(IsraelNN.com) Earlier this week, it was revealed that many students at Tel Aviv University are afraid to speak out in class for fear that they will be punished for holding Zionist or right-wing views. Erez Tadmor, director of the Zionist student group Im Tirzu, believes that all Israeli universities are suffering from a similar problem, leading to a situation in which Israel lacks true academic freedom.
Tadmor spoke to Arutz Sheva's Hebrew news service, and began by praising Professor Nira Hativa, who revealed the issue at TAU. “She is a very courageous woman,” he said.
Hativa based her findings on feedback forms provided by students upon completing courses, Tadmor said. The forms revealed that students who found that their own political views were to the right of those of their instructors were intimidated into keeping their opinions to themselves.
November 12, 2009
November 11, 2009
Is US Envoy Mitchell Interfering in Knesset Policy?
(Israelnationalnews.com) MK Michael Ben-Ari (National Union) has been engaged in a battle to honor former MK Rabbi Meir Kahane, who was murdered in New York City in 1990, by giving a memorial speech from the Knesset podium. On Wednesday, it was revealed that Ben-Ari's struggle has drawn opposition from well beyond the Knesset, and that U.S. envoy George Mitchell has taken an interest in the matter.
Arutz Sheva quotes unnamed sources that said that Mitchell reportedly sent a message via the American embassy asking Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin if he planned to approve Ben-Ari's request to speak about Kahane in the Knesset. Rivlin, who recently canceled the planned speech after it received initial approval, replied in the negative.
Upon hearing the report, Ben-Ari accused Mitchell of “crossing a red line” by interfering in internal Israeli politics. “I was elected by citizens of the independent state of Israel... It's amazing how members of the American government are attempting to intervene in the daily affairs of the Knesset, which is supposed to be a sovereign body.”
Rivlin is “sending a message of weakness,” Ben-Ari accused.
MK Aryeh Eldad (Ichud Leumi) backed his colleague, saying, “If the American embassy did this... this is beyond audacious, it is a humiliation and a degradation of Israeli democracy.” The veteran MK encouraged his fellow lawmakers to fight for Ben-Ari's right to speak in Kahane's memory. "Even those who opposed Kahane must enlist in the struggle for Israeli sovereignty and freedom of expression,” he explained.
Arutz Sheva quotes unnamed sources that said that Mitchell reportedly sent a message via the American embassy asking Knesset speaker Reuven Rivlin if he planned to approve Ben-Ari's request to speak about Kahane in the Knesset. Rivlin, who recently canceled the planned speech after it received initial approval, replied in the negative.
Upon hearing the report, Ben-Ari accused Mitchell of “crossing a red line” by interfering in internal Israeli politics. “I was elected by citizens of the independent state of Israel... It's amazing how members of the American government are attempting to intervene in the daily affairs of the Knesset, which is supposed to be a sovereign body.”
Rivlin is “sending a message of weakness,” Ben-Ari accused.
MK Aryeh Eldad (Ichud Leumi) backed his colleague, saying, “If the American embassy did this... this is beyond audacious, it is a humiliation and a degradation of Israeli democracy.” The veteran MK encouraged his fellow lawmakers to fight for Ben-Ari's right to speak in Kahane's memory. "Even those who opposed Kahane must enlist in the struggle for Israeli sovereignty and freedom of expression,” he explained.
Next, Locusts? The abject failure of the Obama administration's Middle East policy. by Elliott Abrams
Can anything else possibly go wrong for the Obama administration's Middle
East policy? In the past ten days, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
has twice reversed herself publicly on her attitude toward the Israeli
settlements. Palestinians have refused her direct request to rejoin peace
talks with Israel, and Palestinian Authority president Abbas has said he
will not run for reelection. U.S.-Israel relations are in a state of frozen
mistrust. The New York Times and Washington Post, among others, are calling
Obama's policy a complete failure--in news stories as well as editorials. The
only thing missing is a plague of locusts.
The policy is indeed a complete failure. In ten months the administration
has managed to offend and demoralize Israelis and Palestinians, lose the
support of Arab governments, and reduce previously excellent relations
with the government of Israel to levels unmatched since the James Baker
days. Meanwhile, George Mitchell's trips to the region are increasingly
reminiscent of the Colin Powell visits in 2002 and 2003--producing little
but embarrassment. The Israeli "100 percent settlement freeze" and the Arab
outreach to Israel, early goals of the Obama team, are now forgotten, as is
an early resumption of serious Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
These disasters are mostly the product of an ignorant and belligerent attitude
toward Israel and especially its prime minister. The ignorance was most evident
in the administration's view that a total construction freeze could be imposed
not only in every settlement but in Jerusalem itself. But the U.S. policy
was worse: We demanded a freeze that would apply to construction by Jews,
but not by Arabs; could any Israeli leader be expected to support such a
position? One does not need to be a member of the Knesset to understand that
such a freeze was impossible for Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition as it
would have been for any Israeli prime minister--but apparently this fact
was beyond the understanding of Mitchell, Rahm Emanuel, and all the other
"experts" on the Obama team.
The belligerence toward Netanyahu has been evident all along, but is best shown
by the refusal to tell Israel's prime minister whether or not the president
will see him this coming week when Netanyahu (like the president) addresses
the United Jewish Communities annual general assembly in Washington. The
Israelis gave the White House weeks of notice that Netanyahu had agreed to
speak, would be in town, and hoped to see Obama. The White House reaction has
been to keep him twisting in the wind, with news stories several days before
his arrival saying the president had not decided yet whether to see Netanyahu.
Think of it: Our closest ally in the region, critical issues at stake (from
Iran's nuclear program and the recent Israeli seizure of an Iranian arms
shipment meant for Hezbollah to Abbas's announcement), yet the Israelis get
no answer. Obama and his "experts" may think they are reminding Netanyahu
who is boss, but they are in fact reminding all of us why Israelis no longer
trust Obama--and making closer cooperation between the two governments that
much harder.
The problems Netanyahu has with Obama pale in comparison with those of the
Palestinians, and Abbas's announcement reflects their frustrations. The best
example: Obama and Clinton lured Abbas out on the settlements-freeze limb
and then sawed it off. When they said a total freeze including Jerusalem
was necessary, he of course happily agreed. But when they abandoned that
doomed policy and instead began talking of "restraint," he could not climb
down. Abbas has threatened to leave many times before, and it's worth -noting
that he did not resign. He said he would not seek reelection next year,
in elections scheduled for January 24 but highly unlikely to take place
then--if ever. So he will be around for months more, in fact indefinitely if
elections keep getting postponed. His statement must be regarded, then, not
as a Shermanesque personal denial but as a protest against an American policy
that has weakened him and left him high and dry. Israelis and Palestinians
when I visited in October had two main questions: Who is making this Middle
East policy, and do they not realize by now that it is a disaster? At least
in this, one can say the administration has produced Israeli-Palestinian
unity. They are also united in watching warily as the president seems unable
to make a decision about Afghanistan. For the Palestinians, this suggests
he'll never really take on the Israelis for them, as they thought he might
back in January. For the Israelis, it means he'll never take on Iran, and
that they may in the end face the Iranian nuclear threat on their own. They
all wonder whether to blame Mitchell or Clinton or Dennis Ross or National
Security Adviser Jim Jones or the State Department's Near East bureau,
and each individual Israeli and Palestinian has a favorite target. But the
answers to their questions seem obvious: It is the president's policy, and no,
he does not seem to be aware that it has already failed. While he has backed
off from the early targets, he has not changed his attitude toward -Israel's
government, nor altered his basic approach: to push for negotiations over
"core issues" as soon as possible. And this is the fundamental problem
with Obama's policy: Like too many of his predecessors he believes that a
solution is at hand if only he can force the parties to the table. There,
presumably under American tutelage, they will reach American-style compromises
(pragmatic, sensible, realistic) and resolve the dispute, with Nobel Peace
Prizes for all. The only question is where the table is: Camp David, Taba,
Annapolis, Oslo, perhaps this time Chicago. This approach undermines the one
real hope in the region, which is the practical advances being made in the
West Bank. There, the economy is improving, law and order are maintained,
the Palestinian Authority is fighting Hamas, Israeli-Palestinian security
cooperation is growing, and mobility for the population is increasing. In
recent months Israel removed more checkpoints and expanded the hours of the
Allenby Bridge to Jordan. It isn't paradise, but it isn't Gaza either, and
life is better each year. It could be far better if the Obama administration
would abandon its doomed efforts to force an Israeli construction freeze in
Jerusalem and an Arab embrace of Israel, and instead ask them all to think
of real-world ways to keep improving life in the West Bank. There are many
ways this could be done, from further steps to remove Israeli barriers to
movement, to reliable and generous Arab financial support. The way forward
does not lie through fancy international conferences, and one idea still
mentioned as an Obama option--proposing a final status plan--would be
disastrous and unsuccessful. The way for the Palestinians to get a state
is to go ahead and build it. If and when the institutions are there and
functioning, from police and courts to a parliament, negotiations will
reflect that fact. But the argument that settling the borders and removing
the Israeli troops must come first is a path to failure. For one thing,
Israel will not and should not leave until it is clear that the West Bank
can be policed by Palestinians and that the region will not be a source
of terrorism against Israel, as Gaza and South Lebanon became when Israel
left there. No conference and no treaty can provide such a guarantee; only
functioning Palestinian police forces that are already fighting and defeating
terror can do so. Such a practical approach would bring other benefits. It
would enhance the status and power of Palestinian moderates who are working
to improve life in the West Bank, rather than enhancing the status and power
of old PLO officials who thrive on endless, useless negotiating sessions. It
would put a premium on practical Israeli-Palestinian cooperation, rather than
elevating precisely the final status questions (like Jerusalem or Palestinian
refugees) that most bitterly divide them. It would increase the gap between
the West Bank and Gaza, thereby showing Palestinians that Hamas rule brings
only despair and poverty. It would press the Arab states to help real live
Palestinians in the West Bank, rather than the imaginary Palestinians--all
either bold jihadists or desperate widows and orphans--whom they see on Al
Jazeera. In fact, except for occasional visits by Jordanians and Egyptians
(who have peace treaties with Israel already), top Arab officials haven't a
clue what's going on in the West Bank, for they've never been there. Not one
head of state or government or foreign minister, not once. If George Mitchell
wants to do something useful, he could organize a tour; take a few princes
and foreign ministers to Ramallah and Jericho and Jenin, where they would
find that they are neither in Somalia nor some heroic battle scene against
Zionist oppressors. But thus far, the anniversary of Obama's election appears
to have passed with no rethinking of policy. Instead the administration
slogs forward, judging itself by its elevated intentions rather than its
performance. Clinton's pronouncements--demand a total construction freeze one
day, accept Netanyahu's more modest offer the next, then back to the wider
demands two days later in Morocco--are increasingly reminiscent of World War
I trench warfare: gain a few yards, lose a few more, while the casualties
pile up. There will be no progress this way, and the practical efforts that
should be at the heart of U.S. policy will instead be undermined as we poison
Israeli-Palestinian relations and degrade the trust both parties have in us.
Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the
Council on Foreign Relations.
11/16/2009, Volume 015, Issue 09
The Weekly Standard
East policy? In the past ten days, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
has twice reversed herself publicly on her attitude toward the Israeli
settlements. Palestinians have refused her direct request to rejoin peace
talks with Israel, and Palestinian Authority president Abbas has said he
will not run for reelection. U.S.-Israel relations are in a state of frozen
mistrust. The New York Times and Washington Post, among others, are calling
Obama's policy a complete failure--in news stories as well as editorials. The
only thing missing is a plague of locusts.
The policy is indeed a complete failure. In ten months the administration
has managed to offend and demoralize Israelis and Palestinians, lose the
support of Arab governments, and reduce previously excellent relations
with the government of Israel to levels unmatched since the James Baker
days. Meanwhile, George Mitchell's trips to the region are increasingly
reminiscent of the Colin Powell visits in 2002 and 2003--producing little
but embarrassment. The Israeli "100 percent settlement freeze" and the Arab
outreach to Israel, early goals of the Obama team, are now forgotten, as is
an early resumption of serious Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
These disasters are mostly the product of an ignorant and belligerent attitude
toward Israel and especially its prime minister. The ignorance was most evident
in the administration's view that a total construction freeze could be imposed
not only in every settlement but in Jerusalem itself. But the U.S. policy
was worse: We demanded a freeze that would apply to construction by Jews,
but not by Arabs; could any Israeli leader be expected to support such a
position? One does not need to be a member of the Knesset to understand that
such a freeze was impossible for Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition as it
would have been for any Israeli prime minister--but apparently this fact
was beyond the understanding of Mitchell, Rahm Emanuel, and all the other
"experts" on the Obama team.
The belligerence toward Netanyahu has been evident all along, but is best shown
by the refusal to tell Israel's prime minister whether or not the president
will see him this coming week when Netanyahu (like the president) addresses
the United Jewish Communities annual general assembly in Washington. The
Israelis gave the White House weeks of notice that Netanyahu had agreed to
speak, would be in town, and hoped to see Obama. The White House reaction has
been to keep him twisting in the wind, with news stories several days before
his arrival saying the president had not decided yet whether to see Netanyahu.
Think of it: Our closest ally in the region, critical issues at stake (from
Iran's nuclear program and the recent Israeli seizure of an Iranian arms
shipment meant for Hezbollah to Abbas's announcement), yet the Israelis get
no answer. Obama and his "experts" may think they are reminding Netanyahu
who is boss, but they are in fact reminding all of us why Israelis no longer
trust Obama--and making closer cooperation between the two governments that
much harder.
The problems Netanyahu has with Obama pale in comparison with those of the
Palestinians, and Abbas's announcement reflects their frustrations. The best
example: Obama and Clinton lured Abbas out on the settlements-freeze limb
and then sawed it off. When they said a total freeze including Jerusalem
was necessary, he of course happily agreed. But when they abandoned that
doomed policy and instead began talking of "restraint," he could not climb
down. Abbas has threatened to leave many times before, and it's worth -noting
that he did not resign. He said he would not seek reelection next year,
in elections scheduled for January 24 but highly unlikely to take place
then--if ever. So he will be around for months more, in fact indefinitely if
elections keep getting postponed. His statement must be regarded, then, not
as a Shermanesque personal denial but as a protest against an American policy
that has weakened him and left him high and dry. Israelis and Palestinians
when I visited in October had two main questions: Who is making this Middle
East policy, and do they not realize by now that it is a disaster? At least
in this, one can say the administration has produced Israeli-Palestinian
unity. They are also united in watching warily as the president seems unable
to make a decision about Afghanistan. For the Palestinians, this suggests
he'll never really take on the Israelis for them, as they thought he might
back in January. For the Israelis, it means he'll never take on Iran, and
that they may in the end face the Iranian nuclear threat on their own. They
all wonder whether to blame Mitchell or Clinton or Dennis Ross or National
Security Adviser Jim Jones or the State Department's Near East bureau,
and each individual Israeli and Palestinian has a favorite target. But the
answers to their questions seem obvious: It is the president's policy, and no,
he does not seem to be aware that it has already failed. While he has backed
off from the early targets, he has not changed his attitude toward -Israel's
government, nor altered his basic approach: to push for negotiations over
"core issues" as soon as possible. And this is the fundamental problem
with Obama's policy: Like too many of his predecessors he believes that a
solution is at hand if only he can force the parties to the table. There,
presumably under American tutelage, they will reach American-style compromises
(pragmatic, sensible, realistic) and resolve the dispute, with Nobel Peace
Prizes for all. The only question is where the table is: Camp David, Taba,
Annapolis, Oslo, perhaps this time Chicago. This approach undermines the one
real hope in the region, which is the practical advances being made in the
West Bank. There, the economy is improving, law and order are maintained,
the Palestinian Authority is fighting Hamas, Israeli-Palestinian security
cooperation is growing, and mobility for the population is increasing. In
recent months Israel removed more checkpoints and expanded the hours of the
Allenby Bridge to Jordan. It isn't paradise, but it isn't Gaza either, and
life is better each year. It could be far better if the Obama administration
would abandon its doomed efforts to force an Israeli construction freeze in
Jerusalem and an Arab embrace of Israel, and instead ask them all to think
of real-world ways to keep improving life in the West Bank. There are many
ways this could be done, from further steps to remove Israeli barriers to
movement, to reliable and generous Arab financial support. The way forward
does not lie through fancy international conferences, and one idea still
mentioned as an Obama option--proposing a final status plan--would be
disastrous and unsuccessful. The way for the Palestinians to get a state
is to go ahead and build it. If and when the institutions are there and
functioning, from police and courts to a parliament, negotiations will
reflect that fact. But the argument that settling the borders and removing
the Israeli troops must come first is a path to failure. For one thing,
Israel will not and should not leave until it is clear that the West Bank
can be policed by Palestinians and that the region will not be a source
of terrorism against Israel, as Gaza and South Lebanon became when Israel
left there. No conference and no treaty can provide such a guarantee; only
functioning Palestinian police forces that are already fighting and defeating
terror can do so. Such a practical approach would bring other benefits. It
would enhance the status and power of Palestinian moderates who are working
to improve life in the West Bank, rather than enhancing the status and power
of old PLO officials who thrive on endless, useless negotiating sessions. It
would put a premium on practical Israeli-Palestinian cooperation, rather than
elevating precisely the final status questions (like Jerusalem or Palestinian
refugees) that most bitterly divide them. It would increase the gap between
the West Bank and Gaza, thereby showing Palestinians that Hamas rule brings
only despair and poverty. It would press the Arab states to help real live
Palestinians in the West Bank, rather than the imaginary Palestinians--all
either bold jihadists or desperate widows and orphans--whom they see on Al
Jazeera. In fact, except for occasional visits by Jordanians and Egyptians
(who have peace treaties with Israel already), top Arab officials haven't a
clue what's going on in the West Bank, for they've never been there. Not one
head of state or government or foreign minister, not once. If George Mitchell
wants to do something useful, he could organize a tour; take a few princes
and foreign ministers to Ramallah and Jericho and Jenin, where they would
find that they are neither in Somalia nor some heroic battle scene against
Zionist oppressors. But thus far, the anniversary of Obama's election appears
to have passed with no rethinking of policy. Instead the administration
slogs forward, judging itself by its elevated intentions rather than its
performance. Clinton's pronouncements--demand a total construction freeze one
day, accept Netanyahu's more modest offer the next, then back to the wider
demands two days later in Morocco--are increasingly reminiscent of World War
I trench warfare: gain a few yards, lose a few more, while the casualties
pile up. There will be no progress this way, and the practical efforts that
should be at the heart of U.S. policy will instead be undermined as we poison
Israeli-Palestinian relations and degrade the trust both parties have in us.
Elliott Abrams is a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the
Council on Foreign Relations.
11/16/2009, Volume 015, Issue 09
The Weekly Standard
November 10, 2009
Z (Zionist) Street -- Lori Lowenthal Marcus
Z STREET is based on these ironclad positions:
The right of the Jewish people to a state, and the right of Jews to live freely anywhere, including inhaling oxygen in areas the world insists are reserved for Arab Palestinians;
Relishing the terms "Jewish State" and "Zionism" - ones currently derided as shameful instead of sources of pride;
Circulation of facts -- not deceptive "Palestinian" narratives -- about the Middle East, Israel and terrorism;
Condemnation of those who revile Israel for actions they ignore when taken by Israel's enemies and virtually all states throughout history;
Categorical rejection of agreements with, or concessions to, terrorists (or their supporters) who are dedicated to Israel's destruction.
Unlike other organizations that claim to be pro-Israel, Z STREET will not pander to politicians who invite us to their offices and pay attention to our pocketbooks but ignore our positions. For those who do not embrace our principles, there are plenty of other organizations to join. This catalyzing organization seeks to change the way discussions about Israel are crafted and viewed.
A fuel source previously untapped has been released: within days of the launch thousands clamored to our site, asking how to join and how they can help. Z STREET already includes members from five continents and more than twenty states. News articles are being written about Z STREET from the far right and the center, and we have been viciously denigrated and cartooned from the far left - all of which is gratifying.
The rising groundswell is in part a response to organizations whispering into the ear of this US administration that pervert the meaning of "pro-Israel." Their ultimate loyalty is to left-wing principles including a secular Israel and tolerance of terrorism only when directed at Jews. They are ashamed of an avowedly Jewish State, yet completely comfortable with 22 Muslim ones, and are actively seeking the creation of a 23rd, based in Jerusalem, whose governing documents call for the destruction of Israel.
The idea that weakening Israel, either because of ideological conviction, animosity towards a strong Jewish State, cowardice, or the grossly misguided belief that compromise or dialoging with committed terrorists will lead to Middle East or global peace, is obscene.
A very few World War II Jews acted as catalysts for those who refused to be cowed. They adamantly, sometimes theatrically, demanded action to prevent the incineration of millions of Europeans Jews, along with millions of members of other minority and political groups.
This band of warriors, led by Peter Bergson and Ben Hecht, staged marches, rallies and theater events. They refused to mimic the Jewish leaders who shrank from their moral duty to demand the US government face the irrefutable facts of the plans, and then the execution of those plans, to murder millions. It would be an honor for Z STREET to be compared to the Bergson Group. Others should join so that the present horrors, and worse, are prevented. The policy implications are profound and the time is now.
I sleep better knowing that when my grandchildren ask me what I did to help prevent the destruction of Israel, I can tell them about Z STREET with a clear conscience and a sense of pride. What will you say?
Lori Lowenthal Marcus is a Z Street co-founder.
The right of the Jewish people to a state, and the right of Jews to live freely anywhere, including inhaling oxygen in areas the world insists are reserved for Arab Palestinians;
Relishing the terms "Jewish State" and "Zionism" - ones currently derided as shameful instead of sources of pride;
Circulation of facts -- not deceptive "Palestinian" narratives -- about the Middle East, Israel and terrorism;
Condemnation of those who revile Israel for actions they ignore when taken by Israel's enemies and virtually all states throughout history;
Categorical rejection of agreements with, or concessions to, terrorists (or their supporters) who are dedicated to Israel's destruction.
Unlike other organizations that claim to be pro-Israel, Z STREET will not pander to politicians who invite us to their offices and pay attention to our pocketbooks but ignore our positions. For those who do not embrace our principles, there are plenty of other organizations to join. This catalyzing organization seeks to change the way discussions about Israel are crafted and viewed.
A fuel source previously untapped has been released: within days of the launch thousands clamored to our site, asking how to join and how they can help. Z STREET already includes members from five continents and more than twenty states. News articles are being written about Z STREET from the far right and the center, and we have been viciously denigrated and cartooned from the far left - all of which is gratifying.
The rising groundswell is in part a response to organizations whispering into the ear of this US administration that pervert the meaning of "pro-Israel." Their ultimate loyalty is to left-wing principles including a secular Israel and tolerance of terrorism only when directed at Jews. They are ashamed of an avowedly Jewish State, yet completely comfortable with 22 Muslim ones, and are actively seeking the creation of a 23rd, based in Jerusalem, whose governing documents call for the destruction of Israel.
The idea that weakening Israel, either because of ideological conviction, animosity towards a strong Jewish State, cowardice, or the grossly misguided belief that compromise or dialoging with committed terrorists will lead to Middle East or global peace, is obscene.
A very few World War II Jews acted as catalysts for those who refused to be cowed. They adamantly, sometimes theatrically, demanded action to prevent the incineration of millions of Europeans Jews, along with millions of members of other minority and political groups.
This band of warriors, led by Peter Bergson and Ben Hecht, staged marches, rallies and theater events. They refused to mimic the Jewish leaders who shrank from their moral duty to demand the US government face the irrefutable facts of the plans, and then the execution of those plans, to murder millions. It would be an honor for Z STREET to be compared to the Bergson Group. Others should join so that the present horrors, and worse, are prevented. The policy implications are profound and the time is now.
I sleep better knowing that when my grandchildren ask me what I did to help prevent the destruction of Israel, I can tell them about Z STREET with a clear conscience and a sense of pride. What will you say?
Lori Lowenthal Marcus is a Z Street co-founder.
November 9, 2009
Saudis launches offensive against Yemen rebels - By AHMED AL-HAJ and SALAH NASRAWI
SAN'A, Yemen – Saudi Arabia sent fighter jets and artillery bombardments across the border into northern Yemen Thursday in a military incursion apparently aimed at helping its troubled southern neighbor control an escalating Shiite rebellion, Arab diplomats and the rebels said.
The Saudis — owners of a sophisticated air force they rarely use — have been increasingly worried that extremism and instability in Yemen could spill over to their country, the world's largest oil exporter. The offensive came two days after the killing of a Saudi soldier, blamed on the rebels.
Yemen denied any military action by Saudi Arabia inside its borders. But Yemen's president is a key ally of the Saudis, making it highly unlikely the kingdom would have launched the offensive without tacit Yemeni agreement.
A U.S. government official said the Yemenis were not involved militarily in the fighting. The official spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
The offensive immediately raised concerns of another proxy war in the Middle East between Iran and Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally. Shiite Iran is believed to favor the rebels in Yemen while Saudi Arabia, which is Sunni, is Iran's fiercest regional rival.
The same dynamic has played out in various forms in Lebanon, where Iran supports the Shiite militant Hezbollah and Saudi Arabia favors a U.S.-backed faction, and in Iraq, where Saudi Arabia and Iran have thrown support to conflicting sides in the Sunni-Shiite struggle.
A top Saudi government adviser confirmed "a large scale" military operation underway on the Saudi-Yemeni border with further reinforcements sent to the rugged, mountainous area.
"It is a sustained operation which aims to finish this problem on our border," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. He said Saudi troops were coordinating with Yemen's army, but Yemen's defense ministry denied the Saudis were inside the country.
The northern rebels, known as Hawthis, have been battling Yemeni government forces the past few months in the latest flare-up of a sporadic five-year conflict. They claim their needs are ignored by a Yemeni government that is increasingly allied with hard-line Sunni fundamentalists, who consider Shiites heretics.
The rebels said the Saudi airstrikes hit five areas in their northern stronghold Thursday but it was not possible to independently verify the reports. They said there were dead and wounded, and that homes were destroyed. The rebels' spokesman said people were afraid to get near the areas being bombed, making it difficult to count the casualties.
"Saudi jets dropped bombs on a crowded areas including a local market in the northern province of Saada," Hawthi spokesman Mohammed Abdel-Salam told The Associated Press. "They claim they are targeting al-Hawthis, but regrettably they are killing civilians like the government does." He said the attacks were followed by hundreds of artillery shells from the border.
"So far, three killed have been pulled out of the rubble, including a woman and a child who perished when their houses were bombed and burned down," said Abdel-Salam.
The fighting is more than 600 miles from Saudi Arabia's oil fields on the kingdom's eastern Persian Gulf coast. But northern Yemen overlooks the Red Sea, the world's busiest route for oil tankers.
Two Arab diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Saudi Tornado and F-15 warplanes had been bombarding targets inside Yemen since Wednesday afternoon, inflicting significant casualties on rebels. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not allowed to talk to the media.
They said army units and special forces also had been sent to northern Yemen, and that several Saudi towns on the border had been evacuated as a precaution. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters he had no information about whether the conflict had spread across the border but expressed Washington's concern over the situation.
"It's our view that there can be no long-term military solution to the conflict between the Yemeni government and the Hawthi rebels," Kelly said. "We call on all parties to the conflict to make every effort to protect civilian populations and limit damage to civilian infrastructure."
The weak central government of Yemen, which has little control outside the capital San'a, is fighting on multiple fronts including the northern rebels and a separatist movement in the south. But the most worrisome is a lingering threat from al-Qaida militants.
The U.S. also fears any Yemeni fighting could spill over into Saudi Arabia and is concerned that Yemen could become a haven for al-Qaida militants hiding out in the nation, at the tip of the Arabian peninsula.
The Yemeni government openly accuses Iran of arming the Hawthis rebels, but there has been no public evidence to back those claims, said Joost Hiltermann, deputy program director of the Middle East program for the International Crisis Group think tank in London.
"I think Iran is probably pleased with what is happening, but that is not the same as saying they are supporting the Hawthis," Hiltermann said.
Simon Henderson, director of Gulf and energy policy at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in Washington, agreed that there is no clear evidence that Iran funds the rebels. But he said there is a wide assumption that Iran favors the Hawthis and the Saudis are backing Yemen's Sunni president.
The Saudis — owners of a sophisticated air force they rarely use — have been increasingly worried that extremism and instability in Yemen could spill over to their country, the world's largest oil exporter. The offensive came two days after the killing of a Saudi soldier, blamed on the rebels.
Yemen denied any military action by Saudi Arabia inside its borders. But Yemen's president is a key ally of the Saudis, making it highly unlikely the kingdom would have launched the offensive without tacit Yemeni agreement.
A U.S. government official said the Yemenis were not involved militarily in the fighting. The official spoke anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
The offensive immediately raised concerns of another proxy war in the Middle East between Iran and Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally. Shiite Iran is believed to favor the rebels in Yemen while Saudi Arabia, which is Sunni, is Iran's fiercest regional rival.
The same dynamic has played out in various forms in Lebanon, where Iran supports the Shiite militant Hezbollah and Saudi Arabia favors a U.S.-backed faction, and in Iraq, where Saudi Arabia and Iran have thrown support to conflicting sides in the Sunni-Shiite struggle.
A top Saudi government adviser confirmed "a large scale" military operation underway on the Saudi-Yemeni border with further reinforcements sent to the rugged, mountainous area.
"It is a sustained operation which aims to finish this problem on our border," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. He said Saudi troops were coordinating with Yemen's army, but Yemen's defense ministry denied the Saudis were inside the country.
The northern rebels, known as Hawthis, have been battling Yemeni government forces the past few months in the latest flare-up of a sporadic five-year conflict. They claim their needs are ignored by a Yemeni government that is increasingly allied with hard-line Sunni fundamentalists, who consider Shiites heretics.
The rebels said the Saudi airstrikes hit five areas in their northern stronghold Thursday but it was not possible to independently verify the reports. They said there were dead and wounded, and that homes were destroyed. The rebels' spokesman said people were afraid to get near the areas being bombed, making it difficult to count the casualties.
"Saudi jets dropped bombs on a crowded areas including a local market in the northern province of Saada," Hawthi spokesman Mohammed Abdel-Salam told The Associated Press. "They claim they are targeting al-Hawthis, but regrettably they are killing civilians like the government does." He said the attacks were followed by hundreds of artillery shells from the border.
"So far, three killed have been pulled out of the rubble, including a woman and a child who perished when their houses were bombed and burned down," said Abdel-Salam.
The fighting is more than 600 miles from Saudi Arabia's oil fields on the kingdom's eastern Persian Gulf coast. But northern Yemen overlooks the Red Sea, the world's busiest route for oil tankers.
Two Arab diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Saudi Tornado and F-15 warplanes had been bombarding targets inside Yemen since Wednesday afternoon, inflicting significant casualties on rebels. The diplomats spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not allowed to talk to the media.
They said army units and special forces also had been sent to northern Yemen, and that several Saudi towns on the border had been evacuated as a precaution. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly told reporters he had no information about whether the conflict had spread across the border but expressed Washington's concern over the situation.
"It's our view that there can be no long-term military solution to the conflict between the Yemeni government and the Hawthi rebels," Kelly said. "We call on all parties to the conflict to make every effort to protect civilian populations and limit damage to civilian infrastructure."
The weak central government of Yemen, which has little control outside the capital San'a, is fighting on multiple fronts including the northern rebels and a separatist movement in the south. But the most worrisome is a lingering threat from al-Qaida militants.
The U.S. also fears any Yemeni fighting could spill over into Saudi Arabia and is concerned that Yemen could become a haven for al-Qaida militants hiding out in the nation, at the tip of the Arabian peninsula.
The Yemeni government openly accuses Iran of arming the Hawthis rebels, but there has been no public evidence to back those claims, said Joost Hiltermann, deputy program director of the Middle East program for the International Crisis Group think tank in London.
"I think Iran is probably pleased with what is happening, but that is not the same as saying they are supporting the Hawthis," Hiltermann said.
Simon Henderson, director of Gulf and energy policy at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy in Washington, agreed that there is no clear evidence that Iran funds the rebels. But he said there is a wide assumption that Iran favors the Hawthis and the Saudis are backing Yemen's Sunni president.
Tom Friedman to Obama: Leave peace alone
Well-known columnist takes jabs at Israel, Palestinians, calls Obama to stay out of Mideast politics for a while. Friedman paraphrases James Baker: 'When you’re serious, give us a call: 202-456-1414. Ask for Barack. Otherwise, stay out of our lives. We have our own country to fix'
Yitzhak Benhorin
WASHINGTON – New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman wrote a piece on the eve that US President Barack Obama set a much-contended meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The article recommends that Obama abandon the Middle East peace process, claiming that US involvement only helps both sides cover up their deficiencies and lack of willingness for real concessions.
Friedman describes talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians as a tiring routine that are more a function of diplomatic habit than real intentions to reach an agreement. The talks have left the realm of diplomacy and have become more an issue of maintenance – something the diplomats do in order to stay in shape, so to speak. "The Israeli-Palestinian peace process has become a bad play. It is obvious that all the parties are just acting out the same old scenes, with the same old tired clichés — and that no one believes any of it anymore. There is no romance, no sex, no excitement, no urgency — not even a sense of importance anymore. The only thing driving the peace process today is inertia and diplomatic habit," Friedman wrote.
Friedman called upon Obama to adopt a new, radical approach that has yet to be seen in the White House: "Take down our 'Peace-Processing-Is-Us' sign and just go home."
As of today, he wrote, the US is interested in peace more than the two parties and has become the Israelis' and the Palestinians' Novocaine."We relieve all the political pain from the Arab and Israeli decision-makers by creating the impression in the minds of their publics that something serious is happening. 'Look, the US secretary of state is here. Look, she’s standing by my side. Look, I’m doing something important! Take our picture. Put it on the news. We’re on the verge of something really big and I am indispensable to it.' This enables the respective leaders to continue with their real priorities — which are all about holding power or pursuing ideological obsessions — while pretending to advance peace, without paying any political price," Friedman claimed.
"Let’s just get out of the picture. Let all these leaders stand in front of their own people and tell them the truth: 'My fellow citizens: Nothing is happening; nothing is going to happen. It’s just you and me and the problem we own.' Indeed, it’s time for us to dust off James Baker’s line: 'When you’re serious, give us a call: 202-456-1414. Ask for Barack. Otherwise, stay out of our lives. We have our own country to fix.'"
"If the status quo is this tolerable for the parties, then I say, let them enjoy it. I just don’t want to subsidize it or anesthetize it anymore. We need to fix America. If and when they get serious, they’ll find us. And when they do, we should put a detailed US plan for a two-state solution, with borders, on the table. Let’s fight about something big."
November 6, 2009
Ten Obstacles to Middle East Peace - By David Bedein
1. November 2, 2009 marked the 92nd anniversary of Balfour day, which led to the 1922 San Remo Treaty and to the 1924 League of Nations ratification of the San Remo Treaty, which recognized the right of Jews to purchase land in the Jewish national homeland, defined as anywhere west of the Jordan River. Ratified by the UN in 1945, that is the basis of international law by which Israel can, indeed, settle the land of Israel with Jews who come from the four corners of the earth. The internationally ratified legal basis for Israel has been forgotten.
2. The Arab league rejected the idea of a Jewish national home, declaring a war of extermination in 1945 and actualizing that declaration in 1948. That declaration which is still extant, and the Arab League’s war to exterminate Israel continues. Egypt was then the dominant factor of the Arab League. The Saudis, however, remain the dominant factor of the Arab League today, as the only nation contiguous to Israel to have never signed any armistice or peace treaty with the Jewish state.
3. Perhaps the most effective tactic of the Arab League was to spawn the PLO under its aegis, whose task it would be to coordinate indigenous Palestinian Arabs to join the Arab States in their war to conquer and displace the Jewish state. To this day, the PLO, led by the Fatah reports to the Arab League, which has never changed its charter to destroy Israel. For that matter, neither has the PLO changed its charter to destroy Israel. At the same time, the Fatah conveys the false impression to the world that it is the product of a grass roots Palestinian national movement. Yet the PLO, course, changed the map and the perception of the Arab war to exterminate Israel, to make the war look like some kind of war of national liberation.
4. The Arab League continued its war of extermination by confining Palestinian Arab refugees from 1948 to the squalor of refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the right of return. Their presence in UNRWA refugee camps continues to this day, under the aegis of the UN, through UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
5. The purpose of UNRWA is to fulfill successive UN resolutions that promote the supposed “inalienable right” of Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendent's to return to villages from before 1948. Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendants in the UNRWA camps learn that the 531 Israeli villages, kibbutzim, moshavim and neighborhoods that replaced the Arab villages are the illegal Israeli settlements, which are located in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ashkelon, BeerSheva, Ashdod, Sderot and hundreds of other Israeli communities that were established on the ruins of Arab villages after 1948. While the popular imagination posits that the Palestinian Arab national ambition is only to replace the Israeli communities in Judea, Samaria and Katif, the Palestinian Arab ambition as dictated by the PLO and its patron in the Arab League, is to take back the lands lost in 1948. UNRWA, financed by the US and other western nations, reinforces that ambition. UNRWA has recently been taken over by Hamas, to ensure that the ambition to actualize the right of return has gained a new, Islamic emphasis. Just look at how many Palestinian Arab refugees have left the teeming UNRWA Arab refugee camps in Gaza to live on the lands of the expelled Jewish communities from Katif. Not one. Why? Because the dictate of the PA, the PLO and Hamas is that Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendants must return to the homes and villages that they left after 1948 - to Jaffa, Beer Sheva, Ashdod, Ashkelon, etc.
6. The Palestinian Authority, established in 1994, instead of spurring the newly recognized Palestinian national entity to establish a nation state alongside Israel, has instead launched a base from where they can liberate the rest of of Palestine.
7. Meanwhile, the PA has established an educational system to educate the next generation that Israel must not exist. The new PA school books and the new PA maps speak for themselves, as the first school curriculum since the Third Reich that inculcates the idea that you must make war on the Jews and that Jews are less than human. The PA school books go one step beyond the Nazis, however, as they introduce lesson plans which praise those who murder Jews. While the Nazis murdered Jews, the Nazis always tried to obfuscate their acts. The Palestinian Authority instead teaches their children to take pride in the act of murdering a Jew.
8. To further reinforce the Palestinian entity around a renewed religious determination of the continued war to liberate all of Palestine, the Palestinian Authority adopted the draft of an Islamic constitution, based on the Sharia law. This was revealed to the public by a senior official in the Vatican who addressed visiting US congressmen in March 2003. This radical constitution was sponsored by the US government, through US AID.
9. Meanwhile, the Hamas Islamic movement took control of the PA legislature in democratic elections that were held under the sponsorship of the American government, in January 2006, which led to a Fatah-Hamas power sharing agreement known as the Mecca Accord, signed between the Fatah and the Hamas in March 2007. When the Fatah began to hesitate in carrying out the Mecca Accord, Hamas took over Gaza in its entirety in June, 2007.
10. The PA has made it clear that it will make no deal with Israel that does not assure the right of return of Palestinian Arab refugees, the PA control over Jerusalem, and the establishment of full and total sovereignty, which includes an army.
2. The Arab league rejected the idea of a Jewish national home, declaring a war of extermination in 1945 and actualizing that declaration in 1948. That declaration which is still extant, and the Arab League’s war to exterminate Israel continues. Egypt was then the dominant factor of the Arab League. The Saudis, however, remain the dominant factor of the Arab League today, as the only nation contiguous to Israel to have never signed any armistice or peace treaty with the Jewish state.
3. Perhaps the most effective tactic of the Arab League was to spawn the PLO under its aegis, whose task it would be to coordinate indigenous Palestinian Arabs to join the Arab States in their war to conquer and displace the Jewish state. To this day, the PLO, led by the Fatah reports to the Arab League, which has never changed its charter to destroy Israel. For that matter, neither has the PLO changed its charter to destroy Israel. At the same time, the Fatah conveys the false impression to the world that it is the product of a grass roots Palestinian national movement. Yet the PLO, course, changed the map and the perception of the Arab war to exterminate Israel, to make the war look like some kind of war of national liberation.
4. The Arab League continued its war of extermination by confining Palestinian Arab refugees from 1948 to the squalor of refugee camps, under the premise and promise of the right of return. Their presence in UNRWA refugee camps continues to this day, under the aegis of the UN, through UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency.
5. The purpose of UNRWA is to fulfill successive UN resolutions that promote the supposed “inalienable right” of Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendent's to return to villages from before 1948. Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendants in the UNRWA camps learn that the 531 Israeli villages, kibbutzim, moshavim and neighborhoods that replaced the Arab villages are the illegal Israeli settlements, which are located in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ashkelon, BeerSheva, Ashdod, Sderot and hundreds of other Israeli communities that were established on the ruins of Arab villages after 1948. While the popular imagination posits that the Palestinian Arab national ambition is only to replace the Israeli communities in Judea, Samaria and Katif, the Palestinian Arab ambition as dictated by the PLO and its patron in the Arab League, is to take back the lands lost in 1948. UNRWA, financed by the US and other western nations, reinforces that ambition. UNRWA has recently been taken over by Hamas, to ensure that the ambition to actualize the right of return has gained a new, Islamic emphasis. Just look at how many Palestinian Arab refugees have left the teeming UNRWA Arab refugee camps in Gaza to live on the lands of the expelled Jewish communities from Katif. Not one. Why? Because the dictate of the PA, the PLO and Hamas is that Palestinian Arab refugees and their descendants must return to the homes and villages that they left after 1948 - to Jaffa, Beer Sheva, Ashdod, Ashkelon, etc.
6. The Palestinian Authority, established in 1994, instead of spurring the newly recognized Palestinian national entity to establish a nation state alongside Israel, has instead launched a base from where they can liberate the rest of of Palestine.
7. Meanwhile, the PA has established an educational system to educate the next generation that Israel must not exist. The new PA school books and the new PA maps speak for themselves, as the first school curriculum since the Third Reich that inculcates the idea that you must make war on the Jews and that Jews are less than human. The PA school books go one step beyond the Nazis, however, as they introduce lesson plans which praise those who murder Jews. While the Nazis murdered Jews, the Nazis always tried to obfuscate their acts. The Palestinian Authority instead teaches their children to take pride in the act of murdering a Jew.
8. To further reinforce the Palestinian entity around a renewed religious determination of the continued war to liberate all of Palestine, the Palestinian Authority adopted the draft of an Islamic constitution, based on the Sharia law. This was revealed to the public by a senior official in the Vatican who addressed visiting US congressmen in March 2003. This radical constitution was sponsored by the US government, through US AID.
9. Meanwhile, the Hamas Islamic movement took control of the PA legislature in democratic elections that were held under the sponsorship of the American government, in January 2006, which led to a Fatah-Hamas power sharing agreement known as the Mecca Accord, signed between the Fatah and the Hamas in March 2007. When the Fatah began to hesitate in carrying out the Mecca Accord, Hamas took over Gaza in its entirety in June, 2007.
10. The PA has made it clear that it will make no deal with Israel that does not assure the right of return of Palestinian Arab refugees, the PA control over Jerusalem, and the establishment of full and total sovereignty, which includes an army.
In Memoriam: Rabbi Meir Kahane by Shifra Hoffman
In this generation of fleeting allegiance and loyalty, particularly in the realm of Jewish leadership, it seems inexplicable that today, years after the brutal murder of Rabbi Meir Kahane, he is mourned by so many Jews throughout the world. The phrase coined so as to perpetuate his ideas as well as his memory is" Kahane tzadak"(Kahane was right [i.e.his predictions were correct]).
Having worked closely for more than two decades with this self-sacrificing Jewish leader, both in the United States and in Israel, I feel impelled, on the l9th anniversary of his
In his view, the Torah was the only timely and relevant 'road map' for the Jewish people.
murder, to relate a few little known insights about the man behind the headlines.
Although demonized by both left- and right-wing Israeli governments for his prophetic warnings concerning the rise of Arab nationalism and the dire consequences of making concessions to these implacable enemies, Rabbi Kahane remained undaunted. In his view, the Torah was the only timely and relevant 'road map' for the Jewish people.
During his election campaign for the Knesset, despite an Israeli Court decision that obliged television and newspapers to cover him as they did all other candidates, these 'democratic media outlets’ refused to do so. This compelled the Rabbi to travel to speak each day in communities throughout Israel, often returning late at night in a state of complete exhaustion. Against all odds, he was elected to the Knesset. and following his unexpected success, began to use the Knesset podium to sponsor the exact legislation upon which he based his pre-election platform. This, as we know, is an unusual phenomenon in Israel, where once elected, politicians feel they have the right to diametrically change their policy. Rabbi Kahane believed that the only solution that could prevent a repeat of the Holocaust “final solution” in the Jewish state is the separation of Arabs and Jews.
(click title for rest of A7 article)
Having worked closely for more than two decades with this self-sacrificing Jewish leader, both in the United States and in Israel, I feel impelled, on the l9th anniversary of his
In his view, the Torah was the only timely and relevant 'road map' for the Jewish people.
murder, to relate a few little known insights about the man behind the headlines.Although demonized by both left- and right-wing Israeli governments for his prophetic warnings concerning the rise of Arab nationalism and the dire consequences of making concessions to these implacable enemies, Rabbi Kahane remained undaunted. In his view, the Torah was the only timely and relevant 'road map' for the Jewish people.
During his election campaign for the Knesset, despite an Israeli Court decision that obliged television and newspapers to cover him as they did all other candidates, these 'democratic media outlets’ refused to do so. This compelled the Rabbi to travel to speak each day in communities throughout Israel, often returning late at night in a state of complete exhaustion. Against all odds, he was elected to the Knesset. and following his unexpected success, began to use the Knesset podium to sponsor the exact legislation upon which he based his pre-election platform. This, as we know, is an unusual phenomenon in Israel, where once elected, politicians feel they have the right to diametrically change their policy. Rabbi Kahane believed that the only solution that could prevent a repeat of the Holocaust “final solution” in the Jewish state is the separation of Arabs and Jews.
(click title for rest of A7 article)
November 3, 2009
Gov’t Radio Bans Ads for Memorial Services for Rabbi Kahane
Itamar Ben-Gvir, a Knesset aide to MK Dr. Ben-Ari, warned that if the IBA does not cancel the ban, he will demand that it also prohibit commercials calling on the public to attend memorial services this week for former Prime Minister Yitzchak Rabin.
"Voice of Israel government radio officially is mandated to maintain a balance of views, but media watchdogs have continually documented and complained about bias against Orthodox Jews, strong action against terrorism, and those who favor a State of Israel that includes all of eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria and the Golan Heights. "
This is but yet another example of a pathetic Israeli Government, that fears a ghosts shadow!
Even in Death Kahane is more open powerful than this Bibi Peres travesty. The secular leaders of Israel continue to act like fascists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)