Palestinian Rights.

By David Frankfurter

 

Difficulties faced by Palestinian Arabs have been a focus of world attention for decades. But oppression of Palestinians by fellow Arabs barely rates a mention.

Often subject to political racism, Palestinian Arabs have been forced into refugee camp ghettos in many Arab states. Identical to the racist laws against Jews in those places, they are also unable to hold citizenship, own land, get jobs or otherwise integrate into their host states. And despite Palestinian Authority or Hamas control of Gaza, there  have been no steps toward dismantling the camps there. This is a situation condoned and maintained by the UN and its institutions. If the Arab states were truly interested in helping the Palestinians, they would give them full social and economic rights.

The world appears oblivious to this apartheid policy; both East and West politically and financially encourage it. Taxpayers support it with  hundreds of millions channeled annually through UNRWA to pay for basic education, housing and medical services. All of which could probably be paid for by the welfare recipients themselves, if they were only allowed to work   freely and integrate into the society around.

It is outrageous that the Nahr el-Bared refugee camp in Tripoli, Lebanon, is nearly empty after months of bombing by the Lebanese army. The refugees, who were never allowed to integrate into their adopted country, have become refugees once again. In one day last week, a 16 year old was killed and a 13 year old girl was severely injured - both bystanders in the fighting between the Lebanese army and Palestinian 'militants'.

Or in Gaza; after a bloody coup, summary 'justice' is being handed out by Hamas against their Fatah rivals. Hamas allows a humanitarian disaster to accumulate, while spending fortunes importing huge supplies of advance weaponry into Gaza. Vast quantities of weapons and military equipment are smuggled in - and yet food and medicines are in short supply. It is easy to blame Israel for the poverty and distress and leave the Western taxpayer with the responsibility of picking up the pieces. No human rights group
raises even an eyebrow.

Unfortunately, NGOs so vocal about Israel's infractions as she defends her citizens have more important things on their agenda than to be concerned about these innocent civilians. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Christian Aid (to name just three NGOs focusing significant resources on Palestinian issues) have yet to issue a condemnation of the attacks in Nahr el-Bared.

These same NGOs, supported by the world media, strongly criticize Israel for closing its borders to Gaza. Despite the use of these border crossings for the smuggling of weapons and terrorists that threaten her civilians, Israel assists the passage of food, medicine, stock feed and other basic necessities. In the last month I have counted reports of some 33,000 tons of solids and 1.2 million liters of liquids in these categories. Hamas response has been to attack those very border crossings, to scare away international supervisors, and force closures.

The last weeks have seen Israel release both hundreds of convicted terrorist prisoners and large sums of back taxes. Victims of violence in Gaza - civilian and militant - are receiving the best of medical care in Israel's hospitals. All this while the Kassams still rain down on the Israeli city of Sderot and its surrounds.

Those truly concerned about Palestinian welfare would best focus on making border crossings safe, allowing food and medicine to enter Gaza, allowing trade to flow in both directions; or help to stop the fighting in Lebanon; or prevent the destabilising arms build up in those two places; or end corruption in the Palestinian Authority that siphons billions in international aid away from the average Palestinian toward corruption and violence; or... the list is almost endless of important ways of helping the Palestinians which do not involve criticising Israel.unless, of course, the motivation is more sinister.

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

Report: "Former Israeli agent predicts new terror attacks in USA".

Some of this report coincides with information published elsewhere, but remember that is it an anonymous report. Even if Juval Aviv did make the predictions below, they are not necessarily going to come true.

The following was received as an anonymous e-mail that has been "circulating." As far as I know it is only on the Web in precisely this form at a Bulletin Board forum. It may be the scoop of the year, or it may be a silly hoax. Whoever originated this letter, the "I," didn't trouble themselves to sign their name to it, which should be a big warning. It claims that former Mossad agent Juval Aviv predicts a massive Al-Qaeda attack in the United States in the near future.

Juval Aviv was really the Mossad agent involved in killing the Munich Olympic Games terrorists, but there is no guarantee that the writer of what is below actually met him, or that Aviv really said any of these things. This report is not the first indication that Al-Qaeda is reorganizing and planning another attack on the United Staes. Many of the things stated below seem to make sense from a security standpoint. That doesn't mean that the prediction of an imminent Al-Qaeda attack came from Juval Aviv, or that such an attack is really being planned. The background information, such as the fact that the US relies too much on satellites and El-Int, and doesn't have a good Human Intelligence organization, is all well known, and could have been written by almost anyone at any time.

As of today, at least, this letter has not been debunked as a hoax, but that doesn't mean it will not be proven a hoax. It also doesn't mean there will not be a terror attack as predicted.

Anyhow here is the letter. "Caveat Lector" - let the reader beware.
Ami Isseroff

A week ago, I was able to attend a dinner with Juval Aviv - the Israeli Agent who the movie "Munich" was about... He was Golda Meir's bodyguard and she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games. Tonight he shared information that EVERY American needs to know but our government has not shared. His bio is below, his book is "Staying Safe" and I suggest you buy and read it.

First, I am going to share what he discussed in regard to the Bush Administration, 9/11 and Iraq and then I will share his predictions for the next attack on the U.S. (and he predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week - O'Reilly laughed and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show and unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack occured.

Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the Middle East) to the Bush Administration about 9/11 a month before it occured. His report specifically said they would use planes as bombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. The Administration ridiculed him and refused to respond (Congress has since hired him as a security consultant - but still the Administration does not listen to him). Within a month 9/11 occured.

He didn't agree with going into Iraq - said it didn't make sense if we wanted terrorists responsible for 9/11 (and also he believes in Golda Meir's approach which was to bring justice to the terrorists but do not take down civilians - killing civilians only creates more terrorists - but similar to Bush, Israel's subsequent leaders were not as insightful as Golda Meir) - however, when we did decide to invade Iraq we should have learned from Israel's past mistakes. He very articulately stated that Israel's greatest mistake against their war on terror was to invade the West Bank and Gaza and stay there...

He said they should have done the proven anti-terrorist strategy which was "Hit and Leave" instead of "Hit and Stay." Now we are stuck in Iraq and it is worse than Vietnam - Iraq is the U.S.'s West Bank/Gaza. He doesn't think we will ever be able to truly leave because even when we are able to pull our troops back we will still have to go back regularly which will keep us quagmired. We should have hit hard and left immediately - or actually, we shouldn't have gone in at all...

Now for the scary stuff.... He predicts the next attack on the U.S. is coming within the next few months. Forget hijacking airplanes because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again as the people on the plane will not go down quietly.

Aviv believes our airport security is a joke- we are being reactionary [reactive = a.i.] versus looking at strategies that are effective.

1) our machines are outdated. They look for metal and the new explosives are made of plastic

2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire - we now have to take off our shoes, a group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives - now we can't bring liquids on board. He is waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on their underwear and light up in a plane or in the terminal and then we will all have to travel naked!

3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates, he says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times and on the front end when people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a drink (and I have done that for people myself) and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved. Israel checks bags before people can enter the airport.

Now, back to his predictions: He says the next attack will come in the next few months and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places that people congregate: Disneyland, Las Vegas, Big Cities (NY, SFO, Chicago, etc...) and there it will be shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, casinos, etc.. as well as rural America (Wyoming, Montana, etc...). The attack will be simultaneous detonations around the country (they like big impact) 5-8 cities including rural areas. They won't need to use suicide bombers because at largely populated places like the MGM Grand in Vegas - they can simply valet park!

He says this is well known in intelligence circles but our government does not want to alarm Americans. However, he also said that Bush will attack Iran and Syria before he leaves office (we are being prepared for that! and I have to wonder if we are not hearing about this impending attack so America will support attacking Iran and Syria?). In addition, since we don't have enough troops Bush will likely use small, strategic nuclear weapons regardless that the headlines the next day will read "US Nukes Islamic World" and the world will be a different place to such an extent that global warming will be irrevelent.

These are not conspiracy theories or crazy rantings. This is the man (and we have all heard/read that the Bush Administration was warned about 9/11 prior to it happening) who did the warning. He travels regularly to the Middle East and he knows his stuff.

On a good note - he says we don't have to worry about being nuked - he says the terrorists who want to destroy America will not use sophisticated weapons - they like suicide as the frontline approach.

He also says the next level of terrorists will not be coming from abroad, but will be homegrown - having attended our schools and universities - but will have traveled frequently back and forth to the Middle East. They will know and understand Americans but we won't understand them - we still
only have a handful of Arabic and Farsi speaking people in our intelligence networks and we need that to change he said...What can we do? From an intelligence perspective he says the U.S. needs to stop relying on satellites and technology for intelligence but follow Israel, Ireland and England's example of human intelligence both from an infiltration perspective as well as trust citizens to help. We need to engage and educate ourselves as citizens but our government treats us like babies and thinks we can't handle it and will panic.

He did a test for Congress recently putting an empty briefcase in 5 major spots in 5 US cities and not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago - someone tried to steal it! In Israel an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds with a citizen shouting "Unattended Bag" and the area cleared slowly, calmly and immediately by the people themselves.

Unfortunately, we haven't "hurt" enough yet for us to be that concerned....

He also discussed how many children were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11 without parents to pick them up and the schools did not have a plan. Do you have a plan with your kids, schools and families if you cannot reach each other by phone? If you cannot return to your house? If you cannot get to your child's school - do they know what to do? We should all have a plan.

He said that our government's plan after the next attack is to immediately cut-off EVERYONE's ability to use their telephone, cell phone, blackberry because they don't want terrorists to be able to talk to one another - do you have a plan if you cannot communicate directly with those that you love?

Again - I recommend his book, "Staying Safe" and I also recommend we heighten each other's attention now for the inevitable.... In fact, this week the Today Show began with a segment that Al Qaeda was resurfacing - the same kind of action on the Pakistani border occurred before 9/11...

It is scary, but we do not have panic, we just need to be aware....

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has not been helpful and we cannot change things until 2008. However, remember that when you vote....

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

Juval Aviv holds an M.A. in Business from Tel Aviv University and is President and CEO of Interfor, Inc., an international corporate intelligence and investigations firm.

Juval Aviv is President and CEO of Interfor, Inc. Based in New York with offices around the world, founded in 1979, Interfor provides foreign and domestic intelligence services to the legal, corporate and financial communities and conducts investigations around the world.

In addition, Mr. Aviv serves as a special consultant to the U.S. Congress and other policy makers on issues of terrorism, fraud and money laundering.

A leading authority on terrorist networks, Mr. Aviv served as lead investigator for Pan Am Airways into the Pan Am 103-Lockerbie terrorist bombing. He was featured in the recent film, Munich, as the leader of the Israeli team that tracked down the terrorists who kidnapped the Israeli Olympic team. Interfor's services encompass white-collar crime investigations, asset search and recovery, corporate due diligence, litigation support, fraud investigations, internal compliance investigations, security and vulnerability assessments. Since its inception, Interfors asset
investigation services have recovered over $2 billion worldwide for its lients.

Before founding Interfor, Mr. Aviv served as an officer in the Israel Defense Force (Major, retired) leading an elite Commando/Intelligence Unit, and was later selected by the Israeli Secret Service (Mossad) to participate in a number of intelligence and special operations in many countries in the late 1960s and 1970s. While working as a consultant with El Al, Mr. Aviv surveyed the existing security measures in place and updated El Als security program, making El Al the safest airline in business today.

Most recently, Mr. Aviv wrote Staying Safe: The Complete Guide to Protecting Yourself, Your Family, and Your Business, (2004,  HarperResource).

He has been a guest on ABC Nightline, FOX News, CNN, BBC Newsnight, ZDF (German National Television) and RAI (Italian National Television) and has been featured in numerous articles in major magazines and newspapers worldwide

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

 

Israel And International Law.

By Louis Rene Beres
JewishPress.com
A pertinent examination of John P. Grant and J. Craig Barker,
"Encyclopedic Dictionary of International Law," Second Edition, Dobbs Ferry New York,
Oceana Publications Inc., 2004, 617 pp.

Looking over the expanding landscape (one might also say "wreckage") of Israel`s constant security dilemma, few people ever take the trouble to examine this critical matter jurisprudentially. Yet, Israel`s always-problematic fate is dependent, at least in part, upon prevailing and adversarial interpretations of international law. This binding set of rules and procedures impacts critical Israeli policies on both war and peace. It follows that it can now be enormously helpful for us to review some of the key concepts and principles operating under contemporary international law with particular reference to Israel.

A good place to begin this review is John P. Grant`s and J. Craig Barker`s "Encyclopedic Dictionary of International Law." True to the publisher`s claim that it represents a "one-of-a-kind desktop reference on international law," this outstand-ing book offers clear and informed views of international organizations, diplomatic law, criminal law, human rights, environmental law and economic law. To be sure, it is not in any way focused on Israel. Yet, on this topic the reader would be espe-cially well-advised to consider the lucid entries concerning terrorism; perfi-dy; genocide; and self-defense.

With respect to terrorism, all who witness the unending murders of Israeli civilians by various Palestinian terrorist organizations should carefully note the following: "The global UN conventions (on terrorism) share a number of common features: the definition of the proscribed terrorist acts; the obligation to make these acts crimi-nal, subject to each State`s jurisdiction and to severe penalties; the obligation of each State to investigate any allegations and to extradite or prosecute an alleged offender; the facilitation of extradition....the obligation to cooperate...."

Why, we must ask, are these fundamental (international law calls them "peremp-tory") legal expectations routinely ignored whenever Israel is the victim? Why have the Oslo Accords and the "Road Map" not enforced any of the most minimal rules of "extradite or prosecute" in matters concerning Israel? Why has the Palestinian Authority never extradited terrorists to Israeli legal jurisdiction? NEVER.

With respect to Perfidy, the reader may consider Encyclopedic Dictionary`s refe-rence to Art. 37(1) of Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949/8 June 1977. Here, it is declared, among other things, that perfidy is commit-ted whenever there is underway "feigning civilian, non-combatant status and feign-ing protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the UN or of neut-ral and other States not parties to the conflict." Often, to be sure, we have wit-nessed Palestinian terrorists shamelessly taking refuge among civilian populations and also the routine Palestinian abuse of Red Crescent ambulances and emblems for the transport of terrorists. Perfidy in its several forms is a serious violation of the Law of War (specifically, a "Grave Breach") and should be identified as such, wher-ever Israel`s terrorist enemies go well beyond the still-permissible ruses of war.

Regarding GENOCIDE, the book`s entry — again in generic terms, not specific to the Jewish State — makes it unambiguous that many of Israel`s State and non-State enemies seek much more than a political or military victory. In terms of the listed Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, which entered into force on 12 January 1951, genocide means any of series of listed acts that are "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such..." By extrapolation, there can be no doubt that both Pales-tinian practices and Iranian policies calling for the elimination of Israel are authent-ically genocidal. Significantly, from the standpoint of international law, these prac-tices and policies are entirely undisguised.

Finally, the Grant and Barker book offers the reader an entry on self-defense. Although this entry is entirely too brief in view of its existential gravity, it does properly identify two clear expressions of self-defense pertaining to Israel`s essential rights under international law: The longstanding customary right of "anticipatory self-defense" and the conventional right codified in the UN Charter at Art 51 allowing for certain uses of force after an attack has already been suffered.

Throughout its brief life-history, the State of Israel has had to invoke both expres-sions of self-defense under international law, and not always with appropriate support from the international community. For example, when elements of the Israel Air Force (IAF) expertly destroyed the Iraqi Osiraq nuclear reactor on June 7, 1981 with a total of one casualty — a preemptive action that undoubtedly saved thou-sands of American and Israeli lives during the later Gulf War in 1991 ("Operation Desert Storm") — the UN voted to condemn the raid as "aggression." Even Presi-dent Reagan, speaking publicly at the time, refused to support the Israeli raid as lawful self-defense.

Here, everyone who holds that Israel is entitled to the same rights under interna-tional law as every other state, can now argue persuasively that the preemptive destruction of Osiraq was, in fact, an incontestably law-enforcing action. Once the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense is authoritatively defined and articulated — and once political and geopolitical factors are removed from the consideration — this conclusion follows directly.

To summarize, the Encyclopedic Dictionary of International Law is not, in any intended way, about Israel or Israel`s position in world politics. But its entries are very carefully researched and creditably described. This is important for all who have seen Israel unfairly accused under international law; for all who now care to properly defend Israel under relevant norms of international law; and for all who have been searching for a single, solid and comprehensive volume from which jurisprudentially sound arguments can be distilled and applied.

LOUIS RENE BERES (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) is a professor of international law who has published widely on Israel and international law. Some of his law journal articles on this subject have been co-authored with Hon. Zalman Shoval, Israel`s former Ambassador to the United States. His article in defense of the Osiraq raid, co-authored with former IAF Chief of Planning, (COL/Res.) Yoash Tsiddon-Chatto, appears in the volume Israel`s Strike Against The Iraqi Nuclear Reactor 7 June 1981, Menachem Begin Heritage Center, September 2003, Jerusalem, pp. 59-60. Professor Beres is Strategic and Military Affairs columnist for The Jewish Press.

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

Peace talks get 18 rocket salute.

12.12. 2007

By Ami Isseroff

Original content copyright by the author

Eighteen or nineteen Qassam rockets fell on the Western Negev this morning. The salvo came just after the Israeli government and defense establishment were congratulating themselves on the "success" of the policy of limited engagement in Gaza.

It is not clear whether the rockets are the extremists' greeting for the first round of peace talks to be held today, or whether they were a response to the IDF raid that killed eight Palestinians. What is clear is that the problem of Gaza, studiously ignored in the Annapolis meeting, is not going to go away, The Oslo fiasco demonstrated the futility of a peace process that tries to ignore reality. Apparently, one course was not enough for the Americans, so the Hamas are giving them, and us, a graduate seminar.

Despite the rocket salvo, the Israeli cabinet decided that now is not the right time for a wider operation in Gaza, no doubt because a full scale invasion would certainly derail the peace process. Perhaps they are right from their point of view. But if the rockets continue, there won't be any peace, there won't be any process, and there won't be any Olmert government. Sderot Mayor Eli Moyal resigned in protest. Perhaps he is right from his point of view as well.

Americans, Europeans, the UN and the Arab countries form an alliance of the righteous that is supposedly interested in peace between Israel and the Palestinians. This same alliance however, is acting to make peace impossible. On the one hand, international (read "American") pressure is no doubt the major factor preventing IDF action in Gaza, and no doubt, should the IDF invade Gaza, international pressure will prevent a decisive victory over the Hamas and their allies, provided it is not prevented by the same sort of incompetence that characterized the second Lebanon war, and provided that Israel or anyone is capable of making order in Gaza. On the other hand, nobody besides Israel is willing to do anything to stop the rocket fire from Gaza or oust the Hamas regime. On the contrary, Egypt obligingly gives terrorists safe passage to and from Iran, and oversees the vast Gaza arms smuggling industry. Egypt and Saudi Arabia keep pressuring the Fatah to from a "unity" government with the Hamas, while the Americans stand aside and make believe it isn't happening.

All those who want peace, and who insist on peace between Israel and the Palestinians, have to understand that they cannot expect any progress toward peace until the problem of Gaza is solved. If they deny Israel the right of self defense, then making order in Gaza becomes their responsibility. As for the Israeli government, it cannot give up the right to defend its citizens, and if it does, it will be reminded of its duty by the Israeli electorate.

Ami Isseroff

 

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

 

The Australian - Mum 'a soldier of bin Laden'.

By Richard Kerbaj and Cameron Stewart

 December 12, 2007

A MELBOURNE mother is being investigated by police over her links to Somali jihadis and accusations she supports Islamic martyrdom.

The Muslim convert, a friend of Sydney's militant Islamic matriarch Rabiyah Hutchinson, is also alleged to have declared herself and her family "soldiers of Osama bin Laden", who act on his orders.

The allegations are contained in an official statement given to the Australian Federal Police in relation to its investigation into Somali community figures suspected of encouraging dozens of young men to return to their homeland and join Islamic jihad.

The statement accuses another Australian convert, Aisha Whitehead, of encouraging her Somali-born Australian husband Ahmed Ali to fight alongside terrorists in his war-torn homeland.

The mother, who introduced Ms Whitehead to Mr Ali, allegedly told a small gathering of Muslim women in Melbourne that she supported Islamic jihad and was a follower of the hardline Wahabi form of Islam.

"We are Wahabi," the mother is quoted as saying in the sworn statement seen by The Australian and given by a Somali community member to the AFP in August. Asked at the gathering whether it was bad to be a Wahabi, she replied: "No, we are soldiers of Osama bin Laden. We take orders from him. If he tells us to go somewhere, we go."

The mother rejected the claims against her and denied she was an extremist or an advocate for terrorism.

"The allegations are absolutely untrue and without basis," she told The Australian.

Ms Whitehead, whose former name is Carla Marie, travelled to Somalia with Mr Ali in November last year, several weeks before he went missing while fighting with an Islamic militia.

Ms Whitehead was interviewed by AFP officers in July, the day she arrived back in Australia from Somalia.

Australians who engage in hostile activities in a foreign state can be charged under the Foreign Incursions Act.

The AFP's investigation, called Operation Rochester, is continuing but no charges have been laid.

The statement provided to AFP agents claims that Ms Whitehead encouraged Mr Ali to travel to Somalia and become a jihadist.

"Aisha knew and encouraged Ahmed to go to Somalia and fight the Jihad," the statement says.

Ms Whitehead has rejected the claims, describing them as "untrue and totally baseless".

This comes after The Australian revealed last week that the AFP had widened its investigation into Somali community figures over suspicions they are encouraging dozens of young men to return to their homeland to join Islamic jihadis.

It was also revealed that a second Somali Australian, Hossein Hashi Farah, was suspected by federal agents to have returned to Somalia six months ago to fight with Islamic jihadis.

But Mr Farah's family rejected the allegations, saying he was working as a sales manager in African regions outside of Somalia.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade said in January that Mr Ali, 26, had died in Somalia. But The Australian revealed in October his mother had been told by a relative in Somalia that he was alive and working as an interpreter with al-Qa'ida.

It was also revealed last week that Mr Ali was spotted by relatives about two weeks ago on the outskirts of the Somali capital, Mogadishu.

Sources have told The Australian the AFP has predominantly relied on reports from Australian embassy officials in Nairobi in relation to Mr Ali's suspected whereabouts.

But the AFP has not sent an agent to Somalia to investigate despite having a liaison officer in Pretoria, South Africa.

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

 

 

Arab leaders caused the refugee problem.

Palestinian Media Watch Bulletin - Dec. 17, 2006

PA daily:
Arab leaders caused the refugee problem

PA columnist: Arab leaders initiated departure and made false promises of a speedy return

by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook

PMW has documented yet another corroboration in the official Palestinian Authority (PA) paper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida that it was Arab leaders who were responsible for the flight of Arabs from the new State of Israel in 1948.

A backbone of PA ideology, and indeed of anti-Israel propagandists worldwide, is the myth that Israel expelled hundreds of thousands of Arabs from Israel and created the Palestinian "refugee" situation.

However, a regular writer for the official PA paper, Mahmud Al-Habbash, writes in a recent column that in 1948 the Arabs left their homes willingly under the instruction of their own Arab leaders and their false promises of a prompt return. He refers to these promises as "Arkuvian," after Arkuv – a figure from Arab tradition - who was known for breaking his promises and for his lies – and states that the Arabs who left their homes, and became refugees did so believing their leaders' deceptive promises. He places the blame and the responsibility on the shoulders of the Arab leaders and does not mention any so-called "Israeli expulsion."

Following is this most recent article, as well as earlier statements by Arab "refugees" that have appeared in the PA press, all of which corroborate Israel's historical narrative. The latter two testimonials are significant because they were corroborated by still other more public Palestinians, indicating that the responsibility of the Arab leaders is known in the Palestinian world. One was confirmed by Arab Member of Knesset, Ibraham Sarsur, who was then Head of the Islamic Movement in Israel, and the other by a Palestinian journalist, Fuad Abu Higla, in the official PA daily.

The following are four statements corroborating that Arabs fled Israel under the instruction and the encouragement of Arab leaders:

1. Journalist writing about the events of 1948

Mahmud Al-Habbash, a regular writer in the official PA paper, Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, indicates in his column "The Pulse of Life" that the Arabs left Israel in 1948 only after political Arab leaders persuaded them to do so by promising the Arabs a speedy return to their homes in Palestine:

"…The leaders and the elites promised us at the beginning of the "Catastrophe" [[the establishment of Israel and the creation of refugee problem] in 1948, that the duration of the exile will not be long, and that it will not last more than a few days or months, and afterwards the refugees will return to their homes, which most of them did not leave only until they put their trust in those "Arkuvian" promises made by the leaders and the political elites. Afterwards, days passed, months, years and decades, and the promises were lost with the strain of the succession of events…" [Term "Arkuvian," is after Arkuv – a figure from Arab tradition - who was known for breaking his promises and for his lies."] "
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, December 13, 2006]

2. Woman who fled Israel in 1948

"We heard sounds of explosions and of gunfire at the beginning of the summer in the year of the "Catastrophe" [The establishment of Israel and the expulsion from the land in 1948]. They told us: The Jews attacked our region and it is better to evacuate the village and return, after the battle is over. And indeed there were among us [who fled Israel] those who left a fire burning under the pot, those who left their flock [of sheep] and those who left their money and gold behind, based on the assumption that we would return after a few hours."
[Asmaa Jabir Balasimah Um Hasan, Woman who fled Israel, Al-Ayyam, May 16, 2006]

3. Son and grandson of those who fled in 1948

An Arab viewer called Palestinian Authority TV and quoted his father and grandfather, complaining that in 1948 the Arab District Officer ordered all Arabs to leave Palestine or be labeled traitors. In response, Arab MK Ibrahim Sarsur, then Head of the Islamic Movement in Israel, cursed the leaders who ordered Arabs to leave, thus, acknowledging Israel's assertion.

Statement of son and grandson of man who fled:

"Mr. Ibrahim [Sarsur]. I address you as a Muslim. My father and grandfather told me that during the "Catastrophe" [establishment of Israel in 1948 and the expulsion from the land], our district officer issued an order that whoever stays in Palestine and in Majdel [near Ashkelon – Southern Israel] is a traitor, he is a traitor."

Response from Ibrahim Sarsur, Head of the Islamic Movement in Israel:

 "The one who gave the order forbidding them to stay there bears guilt for this, in this life and the Afterlife throughout history until Resurrection Day."
[PA TV April 30, 1999]

4. Article by senior PA journalist

Fuad Abu Higla, then a regular columnist in the official PA daily Al Hayat Al Jadida, wrote an article before an Arab Summit, which criticized the Arab leaders for a series of failures. One of the failures he cited, in the name of a prisoner, was that an earlier generation of Arab leaders "forced" them to leave Israel in 1948, again placing the blame for the flight on the Arab leaders.

"I have received a letter from a prisoner in Acre prison, to the Arab summit:
To the [Arab and Muslim] Kings and Presidents, Poverty is killing us, the symptoms are exhausting us and the souls are leaving our body, yet you are still searching for the way to provide aid, like one who is looking for a needle in a haystack or like the armies of your predecessors in the year of 1948, who forced us to leave [Israel], on the pretext of clearing the battlefields of civilians... So what will your summit do now?"
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadidah, March 19, 2001]

Conclusion

It is clear from these statements that there is general acknowledgement among Palestinians that Arab leaders bear responsibility for the mass flight of Arabs from Israel in 1948, and were the cause of the "refugee" problem. Furthermore, the fact that this information has been validated by public figures and the media in the Palestinian Authority confirms that this responsibility is well-known – even though, for propaganda purposes, its leaders continue to blame Israel publicly for "the expulsion."

Please feel free to forward this bulletin, crediting Palestinian Media Watch

 

In Iran We Trust?

By VALERIE LINCY and GARY MILHOLLIN

New York Times, Published: December 6, 2007

ON Monday the United States intelligence community issued what everyone agrees was blockbuster news: a report stating that in the autumn of 2003, Iran halted its nuclear weapons program. The National Intelligence Estimate has been heralded as a courageous act of independence by the intelligence agencies, and praised by both parties for showing a higher quality of spy work than earlier assessments.

In fact, the report contains the same sorts of flaws that we have learned to expect from our intelligence agency offerings. It, like the report in 2002 that set up the invasion of Iraq, is both misleading and dangerous.

During the past year, a period when Iran's weapons program was supposedly halted, the government has been busy installing some 3,000 gas centrifuges at its plant at Natanz. These machines could, if operated continuously for about a year, create enough enriched uranium to provide fuel for a bomb. In addition, they have no plausible purpose in Iran's civilian nuclear effort. All of Iran's needs for enriched uranium for its energy programs are covered by a contract with Russia.

Iran is also building a heavy water reactor at its research center at Arak. This reactor is ideal for producing plutonium for nuclear bombs, but is of little use in an energy program like Iran's, which does not use plutonium for reactor fuel. India, Israel and Pakistan have all built similar reactors — all with the purpose of fueling nuclear weapons. And why, by the way, does Iran even want a nuclear energy program, when it is sitting on an enormous pool of oil that is now skyrocketing in value? And why is Iran developing long-range Shahab missiles, which make no military sense without nuclear warheads to put on them?

For years these expensive projects have been viewed as evidence of Iran's commitment to nuclear weapons. Why aren't they still? The answer is that the new report defines "nuclear weapons program" in a ludicrously narrow way: it confines it to to enriching uranium at secret sites or working on a nuclear weapon design. But the halting of its secret enrichment and weapon design efforts in 2003 proves only that Iran made a tactical move. It suspended work that, if discovered, would unambiguously reveal intent to build a weapon. It has continued other work, crucial to the ability to make a bomb, that it can pass off as having civilian applications.

That work includes the centrifuges at Natanz, which bring Iran closer to a nuclear weapon every day — two to seven years away. To assert, as the report does, that these centrifuges are "civilian," and not part of Iran's weapons threat, is grossly misleading.

The new report has also upended our sanctions policy, which was just beginning to produce results. Banks and energy companies were pulling back from Iran. The United Nations Security Council had frozen the assets of dozens of Iranian companies. That policy now seems dead. If Iran is not going for the bomb, why punish it?

No company or bank will agree to lose money unless a nuclear threat is clear. Likewise, is it fair for the United Nations to continue to freeze the assets of people like Seyed Jaber Safdari, the manager of the Natanz plant, or companies like Mesbah Energy, the supplier of the reactor at Arak, because of links to a program that American intelligence believes is benign? One European official admitted to us that he and his colleagues were flummoxed. "We have to have a new policy now for going forward," he said, "but we haven't been able to figure out what it is."

This situation is made all the more absurd by the report's suggestion that international pressure offers the only hope of containing Iran. The report has now made such pressure nearly impossible to obtain. It is hardly surprising that China, which last week seemed ready to approve the next round of economic sanctions against Tehran, has now had a change of heart: its ambassador to the United Nations said yesterday that "we all start from the presumption that now things have changed."

We should be suspicious of any document that suddenly gives the Bush administration a pass on a big national security problem it won't solve during its remaining year in office. Is the administration just washing its hands of the intractable Iranian nuclear issue by saying, "If we can't fix it, it ain't broke"?

In any case, the report is an undoubted victory for Iran. Even if it opens the way for direct talks, which would be a benefit, it validates Iran's claim that efforts to shut down Natanz are illegitimate. Thus Iran will be free to operate and add to its centrifuges at Natanz, accumulate a stockpile of low-enriched uranium customary for civilian use, and then have the ability to convert that uranium in a matter of months to weapons grade. This "breakout potential" would create a nuclear threat that we and Iran's neighbors will have to live with for years to come.

Valerie Lincy is the editor of Iranwatch.org. Gary Milhollin is the director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control.

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

 

 

 

Islamic Europe?

From the October 4, 2004 issue: When Bernard Lewis speaks . . .
by Christopher Caldwell
10/04/2004, Volume 010, Issue 04

SELDOM HAS THE COURSE of European history been changed by a non-politician's throwaway remark in a German-language newspaper on a Wednesday in the dead of the summer doldrums. But on July 28, Princeton historian Bernard Lewis told the conservative Hamburg-based daily Die Welt that Europe would be Islamic by the end of this century "at the very latest," and continental politics has not been the same since.   Days before the third anniversary of 9/11, Frits Bolkestein of the Netherlands, the outgoing European Union competition commissioner, caused an uproar when he mentioned Lewis's remark in the course of an address at the opening of courses at the University of Leiden. Bolkestein warned that the E.U. will "implode" if it expands too quickly. It was a timely topic.   A few days from now, the E.U. commissioner for expansion, Günter Verheugen of Germany, will issue a report on whether to open negotiations with Turkey on E.U. membership. It is expected to be positive. The full commission must vote on the report in December, after which a decade of talks is envisioned. But since the Verheugen report is likely to be positive, and since the commission is expected to rubber-stamp the report's recommendations, and since no candidate state that has begun E.U. accession negotiations has ever been rejected, the process has the look of a fait accompli. Thanks to . . . what? . . . Günter Verheugen's mood, the peoples of Europe are about to see their fate yoked irrevocably to that of the Islamic world. Indeed, the need to forge a solemn bond with Islamic secularism of the sort that Turkey enjoyed after Kemal Atatürk came to power is the reason most often given for the indispensability of Turkish accession.   Bolkestein was thus addressing a continent-wide discomfiture. His speech was long. It was no rant. Alluding to the E.U.'s aspiration to become a multinational state, he drew listeners' attention to the fate of the most recent European power with that aspiration, the Austro-Hungarian empire just over a century ago. Austrians were culturally confident (Liszt, Richard Strauss, Brahms, Mahler, and Wagner were working in Vienna). They were prosperous and proud. The problem was that there were only 8 million of them, and expanding their country's frontiers brought them face to face with an energetic pan-Slavic movement. Once the Empire absorbed 20 million Slavs, it faced difficult compromises between allowing the new subjects to rule themselves and preserving its own culture. Rather like the E.U., the Empire was past the point of no return before it realized it was going anywhere in particular.   Bolkestein asked what lessons Europeans ought to draw from this history, as they consider welcoming Turkey. He then addressed two specific problems. First, that there was no logical end in sight to European expansion--once the E.U. accepts Turkey, it will have no principled reason to reject the considerably more European countries of Ukraine and Belarus. Europe is thus adding instability that it has neither the financial means nor the cultural solidarity to master. The second problem, Bolkestein warned, is that immigration is turning the E.U. into "an Austro-Hungarian empire on a grand scale." He alluded to certain great cities that will soon be minority-European--two of the most important of which, Amsterdam and Rotterdam, are in his own country--and warned that the (projected) addition of 83 million Muslim Turks would further the Islamization of Europe. It was this part of his speech--in which he referred to Lewis's projections--that made headlines around the world: "Current trends allow only one conclusion," Bolkestein said. "The USA will remain the only superpower. China is becoming an economic giant. Europe is being Islamicized."   A kind of chain reaction ensued. Two days after Bolkestein spoke, the Financial Times printed a letter that Franz Fischler of Austria, the outgoing E.U. commissioner for agriculture, had sent privately to his fellow commissioners. Fischler complained that Turkey was "far more oriental than European" and, worse, that "there remain doubts as to Turkey's long-term secular and democratic credentials. There could . . . be a fundamentalist backlash."   Europe's reaction was a collective So now you tell us! Taken together, Bolkestein's and Fischler's remarks seemed symptomatic of the political correctness that suffuses the issue of Turkish accession. A majority of the European parliament is anti-accession, the various national parliaments are against it, and the national populations are overwhelmingly opposed. It is the European Commission that has been driving the process--and now two prominent members of that very body, on the eve of leaving their political careers behind them, were saying it was all a big mistake that nobody dared to talk about. (Perhaps the only thing that infuriates the European man-in-the-street more than such bureaucratic shiftiness is the United States' bafflingly consistent support for Turkish E.U. membership.)   WHAT IS FASCINATING about the Lewis interview that gave rise to this round of European soul-searching is that it was not meant to be specifically about Europe. His interlocutor asked Lewis about developments in the Iraq war, the evolution of the Palestine question, the hopes for liberal democracy in Iran, and the prospects for defeating al Qaeda. (On this last subject, Lewis provided an unsettling answer: "It's a long process and the outcome is by no means certain," he said. "It works similarly to communism, which appealed to unhappy people in the West because it seemed to give them unambiguous answers. Radical Islam has the same force of attraction.") He was equally engaging when he described the European Union's break with the United States in terms of a "community of envy." ("Understandably, Europeans harbor some reservations about an America that has outstripped them. That's why Europeans can well understand the Muslims, who have similar feelings.")   But Europe's own Islamic future came up only incidentally. Asked whether the E.U. could serve as a global counterweight to the United States, Lewis replied simply: "No." He saw only three countries as potential "global" players: definitely China and India, and possibly a revivified Russia. "Europe," he said, "will be part of the Arabic west, of the Maghreb." What seems to have infuriated European listeners is that Lewis did not assert this as a risqué or contrarian proposition. He just said it, as if it were something that every politically neutral and intellectually honest person takes for granted.   Is it? Bolkestein said he did not know whether things would turn out as Lewis predicted. ("But if he is right," Bolkestein added, "the liberation of Vienna [from Turkish armies] in 1683 will have been in vain.") Bassam Tibi, a Syrian immigrant who is the most prominent moderate Muslim in Germany, seemed to agree with Lewis's diagnosis, even while rejecting his emphasis. "Either Islam gets Europeanized, or Europe gets Islamized," Tibi wrote in Welt am Sonntag. Having spent much of the past decade arguing for the construction of sensible Islamic institutions in Europe, Tibi seemed to warn that Europe did not have the ability to reject Islam, or the opportunity to steer it. "The problem is not whether the majority of Europeans is Islamic," he added, "but rather which Islam--sharia Islam or Euro-Islam--is to dominate in Europe."     Christopher Caldwell is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.   Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

More about Islam...

Comments and material about the Middle East and Islam are usually sombre, just because of the unfortunate fact that most of these news happen to be sad and sombre.

Today, it is sarcastic and even funny, but boy, it is also sooooo true!!!

Just open : http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=418_1176494781

Enjoy!

Forsaking Israel.

The 2007 U.N Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People follows past precedent.

By Anne Bayefsky

National Review, December 05, 2007, 9:50 a.m.

Hatemongers at the United Nations outdid themselves again at the annual U.N. Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People, held every year on November 29. This year was the 60th anniversary of the U.N. General Assembly resolution which partitioned Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state — a resolution rejected across the Arab world. At U.N. Headquarters the day was marked by speeches from all U.N. leaders in a room adorned with just two flags, the U.N. flag and a Palestinian flag. The flag of the U.N. member state of Israel was nowhere to be seen.

In 2005, with Kofi Annan at the helm, the same event sported a U.N. Middle East map without the state of Israel and included a moment of silence honoring the self-sacrifice of suicide bombers. In 2006 — after the scandal was widely publicized — the map did not appear and the moment of silence was cancelled. Instead, the U.N. Trusteeship Council room was adorned with a series of panels rewriting the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict from the Arab point of view, describing 7 or 8 million Palestinians claiming a right of return — enough to destroy the Jewishness of the state of Israel, and lauding the success of the violent Palestinian uprising or intifada.

In 2007 — after the 2006 debacle was also publicized — the panels did not appear. This year, instead, the occasion was marked by what a Secretariat official casually described as "just keeping it clean" — flying only the flags of "Palestine" and the U.N.

Lest the simple message of the organizers who refused to fly the Israeli flag be missed, statements of some meeting participants were more explicit. They glorified violence, complained of the evils of "Judaization," pressed the message of a racist "apartheid" Jewish state, and called for Israel's economic strangulation (boycotts, divestment, and so on.) Paul Badji is Chairman of the Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People (CEIRPP) which sponsors the annual event, and which was created on the same day as the U.N.'s infamous "Zionism is racism" resolution to implement that message. Badji gushed: "It was 20 years ago that the Palestinians as a people stood up to the occupation, and the world learned a new word — intifada."

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas delivered a statement through Yasser Abed Rabbo, secretary-general of the Executive Committee of the PLO. This alleged peace partner accused Israel of "the construction of the apartheid Wall" at the same time as he objected to "judaization measures." Lost on the PLO representative was the contradiction between alleging Israel practices apartheid on the one hand, and objecting to Jews living in "Arab territory" on the other. (He took no notice of the fact that one-fifth of the population of Israel is Arab with more democratic rights than in any Arab state, while Arab states were rendered Judenrein after the creation of Israel.) The logo of the letterhead of the Palestinian U.N. Mission, upon which his statement was officially circulated, has a map claiming all of Israel as "Palestine."

The representative of "civil society" invited by the U.N. Committee to address the audience was Rev. Chris Ferguson of the World Council of Churches. He could only bring himself to refer to terrorism in quotation marks — "'terrorizing' Qassam rocket attacks." He was given a U.N. platform — webcast around the world — to call upon the international community to "strengthen the global campaign for boycotts, divestment and sanctions…against Israeli…apartheid and oppression," and to laud the latest NGO "campaign identifying and opposing Israeli policies as violations of the International Covenant Against the Crime of Apartheid."

During the afternoon of November 29, the General Assembly dedicated yet another session to condemning Israel. PLO representative Abed Rabbo — fresh from the PLO's Annapolis declaration of peaceful intentions — demanded "the right of more than 4 million Palestine refugees to return to their homes and properties" (thus destroying a Jewish state). He also made a point of analogizing Israeli actions to those of Hitler and apartheid South Africa, making wild accusations about Palestinian "ghettos" and "Bantustans."

Following the General Assembly meeting, Abed Rabbo, and Paul Badji opened a public exhibit in the entrance hall to U.N. headquarters. The exhibit is billed as celebrating "traditional Palestinian costumes and embroidery" and consists of a series of costumes previously exhibited in various parts of the United States — with one exception. Set in the middle, evidently more attuned to a Palestinian cultural exhibit presented "under the auspices of the U.N. Committee on the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People, in cooperation with the Permanent Observer Mission of Palestine to the United Nations" is a depiction of Israel's security barrier adorned with flowers. The barrier, which has dramatically reduced Palestinian suicide bombings and terrorist attacks since it was erected, is accompanied by this description — "The Return of the Soul" Ceramic painting by Najat El-Khairy, 2007. "Spring flowers adorn the 'Wall' with motifs taken from the traditional embroidered Palestinian costumes; the flowers climb and hide its ugliness."

Evidently the ugliness of Jewish men, women and children blown apart by suicide bombers was of less significance then the aesthetics of a barrier keeping would-be-killers out.

Though November 29, 1947, was a day celebrated by Holocaust survivors, the following 60 years has seen the occasion bemoaned by the many who wish the Jewish people had never succeeded in creating a haven in the land of their ancestors. Kofi Annan labeled the U.N. Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People "a day of mourning and a day of grief." Sixty years later, the vast majority of U.N. members and the organization they own and operate, are still trying to turn back the clock.

— Anne Bayefsky is senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute. She also serves as the director of the Touro Institute for Human Rights and the Holocaust and as the editor of EYEontheUN.org.

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