Europeans Fund Anti-Israel Libels - Gerald M. Steinberg

by Gerald M. Steinberg

Designed and promoted as a vehicle for drawing attention
to the Palestinian narrative of the 1948 war, Zochrot's
iNakba app features an interactive map and photos of
pre-1948 Arab villages and encourages the "right of
return" narrative through crowd sourcing.
The app was timed to coincide with Israel's sixty-sixth
Independence Day (May 15).

In May 2014, Zochrot — a radical Israeli nongovernmental organization (NGO)—was the focus of widespread mainstream media coverage featuring its iNakba mobile application (app). Articles on the app and Zochrot were published in The New York Times, The Washington Post, Haaretz, The Christian Science Monitor, Time Magazine, and several prominent blogs. Most, including The New York Times, promoted Zochrot's agenda while others, such as The Washington Post, included some criticism.

Designed and promoted as a vehicle for drawing attention—particularly among journalists—to the Palestinian narrative of the 1948 war, iNakba features an interactive map and photos of pre-1948 Arab villages and encourages the "right of return" narrative through crowd sourcing. As stated by The New York Times, "Perhaps the app's greatest promise is its social component—users can upload photos and videos, or 'follow' villages to virtually recreate lost communities."^[1] Small wonder that the release of the app was timed to coincide with Israel's sixty-sixth Independence Day (May 15) and the Nakba (catastrophe) as Palestinians and Arabs call this event.

While Zochrot has promoted this inverted narrative of "historic injustice" for many years, its sudden transformation from a fringe political NGO into a major media attraction was made possible by a steep increase in funding from European governments, often channeled through Christian international development and humanitarian aid organizations without any public scrutiny or parliamentary control. This funding grew from some 950,000 NIS (Israeli new shekels) in 2005 to 1,868,485 NIS (more than $500,000) in 2013.^[2] Such funding is far from unique and can be viewed as a showcase for a wider phenomenon: the central role of European governments and Christian aid organizations in promoting a radical, anti-Israel agenda.

Background

Zochrot was founded in 2002 with the aims of "rais[ing] public awareness of the Palestinian Nakba" and promoting the recognition and realization of the "right of return" of Palestinian "refugees" to places that are now part of the state of Israel.[3] Needless to say, this supposed right is irreconcilable with any peace process based on the two-state solution, officially endorsed by many governments, and is "tantamount to destroying Israel through demographic subversion" (to use historian Efraim Karsh's words), though "in addressing non-Arab audiences, Palestinians have been less than genuine about their objectives, presenting this 'right' as humanitarian, as grounded in international law and as a long-overdue redress of historical injustice."[4] Initially estimated at 600,000-750,000 individuals, the Palestinian refugee status has been uniquely perpetuated for over six decades and now comprises more than five million people, including second and third generation individuals.[5]

Zochrot's activities and agenda strongly reflect rhetoric demonizing Israel and originating from the NGO Forum of the 2001 Durban Conference, which included approximately 1,500 NGOs and was characterized by anti-Semitic displays as starkly illustrated by the Forum's final declaration that accused Israel of numerous crimes, including apartheid, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, and genocide. Article 425 of the declaration advocated a "policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state."[6]

The Durban strategy outlined in the final declaration became the template for anti-Israel campaigns that followed and initiated the disproportionate and unsubstantiated allegations of human rights violations, war crimes, and racism as forms of political warfare designed to isolate Israel internationally. Many of the NGO participants, including Zochrot, have implemented this coordinated strategy against Israel—isolation and demonization in the international arena.

Zochrot declares support for a "de-Zionized Palestine" and refers to Israel as having an "ethnicized and racialized Zionist" system.[7] The NGO's founder Eitan Bronstein has stated, "When the refugees return, Jews will become a minority in the country. Israel as a Jewish state will change radically, and it will no longer be defined as such."[8]

Zochrot officials were involved in the production of a Hebrew language You Tube video, posted on April 23, 2014. It features radical activist Natalie Cohen Vaxberg (left) visiting the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and adopting the persona of the "Holocaust," claiming, "There is no one more responsible for your success than whom? ... than me."

Several Zochrot officials were involved in the production of a Hebrew language You Tube video (with English subtitles), posted on April 23, 2014. It features radical activist Natalie Cohen Vaxberg visiting the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial and adopting the persona of the "Holocaust," claiming it to be "the best thing that ever happened" to the Jewish people. The clip has numerous offensive and inflammatory statements, such as the misrepresentation of the Holocaust as the sole reason for Israel's existence: "Thanks to me you have a country … Thanks to me and only me you have an army … There is no one more responsible for your success than whom? … than me." Other quotes make the odious comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany: "Who have you learned from to collect people according to their ethnic background and throw them into concentration camps?" And as a final chord, Cohen Vaxberg calls for Israel's destruction: "From now on there is no Jewish nation, finished, I deny you … you do not exist, and you never existed." Eitan Bronstein acted in the video as the "Holocaust Bodyguard," and Moran Barir, another member of Zochrot, filmed and edited the movie.[9]

As funding has increased, Zochrot has been able to expand its activities and impact, particularly outside Israel. In 2012, Zochrot and Badil (a radical anti-Israel organization, whose Swiss government funding was frozen following the publication of an anti-Semitic cartoon),[10] organized a joint study visit to Cape Town, South Africa, "to learn from cases of expulsion and return."[11] In 2010, Zochrot endorsed the militant "Free Gaza Flotilla," which used the pretense of humanitarian aid to attempt to breach Israel's naval blockade of Hamas.[12] In a December 2008 joint submission to the U.N. Human Rights Council for Israel's periodic review, Zochrot falsely accused Israel of ethnic cleansing and "forcible displacement and dispossession of the Palestinian people."[13] These campaigns, along with unsubstantiated allegations cited by journalists, academics, diplomats, political leaders, and legal officials condemning Israeli policies, reflect the power of NGOs such as Zochrot in reinforcing the distorted Palestinian narrative.

A Zochrot event claimed to be an "international, multidisciplinary conference to discuss practical aspects of the return of Palestinian refugees."

In a further expansion, Zochrot obtained funds for a widely publicized conference in September 2013. This event, held at the Eretz Israel Museum in Tel Aviv and titled "From Truth to Redress: Realizing the Return of Palestinian Refugees," emphasized the location of the museum and Tel Aviv University as situated in the area of Sheikh Muwannis, a pre-1948 village.^[14] The event's self-proclaimed objective was an "international, multidisciplinary conference to discuss practical aspects of the Return of Palestinian refugees."[15] Presentations at the conference included "Imagining the Future: Toward a Bi-national State in Palestine-Israel and a Multicultural Regional Confederation" by Jeff Halper, director of the Israel Committee against House Demolition (ICAHD). Halper had previously stated that it was "impossible to have a Jewish state" and that a bi-national state was the only remaining option resulting from Israel's "futile attempt to impose an apartheid regime."^[16]

William Bell, an official with Christian Aid-UK (a major funder of anti-Israel NGOs)[17] also spoke about "Civil Society: Promoting Refugee Rights and Countering Collective Inertia," and representatives of Badil, the main Palestinian refugee umbrella NGO. Badil promotes the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israel and anti-Israel lawfare (the "exploitation of courts in democratic countries in order to harass Israeli officials with civil lawsuits and criminal investigations"),[18] and which publishes delegitimizing rhetoric^[19] and anti-Semitic imagery,[20] discussed "Strategies and Recommendations for Israeli NGOs on Realizing Return and Promoting Justice."

But the event triggered major protests against Zochrot, the conference funders, and the Eretz Israel Museum. Speakers from the Israeli mainstream, unified in rejection of the Palestinian right of return, were absent from the conference. One Israeli journalist who attended described the event as a "nationalist Palestinian conference … that dealt with the disappearance of Israel."[21] When questioned by NGO Monitor, Zochrot's funders justified their support on the grounds that they were promoting refugee rights and justice, rejecting concerns regarding the radical character of the NGO and the conference.^[22]

Mainstream Media Coverage

A central aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the "war of narratives,"[23] in which the media plays a principal role. The Pew Research Center's Journalism Project (1997-2000) proposed nine core principles of journalism, beginning with the obligation to be truthful. The fourth and fifth principles focus on the requirement for independence, and the eighth states a journalist's commitment to "keep the news comprehensive and proportional."[24] These guidelines, also reflected in U.S. and European journalism ethical codes,[25] are particularly critical regarding reporting on conflict situations where information is systematically manipulated to support partisan narratives and gain sympathy.

A central aspect of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the "war of narratives," in which the media plays a principal role.

In mainstream coverage of Zochrot's iNakba app, journalistic principles were repeatedly violated as demonstrated in the following analysis of six articles,[26] based on four dimensions: the presentation of the iNakba app; the discussion of the events of the 1948 war; the degree of criticism (balance), if any; and the evaluation of Zochrot's presentation as a mainstream organization. Each article is considered in terms of terminology, selection of facts to present, context, and dissenting views. For example, word choices referring to towns as "destroyed" versus "abandoned" or describing Zochrot as an "Israeli NGO" versus a "pro-Palestinian Israeli NGO" or "Zochrot, meaning remembering," play a significant role in shaping the assumptions of the reader.

Presentation of the iNakba App

Haaretz and The New York Times presented the app in a highly promotional manner. Haaretz described iNakba as "a new mobile app to help locate Palestinian villages destroyed since 1948," launched "to coincide with Israel's Independence Day." The use of "destroyed" clearly portrays Israel as the aggressor, and the Palestinian narrative as deserving of "help." The Haaretz article also stated "'i' in iNakba … is also 'I' as in information" and "maps are a political tool." Haaretz endorsed the app as a practical, information-based aid for refugees to recreate the past, stripping the Nakba of any historical context.[27]

The New York Times provided a personal and highly romanticized report. Author Jodi Rudoren wrote,

Heading up to the Sea of Galilee last weekend, I traveled a lost land. While my husband drove through 2014 Israel, past vast greenhouses and sleek malls, I navigated 1948 Palestine on my iPhone. Using the new iNakba app, I saw scores of villages destroyed or abandoned as Israel became a state 66 years ago.[28]

Amplifying Zochrot's message, the article reiterated the image of Israel as a conqueror and the Palestinians as victims.

Similarly, Time Magazine's version stated,

In Arabic, "nakba" means "catastrophe," and the iPhone application maps some 500 Palestinian villages that once stood on the land controlled by Israel since 1948. The app was developed by Zochrot, an Israeli nongovernmental organization that exists to remind Israel's Jewish majority of that history.[29]

But, no evidence was provided for the claim, taken from Zochrot, that Israeli Jews need to be reminded of this history. Neither did the article contain any criticism of the Zochrot narrative or details of the Israeli perspective or context. Instead Time's Karl Vick continued,
The app also represents a new frontier—clean, bright, and helpful—in the competition between historical narratives. Israelis and Palestinians have different experiences of the last century, and each wants the world at large to see history from their perspective.[30]
Christa Case Bryant, in The Christian Science Monitor, wrote:

An Israeli NGO hopes to crowd-source location-based data about the villages destroyed in the wake of Israel's independence, which Palestinians refer to as the nakba, or catastrophe … For fans, the app is a vindication of Palestinian history which has been largely erased from modern-day Israel.[31]

The Monitor's emphasis on destruction and vindication, and the use of the term "Palestinian history" instead of political narrative, reflected a strong bias.

In contrast, The Washington Post article refrained from promotional language and identified the nature of Zochrot's agenda; it contained minimal emotive language, describing iNakba

As a mobile app that pinpoints in Hebrew, Arabic, and English the location of more than 500 Palestinian villages that were emptied, overrun, or abandoned in the 1948 war. The free iNakba app for iPhones was made available last week by Zochrot, a pro-Palestinian Israeli group based in Tel Aviv.[32]

Omer Bar-Lev, a Labor Party lawmaker, disputed Zochrot's narrative: "Palestine was not inhabited by millions of Palestinians. Most of Palestine was swamps, and my father and mother and the newcomers came to Israel, and some of them died drying those swamps … It is not that the Jews came and threw them out."

Discussion of the 1948 Events

The 1948 war and the Nakba claims have been widely debated in Israeli academic, political, and public frameworks, including in publications of historians such as Benny Morris, Yoav Gelber, and Efraim Karsh.^[33] This important dimension is mostly missing in the media reports, which largely repeat Zochrot's version.

Time Magazine chose to present Zochrot's narrative exclusively, eliminating important context and facts, including countless Arab attacks on Jewish communities and the gruesome mutilation of victims. The article quoted Zochrot employee Raneen Jeries:

The idea of the app is like changing the landscape, because we in Zochrot believe that maps are a political tool, and from '48 till today, Israel on its maps just erased Palestine and its localities and our heritage. … So we put Palestine back on the map.[34]

The Washington Post article began by stating, "On Thursday, the Palestinians commemorate the Nakba, or the catastrophe, marking the flight and expulsion of an estimated 700,000 Palestinians from Israel more than six decades ago." Later, the article provided an Israeli viewpoint:

Omer Bar-Lev, a lawmaker from the Labor Party, countered that when the early Zionists arrived in Israel, "Palestine was not inhabited by millions of Palestinians. Most of Palestine was swamps, and my father and mother and the newcomers came to Israel, and some of them died drying those swamps … It is not that the Jews came and threw them out."

The global wire service Agence France-Presse (AFP) provided an informational introduction, which was reprinted in a number of publications, and included a more balanced narrative:

The launch was timed to coincide with Israel's 66th Independence Day, which begins at sundown, when the Palestinians remember the "Nakba" or "catastrophe" that befell them when Israel came into existence in 1948, and 760,000 of them fled or were forced into exile.[35]

The AFP article contained a central point—minimized if not completely omitted in the other articles, namely that the purpose of the app is to bolster the "right of return" argument. The article stated,

The right of return for Palestinian refugees has long been a key sticking point in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks … Israel fears that any flexibility on the issue would open the floodgates to millions of refugees, which would pose a demographic threat to the "Jewish and democratic character" of the state.[36]

If Israel were to absorb the millions who claim to be Palestinian refugees, this would pose an existential threat to the nature of the Jewish state. But, none of the articles raised questions of Palestinian resettlement in current host nations or suggested that the status of refugees is a highly sensitive topic for both sides and that the "right of return" implied the threat of destruction of Israel.

Misrepresentation of Zochrot as Mainstream

Zochrot is an anti-Zionist organization on the fringe of Israeli politics and civil society. It regularly campaigns for a "single state," in which Jews would be reduced to a small minority, and repeatedly accuses Israelis of war crimes. Reporting on Zochrot has omitted this critical context. In reading these articles, one remains totally unaware of Zochrot's marginal impact.
Time Magazine provided the most information stating,

"Zochrot has taken very radical positions," [Dahlia Scheindlin] tells Time. By supporting the right of return for Palestinians—allowing descendants of the 1948 exodus to live in Israel—the group has placed itself in line with a segment of the Jewish Israeli population that, Scheindlin says, is too tiny to register in public opinion surveys.[37]

In contrast, The New York Times did not mention any of Zochrot's history, claiming

Zochrot, Hebrew for "remembering," has for 13 years been leading tours of destroyed villages, collecting testimony from aging Arabs, and advocating the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees and their descendants.[38]

Haaretz and The Christian Science Monitor gave no information on the organization, other than the brief "Israeli NGO" description. The Washington Post provided minimal information, defining Zochrot only as "a pro-Palestinian Israeli group based in Tel Aviv." The AFP report described Zochrot as an NGO, "based in Tel Aviv, [which] campaigns for Israelis to recognize the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes, along with their descendants" but neglected to mention Zochrot's falsification of international law on refugees and its position on the extreme fringe of the political spectrum.

Finally, none of the news platforms made any mention of Zochrot's funding sources and that the resources for iNakba are provided primarily by European governments, via Christian humanitarian aid frameworks. This is a crucial omission that enabled the propagation of Zochrot's agenda.

European Church-based Funding

During its first decade, Zochrot was a fringe NGO with little impact. The rapid rise in the visibility of its activities (such as the 2013 conference and the iNakba app) as well as the mainstream media coverage were mainly due to a significant increase in funding, primarily originating from European governments. These governments pour tens of millions of euros into numerous NGOs that are deeply involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict, under the banner of international humanitarian law and promotion of peace and human rights. As demonstrated in NGO Monitor's detailed research reports,^[39] European government funding is central to the activities of the NGOs leading the implementation of the Durban strategy of demonizing Israel. As part of this strategy, the funding processes are generally not subject to the norms of accountability and transparency and constitute a significant "democratic deficit."[40]

Zochrot, like other NGOs, is funded by European and church-based groups. Another such group is Breaking the Silence, an organization of former Israel Defense Forces soldiers. Its members tour university campuses and parliaments in Europe and North America, fueling campaigns against Israel based on false war crime allegations.

By funding organizations such as Zochrot and the iNakba app, as well as related conferences and publications, European governments have become enablers of the NGOs' radical agenda. These activities and overall agendas do not advance the stated objectives of democracy and human rights and are often incompatible with declared European foreign policy objectives.
Most of this European public (taxpayer-based) funding is channeled through humanitarian aid agencies, which in turn redistribute the money to individual NGOs, including Zochrot. Many of these state-funded agencies are Christian groups, including Misereor (Germany), Christian Aid (U.K.), Le Comité catholique contre la faim et pour le développement-Terre Solidaire (CCFD, France), Finn Church Aid (Finland), HEKS-EPER (Switzerland), Broederlijk Delen (Belgium), Trócaire (Ireland), St. Het Solidariteitsfonds (Netherlands), BISCHOEFLICHES (Germany), and Interchurch Organization for Development Cooperation (ICCO, Netherlands). In addition, Zochrot receives money from the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC) in the United States. Non-church related government-funded frameworks that have donated to Zochrot include Oxfam GB and Oxfam Solidarity (Belgium).

This pattern of funding also reflects the central role of both Catholic and Protestant aid frameworks in promoting radical political agendas, in many cases mixed with classic anti-Semitic themes. For example, Rev. Steven Sizer, who was affiliated with Christian Aid for a number of years, espouses the doctrine of supersecessionism, also known as replacement theology.[41] Officials in many of these funding organizations are also involved in "teaching of contempt," a doctrine which claims that the "corrupt Jews" were "punished" for "deicide."[42] In this case, they mask their theological contempt for Jews as anti-Zionism. These ancient theological themes at the root of anti-Semitism are based on the belief that Christianity has superseded Judaism and that the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem and the ensuing exile were divine punishments for the rejection of Jesus.[43]

Humanitarian relief foundations participate in the delegitimization of Israel, referring to it as an apartheid system or occupier.

Zochrot is hardly the only such NGO: European and church-based funding is distributed to hundreds of other politicized NGOs. These include The Coalition of Women for Peace (CWP), a leader of BDS campaigns through its website "Who Profits";[44] al-Haq, a Palestinian group that leads lawfare attempts;[45] and Breaking the Silence, an organization of former Israel Defense Forces soldiers, who tour university campuses and parliaments in Europe and North America, publicizing unsubstantiated testimonies, which fuel campaigns against Israel based on false war crime allegations.[46]

Like Zochrot, these other NGOs are funded directly by governments and indirectly through many of the same humanitarian relief foundations (again, many of them Christian) such as Diakonia (Sweden), Interchurch Organization for Development Cooperation (ICCO, the Netherlands), Christian Aid (U.K.), Church Development Service (Evangelischer Entwicklungsdienst, EED, Germany), Trocaire (Ireland), Comité catholique contre la faim et pour le développement, CCFD, France), and various churches. All participate in the delegitimization of Israel through tactics such as BDS, supporting the one state solution, lawfare (such as the Goldstone fact-finding report or filing politically motivated reports to the U.N. Human Rights Council), and referring to Israel as an apartheid system or occupier. These NGOs, similarly to Zochrot, have risen to prominence through an abundance of foreign government funding.

In the 2012-13 period, during which the iNakba app was developed and the public relations strategy prepared, Christian Aid UK, Broederlijk Delen, Misereor, Trócaire, and ICCO provided the most substantial funding.

The U.K.'s Christian Aid, which was Zochrot's largest reported donor in 2012-13, participated in the publication "Locked Out: Palestinian Refugees and the Key to Peace" (2011).[47] Broederlijk Delen (355,912 NIS to Zochrot, 2012-13) organizes tours with Zochrot as well as their own "peace trips," featuring stops at refugee camps and meetings with NGO officials who reinforce the Palestinian narrative.^[48] And the Irish Catholic aid organization, Trócaire (145,380 NIS to Zochrot, 2012-13) refers to the naval blockade of Gaza as "collective punishment" and continues to define Israel as the "occupying power," nine years after its exit from the Strip.^[49]

Zochrot's ability to promote its agenda through the media is dependent on funding from foreign governments.

The Dutch organization ICCO (Inter-Church Cooperation Organization—198,360 NIS to Zochrot in 2012) is among the leaders of the BDS and demonization activity in the Netherlands. This includes support for the Kairos Palestine, which calls for BDS against Israel, condones resorting to violence, and denies the Jewish historical connection to Israel.[50] In addition to Zochrot, the large-scale government funding provided by ICCO is transferred to Electronic Intifada, Who Profits (founded "as a research project" of the Coalition of Women for Peace and targets Israeli firms for boycotts), and al-Haq (a leader in lawfare campaigns). In 2011, then Dutch foreign minister Uri Rosenthal criticized ICCO's grants as "directly contrary to Dutch government policy," particularly in the case of Electronic Intifada.[51] When Rosenthal scrutinized ICCO's EI funding, ICCO stated that regardless, they would continue their funding.

Anti-Israel, church-affiliated European aid groups often work together. In October 2012, twenty-two NGOs, including Christian Aid, Broederlijk Delen, Trócaire, and ICCO released a report, "Trading Away Peace: How Europe Helps Sustain Illegal Israeli Settlements."[52] The report repeats the BDS agenda, calling on the European Union and national governments to wage political warfare through various forms of economic sanctions on Israel. Christian Aid issued a call for legislation to ban the import of goods to the U.K. from Israeli settlements.^[53] Similarly, ICCO called on the Dutch government "to be playing a more active role in putting pressure on the government of the state of Israel."^[54] And among other activities, Trócaire published "Sustaining Injustice: EU trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories"[55] and joined a campaign calling for the suspension of trade agreements and Israel's accession to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

In addition, although the funding frameworks receive substantial government budgets, they frequently lack accountability and transparency. While Misereor (247,695 NIS to Zochrot, 2012) provides a clear list of NGOs it funds in other regions, it gives no information on Israeli and Palestinian grantees.[56] Similarly, ICCO goes to great length to prevent reporting of its funding for Zochrot, Electronic Intifada, and other Palestinian NGOs leading the demonization of Israel.^[57]

Implications

There is a direct and causal connection between increased funding for political advocacy NGOs, mainstream media visibility, and support for the distorted Palestinian narrative. As a result of an increase in funds, Zochrot was able to go from a fringe group with virtually no impact to a major player, influencing others with its ideological and political perspective.

NGOs are important players in international politics and within the Arab-Israeli conflict in particular. In this case, Zochrot's ability to promote its agenda through the media and other venues is dependent on the funding it receives from foreign governments. This, coupled with unprofessional media reporting, promotes the group's propaganda and fuels the conflict.

Through the iNakba app, Zochrot gained a platform to promote a highly partisan, false perspective via journalists who accepted the narrative at face value and then acted as force multipliers for this agenda. This is the halo effect, in which the NGOs are perceived as reliable sources with moral authority and knowledge untainted by partisan politics[58] at a time when they are actually partisan purveyors of a false historical narrative and executors of a political warfare that has reinforced Palestinian rejectionism and made peace ever more remote.

Gerald M. Steinberg is professor of political studies, the founder of the Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation at Bar Ilan University, and president of NGO Monitor.

---

[1] The New York Times, May 13, 2014.
[2] "Reports and Financial Transparency," Zochrot website, Tel Aviv, accessed Sept. 2, 2014.
[3] "Who We Are," Zochrot website, accessed Sept. 2, 2014.
[4] Efraim Karsh, "Palestinian Refugees: The Right of Return," review, Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2003.
[5] Yaffa Zilbershats, "International law and the Palestinian right of return to the State of Israel," in Eyal Benvensti, Chaim Gans, and Sari Hanafi, eds., Israel and the Palestinian Refugees (Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 2007).
[6] "Palestinians and Palestine," NGO Forum, World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance, Durban, South Africa, Aug. 27-Sept 1, 2001.
[7] "Visions for a New State," Forced Population Transfer in Palestine: Thinking Practically about Return, Badil-Zochrot, Bethlehem and Tel Aviv, Spring-Summer 2012.
[8] Eitan Bronstein and Norma Musih, "Thinking practically about the return of the Palestinian refugees," Sedek: A Journal of the Ongoing Nakba, Pardes-Hanna, 2010, p.17.
[9] Natalie Cohen Vaxberg, "The Holocaust's Visit to Yad Vashem," You Tube, Apr. 23, 2014.
[10] "BADIL – Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugees Rights," NGO Monitor, Jerusalem, May 23, 2011.
[11] "Study Visit to Cape Town," Badil-Zochrot, Bethlehem and Tel Aviv, 2012.
[12] "Reports and Financial Transparency," Zochrot, website, accessed Sept. 2, 2014.
[13] "Ongoing Forced Displacement of the Palestinian Population on Both Sides of the 'Green Line': Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory," BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights, the Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign, the Arab Human Rights Association, the Association for the Defense of the Rights of the Internally Displaced, the Housing and Land Rights Network-Habitat International Coalition and Zochrot in cooperation with Ittijah – Union of Arab Community-based Associations, Human Rights Council Third Universal Periodic Review Session, submitted July 2008.
[14] "Conference Program: From Truth to Redress: Realizing the Return of the Palestinian Refugees," Zochrot, Eretz Israel Museum, Tel Aviv, Sept. 29-30, 2013.
[15] Haaretz, Oct. 5, 2014.
[16] Rami Almeghari, "Jeff Halper in Gaza: 'We are the oppressors,'" The Electronic Intifada, Sept. 2008.
[17] "Christian Aid," NGO Monitor, May 13, 2014; Amuta for NGO Responsibility, "European Human Rights Funding for Arab-Israeli Peace," Human Rights Council, Twenty-fifth session, Mar. 4, 2014.
[18] Anne Herzberg, NGO Lawfare: Exploitation of Courts in the Arab-Israeli Conflict (Jerusalem: NGO Monitor, Dec. 2010).
[19] "Ongoing Forced Displacement of the Palestinian Population on Both Sides of the 'Green Line,'" Badil, Bethlehem, Dec. 8, 2008.
[20] "Badil's Antisemitic Cartoon: Questions For Danchurchaid, Trocaire and Funders," NGO Monitor, Oct. 11, 2010.
[21] Yishai Fridman, "Kenes Zochrot," Yishai Fridman Blog, Oct. 1, 2013.
[22] "Responses to NGO Monitor Inquiries Regarding Funding for Zochrot Conference," NGO Monitor, Sept. 17, 2013.
[23] Neil Caplan, "War of Narratives," The Middle East Journal, Spring 2011, pp. 327-31.
[24] "Principles of Journalism," Pew Research Center's Journalism Project, Washington, D.C., accessed Sept. 2, 2014.
[25] "Resolution 1003 on the ethics of journalism," Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, Strasbourg, July 1, 1993; "SPJ Code of Ethics," Society of Professional Journalists, Indianapolis, 1996.
[26] Jodi Rudoren, "Navigating Lost Villages in Israel," The New York Times, May 13, 2014; The Washington Post, May 14, 2014; The Christian Science Monitor (Boston), May 15, 2014; Haaretz (Tel Aviv), May 5, 2014; Agence France-Presse, May 5, 2014; Time Magazine, May 6, 2014.
[27] Haaretz, May 5, 2014.
[28] Rudoren, "Navigating Lost Villages in Israel."
[29] Time Magazine, May 6, 2014.
[30] Ibid.
[31] The Christian Science Monitor, May 15, 2014.
[32] The Washington Post, May 14, 2014.
[33] Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987); Yoav Gelber, Palestine, 1948: War, Escape and the Emergence of the Palestinian Refugee Problem (Brighton: Sussex Academic Press, 2001); Efraim Karsh, Palestine Betrayed (New Heaven and London: Yale University Press, 2010).
[34] Time Magazine, May 6, 2014.
[35] See, for example, Times of Israel (Jerusalem), May 5, 2014.
[36] Ibid.
[37] Ibid., May 6, 2014.
[38] Rudoren, "Navigating Lost Villages in Israel."
[39] "Evaluating Funding for Political Advocacy NGOs in the Arab-Israeli Conflict: The European Instrument for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR)," NGO Monitor, Feb. 17, 2014.
[40] "State Secrecy: Analyzing the EU's Suppression of NGO Funding Information," NGO Monitor, May 29, 2014.
[41] "Christian Aid: Continued Bias and Missing Context in Palestinian Agenda: Update January-June 2006," NGO Monitor, July 13, 2006.
[42] Jules Isaac, The Teaching of Contempt: The Christian Roots of Anti-Semitism (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964), pp. x-xii.
[43] Robert Everett and Dexter Van Zile, "Reawakening the Teachings of Con-tempt," The Jerusalem Post, July 10, 2005.
[44] "Coalition of Women for Peace," NGO Monitor, Mar. 4, 2014.
[45] "Al-Haq," NGO Monitor, Jan. 12, 2014.
[46] "Breaking the Silence," NGO Monitor, June 5, 2014.
[47] William Bell, "Locked Out: Palestinian Refugees and the Key to Peace," Christian Aid, U.K., June 2011.
[48] "Program: Peace Trip," Broederlijk Delen (Brussels) and Pax Christi (Washington, D.C.), Oct. 26- Nov. 4, 2012.
[49] "The Gaza Strip: A Humanitarian Implosion," Amnesty, CARE International UK, CAFOD, Christian Aid, Medecins du Monde UK, Oxfam, Save the Children UK and Trocaire, Mar. 6, 2008.
[50] "ICCO (Inter-Church Cooperation Organization)," NGO Monitor, Apr. 1, 2014.
[51] "Rosenthal takes ICCO to task," Government of the Netherlands, Amsterdam, Jan. 1, 2013; "De Situatie In Het Midden-Oosten," Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, Amsterdam, Aug. 13, 2011.
[52] "Trading away Peace: How Europe Helps Sustain Illegal Israeli Settlements," International Federation for Human Rights (Paris), Oct. 30, 2012.
[53] "Israel-Palestine," The Methodist Church in Britain, London, 2014.
[54] "Guidelines on Lobby and Advocacy," Interchurch Organization for Development Cooperation, Utrecht, June 2010.
[55] "Sustaining Injustice: EU trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories," Trócaire, Maynooth, Ire., Sept. 2012.
[56] "Echte Partnerschaft zwischen Nord und Süd," Miseror website, Aachen, accessed Sept. 2, 2014.
[57] In 2012, following media articles and NGO Monitor reports, the German EVZ foundation discontinued support for Zochrot. Haaretz, Jan. 25, 2012.
[58] Thomas Risse, "The Power of Norms versus the Norms of Power: Transnational Civil Society and Human Rights," in Ann M. Florini, ed., The Third Force: The Rise Of Transnational Civil Society (Tokyo and Washington, D.C.: Japan Center for International Exchange and the Carnegie Endowment, 2000), pp. 186-8.


Gerald M. Steinberg is professor of political studies, the founder of the Program on Conflict Management and Negotiation at Bar Ilan University, and president of NGO Monitor.

Source: http://www.meforum.org/4912/europeans-fund-anti-israel-libels

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

Palestinians Flee Hamas, Ask Israel to Imprison Them - Khaled Abu Toameh

by Khaled Abu Toameh

"I'm sad that I'm back in the Gaza Strip. I went through happy times [in Israeli detention], where I had food, calm, good work, although I did not receive a salary. Those were unforgettable days where I had delicious food that we don't have in the Gaza Strip." — Rabi, 16, who crossed the border from Gaza and was held in detention for three months before being sent back home.
Not only is Hamas unwilling to accept any kind of responsibility, but it continues to hold everyone but itself responsible for the tragic situation n the Gaza Strip.
Instead of working to improve the living conditions of its people, Hamas is continuing to prepare for the next war against Israel. In recent weeks, Hamas increased its rocket and mortar firing tests out to sea.

Palestinian youths prefer to spend time in Israeli prison than to live in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Over the past two months, more than 20 Palestinians have been arrested while trying to cross from the Gaza Strip into Israel, according to Palestinian sources. A number of Palestinians have also been killed or wounded during their infiltration attempts.

The increase in the number of Palestinians who try to infiltrate Israel comes as Egypt continues to keep the Rafah border crossing closed. It also comes as the power struggle between Hamas and Fatah intensifies, hampering international efforts to rebuild the Gaza Strip and improve Palestinians' living conditions in the aftermath of last summer's military confrontation with Israel.

The situation has become so miserable in Gaza that some Palestinian youths are prepared to endanger their lives by approaching the border with Israel.

Palestinian sources note that 12 Palestinians recently managed to cross the border from the Gaza Strip into Israel.

The Palestinian news website, Al-Watan Voice, interviewed two of the youths who embarked on the dangerous adventure. The two young men said they prefer the "comfort" of Israeli prisons to life in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Ahmed al-Rai, 19, never made it into Israel. As he approached the security buffer zone along the border between Israel and the Gaza Strip, he was shot and moderately wounded by IDF troops. Al-Rai has lost a leg and is now lying in bed at the Nasser Hospital in the Gaza Strip.

"I wanted to escape to Israel so that I would be imprisoned there," he recounted. "It would have been a relief for me and better than the problems in the Gaza Strip. I thought it would be easy to infiltrate the border, but now my life has become even more miserable."

The second youth, who was identified as 16-year-old Rabi, was more fortunate. After he managed to cross the border into Israel, he was held in detention for three months before being sent back home.

"I'm sad that I'm back in the Gaza Strip," Rabi said. "I went through happy times [in Israeli detention], where I had food, calm and good work, although I did not receive a salary. Those were unforgettable days where I had delicious food that we don't have in the Gaza Strip."

He said that when the interrogator asked him about the reason he wanted to come to Israel, he responded: "The situation in the Gaza Strip is very difficult. My father, who once worked in Israel, told me it was beautiful there."

The last war between Hamas and Israel has resulted in a sharp rise in the number of Palestinians seeking to escape from the Gaza Strip. Last September, scores of Palestinian migrants attempting to flee the Gaza Strip died after their boat capsized in the Mediterranean Sea off the coast of northern Egypt.

But the closure of the Rafah border crossing and strict Egyptian security measures in Sinai, following a spate of terror attacks on Egyptian soldiers, have forced some Palestinians to seek work and a better life in Israel. Thousands of Palestinians remain stranded on both sides of the Rafah border crossing despite repeated appeals to the Egyptian authorities to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe.

An Egyptian military source announced this week that the Egyptian Army has destroyed more than 60 smuggling tunnels along the border with the Gaza Strip since October 28. This move has also aggravated the situation in the Gaza Strip, especially given the fact that the tunnels were also being used to smuggle food and other basic needs, and not only weapons.

An explosion rocks the Egyptian side of the Gaza-Egypt border, as the Egyptian military continues a campaign to battle terrorists and destroy smuggling tunnels, November 2014. (Image source: Reuters video screenshot)

Hamas claims that there is no phenomenon of Palestinians fleeing to Israel. A spokesman for the Hamas-controlled Interior Ministry said that security forces in the Gaza Strip were working to prevent Palestinians from crossing into Israel.

But what Hamas is not prepared to admit is that it is responsible for the misery of the Palestinians living under its rule in the Gaza Strip. More than three months after the military confrontation with Israel, Hamas has failed to offer the Palestinians any hope.

"Hamas has destroyed the dreams of young Palestinians," remarked a veteran Palestinian journalist in the Gaza Strip. "Hamas has destroyed the future of young people here."

Not only is Hamas unwilling to accept any kind of responsibility, but it continues to hold everyone else but itself responsible for the tragic situation in the Gaza Strip. Hamas continues to hold Israel, the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA responsible for the grievances of the Palestinians.

Instead of working to improve the living conditions of its people, Hamas is continuing to prepare its next war against Israel. In recent weeks, Hamas increased its rocket and mortar firing tests out to sea, according to an Israeli military source.

The tragic case of the two Palestinian youths who said they prefer Israeli jail to life in the Gaza Strip shows that some Palestinians are no longer willing to tolerate Hamas's deadly adventures and oppression. That is why the coming weeks and months could see a rise in the number of Palestinians knocking on Israel's door and asking to be imprisoned rather than return to the Gaza Strip.


Khaled Abu Toameh

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4948/palestinians-israeli-jails

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

Back in Saigon: The Senate Intelligence Committee Report - Bruce Thornton

by Bruce Thornton

The investigative report of the CIA’s long-suspended interrogation program reflects nothing more than just how firmly the progressive mind is stuck in the old Vietnam War paradigm, their master narrative of American crime and left-wing righteousness.

The Senate’s misleadingly dubbed “torture report,” an executive summary of which was released by the Senate Intelligence Committee, is a shameless and dangerous act of political grandstanding and moral preening. The investigative report of the CIA’s long-suspended interrogation program reflects nothing more than just how firmly the progressive mind is stuck in the old Vietnam War paradigm, their master narrative of American crime and left-wing righteousness. Once more, we see how reactionary is the ideology of the left, their minds unable to accommodate historical change, new ideas, or even coherent thinking.

Jose Rodriguez, a 31-year veteran of the CIA who ran the interrogation program, has detailed the hypocrisy and untruths of the report. He reminds us that in the aftermath of 9/11, lawmakers demanded that the intelligence agencies do everything possible to stop another attack. Indeed, Feinstein in May 2002 told the New York Times that “we have to do some things that historically we have not wanted to do to protect ourselves.” In her comments on the Report’s release, however, Feinstein referred to the Geneva Convention and said, “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, (including what I just read) whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.” Twelve years later, the political advantages of moral preening have trumped the recognition that hard choices have to be made sometimes to fulfill the federal government’s highest duty, which is to keep the citizens safe.

Rodriguez also explodes the report’s canard that the enhanced interrogation techniques were not legally sanctioned. They were in fact reviewed in 2002 and 2005 by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, and in 2009 were investigated by Eric Holder’s DOJ, which did not file charges. Rodriguez also debunks the claim that the CIA withheld information concerning their use from government officials. Rodriguez should know, since he was there when the CIA briefed Senator Feinstein and House Representative Nancy Pelosi on the techniques. And he exposes the lie that EITs did not yield vital information, an assessment also contradicted by ex-CIA chief Michael Hayden, who said of the charge that it “is so untrue” that it “actually defies human comprehension. We detained about 100 people, we had a Home Depot-like warehouse of information from those people.” Former CIA chiefs James Woolsey, Porter Goss, George Tenet, and, with shrewd equivocation, Leon Panetta, along with ex-Attorney General Mike Mukasey and current CIA chief John Brennan, have confirmed that EITs did provide valuable intelligence.

Yet the central fallacy of the report is that the EITs  “amount[ed] to torture,” as Feinstein announced on the report’s release. But government policy follows the law as written and established by Congress, not what “amounts” to the law in someone’s subjective estimation. Such sophistic language compromises the report’s description of EITs. The techniques cited––threats, sleep deprivation, “physical assault,” stripping detainees naked, putting them in “stress positions”––are all obviously frightening and painful. But they are not “torture” under U.S. law. Nor is waterboarding, Exhibit A in the left’s indictment of U.S. heinous behavior. That’s why Feinstein slyly says that EITs “amount” to torture rather than explicitly calling them torture, and why she cites international conventions on torture rather than the U.S. law.

Just consult the statute covering torture in the U.S. Code, which defines it as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control,” and further clarifies “severe mental pain or suffering” as “the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from . . . the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering.” The key words are “intended” and “severe.” As Marc Thiessen concluded in his analysis of the EITs and their legality, “The fact is, none of the techniques used by the CIA meet the standard of torture in U.S. law. This is for two reasons: because the CIA interrogators did not specifically intend to inflict severe pain and suffering; second, because they did not in fact inflict severe pain and suffering.” And in 2009 Attorney General Eric Holder agreed, when he testified before Congress that waterboarding U.S. military personnel as part of their training was not torture: “It’s not torture in the legal sense because you’re not doing it with the intention of harming these people physically or mentally.”

This simple legal reality is why Feinstein in her statement depends on imprecise adjectives like “visceral,” “ugly,” “brutal,” and “harsh”––to create a cloud of emotion that hides the fact that EITs were not illegal and were not torture. Furthermore, if Feinstein and other critics think this point is a sophistic evasion and that these techniques are torture, then they should call on Congress to change the law rather than rewriting history to suggest that the CIA did something illegal.

But fact and reality are not as important as politics and the leftist melodrama of America’s historical crimes. Thus Feinstein said her report reveals behavior that is “a stain on our values and on our history,” and Senator John McCain said they are violations of our “ideals.” So just how is attempting to keep America safe by interrogating terrorists according to the law, with doctors and psychologists present to monitor the terrorist’s well being, a “stain”? In the real world beyond our borders, genuine torture is used daily without the sort of legal limits or oversight imposed on our interrogators. And most of the time, the torture is not used to gain life-saving information, but to punish political enemies, terrorize political opponents, or just indulge sadistic cruelty. That is a real “stain.”

As for our “ideals,” such a low bar for indictment as waterboarding––which killed no one, and which several journalists volunteered to undergo––means, as Max Boot has suggested, that the Allied strategic bombing of Germany and Japan, which killed 650,000 to a million civilians with high explosives, nuclear bombs, and incendiaries, was an even grosser and more heinous “stain” on our “ideals” than sleep deprivation and scary threats. Where was the investigation of strategic bombing after World War II, or the pontifications on the Senate floor of how we Americans were “better” than such practices? Are we now just morally superior to those Americans who accepted the “awful arithmetic” and defeated 2 racist, brutal, totalitarian regimes? Or how about Obama’s droning to death over 3600 terrorists, including nearly 500 civilians, actions not subject to the legal review the EITs were? Dead terrorists are bad sources of intelligence of the sort gleaned by using EITs. Will we see a future investigation that condemns these drone executions as a “stain on our values and history” and “ideals”? It seems that “values” and “history” are defined by which party is in control of the government and stands to benefit politically by pointing out how they’ve been defiled.

But apart from politics, this report and its rollout are just another act in the progressive melodrama of America’s sin and guilt for crimes committed when morally superior liberals aren’t running the show. And exhibit number 1 for progressives of a certain age is the Vietnam War. That’s why the conflict in Iraq was shoehorned into the Vietnam paradigm as soon as ambitious Democrats like Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and John Kerry, who had all voted for the war, began noticing the traction Howard Dean was gaining from opposing the war.

Thus the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing the escalation of the war in Vietnam found its parallel in Bush’s alleged “lies” and “false intelligence” about Hussein’s WMDs (“Bush lied, millions died!”). The charge that Vietnam was benefitting the “military-industrial complex” and its lust for profits and resources was duplicated in allegations that the Halliburton Corporation and Dick Cheney were really after Iraq’s oil (“No blood for oil!”). Anti-war critics like I.F. Stone and the Berrigan brothers were reincarnated as the buffoonish Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky. The anti-war movement of the Vietnam era reappeared as International ANSWER, Code Pink, and various other outfits protesting the war in Iraq. Clichés like “escalation” and “quagmire” resurfaced in media commentary, and atrocities like My Lai were searched for in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

And don’t forget the investigative assault on the CIA by Senator Frank Church’s committee following the 1975 North Vietnamese victory in Vietnam, a report that weakened the CIA and compromised its effectiveness in ways that helped pave the way for the 9/11 attacks. Now it finds a new iteration in the Senate Intelligence Committee report and the dishonest media coverage besmirching the CIA. The immediate result has been to endanger our agents and intelligence assets abroad.  It still waits to be seen how much damage will ensue to the morale and future practice of the brave men and women who try to keep us safe.


Bruce Thornton is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, a Research Fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, and a Professor of Classics and Humanities at the California State University. He is the author of nine books and numerous essays on classical culture and its influence on Western Civilization. His most recent book, Democracy's Dangers and Discontents (Hoover Institution Press), is now available for purchase.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/bruce-thornton/back-in-saigon-the-senate-intelligence-committee-report-2/

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

Bennett Fires Back at Nasty Pundit, Warns Leftist Elites - Gil Ronen

by Gil Ronen

Nahum Barne’a says Jewish Home voters are ‘xenophobes, benighted slaves to racist rabbis.’ Bennett says old elites are on their way out.

Naftali Bennett

Noam Revkin Fenton/Flash 90  

 

Economics Minister and Jewish Home Chairman Naftali Bennett fired back Saturday evening at veteran reporter Nahum Barne’a of Yediot Aharonot, after Barne’a used nasty language to describe Jewish Home’s religious-Zionist constituency.

Barne’a called Jewish Home “xenophobes, benighted slaves to rabbis tainted with racism, religious fanaticism and nationalism, who squeeze out money from the teats of the government.”

“Nahum Barne’a, you should be a ashamed of yourself,” Bennett wrote on Facebook. “Let’s say this clearly for once. Mr. Barne’a and all those who think like you do (and your numbers are dwindling): your time is over. The incitement without response is over. It will not continue.

“The country that you know — in which the media, legal and academic elites belong to one side of the political map, the ultra-radical left — this nation has sobered up. The time in which you could spit out words of incitement in the newspaper and no one will reply is over. We will not remain silent, we are not ashamed, we have no feelings of inferiority. On the contrary.”    

“We have decided to raise our head in pride over who we are: people who love the nation, the Torah, the land,” he added. “We’ve decided to lift up the heads of all of the people in the country: to stop being on the defensive, to stop grovelling before our enemies, to stop remaining silent in the foreign press or in conferences in the US, respectable as they may be.”

“What were you thinking when you wrote that hate article? How are we any less good than you, Mr. Barne’a? Have we not sacrificed enough people for defense of the state to be accepted into the club?”

“Are we less educated? Are we less Israeli? What were you thinking, for G-d’s sake, when you sat down and called my voters ‘benighted xenophobes’?…You must have fallen asleep at the keyboard, and that is what came out,” wrote Bennett. “Shame on you.”

Last week, Barne’a published a rare apology for ascribing to MK Ayelet Shaked (Jewish Home) a statement according to which she intends to take over the justice minister and “destroy” its current heads. He admitted that the statement was never uttered by Shaked. 


Gil Ronen

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/188602#.VI2Tj3uzchR

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

Kurdistan: Waiting to Be Born - Lawrence A. Franklin

by Lawrence A. Franklin

The regimes of Turkey, Iran, and Syria all have large Kurdish minorities, and apparently do not want Kurds within their states to seek either autonomy or union within an independent Iraqi Kurdistan, and view an independent Kurdistan as both diluting regional powers and as a possible ally for Israel

ERBIL — There is a sense of unity throughout Iraqi Kurdistan. The two political rivals, which have controlled Kurdistan's politics for decades, appear to have "buried the hatchet" deep enough to withstand any continuing differences over policy and tribal interests. The Kurdistan Democratic Party [KDP], which represents the Barzani Clan, and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan [PUK], which represents the Talabani Clan, remain well represented in the parliament with the KDP controlling 38 out of 111 seats and the PUK 18.[1]

The Kurdistan Regional Government parliament chamber in Erbil. (Image source: KRG)

There is little public mention of this past rivalry; here, clan-centered local politics seems to have been replaced by a grander vision of a future independent Republic of Kurdistan. The only major decision regarding this future development is the question of the proper timing for the declaration. There are, however, a few variables that may delay the birth of this new, non-Arab state in the Middle East.

One variable is the fate of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant [ISIL]. The Kurds appear to have regained their self-confidence after a late-summer scare when ISIL forces inflicted a series of defeats on Kurdistan's peshmerga troops. American bombing raids, Iranian Qods Force volunteers, and pro-Iranian Shia militia helped stabilize the military landscape even as Western investors fled the region.

Another variable is U.S. State Department pressure on the Kurds to remain within the Iraqi state. It appears that economic reality combined with American persuasion have succeeded in postponing the birth of the Kurdish nation-state.[2]

Still another variable is a political reality: it seems that none of Kurdistan's neighbors wants to see an independent Republic of Kurdistan. This opposition is based on domestic and foreign policy realities. The regimes of Turkey, Iran, and Syria, for instance, which all have large Kurdish minorities,[3] apparently do not want Kurdish irredentists within their states to seek either autonomy or union within an independent Iraqi Kurdistan, and view an independent Kurdistan as both diluting regional powers and as a possible ally for Israel.[4]

As the former Minister for Human Rights of the Kurdistan Regional Government [KRG], Mohammad Ihsan, declared in an interview, "One thing for certain is that the Kurds of Iraq will never again allow themselves to be ruled by Arabs, be they Sunni or Shia."[5] A member of parliament from the Kurdish Governorate of Dohuk, Dr. Renaas, who has responsibility for the Kurdistan Regional Government's relations with Turkey and the United States, asserted in another interview that "the Kurds are determined to avoid mistakes of the past, when they allowed themselves to be duped by the promises of great powers." [6]

Kurds are conscious and proud of Kurdistan's role in today's Middle East -- on the front line of civilization -- in the battle against Islamist barbarism and chaos displayed by the ISIS juggernaut. Kurds also are embittered by Baghdad's decision to block arms deliveries to Kurdistan during the height of the peshmerga's fight against ISIL this past summer.[7] Kurdish flags are omnipresent. Few Iraqi flags dot the cities and villages of Kurdistan; Kurdish is the public and private language of all. Arabic is rarely spoken. There will be no going back to Baghdad. Kurdistan is waiting to be born.

Dr. Lawrence A. Franklin served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he served as a Military Attaché to Israel.

---

[1] These statistics are based on the most recent parliamentary election of 21 September 2013.
[2] The December 2 oil-and-finance understanding reached between Erbil and Baghdad stipulates that the central government will sell 550,000 barrels of oil per day, which will include 300,000 barrels from Kurdish-controlled oil wells. Baghdad also promised to grant the Kurdistan Regional Government 17% of the natural budget. See Michael Knights, "Making the Iraqi Revenue Sharing Deal Work", Washington Institute for Near East Policy, December 3, 2014.
[3] About one-fifth of Turkey's population is Kurd, perhaps as many as 25 million people. In Iran and Syria, there are roughly five million Kurds with about four million in Iraqi Kurdistan.
[4] This is the general view of most of Iraqi Kurdistan's leading politicians, who remain distrustful of Arabs -- especially Sunni Arabs.
[5] Mohammad Ihsan in an 18 November interview in his cabinet office headquarters in Erbil.
[6] Renaas in conversation in his home, with leading Kurdistan cultural figures.
[7] Asad Ihsan, peshmerga veteran, in 20 November 2014 interview in Zakho, Kurdistan.


Lawrence A. Franklin served on active duty with the U.S. Army and as a Colonel in the Air Force Reserve, where he served as a Military Attaché to Israel.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4929/kurdistan-waiting-to-be-born

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

The Problem that is Also a Solution: Lebanese Fears Play into Hizbollah Hands - Omer Einav

by Omer Einav

It appeared that the prestige enjoyed by Hizbollah in the preceding decade, mainly due to its campaign against Israel in the 2006 Second Lebanon War, had dissipated, with the organization’s legitimacy undermined both inside and outside Lebanon. The principal charge was that Hizbollah’s actions would cause the Syrian civil war to spread to Lebanon.

In recent months there have been clear signs, along with much discussion in the public discourse, of Hizbollah’s legitimacy rebound in Lebanon’s political and civilian spheres. Given Lebanon’s delicate sectoral and community balance, any fluctuation in the public mood is likely to steer the entire country in general and Hizbollah in particular in a new direction, with potential changes in policy on a host of issues, including vis-à-vis Israel. 

Rumors that began to circulate in late 2011 regarding Hizbollah’s involvement in the Syrian civil war on the side of the Assad regime were denied by the organization. However, already then Hizbollah soldiers were likely involved in advising and assisting the regime’s forces, and were possibly already engaged in actual fighting as well. In 2013, Hizbollah’s actions in Syria came under public scrutiny with the admission by Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah that Hizbollah operatives were participating in the fighting. At the time, many in Lebanon regarded Hizbollah as a warmonger bringing disaster on the country, and the organization was subject to intense criticism by its opponents in Lebanon. On the international front, following the July 2012 terrorist attack on Israeli citizens in Burgas, Bulgaria, the European Union classified the military wing of Hizbollah as a terrorist organization, and the UN Special Tribunal for Lebanon investigating the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri focused on Hizbollah as the principal suspect. It appeared that the prestige enjoyed by Hizbollah in the preceding decade, mainly due to its campaign against Israel in the 2006 Second Lebanon War, had dissipated, with the organization’s legitimacy undermined both inside and outside Lebanon. The principal charge was that Hizbollah’s actions would cause the Syrian civil war to spread to Lebanon.

Over time, Hizbollah began to see successes on the Syrian battlefield. In May-June 2013, about a month after Nasrallah first publicly admitted that the organization was operating in Syria, Hizbollah, together with Assad’s forces, scored a victory against the rebels in al-Qusayr in the Homs district, a strategically important location. This victory strengthened the Iranian-Syrian axis fighting to preserve the regime, whose forces had been hit hard by the rebels in the months preceding the battle. Hizbollah also took part in the fighting in the Qalamoun Mountains, in Damascus, and on other fronts, achieving much while garnering prestige and military experience. These and other operational successes helped Shiites on Syrian soil stand tall, which in effect give Hizbollah a symbolic achievement.

Nonetheless, Hizbollah’s leadership was hard pressed to persuade the Lebanese public that the organizational and military benefits of fighting in Syria were necessary for the country’s security – until unexpected help came in the form of Salafi Sunni Islam. Under direct influence from Syria, where the civilian rebellion began to assume a Salafi-jihadi tone and diverge from the more moderate tendencies, many supporters of Sunni terrorist organizations operating in Syria began to appear in Lebanon. This phenomenon was especially pronounced in the refugee camps in northern and southern Lebanon and in Tripoli, where strife was rampant. Against this background, Lebanon experienced a series of severe security-related developments, including car bomb attacks, which aroused much anxiety in Beirut. The atmosphere intensified with the emergence of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) in the summer of 2014, whose extreme jihadist ideology won many admirers among the Sunni population in Lebanon, combined with growing sympathy for the Jabhat al-Nusra organization – the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda.

The kidnapping of Lebanese security personnel in the border town of Arsal in August 2014 – an incident that has not yet been concluded – and the conflicts in Tripoli in October clearly highlight the challenge facing Lebanon. The border with Syria has become a porous area marked by anarchy. Salafi Islam has asserted its power, and is threatening to subvert the political order at a time that the Lebanese political system is essentially paralyzed by its lack of a president and the lack of a parliament in session. This governmental vacuum suits Hizbollah well. Moreover, Lebanon’s army is trying to portray itself as the country’s defender and a unifying force, although it has never been capable of standing up to the challenging array of threats facing the country, and certainly not on this scale. 

On the other hand, Hizbollah is standing steadfast against the external threat. Ironically, Hizbollah played a role in creating this threat, yet has since become the most effective means of dealing with it. For example, Hizbollah is a mediator in the negotiations with the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra for release of hostages, and has helped restore quiet to Tripoli, at least temporarily. In their despair, more than a few Lebanese are looking to Hizbollah to rescue the country from the dangers threatening to aggravate the already prevailing instability.

Fortified by this new backdrop, Hizbollah is openly demonstrating growing confidence, claiming that its contentions that it had a duty to intervene as Lebanon’s defender against external threats have been validated. Hizbollah continues to justify its fighting in Syria, while at the same time not neglecting its original purpose – defender of Lebanon and leader of the resistance (muqawama). In a speech in Beirut on Ashura Day on in early November 2014, Nasrallah stressed the importance of the fighting in Syria and defense against “takfiris” (a derogatory term for apostate used by Muslims, in this case against Salafi Islam organizations, especially the Islamic State).

At the same time, against the background of last summer’s escalation between Israel and Hamas and the increased tension in Jerusalem, Nasrallah unveiled his traditional perspective on the expected conflict with Israel. The clear message is that Hizbollah, together with the Lebanese defense forces, is part of Lebanon’s national defense. Senior Hizbollah official Nabil Qaouk said, “Thanks to the all-inclusive formula of the people, the army, and the resistance, Lebanon has become the most invulnerable country in the region to the two threats: the takfiri threat and the Israeli threat.” This rhetoric has been accompanied by a change in operational policy. In October 2014, Hizbollah staged an operation against IDF forces in Shab’a farms (Har Dov) – rare activity since the 2006 war. This measure does not indicate deliberate escalation, but it is a clear statement of intention on the organization’s part with respect to its capabilities. Perhaps the recent airstrikes – attributed to Israel – against the weapons stockpiles in Damascus will figure in Hizbollah’s strategic considerations that encourage escalation along the border with Israel.

Hizbollah’s experience echoes the processes occurring elsewhere in the Middle East. In both Syria and Iraq, the Alawite and Shiite regimes, respectively, were marked early in the confrontations as troublemakers that should be neutralized in order to restore quiet. Yet once a worse threat emerged, these regimes were no longer punching bags for either the local populations or the West, but became possible partners in blunting the threat, even if not publicly.

The situation in Lebanon, however, is distinguished in several ways from the events in the neighboring countries. At present it is not certain that Hizbollah is capable of drawing widespread support from the Lebanese public and political systems, and a great deal must occur before the organization can claim the victory it seeks. As of now, it can take comfort in the fact that given the immediate dangers facing Lebanon, many among the population regard Hizbollah as the most stable and reliable element. At the same time, it is difficult to assess whether Hizbollah is capable of moving another step forward toward the national consensus. One indication of this design could be its role in the effort to end the presidential crisis in Lebanon. In the near future, Hizbollah is scheduled to negotiate with its rival party, al-Mustaqbal, led by Saad al-Hariri, for the purpose of resolving the crisis and selecting a president acceptable to all factions. If Hizbollah’s candidate, former General Michel Aoun, is chosen, it will be a foothold for Hizbollah in the very heart of the Lebanese national consensus and will signify its return to the status of the unofficial defender of Lebanon. In turn, Hizbollah’s freedom of action, including on the border with Israel and in the Golan Heights, would be greater. Israel will then have to reexamine its assessment of the organization’s intentions and readiness for a military confrontation in the near future, and weigh how this escalation might best be prevented.


Omer Einav

Source: http://www.inss.org.il/index.aspx?id=4538&articleid=8363

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

Germans Rise Up Against Islamization - Soeren Kern

by Soeren Kern

There is a mounting public backlash over what many perceive as the government's indifference to the growing influence of Islam in German society. This backlash represents a potentially significant turning point.
Despite efforts by German politicians and the media to portray PEGIDA as neo-Nazi, the group has taken great pains to distance itself from Germany's extreme right. The group says that it is "apolitical" and that its main objective is to preserve what is left of Germany's Judeo-Christian culture and values.
"Many people in Germany have legitimate concerns about the spread of radical Islamic ideology, which promotes violence against non-Muslims, robs women and girls of their natural rights, and seeks to require the application of Sharia law.... Because the rule of law, tolerance and freedom of religion are fundamental Western values, the PEGIDA movement must leave no doubt that it is precisely these values that it seeks to defend." — Bernd Lucke, leader, Alternative for Germany Party and professor of macroeconomics, Hamburg University.

Thousands of German citizens have been taking to the streets to protest the growing "Islamization" of their country.

The protests are part of a burgeoning grassroots movement made up of ordinary citizens who are calling for an end to runaway immigration and the spread of Islamic Sharia law in Germany.

The guardians of German multiculturalism are fighting back: they are seeking to delegitimize the protesters by branding them as "neo-Nazis" and by claiming that the Islamization of Germany is a myth contrived by misinformed citizens.

But there is a mounting public backlash over what many perceive as the government's indifference to the growing influence of Islam in German society. This backlash represents a potentially significant turning point—one that implies that the days of unrestrained German multiculturalism may be coming to an end.

The latest protest took place in the eastern German city of Dresden on December 8, when more than 10,000 people defied freezing temperatures to express their displeasure with Germany's lenient asylum policies.

Germany—which is facing an unprecedented influx of asylum seekers, including many from Muslim countries—is now the second most popular destination in the world for migrants, after the United States.

The Dresden protest was organized by a new citizens initiative, "Patriotic Europeans against the Islamization of the West," better known by its German abbreviation, PEGIDA, short for "Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes."

PEGIDA, which has been organizing so-called "evening walks" (Abendspaziergang) through downtown Dresden every Monday evening since October, has seen the number of protesters increase exponentially from week to week.

PEGIDA on a Monday "evening walk" in Dresden, November 10, 2014. (Image source: Filmproduktionen video screenshot)

Similar anti-Islamization protests have been held in the western German cities of Hannover, Kassel and Düsseldorf, where 400 people showed up on December 8 for demonstration organized by a PEGIDA offshoot, named DÜGIDA.

These protests are similar to, but separate from, other mass demonstrations organized in Cologne and other German cities by a group called Hooligans against Salafists, or HoGeSa.

PEGIDA was launched by Lutz Bachmann, a 41-year-old Dresden native with no background in politics, after government officials in the eastern German state of Saxony announced that they would be opening more than a dozen new shelters to house some 2,000 refugees.

Bachmann says that he is not opposed to legitimate asylum seekers, but that he is against so-called economic refugees who are taking advantage of Germany's generous asylum laws in order to benefit from the country's cradle-to-grave social welfare system. According to Bachmann, most of the asylum seekers in Saxony are males who have left their families behind in war-torn Muslim countries.

Despite efforts by German politicians and the media to portray PEGIDA as neo-Nazi, the group has taken great pains to distance itself from Germany's extreme right. PEGIDA's motto is "We are the people!" (Wir sind das Volk!), the same slogan used by East Germans to bring down the Berlin Wall in 1989. The group says that it is "apolitical" and that its main objective is to preserve what is left of Germany's Judeo-Christian culture and values.

Ahead of the march on December 8, PEGIDA posted the following call to action:

"Dear friends, dear fellow citizens, dear patriots! Monday is PEGIDA Day and today too we want to show that we are peaceful. Bring your friends and neighbors and let us show the counter-demonstrators that we are not xenophobic."

Placards displayed by protesters in Dresden included slogans such as "Against Religious Fanaticism," "United against a Holy War on German Soil," "Homeland Security Rather than Islamization," and "For the Future of our Children." There was no visible sign of neo-Nazi propaganda at the event.

On December 10, PEGIDA published a "Position Paper" outlining what the group is "for" and "against" in 19 bullet points. These include:

• "1. PEGIDA is FOR the acceptance of asylum seekers from war zones, or those who are subject to political and religious persecution. This is a human duty!"
• "2. PEGIDA is FOR amending the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany to include a list of the right and the responsibility for immigrants to integrate."
• "9. PEGIDA is FOR a zero-tolerance policy vis-à-vis asylum seekers and migrants who commit crimes in Germany."
• "13. PEGIDA is FOR maintaining and protecting our Judeo-Christian Western culture."
• "16. PEGIDA is AGAINST the establishment of parallel societies/parallel legal systems in our midst, such as Sharia Law, Sharia Police, and Sharia Courts, etc."
• "18. PEGIDA is AGAINST religious radicalism, regardless of whether it is religiously or politically motivated."
• "19. PEGIDA is AGAINST hate preachers, regardless of religious affiliation."

In a classic case of shooting the messenger rather than heeding the message, German politicians have dismissed PEGIDA protesters as ignorant and racist.

German Interior Minister Thomas de Maizière characterized PEGIDA as "shameless," adding: "We have no danger of Islamization, certainly not in Saxony or Dresden with 2.2% immigrant population."

In an interview with the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, Justice Minister Heiko Maas said:

"There are limits to the political battle of ideas. All political parties should clearly distance themselves from these protests. We cannot be silent if a xenophobic atmosphere is being built on the backs of people who have lost everything and come to us for help: We have to be clear that the demonstrators are not the majority."

A politician with the ruling Christian Democratic Union [CDU], Wolfgang Bosbach, warned that the protests represented the "anchoring of radical views in the heart of society."

But Bachmann says the protests will continue until there are changes to Germany's asylum policies. "We do not want to launch a political party or start a revolution," he said. "But we need to talk openly about the asylum issue."

Meanwhile, the Christian Social Union [CSU], the Bavarian partner of Chancellor Angela Merkel's CDU, has watered down a demand that migrants settling in Germany on a permanent basis should speak German at home.

The "politically incorrect" proposal appeared in a draft policy paper on December 7. Following an outcry, the proposal was quickly amended to read that migrants who want to live in Germany permanently should be "motivated," rather than "obliged," to speak German "in daily life," rather than "in public and within the family."

In October, it emerged that so many asylum seekers were converging on Bavaria that they needed to be housed in tents normally used for the annual Oktoberfest.

In September, the governor of Bavaria and leader of the CSU party, Horst Seehofer, called for the return of border controls with Austria to stem the tide of refugees seeking asylum in Germany.

The Schengen Agreement, which entered into effect in 1995, abolished internal borders within the European Union, enabling passport-free movement between most countries within the bloc.

Although international law holds that migrants are supposed to claim asylum in the first country they reach, many are taking advantage of Europe's open borders to claim asylum in Germany after first passing through Italy and Austria.

Seehofer also lashed out at Italian authorities, who he said are not doing enough to stop the flow of migrants entering the EU through Italy, after crossing the Mediterranean Sea from Africa. In an interview, he said:

"Italy is in clear violation of the Schengen accords. If this does not stop, Germany has seriously to consider stopping this violation via border controls. We must set quotas for refugees in Europe. And we have to deal with the fact that refugees need to be shared out among EU members fairly."

Bavarian officials estimate that at least 33,000 asylum seekers have arrived in the state during 2014, twice the number of arrivals registered in 2013.

In an effort to stem the flow of asylum seekers, the CSU has demanded that the central government begin cracking down on so-called welfare tourism. The CSU is concerned that the problem of runaway immigration is prompting traditional supporters of the party to defect to the Alternative for Germany (AfD), an upstart political party formed in 2013.

The AfD—which wants Germany to leave the euro single currency and promotes a tough line on immigration—received 4.7% of the vote in the September 2013 federal election, narrowly failing to reach the 5% threshold needed for representation in Germany's national parliament.

Since then, support for the AfD has surged. The party has extended its gains in regional elections, and also won nine seats in European Parliament elections in May 2014. A poll published in September 2014 found that one in ten German voters now support the AfD.

Germany's political establishment has worked hard to discredit the AfD. But if the party continues to siphon voters away from the mainstream parties, the AfD will be in a position to influence the debate over the future of German multiculturalism.

The AfD has already come out in support of the PEGIDA protests in Dresden. AfD spokesman Konrad Adam said the party has a "fundamental sympathy for the PEGIDA movement."

AfD leader Bernd Lucke, a professor of macroeconomics at Hamburg University, summed it up this way:

"Many people in Germany have legitimate concerns about the spread of radical Islamic ideology, which promotes violence against non-Muslims, robs women and girls of their natural rights, and seeks to require the application of Sharia law. That citizens are expressing these concerns in nonviolent demonstrations is good and right. It is a sign that these people do not feel that their concerns are being taken seriously by politicians. It is an incentive for all politicians to act more decisively at a time when political Islam is challenging and calling into question our rule of law.
"That PEGIDA protesters have advertised their goals in an exclusively peaceful manner is to be welcomed. Because the rule of law, tolerance and freedom of religion are fundamental Western values, the PEGIDA movement must leave no doubt that it is precisely these values that it seeks to defend."

Soeren Kern is a Senior Fellow at the New York-based Gatestone Institute. He is also Senior Fellow for European Politics at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/4951/germans-islamization-pegida

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

Lena Dunham, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder and the New Barbarism - Bill Whittle

by Bill Whittle





Bill Whittle

Source: http://www.truthrevolt.org/videos/bill-whittle-lena-dunham-al-sharpton-eric-holder-and-new-barbarism

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

Unrewarded Valor - Russ Vaughn

by Russ Vaughn

An interesting aspect of this issue is the absence of support from the Congressional Black Caucus. Why are they missing in action? Are they too busy pontificating and demonstrating on behalf of dubious heroes to convene their members in the office of the Secretary of Defense and demand action on behalf of a genuine hero

At a time of so much racial strife and discord, we should never lose sight of the fact that our military forces were the first, and remain the best, example of a fully integrated America. Yes there are problems from time to time, but there are few other places in our society where blacks, whites and Hispanics have learned to live and work together with a common mission as in our military. And that is an example that we seldom hear about from our media.

Instead we are treated by our sensationalist media to endless examples of lawlessness in black communities and the vitriol of the race-baiters like Farrakhan, vowing “We’ll tear this go**amn country up!” and unending charges of racism leveled against whites who question the values of black culture. However, we all, black, white, brown and whatever, should keep in mind the reality that we have family members out there serving shoulder to shoulder around this world, with some of them dying in the process.

Such is the case of Sergeant First Class Alwyn C. Cashe, who, on October 17, 2005, sacrificed his life to save those of the troops in his care. With his unit under enemy fire, SFC Cashe, his uniform soaked with fuel from a roadside explosion which ruptured the fuel tank of his Bradley Fighting Vehicle and set it afire, repeatedly entered the fiery interior to rescue his men who were trapped inside. Even with his uniform burned away and his flesh ablaze, SFC Cashe managed to pull six soldiers from the flaming interior. Four of them later succumbed to their burn wounds as did, some three weeks later, SFC Cashe.

For his incredibly selfless valor, SFC Cashe was awarded the Silver Star, an award that seems to many of us in the military and veteran communities, insufficient to the events of that terrible day. Colonels have been known to be awarded the Silver Star for monitoring and directing ground combat from the relative comfort of an overhead helicopter. I would wager that among all warriors, soldiers, sailors, aviators, etc., fear of death by burning or being horribly injured and disfigured by fire is greater than any other dread associated with combat. Yet SFC Cashe overcame that fundamental fear and charged directly into the flames repeatedly to save his young soldiers. A Silver Star seems a bit inadequate to reward that level of courage and self-sacrifice.

Among those who feel that Cashe’s bravery deserves more is the officer who was his battalion commander at the time, now Brigadier General, Gary Brito. According to this account in the LA Times, then Lieutenant Colonel Brito, was unaware of the full extent of Cashe’s actions because those soldiers immediately involved were too seriously wounded to provide many details and soon most would die from their injuries. And more so than for any other combat valor award, detailed documentation and corroboration are required for the Medal of Honor.

However, one of the two survivors and an eyewitness, now retired Army Sergeant Gary Mills, who was himself pulled from the burning vehicle by SFC Cashe, says there is no doubt in his mind that Cashe’s gallant actions warrant the highest award for valor and sacrifice. BG Brito, SGT Mills and Cashe’s sister, Kasinal Cashe White have been conducting a campaign for several years but the Obama Department of Defense seems unable or unwilling to do the right thing despite support for the award from multiple general officers.

One of the phrases frequently found in citations that accompany awards for valor, particularly those awarded posthumously, is “with selfless concern for his fellow soldiers and complete disregard for his own safety,” and a wonderful example of how deeply imbued that trait was in SFC Cashe is revealed in the Times article:

Cashe's sister, Kasinal Cashe White, spent three weeks at her brother's bedside at a military hospital in Texas as doctors treated his extensive burns.
She knew nothing of his actions during the bomb attack until a nurse asked her, "You know your brother's a hero, don't you?"
When Cashe was able to speak, White said, his first words were: "How are my boys?" — his soldiers, she said. Then he began weeping, she said. He told her: "I couldn't get to them fast enough."
Cashe died Nov. 8, 2005.
"My little brother lived by the code that you never leave your soldiers behind," White said. "That wasn't just something from a movie. He lived it." White says her family hopes Cashe is awarded the medal while his mother, who is 89, is still alive.

“How are my boys?” I have to tell you that this old former combat infantryman choked up on reading that account for the first time. Enduring unbelievable pain and suffering from a horribly burned body for three weeks, SFC Cashe’s first conscious words were of concern for his troops. I don’t know if that quote can be included in a Medal of Honor citation but it damned well should be. It should also be inscribed above the command entrance of every NCO academy in the United States Army.

An interesting aspect of this issue is the absence of support from the Congressional Black Caucus. Why are they missing in action? Are they too busy pontificating and demonstrating on behalf of dubious heroes to convene their members in the office of the Secretary of Defense and demand action on behalf of a genuine hero, of whom all of America, black and white, can be unified in their pride and admiration? They should pause the racial grandstanding long enough to secure a richly deserved Medal of Honor for SFC Cashe. Perhaps then his elderly mother can be brought to the White House for the presentation of the medal so that she can then go to her grave knowing her son’s valor and sacrifice have finally been recognized and rewarded by a genuinely grateful nation.

Readers might want to contact their own senators and congressmen just in case the Black Caucus is too busy supporting misguided demonstrations to fight for this gallant warrior. Arkansas Senator-elect Tom Cotton’s office has communicated to me that they will pursue the matter after he is sworn in, but the more representatives and senators pursuing the matter, the better.  

Russ Vaughn

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/12/unrewarded_valor.html

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