Monday, December 31, 2007

How the Ruling Party Rules in Democratic Gaza.

by Baruch Gordon

A report released Sunday by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) documents multiple cases in which the ruling Hamas party in Gaza is using its police to silence the Fatah opposition.

In January 2006, Hamas won a landslide victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections, and officially became the government for the Arabs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. In a mini civil war in June 2007, Hamas cemented its rule over Gaza violently. Hamas took over rival Fatah party locations and killed several Fatah leaders. Judea and Samaria remained under the rule of the Fatah party, headed by Mahmoud Abbas.

PCHR strongly condemned Hamas's attacks against offices and institutions of the Fatah movement and demanded that the ruling party respect Fatah's right to freedom of speech.

PCHR reports that on Saturday night, the Hamas police raided an office of the Fatah movement in the al-Remal neighborhood on the west side of Gaza City. They confiscated a computer, a photocopier, a fax machine, a scanner, documents, photos, and flags of Palestine and the Fatah movement. They also arrested six people in the office and only released them after the six signed pledges not to participate in activities related to the anniversary of the Fatah movement. Failure to comply with the signed pledge would carry a $4,000 fine.

Later on Saturday night, the Hamas police, accompanied by masked gunmen in civilian clothes, raided Fatah offices in the al-Daraj neighborhood on the east side of Gaza City. There, too, they confiscated furniture and equipment and destroyed photos and flags of Fatah.

An hour later, the Hamas police, again accompanied by masked militants dressed as civilians, simultaneously raided the Fatah headquarters near the Ansar security compound and the office of the Executive Committee of Palestine Liberation Organization, both in Gaza City. In both places, the police broke down the door and confiscated equipment.

On Friday evening, the Hamas police raided the campus of al-Azhar University in Gaza City and arrested 35 students who were preparing for the celebration of the anniversary of the Fatah movement. The detainees were taken to the al-Abbas policestation and were forced to sign documents pledging not to participate in any activity related to the anniversary. Punishment for participation in the Fatah celebration was set at a $4,000 fine and a 15-day jail term.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

RUSSIAN NAVAL PORT IN GAZA?.

by Emanuel A. Winston, Mid East Analyst & Commentator

Recently Hamas in Gaza announced the formation of a "Naval Unit", despite the fact that they have no Navy. Russia is desperately looking for a Naval port in the Meditteranean, to challenge American control of the seas, among other reasons. Syria has an older port used by the Soviets years ago and, no doubt, will upgrade to today's standards for the new Russia in the Syrian cities of Tartus and Latakia.

A Russian port in Syria is vulnerable to any Syrian-Israeli war, as it is part of the Syrian military infrastructure. A port in Gaza is less vulnerable as everyone will know it belongs to Russia. Of course, Russian troops, missiles and tanks would be stationed there "to protect the port". And, of course, Hamas terrorist infrastructure would be built up adjoining the Russia port, to shield Hamas from Israeli attack. Russia has already established a sea presence in Lebanon, using Russian Chechen Muslims, calling them engineers but, in fact, establishing a deeper working relationship with the Muslim Arab Palestinian "Jihadists".

Obviously, it would be in America's interest to have Israel immediately bomb the coast of Gaza (as part of the war on terror and Al Qaeda infiltration into Gaza), to establish that area as an American target - before the Russians build a port there. They can then pay the Israelis to retake the Gaza Strip - before the Russians establish a sea presence, using Gaza as another port - in addition to the one in Syria.

If the Israelis just retake Gaza, world pressure could make them give it up again. If Israel bombs Gaza - with the permission of America and so that everyone knows that Gaza is an American target - then the Israelis will be thanked for "doing America's job on the ground", which saves American lives as well.

Putin's Russia has always wanted a strong presence in the Mediterranean Sea which will cause America enormous problems, especially since Putin seems to be returning to his KGB Cold War days with some modifications. No doubt, Putin would also like to return to the previous Soviet position with Egypt before American aid pushed them out of favor.

The Port of Alexandria could start receiving "friendly" visits for Russian shipping, especially when Mubarak inevitably loses control to the Muslim Brotherhood.

In brief, between an incompetent Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the Administration of President George W. Bush, with too low a vision of its crucial importance, the Mediterranean Sea could become home to a Russian fleet.

The big question is: Will America be able to act fast enough?

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

 

                                                                                                                 

 

                                                                                                               

 

 

Islam or Naught.

 

This first half of the 21st century may reveal the theater of the worst catastrophe human kind has ever known: The hot war between civilisations.

 

No one can be sure what will be the aspect of the world after a war  in which  nuclear weapons are used. Unresponsible and consciousless people, those without any consideration and respect for the life of human kind will not hesitate to use the atomic bomb in order to enforce their religion. Will our planet be a dead planet or will we "only" go back to prehistory ?...

 

Unfortunately, leaders of countries that have the resources to avoid this catastrophe are remaining passive, are self-centered and only mind their own mediocre interest!

 

In order to have a slight idea as to what we have to be prepared for please open :

 

 http://www.terrorismawareness.org/know-about-jihad/

 

 

Not Apartheid: A Jerusalem story.


There are hundreds of stories like this, that make the "apartheid Israel" campaign a sick joke.

----------------------------------------------------------



A Jerusalem story
By  Benjamin Pogrund

My wife, Anne, slipped and fell on Saturday evening. The little finger of her right hand was knocked out of joint and she quickly pushed it back into place. It was painful so I drove her to the Terem emergency clinic in the centre of Jerusalem.

She was swiftly attended to - the Sabbath was only just ending and religious Jewish patients from the neighbourhood were starting to come in. The doctors, nurses and receptionists were helpful, pleasant and efficient.

She was X-rayed and bandaged and the doctor who examined her told me that if I ever needed orthopaedic treatment I should go to my wife as she had done exactly what must be done with a dislocated finger.

Why I am telling this little domestic story?

Well, the doctors, nurses and receptionists were a mixture of Jews and Arabs. They worked together, they laughed together, they were kind to all the patients. And the patients, too, were a mixture of Jews and Arabs, men, women and children.

It confirmed my own personal experience of nearly four years ago when I spent more than a month at Hadassah Mount Scopus hospital in Jerusalem. It was exactly the same there.

Anyone who talks about Israel being an apartheid state must come and look at humanity in practice in hospitals and clinics. It's inconceivable to think of anything remotely like this having been allowed in apartheid South Africa.

The point is so elementary and so obvious to anyone who lived under apartheid. Yet it has to be made time and again because some people are so blinded in their hatred of Israel that they persist in the wrong use of the apartheid accusation.

There is a tragic irony about Terem: on the wall in the reception area is a large colour photograph of Dr David Appelbaum. He was a founder of the chain of Terem clinics in the city and was a much-admired and loved doctor. He was a specialist in emergency medicine and often rushed to the scene of terror attacks to succour the victims.

On 9 September 2003 Dr Appelbaum, aged 51, was himself a victim: he was murdered in a suicide bombing at a Jerusalem coffee bar. His daughter, Nava, aged 20, died with him. She was due to get married the next day. Five others also died.

 

Benjamin Pogrund


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

 

 

The message of Islam : Dead to America.

 

If you accept not to be a free person…

If you accept your family to be reduced to slavery…

If you accept to be reduced to animal conditions, without personal opinions , without personal ideas…

If you accept to lose your human spirit….

 

This video is not for you !

 

Otherwise open : http://usawakeup.org

 

 

Mobilize now, save the world


Just over three years ago, at the first-ever global forum on anti-Semitism organized by the State of Israel, the essential task was to define the beast - the new anti-Semitism. Since then, as the fourth such global gathering meets this week, efforts to incorporate the "three-D" distinction between legitimate criticism of Israel and the new anti-Semitism - demonization, double standards and delegitimization - have become part of international documents and discourse.

These and other accomplishments, as important as they are, have been dwarfed by the quantum leap anti-Semitism itself has taken. It has leapfrogged from isolated attacks against Jews to incitement to genocide - the actual elimination of the Jewish state.

This shift has come in the form of a pincer movement. On one side, we have the Iranian regime, which is denying the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map" while racing to develop the physical means of doing so. On the other side, we have what is, in effect, international silence in response, coupled with growing willingness to discuss Israel's existence as a mistake, an anachronism, or a provocation.

We must recognize the fact that though sympathy for Iran's expressed goal of Israel's destruction is hardly mainstream, the idea of a world without Israel is more acceptable in polite company, the media and academia today than Hitler's expressed goal of a Europe without Jews was in 1939.

Given this situation, it should be clear that we are beyond the stage of definitions. The Jewish world now must mobilize at a level no less than during the struggles to establish the State of Israel and to free Soviet Jewry. It is this latter struggle that presents the most potent model for action today.

Though both sides of the genocidal pincer are in quite advanced stages of development, the Jewish world remains mired in pre-mobilization debates reminiscent of the early stages of the Soviet Jewry struggle in the 1960s. This may be hard to recall in light of the subsequent success, but back then a debate raged among Jews over whether a campaign to free Soviet Jewry was "too parochial," and whether being out front risked making it too much of a "Jewish issue."

BEFORE THESE internal debates were resolved the Soviet Jewry effort could not be regarded as a movement, capable of attracting allies and moving governments. Nor were such debates easily, or ever fully, put to rest.

As late as 1987, when the by then mature and powerful movement organized the largest-ever Soviet Jewry rally on Washington's mall to coincide with Mikhail Gorbachev's visit, some Jewish leaders wondered if the community could be mobilized, and if such a rally would be counterproductive. They warned that only a few thousand souls would brave the winter weather, and that the Jewish community would be considered "warmongers" who were spoiling the recent warming of US-Soviet relations.

In actuality, over 250,000 people came to a rally that was pivotal in opening the floodgates, not just to 10,000 or 20,000 Jews, which seemed like a dream at the time, but to a million Jews who came to Israel over the following decade.

Since it has been a while, a reminder is in order of what full mobilization looks like.

First, as Shlomo Avineri has recently proposed, Iranian officials should get the Soviet treatment. Just as no Soviet official, including sport and cultural delegations, could travel without being accosted by protests and hostile questions, so it should be with anyone representing the Iranian regime. As in the Soviet case, such protests will not themselves change Iranian behavior, but they are critical to creating a climate that will influence the policies of Western governments.

Second, an inventory of the governments and companies that provide Iran with refined oil, huge trade deals, and even military and nuclear assistance should be taken and public pressure be put on them to end their complicity with a regime that is racing to genocide.

Third, the pension funds of US states should be divested from all companies that trade with or invest in Iran. This divestment campaign must be pursued without apologies or hesitation.

Fourth, every country that is party to the Genocide Convention should be called upon to fulfill its obligation under that treaty and seek an indictment of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the charge of incitement to genocide, which is a "punishable offense" under Article III of that treaty.

Fifth, human rights groups, such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which are heavily nourished by Jewish values, passion

and funding, must stop squeezing both sides of the genocidal pincer. These groups must be challenged, on the one hand, to press for enforcement of the Genocide Treaty, to stand up for human rights in Iran, and to oppose and expose Iranian support for terrorism. On the other, they must stop perverting the sacred cause of human rights into a cudgel in Iran's hands against Israel. This happened just months ago when, during the Lebanon war, such groups all but ignored Hizbullah's terrorism from behind human shields and called Israel's self-defense a "war crime."

JUST AS the two sides of the pincer themselves are connected, so too must be the efforts to combat them. All the above steps concern the Iranian side of the pincer. But combating the other side, the denial of Israel's right to exist, is no less critical - and more difficult, since at times they necessitate confronting, not a rogue regime, but our own cherished institutions. On this front:

First, universities that provide chairs for professors who campaign against Israel's right to exist should be boycotted. In a number of countries, denying the Holocaust is a criminal act. In the current context, denying Israel's right to exist lays the groundwork for a second holocaust even more directly than does denying history. Therefore, the promulgation of such an ideology should be fought even by societies that justifiably revere freedom of speech.

This may seem a hopelessly difficult task, but it is not. After 9/11, one woman, a student, took on Harvard University, which was ready to accept a $10 million "gift" from a Saudi sheikh. Harvard backed down, showing that moral clarity, unapologetically and passionately expressed, can change seemingly unassailable ideas.

We must stand for a basic principle: If denying the Holocaust can land a professor in jail, denying Israel should not land him tenure.

Second, support for Israel must be demonstrated. Two decades after the massive Soviet Jewry rally of 1987, we need to return to the Mall on Israel's Independence Day in May with two messages: Support Israel and Stop Iran. It is late, but not too late, to overcome those fears of being "too parochial" that the Soviet Jewry movement succeeded in dispelling more than 30 years ago.

The fight to support Israel and stop Iran now is, if anything, less "parochial" than the Soviet Jewry movement was then. Then, the Jewish world took on a global superpower, the Soviet Union, and confronted the reigning American foreign policy paradigm - detente - with a very different one: linkage of trade to human rights.

Then, we successfully argued that the freedom to emigrate was not just a Jewish concern, but a universal one, and we were more right than we knew. The Jackson-Vanik amendment and the Helsinki Accords were critical factors in triggering the internal collapse of the Soviet empire. This collapse not only freed millions of Jews, but all the peoples behind the Iron Curtain, and ended a half-century-old superpower stalemate that threatened the entire planet.

NOW THE WORLD stands at a no less fateful watershed. The world's most dangerous rogue regime is on the verge of obtaining the ultimate weapons of terror. Already, Iran's confidence that it will not be stopped has led to one war, last summer's war in Lebanon started by Hizbullah. Already, Iran is fueling conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza - and all this before the regime enjoys its own full, declared nuclear umbrella.
The moment before mobilization is always a lonely one, in which it seems that the obstacles to making a cause universal are insurmountable. Yet, as in the case of the Soviet Jewry movement, we are not alone. We are surrounded by potential allies who may not themselves know they are ready to join us until we create a movement for them to join.
Our leadership will give others the opportunity to act. If the Jewish world does not lead the way, who will? It is as true now as it was then; if we build it, they will come.
A decade after the wave of democracy that came with the fall of the Soviet Union, an Iranian-led wave of terror is rising that will not stop until it is stopped. Ultimately, we overcame our fear of parochialism to stand up for Soviet Jewry, and left the world a much better place for it. Now we must do the same to prevent a second holocaust, and in the process save the world.


Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

Freedom of the Press, PA Style.

by Hana Levi Julian

Foreign journalists have often become pawns in the game of "chicken" often played out between Arab terrorists and their international opponents, but local reporters are usually considered off-limits.

Not so in Palestinian Authority-controlled Gaza, where local reporters are beginning to panic, with good reason.

The release this week of British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) journalist Alan Johnston after four months of captivity by Gaza terrorists has not changed the dangerous situation in which Gaza journalists find themselves.

According to a report in Newsweek magazine, more than 30 local journalists were attacked last month in Hamas-controlled Gaza and in Fatah-controlled Judea and Samaria. Three have been killed so far this year.

The Palestinian Center for Development and Media Freedoms (Mada) warned Hamas and Fatah officials in a recent statement to "order their armed forces to stop attacks on journalists and media institutions."

Gaza journalists are forced to deal with conditions that will inevitably affect the way they cover stories in the region, said the organization. "Mada center is expressing [its] serious concern over the deteriorating situation in the Palestinian arena in general and the state of media freedoms in particular…."

The organization also had words of warning for PA Arab journalists to "avoid [being] aligned to a party at the expense of another and the need to be objective and impartial in their professional work… [and] commit to professional standards."

One month ago, Arab terrorists stormed the offices of the Palmedia news agency offices in Gaza City, shooting in the air and taking away its computer and transmission equipment.

No Palestinian Authority (PA) security forces intervened, although security headquarters are located within 60 yards of the media office, according to the Reporters without Borders organization. Twenty journalists were in the offices at the time, but no one was injured.

In April, PA police officers attacked Arab journalists who were participating in a rally for Johnston's release near the PA Legislative Council building in Gaza. Several of the journalists were injured by police, who used rifles to push them away, threatening to shoot them if they returned to the area.

Foreign Journalists: Gaza 'No Go' Zone
Meanwhile, Gaza has been unofficially declared a "no go" zone among foreign journalists, who say kidnappings and attacks on reporters have gone too far, and PA officials not far enough.

Foreign journalists are becoming an increasingly endangered species, continuing to quietly stream out of Gaza in recent months as the risk of life-threatening attacks and kidnappings skyrockets. BBC reporter Alan Johnston was the last holdout to maintain a full-time bureau office in Gaza City. It was outside that office that he was kidnapped at gunpoint on March 12. Johnston was finally released this week, almost four months after his abduction.

The continuing saga has left the Gaza area without foreign journalists and is damaging the reputation of the Palestinian Authority, according to Simon McGregor-Wood of ABC News, Chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem. "Gaza for most of the foreign press corps has become a no-go zone," said McGregor-Wood.

A number of network news reporters have been kidnapped within the past year. Most were released immediately; an exception was last summer's kidnapping of two Fox News journalists. Sixty-year-old American Steve Centanni and his 36-year-old cameraman Olaf Wiig of New Zealand were held for two weeks by a Hamas-linked group called the Holy Jihad Brigades.

Associated Press photographer Emiliio Morenatti, an Italian national, was kidnapped in October 2006, also in Gaza City and released unharmed 15 hours later.

The most recent occurrence prior to Johnston's abduction involved a 50-year-old Peruvian photographer with the French news agency Agence France Presse (AFP). Jaime Razuri was abducted by masked gunmen in January and released a week later.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

 

 

The truth about the refugees - from an impeccable Arab source.

The truth about the refugees - not Zionist propaganda. Attention anti-Zionists. This article did not appear in any Neo-con Zionist newspaper. It was not written by a member of the "Israel Lobby." It was written in As Sharq al Awsat, a Saudi-supported newspaper published in London. It was written by the general manager of Al -Arabiya television and former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al- Awsat.

Now you will find out all about us lying, evil Zionist scum, so be prepared for a real treat.

Shuqran Sayyed al-Rashed - thank you for telling at least part of the truth.

Ami Isseroff



40 Years: The Real Stigma
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed

There is no questioning the fairness of the Palestinian issue... However, only a few know about the inhumane aspects of the issue such as the refugees in camps that are shrouded in misery and despair. They have existed for many decades, either because of a longstanding indifference and oblivion or due to giving priority to both military and political concerns over humanitarian matters.

Regarded by some as a temporary issue, the tragedy of the Palestinians is rarely presented to the Arab and international public opinion through the media or during political occasions. Even some Arabs and Palestinians intentionally turn a blind eye to the issue so as not to expose abuses. What is happening in Lebanon's Nahr al Bared camp today is just one such example where battles have raised an overwhelming number of questions: who are these people? How long have they lived in the camp and how? What are their rights? The answers can be found on the UNRWA's website. Tens of thousands of people crammed in undignified houses, where many of them were born and have lived for five decades.

Some Arab countries "hosting" refugees ban them from leaving [camps], from occupying a large number of positions and deny them any other legal rights. Some of them have to jump over walls and sneak out to complete their chores or to breathe and experience the outside world. One can imagine these randomly and poorly built houses during the winter chill and sweltering heat of the summer among the sewage and insufficient services. It is a shame. How can we talk about the liberation of Palestine, which we simply associate with stolen land, a desecrated mosque and a powerful enemy, while we do not allow Palestinians to settle down, earn a living or travel like all other human beings?

Our insistence to lock the Palestinians in camps and treat them like animals in the name of preserving the issue is far worse a crime than Israel stealing land and causing the displacement of people. The 60 year-old camps only signify our inhumanity and double standards. Israel can claim that it treats the Palestinians better than their Arab brothers do. It gives citizenship to the Palestinians of 1948 as well as the right to work and the right to lead a somewhat normal life, although they are treated as second-class citizens. [Comment - how are Jews treated in Saudi Arabia? How are Arabs treated in Saudi Arabia? Who has more rights, an Arab in Saudi Arabia who is not a member of the royal family, or an Arab street sweeper in Israel? Who can vote? Who can go to law if his rights are violated? ]

In Nahr al Bared and other camps, however, they are neither citizens nor humans based on weak pretexts. I cannot believe Lebanese allegations that state that they have been confining the Palestinians, being Sunnis, to camps so as not to disturb the demographic balance between the Shia and Christians. It is a ridiculous excuse that even Israel would not try to use. No one is asking for citizenship or permanent settlement for them—only permission to live like any other foreigner.
Blame lies with the Arab League and Arab governments that took part in or kept silent about this moral scandal. Rather than seeking to help them or provide for their demands, they preoccupy Arab public opinion with conferences and hollow rhetoric on the issue and on refugees.

Finally, we have to be true to ourselves and ask whether the way of life of these one million people is fair.

--------
Abdul Rahman Al-Rashed the general manager of Al -Arabiya television. Mr. Al Rashed is also the former editor-in-chief of Asharq Al- Awsat, and the leading Arabic weekly magazine, Al Majalla. He is also a senior Columnist in the daily newspapers of Al Madina and Al Bilad. He is a US post-graduate degree in mass communications. He has been a guest on many TV current affairs programs. He is currently based in Dubai.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Occupation? Whose Occupation?

By Moshe Sharon

Jordanian and Egyptian occupation

The word "occupation" has been used for many years now to describe the rule of Israel in Judea and Samaria (known as the "West Bank") and the Gaza district which Israel took from The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and from Egypt respectively in the course of the Six Days War in 1967. In the distorted language of the media and of politicians, both in Israel and in most parts of the world, these two territories are described as "the occupied Palestinian territories" as if Israel occupied a country called "Palestine" in 1967 and took Palestinian lands. Sadly, very few of the media consumers in the West and the East are aware of the lie behind the usage of these terms. Like many terms that are used in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Middle Eastern arena in general, those that use these terms do not try or, usually, are not interested in verifying the accuracy of their usage. In most cases, this is not out of innocence but a clearly political, pro-Arab agenda.

If the usage of incorrect terms (such as "democracy in the Arab countries", "Free elections" "Women's rights" and so on) were only a reflection of the user's ignorance of the Arab-Islamic culture this would be acceptable though regrettable. However, when the use of such terms, which belong in the lexicon of Western civilization, becomes the basis for policy and political decision-making then such usage becomes deadly dangerous.

There are, however, language usages, which represent a mixture of ignorance and the distortion of historical facts, hatred of Israel and more than a touch of Anti-Semitism. The word "occupation" belongs to this category, and of all occupied parts of the world is reserved only regarding Israel. (For example, Germany lost about 44,310 sq. miles with a population of 9,621,000, mainly to Russia and Poland. The population either fled from the advancing Soviet forces or was expelled after the end of the war.)

First, let us review the simple facts about this "occupation." Israel took the "West Bank" from Jordan and not from a non-existent "Palestinian" entity; and occupied Gaza that was held by Egypt. Both countries had occupied these territories during the Arab-Israeli war of 1948 and had ruled them illegally. The Jordanians even annexed territory to the west of the Jordan and called it "The West Bank." Egypt established its administration in Gaza. Both these areas were, therefore, in Arab hands for 19 years, but nobody, during these years of Jordanian and Egyptian occupation, even thought about the establishment of a Palestinian State in them, although such a state could have been established easily and recognized, even by Israel.

Moreover, the Jordanian occupation of the "West Bank" and the Egyptian rule over Gaza were never recognized internationally because of the simple reason that these two countries occupied territories that, according to international agreements international decisions and international law, belonged to the Jewish National Home. In fact, the only title to these territories belonged and still belongs to the State of Israel more than to anyone else.

San Remo – the crucial document

The legal position of the whole of Palestine was clearly defined in several international agreements.

The most important of all these agreements is the one adopted at the San Remo Conference (following the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire in the First World War), which decided, on April 24, 1920 to assign the Mandate for Palestine under the League of Nations to Britain. An agreed text was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, and it came into operation in September 1923.

In the preamble to this document, it is stated that "...the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." The declaration of November 2 1917 is the famous "Balfour Declaration" and in this document, it was given an international ratification.

Moreover, in Article 2 of the document, the League of Nations declares that "The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble.

In the preamble it was clearly stated that: "recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country"

It was on this basis, that the British Mandate was established. Britain betrayed its duty, and far from keeping to its undertakings under the conditions of this documents, did everything to jeopardize the establishment of the Jewish National Home, and finally decided, in 1947, to end its mandate unilaterally, leaving Palestine on May 15, 1948.

Meanwhile the UN (that had inherited the League of Nations) decided on the partition of Western Palestine into two states, Jewish and Arab, but this decision of November 29, 1947 was not only rejected out of hand by the Arabs, but 7 Arab armies invaded Palestine to put an end to the young State of Israel which had been established on May 14, 1948.

The 1948 war of young Israel against all the Arab armies ended with an armistice. A line, was drawn on the map which delineated the position of the fighting armies on the two fronts in the east and the south at the time of the ceasefire. This is the "Green Line." It is not a border, and neither Israel nor the Arabs regarded it as more than what it was: a line defining the positions of the respective armies at the end of one phase of the hostilities; it could be moved to either side if war was to be resumed, as actually happened in 1967. As an outcome of the 1948 war, parts of the Jewish National Home in Palestine were left occupied by Jordan and Egypt, since the only title to these territories belonged to the Jewish people, in other words to Israel, not to the Arabs and definitely not to the "Palestinians" who were not even mentioned at the time.

Six Day War and its aftermath

The 1967 war created a new situation in the field: The armistice line from 1948-49, which had been drawn in green (not blue nor mauve) on the maps, was moved as an outcome of this war further east to the River Jordan, and in 1994 was ratified as international border by the peace agreement with Jordan. In the south, the Green Line was moved as a result of Israel's victory over the Egyptians, and in 1979 was recognized as an international border in the peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. There is no Green Line any more! It was abrogated by a new war, and ultimately was turned into a "mauve line" by the peace agreements. Those who sanctified the Green Line worship an illusionary image and, therefore, are not interested in facts. They have created a Palestinian People and Palestinian State behind this sacred line but they are not interested in the welfare of the Palestinians as much as in creating the conditions for the elimination of the Jewish National Home.

Forty-five years after the of the League of Nations Declaration in San Remo, Israel retrieved its rightful possession of the territories assigned to the Jewish People as a national home. How her possession of its own homeland can be called the "Occupation of Palestinian territories?" is beyond any explanation. What is so tragic in the whole story is that the Jews themselves have adopted this usage and made it a cornerstone of their own national policy.

All the facts in this article are well known, yet they tend to be conveniently forgotten. It is therefore necessary to repeat them at least as frequently as the lies about the false "occupation" are endlessly repeated on a daily basis.

The same can be said about the demand to return to Syria the "occupied" Golan Heights as the "price for peace." In this case too the facts are well known but they must be ceaselessly repeated. Syria lost the Golan Heights as an outcome of two wars which it initiated and waged against Israel in 1967 and 1973, and after many years in which it used the Golan as big military base for perpetrating endless acts of aggression against innocent Israeli villages in the Jordan Valley. Having lost this territory through aggression Syria cannot have it back just as Germany cannot have beck the territory that it had lost in the War.

Moreover, if Syria wishes to have peace with Israel, it is not Israel that has to "pay" for this peace but Syria that wishes to buy it, as it claims, since it is clear that in the political bazaar of the Middle East it is Israel that has the merchandize called "peace" not Syria. The principle of the Syrian payment for Peace with Israel should be made clear: Syria must, not only come to terms with its losses in the 1967 and 1973 wars, but it must be ready for more concessions to prove its true wish for peace.

One last word about occupation: If there is any occupation which is historically relevant to the Middle East and North Africa it is the Islamic one. By the power of the sword, the armies of Islam broke out of Arabia in the 7th century, occupied vast territories, subjugated peoples, destroyed cultures and languages in the name of Allah and in the service of His Prophet, and they are now poised to occupy Europe.

Moshe Sharon

Professor (Emeritus) of Islamic History and Civilization

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

Sunday, December 30, 2007

IDF Intercepts Explosives Agent Marked as EU Aid.

by Ezra HaLevi

The IDF intercepted 6.5 tons of a bomb-making agent that was stored in sugar bags marked as humanitarian aid from the European Union.

It has been released for publication that 6.5 tons of Potassium Nitrate, a main ingredient in explosives manufacturing, was intercepted in a joint Shabak (General Security Service) and IDF operation last month.

A truck was caught at "one of the crossing points in Judea and Samaria carrying the Potassium Nitrate, which was disguised in sugar bags, and was intended for use by terrorists in Gaza," according to IDF sources.

Potassium Nitrate is a banned substance in Gaza, Judea and Samaria region due to its use by terrorists for the manufacturing of explosives and Kassam rockets.

It is assumed that the explosives ingredient was not dispatched by the European Union, but labeled as aid by terrorist groups to take advantage of Israel's efforts to appease human rights groups by limiting scrutiny of foreign aid shipments to Gaza.

"The terror organizations disguised the Potassium Nitrate in sugar bags that were marked as being part of the humanitarian aid provided by the European Union," the IDF source said. "This is another example of how the terror organizations exploit the humanitarian aid that is delivered to the Palestinian population in Gaza with Israel's approval."

 

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

 

 

Interview: David Raab, Author of 'Terror in Black September'

by Ezra HaLevi

Author David Raab, who survived one of history's most audacious terrorist acts, spoke with Israel National Radio's Eve Harrow about his new book, "Terror in Black September."

Raab spoke about his decision, years later, to compile archived documents and testimony surrounding the three-week drama of being held as a hostage by PLO terrorists in Jordan in 1970. He also revealed a result of the hijackings the terrorists never intended: Aliyah (Jewish immigration to Israel).

"The situation in Jordan then was very similar to what was going on in Gaza just a few months ago, with the Palestinian Authority nominally in charge but in fact Hamas running rampant through the streets, running its own checkpoints and basically a state within a state," Raab explains of the political environment surrounding the episode. "In 1970, Yasser Arafat and the PLO were playing [the Hamas] role and King Hussein was at his wits end."

On Sunday, September 6, 1970, 17-year-old Raab, his mother and his four younger siblings boarded a plane in Tel Aviv after spending the summer in Israel. TWA flight 741 was heading back to the US when it had to make a stop in Germany. "In those days planes couldn't make it all the way across the pond so we landed at Frankfurt to refuel and pick up more passengers," Raab recalls. "A few minutes out of Frankfurt we heard a scream from the back and a man and a woman, the woman carrying two hand grenades, ran down the aisle. We had been hijacked and the plane was turned around."

The teenage Raab – he preserves his original memories recorded immediately after the saga by using italics in his book – first recalled a spate of hijackings to Cuba. "My first reaction was that we would be heading for Cuba and would be back on our way to the US after a few cigars," he said. "The female hijacker got on the PA system and said this was the work of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). We knew then that this was not going to be fun."

Raab's book is unique in that it uses the methods of the so-called New Historians in Israel – accessing declassified archives of various governments and officials to piece together the complex nature of the behind-the-scenes tapestry of events - while conveying his perceptions as a victim at the epicenter as well.

"There were a couple of US Defense Department officials sitting nearby who began cutting out sections of classified documents and eating them," Raab recalls, speaking with hindsight of what seemed a bizarre response to the terrorists' announcement at the time. "They were returning from a series of meetings in the Middle East with very classified material."

Raab and the rest of the passengers on the flight began circling over the Jordanian desert, where the terrorists forced the crew to land without a real runway. "We landed on salt flats in the desert," he said. "The pilot was very worried and thought we would crash on landing."

Thus began what Raab terms "a three-week nightmare." The PLO terrorists turned off all the lights on the plane, collected the passengers' passports and asked them to fill out forms with their names, addresses and religions.

"At the time just being in Jordan alone was terrifying to a Jewish person, let alone being held by Palestinians," Raab said. "This was three years after the Six Day War and Jordan was still at war with Israel."

A second plane, this one Swissair, had also been hijacked over Europe on its way to the US and was brought in right behind the first. "It nearly hit us, stopping only 75 feet short of our plane," Raab said.

Two more planes had been successfully hijacked that day in addition to a failed attempt to take an El Al flight - a record that held until the attacks on September 11, 2001. "They hijacked a Pan Am 747 also out of Europe, took it to Cairo and wired it with explosives, lit the fuse while the plane was still in the air, and the plane blew up only seconds after the last passengers had exited," Raab recalls.

The terrorists demanded that Israel release hundreds of convicted terrorists from Israeli jails. "Things don't seem to change very much," Raab mused. "They wanted Britain, Germany and Switzerland to also release a number of terrorists [from] their jails. They wired our planes with explosives and said that if their demands weren't met in 72 hours they would blow up the planes with us on them."

The PLO was an umbrella organization of which PFLP was a part. Yasser Arafat applauded the PFLP for the "spectacular hijack." King Hussein was furious with Arafat. "This was the last straw as it was a real slap in the face to Hussein," Raab said. "These terror groups had now brought hundreds of innocent civilians to his country and he was powerless to do anything about it because we were hostage to these terror organizations."

After a week filled with tension and sheer terror for the passengers – which can only be understood by reading Raab's detailed account -  the planes were blown up and most of the women and children were sent home. The PFLP held on to 54 people, including 38 Americans. Raab was one of them.

"I was 17, Jewish and they claimed that I was an Israeli soldier," he said. The book recounts his family agonizing over how to get rid of a costume IDF uniform they had purchased and photos they had taken with real soldiers.

"They took people off in groups at first. I was taken as part of a group of seven people they claimed were Israeli soldiers, even though we were all Americans. We were all Jewish (except one) and between the ages of 17 and 35. There were only two adult males who were Israeli – and they were dual Israeli-US citizens. One of the miracles of this whole episode were that there were not more, first of all, and that there were no pure adult male Israeli citizens.

"The Palestinians at first thought that it was a bluff. They claimed that there were about 50 Israelis on board. In those days they didn't have automated reservation systems and it took quite a few days until the world realized there were no Israeli citizens on board and they were really all Americans. The US kind of felt flustered because there were no demands placed on it, but its citizens were involved. In other words, its citizens were going to be freed only if Israel did something. Actually, at one point Henry Kissinger wrote a memo to President Nixon saying that the release of our citizens depends on the action of a third country.

"The United States got it, but the European countries became very upset, because they also were kind of dependent on Israel to do something to help get their citizens out, too. So they, during the course of three weeks, became quite upset at Israel at different times – surprise, surprise. But the US was actually pretty stalwart in its support of Israel during the entire three weeks."

Harrow: So how was it resolved?

"Well, I survived," Raab laughed. "How I survived is very interesting, but you'll have to read the book.

"For the last ten days we actually sat in the middle of a civil war. After the PLO and PFLP had blown up the planes and held onto the 54, King Hussein decided the time had come to crack down on the PLO. And this was encouraged by the US, even though it had its citizens sitting there – I guess we were deemed expendable.

"By Wednesday, September 16, we were 32 Americans in a three-room apartment in Amman. We were in a Palestinian enclave. We awoke the next day to the sound of artillery and machine-gun fire. We sat under shelling with no water or electricity for ten days. They brought us some food – I lost 15 pounds in three weeks. At one point I didn't know when the next meal would come and it was very distressing. It was very miraculous that we came out alive. We could have died by mistake."

Harrow: How did all this affect you, a 17-year-old?

"It affected me in a lot of ways, in terms of priorities in life. I became obsessed with Israel," Raab, who now lives in Raanana, admits. "There were 78 American Jews who boarded the plane in Tel Aviv that morning. About 20 percent of them now live in Israel – which is a huge percentage if you think about it. These people left with a feeling that they were a part of Israeli history and their response the Palestinians was to make Israel their home.

For more information or to purchase the book, visit terrorinblackseptember.com

Click here to listen to Eve Harrow's interview with David Raab on Israel National Radio

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

 

 

Share It