Israel is Not Responsible for the "Siege" on Gaza.

 

By Avi Tarengo  

 

Amnesty International has called on Israel to end “the siege on the Gaza Strip”. The problem with this is that one word, “Egypt”, is missing. According to Amnesty, the Gaza Strip has no opening to the world other than the border with Israel. The timing of the campaign is not coincidental: “The Mubarak Line” which is being established on the Egypt-Gaza Strip border is an excellent opportunity to place responsibilities towards the civilian population of Gaza on Israel’s shoulders.

 

 Does Israel have any policy regarding the Gaza Strip? Meaningful policy is supposed to take into account Israel's long-term interests, including its perception by the world. Five years ago, Israel vacated its citizens and army and left Gazans a well-developed economical and agricultural infrastructure. Since the disengagement, Israeli “policy” towards the Gaza Strip has been outlined by a series of symbolic and random decisions, most of them contradicting one another. The indecision regarding Israel’s position in the Gaza Strip can be expressed by the lack of an answer to this simple question: Is Israel still the “occupying force” in the Gaza Strip? The lack of a clear policy is what allowed Judge Goldstone to place the responsibility on Israel as the “occupying force” which is supposed to take care of all the needs of the Strip’s residents.

 

 Unlike Israel, Egypt administrates a clear policy, which slowly but consistently advances Egypt towards achieving its goals. “The Mubarak Line” is not meant to serve Israel’s interests nor is it meant to stop the smuggling of rockets to the Gaza Strip, as Egyptian ambassador Al Hadidi explained so well to the Turks (who complained of the difficulties in transferring aid to the Gaza Strip through Egypt): “Our goal is to prevent the detachment of the Gaza Strip from the West Bank. The Gaza Strip must remain under the status of Territory considered occupied by Israel, and the humanitarian aid must come from there - not from Egypt. Recognizing Gaza as an independent entity will damage Palestinian unity and will harm the Palestinians’ cause – remove it from the world’s agenda.”

 

The Egyptian ambassador is very much aware of what he is saying: When two weeks ago a “supply convoy” by activists making its way to the Gaza Strip was blocked in Egypt, it did not lead to angry articles in the world press. This is in contrast to a nonstop worldwide protest about how Israel is supposedly imposing a “siege”. The world press considers any difference in opinion between Egyptian authorities and Hamas authorities as an internal Arab issue, one of many local conflicts which are not worthy of coverage by the international press - and this is precisely what Egypt is worried about: That the split between Hamas’ regime in the Gaza Strip and the Fatah’s regime in the West Bank will allow Israel to reduce it's assistance to the Gaza Strip which would naturally impose this burden on Gaza southern neighbor – Egypt.

 

It is surprising that the Egyptians attribute to Israel the ability to administrate a policy. Had they checked, they would have found that the issue of completing the civic disengagement from Gaza has been routinely removed from Israeli government agenda due to constrains placed by economic interests.

 

 

Rice Yes, Pasta No

 

Although Israel is proud of the fact that the scope of aid to the Gaza Strip has increased by a whopping 28% during 2009, the worldwide press and even the American senate are complaining about the decision to allow rice into the Strip but to disallow the transfer of pasta. This way, the worldwide press can write about the “Israeli siege” (which naturally leads to the reversal of this specific decision).

 

In response to the criticism, Israel is now opening the passageways in order to import strawberries from the Gaza Strip (imports which will add foreign currencies to Hamas’ regime), allows export of flowers from Gaza to Europe and increases the transfer of funds in cash from the EU into Gaza bank accounts. At the same time, individuals with economical interests in Israel continue to profit by transferring apples and fuel to the Gaza market as well as profiteering from monetary transactions with Gaza banks.

 

Mubarak and Aboul Gheit can stop worrying - Israel's policy consists of an attempt to imagine that we are the Gaza Strip’s “Big Brother”, to “show Hamas” and the entire world that "we are still in control", although this statement has absolutely no bearing in facts or create any meaningful political gain for Israel.

 

For this purpose, Israel continues to maintain the “customs envelope” which is common to Israel and Gaza, and the Bank of Israel takes care in preventing the collapse of the banks in Hamastan by regular infusion of cash – cash which actually finances the booming tunnel trade.

 

 

Hamas - A Member Group of the Muslim Brotherhood

 

The construction of the Mubarak Line was intended to serve an additional Egyptian interest: In Egypt, Mubarak knows well how to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood and keep it under a tight leash (Why doesn't Amnesty focus on the question of how Egypt deals with in-house opposition?). But to deal with Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Egypt must apply external control: The Mubarak Line gives Egypt the opportunity to use a carrot and stick approach by modulating the amount of materials smuggled. Whenever Hamas’ policy is not to Egypt’s liking, Egyptian police tightens the screws, conducts operations to seize goods and the Gaza economy is pressured. The pressure is only removed when Hamas understands the message and straightens itself according to Egyptian policy. The smuggling tap is slowly opened. Egypt would never fully close or fully open the smuggling tap: The modulation is a key to effective external control over Hamas and directing it to operate according to Egypt desire.

 

The Egyptians use similar tactics regarding the opening of the Rafah border: Using an excuse that The PA (so called "President Abu Mazen’s”) forces are the only force allowed to operate border passport control, Egypt has refused to open the border for the past three years (causing some to point the blame at Israel). Of course this creates an impossible situation, so to alleviate the "humanitarian situation" Egypt opens the border for Gazans who are "stranded" at the border. Such openings are done almost every week but are described by Egypt as “one-time only” – to justify the fact that the opening takes place without the presence of the PA forces.

 

The result is that thousands of Gazans pass through the crossing every month, but only when Egypt coordinates this “abnormally” with Hamas’ Interior Ministry. The crossing opens and closes at Egypt’s will. How does Amnesty call this phenomenon, which repeats itself every week for the past 36 months? “The Israeli Siege on Gaza”.

 

 

Avi Tarengo is an Israeli researcher and journalist, and an expert on terror financing.

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

 

Earthquake in Massachusetts.

 

by Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

 

Scott Brown's victory constitutes an unprecedented earthquake in US politics.

 

If a Massachusetts Senate seat is not safe, then no House, Senate or White House seat is safe anymore!

 

Scott Brown's victory dealt a severe blow to the Democratic Party in its own Flag Ship, Massachusetts, the state of the Kennedy family and Tip O'Neil, the state which introduced the health care reform, the only state which voted for McGovern in 1972, the state which had not elected a Republican Senator since Ed Brooke in 1972, the state which accorded President Obama a 26% margin in 2008, a state where only 12% of the registered voters are Republicans.

 

Brown's election highlights a victory of the unique US democracy, which evolves around constituents and not around the President, Congress or political parties.  Massachusetts voters supported Brown in defiance of the Republican machine, which did not consider him a worthy candidate at the beginning of the race, and in defiance of the Democratic machine, which attempted to discredit him.

 

Brown's victory is an indicator of Obama's desertion by Independents, who represent 51% of the Massachusetts electorate and 33% of US voters. From a 31% deficit 45 days ago, Brown surged ahead by 4% due to the Independent bloc, which voted Obama in 2008, was frustrated by Obama's performance in 2009 and considers Scott Brown an effective venue to send a loud warning to the White House.

 

Brown's victory will cause after-shocks throughout the USA in general and in the White House, 100 Senate offices and 435 House offices in particular.  The victory has adrenalized Republicans, ahead of the spring 2010 primaries and the November 2010 congressional and gubernatorial election.  It entices better candidates to enter the Republican primaries and generates more campaign contributions to Republican war chests.  On the other hand, it is already causing sleepless nights for Democratic incumbents and increases the potential for retirement and possible switchovers among moderate and conservative Democrats. The closer they get to November, the closer they get to their constituents, and therefore the farther away they may want to get from the President.

 

Brown's victory – on the day of Obama's first Presidential anniversary – confirms that the November 2009 election was indeed a validation of Obama's collapse in public opinion, of the growing public disappointment in Obama's character and capabilities and of Obama's increasing vulnerability at home and abroad.  Brown targeted for criticism Obama's domestic and international policies.  The Senator-elect represents the majority of the US public, which suspects – rightly or wrongly - that Obama is about to defy an American ethos by increasing taxes, exacerbating the budget deficit and expanding government involvement in the economy.  Brown has also criticized the White House soft position on Islamic terrorism and harsh attitude toward the CIA: "The President should bolster the armed forces and not bolster legal defense of terrorists." 

 

Brown's victory was achieved in spite of – and due to – the intense involvement of White House Chief-of-Staff, Rahm Emanuel, in Obama's policy-making and in the Massachusetts election.  Once again, it was evident that – in the US political arena - arrogance, rudeness, scorn and aggression drive voters away from elected officials.  It constitutes a lethal boomerang.

 

Brown's election represents the victory of mainstream America's worldview over the worldview of President Obama. Brown represents non-apologetic patriotism, belief in liberty for the people and checks and balances for the government, Judeo-Christian values, pride in the moral, military, technological and economic US exceptionalism, reservations about the UN and the European state-of-mind, determination to defeat – and not to engage – rogue regimes, supporting mutually-beneficial cooperation with allies, which are bonded by shared values, mutual threats and joint interests.

 

 

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

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

 

The Writing Was on the Wall.

 

by Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

 

I am not surprised by President Obama's performance – since January 2009 - in face of unprecedented and simultaneous economic, social, national security challenges, domestically and internationally.

 

I am not surprised by President Obama, who was elected to the most difficult and complicated post – during a most unstable period internally and externally – in spite of his obvious lack of experience and superficial world view.

 

I am not surprised by President Obama's policy toward the Jewish State and toward the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is a derivative of his world view that was fully displayed during the 2008 campaign.

 

I am not surprised by President Obama's performance – the writing was on the wall for those who were ready to read it!

 

Obama was elected at the peak of an economic meltdown, the extent of which has not been determined. Millions of Americans have lost their homes, unemployment is around a 26 year record 10%, under-employment is 17%, the budget deficit is the worst since the end of WW2, hundreds of banks have collapsed, the real estate bubble burst, private consumption and investment have dipped beyond expectation, the social security and the medical insurance systems are severely threatened, taxes are rising and government's involvement in the economy is expanding. Obama is increasingly identified and burdened with the economic crisis – which was not caused by him - and the steps taken to solve the crisis.

 

Obama prefers to be preoccupied with domestic challenges, which will determine the future of the USA and of his presidency.  However, as expected, he is sucked into the lava of Islamic terrorism and religious, territorial, tribal, ideological and power struggles throughout the globe.  While Obama extends his hand to rogue regimes, Islamic terrorism stretches its hand into the US mainland, exacerbating a sense of insecurity and reawakening the question: "When – and not if – will the second shoe fall?!" Islamic terrorism has intensified its operational, political, financial, ideological and logistical involvement in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe, the USA, Latin America and Australia.

 

Pakistan persists in its double-role of the most critical base of Islamic terrorism on one hand and counter-terrorism on the other hand.  In fact, Islamabad could be taken over by terrorists along with its nuclear arsenal.  India's restraint in the face of Islamic terrorism may be suspended, reigniting the endemic conflict with Pakistan.  The US war in Afghanistan could be Vietnamized and the war in Iraq is far from a conclusion. The possible evacuation of US troops from these two arenas could add fuel, not water, to the fire, further destabilizing the region and the globe. 

 

Syria has provided safe haven for anti-US Iraqi terrorists. Iran supports and incites Persian Gulf and global terrorism, while upgrading its ballistic and nuclear capabilities, which would agitate the Gulf, the Middle East, the US, Europe and the entire world. Nuclear North Korea has been a source of unexpected threats.  Russia and China have never hidden their imperial aspirations, which have gravely concerned their neighbors in East Europe and Asia.  Mexico is facing a lethal challenge from drug cartels, which have expanded their internal wars into Texas, Arizona and California.  Venezuela and Cuba collaborate with enemies and rivals of the USA, who may thus gain access to Washington's backyard.  And, that's an incomplete list of external challenges preoccupying Obama.

 

President Obama is facing these challenges with a world view, which was enunciated during the 2008 campaign and in three major speeches at Cairo University (June 4, 2009), the UN General Assembly (September 23, 2009) and West Point Military Academy (December 1, 2009).

 

In contrast with the US ethos, Obama does not believe in the moral, economic and military exceptionalism of the US or in the destiny of the US to lead the battle of Western democracies against rogue regimes. He views the US as a power-in-retreat, which abused its dominance.  Therefore, he systematically apologizes to Muslims, in particular, and Third World societies in general, investigates the conduct of CIA agents in their war against terrorists and is closing down the Gitmo detention camp.  He does not define the world as an arena of confrontation between free societies and terror organizations and states, but as a platform of engagement between rivals who must comprehend that covenants and accords are preferable to wars and that their common ground exceeds that which separates them.

 

Obama is convinced that military force does not solve conflicts and that the era of military balance is over.  Therefore, he cuts the budget of military R&D and missile defense, does not replenish military inventories consumed in Iraq and Afghanistan, does not expand US armed forces despite expanding threats and initiates agreements to reduce the arms race, even when this advances Russian interests.

 

Obama's Administration refrains from using the terms "international terrorism," "Islamic terrorism," (because "Islam is part of America…") or "Jihadist terrorism" (because "Jihad means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal…").  According to Obama, there are no terrorists, only "extremists," "man-made disasters" and "isolated cases" such as Al-Qaeda and Taliban.  Terrorism is considered a challenge for law-enforcement officials rather than for military personnel.  Moreover, terrorism constitutes, to an extent, a Third World reaction to abuse and lack of respect by the Western World.  Therefore, terrorists benefit from the rights of civil law offenders.  And, when there is no moral clarity, there is hardly battle field clarity.

 

Obama considers the UN as the quarterback of international relations and the bureaucracy of Foggy Bottom as the luminaries of foreign policy.  He aspires to move closer to the European state of mind and world view, while the world is in a dire need of a US Marshall and not for a European cop. Hence, Obama aims at minimizing unilateral initiatives and maximizing military, legal, political and environmental multilateralism.  He has joined the vehemently anti-US and anti-Israel UN Council on Human Rights, which was boycotted by Bush. Furthermore, he awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, who headed the Council on Human Rights and led the racist anti-US and anti-Israel UN "Durban Conference." 

 

Obama's attitude toward the Jewish State has been a by-product of his aforementioned world view, of his non Judeo-Christian background and of his inner circle associates and friends at Harvard University and in Chicago, who have been critical and hostile toward Israel.  The principles of "moral equivalence" and "evenhandedness" have underlined his policy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict.  He does not regard Israel as a strategic, let alone unique, ally and is hardly a supporter of US joint defense and commercial projects with Israel. He does not rush to defend Israel at the UN and views the Jewish State as part of the exploiting Western World and the Arabs as part of the exploited Third World. 

 

Obama has adopted the sophisticated line of Arab propaganda, claiming that the moral foundation of Israel is the Holocaust, which resulted in ushering Jews to a newly acquired home, while uprooting Palestinians from their own home. He perceives the Palestinian issue as the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict, the root cause of anti-US Islamic terrorism and the chief trigger of Middle East turbulence.  His prescription for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is an Israeli withdrawal to the 1949/67 Lines, the uprooting of Jewish communities in the Golan Heights, Judea and Samaria, the repartitioning of Jerusalem, the negotiation of the return of the 1948 Arab refugees to the pre-1967 Israel and the exchange of land.  President Obama is intent on clipping the wings of the Jewish State morally, strategically and territorially.  However, that is not a top priority for him.  He would not confront Israel's friends on Capitol Hill and in the public if they are mobilized against his prescription. Does Obama have the power to overcome such a pro-Israel alliance and impose a solution on Israel?

 

Voters in the US elected Obama to office, in spite of his lack of experience domestically and globally.  Instead of reading the writing on the wall, US voters entertained the delusion that an "attractive cover" meant an "instructive book."  However, Obama's conduct since January 2009 has led to the collapse of his attractive image.  For example, a majority of Americans oppose higher taxes, an expanded budget deficit and bigger government, which have become Obama's trade mark.  60% of the US public believes that the US is moving in the wrong direction.  Support for Obama has declined from 65% in January 2009, to less than 50% in January 2010 – the steepest presidential decline since 1975. 

 

From a consensus-builder candidate in 2008 he has emerged as a controversy-promoting president in 2009. From a moderate candidate he has transformed into a liberal president, while only 20% of the American public consider themselves to be Liberals.  From a coattail candidate, who received the Independent vote and swept Democrats to a major victory in both congressional chambers, he has become an anchor-chained president, who has distanced Independents from the Democratic Party, has energized the Angry White Vote and could drag Democrats to defeat in November 2010.  The Democratic failure in November 2009 and public opinion polls for the spring primaries and for the November 2010 election, suggest a major Republican tailwind.  As a result, a number of prominent Democratic legislators have announced retirement.  Therefore, as we approach the November 2010 election, and as legislators are growing more attentive to their constituents, moderate and conservative Democratic legislators are distancing themselves from President Obama.

 

While Obama is perceived as a President who strays away from the American consensus, Israel benefits from a consensus support.  "Joe Six Pack" and "Lunch Pail Mabel," conservative and liberal America, Jews and Christians, Republicans and Democrats do not view Israel as a classic foreign policy issue, but as an internal Judeo-Christian American issue, which is bonded with the USA through shared values, mutual threats and joint interests.  Israel is largely regarded as a peace-seeking democratic militarily-able ally, surrounded by enemies who reject American values. US public opinion polls position Israel as the fourth or fifth most favorite ally with 66%-70% support, compared with the Palestinian Authority, which is at the bottom of the list along with Iran and North Korea. The key factor of support for the idea of a Jewish State – since the 17^th century – has been the US public and its representatives on Capitol Hill.  Most initiatives enhancing the US-Israel relationship originated in Congress, many times following a struggle against an opposing Administration.  President Obama's world view suggests that such struggles could be intensified during the next few years. 

 

The writing is on the wall!    

 

 

Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger

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

 

What drives Arabs to Hamas and Al-Qaeda?

 

by Khaled Abu Toameh

Arab journalists are under growing pressure from the Palestinian governments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip to avoid "hanging the dirty laundry in the open."

Arab journalists are often taught that they should place the interests of their leaders, governments and homelands before above anything else, including the facts and the truth.

Americans and Europeans who are pouring billions of dollars on Abbas and Fayyad need to be aware of the absence of an independent media in the West Bank. One can understand why the Iranian-funded Hamas is repressing journalists, but there is no reason why American and European taxpayers should be funding a regime that has no respect for independent reporters.

If the West nevertheless insists on dealing with corrupt secular regimes to keep radical Muslims away, then Washington and its Western allies should demand good government and free media. Western donors have every right to demand something positive in return for their money. The financial corruption and lack of democracy and freedom of expression is, meanwhile, driving many Arabs into the open arms of Hamas and al-Qaeda.

Journalists are forced to go and work in the international or even Israeli media to be able to practice some form of real journalism.

The absence of a free and independent media in the Palestinian territories has driven a majority of Palestinians to rely on foreign media outlets as a reliable source of information. Public opinion polls have even shown that most Palestinians prefer Al-Jazeera to the Hamas and Fatah media.

The pressure is taking place in the context of the power struggle between Fatah and Hamas that has been raging in the Palestinian territories since the Islamist movement won the parliamentary elections in January 2006.

Since then, the two rival parties have been waging a smear campaign against each other, using every available platform to discredit and undermine one another.

Many local journalists have found themselves caught in the middle of this ongoing dispute.

In the West Bank, the Western-backed "moderate" government of Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad has been exerting pressure on journalists to "toe the line" and refrain from reporting news that might reflect negatively on the two men.

Abbas and Fayyad are using the US-trained Palestinian policemen not only to crack down on Hamas supporters in the West Bank, but also to silence critics and intimidate local reporters and editors.

Some journalists who have dared to publicly criticize the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank have either found themselves behind bars under the pretext of "supporting" Hamas - an allegation aimed at keeping human rights organizations and Westerners silent. Other journalists who are not renowned as Fatah loyalists often receive threats over the phone directly from officials close to the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah.

This policy has resulted in the creation of a media that is not much different than the ones existing under Arab dictatorships. The three major Palestinian newspapers, Al-Quds, Al-Ayyam and Al-Hayat Al-Jadeeda, are controlled, directly and indirectly, by Abbas and Fayyad loyalists. Criticism of these two men and their policies in the local media is unheard of.

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of journalists who seek jobs with the Palestinian media in the West Bank are required to be Fatah loyalists. Of course no one is expecting Abbas and Fayyad to employ Hamas-affiliated journalists, but what about those who don't belong to any political faction? And there's certainly no shortage of fine and independent Palestinian journalists.

Hamas's attitude toward Palestinian journalists in the Gaza Strip has not been any better. Many journalists living there are afraid to speak out or report stories that might anger Hamas. Under this frightening atmosphere, many of these journalists nowadays sound as if they are Hamas spokesmen.

A free media is one of the basic foundations of a healthy and prosperous society. It's also an important element in the construction of a solid infrastructure for the much-desired Palestinian state.

 

Khaled Abu Toameh

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

 

Why Has Israel's Press Freedom Ranking Taken a Crash Dive?

 

by Benjamin Joffe-Walt

Israel has lost its top spot in the Middle East for first time in decades. Analysts discuss why.

For decades it has been a source of honor and dignity for Israel's defenders: the nascent democracy has consistently been ranked well above all other Middle Eastern nations in its level of press freedom.

Israel's free press status, confirmed each year by a number of international organizations from the US-based Freedom House to Reporters Without Borders, has withstood a number of wars, political revolts and Palestinian Intifadas.

The Gaza War changed all that, as Israel received extensive criticism for severely limiting journalists' access to the Gaza Strip during the heightened military conflict in the coastal strip in December 2008 and January 2009.

In a dramatic realignment in the annual rankings, Reporters Without Borders not only demoted Israel from its long-held spot as the top dog of Middle Eastern media freedom, but relegated the Jewish state to the 93rd most free media environment on earth, 47 spots below its 2008 ranking and well behind Kuwait, Lebanon and the United Arab Emirates. The Reporters Without Borders annual index is based on questionnaires sent to hundreds of journalists around the world.

The US-based Freedom House, however, retained Israel's rank as the kingpin of MidEast press freedom in its annual report, well over 20 spots above all other Middle Eastern and North African nations.

Israel also remained ahead of the region in Freedom House's annual 'Freedom in the World' report, released last week. A study of the ability of individuals to exercise their political and civil rights in 194 countries and 14 territories across the globe, the report assigns each country a 'freedom status' based on a series of parameters. While 89 countries, representing 46% of the global population, were given the 'Free' status, Israel has been the only Middle Eastern country designated 'Free' for over 30 years and remains the Middle Eastern nation with the most political and civil freedoms by a far margin.

The dissonance in Israel's ranking in the varying reports has analysts debating the methodology used in the international monitoring of press freedom.

"Israel was on the top since the press index was created and we never said that the press in Israel is not free," Soazig Dollet, head of the Middle East desk at Reporters Without Borders, told The Media Line. "But what we are condemning is the violation of press freedom by Israeli forces and the Gaza War explains everything."

"Palestinian journalists were killed, at least three media buildings were targeted by the Israeli army, Israeli journalists were arrested trying to cover the Gaza operation and two journalists were arrested and charged with spying on behalf of Iran," she said. "All of this explains Israel's drop in the press freedom index."

"How many journalists were arrested or sentenced to prison in Lebanon or Kuwait this year? None," Dollet said, explaining the placement of Lebanon, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates all above Israel in the annual rankings. "How many journalists were killed by Lebanese authorities this year? None. How many journalists were killed by the Kuwaiti army this year? None."

Critics of the Reporters Without Borders report accuse the organization of conflating the press environment in Israel proper with that of the territories controlled by Israel. Reporters Without Borders, Freedom House and a number of other international media monitoring groups usually separate Israel, the Palestinian administered territories and the Palestinian territories controlled by Israel for the purposes of press freedom rankings.

"This is part of a whole hysterical wave of anti-Israel feeling across the world," Tamar Liebes, professor of communications at the The Hebrew University in Jerusalem. "There is absolutely no evidence of a dramatic reduction in press freedom in Israel itself. Israeli press keep getting leaks from the government. You name it and it was in the Israeli press this year. Anything they get they print."

"Foreign journalists are just upset that Israel didn't let them into Gaza," she continued. "But this was a war in a civilian area and there is a lot of danger to civilians in these kinds of situations. In fact over a dozen Israeli soldiers were shot by their own army. So it's Israel's responsibility to allow for free press but Israel also has to protect journalists."

But Soazig Dollet defended the 47 point drop in Israel's status.

"An Israeli reporter was arrested by Israel in Israeli territory," she said, citing a total of five journalists arrested in Israel and three imprisoned. "Two Iranian journalists were sent to jail in Jerusalem and two journalists from Al Jazeera were deported by Israeli forces from Israeli territory."

"In addition there are continuing difficulties for Palestinians and Israeli journalists covering the West Bank," she added. "Palestinian journalists have been targeted by Israeli forces while covering peaceful protests and there is military censorship. None of this is new so it didn't really affect the position of Israel but it explains why Israel has never been in the top 10."

Dr Mordechai Kedar of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University argued that Israel had made a conscious decision to continue military censorship, despite the effect it may have on the country's press freedom rankings.

"Israeli soldiers' lives are much more important than the rights of journalists to report whatever they like," he told The Media Line. "The newspapers and TV are still totally free in Israel and we have no problem with letting out what happens and what does not happen, but censorship is usually a decision made in order to save soldier's lives and I think journalists who endanger Israeli soldiers should be punished, whether they are Israeli or not."

"The main reason for the drop in our ranking was restrictions which were put on reporting from Gaza during the war," said Dr Kedar, who served for 25 years in Israel's military intelligence and is an expert in Middle Eastern mass media. "If there is an action by Israeli forces and journalists can't photograph them, journalists don't like this and of course this will negatively affect Israel's press freedom ranking but I couldn't care less. The circumstances justified it."

"Another thing is that Israel did not let journalists go to Gaza from Israel," he added. "Israelis said if you want to go to Gaza go from somewhere else, but we are not a passage to Gaza. Israel is afraid that foreign journalists will become propaganda devices in the hands of Hamas and that they will not report things that Hamas does not like."

 

 

Benjamin Joffe-Walt

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

 

Sweden today - The USA tomorrow?...

 

Feedom of speech and hate speech.

Sweden refusing to condemn a blood libel, confuses freedom of speech with hate speech. Free speech should never be taken lightly. Free speech should never be used as a platform to disseminate racial, ethnic or religious hatred.

We know how and where it starts. We never know how and when it stops. Don't miss this important video : http://xrl.us/bgs92y

 

Why I Stand with Geert Wilders.

 

by Daniel Pipes

Who is the most important European alive today? I nominate the Dutch politician Geert Wilders. I do so because he is best placed to deal with the Islamic challenge facing the continent. He has the potential to emerge as a world-historical figure.

That Islamic challenge consists of two components: on the one hand, an indigenous population's withering Christian faith, inadequate birthrate, and cultural diffidence, and on the other an influx of devout, prolific, and culturally assertive Muslim immigrants. This fast-moving situation raises profound questions about Europe: will it retain its historic civilization or become a majority-Muslim continent living under Islamic law (the Shari'a)?

Wilders, 46, founder and head of the Party for Freedom (PVV), is the unrivaled leader of those Europeans who wish to retain their historic identity. That's because he and the PVV differ from most of Europe's other nationalist, anti-immigrant parties.

The PVV is libertarian and mainstream conservative, without roots in neo-Fascism, nativism, conspiricism, antisemitism, or other forms of extremism. (Wilders publicly emulates Ronald Reagan.) Indicative of this moderation is Wilders' long-standing affection for Israel that includes two years' residence in the Jewish state, dozens of visits, and his advocating the transfer of the Dutch embassy to Jerusalem.

In addition, Wilders is a charismatic, savvy, principled, and outspoken leader who has rapidly become the most dynamic political force in the Netherlands. While he opines on the full range of topics, Islam and Muslims constitute his signature issue. Overcoming the tendency of Dutch politicians to play it safe, he calls Muhammad a devil and demands that Muslims "tear out half of the Koran if they wish to stay in the Netherlands." More broadly, he sees Islam itself as the problem, not just a virulent version of it called Islamism.

Finally, the PVV benefits from the fact that, uniquely in Europe, the Dutch are receptive to a non-nativist rejection of Shari'a. This first became apparent a decade ago, when Pim Fortuyn, a left-leaning former communist homosexual professor began arguing that his values and lifestyle were irrevocably threatened by the Shari'a. Fortuyn anticipated Wilders in founding his own political party and calling for a halt to Muslim immigration to the Netherlands. Following Fortuyn's 2002 assassination by a leftist, Wilders effectively inherited his mantle and his constituency.

The PVV has done well electorally, winning 6 percent of the seats in the November 2006 national parliamentary elections and 16 percent of Dutch seats in the June 2009 European Union elections. Polls now generally show the PVV winning a plurality of votes and becoming the country's largest party. Were Wilders to become prime minister, he could take on a leadership role for all Europe.

But he faces daunting challenges.

The Netherlands' fractured political scene means the PVV must either find willing partners to form a governing coalition (a difficult task, given how leftists and Muslims have demonized Wilders as a "right-wing extremist") or win a majority of the seats in parliament (a distant prospect).

Wilders must also overcome his opponents' dirty tactics. Most notably, they have finally, after 2½ years of preliminary skirmishes, succeeded in dragging him to court on charges of hate speech and incitement to hatred. The public prosecutor's case against Wilders opens in Amsterdam on January 20; if convicted, Wilders faces a fine of up to US$14,000 or as many as 16 months in jail.

Remember, he is his country's leading politician. Plus, due to threats against his life, he always travels with bodyguards and incessantly changes safe houses. Who exactly, one wonders, is the victim of incitement?

Although I disagree with Wilders about Islam (I respect the religion but fight Islamists with all I have), we stand shoulder-to-shoulder against the lawsuit. I reject the criminalization of political differences, particularly attempts to thwart a grassroots political movement via the courts. Accordingly, the Middle East Forum's Legal Project has worked on Wilders' behalf, raising substantial funds for his defense and helping in other ways. We do so convinced of the paramount importance to talk freely in public during time of war about the nature of the enemy.

Ironically, were Wilders fined or jailed, it would probably enhance his chances to become prime minister. But principle outweighs political tactics here. He represents all Westerners who cherish their civilization. The outcome of his trial and his freedom to speak has implications for us all.

 

Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.

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

 

Anything but Jewish.

 

by  Petra Marquardt-Bigman

Examples of Arab disregard for historic Jewish sites and artifacts could easily fill a book, and it wouldn't be a problem to fill an additional volume with examples of Arab denials of the historic Jewish connection to Jerusalem and the region. In the most recent example, Jordanian authorities apparently felt no embarrassment at claiming the Dead Sea Scrolls are "our antiquities," and the Palestinians no qualms in asserting the scrolls are "part of Palestinian heritage."

In an apparent attempt to bolster these claims, Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab recently shared his memories of "Growing Up in Bethlehem With the Dead Sea Scrolls Story" with readers of The Huffington Post.

Kuttab professes to be particularly upset by Israeli claims that "the scrolls have no connection to Jordan or the Jordanian people" but are instead "an intrinsic part of Jewish heritage and religion." Kuttab seems to think that these Israeli claims are easily invalidated by his own childhood memories of being told the story about the discovery of the first Dead Sea Scrolls by a Beduin goat herder - who then asked an Arab cobbler to make sandals out of them. Fortunately, the cobbler realized that these scrolls could be valuable, and according to Kuttab, they eventually were passed on to a high-ranking official of the Syrian Orthodox Church, who managed to sell them for a fortune.

So much for the deeply-felt Arab attachment to this unique historic treasure.

However, Kuttab's childhood story seems only partly correct, because of the seven scrolls discovered initially, three were purchased right away on behalf of the Hebrew University by Professor Eliezer Lipa Sukenik. The remaining four were advertised for sale in The Wall Street Journal in 1954, and Yigael Yadin, the son of Sukenik, managed to acquire them for the State of Israel with the help of an American mediator (see http://virtualqumran.huji.ac.il/Scrolls.htm).

Kuttab claims for some reason that the scrolls were sold to the British Museum; he also states that Jordanian and Palestinian demands actually relate to scroll fragments discovered only in 1952, which were sold by the cobbler - who had become an antique dealer - to "the Palestine Archaeological Museum," also known as the Rockefeller Museum, in Jerusalem.

The museum had opened its doors to the public in January 1938; ten years later, the area was conquered by Jordanian forces, and in 1966, the museum was nationalized by King Hussein of Jordan.

It is certainly rather interesting to note in this context that Kuttab expresses outrage about the notion that "Jordan's rule over fellow Arabs before 1967 was an 'occupation.'" Given Kuttab's perspective, it apparently doesn't matter much whether Jordanians or Palestinians claim the Dead Sea Scrolls as a rightful part of their "heritage" - all that matters is that Israel's claims to the scrolls as part of the Jewish heritage are rejected and denied. Inevitably, Kuttab's concluding observation therefore rings rather hollow:

The holy land is sacred to the three monotheistic religions. Claims of religious exclusivity and the use of this arrogance to justify the theft of land and the occupation of people have brought disastrous results. The sooner that we honour and recognise each other and our faith, the sooner we will be able to understand the soothing words of angels calling for Peace on Earth and Goodwill to all mankind."

Unsurprisingly, Kuttab doesn't get around to acknowledging that the Dead Sea Scrolls pre-date Christianity by decades, and Islam by centuries.

It seems rather depressing that this is what a widely respected journalist has to offer when he writes about "goodwill." Indeed, Kuttab's idea of "goodwill" apparently always means that Jews should be required to renounce any of their historic attachments: another of his recent articles describes Jerusalem as the "stumbling block" for peace, and Kuttab claims there:

It was because of Jerusalem that then Israeli leader Ariel Sharon made a provocative visit to al-Aqsa mosque in 2000. His visit was met with angry protests but, unlike the prevailing Israeli narrative, it seems the intifada did not start because of this visit. It is arguable that the intifada broke out because of the brutality that Israeli security personnel used on angry demonstrators."

Of course, Sharon didn't visit the al-Aqsa mosque; he just visited the Temple Mount for about half an hour during normal hours when the area was open to tourists.

But apparently, Kuttab feels that Muslim rioting and violence are justified if a Jewish Israeli politician dares to visit the Temple Mount - after all, the Temple Mount probably doesn't exist for somebody who claims that Sharon visited the al-Aqsa mosque. Why Kuttab would feel entitled to preach against "claims of religious exclusivity" is anybody's guess.

One can only conclude that peace is a long way off when even a widely respected Arab journalist so adamantly denies the importance of the Temple Mount for Jews and believes at the same time that his childhood story of an Arab cobbler-turned-antique-dealer is all it takes to deny Jewish claims to scrolls written almost exclusively in Hebrew well before Christianity or Islam were established.

 

Petra Marquardt-Bigman

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

 

De la Demagogie en Amerique.

by Emmanuel Navon

In Tocqueville's days, traveling to America was such a big deal that you had you write a book about it –especially if you were an aristocrat with political ambitions in post-revolutionary France. Hence the masterly and classic De la Démocratie en Amérique.

Today, even writing a blog upon returning from the new world would seem preposterous; yet I venture to claim that my recent journey there makes a worthwhile story.

I happened to be in Washington DC right after the "deadline" set by the Obama Administration on Iran had been missed. With a few exceptions, most people on Capitol Hill barely took notice that America's credibility and deterrence were being tested. Congress' attention was primarily focused on healthcare reform as well as on some explosive underwear made in Nigeria.

Iran continues to produce stocks of enriched uranium. It was offered a deal by which Russia and France would have taken much of its stock of low-enriched uranium and turned it into special higher-enriched fuel for a Teheran-based research reactor. The deadline for taking that offer was the end of 2009, and Iran rejected it.

Iran is proving to the world how easy it is to ignore the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It knows that there are two good reasons why the UN Security Council will not approve tougher sanctions. China has piled money into Iran's oil and gas industries thanks to the withdrawal of Western companies. Russia would be delighted to witness an American humiliation in Iraq and Afghanistan thanks to a nuclear Iran whose support for the United States' Middle East enemies would be immune from retaliation.

Thus has the Obama Administration publicly cornered itself to the choice between an Iranian bomb and the bombing of Iran. Publicly, because the Bush Administration conducted unofficial negotiations with Iran, as did all US governments since the 1979 revolution. Indeed, as Michael Ledeen writes in his eye-opening book Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War against the West (St. Martin's Press, 2009): "Future students of international affairs will no doubt marvel at the persistence with which president after president ran after the mullahs, trying desperately to reach some sort of agreement." And as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates candidly admitted even before President Obama's official negotiations with Iran: "Every administration since 1979 has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed."

The Clinton Administration, for example, tried to reach a "grand bargain" with Iran. President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright lifted sanctions and publicly apologized for America's alleged misdeeds. Yet they were brushed aside by Iran's supreme leader.

Even the Bush Administration pursued accommodation with the mullahs. In 2008, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw convinced Condoleezza Rice that the Iranians were ready for a deal: they would suspend uranium enrichment in exchange for the lifting of Western sanctions. Rice, in turn, convinced President Bush to support the initiative. By mid-2008, the Americans were convinced they had reached an agreement with the mullahs. Condoleezza Rice was getting ready to publicly announce at the UN General Assembly in September that the US would lift sanctions and that Iran would stop its enrichment activities. This never happened, however, because Ahmadinejad tricked the US. When he addressed the General Assembly, he did not announce the end of Iran's nuclear program. Instead, he spoke about the imminent arrival of the Twelfth Imam.

In December 2008, former Iranian President Rafsanjani declared, referring to the United States: "For the past thirty years, you have desired dialogue with us and we didn't talk to you." Indeed, and there is a reason for this: How could the mullahs cease their enmity to America when this enmity is a founding element of their regime?

America's failed attempts to accommodate Iran are remindful of Israel's failed attempts to accommodate the Palestinians. But Israel seems to be the only one to have finally gotten the point. The United States apparently persists in believing that striking a deal is just a matter of trying again and harder. While I was in Washington, there were rumors that Rahm Emanuel had "threatened" Israel and the Palestinians with a US walk-out. What a good riddance this would have been.

If the Obama Administration wants to bridge the gap between Israel and the Palestinians, it should fist neutralize Iran and stop its regional trouble-making. Why should the Palestinians come to their senses while Iran operates Hamas and Hezbollah freely? And why should they compromise when the prospect of a nuclear Iran understandably makes them feel that negotiations with Israel are not worth their time? Those in the Obama Administration who claim that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would help neutralize Iran have the causal relationship backwards.

Whether this is naïveté or demagogy is already beside the point. Tocqueville sensed that America's ultimate purpose would be to preserve freedom. But he did not live through the twentieth century to realize that the Jews can only rely upon themselves to preserve their own freedom and indeed their very life.

Emmanuel Navon

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