Israel, and its neighbors

[Crafty_Dog]

Egypt got its land back when it recognized Israel's right to exist.

[Body-by-Guinness]

By all means stop the settlements so "moderate" PA folks like this can move in next door.

Palestinian Authority Arrests Muslim 'Heretic' Under Threat of Life Imprisonment

Andrew G. Bostom
We are repeatedly told -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- including its draft Sharia-based Constitution -- that the Judea-Samaria Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas is a "moderate" even, "secular" counterpart to the Hamas Islamic fundamentalist regime which controls Gaza.

This absurd propaganda was debunked once again earlier today, Thursday 11/11/10.

Qalqiliya resident Walid Husayin -- the 26-year-old son of a Muslim scholar -- was captured after a "Facebook sting operation" by Palestinian intelligence officials garnered snapshots of his Facebook pages. Apparently this has become a routine, "state-of-the-art" method for imposing Sharia-based Islamic totalitarianism in the Arab Muslim Middle East.

Described as a "quiet man who prayed with his family each Friday and spent his evenings working in his father's barbershop," Husayin was reportedly posting clandestine remarks, which insulted "the divine essence" of Islam, the religion of peace and tolerance. Abdul-Latif Dahoud, a 35-year-old Qalqiliya resident, voiced the preponderant local sentiment regarding apt "punishment," for Mr. Husayin's offense, i.e., public execution:

            He should be burned to death...to be an example to others

And the hapless Mr. Husayin's family expressed great sympathy for their kin by proclaiming he merely deserved life imprisonment -- the current "official" legal punishment should he avoid murder for "apostasy" by one of his co-religionists, with Sharia-sanctioned impunity for the murderer.

The tragic irony is that Walid Husayin's "criminal" words are pathognomonic of what poisons Islam, past as prologue to the ugly present. He is accused of having stated that Allah has the attributes of a "primitive Bedouin," and maintaining that Islam is a,

...blind faith that grows and takes over people's minds where there is irrationality and ignorance.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/11/palestinian_authority_arrests.html at November 11, 2010 - 05:07:33 PM CST

[Crafty_Dog]

Caroline Glick
Addressing Our Homegrown Enemies

This week we learned that Nazareth is an al-Qaida hub. Sheikh Nazem Abu Salim Sahfe, the Israeli imam of the Shihab al-Din mosque in the city, was indicted on Sunday for promoting and recruiting for global jihad and calling on his followers to harm non-Muslims.

Among the other plots born of Sahfe's sermons was the murder of cab driver Yefim Weinstein last November. Sahfe's followers also plotted to assassinate Pope Benedict XVI during his trip to Israel last year. They torched Christian tour buses. They abducted and stabbed a pizza delivery man. Two of his disciples were arrested in Kenya en route to joining al-Qaida forces in Somalia.

With his indictment, Sahfe joins a growing list of jihadists born and bred in Israel and in free societies around the world who have rejected their societies and embraced the cause of Islamic global domination. The most prominent member of this group today is the American-born al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki.

US authorities describe Awlaki as the world's most dangerous man. His jihadist track record is staggering. It seems that there has been no major attack in the US or Britain - including the September 11 attacks and the July 7 attacks in London - in which Awlaki has not played a role.

Sahfe and Awlaki, like nearly all the prominent jihadists in the West, are men of privilege. Their personal histories are a refutation of the popular Western tale that jihad is born of frustration, poverty and ignorance. Both men, like almost every prominent Western jihadist, are university graduates.

So, too, their stories belie the Western fantasy that adherence to the cause of jihad is spawned by poverty. These men and their colleagues are the sons of wealthy or comfortable middle class families. They have never known privation.

Armed with their material comforts, university degrees and native knowledge of the ways of democracy and the habits of freedom, these men chose to become jihadists. They chose submission to Islam over liberal democratic rights because that is what they prefer. They are idealists.

This means that all the standard Western pabulums about the need to expand welfare benefits for Muslims or abstain from enforcing the laws against their communities, or give mosques immunity from surveillance and closure, or seek to co-opt jihadist leaders by treating them like credible Muslim voices, are wrong and counterproductive. These programs do not neutralize their supremacist intentions or actions. They embolden the Western Islamic supremacists by signaling to them that they are winning. Their Western societies are no match for them.

In recent weeks we have seen a number of statements by establishment political leaders in Europe indicating that they are willing to consider abandoning these politically correct bromides. German Chancellor Angela Merkel's statement last month that "multiculturalism has utterly failed," for instance, is widely perceived as a watershed event.

And in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal on Monday, former British prime minister Tony Blair acknowledged that there is a problem with unassimilated Muslims in Britain. As he put it, anti-immigration sentiment is not general but particular. It relates, Blair admitted, to "the failure of one part of the Muslim community to resolve and create an identity that is both British and Muslim."

Blair acknowledged that it is due to the European establishment's refusal to recongnize the problem of growing Islamic supremacism in Europe that so many millions of Europeans are today ditching the establishment and its politically correct orthodoxies and voting for anti-establishment politicians who are willing to address the problem. He called for a continent-wide approach to immigration whose goal would be to prevent jihadists from exploiting the system to overthrow it.

Statements like Merkel's and Blair's are insufficient. But the very fact that enough Europeans are willing to break the PC barrier to force these leaders to acknowledge and perhaps address the challenges of unassimilated, supremacist Muslim minorities means that Europe is taking the first steps towards addressing the challenges that jihadist Islam poses to its security, culture and civilization.

Perhaps most emblematic of this change was the Merkel government's recent move to finally close the mosque in Hamburg where the September 11 plotters met and planned their acts of war against the US.

Disturbingly, the establishments in the two countries most actively targeted by global jihad - the US and Israel - remain in deep denial about the challenges of homegrown jihadist fifth columnists. The US remains in denial even though the majority of recent jihadist attacks and attempted attacks against the US were carried out by American citizens.

The US's denial of the nature of the jihadist threat was demonstrated in all of its politically correct glory this week with President Barack Obama's address to Indian students at St. Xavier University in Mumbai. In response to a student's query about his view of jihad and jihadists, Obama praised Islam as "one of the world's great religions." He went on to claim that the overwhelming majority of Muslims view Islam as a religion of "peace, justice, fairness and tolerance."

Obama's message was not only deceptive and off point, it was deeply insensitive to his audience. Two years ago this month, Mumbai was the site of a massive jihadist commando attack against targets throughout the city, and Mumbai's residents are still grappling with the wounds of that attack.

Obama's statement also ignored the US's contribution to that attack. The suspected mastermind of the Mumbai massacres was a US citizen named David Coleman Headley from Obama's hometown of Chicago. Moreover, Headley (formerly Daood Sayed Gilani) served for many years as a double agent. A convicted drug dealer, he was sent to Pakistan as a Drug Enforcement Agency agent. While there, he trained at Lashkar-e-Taibe jihadist training camps.

Obama failed to note that perhaps due to his work at the DEA, US law enforcement officials ignored testimonies from two of Headley's former wives in 2005 and 2007 that he was a member of Lashkar-e-Taibe, the India-focused Pakistani al-Qaida affiliate run by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency.

Rather than address these issues, or the fact that the US has refused Indian extradition requests for Headley, Obama vacuously told students that it is the job of young people from all religions to reject extremism and violence.

Headley, of course, is just one of many American jihadists who has enjoined the fruits of America's politically correct denial of the homegrown Islamic threat. In the months following the September 11 attacks, the US Department of the Army actively courted Awlaki as part of its Muslim outreach program. Awlaki, then George Washington University's Muslim chaplain, was wooed despite his documented links to three of the September 11 hijackers.

As Israelis wake up to the reality of al-Qaida in Nazareth, our leftist establishment remains in denial about its role in enabling this reality. Sahfe's Shihab al-Din mosque was established as a triumphalist mosque adjacent to the Church of the Annunciation in the lead up to the millennium. At the time, the Vatican launched a vocal protest against its construction.

In the hopes of winning over the likes of Sahfe, then-prime minister Ehud Barak and then-foreign minister and public security minister Shlomo Ben-Ami rejected the Vatican's objections. They even donated the land for the mosque from the Israel Lands Authority.

Safhe returned the favor by interrupting Pope John Paul II's homily at the Church of the Annunciation during his March 2000 visit with a call to prayer. Months later, the Shihab al-Din mosque was one of the focal points for inciting the anti-Jewish riots in the Arab sector in October 2000.

Today, leftist judges together with leftist politicians and opinion makers block all efforts by politicians and the public to acknowledge and address the growing lawlessness and jihadist bent of Israel's Muslim minority. Fear of the politically correct Supreme Court has deterred authorities from outlawing the Islamic Movement. Efforts to contend with illegal land seizures and building have been blocked by the leftist media, pressure groups largely sponsored by the New Israel Fund and the courts. Even symbolic measures like the government's recent bid to require non-Jewish immigrants to pledge loyalty to the state have been viciously attacked by Israel's leftist establishment as fascist and racist.

But as Europe is belatedly acknowledging, these politically correct commissars must be sidelined if the free world is to withstand the growing threat of homegrown jihad.

What this means for Israel is that the political and legal space has to be found to speedily embark on the law enforcement equivalent of a counterinsurgency operation. Israel must enforce its laws with as much zeal and commitment in the Muslim sector as it does in the Jewish sector. This means that Shihab al-Din and other jihadist mosques have to be closed.

It means that jihadist groups like the Islamic Movement have to be outlawed and its leaders have to be tried for treason and other relevant offenses. The same is true for all Arab leaders, political groupings and social organizations that promote the destruction of Israel.

Building and zoning laws must be enforced. State lands that have been seized must be taken back, if necessary by force, including with the involvement of the IDF.

So, too, Jewish rights have to be protected. Like Muslims, Jews have the right to buy land and homes throughout the country. Jews who wish to live in Muslim-majority communities must enjoy the protection of the law just as Muslims who live in Tel Aviv and Upper Nazareth do.

By the same token, the government must embark on a campaign to win back the loyalty of its Muslim citizens. It must empower leaders who embrace their identity as Israelis and seek the integration of Israeli Muslims into the wider society. Authorities must ensure that Israeli Muslims who wish to integrate are not discriminated against by Jews or intimidated by other Muslims.

Over the past couple of weeks, IDF commanders have spoken at length about the nature of the war to come. Their remarks have concentrated on what is already largely recognized - that Israel's home front will be targeted by long-range missiles.

Disappointingly, they ignored the most significant new threat facing the home front today: The likelihood that Israel's external foes will receive active assistance from its Muslim citizens.

Nearly a decade after the September 11 attacks, global jihad remains the central threat to the West, and not because of its popularity in western Pakistan. It remains the central threat to the free world because of its popularity among the Muslims in the free world.

To remain free, free societies must shed our politically correct shackles and address this growing menace to everything we hold dear.
 
Caroline Glick
Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, D.C., and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post, where this article first appeared.

[rachelg]

Editor's Notes: Running out of time
By DAVID HOROVITZ
26/11/2010   
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=196848
Sanctions on Iran are starting to bite, but not hard enough yet to force the regime to rethink its nuclear drive. Where does that leave Israel?
 
In July 2007, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the dissolution of the Management and Planning Organization of Iran, a 60-year-old, largely independent government body that had been responsible for much of the country’s economic oversight.

The MPO used to prepare the national budget, draw up longterm development plans and oversee their implementation.

It worked on a province-byprovince basis and was, according to expert accounts, a highly competent system of national economic management.

Ahmadinejad tore it down the better to directly control his country’s economy. He set up his own budgetary planning body and centralized additional economic powers under his authority.

The result has been dismal – Neanderthal management, as it was summed up to me by one of several experts with whom I’ve spoken in recent days.

While Ahmadinejad is still emphatically secondary to Iran’s supreme spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in terms of overall power, he is undoubtedly a key economic player, and his policies are lousy.

His insistence on maintaining an overvalued rial, apparently for reasons of national prestige, is harming exports.

His low interest rate policies have caused heavy damage to the nation’s banking system.

Unemployment is officially hovering in the 13 percent range and inflation at about 10%, though unofficial estimates suggest the true figures in both cases may be twice as bad. Unsustainably high subsidies mean, for instance, that Iran is among the cheapest places on earth to fill up your car with gas – just five or six dollars a tank. And because those levels of subsidy simply cannot be maintained, the president is replacing them with cash handouts, which in turn are proving ever-more expensive and hard to sustain.

All this is unfolding in a climate of intensifying, though far from hermetic, international sanctions. No Western oil companies are active in Iran, there is inadequate technical assistance to maintain extraction, and oil and gas production are down. Financial sanctions have sent the cost of doing business soaring, and exports are being hit.

What is striking about Ahmadinejad’s economic leadership, according to the various experts with whom I’ve spoken, is that he is not strategically confronting those sanctions, not managing the resources at his disposal to most effectively minimize their impact.

US Defense Secretary Robert Gates made headlines 10 days ago when, in a direct riposte to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s demands for a “credible threat of military action” to back up the sanctions effort, he argued that military strikes could only offer a “short-term solution” that would merely render Iran’s nuclear drive “deeper and more covert.”

Less noticed here was Gates’s assessment that the sanctions have “bitten much harder” than the Iranian leadership had anticipated and his striking revelation that “We even have some evidence that Khamenei now is beginning to wonder if Ahmadinejad is lying to him about the impact of the sanctions on the economy, and whether he is getting the straight scoop in terms of how much trouble the economy really is in.”

The experts I’ve spoken to all agree that the sanctions are indeed starting to hurt. Recent measures are said to have significantly affected the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), the all-powerful military conglomerate which, via its various tentacles, reportedly controls as much as a third of the Iranian economy. As well as overseeing the nuclear program, missile defense and national security, the IRGC is also responsible for building the oil industry’s infrastructure, for mining activities vital to the nuclear program, telecommunications, even farming, employing a vast work force.

And its room for economic and commercial maneuver is said to be increasingly constrained.

Israel is understood to have been impressed by the extent of EU sanctions enforcement.

Russia’s decision not to go through with the sale of S-300 missile defense systems is also recognized as a significant shift.

When a regime that uses cash to grease the wheels and stay in power is facing dwindling financial reserves and is presiding over an inefficient, mismanaged economy, the consequences are clear. It has to rely increasingly on coercion. And it is losing popularity.

As yet, however, the international squeeze is far from universal and the sanctions are not devastating.

There is concern at China’s capacity to fill any vacuum and meet any need created by other countries’ suspension of commercial partnerships. There is dismay that India is still providing a highly significant proportion of Iran’s refined oil requirements.

And there is widespread agreement, uniting Israel and the other key international players pushing the sanctions effort, that for all the economic distress, there is absolutely no sign at present of Iran changing course.

To the central question, Will Iran abandon its nuclear weapons drive as a result of sanctions?, the answer for now is an emphatic no. To the subordinate question, Will Iran slow or suspend its nuclear weapons drive as a result of sanctions?, the answer for now is sadly no as well.

As Netanyahu told the Jewish Federations’ General Assembly in New Orleans, “We have yet to see any signs that the tyrants of Teheran are reconsidering their pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

IT GETS worse.

Fiendish computer viruses might be wreaking all kinds of havoc within the Iranian nuclear program. Centrifuge operations might be stalling intermittently. Bizarre accidents might continue to occur.

Nevertheless, should the Iranians choose to do so, the experts believe that, within six months, they could “break out” and become a member of the nuclear club. That is not to say that, within six months, they could definitely weaponize – fashion a nuclear warhead and fit it to an effective delivery system.

Rather, they could enrich their stocks of low-enriched uranium to create a nuclear device and test it – a test that would be immediately picked up by international monitors and hailed by Iran as proof that it had now gone beyond the point of no return.

Will Iran choose to do so? Nobody claims to have a definitive answer to that question.

But there is widespread dismay at Iran’s apparent sense of emboldenment, and I encountered no little criticism of the role of the United States – under both president George W. Bush and President Barack Obama – in encouraging that Iranian confidence.

Time and again, I was told that the Iranian regime is pragmatic. That it is not suicidal.

That among the prime motivations for its nuclear quest is the desire to ensure that it will not be vulnerable to what happened in Iraq – to its speedy demise at the hands of outside interventionist forces. That when it truly feared the US was heading its way, between 2003 and 2005, it froze its nuclear program.

But Iran has watched trifling North Korea – throwing its weight around again this week – ignore warnings of international hellfire and expose the US as a paper tiger. And it delighted in the fact that Obama recognized Ahmadinejad’s election victory 17 months ago, essentially legitimizing a regime that the US hadn’t recognized for the previous three decades, and doing so precisely when the Iranian people were staging their most determined effort to date to break free of it.

The bottom line: Two years ago, the Iranians were wondering whether the US and/or Israel might seek to intervene militarily to stop them. Now, they believe that the US is out of the equation.

Israel thinks so too. The view here is that opposition in the US to a military strike at Iran extends far beyond the Democratic administration and deep into Republican ranks as well. The US doesn’t want to attack, I was told, and that includes much of the political Right. Gates’s thinking – that military intervention would only unify the Iranian people behind their currently unpopular government and its nuclear quest, and that it could not cause a long-term collapse of the program – is supplement by the wider regional argument that it will bring Shi’ite and Sunni Muslims closer together in opposition to the West, legitimize Iran’s claims that the West cannot be trusted and must be confronted, and spark much-intensified nuclear weapons programs throughout the Middle East.

The US wants to build deterrence, I was told. The US wants to replicate the conditions of mutual assured destruction that kept America and the Soviet Union just the right side of sanity during the Cold War. The trouble is, this is not the Cold War, and the Islamists are not the Communists.

SO WHERE does that leave Israel? The short answer is ambivalent. The slightly longer answer is extraordinarily worried, and ambivalent.

Israel mistrusts the Iranians more than the Americans do, maybe because it understands them better. It still believes in the potential for sanctions to force at least a suspension of the nuclear program if the regime feels its hold on power is disintegrating. But it knows that, as things stand, Iran is closing in on the bomb faster than the sanctions are forcing a rethink.

Israel regards a nuclear Iran, under this regime, as a monumental threat, a catastrophe, a devastating change. An Iran unbound would be an extreme danger to us, to the region, to the world. Iran regards itself as one of the world’s great nations, and certainly as the rightful leader of the Islamic world, and a nuclear capacity would give the regime far greater capacity to advance its ambitions.

With its own oil reserves depleting, it would also be more capable of imposing itself on weaker oil-producing neighbors; its evident interest in muscling-in on Bahrain is a mild harbinger of what might follow.

Netanyahu has placed Israel at the forefront of the international chorus of alarm, in contrast to Ariel Sharon, who preferred to work behind-the-scenes in alerting the international community to the scale of the danger.

Netanyahu has drawn parallels between the ayatollahs and the Nazis, and rightly notes that we did not gather the majority of the Jewish nation to this historic sliver of land after the horrors of the Holocaust only to be rendered vulnerable again, 70 years later, to another regime’s genocidal ambitions.

And yet there are many highly influential voices in Israel that urge a return to the lower profile. Let’s put ourselves in the background again, they say. Don’t lead the global struggle, or we’ll turn ourselves into the first target.

Some of these men of influence claim, like Gates, to detect cracks in the regime, including between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad.

They see the first faint signs that Iranian public thinking on the nuclear issue is becoming more nuanced as the economy sinks. There is still overwhelming support for Iran’s right to nuclear energy, but not necessarily, if this is the economic cost, for its need for nuclear weaponry.

These Israeli voices argue that, since the regime seeks the bomb primarily to ensure its survival rather than primarily to destroy Israel, then – however implausible this sounds – the challenge for the international community, in the upside down world of diplomacy, is to construct a framework in which the regime would feel that by backing down on nukes it would be “enhancing its survivability.”

As things stand, to get into regime’s head, it regards defying international will as giving it more power and leverage, while capitulating to pressure would likely presage more demands, more concessions and ultimately its demise. This echoes the Gates approach: “The only long-term solution to avoiding an Iranian nuclear-weapons capability is for the Iranians to decide it’s not in their interest.”

FOR NOW, the widely (though not universally) held assessment here is that the regime would likely not fire at Israel if it got the bomb, and would not supply a non-state actor either, for fear of bringing the entire international community violently down upon its head. And while the preparation of all necessary potential military measures is deemed essential, Israeli military intervention is not currently regarded as advisable.

The Washington-based Politico website reported on Wednesday, indeed, that “Some Israeli officials say the country’s fingers are off the hair-trigger that would launch a strike on the Iranian nuclear program” and referred to “the apparent willingness of the Israelis to postpone a demand for confrontation by months – at least.”

Echoing former US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s somewhat incoherent talk of things we know, things we don’t know, things we know we don’t know, and things we don’t know we don’t know, Israel thinks it doesn’t know where a not-insignificant proportion of the Iranian nuclear program is located. And Israel worries that there are other facilities that it doesn’t know it doesn’t know about.

In a best-case scenario, if Israel destroyed the majority of the Iranian nuclear program – the part it knows it knows about – Iran has the expertise and the capacity to rebuild, and would be back where it is today in three to five years.

Politico quoted Yossi Kuperwasser, the deputy director-general of Moshe Ya’alon’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, to underline the contention that Israeli fingers are off the hair-trigger for now: “Everybody understands that you have to give some time for the sanctions to bear their full fruit.”

Indeed Ya’alon himself, along with fellow septet ministers Dan Meridor and Ehud Barak, not to mention Netanyahu, have all publicly indicated that they support giving sanctions more time, while The Jerusalem Post reported last month that Avigdor Lieberman’s Foreign Ministry is even preparing policy options for the “day after” Iran passes the nuclear threshold, in a “first admission that the government is giving serious thought to adjusting to a reality where Israel is no longer, according to foreign sources, the sole nuclear power in the region.”

For his part, the current chief of staff, Lt.- Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, it is believed, cautions against military intervention as things stand.

Whatever their thinking, it is a safe bet that the entire Israeli leadership would be mightily relieved if they were spared the fateful decision. If, that is, the sanctions regime were ratcheted up further and more widely imposed, if the Iranian economy nosedived further, and if the Iranian regime – or a desperate Iranian public – concluded that the country was being devastated by its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
    

[ccp]

"In a best-case scenario, if Israel destroyed the majority of the Iranian nuclear program – the part it knows it knows about – Iran has the expertise and the capacity to rebuild, and would be back where it is today in three to five years."

And of course Iran would send suicide squads around the world to act revenge.

That is why IMO the only real option is nuclear weapons.  You have to set Irans military capacity back to the stone age once and for all.  We also have to send a message around the world. 
Or wait and hope (like a stock you bought whose price is dropped big) and pray for some sort of regime change.

It is obvious our military and "dah"bamster have already decided to live with a nuclear Iran.  The decision is already made.  The rest is a game and dog and pony show and a prayer that ahmadingegad (sp?)  and his like will be forced out.

Israel is on its own from what I can glean from the media. Or if there is something behind the scenes I don't know about.  But I highly doubt it.  Bamster sat in th Church of an anti semite for 20 years.  The liberal Jews can think they will pressure and presuade him all they want. They will not have their way with him like they think. He is from camp of the antisemitic group of blacks.  OF course not all and probably not even most Blacks at all.

You know.  About the only time this President of ours is passionate is when he is pleading the Muslim cause, the minority cause, anything anti - white, pro - muslim, or anything anti American.  The rest of his speeches about America are pure show.  It is obvious to me.  If it ain't obvious to my liberal Jewish friends by now then I can't help them.  Unfortunately it may be too late for Israel by then.

[rachelg]

The WikiLeaks effect
By JPOST EDITORIAL
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Editorials/Article.aspx?id=197319
30/11/2010   
Prominent pundits of Mideast affairs have argued Israel alone was pushing for military attack on Iran, WikiLeaks debunked these theories.
 
In recent years, prominent pundits of Middle East affairs such as Foreign Policy’s Marc Lynch, The Nation’s Robert Dreyfuss, and Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, authors of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, have argued that Israel alone was pushing for a military attack on Iran.

It was the ubiquitous “Israel lobby” that would make sure the US continued to threaten Iran with military strikes, said Walt and Mearsheimer. It was clear to all that “for Saudi Arabia the worst thing that could happen would be... an Israeli attack on Iran,” Dreyfuss claimed just this month. Lynch, meanwhile, asserted that “while Arab leaders would certainly like Iranian influence checked, they generally strongly oppose military action which could expose them to retaliation.”


Warmongering Israel, ran the thesis, was single-handedly endangering geopolitical stability by attempting to plunge the Middle East into a war with the US.

All of these learned gentlemen also posited the premise of “linkage,” according to which all Middle East pathologies are a direct outcome of Israeli aggression and obstinacy. Only after the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is solved, they have argued, can other issues, such as Iran’s belligerence, be addressed.

Sunday’s revelations provided by WikiLeaks conclusively debunk these risible theories.

From the flood of classified documents, it has become unequivocally clear that Israel is not alone in arguing that Iran, rather than perceived Israeli intransigence on the Palestinian issue, is the principal destabilizing element in the Middle East. We can read in black on white that a broad coalition of Arab countries, particularly in the Persian Gulf area, have been articulating to American leaders for some time, in private and intense conversations, their fear of Iran and, in some cases, the desperate need to take military action.

The documents show that in 2008, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia implored Washington to “cut off the head of the snake [Iran]” while there was still time.

The king of Bahrain, who provides the base for the American Fifth Fleet, told the Americans that the Iranian nuclear program “must be stopped,” according to another cable. “The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it,” he said.

The United Arab Emirates’ defense chief, Crown Prince Muhammad bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi, told US Gen. John Abizaid that America needed to take action against Iran “this year or next.”

“Ahmadinejad is Hitler,” he declared in July 2009.

For his part, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak called the Iranians “big fat liars.”



ARAB LEADERS have preferred to keep their true position on Iran from the masses out of a desire to avoid a backlash of public opinion. One wonders, far more in hope than expectation, whether “moderate” Arab leaders will now be prepared to stop separating their private opinions on Iran from their public statements to their people, and in so doing set the groundwork for a coalition encompassing Israel against Iran. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Monday urged such Arab leaders to speak as honestly about the Iranian danger in public as they have done in private contacts with US diplomats.

It is striking that Israel will feel itself little damaged by the WikiLeaks exposures, which show top officials saying much the same to the US in private as they say to their people in public. The gulf between Arab leaders’ private and public positions, by contrast, is now evident for all to see.

What is also now clear is that some American foreign policy experts, who may have had significant influence on the Obama administration, were wrong to single out Likud-led Israel and the neocon “cabal” in America as the sole driving force behind the military option for Iran. And their insistence that a Palestinian state is prerequisite to mustering Arab support for sanctions or military action against Iran is definitively disproved – revealed as either a severe analytical error or part of a deliberate bid to prompt unwarranted US pressure on Israel.

Whatever the wider repercussions of the WikiLeaks cable deluge, it has exposed the hypocrisy of those Arab leaders who publicly blame Israel for their woes while privately pleading for military measures to thwart their true enemy, Iran. And it has exposed the incompetence, too, or malice, of the analysts who took those Arab leaders’ public utterances at face value, and utilized them in a bid to ratchet up pressure on, and to besmirch, Israel.

[Crafty_Dog]

Rachel:

Several points in there that are as excellent as they are overlooked , , , and obivous-- which did not prevent me from missing them until I read this. 

[Crafty_Dog]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/hamas-vows-to-honor-palestinian-referendum-on-peace-with-israel-1.328234

[Crafty_Dog]

U.S. Hopes for Smoother Israeli-Turkish Relations
December 9, 2010 | 1318 GMT
PRINT Text Resize:   
ShareThis
Moshe Milner/GPO via Getty Images
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (L) thanks Turkish pilots for their support in stopping the Carmel Mountain fire near Tirat Hacarmel, Israel, on Dec. 3Summary
There are growing indications that the Israeli government is preparing to make a public apology for the deaths of nine Turkish civilians in the summer Gaza flotilla incident and is willing to pay compensation to the victims’ families. Though the Israeli government can expect Turkey to play up hostilities as Ankara expands its influence in the region, both countries have deeper, underlying reasons to mend ties and put this issue behind them. The United States, meanwhile, can remove a critical obstacle to its relationship with Turkey as Washington looks to Ankara for its cooperation, particularly in relation to Iran and Russia.

Analysis
Turkey and Israel are in negotiations to find a way to normalize relations after the May 31 Gaza flotilla incident in which nine Turkish civilians died. The two have been stumbling toward reconciliation privately for some time but more recently began publicizing their rapprochement through such gestures as Turkey’s sending firefighting aircraft to Israel to help in combating the Carmel Mountain fires. There are signs now that a compromise is in the making, with Israel trying to find a way to apologize to and compensate the families of the victims without having to apologize directly to the Turkish state.

Domestic politics on both sides are hampering the reconciliation process. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of the ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) needs to preserve his credibility in the coming election year and wants to convince Turkish citizens that he has forced Israel to concede on his terms and has arduously defended Turkish sovereignty. For this reason, Erdogan reiterated Dec. 8 that “there is no such distinction as ‘the people’ or ‘the state.’ They [the Israelis] must apologize to the Republic of Turkey.”

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is facing criticism from his country’s far right. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman charged the prime minister with “caving in to terrorism” and demanded that Turkey apologize to Israel instead. Deputy Prime Minister Silvan Shalom also criticized the idea — albeit less dramatically — when he said Dec. 8 that it would be inconceivable for Israel to apologize to Turkey as such a move would encourage other countries to act like Ankara.

Looking Beyond Domestic Constraints
Though the domestic complications are substantial, deeper strategic interests are driving Israel and Turkey to work out a compromise so each can move on to other items on their foreign policy agendas. Publicly, Turkey began distancing itself from Israel well before the May 31 flotilla affair by strongly condemning Israel over its January 2009 invasion of Gaza, excluding Israel from Anatolian Eagle air exercises in October 2009 and by lashing out against Israel over the low seat controversy. Though Israel initially might have been surprised by Ankara’s moves, it is also quite accustomed to having diplomatic relationships with countries that need to make outbursts against Israel from time to time. Israel’s relationships with Egypt and Jordan, for example, are vital to Israeli national security interests, but Israel also knows these countries have domestic constituencies, which tend to respond favorably to anti-Israeli rhetoric, to which they must answer. This is something Israel can tolerate, as long as its peace agreements with these countries remain intact.

When Turkey was more insular, there was little need for Ankara to engage in such rhetoric. Now, as Turkey — under the rule of the Islamic-rooted AKP — is steadily expanding its influence across the Middle East, the anti-Israel card acts as a booster to Turkish credibility in the region. Israel will end up having to increasingly tolerate this. The flotilla incident (specifically, the resulting deaths of Turkish civilians) took this dynamic several steps too far, but now that the situation is settling and Turkey has captured the region’s attention, Ankara can demonstrate through the Israeli apology that Turkey is still the only country that can speak and deal with Israel on a level platform.

The U.S. Connection
But these negotiations are not confined to Turkey and Israel. The common bond between these countries is the United States, and when Turkey and Israel are sparring, they both end up risking potentially serious damage to their relationships with Washington. As Israel is discovering, the current U.S. imperative in the region is to find a way to restore a balance of power in the Persian Gulf so that the United States can address pressing concerns in Russia and the Far East. Turkey is the one power in the region with the potential, the assets and historical influence to manage affairs from Syria to Iraq to Iran. Just as important, Turkey’s geopolitical positioning makes it a critical component to any U.S.-led campaign to counter Russian influence in Europe and the Caucasus. Israel simply cannot compete with Turkey in this regard, and though the U.S.-Israeli relationship remains strong, Israel cannot count on Washington to defend it against Turkey if doing so would go against broader U.S. interests in the region. In addition, whether Israel likes it or not, Turkey is building influence with a number of Arab states and players that remain hostile to Israel. If Israel risks a lasting rupture in relations with Turkey, it also risks upsetting its strategy of keeping the Arab states too weak and divided to pose a meaningful threat.

Turkey has more room to maneuver than Israel in handling this diplomatic spat, but is also finding trouble in managing its relationship with Washington while its relationship with Israel is on the rocks. The United States and Turkey are already attempting to work out a number of issues as Turkey continues to assert its regional autonomy and as U.S. policymakers struggle to come to terms with the AKP as a powerful, Islamic-rooted political entity. Still, the United States needs Turkey to assist with an array of regional issues, and Turkey is eager to fill a vacuum in the Middle East as the United States draws down its presence there. For Washington and Ankara to move on to the strategic questions of how they can work together to contain an emerging Iran or a resurgent Russia, they need to clear the air a bit and work through several unresolved issues.

One such issue is ballistic missile defense (BMD). Turkey made an important and symbolic move in signing on to the NATO version of BMD, allowing the United States to signal to countries like Russia and Iran that Turkey remains part of a Western coalition of forces to limit their regional expansion. The BMD commitment was important for the United States to show Turkey is still more or less in league with Washington on issues like limiting Russian and Iranian expansion into Eurasia and the Middle East, respectively.

As for the next steps, U.S. policymakers privately have been urging the Turkish leadership to mend ties with Israel. As long as the United States’ two key allies in the region are throwing rhetorical daggers at each other, it will be politically difficult for Washington to openly conduct policy in the region in coordination with Turkey. The United States has been playing the role of mediator between Israel and Turkey and appears to be making progress in getting Israel to agree to some type of apology to move the rapprochement along. There may also be a connection between Israel’s openly suggesting an apology to the Turkish victims and the United States’ controversial announcement Dec. 7 that it was lifting its long-standing demand for Israel to freeze settlement construction. U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration had tried to use this demand to build credibility in the region and demonstrate its willingness to be forceful with the Israelis. Backing down at this point of the peace process — and while Latin American countries are on a recognition drive for a Palestinian state — is channeling a great deal of criticism toward Washington. However, it can also be viewed as a highly visible favor to Israel — a favor perhaps intended to move along the Turkish-Israeli reconciliation.

Some type of compromise between Israel and Turkey is inevitable. Though the road to reconciliation will be bumpy, the strategic impetus for U.S.-Turkish cooperation is likely to outweigh domestic political constraints in the end.



Read more: U.S. Hopes for Smoother Israeli-Turkish Relations | STRATFOR

[rachelg]

Zionism, Nixon-style
By JPOST EDITORIAL
12/12/2010   
Nixon’s readiness to come to Israel’s aid in time of need underlines the critical mutual importance of the Israeli-American strategic alliance.
 
A new batch of recordings released by the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum provides further evidence of former US president Richard Nixon’s animosity toward Jews and other minorities. Particularly appalling were comments made by Nixon and his national security adviser Henry Kissinger after a March 1973 meeting with prime minister Golda Meir at the White House.

Nixon and Kissinger brutally dismissed Meir’s requests to come to the aid of refuseniks.

“The emigration of Jews from the Soviet Union is not an objective of American foreign policy,” Kissinger said.

“And if they put Jews into gas chambers in the Soviet Union, it is not an American concern. Maybe a humanitarian concern.”

“I know,” Nixon responded. “We can’t blow up the world because of it.”

Nixon also ordered his personal secretary Rose Mary Woods to block entry to a state dinner held in honor of Meir – he called it “the Jewish dinner” – to any Jew “who didn’t support us.”

And the president disparaged top Jewish advisers – among them Kissinger and William Safire – for supposedly sharing the common trait of needing to compensate for an inferiority complex.

“What it is, is it’s the insecurity,” Nixon said. “It’s the latent insecurity. Most Jewish people are insecure. And that’s why they have to prove things.”

In tapes released in 2007, Nixon said of Kissinger “Anybody who is Jewish cannot handle” Middle Eastern policy. Henry might be “as fair as he can possibly be, but he can’t help but be affected by it. Put yourself in his position. Good God ... his people were crucified over there. Jesus Christ! Five million of them popped into big ovens! How the hell’s he feel about all this?”

COUNTER-INTUITIVELY, this is the same Nixon who, during the Yom Kippur War, overrode intra-administration bickering and bureaucratic foot-dragging to implement a breathtaking transfer of arms. Code-named Operation Nickel Grass, the operation, over a four-week period, deployed hundreds of jumbo US military aircrafts to deliver more than 22,000 tons of armaments to Israel.

And Nixon acted at a time when Washington was in the throes of a post-Vietnam War trauma, embroiled in Watergate and reeling from the forced resignation of vice president Spiro Agnew.

Finally, Nixon braved the threat of an Arab oil embargo, which convinced the Europeans not to get involved.

Indeed, the day after Nixon asked Congress for an emergency appropriation of $2.2 billion for Israel, Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal announced an embargo of oil to the US.

White House chief of staff Alexander Haig, CIA deputy director Vernon Walters and historian Walter Boyne all credited Nixon with coming to the aid of Israel at a time when no European country was willing to, as Jason Maoz noted in a recent article in Commentary.

“It was Nixon who did it,” recalled Nixon’s acting special counsel, Leonard Garment. “I was there. As [bureaucratic bickering between the State and Defense departments] was going back and forth, Nixon said, this is insane. . . . He just ordered Kissinger, ‘Get your ass out of here and tell those people to move.’” Haig, in his memoir Inner Circles, wrote that Nixon, frustrated with the initial delays in implementing the airlift and aware that the Soviets had begun airlifting supplies to Egypt and Syria, summoned Kissinger and Schlesinger to the Oval Office on October 12, 1973, six days into the war, and “banished all excuses.”

The president asked Kissinger for a precise accounting of Israel’s military needs, and Kissinger proceeded to read aloud from an itemized list.

“Double it,” Nixon ordered. “Now get the hell out of here and get the job done.”

Meir herself referred to Nixon as “my president” and told a group of Jewish leaders in Washington shortly after the war: “For generations to come, all will be told of the miracle of the immense planes from the United States bringing in the materiel that meant life to our people.”

THE NEW York Times, attempting to explain the apparent contradiction between Nixon's anti-Semitic remarks and his pro-Israel behavior, ascribed it to a distinction the president made between Israeli Jews, whom he admired, and American Jews.

Perhaps so. Whatever the case, Nixon’s readiness to come to Israel’s aid at a time of dire need, his appreciation that this was an American interest, has an ongoing relevance, underlining the critical mutual importance of the Israeli-American strategic alliance.

With all its implications for policy-making in Washington and in Jerusalem, this remains as true today as it ever was.
    

[ccp]

ISRAEL’S SECRET WAR
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann12.13.2010
 
The big question in the Middle East these days is: Who has time on their side?

As Iran races to develop its nuclear bomb-making capacity, we have always assumed that time was on the Ayatollah’s side. The Iranian strategy of delay and obfuscation in its negotiations with the West seems to have succeeded in buying Teheran the time it needs for its spinning Centrifuges to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb. The possibility that Iran may acquire advanced anti-aircraft systems from Russia – even though the Kremlin denies it – seems to make the military option of an air strike on Iranian nuclear plants harder and harder for Israel.

But on the West Bank and Gaza, time has always seemed to be on Israel’s side. Time to build settlements, time to expand those already there, and – most important – time to wait out Obama’s four year term in office all work for Netanyahu.


Then the worm turned! The Stuxnet worm, a Windows-specific computer worm that spies on and reprograms industrial systems. Iran has acknowledged that its nuclear program – the target of the worm – has been damaged significantly. In fact, some speculate that the worm may take a year for Iran to work through. But, since this is the most important use of cyber warfare thus far in history, nobody can really know its full impact.

When one considers the worm in the context of a cruder form of secret war – the targeted assassination of three Iranian nuclear scientists in recent weeks, the agents of the Mossad may have been very busy! And effective! Who knows?

And the United States has finally gotten focused on real sanctions against Iran. Doing what Bush should have done but didn’t, Obama and Hillary (yes – words of praise) have gotten the international community to sanction Iran where it hurts by undermining their capacity to produce oil, reducing their access to gasoline, and curtailing their ability to borrow money.

When we worked for Netanyahu as he approached his election as prime minister last year, we were both deeply impressed by his understanding of the danger an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose to Israel. “It is 1938,” were his prophetic first words when we met in a Manhattan hotel to begin our work. 1938. The war, the holocaust, the slaughter of the Jews seemed to be approaching.

That’s why Bibi’s seeming willingness to play the clock has been puzzling. By waltzing Hillary and Obama around the dance floor of Middle East negotiations, an on-again, off-again settlement building policy, and making noises about peace without actually giving anything up, he appears to be playing for time. And, given Obama’s and Hillary’s inexperience and incompetence in first demanding a settlement freeze and then deciding it had been a mistake to do so, Netanyahu is dancing rings around the pair.

But wasn’t time on Iran’s side? Maybe not.

Perhaps what Bibi is doing – we have had no contact with him since his election – is influenced by the progress he sees in undermining Iran’s nuclear program on the one hand and in keeping Obama to a single term on the other.

Netanyahu watches American politics very, very closely. He probably understands that Obama is inimical to Israel’s interests and likely fully grasps his pro-Arab tendencies. But he also realizes the magnitude of the defeat inflicted upon the president in the midterm elections and sees the probability of his replacement by a staunch Republican friend of Israel in the offing.

So between the worm and the Tea Party, he may figure that time is on his side, after all.

And it may be!

[rachelg]

Remember Cast Lead
By JPOST EDITORIAL
http://www.jpost.com/LandedPages/PrintArticle.aspx?id=200485
21/12/2010   
Prospects or talks producing a peace breakthrough are faint enough; Hamas’s rule in Gaza represents a huge obstacle to the implementation of any accord.
 
This time two years ago, Israel was on the verge of launching the 22-day Operation Cast Lead. The fighting began at 11:30 a.m. on December 27 with a wave of F-16 air strikes on Hamas strongholds in Gaza, aimed at putting a stop to the relentless cross-border fire that was terrorizing Israelis living in towns and cities in the South. Now, after two years of relative quiet, Gaza seems to be heating up again.

Late Monday, IDF Chief of General Staff Lt.-Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi ordered the air force to strike eight targets in the Gaza Strip, including a Hamas training camp and a tunnel used for smuggling, in retaliation for a string of offensives against Israeli troops and civilians over the last two weeks. Upping the ante, terrorists in Gaza on Tuesday morning fired a Kassam rocket that struck near a kindergarten in Ashkelon, lightly wounding a girl on her way to school and causing shock to two other people. Later on Tuesday, the IAF struck back again.

IDF sources say Hamas is not interested in a full-scale escalation. However, limited escalation does seem to be in Hamas’s perceived interest, in part as a means of deflecting growing frustration over its failure to attain political goals such as the release of its prisoners from Israeli jails in exchange for captive Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit.

TWO YEARS after Cast Lead, renewed terrorist activity from Gaza is a reminder of the split that has taken place in the Palestinian leadership in recent years. While the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority struggles to maintain control of the West Bank and move toward statehood, Hamas is pursuing a bleak policy of low-intensity terrorism from Gaza.

Hamas’s victory in the January 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections was the culmination of a long process that marked the official end of a half-century during which the Palestinian national movement was dominated by a more secular political culture. Nizar Rayyan, a Hamas leader in Gaza who was killed by the IDF in January 2009, had proclaimed that Hamas’s fight against Fatah was to “uproot secularism in Gaza.”

It is no secret that Hamas aspires to extend its control to the West Bank. And as the Israeli academic Asher Susser noted in The Rise of Hamas in Palestine, growing Islamism is not limited to those territories either. It is part of a larger trend of Islamic ascendancy and re-Islamization of society and politics from Egypt to Jordan, from Iraq to Syria.

Part of the reason for Hamas’s electoral success was disgust with the rampant corruption and cronyism that permeated Fatah and its leadership. But there was also a belief among Palestinians that Hamas’s ruthless methods were more effective against Israel. As Azzam Tamimi wrote in Hamas: A History from Within, Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005, months before the 2006 elections, was widely regarded as proof that violence and terrorism had produced results where the PLO’s professed abandonment of the “armed struggle” and focus on negotiation had failed.

That election victory was followed a year later by a violent coup, in which Hamas gunmen ousted Fatah from the Strip. Even though 2005’s disengagement meant there was no Israeli civilian or military presence there, the rocket fire escalated, and a reluctant Israel saw no alternative but to launch its Cast Lead assault on the Islamists.

SOME ANALYSTS believe that Hamas is losing popularity among the Palestinians, who may be internalizing the destruction their Gaza government brought down upon the Strip by goading Israel into military action two years ago. Some argue, too, that Gazans are beginning to look across to the West Bank, where stability and economic coordination with Israel are producing a much-improved day-to-day climate. Finally, it is suggested that Hamas’s gradual efforts to impose a fundamental Islamic framework in Gaza are producing growing disaffection.

Whatever the accuracy of these assessments, however, there are no significant signs that Hamas’s grip on Gaza is loosening. Having capitalized on ballot-box support to engineer its violent takeover, Hamas will not willingly relinquish control.

The prospects of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations producing a peace breakthrough are faint enough; Hamas’s rule in Gaza represents a huge obstacle to the implementation of any substantive accord.

More immediately, the current minor-escalation of fire from Gaza underlines Hamas’s potential to wreak havoc in southern Israel with the mortars, rockets and missiles it has been steadily acquiring since Operation Cast Lead.

For two years, the force of that operation evidently served as a deterrent to this kind of cross-border fire. However firm it considers its hold on Gaza to be, Hamas would be foolish to risk forcing Israel into a repeat resort to such use of force.

[JDN]

I think racism is bad where ever it rears it's ugly head.


Letter urges Israeli girls to avoid dating Arabs

Jerusalem (CNN) -- A letter from about 30 prominent rabbis' wives was causing a stir in Israel Wednesday because it urges Israeli girls not to date Arabs.
The open letter comes three weeks after the uproar caused by another letter, which was written by 50 state-appointed rabbis and told Jews not to rent or sell property to non-Jews.

The latest missive, which was published by some websites and news outlets, says Arab men act polite around Jewish girls and "act as if they really care about you," but it says that's a ruse. The men, it says, even change their Arab names to Hebrew forms like Yossi and Ami in order to get close to the girls.
"This behavior is temporary," the letter says. "As soon as you are in their hands, in their villages under their control, everything becomes different. You can ask dozens of girls who have been there. They will tell you it is all an act.
"As soon as you arrive at the village, your life will never be the same. The attention will be replaced with curses, beatings, and humiliations. Even if you want to leave the village it will be much harder. They won't let you, they will chase you, they won't let you come back."
It urges Jewish girls not to go out with non-Jews or work in places that employ non-Jews.
"Your grandmothers never dreamt that their descendants would do something that will take the next generations of her family out of the Jewish people," it says.
The letter was initiated by the head of Lehava, an extreme right-wing group that says it aims to prevent the "assimilation of the Jewish people" and works at "saving Jewish girls from Arab villages."

"It's known that girls who go out with Arabs are beaten, these girls are in danger. ... There is a violent social trend and everyone ignores it," said the head of the group, Anat Gopstein, in a radio interview Wednesday morning.
The head of Israel's Reform movement, Rabbi Gilad Kariv, harshly condemned the letter and said, "Israeli society is falling into a deep, dark pit of racism and xenophobia," according to spokeswoman Yuli Goren.
More than 30 female rabbis from the Reform movement published a counter-letter harshly condemning the one released Wednesday, Goren said. Kariv also called on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Justice Minister Yaacov Neeman to speak out against it.
Among the rabbis' wives who signed the letter is Nitzchia Yossef, the daughter-in-law of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, the spiritual leader of the ultra-orthodox Shas political party. Esther Lior, the wife of extreme right-wing Rabbi Dov Lior, was another signatory.
Rabbi Yosef was one of the authors of the letter written earlier this month that urged Jews not to sell or rent property to non-Jews. It prompted widespread condemnation from politicians, human rights groups and leading rabbis in both Israel and the United States.
The letter, which was distributed to synagogues and published in some religious newspapers, had warned that those who defied the religious ruling should be ostracized. It said if one apartment is taken by a non-Jew, it devalues all the neighbors' apartments.
More than 800 rabbis from around the world signed a petition against the letter, saying "statements like these do great damage to our efforts to encourage people to love and support Israel."

The petition said "the attempt to root discriminatory policies based on religion or ethnicity in Torah is a painful distortion of our tradition. Am Yisrael (the Jewish people) knows the sting of discrimination, and we still bear the scars of hatred. When those who represent the official rabbinic leadership of the state of Israel express such positions, we are distressed by this ... desecration of God's name."
Nearly 1.5 million Arab residents live inside Israel, making up 23% of the population.
A poll published Tuesday by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem showed that 48% of Israelis oppose the call to avoid renting or selling property to Arabs.

[G M]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102555/

"Moody" is an Iranian doctor living in America with his American wife Betty and their child Mahtob. Wanting to see his homeland again, he convinces his wife to take a short holiday there with him and Mahtob. Betty is reluctant, as Iran is not a pleasant place, especially if you are American and female. Upon arrival in Iran, it appears that her worst fears are realized: Moody declares that they will be living there from now on. Betty is determined to escape from Iran, but taking her daughter with her presents a larger problem.

**Watch the movie, JDN. Even though this case was in Iran, it's a common situation. A western woman meets a charming muslim man who is very modern. They marry, then return to his native land and then he stops being so kind and charming.

[G M]

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/05/10/saudi.court.wife.slapping/index.html

(CNN) -- Husbands are allowed to slap their wives if they spend lavishly, a Saudi judge said recently during a seminar on domestic violence, Saudi media reported Sunday.
It is OK to slap Saudi women who spend too much, a judge has told an audience.

It is OK to slap Saudi women who spend too much, a judge has told an audience.

Arab News, a Saudi English-language daily newspaper based in Riyadh, reported that Judge Hamad Al-Razine said that "if a person gives SR 1,200 [$320] to his wife and she spends 900 riyals [$240] to purchase an abaya [the black cover that women in Saudi Arabia must wear] from a brand shop and if her husband slaps her on the face as a reaction to her action, she deserves that punishment."

Women in the audience immediately and loudly protested Al-Razine's statement, and were shocked to learn the remarks came from a judge, the newspaper reported.

Arab News reported that Al-Razine made his remark as he was attempting to explain why incidents of domestic violence had increased in Saudi Arabia. He said that women and men shared responsibility, but added that "nobody puts even a fraction of blame" on women, the newspaper said.

Al-Razine "also pointed out that women's indecent behavior and use of offensive words against their husbands were some of the reasons for domestic violence in the country," it added.

Domestic violence, which used to be a taboo subject in the conservative kingdom, has become a hot topic in recent years. Groups like the National Family Safety Program have campaigned to educate the public about the problem and help prevent domestic abuse.

Saudi women's rights activist Wajeha Al-Huwaider told CNN that Saudi women routinely face such attitudes.
Don't Miss

    * Report: Saudi girl granted divorce

"This is how men in Saudi Arabia see women," she said in a telephone interview from the Saudi city of Dahran. "It's not something they read in a book or learned from a friend. They've been raised to see women this way, that they're less than a person."

Al-Huwaider added that "I'm not surprised to see a judge or a religious man saying that - they've been raised in the same culture - a culture that tells them it's ok to raise your hand to a woman that this works."
advertisement

Another Saudi judge, in the city of Onaiza, was the source of a separate recent controversy: he twice denied a request from the mother of an 8-year-old girl that the girl be granted a divorce from her 47-year-old husband.

Last month, after human-groups condemned the union, the girl was granted the divorce.

[JDN]

So two wrongs make a right?

I respect Israel, therefore I expect more from Israel. 

[G M]

Would you want a woman to marry into a culture where domestic violence is normative behavior?

[JDN]

It reminds me of America not too many years ago.

"Don't date a black person".  "Don't even sell you house to a black person,
it will denigrate and lower the neighborhood."

Racism...

I would like to think we've moved beyond that....
And Israel too...

Domestic violence is everywhere....  And it's not right...

http://pavementpieces.com/orthodox-jewish-communities-sweep-abuse-under-rug/

[G M]

Yeah, your example might make sense if the US were surrounded by hostile black countries sworn to wipe out the US. It's easy to condemn Israel while seated in the US, although your future in "Alta California/Aztlan" is questionable.

[G M]

Perhaps I've missed it, but have you condemned Japan's racism and caste system?

[JDN]

Perhaps I've missed it, but have you condemned Japan's racism and caste system?

Japan's racism and caste system?

Hmmm I"ll try, but I've had a few drinks...

Japanese are definitely not perfect; in the countryside, especially in the Kansai area people can
be rather conservative (and racist).  Warm on the outside, but cold on the inside.  Then again, once
they get to know you, they are the best of people.  Sort of like East London treated me years ago.  I could
go on for hours if you like.....

And I concur, it is very difficult to rise up in a large Japanese Company being gaijin.  Sony and Nissan are an exception.

As for caste system, it's basically a meritocracy mixed with money.  Of course if you are rich,
like anywhere, your family wants you to marry rich.  And live with the rich.  But what I like about Japan,
is you can find rich homes next to poor people; most communities are integrated, albeit the houses are bigger.
I suppose the Emperor's family rates a higher level, but he married a commoner; all quite similar to England.

As for "caste system" in general there is none.  Perhaps in the Edo period.  You are dating yourself (and myself) 
People marry foreigner's all the time.  Parents might not be "happy", i.e. cultural differences, language, etc. but
in the end everyone seems pretty happy.

Like America; where you go to school matters; even more so in Japan.  But in Japan their best Universities, i.e. Tokyo Daigaku, Kyoto University, etc.
are based solely upon your test score.  Period.  I have rich friends who have gone there, AND small countryside
shop owner's children who have gone there.  It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor, connections or not,
what is your test score?  Maybe America should adopt this system?  You cannot be more fair... No affirmative action here.
Or favors for the rich...

Frankly, if you are Japanese, the system is very fair.  And if you are not, well, it's not bad; give me better weather and I wouldn't mind moving
there.  And when I was there I was treated very well.  it's sounds a lot better than living in a Muslim Country, or being an Arab in Israel....

[G M]

Kind of glossing over the treatment of the ethnic minorities in Japan, or are you aware of that? As far as caste, I'm referring to the Burakumin.

[JDN]

I'm not sure this is the correct forum to discuss Japan, but to answer your question, I did indirectly refer to Burakumin when I called the Kansai people conservative and racist.  In the Edo period there was a definite caste system.  Meiji abolished this, but it still exists to some degree.  However this issue is dying out; it's almost gone unless perhaps you are Burakumin and wish to marry into a very old and prestigious samurai family or join an elite company.  I suppose no worse maybe better than the blacks have it here.  Also, the group itself is "dying out" through assimilation.  Many Japanese don't even know this problem exists
nor do they even know a Burakumin.  And discrimination is never tolerated in public.  There is discrimination everywhere, in every country, but when civic leaders, church leaders, and government officials condone discrimination, I find it particularly appalling.

That said, treatment of minorities in Japan is MUCH better than nearly anyplace I know.  As related to this forum, the treatment of minorities is far far better in Japan than anyplace in the Middle East.

[Crafty_Dog]

JDN:

I think you gloss over the issue of danger to Israel here from 5th column type issues and drift into moral equivalence territory.  Although I am distinctly uncomfortable with what I read here, I really can't say I see it as anywhere near comparable to what Jews have been subjected throughout the mid-east (indeed often glossed over is that essentially as many Jews who emmigrated to Israel did so from Arab countries as Europe) or what the Christians of Iraq are suffering as we have this conversation here. 

Anyway, here's the article I came to this thread to post:
WSJ
By CHARLES LEVINSON And GUY CHAZAN
TEL AVIV—Two years ago, Ratio Oil Exploration LP, an energy firm here, employed five people and was worth about half a million dollars.

 
Noble Energy
 
Operations in Noble Energy's Leviathan gas field, the world's biggest deepwater gas find in a decade.
.Today it sits at the center of a gas bonanza that has investors, international oil companies, Israeli politicians and even Hezbollah, Israel's sworn enemy, clamoring for a piece of the action.

Ratio's market capitalization now approaches $1 billion. The rally at Ratio is thanks to the company's 15% stake in a giant offshore gas field called Leviathan, operated by Houston-based Noble Energy Inc.

On Wednesday, the frenzy got fresh fuel: Noble confirmed its earlier estimates that the field contains 16 trillion cubic feet of gas—making it the world's biggest deepwater gas find in a decade, with enough reserves to supply Israel's gas needs for 100 years.

It's still early days, and getting all that gas out of the seabed may be more difficult than it seems today. But Noble and its partners think the field could hold enough gas to transform Israel, a country precariously dependent on others for energy, into a net-energy exporter.

Such a transformation could potentially alter the geopolitical balance of the Mideast, giving Israel a new economic advantage over its enemies.

Even before Wednesday's announcement confirming the size of Leviathan, the big field was causing a ruckus in Israel and the region.

Leviathan, named after the Biblical sea monster, and two smaller gas fields nearby have kicked up a broad speculative craze.

Israel's Gas Bonanza
View Interactive
.More photos and interactive graphics
.The energy index of the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange rose 1,700% in the past year. In recent months, energy stocks accounted for about a quarter of trading activity on the exchange, once mostly the domain of real-estate companies.

It's also shaken regional relations. Lebanese politicians are trying to lure companies to explore their nearby waters, while the two countries—still technically at war—have threatened each other over offshore resources.

A minor diplomatic furor has erupted between Israel and the U.S., which is lobbying hard against Israel's plans to raise taxes on energy companies, including Noble.

Leviathan sits some 84 miles off Israel's northern coast and more than three miles beneath the Mediterranean's seabed. Noble began drilling its first exploratory well in the field in October.

Even before Leviathan, a series of finds had put the so-called Levant Basin, stretching offshore in the Mediterranean, on the international energy map.

In March, the U.S. Geological Survey released its first assessment of the zone, estimating it contained 1.7 billion barrels of oil and 122 trillion cubic feet of gas. That's equal to half the proven gas reserves of the U.S.

The finds also exposed a grittier underside to Israel's financial sector. A string of criminal investigations launched by Israeli authorities into share-price movements and company disclosures have dogged some of the bonanza's highest flyers.

And a long-running shareholder fight at Ratio spilled into the public this fall, featuring a cameo appearance by a man wanted by U.S. authorities on racketeering and conspiracy charges.

 Israel's recent discovery of offshore gas fields has Lebanon, its northern neighbor, looking to do the same to help feed its growing electricity demands. WSJ's Don Duncan reports from Lebanon.
.Except for the occasional small oil and gas find in its early years, Israel has searched in vain for energy. Big Oil shied away, worried about antagonizing Arab and Iranian partners.

A hardy group of Israeli explorers kept at it anyway. Ratio was one of them. In the early 1990s, Ratio's chief executive, Yigal Landau, from a family of infrastructure magnates, and Ligad Rotlevy, whose family textile business goes back 80 years, formed the company to search for oil onshore.

By then, companies were also venturing offshore. In 1998, another Israeli energy firm, Delek Group Ltd., persuaded Noble, one of the first independents to operate offshore in the Gulf of Mexico, to start looking in Israel's slice of the Mediterranean.

Noble drilled its first Israeli well in 1999, and quickly scored two modest finds. Financial firms and local businessmen with little energy experience began snapping up offshore leases from the government.

Thanks to a 1952 petroleum law still on the books, Israel offered some of the world's best perks to energy companies, including low royalties and corporate taxes on exploration.

Ratio tried to buy into the offshore projects that Noble and Delek were pursuing, but was rebuffed. Instead, in 2007, Messrs. Landau and Rotlevy put up $40 million and took a gamble on the rights to an offshore license neighboring the Noble and Delek fields. It would eventually become the Leviathan field.

Armed with promising seismic data, the pair then convinced Noble and Delek to buy into their lease. They sold a 45% stake to Delek and a 40% stake to Noble.

In January 2009, Noble made a landmark discovery. The Tamar field contained premium quality gas—almost pure methane. Noble had expected to find three trillion cubic feet at the most. The reservoir ended up containing nearly three times that. Two months later, the company found a second, smaller deposit of gas at the nearby Dalit field.

Then, last summer, Noble dropped a bomb shell. The Leviathan field appeared to be a supergiant, according to three-dimensional seismic studies, with almost twice the gas reserves of Tamar.

Ratio's shares soared, and so did those of other energy firms in Tel Aviv. The rally set off alarm bells among regulators.

"We saw new players, and these skeleton entities that had nothing to do with oil, had no experience or know-how, buying and trading leases, making baseless claims," said Industry, Trade and Labor Minister Uzi Landau. "We decided we had to stop this crazy atmosphere engulfing the market." He wouldn't discuss specific companies.

Officials at the Israeli Securities Authority declined to comment on specific cases, but said they were concerned about an ongoing pattern in which small energy companies publish vague or misleading reports that cause their share prices to skyrocket, and often to plummet later.

In September, the ISA raided the offices of two energy-exploration firms related to probes into trading irregularities.

In the case of EZ Energy, regulators stormed its offices Sept. 20, seizing computers and files after its stock shot up 150% in a single session. The ISA says EZ Energy is being investigated for criminal wrongdoing, but hasn't been specific.

EZ Energy declined to comment. The company has disclosed it held a private meeting with Ratio to discuss buying a small share of another, unstudied offshore gas license. Ratio said the company has stopped taking meetings with other energy firms. Ratio isn't accused of any wrongdoing in connection with EZ.

Amid the stock-market frenzy, the Israeli government started considering changing its 1950s-era energy royalties and tax regime, to boost the government's take of any gas find.

Earlier this year, Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz said he was considering changing terms retroactively—meaning the government could extract better terms on previously assigned leases. Noble and Israeli oil executives went on the offensive.

A retroactive change would be "egregious" and "would quickly move Israel to the lowest tier of countries for investment by the energy industry," Noble's chief executive, Chuck Davidson, wrote Mr. Steinitz in April.

The company enlisted high-level negotiators, including the U.S. State Department and former President Bill Clinton, to lobby against any change.

Mr. Clinton raised the issue in a private meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York in July, according to a Clinton aide. "Your country can't just tax a U.S. business retroactively because they feel like it," the aide said Mr. Clinton told Mr. Netanyahu.

Mr. Netanyahu was noncommittal, the aide said. A spokesman for Mr. Netanyahu declined to comment on the meeting.

Finance Minister Steinitz has so far ignored the pressure. Last month, he said a government-appointed committee had made preliminary recommendations to abolish tax breaks for energy firms and impose steep tax increases of 20% to 60% on windfall profits. Any tax changes are subject to approval by Israel's cabinet.

"Israel is sovereign to make its own decision and change its tax regime," Mr. Steinitz said in an interview.

Shares in energy companies plummeted on news of the tax increases. Delek Energy said it would have to reevaluate the Tamar field. "This really threatens our ability to deliver the project on schedule," said Gidon Tadmor, the CEO. Funding for development of the gas field is now on hold, he said, due to banks' concerns about the new tax regime.

Despite these problems, Israel's gas find is making waves abroad. Lebanon has staked out its own claim to offshore gas. In August, lawmakers in Beirut rushed the country's first oil-exploration law through its normally snarled parliament.

Lebanon's oil minister, Gebran Bassil, an ally of the Shiite militant group Hezbollah, said in late October that his ministry hopes to start auctioning off exploration rights by 2012.

Iran, Israel's arch-nemesis and Hezbollah's chief backer, has also weighed in. Tehran's ambassador to Lebanon, Qazanfar Roknabadi, last month claimed that three-quarters of the Leviathan field actually belongs to Lebanon.

Mr. Landau, the Israeli infrastructure minister, denied the claim and warned Lebanon that Israel wouldn't hesitate to use force to protect its mineral rights.

Meanwhile, the poster child of the boom, Ratio, has seen its star fade after authorities launched a criminal probe of the company's relationship with an Israeli wanted by the U.S. on racketeering and conspiracy charges.

The Israeli investigation is ongoing and charges haven't been filed.

A disgruntled investor, Shlomi Shukrun, has publicly accused Ratio's founders, Messrs. Landau and Rotlevy, of recruiting Meir Abergil to pressure Mr. Shukrun out of his shares and money he says they owed him.

Mr. Abergil, along with his brother, currently sits in an Israeli prison awaiting extradition to the U.S. to face a 32-count federal indictment. He declined a request to comment for this article.

Ratio officials, meanwhile, say Mr. Shukrun hired people with links to a Georgian crime syndicate to threaten Ratio's Mr. Landau and his family into making up Mr. Shukrun's losses. Mr. Shurkrun's lawyer said his client did send people to collect money from Mr. Landau, but he denied making any threats and denied any connection between his client and Georgian organized crime.

Instead of turning to the courts, the two sides say they turned to Mr. Abergil to help broker a solution. When Ratio's share price started its steep ascent, the dispute over a few hundred thousand dollars became a dispute over a few hundred million dollars.

The case is based on a quarrel that began in 2005. It only came to light in September, when Mr. Shukrun went public with his version of the story, and tapes and transcripts of the private arbitration hearings were leaked to the press.

Mr. Landau, Ratio's CEO, says that after Mr. Shukrun threatened him, he turned to a private security company, run by the brother of a convicted (and now deceased) Israeli crime boss. That firm, in turn, brought in Mr. Abergil, Mr. Landau has said. The brother couldn't be reached for comment.

"The smell of gas in Israel has driven people crazy," he says.

[JDN]

JDN:

I think you gloss over the issue of danger to Israel here from 5th column type issues and drift into moral equivalence territory.  Although I am distinctly uncomfortable with what I read here, I really can't say I see it as anywhere near comparable to what Jews have been subjected throughout the mid-east (indeed often glossed over is that essentially as many Jews who emmigrated to Israel did so from Arab countries as Europe) or what the Christians of Iraq are suffering as we have this conversation here. 

Hmmm...  Discriminatory rules on housing?  Marriage?  Dating?  Seems like racism to me.  And yes, there are worse places, but I hold Israel to the top tier i.e. North America, Western Europe, etc.  I do not hold them to the same low standard as the bottom tier.  And I think Israelis considers themselves top tier.

Interesting you mention "Jews who immigrated to Israel from Arab countries". Did you see the article in the Times on Israeli President Moshe Katsav.  Not addressing his crimes, but I found his defense interesting.  "Katsav contends that he is innocent and a victim of a political witch hunt, implying that he was a target because he represents Jews of Middle Eastern origin. For decades, Middle Eastern, or Sephardic Jews, were an underclass in Israeli society."

My point is that racism is wrong, but it exists everywhere, however the letter signed by the rabbi's wives was blatant, public and wrong and
therefore rather disturbing...

[rachelg]

This letter was posted by certain section of Judaism  Rabbi's wives.   I don't think it should have been written but it not an example of the average Israeli's attitude.  I bet if you asked you could get some  American pastors wives  to say Christians should only marry Christians.  Women really don't have many rights in Arab villages as they do in Jewish ones. 

Jewish Law is against intermarriage for Jews.   Jewish Law is also  against eating cheeseburgers and mixing linen and wool for Jews.   It does not mean there is something wrong with cheeseburgers.     I don't have to think that being against intermarriage is racist because anyone can convert to Judaism.   Judaism does not encourage conversion and you  can be a good person/serve God/ have a place in the world  to come with out it but anyone including  Muslim Arabs have a right to convert.   Many religions are against intermarriage.

As for How I personally feel about Jewish  intermarriage--

1. I value intact  happy healthy marriages and families much  more.
2. It makes a little sad because I  value Judaism and Jewish continuity not because I think Jews make better spouses. I don't think it is racist to want my spouse to share my values and my religion.    However when I have Jewish friends or family or who marry non-Jews I am happy they found the person they want to spend the rest of their lives with.
 This is  a little  or a lot mean or blunt...
JDN--You consistently  judge Israel on  a standard different from how you judge every other country including America.   I  generally choose not to argue with you  on this thread  because I think it just  encourages you to  post more articles critical of Israel and  I don't see you criticisms of Israel  as being fair or helpful.

[Crafty_Dog]

That reads as soundly reasoned and well-explained to me.

I would only add the danger of mingling with a population that outnumbers and surrounds you, a large percentage of whom are dedicated to driving you into the sea but will smile in your face until they get the chance to do so is a very tricky proposition.  If it were your butt that was on the line, you might understand this point better; but they are there and you are here.

[ccp]

"Did you see the article in the Times on Israeli President Moshe Katsav." 

I doubt that any high up official in any Arab country would have been convicted of such a crime.  This holds Israel to a higher standard.  Kudos to Israel for holding even this guy responsible.

"Not addressing his crimes, but I found his defense interesting.  "Katsav contends that he is innocent and a victim of a political witch hunt, implying that he was a target because he represents Jews of Middle Eastern origin"

I agree, a poor defense.  Reminds me of every single poltician in the US who is ever accused, or proven guilty of any crime.  Their defense is always to claim it is all just politics.
And if they are Black they cry it is racism. 

Perhaps the difference between Moshe Katsav and Bill Clinton is the former case must have had more evidence than just an unsubstianable allegation.

[JDN]

Rachel; thank you for posting.  However, I respectfully disagree.  I do not "judge Israel on  a standard different from how you judge every other country including America."  I judge them on the same high moral standard.

I am not talking about a few irrelevant individuals expressing their personal opinion in private but an influential group of Rabbis and their wives.

Yes, I could probably find a few American Pastor wives who would say that in private or even at a cocktail party.  But who would listen?  But in Israel when 30 prominent rabbis' wives
write a public letter published in newspapers urging Israeli girls not to date Arabs, and 50 state-appointed rabbis wrote a letter telling Jews not to rent or sell property to non-Jews EVERYONE listens.

A better example would be if Federal officials in America said in writing and publicly that "white girls should not date Blacks or Asians."  And yet Blacks and Asians make up less as a percentage of the whole population than do Arabs (23%).

Or bringing it closer to home....

Maybe if these same officials said, "do not date a Jewish man/woman and do not rent to a Jewish man/woman".  Or "if I rent to a Jewish person, it devalues the neighborhood".  Or "don't work in the same place as Jews".  What would you say?

I assume, and rightfully so, you would be outraged. These persons who said that would lose their jobs.  Worse, much worse.  They should be charged with a crime.  Think about it for a moment.  Jews have fought against discrimination for many years.

In conclusion I think my criticism is "fair".   While I support and respect Israel, I am fair.  As CCP said, he hopes America's interest and Israel's coincide, but he realizes that might not always be true.  I look for America's interest; and therefore indirectly Israel's interest.  But I believe America first; Israel is just one ally among many.  And frankly we do more for Israel than almost any ally.

Rachel, I understand you point.  But I think you picked a poor post to speak out and defend Israel.  Such discrimination is indefensible. 

As for CCP; yes kudos to Israel for holding this guy responsible.  But he was convicted of rape. Clinton, and I think he did wrong, had consensual "sex".  Or whatever he did...

But I brought Katsav up because in his own defense even he, as President of Israel acknowledged discrimination in Israel.  It should never
be tolerated.  Neither in Israel or in America.

[Crafty_Dog]

JDN:

Please address the central point:  In the US whites are not surrounded/outnumbered by people who want to drive them into the sea, who send suicide mass killers, who cheer the death of white women and children etc and who ally with Iran and others who seek to wipe out the Jewish state altogether even as they kill Christians in Iraq, in Egypt and disrespect their holy places in Gaza.  Its not just the jews in Israel, it is anything that is not Muslim that is the problem for "the group mind" of religious fascism.

The real conditions one the ground in the US and Israel are radically quite different.  As was said here in the US by a Supreme Court justice "The Constitution is not a suicide pact" and it is foolishness both glibl and specious to assert that Israel should do exactly as we do in very different circumstances.

Your argument simply is , , , useful to those who seek to assert moral parity as a means to sabotage Israel's chances of survival.
 

[JDN]

"it is foolishness both glibl and specious to assert that Israel should do exactly as we do"

Yet Rachel said, "You consistently  judge Israel on  a standard different from how you judge every other country including America."
Obviously I don't.  I judge them the same. 

So Marc, the basis of your argument is that because circumstances are different, blatant public racism and discrimination justified?  Well, that's honest at least.

Apartheid comes to mind.  Separateness.  Justified?   

"Don't let your daughter date an Arab."  If you substitute the word Arab for Jew in the following quote it sounds almost exactly the same as
what the Rabbi' wives are saying in their letter:

"The black-haired Jewish (Arab) youth lies in wait for hours on end, satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her own people. The Jew (Arab) uses every possible means to undermine the racial foundations of a subjugated people." (Book 1 Chap 11) 
-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

Did you read the letter these prominent Rabbis' wives wrote?  This is not a few irrelevant pastor wives in America; Rabbis in Israel have real influence and power.

After these letters were posted, Jerusalem Post questioned the purpose and function of the Rabbinate,
“The state’s employment of hundreds of city and neighborhood rabbis who express racist, xenophobic opinions upsets the delicate balance that must be maintained between Israel’s Jewish and democratic dimensions. Even from a purely functional perspective, it is becoming increasingly apparent that there is no need for the state to bankroll hundreds of city and neighborhood rabbis at a cost to the taxpayer of millions of shekels a month.

These are employees of the state; not private citizens expressing their opinion over a beer in a private room.  In your heart, are you comfortable with those letter?  Isn't that prima facie evidence of racism?  Even the head of Israel's Reform movement, Rabbi Gilad Kariv, harshly condemned the letter and said, "Israeli society is falling into a deep, dark pit of racism and xenophobia,"

I'm sorry, but I find these signed public and published letters written by prominent individuals some of whom are state employed indefensible and racist.  I would be ashamed if my family wrote such a letter about anyone and published it.  And I would call for the resignation/firing of any public employee who spoke such words.

I guess we can agree to disagree on this point.

[Crafty_Dog]

"So Marc, the basis of your argument is that because circumstances are different, blatant public racism and discrimination justified?"

Not quite.  You have already quoted this passage from a previous post of mine

"Although I am distinctly uncomfortable with what I read here, I really can't say I see it as anywhere near comparable to what Jews have been subjected throughout the mid-east (indeed often glossed over is that essentially as many Jews who emmigrated to Israel did so from Arab countries as Europe) or what the Christians of Iraq are suffering as we have this conversation here." 

So, no I am not saying it is justified, nor I am saying it is not.  I am saying it is glib to evaluate by the same criteria/analytical framework that we apply here in the US and that doing so has the practical real world consequence of enabling those who seek to blur moral distinctions in order to create a perception of real politik that will lead the US to change its alliance and friendship with Israel so that Israel and its jew will be destroyed.

[ccp]

" Clinton, and I think he did wrong, had consensual "sex".  Or whatever he did..."

No, I was referring to the woman who stated Clinton beat her, held her arms down and raped her and was afraid to come forward because he was Governor of Arkansas at the time she alleged he did that to her.

As for Israel they have every right to protect itself as a Jewish state. 

You don't like it don't go there.

You think it racist, who cares.

[JDN]

" Clinton, and I think he did wrong, had consensual "sex".  Or whatever he did..."
No, I was referring to the woman who stated Clinton beat her, held her arms down and raped her and was afraid to come forward because he was Governor of Arkansas at the time she alleged he did that to her.

As for Israel they have every right to protect itself as a Jewish state. 

You don't like it don't go there.

You think it racist, who cares.

I'm curious CCP; you seem like an intelligent reasonable guy.

You don't find these very PUBLIC and published comments written by influential government employees and their wives to be racist?

How would you feel in America if important and influential leaders of our country said the same, but substitute the word "Jew".
I mean if there were article published in major American newspapers or on FOX News saying "don't rent to Jews" and don't let your daughters date "Jews" or save our daughters from Jews, you wouldn't be upset?

You should be.  Of course you would be!  I would be!

Among the quotes were the following words:

"work at "saving Jewish girls from Arab villages."

"The letter, which was distributed to synagogues and published in some religious newspapers, had warned that those who defied the religious ruling should be ostracized. It said if one apartment is taken by a non-Jew, it devalues all the neighbors' apartments."

It urges Jewish girls not to go out with non-Jews or work in places that employ non-Jews."

This is not some private conversation over a beer, behind closed doors; an internal family decision; these are respected government officials, leaders and/or their wives publicly stating the above.

You are a good person CCP; I can't imagine that you wouldn't be indignant.  Repulsed by these statements. 

There is nothing wrong with being biased in favor of Israel.  Your faith of course, but also Israel has been a good friend.  But this is over the line.

Rabbi Gilad Kariv, harshly condemned the letter and said, "Israeli society is falling into a deep, dark pit of racism and xenophobia,"

More than 800 rabbis from around the world signed a petition against the letter, saying "statements like these do great damage to our efforts to encourage people to love and support Israel."

Yet you support these statements?   

And yes, I think it's racism.  Pure and simple.  And if more goes on like this, others will too.  And if it continues, without repudiation by top government officials, I think the U.S. should reconsider it UN veto and billions of dollars it gives to Israel.  This was a PR disaster and needs to be repudiated.

I understand the concern regarding Arabs, and the sanctity of being a Jew in Israel, but in this instance, I think these Rabbis and/or their wives crossed the line.

I would like to think you too are disturbed by what they said, and expect and apology and renunciation by government officials.

As for Clinton, like anyone, it's hard to keep track of allegations with no basis of fact.  I tend to ignore them.  People are innocent until proven guilty like Katsav.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that "this is a difficult and sad day for the State of Israel, a day in which our former president was convicted of such serious crimes."
"However, this is also a day in which our justice system proved again that everyone is equal before the law," Barak added. "The justice system is a central source of strength for Israeli democracy."

That is admirable.  The Israeli system/democracy at it's best!  But aren't Arabs or any other minority in Israel entitled to be "equal".
 

[ccp]

JDN,
You've made your opinion clear.  I like you and have nothing personal with you at all.  But -
My opinion is that I am offended and annoyed and angry that Israel cannot be left alone by one billion Muslims.  I am offended that Jews cannot be left to live their lives in piece on one tiny spot on Earth the size of New Jersey.  I am offended by Arabs and other types of Arabs whose endless hatred of Jews never ceases.  I am offended that despite their haveing one thousand times more land that a few million Jews that is not enough for them. 
They have no more claim or rights to Israel or Palestine or whatever or whosever name you want to use for that small property on Earth then Jews who have lived there for 3,000 years ALWAYS having to fight for their lives.  Philistines, Syrians, Persians, Babylonians, Hittites, Egyptians, Turks, and probably a dozen others.

Leave the Jews alone.

Israel is not the US and not founded or supposed to be maintained the same political structure as here.  So what if the Jews intertwine religion and politics.  Let them run the country and defend it and PRESERVE it the way they want.  They know what is best to protect themselves - not you.  Like I said you don't like it don't go there.

I see no problem with Rabbies trying to encourage Jews to marry Jews anymore than the Pope need not go around telling Christians to marry Muslims or Jews, or HIndus or Muslims encouraging their young to marry Muslims.  So what?

[JDN]

I see no problem with Rabbies trying to encourage Jews to marry Jews anymore than the Pope need not go around telling Christians to marry Muslims or Jews, or HIndus or Muslims encouraging their young to marry Muslims.  So what?

I think there is a difference.  In the privacy of your own home or with friends, I don't judge.  Each of us is entitled to our opinion.  I'm old enough to remember people in Milwaukee (where I grew up) saying, "Don't sell to blacks, they lower the value of the houses in the area."  Absolutely wrong, but in the privacy of your own home, well.... But I don't remember anyone taking out an ad and saying that.   I  suppose my religious mother would have preferred that I marry a Christian (I didn't).  But again, no government official in a public newspaper said that I must marry a Christian...

On the pulpit, the Pope himself may suggest or encourage me to marry a "nice catholic girl"; I have no problem with that.  But if the Pope publicly published in newspapers and said, "don't rent to Jews" or "to ostracize anyone who associates with Jews" or "don't work in the same place as Jews" I would be appalled.  And if my government paid his salary I would be even more upset.  It's like paid high government officials publicly sanctifying racism.  That is what happened here.

One other minor point you mentioned;  "They know what is best to protect themselves - not you."  Perhaps you are right, but if they are so self sufficient, I think America should save the billions upon billions of dollars we give to Israel each year (America needs the money!) and also let's forget our veto in favor of Israel at the UN which we do at great cost to America.  My point, America has paid over and over for the right to express it's opinion and demand equality and abhor racism.  Something America has tried to always stood for.

I was pleased to see that many responsible Jews in Israel and worldwide agreed with me.  I'm sure their love for Israel equals yours, but they know and acknowledge wrong from right.  I only wish everyone would condemn these racist actions.    And then move on after a nice apology from the Rabbis.  Israel is a thriving Democracy; there is no place for blatant PUBLIC racism.

[G M]

Should we stop spending money defending Japan, given their much more xenophobic, racist nature than anything found in Israel?

[JDN]

It is my understanding that Japan pays more than their fair share for our troops on Japanese soil.  Further, America benefits from having a military base in Japan. And finally it was at America's insistence that Japan not arm themselves.  Tell Japan to do it themselves and they will.  And they won't ask for our foreign aid dollars.

I rarely see anywhere PUBLIC published displays of racism in Japan by government employees.  Or if it did happen, there is a quick apology or resignation.

Private displays of racism?  That is true in Japan.  But then private 'racism" is also true in Israel, America, and frankly every country I have ever visited.

[ccp]

***Perhaps you are right, but if they are so self sufficient, I think America should save the billions upon billions of dollars we give to Israel each year (America needs the money!) and also let's forget our veto in favor of Israel at the UN which we do at great cost to America.***

I've said I don't know if we can ask or expect non Jews to give a shit about Israel to the extent of money or blood.

You express your feelings quite clearly on this.

***I was pleased to see that many responsible Jews in Israel and worldwide agreed with me.***

Good for you.  I have already also sad youcan have your opinions and I don't care much.  Pleaseing you is not paramount.  What is is that the Jews don't get slaugtered again.  If your view counted,

or for that matter the Jew hating President we have now than Israel is doomed.

As for Israel's reliance on the US for aid I am sure they would wish they don't need it.  It does come at a price.

 

[G M]

"It is my understanding that Japan pays more than their fair share for our troops on Japanese soil."

**Really? What would a fair share be?

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2010/02/ap_military_japan_020710/

"This is a bigger issue than the golf courses and free highway passes," Toma said. "It goes back to the fact that Okinawa was occupied after World War II and why the bases have to be here in the first place."

That sentiment is widely shared, and underscores a feeling that the bases should be spread out more evenly among Japan's main islands and Okinawa. Okinawa was one of the bloodiest battlefields of World War II, and Okinawans feel that the continued U.S. presence places an uneven burden on them, though the argument that all U.S. forces should leave Japan is not popular.

American officials say the deployment in Japan of troops, fighter jets and the only nuclear-powered aircraft carrier based outside the U.S. has enabled Japan to hold down its own defense costs in line with its pacifist constitution.

They say the U.S. presence also prevents an arms race in east Asia, acts as a deterrent against North Korea, and counters the rise of China.

Facilities such as on-base golf courses represent a small fraction of the sum U.S. taxpayers chip in for the defense of Japan — about $3.9 billion a year, according to a U.S. State Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the details.

[G M]

"I rarely see anywhere PUBLIC published displays of racism in Japan by government employees.  Or if it did happen, there is a quick apology or resignation."

**Shintaro Ishihara has been Tokyo's governor since 1999.

http://cgi.cnn.com/ASIANOW/time/magazine/2000/0424/cover1.html

As a politician Ishihara has seldom ducked a controversy. He has said, for example, that reports of the 1937 Nanjing Massacre that Japanese troops inflicted on China have been exaggerated, and he has called for Japan to abandon its pacifist constitution and develop a full-fledged military. Ishihara steps into the minefield of racial politics so often, and with such disastrous results, that one of his top aides conceded that he was relieved his boss took a day last week to inspect a forest on the outskirts of Tokyo. "I am not xenophobic," Ishihara insisted in an interview with Time. "I'm just patriotic."

But to many, Ishihara's rhetoric seemed unforgivable last week, as he told the Self-Defense Forces that he planned to hold a big emergency drill in September, to prepare for a disaster such as an earthquake. It was in that context that he spoke about the dangers of rioting foreigners. "I hope you will not only fight against disasters but also maintain public security on such occasions," he said. "I hope you will show the Japanese people and the Tokyo people what the military is for in this state."

His comments were made in a prepared speech, not in off-the-cuff remarks. And his use of the inflammatory term sangokujin rekindled images of xenophobia that Japan has been trying to shake off for half a century. Sangokujin, literally "people from third countries," was a derogatory word used by Japanese when referring to laborers brought from Taiwan and Korea before and during World War II and then expelled after Japan's defeat. Ishihara's use of the term was particularly hurtful, because of the race-baiting that erupted after the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923. With no evidence, Koreans in Japan were accused of poisoning wells, setting fires and looting stores and homes. As those rumors spread, thousands of Koreans were rounded up and killed by mobs of Japanese.

Whatever the roots of Ishihara's attitudes on race, many believe that his rhetoric should disqualify him from higher office. "If a person with such 19th-century nationalistic thinking is in power, there is no guarantee that a nightmare will not be repeated," says Shin Sug Ok, a business consultant of Korean descent. Treatment of foreigners is a sensitive issue in Japan. Residents of Korean descent, even those whose families have lived in Japan for several generations, still do not have the right to vote. Last year, there were several brawls between Japanese and Brazilians of Japanese ancestry. There are still onsen, or public bathing facilities, that bar foreigners from entering. Makoto Sataka, a prominent political commentator, calls Ishihara "ignorant and irresponsible," adding: "If similar comments had been made about Japanese nationals living overseas, how would they feel?"

[JDN]

GM
It would seem this post of yours has nothing to do with Israel, but belongs on your private Japan Thread.
Perhaps you could move it?

[G M]

Perhaps you could clarify why you have one standard for Japan and a different one for Israel.

[JDN]

I don't.
I have one standard for all "modern" countries, i.e. Western Europe, North America, etc. and Israel.  Let's talk about England, France, Italy, Canada, etc. if you want.  Probably I can find one public person whose opinion is racist in every country, but rarely a respected GROUP of people like Rabbis. 

Individual exceptions happen.  In your Japan example, ONE person's ten year old opinion (that was repudiated in Japan) isn't relevant.  Further, Ishihara's opinion,
albeit in general anti foreigners, did not say that "foreigners lower the value of real estate" or tell Japanese girls "don't marry foreigners" or that everyone should "ostracize all foreigners" etc. like the publicly employed rabbis' and their wives did.  And how he thinks 60 year old history should be interpreted is hardly the same as blatant current day racism as displayed by these Rabbis and their wives.  Nor are individual small time shop owners, onsen owners, bar owners, etc. relevant.  I might not blame the little shop owner in Israel for not wanting his daughter to marry an Arab either.  But that's different than a large group of influential public employees being publicly racist.

The Tokyo area in which Ishihara is governor is filled with foreigners.  Numerous mixed marriages exist; many foreigners work side by side with Japanese.  The fact that he wants the U.S. troops out of Japan is not racist; it's simply a political opinion that frankly may have merit.  I wouldn't want a large contingency of foreign troops on American soil either.  Or maybe Japan should "develop a full-fledged military."  But it's complicated.  We indirectly defend Israel AND we give them money.  In contrast, Japan pays us.  A lot!  More than anyone else in the world to house our troops.  Plus they provide prime land we didn't pay for.  It's to our benefit as well.  And Japan's not begging for our help or our money every year either.  Or asking for our veto in the UN.

But to answer your question, the rabbis' action and the public and published words of their wives was clearly and unequivocally racist way beyond and above anything Ishihara has said or done or suggested being implemented in Tokyo.

And what exactly is your point regarding how Japan is related to Israel?  Do I especially care about Japan? No.  I'm half German half Norwegian born in Milwaukee.  I don't care about Japan any more than I care about England, Germany, Canada, etc.  Maybe you should start a England thread?  Or a Germany thread?  Or Canada?  Or?

Again, may I suggest if you wish to discuss Japan you take it to the Japan thread...

But if you want to discuss, criticize or defend racism in Israel, do it here.  I think must people find the Rabbis' comments disturbing.  Some will
argue that for the defense and future of Israel it's necessary.  I respect that opinion, but disagree.  But probably time to move on; this particular subject has been
beaten to death...

[G M]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html

Aid is central to Washington's relationship with Cairo. The US has provided Egypt with $1.3 billion a year in military aid since 1979, and an average of $815 million a year in economic assistance. All told, Egypt has received over $50 billion in US largesse since 1975.

http://www.aina.org/news/20110101232613.htm

Egyptian Security Guards Withdrew One Hour Before Church Blast, Say Eyewitnesses
Posted GMT 1-2-2011 5:26:13
       

(AINA) -- The car explosion that went off in front of Saints Coptic Orthodox Church in Alexandria killed 21 and injured 96 parishioners who were attending a New Year's Eve Mass. According to church officials and eyewitnesses, there are many more victims that are still unidentified and whose body parts were strewn all over the street outside the church. The body parts were covered with newspapers until they were brought inside the church after some Muslims started stepping on them and chanting Jihadi chants (video showing dead bodies and limbs covered with newspapers in the street).

According to eyewitnesses, a green Skoda car pulled up outside the church shortly after midnight. Two men got out, one of them talked shortly on his mobile phone, and the explosion occurred almost immediately after they left the scene. On the back of the Skoda was a sticker with the words "the rest is coming" (video of car explosion and Muslims shouting "Allah Akbar").

It was reported that the bomb, locally made, had 100KG of explosives in addition to having nails, glass and iron balls inside. The strength of it not only caused glass panes to be shattered in all the neighborhood, but also made body parts fly into the building's fourth floor, and to the mosque facing the church.

There was no immediate claim of responsibility but officials hastily blamed either Al-Qaida or the Israeli Mousad of being behind the blast, but none of them mentioned the Egyptian state security which is viewed by Copts as the real culprit.

To clear his security forces of negligence, the Minister of Interior said that the blast was an "individual" case, caused by a single suicide terrorist detonating his vest, and has nothing to do with an exploding car. The governor of Alexandria claimed the attack as being aimed at Muslims and Christians alike.

After the blast, traumatized Copts were angered by chants of "Allah Akbar" from Muslims and began hurling stones at the mosque. Immediately security forces which were absent during the car blast and the ensuing events, appeared and starting shooting tear gas at the Copts, and they in turn hurled stones at them, said an eyewitness. Fifteen Copts were rounded up from their homes by the authorities.

[G M]

Seventeen members of Congress are pressing the State Department to act on the "grim reality" faced by Coptic Christian women in Egypt, who frequently are coerced into violent forced marriages that leave them victim to rape and captive slavery.

The bipartisan group of lawmakers wrote on April 16 to Ambassador-at-Large Luis CdeBaca, who heads up American efforts to thwart human trafficking around the globe.

In their letter, they exhort the State Department to confront the "criminal phenomenon" of forced marriage they say is on the rise in Egypt, where the 7 million Coptic Christians often face criminal prosecution and civic violence for their rejection of Islam.

"I think it is about as bad as it can be" for Copts and other religious minorities in Egypt, said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., who penned the letter. "It is very tough to be a Coptic Christian."

The official communication to the State Department outlined just what women face when forced into marriages with Muslim men: "physical and sexual violence, captivity ... exploitation in forced domestic servitude or commercial sexual exploitation, and financial benefit to the individuals who secure the forced conversion of the victim."

Wolf and the other lawmakers say this bears all the hallmarks of human trafficking and want the State Department to include reports of the abductions in their next Trafficking in Persons report, which is due in June.

"Keep in mind that we have given Egypt about $53 billion since Camp David" — the 1978 peace accords between Israel and Egypt that were arranged by the U.S. government — "so we're actually funding them," Wolf said.

The State Department's 2009 report on trafficking singled out Egypt for its Level II Watchlist, noting that the government made only "minimal efforts to prevent trafficking in persons" last year.

But while it notes the plight of Sudanese women and others in bondage in Egypt, it does not mention Copts once — nor does the report mention Christians anywhere in its 324 pages.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/21/house-members-press-white-house-confront-egypt-forced-marriages/

[ccp]

"officials hastily blamed either Al-Qaida or the Israeli Mousad"

Perhaps we can "reach out" to the dastardly but poor uneducated disenchated youth who do these deeds and prove our love by allowing a mosque be built on ground zero.

All we need is love.  The pepsi generation.

We need to get past the hate mongering.  That is all.

Well this is what we get with a bunch of 60's hippies running the world now.


 

[G M]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crykxt6A-zQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


Even willing to pretend to be muslims and chant "allah akbar" as the car bomb burned.....

[The Tao]

Unfortunately, there will never be getting over racism and cultural differences, as even though one may conquer them personally, they will not be conquered from a society as a whole. These are differences that have formulated themselves into existence over millenia.

It is what it is, and if you enter another culture, you should know better upfront.

[JDN]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0412/p07s01-wome.html

Aid is central to Washington's relationship with Cairo. The US has provided Egypt with $1.3 billion a year in military aid since 1979, and an average of $815 million a year in economic assistance. All told, Egypt has received over $50 billion in US largesse since 1975.
   

Actually Israel has received far far more aid from the U.S.  But here nor there...

Perhaps I am wrong, but in my opinion, aid to Egypt amounts to a bribe.  And it has worked well.  Egypt has maintained peace with Israel since Camp David.  Not a small accomplishment; it has been to our benefit and especially to Israel's benefit.  Egypt has stayed out of the mix so to speak.  Peace or at least no major war in the Middle East.

Obviously my heart goes out to the Coptic Christians.  They are being persecuted.  It is "very tough to be a Coptic Christian."

Yet if we withdraw our aid, force/demand (how would you do that?) better treatment of the small number of Coptic Christians in Egypt, will that benefit America?
The Middle East?  Or even the Coptic Christians?