A Bohème Open Thread
Obama in Cairo addressing the ummah (worldwide Muslim community)3 Boston Islamic charity leaders convicted again Boston Herald (hat tip Johana)
Mice Trained Against Terror - Defense/Middle East - News ...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
Read more...
It's no joke. "Mice have an excellent sense of smell, and they're relatively easy to train. And they're easier to use for odor detection than other animals traditionally used for their olfactory capabilities."
He stresses that the mice are treated well; they "work" for four hours, and then rest for eight, to ensure they don't experience sensory overload.
Arlene from Israel
02 September '11
I want to concentrate today on the UN, and the up-coming Durban III. What's encouraging here is the enormous response against Durban III that is being mounted. While there is much ugliness in the world, there seems to be far less passivity with regard to it. This is a hopeful sign
Eye on the UN, the organization headed by Anne Bayefsky, has put out a short new video regarding "Durban III and the Perils of Global Intolerance":http://www.durbanwatch.com/ On this same page you can find backgrounders regarding Durban I and II.
The date for Durban III at the UN is September 22. At the same time, there will be a counter-conference sponsored by The Hudson Institute -- with which Bayefsky is associated -- and Touro College Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust at the Millennium UN Plaza Hotel.
What a line-up of speakers they will have, including: John Bolton, Mike Hukabee, Dore Gold, Ruth Wisse, Wafa Sultan, Khaled Abu Toameh, and Simon Deng.
There will be a live conference webcast and at the durbanwatch site above you can secure information for logging into that.
Perhaps even more important is "We Have a Dream: Global Summit Against Discrimination and Persecution.," sponsored by an international coalition of NGOs. This will be "a parallel summit to place urgent situations of discrimination and persecution on the international agenda, promote human rights and democracy, and give a voice to the voiceless."
The goal, quite simply, is to focus public attention on the genuine human rights atrocities taking place in the world, as counterpoint to the obscene and libelous UN charge that Israel is the greatest violator of human rights. At one and the same time it will put the lie to the Durban III charges and, as its PR indicates, "give a voice to the voiceless." It will call attention to genuine human suffering that is too often ignored.
The Summit will take place on September 21 and 22 on the UN Plaza across the street from the UN. And it will feature people such as a survivor of Tiananmen Square and president of Initiatives for China; one of the "lost boys of Sudan," as well as people connected to and fighting against human rights abuses in places such as Vietnam, Cuba, Burma, Rwanda, Sudan and Iran. There will be, for example, a spokesperson for the Uyghur people, a Chinese ethnic people that endures suffering at the hands of the Chinese government.
There will be a webcast of these proceedings as well, which you should be able to access at: NGOsummit.org.
Lastly, and very significantly, there is this:
Chair of the House Foreign Relations Committee Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) -- who is a wise and forthright woman, and a great friend of Israel -- on August 30 introduced House Resolution 2829, which is now in committee. It is intended to promote transparency, accountability, and reform within the United Nations system, and would have an effect on how US donations to the UN are directed and when they may be withheld. Under this bill, the US -- instead of giving across the board funding -- would decide which programs to support. Funds to the ant-Israel Human Rights Council, for example, would stop immediately.
Significantly, the bill proposes immediately cutting America's financial contribution to any program or agency of the UN that supports Palestinian bid for recognition and membership.
The bill currently has 57 co-sponsors. I ask you most urgently to write to your Congresspersons and encourage them to sign on as co-sponsors, if they have not already done so.
The US currently provides 22% of the UN's budget ($7.7 billion in 2010!!). Much of what is funded with this US donation works against US values and goals and is a waste of US tax dollars. It is on this basis that your Congresspersons should be urged to support House Resolution 2829. The US can ill-afford to waste money in this fashion.
Other arguments (with a nod to UCI):
- UN agencies are filled with representatives of the most tyrannical nations in the world, some of the worst abusers of human rights. Yet these nations continue to pass multiple resolutions condemning Israel while ignoring their own inhumanity.
- Financial corruption is rampant and investigation has documented billions of dollars funneled into private accounts of U.N. officials.
- Hamas is not listed as a terrorist entity by the UN. Via a process involving UNRWA, Hamas ends up as a beneficiary of UN largesse.
- The Palestinian refugees have been maintained by UNRWA for more than 60 years. They languish in deplorable conditions in "refugee camps" where they are indoctrinated in terrorism and hatred of Israel.
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_State.shtml
Additionally, please! write letters to the editor and op-eds regarding this issue.
Here is a place to make a difference. Please, don't put this off.
The Rubin Report
01 September '11
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-supporting-unilateral-palestinian.html
Marwan Barghouti, leader of the Fatah West Bank grassroots' (Tanzim) group and under a life sentence in an Israel prison, has said that if the United States vetoes a unilateral Palestinian statehood proposal at the UN, there will be massive riots. To underline the point, he called such a decision a "historic, deadly mistake."
When he says, "deadly," he means it. Indeed, Barghouti, the leader of the Fatah grassroots' (Tanzim) organization on the West Bank, is in prison precisely because he organized massive deadly riots after the Palestinian Authority (PA) rejected a compromise peace with Israel that would have given them a state in 2000. In other words, they're intransigent and then start a war when they don't get everything they want.
It's the basic tactic in the terrorist playbook: Give me everything I want so I can better destroy you in the long run or I will kill you in the short-run.
And it is encouraged by the basic tactic often used by Western governments: We feel your pain, understand that you are a victim, and will give you as much as possible. Those concessions are rejected and then more are demanded.
This doesn't make sense to most Western observers: Aren't the Palestinians desperate for a state and to end a terrible "occupation?" In fact, though, Israel pulled completely out of the Gaza Strip six years ago this month and the Palestinian Authority (PA) has now governed almost all West Bank Palestinians for the last 17 years.
In fact, the PA is not in a hurry to negotiate a deal for several reasons.
First, the moderates in the PA are very weak compared to the radicals who still run Fatah, its ruling party. Second, the PA is still competing with revolutionary Islamist Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip in a race to prove its militancy. Third, almost nothing has been done to prepare the Palestinians for a compromise peace and two-state solution alongside Israel. Finally, most Palestinian leaders still think that total victory and Israel's extinction is possible, desirable, and just. Many in the West—whether intentionally or not—encourage that last belief by hostile policies and beliefs regarding Israel.
That doesn't mean Israel is willing to give everything or that its policies are perfect. But the mood in Israel today, and for the last dozen years or more, is ready—even eager—for a lasting, stable two-state solution. The differences over borders and other issues can be argued at the negotiating table and are possible to resolve in a genuine exchange of compromises and concessions on both sides.
But since 1993, the Palestinian Authority has made several agreements with Israel. In exchange for being handed control over the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank; billions of dollars in aid; the supply of weapons; the return of tens of thousands of Palestinians to these territories; and many other benefits, the PA promised to do various things in return. These include an end to incitement to kill Israelis; stopping terrorism; and negotiating in good faith for a comprehensive agreement.
Since Hamas attacked Israel with rockets and mortars setting off a war in December 2008, the PA has refused to negotiate with Israel. When President Barack Obama in September 2009, announced he wanted to hold direct talks in Washington, the PA refused. In 2010, when Israel, at the request of President Barack Obama, froze all construction on settlements for nine months, the PA again wouldn't talk.
Instead, the PA came up with a new strategy, why negotiate a compromise agreement with Israel when it could go to the UN and be handed an independent state without having to make any concessions? No need to reach a deal with Israel over borders, refugees, east Jerusalem, security guarantees, agreeing that the conflict is completely finished, or recognizing Israel as a "Jewish state" (the Palestinian constitution says that Palestine will be an Arab and Muslim state), just get a vote in the General Assembly!
This, of course, is not a solution to the conflict but a way of avoiding a negotiated solution to the issue. It is not a way to end the conflict but to ensure that the conflict continues and more lives are lost on both sides.
The underlying problem is that the PA and its allies among Arab and Muslim-majority states want to wipe Israel off the map. If they want a Palestinian state on the basis of an agreement with Israel that goal could be accomplished within months. But because such a peace arrangement would block the advance toward the ultimate goal it is undesirable.
But suppose that the UN did agree to recognize Palestine as a state, meaning that the Security Council approved and the General Assembly voted to do that? Immediately, the state of Palestine would have no incentive to reach a deal with Israel. Instead, it could do things like trying to import weapons from abroad; allow Arab armies to send forces onto its soil, and even allow cross-border terrorist attacks on Israel. In the Gaza Strip, Hamas, a terrorist group that openly calls for genocide against Israel and all Jews, would be in effect part of an internationally recognized government.
If Israel then responded to any attack, the state of Palestine would go to the UN, declare Israel to be the unprovoked aggressor, and the automatic majority in the General Assembly would back it up no matter what the facts. The possibility of real negotiations, much less a peace treaty, would be set back for years. And in a region increasingly heading toward revolutionary Islamism in many places, a deteriorating security situation overall plus this new development would bring war.
Far from helping the situation, then, the UN gambit is likely to lead to less peace, no hope of a negotiated settlement, and more bloodshed.
This article is published today in the Ottawa Citizen.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at http: www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
JPost Editor-in Chief
01 September '11
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=236366
Larry Derfner crossed the line into territory of hate speech when in a personal blog last week he sought to justify Palestinian terrorism.
In one of my first columns as editor-in-chief ("Halting the hatred," July 22), I urged The Jerusalem Post's journalists and contributors to be more sensitive when it comes to reporting and commenting on potentially inflammatory topics in the news.
"We at the Post believe that hate speech harms the civil discourse in Israel, and in my opinion, it poses a real danger to the country's very existence as a democratic Jewish state," I wrote.
Larry Derfner, a veteran journalist who penned a weekly column and reported for our Magazine, crossed the line into the territory of hate speech when in a personal blog last week he sought to justify Palestinian terrorism against Israelis.
His egregious posting came in response to the August 18 terrorist murder of Israeli citizens on the Egyptian border.
"Whoever the Palestinians were who killed the eight Israelis near Eilat last week, however vile their ideology was, they were justified to attack," Derfner wrote. "Palestinians have the right to resist – to use violence against Israelis, even to kill Israelis."
These comments are exceptionally offensive to most Israelis, and especially hurtful to those who have been victims of terror. They endorse and encourage, if not incite and inflame, terrorism against Israel.
When Derfner asked that we run the piece in the Post, we rejected it and dissociated ourselves completely from his comments, to which we object in the strongest possible terms.
Even though his column did not appear in the paper, we came to the conclusion that we could no longer provide a stage to someone who openly promulgates such venomous views.
Derfner later wrote an apology that we chose not to run. In it, he expresses deep regret for his blog post, saying: "My intention was to shock people into recognition, but I ended up shocking many of them into revulsion, and twisting what I wanted to say into something I didn't and don't mean at all.
"I regret what I wrote [last] Sunday. I apologize to everyone who was offended by it, and I apologize to my countrymen. The post is no longer on my blog; I've taken it down."
The substance of Derfner's apology itself was not convincing. He used ludicrous logic to defend his position, repeating the same obscene sentiments that made many readers sick to their stomachs in the first place.
He had meant, he said, "to shock Israelis and friends of Israel into seeing how badly we're hurting the Palestinians by denying them independence: It's so bad that it's helping drive them to try to kill us."
If you saw Oren Kessler's article in the paper this week about the anti-Israel coverage in the Arab media following the attacks on the southern border, you may have noticed that their commentaries were not significantly different from Derfner's.
Abdel Bari Atwan, editor-inchief of the London-based pan- Arab daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, wrote that Israel bore direct responsibility for the terrorist attack on its soil.
"This attack put the spotlight back on the most important struggle – that for the honor of the Arab and Islamic nation," Atwan argued. "Resistance is a legitimate right as long as land is occupied and the people and holy places are humiliated."
Derfner's blog later appeared on a Hamas website, giving succor to Israel's enemies.
By trying to rationalize the murder of his fellow Jews by terrorists, Derfner – who has always been the consummate journalist for the Post – went beyond the pale. Consequently we terminated his employment.
The move, I stress, had nothing to do with threats to cancel subscriptions or advertisements; it was an editorial decision taken on moral grounds. While politically independent, the Post is a quintessentially Zionist newspaper priding itself on its patriotism and credibility, as well as its balanced reporting and diverse commentaries.
We are certainly not silencing the Left, and will continue to feature columnists of all political stripes. Freedom of speech has its limits, however, and Derfner clearly overstepped them.
Derfner is a fine writer but a loose cannon. His column in the Post was titled "Rattling the Cage." There is a huge difference between rattling the bars and letting the tiger out.
carolineglick.com
02 September '11
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2011/09/cliche-based-foreign-policy.php
US Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, kicked up a political storm this week. On Tuesday, Ros-Lehtinen introduced the United Nations Transparency, Accountability and Reform Act. If passed into law it would place stringent restrictions on US funding of the UN's budget.
The US currently funds 22 percent of the UN's general budget. That budget is passed by the General Assembly with no oversight by the US. America's 22% share of the budget is nonvoluntary, meaning the US may exert no influence over how its taxpayers' funds are spent.
If Ros-Lehtinen's act is passed into law, the UN will have two years to enact budgetary reforms that would render a minimum of 80% of its budget financing voluntary. If the UN does not make the required reforms, the US government will be enjoined to withhold 50% of its nonvoluntary UN budget allocations.
Beyond this overarching demand for UN budgetary reform, the act contains several specific actions that are directed against UN institutions that advance anti-American and anti-Israel agendas.
Ros-Lehtinen's act would defund the UN Human Rights Committee until such time as it repeals its permanent anti-Israel resolution, and prohibits countries that support terror and are under UN Security Council sanctions from serving as its members. It would also prohibit the US from serving as a member of the UNHRC until such reforms are enacted.
Ros-Lehtinen's bill defunds all UN activities related to the libelous Goldstone Report, and the anti-Semitic Durban process. It vastly curtails and conditions US funding of UNRWA, the Palestinian refugee agency permeated by members of terrorist organizations. UNRWA's facilities are routinely used to plan, execute and incite terrorism against Israel and to indoctrinate Palestinians to seek Israel's destruction.
The bill pays special attention to the Palestinian Authority's plan to have the UN Security Council and General Assembly vote in favor of Palestinian statehood later this month. The bill would cut off US funding to any UN agency or organization that upgrades the Palestinian mission to the UN in any way in the aftermath of a General Assembly vote in favor of such an upgrade in representation.
Ros-Lehtinen's bill, which has 57 co-sponsors, provides detailed explanations for how the targeted UN agencies and activities harm US interests. It notes that the US's membership since 2009 in the UN Human Rights Council has had no impact whatsoever on the UNHRC's anti-Israel and anti-American agenda. The US has been unable to temper in any way the UNHRC's actions and resolutions, including its decisions to form the Goldstone Commission and to endorse the findings of the Goldstone Report, and its continued support and organization of the anti-Semitic Durban conferences in which Israel is attacked and libeled as an illegitimate, racist state.
The bill notes that despite US efforts to extend oversight over UNRWA's hiring process, UNRWA continues to hire members of terrorist organizations. The bill provides a long list of UNRWA employees who have perpetrated terrorist attacks.
Ignoring its fact-based assessment of UN failings, the Obama administration has rejected the Ros-Lehtinen bill out of hand. Speaking to Politico, an administration source panned the bill, claiming, "This draft legislation is dated, tired and frankly unresponsive to the positive role being played by the UN."
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland attacked the bill, saying it would "seriously undermine our international standing and dangerously weaken the UN as an instrument to advance US national security goals."
Since taking office, Barack Obama has taken concerted steps to place cooperation with the UN at the top of his foreign policy agenda. Through word and deed, Obama has shown that he believes that the US should minimize the extent to which it operates independently of the UN on the global stage.
Obama and his advisers give four arguments to support their view that the UN should effectively replace the US as the global leader. First, they say that the US cannot operate unilaterally on the global stage.
Second, they insinuate that operations undertaken outside the UN umbrella are somehow illegitimate.
To support this contention, they intimate that the reason the US was bogged down in Iraq following its 2003 invasion was because it did not receive specific Security Council permission to invade. In contrast, they point to the current Security Council-sanctioned military operation in Libya and the 1991 Security Council-sanctioned Persian Gulf War as success stories. And they attribute those missions' successes to their conduct under the UN aegis.
The third argument, which comes across clearly in Nuland's statement, is that to have credibility in global affairs, the US must not throw its weight around at the UN. If it objects too strenuously to the way things are done, or makes its support for the UN conditional on UN actions, then all the other UN members will be offended and refuse to cooperate with the US.
The final argument they make is reflected in the statement the unnamed administration source gave to Politico. Quite simply, in their view, trying to hold the UN accountable for its actions is old fashioned. In today's world, accountability is out. And anyone who doesn't understand that is simply out of touch, "dated, tired."
All of these arguments are false. In the first instance, it is simply untrue that the US is incapable of operating unilaterally. Aside from Saudi Arabia in 1991 and Kuwait in 2003, the US did not need its partners in Iraq. Of all the non-American participants in the US military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, only Britain made an impact on fighting. And frankly, the US would have secured Saudi, Kuwaiti and British cooperation without ever involving the UN.
Indeed, under both Democrat and Republican administrations, the US has frequently acted successfully outside the UN framework. In 1998 the Clinton administration could not get UN Security Council agreement to fight in Kosovo, and so it ignored the UN and fought alongside its NATO allies.
The US had 21 allied militaries fighting alongside its forces in Iraq, despite the fact that the operation was conducted outside the UN Security Council umbrella.
The US-initiated Proliferation Security Initiative founded in 2003 is arguably the US's most successful multilateral effort to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Operating completely outside the UN framework, the PSI has 98 members.
As for the two major US military operations that have been carried out in recent memory by force of UN Security Council resolutions, the jury is still out on both. Due to the Security Council's restrictions on the mission of the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the US permitted Saddam Hussein to remain in power after removing his invasion forces from Kuwait.
In the 12 years between that war and the 2003 Iraq war, Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who - at US urging - tried to overthrow him. He exploited the Security Council sanctions to starve his people for propaganda purposes while he and his cronies enriched themselves through corrupt UN oil-for-food contracts.
Had Saddam been overthrown in 1991, his replacement by a pro-Western successor regime could have been enacted more smoothly and at far smaller cost to the US and the Iraqi people.
As for Libya, reports from Tripoli indicate that critics of the UN mission were correct. In overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi, the US has apparently enabled a situation in which any successor regime will likely be dominated by al-Qaida-aligned political and military forces allied with Iran.
The claim that the US will lose influence in international affairs if it is perceived as bossy by its fellow UN nation states is similarly groundless. The hard truth is that no one goes along with the UN simply because it is the UN. States are reasonably and consistently opportunistic in their cooperation with the UN. They support the UN when it supports their interests and they ignore the UN when it opposes their interests.
States do not oppose the US at the UN because they consider it bossy. They oppose the US at the UN because they believe it serves their national interests to oppose the US and its interests. It is due to clashing interests, not the comportment of US representatives, that the Obama administration has failed to exert any influence over the UNHRC's agenda despite its commitment to "engagement."
Clashing national interests are the reason the Obama administration has failed to secure Security Council support for anything approaching effective measures against Iran's nuclear weapons program.
The final administration argument - that it is déclassé to demand that the UN stop advancing the causes of America's enemies - is not simply peevish and insulting. It is indicative of the culture that motivates the administration to cling to its UN-centered agenda despite its obvious and repeated failure.
As the easy refutation of all the administration's arguments makes clear, the agenda is not a product of rational thought. It is the product of the groupthink that is endemic at the universities from whence Obama and his advisers have emerged. This groupthink is directed by unquestioned clichés that are passed off as sophisticated reasoning. These include such pearls of wisdom as "global governance," "Twitter revolution," "multilateralism" and "interdependence."
These clichés have become articles of faith that are impermeable to fact and reality. As a consequence, those who adhere to them will never acknowledge their failure to deliver on their utopian promises. Instead they attack anyone who points out their failure as "dated," and as "tired" old fogies who are too unsophisticated to understand the world.
We see this attitude at work in all aspects of Obama's foreign policy. For instance, Obama came into office with the view that the reason all efforts to date to successfully complete a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians failed because the Palestinians didn't trust the US to "deliver" Israel. To remedy this perceived problem, Obama has consistently sought to "put daylight" between the US and Israel. This policy has failed abysmally, as the PA's current UN statehood bid shows. And yet the administration continues to cling to it, because acknowledging its failure would involve renouncing a cliché.
So, too, the administration's policy of engaging Iran has brought the mullocracy to the brink of a nuclear arsenal, empowered it to violently repress pro-American democracy protesters, expand its influence in Iraq and Afghanistan, take over Lebanon, and make inroads in Egypt, Libya and beyond. And yet, despite all of this, the administration refuses to admit its policy is wrong and adopt a more effective one, because doing so would involve acknowledging that "engagement" is not the panacea it was cracked up to be.
Ros-Lehtinen's bill is expected to be blocked in the Democrat-controlled Senate before Obama has the opportunity to veto it. This is a pity not simply because the bill would advance US interests and the cause of freedom. It is a pity because it shows that the foreign policy debate in the US is now a fight between those who trust facts and those who trust clichés.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
Another Tack
01 September '11
http://sarahhonig.com/2011/09/01/another-tack-khartoum%E2%80%99s-three-%E2%80%98nos%E2%80%99-the-ramallah-version/
Our media – forever plying an advocacy agenda and tendentiously promoting hyped humbug – showed no interest in focusing on Ramallah figurehead Mahmoud Abbas's latest song and dance. Denied resonance, the story expired virtually unnoticed.
Most Israeli news-consumers were highly unlikely even to have detected any fleeting resemblance between Abbas's three "no's" and the three "no's" enunciated so bombastically in Khartoum exactly 44 years and one day ago.
Representatives of all Arab League members and the PLO hobnobbed in Sudan on August 29, 1967, soon after the Six Day War. On September 1, they published their resolution, popularly dubbed "the three no's": "no peace, no recognition, no negotiation with Israel."
It would serve us well to recall that this was when Israelis delusionally awaited, as Moshe Dayan phrased it, "a phone call" from Arab leaders. We sincerely convinced ourselves that given the new circumstances in the region, there's no alternative for the Arab world but to shake off its refusal to accept Israel and to effect a lasting reconciliation.
Had the Arabs operated according to our patterns of logic, this indeed should have been the outcome. But the idealistic expectations that our enlightened rationale would guide the reactions of others were (and, alas, still are) pie-in-the-sky. Then-foreign minister Abba Eban promised we'd be "unbelievably generous in working out peace terms." In direct talks with official Arab interlocutors, he stressed, "everything is negotiable."
This past August 27, two days short of the anniversary of the Khartoum summit's opening, Abbas chose to echo its rejectionist sentiments. He announced three "no's" of his own: no to recognizing a Jewish state, no to tolerating Jewish settlement blocs and no to forgoing the demand that Israel be overrun by untold millions of hostile Arabs (marketed to all and sundry as the Right of Return).
This is all fundamentally significant, not least because we find ourselves at the outset of what we're told will be a fateful September – the month in which a great tsunami will violently engulf us both in the diplomatic arena (at the UN General Assembly) and right on our own turf (via orchestrated terror campaigns touted as grassroots demonstrations).
Abbas has just definitively defined what it's all about, even if we were distracted and loath to listen to him – as we almost always are.
Speaking on the eve of a last-ditch EU meddling effort geared to initiate another negotiation round before Abbas's projected UN extravaganza, he set conditions. He'll agree to talks if their outcome is fully determined a priori and imposed on Israel.
He'll send his representatives to palaver with Israeli negotiators if Israel consents beforehand to shrink back to the 1949 armistice lines and if it ceases forthwith all "settlement" construction, including in beyond-Green-Line Jerusalem neighborhoods. The construction freeze, needless to emphasize, applies to Jews only – in the spirit of goodwill to all men (except for some).
This, in effect, is Abbas's counterpart to Khartoum's no-negotiation stipulation. Abbas has set up a hurdle so high that it becomes unsurpassable and thereby makes further negotiations unfeasible.
Next comes Abbas's present-day equivalent to Khartoum's no-recognition proviso. While not identical in wording, its bottom line is no different from its 44-year-old prototype. Abbas repeated insolently that recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is out of the question – not now, not ever, no way, nowhere, under no condition.
This isn't a semantic quibble. It means refusal to accede even to the 1947 UN Partition Resolution minimum, which determined that the Jewish people deserve a state. To crush said resolution, seven Arab armies attacked newborn Israel but lost, triggering their piteous lamentations to this day.
As long as the very notion of the rightful existence of a Jewish state is denied, the irredentist ambition to eradicate Israel as a Jewish state will fester and rule out even a remote likelihood of lasting peace.
The Arabs' current tactic is to admit that a state called Israel is a reality in their midst, even if an unwelcome one. But current realties can be changed. If Israel is judged as illegitimate, then the temptation will forever remain to eliminate this illegitimacy. Hence refusing to accept the rightful existence of a Jewish state is nothing less than proclaiming the intention to keep on challenging and destabilizing it till a more convenient opportunity presents itself to wipe it off the map altogether.
This is a potent, dominant and recurring Arab theme – not pedantic hair-splitting by a deliberately obstructionist Israel. Herein lies nothing less than the core issue. At stake isn't the creation of a second Arab state in original Palestine (Jordan, occupying some 80% of the British Palestine mandate territory, being the first).
What actually hangs in the balance is the ongoing survival of the Jewish state. The Palestinian ploy, in fact, is nothing but a weapon to wield against the Jewish state, foremost by disguising the antagonistic aims against it.
Yesteryear's uninhibited bluster about throwing the Jews into the sea was a public relations flop. However, the reverse is true for the new-style upmarket prattle that portrays Jews as ogre conquistadors who deny the ancient Palestinian nation the self-determination forcibly usurped from it.
This canard goes over big. It seemingly doesn't offend liberal niceties, while appealing to the postmodern zeitgeist and to that latent Judeophobia still lurking sinisterly throughout Europe.
How will this veiled plot to obliterate Israel be carried out? Here we arrive at Abbas's third "no." His tool will be the Right of Return, i.e., the right uniquely reserved for assumed descendents of so-called Palestinian refugees to inundate Israel. This will render it ripe for full Arabization, shorn eventually of any shreds of Jewish identity – down to the last vestiges, like its name, emblem, flag and national anthem.
We won't even raise the macabre specter of bloodshed. Little imagination is demanded of anyone who knows the history of this country since the mid-19th century and the accompanying shouts of itbah el-yahud (slaughter the Jews).
Finally, the rejection of settlement-bloc compromise should squash any lingering pipe dreams among Israelis hoping that it's possible to reconcile Abbas's insistence on the 1967 demarcations with Israel's inability to again compress itself, ever-vulnerable, into those existentially threatening confines.
Abbas delivered an inconsiderate kick in the teeth to those of us who clutch at hallucinations about land-swaps that would leave us with significant settlement blocs.
His non-start preconditions are that we squeeze ourselves back into what super-dove Eban dubbed "the Auschwitz lines," that we forget about Jewish state legitimacy and that we agree to the Arab takeover of the defenseless-cum-illegitimate entity provisionally going under the name of Israel.
Remember, besides rudely spurning Israel's outstretched hand in 1967, the Khartoum conferees underscored their three "no's" by reaffirming "the Palestinians' right to regain the whole of Palestine," i.e., destroy the State of Israel.
That was precisely Abbas's message last week – albeit in somewhat more discreet words. Still, what was, is what is –even if we don't like it.
IMRA
Weekly Commentary
01 September '11
Let's keep this simple:
We have absolutely no idea who will be ruling Egypt in the near future.
That's "near future".
So policy recommendations vis-à-vis Egyptian force deployments in the Sinai in excess of the treaty that hinge their reasoning on the composition, intentions, or anything else of the currently ruling military regime are grossly short sighted.
Short sighted and irresponsible.
If anything, any policy recommendation on this matter must answer the following critical question:
What impact will there be on Israel's security if Israel accepts Egyptian force deployment "X" in the Sinai in excess of the treaty and the regime ruling Egypt decides to support a military campaign against the Jewish State – either by actively participating in an invasion or by engaging in various maneuvers within Egypt that force Israel to divert military resources from other fronts facing an invasion.
That's not to say that Israel must rule out any and all changes in the agreement.
Just that it must do it with eyes wide open, fully aware of the potential ramifications of the move.
protocol of the elders of zion best selling lists http://search.swagbucks.com/?thttp://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/
The UN nuclear watchdog says it is "increasingly concerned" that Iran is secretly working on components for a nuclear weapons programme.
Sleep tight.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) describes its information as "extensive and comprehensive".
In a report seen by news agencies, it also says Tehran is preparing to enrich uranium at a new location - an underground bunker near Qom.
The IAEA says "many member states" had provided evidence for its latest assessment on Iran's nuclear ambitions.
Extracts of the report, published by the AFP news agency, said the IAEA was "increasingly concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organisations".
These included "activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile".
Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the New York Police Department has become one of the nation's most aggressive domestic intelligence agencies, targeting ethnic communities in ways that would run afoul of civil liberties rules if practiced by the federal government, an Associated Press investigation has found.
There's a lot more. Although the tone of the report is very negative, it does not appear that any of this is illegal. It also looks like the NYPD is going as close to the line as it can without crossing it.
These operations have benefited from unprecedented help from the CIA, a partnership that has blurred the line between foreign and domestic spying.
The department has dispatched undercover officers, known as "rakers," into minority neighborhoods as part of a human mapping program, according to officials directly involved in the program. They've monitored daily life in bookstores, bars, cafes and nightclubs. Police have also used informants, known as "mosque crawlers," to monitor sermons, even when there's no evidence of wrongdoing.
Neither the city council, which finances the department, nor the federal government, which has given NYPD more than $1.6 billion since 9/11, is told exactly what's going on.
Many of these operations were built with help from the CIA, which is prohibited from spying on Americans but was instrumental in transforming the NYPD's intelligence unit.
A veteran CIA officer, while still on the agency's payroll, was the architect of the NYPD's intelligence programs. The CIA trained a police detective at the Farm, the agency's spy school in Virginia, then returned him to New York, where he put his new espionage skills to work inside the United States.
The NYPD denied that it trolls ethnic neighborhoods and said it only follows leads. Police operations have disrupted terrorist plots and put several would-be killers in prison.
"The New York Police Department is doing everything it can to make sure there's not another 9/11 here and that more innocent New Yorkers are not killed by terrorists," NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said. "And we have nothing to apologize for in that regard."
AP's investigation is based on documents and interviews with more than 40 current and former New York Police Department and federal officials. Many were directly involved in planning and carrying out these secret operations for the department. Though most said the tactics were appropriate and made the city safer, many insisted on anonymity, because they were not authorized to speak with reporters about security matters.
...
Since 1985, the NYPD had operated under a federal court order limiting the tactics it could use to gather intelligence. During the 1960s and 1970s, the department had used informants and undercover officers to infiltrate anti-war protest groups and other activists without any reason to suspect criminal behavior.
To settle a lawsuit, the department agreed to follow guidelines that required "specific information" of criminal activity before police could monitor political activity.
In September 2002, [NYPD intelligence chief David] Cohen told a federal judge that those guidelines made it "virtually impossible" to detect terrorist plots. The FBI was changing its rules to respond to 9/11, and Cohen argued that the NYPD must do so, too.
"In the case of terrorism, to wait for an indication of crime before investigating is to wait far too long," Cohen wrote.
U.S. District Judge Charles S. Haight Jr. agreed, saying the old guidelines "addressed different perils in a different time." He scrapped the old rules and replaced them with more lenient ones.
It was a turning point for the NYPD.
...
With his newfound authority, Cohen created a secret squad that would soon infiltrate Muslim neighborhoods, according to several current and former officials directly involved in the program.
The NYPD carved up the city into more than a dozen zones and assigned undercover officers to monitor them, looking for potential trouble.
At the CIA, one of the biggest obstacles has always been that U.S. intelligence officials are overwhelmingly white, their mannerisms clearly American. The NYPD didn't have that problem, thanks to its diverse pool of officers.
Using census data, the department matched undercover officers to ethnic communities and instructed them to blend in, the officials said. Pakistani-American officers infiltrated Pakistani neighborhoods, Palestinians focused on Palestinian neighborhoods. They hung out in hookah bars and cafes, quietly observing the community around them.
The unit, which has been undisclosed until now, became known inside the department as the Demographic Unit, former police officials said.
"It's not a question of profiling. It's a question of going where the problem could arise," said Mordecai Dzikansky, a retired NYPD intelligence officer who said he was aware of the Demographic Unit. "And thank God we have the capability. We have the language capability and the ethnic officers. That's our hidden weapon."
The officers did not work out of headquarters, officials said. Instead, they passed their intelligence to police handlers who knew their identities.
Cohen said he wanted the squad to "rake the coals, looking for hot spots," former officials recalled. The undercover officers soon became known inside the department as rakers.
A hot spot might be a beauty supply store selling chemicals used for making bombs. Or it might be a hawala, a broker that transfers money around the world with little documentation.
Undercover officers might visit an Internet cafe and look at the browsing history on a computer, a former police official involved in the program said. If it revealed visits to radical websites, the cafe might be deemed a hot spot.
Ethnic bookstores, too, were on the list. If a raker noticed a customer looking at radical literature, he might chat up the store owner and see what he could learn. The bookstore, or even the customer, might get further scrutiny. If a restaurant patron applauds a news report about the death of U.S. troops, the patron or the restaurant could be labeled a hot spot.
The goal was to "map the city's human terrain," one law enforcement official said. The program was modeled in part on how Israeli authorities operate in the West Bank, a former police official said.
...The NYPD declined to make Cohen available for comment. In an earlier interview with the AP on a variety of topics, Police Commissioner Kelly said the intelligence unit does not infringe on civil rights.
"We're doing what we believe we have to do to protect the city," he said. "We have many, many lawyers in our employ. We see ourselves as very conscious and aware of civil liberties. And we know there's always going to be some tension between the police department and so-called civil liberties groups because of the nature of what we do."
...Undercover agents like the rakers were valuable, but what Cohen and Sanchez wanted most were informants.
The NYPD dedicated an entire squad, the Terrorist Interdiction Unit, to developing and handling informants. Current and former officials said Sanchez was instrumental in teaching them how to develop sources.
For years, detectives used informants known as mosque crawlers to monitor weekly sermons and report what was said, several current and former officials directly involved in the informant program said. If FBI agents were to do that, they would be in violation of the Privacy Act, which prohibits the federal government from collecting intelligence on purely First Amendment activities.
...To identify possible informants, the department created what became known as the "debriefing program." When someone is arrested who might be useful to the intelligence unit — whether because he said something suspicious or because he is simply a young Middle Eastern man — he is singled out for extra questioning. Intelligence officials don't care about the underlying charges; they want to know more about his community and, ideally, they want to put him to work.
Police are in prisons, too, promising better living conditions and help or money on the outside for Muslim prisoners who will work with them.
...NYPD's intelligence operations do not stop at the city line.
Cohen's undercover squad, the Special Services Unit, operates in places such as New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, officials said. They can't make arrests and, if something goes wrong — a shooting or a car accident, for instance — the officers could be personally liable.
But the NYPD has decided it's worth the risk, a former police official said.
With Police Commissioner Kelly's backing, Cohen's policy is that any potential threat to New York City is the NYPD's business, regardless of where it occurs, officials said.
[T]he NYPD's out-of-state operations have had success.
A young Egyptian NYPD officer living undercover in New Jersey, for example, was key to building a case against Mohamed Mahmood Alessa and Carlos Eduardo Almonte. The pair was arrested last year at John F. Kennedy Airport en route to Somalia to join the terrorist group al-Shabab. Both pleaded guilty to conspiracy.
Cohen has also sent officers abroad, stationing them in 11 foreign cities. If a bomber blows himself up in Jerusalem, the NYPD rushes to the scene, said Dzikansky, who served in Israel and is the co-author of the forthcoming book "Terrorist Suicide Bombings: Attack Interdiction, Mitigation, and Response."
"I was there to ask the New York question," Dzikansky said. "Why this location? Was there something unique that the bomber had done? Was there any pre-notification. Was there a security lapse?"
All of this intelligence — from the rakers, the undercovers, the overseas liaisons and the informants — is passed to a team of analysts hired from some of the nation's most prestigious universities. Analysts have spotted emerging trends and summarized topics such as Hezbollah's activities in New York and the threat of South Asian terrorist groups.
A few days later, they made that accusation clearer, writing a report officially calling the Turkel report a "whitewash." This is not only them disagreeing with the conclusions; it is Amnesty impugning the objectivity and methodology of the Turkel Commission, with no evidence on their part.
Among their charges of Turkel:
The Commission's failure to account for the deaths reinforces the view that the Israeli authorities are unwilling or incapable of delivering accountability for abuses of international law committed by Israeli forces.
All of these points are considered and repudiated in the Palmer report.
...Amnesty International also contests the Commission's findings that the purpose of Israel's naval blockade on Gaza was "primarily a military-security one"....The naval blockade must be assessed in the context of the closure policy implemented by the Israeli government since June 2007 – a siege that constitutes collective punishment and violates the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Finally, Amnesty International rejects the Turkel Commission's conclusion that the closure policy is lawful.
Will Amnesty call Palmer a "whitewash" as well? Will they claim that the Zionist lobby infiltrated the UN? Will they continue to pretend that somehow the biased UNHRC report is fair and Palmer is not? Or will they apologize to the Turkel Commission for being largely vindicated by Palmer?
And they are downgrading relations with Israel:
The report backed Israel's legal right to impose a naval blockade on Gaza, but said Israeli commandos used "excessive and unacceptable force" when they commandeered the Mavi Marmara, the lead ship in the Gaza-bound flotilla, in international waters. The report slammed Turkey for not doing enough to ward off the deadly confrontation at sea. Turkey has rejected the report's conclusions and is sticking to its demand that Israel apologize for the incident, which left nine of its citizens dead, and compensate the victims' families.
The five measures Turkey is taking against Israel:
A visibly angry Davutoglu told reporters at a press conference that since Israel had not apologized for the incident, Ankara was embarking on a series of steps against Israel, including scrapping all military agreements between the two once-close allies, and downgrading diplomatic ties to the level of second secretary. Davutoglu said that Israel's ambassador in Ankara, Gaby Levy, will leave Turkey by Wednesday.
Davutoglyu said Turkey would initiate legal action against the Gaza blockade in international courts, as well as aid families of those killed in the Gaza flotilla raid in seeking litigation against Israel.
1. Downgrade diplomatic ties between the two countries to level of second secretary, effectively expelling diplomats above the said level.
Also:
2. All military agreements will be put on hold.
3. Turkey will take measures for freedom of maritime movement in the eastern Mediterranean Sea.
4. Turkey will no longer recognize the Gaza blockade and will take the issue to the International Court of Justice.
5. Turkey will support all flotilla victims, Turkish and foreign, in court.
Turkish President Abdullah Gül on Friday termed a leaked United Nations panel report on the Mavi Marmara incident "null and void" for Turkey, saying a series of decisions taken by the Turkish government in the face of the report are only initial steps, signaling further measures.
Turkey may be outraged, and Israel upset, but Hamas is happy.
So are Israel's Arab MKs. (h/t Sophie)
(h/t Silke)
Larry Derfner, a veteran journalist who penned a weekly column and reported for our Magazine, crossed the line into the territory of hate speech when in a personal blog last week he sought to justify Palestinian terrorism against Israelis.
His egregious posting came in response to the August 18 terrorist murder of Israeli citizens on the Egyptian border.
"Whoever the Palestinians were who killed the eight Israelis near Eilat last week, however vile their ideology was, they were justified to attack," Derfner wrote. "Palestinians have the right to resist – to use violence against Israelis, even to kill Israelis."
These comments are exceptionally offensive to most Israelis, and especially hurtful to those who have been victims of terror. They endorse and encourage, if not incite and inflame, terrorism against Israel.
When Derfner asked that we run the piece in the Post, we rejected it and dissociated ourselves completely from his comments, to which we object in the strongest possible terms.
Even though his column did not appear in the paper, we came to the conclusion that we could no longer provide a stage to someone who openly promulgates such venomous views.
Derfner later wrote an apology that we chose not to run. In it, he expresses deep regret for his blog post, saying: "My intention was to shock people into recognition, but I ended up shocking many of them into revulsion, and twisting what I wanted to say into something I didn't and don't mean at all.
"I regret what I wrote [last] Sunday. I apologize to everyone who was offended by it, and I apologize to my countrymen. The post is no longer on my blog; I've taken it down."
The substance of Derfner's apology itself was not convincing. He used ludicrous logic to defend his position, repeating the same obscene sentiments that made many readers sick to their stomachs in the first place.
He had meant, he said, "to shock Israelis and friends of Israel into seeing how badly we're hurting the Palestinians by denying them independence: It's so bad that it's helping drive them to try to kill us."
If you saw Oren Kessler's article in the paper this week about the anti-Israel coverage in the Arab media following the attacks on the southern border, you may have noticed that their commentaries were not significantly different from Derfner's.
Abdel Bari Atwan, editor-inchief of the London-based pan- Arab daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi, wrote that Israel bore direct responsibility for the terrorist attack on its soil.
"This attack put the spotlight back on the most important struggle – that for the honor of the Arab and Islamic nation," Atwan argued. "Resistance is a legitimate right as long as land is occupied and the people and holy places are humiliated."
Derfner's blog later appeared on a Hamas website, giving succor to Israel's enemies.
By trying to rationalize the murder of his fellow Jews by terrorists, Derfner – who has always been the consummate journalist for the Post – went beyond the pale. Consequently we terminated his employment.
We are certainly not silencing the Left, and will continue to feature columnists of all political stripes. Freedom of speech has its limits, however, and Derfner clearly overstepped them.
Derfner is a fine writer but a loose cannon. His column in the Post was titled "Rattling the Cage." There is a huge difference between rattling the bars and letting the tiger out.
Many newspapers, however, emphasized the relatively small part that was critical of Israel. And the identity of some of those is surprising.
Other news outlets had headlines that were either "evenhanded" or more accurate:
Most interestingly, RTE/Ireland originally had a headline that said "UN report says Gaza blockade was legal" but it then changed it to Israel used "excessive force" on Mavi Marmara.
Police. Placards. Protests. And bag checks. It meant only one thing. Jews were performing at the Proms. Here we were in the Royal Albert Hall in London in 2011 witnessing a stage of musicians being barracked and abused for having the gall to be Jewish. Last year, four more Jewish musicians, the Jerusalem Quartet, had the cheek to perform and broadcast a recital at the Wigmore Hall. They were again heckled and hounded off air. No, not a portrait of Europe in the early 20th century, but Britain in the 21st. I wonder. In a few years, will Jews be able to make music publically in Britain at all?
(h/t Jonathan)
If it wasn't all so depressingly shameful, it might have been amusing, such was the pathetic absurdity of the protests. The evening certainly started with comedy. A small bedraggled bunch of Palestinian protesters (all white, middle class and bearded of course) were scowling by a side entrance of the Royal Albert Hall. Opposite them an Irish Zionist, sporting the tricolour of Eire and the star of David, was goading them with an Irish jig. That was where the whole farce that is the Palestinian Solidarity Campaign's (PSC) boycott of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra should have remained: in the realms of risibility.
But it didn't stop there. A few minutes into a fuzzily luxuriant performance (even the triangle was being vibbed) of Webern's Passacaglia, Op 1, a bunch of protesters in the choir stands got to their feet and began to barrack. To the strains of Beethoven's Ode to Joy, they sang their anti-Israeli chants. I imagine a few of the audience and orchestral members would have been familiar with this sort of public abuse, from when they were children in mainland Europe.
They made it difficult to concentrate on the Webern, though Mehta made sure some of their fortissimos sliced through the taunts. They returned to dog the start of the Bruch Violin Concerto in G minor. Zubin Mehta, the Israel Philharmonic and Gil Shaham (pictured right) stood still, silent and calm, while the ushers and security swept out the protest. Amid this maelstrom, Mehta and Shaham, their patience wearing thin, tore into the opening bars. The work achieved a level of meaning and fury that no one will ever witness the like of again.
But while it was all sparks and springs in the outer movements, in the slow, both soloist and orchestra bowed to the softest, gentlest, most tender sound imaginable, as if they were reaching down to plant a kiss on a baby's crown. Not even the Neanderthals dared break this spell. Nor dared they interrupt Shaham's elegantly sculpted performance of the Preludio from Bach's Third Partita.
The BBC had by now switched off their live Radio 3 broadcast after the audience began barracking the barrackers at the beginning of the Bruch. It was understandable - no point giving the protesters publicity - but disappointing, considering that, if the listeners had been given an opportunity to hear the whole Prom, they would have heard the Prommers shouting down the protests, and the Israeli Phil ploughing on valiantly through their programme, to repeated standing ovations. That is, they would have heard us win.
...For some, something else had also been violated last night: the freedom of artistic expression. With qualifications, I am with them. I am not one of these people who thinks politics is above art. If people insist art and artists have the power to change lives for the better (and, boy, do music marketing people, with one eye on dwindling funds, keep insisting on this), they must also have the ability to change lives for the worse. Art, artists and musicians are, therefore, not sacrosanct. Break the law, rape a girl (yes, that's you I'm talking about, Polanski) and you should not be given a free ride simply because you are endowed with creative talent.
Cultural boycotts have their place. One cannot have anything but sympathy with the Holocaust survivors who set up pickets outside concert halls in 1950s America, demonstrating against the visit of Herbert von Karajan, a man who had joined the Nazi party not once, but twice. I bow to the rights of the PSC to protest peacefully outside the Royal Albert Hall. I bow to their right to try to convince us that the Israeli Phil is evil. Of course, one could legitimately ask, why, if they felt so keenly about human rights and democracy, they have never protested to the frequent visits by the Venezuelan Youth Orchestra, who perform clothed in the symbols of an authoritarian state, or the East-Western Divan, whose Arab members proudly represent some of the most vile dictatorships on earth.
But that's by the by. They had a right to stand outside and propagate their views. And they were granted that right. But then they went beyond this right. They imposed their protest on us to the extent that we were restricted in our freedom to do what we wanted. This is exactly the form of authoritarianism that the PSC claim to be attempting to end.
What do we do now? What can we do now? The protesters have all now walked free to hound some more Jews. The recorded concert - what's left of it - will be salvaged and aired next week. One thing, we do know: the Israel Phil won't be coming back to these shores in a hurry. And that's where things start becoming troubling. When we get into a position where programmers and arts organisations are forced to think twice about giving a platform to certain nationalities and races lest they incur the wrath of hooligans, we are in real danger of no longer being able to call ourselves civilised. The protesters didn't win last night. But they certainly did raise the stakes.
www.IsraelBehindTheNews.com
hudson-ny.org, imra.org.il
iris.org.il/blog
arabsforisrael.blogspot.com
NonieDarwish.com
shmuelkatz.com
blog.havivgur.com
israelinsider.net
israelsituation.com
savageinfidel.blogspot.com
thereligionofpeace.com
reutrcohen.com
littlegreenfootballs.com/
waronjihad.org
israelwhat.com
muslimsforisrael.com
terrorism-info.org.il
freeman.org
freeman.org/online
freeman.org/serendipity
jihadwatch.org
fresnozionism.org
islamist-watch.org
creepingsharia.wordpress.com
salaswildthoughts.blogspot.com
WorldJewishDaily.com
memri.org
israpundit.com
sultanknish.blogspot.com
israelmatzav.blogspot.com
cufi.org
jewishworldreview.com
grendelreport. posterous.com
tundratabloid.blogspot.com
sheikyermami.com
NEWSREALBLOG.COM
atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/
israeltoday.co.il
haaretz.com
wnd.com
ynetnews.com
familysecuritymatters.org
dailyalert.org
calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com
FRONTPAGEMAG.COM
yidwithlid.blogspot.com
israelnationalnews.com
jewishideasdaily.com
jpost.com
israelseen.com
aish.com
Israel should not be fearing world opinion. Israel should be making the world respect her!!! And remember, it is the rich oil cartels who rule the world, NOT the Zionists!!
Mech'el B. Samberg
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ProJewishProZionistGroup/?yguid=368134690
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/stillnotjustmusicanymore/?yguid=368134690
http://groups.yahoo.com/adultconf?dest=%2Fgroup%2Fwhateverreturns%2F%3Fyguid%3D368134690
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/shieldofdavid/?yguid=373549731
Permission granted to share with others!!
No comments:
Post a Comment