GAFFNEY: The 'anti-Pete King' hearing - Washington Times

GAFFNEY: The 'anti-Pete King' hearing - Washington Times

How curious. At the very moment the threat posed to U.S. interests by the toxic Islamist organization known as the Muslim Brotherhood is becoming ever more palpable, a top Senate Democrat seems determined to suppress Americans' understanding of that menace.

Even the New York Times is now acknowledging the obvious: The principal beneficiary of the forced departure of an Egyptian dictator, Hosni Mubarak - a double-dealing leader who nonetheless passed for a reliable U.S. ally in the hall of mirrors that is Mideast politics - will likely be the Muslim Brotherhood. That means an organization explicitly committed to waging jihad to achieve the worldwide imposition of the Islamic politico-military-legal program its adherents call Shariah will soon run the most populous Arab Muslim nation; control the strategic Suez Canal, through which 5 percent of the world's oil passes every day; and be armed with a vast, American-supplied arsenal of sophisticated and modern weapons.

Unfortunately, a similar outcome may be in store for Libya, whose so-called "rebels" and "freedom fighters" appear actually to be drawn from the ranks of the Brotherhood, its spin-off known as al Qaeda or other Islamist factions. Some of those to whom we are now providing air cover and perhaps soon armaments are said to have returned home from Iraq where they were, until recently, trying to kill U.S. forces. Variations on the basic theme of MB fomenting and exploiting "Arab Springs" may also play out shortly across the Mideast, from Tunisia to Saudi Arabia, from Syria to Yemen.

It would seem under these ominous circumstances, it would behoove Congress to maximize public exposure to the true nature and intensifying threat posed by the Brotherhoodand its associates not only elsewhere, but in the United States as well. Instead, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat in the U.S. Senate, will be holding a hearing Tuesday that appears calculated to obscure rather than illuminate this problem.

In an interview Monday on Secure Freedom Radio, Steven Emerson, executive director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism and one of the country's top counterterrorism experts, described this event as "the anti-King hearing." Whereas Rep. Peter King, the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, sought to assess the problem of extremism emanating from the Muslim American community, Mr. Durbin evidently hopes to promote the line touted by the Muslim Brotherhood and its myriad front groups, associates and apologists: Mr. King and others like him are the problem, not jihadist Muslims. Instead, it is the "racism," "bigotry" and "Islamophobia" to which followers of Islam are subjected that is the real danger.

In fact, an analysis of FBI hate crimes data just published by the Center for Security Policy (centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18663.xml) clearly refutes the notion that Muslims are being victimized in America because of their faith. Jews are eight times more likely to be victims of such crimes.

Mr. Emerson explained that this perverse role is the rule rather than the exception with Mr. Durbin: "He has been in bed with radical Islam for the last eight years. ... He has aligned himself with the [Muslim Brotherhood-Hamas-linked] Council on American-Islamic Relations, sent them letters of congratulations, agreed to speak to their banquets, fundraised for them, and most recently paid a visit to the Bridgeview Mosque, which ... is ... one of the largest mosques in the United States. ... It is considered the senior center of Hamas activity in the United States, led by Imam Jamal Said. [He] was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation case ... against the fundraisers for Hamas, all of whom were convicted.

"In [a] picture [taken at the mosque], which was printed in the Bridgeview Mosque newsletter online, it shows [Mr. Durbin] with eight people, six of whom are actually allied with Hamas. Five of whom have been listed as unindicted co-conspirators [in the Holy Land trial]. And four of whom have made statements calling for the killing of Jews."

Scarcely less troubling are Mr. Durbin's choice of witnesses. They include "civil rights activist" Farhana Khera, who Mr. Emerson recounts has discouraged Muslims from cooperating with law enforcement, and retired Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, who is a prominent participant in interfaith dialogues manipulated by the largest Muslim Brotherhood front in the United States, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA).

Unfortunately, the narrative Mr. Durbin is advancing has been taken up by some in government who should know better. For example, Mr. Emerson told me in his interview that Michael Leiter, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, prompted serious questions about his fitness to serve in that front-line capacity by announcing recently at a closed, $4 million conference that "Al Jazeera was his favorite television station, radical Islam was only a nuisance, a tiny problem, and that Islamophobia was the biggest problem we faced."

Were the Congress and the nation more generally to adopt this narrative - to the effect that the greatest danger facing the nation emanates from efforts of those seeking to inform our countrymen about the threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood and other adherents to Shariah - it would hand the Muslim Brotherhood perhaps its greatest bloodless victory to date: acquiescence to the sort of Shariah blasphemy laws that forbid any expression that offends Islam.

This act of submission will greatly compound the willful blindness that is facilitating the Brotherhood's stealth jihad here at home, even as it and its allies make immense strides abroad. Will Mr. Durbin's colleagues sit idly by as he contributes to such a wholly unacceptable outcome? Will the rest of us?

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy (SecureFreedom.org), a columnist for The Washington Times and host of Secure Freedom Radio, heard in Washington weeknights at 9 p.m. on WRC-AM (1260).

The Silence is deafening.

Horror in Samaria: Terrorist murders family of 5 - Israel News, Ynetnews

Terrorist stabs five family members to death in settlement of Itamar early Saturday; three children, including baby girl, among victims. Paramedic describes horrific sight, toys next to pools of blood
Yair Altman

Horror in Samaria: A terrorist infiltrated the West Bank settlement of Itamar, southeast of Nablus, early Saturday and stabbed five family members to death.

The shocking attack occurred around 1 am as the terrorist entered the family home and murdered three children aged 11, 3, and a baby girl along with their parents. The victims were apparently sleeping as the killer came in.

Itamar residents reported that shots were heard in the area; the terrorist managed to flee the scene.


Ambulance in Itamar (Photo: Ido Erez)

Three other children at the home, a 12-year-old girl and her two brothers, aged 6 and 2, were able to escape to a nearby house and inform their neighbors of the attack.

The terrorist who carried out the massacre cut the fence surrounding Itamar and entered the home of the victims through the window, an initial probe of the murder showed. Authorities could not immediately discount the possibility that more than one attacker was involved in the murder.

'Toys next to pools of blood'
Following an initial report of the incident, large IDF and police forces rushed to the site. The Air Force also joined the effort to track down the terrorist, deploying numerous aircraft in the area. The night’s sky was lit up with flares, as special IDF and police forces were called in to assist in the manhunt.

The IDF Spokesman’s Office said “troops are scouring the area in search of the suspect. The IDF is performing inspections at all crossing points set up in the region.”


IDF troops near Itamar (Photo: Ido Erez)

Magen David Adom ambulance service teams pronounced the victims dead at the scene. MDA spokesman Zaki Heller said the ambulance service got a call around 1 am and dispatched large teams of paramedics to the area.

“When rescue forces entered the house they encountered a very difficult sight...There were five people there who were hurt. We could do nothing but pronounce them dead,” he said.

Paramedic Kabaha Muayua was among the first responders at the site and described the horrific scene he encountered.

“We could not help the first four stab victims. Following an inspection of the scene I spotted an infant of about three who still had a pulse. We engaged in lengthy resuscitation efforts but had to pronounce him dead,” he said. “The murder scene was shocking. Kids’ toys right next to pools of blood.”

Paramedic Gil Moscowitz, who serves as MDA’s director of operations, said teams dispatched to the home discovered “parents and three children who were brutally murdered.”

“The parents were lying next to each other in their room…we found three bodies in the master bedroom; the two parents and a baby,” he said.

‘Government must back settlers’
Yesha Council Chairman Danny Dayan, who arrived at the site, appeared shocked by the brutal attack.

“This is no doubt one of the most terrible attacks in recent years," he told the reporters on hand.

“Words cannot describe the extent of the horror and pain,” he said. “Those tempted to think that the Palestinians ceased their acts of murder see that they do not shy away from any tactic and any Jewish victims, regardless of how young they are.”

“The time has come for the government to regain its senses and start backing up the settlement enterprise, which remains vulnerable on the frontlines,” he said.

The settlement of Itamar, which is surrounded by Palestinian villages, has been the site of murderous attacks in the past. In June of 2002, a terrorist entered the community and opened fire, killing Rachel Shabo and three of her seven children, Neriya, Tzvika, and Avishai. Yossi Twito, who commanded the local security team at the settlement, was also shot to death in the attack.

It has been some time since there has been an attack by Palestinian terrorists against Israelis. This horrific attack, the most shocking to occur since August, took place while much of Israel slept, this past Friday night. Palestinian terrorists entered the Israeli community of Itamar and ruthlessly and in cold-blood murdered 5 members of a family, including the parents, a three month old infant and her 4 and 11 year old brothers. Another daughter and two sons miraculously escaped the attack.

My question to the international community is this: Where is your condemnation? Where is your outrage? Is that outrage just reserved for Israeli actions, when Israel acts to defend her citizens from terrorist attacks and rockets launched against her cities? Apparently so. Even when events of the last few months in the Arab made it clear that buildings on land that will probably end up as part of Israel, should negotiations with the Palestinians resume, the international community remains focused on Israel and her actions. Israel's actions in defense of her citizens are labeled 'inappropriate', 'illegal' and 'criminal'. Unbelievable!

The world community needs to focus on the obvious; that these settlements are not obstacles to peace, that terrorist attacks and government incitement against Israel and Jews, in general are the main reasons for continued difficulties in Israel. International attention must focus on the targeting of innocent civilians in Israel, because innocent civilians in the West are next. Act now, before it is too late. Don't let the lessons of Nazi Germany go to waste.

We can only hope.

Obama Critique

It is obvious for those who know me personally, read my comments and postings on Facebook and read many of my blog posts, that I am not a great fan of President Obama. It is true that I approve of very little that this President has done and that I had issues with him, even while he was a candidate for President during the 2008 campaign season.

At that time, it was not only his inexperience that I felt made him unqualified for the office of the most powerful person on this planet, but also some aspects of his background that I found suspect. (No, I am not a birther!) Similarly, I felt that it was enlightening when he refused to reveal certain information from his past, including college records and his thesis and was also unconvinced that he had listened to sermons of the Reverend (I use the term loosely) Jeremiah Wright for 20 years, but had never heard antisemitic or anti-American utterances from him.

I have also not been unaffected by the fact that President Obama has not stopped campaigning since taking office and has been significantly less than transparent in his Presidency (although he promised to be the most transparent administration ever), or that he has speechified so much during these past 21 months that I cringe whenever I hear his voice. While it disturbed me that he was less than honest when he spoke about the healthcare monstrosity that he sought to pass (No! Pediatricians do NOT perform tonsillectomies, so they cannot decide to forgo antibiotic treatment of a child’s ear infections in favor of surgery to get more money from the insurance company! And No! A medical doctor who treats a patient’s diabetes cannot earn more money from the insurance companies by performing a foot amputation. SURGEONS perform amputations not internists.), opined that the Boston police acted when he knew few details about what really happened, and gave a ‘shout out’ to someone during the first press conference that he gave after the Fort Hood terrorist attack, that is not the point of this critique.

It may surprise some, but I actually do not have much of an issue with the large number of vacations that President Obama has taken (except for his December 2008 Hawaii vacation that made things a bit difficult for us when we were there). The job is extremely stressful, and downtime is essential for anyone who holds this office. Indeed, a President never has a true vacation. How can he? The country still has to function and the President must always stay in contact and be apprised of everything that is happening in the country.

My critique of the President’s actions involve his attitude (and the attitudes of many of the liberal ‘elites’) towards the American electorate, many of whom voted for him in 2008. This attitude towards the electorate was obvious even during the campaign when Obama noted that:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

In other words, they are religious, racist, xenophobic gun fanatics and that explains their opposition to Democrat principles.

His latest reflections on the electorate include further negative observations about the country that elected him and that he serves.

“Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we’re hardwired not to always think clearly when we’re scared. And the country’s scared.”

So, Americans who do not support Obama’s policies are not opposed to them because they do not believe in them, but because they are too afraid and therefore, intellectually incapable of comprehending that these policies are wise.

This came on the heels of the President’s reasoning that the opposition by the electorate to his massive healthcare overhaul was caused, not by their opposition to his policies, but his failure to sufficiently communicate the positive aspects and rationale of the health care law that he advocated, despite the numerous speeches that he delivered on the subject and the many rallies that he held in support of this legislation. In other words, we are too stupid to see the wisdom of the plan that was so obvious to him and his allies in Congress.

How can Obama tell Hispanic voters in an interview on Univision, that they need to vote to help defeat the ’enemy’? He specifically said to Latino voters:

“We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.”

It is not acceptable that the President of the United States thinks that it is appropriate to call a significant part of the citizens of this country the ‘enemy'. He was elected and was sworn in as President of the United States to serve ALL of the citizens and not just the Democrats, or others who think like him. It is further unacceptable that the President has tried to separate Americans on racial, political, ideological and economic lines. It is also very troubling that he cannot accept that the electorate can hold opinions different from his and still be intelligent. (He subsequently admitted that it was a mistake to use the word "enemy' and admitted that he should have used the word 'opponent').

The postracial President? We are not blue states or red states, but one United States? Not at this time. Not with this President.

Op-Ed Contributor - An End to Israel’s Invisibility - NYTimes.com

Following is an excellent op ed piece by Michael Oren. It is factual in nature and has a lot of citations that can be researched.

Op-Ed Contributor - An End to Israel’s Invisibility - NYTimes.com

An End to Israel’s Invisibility
By MICHAEL B. OREN
NEARLY 63 years after the United Nations recognized the right of the Jewish people to independence in their homeland — and more than 62 years since Israel’s creation — the Palestinians are still denying the Jewish nature of the state. “Israel can name itself whatever it wants,” said the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, while, according to the newspaper Haaretz, his chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, said that the Palestinian Authority will never recognize Israel as the Jewish state. Back in 1948, opposition to the legitimacy of a Jewish state ignited a war. Today it threatens peace.

Mr. Abbas and Mr. Erekat were responding to the call by the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people, enabling his government to consider extending the moratorium on West Bank construction. “Such a step by the Palestinian Authority would be a confidence-building measure,” Mr. Netanyahu explained, noting that Israel was not demanding recognition as a prerequisite for direct talks. It would “open a new horizon of hope as well as trust among broad parts of the Israeli public.”

Why should it matter whether the Palestinians or any other people recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people? Indeed, Israel never sought similar acknowledgment in its peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. Some analysts have suggested that Mr. Netanyahu is merely making a tactical demand that will block any chance for the peace they claim he does not really want.

Affirmation of Israel’s Jewishness, however, is the very foundation of peace, its DNA. Just as Israel recognizes the existence of a Palestinian people with an inalienable right to self-determination in its homeland, so, too, must the Palestinians accede to the Jewish people’s 3,000-year connection to our homeland and our right to sovereignty there. This mutual acceptance is essential if both peoples are to live side by side in two states in genuine and lasting peace.

So why won’t the Palestinians reciprocate? After all, the Jewish right to statehood is a tenet of international law. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 called for the creation of “a national home for the Jewish people” in the land then known as Palestine and, in 1922, the League of Nations cited the “historical connection of the Jewish people” to that country as “the grounds for reconstituting their national home.” In 1947, the United Nations authorized the establishment of “an independent Jewish state,” and recently, while addressing the General Assembly, President Obama proclaimed Israel as “the historic homeland of the Jewish people.” Why, then, can’t the Palestinians simply say “Israel is the Jewish state”?

The reason, perhaps, is that so much of Palestinian identity as a people has coalesced around denying that same status to Jews. “I will not allow it to be written of me that I have ... confirmed the existence of the so-called Temple beneath the Mount,” Yasir Arafat told President Bill Clinton in 2000.

For Palestinians, recognizing Israel as a Jewish state also means accepting that the millions of them residing in Arab countries would be resettled within a future Palestinian state and not within Israel, which their numbers would transform into a Palestinian state in all but name. Reconciling with the Jewish state means that the two-state solution is not a two-stage solution leading, as many Palestinians hope, to Israel’s dissolution.

Which is precisely why Israelis seek the basic reassurance that the Palestinian Authority is ready to accept our state — to accept us. Israelis need to know that further concessions would not render us more vulnerable to terrorism and susceptible to unending demands. Though recognition of Israel as the Jewish state would not shield us from further assaults or pressure, it would prove that the Palestinians are serious about peace.

The core of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been the refusal to recognize Jews as a people, indigenous to the region and endowed with the right to self-government. Criticism of Israeli policies often serves to obscure this fact, and peace continues to elude us. By urging the Palestinians to recognize us as their permanent and legitimate neighbors, Prime Minister Netanyahu is pointing the way out of the current impasse: he is identifying the only path to co-existence.

Michael B. Oren is Israel’s ambassador to the United States.

David Harris: Letter from a Forgotten Jew

Here is a link to a letter from David Harris of the American Jewish Congress, describing the Jewish refugees caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. We do not hear much about these people, although they numbered greater than the Arab/Palestinian refugees that we hear about ad nauseum. Why? Because, unlike the Arab refugees who have settled for generations in refugee camps living on the goodwill of other people in the world, constantly blaming Israel and being used and abused by their Arab brothers, Jewish refugees from countries such as Libya, Iraq, Morocco,etc were absorbed by Israel and began to live productive lives. Those who settled in countries other than Israel also acclimated themselves to their new homes and began to live productive and successful lives. The Arab refugees and their brothers should learn from the Jews and stop living on handouts and blaming others for their misfortune.

David Harris: Letter from a Forgotten Jew

EXCLUSIVE 1sthand Account of Achille Lauro Hijacking from US Navy Corpsman

25 years ago, Palestinian terrorists hijacked a cruise ship in Egyptian waters. Shortly after they hijacked the ship, they shot Leon Klinghoffer, a 69 year old American Jew, who was in a wheelchair and dumped his body overboard. His crime? Being American and Jewish. Never forget! Here is a link to a first hand description of the incident from a US Navy corpsman on a nearby ship.

EXCLUSIVE 1sthand Account of Achille Lauro Hijacking from US Navy Corpsman

Antisemitism and the Media- Part II

In my previous post, I wrote about the obvious antisemitism that is displayed by the world media when Israel’s attempts at self defense are reported. In what other ways does the media show its’ bias? The mainstream media responds differently to expressions of anti-Semitism from people on the left and the right. In the past few years, two prominent Hollywood personalities have made clear expressions of anti-Semitism. The two proponents of these anti-Semitic feelings were treated very differently by the media.

Mel Gibson, a religious conservative, uttered offensive antisemitic remarks when he was apprehended during a traffic stop. He was drunk at the time, but that was not accepted as an excuse. He was lambasted by the media for his comments, and deservedly so. The entertainment industry followed suit and expressed its’ disapproval of Gibson’s comments and the rest of his bigoted activities that evening. There are indications that his career has never recovered from these and other racist remarks.

Contrast this with the media response to antisemitic comments uttered by Oliver Stone. During a recent interview with the Sunday Times, he claimed that Jewish control of the media encouraged Hollywood to focus on the Holocaust and also prevented the media to put the rise of Hitler in Germany in correct context. He also claimed that Israel had adversely affected American foreign policy for years and stated that Iran was not as bad as it was being portrayed. A few days later, he made a half-hearted apology for these horrendous comments. What did the media do? Not much. Did his career suffer? Not really.

Why? I contend that the difference in the liberal media’s treatment of Mel Gibson’s and Oliver Stone’s anti-Semitic remarks stems from the fact that Gibson is a religious conservative and Stone is a liberal progressive, who espouses many of the ideas that they themselves support. Among those ideas, it is fashionable among the Hollywood liberal elite to criticize Israeli policy (in a way that can only be antisemitic as well), and blindly supporting the Palestinian narrative without accurate knowledge of the facts on the ground. (As an example, let me remind you of the Time article that I recently wrote about on this blog.) They act as if Israel is huge and strong like Goliath, while the Palestinians and other Arabs are little Davids. The liberal media continues its’ blind support of the ‘downtrodden’ Palestinians because it is populated by lazy individuals who continue to advocate the progressive/liberal nonsense that ignores the size and population difference between Israel and the 50+ Arab/Muslim nations. Reality is not changed by laziness.

Antisemitism and the Media- Part I

Antisemitism seems to have become mainstream, nowadays. Anti-Israel sentiment is dismissed by those who espouse it, as mere policy disagreements with Israel and its actions. However, this anti-Israel sentiment rises to the level of rank antisemitism when a double standard is employed by Israel’s critics. These critics seem to expect more from Israel than what would be expected from other countries in a similar position.

Israel has been bombarded with thousands of rockets from Gaza, since the unilateral withdrawal that took place in 2005. After this unilateral withdrawal, the Palestinians destroyed structures and greenhouses that were left in usable condition, and then elected a terrorist organization to govern in Gaza. Thousands of rockets then began to rain down on Israel, from positions deep within Gaza and from areas closer to the border with Israel.

In response to these rockets, Israel is has been encouraged to utilize restraint and not to respond militarily. Israel’s leaders exercised enormous restraint for an inordinate amount of time until December 2008 when they launched Operation Cast Lead into Gaza to rout out the terrorists launching these attacks and to destroy their firing positions. World leaders and others who criticize Israel and claim that the Gaza campaign was disproportionate should ask themselves what their responses would be if faced with attacks launched against their civilians from enemy territory. Would they permit such egregious behavior towards their own citizens without responding in kind? I highly doubt it. But Israel is expected to absorb such attacks without reacting.

This double standard has been more pronounced recently in the aftermath of the Gaza flotilla incident. Israel has placed a blockade on Gaza that is permissible under international law, to prevent the importation of goods and supplies that could be used by Hamas and other terror organizations to construct smuggling tunnels and produce other items that can be used against Israeli civilians. In an obvious attempt to run the blockade, the Free Gaza movement organized the flotilla. Everyone knows that activists on the Mavi Marmara attacked the Israeli commandos (the video clearly shows this), but Israel is still accused of using disproportionate force, In addition, members of the media and the international community conveniently forget that Gaza also shares a border with Egypt, which participates in the blockade of Gaza, along with Israel. Much of the media also did not accurately report the story of this altercation, and in fact, some media outlets (specifically, Reuters) altered photographs of the incident to obscure the fact that many of the activists on the Mavi Marmara were armed with deadly weapons. Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Reuters has altered photographs in an attempt to implicate Israel in unethical and inappropriate behavior. Photographs of Beirut during the 2006 Lebanon war were altered to infer that the damage to Beirut was much greater than it actually was.

I doubt that this will be the last time that Reuter’s unethically does this.

A Biased TIME Article and My Response

Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace

I am writing in response to the article in cover story of the September 13, 2010 issue, entitle “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace”. From the photograph on the cover, to the article itself, I have never read a more outrageous piece of journalistic tripe, in my life. The article is merely an anti-Israel, anti-Semitic diatribe that has somehow found legitimacy in what used to be a respected magazine. Most of the article claims that Israelis (the vast majority of whom are Jewish) are concerned only with their creature comforts and making money and are not interested in the peace process, but then ends with the statement that they cannot help but be involved. The ‘author’ of this article has refuted his basic premise and, on his own, has revealed his article to be a waste of four pages, a cover photo and the time of anyone who took the time to read it.

This article also perpetuates the age-old stereotype of the Jew who cares only about money and nothing else. I thought that we had moved past such ugly stereotyping, especially in a mainstream publication, but I was mistaken. For this author, and the editor of Time to believe that Israelis do not care about peace merely because 2 1/2 years have passed since the last terror attack (that is before the 2 attacks this week that killed 4 people and were meant to derail the peace process) is also demeaning. Does he really believe that a population that has sustained terrorist attacks for years, and has suffered so many wars that have killed so many of their sons, fathers and brothers do not care about peace? What type of aliens is he portraying Israelis (and other Jews) to be? Does he truly think that they are less traumatized than the United States is after the terrorist attacks of September 11th?

Karl Vick reveals his profound and complete ignorance of the mind set of Israelis, as well as a deep denial of the facts on the ground. In a nation where not one person has been left untouched by terrorism, where every soldier’s death is felt personally, where military service is mandatory and expected for all young adults and where many older adults remain in the reserves and perform military reserve duty on a regular basis, they all care deeply about peace. This is a country whose entire population mourned when the bodies of Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev (the two IDF soldiers whose kidnapping by Hezbollah sparked the 2006 Lebanon war) were returned by Hezbollah in July 2008. This is a country whose mothers send their sons off to fight for the country’s very survival and whose fathers fought in previous wars. This is a country that was torn apart when 50,000 of its’ soldiers were mobilized to remove 8,000 of its’ own citizens from their communities and homes in 2005, in the name of peace. Many of these wounds are still open today, five years later, and many of these displaced residents are still suffering today.

Israelis have always squeezed as much pleasure and joy from their daily lives as possible. They go out to cafes, clubs and restaurants during the week, and seek respite at the beach after a day of work. They work hard, create, invest, innovate and yes, even make money. Why have they always done this? Why do Israelis (and Jews, historically) engage in these behaviors that Mr. Vick, in his ignorance, says reveals that they do not care about peace, but are concerned only with making money, sitting in the sun and living their lives as Californians do? It is because they do not know what tomorrow will bring. It is because they have suffered through numerous wars and countless terrorist attacks that they live life with gusto, use their creativity and try to get the most out of life. It is the Israelis’ zest for life that has sustained them for decades that this ‘journalist’ sees as a sign that they do not desire peace.

Does he really think that the Palestinian question is far from Israelis’ minds when they have to go through security examinations every time they enter a mall, or a restaurant, or an office building? Does he truly think that they are unconcerned with Palestinians when thousands of rockets have flown from Gaza after Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza in 2005, instead of the Palestinians constructively using the structures and greenhouses that were left intact?

How about a more rational explanation for what he sees as indifference? Perhaps Israelis are tired of the peace process because they have seen very little in return for the significant concessions that Israel has made. No matter what Israel does, she is the object of the world’s disdain. Israel unilaterally disengaged from Gaza and received rockets in return fired by Hamas and its’ compatriots. Israel left Lebanon in 2000 and Hezbollah established strongholds in Southern Lebanon allowing it to attack and murder Israeli soldiers and kidnap two of them. Israel had to fight another war against Lebanon in 2006 and was again pressured to leave before the job was finished, leaving the relatively useless UN in charge. Hezbollah has since rearmed with more rockets that have a much longer range and again reestablished itself near Israel’s northern border. Even the ‘moderate’ Palestinian Authority, the supposed negotiating partner for peace, expresses one view to the Western world, while continuing to perpetuate anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment by teaching their children to hate Jews and that all of Israel is occupied land, and by honoring and commemorating Palestinians who have committed terrorist attacks and murdered innocent Israelis.

This biased piece of what Time assumes passes for journalism has prompted me to cancel my subscription to your magazine. I will try to convince as many people as I can to follow suit and cancel their subscriptions to your rag. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Two great opinion pieces on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations (Round 105?????????)

George Will

George Will-The ‘two-state’ delusion

-'Twas a famous victory for diplomacy when, in 1991 in Madrid, Israelis and Palestinians, orchestrated by the United States, at last engaged in direct negotiations. Almost a generation later, U.S. policy has succeeded in prodding the Palestinians away from their recent insistence on "proximity talks" -- in which they have talked to the Israelis through American intermediaries -- and to direct negotiations. But negotiations about what?

Idle talk about a "binational state" has long since died. Even disregarding the recent fates of multinational states -- e.g., the former Soviet Union, the former Yugoslavia, the former Czechoslovakia -- binationalism is impossible if Israel is to be a Jewish state for the Jewish people. No significant Israeli constituency disagrees with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu: "The Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel's borders."

Rhetoric about a "two-state solution" is de rigueur. It also is delusional, given two recent, searing experiences.

The only place for a Palestinian state is the West Bank, which Israel has occupied -- legally under international law -- since repelling the 1967 aggression launched from there. The West Bank remains an unallocated portion of the Palestine Mandate, the disposition of which is to be settled by negotiations. Michael Oren, now Israel's ambassador to the United States, said several years before becoming ambassador:
"There is no Israeli leadership that appears either willing or capable of removing 100,000 Israelis from their West Bank homes. . . . The evacuation of a mere 8,100 Israelis from Gaza in 2005 required 55,000 IDF [Israel Defense Forces] troops -- the largest Israeli military operation since the 1973 Yom Kippur War -- and was profoundly traumatic."

Twenty-one Israeli settlements were dismantled; even the bodies of Israelis buried in Gaza were removed. After a deeply flawed 2006 election encouraged by the United States, there was in 2007 essentially a coup in Gaza by the terrorist organization Hamas. So now Israel has on its western border, 44 miles from Tel Aviv, an entity dedicated to Israel's destruction, collaborative with Iran and possessing a huge arsenal of rockets.

Rocket attacks from Gaza increased dramatically after Israel withdrew. The number of U.N. resolutions deploring this? Zero.

The closest precedent for that bombardment was the Nazi rocket attacks on London, which were answered by the destruction of Hamburg, Dresden and other German cities. When Israel struck back at Hamas, the "international community" was theatrically appalled.

A senior cabinet member -- Moshe Yaalon, strategic affairs minister and possible future prime minister -- says "our withdrawals strengthened jihadist Islam," adding, "We have the second Islamic republic in the Middle East -- the first in Iran, the second in Gaza: Hamastan."

Israel's withdrawals include the one that strengthened the Iranian client on Israel's northern border, in southern Lebanon. Since the 2006 war provoked by Hezbollah's incessant rocketing of northern Israel, Hezbollah has rearmed and possesses as many as 60,000 rockets. Today, Netanyahu says, Israel's problem is less the Israel-Lebanon border than it is the Lebanon-Syria border: Hezbollah has received from Syria -- which gets them from Iran -- Scud missiles capable of striking Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. A leader of Hezbollah says, "If all the Jews gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."

Because upward of a million immigrants have come from the former Soviet Union, today one-sixth of Israelis speak Russian. Israel has Russian-language newspapers and television. Russian Israelis are largely responsible for Avigdor Lieberman being foreign minister. Yoram Peri, professor of Israel studies at the University of Maryland, says these immigrants "don't understand how a state that can be crossed in half an hour by car would be willing to even talk about relinquishing territories to its seemingly perpetual enemies." These immigrants know that Russia's strategic depth -- space -- defeated Napoleon and Hitler.

Netanyahu, who is not the most conservative member of the coalition government he heads, endorses a two-state solution but says that any West Bank Palestinian state must be demilitarized and prevented from making agreements with the likes of Hezbollah and Iran. To prevent the importation of missiles and other arms, Israel would need, Netanyahu says, a military presence on the West Bank's eastern border with Jordan. Otherwise, there will be a third Islamic republic, and a second one contiguous to Israel.

So, again: Negotiations about what?


Abbas has other ideas - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews


Abbas has other ideas
Op-ed: Palestinians don’t want direct talks to succeed, as they prefer one-state solution
Mordechai Kedar

Anyone familiar with the sly way of thinking characterizing the current Palestinian leadership knows the truth: Following the show in Washington, they shall find a way to thwart the direct negotiations.

Netanyahu scares them, mostly because of his political ability to secure an agreement. He has no meaningful opposition on the Right, and Kadima is just waiting for a sign from him to join the government, embrace him, and support him should the Right quit the coalition. The Palestinians fear exactly that – because they cannot finalize such deal.

The first reason for this is the refugee problem. Any Palestinian or Arab leader who says something that is interpreted as any kind of concession on the right of return – which would bring millions of Arabs into Israel – knows that he shall immediately be accused of treason, and Hamas will have a field day with it.

Indeed, the education systems in the Palestinian Authority and in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan continue to perpetrate the notion of return in every possible way.

Moreover, the PLO leadership fears that in the case of an agreement that would include “an end to the conflict” and “no more demands,” it will find itself mixed up with Syria and Lebanon, which are interested in getting rid of the 1948 refugees and their descendents. These two countries may even sabotage an agreement by expelling hundreds of thousands of them to Palestine – this is the last thing the Palestinian leadership wants.

The second reason is Jerusalem. Under the leadership of a rightist Israeli government, partitioning the city appears to be an impossible mission, and the Palestinian leadership cannot present its public with a deal that would include less than the dream outline by Arafat: “One Palestinian state with the holy Jerusalem as its capital.”

Living at world’s expense
Another reason is economic. For some years now, the Palestinian Authority has been making a good living off public and government funds from Europe, the US, and the Arab and Islamic world. This has reached the point where Palestinian per capita disposable income is double that of Egypt’s.

The PA leadership fears that the moment an independent Palestinian state is declared, donations would dry up, as the world will expect the Palestinians to start supporting themselves just like any other independent state. The Palestinians, who got used to living at the expense of others, cannot bear to think about the day where they’ll have to make a living on their own.

Finally, instead of an agreement it does not want, the Palestinian leadership sees an alternative. More and more voices, both Israeli and Arab, are calling for a one-state solution, which will be democratic and enable both people – the Jewish Israelis and the Arab Palestinians – to coexist in line with an agreed-upon arrangement, as is the case in Belgium.

Oddly enough, the one-state solution is endorsed in Israel both by the extreme Right, which still clings to the notion of the Greater Israel, and by the radical Left, which has no problem sharing a home with the Arabs, as long as everyone thinks that it’s being enlightened and liberal.

However, it appears that the one-state solution is to the liking of someone else: The Palestinian leadership, as this would spare it the need to concede something in writing.



In one state, the life of Palestinians would be better than today, as they will enjoy civilian rights in a modern state. And if at one point the Jews decide to run away (taking this modern state along with them,) this too would be a blessing – that way, they would gain the entire land without a deal and without concessions. So why enter negotiations?

Dr. Mordechai Keder, the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, Bar-Ilan University

More Mosque madness

Here is a link to another good article on this topic. The author opines that had those responsible for rebuilding Ground Zero done thier jobs appropriately, this would never have been an issue.

I cannot disagree.

Blame George Pataki for the Ground Zero mosque mess--John Podhoretz - NYPOST.com

A Film Unfinished: The Warsaw Ghetto As Seen Through Nazi Eyes

A Film Unfinished: The Warsaw Ghetto As Seen Through Nazi Eyes

THE FULL TEXT OF THE ARTICLE IS BELOW

A Film Unfinished: The Warsaw Ghetto As Seen Through Nazi Eyes
By Richard Z. Chesnoff


A Nazi propaganda film is finally being screened worldwide --- more than half-century after being shot. A 31 year-old Israeli is responsible

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Aside from Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps, nothing epitomizes the horrors of the Holocaust more than the infamous Warsaw Ghetto.
Surrounded by a barbed wire topped 10 foot high brick wall, it was into this tiny corner of the Polish capital that the Nazis herded up to 400,000 Jewish prisoners at a time; systematically starving them with barely 181 calories of rations per day, leaving them to die of hunger or disease or simply leaving them to languish while they unknowingly awaited shipment to Hitler's gas chambers.
It was here too that in the spring of 1943, a small band of heroic Jewish fighters launched a desperate uprising against their Nazis captors, a battle that ended only when the overwhelmingly powerful German forces leveled the ghetto and reduced it to rubble.
Yet barely a year before, In May 1942 -- two and half years after the Warsaw Ghetto was established and shortly before the Nazis sent the Ghetto's first 300,000 Jews to the extermination camp of Treblinka -- the Reich dispatched a crew of German soldiers to film Jewish life in the Warsaw Ghetto.
Their perverse propaganda goal: to record for posterity examples of the religious practices and "sub-human culture" of the soon to be eliminated judische Rasse, everything from a circumcision ceremony to a burial service; from the extreme poverty of the many to the supposed lack of concern of those few Jews who still had some assets.
Parts of this nefarious Nazi propaganda film were heart wrenchingly real; the Nazis had no compunction about showing Jews suffering. But other parts of it were carefully staged, a German Potemkin Village movie honed for propaganda and construed to discredit the Jews.
Horrifying snippets of it have appeared over the years: a starving child dying on the streets of the Ghetto while other Jews walk by or still others dine on meals at well stocked restaurants that never existed' Nazi appointed Jewish Ghetto police brutalizing fellow Jews.
Yet mysteriously the Nazis' propaganda film was never finished. For more than 50 years, the silent, unedited reels lay hidden in a secret East German film archive in boxes marked simply, "The Ghetto."



Then along came Yael Hersonski, a young Israeli documentary maker whose own grandmother had survived the Warsaw Ghetto. After gaining access to the long abandoned footage via the current German government, Hersonski wrote and directed A Film Unfinished, a staggering 90 minute documentary of the atrocities of life in the Warsaw Ghetto as filmed by the Nazis themselves. It is presented in America by the New York distributor Oscilloscope Laboratories .
Two-thirds of the 31 year old Hersonski's film consists of the original Nazi propaganda footage - including out-takes. The rest is comprised in part of the wrinkled faces of a handful of Warsaw ghetto survivors grimly watching an actual screening of the film and offering commentary (some clearly remember the Wermacht cameramen at work). Using an actor, Hersonski has also re-enacted the actual post-war testimony of one of the film's original German cameramen (now deceased).
But in this viewer's mind, the most fascinating parts of the unfinished film are its out-takes which at times clearly show the cameramen themselves caught in the shot or demonstrate how scenes were staged, then re-shot to produce a "better" anti-Semitic result.
A Film Unfinished has already won well deserved international plaudits It was the 2010 Sundance Film Festival Winner for World Cinema Documentary Editing, the 2010 Hot Docs Winner for Best International Feature and a prime selection at Germany's 2010 Berlinale.
Hersonski's "A Film Unfinished" opens today 18th in New York at The Film Forum (209 W. Houston Street) and Lincoln Plaza (1886 Broadway), on August 20th It premieres in Los Angeles at The Laemmle Royal and in Encino, California at Laemmle Town Center. This will be followed by a national run of the film.
For some obscure reason, the Motion Picture Association of America - which lets our youth be bombarded by meaningless entertainment and violence - has decided to give A Film Unfinished an R rating because of "disturbing images of Holocaust atrocities, including graphic nudity," the latter in a Nazi-coerced scene of young women in a ritual bath.
The rating, which prevents anyone under 17 from watching the film unless accompanied by a parent or adult guardian, will not block the commercial screening of the film. But it will prevent the film from being shown in high school classes as an educational tool, to the particular disappointment of its creator Yael Hersonski who looks barely 17 herself and says she made it "not only for now but for future generations."

Ground Zero Mosque Revisited

Sometimes, I really wonder whose president, Obama is. So many of his actions and opinions strike me as counterintuitive. He has joined Mayor Bloomberg, and now, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi in supporting the right of those who attacked us on September 11th, 2001, while marginalizing those among us who are concerned for our future.

President Obama announced his support for the mosque at its' current planned location last Friday night, during and Iftar dinner commemorating the Islam holy month of Ramadan. This comes on the heels of his June 2009 speech from Cairo reaching out to the Muslim world, in which he stretched the facts and stated that the United States was one of the larger Muslim country and greatly exaggerated the Muslim population in this country, as well as the apparent contributions to this country that were made by Muslims.

The President apparently felt that the majority of citizens in the country who are opposed to this mosque needed a Constitutional Law lecture on the separation between Church and state. In his opinion, the citizenry of this country who put him into office, are too stupid to understand the political elites' reasons behind their touted policies unless it is explained to them in simple English, whether it is the health care monstrosity, the immigration debate, or the mosquestrosity at Ground Zero.

Now, Nancy Pelosi has weighed into the debate by suggesting that the financing of those opposed to the Ground Zero mosque should be investigated. It apparently has not dawned on her that the nearly 70% of Americans who oppose this mosque are united in their opposition to this 'house of worship' and are coming together to oppose it of their own volition.

It is very disturbing that the political elite is completely ignorant of the true face of fanatical Islam and the significance that this mosque, should it be built, will hold for these fundamentalist Muslims. The significance of the mosque is even more clear considering the name of the proposed mosque and Islamic center, discussed in a previous post. Perhaps, these political elites need to be lectured by everyday Americans and their constituents about the realities of life in a post 9/11 world. They need to educate themselves on Sharia law, Jihad, the goal of a worldwide caliphate and the risks that people in the West face, and the true face of Islam.

Surprisingly, one of the only rational political voices concerning this issue is that of David Patterson, Governor of NY State. This is probably the only time that he has made a rational contribution to the political scene, in his offer of land in another part of New York for the purposes of this mosque. The fact that this offer was refused confirms the true intent of the imam of the mosque; that of constructing a mosque that would overlook Ground Zero, where the infidel Americans were defeated, or to use another person's words, a trophy mosque.

Should the improbable happen and the plans for construction of this mosque continue, then what? Will the developers even find construction workers, union or non-union, to build the mosque? Will the grassroots opposition (or in Ms. Pelosi's words, the Astroturf) mobilize to prevent the mosque from proceeding further? Only time will tell.

Holocartoons

This is a link to a very sick Iranian web site that mocks and denies the Holocaust, while perpetuating many nasty and abhorrent antisemitic stereotypes. It is a sarcastic look at this tragedy and seeks, once again to denigrate the Jewish people and the horrible tragedy that occurred during World War II. Look at this site and check your humanity at the door.

HoloCartoons

Back from Vacation......Back to Work.. The Cross-Border LAF-IDF skirmish.

*SCROLL BELOW FOR UPDATE*

The cross-border Lebanese Armed Forces- Israeli Defense Forces incident occurred last Tuesday, August 3, and involved the obviously planned attack of Israeli troops who were clearing trees and brush on Israeli territory. The vegetation was being cleared by Israeli troops to improve the visibility for forces patrolling the area. After notifying UNIFIL troops of the planned maintenance work, the IDF was asked to delay the work until UNIFIL could prepare for the incident. They also apparently notified the Lebanese Army.

It is obvious that the commanding officer of the Lebanese in the area planned this attack and used the time to prepare to launch this illegal attack. What other reason can there be for the presence of journalists with these Lebanese forces? In the attack that left Lt. Colonel Dov Harari and wounded Captain Ezra Lakla, one of these journalists was killed in the incident, while another journalist was wounded. There are even some claims that there were camera crews in the area of the attack, that further support the suggestion that this attack was planned.

The UN supports the Israeli claims that the troops were operating in Israeli territory. The facts clearly indicate that the Israelis were operating 50 meters (which is more than one-half a football field) from the blue line that was established as the border between Israel and Lebanon after Israel withdrew from south Lebanon in 2002. UN support is surprising in itself, given the usual UN knee-jerk reaction to condemn Israel on any occasion in which Israel must defend herself, no matter how extreme the provocation has been against Israel and her security interests.

Unfortunately, the immediate response of the Obama administration was for both sides to exercise restraint. The NY Times and the AP, as well as other media outlets also were neutral in their reporting of the incident, seemingly inferring that somehow Israel was to blame for this sniper attack on its' soldiers on sovereign Israeli territory. Such neutrality would be encouraging if it were to extended to other situations, instead of their being permanent players in the 'blame Israel' game.

In the aftermath of this incident, the US Congress has blocked $100 million in 2010 military assistance to Lebanon that has already been approved, but not yet disbursed. Apparently, Israel can count on the US Congress and the American people to act appropriately in most situations and in defense of our most staunch ally in the Middle East, even though we can seemingly not count on our President and his administration. These funds are being held up for a number of reasons, including clarification of the attack, ascertaining if the LAF troops were using American supplied arms when they launched this attack, and clarifying the role of Hizbullah in the Lebanese Armed Forces. 2011 funding may also be held up pending the outcome of these investigations.

Thank you, Congress.

*UPDATE*

Further evidence that this attack was preplanned is evident from the article below.

Border Clash: A Case Study in Reuters Photography

In this article, the presence of no less than five Reuters photographers at the Israeli-Lebanon boarder during what was just supposed to be Israeli vegetation maintenance is very suspect. It is obvious that something different was expected at that time. Furthermore, the presence of these photographers put them at risk and this was the sole responsibility of the Lebanese military and those who invited the civilians into the area.

A correction to the post above: The decision to delay distribution of the $100 million aid package to Lebanon was made just prior to this attack, in light of the increased involvement of Hizbullah in the LAF and the concern that arms provided would be used by the LAF to attack Israeli soldiers, a key US ally.

Playcott- Jethro Tull Gets It Right.

This article needs no comment from me, except to note that it is refreshing when entertainers use their brains instead of reflexively reacting to world-wide incidents without apprising themselves of the facts surrounding an event. It is usually a knee-jerk reaction for many performers to react to events involving Israeli protection of its' security interests to then call for boycotts of Israel and to refuse to perform in Israel. How wonderful it is, then for Jethro Tull to honor its' contractual obligations and perform in Israel as scheduled, instead of canceling performances as Elvis Costello recently did. Kol Hakavod to you, Jethro Tull and specifically to Ian Anderson.

While some musicians are boycotting Israel, others like Jethro Tull aren’t. Maybe our “playcott” campaign is working after all?
by Jewlarious.com Staff

Is it possible, that maybe, just maybe somewhere in the collective internet subconscious things we do/say/write can actually have some small positive effect on others? Ya, probably doubtful. But maybe.

As was widely reported (i.e. here), after the recent Flotilla debacle, a few musicians such as the Pixies and Elvis Costello cancelled their scheduled concert dates in Israel. These musicians were being suckered in by the dark side. But fortunately, cyberspace struck back.

Cyberspace struck back.

Rob Eshman of the Jewish Journal, while clarifying that neither Meg Ryan nor Dustin Hoffman boycotted the Jerusalem Film Festival, gave Hollywood agents and managers an easy to use 3 step test when asked by their clients if they should boycott Israel. Like cooking rice, but easier. He writes.

1. 1. Are your facts correct? The Middle East crisis is a cesspool of misinformation. Breaking news stories are the most susceptible to lies and spin. The initial reports following the shooting of Muhammed al-Dura, the so-called massacre at Jenin, even the flotilla raid all proved exaggerated, misleading or false. Before you decide, make sure you get the facts.

2. 2. Are you being fair? Israel is an imperfect democracy. But poll after poll shows its people want to reach a just resolution to its problems with the Palestinians, and numerous Israeli governments have tried. For all its flaws, Israel doesn’t come close to the levels of social and political oppression, injustice, occupation, resource theft or cruelty that is common in Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, Syria or Egypt — to name a few. The American invasion and occupation of Iraq killed more innocents in seven years than Israel ever would or could — but no one’s boycotting the Staples Center. Why single out Israel?

3. 3. Are you being effective? Once you are informed and you put Israel’s transgressions in perspective, by all means take the right action — speak out. But speak out against extremists and fanatics on all sides. That’s the real battle here: between fanatics on all sides who want to perpetuate hate and deny the other side’s rights, and moderates on all sides who want a better future for their children. The band Jethro Tull donated proceeds from a concert to groups that bridge gaps between Jews and Arabs. Use your platform to support the many people in Israel fighting for a just solution. The artistic, musical and film communities are at the forefront of this struggle — your support for them can really make a difference.

In addition to Eshman, the highly influential editorial staff of Jewlarious called out the boycotters here and suggested that instead of using the effective “buycott” technique where pro Israel activists encourage people to actively buy Israeli product, supporters should employ a “Playcott” for musicians who continue to show support for Israel and all around good sense.

So… maybe the internet was listening.

British indie Rock band Jethro Tull and its band leader Ian Anderson have come down firmly on the side of the good and the just by stating that J-Tull will indeed be stopping in Israel during the band’s upcoming tour. Sadly, the number of people who do the right thing these days is dwindling by the minute, so when they do the right thing, we’ve all got to stand up and cheer. Way to go Jethro! Your son in law would be very proud (that’s Moses for anyone wondering).

Ian Anderson’s statement is so sensible that we’ve included it in its entirety below:

Having performed concerts in the Middle East region many times over the last few years, I am well aware of the ethnic and religious tensions existing, not only in the countries concerned, but in the broader international diasporas representing the various groups and their interests.

Having long maintained the position that culture and the arts should be free of political and religious censorship and a distance kept between them, I took a decision in February of 2009 that any future concerts in Israel by me or Jethro Tull would result in charitable donations to bodies representing the development of peaceful co-existence between Muslims, Jews and Christians, and the fostering of better Palestinian/Israeli relations. A number of potential charitable beneficiaries have now been identified and are under consideration.

I speak only for my own share of concert profits here - I am not about to tell the rest of the musicians or crew what views they should hold or what to do with their remuneration. Nor do I feel pressured by human rights groups, national interests or any individuals to perform or not to perform in Israel or anywhere else. I make up my own mind in light of available facts, with my own experience and a sense of personal ethics.

To those who tell me I should "boycott" Israel (or, for that matter, Turkey or Lebanon), I can only point out that on my travels around the world I am continually reminded of atrocities carried out historically by many nations who are now our friends, and it serves to strengthen my resolve that some degree of peace and better understanding may result from my and other artists' professional and humble efforts in such places. If I had the opportunity to perform today in Iran or North Korea, hell - I'd be there if I thought it would make a tiny positive net contribution to better relations.

It's a long time since Pearl Harbor, Auschwitz, Hiroshima and the firestorm of Dresden and I hope that, one bright day sometime in the future, it will seem a long time since the blockading of the supply flotilla to Gaza and the bombing of Israeli citizens by Hamas and Hizbolla.

So, I decided many months ago not to profit from my work in this troubled region and hope that interested parties on all sides will understand and respect my decision and resolve. The details of recipients of my charitable donation will be posted for the benefit of the doubters, as usual, on this website later in the year.

Ian Anderson, June 2010.

Playcott

The Immigration Conundrum

Comprehensive immigration reform.

This term is used by most Democrats and other liberals as shorthand for some kind of amnesty for the millions of illegal immigrants, excuse me, I mean undocumented workers, without securing the border. This is preposterous and will only worsen things in the future. Amnesty to illegal immigrants was previously granted under President Reagan in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The major provisions of this act legalized certain illegal aliens who had been continuously unlawfully present since 1982. It also enacted sanctions for employers who knowingly hired undocumented workers, and was supposed to increase enforcement of U.S. border security. It did not solve the problem of illegal immigration and will not solve it if passed in another form. What it did was convince some immigrants who were here legally to claim that they were illegal, so they could expedite their citizenship applications and save money in the process. Amnesty for illegal immigrants would simply be rewarding these lawbreakers for breaking the law. How fair is that to law abiding US citizens and legal immigrants.

Today, we have at least 11 million illegal immigrants in this country who drain the coffers of our state and federal governments because of increased health, education and other costs. The financial burden of illegal immigration has contributed significantly to the fiscal problems that currently hound the state of California, other states and the federal government.

In response to lack of action on the part of the federal government and the worsening of the situation in the border state of Arizona, Governor Jan Brewer signed Arizona Senate Bill 1070 into law, on April 23, 2010.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070h.pdf. Much has been said by this law, by both its’ proponents and opponents. It seems that many opponents of this 19 page law, including our President and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, are spreading falsehoods about the law and have not even read this very short law.

B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW
ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OF A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON, EXCEPT IF THE DETERMINATION MAY HINDER OR OBSTRUCT AN INVESTIGATION. ANY PERSON WHO IS ARRESTED SHALL HAVE THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS DETERMINED BEFORE THE PERSON IS RELEASED. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c). A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR
ARIZONA CONSTITUTION. A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS
UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

1. A VALID ARIZONA DRIVER LICENSE.
2. A VALID ARIZONA NONOPERATING IDENTIFICATION LICENSE.
3. A VALID TRIBAL ENROLLMENT CARD OR OTHER FORM OF TRIBAL
IDENTIFICATION.
4. IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION.

The law is very clear, despite claims to the contrary by our President and other opponents, that a person cannot be stopped for nothing while just going out to get ice cream for his kid. There must exist some kind of lawful contact; which means that the police officer must have a law enforcement related reason to detain a person other than suspecting that the person is an illegal alien. These could include a traffic violation, shop lifting or the suspected violation of another law BESIDES SB1070.

It is also very clear that the law prohibits racial profiling by arresting officers in enforcing this law. Factors other than race, national origin and color MUST be used to arrive at a reasonable suspicion that the person detained is in the country illegally. To prevent racial profiling, the state of Arizona has provided a video that imparts the correct and proper enforcement of this law to the various law enforcement agencies in Arizona that are charged with enforcing this law. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/07/01/2010-07-01_arizonas_antiillegal_immigration_law_sb_1070_comes_with_howto_enforcement_video_.html.

Similarly, contrary to incorrect assertions, a valid driver’s license or other valid form of government issued identification is sufficient proof of legal presence in the U.S. if the issuing agency must first evaluate the applicant’s proof of legal residence in the U.S. No other papers are necessary to prove one’s legal presence in this country.

Now, when I go somewhere, and am required for whatever reason to provide identification, I provide my driver’s license. Imagine that! Me, a natural born citizen of this great country, of non-Hispanic origin with green eyes, fair skin and blond (ahem!) hair having to provide proof of my identification. Wow! Some racial profiling there! Everyone over the age of 18 must provide proof of identification in certain circumstances, not just people suspected of being in this country illegally. If you want to board an airplane, you have to show ID. If you want to open a bank account, you have to show ID. If you want to use your credit card you have to show ID in most places. What is wrong with having to prove that you are who you say you are when you are stopped by law enforcement for breaking some kind of law? Is that any less important than proving who you are when you use your credit card? I see absolutely nothing wrong or prejudicial about that.

One of the main reasons that I hold this view on immigration is because of my family's history. My father is a Holocaust survivor who was liberated from the concentration camps at the age of 17. He had no close family left except for a cousin who was a few years older. He waited two years for his paperwork to clear until he could immigrate to the United States. Two years while he further put his life on hold, waiting to start over in this great country. I am certain that none of these illegal immigrants were in as dire circumstances as my father. Most have come here for economic reasons and send most of the money that they make 'back home'. They pay no income taxes, because they do not have Social Security numbers, and they drain health care and other resources without paying into the system. By sending money that they have earned out of the United States they are causing more of an economic drain on the country.

This has got to change or this country is in serious trouble.

Palestinians in the Arab World: Why the Silence?

Palestinians in the Arab World: Why the Silence?

by Khaled Abu Toameh

When was the last time the United Nations Security Council met to condemn an Arab government for its mistreatment of Palestinians?

How come groups and individuals on university campuses in the US and Canada that call themselves "pro-Palestinian" remain silent when Jordan revokes the citizenship of thousands of Palestinians?

The plight of Palestinians living in Arab countries in general, and Lebanon in particular, is one that is often ignored by the mainstream media in West.

How come they turn a blind eye to the fact that Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and many more Arab countries continue to impose severe travel restrictions on Palestinians?

And where do these groups and individuals stand regarding the current debate in Lebanon about whether to grant Palestinians long-denied basic rights, including employment, social security and medical care?

Or have they not heard about this debate at all? Probably not, since the case has failed to draw the attention of most Middle East correspondents and commentators.

A news story on the Palestinians that does not include an anti-Israel angle rarely makes it to the front pages of Western newspapers.

The demolition of an Arab-owned illegal building in Jerusalem is, for most of these correspondents, much more important than the fact that hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in Lebanon continue to suffer from a series of humiliating restrictions.

Not only are Palestinians living in Lebanon denied the right to own property, but they also do not qualify for health care, and are banned by law from working in a large number of jobs.

Can someone imagine what would be the reaction in the international community if Israel tomorrow passed a law that prohibits its Arab citizens from working as taxi drivers, journalists, physicians, cooks, waiters, engineers and lawyers? Or if the Israeli Ministry of Education issued a directive prohibiting Arab children from enrolling in universities and schools?

But who said that the Lebanese authorities have not done anything to "improve" the situation? In fact, the Palestinians living in that country should be grateful to the Lebanese government.

Until 2005, the law prohibited Palestinians from working in 72 professions. Now the list of jobs has been reduced to 50.

Still, Palestinians are not allowed to work as physicians, journalists, pharmacists or lawyers in Lebanon.

Ironically, it is much easier for a Palestinian to acquire American and Canadian citizenship than a passport of an Arab country. In the past, Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza Strip were even entitled to Israeli citizenship if they married an Israeli citizen, or were reunited with their families inside the country.

Lebanese politicians are now debating new legislation that would grant "civil rights" to Palestinians for the first time in 62 years. The new bill includes the right to own property, social security payments and medical care.

Many Lebanese are said to be opposed to the legislation out of fear that it would pave the way for the integration of Palestinians into their society and would constitute a burden to the economy.

The heated debate has prompted parliament to postpone a vote on the bill until next month.

Nadim Khoury, director of Human Rights Watch in Beirut, said, "Lebanon has marginalized Palestinian refugees for too long and the parliament should seize this opportunity to turn the page and end discrimination against Palestinians."

Rami Khouri, a prominent Lebanese journalist, wrote in The Daily Star that "all Arab countries mistreat millions of Arab, Asian and African foreign guest workers, who often are treated little better than chattel or indentured laborers…The mistreatment, abysmal living conditions and limited work, social security and property rights of the Palestinians [in Lebanon] are a lingering moral black mark."

Foreign journalists often justify their failure to report on the suffering of Palestinians in the Arab world by citing "security concerns" and difficulty in obtaining an entry visa into an Arab country.

But these are weak and unacceptable excuses given the fact that most of them could still write about these issues from their safe offices and homes in New York, London and Paris. Isn't that what most of them are anyway doing when they are write about the situation in the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

Mideast Dispatch Archive: A nice new shopping mall opened today in Gaza: Will the media report on it?

Mideast Dispatch Archive: A nice new shopping mall opened today in Gaza: Will the media report on it?

I Will Survive Dancing Auschwitz full version

Some people may find this video offensive. I am not one of them. As the daughter of a holocaust survivor who is now 82 years old and suffering from Alzheimer's disease, I find this video life affirming. My father never wanted to return to Poland after the war to reveal his family history to his children. Now that is lost forever. My father did have a wonderful and successful life despite having gone through the horror of the Holocaust and that in itself is life affirming. He married, raised three children and now has 7 grandchildren and started and ran a very successful business.

This past April, my son participated in the March of the Living. As part of this program, the participants recreate the path of the death marches and march from Auschwitz to Birkenau; many wrap themselves in the Israeli flag. This, in itself, is life affirming and has caused me to choke up from the range of emotions that were evoked in me. There are speakers and other demonstrations, including flyovers by the Israeli Air Force.

All of this says to the Nazis,"despite what you tried to do to the Jewish people, we are still here, still thriving and still successful." It also tells the millions of Jews who were murdered by the Nazis that those Jews who survived and those who follow them will never forget them and will continue to thrive and live full and successful lives. It tells those victims, that, although they have died, the Jewish people go on, and they have not died in vain.

It does not belittle the tragedy of the Holocaust. It demonstrates to the world at large, to those who were murdered and those who murdered them, that the Holocaust does not define us. It reveals that the victim mentality will not limit us. We are still here and will make our presence felt; through the characteristics that have always defined us; empathy, charity, a love of education and contributions to the well being of the world.

AM YISRAEL CHAI!