GS Don Morris
March 27,2010
One year since I last wrote about this topic, we see the persistence in our enemy. This strategy, ongoing and continued publication of a concept, even though non existant, overtime will become believed by the majority of people.
A headline from a year ago: Eurasia Islamic Council: Islamophobia is "one of the greatest obstacles to world peace."
"The meeting was attended by over 100 scholars from 42 countries. Participants at the event said Islamophobia was one of the greatest obstacles to world peace, adding that acts of terrorism and violence should be condemned regardless of who commits them or why. A joint declaration released after the meeting called on countries and their leaders to provide better educational opportunities for their citizens. According to the statement, steps that have been taken in the field of education worldwide are promising, but must be encouraged further."6
Today we have the following headline and story-once again demonstrating the persistence of those who want to silence critics of Islam. Create a term that demonizes others, use it often and persist in its use-soon it will become as though it were true.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
UN Human Rights Council condemns "Islamophobia"-no surprise!
Oddly enough, the Council said not a word about non-Muslims denied religious freedom in Saudi Arabia. "UN rights body passes Islamophobia resolution," from Middle East Online, March 25 (thanks to Twostellas):
GENEVA - The UN Human Rights Council on Thursday passed a resolution condemning Islamaphobic behaviour, including Switzerland's minaret building ban, despite some states' major reservations. The resolution "strongly condemns... the ban on the construction of minarets of mosques and other recent discriminatory measures."
The process of turning a myth into reality is quite an interesting behavioral phenomenon. This occurs when one group of people wants to challenge, infuriate, demand, dictate, and control the ideas and beliefs of another group of people. The motivation is direct and to the point. The outcome is usually for political and/or social engineering reasons to determine for others how they should act, speak, and behave. One of the best examples of this is the application of the term 'Islamophobia' directed to those of us who challenge or question practices of Islam within the Western culture. Islamic organizations regularly accuse non-Muslims of 'Islamophobia' - a fear and disdain for everything Islamic. As recently as May 17 this accusation bubbled up again as foreign ministers from the Organization of the Islamic Conference called Islamophobia "the worst form of terrorism." Ministers from multiple countries attending the conference 'warned- according to the Arab News - that this form of discrimination would cause millions of Muslims in Western countries, "many of whom were already underprivileged," to be "further alienated."1 How does something like this come to be.?
Let us examine Islamophobia from a different perspective. Allow me to submit that a formula or a blueprint exists for those people who want to marginalize and/or invalidate someone or something. It consists of the following steps - not necessarily exactly in the order presented:
Create a new term that describes a new behavioral phenomenon
Within the term use descriptors that sound plausible yet are also familiar to the general population
Ensure that identifiable behaviors are described and shroud them in a negative bent
Enroll experts in supporting this phenomena such as university academics, psychologists, human peace activists, human watch groups, and governmental agencies along with the popular media
Develop strategies to identify individuals who display this 'terrible human behavior' and condemn them for displaying it
As often as is possible, in public settings , use the term as a means to alienate people from one another-begin a 'name-calling' campaign
Use this phenomena to discredit anyone who may challenge your point of view-never respond directly to the charge, rather, reverse the situation and 'attack' the individual taking issue with your point of view
Move to make this display of behavior illegal ; pass local/regional and national legislation that criminalizes the behavior
Threaten legal action and/or actually take such action even though you know you do not have a case; it puts your antagonist on the defensive- right where you plan to keep him/her
This is a reasonable list of descriptors involved in the process. When one applies the preceding criteria steps to the development and implementation of Islamophobia you find it to accurately describes what has occurred particularly in the West during the last 5-10 years. Values Contrary (VC) Islamists and their non-Islamic supporters have used this to deflect criticism, deny facts, to divert attention, to defame, invalidate, and condemn anyone who challenges the practice of VC Islam.2
In order for Islamophobia to be effective the society upon which it has been thrust must operate within a 'makes me - believe' communication construct3. Without this operational construct in play, Islamophobia would have no impact upon the general population. It is because we actually believe that we can make someone feel or think something and/or that someone or something can do the same to us, the 'communication table' has been set. Afraid that one might OFFEND another person or cause someone to feel insulted or uneasy, we refrain from speaking/arguing or even questioning our antagonists. The West enemies know this and use it as a weapon against us.
We have become afraid to speak up and to challenge VC Islam and their followers. In the process we are afraid to stand for our own values, grounded within another set of beliefs. We do not defend our way of life; we acquiesce to a behavioral set that we do not belief in nor do we want to have as the basis for our social milieu. Said another way, We stand down on our long held values and meekly go forward into the future.
Allow me to provide some examples of the preceding process. Aside from the previously mentioned May 17 activity, In America, perhaps the most conspicuous organization to persistently accuse opponents of Islamophobia is the Council of American Islamic Relations. CAIR has taken up the legal case of the "Flying Imams," the six individuals who were pulled from a US Airways flight in Minneapolis this past November after engaging in suspicious behavior before takeoff. Not long ago, CAIR filed a "John Doe" lawsuit that would have made passengers liable for 'malicious' complaints about suspicious Muslim passengers. In an interview at the time, CAIR spokesman Nihad Awad accused Rep. Peter King (R., N.Y.) of being an 'extremist' who 'encourages Islamophobia' for pointing out what most people would think is obvious, that such a lawsuit would have a chilling effect on passengers who witnessed alarming activity and wished to report it4.
An Islamist group named Hizb ut-Tahrir seeks to bring the world under Islamic law and advocates suicide attacks against Israelis. Facing proscription in Great Britain, it opened a clandestine front operation at British universities called "Stop Islamophobia," as reported by the Sunday Times and presented by Daniel Pipes5.
Accusations of Islamophobia, Mr. Malik adds, are intended "to silence critics of Islam, or even Muslims fighting for reform of their communities." Another British Muslim, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, discerns an even more ambitious goal: "all too often Islamophobia is used to blackmail society."5
In Great Britain this term is used as a weapon. Hizb ut-Tahrir's manipulation of "Stop Islamophobia" betrays the fraudulence of this word. As the Sunday Times article explains, "Ostensibly the campaign's goal is to fight anti-Muslim prejudice in the wake of the London bombings," but it quotes
Anthony Glees of London's Brunel University to the effect that the real agenda is to spread anti-Semitic, anti-Hindu, anti-Sikh, anti-homosexual, and anti-female attitudes, as well as to foment resentment of Western influence.5
For many people immediate credibility exists if the United Nations supports a position, term, or behavioral action. Within this international organization the term has achieved a degree of linguistic and political acceptance, to the point that the Secretary-General of the United Nations presided over a December, 2004 conference titled "Confronting Islamophobia" and in May a Council of Europe summit condemned "Islamophobia."
There are literally thousands of examples available to demonstrate the points I have presented. Does this mean that Islamophbia exists? I offer to you now that it does not-it is not real. You cannot see, touch, breathe or hold onto it. Any thinking, caring person knows that this is simply a humankind term used to describe a behavioral phenomenon that only exists because we allow it to exist. The degree to which we submit to its implementation will adversely impact the values of Western civilization and allow the emergence of a fifth column within our society whose ultimate intention is to replace our way of life with one our enemies cherish.
I leave you with the following: "It's a long-standing rule of apologetics and dissimulation: Keep it general, and the uninitiated will project what they want to hear onto the generalities, thus guarding against uncomfortably specific questions…Of course, it's always entirely up to the West to stop Islamophobia. Muslim countries couldn't possibly consider a few simple steps of their own."7
End Notes
1.Tawfik Hamid, How to End 'Islamophobia', posted Opinion Journal from the WSJ May 25, 2007
2.GS Don Morris, Political Correctness-It is Killing Us, May, 2007, writingtw.blogspot.com
3.GS Don Morris, Political Correctness-It is Killing Us-Part One, April, 2007, writingtw.blogspot.com
4.Tawfik Hamid, ibid
5.Daniel Pipes, Islamophobia, NY Sun, October 25, 2005
6. Today's Zaman, "Islamophobia denounced at Eurasia Islamic Council meeting," May 16, 2009
7. Jihad Watch, Islamophobia …",May 16,200
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Open Letter to the President
Dear Mr. President,
I was already very troubled by your administration's handling of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, particularly with respect to Israel's recent announcement of building plans for Jerusalem during Vice President Biden's visit.
* The new apartments, while technically over the Green Line, are to be built in Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem.
* Ramat Shlomo already has a population of 18,000, larger than many towns in the US.
* The location, called "East Jerusalem" by the press, is actually west of the Old City and is actually immediately north of downtown Jerusalem.
* No Arabs live there and no Arabs live between Ramat Shlomo and Jewish Jerusalem.
* Ramat Shlomo has been included in US peace proposals as being inside Israel under a final peace settlement.
* Construction of apartments, synagogues, commercial stores and community centers in Ramat Shlomo has been going on for 14 years, without US condemnation.
I admit that the timing of Israel's building announcement was inconvenient.
However, by choosing to disbelieve Prime Minister Netanyahu, by rejecting his apology, and by instead turning this issue into a crisis with Israel, your administration has made it just about impossible for the Palestinians to return to talks.
Now you have poured salt on the wound by being rude to Prime Minister Netanyahu.
There has never been any doubt in any final solution negotiations that Jerusalem would continue to be Israel's capital.
That aside, why should Israel not be allowed to build housing wherever it wants to so long as the land is available or the landowners are appropriately compensated? Why is it ok for the Palestinian Authority to continue to enforce a decades-old Jordanian law that made it a capital crime to sell land to Jews.?
Why is your administration making a big deal about Israel building houses, but not criticizing the PA for that or for educating their children to glorify suicide murderers or to use textbooks that do not show Israel's existence on any maps?
How has the US' angry response lambasting Israel moved US policy forward?
I understand that Secretary of State Clinton has communicated a list of unreasonable requirements which your administration is imposing on Israel in order to restore confidence in bilateral talks and to open the way for resuming negotiations.
I do not believe that Israel can or should hold out for "Greater Israel" or can achieve peace without making concessions. However, in this instance Israel should not be pressured or expected to reverse its totally reasonable building plans, and certainly should not be pressured or expected to release Palestinian prisoners.
Israel has consistently been ready to negotiate all of the issues required to make peace and provide for the formation of a Palestinian State. In contrast, the Palestinians have consistently put barriers in the way and imposed preconditions before negotiating. I am disappointed that you have not shown more leadership by challenging them on that.
I believe that the responsibility for reducing the recent tensions rests with you and your administration. You owe Israel and Mr. Netanyahu an apology! I am now not sure why I voted for you (despite your recent success with healthcare).
Sincerely,
Isaiah D. Cooper
I was already very troubled by your administration's handling of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, particularly with respect to Israel's recent announcement of building plans for Jerusalem during Vice President Biden's visit.
* The new apartments, while technically over the Green Line, are to be built in Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem.
* Ramat Shlomo already has a population of 18,000, larger than many towns in the US.
* The location, called "East Jerusalem" by the press, is actually west of the Old City and is actually immediately north of downtown Jerusalem.
* No Arabs live there and no Arabs live between Ramat Shlomo and Jewish Jerusalem.
* Ramat Shlomo has been included in US peace proposals as being inside Israel under a final peace settlement.
* Construction of apartments, synagogues, commercial stores and community centers in Ramat Shlomo has been going on for 14 years, without US condemnation.
I admit that the timing of Israel's building announcement was inconvenient.
However, by choosing to disbelieve Prime Minister Netanyahu, by rejecting his apology, and by instead turning this issue into a crisis with Israel, your administration has made it just about impossible for the Palestinians to return to talks.
Now you have poured salt on the wound by being rude to Prime Minister Netanyahu.
There has never been any doubt in any final solution negotiations that Jerusalem would continue to be Israel's capital.
That aside, why should Israel not be allowed to build housing wherever it wants to so long as the land is available or the landowners are appropriately compensated? Why is it ok for the Palestinian Authority to continue to enforce a decades-old Jordanian law that made it a capital crime to sell land to Jews.?
Why is your administration making a big deal about Israel building houses, but not criticizing the PA for that or for educating their children to glorify suicide murderers or to use textbooks that do not show Israel's existence on any maps?
How has the US' angry response lambasting Israel moved US policy forward?
I understand that Secretary of State Clinton has communicated a list of unreasonable requirements which your administration is imposing on Israel in order to restore confidence in bilateral talks and to open the way for resuming negotiations.
I do not believe that Israel can or should hold out for "Greater Israel" or can achieve peace without making concessions. However, in this instance Israel should not be pressured or expected to reverse its totally reasonable building plans, and certainly should not be pressured or expected to release Palestinian prisoners.
Israel has consistently been ready to negotiate all of the issues required to make peace and provide for the formation of a Palestinian State. In contrast, the Palestinians have consistently put barriers in the way and imposed preconditions before negotiating. I am disappointed that you have not shown more leadership by challenging them on that.
I believe that the responsibility for reducing the recent tensions rests with you and your administration. You owe Israel and Mr. Netanyahu an apology! I am now not sure why I voted for you (despite your recent success with healthcare).
Sincerely,
Isaiah D. Cooper
President Obama Needs a More Evenhanded Mideast Policy
This is a letter published in the Connecticut Post on March 26, 2010. It was sent in response to a misguided column by Trudy Rubin published in the Connecticut Post on March 21. The column may be viewed at http://www.ctpost.com/default/article/Obama-needs-more-strategic-Mideast-policy-414219.php
Trudy Rubin's column (CP - March 21) is filled with errors of fact and unwarranted assumptions that make a mockery of what are supposed to be desired peace negotiations between Arabs and Israelis. As Rubin reported, President Obama took grave offense at an Israeli municipal action to approve building new Jewish homes in Jerusalem that he alleged was disruptive to peace. Close examination reveals that there another side to this story.
The expectation has always been in the various Middle East "peacr" processes that issues between the Arab and Israeli parties are to be worked out in negotiation, not through arbitrary dictates and certainly not through violence.
The fact is that, pending the crafting of a final agreement, Israel has the right to build homes in Jerusalem. Jewish building in Jerusalem has continued for decades even during prior negotiations and does not constitute a change in agreed on procedures or commitments.
In the case of the recent approval of 1600 apartments by the Jerusalem municipality, this is a project in the northwestern part of the city -- not in any disputed post 1967-War part -- and is sandwiched between two existing, large Jewish neighborhoods. This is an area that all prior negotiations have identified as within the part of Jerusalem that Israel will continue to hold irrespective of how final negotiated borders are drawn. It is in this light that President Obama's sudden intrusion into this matter, taking extreme offense on what is a routine act by an Israeli municipal official, appears most unwarranted and arbitrary.
Interestingly, it was not until a few days after approval by the municipal agency was announced that V.P. Biden, already in Israel, bestirred himself, under the direction of President Obama, to publicly take offense at the Israeli action. This immediately emboldened the Arab side to similarly object and to initiate violent demonstrations throughout Israel. The Arabs also halted the beginning of a long awaited new negotiation and now they demand a rescinding of Israel's project as the price of continuing.
The picture that emerges is that the stoking of violent Arab unrest and disruption of negotiation has been the result of President Obama's attempt to impose a new, unilateral concession on Israel. This clearly undermines negotiation and has the effect of compromising trust in the US as a neutral arbitrator between the parties.
It is relevant that the Arab side had for more than a year refused to negotiate and only recently agreed to begin "proximity" talks.
These use a US mediator as the interface between the parties, sidestepping direct Arab contact with Israelis. This arms-length approach hardly demonstrates the "trust" that the Arabs and President Obama say is essential.
Finally, Rubin fails to take note that the Arab side has persistently indulged in terrorist violence and carries on school programs teaching hatred of Israel -- violations of their long standing promises to cease such action. This is hardly the kind of conduct that will lead to a successful two-state solution that Rubin thinks is in Israel's interest.
The point is that no thinking person should expect that Israel will find it in its interest to be railroaded into allowing a dangerous Arab enemy to emerge with statehood. In keeping with its grave danger to its people, Israel could be forced to react with painful and overwhelming force against such an advent, hence, care must be taken bring along a peace process within a context promoting trust.
It is unfortunate that President Obama has so unwisely intervened.
It creates a division between an important US ally, Israel, and is hardly a contribution to a wise strategic policy needed in the peace process.
David Basch
Fairfield, CT
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Next year in …: An open letter to Rahm Emanuel & David Axelrod
[This open letter was sent by David Wilder to Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. It is posted with the permission of David Wilder.]
David Wilder
March 15, 2010
Nisan 1, 5770, 3/15/2010
Dear Rahm and David,
I'm writing this as I sit and watch, via live internet, the ceremony marking the rededication of the Hurva synagogue in Jerusalem, in the area you would classify "east Jerusalem", disputed territory, or perhaps, 'occupied territory' over the 'green line' adjacent to 'Temple Mount.'
Before asking a few questions, I'd like to describe to you several men who took part in tonight's celebration.
First, there is Reuvan 'Ruby' Rivlin, presently speaker of the Knesset. A seventh generation Jerusalemite, Ruby is a 'Rivlin' from both his mother and father's side, descended from both Rebbi Yisrael Ba'al Shem Tov and the Gra, the Gaon, Rebbi Eliyahu from Vilna.
Rivlin, a seasoned politician, had trouble controlling his voice as he spoke, his words quivering with emotion, as he repeated the words of his great-grandfather, who spoke at the rededication of the destroyed Hurva shul a hundred and fifty years ago.
Also speaking briefly was former Prisoner of Zion, former minister, and present chairman of the Jewish Agency, Natan Sharansky, who described how, in 1992, he convinced the entire Israeli government to unanimously approve reconstruction of the Hurva, destroyed by the Jordanians following their occupation of the Jerusalem in 1948.
But the man who most impressed me was David Rabinovitch, an Israeli Russian, who contributed heavily to the renovation of the Hurva. Rubenstein spoke briefly, albeit in Russian, and announced that he and his partners, whose financial fortunes built the Hurva, would participate in rebuilding the nearby Tiferet Yisrael synagogue, also destroyed by the Arabs during the War of Independence. These men, who grew up without any Jewish background, and who today barely speak Hebrew, are investing their life's fortunes in synagogues, in Jerusalem.
And you, Rahm and David, what are you investing your lives in?
Rahm, it is said that you are the cornerstone of your boss' policy towards Israel and the Middle East. Since this administration took office, you are quoted, time and time again, as forcing a 'two-state solution' on Israel. "Israel now faces a moment of truth - it can either acquiesce to international demands and in return have its most serious threats dealt with, or maintain the status quo and have those threats persist."http://goo.gl/ntPh In other words, Israel's future, as a state, and in large part, the continued existence of the Jewish people, is dependent on Israel 'towing the line,' obeying US policy, and acquiescing to US-Arab terrorist demands.
And David, just a few days ago you publicly turned Israel over your knee and paddled her, saying, "What happened there was an affront,…It was an insult. ... This was not the right way to behave." http://goo.gl/fana This, of course, in reference to the announcement that Israel will continue to build in Jerusalem.
Is this the behavior of two good Jewish boys, who, it is said, love Israel?
Rahm, truthfully it's very difficult to understand your actions. You belong to an orthodox synagogue in Chicago. You grew up in a Jewish home, with a strong affinity to Israel. Your father was born in Jerusalem and your uncle, for whom you were named, was killed by Arabs in Jerusalem. But you still support a position forbidding Jewish building in Jerusalem!?
And David, you too are no stranger to Judaism. Born on the Lower East Side in New York, you always knew you were Jewish. Yet you see fit to push your own people into security situations which jeopardize the continued existence of the Jewish State.
How is it that two men whose lives have always been saturated with Judaism do not comprehend simple truths understood by others who grew up in Soviet Russia, knowing almost nothing about their Jewish roots.? Even your names reflect your Jewish souls: David - dating back to King David - the eternal King of Israel; and Rahm - meaning 'high,' hinting at the Creator, and in your case, a form of the word Rachamim, meaning mercy. Upon who do you have mercy, Mr. Emanuel? Perhaps both of you should repudiate your names, changing them, as did Hellenistic Jews in Israel during the time of Greek occupation of Israel. How can you carry such "Jewish names' yet, at the same time, assist in pushing your people to the brink?
I have one other question for both of you men. Tonight marks the first day of the new month of Nisan, the month of Geula, of redemption from Egypt. In exactly two weeks we will begin the Passover holiday, commencing with the Seder, the first Pesach meal, when we relate the story of the Jews' Exodus from Egypt.
It is said that last year, both of you were invited to the President's Passover Seder, but skipped it, preferring to eat Matza with your families, at home. Very touching. But why?
What I really want to know is not how you begin your family Seder, rather, how you end it. Normally, Jews finish the night's ceremony declaring "Next year in Jerusalem" or Next year in the rebuilt Jerusalem."
Rahm Emanual and David Axelrod:
DO YOU RECITE THESE WORDS AT YOUR FAMILY TABLE;
IF SO, DO YOU MEAN WHAT YOU SAY, OR JUST REPEAT THE WORDS FOR CUSTOM'S SAKE;
AND WOULD YOU DARE RECITE THESE WORDS IN PUBLIC, WORDS MOUTHED BY JEWS FOR CENTURIES, AS THEY WERE TORTURED AND BURNED AT THE STAKE, OR SENT TO SIBERIA TO DIE, FOR DARING TO REPEAT THE FUNDAMENTAL TENET OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.?
EXACTLY HOW DO YOU SAY IT? NEXT YEAR IN JERUSALEM,
OR
NEXT YEAR IN [OCCUPIED?], [DISPUTED?], [CONQUERED?], [ARAB?] JERUSALEM?
Isn't it time you left the White House and came home to your real home, in Israel, in Jerusalem where you too can stand proudly at the Kotel and recite, as Jews have for eternity "Next year in [Jewish] Jerusalem."
The Jewish Community of Hebron
POB 105 , Kiryat Arba-Hebron 90100
hebron@hebron.org.il
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Crossing the Line: Journalistic Irresponsibility at The Hartford Courant
On March 21, The Hartford Courant published a commentary by Bessy Reyna (email <bessy_reyna@hotmail.com>) entitled "Amid Repression, Provocations of Palestinians, It's Business As Usual," (available at http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/hc-reyna-israel-palestinian-cou.artmar21,0,6910479.story) which not only crossed the line separating even harsh but legitimate criticism from a hateful screed, but which contained numerous blatant factual errors.
The following email was sent to the editorial page editor of The Courant. PRIMER awaits a response.
I was disappointed to see yet another Bessy Reyna commentary about Israel published, the second of which I'm aware since our 2008 meeting at which we were told she had been instructed to stop writing on that subject.
Besides her expected extreme bias and sins of omission which go beyond any responsible commentary, Reyna again included several blatant factual errors. On behalf of PRIMER-Connecticut and in line with the responsibility of newspapers when factual errors are published, I request that corrections be issued.
Among the factual errors:
•" … the announcement of Israel's plan to build a new settlement of 1,600 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem."
The plans are not for a "new settlement." They are for additions to an existing community. (The Israeli government hasn't approved any "new settlements" since the start of the failed Oslo process.)
There also is no entity by the name of "East Jerusalem," despite the widespread, but incorrect use of that term. Ramat Shlomo is not even in the eastern portion of Jerusalem; it's actually in northwest Jerusalem
It's also highly questionable to refer to the area as occupied, since it isn't even in the portion of Jerusalem that had been occupied by Jordan but it's in what had been a "no man's land" between the Israeli portion and the portion occupied by Jordan from 1948-1967.
•" … prompted by Israel's decision to name the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron- a Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century - and the Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah in Bethlehem as Jewish heritage sites, thus limiting Muslims' access to their own mosques."
Including these sites on a list of Jewish heritage sites (which they clearly are) in no way limits the access of Muslims. Indeed, the improvements planned will actually increase the accessibility for Muslims. (One might consider the latter assertion as a matter of opinion, but Reyna's statement was asserted as fact and is clearly false.)
It's also false to refer to the first as a "Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century," since it is indisputable that there was no "Palestinian people" at that time.
What Reyna misleadingly refers to only as the "Ibrahimi Mosque" is the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It has had some significance to Muslims, but that is predated by millennia by the holiness to Jews, something Reyna completely omits.
Similarly, what Reyna misleadingly refers to only as the "Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah" is actually Rachel's Tomb, similarly revered by Jews long before Islam arose.
These omissions may not technically be factual errors, but are certainly misleading distortions which qualify as egregious violations of journalistic responsibility.
•…"The peaceful demonstrations which have resulted as a reaction to the taking of these mosques …"
The demonstrations were far from peaceful. Some of them involved throwing stones at people trying to worship at the Western Wall. (This affected me personally, since I happened to be in Jerusalem at the time, was planning to visit the Western Wall and changed those plans primarily because of the violent demonstrations.)
To refer to "the taking of these mosques" is also totally false; nothing has been taken.
•"Known as the Goldstone Report, it concluded that there was strong evidence confirming that numerous serious violations of international law, both humanitarian and human rights law, were committed by Israel during the military operations in Gaza from Dec. 27, 2008, to Jan. 17, 2009."
This is also false and contradicted by the words of the author of the report. Judge Goldstone himself has stated "If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven."
One can reasonably question the wisdom of certain Israeli actions, but like Reyna's previously commentaries on the Arab war against the existence of the only Jewish state in the world, this column was venomous, goes far beyond the line of reasonable criticism, contains unacceptable distortions resulting from what can only be inferred to be the deliberate omission of highly relevant facts and contains blatant factual errors.
Again, on behalf of PRIMER, I request The Courant appropriate issue official corrections for the blatant factual errors and in the future refrain from staining its pages by publishing additional commentaries which so blatantly cross the line separating legitimate criticism from hateful screeds.
The following email was sent to the editorial page editor of The Courant. PRIMER awaits a response.
I was disappointed to see yet another Bessy Reyna commentary about Israel published, the second of which I'm aware since our 2008 meeting at which we were told she had been instructed to stop writing on that subject.
Besides her expected extreme bias and sins of omission which go beyond any responsible commentary, Reyna again included several blatant factual errors. On behalf of PRIMER-Connecticut and in line with the responsibility of newspapers when factual errors are published, I request that corrections be issued.
Among the factual errors:
•" … the announcement of Israel's plan to build a new settlement of 1,600 housing units in occupied East Jerusalem."
The plans are not for a "new settlement." They are for additions to an existing community. (The Israeli government hasn't approved any "new settlements" since the start of the failed Oslo process.)
There also is no entity by the name of "East Jerusalem," despite the widespread, but incorrect use of that term. Ramat Shlomo is not even in the eastern portion of Jerusalem; it's actually in northwest Jerusalem
It's also highly questionable to refer to the area as occupied, since it isn't even in the portion of Jerusalem that had been occupied by Jordan but it's in what had been a "no man's land" between the Israeli portion and the portion occupied by Jordan from 1948-1967.
•" … prompted by Israel's decision to name the Ibrahimi Mosque in Hebron- a Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century - and the Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah in Bethlehem as Jewish heritage sites, thus limiting Muslims' access to their own mosques."
Including these sites on a list of Jewish heritage sites (which they clearly are) in no way limits the access of Muslims. Indeed, the improvements planned will actually increase the accessibility for Muslims. (One might consider the latter assertion as a matter of opinion, but Reyna's statement was asserted as fact and is clearly false.)
It's also false to refer to the first as a "Palestinian place of worship since the seventh century," since it is indisputable that there was no "Palestinian people" at that time.
What Reyna misleadingly refers to only as the "Ibrahimi Mosque" is the Tomb of the Patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. It has had some significance to Muslims, but that is predated by millennia by the holiness to Jews, something Reyna completely omits.
Similarly, what Reyna misleadingly refers to only as the "Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah" is actually Rachel's Tomb, similarly revered by Jews long before Islam arose.
These omissions may not technically be factual errors, but are certainly misleading distortions which qualify as egregious violations of journalistic responsibility.
•…"The peaceful demonstrations which have resulted as a reaction to the taking of these mosques …"
The demonstrations were far from peaceful. Some of them involved throwing stones at people trying to worship at the Western Wall. (This affected me personally, since I happened to be in Jerusalem at the time, was planning to visit the Western Wall and changed those plans primarily because of the violent demonstrations.)
To refer to "the taking of these mosques" is also totally false; nothing has been taken.
•"Known as the Goldstone Report, it concluded that there was strong evidence confirming that numerous serious violations of international law, both humanitarian and human rights law, were committed by Israel during the military operations in Gaza from Dec. 27, 2008, to Jan. 17, 2009."
This is also false and contradicted by the words of the author of the report. Judge Goldstone himself has stated "If this was a court of law, there would have been nothing proven."
One can reasonably question the wisdom of certain Israeli actions, but like Reyna's previously commentaries on the Arab war against the existence of the only Jewish state in the world, this column was venomous, goes far beyond the line of reasonable criticism, contains unacceptable distortions resulting from what can only be inferred to be the deliberate omission of highly relevant facts and contains blatant factual errors.
Again, on behalf of PRIMER, I request The Courant appropriate issue official corrections for the blatant factual errors and in the future refrain from staining its pages by publishing additional commentaries which so blatantly cross the line separating legitimate criticism from hateful screeds.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Letters to the President, Vice President and Secretary of State
The President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
March 13, 2010
Dear Mr. President:
It's generally understood that in any Arab-Israeli peace agreement, almost all the concessions are going to be made by Israel. Given that reality, it's obvious that Israel must be able to trust the United States to stand by its word and its commitments.
It's hard to believe Israel would have any trust left after the recent actions and rhetoric coming from your administration.
In June, 2008, I listened to you insist Jerusalem must remain the undivided as the capital of Israel. Your current Secretary of State said much the same thing, while your Vice President co-sponsored the Jerusalem Embassy Act making that United States policy.
The severe criticism leveled at Israel allegedly because of a routine announcement about ordinary housing in its capital is inconsistent both with your statements and the policy declared in that act, especially since the building will be in an area where even those supporting the redivision of Jerusalem recognize would remain part of Israel.
Meanwhile, while your administration has been busy unfairly criticizing Israel and undermining trust, the Palestinian Authority has taken a despicable action is an indication of how little it is interested in peace and which merits harsh criticism.
As soon as Vice President Biden left, it rushed to dedicate a public square to the memory of a woman who helped carry out the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel's history. Dalai Mughrabi led a bloody attack murdering 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children.
It is clear that for peace to ever become possible, the Palestinian Arabs must completely change their society and their values.
Your administration's ignoring of their provocations while pandering to their unreasonable demands undermines any chance of peace and helps prevent the emergence of any real peace process.
Sincerely,
Alan H. Stein
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Vice President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
March 13, 2010
Dear Mr. Vice President:
It's generally understood that in any Arab-Israeli peace agreement, almost all the concessions are going to be made by Israel. Given that reality, it's obvious that Israel must be able to trust the United States to stand by its word and its commitments.
It's hard to believe Israel would have any trust left after the recent actions and rhetoric coming from you during your recent trip to Israel and from others in the Obama Administration.
In 1995, you cosponsored the Jerusalem Embassy Act, declaring as official American policy that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel. In June, 2008, I listened as then Senator Obama asserted his agreement with that policy, as did Secretary of State Clinton when she was a Senator.
The severe criticism you have leveled at Israel, allegedly because of a routine announcement about ordinary housing in its capital, is inconsistent both with your statements and the policy declared in that act, especially since the building will be in an area where even those supporting the redivision of Jerusalem recognize would remain part of Israel.
Meanwhile, while the Obama Administration has been busy unfairly criticizing Israel and undermining trust, the Palestinian Authority has taken a despicable action is an indication of how little it is interested in peace and which merits harsh criticism.
As soon as you left, the Palestinian Authority rushed to dedicate a public square to the memory of a woman who helped carry out the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel's history. Dalai Mughrabi led a bloody attack murdering 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children.
It is clear that for peace to ever become possible, the Palestinian Arabs must completely change their society and their values.
The continued ignoring of their provocations while pandering to their unreasonable demands undermines any chance of peace and helps prevent the emergence of any real peace process.
Sincerely,
Alan H. Stein
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
United States Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
March 13, 2010
Dear Madame Secretary:
It's generally understood that in any Arab-Israeli peace agreement, almost all the concessions are going to be made by Israel. Given that reality, it's obvious that Israel must be able to trust the United States to stand by its word and its commitments.
It's hard to believe Israel would have any trust left after the recent actions and rhetoric coming from your administration.
As Senator and as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the presidency, you repeatedly expressed your agreement that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel. In June, 2008, I listened to President Obama say the same thing, while Vice President Biden even co-sponsored the Jerusalem Embassy Act which made that United States policy.
The severe criticism leveled at Israel allegedly because of a routine announcement about ordinary housing in its capital is inconsistent both with your statements and the policy declared in that act, especially since the building will be in an area where even those supporting the redivision of Jerusalem recognize would remain part of Israel.
Meanwhile, while the Obama Administration has been busy unfairly criticizing Israel and undermining trust, the Palestinian Authority has taken a despicable action is an indication of how little it is interested in peace and which merits harsh criticism.
As soon as Vice President Biden left, it rushed to dedicate a public square to the memory of a woman who helped carry out the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel's history. Dalai Mughrabi led a bloody attack murdering 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children.
It is clear that for peace to ever become possible, the Palestinian Arabs must completely change their society and their values.
Ignoring the incitement and provocations of the Palestinian Authority while pandering to its unreasonable demands undermines any chance of peace and helps prevent the emergence of any real peace process.
Sincerely,
Alan H. Stein
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
March 13, 2010
Dear Mr. President:
It's generally understood that in any Arab-Israeli peace agreement, almost all the concessions are going to be made by Israel. Given that reality, it's obvious that Israel must be able to trust the United States to stand by its word and its commitments.
It's hard to believe Israel would have any trust left after the recent actions and rhetoric coming from your administration.
In June, 2008, I listened to you insist Jerusalem must remain the undivided as the capital of Israel. Your current Secretary of State said much the same thing, while your Vice President co-sponsored the Jerusalem Embassy Act making that United States policy.
The severe criticism leveled at Israel allegedly because of a routine announcement about ordinary housing in its capital is inconsistent both with your statements and the policy declared in that act, especially since the building will be in an area where even those supporting the redivision of Jerusalem recognize would remain part of Israel.
Meanwhile, while your administration has been busy unfairly criticizing Israel and undermining trust, the Palestinian Authority has taken a despicable action is an indication of how little it is interested in peace and which merits harsh criticism.
As soon as Vice President Biden left, it rushed to dedicate a public square to the memory of a woman who helped carry out the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel's history. Dalai Mughrabi led a bloody attack murdering 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children.
It is clear that for peace to ever become possible, the Palestinian Arabs must completely change their society and their values.
Your administration's ignoring of their provocations while pandering to their unreasonable demands undermines any chance of peace and helps prevent the emergence of any real peace process.
Sincerely,
Alan H. Stein
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Vice President of the United States
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
March 13, 2010
Dear Mr. Vice President:
It's generally understood that in any Arab-Israeli peace agreement, almost all the concessions are going to be made by Israel. Given that reality, it's obvious that Israel must be able to trust the United States to stand by its word and its commitments.
It's hard to believe Israel would have any trust left after the recent actions and rhetoric coming from you during your recent trip to Israel and from others in the Obama Administration.
In 1995, you cosponsored the Jerusalem Embassy Act, declaring as official American policy that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel. In June, 2008, I listened as then Senator Obama asserted his agreement with that policy, as did Secretary of State Clinton when she was a Senator.
The severe criticism you have leveled at Israel, allegedly because of a routine announcement about ordinary housing in its capital, is inconsistent both with your statements and the policy declared in that act, especially since the building will be in an area where even those supporting the redivision of Jerusalem recognize would remain part of Israel.
Meanwhile, while the Obama Administration has been busy unfairly criticizing Israel and undermining trust, the Palestinian Authority has taken a despicable action is an indication of how little it is interested in peace and which merits harsh criticism.
As soon as you left, the Palestinian Authority rushed to dedicate a public square to the memory of a woman who helped carry out the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel's history. Dalai Mughrabi led a bloody attack murdering 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children.
It is clear that for peace to ever become possible, the Palestinian Arabs must completely change their society and their values.
The continued ignoring of their provocations while pandering to their unreasonable demands undermines any chance of peace and helps prevent the emergence of any real peace process.
Sincerely,
Alan H. Stein
The Honorable Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
United States Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20520
March 13, 2010
Dear Madame Secretary:
It's generally understood that in any Arab-Israeli peace agreement, almost all the concessions are going to be made by Israel. Given that reality, it's obvious that Israel must be able to trust the United States to stand by its word and its commitments.
It's hard to believe Israel would have any trust left after the recent actions and rhetoric coming from your administration.
As Senator and as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the presidency, you repeatedly expressed your agreement that Jerusalem remain the undivided capital of Israel. In June, 2008, I listened to President Obama say the same thing, while Vice President Biden even co-sponsored the Jerusalem Embassy Act which made that United States policy.
The severe criticism leveled at Israel allegedly because of a routine announcement about ordinary housing in its capital is inconsistent both with your statements and the policy declared in that act, especially since the building will be in an area where even those supporting the redivision of Jerusalem recognize would remain part of Israel.
Meanwhile, while the Obama Administration has been busy unfairly criticizing Israel and undermining trust, the Palestinian Authority has taken a despicable action is an indication of how little it is interested in peace and which merits harsh criticism.
As soon as Vice President Biden left, it rushed to dedicate a public square to the memory of a woman who helped carry out the deadliest terrorist attack in Israel's history. Dalai Mughrabi led a bloody attack murdering 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children.
It is clear that for peace to ever become possible, the Palestinian Arabs must completely change their society and their values.
Ignoring the incitement and provocations of the Palestinian Authority while pandering to its unreasonable demands undermines any chance of peace and helps prevent the emergence of any real peace process.
Sincerely,
Alan H. Stein
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Biased and Incomplete Reporting
This is the heart of an "alert" sent to the PRIMER Email Response Team. The texts of the articles to which it refers are omitted here but most can be found on the papers' web sites. Since they were all wire service articles, they appeared in many newspapers around the country.
During the last two days, The Hartford Courant, New Haven Register, Waterbury Republican-American and likely other Connecticut newspapers have published "news" stories which are effectively biased, are infused with opinion inappropriate to a news article and present a very incomplete picture.
The publication of these articles help illustrate the need to constantly present the balancing viewpoints, through letters and op-eds, even during periods that seem relatively quiet.
Most of the articles refer the plans for building a handful of apartments in Israel's capital and are written from a perspective assuming the Arab complaints are perfectly reasonable, that America's pandering to those complaints is also perfectly reasonable.
Left out is any perspective, including the fact the building is in an area that has no chance of ever being turned over to the Palestinian Arabs under any conceivable agreement. There is not even a suggestion about the obvious fact that if the Palestinian Arabs had any real interest in reaching a peace agreement they would no more be making any fuss about building housing for Jews than Israel is making about the massive construction of homes for Arabs in the disputed territories, no less complaining about building in areas that are obviously never going to be under their jurisdiction.
The article in the Register refers to Vice President Joe Biden warning "actions that 'inflame tensions,'" in a manner that makes it clear it refers to the routine Israeli announcement about the building plans. There is no reference to actions taken by the Palestinian Authority, particularly regarding incitement, which really do inflame tensions and keep pushing any prospects for peace further and further away.
Included near the end of this email is a bulletin from Palestinian Media Watch
It appears (although it's not perfectly clear) from the PMW report that, under pressure from both Israel and America, the PA has either postponed or cancelled today's ceremonies. Regardless of whether this particular ceremony has been cancelled:
(a) The fact that the PA would even consider so honoring such a brutal terrorist (as it has honored many others) is a strong indication that it has no real interest in living together with Israel in peace.
(b) We have seen no reporting of this in any Connecticut newspapers. Actions taken by the Palestinian Arabs to undermine prospects for peace, and clear indications that they are not interested in peace, are obviously not considered newsworthy by Connecticut newspapers.
(c) However one feels about "settlements" or growth of communities, that's not what determines whether there will be peace negotiations. It's often used as an excuse by the PA to avoid negotiations, and it's waved about by some in order to exploit the issue's divisiveness, but the questions of peace negotiations and of a "two (or three or four)-state solution," which the Arabs may very well not want, involve much broader and more fundamental issues than the building of a handful of homes.
(d) Barry Rubin has a very cogent article about the building announcement. It may be viewed at www.gloria-center.org/blog/2010/03/announcing-construction.
(e) It appears that Abbas has already reneged on his agreement to engage in even indirect talks. An update at www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3861093,00.html says "Chief Palestinian neogiator Saeb Erekat confirmed that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas notified the Arab League that he does not intend to renew peace talks with Israel unless construction is frozen in east Jerusalem."
One final item on which some may wish to comment. The article in the Register refers to Biden reassuring the Palestinian Arabs that they "deserve a sustainable, independent state."
One wonders why it is necessary to keep insisting the Palestinian Arabs deserve a state, while few ever insist the Tibetans, Kurds or dozens of other stateless national groups with far longer histories deserve states. Could it be the way the Palestinian Arabs have made such effective use of terrorism? If so, what kind of message is that sending to other groups?
During the last two days, The Hartford Courant, New Haven Register, Waterbury Republican-American and likely other Connecticut newspapers have published "news" stories which are effectively biased, are infused with opinion inappropriate to a news article and present a very incomplete picture.
The publication of these articles help illustrate the need to constantly present the balancing viewpoints, through letters and op-eds, even during periods that seem relatively quiet.
Most of the articles refer the plans for building a handful of apartments in Israel's capital and are written from a perspective assuming the Arab complaints are perfectly reasonable, that America's pandering to those complaints is also perfectly reasonable.
Left out is any perspective, including the fact the building is in an area that has no chance of ever being turned over to the Palestinian Arabs under any conceivable agreement. There is not even a suggestion about the obvious fact that if the Palestinian Arabs had any real interest in reaching a peace agreement they would no more be making any fuss about building housing for Jews than Israel is making about the massive construction of homes for Arabs in the disputed territories, no less complaining about building in areas that are obviously never going to be under their jurisdiction.
The article in the Register refers to Vice President Joe Biden warning "actions that 'inflame tensions,'" in a manner that makes it clear it refers to the routine Israeli announcement about the building plans. There is no reference to actions taken by the Palestinian Authority, particularly regarding incitement, which really do inflame tensions and keep pushing any prospects for peace further and further away.
Included near the end of this email is a bulletin from Palestinian Media Watch
It appears (although it's not perfectly clear) from the PMW report that, under pressure from both Israel and America, the PA has either postponed or cancelled today's ceremonies. Regardless of whether this particular ceremony has been cancelled:
(a) The fact that the PA would even consider so honoring such a brutal terrorist (as it has honored many others) is a strong indication that it has no real interest in living together with Israel in peace.
(b) We have seen no reporting of this in any Connecticut newspapers. Actions taken by the Palestinian Arabs to undermine prospects for peace, and clear indications that they are not interested in peace, are obviously not considered newsworthy by Connecticut newspapers.
(c) However one feels about "settlements" or growth of communities, that's not what determines whether there will be peace negotiations. It's often used as an excuse by the PA to avoid negotiations, and it's waved about by some in order to exploit the issue's divisiveness, but the questions of peace negotiations and of a "two (or three or four)-state solution," which the Arabs may very well not want, involve much broader and more fundamental issues than the building of a handful of homes.
(d) Barry Rubin has a very cogent article about the building announcement. It may be viewed at www.gloria-center.org/blog/2010/03/announcing-construction.
(e) It appears that Abbas has already reneged on his agreement to engage in even indirect talks. An update at www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3861093,00.html says "Chief Palestinian neogiator Saeb Erekat confirmed that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas notified the Arab League that he does not intend to renew peace talks with Israel unless construction is frozen in east Jerusalem."
One final item on which some may wish to comment. The article in the Register refers to Biden reassuring the Palestinian Arabs that they "deserve a sustainable, independent state."
One wonders why it is necessary to keep insisting the Palestinian Arabs deserve a state, while few ever insist the Tibetans, Kurds or dozens of other stateless national groups with far longer histories deserve states. Could it be the way the Palestinian Arabs have made such effective use of terrorism? If so, what kind of message is that sending to other groups?
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Abbas Again Plays the Clown
The Jerusalem Post article Abbas disappointed with US stance closes with the paragraph:
Both thoughts are rather absurd.
Abbas himself is blocking the way to a diplomatic solution, refusing to even negotiate with Israel despite the fact that the major components of all negoations are Israeli concessions and creating another Palestinian Arab state. Thus, by giving the blockage of a diplomatic solution as a reason to not run for the top post of the Palestinian Authority, he is essentially blaming that decision on himself.
Of course, since he also isn't holding any elections and has illegally had his term of office extended, he is essentially the PA leader for life anyway.
In pleading with the world to not let the Palestinian Arabs descend to a state of utter desperation, he is pleading with the world to save them from themselves, since it is the Palestinian Arabs themselves, along with their Arab brethren, who have insisted on their own misery, preferring to use it as a weapon against Israel.
The sad wisdom of Golda Meir unfortunately remains true: peace won't come until the Palestinian Arabs stop putting their hatred of the only free and democratic state in the Middle East, Israel, above their own welfare.
Abbas said there was no point for him to run for president again, since "the way to a diplomatic solution is blocked… but I urge the countries of the world: don’t let the Palestinians descend to a state of utter desperation."
Both thoughts are rather absurd.
Abbas himself is blocking the way to a diplomatic solution, refusing to even negotiate with Israel despite the fact that the major components of all negoations are Israeli concessions and creating another Palestinian Arab state. Thus, by giving the blockage of a diplomatic solution as a reason to not run for the top post of the Palestinian Authority, he is essentially blaming that decision on himself.
Of course, since he also isn't holding any elections and has illegally had his term of office extended, he is essentially the PA leader for life anyway.
In pleading with the world to not let the Palestinian Arabs descend to a state of utter desperation, he is pleading with the world to save them from themselves, since it is the Palestinian Arabs themselves, along with their Arab brethren, who have insisted on their own misery, preferring to use it as a weapon against Israel.
The sad wisdom of Golda Meir unfortunately remains true: peace won't come until the Palestinian Arabs stop putting their hatred of the only free and democratic state in the Middle East, Israel, above their own welfare.
Friday, February 5, 2010
US intelligence finds 5,000 Hizballah training to seize Galilee towns
Jones was not talking out of the top of his head, but on the strength of solid US intelligence gathered over months on detailed war plans Iran, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas have drawn up to send five Hizballah brigades sweeping across the border to seize five sectors of Galilee, while also organizing a massive Israeli-Arab uprising against the Jewish state.
Hamas would open a second front in the south and in the east. Syria is expected to step in at some stage.
This plan with attached special map was first published exclusively by DEBKA-Net-Weekly 430 on Jan. 22, 2010. Key excerpts appear here.
Iran's Revolutionary Guards instructors at especially established training facilities near Tehran are already well advanced in training a cadre of 5,000 Hizballah fighters in special operations and urban combat tactics to standards equivalent to those current in similar US and Israeli military forces.
At the outset of the course, the group was split up into five battalions, each given a specific northern Israeli sector for capture with details of its topography and population for close study.
(See attached map).
1st Battalion:
This unit will break through the Naqura-Rosh Haniqra border pass and sweep south along seven kilometers to seize Nahariya, the Israeli Mediterranean city of 55,000 - or parts thereof.
UN peacekeepers have their headquarters at Naqura, the other side of Rosh Haniqra, and Israel defenses there are lax, so no military or geographic obstacles to this Hizballah drive are anticipated. This battalion will capture a large number of Israeli hostages for use as live shields against an Israeli counter-attack
A small group of 150 fighters, trained by Revolutionary Guards marines, will also try and reach the coast by swift boats. They are already standing by in Lebanon.
2nd Battalion:
This unit is assigned to capture the northern Israeli town of Shlomi, 300 meters southeast of the Naqura border pass and home to 6,500 inhabitants. Holding this town and its environs will give Hizballah control of a key road hub and stand in the path of Israeli reinforcements heading for Nahariya through routes 89 and 899 from key Israeli bases in the Galilee and Upper Galilee regions to the east. (See map).
3rd Battalion:
Driving further south than any other Hizballah unit, this battalion must reach the three Israeli-Arab villages of B'ina, Deir al-Asad and Majd el-Krum, which are located north of the town of Carmiel and alongside Israel's Route 85 which connects Acre on the Mediterranean with Safad in the central Galilee mountains.
Iranian war planners want Hizballah to control the three Israeli-Arab locations for two advantages:
One: As a commanding position for stirring up the disaffected Israeli-Arab villages and towns of Lower Galilee and Wadi Ara to the south into a full-blown uprising. The incoming combat force will be backed up by clandestine Hizballah cells which for some years have established, armed and funded the underground "Galilee Liberation Battalions” in Sakhnin, Araba and Deir Hana, by means of drug smugglers.
Hizballah's West Bank cells have been active for some time in the Wadi Ara region, through which National Route 65 connects central Israel to the North.
Two: To gain fire control of Acre-Safed Route 85 from positions in occupied Arab villages and so have a shield ready for the Hizballah units holding Nahariya and Shlomi, and seriously impede the passage of Israeli forces from bases in the center of the country to relieve these northern towns. The Israeli Air Force will be constrained from attacking the areas held by Hizballah by the presence of large civilian populations.
4th Battalion:
This battalion will push southeast into the Kadesh Valley, on the rim of which the Makia and Yiftah kibbutzim and Makia moshav are clustered. Capture of these locations would afford Hizballah fire coverage of Israel's northernmost Galilee Panhandle.
5th Battalion: Hizballah's Strategic Reserve.
Rocket attacks from Lebanon will focus on disabling Israel's strategic military sites, such as air force bases, missile bases, its nuclear facilities and naval bases. Targeting Israeli population centers is a lower Iranian priority.
Syria's initial involvement will be limited to cover by artillery or air for Hizballah operations. But if the fighting escalates or drags on, Hizballah will invite Syrian back-up forces to go into Lebanon; Damascus will open Front No. 4 against Israel from the Syrian side of the Golan Heights.
The Tehran-Hizballah war strategy is all but ready for any contingency. The obvious trigger would be an Israeli military operation against Iran's nuclear facilities, but once all the elements are in place, they could be activated by any other pretext conjured up in Tehran or Damascus.
In recent weeks, both Hizballah and its Syrian allies have mobilized their forces while telling the Arab world that the Jewish state is about to attack Lebanon.
Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah is straining at the leash to attack Israel however the crisis over Iran's nuclear program turns out.
Sunday, January 17, he said: "I promise you, in view of all the threats you hear today… that should a new war with the Zionists erupt, we [the Lebanese resistance movement] will crush the enemy, come out victorious, and change the face of the region.
"God willing, Israel, the occupation, hegemony, and arrogance are in the process of disappearing!"
Nasrallah was not alone in anticipating a troubled year for the Middle East.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Out of How Many Sides of His Mouth Can Abbas Speak?
Or: What kind of fools does he think everyone else is?
Reading the article "Gov't opposes 'borders first' approach," by Herb Keinon and Khaled Abu Toameh in the Jerusalem Post, one comes across the following two contradictory quotes in adjacent paragraphs:
Under normal standards, insisting on a total settlement halt and a basis for negotiations would be considered preconditions.
One also wonders what Abbas means by "international terms of reference" being recognized.
Does he mean the seminal United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which the Arabs, including the Palestinian Arabs, have blatantly violated?
Does he mean the "road map," which would preclude negotiations until a number of steps are taken by the Palestinian Authority, including the dismantling of the terror infrastructure it built up in both Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza as well as an end to incitement, which has actually increased in Gaza and continues virtually unabated in the Palestinian Authority controlled areas of Judea and Samaria?
Or does he mean a variety of resolutions passed over the years by the United Nations General Assembly, generally in contradiction of Resolutions 242 and 338 and in violation of its own charter?
It would seem that even the determination of "international terms of reference" require extensive negotiations, creating a typical vicious cycle.
Also interesting: Abbas told reporters that he and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak had reached understandings on the required terms for resuming peace talks, and that those terms included the need for discussion of Jerusalem and a total freeze on Israeli construction (but apparently not the rampant Arab construction) in the disputed territories.
Since it is with Israel, not Egypt, that Abbas needs to negotiate, it's pointless for Abbas to negotiate with Egypt over preconditions for negotiating with Israel.
Reading the article "Gov't opposes 'borders first' approach," by Herb Keinon and Khaled Abu Toameh in the Jerusalem Post, one comes across the following two contradictory quotes in adjacent paragraphs:
- "In principle, we have no objections to returning to the negotiating table or holding any kind of meetings. Nor are we setting preconditions."
- "We have said - and we continue to say - that we are ready to resume the talks once settlement construction is halted and international terms of reference are recognized as the basis for the negotiations."
Under normal standards, insisting on a total settlement halt and a basis for negotiations would be considered preconditions.
One also wonders what Abbas means by "international terms of reference" being recognized.
Does he mean the seminal United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, which the Arabs, including the Palestinian Arabs, have blatantly violated?
Does he mean the "road map," which would preclude negotiations until a number of steps are taken by the Palestinian Authority, including the dismantling of the terror infrastructure it built up in both Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) and Gaza as well as an end to incitement, which has actually increased in Gaza and continues virtually unabated in the Palestinian Authority controlled areas of Judea and Samaria?
Or does he mean a variety of resolutions passed over the years by the United Nations General Assembly, generally in contradiction of Resolutions 242 and 338 and in violation of its own charter?
It would seem that even the determination of "international terms of reference" require extensive negotiations, creating a typical vicious cycle.
Also interesting: Abbas told reporters that he and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak had reached understandings on the required terms for resuming peace talks, and that those terms included the need for discussion of Jerusalem and a total freeze on Israeli construction (but apparently not the rampant Arab construction) in the disputed territories.
Since it is with Israel, not Egypt, that Abbas needs to negotiate, it's pointless for Abbas to negotiate with Egypt over preconditions for negotiating with Israel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
