Dichter: No Arab 'Return,' Erekat Will Swallow his Words

by Maayana Miskin

MK Avi Dichter, former Minister of Internal Security, spoke to Arutz Sheva's Hebrew-language news service Sunday regarding negotiations with the Palestinian Authority. The discussion focused on senior PA negotiator Saeb Erekat, who recently told the British daily The Guardian that Israel must recognize the Arab “right of return” if it wants peace.

According to Erekat, the “right of return” should apply not only to Arabs who fled pre-state Israel during the War of Independence, but also to every one of their descendants, making a total of seven million people eligible to “return” to Israel. “In Bosnia and in Palestine, the return of refugees has been considered absolutely necessary for the stability of peace,” he said.

Erekat's remarks are unprecedented, but not overly worrisome, Dichter said. While PA leaders have often voiced demands for “return” in the Arab press, “I don't remember [seeing] such extreme statements from such a senior figure,” he said.

However, he said, “The 'right of return' will not be included in the peace process... Talk about the 'right of return' is meaningless. Everyone understands that there will not be a solution that includes 'return,' no matter who says what.”

Erekat's statements were “manipulative, and completely baseless,” Dichter continued. “Erekat will need to swallow his words,” he said. “He has taken back many things he said in the past, and he will have to take this back as well.”

No Peace Without Gaza
Dichter warned of a “systematic, organized fraud perpetrated by the PA” regarding negotiations. “Ever since the overthrow in Gaza, they've been drawing all attention to Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, and ignoring Gaza completely,” he said.

“The subject of Gaza is a central issue that must not be ignored – not by Israel, not by the United States, not by the Quartet, and not by the Arab nations,” he continued. “Gaza is an abscess that must be burst – either by the Arab nations bringing PA control back to Gaza, or by Israel toppling the terrorist infrastructure in a process that will last for years.”

“We cannot continue to have an Iranian-directed terrorist identity between us and Egypt,” he concluded.

Israel must ensure that Gaza, and all other relevant issues, are dealt with under any peace deal, Dichter said. “We cannot go step by step, it has to be one whole process... A peace deal is like delivering a child. One does not birth a partial baby, and similarly, one cannot birth a partial peace.”

Original URL: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/141494

Maayana Miskin

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

Israeli Press:The NYT and Israel

by Elyakim Haetzni

Well-known columnist Thomas Friedman summed up his recent article, Reality Check, in the New York Times as follows:

"The most important thing President Obama and the Secretary of State...can do now is...to simply get out of the picture...America
to get off the road...".

Putting aside our reservations about the way Friedman arrives at the above conclusion- his insulting style, the familiarity bordering on condescension (can it be due to his Jewish origins?) and skewed judgment--every Israeli patriot agrees with him. He is right when he says "you cannot desire peace more than the sides themselves do, and that is what America is doing. The people running Israel and Palestine today have other priorities. The time has come for us to leave them to their own devices--to let them live with the results."

Friedman, arrogant and full of self-importance, would be surprised to know that the "silent majority", whom he claims to represent in his article, sees American intervention as a problem, not a solution.

Friedman terms the rejection of America's demand for another freeze "an irresponsible choice" made by those who receive unconditional aid, something akin to drug users who "think that they can challenge the laws of history, geography and democracy" and ask for money to agree to do what is in their own best interest.

It is worth noting how America managed to serve her own best interests in Vietnam, and why Iran and and Al-Quaeda may be taking America's place in Iran and Afghanistan. U.S. soldiers are thousands of kilometers from home, whereas for Israel it is all happening right next door.

"Laws of history"? Do the Palestinian Arabs have a history? And what do the laws of geography have to say about the range of a pistol shot between the two parts of a divided Jerusalem, about a country surrounded by enemies with a width of less than 14 kilometers at its narrowest point? As far as demography goes, Friedman added 1 million unborn children to the PA population (citing "2.5 million"!!?) and about 300,000 to the count of Israeli Arabs.

And how does he know that the "silent majority" of Jews and Arabs want to divide the country, in clear contradiction to election and survey results--certainly among the Arabs?!

Take another insulting sentence: "Israel, when America--a nation that showered you with billions and protected you in infinite international forums--asks you to freeze settlements for 3 months...there is only one correct answer, and it is not 'how many?' but 'yes, whatever you want, because you are the only friend we have in the world'".

Aside from the anti-Semitic nuance ("how many?"), Friedman is right: accepting humiliating largesse results in dependence, however: America certainly would not call anyone who wished to take the birthplace of her nation,Washington D.C. and the 13 colonies, from her in the early years of her independence, her "only friend".

In addition: Israel has given America a significant return on her investment, mostly etched in blood. In order to serve American interests, Israel was forced to give most of the fruits of her military victories back to the hands of her defeated enemies. In the Yom Kippur war, at America's request, Israel refrained from striking first and paid a huge price in loss of life, Israel also freed Egypt's Third Army from encirclement and retreated. In return, America succeeded in adding Egypt to the Western bloc. America still has no one else but Israel on whom to rely. How much does it cost America to have this kind of base in other places?

Friedman's slap-in-the-face article warns: "He who hates gifts will live." It is enough for us to have a healthy, give and take friendship with the United States based on mutual interests alone: global strategy and the war on terror, shared values and culture, the connection with millions of our nation and tens of millions of our spiritual friends who share the Book of Books with us. Forget about anything beyond that.

It is worth giving up billions to avoid Friedman and his newspaper's humiliations as well as those of Obama and his liberal (read supercilious and elitist leftists, as is usual everywhere) minority friends. We are not referring to the U.S. Congress, (which recently passed a resolution calling upon the President to veto any proposition tabled in the Security Council recognizing unilateral declaration of Palestinian independence) or the American public, that supported friends of Israel in the recent elections.

Why is it so hard for Friedman to understand that a normal nation would prefer to live on bread and water rather than sell its homeland and future for gold? Besides, Israel's economy will do just fine without the funding, if there is any, that America gives us beyond what she deems to be in her own best interest.

(translated with the writer's permission)

Original URL: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/9890

Atty. Elyakim Haetzni is a lawyer and former Knesset member who resides in Kiryat Arba.

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

Optimism, Israeli Style; Negativity on Israel, Western Style

by Barry Rubin

Israelis are known for being gloomy about the political situation. In fact, they generally enjoy criticizing things (themselves above all). As a result, Israel's enemies often make the mistake of underestimating the country's ability to endure, struggle, and prevail.

A typical example came in a recent Arab newspaper article that claims the serious fire in northern Israel was a sign of the country's collapse. Not so fast!

So when very positive economic figures are released for 2010, Haaretz, the left-wing newspaper, has to put its own spin on them.

Actually, the numbers are really impressive: Israel's economy did better than predicted. It grew by about 4.5 percent in 2010 compared to only 2.7 percent for all of the other OECD (the club of developed) nations. While living standards went down in most of the West, in Israel they rose by 2.7 percent.

Pretty good, right?

So naturally, at the bottom of this article, Haaretz had to have the following:

"More on this topic: Researchers: Israel's economy is headed for disaster."

Why? Because of some rather questionable projections that the Arab and Haredi ("ultra-Orthodox") population will continue to grow until they compose three-quarters of the country's population.

Now, the quiz for the day: Which story received major coverage in the New York Times? Israel is doing very well economically (based on facts) or the prediction of doom (based on, well, not based on facts)? No prizes for this one. Too predictable! LOL

Original URL:http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2010/12/optimism-israeli-style.html

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

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

Lessons From Denmark

by Ann Snyder

Molly Norris was right, initially at least. The original idea behind "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" was simple. It was a message about the importance of solidarity in defense of something of great value—the cornerstone of our individual liberties—freedom of expression.

Comedy Central, Norris charged, had "cooperated with terrorists" when it censored an episode of South Park. If instead, everyone drew an image of Mohammed, Islamists couldn't possibly silence all of us. Her message echoed Benjamin Franklin's statement at the signing of the Declaration of Independence: "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."

Recent news reminds us that capitulation is a failed strategy. We need to stand together with those who value individual rights (Muslims and non-Muslims, alike) against the onslaught of Islamists who would destroy those very freedoms.

On December 29, 2010 police arrested five suspects in a terror plot apparently targeting the newspaper Jyllands-Posten. Over five years ago, the Jyllands-Posten published cartoons depicting Islam's prophet, Mohammed. The newspaper and the cartoonists have been the targets of numerous threats and thwarted attacks ever since. Interestingly, the worst violence actually followed an apology by Jyllands-Posten. An attempt to appease had failed. (Norris learned the same lesson after attempting to apologize. Radical cleric Al-Awlaki still called for her murder, and she was forced to "go ghost" when authorities were unable to protect her.) The death toll from the anger fomented over the cartoons is estimated at over 200 with many more injured.

But why, after five years, has this controversy not gone away? Perhaps the reason is that the cartoons are merely an excuse being exploited by Islamists as a justification for their actions.

According to Jakob Scharf, head of the Danish Security and Intelligence Service, in a press conference following the foiled plot, "Obviously, the cartoons have been used very efficiently by militant Islamist groups worldwide in targeting Denmark, specifically, and trying to explain why the violent extremism is necessary." Egyptian-born, Muslim journalist, Mona Eltahawy, agrees that the cartoons have been exploited for political ends. In an article criticizing Yale University Press' cowardly decision to pull images of the cartoons from what was supposed to be a scholarly exploration of the cartoon controversy, Eltahawy asserts that the cartoons were used by some to stir anti-immigrant sentiments and by "right wing" Muslims to "silence [other] Muslims and fuel anti-Western rhetoric."

It is precisely because the cartoons are simply today's excuse for an Islamist tantrum that appeasement cannot work as an effective strategy to stop future violence. You won't halt attacks by prosecuting politicians and journalists for saying things that might offend the Islamists or by settling absurd lawsuits. Islamists will simply trump up a new pretext tomorrow. Further, the strategy of appeasement has grave consequences beyond being merely ineffectual. By appeasing, we are, as Norris suggested, cooperating with terrorists.

By silencing critics or those who might offend, we weaken the resistance to Islamists and each time, hand them a mini-victory. By giving in to the demands of extremists, we give credence to the faulty idea that there is a monolithic voice of the "Muslim world," and that the Islamists speak for it. (This is the idea the OIC would like you to buy into. This self-appointed Muslim-Lorax audaciously claims to speak for the entire "ummah." If we are interested in hearing the voices--note the plural--of Muslims perhaps we should start by talking to a few of these individuals who signed a petition in support of Norris, South Park, and freedom of expression. ) Finally, by capitulating in the face of every threat or whimper, we show Islamists that their approach works. And, like a schoolyard bully or petulant child, they will use the same strategy tomorrow.

This is why standing together with all lovers of individual liberty and resisting Islamist pressure is the first step in diffusing the threat. Capitulation has failed. We need to recognize that now, or assuredly we will all lose our heads.

Original URL:http://www.legal-project.org/blog/2010/12/appeasement-will-not-stop-islamists

Ann Snyder

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

Column One: Hizbullah and the Info War

by Caroline B. Glick


On January 15 the UN’s Special Tribunal for Lebanon is scheduled to issue indictments against a number of Hizbullah operatives for the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005. All of Lebanon and much of the region is waiting in suspense that grows with each passing day.

The news that Hizbullah would be fingered by the prosecutors was first made public in July.

Since then, Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah has threatened repeatedly to set fire to Lebanon and perhaps Israel if Daniel Bellemare, the chief prosecutor, dares to go forward. Given Hizbullah’s track record of war, murder and intimidation, no one doubts that the Iranian-proxy force will keep its promise if it comes to that.

Almost immediately after Hizbullah was named as the central suspect in Hariri’s assassination, Hizbullah’s ally Syria began negotiating a deal with Saudi Arabia, which serves as the patron of Lebanon’s Sunni community. The goal of these talks is to get Hizbullah off the hook, “in order to preserve stability.”

Bellemare made clear this week that he will not be influenced by politics in dispatching his duties to the law. If he is true to his word, then Hizbullah members will certainly be indicted next month for assassinating Hariri.

What this means is that the most attractive option for Hizbullah and its allies right now is to discredit the tribunal. To this end, Hizbullah has repeatedly characterized the UN tribunal as an Israeli and American plot. Syria has insisted that the Lebanese who testified before the tribunal gave false testimony.

While these allegations may have convinced their supporters, both Syria and Hizbullah know that the only effective way to discredit the tribunal is to coerce Hariri’s son, Prime Minister Saad Hariri, to disavow the tribunal and withdraw Lebanese governmental support for its proceedings.

While such a move would probably have little impact on the tribunal’s ultimate judgment, it might reduce the political impact of the indictments for Hizbullah in Lebanon.

And so according to Haaretz, Syrian dictator Bashar Assad and Saudi King Abdullah reached a deal in which Hariri Jr. will disavow the tribunal.

In exchange, Hizbullah will agree not to murder him.

Hizbullah has not surprisingly announced its support for the deal. Hariri has given a series of contradictory statements that lend to the sense that he is trying to run out the clock. This week he met with Abdullah in New York where the Saudi despot is undergoing medical treatment.

On Wednesday he travelled to Saudi Arabia for further talks.

In the meantime, just to underline its willingness to make good on its threats, last week Hizbullah had its affiliated trade union, the National Union for Labor Syndicates, stage a protest against the government. As Hanin Ghadar at the NOW Lebanon news portal noted, in the days leading up to the terror group’s coup in May 2008, it had its labor affiliates stage similar protests.

AND THAT brings us to the basic question of why is Hizbullah taking the tribunal so seriously? What does it care if its members are indicted for murdering Hariri? This is a terror group that has always been perfectly willing to kill in order to get its way. And everyone knows it.

Hizbullah operatives killed Hariri because he was irritating Nasrallah and Assad with all his talk about Lebanese sovereignty. Then they killed parliamentarian after parliamentarian to deny Hariri Jr.’s legislative majority the power to form a government or do anything else without Hizbullah agreement. When even that was insufficient to force the government to slavishly do its bidding, Hizbullah carried out its bloody coup in May 2008 in order to take over effective control of the government and the Lebanese Army. So, too, after the June 2009 elections, Hizbullah coerced members of Hariri’s coalition to change sides and so prevented him from forming a coalition without Hizbullah receiving veto power over all government decisions.

And even if Hizbullah did care about what its fellow Lebanese think of it, the fact is that Hizbullah is not an independent actor. It is an Iranian proxy. And the Iranians have made clear that they do not care what the tribunal does.

Iran’s supreme dictator Ali Khamenei announced earlier this month that as far as Iran is concerned, the tribunal’s judgments are null and void. In his words, “This court is a kangaroo court and every verdict it issues is rejected.”

So again, why is Hizbullah so concerned about this tribunal? Hizbullah is concerned because it understands the power of symbols. No, its operatives will probably never be jailed for their crimes. But the tribunal is a symbol. If Bellmare dares to defy Hizbullah, then others might consider doing so.

On the other hand, if Hizbullah is able to coerce Hariri to withdraw the Lebanese government’s support for the tribunal and disavow its work, it will have demonstrated its strength and authority in a way that will deter others from challenging it.

Hizbullah’s response to the specter of the Special Tribunal is not only interesting for what it tells us about prospects for Lebanon’s future and for regional stability and peace. Hizbullah’s response to the threat that its members will be exposed as Hariri’s assassins teaches us interesting lessons about the nature of information warfare.

Information warfare is not simply a question of competing narratives, as it is often characterized in the West. Information war is a form of warfare whose aim is to use words, symbols and images to force people to take real action.

These actions can involve everything from war to terrorism to surrender.

In closed societies, information warfare is used to cause people to rally around the group conducting the information operation and to mobilize supporters to act against the chosen enemy. For instance, when its leadership is interested in inspiring terror attacks against Israel, the Palestinian Authority broadcasts around the clock incitement against Israel.

On May 8, 2001, a group of Palestinians from a village adjacent to the Israeli community of Tekoa in Gush Etzion got their hands on two Jewish children, Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran, from Tekoa. The two boys were bludgeoned to death with stones. The details of the butchery are unspeakable.

The question is, what can make human beings butcher children? How can a person hurt a child the way that their killers hurt them? The answer is Palestinian television.

In the weeks before the murder, PATV (funded by foreign donors) broadcast doctored footage around the clock of what they claimed were atrocities carried out by Israel. They showed doctored images of mutilated corpses and claimed that Israel had mutilated and abused them. Israel and Jews were so demonized by these false images that after awhile, the Palestinians watching these shows believed that Jews, including Jewish children, were all monsters who must be destroyed and made to pay for their imaginary crimes.

This was an act of information warfare that in the event, led Palestinians to butcher Koby Mandell and Yosef Ishran.

As for information warfare aimed at Westerners, here, too, the Palestinian Authority, like Hizbullah, has a long track record of success.

Journalists know that the PA has no compunction about kidnapping, arresting and beating up reporters. They do it to Palestinian reporters routinely. Western reporters who come in to the PA recognize that if they want to be safe, they have to report stories that will make the PA happy.

For instance, after a television crew from Italy’s Mediaset network broadcast footage of the PA police-supported lynch mob murdering and dismembering IDF reservists Vadim Nozhitz and Yosef Avrahami in Ramallah in October 2000, Ricardo Cristiani, deputy chief of Italy’s RAI television network’s Jerusalem bureau, published an apology in the PA’s newspaper Al- Hayat al-Jadida.

Among other things, Cristiani wrote, “We [RAI] emphasize to all of you that the events did not happen this way, because we always respect [will continue to respect] the journalistic procedures with the Palestinian Authority for [journalistic] work in Palestine and we are credible in our precise work.”

Fearing Palestinian revenge attacks, Mediaset was forced to shut down its offices.

This week, Swedish and Danish police announced the arrest of four Muslim terrorists who were en route to carrying out a massacre at the Jyllands Posten newspaper. The attack was supposed to avenge the newspaper’s publication of cartoons of Muhammad in 2005.

A US diplomatic cable leaked by WikiLeaks and published Monday by Sweden’s Aftonbladet newspaper reported that Syria’s Assad himself directed the information operation in 2006 that led to rioting against Denmark and Jyllands Posten throughout the Muslim world in 2006. Assad reportedly ordered Syria’s grand mufti to incite his fellow imams to attack Denmark for publishing the pictures.

The Arab world’s response to WikiLeaks shows just how powerful the incitement against Israel and Jews on the Arab psyche is. According to Hazem Saghiyah from the NOW Lebanon news portal, the Arab world was beset by confusion because Israel was not exposed as demonic by the WikiLeaks documents.

As Saghiyeh put it, for Arabs who have come to believe that Israel controls the world through its satanic power, “these documents should have provided the decisive argument” against Israel.

The fact that it is the Arab leadership, rather than Israel that has been exposed as lying and two-faced, makes the Arab world writ large view the WikiLeaks operation as a huge Zionist conspiracy.

WHAT ALL of this shows is that information wars are not just about getting out the facts.

Like kinetic warfare, they involve power plays, intimidation and the use of subconscious and visceral manipulation.

Israel has recently awoken to one aspect of information warfare. It has recognized the consequences of years of demonization of Israel in Europe and international organizations. But Israel has yet to awaken to the fact that it is a type of warfare and has to be countered with counter-information warfare.

Obviously this doesn’t mean that Israel should begin acting like its enemies. But what it does mean is that Israel must begin using more hard-knuckle techniques to defend itself. It must begin targeting people’s emotions as well has their minds.

For instance, when Israel is confronted by threats of lawsuits for acts of self-defense, it responds with defense attorneys. When the US was threatened with lawfare by Belgian courts, then-secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld responded by threatening to remove NATO headquarters from Belgium.

When Israel is accused of targeting Palestinian civilians, it responds by attaching legal advisers to combat units. What it should be doing instead is providing video footage of Palestinian children being trained as terrorists and exploited as human shields.

War is a dirty business. Information warfare is a dirty form of war. And if we don’t want to lose, we’d better start fighting.

Original URL:http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=201626

Caroline B. Glick

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

Venezuela: Church Warns of Chavez Dictatorship Grab

by Anna Mahjar-Barducci

Hugo Chavez's eighteen months of special ruling powers and the new package of laws that dramatically expand his rule in the country created a strong debate inside Venezuela against the government. The Catholic Church has also expressed its fears, affirming that the new Enabling Law moves the country towards a dictatorship, similar to Cuba's with Fidel Castro.

Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino, Archbishop of Caracas, warned Chavez on TV to behave in a responsible way towards Venezuela, in case Chavez wants "to impose a totalitarian dictatorship that would certainly mean something terrible for Venezuela,"

This is not the first time that Cardinal Urosa courageously expressed his opinions: last summer, the Archbishop declared that Chavez and his government are disregarding the Constitution and "want to impose a Socialist-Marxist system in the country to control all sectors. This system is totalitarian and is leading to dictatorship; not to proletarian dictatorship but to dictatorship led by the elite who are ruling the country."

From the press:

• Cardinal Urosa: "We are moving towards a dictatorship"
• Archbishop Luckert: Chavez's emergency power "is an abuse and a violation of the Constitution"
• Archbishop Luckert: "We are going down the same path as the Castro autocracy that has afflicted that poor country for 59 years"
• Venezuelan archbishop Porras denies WikiLeaks report, claiming that he requested the U.S. government to make known its criticism of Chavez
• Porras denies allegation on offering the U.S. access to the infrastructure of the Church
• Archbishop Porras: Emergency powers would endanger the cause of freedom

December 26, 2010

Cardinal Urosa: "We are moving towards a dictatorship"

The new package of laws which was approved by the National Assembly presents, according to Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino, an unprecedented situation. "This is something that demands some reflection, and I am saying this to government officials, since they are creating an intolerable situation and [they are displaying] lack of respect for human rights and for the will of the people."

Urosa calls for a change in the name of social peace. "The enabling laws, as well as the reform of the internal and debates regulations in the National Assembly, are all aimed at cancelling the legislative powers and to concentrate all legislative capacities upon the person of the President of the Republic" says Urosa. "And this, for sure, is not democratic, because it cancels and does not recognize the will of the people, as expressed on September 26^th and it represents an attack against peace in the country."

Cardinal [Urosa] is afraid that the enabling [law] will put an end to the figure of members of parliament as we know it today: "Elected people, whether in government or in the opposition, will be simply annihilated by such a law and because of the changes concerning the internal and debates regulations."

Urosa had already expressed, during his interview with [the media outlet] Globovisión on December 24^th, his views on the package of laws that were approved during the course of this month by the National Assembly. "We are moving towards a dictatorship, without the slightest doubt," he said on Christmas Eve. "My call to those who guide the destiny of the nation is that they should realize the very high responsibility that they will carry before History and before God, in case they want to impose a totalitarian dictatorship that would certainly mean something terrible for Venezuela."

Despite his perception of political reality, Cardinal [Urosa] rejected the idea that violence should be used "because this would not be the right path and would be totally harmful for the people who intend to practice it;" and indicated [the adoption] of peaceful resistance, which does not necessarily mean passive. "It is not up to me to say how this peaceful resistance should be articulated, because I am not a political agent," he explained. El Universal (Venezuela)

December 21, 2010

Archbishop Luckert: Chavez's emergency power "is an abuse and a violation of the Constitution"

Venezuela's National Assembly approved President Chavez's request to rule by decree for 18 months. The additional power, the president argued, would help him address the damaging floods within the country.

The law comes just weeks before the new National Assembly, elected earlier this year, takes office. During the elections on Sept. 26, Chavez's ruling party only won 95 of the 165 seats in the Assembly, which is not enough to maintain a majority. Although three Assembly members from other parties are expected to vote with the ruling party, with just 98 votes, Chavez would still fall short of a two-thirds majority needed to get his measures passed.

The new law gives Chavez the power to enact laws on land use, the military and police forces, transportation and public services. He will also have greater control over the treasury and the tax code, urban and rural development, international relations and the emergency response to the flooding.

Archbishop Luckert […] [said] that the measure is "an abuse and a violation of the Constitution," as Chavez already has "many ways in which he can do what he wants" to address the crisis caused by flooding. The new law has turned the National Assembly into "a congress of political eunuchs who will not be able to do what they are supposed to do," he stated.

The tasks of lawmakers are "to pass laws, to legislate - not to sit on their hands and act like useless fools or mute dogs in a congress in which they won't be able to do anything," the archbishop continued.

Archbishop Luckert: "We are going down the same path as the Castro autocracy that has afflicted that poor country for 59 years"

"Personally I think they want to turn this new Legislative Assembly - which the ruling party will not have the majority - into a pack of dogs with no bark. They won't be able to speak up when they should and they won't be able to pass laws that will truly benefit the country. "Why do we want lawmakers who will have their hands tied?" he asked.

Archbishop Luckert said the new law has turned the country into "a constitutional democratic dictatorship" that is being set up under the cover of law. Venezuela is following the lead of Cuba, he warned.

"All of these laws or norms are part of the Cuban package and the Cuban advisors are trying to impose them on Venezuela," he said. "We are going down the same path as the Castro autocracy that has afflicted that poor country for 59 years," the archbishop warned. Catholic News Agency

December 17, 2010

Archbishop Porras: Emergency powers would endanger the cause of freedom

A Venezuelan prelate has expressed concern that the new extraordinary powers sought by President Hugo Chavez could aggravate the severe divisions within the country.

Archbishop Baltazar Porras, the vice-president of the Venezuelan Episcopal conference, said that the emergency powers that Chavez has requested would endanger the cause of freedom, encourage corruption in government, and exacerbate political tensions between the Chavez government and its critics. Catholic Culture

December 16, 2010

Venezuelan archbishop Porras denies WikiLeaks report, claiming that he requested the U.S. government to make known its criticism of Chavez

The vice president of the Venezuelan Bishops' Conference has characterized the information in a recently released WikiLeaks cable as "a science fiction movie script."

The report, released Dec. 13, accused Archbishop Baltazar Porras of seeking help from the United States to contain the "regional aspirations" of Venezuelan President Chavez.

WikiLeaks published an excerpt of a 2005 cable from the U.S. embassy in Caracas, Venezuela according to which Archbishop Porras allegedly requested that the U.S. government make known its criticism of Hugo Chavez. The archbishop purportedly warned that the Venezuelan president was intending to dismantle democratic civil society, organized employment, the business sector and the Church.

Archbishop Porras explained […] that the WikiLeaks cable which was reprinted by the Venezuelan News Agency read like "a science-fiction movie script that has absolutely no basis."

Porras denies allegation of offering the U.S. access to the infrastructure of the Church

He said allegations that he offered the U.S. access to the infrastructure of the Church are not in keeping with "the actions of the Church" or with his actions as then-president of the Venezuelan Bishops' Conference. "None of these things took place," he said.

Archbishop Porras expressed regret that the Venezuelan News Agency decided to reprint the allegations along with negative comments about the bishops. The government-run media has been engaged in an "orchestrated" campaign against numerous Church leaders in the country, he said, including Cardinal Jorge Urosa of Caracas and Archbishop Roberto Luckert of Coro.

Such actions are intended to merely undermine the credibility of the Church among Venezuelans, he added. Church leaders in the country only seek "to serve and to simply be a voice crying out in the wilderness to make the commandment to love God and neighbor a reality," the archbishop concluded. Catholic News Agency

Original URL:http://www.hudson-ny.org/1762/venezuela-church-chavez-dictatorship

Anna Mahjar-Barducci

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

Middle East, 2011: Not a Very Happy New Year

by Khaled Abu Toameh

For many Arab and Islamic countries and the Palestinians, it does not look as if it is going to be a Happy New Year.

Instead, 2011 looks as if it is going to bring instability and uncertainty to some of these countries and the Palestinians.

Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Iran and Sudan will undoubtedly witness dramatic developments in the coming weeks and months.

For the Palestinians, the future does not seem to be too promising in light of the continued power struggle between Hamas and Fatah.

In Iran, the situation remains as dangerous as ever as Tehran continues to pursue its plan to develop nuclear capabilities. Iran also appears to be more determined than ever to continue meddling in the internal affairs of others, especially the Lebanese and the Palestinians.

Together with the Syrians, Hamas and Hizbullah, Iran appears set to step up its efforts to export its radical ideology to as many Middle Eastern countries as it can, and undermine moderate Arabs and Muslims.

In Saudi Arabia, the 86-year-old monarch, King Abdullah bin Abdel Aziz, has just undergone back surgery in New York, and his condition does not seem to be good. His brother, the crown-prince, is also sick and no one knows if he will ever become king.

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, 82, is also reported to be in bad health. His refusal to name a successor has already created tensions in Egypt. Opposition groups in Egypt are now warning that the uncertainty could lead to chaos and plunge the country into anarchy and lawlessness. Worse, the talk about the president's son, Gamal, as a possible successor, has enraged many Egyptians.

Sudan also seems to be headed toward an unclear future as the people of South Sudan prepare to vote on whether to secede from the North and become an independent nation, or to continue within a united federal Sudan.

Sudan's President, Omar al-Bashir, has been charged by the International Court of backing Arab Janjaweed militias accused of war crimes against the region's black African communities.

Lebanon also seems to be headed toward the abyss as Hizbullah threatens to stage a coup against the government in Beirut if an international tribunal rules that the armed Shiite organization was behind the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Many Lebanese believe that their country could be headed toward another civil war if Hizbullah is found guilty.

As for the Palestinians, it looks as if they may end up more than the two states they already have in the West Bank and Gaza Strip: the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority is currently facing a severe crisis in light of reports of a possible coup against President Mahmoud Abbas. Mohammed Dahlan and a group of top Fatah officials are suspected of conspiring to topple Abbas's regime.

The tensions in Fatah have divided the ruling faction into two camps: one led by Abbas, and another headed by Dahlan, who apparently regards himself as a "natural successor" to the president.

The Arab world and the Palestinian territories are evidently headed toward turmoil and a great degree of uncertainty, especially with the rising threat of Islamic fundamentalism; it has become a tsunami that could sweep the whole Arab and Islamic world.

The new few weeks and months are going to bring many changes to the Arab countries and the Palestinians -- most changes seem extremely negative, with serious repercussions for the entire Middle East.

Original URL: http://www.hudson-ny.org/1771/middle-east-2011

Khaled Abu Toameh

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

Writer: Vatican Appeases Islamists, Slams Israel

by IPT News

Christians are being massacred by jihadists in Baghdad, but the Vatican has been largely silent, writes Evelyn Gordon at Commentary magazine's Contentions blog. Instead of speaking out forcefully against the terrorists who commit these crimes against Christians, the Church has focused its indignation on Israel, blaming the Jewish State for the lack of peace in the Middle East.

For example, in mid-October the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, Fouad Twal, called for an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories, calling it "an evil for both Palestinians and Israelis." If it proved impossible to establish a Palestinian state next to Israel, Twal said that he would favor creation of "one, single democratic state" in Palestine. Given substantially higher Palestinian Arab birthrates, Israelis regard this as a formula for the destruction of their country.

At a Vatican synod convened by the pope that same month, bishops issued a communique telling Israel it should not use the Bible to justify "injustices" against the Palestinians. Monsignor Cyril Salim Bustros, archbishop of Our Lady of the Annunciation church in Boston, suggested that Israel is illegitimate.

"The Holy Scriptures cannot be used to justify the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of the Palestinians, to justify the occupation by Israel of Palestinian lands," Bustros said. He stated that "the Palestinian refugees will eventually come back" - another demographic formula for Israel's destruction.

The Catholic bishops, Gordon argues, are ignoring the real threat to embattled Christians in the Middle East: terrorist violence perpetrated by Islamist radicals. In Iraq, for example, hundreds of thousands of Christians have fled the country since the fall of dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003.

Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that many fleeing Iraqi Christians "evoked the mass departure of Iraq's Jews after the establishment of Israel in 1948."

"It's exactly what happened to the Jews," said Nasser Sharhoom, who fled last month from Baghdad to the Kurdish capital Erbil. "They want us all to go."

The Vatican synod statement is evidence that the Catholic Church "isn't merely remaining silent; it's actively speaking out against the Jews - and thereby collaborating with its own enemies, the radical Islamists," Gordon writes. "It evidently hopes to thereby turn the Islamists' wrath away from Christians. But as the recent attacks show, appeasement hasn't worked."

Original URL:http://www.investigativeproject.org/2460/writer-vatican-appeases-islamists-slams-israel

IPT News

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

Jasser: America Will Benefit from Muslim Radicalization Hearings

by IPT News

U.S. Islamist groups like the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) have reacted hyperbolically to news that the incoming chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King (R-NY), plans to hold hearings on American Muslim radicalization.

But Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, writes in the New York Post that critics of the hearings like MPAC, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) are attempting "to deny and obfuscate the connection between 'political Islam' or Islamism, and terror."

Political correctness dominates public discussion of incidents involving Islamists, Jasser writes. One example was the Pentagon report on Nidal Hasan, currently charged in last year's Fort Hood massacre.

"The report was intended to convey to military commanders whatever lessons were learned from the incident, so as to prevent similar attacks in the future," Jasser writes. "Yet it never mentioned the word Islam or Muslim. Nowhere to be found was any dissection of Hasan's slide into militant Islamism or of his relationship with his homegrown jihadist mentor, Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki."

Major American Muslim groups like CAIR, ISNA and MPAC were built on the ideology of political Islam. But "knowing where most American Muslims fall in the spectrum of Islamism-vs.- liberalism, as King hopes to find out in his hearings, would be a key step toward counterradicalization," Jasser writes.

Congressional hearings are just one step in crafting a strategy against political Islam.

"Only liberty-minded Muslims working from within Muslim communities can counter the narrative of Muslim victimization. But America needs to be unashamed of taking the side of those Muslims who advocate reform against political Islam," Jasser adds. "In 2011, more Americans need to understand that jihadism is a natural by-product of a political Islam that is incompatible with Western secular democracies based in liberty. America is at war with theocratic Muslim despots who seek the imposition of sharia and don't believe in the equality of all before the law, blind to faith. They detest the association of religious freedom with liberty."

Original URL:http://www.investigativeproject.org/2461/jasser-america-will-benefit-from-muslim

IPT News

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

UNRWA Official Calls on Palestinians to Accept Reality

by Daniel Pipes

Here's a man-bites-dog story: The director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency's New York Representative Office, Andrew Whitley, told a conference in Washington that Palestinians should accept that they will never return to Israel and, rather than continue to dream of this, they should work to improve their current circumstances.

Andrew Whitley of UNRWA.

If one doesn't start a discussion soon with the refugees for them to consider what their own future might be—for them to start debating their own role in the societies where they are rather than being left in a state of limbo where they are helpless but preserve rather the cruel illusions that perhaps they will return one day to their homes—then we are storing up trouble for ourselves. …

We recognize, as I think most do, although it's not a position that we publicly articulate, that the right of return is unlikely to be exercised to the territory of Israel to any significant or meaningful extent. It's not a politically palatable issue, it's not one that UNRWA publicly advocates, but nevertheless it's a known contour to the issue.

Whitley concluded these startling remarks by suggesting that UNRWA should resettle its clients rather than continue to perpetuate their refugee status.

Comment: How refreshing to hear such words. As I put it in 2009, were Palestinians to give up on their irredentist dream of eliminating Israel, this "would liberate them to focus on their own polity, economy, society, and culture" and "become a normal people." (October 23, 2010)

Nov. 3, 2010 update: After complaints from the Palestinian Authority, the Jordanian government, and many others, Whitley abjectly apologized for his remarks in a letter to the UNRWA spokesman:

I am writing following my realisation – from media reports, statements and letters from individuals, organisations and governments – that part of the remarks I delivered at a conference in Washington hosted by the National Council on US – Arab Relations, on 22 October, 2010, were inappropriate and wrong. Those remarks did not represent UNRWA's views.

I express my sincere regrets and apologies over any harm that my words may have done to the cause of the Palestine refugees and for any offence I may have caused. I have spent much of my long career workinxxg for the Palestinian people, and defending their rights, in different professional capacities. It is definitely not my belief that the refugees should give up on their basic rights, including the right of return.

I wish to put this letter on the public record out of concern that what I said in Washington could be interpreted in ways that negatively affect the reputation and work of UNRWA, an organisation I have been proud to serve since July 2002. The Agency is at liberty to use my statement in whatever ways it sees fit. There is no need for a reply.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Whitley

Comment: That UNRWA might contemplate going out of business and helping end the Arab-Israeli conflict – it was too good to be true.

Original URL:http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2010/10/unrwa-official-calls-on-palestinians-to-accept-reality

Daniel Pipes

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