WHO IS JOHN BRENNAN AND WHY WE SHOULD WORRY

by Steve Kramer

You may not have heard of President Obama's anti-terrorism czar, John O. Brennan. According to the Washington Post site, www.whorunsgov.com, Brennan has been the  Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism since May 2009. His previous jobs since 2001: Analysis Corp, (2005 to 2008) a private company that provides support to the government's counter-terrorism efforts; National Counter-Terrorism Center, Chair (2004 to 2005) ; CIA deputy executive director (2001 to 2003).

In 1980, Brennan joined the CIA as an intelligence director and held a series of positions at the agency in America and abroad. He also worked in Saudi Arabia and in Washington on Near Eastern and South Asian analyses. In the 1990s, he led counter-terrorism efforts for a variety of programs and worked closely with CIA Director George Tenet, who appointed him as his chief of staff in 1999.

With this background, one would expect a hard-nosed lawman who would laser in on the Islamic terror organizations, which are responsible for 99% of the world's terrorism. Instead, America has a anti-terrorism czar who sees, for example, moderate elements in Hizbullah, a potential peace partner.

"Consider, for instance, the recent statements of the White House's counterterrorism czar, John Brennan, who sees in Hizbullah a terrorist organization that, because its members are doctors and lawyers and parliamentarians, really wants to become a partner for Middle East peace. Hizbullah's hardliners, Brennan said this week at a Washington conference, "are truly a concern to us, what they're doing. What we need to do is to find ways to diminish their influence within the organization and to try to build up the more moderate elements."

(Newsweek, "Outside Looking In," May 21, 2010)
Brennan, who must know better, ignores the fact that physicians have founded many terrorist organizations, not to mention lawyers and parliamentarians. (See www.aina.org/news/2007079124647.htm for an extensive list of Muslim physician-terrorists.)

Brennan recently revealed a new White House rhetorical policy regarding terrorism: detach all references made to Islam including any statement that makes mention of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or any other group. The purpose of the removal of these terms is to send a message to Muslim nations that America does not view them through the eyes of terrorism.

The majority of Muslims do prefer non-violent methods to terrorist ones, according to a Pew Research Center from December 2009. Most U.S. Muslims reject such attacks. Nevertheless, 22% of young American Muslims believe, to some extent, that suicide bombings can be justified to defend Islam. Similarly, support of some degree for suicide bombings among young European Muslims ranged from 22% in Germany, to 31 % in Spain, 30 % in Britain and 36% in France. In Israel, 45% of Israeli-Palestinians condone suicide bombing in some circumstances, as well as 44% in Jordan, 48% in Egypt, and 83% (!) in the Palestinian territories. (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1445/little-support-for-terrorism-among-muslim-americans?src=prc-latest&proj=hispanic)

Extrapolating from these figures, I'm not as optimistic about the world's Muslims as are the American president, the Homeland Security secretary, and most importantly, the anti-terrorism czar. We know that Muslims constitute a quarter of the world population, about 1.6-1.8 billion. Keeping in mind the large percentage of Muslims who don't approve of terrorism, let's estimate that only one-tenth of one percent would actually commit terrorist acts. That means that there are 170,000 Muslims who are ready to slaughter civilians for the Islamic cause.

The Iran proxy, Hizbullah, now effectively runs Lebanon and has scores of thousands of rockets and missiles aimed at Israel. The titular head of government, Prime Minister Saad Hariri, has been so emasculated that he takes orders from Hizbullah/Syria/Iran, one or all of whom are probably responsible for murdering Hariri's father, the former prime minister, Rafic Hariri.

From the Hizbullah Charter, published in Beirut, February 16, 1985:

    The Necessity for the Destruction of Israel
    We see in Israel the vanguard of the United States in our Islamic world. It is the hated enemy that must be fought until the hated ones get what they deserve. This enemy is the greatest danger to our future generations and to the destiny of our lands, particularly as it glorifies the ideas of settlement and expansion, initiated in Palestine, and yearning outward to the extension of the Great Israel, from the Euphrates to the Nile.

    Our primary assumption in our fight against Israel states that the Zionist entity is aggressive from its inception, and built on lands wrested from their owners, at the expense of the rights of the Muslim people. Therefore our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no cease fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.

    We vigorously condemn all plans for negotiation with Israel, and regard all negotiators as enemies, for the reason that such negotiation is nothing but the recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist occupation of Palestine.
(www.zionism-israel.com/hdoc/Hezbollah_Charter.htm)

It's impossible to read and understand the above charter and to believe that "moderates" (doctors and lawyers and parliamentarians) are members of Hizbullah. John Brennan, the czar of the American anti-terrorism effort, is typical of the universalist, multiculturalist, politically-correct leadership that is guiding America's foreign policy under the present administration. Frankly, I think the results of President Obama's ingratiating himself to Muslim dictators prove that his is the wrong approach to containing Islamic jihadism. The American public will express its opinion in the November midterm elections.

Stephen Kramer, Author
"Encountering Israel – Geography, History, Culture"

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

AUSTRALIA; SENATOR SCOTT RYAN DEFENDS ISRAEL….(GOOD ON HIM!)

JWire News

Victorian Liberal Senator Scott Ryan last night told the Australian Senate that there was "a highly orchestrated media campaign to vilify Israel" in the wake of the Gaza Flotilla Incident.

"Several weeks ago we were informed that Israel had allegedly outrageously intervened to stop a so-called peace flo- tilla, with commandos launching themselves at a peaceful armada seeking nothing more than to take humanitarian aid to Gaza. Excuse me if I was a little cynical when I first heard the news, for despite days of a highly orchestrated media campaign to vilify Israel and her defence forces, the truth subsequently came out. These were not peace activists; they were agents of provocation, radicals seeking a violent confrontation as they broke the legal maritime blockade of Gaza. I did not realise that peace activists were so well armed, in this case, with knives, chains, firearms, molotov cocktails and pepper spray. By viciously attacking the soldiers, they quickly betrayed their true agenda with their anti-Semitic cries, as they did by their refusal to cooperate with the UN, Israeli or Egyptian authorities, who could have facilitated the entry of the humanitarian materials to Gaza. This was no peace flotilla; it was part of an orchestrated campaign to vilify the state of Israel for doing nothing more than would be expected of us in this place: to protect her own citizens.

The blockade of Gaza is well founded in law, but it is also well founded in the entirely legitimate need for a state and government to take reasonable action to protect its citizens—for Gaza under Hamas cannot be treated as if it or they were a reasonable neighbour, and in no way can it be considered a partner for peace. This blockade has been undertaken to prevent terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, no matter their race or creed. For some reason, certain people, NGO's and so called human rights organisations expect Israel to tolerate a much higher level of violence than in Manhattan, Melbourne or Manchester.

To those who do not understand what Hamas does to the innocent civilians of Israel, I urge you to go to Sderot. Look at the remains of the rockets that have been fired from Gaza into that neighbourhood by Hamas—intentionally fired from amongst civilians in Gaza so as to make detection and prevention more difficult. Visit the children's playgrounds in Sderot that are made from reinforced concrete. Bomb shelters are painted as coloured snakes in lieu of a playground, as children need to be within seconds of safety as the sirens blare 'code red' as another rocket is launched. Speak to the mothers of the children to whom the word 'red' provokes fear because of these sirens and amongst whom mental illness—particularly anxiety, stress and depression-related disorders—are at un- precedented levels. Go and look at the schools which have concrete slabs above their roofs in an attempt to limit the carnage caused by terrorists firing rockets from only a kilometre away, to whom a school is noth- ing more than a target. This is the situation for Israeli towns along the border with Gaza.

And why is it that we do not hear of the brutal rule of Hamas and what its clear and stated agenda is? It cannot be through innocence; it can only be through ignorance. Hamas does not seek to hide its agenda, at least on its home turf. The truth is that Israel had allowed elections in Gaza. The corrupt Palestinian Authority lost to the terrorist organisation Hamas.The electoral attitude of Hamas can be best summed up as 'One man, one vote, once,' for elections are not regular. And pity those who might attempt to compete with them anyway, as thuggery and violence rule, rather than the ballot box.

Despite a lack of coverage of the reality of Hamas, we should be in no doubt as to what it is. It is a terrorist organisation, dedicated to the use of violence against innocent civilians to achieve its objective. In this case its objective is nothing less than the elimination of the Jewish state and of Jews in their homeland. Across Israel, Hamas has killed thousands, Jewish and Muslim alike. Shrapnel from terrorists does not discriminate. For this reason, Israel blockades the rogue state that is Gaza—but so does Egypt. Contrary to the perception created by some reports, this blockade does not prohibit the entry of food and medicines. It merely ensures that the materials going into Gaza are not diverted into the tools of violence and terror.

So what was the real agenda of this alleged peace flotilla? It was part of the campaign to delegitimise Israel in the West. It was intentionally aimed at weakening the historic friendship between many nations of the West and the only liberal democratic state in the Middle East. Over the past decade, a campaign of vilification against Israel has been undertaken by elements of the left in the West. Using NGOs, an occasionally ignorant media and a lack of understanding in the West of the existential threat faced by Israel, they have joined with other groups, including violent Islamic groups in the Middle East who seek to destroy Israel. The incidence of academic boycotts and the use of terms such as 'apartheid��� are all an attempt to achieve through factual manipulation what the enemies of Israel have not been able to achieve through other means. It could not be achieved by three wars and it could not be achieved by an unprecedented terror campaign against civilians, so now these organisations seek to weaken Israel by demonising and delegitimising it, weakening its alliance with other nations to diplomatically cripple and hopefully destroy it. This was merely the latest media stunt in that campaign.

For those who doubt the intensity of the hatred of Israel and its people, have a look at what is on some of the television stations in its neighbourhood. I have seen a dramatic serialisation of that historic slur The Protocols of the Elders of Zion being broadcast on television as if it were a mini-series we would see on our own TV screens, and the portrayal of a Disney-like children's character being killed by Jews on a children's program. And, of course, there is the constant denial of the reality of the Holocaust.

These are just some of the examples of horrific anti- Semitism fed to millions of people via their TV screens, endorsed or tolerated by Israel's Arab neighbour states. And while Hamas is of immediate interest with its control of Gaza, it is far from the only offender in creating and furthering racial hatred. The Palestinian Authority has maps on its walls that do not recognise the state of Israel. I have seen them. The schoolbooks the Palestinian Authority distributes to schools contain no reference to Israel or the three wars that were started against it. They have even named and funded a soccer tournament after a prominent suicide bomber. Israel and its citizens, including Muslim Arabs, do not live in the same world we do; they live in a world where their neighbours seek their violent destruction. No government is perfect. No state is perfect. But that does not mean one abandons those simply in need of security. In this case, it is the people of Israel who have that need—the need for no more than what we expect in Australia.

A group called 'Australians for Palestine' has been running a campaign entitled 'Time to hold Israel Accountable'. Israel is accountable to its people via elections, courts and the rule of law, while Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and Israel's other neighbours are not. Israel has a right to protect itself, and the campaign to undermine this must be opposed. More importantly, it must be exposed. The lies and misrepresentation of facts and the application of double standards in considering Israel's legitimate right of self-defence cannot go unanswered.

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

The ambition of Islam to conquer the world.

 

For centuries Islam of the militants have been on the march to conquer the world. We did not notice because we chose not to notice. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in

1920 by Hassan al-Banna in Egypt and was in deep confrontation with the Egyptian government. Al-Banna's ideology set the current Al Qaeda goals for Islam to achieve global domination for a Muslim Caliphate: a world under strict Islamic "Sharia" law, pulling Muslims back to the 7^th Century.

 

This is a very important interview.  It's 17 minutes and it's worth listening to every minute.   Roger Simon interviews Walid Shoebat, a former terrorist.  Shoebat, author of "God's war on terror", explains about Imam Abdul Rauf, who is the driving force behind the proposed Cordoba mosque at Ground Zero.

 

He explains about the push for sharia worldwide.  

 

Don't say we didn't tell you. Just Open  :

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-UDl3j8WZQ

 

Is Obama Winning the Hearts and Minds of the Arab and Muslim World?

 

by Larry Elder

 

"It's conceivable," said then-presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008, "that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, 'This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush.'"

A 2008 Zogby International poll surveyed those in the "friendly" Arab countries of Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Eighty-three percent viewed the United States "somewhat" or "very" unfavorably.

Enter President Barack Hussein Obama, a man with a keen and learned understanding of the Arab world — a man who promised to restore our image through outreach based on mutual respect and understanding. Bush, Obama believed, governed with a swagger and aggressiveness that alienated friends and hardened the hearts of enemies. To forge a "new beginning" and find "common ground," Obama apologized for America's "mistakes."

Candidate Obama said Bush offended would-be allies in the "good war," Afghanistan, by diverting resources to the "stupid" war, Iraq. After winding down the war in Iraq, Obama expected that allies committed to Afghanistan would stay and that new ones would join. He would close down the American gulag, Guantanamo, and reverse the offensive, civil rights-subverting policies of the Bush administration. He would fight not a "war on terror," but an "overseas contingency operation."

Ronald Reagan became president at 69 years of age, having lived long enough to shed naive notions of hope and change. Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" — and acted accordingly. He increased military spending, launched the Strategic Defense Initiative and, along with like-minded leaders British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, helped consign the totalitarian regime to, as Reagan put it, the "ash heap of history."

Jimmy Carter urged Americans to ditch our "inordinate fear of communism." President Carter kissed Soviet Premier Leonid Brezhnev on the cheek to show his desire, as the Obama administration would put it, to "reset" the relationship. Brezhnev returned the kindness by invading Afghanistan, igniting a chain of events that led to 9/11.

Obama's first presidential meeting with a foreign leader was not with that of Great Britain — our closest ally, whose prime minister stood down opposition within his own party to join the effort in Iraq. Obama met with Palestinian National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Fatah party, to stress the importance of restarting the Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" — which Obama considered essential to moderate Arab and Muslim views.

Obama chastised Israel for building "settlements" in east Jerusalem — even though, pre-Obama, the Palestinian leadership had already accepted construction in that area as part of any future deal. Obama gave his first presidential sit-down interview to Al-Arabiya television network, where he asked "countries like Iran ... to unclench their fist." He hoped to deter Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb, something candidate Obama called a "game changer" and "unacceptable."

But those daily morning threat assessment briefings can change a president.

The Obama administration, to prevent public exposure of intelligence-gathering sources and methods, used the same "state secrets" defense in court as did the Bush administration. Obama continues the policy of rendition, the much-maligned practice of transferring a terrorist-prisoner from one foreign country to another country that utilizes far harsher interrogation techniques. Guantanamo remains open because the prison contains some vicious terrorists that no country wants. The terror surveillance phone-monitoring program remains, as does the Patriot Act. Obama stepped up the use of drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even Obama's declaration to halt waterboarding contains wiggle room.

To the shock of Bush-haters, the Obama Justice Department — while disagreeing with the conclusions of the Bush lawyers who drafted the so-called "torture memo," which provided a legal basis for waterboarding — cleared the lawyers of wrongdoing.

Obama negotiated "tough" sanctions against Iran, although Russia, China, India and Turkey continue to trade with that country or have announced plans to do so. Iran remains committed to its nuclear program, continues to threaten Israel, and claims to have dug mass graves in which to deposit bodies of American soldiers should the U.S. use military force to stop its nuclear program.

Despite Obama's request, NATO allies refuse to commit more combat troops to Afghanistan and some countries announced an end to their involvement. Iraq appears to be winding down along the terms negotiated by the Bush administration, but allies are no more eager to help out in Afghanistan.

Now 20 months into the Obama presidency, the question is: How does the Arab and Muslim world now view America? What percentage in the same six Arab nations — compared with Bush's last year in office — now views the United States "very unfavorably" or "somewhat unfavorably"?

 

The answer: 85 percent — 2 points higher than Bush.

 

 

Larry Elder

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

 

Israel's anti-Obama

 

by George Will

 

JERUSALEM — Two photographs adorn the office of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Together they illuminate a portentous fact: No two leaders of democracies are less alike — in life experiences, temperaments and political philosophies — than Netanyahu, the former commando and fierce nationalist, and Barack Obama, the former professor and post-nationalist.

One photograph is of Theodor Herzl, born 150 years ago. Dismayed by the eruption of anti-Semitism in France during the Dreyfus Affair at the end of the 19th century, Herzl became Zionism's founding father. Long before the Holocaust, he concluded that Jews could find safety only in a national homeland.

The other photograph is of Winston Churchill, who considered himself "one of the authors" of Britain's embrace of Zionism. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 stated: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." Beginning in 1923, Britain would govern Palestine under a League of Nations mandate.

Netanyahu, his focus firmly on Iran, honors Churchill because he did not flinch from facts about gathering storms. Obama returned to the British Embassy in Washington the bust of Churchill that was in the Oval Office when he got there.

Obama's 2009 speech in Cairo, courting the Arab world, may have had measurable benefits, although the metric proving this remains mysterious. The speech — made during a trip when Obama visited Cairo and Riyadh but not here — certainly subtracted from his standing in Israel. In it, he acknowledged Israel as, in part, a response to Jewish suffering in the Holocaust. Then, with what many Israelis considered a deeply offensive exercise of moral equivalence, he said: "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland."

"On the other hand"? "I," says Moshe Yaalon, "was shocked by the Cairo speech," which he thinks proved that "this White House is very different." Yaalon, former head of military intelligence and chief of the general staff, currently strategic affairs minister, tartly asks, "If Palestinians are victims, who are the victimizers?"

The Cairo speech came 10 months after Obama's Berlin speech, in which he declared himself a "citizen of the world." That was an oxymoronic boast, given that citizenship connotes allegiance to a particular polity, its laws and political processes. But the boast resonated in Europe.

The European Union was born from the flight of Europe's elites from what terrifies them — Europeans. The first Thirty Years' War ended in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia, which ratified the system of nation-states. The second Thirty Years' War, which ended in 1945, convinced European elites that the continent's nearly fatal disease was nationalism, the cure for which must be the steady attenuation of nationalities. Hence the high value placed on "pooling" sovereignty, never mind the cost in diminished self-government.

Israel, with its deep sense of nationhood, is beyond unintelligible to such Europeans; it is a stench in their nostrils. Transnational progressivism is, as much as welfare state social democracy, an element of European politics that American progressives will emulate as much as American politics will permit. It is perverse that the European Union, a semi-fictional political entity, serves — with the United States, the reliably anti-Israel United Nations and Russia — as part of the "quartet" that supposedly will broker peace in our time between Israel and the Palestinians.

Arguably the most left-wing administration in American history is trying to knead and soften the most right-wing coalition in Israel's history. The former shows no understanding of the latter, which thinks it understands the former all too well.

The prime minister honors Churchill, who spoke of "the confirmed unteachability of mankind." Nevertheless, a display case in Netanyahu's office could teach the Obama administration something about this leader. It contains a small signet stone that was part of a ring found near the Western Wall. It is about 2,800 years old — 200 years younger than Jerusalem's role as the Jewish people's capital. The ring was the seal of a Jewish official, whose name is inscribed on it: Netanyahu.

No one is less a transnational progressive, less a post-nationalist, than Binyamin Netanyahu, whose first name is that of a son of Jacob, who lived perhaps 4,000 years ago. Netanyahu, whom no one ever called cuddly, once said to a U.S. diplomat 10 words that should warn U.S. policymakers who hope to make Netanyahu malleable: "You live in Chevy Chase. Don't play with our future."

 

George Will

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

 

Hezbollah Can't Pin Hariri Murder on Israel

 

by Michael J. Totten

 

Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah is now officially blaming Israel for assassinating former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in downtown Beirut on Valentine’s Day in 2005. I doubt he will convince many people.

I’ve been working in Lebanon on and off for years, and I’ve never once met a single person who thought Israel murdered Hariri. Not even the Hezbollah officials I spoke to before they blacklisted me thought so. Once in a while I met a Hezbollah supporter who said he didn’t know who killed Hariri and silently left open the possibility that Israel might have done it, but that’s the furthest even any of them were willing to go.

Hariri was one of the least anti-Israel Arab leaders on earth. His vision for Lebanon was one of peace and prosperity, not terrorism and war. Jerusalem had no reason at all to want him out of the picture. The Syrian- and Iranian-led Resistance Bloc, on the other hand, needed him out of the way, dead, or at least suppressed.

Almost everyone in Lebanon assumed from the very beginning that the Assad regime in Damascus ordered the hit, which is why Syria’s military occupation was terminated almost at once by a tremendous wave of multi-sectarian wrath. Most people, including me, didn’t entertain the idea for long that Hezbollah might be responsible, not because Hezbollah wouldn’t or couldn’t have done it, but because Syria had the greater of motives.

Speculation is now mounting, however, that the United Nations Special Tribunal for Lebanon is about to name Mustafa Badr al-Din, a senior Hezbollah commander, as the chief suspect. We’ll have to wait and see if that’s actually true, but it will be explosive news if it is. It could easily start another round of sectarian bloodletting, and at the least it will bring Lebanon closer to the boiling point than it already is.

Nasrallah desperately needs to minimize the potential damage as much as he can in advance. Blaming the Jews often works in this part of the world, but this time it might not. His timing could not be worse. It wouldn’t have worked had he tried it five years ago, and that he’s trying it now only makes him look guilty.

 

Michael J. Totten

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

 

The Reality of Israel's Humanitarian Medical Aid

 

 

by Ne’ama Rak

 

A group of medical students from all over the world toured several medical facilities in Israel and got to know more about the humanitarian aid provided by Israel

 

Medical students from all over the world who arrived in Israel to learn about the country’s humanitarian medicine visited with the IDF this week.  When the 60 students from 25 countries visited the Bahd 10 Training Base located in Tzrifin, which houses a school for military medicine, they learned about the Medical Corps and its activities, and from there they continued to the Tel Aviv University (TAU) for a lecture by Col. Dr. Itzik Kreis, Commander of the Relief Mission to Haiti. Afterwards, they met with combat medics in reserve duty who told them about their service during the Second Lebanon War and in the territories.

 

The group arrived to Israel within the framework of an initiative by 20 TAU students who are members of the diplomatic “Stand With Us” program. These students created the first and only Humanitarian Medicine Conference in Israel. “This is not a political but a professional conference”, explained Capt. Itay Ashahel, one of the Israeli students behind the project who serves as an officer in the IDF Military Advocate General. “But on this opportunity we wanted the students to learn about the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict”.

 

The visitors only paid for their flight tickets and their entire stay in Israel was subsidized by the funds of the project. Throughout the week, they toured the Hadassah and Wolfson hospitals, learned about Israeli technological developments in the medical field, met with Israeli and Palestinian doctors, were briefed on different humanitarian projects in Israel and also visited the Old City of Jerusalem.  The group is composed of students from England, the US, Canada, Nigeria, Croatia, Nepal, Singapore and many more. They are hosted by students from TAU.

 

The vast majority of the group is not Jewish and their knowledge about Israel at the time of their arrival was extremely limited. However, some of them already expressed their desire to stay in Israel and travel after the end of the conference.

 

 

We are soldiers, but first we are medical personnel

 

 “I never had the opportunity to visit Israel and know this country, and therefore I was very happy to join this conference”, explains John Brookman, Chairman of the American Medical Student Association and medical student in Ohio State. “I heard stories from people who experience the reality of life here, which is completely different than reading about it in a newspaper. It is important to establish this dialogue. In my opinion, nobody in my circle of friends and family thinks that Israel is a terrible place, but regardless I know now a lot more about the country and I will be able to represent the Israeli side in future discussions on the subject”.

 

The visitors were welcomed in the Bahad 10 Training Base’s School for Medicine by the Commander of the training program for the units, Maj. Asi Hampel, who presented the activities of the training base in particular and of the Medical Corps in general. “We are soldiers, but first of all we are medical personnel”, he explained. “When we see somebody injured, we do not think about his identity, but only about the injury and its treatment”.

 

The visitors asked many questions of the Israeli officer, mostly about the enlistment of doctors into reserve duty and IDF’s professional training program. Josh, a Jewish student from England donning a yarmulke, received particular attention when he explained that he was interested in serving in the IDF as a doctor. In response, Maj. Hampel displayed on the screen the oath of a military doctor in the IDF, translated into English, and had Josh read it out loud in its entirety. After the lecture, the visitors watched an exercise of treatment of wounded persons which took place in a building within the training base that resembles a Palestinian city. As part of the exercise, the military medics treated imaginary wounded persons – Palestinian soldiers and civilians. They also visited the training base’s medical training clinic, which utilizes various technologic simulations, and they watched a movie about the relief mission sent by the IDF to India in 2001.

 

 

“I was amazed. When I get back home I will be an ambassador for Israel”

 

Another participant at the conference was Anael Okic, a  surgical intern who is personally involved with humanitarian medicine. In the 90s, as a young man, he experienced firsthand the war between the Bosnians and the Serbs in his homeland of Bosnia-Herzegovina. As a sixteen year old, he volunteered to help with food received by humanitarian aid organizations. Then he decided that he wanted to be a doctor.

 

“I understood that it was the best way to help my community”, Okic said. “In my first years of studies I was assisting the doctors in supsuppling medicines to patients; homes. In my second year I completed a massage and physiotherapy course, and I used this knowledge to help injured people who needed treatment”. Before he arrived in Israel he had the opportunity to meet Israelis and Palestinians at a medical student conference, and he was faced by the topic ever-present on the news.

 

He said that he decided to participate in this conference in order to see “how things really happen.”  He says, “I did not know at all that there was humanitarian aid here. I was sure that the Israelis were busy taking care of their own problems and that they did not have time to help the others. I was amazed to know the research studies conducted here and I learnt a lot. When I return to my country I believe I will be an independent ambassador for Israel. I met exceptional people here and I definitely changed my opinions about Israel, and I plan to come back here in the future”.

 

Ne’ama Rak

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

 

The NY Times Tries and Fails to Explain The Israel-Palestinian "Peace Process"

by Barry Rubin

Forget about The Onion, The National Lampoon, Mad Magazine, and Saturday Night Live (sorry for all those American cultural references). When it comes to satire nobody can beat a New York Times editorial!

Well, this one is funny because the Times is--sort of--trying to praise the Israeli government and criticize the Palestinian Authority (PA) but you can't help but laugh at the contortions they go through.

Here's the first one:

"After three months of American-mediated proximity talks, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has agreed to direct negotiations on a two-state solution; the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is stubbornly resisting. It is time for him to talk."

Now is this dishonest or what? The implication is that finally, just now, at the very last minute, and after three months (12 weeks,  about 90 days) the U.S. negotiators can wipe the sweat from their brow and say that Netanyahu has agreed to direct negotiations.

But guess what? He publicly agreed to direct negotiations during a visit to Washington about 16 months (64 weeks, about 480 days) ago! So to avoid giving Netanyahu credit for being ready to talk all along the Times pretends that thanks only to a tremendous battle has the Obama Administration landed the big fish.

Ok, though, but at least they have praised Netanyahu and pointed out that Abbas is the barrier to progress? Not exactly. Keep reading:

"There are understandable reasons for Mr. Abbas’s reluctance. We also don’t know whether Mr. Netanyahu, a master manipulator, really wants a deal or whether his hard-line governing coalition would ever let him make one."

Yeah, Abbas, that Netanyahu is one evil dude! We can hardly blame you for refusing to make peace. I can imagine Abbas saying: "Sorry, I cannot negotiate because Netanyahu is untrustworthy. I read it in the New York Times so it must be true."

Might one wonder if Abbas is a "master manipulator" or whether his "hard-line government coalition would ever let him make one?" (See below on that point.) In fact, why throw into question Netanyahu's credentials? What has he done in the last 14 years, during which he has accepted a two-state solution, to make one conclude he is insincere on the issue, rather than just a tough negotiator?

Moreover, his coalition is not "hard-line" at all. Let's give the Times a little lesson in Israeli politics. The coalition includes six parties with a total of 72 seats, 12 more than is needed:

--Likud, 27 seats. While this is the main conservative party, and includes parliamentarians who would be against concessions, Netanyahu has a firm hold on the party.

--Israel Beitanu, 15 seats. While this party is headed by Foreign Minister Lieberman, it is not the "far-right" party that is the stereotype. It is, in fact, a Russian immigrant party. In some ways, Lieberman is rather dovish, proposing far-reaching territorial swaps (even if he does so to get rid of Arab citizens of Israelis the effect is not hard-line on negotiations). He is certainly capable of populist posturing but he is not, as such, an impediment to a peace deal.

--Labour Party, 13 seats. This is the leading party of the dovish left. Enough said.

--Two religious parties: Shas (11) and United Torah Judaism (3). These parties are mainly interested in patronage. They would fight tooth and nail on the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem and perhaps over the whole eastern part of the city. But on most of the issues they are not so intransigent. Shas's mentor has in the past said that giving up the West Bank can be justified if that saves lives.

--National Union (3). Aha, here's a hardline, right-wing party that would walk out of government. It represents only 4 percent of his coalition and Netanyahu doesn't need them.

Moreover, Netanyahu could replace any defectors if he wished by bringing in Kadima (28).  While one could debate some of the details of my analysis the idea that the Israeli coalition would never countenance a two-state solution is absurd.

What is really astonishing is that, to protect the Palestinian Authority, the Times is even willing to bash its idol, President Obama, in a flagrant miswriting of history:

"Mr. Abbas also is wary of Washington. After Mr. Obama demanded in 2009 that Mr. Netanyahu halt all settlement construction as a prelude to negotiations, Mr. Abbas did the same. When Mr. Netanyahu forced Mr. Obama to back down and the Israeli leader implemented a more limited and temporary building halt, Mr. Abbas was left clinging to the maximalist position."

What? Obama made the demand and Netanyahu complied. He gave a one-year freeze to see what would happen in talks. Was that a case of Obama "backing down?" And when Obama retroactively added Jerusalem outside the 1967 lines, Netanyahu again complied.

Here's the truth: Obama demanded, Netanyahu agreed, and Abbas still rejected direct talks. This has been going on for one year. So I'll stand up for Obama against the Times on this point.

Then there's the way the Times deals with Arab politics. True, it points out that the Arab League backs direct talks. So here's my question for you: What does the Times leave out?

Answer: Palestinian Authority politics, Hamas, Iran, and Syria. Why can't the Times mention that this is the real prime motive for Abbas? It isn't mainly that he doesn't trust Netanyahu (if he were certain Netanyahu was eager for peace it would make it harder, not easier, for Abbas to enter talks!) or he is "wary" of Obama.

The fact is that Abbas knows:

--He has no control or authority over Fatah, a group in which he has almost no direct followers, but is the real power behind the PA. This is the group that would never let its nominal leader make a two-state solution. Most of the Fatah leadership is hardline. Some don't want to make any deal that would block them from trying to destroy Israel in future. Others are afraid to do so. The number one problem is PA politics.

--Palestinian public opinion tends to be hardline. And why should that be surprising? It is conditioned by years of indoctrination to be that way on top of what existed beforehand. The PA has been pumping out hardline propaganda now for 16 years.

--Then there is Hamas which enjoys somewhere between 25 and 30 percent support in the PA-ruled areas. Even the tiniest concession, merely holding direct talks, will be used by Hamas to claim Abbas is commiting treason. And joined with some elements in Fatah this hardline coalition would be deadly for the PA, and perhaps for Abbas personally.

--Moreover, Hamas controls the Gaza Strip. This little detail seems to be left out a lot, as if the PA's making an agreement was in any way binding on almost half the territory it is claiming to control! It would be like making a deal with South Korea or West Germany and claiming it applied to all of Korea or Germany.

Incidentally, it is almost never pointed out that Abbas's term in office ended in January 2009 and he keeps extending it without elections. Why? Because if elections in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were held Hamas would win them. This shows how unstable is the regime with which Israel is supposed to make a peace based on massive unilateral concessions. If elections were to be held after a two-state agreement was implemented, Hamas would win, immediately reject the agreement, and return to war. This is rather significant for any discussion of Israel-Palestinian peace, don't you think?   

--Then there are the external forces like Iran and Syria that are dead-set on making anyone who makes with Israel just plain dead. If Abbas were to negotiate a deal they would do everything in their power (in line with Fatah hardliners and Hamas) to destroy that agreement and overthrow Abbas.

Doesn't all of this seem a bit significant? Isn't it ridiculous to discuss the issue as if Abbas was some independent actor who could do whatever he wished, while Israel's leader (whose public opinion is eager for a negotiated peace, generally willing to make concessions, and flexible on many of the issues) is enchained?

I'm writing about this editorial not because I think the Times is so important in itself. Rather, these are precisely the ideas that dominate Western debate on the issue. What we have here is a failure to engage accurately with the basic facts on what is persistently (if wrongly) touted as the world's most important issue.

 

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.

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

 

Restraint or deterrence

 

by Isi Leibler

 

A recent editorial in Haaretz reprimanded the IDF for cutting down a tree inside Israeli territory near the Lebanese border on the absurd grounds that the authorities should have been more restrained and sensitive to the political tension in Lebanon.

If this approach were adopted by our government, it would result in a total collapse of Israel's deterrence. Rather than discouraging our enemies from conducting acts of aggression and terror out of fear of reprisal, we ourselves would become reluctant to take any defensive measures out of concern that they could be construed as aggressive acts or provocations by our hostile neighbors. In such a bizarre climate, we would be failing to carry out the minimal steps required to maintain the security of our borders and the welfare of our citizens.

A FEW days before the unprovoked attack by the Lebanese army, a grad rocket had been launched from the Gaza Strip which could easily have led to major loss of life in the heart of Ashkelon. Subsequently, missiles were launched on Eilat, again fortunately not resulting in Israeli casualties but killing an innocent Jordanian.

These terrorist attacks took place shortly after we agreed, under enormous pressure from the Obama administration, to participate in a UN investigation of May 31's flotilla incident when Turkish Islamic extremists sought to break our legitimate naval blockade of Gaza.

Ironically, that took place simultaneously with widespread media coverage of classified documents released by WikiLeaks about the inadvertent killing of civilians by US and allied forces in Afghanistan.

Needless to say, there were no calls from UN Secretary General Ban Ki- Moon for an inquiry or any suggestion that the death of these innocent civilians were war crimes.

On the other hand, when the Lebanese army deliberately killed an Israeli officer after the IDF had obtained advance UNIFIL approval to clear trees in what was indisputably acknowledged to be within the Israeli border, the UN's meek response was limited to a call for restraint.

Our indefatigable ally, the US, has been arming the Lebanese army at an alarming level, despite its awareness that Hizbullah and Syria are the dominant forces in Lebanon, and despite the fact that these weapons would almost certainly be turned on us in the event of a conflict orchestrated by the Iranians.

Yet even under these circumstances, the initial US State Department response to the border killing paralleled the mealymouthed UN call for restraint, and failed to condemn the perpetrator. It was only after Israel protested bitterly that the US finally criticized Lebanon.

OVERALL, IT would seem that we have still not internalized the lessons of the past. We live in a region of scorpions, in which compromise and goodwill extended in the face of aggression has time and again encouraged our enemies to intensify their acts of terror until a full-scale war erupts.

We should surely have absorbed the lessons of the Kassams. Those who belittled their impact and derisively referred to them as primitive "Kassam Shmassams," failed to appreciate that our failure to respond vigorously allowed the world to view such attacks as part of the Middle East routine.

Had we responded initially with vigor, the attacks would not have escalated and we may well have avoided the Gaza war.

One need only remember Ehud Barak's undertaking when we withdrew from Lebanon. "If they so much as cross the border, we will smite them with all our might."

Ariel Sharon said the same after the Gaza withdrawal. And after the Second Lebanon War, Ehud Olmert also made empty threats but failed to respond to Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza until the south was literally being inundated .

When Binyamin Netanyahu was elected, he pledged to respond promptly and vigorously to all terror attacks. Indeed until recently, we had relative quiet. Now under Iranian direction, Hizbullah and Hamas are once again testing us in order to gauge how far they can go.

They are confident that the Americans will exert maximum pressure on Netanyahu to display restraint so as to avoid provoking a war which would divert attention from Ahmadinejad's nuclear ambitions and destroy prospects for direct negotiations with the Palestinians.

But the reality is that we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. If we are again persuaded to act with restraint in the face of aggression, we will merely empower the terrorists. If we seek to retain our deterrence, our response to such acts of hostility must be immediate and forceful and not wait until Israeli blood has been shed.

If we respond swiftly and demonstrate that Hamas and Hizbullah will pay a major price if they attack us, we will almost certainly incur the wrath of the UN, Europe and regrettably, probably also the US. Yet the lessons of the past decade demonstrate that Hamas and Hizbullah are afraid of being held responsible by the people they rule for any suffering inflicted on them as a result of unprovoked aggression against Israel. This is a brutal area in which alas, paradoxically, might and swift reprisal against terror attacks are far more likely to avert a full-blown war than vacuous dialogue and restraint.

Our deterrent policy should be spelled out.

Netanyahu must avoid repeating the hollow threats of reprisals that transformed us into loudmouthed bluffers and a regional laughing stock over the past decade. He must proclaim that we will respond vigorously to any threats against our civilian population and, unlike his predecessors, commit himself to implementing such a policy.

We no longer have any illusions. The world does not accept our right to defend ourselves, but we cannot afford to await intervention or retribution from third parties when our civilians are endangered. It will represent a continuation of former government follies if we stand by with folded arms and fail to immediately respond to acts of terror. On the other hand, if we convey a strong message to our foes that if they deliberately spill Israeli blood there is a major price to pay, we may in fact avert the worst scenario of another brutal all-out war.

 

Isi Leibler

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

 

Israel’s Legal Right To The Land

 

by Leslie-Ann Stoffel

 

A Brief History

 

We're all aware of G-d's biblical covenant with Israel but what isn't so well known is the legal right that they have to the land. After WWI the allied countries began to divide the conquered Ottoman Empire. The British decided to endorse the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Palestine was the name given to the former land of Israel by the Romans. It was meant to destroy any Jewish presence in the land. Additionally, the use of the name was meant to humiliate the Jews further by associating the land with the Philistines, Israel's ancient nemesis. Although the Philistines died out a many, many years before, Arafat cleverly adopted the name Palestinian, even though there is no P in the Arabic alphabet and therefore not pronounceable in their language. Arafat's goal in taking this name was to identify with the land of Palestine therefore stealing the ancient Jewish identity from their homeland. In fact, until it became politically expedient for them, the "Palestinian's" of today were loathe to be called Palestinian. They preferred to be called Southern Syrian's and the Jews of the area were referred to as the Palestinian's. There has never in history been a country or state called Palestine only a territory that has been conquered and re-conquered by various armies and entities over the centuries. The last entity to have domain over Palestine, after the Ottoman Empire, was The British Empire. That's why the Balfour Declaration, from 1917 by Arthur James Balfour, and why subsequent Declaration's and Ratification's that build on this document, are so vitally important to Israel's legal right to their land.

 

Related Youtube: The Importance of the San Remo Conference

 

 

Israel's Legal Right To The Land Under International Law: The Balfour Declaration and the San Remo Resolution

 

The Balfour Declaration: "His Majesty views with favor the establishment the establishment in Palestine of a National home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this objective, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any country." This laid the foundation for the San Remo Conference that took place in Italy in 1920 with the League of Nations at the time, Britain, Italy and Francewith representatives from Japan, Greece and Belgium. The Balfour Declaration, The Magna Carta of the Jewish people, was ratified giving the Jews the legal right to re-create their homeland within the British ruled territory of Palestine and was considered to be the binding resolution of International Law. The Mandate for Palestine was constructed on the basis of the San Remo Resolution and was given over to Britain on the condition that the Balfour Declaration be implemented. That is, to bring into existence, the formation of a Jewish State. Further, in 1922 The League of Nations, enshrined into International Law, the principle of Palestine being the National Home of the Jewish people and this was reconfirmed when the United Nations replaced the League of Nations.

 

Although San Remo gave Israel legal rights to the land, Sir Winston Churchill altered the agreement to appease the Arabs for oil. He dedicated the land to the east of the Jordan River to the Hashemite ...Kingdom, Transjordan, later to be called Jordan the Arab State. The land west of the Jordan River was to be the Jewish homeland, thus taking 77% of the land away from the Jews. His decision was illegal and the San Remo Agreement is still legal and binding today.

 

(Note from Barry Shaw: The League of Nations enshrined into international law the principle of Palestine as being the National Home of the Jewish People in 1922. This was reconfirmed when the League of Nations was replaced by the United Nations. So you have the unbroken chain from the Balfour Declaration to the San Remo Declaration to the League of Nations and later the United Nations all confirming the legal entity of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Y.)

 

 

Leslie-Ann Stoffel

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