the Patriarchs, fairly close to Kiryat Arba, a Jewish community close to Hebron, where the physician from India has made his home.
Dr. Avraham was born Bhagirath Prasad. Materially speaking, he was very well off. He excelled in his medical studies, became well-known and served as the director of the intensive-care department at the prestigious Breach Candy Hospital in Mumbai.
Spiritually speaking, an abyss opened up in his heart. In his youth, he shrank from Hinduism, a polytheistic faith.
"I found no rest for my spirit because I felt that I did not believe in the true God," he said last night.
"Twenty years ago, I was exposed to the Bible and began to come close to Judaism. Over the past five years, I began to study the Torah and observe the commandments as a way of life. I changed my Indian name to a Jewish one, and I went to the Chabad House in Mumbai almost every day to study with Rabbi Gabi. Chabad House became my second home, until that terrible day."
Dr. Avraham will never forget Nov. 26, 2008, the day of the terror attack in Mumbai.
"I met with Rabbi Gabi and Rebbetzin Rivky almost every day," Dr. Avraham said. “
I was as close to them as family. On the day of terror attack, I was about 1,000 kilometers away from Mumbai. I remember that I prayed for a miracle, that the Holtzberg family wouldn't be harmed. On the way back to Mumbai, my thoughts ran wild: how to treat Gabi and Rivky if it turned out that they'd been wounded. But when I got there, I realized that of the whole family, only little Moishie had survived."
The massacre shocked Dr. Avraham to the depths of his soul.
He decided to immigrate to Israel with his wife and children.
"I got fed up with the corrupt way of life in India," he explains. "Relations with my family have remained very good. I don't believe in their religion, but I still have a great deal of love for them. They weren't happy with my decision, but accepted it in a good spirit. 'It's your life,' they told me."
Five months ago, the physician arrived in Israel. Today, he is crowded into a tiny apartment with his wife and their three children in Kiryat Arba.
Dr. Avraham says that no one is happier than he. "I'm thrilled anew every day that I live near Hebron, the second-holiest place to the Jewish people. Soon, when I get my Israeli medical license, I'll start working at the Kiryat Arba first-aid center. At the same time, I hope to be accepted for work at Shaarei Zedek Hospital in Jerusalem."
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
The Philadelphia Bulletin: ARE THERE QUESTIONS PEOPLE ARE AFRAID TO ASK FAYAD?
Are there Questions People are Afraid to Ask Fayyad?
In his column of November 20, Salam Fayyad builds Palestine, Jerusalem Post Editor David Horovitz describes “two staunch Jewish supporters of Israel” - Senator Joe Lieberman, former vice presidential candidate, and Representative Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee - “nodding their encouragement” at a recent Ramallah press conference, where Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad explained how he was preparing Palestinians for statehood. The piece goes on to outline a Palestinian state in formation, regarding security forces, the economy, and civic institutions, with an optimistic sense of what the PA is achieving.
Regrettably, Senator Lieberman and Representative Berman did not use the press conference to raise some troublesome questions.
Since these American elected officials let that opportunity pass, perhaps it was the journalistic responsibility of Mr. Horovitz to explore these matters, to offer a more balanced picture. Instead, he alluded to “staunch supporters of Israel nodding their agreement,” conveying the notion that, except for some technical problems, all is well.
Questions that Senator Lieberman, Rep. Berman or Mr. Horovitz could have asked would have included:
Renunciation of the PLO state of war with Israel
The charter of Fatah - the predominant element in the PLO and the PA - to this day continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Written in 1964, before Israel controlled the West Bank and Gaza, it uses the term “Palestine” to refer exclusively to Israel within the Green Line. The charter declares that “Liberating Palestine is a national obligation,” and that “Armed public revolution is the inevitable method” for doing so. This cannot be dismissed as an irrelevant anachronism. Last August, Fatah held its first General Congress in 20 years. Hope was held out for a charter revision, with violence officially renounced, but it never happened. Instead, Fatah continued to unambiguously embrace “armed resistance” to liberate Palestine.
Cessation of incitement via changes in PA-produced textbooks
The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Tolerance in School Education has issued six reports on new PA textbooks issued over the last eight years. Journalist and scholar Dr. Arnon Groiss, who translated these PA textbooks, has just completed an update. He writes that the new PA texts...
- Deny the historical and religious presence of Jews in Palestine.
- Fail to recognize the State of Israel.
- Demonize Jews and Israel.
- Assign blame for the conflict exclusively on Israel, totally absolving Palestinians.
- Stress the idea of a violent struggle of liberation rather than a peaceful settlement.
- It is disingenuous for Fayyad to profess dedication to peace, while the PA curriculum infuses these ideas within its youngsters. Peace is impossible until the message changes. Why do visiting elected officials and journalists not hold Fayyad and the PA accountable for the new PA textbooks?.
Cessation of PA pursuit of Hamas as a coalition partner.
The PA inclination to participate in a government that includes Hamas remains an “elephant in the room” that the international community, somewhat inexplicably, has chosen to ignore: Hamas is recognized by the US and the entire Quartet as a terrorist entity. Yet in March 2007, Fatah and Hamas briefly formed a “unity government” - negotiated by Saudi Arabia via the Mecca Accord - that saw Fatah acceding to Hamas demands. It fell apart with the Hamas coup in Gaza, but in recent months the news is awash with reports of negotiations via Egypt for a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. Pursuing negotiations with Israel and Hamas at one and the same time is not acceptable. Why not ask the PA to make a choice?.
Renunciation of the “right of return.”
The “right of return,” promoted for 60 years by UNRWA and embraced by the PA as a non-negotiable right, remains a recipe for the destruction of Israel from within. If Fayyad and the PA are serious about peace, why not ask them to accept the principle of permanent resettlement of the refugees? UNHCR, the UN High Commission for Refugees - which oversees all refugees except Palestinians - operates according to this principle. Only Palestinian refugees are not resettled, but instead, for purely political reasons, are forced to linger in a (rage-inducing) state of limbo. Fayyad, in his master plan for a Palestinian state, openly states that he supports the “right of return.” Isn’t it time to ask Fayyad and the PA to openly embrace the UNHCR policy and pave the way for UNRWA to adjust its mandate?
Lastly, Mr. Horovitz writes that “most of the international community completely supports [PA] demands for a 100% Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank,” noting that “Netanyahu...is intent on driving a harder bargain.” The reader is left with the impression that Netanyahu is obstinately resisting what the world expects. Left unsaid is that the Israeli electorate is most definitely not in favor of complete withdrawal, and that the prime minister simply reflects the will of the nation in this regard. What is more, Mr. Horovitz neglects to say that neither does international law support this: UN Security Resolution 242, which does not demand full Israeli withdrawal, acknowledges Israel’s need for secure borders.
David Bedein works as the Director of the Israel Resource News Agency and the Center for Near East Policy Research, www.IsraelBehindTheNews.com and the Middle East Correspondent for the Philadelphia Bulletin, www.TheBulletin.us.
Arlene Kushner is the senior research analyst for the Center for Near East Policy Research and author of a daily blog, “Arlene From Israel”, www.arlenefromisrael.info
Are there Questions People are Afraid to Ask Fayyad?
In his column of November 20, Salam Fayyad builds Palestine, Jerusalem Post Editor David Horovitz describes “two staunch Jewish supporters of Israel” - Senator Joe Lieberman, former vice presidential candidate, and Representative Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee - “nodding their encouragement” at a recent Ramallah press conference, where Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad explained how he was preparing Palestinians for statehood. The piece goes on to outline a Palestinian state in formation, regarding security forces, the economy, and civic institutions, with an optimistic sense of what the PA is achieving.
Regrettably, Senator Lieberman and Representative Berman did not use the press conference to raise some troublesome questions.
Since these American elected officials let that opportunity pass, perhaps it was the journalistic responsibility of Mr. Horovitz to explore these matters, to offer a more balanced picture. Instead, he alluded to “staunch supporters of Israel nodding their agreement,” conveying the notion that, except for some technical problems, all is well.
Questions that Senator Lieberman, Rep. Berman or Mr. Horovitz could have asked would have included:
Renunciation of the PLO state of war with Israel
The charter of Fatah - the predominant element in the PLO and the PA - to this day continues to call for the destruction of Israel. Written in 1964, before Israel controlled the West Bank and Gaza, it uses the term “Palestine” to refer exclusively to Israel within the Green Line. The charter declares that “Liberating Palestine is a national obligation,” and that “Armed public revolution is the inevitable method” for doing so. This cannot be dismissed as an irrelevant anachronism. Last August, Fatah held its first General Congress in 20 years. Hope was held out for a charter revision, with violence officially renounced, but it never happened. Instead, Fatah continued to unambiguously embrace “armed resistance” to liberate Palestine.
Cessation of incitement via changes in PA-produced textbooks
The Institute for Monitoring Peace and Tolerance in School Education has issued six reports on new PA textbooks issued over the last eight years. Journalist and scholar Dr. Arnon Groiss, who translated these PA textbooks, has just completed an update. He writes that the new PA texts...
- Deny the historical and religious presence of Jews in Palestine.
- Fail to recognize the State of Israel.
- Demonize Jews and Israel.
- Assign blame for the conflict exclusively on Israel, totally absolving Palestinians.
- Stress the idea of a violent struggle of liberation rather than a peaceful settlement.
- It is disingenuous for Fayyad to profess dedication to peace, while the PA curriculum infuses these ideas within its youngsters. Peace is impossible until the message changes. Why do visiting elected officials and journalists not hold Fayyad and the PA accountable for the new PA textbooks?.
Cessation of PA pursuit of Hamas as a coalition partner.
The PA inclination to participate in a government that includes Hamas remains an “elephant in the room” that the international community, somewhat inexplicably, has chosen to ignore: Hamas is recognized by the US and the entire Quartet as a terrorist entity. Yet in March 2007, Fatah and Hamas briefly formed a “unity government” - negotiated by Saudi Arabia via the Mecca Accord - that saw Fatah acceding to Hamas demands. It fell apart with the Hamas coup in Gaza, but in recent months the news is awash with reports of negotiations via Egypt for a Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. Pursuing negotiations with Israel and Hamas at one and the same time is not acceptable. Why not ask the PA to make a choice?.
Renunciation of the “right of return.”
The “right of return,” promoted for 60 years by UNRWA and embraced by the PA as a non-negotiable right, remains a recipe for the destruction of Israel from within. If Fayyad and the PA are serious about peace, why not ask them to accept the principle of permanent resettlement of the refugees? UNHCR, the UN High Commission for Refugees - which oversees all refugees except Palestinians - operates according to this principle. Only Palestinian refugees are not resettled, but instead, for purely political reasons, are forced to linger in a (rage-inducing) state of limbo. Fayyad, in his master plan for a Palestinian state, openly states that he supports the “right of return.” Isn’t it time to ask Fayyad and the PA to openly embrace the UNHCR policy and pave the way for UNRWA to adjust its mandate?
Lastly, Mr. Horovitz writes that “most of the international community completely supports [PA] demands for a 100% Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank,” noting that “Netanyahu...is intent on driving a harder bargain.” The reader is left with the impression that Netanyahu is obstinately resisting what the world expects. Left unsaid is that the Israeli electorate is most definitely not in favor of complete withdrawal, and that the prime minister simply reflects the will of the nation in this regard. What is more, Mr. Horovitz neglects to say that neither does international law support this: UN Security Resolution 242, which does not demand full Israeli withdrawal, acknowledges Israel’s need for secure borders.
David Bedein works as the Director of the Israel Resource News Agency and the Center for Near East Policy Research, www.IsraelBehindTheNews.com and the Middle East Correspondent for the Philadelphia Bulletin, www.TheBulletin.us.
Arlene Kushner is the senior research analyst for the Center for Near East Policy Research and author of a daily blog, “Arlene From Israel”, www.arlenefromisrael.info
Are there Questions People are Afraid to Ask Fayyad?
The Philadelphia Bulletin: America Slams Israeli Construction Efforts
by David Bedein
Jerusalem - Despite firm opposition from the American government, the Jerusalem municipality decided to approve the construction of 900 new housing units in the Gilo neighborhood in southern Jerusalem. Gilo, which was no man’s land between 1949 and 1967, was acquired by Israel in the aftermath of the 1967 war and annexed to Jerusalem and Israel.
U.S. administration officials voiced their anger over the decision. Special U.S. envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell relayed to the Israeli government a request from the Americans not to build in Gilo.
A few hours after that news emerged, the Jerusalem municipality’s District Committee for Planning and Construction unanimously approved the plans to expand the built-up area in the northwestern part of the neighborhood. Within sixty days, after objections to the plans have been submitted, the plans will reach the implementation stage.
“Israeli law does not discriminate between Jews and Arabs,” explained Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat. “The demand to stop construction for Jews only is not legal, neither in the United States nor anywhere else in the world.”
Israel Interior Minister Eli Yishai said: “We won’t permit construction in Jerusalem to be stopped.”
However, U.S. administration officials responded to the decision sharply.
“While we’re working to renew the negotiations, an act of that sort makes it even harder for our efforts to succeed,” said a high-ranking State Department source. “This is a unilateral step, and we’ve demanded of both sides not to take any such steps. Our position is clear, Jerusalem is a final status arrangement issue.”
An official statement released by the White House noted the administration was “dismayed” by the decision, and that the United States also objected to other Israeli actions in Jerusalem that pertained to construction, including the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and the demotion of Palestinian buildings.
A U.S. administration official said that the Israeli government had “given a slap in the face to the United States’ efforts to bring about successful dialogue between the parties.”
The decision to approve the construction in Gilo was perceived by the U.S. administration as a departure from the agreements that had been reached in the previous number of weeks.
“Israel is taking unilateral measures while it demands that the world oppose unilateral measures by the Palestinians,” said an American official. “That isn’t going to work on the ground. We’re disappointed in (Israel Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu.”
Officials in the Prime Minister’s Bureau rejected the American criticism and said: “The Gilo neighborhood is an integral part of Jerusalem, just as Ramat Eshkol, Rehavia, French Hill and Pisgat Zeev are. This issue is part of a broad national consensus.”
Officials in the Prime Minister’s Bureau said that “construction in the Gilo neighborhood has been underway continually for dozens of years and there is nothing new in the construction permit procedures.”
They added that there was no crisis in relations between Israel and the United States.
Rules Of The Game Have Changed
If anyone among the Israeli decision-makers still believed the Americans would ultimately get on with business as usual in the aftermath of the Israeli decision to build 900 housing units in Gilo, along came reality and slapped them in the face.
The U.S. administration does not accept the Israeli decision to apply Israeli law to any area acquired by Israel in the wake of the 1967 war.
Even more important to remember is that the American government does not recognize any part of Jerusalem as an integral part of Israel.
All documents processed by the American government in Jerusalem - passports, birth certificates, affidavits and even death certificates are stamped “Jerusalem” with no nation state mentioned.
Instead, successive U.S. administrations abide by the UN’s 1949 definition of Jerusalem as an international zone.
While lobbyists for Israel have, for many years, tried to influence countless American administrations to move the American embassy to Jerusalem, very few of Israel’s friends abroad ask the American government to simply recognize Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, as a part of Israel.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Jerusalem - Despite firm opposition from the American government, the Jerusalem municipality decided to approve the construction of 900 new housing units in the Gilo neighborhood in southern Jerusalem. Gilo, which was no man’s land between 1949 and 1967, was acquired by Israel in the aftermath of the 1967 war and annexed to Jerusalem and Israel.
U.S. administration officials voiced their anger over the decision. Special U.S. envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell relayed to the Israeli government a request from the Americans not to build in Gilo.
A few hours after that news emerged, the Jerusalem municipality’s District Committee for Planning and Construction unanimously approved the plans to expand the built-up area in the northwestern part of the neighborhood. Within sixty days, after objections to the plans have been submitted, the plans will reach the implementation stage.
“Israeli law does not discriminate between Jews and Arabs,” explained Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat. “The demand to stop construction for Jews only is not legal, neither in the United States nor anywhere else in the world.”
Israel Interior Minister Eli Yishai said: “We won’t permit construction in Jerusalem to be stopped.”
However, U.S. administration officials responded to the decision sharply.
“While we’re working to renew the negotiations, an act of that sort makes it even harder for our efforts to succeed,” said a high-ranking State Department source. “This is a unilateral step, and we’ve demanded of both sides not to take any such steps. Our position is clear, Jerusalem is a final status arrangement issue.”
An official statement released by the White House noted the administration was “dismayed” by the decision, and that the United States also objected to other Israeli actions in Jerusalem that pertained to construction, including the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and the demotion of Palestinian buildings.
A U.S. administration official said that the Israeli government had “given a slap in the face to the United States’ efforts to bring about successful dialogue between the parties.”
The decision to approve the construction in Gilo was perceived by the U.S. administration as a departure from the agreements that had been reached in the previous number of weeks.
“Israel is taking unilateral measures while it demands that the world oppose unilateral measures by the Palestinians,” said an American official. “That isn’t going to work on the ground. We’re disappointed in (Israel Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu.”
Officials in the Prime Minister’s Bureau rejected the American criticism and said: “The Gilo neighborhood is an integral part of Jerusalem, just as Ramat Eshkol, Rehavia, French Hill and Pisgat Zeev are. This issue is part of a broad national consensus.”
Officials in the Prime Minister’s Bureau said that “construction in the Gilo neighborhood has been underway continually for dozens of years and there is nothing new in the construction permit procedures.”
They added that there was no crisis in relations between Israel and the United States.
Rules Of The Game Have Changed
If anyone among the Israeli decision-makers still believed the Americans would ultimately get on with business as usual in the aftermath of the Israeli decision to build 900 housing units in Gilo, along came reality and slapped them in the face.
The U.S. administration does not accept the Israeli decision to apply Israeli law to any area acquired by Israel in the wake of the 1967 war.
Even more important to remember is that the American government does not recognize any part of Jerusalem as an integral part of Israel.
All documents processed by the American government in Jerusalem - passports, birth certificates, affidavits and even death certificates are stamped “Jerusalem” with no nation state mentioned.
Instead, successive U.S. administrations abide by the UN’s 1949 definition of Jerusalem as an international zone.
While lobbyists for Israel have, for many years, tried to influence countless American administrations to move the American embassy to Jerusalem, very few of Israel’s friends abroad ask the American government to simply recognize Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, as a part of Israel.
View the original article in the Philadelphia Bulletin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
