Sunday, March 8, 2015

Illusions and Delusions of Michael Oren in the WSJ - David Bedein



by David Bedein


Oren has yet to provide a clear analysis of the implications of this failed policy, which exposed half of Israel to aerial attacks from Gaza, and which removed the option of Israeli army patrols of Gaza, thus allowing the buildup of a rocket and missile arsenal that could reach Tel Aviv. The IDF now does these patrols routinely in Judea and Samaria - and that is the reason for the relative quiet and the lack of missiles launched from that area. It's not for want of their trying.
Michael Oren​, an American born Israeli academic and former Israel ambassador to the US, is now running for the Knesset on the ticket of a small political party.
 
During his political campaign, Oren has positioned himself as a specialist in diplomatic matters.

Yet Oren’s perspective on developing events seems to lack a grasp of reality.

​In Oren’s recent piece, ​"The Case For a ‘Two state situation'", published in the Wall Street Journal on February 26, 2015*, th​e new Israeli politician’s “new approach” ​is shown to be filled with illusions and delusions.

Oren incorrectly writes that “Israeli soldiers don’t patrol the major Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Jenin, Jericho and Bethlehem, and are largely absent from other towns” .

​​Oren ​neglects to report that ever since the Israel Defense Forces “Operation Defensive Shield” in April 2002, Israeli forces are strategically deployed in and around all Palestinian population centers, to prevent Palestinian incursions and mortar attacks into Israeli cities from Judea or Samaria.

​Oren ​neglects to report ​that ​every night, the IDF patrols Arab villages, without fan fare or great publicity.

​ ​Oren neglects to report​ that If the Palestinian Authority were to achieve independence, the IDF would not be able to conduct daily patrols in and around Palestinian population centers.

Oren ​neglects to report why Palestinians stopped firing from Beit Jalla (near Bethlehem) in the direction of Gilo, the southernmost neighborhood of Jerusalem​: Simply put, IDF quietly patrols Beit Jalla ​to prevent these attacks.

Oren gives Palestinians credit for stemming a third intifada, instead of giving credit to the tenacity of the IDF, which is the only entity that fights potential Palestinian terror bases,
Another illusion advanced by Oren is that “foreign governments and nongovernmental organizations could upgrade their efforts to create democratic institutions within the de facto Palestinian state”.

Oren is oblivious to the fact that during 20 years of nurturing a Palestinian entity, both foreign governments and NGO’s have fostered totalitarian Palestinian institutions, ignoring pleas of Palestinian dissidents for any semblance of democracy.

Oren envisions building "tunnels and overpasses that can be built to further facilitate free movement”, without noting that the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have prepared their population for war, as evidenced by the new joint school books used by PA, Hamas and UNRWA schools which imbue “values” of Matryrdom, Jihad, the Right of Return and the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine into the new Palestinian curriculum.

Oren says that Israel will “minimize its interference in the lives of the more than 2.5 million Palestinians on the West Bank”.

Does Oren really mean that Israel should allow THE Palestinian education system to continue its increasing incitement to war?

Last but not least, Oren seems disconnected from Israeli reality.

Oren says that Israel should “restrict its building to the major West Bank settlement blocs in Judea and Samaria and to the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem”.

Does that mean that Oren, if he serves the Israeli government, will not allow outlying Jewish communities to construct housing for young couples, or health, education or welfare agencies to serve their population?

In August, 2005, Michael Oren participated as an Israeli army officer in the expulsion of the Jewish population of the 21 thriving Katif communities near Gaza and the IDF retreat from Gaza.

Oren has yet to provide a clear analysis of the implications of this failed policy, which exposed half of Israel to aerial attacks from Gaza, and which removed the option of Israeli army patrols of Gaza, thus allowing the buildup of a rocket and missile arsenal that could reach Tel Aviv. The IDF now does these patrols routinely in Judea and Samaria - and that is the reason for the relative quiet and the lack of missiles launched from that area. It's not for want of their trying.

Oren should address the subject: What would happen if Israel were to stop its army patrols of Palestinian cities, if the Palestinian Arabs were to gain sovereignty?


David Bedein is the director of the Israel Resource News Agency & The Center for Near East Policy Research Ltd. His website is www.IsraelBehindTheNews.com

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/16600#.VPxhxuGzd-8

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

Cruz cites political motivations in prosecution of Menendez - Rick Moran



by Rick Moran


"I will point out that the timing seems awfully coincidental that … in the very week that Bob Menendez showed incredible courage to speak out and call out President Obama for the damage that his policy is doing to our national security … the Justice Department announces they’re moving forward with the criminal prosecution,” Cruz said.

Senator Ted Cruz told reporters at the Iowa Ag Summit that he believes the prosecution of New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez is politically motivated and that the White House is punishing Menendez for speaking against the Iran nuke treaty.

The Hill:
“The announcement this week by the Justice Department that they were bringing charges against Bob Menendez — I will point out that the timing seems awfully coincidental that … in the very week that Bob Menendez showed incredible courage to speak out and call out President Obama for the damage that his policy is doing to our national security … the Justice Department announces they’re moving forward with the criminal prosecution,” Cruz said.
 
“It raises the suggestion to other Democrats that if you dare part from the Obama White House, that criminal prosecutions will be used potentially as a political weapon against you as well,” he added.
 
Menendez has been a vocal critic of the White House as the Obama administration has sought to wrap up delicate talks with Iranian leaders over the future of their nuclear program.
 
The issue came to a head on Capitol Hill last week when Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu rebuked the Obama administration in front of Congress for its strategy on Iran.
 
On Friday, news broke that the Justice Department was preparing to bring criminal charges against Menendez.
 
“The timing is curious,” Cruz continued. “This investigation has been going on for over a year and yet the very week they announce a pending indictment comes within hours after Sen. Menendez showing courage to speak out against President Obama’s dangerous foreign policy that is risking the national security of this country.”
Few would argue this White House is incapable of such an action, but the Senator should be a little more sure of his facts before making such a serious charge.
 
The Justice Department did not announce the imminent indictment of Menendez. CNN broke the story on Friday, using an anonymous source in the Justice Department. Same thing? A very real possibility, but we just don't know.
 
And while questioning the timing of the news, it's well to remember that the investigation goes back more than a year - as Cruz claims. In fact, the initial probe into Menendez's activities goes back to 2012, and involves a shady pay for play arrangement the Senator had with a Miami doctor.
 
A major reason the indictment is being handed down now is that the statutue of limitations is attached to some of the charges. Also, the Senator himself has not tried to tie the charges to his opposition to the Obama administration's Iran negotiations or their policy on Cuba. Perhaps he's saving that charge for later, but it's curious that the "victim" in this supposed politically motivated prosection wouldn't be shouting his suspicions to the heavens.
 
So while Cruz states the case for a politically motivated prosecution, the facts suggest coincidence. You can't dismiss the notion entirely, but unless information surfaces to the contrary, it appears that the prosection is more about a crooked Senator than a brave opponent of Obama's policies.



Rick Moran

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/03/cruz_cites_political_motivations_in_prosecution_of_menendez.html

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

'Netanyahu never agreed to '67 borders or division of Jerusalem' - Dudi Caspi, Shlomo Cesana and Gadi Golan



by Dudi Caspi, Shlomo Cesana and Gadi Golan

Dennis Ross, who mediated peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, responds to Yedioth Ahronoth report suggesting PM Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to dramatic concessions • Netanyahu: Report is a pile of nonsense orchestrated by Noni Mozes.


Former Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiator Dennis Ross
|
Photo credit: Dudi Vaaknin


Dudi Caspi, Shlomo Cesana and Gadi Golan

Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=24005

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

The ‘Islamophobia’ Scam Returns - Robert Spencer



by Robert Spencer

CAP is trying to compel non-Muslims to disregard what they see every day — Muslims committing violence against non-Muslims and justifying it by referring to Islamic texts — and instead embrace a fictional construct: Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance. This takes a relentless barrage of propaganda, and “Fear, Inc. 2.0” is just the latest in a steady stream from CAP and its allies, which are exponentially wealthier and better-funded than the groups CAP vilifies in this report


LEISURE USA In recent weeks, the terror group calling itself the Islamic State (aka ISIS and ISIL) has beheaded journalists and social workers, burned a pilot alive, and forced hundreds of captive women into sex slavery – all while citing Islamic texts to justify their actions and appeal for new recruits. A Muslim in the latest Islamic State beheading video cited two Qur’an verses (8:12 and 47:4) to refute “those who say [beheading] is cruel.” In New York Wednesday, a Muslim was found guilty of plotting to bomb the New York subway system. The previous day in London, a woman from Nigeria pleaded for asylum, as she faces certain death if she returns to her homeland: an Islamic court has sentenced her to die for being lesbian.

All this and a great deal more like it – a daily horror show of jihad attacks and plots, boasts of coming catastrophic attacks in the West, declarations of imminent conquest, and more, all carried out by people claiming to represent the truest and purest form of Islam  is why, according to a poll released last summer, only twenty-seven percent of Americans have a favorable view of Muslims. Yet as far as the hard-Left Center for American Progress (CAP) is concerned, people aren’t suspicious of Muslims and Islam because of jihad terror and Islamic supremacism, but because of “the efforts of a small cadre of funders and misinformation experts” which were amplified by an echo chamber of the religious right, conservative media, grassroots organizations, and politicians who sought to introduce a fringe perspective on American Muslims into the public discourse.”

This claim appears in the CAP’s new edition of its “Islamophobia” reportFear, Inc. 2.0: The Islamophobia Network’s Efforts to Manufacture Hate in America,” by Matthew Duss, Yasmine Taeb, Ken Gude, and Ken Sofer. It might seem to be peculiarly tone-deaf of the CAP to release this report while the Islamic State is horrifying the world and attacks by lone jihadis (and regular threats that more are on the way) are becoming more frequent in the West, but that is most likely why they felt they had to release it now: with reality threatening to break through their fog of disinformation, they have to pour on more dry ice. 

It wasn’t accidental that Hitler’s Reich had an entire Ministry of Propaganda: lying to the public is a major job, as the cleverest of propaganda constructs is always threatened by the simple facts. CAP is trying to compel non-Muslims to disregard what they see every day — Muslims committing violence against non-Muslims and justifying it by referring to Islamic texts — and instead embrace a fictional construct: Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance. This takes a relentless barrage of propaganda, and “Fear, Inc. 2.0” is just the latest in a steady stream from CAP and its allies, which are exponentially wealthier and better-funded than the groups CAP vilifies in this report

“Fear, Inc. 2.0” is filled with assertions that white is black, and that your lying eyes are deceiving you. We’re told that I myself am “the primary driver in promoting the myth that peaceful Islam is nonexistent and that violent extremism is inherent within traditional Islam. CAP doesn’t offer any evidence for this being a “myth” – it doesn’t have to, as its Leftist constituency takes that as self-evident. 

But CAP flatters me, as it flatters all of us named in “Fear, Inc. 2.0,” simply by suggesting that we have such persuasive power that we can create a nationwide climate of hate and fear against MuslimsI cannot accept their proffered honor of being the “primary driver in promoting the myth that peaceful Islam is nonexistent.” Innumerable others have noted the same reality, including Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Assistant Professor on the Faculty of Shari’ah and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad. In his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, he quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “Muslim jurists agreed that the purpose of fighting with the People of the Book…is one of two things: it is either their conversion to Islam or the payment of jizyah.” Nyazee concludes: “This leaves no doubt that the primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad, and the option of poll-tax [jizya] is to be exercised only after subjugation” of non-Muslims.

But neither Nyazee nor Ibn Rushd are prominent enough to claim the role of “primary driver in promoting the myth that peaceful Islam is nonexistent.” How about the Ayatollah Khomeini, who said: “There are hundreds of other [Qur’anic] psalms and Hadiths [sayings of the Prophet] urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” Better yet, how about Muhammad himself, who is depicted in a hadith saying: “I have been commanded to fight against people, till they testify to the fact that there is no god but Allah, and believe in me (that) I am the messenger (from the Lord) and in all that I have brought.” (Bukhari 1.31)

Another “don’t believe your lying eyes” moment in “Fear, Inc. 2.0” occurs when the report charges the David Horowitz Freedom Center with promoting “the myth that Muslim extremists infiltrated an array of political organizations on both the left and the right. How about the White House? In December 2012, while the Muslim Brotherhood was still in power in Egypt, the Egyptian magazine Rose El-Youssef boasted that Brotherhood infiltrators in the Obama Administration had changed American policy “from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood.”

It may have been an empty boast, but that would be hard to prove in light of Barack Obama’s foreign policy. Similarly, the CAP report claims (quoting Nathan Brown, a George Washington University professor) that the notorious captured internal Muslim Brotherhood document detailing U.S. Muslim groups’ strategy to work toward “eliminating and destroying Western civilization from within, and sabotaging its miserable house” was “the daydream of one enthusiast.” Brown doesn’t explain why a copy of this “daydream” turned up in the offices of the Holy Land Foundation (once the largest Islamic charity in the United States, shut down for funding Hamas) years after it was first written, but an even more telling indication that Brown and CAP are the enthusiasts doing the daydreaming when they dismiss this report is the fact that the Council on American-Islamic Relations and other Muslim groups work indefatigably to oppose virtually every counter-terror measure that has ever been proposed or implemented. Stigmatizing defense against the jihad threat as “bigotry” isn’t trying to “sabotage its miserable house”? Pull my other leg.

I hope the next CAP report will focus on how the “Islamophobes” are so devastatingly effective that they have even been able to infiltrate mosques and Islamic schools, so as to convince young Muslims that the Islamic State is authentically Islamic and has a claim on their loyalties: over 20,000 foreign Muslims have now traveled from all over the world to join the Islamic State, indicating either that imams and other Muslim authorities are singularly failing to communicate to all too many young Muslims the true, peaceful Islam that CAP will charge you with “hatred” and “bigotry” for not believing exists, or that the “Islamophobes” have a reach far greater than Matthew Duss, Yasmine Taeb, Ken Gude, and Ken Sofer ever imagined even in their worst fever dreams.

I also hope that new CAP report will address motive. Nowhere does “Fear, Inc. 2.0” explain why these fiendish “Islamophobes” would care to devote their lives to spreading hatred and fear of a noble, oppressed minority group. Apparently they want us to believe that it’s for the money, but since CAP’s budget is so very much larger than those of all the “Islamophobic” groups combined, if money is all it’s about then the “Islamophobes” would be well-advised to run up the white flag and pick up a copy of How to Get Rich By Betraying One’s Friends and Principles, by David Brock. So is it racism? Then where are the supposedly well-organized, well-heeled groups of smear and fear merchants who are dedicating their time to vilifying Hindus, or Buddhists, or Mormons, or Hard-Shell Baptists?

The effect, intended or not, of the CAP report and others like it is clear enough. When CAP and its cohorts smear those who speak out against jihad and Islamic supremacism as “bigots” and “hatemongers,” they intimidate others into backtrackingapologizing, and looking the other way when they should instead be pressing the Muslim community to address the jihad problem realistically and back up its pro-forma condemnations of terrorism with honest work against the Islamic teachings that jihadists use to justify terror.

The perfect world for the likes of Matthew Duss, Yasmine Taeb, Ken Gude, Ken Sofer and other Islamophobia-mongers would be one in which no one speaks up against jihad violence and Islamic supremacism: they have never, ever seen a counter-jihadist for whom they had any positive words. This would render the U.S. and the West in general mute and hence defenseless before the advancing jihad. As the blood and chaos spreads, will Duss and his cohorts stand up and take a bow?


Robert Spencer is the director of Jihad Watch and author of the New York Times bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book is Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We’re In. Follow him on Twitter here. Like him on Facebook here.

Source: http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/robert-spencer/the-islamophobia-scam-returns/

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

From 'Peace Now' to the Jewish Home Party - Ari Soffer



by Ari Soffer


Anat Roth tells of her remarkable journey from the far-left to the nationalist camp, and how she's symbolic of a wider Israeli awakening.

 
Dr. Anat Roth
Dr. Anat Roth
 
How does a former die hard "Peace Now" activist now find herself standing for election with the Jewish Home party?

Dr. Anat Roth's announcement in December that she had joined the religious-Zionist party and would be standing as a candidate in its primaries - and her subsequently strong showing in the primaries (after being bumped up a place she is now in the realistic number 14 spot) - may have come as a surprise to many. After all, how many former Peace Now and Labor party activists leave to join the Jewish Home?

But Anat's story is, she believes, part of a wider awakening within Israeli society - a particularly radical example perhaps of how Israelis have become increasingly disillusioned with the pipe-dreams of "land for peace" sold to them for decades by the Left.

Indeed, when she first announced her candidacy she was hailed as a symbol of just such a national "awakening" by party leader Naftali Bennett.

"Dr. Anat Roth, who came to us from Peace Now, represents the awakening of the left from the dreams of land for peace - and to a powerful Jewish identity and values of religious Zionism," Bennett declared at the time.

However, she is keen to stress that there was no single "eureka" moment which caused her to abruptly change her course; instead, her ideological transformation was "a journey" which took place over two decades of political activism.

Today a mother and religious educator living in Jerusalem, Roth's first foray into politics began after the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995.

Her shock at the murder propelled her into the arms of the extremist Peace Now group, and she immediately began "working against the first Netanyahu government", which lasted from 1996-1999.

Soon after, she joined the Labor party, where she worked alongside three Labor leaders, including Amram Mitzna - who at the time was spearheading the so-called "Geneva Initiative" calling for the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state in Judea-Samaria and the expulsion of the vast majority of Jews living there, among other radical Israeli concessions.

Shaken by the 'Disengagement'

But Roth's disillusionment and subsequent shift rightwards only began in 2005, following Likud (later Kadima) prime minister Ariel Sharon's Disengagement Plan from Gaza and northern Samaria. The "Disengagement" - referred to as "the expulsion" by its opponents - essentially represented the adoption of Labor's position by Sharon, who ironically had been elected (trouncing Mitzna's Labor party) on a platform which rejected any territorial concessions, including a specific pledge against giving up the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza. 

It saw more than 9,000 Jews forced from their homes, in a campaign of internationally-sanctioned ethnic-cleansing which was justified the same way Roth and many of her former Labor party comrades had always justified such "painful concessions": that, painful though it may be, such gestures would ultimately "prove" Israel's dedication to peace and usher in a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinian Authority.

Of course, that's not what happened at all. Instead, after first hailing it as a victory and a vindication of its campaign of "armed struggle", the PA was promptly defeated by Hamas in Gaza's first (and only) free elections. In 2006, the Islamist group consolidated its grip over all of Gaza via a bloody armed coup, violently purging Gaza of the last vestiges of Fatah control and setting up a veritable fortress of terrorism.

Within a remarkably short period of time the grim predictions by right-wing leaders materialized, as the coastal enclave became a base for an unprecedented campaign of rocket and mortar attacks against Israeli civilians in the Negev - with Islamist terrorists honing their skills to the point where they were able to repeatedly reach Israel's major population centers during last summer's war.

Even in the immediate aftermath of the expulsion - when it was "only" the southern communities being mercilessly bombarded - Roth began to question her positions.

'The Left used to love Eretz Yisrael'

She still remained in the Labor party, but her enthusiasm and activism had ebbed considerably following the Disengagement, her faith in Labor's "land for peace" slogan irreparably shaken. Worse still, she could not escape the niggling feeling that Labor - and the wider Israeli Left - "had abandoned the very Zionist values I had joined it for" in three fundamental areas.

First, there was Labor's post-Zionist social agenda. In particular, Roth says she had noted with alarm the way in which Labor administrations and oppositions had worked to "erode Jewish and Zionist" values within the Israeli education system, resulting in a generation of youth graduating from the government-controlled system lacking in any meaningful Jewish identity.

Secondly, there was the growing "divisive rhetoric" and "incitement" from the Left against the religious-Zionist public in general, and against "the settlers" - Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria - in particular, which Roth says she found particularly ironic given the angry accusations against "right-wing incitement" against the Left following the Rabin assassination.

That left-wing incitement "began already after Rabin's murder, but it got really crazy during the expulsion from Gush Katif," when many leftists were whipped up into a frenzy, Roth remembers.

"It was very difficult for me to see what can only be described as a delegitimization campaign against the religious-Zionist public in general and the settlers in particular."

But most critically for Roth was what she describes as a fundamental shift in the Labor party's core values regarding the way it views the Land of Israel and Zionism as a whole.

"When I joined I felt the people in Labor genuinely loved Eretz Yisrael, and really believed it was our's," she recalls. "They viewed it as one entity - not 'Israel-proper' and 'the West Bank.'

"Rabin didn't see Judea and Samaria as 'occupied territory', and there was no talk of 'returning' land to the Arabs as if it was in fact their's. Rather, Labor advocated giving away land from the perspective that in their view there was no choice - for security reasons, demographic reasons, etc. They viewed it like cutting an off an infected limb to save the whole body.

"Only the extreme-left called Judea and Samaria 'occupied territories' - it wasn't a word used by the left-wing mainstream."

All that changed over the years since the Oslo Accords, the Rabin assassination and Disengagement, says Roth. While many rank-and-file Laborites still cling to such values, the party itself has been largely hijacked by radical post-Zionists with an altogether different outlook and agenda - one which is dismissive at best and openly hostile at worst to the notion of a separate Jewish identity, and which views "the West Bank" as thoroughly "Palestinian".

'A monster you can't satisfy'

But the widening chasm between her former colleagues and herself was not merely the result of their own shift to the left. By now, Roth was not only questioning her party political allegiances, but the very ideological underpinnings of her belief in territorial compromise and the "traditional" Israeli Zionist Left as well.

"Slowly but surely I couldn't help but realize we were heading in totally the wrong direction. There was Camp David [the failed Camp David Summit which helped ignite the Second Intifada - ed.]; the continued and constant Palestinian Authority incitement; the way the are still even now educating their children to destroy Israel and wipe the Jews from map."

"And of course there is the ongoing terrorism" which, far from lessening, became emboldened and strengthened with every Israeli concession.

"Today it is clear that every time we leave territory they use it as base to attack us from," asserts Roth.

"Even if in some fantasy Fatah would to teshuva, Hamas or another Islamist group will simply take over the territory from them, just like what happened in Gaza."

Today, she believes any talk of establishing a "Palestinian state" is not only delusional but dangerous.

"We need to stop even talking about a 'Palestinian state', because it is a monster you will never be able to satisfy - even talking about it just whets its appetite."

At the same time as she was reexamining her political beliefs, Roth began exploring her Jewish identity more intensely, eventually becoming a fully-observant religious Jew and teacher. She has been active for many years now Megalim – The City of David Institute for Jerusalem Studies, as well as at the Center for Jewish Identity.

Again, Roth stresses that her religious "awakening", like her political one, was a gradual process. In fact the two went hand-in-hand. Roth was already religious by the time she severed her last ties with Labor and formally renounced her party membership; as late as 2010 she had set up a short-lived "beit midrash" (Torah study hall) for Labor party activists.

Although her journey is fairly unique in terms of the ideological distance traveled, Roth says she is not alone. During the Jewish Home party primaries campaign she notes how many former leftists told her of their own similar experiences, to varying degrees.

And while she is alone among her former Labor comrades - many of whom she is still close with on a personal basis - in taking such a radical leap to the Jewish Home party, many of them have simply "stopped being active" in the party, concerned over its gradual takeover by radical left-wing elements - a trend clearly illustrated by the recent Labor primaries which saw several particularly radical leftists elected as potential MKs.

What next?

Still, they certainly don't agree with many of her current positions - so how did they react to her standing as an MK for the Jewish Home?

"Actually I got a lot of good reactions from them. They don't agree with me ideologically but they respect my principles as a Zionist. They said 'we need people like you in the Knesset.'"
Roth's reception among Jewish Home party activists was even warmer, she said. "It's not like I just came out of the blue," she notes. "I'd been involved in religious-Zionist causes for many years, so a lot of them knew me already."

"But even among those who never heard of me before, I was welcomed into the party with great warmth," she adds.

The only negative reactions have been limited to online trolls "who hide behind Facebook to say either 'she's a traitor' (to the Left) or 'how do we know she's really sincere and not just tricking us?' (from the Right)."

So what does Anat Roth hope to achieve in the 20th Knesset?

"First of all, I want to strengthen the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria, and prevent the partition of Israel into two states, which will be a real disaster," she states.

Apart from that, education and social justice figure high in her list of priorities.

"We need to strengthen Jewish identity in the schools, particularly via the curriculum. 

"So many kids grow up not knowing anything about their own roots, about Jewish history - even recent history like the modern Zionist movement and the founding of the State of Israel," she says.

"I myself grew up like that, as a graduate of the state school system, and I want to make sure that today's generation don't have the same problems as I had."

It's a battle Roth has already been waging for many years as part of the Center for Jewish Identity, which works with Israeli state schools to tackle that very problem.

Roth also aspires to "heal Israeli society" in areas such as economic disparity and the inflated cost of living. "It's an issue very close to my heart."

"As a society we need to make sure that even those people who don't have money are able to receive things like basic foods and medical treatment that they deserve."


Ari Soffer

Source: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/192297#.VPytA-Gzd-8

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

Happy Women's Day in Turkey! - Uzay Bulut



by Uzay Bulut


"A woman without a veil (headscarf) is like a home without a curtain. A home without a curtain is either for sale or for rent." — Suleyman Demirci, head of the Promotion and Media Department of the AKP.
Women are oppressed at home and outside; continually insulted by state authorities or the clergy, and even beaten or murdered for not being "obedient" enough, or for wanting to get a divorce. Why would anyone hang around to get beaten? Worse, why would anyone be forced by law to hang around to get beaten?
Perhaps to many men, such a loss of control over another human being is to be dreaded, just as the slave-owner dreads how hugely inconvenient it would be to him if he were not to have his slaves.
Male domination and belittling women is so deeply rooted in the Islamic culture that most Muslim men do not even see that what they do to women is, in reality, merely a way to justify treating them badly -- and all under the mask of "honoring" them and "protecting" them, supposedly for their own good!
Sadly, locking up women in the nursery or the kitchen is not "protecting" or "honoring" anyone. It is merely imprisoning an unpaid servant. In this sense, it is a form of slavery. It is simply abuse trying to pass itself off as chivalry.

Last month, the brutal murder of the twenty-year-old university student Ozgecan Aslan, who tried to stop a man from raping her, sparked mass protests in across many cities in Turkey.

The burned body of Aslan, who had been missing for two days, was discovered on February 13 in a riverbed in the southern province of Mersin. A bus driver, Ahmet Suphi Altındoken, 26, confessed that he had tried to rape her after she had boarded the minibus he drove. He said he had stabbed her to death, then cut off her hands to avoid leaving his DNA under her nails, before burning the body.

Protestors in Turkey denounce the murder of Ozgecan Aslan, who tried to stop a man from raping her, February 2015. (Image source: BBC News video screenshot)
Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan condemned the killing by saying, "Allah entrusted women to men, but there are feminists and such, and they come up and say, 'What does women being entrusted to men mean'? They say that 'this is an insult.'" Erdogan added: "You have nothing to do with our civilization, our faith, our religion."

This was not Erdogan's first public statement on women. Others include:
  • In 2009: "The mentality of 'let our children go wherever they want to' is wrong. Girls that are let go (left alone) will end up being with a drummer or a clarion player." (A Turkish saying meaning "lowlifes.") [1]
  • In 2010: "I don't actually believe in gender equality. That is why I prefer to say 'equality of opportunities.' Men and women are different; they are complementary to one another." [2]
  • In 2014: "You cannot put women and men on an equal footing. It is against nature. They were created differently. Their nature is different. Their constitution is different." He added: "Motherhood is the highest position … You cannot explain this to feminists. They do not accept motherhood. They have no such concern." [3]
Other state officials have also made public statements insulting to women or against gender equality, and including rape and abortion.[4]

"A woman without a veil (headscarf) is like a home without a curtain. A home without a curtain is either for sale or for rent," Suleyman Demirci, the head of the Promotion and Media Department of the AKP in the town of Unye, wrote on his Facebook account in March 2011. [5]

"Yes, our girls go to schools but then we cannot find girls that our boys can marry," said a member of the city council, Erhan Ekmekci, of the AKP in the province of Corum, in February 2012; he was reacting to the "Girls, Let's Go to School!" campaign at the municipal council.

And the Minister of Family and Social Policies Minister, Fatma Sahin, blamed "selective perception": "There is some selective perception. Instead of covering how we work on the issue, the media selects negative incidents to hit the headlines, creating a perception in the society as if incidents are increasing in large numbers."

Sadly, thanks to the many teachings of Islam, one can see how the not-very-egalitarian views of the AKP authorities do not come "out of thin air."

Islamic scriptures teach that women are of lesser value then men, and that men are to be in charge of women:
"Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great." (Qur'an 4:34)
The Qur'an (2:228) also openly states, "And the men are a degree above them [women]," and, from the rules of inheritance, "The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females" (Qur'an 4:11). It also includes unequal rules for court testimony, "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women" (Qur'an 2:282), and having multiple wives: "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four" (Qur'an 4:3). And of beating them, Qur'an 4:34 and 38:44.


A Muslim man also has the "right" to divorce his wife simply by repeating "I divorce you" three times (based on the hadith: Muslim 9:3493); but a divorced woman is required to marry another man and get divorced by him if she wishes to be taken back by her former husband (Qur'an 2:230).
Islamic sharia law forbids a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man. However, it permits men to take women as sex slaves outside of marriage ("those whom thy right hand possesses," Qur'an 4:24 and Qur'an 33:50). But "adulterers," who may actually be nothing but consenting adults, are to be put to death.

A Muslim woman is always to be under the "guardianship" of a man; Islamic sharia law forbids women from traveling alone or being alone with an unrelated male. And in Islam's male-dominated society, it is usually the rape victims who are punished if four male witnesses do not confirm the victim's testimony.

Clearly, the inequality of male dominance is baked into Islamic law.

When the culture, government and the laws are all male-dominated, as they are in Turkey and in the rest of the Muslim world, Muslim women living in these countries suffer huge wrongs and easily become the regular target of repression and discrimination. They are oppressed at home and outside; continually insulted by state authorities or the clergy, and even beaten or murdered for not being "obedient" enough or (unsurprisingly, in many instances) for wanting to get a divorce. Why would anyone hang around to get beaten? Worse, why should anyone be forced by law to hang around to get beaten?

Part of the problem is that the state authorities, who regularly make these insulting remarks about women, are perhaps not even aware that they are lowering and offending women. Or perhaps they do not even care if they are.

Male domination and belittling women is so deeply rooted in the Islamic culture that most Muslim men do not even see that what they do to women -- or what they say about women, -- is, in reality, merely a way to justify treating them badly, all under the mask of "honoring" and "protecting" them, supposedly for their own good!

In many minds, apparently this is how women are supposed to be: Women are to be tamed, disciplined, controlled and owned like property by their husbands, fathers and other male figures.
Respecting women as equal human beings, who can think for themselves and make their own decisions, seems to be foreign to Islamic culture. Perhaps, to many men, such a loss of control over another human being is to be dreaded, just as the slave-owner dreads how hugely inconvenient it would be to him if he were not to have his slaves.

Sadly, locking up women in the nursery or the kitchen is not "protecting" or "honoring" anyone. It is merely imprisoning an unpaid servant. In this sense, it is a form of slavery.

The way many men in the Arab and Muslim world treat women -- as disposable servants and concubines -- is simply abuse trying to pass itself off as "chivalry."
Uzay Bulut, raised as a Muslim, is a journalist based in Ankara.

[1] In 2009, Munevver Karabulut, 17, was found dead in a garbage bin in the central Istanbul neighborhood of Etiler. Her head had been cut off and put separately in a guitar case. The leading suspect in the murder was her boyfriend, Cem GaripoÄŸlu, aged 17 at the time of the crime.
[2] In July 2010, during a meeting with women's rights associations, some representatives had criticized the fact that woman are associated "only with their quality of motherhood." That was Erdogan's response.
[3] In November 2014, addressing a meeting in Istanbul on women and justice.
[4] In May 2012, Recep Akdag, then Health Minister, commented on rape and abortion: "Sometimes they ask, 'What will happen if a bad thing has happened to the mother?' If necessary, the state will take care of such a baby," he added, implying that if a woman is raped, she should give birth and the state will, if necessary, take care of the child.
In May 2012, Ayhan Sefer Ustun, an MP of the AKP and also the head of the Human Rights Commission of the Turkish parliament, implied that the rapist is more innocent than the rape victim who undergoes an abortion: "Of course, the act of rape is a crime. But who should suffer the consequences? The rapist should in the harshest way. But you make the human who would emerge as a result of the rape suffer the consequences, not the rapist. Women in Bosnia, too, were raped but they gave birth. If all of those children had been killed in mother's womb, it would have been a much greater drama and crime than what the rapists had done. A part of those children is their mother, those children are innocent. We have a mentality that 'the crime of the father does not pass on to the child.' That is just what we can refer to in this subject. Of course, rape will have side effects such as the deterioration of mother's psychology and disturbances in the society etc. To overcome those things is the duty of the society."
In June 2012, when asked about pregnancy caused by "adultery," Melih Gokcek, the Mayor of Ankara from the AKP, responded: "If the mother engages in adultery, what is the child's crime? Why should the child be guilty of a crime committed by who happens to be his or her mother? Let the mother suffer the consequences, let the mother kill herself. If somebody is to die, why is she getting the child killed? That is murder. There might be grievances but grievances do not legitimize this act."
In July 2013, after the photos of Zeyid Aslan, an MP of the AKP from the province of Tokat, while sleeping on the seats in the garden of the parliament, were published in a national newspaper, Aslan said to female reporters in the parliament: "You should not be allowed to enter here. You did the same thing last year, as well. In the next season, no journalist will be allowed to enter here. I will do all I can not to allow any journalist in here. Do you think what you do is journalism? We are humans, too and we get tired. If I take a photo of between your legs and publish it, saying 'this is their natural state', that will make me immoral, right? But you think what you do is journalism."
And in January 2015, Health Minister Mehmet Muezzinoglu said that mothers should not put any career before motherhood: "Mothers have the career of motherhood, which cannot be possessed by anyone else in the world. Mothers should not put another career other than motherhood at the center of their lives. They should put raising good generations at the center of their attention," Muezzinoglu explained.
In 2011, Dilsat Aktas, a female political activist, climbed on a car during an anti-government rally in Ankara to protest the death of a retired teacher, Metin Lokumcu, killed in a protest due to police violence. She was beaten by police. After the attack, one leg was shorter than the other; she still has difficulty walking.
Erdogan said about it, at an election rally in the province of Konya: "Someone – I don't know if she is a girl or a woman – has got on a police panzer in Ankara."
[5] After getting harsh criticism and reaction from the public, Demirci apologized and resigned from his post, according to the AKP in a written statement.

Follow Uzay Bulut on Twitter


Uzay Bulut, raised as a Muslim, is a journalist based in Ankara.

Source: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5343/womens-day-turkey

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