Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Norway's Jewish Problem


by Caroline Glick

In the wake of Anders Breivik's massacre of his fellow Norwegians, I was amazed at the speed with which the leftist media throughout the US and Europe used his crime as a means of criminalizing their ideological opponents on the Right. Just hours after Breivik's identity was reported, leftist media outlets and blogs were filled with attempts to blame Breivik's crime on conservative public intellectuals whose ideas he cited in a 1,500 page online manifesto.

My revulsion at this bald attempt to use Breivik's crime to attack freedom of speech propelled me to write my July 29 column, "Breivik and totalitarian democrats."

While the focus of my column was the Left's attempt to silence their conservative opponents, I also noted that widespread popular support for Palestinian terrorists in Norway indicates that for many Norwegians, opposition to terrorism is less than comprehensive.

To support this position, I quoted an interview in Maariv with Norway's Ambassador to Israel Svein Sevje.

Sevje explained that most Norwegians think that the Palestinians' opposition to the supposed Israeli "occupation" is justified and so their lack of sympathy for Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorism was unlikely to change in the wake of Breivik's attack on Norwegians.

Since my column was a defense of free speech and a general explanation of why terrorism is antithetical to the foundations of liberal democracy - regardless of its ideological motivations - I did not focus my attention on Norwegian society. I did not discuss Norwegian anti- Semitism or anti-Zionism. Indeed, I purposely ignored these issues.

But when on Friday, Norway's Deputy Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide published an unjustified attack on me on these pages, he forced me to take the time to study the intellectual and political climate of hatred towards Israel and Jews that pervades Norwegian society.

That climate is not a contemporary development. Rather it has been a mainstay of Norwegian society.

In a 2006 report on Jew hatred in contemporary Norwegian caricatures published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Erez Uriely noted among other things that Norway banned kosher ritual slaughter in 1929 - three years before a similar ban was instituted in Nazi Germany.

And whereas the ban on kosher ritual slaughter was lifted in post-war Germany, it was never abrogated in Norway.

As Uriely noted, Norway's prohibition on Jewish ritual slaughter makes Judaism the only religion that cannot be freely practiced in Norway.

Fascism was deeply popular in Norway in the 1930s. In the wake of the Nazi invasion, Norwegian governmental leaders founded and joined the Norwegian Nazi Party. Apparently, sympathy for Nazi collaborators is strong today in Norway.

As the JCPA's Manfred Gerstenfeld noted in a report on the rise in Norwegian anti-Semitic attacks during 2009, two years ago the Norwegian government allocated more than $20 million in public funds to commemorate Norwegian novelist Knut Hamsun on the occasion of the Nobel laureate for literature's 150th birthday. As The New York Times reported, in February 2009, Norway's Queen Sonja opened the, "year-long, publicly financed commemoration of Hamsun's 150th birthday called 'Hamsun 2009.'"

But while Hamsun may have been a good writer, he is better remembered for being an enthusiastic Nazi. Hamsun gave his Nobel prize to Nazi propaganda chief Josef Goebbels. During a wartime visit to Germany, Hamsun flew to meet Adolf Hitler at Hitler's mountain home in Bavaria.

And in 2009, Norway built a $20 million museum to honor his achievements.

As Uriely explained in his report, "Norwegian anti- Semitism does not come from the grassroots but from the leadership - politicians, organization leaders, church leaders, and senior journalists. It does not come from Muslims but from the European-Christian society."

Despite indignant claims that the two are unrelated, Norway's elite anti-Semitism merges seamlessly with their anti-Zionism. An apparently unwitting example of this fusion is found in Eide's attack against me in last Friday's Post.

Eide's attack on me revolved around my citation of Ambassador Sevje's interview with Maariv. In his column Eide wrote, "Several other Israeli media have latched on to this [interview] as well."

While this may be true, I first learned of Sevje's interview in the US media. Specifically, I read about the interview at Commentary Magazine's website, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency's website, and the website of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA) before I read the original interview on Maariv's website.

Commentary, JTA and CAMERA are not Israeli organizations or outlets. They are Jewish American organizations and outlets. Eide's conflation of them with the "Israeli media" indicates that the deputy minister has a hard time separating Jews from Israelis, (and by extension, Jew hatred from Israel hatred).

One of the Jewish Americans who attacked the Norwegian ambassador's willingness to distinguish between Palestinian terrorist murderers of Israelis and Breivik's terrorist murder of Norwegians was Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz said, "I know of no reasonable person who has tried to justify the terrorist attacks against Norway. Yet there are many Norwegians who not only justify terrorist attacks against Israel, but praise them, support them, help finance them and legitimate them."

In March Dershowitz experienced Norway's elite anti- Semitism-qua-anti-Zionism firsthand. Dershowitz was brought to Norway by a pro-Israel group to conduct lectures at three Norwegian universities. All three university administrations refused to invite him to speak. Student groups acting independently of their university administrations in the end invited Dershowitz to give his lectures.

As Dershowitz explained in a Wall Street Journal article, he was the victim of an unofficial Norwegian university boycott of Israeli universities. The unofficial boycott is so extensive that it bans not only Israeli academics, but non-Israeli, Jewish academics that are pro-Israel.

And lest someone believe Norway's anti-Jewish boycott is due to the so-called "occupation," as Dershowitz pointed out, the petition calling for an academic boycott of Israel begins, "Since 1948 the state of Israel has occupied Palestinian land."

The Norwegian elite's rejection of Israel's right to exist, and ban on pro-Israel Jewish speakers from university campuses goes a long way in explaining Norway's support for Hamas. If Norway's opposition to Israel was merely due to its size, rather than its very existence, it would be difficult to understand why Norway maintains friendly contact with Hamas. Hamas is after all a genocidal, terrorist group, which like the Nazis seeks the annihilation of the Jewish people as a whole. Yet Norway's Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store wrote an article justifying his relations with Hamas as in line with Norway's embrace of "dialogue."

As Store's deputy Eide's unrestrained and unjustified attack against me, and as Norway's academic - and to a large degree media - boycott of pro-Israel voices make clear, Norway's embrace of dialogue is as selective as its condemnation of terrorism.

Here we should recall that Norway's ruling class supported Hamas against Israel in Operation Cast Lead.

Israel's dovish Kadima government only began the operation in Gaza because it had no choice. For months then prime minister Ehud Olmert sat on his hands as southern Israel was pummeled with unprovoked barrages of thousands of missiles and rockets from Gaza. Olmert was forced to take action after Hamas massively escalated its rocket and missile attacks in November and early December 2008.

While silent about Palestinian aggression, Norway's government attacked Israel for defending itself. As Store put it, "The Israeli ground offensive in Gaza constitutes a dramatic escalation of the conflict. Norway strongly condemns any form of warfare that causes severe civilian suffering, and calls on Israel to withdraw its forces immediately."

Two of Store's associates, Eric Fosse and Mads Gilbert, decamped to Gaza during Cast Lead and set up shop in Shifa Hospital. The two were fixtures in the Norwegian media, which constantly interviewed them throughout the conflict, and so spread their libelous charges against the IDF without question.

Fosse and Gilbert never mentioned that Hamas's high command was located at the hospital in open breach of the laws of war.

When they returned home, they co-authored a book in which they accused the IDF of entering Gaza with the express goal of murdering women and children.

Store wrote a blurb of endorsement on the book's back cover.

Store visited Israel in January. During his visit he gave an interview to the Post where he ignored diplomatic protocol and attacked the Knesset's contemporaneous decision to form a parliamentary commission of inquiry into foreign funding of anti-Zionist Israeli NGOs.

The basic rationale for the commission was that Israelis have a right to know that many purportedly Israeli groups are actually foreign organizations staffed by local Israelis. And many of the most virulently anti-Zionist NGOs staffed by Israelis operating in Israel are funded by the Norwegian government. Store arrogantly opined, "I think it is a worrying sign" about the state of Israeli democracy.

During Operation Cast Lead, Oslo was the scene of unprecedented anti-Semitic rioting. According to Eirik Eiglad, protesters who participated in anti-Israel demonstrations - and even a supposedly pro-peace demonstration - called out "Kill the Jews" and attacked policemen who tried to prevent them from rioting. Demonstrators at a pro-Israel demonstration were beaten. The Israeli embassy was threatened. Pro-Israel politicians who participated in the pro-Israel rally were beaten and received death threats.

It is a fact that the day before Breivik's massacre of teenagers at the Labor Party's youth camp on Utoya Island, Store spoke to them about the need to destroy Israel's security fence. The campers role-played pro- Hamas activists breaking international law by challenging Israel's lawful maritime blockade of the Gaza coastline.

They held signs calling for a boycott of Israel.

Despite their obvious animosity towards Israel and sympathy for genocidal, Jew hating Hamas terrorists, at no point did I or any of my Jerusalem Post colleagues do anything other than condemn completely Breivik's barbaric massacre of his fellow Norwegians. And yet, the Norwegian government attacked us for merely pointing out in various ways, that Norway should not use Breivik's attack as justification for further weakening Norwegian democracy.

Following the massacre, the Post published a well-argued, empathetic editorial making these general points. In response, the paper was deluged by unhinged attacks claiming that the editorial was insensitive and excused Breivik's crimes. In response, the Post published a follow-up editorial last Friday apologizing to the Norwegian people for the earlier editorial.

I was not consulted about this editorial ahead of time, and the editorial does not reflect my views. However I understand the moral impulse of not wishing to pour salt on anyone's wounds, which stood behind the decision to write it.

For my part, I will not request a similar apology from the Norwegian government for gratuitously attacking me. I will not request a similar apology from the Norwegian government and elites for libelously defaming my military, my country and my people. I will not request a similar apology from Norway for limiting Jews' freedom of religion in Norway. I will not request a similar apology from Norway for comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and celebrating Norwegian Nazis.

I will not request such an apology because there are certain actions that are simply unforgivable.

Caroline Glick

Source: http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/08/norways-jewish-problem.php
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

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

'Dutch Soccer Club Must Reign in anti-Semitism at Games'


by JPost.com Staff

A court in the The Hague censured a soccer club from the same city that failed to stop anti-Semitic chanting at a home match against Amsterdam club Ajax in March, English-language Dutch News reported Tuesday.

The case was presented to the court by an organization that fights anti-Semitism after club supporters chanted de Joden (English: the Jews) at Ajax players. The club has said its officials had not heard the singing.

The court ordered the ADO Den Haag to take "adequate measures" to stop "unacceptable" crowd behavior, Dutch News said.

Last March, ADO Den Haag midfielder Lex Immers came under fire when a video was uploaded to YouTube that showed him joining in anti-Semitic chanting with other fans following the match.

"We're going to hunt for Jews," Immers was seen chanting, using the common ADO Den Haag nickname for Ajax supporters.

"When I sing 'We're going to hunt for Jews,' I mean that we want to beat Ajax," Immers said to soccer magazine Voetbal International, adding "The slogan 'We're going to hunt for Jews' seemed innocent."

The whole debacle led to a five match suspension for Immers, Dutch News reported.

JPost.com Staff

Source: http://www.jpost.com/JewishWorld/JewishNews/Article.aspx?id=233121

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

Syria's Crackdown


by JPost Editorial

"Damascus is at one and the same time the fount of modern Arab nationalism and the exhibit of its frustrations,” Henry Kissinger once observed. “Syrian history alternates achievement with catastrophe.”

Since mid-March, that alternation has cycled ever more rapidly, with the achievement of growing antiregime protests, inspired by the defiant examples of Egypt and Tunisia, being met with an increasingly catastrophic and draconian crackdown that has left at least 2,000 civilians dead.

Syrian President Bashar Assad, who inherited power from his father, Hafez, in 2000, tried at first to paint the protests as the result of conspiracy of foreign “saboteurs” fomented by the US and Israel. Then he tried concessions. He dismissed his cabinet on March 29 (though the new one included many members of the previous one) and lifted the emergency law (only to introduce an “anti-terrorism” law with similar provisions).

Foreign Minister Walid Moallem pledged Saturday that free parliamentary elections would be held by the end of the year.

But even such feeble concessions are rendered meaningless by the escalating violence perpetrated by the regime on its own citizens. Over the past 10 days, in the bloodiest assaults yet, Syrian security forces have tightened their siege on the city of Hama, a hub of the protests and site of a 1982 massacre at the hands of Hafez Assad’s troops. Now, the son’s forces are ringing the city with tanks, shelling neighborhoods, sending in snipers, and cutting off communication, food, water and medical aid. On Sunday, armed forces launched an assault on the eastern city of Deir al-Zour, killing dozens and causing thousands to flee.

The American response has seemed inconsistent, improvised, and insufficient. A week after protests erupted in Deraa, a Syrian city near the Jordanian border, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton referred to Assad as a “reformer.”

There is mounting frustration among Syrian dissidents over the failure of the United States to call for Assad’s departure. Last Tuesday, Clinton met with USbased Syrian activists who demanded that President Barack Obama ask Assad to step down immediately.

She assured them that the US has “nothing invested in the continuation of a regime that must kill, imprison and torture its own citizens to maintain power.”

One reason for American hesitation is the fear of fullscale sectarian conflict erupting between a resentful Sunni majority (more than 70 percent of Syria’s population) and the ruling Alawite minority (about 12%).

The fear is not wholly unjustified. Assad and the other leaders responsible for the ongoing outrages – his brother Maher Assad, commander of the army’s feared Fourth Division, Defense Minister Ali Habib and Chief of Staff Gen. Dawoud Rajha – depend on the Alawite-dominated authoritarian structure.

In so desperately and violently clinging to power, the behavior of the Alawite ruling minority conforms with perfect consistency to fears it has expressed for 75 years of what majority rule would mean for them.

Understanding these fears helps to understand the present crisis.

In 1936, six Alawite notables sent a memorandum to French prime minister Leon Blum. To explain why they refused to be annexed to a Muslim Syria ruled by the Sunni majority who regarded them as infidels, they pointed to the treatment of Jews under Islam: “The condition of the Jews in Palestine is the strongest and most explicit evidence of the militancy of the Islamic issue vis-à-vis those who do not belong to Islam. These good Jews contributed to the Arabs with civilization and peace, scattered gold, and established prosperity in Palestine without harming anyone or taking anything by force, yet the Muslims declare holy war against them and never hesitated in slaughtering their women and children, despite the presence of England in Palestine and France in Syria.

“Therefore, a dark fate awaits the Jews and other minorities in case the Mandate is abolished and Muslim Syria is united with Muslim Palestine... the ultimate goal of the Muslim Arabs.”

One of the signatories of this remarkable appeal was none other than Sulayman Assad, father of Hafez and grandfather of Bashar.

JPost Editorial

Source: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=232985

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

The U.N. and Double Standards


by Joseph Klein

After more than four months of silence regarding the ongoing civilian massacres in Syria that have taken at least 1600 lives, the United Nations Security Council finally issued an insipid “Presidential Statement” last week condemning “the widespread violations of human rights and the use of force against civilians by the Syrian authorities.” Such statements are nothing more than feel-good declarations that have no legal effect. Syria’s buddies on the Security Council – Russia and China – have made sure that no binding resolutions against Syria would pass.

Lebanon, currently one of the non-permanent members of the Security Council, showed its status as a satellite state of Syria and Iran when it disassociated itself from the Presidential Statement. Although not blocking the reading of the Presidential Statement, which requires unanimous consent, Lebanon nevertheless voiced its displeasure:

Today more than ever the Lebanese stand by Syria and its sovereignty and the council’s statement does not help improve the situation there, that’s why Lebanon is dissociating itself from the statement.

Lebanon has a point that the Security Council’s statement does not help improve the situation in Syria, but not for the reasons that Lebanon was espousing. The statement not only reaffirmed Syrian national sovereignty – an implied rejection of any international interference along the lines of the Security Council-approved military action in Libya to save civilians from Qaddafi’s forces. The statement also displayed the UN’s typical strain of moral equivalency. Lending credence to the Assad regime’s claims that the rebels were inciting violence against the state, the Security Council called on “all sides to act with utmost restraint, and to refrain from reprisals, including attacks against state institutions.” Consider that in Libya, by contrast, the NATO-led coalition is actually attacking Libyan state institutions on the rebels’ behalf with the Security Council’s blessing. Apparently, the Security Council is still recognizing the legitimacy of the Assad regime by opposing any rebel attacks against the state apparatus Assad is using to kill the protestors while giving free reign to NATO to take down the Qaddafi regime altogether.

In fact, the Security Council even paid homage to “the announced commitments by the Syrian authorities to reform,” and concluded that the problem was simply one of faulty “implementation.”

The Security Council statement contains no indications of possible consequences if the Assad dictatorship does not stop its atrocities. That’s because there will not be any consequences, thanks to Assad’s protectors on the Security Council. All that the statement calls for is an update to the Security Council by the UN Secretary General.

For starters, the update will presumably include mention that at least 24 people were reportedly killed on Friday alone during demonstrations against Assad. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon got so worked up about the latest mounting violence that he even called Assad over the weekend to tell him to stop the use of military force against civilians immediately. Assad will pay about as much heed to this latest call for restraint as he has to all of the previous entreaties that he has ignored.

U.S. Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, tried to put a positive spin on the Security Council statement. She said during a conference call briefing after the statement was read that it was “important and strong” and represented “a clear and unified condemnation.” She discounted the significance of Lebanon’s disassociation from the statement to the overall “unity” displayed in issuing the statement at all. Of course, when one plumbs the depths of the lowest common denominator to achieve a bland, meaningless “consensus” document, some semblance of unity can be achieved. In this case, in order to achieve the sought-after unity, a call for a “credible and impartial” investigation of human rights violations in Syria had to be first removed from the final text.

While the Security Council was playing around with its statement on Syria, the United Nations continues to stomp on Israel. In addition to the UN Human Rights Council’s obsession with persecuting Israel for alleged human rights violations while letting real human rights abusers off the hook, the UN has been busy paving the way for the Palestinians to pretend that they can become an independent state without negotiating in good faith with Israel.

As reported by Anne Bayefsky, editor of EyeontheUN, a provisional list of speakers for the opening session of the General Assembly in September lists the speaker from “Palestine” as “H.S.” or Head of State. Since the Islamic bloc of states and their allies constitute an automatic General Assembly majority, the General Assembly will very likely pass a resolution this fall recognizing the Palestinians’ claims to an independent state along the pre-1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.

It is true that a Security Council recommendation is technically required first before a General Assembly resolution to admit a new self-declared Palestinian state as a UN member state would have any legal effect under the UN Charter. Thus, assuming the Obama administration vetoes such a Security Council recommendation (certainly not a foregone conclusion), a decision by the General Assembly to approve its own resolution anyway recognizing an independent Palestinian state would be of only symbolic importance. However, if a sizable number of European states, including particularly France, vote in favor of a General Assembly resolution endorsing international recognition of Palestinian independence along the pre-1967 borders, Israel will be even further isolated in the international community.

Thus, while the United Nations does nothing to effectively isolate and delegitimize the brutal Assad regime, it is enabling the Islamists to achieve their propaganda objective of isolating and delegitimizing Israel, the only true democracy in the Middle East.

Joseph Klein

Source: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/09/the-u-n-and-double-standards/

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

Lush Cosmetics' Foul Anti-Semitic Smell


by Shiraz Maher

The otherwise fragrant shops of Lush Cosmetics have recently been emitting a bad smell. This British company founded in 1995 is now a global brand enjoying success in different countries around the world, with one notable exception – Israel. Epitomising the ongoing virility of the Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) campaign, Lush has refused to open a store in Israel, ironically citing concerns over "discrimination."

Last week the company told London's Jewish Chronicle, "We don't feel it's a safe environment to have a store [in Israel]. Would we want a shop where we couldn't have a mix? We have a multicultural attitude to everything we do; we want everyone in the country where we are trading to be on an equal footing as far as basic human rights go. Some of the team would have to come through checkpoints and be treated differently on their way to work – that would be our worry."

This is, of course, a straw man. In addition to stringent equality legislation in Israel, the country has Muslim and Arab citizens serving in its most senior quarters, including Members of Parliament, Supreme Court Justices, senior diplomats, top-flight physicians s in all its hospitals and professors in its universities Consider Ishmael Khaldi, a Bedouin who has risen to become Israel's highest ranking Muslim diplomat in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs – a role that has even seen him serve as an advisor to Avigdor Lieberman. The Israeli Defence Force also appointed its first Muslim Officer last year, Lieutenant Hesham Aborea.

By contrast, Lush maintains stores in Saudi Arabia where women cannot drive or leave their homes without male permission, where not even a Bible is allowed, and where no one but Muslims may enter what they consider their holy city. Similarly, Lush seems to find no problem doing business in Sri Lanka where the government ethnically cleansed an estimated 20,000 Tamils in the country's ongoing sectarian conflict. Neither country is a bastion of the egalitarian principles Lush so sanctimoniously claims to uphold.

There is a much broader point to consider than just the actions of a private company and where it chooses to do business. Lush is the symptom of a wider Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) environment which strikes against the very idea of the free and democratic Israeli state itself. This campaign equates Israel with South African apartheid and seeks to isolate it internationally.

That much has been confirmed by Lush's promotion of a song by the OneWorld charity. Their aim is to encourage supporters to buy the music and secure its place in the charts, thereby making a political point through the published list of 'top 40' record sales.

On its website, Lush explains: "The project began after Faithless guitarist, Dave Randall returned recently from the West Bank. What he saw there convinced him that life for most Palestinians living under the illegal Israeli occupation is at least as bad as that endured by black South Africans in the bad old days of apartheid."

Lush also states that, "The catastrophe facing the Palestinian people is one of the defining global justice issues of our time." The song's lyrics pass off deeply contentious political issues as undisputed truth:

So many years of catastrophe, more than six million refugees,
it could be you and your family,
Forced from your home and your history.

We are the people, and this is our time,
Stand up, sing out, for Palestine
No matter your faith or community, this is a crime against humanity,
Gaza turned into a prison camp, apartheid wall divides the West Bank.

Among the British groups supporting OneWorld are Friends of al-Aqsa, which has a record of anti-Semitism. Its director, Ismail Patel, has glorified Hamas, saying, "Hamas is no terrorist organization. The reason they hate Hamas is because they refuse to be subjugated, occupied by the Israeli state, and we salute Hamas for standing up to Israel." I would urge him, or anyone else for that matter, to take a look at Hamas's charter, a compendium of libellous fabrications. He also approvingly quotes Holocaust deniers in both his lectures and in print.

Initiatives of this sort are becoming increasingly common in Britain and represent a not-so-insidious campaign to delegitimize Israel diplomatically and destroy its standing. None of these comments , of course, suggests that Israel is a flawless society without imperfection or discrimination. Clearly, problems persist. But what campaigns such as this promote is an essentialist view of Israel and its citizens as inherently illegitimate and evil.

So far those seeking to counteract this campaign have called for a boycott of Lush. That in all probability will not affect Lush economically, and also represents the same kind of miserable tactic that Lush is employing. What is needed instead, as well as exposing Lush's views for what they really are, is a coherent and coordinated campaign of education to correct the falsehoods that many millions of petro-dollar public relations firms and Islamist television broadcasts such as al-Manar have set in place, and to reasonably explains the issues at hand -- both the political and economic blackmail being perpetrated on the well-intentioned but grossly misinformed citizens of the West.

Shiraz Maher

Source: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2331/lush-cosmetics-anti-semitic

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

Palestinian Authority: Why Are They Targeting Women?


by Khaled Abu Toameh

The US and EU taxpayers need to ask their governments why they continue to fund and train Palestinian security forces that are harassing and intimidating women. And they also need to ask why their media representatives do not bother to report about human rights violations that are committed by the various branches of the Western-funded Palestinian security services.

Palestinian women have become the latest victims of a security crackdown launched by Palestinian Authority security forces that are funded, equipped and trained by Americans and Europeans.

It is such repressive measures that turn Palestinians against the Palestinian Authority and drive many of them into the open arms of Hamas.

In the past few weeks, at least five women from the West Bank have been detained, beaten or summoned for interrogation by the Palestinian Authority's General Intelligence Service and Preventative Security Force.

One could understand if such practices were taking place under Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

But why does the fact that award-winning female journalist Majdoleen Hassouneh has to go into hiding to avoid being arrested by the Preventative Security Force in Nablus does not seem to bother any of her foreign colleagues or international human rights organizations?

Hassouneh, a recipient of the Thomson Award for her investigative reporting, is wanted by the Palestinian security force for daring to cover a sit-in strike held by families of Palestinians who are detained in Palestinian prisons in the West Bank.

Because she refused to report for interrogation, the security force has arrested her two brothers as a means of pressure to force her to turn herself in.

The Palestinian security forces have meanwhile warned Palestinian journalists against reporting about the case of Hassouneh.

A few weeks ago, another female journalist from Nablus, Ibtihal Mansour, was beaten by policewomen while she was covering the weekly sit-in strike, which is being held outside the Palestinian-administered Jneid Prison.

The two journalists are not the only women to be targeted by Palestinian security services in the West Bank.

In the past few days, the wives of two Palestinian men who are being held without trial in a Palestinian prison in Hebron, Zein al-Din Shabaneh and Anas Rasras, were detained for interrogation about the activities of their husbands. The two wives later complained that Palestinian interrogators humiliated them, but did not elaborate.

In a more recent case, the Palestinian security forces summoned 50-year-old Rusaila al-Titi, from the Fawwar refugee camp, for interrogation. But she, like Hassouneh, has announced her refusal to appear for interrogation. Now al-Titi also faces detention for defying the summons.

Of course the stories of these women have not made it to the Western media, which has hundreds of representatives in this region. Human rights organizations and groups that claim to defend freedom of expression and the media have shown almost no interest in the measures taken by security forces loyal to Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad against women.

The media and human rights groups are apparently ignoring such stories because they are lacking an anti-Israel element.

Palestinian security authorities intimidating a female Palestinian journalist is obviously not a story as far as most of the Middle East editors are concerned.

But an Israeli soldier shouting at a Palestinian cameraman at a checkpoint is a big story, one that needs to be covered from all angles.

The Palestinian Authority is targeting women because they are easy prey -- and as a means to intimidate others.

Khaled Abu Toameh

Source: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2334/palestinian-authority-targeting-women

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

Monday, August 8, 2011

Egypt's Military Holds onto Power


by Daniel Pipes

It's been my contention since the overthrow of Hosni Mubarak in February that (1) this was a military coup d'état against the prospect of Mubarak's son taking power and (2) the military brass intend to hold on to power. On the latter point, I wrote in April: "The soldiers have become far too accustomed to power and the good life to give up these perks. They will do whatever it takes, be it purging Mubarak, throwing his sons in jail, banning his old political party, changing the constitution, or repressing dissent, to keep power."

An important article in the New York Times today, "Egypt Military Moves to Cement a Muscular Role in Government" by David D. Kirkpatrick explains just how the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces plans to keep its power – by pre-empting the constitution:

A meeting of Egypt's Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (لمجلس الأعلى للقوات المسلحة‎),

The military announced Tuesday that it planned to adopt a "declaration of basic principles" to govern the drafting of a constitution. … it will spell out the armed forces' role in the civilian government, potentially shielding the defense budget from public or parliamentary scrutiny and protecting the military's vast economic interests. Proposals under consideration would give the military a broad mandate to intercede in Egyptian politics to protect national unity or the secular character of the state. … Though the proposed declaration might protect liberals from an Islamist-dominated constitution, it could also limit democracy by shielding the military from full civilian control.

For those of us worried about a potential Islamist domination, this is good news: "The announcement of the declaration is a setback for the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group considered Egypt's best-organized and most formidable political force. It was poised to win a major role in the new Parliament, and thus in the writing of the new constitution." But for the liberals, it's bad news:

Demonstrators have returned to Tahrir Square with increasing frequency to voice their demands, culminating in a weeklong sit-in rivaling the days of the revolution. … The protests are increasingly taking aim at the military. On Thursday, a coalition of 24 political groups and five presidential contenders endorsed a call by the young leaders of the protests for the military to cede more power to a civilian government now rather than wait for elections. The military leaders are sounding increasingly exasperated.

In other words, it's business as usual. All that huffing and puffing about a "New Egypt, New Era" really does not amount to much. That said, I continue to be impressed by the Tahrir spirit and hope it will someday reach the corridors of power. (July 16, 2011)

Daniel Pipes

Source: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2011/07/egypt-military-holds-onto-power

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

Turkish-Iranian Rivalry on the Rise


by Daniel Pipes

Turkey and Iran are two of the largest, most central, advanced, and influential countries of the Middle East; and their governments have a history of rivalry going back to Ottoman-Safavid times and as recent as the 1990s. The past decade, however, has been a time of good relations as both countries experiment with Islamism.

I see, however, that tensions between these two regional heavyweights are increasing and predict they will continue to do so, with who-knows-what endpoint. This weblog entry notes in reverse chronological order some of the more interesting developments in their relationship.


Hezbollah: Süddeutsche Zeitung on April 30 quoted Western diplomats saying that Turkish authorities stopped a truck containing a large weapons shipment intended for Hezbollah at Kilis, near Turkey's border with Syria. (August 4, 2011)

Syria: On March 31, Ankara informed the U.N. Security Council about seizing a weapons shipment, listed as "auto spare parts," that Iranians were trying to export on a Syria-bound plane.

More broadly, the ex-CIA spy who goes by Reza Khalili notes how differently the two regimes have responded to the Syrian uprising against Bashar al-Assad: "the ongoing protests in Syria have the Iranian leadership worried. The survival of the Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, is essential to the dictatorial Islamic regime in Tehran because Syria provides the very gateway to Iran's expansion of power in the Middle East and its extremist policies against Israel and the United States." In contrast, "Neighboring Turkey has denounced the Syrian slaughter. Thousands of fearful residents from the northern regions of Syria have taken refuge in Turkey."

Khalili reports that

A recent article published in the weekly magazine Sobh'eh Sadegh, one of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' media outlets, sternly warned Turkey against its stance on Syria, emphasizing that Iran stands squarely with the Assad regime. The article, entitled "Iran's Serious Stance in the Face of Syrian Events," warned that "Should Turkish officials insist on their contradictory behavior and if they continue on their present path, serious issues are sure to follow. We will be put in the position of having to choose between Turkey and Syria. Syria's justification in defending herself along with mirroring ideological perceptions would sway Iran toward choosing Syria."

Daniel Pipes

Source: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2011/07/turkish-iranian-rivalry-on-the-rise

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

Senior Hamas Figures Reiterate Extremist Positions


by The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

Senior Hamas figures reiterate extremist positions, reject the Palestinian Authority's proposed September UN move and emphasize the ideological and strategic differences between Hamas and the PA. Their statements, reflecting the impasse of the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, are probably meant to prevent Mahmoud Abbas from making concessions to the United States and Israel.

Overview

1. Senior Hamas figures again recently emphasized the movement's fundamental intransigent positions, especially the refusal (despite international pressure) to recognize Israel and to "give up" even one inch of the land of Palestine, and the support for terrorism (the so-called "resistance") and adherence to the so-called "right of return" of all the Palestinian refugees to the territory of Palestine. Mahmoud al-Zahar and Khalil al-Hayeh, both from the Gaza Strip, adamantly rejected the move Mahmoud Abbas is expected to make in the UN in September (calling it "empty words," "a political trick" and "an illusion") and the world view it is founded on ("the two-state solution").

2. Their remarks and the effort to emphasize the essential differences between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority regarding the conflict with Israel contradict the reconciliatory tone in the statements made by senior Hamas figures following the internal Palestinian reconciliation agreement of May 2011. in our assessment, Hamas' statements intends to hobble Mahmoud Abbas before the move in the United Nations, and at the same time reflect the impasse of the internal Palestinian dialogue. Hamas' tactics may help the Palestinian Authority represent itself as pragmatic and different from Hamas, but also have a negative effect on Mahmoud Abbas' pretensions to appear in the United Nations as representing all Palestinians.

Hamas Statements

3. Senior Hamas figures recently used various opportunities and forums to restate the movement's rigid, extremist fundamental position regarding the conflict with Israel. For example, Ismail Haniya, head of the de-facto Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip, welcoming a delegation from Malaysia, emphasized Hamas' adherence to its principles, especially its refusal to cede one inch of the territory of "Palestine" and its insistence on the "right of return" of six million Palestinian refugees outside Palestine (Safa News Agency, July 31, 2011). Usama Hamdan, responsible for Hamas' international relations, gave a speech in support of the "option of resistance" (i.e., terrorism) at the recent conference in Cairo, in which he said that "[t]he conflict will never come to an end until Israel comes to an end," adding that "Regarding what some have demanded of us, to recognize the enemy, that matter is behind us. We then clearly said that we will never recognize Israel, and today I say more than that: Israel completely doesn't exist in our political or intellectual dictionary" (Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV, July 24, 2011). Hamdan made statements in the same spirit in an interview with the website of Egypt's El-Amal Party. He said that the "liberation of Palestine" would be achieved only through "resistance" (i.e., terrorism), stressing that the so-called "resistance" would continue "until the liberation of the lands of Palestine from the [Mediterranean] sea to the [Jordan] river" (El-Amal website, July 25, 2011)

4. Two other senior Hamas figures in the Gaza Strip recently opposed the proposed Palestinian Authority move in the UN:

1) Mahmoud al-Zahar told an interviewer from the German News Agency that Mahmoud Abbas' planned move in the UN was empty talk and a "political trick." He completely rejected the concept of the two-state solution, the foundation for Mahmoud Abbas' appeal to the UN, saying that "[w]e do not recognize Israel, and it is very simple. We do not recognize Israel as controlling, not even one centimeter [of the land of "Palestine"], because it is an artificial state." He also warned that recognizing the right of the State of Israel to exist would harm the so-called "rights" of millions of Palestinian refugees to "Palestine," asking "[w]ho will go to the refugee camps and tell the people that they do not have the right to Palestine?" (Qudsnews website, July 30, 2011, quoting an interview with the German News Agency).

2) On July 31, Khalil al-Hayeh, a member of Hamas' political bureau, said at a reception for a Malaysian delegation visiting the Gaza Strip that the appeal to the UN was only an illusion and would not lead to anything that would serve the Palestinian cause. He said that "the Palestinian people are still bowed under the occupation, and there is nothing to be done but to end it by means of the resistance [i.e., terrorism and violence]." He said that the Palestinian Authority did not have a "political horizon" and that the PLO's deliberations with Israel ("the country of the occupation") had reached a dead end (Website of Hamas' daily Felesteen, July 31, 2011).

5. Hamas' daily Gaza Strip paper Felesteen printed an Op-Ed column entitled "The position of the resistance factions on the target date in September," written by Hussam al-Dajani. It expressed fear lest the expected move at the UN have a negative impact on the "right of return" of the Palestinian refugees and on the future of the "resistance" and the "weapons of the resistance" [i.e., anti-Israeli terrorism]. The negative impact might be the result of pressure exerted on Mahmoud Abbas to agree to a Jewish state, and he might agree that the return of Palestinian refugees be limited to the future Palestinian state [and not to the territory of Israel]. In addition, the United Nations was founded on the principle of ensuring world peace and security, and that would give Israel the legitimate right to attack Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. According to the column, it would mean that "we might be subject to international sanctions or an international military strike against the resistance factions, greatly endangering the future of the resistance and of the weapons of the resistance, and mean the genuine destruction of the Palestinian cause."

Significance

6. The public statements made by the senior Hamas figures underline the essential differences between Hamas' worldview and the Palestinian Authority regarding the conflict with Israel, just as the PA is preparing to enter the UN arena this fall. In our assessment they reflect Hamas' fear of the erosion of its basic positions in the conflict with Israel. Their primary objective, in our assessment, is to force Mahmoud Abbas to adhere to Hamas positions, to prevent Mahmoud Abbas from what Hamas regards as capitulating to the United States and Israel on a basic issue, and to prevent the Palestinian Authority from making political capital.

7. Hamas' current behavior contradicts the conciliatory tone used by senior figures (especially Khaled Mashaal) following the internal Palestinian reconciliation agreement (May 4, 2011).1 They made it clear they were prepared to give the move in the UN a chance (although they made it clear they did not have high expectations) on condition that it would not be accompanied by ideological recognition of the State of Israel or a waiving of the Palestinian refugees' so-called "right of return."2

8. For example, after the Palestinian reconciliation agreement was signed, Khaled Mashaal was asked whether Hamas would give a new arrangement (i.e., the move planned by the Palestinian Authority) a chance. He answered that the 20 years since the Madrid Conference had proved that "Israel does not deserve another chance to prove itself..." As far as Hamas was concerned, the movement did not need "to try again," but if there were Palestinians or Arab countries which wanted to give Israel another chance, Hamas was prepared to let that happen, for a short period of time, for the sake of the Palestinian cause and to save the Palestinian reconciliation (Khaled Mashaal interviewed by Hamas' Al-Aqsa TV, May 9, 2011).

9. In our assessment, Hamas' emphasis of its rigid fundamental positions in the Arab-Israeli conflict and its objections to to the Palestinian move in the United Nations for ideological reasons (the refusal to recognize the State of Israel, adherence to the so-called "right of return") are an expression of the impasse at which the internal Palestinian dialogue has found itself since the May 4 signing of the reconciliation agreement.3 Emphasizing the essential differences between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas may, on the one hand, help the PA represent itself in its planned political moves as pragmatic, different from Hamas and prepared to deal with the difficult requirements of the internal Palestinian arena as a way of promoting its political position in the conflict. On the other hand, however, emphasizing the rift between them brings into prominence the internal Palestinian ideological and strategic schisms, erodes the image of internal Palestinian unity theoretically achieved with the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation, and may harm Mahmoud Abbas' pretensions of representing all the Palestinian when he appeals to the United Nations.

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

1 The conciliatory tone was accompanied by a smile spin for the West.

2 For further information see the May 15, 2011 Bulletin "Statements made by senior Hamas figures since the internal Palestinian reconciliation agreement attempt to present a moderate image while restating Hamas' refusal to recognize Israel or accept the International Quartet's conditions, continuing the "resistance" (i.e., terrorism), and drawing Fatah back into the cycle of violence" at http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/pdf/hamas_e144.pdf.

3 Another example is Mahmoud al-Zahar's smear of Salam Fayyad. Interviewed by the German News Agency, al-Zahar said that pro-Western Salam Fayyad, who has achieved international recognition, was "an agent, not a patriot," and that "we do not want him" (Qudsnews website, July 30, 2011).

The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

Source: http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/ipc_e215.htm

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

UC Irvine's Embarrassing Link to Syrian Dictatorship


by Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

The ongoing crisis in Syria, with daily reports of bloodshed by the Baathist dictatorship of Bashar Al-Assad, has also brought controversy to the University of California at Irvine, which is still contending with an unresolved dispute over Middle East issues.

Southern California Syrian-Americans have been criticizing UC Irvine's links with Dr. Hazem Chehabi, the local honorary consul for the Syrian dictatorship. Chehabi is chair of the UC Irvine Foundation. Chehabi and his wife Salma donated $1 million to the university in 2005.

Earlier, in February 2010, an Irvine campus speech by Israeli ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren was shouted down by a group of which 11 members were arrested for conspiring to interrupt, and then proceeding to interrupt, Oren's presentation. The detained disrupters included eight students from UC Irvine and three from the University of California at Riverside. The UC Irvine Muslim Student Union, following the incident, was suspended for three months, put on student probation for two years, and ordered to perform 100 hours of community service. One Irvine defendant, Hakim Nasreddine Kebir, has accepted an added individual term of 40 hours' community service and will not be charged in the judicial case. The proceeding against the remaining 10 is expected to begin in an Orange County court on August 15.

Now, for at least three months, Syrian-Americans have been demonstrating loudly against the Al-Assad regime at two locations in Newport Beach, Calif. One is the consular office of the Syrian regime, and the other is the consultancy office of Chehabi, a nuclear medicine specialist and one of three honorary Syrian consuls in the U.S. Led by Ammar Kahf, organizer of the Syrian Emergency Task Force of Greater Los Angeles, the protestors have called for Chehabi's resignation from his consular position.

In an email to a community newspaper, the Orange County Weekly, in May, Chehabi declared, "Personally, I am opposed to the use of violence against peaceful demonstrators, and find no justification whatsoever in shooting unarmed civilians. I am saddened about the daily loss of life in Syria and hope to see it come to an end as quickly as possible."

Hazem Chehabi is closely tied to Syria's leader, Bashar Al-Assad, with whom he grew up, and, according to National Public Radio, with whom he continues to meet.

Perhaps most significantly, his father is General Hikmat Chehabi (also spelled Shehabi and Shihabi), the late Damascus dictator Hafez Al-Assad's former army chief of staff, with top command of Syrian troops in the infamous Hama massacre of 1982 and other atrocious events. Hikmat Chehabi was replaced in his military post in 1998. According to the Saudi-owned Al-Arabiya broadcast network, former Lebanese prime minister Saad Al-Hariri told American officials in 2006 that he favored replacing Hafez Al-Assad with a coalition of the Muslim Brotherhood, General Chehabi, and former vice president Abdel Halim Khaddam. General Chehabi moved to California, and he is said to be suspected of disloyalty to the Al-Assad regime, although he continues to visit Damascus. Abdel Halim Khaddam has published a book of documents purporting to show Syria and Iran conspiring to protect former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.

Regarding Syria and Hazem Chehabi, the general's son, on July 8 UC Irvine chancellor Michael Drake released a statement in which he said, "We join the world community in expressing outrage at the continued violence toward unarmed civilians in Syria and in demanding that the violence stop. We appreciate Dr. Chehabi's support of our university and our students over the years. We support his efforts and those of the broader world community in reaching a peaceful and just resolution."

On Tuesday, August 2, NPR interviewer Amy Walters recorded Ammar Kahf repeating his condemnation of UC Irvine's association with Chehabi and declaring "We feel that any person with even remote connection with the regime, people being killed, they should say I'm not going to be associated with this brutal regime."

Chehabi met with NPR but refused to be recorded and declined to discuss the Al-Assad regime. His refusal to resign from his consular duties has also been denounced by Phoenix-based Syrian-American physician M. Zuhdi Jasser, president of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, and leader of an effort titled "Save Syria Now!"

In 2010, Hazem and Salma Chehabi were the subjects of a video tribute posted to YouTube, honoring them as recipients of the "UCI Medal," which is awarded to "community leaders, innovative faculty, and stellar alumni." The video curiously dwells on their "good looks," perfect grooming, and elegance, and includes a cringeworthy comment by cardiologist James Shelburne, who describes Salma Chehabi as "one of the most beautiful women I've ever seen in my life," adding, "and I'm from Alabama and I know beautiful women." The video ends with Tom Mitchell, vice president for development and alumni affairs at the University of Florida, showing off a stuffed alligator, with prominent teeth and menacing eyes, which he describes as the U. of Florida mascot and which he has "dressed… in his Middle Eastern attire."

Is a vicious reptile in Arab garb, even as a toy, intended to honor Hazem Chehabi? Perhaps U. of Florida's Mitchell unconsciously hit on the reality of the present-day Syrian regime, its bloodthirsty conduct, and Chehabi's link to it. UC Irvine alumni should join Syrian-Americans in their concern over the Syrian situation and the possible involvement with it of their alma mater.

Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

Source: http://www.hudson-ny.org/2329/uc-irvine-syrian-dictatorship

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